Loading...
LUTC PKT 09-03-1997 (!úJ¿/ City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee September 3, 1997 5:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minute limit) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 1996 Asphalt Overlay Final Approval Action Miller (5 min) B. Nonconforming Code Revisions Street Improvements Water Quality Info Info Miller (30) Pratt (15 min) C. King Conservation District! Regional Needs Assessment Info Pratt (15 min) D. South 336th/Kitts Regional Storage Action Facility Slope Repair Bid Award Pratt (5 min) E. Subdivision Signs Action McClung (10 min) 5. ADJOURN Committee Members: Phil Watkins, Chair Ron Gintz Mary Gates City Staff: Greg Moore, Director, Community Development Services Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant 661-4116 I:\LU- TRANS\SEP3LUT .AGN , ,,' "',, City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee August 18, 1997 5:30pm City Hall Council Chambers SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Ron Gintz and Mary Gates; Mayor Skip Priest; Council Members Jack Dovey and Michael Park; City Manager Ken Nyberg; Deputy City Manager Philip Keightley; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Director of Management Services Iwen Wang; City Attorney Landi Lindell; Assistant City Attorneys Bonnie Lindstrom and Bob Sterbank; Principal Planner Greg Fewins; Street Systems Manager Ken Miller; Community and Governmental Relations Specialist Daven Rosener; Executive Assistant Patrick Briggs; Administrative Assistant Julie Garcia; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:30pm by Chairman Phil Watkins. 2. APPROY AL OF MINUTES The minutes of the August 5, 1997, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Keith Dearborn from the law firm Bogle and Gates, representing Dunn Lumber, submitted a letter encouraging the Committee to expedite discussions on a nonconforming code in hopes that compromise would be reached soon regarding the economic burden placed on potential users of vacant business properties. A ;pecific request to consider nonconforming requirements was made regarding street and drainage improvements. Allison Corrigan of the Federal Way Chamber of Commerce stated that the Chamber was anxious to work with the City on a 1998 Legislative Agenda and presented each Committee/Council member with a copy of the Chamber's Position Paper. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Lakehaven - Gary Atkin, Interim Lakehaven Manager, John Bowman, Interim? and Lakehaven Commissioners Bev Tweddle and Mark Miloscia; Kennedy/Jenks consultants Lynn Takaichi and Bill Larson; Don Wright from the South King County Regional Water Association; and Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers attended to provide information about current and future water supply and sewer service, to present a financial and budget overview, and to answer general water and sewer questions. There were several concerns raised regarding funding plans for waterline maintenance and replacement, funding for future water supplies such as Pipeline #5 and OASIS, and the lack of regular inflationary rate increases. Following a lengthy discussion and comment period, the City and Lakehaven agreed to reconvene on September 2, 1997, at 5 :00pm, prior to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting, to continue the discussion and comments. .- ,"---'- B. Telecommunications - Don Largen, a contract planner for the City, explained that In early 1996 the United States Congress passed the Federal Telecommunications Act. The Act states that local jurisdictions may not act in a manner that would preclude wireless communications facilities from being sited within their boundaries and that they may not discriminate between the different service providers. However, the Act does specifically affirm a local jurisdiction's authority to regulate the siting and development of these types of facilities. Where there were formerly two providers in the Puget Sound region, there are now at least six. The intent of the City's telecommunications moratorium is to provide time to draft regulations necessary to encourage telecommunications providers to limit visual impact, to encourage collocation, and to locate transmission facilities outside of residential areas. The Planning Commission forwarded to the Committee its recommendations for the draft Ordinance for the Siting and Development of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. With some language revisions regarding prohibiting wireless telecommunications facilities in the PO (professional Office) and BN(Neighborhood Business) zones as well as all residential zones and some additional provisions for collocation, the Committee mls/c recommendation to Council at the September 2, 1997, meeting to approve the Telecommunications Ordinance. C. Prior to further discussion, the Committee mls/c extension of the meeting beyond the 10:00pm hour in order to complete discussion on all agenda items. LelPslative A~enda - The Committee approved all the items included in the 1998 Legislative Agenda and Position Paper. The Committee was especially attentive to items regarding the distnDution of transportation dollars to transportation projects. They were interested in the indexing the existing gas tas to inflation. Linda King will be invited to a future meeting to discuss the distn"bution of the Motor Yehicle Excise Tax (MVE1). The Committee committed to work closely with the Federal Way Chamber to support issues of mutual interest. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held on September 3, 1997 (rescheduled due to the Labor Day holiday), at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 pm . I:\LU- TRANS\AUG18LUT.SUM .- .. .,---,- , ""'",..u.~....",.",, CITY OF - . EJ:]~ ~~ AY'" DATE: August 8, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee FROM: Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager \6'^ SUBJECT: Fmal Acceptance of the 1996 Asphalt Overlay Contract Background Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works project, the City Council is required to accept the work as complete to meet State Departments of Revenue and Labor and Industries requirements. Several factors contributed to the delay in the closing of this contract. Schedule D, 10th Avenue Southwest, was added back into the contract, and due weather conditions, paving was postponed until this year. At the City's request, the paving on South 336th Street and 1st Avenue South was repaired, but work had to be deferred to this year, also due to weather conditions. The final cost for the 1996 Asphalt Overlay project is $567,699.58, which is $86,221.64 below the approved construction contract amount of $653,921.22. Recommendation Forward the following item to the September 16,1997 City Council meeting with the recommendation to approve: ,- . --~ 1. Acceptance of M.A. Segale, Inc. 's, 1996 Asphalt Overlay Construction contract as complete. K:\LUTC\960VL Y.PIN Meeting Date: 9/3/'f7 To: From: Subject: Date: ~f'!\ Land Use & Transportation Committee Ken Miller I Street Systems Manager Stephen Oifton, Development Svcs Manager Nonconformance Code Revision August 28, 1997 MEMORANDUM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development & Threshold Vacant site; New development. Abandoned site (90 days); When the site improvements are greater than 25% of the assessed value of the structure. FRAMEWORK OF COMPLIANCE Proposed Compliance Full compliance with all applicable codes. Compliance with applicable codes to the extent physically or technically practicable. Compliance with code provisions applicable to that portion of the site on which the development is proposed. New development on discrete portion of a developed site (i.e., a "Trader Joe's" at SeaTac Mall, Taco Bell, or school portables); when the site improvements are greater than 25% of the assessed value of the structure. Expansion of existing building (e.g., building footprint) that requires site; plan approval; When the site improveme'nts are greater than 25% of the assessed;value of the structure. Compliance with code provisions applicable to the entire building being expanded or remodeled. In the event a single building is to be converted into multi- tenant status, or in the event a portion of an existing, multi-tenant building is to be expanded, the expansion shall meet all provisions applicable to the entire portion of the building to be occupied by the applicant proposing the expansion. Current Code Requirement Entire site - 100% compliance. Right of way improvements, e.g., curbs, sidewalk, landscape strip, street trees, roadway, streetlights, drainage, underground utilities. Entire site - 100% compliance. Right of way improvements, e.g., curbs, sidewalk, landscape strip, street trees, roadway, streetlights, drainage, underground utilities. Improvement to adjacent right of way e.g., curbs, sidewalk, landscape strip, street trees, roadway, streetlights, drainage, and underground utilities where improvements are not existing and/or not to code. Improvements to adjacent right of way e.g. curb, sidewalk, landscape strip, street trees, street lights, drainage, underground utilities. ~mprovements to South 320th Street adjacent to the K-Mart to Safeway site were. existing at time of permit issuance, therefore no improvements to the right of way were required. Improvements on Pacific Highway South adjacent to Key Bank were not existing, therefore road widening, sidewalks, street trees, and landscape strip were required). land Use & Transportation Committee Page 2 August 28, 1997 Single tenant site; change of use; when the site improvements are greater than 25% of the assessed value of the structure. Compliance with applicable codes to the extent physically or technically practicable. Improvement to adjacent right of way e.g. curb, sidewalk, landscape strip, street trees, street lights, drainage, and underground utilities where improvements do not exist already. No street requirements. Single and multi-tenant sites; tenant replacement. For interior tenant improvements only. FWCC22-1473 When Public Improvements must be Installed - This section of the code, although not a part of the non-conformance section, also applies to redevelopment of property. Specifically, an applicant is required to provide the improvements required by Article XVI if: 1. Proposed improvements in any 12-month period exceed 25 percent of the assessed or appraised value of all structures on the subject property, whichever is greater. Public improvements were not installed within the past four years, as part of any subdivision or discretionary land use approval under this or any prior zoning code. 2. Sections within Article XVI reference dedication of right of way and authority to require dedication, development standards of Sections 22-1524 and 22-1525, additional dimensions and improvements, easements, right of way improvements (i.e. medians, bicycle facilities, landscaping, sidewalks, utilities, street lighting and other necessary improvements), partial right of way improvements, easements, and driveways. Section 22-1477 provides for granting of modifications, deferments, and waivers related to these requirements. pw k:\lutc\nonconf.mem 8f26/97 ¡ 1 CITY OF ., -.- E:C~ ~~~ DATE: August 27, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land U selTransportation Committee Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manag~ Nonconfonning Code Revisions - Water Quality FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: During its July 21, 1997 meeting, the Committee considered the issue of water quality nonconformance. Some of the salient points of that night's discussion include: the fact that, under current code guidelines, sites not in compliance with State water quality standards are required to install appropriate water quality facilities immediately; the fact that, under current code guidelines, no water quality thresholds or triggers exist and that therefore all sites regardless of size, use, or redevelopment activity should be brought into immediate compliance; the fact that currently City staff are not applying the code as written but rather have established an informal threshold (i.e., redevelopment) that must be crossed before the water quality retrofit of an existing site is required. . That night's discussion of the issue touched on several related matters that evening. The Committee was not comfortable with the State Department of Ecology's defmition of redevelopment. The Committee felt that immediate compliance was untenable and that a "phased" approach to water quality compliance seemed more reasonable. The committee accepted the State's minimum threshold, i.e., 5000 square feet, as a working minimum. And the Committee preferred to see the option of "underground" water quality facilities offered to developers of commercial sites within the City. .- ,--- Subsequent to the July 21st meeting, staff revisited the appropriate areas of the upcoming proposed code revisions - those revisions required to meet State stormwater program standards - and revised those areas according to the Committee's direction. The first area visited was the definition of "Redevelopment". Currently the State's proposed definition reads as follows: --..on an already developed site, the creation or addition of impervious surfaces, structural development including construction, installation or expansion of a building or other structure, and/or replacement of impervious surface that is not part of routine maintenance activity, and land disturbing activities associated with structural or impervious redevelopment... ': Following the Committee's direction staff now proposes that definition of redevelopment, with , " ",""'- respect to surface and stormwater, be revised to include thresholds and read as follows: tt... On an already developed site: . The creation or addition of impervious surfaces having an area of 5, 000 square feet or more Structural development including construction, installation, or expansion of a building or other structure having a surface area of 5, 000 square feet or more Repair or replacement of an impervious surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity involving an area of 5, 000 square feet or more Collection and concentration of surface and stormwater runoff from a drainage area of 5,000 square feet or greater Projects which contain or abut a floodplain, stream, lake, wetland, or closed depression, or a sensitive area as defined by ordinance or determined by the public works director Projects which involve a change in use which has a potential to release new pollutants to the City's surface water systems Projects which propose an estimated $100,000 or more of improvements to an existing tthigh use"} site Projects which propose an estimated $500,000 or more of improvements and include the removal and replacement of any existing impervious surface with 5,000 square feet or more of pollution generating impervious surface Any project which discharges to a receiveing water that has a documented water quality problem.. " . . . . . . . . The proposed definition provides both the thresholds and clarification requested by council and is to be inserted into the upcoming model surface and stormwater management ordinance for committee consideration later this year. The second area of the proposed code revisions to be revisited and modified as a result of the July 21st Committee discussion deals with compliance schedule, i.e., immediate còmpliance versus phased compliance. The Committee's direction suggested that any redevelopment proposal involving a site that was one acre or greater in size be offered the option of phased water quality compliance due to the significant expense involved in the water quality retrofit of larger sites. To accomplish this directive staff recommends that the proposed code changes include a section which reads as follows: tt...for redevelopment projects which are part of a site that is an acre or more in size, a stormwater management plan which includes a five year implementation schedule meeting the minimum requirements to the maximum extent possible and approved by the Director of Public Works may be prepared añd submitted as an option to immediate water qu'alii; compliance... " .- Finally, under provisions of the City's current code, the preferred method for treating stormwater is in above ground facilities. Members of the Committee as well as many residents, business owners, . l"High use" site means anyone of the following: a commercial or industrial site subject to an ADT of 100 vehiclesll,ooo sq ft gross floor site subject to petrolewn storage or transfer in excess of 1,500 gallyear site subject to use, storage, or maintenance of a fleet of 25 or more 10 tG VW diesel vehicles a road intersection with an ADT of 25,000 or more vehicles on major roadway or 15,000 or more vehicles on an intersecting roadway . . . and land developers have questioned the wisdom of this approach on commercial properties. In addition to their unsightly appearance, above ground water quality facilities occupy valuable commercial real estate which can be used in other ways. The Committee directed staff to include appropriate language within the proposed ordinance to offer commercial properties the option of placing the required water quality facilities below ground. In response to this directive staff suggests that language indicating that "...underground water quality facilities are an acceptable option on COnutU!1'Cially zoned properties... " at appropriate points in the proposed code modifications. Exactly which locations might be included are not yet known. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff seeks the Committee's concurrence on its previous guidance and recommends that the above modifications be included in the proposed code revision package which is to be considered by the Committee and Council later this year. K:\LUTC\ WQNCNFRM.W2 ,- ,'---'.~ CITY OF .. . :. .~ ~ E:J:]~ ~~ AY" DATE: August 27, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee \ Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manager~~ King Conservation District/Regional Needs Assessment FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: Regional Needs Assessment: At its October 7, 1996 meeting, the Committee was presented an overview and status report of King County's Regional Needs Assessment (RNA). Attached for your convenience you will find a copy of the RNA memo that was included in that night's meeting packet. The Regional Needs Assessment as presented therein was an interjurisdictional collaboration of surface and stormwater management stakeholders looking at issues from a regional perspective. As the memo suggests, RNA participants reached a general consensus on a few issues early in the process. The first issue upon which there was general agreement was that there exist surface and stormwater management problems which extend beyond jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of these larger "regional" issues cited in the RNA findings include: major river flooding, fish habitat, and water quality. The feeling that the only successful approach to management of these regional issues would be an approach that was based on watershed boundaries rather than jurisdictional boundaries prevailed with the RNA participants. Therefore there was consensus on the issue of looking at these regional problems in more detail at the watershed level. To accomplish this more detailed exploration of the regional problems, King County SWM (the organizers of the RNA effort) divided the entire county into six large watersheds. They then formed subgroups (forums) of RNA participants comprised largely of stakeholders within four of the six watersheds - note that the two watersheds not originally included are the direct Puget Sound and the White River watersheds, the two which receive the majority of Federal Way drainage - and tasked them with taking a more detailed look at the regional problems within each watershed. These forums were asked to identify the major regional problems and the costs associated with their solution. The four separate lists of problems and cost estimates were then combined and forwarded to another subgroup of RNA participants known as the Regional Task Force (RTF). The RTF is composed of three elected officials from each of the four watershed forums mentioned earlier. The RTF was asked to make recommendations on which types of programs and projects should be regionally funded, as well as on appropriate funding levels and potential funding sources. On September 18th, the RTF will be presenting their recommendations to the Regional Water Quality Council (RWQC) for consideration. The RTF does not yet have a memo available which describes their recommendations, but City staff has met with RTF representatives to discuss their recommendations in order to elaborate on them in this memo - especially those recommendations regarding funding proposals. Regional Funding Sources and the King Conservation District: Based on the premise that regional needs exist and that they demand regional funding, the RTF explored the funding of the regional needs program and projects. The total cost of the priority programs and projects for the four watersheds is $345 M. By subtracting the estimated potential State and Federal financial assistance that is likely to be received, the total cost of the priority programs and projects has been reduced to $2l1M in capital needs, with an additional 10% required for annual operating and maintenance costs over the next twenty years. This number would represent a cost per household of $50.00 annually over the next twenty years. Note that funding all or a portion of the total amount has been discussed by the RTF. No clear majority has emerged on the funding level, but an approximate amount of $6.00 per household per year for each $25M increment can be used for discussion purposes - for example, to fund regional projects at the $75M level would mean that each King County household would pay $18.00 per year for twenty years. The RTF reviewed a number of potential funding alternatives. They betieve the following options to be the most promising. They would like the benefit of public discussion before proceeding to develop the alternatives. King Conservation District A majority of the RTF recommends continuing the assessment and increasing it to $5.00 per parcel per year. These funds would act as a bridge and tide the regional efforts over until a larger mechanism could be put into place. The RTF sees this assessment as a necessity in order to ensure the survival of the RNA efforts to date. The monies derived through this assessment would be split three ways: between the Conservation District, the local communities, and the forums. The Conservation District seems to be in support of this plan with the proviso that their budget be increased slightly - they have requested a meeting with the City to discuss this matter in more detail. Wastewater Rates The RTF recommends that the RWQC begin a discussion about the possibilities of using wastewater revenues to fund some of the identified priority projects identified by the forums. Regional Fee A regional fee similar to local surface water management fees, but apptied county wide, could be assessed. Such a fee has the most flexibility in terms of amount and use. The RTF is recommending that the regional fee be explored in more detail along with a governance structure for distribution of the money. The RTF's recommendations point to some combination of actions, some of which must occur immediately, and some which should not be decided untit concluding a dialogue with the public. Conclusion: The most pressing issue at hand is that of support for the recommendation to continue and increase the King Conservation District assessment. Officials from both the County and the District wish to meet with the City to discuss the merits of the RTF's recommendation. In addition, Margaret Pageler of Seattle has agreed to meet with Cities in the Direct Puget Sound drainages to discuss the benefits of participation in the regional effort - note that a watershed forum was recently formed for those communities having drainage areas that are not part of the other four forums. City staff have participated in this forum, but as of yet nothing substantive has been accomplished in this forum. RECOMMENDA TIONS: Staff is seeking the Committee's guidance on how to proceed in this matter. Should the requested meetings be arranged and if so whom should be invited to attend? At this point in time, does the City have a formal position with regard to the extension of the Conservation District's authority and, if so, should the City formally communicate its position to the RWQC? Attachment K\UITC\KCRNALUT > / MEMORANDUM TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manager ~ October 2, 1996 FROM: DATE: RE: King County Surface Water Management - Regional Needs Assessment Status Back2:round: The Regional Needs Assessment (RNA) was initiated in 1994. Its purpose was to define the needs, priorities, and responsibilities for surface water management (SWM) within the boundaries of King County. It has been a collaborative, interjurisdictional effort involving SWM staff from jurisdictions throughout King County, the Suburban Cities Association, the Regional Water Quality Council, the King Conservation District, elected officials, tribal governments, and many other stakeholders. The RNA examined the issues of surface water management relative to drainage and conveyance, major river flooding, water quality, and fish habitat. Consensus was reached on those issues that are considered "local" in nature and those issues which transcend jurisdictional boundaries and are therefore considered "regional" in nature. Basically, the issues surrounding local flooding and conveyance issues are thought to best addressed on a local level, while it is felt that issues involving water quality, major river flooding, and fish habitat must somehow be addressed in a more global or regional context. In an effort to distinguish and address these most urgent SWM issues, the RNA prepared eight recommendations for change centered on the themes of simplicity, collaboration, and accountability. Simply stated the recommendations are as follows (those recommendations of potential impact in the near term are italicized): 1. Certain SWM services are best provided through a coordinated regional effort, e.g., water quality, major river flooding, and fish habitat 2. The coordinated regional effort should be managed collaboratively by watershed ..., J. The County should be divided into six watersheds 4. Watershed forums should be created for four of the six watersheds 5. Designate the Regional Water Quality Committee (RWQC) as the regional policy focal point for watershed-based management 6. Additional regional funds need to be provided to protect and restore fish habitat 7. Funding support for flood hazard reduction projects should be provided by the benefitting watersheds 8. King County should provide short tenn funding to get started on the RNA recommendations Of the six watersheds that the County is divided into, the City of Federal Way lies within portions of three - the Green/Duwamish River watershed, the Puget Sound direct drainage watershed, and the White River watershed. Due to a lack of resources and other concerns, watershed forums as recommended in number four above, were not established for either the White River watershed or the Puget Sound direct drainage watershed. This fact has the practical implication that SWM issues within these two watersheds will be addressed in the future in much the same way that they have in the past, i.e., local control will be the rule and coalitions will have to be established on an as needed basis to deal with any regional issues. A watershed forum has been established for the Green/Duwamish watershed. The express mission of the forum is to empower the community at large to take a strong role in managing the watershed. The forum will attempt to accomplish this by setting goals and strategies for surface water management issues in the watershed, sorting out overlaps and conflicts, developing funding sources, obtaining consensus between the various stakeholders, and eventually taking action on the more pressing issues. The City of Federal Way contributes about 0.75 square miles of drainage area to this 492 square mile watershed. The City's population within this drainage basin represents approximately 3,400 of the 359,795 total within the watershed. In a concurrent process to the establishment and startup of the watershed forums, the R WQC established a finance task force to explore funding alternatives for regional projects identified by the four watershed forums. As a guide to potential projects and project costs the task force used the findings and recommendations of the County's Flood Hazard Reduction Plan, Waterways 2000, basin plans, and the Fish Habitat Task Force. The task force, hoping to develop a consensus on financing flood control and fish habitat improvements, has estimated that $200 million dollars in priority capital projects are needed over the next twenty years in order to address major surface water problems within the County. To that end they have discussed eight alternative funding sources. But before a final recommendation can be made several key issues must be resolved and discussed with the relevant stakeholders. Among the more important issues yet to be resolved are a more accurate means of project identification (and project cost identification) and the allocation of project costs among the various stakeholders. Toward the end of establishing a more accurate project identification and prioritization list, each of the watershed forums, using funding from King County, has begun an Ecosystem Restoration Study (study) within their respective watershed which is intended to be accomplished in three phases: reconnaissance, feasibility, and construction. The reconnaissance phase now underway is scheduled to be completed in January of 1997. The outcome of this phase will be a priority listing of proposed capital project needs within each of the watersheds. Currently the County is looking to the other forum participants for help in / /" funding the estimated cost of the next phase, the feasibility phase. They have proposed a cost sharing approach to the funding of this phase that is based on contributing drainage area, population within the watershed, and assessed value of property within the watershed (the funding scheme as proposed by the County is attached). As proposed by the County this would necessitate participation by the City of Federal Way in the amount of $600.00 during the feasibility phase of the study. In the GreenlDuwamish forum, the participants have reserved judgement on whether or not to proceed with and participate in the feasibility phase of the study until the results of the reconnaissance phase are completed in January. During the most recent (September 11, 1996) meeting of the GreenlDuwamish forum a motion was made by Mayor Rants of Tukwila to disband the forum and reconfigure the existing Green River Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) to handle the issues of major river flooding, water quality, and fish habitat. This proposition has the advantage of seemingly reducing a "layer of government" via its use of an existing governance structure and on this basis received the support of some of the forum members - most notably the elected officials present from the City of Auburn. The mechanics of the reconfiguration were discussed and it was noted that some significant hurdles must be cleared in order to go forward with this proposition, including the agreement of the State legislature. It was decided to fonn an advisory group comprised of appropriate members from the Suburban Cities Association and the FCZD to explore in detail the issue of expanding the FCZD's mission. Other than the completion of the reconnaissance phase of the study (which is being funded by King County), no further GreenlDuwamish or related RNA activity is anticipated until January of 1997. Staff will continue to keep the Land UsefTransportation Committee apprised on the proceedings and may find it necessary to return to the committee in early 1997 to discuss any proposed funding alternatives associated with the feasibility or construction phases of the study. Attachment K:\SWM\RNA \ I O-IMMO.LUT HYPO£' .ical Local Cost Distributions for Gl_11/DuwamiSh Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study DRAFT - for discussion purposes only Local Cost Share Required: $100,000 peryear1997&1998 ALLOCATION FACTORS 2 PROPOSED % Watershed % Watershed % Watershed % Watershed COST Area Population Assessed Impervious JURISDICTION ALLOCATION 1 Value Surface Algona $200 0,06% 0.21% 0.24% 0,29% Auburn $6,295 2.51% 7.62% 6.35% 8.70% Black Diamond $550 0.74% 0.45% 0.32% 0.69% Des Moines $70 0,02% 0.11% 0.07% 0.08% Enumclaw $1,085 0.48% 1.54% 1.09% 1.23% Federal Way $613 0.18% 0.93% 0.71% 0.63% Kent $10,855 3.83% 11.00% 13.10% 15.49% King County $49,273 83.79% 41.12% 28.88% 43.30% Renton $3,988 1.23% 4.81% 5.25% 4.66% SeaTac $2,818 0.75% 3.36% 4.40% 2.76% Seattle $18,628 4.57% 24.77% 31.43% 13.74% Tukwila $5,633 1.85% 4.08% 8.16% 8.44% Totals 3: $100,005 100.01 % 100.00% 100.00% 100.01 % NOTES: 1) Proposed cost allocation = $100,000 multiplied by the average of the 4 allocation factors for the jurisdiction. Cost estimates are based on full participation by all jurisdictions; actual costs may be different. 2) Area, population and assessed value data is from RNA research in 1994; it does not include effects of annexations and incorporations. Impervious surface data is from 1992, but is based on current jurisdictional boundaries. 3) Totals greater than 100% or $100,000 are due to rounding. GRNALOC3,XLS DATE: August 26, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee [Jl Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manager "JllJ FROM: SUBJECT: S336th/Kittts Regional Storage Facility Repair - Bid Award BACKGROUND: During the Winter storms of '96/'97 a slope failure (mud slide) occurred along a portion of slope within the primary detention cell at the S336t~/Kitts Corner regional stormwater storage facility. The referenced project proposes repair of the failed slope. The design of the proposed repair was submitted by CH2M Hill, Inc. the City's design consultant on the original project with an estimated cost of $52,810.01. The Surface Water Management Division invited five of its small works roster contractors to bid on the above repair project. On August 26, 1997, the City received two bids. The low-bid contractor for this project is Muck Creek Construction, with a total bid amount of $40,551.24. This bid amount is 23 % lower than the engineer's estimated construction cost for this project (see attached bid tabulation). Based on the reference checks completed by City staff, there is no known reason why this low bidder should not be able to successfully complete this project to the City's satisfaction. Due to the declaration of this storm event as a Major Disaster, the City will recover portion of the repair costs, approximately $28,000.00, from the State and the Federal Emergency Management Administration. The balance of the cost will be paid from the Surface Water Minor Capital Improvement Fund. RECOMl\1ENDA TION: Staff recommends the award of this project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Muck Creek Construction Inc., in the amount of $40,551.24 and that a 10% construction contingency totaling $4,055.00 be established for this project. In addition, staff recommends that this matter be placed on the September 16, 1997 City Council meeting consent agenda for their consideration. K:\LUTC\KITISREP.LUT Bid Tabulation South 336th Regional Storage Facility Repair of primary Detention Cell BID OPENING AUGUST 26, 1997 IBid 1 "SId 2 ~,d;s tllC1 4 Itlld 5 Vendor Name --> Muck Creek Construction lIoyed Enterprises, Inc ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Location ----> Eatonville WA FederelWav, WA Item Amount Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total 1 Mobilization 1 5,150.,0.0. 5,150..0.0. 3,0.0.0.,0.0. 3,0.0.0..0.0. 0..0.0. 0..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 6,343,0.0. 6,343.0.0. 2 Excavation Including Haul 1 6,0.0.0..0.0. 6,0.0.0.,0.0. 19,50.0..0.0. 19,50.0..0.0. 0..00 0..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 10.,40.0..0.0. 10.,40.0.,0.0. 3 Low Permeability Soil 360. 6,0.0. 2,660.,0.0. 15,0.0. 5,40.0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 0..0.0. 0..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 4.0.0. 1,440.0.0. 4 Gravel Backfill for Drain 470. 15,0.0. 7,0.50..0.0. 15,0.0. 7,0.50..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 0..0.0. 20..0.0. 9,40.0..0.0. 5 Quarry Spalls 360. 17.0.0. 6,120..0.0. 20..0.0. 7,20.0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0..00 18,0.0. 6,480.,0.0. 6 Underdrain Pipe 6 In, Dia 650. 7.50. 4,875,0.0. 10.,0.0. 6,50.0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 2,50. 1,62S.o.o. 7 Topsoil Type A 120. 12,0.0. 1,440.,0.0. 1S,o.D 1,60.0..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,00 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 15,0.0. 1,60.0.,0.0. B Landscaping 1 3,62S,o.o. 3,625.0.0. 7,So.D,Do. 7,SDD.Do. 0..0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 11,140.,0.0. 11,140..0.0. SUBTOTAL 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0 ',Do. <I!lë:l!l,o.o. Sales Tax @ 6,6% \ 3211,24 4963,70. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 4182,0.1 TOTAL 40.,551.24 O.U;.j.j,ro. 0.,0.0. 0.,0.0. 0..0.0. 5:¿,61 0..0 Id:>1 nature Yes es Bid Bond Yes Yes Addendums NA NA NA NA NA MEMO FROM: Land Use and Transportation Committee Kathy McClung, Deputy Director CDS ~~ TO: DATE: August 28th, 1997 RE: Subdivision signs ----------------------------------------------------------------- In wrapping up the notification of all property owners about non- conforming signs, it has come to my attention that we have 57 subdivision signs that are out of compliance with the Code. About two thirds of the subdivisions do not have homeowner's associations. Eight of the signs are in public right of way. The other reasons for non-conformance are as follows: * 13 exceed the maximum number allowed per subdivision * 11 exceed the height restriction * 9 exceed the width allowed * 21 do not have a required base 17 of these signs would qualify for substantial compliance under the provisions of the existing code. We have two main issues with these signs and are looking for some Council direction. 1. Where there is no Homeowner's Association, we have a notification problem. We could notify every property owner in the subdivision but it could result in no one being ultimately responsible, will create confusion with citizens that won't understand why they are being contacted, and has the potential to make a number of citizens angry for something they feel they are not responsible for. We have held back most of the notices to the Homeowner's Associations because we think all subdivision signs should get the same treatment. 2. Subdivision signs are commonly placed in public right of way. At the time the subdivision is developed, the property belongs to the developer and is later dedicated to the city. To require that established signs be replaced on private property will be expensive for homeowners and may not be possible if the adjacent property owner is not willing or the topography does not allow it. I have discussed this issue with the Public Works Director and the street Systems Manager. Their opinion is that these existing signs are not a problem for the city. Some options to consider are: A. The code allows an exception to bringing signs into compliance if they substantially comply with the code. However, it requires that the applicant apply for this exception. Since 17 signs would qualify for this exemption we could grant the exception without an application. B. We could broaden the language in the exceptions to include more or all of the subdivision signs. C. Cary Roe suggested that we provide an administrative variance for subdivision signs in public right of way. Generally, the City would not encourage subdivision signs in what will be public right of way but sometimes there is no good alternative. This could address future and existing signs. At the meeting we will provide pictures so that you can see the signs we are discussing. We are asking for direction on this matter as we are concluding our notification program. Any code language could be tacked on to the existing non-conforming amendments, the up-coming subdivision code amendments, or delayed to the 1998 work program. '.