Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 07/15/1992 ��a • CITY CLERK PUBLIC WORKS COMMITY Q n JULY 15, 1992 y A U G 1 n', j'„ y s,P ...q 7 CITY ry.�P,i PRESENT: Jim White Dean Falkner Jim Bennett Paul Scott Don Wickstrom Jim Miller Tom Brubaker Carol Morris Gary Gill Bill Carey Roger Lubovich ,Ftin Welch Bill Wolinski Ch`krlie Kiefer Ed White Mr. & Mrs. Rust Janet Shull Bill Doolittle Norm Angelo Jean Parietti Upper Garrison Creek Flood Control Project Bill Wolinski, Water Quality Engineer for the City, made a presentation on a study of the entire watershed, the history of flooding problems associated with the watershed and the proposed projects to alleviate the problems. Previously approved standards have proved to be inadequate to address the problems that are being experienced. Thus, we are attempting to address existing situations such as this and develop new standards that will prevent future problems with new development. These new standards will have an impact on new development and could result in some controversy when they are brought before Council. Gill added that we are going to upgrade our standards to comply with the current King County standards as a first step. In addition, we are working with King County to develop an interlocal agreement to look at the entire Garrison Creek drainage basin to declare it a critical drainage basin that may need to be . treated in a completely different manner. In his presentation, Wolinski stressed that in attempting to solve Mr. Carey's problems, there has to be a regional solution so the problems aren't just moved from one place to another. Jim White asked who would be paying for these improvements. Would the owners of undeveloped land be asked to pay or will the drainage utility fund the improvements. Gill stated the existing problems would be addressed through the drainage utility. We would also be requiring new development to design to more stringent standards than in the past. Responding to Mr. Carey's previous comments that increasing the retainage at the East Hill Fire Station and the new school site would solve the problem, Wolinski indicated that an extensive review of the site plans and construction drawings for both projects revealed they were both built to our existing standards. These existing standards may not adequately address the problems but these two projects represent a small fraction of the entire basin. Even if there were no controls on either project, that would not have created the flooding that is Public Works Committee July 15, 1992 Page 2 happening downstream. Wolinski described the proposed project as consisting of an earthen dike creating about 15 acre feet of storage in an existing wetland in the vicinity of 112th which would reduce the flows coming out of the drainage basin, an upsizing of the downstream channels and provide a larger regional detention facility at the north end of 98th Avenue just north of the James Street Reservoirs. Wickstrom added that we need to maximizP_ the detention facility north of 98th because that will help w?Uh the problems in the valley. Because of the wetland standards and the requirement for a Corps permit, it will be questionable if we can build the valley detention facility as originally proposed. Mr. Carey responded with a review of the material he previously presented to the Committee. He stated that 70; of the drainage in the basin would bypass the detention facility proposed and that the area identified for the facility is not wetland. He addressed his concerns about the adequacy of the drainage system south of 112th and the retention system at the Fire Station. He did not agree with the solutions proposed by the Engineering Department. He stated he did not want anyone from the City on his property making surveys or taking soil samples. He suggested the solutions would be to improve the existing drainage system west of 112th and install an adequate retention system at the Fire Station. Gill added that the City will have to determine if indeed the property proposed for the detention facility is wetland. If it is not, the design and permitting process will be much easier. Also, if it is not wetlands, the property owner makes out better as we will have to pay more for the property. There was further discussion on the definition and delineation of wetland. Jim White stated he would like to look at-more options. Regarding the wetland situation, he stated staff is administering a wetlands policy that has never been before Council for approval. He suggested staff look at alternate sites for the detention facility in the 112th vicinity. Wickstrom commented that as far as value is concerned, the Army Corps of Engineers would be the determinant on whether property is wetland or not. Jim Bennett raised concerns about the design standards and questioned the status of the new construction standards. Gill responded that the draft report has just been completed and will be brought to Council so they can see what impact the new standards will have on new development. Jim White asked that staff come back to Committee with whatever other options there might be. Mr. Carey requested his letter be a part of the record. Public Works Committee July 15, 1992 Page 3 Kent Springs Transmission Main Wickstrom stated that we have all the permits necessary for the project and we have advertised for bids. The bid opening is scheduled for the end of July. Wickstrom continued that he would like to take the bids directly to Council for award in order to get construction underway sooner and take advantage of the construction season. Wickstrom added that all the modifications that have been made to the project have added to the cc } of the project and he requested authorization to transfer $350,h from the unencumbered water funds to the project. Charlie Kiefer stated he appreciated the opportunity to comment on the project. He made comments to the Committee regarding the addendum to the project's checklist. He stated the public did not have the opportunity to comment on the mitigation plan developed to address requirements in the addendum. He did state he and others were able to see the mitigation plan however. He stated he didn't think the City had a grading permit from the County. Carol Morris corrected him in that the City does have a grading permit but the County has indicated they would not issue a notice to proceed until they received clarification on a couple of issues. So, the City does indeed have a valid grading permit. She addressed the SEPA process for the addendum. The City had a completed checklist on the project. The County requested further environmental review and the proper process was to prepare an addendum since the threshold determination was not being changed. Any comments on the Army Corps of Engineer's permit should have been made to the Corps not to the agency making application. The Corps has required the mitigation plan as part of our permit so, again, the comments should have been made to them. She suggested an attorney could advise Mr. Kiefer if the appeal period has expired. Mr. Kiefer stated the comment period was over in Map- of 1991 and the addendum was issued in March 1992. He stated he would be at the next Council meeting to present information as to why he thinks the mitigation plan is no good. Wickstrom stated it is interesting to note that if the City were to reapply for this permit today it would not require a 404 permit because the project has been revised such that we are disturbing less than one acre and would be issued a nationwide permit and would not be required to provide the additional wetlands we are providing. Jim White confirmed that when the project was started in 1983 the City was losing about 1 million gallons per day from the old transmission main. He asked what was being lost today. Wickstrom commented that this phase of the project is replacing the section experiencing most of the leaks. White stated to Mr. Kiefer that he recognized his arguments but the City has complied with all the requirements of the project from the permitting agencies. The City has an obligation to the rate payers in the City of Kent to do something about the water Public Works Committee July 15, 1992 Page 4 loss by replacing the line and are , at the point where we have to move ahead. Carol Morris added that the City has to keep in mind that we are not involved as if there were a permit before us for approval. The City is the agency that has made application for a permit so all of Mr. Kiefer's arguments are lost on the City. If there is a problem with the process, it is a process we as the applicant are following and any appeal Mr. Kiefer wants to make should be addressed to the respective permitting agency. She suggested Mr. Kiefer prepare a list of 110'-s comments prior to the Council meeting so that she can prepare =ayresponse to them. The Committee unanimously recommended going directly to Council with contract award bypassing the recommendation of the committee because of the time frame and to transfer $350,000 from the water funds to the project. L.I.D. 333 - Signalization 72nd 180th Wickstrom stated four bids were received with Breaker Construction submitting the low bid. He stated he is recommending we award the project to Breaker Construction. The Committee unanimously recommended award to Breaker Construction. Proposed Parking at City Hall After review of the material in the packet, the Committee unanimously recommended the parking changes be implemented. Visual Preference Survey Implementation Janet Shull explained the Planning Committee had asked this item be brought before the Public Works Committee as well since the resolution would have impact on the Public Works Department and would involve staff in that department as-well. Responding to Jim White's question, Wickstrom replied that he does not have staff or paint required to carry out the tasks outlined in the resolution. The paint budget was cut in half. Jim White suggested that we move ahead with the resolution and when these tasks are implemented, staff can bring costs and recommended funding before the Committee for direction. The Committee unanimously recommended the resolution be adopted. Other Bill Doolittle commented on the "Street Closed" signs on First by the Library and suggested they be changed to "Library Access". He also complimented that the Centennial Center garage was open for parking for Cornucopia Days except that it was not posted anywhere.