DOCSLIB.ORG

Metropolitan King County Council Physical Environment Panel of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee Tuesday, October 11, 2016 – 9:30 A.M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metropolitan King County Council Physical Environment Panel of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee Tuesday, October 11, 2016 – 9:30 A.M Metropolitan King County Council Physical Environment Panel of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee Tuesday, October 11, 2016 – 9:30 A.M. Councilmembers: Rod Dembowski (Chair), Dave Upthegrove (Vice-Chair), Claudia Balducci, Reagan Dunn, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Kathy Lambert, Pete von Reichbauer Staff: Hiedi Popochock, (477-1842), Panel Lead; Wendy Soo Hoo (477-0890), Budget Manager; Analysts: Mary Bourguignon (477-0873), Paul Carlson (477-0875), Patrick Hamacher (477-0880), Lise Kaye (477-6881), Miranda Leskinen (477-0950), Beth Mountsier (477-0885), Mike Reed (477-0888), Davin Simmons (477-3644), Panel Assistant: Angélica Calderón (477-0874) To show a PDF of the written materials for an agenda item, click on the agenda item below. INDEX Page No. Briefing No. 2016-B0183 Physical Environment Panel of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee. Hiedi Popochock, Panel Lead Agency Overview and Highlights Cultural Development Authority 5 Mary Bourguignon Natural Resources & Parks Administration 9 Mary Bourguignon Historic Preservation Program 12 Mary Bourguignon Critical Area Mitigation CIP 13 Mary Bourguignon Parks and Recreation Operating 14 Mary Bourguignon Parks, Open Space and Trails Levy 17 Mary Bourguignon Parks CIP 19 Mary Bourguignon Open Space CIP 27 Mary Bourguignon Water and Land Resources CIP 31 Mary Bourguignon REET 1 34 Mary Bourguignon REET 2 37 Mary Bourguignon Page 1 of 3 Physical Environment Panel Packet Materials - Page 1 INDEX Page No. Transfer of Development Credit 39 Mary Bourguignon Youth Sports Facilities Grants 41 Mary Bourguignon Geographic Information Services (GIS) 44 Davin Simmons King County Flood Control District Contract 46 Davin Simmons Inter-County River Improvement 48 Davin Simmons Noxious Weed Control Program 49 Davin Simmons Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network Levy 50 Miranda Liskinen Radio Communication Services (800 MHz) 52 Miranda Liskinen Office of Emergency Management 54 Lise Kaye Enhanced-911 21 56 E-911 Capital Lise Kaye Motor Pool Equipment Rental & Revolving 58 Lise Kaye Wastewater Equipment Rental & Revolving 61 Lise Kaye Equipment Rental & Revolving 62 Lise Kaye Roads 63 Roads CIP Roads Construction Transfer Lise Kaye Airport 71 Airport Construction Transfer Airport CIP Lise Kaye Department of Transportation Director's Office 75 Paul Carlson Transit 76 Transit CIP Transit Debt Service Transit Revenue Vehicle Replacement Paul Carlson Marine Division 89 Pat Hamacher Marine Capital Pat 91 Hamacher Wastewater CIP 93 Wastewater Debt Service Wastewater Treatment Mike Reed Surface Water Management Local Drainage Services 101 Hiedi Popochock Page 2 of 3 Physical Environment Panel Packet Materials - Page 2 INDEX Page No. Water and Land Resources-Shared Services 106 Hiedi Popochock Solid Waste 110 Mike Reed Solid Waste CIP 113 Mike Reed Solid Waste Post-Closure Landfill Maintenance 115 Mike Reed Page 3 of 3 Physical Environment Panel Packet Materials - Page 3 [Blank Page] Physical Environment Panel Packet Materials - Page 4 Analyst: Mary Bourguignon CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUDGET TABLE % Change 2015-2016 2017-2018 2015-2016 v. Revised* Proposed 2017-2018 Budget Appropriation $57,596,322 $6,396,000 (217.8%) Max FTEs: 0.0 0.0 N/A Max TLTs: 0.0 0.0 N/A Estimated Revenues $57,596,322 $6,396,000 (217.8%) Major Revenue Sources Lodging tax special account (“endowment”) 1% for Art 10% of General Fund building sales * Note: 2015-2016 Revised includes the 2015-2016 Adopted Budget plus adopted supplementals as of transmittal of the Executive’s proposed 2017-2018 budget. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE This appropriation unit transfers funding from the County’s Cultural Development Authority Fund to 4Culture,1 the quasi-governmental Cultural Development Authority that administers King County’s arts, culture and heritage programs.2 When 4Culture was established, it was authorized to use a portion of the County’s lodging (hotel/motel) tax.3 However, between 2013 and 2020, 4Culture has limited access to lodging tax revenues: • From 2013-2015, lodging tax revenues were to be used to retire the Kingdome debt, with any additional revenues if the debt was retired before the end of 2015 to be dedicated to arts and culture.4 Because the Kingdome bonds were retired in March 2015, the remaining revenues through the end of 2015 were included in the Cultural Development Authority Fund’s 2015-2016 budget and used to back the bonds for the Building for Culture program, 5 which provided capital support to arts, cultural and heritage organizations around the county. • From 2016-2020, all lodging tax revenues are to be dedicated to the football stadium and exhibition center.6 1 This proposed appropriation for the Cultural Development Authority Fund (aka Arts and Cultural Development Fund [K.C.C. 4A.200.140]) will be transferred to 4Culture after adoption of the budget. Following that action the 4Culture Board will approve a budget for 4Culture. 2 Ordinance 14482, K.C.C. 2.49 3 RCW 67.28 4 RCW 67.28.180(3)(b) 5 Ordinances 18179, 18180, 18181 6 RCW 67.28.180(3)(c) Physical Environment Panel Packet Materials - Page 5 • After January 1, 2021, lodging tax revenues will be allocated as follows: o 37.5 percent to arts and cultural purposes; o 37.5 percent to affordable workforce housing near transit stations or for services for homeless youth; and o 25 percent for capital or operating programs that promote tourism and attract tourists to the county, including arts, heritage, and cultural events.7 From 2013 through 2020, while 4Culture has limited access to lodging taxes, the agency is funded by a special account8 that was required to create during the early 2000s from its portion of the lodging tax. In addition, 4Culture receives funding from the 1% for Art program (aka public art program), as well as from a portion of General Fund property and building sales. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BUDGET AND CHANGES The 2017-2018 proposed budget for the Cultural Development Authority Fund is $6.4 million, 218 percent lower than the 2015-2016 budget. This significant decrease was anticipated, as the 2015-2016 budget included both the 2015 post-Kingdome lodging taxes and the bond proceeds for the Building For Culture program. Items of note proposed for the 2017-2018 biennium include: Contingency for Property Sales and 1% for Art. The proposed budget includes $1.965 million as contingency appropriation authority for $400,000 in carryover and $1.565 million in anticipation of upcoming revenues from property sales and 1% for Art projects. • Property Sales. Per County Code, sales of General Fund-owned properties with gross sale proceeds of $250,000 or greater must dedicate 10 percent of sales proceeds to the Cultural Development Authority Fund.9 The 4Culture Board addressed funding received in this manner in a 2012 resolution, noting that, “[t]he county has changed over those 45 years, and the cultural development needs of its communities have changed with it,” and going on to commit that 4Culture, “must continue to adapt our techniques to reach and serve new and growing populations.”10 The operational impact of this resolution has been that the 4Culture Board has, in general, focused funding received from property sales on addressing the needs of previously underserved communities. For the 2017-2018 proposed budget, the contingency includes $600,000 in building sales funds, in anticipation of the potential upcoming sales of the Northshore ($4.1 million) and Renton ($2 million) Public Health clinics.11 7 RCW 67.28.180(3)(d), RCW 67.28.180(3)(h)(ii) 8 Managed by 4Culture and not included in this proposed budget 9 K.C.C. 4.56.130 10 4Culture Resolution 2012-01 11 Northshore (Ordinance 18379), Renton (Not yet transmitted) Physical Environment Panel Packet Materials - Page 6 • 1% for Art. The County has a long-established public art program,12 through which all County-funded capital projects set aside one percent of eligible project costs for public art outreach, artist fees, design, development, installation, and maintenance.13 For the 2017-2018 biennium, the Wastewater Treatment Division will be moving forward with a number of large capital projects that are eligible for 1% for Art but are also subject to mandatory phased appropriation, meaning that the timing of the 1% for Art set-asides for these projects is uncertain. As a result, the remainder of the contingency fund (approximately $965,000) would provide appropriation authority in anticipation of these public art set-asides. Building For Culture. In 2015, the Council approved a $29 million bond issuance to fund the Building For Culture program14 and provide capital support to arts, cultural and heritage organizations. Bond proceeds are anticipated to be largely disbursed prior to the end of 2016, and are therefore not included in the 2017-2018 proposed budget, with two exceptions: • Barn Again. The proposed budget reflects the anticipated transfer of $500,000 out of the Cultural Development Authority Fund to the Historic Preservation Program for the Barn Again program;15 16and • Preservation Action Fund. Building For Culture included a $2 million Preservation Action Fund17 that requires Council approval of an agreement with 4Culture prior to implementation.18 The Council has not yet taken action on this required agreement,19 and thus the $2 million is included as contingency for the proposed 2017-2018 budget in the event the Council does not take action before the end of the year. If the Council takes action during the 2017-2018 biennium, this amount would need to be reappropriated out of contingency. In addition, because the proviso terms are effective only through the end of the 2015-2016 biennium, the Council may wish to repeat the proviso in the 2017-2018 budget ordinance (see Issues section below). ISSUES ISSUE 1 – PROVISO FOR PRESERVATION ACTION FUND The Building For Culture Program included a $2 million Preservation Action Fund, which was described as follows: 12 K.C.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project
    Submitted by: Kiewit Pacific Co. Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Specification No. PW10-0128F Submitted to: Purchasing Office, Tacoma Public Utilities 3628 South 35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409 June 8, 2010 Tab No. 1 - General Company Information & Team Structure Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Project TAB NO.1 - GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION AND TEAM STRUCTURE Kiewit Pacific Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kiewit Infrastructure Group, Inc., will be the contracting party for this project, as indicated on Forms 3 and 4 in Tab No. 4 - Appendix C. As a wholly-owned subsidiary, none of the officers of Kiewit Pacific Co. (Kiewit) own stock. Incorporated on May 18, 1982, we can trace our history back to 1884, when Peter and Andrew Kiewit formed Kiewit Brothers, an Omaha masonry contracting partnership. Today, we are part of one of North America's largest and most respected construction and mining organizations. We take our place in the corporate structure of our parent company, Kiewit Infrastructure Group Inc., alongside Kiewit Construction Company and Kiewit Southern Co. Our affiliates and subsidiaries, as well as those of our parent company, operate from a network of offices throughout North America. We draw upon the Kiewit Corporation’s collective experience and personnel to assemble the strongest team possible for a given project. Therefore, work experience of such affiliates and subsidiaries is relevant in demonstrating our capabilities. For the Murray Morgan Bridge, we are supplementing our local talent with extensive moveable bridge expertise from our east coast operations, Kiewit Constructors, Inc. We are also utilizing our local subsidiary, General Construction Company (General), for mechanical and electrical expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Checklist
    Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project Seattle, Washington SEPA Checklist December 8, 2020 Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project SEPA Checklist Page 2 of 24 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project 2. Name of applicant: Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Sara Zora, Project Manager Seattle Department of Transportation Project Development Division 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3800 P.O. Box 34996 Seattle, WA 98124 206-733-9973 4. Date checklist prepared: December 12, 2020 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Access restrictions on the Spokane St Swing Bridge began in April 2020, shortly after the West Seattle High-Rise Bridge was closed due to safety concerns on March 23, 2020. These access restrictions were enforced by the Seattle Police Department until January 11, 2021, and since then by an automated photo enforcement system. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are concurrent project activities to strengthen the Spokane St Swing Bridge, construct a new telecommunications system, and replace the control systems. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A capacity analysis and traffic study were completed for the project in December 2020. Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project SEPA Checklist Page 3 of 24 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Environment $3.7 Billion
    Physical Environment $3.7 Billion GENERAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND 17% HUMAN SERVICES 19% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 21% LAW SAFETY AND JUSTICE 11% PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 32% Airport & Ferry Permitting & Facilities Environmental 2% Review Fleet Administration 1% Parks & Recreation 2% 7% Roads Solid Waste & 6% Closure 8% Water Transit Management 44% 30% Organization of the Pie Chart: The following agencies were combined to make the pie chart more readable. Roads: Roads and Roads Construction Transfers Parks & Recreation: Parks & Recreation, Youth Sports Facilities Grants, Open Space and Trails Levy Solid Waste & Closure: DNRP Admin., Solid Waste, Post‐Closure Landfill Maintenance, Historic Preservation Program Water Management: Intercounty River Improvement, Water & Land Resources, Surface Water Management Local Drainage, Wastewater Treatment, Noxious Weeds, Flood Control District Fleet Administration: Fleet Motor Pool, Fleet Management Equipment, Fleet Wastewater Equipment Repair & Replacement Airport & Ferry Facilities: Airport and Marine Services Transit: Transit and DOT Director Due to rounding, figures may not add to 100%. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM AREA INTRODUCTION The King County Physical Environment departments support services related to building and land use permitting; community and regional parks; various recreational programs; solid waste disposal; surface water management; wastewater treatment; road and bridge maintenance and improvement in the unincorporated area; and transit operations. These services are delivered by three county departments: Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP), Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (DPER), and Department of Transportation (DOT). These departments are supported by dedicated funding sources and provide services that enhance the quality of life and economic vitality of the Puget Sound region. The Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) serves as the steward of the region’s environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions for Seattle Mayoral Candidates – Magnolia Chamber of Commerce
    Questions for Seattle Mayoral Candidates – Magnolia Chamber of Commerce The Magnolia Chamber of Commerce believes that an educated, engaged electorate is one of the key aspects of a thriving community. To assist our members, the local business community, and Magnolia residents better understand our Seattle mayoral candidates, we are asking each candidate to please fill out the questionnaire covering topics important to the Magnolia neighborhood AND/OR be interviewed one-on-one by our executive director, relying on the techniques we have developed for our Chamber Chat series (see Chamber Chat interview with Councilmember Andrew Lewis) Each mayoral candidate will be asked the exact same questions. We will post your video and/or your written answers on our website and make available to our members via a special election newsletter that will go out before the primary election date. About the Magnolia Chamber of Commerce. The Magnolia Chamber represents just over 370 Magnolia businesses and family members. Our mission is to add to the vibrancy of our community by fostering connections between Magnolia’s businesses, residents, and community groups. Our purpose is to promote civic and commercial progress in our business districts and neighborhood. Learn more about the Magnolia Chamber by visiting https://discovermagnolia.org/ For questions and/or to set up a video interview, please contact Jason Thibeaux, Executive Director, Magnolia Chamber of Commerce. Seattle Mayoral Candidate Questions (these questions can be answered either by video with our Executive Director, Jason Thibeaux at 206-618-1589 or [email protected] and/or filled out and sent to the Magnolia Chamber, 3213 West Wheeler Street, #42, Seattle, WA 98199 Good Governance, Effective Leadership 1.
    [Show full text]
  • WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL
    WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL July 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Transit Action Plan .................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction/Problem Statement ................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose of Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Mobility Planning for 2021 and Beyond ................................................................................................... 6 Goals & Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Challenges/Opportunities ......................................................................................................................... 7 Travel Markets .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Data Analytics ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL
    WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL July 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Transit Action Plan .................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction/Problem Statement ................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose of Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Mobility Planning for 2021 and Beyond ................................................................................................... 9 Goals & Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Challenges/Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 10 Travel Markets ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Data Analytics ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • WSTC Letter to the City of Seattle – September 28 2014
    West Seattle Transportation Coalition Letter to the City of Seattle September 28, 2014 Dear Mayor Murray, Council President Burgess and Council Member Rasmussen: The West Seattle Transportation Coalition (WSTC) is a peninsula-wide organization working to address transportation and mobility issues for Seattle’s largest constituency. Representing more than 100,000 people living and working in the 10 square mile area between the Duwamish River and Puget Sound, we are community leaders, advocates, business owners, residents and workers focused on addressing the transportation and commuting challenges of West Seattle. Since our founding in September 2013 the WSTC has met with representatives from Seattle Mayor Ed Murray’s office; with the Chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, Councilmember Tom Rasmussen; representatives from King County Executive Dow Constantine’s office; the Seattle Department of Transportation, both with their policy and administrative staff and with their engineering and planning staff; and the Washington State Department of Transportation, with State Transportation Secretary Lynn Peterson, and their management overseeing the SR-99/Viaduct Replacement Project. We have also engaged in extensive and repeated outreach with the residents of our peninsula at numerous events and functions in addition to our membership organizations; to learn what transportation issues are currently of greatest and most immediate concern to them. Some of these issues, in some form or another, have been looked into by the responsible agencies, but all remain unresolved at this time. On behalf of our membership, the WSTC requests that the City of Seattle take action to move forward and principally drive solutions to each of these five pressing transportation issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Puget Sound Region TRANSPORTATION RECOVERY ANNEX July 2014
    Puget Sound Region TRANSPORTATION RECOVERY ANNEX July 2014 Regional Catastrophic Disaster Coordination Plan Part 1: User Guide Part 2: Annex The above links will take you directly to the User Guide or the Annex. Transportation Recovery Annex User Guide USER GUIDE OVERVIEW & CONTEXT User Guide Purpose Context This User Guide is designed to 1) provide an overview of the After an emergency or disaster, transportation Whatcom San Juan Transportation Recovery Annex and to 2) be a practical mechanism for restoration is a continuous process of Skagit coordinating regional transportation system recovery after a assessment, prioritization, mitigation Island catastrophic incident. The User Guide is not a replacement for the full and repair. Clallam Snohomish Kitsap text of the Toolkit. Jefferson The Transportation Recovery Annex King guides regional transportation coordination Grays Harbor Mason How to Use this Guide in a catastrophic event within the 8-county Pierce Puget Sound Region. “Regional Thurston This document provides an overview and practical guide to using the coordination” means multiple counties or Transportation Recovery Annex (”the Annex”). The full text of the Annex Pacific Lewis Tribal Nations are involved. The Annex is contained in Section C and separately bound Attachments. supports the regional Coordination Plan. Northwest Washington Clicking on a blue link (p. #) will bring you to relevant information within this User Guide and full Toolkit document. The Annex provides a comprehensive framework and guidance for regional transportation system recovery after a catastrophic incident. It provides information and recommended guidelines for regional coordination, collaboration, decision-making, and priority setting among Puget Sound area After clicking on a blue link, hold the Alt key down emergency response and transportation agencies and other partners across the and press the left arrow key to return to the page disaster recovery spectrum.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinance 17143
    KING; COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue tQ Signature Report Seattle, W A 98104 King County July 12, 2011 Ordinance 17143 Proposed No. 2011-0114.2 Sponsors Dun and Philips 1 AN ORDINANCE relating to public transportation; 2 adopting the Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2011- 3 2021 and Metro Transit Service Guidelines; and repealing 4 Ordinance 12060, Section 1, Ordinance 12060, Section 2; 5 Ordinance 12060, Section 3, Ordinance 12060, Section 4; 6 Ordinance 12060, Section 5, Exhibit A to Ordinance 7 12060, Exhibit B to Ordinance 12060, Exhibit C to 8 Ordinance 12060, Exhibit D to Ordinance 12060, 9 Ordinance 14464, Section 1, Ordinance 14464, Section 2, 10 Ordinance 14464, Section 3, Ordinance 14464, Section 4, 11 Ordinance 14464, Section 5, Ordinance 14464, Section 6, 12 Attachment A to Ordinance 14464, Attachment B to 13 Ordinance 14664, Attachment C to Ordinance 14464, 14 Attachment D to Ordinance 14464, Ordinance 15047, 15 Section 1, Ordinance 15047, Section 2, Attachment A to 16 Ordii~.ance 15047, Attachment B to Ordinance 15047, 17 Attachment C to Ordinance 15047, Attachment D to 18 Ordinance 15047, Ordinance 15962, Section 1, Ordinance 19 15962, Section 2, Attachment A to Ordinance 15962, 1 Ordinance 17143 20 Ordinance 15963, Section 1, Ordinance 15963, Section 2, 21 Attachment A to Ordinance 15963, Ordinance 16708, 22 Section 1, Ordinance 16708, Section 2, Ordinance 16708, 23 Section 3, Attachment A to Ordinance 16708 and 24 Attachment B to Ordinance 16708. 25 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KIG COUNTY: 26 SECTION 1. Findings: 27 A. A Comprehensive Plan for Public Transportation ("Comprehensive Plan") was 28 adopted by Resolution 6641 on October 21, 1993, by the council of the former 29 municipality of metropolitan Seattle and ratified by the King County council by adoption 30 of Ordinance 11032, Section 28.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of BELLEVUE CITY COUNCIL Summary Minutes of Extended
    CITY OF BELLEVUE CITY COUNCIL Summary Minutes of Extended Study Session February 26, 2007 Council Conference Room 6:00 p.m. Bellevue, Washington PRESENT: Mayor Degginger, Deputy Mayor Chelminiak, and Councilmembers Balducci, Davidson, Lee, Marshall, and Noble ABSENT: None. 1. Executive Session Deputy Mayor Chelminiak called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. and announced recess to Executive Session for approximately 30-40 minutes to discuss one matter of potential litigation and one matter of pending litigation. The meeting resumed at 6:23 p.m. with Mayor Degginger presiding. 2. Oral Communications (a) Ron Sher, Managing Partner of Crossroads Shopping Center, spoke in favor of allowing multifamily uses in combination with retail in the redevelopment of the center. (b) Bart Nelson supports mixed use in Crossroads District. However, he feels there should be a restriction of 45 feet on building heights on the shopping center site. (c) Rick Kirkham noted that he participated in the workshops associated with discussing a plan for Crossroads Shopping Center. He endorses the addition of multifamily housing and supports the overall plan. He commented on the potential benefit of providing housing for the elderly and disabled on the shopping center grounds. (d) Renay Bennett thanked Council for the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) project just completed in the Bellecrest/Surrey Downs neighborhood. Residents are very happy with it. She commended the work of Don McQuilliams, Forest Enhancement Project Manager, and Ron Matthew, Neighborhood Enhancement Coordinator. (e) Stacie LeBlanc, a Surrey Downs resident, spoke regarding the storm response and neighborhood’s actions. She expressed concern about power outages following the major February 26, 2007 Extended Study Session Page 2 windstorm this winter.
    [Show full text]
  • Cascadia Deep Earthquakes 2008
    Cascadia Deep Earthquakes 2008 Also published as Open File Report 2008-1 by the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Executive Summary Deep earthquakes eep earthquakes pose a serious risk to Cas- for months after an earthquake. cadia. In Puget Sound, for example, there Recent earthquakes is an 84% chance of a magnitude 6.5 or greater deep earthquake striking within 50 Recent deep earthquakes in the Puget Sound area Dyears. Beneath northwestern California, northwestern show similar general patterns of damage, though Oregon and southwestern British Columbia the prob- the details of each was different, depending on the ability of a similar sized earthquake over 50 years is size of the event, the epicenter, and the affected built somewhat lower, but still a major component of the environment. earthquake hazard in each area. Deep earthquakes have also occurred under Pender The most recent deep event was a M6.8 earthquake on Island, British Columbia; Corvallis, Oregon; and February 28, 2001, centered under the Nisqually delta. northwestern California. Building walls crumbled, bridge supports cracked, and Potential future earthquakes the cost ultimately tallied at $4 billion. The number of Four enclosed maps show potential peak ground accel- injuries exceeded 400, but resulted in only one death. erations (pga) for deep earthquakes centered beneath The Nisqually earthquake was ‘deep’, because the fault several Cascadia locations. PGA is one measure of slipped almost 30 miles (50 kilometers) underground. shaking, which can help forecast areas of damage. Deep earthquakes are particularly important because Local soil conditions and building vulnerability also of their frequency. Preparing for a deep earthquake influence the amount of damage.
    [Show full text]
  • D Line Integration and Associated Transit Network Changes
    Suggested route changes for fall 2012 C Line – New Map of suggested change Suggested change The new RapidRide C Line would connect Westwood Village and downtown Seattle via Fauntleroy, Morgan Junction, and Alaska Junction, replacing Route 54 and Route 54 Express (current map). Learn more about the C Line. Reason for change Service investment. Metro is making a service investment in the C Line, its third RapidRide line. New service hours and facilities are expected to speed service and make it more reliable, attracting higher ridership. More network connections. The C Line would provide a frequent, direct, all-day connection between Westwood Village and downtown Seattle via Fauntleroy, Morgan Junction, and Alaska Junction. It would offer connection opportunities to many frequent routes. Simplify service. RapidRide service has features that make it easier to use, including real-time information signs and frequent service throughout the day. Alternative service The C Line would use the same routing as routes 54 through Fauntleroy, Morgan Junction, and Alaska Junction. Service frequency Route Minutes between buses Weekday Saturday Sunday Peak Non-Peak Night C 10 15 30-60 15 15 www.kingcounty.gov/metro/HaveASay 1 King County Metro Transit | Suggested route changes for fall 2012 D Line – New Map of suggested change Suggested change The New RapidRide D Line would connect Crown Hill and downtown Seattle via Ballard, Interbay, and Uptown (learn more). The D Line would replace Route 15 (both local and express) (current map). Reason for change Service investment. Metro is making a service investment in the D Line, its fourth RapidRide line.
    [Show full text]