450 110th Avenue NE City of Bellevue Bellevue, WA 98004
Meeting Agenda City Council Regular Session
Monday, November 21, 2016 8:00 PM Council Chambers (1E-126)
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call, Flag Salute
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Communications - Written and Oral Note: The time allowed shall not exceed 30 minutes, and speakers will be called in order from the sign-up sheet. If the number of speakers signed up to speak will exceed the 30-minute period, the Chair is authorized to give preference to (1) persons speaking to items on that meeting's Agenda or anticipated to come on the Agenda within one month and/or (2) to persons who have not spoken to Council in the last quarter. A maximum of three persons are permitted to speak to each side of any one topic.
5. Reports of Community Council, Boards and Commissions
a) Preliminary 2017-2023 Parks Capital Investment Program
6. Report of the City Manager
7. Council Business and New Initiatives
8. Consent Calendar
a) Council Minutes Minutes of November 7, 2016 Study Session Minutes of November 7, 2016 Regular Session
b) Updated Council Eastside Rail Corridor Interest Statement
c) Ordinance amending Chapter 23.76 of the Bellevue City Code, specifically amending sections 23.76.010, 23.76.025, 23.76.030, 23.76.035, 23.76.040, 23.76.042, 23.46.045, 23.76.050, 23.76.060, 23.76.070, 23.76.080, 23.76.085, 23.76.086, 23.76.090, 23.76.093, 23.76.095, 23.76.100, 23.76.110, 23.76.140, 23.76.160, 23.76.170; 23.76.175; 23.76.180; 23.76.185; 23.76.190; providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
1
City of Bellevue Page 1 Printed on 9/26/2018 City Council Regular Session Meeting Agenda November 21, 2016
d) Ordinance amending the City of Bellevue Transportation Development Code, Chapter 14.60, to incorporate Low Impact Development Principles by amending Sections 14.60.110 (Street frontage improvements); 14.60.120 (Landscaping in right-of-way, easements and access tracts); and 14.60.170 (Street ends); providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
e) Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Canber Corporation, d/b/a Canber Corps, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $1,027,164.52 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
f) Ordinance related to a residential parking zone; repealing Ordinance No. 5282; establishing Residential Parking Zone 17; and delegating authority to the City Manager or designee to establish time-limited parking or time of day restrictions for vehicles without a Zone 17 permit on an as-needed basis on various streets in the Enatai Neighborhood.
g) Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $248,186.52 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
h) Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Plantscapes Horticultural Services for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $238,195.68 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
i) Resolution authorizing execution of the professional services agreement with Transpo Group to update the 2004 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Master Plan, in an amount not to exceed $160,000.
j) Motion to award Bid No. 16101 for Meydenbauer Bay Park Sewer Line Replacement to IMCO General Construction, as the lowest responsible and responsive, bidder in the amount of $2,618,604.90 (CIP Plan No. S-69).
2
City of Bellevue Page 2 Printed on 9/26/2018 City Council Regular Session Meeting Agenda November 21, 2016
k) Resolution authorizing annual benchmarking and reporting of energy use in select municipal facilities.
l) Resolution authorizing execution of Amendment No. 1 to water and sewer utility assumption agreement between the Cities of Bellevue and Issaquah.
m) Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $259,874.60 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
n) Ordinance amending Chapter 24.06 of the Bellevue City Code, specifically amending sections 24.06.040, 24.06.045, 24.06.060, 24.06.065, 24.06.080, 24.06.125; providing for severability, and establishing an effective date.
o) Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Monarch Landscaping, d/b/a Signature Landscape Services LLC, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $148,171.44 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
p) Motion to approve payment of claims and payroll for the period October 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016.
q) Ordinance amending Chapter 3.60 of the Bellevue City Code to provide additional time for the newly established Salary Commission to conclude work and file a salary and compensation schedule with the City Clerk in 2016.
9. Public Hearing
a) Final Public Hearing on the 2017-2018 Budget/2017-2023 Capital Investment Program Plan 1. Staff Report. 2. Motion to open public hearing. (*Note: Three-minute limit per person or recognized community organization.) 3. Receive public testimony. 4. Motion to close public hearing. 5. Council discussion and action.
3
City of Bellevue Page 3 Printed on 9/26/2018 City Council Regular Session Meeting Agenda November 21, 2016
10. Land Use
11. Other Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions
a) Ordinance amending the City of Bellevue Land Use Code to incorporate Low Impact Development Principles by amending Chapters 20.20 (General Development Requirements); 20.25 (Special and Overlay Districts); 20.50 (Definitions); and Part 20.30D (Planned Unit Development); providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
12. Unfinished Business
13. Continued Oral Communications
14. New Business
15. Executive Session
16. Adjournment
City Council meetings are wheelchair accessible. American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation is available upon request. Please phone 452-7810 by noon Wednesday preceding the Monday night meeting. Assisted Listening Devices are also available upon request. This room is equipped with a hearing loop system.
4
City of Bellevue Page 4 Printed on 9/26/2018 City of Bellevue
Parks & Community MEMORANDUM Services Department
Date: November 8, 2016
To: Mayor Stokes and City Councilmembers
From: Bellevue Parks & Community Services Board
Subject: Preliminary 2017-2023 Parks Capital Investment Program
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the preliminary Parks 2017-2023 Capital Investment Program (CIP) Plan. We hope that these comments will be helpful to you as Council prioritizes the City’s capital investment needs for the next seven years.
The Parks & Community Services Board reviewed the budget process and provided direction on Parks CIP proposals at our meetings in March and April. Board direction and priorities included: • Continue the commitment to the voters from the 2008 levy, utilizing levy funds and the remaining City matching dollars to focus on Downtown Park, Surrey Downs, Property Acquisition, and Airfield Park design; • Initiate the first phase of park development at Meydenbauer Bay; • Maintain existing capital infrastructure, including both the Parks Renovation and Enterprise Facility improvement programs; • Continue to invest in the ongoing planning of Bellevue’s park and open space system, including funding for the Ashwood Master Plan.
While the above list can be accomplished with the additional Parks Levy and Real Estate Excise Tax revenue available in the updated plan, we do not believe that current Parks CIP funding sources are adequate to meet the needs of a growing and changing community. The Parks Levy program was not intended to represent all the capital needs of the community for a 20-year period (through 2028). The board identified four additional budget proposals in response to community requests and to fill gaps that exist in the current system that should not wait until the next levy program. The four new projects are described below: Tyler Park Development ($1.5M). Design and construct a neighborhood park in Newport Hills on the Tyler/Patterson properties first acquired by the City in 2010. Bridle Trails/140th Street Park Development ($1.75M). Design and construct a neighborhood park on the Ginzburg property acquired by the City in 2014. Lake Sammamish Park Master Plan & Design ($0.75M). Develop a Master Plan and design for the future development of a neighborhood park on Lake Sammamish, an identified 2008 Parks Levy project. Ashwood Park Design & Permitting ($0.5M). Design and permit the first phase of Ashwood Park construction upon completion of the site master plan.
At the November Park Board meeting, we reviewed the status of Parks capital budget proposals 5 as included in the 2017-2023 Preliminary CIP (attached).
Overall, we are encouraged that the proposed 2017-2023 plan continues to make progress on the 2008 Parks Levy package that was overwhelmingly approved by Bellevue voters. In addition, the plan funds two major Council priorities to construct Meydenbauer Bay Phase I and the Downtown Park Circle/Gateway by the end of 2018 (Council Priority #9). Lastly, we believe it is vitally important to maintain existing infrastructure as proposed in the Renovation Plan, which helps provide major maintenance for Bellevue parks consistent with the expectations of our citizens.
Of the four Park Board projects that remain unfunded in the current plan, we want to specifically request funding for the proposed neighborhood parks in Newport Hills and Bridle Trails. We believe that additional neighborhood investment is an ongoing need, and is aligned with the budget outcome of Quality Neighborhoods and Council’s priority for a high-quality built and natural environment. Both of these areas were specifically identified for additional neighborhood park development in the adopted 2010 and 2016 Bellevue Parks & Open Space System Plans, and both neighborhoods have existing undeveloped park property suitable for development. In the community survey that accompanied the plan, Bellevue residents included neighborhood parks in the top tier of park facilities that should be prioritized for additional development, and this statistical data has been corroborated by supportive citizen comments from both neighborhoods.
We understand that the Bellevue community has multiple needs and that there is never sufficient funding to accomplish everything you would like to during the budget process. We also understand that City Council has a priority to develop a long range financial strategy to explore options to address the future operating and capital needs of the City (Council Priority #24). While the list of capital needs facing the City is undoubtedly large, we encourage Council to dream big and develop a balanced and sustainable approach for advancing the City’s long-term vision. In addition to completing the levy commitments and funding the larger Meydenbauer Bay Master Plan, additional funds will be needed to create parks in the Bel-Red area, provide additional green space in downtown Bellevue, the Grand Connection, and to create additional opportunities for the aquatics community.
As a city that prides itself as a “City in a Park,” we acknowledge that parks contribute to the quality of life in Bellevue, creating a special place that families and business seek to locate and flourish. Research consistently shows that urban parks and recreation systems have positive economic impacts beyond a place to recreate and socialize with friends and family. Research shows that high quality, well-maintained parks contribute positively to the overall economic development of the City, including raising property tax values, attracting tourists, and protecting water and air quality.
Once again, we appreciate the ability to provide comments on the 2017-2023 Parks CIP Plan, and look forward to continued discussions as the budget process moves forward. Feel free to contact any of the Parks & Community Services Board members if you have questions or comments about the content of this message.
Attachment Parks CIP Proposals in 2017-2023 Preliminary CIP Budget 6 Attachment 2017-2023 Preliminary CIP Budget
Parks Proposals (Quality Neighborhoods/Innovative, Vibrant & Caring Community)
Funded as 2017-2023 Parks CIP Proposal Requested: Preliminary CIP
Parks Levy Projects: Downtown Park "Complete the Circle" Yes 0 * Downtown Park "Inspiration Playground" Yes 0 * Downtown Park "Gateway/NE Entry" Yes 3,000 Surrey Downs Park Development Yes 7,188 Bellevue Airfield Park Design Yes 95 Parks & Open Space Acquisition Yes 7,175
Meydenbauer Bay Phase I Development Yes 9,522
Parks Renovation & Refurbishment Plan Yes 38,069
Park Planning and Design Yes 2,200
Dedicated Funding: King County Parks Levy Yes 1,242 Enterprise Facility Improvements Yes 2,250 Mercer Slough Eastlink Mitigation Yes 2,140
Park Board Recommended Projects: Tyler Park Development ($1.5M) TBD Council Contingency Bridle Trails/140th Street Park ($1.75M) TBD Council Contingency Lake Sammamish Master Plan/Design ($0.75M) TBD Council Contingency Ashwood Park Design/Permitting ($0.5M) TBD Council Contingency
Subtotal, Preliminary 2017-23 CIP 72,881
*Can be completed with funding authorized thru 2016
7
CITY OF BELLEVUE CITY COUNCIL
Summary Minutes of Study Session
November 7, 2016 Council Conference Room 6:00 p.m. Bellevue, Washington
PRESENT: Mayor Stokes, Deputy Mayor Chelminiak, and Councilmembers Robertson, Slatter, and Wallace
ABSENT: Councilmembers Lee and Robinson
1. Executive Session
The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m., with Mayor Stokes presiding. There was no Executive Session.
2. Study Session
(a) Human Services Commission's recommended use of 2017-2018 Human Services Fund and 2017 federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
City Manager Brad Miyake introduced staff’s presentation on the Human Services Commission's recommended use of 2017-2018 Human Services Fund and 2017 federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. Mr. Miyake said adoption of the recommendations is scheduled to occur with the Council’s adoption of the City’s overall budget.
Parks and Community Services Director Patrick Foran noted that six of the seven Human Services Commissioners were present in the audience: Chair Jim McEachran, Vice Chair Carla Villar, Judith Mercer, John Bruels, Ann Oxreider, and Michelle Kline. He thanked them for coming.
Mr. Foran said the two revenue sources are part of the Budget One process and are included in the proposed budget under the Outcome of Quality Neighborhoods/Innovative, Vibrant and Caring Community.
Dee Dee Catalano, Grant Coordinator, provided an overview of Community Development Block Grant funding and program income history since 2012. The CDBG program requires that 8
2 November 7, 2016 Study Session projects are located in Bellevue, funds are spent in a timely manner, and that no more than 1.5 times the annual entitled amount is in the HUD account at the end of the year. Ms. Catalano said ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing) did not apply for CDBG funding in 2017 because the partnership did not have an appropriate project in Bellevue.
Ms. Catalano said the Human Services Fund received 97 applications from 59 nonprofit agencies, with requests totaling $4.4 million. The available 2017 budget is $3.4 million. Ms. Catalano said the Commission considered four issues in determining funding: 1) affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, 2) support for the increasing population of older adults and disabled individuals, 3) expanded culturally appropriate services as the community becomes increasingly diverse, and 4) improved transportation to access human services and employment opportunities.
Emily Leslie, Human Services Manager, said the total recommended funding for 2017 is $4,354,572 ($3,431,425 for the Human Services Fund and $923,147 in CDBG funds). She said details on the Human Services Fund recommendations are provided in Attachment A of the meeting packet, and CDBG details are provided in Attachment B. The CDBG recommendations are divided into three areas: 1) public service projects, 2) planning activities and grant administration, and 3) capital projects and programs. Ms. Leslie said Attachment C outlines a contingency plan because the final amount of funding is unknown.
Ms. Leslie reminded the Council that the Commission used the 2015-2016 Human Services Needs Update as its guide. Each of the 97 applications were reviewed several times, according to criteria previously established by the Council. The Commission completed is funding recommendations on October 4.
Human Services Commission Chair Jim McEachran commended staff for their professionalism and dedication in steering the Commission through the process. He said the recommendations are consistent with the needs summarized in the Comprehensive Plan under five goals: 1) food to eat and a roof overhead, 2) supportive relationships within families, neighborhoods and communities, 3) a safe haven from violence and abuse, 4) health care, and 5) education and job skills to lead an independent life.
Mr. McEachran said the Commission used the following focus areas in its review of 2017-2018 funding requests: 1) housing with services, 2) support for employment and skills, 3) services allowing older adults and people with disabilities to remain independent, and 4) a continuum of services for children, youth and families to help them succeed in school and life.
Mr. McEachran said most currently funded programs that are meeting their contract goals and providing critical services were recommended for continued funding. The Commission recommends award levels above the rate of inflation for 12 ongoing programs in the categories of housing with services, early learning programs, services for senior adults to remain in their homes, domestic violence programs, emergency food, and other basic needs. The additional $150,000 included in the budget for homelessness services allowed several emergency shelters, day centers and outreach services to be fully funded. 9
3 November 7, 2016 Study Session
Mr. McEachran said 28 new funding requests were received. The Commission recommends funding for six of those programs, which were selected because they address one of the focus areas or were identified as needs in the 2015-2016 Needs Update. The six programs are Catholic Community Services’ Eastside winter shelter for families, Catholic Community Services’ New Bethlehem day center for families, Friends of Youth, Homeless Youth Outreach, LifeWire’s housing stability program, and AtWork Community Access. Mr. McEachran said the Commission prepared a contingency plan outlining recommendations for adding or deleting grant funds based on the final available funding.
Deputy Mayor Chelminiak thanked the Human Services Commission for its significant work in reviewing the applications and developing its funding recommendations. He concurred with the recommendation for increased funding to address homelessness, and noted that other Eastside cities are increasing funding for homelessness and affordable housing priorities as well.
Councilmember Wallace said he appreciated the Commission’s hard work and thorough review in developing its recommendations. He noted the contribution of $150,000 annually to Congregations for the Homeless, which operates a facility for up to 100 men as a low-barrier shelter. He questioned whether that is for the proposed Eastgate facility. Ms. Leslie said the funding is for the existing program and facility, which will move to Lincoln Center soon. Mr. Wallace expressed support for the overall funding recommendations.
Councilmember Slatter thanked the Commission for its hard work and the data they use to establish their recommendations. She observed that the Human Services Needs survey is important in documenting the changing demographics and needs of the community. She thanked the Commission for adding newly funded programs.
Ms. Slatter reflected on a comment she has heard from the public about how to balance diversity while also addressing the community’s overarching needs. As Bellevue becomes increasingly diverse, she questioned how the Commission sees itself moving forward as the community’s demographics continue to evolve.
Mr. Foran said that all Boards and Commissions are asked to integrate concepts in the Diversity Advantage plan into their work. He noted efforts to increase the diversity of individuals serving on Boards and Commissions. He said the concept of equity acknowledges that individuals do not start at the same place and/or have the same advantages. Mr. Foran said the City’s cultural competency training is available to Board and Commission members.
Mr. McEachran said the Commission looks at each funding application to determine whether there is cultural sensitivity and how it might be addressed. He said the City works with new populations through group panels, which begins the conversation to learn about community needs and to focus attention on creating sustainability for everyone.
Councilmember Slatter said Mr. McEachran mentioned earlier that the Commission is interested in whether groups have diverse funding sources. Ms. Leslie said the City looks at funding from 10
4 November 7, 2016 Study Session both public and private sources, including whether an organization conducts its own fundraising efforts. She said that Bellevue’s funding contributions are typically 6-10 percent of the programs’ budgets.
Ms. Slatter observed that regional collaboration is important. She said it would be helpful for staff to provide feedback on the Council’s ongoing work with regional agencies and jurisdictions. Mr. McEachran said that Eastside cities have held joint Human Services Commissions/Boards meetings to enhance regional coordination, and Bellevue has been a leader in helping other cities establish their Human Services Commissions/Boards.
Mr. Foran said the Eastside Human Services Forum is an ongoing collaboration of elected officials as well.
Mayor Stokes said that combining parks, human services, and community services within one department is a positive way to focus on balancing the issues and needs that affect the community. He thanked the Human Services Commission for their work over the years to guide the Council in its funding priorities. He said the Highland Village situation provided the opportunity for the City and others to make some hard decisions to focus on affordable housing.
Mr. Stokes said he and Judith Mercer worked together in 2008 on the Parks Levy, and he worked with Ann Oxreider when he was involved with the Bellevue School District. He thanked everyone for their good work.
(b) Preliminary 2017-2018 Operating Budget and the 2017-2023 Capital Investment Program (CIP) Plan.
City Manager Miyake introduced discussion of the Preliminary 2017-2018 Operating Budget and the 2017-2023 Capital Investment Program (CIP) Plan. He noted that staff is available for individual Councilmember briefings in preparation for the adoption of the budget.
Toni Call, Interim Finance Director, highlighted the calendar for the remaining budget process. Study Session discussions are scheduled for November 14, 21, and 28 in anticipation of budget adoption on December 5. The third budget public hearing is scheduled for November 21.
Ms. Call said the 2017-2018 Budget totals $1.513 billion, including $413 million in the Capital Investment Program (CIP) Plan. She said the potential impact of the pending TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) loan and the City’s two ballot measures is not reflected in the budget. Staff will return to the Council next year to make the appropriate adjustments, if necessary.
David Baldwin, Budget Division Manager, said the Operating and Special Purpose Fund Budget totals $1.1 billion, with $65 million of that in the latter. The operating portion includes Police, Fire, Parks, Planning and Community Development, Transportation, Development Services, and Utilities, as well as administrative functions such as the City Council, City Manager’s Office, Information Technology, City Clerk’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, Finance, Service First, 11
5 November 7, 2016 Study Session
Fleet Services, and Facilities. Special purpose funds are restricted in their use to a specific purpose, including the Grants Fund and the Firemen’s Pension Fund.
Mr. Baldwin described a table depicting the operating areas and how they fall within the six budget Outcome areas. More information on the Outcomes is provided in Attachment E of the meeting packet and in the Preliminary Budget documents. That information provides value statements based on community input, strategic target areas from the Council Vision, and City programs and services focused on meeting the identified needs. The departmental results teams developed and ranked budget proposals for each Outcome area.
Mr. Baldwin said the total operating budget reflected on the table noted above is $788,200,000, which differs from the previously stated budget of $1 billion because the City eliminated double budgeting and the table does not include reserves.
Mr. Baldwin commented on the three major themes of the operating budget: 1) funds Council priorities, 2) maintains operations with modest growth, and 3) funds reserves to manage risk.
Responding to Councilmember Wallace, Ms. Call said health insurance expenses are contained within each functional area.
Mr. Wallace requested clarification regarding the objective of tonight’s budget discussion. Mayor Stokes said the intent is to provide an overview and to address the budget in greater detail in future Study Sessions. In further response, City Manager Miyake said staff will present the Utilities budget and Development Services budget on November 14. The following discussions are dedicated to following up on the Council’s questions and feedback.
Deputy Mayor Chelminiak said certain Councilmembers have submitted specific budget requests. He suggested placing those items on the record tonight and noted that he has a question about the Utilities budget before the following week’s discussion.
Mayor Stokes said the plan for tonight’s agenda item was to complete the presentation before Council discussion.
Continuing, Mr. Baldwin said the budget links to Council priorities including economic development, Smart City initiatives, the winter shelter, and Eastside Pathways. The Operating and Special Purpose Funds budget increases by three percent annually. Personnel costs increase 3.3 percent and maintenance and operations (M&O) costs increase by 2.5 percent, over the two- year budget. The City will continue to build reserves in 2017 and 2018 to assist in addressing potential near-term risks.
Ms. Call provided an overview of the 2017-2023 General Capital Investment Program (CIP) Plan, which totals $485 million over seven years. It advances Council priorities, meets debt obligations, and responds to needs related to transportation and mobility, Parks levy commitments, and neighborhood investments. Projects include Meydenbauer Bay Park Phase 1
12
6 November 7, 2016 Study Session development, Smart City items, Downtown Livability, Grand Connection, Eastside Rail Corridor, and hearing accessibility for public spaces.
Ms. Call recalled that the Council asked staff to develop a concept for a multicultural center. New CIP projects include light rail station area planning implementation, Downtown Livability items, Civic Center planning, Grand Connection implementation, 124th Avenue NE at SR 520, BelRed corridor local street network, and West Lake Sammamish Parkway Phase 3.
Ms. Call described the CIP by budget Outcome areas: 1) Debt service, 35%; 2) Improved Mobility and Connectivity, 35%; 3) Quality Neighborhoods/Innovative, Vibrant and Caring Community, 18%; 4) Economic Growth and Competitiveness, 3%; 5) Responsive Government, 2%, and 6) Safe Community, 7%.
Ms. Call said known items for further discussion and Council direction include the multicultural center feasibility study, Eastside Pathways, parental leave analysis, Larsen Lake restrooms, and two community requests (Pacific Northwest Ballet and Housing Development Consortium). The criteria for addressing community requests are: 1) sustainable long-term financial model, 2) clearly defined public benefits, 3) City involvement in financial oversight, 4) investment in a facility or in the operation of a facility, and 5) cannot be used for fundraising. Staff proposes the following additional criteria: 1) how well the request responds to Council priorities, 2) how well the request responds to Council direction, and 3) project feasibility and readiness for investment.
Deputy Mayor Chelminiak questioned the public benefit of the multicultural center and Eastside Pathways investments. With regard to the multicultural center, he said it is important to conduct a broad audit of existing or planned facilities (e.g., Bellevue Youth Theatre, Tateuchi Center) and to determine where gaps exist in meeting the intended objectives of the multicultural center. He observed that the Pacific Northwest Ballet request falls into this area. Mr. Chelminiak said he wants to be sure that the goals and public benefit for investment options are clearly understood.
Mr. Chelminiak questioned the policy decision made six years ago to close park restrooms, including those at Larsen Lake, due to budget constraints. He would like Parks staff to develop a reasonable recommendation regarding suggested operating hours and estimated costs. He said the economy is improving, and he would like to be able to keep all restrooms in parks open.
Mr. Chelminiak referenced utilities rates and expressed interest in the potential impact of the City’s ongoing relationship with King County beyond 2023 for solid waste services. He suggested that a second transfer station will be needed in Bellevue. He estimated that a City- operated, second transfer station would cost $50 million to $60 million.
Mr. Chelminiak noted the difficulty in siting transfer stations. He suggested it would be helpful to begin discussing potential budget impacts.
Responding to Councilmember Wallace, Deputy Mayor Chelminiak clarified that he was not suggesting setting aside funds in the 2017-2018 budget. Mr. Chelminiak said the City has already expressed an interest in operating its own solid waste program. He does not see anything in the 13
7 November 7, 2016 Study Session
CIP budget to address siting a location, acquiring property, and other related activities. Mr. Chelminiak said the Council should understand the commitment for future Councils should the City proceed with its own program and facility. He suggested it would be helpful to have Utilities Department and Intergovernmental Relations staff begin developing potential costs.
Responding to Mayor Stokes, Mr. Chelminiak said his understanding is that the City will be out of the King County system by 2028. Mr. Stokes opined that a final decision has not been made. Councilmember Wallace recalled that the Council determined it would not make sense to enter into the extended contract term proposed by the County, and that options would be further analyzed. He said there has been little study in the development of options.
Councilmember Robertson recalled that the Council decided it was not ready to agree to a contract extension so far in advance, especially with a relatively one-sided agreement potentially favoring King County. Ms. Robertson said there was also discussion about not committing too far into the future because technology and options for handling solid waste are changing. She agreed it would be appropriate to add money to the budget for a study of options. She believes there are opportunities beyond the two options of staying with the County or building a City- operated facility. There are cities that contract with vendors who transfer the solid waste to other locations. Ms. Robertson said it would be helpful to hear from staff about the right timing for initiating a study.
Joyce Nichols, Intergovernmental Relations Director, said the City gave notice to the County that it would leave the system when the current contract expires in 2028. Other cities signed a contract with a term extending to 2040. The Council decided against signing the longer contract because a near-term decision is pending regarding how long the Cedar Hills landfill will continue to operate. The County’s services are most likely less expensive as long as the landfill remains open. The City was reluctant to commit to an unknown future decision by the County after the landfill closes, especially given the prospect of new technologies and options. Ms. Nichols said the Utilities Department conducted an early analysis of potential options beyond 2028.
Utilities Director Nav Otal said the options identified to date are feasible and relatively equivalent in costs. The timing for a formal study would be within the next two to three years, as suggested by Deputy Mayor Chelminiak. Ms. Otal said a final option should be identified within the next two to three years.
Responding to Councilmember Robertson, Ms. Otal said a more in-depth analysis will be necessary, especially if the Council’s preference is a City-operated transfer station.
Councilmember Robertson asked staff to provide a proposal describing the appropriate timing and estimated cost of further study. Ms. Otal suggested that $150,000 in the 2017-2018 budget would be adequate for further study.
Deputy Mayor Chelminiak said the choices involve taking the solid waste to a nearby private facility or to a private facility in Seattle.
14
8 November 7, 2016 Study Session
Ms. Otal offered to respond with more information and to add the necessary funding to the budget. Ms. Nichols suggested it would be helpful for the Council, as it considers whether to proceed with further study, to learn about changes within King County’s Solid Waste Division since the Council’s last discussion approximately two to three years ago.
Mayor Stokes concurred with Ms. Nichols’ suggestion to review the County’s most current plan.
Councilmember Slatter said affordable housing is a Council priority, and the Council looks forward to receiving input from the Technical Advisory Group (TAG). She questioned where affordable housing is included in the budget.
Ms. Call said she anticipates that the CIP Plan will be the appropriate place for affordable housing funding. Responding to Ms. Slatter, Ms. Call said there is a longstanding Council contingency project in the CIP Plan of approximately $7 million, which could be directed toward affordable housing items. In further response, Ms. Call said the Council could also use ending fund balance dollars in the operating budget reserves. Ms. Slatter said she would like to discuss that further next year when the TAG presents its findings to the Council.
Ms. Slatter said she is interested in looking at economic trends. She would like to understand the City’s targets and measures for determining program effectiveness for a number of the budget items (e.g., Eastside Pathways).
Councilmember Slatter expressed support for a needs assessment related to diversity issues. She suggested linking that work to the study of a multicultural center.
Ms. Slatter observed that auto sales in Bellevue are decreasing, which is one measure of the health of the local economy. She questioned whether permitting activity is an indicator as well related to fluctuations in the economy. She questioned how Bellevue’s B&O tax compares to other cities.
With regard to development services, Ms. Slatter said citizens are concerned about the time required for permit review. She is interested in dashboards and tracking mechanisms, and would like to understand how trends are monitored over time.
Responding to Councilmember Robertson, Ms. Call said staff will provide more information on Miscellaneous Non-Departmental (MND) dollars.
Responding to Ms. Robertson, Ms. Call said the Finance Department budget includes debt service payments and a number of other items. The department has 49 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions. Ms. Call will provide additional information.
Councilmember Robertson said the City has received inquiries about the closure of park restrooms at Larsen Lake and other locations. She requested information on which parks are affected and on the Parks and Community Services Department’s plans for restoring restroom operations. 15
9 November 7, 2016 Study Session
Ms. Robertson recalled that she previously requested a comparison with other cities of rates for individual utilities, in addition to the information already presented comparing the combined costs. She is interested in more information on stormwater services.
Ms. Robertson said she previously suggested a study of parental leave, and she understands that a study of overall employee compensation is underway. She asked staff to provide the timing of that study and the presentation of the information to the Council. Ms. Robertson said she would like to consider the results of that work during next year’s mid-biennium budget review. Councilmember Slatter concurred.
Responding to Ms. Call, Ms. Robertson clarified her request regarding utility rates, which is an interest in the drivers of each utility’s rates. For example, water rates are largely determined by the fact that Bellevue does not have its own water source. Ms. Robertson said Bellevue’s stormwater utility rates are the lowest in the region, and it would be helpful to understand the contributing factors in Bellevue’s rates versus other cities. Mayor Stokes said that information is likely available through the Cascade Water Alliance.
Councilmember Slatter said that, based on what she has learned as Council liaison to the Environmental Services Commission, one factor contributing to the different rates can be the relative emphasis on infrastructure investments.
Councilmember Wallace suggested that, with regard to the future review of the operating budget, the Council and staff examine certain areas that could be tightened up, including the future sustainability of the operating budget and the B&O tax. He would like to dedicate time in 2017 to discussing the long-term operating and capital budgets and the broader underlying assumptions.
Mayor Stokes concurred with Mr. Wallace and suggested starting those discussions early in next year’s mid-biennium budget process.
Mr. Wallace said the Council needs to discuss animal control services next year. His understanding is that the City of Kirkland is considering discontinuing its agreement with King County for those services. He said it might be more cost-effective at that point to consider partnering with Kirkland or providing Bellevue’s own services.
Mr. Wallace said the City’s health care costs are significant. He said it is important to continue to evaluate those costs and how they might be reduced.
Councilmember Wallace requested information on how the impacts of funding LEOFF 1 reserves and losing the annexation tax credit are reflected in the budget. Mr. Wallace requested information on the Council Advancement item of $1 million.
Mr. Wallace summarized his interest in the topics of the operating budget ending fund balance, MND budgeting, and Council contingency items, as well as CIP Plan short-term borrowing. 16
10 November 7, 2016 Study Session
Mr. Wallace said the CIP Plan includes short-term borrowing of $17 million in 2017. A note on the plan documents indicates that historically the City spends 65-80 percent of the annual budget, and therefore additional borrowing is not anticipated. However, he observed that surplus funds for line items are carried over and ultimately expended. Ms. Call said the $17 million is modeled to be included in the CIP Plan. She said CIP Plans are typically substantially front-loaded, and unspent funds continue to roll forward. She said that, since the City has never spent more than 85 percent of its CIP Plan funding, short-term borrowing is not likely to be needed in the foreseeable future. Ms. Call said staff is obligated to present a seven-year modeled CIP Plan, even if short-term borrowing is not anticipated.
Referring to the operating budget, Mr. Wallace requested information depicting spending for each line item in the 2015-2016 budget compared to the 2017-2018 budget. Ms. Call said staff would work on developing that comparison. Mr. Wallace said it would be helpful to be able to easily identify spending increases and decreases for particular line items. For example, it would be helpful to see how health care costs have increased over time.
With regard to the CIP Plan, Deputy Mayor Chelminiak questioned the work included in the Fire Facilities Master Plan budget item. Ms. Call said the item includes Station 10 downtown land acquisition and rebuilding Station 5 on Clyde Hill. The latter is slated for 2020-2021. Station 10 construction is not in the CIP Plan. However, it will be funded if the ballot measure is approved by voters.
Mr. Chelminiak noted the issue of Station 10 staffing and equipment. He recalled past Council discussion regarding the potential use of the property tax to fund Station 10 equipment. He questioned when that topic will be addressed again with the Council. He observed it will be important to incorporate that into a future financial forecast. City Manager Miyake said staff plans a discussion of that topic in early 2017.
Councilmember Wallace concurred with the need to begin to address Station 10 staffing and equipment.
Mr. Chelminiak said he would like further Council discussion in the near term regarding Station 10 siting and possible alternate sites, including City-owned properties. He is not certain whether the currently identified site is the best alternative.
Councilmember Robertson said she thought the Council provided direction to staff to purchase the property. She said Ashwood Park and the area was considered in past discussions as a potential location.
While not related to the immediate budget process, Ms. Robertson concurred with Councilmember Wallace that the City should study options for animal control services. She said recent news indicates that King County used a service that data-mined individuals’ frequent shopper cards and sent enforcement letters to everyone who has ever bought pet food from
17
11 November 7, 2016 Study Session
Target or Kroger’s. She finds that incredibly intrusive and inappropriate for a government program.
Councilmember Robertson requested follow-up information on the reason for the data-mining and letters. She observed that this should bother everyone on the Council, despite the importance of animal control enforcement. She looks forward to a broader discussion next year.
Councilmember Wallace referenced the Economic Growth and Competitiveness area of the capital budget and questioned the three line items: community network connectivity, expanded community connectivity, and competiveness and collaboration. Ms. Call said the latter project ends in 2020 and is part of the economic development program. Planning Director Dan Stroh said those funds are linked to the Impact Hub program, which is located in a building to be demolished by Sound Transit. Funds will be used to relocate the program and to initiate the Startup 425 Entrepreneur Center.
In further response to Mr. Wallace, Interim Chief Information Officer Sabra Schneider said the expanded community connectivity item refers to expanding the City’s free outdoor Wi-Fi service. This item supports Smart City efforts and the objective of social equity for Bellevue’s most vulnerable residents. She said community network connectivity expands and maintains the current fiber network, which will allow the City to execute a number of Smart City initiatives.
Mr. Wallace questioned the City’s efforts to evaluate current technology and to avoid investing in technology that will become outdated. Ms. Schneider said the City is exploring 5G technology. She noted that she and the City Manager discussed this issue the previous week. She offered to come back to the Council to present staff’s research in this area.
Councilmember Wallace said he would like to take a broader look at the Smart City strategy and to consider allocating a larger amount to that strategy, with the connectivity elements as components of the overall strategy. He encouraged a more comprehensive approach to all Smart City initiatives. Responding to Mr. Wallace’s question about additional connectivity projects, Ms. Schneider said the two connectivity line items under discussion directly support the connectivity needed for Smart City projects. There is a long list of CIP and some General Fund projects that tie into the Smart City approach as well. Mr. Wallace said it would be helpful to have a list of all of the components. Related to that topic, Councilmember Slatter requested more information on the interoperability piece.
Mayor Stokes highlighted upcoming budget discussions on November 14, 21 and 28, with budget adoption anticipated on December 5. The third budget public hearing will be held on November 21.
Deputy Mayor Chelminiak suggested that the Council be prepared to provide final direction to staff on November 28 regarding budget items.
18
12 November 7, 2016 Study Session
Councilmember Slatter noted that the budget contains the minimum dollar amount, without including the potential levies, future staffing, and other items. She asked staff to provide budget figures for the scenario that adds those items.
Responding to Mayor Stokes, City Manager Miyake said staff’s understanding regarding Eastside Pathways is that the Council asked staff to provide a proposal and to respond to previous questions. At that time, the Council will determine whether to include funding for that item in the budget. Ms. Call said she heard the Council’s interest in the performance metrics, needs assessment, and outcomes.
3. Council Business [Regular Session Agenda Item 7]
Mayor Stokes noted requests from Councilmembers Lee and Robinson to participate remotely for Agenda Item 11 during the later Regular Session.
→ Deputy Mayor Chelminiak moved to allow Councilmembers Lee and Robinson to participate remotely during the discussions and actions under Regular Session Agenda Items 11(a) and 11(b). Councilmember Robertson seconded the motion.
→ The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
Deputy Mayor Chelminiak said Councilmember Robinson requested approval to participate remotely for the November 14 meeting.
→ Deputy Mayor Chelminiak moved to allow Councilmember Robinson to participate remotely for the November 14, 2016, Extended Study Session. Councilmember Robertson seconded the motion.
→ The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
At 7:56 p.m., Mayor Stokes declared recess to the Regular Session.
Kyle Stannert, CMC City Clerk
/kaw
19
CITY OF BELLEVUE CITY COUNCIL
Summary Minutes of Regular Session
November 7, 2016 Council Chamber 8:00 p.m. Bellevue, Washington
PRESENT: Mayor Stokes, Deputy Mayor Chelminiak, and Councilmembers Lee1, Robertson, Robinson2, Slatter, and Wallace
ABSENT: None.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 8:04 p.m., with Mayor Stokes presiding.
2. Roll Call, Flag Salute
Councilmember Robertson led the flag salute.
3. Approval of Agenda
→ Deputy Mayor Chelminiak moved to approve the agenda, and Councilmember Slatter seconded the motion.
→ The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
Mayor Stokes noted that the Council voted during the earlier Study Session to allow Councilmembers Lee and Robinson to participate remotely for Agenda Item 11.
4. Communications: Written and Oral
(a) Alice Wang, speaking on behalf of Parents Against Marijuana Near Schools (PAMNS), said the City Council’s role is to represent Bellevue citizens. However, certain marijuana businesses are owned and operated by non-Bellevue residents. Ms. Wang spoke in favor of adopting the interim regulations as permanent. She spoke opposed to increasing the number of stores allowed in Bellevue. Ms. Wang encouraged the Council to choose people over money.
1 Councilmember Lee participated remotely during Agenda Item 11. 2 Councilmember Robinson participated remotely during Agenda Item 11. 20 2 November 7, 2016 Regular Session
(b) Mark Oppfelt recalled that he spoke to the Council on October 3 regarding pedestrian safety concerns along 100th Avenue NE near Clyde Hill Elementary and Chinook Middle Schools. He has spoken with a number of City engineers and planners, and Traffic Engineering Manager Chris Long recently acknowledged that a study of pedestrian safety is needed. Mr. Oppfelt said he presented a petition to the City Clerk signed by 139 concerned residents in support of improving safety. He asked the Council to fund a comprehensive traffic study and to fund the implementation of recommendations resulting from the study. Mr. Oppfelt invited the Council to a Veterans Day ceremony on November 11 at Sunset Hills Cemetery, where Cub Scouts will be placing flags on the graves of veterans.
(c) Vicky Clarke, representing the Cascade Bicycle Club, thanked the Council for its support of the Eastside Rail Corridor Project. She encouraged the Council to retain $2 million in the 2017-2018 budget toward repurposing the Wilburton Trestle. She said the funding leverages pledges from the State, King County, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and the private sector. Ms. Clarke thanked the City for capital funds allocated to the Bicycle Rapid Implementation Program.
(d) Katherine Hughes, a Northtowne residents, asked the Council to slow the process for developing Fire Station 10 in the Downtown. She said that, during the 1970s and 1980s, many City leaders worked hard to maintain the dividing line between the central business district (CBD) and the residential area containing McCormick Park. She said residents are already experiencing the increased impacts of noise, traffic, and high-rise development blocking natural light. Ms. Hughes encouraged the City to locate the fire station closer to the areas it will serve (i.e., Downtown, Spring District, and Wilburton), including closer to the freeway.
(e) Concepcion Miranda, representing the Northtowne Neighborhoods Association, presented a petition asking the Council to reconsider the location of Fire Station 10. She said the decision was made without public discussion or notification, which residents believe violates RCW 36.70A.140. Residents were notified for the first time on September 13, 2016, of the City’s decision. She asked the Council to re-open the process and to ensure that the public good and individual property rights are properly considered during site selection. She said residents would like a response from the Council to the petition signed by 72 residents.
(f) Lisa Leitner said her family and 3,500 other residents live within one-quarter mile of the proposed Eastgate men’s shelter. There are 33,000 residents in Eastgate, Lake Hills, and Factoria, which is approximately 25 percent of Bellevue’s population. She said the Council approved a letter of agreement on August 3 with King County regarding the shelter. However, residents were not notified by the City. Ms. Leitner said members of the Eastgate Residents Council have spent many hours researching the proposed shelter and location, notifying neighbors, and attending community meetings. She questioned the decision process, including the determination to provide a shelter with supportive services and permanent housing. She said the permit application filed by ARCH (A 21
3 November 7, 2016 Regular Session
Regional Coalition for Housing) in April 2016 referred to an emergency shelter, but did not mention permanent housing. Ms. Leitner said residents, students, and business owners are concerned about public safety, primarily based on the shelter’s low-barrier designation. The shelter is to be operated by Congregations for the Homeless, whose current shelter requirements state that individuals “must have current state picture identification, must allow CFH to run a criminal background check, must be willing to be drug and alcohol free, and to address any addiction issues.” Ms. Leitner questioned why CFH is eliminating the requirements for identification cards and background checks from the proposed shelter entrance criteria. She said most residents do not oppose the shelter. However, they oppose the decision-making process and lack of transparency. She asked the City to engage in a transparent and honest public forum.
(g) Tzachi Litov, an Eastgate resident, said homelessness is rare, brief and one-time in the Eastgate area because the community provides individuals what they need to quickly gain housing stability. She said a five-year strategic plan published by King County in September 2015 focused on addressing and eliminating homelessness, in part by moving away from costly crisis-oriented responses, and instead focusing on prevention and recovery. Ms. Litov said City Councilmember Robinson referred on Nextdoor Eastgate to a recent Washington Post article that highlighted the benefits and value of creating supportive housing facilities in residential areas. Those are different from Congregations for the Homeless traditional shelters, where men wait in long lines to access the shelter. Ms. Litov asked the Council to respect the work that has been completed and to look at the bigger picture. Instead of building a costly emergency shelter, she asked the Council to implement options that are supported by the community and that help to prevent homelessness. She spoke in favor of transit-oriented development (TOD) that includes housing, shopping, schools and job centers in one location.
(h) Colin Jenkel said he lives in the Eastgate area across I-90 from the proposed men’s shelter location. He acknowledged that shelters serve as a critical intervention point for the disadvantaged, addicted, and traumatized. He said he supports their implementation and maintenance. He said the problem of homelessness will continue to grow as housing costs increase. Mr. Jenkel said a robust debate on the Nextdoor platform indicates concerns about the process used to construct an important component of the community’s social safety net. He suggested that the Council form an advisory committee composed of residents to help guide the shelter’s siting and programs.
(i) Pastor Lisa Horst Clark, First Congregational Church of Bellevue, thanked the Council for addressing solutions for homelessness, and expressed support for the proposed Eastgate men’s shelter. She said her church houses a Congregations for the Homeless men’s day center as well as a child care center. She said CFH operates an effective program, and there have been no issues related to the men’s drop-in center or child care center. Pastor Clark encouraged the community to consider how it can recognize diverse needs and bring neighborhoods together.
(j) Beth Zobel spoke in favor of the proposed Eastgate men’s shelter. She has volunteered with Congregations for the Homeless over the past 12 years at a number of locations, and 22
4 November 7, 2016 Regular Session
has never felt unsafe working in the men’s shelters. However, she has felt unsafe at times walking in the Factoria area. She said the shelter would provide needed resources including case management, a police presence, dental and medical services, and other supportive services.
(k) Tom Perea spoked opposed to the Eastgate men’s shelter. He observed that many residents are primarily concerned about the lack of public outreach regarding the project. He asked the City to slow the process down and to involve the community. He said this is a permanent project that could have broad implications for the future and for the effectiveness in helping the homeless. He noted concerns about the unknown in terms of who the residents will be and whether they will be safe. He said residents want a solution for the homeless.
Deputy Mayor Chelminiak noted that the Eastgate homeless shelter issue will be discussed by the Council on November 28. City Manager Miyake said it was originally scheduled for January. However, given the high level of public interest, staff is working to accelerate a report on the major themes heard from the community.
Mayor Stokes said the Council appreciates the level of community engagement related to the siting of a permanent men’s shelter in the Eastgate area. He said the City has been supporting emergency shelters for homeless single men in different locations for many years. He said this is a long-term need for the community, and the Council identified establishing a permanent shelter as a high priority. In August, the Council approved entering into a partnership with King County to determine whether the Eastgate location would be successful, especially given the adjacent social services. Mr. Stokes said the City is working on public outreach and held a community meeting on October 27. He encouraged working together to address the need for a shelter facility.
With regard to Fire Station 10 planned for the Downtown, Mayor Stokes said staff is working on that issue and related public involvement as well.
Mr. Miyake recalled that, in August, the Council directed staff to pursue further details in a number of areas related to the shelter, with the objective of bringing back information in January. He said staff is working to expedite the preparation of the report on the themes and concerns raised by the community for discussion with the Council on November 28.
Councilmember Robertson said she and other Councilmembers have requested an in-depth analysis of specific issues, and the Council has received good public input. She would like to see responses to those requests on November 28, if possible. She suggested publishing the questions and information on the City’s web site as well. She said there needs to be greater transparency in the process. She said the Council will discuss the Eastgate Land Use Code Amendment on November 14, and she is interested in hearing how that process will be coordinated with the homeless shelter siting and Eastgate transportation investments.
Councilmember Robertson said she would like to see a recommendation from staff on November 28 regarding the men’s shelter planning process. She sees the two open houses to date as the 23
5 November 7, 2016 Regular Session beginning of the process. She expressed support for the idea of a citizens committee or working group, as suggested during oral communications by Colin Jenkel. Ms. Robertson said the Council received an email earlier in the day about right size, right standards, and anticipates reviewing all of that moving forward. She observed that November 28 is the beginning of more in-depth discussion and study.
City Manager Miyake said staff will be prepared to present the major themes on November 28, and he concurred that follow-up work will be required beyond that point. Ms. Robertson asked staff to post future Council discussion dates as soon as possible for the convenience of the public.
Councilmember Slatter concurred with Councilmember Robertson’s suggestions. Ms. Slatter requested more information on homelessness and on how the data and metrics have been managed for homeless individuals in Bellevue. She said it would be helpful to have more background information on the overall issue, including online. She suggested providing a way for the public to comment online.
Councilmember Wallace said he recalled the Council approving the letter of agreement to explore the proposed shelter. However, like the community, he was a bit surprised when more detailed plans became evident without further Council discussion. He said the process for the community, City staff, and the Council remains unclear. He expressed concern regarding the potential for low-barrier shelters and for eliminating the requirements for identification and background checks.
Deputy Mayor Chelminiak said initiating a community dialogue is incredibly important. However, he observed that there is no right way to start a process. There are always members of the public who were not aware of a specific issue or project. Mr. Chelminiak said he appreciates that Bellevue residents are always willing to have an open dialogue about concerns and questions. He expressed support for creating a citizen group to address the proposed men’s shelter. He said there have been low-barrier shelters in neighborhoods for some time.
Mr. Chelminiak said the Council discussed human services funding during the earlier Study Session, and agreed to increase funding for homeless services and outreach. He wants to avoid the situation in Seattle and a crisis-focused approach. He said he appreciated the public comments earlier in the meeting.
Mayor Stokes said it is natural for individuals to be somewhat alarmed the first time they hear about any sensitive project or issue. He encouraged suggestions from the public for how the City could improve its notification process to the community. He requested patience as the City works to enhance the community’s involvement.
5. Reports of Community Council, Boards and Commissions: None.
6. Report of the City Manager
(a) Snow and Ice Preparedness Management Brief 24
6 November 7, 2016 Regular Session
City Manager Brad Miyake asked staff to provide a brief overview of the City’s preparedness for winter storm events.
Dave Berg, Transportation Director, described the City’s maintenance activities over the summer to prepare storm response equipment, including snow plows, de-icing equipment, and sanders. He said Bellevue has not had a major storm event over the past couple of years, which heightens the need for adequate training for new and longer term staff. He said the City utilizes a Bellevue- based weather forecasting service to address the different elevations throughout the community, which can result in different issues and needs.
Mr. Berg said the Transportation Department is the lead for wind, snow and ice events, while the Utilities Department is the lead for flooding. There is annual interdepartmental training every November. Mr. Berg said the City has four anti-icing and de-icing vehicles focused on preventing hazardous road conditions.
Mr. Berg said the City web site’s home page has an Extreme Weather Response icon in the bottom right corner where individuals can access storm preparedness and weather information and sign up to receive alerts via email and/or text message.
Councilmember Slatter questioned the 1,000-foot elevations in Bellevue. Mr. Berg said there are sections south of I-90, primarily in the Lakemont area.
7. Council Business and New Initiatives: None.
8. Consent Calendar
→ Councilmember Wallace moved to approve the Consent Calendar, and Deputy Mayor Chelminiak seconded the motion.
→ The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried by a vote of 5-0, and the following items were approved:
(a) Council Meeting Minutes Minutes of October 10, 2016 Extended Study Session Minutes of October 17, 2016 Study Session Minutes of October 17, 2016 Regular Session Minutes of October 24, 2016 Extended Study Session
(b) Motion to approve payment of claims and payroll for the period September 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016.
(c) Resolution No. 9169 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Geotechnical Services with Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. for three years in an amount not to exceed $125,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years. 25
7 November 7, 2016 Regular Session
(d) Resolution No. 9170 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Landscape Architectural Services with Anchor QEA, LLC for three years in an amount not to exceed $125,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years.
(e) Resolution No. 9171 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Civil Engineering Services with DOWL, LLC for three years in an amount not to exceed $125,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years.
(f) Resolution No. 9172 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Services with Hultz BHU Engineers, Inc. for three years in an amount not to exceed $125,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years.
(g) Resolution No. 9173 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Structural Engineering and Project Management Services with KPFF, Inc. for three years in an amount not to exceed $125,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years.
(h) Resolution No. 9174 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Architectural Services with Lawhead Architects, PS for three years in an amount not to exceed $125,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years.
(i) Resolution No. 9175 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Architectural Services with SM Stemper Architects, PLLC for three years in an amount not to exceed $125,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years.
(j) Resolution No. 9176 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Landscape Architectural and Urban Design Services with Swift Company, LLC for three years in an amount not to exceed $125,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years.
(k) Resolution No. 9177 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Geotechnical Engineering and Materials Testing Services with Terracon Consultants, Inc. for three years in an amount not to exceed $250,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years.
(l) Resolution No. 9178 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Mechanical Engineering Services with Wood Harbinger, Inc. for three years in an amount not to exceed $125,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years. 26
8 November 7, 2016 Regular Session
(m) Resolution No. 9179 authorizing execution of a five-year general services contract with Stearns, Conrad & Schmidt Consulting Engineers, Inc., dba SCS Field Services, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for the operation and maintenance of the Eastgate landfill gas collection system.
(n) Resolution No. 9180 authorizing execution of Amendment #2, to the professional services agreement with Gary N. McLean for Hearing Examiner services, to increase the total contract value to an amount not to exceed $115,000.
(o) Resolution No. 9181 authorizing execution of the Funding Agreement with Performing Arts Center Eastside (“PACE”) for Tateuchi Center for period of 2016-2066.
(p) Motion to re-adopt a Resolution authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement for on-call Structural and Civil Engineering, Construction Management and Environmental Consulting Services with Jacobs Project Management, Co. for three years in an amount not to exceed $200,000 per year with an option to renew for a period of one (1) term of two (2) years.
9. Public Hearings
(a) Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 6315 extending the interim official control originally adopted by Ordinance No. 6290 regarding the relocation of BelRed businesses displaced by the Sound Transit East Link project; providing for severability; repealing Ordinance No. 6290; and establishing an effective date.
City Manager Miyake said the interim official control ordinance regarding the relocation of BelRed businesses displaced by the Sound Transit East Link project was originally adopted on May 16, 2016. The action responded to concerns by Park Place Motors about the lack of relocation options in the BelRed area. Mr. Miyake said staff is seeking Council approval to extend the interim ordinance for six additional months. The extra time will allow the City to address permanent regulations as part of the BelRed Plan Lookback next year.
→ Deputy Mayor Chelminiak moved to open the public hearing, and Councilmember Wallace seconded the motion.
→ The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
No one came forward to comment on the proposed ordinance. Responding to the Deputy Mayor, City Clerk Kyle Stannert said no written comments were received by the City.
→ Deputy Mayor Chelminiak moved to close the public hearing, and Councilmember Robertson seconded the motion.
→ The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. 27
9 November 7, 2016 Regular Session
→ Deputy Mayor Chelminiak moved to adopt Ordinance No. 6315, and Councilmember Slatter seconded the motion.
→ The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
10. Land Use: None.
11. Other Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions
(a) Ordinance No. 6316 amending the Land Use Code regulating recreational marijuana retailers and prohibiting medical marijuana cooperatives and marijuana research uses; amending sections 20.10.440, 20.25A.015, 20.20.535, and 20.25D.070; repealing Ordinance Nos. 6286 and 6296; and establishing an effective date.
(b) Ordinance No. 6317 amending the Bellevue City Code to adopt regulations imposing civil penalties and abatement actions for violations of certain provisions of Chapter 69.51A RCW concerning the growing, processing, or possession of marijuana plants or medical marijuana products; amending sections 1.18.020.K, 1.18.020.M, and 9.10.030; and establishing an effective date.
City Clerk Stannert said there was a question earlier about the Council vote required to approve the ordinances. He said that adoption of the ordinances require a majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council versus a majority of those present.
City Manager Miyake said Ordinance No. 6316 represents a change to the Land Use Code with regard to marijuana-related permanent regulations. Ordinance No. 6317 amends the Bellevue City Code regarding civil penalties and abatement actions.
Trisna Tanus, Legal Planner, recalled that a public hearing was held on October 17 regarding Interim Ordinances No. 6286 and 6296. Based on previous Council direction, Ms. Tanus said staff developed four options to modify the interim regulations: 1) eliminate the Crossroads Subarea as one of the six subareas where stores are allowed, 2) allow up to two recreational marijuana stores in the BelRed Subarea, 3) allow up to two recreational marijuana stores in the Downtown, and/or 4) allow one additional store in the Medical Institution (MI) District.
Ms. Tanus said the Council received numerous written comments from the public as well as oral comments during the public hearing. Following the hearing, the Council directed staff to prepare ordinances for final action to permanently adopt the interim regulations in Ordinance No. 6286 and Ordinance No. 6296, incorporating the following modifications to proposed Ordinance No. 6316: 1) allow up to two marijuana stores in the BelRed corridor, 2) allow one additional store in the Medical Institution District, and 3) maintain a maximum of six stores citywide.
Ms. Tanus said Ordinance No. 6316 amends the Land Use Code to limit the siting and number of marijuana retailers, prohibit medical marijuana co-ops, and prohibit marijuana research uses. 28
10 November 7, 2016 Regular Session
Ordinance No. 6317 amends the Bellevue City Code to impose civil penalties and abatement actions for violations of the state’s medical marijuana laws [RCW 69.51A].
Responding to Councilmember Slatter, Ms. Tanus said the proposed regulations would allow up to three stores in the BelRed Subarea, if one is in the MI District. The ordinance limits the number of stores to six citywide.
Responding to Mayor Stokes, Mr. Stannert said RCW 35A.12.120 states that, for code cities, a majority of the entire membership of the Council is required to adopt any ordinance.
City Clerk Stannert indicated that Councilmember Lee and Councilmember Robinson had joined the meeting via conference call.
→ Councilmember Robertson moved to adopt Ordinance No. 6316 amending the Land Use Code, and Councilmember Slatter seconded the motion.
Councilmember Lee said he opposes the motion not because he does not believe in making marijuana accessible to the public. He supports making marijuana stores available for medical use and allowing a store in the Medical Institution District. He said he asked staff for information on how many customers are Bellevue residents. Mr. Lee said he supports stores in Bellevue for residents, but not for others to come into the city to buy. Without the requested information, Mr. Lee said he feels compelled to oppose the ordinance as presented.
→ The motion carried by a vote of 4-3, with Deputy Mayor Chelminiak, Councilmember Lee, and Councilmember Wallace opposed.
→ Councilmember Robertson moved to adopt Ordinance No. 6317 amending the Bellevue City Code, and Councilmember Slatter seconded the motion.
→ The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
12. Unfinished Business: None.
13. Continued Oral Communications
(a) Steve Sanchez, a Robinswood neighborhood resident, said he has worked with Street Youth Ministries in Seattle for approximately 20 years, and more recently with Tent City 4 on the Eastside. He said the residents of Tent City 4 typically need help with mental or physical health issues, employment, and/or finding housing. He said Tent City 4 does not allow the usage of drugs or alcohol, and a number of the residents have jobs. He observed that overnight shelters do not work well for individuals who are trying to transition out of homelessness. Mr. Sanchez said Tent City 4 residents would not want to live in a low- barrier type shelter lacking the rules of Tent City 4.
(b) Karen Morris recalled that she was involved 11 years ago in the process that resulted in Bellevue’s tent encampment ordinance. She was proud of the way the City conducted the 29
11 November 7, 2016 Regular Session
process, which resulted in a court case and a 10-year consent decree. Ms. Morris said the decree expired last January. She and others initiated contact with City staff nine months prior to the expiration date. She said the consent decree was subsequently extended without any notification to Ms. Morris or other stakeholders, and the decree is due to expire again soon. She has not been contacted by City staff to date. She said it is important that the City notify and involve the neighbors impacted by the proposed shelter.
14. New Business: None.
15. Executive Session: None.
16. Adjournment
At 9:28 p.m., Mayor Stokes declared the meeting adjourned.
Kyle Stannert, CMC City Clerk
/kaw
30
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Updated Council Eastside Rail Corridor interest statement.
FISCAL IMPACT N/A
STAFF CONTACTS Joyce Nichols, Intergovernmental Relations Director, 452-4225 City Manager’s Office
David Berg, Director, 452-6468 Mike Ingram, Senior Planner, 452-4166 Kate March, Transportation Policy Advisor, 452, 2055 Transportation Department
Camron Parker, Senior Planner, 452-2032 Parks & Community Services
POLICY CONSIDERATION The Council adopted an Interest Statement on the Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) on July 22, 2013 that recognizes the unique quality of this corridor and its potential to serve multiple uses. Completion of the first mile of the Eastside Rail Corridor from the Kirkland border to the SR 520 Trail is also a 2016-2017 Council priority.
The Comprehensive Plan includes the following policies concerning the Eastside Rail Corridor:
TR-112: Recognize the potential transportation and recreation uses under consideration for the Eastside Rail Corridor when considering public and private improvements adjacent to and across the corridor and preserve the opportunity for future multi-modal transportation use and access. TR-113: Promote and support the design, development and use of the Eastside Rail Corridor as a regional multimodal facility. TR-114: Provide for multi-modal transportation use and access when considering public and private projects adjacent to and across the Eastside Rail Corridor. PA-4: Connect Bellevue’s parks and trails to the regional system of nearby state, King County and neighboring city parks, greenways, trails and facilities. PA-13: Collaborate with King County, Sound Transit and neighboring jurisdictions in the planning and development of the regional Eastside Rail Corridor trail system.
BACKGROUND The Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) is part of a 42-mile rail line that was previously owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company. The ERC extends from Renton north to Snohomish County, passing through Bellevue, Kirkland, Woodinville and portions of unincorporated King County. It also 31 includes a spur (called the Redmond Spur) that extends 7-plus miles from Woodinville south to Redmond. King County owns segments of the corridor and holds a trail easement along segments that are owned by others. Redmond, Kirkland and Woodinville also own segments of the corridor. Sound Transit owns a 1.1 mile segment of the corridor in Bellevue and holds an easement for transit along other segments; and Puget Sound Energy also holds an easement for utility use along the corridor.
Although the City of Bellevue is not an ERC owner, it is the permitting authority for the segment that passes within the City limits, and it has a keen interest in the development of a high quality, multi-use trail for broad public use along the corridor. The Council adopted an ERC Interest Statement in July 2013. Since that time, the planning for a multi-use trail along the ERC has advanced significantly, with completion of a King County ERC Trail Master Plan in July 2016 and development of trail segments in Redmond and Kirkland.
As the trail project moves from the planning phase into the implementation phase, the timing is opportune to revisit Bellevue’s interests in the corridor to ensure the City continues to remain highly engaged in the development of the ERC. Staff prepared a draft revised interest statement for Council consideration at the October 24, 2016 ERC study session. Council provided staff with several additional edits to the statement at the same meeting, which have been included in a new draft in track changes (Attachment 1). Council is tonight being asked to consider approving a final revised November 21, 2016 ERC Council Interest Statement (Attachment 2).
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Motion becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS 1. Approve the November 21, 2016 ERC Council Interest Statement. 2. Do not approve the November 21, 2016 ERC Council Interest Statement.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt the November 21, 2016 ERC Council Interest Statement.
ATTACHMENTS 1 - November 21, 2016 Council ERC Interest Statement (track changes) 2 - November 21, 2016 Council ERC Interest Statement (clean)
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY October 24, 2016 Eastside Rail Corridor Update Agenda Memo October 24, 2016 draft revised ERC Council Interest Statement July 22, 2016 ERC Council Interest Statement
32
Attachment 1: November 21,
2016 Council ERC Interest
Statement (track changes)
BELLEVUE INTEREST STATEMENT FOR THE EASTSIDE RAIL CORRIDOR
DRAFT
The City of Bellevue supports regional efforts to develop the Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) for public use. The ERC provides a rare and unique opportunity to create a variety of transportation, recreation, utility and community development benefits for the public. The development of the ERC offers a significant step toward providing important north/south connectivity between the cities of Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond and Woodinville, as well as economic vitality and placemaking opportunities throughout this major regional corridor. The Bellevue City Council supports the following principles for future corridor design and implementation:
1. Implement Multiple Uses. Development of this corridor is an important component for the Eastside’s increasingly multimodal transportation network as the Eastside, Bellevue and the region continue to grow. In addition to implementing a trail supporting pedestrian, bicycle and transit uses, there are opportunities to achieve multiple policy objectives and efficiencies given the proximity of public utility uses within, under and adjacent to the corridor, as well as the close proximity to some of Bellevue’s most dense existing and future neighborhoods. As multiple uses are planned, consideration must be given to mitigating noise, mobility, visual and other impacts to residents and businesses along the corridor, while maximizing placemaking and improved mobility. National and regional best practices and case studies for multiple uses of the corridor should be considered during the implementation process.
2. Implementation Considerations within Bellevue. Bellevue has a number of key interests related to phasing and implementation of the corridor projects. These interests need to be closely coordinated with the ERC to provide alternate commute mode options, improve multimodal connectivity, enhance placemaking and recreation use, bolster economic development, and maintain public safety along the corridor.
Wilburton Grand Connection Land Use and Transportation Project. The ERC is an integral element of the Wilburton Commercial Area, offering significant opportunities to implement trail and transit-oriented development in the redevelopment area. The Grand Connection provides the opportunity to create a strong link between Meydenbauer Bay, Downtown Bellevue and the ERC, increasing multimodal transportation options for residents and workers within the City’s center. City Street Grade Separation Opportunities. The City has a number of intersections (NE 4th, NE 6th and NE 8th streets) that cross the corridor right-of-way and will require careful planning and design, and potentially grade separation. Of particular concern is the highly constrained area at NE 8th Street, which requires a grade separated overcrossing and seamless integration with Sound Transit’s East Link light rail project. Sound Transit Projects. The City and Sound Transit are working to deliver the East Link light rail project. Within the project envelope, there are a number of areas that will require special design
33
consideration, including the Wilburton Station Area, Operation and Maintenance Facility East, and the potential extension of light rail from Wilburton Station to the South Kirkland Park and Ride. In all cases, Sound Transit facilities must be well integrated into the region’s vision for the ERC. Similarly, special care should be given to the multiple uses near the new East Link Wilburton Station on NE 8th Street. State Highways. WSDOT’s future highway expansion overlaps with the corridor in Bellevue, and south to Renton. The corridor design process must be fully integrated with affected state improvements, including all areas of over- and undercrossing at I-405 and I-90. Wilburton Trestle. The Wilburton Trestle is a state historic landmark and an iconic structure for the City, the region and the ERC as a whole. The trestle, including the land under and around the structure, should be optimized for public use. Public safety should be carefully considered during the design and eventual operation of the Trestle. Regional Trail and Other Major Destinations. The implementation plan should ensure quality connections to major destinations in Bellevue such as the Grand Connection, Mountains to Sound Greenway, Mercer Slough, Coal Creek Park, Newcastle Beach Park, SR 520 Trail, and the BelRed redevelopment area. Planning efforts must ensure abundant public access points to the City’s local trail system and provide connections to Bellevue neighborhoods along the corridor. Consistency with Local Plans. The ERC, as it is implemented through Bellevue, must support and enhance policies and actions of Bellevue’s local plans including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Plan, the Parks & Open Space System Plan, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan and Bellevue Transit Master Plan. The trail should be context sensitive to the areas through which it passes, and align with existing and planned land uses.
3. Governance Structure and Implementation Plan. Bellevue strongly supports the constitution of a standing regional governing body, including a seat for Bellevue, to provide oversight of the planning, development and implementation for the trail amongst owners, adjacent jurisdictions and key stakeholders. This body should be responsible for keeping the vision of the corridor, developing an interim and long-term funding strategy, and sharing information about relevant activities within the corridor. Examples of the range of work should include the following objectives: Advance the vision of the ERC. Uphold the vision developed by the regional governing body for the ERC. Plan for the future. Develop a roadmap for management, funding and implementation activities in the corridor vision. Develop a phased, well-integrated plan. Ensure the King County ERC Trail Master Plan is implemented at a high quality, and that affected local intersections and state highway interchanges along the corridor are carefully analyzed, planned and phased. This is particularly important especially where there are overlapping or competing interests for uses (like utilities) of the ERC right- of-way in highly constrained locations. Implementation strategies should be informed by careful consideration of public safety for all users. Balance continuity and local interests. Ensure all efforts collaboratively address continuity of design, incorporating the diverse interests of communities along the corridor, while creating an important non-motorized intra-Eastside connection.. Be strategic and transparent. Develop the corridor in a highly collaborative, open and transparent manner that achieves multiple objectives and efficiencies in design, funding, construction and ongoing maintenance of the corridor.
34
Engage the public. Design and conduct a comprehensive public outreach program that ensures stakeholder involvement throughout the process.
4. Develop a Complementary, Comprehensive and Sustainable Financial Plan. The regional governing body should work to secure financial support from a range of sources including federal, state, county, cities and private organizations for capital and operating improvements. Specifically, the financial plan should: Prioritize key investments along the corridor. Provide guidance concerning specific funding alternatives. Use innovative financing mechanisms. Identify partnership opportunities for joint grant applications and interlocal agreements. Ensure that value engineering, cost containment and other mechanisms are used to optimize funding while still fulfilling the vision of the ERC Trail Master Plan.
35
Attachment 2: November 21,
2016 Council ERC Interest
Statement (clean)
BELLEVUE INTEREST STATEMENT FOR THE EASTSIDE RAIL CORRIDOR
November 21, 2016
The City of Bellevue supports regional efforts to develop the Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) for public use. The ERC provides a rare and unique opportunity to create a variety of transportation, recreation, utility and community development benefits for the public. The development of the ERC offers a significant step toward providing important north/south connectivity between the cities of Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond and Woodinville, as well as economic vitality and placemaking opportunities throughout this major regional corridor. The Bellevue City Council supports the following principles for future corridor design and implementation:
1. Implement Multiple Uses. Development of this corridor is an important component for the Eastside’s increasingly multimodal transportation network as the Eastside, Bellevue and the region continue to grow. In addition to implementing a trail supporting pedestrian, bicycle and transit uses, there are opportunities to achieve multiple policy objectives and efficiencies given the proximity of public utility uses within, under and adjacent to the corridor, as well as the close proximity to some of Bellevue’s most dense existing and future neighborhoods. As multiple uses are planned, consideration must be given to mitigating noise, mobility, visual and other impacts to residents and businesses along the corridor, while maximizing placemaking and improved mobility. National and regional best practices and case studies for multiple uses of the corridor should be considered during the implementation process.
2. Implementation Considerations within Bellevue. Bellevue has a number of key interests related to phasing and implementation of the corridor projects. These interests need to be closely coordinated with the ERC to provide alternate commute mode options, improve multimodal connectivity, enhance placemaking and recreation use, bolster economic development, and maintain public safety along the corridor.
Wilburton Grand Connection Land Use and Transportation Project. The ERC is an integral element of the Wilburton Commercial Area, offering significant opportunities to implement trail and transit-oriented development in the redevelopment area. The Grand Connection provides the opportunity to create a strong link between Meydenbauer Bay, Downtown Bellevue and the ERC, increasing multimodal transportation options for residents and workers within the City’s center. City Street Grade Separation Opportunities. The City has a number of intersections (NE 4th, NE 6th and NE 8th streets) that cross the corridor right-of-way and will require careful planning and design, and potentially grade separation. Of particular concern is the highly constrained area at NE 8th Street, which requires a grade separated overcrossing and seamless integration with Sound Transit’s East Link light rail project. Sound Transit Projects. The City and Sound Transit are working to deliver the East Link light rail project. Within the project envelope, there are a number of areas that will require special design
36
consideration, including the Wilburton Station Area, Operation and Maintenance Facility East, and the potential extension of light rail from Wilburton Station to the South Kirkland Park and Ride. In all cases, Sound Transit facilities must be well integrated into the region’s vision for the ERC. Similarly, special care should be given to the multiple uses near the new East Link Wilburton Station on NE 8th Street. State Highways. WSDOT’s future highway expansion overlaps with the corridor in Bellevue, and south to Renton. The corridor design process must be fully integrated with affected state improvements, including all areas of over- and undercrossing at I-405 and I-90. Wilburton Trestle. The Wilburton Trestle is a state historic landmark and an iconic structure for the City, the region and the ERC as a whole. The trestle, including the land under and around the structure, should be optimized for public use. Public safety should be carefully considered during the design and eventual operation of the Trestle. Regional Trail and Other Major Destinations. The implementation plan should ensure quality connections to major destinations in Bellevue such as the Grand Connection, Mountains to Sound Greenway, Mercer Slough, Coal Creek Park, Newcastle Beach Park, SR 520 Trail, and the BelRed redevelopment area. Planning efforts must ensure abundant public access points to the City’s local trail system and provide connections to Bellevue neighborhoods along the corridor. Consistency with Local Plans. The ERC, as it is implemented through Bellevue, must support and enhance policies and actions of Bellevue’s local plans including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Plan, the Parks & Open Space System Plan, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan and Bellevue Transit Master Plan. The trail should be context sensitive to the areas through which it passes, and align with existing and planned land uses.
3. Governance Structure and Implementation Plan. Bellevue strongly supports the constitution of a standing regional governing body, including a seat for Bellevue, to provide oversight of the planning, development and implementation for the trail amongst owners, adjacent jurisdictions and key stakeholders. This body should be responsible for keeping the vision of the corridor, developing an interim and long-term funding strategy, and sharing information about relevant activities within the corridor. Examples of the range of work should include the following objectives: Advance the vision of the ERC. Uphold the vision developed by the regional governing body for the ERC. Plan for the future. Develop a roadmap for management, funding and implementation activities in the corridor vision. Develop a phased, well-integrated plan. Ensure the King County ERC Trail Master Plan is implemented at a high quality, and that affected local intersections and state highway interchanges along the corridor are carefully analyzed, planned and phased. This is particularly important where there are overlapping or competing interests for uses (like utilities) of the ERC right-of-way in highly constrained locations. Implementation strategies should be informed by careful consideration of public safety for all users. Balance continuity and local interests. Ensure all efforts collaboratively address continuity of design, incorporating the diverse interests of communities along the corridor, while creating an important non-motorized intra-Eastside connection. Be strategic and transparent. Develop the corridor in a highly collaborative, open and transparent manner that achieves multiple objectives and efficiencies in design, funding, construction and ongoing maintenance of the corridor.
37
Engage the public. Design and conduct a comprehensive public outreach program that ensures stakeholder involvement throughout the process.
4. Develop a Complementary, Comprehensive and Sustainable Financial Plan. The regional governing body should work to secure financial support from a range of sources including federal, state, county, cities and private organizations for capital and operating improvements. Specifically, the financial plan should: Prioritize key investments along the corridor. Provide guidance concerning specific funding alternatives. Use innovative financing mechanisms. Identify partnership opportunities for joint grant applications and interlocal agreements. Ensure that value engineering, cost containment and other mechanisms are used to optimize funding while still fulfilling the vision of the ERC Trail Master Plan.
38 November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Ordinance amending Chapter 23.76 of the Bellevue City Code, specifically amending sections 23.76.010, 23.76.025, 23.76.030, 23.76.035, 23.76.040, 23.76.042, 23.46.045, 23.76.050, 23.76.060, 23.76.070, 23.76.080, 23.76.085, 23.76.086, 23.76.090, 23.76.093, 23.76.095, 23.76.100, 23.76.110, 23.76.140, 23.76.160, 23.76.170; 23.76.175; 23.76.180; 23.76.185; 23.76.190; providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the recommended Clearing and Grading Code amendments is generally anticipated to be minimal and to be met with current staffing levels.
STAFF CONTACTS Tom McFarlane, Clearing & Grading Supervisor 452-5207 Trisna Tanus, Legal Planner 452-2970 Development Services Department
Catherine Drews, Assistant City Attorney 452-6134 City Attorney’s Office
POLICY CONSIDERATION Should the City adopt amendments to Chapter 23.76 BCC (Clearing and Grading Code), implementing non-discretionary NPDES Permit requirements, “housekeeping” and other conformance revisions?
BACKGROUND The NPDES Permit is a requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act and is intended to protect and restore water for “fishable, swimmable” uses. Bellevue is one of approximately 100 municipalities in Western Washington required to obtain a municipal stormwater discharge permit. The Permit authorizes discharge of stormwater runoff from municipal storm drainage systems into the state’s surface waters (i.e.: streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc.) as long as municipalities implement the Stormwater Management Program required by the Permit.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated their permit authority to the State environmental agencies. In Washington, the NPDES-delegated permit authority is the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology”). Ecology issued the Phase II municipal stormwater permit in January 2007, and revised the permit in August 2013. Under authority of the City Council, the City Manager accepted the revised and reissued Permit from Ecology in 2013. To meet the revised provisions under the revised NPDES Permit, Bellevue must amend two chapters of the Bellevue City Code (BCC): the Storm and Surface Water Utility Code (Chapter 24.06 BCC) and the Clearing and Grading Code (Chapter 23.76 BCC). This memorandum concerns the Clearing and Grading Code specifically. 39 Staff presented to Council the mandatory amendments to the Clearing and Grading Code at the October 24, 2016 study session. At the same time, Council considered “housekeeping” and other conformance amendments that, while discretionary, are necessary to more effectively implement the mandatory requirements and the Clearing and Grading Code in general, and to ensure efficient and predictable review for project applicants.
Following the study session, as per Council’s request, staff engaged potential project applicants and stakeholders about the proposed amendments to the Clearing and Grading Code. This engagement is specific to the Clearing and Grading Code and in addition to the robust public participation of NPDES related proposals included in the LID Principles Project. Staff’s conversations with stakeholders yielded no opposition to the proposed changes.
Council did not direct any changes to the proposed amendments to the Clearing and Grading Code. Staff prepared an ordinance consistent with the proposed amendments to the Clearing and Grading Code that Council considered at the October 24, 2016 study session, attached hereto as Attachment A.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Ordinance becomes effective on December 31, 2016.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 23.76 BCC (Clearing and Grading Code) to implement mandatory NPDES Permit requirements, and to adopt housekeeping and other conformance revisions; providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
2. Do not adopt the Ordinance and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt Ordinance No. 6318 amending Chapter 23.76 of the Bellevue City Code, specifically amending sections 23.76.010, 23.76.025, 23.76.030, 23.76.035, 23.76.040, 23.76.042, 23.46.045, 23.76.050, 23.76.060, 23.76.070, 23.76.080, 23.76.085, 23.76.086, 23.76.090, 23.76.093, 23.76.095, 23.76.100, 23.76.110, 23.76.140, 23.76.160, 23.76.170; 23.76.175; 23.76.180; 23.76.185; 23.76.190; providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
ATTACHMENT Proposed Ordinance No. 6318
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY N/A
40 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6318
AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 23.76 of the Bellevue City Code, specifically amending sections 23.76.010, 23.76.025, 23.76.030, 23.76.035, 23.76.040, 23.76.042, 23.46.045, 23.76.050, 23.76.060, 23.76.070, 23.76.080, 23.76.085, 23.76.086, 23.76.090, 23.76.093, 23.76.095, 23.76.100, 23.76.110, 23.76.140, 23.76.160, 23.76.170; 23.76.175; 23.76.180; 23.76.185; 23.76.190; providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
WHEREAS, the City of Bellevue (the "City") is subject to the terms of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) and Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit (“Phase II Permit” or "Permit"), issued August 1, 2012, and modified on January 16, 2014, by the State of Washington Department of Ecology ("Ecology") in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act and state law; and
WHEREAS, the Permit requires that the City adopt ordinances and other enforceable documents for new development and redevelopment that include the minimum requirements contained in Appendix 1 of the Permit or equivalent to relevant portions of Ecology’s 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as amended in December 2014, ("Ecology's Manual"), which went into effect on January 16, 2015 as an update to Ecology’s 2005 Stormwater Manual; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance also contains amendments, initiated by the City and beyond the requirements of the Permit, related to the Low Impact Development (“LID”) Principles Project which includes regulations for erosion and sediment controls and other stormwater controls, and housekeeping and other conformance amendments, which are necessary to more effectively implement the mandatory Permit requirements, ensure efficient and predictable review for project applicants and other stakeholders, and to further the purposes of this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, preserving and enhancing Bellevue’s water resources is a goal of the City’s Environmental Stewardship Initiative and the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA:), Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the City’s Environmental Procedures Code, chapter 22.02 BCC, through incorporation by reference of the Determination of Nonsignificance issued for the Low Impact Development Principles Project on July 7, 2016 and through application of the SEPA exemption for procedural actions allowed by WAC 197-11-800(19); now, therefore, 41
1 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 23.76.010 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.010 Related codes and regulations.
A. The requirements of this chapter supplement other city codes and regulations, including the Land Use Code (BCC Title 20), the shorelines overlay district (Part 20.25E LUC) the critical areas overlay district (Part 20.25H LUC) and the storm and surface water utility code (Chapter 24.06 BCC), now or as hereafter amended.
B. To comply with the provisions of this chapter, the applicant shall comply with the applicable engineering standards contained in the clearing and grading development standards, which include Chapters 3 and 4 of Volume II of the Ecology Manual.
C. Approvals, decisions, and permits granted under this chapter are not waivers of the requirements of any other laws, nor do they indicate compliance with any other laws. Compliance is still required with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The responsibility for determining the existence and application of other agency requirements rests solely with the applicant; provided, that to the extent known, the city will inform the applicant of other agency requirements or permits that may apply to a site.
Section 2. Section 23.76.025 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.025 Director’s authority.
A. The Director is charged with the enforcement of this chapter and whenever the Director has reason to believe a violation has occurred, the Director may initiate enforcement actions pursuant to Chapter 1.18 BCC, now or as hereafter amended.
B. The Director shall have the authority to prepare and update, as needed, clearing and grading development standards to establish minimum requirements for the design and construction of erosion and sedimentation controls and other best management practices. The clearing and grading development standards shall be consistent with this chapter and adopted city policies.
Section 3. Section 23.76.030.C—C Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Definitions.
42
2 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
“Certified erosion and sediment control lead (CESCL)” means an individual who has current certification through an approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by Ecology (see BMP C160 in the Ecology Manual). A CESCL is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. The CESCL must have the skills to assess site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater and the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. Certification is obtained through Ecology’s approved erosion and sediment control course. Course listings are provided online at Ecology’s website.
“Clearing” means the act of destroying or removing the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative).
“Clearing and grading development standards” means city of Bellevue clearing and grading development standards that contain appropriate engineering standards and includes relevant provisions of Chapters 3 and 4 of Volume II of the Ecology Manual.
“Clearing and grading permit” means the written permission of the Director to the permittee to proceed with the act of clearing and grading within the provisions of this chapter. The clearing and grading permit includes the associated approved plans and any conditions of approval as well as the permit form itself.
“Construction stormwater pollution prevention plan” (CSWPPP) means a written plan to implement measures to identify, prevent, and control the contamination of point source discharge of stormwater. The CSWPPP explains and illustrates the measures, usually in the form of best management practices (BMPs), to take on a construction site to control potential pollution problems.
“Critical area” shall have the same meaning set forth in Chapter 20.50 LUC, now or as hereafter amended.
“CSWPPP” means Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Section 4. Section 23.76.030.E—E Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Definitions.
“Ecology” means the Washington State Department of Ecology.
“Ecology Manual” means the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as amended in December 2014.
43
3 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
“Engineered fill” means soil fill which is wetted or dried to near its optimum moisture content, placed in lifts of 12 inches or less and each lift compacted to a minimum percent compaction as specified by a geotechnical engineer.
“Excavation” means the removal of material such as earth, soil, sand, peat, gravel, rock, asphalt, or concrete.
Section 5. Section 23.76.030.F—F Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
F. Definitions.
“Fill” means earth, soil, sand, peat, gravel, rock, asphalt, concrete, or other solid material used above or below the ordinary high water mark to increase the ground surface elevation or to replace excavated material.
“Filling” means any act by which fill is deposited or placed.
Section 6. Section 23.76.030.H—H Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Hard Surface” means an impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof.
“Heavy rain” means rainfall at a rate greater than or equal to 0.03 inches per six minutes or 0.30 inches per hour.
Section 7. Section 23.76.030.I—I Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
I. Definitions.
“Impervious surface” means a non-vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. It is also a non-vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall not be considered as impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling.
44
4 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 8. Section 23.76.030.L—L Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
L. Definitions.
“Land disturbing activity” means any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and nonvegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is associated with stabilization of structures and road construction shall also be considered a land disturbing activity. Maintenance of existing landscape, as described in LUC 20.25H.055(C) is not considered a land disturbing activity.
“Landscaping” or “landscaped areas” means land that has been modified by altering soil levels and/or vegetation for aesthetic or practical purposes.
“Landslide” means the movement of a mass of rocks and/or earth down a slope.
“Landslide deposit” means a large mass of earth and/or rock that has moved physically downslope by gravity and broken into discrete fragments.
“LID” means Low Impact Development.
“Low Impact Development (LID)” means a stormwater and land use management strategy that strives to mimic pre-disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on-site natural features, the planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design.
“Low impact development (LID) best management practices” means distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project design, that emphasize pre-disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration. LID BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, vegetated roofs, minimum excavation foundations, and water re-use.
Section 9. Section 23.76.030.M—M Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
M. M Definitions.
“Minimum requirements (MRs) refer to the regulations contained in BCC 23.76.090 and BCC 24.06.065, now or as hereafter amended, and applicable development and engineering standards, which describe requirements for stormwater management for development and redevelopment as required by the NPDES permit.
45
5 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
“Modular block wall” means a wall constructed of manufactured modular wall units acting as a protective facing for an exposed soil face or as a gravity retaining wall.
Section 10. Section 23.76.030.N—N Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
N. Definitions.
“New development” means land disturbing activities, including Class IV – General Forest Practices that are conversions from timber land to other uses; structural development, including construction or installation of a building or other structure; creation of hard surfaces; and subdivision, short subdivision and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter 58.17 RCW, now or as hereafter amended. Projects meeting the definition of redevelopment shall not be considered new development.
“NPDES” means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
“NPDES permit” means an authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by either the United States Environmental Protection Agency or authorized state authority, which in Washington is the Department of Ecology, to authorize point source discharges to surface waters and implement the provisions of 33 U.S.C. 1342 (Section 402) of the federal Clean Water Act.
Section 11. Section 23.76.030.P—P Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to add as follows:
P. Definitions.
“Permeable pavement” means pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers or other forms of pervious or porous paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an aggregate base that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir.
Section 12. Section 23.76.030.R—R Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
R. Definitions.
“Rain Garden” means a non-engineered shallow landscaped depression, with compost-amended native soils and adapted plants. The depression is designed to pond and temporarily store stormwater runoff from adjacent areas, and to allow stormwater to pass through the amended soil profile.
“Rainy season” means that period from October 1st through April 30th unless the Director modifies these dates based on weather patterns and forecasts. 46
6 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
“Receiving waters” means naturally and/or reconstructed naturally occurring surface water bodies, such as creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and marine waters or ground water to which a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) discharges.
“Redevelopment” means on a site that is already substantially developed (i.e., have 35% or more of existing hard surface coverage), the creation or addition of hard surfaces; the expansion of a building footprint or addition or replacement of a structure; structural development including construction, installation or expansion of a building or other structure; replacement of hard surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity; or land disturbing practices.
“Reinforced fill” or “reinforced soil” means soil fill designed by an engineer, which includes reinforcement consisting of metal or synthetic materials in bars, trips, grids or sheets.
“Retaining wall” means a wall designed to resist the lateral displacement of soil or other materials.
“Rockery” or “rock wall” means one or more courses of rocks stacked against an exposed soil face to protect the soil face from erosion and sloughing. The bottom course of rocks bears on the foundation soils and the upper rocks bear partially or entirely on the rocks below. The face of inclination of a rockery varies from near vertical to about 1H:4V. A rockery or rock wall is not considered a retaining wall.
“Runoff” is water that travels across the land surface and discharges to water bodies either directly or through a collection and conveyance system. See also “stormwater.”
Section 13. Section 23.76.030.V—V Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
V. Definitions.
“Vegetated roof” means thin layers of engineered soil and vegetation constructed on top of a conventional flat or sloped roof. All vegetated roofs consist of four basic components: a waterproof membrane, a drainage layer, a light-weight growth medium, and vegetation.
Section 14. Section 23.76.030.W—W Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
W. Definitions.
47
7 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
“Wall drain” means a drainage system behind retaining walls, rockeries, rock walls or modular block walls used to collect water moving through the soil or rock behind the wall or rockery.
“Water quality standards” means the Surface Water Quality Standards, Chapter 173- 201A WAC, Ground Water Quality Standards, Chapter 173-200, WAC, and Sediment Management Standards, Chapter 173-204 WAC, now or as hereafter amended.
“Waters of the state” includes those waters as defined as “waters of the United States” in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the geographic boundaries of Washington State and “waters of the state” as defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW, now or as hereafter amended, which includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters and all other surface water and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.
Section 15. Section 23.76.035 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.035 Permit requirements.
A clearing and grading permit is required for a project that involves any of the following described in subsections A.1 through 9 of this section, except as provided for in subsection B of this section. In applying this section, the total proposal shall be considered. Any project that requires a permit shall also comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 24.06 BCC, BCC Title 20, and all other applicable city codes.
1. Any clearing, filling, or excavation in a critical area or critical area buffer;
2. Fill and/or excavation totaling over 50 cubic yards. Quantities of fill and excavation are separately calculated and then added together, even if excavated material is used as fill on the same site;
3. Creation or addition of 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area within a 1-year period;
4. Over 1,000 square feet of clearing, as measured at the ground level within a 1-year period;
5. Construction or reconstruction of rockeries and modular block walls over four feet in height as measured from the bottom of the base rock or block;
6. Removal of more than 5 significant trees, as defined in LUC 20.50.046, now or as hereafter amended, within any 3-year period;
48
8 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
7. Removal of more than 25 percent of the live crown of any significant tree, as defined in LUC 20.50.046, now or as hereafter amended, that is required to be preserved by a city code, plat condition, or other requirement. The live crown is the crown of the tree containing live foliage. Pruning allowed by this subsection must be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Code;
8. Any regrading or repaving of a parking lot used for stormwater detention; and
9. Removal of any significant tree from any lot in an R-1 land use district in the Bridle Trails subarea, pursuant to the provisions of LUC 20.20.900, now or as hereafter amended.
B. The following activities are exempt from the requirements for a clearing and grading permit:
1. Agricultural crop management of existing farmed areas;
2. Routine landscape maintenance, as described in LUC 20.25H.055.C.3.h, now or as hereafter amended;
3. Work needed to correct an immediate danger to life or property in an emergency situation as declared by the mayor or the city manager or his/her designee;
4. Cemetery graves involving less than 50 cubic yards of excavation, and related filling, per each cemetery plot;
5. Routine drainage maintenance of existing, constructed stormwater drainage facilities located outside of a critical area or critical area buffer, including, but not limited to, detention/retention ponds, wetponds, sediment ponds, constructed drainage swales, water quality treatment facilities such as filtration systems, and regional stormwater facilities that are necessary to preserve the water quality treatment and flow control functions of the facility. This exemption does not apply to any expansion and/or modification to already excavated and constructed stormwater drainage facilities; or
6. Roadway repairs and overlays within public street rights-of-way for the purpose of maintaining the pavement on existing paved roadways, such that asphalt removal or milling does not expose more than 1,000 square feet of gravel base or subgrade. This exemption does not apply to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utilities, new traffic calming devices, new roadways, or the widening of the paved surface of existing roadways.
C. An exemption from a clearing and grading permit does not exempt the person or property owner doing the work from meeting all applicable city codes, including, but 49
9 1552-ORD 11/17/2016 not limited to, the storm and surface water utility code (Chapter 24.06 BCC), which requires that sediment and other pollutants be kept from the drainage system.
D. The Director may categorize clearing and grading permits by different types for administrative purposes, and different fees may be charged for different types. A clearing and grading permit may be issued as a component of a building permit, or other permit, rather than as a separate permit. The Director may require that single- family building permits and clearing and grading permits be combined.
E. The Director shall specify what submittal and application materials are required for a complete clearing and grading permit application, including the type of submittals, the required level of detail, the minimum qualifications of preparers of technical documents, and the number of copies. The Director may administratively establish different submittal requirements for different types of clearing and grading permits. The Director may, as well, administratively waive specific submittal requirements if he/she determines them to be unnecessary, or the Director may require additional information if needed for review of an application.
F. A construction stormwater pollution prevention plan, if required, must be submitted with the permit submittal and application materials described in subsection E of this section.
G. As a condition of applying for a permit for a project that includes clearing and grading, the applicant shall allow the city to enter the subject property in order to evaluate the proposed clearing and grading.
Section 16. Section 23.76.040 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.040 Permit issuance.
A. A clearing and grading permit shall be issued only in conjunction with, or as part of, one or more of the following permits or approvals, except as described in subsection B of this section:
1. A valid building permit application; provided, that if a discretionary land use approval pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.30 LUC or environmental (SEPA) review is required, the clearing and grading permit shall not be issued until the land use approval and the SEPA determination are final pursuant to LUC 20.35.045, now or as hereafter amended;
2. A utility developer system extension agreement approved by the Bellevue utilities department Director;
3. An approved conditional use permit or planned unit development approval;
50
10 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
4. Preliminary plat or preliminary short plat approval, where the clearing and grading permit is approved only for infrastructure construction, and not for clearing or grading building sites;
5. Preliminary plat or preliminary short plat approval, where the clearing and grading permit is approved for clearing or grading building sites; provided, that such approval may be granted only in compliance with BCC 23.76.042, now or as hereafter amended;
6. A planned unit development (PUD) approval where the clearing and grading permit is approved for infrastructure construction and for clearing and grading building sites;
7. An approved shoreline conditional use, shoreline substantial development permit or shoreline management exemption, provided all appeal periods pursuant to WAC 173-14-180, now or as hereafter amended, must have expired without the filing of an appeal;
8. A demolition permit;
9. Inclusion of the project in the city’s approved capital improvement program;
10. A valid right-of-way use permit application; provided, that if a discretionary land use approval pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.30 LUC, now or as hereafter amended, or environmental (SEPA) review is required, the clearing and grading permit shall not be issued until the land use approval and the SEPA determination are final pursuant to LUC 20.35.045, now or as hereafter amended; or
11. Completion of environmental (SEPA) review for surcharging a site or for environmental or toxics cleanup at a site; provided, that if a discretionary land use approval pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.30 LUC, now or as hereafter amended, is required, the clearing and grading permit shall not be issued until the land use approval and the SEPA determination are final pursuant to LUC 20.35.045, now or as hereafter amended.
B. The Director may approve issuance of a clearing and grading permit without an accompanying permit or other approval as listed in subsection A of this section; provided, that all of the following criteria are met (in addition to other applicable requirements of this chapter and other city codes):
1. The proposed clearing and grading is not related to a project for which one or more of the approvals listed in subsection A of this section is required;
51
11 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
2. Approval of the proposal will not pose a threat to or be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, nor be materially detrimental to fish and wildlife habitat, the storm and surface water system, or receiving waters;
3. The applicant has demonstrated that approval of the proposal is necessary for the reasonable development or maintenance of the property;
4. The proposal is not in a critical area or critical area buffer, or, if in a critical area or critical area buffer, complies with Part 20.25H LUC, now or as hereafter amended; and
5. If a discretionary land use approval pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.30 LUC, now or as hereafter amended, or environmental (SEPA) review is required, the clearing and grading permit shall not be issued until the land use approval and the SEPA determination are final pursuant to LUC 20.35.045, now or as hereafter amended.
C. If construction necessitates access, construction, or intrusion onto or across property not under the applicant’s control, then the applicant must provide the city with a copy of a valid construction easement or right of entry before the permit can be issued.
D. The permit may be issued to the property owner or his/her agent. Both the property owner and the agent will be considered the permittee and are each responsible for ensuring compliance with the terms of the permit.
Section 17. Section 23.76.042 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.042 Clearing and/or grading building sites with preliminary plat or preliminary short plat approval.
A. The Director may issue a clearing and grading permit in conjunction with preliminary plat or preliminary short plat approval for clearing and/or grading of building sites if the following criteria are met:
1. No portion of the building site:
a. Is within 200 feet of a critical area or critical area buffer, as defined in Chapter 20.50 LUC, now or as hereafter amended;
b. Is within the shoreline overlay district, as defined in Part 20.25E LUC, now or as hereafter amended; or
c. Drains by pipe, open ditch, sheetflow, or a combination of these directly to receiving waters. A building site is considered to drain directly to receiving 52
12 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
waters when it has a flow path of one-quarter mile or less where there is no intermediary permanent sediment trap or stormwater detention system between the site and receiving waters;
2. The Director, based on an evaluation of site and project conditions, determines the proposal adequately protects receiving waters from increased erosion and sedimentation during construction and after the building sites have been cleared and/or graded, and that the proposal complies with all other applicable provisions of the Land Use Code and the Bellevue City Code. The city’s review of the site and the proposed project shall include, but not be limited to, an evaluation of the following:
a. Sufficiency of the CSWPPP required by BCC 23.76.090 to prevent pollutants and silt-laden runoff from leaving the site and prevent impacts to receiving waters, or critical areas and critical area buffers, including:
i. Proposed construction schedule and the proposed erosion and sedimentation control BMPs. The construction schedule and BMPs must be designed and implemented to prevent sediment from leaving the project site and prevent impacts to critical areas or critical area buffers; and
ii. The proposed interim stabilization and maintenance of the cleared and/or graded building site(s) until final development and stabilization of the building site(s);
b. Size of the area and number of building sites to be cleared and/or graded, quantities of proposed cuts and/or fills, and classification of the predominant site soils and their erosion and runoff potential;
3. The Director’s approval may be limited to less than all of the proposed building sites, and may be limited to allowing clearing on only a portion of any building site. The Director may impose conditions on approval, including but not limited to:
a. Requiring extraordinary BMPs, as described in BCC 23.76.090, now or as hereafter amended;
b. When clearing and grading is suspended or interrupted, the permittee shall stabilize the site using appropriate erosion and sedimentation control BMPs and shall maintain the BMPs, as required pursuant to BCC 23.76.090, now or as hereafter amended; and
c. Additional restrictions and conditions may be imposed after the permit is issued, based on the demonstrated ability of the permittee to control erosion and sedimentation; 53
13 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
4. For work approved under this section, an abatement security device is required per BCC 23.76.140, now or as hereafter amended. The permittee may establish a single abatement security device for the entire project, or separate abatement security devices may be established for the infrastructure construction and for clearing and grading of building sites. If separate abatement security devices are established, the city shall release the abatement security device for infrastructure construction once the infrastructure construction is complete and final approval is granted pursuant to BCC 23.76.180, now or as hereafter amended. The city shall release the abatement security device for clearing and grading of building sites after the building permits for all building sites that were cleared and graded with preliminary plat or preliminary short plat approval have been issued;
5. If approval for clearing or grading of building sites is granted and the city subsequently issues three stop work orders (or fewer as provided in the conditions of the project permit) for insufficient erosion and sedimentation control, the approval will be suspended or revoked for all building sites in the plat or short plat. If the approval is suspended or revoked, the permittee must cease all clearing and grading work on the building sites, stabilize the building sites, and maintain the erosion control BMPs. The Director may reinstate a suspended approval within 60 days of suspension upon finding that satisfactory erosion and sedimentation control measures will be maintained by the permittee. If a suspended approval is not reinstated, or the approval is revoked, clearing and grading on building sites is not allowed until the time of building site development.
B. When clearing or grading of building sites is interrupted or suspended for any reason, the permittee shall stabilize the site(s) and maintain the erosion control BMPs consistent with BCC 23.76.090(E) and the clearing and grading development standards, now or as hereafter amended. If the city deems a construction site abandoned, the applicant or permittee shall install permanent erosion and sedimentation pursuant to BCC 23.76.090(F).
Section 18. Section 23.76.045 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.045 Vesting and expiration of permits and applications.
A. Projects Requiring Only Clearing and Grading Permits.1
1. Vesting Date. An application for an independent clearing and grading permit, pursuant to BCC 23.76.040, shall vest to this chapter, Chapter 24.06 BCC, now or as hereafter amended, and the corresponding development and engineering standards, on the date that a complete clearing and grading permit application is
54
14 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
submitted consistent with the requirements of BCC 23.76.035(E), now or as hereafter amended.
2. Expiration of Vested Status.
a. Before Issuance. An application for clearing and grading permit shall expire as follows:
i. An application for a clearing and grading permit for which no permit is issued within one year following the date of application shall expire by limitation and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed in accordance with state law. The Director may, prior to expiration, extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days.
ii. An application for a clearing and grading permit may be cancelled for inactivity if an applicant fails, without reasonable justification, to respond to the department’s written request for revisions or corrections within 90 days. The Director may extend the response period beyond 90 days if the applicant provides and adheres to a reasonable schedule for submitting the full revisions.
iii. In addition to the extension allowed in subsections A.2.a.i and ii of this section, the Director may extend the life of an application if any of the following conditions exist:
(a) Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act is in progress; or
(b) Any other city review is in progress; provided the applicant has submitted a complete response to city requests or the Director determines that unique or unusual circumstances exist that warrant additional time for such response, and the Director determines that the review is proceeding in a timely manner toward final city decision; or
(c) Litigation against the city or the applicant is in progress, the outcome of which may affect the validity or the provisions of any permit issued pursuant to such application.
iv. In no event may the Director extend the application for a period of more than 180 days following the conclusion of the applicable condition described in this subsection.
b. After Permit Issuance. The clearing and grading permit shall expire as follows:
55
15 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
i. The permit shall expire if the authorized work is not begun within one year from the date of permit issuance, or if work is abandoned for over 180 days.
ii. If the authorized work is continually performed, the permit shall expire one year from the date of issuance unless a different time frame is specified on the permit or an extension is granted. Two one-year extensions may be granted by the Director; provided, that conditions which were relevant to issuance of the permit have not changed substantially and no material detriment to the public welfare will result from the extension.
iii. If the clearing and grading permit is revoked pursuant to BCC 23.76.175, now or as hereafter amended or otherwise cancelled, the vested status of the clearing and grading permit shall expire on the date of revocation or cancellation.
B. Projects Requiring Prior Discretionary Land Use Permit or Approval.
1. Vesting Date. The vesting date for a clearing and grading permit requiring a prior discretionary land use permit or approval is contingent on the level of engineering detail provided by the applicant as described below:
a. Engineering Details Provided. For applicants that satisfy the submittal requirements of the Director specified in BCC 23.76.035.E, and also satisfy the storm and surface code submittal requirements for site development engineering, the vesting date to this chapter, Chapter 24.06 BCC, and the corresponding development and engineering standards is the date of issuance of the discretionary land use decision.
b. Conceptual Details Provided. For applicants that choose not to provide submittal requirements for site development engineering, the vesting date to this chapter, Chapter 24.06 BCC, and the corresponding development and engineering standards is the date that a complete building permit application is submitted consistent with the requirements of BCC 23.05.090.E, now or as hereafter amended.
2. Expiration of Vested Status.
a. Clearing and Grading Permit Vested with a Discretionary Permit or Approval. The vested status of a clearing and grading permit with a vesting date established pursuant to subsection (B)(1)(a) of this section shall run with the vested status of the underlying land use permit or approval and expire pursuant to the terms of LUC 20.40.500, now or as hereafter amended.
56
16 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
b. Clearing and Grading Permit Vested with a Complete Building Permit Application. The vested status of a clearing and grading permit with a vesting date established pursuant to subsection (B)(1)(b) of this section shall expire as follows:
i. Before Building Permit Issuance. The vested status of the clearing and grading permit shall run with the vested status of the building permit application and expire pursuant to the terms of BCC 23.05.090.H, now or as hereafter amended.
ii. After Building Permit Issuance. The vested status of the clearing and grading permit shall run with the vested status of the issued building permit and expire pursuant to the terms of BCC 23.05.100.E, now or as hereafter amended. The vested status of the clearing and grading permit shall be automatically extended for the life of the building permit. If the building permit expires, or is revoked or cancelled pursuant to BCC 23.05.100, now or as hereafter amended, or otherwise, then the vested status of a clearing and grading permit shall also expire, or be revoked or cancelled.
C. Projects Requiring Building Permits and No Prior Discretionary Land Use Permit or Approval.
1. Vesting Date. A clearing and grading permit for a project that requires building permits and no prior discretionary land use permit or approval shall vest to this chapter, Chapter 24.06 BCC, and the corresponding development and engineering standards on the date that a complete building permit application is submitted consistent with the requirements of BCC 23.05.090.E, now or as hereafter amended.
2. Expiration of Vested Status.
a. Before Building Permit Issuance. The vested status of the clearing and grading permit shall run with the vested status of the building permit application and expire pursuant to the terms of BCC 23.05.090.H, now or as hereafter amended.
b. Post Building Permit Issuance. The vested status of the clearing and grading permit shall run with the vested status of the issued building permit and expire pursuant to the terms of BCC 23.05.100.E, now or as hereafter amended. The vested status of the clearing and grading permit shall be automatically extended for the life of the building permit. If the building permit expires, or is revoked or cancelled pursuant to BCC 23.05.100, now or as hereafter amended, or otherwise, then the vested status of a clearing and grading permit shall also expire, or be revoked or cancelled.
57
17 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 19. Section 23.76.050 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.050 Conditions of approval – Project denial.
The Director may impose conditions on permit approval as needed to mitigate identified project impacts and shall deny permit applications that are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.
Section 20. Section 23.76.060 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.060 Clearing – Vegetation preservation and replacement.
The applicant/permittee shall:
A. Meet applicable Land Use Code requirements for tree retention and vegetation preservation, disturbance limitation, and new landscaping (including but not limited to LUC 20.20.520, Landscape development; LUC 20.20.900, Tree retention; Part 20.25H LUC, Critical Areas Overlay District; and Part 20.25E LUC, Shoreline Overlay District, now or as hereafter amended).
B. Preserve natural vegetation for erosion and sedimentation control and water quality and quantity control as detailed in the clearing and grading development standards.
C. Follow the methodology in the clearing and grading development standards (or equivalent methodology approved by the Director) for preserving/replacing vegetation.
D. Mark clearing limits in the field prior to clearing.
E. Incorporate a tree protection plan into the clearing and grading drawings. The tree protection plan shall define spatial limits for tree protection and include detailed drawings of tree protection and mitigation. The plan must be prepared by a certified arborist or a registered landscape architect, and shall become part of all construction documentation. (Note: in most instances, the tree survey can serve as the basis for the tree preservation information.)
F. When clearing activity is interrupted or suspended for any reason, the permittee shall stabilize the site(s) and maintain the erosion control BMPs consistent with BCC 23.76.090 and the clearing and grading development standards, now or as hereafter amended. If the city deems a construction site abandoned, the applicant or permittee shall install permanent erosion and sedimentation measures pursuant to BCC 23.76.090.F, now or as hereafter amended. 58
18 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 21. Section 23.76.070 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.070 Grading.
The applicant/permittee shall:
A. Meet applicable Land Use Code requirements related to grading, filling and excavation; including, but not limited to, Part 20.25H LUC, the critical areas overlay district, and Part 20.25E LUC, the shoreline overlay district, now or as hereafter amended.
B. Follow the methodology in the clearing and grading development standards for any proposed filling or excavation.
C. Meet applicable minimum requirements set forth in BCC 23.76.090 and 24.06.065, now or as hereafter amended.
D. When grading activity is interrupted or suspended for any reason, stabilize the site(s) and maintain the erosion control BMPs consistent with BCC 23.76.090 and the clearing and grading development standards, now or as hereafter amended. If the city deems a construction site abandoned, the applicant or permittee shall install permanent erosion and sedimentation measures pursuant to BCC 23.76.090.F, now or as hereafter amended.
Section 22. Section 23.76.080 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.080 Slopes.
The applicant/permittee shall:
A. Submit a geotechnical report, prepared by a geotechnical engineer, when required pursuant to the Land Use Code or clearing and grading development standards. The clearing and grading development standards specify when a subsurface investigation is required and the level of investigation and information required in the report;
B. Minimize clearing and grading on slopes 15 percent or greater and meet the geologic hazard areas performance standards set forth in LUC 20.25H.125, now or as hereafter amended. When clearing or grading of building sites is interrupted or suspended for any reason, the permittee shall stabilize the site(s) and maintain the erosion control BMPs consistent with BCC 23.76.090.E and the clearing and grading development standards, now or as hereafter amended. If the city deems a construction site abandoned, the applicant or permittee shall install permanent 59
19 1552-ORD 11/17/2016 erosion and sedimentation measures pursuant to BCC 23.76.090.F, now or as hereafter amended;
C. Comply with the Land Use Code restrictions applicable to geologic hazard areas (see LUC 20.25H.125, now or as hereafter amended);
D. Limit the maximum gradient of artificial slopes to no steeper than 2:1 (two feet of horizontal run to one foot of vertical fall) unless a geotechnical engineering report and slope stability analysis is provided and shows that a factor of safety of at least 1.5 for static loads and 1.1 for pseudostatic loads can be met, as demonstrated per the methodology in the clearing and grading development standards;
E. Perform no clearing, excavation, stockpiling or filling on the potential slide block of an unstable or potentially unstable slope unless it is demonstrated to the Director’s satisfaction that the activity would not increase the load, drainage, or erosion on the slope;
F. Perform no clearing, excavation, stockpiling or filling on any unstable or potentially unstable areas (such as landslide deposits) unless it is demonstrated to the Director’s satisfaction that the activity would not increase the risk of damage to adjacent property or natural resources or injury to persons;
G. Intercept any ground water, subsurface, or surface water drainage encountered on a cut slope and discharge it at a location approved by the Director in consultation with the Bellevue utilities department;
H. Follow the procedures and standards in the clearing and grading development standards related to slopes; and
I. Design and protect cut and fill slopes to minimize erosion.
Section 23. Section 23.76.085 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.085 Rockeries.
A. Rockeries may be used for erosion protection of cut or fill slopes. The primary function of a rockery is to protect the slope face from soil erosion and sloughing.
B. Rockeries used to protect uncontrolled fill slopes may be no higher than four feet, as measured from the bottom of the base rock.
C. Rockeries used to protect cut slopes or reinforced or engineered fill slopes may be up to a maximum height of 12 feet, as measured from the bottom of the base rock, with the approval of the Director. Any rockery that is over four feet high, as
60
20 1552-ORD 11/17/2016 measured from the bottom of the base rock (cut slopes and reinforced or engineered fill slopes only) shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer.
D. A wall drain must be provided for all rockeries greater than four feet in height as measured from the bottom of the base rock. The drains shall be installed in accordance with the clearing and grading development standards.
E. The procedures and requirements in the clearing and grading development standards related to rockery design and construction must be followed. If the rockery is within a property line setback, see also the height restrictions in LUC 20.20.025, now or as hereafter amended.
F. The geotechnical engineer must provide construction monitoring and/or testing as required by the permit conditions, and submit construction inspection reports to the department for all rockeries that require design by a geotechnical engineer. For each project, or phase of a project, the geotechnical engineer must provide a final letter or report summarizing the results of the construction monitoring and/or testing for each rockery, verifying that the rockery construction meets the geotechnical recommendations and design guidelines. The final letter or report must be submitted to the department prior to the final clearing and grading inspection.
Section 24. Section 23.76.086.C of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. The procedures and requirements in the clearing and grading development standards and guidelines related to the wall design and construction must be followed. If the wall is within a structure setback, see also the height in LUC 20.20.025, now or as hereafter amended.
Section 25. Section 23.76.090 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.090 Erosion and sedimentation control – Minimum requirement #2.
A. Purpose. The purpose of minimum requirement #2 is to prevent erosion and the discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the storm and surface water system and receiving waters using appropriate BMPs and site management techniques.
B. Applicability.
1. Minimum Requirement #2. This section describes requirements for applicants to prepare a CSWPPP for new development, redevelopment, and land disturbing activities that meet the thresholds set forth in this chapter. Applicants and permittees are responsible for preventing erosion and discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the storm and surface water system and receiving waters. The city does not offer erosivity waivers. 61
21 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
2. Applicants and permittees shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Bellevue City Code, rules, standards, and manuals adopted for this chapter and Chapter 24.06 BCC including, but not limited to, Chapter 24.06 (Storm and Surface Water Code) and corresponding engineering standards, BCC Title 20 (Land Use Code), the clearing and grading development standards, all other applicable codes and standards, and the Ecology Manual, now or as hereafter amended..
3. Exemption. The Director may exempt the following projects from the requirements of preparing a CSWPPP:
a. Projects that are covered under the Washington State Department of Ecology’s construction stormwater general permit and the permittee is fully implementing and in compliance with the requirements of that permit. To apply for this exemption, the applicant must provide with its permit application materials a copy of the permit coverage letter from the Washington State Department of Ecology, and a copy of the corresponding stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).
b. Projects that involve clearing of 1,000 square feet or less, and grading of 50 cubic yards or less, but require a clearing and grading permit in accordance with BCC 23.76.035.A, now or as hereafter amended.
C. General Requirements.
1. The CSWPPP shall include a narrative and drawings. All BMPs shall be clearly referenced in the narrative and marked on the drawings. The CSWPPP narrative shall include documentation to explain and justify the pollution prevention decisions made for the project. All elements listed below must be considered and included in the CSWPPP unless site conditions render the element unnecessary and the Director determines that the exemption from that element is clearly justified based on the narrative of the CSWPPP.
2. Clearing and grading activities for developments shall be permitted only if conducted pursuant to an approved site development plan (e.g., subdivision approval) that establishes permitted areas of clearing, grading, cutting, and filling. When establishing these permitted clearing and grading areas, significant trees shall be maintained consistent with BCC Title 20, including, but not limited to, LUC 20.20.520 and 20.20.900, now or as hereafter amended. Consideration should be given to minimizing removal of other trees and minimizing disturbance and/or compaction of native soils except as needed for building purposes.
3. Applicants must prepare and submit a CSWPPP for all projects that meet the permitting thresholds in BCC 23.76.035, except as exempted in BCC 62
22 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
23.76.090.B.3, now or as hereafter amended. The CSWPPP shall be implemented beginning with initial soil disturbance and until final stabilization. The permitted clearing and grading areas and any other areas required to preserve critical areas or critical area buffers, native growth protection areas, retained vegetation areas, or tree retention areas, as the city may require, shall be delineated on the site plans and the development site.
4. For projects with clearing totaling less than 7,000 square feet and grading less than 500 cubic yards, the CSWPPP may consist of a CSWPPP short form and a site plan. A turbidity and pH monitoring plan may also be required depending on site characteristics, such as topography, proximity to receiving waters, or critical areas and critical area buffers.
5. Sediment and erosion control BMPs shall be consistent with the BMPs contained in the clearing and grading development standards now or hereafter amended.
6. Seasonal Work Limitations. From October 1st through April 30th, clearing and grading activities shall only be authorized by the city if silt-laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through compliance with applicable provisions of BCC 23.76.093, now or as hereafter amended. Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the Director may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance.
a. The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations:
i. Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs;
ii. Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil; and
iii. Activities where there is 100 percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities.
b. Clearing, grading, and hauling are not allowed during periods of heavy rain.
D. CSWPPP Elements. The applicant shall include all elements below in the CSWPPP and ensure that they are implemented, unless site conditions render the
63
23 1552-ORD 11/17/2016 element unnecessary and the Director determines that the exemption from that element is clearly justified based on the CSWPPP.
1. Preserve Vegetation/Mark Clearing Limits.
a. Before beginning land disturbing activities, including clearing and grading, clearly mark all clearing limits, critical areas and critical area buffers, and trees that are to be preserved within the construction area.
b. Retain the duff layer, native topsoil, and natural vegetation in an undisturbed state to the maximum degree practicable, and, where applicable, meet the requirements of LUC 20.20.520, now or as hereafter amended.
2. Establish Construction Access.
a. Limit construction vehicle access and exit to one route, if possible.
b. Stabilize access points with a pad of quarry spalls, crushed rock, or other equivalent BMPs to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads.
c. Locate wheel wash or tire baths on-site, if the stabilized construction entrance is not effective in preventing tracking sediment onto roads.
d. If sediment is tracked off site, clean the affected roadways thoroughly as directed by the city or at a minimum at the end of each day, or more frequently as necessary (for example during wet weather). Remove sediment from roads by shoveling, sweeping, or pickup and transport the sediment to a controlled sediment disposal area.
e. Conduct street washing only after sediment is removed in accordance with subsection D.2.d of this section. Street wash wastewater shall be controlled by pumping back on site or otherwise be prevented from discharging into the storm and surface water system or receiving waters.
f. Control street wash wastewater by pumping back on-site, or otherwise prevent it from discharging into systems tributary to waters of the State.
3. Control Flow Rates.
a. Protect properties and waterways downstream of development sites from erosion and the associated discharge of turbid waters due to increases in the velocity and peak volumetric flow rate of stormwater runoff from the project site. 64
24 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
b. Where necessary to comply with subsection D.3.a of this section, construct stormwater retention or detention facilities as one of the first steps in grading. Assure that detention facilities function properly before constructing site improvements (e.g., impervious surfaces).
c. If permanent infiltration ponds are used for flow control during construction, protect these facilities from siltation during the construction phase.
4. Install Sediment Controls.
a. Design, install and maintain effective erosion controls and sediment controls to minimize the discharge of pollutants.
b. Construct sediment control BMPs (sediment ponds, traps, filters, etc.) as one of the first steps in grading. These BMPs shall be functional before other land-disturbing activities take place.
c. Minimize sediment discharges from the site. The design, installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls must address factors such as the amount, frequency, intensity and duration of precipitation, the nature of resulting stormwater runoff, and soil characteristics, including the range of soil particle sizes expected to be present on the site.
d. Direct stormwater runoff from disturbed areas through a sediment pond or other appropriate sediment removal BMP, before the runoff leaves a construction site or before discharge to an infiltration facility. Runoff from fully stabilized areas may be discharged without a sediment removal BMP, but must meet the flow control performance standard in D.3.a, above.
e. Locate BMPs intended to trap sediment on-site in a manner to avoid interference with the movement of juvenile salmonids attempting to enter off-channel areas or drainages.
f. Where feasible, design outlet structures that withdraw impounded stormwater from the surface to avoid discharging sediment that is still suspended in the water column.
5. Stabilize Soils.
a. Stabilize exposed and unworked soils by application of effective BMPs described in the clearing and grading development standards that prevent erosion. Applicable BMPs include, but are not limited to: temporary and 65
25 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, soil application of polyacrylamide (PAM), the early application of gravel base early on areas to be paved, and dust control.
b. Control stormwater volume and velocity within the site to minimize soil erosion.
c. Control stormwater discharges, including both peak flow rates and total stormwater volume, to minimize erosion at outlets and to minimize downstream channel and stream bank erosion.
d. Soils must not remain exposed and unworked for more than the time periods set forth below:
i. During the dry season (May 1st – September 30th): 7 days.
ii. During the wet season (October 1st – April 30th): 2 days.
e. Stabilize soils at the end of the shift before a holiday or weekend, if needed, based on the weather forecast.
f. Stabilize soil stockpiles from erosion, protect with sediment trapping measures, and, where possible, locate away from the storm and surface water system and receiving waters.
g. Minimize the amount of soil exposed during construction activity.
h. Minimize the disturbance of steep slopes.
i. Minimize soil compaction and, unless infeasible, preserve topsoil.
6. Protect Slopes.
a. Comply with applicable provisions of BCC 23.76.080, now or as hereafter amended.
b. Design and construct cut and fill slopes in a manner to minimize erosion. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, reducing continuous length of slope with terracing and diversion, reducing slope steepness, and roughening slope surfaces (for example, track walking).
c. Divert off-site stormwater (run-on) or groundwater away from slopes and disturbed areas with interceptor dikes, pipes, and/or swales. Off-site stormwater should be managed separately from stormwater generated on the site. 66
26 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
d. At the top of slopes, collect drainage in pipe slope drains or protected channels to prevent erosion.
e. Temporary pipe slope drains must handle the peak 10-minute velocity of flow from a Type 1A, 10-year, 24-hour frequency storm for the developed condition. Alternatively, the 10-year, one-hour flow rate predicted by an approved continuous runoff model, increased by a factor of 1.6, may be used. The hydrologic analysis must use the existing land cover condition for predicting flow rates from tributary areas outside the project limits. For tributary areas on the project site, the analysis must use the temporary or permanent project land cover condition, whichever will produce the highest flow rates. If using the Western Washington Hydrology Model to predict flows, bare soil areas shall be modeled as “landscaped area.”
f. Place excavated material on the uphill side of trenches, consistent with safety and space considerations.
g. Place check dams at regular intervals within constructed channels that are cut down a slope.
7. Protect Drain Inlets.
a. Protect storm drain inlets made operable during construction so that stormwater runoff does not enter the conveyance system without first being filtered or treated to remove sediment.
b. Clean or remove and replace inlet protection devices when sediment has filled one-third of the available storage (unless a different standard is specified by the product manufacturer).
8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets.
a. Design, construct, and stabilize all on-site conveyance channels to prevent erosion from the following expected peak flows. Channels must handle the indicated peak 10-minute flow velocity from a Type 1A, 10-year, 24-hour frequency storm for the developed condition. Alternatively, the 10- year, one-hour flow rate predicted by an approved continuous runoff model, increased by a factor of 1.6, may be used. The hydrologic analysis must use the existing land cover condition for predicting flow rates from tributary areas outside the project limits. For tributary areas on the project site, the analysis shall use the temporary or permanent project land cover condition, whichever will produce the highest flow rates. If using the Western Washington
67
27 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
Hydrology Model to predict flows, bare soil areas should be modeled as “landscaped area.”
b. Provide stabilization, including armoring material, adequate to prevent erosion of outlets, adjacent stream banks, slopes, and downstream reaches at the outlets of all conveyance systems.
9. Control Pollutants.
a. Design, install, implement and maintain effective pollution prevention measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants.
b. Handle and dispose all pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur on-site in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater.
c. Provide cover, containment, and protection from vandalism for all chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products, and other materials that have the potential to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On-site fueling tanks must include secondary containment. Secondary containment means placing tanks or containers within an impervious structure capable of containing 110% of the volume contained in the largest tank within the containment structure. Double walled tanks do not require additional secondary containment.
d. Conduct maintenance, fueling, and repair of heavy equipment and vehicles using spill prevention and control measures. Clean contaminated surfaces immediately following any spill incident.
e. Discharge wheel wash or tire bath wastewater to a separate on-site treatment system that prevents discharge to surface water, such as closed loop recirculation or upland application, or to the sanitary sewer upon approval by the King County Wastewater Treatment Division and the city’s utilities department.
f. Apply fertilizers and pesticides in a manner and at application rates that will not result in loss of chemicals to stormwater runoff. Follow manufacturers’ label requirements for application rates and procedures.
g. Use BMPs to prevent contamination of stormwater runoff by pH modifying sources. The sources for this contamination include, but are not limited to: bulk cement, cement kiln dust, fly ash, new concrete washing and curing waters, waste streams generated from concrete grinding and sawing, exposed aggregate processes, dewatering concrete vaults, concrete pumping and mixer washout waters.
68
28 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
h. Adjust the pH of stormwater if necessary to prevent violations of water quality standards.
i. Assure that washout of concrete trucks is performed off-site or in designated concrete washout areas only. Do not wash out concrete trucks onto the ground, or into storm drains, open ditches, streets or streams. Do not dump excess concrete on-site, except in designated concrete washout areas. Concrete spillage or concrete discharge to surface waters of the state is prohibited.
j. Obtain written approval from Ecology before using chemical treatment other than CO2 or dry ice to adjust pH. Permittees shall provide the city with a copy of Ecology’s written approval before commencing treatment.
10. Control Dewatering.
a. Discharge foundation, vault, and trench de-watering water, which have similar characteristics to stormwater runoff at the site, into a controlled conveyance system before discharge to a sediment trap or sediment pond.
b. Discharge clean, nonturbid water from dewatering activities, such as well- point ground water, to the storm and surface water system or directly into receiving waters; provided the dewatering flow does not cause erosion or flooding of receiving waters. Do not route clean dewatering water through stormwater sediment ponds. Note that “surface waters of the State” may exist on a construction site; for example, a creek running through the site.
c. Handle highly turbid or otherwise contaminated dewatering water separately from stormwater.
d. Other treatment or disposal options may include:
(i) Infiltration;
(ii) Transport offsite in vehicle, such as a vacuum flush truck, for legal disposal in a manner that does not pollute receiving waters;
(iii) Ecology-approved on-site chemical treatment or other suitable treatment technologies;
(iv) Sanitary sewer discharge upon approval from the King County Wastewater Treatment Division and the city’s utilities department, if there is no other option; or
(v) Use of a sedimentation bag with outfall to a ditch or swale for small volumes of localized dewatering. 69
29 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
11. Maintain BMPs.
a. Maintain and repair all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function in accordance with BMP specifications.
b. Remove all temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs within 30 days after achieving final site stabilization or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed.
12. Manage the Project.
a. Phase development projects to the maximum degree practicable and take into account seasonal work limitations.
b. Inspection and monitoring – Inspect, maintain, and repair all BMPs as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function.
c. Maintaining an updated CSWPPP – Maintain, update, and implement the CSWPPP.
d. Projects that disturb one or more acres must have site inspections conducted by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL). By the initiation of construction, the CSWPPP must identify the CESCL or inspector who must be present on site or on call at all times.
13. Protect Low Impact Development BMPs
a. Protect all Bioretention and Rain Garden BMPs from sedimentation through installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control BMPs on the portions of the site that drain into Bioretention and/or Rain Garden BMPs. Restore the BMPs to their fully functioning condition if they accumulate sediment during construction. Restoring the BMP must include removal of sediment and any sediment-laden Bioretention/rain garden soils, and replacing the removed soils with soils meeting the design specification.
b. Prevent compacting Bioretention and Rain Garden BMPs by excluding construction equipment and foot traffic. Protect completed lawn and landscaped areas from compaction due to construction equipment.
c. Control erosion and avoid introducing sediment from surrounding land used onto permeable pavements. Do not allow muddy construction equipment on
70
30 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
the base material or pavement. Do not allow sediment laden runoff onto permeable pavements or base materials.
d. Pavements fouled with sediments or no longer passing an initial infiltration test must be cleaned using procedures from the City of Bellevue stormwater manual (now or hereafter amended), or the manufacturer’s procedures.
e. Keep all heavy equipment off existing soils under LID BMPs that have been excavated to final grade to retain the infiltration rate of the soils.
E. Additional Erosion and Sedimentation Control Requirements.
1. In addition to the CSWPPP elements listed in subsection D of this section, the Director may impose the following extraordinary BMPs or other additional measures, as appropriate for the project:
a. Funding additional city inspection time, up to a full-time inspector;
b. Stopping work if necessary to control erosion and sedimentation; or
c. Constructing additional erosion and sedimentation BMPs.
2. If the initially implemented BMPs do not adequately control pollutants, erosion, and sedimentation, additional BMPs shall be installed, including but not limited to the extraordinary BMPs described in subsection E.1 of this section. It is the permittee’s responsibility to ensure sediment or other pollutants do not leave the site and enter the storm and surface water system or receiving waters in an amount that would violate the discharge prohibitions set forth in BCC 24.06.125, now or as hereafter amended.
F. Permanent Erosion and Sedimentation Control.
1. Permanent erosion and sedimentation control shall be provided per the clearing and grading development standards. Disturbed areas of the site that are not covered by permanent improvements such as buildings, parking lots, and decks shall be mulched or vegetated.
2. The permittee must complete the required permanent erosion control within seven days of completed grading unless the weather is unsuitable for transplanting. In that case, the permittee must maintain temporary erosion control until permanent restoration can be completed. The period between work completion and final planting shall not exceed six months without written authorization from the Director.
Section 26. Section 23.76.093 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 71
31 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
23.76.093 Temporary restrictions on clearing and grading. A. Clearing and grading may be permitted to continue or to be initiated during the rainy season only if the Director grants specific approval per subsection C of this section. In determining whether to permit rainy season construction, the Director shall consult with the Bellevue utilities department. Such consultation shall occur on a regular basis to ensure consistent implementation of the city’s environmental and water quality policies and shall occur as needed regarding individual projects on specific sites.
B. If clearing and grading is prohibited during the rainy season, building construction may nonetheless proceed as long as necessary clearing and grading is complete and effective erosion control is in place and effectively maintained, as described in BCC 23.76.090, now or as hereafter amended.
C. The Director may grant approval to initiate or continue clearing or grading activity during the rainy season only if, based on an evaluation of site and project conditions, the Director determines the proposal ensures slope stability and adequately protects receiving waters from increased erosion and sedimentation during construction. The evaluation of site and project conditions shall include, but not be limited to, an evaluation of the following:
1. Whether the clearing and grading is near completion if the project is already underway;
2. Average existing slope of the site;
3. Quantity of proposed cut and/or fill;
4. Classification of the predominant soils and their erosion and runoff potential;
5. Proposed deep utility installation;
6. Hydraulic connection of the site to features which are sensitive to the impacts of erosion/sedimentation;
7. Ability to phase clearing and grading and to create a feasible clearing and grading schedule;
8. Extent of clearing and grading BMPs proposed, and, if the project is underway, the permittee’s historical record at controlling erosion and sedimentation.
D. Determinations under subsection C of this section shall be made by the Director on a site-specific basis. However, the following limitations apply:
72
32 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
1. Rainy season construction generally will be prohibited for proposals requiring large-scale clearing and grading.
2. Rainy season construction generally will be approved for smaller-scale clearing and grading proposals that have limited shallow utility installation and are on sites with less than 15 percent slopes, predominant soils that have low runoff potential, and are not hydraulically connected to sediment/erosion- sensitive features.
3. Rainy season construction generally will be approved if extraordinary BMPs to control erosion/sedimentation and slope stability are proposed and included in the construction stormwater pollution prevention plan and when:
a. Moderate scale clearing and grading is proposed;
b. The proposal involves deep utility installation; or
c. The proposal is located on sites with greater than 15 percent slopes, soils with a high runoff potential, or sites hydraulically near a sediment/erosion- sensitive feature.
E. Whenever rainy season clearing and grading is allowed, the permittee may be required to implement extraordinary BMPs as described in BCC 23.76.090.E, now or as hereafter amended, if the BMPs that are initially implemented are not working. If the permit was issued in the dry season, and work is allowed to continue in the rainy season, the city may modify the previously issued permit to require additional, extraordinary BMPs.
F. If a clearing and grading permit is issued, and the city subsequently issues three stop work orders (or fewer as provided in the conditions of the project permit) for insufficient erosion and sedimentation control, the permit will be suspended until the dry season, or, if violations occurred in the dry season, until weather conditions are favorable and effective erosion and sedimentation control is in place. The Director may reinstate the permit within 60 days of suspension upon finding that satisfactory erosion and sedimentation control measures will be maintained by the permittee.
G. At any time, the Director has the authority to temporarily stop clearing and grading during periods of heavy rain.
H. When clearing and grading is suspended during the rainy season or interrupted at any time of the year due to heavy rain or for other reasons, the permittee shall stabilize the site and maintain the erosion control BMPs. If the city deems a construction site abandoned, the permittee shall install permanent erosion and sedimentation measures pursuant to BCC 23.76.090.F, now or as hereafter amended.
73
33 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 27. Section 23.76.095 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.095 Dust suppression.
Dust from clearing, grading, and other construction activities shall be minimized at all times. Impervious surfaces on or near the construction area shall be swept, vacuumed, or otherwise maintained to suppress dust entrainment. Any dust suppressants used shall be approved by the Director. Petrochemical dust suppressants are prohibited. Watering the site to suppress dust is also prohibited unless it is done in a way that keeps sediment out of the storm and surface water system and receiving waters.
Section 28. Section 23.76.100 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.100 Control of other pollutants.
The permittee shall properly handle and dispose of other pollutants that are on site during construction so as to avoid possible health risks or environmental contamination. Direct and indirect discharge of pollutants to the storm and surface water system and receiving waters is prohibited per Chapter 24.06 BCC, now or as hereafter amended.
Section 29. Section 23.76.110 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.110 Construction phasing and work progress.
A. Staged construction is allowed only if each phase complies with the code, and if the Director approves a phasing plan.
B. The permittee shall expeditiously proceed with permitted work until completion unless the Director allows (or requires) delays due to bad weather or the need to coordinate other construction on the site.
Section 30. Section 23.76.140 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.140 Abatement security.
A. An abatement security device is required for all projects that are not individual single-family homes and that involve more than 5,000 square feet of clearing and/or more than 250 cubic yards of excavation and/or fill. In addition, the Director may require an abatement security device for other projects, including individual single-
74
34 1552-ORD 11/17/2016 family homes, that can cause problems related to earth and water resources such as erosion and sedimentation or slope instability.
B. The Director shall determine the amount of the abatement security device; it must be sufficient to correct or eliminate problems related to earth or water resources, either on or off site, caused by project clearing and grading.
C. The Director shall determine acceptable forms (such as assigned savings accounts or letters of credit) for abatement security devices. Interest from any interest-bearing form of the abatement security device shall accrue to the depositor.
D. Should the city, at any time during the life of the permit, find it necessary to expend any portion of the abatement security device to correct any work not in accordance with the approved plans, or abate conditions, per Chapter 1.18 BCC, now or as hereafter amended, a stop work order shall be issued to the permittee prohibiting any additional work until the permittee re-establishes the original amount of the security and implements more rigorous erosion control BMPs to prevent reoccurrences of the problem. If the city uses any of the abatement security, it shall give the permittee an itemized statement of all funds used. If city costs exceed the amount of the abatement security, the permittee shall reimburse the city for the excess costs.
E. The city shall release the abatement security device once final clearing and grading approval has been given per BCC 23.76.180, now or as hereafter amended.
G. If at any time the city manager determines that clearing and/or grading associated with an abatement security device has created an emergency situation endangering the public health, safety, or welfare, creating a potential liability for the city, or endangering city streets, utilities, or property; the city may use the abatement security device to correct the emergency situation. The city may have city employees or a contractor working under the city’s direction do the work or make the improvements. If the city uses the abatement security device as provided by this section, the permittee shall be notified in writing within four days of the commencement of emergency work. The notice must state the work that was completed and the nature or timing of the emergency that necessitated the use of the abatement security device without prior notification.
Section 31. Section 23.76.160 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.160 Project inspections – City access.
A. All projects with a clearing and grading permit are subject to city inspections to ensure compliance with the permit. As a condition of permit issuance, the applicant must grant right of entry for such inspections and city emergency corrective measures. 75
35 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
B. At a minimum, city inspections are required before clearing, grading, or construction and during construction to verify proper installation and maintenance of required erosion and sediment controls, and upon completion of construction. The Director will specify other stages of work when city inspection is required. The Director may also require inspection and testing by an approved testing agency, to be paid by the applicant.
A. The Director shall specify inspection and testing requirements applicable to a given project prior to permit issuance; however, the Director may require additional inspection, testing, or professional analysis and recommendations when conditions exist that were not covered in the permit application documents or were not sufficiently known at the time of permit issuance.
B. The permittee must give the Director at least 24 hours of advance notice prior to needed inspections. Inspections will be scheduled for the next working day after receiving the request, except if the notice is received on Friday, the inspection will be scheduled for Tuesday. If the city does not inspect the project within eight working hours of the scheduled inspection time, the permittee may proceed, but must still comply with all permit conditions and the requirements of this chapter.
Section 32. Section 23.76.170 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.170 Responsibility for damage arising from clearing and grading activities.
The permittee or property owner shall bear the costs of measures needed to correct damage caused by clearing and grading activities, including impacts to the storm and surface water system. The permittee is required to correct on-site or off-site damages that are caused by the project per the direction of the Director and within the time specified in the Director’s written correction notice. Otherwise, the city, or a contractor working under the direction of the city, shall do so using the abatement security device, or other remedies available under Chapter 1.18 BCC, now or as hereafter amended. If no abatement security device was provided, the city will provide an invoice to the permittee or property owner that must be paid in 30 days, or otherwise undertake enforcement action under Chapter 1.18 BCC, now or as hereafter amended.
Section 33. Section 23.76.175 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.175 Permit revocation.
The Director may revoke or suspend the clearing and grading permit whenever:
76
36 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
A. The permittee requests such revocation or suspension;
B. The work does not proceed in accordance with the plans, as approved, or is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter or other city ordinances;
C. Entry upon the property for the purpose of investigation or inspection has been denied;
D. The permittee has made a misrepresentation of a material fact in applying for such permit;
E. The progress of the work indicates that the plan is or will be inadequate to protect the public, the adjoining property, the street, critical areas or critical area buffers, receiving waters, the storm and surface water system, or other utilities, or the work endangers or will endanger the public, the adjoining property, the street, critical areas or critical area buffers, receiving waters, the storm and surface water system or other utilities; or
F. The permit has not been acted upon or extended within the time allowed pursuant to BCC 23.76.045.B, now or as hereafter amended.
Section 33. Section 23.76.180 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.180 Final approval.
The Director shall give final clearing and grading approval once all work is completed per the permit.
Section 34. Section 23.76.185 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.185 As-built plans.
For clearing and grading undertaken to develop plat or short plat infrastructure, the permittee shall submit a copy of the as-built plans submitted to the utility and transportation departments. Such plan(s) shall be submitted prior to final approval per BCC 23.76.180, now or as hereafter amended.
Section 35. Section 23.76.190 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.76.190 Violations – Penalties.
A. Violations of this chapter are detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
77
37 1552-ORD 11/17/2016
B. Civil Violation. Any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter constitutes a civil violation as provided for in BCC 1.18.075, now or as hereafter amended, for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement may be required as provided therein.
C. Destruction of Notice. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove, mutilate, destroy, or conceal any notice issued and posted by the Director pursuant to this chapter.
Section 36. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Section 37. This ordinance shall take effect on December 31, 2016.
Passed by the City Council this _____ day of , 2016 and signed in authentication of its passage this ______day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Approved as to form: Lori M. Riordan, City Attorney
Catherine A. Drews, Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
Published
78
38 November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Ordinance amending the City of Bellevue Transportation Development Code, Chapter 14.60, to incorporate Low Impact Development Principles by amending Sections 14.60.110 (Street frontage improvements); 14.60.120 (Landscaping in right-of-way, easements and access tracts); and 14.60.170 (Street ends); providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of Low Impact Development Principles Project (LID Principles Project) code amendments is generally anticipated to be minimal and will be met with current staffing levels. The LID Principles Project should have only minimal to no impact on Capital Improvement Projects because stormwater controls, Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, are required under the Washington State Department of Ecology’s 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, and those requirements are outside of this project.
STAFF CONTACTS Catherine A. Drews, Assistant City Attorney (Project Manager), 452-6134 City Attorney’s Office
Paul Bucich, Assistant Engineering Director, 452-4596 Utilities Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Should the City amend its Transportation Development Code (TDC) to incorporate LID Principles with the intent to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff related to new development and redevelopment by allowing bio-retention stormwater facilities in transportation infrastructure, vegetation-based LID best management practices as storm drainage in street frontage improvements, and establishing a preference for native vegetation or vegetation proven to thrive in urban environments, when vegetation is required under the TDC? The following Comprehensive Plan Policies support this policy issue:
Utilities Element UT-38. Encourage the use of low impact development and stormwater best management practices to manage stormwater runoff, which may result in smaller facilities constructed on- and off-site for flow control, conveyance, and water quality. Transportation Element TR-144. Incorporate natural drainage practices into transportation infrastructure projects where effective and feasible Environmental Element EN-24. Reduce runoff from streets, parking lots and other impervious surfaces and improve surface water quality by utilizing low impact development techniques in new development and 79 redevelopment. EN-46. Make low impact development the preferred and commonly-used approach to site development to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The LID Principles Project is a requirement under the City’s NPDES Phase II stormwater permit (NPDES Permit). The NPDES Permit is a requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act and is intended to protect and restore water for “fishable, swimmable” uses. Bellevue is one approximately 100 municipalities in Western Washington required to obtain a municipal stormwater discharge permit. Ecology issued the Phase II municipal stormwater permit in January 2007, and revised the permit in August 2013. The Permit authorizes discharge of stormwater runoff from municipal storm drainage systems into the state’s surface waters (i.e.: streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc.) as long as municipalities implement the Stormwater Management Program required by the Permit.
Under the NPDES Permit, the City was required to review and revise its development codes and standards to incorporate LID principles, and under a separate project, low impact development Best Management Practices (BMPs). The intent of the revision is to make LID the preferred and commonly used approach to site development. The City completed its review of its code and standards, which included numerous public outreach events and a public hearing before the Transportation Commission on July 14, 2016. The Transportation Commission unanimously voted to recommend the LID Principles Project amendments to the TDC.
Staff presented the Transportation Commission’s recommendation to the Council at the October 10 Study Session. An additional study session was held on October 24 to continue discussions of the LID Principles Project. At the October 24 Study Session, Council directed staff to return with a final ordinance for action on November 21. The final ordinance is included as Attachment A.
The proposed amendments to the TDC assist in reducing impervious surfaces, vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff by allowing bio-retention stormwater facilities in transportation infrastructure, allowing vegetation-based LID best management practices as storm drainage in street frontage improvements, and establishing a preference for native vegetation or vegetation proven to thrive in urban environments, when vegetation is required under the TDC.
The amendments to the TDC and the companion proposed amendments to the City of Bellevue Land Use Code are intended to make LID the preferred and commonly used approach to site development. This project also supports other Council goals and objectives, such as Utilities Stormwater System Plan’s Strategic Initiatives -- the overarching goal of which is to control damage from storms, protect surface water quality, support fish and wildlife habitat, and protect the environment.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Ordinance becomes effective on December 31, 2016.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt Ordinance amending the City of Bellevue Transportation Development Code, Chapter 14.60, to incorporate Low Impact Development Principles by amending Sections 14.60.110 (Street frontage improvements); 14.60.120 (Landscaping in right-of-way, easements and access tracts); and 14.60.170 (Street ends); providing for severability; and establishing an effective date. 80 2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt Ordinance No. 6319 amending the City of Bellevue Transportation Development Code, Chapter 14.60, to incorporate Low Impact Development Principles by amending Sections 14.60.110 (Street frontage improvements); 14.60.120 (Landscaping in right-of-way, easements and access tracts); and 14.60.170 (Street ends); providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
ATTACHMENTS Ordinance - Redlined Proposed Ordinance No. 6319
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY N/A
81 1553-ORD 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6319
AN ORDINANCE amending the City of Bellevue Transportation Development Code, Chapter 14.60, to incorporate Low Impact Development Principles by amending Sections 14.60.110 (Street frontage improvements); 14.60.120 (Landscaping in right-of-way, easements and access tracts); and 14.60.170 (Street ends); providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
WHEREAS, the City of Bellevue (the "City") is subject to the terms of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) and Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit (“Phase II Permit” or "Permit"), issued August 1, 2012, and modified on January 16, 2014, by the State of Washington Department of Ecology ("Ecology") in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act and state law; and
WHEREAS the Permit requires that the City review, revise and make effective development-related codes, rules, standards, or other enforceable documents to incorporate and require Low Impact Development (“LID”) principles by December 31, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the revisions under the Permit are to make low impact development the preferred and commonly-used approach to site development; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated the LID Principles Project in order to review its existing development-related codes, rules, standards, or other enforceable documents in September of 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City’s review of its documents followed a process similar to that outlined in Integrating LID into Local Codes: A Guidebook for Local Governments (Puget Sound Partnership, 2012),; as required under the Permit; and
WHEREAS, in August 2015, following substantial work by the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted updated low impact development policies into the Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan, in August, 2015; and
WHEREAS, making low impact development the preferred and commonly- used approach to site development to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff is a goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and 82
1 1553-ORD 11/17/2016
WHEREAS, the Transportation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on July 14, 2016, after providing legally required public notice; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Commission, after holding the July 14, 2016 public hearing, unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the City’s Environmental Procedures Code, chapter 22.02 BCC,; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 14.60.110.B of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. The installation of street frontage improvements is required for all new development, subdivisions, and short subdivisions as a condition of development approval in order to incorporate transportation improvements that are reasonably necessary to mitigate the direct impacts of the development. Installation of street frontage improvement is also required when necessary for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts identified pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. For additions and remodels to existing buildings see LUC 20.20.560 and 20.25D.060. This requirement shall not apply to single-family dwellings.
B. Complete street frontage improvements shall be installed along the entire street frontage of the property at the sole cost of the developer as directed by the review engineer. Street frontage improvements may include curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, street lighting, traffic signal equipment, public utility relocation, franchise utility relocation, landscaping strip, street trees and landscaping, irrigation, street pavement widening, bicycle lanes, safety railings, street signs, pavement marking, and channelization. Storm drainage may include bioretention swales or other vegetation-based LID BMPs. For additional requirements regarding franchise utility relocations, see BCC 14.60.230. Beyond the property frontage, the developer shall provide ramps or other appropriate transition from the new sidewalk or walkway to the existing shoulder, and pavement and channelization tapering back to the existing pavement and channelization as needed for safety. The street frontage improvements shall be continued off-site if, and to the extent, deemed necessary by the review engineer in order to provide a safe condition.
Section 2. Section 14.60.120.C.1 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. Applicability. The requirements of this section apply when street frontage improvements are required as part of any development by BCC 14.60.110 or the 83 Land Use Code, as may be hereinafter amended. 2 1553-ORD 11/17/2016
B. Required Review. The city shall review proposed street frontage improvements for compliance with this section and other applicable city policies and codes.
C. Preservation of Existing Street Trees and Landscaping.
1. Retention of existing vegetation may be required along city streets. When retention is not feasible, native plant species, or species with a proven ability to survive in an urban environment are preferred for landscaping.
Section 3. Section 14.60.170.C of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. All dead-end public streets and private roads greater than 150 feet in length shall be constructed with a turnaround facility per the Transportation Department Design Manual Standard 7 – Street End Designs, as currently adopted or hereafter amended. The street or road may extend up to 150 feet beyond the approved turnaround facility.
B. Streets that temporarily dead-end and will be extended in the future need not have a turnaround facility unless determined necessary by the review engineer and the fire marshal. When no turnaround facility is provided, street-end barricading shall be installed and must conform to the most recent edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
C. Where the turnaround facility is a circular turnaround, a landscaped island delineated by curbing shall be provided in the circular turnaround by the developer. Bioretention swales or other vegetation-based LID BMPs may be located in the landscaped island. The landscaping shall be maintained by the homeowners’ association or adjacent property owners. The developer shall record an agreement to ensure maintenance of the landscaping, either with the recording of the final plat or as a separate document if the development is occurring outside a plat.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on December 31, 2016.
84
3 1553-ORD 11/17/2016
Passed by the City Council this _____ day of , 2016 and signed in authentication of its passage this ______day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lori M. Riordan, City Attorney
Catherine A. Drews, Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
Published
85
4 1553-ORD 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6319
AN ORDINANCE amending the City of Bellevue Transportation Development Code, Chapter 14.60, to incorporate Low Impact Development Principles by amending Sections 14.60.110 (Street frontage improvements); 14.60.120 (Landscaping in right-of-way, easements and access tracts); and 14.60.170 (Street ends); providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
WHEREAS, the City of Bellevue (the "City") is subject to the terms of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) and Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit (“Phase II Permit” or "Permit"), issued August 1, 2012, and modified on January 16, 2014, by the State of Washington Department of Ecology ("Ecology") in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act and state law; and
WHEREAS the Permit requires that the City review, revise and make effective development-related codes, rules, standards, or other enforceable documents to incorporate and require Low Impact Development (“LID”) principles by December 31, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the revisions under the Permit are to make low impact development the preferred and commonly-used approach to site development; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated the LID Principles Project in order to review its existing development-related codes, rules, standards, or other enforceable documents in September of 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City’s review of its documents followed a process similar to that outlined in Integrating LID into Local Codes: A Guidebook for Local Governments (Puget Sound Partnership, 2012), as required under the Permit; and
WHEREAS, in August 2015, following substantial work by the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted updated low impact development policies into the Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, making low impact development the preferred and commonly- used approach to site development to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff is a goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and 86
1 1553-ORD 11/17/2016
WHEREAS, the Transportation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on July 14, 2016, after providing legally required public notice; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Commission, after holding the July 14, 2016 public hearing, unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the City’s Environmental Procedures Code, chapter 22.02 BCC; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 14.60.110.B of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. The installation of street frontage improvements is required for all new development, subdivisions, and short subdivisions as a condition of development approval in order to incorporate transportation improvements that are reasonably necessary to mitigate the direct impacts of the development. Installation of street frontage improvement is also required when necessary for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts identified pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. For additions and remodels to existing buildings see LUC 20.20.560 and 20.25D.060. This requirement shall not apply to single-family dwellings.
B. Complete street frontage improvements shall be installed along the entire street frontage of the property at the sole cost of the developer as directed by the review engineer. Street frontage improvements may include curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, street lighting, traffic signal equipment, public utility relocation, franchise utility relocation, landscaping strip, street trees and landscaping, irrigation, street pavement widening, bicycle lanes, safety railings, street signs, pavement marking, and channelization. Storm drainage may include bioretention swales or other vegetation-based LID BMPs. For additional requirements regarding franchise utility relocations, see BCC 14.60.230. Beyond the property frontage, the developer shall provide ramps or other appropriate transition from the new sidewalk or walkway to the existing shoulder, and pavement and channelization tapering back to the existing pavement and channelization as needed for safety. The street frontage improvements shall be continued off-site if, and to the extent, deemed necessary by the review engineer in order to provide a safe condition.
Section 2. Section 14.60.120.C.1 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. Applicability. The requirements of this section apply when street frontage improvements are required as part of any development by BCC 14.60.110 or the 87 Land Use Code, as may be hereinafter amended. 2 1553-ORD 11/17/2016
B. Required Review. The city shall review proposed street frontage improvements for compliance with this section and other applicable city policies and codes.
C. Preservation of Existing Street Trees and Landscaping.
1. Retention of existing vegetation may be required along city streets. When retention is not feasible, native plant species, or species with a proven ability to survive in an urban environment are preferred for landscaping.
Section 3. Section 14.60.170.C of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. All dead-end public streets and private roads greater than 150 feet in length shall be constructed with a turnaround facility per the Transportation Department Design Manual Standard 7 – Street End Designs, as currently adopted or hereafter amended. The street or road may extend up to 150 feet beyond the approved turnaround facility.
B. Streets that temporarily dead-end and will be extended in the future need not have a turnaround facility unless determined necessary by the review engineer and the fire marshal. When no turnaround facility is provided, street-end barricading shall be installed and must conform to the most recent edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
C. Where the turnaround facility is a circular turnaround, a landscaped island delineated by curbing shall be provided in the circular turnaround by the developer. Bioretention swales or other vegetation-based LID BMPs may be located in the landscaped island. The landscaping shall be maintained by the homeowners’ association or adjacent property owners. The developer shall record an agreement to ensure maintenance of the landscaping, either with the recording of the final plat or as a separate document if the development is occurring outside a plat.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on December 31, 2016.
88
3 1553-ORD 11/17/2016
Passed by the City Council this _____ day of , 2016 and signed in authentication of its passage this ______day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lori M. Riordan, City Attorney
Catherine A. Drews, Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
Published
89
4 November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Canber Corporation, d/b/a Canber Corps, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $1,027,164.52 plus any State- mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
FISCAL IMPACT This action will obligate the City to an amount up to $513,582.26 for execution of a new General Services contract serving eighteen park sites and City facilities, commencing January 1, 2017 and concluding December 31, 2018. If approved, the City will execute this contract for an initial two-year period. Upon satisfactory performance, the City will have the option to renew the contract for an additional two years for an amount up to the original contract value ($513,582.26) plus any State- mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year. If the City exercises its option to renew, the total value over four years is approximately $1,027,164.52, plus the potential increases just described. There are sufficient funds included in the proposed 2017-2018 Parks & Community Services Operating Budget for the first two years of the contract. Future costs associated with this contract will be requested in subsequent operating budgets and will be subject to final budget appropriation.
STAFF CONTACTS Dan Dewald, Natural Resources Manager, 452-6048 Tom Kuykendall, Street Tree and Arterial Program Supervisor 452-7924 Michael Hauer, Contract Administrator, 452-4480 Parks & Community Services Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Bellevue City Code BCC 4.28 provides for the fair and equitable treatment of persons in the purchasing process. Because the contract amounts exceed $90,000, Council approval is required.
BACKGROUND Currently, Parks utilizes landscape contractors to perform maintenance services at 286 park, street tree and arterial landscape and City facility sites. This contract provides services at Highland Drive SE, Lakemont Boulevard and Village Park Drive, Lakemont Boulevard Extension, 148th Avenue Central, Larson Lake Blueberry Farm Stand, SE 8th and 148 Boardwalk, 148th Avenue North, 148th Overlake and Microsoft Medians, Newport Way (Allen Road to Factoria Blvd SE), Central Business District, NE 12th and NE 11th (Bellevue Way to 112th), 116th Avenue and NE 4th Street, Bellevue Way SE, SE 8th and 112th Avenue SE, 120th Avenue NE Phase II, 140th Trail North, 140th Avenue (SE 8th to NE 8th) 90 and 140th Avenue NE (8th to NE 24th). Landscape maintenance contracts include mowing, shrub pruning, weed control, hard surface cleaning, irrigation system operation, leaf removal, and garbage disposal.
The City conducted a formal RFP process with advertisements posted twice in The Seattle Times. Staff reviewed and evaluated proposals from the following contractors:
Badgley’s Landscape LLC Plantscapes Horticultural Services Canber Corps Total Landscape Corporation Monarch Landscape DBA Signature Landscape LLC Westgro Corporation
Final selection of the contractor was based on a per-site analysis of the contractor’s proposal amount, proposed labor hours, experience with similar sites, overall qualifications, financial standing, and past performance on other City projects. This selection process utilized is consistent with purchasing procedures outlined in the City’s Contracting Policy.
Canber Corps has performed satisfactorily at similar sites; therefore, staff is requesting approval to execute this contract.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Resolution becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Canber Corporation, d/b/a Canber Corps, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities, for an initial two- year term in an amount not to exceed $513,582.26, with the option to renew for an additional two years in an amount not to exceed $513,582.26 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year. 2. Do not adopt the Resolution and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt Resolution No. 9182 authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Canber Corporation, d/b/a Canber Corps, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $1,027,164.52 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma- Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
ATTACHMENT Proposed Resolution No. 9182
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY 91 Contract 92 3452-RES 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 9182
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Canber Corporation, d/b/a Canber Corps, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $1,027,164.52 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma- Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute a General Services contract with Canber Corporation, d/b/a Canber Corps, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term in an amount not to exceed $513,582.26, with the option to renew for an additional two years in an amount not to exceed $513,582.26 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year, a copy of which contract has been given Clerk’s Receiving No. ______.
Passed by the City Council this ______day of , 2016, and signed in authentication of its passage this _____ day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk 93
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Ordinance related to a residential parking zone; repealing Ordinance No. 5282; establishing Residential Parking Zone 17; and delegating authority to the City Manager or designee to establish time-limited parking or time of day restrictions for vehicles without a Zone 17 permit on an as-needed basis on various streets in the Enatai Neighborhood.
FISCAL IMPACT The estimated cost to implement a Residential Permit Parking Zone (RPZ) in Enatai on all streets listed above is approximately $22,000. This estimate includes the costs of decals, signs, and visitor passes and does not include staff administration time and enforcement.
The East Link Record of Decision (Summary of Required Mitigation Measures) stipulates that Sound Transit is “responsible for the cost of installing the signage or other parking controls and any expansion of the parking controls…The local jurisdiction will be responsible for monitoring the parking controls and providing all enforcement and maintenance of the parking controls.”
The cost to Sound Transit will likely be significantly less than the estimated $22,000 as parking restrictions would only be implemented on an as-needed basis after meeting minimum requirements for spillover parking and community support.
STAFF CONTACTS David Berg, Department Director, 452-6468 Mark Poch, Assistant Director-Traffic Management, 452-6137 Karen Gonzalez, Neighborhood Services Manager, 452-4598 Transportation Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Policy TR-93 of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City will “Protect residential neighborhoods adjacent to high capacity transit facilities from spillover impacts, including parking and cut through traffic, resulting from system construction and/or operation, using techniques such as residential parking zone programs and traffic calming measures. Monitor the outcomes of these efforts and make adjustments as needed to ensure continued effectiveness.”
Policy TR-149 of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City will “Minimize spillover parking into residential neighborhoods through residential parking zones and other measures.”
A strategy in the Council-approved South Bellevue Station Area Plan states, “Pending neighborhood support, institute a residential parking zone (RPZ) program prior to light rail operation.”
BACKGROUND Spillover parking demand is anticipated to increase in the Enatai neighborhood in the near future due to the following factors: 94 The South Bellevue Park and Ride closure—anticipated to close as early as January 2017 The continued operation of the Sound Transit 550 Express bus along Bellevue Way SE and the opening of a temporary bus stop on the west side Bellevue Way SE north of 112th Ave SE The construction of Sound Transit’s East Link Light Rail at the future South Bellevue Station
The East Link Record of Decision, direction by the City of Bellevue’s Comprehensive Plan, and concerns raised by the neighborhood indicate the need to establish a residential permit parking zone in a portion of the Enatai neighborhood prior to the closure of the Park and Ride facility and into the operational phase of East Link. This action would take care of the legislation necessary to enable the City to implement these residential permit parking zone parking restrictions on an as needed basis, allowing for issues to be address expeditiously.
Council approval of Zone 17 would not immediately create parking restrictions on the aforementioned streets. Rather, seeking council approval before concerns occur allow staff to be more responsive and expeditious in responding to spillover parking concerns when they do actually occur. These streets signify—based on distance and walking time to Bellevue Way—the streets most likely to experience spillover parking as a result of the closure of the South Bellevue Park and Ride. Staff would continue to monitor neighborhood streets to determine if spillover parking is occurring. If so, community outreach would be conducted to ensure the residents support potential parking restrictions. If supported, the parking restrictions would be signed and thus become enforceable. As with any other zoned parking area in the City, residents and their guests receive free parking permits that exempt them from the parking restrictions. Enforcement occurs on a complaint basis or at an officer’s discretion.
The approach being sought is to have City Council approve an ordinance establishing a large RPZ area to allow for parking restrictions that address spillover parking on an as-needed basis. As streets are impacted and existing guidelines and community support are met, the City Manager or designee can authorize time-limited parking or time of day parking on any of the streets identified in proposed RPZ 17. This will expedite the installation of parking signs and issuance of permits that exempt residents and their guests from the parking restrictions. If the spillover parking issue spreads to streets not listed above (e.g. in another neighborhood along Bellevue Way), then additional council approval would be sought to address those specific streets.
Ordinance No. 5282, approved in 2001, created a residential paring zone on both sides of 112th Avenue SE from the residence at 2805 112th Avenue SE south to SE 30th Street. A sidewalk construction project on the west side of 112th Avenue SE removed the ability to park on this street and thus the RPZ has been effectively eliminated since the completion of that sidewalk project. This action, if approved by Council, would permanently repeal this obsolete ordinance.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Ordinance becomes effective on December 24, 2016.
95 OPTIONS 1. Approve Ordinance 6320, related to a residential parking zone; repealing Ordinance No. 5282; establishing Residential Parking Zone 17; and delegating authority to the City Manager or designee to establish time-limited parking or time of day restrictions for vehicles without a Zone 17 permit on an as-needed basis on various streets in the Enatai Neighborhood.
2. Do not adopt the Ordinance and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to approve Ordinance 6320, related to a residential parking zone; repealing Ordinance No. 5282; establishing Residential Parking Zone 17; and delegating authority to the City Manager or designee to establish time-limited parking or time of day restrictions for vehicles without a Zone 17 permit on an as- needed basis on various streets in the Enatai Neighborhood.
ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Proposed Ord No. 6320
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY N/A
96 Potential ResidentialSE 24THParking PL Zone (RPZ) #17 in Enatai: Adjacent to South Bellevue Park and Ride
SE 25TH ST SE 25TH ST
South Bellevue Park and Ride SE 26TH ST Stairs providing access to Closing as early 112th Ave SE and Bellevue Way as January 2017
SE 27TH PL
SE 28TH ST BELLEVUE WAY SE 28TH PL
[PRIVATE]
SE 30TH PL 109TH AVE SE 109TH AVE 110TH AVE SE 110TH AVE SE 30TH ST SE 30TH ST
SE 31ST ST
SE 31ST ST
106TH AVE SE 113TH AVE SE 113TH AVE 112TH AVE SE 112TH AVE
108TH AVE SE 108TH AVE 111TH AVE SE AVE 111TH SE 34TH ST
I-90
N
Streets eligible for residential parking 97 Zone 17 parking restrictions should they The City of Bellevue does not guarantee that the information on this meet minimum stated guidelines and are supported by the community. map is accurate or complete. This data is provided on an "as is" basis and disclaims all warranties. 1554-ORD 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6320
AN ORDINANCE related to a residential parking zone; repealing Ordinance No. 5282; establishing Residential Parking Zone 17; and delegating authority to the City Manager or designee to establish time-limited parking or time of day restrictions for vehicles without a Zone 17 permit on an as- needed basis on various streets in the Enatai Neighborhood.
WHEREAS, PolicyTR-93 of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City will protect residential neighborhoods adjacent to high capacity transit facilities from spillover impacts, including parking and cut through traffic, resulting from system construction and/or operation, using techniques such as residential parking zone programs and traffic calming measures, and monitoring the outcomes of these efforts and making adjustments as needed to ensure continued effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, Policy TR-149 of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that City will minimize spillover parking into residential neighborhoods through residential parking zones and other measures; and
WHEREAS, as a result of construction for the East Link light rail line project, the South Bellevue park-and-ride is anticipated to close as early as January 2017; and
WHEREAS, Sound Transit in conjunction with King County Metro has identified satellite park-and-ride locations to mitigate lost parking at the South Bellevue park-and-ride; and
WHEREAS, transit will continue to serve Bellevue Way creating the potential for spillover parking to occur in the Enatai Neighborhood during the East Link construction period; and
WHEREAS, the spillover parking impacts in the Enatai neighborhood are currently unknown; and
WHEREAS, establishing Zone 17 proactively allows the city to more quickly respond to spillover parking impacts; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5282, which created a residential parking zone on 112th Avenue SE from the residence at 2805 112th Avenue SE south to SE 30th Street, should be repealed as this zone has been effectively eliminated since the completion of sidewalk construction on 112th Avenue SE and also because this area will be encompassed by the new Zone 17.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 5282 is hereby repealed.
98
1 1554-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 2. Residential Parking Zone 17 is hereby established. The parking of vehicles on the following streets may be restricted to certain time limits or during specified times of the day, except by Zone 17 permit, when signs are present:
A. 109th Avenue SE from SE 34th Street to SE 28th Street B. 110th Avenue SE from SE 34th Street to SE 27th Place C. 111th Avenue SE from SE 34th Street to end of cul-de-sac D. 112th Avenue SE from SE 34th Street to Bellevue Way E. 113th Avenue SE from SE 34th Street to Bellevue Way F. SE 28th Street from 108th Avenue SE to 110th Avenue SE G. SE 27th Place from 110th Avenue SE to end of cul-de-sac H. SE 28th Place from 110th Avenue SE to end of cul-de-sac I. SE 30th Place from 110th Avenue SE to end of cul-de-sac J. SE 30th Street from 110th Avenue SE to 112th Avenue SE K. SE 31st Street from 108th Avenue SE to 112th Avenue SE L. SE 30th Street from 113th Avenue SE to 11210 SE 30th Street M. SE 34th Street from 108th Avenue SE to 113th Avenue SE
Section 3. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to establish time- limited parking or time of day parking restrictions on all or portions of the specific streets in Section 2, through the use of signs for vehicles without a Zone 17 permit. Such parking restrictions shall be filed and maintained with this Ordinance by the City Clerk in accordance with Bellevue City Code 11.23.010.
Section 4: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage.
Passed by the City Council this _____ day of , 2016 and signed in authentication of its passage this ______day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Approved as to form: City Attorney, Lori Riordan
______Ann Marie Soto, Special Assistant City Attorney Attest:
______Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
Published ______99
2
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $248,186.52 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
FISCAL IMPACT This action will obligate the City to an amount up to $124,093.26 for execution of a new General Services contract serving nine park sites and City facilities, commencing January 1, 2017 and concluding December 31, 2018. If approved, the City will execute this contract for an initial two-year period. Upon satisfactory performance, the City will have the option to renew the contract for an additional two years for an amount up to the original contract value ($124,093.26) plus any State- mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year. If the City exercises its option to renew, the total value over four years is approximately $248,186.52, plus the potential increases just described. There are sufficient funds included in the proposed 2017-2018 Parks & Community Services Operating Budget for the first two years of the contract. Future costs associated with this contract will be requested in subsequent operating budgets and will be subject to final budget appropriation.
STAFF CONTACTS Pat Harris, Grounds Operations Manager, 452-2930 Mark Doherty, Contract Administrator, 452-4393 Dan Acker, Contract Administrator, 452-6122 Parks & Community Services Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Bellevue City Code BCC 4.28 provides for the fair and equitable treatment of persons in the purchasing process. Council approval is required because the contract amount exceeds $90,000.
BACKGROUND Currently, Parks utilizes landscape contractors to perform maintenance services at 286 park and City facility sites. This contract provides services at Deer Run Park, Evergreen Park, Lewis Creek Park, Newport Hills Mini Park, Nordstrom, Bon, and Main St. Beds, Silverleaf Mini Park, Surrey Downs Park, 100th and Main Shrub Beds, and the 508 Planning Building. Landscape maintenance contracts include mowing, shrub pruning, weed control, hard surface cleaning, irrigation system operation, leaf removal, and garbage disposal. The City conducted a formal RFP process with advertisements posted 100 twice in The Seattle Times. Staff reviewed and evaluated proposals from the following contractors:
Badgley’s Landscape LLC SublimeScapes, L.L.C. Canber Corps Total Landscape Corporation Earthworks Landscape Services Inc Westgro Corporation Plantscapes Horticultural Services
Final selection of the contractor was based on a per-site analysis of the contractor’s proposal amount, proposed labor hours, experience with similar sites, overall qualifications, financial standing, and past performance on other City projects. The selection process utilized is consistent with purchasing procedures outlined in the City’s Contracting Policy.
Total Landscape Corporation has performed satisfactorily at similar sites; therefore, staff is requesting approval to execute this contract.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Resolution becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities, for an initial two-year term in an amount not to exceed $124,093.26, with the option to renew for an additional two years in an amount not to exceed $124,093.26 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City- approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year. 2. Do not adopt the Resolution and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt the Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities, for an initial two- year term in an amount not to exceed $124,093.26, with the option to renew for an additional two years in an amount not to exceed $124,093.26 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City- approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
ATTACHMENT Proposed Resolution No. 9183
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY Contract
101
3453-RES 11/18/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 9183
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $248,186.52 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term in an amount not to exceed $124,093.26, with the option to renew for an additional two years in an amount not to exceed $124,093.26 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year, a copy of which contract has been given Clerk’s Receiving No. ______.
Passed by the City Council this ______day of , 2016, and signed in authentication of its passage this _____ day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
102
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Plantscapes Horticultural Services for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $238,195.68 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
FISCAL IMPACT This action will obligate the City to an amount up to $119,097.84 for execution of a new General Services contract serving ten park sites and City facilities, commencing January 1, 2017 and concluding December 31, 2018. If approved, the City will execute this contract for an initial two-year period. Upon satisfactory performance, the City will have the option to renew the contract for an additional two years for an amount up to the original contract value plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year. If the City exercises its option to renew, the total value over four years is approximately $238,195.68. There are sufficient funds budgeted in the 2017 Parks & Community Services Operating Budget for the first year of the contract. Future costs associated with this contract will be requested in subsequent operating budgets and will be subject to final budget appropriation.
STAFF CONTACTS Dan Dewald, Natural Resources Manager, 452-6048 Tom Kuykendall, Street Tree and Arterial Program Supervisor 452-7924 Michael Hauer, Contract Administrator, 452-4480 Parks & Community Services Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Bellevue City Code: BCC 4.28 provides for the fair and equitable treatment of persons in the purchasing process. Because the contract amounts exceed $90,000, Council approval is required.
BACKGROUND Currently, Parks utilizes landscape contractors to perform maintenance services at 286 park, street tree and arterial landscape and City facility sites. This contract provides services at 164th Avenue NE and NE 8th, Bel-Red Mini Park, 139th Avenue SE, 128th Avenue SE, Cougar Mountain Way SE, Coal Creek Parkway, NE 24th (Bellevue Way to 98th), Eastgate Way, Lake Washington Blvd SE, and Eastgate Yard. Landscape maintenance contracts include mowing, shrub pruning, weed control, hard surface cleaning, irrigation system operation, leaf removal, and garbage disposal.
The City conducted a formal RFP process with advertisements posted twice in The Seattle Times. Staff 103 reviewed and evaluated proposals from the following contractors:
Badgley’s Landscape LLC Plantscapes Horticultural Services Canber Corps Total Landscape Corporation Monarch Landscape DBA Signature Landscape LLC Westgro Corporation
Final selection of the contractor was based on a per-site analysis of the contractor’s proposal amount, proposed labor hours, experience with similar sites, overall qualifications, financial standing, and past performance on other City projects. This selection process utilized is consistent with purchasing procedures outlined in the City’s Contracting Policy.
Plantscapes Horticultural Services has performed satisfactorily at similar sites; therefore, staff is requesting approval to execute this contract.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Resolution becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Plantscapes Horticultural Services for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities, for an initial two- year term in an amount not to exceed $119,097.84 with the option to renew for an additional two years in an amount not to exceed $119,097.84 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year. 2. Do not adopt the Resolution and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt Resolution No. 9184 authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Plantscapes Horticultural Services for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $238,195.68 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma- Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
ATTACHMENT Proposed Resolution No. 9184
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY Contract
104 3454-RES 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 9184
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Plantscapes Horticultural Services for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $238,195.68 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma- Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute a General Services contract with Plantscapes Horticultural Services for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term in an amount not to exceed $119,097.84, with the option to renew for an additional two years for an amount not to exceed $119,097.84 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year, a copy of which contract has been given Clerk’s Receiving No. ______.
Passed by the City Council this ______day of , 2016, and signed in authentication of its passage this _____ day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk 105
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Resolution authorizing execution of the professional services agreement with Transpo Group to update the 2004 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Master Plan, in an amount not to exceed $160,000.
FISCAL IMPACT This action will obligate the City for up to $160,000 in consulting services. This agreement will be fully funded through the ITS Master Plan Implementation Program (CIP Plan No. PW-R-156). Sufficient budget exists in this program to fully fund this agreement.
STAFF CONTACTS Dave Berg, Director, 452-6468 Mach Poch, Assistant Director, 452-6137 Chris Long, Traffic Engineering Manager, 452-6013 Fred Liang, ITS Manager, 452-5361 Transportation Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Comprehensive Plan Council has adopted numerous policies that support the application of ITS technologies to improve or enhance the transportation system. ITS technologies play a vital role in advancing Bellevue’s Smart City Initiative to develop a Smart Transportation system that moves people, reduces collisions, lowers emissions and provides informed choices. ITS technologies also support the goals, policies and challenges mentioned in the City’s Comprehensive Plan for Transportation to improve mobility and to enhance a comprehensive multimodal transportation system.
BACKGROUND Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) refers to the application of advanced technology to transportation systems and projects. The use of ITS will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing transportation system. A broad range of diverse technologies can help many of our transportation challenges, including signal operations, information processing, Transit Signal Priority (TSP), connected vehicles, communications, message signs, parking management, weather station, etc. These technologies and tools will provide the framework for improved management of mobility and traveler information.
In 2004, the City completed its first ITS Master Plan. The plan not only inventoried existing ITS technologies employed by the City at that time, but also provided a framework for ITS improvements, including the identification of the highest priority ITS projects. Much has been accomplished since the 2004 ITS Master Plan was completed, including Washington’s first traffic adaptive signal system, a new fiber communication network and a significant expansion of the traffic camera system. Now is the right time to build upon this progress by updating Bellevue’s ITS Master Plan. With the continuous development and advancement of various technologies, opportunity exists for the City to identify other 106 ITS deployments, enhancements or services that improve the transportation system, while providing a fiscally prudent investment. The ITS Master Plan Update will define and document how the City can best use ITS to meet future transportation system needs and will also prioritize the capital and staffing needs to build, operate and maintain additional ITS projects and programs. The scope of services is as follows:
Provide overall project management throughout the duration of the project. Update the City’s existing ITS inventory, using GIS. Conduct a literature review to incorporate all other City planning efforts and news from latest industry developments. Conduct a needs assessment looking at technology to support the future goals. Utilize a public outreach process to identify future travel information needs. Develop a communication plan that supports the future build-out of ITS in Bellevue. Update the deployment plan for future ITS implementation needs. Discuss budget and staffing needs to support future ITS projects. Document all project findings and outcomes in a final report and presentation. (Optional) Develop a Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO) plan for the Bel-Red Neighborhood to establish a framework to integrate new innovative technologies in the Spring District.
Transpo Group was selected to provide the professional services. Transpo Group was one of two consulting firms who responded to the Transportation Department's "Request for Qualifications” for the ITS Master Plan Update. The two submittals were scored and ranked by six City staff and an engineer from City of Redmond.
Prior Council actions relating to development of ITS Master Plan On October 20, 2003, Council approved the execution of the professional services agreement with DKS Associates to finish the development of the City’s first ITS Master Plan.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Resolution becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt Resolution authorizing execution of the professional services agreement with Transpo Group to update the 2004 ITS Master Plan. 2. Do not adopt Resolution and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt Resolution No. 9185 authorizing execution of the professional services agreement with Transpo Group to update the 2004 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Master Plan, in an amount not to exceed $160,000.
107 ATTACHMENT Proposed Resolution No. 9185
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY Contract
108 3455 -RES 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 9185
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of the professional services agreement with Transpo Group to update the 2004 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Master Plan, in an amount not to exceed $160,000.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute the professional services agreement with Transpo Group to update the 2004 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Master Plan, in an amount not to exceed $160,000, a copy of which agreement has been given Clerk’s Receiving No. ______.
Passed by the City Council this ______day of , 2016, and signed in authentication of its passage this _____ day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
109
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Motion to award Bid No. 16101 for Meydenbauer Bay Park Sewer Line Replacement to IMCO General Construction, as the lowest responsible and responsive, bidder in the amount of $2,618,604.90 (CIP Plan No. S-69).
FISCAL IMPACT Awarding this bid commits the City to payment of $2,618,604.90. This contract is fully funded through the Utility’s Meydenbauer Bay Park Sewer Line Replacement (CIP Plan No. S-69). This amount is approximately 4.8 percent below the Engineer’s Estimate. Sufficient funds have been budgeted to fund this contract in the 2015-2021 Utilities CIP Budget.
STAFF CONTACTS Nav Otal, Director, 452-2041 Paul Bucich, Assistant Director of Engineering, 452-4596 Utilities Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Utilities Department policies: The Utility shall invest resources as necessary to construct, maintain and renew sewer system infrastructure and equipment such that Utility customers are provided consistent, reliable service.
Utilities Department practice: Rehabilitate or replace deteriorated elements of the wastewater system. CIP Plan No. S-69 has been designated to do this.
City contracting policies: Bellevue City Code section 4.28.040 requires the City to competitively bid public works in accordance with the Code and State law. Council approval is required to award the bid where the cost exceeds $90,000.
BACKGROUND The Meydenbauer Bay Park Sewer Line Replacement project includes construction of approximately 1,500 linear feet of sewer line that replaces existing 10-inch diameter asbestos cement (AC) sewer pipe located along the shore of Lake Washington. The existing sewer line, constructed in the 1950s, has been subject to structural pipe failures and blockages in the recent past and is partially exposed on the lakebed. The location of the replacement sewer line, which also includes a below grade pump station, will be primarily on shore within the existing Meydenbauer Beach Park and Bellevue Marina parking lot. Approximately 400 feet of the existing in-water AC sewer line will be removed along the shoreline. The rest of the existing sewer line between the Grange pump station and the west end of the Meydenbauer Bay Park will be flushed and filled with light-weight concrete and remain buried in place. 110 The project has been closely coordinated with the future City Meydenbauer Bay Park project Phase 1 design to minimize impacts to future park redevelopment. Construction is scheduled to begin in late December 2016 with the majority of construction scheduled to be completed prior to the Parks Department Improvement Project, except for a small portion of the work to take place in Lake Washington. Since Department of Fish and Wildlife permits require that the in-water work be done between July 15 and September 30, the park improvement contractor will construct this as part of the overall park work in the summer of 2017. A portion of the existing Meydenbauer Beach Park including shoreline and swimming beach area shall remain closed to allow access and use of the portion of the park for Utility construction.
Bids were opened on October 27, 2016 and are as follows:
Gary Harper Construction, Inc. $2,587,234.25* IMCO General Construction 2,618,604.90 Shoreline Construction Company 2,968,298.63 Interwest Construction, Inc. 3,071,005.25 Frank Coluccio Construction Company 3,709,011.38
Engineer's Estimate $2,750,000.00
*Gary Harper Construction, Inc. was initially the apparent low bidder. However upon careful review, and consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, staff determined that Gary Harper Construction Inc., does not meet the minimum work experience requirements to perform the work listed under the Supplemental Responsible Bidder Criteria, as permitted by RCW 39.04.350. Therefore, Gary Harper Construction, Inc. is disqualified as the lowest responsible bidder for this project.
IMCO General Construction (IMCO) was contacted and requested to submit Supplemental Responsible Bidder Criteria. Upon review of their information, and contacting the references provided by IMCO, it was determined that IMCO meets Supplemental Responsible Bidder Criteria, and is capable and competent of successfully executing the work under this contract.
To the best of staff's knowledge, all factors that normally contribute to construction expense have been accounted for in the plans and in the Engineer's Estimate. It is our experience that construction projects of this type may result in some amount of field changes. Such claims are rigorously reviewed and only those that are clearly necessary to accomplish the intent of the contract, but have somehow not been provided for, will be paid.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Motion becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS 1. Award Bid No. 16101 for Meydenbauer Bay Park Sewer Line Replacement to IMCO General Construction, as the lowest responsible and responsive, bidder in the amount of $2,618,604.90 (CIP Plan No. S-69). 2. Award contract to another bidder, if lowest responsible and responsive bidder is rejected. 3. Reject all bids and re-bid at a later date 111 RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to award Bid No. 16101 for Meydenbauer Bay Park Sewer Line Replacement to IMCO General Construction, as the lowest responsible and responsive, bidder in the amount of $2,618,604.90 (CIP Plan No. S-69).
ATTACHMENTS CIP Project Description Vicinity Map
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY N/A
112 113 114 November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Resolution authorizing annual benchmarking and reporting of energy use in select municipal facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT The proposed resolution has no impact on the City budget. This resolution would institutionalize an existing process, energy management and benchmarking, and require the City to publicly report the data on an annual basis using the Open Data platform, an existing resource.
STAFF CONTACTS Dan Stroh, Acting Planning and Community Development Director, 452-5255 Jennifer Ewing, Environmental Stewardship Program Manager, 452-6129 Department of Planning & Community Development
Nora Johnson, Civic Services Director, 452-4167 Emma Johnson, Resource Conservation Manager, 452-5246 Civic Services Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Environmental Stewardship Initiative (ESI) staff provided an overview of energy benchmarking to Council on April 4, 2016, and a further analysis and recommendation on September 26, 2016, in which Council directed ESI to move forward with drafting a resolution. The following policies provide support and direction for a municipal energy benchmarking and reporting resolution.
Res. 7517 City Council signed on to the Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement in 2006, establishing a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012.
Res. 8789 City Council joined the King County Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) on August 4, 2014. K4C is a partnership among cities across King County working to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions consistent with Countywide Planning Policies.
Comprehensive Plan City Council adopted the updated Comprehensive Plan in 2015, which includes the following policies related to managing energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and providing regional leadership on environmental issues: EN-2. Conduct City operations in a manner that ensures the sustainable use of natural resources, promotes an environmentally safe workplace for its employees, and minimizes adverse environmental impacts. EN-4. Promote and invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy resources as an alternative 115 to non-renewable resources. EN-6. Establish an achievable citywide target and take corrective actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as reducing energy consumption and vehicle emissions, and enhancing land use patterns to reduce vehicle dependency. EN-8. Provide regional leadership on environmental issues that extend beyond Bellevue’s boundaries and require regional cooperation. EN-17 - Reduce countywide sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, compared to a 2007 baseline, by 25% by 2020, 50% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. EN-18 – Establish a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and measurement framework for use by all King County jurisdictions to efficiently and effectively measure progress toward countywide targets established pursuant to policy EN-17.
BACKGROUND Energy benchmarking and reporting is a best practice for managing and publicly-sharing energy information, intended to drive energy efficiency investments and conservation through improved transparency and literacy around energy use. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports1 that buildings which benchmark have achieved average energy savings of 2.4% per year, for a total savings of 7% over a four year period.
The proposed policy would apply to municipally-owned buildings over 5,000 gross square feet, or 20,000 gross square feet if the City is the sole tenant in a leased facility. Twenty-nine buildings currently meet this criteria, and the City is already managing and benchmarking the energy use for these facilities.
The Resource Conservation Manager (RCM) program was established in 2009, and has been managing and reporting on energy use annually since then and has yielded an average annual energy savings of 3.2% per year (16% total from 2010). The City procured Scope 5 software in 2012 with a Federal ARRA grant to manage energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for its government operations and the entire City, and has annual data from 2011 to present. The City uses the EPA Portfolio Manager tool to benchmark the energy use in City owned facilities to compare the efficiency of City buildings to comparable buildings. In 2016, the Smart Building Center worked with the City of Bellevue to quality check the data.
The City is already performing the energy benchmarking aspect of this resolution via the RCM program, and the next step is to report this information and make the data publicly available. Publicly reporting the City’s energy benchmarking data will demonstrate leadership in energy use management and help compare Bellevue’s operations to other jurisdictions in the region who adopt similar policies. It also helps to lead by example if the City plans to implement a similar program for other commercial properties. Municipal energy benchmarking and reporting would support the City’s pursuit of the Georgetown University Energy Prize, as one of the goals of the competition is to institutionalize energy management best practices. Finally, according to the K4C Building Energy Benchmarking Report (Attachment 1), only 29 jurisdictions in the country have implemented energy benchmarking and reporting policies, so Bellevue would join a leading group of cities.
1 1 U.S. EPA Benchmarking and Energy Savings Data Trends, 2012. 116 https://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/downloads/datatrends/DataTrends_Savings_20121002.pdf?3d9b-91a5 EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Resolution becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing annual benchmarking and reporting of energy use in select municipal facilities. 2. Do not adopt the Resolution and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt Resolution No. 9186 authorizing annual benchmarking and reporting of energy use in select municipal facilities.
ATTACHMENTS 1. K4C Building Energy Benchmarking Report, January 22 2016 2. Proposed Resolution No. 9186
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY ESI Strategic Plan, 2013 – 2018
117 Attachment 1
______MEMO DRAFT as of January 22, 2016 TO: King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) Steering Committee FROM: K4C Commercial Energy Benchmarking Subcommittee & New Energy Cities RE: Building Energy Benchmarking Policy, Program, and Partnership Options
I. Executive Summary This memo updates the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) Steering Committee on building energy benchmarking (“benchmarking”) policy and program options that the K4C Commercial Energy Benchmarking Subcommittee reviewed between September and December 2015, and makes recommendations for K4C member action. The subcommittee examined benchmarking as a key element of a larger suite of policies, programmatic actions, and incentives necessary to achieve the K4C’s commitment of 25% building energy use reduction by 2030.
In considering options for building energy benchmarking, the subcommittee recommends that the K4C collective body and individual jurisdictions keep in mind the following principles for action:
. Driving energy use reductions across maximum floor area. . Adding value for owners, managers, tenants, and utility partners to inspire action. . Aligning regionally with existing policies and initiatives. . Collaborating to share fixed costs. . Pursuing an opt-in model with common elements. . Linking to existing incentives and resources. . Leading by example, focusing on public buildings first.
After reviewing models from across the U.S., the subcommittee recommends that each K4C member jurisdiction adopt an ordinance that includes the following components:
1. Mandatory Public Building Benchmarking and Disclosure. Requires annual energy benchmarking and reporting for all city and county buildings and campuses of buildings that are: . 20,000 square feet or greater; . An office, library, or public safety building with a floor area of 5,000 square feet or greater; . A wastewater treatment plant; or . Leased buildings greater than 20,000 square feet where the city or county is the sole occupant and controls the building utility accounts.
2. Voluntary Commercial Building Benchmarking and Disclosure. Outlines a program of voluntary annual energy benchmarking and reporting for commercial buildings with floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater within a jurisdiction. Participating buildings may receive technical assistance from the State of Washington and a third-party provider on the condition that they agree to disclose their annual energy use information publicly, using a mechanism that the K4C will determine. Such a program could lay the foundation for a future mandatory policy. (See Appendix A for the estimated numbers by King County jurisdiction of buildings that have floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater, and see Appendix B for model ordinance language.) 118 1
The K4C’s target of 25% energy use reduction in existing buildings is ambitious, and requires bold steps to drive deeper energy efficiency community-wide. A crucial step on this path is to increase awareness of building energy consumption among building owners, managers, tenants, prospective buyers, and government officials. While public building benchmarking and voluntary commercial benchmarking are practical first actions, this subcommittee recommends that the K4C consider them a transitional phase, and remain focused on mandatory benchmarking, reporting, and disclosure of energy use information in commercial buildings in the next several years.
II. What Are Benchmarking and Disclosure, and Why Are They Valuable? The building sector represents approximately 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, making it the largest user of energy nationally.1 The worst performing buildings use 3 to 7 times as much energy as the best performing buildings.2 In King County, buildings represent over half of energy consumption countywide.3
Building energy benchmarking represents “the process of tracking the energy consumed, over time, of an existing building and comparing the results to similar buildings or an applicable standard.”4 Benchmarking may also compare a building to its own historical performance, and may be valuable in “validating and managing utility bills.”5 Many public and private building owners use benchmarking to manage the energy use of a building or portfolio of buildings. (See Appendix C for a description of related energy measurement and management approaches.)
The purpose of a benchmarking and disclosure policy is to direct building owners to report information about building energy performance, with the goal of motivating investment in efficiency upgrades and undertaking other actions that save energy and reduce carbon emissions. Benchmarking is thus considered a “market-based policy tool to increase building energy performance awareness among key stakeholders and create demand for energy efficiency improvements.”6 Benchmarking and disclosure policies may require building owners to disclose benchmarking results during real estate transactions, or to report benchmarking information to a regulating jurisdiction.
The benefits of benchmarking are powerful. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that “organizations benchmarking consistently in Portfolio Manager have achieved average energy savings of 2.4% per year [for a total savings of 7% over the four-year period of analysis], and an average increase in ENERGY STAR score of 2 points per year in their buildings [for a total score increase of 6 points over the period of analysis]. If all buildings in the U.S. followed a similar trend, over 18 million metric tons of
1 “Energy Benchmarking and Transparency Benefits.” Handout. Institute for Market Transformation and Pacific Coast Collaborative. 2015. 2 Ibid. 3 “What Will It Take? Meaningful Carbon Reductions in King County.” Climate Solutions presentation to the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration Elected Official Working Summit. June 12, 2014. 4 “Introduction to Benchmarking or Tracking Energy Consumption in Commercial and Public Buildings.” Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Accessed December 7, 2015. Online: http://tinyurl.com/zvmjbam. 5 Granderson, Jessica, et al. “EMIS: Crash Course.” U.S. Department of Energy Better Buildings EMIS Project Team Meeting, December 12, 2013. Online: http://eis.lbl.gov/pubs/emis-crash-course.pdf. 6 “State and Local Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure Policy.” U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Accessed December 7, 2015. Online: http://tinyurl.com/hhn5dpy. 119 2
carbon dioxide equivalents could be saved each year. Through 2020, the total savings could be approximately 25%.”7 (See Appendix D for a detailed summary of the benefits of benchmarking.)
III. Benchmarking in Jurisdictions across the U.S. Figure 1 below from Building Rating and the Institute for Market Transformation shows the jurisdictions across the U.S. that have adopted building energy benchmarking and transparency policies. (Boulder, CO, which adopted a benchmarking policy on October 20, 2015, is not shown on this map.)
As of December 2015, 15 cities, two states, and one county in the U.S. have adopted policies that mandate benchmarking of commercial buildings of a certain floor area. At least 10 other jurisdictions require benchmarking of public buildings; some require benchmarking of both public buildings and commercial buildings.
Figure 1
Washington State law (RCW 19.27a.170) requires owners of non-residential (i.e., commercial) buildings with floor area greater than 10,000 square feet to rate their buildings using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager software and to disclose those ratings to potential buyers, tenants, and lenders in advance of the closing of a transaction.8 It also requires benchmarking of Washington State Department of General
7 “Benchmarking and Energy Savings.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2012. Online: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/downloads/datatrends/DataTrends_Savings_20121002.pdf?3d9b-91a5. 8 “Washington State Energy Benchmarking Law.” Building Rating. Accessed December 15, 2015. Online at: http://www.buildingrating.org/jurisdiction/Washington. 120 3
Administration buildings and other qualifying state agency buildings. The state law does not include an enforcement mechanism to confirm benchmarking of private facilities. State agencies have made progress in benchmarking state-owned facilities.
The Washington State Legislature is considering revisions to the existing benchmarking law. The proposed bill HB 1278 (2015-2016) would set a requirement that all large non-residential buildings report to a state account. The state would provide aggregated reporting of the results in the first compliance year, then make individual building energy benchmarking results public in year two. This provision is intended to ensure building owner participation, and to make the resulting information open and available to the real estate market.
The City of Seattle requires owners of non-residential and multifamily buildings with floor area of 20,000 square feet or larger to track energy performance and report annually to the city using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. Seattle also tracks and publicly discloses municipal building data as part of the program.9
IV. Common Elements of a Benchmarking and Disclosure Program As described by the City Energy Project’s Benchmarking Implementation Guide,10 a benchmarking and disclosure program typically consists of:
. Adopting an ordinance to require that public, commercial, and/or multifamily buildings of a certain floor area report their energy use to a local or state jurisdiction on an annual basis, most commonly to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, an online tool for measuring and tracking energy and water consumption.11 (See Appendix E for a sample ENERGY STAR statement of energy performance.) . Developing a target building list for compliance and outreach, using local assessor/tax data on property ownership. . Notifying target buildings that they are required to comply with the policy. . Developing compliance materials, and reaching out to covered building owners. . Technical assistance, including providing training, education, and data verification support. . Creating a benchmarking help center. . Enforcing the law. . Analyzing data and creating reports for policymakers and stakeholders. (See Appendix F for a sample City of Seattle benchmarking scorecard.) . Partnering with utilities to share findings and drive participation in efficiency incentive programs.
Leading benchmarking and disclosure programs are also working on how to create business value and inspire action among building owners and managers through the use of performance reports,
9 “Energy Benchmarking.” City of Seattle. Accessed December 21, 2015. Online at: http://www.seattle.gov/environment/buildings-and-energy/energy-benchmarking-and-reporting. 10 “Benchmarking Implementation Guide.” City Energy Project, a joint project of Natural Resources Defense Council and the Institute for Market Transformation. Rev. 1, June 2015. Unpublished. 11 “Use Portfolio Manager.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed December 7, 2015. Online: http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing- buildings/use-portfolio-manager. 121 4
dashboards, and other energy intelligence tools for individual buildings.12 The City of Seattle, for example, conducted focus groups with building owners, managers, and service providers that had complied with Seattle’s benchmarking and reporting ordinance, to understand what motivates these stakeholders to improve building energy efficiency. (See Appendix G for a summary of Seattle focus group findings, and see Appendix H for further resources.)
In 2015 the Pacific Coast Collaborative developed a model policy for building energy benchmarking to encourage uniformity across local jurisdictions (see Appendix B), with the goals of 1) simplifying implementation for building owners with impacted facilities in multiple jurisdictions, and 2) helping administrators find efficiencies through cooperation.
Mandatory vs. Voluntary Initiatives Some jurisdictions have voluntary commercial energy reduction programs and initiatives that encourage building owners to participate through marketing, incentives, and technical assistance, but do not require building owners to benchmark their energy use. Denver, CO, for example, has a recognition program for buildings over 10,000 square feet, through which participants benchmark their buildings’ energy use with ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager and report their ENERGY STAR score annually to the City. However, current participants account for only 4.6% of the square footage of buildings over 10,000 square feet.13
Analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and the Institute for Market Transformation indicates that mandatory policies impact 4 to 16 times greater floor area compared to voluntary initiatives (see Figure 2 below).
12 Resource Media. “What Inspires Action? Understanding Motivations for Improving Building Energy Efficiency.” Prepared for the City of Seattle. April 2015. 13 “Unlocking the Value of Building Energy Efficiency.” Denver City Energy Project. Accessed December 7, 2015. Online: http://tinyurl.com/htk9p4t. Also see: “Denver City Energy Project Benchmarking Program Update.” June 2015. Online: http://tinyurl.com/z6794h8. 122 5
Figure 2: Floor Area Impact of Mandatory Policies vs. Voluntary Initiatives
V. Recommended Components of a K4C Building Energy Benchmarking Program After reviewing models from across the U.S. and considering local conditions, the subcommittee recommends that K4C member jurisdictions start with a program of mandatory public building benchmarking and voluntary commercial benchmarking. This initial focus on public building benchmarking emerged from the perception that local governments should lead by example in benchmarking their own buildings before asking commercial buildings owners to do so. In addition, the systems and capacity required for public benchmarking are directly adaptable to commercial building benchmarking.
The subcommittee specifically recommends that K4C member jurisdictions adopt an ordinance (see Appendix B) that includes:
1. Mandatory Public Building Benchmarking. This would require annual energy benchmarking and reporting for all city and county buildings and campuses of buildings that are: . 20,000 square feet or greater; . An office, library, or public safety building with a floor area of 5,000 square feet or greater; . A wastewater treatment plant; or 123 6
. Leased buildings greater than 20,000 square feet where the city or county is the sole occupant and controls the building utility accounts.
Many jurisdictions that adopt benchmarking and disclosure policies take the lead by benchmarking their own buildings first. We recommend that the K4C adopt this approach.
Steps would include: . Making a list of municipal buildings to measure. . Collecting required building characteristics. . Signing up for automatic data upload and Portfolio Manager. . Analyzing the data and creating a report for senior leadership and elected officials. . Publishing the report with related context and findings. . Working with building staff and others to identify priority projects to reduce energy use through operational improvements, behavior change, and implementation of energy efficiency upgrades. . Repeating the cycle on a regular (e.g., annual) basis.
To drive reductions in energy use based on benchmarking data, the K4C will also need to develop tools and resources to support efforts across jurisdictions, such as a resource reduction loan program and support for shared Resource Conservation Management (RCM) efforts. The Washington State Department of Commerce and the Smart Buildings Center (SBC) will be able to support local jurisdictions with technical assistance, and partner with the K4C to share fixed costs.
The Department of Commerce and NEEC are also interested in creating a portfolio of public buildings in Puget Sound jurisdictions, and supporting participating jurisdictions with technical assistance, data management, and analysis. Participating in such a program could help K4C jurisdictions to understand how the energy performance of their buildings and facilities compare to those of other K4C members.
In the future, jurisdictions may also want to explore how to promote benchmarking in other public buildings that are not municipally owned (e.g., schools and other public institutions).
2. Voluntary Commercial Benchmarking with Public Disclosure. This would be a program of voluntary annual energy benchmarking and reporting for commercial buildings with floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater within the jurisdiction. Participating buildings may receive technical assistance on the condition that they agree to disclose their annual energy use information publicly, using a mechanism that the K4C will determine. (See Appendix A for the estimated numbers by King County jurisdiction of buildings that have floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater.14)
14 Each individual jurisdiction may want to analyze its distribution of buildings by different size categories (e.g., between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet, and below 10,000 square feet). Depending on the number of buildings identified, the jurisdiction may consider a timeline to expand its efforts beyond the largest buildings. However, Washington State Department of Commerce staff recommend against expanding the covered building pool too greatly, which would make a program complex and hard to manage. For reference, the City of Seattle does not currently have plans to expand its covered building pool to buildings smaller than 20,000 square feet. 124 7
Steps could include:
. Setting a community goal for building energy benchmarking and recruiting building owners to join the U.S. Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Challenge, or another voluntary campaign. . Convening private building owners to promote benchmarking and review examples of success, including in public buildings. . Partnering with Puget Sound Energy and Seattle City Light major account / large customer account managers to conduct outreach to large building owners, inviting them to participate in a voluntary assessment of energy use, and encouraging their participation in existing utility incentive programs. . Supporting private building owners with technical assistance to sign up for automatic data upload and Portfolio Manager.
The Department of Commerce and SBC may be willing to provide technical assistance for a voluntary program, on the condition that participating property owners agree to disclose their energy use information publicly. The K4C would also have to develop an approach (e.g., an online data visualization tool or website) to share results publicly.
Cities that want to take bolder immediate action may consider a stretch recommendation of making the commercial energy benchmarking program mandatory rather than voluntary.
3. Stretch Recommendation: Mandatory Commercial Benchmarking and Disclosure. Interested cities could modify the ordinance in Appendix B to require annual benchmarking and reporting from commercial buildings over 20,000 square feet, consistent with the City of Seattle’s law. This approach would reach the greatest floor area community-wide, and would require the most significant level of technical assistance, as well as enforcement capacity. As for the voluntary commercial energy benchmarking program, K4C jurisdictions would also collaborate on outreach to connect owners of covered buildings with utility and other support services, technical assistance from Commerce and SBC, and enforcement.
In all of the above tiers, the subcommittee recommends ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager as the reporting mechanism, using automatic data upload from Puget Sound Energy and Seattle City Light. Rulemaking would address further specifics.
This tiered approach supports the K4C’s commitment to reduce energy use in all existing buildings by starting on a path to building energy benchmarking while maintaining a long-term focus on mandatory benchmarking at a community scale.
125 8
VI. Known Challenges and Potential Solutions Launching a benchmarking program, whether voluntary or mandatory, is challenging. Known issues and potential solutions include the following:
Staff Capacity A number of K4C jurisdictions have cited staffing constraints as a reason for not pursuing commercial energy benchmarking programs. Indeed, each jurisdiction will need to identify a staff person to collect background data (e.g., number of computers, number of building occupants), enroll in a Portfolio Manager account, request automatic upload of energy data from the jurisdiction’s energy utility, and maintain the accounts. However, roles and responsibilities will vary according to jurisdiction (i.e., the person who collects data does not need to be a busy facility manager), and a collaborative approach could reduce operational costs.
In addition, Washington State Department of Commerce has received funding to support early adopters of benchmarking and disclosure programs. Working with the Smart Buildings Center, Washington State will provide much of the needed infrastructure and staff required to initiate a benchmarking and disclosure program. While details of this program are still under development, it will specifically focus on fulfilling state and local government needs.
Table 1 below outlines potential staffing approaches (e.g., in-house staffing, consultant, or multi- jurisdictional partnership) and cost information to execute the most common steps of setting up a public building benchmarking program. Table 2 outlines similar information for setting up a commercial building benchmarking program; costs will be determined as the K4C develops a program. (Information in the tables below is based on conversations with staff from the cities of Seattle and Bellevue).
Table 1: Elements of a Public Building Benchmarking Program and Potential K4C Staffing Approaches
Element Potential K4C Staffing Approach Costs In-house Consultant Multi- One-time Ongoing jurisdictional partnership Benchmark public x x x 2-6 hours per 1 hour per building buildings building Manage data x x x TBD TBD Trainings for city x x TBD TBD operators Data analysis & x x $6,000-$8,000 $4,000 per report report writing cycle
126 9
Table 2: Elements of a Commercial Benchmarking Program and Potential K4C Staffing Approaches
Element Potential K4C Staffing Approach Costs In-house Consultant Multi- One-time Ongoing jurisdictional partnership Outreach to covered x x x TBD TBD buildings Collect and manage x x x TBD TBD benchmarking data Website creation x x $10,000-90,00015 TBD Help center x x TBD TBD Trainings x x TBD TBD Enforcement x x TBD TBD Data analysis & x x $50,000-70,00016 TBD report writing Technical assistance x x TBD TBD
Stakeholder Concerns Building owners and managers nationwide have expressed concern that benchmarking and disclosure laws can unfairly stigmatize property owners with poorly performing buildings.17 As one of the first cities in the U.S. to pass a benchmarking law, Seattle initially addressed this concern by not requiring public disclosure. Since that time, however, almost all cities with benchmarking laws have required public disclosure, and have avoided or overcome backlash by listening early and often to input from building owners and managers.
From these conversations, several best practices for city staff have emerged, including: 1) walking the talk by benchmarking and disclosing the energy use of city buildings first; 2) displaying data with helpful context about building types (e.g., that supermarkets inherently tend to use more energy than office buildings), unique uses (e.g., city public safety buildings that host 24-hour call centers); and 3) highlighting improvements and progress as much as possible. Most importantly, city staff should reach out to covered building owners and managers to determine their specific concerns and explore ways to move forward collaboratively.
Many cities with benchmarking laws have also committed to support property owners with advice and to connect underperforming properties with incentives to improve their energy efficiency. Instead of issuing fines, for example, some cities provide additional technical assistance and outreach to help non- compliant property owners report their energy use.
15 The City of Seattle notes that an off-the-shelf website could cost as little as $10,000, whereas an online visualization tool could range from $30,000 (based on a tool the City of Philadelphia has developed that is now open-source) to $90,000 (for a more robust tool similar to the one that New York City has). 16 According to the City of Seattle, the analysis could cost $40,000-50,000, and the report writing, design, and production could cost $10,000-20,000. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory also offers a free service of data cleaning and organization when a jurisdiction submits its data to the U.S. Department of Energy Building Performance Database. 17 Lacey, Stephen. “Sticker Shock: How Do You Get the Real Estate Community to Embrace Energy Disclosure?” Green Tech Media. July 16, 2013. Online: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/sticker-shock-will-the- real-estate-community-embrace-energy-disclosure. 127 10
Data Access Local governments have inconsistent access to data about buildings and property ownership. County assessor/tax data is not always accurate, and does not include building operator contact information. Moreover, different stakeholders (e.g., cities, state agencies, and building owners) may use different addresses or identifying information, which make it difficult to match and link database information for outreach and analyses.
In the future, the K4C should consider jointly approaching the King County Assessor’s Office to identify common data issues and explore potential solutions. (Note: K4C jurisdictions are fortunate that Puget Sound Energy and Seattle City Light have already instituted automatic energy data upload for building owners, which results in significant time savings.)
VII. Conclusion The K4C’s target of 25% energy use reduction in existing buildings is ambitious, and requires a suite of policy, program, and partnership actions to drive deeper energy efficiency community-wide. A crucial step on this path is to increase awareness of building energy consumption among building owners, managers, tenants, prospective buyers, and government officials. While public building benchmarking is a practical first step, this subcommittee recommends that the K4C consider it a transitional phase, and remain focused on mandatory benchmarking, reporting, and disclosure of energy use information in commercial buildings in the next several years.
128 11
129 12
Appendix B – Sample Building Energy Benchmarking Ordinance Language
1. INTRODUCTION This sample ordinance language has been developed to encourage consistency in the adoption and implementation of commercial building benchmarking policies for several reasons:
. Uniformity in application of commercial benchmarking policies, whether voluntary or mandatory, will simplify implementation; . Market participants working across jurisdictions will more readily anticipate and comply with requirements; and . Administrators will benefit from cooperative development and implementation of support mechanisms.
Significant elements of this language were developed by the Pacific Coast Collaborative benchmarking workgroup, which consists of the British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines, California Energy Commission, Oregon Department of Energy, and the Washington State Energy Office.18 The K4C Commercial Energy Benchmarking Subcommittee has further modified it for local application.
2. MANDATORY PUBLIC BENCHMARKING AND VOLUNTARY COMMERCIAL BENCHMARKING The sample language for a program of mandatory public benchmarking and voluntary commercial benchmarking is as follows. (Note: not all definitions will be relevant, as some apply to the sample ordinance language for mandatory commercial benchmarking.)
PURPOSE
The purpose of these policies is to promote sharing of information about building energy performance and motivate investment in efficiency improvements that save energy and reduce carbon emissions.
Section A. DEFINITIONS
(1) “Benchmark” means to input benchmarking information into the benchmarking tool as required by this policy.
(2) “Benchmarking information” means descriptive and resource inputs required to benchmark a building and the output information generated by the benchmarking tool. The information may include, but need not be limited to: (a) Descriptive inputs i. Building address; ii. Building occupancy type; iii. Gross floor area; iv. Number of occupants; and
18 In October 2013, four of the five Pacific Coast Collaborative jurisdictions—British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California—established the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy. This plan includes a priority on adopting common approaches to building energy benchmarking, which the Pacific Coast Collaborative workgroup is responsible for developing. Online at: http://www.pacificcoastcollaborative.org/Pages/Agreements.aspx. 130 13
v. Contextual information related to energy use in the building provided by the building owner. (b) Resource inputs i. Purchased energy; ii. On-site energy generation; and iii. Water. (c) Output information i. Building address; ii. Building occupancy type; iii. Gross floor area; iv. Site energy use intensity (EUI); v. Weather normalized site EUI; vi. Weather normalized source EUI; vii. Total annual greenhouse gas emissions; viii. Water use per gross square foot; and ix. The energy performance score for qualified property types. (d) Compliance or noncompliance with this ordinance. (e) Contextual information related to energy use in the building provided by the building owner.
(3) “Benchmarking tool” means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool, or an equivalent tool adopted by the Administrator.
(4) “Building owner” means any of the following: (a) An individual or entity possessing title to a covered building; (b) The net lessee in the case of a building subject to a triple net lease with a single tenant; (c) The net lessee in the case of a building subject to a net lease with a term of at least forty-nine years, inclusive of all renewal options; (d) The board of managers in the case of a condominium; (e) The board of directors in the case of a cooperative apartment corporation; or (f) An agent authorized to act on behalf of any of the above.
(5) “Covered building” means a building that is specified in Sections B and C.
(6) “Administrator” means an organization created or designated to manage a mandatory or voluntary benchmarking program, including the development of rules, data management and collection, and reporting of the results of the voluntary program.
(7) “Energy” means electricity (grid, on-site solar, onsite wind), natural gas, district steam, district hot water, district chilled water, propane, fuel oil, wood, coal, or other fuels used to meet the loads of the covered property.
(8) “Energy performance score” means the numeric rating generated by the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool or equivalent tool approved by the Administrator.
(9) “ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager” means the tool developed and maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to track and assess the relative energy performance of buildings nationwide.
131 14
(10) “Energy use intensity” or “EUI” means the energy use per square foot of gross floor area. This is reported as 1,000 British thermal unit per gross square foot of floor area (kBtu/SF). EUI may be reported as “site EUI” or “source EUI”. (a) “site EUI” is a measurement of energy used in the building per gross square foot of floor area, and (b) “Source EUI” is a measurement of all energy use including generation, transmission, distribution and on-site building energy use per gross square foot of building.
(11) “Financial hardship” (of a building) means a building that: (a) Had arrears of property taxes or water or wastewater charges that resulted in the property's inclusion, within the prior two years, on the city’s annual tax lien sale list; or (b) Has a court appointed receiver in control of the asset due to financial distress; or (c) Is owned by a financial institution through default by the borrower; or (d) Has been acquired by a deed in lieu of foreclosure; or (e) Has a senior mortgage subject to a notice of default.
(12) "Gross floor area" means the total number of enclosed square feet measured between the principal exterior surfaces of the fixed walls of a building, as detailed in the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager glossary.
(13) “Library building” refers to buildings used to store and manage collections of literary and artistic materials such as books, periodicals, newspapers, films, etc. that can be used for reference or lending.
(14) “Office building” refers to buildings used for the conduct of commercial or governmental business activities. This includes administrative and professional offices.
(15) “Public Safety building” means fire station, police station, or Prison/Incarceration. Fire Station refers to buildings used to provide emergency response services associated with fires. Fire stations may be staffed by either volunteer or full-time paid firemen. Police Station applies to buildings used for federal, state, or local police forces and their associated office space. Prison/incarceration refers to federal, state, local, or private-sector buildings used for the detention of persons awaiting trial or convicted of crimes.
(16) “Tenant” means a person or entity occupying or holding possession of a building or premises pursuant to a rental agreement.
(17) “Utility” means an entity that distributes and sells natural gas, electric, thermal energy, or water for buildings.
(18) “Wastewater Treatment Plant” refers to facilities designed to treat municipal wastewater. The level of treatment at a plant will vary based on the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) limits and the specific processes involved. This property use is intended for primary, secondary, and advanced treatment facilities with or without nutrient removal. Treatment processes may include biological, chemical, and physical treatment. This property use does not apply to drinking water treatment and distribution facilities.
132 15
Section B. MANDATORY BENCHMARKING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
(1) Participating jurisdictions shall annually benchmark and report benchmarking information to the Administrator for the previous calendar year for each public building and wastewater treatment facility, in such form as established by the Administrator: (a) For all public facilities with more than [20,000] gross square feet of floor area, including all leased facilities in which the jurisdiction is the sole occupant and has control of utility accounts. (b) For each public building or campus of buildings categorized as an office, library, or public safety building with a floor area greater than 5,000 square feet, by May 1, [year] and by every May 1 thereafter; and (c) For all municipal wastewater treatment plants, by May 1, [year], or as established by the Administrator’s rule and by every May 1 thereafter.
(2) Before reporting benchmarking information to the Administrator, the jurisdiction shall run all automated data quality checker functions available within the benchmarking tool, and shall correct all missing or incorrect information identified.
(3) Jurisdictions shall provide additional data verification, as defined by the Administrator.
(4) If the jurisdiction learns that any information reported as part of the benchmarking submission is inaccurate or incomplete, the information so reported shall be amended in the benchmarking tool by the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction shall provide an updated benchmarking submission to the Administrator within 30 days of learning of the inaccuracy.
(5) If public buildings or wastewater treatment facilities are excluded from a jurisdiction’s benchmarking reporting, a list of the excluded public buildings or facilities shall be provided to the Administrator.
Section C. VOLUNTARY BENCHMARKING OF PRIVATE BUILDINGS
(1) Participating building owners may annually benchmark and report benchmarking information to the Administrator for the previous calendar year for each covered building, in such form as established by the Administrator: (a) For each covered building with more than [20,000] gross square feet of floor area, by May 1, [year] and by every May 1 thereafter; and
(2) Before reporting benchmarking information to the Administrator, the jurisdiction shall run all automated data quality checker functions available within the benchmarking tool, and shall correct all missing or incorrect information identified.
(3) Building owners shall provide additional data verification, as defined by the Administrator.
(4) If the building owners learns that any information reported as part of the benchmarking submission is inaccurate or incomplete, the information so reported shall be amended in the benchmarking tool by the building owners and the building owners shall provide an updated benchmarking submission to the Administrator within 30 days of learning of the inaccuracy.
(5) Participating building owners shall disclose energy use information publicly, through a mechanism to be determined. 133 16
Section D. SHARING OF VOLUNTARY BENCHMARKING INFORMATION
(1) Administrators’ Report: By Sept 1, [ year], and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall publish a report including the following information: (a) Aggregated statistics of the benchmarking information provided to the Administrator by building owners and/or jurisdictions. (b) Summary statistics on overall participation, an assessment of accuracy and issues affecting accuracy, summary energy and water consumption statistics, and trends observed across the portfolio of buildings and public works facilities over time.
(2) Public sharing of benchmarking data: The Administrator shall make available on a public website by Sept 1 [year] and annually thereafter key metrics (such as site EUI, ENERGY STAR score, floor area, and other metrics as defined by the Administrator) from the most recent benchmarking output information for each building and public works facility reporting in the previous calendar year.
(3) Sharing with research organizations: The Administrator may share data from benchmarking submissions with a third party for academic or other non-commercial research purposes.
(4) Sharing with conservation program Administrators: The Administrator may provide non-anonymized data from benchmarking submissions to any utility serving a building or public works facility.
3. MANDATORY COMMERCIAL BENCHMARKING The sample language for a program of mandatory commercial building benchmarking is as follows.
Purpose See Mandatory Public Benchmarking and Voluntary Commercial Benchmarking language above.
Section A. DEFINITIONS See Mandatory Public Benchmarking and Voluntary Commercial Benchmarking language above.
Section B. REQUIREMENTS FOR BENCHMARKING AND REPORTING OF COVERED BUILDINGS (1) For each covered building with more than [20,000] gross square feet of floor area, building owners shall annually benchmark and report such benchmarking information to the Administrator for the previous calendar year for each covered building, in such form as established by the Administrator’s rule: (a) For each covered building with more than [50,000] gross square feet of floor area, by May 1, [year] and by every May 1 thereafter; and (b) For all remaining covered buildings, by May 1, [year], or as established by the Administrator’s rule and by every May 1 thereafter.
(2) Before reporting benchmarking information to the Administrator, the building owner shall run all automated data quality checker functions available within the benchmarking tool, and shall correct all missing or incorrect information identified.
(3) Building owners shall provide additional data verification, as defined by the Administrator’s rule
(4) If the building owner learns that any information reported as part of the benchmarking submission is inaccurate or incomplete, the information so reported shall be amended in the benchmarking tool by 134 17
the building owner and the building owner shall provide an updated benchmarking submission to the Administrator within 30 days of learning of the inaccuracy.
(5) Exceptions: Compliance with this policy is not required for a covered building if one of the following apply: (a) The building did not have a certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for all 12 months of the calendar year being benchmarked. (b) The building did not have an average physical occupancy of at least 50 percent throughout the calendar year for which benchmarking is required. (c) The building does not receive energy services. (d) The building’s primary use is manufacturing or other industrial purposes, as defined under the following building use designations of the International Building Code: i. Factory Group F ii. High-hazard Group H (e) Full demolition work has commenced or legal occupancy is no longer possible prior to May 1. (f) The Administrator determines that strict compliance with provisions of this ordinance would cause undue harm to the occupant’s business interests or to the public interest. (g) The property is under financial hardship.
(6) Any building owner requesting an exemption from benchmarking shall be required to provide the Administrator documentation to substantiate the request or otherwise assist the Administrator in the exemption determination. Any exemption granted shall be limited to the Benchmarking Submission for which the request was made and does not extend to past or future submittals.
Section C. SHARING OF BENCHMARKING INFORMATION
(1) Administrator’s Report: By Sept 1, [ year], and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall publish a report including the following information: (a) Aggregated statistics of the benchmarking information provided to the Administrator by building owners. (b) Summary statistics on overall compliance with this chapter, an assessment of accuracy and issues affecting accuracy, summary energy and water consumption statistics, and trends observed across the portfolio of covered buildings over time.
(2) Public sharing of benchmarking data: The Administrator shall make available on a public website by Sept 1 [year] and annually thereafter key metrics (such as site EUI, Energy Star score, floor area, and other metrics as defined by the Administrator) from the most recent benchmarking output information for each covered building required to report in the previous calendar year.
(3) Sharing with research organizations: The Administrator may share data from benchmarking submissions with a third party for academic or other non-commercial research purposes, provided that such data is anonymized.
(4) Sharing with conservation program Administrators: The Administrator may provide non-anonymized data from benchmarking submissions to any utility serving a covered building or to the Administrator of any federal, state, or city-managed sustainability or energy efficiency program.
135 18
(5) All third parties receiving non-anonymized data from benchmarking submissions shall sign a non- disclosure agreement with the governing agency stipulating terms for acceptable use of the data, including assurances that such data shall not be disclosed to other entities, before receiving such data.
Section D. TENANT BENCHMARKING INFORMATION TO THE BUILDING OWNER
(1) Within 30 days of a request by the building owner, each tenant located in a covered building shall provide the number of occupants, number of computers, operational hours and other information required by Portfolio Manager.
(2) Where the building owner is unable to benchmark due to the failure of any or all tenants to report the information required by Section (E)(1), the owner shall complete benchmarking using default values provided by Portfolio Manager or as specified by the Administrator’s rules and shall indicate that alternate values have been used.
Section E. VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
(1) If the Administrator determines that a building owner has failed to report accurate energy benchmarking information pursuant to Section (B)(1), the Administrator may seek the following remedies: (a) A written warning may be issued for the first violation; and (b) If benchmarking information is not reported within 45 days of the date the written warning is issued, the Administrator may issue a notice of violation with a penalty of up to $[xxx] per day for the first 10 days of noncompliance, then up to $[xxx] per day for each day in violation past the 10th day until compliance is achieved.
(2) If the Administrator determines that a tenant has failed to provide information to a building owner pursuant to Section (E)(1), the Administrator may seek the following remedies on a quarterly basis: (a) A citation of up to $[xxx] may be issued for the first violation; (b) A citation of up to $[xxx] may be issued for the second violation within a 12-month period; and (c) A citation of up to $[xxx] may be issued for the third and subsequent violation within a 12-month period.
(3) Right of Appeal and Payment of Assessments [by the jurisdiction]
Section F. RULES
(1) The Administrator shall promulgate such rules as deemed necessary to carry out the provisions of this article.
136 19
Appendix C – Related Energy Management Approaches According to the U.S. Department of Energy,19 “energy management information systems (EMIS) [are] a broad family of tools and services used to manage commercial building energy use.” These approaches include:
. Energy information systems, which display hourly or 15-minute meter data in energy dashboard or kiosk format. For example, Bellevue, WA is launching Urban Smart │ Bellevue, a partnership with Puget Sound Energy that will use 15-minute interval data or a monthly energy feed to analyze energy use trends in downtown buildings, and will provide resource conservation advice through a private contractor. Urban Smart has a goal of reaching 23 million square feet of building floor area. . Building automation systems, fault detection diagnosis, and automated system optimization, which use 15-minute or less interval data from elements of a large building system to investigate energy use trends, notify building managers about faults (i.e., operational issues leading to energy waste), and optimize the settings of certain building systems (e.g., heating, cooling, and ventilation).
These systems are significantly more costly than basic benchmarking that a building manager would conduct using Portfolio Manager.
The cities of Bellevue and Redmond have also used analysis of building energy use information to motivate internal operational action:
. Bellevue’s Resource Conservation Manager program reduces energy, water use, and solid waste generation in city operations, cutting energy costs by $905,000 cumulatively from April 2009 to April 2014.20 Bellevue’s RCM has been instrumental in creating Urban Smart | Bellevue.
. Redmond staff have reported the city’s annual energy costs to the City Council since 2008, and found that the city was spending over $2 million annually for operational use of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels.21 These annual briefings motivated the Council in 2014 to allocate $820,000 in a biennial budget to fund the city’s energy and climate commitments.
19 Granderson, Jessica. “Energy Management and Information Systems Technology Classification Framework.” Prepared for the US Department of Energy Building Technologies Office. August 2013. Online at: http://eis.lbl.gov/pubs/emis-tech-class-framework.pdf. 20 “Resource Conservation.” City of Bellevue website. Accessed December 21, 2015. Online at: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/9152.htm. 21 Willmott, Elizabeth. “Redmond, WA gets its clean energy house in order.” Climate Solutions blog. May 19, 2015. Online at: http://climatesolutions.org/article/1432078603-redmond-wa-gets-its-clean-energy-house-order. 137 20
Appendix D – Benefits of Benchmarking Benefits of benchmarking include: goal-setting that leads to action; energy savings, lower operating costs, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction; higher building valuation; and economic development.
Goal-Setting and Action Benchmarking can provide valuable data that assists in:
. Goal-setting at the building level (e.g., achieve a certain energy use intensity, or a specific ENERGY STAR rating, by a target date), which has a demonstrated impact on energy performance.22 . Tracking progress. . Prioritization of projects and incentives.23
A California Energy Commission report on benchmarking found that for customers who registered for utility benchmarking workshops and benchmarked with Portfolio Manager, benchmarking resulted in or was associated with:
. Subsequent building energy management actions. . Energy efficiency improvements in buildings. . Utility [incentive] program participation. 24
Positive experiences with benchmarking may also inspire building owners and managers to adopt more in-depth energy management approaches, such as energy information systems, building automation systems, fault detection diagnosis, and automated system optimization.
Energy Savings, Lower Operating Costs, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Benchmarking leads to energy savings, lower energy costs, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that “organizations benchmarking consistently in Portfolio Manager have achieved average energy savings of 2.4% per year, and an average increase in ENERGY STAR score of 2 points per year in their buildings. If all buildings in the U.S. followed a similar trend, over 18 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents could be saved each year. Through 2020, the total savings could be approximately 25%.”25 . A Resources for the Future study found that utility (e.g., electricity and natural gas) expenditures in office buildings decreased approximately 3% per square foot after implementation of benchmarking laws in Austin, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle. 26
Table 3 below describes the findings of recent studies of specific city benchmarking laws and programs.
22 “Manage Energy by Setting Goals.” Johnson Controls. 2013. Online at: http://tinyurl.com/z6dmmd7. 23 Granderson, et al. December 2013. 24 NMR Group, Inc. and Optimal Energy, Inc. “Statewide Benchmarking Process Evaluation Volume 1 Report.” Submitted to California Public Utilities Commission. April 2012. Online: http://tinyurl.com/hcey4lx. 25 “Benchmarking and Energy Savings.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2012. Online: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/downloads/datatrends/DataTrends_Savings_20121002.pdf?3d9b-91a5. 26 Palmer, Karen and Margaret Walls. “Does Information Provision Shrink the Energy Efficiency Gap? A Cross-City Comparison of Commercial Building Benchmarking and Disclosure Laws.” Resources for the Future. April 9, 2015. Online: http://tinyurl.com/jt3hbyl. 138 21
Table 3: Outcomes of Benchmarking Laws in Four U.S. Cities
City Floor Area Covered (# Outcomes Buildings) New York 2.8 billion sf (23,417) . 5.7% energy use reduction (2010-201328) City27 . Over $267 million savings . 9.9% carbon emissions reduction (in covered buildings) . Over 7,000 jobs created Washington, 357 million sf (2,000) . 9% energy use reduction over 3 years DC San 203 million sf (2,312) . 7.9% energy use reduction over 4 years Francisco, CA Seattle, WA 281 million sf (3,250) . 0.6% energy use reduction from 2012 to 2013
Real Estate Value and Economic Development In addition to increasing consumer awareness, benchmarking may also lead to higher valuation of energy efficient buildings, by inspiring building owners to invest in energy efficiency upgrades that make buildings more appealing for prospective buyers and/or tenants. For example:
. In a meta-analysis of national studies, the Institute for Market Transformation and the Appraisal Institute found that LEED and ENERGY STAR ratings consistently lead to premiums on rents, sales prices, and occupancy.29 . CoStar found that LEED-certified buildings “command rent premiums of $11.33 per square foot over their non-LEED peers and have 4.1 percent higher occupancy,” and that ENERGY STAR buildings “represent a $2.40 per square foot premium over comparable non-ENERGY STAR buildings and have 3.6 percent higher occupancy.”30 Subsequent studies have also found that LEED and ENERGY STAR buildings have higher rents and sale prices.31 . Real estate services firm DTZ found that ENERGY STAR-certified buildings have tenant satisfaction scores that are 30 points higher than those without.32
27 Navigant Consulting, Steven Winter Associates, and Newport Partners. “New York City Benchmarking and Transparency Policy Impact Evaluation Report.” Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. May 2015. Online: http://tinyurl.com/zwznd5o. 28 Ibid. All New York City outcomes are for the period from 2010 to 2013. The authors also noted that during this time period the city gross domestic product increased by 4.2% and electricity cost fell by 8.4%. 29 “Green Building and Property Value: A Primer for Building Owners and Developers.” Institute for Market Transformation and Appraisal Institute. 2013. Online: http://tinyurl.com/jgky4sd. 30 Burr, Andrew. “CoStar Study Finds Energy Star, LEED Buildings Outperform Peers.” CoStar. March 26, 2008. Online: http://tinyurl.com/z7u7uy8. 31 Eichholtz, Piet, Nils Kok, and John M. Quigley. 2010. Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings. American Economic Review. 100(5): 2492-2509. Also see: Eichholtz, et al. 2013. The Economics of Green Building. Review of Economics and Statistics 95(1): 50-63. 32 McNulty, Laura. “Do Green Upgrades Lead to Happier Residents?” Multifamily Executive. March 26, 2015. Online: http://tinyurl.com/hkou84u. 139 22
Benchmarking will likely have different and possibly greater impacts on building valuation, in that a certification only provides an indicator of whether a building had specific green characteristics and whether it met a threshold for energy use. As Resources for the Future wrote, “Benchmarking and disclosure ordinances. . . go further than certification in two ways: first, by providing energy use information and ratings for all buildings covered by the law, not just buildings that are voluntarily certified; and second, by providing actual energy use and not just an indicator of being above or below a threshold.”33
The U.S. Department of Energy evaluation of New York City’s benchmarking law concluded that “awareness of building energy performance [in New York City] is growing, and building energy use information is playing an increasingly important role in real estate decisions.”34 As described in Table 1 above, the same report also found that New York City’s benchmarking law led to the creation of over 7,000 jobs from 2010 to 2013.
The Bellevue Energy Efficiency Market Transformation Strategy, developed by the City of Bellevue in collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, contains a valuable list of assessments of the economic impacts of energy efficiency and energy management, as well as studies that show the positive impact of energy efficiency on employee health and productivity. All of the studies “suggest that energy savings policies will realize net positive economic outcomes,” with a range of 1-2% net increase in employment as a result of energy efficiency investments.35 The Bellevue strategy also noted that the Seattle-Bellevue-Tacoma area already has a geographic cluster of local energy efficiency firms that could grow into a larger market, with conducive policy signals.
33 Palmer and Walls. April 2015. 34 Navigant Consulting. May 2015. 35 McEwen, Brendan, et al. “Bellevue Energy Efficiency Market Transformation Strategy.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology Community Innovators Lab Green Economic Development Initiative. Report for the City of Bellevue. October 2013. Online: http://web.mit.edu/colab/gedi/pdf/eemts/MIT-CoLab-Bellevue.pdf. 140 23
Appendix E – Sample ENERGY STAR Statement of Energy Performance36
36 “Sample ENERGY STAR performance documents.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed December 2015. Online at: http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and- managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager/verify-and-document/sample. 141 24
Appendix F – Sample City of Seattle Benchmarking Scorecard
142 25
143 26
Appendix G – Summary of Findings from City of Seattle Focus Group Research Below are the high-level findings of the City of Seattle’s April 2015 focus group report on what motivates building owners and managers to improve energy efficiency37:
1. Personalize building energy profiles as much as possible, including building information, rebate information, and a call to action 2. Share examples of similar buildings that have saved energy and money 3. Connect owners and managers with peers who have already conducted upgrades 4. Promote financial incentives 5. Train managers on how to use ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager data to advise building owners on key energy decisions 6. Expand opportunities for building managers and owners to have personal contact with city staff, especially to navigate benchmarking and rebate/incentive processes 7. Help managers plan for equipment replacement
Appendix H – Reports and Other Resources on Building Energy Benchmarking
REPORTS Title Author Publication Date Summary The Benefits of Institute for Market December 2015 Overview of energy Benchmarking Building Transformation benchmarking and Performance38 related benefits Denver City Energy City and County of Accessed December Website with Project39 Denver 2015 information about Denver City Energy Project Boston Energy City of Boston / Accessed November Website with Reporting and Greenovate Boston 2015 background, analysis, Disclosure Ordinance and map showing website40 metrics for all reporting buildings San Francisco Existing SF Environment and October 2015 Analysis of San Commercial Buildings Urban Land Institute Francisco’s ordinance Performance Report41 Greenprint Center for indicated a 7.9% Building Performance reduction in energy use from 2010 to 2014
37 Slobe, Debbie. “What Inspires Action? Understanding Motivations for Improving Building Energy Efficiency.” Resource Media for the City of Seattle. April 2015. Available on request. 38 Hart, Zachary. “The Benefits of Benchmarking Building Performance.” Institute for Market Transformation. December 2015. Online at: http://www.imt.org/uploads/resources/files/PCC_Benefits_of_Benchmarking.pdf. 39 “Denver City Energy Project: Unlocking the Value of Building Efficiency.” City of Denver. Accessed December 2015. Online at: https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/environmental-health/environmental- quality/denver-city-energy-project.html. 40 “Greenovate Boston.” City of Boston. Accessed December 2015. Online at: http://berdo.greenovateboston.org/. 41 “San Francisco Existing Commercial Building Performance Report: 2010-2014.” City of San Francisco. Accessed December 2015. Online at: http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/SFenergybenchmarkingreport.pdf. 144 27
Seattle Building Energy Seattle Office of September 2015 Analysis of commercial Benchmarking Analysis Sustainability and benchmarking data Report42 (2013 Data) Environment provided by Seattle building owners Commercial Building Southwest Energy September 2015 Review of Benchmarking Efficiency Project benchmarking Programs in the programs in the U.S. Southwest43 with lessons for Southwest states Comparison of U.S. Institute for Market June 2015 Summary of the Commercial Building Transformation and characteristics of Energy Benchmarking Building Rating policies in 14 U.S. and Disclosure jurisdictions Policies44 New York City Navigant Consulting, May 2015 Evaluation of New York Benchmarking and Steven Winter City program according Transparency Policy Associates, Newport to: market Impact Evaluation Partners for US transformation Report45 Department of Energy progress; gross and net energy impacts; and non-energy impacts What Inspires Action? Resource Media for the April 2015 Findings of a building Understanding City of Seattle owner focus group on Motivations for how to motivate action Improving Building Energy Efficiency46 Does Information Resources for the April 2015 Utility bills of office Provision Shrink the Future buildings in Austin, Energy Efficiency Gap? New York, San A Cross-City Francisco, and Seattle Comparison of decreased Commercial Building by approximately 3 Benchmarking and percent per square Disclosure Laws47 foot after those cities implemented benchmarking and disclosure laws
42 “Seattle Building Energy Benchmarking Analysis Report—2013.” Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment. September 2015. Online at: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/EBR-2013-report.pdf. 43 Smith, Lauren. “Commercial Building Benchmarking Programs in the Southwest.” SWEEP. September 2015. Online at: http://tinyurl.com/gnz8yel. 44 “Comparison of U.S. Commercial Building Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure Policies.” Institute for Market Transformation and Building Rating. Accessed December 2015. Online at: http://tinyurl.com/zlvrc8g. 45 Navigant Consulting, Inc., et al. May 2015. 46 City of Seattle. April 2015. Available on request. 47 Palmer and Walls. April 2015. 145 28
Washington, DC Private District of Columbia January 2015 Savings of 9% over Building Benchmarking three years in buildings Disclosure48 required to benchmark Benchmarking and Navigant Consulting 2015 Methodology to Transparency Policy and Steven Winter determine the benefits and Program Impact Associates of benchmarking and Evaluation Handbook49 transparency policies and programs, with a guide for how to assess the impacts of policies Bellevue Energy Massachusetts October 2013 Analysis of market Efficiency Market Institute of Technology conditions for different Transformation Study50 CoLab / City of Bellevue energy management approaches in Bellevue 2013 Energy Efficiency Institute for Building June 2013 Seventh annual survey Indicator Survey51 Efficiency of global building decision-makers indicates a correlation between energy goal- setting and key efficiency behaviors and investments Manage Energy by Johnson Controls 2013 Goal-setting is critical Setting Goals52 to energy management success 2012 Energy City of Minneapolis 2013 Analysis of 2013 Benchmarking Report53 Minneapolis building benchmarking data Building Energy Rating Northeast Energy 2013 Assessment of policy and Disclosure Policies: Efficiency Partnerships options and roadmap Update and Lessons for implementing from the Field54 building energy rating and disclosure policies
48 “Private Building Benchmarking Disclosure 2013.” DC Department of Energy and Environment. January 28, 2015. Online at: http://doee.dc.gov/node/970312. 49 Navigant Consulting, Inc., et al. “Benchmarking and Transparency Policy and Program Impact Evaluation Handbook.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. May 2015. Online at: http://energy.gov/eere/slsc/downloads/benchmarking-and-transparency-policy-and-program-impact-evaluation- handbook. 50 McEwen, et al. October 2013. 51 “2013 Energy Efficiency Indicator Survey.” International Facility Management Association, Urban Land Institute, and Johnson Controls. June 2013. Online at: http://tinyurl.com/z4wcyt5. 52 “Manage Energy by Setting Goals.” Johnson Controls. 2013. 53 “Energy Benchmarking Results for Public and Large Commercial Buildings.” City of Minneapolis. Accessed December 2015. Online at: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/environment/energy/WCMS1P-116916. 54 “Building Energy Rating and Disclosure Policies Update and Lessons from the Field.” Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. February 2013. Online at: http://www.neep.org/building-energy-rating-and-disclosure-policies. 146 29
Benchmarking and SEE Action 2012 Guide for policymakers Disclosure: State and on design of Local Policy Design commercial Guide & Sample Policy benchmarking and Language55 disclosure policy, with sample language Lessons Learned from Institute for Market 2012 Early evaluation of the Implementation of Transformation policies Rating and Disclosure Policies in U.S. Cities56 ENERGY STAR Portfolio EPA 2012 Analysis of buildings Manager and Energy that benchmarked Savings Handout57 using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager indicated an average annual savings of 2.4% Introduction to Midwest Energy Unknown Briefing document that Benchmarking or Efficiency Alliance outlines the process Tracking Energy and overall benefits of Consumption in benchmarking existing Commercial and Public building energy Buildings58 consumption RESOURCES Better Buildings U.S. Department of Accessed November Innovative policies and Accelerator59 Energy 2015 approaches in energy efficiency Building Performance U.S. Department of Accessed November U.S.’s largest dataset of Database60 Energy 2015 commercial and residential building energy characteristics
55 Burr, A., Institute for Market Transformation. “Benchmarking and Disclosure: State and Local Policy Design Guide and Sample Policy Language” Prepared for State and Local Energy Efficiency Action Network. 2012. Online at: https://www4.eere.energy.gov/seeaction/publication/benchmarking-and-disclosure-state-and-local- policy-design-guide-and-sample-policy. 56 Keicher, Caroline, et al. “Lessons Learned from Implementation of Rating and Disclosure Policies in U.S. Cities.” Institute for Market Transformation. 2012. Online at: http://www.imt.org/resources/detail/lessons-learned-from- the-implementation-of-rating-and-disclosure-policies-i. 57 “ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager and Energy Savings.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2012. Online at: http://tinyurl.com/zvmjbam. 58 “Introduction to Benchmarking or Tracking Energy Consumption in Commercial and Public Buildings.” Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Accessed December 2015. Online at: http://www.mwalliance.org/sites/default/files/uploads/MEEA%20Benchmarking%20FactSheet%20for%20Comm% 20and%20Public%20Buildings%202013.pdf. 59 “Better Buildings Accelerators.” U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed December 2015. Online at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/betterbuildings/accelerators/. 60 “Building Performance Database.” U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed December 2015. Online at: http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-performance-database. 147 30
ENERGY STAR Portfolio U.S. Environmental Accessed November Two-page guide to Manager Quick Start Protection Agency 2015 start using Portfolio Guide61 Manager to benchmark properties Institute for Market Institute for Market Accessed November Overview and Transformation Transformation 2015 examples of state and Building Energy local building energy Performance Policy benchmarking policies Website62 BuildingRating63 BuildingRating Accessed November International exchange 2015 for information on building rating policies and programs State and Local Energy U.S. Department of Accessed November State- and local-led Efficiency Action64 Energy and U.S. 2015 effort to take energy Environmental efficiency to scale and Protection Agency achieve all cost- effective energy efficiency by 2020 City of Seattle Energy City of Seattle November 2014 Step-by-step Benchmarking and instructions to use Reporting How To Portfolio Manager to Guide65 comply with the City of Seattle’s benchmarking and reporting requirements
61 “Portfolio Manager Quick Start Guide.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy. September 2015. Online at: http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/tools-and-resources/portfolio-manager-quick- start-guide. 62 “Building Energy Performance Policy.” Institute for Market Transformation website. Accessed December 2015. Online at: http://www.imt.org/policy/building-energy-performance-policy 63 “Building Rating.” Building Rating website. Accessed December 2015. Online at: http://buildingrating.org/ 64 “State and Local Energy Efficiency Action Network.” U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed December 2015. Online at: https://www4.eere.energy.gov/seeaction/ 65 “Seattle Energy Benchmarking and Reporting How To Guide.” Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment. November 20, 2014. Online at: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/EBR-how-to-guide.pdf 148 31
3456-RES 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 9186
A RESOLUTION authorizing annual benchmarking and reporting of energy use in select municipal facilities.
WHEREAS, the City of Bellevue established the Environmental Stewardship Initiative (ESI) in June 2007, with a mission to exercise focused leadership with a “One City” approach, to implement continuous change, learning and innovation in practices that drive the organization and the City of Bellevue toward achieving the Environmental Stewardship Initiative Vision; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2007, in Resolution no. 7517, the City Council expressed agreement with and signed on to the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, establishing a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2014, in Resolution no. 8789, the City Council joined the King County Cities Climate Collaboration, which is a partnership among cities across King County working to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions consistent with Countywide Planning Policies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan in 2015, which includes the following policies related to managing energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and providing regional leadership on environmental issues: EN-2. Conduct city operations in a manner that ensures the sustainable use of natural resources, promotes an environmentally safe workplace for its employees, and minimizes adverse environmental impacts. EN-4. Promote and invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy resources as an alternative to non-renewable resources. EN-6. Establish an achievable citywide target and take corrective actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as reducing energy consumption and vehicle emissions, and enhancing land use patterns to reduce vehicle dependency. EN-8. Provide regional leadership on environmental issues that extend beyond Bellevue’s boundaries and require regional cooperation. EN-17 - Reduce countywide sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, compared to a 2007 baseline, by 25% by 2020, 50% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. EN-18 – Establish a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and measurement framework for use by all King County jurisdictions to efficiently and effectively measure progress toward countywide targets established pursuant to policy EN-17; and 149 1
3456-RES 11/17/2016
WHEREAS, energy benchmarking and reporting is a best practice for managing and publicly-sharing energy information, intended to drive energy efficiency investments and conservation through improved transparency and literacy around energy use; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that buildings using benchmarking have achieved an average energy savings of 2.4% per year, for a total savings of 7% over a four year period; and
WHEREAS, City staff provided an overview of energy benchmarking to the City Council on April 4, 2016, and a further analysis and recommendation on September 26, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it to be in the best interest of the City of Bellevue and its citizens to take action on this issue; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. To encourage efficient use of energy in City facilities, reduce costs, and greenhouse gas emissions, the Bellevue City Council hereby expresses its support for the use of energy benchmarking and public reporting of benchmarking data for certain City facilities.
Section 2. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to annually benchmark and publicly report energy data for the following municipal facilities: (1) all City-owned buildings with more than 5,000 gross square feet of floor area; and (2) all leased facilities with greater than 20,000 gross square feet of floor area in which the City is the sole occupant and has control of utility accounts.
Section 3. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to publish benchmarking information on the City’s website. The benchmarking information should be published in a manner that gives context to the data. Before reporting benchmarking information, the City Manager or his designee should perform a quality check of the data and correct all missing or incorrect information.
Section 4. The following definitions apply to this Resolution:
(1) “Benchmark” means to input energy information into the benchmarking tool.
(2) “Benchmarking information” means descriptive and resource inputs required to benchmark a building and the output information generated by the benchmarking tool. The information may include, but need not be limited to:
150 2
3456-RES 11/17/2016
(a) Descriptive inputs, such as:
i. Building address; ii. Building occupancy type; iii. Gross floor area; iv. Number of occupants; and v. Contextual information related to energy use in the building.
(b) Resource inputs, such as:
i. Purchased energy; and ii. On-site energy generation.
(c) Output information, such as:
i. Site energy use intensity (EUI); ii. Weather normalized site EUI; iii. Weather normalized source EUI; iv. Total annual greenhouse gas emissions; and v. The energy performance score for qualified property types.
(3) “Benchmarking tool” means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool, or an equivalent tool.
(4) “Energy performance score” means the numeric rating generated by the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool or equivalent tool.
(5) “ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager” means the tool developed and maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to track and assess the relative energy performance of buildings nationwide.
(6) “Energy use intensity” or “EUI” means the energy use per square foot of gross floor area. This is reported as 1,000 British thermal unit per gross square foot of floor area (kBtu/SF). EUI may be reported as “site EUI” or “source EUI”.
(a) “Site EUI” is a measurement of energy used in the building per gross square foot of floor area.
(b) “Source EUI” is a measurement of all energy use including generation, transmission, distribution and on-site building energy use per gross square foot of building.
151 3
3456-RES 11/17/2016
(7) “Gross floor area” means the total number of enclosed square feet measured between the principal exterior surfaces of the fixed walls of a building, as detailed in the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager glossary.
(8) “Utility” means electricity (from grid, on-site solar, or on-site wind sources), natural gas, district steam, district hot water, district chilled water, propane, fuel oil, wood, coal, or other fuels used to meet the loads of the covered property.
Passed by the City Council this ______day of , 2016, and signed in authentication of its passage this _____ day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
152 4
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Resolution authorizing execution of Amendment No. 1 to water and sewer utility assumption agreement between the Cities of Bellevue and Issaquah.
FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact from the proposed amendment is anticipated to be minimal; however, some benefit will be realized from the City of Issaquah assuming billing and collections responsibilities for customers now within its jurisdiction.
STAFF CONTACTS Nav Otal, Director, 425-452-2041 Andrew Lee, Deputy Director, 425-452-7675 Utilities Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION If the City should amend the Water and Sewer Utility Assumption Agreement between the Cities of Bellevue and Issaquah to transfer billing and collection responsibility to recoup certain capital improvement costs and revise the Agreement to add an administrative amendment provision?
City Financial policies: N/A City Code: Bellevue City Code 24.02.260 (Connection charges), 24.02.275 (Capital recovery charges), 24.04.260 (Connection Charges), and 24.04.275 (Capital recovery charges)
BACKGROUND On October 22, 2015, the City of Issaquah (Issaquah) and the City of Bellevue (Bellevue) entered into an Interlocal Agreement (“Agreement”) to transfer water and sewer services in the South Cove / Greenwood Point areas over to the Issaquah. A copy is included as Attachment A. Bellevue’s Utilities Department has provided water and sewer service to these areas since 1973 (water) and 1994 (sewer), as a result of the City assuming King County Water District No. 97 and the Eastgate Sewer District. In 2006, Issaquah annexed the South Cove / Greenwood Point area (the “Assumption Area”), and consistent with the Growth Management Act, Bellevue and Issaquah agreed to transfer water and sewer service over to Issaquah beginning on January 1, 2017.
In the Assumption Area, there is a smaller subset of properties that are required to pay either Direct Facility Connection Charges (DFCCs) or Capital Recovery Charges (CRCs), which are mechanisms for the City to recover capital project costs related to growth. CRCs are a “system buy-in” charge that is billed to parcels with new water and/or sewer connections on a monthly basis for a duration of 10 years. CRCs are not typically tied to a specific capital project that is associated with the new water and/or sewer connection. There are currently 24 parcels within the Assumption Area that have outstanding CRC balances that will conclude between 2017 and 2024. DFCCs, on the other hand, are charges to customers based on the cost of a new capital growth-related project to provide capacity for the new 153 water and/or sewer connection. DFCCs are paid in a lump sum at the time of the building permit application. In 1994 and 2001, Bellevue constructed a water main and sewer main extension that benefits 11 and 12 parcels, respectively, in the Assumption area. There are outstanding balances that have yet to be recouped on the DFCCs.
In the original Assumption Agreement, Bellevue agreed to continue billing and collecting for both DFCCs and CRCs from applicable properties in the Assumption Area. Upon further review of the financial and administrative processes for collecting DFCCs and CRCs, Issaquah and Bellevue have agreed that it is more efficient to allow Issaquah to collect for both charges, since Issaquah will assume the customer accounts on January 1, 2017. Issaquah has the option of remitting payment to Bellevue either annually or in one lump-sum payment. Proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Water and Sewer Utility Assumption Agreement between the Cities of Bellevue and Issaquah is designed to transfer these responsibilities from Bellevue to Issaquah. A copy of the proposed Amendment No. 1 is included as Attachment A.
In addition, the original Assumption Agreement lacks a provision allowing for administrative amendments, which thereby necessitates action by both Issaquah’s and Bellevue’s respective City Councils, even for administrative amendments, such as this Amendment No.1. Therefore, the proposed Amendment includes a provision for making administrative amendments. The provision does not allow amendments to any of the financial terms of the Assumption Agreement.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Resolution becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS Option 1 - Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Assumption Agreement Option 2 - Reject Amendment No. 1 to the Assumption Agreement
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to approve Resolution No. 9187 authorizing execution of Amendment No. 1 to water and sewer utility assumption agreement between the Cities of Bellevue and Issaquah.
ATTACHMENTS A. Water & Sewer Utility Assumption Agreement between City of Bellevue and City of Issaquah (Signed October 22, 2015) B. Amendment No. 1 to Water & Sewer Utility Assumption Agreement between City of Bellevue and City of Issaquah C. Proposed Resolution No. 9187
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY N/A
154 Attachment A
155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 Attachment B
AMENDMENT NO. 1 to WATER AND SEWER UTILITY ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
between CITY OF BELLEVUE and CITY OF ISSAQUAH
This First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement Implementing the Water and Sewer Utility Assumption Agreement (Agreement) (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Issaquah (“Issaquah”) and the City of B ellevue (“Bellevue”) this _____ day of ______, 2016, as follows:
WHEREAS, Issaquah and Bellevue entered into a certain Interlocal Agreement Implementing the Water and Sewer Utility Assumption Agreement (Agreement) that was fully executed on October 22, 2015; and
WHEREAS, Bellevue made water and sewer improvements in the Assumption Area in 2003 and the cost of these improvements are recovered from benefitting properties as they connect to the improved utility system; and
WHEREAS, Bellevue made capital investments in capacity-related facilities to support future new development throughout Bellevue’s water and sewer service area, including the Assumption Area; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement assigns Bellevue the responsibility for continuing to collect and dispose of outstanding Direct Facility Connection Charges (DFCCs) and Capital Recovery Charges (CRCsn ) i the area; and
WHEREAS, Issaquah, will assume approximately 1,000 water and sewer customer accounts located in the South Cove and Greenwood Pointe communities; and
WHEREAS, because Issaquah will assume the customer accounts, it is in the parties best interests for Issaquah to collect outstanding DFCCs and CRCs and remit to Bellevue either annually or in one lump-sum payment; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement lacks a provision allowing rfo a dministrative amendments necessitating a ction by Issaquah’s and Bellevue’s respective City Council’s for even administrative amendments, such as Amendment 1;
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to clarify their respective rights and responsibilities regarding the collection of DFCCs and CRCs within the area to be assumed by Issaquah, as more fully set forth below;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties a gree as follows:
1. Section 1 is amended as follows: 171 Page 1 of 11 A. Paragraph L is deleted in its entirety.
2. Section 2 is amended as follows:
A. A new paragraph “H” is added to Section 2 as follows:
H. As of the Assumption Date, assume billing and collection of DFCCs and CRCs from the properties listed in Table 1 below.
B. A new paragraph “I” is added to Section 2 as follows:
I. To assure seamless transition for customers upon transition of billing responsibility, DFCCs will be collected upon redevelopment of the property against which the charge is assessed. CRCs will continue to be billed bi- monthly until the customer pays off the outstanding balance.
C. A new paragraph “J” is added to Section 2 as follows:
J.Issaquah will remit payment annually to Bellevue on December 31 of each year that amount of outstanding DFCCs and CRCs collected from the properties listed in Table 1 below and as shown in detail in Attachments B and C to Amendment 1.
Table 1: DFCC and CRC Outstanding Balances by Service Address Service Address Water DFCC Sewer DFCC Water CRC Sewer CRC 4212 184TH AVE SE [a] $14,177.38 4304 184TH AVE SE [a] $21,188.76 4328 184TH AVE SE [a,b] $63,373.92 $116,792.80 4352 184TH AVE SE [a,b] $21,188.76 $39,049.10 $72.18 4364 184TH AVE SE [a,b] $10,594.38 $19,524.55 4414 184TH AVE SE [a,b] $21,188.76 $39,049.10 4460 184TH AVE SE [a,b] $74,160.66 $156,196.40 4505 185TH AVE SE $784.38 $419.56 4509 185TH AVE SE $784.38 $419.56 4511 185TH AVE SE $130.56 4513 185TH AVE SE $408.42 $221.22 4517 185TH AVE SE $544.56 $221.22 4521 185TH AVE SE $400.68 $216.54 4525 185TH AVE SE $400.68 $216.54 4529 185TH AVE SE $738.24 $394.88 4532 185TH AVE SE $408.42 $221.22 4533 185TH AVE SE $738.24 $394.88 4536 185TH AVE SE $408.42 $245.80 4537 185TH AVE SE $784.38 $419.56 4540 185TH AVE SE $453.80 $221.22 4541 185TH AVE SE $784.38 $419.56 4545 185TH AVE SE $784.38 $419.56 4549 185TH AVE SE $784.38 $419.56 4553 185TH AVE SE $784.38 $419.56 172 Page 2 of 11 4557 185TH AVE SE $784.38 $419.56 4560 185TH AVE SE $267.12 $168.42 4872 194TH AVE SE $738.24 $294.96 4500 W LAKE SAMMAMISH [a,b] $10,594.38 $19,524.55 4510 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY SE $48.12 4528 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY SE $120.30 18408 SE 44TH ST [a,b] $21,188.76 $39,049.10 18415 SE 44TH ST [a,b] $31,783.14 $58,573.65 19500 SE 51ST ST $2,673.52 $1,241.08 VACANT LOT / PARCEL 1824069093 [a,b] $21,188.76 $39,049.10 TOTALS $310,627.66 $526,808.35 $14,585.94 $7,655.06 [a]: Date of Water DFCC origination: June 18, 1994 [b]: Date of Sewer DFCC origination: November 27, 2001
D. A new paragraph “K” is added to Section 2 as follows:
I. Alternatively, Issaquah may pay Bellevue the full amount owing for the DFCCs and CRCSs in lieu of remitting the fees annually as required in Section 2, paragraph H.
E. A new paragraph “L” is added to Section 2 as follows:
J. The obligation to collect and remit DFCCs and CRCs on behalf of and to Bellevue shall terminate when the outstanding balance for the DFCCs and CRCs is zero.
3. Section 6, General Provisions, is amended as follows:
A. A new paragraph “I” is added to Section 6 as follows: Amendment. The parties, by mutual agreement, may amend, modify or alter this Agreement where the change is for administrative convenience, or greater efficiency and effectiveness has no fiscal impact and furthers the objectives of the Agreement; provided the following sections may not be amended without action by the parties’ respective City Councils: 1. Section 1, paragraphs A, B, C, D, and G. 2. Section 2, paragraphs A and D 3. Section 4 4. Section 5 5. Section 6, paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, G, and H.
4. Except as modified by this Amendment No. 1, the Agreement remains in full force and effect and has not been modified or amended.
Approved as to Form CITY OF BELLEVUE 173 (“Bellevue”) Page 3 of 11 Bellevue Legal Counsel
By______By______Its______Its______Dated______Dated______
Issaquah Legal Counsel CITY OF ISSAQUAH (“Issaquah”) By______By______Its ______Its ______Dated ______Dated ______
174 Page 4 of 11 ATTACHMENT A ASSUMPTION AREA MAPS
This page intentionally left blank
175 Page 5 of 11 176
Page 6 of 11 177 Page 7 of 11 178
Page 8 of 11 ATTACHMENT B OUTSTANDING WATER AND SEWER DIRECT FACILITY CONNECTION CHARGES (DFCCS)
Project: 184th Ave SE Water Extension (Timberlake Park) Water Connection Charge Per Single Family Lot: $8,244 JDE Revenue Account: 496690999.379100.0535 Amanda Speedi Code: 49-75 Total Project Cost: $288,539 [35 potential single family lots, as of 12/10/03 Cost Allocation Memo] Cost Recovered: $46,073 Dollar Wise Collected [Principal Amount Paid to Date] Difference: $242,466 Date of Charge Origination: 6/18/1994 Outstanding Total [Principal Outstanding Outstanding Total Allocated Principal Interest Principal & # of Potential SF Allocated Allocated # of Potential SF + Interest] Principal Interest Address/ King County Parcel Project Principal Actual SF Lots Paid Amount Paid Amount Interest Lots Project Cost Project Interest Lots Left to Pay Collected to Balance to Balance to + Interest to Date Paid to Date Balance to Date Date Date Date 18408 SE 44th St Issaquah WA 2 $16,488.00 $4,700.76 $21,188.76 0 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,488.00 $4,700.76 $21,188.76 98027/ 1824069099 18415 SE 44th St Issaquah WA 3 $24,732.00 $7,051.14 $31,783.14 0 3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $24,732.00 $7,051.14 $31,783.14 98027/ 1824069092 4212 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 98027/ 1824069172 & 18426 SE 3 $24,732.00 $7,051.14 $31,783.14 2 1 $12,905.00 $2,629.82 $15,534.82 $11,827.00 $2,350.38 $14,177.38 43rd Pl Issaquah WA 98027/ 1824069084 4304 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 2 $16,488.00 $4,700.76 $21,188.76 0 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,488.00 $4,700.76 $21,188.76 98027/ 1824069107 4328 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 7 $57,708.00 $16,452.66 $74,160.66 1 6 $8,436.36 $1,628.27 $10,064.63 $49,271.64 $14,102.28 $63,373.92 98027/ 1824069085 4352 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 3 $24,732.00 $7,051.14 $31,783.14 1 2 $8,244.00 $638.45 $8,882.45 $16,488.00 $4,700.76 $21,188.76 98027/ 1824069094 4364 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 2 $16,488.00 $4,700.76 $21,188.76 1 1 $8,244.00 $2,040.39 $10,284.39 $8,244.00 $2,350.38 $10,594.38 98027/ 1824069090 4414 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 3 $24,732.00 $7,051.14 $31,783.14 1 2 $8,244.00 $219.84 $8,463.84 $16,488.00 $4,700.76 $21,188.76 98027/ 1824069083 4460 184th Av SE Issaquah WA 7 $57,708.00 $16,452.66 $74,160.66 0 7 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,708.00 $16,452.66 $74,160.66 98027/ 1824069059 4500 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy 1 $8,244.00 $2,350.38 $10,594.38 0 1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,244.00 $2,350.38 $10,594.38 SE Issaquah WA 98027 Vacant Single Family Lot [No 2 $16,488.00 $4,700.76 $21,188.76 0 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,488.00 $4,700.76 $21,188.76 Property Address]/ 1824069093 35 $288,540.00 $82,263.30 $370,803.30 6 29 $46,073.36 $7,156.77 $53,230.13 $242,466.64 $68,161.02 $310,627.66 Note: Outstanding Water DFCC balances presented above represent remaining outstanding balances as of September 1, 2016.
179 Page 9 of 11 Project: 184th Ave SE Sewer Extension (Timberlake Park) Sewer Connection Charge Per Single Family Lot: $15,193 JDE Revenue Account: 596690999.379100.0528 Amanda Speedi Code: 49-68 Total Project Cost: $518,405 [34 potential single family lots, as of 12/10/03 Cost Allocation Memo] Cost Recovered: $108,548 Dollar Wise Collected [Principal Amount Paid to Date] Difference: $409,857 Date of Charge Origination: 11/27/2001 Outstanding # of Total [Principal Outstanding Outstanding Total Allocated Principal Principal & Allocated Project Actual SF Potential SF Interest Amount + Interest] Principal Interest Address/ King County Parcel # of Potential SF Lots Allocated Project Cost Project Principal Amount Paid Interest Interest Lots Paid Lots Left to Paid to Date Collected to Balance to Balance to + Interest to Date Balance to Pay Date Date Date Date 18408 SE 44th St Issaquah WA 2 $30,386.00 $8,663.10 $39,049.10 0 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,386.00 $8,663.10 $39,049.10 98027/ 1824069099 18415 SE 44th St Issaquah WA 3 $45,579.00 $12,994.65 $58,573.65 0 3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $45,579.00 $12,994.65 $58,573.65 98027/ 1824069092 4328 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 7 $106,351.00 $30,320.85 $136,671.85 1 6 $15,547.50 $3,000.77 $18,548.27 $90,803.50 $25,989.30 $116,792.80 98027/ 1824069085 4352 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 3 $45,579.00 $12,994.65 $58,573.65 1 2 $15,193.00 $1,657.45 $16,850.45 $30,386.00 $8,663.10 $39,049.10 98027/ 1824069094 4364 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 2 $30,386.00 $8,663.10 $39,049.10 1 1 $15,193.00 $3,760.28 $18,953.28 $15,193.00 $4,331.55 $19,524.55 98027/ 1824069090 4414 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 3 $45,579.00 $12,994.65 $58,573.65 1 2 $15,193.00 $405.15 $15,598.15 $30,386.00 $8,663.10 $39,049.10 98027/ 1824069083 4460 184th Av SE Issaquah WA 8 $121,544.00 $34,652.40 $156,196.40 0 8 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $121,544.00 $34,652.40 $156,196.40 98027/ 1824069059 4470 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 1 $15,193.00 $4,331.55 $19,524.55 1 0 $15,193.00 $1,390.14 $16,583.14 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 98027/ 1824069156 4480 184th Ave SE Issaquah WA 1 $15,340.96 $4,331.55 $19,672.51 1 0 $15,340.96 $3,796.88 $19,137.84 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 98027/ 1824069162 4500 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE 1 $15,193.00 $4,331.55 $19,524.55 0 1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,193.00 $4,331.55 $19,524.55 Issaquah WA 98027 4510 W Lk Samm Pkwy SE Issaquah 1 $16,887.87 $4,331.55 $21,219.42 1 0 $16,887.87 $4,004.85 $20,892.72 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 WA 98027/ 1824069068 Vacant Single Family Lot [No 2 $30,386.00 $8,663.10 $39,049.10 0 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,386.00 $8,663.10 $39,049.10 Property Address]/ 1824069093 34 $518,404.83 $147,272.70 $665,677.53 7 27 $108,548.33 $18,015.52 $126,563.85 $409,856.50 $116,951.85 $526,808.35 Note: Outstanding Sewer DFCC balances presented above represent remaining outstanding balances as of September 1, 2016.
180 Page 10 of 11 ATTACHMENT C OUTSTANDING CAPITAL RECOVERY CHARGES
City of City of Bellevue Bellevue UNCOLLECTED CRC WATER UNCOLLECTED CRC SEWER TOTAL Account Customer OUTSTANDING FINAL PAYMENT OUTSTANDING FINAL PAYMENT BALANCE Bi-Monthly CRC Number Number SERVICE ADDRESS BALANCE DATE BALANCE DATE OUTSTANDING Billing 19514006 00105610 4560 185TH AVE SE $ 267.12 8/29/2017 $ 168.42 12/26/2017$ 435.54 $ 68.58 19515001 00035910 4528 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY SE $ 120.30 8/21/2017$ 120.30 $ 24.06 42467006 00107469 4872 194TH AVE SE $ 738.24 4/29/2019 $ 294.96 9/3/2018$ 1,033.20 $ 70.72 90101902 00056980 4510 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY SE $ 48.12 1/3/2017 $ 48.12 $ 24.06 90102317 00097354 4352 184TH AVE SE $ 72.18 4/24/2017 $ 72.18 $ 24.06 90104537 00130851 4557 185TH AVE SE $ 784.38 7/1/2019 $ 419.56 7/1/2019$ 1,203.94 $ 70.82 90104542 00110297 4553 185TH AVE SE $ 784.38 7/1/2019 $ 419.56 7/1/2019$ 1,203.94 $ 70.82 90104547 00109725 4549 185TH AVE SE $ 784.38 7/1/2019 $ 419.56 7/1/2019$ 1,203.94 $ 70.82 90104552 00136560 4545 185TH AVE SE $ 784.38 7/1/2019 $ 419.56 7/1/2019$ 1,203.94 $ 70.82 90104557 00109190 4541 185TH AVE SE $ 784.38 7/1/2019 $ 419.56 7/1/2019$ 1,203.94 $ 70.82 90104562 00129900 4537 185TH AVE SE $ 784.38 7/1/2019 $ 419.56 7/1/2019$ 1,203.94 $ 70.82 90104567 00126252 4533 185TH AVE SE $ 738.24 4/29/2019 $ 394.88 4/29/2019$ 1,133.12 $ 70.82 90104572 00118686 4529 185TH AVE SE $ 738.24 4/29/2019 $ 394.88 4/29/2019$ 1,133.12 $ 70.82 90104577 00110071 4525 185TH AVE SE $ 400.68 2/28/2018 $ 216.54 2/28/2018$ 617.22 $ 68.58 90104582 00135721 4521 185TH AVE SE $ 400.68 2/28/2018 $ 216.54 2/28/2018$ 617.22 $ 68.58 90104587 00129126 4517 185TH AVE SE $ 544.56 8/27/2018 $ 221.22 2/27/2018$ 765.78 $ 69.96 90104592 00133454 4513 185TH AVE SE $ 408.42 2/27/2018 $ 221.22 2/27/2018$ 629.64 $ 69.96 90104597 00136466 4509 185TH AVE SE $ 784.38 7/1/2019 $ 419.56 7/1/2019$ 1,203.94 $ 70.82 90104602 00136170 4505 185TH AVE SE $ 784.38 7/1/2019 $ 419.56 7/1/2019$ 1,203.94 $ 70.82 90104607 00104029 4532 185TH AVE SE $ 408.42 2/27/2018 $ 221.22 2/27/2018$ 629.64 $ 69.96 90104612 00107705 4536 185TH AVE SE $ 408.42 4/25/2018 $ 245.80 4/30/2018$ 654.22 $ 69.96 90104617 00124168 4540 185TH AVE SE $ 453.80 4/30/2018 $ 221.22 4/25/2018$ 675.02 $ 69.96 90105762 00104522 4511 185TH AVE SE $ 130.56 9/3/2018 $ 130.56 $ 10.88 90111752 00133284 19500 SE 51ST ST $ 2,673.52 5/12/2024$ 1,241.08 5/12/2024$ 3,914.60 $ 85.10 TOTAL 14,585.94 7,655.06 22,241.00
Note: Outstanding Water and Sewer CRC balances presented above represent remaining outstanding balances as of January 1, 2017 as customer accounts will continue monthly payments to the City of Bellevue through December 31, 2016.
181 Page 11 of 11 3457-RES 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 9187
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of Amendment No. 1 to water and sewer utility assumption agreement between the Cities of Bellevue and Issaquah.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute Amendment No. 1 to water and sewer utility assumption agreement between the Cities of Bellevue and Issaquah, a copy of which amendment has been given Clerk’s Receiving No. ______.
Passed by the City Council this ______day of , 2016, and signed in authentication of its passage this _____ day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
182
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $259,874.60 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
FISCAL IMPACT This action will obligate the City to an amount up to $129,937.30 for execution of a new General Services contract serving fifteen park sites and City facilities, commencing January 1, 2017 and concluding December 31, 2018. If approved, the City will execute this contract for an initial two-year period. Upon satisfactory performance, the City will have the option to renew the contract for an additional two years for an amount up to the original contract value ($129,937.30) plus any State- mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year. If the City exercises its option to renew, the total value over four years is approximately $259,874.60, plus the required increases just discussed. There are sufficient funds included in the proposed 2017-2018 Parks & Community Services Operating Budget for the first two years of the contract. Future costs associated with this contract will be requested in subsequent operating budgets and will be subject to final budget appropriation.
STAFF CONTACTS Dan Dewald, Natural Resources Manager, 452-6048 Tom Kuykendall, Street Tree and Arterial Program Supervisor 452-7924 Michael Hauer, Contract Administrator, 452-4480 Parks & Community Services Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Bellevue City Code BCC 4.28 provides for the fair and equitable treatment of persons in the purchasing process. Because the contract amounts exceed $90,000, Council approval is required.
BACKGROUND Currently, Parks utilizes landscape contractors to perform maintenance services at 286 park, street tree and arterial landscape and City facility sites. This contract provides services at SE 16th Street, Newport Way (150th to 153rd), Factoria Trail, Surry Downs entry beds, 121st Avenue SE, neighborhood traffic calming sites, NE 30th Street, Glendale Meadow, SE 26th Street, Newport Hills/Lake Heights ID sign beds, 112th Avenue (north of NE 12th and south of Main Street), NE 24th Rain Garden, Enatai Mercer Slough Trail, Winters House, and 118th Trail (Belfield to I-90). Landscape maintenance contracts include mowing, shrub pruning, weed control, hard surface cleaning, irrigation system operation, leaf 183 removal, and garbage disposal.
The City conducted a formal RFP process with advertisements posted twice in The Seattle Times. Staff reviewed and evaluated proposals from the following contractors:
Badgley’s Landscape LLC Plantscapes Horticultural Services Canber Corps Total Landscape Corporation Monarch Landscape DBA Signature Landscape LLC Westgro Corporation
Final selection of the contractor was based on a per-site analysis of the contractor’s proposal amount, proposed labor hours, experience with similar sites, overall qualifications, financial standing, and past performance on other City projects. This selection process utilized is consistent with purchasing procedures outlined in the City’s Contracting Policy.
Total Landscape Corporation has performed satisfactorily at similar sites; therefore, staff is requesting approval to execute this contract.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Resolution becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $259,874.60 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle- Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year. 2. Do not adopt the Resolution and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt Resolution No. 9188 authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $259,874.60 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
ATTACHMENT Proposed Resolution No. 9188
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY Contract 184 3458-RES 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 9188
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $259,874.60 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute a General Services contract with Total Landscape Corporation for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term in an amount not to exceed $129,937.30, with the option to renew for an additional two years in an amount not to exceed $129,937.30 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year, a copy of which contract has been given Clerk’s Receiving No. ______.
Passed by the City Council this ______day of , 2016, and signed in authentication of its passage this _____ day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
185
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Ordinance amending Chapter 24.06 of the Bellevue City Code, specifically amending sections 24.06.040, 24.06.045, 24.06.060, 24.06.065, 24.06.080, 24.06.125; providing for severability, and establishing an effective date.
FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the recommended Storm and Surface Water Utility Code amendments is generally anticipated to be minimal and to be met with current staffing levels.
STAFF CONTACTS Nav Otal, Director, 452-2041 Paul Bucich, Assistant Engineering Director, 452-4596 Utilities Department
Catherine Drews, Assistant City Attorney, 452-6134 City Attorney’s Office
POLICY CONSIDERATION Should the City adopt the draft code amendments implementing non-discretionary NPDES permit requirements, “housekeeping,” and other revisions? The following Comprehensive Plan Policies support this policy issue:
Utilities Element UT-13. Consider Low Impact Development principles to minimize impervious surfaces and native vegetation loss on all infrastructure improvement projects. UT-38. Encourage the use of low impact development and stormwater best management practices to manage stormwater runoff, which may result in smaller facilities constructed on and off-site for flow control, conveyance, and water quality. Environmental Element EN-20. Maintain surface water quality, defined as meeting federal and state standards and restore surface water that has become degraded, to the maximum extent practicable. EN-24. Reduce runoff from streets, parking lots and other impervious surfaces and improve surface water quality by utilizing low impact development techniques in new development and redevelopment. EN-26. Manage water runoff for new development and redevelopment to meet water quality objectives, consistent with state law EN-45. Implement the city-wide use of low impact development techniques and green building practices. EN-46. Make low impact development the preferred and commonly-used approach to site development to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff. 186 BACKGROUND The NPDES Permit is a requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act and is intended to protect and restore water for “fishable, swimmable” uses. Bellevue is one of approximately 100 municipalities in Western Washington required to obtain a municipal stormwater discharge permit. The Permit authorizes discharge of stormwater runoff from municipal storm drainage systems into the state’s surface waters (i.e.: streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc.) as long as municipalities implement the Stormwater Management Program required by the Permit.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated their permit authority to the state environmental agencies. In Washington, the NPDES-delegated permit authority is the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology”). Ecology issued the Phase II municipal stormwater permit in January 2007, and revised the permit in August 2013. Under authority of the City Council, the City Manager accepted the revised and reissued Permit from Ecology in 2013. To meet the revised provisions under the revised NPDES Permit, Bellevue must amend two chapters of the Bellevue City Code (BCC): the Storm and Surface Water Utility Code (Chapter 24.06 BCC) and the Clearing and Grading Code (Chapter 23.76 BCC). This memorandum concerns the Storm and Surface Water Utility Code specifically.
Staff presented to Council the mandatory amendments to the Storm and Surface Water Utility Code at the October 24, 2016 study session. At the same time, Council considered “housekeeping” and other conformance amendments that, while discretionary, are necessary to more effectively implement the mandatory requirements and the Storm and Surface Water Utility Code in general, and to ensure consistency with the SWMMWW and RCW.
Council did not direct any changes to the proposed amendments to the Storm and Surface Water Utility Code. Staff prepared an ordinance consistent with the proposed amendments to the Storm and Surface Water Utility Code that Council considered at the October 24, 2016 study session, included as Attachment A.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Ordinance becomes effective on December 31, 2016.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 24.06 of the Bellevue City Code, specifically amending sections 24.06.040, 24.06.045, 24.06.060, 24.06.065, 24.06.080, 24.06.125; providing for severability, and establishing an effective date.
2. Do nothing and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt Ordinance No. 6321 amending Chapter 24.06 of the Bellevue City Code, specifically amending sections 24.06.040, 24.06.045, 24.06.060, 24.06.065, 24.06.080, 24.06.125; providing for severability, and establishing an effective date. 187 ATTACHMENT Ordinance - Redlined Proposed Ordinance No. 6321
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY N/A
188 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6321
AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 24.06 of the Bellevue City Code, specifically amending sections 24.06.040, 24.06.045, 24.06.060, 24.06.065, 24.06.080, 24.06.125; providing for severability, and establishing an effective date.
WHEREAS, the City of Bellevue (the "City") is subject to the terms of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit (“Phase II Permit” or "Permit"), issued August 1, 2012, and modified on January 16, 2014, by the State of Washington Department of Ecology ("Ecology") in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act and state law; and
WHEREAS, the Permit requires that the City adopt ordinances and other enforceable documents for new development and redevelopment that include the minimum requirements contained in Appendix 1 of the Permit or equivalent to relevant portions of Ecology’s 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as amended in December 2014, ("Ecology's Manual"), which went into effect on January 16, 2015 as an update to Ecology’s 2005 Stormwater Manual; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance also contains amendments, initiated by the City and beyond the requirements of the Permit, related to which includes housekeeping and other conformance amendments, which are necessary to more effectively implement the mandatory Permit requirements, ensure consistency with Ecology’s Manual, provide efficient and predictable review for project applicants and other stakeholders, and to further the purposes of this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, preserving and enhancing Bellevue’s water resources is a goal of the City’s Environmental Stewardship Initiative and the City’s Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”), Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the City’s Environmental Procedures Code, chapter 22.02 BCC, through incorporation by reference of the Determination of Nonsignificance issued for the Low Impact Development Principles Project on July 7, 2016 and through application of the SEPA exemption for procedural actions allowed by WAC 197-11-800(19), now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
189
1 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 1. Section 24.06.040.A – A Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Definitions.
“Area of special flood hazard (ASFH)” means the land in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year as calculated in this code and in the engineering standards.
“Arterial” means a road or street primarily for through traffic. The term generally includes roads or streets considered collectors. It does not include local access roads which are generally limited to providing access to abutting property. See also RCW 35.78.010 and RCW 47.05.021. The term generally includes roads or streets considered collectors. It does not include local access roads which are generally limited to providing access to abutting property. See also RCW 35.78.010 and RCW 47.05.021. The definition of arterial set forth herein is limited to application and enforcement of this code and does not apply to other city codes and standards.
“As-built” means a final drawing of the actual installation of structures, materials and equipment.
Section 2. Section 24.06.040.B – B Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Definitions.
“Basin plan or planning” means a plan or study to manage the quality and/or quantity of storm and surface water in a watershed or a drainage basin as provided for in BCC 24.06.140.
“Best Mmanagement Ppractices (BMP)” means those physical, structural and/or managerial practices that, when used individually or in combination, prevent or reduce pollution of water the schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices approved by Ecology that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State.
“Bioretention” means engineered facilities that treat stormwater by passing it through a specified soil profile, and either retain or detain the treated stormwater for flow attenuation. Refer to the SWMMWW, Chapter 7 of Volume V for Bioretention BMP types and design specifications.
“Building” means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. 190
2 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 3. Section 24.06.040.C – C Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Definitions.
“Capital recovery charge” means a monthly charge imposed on improvements, developments, redevelopments or existing structures that place additional demand on each utility system after January 1, 1997. The capital recovery charge shall be based on an allocation of the utility’s in- service costs plus interest and the number of single-family equivalents served by each utility. “Certified erosion and sediment control lead (CESCL)” means an individual who has current certification through an approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (see BMP C160 in the SWMMWW). A CESCL is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. The CESCL must have the skills to assess site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater and the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. Certification is obtained through an Ecology approved erosion and sediment control course. “Commercial Agriculture” means those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) and activities involved in the production of crops or livestock for commercial trade. An activity ceases to be considered commercial agriculture when the area on which it is conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. “Conditionally permissible discharges” refers to those discharges permitted under BCC 24.06.125(D). “Connection charges” means charges imposed as a condition of connecting to the utility system so that each connecting property bears its equitable share of the costs of the public drainage system and of the costs of facilities that benefit the property. Connection charges include latecomer charges, capital recovery charges and direct facilities charges. “Converted vegetation (areas)” means the surfaces on a project site where native vegetation, pasture, scrub/shrub, or unmaintained non-native 191
3 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
vegetation (e.g., Himalayan blackberry, scotch broom) are converted to lawn or landscaped areas, or where native vegetation is converted to pasture. “Conveyance system” means the drainage facilities, both natural and man- made, which collect, contain, and provide for the flow of surface and stormwater from the highest points on the land down to a receiving water. The natural elements of the conveyance system include swales and small drainage courses, streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands. The human-made elements of the conveyance system include gutters, ditches, pipes, channels, and most retention/detention facilities.
Section 4. Section 24.06.040.D – D Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Definitions.
“Detention facility” means an above or below ground facility, such as a pond or vault, that temporarily stores stormwater runoff and subsequently releases it at a slower rate than it is collected by the drainage facility system. There is little or no infiltration of stored stormwater.
“Direct facilities charge” refers to a connection charge for utility-funded facilities that directly benefit a property. Stormwater direct facilities charges shall be applied as specified in BCC 24.06.110.
“Director” means the director of the city’s utilities department, or his/her designated representative, including enforcement officers, or other persons designated by the city manager.
“Drainage System” Refer to the definition of “storm and surface water system.”
Section 5. Section 24.06.040.E – E Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Definitions.
“Effective impervious surface” means those impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete conveyance to a drainage system. Impervious surfaces are considered ineffective if: 1) the runoff is dispersed through at least one hundred feet of native vegetation in accordance with BMP T5.30 – “Full Dispersion” as described in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW; 2) residential roof runoff is infiltrated in accordance with Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in BMP T5.10A in Volume III of the SWMMWW; or 3) approved continuous runoff modeling methods indicate that the entire runoff file is infiltrated.
192
4 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Emergency” means any natural or human-caused event or set of circumstances that disrupts or threatens to disrupt or endanger the operation, structural integrity or safety of the drainage system; or endangers the health and safety of the public or environment; or otherwise requires immediate action by the utility.
“Emergency management plan” provides the foundation, framework and guidelines for initiating and maintaining direction and control of the utility’s response efforts during all emergency or disaster scenarios. The emergency management plan is consistent with and supports the city of Bellevue emergency operations plans and emergency response plans maintained at the regional, state and federal levels of government.
“Emergency operation plan” provides guidance for mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery operations including disaster and emergency responsibilities and procedures, training and community education. The plan provides for the coordination of operations throughout the city during emergencies and disasters, and the best utilization of the city’s resources. The plan meets the requirements of a comprehensive emergency management plan as described in Chapter 118-30 WAC.
“Engineering standards” means the city’s utility engineering standards, which include standards for the design and construction of water, storm and surface water drainage and sanitary sewer facilities.
“Erodible or leachable materials” means wastes, chemicals, or other substances that measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of runoff when exposed to rainfall. Examples include erodible soils that are stockpiled, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, and garbage dumpster leakage.
Section 6. Section 24.06.040.H – H Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
H. Definitions.
“Hard Surface” means an impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof.
“Highway” means a main public road connecting towns and cities. The definition of “highway” is limited to application and enforcement of this code and does not apply to other city codes and standards.
“Hydroperiod” means the seasonal occurrence of flooding and/or soil saturation; the it encompasses depth, frequency, duration and seasonal pattern of inundation. 193
5 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 7. Section 24.06.040.I – I Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
I. Definitions.
“Illicit connection” means any infrastructure connection to the MS4 that is not intended, permitted or used for collecting and conveying stormwater or non- stormwater discharges allowed as specified in the NPDES permit (S5.C.3 and S6.D.3). Examples include, but are not limited to, sanitary sewer connections, floor drains, channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets that are connected directly to the MS4.
“Illicit discharge” or otherwise referred to as a “prohibited discharge” means any discharge to the MS4 that is not composed entirely of stormwater or of non-stormwater discharges allowed as specified in the NPDES permit (S5.C.3 and S6.D.3).
“Illicit discharge detection and elimination system program (IDDE)” means an ongoing program authorized by BCC 24.06.045 to detect and remove illicit connections, discharges as defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(2), and improper disposal, including any spills not under the purview of another responding authority with jurisdiction, into the storm and surface water systems.
“Impervious surface” means a non-vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non-vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall not be considered as impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling.
Section 8. Section 24.06.040.L – L Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
L. Definitions.
“Land disturbing activity” means any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to 194
6 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is associated with stabilization of structures and road construction shall also be considered a land disturbing activity. Vegetation maintenance practices, including landscape maintenance and gardening, are not considered land disturbing activity. Stormwater facility maintenance is not considered land disturbing activity if conducted according to established standards and procedures.
“Latecomer agreement” means a contract that provides for the reimbursement of costs to developers who construct facilities that directly benefit other properties.
“Low Impact Development (LID)” means a stormwater and land use management strategy that strives to mimic pre-disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on-site natural features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design.
“LID Best Management Practices” means distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project design, that emphasize pre- disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration. LID BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re-use.
“LID Principles” means land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on-site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff.
Section 9. Section 24.06.040.M – M Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
M. Definitions.
“Maintenance” means repair and maintenance activities conducted on currently serviceable structures, facilities, and equipment that involve no expansion or use beyond that previously existing, and results in no significant adverse hydrologic impact. It includes those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse or cessation in the use of structures and systems. Those usual activities may include replacement of dysfunctional facilities, including cases where environmental permits require replacing an existing structure with a different type structure, as long as the functioning characteristics of the original structure are not changed. One example is the replacement of a collapsed, fish blocking, round culvert with a new box culvert under the same span, or width, of roadway. In regard to stormwater facilities, maintenance 195
7 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
includes assessment to ensure ongoing proper operation, removal of built up pollutants (i.e. sediments), replacement of failed or failing treatment media, and other actions taken to correct defects as identified in the maintenance standards of Chapter 4, Volume V of the SWMMWW. See also Pavement Maintenance exemptions in Section 1 of Appendix 1 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit.
“Maintenance standards” means the city’s utility maintenance standards, which include minimum requirements for maintaining the storm and surface water system so the system functions as intended and provides water quality protection and flood control.
“Maximum Extent Practicable” or “MEP” refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act, now or as hereafter amended, which reads as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the [utility] or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.
“Minimum Requirements (MRs)” refer to the regulations contained in BCC 24.06.065 and applicable engineering standards, which describe requirements for stormwater management for development and redevelopment as required by the NPDES permit.
“Municipal separate storm sewer system,” or “MS4,” is a regulated municipal storm utility system as defined in the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit.
Section 10. Section 24.06.040.N – N Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
N. Definitions.
“National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)” means the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking, and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the Federal Clean Water Act, for the discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the state from point sources. These permits are referred to as NPDES permits and, in Washington State, are administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
“Native vegetation” means vegetation comprised of plant species, other than noxious weeds, that are indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur 196
8 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
on the site. Examples of native vegetation include, but are not limited to, trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big-leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed.
“New development” means land disturbing activities, including Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timber land to other uses; structural development including construction or installation of a building or other structure; creation of hard surfaces; and subdivision, short subdivision and binding site plans as defined in Chapter 58.17 RCW and in Chapters 20.45A and 20.45B LUC. Projects meeting the definition of redevelopment shall not be considered new development.
“NPDES permit” means an authorization, license or equivalent control document issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Washington State Department of Ecology to implement the requirements of the NPDES program.
Section 11. Section 24.06.040.O – O Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
O. Definitions.
“One hundred-year, 24-hour storm (100-year, 24-hour storm)” means a rain storm with a 24-hour duration with a 0.01 probability of exceedance in any one year, derived from historical rainfall records for the central Puget Sound area.
“On-site Stormwater Management BMPs” is a synonym for Low Impact Development BMPs.
Section 12. Section 24.06.040.P – P Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
P. Definitions.
“Permeable pavement” means pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers or other forms of pervious or porous paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an aggregate base that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir.
“Permissible discharge” refers to those discharges permitted under BCC 24.06.125(C).
197
9 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Pervious Surface” means any surface material that allows stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Examples include lawn, landscape, pasture, native vegetation areas, and permeable pavements.
“Pollution” means the contamination or other alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties, of waters of the state, including change in temperature, taste, color, turbidity, or odor of the waters, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive, or other substance into any waters of the state as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or other aquatic life.
“Pollution-generating hard surface (PGHS)” means those hard surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. See the listing of surfaces under pollution-generating impervious surface.
“Pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS)” means those impervious surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to: vehicular use, industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary of Volume I of the SWMMWW); storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and which receive direct rainfall or the run-on or blow-in of rainfall; metal roofs unless they are coated with an inert, non-leachable material (e.g., baked-on enamel coating); or roofs that are subject to venting significant amounts of dusts, mists, or fumes from manufacturing, commercial, or other indoor activities.
“Pollution-generating pervious surface (PGPS)” means any non-impervious surface subject to vehicular use, industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); or storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and that receive direct rainfall or run-on or blow-in of rainfall, use of pesticides and fertilizers, or loss of soil. Typical PGPS include permeable pavement subject to vehicular use, lawns, landscaped areas including: golf courses, parks, cemeteries, and sports fields (natural and artificial turf).
“Pre-developed condition” means the native vegetation and soils that existed at a site prior to the influence of Euro-American settlement. The pre- developed condition shall be assumed to be forested land cover unless reasonable, historic information is provided that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement.
“Private storm and surface water system” or “private drainage facility” means any element of the storm and surface water system, which is not a part of the public storm and surface water system as defined in this code. 198
10 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Procedure” means a procedure adopted by the utility, by and through the director, to implement this code, or to carry out other responsibilities as may be required by this code, engineering standards, related manuals, or other codes, ordinances, or resolutions of the city or other agencies. Procedure as defined herein is often referred to as a standard operating procedure or SOP.
“Project site” means that portion of a property, properties, or right-of-way subject to land disturbing activities, new hard surfaces, or replaced hard surfaces. The definition of project site applies solely to application and enforcement of this code and does not supersede or replace the definition of “site” as defined elsewhere in the Bellevue City Code.
“Prohibited Discharge” Refer to definition of “illicit discharge.”
“Property owner” means any individual, company, partnership, joint venture, corporation, association, society or group that owns or has a contractual interest in the subject property or has been authorized by the owner to act on his/her behalf, including but not limited to an agent, contractor, operation, applicant, or developer.
“Public storm and surface water system” or “public drainage system” means those elements of the storm and surface water system maintained and operated by the utility, which includes elements located on property owned by the utility or in public right-of-way except to the extent that private ownership is indicated as a matter of record or by law and elements located on property on which the city has an easement, license, or other right of use for utility purposes.
Section 13. Section 24.06.040.R – R Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
R. Definitions.
“Rain Garden” means a non-engineered shallow landscaped depression, with compost-amended native soils and adapted plants. The depression is designed to pond and temporarily store stormwater runoff from adjacent areas, and to allow stormwater to pass through the amended soil profile.
Receiving waterbody or Receiving waters” are bodies of water or surface water systems to which surface runoff is discharged via a point source of stormwater or via sheet flow. Ground water to which surface runoff is directed by infiltration.
“Redevelopment” means, on a site that is already substantially developed (i.e., has 35 percent or more existing hard surface coverage), the creation or addition of hard surfaces; the expansion of a building footprint or addition or 199
11 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
replacement of a structure; structural development including construction, installation, or expansion of a building or other structure; replacement of hard surface that is not part of a maintenance activity; and land disturbing activities.
“Replaced hard surface” means, for structures, the removal and replacement of hard surfaces down to the foundation. For other hard surfaces, the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement.
“Replaced impervious surface” means, for structures, the removal and replacement of impervious surfaces down to the foundation. For other impervious surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement.
“Runoff control BMPs,” also referred to as “flow control BMPs,” means BMPs that are intended to control or manage the rate and/or quantity of stormwater runoff.
“Runoff treatment BMPs” means BMPs that are intended to remove sediment and other pollutants from stormwater runoff.
Section 14. Section 24.06.040.S – S Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
S. Definitions.
“Site” means the area defined by the legal boundaries of a parcel or parcels of land that is (are) subject to new development or redevelopment. For road projects, the length of the project site and the right-of-way boundaries define the site. The definition of “site” applies solely to application and enforcement of this code and does not supersede or replace the definition of “site” as defined elsewhere in the Bellevue City Code.
“Source control BMP” means a structure or operation that is intended to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with stormwater through physical separation of areas or careful management of activities that are sources of pollution. The SWMMWW separates source control BMPs into two types. “Structural Source Control BMPs” are physical, structural, or mechanical devices, or facilities that are intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. “Operational BMPs” are non-structural practices that prevent or reduce pollutants from entering stormwater.
“Standard Operating Procedure” or “SOP” Refer to the definition of “procedure.”
200
12 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Storm and surface water system plan” (or a similarly titled document) means the latest version of the city’s storm and surface water system plan as adopted by the city council.
“Storm and surface water system,” also referred to as the “drainage system,” means the entire system within the city, both public and private, naturally existing and manmade, for the drainage, conveyance, detention, treatment or storage of storm and surface waters. However, facilities directly associated with buildings or structures such as foundation drains, rockery/retaining wall drains, gutters and downspouts or groundwater under-drains are not considered parts of the storm and surface water system.
“Stream” means those areas where surface waters flow sufficiently to produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is an area that demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes, but is not limited to, indicated by hydraulically sorted sediments or the removal of vegetative litter or loosely rooted vegetation by the action of moving water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction. Those topographic features that resemble streams but have no defined channels (i.e., swales) shall be considered streams when hydrologic and hydraulic analyses done pursuant to a development proposal predict formation of a defined channel after development. The definition of “stream” set forth herein is limited to application and enforcement of this code and does not apply to other city codes and standards.
“Structure” means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on or under the ground or attached to something having permanent location on or under the ground. Not included are residential fences, retaining walls less than 30 inches in height, rockeries less than 30 inches in height and similar improvements of a minor character. “Structure” can also mean a catchbasin or manhole in reference to a storm drainage system.
“SWMMWW” means the Washington State Department of Ecology 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (as amended in 2014) (now or hereafter amended).
Section 15. Section 24.06.040 T – T Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
T. Definitions.
201
13 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Threshold discharge area” means an on-site area draining to a single natural discharge location, or to multiple natural discharge locations that combine within one-quarter mile downstream (as determined by the shortest flowpath.) Refer to the SWMMWW for additional information.
Section 16. Section 24.06.040.V – V Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to rea d as follows:
V. Definitions.
“Vehicular Use” means regular use of an impervious or pervious surface by motor vehicles. The following are subject to regular vehicular use: roads, un- vegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unrestricted access fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways.
The following are not considered subject to regular vehicular use: paved bicycle pathways separated from and not subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, restricted access fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance access roads.
Section 17. Section 24.06.040.W – W Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
W. Definitions.
“Wetland” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
Section 18. Section 24.06.045 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
24.06.045 Authority of the utility.
The utility, by and through its director, shall have the authority to:
202
14 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
A. Develop, adopt, and carry out procedures as needed to implement this code, engineering standards and related manuals, and to carry out other responsibilities of the utility, including, but not limited to, procedures pertaining to the billing and collection of monthly drainage charges and procedures for periodic adjustment of fees and charges imposed pursuant to this code;
B. Prepare, adopt, update, administer and enforce as needed engineering standards to establish requirements for the design and construction of drainage facilities and requirements for protecting existing facilities during construction. The engineering standards shall be consistent with this code and adopted city policies;
C. Administer and enforce this code and all procedures and standards relating to the planning, acquisition, security, design, construction and inspection of new storm and surface water systems and any alterations thereof;
D. Enter into any contract pursuant to Chapter 35.91 RCW, the Municipal Water and Sewer Facilities Act, including contracts which provide for the reimbursement of owners constructing facilities (latecomer agreements) and agreements with private property owners for the extension of the drainage system (utility developer extension agreements);
E. Prepare, adopt, update, administer and enforce as needed maintenance standards to establish requirements for the maintenance of drainage facilities so they function as intended, protect water quality and provide flood control;
F. Develop and implement programs (including the private drainage inspection program), that administer, inspect, and enforce private storm and surface water systems to ensure continued compliance with provisions of this code. This program may include a requirement that property owners obtain third party inspections and certification of private systems and/or facility conditions, required maintenance, and system and/or facility performance;
G. Advise the city council, city manager, other city departments, and commissions on matters relating to the utility;
H. Prepare, revise as needed, recommend and implement a storm and surface water comprehensive plan for adoption by the city council. Prepare other planning studies as appropriate;
I. Coordinate development of a city-wide stormwater management program, as required by state and/or federal agencies, for review and adoption by the city council;
J. Establish and implement programs to protect and maintain water quality and to manage stormwater runoff within the storm and surface water system in order 203
15 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
to maintain compliance to the maximum extent practicable with applicable water quality standards established by state and/or federal agencies;
K. Perform or direct the performance of financial review and analysis of the utility’s revenues, expenses, indebtedness, rates and accounting and recommend budgets, rates and financial policy for adoption by the city council;
L. Carry out such other responsibilities as required by this code or other city codes, ordinances or regulations consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and the storm and surface water comprehensive plan;
M. Conduct public education programs related to protection and enhancement of the storm and surface water system;
N. Develop and implement a program that includes administration, inspection and enforcement of new provisions or modifications to this code relating to the storm and surface water system for activities listed under BCC 24.06.060 and 24.06.065 to ensure continued compliance of storm and surface water systems with the provisions of this code. Repair and/or replacement of private drainage facilities in kind are exempt from this program unless applicable under other portions of the code;
O. Enter into, to the extent allowed by law, an agreement with property owners for said owner to voluntarily contribute funds toward the construction of one or more drainage facilities that mitigate the impacts to the same receiving waters that have been identified as a consequence of the proposed new development or redevelopment;
P. Enforce the applicable provisions of this code should the director determine that a discharge from a site, real property, or storm and surface water system has exceeded, exceeds, or will exceed water quality standards at the point of assessment, or has caused or contributed, is causing or contributing, or will cause or contribute to a prohibited discharge or a known or likely known violation of water quality standards in the receiving water or a known or likely known violation of the city’s municipal stormwater NPDES permit, and cannot be adequately addressed by the required best management practices;
Q. Take enforcement action, to the extent allowed by law pursuant to Chapter 1.18 BCC;
R. Develop and implement an illicit discharge detection and elimination system program (IDDE) for storm and surface water systems;
S. Direct authorized representatives of the utility or enforcement officers to enter private property consistent with the provisions contained in BCC 24.06.130 for inspections, tests, or to carry out other duties imposed by this code; 204
16 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
T. Direct authorized representatives of the utility or enforcement officers to take necessary abatement action during an emergency situation, to conduct inspections, take remedial action, or to carry out other duties imposed or required by this code subject to the provisions of Chapter 1.18 BCC;
U. Develop drainage basin plans pursuant to BCC 24.06.140;
V. Prepare and update an emergency plan as required by state law, as part of the city’s emergency operation plan; and
W. Rely, reference, and condition projects during development review with compliance of other applicable chapters of the Bellevue city code not otherwise contained in this code, including but not limited to BCC Title 20 and Chapters 1.18 and 23.76 BCC.
Section 19. Section 24.06.060.A – General Requirements of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. General Requirements.
1. The utility shall administratively develop submittal requirements for the various utility permits/approvals;
2. When a drainage connection permit or utility developer extension agreement is required, the property owner shall build all the drainage facilities necessary to serve the property including, but not limited to, conveyance systems, runoff treatment best management practices, detention facilities and other system components as required by the utility;
3. When a drainage connection permit or utility developer extension agreement is required to provide drainage facilities for commercial or multifamily structures, the utility shall not approve issuance of the building permit until the utility has issued the drainage connection permit or the utility developer extension agreement has been executed. When a drainage connection permit or utility developer extension agreement is required to relocate a drainage facility from under a proposed building or structure, the utility shall not approve issuance of the building permit until the replacement drainage work has been completed and accepted by the utility, unless the building permit is conditioned to require relocation prior to site construction; and
4. When applicable, the director may approve projects through combined permit review processes, including but not limited to clearing and grading and building permits. The vested status of the provisions contained in this
205
17 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
code is governed by and subject to the vesting provisions contained in BCC 23.76.045.
Section 20. Section 24.06.060.B – Drainage Connection Permit of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Drainage Connection Permit.
1. A drainage connection permit is required to connect to or modify the public storm and surface water system or to modify a private storm and surface water system for activities referenced in BCC 24.06.065, unless a utility developer extension agreement is required pursuant to subsection (C)(1) of this section or unless the work is specifically covered under another permit, such as a clearing and grading permit or right-of-way use permit, or unless the work falls below thresholds for any other permit required under this code or related codes;
2. If required, a drainage connection permit application shall be submitted and attested to by the property owner or their licensed and bonded contractor;
3. Drainage connection permits expire two years from the date of issuance. The director may extend the duration of an open drainage connection permit for up to one year; provided the utility receives payment for any applicable fees; and
4. Open applications for drainage connection permits that have not been issued shall be canceled by the utility if not issued within one year from the date of submittal.
Section 21. Section 24.06.065 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
24.06.065 Minimum requirements for new development and redevelopment.
A. Applicability.
1. The Minimum Requirements (MRs) contained in this section shall apply to new development, redevelopment, and construction activities that result in land disturbing activity or otherwise meet the thresholds defined herein; and
2. In addition to the Minimum Requirements of this section, property owners shall comply with all applicable provisions contained in the SWMMWW, engineering standards, Chapter 23.76 BCC (Clearing and
206
18 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
Grading Code), BCC Title 20, and any other applicable codes or standards.
B. Exemptions. Unless otherwise indicated in Appendix 1, Section 1 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, the practices described in Appendix 1, Section 1 are exempt from the Minimum Requirements, even if such practices meet the definition of new development or redevelopment.
C. Exceptions/Variances.
1. The director may approve a request for an Exception/Variance (exceptions) to the Minimum Requirements when the applicant demonstrates that the exception will not increase risk to the public health and welfare, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity and/or downstream, and to the quality of waters of the state, and the exception is the least possible exception that could be granted to comply with the intent of the Minimum Requirements, and:
a. The requirement would cause a severe and unexpected financial hardship that outweighs the requirement’s benefits, and the criteria for an adjustment cannot be met;
b. The requirement would cause harm or a significant threat of harm to public health, safety, and welfare, the environment, or public and private property, and the criteria for an adjustment cannot be met;
c. The requirement is not technically feasible, and the criteria for an adjustment cannot be met; or
d. An emergency situation exists that necessitates approval of the exception;
2. An exception shall only be granted to the extent necessary to provide relief from the economic hardship, to alleviate the harm or threat of harm, to the degree that compliance with the requirement becomes technically feasible, or to perform the emergency work that the director determines exists;
3. The director may require an applicant to provide additional information at the applicant’s expense, including but not limited to an engineer’s report or analysis;
4. When an exception is granted, the director may impose new or additional requirements to offset or mitigate harm that may be caused by
207
19 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
granting the exception, or that would have been prevented if the exception had not been granted;
5. Public notice of an application for an exception and of the director’s decision on the application shall be provided for in the manner prescribed for process II land use decisions as set forth in Chapter 20.35 LUC;
6. The director’s decision shall be in writing with written findings of fact. Decisions approving an exception based on severe and unexpected economic hardship shall address all the factors contained in subsection (C)(7) of this section;
7. An application for an exception on the grounds of severe and unexpected financial hardship shall describe, at a minimum, all of the following:
a. The current (pre-project) use of the site, and;
b. How application of the Minimum Requirement(s) restricts the proposed use of the site compared to the restrictions that existed prior to adoption of the Minimum Requirements of this section, and;
c. The possible remaining uses of the site if the exception were not granted, and;
d. The uses of the site that would have been allowed prior to the adoption of the Minimum Requirements of this section, and;
e. A comparison of the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of the Minimum Requirements versus the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of requirements that existed prior to adoption of the Minimum Requirements of this section; and
f. The feasibility of the applicant to alter the project to apply the Minimum Requirements of this section;
8. An applicant aggrieved by the director’s decision on an application for an exception may appeal the decision to the hearing examiner’s office by complying with the appeal process for process II decisions as set forth in LUC 20.35.250;
9. The hearing examiner shall affirm the director’s decision unless the examiner finds the decision is clearly erroneous based on substantial evidence. The applicant for the exception shall carry the burden of proof on all issues related to justifying the exception; and
208
20 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
10. The director shall keep a record, including the director’s findings of fact, on all approved requests for exceptions.
D. Adjustments.
1. The director may approve Adjustments to the Minimum Requirements of this section, and shall prepare written findings of fact, when the director finds the following:
a. The adjustment provides substantially equivalent environmental protection; and
b. The objectives of safety, function, environmental protection, and facility maintenance are met, based on sound engineering practices;
2. During construction, the director may require, or the applicant may request, that the construction of drainage control facilities and associated project designs be adjusted if physical conditions are discovered on the site that are inconsistent with the assumptions on which the approval was based, including but not limited to unexpected soil and/or water conditions, weather generated problems, or changes in the design of the improved areas; and
3. A request by the applicant for an adjustment shall be submitted to the director prior to implementation. The request shall be in writing and shall provide facts substantiating the requirements of subsection (D)(1) of this section and, if made during construction, the factors in subsection (D)(2) of this section. Any such modifications made during the construction of drainage control facilities shall be included with the final approved drainage control plan.
E. New Development – Thresholds.
1. All new development shall comply with Minimum Requirement #2 as set forth in this section and Chapter 23.76 BCC;
2. The thresholds used to determine the applicability of the Minimum Requirements to new development are as specified in Appendix 1, Section 3.2 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit
F. Redevelopment – Thresholds.
1. All redevelopment shall comply with Minimum Requirement #2 as set forth in this section and Chapter 23.76 BCC;
209
21 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
2. The thresholds and additional requirements used to determine the applicability of the Minimum Requirements to redevelopment are as specified in Appendix 1, Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit.
G. Minimum Requirements. The Minimum Requirements for stormwater management at new development and redevelopment sites are as specified in Appendix 1, Section 4 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, the SWMMWW, and supplemented by engineering standards where applicable. The following requirements also supplement the Minimum Requirements:
1. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (MR2). The regulations associated with this minimum regulation are contained in the clearing and grading code, located at Chapter 23.76 BCC;
2. Flow Control (MR7). Flow control is not required for properties within the Meydenbauer Drainage Basin to the extent provided for in Ordinance No. 3372.
Section 22. Section 24.06.080.G – Agreement Duration of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
G. Agreement Duration. Latecomer agreements may be in effect for 20 years, or for a longer period if extended in accordance with RCW 35.91.020, following the utility’s acceptance of the drainage facility.
Section 23. Section 24.06.125.F – Discharge of Pollutants of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
F. Discharge of Pollutants – Liability for Expenses Incurred by the Utility. Any person responsible for pollutant discharge into the storm and surface water system who fails to immediately collect, remove, contain, treat or disperse such pollutant materials at the director’s request shall be responsible for the necessary expenses incurred by the city in carrying out any pollutant abatement procedures, including the collection, removal, containment, treatment or disposal of such materials.
Section 24. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Section 25. This ordinance shall take effect on December 31, 2016.
210
22 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
Passed by the City Council this _____ day of , 2016 and signed in authentication of its passage this ______day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Approved as to form: Lori M. Riordan, City Attorney
Catherine A. Drews, Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
Published
211
23 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6321
AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 24.06 of the Bellevue City Code, specifically amending sections 24.06.040, 24.06.045, 24.06.060, 24.06.065, 24.06.080, 24.06.125; providing for severability, and establishing an effective date.
WHEREAS, the City of Bellevue (the "City") is subject to the terms of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit (“Phase II Permit” or "Permit"), issued August 1, 2012, and modified on January 16, 2014, by the State of Washington Department of Ecology ("Ecology") in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act and state law; and
WHEREAS, the Permit requires that the City adopt ordinances and other enforceable documents for new development and redevelopment that include the minimum requirements contained in Appendix 1 of the Permit or equivalent to relevant portions of Ecology’s 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as amended in December 2014, ("Ecology's Manual"), which went into effect on January 16, 2015 as an update to Ecology’s 2005 Stormwater Manual; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance also contains amendments, initiated by the City and beyond the requirements of the Permit, related to which includes housekeeping and other conformance amendments, which are necessary to more effectively implement the mandatory Permit requirements, ensure consistency with Ecology’s Manual, provide efficient and predictable review for project applicants and other stakeholders, and to further the purposes of this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, preserving and enhancing Bellevue’s water resources is a goal of the City’s Environmental Stewardship Initiative and the City’s Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”), Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the City’s Environmental Procedures Code, chapter 22.02 BCC, through incorporation by reference of the Determination of Nonsignificance issued for the Low Impact Development Principles Project on July 7, 2016 and through application of the SEPA exemption for procedural actions allowed by WAC 197-11-800(19), now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
212
1 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 1. Section 24.06.040.A – A Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Definitions.
“Area of special flood hazard (ASFH)” means the land in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year as calculated in this code and in the engineering standards.
“Arterial” means a road or street primarily for through traffic. The term generally includes roads or streets considered collectors. It does not include local access roads which are generally limited to providing access to abutting property. See also RCW 35.78.010 and RCW 47.05.021. The definition of arterial set forth herein is limited to application and enforcement of this code and does not apply to other city codes and standards.
“As-built” means a final drawing of the actual installation of structures, materials and equipment.
Section 2. Section 24.06.040.B – B Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Definitions.
“Basin plan or planning” means a plan or study to manage the quality and/or quantity of storm and surface water in a watershed or a drainage basin as provided for in BCC 24.06.140.
“Best Management Practices (BMP)” means the schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices approved by Ecology that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State.
“Bioretention” means engineered facilities that treat stormwater by passing it through a specified soil profile, and either retain or detain the treated stormwater for flow attenuation. Refer to the SWMMWW, Chapter 7 of Volume V for Bioretention BMP types and design specifications.
“Building” means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.
Section 3. Section 24.06.040.C – C Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Definitions. 213
2 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Capital recovery charge” means a monthly charge imposed on improvements, developments, redevelopments or existing structures that place additional demand on each utility system after January 1, 1997. The capital recovery charge shall be based on an allocation of the utility’s in- service costs plus interest and the number of single-family equivalents served by each utility. “Certified erosion and sediment control lead (CESCL)” means an individual who has current certification through an approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (see BMP C160 in the SWMMWW). A CESCL is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. The CESCL must have the skills to assess site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater and the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. Certification is obtained through an Ecology approved erosion and sediment control course. “Commercial Agriculture” means those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) and activities involved in the production of crops or livestock for commercial trade. An activity ceases to be considered commercial agriculture when the area on which it is conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. “Conditionally permissible discharges” refers to those discharges permitted under BCC 24.06.125(D). “Connection charges” means charges imposed as a condition of connecting to the utility system so that each connecting property bears its equitable share of the costs of the public drainage system and of the costs of facilities that benefit the property. Connection charges include latecomer charges, capital recovery charges and direct facilities charges. “Converted vegetation (areas)” means the surfaces on a project site where native vegetation, pasture, scrub/shrub, or unmaintained non-native vegetation (e.g., Himalayan blackberry, scotch broom) are converted to lawn or landscaped areas, or where native vegetation is converted to pasture. “Conveyance system” means the drainage facilities, both natural and man- made, which collect, contain, and provide for the flow of surface and stormwater from the highest points on the land down to a receiving water. The natural elements 214
3 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
of the conveyance system include swales and small drainage courses, streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands. The human-made elements of the conveyance system include gutters, ditches, pipes, channels, and most retention/detention facilities.
Section 4. Section 24.06.040.D – D Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Definitions.
“Detention facility” means an above or below ground facility, such as a pond or vault, that temporarily stores stormwater runoff and subsequently releases it at a slower rate than it is collected by the drainage facility system. There is little or no infiltration of stored stormwater.
“Direct facilities charge” refers to a connection charge for utility-funded facilities that directly benefit a property. Stormwater direct facilities charges shall be applied as specified in BCC 24.06.110.
“Director” means the director of the city’s utilities department, or his/her designated representative, including enforcement officers, or other persons designated by the city manager.
“Drainage System” Refer to the definition of “storm and surface water system.”
Section 5. Section 24.06.040.E – E Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Definitions.
“Effective impervious surface” means those impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete conveyance to a drainage system. Impervious surfaces are considered ineffective if: 1) the runoff is dispersed through at least one hundred feet of native vegetation in accordance with BMP T5.30 – “Full Dispersion” as described in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW; 2) residential roof runoff is infiltrated in accordance with Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in BMP T5.10A in Volume III of the SWMMWW; or 3) approved continuous runoff modeling methods indicate that the entire runoff file is infiltrated.
“Emergency” means any natural or human-caused event or set of circumstances that disrupts or threatens to disrupt or endanger the operation, structural integrity or safety of the drainage system; or endangers the health and safety of the public or environment; or otherwise requires immediate action by the utility.
215
4 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Emergency management plan” provides the foundation, framework and guidelines for initiating and maintaining direction and control of the utility’s response efforts during all emergency or disaster scenarios. The emergency management plan is consistent with and supports the city of Bellevue emergency operations plans and emergency response plans maintained at the regional, state and federal levels of government.
“Emergency operation plan” provides guidance for mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery operations including disaster and emergency responsibilities and procedures, training and community education. The plan provides for the coordination of operations throughout the city during emergencies and disasters, and the best utilization of the city’s resources. The plan meets the requirements of a comprehensive emergency management plan as described in Chapter 118-30 WAC.
“Engineering standards” means the city’s utility engineering standards, which include standards for the design and construction of water, storm and surface water drainage and sanitary sewer facilities.
“Erodible or leachable materials” means wastes, chemicals, or other substances that measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of runoff when exposed to rainfall. Examples include erodible soils that are stockpiled, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, and garbage dumpster leakage.
Section 6. Section 24.06.040.H – H Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
H. Definitions.
“Hard Surface” means an impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof.
“Highway” means a main public road connecting towns and cities. The definition of “highway” is limited to application and enforcement of this code and does not apply to other city codes and standards.
“Hydroperiod” means the seasonal occurrence of flooding and/or soil saturation; it encompasses depth, frequency, duration and seasonal pattern of inundation.
Section 7. Section 24.06.040.I – I Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
I. Definitions.
216
5 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Illicit connection” means any infrastructure connection to the MS4 that is not intended, permitted or used for collecting and conveying stormwater or non- stormwater discharges allowed as specified in the NPDES permit (S5.C.3 and S6.D.3). Examples include, but are not limited to, sanitary sewer connections, floor drains, channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets that are connected directly to the MS4.
“Illicit discharge” or otherwise referred to as a “prohibited discharge” means any discharge to the MS4 that is not composed entirely of stormwater or of non-stormwater discharges allowed as specified in the NPDES permit (S5.C.3 and S6.D.3).
“Illicit discharge detection and elimination system program (IDDE)” means an ongoing program authorized by BCC 24.06.045 to detect and remove illicit connections, discharges as defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(2), and improper disposal, including any spills not under the purview of another responding authority with jurisdiction, into the storm and surface water systems.
“Impervious surface” means a non-vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non-vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall not be considered as impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling.
Section 8. Section 24.06.040.L – Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
L. Definitions.
“Land disturbing activity” means any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is associated with stabilization of structures and road construction shall also be considered a land disturbing activity. Vegetation maintenance practices, including landscape maintenance and gardening, are not considered land disturbing activity. Stormwater facility maintenance is not considered land disturbing activity if conducted according to established standards and procedures. 217
6 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Latecomer agreement” means a contract that provides for the reimbursement of costs to developers who construct facilities that directly benefit other properties.
“Low Impact Development (LID)” means a stormwater and land use management strategy that strives to mimic pre-disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on-site natural features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design.
“LID Best Management Practices” means distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project design, that emphasize pre- disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration. LID BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re-use.
“LID Principles” means land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on-site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff.
Section 9. Section 24.06.040.M – M Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
M. Definitions.
“Maintenance” means repair and maintenance activities conducted on currently serviceable structures, facilities, and equipment that involve no expansion or use beyond that previously existing, and results in no significant adverse hydrologic impact. It includes those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse or cessation in the use of structures and systems. Those usual activities may include replacement of dysfunctional facilities, including cases where environmental permits require replacing an existing structure with a different type structure, as long as the functioning characteristics of the original structure are not changed. One example is the replacement of a collapsed, fish blocking, round culvert with a new box culvert under the same span, or width, of roadway. In regard to stormwater facilities, maintenance includes assessment to ensure ongoing proper operation, removal of built up pollutants (i.e. sediments), replacement of failed or failing treatment media, and other actions taken to correct defects as identified in the maintenance standards of Chapter 4, Volume V of the SWMMWW. See also Pavement Maintenance exemptions in Section 1 of Appendix 1 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. 218
7 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Maintenance standards” means the city’s utility maintenance standards, which include minimum requirements for maintaining the storm and surface water system so the system functions as intended and provides water quality protection and flood control.
“Maximum Extent Practicable” or “MEP” refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act, now or as hereafter amended, which reads as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the [utility] or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.
“Minimum Requirements (MRs)” refer to the regulations contained in BCC 24.06.065 and applicable engineering standards, which describe requirements for stormwater management for development and redevelopment as required by the NPDES permit.
“Municipal separate storm sewer system,” or “MS4,” is a regulated municipal storm utility system as defined in the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit.
Section 10. Section 24.06.040.N – N Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
N. Definitions.
“National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)” means the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking, and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the Federal Clean Water Act, for the discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the state from point sources. These permits are referred to as NPDES permits and, in Washington State, are administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
“Native vegetation” means vegetation comprised of plant species, other than noxious weeds, that are indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Examples of native vegetation include, but are not limited to, trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big-leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed.
219
8 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“New development” means land disturbing activities, including Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timber land to other uses; structural development including construction or installation of a building or other structure; creation of hard surfaces; and subdivision, short subdivision and binding site plans as defined in Chapter 58.17 RCW and in Chapters 20.45A and 20.45B LUC. Projects meeting the definition of redevelopment shall not be considered new development.
“NPDES permit” means an authorization, license or equivalent control document issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Washington State Department of Ecology to implement the requirements of the NPDES program.
Section 11. Section 24.06.040.O – O Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
O. Definitions.
“On-site Stormwater Management BMPs” is a synonym for Low Impact Development BMPs.
Section 12. Section 24.06.040.P – P Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
P. Definitions.
“Permeable pavement” means pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers or other forms of pervious or porous paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an aggregate base that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir.
“Permissible discharge” refers to those discharges permitted under BCC 24.06.125(C).
“Pervious Surface” means any surface material that allows stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Examples include lawn, landscape, pasture, native vegetation areas, and permeable pavements.
“Pollution” means the contamination or other alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties, of waters of the state, including change in temperature, taste, color, turbidity, or odor of the waters, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive, or other substance into any waters of the state as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare, or to
220
9 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or other aquatic life.
“Pollution-generating hard surface (PGHS)” means those hard surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. See the listing of surfaces under pollution-generating impervious surface.
“Pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS)” means those impervious surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to: vehicular use, industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary of Volume I of the SWMMWW); storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and which receive direct rainfall or the run-on or blow-in of rainfall; metal roofs unless they are coated with an inert, non-leachable material (e.g., baked-on enamel coating); or roofs that are subject to venting significant amounts of dusts, mists, or fumes from manufacturing, commercial, or other indoor activities.
“Pollution-generating pervious surface (PGPS)” means any non-impervious surface subject to vehicular use, industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); or storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and that receive direct rainfall or run-on or blow-in of rainfall, use of pesticides and fertilizers, or loss of soil. Typical PGPS include permeable pavement subject to vehicular use, lawns, landscaped areas including: golf courses, parks, cemeteries, and sports fields (natural and artificial turf).
“Pre-developed condition” means the native vegetation and soils that existed at a site prior to the influence of Euro-American settlement. The pre- developed condition shall be assumed to be forested land cover unless reasonable, historic information is provided that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement.
“Private storm and surface water system” or “private drainage facility” means any element of the storm and surface water system, which is not a part of the public storm and surface water system as defined in this code.
“Procedure” means a procedure adopted by the utility, by and through the director, to implement this code, or to carry out other responsibilities as may be required by this code, engineering standards, related manuals, or other codes, ordinances, or resolutions of the city or other agencies. Procedure as defined herein is often referred to as a standard operating procedure or SOP.
“Project site” means that portion of a property, properties, or right-of-way subject to land disturbing activities, new hard surfaces, or replaced hard surfaces. The definition of project site applies solely to application and 221
10 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
enforcement of this code and does not supersede or replace the definition of “site” as defined elsewhere in the Bellevue City Code.
“Prohibited Discharge” Refer to definition of “illicit discharge.”
“Property owner” means any individual, company, partnership, joint venture, corporation, association, society or group that owns or has a contractual interest in the subject property or has been authorized by the owner to act on his/her behalf, including but not limited to an agent, contractor, operation, applicant, or developer.
“Public storm and surface water system” or “public drainage system” means those elements of the storm and surface water system maintained and operated by the utility, which includes elements located on property owned by the utility or in public right-of-way except to the extent that private ownership is indicated as a matter of record or by law and elements located on property on which the city has an easement, license, or other right of use for utility purposes.
Section 13. Section 24.06.040.R – R Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
R. Definitions.
“Rain Garden” means a non-engineered shallow landscaped depression, with compost-amended native soils and adapted plants. The depression is designed to pond and temporarily store stormwater runoff from adjacent areas, and to allow stormwater to pass through the amended soil profile.
Receiving waterbody or Receiving waters” are bodies of water or surface water systems to which surface runoff is discharged via a point source of stormwater or via sheet flow. Ground water to which surface runoff is directed by infiltration.
“Redevelopment” means, on a site that is already substantially developed (i.e., has 35 percent or more existing hard surface coverage), the creation or addition of hard surfaces; the expansion of a building footprint or addition or replacement of a structure; structural development including construction, installation, or expansion of a building or other structure; replacement of hard surface that is not part of a maintenance activity; and land disturbing activities.
“Replaced hard surface” means, for structures, the removal and replacement of hard surfaces down to the foundation. For other hard surfaces, the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement.
222
11 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Replaced impervious surface” means, for structures, the removal and replacement of impervious surfaces down to the foundation. For other impervious surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement.
“Runoff control BMPs,” also referred to as “flow control BMPs,” means BMPs that are intended to control or manage the rate and/or quantity of stormwater runoff.
“Runoff treatment BMPs” means BMPs that are intended to remove sediment and other pollutants from stormwater runoff.
Section 14. Section 24.06.040.S – S Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
S. Definitions.
“Site” means the area defined by the legal boundaries of a parcel or parcels of land that is (are) subject to new development or redevelopment. For road projects, the length of the project site and the right-of-way boundaries define the site. The definition of “site” applies solely to application and enforcement of this code and does not supersede or replace the definition of “site” as defined elsewhere in the Bellevue City Code.
“Source control BMP” means a structure or operation that is intended to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with stormwater through physical separation of areas or careful management of activities that are sources of pollution. The SWMMWW separates source control BMPs into two types. “Structural Source Control BMPs” are physical, structural, or mechanical devices, or facilities that are intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. “Operational BMPs” are non-structural practices that prevent or reduce pollutants from entering stormwater.
“Standard Operating Procedure” or “SOP” Refer to the definition of “procedure.”
“Storm and surface water system plan” (or a similarly titled document) means the latest version of the city’s storm and surface water system plan as adopted by the city council.
“Storm and surface water system,” also referred to as the “drainage system,” means the entire system within the city, both public and private, naturally existing and manmade, for the drainage, conveyance, detention, treatment or storage of storm and surface waters. However, facilities directly associated with buildings or structures such as foundation drains, rockery/retaining wall
223
12 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
drains, gutters and downspouts or groundwater under-drains are not considered parts of the storm and surface water system.
“Stream” means those areas where surface waters flow sufficiently to produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is an area that demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes, but is not limited to, indicated by hydraulically sorted sediments or the removal of vegetative litter or loosely rooted vegetation by the action of moving water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction. Those topographic features that resemble streams but have no defined channels (i.e., swales) shall be considered streams when hydrologic and hydraulic analyses done pursuant to a development proposal predict formation of a defined channel after development. The definition of “stream” set forth herein is limited to application and enforcement of this code and does not apply to other city codes and standards.
“Structure” means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on or under the ground or attached to something having permanent location on or under the ground. Not included are residential fences, retaining walls less than 30 inches in height, rockeries less than 30 inches in height and similar improvements of a minor character. “Structure” can also mean a catchbasin or manhole in reference to a storm drainage system.
“SWMMWW” means the Washington State Department of Ecology 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (as amended in 2014) (now or hereafter amended).
Section 15. Section 24.06.040 T – T Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
T. Definitions.
“Threshold discharge area” means an on-site area draining to a single natural discharge location, or to multiple natural discharge locations that combine within one-quarter mile downstream (as determined by the shortest flowpath.) Refer to the SWMMWW for additional information.
Section 16. Section 24.06.040.V – V Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to rea d as follows:
V. Definitions.
224
13 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
“Vehicular Use” means regular use of an impervious or pervious surface by motor vehicles. The following are subject to regular vehicular use: roads, un- vegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unrestricted access fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways.
The following are not considered subject to regular vehicular use: paved bicycle pathways separated from and not subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, restricted access fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance access roads.
Section 17. Section 24.06.040.W – W Definitions of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
W. Definitions.
“Wetland” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
Section 18. Section 24.06.045 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
24.06.045 Authority of the utility.
The utility, by and through its director, shall have the authority to:
A. Develop, adopt, and carry out procedures as needed to implement this code, engineering standards and related manuals, and to carry out other responsibilities of the utility, including, but not limited to, procedures pertaining to the billing and collection of monthly drainage charges and procedures for periodic adjustment of fees and charges imposed pursuant to this code;
B. Prepare, adopt, update, administer and enforce as needed engineering standards to establish requirements for the design and construction of drainage facilities and requirements for protecting existing facilities during construction. The engineering standards shall be consistent with this code and adopted city policies;
225
14 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
C. Administer and enforce this code and all procedures and standards relating to the planning, acquisition, security, design, construction and inspection of new storm and surface water systems and any alterations thereof;
D. Enter into any contract pursuant to Chapter 35.91 RCW, the Municipal Water and Sewer Facilities Act, including contracts which provide for the reimbursement of owners constructing facilities (latecomer agreements) and agreements with private property owners for the extension of the drainage system (utility developer extension agreements);
E. Prepare, adopt, update, administer and enforce as needed maintenance standards to establish requirements for the maintenance of drainage facilities so they function as intended, protect water quality and provide flood control;
F. Develop and implement programs (including the private drainage inspection program), that administer, inspect, and enforce private storm and surface water systems to ensure continued compliance with provisions of this code. This program may include a requirement that property owners obtain third party inspections and certification of private systems and/or facility conditions, required maintenance, and system and/or facility performance;
G. Advise the city council, city manager, other city departments, and commissions on matters relating to the utility;
H. Prepare, revise as needed, recommend and implement a storm and surface water comprehensive plan for adoption by the city council. Prepare other planning studies as appropriate;
I. Coordinate development of a city-wide stormwater management program, as required by state and/or federal agencies, for review and adoption by the city council;
J. Establish and implement programs to protect and maintain water quality and to manage stormwater runoff within the storm and surface water system in order to maintain compliance to the maximum extent practicable with applicable water quality standards established by state and/or federal agencies;
K. Perform or direct the performance of financial review and analysis of the utility’s revenues, expenses, indebtedness, rates and accounting and recommend budgets, rates and financial policy for adoption by the city council;
L. Carry out such other responsibilities as required by this code or other city codes, ordinances or regulations consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and the storm and surface water comprehensive plan;
226
15 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
M. Conduct public education programs related to protection and enhancement of the storm and surface water system;
N. Develop and implement a program that includes administration, inspection and enforcement of new provisions or modifications to this code relating to the storm and surface water system for activities listed under BCC 24.06.060 and 24.06.065 to ensure continued compliance of storm and surface water systems with the provisions of this code. Repair and/or replacement of private drainage facilities in kind are exempt from this program unless applicable under other portions of the code;
O. Enter into, to the extent allowed by law, an agreement with property owners for said owner to voluntarily contribute funds toward the construction of one or more drainage facilities that mitigate the impacts to the same receiving waters that have been identified as a consequence of the proposed new development or redevelopment;
P. Enforce the applicable provisions of this code should the director determine that a discharge from a site, real property, or storm and surface water system has exceeded, exceeds, or will exceed water quality standards at the point of assessment, or has caused or contributed, is causing or contributing, or will cause or contribute to a prohibited discharge or a known or likely known violation of water quality standards in the receiving water or a known or likely known violation of the city’s municipal stormwater NPDES permit, and cannot be adequately addressed by the required best management practices;
Q. Take enforcement action, to the extent allowed by law pursuant to Chapter 1.18 BCC;
R. Develop and implement an illicit discharge detection and elimination system program (IDDE) for storm and surface water systems;
S. Direct authorized representatives of the utility or enforcement officers to enter private property consistent with the provisions contained in BCC 24.06.130 for inspections, tests, or to carry out other duties imposed by this code;
T. Direct authorized representatives of the utility or enforcement officers to take necessary abatement action during an emergency situation, to conduct inspections, take remedial action, or to carry out other duties imposed or required by this code subject to the provisions of Chapter 1.18 BCC;
U. Develop drainage basin plans pursuant to BCC 24.06.140;
V. Prepare and update an emergency plan as required by state law, as part of the city’s emergency operation plan; and
227
16 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
W. Rely, reference, and condition projects during development review with compliance of other applicable chapters of the Bellevue city code not otherwise contained in this code, including but not limited to BCC Title 20 and Chapters 1.18 and 23.76 BCC.
Section 19. Section 24.06.060.A – General Requirements of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. General Requirements.
1. The utility shall administratively develop submittal requirements for the various utility permits/approvals;
2. When a drainage connection permit or utility developer extension agreement is required, the property owner shall build all the drainage facilities necessary to serve the property including, but not limited to, conveyance systems, runoff treatment best management practices, detention facilities and other system components as required by the utility;
3. When a drainage connection permit or utility developer extension agreement is required to provide drainage facilities for commercial or multifamily structures, the utility shall not approve issuance of the building permit until the utility has issued the drainage connection permit or the utility developer extension agreement has been executed. When a drainage connection permit or utility developer extension agreement is required to relocate a drainage facility from under a proposed building or structure, the utility shall not approve issuance of the building permit until the replacement drainage work has been completed and accepted by the utility, unless the building permit is conditioned to require relocation prior to site construction; and
4. When applicable, the director may approve projects through combined permit review processes, including but not limited to clearing and grading and building permits. The vested status of the provisions contained in this code is governed by and subject to the vesting provisions contained in BCC 23.76.045.
Section 20. Section 24.06.060.B – Drainage Connection Permit of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Drainage Connection Permit.
1. A drainage connection permit is required to connect to or modify the public storm and surface water system or to modify a private storm and surface water system for activities referenced in BCC 24.06.065, unless a utility developer extension agreement is required pursuant to subsection 228
17 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
(C)(1) of this section or unless the work is specifically covered under another permit, such as a clearing and grading permit or right-of-way use permit, or unless the work falls below thresholds for any other permit required under this code or related codes;
2. If required, a drainage connection permit application shall be submitted and attested to by the property owner or their licensed and bonded contractor;
3. Drainage connection permits expire two years from the date of issuance. The director may extend the duration of an open drainage connection permit for up to one year; provided the utility receives payment for any applicable fees; and
4. Open applications for drainage connection permits that have not been issued shall be canceled by the utility if not issued within one year from the date of submittal.
Section 21. Section 24.06.065 of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
24.06.065 Minimum requirements for new development and redevelopment.
A. Applicability.
1. The Minimum Requirements (MRs) contained in this section shall apply to new development, redevelopment, and construction activities that result in land disturbing activity or otherwise meet the thresholds defined herein; and
2. In addition to the Minimum Requirements of this section, property owners shall comply with all applicable provisions contained in the SWMMWW, engineering standards, Chapter 23.76 BCC (Clearing and Grading Code), BCC Title 20, and any other applicable codes or standards.
B. Exemptions. Unless otherwise indicated in Appendix 1, Section 1 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, the practices described in Appendix 1, Section 1 are exempt from the Minimum Requirements, even if such practices meet the definition of new development or redevelopment.
C. Exceptions/Variances.
1. The director may approve a request for an Exception/Variance (exceptions) to the Minimum Requirements when the applicant demonstrates that the exception will not increase risk to the public health 229
18 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
and welfare, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity and/or downstream, and to the quality of waters of the state, and the exception is the least possible exception that could be granted to comply with the intent of the Minimum Requirements, and:
a. The requirement would cause a severe and unexpected financial hardship that outweighs the requirement’s benefits, and the criteria for an adjustment cannot be met;
b. The requirement would cause harm or a significant threat of harm to public health, safety, and welfare, the environment, or public and private property, and the criteria for an adjustment cannot be met;
c. The requirement is not technically feasible, and the criteria for an adjustment cannot be met; or
d. An emergency situation exists that necessitates approval of the exception;
2. An exception shall only be granted to the extent necessary to provide relief from the economic hardship, to alleviate the harm or threat of harm, to the degree that compliance with the requirement becomes technically feasible, or to perform the emergency work that the director determines exists;
3. The director may require an applicant to provide additional information at the applicant’s expense, including but not limited to an engineer’s report or analysis;
4. When an exception is granted, the director may impose new or additional requirements to offset or mitigate harm that may be caused by granting the exception, or that would have been prevented if the exception had not been granted;
5. Public notice of an application for an exception and of the director’s decision on the application shall be provided for in the manner prescribed for process II land use decisions as set forth in Chapter 20.35 LUC;
6. The director’s decision shall be in writing with written findings of fact. Decisions approving an exception based on severe and unexpected economic hardship shall address all the factors contained in subsection (C)(7) of this section;
7. An application for an exception on the grounds of severe and unexpected financial hardship shall describe, at a minimum, all of the following: 230
19 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
a. The current (pre-project) use of the site, and;
b. How application of the Minimum Requirement(s) restricts the proposed use of the site compared to the restrictions that existed prior to adoption of the Minimum Requirements of this section, and;
c. The possible remaining uses of the site if the exception were not granted, and;
d. The uses of the site that would have been allowed prior to the adoption of the Minimum Requirements of this section, and;
e. A comparison of the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of the Minimum Requirements versus the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of requirements that existed prior to adoption of the Minimum Requirements of this section; and
f. The feasibility of the applicant to alter the project to apply the Minimum Requirements of this section;
8. An applicant aggrieved by the director’s decision on an application for an exception may appeal the decision to the hearing examiner’s office by complying with the appeal process for process II decisions as set forth in LUC 20.35.250;
9. The hearing examiner shall affirm the director’s decision unless the examiner finds the decision is clearly erroneous based on substantial evidence. The applicant for the exception shall carry the burden of proof on all issues related to justifying the exception; and
10. The director shall keep a record, including the director’s findings of fact, on all approved requests for exceptions.
D. Adjustments.
1. The director may approve Adjustments to the Minimum Requirements of this section, and shall prepare written findings of fact, when the director finds the following:
a. The adjustment provides substantially equivalent environmental protection; and
b. The objectives of safety, function, environmental protection, and facility maintenance are met, based on sound engineering practices;
231
20 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
2. During construction, the director may require, or the applicant may request, that the construction of drainage control facilities and associated project designs be adjusted if physical conditions are discovered on the site that are inconsistent with the assumptions on which the approval was based, including but not limited to unexpected soil and/or water conditions, weather generated problems, or changes in the design of the improved areas; and
3. A request by the applicant for an adjustment shall be submitted to the director prior to implementation. The request shall be in writing and shall provide facts substantiating the requirements of subsection (D)(1) of this section and, if made during construction, the factors in subsection (D)(2) of this section. Any such modifications made during the construction of drainage control facilities shall be included with the final approved drainage control plan.
E. New Development – Thresholds.
1. All new development shall comply with Minimum Requirement #2 as set forth in this section and Chapter 23.76 BCC;
2. The thresholds used to determine the applicability of the Minimum Requirements to new development are as specified in Appendix 1, Section 3.2 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit
F. Redevelopment – Thresholds.
1. All redevelopment shall comply with Minimum Requirement #2 as set forth in this section and Chapter 23.76 BCC;
2. The thresholds and additional requirements used to determine the applicability of the Minimum Requirements to redevelopment are as specified in Appendix 1, Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit.
G. Minimum Requirements. The Minimum Requirements for stormwater management at new development and redevelopment sites are as specified in Appendix 1, Section 4 of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, the SWMMWW, and supplemented by engineering standards where applicable. The following requirements also supplement the Minimum Requirements:
1. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (MR2). The regulations associated with this minimum regulation are contained in the clearing and grading code, located at Chapter 23.76 BCC; 232
21 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
2. Flow Control (MR7). Flow control is not required for properties within the Meydenbauer Drainage Basin to the extent provided for in Ordinance No. 3372.
Section 22. Section 24.06.080.G – Agreement Duration of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
G. Agreement Duration. Latecomer agreements may be in effect for 20 years, or for a longer period if extended in accordance with RCW 35.91.020, following the utility’s acceptance of the drainage facility.
Section 23. Section 24.06.125.F – Discharge of Pollutants of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
F. Discharge of Pollutants – Liability for Expenses Incurred by the Utility. Any person responsible for pollutant discharge into the storm and surface water system who fails to immediately collect, remove, contain, treat or disperse such pollutant materials at the director’s request shall be responsible for the necessary expenses incurred by the city in carrying out any pollutant abatement procedures, including the collection, removal, containment, treatment or disposal of such materials.
Section 24. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Section 25. This ordinance shall take effect on December 31, 2016.
233
22 1555-ORD 11/17/2016
Passed by the City Council this _____ day of , 2016 and signed in authentication of its passage this ______day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Approved as to form: Lori M. Riordan, City Attorney
Catherine A. Drews, Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
Published
234
23 November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Monarch Landscaping, d/b/a Signature Landscape Services LLC, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $148,171.44 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma- Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
FISCAL IMPACT This action will obligate the City to an amount up to $74,085.72 for execution of a new General Services contract serving eight park sites and City facilities, commencing January 1, 2017 and concluding December 31, 2018. If approved, the City will execute this contract for an initial two-year period. Upon satisfactory performance, the City will have the option to renew the contract for an additional two years for an amount up to the original contract value ($74,085.72) plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year. If the City exercises its option to renew, the total value over four years is approximately $148,171.44, plus the increases just described. There are sufficient funds included in the proposed 2017-2018 Parks & Community Services Operating Budget for the first two years of the contract. Future costs associated with this contract will be requested in subsequent operating budgets and will be subject to final budget appropriation.
STAFF CONTACTS Dan Dewald, Natural Resources Manager, 452-6048 Tom Kuykendall, Street Tree and Arterial Program Supervisor 452-7924 Michael Hauer, Contract Administrator, 452-4480 Parks & Community Services Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Bellevue City Code BCC 4.28 provides for the fair and equitable treatment of persons in the purchasing process. Because the contract amounts exceed $90,000, Council approval is required.
BACKGROUND Currently, Parks utilizes landscape contractors to perform maintenance services at 286 park, street tree and arterial landscape and City facility sites. This contract provides services at 119th Avenue SE, SE 35th Street, Advanta, 150th Avenue SE and SE 36th Street, NE 24th Street (156th to 172nd), 108th Avenue SE Enatai, SE 16th Ranger Station, and Mercer Slough Environmental Education Center. Landscape maintenance contracts include mowing, shrub pruning, weed control, hard surface cleaning, irrigation system operation, leaf removal, and garbage disposal. 235 The City conducted a formal RFP process with advertisements posted twice in The Seattle Times. Staff reviewed and evaluated proposals from the following contractors:
Badgley’s Landscape LLC Plantscapes Horticultural Services Canber Corps Total Landscape Corporation Monarch Landscape dba Signature Landscape LLC Westgro Corporation
Final selection of the contractor was based on a per-site analysis of the contractor’s proposal amount, proposed labor hours, experience with similar sites, overall qualifications, financial standing, and past performance on other City projects. This selection process utilized is consistent with purchasing procedures outlined in the City’s Contracting Policy.
Monarch Landscaping, dba Signature Landscape Services LLC, has performed satisfactorily at similar sites. Therefore, staff is requesting approval to execute this contract.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Resolution becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Monarch Landscaping, dba Signature Landscape Services LLC, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities, for an initial two-year term in an amount not to exceed $74,085.72, with the option to renew for an additional two years in an amount not to exceed $74,085.72 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year. 2. Do not adopt the Resolution and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt Resolution No. 9189 authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Monarch Landscaping, d/b/a Signature Landscape Services LLC, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $148,171.44 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
ATTACHMENT Proposed Resolution No. 9189
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY Contract
236 3459-RES 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 9189
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a General Services contract with Monarch Landscaping, d/b/a Signature Landscape Services LLC, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term, with the option to renew for an additional two years, for a total contract value of $148,171.44 plus any State-mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute a General Services contract with Monarch Landscaping, d/b/a Signature Landscape Services LLC, for landscaping services at various park sites and facilities for an initial two-year term in an amount not to exceed $74,085.72, with the option to renew for an additional two years in an amount not to exceed $74,085.72 plus any State- mandated prevailing wage increase and/or City-approved special or unanticipated market condition that does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, Seattle- Tacoma-Bremerton) for the most recently completed calendar year, a copy of which contract has been given Clerk’s Receiving No. ______.
Passed by the City Council this ______day of , 2016, and signed in authentication of its passage this _____ day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk 237
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Motion to approve payment of claims and payroll for the period October 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016.
FISCAL IMPACT Approval of payment: Claims Check Numbers, including settlement of damage claims, Amounts Travel Advances and PayMode (electronic) deposits $16,406,713.94 00325726 – 00326498 8981 – 9023 1035065 – 1035440
Direct Deposit and Payroll Check Numbers Amounts 0070439 – 0070660 $13,266,108.97
These amounts were budgeted and sufficient funds were available in the 2015-2016 General Fund budget to cover these payments.
STAFF CONTACTS Jamie Robinson, Assistant Director, 452-6843 Finance Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION RCW 42.24 and BCC 4.40 govern the process for audit and review of payroll and claims payments for the City. RCW 42.24.180 requires the review and approval of all payments at a regularly- scheduled public meeting within one month of issuance.
RCW 42.24.080 requires that all claims presented against the City by persons furnishing materials, rendering services, or performing labor must be certified by the appropriate official to ensure that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described, and that the claims are just, due and unpaid obligations against the City, before payment can be made. Bellevue City Code Chapter 4.40, Audit of Claims, provides that the Finance Director or his/her designee will examine all claims prior to payment.
RCW 42.24.180 allows expedited processing of the payment of claims when certain conditions have been met. The statute allows the issuance of warrants or checks in payment of claims before the legislative body has acted to approve the claims when: (1) the appropriate officers have furnished official bonds; (2) the legislative body has adopted policies that implement effective internal control; (3) the legislative body has provided for review of the documentation supporting the claims within a month of issuance; and (4) that if claims are disapproved, they shall be recognized as receivables and diligently pursued. The City meets all of these conditions. 238 BCC 4.40.030 allows for periodic reporting of the payments to Council for approval. To meet these requirements, Finance staff schedule payment of claims and payroll for monthly Council approval on the Consent Calendar.
BACKGROUND The information presented in the Fiscal Impact section covers all claims and payroll payments during the month prior to the date of the Council meeting, as required by RCW 42.24.180.
All payments made during this period were found to be valid claims against the City. Details are available from the Treasury and Disbursements Division of the Finance Department.
The City’s internal controls include certification of the validity of all payments by the appropriate department prior to submission for payment. The Finance Director has delegated authority for the examination of vouchers and authorization of payments to the Treasury and Disbursements Manager and Accounts Payable, Procurement and Payroll staff. Centralized Accounts Payable staff review all claims payments and Payroll performs system validation and exception reviews to validate payroll records. The Business Expense coordinator in Procurement reviews all expense reimbursement claims. In addition, the Treasury and Disbursements Manager performs a random sampling review of supporting documentation for claims payments to ensure validity. The Finance Department regularly reviews its processes to ensure appropriate internal controls are in place.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Motion becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption.
OPTIONS 1. Approve payment of claims and payroll for the period October 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016.
2. Do not approve the motion and provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to approve payment of claims and payroll for the period October 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016.
ATTACHMENTS N/A
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY N/A
239 November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Ordinance amending Chapter 3.60 of the Bellevue City Code to provide additional time for the newly established Salary Commission to conclude work and file a salary and compensation schedule with the City Clerk in 2016.
FISCAL IMPACT Upon completion of their work, the Commission’s recommendation will be filed with the City Clerk, and any changes to the salary of the Council shall become effective and incorporated into the city or town budget without further action of the City Council or Salary Commission (35.21.015(3) RCW).
While the original deadline for filing a salary schedule would have allowed any changes to Council salaries to be included in the 2017-18 Operating Budget, anticipated to be approved on December 5. Extending the deadline will not make that possible, the proposed budget will accommodate a possible change to compensation levels, and changes will be addressed upon filing of the Commission’s recommendation.
STAFF CONTACTS Kyle Stannert, Assistant City Manager / City Clerk, 452-6021 City Clerk’s Office
Lori Riordan, City Attorney, 452-7220 City Attorney’s Office
POLICY CONSIDERATION RCW 35.21.015 authorizes the establishment of a Salary Commission with the purposes of setting salaries for elected increases to compensation approved by the Commission become effective immediately, unless challenged by a referendum petition within 30 days of establishment.
BACKGROUND Ordinance 6306 was adopted on August 1, 2016 which formed an Independent Salary Commission to review and establish the salaries of Councilmembers and exercise the powers and perform the duties established by RCW 35.21.015. Following a recruitment process to identify individuals to serve on the commission, members of the Independent Salary Commission were appointed by Council on October 10, 2016.
Due to scheduling conflicts during the month of October, the first meeting of the Independent Salary Commission was held on November 9, 2016. At their first meeting, the Commission appointed Ronald Higgs to serve as their Chair, and Gerald Kroon to serve as Vice-Chair.
240 The Commission also confirmed availability for future meetings to include: Thursday, December 1 Thursday, December 8 Wednesday, December 14
If approved, Chapter 3.60 would be amended to extend the deadline for the Commission to complete their work to December 31, 2016.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Ordinance becomes effective on December 1, 2016.
OPTIONS 1. Adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 3.60 of the Bellevue City Code to provide additional time for the newly established Salary Commission to conclude work and file a salary and compensation schedule with the City Clerk in 2016. 2. Do not adopt Ordinance and provide alternate direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to adopt Ordinance No. 6322 amending Chapter 3.60 of the Bellevue City Code to provide additional time for the newly established Salary Commission to conclude work and file a salary and compensation schedule with the City Clerk in 2016.
ATTACHMENTS Proposed Ordinance 6322
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY N/A
241 1556-ORD 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6322
AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 3.60 of the Bellevue City Code to provide additional time for the newly established Salary Commission to conclude work and file a salary and compensation schedule with the City Clerk in 2016.
WHEREAS, in August 2016 the City Council passed Ordinance No. 6303 enacting a new Chapter 3.60 in the Bellevue City Code for the purpose of establishing a Salary Commission composed of citizens from the community for the purpose of conducting a comparative salary study making and recommendations for future salary adjustments as allowed by state law; and
WHEREAS, the Salary Commission was contemplated to be established and begin work by September 6, 2016, however circumstances led to delays in commencement of work until November 9, 2016; and
WHEREAS, this delay in beginning work will impact the Salary Commission’s ability to file any salary and compensation scheduled with the City Clerk by December 1, 2016 as required by BCC 3.60.050 and .060; and
WHEREAS, in order to achieve the intent of Ordinance No. 6306 and accomplish the work of the Salary Commission as described in BCC Chapter 3.60 it is necessary to extend the time in which the Commission has to complete its work in 2016; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 3.60.050.C of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.60.050 Meetings.
. . .
C. The Commission shall meet as often as necessary in order to file a schedule with the City Clerk, on or before December 31, 2016. Once a schedule has been filed, the Commission will not meet until the Council confirms a new Salary Commission for purposes of further studying City Council compensation.
242 1
1556-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 2. Section 3.60.060.D of the Bellevue City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.60.060 Responsibilities. The Commission shall have the following responsibilities:
. . .
D. To review and file a salary and compensation schedule with the City Clerk no later than December 31, 2016, and if a new Independent Salary Commission is appointed thereafter, by December 1st, in any subsequent year.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and legal publication.
Passed by the City Council this _____ day of , 2016 and signed in authentication of its passage this ______day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lori M. Riordan, City Attorney
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
Published
243 2
November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Final Public Hearing on the 2017-2018 Budget/2017-2023 Capital Investment Program Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the Public Hearing.
STAFF CONTACTS Toni Call (Rezab), Acting Finance Director, 425-452-7863 David Baldwin, Budget Division Manager, 425-452-2017 Finance Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION State law (RCW 35A.34.110) requires that the City Council hold a public hearing to develop the budget for the City. This legally required public hearing must be held prior to the Council adopting the budget.
On June 6, 2016, Council held an initial public hearing to obtain public comment. On July 18, 2016, Council held a second public hearing to obtain public comment. This would be the third and final public hearing to obtain public comment prior to the adoption of the City’s 2017-2018 Budget/2017-2023 Capital Investment Program (CIP) Plan. No additional public hearings are anticipated prior to budget adoption.
BACKGROUND The public hearing scheduled for November 21st represents the final of three public hearings planned for the City’s 2017-2018 Budget/2017-2023 CIP Plan scheduled for adoption on December 5, 2016.
On October 17, the City Manager submitted a proposed preliminary budget to the Council. The preliminary budget can be viewed in its entirety on the City’s website at http://www.bellevuewa.gov/budgets.htm. An executive summary can also be found at this location with an overview of recommended expenditures and revenues as well as key economic information.
At the November 21, 2016 public hearing, the public will be invited to provide testimony on the recommendations contained in the operating and capital budgets, the 2017 property tax rate, and all taxes, fees and rates.
A public hearing on the City’s budget is required by State law and gives the public an opportunity to provide feedback to the Council before a final decision is made.
The third public hearing was advertised in The Seattle Times on November 7th and November 14th.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Motion becomes effective immediately upon Council adoption. 244 OPTIONS 1. Hold the third public hearing on the 2017-2018 Budget/2017-2023 CIP Plan. 2. Provide alternative direction to staff regarding the public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MOTION Move to open the third public hearing on the 2017-2018 Budget/2017-2023 CIP Plan.
ATTACHMENTS Public Hearing Notice
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY N/A
245 246 November 21, 2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Ordinance amending the City of Bellevue Land Use Code to incorporate Low Impact Development Principles by amending Chapters 20.20 (General Development Requirements); 20.25 (Special and Overlay Districts); 20.50 (Definitions); and Part 20.30D (Planned Unit Development); providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of Low Impact Development Principles Project (LID Principles Project) code amendments is generally anticipated to be minimal and will be met with current staffing levels. The LID Principles Project should have only minimal to no impact on Capital Improvement Projects because stormwater controls, Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, are required under the Washington State Department of Ecology’s 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, and those requirements are outside of this project.
STAFF CONTACTS Catherine A. Drews, Assistant City Attorney (Project Manager), 452-6134 City Attorney’s Office
Paul Bucich, Assistant Engineering Director, 452-4596 Utilities Department
POLICY CONSIDERATION Should the City revise its Land Use Code (LUC) to incorporate LID principles by amending the LUC to reducing impervious surfaces in certain land use districts; incorporating a new hard surface coverage limit; allowing zero-lot line development in planned unit developments; and incorporating other measures to make LID the preferred and commonly used approach to site development? The following Comprehensive Plan Policies support this policy issue:
Land Use Element LU-20. Support Downtown’s development as a regional growth center, with the density, mix of uses and amenities, and infrastructure that maintain it as the financial, retail, transportation, and business hub of the Eastside. LU-21. Support development of compact, livable and walkable mixed use centers in BelRed, Eastgate, Factoria, Wilburton and Crossroads.
Housing Element HO-16. Provide opportunities and incentives through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for a variety of housing types and site planning techniques that can achieve the maximum housing potential of the site. 247
Environmental Element EN-20. Maintain surface water quality, defined as meeting federal and state standards and restore surface water that has become degraded, to the maximum extent practicable. EN-24. Reduce runoff from streets, parking lots and other impervious surfaces and improve surface water quality by utilizing low impact development techniques in new development and redevelopment. EN-26. Manage water runoff for new development and redevelopment to meet water quality objectives, consistent with state law EN-45. Implement the city-wide use of low impact development techniques and green building practices. EN-46. Make low impact development the preferred and commonly-used approach to site development to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff.
BACKGROUND The LID Principles Project is a requirement under the City’s NPDES Phase II stormwater permit (NPDES Permit). The NPDES Permit is a requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act and is intended to protect and restore water for “fishable, swimmable” uses. Bellevue is one approximately 100 municipalities in Western Washington required to obtain a municipal stormwater discharge permit. Ecology issued the Phase II municipal stormwater permit in January 2007, and revised the permit in August 2013. The Permit authorizes discharge of stormwater runoff from municipal storm drainage systems into the state’s surface waters (i.e.: streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc.) as long as municipalities implement the Stormwater Management Program required by the Permit.
Under the NPDES Permit, the City was required to review and revise its enforceable development codes and standards to incorporate LID principles, and under a separate project, low impact development Best Management Practices (BMPs). The intent of the revision is to make LID the preferred and commonly used approach to site development. The City completed its review of its code and standards, which included numerous public outreach events, and a public hearing before the Planning Commission beginning on July 27 and ending on September 14, 2016. The Planning Commission unanimously voted (Commissioner Barksdale absent) to recommend the LID Principles Project LUC amendment (LUCA) to the Council.
Staff presented the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Council at the October 10 Study Session. An additional study session was held on October 24 to continue discussions of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. At the October 24 Study Session, Council directed staff to return with a final ordinance for action on November 21. The final ordinance is included as Attachment A.
The proposed LID Principles Project LUCA reduces impervious surfaces, vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff by reducing impervious surfaces in certain land use districts; incorporating a new hard surface coverage limit; allowing zero-lot line development in planned unit developments; and incorporating other measures to make LID the preferred and commonly used approach to site development. The LID Principles Project was developed not only to meet NPDES Permit requirements, but also to balance competing needs in the City, such as supporting growth and protecting waters. The project also supports other Council goals and objectives, such as Utilities Stormwater System Plan’s Strategic Initiatives -- the overarching goal of which is to control damage from storms, protect surface water quality, support fish and wildlife habitat, and protect the environment.
Council Question about Surfaces for Schools and Churches 248 At the October 24 Study Session, Council asked staff to confirm whether schools and churches located in residential zones were addressed by the proposed LUCA. Staff reviewed the surface coverage limits for schools and churches and determined an inconsistency exists between the coverage limits provided in the dimensional chart (Chart 20.20.010), and the corresponding footnote 36 to the dimensional chart. Footnote 36 provides an 80 percent maximum impervious surface limit for schools and churches located in single-family land use districts (R-1 – R-7.5).
In the proposed amendments to Chart 20.20.010, footnote 36 applies only to the impervious surface coverage limits, and not to the new Hard and Alternative maximum surface limits. This omission creates two unintended consequences. First, the new hard surface limit for the R-1 through R-4 land use districts is 75 percent. This is inconsistent with the current 80 percent surface coverage allowed for schools and churches; the allowed impervious surfaces amendment (80 percent); and the maximum coverage proposed for hard surfaces in the R-5 and R-7.5 land use districts (80 percent). Second, although the Alternative Impervious maximum limit provides for existing impervious surface limits for the underlying land use district when a site is deemed infeasible for infiltration, it is unclear from the chart that footnote 36 applies for each applicable land use district.
These two issues may be easily remedied by revising footnote 36 to ensure it addresses all the listed surfaces (impervious, hard, and alternative), and referencing the note to the applicable single-family land use districts in Chart 20.20.010. The Planning Commission did not recommend revising footnote 36, evincing its intent to maintain the 80 percent coverage limits for schools and churches located in single- family land use districts. Staff recommends the following revisions to address the unintended coverage reduction for hard surfaces and to clarify application of footnote 36 to Alternative Impervious surfaces:
1. Footnote 36 should be revised to read:
Impervious Maximum surface limits for legally established nonconforming nonresidential uses and for new allowed nonresidential uses in these land use districts shall be 80 percent.
2. Proposed revisions to the Maximum Hard and Alternative Impervious Surface rows for R-1 through R-7.5 are highlighted in the table in yellow:
LAND USE RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICA- TION R-1 R-1.8 R-2.5 R-3.5 R-4 R-5 R-7.5* R-10 R-15 R-20 R-30
DIMENSIONS (43) (43) (43) (43) (43) (43) (43)
Maximum Hard Surface 75 75 75 75 75 80 80 Coverage 90 90 90 90 (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (percent) (37) (39) (49)
Maximum Impervious 50 50 50 50 50 55 55 80 80 80 80 Surface (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (percent) (35) 45 45 45 45 45 50 50 65 65 65 65 (37) (39) 249 LAND USE RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICA- TION R-1 R-1.8 R-2.5 R-3.5 R-4 R-5 R-7.5* R-10 R-15 R-20 R-30
Alternative Maximum Impervious 50 50 50 50 50 55 55 80 80 80 80 Surface (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (percent) (35) (37) (39)(50)
Revising footnote 36 and Chart 20.20.010 is consistent with the intent to not reduce surface coverage limits for schools and churches and will provide clarity and predictability to applicants and staff. A motion has been provided for Council to amend the attached ordinance consistent with proposed revisions shown above.
Next Steps Staff requests the Council consider the revisions above and amend Chart 20.20.010 and footnote 36 as recommended, then adopt Ordinance as amended. Once adopted, the Ordinance will take effect on December 31, 2016. Consultants and staff are developing informational materials for staff and the public to advise them of the changes before they become effective. A final courtesy hearing before the East Bellevue Community Council is scheduled for December 6, 2016. Staff and the City’s consultants will be available on November 21 to answer any remaining questions the Council may have.
EFFECTIVE DATE If approved, this Ordinance becomes effective on December 31, 2016.
OPTIONS 1. No revision to footnote 36: Adopt Ordinance, amending Chapters 20.20 (General Development Requirements), 20.25 (Special and Overlay Districts), 20.50 (Definitions); and Part 20.30D (Planned Unit Development) of the Bellevue Land Use Code incorporating Low Impact Development Principles, and establishing an effective date. 2. Include revision to footnote 36: Adopt Ordinance, amending Section 1 by revising footnote 36 as indicated above and referencing footnote 36 to land use districts R-1 through R-7.5 for hard surfaces and alternative impervious surfaces in Chart 20.20.010 (General dimensional requirements), Chapters 20.20 (General Development Requirements), 20.25 (Special and Overlay Districts), 20.50 (Definitions); and Part 20.30D (Planned Unit Development) of the Bellevue Land Use Code incorporating Low Impact Development Principles, and establishing an effective date. 3. Provide alternative direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Option 2
250
MOTION Motion to adopt staff recommendation: Move to adopt Ordinance No. 6323, amending Section 1 by revising footnote 36 as indicated above and referencing footnote 36 to land use districts R-1 through R-7.5 for hard surfaces and alternative impervious surfaces in Chart 20.20.010 (General dimensional requirements), Chapters 20.20 (General Development Requirements), 20.25 (Special and Overlay Districts), 20.50 (Definitions); and Part 20.30D (Planned Unit Development) of the Bellevue Land Use Code incorporating Low Impact Development Principles, and establishing an effective date.
ATTACHMENT Proposed Ordinance No. 6323
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL DOCUMENT LIBRARY N/A
251 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6323
AN ORDINANCE amending the City of Bellevue Land Use Code to incorporate Low Impact Development Principles by amending Chapters 20.20 (General Development Requirements); 20.25 (Special and Overlay Districts); 20.50 (Definitions); and Part 20.30D (Planned Unit Development); providing for severability; and establishing an effective date.
WHEREAS, the City of Bellevue (the "City") is subject to the terms of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) and Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit (“Phase II Permit” or "Permit"), issued August 1, 2012, and modified on January 16, 2014, by the State of Washington Department of Ecology ("Ecology") in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act and state law; and
WHEREAS the Permit requires that the City review, revise and make effective development-related codes, rules, standards, or other enforceable documents to incorporate and require Low Impact Development (“LID”) principles by December 31, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the revisions under the Permit are to make low impact development the preferred and commonly-used approach to site development; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated the LID Principles Project in order to review its existing development-related codes, rules, standards, or other enforceable documents in September of 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City’s review of its documents followed a process similar to that outlined in Integrating LID into Local Codes: A Guidebook for Local Governments (Puget Sound Partnership, 2012), as required under the Permit; and
WHEREAS, in August 2015,following substantial work by the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted updated low impact development policies into the Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, making low impact development the preferred and commonly- used approach to site development to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff is a goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and
252
1 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments beginning on July 27, 2016, and finishing on September 14, 2016, after providing legally required public notice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after holding the public hearing, unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed land use code amendments; and
WHEREAS the City Council finds that the proposed amendments meet the decision criteria of LUG 20.30J.135, are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, enhance the public safety and welfare, and are not contrary to the best interests of the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the City’s Environmental Procedures Code, chapter 22.02 BCC; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chart 20.20.010 (Uses in land use districts, Dimensional) (Residential) requirements, of the Bellevue Land Use Code, is hereby amended as follows:
1. Under the row titled “Maximum Lot Coverage by Structures” insert a new row titled: “Maximum Hard Surface Coverage (percent)”. a. To this new row, add the following Maximum Hard Surface coverage limits to each residential land use district column as indicated: i. R-1 through R-4: 75; ii. R-5 and R-7.5: 80; and iii. R-10 through R-30: 90. b. Add footnotes (37), (39), and (47) to the heading row for Maximum Hard Surface Coverage (percent). 2. Amend the existing row titled “Maximum Impervious Surface (percent)” as follows: a. Amend the surface coverage limits for each land use district: i. R-1 through R-4: 45; ii. R-5 and R-7.5: 55; and iii. R-10 through R-30: 65. 3. Under the existing row titled “Maximum Impervious Surface (percent)” insert a new row titled: “Alternative Maximum Impervious Surface (percent)”. 253
2 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
a. To this new row, add the following Alternative Maximum Impervious Surface limits to each residential land use district column as indicated: i. R-1 through R-4: 50; ii. R-5 and R-7.5: 55; and iii. R-10 through R-30: 80. b. Add footnote (36) to columns R-1 through R-7.5 c. Add footnotes (35), (37), (39) and (48) to the heading row for the new row, “Alternative Maximum Impervious Surface (percent)”.
Section 2. Chart 20.20.010 (Uses in land use districts, Dimensional) (Commercial land use districts) requirements, of the Bellevue Land Use Code, is hereby amended as follows:
4. Under the row titled “Maximum Lot Coverage by Structures” insert a new row titled: “Maximum Hard Surface Coverage (percent)”. a. To this new row, add the following Maximum Hard Surface coverage limits to each residential land use district column as indicated: i. PO, O, OLB, GC, CB, F2 and F3: 85; ii. LI: 90; and iii. NB: 80. b. Add footnotes (37) and (47) to the heading row for “Maximum Hard Surface Coverage (percent)”. 5. Amend the existing row titled “Maximum Impervious Surface (percent)” as follows: a. Amend the surface coverage limits for each land use district: i. PO, O, OLB, NB, F2 and F3: 60; ii. LI, GC and CB: 65; and iii. NB: 80. 6. Under the existing row titled “Maximum Impervious Surface (percent)” insert a new row titled: “Alternative Maximum Impervious Surface (percent)”. a. To this new row, add the following Alternative Maximum Impervious Surface limits by residential land use district: i. PO, O, OLB, NB, F2 and F3: 80; and ii. LI, GC and CB: 85. b. Add footnotes (35), (37), (39) and (48) to the row heading for the new row, “Alternative Maximum Impervious Surface (percent)”. 254 . . . . 3 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 3. “Notes: Uses in land use districts – Dimensional requirements following Chart 20.20.010 of the Bellevue Land Use Code are hereby amended as follows:
1. Amend footnote 36 to read: Surface limits for legally established nonconforming nonresidential uses and for new allowed nonresidential uses in these residential land use districts shall be 80 percent.” 2. Amend footnote 37 to read: (37) Maximum hard surface, maximum impervious surface and maximum lot coverage by structures are independent limitations on allowed development. All areas of lot coverage by structures are included in the calculation of total maximum impervious surface, unless such structures are excepted under LUC 20.20.460. 3. Add a new footnote 47 to read as follows: (47) See LUC 20.20.425 for exceptions and performance standards related to hard surfaces. 4. Add a new footnote 48 to read: (48) Maximum impervious surface limit only for sites where the use of permeable surfacing techniques is determined to be infeasible according to the criteria in the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, now or as hereafter amended.
Section 4. Section 20.20.025 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is amended to add a new paragraph F to read as follows:
F. Stormwater BMPs. Where feasible, Stormwater BMPs, as required by the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, now or as hereafter amended, may be located within setbacks required in LUC 20.20.010, provided they conform to the setback requirements in the City of Bellevue Storm and Surface Water Engineering Standards, now or hereafter amended.
Section 5. Chapter 20.20 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended to add a new section, 20.20.425, as follows: 20.20.425 Hard surface. A. Purpose. Limits on the total amount of hard surfaces associated with site development are desirable to minimize vegetation loss and limit stormwater runoff, which are impacted by the increased level of surface flow generated by hard surfaces. Live plant foliage and groundcover intercept stormwater by retaining or slowing the flow of precipitation to the ground, and their roots protect soil from erosion. Preservation of naturally vegetated areas is a passive stormwater management tool that effectively reduces watershed function deterioration. B. Applicability. Hard surfaces are defined in LUC 20.50, and shall include all surfaces considered impervious under 20.20.460, as well as permeable pavement 255
4 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
surfaces and vegetated roofs. The hard surface limits contained in LUC 20.20.010 and the standards of this section, shall be imposed any time a permit, approval, or review including land alteration or land development including subdivisions, short subdivisions or planned unit developments, a change in lot coverage, or a change in the area devoted to parking and circulation is required by this Code, or by the International Building Code. C. Exemptions. The following are exempted from determining maximum hard surface. These exemptions do not apply to any other Land Use Code requirement, including setbacks and limits on maximum lot coverage by structure, building code, utilities code or other applicable City of Bellevue codes or regulations. 1. Decks/Platforms. Decks and platforms constructed with gaps measuring one- eighth inch or greater between boards, so long as the surface below the deck or platform is pervious; 2. Rockeries/Retaining Walls. Rockeries and retaining walls shall be exempt from the maximum impervious surface limits; 3. Stabilization Measures. Shoreline stabilization measures shall be exempt from the maximum impervious surface limits; and 4. Landscape Features. Fences, arbors with lattice or open roof materials and similar structures, individual stepping stones placed in the ground but not cemented or held together with an impervious material, and organic mulch shall be exempt from the maximum impervious surface limits. D. Performance Standards. 1. Design shall minimize topographic modification. Changes in existing grade outside the building footprint shall be minimized. Excavation shall not exceed 10 feet. Fill shall not exceed five feet subject to the following provisions: all fill in excess of four feet shall be engineered; and engineered fill may be approved in exceptional circumstances to exceed five feet to a maximum of eight feet. Exceptional circumstances are: (1) instances where driveway access would exceed 15 percent slope if additional fill retained by the building foundation is not permitted; or (2) where the five-foot fill maximum generally is observed but limited additional fill is necessary to accommodate localized variations in topography. 2. High-value natural areas, which include, but are not limited to retained significant trees and their understory and areas of native vegetation, shall be identified during site development. Locations of buildings, roads and infrastructure shall not impact high-value natural areas. Retained significant trees and their understory, and areas of native vegetation shall be fenced and adequately protected during construction, consistent with the provisions in BCC 23.76. Native plants should be salvaged from areas to be cleared and transplanted to other areas of the site where feasible. E. Maintenance and Assurance. 256
5 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
Pervious pavement and other hard surface techniques designed to mimic shall be designed by a professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington and the plans are approved by the Director. The Director may require a maintenance plan and long-term performance assurance device to ensure the continued function of the pervious pavement or other technique.
Section 6. Section 20.20.460 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Purpose.
Limits on the total amount of impervious surfaces associated with site development are desirable to protect critical areas and limit stormwater runoff, which are impacted by the increased levels and rates of surface flow generated by impervious surfaces.
. . . . F. Existing Impervious Surfaces.
Impervious surfaces legally established on a site prior to [insert effective date of ordinance], and which exceed the limits set forth in LUC 20.20.010 and Chapter 20.25 LUC shall not be considered nonconforming. Proposals to increase impervious surface on a site shall conform to the limits of LUC 20.20.010 and Chapter 20.25 LUC; where a site already exceeds the allowed amount of impervious surface, the additional impervious surface shall not be approved unless an equal amount of existing impervious surface is removed such that the net amount of impervious surface is unchanged. G. Innovative Techniques.
Surfaces paved with permeable pavement or other innovative techniques designed to mimic the function of a pervious surface shall not be included in the calculation of impervious surface areas, so long as the technique is designed by a professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington and the plans are approved by the Director. These surfaces, however, shall be included in the calculation of maximum hard surface areas. The Director may require a maintenance plan and long-term performance assurance device to ensure the continued function of the pervious permeable pavement or other technique
Section 7. Section 20.20.590.K.8.c.i of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
. . . .
K. Parking Area and Circulation Improvements and Design.
Parking of vehicles for all uses is only permitted in parking areas that meet the requirements of this section; except that, vehicles on residential lots may also be parked in areas that meet the requirements of LUC 20.20.720 and 20.20.890 257 relating to the storage of recreational vehicles and trailers. 6 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
. . . . 8. Internal Walkways.
a. When Required. The property owner shall install internal walkways in each new development or substantial remodel of existing development in R-10, R-15, R-20, R-30, NB, PO, O, OLB, OLB-OS, CB, LI, GC, MI or Downtown Land Use Districts. In addition, schools in all land use districts shall install internal walkways in each new facility or substantial remodel of an existing facility.
b. Location. The property owner shall provide internal walkways around the building to the extent necessary to assure safe access to the building from parking areas, adjacent properties, and public sidewalks or street rights-of-way and to assure consistency with the requirements of Part 20.25A LUC. All required internal walkways must be located and constructed as an integrated part of existing sidewalks and pedestrian trails, and must coordinate with City plans for pedestrian circulation, including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Plan, formed or planned Local Improvement Districts, and approved Capital Improvement Projects.
c. Design Criteria. Except as otherwise specified in Part 20.25A LUC, internal walkways provided pursuant to this section must be designed and installed in conformance with the following:
i. Surface Materials. Internal walkways must be paved with hard- surfaced material such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, tile, permeable pavement, etc. Only nonskid paving may be used in walkway construction. . . . .
Section 8. Section 20.25A.060.A of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. Walkways and Sidewalks – Perimeter.
1. Minimum Width.
a. The minimum width of perimeter walkway or sidewalk on the streets identified in this paragraph is 16 feet plus a 6-inch curb. Included within that 16 feet and adjacent to the curb, there shall be a planter strip or tree pit as prescribed by Plate A of this section:
i. NE 6th between 110th Avenue NE and 112th Avenue NE; and ii. 106th Avenue NE between NE 4th and NE 8th; and iii. 108th Avenue NE between NE 4th and NE 8th; and iv. 110th Avenue NE between NE 4th and NE 8th; and 258
7 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
v. Bellevue Way between Main and NE 12th; and vi. NE 4th between 100th Avenue NE and 112th Avenue NE; and vii. NE 8th between 100th Avenue NE and 112th Avenue NE.
b. Along any other street not listed in subsection A.1.a of this section, the minimum width of a perimeter walkway or sidewalk is 12 feet plus a 6-inch curb. Included in that 12 feet and adjacent to the curb, there shall be a planter strip or tree pit as prescribed in Plate A of this section.
c. Within the width of the walkway or sidewalk, at least six feet of unobstructed travel path shall be maintained for safe pedestrian access.
d. Planter Strips and Tree Pits.
Planter strips shall be at least five feet wide and as long as the street frontage, excluding curb cuts, driveways and spacing for utilities. Planter strips and tree pits shall be located adjacent to the curb unless precluded by existing utilities which cannot be reasonably relocated. Tree pits may shall be covered with protective grate or pavers. Where stormwater facilities are used in conjunction with tree pits, removable gates shall be utilized.
2. Street Trees and Landscaping – Perimeter.
a. Tree Species. The property owner shall install street trees, in addition to any landscaping required by LUC 20.25A.040, according to the requirements of Plate B of this section as now or hereafter amended and this section.
b. Installation. Street trees, at least 2.5 inches in caliper or as approved by the Director, must be planted at least 3 feet from the face of the street curb, and a maximum of 20 feet for small trees, 25 feet for medium trees, and 30 feet for large trees. The size of the tree shall be determined by Plate B of this section, as now or hereafter amended. A street tree planting area may also include decorative paving and other plant materials except grass that requires mowing. The use of planter strips for stormwater treatment is encouraged. Installation shall be in accordance with the Parks and Community Services Department Environmental Best Management Practices and Design Standards, as now or hereafter amended.
c. Irrigation. A permanent automatic irrigation system shall be provided at the time of installation of street trees and sidewalk planting strip landscaping located in a required planter strip or tree pit. The irrigation system shall be served by a separate water meter installed by the applicant and served by City-owned water supply with 24-hour access by the City. The use of rainwater to supplement irrigation is encouraged. Irrigation system shall be designed per the Parks and Community Services Department Environmental Best Management Practices and Design Standards, as now or hereafter amended. 259
8 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
d. Street Landscaping. Street trees together with shrubbery, groundcover and other approved plantings are required in a planter strip along the length of the frontage. Vegetation included in the planter strip shall be able to withstand urban conditions, shall be compatible with other plantings along the same street, and shall reflect the character of the area within which they are planted, as approved by the Director.
Section 9. Section 20.25A.090.D.4 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
4. Landscape Development.
a. General. The standards of this paragraph supplement other landscape requirements of this Part 20.25A and LUC 20.20.520 for development in the Perimeter Design District.
b. Linear Buffers.
i. General. Any development situated within Perimeter Design District – Subdistrict A shall provide a “linear buffer” within the minimum setback adjacent to the Downtown boundary required by paragraph D.2 of this section. The purpose of this feature is to produce a green buffer that will soften the visual impact of the relatively larger buildings. These design standards are minimum requirements for the size and quantity of trees, shrubs and other “linear buffer” elements. The specific design of the “linear buffer” for each project site will be determined through the Design Review Process. Design considerations include but are not limited to the placement of elements and their relationship to adjacent property as well as to the proposed development. Different sets of design standards apply to each of the locational conditions.
ii. Where the Downtown boundary falls within the Main Street, 100th Avenue NE or NE 12th Street right-of-way, the minimum setback from the Downtown boundary shall be landscaped according to the basic requirements and either Alternative A or B of the supplemental requirement.
(1) Basic Requirements (applicable in all cases):
(a) Must have a minimum width of 20 feet;
(b) Must abut and be within three feet in elevation of a sidewalk, so as to be visually and physically accessible;
(c) Must provide at least one sitting space for each 200 square feet of the perimeter setback area;
(d) May not be used for parking; vehicular access drives shall be kept to a minimum; 260
9 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
(e) Must be readily accessible to the public at all times;
(f) Must include seasonal color in an amount of at least 10 percent of the perimeter setback area.
(g) Must utilize native species for at least 50 percent of the plantings located within the perimeter setback area.
(2) Supplemental Requirements:
(a) Alternative A:
(i) Three deciduous trees, with a minimum caliper of three inches, per each 1,000 square feet of the perimeter setback area; and
(ii) Two flowering trees, with a minimum caliper of two inches, per each 1,000 square feet of perimeter setback area; and
(iii) Ten evergreen shrubs, minimum five-gallon size, per 1,000 square feet of the perimeter setback area; and
(iv) Any paved surfaces shall be no more than 10 percent of the perimeter setback area; and
(v) Planting area must either be raised or sloped. If raised, the planting area shall be surrounded by a wall with a minimum height of 18 inches and a maximum height of 24 inches to allow for sitting.
(b) Alternative B:
(i) Three deciduous trees, with a minimum caliper of three inches, per each 1,000 square feet of the perimeter setback area; and
(ii) Lawn greater than five feet in width or ground cover on at least 25 percent of the perimeter setback area; and
(iii) Any paved surfaces shall be no more than 75 percent of the perimeter setback area; and
(iv) Paved areas shall use pervious pavement, brick, stone or tile in a pattern and texture that is level and slip-resistant; and
(v) Opportunities for pedestrian flow from the sidewalk shall be frequent and direct. Changes in grade between the linear buffer and sidewalk shall be accommodated by steps or terraces, rather than walls. 261
10 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
iii. Where the Downtown boundary abuts property outside the Downtown other than right-of-way described in paragraph D.4.b.ii of this section, the minimum setback from the Downtown boundary (or perimeter property lines when the setback has been relocated pursuant to Note 10 of subsection 20.25A.090.D.2) shall be landscaped as follows:
(1) The entire setback (20 feet) shall be planted. No portion may be paved except for vehicular entrance drives and required mid-block pedestrian connections.
(2) The setback must incorporate a berm having a minimum height of three and one-half feet.
(3) The setback must be planted with:
(a) Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent deciduous, a minimum of 10 feet in height, at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center; and
(b) Evergreen shrubs, a minimum of two-gallon in size, at a spacing of three feet on center; and
(c) Living ground cover so that the entire remaining area will be covered in three years.
c. Street Trees. Street trees required by LUC 20.25A.060.C along Main Street, 100th Avenue NE or NE 12th Street must be at least four inches in caliper.
. . . .
Section 10. Section 20.25A.110.B.4.B of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
B. Require retention of significant existing vegetation, where it can be incorporated into efficient site design and maintained in a safe and healthful condition.
Section 11. Section 20.25B.040.C.2 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
C. Landscaping, Open Space and Buffers.
1. Landscaping. All landscaping shall comply with standards set forth in LUC 20.20.520. The provisions of LUC 20.20.520.J (Alternative Landscaping Option) are applicable and, in addition, may be used to modify up to 10 feet of required street frontage landscaping. 262
11 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
2. Buffer.
a. A landscaped buffer, at least 20 feet in width, shall be provided along the entire street frontage where any portion of the street frontage is abutting a district receiving transition and along the interior property line abutting the district receiving transition. Where feasible, bioretention swales and planters may be located within landscaped buffers.
. . . .
Section 12. Section 20.25D.150.B.4 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
4. Protect and Enhance Surface Water Resources.
a. Intent.
Conserve water quality, natural hydrology and habitat, and preserve biodiversity through protection of water bodies and wetlands.
b. Guideline.
Natural water systems regulate water supply, provide biological habitat and may provide recreational opportunities. Undeveloped ecosystems absorb the precipitation and convey only a small portion of rainfall as surface runoff. New and infill development should minimize disturbances to the on-site, adjacent, and regional natural water systems. Use of natural drainage practices are required unless infeasible.
c. Recommended.
i. Grading and plan layout that captures and slows runoff.
ii. Pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate soil.
. . . .
Section 13. Section 20.25F.040.C.4 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
4. Drainage. The applicant must submit a drainage plan consistent with the development standards of the City of Redmond and the City of Bellevue which produce the more protective drainage system as determined by the Redmond Public Works Director and the Bellevue Utilities Director. The use of LID stormwater management techniques is required unless infeasible. 263
12 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
Section 14. Section 20.25F1.070 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. Perimeter Sidewalks. 1. Minimum Width. The minimum width of perimeter street sidewalks shall be 12 feet inclusive of the planter strip plus six inches for curb, except as necessary to retain mature trees pursuant to paragraph A.2.e below. 2. Street Trees And Planter Strip Design. a. Installation. The property owner shall install street trees and planter strips, in addition to any landscaping required by LUC 20.25F1.050, pursuant to the City of Bellevue Environmental Best Management Practices and Design Standards, now or as hereafter amended. Street tree and planter strips shall be irrigated. Appropriate tree species will be determined through the Master Development Plan process. b. Location. The area in which planter strips are installed must be located between the street and the sidewalk unless precluded by existing utilities which cannot reasonably be relocated or as necessary to retain mature trees pursuant to paragraph A.2.e below. c. Design. Required street trees should be placed in predominantly continuous planter strips together with shrubbery, ground cover and other plantings approved by the Director. The area in which street trees are planted must be at least four feet wide by six feet wide. Vegetation approved for a planter strip must be compatible with the F1 Design Guidelines for the development area within which the planter strip is located. A street planter strip may also include decorative paving and other plant materials except turf. Where feasible, bioretention swales and planters may be located within the planter strip. d. Size and Spacing. Large growing deciduous street trees, at least three inches in caliper or as approved by the Director, shall be planted at least three feet from the street curb, and a maximum of 30 feet on center, and shall conform to the sight distance requirements of BCC 14.60.240. e. Mature Tree Retention. The existing mature street trees located on the perimeter street frontages shall be maintained to the extent feasible. Sidewalks and planter strips may be reduced and/or relocated to the back of sidewalk if necessary to accommodate retention of the mature trees.
B. On-Site Sidewalks. 1. Minimum Width. The minimum width of on-site street sidewalks shall be 12 feet inclusive of the street tree planting wells. 2. Street Trees and Plantings. a. Installation. The property owner shall install street trees and plantings, in addition to any landscaping required by LUC 20.25F1.050, pursuant to the City of 264 Bellevue Environmental Best Management Practices and Design Standards, now or 13 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
as hereafter amended. Street trees and required landscaping shall be irrigated. Appropriate tree species will be determined through the Master Development Plan process. b. Location. Street trees shall be planted in a continuous, rhythmic pattern. Street trees must be located between the street and the sidewalk. c. Design. Required street trees shall be planted in tree pits with grates. The area in which street trees are planted must be at least four feet wide by six feet wide. Where stormwater facilities are used in conjunction with tree pits, removable grates shall be utilized. d. Size and Spacing. Small growing pedestrian-scale deciduous street trees, at least three inches in caliper or as approved by the Director, shall be planted at least three feet from the street curb, and a maximum of 25 feet on center, and shall conform to the sight distance requirements of BCC 14.60.240. . . . .
Section 15. Section 20.25H.080.A of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. General. Development on sites with a type S or F stream or associated critical area buffer shall incorporate the following performance standards in design of the development, as applicable: 1. Lights shall be directed away from the stream. 2. Activity that generates noise such as parking lots, generators, and residential uses shall be located away from the stream or any noise shall be minimized through use of design and insulation techniques. 3. Toxic runoff from new impervious area shall be routed away from the stream. 4. Treated water may be allowed to enter the stream critical area buffer. 5. The outer edge of the stream critical area buffer shall be planted with dense vegetation to limit pet or human use. Preference shall be given to native species. 6. Use of pesticides, insecticides and fertilizers within 150 feet of the edge of the stream critical area buffer shall be in accordance with the City of Bellevue’s “Environmental Best Management Practices,” now or as hereafter amended.
Section 16. Section 20.25J.070.A.2 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. Sidewalks. 265
14 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
1. Minimum Width. The minimum width of sidewalks located on NE 8th Street, NE 12th Street, 116th Avenue NE and NE 10th Street east of East Campus Drive is eight feet plus four feet in which street plantings are to be installed plus six inches of curb along any street. 2. Street Trees and Plantings. a. The property owner shall install street trees and plantings, in addition to any landscaping required by LUC 20.25J.060. Appropriate tree species will be determined through the Master Development Plan or Design Review where Master Development Plan approval is not required. b. The area in which street plantings are installed must be located between the street and the sidewalk unless precluded by existing utilities which cannot reasonably be relocated. Required street trees together with shrubbery, groundcover and other approved plantings must be placed in a planter strip along the length of the frontage. Where feasible, bioretention swales and planters may be located within the planter strip. The planter strip must be at least four feet wide unless a smaller strip is approved by the Director. Vegetation included in the planter strip shall be urban in character, shall be compatible with other plantings within the property and along the same street, and shall reflect the character of the area in which they are planted. Designs should prioritize the selection of native species. c. Street trees, at least three inches in caliper or as approved by the Director, must be planted at least three feet from the street curb, and a maximum of 25 feet on center, unless upon request of the applicant minor modification of this requirement is approved by the Director, and conforms to the sight distance requirements of BCC 14.60.240. A street tree planting area may also include decorative paving and other plant materials except turf. d. Street trees and plantings shall be irrigated.
. . . .
Section 17. Section 20.30D.150 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
The City may approve or approve with modifications a Planned Unit Development plan if: A. The Planned Unit Development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and B. The Planned Unit Development accomplishes, by the use of permitted flexibility and variation in design, a development that is better than that resulting from traditional development. Net benefit to the City may be demonstrated by one or more of the following: 1. Placement, type or reduced bulk of structures, or 2. Interconnected usable open space, or 266
15 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
3. Recreation facilities, or 4. Other public facilities, or 5. Conservation of natural features, vegetation and on-site soils, or 6. Reduction in hard surfaces, or 7. Conservation of critical areas and critical area buffers beyond that required under Part 20.25H LUC, or 8. Aesthetic features and harmonious design, or 9. Energy efficient site design or building features, or 10. Use of low impact development techniques; and . . . . Section 18. Section 20.30D.165 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows: A. Density and Floor Area Ratio. 1. General. The applicant may request a bonus in the number of dwelling units permitted by the underlying land use district or the maximum FAR (see general dimensional requirements contained in LUC 20.20.010), and district- specific requirements contained in Chapter 20.25 LUC. 2. Bonus Decision Criteria. The City may approve a bonus in the number of dwelling units allowed by no more than 10 percent over the base density for proposals complying with this subsection A.2. Base density shall be determined on sites with critical areas or critical area buffers pursuant to LUC 20.25H.045. Base density on all other sites shall be determined based on the gross land area of the property excluding either that area utilized for traffic circulation roads or 20 percent, whichever is less. The bonus allowed by this section may be approved only if: a. The design of the development offsets the impact of the increase in density; and b. The increase in density is compatible with existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 3. Senior Citizen Dwelling. An additional 10 percent density bonus may be approved for senior citizen dwellings if the criteria in subsection A.2 of this section are met and if the average dwelling unit size does not exceed 600 square feet. B. Height. 267
16 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
The applicant may request a modification of height from that allowed by the land use district, provided topography and arrangement of structures does not unreasonably impair primary scenic views (e.g., mountains, lakes, unique skylines) of the surrounding area, as compared to lot-by-lot development. Proposals earning bonus density pursuant to this section or LUC 20.30D.167 may only receive an increase in height if the requirements of subsection A.2 of this section are met, considering the impact of increased height. C. Zero Lot Line. This is a configuration where the house and/or garage is built up to one of the side lot lines, providing the opportunity for more usable space in the opposing side yard. 1. General. The applicant may request a reduction in the required side setback from that required by the land use district and district specific requirements. Zero lot line setbacks are not permitted for side yards along the perimeter of the PUD. 2. Setback Reduction Decision Criteria. The City may approve a reduction in the setback of up to one side setback. The reduction in side setback shall be approved only if: a. The opposing side setback shall be at least 10 feet. b. In order to maintain privacy, no windows, doors, air conditioning units, or any other types of openings in the walls along the zero lot line wall, except for windows that do not allow for visibility into the side yard of the adjacent lot. D. Other. The City may approve a modification of any provision of the Land Use Code, except as provided in LUC 20.30D.170, if the resulting site development complies with the criteria of this part. Section 19. Section 20.30D.167 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: The following provisions of the Land Use Code may not be modified pursuant to LUC 20.30D.165: A. Any provision of this Part 20.30D, Planned Unit Development; or B. Any provision of LUC 20.10.440, Land Use Chart, and district-specific requirements contained in Chapter 20.25 LUC, except where district-specific requirements would prohibit Zero Lot-Line development, as provided for in section 20.30D.165.C (Zero Lot-Line); or C. Any provision of Part 20.25E LUC, the Shoreline Overlay District; however, requests for modifications to the requirements of Part 20.25E LUC, where allowed under the provisions of that part, may be considered together with an 268 application for a Planned Unit Development; or 17 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
D. Any provision of the Land Use Code which specifically states that it is not subject to modification; or E. The procedural, enforcement and administrative provisions of the Land Use Code or any other applicable City Code; or F. Any provision of Part 20.25H LUC, the Critical Areas Overlay District, except as specifically provided for in that part; however, requests for modifications to the requirements of Part 20.25H LUC, where allowed under the provisions of that part, may be considered together with an application for a Planned Unit Development.
Section 20. Section 20.50.024 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
. . . .
Hard Surface. An impervious surface, permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof.
. . . .
Section 21. Section 20.50.026 of the Bellevue Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
Impervious Surface. Any structure or other non-vegetated surface affixed to the ground that prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil layer, or that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow rate prior to addition of such surface. “Impervious Surfaces” include, without limitation: structures, including eaves; vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian or other circulation facilities constructed of solid surfaces, including pavement, concrete, u grouted brick or stone; solid decks, patios, sport courts, swimming pools, hot tubs and similar recreation facilities; and landscape features, including sheds, arbors, and play structures.
Section 22. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Section 23. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on December 31, 2016.
269
18 1557-ORD 11/17/2016
Passed by the City Council this _____ day of , 2016 and signed in authentication of its passage this ______day of , 2016.
(SEAL)
John Stokes, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lori M. Riordan, City Attorney
Catherine A. Drews, Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Kyle Stannert, City Clerk
Published
270
19