Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial 2007-04-23 Item 3B - Agreement - Tukwila Pond Water Quality Consulting with Tetra Tech Inc COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS 0 Initials ITEM No. 4 Q 1 Meeting Date 1 Prepared by 1 Mayor's review 1 Council review 1 111 L 1 04/23/07 I SL 1 A I 1 r Vet. rsos I I 3,h I I I JTE INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 07-049 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 04/23/07 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Tukwila Pond Water Quality Consultant Contract CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 4/23/07 Mtg Date 4/23/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date illtg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PIS SPONSOR'S As part of the planning process for enhancement of Tukwila Pond as a centerpiece of the SUMMARY Tukwila Urban Center Plan and as a wildlife conservation area, the need to improve water quality and reduce possibly dangerous algal blooms was identified. It is requested that the COW recommend approval of the consultant agreement with Tetra Tech, Inc. for professional feasibility and design services for improving water quality in Tukwila Pond. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: 04/10/07 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. DCD CONDQrrEE CAP Unanimous approval to move forward to COW COST IMPACT /FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $73,186 $80,000 Fund Source: CIP Comments: r=MTG; DATE RECORD OF ;COUNCIL ACTION I 4/23/07 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 4/23/07 Information memorandum Consultant Agreement I I Minutes of CAP Meeting (4/10/07) II 6 Y -fi I City of Tukwila ila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor �1 (i 0 �4 /1� Q ���i Department of Community Development `1� P .f tY Steve Lancaster Director P 90 INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Steve Lancaster, Director, DCD Date: April 18, 2007 Subject: Tukwila Pond Water Quality Consultant Recommendation Project Number 03 -PK10 ISSUE Approval of Tetra Tech, Inc. to carry out a detailed feasibility study and design for improving water quality in Tukwila Pond. This issue was reviewed by the CAP at its meeting on April 10 at which it was agreed to forward it to the COW. BACKGROUND The City carried out a planning process in 2006 with the Council, Parks Board, Planning Commission and staff to identify goals for Tukwila Pond as an enhanced urban amenity, centerpiece for the Tukwila Urban Center Plan, and wildlife conservation area (see the attached, approved concept plan). In addition to enhancing Tukwila Pond for public and wildlife use, one of the areas of concern is the need to improve water quality and reduce potentially harmful algal blooms in the summer. A very preliminary screening study was carried out in 2006 to identify potential methods and technologies that could be used to improve water quality in the pond. This preliminary study identified the need for additional information and more detailed feasibility study, including water quality monitoring. The DCD urban environmentalist has been conducting ongoing water quality monitoring since September with the support of the Fire Department. This proposed consultant contract is to conduct the detailed feasibility study and design. It will also provide cost estimates for construction. The work under this contract will be carried out concurrently with the Tukwila Pond Trail and Boardwalk contract being managed by Parks and Recreation to take the Tukwila Pond Conceptual Design to the 55% design level. The water quality consultant and the landscape architect consultant will be coordinating on design issues that relate to water quality (such as survey data, floating dock design, and other issues). S.Whiting, h: \Tukwila Pond Plan\Water Quality Contract\InfomemoCOW.doc 04/16/07/07 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206- 431 -3670 Fax: 206 431 -3665 ANALYSIS A Request for Proposal was prepared by staff and sent out to five firms that were short- listed from the current consultant roster due to their qualifications in the area of lake management and water quality engineering. The five firms were: ESA Adolfson Associates Envirovision, Inc. Herrera Environmental Parametrix Tetra Tech, Inc. Two proposals were submitted in response to the RFP and were reviewed by a committee made up of DCD and Public Works staff. The review was based on the consultant's experience and expertise with lake management projects, quality of the technical proposal, schedule and reasonableness of the proposed budget for each task. The committee selected Tetra Tech because it was agreed that the firm's extensive qualifications and experience, strengths in engineering and the quality of the technical proposal were clearly better than the other consultant team. Tetra Tech is familiar with Tukwila Pond, as the firm carried out water quality monitoring in 1995 in conjunction with the development of Tukwila Pond Park. Tetra Tech also conducted the screening analysis in 2006. The firm has highly qualified and experienced staff in lake management issues. Therefore, Tetra Tech is recommended for this project. The projected schedule for the project is May through December of 2007. Staff will brief the CAP on preliminary findings, design and costs estimates in the fall. RECOMMENDATION Forward to the Council for action at the May 7 meeting. Attachments: Tukwila Pond Conceptual Plan S.Whiting, h: \Tukwila Pond Plan \Water Quality Contract\InfomemoCOW.doc 04/16/07/07 1: oN k ,-4-73 -1 P:1 ,7.1. --_-4,- W 4 I W w -5 :;a;3 A. :_-_-,1 T._—.=,. .,F, =::::::;Ylc 4 X 2 E_,,,Z-, f =4-0...--A-,..,:,-,::=.e2.", =f1; ---',;--------.P=Zf-e-f-,=------'4, .Zt_--E--- i 30 1-; --7 2i-- :--Y, 3 ==W 1:i i i g ?'1-' -N: ,.---i4-51;7-.----.-4_,N,,.-e-:.--:',2-C:-;_:=,1-,=-.4=-f-.-=:=1C.::=-=_---7 v ‘,--gr-.. ,*,1 ."2.-..,-, '=.-------•:--i---17--,t1-',171;-':--V:i &WA' -;A V..,_ .F,;:ii-i-,-tis_,.. „_,_,.__..,.„4„:: F r;- -,:,,-.:ii_v:_:4-_-i---;=-5.-7,_:-",-,-4:-.,-v _--f-.--=:t 4;-_;:---;----T1 ,,.*:1-.1-ii'V--ititr-t,-5:-`,±4-,S-AW---51-,:-r-CTZ1.--S-f:---_-.=.. :47.-c-_i..-_----,4.1F---",,3----t-=X=ft.tv.--- i 5:-=-7-7A4 fweg----'---1------4-;---vi'lr:',.-14■W_..--.--_..---:,,---Tik•a_.:;,-_'--5:;- -f -----5--iii---73--------Y---,t---, „r:::::,?;; ;V* _*k,„w -7 _-4-: c, -4 --f..----34-4X.,---,..,: f.W,_.. „4 „I.r7-1.4 f--_ 11. -s-`---4-_7- 47 2*----- --r- z .4. v. r.="-:--,:_-,-.-_--,,,-, 7-. i.* 0 .''A "=„7P.#- "y'4:41,-V4*-.. :A --3 1i T --..-a-PiW-----'::-:4-1:17:---It--1-; T..:". ,--T -Ffi, Ti„, t-i.z4,: l'-f=7"_ _;-j. 7-*-,,,-.----,-_,A,,__-.'1?rr,-.7:.J___-1S--7f=:= 71:::,:q=±;? -r-,,-;.W..1=-7-1--,,r -•'---:-L---....,-- -.-4 1-1=t F-r] Ail t; 'Z`-,--4, _Cir443-----4--t =,--------4 f-,, -:-_----:--.:,1-----.-,i -7-'4isr,--. -7 -7. 73-4-.-_,,-.-----M.4.--,-,'------..--- '...,------,-,--.-',-717-,-;:7===,W.,---,,,,,:,-e-':--,-- i S 1 ',..+'"_Z7 'Z- g.- ''.7- -'-.-..-.-T,,,, -',,-,-,,..."17,-",:=2,i.r,.,--,,A i. ii 1 A... -:.!---'W --1-17.1,,-,--,-,,ea..------F,E1-,,--7,,,-..:7,-,,.,-,t1-,-4-,=='-:_ ,.7 -=,_■,...„...„„7..„..".;.,. .._,--A- p.---,...-.--1,;`,*:-1,=-2L47-.,. --',-=----_--r_ '-.,.._--Tes-___.-7---t„:4-1"-St----7.-y..-.1,--.,_,„-;--rfa.._ ,-.,--Wa r.- -4,-, :f A ,1--- -t ,7,7-",--,,, ,....,7,------,-7:_ ,i",----,..•-,---_,,,-,--:.-7..f.=:-:,-7-:-;`-'7,,,,,,--.;,,,,,-t--.,-",„7=K=41,4,-.,--:',-,-_z-:,----z.7,-= 7 1 :„...---tiwa-,-.4.-=-:--,-_-,-.-.1-;.,-4,-,,,:-.....„:".,:--,-:-;--,--jjr,,i.-4,-..--...,3„-,-1.-_,_:,-, i-y: ,,,,,,,,b.--.,---,:ti---,--------,,-!--,----_,...47_,-,--_,._,.-a-,--.,--,_,... ----:-_,-------,---z,--,v.---,_-_7-NiT---z-7,- :.1 it t--- _=Y zo_ -_-_15,4;-.;-F.---Z----=4-':-= k=k F5*--5177.414:11 _-.:-4-'5S-7-t-5=4-17.-7:i71::=1;.---413.4-.----4.-"-?=77-.40T-7-1-7-:ip-=-'="-- --f- ---4:-.-------,--,111-!-F-5--:=-1-1----;----3:1-s-,7-:,--%--f-?k,,---- ,-,----------_--4.--,-.3-f.,--5,f_-----1-7.--_,.....-,__,„ ,,,_._-ti '-?,.--E- -,-,:-ii-,-:,....,--,..;-_g.--i5.-w--..---,--,,---.--,.g.--1-.-------%4-vt.r-y_k- ws-.---;Y- =.-4------r- d. -7- --r•-':,- ;--_-,w- ----.-w 4 ,---,,,:-.57----- oz --7.- t t• ,.--_1-; t,r- 7 Aft -er--4 -1 F --_,-.,-.4 _4,1-;:-;---,-_,7_ i'g=': =-gti-.t-_-,;: -...---1'-----±,--:----?,----=--------- --,.--7-,- :s -7- :77 z.E- nr -::_v---:----,-,---.. =At gliii„: i' i ._,.:2_F. ,:,-':,,,_,___„-_._I--ri,5_,,':''f-__,_..kt-=.-•--.t'?,."'zt"W'_'-_..O'-'3_-'rE;_nqn-:..a:;'.. i WrIP `'2 .A 7 f 'f '-f'---• W---":1---SitiCt-C--.I-',*71,_,,,_.„,,'-51=-42.-i&7-----;0'''''-:;Ve.....,..,‘„,-S-.,_,. ic=f ti._ -,-,-.-,==,7----..-_,Tz--!----71-_---_--1-,=-:_;,=-21-7'-----V-=-._ ---1 -,'"i---W----'1- t; ..--1,4--- tf; .7-----1 7- ww-F-"='-'-` .4 ;7 .7,--.,!_: 1:-,...- vi-._tir:._ -„.:--,,,,.._-_,„_,..„Te,...--„--,_•. r,_,,,___: 0 u u ww w wwe e-we ow E :_..7.:7-_•.„ 7 4 ....,_r_ .•••.--___.-a,,,..„.„, CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Tukwila, Washington, herein -after referred to as "the City and Tetra Tech. Inc., hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant in consideration of the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified. 1. Project Designation. The Consultant is retained by the City to perform lake management feasibility study and design services in connection with the project titled Tukwila Pond Water Oualitv Improvements. 2. Scope of Services. The Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, including the provision of all labor, materials, equipment and supplies. 3. Time for Performance. Work under this contract shall commence upon the giving of written notice by the City to the Consultant to proceed. The Consultant shall perform all services and provide all work product required pursuant to this Agreement within 240 calendar days from the date written notice is given to proceed, unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City. sh all paid by the City for completed Payment. The Consultant be Y P Y tY leted work and for services p rendered under this Agreement as follows: A. Payment for the work provided by the Consultant shall be made as provided on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, provided that the total amount of payment to the Consultant shall not exceed $73,186.00 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the City. B. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City once per month during the progress of the work for partial payment for that portion of the project completed to date. Such vouchers will be checked by the City and, upon approval thereof, payment shall be made to the Consultant in the amount approved. C. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the total contract price earned will be made promptly upon its ascertainment and verification by the City after the completion of the work under this Agreement and its acceptance by the City. D. Payment is provided in this section shall be full compensation for work performed, services rendered, and for all materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. E. The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City and state for a period of three (3) years after fmal payments. Copies shall be made available upon request. 5. Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, drawings, specifications and other materials produced by the Consultant in connection with the services rendered under this Agreement shall be the property of the City whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible copies, of drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in connection with the Consultant's endeavors. The Consultant shall not be responsible for any use of the said documents, drawings, specifications or other materials by the City on any project other than the project specified in this Agreement. 6. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall, in performing the services contemplated by this Agreement, faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations, applicable to the services to be rendered under this Agreement. 7. Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, including attorney's fees, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by any act, omission or failure of the Consultant, its officers, agents and employees, in performing the work required by this Agreement. With respect to the perform- ance of this Agreement and as to claims against the City, its officers, agents and employees, the Consultant expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees, and agrees that the obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for in this paragraph extends to any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the Consultant. This waiver is mutually negotiated by the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to any damage resulting from the sole negligence of the City, its agents and employees. To the extent any of the damages referenced by this paragraph were caused by or resulted from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents or employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless is valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Consultant, its officers, agents and employees. 8. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in force throughout the duration of this contract comprehensive general liability insurance, with a minimum coverage of $500,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; and $500,000 per occurrence/ aggregate for property damage, and professional liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. Said general liability policy shall name the City of Tukwila as an additional named insured and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage as required by this section shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. 9. Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant is an inde- pendent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee 2 between the parties hereto. Neither the Consultant nor any employee of the Consultant shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or for contributing to the state industrial insurance program, otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the Consultant, or any employee of the Consultant. 10. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, creed, age, sex or the presence of any physical or sensory handicap in the selection and retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies. 12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. 13. Non Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 14. Termination. A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice to the Consultant. B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses. 15. Attorneys Fees and Costs. In the event either party shall bring suit against the other to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such suit shall be entitled to recover its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in such suit from the losing ply. 3 16. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address: City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Tetra Tech. Inc. 1420 5 Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle. WA 981801 17. Integrated Agreement. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both the City and the Consultant. DA'Z'ED this day of 2007 CITY OF TUKWILA CONSULTANT By: Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Printed Name: Title: Attest/Authenticated: Approved as to Form: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Office of the City Attorney 4 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work Lake Management Services for Tukwila Pond City of Tukwila Tetra Tech, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 206.728.9655 March 22, 2007 The following is a brief description of the scope of work to be performed by Tetra Tech (Tt) in support of the City of Tukwila's efforts to improve the environmental condition of Tukwila Pond. Task 1 Data Review. Tt will review existing data provide by the City and identify data gaps. The City will also provide Tt infrastructure drawing of information as requested for Tt feasibility study of alternatives. It is assumed that Pond inflows and outflows will be monitored by the City for quantity as well as Pond level in order to determine a water budget. Phosphorus content of inflows and groundwater will also be determined in samples collected by City personnel. Task 2 Conceptual Phosphorus Model. Tt will construct a simple conceptual mass balance model using the water and phosphorus budgets with chlorophyll prediction to illustrate the probably importance and magnitude of internal versus external loading seasonally and to estimate relative impact of alternative implementation. Task 3 Stormwater Recommendations. Tt will make Stormwater management recommendations, treatment of external phosphorus sources will be considered with respect to their relative magnitude of effect on the Pond seasonally relative to cost. These best management practices will be sustainable biofiltration or infiltration type systems. Task 4 SW Pond Planting Plan. Tt will provide a southwest pond planting plan. The key to identifying the plants that will successfully establish in this section of the pond is based on developing an understanding of the sediment and inundation cycle, which Tt will do through direct observation and City input. Task 5 Feasibility Study. Tt will conduct a feasibility/design study analysis, a preliminary assessment of the causes for the pond's poor quality relative to type and prospects for in -pond quality control activities to be included in this analysis include circulation, hydroponic docks, P- inactivation, and dilution. This assessment and estimates of environmental benefits will be further refined with additional data during the study. Task 6 Design and Cost Estimate. Based on the results of the feasibility analysis Tt will design in -lake activities. Tt will provide preliminary and final design drawings, specifications and costs for installing recommended techniques. Task 7 Operation and Maintenance Plan. Tt will produce an operation and maintenance plan, with guidance for maintenance of recommended control activities based on technology and team experience. Task 8 Monitoring Plan. Tt will recommend an ongoing pond monitoring plan for adaptive management uses in future years. Task 9 Contingency Plan. Tt will design a emergency contingency plan to take effect if implemented control measure fails to meet expectations in a given year. For example, if an algal bloom develops after the hydroponic docks are established an alum treatment will be planned and may be employed as a contingency measure. Tasks 10 Permit Support. Tt will assist the City by identifying required permits and by preparing permit application materials. Task 11 Meetings. Tt will prepare for and attend three meetings with City Staff to discuss findings and recommended activities and design specifics. Task 12 Project Management. Tt project management will be conducted for team coordination and direct communication with City staff, product quality assurance and control will be conducted as well as monthly invoicing under this task. EXHIBIT B Budget Estimate Lake Management Services for Tukwila Pond City of Tukwila Tetra Tech, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 206.728.9655 March 22, 2007 Tukwila Pond Lake Management Services Budget Estimate Task Labor, ODCs Budget hours PM 1 PE 1 Eng 1 limo 1 Env Sci 1 1 $172/hr $126/hr 1 $110/hr $80/hr 1 $80/hr 1 1 Data Review 1 4 8 4 8 1 4 $50 1 $3,506 12 Conceptual P Model 1 8 1 8 16 1 $50 1 $3,706 3 Stormwater 4 8 $50 $1,746 Recommendations 4 SW Planting Plan 1 4 12 $50 1 $1,698 1 1 5 Feasibility Study 1 20 32 48 24 1 32 1 $500 1 $18,812 1 6 Design and Cost 24 48 60 16 32 $500 $21,836 Estimate 1 7 O& M Plan 2 8 1 1 8 $50 $1,914 1 8 Monitoring Plan 2 2 1 8 $50 $1,034 1 9 Contingency Plan 8 8 4 1 4 $50 $3,004 10 Permitting Support 4 16 1 16 16 $50 $4,278 11 City Staff Meetings 12 12 12 $250 $6,786 Project Management 28 $50 $4,866 Total Project Costs 120 116 136 f 78 1 144 $1,700 $73,186 _o ;s City of Tukwilaa o f i z Community Affairs and Parks Committee 1 903 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Meeting Minutes April 10, 2007 5:00 p.m. PRESENT Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Pam Carter, Dennis Robertson Staff: Nora Gierloff, Katherine Kertzman, Steve Lancaster, Jack Pace, Derek Speck, Sandra Whiting Guests: Lynn Pederson CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations II. BUSINESS AGENDA a) Expanding Seattle Southside brand to include regional economic development Derek Speck introduced the agenda item. The Southwest King County Economic Development Initiative (SKCEDI) is a collaboration of the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park, SeaTac, and Tukwila plus King County, the Port of Seattle, and Hi &line Community College. SKCEDI will be jointly marketing the area to attract business and development and needs an identity to use for the printed marketing materials and website. The group is considering using the Seattle Southside brand and is seeking feedback on this approach from the Cities of Tukwila and SeaTac, since they own the brand. Tukwila and SeaTac city staff are checking with their respective lodging tax committees, administration, and elected officials. Staff is also checking with representatives from the business and development sectors. Katherine Kertzman described the genesis of the Seattle Southside brand and how it has been used for attracting tourists to our region. She explained that with the proper safeguards to protect the use of the brand, the Seattle Southside brand could be used for business attraction without harming the tourism efforts. Councilmember Robertson asked about the benefits to Seattle Southside, and the City of Tukwila and if it would distract from Seattle Southside's tourism efforts. Ms. Kertzman indicated that expansion of the brand's awareness will benefit the tourism efforts and that regional growth helps Tukwila, and she doesn't anticipate needing additional resources for this proposal. Councilmember Carter indicated she thought this was a good idea. Councilmember Linder commented that what helps neighboring cities helps Tukwila. INFORMATION ONLY b) Tukwila Pond Water Oualitv Consultant Contract Sandra Whiting introduced the agenda item and described the process for soliciting and selecting a consultant to conduct a feasibility study and design for improving water quality in Tukwila Pond. An RFP was sent to five firms. Two proposals were received and a staff committee judged Tetra Tech, Inc. as the best proposal based on their experience, the technical proposal and the budget. Staff also checked references, which were all positive. Work would be complete by end of 2007. Ms. Whiting mentioned that the primary challenge will be controlling phosphorus levels in the water and the study will look at number of alternatives. She sees no conflicts between the water quality design work and the landscape design project being managed by Parks and Recreation and doesn't think it needs to wait until completion of the water quality study. In fact the two projects were designed to proceed concurrently and coordination between the two consultants is planned. Councilmember Robertson commented that with the City's vision for the Urban Center that encourages more development and residential activity that the water quality study Community Affairs and Parks Committee Meeting Minutes April 10. 2007 Page 2 should not limit itself only to low -cost or "in- pond "solutions. He asked if we have looked at other potential problems besides phosphorous. Ms. Whiting said she has examined bacteria loads but has not found a problem. Also, she believes that the consultant will be looking at the best technical options for improving the pond water quality. Councilmember Carter expressed support for the study and the concept of the pond being a habitat rather than a place for people to swim. Mr. Pace offered to share the preliminary analysis in September before all of the analysis is completed. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO COW. As a related issue, the committee discussed the consultant selection for the Tukwila Pond Park design Phase I that was discussed at the April 9, 2007 Council meeting. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. c) Code Amendments SEPA Nora Gierloff introduced this item. It would streamline the SEPA process and thresholds to eliminate review or shorten timelines for smaller projects when environmental impacts are unlikely. Ms. Gierloff referred to the table in the agenda report that compared Tukwila's thresholds to the State maximum and the proposed. Mr. Pace noted that most buildings would go through a design review process. Mr. Lancaster mentioned that with traffic concurrency and impact fee systems, we no longer rely on SEPA for mitigating traffic impacts like we once did. Councilmember Robertson asked if these changes would reduce our ability to control small infill developments on hillsides. Mr. Pace indicated that our sensitive areas ordinance addresses steep slope sites and tree permits and other regulations still apply. Councilmember Carter asked what would catch environmental issues like underground storage tanks? Mr. Pace and Ms. Whiting explained that owners have a responsibility to disclose and often the lenders require the analysis. Mr. Lancaster said that if an owner didn't disclose it, SEPA wouldn't have caught it anyway. Councilmember Robertson asked how these changes would have affected the City's process on a previous Fosterview development. Mr. Lancaster indicated that it would have had no effect on Fosterview, since that development included more than 9 dwelling units. He acknowledged it might eliminate a source of information that citizens are used to receiving on smaller residential developments (those between 4 and 9 units). He also noted that if any of the thresholds in the table are exceeded, SEPA is triggered, even if the proposed development is below any of the other thresholds.. Councilmember Robertson expressed support for the changes but also a desire to keep tools for the City to ensure the right kind of development. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL ON ALL CHANGES BUT KEEPING THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLD AT FOUR DWELLING UNITS INSTEAD OF THE PROPOSED NINE. FORWARD TO COW. TOWNHOUSES Nora Gierloff introduced this item. It would change the Zoning Code to allow for development of fee simple townhomes. Some changes, such as minimum lot area, average lot width, setbacks and landscaping, would be necessary to allow fee simple townhouses since our development standards are based on a multi- family garden apai talent style. Other changes would be necessary to enable a development pattern and density closer to the style of townhouses being built in other cities. One question is how prescriptive does Tukwila want to be on open space, such as requiring decks or onsite playgrounds, etc. Another issue is how to treat setbacks. The City's current tiered set -back standards may make development of fee simple economically infeasible. Councilmember Robertson expressed concern about the effects of eliminating the tiered set -back standards. Councilmember Carter emphasized that the design review process must address all sides of a building, not just the front. Ms. Gierloff discussed the current 50% development coverage limitation. Councilmember Robertson mentioned that using pervious surfaces (such as grasscrete) may be needed to ensure the development's environmental impact is not greater than development under today's standards. Councilmember Carter indicated this issue can be dealt with as the townhouse proposal goes through the approval process. She also expressed an interest in fence height being included in the design review process to minimize the amount of blank, high and solid walls facing the streets. FORWARD TO COW FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION. HOUSEKEEPING Nora Gierloff introduced this item on four amendments to the Zoning Code related to: permit processing, limitation on additions to homes that do not meet setbacks, retaining wall setbacks, and administrative variance for lot size. FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION.