Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP272899(14)
CONC RR NCE DATE. 1 0 N DATE UTILITIES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT L 0, S' (t dx( December 4,2000 Cedar River Floodplain Mapping Status Report (November 20,2000) The Utilities Committee recommends Council concurrence with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department's recommendation that the following short-term and long-term actions be taken, in coordination with the Community Services Department,to address the new flooding hazard within the Maplewood Neighborhood: 1. Notify affected citizens and businesses of the recently identified flood hazard. 2. Prepare emergency response plan in coordination with the Police and Fire Departments. 3. Procure appropriate flood fighting equipment at the cost of approximately $25,000 (estimated). 4. Develop preliminary plans and cost estimates for long-term solution. The Surface Water Utility funding to purchase the recommended flood fighting equipment is appropriated in the Miscellaneous/Emergency Storm Projects CIP fund. Dan Clawson, Chair Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Vice Chair Terri Briere, Member cc: Lys Hornsby Ron Straka H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-536.doc\RJS\GMS\tb �Po�l Pled �cVi'e Ul. CITY OF RENTON � PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: October 12,2001 2 c��L,�� TO: Jim Shephard FROM: Gregg Zimmerman SUBJECT: MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE kEGRADE PROJECT-BID W;U.L G,GESTEDrEROTQCA,L REGARDING COSTS BID RESULTS •, • The lowest,responsive bid for the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project was $132,155 (from City Transfer, inc)which is lower than the engineer's cost estimate of$139,155. A detailed worksheet is attached that shows the bid information. In addition,this worksheet shows the cost share between the Surface Water Utility and Golf Course for each construction item. • The cost for the Golf Course based on the bid award will be $29,376. The estimated cost was between $25,000 and$35,000. These golf course costs account for a specific percentage for each of following four bid items: tree removal and replacement(100%), structural fill for cart path(28%),topsoil(36%), sod(57%). It should be noted that the cost for sod reflects the cost difference between seed and sod. Also,most of the bid items are being funded by Surface Water Utility at 100%. SUGGESTED PROTOCAL FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS Deviation from Estimated Quantities For the case where quantities have been underestimated,the Surface Water Utility and Golf Course will share the costs based on the cost share percentages shown in the attached worksheet. For example,4,500 tons of structural fill are estimated to be required for this project. Based on a detail review of the construction plans, 72% of the fill is required for the flood control portion of the project and 28% is required for the mounding effects. The cost share between Surface Water and the Golf Course is 72%and 28%,respectively, for this particular bid item. (These percentages are shown for each bid items.) Therefore if 5,500 tons of structural fill are required rather than the anticipated 4,500 tons, 72% of the additional costs shall be borne by Surface Water and 28%shall be borne by the Golf Course. This logic will be followed for all bid items. Change Orders Change orders to the construction contract are simply defined as any additional bid item added to the project. The cost implications of any change orders will need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. For example, if the Surface Water Utility requests a change order to perform additional would need to be completely funded by Surface Water. Or Ww-L-, t"".1 1 — H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-638.doc October 12,2001 Page 2 if the Golf Course would like to add an entirely new 1nZ-U3rd that is not shown on the construction plans,this would be completely funded by the Golf Course. cc:: [Click here and type name] �e�v�S1,'viA wci iie-\- . h� you ,t✓�;n�? -� T� �- ',� �,�►-,�a/ /aa� croo / Otgo,/c6 -su,4,-cc w. w q4-tU-y CZ w � 5 I ,ti d 1- ?'6bR C Q� �J*A 4A14- d f -�-� ('G-.�.nC.P�e•�{ �p�. J r\L �`-''IW Ntl c� t o�C u C.� `,f"� eoo Do tv-'-� 4� 4&- +--- tYN)c-eA, 4- eyc cT4— ee,-c, OQ�e C—)1(.,,A will ie �.�a✓�cGo/ 76 r-/C Z2.--1, 4e 41 / """'T ��'�/`-J �Gf/% �..� tt.r/4.<R g.-f�L'� t.��/ ��`��`��� �..D✓1/ H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-638.doc\gms "'r �--- CITY OF RENTON MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE REGRADE FINAL COST ESTIMATE FOR GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION ITEMS ESTIMATED FINAL UNIT SURFACE WATER COST DATA GOLF COURSE COST DATA ACTUAL NO. ITEM QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST %TOTAL.COST UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST %COST 1 Mobilization,Cleanup&Demobilization Lump Sum 1 $15,000 $15,000 1 $15,000 100% $15,000 0 $0 0% S15,000 2 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities Lump Sum 1 $1,000 $1000 1 $1,000 100% $1,000 0 $0 0% $1,000 3 Clearing and Grubbing Lump Sum 1 1 $5,000 $5,000 1 $5000 100% $5,000 0 $0 0% $5000 4 Removal of Structures and Obstruction Lump Sum 1 $1,500 $1,500 1 $1,500 100% $1,500 0 $0 0% $1,500 5 Tree Removal and Replanting Lump Sum 1 $1,500 $1,500 0 $0 0% $1,500 1 $1,500 100% $1,500 6 Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion Control Lump Sum 1 $10,000 $10,000 1 $10,000 100% $10,000 0 $0 0% $10,000 7 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As-built Drawin s Lump Sum 1 $7,500 $7,500 1 $7,500 100% $7,500 0 $0 0% $7,500 8 CPEP Storm Sewer Pipe 4 In.Diam. Linear Feet 1 30 $50 $50 30 $1,500 100% $50 0 $0 0% $1,500 9 Structural Fill for Cart Path Ton 4500 $6 $6 3,250 $19,500 72% $6 1,250 $7,500 28% $27,000 10 Crushed Surfacing Top Course Ton 150 $12 $12 150 $1,800 1000/10 $12 0 $0 0% $1,800 11 Asphalt Conc.Pavement Cl.B Ton 90 $110 $110 90 $9,900 100% $110 0 $0 0% $9,900 12 Topsoil Type A Ton 1100 $14 $14 700 $9,800 64% $14 400 $5,600 36% $15,400 13 Sod Square Yard 6200 $3.5 $1.5 6,200 $9,300 43% $2 6,200 $12,400 57% $21,700 14 Irrigation Revisions Lump Sum 1 $3,000 $3,000 1 $3,000 100% $3,000 0 $0 0% $3,000 Subtotal(Items 1-14): $94,800 $27,000 $121 800 Sales Tax C 8.8%: $8,342 $2,376 $10,718 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $103,142 $29,376 $132,518, �138,1'8 '4°costs-golf course.xls 10/12/2001 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: October 25,2001 TO: Jim Shepherd,Administrator Community Services FROM: Gregg Zimmerman,Administrator / /�� Planning/Building/Public Works lD 0/1 SUBJECT: MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE REGRADE PROJECT- BID RESULTS AND COST SHARE ARRANGEMENT BID RESULTS The lowest,responsive bid for the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project was$132,155 (from City Transfer,Inc.),which is lower than the engineer's cost estimate of$139,155. A detailed worksheet is attached that shows the bid submittal information. In addition,this worksheet shows the cost share between the Surface Water Utility and Golf Course for each construction item. COST SHARE ARRANGEMENT The cost to the Golf Course based on the bid award will be$29,376. The estimated cost was between$25,000 and$35,000. These golf course costs account for a specific percentage for each of following four bid items:tree removal and replacement(100%),structural fill for cart path (28%),topsoil(36%),and sod(57%). It should be noted that the cost for sod reflects the cost difference between seed and sod. Also,most of the bid items are being funded by Surface Water Utility at 100%. For the case where quantities have been underestimated,the Surface Water Utility and Golf Course will share the costs based on the cost share percentages shown in the attached worksheet. For example,4,500 tons of structural fill are estimated to be required for this project. Based on a detail review of the construction plans,72%of the fill is required for the flood control portion of the project and 28%is required for the mounding effects. The cost share between Surface Water and the Golf Course is 72%and 28%,respectively,for this particular bid item.(These percentages are shown for each bid item.) Therefore if 5,500 tons of structural fill are required rather than the anticipated 4,500 tons, 72%of the additional costs shall be borne by Surface Water and 28% shall be borne by the Golf Course. This logic will be followed for all bid items. Change orders to the construction contract are simply defined as any additional bid item added to the project. The cost implications of any change orders will need to be dealt with on a case-by- case basis. For example, if the Surface Water Utility requests a change order to perform additional work this would need to be completely funded by Surface Water. Or, if the Golf Course would like to add new work that is not shown on the approved construction plans,this would be completely funded by the Golf Course. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-638.doc\GMS\tb a s October 25,2001 Page 2 SUMMARY The above construction cost share arrangement was developed by the PBPW and Community Services staff working together on the project design(Leslie Betlach,Randy Leifer,Gary Schimek and Ron Straka). Council approved a total project construction budget of $225,000 ($190,000 - Surface Water, $35,000-Golf Course)on August 27,2001. The Golf Course share of the project was funded out of the Municipal Golf Course System Fund balance. When pay estimates for the project contractor are processed for payment, the appropriate Golf Course account will be charged for the work performed in accordance with the above noted cost share arrangement. This will eliminate the need for an interfund transfer for the project. A copy of each pay estimate will be provided to Leslie Betlach. I trust that this cost share arrangement, prepared by our staff, is acceptable to you. If not, please contact me(x-7311). H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-638.doc\GMS\tb CITY OF RENTON MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE REGRADE FINAL COST ESTIMATE FOR GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION ITEMS EST « > .` :` :::: <.:::<::`:>:<`»_':` < < ` '< < '': ': ' IMATED FINAL UNTT <€".1-1— »s> ?< <.... »::>::»>: -: » f: 35 % :::::::::.:::::::..::::::::.::::.:::::::::. GOLF COURSE COST DATA :<:::>::::>�STJAL:>:::>:<::: O. _N ITEM Q UANTTTY PRICE I QF €? �?a S ...... UN a TT PRICE UANTITY C /o COST :::.::.::::::::::::::::::::::. ::.::.;::.:::.;:.:;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:;:.;:.;:.;:.::.;:. .............................. 1 Mobilization,Cleanup&Demobilization Lump Sum 1 5 000 :.:'> ><?' <; ` < ><<< :>::><>:::::><::`'::>'::: ::> <:<::.....:...........: ::: > >:'> a $1 5 fF3€............................. . .. I S 000 0 0 0/o :.;:.:............t.....................:................................................... ................................................................ �.................. 2 Locate d Protect is Utilities v < :z<:::: 0 an Pr Existing h r Lump Sum 1 00 10 3 Clearingand Grubbing L Sum 1 5 000 .(£��:................ 5 000 4 Removalo Structures ton 0 f Stru tur and Obstruction Lump Sum 1 1 500 .......... 5 Tree e d 0 Tr Removal an Replanting Lump Sum :::::::::::::......................... <;;:>:<:::»:::. :;•:. .. ;::>:::<:::>:::;:;:s::>::;::: ......... .. ......... ....................£#� ................... 1 500 1 500 100% :>::>:::>:> :>::�£#�EI:`::s:>::<: 7 : : : : : , .6 Temporary 3Water Pollution Erosion Control Lump Sum 10000 0 0 .............. : :: . :Cons Construction Surveying, As-built Drawings LumpSu - : : : :: : : ..: _ 0 da 8 C PEP Storm Sewer Pipe 4 Diam 0 In Linear Feet 30 50 P : 1. ::.::::.:::..:. . . $ ::.:::.:::::::::::::: 9 Structural f Cart or Ca Path Fill Ton 4500 6 1,250 $7,500a 10 Crushed Surfacing o seVA a' «::«::«<::<<::<: 0 urf m T Cour o UP T n 150 12 ::.. 11 Asphalt Conc.Pavement Cl.B Ton 90 0 12 Topsoil e �a 0 T it T A Ton 1100 14 <;<:>:: . ... ...........'1�..........................$9$�....... .............f>.4.1e................. $1 400 $5 600 36/0 P YP .::::.:::::::. ::�::.::.::::.::::::• 13 Sod e Yard Square Y r 6200 3.5$ :: :::::::::::::>$:1:>: :::>::»::>::>:>: ><»>::.... .. .......................... !.......................................4 . ....:.::.....:.:... $2 6 200 $12 400 57/o q .............................::.:..::i.......:.....................:.:..:............................... 0 ::...:...: $14 Irrigation Revisions Lump Sum 1 3000 : : .. ..�...........................:::::.:: :::: .. :Subtotal toms 1-14 : ; .: :. : .: . 7 22/ x................ Sales Tax 8. /oo . 0 8 . 2 76 �i :..........................:...............:...........................:.::.:::....:.:�.�..::..f.... .:.....::::------.................. .:-.:::-:::.::::. , ...... ....7.................. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONS UC ION COST TR T 3 71 1 ...........:::.;:.;:.;:.. $29 376 22/0 NOTES The Golf Course agreed to fund the cost of the sod above the typical cost for seed. Seed was estimated at$1.5 per square yard,and the sod was bid at$3.5 per square yard. Therefore,the unit cost for the Golf Course share is$2 whereas the unit cost for the Surface Water Utility is$1.5. 2001-638sprdsht.xls 10/24/2001 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM CONCURRENCE DATE DATE: October 24, 2001 NAME INITIAL/DATE r'a-A ale-k_ j° _ o i TO: Jim Shepherd,Administrator eESp Z 42 Community Services zo, er FROM: Gregg Zimmerman,Administrato Planning/Building/Public Works Wyk SUBJECT: MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE REGRADE PROJECT- BID RESULTS AND COST SHARE ARRANGEMENT BID RESULTS The lowest,responsive bid for the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project was$132,155 (from City Transfer, Inc.),which is lower than the engineer's cost estimate of$139,155. A detailed worksheet is attached that shows the bid submittal information. In addition,this worksheet shows the cost share between the Surface Water Utility and Golf Course for each construction item. COST SHARE ARRANGEMENT The cost to the Golf Course based on the bid award will be$29,376. The estimated cost was between$25,000 and$35,000. These golf course costs account for a specific percentage for each of following four bid items: tree removal and replacement(100%), structural fill for cart path (28%),topsoil(36%), and sod(57%). It should be noted that the cost for sod reflects the cost difference between seed and sod. Also,most of the bid items are being funded by Surface Water Utility at 100%. For the case where quantities have been underestimated,the Surface Water Utility and Golf Course will share the costs based on the cost share percentages shown in the attached worksheet. For example,4,500 tons of structural fill are estimated to be required for this project. Based on a detail review of the construction plans, 72%of the fill is required for the flood control portion of the project and 28%is required for the mounding effects. The cost share between Surface Water and the Golf Course is 72%and 28%,respectively,for this particular bid item. (These percentages are shown for each bid item.) Therefore if 5,500 tons of structural fill are required rather than the anticipated 4,500 tons, 72%of the additional costs shall be borne by Surface Water and 28% shall be borne by the Golf Course. This logic will be followed for all bid items. Change orders to the construction contract are simply defined as any additional bid item added to the project. The cost implications of any change orders will need to be dealt with on a case-by- case basis. For example, if the Surface Water Utility requests a change order to perform additional work this would need to be completely funded by Surface Water. Or, if the Golf Course would like to add new work that is not shown on the approved construction plans,this would be completely funded by the Golf Course. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-638.doc\GMS\tb October 24,2001 Page 2 SUMMARY The above construction cost share arrangement was developed by the PBPW and Community Services staff working together ether on the project design(Leslie Betlach, Randy Leifer, Gary Schimek and Ron Straka). v��C Council approved a total project budget of$225,000 ($190,000 - Surface Water, $35,000 - Golf Course) on August 27, 2001. The Golf Course share of the project was funded out of the Municipal Golf Course System Fund balance. When pay estimates for the project contractor are processed for payment, the appropriate Golf Course account will be charged for the work performed in accordance with the above noted cost share arrangement. This will eliminate the need for an interfund transfer for the project. A copy of each pay estimate will be provided to Leslie Betlach. I trust that this cost share arrangement, prepared by our staff, is acceptable to you. If not, please contact me(x-7311). H:\DfVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-638.doc\GMS\tb CITY OF RENTON MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE REGRADE FINAL COST ESTIMATE FOR GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION ITEMS {''' E COST DATA EST IMATED FINAL UNIT ' 3A::: ''? t ` ':. ```•zz#?'>':`': .'>• >>`?`>«<»»» GOLF COURSE S ::: ...... ............................ ;;. NO. ITEM PRICE QUANTITY E 4 ..:... ..::................ .... . ' • > ':` ' > TY" UNIT PRICE QUANTT COST / COST .:::............. ............:. :::: .::::............... .:: 0 I Mobilization Cleanup&Demobilization um 1 15 000 I € )€ #'.<:> <<«<«> M1 '' >z >'.> 15 000 0 0 0% :':si•'•.Lump S $$ $ .....:::.::::::::::::::::::................... :::::::::::::::::..:::::::::... 0 2 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities 0 0 000 0 0 0/o L t n Lump Sum 1 1 0 1 g P ..>....................... > :::r.::::::::::::.: 0 3 Clearin and Grubbin Lum Sum 1 5 000 I€€>€ :'.::. >`.>•.`: > >' .`:' «: :` ':>' >>.`>• ? 5 000 0 0 0% 0 4 v o Structures andObstructionI 5 5 0 0 0%Removal f Stru tur n Lump Sum 1 00 1 00 P 0 5 Tree Removal and Replanting um 1 1 500 > Q :s > >»>>< <? £# fl>>' >.... <> 1 500 1 1 500 100% .; ;.:::...::; ; L S $$ $ :<: Pg P .............................:.:..::.. .:::::::::.:..::.............................................. ..................::::...:................. ::::::::................... 0 6 Temporary Water Pollution Erosion Control um 10 000 10 000 0 0 0/o P P a•::::::::::::::::..:::::::::::.::::::::::::::;:.:....:::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::•::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::.:::::::::::::::::::::. ..:::::::::::::::::. 7 Construction Surveying,Staking,and As built Drawings Lump Sum 1 7 500 ::>::: ::>::;:»>:: >:> »> >>::>::> »>: ;::>:<:::>::...............::>::; :. »:::»»:>::>::>::: 7 500 0 $0ME 0 8 CPEP Storm Sewer Pipe 4 In.Diam. ear Feet 30 50 50 0 0 0/o P :>: ................................................................ >.................... 0 9 Structural Fill for Cart Path Ton 4500 6 r ) ?': r< > >> .: :.::.;:;:««<:::.;:.;:. 6 1 250 7 00 2 #$ $ $ .................................................................................... ...................................................::.. .............:...:::::::.....:..3:................................:................:..::.:::..... �.................. a ::::>:::>::::>:: a 0 0 Crushed Surfacing To Course 5 12 0 0 0/1 ru f Ton 1 0 12 g P `..... .........................................................................>.................................................................. �.::::.............. 11 Asphalt Conc.Pavement Cl.B Ton 90 110 9. .• .;;;;: .;;:.;:.:;;:: :»:•>:>.;:::>•:.•: « 110 0 0 0% P ......:.............:... ......... : : ............:::.::::::::.::.:.::.:::.:::::::s::.:::::.:....::::::..:...........:..........:..:.:..::::::::::::.: :::::.:::.t:::.....::...:...... 0 Topsoil e 5 600 36/0 12 To it T A Ton 1100 14 14 400 P YP 0 13 Sod Square Yard 6200 3.5 € ?; <_0:«« ««< <;<>> <»< ' ' :.:.. .:.o:.::::.;:.;:.;;;;:«<. 2 6 200 12,400 57/o$ $ a >:«:>:::««zz:>:: 0 g >a oRevisions 0 0 0%14 Irn ti n Lump Sum I 3 000 3 000 0 >> > ..>.................:. ..>....................... P ................................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::................................:::::::::: :::::::::::::: ':::::::::::::r. ::::::::::::::. 0 e 7 00 22/o Subtotal(Items 1-14 : 2 0 ::................:::.:.......::::::::................:::::.:......::::.. o . 2::;2Y::::::::;;::i: ::r;:Y:;::r:::::::;:::::22::::i::::::;::::Y::::::......::;::r:::::::::;::r::r::r::;...'?•.::::::::i::Y::::;:::::::::i::r::::::::;:ii::r:;: ";:::::r::r:z::2:YYYYYYY: o ::i:: ; :; Sales Tax 8.8 /o. <:: :::>::>:««:>:<:::>::>:<:r:.:.::>::>::>::>««««: 2 376 22/o @ a.....................:::.... ::.....................:.......::. a.........::..:.... a 3: ;:?:`:`z c 0 O ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 1 > > '> »>' >>'.' >. : 7 22/o TOTAL TIMA ............................................................................... NOTES The Golf Course agreed to fund the cost of the sod above the typical cost for seed. Seed was estimated at$1.5 per square yard,and the sod was bid at$3.5 per square yard. Therefore,the unit cost for the Golf Course share is$2 whereas the unit cost for the Surface Water Utility is$1.5. 2001-638sprdsht.xls 10/24/2001 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13,2001 TO: Marilyn Petersen,City Clerk FROM: y Schimek, ext. 7205 C SUBJECT: Maplewood Golf Course Regrade - Construction Bid Award Recommendation The bid opening for the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project was held on September 11,2001, at 11:00 a.m. Eight(8)bids were submitted. The Engineer's Estimate for the project construction cost was$139,155.20. The Surface Water Utility has reviewed the low bid from City Transfer,Inc., for completeness, inclusion of all required forms,and mathematical correctness of the bid. The low bid of$132,518.40(including sales tax)is within the total amount available from the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Project budget line item 421.000600.018.5960.0038. 065220(Cedar River Basin Plan CIP)and Maplewood Golf Course System Fund Balance. The funding for the project was approved by Council on August 27,2001. The low bid meets the following conditions for award: 1. The low bid must be within the total project budget. 2. There must be more than one bidder. 3. The lowest,responsible,responsive bid contains no significant irregularities. The Surface Water Utility and Community Services Department,therefore,recommend that this item be placed on the September 17,2001,consent agenda for Council concur. Surface Water Utility and Community Services Department staff further recommends that Council award the construction contract to the lowest responsive,responsible bidder,City Transfer,Inc.for the amount of$132,518.40. Attached for your reference is the bid tabulation showing the Engineer's Estimate,the low bid, and the other seven bids submitted. The following bidders were found to have mathematical errors in their original bid amount,and the corrected bid amounts are given. Rodarte,Inc. -The corrected bid amount is $143,784.64,while the total given by the bidder was $143,791.17. Tydico.,Inc. -The corrected bid amount is$ $171,496.00,while the total given by the bidder was $171,506.88. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-540.doc\GMS\tb September 13, 2001 Page 2 I am returning all of the bid packages and envelopes,except the low bidder's forms and schedule of prices, for placement in the City records. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the bid recommendation. cc: Leslie Betlach Lys Hornsby Ron Straka Attachments Project Title:Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project City of Renton Low Bidder Rodarte Construction, Inc. BID DATE: Sept. 11, 2001, 11:00 a.m. Engineers Estimate : City Transfer, Inc. B Item Unit Est. Unit Bid,` Unit Bid Unit Bid N No. Description Quantity Price Amount' Price Amount Price Amount 1 Mobilization, Cleanup& Restoration Lump Sum 1 12,000.00' 12000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 8,500.00 8,500.00 2 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing Lump Sum 1 9,000.00 9,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 4 Removal of Structure and Obstructions Lump Sum 1 1,500.00 1,500,00' 1,500.00 1,500.00 5,200.00 5,200.00 5 Tree Removal and Replanting Lump Sum 1 1,400.00 1,400.00' 1,500.00 1,500.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 6 Temporary Water Pollution Control/Erosion Control Lump Sum 1 2,000.00 2,000.00 10.000.00 10,000.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 7 Construction Survey, Staking and As-built drawings Lump Sum 1 2,000.00 2,000.00' 7,500.00 7,500.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 8 4 in. Diam. CPEP Storm Sewer Pipe Linear Feet 30 20.00 600.00 50.00 1,500.00 26.50 795.00 9 Structural Fill for Cart Path Ton 4,500 9.00 40,500.00' 6.00 27,000.00 8.00 36,000.00 10 Crushed Surfacing Top Course Ton 150 2T W�18.00 21700 00, 12.00 1,800.00 23.00 3,450.00 11 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Class"B" Ton 90 ._ 0.00 6,300.00' 110.00 9,900.00 80.00 7,200.00 12 Topsoil Type A Ton 1,10014.00 15'400 00 14.00 15,400.00 18.50 20,350.00 till 13 Sod Installation Square Yard 6,200 5.00 31 000,;OQ 3.50 21,700.00 4.30 26,660.00 14 Irrigation Revisions Lump Sum 1 3,000.00 3,000.00', 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 Subtotal $127,900 QO Subtotal $121,800.00 Subtotal $132,155.00 Tax $11,256 2Q Tax $10,718.40 Tax $11,629.64 Total $139,156"2& Total $132,518.40 Total $143,784.64 v' f ., q f:: a bidtab.xls Page 1 Project Title:Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project Harborside, Inc. Hydrometrics, Inc. Precision Earthwork, Inc. BID DATE: Sept. 11, 2001, 11:00 a.m. B Item Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid Bid N No. Description Quantity Price Amount Price Amount Amount 1 Mobilization, Cleanup& Restoration Lump Sum 1 25,000.00 25,000.00 11,788.00 11,788,00 9,100.00 9,100.00 2 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 785.00 785.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing Lump Sum 1 32,000.00 32,000.00 8,893.00 8,893.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 4 Removal of Structure and Obstructions Lump Sum 1 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,049.00 1,049.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 5 Tree Removal and Replanting Lump Sum 1 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,965.00 2,965.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 6 Temporary Water Pollution Control/Erosion Control Lump Sum 1 1,000.00 1,000.00 4,586.00 4,586.00 5,750.00 5,750.00 7 Construction Survey, Staking and As-built drawings Lump Sum 1 3,000.00 3,000.00 5,869.00 5,869.00 9,500.00 9,500.00 8 4 in. Diam. CPEP Storm Sewer Pipe Linear Feet 30 50.00 1,500.00 16.00 480.00 6.00 180.00 9 Structural Fill for Cart Path Ton 4,500 7.00 31,500.00 10.60 47,700.00 12.90 58,050.00 10 Crushed Surfacing Top Course Ton 150 10.00 1,500.00 15.83 2,374.50 21.00 3,150.00 11 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Class"B" Ton 90 100.00 9,000.00 115.00 10,350.00 83.00 7,470.00 12 Topsoil Type A Ton 1,100 8.00 8,800.00 17.60 19,360.00 22.00 24,200.00 13 Sod Installation Square Yard 6,200 3.00 18,600.00 4.00 24,800.00 3.90 24,180.00 14 Irrigation Revisions Lump Sum 1 2,000.00 2,000.00 4,235.00 4,235.00 3,350.00 3,350.00 Subtotal $138,400.00 Subtotal $145,234.50 Subtotal $152,280.00 Tax $12,179.20 Tax $12,780.64 Tax $13,400.64 Total $150,579.20 Total $158,015.14 Total $165,680.64 bidtab,xls Page 2 Project Title:Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project Tydico, Inc. Goodfellow Bros., Inc. Ohno Construction BID DATE: Sept. 11, 2001, 11:00 a.m. B Item Unit Est. Unit Bid Unit Bid Unit Bid N No. Description Quantity Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount 1 Mobilization, Cleanup& Restoration Lump Sum 1 10,000.00 10,000.00 22,675.00 22,675.00 35,060.00 35,060.00 2 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities Lump Sum 1 500.00 500.00 2,100.00 2,100.00 2,238.00 2,238.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing Lump Sum 1 13,000.00 13,000.00 3,785.00 3,785.00 18,106.00 18,106.00 4 Removal of Structure and Obstructions Lump Sum 1 5,000.00 5,000.00 2,100.00 2,100.00 1,260.00 1,260.00 5 Tree Removal and Replanting Lump Sum 1 2,500.00 2,500.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 3,106.00 3,106.00 6 Temporary Water Pollution Control/Erosion Control Lump Sum 1 6,135.00 6,135.00 4,200.00 4,200.00 4,215.00 4,215.00 7 Construction Survey, Staking and As-built drawings Lump Sum 1 6,000.00 6,000.00 5,100.00 5,100.00 3,107.00 3,107.00 8 4 in. Diam. CPEP Storm Sewer Pipe Linear Feet 30 20.00 600.00 20.00 600.00 4.57 137.10 9 Structural Fill for Cart Path Ton 4,500 15.00 67,500.00 14.50 65,250.00 14.85 66,825.00 10 Crushed Surfacing Top Course Ton 150 20.00 3,000.00 25.00 3,750.00 37.11 5,566.50 11 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Class"B" Ton 90 60.00 5,400.00 81.00 7,290.00 81.78 7,360.20 12 Topsoil Type A Ton 1,100 25.00 27,500.00 23.00 25,300.00 17.60 19,360.00 13 Sod Installation Square Yard 6,200 1.45 8,990.00 3.75 23,250.00 4.03 24,986.00 14 Irrigation Revisions Lump Sum 1 1,500.00 1,500.00 900.00 900.00 2,008.00 2,008.00 Subtotal $157,625.00 Subtotal $170,700.00 Subtotal $193,334.80 Tax $13,871.00 Tax $15,021.60 Tax $17,013.46 Total $171,496.00 Total $185,721.60 Total $210,348.26 bidtab.xls Page 3 4d,6, �2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al lt: For Agenda of: August 27, 2000 Dept/Div/Board.. PBPW - Surface Water Utility Community Services - Golf Course Staff contact...... Gregg Zimmerman, Lys Hornsby, Jim Agenda Status Shepherd, Leslie Betlach, Ron Straka (x-7248) Consent.............X Subject: Public Hearing.. Funding of Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project Correspondence.. Ordinance............. Resolution............ Old Business........ Exhibits: New Business....... Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Information......... Site Plan Utilities Committee Report from December 4, 2000 Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept.....N/A Finance Dept.....X Other............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $225,000 Transfer/Amendment....... $225,000 Amount Budgeted.......... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget $225,000 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments have agreed to cost share on the construction of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project. The purpose of the project is to provide long-term protection of the golf course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood from extreme Cedar River flows. The need for this critical project was identified in November 2000 after the 2001 budget approval process. Last year, under emergency conditions, a temporary rubber dam was installed along the river to provide flood protection during the winter. The total cost to complete the project, including staff time, is anticipated to be about$225,000. The cost to Surface Water Utility and the Golf Course will be about$190,000 and $35,000, respectively. The actual expenditures within the Cedar River Basin Plan CIP fund account are projected to exceed the total 2001 budget appropriation due to funding of Surface Water Utility's share of this project. An intra-fund transfer is needed to ensure that the actual expenditures for the Cedar River Basin Plan CIP account do not exceed the appropriation. In contrast, Surface Water Utility will have a surplus of about $190,000 in the Sunnydale Downstream Storm System Project account fund for 2001. The surplus is due to a delay in obtaining the Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corp of Engineers, which has, in turn, prevented the project from being constructed this year. The surplus will be used to fund Surface Water Utility's share. The approved Municipal Golf Course System Fund balance for December 31, 2001, is $532,217. The estimated cost share of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade project is between$25,000 and$35,000. Therefore, there is ample budget reserve to fund Community Services share of the project. The Utilities Committee previously authorized the planning, design, and implementation of this project on December 4, 2000(see attached Committee Report). However, approval for project construction funding was not requested, as the associated construction cost was not known at that time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends Council approval of an intra-fund transfer of$190,000 within the Surface Water Utility CIP budget (421 Fund) from the Sunnydale Downstream Storm System Replacement project account to the Cedar River Basin Plan CIP account. In addition, the Community Services Department recommends Council approval for the allocation of up to $35,000 of budget reserves from the Maplewood Golf Course System 404 Fund to fund the construction of the project. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-486a.doc\RJS\tb CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM CONC RRENCE DATE: August 16, 2001 DATE —6/ TO: Randy Corman, President NAME INITIAL/DATEa. � ��� . City Council Members ,� VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner G FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department STAFF CONTACTS: Lys Hornsby (x-7239) Ron Straka (x-7248) SUBJECT: Funding of Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project - Construction Phase ISSUE: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments request Council approval for funding of the construction phase of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project. This project was unanticipated at the time of the 2001 budget approval, but is needed to protect the golf course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood from potential extreme Cedar River flood flows. RECOMMENDATION: • The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends Council approval of an intra- fund transfer of$190,000 within the Surface Water Utility CIP budget (421 Fund) from the Sunnydale Downstream Storm System Replacement project account to the Cedar River Basin Plan CIP account. • The Community Services Department recommends Council approval for the allocation of up to $35,000 of budget reserves from the Maplewood Golf Course System 404 Fund to fund the construction of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Overview The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments have agreed to cost share on the construction of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project, the purpose of which is to provide permanent protection of the Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent Maplewood CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM CONCURRENCE DATE: August 16, 2001 DATE NAME INITIAL/ ATE TO: Randy Corman, President ,t 'e' o o City Council Members P O VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department STAFF CONTACTS: Lys Hornsby (x-7239) Ron Straka (x-7248) SUBJECT: Funding of Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project - Construction Phase ISSUE: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments request Council approval for funding of the construction phase of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project. This project was unanticipated at the time of the 2001 budget approval, but is needed to protect the golf course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood from potential extreme Cedar River flood flows. RECOMMENDATION: • The Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommends Council approval of an intra- fund transfer of$190,000 within the Surface Water Utility CIP budget (421 Fund) from the Sunnydale Downstream Storm System Replacement project account to the Cedar River Basin Plan CIP account. • The Community Services Department recommends Council approval for the allocation of up to $35,000 of budget reserves from the Maplewood Golf Course System 404 Fund to fund the construction of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Overview The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments have agreed to cost share on the construction of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project, the purpose of which is to provide permanent protection of the Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent Maplewood r August 16, 2001 Page 2 Neighborhood from extreme Cedar River flows. The need for this critical project was identified in November 2000, after the 2001 budget approval process. Last year, under emergency conditions, a temporary rubber dam was installed along the river to provide flood protection during the winter. The regrading project will include the use of about 4,000 cubic yards of structural fill and 700 cubic yards of topsoil. This material will be graded to match the river bank elevations prior to the severe flood of 1995 and 1996 that destroyed a significant portion of the river bank and, in addition, will be shaped to enhance the existing layout of Hole Number 3. Sod will be installed immediately after the regrading is complete. Construction is anticipated to between mid-October through November when the impact to golf course operations is minimal. b`,�,n Surface Water Utility Funding The actual expenditures within the Cedar River Basin Plan CIP fund account are projected to exceed the total 2001 budget appropriation due to funding of Surface Water Utility's share of the construction costs for the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project. Therefore, the intra-fund transfer is needed to ensure that the actual expenditures for the Cedar River Basin Plan CIP account do not exceed the appropriation. In contrast, Surface Water Utility will have a surplus for the 2001 budget appropriation for the Sunnydale Downstream Storm System Project. The surplus is due to a delay in obtaining the Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corp of Engineers which will, in turn, prevent the Sunnydale Downstream Storm project from being constructed this year, but will allow for the intra-fund transfer to the Cedar River Basin Plan CIP account. The 2001 budget appropriation for the Sunnydale project was $200,000. Approximately $3,500 has been spent to date this year; it is anticipated that less than $6,500 will be spent the remainder of the year for staff time to final construction contract documents. The permits for the Sunnydale Downstream Storm System Replacement project are anticipated to allow for the construction to occur in 2002. The reappropriation of construction funds for the project will be proposed in the 2002 Surface Water Utility CIP budget. Golf Course Funding The approved Municipal Golf Course System Fund balance for December 31, 2001, is $532,217. The estimated cost share of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade project is between $25,000 and $35,000. Therefore, there is ample budget reserve to fund Community Services share of the project. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient funding in both the Surface Water Utility CIP and Maplewood Golf Course System Fund to fund the construction of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Project. Surface Water Utility's cost share of the project will be obtained from an intra-fund transfer of$190,000 from the Sunnydale Downstream Strormwater System Replacement Project account to the Cedar River Basin Plan CIP account. Community Services cost share will be obtained from using budget reserves from the Maplewood Golf Course System Fund. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-486.doc\RJS\tb n ; .�.�/ .,...,max-'•'`- "w• .....;,......... S. FAIRWAY *3 EXISTING CART PATH ..�'• -"`•* �^... (T REMOVED/ 4;{� ,,: � ,;:.:••" .,. AND REPLACED TOP .= - _ x_- ';; .. ToE GF BBRn r- �'^ GREEN .x w.. .v .r �.ONSTRUCTION L ,s v. •�ti , n' µµ : r. ♦ n. v.. n.� STAGIN / e AREA n•.. ,. ......,. ui, •�� � ,T• a'�' .?• g •x -..a. '�•-_ � ....xw.....-., ,,.•„w.................,n,•'-••••" . -e::`--'_:.4v: - r..nw.__..•.._...«.-m.r...... _ _ w. xxr•,_..'v.�'.�^.':vy...�w..,•x.-a .r.,.::::..........w.. x..wuw,.n:",�....-..w--.....'Axe xnxxwwx,.♦..•'Svc-yx�••--xx, -._ - '•�-nP: i.n v?;,_ w._• � I. ..:.....y"x nwr..................ni�� _...na,•-...e�-- %' `<x •f-r:ay x.`r,_mow_... .M._. r..•. ,,.,-- ,.' �' 1 INCH - 100 FEET s .OAR Rt Y��.'.•,^•t'. /� max'`-•-` � .. .a ...r.�xiw. .} F'EOESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE w w.. z 86 ...♦.....................♦............ 6 "Mriaiiui Etivdtlai Oi OAdNAR+Riail WAfos'tllu6i b2:0�" . 84 84 82 . 2 U $0 AMiiokRGtt ExlsfifNo'GAdtNb"' 0 r ELIVATI"ALONG CART PAIN 78 00 0+25 0+50 0+75 1+00 1+251+50 1+75 2+00 2+25 2+50 2+75 3+00 3+25 3+50 3+75 4+00 4+25 4+50 4+75 5+00 6+25 5+50 5+75 5+00 6+25 5+50 6+75 7+00 7+25 PROFILE HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=100' N VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=6' CITY OF RENTON y NAPLEVOOD OL COURSE REGRADE y PLAN Omw OOMRlA10 OIPCM __ Gary Schimek Re City Transfer Update From: Gary Schimek To: Straka, Ronald Subject: Re: City Transfer Update We should work to have the contract executed during the week of Oct. 8th, after the Shoreline appeal period is completed, with construction starting during the week of Oct. 15th. X.Obtain required information from City Transfer. Asert contract information from City transfer back into the 2-original contracts 400"Make at least 1 copy of the original contract(with all information included) put together. fiend the copy of the ready to execute original contract to the City Attorney (Do Not Send the Original Contract) for approval as to legal form. X. Insurance information from the contractor to Risk Management for review and approval. 6. Once we have the City Attorney's and Risk Management's Approval, then the City Clerks Contract Form & Information can be assembled and the two original contracts can be sent to the City Clerk for execution by the Mayor(our normal contract execution procedures). 7. The Pre-construction confrence could be held anytime between Oct. 1st& Oct. 15th. There is a standard Pre-Construction Confrence meeting form that covers the normal item that need to be discussed at a Pre-con meeting. This form is usually modified to add items that are unique to each individual project also. I think the form is on Rentonnet or on the Kdrive. Check with Dan C. MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT FOR THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We are assigning (Ext. )_as our representative on the design team. ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We will not be assigning a representative to participate on the design team but reserve our right to participate in the standard review processes. ❑ We feel that the following item(s)are of concern or interest in relationship to this project and would like to bring them to you attention: (Signed) (Date) (Section or Division) MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT FOR THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We are assigning (Ext. )_as our representative on the design team. ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We will not be assigning a representative to participate on the design team but reserve our right to participate in the standard review processes. ❑ We feel that the following item(s)are of concern or interest in relationship to this project and would like to bring them to you attention: (Signed) (Date) (Section or Division) MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT FOR THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We are assigning (Ext. __)as our representative on the design team. ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We will not be assigning a representative to participate on the design team but reserve our right to participate in the standard review processes. ❑ We feel that the following item(s)are of concern or interest in relationship to this project and would like to bring them to you attention: (Signed) (Date) (Section or Division) a"-214� MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT FOR THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We are assigning (Ext. _)as our representative on the design team. ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We will not be assigning a representative to participate on the design team but reserve our right to participate in the standard review processes. ❑ We feel that the following item(s)are of concern or interest in relationship to this project and would like to bring them to you attention: (Signed) (Date) (Section or Division) g",e - MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT FOR THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We are assigning (Ext. )as our representative on the design team. ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We will not be assigning a representative to participate on the design team but reserve our right to participate in the standard review processes. ❑ We feel that the following item(s)are of concern or interest in relationship to this project and would like to bring them to you attention: (Signed) (Date) (Section or Division) \ 1 MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT FOR THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We are assigning (Ext. )_as our representative on the design team. ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We will not be assigning a representative to participate on the design team but reserve our right to participate in the standard review processes. ❑ We feel that the following item(s)are of concern or interest in relationship to this project and would like to bring them to you attention: (Signed) (Date) (Section or Division) CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 27,2001 TO: Dave Christensen,Wastewater Utility Division Leslie Betlach,Parks Division Jack Crumley, Public Works Maintenance Division Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Division Sandra Meyer,Transportation Systems Division Neil Watts,Development Services Division Rebecca Linda,Economic Development FROM: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division A STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility(X-7248) Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility(X-7205) SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT PROJECT OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project is to restore flood protection,destroyed by extreme Cedar River flows,to City of Renton facilities and private residences within the Maplewood vicinity. City of Renton facilities directly affected by this project include the Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility(i.e.wells and pump house). PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Maplewood vicinity is a 65-acre area within the City of Renton bordered by the Cedar River,Maple Valley Highway, and steep bluffs. The Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility are located within this region along with about 200 private residences and businesses. Flooding as a result of high Cedar River flows has never been documented in this region- even during the 1990 flood of record-due to the high level of protection afforded by the natural ground elevation along the west river bank upstream of the Maple Valley Highway river crossing. As a result of the protection, the entire Maplewood vicinity is outside the existing 100-yr.FEMA floodplain boundary. A vicinity map of the area is included as Figure 1. The natural ground elevation along the west riverbank was surveyed in 1994 to document the minimum bank elevation and, in turn the maximum level of flood protection provided to the adjacent Maplewood vicinity. The minimum surveyed bank elevation was 83.5 ft.NAVD;this 1994 bank elevation was able to contain Cedar River flows up to approximately 13,500 cfs. The level of flood protection provided by the natural ground elevation in 1994 is well above the existing FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 8,500 cfs and the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 11,830 cfs to be used in this reach of the Cedar River as part of any future floodplain mapping projects. The existing FEMA 100 YR flow value of 8,500 cfs and corresponding floodplain boundary are based on available hydrologic information and topography from 1984. The recently adopted FEMA 100 YR flow value of 12,000 cfs for any future floodplain mapping efforts is based on available hydrology from 2000. Extreme Cedar River flows during November 1995 and February 1996 eroded a significant portion of the natural bank that protected the Maplewood vicinity. Specifically,about 120 feet in the horizontal direction and 3.5 feet in the vertical direction eroded. Figure 2 illustrates the horizontal loss. As a result of the vertical loss,the level of flood protection afforded by the natural ground elevation to the Maplewood vicinity decreased from about 13,500 cfs to 11,300 cfs. This indicates that the Maplewood vicinity is clearly still outside the existing FEMA 100-yr. floodplain boundary as natural ground along the west bank would not be overtopped by a 8,500 cfs event. However the existing bank cannot entirely contain the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. flood value required for future mapping efforts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project will include construction of a landscaping berm between the perched riverbank and Hole Number 3 of the Maplewood Golf Course. The landscaping berm will restore flood protection to the level provided by the natural ground elevation prior to the November 1995 and February 1996 extreme events. The preliminary design parameters for the landscaping berm are listed below. Preliminary plan and cross section views are included as Figure 3 and 4,respectively. Maximum Berm Elevation(ft NAVD).................................................................................83.5 Minimum Existing Ground Elevation(ft NAVD)................................................................80.0 MaximumBerm Width(ft)................................................................................................ 128 ft MaximumBerm Length(ft)...............................................................................................600 ft BermTop Width(ft).....................................:....................................................................... 8 ft Minimum Set-Back from Ordinary High Water Level (ft)..................................................30 ft Minimum Set-Back from Top of Bank(ft).......................................................................... loft INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION A. Permitting 1. Federal a.NMFS,USFW - Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not anticipated to be required since the project does not involve federal funds, assistance or permit. b. USACE - Section 10 Permit will not be required since no work will be in or affecting navigable waters of the United States(e.g., floats, piers, docks,dredging,excavation,piling, buoys,overhead power lines, etc.). - Section 404 Permit under 33 USC § 1344 will not be required since the project does not include: (1)placement of dredged or fill material waterward of the ordinary high water mark; H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb (2)mechanized land clearing and sidecasting in waters of the United States, including wetlands,or(3)Endangered Species Act Consultation. 2. State a. WDFW - Hydraulic Project Approval is not anticipated to be required since all construction work will be landward of the ordinary high water line and will only affect Cedar River flows above 11,300 cfs. However,WDFW has authority to require a HPA if they believe any project landward of the ordinary highwater mark will directly impact fish life and habitat, falling trees into streams or lakes,etc. b. DOE - Section 401 Water Quality Certification under 33 USC § 1341 is not anticipated to be required since federal approval is not required. 3. Local a.City of Renton -Environmental Review(including SEPA checklist)submittal will be required. - Shoreline permit under the Shoreline Management Act 90.58 RCW will be required since the construction work will be within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Shorelines of the State and will require filling. b. King County - Critical Areas Ordinance review is not anticipated to be required since the construction project is(1)completely within Renton City Limits and(2)outside of the existing FEMA 100 YR floodplain boundary. The project will nominally affect downstream flood levels in King County(an increase of about 1 to 4 inches)for flows above 11,300 cfs. Existing FEMA floodplain maps are based upon a 100-YR-flood value of 8,500 cfs. B. Community and Private Utilities Property owners and utilities affected by the proposed project will be notified and given the opportunity to provide input during the final design and construction project. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Construction Costs: $110,000 Consultant Costs: $16,000 City Staff Costs: $25,000 Total Project Cost: $136,000 FUNDING SOURCE Project management, design and construction will be funded through the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Projects budget (421 account). H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Description Anticipated Completion Date Select Engineering Consultant for Analysis and Design........................April 6, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Engineering Consultant ...............April 25, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Landscape Architect...................April 25, 2001 Kick-Off Meeting ....................................................................April 1 30, 2 001 BaseMap Survey....................................................................... May 7, 2001 Preliminary Design Memorandum and Construction Plans Submittal.......May 14, 2001 Environmental Review Submittal ..................................................May 21, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 50% Submittal ................June 25, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 90% Submittal .............. August 6, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 100% Submittal............August 20, 2001 BidOpening.........................................................................August 27, 2001 BidAward...................................................................... September 19, 2001 Begin Construction................................................................. October 1, 2001 End Construction................................................................November 9, 2001 STAFFING A. Project Management The project will be managed by Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Division. B. Design The Surface Water Utility and Parks Department will select an engineering consultant from the annual consultant roster to prepare final construction plans and specifications and assist with modeling, permitting and construction management. In addition, the landscape architect familiar with the Maplewood Golf Course will be utilized in the design process. C. In-House Reviews All affected divisions and departments will be given an opportunity to review and comment on the 50% percent and 90% design submittals. Please complete the attached response form and return it to Gary Schimek by April 4, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Gary at Ext. 7205. cc: Gregg Zimmerman H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT FOR THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We are assigning (Ext. )as our representative on the design team. ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We will not be assigning a representative to participate on the design team but reserve our right to participate in the standard review processes. ❑ We feel that the following item(s)are of concern or interest in relationship to this project and would like to bring them to you attention: (Signed) (Date) (Section or Division) MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT FOR THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We are assigning (Ext. )_as our representative on the design team. ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We will not be assigning a representative to participate on the design team but reserve our right to participate in the standard review processes. ❑ We feel that the following item(s)are of concern or interest in relationship to this project and would like to bring them to you attention: (Signed) (Date) (Section or Division) CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 27,2001 TO: Dave Christensen,Wastewater Utility Division Leslie Betlach, Parks Division Jack Crumley,Public Works Maintenance Division Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Division Ll Sandra Meyer, Transportation Systems Divis n CON C RRENCE Neil Watts,Development Services Division DATE Rebecca Linda, Economic Development NAME INITIAL/DATE "( e!L FROM: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division �r Drr! STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility(X-7248) Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility(X-720 SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT PROJECT OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project is to restore flood protection, destroyed by extreme Cedar River flows,to City of Renton facilities and private residences within the Maplewood vicinity. City of Renton facilities directly affected by this project include the Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility(i.e.wells and pump house). PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Maplewood vicinity is a 65-acre area within the City of Renton bordered by the Cedar River,Maple Valley Highway, and steep bluffs. The Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility are located within this region along with about 200 private residences and businesses. Flooding as a result of high Cedar River flows has never been documented in this region- even during the 1990 flood of record- due to the high level of protection afforded by the natural ground elevation along the west river bank upstream of the Maple Valley Highway river crossing. As a result of the protection, the entire Maplewood vicinity is outside the existing 100-yr.FEMA floodplain boundary. A vicinity map of the area is included as Figure 1. The natural ground elevation along the west riverbank was surveyed in 1994 to document the minimum bank elevation and, in turn the maximum level of flood protection provided to the adjacent Maplewood vicinity. The minimum surveyed bank elevation was 83.5 ft.NAVD;this 1994 bank elevation was able to contain Cedar River flows up to approximately 13,500 cfs. The level of flood protection provided by the natural ground elevation in 1994 is well above the existing FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 8,500 cfs and the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 11,830 cfs to be used in this reach of the Cedar River as part of any future floodplain mapping projects. The existing FEMA 100 YR flow value of 8,500 cfs and corresponding floodplain boundary are based on available hydrologic information and topography from 1984. The recently adopted FEMA 100 YR flow value of 12,000 cfs for any future floodplain mapping efforts is based on available hydrology from 2000. Extreme Cedar River flows during November 1995 and February 1996 eroded a significant portion of the natural bank that protected the Maplewood vicinity. Specifically,about 120 feet in the horizontal direction and 3.5 feet in the vertical direction eroded. Figure 2 illustrates the horizontal loss. As a result of the vertical loss,the level of flood protection afforded by the natural ground elevation to the Maplewood vicinity decreased from about 13,500 cfs to 11,300 cfs. This indicates that the Maplewood vicinity is clearly still outside the existing FEMA 100-yr. floodplain boundary as natural ground along the west bank would not be overtopped by a 8,500 cfs event. However the existing bank cannot entirely contain the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. flood value required for future mapping efforts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project will include construction of a landscaping berm between the perched riverbank and Hole Number 3 of the Maplewood Golf Course. The landscaping berm will restore flood protection to the level provided by the natural ground elevation prior to the November 1995 and February 1996 extreme events. The preliminary design parameters for the landscaping berm are listed below. Preliminary plan and cross section views are included as Figure 3 and 4, respectively. Maximum Berm Elevation (ft NAVD).................................................................................83.5 Minimum Existing Ground Elevation(ft NAVD)................................................................80.0 MaximumBerm Width(ft)................................................................................................ 128 ft MaximumBerm Length(ft)...............................................................................................600 ft BermTop Width(ft)..............................................................................................................8 ft Minimum Set-Back from Ordinary High Water Level (ft)..................................................30 ft Minimum Set-Back from Top of Bank(ft).......................................................................... loft INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION A. Permitting 1. Federal a.NMFS,USFW - Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not anticipated to be required since the project does not involve federal funds,assistance or permit. b.USACE - Section 10 Permit will not be required since no work will be in or affecting navigable waters of the United States(e.g., floats, piers,docks, dredging, excavation, piling, buoys, overhead power lines, etc.). - Section 404 Permit under 33 USC § 1344 will not be required since the project does not include: (1)placement of dredged or fill material waterward of the ordinary high water mark; H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb (2)mechanized land clearing and sidecasting in waters of the United States, including wetlands, or(3)Endangered Species Act Consultation. 2. State a. WDFW - Hydraulic Project Approval is not anticipated to be required since all construction work will be landward of the ordinary high water line and will only affect Cedar River flows above 11,300 cfs. However, WDFW has authority to require a HPA if they believe any project landward of the ordinary highwater mark will directly impact fish life and habitat, falling trees into streams or lakes, etc. b. DOE - Section 401 Water Quality Certification under 33 USC § 1341 is not anticipated to be required since federal approval is not required. 3. Local a. City of Renton - Environmental Review(including SEPA checklist) submittal will be required. - Shoreline permit under the Shoreline Management Act 90.58 RCW will be required since the construction work will be within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Shorelines of the State and will require filling. b. King County - Critical Areas Ordinance review is not anticipated to be required since the construction project is(1)completely within Renton City Limits and(2)outside of the existing FEMA 100 YR floodplain boundary. The project will nominally affect downstream flood levels in King County(an increase of about 1 to 4 inches)for flows above 11,300 cfs. Existing FEMA floodplain maps are based upon a 100-YR-flood value of 8,500 cfs. B. Community and Private Utilities Property owners and utilities affected by the proposed project will be notified and given the opportunity to provide input during the final design and construction project. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Construction Costs: $1 10,000 Consultant Costs: $16,000 City Staff Costs: $25,000 Total Project Cost: $136,000 FUNDING SOURCE Project management, design and construction will be funded through the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Projects budget (421 account). H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Description Anticipated Completion Date Select Engineering Consultant for Analysis and Design........................April 6, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Engineering Consultant ...............April 25, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Landscape Architect...................April 25, 2001 Kick-Off Meeting ....................................................................April 30, 2001 BaseMap Survey....................................................................... May 7, 2001 Preliminary Design Memorandum and Construction Plans Submittal.......May 14, 2001 Environmental Review Submittal ..................................................May 21, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 50% Submittal ................June 25, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 90% Submittal .............. August 6, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 100% Submittal............August 20, 2001 Bid Opening.........................................................................August 27, 2 001 2001 Bid Award...................................................................... September 19,Begin Construction................................................................. October 1, 2001 End Construction................................................................November 9, 2001 STAFFING A. Project Management The project will be managed by Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Division. B. Design The Surface Water Utility and Parks Department will select an engineering consultant from the annual consultant roster to prepare final construction plans and specifications and assist with modeling, permitting and construction management. In addition, the landscape architect familiar with the Maplewood Golf Course will be utilized in the design process. C. In-House Reviews All affected divisions and departments will be given an opportunity to review and comment on the 50% percent and 90% design submittals. Please complete the attached response form and return it to Gary Schimek by April 4, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Gary at Ext. 7205. cc: Gregg Zimmerman H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb r � CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 27,2001 TO: Dave Christensen, Wastewater Utility Division Leslie Betlach, Parks Division Jack Crumley,Public Works Maintenance Division Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Division Sandra Meyer,Transportation Systems Division Neil Watts,Development Services Division Rebecca Linda, Economic Development (�(� FROM: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division '/h STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility(X-7248) Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility(X-7205) SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT PROJECT OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project is to restore flood protection, destroyed by extreme Cedar River flows,to City of Renton facilities and private residences within the Maplewood vicinity. City of Renton facilities directly affected by this project include the Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility(i.e. wells and pump house). PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Maplewood vicinity is a 65-acre area within the City of Renton bordered by the Cedar River,Maple Valley Highway, and steep bluffs. The Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility are located within this region along with about 200 private residences and businesses. Flooding as a result of high Cedar River flows has never been documented in this region- even during the 1990 flood of record-due to the high level of protection afforded by the natural ground elevation along the west river bank upstream of the Maple Valley Highway river crossing. As a result of the protection, the entire Maplewood vicinity is outside the existing 100-yr.FEMA floodplain boundary. A vicinity map of the area is included as Figure 1. The natural ground elevation along the west riverbank was surveyed in 1994 to document the minimum bank elevation and, in turn the maximum level of flood protection provided to the adjacent Maplewood vicinity. The minimum surveyed bank elevation was 83.5 ft.NAVD;this 1994 bank elevation was able to contain Cedar River flows up to approximately 13,500 cfs. The level of flood protection provided by the natural ground elevation in 1994 is well above the existing FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 8,500 cfs and the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 11,830 cfs to be used in this reach of the Cedar River as part of any future floodplain mapping projects. The existing FEMA 100 YR flow value of 8,500 cfs and corresponding floodplain boundary are based on available hydrologic information and topography from 1984. The recently adopted FEMA 100 YR flow value of 12,000 cfs for any future floodplain mapping efforts is based on available hydrology from 2000. Extreme Cedar River flows during November 1995 and February 1996 eroded a significant portion of the natural bank that protected the Maplewood vicinity. Specifically, about 120 feet in the horizontal direction and 3.5 feet in the vertical direction eroded. Figure 2 illustrates the horizontal loss. As a result of the vertical loss,the level of flood protection afforded by the natural ground elevation to the Maplewood vicinity decreased from about 13,500 cfs to 11,300 cfs. This indicates that the Maplewood vicinity is clearly still outside the existing FEMA 100-yr. floodplain boundary as natural ground along the west bank would not be overtopped by a 8,500 cfs event. However the existing bank cannot entirely contain the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. flood value required for future mapping efforts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project will include construction of a landscaping berm between the perched riverbank and Hole Number 3 of the Maplewood Golf Course. The landscaping berm will restore flood protection to the level provided by the natural ground elevation prior to the November 1995 and February 1996 extreme events. The preliminary design parameters for the landscaping berm are listed below. Preliminary plan and cross section views are included as Figure 3 and 4, respectively. Maximum Berm Elevation (ft NAVD).................................................................................83.5 Minimum Existing Ground Elevation(ft NAVD)................................................................80.0 MaximumBerm Width(ft)................................................................................................ 128 ft Maximum Berm Length(ft)...............................................................................................600 ft BermTop Width(ft)..............................................................................................................8 ft Minimum Set-Back from Ordinary High Water Level (ft)..................................................30 ft Minimum Set-Back from Top of Bank(ft).......................................................................... loft INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION A. Permitting 1. Federal a.NMFS, USFW - Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not anticipated to be required since the project does not involve federal funds,assistance or permit. b. USACE - Section 10 Permit will not be required since no work will be in or affecting navigable waters of the United States(e.g., floats,piers, docks,dredging, excavation, piling, buoys, overhead power lines, etc.). - Section 404 Permit under 33 USC § 1344 will not be required since the project does not include: (1)placement of dredged or fill material waterward of the ordinary high water mark; H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb (2)mechanized land clearing and sidecasting in waters of the United States, including wetlands, or(3)Endangered Species Act Consultation. 2. State a. WDFW - Hydraulic Project Approval is not anticipated to be required since all construction work will be landward of the ordinary high water line and will only affect Cedar River flows above 11,300 cfs. However,WDFW has authority to require a HPA if they believe any project landward of the ordinary highwater mark will directly impact fish life and habitat, falling trees into streams or lakes, etc. b. DOE - Section 401 Water Quality Certification under 33 USC § 1341 is not anticipated to be required since federal approval is not required. 3. Local a. City of Renton - Environmental Review(including SEPA checklist) submittal will be required. - Shoreline permit under the Shoreline Management Act 90.58 RCW will be required since the construction work will be within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Shorelines of the State and will require filling. b. King County - Critical Areas Ordinance review is not anticipated to be required since the construction project is(1)completely within Renton City Limits and(2) outside of the existing FEMA 100 YR floodplain boundary. The project will nominally affect downstream flood levels in King County(an increase of about 1 to 4 inches)for flows above 11,300 cfs. Existing FEMA floodplain maps are based upon a 100-YR-flood value of 8,500 cfs. B. Community and Private Utilities Property owners and utilities affected by the proposed project will be notified and given the opportunity to provide input during the final design and construction project. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Construction Costs: $110,000 Consultant Costs: $16,000 City Staff Costs: $25,000 Total Project Cost: $136,000 FUNDING SOURCE Project management, design and construction will be funded through the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Projects budget (421 account). H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Description Anticipated Completion Date Select Engineering Consultant for Analysis and Design........................April 6, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Engineering Consultant ...............April 25, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Landscape Architect...................April 25, 2001 Kick-Off Meeting ....................................................................April 30, 2001 Base Map Survey....................................................................... May 7, 2001 Preliminary Design Memorandum and Construction Plans Submittal.......May 14, 2001 Environmental Review Submittal ..................................................May 21, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 50% Submittal ................June 25, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 90% Submittal .............. August 6, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 100% Submittal............August 20, 2001 Bid Opening.........................................................................August 27, 2001 Bid Award...................................................................... September 19, 2001 Begin Construction................................................................. October 1, 2001 End Construction................................................................ November 9, 2001 STAFFING A. Project Management The project will be managed by Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Division. B. Design The Surface Water Utility and Parks Department will select an engineering consultant from the annual consultant roster to prepare final construction plans and specifications and assist with modeling, permitting and construction management. In addition, the landscape architect familiar with the Maplewood Golf Course will be utilized in the design process. C. In-House Reviews All affected divisions and departments will be given an opportunity to review and comment on the 50% percent and 90% design submittals. Please complete the attached response form and return it to Gary Schimek by April 4, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Gary at Ext. 7205. cc: Gregg Zimmerman H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb J J .`ate ��-, �. 1 1 r i i � , ., •,, , �� , s 1- MINE mAk I W N WE w4, 1111 11 LIMP 1,-0.163 Ab r ✓' �\ � � �' Leo� .. _����► .��,� Sal; �/�i.,, � �..•�s �y � � �, OWNER ♦ �- �{' '/��A�!• ,�.� � �i., �>,�'r try/�j 9��� �. � ! I �����♦,t.1./em ��''/��'.�//�s�I�fLPm4lA�i��i�I♦�., �� ,: �� '��e� - � 1 1 ��� +ems®���i0!��0.•.������✓II,►�':•�1�,����.� � ���c. �'�������'���r // ..,�_ sm i S I I +. s .-► I i 1 EEoB; �... 19 9�'e Iwativh / 1 x I / Rwcr I BanK (2col) ✓or �2a�ram-►, r: 80.Ted cxrea. �ep.�eScn+S 42 Ae arcs` ys eroded by 6p; ood;n� -k Chd nn d 41 s,., mFigure 2 roe . SE x RI V ' V ATX*S ` ! Maplewood Golf Course -City of Renton FAIRWAY #3 EXISTING CART PATH C9-> ` * r -/ { % .(TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED) TOP OF BERM = 83' _ - CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ER rt / m `� w II. f GREEN #3 U i I c doh O O \ \ Q610 l O STAGIN AREA --- 80 f \. - THEES CEDAR RIVER �� 1 PEDESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE g4 x {{ TOP OF LAN DSCAPE'ER'S�NEI CARTPATH IGOYEAR L. (H2.00') FREEBOARD EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS ALONG CART PATH o.m o.,, o.w o•n .00 .+ •A •,s ..aa •., :.so '." '.� PROFILE Figure 3 q €'m Maplewood Golf Course -Landscape Berm Construction o Option#1 00 N C Cross Sections 1,2,3 .y% O M _ u<_i 8 Toy , �/ 20:1 t U i 10 - 8' ZRas SR=N AIU JrA Evm 8 -- •_._ 2Y CROSS SECTION 1 Y i 92' CMW Mr=N C/l.6T4 6+00 a s 20:1 3' Y - m -p -Y 4, w daze SZVBW B12.sri$01W A—NN Figure 4 CITY OF RENTON ,�✓ , Mayor Jesse Tanner March 23, 2001 Colonel Ralph Graves U.S. Army Corp of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 SUBJECT: EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDE IMPACT TO USACE CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD REDUCTION PROJECT Dear Colonel Graves: As you know,on February 28, 2001, a major earthquake triggered a landslide across the Cedar River in Renton,which, in turn, caused serious damage to the United State Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) Section 205 Cedar River Flood Damage Reduction Project. Specifically,the landslide and movement of the river resulted in the complete loss of the groundwater spawning channel mitigation element of the project. The USACE and City of Renton entered into a Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) for construction of this project on May 9, 1998. The flood control elements of the project include: initial dredging (completed in 1998); construction of floodwalls and levees(completed in 1999); and future dredging(an average of every three years over the 100-year project lifetime). The loss of the groundwater spawning channel has the following ramifications for the City of Renton: 1) Since the groundwater spawning channel is required mitigation for all three flood control elements of the project, it will be very difficult for the City to secure necessary permits to implement the future dredging element until the channel is replaced or rehabilitated. If future dredging cannot be performed, the floodwalls and levees will not provide the minimum level of flood protection when sediment accumulates above designed riverbed elevations. This decrease in flood protection below the minimum level would result in the loss of the project benefits. 2) It will be very difficult for the City to meet the required five-year,post-construction salmonid spawning requirement for the project established by the State hydraulic permit unless the groundwater spawning channel is replaced or rehabilitated prior to the 2001-spawning year. If the post-construction spawning requirement is not met, additional project mitigation will be required. 3) Loss of spawning habitat could adversely impact the salmon population in the Cedar River. Due to the significant impacts of the loss of the groundwater spawning channel on the flood control elements of the USACE Section 205 Cedar River Flood Damage Reduction Project, the City of Renton is requesting assistance from the USACE under PL 84-99 to replace or rehabilitate the groundwater spawning channel. For the reasons noted above, the replacement or rehabilitation must occur during the 2001 river-construction window to avoid any negative impacts to the project or to the year 2001 salmon run. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 - 425 430-6500 / FAX 425 430-6523 " ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer : Colonel Ralph Graves U.S. Army Corp of Engineers March 23, 2001 Page 2 The City of Renton looks forward to your response. If you have any questions or need additional information,please contact Gregg Zimmerman,Administrator,Planning Building and Public Works Department,at 425-430-7311 Sincerely, Jesse Tanner Mayor 01-032:GZ:mp cc: Renton City Council Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer,City of Renton Gregg Zimmerman,P/B/PW Departments,City of Renton Jim Shepherd,Community Services,City of Renton Ron Straka,Surface Water Utility,City of Renton Dave Clark,King County Dept.Natural Resources CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 27,2001 TO: Dave Christensen, Wastewater Utility Division Leslie Betlach,Parks Division Jack Crumley, Public Works Maintenance Division Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Division Sandra Meyer,Transportation Systems Division Neil Watts,Development Services Division Rebecca Linda,Economic Development A FROM: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility(X-7248) Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility(X-7205) SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT PROJECT OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project is to restore flood protection,destroyed by extreme Cedar River flows,to City of Renton facilities and private residences within the Maplewood vicinity. City of Renton facilities directly affected by this project include the Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility(i.e. wells and pump house). PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Maplewood vicinity is a 65-acre area within the City of Renton bordered by the Cedar River,Maple Valley Highway, and steep bluffs. The Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility are located within this region along with about 200 private residences and businesses. Flooding as a result of high Cedar River flows has never been documented in this region-even during the 1990 flood of record- due to the high level of protection afforded by the natural ground elevation along the west river bank upstream of the Maple Valley Highway river crossing. As a result of the protection, the entire Maplewood vicinity is outside the existing 100-yr.FEMA floodplain boundary. A vicinity map of the area is included as Figure 1. The natural ground elevation along the west riverbank was surveyed in 1994 to document the minimum bank elevation and, in turn the maximum level of flood protection provided to the adjacent Maplewood vicinity. The minimum surveyed bank elevation was 83.5 ft.NAVD; this 1994 bank elevation was able to contain Cedar River flows up to approximately 13,500 cfs. The level of flood protection provided by the natural ground elevation in 1994 is well above the existing FEMA 100-yr.recurrence flood value of 8,500 cfs and the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 11,830 cfs to be used in this reach of the Cedar River as part of any future floodplain mapping projects. The existing FEMA 100 YR flow value of 8,500 cfs and corresponding floodplain boundary are based on available hydrologic information and topography from 1984. The recently adopted FEMA 100 YR flow value of 12,000 cfs for any future floodplain mapping efforts is based on available hydrology from 2000. Extreme Cedar River flows during November 1995 and February 1996 eroded a significant portion of the natural bank that protected the Maplewood vicinity. Specifically, about 120 feet in the horizontal direction and 3.5 feet in the vertical direction eroded. Figure 2 illustrates the horizontal loss. As a result of the vertical loss,the level of flood protection afforded by the natural ground elevation to the Maplewood vicinity decreased from about 13,500 cfs to 11,300 cfs. This indicates that the Maplewood vicinity is clearly still outside the existing FEMA 100-yr. floodplain boundary as natural ground along the west bank would not be overtopped by a 8,500 cfs event. However the existing bank cannot entirely contain the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. flood value required for future mapping efforts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project will include construction of a landscaping berm between the perched riverbank and Hole Number 3 of the Maplewood Golf Course. The landscaping berm will restore flood protection to the level provided by the natural ground elevation prior to the November 1995 and February 1996 extreme events. The preliminary design parameters for the landscaping berm are listed below. Preliminary plan and cross section views are included as Figure 3 and 4,respectively. Maximum Berm Elevation(ft NAVD).................................................................................83.5 Minimum Existing Ground Elevation ft NAVD 80.0 MaximumBerm Width(ft)................................................................................................ 128 ft MaximumBerm Length(ft)...............................................................................................600 ft BermTop Width(ft)..............................................................................................................8 ft Minimum Set-Back from Ordinary High Water Level (ft)..................................................30 ft Minimum Set-Back from Top of Bank(ft).......................................................................... loft INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION A. Permitting 1. Federal a.NMFS, USFW - Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not anticipated to be required since the project does not involve federal funds, assistance or permit. b. USACE - Section 10 Permit will not be required since no work will be in or affecting navigable waters of the United States(e.g., floats,piers,docks,dredging, excavation,piling, buoys, overhead power lines, etc.). - Section 404 Permit under 33 USC § 1344 will not be required since the project does not include: (1)placement of dredged or fill material waterward of the ordinary high water mark; H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb (2)mechanized land clearing and sidecasting in waters of the United States, including wetlands, or(3) Endangered Species Act Consultation. 2. State a. WDFW - Hydraulic Project Approval is not anticipated to be required since all construction work will be landward of the ordinary high water line and will only affect Cedar River flows above 11,300 cfs. However, WDFW has authority to require a HPA if they believe any project landward of the ordinary highwater mark will directly impact fish life and habitat, falling trees into streams or lakes,etc. b. DOE - Section 401 Water Quality Certification under 33 USC § 1341 is not anticipated to be required since federal approval is not required. 3. Local a. City of Renton - Environmental Review(including SEPA checklist)submittal will be required. - Shoreline permit under the Shoreline Management Act 90.58 RCW will be required since the construction work will be within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Shorelines of the State and will require filling. b. King County - Critical Areas Ordinance review is not anticipated to be required since the construction project is(1)completely within Renton City Limits and(2)outside of the existing FEMA 100 YR floodplain boundary. The project will nominally affect downstream flood levels in King County(an increase of about 1 to 4 inches)for flows above 11,300 cfs. Existing FEMA floodplain maps are based upon a 100-YR-flood value of 8,500 cfs. B. Community and Private Utilities Property owners and utilities affected by the proposed project will be notified and given the opportunity to provide input during the final design and construction project. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Construction Costs: $1 10,000 Consultant Costs: $16,000 City Staff Costs: $25,000 Total Project Cost: $136,000 FUNDING SOURCE Project management, design and construction will be funded through the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Projects budget (421 account). H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Description Anticipated Completion Date Select Engineering Consultant for Analysis and Design........................April 6, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Engineering Consultant ...............April 25, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Landscape Architect...................April 25, 2001 Kick-Off Meeting ....................................................................April 30 201 BaseMap Survey....................................................................... May 7, 2001 Preliminary Design Memorandum and Construction Plans Submittal.......May 14, 2001 Environmental Review Submittal ..................................................May 21, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 50% Submittal ................June 25, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 90% Submittal .............. August 6, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 100% Submittal............August 20, 2001 BidOpening.........................................................................August 27 2001 BidAward...................................................................... September 19, 2001 Begin Construction................................................................. October 1, 2001 End Construction................................................................November 9, 2001 STAFFING A. Project Management The project will be managed by Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Division. B. Design The Surface Water Utility and Parks Department will select an engineering consultant from the annual consultant roster to prepare final construction plans and specifications and assist with modeling, permitting and construction management. In addition, the landscape architect familiar with the Maplewood Golf Course will be utilized in the design process. C. In-House Reviews All affected divisions and departments will be given an opportunity to review and comment on the 50% percent and 90% design submittals. Please complete the attached response form and return it to Gary Schimek by April 4, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Gary at Ext. 7205. cc: Gregg Zimmerman H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb �► �• ,, ,57,� .�► ®nor. -- - 1� •= i.��r�►��? •k now a'-0�Iw� �r' . ter/ �`:` %\`'��,-��.''�" -�`°�!��w�i,��\•�. . �► ; 1 1 ! 1 1 i � ' •w'�g t>� .ICY'/' �% ®:�� 'a"_ice 1f • , ��Ij ,� � \ � t'o�sw• ► fit\♦@•` FC,�,� �� �1 ! \ '�� �f t � ��\ IA Of OFZ NIA %myl '' 41 ��,�i�.�yi.►.Z_._;mp 04 ITS WrAm WIN 1111� SM, ��1��� � ��).A•,fir �/ !s',ilf I). .i7i A O•oo+�� � � t ��� j►.��� JOBI'?j°���" I,sill I►' f'"..i44 <:��o ���+♦�r�/�,,;♦f,.♦off ��i��� .//r,,��,�.,�i�'� �!I � � .� ,�� GA ;.., / '' /!.i�v''��,e ���t�,�w•�I'f�f��0� �.�01.t!i�'� �jiv.'�!�3'�L•`iI/>�='.!%�� � `,I �. II d/moo ..��•. -�sj -.� �'.�,- �.� , ,>.� .�� � / -�= � - .- � `0� ���-�.-�� 44 i �P;'•s��� ,►�, ..-.mow •� ,� y �� 01, �. s � •,gyp®,� s®����i,,•, -.�� �•�✓��•/�`'�% "r"�ti�� �i a x I Rwcr - San K (20ol) C - �eP.�eSen+s Ae area. "Z' eroded by . 6p41 n el n 1 r I t - �\ V \F \ l l• t,~v ANJUPL EWOOD Figure 2 DE #'94073 k , RIVER _ I SCE EEl EVATKONS -f �� •p.oc ' Maplewood Golf Course -Citil of Renton FAIRWAY #3 � - EXISTING CART PATH(To 13E REMOVED AND REPLA CED) Top OF BERM 83' CONSTRUCTION LIMITS 19 AREA TREES CEDAR RIVER PEDESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE TOP OF LANDSCAPE BERM 83.0'- NEW CART PATH EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS ALONG CART PATH PROFILE u-u-��__- ---- �---- �� Figure a Maplewood Golf Course -Landscape Berm Construction am Option#1 o Cross Sections 1,2,3 8. o U N 8 0- •, r- C, 20:1 S —loe. '1 C2XW AVMW AIU sr.e+ao 8. 2.1' CROSS SECTION h- -------- 92' I awls S vmy C/l.STI 0+00 8. 1 r C 0?0-,;9 SZCMN B/P.SrA 8+00 A- N - -- - ------------------- Figure 4 RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 27,2001 TO: Dave Christensen Wastewater Utility Divisio '7'EC�+G/V s ie etlach, Parks Division �D Jack Crumley,Public Works Maintenance Division MAR Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Division C/ 1 20�� NeiSanl Watts,Development ra Meyer, Servicetion s Diviems sion UT�I�SRs EM sN Rebecca Linda,Economic Development FROM: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division A STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water ary Schimek, Surface Water Utility(X-7205) SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT PROJECT OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project is to restore flood protection,destroyed by extreme Cedar River flows,to City of Renton facilities and private residences within the Maplewood vicinity. City of Renton facilities directly affected by this project include the Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility(i.e.wells and pump house). PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Maplewood vicinity is a 65-acre area within the City of Renton bordered by the Cedar River,Maple Valley Highway, and steep bluffs. The Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility are located within this region along with about 200 private residences and businesses. Flooding as a result of high Cedar River flows has never been documented in this region-even during the 1990 flood of record-due to the high level of protection afforded by the natural ground elevation along the west river bank upstream of the Maple Valley Highway river crossing. As a result of the protection, the entire Maplewood vicinity is outside the existing 100-yr. FEMA floodplain boundary. A vicinity map of the area is included as Figure 1. The natural ground elevation along the west riverbank was surveyed in 1994 to document the minimum bank elevation and, in turn the maximum level of flood protection provided to the adjacent Maplewood vicinity. The minimum surveyed bank elevation was 83.5 ft.NAVD;this 1994 bank elevation was able to contain Cedar River flows up to approximately 13,500 cfs. The level of flood protection provided by the natural ground elevation in 1994 is well above the existing FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 8,500 cfs and the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr.recurrence flood value of 11,830 cfs to be used in this reach of the Cedar River as part of any future floodplain mapping projects. The existing FEMA 100 YR r flow value of 8,500 cfs and corresponding floodplain boundary are based on available hydrologic information and topography from 1984. The recently adopted FEMA 100 YR flow value of 12,000 cfs for any future floodplain mapping efforts is based on available hydrology from 2000. Extreme Cedar River flows during November 1995 and February 1996 eroded a significant portion of the natural bank that protected the Maplewood vicinity. Specifically, about 120 feet in the horizontal direction and 3.5 feet in the vertical direction eroded. Figure 2 illustrates the horizontal loss. As a result of the vertical loss,the level of flood protection afforded by the natural ground elevation to the Maplewood vicinity decreased from about 13,500 cfs to 11,300 cfs. This indicates that the Maplewood vicinity is clearly still outside the existing FEMA 100-yr.floodplain boundary as natural ground along the west bank would not be overtopped by a 8,500 cfs event. However the existing bank cannot entirely contain the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. flood value required for future mapping efforts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project will include construction of a landscaping berm between the perched riverbank and Hole Number 3 of the Maplewood Golf Course. The landscaping berm will restore flood protection to the level provided by the natural ground elevation prior to the November 1995 and February 1996 extreme events. The preliminary design parameters for the landscaping berm are listed below. Preliminary plan and cross section views are included as Figure 3 and 4,respectively. Maximum Berm Elevation(ft NAVD).................................................................................83.5 Minimum Existing Ground Elevation(ft NAVD).............................................................. 80.0 MaximumBerm Width(ft)................................................................................................ 128 ft MaximumBerm Length(ft)...............................................................................................600 ft BermTop Width (ft)..............................................................................................................8 ft Minimum Set-Back from Ordinary High Water Level (ft)..................................................30 ft Minimum Set-Back from Top of Bank(ft).......................................................................... loft INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION A. Permitting 1. Federal a.NMFS, USFW - Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not anticipated to be required since the project does not involve federal funds,assistance or permit. b. USACE - Section 10 Permit will not be required since no work will be in or affecting navigable waters of the United States(e.g.,floats,piers,docks,dredging,excavation,piling, buoys, overhead power lines, etc.). - Section 404 Permit under 33 USC § 1344 will not be required since the project does not include: (1)placement of dredged or fill material waterward of the ordinary high water mark; H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb (2)mechanized land clearing and sidecasting in waters of the United States, including wetlands,or(3) Endangered Species Act Consultation. 2. State a. WDFW - Hydraulic Project Approval is not anticipated to be required since all construction work will be landward of the ordinary high water line and will only affect Cedar River flows above 11,300 cfs. However, WDFW has authority to require a HPA if they believe any project landward of the ordinary highwater mark will directly impact fish life and habitat, falling trees into streams or lakes,etc. b. DOE - Section 401 Water Quality Certification under 33 USC § 1341 is not anticipated to be required since federal approval is not required. 3. Local a. City of Renton - Environmental Review(including SEPA checklist)submittal will be required. - Shoreline permit under the Shoreline Management Act 90.58 RCW will be required since the construction work will be within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Shorelines of the State and will require filling. b. King County -Critical Areas Ordinance review is not anticipated to be required since the construction project is(1)completely within Renton City Limits and(2)outside of the existing FEMA 100 YR floodplain boundary. The project will nominally affect downstream flood levels in King County(an increase of about 1 to 4 inches)for flows above 11,300 cfs. Existing FEMA floodplain maps are based upon a 100-YR-flood value of 8,500 cfs. B. Community and Private Utilities Property owners and utilities affected by the proposed project will be notified and given the opportunity to provide input during the final design and construction project. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Construction Costs: $110,000 Consultant Costs: $16,000 City Staff Costs: $25,000 Total Project Cost: $136,000 FUNDING SOURCE Project management, design and construction will be funded through the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Projects budget (421 account). H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Description Anticipated Completion Date Select Engineering Consultant for Analysis and Design........................April 6, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Engineering Consultant ...............April 25, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Landscape Architect...................April 25, 2001 Kick-Off Meeting ....................................................................April I 0, 2 3 2001 Base Map Survey....................................................................... May 7, 2001 Preliminary Design Memorandum and Construction Plans Submittal.......May 14, 2001 Environmental Review Submittal ..................................................May 21, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 50% Submittal ................June 25, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications -90% Submittal .............. August 6, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 100% Submittal............August 20, 2001 BidOpening.........................................................................August 27, 2001 BidAward... ............................................................ September 19, 2001 Begin Construction................................................................. October 1, 2001 End Construction................................................................November 9, 2001 STAFFING A. Project Management The project will be managed by Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Division. B. Design The Surface Water Utility and Parks Department will select an engineering consultant from the annual consultant roster to prepare final construction plans and specifications and assist with modeling, permitting and construction management. In addition, the landscape architect familiar with the Maplewood Golf Course will be utilized in the design process. C. In-House Reviews All affected divisions and departments will be given an opportunity to review and comment on the 50% percent and 90% design submittals. Please complete the attached response form and return it to Gary Schimek by April 4, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Gary at Ext. 7205. cc: Gregg Zimmerman H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb I So op gym .f �► � -��. `,ter � .•� ��* ��• ���� �•��,�'�� �iffil ^ rtw MW • • �clA r Ink / • - '" ��'11� fi p.=� `• 1 �`' •ni� ►• •''•lf idips pill- NSA -u � � ,i' / ♦ <��/'� lap. �/ PMRAI Nowl Ilion ,� � �„'I'� ��Y���',�����.�.���1�/-::•�����`'4.•w���o'��`�� �� vim•' �® ��1��� e./�/� �ice!"®^\\�' �I i1�\ / �♦ �" � �1 � � '� � �'��'/. 4 ii2v �A>��i�„ `ate �r )i�;./8. <Eoa; �..•.. �` �- 19 9'j�a Iwdtiail Kver Ban K (2co i) 120FT��i 1, 1f�VecL o ct represents Ae arrc& y�- erode by . 41 ode 6p• • _ Chd nne l 1 r / x ?z ��WOOD Figure 2 x., WS OOLF R .�407 k -RIVER DNCE EL /ATIOjISS Maplewood Golf Course -City of Renton 1 FAIRWAY #3 - �� dj � EXISTING CART PATH (To BE REMOVED AND REPLACED) TOP OF BERM = 83' _- CONSTRUCTION LIMITS m v w IGRE EN #3 �Js o c �, u STAGIN / \AREA - �_ 9 TREES -$� -- CEDAR RIVER PEDESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE S t t p e �.... T0"OF LANDSCAPE BERM=83.0'—\ i { 9 100 YEAR SURFACE WATER EL.(82.00') FREEBOARD / , \' EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS ALONG CART PATH x•'PROFILE L Figure 3 i £ Maplewood Golf Course Landscape Berm Construction am Option#1 o g Cross Sections 1,2,3 vO J'u 8.- -I.. C O N 'I o= I__ i 20:1 _ K S —108' -- ~ r b 0=5 MV77ON.Vl.SrI erao 8.- -•J' l 20:1 CROSS SECTION -- ----- 92' r— -b "i g00.S S6cmx C/l�STI 6+A0 r-- / 201 a 3' 12 w00=SAC'}7t7N B/l.STI Jf07' A—NNN _. ... Figure 4 achimek'-G&O Sco e for Goff Course Berm .. .. _. �... . m. ._. m, ry p m F � From: Ronald Straka To: Gary Schimek Date: 4/30/01 9:32AM Subject: G&O Scope for Golf Course Berm The following are my comments/questions regarding the G&O scope of work for the Golf Course Berm project. 1. Base Map Survey- Have Bob MacOnie review the Base Map Survey portion of the scope. The City O has an arerial topo of the site and established monuments and control points in the area. Need to verify that this additional effort to establish new control points is necessary. 2. Base Map Survey- Is G&O going to do on the ground survey (ALTA Survey) of the site to include o� topograph and pick up exising site features to use as a base map for the project design. In reading the scope it is not real clear to me, or is the information coming from the aerial survey. /3. SEPA Checklist-A shoreline permit will be required for the project construction. Will we want them to prepare the shoreline permit application, or are you planning to prepare the permit application? The Geotechnical scope of work need to be better defined. We will want the Geotechnical consultant o answer some very specific questions regarding the berm's design, such as type of material to use, need for keying the structure in to the ground to prevent seepage or the potential for seepage in general. If these answer can be done with existing geotechnicl information, then great. I just do not want to find out that to get answers to these questions will require field work later on. Do we have any existing historical information that the Geotechnical consultant will use? If so, it should be cited in the scope of work. 5. The bid award and construction services scopes are fine, but we may want to reduce the number of hours down a little. ��L � V S. The egineering costs are higher than our estimated design cost by 172%. \/7. The scope had no mention of how the consultant was going to work with the Golf Course Landscape Architect during the project design. The coordination with the Golf Course Landscape Architect should be described in the design scope section. When and what the architect will do should be described in the scope and reflected in the schedule. We can discuss these comments in more detail if you want. A Exhibit A Scope of Work Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Prepared for City of Renton Department of Public Works Prepared by Gray & Osborne, Inc. The City of Renton Department of Public Works requested Gray & Osborne Inc. provide a scope of work and cost estimate to prepare design plans and special provisions to regrade approximately 300 lineal yards of rough and fairway area on the Maplewood Golf Course. Contract work will include survey, geotechnical recommendations, preparation of plans and special provisions, coordination with City of Renton Parks and Recreation Department including the golf course architect, and construction management services. The following scope of work, with the attached cost estimate and schedule, has been prepared in response to the City's request. Base-map Survey Work Schedule and conduct aerial surveys to establish horizontal and vertical control as __\J ;necessary for the proposed project. imrted fieTd sulmy Wi-ltlbe_performed to include below-grade features and other information not identified by aerial survey. Acquire golf course as-built drawings from the City. The City will notify and coordinate with the Parks Department with respect to access to the areas. Absent specific written documentation to the contrary, the Engineer shall be entitled to rely upon the completeness and accuracy of such documentation. All survey data will be provided on the city's datum. Horizontal datum shall be the State Plane Coordinate System and vertical datum shall be NAVD88. City will provide 100-year flood elevations for Cedar River in same vertical datum. 1 N1PSurvey control points will be physically set for site reference control. Physical features including golf course features, structures, valves, streets, fences, utility poles, signs, cart �► S��" paths, ditches, and other City or franchise utilities, etc., will be noted for plotting. The City will coordinate the locating and marking of existing utilities (City owned and franchised) prior to the survey. The City will coordinate with the Parks Department and 6r request permission prior to surveying on private property. The survey work will include those portions of Hole Number 3 located south of the tee boxes to the street right-of-way for Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) and from the bank of the Cedar River to the western edge of Hole Number 3 as defined by the large cedar trees adjacent to the fairway. Engineering Design Prepare complete plans, special provisions, and contract documents for the construction of the project consistent with applicable State, County and City Standards. The City of Renton standard contract format will be followed. Gray & Osborne's portion of the Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Pagel of 3 Scope of Work 04/30/01 contract documents comprise: scope of work, design plans, engineer's cost estimate, a schedule of costs for bid preparation, and special provisions. The City will produce the final contract document. The electronic format of the special provisions will be Microsoft WORD 2000; plans will be prepared in AutoCAD 2000 format. Present a preliminary draft of the plans for the City's review at the approximate 5,0% level of design. With this preliminary submittal,there will be furnished a preliminary construction cost estimate. Upon review by the City of these preliminary plans,the Engineer will then make such additions or changes as directed by the City, and proceed with the final design and editing of the plans and special provisions. A final draft of the plans, special provisions, contract documents and construction cost estimate will be presented,for review at the approximate 90% level of design. A final construction cost estimate along with final plans and contract documents will be delivered to the City for review,prior to the City authorizing construction bid notices. Plans, Special provisions and addenda will have the professional seal and signature of the Project Manager and Project Principal. Gray & Osborne will produce one set of reproducible drawings for the City's use. All documents will be submitted to the City on CD-ROM. SEPA Checklist and Permit Applications Prepare application materials for City of Renton Land Use Permit Master Application, SEPA environmental checklist, and City's Environmental Review(project narrative, neighborhood vicinity map, site plan, grading and utilities plan as needed, and wetlands/landscape/tree cutting plan as needed) for submittal to the City. Provide ad ' ' rmation in response to the City's review and comments. Should an EIS, Shorelines Perini ', r J/ARPAA be required,the work will be addressed as"Extra Work". f" 4.90 The Engineer will be available to provide information at a hearing or review to obtain the �g0 necessary permit. The Engineer will incorporate and reference relevant special provisions, requirements and conditions warranted by the permit into the project plans and special provisions. Geotechnical Report Retain the services of a qualified Geotechnical consultant to prepare a geotechnical report for the project using existing historical information. Project Management and QA/QC Provide project management to include coordination with the City's Project Manager, preparation of monthly status and financial reports, attendance at agency meetings, and project closeout. Status and financial reports shall include percent task complete,percent task expended, brief summary of work completed and work to be completed. Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Page 2 of 3 Scope of Work 04/30/01 Bid and Award Services The City will prepare and submit project"advertisements" for bid and distribute bid documents to prospective bidders, suppliers, regulatory agencies and plan centers. Bid documents to consist of plan sets, and addenda thereto, as applicable. Respond to bidder's questions during bid period as directed by the City, and prepare and distribute addenda to the bid documents. Construction Services Provide construction administration services including attendance at a pre-construction conference, attendance at a maximum of four job site meetings and assistance with negotiation of change orders. Provide office engineering during construction including review of construction material submittals, shop drawings,respond to contractor's questions and provide interpretation of the contract documents which address and clarify design intent, evaluate change orders and conduct site visits when requested by the City. Maplewood Golf Course Regrade Page 3 of 3 Scope of Work 04/30/01 EXHIBIT B CITY OF RENTON MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE REGRADE SCHEDULE TASK May-01 June-01 July-01 August-01 September-01 October-01 1 Base-map survey work xxx 2 Engineering Design xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 3 SEPA Checklist and Permit Applications xxx xxx xxx 4 Geotechnical Report(See subconsultants) xxx 51 Project Management& QA/QC xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 6 Bid &Award Services xxx xxx 7 Construction Management Assistance xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Notes Advertise on July 1, Open Bids July 21 Construction management would continue thorugh end of project(October 31, 2001) EXHIBIT C CITY OF RENTON MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE REGRADE DESIGN FEES LABOR PROJECT PROJECT DESIGN DRAFTING SUBTOTAL TASK MANAGER ENGINEER ENGINEERS TECHNICIAN SURVEY BY TASK 1 Base-map survey work(see GPS/aerial subconsultant) 2 2 4 8 16 $3.318 2 Engineering Design 4 16 48 32 $6,525 3 SEPA Checklist and Permit Applications 1 4 16 4 $1,708 4 Geotechnical Report(See subconsultants) 1 2 5 Project Management&QA/QC 8 16 $2,009 6 Bid&Award Services 2 4 3e $1,606 7 Construction Management Assistance 4 y8'G ,� G $2,727 G1 Manhour Estimate 22 60 100 44 16 Estimated Hourly Rates 35 28 25 18 52 Salary Cost $770 $1,680 $2,500 $792 $832 Direct Salary Costs $6,574 Indirect Costs (156%) $10,255.44 Labor Costs $16,829 Fee(15%) $2,524 Subtotal-Salary Related Costs $19,354 Direct Non-Salary Costs Printing & Reproduction $400 Mileage& Expenses $106 Subconsultant: Geotechnical Letter Report $2,500 Subconsultant: GPS/Aerial Survey $4,400 Administrative Overhead-Subconsultants Only $690 Subtotal-Non-Salary Costs $8,096 Total Cost $27,450 Ronald Straka- MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE PRO From: Gary Schimek To: Leifer, Randall Date: 4/25/01 2:02PM Subject: MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL Randy, Please review the attached scope of work, schedule, and cost estimate from Gray and Osborne. If possible, please send comments to me by next Monday (April 30th). I have already reviewed the documents, and a have the following comments. 1. The schedule shows construction beginning in August. Construction will not begin until September 1, 2001 at the earliest. 2. Golf course does not have any as-built drawings for Hole#3. Gary Schimek, P.E. City of Renton - Surface Water Utility Project Manager Phone: (425)430-7205 Fax: (425)430-7241 CC: Betlach, Leslie; Straka, Ronald MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT FOR THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT ❑ We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We are assigning (Ext. )Las our representative on the design team. We concur with the project scope and schedule as outlined in this project proposal. We will not be assigning a representative to participate on the design team but reserve our right to participate in the standard review processes. ❑ We feel that the following item(s)are of concern or interest in relationship to this project and would like to bring them to you attention: (Signed) 1<2 (Date) (Section or Division) i CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM R�ec D DATE: March 27, 2001 40 IC LONEIGH;3g�V&Lopmco 001 q�00 ENT•TO: Dave Christensen, Wastewater Utility DivisionEGic P Leslie Betlach,Parks Division LANNING Jack Crumley,Public Works Maintenance Division Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Division Sandra Meyer,Transportation Systems Division Neil Watts,Development Services Division Rebecca Linda,Economic Development FROM: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Division A STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility(X-7248) Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility(X-7205) SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT PROJECT OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project is to restore flood protection,destroyed by extreme Cedar River flows,to City of Renton facilities and private residences within the Maplewood vicinity. City of Renton facilities directly affected by this project include the Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility(i.e. wells and pump house). PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Maplewood vicinity is a 65-acre area within the City of Renton bordered by the Cedar River, Maple Valley Highway, and steep bluffs. The Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility are located within this region along with about 200 private residences and businesses. Flooding as a result of high Cedar River flows has never been documented in this region-even during the 1990 flood of record-due to the high level of protection afforded by the natural ground elevation along the west river bank upstream of the Maple Valley Highway river crossing. As a result of the protection, the entire Maplewood vicinity is outside the existing 100-yr.FEMA floodplain boundary. A vicinity map of the area is included as Figure 1. The natural ground elevation along the west riverbank was surveyed in 1994 to document the minimum bank elevation and, in turn the maximum level of flood protection provided to the adjacent Maplewood vicinity. The minimum surveyed bank elevation was 83.5 ft.NAVD;this 1994 bank elevation was able to contain Cedar River flows up to approximately 13,500 cfs. The level of flood protection provided by the natural ground elevation in 1994 is well above the existing FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 8,500 cfs and the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 11,830 cfs to be used in this reach of the Cedar River as part of any future floodplain mapping projects. The existing FEMA 100 YR r r flow value of 8,500 cfs and corresponding floodplain boundary are based on available hydrologic information and topography from 1984. The recently adopted FEMA 100 YR flow value of 12,000 cfs for any future floodplain mapping efforts is based on available hydrology from 2000. Extreme Cedar River flows during November 1995 and February 1996 eroded a significant portion of the natural bank that protected the Maplewood vicinity. Specifically, about 120 feet in the horizontal direction and 3.5 feet in the vertical direction eroded. Figure 2 illustrates the horizontal loss. As a result of the vertical loss,the level of flood protection afforded by the natural ground elevation to the Maplewood vicinity decreased from about 13,500 cfs to 11,300 cfs. This indicates that the Maplewood vicinity is clearly still outside the existing FEMA 100-yr. floodplain boundary as natural ground along the west bank would not be overtopped by a 8,500 cfs event. However the existing bank cannot entirely contain the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. flood value required for future mapping efforts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project will include construction of a landscaping berm between the perched riverbank and Hole Number 3 of the Maplewood Golf Course. The landscaping berm will restore flood protection to the level provided by the natural ground elevation prior to the November 1995 and February 1996 extreme events. The preliminary design parameters for the landscaping berm are listed below. Preliminary plan and cross section views are included as Figure 3 and 4,respectively. Maximum Berm Elevation(ft NAVD).................................................................................83.5 Minimum Existing Ground Elevation(ft NAVD).............................................................. .80.0 MaximumBerm Width(ft)................................................................................................ 128 ft MaximumBerm Length(ft)...............................................................................................600 ft BermTop Width(ft)..............................................................................................................8 ft Minimum Set-Back from Ordinary High Water Level(ft)..................................................30 ft Minimum Set-Back from Top of Bank(ft).......................................................................... loft INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION A. Permitting 1. Federal a.NMFS, USFW - Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not anticipated to be required since the project does not involve federal funds,assistance or permit. b. USACE - Section 10 Permit will not be required since no work will be in or affecting navigable waters of the United States(e.g.,floats,piers,docks,dredging,excavation,piling,buoys,overhead power lines,etc.). - Section 404 Permit under 33 USC § 1344 will not be required since the project does not include: (1)placement of dredged or fill material waterward of the ordinary high water mark; H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb (2)mechanized land clearing and sidecasting in waters of the United States, including wetlands,or(3)Endangered Species Act Consultation. 2. State a. WDFW - Hydraulic Project Approval is not anticipated to be required since all construction work will be landward of the ordinary high water line and will only affect Cedar River flows above 11,300 cfs. However, WDFW has authority to require a HPA if they believe any project landward of the ordinary highwater mark will directly impact fish life and habitat,falling trees into streams or lakes,etc. b. DOE - Section 401 Water Quality Certification under 33 USC § 1341 is not anticipated to be required since federal approval is not required. 3. Local a. City of Renton - Environmental Review(including SEPA checklist)submittal will be required. - Shoreline permit under the Shoreline Management Act 90.58 RCW will be required since the construction work will be within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Shorelines of the State and will require filling. b. King County -Critical Areas Ordinance review is not anticipated to be required since the construction project is(1)completely within Renton City Limits and(2)outside of the existing FEMA 100 YR floodplain boundary. The project will nominally affect downstream flood levels in King County(an increase of about 1 to 4 inches)for flows above 11,300 cfs. Existing FEMA floodplain maps are based upon a 100-YR-flood value of 8,500 cfs. B. Community and Private Utilities Property owners and utilities affected by the proposed project will be notified and given the opportunity to provide input during the final design and construction project. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Construction Costs: $110,000 Consultant Costs: $16,000 City Staff Costs: $25,000 Total Project Cost: $136,000 FUNDING SOURCE Project management, design and construction will be funded through the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Projects budget (421 account). H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb t PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Description Anticipated Completion Date Select Engineering Consultant for Analysis and Design........................April 6, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Engineering Consultant ............... April 25, 2001 Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Landscape Architect................... April 25, 2001 Kick-Off Meeting April 30, 2001 Base Map Survey May 7, 2001 Preliminary Design Memorandum and Construction Plans Submittal.......May 14, 2001 Environmental Review Submittal ..................................................May 21, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 50% Submittal ................June 25, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 90% Submittal .............. August 6, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 100% Submittal............August 20, 2001 Bid Opening ...............August 27, 2001 BidAward...................................................................... September 19, 2001 Begin Construction................................................................. October 1, 2001 End Construction................................................................ November 9, 2001 STAFFING A. Project Management The project will be managed by Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Division. B. Design The Surface Water Utility and Parks Department will select an engineering consultant from the annual consultant roster to prepare final construction plans and specifications and assist with modeling, permitting and construction management. In addition, the landscape architect familiar with the Maplewood Golf Course will be utilized in the design process. C. In-House Reviews All affected divisions and departments will be given an opportunity to review and comment on the 50% percent and 90% design submittals. Please complete the attached response form and return it to Gary Schimek by April 4, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Gary at Ext. 7205. cc: Gregg Zimmerman H:ADIV IS ION.S\UTI LITIE.S\DOGS\2001\2001-160.docAGMS\tb _ 1 1 1 1 i ��• � � ICI i � ��'�ai•I�ta�_ 1.■-1 •--,.♦�.�� ��,�`•''/ , '' �• gg L- ( � IEEE. ' ����► a �r�ti 1 11 "'^7t�/`����, .w�l�t1• a� �i�� �`��dl/ �,�,Aw ,li' •s , • ' I►���l�����;��` #��.r�oi A a.<. I 1 � 1 � � •� fir.. Oo'f"� ��/��► �•� � '�, ''>�/�;,., �1.��1♦ :—' (t �C� � 1 � � � NO ME'AN �� �'./ ��I'�j,��s�s®��.-,�Cd��� AA`.�0��*♦,Ire ;•\a��`,�•✓ �/��'� 7/ OEM. fio r' �f �1� ' �°c•A A°v' !'� ate' '•� I)�1��jy��•+�'����'*�,c s� ,% ralm"��i►`�:•o�/%•e1�~ �,..�.>J,.� .;Ii�%i:��e� '``�_I1/ ��� -.��i�Gies�`fi.��,`,'�►,'° � ✓>/ arao.OePos°�1��;I/ 'r� � `�'��O� ��, ��� ova•..-��.�,� Sj �r;,.rr.,,+.. ,.:.J,.�,�.,�'�� ,.. ® •�,�� �� wW-0 r� r7 W1,11 iI► J1A' �.•n�.i r �..�� \��°.`_���i!�Ii'�i�_�_♦Sal I •I,r.,< ,'1•:, II tN:l . r • `r )I �Eoa) .. ,e�` �, 199�a levdtioh x ' Rwer .' BanK (2col) �v�r r � 0 FTC-,r' J2 shied. 0.re represenfs �a a r the area, "Z' ' erod e& by . / -/ Chd nneI r h f MAPi.EWOOD Figure 2 ! .zC"SE •FUvE.R ,+ I C ELEVATKM - mot'•• �.' s • Maplewood Golf Course -City of Renton FAIRWAY #3 �jI EXISTING CART PATH (To BE REMOVED AND REPLACED) TOP OF BERM = 83' _ CONSTRUCTION LIMITS / FARM a w � O �GREEN #3 NCo I I .-�\ o STAGIN AREA TREES CEDAR RIVER / �-�� ,,.� - PEDESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE a a;i TOP OF LANDSCAPE BERM-83.0`-\ j S I NEW CART PATH ^' !\ 00 YEAR SURFACE WATER EL. (82.00') FREEBOARD - -- a \ EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS ALONG CART PATH o•m .., o.n o•n •w •n ,.w •n .•ro ,.a v.w '.,' ..n PROFILE Figure 3 a e ' Maplewood Golf Course -Landscape Berm Construction am Option#1 o Cross Sections 1,2,3 �go'u 8-4- T o U Vn .. ----F—'� _ 20:1 Ic g r -10�8 wtm=.`aC77DN 4,7.6}I riA0 $'-i-.—.-1,�.•'•- 2.1' CROSS SECTION -- --"-'--"_"" 92' I .wrcw�uuc. -r j _a r a CACISS SdC57✓7N C/Ye STI 6+X 20 1 — 12� -- -----�1 -ar -ate ffiC71bM B/7.STI J+AO s a a a a a a s a m a n A— N Figure 4 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: May 21, 2001 Dept/Div/Board.. Surface Water Utility Staff Contact...... Ron Straka Agenda Status Gary Schimek Consent.............. X Subject: Public Hearing.. Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm Corre _. Ordir ince.............CONCURRENCE Resol tion.........DATE / A/ Old NAME INITIAL/DAT Exhibits: New ess....,. Issue Paper Stud � Infor Y. ,Ec:— Scope of Work, Cost Estimate, and Schedule �47 5. Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal De t......... Finan e Dept...... CONCURRENCE Other ..............DATE NAME IN, Fiscal Impact: t,,i Expenditure Required... $22,600 Transfer/Amendme t.. S �•�j v✓1lsLti Amount Budgeted.......... $30,000 Revenue Generated ........ Total Project Budget $22,600 City Share Total Pr ect.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments request City Council to authorize the Mayor to execute a consultant agreement with Gray & Osborne for assistance with the final design of the Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm Project. The project design contract will be funded out of the approved miscellaneous/emergency stormwater project account within the Surface Water Utility CIP 421 fund. The goal of this project is to restore flood protection, provided by the west bank of the Cedar River between Maple Valley Highway (to the south) and steep bluffs (to the north), that was destroyed during 1995 and 1996 flood events. This particular section of natural riverbank protects the Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood from extreme Cedar River flows. The level of protection provided by the natural bank decreased by about 3.5 ft (from elevation 83.5 to 80.0 ft NGVD) as a result of severe bank erosion. Restoring the original riverbank, however, is not a practical or environmentally feasible alternative. Instead, the Surface Water Utility and Community Services Departments are proposing to raise a 900 lineal ft section of existing golf course cart path to match the elevation profile of the former riverbank. The golf course cart path is set-back between 25 to 50 feet from the edge of the existing river bank. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments recommend the Mayor execute a consultant agreement with Gray & Osborne in the amount of $22,600 for the final design of the Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm Project. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-267.doc/ CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 14, 2001 TO: Dan Clawson, President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka X-7248 Gary Schimek X-7205 SUBJECT: Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm Project ISSUE: During the last major Cedar River flood events that occurred in 1995 and 1996, a section of riverbank between Maple Valley Highway and the Cedar River bluffs was damaged by erosion. This particular section of riverbank afforded protection to the Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood. The golf course and neighborhood will continue to be at risk from extreme Cedar River flows if the level of flood protection provided by the riverbank prior to the 1995 and 1996 floods is not restored. Last flood season, a temporary rubber dam was installed to provide the necessary flood protection. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments recommend the following: • The level of flood protection is restored by raising an existing section of the golf course cart path by about 4 ft above the natural ground elevation. • The Mayor executes a consultant agreement with Gray & Osborne, Inc., in the amount of $22,600 for assistance with the final design and permitting associated with the Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm Project. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-267a.doc\GMS\tb e May 14, 2001 Page 2 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The West section of the Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood are protected from extreme Cedar River flows by the natural bank between Maple Valley Highway (to the west) and steep bluffs (to the east). As an example, during the extreme flood event of November 1990, high water reached but did not overtop this section of bank. The level of natural flood protection provided by the bank was, however, dramatically reduced during the last major flood events during late 1995 and early 1996 as a result of bank erosion. The minimum bank elevation between the highway and bluffs decreased by about 3.5 feet (from elevation 83.5 to 80.0 ft NGVD). As a result of this lower level of flood protection, the Maplewood Golf Course and Neighborhood are now susceptible to more intense and frequent flooding. Restoring the original riverbank, however, is not a practical or environmentally feasible alternative. Instead, the Surface Water Utility and Community Services Departments are proposing to raise a 900 lineal ft section of existing golf course cart path to match the elevation profile of the former riverbank. The main advantage to this alternative is that the golf course cart path is set-back between 25 to 50 feet from the edge of the existing riverbank, so the side slope between the riverbank and raised path will be very gradual. The cart path berm will be approximately 4 ft high with very gradual side slopes (30:1 horizontal to vertical). The berm will be contoured and landscaped to match the existing golf course layout. The tentative project schedule is to complete the project design, permitting and construction prior to the next flood season. The funding for the project design contract will be provided from the Surface Water Utility 421 Capital Improvement Project Miscellaneous and Emergency Stormwater Project account. The 2001 appropriation in the account is $30,000. CONCLUSION: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments propose to restore flood protection to the West section of the Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood, and recommend the Mayor execute an agreement with Gray & Osborne for the final design of this proposed project. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al#: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: May 21, 2001 Dept/Div/Board.. Surface Water Utility Staff Contact...... Ron Straka Agenda Status Gary Schimek Consent.............. X Subject: Public Hearing.. Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm Correspondence.. Ordinance............. Resolution............ Old Business........ Exhibits: New Business....... Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Information......... Scope of Work, Cost Estimate, and Schedule Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept......... Council Concur X Finance Dept...... Other............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $22,600 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted.......... $30,000 Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget $22,600 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments request execution of a consultant agreement with Gray & Osborne for assistance with the final design of the Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm Project. The project design contract will be funded out of the approved miscellaneous/emergency stormwater project account within the Surface Water Utility CIP 421 fund. The goal of this project is to restore flood protection, provided by the west bank of the Cedar River between Maple Valley Highway (to the south) and steep bluffs (to the north), that was destroyed during 1995 and 1996 flood events. This particular section of natural riverbank protects the Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood from extreme Cedar River flows. The level of protection provided by the natural bank decreased by about 3.5 ft (from elevation 83.5 to 80.0 ft NGVD) as a result of severe bank erosion. Restoring the original riverbank, however, is not a practical or environmentally feasible alternative. Instead, the Surface Water Utility and Community Services Departments are proposing to raise a 900 lineal ft section of existing golf course cart path to match the elevation profile of the former riverbank. The golf course cart path is set-back between 25 to 50 feet from the edge of the existing river bank. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments recommend the City Council to authorize the Mayor to execute a consultant agreement with Gray & Osborne in the amount of$22,600 for the final design of the Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm Project. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-267.doc/ CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 14, 2001 TO: Dan Clawson, President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner Ad-ministrator FROM: Gregg Zimmermaiq? Planning/Building/Public Works Department STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka X-7248 Gary Schimek X-7205 SUBJECT: Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm Project ISSUE: During the last major Cedar River flood events that occurred in 1995 and 1996, a section of riverbank between Maple Valley Highway and the Cedar River bluffs was damaged by erosion. This particular section of riverbank afforded protection to the Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood. The golf course and neighborhood will continue to be at risk from extreme Cedar River flows if the level of flood protection provided by the riverbank prior to the 1995 and 1996 floods is not restored. Last flood season, a temporary rubber dam was installed to provide the necessary flood protection. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments recommend the following: • The level of flood protection is restored by raising an existing section of the golf course cart path by about 4 ft above the natural ground elevation. • The Mayor executes a consultant agreement with Gray & Osborne, Inc., in the amount of $22,600 for assistance with the final design and permitting associated with the Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm Project. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-267a.doc\GMS\tb May 14, 2001 Page 2 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The West section of the Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood are protected from extreme Cedar River flows by the natural bank between Maple Valley Highway (to the west) and steep bluffs (to the east). As an example, during the extreme flood event of November 1990, high water reached but did not overtop this section of bank. The level of natural flood protection provided by the bank was, however, dramatically reduced during the last major flood events during late 1995 and early 1996 as a result of bank erosion. The minimum bank elevation between the highway and bluffs decreased by about 3.5 feet (from elevation 83.5 to 80.0 ft NGVD). As a result of this lower level of flood protection, the Maplewood Golf Course and Neighborhood are now susceptible to more intense and frequent flooding. Restoring the original riverbank, however, is not a practical or environmentally feasible alternative. Instead, the Surface Water Utility and Community Services Departments are proposing to raise a 900 lineal ft section of existing golf course cart path to match the elevation profile of the former riverbank. The main advantage to this alternative is that the golf course cart path is set-back between 25 to 50 feet from the edge of the existing riverbank, so the side slope between the riverbank and raised path will be very gradual. The cart path berm will be approximately 4 ft high with very gradual side slopes (30:1 horizontal to vertical). The berm will be contoured and landscaped to match the existing golf course layout. The tentative project schedule is to complete the project design, permitting and construction prior to the next flood season. The funding for the project design contract will be provided from the Surface Water Utility 421 Capital Improvement Project Miscellaneous and Emergency Stormwater Project account. The 2001 appropriation in the account is $30,000. CONCLUSION: The Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments propose to restore flood protection to the West section of the Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood, and recommend the Mayor execute an agreement with Gray & Osborne for the final design of this proposed project. Y � �y ,.} CITY OF RENTON 4 l Mayor Jesse Tanner CEDAR RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROJECT UPDATE -- NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY Dear Resident: The City of Renton held a public meeting on December 13, 2000, to present preliminary results related to the Cedar River Floodplain Mapping Project. Meeting notices were sent to residents on November 29,2000. In case you were not able to attend the meeting, a summary of the main points is listed below. • The City installed a 600-ft long temporary flood control structure on December 7 and 8, 2000, at the Maplewood Golf Course along the Cedar River. The temporary structure is intended to decrease the possibility of flooding within the Maplewood Neighborhood if Cedar River flows increase above 9,000 cubic feet per second. • If a resident is interested in purchasing flood insurance, the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP) suggests that you first call your insurance agent. If your agent does not write flood insurance or you don't have an agent,the NFIP suggests that you call 1-888- CALL FLOOD, ext. 445 to obtain the names of agents in your area who provide flood insurance. There may be a 30-day waiting period before the policy is activated. • The City developed an Emergency Response Plan that will be implemented in case of a flooding emergency on the Cedar River. The plan is summarized on the back side of this page. • The City is planning to develop preliminary engineering and architectural designs for a permanent solution(i.e. construction of an earthen levee or concrete floodwall along the river)to the recently identified flooding hazard. At this time,construction of a permanent structure is anticipated to occur in late 2001. The exact date of construction will depend on the timing of project permit approvals. If you have any questions related to this project,please call Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Project Manager,at 425-430-7205, or Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor, at 425-430-7248. Si ely, ` esse Tanner Mayor 00-138/GZ:mp Cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Gregg Zimmerman,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Chief Lee Wheeler,Fire Department Mike Webby,Human Resources&Risk Management Administrator Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 9 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer EMERGENGY RESPONSE PLAN AND INFORMATION FOR CEDAR RIVER FLOODING IN MAPLEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN City of Renton Emergency Operation Center(EOC) is activated when a Phase 4 Flood Warning is issued by the King County Flood Warning Center for the Cedar River. Surface Water Utility monitors Cedar River flow conditions prior to and after EOC is activated. ' Renton Police Department will broadcast an evacuation warning within the Maplewood Neighborhood after the EOC is activated, if Cedar River flow conditions warrant. Renton Police Department will broadcast an evacuation notice within the Maplewood Neighborhood, if Cedar River flows are expected to increase above 9,000 cfs. EMERGENCY FLOOD INFORMATION Renton Emergency Operation Center 430-7111 (when activated) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- King County Recorded Flood Information 1-800-945-9263 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- King County Flood Warning Center 1-800-768-7932 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Renton Surface Water Utility Staff 430-7248 (Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor) 430-7205 (Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Project Manager) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USGS Web Site http://wa.water.usgs.gov/rt-cgi/gen_tbl_pg 51264008508 51264009506 5126900020 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3210 SE 5T"ST 3224 SE 5T"ST 3316 SE 5T"ST RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 5126900050 5126900055 5126900040 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3404 SE ST"ST 3420 SE ST"ST TH RENTON, WA 98058 3428 SE 5 ST RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 5126900065 5126900235 5126900230 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3444 SE 5T"ST 524 NEWPORT AVE SE 528 NEWPORT AVE SE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 5126900220 5126400125 5126400100 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3300 SE 6T"ST 3201 SE 5'ST 3101 SE 5T"ST RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 5126400145 5126400165 5126400170 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3104 SE 6T"ST 3124 SE 6'ST 3204 SE 6T"ST RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 5126900165 5126900155 5126900190 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3224 SE 6TE{ST 3304 SE 6T"ST 3321 NEWPORT AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 5126900170 5126400230 5126400210 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3225 SE 6T"ST 3113 SE 6T"ST 3029 SE 6T"ST RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 5126400205 5126900195 5126900200 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3025 SE 6T"ST 3325 NEWPORT AVE SE 3329 NEWPORT AVE SE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 5126900205 5126900505 5126900445 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3333 NEWPORT AVE SE 3500 MAPLE VALLEY RD 3511 SE 6T" ST RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 5126900450 5126900460 5126900465 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3517 SE 6T" ST 3533 SE 6TH ST 3531 SE 6'" ST RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 5126900500 5126900410 5126900400 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3705 SE 6TH ST 3640 SE 6T"ST 3624 SE 6T" ST RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 5126900405 5126900435 5126900340 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3632 SE 6T"ST 3701 SE 5T" PL 3608 SE 5TH PL RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 5126900330 5126900370 5126900326 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 520 PIERCE AVE SE 3629 SE 5TH ST 3418 SE 6TH AVE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 5126400200 RESIDENT 3021 SE 6TH ST RENTON,WA 98058 \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DI V ISION.S\UTILITI E.S\DOCS\2000-560.doc\IbIs5160.dot/ 512690020502 512690021104 512640024505 ACCORD INC ACCORD INC ALBERTS TODD MICHAEL 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HWY 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HWY 3125 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690049501 512690037506 512640011502 ANDERSON ELDON E+JO ANN AURORA LOAN SERVICES BALA E M 3701 SE 6TH ST 601 FIFTH AVE 3121 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98055 SCOTTSBLUFF NE 69361 RENTON WA 98055 512690022508 512690008507 512690025501 BALDRIDGE TREA M BASART W L BATEMAN JILL V 532 NEWPORT AVE SE 3301 SE 5TH ST 3536 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 512690005503 512690038504 512640016006 BEAL DAVE&TERRI BISMARK MORTGAGE CO BLAIR DONALD J 21511 30TH AVE SE 2835 82ND AVE SE 3120 SE 6TH ST BOTHELL WA 98021 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 RENTON WA 98058 512690041508 512690021005 512690034008 BLUHM CHRISTOPHER P+WENDY L BOZELL ROGER J+PATRICIA BRANDEL KURTIS P&BILLIE D 3609 SE 5TH PL 3217 6TH AVE SE 1602 INDEX AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512640014001 512690046507 512690046002 BREWER ORLIE T JR+ROBIN S BROSSARD REGAN&PAM BROSSARD REGAN K+PAMELA G 3217 SE 5TH ST 22929 144TH AVE SE 22929 144TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 KENT WA 98042 KENT WA 98042 512640013003 512690030501 512690013507 BRUNETTE SHERRY P BUNDER ROBERT J BURSKEY W 3205 SE 5TH ST 567 PIERLE AVE SE 3320 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690032705 512690001007 512690005008 CALLAWAY DANIEL CAREY DENISE A CARLSON CARRENIA JO+JOHN L 45 BONITA CT 3300 SE 5TH ST 24322 147TH AV S E SEDONA AZ 86336 RENTON WA 98058 KENT WA 98042 512690029008 162305906602 162305912907 CHARBONNEAU D K ROSE M CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 3525 SE 5TH ST BENNETT W E 200 MILL AVE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA RENTON WA 98055 512690047000 512690032408 512690032507 CONDIE DARWIN B JR+RENEE M CONRAD JOSEPH H& PATRICIA CONRAD JOSEPH H&PATRICIA 3601 SE 6TH ST PO BOX 6382 PO BOX 6382 RENTON WA 98055 KENT WA 98064 KENT WA 98064 v � �A:Qv) 512690032804 512690032903 512690011501 CONRAD JOSEPH H& PATRICIA CONRAD JOSEPH H&PATRICIA COTTOM SUSAN R PO BOX 6382 PO BOX 6382 3401 SE 5TH ST KENT WA 98064 KENT WA 98064 RENTON WA 98058 512690002500 512640002501 512690010008 COX DOUGLAS W ET AL CRAIA NADEZHDA CRAMER JOHN JR+TERRY E 822 238TH AVE NE 3000 SE 5TH ST 3321 SE 5TH ST REDMOND WA 98053 RENTON WA 980580 RENTON WA 98058 512690015007 512640003509 512690010503 CRATER MICHAEL H CUTLER DENISE E DALTHORP NANCY S 3308 SE 6TH ST 3012 SE 5TH ST 3325 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690045509 512690006006 512640022004 DAWSON LARRY A+VALERIE DEADY TROY LEE DENNING JERALD J 3525 SE 6TH ST 3436 SE FIFTH ST 3105 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512640025007 512690000504 512690033505 DENNY LARRY K+MARGRIET DIAMBRI JOSEPH DOAN E C WOLT 3232 SE 5TH ST 524 PIERCE AVE SE 3205 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690021500 512690004001 512690015502 DOBSON JOHN W DOBSON JOHN W ESTATE DOBSON J01 N W ESTATE 6611 114TH AVE SE DOBSON WYMAN K P R DOBSON WYMAN K P R RENTON WA 98056 PO BOX 59 RENTON WA PO BOX 59 RENTON WA 512690016500 512690017003 512690019009 DOBSON JOHN W ESTATE DOBSON JOHN W ESTATE DOBSON JOHN W ESTATE DOBSON WYMAN K P R DOBSON WYMAN K P R DOBSON WYMAN K P R PO BOX 59 RENTON WA PO BOX 59 RENTON WA PO BOX 59 RENTON WA 512690019504 512690020007 512690022003 DOBSON JOHN W ESTATE DOBSON JOHN W ESTATE DOBSON JOHN W ESTATE DOBSON WYMAN K P R DOBSON WYMAN K P R DOBSON WYMAN K P R PO BOX 59 RENTON WA PO BOX 59 RENTON WA PO BOX 59 RENTON WA 512690034503 512690040500 512640019505 DOBSON JOHN W ESTATE DOBSON JOHN W ESTATE DONALDSON DAVID K+DEANNA L DOBSON WYMAN K P R DOBSON WYMAN K P R 3017 SE 6TH ST PO BOX 59 RENTON WA PO BOX 59 RENTON WA RENTON WA 98058 512690014000 512640004002 512690026509 DUNGAN SCOTT ERCOLINI STEVEN J+BETSY L.F FEYEREISEN PATTY A 3316 SE 6TH ST 3016 SOUTHEAST 5TH STREET 3612 SE 5TH RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690017508 512690039007 512640016501 FOSTER WALTER B FRANKLIN B&PIEDFORT D L GAFFIN JEFFREY 3301 SE 6TH ST 3608 SE 6TH ST 27320 SE 162ND PL RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 512690042506 512640001503 512690035500 GATHMANN RICHARD JAMES GEDDES THOMAS S+LISA GILBERT MARLIN D+BARBRA G 3621 SE 5TH PLACE 2930 SE 5TH ST 3624 SE 5TH PL RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512640007500 512690006501 512690044007 GOEMAN WADE R+LORI L GOMES SAMUEL E+WISSLER COLL GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ ANDRE 3122 SE 5TH ST 2222 SAHALEE DR E 3506 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 REDMOND WA 98053 RENTON WA 98058 512690026004 512640014506 512640010009 GONZALES STEPHANIE A GUY GLEN LEE GUY GLENN LEE+PAULETTE 3604 SE 5TH ST 10948 SE 284TH ST 10948 SE 284TH RENTON WA 98058 KENT WA 98031 KENT WA 98031 512690049006 512690016005 512640015008 HAGADORN GRANT HART R E L HAUCK ANTONE J&WILMA R 3617 SE 6TH ST 3232 SE 6TH ST 3108 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640024000 512690043009 512690001502 HAWES CHESTER E HEHR GREGORY E HENNINGER SR PA 3121 SE 6TH ST 3625 SE 5TH PL 3308 SE 5TH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512640011007 512640012005 512690043504 HILL JAMES E&BETTY C HINSON CYNTHIA D HORVATH DOUGLAS 3115 SE 5TH ST 3129 SE 5TH ST PO BOX 4181 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98057 512690036003 512640020503 512690050509 HOWARD DANA R HULBURT DAVID W+CECELIA S HUMBLE ROBERT 3613 SE 5TH ST 25328 SE 200TH PO BOX 1150 RENTON WA 98058 MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 RENTON WA 98057 512640010504 512690027507 512640008508 JACKSON ANTHONY D JACKSON JENNIFER L JACKSON PROPERTIES L.L.0 3105 SE 5TH ST 3620 SE 5TH ST 3905 108TH AVE NE B-202 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 BELLEVUE WA 98004 512690031004 162305901306 512640005009 JOHNSON KEITH L JONES TROY H JORS KIT G+DELIA C 575 PIERCE AVE SE 15025 SE MAPLE VALLEY HWY 3100 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512640023507 512690033000 512690037001 KATERS ROBERTA C LAPLANT LILA A LARSEN KIM E 3117 SE 6TH ST LAPLANT JACK K 4415 NE 5TH ST#G 104 RENTON WA 98058 7521 72ND DR NE MARYSVILLE WA RENTON WA 98059 512690004506 512690048586 512640006502 LEISE RONALD E+GERALYNN M LEPLEY YOLANDA LERSTEN DAVID JON 3412 SE 5TH ST 4457 TOKUI RD SE 3114 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 SNOQUALMIE WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 512690018001 512690031509 512690011006 LIND ARISTELLA A LUMIA DOUGLAS L LYONS JACK A+LEE 3309 SE 6TH ST 583 PIERCE AVE SE 15002 135TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690047505 512690009505 512690007509 MAPLES BOBBY K+KAREN D MAURER PATRICIA HELEN+ MAYES KARLA J 3605 SE 6TH ST COVILLE,CLAUDIA A 3508 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 3313 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA RENTON WA 98058 152305908807 222305905903 222305909004 MCCARTY CASEY MCCARTY CASEY MCCARTY CASEY PO BOX 611 PO BOX 611 PO BOX 611 HONAUNAU HI 96726 HONAUNAU HI 96726 HONAUNAU HI 96726 512690029503 512640008003 512690045004 MEHL RANDY L MILLER BRYAN KEITH+JULIA AN MILLMANN JEANETTE M 3533 SE 5TH ST 3202 SOUTHEAST 5TH STREET 10620 SE 186TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690039502 512640018507 512640015503 MILLS DAVID T NAMES CHARLES D NAVARRO JAY 3616 SE 6TH ST 3009 SE 5TH ST 3116 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690007004 512690003003 512690038009 NELSEN KAREN NELSON E SUZANNE+DARRYL R NEWBURN DAVID A 3500 SE 5TH ST 3332 SE 5TH ST 554 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512640025502 512690035005 512640013508 NEELSEN ROBERT M OBRIEN BOBBI L ODEN JACK E 3209 SE 6TH ST 3620 SE 5TH PL 3209 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 512640001008 512640026005 512690018506 ORFF BRUCE A& LYNDA C PARKER DAVID B PERRON PAUL L+KIRKBRIDE DEA 2924 SE 5TH ST 3213 SE 6TH 3317 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690012509 512690036508 512640002006 PERROT Fl STEFAN G+BURNHAM PLUTE DARYLJEAN PONDER KENNETH L+DELINDA L 505 NEWPORT AVE SE MAC GREGOR WAYNE&MONTE 2938 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 3621 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA RENTON WA 98058 512690048503 512690002005 512690028505 PORTER JOSEPHIN V QUAN ROY+SUSIE RAMSEY JOHN C 3613 SE 6TH ST C/O PACIFIC SUNSET MGMT CO 3517 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98055 PO BOX 80944 SEATTLE WA RENTON WA 98055 512690040005 512690008002 512690028000 RASMUSSEN HANS M REESER HAROLD RHODES A M 3624 SE 6TH ST 3225 SE 5TH 3624 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640009001 512640012500 512640006007 ROBERTS GRANT+KAREN A ROBEY HOYT&LEEANN ROBINSON NICOLA J 3216 SE 5TH ST 14603 SE 49TH ST 3110 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 512640003004 512640019000 512690027002 ROBY REBECCA L ROCKWELL JUANITA ROHDE KAREN ANN 3008 SE 5TH ST 3009 SE 5TH 3616 SE 5TH AVE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690012004 512690025006 512640017509 ROLLINGER RUDOLPH PAUL III ROSS WENDY J ROTH GLADYS 501 NEWPORT AVE SE 3532 SE 5TH ST 3208 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690013002 512690048008 512690023001 SAGE KENNETH R&JEANNIE M SCHAFER SCOTT C&RONDA L SCHAUT LARRY A 3328 SE 6TH ST 3609 SE 6TH ST 12101 SE 96TH PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 512690050004 512640009506 512690032606 SEARS ELIANE SHELMAN RONALD M SIEMION MICHAEL 22519 SE 304TH PL 2391 SOUND VIEW DR B+MARGARET KENT WA 98042 LANGLEY WA 98260 111 154TH PL NE BELLEVUE WA 98007 512640004507 512640023002 512690023506 SMITH DERECK B+RUBY E SMITH HERMAN JR SMITH MICHAEL L 3020 SE 5TH ST 436 SMITHERS AVE S 4207 SE 3RD RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 512640020008 512640017004 512640007005 SOUKEUT BRIAN SPETEN ORRIS ESTATE OF STACH JOHN E 14924 124TH NE 5420 189TH PL SW 3118 SE 5TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98006 LYNNWOOD WA 98036 RENTON WA 98058 512690044502 512690041003 512640022509 STACHOWIAK VINCENT L STONE CHARLES EDWIN STRAHAN ELIZABETH M 8108 65TH CT W 17407 SE JONES RD 3109 SE 6TH ST UNIVERSITY PLACE WA 98467 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690003508 512690042001 512640021006 STREIFEL JOHN J+MARION O SWIFT WINNIFRED THE BAGLIEN FAMILY TRUST 3340 SE 5TH ST 3613 SE 5TH PL 3029 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690024504 512690024009 512690014505 THEODORSEN WILLIAM+KAREN VAN HOFF NEIL D+PERISICH,PA VANGEL JEFFREY D+RUTH E 3429 SE 5TH ST 3425 SE 5TH ST 3312 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512640018002 512640021501 512690009000 VANTUYL NANCY WHITE KATHLEEN L WILLIAMS MICHAEL D+DONA M 3216 SE 6TH ST 3101 SE 6TH ST 3309 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512640005504 512690030006 512690032002 WILSON MARK+CASSANDRA DIA WILSON TIMOTHY C+CAROLYN SA WONG KAHSOON+ANN KIM WEI 3106 SE 5TH ST 559 PIERCE AVE SE 3512 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 2 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22,2001 TO: Jim Shepherd,Administrator Community Services FROM: Gregg ZimmerAdministrator PBPW STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water X-7248 Gary Schimek, Surface Water,X-7205 SUBJECT: Information for Maplewood Flood Protection Project Meeting As you may recall,the last time PB/PW and Community Services staff met to discuss the Maplewood Flood Protection Project with Mayor Tanner he requested that preliminary cost estimates and design drawings be prepared for both the levee and floodwall construction alternatives. After the meeting, Surface Water Utility staff agreed to prepare the costs estimates and drawings. The preliminary costs estimate and drawings have been completed,and are attached for your review. Additional material(project schedules and decision matrices)has also been included to aid the group decision-making process. We thought it beneficial to circulate the material to all interested parties before our meeting on Tuesday,February 27th. You will notice that a third construction alternative-a landscaping berm with very gradual side slopes-has been included to the list of possible construction alternatives. This particular alternative was included at the suggestion of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)after a meeting with Surface Water Utility. Finally,please note that golf course architectural features are not included on the preliminary design drawings. However John Steidel,Golf Course Architect,has submitted a cost estimate for his effort to incorporate golf course architectural features on the design drawings. It is our intention that Mr. Steidel will be brought into the design process as soon as we decide on a final construction alternative. Please contact Ron Straka or Gary Schimek if you have any questions prior to the meeting. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-093.doc\GMS\tb CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22,2001 DATE TO: Jim Shepherd,Administrator NAME INITIALIDATE Community Services FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator f PBPW 27- 00 STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water X-7248 Gary Schimek, Surface Water,X-7205 SUBJECT: Information for Maplewood Flood Protection Project Meeting As you may recall,the last time P/B/PW and Community Services staff met to discuss the Maplewood Flood Protection Project with Mayor Tanner he requested that preliminary cost estimates and design drawings be prepared for both the levee and floodwall construction alternatives. After the meeting, Surface Water Utility staff agreed to prepare the costs estimates and drawings. The preliminary costs estimate and drawings have been completed,and are attached for your review. Additional material(project schedules and decision matrices)has also been included to aid the group decision-making process. We thought it beneficial to circulate the material to all interested parties before our meeting on Tuesday,February 27th. You will notice that a third construction alternative-a landscaping berm with very gradual side slopes-has been included to the list of possible construction alternatives. This particular alternative was included at the suggestion of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)after a meeting with Surface Water Utility. Finally,please note that golf course architectural features are not included on the preliminary design drawings. However John Steidel, Golf Course Architect,has submitted a cost estimate for his effort to incorporate golf course architectural features on the design drawings. It is our intention that Mr. Steidel will be brought into the design process as soon as we decide on a final construction alternative. Please contact Ron Straka or Gary Schimek if you have any questions prior to the meeting. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-093.doc\GMS\tb MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES Alternative #1 - Alternative #2 - Alternative #3 - Decision Item Landscaping Berm Earthen Levee Concrete Floodwall Total Project Cost $126,000 $150,000 $263,000 Total Project Schedule 9 months 2 years 2 years Impact to Golf Play at Hole 3 - Short Term High Moderate Moderate Impact to Golf Play at Hole 3 - Long Term Low Moderate Moderate 100-Yr Flood Protection High High High Permitting Effort Low High High FEMA Region X Preference High Low Low u:\Gschimek\projects\wo#65221\alternative ranking.xls 2/22/2001,10:58 AM MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES • Preliminary Design Information for Alternative I - Landscaping Berm • Preliminary Design Information for Alternative 2- Earthen Levee • Preliminary Design Information for Alternative 3 - Concrete Floodwall MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 - LANDSCAPING BERM 1 . DECISION MATRIX 2. COST ESTIMATE 3. PROJECT SCHEDULE 4. DRAWINGS (Attached Separately) MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT DECISION MATRIX FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 - LANDSCAPING BERM BENEFITS DRAWBACKS COMMENTS +The total project cost for the landscaping berm is$126k,which is -Short term impacts on golf play at Hole 3 will be greatest since Golf play at Hole 3 will be impacted during construction no matter lower than the cost for either the levee or floodwall alternatives. The this alternative has the largest construction footprint. The footprint which alternative is chosen. One approach to minimize impacts is to estimated total project costs for these alternatives are$150k and$263k. width is about 120 feet and extends between the river bank and the install a temporary tee and change the par from 4 to 3. edge of the Hole 3 fairway. The footprint width is about 50 feet for +The total project schedule has the shortest duration since FEMA both the levee and floodwall alternatives and extends between the The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation profile,downstream certification is not required. The project is likely to be completed river bank and existing cart path. In addition,the existing cart path of the project,will be greater than the 100-yr water surface profile during late 2001. In contrast,the earliest completion date for the levee would be demolished and replaced and,therefore,could not be used for exiting conditions. The downstream effect on the 100-yr water and floodwall projects would be late 2002. during construction. The existing go,f cart path would be located at surface elevation is estimated to be about 1"to 4". Even though the the edge of the construction zone for the levee and floodwall construction activity is located solely within the City of Renton,this +Long term impacts to the golf course will be minimized since their alternatives and,therefore,could still be utilized during construction. downstream impact may be in conflict with the King County will be no net loss of playable area after project completion. The Sensitive Area Ordinance. This issue may need to be resolved topography between the fairway and river will be altered,but the during the SEPA review process. completed project should not decrease the quality of play. In fact,the quality of play may improve as the Golf Course Landscape Architect The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation,downstream of the will be an integral part of the design team. project,is about equivalent to the FEMA 100-yr water surface elevation. The currently adopted FEMA 100-yr water surface +Permitting may require less effort since the project would be elevation is based on a flow of 8,500 cfs and topography from circa described as landscaping improvements with ancillary flood control 1980. The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation is based on a benefits rather than construction of a flood control facility. flow of 12,000 cfs and topography from 2000. +FEMA Region X suggested the landscaping berm project in lieu of the floodwall or levee approach to solve the potential flooding problems at the Maplewood Golf Course and Neighborhood. FEMA Region 10 has allowed other entities to construct landscaping projects that provide flood protection in lieu of a typical levee or floodwall. +Flood protection for the Maplewood Neighborhood and Golf Course is provided for Cedar River flows up to the 100-yr event(not including 1-ft freeboard). +Freeboard would not be dictated by FEMA requirement,and therefore would only be 1-ft as compared to 3.5 feet. MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 - LANDSCAPING BERM Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Comments 1. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS Surveying N/A N/A N/A $3,000 3 surving days @$1,000/day Permitting N/A N/A N/A $4,000 40 consultant hours @$100/hr Preliminary Design and Analysis N/A N/A N/A $6,000 60 consultant hours @$100/hr Final Design and Specifications N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr SUB-TOTAL(DESIGN AND ANALYSIS) $16,000 13%of construction costs 2. CONSTRUCTION GENERAL ITEMS Mobilization N/A Lump Sum N/A $10,000 10%of sub-total Construction Surveying, Staking, As-builts N/A Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Traffic Control N/A Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Erosion Control N/A Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Temporary Fencing 1000 Linear Foot $1.00 $1,000 Rubber Dam Project Clear and Grub/Stripping 1 Acrea $3,000.00 $3,000 Remove and Replant Trees 5 EA $800.00 $4,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Project LANDSCAPING BERM ITEMS Hard-Pan Fill (Material Only) 3,000 Cubic Yard $3.15 $9,000 King County Road Maintenance Supervisor Labor and Equipment for Fill 3,000 Cubic Yard $8.00 $24,000 King County Road Maintenance Supervisor Topsoil 600 Cubic Yard $25.00 $15,000 Oaksdale Avenue SW SITE IMPROVEMENT ITEMS Irrigation system modifications N/A Lump Sum N/A $7,000 Crushed Gravel Surfacing (Furnish, Install) 165 Tons $20.00 $3,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Project 2"ACP for Cart Path (Furnish, Install) 75 Tons $75.00 $6,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Project Hyroseeding 1 Acre $15,000.00 $15,000 Oaksdale Avenue SW-Upland Seeding Landscaping Features (New trees, sandtraps, etc.) N/A Lump Sum N/A $10,000 Countouring,Trees,sand traps,etc. SUB-TOTAL(CONSTRUCTION) $110,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $126,000 u:\Gschimek\projects\wo#65221\cost estimates.xls 2/22/2001,10:51 AM MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 - LANDSCAPING BERM 2001 12002 ID Task Name Duration Start Jan JFebl Mar Apr IMayliun I Jul JAug JSeplOct INovIDecl Jan JFeblMar JApr Imayliun I Jul JAug Isepl Oct Nov Dec 1 Contract Development 30 days Mon 315/01 2 Select Consultant for Analysis and Design 5 days Mon 3/5/01 3 Develop/Execute Consultant Agreement(including LA) 25 days Mon 3/12/01 4 Preliminary Design and Analysis 24 days Mon 4116/01 5 Survey of Existing Topography 10 days Mon 4/16/01 6 Develop Design Parameters 5 days Mon 4/16/01 7 ( Preliminary Design Drawings 21 days Thu 4/19/01 8 Final Design and Analysis 45 days Fri 5/18/01 9 Final Design Drawings and Specifications 45 days Fri 5/18/01 10 Permitting 45 days Fri 5/18/01 11 SEPA 45 days Fri 5/18/01 12 Construction 105 days Fri 7/20/01 13 Bid Opening and Award 45 days Fri 7/20/01 14 Begin Construction 30 days Fri 9/21/01 15 As-Builts 30 days Fri 11/2/01 Task ,,, Milestone ♦ Rolled Up Split External Tasks Project: Landscaping Berm Split Summary Rolled Up Milestone O Project Summary Date:Wed 2/21/01 Progress Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Progress Page 1 MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 - EARTHEN LEVEE 1 . DECISION MATRIX 2. COST ESTIMATE 3. PROJECT SCHEDULE 4. DRAWINGS (Attached Separately) MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT DECISION MATRIX FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 - EARTHEN LEVEE BENEFITS DRAWBACKS COMMENTS +The total project cost for the levee is about$150 k. The cost -The total project schedule has a minimum duration of about 2 Golf play at Hole 3 will be impacted during construction no matter estimate for the landscaping berm is only about$24 k less, whereas years since FEMA certification would be required if the flood which alternative is chosen. One approach to minimize impacts is to the cost estimate for the floodwall is about$113 k greater. protection benefits are to be included on revised floodplain maps. install a temporary tee and change the par from 4 to 3. +Short term impacts on golf play at Hole 3 will be less for the levee -Long term impacts to the golf course will be greater as compared The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation profile,downstream as compared to the landscaping berm since the levee construction to the landscaping berm alternative since there will a loss of playable of the project,will be greater than the 100-yr water surface profile footprint covers less area. Short term impacts will be about the same area after project completion. Specifically,about 1/4 acre of for exiting conditions. The downstream effect on the 100-yr water for the levee as compared to the floodwall. The construction footprint playable area along the Cedar River will be lost. surface elevation is estimated to be about 1"to 4". Even though the for the levee alternative is about 1/2 acre,and extends between the construction activity is located solely within the City of Renton,this river bank and the existing cart path. As such,the existing golf cart -Permitting may require more effort,as compared to the downstream impact may be in conflict with the King County path could still be utilized by golfers during construction. landscaping berm alternative, since the project would be described Sensitive Area Ordinance. This issue may need to be resolved as construction of a flood control facility rather than landscaping during the SEPA review process. +Flood protection for the Maplewood Neighborhood and Golf Course improvements with ancillary flood control benefits. Specifically, is provided for Cedar River flows up to the 100-yr event(not including increased effort would be required to justify the construction of a 5.5 The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation,downstream of the 3.5-ft freeboard). ft high levee as compared to the 3 ft high landscaping berm. The project,is about equivalent to the FEMA 100-yr water surface permit effort may,however,be less as compared to the concrete elevation. The currently adopted FEMA 100-yr water surface floodwall since resource agencies may associate a greater impact elevation is based on a flow of 8,500 cfs and topography from circa with the concrete wall. 1980. The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation is based on a flow of 12,000 cfs and topography from 2000. -FEMA Region X suggested the landscaping berm project in lieu of the floodwall or levee approach to solve the potential flooding problems at the Maplewood Golf Course and Neighborhood. Additionally,only 1 non-USACE levee or floodwall has been approved by FEMA and that project took 3 years to complete. - Freeboard of 3.5 feet above the 100-yr water surface elevation would be required by FEMA for either the levee or floodwall option, as compared to 1.0 feet for the landscaping berm alternative. U:\GSCHIMEK\PROJECTS\wo#65221\alt2matrix.doc\GMS MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 - EARTHEN LEVEE Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Comments 1. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS Surveying N/A N/A N/A $3,000 3 survey days @$1,000/day Sediment Transport Analysis N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Embankment Protection Analysis N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Embankment and Foundation Stability N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Settlement Analysis N/A N/A N/A $3.000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Interior Drainage Analysis N/A N/A N/A S3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr O&M Plan N/A N/A N/A S3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Hydraulic Analysis N/A N/A N/A S5,000 50 consultant hours @$100/hr Permitting N/A N/A N/A $8,000 80 consultant hours @$100/hr Preliminary Drawings N/A N/A N/A $6,000 60 consultant hours @$100/hr Final Drawings and Specifcations N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr SUB-TOTAL(Design and Analysis) $43,000 37%of construction costs 2. CONSTRUCTION GENERAL ITEMS Mobilization N/A Lump Sum N/A $10,000 10%of sub-total Construction Surveying,Staking,As-builts N/A Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Typical Traffic Control N/A Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Typical Erosion Control N/A Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Typical Temporary Fencing 1000 Linear Foot $1.00 $1,000 Rubber Dam Project Clear and Grub/Stripping 0.5 Acrea S3,000.00 $2,000 Typical Remove and Replant Trees 5 EA $800.00 $4,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Project LEVEE ITEMS Hard-Pan Fill(Material only) 2,000 Cubic Yard $3.15 $6,000 King County Road Maintenance Supervisor Labor and Equipment for Fill 2,000 Cubic Yard $8.00 $16,000 King County Road Maintenance Supervisor Rip-Rap(Furnish,Install on 2/3 of riverbank slope) 1,200 Tons $30.00 $36,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Topsoil 300 Cubic Yard $25.00 $8,000 Internet SITE IMPROVEMENT ITEMS Irrigation System Modifications N/A Lump Sum N/A $5,000 Estimate Hydroseeding 0.5 Acres $15,000.00 $8,000 Oaksdale Avenue SW-Upland Seeding Landscaping Features N/A Lump Sum N/A $8,000 Countouring,Trees,etc. SUB-TOTAL(Construction) $107,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $150,000 u:\Gschimek\projects\wo#65221\cost estimates.xls MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 - EARTHEN LEVEE 2001 12002 12003 ID Name Start Duration Jan I Feb IMar JApr IMayliun I Jul I ugSep I Oct Nov Dec I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul I Aug I Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1 Contract Development Mon 316/01 30 days 2 Select Consultant for Analysis and Design Mon 3/5101 5 days i 3 Consultant Agreement(including LA) Mon 3/12/01 25 days 4 Preliminary Design and Analysis Mon 4/16/01 24 days 5 Survey of Existing Topography Mon 4/16/01 3 days 6 Design Parameters Mon 4/16/01 3 days 7 Preliminary Design Drawings Thu 4/19/01 21 days 8 Final Design and Analysis Fri 5118101 100 days 9 Final Design Drawings and Specifications Fri 5/18/01 100 days 10 Sediment Tranport Analysis Fri 5/18/01 100 days 11 Embankment Protection Analysis Fri 5118/01 100 days 12 Embankment and Foundation Stability Fri 5118/01 100 days 13 Settiment Analysis Fri 5/18/01 100 days 14 Interior Drainage Analysis Fri 5/18/01 100 days �, 15 O&M Plan Fri 5/18/01 100 days 16 Hydrualic Analysis(including Freeboard Assessment) Fri 5/18/01 100 days 7- E 17 Permitting Fri 5119101 60 days 18 SEPA Fri 5/18/01 60 days 19 FEMA Preliminary Review Process Fri 1015/01 182 days 20 Letter of Map Revision Submittal Fri 1015/01 1 day 21 Review of Levee/Fkwdwall System Analysis Mon 10/8/01 180 days fMINIMS 22 Conditional Letter of Map Revision Mon 6/17/02 1 day = 23 Construction Tue 6118/02 129 days s 24 Bid Opening and Award Tue 6/18/02 45 days 25 Construction Mon 9/2/02 45 days x - 26 As-Builts Mon 11/4/02 30 days s 27 FEMA Final Review Process Mon 12/16/02 104 days 28 Submittal of Construction As-Builts Mon 12/16/02 1 day 29 Review Thu 1/2/03 90 days 30 Letter of Map Revision Issued Thu 5/8/03 1 day I Project:Levee Task Progress Summary ^ Rolled Up Split , , , , , , , , Rolled Up Progress Project Summary Date:Wed 2/21/01 Split Milestone . Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone O External Tasks Page 1 MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONCRETE FLOODWALL 1 . DECISION MATRIX 2. COST ESTIMATE 3. PROJECT SCHEDULE 4. DRAWINGS (Attached Separately) MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT DECISION MATRIX FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONCRETE FLOODWALL BENEFITS DRAWBACKS COMMENTS +Short term impacts on golf play at Hole 3 will be lower for the -The total project cost is about$263 k. The cost estimates for the Golf play at Hole 3 will be impacted during construction no matter concrete floodwall,as compared to the landscaping berm, since the landscaping berm and levee are about$137 k and$113 k less, which alternative is chosen. One approach to minimize impacts is to floodwall construction footprint covers less area. Impacts for the respectively. install a temporary tee and change the par from 4 to 3. floodwall will be about the same as compared to the levee alternative. The floodwall construction footprint is about 1/2 acre and extends -The total project schedule has a minimum duration of about 2 The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation profile,downstream between the river bank and the existing cart path. As such,the existing years since FEMA certification would be required if the flood of the project,will be greater than the 100-yr water surface profile golf cart path could still be utilized by golfers during construction. protection benefits are to be included on revised floodplain maps. for exiting conditions. The downstream effect on the 100-yr water surface elevation is estimated to be about 1"to 4". Even though the +Flood protection for the Maplewood Neighborhood and Golf Course -Long term impacts to the golf course will be greater as compared construction activity is located solely within the City of Renton,this is provided for Cedar River flows up to the 100-yr event(not including to the landscaping berm alternative since there will a loss of playable downstream impact may be in conflict with the King County 3.5-ft freeboard). area after project completion. Specifically,about 1/4 acre of Sensitive Area Ordinance. This issue may need to be resolved playable area along the Cedar River will be lost. during the SEPA review process. -Permitting may require more effort,as compared to the The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation,downstream of the landscaping berm alternative, since the project would be described project,is about equivalent to the FEMA 100-yr water surface as construction of a flood control facility rather than landscaping elevation. The currently adopted FEMA 100-yr water surface improvements with ancillary flood control benefits. Specifically, elevation is based on a flow of 8,500 cfs and topography from circa increased effort would be required to justify the construction of a 5.5 1980. The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation is based on a ft high floodwall as compared to the 3 ft high landscaping berm. flow of 12,000 cfs and topography from 2000. Additionally, the permit effort may also be greater as compared to the levee since resource agencies may associate a greater impact with the concrete wall. -FEMA Region X suggested the landscaping berm project in lieu of the floodwall or levee approach to solve the potential flooding problems at the Maplewood Golf Course and Neighborhood. Additionally,only 1 non-USACE levee or floodwall has been approved by FEMA and that project took 3 years to complete. -Freeboard of 3.5 feet above the 100-yr water surface elevation would be required by FEMA for either the levee or floodwall option, as compared to 1.0 feet for the landscaping berm alternative. U:\GSCHIMEK\PROJECTS\wo#65221\alt3matrix.doc\GMS MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative Number 3 - Concrete Floodwall Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Comments 1. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS Surveying N/A N/A N/A $3,000 3 survey days @$1,000/day Sediment Transport Analysis N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Embankment Protection Analysis N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Embankment and Foundation Stability N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Settlement Analysis N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Interior Drainage Analysis N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr O&M Plan N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Hydraulic Analysis N/A N/A N/A $5,000 50 consultant hours @$100/hr Permitting N/A N/A N/A $4,000 40 consultant hours @$100/hr Preliminary Drawings N/A N/A N/A $8,000 80 consultant hours @$100/hr Final Drawings and Specifcations N/A N/A N/A $5,000 50 consultant hours @$100/hr SUB-TOTAL(Design and Analysis) $43,000 20/of construction cost 2. CONSTRUCTION GENERAL ITEMS Mobilization N/A Lump Sum N/A $20,000 10%of sub-total Construction Surveying,Staking,As-builts N/A Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Typical Traffic Control N/A Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Typical Erosion Control 1000 Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Typical Temporary Fencing 1000 Linear Foot $1.00 $1,000 Rubber Dam Project Clear and Grub/Stripping 0.25 Acre $3,000.00 $1,000 Typical Remove and Replant Trees 5 EA $800.00 $4,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Project FLOOD WALL ITEMS(Installed-including excavation, backfill, compaction, reinforcing as required) Reinforced Concrete Flood Wall 300 Cubic Yards $600 $180,000 City Hall Floodwall Project SITE IMPROVEMENT ITEMS Irrigation System Modifications N/A Lump Sum N/A $2,000 Hydroseeding 0.25 Acre $15,000.00 $4,000 Oaksdale Avenue SW-Upland Seeding Landscaping Features N/A Lump Sum N/A $5,000 SUB-TOTAL(Construction) $220,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $263,000 u:\Gschimek\projects\wo#65221\cost estimates.xls MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONCRETE FLOODWALL 2001 12002 2003 ID Name Start Duration Jan Feb Mar Apr may Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec I Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1 Contract Development Mon 315/01 30 days 2 Select Consultant for Analysis and Design Mon 3/5/01 5 days 3 Consultant Agreement(including LA) Mon 3/12/01 25 days 4 Preliminary Design and Analysis Mon 4116/01 24 days 5 Survey of Existing Topography Mon 4/16/01 3 days 6 Design Parameters Mon 4/16/01 3 days 7 Preliminary Design Drawings Thu 4/19/01 21 days i 8 Final Design and Analysis Fri 5118/01 100 days 9 Final Design Drawings and Specifications Fri 5/18/01 100 days i 10 Sediment Tranport Analysis Fri 5118/01 100 days j 11 Embankment Protection Analysis Fri 5/18/01 100 days I f 12 Embankment and Foundation Stability Fri 5/18/01 100 days 13 Settlment Analysis Fri 5/18/01 100 days E 14 Interior Drainage Analysis Fri 5/18/01 100 days 15 O&M Plan Fri 5/18/01 100 days 16 Hydrualic Analysis(including Freeboard Assessment) Fri 5/18/01 100 days 17 Permitting Fri 5/18/01 60 days 18 SEPA Fri 5/18/01 60 days 19 FEMA Preliminary Review Process Fri 10/5/01 182 days j 20 Letter of Map Revision Submittal Fri 10/5/01 1 day 21 Review of Levee/Floodwall System Analysis Mon 10/8/01 180 days 22 Conditional Letter of Map Revision Mon 6/17/02 1 day 23 Construction Tue 6/18/02 129 days 24 Bid Opening and Award Tue 6/18102 45 days ' 771 25 Construction Mon 9/2/02 45 days 26 As-Builts Mon 11/4/02 30 days 27 FEMA Final Review Process Mon 12/16/02 104 days i 28 Submittal of Construction As-Builts Mon 12/16/02 1 day 29 Review Thu 1/2/03 90 days i 30 Letter of Map Revision Issued Thu 5/8103 1 day Project:Levee Task Progress Summary ^ Rolled Up Split Rolled Up Progress Project Summary Date:Wed 2/21/01 Split Milestone ♦ Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone O External Tasks Page 1 k Maplewood Golf Course - City of Renton FAIRWAY #3 CP/ \ 30 0 30 / EXISTING CART PATH / O E (TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED) Scde Feet l TOP OF BERM = 83� CONSTRUCTION LIMITS � f ERM ��-- --- --- o GREEN #3 H �zonlal Survey In fermelio os tu4en from � 3 � � \` ity of Renton Bose Mops. w O N U / ertico�Info motion w s l en from King County d lIO / Elevolions wn or NAVD 1988 eat. 0) O / U CD d .l'fO •� / ` �� O � STAGIN '� `�ti- AREA O TREES 8 6 — CEDAR RIVER 3 a I PEDESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE �.. �3 c II 86: -86 B4 TOP OF LANDSCAPE BERM 83.0' 84 NEW CART PATH a a 100 YEAR SURFACE WATER EL. (82.00') FREEBOARD E82 \ - 82 O m 80- .. -80 EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS ALONG CART PATH 0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 1+00 1+25 1+50 1+75 2+00 2+25 2+50 2+75 3+00 3+25 3+50 3+75 4+00 4+25 4+50 4+75 5+00 5+25 5+50 5+75 6+00 6+25 6+50 6+75 7+00 7+25 PROFILE HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=30' VERTICLE SCALE: 1.=2' O to A — NNNNAIA h a � S o � Maplewood Golf Course - Landscape Berm Construction Option #1 Cross Sections 1,2,3 U 0 ) � .� o e. F„ e4 o o � 03 o W g' a C) (n Q) a > CD o ,� //� //j , 20:I e2 a ° /Vx z av en 108' 70 79 7e 77 77ee es -60 -Je -JO -IJ -IO -Je PTO -2J -20 -15 -10 -3 0 3 10 le 20 23 JO JJ IO I1 JO m 60 of BI CROSS SECTION A/1e STA 2+00 8 I� T 20:1 82 2.1' // 82 eJ -// ..._. .... 61 CROSS SECTION e0 —_ 9' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"-10' N 8 VERTICAL SCALE: 1'-2' 76 7e V/ -60 -6e �70 -45 -IO -JJ -JO -2e -20 -1e -10 -1 O J 10 13 20 ?e JO Je IO I3 e0 SS 60 o CROSS SZ=N CAI& STA 5*00 85 85 a eJ 8 � eJ a a w e2 20:1 e2 0 3' e1 e1 e0 12 ' - >g 7e 7e 77 77 -70 -0 -60 -ee -J0 -2e -ZP 213 -10 -e 0 e 10 1e 210 26 JO 35 I0 IS SO S1 60 66 70 0 N QFI M MVWN B124 STA J+00 A - NNNNAA k Maplewood Golf Course - City of Renton ' t / 30 0 30 AND EXCAVATION LIMITS / I Scale n Feet t FAIRWAY #3 GREEN #3 —� TOP OF LEVEE = ELEV TION 8 .50 v' CART PATH: RE Nple: t✓ Horizon)R1 Survey In motion w taken from J (n Cil of Renton Op Mops. L- O Vertical In lormpli n wos tok, from King C...ty I O Aerial SurvsY are � O REPLACE El—tipns 6 n ee N 1988 Fl. N a o EXISTI G CART PATH a c� o c° o (-D o STAGIN AREA \._ — S � ------------- 6 CEDAR RIVER PEDESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE ? j L . �n �- TOP OF LEVEE = 85.5184 FREEBOARD=3.51 -84 a w 100 YEAR SURFACE WATER EL. (82.001) 82'_ .. .2 Q m 80 .. - -80 EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS ALONG CENTERLINE OF NEW WALL 78 ,. .. 0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 1+00 1+25 1+50 1+75 2+00 2+25 2+50 2+75 3+00 3+25 3+50 3+75 4+00 4+25 4+50 4+75 5+00 5+25 5+50 5+75 6+00 6+25 6+50 6+75 7+00 7+25 PROFILE HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1'=30' VERTICLE SCALE: 1•=2' O N>_ W 0' A - NNNNAA a Maplewood Golf Course - Levee Construction N Option #2 Cross Sections 1,2,3 C 0 .Q 0 C <n O O C > E O n O C O : U �QOUUI O Q N Q 0 O > O J U a 0 C 86- 12 86 85 85 85- 12' 84 84 3.8' 95- 85 rm-moo d.v r 2/—.wp. 8J BJ 2.I' 84 B4 _ BI 87 83 8J 3 -- - -1B 87 87 -16 -14 -17 -10 -8 -6 -4 -1 0 7 4 6 8 10 11 14 16 18 70 CROSS SECTION CROSS SECTION A13 STA 6*OO 81 88 HORIZONTAL SCALE: "=A' VERTICAL SCALE: 1-2' 87 87 BI 81 8P -10 -8 -6 -4 -7 0 1 4 6 8 10 17 14 16 111 / CROSS SECTION All STA 2*OO �3 4� 0 Y8 g86 12' --j86 a B5 Bs a w 8i 84 f- 0 8J 4.6' 8J GO 82 81 81 81 79 79 Z 0 78 78 w -74 -17 -70 -18 -16 -14 -11 -10 -8 -6 -4 -1 O 7 4 6 8 10 17 14 15 18 70 11 14 26 CROSS SECTION Al2 STA 4*OO A - NNNNAA g Maplewood Golf Course - City of Renton r FAIRWAY #3 c! i t 30 0 30 GREEN #3 ONSTRUCTION LIMITS I° `..t 0 TOP OF NEW WALL = ELEVATI 85• CAVATION LIMIT (WITH HORI IF NECESSARY) >_O tv O •� H"II°nl°I 5°ry y Inrormoti was token from ID p a (q >_ O city or Rento Base kfoR O L Vertical Info °lion w ak-from King County CE O Aerlol Sur y EI—tion shown o n NAVD 1988 Feet. Q) a a EXISTI G CART PATH 0 U � n STAGIN o AREA C�> __ - - J _ rp CEDAR RIVER 6 3 PEDESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE . II Top OF FLOOD WALL = 85.5' a 4.8 FREEBOARD=3.5' 84 MAXIMUM HEIGHT w 100 YEAR SURFACE WATER EL. (82.00 ) 0 } m 80- EXISTINGGROUND-ELEVATIONS ALONG CENTERLINEOF NEW WALL .. .. ... .- 80 BOTTOM OF FOOTING FOUNDATION o_ >N 76 W 0+00 0+25 0+50 0+]5 1+00 1+25 1+50 1+]5 2+00 2+25 2+50 2+75 3+00 3+25 3,50 3+75 a+00 4+25 4+50 4+]55+00 5+25 5+50 5+75 6+00 6+25 6+50 6+75 7+00 ]+25 Of PROFILE HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=30' VERTICLE SCALE: A - NNNNAA t Maplewood Golf Course - Floodwall Construction Option #3 Cross Sections A,8,C o O a Cn .0 >+ O O_O U �p 3 O (1) a1 (n o=Q 06C, µ- cn O�� O 1n a� v J B6 86 86 86 1 0 1.0 65 r..yy 85 F�. 85 } r�,.p� 85 2.18' 84 3.30' 84 84 ,�.. 83 83 8J 2.( 81 81 2.18' B1 BI 81- of 81 CROSS SECTION 2 USE SHORING -80 80 - ( — �•:n .a�w) HORIZONTAL SCALE. 1•=4' - AS NECESSARY VERTICAL SCALE. 1'=2' .I 79 { 79 -79 78 78 78 78 77 77 -15 -14 -11 -10 -8 -6 -4 -1 O 1 4 6 B 11 11 14 16 18 77 77 -4 -11 -11 -e -5 -4 -1 0 1 4 6 8 10 a 14 16 1B CROSS SECTION C/3 STA 6-h00 $z CROSS SECTION A/3 STA Z-kOO S O `0 86 86 ` 85 r wr n.s BS 84 B4 83 4.6' '' 83 e Bz s` 1.0' 81 81 81 a a a 30 80 4.6' >9 USE SHORING mm 78 2. AS NECESSARY 78 77 77 76 1 +1I 75 75 75 Z 74 74 -1B -16 -14 -11 -11 -B -6 -4 -1 0 1 4 6 B 10 11 14 16 18 CROSS SECTION B13 STA 4*00 A - NNNNAA Now - CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: DepvDiv/Board.. Surface Water Utility November 20, 2000 Staff Contact...... Gregg Zimmerman, Lys Hornsby Agenda Status Ron Straka (x-7248), Gary Schimek (x-7205) Consent.............. X Subject: Public . CONC RR N 0 Cedar River Floodplain Mapping Status Report — Corres ndence.. DATE Maplewood Area Flood Hazard Ordina ........NAME INMAUDAT Resoluti n Old Bus n / Exhibits: New Bu i S Issue Paper Study S n P Preliminary Floodplain Map - Maplewood Area Informat Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer To Utilities Committee Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... X Other............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $25,000 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted.......... $25,000 Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Surface Water Utility is working on a joint project with King County to update the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for the Cedar River. The FEMA maps are used to identify significant (i.e. 100-yr level) flood hazards that pose a threat to citizens, businesses, and property. The preliminary mapping results within the City of Renton have identified a significant new area of flooding along the Cedar River. Specifically, the Maplewood Golf Course and the majority of residences within the adjacent Maplewood neighborhood will be inundated with floodwater during a 100-yr flood event. The PBPW and Community Services Departments recommend that the following short- and long- term actions be taken in response to the new flood hazard in the Maplewood area. 1. Notify affected citizens and businesses of the recently identified flood hazard. 2. Prepare emergency response plan in coordination with the Police and Fire Departments. 3. Procure appropriate flood fighting equipment at the cost of approximately $25,000 (estimated). 4. Develop preliminary plans and cost estimates for long-term solution. The Surface Water Utility proposes to use a portion of the $50,000 appropriated this year in the Miscellaneous/Emergency Storm Projects CIP fund to purchase the recommended flood fighting equipment. 14 STAFF RECOMMENDATI Staff recommends Council authorize the PBPW and Community Services Departments to take the above noted immediate and long-term actions to address the new flooding hazard within the City of Renton. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-529a.doc\GMS\tb f CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 2000 v DATE�. TO: Randy Corman,Council President NAME INMAUDATE Members of the City Council J/ 1�/�S►bo VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner �- S II s FROM: Gregg Zimmerman,Administrator Planning/Building/Public Work Department STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka(X-7248) Gary Schimek(X-7205) SUBJECT: Cedar River Floodplain Mapping Status Report—Maplewood Area Flood Hazard ISSUE: The Surface Water Utility is working on a joint project with King County to update the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps for the Cedar River. The FEMA maps are used to identify significant (i.e. 100-yr level) flood hazards that pose a threat to citizens, businesses, and property. The project was undertaken since it was believed that existing FEMA maps, which were last revised in 1984, did not accurately reflect present-day flooding hazards. The preliminary mapping results within the City of Renton have identified a significant new area of flooding along the Cedar River. Specifically,the Maplewood Golf Course and the majority of residences within the adjacent Maplewood neighborhood will be inundated with floodwater during a I00-yr flood event. RECOMMENDATION: The PBPW and Community Services Departments recommend that the following short- and long- term actions be taken in response to the new flood hazard in the Maplewood area. 1. Notify affected citizens and businesses of the recently identified flood hazard. 2. Prepare emergency response plan in coordination with the Police and Fire Departments. 3. Procure appropriate flood fighting equipment at the cost of approximately $25,000 (estimated). 4. Develop preliminary plans and cost estimates for long-term solution. The Surface Water Utility proposes to use a portion of the $50,000 appropriated this year in the Miscellaneous/Emergency Storm Projects CIP fund to purchase the recommended flood fighting equipment. Cedar River Floodplain Mapping- Status Report Page 2 BACKGROUND: Purpose of FEMA Mapping Project The existing FEMA floodplain maps were developed in 1984 prior to the historic 1990 flood event that caused significant flood damage to the City and region. The most significant problem with the maps being developed before this major flood event is that the 1990 flood discharge value of 10,600 cfs was well above the estimated FEMA 100-yr flood discharge value of 8,500 cfs. In addition, digital technology has increased steadily since 1984 and, as a result,topographic information can now be obtained at a much greater resolution. These two factors(i.e. flows and topography) suggest that the existing FEMA maps do not accurately identify severe flooding hazards at the present time. As a result,the City and King County are in the process of preparing new FEMA maps to better represent existing flooding hazards along the Cedar River between Lake Washington and Landsburg. The City is developing maps from Lake Washington(river mile 0.0)to Renton City limits(river►vile 5.3), and the County is developing maps from Renton City limits to Landsburg(river mile 21.4). The original goal of* the project was to merge the City and County maps, and subsequently submit one map of the entire Cedar River reach to FEMA. Description of New Flooding Hazard The preliminary mapping results within the City indicate that the Maplewood Golf Course and the adjacent Maplewood neighborhood will be inundated with up to 10-ft of water during the 100-yr event (i.e. 1 in 100 chance of occurring any year)of 12,000 cfs. Flooding of this particular region is caused by overflow of the riverbank just upstream of Maple Valley Highway river crossing(see attached map). The overflow of the riverbank begins at a flow of about 9,000 cfs which corresponds to a 25-year flood event (i.e. 4 in 100 chance of occurring any year). FEMA Mapping History The Maplewood Golf Course- but not the adjacent Maplewood neighborhood - was initially mapped within the FEMA 100-yr floodplain. However,Community Services determined via a topographic survey that the riverbank just upstream of the Maple Valley Highway river crossing would contain the 100-yr event of 8,500 cfs and subsequently protect the golf course. The ground survey of the riverbank was conducted in 1994 as part of the design phase for construction of the new Maplewood Golf Course Club House. As of result of the survey information, a letter of map revision was submitted to FEMA requesting that the Maplewood Golf Course be removed from the identified 100-yr floodplain. FEMA reviewed the new information and subsequently agreed to remove the golf course from the floodplain. Flooding History Historic Cedar River flooding events occurred in 1990, 1995,and 1996. Each of these flows were near or above the original FEMA 100-yr discharge value of 8,500 cfs. The Maplewood Golf Course and adjacent neighborhood, however, did not experience Cedar River induced flooding during these events. The various reasons for this are described below. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-529b.doc\RJS\GS\tb Cedar River Floodplain Mapping- Status Report Page 3 During the November 1990 event of 10,600 cfs, floodwaters reached the top of bank just upstream from the Maple Valley Highway river crossing. However,the golf course and adjacent neighborhood were not flooded due to the protection of the riverbank. The riverbank elevations were, most likely, similar to the riverbank elevations surveyed in 1994 as noted above. During the November 1995 event of approximately 8,000 cfs,the riverbank just upstream of the Maple Valley Highway crossing of the Cedar River, on the Maplewood Golf Course, was severely eroded. It is significant to note that about 3.5 vertical feet of riverbank in addition to approximately 50 horizontal feet of riverbank was lost during this flood. As a result of this erosion, the flood event of about 8,000 cfs reached the top of the bank similar to during the 1990 event. More importantly, the portion of riverbank that protected the golf course and Maplewood neighborhood from flooding during the major 1990 event was not lost. Immediately after the November 1995 event,the Parks Department conducted an emergency repair of the riverbank just upstream of the Maple Valley Highway. Specifically, the riverbank was armored with rip- rap to prevent further erosion. During the February 1996 flood event of approximately 8,000 cfs, floodwaters again reached the top of bank just upstream of Maple Valley High crossing of the Cedar River. Existing Condition of River-Bank As part of the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Reduction Project,the rip-rap along the bank just upstream of Maple Valley Highway was removed and replaced by a bioengineered revetment. This was conducted as a mitigation measure for the Flood Reduction Project. Computer modeling conducted in relation to the City of Renton and King County FEMA mapping project indicates that the riverbank, on the golf course side upstream of Maple Valley Highway crossing of the Cedar River, is overtopped at about 9,000 cfs. This modeling result corresponds very well to visual observations made by Parks staff during both the 1995 and 1996 flood events. The revised FEMA 100-yr flood event used in the City of Renton and King County mapping project is 12,000 cfs. At this flow, about 700 cfs would overtop the riverbank and flow along the Maplewood Golf Course and into the adjacent Maplewood neighborhood. Solutions to Flooding Hazard In response to the potential flooding hazard,the PBPW and Community Services Departments(in consultation with Mayor Tanner) have developed the following short- and long-term solutions. Short Term Actions- 1.Notify affected citizens and businesses-via an official letter from Mayor Tanner- about the new flood hazard information. Also include information regarding the protocol for purchasing flood insurance. 2. Prepare emergency response plan in coordination with the Police and Fire Departments. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-529b.doc\RJS\GS\tb Cedar River Floodplain Mapping- Status Report Page 4 3. Procure flood fighting equipment(similar to equipment used to protect the old City Hall and Carco Theater)for the upcoming flood season. The estimated cost of the equipment is about $25,000. 4. Train City staff to set-up and operate flood-fighting equipment. 5. Inform King County that Renton will wait to submit new floodplain maps to FEMA until long- term solution is developed. In this way,the affected residences and business will not be mapped within the 100-yr FEMA floodplain. Long Term Actions 1. Prepare preliminary design plans and cost estimates for permanent flood structure(i.e. berm or concrete wall). 2. Determine the downstream effects of the proposed flood protection measure. 3. Prepare permit applications and final construction plans/specifications. 4. Construct project during 2001. CONCLUSION: The PBPW and Community Services Departments request Council authorize the Departments to take the above noted immediate and long-term actions to address the new flooding hazard within the City of Renton. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-529b.doc\RJS\GS\tb CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1,2000 TO: Jim Shepherd,Administrator Community Services )001 /'� FROM: Gregg Zimmerrl�[if,�dministrator Planning Building Public Works STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, X-7248 Gary Schimek,Surface Water Utility SUBJECT: Installation of Temporary Flood Control Structure-Draft Scope of Work Attached is a draft Scope of Work for the installation of temporary flood control structure at the Maplewood Golf Course. The document was developed through a series of field and office meetings held this week. The staff that was able to participate in these meetings included Randy Leifer(Golf Course),John Thompson(PBPW Maintenance),Lys Hornsby(Utility Systems),Ron Straka(Surface Water Utility)and Gary Schimek(Surface Water Utility). As the document indicates,we are planning to install the Temporary Flood Control Structure on or around December 11,2000. The structure will be placed and filled with water from a hydrant and will remain in place until the middle of April 2001 at the latest. A temporary chain link fence will be placed along the western side of the flood control structure to protect it from vandalism to the best of our ability. Please review the document for concurrence. If you have any comments,questions or concerns, please contact Ron Straka(X-7248)or Gary Schimek(X-7248). cc: Leslie Betlach Jack Crumley Lys Hornsby Randy Leifer H:\DIVISIONS\u,rILITI E.S\DOCS\2000-563.doc\tb r SCOPE OF WORK INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURE AT MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE IN RENTON,WASHINGTON I. Supplier/Contractor AquaDam° Water Structures David Doolaege P.O. Box 206 Carlotta, CA 707-768-3439 (Office 1) 800-693-5055 (Office 2) 707-768-1723 (Home) 707-768-2116 (Fax) II. Equipment Specifications 1. Type- Inflatable(via water)rubber dams 2. Total Dam Length- 500 or 600 ft.") 3. Dimensions of individual structure- 100'L x 12'W x 4' H 4. Quantity of structures- 5 or 6(1) 5. Maximum water depth-3 ft.(2) 6. Couplings and repair kits-as required for use between December 2000 and April 2001 7. 25,000 gallons of water required per 100-ft. section 8. 10 Mil polyethylene inner tubes,and 20 Mil. Polypro Woven Master Tube. Notes on Equipment Specifications- (1) City of Renton Surface Water Utility estimates the minimum requirement for 500 ft.of AquaDam®Water Structures® meeting the above specifications. However,the City requests that supplier provides 600 ft.to the job site and,as part of the installation process,determines whether the use of 500 ft.or 600 ft.will be the best option. It is the City's understanding that the final equipment rental fee will be based on the length used(i.e.either 500 or 600 ft.)and that there will be no additional shipping costs if only 500 ft.are used and 100 ft.needs to be returned to California with the supplier. (2) Water depth is estimated at 2 ft.above the minimum bank elevation of 80 ft.NGVD along the Golf Course during a 100-yr event of 12,000 cfs. III. Costs and Schedule A. Equipment 1. $2,340 per 100 ft. 2. Equipment rental fee for 500 ft. or 600 ft. of water structure will be $1 1,700 or$14,040, respectively. 3. Provide 600 ft. of above specified material to the job site between December, 2000 and April, 2000. Either 500 ft. or 600 ft. will be installed as determined by the supplier. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-563a.doc\RJS\tb B. Travel and Labor 1. $3,750. 2. Deliver and install material on December 7, 8 or 11, 2000; provide training on repair on same date as delivery and installation. Remove material as directed by City no later than April 15, 2001. 3. Travel and labor cost will be the same regardless if 500 ft. or 600 ft. is used as rental by the City. C. Sales Tax 1. The City of Renton will pay the appropriate California State sales tax. IV. Layout A. The proposed layout of the AquaDam Water Structures, as jointly determined by City of Renton Surface Water Utility and Maplewood Golf Course staff, is shown on the attached drawing. The layout shall be reviewed and approved in the field by the supplier. V. Site Access A. The main entrance to the Maplewood Golf Course will be used to access the job site. The supplier's vehicle will be stationed in the Golf Course parking lot near the pedestrian bridge. Material will be removed from the supplier's vehicle and transferred to the final location using a loader and operator provided by the Golf Course. The loader will use the Golf Course cart path to move the material from the supplier's vehicle to the final location. VI. Water Source A. One City fire hydrant, located within the Maplewood Golf Course parking lot, will be used to fill the AquaDam®Water Structures& B. The City's Public Works Maintenance Division will provide 1,000 ft. of 3-inch fire hose to facilitate this process. VII. Replacement of Damaged Water Structure A. As part of the installation process,AquaDam©staff will train City staff on emergency repair of the supplied Water Structures& The City anticipates that AquaDam®will provide ample repair equipment for the anticipated period of use between December 2000 and April 2001. B. If an individual water structure is damaged to the point that replacement is needed, AquaDam©will be contacted immediately by the City. It is anticipated that AquaDam®will respond by providing and installing a replacement structure within 24 hours. The cost for a replacement will be $2,340 for the 100- ft. water structure and $1,850 for travel and labor, unless it is determined that the damaged water structure was in disrepair prior to the initial installation. H:\DIVISION.S\UTI LITIE.S\DOCS\2000-563a.doc\RJS\tb VIII. Insurance Requirements A. Certificate of Insurance meeting City of Renton Risk Management standards. IX. City Responsibilities A. Public Works Maintenance Division shall provide 1,000 ft. of 3-inch hose to fill the Water Structures®from a fire hydrant. AquaDam®will provide pumps for filling from river, if requested by the City, for no additional costs to those noted above. B. Public Works Maintenance Division or Surface Water Utility shall provide 2 laborers to assist with installation of temporary rubber dam. Laborers will receive training on temporary repair of Water Structures®. C. Golf Course will provide a loader and an operator to move Water Structures®(about 300 pounds per 100 ft. section) from truck to field location. D. Golf Course will transplant 3 small trees within the proposed location of temporary rubber dam. E. Surface Water Utility will provide temporary chain-link fencing along the west face of the water structure. I I ADIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-563a.docAR.IS\tb ti�Y T Health Benefits Task Force Recommendations November 16, 2000 The following changes and amendments to the City's healthcare program have been reviewed by the Health Benefits Task Force and recommended for implementation effective January 1,2001. 1. Dental Benefits: Increase the annual dental care provision from $1,250 to $1,500. 2. Vision Benefits: Permit the vision benefit to cover laser eye surgery up to $400 every two calendar years as an alternate to the current exam and vision hardware provision. 3. Married Couple Coordination of Benefits: Allow employees married to other City employees to coordinate dental benefits for themselves and their families. Note: Estimated annual cost of added benefits$16,000. 6insurance:2001 recamend , i s � .. NN r 7 Irw a z pn tl• R � �Y �k, �_ ru � � �j f ,j 1 1 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1,2000 TO: Neil Watts, Development Services Division FROM: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka(X-7248) Gary Schimek(X-7205) SUBJECT: SEPA and Shoreline Permit Exemptions Request-Installation of Temporary Flood Protection Structure along Cedar River at Maplewood Golf Course The Surface Water Utility is proposing to install a temporary flood protection structure(i.e. rubber dam) along the Cedar River at the Maplewood Golf Course to provide immediate flood protection for the golf course and, more importantly,the adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood. This temporary flood protection measure is necessary because the Maplewood Neighborhood has recently been identified as a flood hazard area as a result of Surface Water Utility's Cedar River Floodplain Mapping Project. The area has never previously been mapped as floodplain,because it historically was protected by a berm along the Cedar River at the Maplewood Golf Course. However,this berm was lost to erosion during the November 1995 flood event and the flood hazard was not identified until the recent Floodplain Mapping Project. As such, 163 residences and businesses in the Maplewood Neighborhood have recently been identified (through the Cedar River Floodplain Mapping Project)to be within the 100-yr floodplain of the Cedar River(see attached figure). These potentially affected residences and businesses may experience significant flooding if flows in the Cedar River increase above 9,000 cfs. This flow rate corresponds to the 25-yr-flood event(i.e. 4 percent chance of occurring any given year). The temporary flood protection structure needs to be installed immediately-rather than waiting for Cedar River flows to increase to an early flood level - for two reasons. First,the equipment supplier and installation contractor is located in northern California. Second, installation of the 500-ft.to 600-ft. structure may take one or two full days after the supplier and contractor arrive. As flood flows on the Cedar River may increase rapidly over a 24-hour period or less,waiting to start the installation procedure until an early flood level is detected may not allow enough time to deploy the facility and result in severe damage within the Maplewood Neighborhood. The temporary flood protection structure will consist of an inflatable rubber dam that will have a total length of 500-600 feet that will be 12 feet wide and 4 feet high. The structure will be filled with 125,000 to 150,000 gallons of water. We intend to use a fire hydrant as the water source to fill the structure. Enclosed is a plan showing where the temporary flood protection structure will be placed on the Maplewood Golf Course. Due to the impending risk of unanticipated severe flood damage to the Maplewood Neighborhood and the associated time constraints related to the installation of the temporary flood protection structure,the H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-564.doc SEPA and Shoreline Permit Exemptions Request Page 2 Surface Water Utility is requesting a concurrence with the interpretation that the above referenced project is categorically exempt from SEPA and exempt from Shoreline permit regulations as allowed by the following city and state codes. 1. Under Section 197-11-800 of the Washington State Administrative Code(WAC), projects are exempt from SEPA if actions must be undertaken immediately to avoid imminent threat to public safety. 2. Under Section 4-9-190C(5)of the Renton Municipal Code(RMC),projects are exempt from Shoreline regulations if emergency construction is necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An emergency is defined as an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment, which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow for full compliance with this program. 3. Under Section 4-9-190C(3)of the Renton Municipal Code(RMC),projects are exempt from Shoreline regulations for normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire,or elements. This section is referenced since the action is to install a temporary structure that will provide the same protection that the berm along the Cedar River provided prior to being damaged in the November 1995 flood. To prevent the need for the temporary flood protection structure in the future,the Surface Water Utility, in coordination with the Community Services Department,will be developing plans for a project to construct a permanent flood protection facility on the Maplewood Golf Course. The project to construct the permanent flood protection facility will follow the City's normal SEPA and Shoreline permitting processes. We intend to proceed with the project to construct the permanent flood protection facility prior to the next flood season(November 2001), subject to securing all required permits. Please provide us your written decision as soon as possible as to whether this project is SEPA and Shoreline exempt. If you have any questions, please contact Ron Straka or Gary Schimek. Cc: Gregg Zimmerman Jim Shepherd Jack Crumley Leslie Betlach Randy Leifer H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-564.doc\RJS\GS\tb 7x� s�i°�}'�°�ut,j•A�A" �:_xc�i� N, � �i7 s< � � .�i;� a. , .� ww� s,+�Cri � r �. %N q;x 30 ( +� "r ,+ '' z "•�` `., ,�`' 3 °v °�. '�r 'i� ,+C''�� }+�� �axil na a�aa �,���A� bra �. +t.w•R� _ a 'x, r i Al i lip A',. 4 `�R.v�'ta� �+ 'a�• ,y � g'R`.���9,4 g�y '. f Jx'� 4.. �`�,�[ � „t }. i - A S.pQ� y 4 ii% �'��'4 r!!� l'�' .r. � y t � �,� �I� � w y �kT.3 �yi� R + ' �� • ,+),y'�e� � ?� „+�,}R'� *a0.4�+> �J� to l�' I + ♦ a t�, ��'`. V � y' � 4 •M1 t M �. "�� ii �M1 d" ♦ r x� !"�" ,F i A 9w 9dR� y 1 k• �.. �1 It ,!s_s-•s Sty'k�tY`ra�'c .Ka '`"+7m7 ` `. r � !�• . IIM a�a ■4 a a .x�, a�,'�J,�°.;:3,. '.iw •s: dYi•"�`+ 'I %1 .1 j4*j, y 1' : Note: Split flow returns to the main channel across Highway 169 at this location. 1 ATE BOUNDARY m --_ q \ 7 —J CD \; ��//7[ Newly Identi :1 Areas of Floe :Note: A portion of-the { f splits froma. / M acros a3 my k S A �f-� / ice. I _ �.. i•�- — , j �.i' v,�.� � E-+ ; 3. `/ d z nW ..,�\ .\\ • r � l �` f\.• _tom '� \ .\, ^S�/ c Nortion of the floesnE , ti ---- - V ( )� at this l off, 1 ( FEMA IAribW Rood kY -- i *w Flood wed I / 1%jw Floddp Sava" ' 6 \�\•��\ yam,\\. 1 �� f 1 1 IeW00d 500-rea RmdpWn �� \\\ .r r n y�j RM Hood Devabon '\ \� — ;\ /. 1'J]` If Course i _ ------ am Lim •ew ton �VW* `1 \ \ <<�` ''' % RM 4. _ S"'W"ft. ( �_-_ t;ne tlaodvY�rn r me+oo d m kseesad amtwe �� � i- -�' � ���� ' '�,r-;Y` / ,`<.� � 6 � �� � � �♦ �.\ Owirfore IM 96 tl"—Zidn olfe too-and SM-ts i I 11woarn bwtlrlea ) � [)The byoprWq M 11—V.soaar.1.dfe \ ' I '�%, / ` '��, ✓ \ i t � 3)Olafde iloodaryisriow,nwere fetool a5do-ler -"--- _ ,� 'i �... �; ` �,.% F, ♦/• \\ —. 11 z duodphin a amcidre write 9oodael r aA T� >+ -:, -� - I ! I \ 1)As nded m ee walvrW.de 500-dr doe nrm fe i splem atl spreads cW same miV oereloped - - ':+ �. -- ---� FEMA Identified ERM-4 z Areas of Flooding - -- APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date ! UTILITIES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT .; . DEC - December 4, 2000 C1T` rJrFiF Cedar River Floodplain Mapping Status Report (Referred November 20, 2000) The Utilities Committee recommends Council concurrence with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department's recommendation that the following short-term and long-term actions be taken, in coordination with the Community Services Department,to address the new flooding hazard within the Maplewood Neighborhood: 1. Notify affected citizens and businesses of the recently identified flood hazard. 2. Prepare emergency response plan in coordination with the Police and Fire Departments. 3. Procure appropriate flood fighting equipment at the cost of approximately $25,000 (estimated). 4. Develop preliminary plans and cost estimates for long-term solution. The Surface Water Utility funding to purchase the recommended flood fighting equipment is appropriated in the Miscellaneous/Emergency'Storm Projects CIP fund. - Dan Clawson,Chair 4thyKlker-Wheeler,Vice Chair Terri Briere,Member cc: Lys Hornsby Ron Straka C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\2000-536.doc\R.IS\GMS\tb f ' f o,6V o� CITY OF RENTON HUMAN RESOURCES & RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: December 5, 2000 TO: Gary S himek, Utilities c FROM: MWA R. Webby, HR&RM Adminstrator SUBJECT: Ins. Review/Temp Flood Control-Water Structures Unlimited I have reviewed the Certificate of Insurance for the above referenced contract. The insurance coverage,provided for this project,meet the City's risk management requirements for this year. CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: 12/4/2000 TO: Mike Webby FROM: Ron Straka J T Gary Schimek SUBJECT: Insurance Submittal for Installation of Temporary Flood Control Equipment along Cedar River at Maplewood Golf Course The following insurance material is attached for your review for the above referenced project: 1. Certificate of Insurance(for General Liability) 2. Certificate of Insurance(for Automobile Liability) 3. Completed Insurance Information Form Please review the submitted material as soon as possible, as we need to confirm the delivery and installation date for this equipment. At this time, deliver and installation is scheduled for this Thursday December 7, 2001. For your reference, a brief description of the installation procedure follows. 1. Water Structures Unlimited is scheduled to deliver and install a temporary flood control structure(i.e. rubber dam that is filled with water)on December 7, 2000. Water Structures has delivered and installed this equipment for municipalities across the United States. In fact, it is my understanding that they are currently installing this equipment for the City of San Antonio,Texas. 2. Golf Course staff will assist Water Structures Unlimited by moving 5 to 6 individual flood control structures from the delivery truck to the job site using a loader. Each individual water structure weighs about 400 pounds. 3. PBPW Maintenance staff will assist Water Structure Unlimited by setting up the flood control structure in the final field location. 4. Fire Department staff will assist Water Structure Unlimited by filling the structures with water from a pumper truck. 5. The temporary water structures will remain in-place until approximately April 1,2001. Water Structures Unlimited will return at this time to remove the equipment(with the assistance of City staff). U:\GSCHIMEK\PROJECTS\27-2885\Flood Control\Memo-Insurance Review Request.doc 12-01 -2023 4:02P�l FROt`1 GATES 7077253317 12:00 CITY OF REHTON FePW 4�5 nsb r�41 N.�2'NN Cr" OF RENTON HUMAN RESOURCES& RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT INSURANCE INFORMATION FORM r\ CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT, Water Structures Unlimited PROJECT NUMBER STAFF CONTACT Certificate of Insum=indicates the ca vmges and lu-nits ❑ No specified in contract? If no,explain below: ❑ Yes Is the Cou ntercial General Liability policy form �( O Yes N0 LSO 1993 O=rrenoe Form or EgtdWcat7 67/98 rp' (If no,attach a copy of the policy with required c1ges clearly identified) CG 0043 Amendatory Endorsement provided7'4 0 Yes � No CGL General Aggregate provided an a'per project basis(CG2503)7• ❑ Yes No Additional Insured wording provided?* �0 Yes 0 No AD ovverage on a primary basis and ton-oonuibuting basis?* O Yes 0 No Waiver of Subrogation Clause Applies?* O Yes J6 No Severability of Werest Clause(Cross Liability)applies7 ❑ Yes No 30 " Notice of CanoellatioWNon-Rentwal amended to Ps days7* C] Yes 0 No `To be shown on certificate of insurance 0 Nof required ifM Occurrence form is 1990 or earlier,may also be azumed under c vnb,=f. i AM amrs RAwG)FoR CARRIER: 4 QI At X V Auto Umb Professional his Questionnaire is issued as a mattes of information. This qumbowtaire is not an innuance policy and Goes not amend, aaead cr alter the oarerage aBorde d by the policies indicated on the attached CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE. T1re CITY OF RENTON, at its option, shall obtain copies of the policies andlor spwffic declaration pages MOM awarded bidder prior to execution of contract Gates and Associates Ins . Agcy Inc_ Wil I M Whpr .ar Agency/Broker Completed By CfWe or Print 0 521 12th Street Fortuna Ca. Address Completed By(Signature) Name of person to contact Telephone Numbcr NOTE: THIS QUESTIONNAIRE MUST BE COMPLETED AND ATTACHED TO CERTI171Gt TE OF INSURANCE FOR EACH LJNE OF COVERAGE 19 eru *L., ■.-_.e rv5 12-01-2030 4:03PM FROM GATES 70772533' 7 ACORD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MN DDIYYJ ITER 2 12/ 1/00 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATI N ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Gates & Associates Ins. Agency HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND,EXTEND O 521 12th St. ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED 9Y THE POLICIES BEL W. Fortuna CA 95540 Phone: 707-725-3313 Fax:707-725-3317 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURED INSURERA: Scottsdale Insurance Company INSURER& Water Structures Unlimited David Doolaege INSURERC: P.O. BOX 206 INSURER0: Carlotta CA 95528 INSURERE: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN 15 SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS.EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POUCIES,AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER GATE MMIDD/YY DATE MMfO � LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE S 1000 00 A X COMMERCtALGENERALLIABILITY CLS0647429 12/28/99 12/28/00 FIRE DAMAGE(Any one fire) $1000 0 CLAIMS MADE FXJ OCCUR MED EXP(Any one person) S X HIRED & NONOWNED PERSONAL SADVINJURY $1000 OO GENERAL AGGREGATE Z 1000 00 kxPOLICY 'LAGGREGATELIMITAPPLIESPER PRODUCTS-COMPIOPAGG S1000 OO CT PRO- LOC JB AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT ANY AUTO (Ea accldenU S i ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per Deroon) E HIRED AUTQS BODILY INJURY NON-OWNEDAUTOS (Peraccldcnt) S PROPERTY DAMAGE 5 (Par accldeni) GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT E ANY AUTO EA ACC S 1 OTHER THAN _ AUTO ONLY: AGG S EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ OCCUR u CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ S DEDUCTIBLE S RETENTION £ I s WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I ER. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY E.L.EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYER E E.L.DISEASE•POLICY LIMIT S OTHER I DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS%LOCATIONSIVEHICLESiEXCLU31ONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENTISPECIAL PROVISIONS Plastic Goods Manufacture - Certificate Holder Additional Insured As Their Interest May Appear CERTIFICATE HOLDER Y I ADDITIONAL INSURED:INSURER LETTER: A CANCELLATION CITYOFR SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATIO DATE THEREOF,THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DA 'WRITTEN City of Renton NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,BUT FAILURE TOO) SO SMALL Gary Schimek IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER,ITS AGENTS OR 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 REPRESENTATIVES. Will McWhorter ACORD 25S(7/97) (DACORD CORPORATi N 1988 12/04/00 MON 10:54 FAX 707 7682116 19002 PLEASE I(EEP THIS PORTION SIX MONTHS RENEWAL PREMIUM NOTICE PDucr NUMBLM ` gp fQR YOUR REGARDS 9 6 14 5 7 6 2 6 3 3 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE VIN► 1FTHW26F8VEC13040 'I The companywill renew your policy for an additional six month term shown below only if psymentof VEHCLE DESCRIPTION the total premium or the optional payment indicated is made on or before the renewal date of this notice. �97 F 2 5 0 STD COVERAGES 'Entries in thousands of dollars ' PREMIUM *-r 469. 50 469.5D 217 .00 BODILY 2511 -'-hn 500h PROPERTY 500 INJURY - P PREMIUM MLANCEORCREDIT TOTAL PREMIUM 35.70 UNINSURED MOTORISTS' 250/500 �� x From prior Im a If you pay the optional paymentthe balance of 5234 .75 will be due 60 days after the renewal date. 30.00 MEDICALS 5000 DRIVER 69 R PREM 9 96-28-745 CLASS RENEWAL DATE ' NOV. 17, D 0 Agent's Numbs 31, .6❑ COMPREHENSIVE 1000 D 11J!"14 ! rr RENEWAL TERM 11/17/DO To 05/17/01 125.30 COLLISION 1000 D 1 DAVID DOOLAEGE TOWING NC KATHY DOOLAEGE PERS.LIABILITY• NCPO BOX 206 UMPD---COLLISION DED. WAIVER _I�CARLOTTA CA 95528-0206 29 .90 TRAILER , SAFETY GLASS 'i Your premium Is based on the following. Drivers)of this vehicle: MARRIED,FEMALE. OPERATOR HAS 34-38 YRS.DRIVING EXPERIENCE \ j?j.!� V, r Use of vehiole: Ma 4t . M.rww BUSINf6S USE-GERV40E Annual Mileage: OVER 22,500 Discounts: PREMIER,MULTIPLE CAR,GOOD DRIVER Agent: LAWRENCE R CANTUA Phone: 707-923-2179 Please contact your Farmers Agent for a free Farmers Friendly Review in case of accident call your Agent Immediately. to ensure that your family is properly protected and that you are receiving all of the discounts/creditsand package policies available. OTHER DISCOUNTS YOU MAY QUALIFY FOR: AUTO/HOME,PASSIVE RESTRAINT,4 WHEEL ABS,GROUP Other Important information: IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A GOOD DRIVER DISCOUNT,AND IF YOU WISH TO HAVE A POLICY ISSUED OR RENEWED IN ANY OF OUR COMPANIES,WITH LIMITS LIMITED TO THE MINIMUM FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS (15,000130,000/5,000),WE ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO FURNISH COVERAGE IN THOSE MINIMUM AMOUNTS. I Thank you for placing your insurance with us.We appreciate your business.Should you have a claim,we believe you'll appreciate Farmers'service 25-2858 7-se (SEE ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE) A2858101 r CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 22, 2000 TO: Glen Gordon, Deputy Chief Renton Fire Department FROM: Gregg Zimmernn�Admimstrator Planning, Building, Public Works STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka(X-7248) Gary Schimek(X-7205) SUBJECT: EOC Protocol for Maplewood Neighborhood Cedar River Flooding Per your request, Surface Water Utility staff has prepared an emergency response plan for the Maplewood Neighborhood Cedar River flood hazard to be used by the EOC during this flood season if necessary. This plan was developed through a meeting between Surface Water Utility(Ron Straka and Gary Schimek),PBPW Maintenance Division(John Thompson),and EOC(Glen Gordon). Please distribute this information to EOC members for their review and concurrence. If you have any questions,please contact Ron Straka or Gary Schimek. Enclosures cc: Jay Covington Jack Crumley Jim Shepherd Garry Anderson Lee Wheeler 11:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-598.doc\GMS\tb EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR CEDAR RIVER FLOODING IN THE MAPLEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD • City of Renton Emergency Operation Center (EOC) is activated when the King County Flood Warning Center issues Phase 4 for Cedar River. Phase 4 Flood Warning corresponds to a Landsburg flow of 4,200 cfs at t= 0 hrs (for example, 5:00 P.M.) and a Renton flow of 5,200 cfs at t=4 hrs (for example, 9:00 P.M.). See attached figure showing the relationship between flows at Landsburg and Renton. • Surface Water Utility monitors Cedar River flow conditions at Landsburg (via Internet) and at Renton(via staff gage at South Boeing Bridge) after EOC is activated. • The City of Renton EOC will direct the City of Renton Police Department to broadcast an evacuation warning within the Maplewood Neighborhood(via Public Announcement System) after the Phase 4 Flood Warning is issued by the King County Flood Warning Center and the City of Renton EOC is activated if conditions warrant the need to issue the warning. • The City of Renton EOC will direct City of Renton Police Department to broadcast evacuation order within the Maplewood Neighborhood (via Public Anouncement System within police vehicles) when Cedar River flow at Landsburg reaches 7,500 cfs. See attached map that identifies the flood hazard area within the Maplewood Neighborhood when the Cedar River flow in Renton reaches 12,000 cfs. HADI VISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOGS\2000-598.doc\GMS\tb CEDAR RIVER FLOW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANDSBURG AT T=0 HRS AND RENTON AT T=4HRS 14,000 Evacuation Alert Landsburg Flow = 7,500 cfs 12,000 Renton Flow = 9 000 cfs N 10,000 O Phase 4 Flood Level Landsburg Flow = 4,200 cfs N Renton Flow = 5 200 cfs U 8,000 c 6,000 Phase 3 Flood Level cOF doLandsburg Flow= 3,500 cfs CU rE Renton Flow=4,40 cfs 0 4,000 - 2,000 -- --- - - - - - --- = Phase 2 Flood Level Landsburg Flow = 2,800 cfs Renton Flow = 3,500 cfs 0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Flow at Renton in cfs at t=4 hrs Landsburg_Renton_Flows.xls RED I.�iii��!'-,�\���,!•` `� �� •� �`,� � , v v. Cis.. ,:: ♦� _ ���•j •�fit.' � ,� � '4 � --_�_ _- --- - , ` �r '�� � �� ���I�i*,� �,1 :i 1 1 . . will `�� �_`.�� ��i�lln►jl alil��I� ORIO� W NOR � � ilk, �. :, p`/ : .:;. ..elk Qom;%��\ .411 1, 641, No PAN oz LI 1� �wt,wo-T - WAW 14 gn �.. rI KFIA I ON �Iril /P�,I►,v�i/��' �i►���s����tA�/�f'o s�I,('a.I����rl�'�+� �.1.. � /d,�,� ' ��IL/ ���'� tea/ '�'��` �►;7,•,:•-� /L��'�-- `,� � , . ►a...�-,�1 • r CON JBLIC WORKS JM C®e,: U RFACE DATE: NAIU_ ",%L/DATE TO: for ---- trtment FROM: iistrator Works Departmeht---r-. ,,__r-.__ STAFF C( Utility(X-7248) Lrary ;Ncrumek, Surtace Water Utility(X-7205) SUBJECT: MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT ISSUE: Surface Water Utility and Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Region X staff recently met to discuss the City's proposed long term solutions(i.e. concrete floodwall or earthen levee)to protect the Maplewood Neighborhood from potential flood damage during the 100-yr flood event. Unfortunately, FEMA strongly believes that the proposed levee/floodwall alternatives are not viable if the City anticipates construction to be completed in less than about two to three years. FEMA did, however, present a new construction option that would provide the same flood control benefits as the levee/floodwall project and could be constructed this year. Specifically FEMA recommended to immediately pursue a golf course landscaping project that would, as a side benefit, provide flood protection up to the 100-yr level. The completed golf course landscaping project would need to blend into the existing course layout and not resemble a typical flood control berm(i.e. 3:1 side slopes, linear horizontal layout, and no plantings). The landscaping project, as conceptualized,would consist of the following elements: • Removal and subsequent replacement of about 500 feet of the existing golf cart path situated between the Cedar River and Hole Number 3. • Placement of new fill material(using the existing golf cart path as the approximate centerline)to about three feet above the existing ground elevation with corresponding side slopes of about 20H:IV. The new fill would extend to about 60 feet on either side of the centerline. • Installation of plantings to match existing layout. RECOMMENDATION: The Surface Water Utility recommends that the City pursue the golf course landscaping alternative, in lieu of the initially proposed floodwall or levee project,to protect the Maplewood Neighborhood from potential damage from the 100-yr flood event. Attachment 1 shows the decision matrix on which this recommendation is based. A meeting will be scheduled to discuss this issue in one week. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Surface Water Utility and Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Region X staff recently met to discuss the City's proposed long term solutions(i.e. concrete floodwall or earthen levee)to protect the Maplewood Neighborhood from potential flood damage. Detailed meeting notes are included as Attachment 2. A summary of the key meeting points are listed below under specific discussion topics: FEMA Levee/Floodwall Certification Requirements • Any floodwall or levee project must be certified by FEMA if the hydraulic effects of the project (i.e. decrease of the 100-yr floodplain) are to be shown on revised floodplain maps. • The pre-construction certification process may take about two to three years and involve substantial design costs ($100,000 was referenced as an actual example) if a floodwall or levee project is to be designed and constructed by any private entity or governmental agency other than the USACE. • As a direct result of the stringent certification process, only one non-USACE levee or floodwall has been certified by the FEMA Region X Office (i.e. Oregon, Washington, and Idaho). • USACE designed and constructed floodwall or levee projects are certified upon receipt and approval of a standard letter (from the USACE to FEMA) stating that adopted USACE design guidelines have been followed and that the structure was built as designed. FEMA Response to Ci 's Proposed Project • According to FEMA, the City's proposed levee/floodwall project is not a viable alternative if the project is to be certified by FEMA and constructed in less than two to three years. • The City's proposed levee/floodwall project would need to be constructed to a height of 3.5 feet above the estimated 100-yr water surface elevation to meet FEMA freeboard \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-023.doc\GS\Icf requirements. This would increase the costs of the project above the preliminary estimate, which was based on freeboard of 1.0 feet. Potential Collaboration with USACE • The City would likely have to request Federal Assistance through the USACE Section 205 Small Flood Control Program. The typical USACE process for implementing a project under this program requires a reconnaissance report, feasibility study, design phase and construction phase. The overall project is likely to take 2-4 years until completion. However, the project would be eligible for federal funding assistance under the program. • A formal Section 7 Consultation with NMFS may be required if a levee/floodwall project involves any federal agency funding. The consultation could easily increase the project schedule by a minimum of one year,thereby diminishing the benefits of the less stringent certification requirements. • A levee/floodwall designed to meet USACE standard guidelines will - most likely - not fit very well into the existing golf course layout. Therefore, City staff and the golf course architect would need to work closely with the USACE during the design process. Again this may add substantial time and cost to the project and, in turn, diminish the benefits of working with the USACE even further. New Construction Alternative Suggested by FEMA • A golf course landscaping project, with flood control as a side benefit, is the preferred FEMA construction alternative. • FEMA certification would not be required for this alternative as long as the completed project does not resemble a typical flood control levee (i.e. 3:1 side slopes, linear horizontal configuration,turf without plantings,etc.). FEMA certification is not required because a typical flood control structure is not being built and flood control is only a side benefit of the landscaping project. • The use of landscaping (within reason) to provide flood control in lieu of a certified levee/floodwall is standard FEMA business practice. • The City's Cedar River floodplain map revision submittal was discussed. The preferred approach was to make the submittal with the Maplewood Golf Course landscape improvements shown as the existing condition. \\CENTRAL,\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-023.doc\GSUcf CONCLUSION: The Surface Water Utility recommends that the City pursue a golf course landscaping project,in lieu of the initially proposed levee/floodwall project,to protect the Maplewood Neighborhood from potential damage from the 100-yr flood event. A meeting will be scheduled with Planning/Building/Public Works and Community Services Departments staff to discuss the details of the golf course landscaping alternative and, subsequently,decide if the new alternative is agreeable to all City stakeholders. cc: Lys Hornsby Leslie Betlach Randall Leifer \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-023.doc\GS\Icf ATTACHMENT 1 DECISION MATRIX FOR COMPARISON OF FLOODWALL/LEVEE AND GOLF COURSE LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE BENEFITS DRAWBACKS COMMENTS Levee/Floodwall • Construction footprint for • Requires FEMA certification prior • The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation floodwall/levee project less to and after construction;as a result profile,downstream of the project,will be than landscaping project the project may not be constructed greater than the 100-yr water surface profile for during 2001. exiting conditions. The downstream impact is • Only one non-USACE designed and estimated to be about 1"to 4".Even though the constructed levee/floodwall has ever construction activity is located solely within been certified by FEMA Region X. the City of Renton,the estimated downstream • Design must be certified(for non- impact may be in conflict with the King USACE project)before proceeding County Sensitive Area Ordinance. with construction. • The post-project 100-yr water surface • FEMA certification process elevation,downstream of the project,will be (USACE involvement)will approximately equal to the currently adopted substantially increase the duration FEMA 100-yr water surface. The FEMA and cost of the project. water surface profile is based on conditions • Freeboard requirement. circa 1980. • NMFS/USFWS Section 7 ESA consultation required if USACE involved. Landscaping with • FEMA certification is not • Construction footprint will be • Even though the completed landscaping project ancillary flood required prior to or after greater than levee/floodwall project will not resemble a levee,the downstream control construction;as a result project impacts will be identical. is more likely to be completed during 2001. • This procedure has been approved by FEMA for other small projects • Permitting process may be less difficult for landscaping project. ATTACHMENT 2 MEETING NOTES Date- January 9, 2001 Time- 1:00 to 2:30 Location- FEMA Region X Office Attendees- Larry Basich(FEMA Region X) Ron Straka(City of Renton Surface Water Utility) Gary Schimek(City of Renton Surface Water Utility) 1. FEMA Region X office prepares a budget for each fiscal year that begins in October. This budget is submitted to and approved by FEMA Headquarters. The budget submittal does not include specific projects, rather an overall budget based on the number of panels(either new or revised)to be produced during the fiscal year. The FEMA map revision process consists of the following: (a) City holds public meeting based upon preliminary map and a 30-day comment period for property owners(Optional, but recommended) (b) FEMA produces the preliminary floodplain maps(5-6 months depending upon the number of panels to be revised) (c) FEMA holds a public meeting(I-month) (d) A 90-day appeal period is held for property owners to appeal the mapping (e) FEMA revises the maps if there are any appeals and publishes the effective maps. 2. King County has not notified FEMA on their intent to submit floodplain maps during the current fiscal year for the Cedar River. As such,the FEMA 2001 budget does not include funding for the Cedar River project. 3. The City intends to submit Cedar River maps for Renton during fiscal year 2002(i.e. between Oct. 2001 and Sept. 2002) if the permitting and construction of a proposed project to protect the Maplewood Neighborhood are completed, as anticipated, by the end of this calendar year. 4. City presented overview of the new flood hazard area and the proposed flood control project. 5. The proposed levee or floodwall project is not the best alternative due to the need for FEMA certification of a new facility. Rather a golf course landscaping project,with flood control as a side benefit,would be the best alternative. If a golf course landscaping project was pursued, FEMA Region X staff could meet with our hydraulic consultant and subsequently conduct the review without much aid from their Washington, D.C. based consultants. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-023a.doc\GMS\tb 6. The use of limited landscaping with ancillary flood control is standard FEMA business practice. The landscaping project has to be done with gradual side slopes over a wide area. 7. Only one non-USACE designed and constructed levee/floodwall project has ever been certified by FEMA within Region X. While certification is possible without the USACE, it may be very costly and time consuming. The project would need to conducted through the Section 205 program,which would involve federal funds and trigger Section 7 ESA consultation,which could impact the project schedule. 8. Freeboard of 3.5 feet would be required for a levee or floodwall project. The USACE is the only one that can do the Risk and Uncertainty Analysis that would allow a reduction in freeboard height. 9. NMFS does not require Section 7 Consultation for LOMR's. 10. FEMA's certification of a levee or floodwall project does not trigger NMFS review or Section 7 Consultation, but it was recommended that, if we did pursue one of these projects,that we coordinate with NMFS. 11. The City's floodplain map revisions submittal was discussed and the best approach was to make the submittal with the Maplewood Golf Course landscape improvements(or levee/floodwall) shown as the existing condition. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-023a.doc\GMS\tb MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT Date: February 27, 2001 Re: Review of Construction Alternatives/Selection of Final Alternative MEETING AGENDA 1. Brief summary of last meeting w/Mayor. 2. FEMA Region X Meeting 3. Review and Discussion of Construction Alternatives a. Landscaping Berm b. Earthen Levee c. Concrete Floodwall 4. Group Decision on Final Construction Alternative 5. Planning for Preparation of Final Plans and Specifications a. Formation of Design Team b. Staff Responsibilities c. Primary Consultant Contract d. Subcontract w/Landscape Architect 6. Funding a. Final Plans, Specifications and Engineering b. Construction CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 27,2001 TO: Dave Christensen, Wastewater Utility Division Leslie Betlach,Parks Division Jack Crumley,Public Works Maintenance Division Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Division Sandra Meyer,Transportation Systems Division Neil Watts,Development Services Division Rebecca Linda, Economic Development FROM: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division A STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility(X-7248) Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility(X-7205) SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION RESTORATION PROJECT PROJECT OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project is to restore flood protection,destroyed by extreme Cedar River flows,to City of Renton facilities and private residences within the Maplewood vicinity. City of Renton facilities directly affected by this project include the Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility(i.e.wells and pump house). PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Maplewood vicinity is a 65-acre area within the City of Renton bordered by the Cedar River,Maple Valley Highway,and steep bluffs. The Maplewood Golf Course and Maplewood Water Treatment Facility are located within this region along with about 200 private residences and businesses. Flooding as a result of high Cedar River flows has never been documented in this region- even during the 1990 flood of record- due to the high level of protection afforded by the natural ground elevation along the west river bank upstream of the Maple Valley Highway river crossing. As a result of the protection, the entire Maplewood vicinity is outside the existing 100-yr. FEMA floodplain boundary. A vicinity map of the area is included as Figure 1. The natural ground elevation along the west riverbank was surveyed in 1994 to document the minimum bank elevation and, in turn the maximum level of flood protection provided to the adjacent Maplewood vicinity. The minimum surveyed bank elevation was 83.5 ft.NAVD;this 1994 bank elevation was able to contain Cedar River flows up to approximately 13,500 cfs. The level of flood protection provided by the natural ground elevation in 1994 is well above the existing FEMA 100-yr.recurrence flood value of 8,500 cfs and the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. recurrence flood value of 11,830 cfs to be used in this reach of the Cedar River as part of any future floodplain mapping projects. The existing FEMA 100 YR r 7 flow value of 8,500 cfs and corresponding floodplain boundary are based on available hydrologic information and topography from 1984. The recently adopted FEMA 100 YR flow value of 12,000 cfs for any future floodplain mapping efforts is based on available hydrology from 2000. Extreme Cedar River flows during November 1995 and February 1996 eroded a significant portion of the natural bank that protected the Maplewood vicinity. Specifically, about 120 feet in the horizontal direction and 3.5 feet in the vertical direction eroded. Figure 2 illustrates the horizontal loss. As a result of the vertical loss,the level of flood protection afforded by the natural ground elevation to the Maplewood vicinity decreased from about 13,500 cfs to 11,300 cfs. This indicates that the Maplewood vicinity is clearly still outside the existing FEMA 100-yr. floodplain boundary as natural ground along the west bank would not be overtopped by a 8,500 cfs event. However the existing bank cannot entirely contain the recently adopted FEMA 100-yr. flood value required for future mapping efforts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project will include construction of a landscaping berm between the perched riverbank and Hole Number 3 of the Maplewood Golf Course. The landscaping berm will restore flood protection to the level provided by the natural ground elevation prior to the November 1995 and February 1996 extreme events. The preliminary design parameters for the landscaping berm are listed below. Preliminary plan and cross section views are included as Figure 3 and 4, respectively. Maximum Bern Elevation(ft NAVD).................................................................................83.5 Minimum Existing Ground Elevation(ft NAVD)................................................................80.0 MaximumBerm Width(ft)................................................................................................ 128 ft MaximumBerm Length(ft)...............................................................................................600 ft BermTop Width (ft)..............................................................................................................8 ft Minimum Set-Back from Ordinary High Water Level (ft)..................................................30 ft Minimum Set-Back from Top of Bank(ft).......................................................................... loft INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION A. Permitting 1. Federal a.NMFS, USFW - Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not anticipated to be required since the project does not involve federal funds, assistance or permit. b. USACE - Section 10 Permit will not be required since no work will be in or affecting navigable waters of the United States(e.g., floats,piers, docks,dredging,excavation, piling,buoys,overhead power lines, etc.). - Section 404 Permit under 33 USC § 1344 will not be required since the project does not include: (1)placement of dredged or fill material waterward of the ordinary high water mark; H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb C (2)mechanized land clearing and sidecasting in waters of the United States, including wetlands, or(3) Endangered Species Act Consultation. 2. State a. WDFW - Hydraulic Project Approval is not anticipated to be required since all construction work will be landward of the ordinary high water line and will only affect Cedar River flows above 11,300 cfs. However, WDFW has authority to require a HPA if they believe any project landward of the ordinary highwater mark will directly impact fish life and habitat, falling trees into streams or lakes, etc. b. DOE - Section 401 Water Quality Certification under 33 USC § 1341 is not anticipated to be required since federal approval is not required. 3. Local a. City of Renton - Environmental Review(including SEPA checklist) submittal will be required. - Shoreline permit under the Shoreline Management Act 90.58 RCW will be required since the construction work will be within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Shorelines of the State and will require filling. b. King County - Critical Areas Ordinance review is not anticipated to be required since the construction project is(1) completely within Renton City Limits and(2)outside of the existing FEMA 100 YR floodplain boundary. The project will nominally affect downstream flood levels in King County(an increase of about I to 4 inches)for flows above 11,300 cfs. Existing FEMA floodplain maps are based upon a 100-YR-flood value of 8,500 cfs. B. Community and Private Utilities Property owners and utilities affected by the proposed project will be notified and given the opportunity to provide input during the final design and construction project. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Construction Costs: $110,000 Consultant Costs: $16,000 City Staff Costs: $25,000 Total Project Cost: $136,000 FUNDING SOURCE Project management, design and construction will be funded through the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Projects budget (421 account);, 14,do O LK-s S)QPr HADI VISION.S\tJTILITIG.S\DOGS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Description Anticipated Completion Date Select Engineering Consultant for Analysis and Design........................April 6, 2001 o 0 9,G�'�c Develop and Execute Agreement w/ Engmeermg Consultant :....April 25, 2001 evel nd_Exemt.P Agmement.w/ Landscape Architect...................April 25, 2001 Kick-Off Meeting .b� ...................................................................April 30, 2001 Base Map Survey May 7, 2001 Preliminary Design Memorandum and Construction Plans Submittal.......May 14, 2001 Environmental Review Submittal ..................................................May 21, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 50% Submittal ................June 25, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications -90% Submittal .............. August 6, 2001 Final Construction Plans and Specifications - 100% Submittal............August 20, 2001 Bid Opening .............August 27, 2001 BidAward...................................................................... September 19, 2001 Begin Construction................................................................. October 1, 2001 End Construction................................................................ November 9, 2001 STAFFING A. Project Management The project will be managed by Gary Schimek, Surface Water Utility Division. B. Design The Surface Water Utility and Parks Department will select an engineering consultant from the annual consultant roster to prepare final construction plans and specifications and assist with modeling, permitting and construction management. In addition, the landscape architect familiar with the Maplewood Golf Course will be utilized in the design process. C. In-House Reviews All affected divisions and departments will be given an opportunity to review and comment on the 50% percent and 90% design submittals. Please complete the attached response form and return it to Gary Schimek by April 4, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Gary at Ext. 7205. cc: Gregg Zimmerman H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2001\2001-160.doc\GMS\tb PAN m r61 0.41 .� -- • •� -- � :® •�1� --_ •1 r fir■i,n, ; �. f! f♦ ' 1� ilia All tQ1 SWW e ► � ���/ WOR- , ♦yip �f�� ° WIN V �I����� I - ��A � may, .- .+:. �-.�.r ♦ v I�„ / . � � � .> 7 A �� ��i\��i•set ,.-.�i������'/1`�•� /��� � �, mil � ,Iw� ��♦����• �t, ��.. ,°�♦,<,Iti�i �++ � �// / ���� � / � 0 'ma's '��4I,��'�•ci�j%����/� ® `� '�/����,.�'• 1i�L�/�/. -... !� ���� �f IIIIB�. �..�► 1 �_r �, ;;� ��. 1► smil't tam k •1. - ,I i River BanK (2col) `�J" `%Qk R . �vcr 47 IF !'eP.�'csch+s Ae area. 42' ' eroded by . -- nnei r f T Ce"Urlifw.: ?AAPLF Figure 2 S ib* G 08 ## 94073 ' Vo0 1 l _•�. — Maplewood Golf Course -City of Renton FAIRWAY #3 _EXISTING CART PATH (TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED) TOP OF BERM = 83' — CONSTRUCTION LIMITS 1IGREEN #3 /. • — f:::;.�...�.X• VN 0 0 STAGIN \AREA TREES -� - `_- CEDAR RIVER LPEDESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE / tQ r\ TOP OF LANDSCAPE BERM NEW CART PATH FREEBOARD — 100 YEAR SURFACE WATER EL.(B2.O0) �__.-— �'— EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS ALONG CART PATH a PROFILE kkk --- — �.rJ iNiT�,/I Figure 3 Maplewood Golf Course -Landscape Befm Construction E Option#1 sm Cross Sections 1,2,3 �S -J8.-- b 20-1 • ! a a N b n b c < b b b ...... --- 2.1' I CROSS SECTION r- � x .urx wu. -r � � -b -« -.• Ne a. .b -a -a -e • • a n b b a . a b qak-&t?=MN Cti ST.6400 8. 12 b . C n E _n ar -s -b � � s .s .v -b -.b -a -. -� • s a a I b a b a b b b b b } Q00.W BACWN B/L ST/J"00 A—NN Figure 4 MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES Alternative #1 - Alternative #2 - Alternative #3 - Decision Item Landscaping Berm Earthen Levee Concrete Floodwall Total Project Cost $126,000 $150,000 $263,000 Total Project Schedule 9 months 2 years 2 years Impact to Golf Play at Hole 3 - Short Term High Moderate Moderate Impact to Golf Play at Hole 3 - Long Term Low Moderate Moderate 100-Yr Flood Protection High High High Permitting Effort Low High High FEMA Region X Preference High Low Low 2/22/2001,10:58 AM u:\Gschimek\projects\wo#65221\alternative ranking.xls MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE"► • Preliminary Design Information for Alternative I - Landscaping Berm • Preliminary Design Information for Alternative 2- Earthen Levee • Preliminary Design Information for Alternative 3 - Concrete Floodwall MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 - LANDSCAPING BERM 1 . DECISION MATRIX 2. COST ESTIMATE 3. PROJECT SCHEDULE 4. DRAWINGS (Attached Separately) MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT DECISION MATRIX FOR ALTERNATIVE I - LANDSCAPING BERM BENEFITS DRAWBACKS COMMENTS +The total project cost for the landscaping berm is$126k,which is -Short term impacts on golf play at Hole 3 will be greatest since Golf play at Hole 3 will be impacted during construction no matter lower than the cost for either the levee or floodwall alternatives. The this alternative has the largest construction footprint. The footprint which alternative is chosen. One approach to minimize impacts is to estimated total project costs for these alternatives are$150k and$263k. width is about 120 feet and extends between the river bank and the install a temporary tee and change the par from 4 to 3. edge of the Hole 3 fairway. The footprint width is about 50 feet for +The total project schedule has the shortest duration since FEMA both the levee and floodwall alternatives and extends between the The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation profile,downstream certification is not required. The project is likely to be completed river bank and existing cart path. In addition,the existing cart path of the project,will be greater than the 100-yr water surface profile during late 2001. In contrast,the earliest completion date for the levee would be demolished and replaced and,therefore,could not be used for exiting conditions. The downstream effect on the 100-yr water and floodwall projects would be late 2002. during construction. The existing golf cart path would be located at surface elevation is estimated to be about 1"to 4". Even though the the edge of the construction zone for the levee and floodwall construction activity is located solely within the City of Renton,this + Long term impacts to the golf course will be minimized since their alternatives and,therefore,could still be utilized during construction. downstream impact may be in conflict with the King County Sensitive Area Ordinance. This issue may need to be resolved will be no net loss of playable area after project completion. The during the SEPA review process. topography between the fairway and river will be altered,but the completed project should not decrease the quality of play. In fact,the The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation,downstream of the quality of play may improve as the Golf Course Landscape Architect project, is about equivalent to the FEMA 100-yr water surface will be an integral part of the design team. elevation. The currently adopted FEMA 100-yr water surface + Permitting may require less effort since the project would be elevation is based on a flow of 8,500 cfs and topography from circa 1980. The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation is based on a described as landscaping improvements with ancillary flood control flow of 12,000 cfs and topography from 2000. benefits rather than construction of a flood control facility. + FEMA Region X suggested the landscaping berm project in lieu of the floodwall or levee approach to solve the potential flooding problems at the Maplewood Golf Course and Neighborhood. FEMA Region 10 has allowed other entities to construct landscaping projects that provide flood protection in lieu of a typical levee or floodwall. + Flood protection for the Maplewood Neighborhood and Golf Course is provided for Cedar River flows up to the 100-yr event(not including 1-ft freeboard). + Freeboard would not be dictated by FEMA requirement, and therefore would only be 1-ft as compared to 3.5 feet. MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 - LANDSCAPING BERM Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Comments 1. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS Surveying N/A N/A N/A $3,000 3 surving days @$1,000/day Permitting N/A N/A N/A $4,000 40 consultant hours @$100/hr Preliminary Design and Analysis N/A N/A N/A $6,000 60 consultant hours @$100/hr N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Final Design and Specifications $1 SUB-TOTAL (DESIGN AND ANALYSIS) /-/ 0/ 13°°os rucion cos 2. CONSTRUCTION GENERAL ITEMS Mobilization N/A Lump Sun1 N/A $10,000 10%of sub-total Construction Surveying, Staking, As-builts N/A Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Traffic Control N/A Lump Sun., N/A $1,000 Erosion Control N/A Lump Sun- N/A $1,000 Temporary Fencing 1000 Linear Foot $1.00 $1,000 Rubber Dam Project Clear and Grub/Stripping 1 Acrea $3,000.00 $3,000 Remove and Replant Trees 5 EA $800.00 $4,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Project LANDSCAPING BERM ITEMS Hard-Pan Fill (Material Only) 3,000 Cubic Yard $3.15 $9,000 King County Road Maintenance Supervisor 3,000 Cubic Yard $8.00 $24,000 King County Road Maintenance Supervisor Labor and Equipment for Fill Topsoil 600 Cubic Yard $25.00 $15,000 Oaksdale Avenue SW SITE IMPROVEMENT ITEMS Irrigation system modifications N/A Lump Sum N/A $7,000 Crushed Gravel Surfacing (Furnish, Install) 165 Tons $20.00 $3,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Project 2"ACP for Cart Path (Furnish, Install) 75 Tons $75.00 $6,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Project Hyroseeding 1 Acre $15,000.00 $15,000 Oaksdale Avenue SW-Upland Seeding N/A Lump Sum N/A $10,000 Landscaping Features (New trees, sandtraps, etc.) Countouring,Trees,sand traps,etc - $110,000 SUB-TOTAL (CONSTRUCTION) „ y e y � i�j / r/ ' MINOR1 MIN , /L TOTAL PROJECT COST $126,000 212212001,10 51 AM u.\Gschimek\projects\wo#6522 1\cost estimates.xls MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 - LANDSCAPING BERM zoo2 2001 ID 8 Task Name Duration Start Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 Contract Development 30 days Mon 3/5101 2 -, Select Consultant for Analysis and Design 5 days Mon 3/5/01 3 Develop/Execute Consultant Agreement(including LA) 25 days Mon 3/12/01 4 Preliminary Design and Analysis 24 days Mon 4/16/01 5 Survey of Existing Topography 10 days Mon 4/16/01 6 (�' Develop Design Parameters 5 days Mon 4/16/01 7 Preliminary Design Drawings 1 21 days I Thu 4/19/01 8 Final Design and Analysis �45 days Fri 5/18/0 _ _ g Final Design Drawings and Specifications 45 days Fri 5/18/01 10 1 Permitting 45 days I Fri 5/18101 I I i S— ---— I 45 days j Fri 5/18/01 I 12 Construction I 105 days Fri 7/20/01 --- -- _— 45 days Fri 7/20/01 13 �. I Bid Opening and Award — i t 30 days Fri 9/21/01 14 I I Begin Construction — 15 I As-Guilts 30 days I Fri 11/2/01 i Task Milestone ♦ Rolled Up Split External Tasks Project: Landscaping Berm Split Summary Rolled Up Milestone O Project Summary Date:Wed 2/21/01 Progress Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Progress Page 1 MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 - EARTHEN LEVEE 1 . DECISION MATRIX 2. COST ESTIMATE 3. PROJECT SCHEDULE 4. DRAWINGS (Attached Separately) MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT DECISION MATRIX FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 - EARTHEN LEVEE BENEFITS DRAWBACKS COMMENTS +The total project cost for the levee is about$150 k. The cost -The total project schedule has a minimum duration of about 2 Golf play at Hole 3 will be impacted during construction no matter estimate for the landscaping berm is only about$24 k less, whereas years since FEMA certification would be required if the flood which alternative is chosen. One approach to minimize impacts is to the cost estimate for the floodwall is about$113 k greater. protection benefits are to be included on revised floodplain maps. install a temporary tee and change the par from 4 to 3. +Short term impacts on golf play at Hole 3 will be less for the levee - Long term impacts to the golf course will be greater as compared The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation profile,downstream as compared to the landscaping berm since the levee construction to the landscaping berm alternative since there will a loss of playable of the project,will be greater than the I00-yr water surface profile footprint covers less area. Short term impacts will be about the same area after project completion. Specifically,about 1/4 acre of for exiting conditions. The downstream effect on the 100-yr water for the levee as compared to the floodwall . The construction footprint playable area along the Cedar River will be lost. surface elevation is estimated to be about I"to 4". Even though the for the levee alternative is about 1/2 acre,and extends between the construction activity is located solely within the City of Renton,this river bank and the existing cart path. As such,the existing golf cart -Permitting may require more effort,as compared to the downstream impact may be in conflict with the King County path could still be utilized by golfers during construction. landscaping berm alternative, since the project would be described Sensitive Area Ordinance. This issue may need to be resolved as construction of a flood control facility rather than landscaping during the SEPA review process. + Flood protection for the Maplewood Neighborhood and Golf Course improvements with ancillary flood control benefits. Specifically, is provided for Cedar River flows up to the 100-yr event(not including increased effort would be required to justify the construction of a 5.5 The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation,downstream of the 3.5-ft freeboard). ft high levee as compared to the 3 ft high landscaping berm. The project, is about equivalent to the FEMA 100-yr water surface permit effort may,however,be less as compared to the concrete elevation. The currently adopted FEMA 100-yr water surface floodwall since resource agencies may associate a greater impact elevation is based on a flow of 8,500 cfs and topography from circa with the concrete wall. 1980. The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation is based on a flow of 12,000 cfs and topography from 2000. -FEMA Region X suggested the landscaping berm project in lieu of the floodwall or levee approach to solve the potential flooding problems at the Maplewood Golf Course and Neighborhood. Additionally,only 1 non-USACE levee or floodwall has been approved by FEMA and that project took 3 years to complete. - Freeboard of 3.5 feet above the 100-yr water surface elevation would be required by FEMA for either the levee or floodwall option, as compared to 1.0 feet for the landscaping berm alternative. U:\GSCHI M EK\PROJECTS\wo#65221\alt2matrix.doc\GMS MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 - EARTHEN LEVEE Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Comments 1. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS N/A $3,000 3 survey days @$1,000/day Surveying N/A N/A NIA $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Sediment Transport Analysis N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Embankment Protection Analysis N/A N/A Embankment and Foundation Stability N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Settlement Analysis N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100 r Interior Drainage Analysis N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr O&M Plan N/A N/A 50 consultant hours @ Hydraulic Analysis N/A N/A NIA $5,000 $10 r Permitting N/A N/A N/A $8,000 80 consultant hours @$100/hr N/A N/A N/A $6,000 60 consultant hours @$100/hr Preliminary Drawings Final Drawings and Specifcations N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr $43,000 37%of construction costs TOTAL(Design and Analysis) %w ' SUB- _,., r� /%, �0 ,d,//i/Y�, /! 2. CONSTRUCTION GENERAL ITEMS 10%of sub total- Mobilization N/A Lump Sum - N/A $10,000 N/A Lump Sum N/A $1,000 Typical Construction Surveying,Staking,As-builts - $1,000 Typical Traffic Control N/A Lump Sum N/A Erosion Control N/A Lump Sum NIA $1,000 Typical 1000 Linear Foot $1.00 $1,000 Rubber Dam Protect Temporary Fencing - Clear and Grub/Stripping 0.5 Acrea $3,000 00 $2,000 Typical 5 EA $800,00 $4,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Project Remove and Replant Trees - LEVEE ITEMS Hard-Pan Fill(Material only) 2,000 Cubic Yard $3.15 $6,000 King County Road Maintenance Supervisor 2,000 Cubic Yard $8.00 $16,000 King County Road Maintenance Supervisor Labor and Equipment for Fill -- 1,200 Tons $30.00 $36,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Rip-Rap(Furnish, Install on 2/3 of riverbank slope) $8,000 Internet Topsoil 300 Cubic Yard $25.00 SITE IMPROVEMENT ITEMS - Irrigation System Modifications N/A Lump Sum N/A $5,000 Estimate .5 Acres $15,000.00 $8,000 Oaksdale Avenue SW Upland Seeding Hydroseeding 0.5 Lump Sum ,00 $8,000 Countouring,Trees,etc. Landscaping Features $107,000 SUB-TOTAL (Construction) %/ r ��/1000*0111 $150,000 No, �d r /, TOTAL PROJECT COST u\Gschimek\projects\wo#65221\cost estimates.xls MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 - EARTHEN LEVEE 2002 2003 tool ID Name Start Duration Jan Feb Mar r Ma Jun Jul Aug Sep Od Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma Jun Juf Aug Se Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr a 1 Contract Development Mon 3/5101 30 days ^ 2 Select Consultant for Analysis and Design Mon 3/5/01 5 days 3 Consultant Agreement(including LA) Mon 3/12/01 25 days i 4 Preliminary Design and Analysis Mon 4116/01 24 days 5 Survey of Existing Topography Mon 4/16/01 3 days 6 Design Parameters Mon 4/16/Ot 3 days 7 Preliminary Design Drawings Thu 4/19/01 21 days Fri 5/18/01 100 days 8 Final Design and Analysis 9 Final Design Drawings and Specifications Fri 5/18/01 100 days 10 Sediment Tranport Analysis Fri 5/18/O1 100 days 11 Embankment Protection Analysis Fri 5/18/01 100 days 12 Embankment and Foundation Stability Fri 5/18/01 100 days 13 Settlment Analysis Fri 5/18/01 700 days _ 14 Interior Drainage Analysis Fri 5/18/01 100 days 15 08M Plan Fri 5/18101 100 days 16 Hydrualic Analysis(including Freeboard Assessment) Fri 5/18/01 100 days 17 Permitting Fri 5118101 60 days 18 SEPA Fri 5/18/01 60 days _ 19 FEMA Preliminary Review Process I Fri 10l5l01 182 days 20 Letter of Map Revision Submittal Fri 10/5/01 1 day 21 Review of Levee/Floodwall System Analysis I Mon 10/8/01 180 days 22 Conditional Letter of Map Revision Mon 6/17f02 1 day _ 23 Construction Tue 6118/02 129 days 24 Bid Opening and Award Tue 6/18/02 45 days ---]:�25 Construction Mon 92J02 45 days 26 As-Builts Mon 11/4/02 30 days 27 FEMA Final Review Process Mon 12/16/02 104 days 28 Submittal of Construction As-Builts on 12/11102 1 day 29 Review Thu 1/2/03 90days 30 Letter of Map Revision Issued Thu 5B/03 1 day Rolled Up Split Rolled Up Progress - Project Summary Progress Summary • Project:Levee Task _ Rolled Up Milestone O External Tasks Date:Wed 221/01 Split , , , , , , Milestone . Rolled Up Task Page 1 MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONCRETE FLOODWALL 1 . DECISION MATRIX 2. COST ESTIMATE 3 . PROJECT SCHEDULE 4. DRAWINGS (Attached Separately) MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT DECISION MATRIX FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONCRETE FLOODWALL BENEFITS DRAWBACKS COMMENTS +Short term impacts on golf play at Hole 3 will be lower for the -The total project cost is about$263 k. The cost estimates for the Golf play at Hole 3 will be impacted during construction no matter which alternative is chosen. One approach to minimize impacts is to concrete floodwall,as compared to the landscaping berm, since the landscaping berm and levee are about$137 k and$113 k less, install a temporary tee and change the par from 4 to 3. floodwall construction footprint covers less area. Impacts for the respectively. floodwall will be about the same as compared to the levee alternative. The floodwall construction footprint is about 1/2 acre and extends -The total project schedule has a minimum duration of about 2 The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation profile,downstream between the river bank and the existing cart path. As such,the existing years since FEMA certification would be required if the flood of the project,will be greater than the 100-yr water surface profile golf cart path could still be utilized by golfers during construction. protection benefits are to be included on revised floodplain maps. for exitiace ng conditions. o di is estimated do o be about wnstream effect 4n t e I00 yr water gh the + Flood protection for the Maplewood Neighborhood and Golf Course - Long term impacts to the golf course will be greater as compared construction activity is located solely within the City of Renton,this is provided for Cedar River flows up to the 100-yr event(not including to the landscaping berm alternative since there will a loss of playable downstream impact may be in conflict with the King County 3.5-ft freeboard). area after project completion. Specifically,about 1/4 acre of Sensitive Area Ordinance. This issue may need to be resolved playable area along the Cedar Rive.will be lost. during the SEPA review process. -Permitting may require more effort,as compared to the The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation,downstream of the landscaping berm alternative, since the project would be described project, is about equivalent to the FEMA 100-yr water surface as construction of a flood control facility rather than landscaping elevation. The currently adopted FEMA 100-yr water surface improvements with ancillary flood control benefits. Specifically, elevation is based on a flow of 8,500 cfs and topography from circa increased effort would be required to justify the construction of a 5.5 1980. The post-project 100-yr water surface elevation is based on a ft high floodwall as compared to the 3 ft high landscaping berm. flow of 12,000 cfs and topography from 2000. Additionally, the permit effort may also be greater as compared to the levee since resource agencies may associate a greater impact with the concrete wall. - FEMA Region X suggested the landscaping berm project in lieu of the floodwall or levee approach to solve the potential flooding problems at the Maplewood Golf Course and Neighborhood. Additionally,only l non-USACE Izvee or floodwall has been approved by FEMA and that project took 3 years to complete. - Freeboard of 3.5 feet above the 100-yr water surface elevation would be required by FEMA for either the levee or floodwall option, as compared to 1.0 feet for the landscaping berm alternative. UAGSCHIMEK\PR0JECTS\wo#6522I\alt3matrix.doc\GMS MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative Number 3 - Concrete Floodwall Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Comments 1. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS N/A N/A $3,000 3 survey days @$1,000/day Surveying N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Sediment Transport Analysis N/A N/A N/A NIA $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Embankment Protection Analysis — $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr N/A N/A NIA Embankment and Foundation Stability N/A N/A N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Settlement Analysis N/A NIA N/A $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr Interior Drainage Analysis $3,000 30 consultant hours @$100/hr O&M Plan N/A N N/A/A N/A $5,000 50 consultant hours @$100/hr Hydraulic Analysis N/A N/A N/A $4,000 40 consultant hours @$100/hr Permitting N/A N/A N/A $8,000 8o consultant hours @$100/hr Preliminary Drawings N/A F N/A $5,000 50 consultant hours @$100/hr Final Drawings and Specifcations N/A N/A $43,000 20%of construction cost SUB-TOTAL(Design and Analysis) 2.CONSTRUCTION — GENERAL ITEMS N/A Lump Sum N/A $20 000 10%of subtotal Mobilization Typical Construction Surveying,Staking,As-butts N/A Lump Sum N/A $1$1.000 yP N/A Lump Sum N/A 000 Typical Traffic Control -- N/A $1 000 Typical Erosion Control 1000 Lump Sum _ _ Temporary Fencing 1000 Linear Foot $1.00 $1,000 Rubber Dam Project Clear and Grub/Stripping 025 Acre $3.000.00 $1,000 Typical 5 EA $800 00 $4,000 Maplewood Fish Channel Project Remove and Replant Trees FLOOD WALL ITEMS(Installed-including excavation, backfill,compaction, reinforcing as required) _ $soo $180,000 City Hall Floodwall Project Reinforced Concrete Flood Wall 300 Cubic Yards SITE IMPROVEMENT ITEMS — $2 000 Irrigation System Modifications N/A Lump Sum N/A Hydroseeding 0.25 Acre $15N A 00 $5;� Oaksdale Avenue NIA Lump Sum SW-Upland Seeding Landscaping Features $220,000 SUB-TOTAL(Construction) $263,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS u:\Gschimek\projecls\wo#65221\cost estimatesxls MAPLEWOOD FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONCRETE FLOODWALL 2003 2001 2002 ID Name Start Duration Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma Jun Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma 1 Contract Development Mon 3/5101 30 days 2 Select Consultant for Analysis and Design Mon 3/5/01 5 days 3 Consultant Agreement(including LA) Mon 3/12/01 25 days i 4 Preliminary Design and Analysis Mon 4116MI 24 days 5 Survey of Existing Topography Mon 4116f01 3 days 6 Design Parameters Mon 4/16/01 3 days 7 Preliminary Design Drawings Thu 4119/01 21 days 8 Final Design and Analysis Fri 5118/01 100 days 9 Final Design Drawings and Specifications Fri 5/18/01 100 days _ 10 Sediment Tranport Analysis Fri5/18/01 100 days t t Embankment Protection Analysis Fn 5/18l01 100 days 12 Embankment and Foundation Stability Fri 5118/01 100 days 13 Settiment Analysis Fri 5118/01 100 days , 14 Interior Drainage Analysis Fri 5118l01 100 days 15 O&M Plan Fri 5/18/01 100 days 16 Hydrualic Analysis(including Freeboard Assessment) Fri 5118/01 100 days 17 Permitting Fri 5118101 60 days 18 SEPA Fri 5118/01 60 days 19 FEMA Preliminary Review Process Fri 10/6/01 182 days l 20 Letter of Map Revision Submittal Fri 10/5/01 1 day �l 21 Review of Levee/Floodwall System Analysis Mon 10/8/01 180 days 11 22 Conditional Letter of Map Revision Mon 6M 7/02 1 day f 23 Construction Tue 6l18102 129 days 24 Bid Opening and Award Tue 6/18/02 45 days 25 Construction Mon 9/2/02 45 days y'_ r Mon 11/4102 30 days € 26 As-Builts ? 27 FEMA Final Review Process Mon 12/16/02 104 days 28 Submittal of Construction As-Builts Mon 12l16/02 1 day Tim 29 Review Thu 1/2/03 90 days I 30 Letter of Map Revision Issued Thu 5/8/03 1 day - Summary ^ Rolled Up Split , . Rolled Up Progress - Project Summary Task Progress ry ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Project.Levee Date.Wed 221/01 Split . . . . . . . . Milestone ♦ Rolled Up Task Rolled UD Milestone O External Tasks . � Page 1 r z F-- p N I � C N a CROSS SECTION 0 o HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' Maplewood Golf Course - Cross Section Comparison L , VERTICAL SCALE: 1'=2' p0 Options 1,2 &3 U I 0 54- � o 8, �' o�� o e2 20:1 c el �. er a o U 0 ,r C) 7e 7e 77 . 77 1 -W -31 -W -45 2. -1 60 6J 7o e6 -70 i CROSS SEL ON A/2 STA 3*00 ° ' B1 B< er 4.6' e2 __ --1.0' ev el sr eo eu so q _ 4.6' ` 12 USE SHORING Y es 1 es 2.0' 3,Q' AS NECESSARY x 84 3:1 31 -et 77 - 1.2' 1 77 O LL 76 T 76 1 a" 2 4.6' e, 7J 71 -82 74 7I -<O _73 ,TO -2J -20 -IJ -10 3 !O 13 20 23 JO .xT IO 13 ` CR1 W MVWN B ST aoA 4*00 ea a7e - L, N a a -60 I -10 -A5 -IO -J1 _jv -ZS -?O -13 -!O -3 O 5 !O IS 10 23 JO .S.S IO 45 JO 11 60 65 w o CROSS SE'r'TION 4/2 STA 4*00 m CROSS SECTION HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1'-4' VERTICAL SCALE: 1'=2' O A — NNNNAA 1 , g Maplewood Golf Course - City of Renton FAIRWAY #3 V 30 0 30 EXISTING CART PATH �_�] Seae Ee O E (TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED) TOP OF BERM = 83' _ CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ' �I __— m - ERM — a o GREEN #3 / Note N ont"t Su y Inform atio os token!ryn r,ylol Renton Boee Moo:. " O O O '1O /// \\ \ e tital Inlo.molion a en I988 Km,Cwnty O J— -p Ae/ml Sur mown o• et.Elevations NAVD 19BB N O U CD & _o / n C \ O C p �/ \ STAGIN AREA N ` TREES 8 6 - CEDAR RIVER �. i1 PCP PEDESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE B6 TOP OF LANDSCAPE BERM = 83.0' e4 NEW CART PATH a a < 100 YEAR SURFACE WATER EL. (82.00') FREEBOARD - 02 w 0 Y -- EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS ALONG CART PATH 781 .78 0+00 0+25 0+50 0.75 1+00 1+25 1+50 2+25 2+50 2115 3+00 3+25 3.50 3.75 ..00 4.25 ..So 4+75 5.00 5+25 5+50 5+75 6+00 6+25 6+50 6+J5 7+00 7+25 PROFILE HORIZONTAL SCALE. 1-=30 VCRIICLE SCALE- 1'-2' O VI K A - NNNNAII A _ h Q A E Maplewood Golf Course - Landscape Berm Construction °m Option #1 Cm a Cross Sections 1,2,3 o � i d. O-0 0 � U o 0 8' - 3 o a> a 1 - m 20:1 j Q cn _ / I. , i 02 70 y O U.Q 1 1 so o r —108' — n n i n -60 -11 -10 -41 J. -21 -,1 -11 -/O -J O 1 10 71 70 11 JO .S1 IO AJ JO .SS 60 e1 � CROSS SW770N A/la STA 2+00 eJ e2 2.1 ez r m m eu CROSS SECTION 92, NCRIICNTAL SCALE: 1-10' N _ VERTICAL SCALE: 1'-2' 7e ppg Y -60 -11 -10 -I1 -•O -J1 -JO -I1 -IO -13 -!O -J O 1 10 IJ ?O 11 JO J7 i0 AT JO JJ 60 Y CRO-li 'SECTION C/la STA 5+00 N �°y E <g� 85 -84 eJ a -82 82 3, e, eo —12P' --- 9 7e 7e n n -70 -,J 40 _,7,J -7o -, 40 -,x7 -JO -p3 -110 -71 -10 -1 0 1 to 71 Al 2,1 JO JJ 40 11 10 M 60 65 70 O N CROSS SAr=N 9/la STA 9+00 r A - NNNNAA Maplewood Golf Course - City of Renton (p 30 0 ]0 —CO AND EXCAVATION LIMITS E.et FAIRWAY #3 � j GREEN #3 �— TOP OF LEVEE = ELEV TION 8 .50 N N 11 Note: > _ lTO CART P .I S.—Y ATH: RE c;:Y or R.ra so uua:. -� (q ve.cca mor a.os r.om R;+q Gw�ry ' 0 ` n O REPLACE A�;a s..� ' 3 O O E v totes r996 F«;. �N Q)U -O Ora o EXISTI G CART PATH 0 — Q) O CJ O C D c o ° STAGIN -- / AREA CPO -0 ---------------- I I 6 - f CEDAR RIVER PEDESTRIAN AND GOLF CART BRIDGE _------------------ Top OF LEVEE = 85.5' —� \ 9fi {RE Z 9 [93 R S i d. 84 FREEBOARD=3.5' a a 100 YEAR SURFACE WATER EL. (82.00') a2 82- -80 0 80 Y -- m EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS ALONG CENTERLINE OF NEW WALL 78,. fi+25 6+50 6+75 7+00 7+25 0+00 0.25 0.50 0+75 1.00 -25 1+50 1+15 2+00 2+25 2+50 2.75 3+00 3+25 3+50 3+75 .+Op .+25 a+50 as lS 5- 5+25 5+50 5+75 6+00 PROFILE "oRizaixSCALE: r=30' VERTCLE SCALE: 1=2' O rc Z A - NNNNAA yY a $ Maplewood Golf Course - Levee Construction Option #2 Cross Sections 1,2,3 0 .Q 0 N Q) C � E0 � o > C O U rn3 O N �Q Cn O a 'O N O w- N (> > C) O N J CJ T O C E B6 6( d( 85 83 2.I' i 81 ... ., 81 _ -18 -16 -14 -17 -10 -8 -6 -( -7 O 7 ( 6 8 10 17 14 l6 18 70 g7 � B7 CROSS SECTION CROSS SECT/ON A/3 STA 8*00 81 8d HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1'-i VERTICAL SCALE: 1'-2' 87 B7 I 81 .. 81 _ -18 -16 -14 -17 -10 -8 -6 -4 -7 O 7 ( 6 8 10 17 14 16 18 CROSS SECT/ON All STA 2*00 4� 0 Q a BS 85 a I e( w 84 R 0 B3 8J r m &? 87 81 81 I O i 78 N > -7( -77 -70 -18 -16 -7( -17 -10 -8 -6 -I -7 0 7 ( 6 8 10 11 1( l6 /B 70 77 74 76 O' CROSS SEMON A/2 STA 4tOO Z A - NNNNAA • g Maplewood Golf Course - City of Renton a FAIRWAY #3 i 30 0 30 CONSTRUCTION I_ T x'" CAVATION LIMIT TOP OF NEW WALL = ELEVATI H5. / C ( HORI IF NECESSARY o 0 -6Q) :,y[o1 Rmtc B'se Map 1--y 353 ) CD / C�> ----- - ---__ i / J r- --- ---------- -- — -- — — ----'`��'— -- __—____ ci -- -- - ---r-------------------- -------- CEDAR RIVER sa \ �_ 1 TOP OF FLOOD WALL = 85.5' 66 86 1 64 e. FREEBOA RD=3.5' 4.8' o_ Q MAXIMUM HEIGHT W 100 YEAR SURFACE WATER EL. (82.00') 62 Q B2. o m � w- EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS ALONG CENTERLINE OF NEW WALL eo BOTTOM OF FOOTING FOUNDATION 78 )8- Z N . • 26 W 06 00 0125 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1150 1.)5 2.00 2.25 2150 2.25 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.25 4.00 e.25 ..50 ♦.25 5.00 5.25 5.50 Sa)5 fi.00 6.25 6.50 e•/5 1'00 2.25 PROFILE HORILOVTAL SCALE: 1•-30' VERTICLE SCALE: 1-2' A - NNNNAA �g a� Maplewood Golf Course - Floodwall Construction Option #3 Cross Sections A,B,C O ° U) O > O Cc 0 3 O Q) a1 U (/-) -°o ° U) a� v CD 196 86 86- 95 -85 85 r hrraa' BS B4 - 3.30' `Fr 84 84- -B4 BJ C.j': BJ ?. 2. 2.18' 9 B1 B, 3.7' B1 81 CROSS SECTIONt`2. USE SHORING e0 BO SQL Tti s<.L ,._, AS NECESSARY Vcancu suiE 1-_.z'80 � II A ' 1 7B le 78 78 77 77 -16 -14 -11 -10 -B -6 -4 -2 112 4 6 B 10 11 14 16 18 77 I _ -14 -A -10 -B -6 -4 z 0 1 4 6 B 10 11 14 16 18 CROSS SECTION C13 STA 6t00 CROSS SECTION A13 STA 2*00 ig r O 3 B5 B6 :g3 B5 B4 14 BJ BJ s 82 - I.0' 81 81 - 81 a } a I a BO Bo�- /{ 4.6' / >9 % USE SHORING 'm 78 AS NECESSARY 78 2. 77 77 76 I 76 75 75 Z 74 74 -11 -16 -14 -11 -10 -B -6 -4 -1 0 2 4 6 B 10 11 14 16 18 w CROSS SEir'TION B13 STA 4,100 A - NNNNAJA �-.ter.._ ,� �„�� �7- 7 � �,� ' ���-\��� � ���V• i.� • �� _ �.■�►"` -- --�„_ ----�__ �f �i��i���i��i j�����iti� it � � � •. � r.�.*v?;V�� ram_ ►�. 1�"''�I�_� _ ��,� � � .7.�rr� ,,�1 AIR III SUNNI 11 Ws zI/ ��'�1 nPl �p►yiw "�ii ���4I�� - ,I� ram- S7 ''�?!�: �-�..� �.Nt � °',�''�, >�_ f� • . 1 1 ii ; : —� 1 ► ( 1 1 1 � � - t � ,� .���,'� it i'! ' Imo/ ��+ 1 \,! e - ►� c;,J► �A, � - -tea 1 1 • JAF HIM ..� SWAS/®4��� J F 1 1,1 a;,WMI; t� ��' �'/ �i►-.�• of ,.: .�saJ+ •,I�►%irk ems. ���`, /1� ;� - ��. s %,a •��� i� ��1�.�✓ e �i1 a I��di�'���f`' -�:e� � s/�.®®/y\A�� / I Slova", ENRON ® -��� '.;*t al q4q) •e;' Est e //,♦•A��®����Sj /��/�/ �y� �"ivy��' ������«�• �af� OFZOA ,INS vVill, Qj �� \� "♦"P�.�.��I�r�' ' ' . 1 . 111 1 �P'.yy'•..`s Ifi��/p � i�: = � � �� � � ► , -� —_--- —�-_ � �`..fir".�l� %;��.,i �.• •/ ���. � �. �':.L�,�' � ��1:. •�!� �/�����`\s .fie\ \t. �•� ,Or ,k2! FA � a ` • UN .! _'W"'S"-ss, i"If i - r► 1�Z ► - �, SIR -.' '':v -=. 1 0 s s �vfil®�'�1,/^A�,�+�`i>���:��i�rA�r" ���j�f•%v��rw��ti ol.� ���,.3 1�.� /��- I�'�'•I''� i �� -%J����►��� `v�y ���////Vie•''•.;�;o'�i,��� `0 �'- � � ��� / ®��/,�' '' �� o \ .►: f 'I�_' �IL�iI/`=. ?�, • ®:.,��� III MEETING AGENDA CEDAR RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAPPING RESULTS November 14,2000 1. Purpose of the FEMA F000dplain mapping project: 2. Review and description of mapped flood hazard areas: a. Area of flooding b. Over-bank flow occurs at 9,000 cfs. (25-year event) c. Maplewood neighborhood flooding depths of up to 10-feet 3. FEMA mapping history of this vicinity: a. Golf Course,but not neighborhood, initially mapped as floodplain(circa 1980). b. Letter of map revision submitted based upon 1994 topographic survey information c. FEMA formally revises floodplain map to not include the Golf Course(mid 2000) 4. History of flooding in the area: a. Golf Course not flooded during 1990 extreme event due to protection from bank. b. Golf Course bank failure occurs during the November 1995 flood; about 4 vertical feet of bank lost. As a result,the 1990 flood would have overtopped the new bank. c. Emergency repairs conducted to prevent further horizontal loss of bank. d. Rip-rap removed and replaced by bioengineered revetment in 1998 as mitigation for the Cedar River 205 Flood Control Project. 5. Recommended short-term actions (this flood season): a. Prepare to perform flood fighting with a temporary flood control structure. b. Facilities Division has a temporary flood control structure(i.e. AquaDam)that was used at the old City Hall. The structure is about 150-ft long and 6-ft high. c. Cost for purchasing an additional 350-ft (minimum required)to 600-ft(maximum required)of the AquaDam is about$15,000 to$25,000. These costs assume that City is responsible for installation. d. Prepare emergency action plan, in coordination with the Police and Fire Departments, for the area including evacuation and shelter of residents. 6. Recommended long-term actions (before next flood season): a. Construct set back levee or concrete floodwall along the Golf Course cart path. b. Dimensions: height=4-ft(above existing ground), length=500-ft. c. Cost estimate for levee ranges from $100,000 to$150,000. d. Cost estimate for concrete wall ranges from $175,000 to $225,000. 7. Discussion items: a. Public notification regarding the flood hazard. b. How to proceed with the floodplain mapping project—Postpone submittal to FEMA until permanent solution to the flood hazard could be constructed. 8. Conclusion: \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBP W\DI V ISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-526.doc CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: 11/30/2000 TO: Neil Watts,Development Services FROM: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Division STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka(X-7248) Gary Schimek(X-7205) SUBJECT: SEPA Exemption for Installation of Temporary Flood Control Structure Along Cedar River at Maplewood Golf Course The Surface Water Utility is proposing to install a temporary flood control structure(i.e.rubber dam) along the Cedar River at the Maplewood Golf Course to provide immediate flood protection for the golf course and, more importantly,the adjacent Maplewood Neighborhood. This temporary flood control action is necessary because the Maplewood Neighborhood has never been officially identified as a flood hazard area because it was historically protected by a berm along the Cedar River at the Maplewood Golf Course. However,this berm was lost to erosion during the last major flood events. As such, 163 residences and businesses in the Maplewood Neighborhood have recently been identified (through the Cedar River Floodplain Mapping Project)to be within the 100-yr floodplain of the Cedar River. These potentially affected residences and businesses may experience significant flooding if flows in the Cedar River increase above 9,000 cfs. This flow rate corresponds to the 25-yr flood event(i.e.25 percent chance of occurring any given year). The temporary flood control structure needs to be installed immediately-rather than waiting for Cedar River flows to increase to an early flood level -for two reasons. First,the equipment supplier and installation contractor is located in northern California. Second, installation of the 500-ft structure may take as long as 1-full day after the supplier and contractor arrives. As flood flows on the Cedar River may increase rapidly over a 24-hour period or less,waiting to start the installation procedure until an early flood level is detected may result in severe damage within the Maplewood Neighborhood. Due to the impending risk of unanticipated severe flood damage to the Maplewood Neighborhood and the associated time constraints related to the installation of the temporary flood control structure, Surface Water Utility is requesting a concurrence with the interpretation that the above referenced project is categorically exempt from SEPA and Shoreline regulations for the following reasons. 1. Under Section 197-11-800 of the Washington State Administrative Code(WAC),projects are exempt from SEPA if actions must be undertaken immediately to avoid imminent threat to public safety. 2. Under Section 4-9-190C(5)of the Renton Municipal Code(RMC),projects are exempt from Shoreline regulations if emergency construction is necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An emergency is defined as an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow for full compliance with this program. H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-529b.doc Cedar River Floodplain Mapping- Status Report Page 2 3.Under Section 4-9-190C(3)of the Renton Municipal Code(RMC), projects are exempt from Shoreline regulations for normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire,or elements. H:\DIVISION.S\LJTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-529b.doc\RJS\GS\gms a til � lu a 3 ; iPllli�, u u W- 4 �I ar a- a: F � as ��'" \ � \ k�•� � ,�3--.. 'AIL 4:4 'o 4t- t CITY OF RENTON TEMPORARY USE OF CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY City Recommendation Return to the Ma or's Office � The following recommendation form is to be completed by city administrative personnel only Indicate in the space below any problems that may arise as a result of approval of this application (such as traffic impact, conflicting activities scheduled for that location, cost to the city in personnel or materials, adverse impact on neighboring properties, unusual liability risks, etc.) TO: DEPARTMENT: areqZ. / RECOMMEND APPROVAL? Yes ❑ No ❑ Cone nts: /10 Q1qd RE t V AAR 0 8 2001 C;ITY JF RENTON IT!LITY SYSTEMS � dye � ma`s 7L� Cdu�� Eij, >���� .. 1-4 "Jo "6 RECEIVE:C CITY OF RENTON MAR 0 5 2000 APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY USE OF CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A SPECIAL EVENT MAYORS pF FIC txp - EVENT: PHONE: SPONSOR ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS "7� �� dl Can O r L� j PHONE: NAME OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE: e ADDRESS 611:e � � / TIME OF DAY: ` ern= Cl DATE(S)OF EVENT: �JU %l�/ from to c SPECTATORS EXPECTED#OF PARTICIPANTS Describe in detail the location of the city right-of--way proposed for use. a r Onj c � S 5 What is the nature and purpose of the event? Cf_-] of This is a profit(20 non-profit( )event. (check one) If profit-oriented,how will the proceeds be used? Indicate level of supervision to be provided by sponsor for traffic and crowd control as well as clean-up activities. Will parking be provided by sponsor? �� r Si (�re G C yL(� r G d ulr✓1 s eyu�pment-) If yes,describe assistance being Will city assistance be requited(o on uct thi kvent? (such as personnel,mater;at, J requested. S �1 h the City of Renton as additional party insured under the Will applicant be able to secure a certificate of insurance naming h sponsor's general liability insurance policy? Yes A No LJ Of and all injuries to By signing this form,the applicant certifies authorization to act on behalf the ci of ty h sponsor from,an and y releases the City for Renton from any and all liability for,and agrees to indemnify properly persons,property or otherwise,and from any claims whatsoever in any manner arising out of the use of city p P Wignature e specified abov _ Date of Applicant � e+e w 2r C'C ' nr►e,�NJ' ('Jgm. Svcs . CITY OF KENTON TEMPORARY USE OF CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY CHECKLIST Applicant shall provide a brief summary of the request, which must include the following information as applicable. 1. The sponsor(s) and the nature of the event (include name, address and phone number). 2. The date, time and location of the event 3. City rights-of-way involved 4. Estimated number of participants and spectators. S. Liability insurance coverage maintained by the sponsor. If the event is approved, a certificate will be required which names the City of Renton as an additional insured party under the liability coverage. 6. Provisions to be taken to provide crowd control, parking, clean-up and notification of affected property owners. 7. Specific information regarding assistance requested of city employees (time and equipment). Attach a sketch or reap illustrating the proposed location of the event. Return the completed application and a sketch or map to: Office of the Mayor City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6500 f_A1,:TQ i u(Jy p' � I y, n + /s S' v5 121 wQS� UIj � Jn 1 ��S t f' �I�I✓J w' S l U f �nIU J )_ a s elu" f� �, �'`'� .s ��91 J p�fd J l�`U3 wn ;�v4s 110 yL'c� Shc �Ul �I Pry Uo o ( ► Uo � SFl S-' J.� �v d (,(,! S' •� ,. �i.7 I rti.I c, 1! �Lo ��gac l 1 'f c.ivjua61aL A _ S -A '2(U d/ U0jv?j Y2 � Vvv gn