Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIC 2020-04-06 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila Transportation and Infrastructure Committee •;• Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson, Chair •••• Verna Seal •;• Kate Kruller AGENDA Distribution: City Attorney C. Delostrinos A. Youn Johnson Clerk File Copy V. Seal 2 Extra K. Kruller K. Hougardy Place pkt pdf on SharePoint: D. Quinn Z Trans & Infra Agendas L. Humphrey H. Hash e-mail cover to: F. Ayala, H. Ponnekanti A. Le, C. O'Flaherty, A. H. Kirkland Youn, B. Saxton, S. Norris, G. Labanara L. Humphrey B. Still MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2020 - 5:30 PM Virtual Meeting - Members of the public may listen by dialing 1-253-292-9750 and entering conference ID 160 322 022# (6300 BUILDING, SUITE 100) Item Recommended Action Page 1. PRESENTATIONS 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a) Boeing Access Road over Airport Way Bridge a) Forward to 04/20/2020 Regular Pg. 1 Seismic Retrofit Project (Adam Cox) Consent Agenda Amendment No. 2 for Construction Mgmt b) PSRC Grant Applications for the Transportation b) Committee approval Pg. 11 Demand Management Program (Alison Turner) & 42nd Ave S Bridge Replacement (Adam Cox) c) Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal (Mike Perfetti) c) Committee approval Pg. 15 Grant Application d) Nelsen Side Channel (Mike Perfetti) d) Committee approval Pg. 29 Grant Application e) Tukwila International Blvd Channelization e) Committee discussion Pg. 31 Design Alternatives - Jeff Pierson, Senior Planner, Fehr & Peers (Lynn Miranda and Cyndy Knighton) f) Transportation for America (Laurel Humphrey) f) Discussion only Pg. 51 The Congestion Con Report 3. MISCELLANEOUS Update on PW and COVID-19 Response Future Agendas: • S 196th - 200th Street Bridge Repair Project ILA with Kent • Concurrency Fees Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, April 20, 2020 SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Please contact the Public Works Department at 206-433-0179 for assistance. TO: FROM: BY: CC: DATE: City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Henry Hash, Public Works Director Adam Cox, Transportation Program Manager Mayor Ekberg April 3, 2020 SUBJECT: Boeing Access Road over Airaort Wav Bridae Seismic Retrofit Pro iect Project No. 91310407, Contract 18-227 Construction Management Amendment No. 2 ISSUE Execute Amendment No. 2 with TranTech Engineering, LLC (TranTech) for construction management services for the Boeing Access Road over Airport Way Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project. BACKGROUND Boeing Access Road (BAR) is a principal arterial connecting 1-5 and East Marginal Way South. It is considered regionally significant and is included on the National Highway System (NHS) for access to the Boeing Company and the King County Airport at Boeing Field. The BAR over Airport Way Bridge is the only remaining structure on the BAR corridor that has not been seismically upgraded. This improvement would allow the entire corridor to be seismically resistant during a seismic event. A Federal BRAC bridge grant, in the amount of $2,981,055.00 will cover 85% of design and 100% of construction. TranTech is currently the design consultant for this project for $350,349.00, ANALYSIS The BRAC grant covers 100% of the construction funds during the construction phase. The construction bid is currently being advertised with the bid opening scheduled for 04/07/2020. Amendment No. 2 is for construction management and the scope of work requires TranTech Engineering to provide all the field work, testing, inspection, and project documentation. The estimated construction management fees for this project are a larger than normal percentage of the estimated construction costs due to the complexity of the project and significant anticipated coordination efforts with the Washington State Department of Transportation. However, the total estimated construction management costs are within the total project budget. FINANCIAL IMPACT Construction Management for Boeing Access Rd over Airport Way Bridge is budgeted at $520,000 with the current design fees of $350,349 and construction management at $356,397. TranTech's new contract total will be $706,746. TranTech CM Services RECOMMENDATION Contract Cost CM Budget 356 397,00 IM 000,00 Council is being asked to approve the construction management Amendment No. 2 to Contract 18-227 with TranTech Engineering, LLC, in the amount of $356,397.00 for the Boeing Access Road over Airport Way Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the April 20, 2020 Regular Meeting. Attachments: Page 13, 2019 CIP CM Contract and Supporting Documents hqp.5;1@Arwilawa.sharepdntcamisi'xs;pabllc::o'�;;anginaa�„��g;pW drop box/01 tic agenda/tic 04-06-2020/a. bar over airport way cm contract/1 info memo cm transtech 2020-04-03 gl.docx CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2019 to 2024 PROJECT: Boeing Access Rd over Airport Way Seismic Retrofit Project No. 91310407 Provide seismic modifications to the Boeing Access Road over Airport Way Bridge to allow it to withstand DESCRIPTION: earthquake forces. The Boeing Access Road over Airport Way Bridge is the final bridge on the corridor from 1-5 to the King JUSTIFICATION: County Airport and Boeing facilities that has not been seismically upgraded. This improvement would allow the entire corridor to be seismically resistant during an earthquake. New Project for 2019 - 2024 CIP. Design is scheduled to begin in the second quarter of 2018 with STATUS: construction in 2020. MAINT. IMPACT: Maintenance should remain the same after the seismic items are installed. Design requires a 13.5% match. If construction is not authorized by December 2020, the City would be COMMENT: required to provide a 13.5% match. If construction is authorized prior to that date, there would be no City match. We believe that the project can obtain the construction authorization so no City funding is listed below. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000'sl 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 100 267 367 Land (R/W) 0 Const. Mgmt. 520 520 Construction 2,094 2,094 TOTAL EXPENSES 1 0 100 267 2,614 0 0 0 0 0 2,981 FUND SOURCES Awarded BRAC Grant 87 231 2,614 2,932 Proposed Grant 0 Fund Balance -Bond 0 Mitigation 0 City Oper. Revenue 0 13 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 TOTAL SOURCES 0 100 267 2,614 0 0 0 0 0 2,981 Project Locat►on _ ' -- -- 5 --- - W E i - r o noa1 C.e i Y � a ti s i se a N a � ■ ` s 7 c hs F ■ m m '6 L N s 3D st � 2019 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program 13 2 AM Washington State To Department of Transportation Supplemental Agreement Organization and Address Number 02 TranTech Engineering, LLC. 365 118th Ave SE, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Original Agreement Number 18-227 (b) Phone: 425-990-4134 Project Number Execution Date Completion Date 91310407 12/11/18 08/31/2021 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable South Boeing Access Road over Airport Way Seis. Retrofit $706,746.00 Description of Work TranTech Engineering will provide construction management services that will include all the field work, testing, inspection, and project documentation. The Local Agency of desires to supplement the agreement entered in to with TranTech Engineering, LLC and executed on 12/11/18 and identified as Agreement No. 18-227 All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: Construction management services were requested by the City of Tukwila. For full details, please see Exhibit A: Scope of Work. 11 Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: August 31, 2021 III Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: The supplement for construction management services will total $356,397.00. as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the Appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. M M Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature DOT Form 140-063 Revised 09/2005 SCOPE OF WORK City of Tukwila Boeing Access Road Over Airport Way Seismic Retrofit Construction Management Services Exhibit A This scope of work provides construction management services for the Boeing Access Road Over Airport Way Seismic Retrofit (PROJECT) for the City of Tukwila (AGENCY) by TranTech Engineering, LLC (CONSULTANT). The AGENCY reserves the right to eliminate any task or parts of tasks during the performance of the contact work. The duration of this contract will be from Notice to Proceed (NTP) from The AGENCY through August 31, 2021. The individual tasks to be completed by the CONSULTANT are as follows: CONSTRUCTION WORKING DAYS The construction working days assumed is 170. TASK 1 Project Management This Task includes administration of the contract between the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, preparation of progress reports for the PROJECT. It also includes all administrative services needed to coordinate with the sub-CONSULTANT(s) and to monitor the PROJECT for scope, schedule, budget, and quality. The following are the categorized activities associated with this Task: 1. Progress Reports and Invoicing - progress reports will contain a narrative that identifies and describes significant activities performed in the previous period and significant upcoming activities along with the monthly invoice; 2. Construction Team Management - management of scope, schedule, budget, quality; and 3. Management of Sub -consultants. Assumptions: 1. The AGENCY will manage all activities related to the construction contract advertisement and execution. Page I ] City of Tukwila — Boeing Access Road Over Airport Way Seismic Retrofit 4 2. The AGENCY will provide a project manager to respond to the CONSUTANT questions and approval for any potential contract changes, material over -runs, and differing site conditions. Deliverables: L Progress Reports 2. Monthly Invoicing TASK 2 Pre -construction Services The CONSULTANT will provide pre -construction services prior to the contract advertisement, during the bidding period, and pre -construction meeting management. Services for the following activities will be provided: 1. Limited contract document review before advertisement of the contract; 2. Preconstruction meeting management; Assumptions: 1. The AGENCY will provide the CONSULTANT 3 hard copies of the contract documents. 2. The AGENCY will provide a location for the pre -construction meeting. Dol1VOPOAIOQ 1. List of findings from the limited contract documents review. 2. Pre -construction agenda, draft and final meeting meetings. TASK 3 Resident Engineering / Site Inspector The CONSULTANT will provide one qualified person who will perform dual roles as resident engineer (RE) and inspector to the AGENCY for the duration of the contract. The REs / inspector's duties will be as follows: 1. Review and coordination for responses to contractor's RFIs; 2. Managing weekly meetings; 3. Management of risk log and cost to complete; 4. Contractor submittals review; 5. Coordination with the engineer of record (EOR); Page 12 City of Tukwila — Boeing Access Road Over Airport Way Seismic Retrofit 5 6. Construction schedule reviews and determination of potential schedule slippage and delays; 7. Determination of entitlement for contractor's equitable adjustment requests; 8. Negotiations for equitable adjustment for contract changes; 9. Change orders, back up documentation language, independent cost estimates (ICE); 10. Materials test results review; 11.Initial Site visit and initial Field Survey of existing condition of the site. The inspector will photograph the site for documentation of the baseline conditions; 12. Review of the contract documents; 13. Daily presence at the site while the contractor is working; 14. Coordination with the documentation engineer for use of approved materials; 15. Force account (FA) monitoring; 16. Preparation of inspector's daily reports (IDRs), and field note records (FNRs); 17. Coordination for any necessary testing; 18. Daily photo log of critical site activities; 19. Monitor the site for contractor compliance with traffic control plans, environmental, and contract requirements; and 20. Close out; 21. Punchlist; and 22. Project Management Reviews (PMR). Assumptions: 1. The AGENCY will assume management of stakeholders and public relations; and 2. The AGENCY will execute and manage the FOR construction engineering support services contract. The AGENCY will provide a workspace at the site or the City for preparation of paperwork; and 3. Ten paid weather days if encountered. D alAyar"hIov 1. RFI responses; Page 13 City of Tukwila — Boeing Access Road Over Airport Way Seismic Retrofit 6 2. Weekly meeting agenda; 3. IDRs and FNRs; 4. Daily site photos; 5. Review and approval of contractor pre -construction means and methods; 6. Risk log tracking and cost to complete; 7. Construction schedule responses to contractor; 8. Entitlement determination correspondence to contractor; 9. Change order preparation; 10. Preparation of end of PROJECT punch -list; and 11. Attendance at the WSDOT PMR meeting. TASK 5 Office Engineering and Documentation Control This Task includes activities associated with preparation of construction documentation consistent with the FHWA and LAG Manual requirements including: 1. Project files set up and maintenance; 2. Submittal log tracking/management; 3. Attending the Pre -con and preparation of meeting notes. 4. Weekly agenda preparation and meeting notes; 5. Preparation of monthly progress estimates; 6. Request for approval of materials (RAMs) reviews and approvals; 7. Maintenance of record of materials (ROM); 8. Contractor traffic control records management; 9. Materials testing and RAM approval coordination with inspector; 10. WSDOT special inspection and testing coordination; 11. Close out; Page 14 City of Tukwila — Boeing Access Road Over Airport Way Seismic Retrofit 12. PMR PROJECT documents preparation, coordination with WSDOT Local Program, and attendance. Assumptions: 1. WSDOT will provide the project ROM; and 2. The AGENCY will manage monthly progress estimate payment to the contractor based on inspector's FNR's and progress report; and 3. The AGENCY will execute, and process change orders. Deliverables: 1. Pre -con agenda, meeting draft and final notes; 2. Complete contract paper -work tracking and documentation filing; 3. Weekly meeting agenda preparation and meeting notes; 4. Change order preparation; 5. Monthly FNRs tabulation for the progress estimates; 6. Punch -list preparation; and 7. PMR PROJECT documentation hard copies. TASK 6 Materials Testing The CONSULTANT'S sub -contractor, Mayes Testing, will conduct materials sampling and testing for the PROJECT including: 1. Concrete (air, slump, temperature, and compressive strength); 2. Grout compressive strength; 3. Soils sampling, gradation, and density; and 4. HMA density. Assumptions: 1. The City will arrange for WSDOT to provide testing, inspection and approval for the following PROJECT elements: Page 15 City of Tukwila — Boeing Access Road Over Airport Way Seismic Retrofit 8 a. Signs b. High strength bolts; and c. Rebar/bolt coating. The CONSULTANT will coordinate with WSDOT pre -fabrication unit for testing needs. Deliverables: 1. Concrete compressive test results at 3, 7, 21, and 28 days. 2. Proctor charts for each soil type and field density results; and 3. HMA density results; GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS 1. Work performed under this scope is limited to the hours and fee listed in the Scope and Budget, Prime and Subconsultant Cost Computations. Any work requested that exceeds what is shown in the Scope and Budget will be considered EXTRA WORK and be added as a Supplement to this Agreement. 2. Shop drawings, construction and falsework drawings will be reviewed and approved by the EOR. Page 16 City of Tukwila — Boeing Access Road Over Airport Way Seismic Retrofit EXHIBIT B - Prime Consultant Cost Computations TRANTEGH Ld JEnglneering LLC Boeing Access Road Over Airport Way Seismic Retrofit Office Project Manager RE / Inspector Inspector Engineer Admin 2 Total Task Items Task 1 Project Management 30 30 60 0 Task 2 Pre -construction Services 12 30 40 82 0 Task 3 Resident Engineering & Inspection 1440 1440 0 Task 4 Office Engineering and Doc Control 840 840 Total Manhours 42 1470 0 880 30 2,422 Direct Labor Rates (DLR)' $ 81.37 $ 50.00 $ 38.00 $ 48.00 $ 24.00 Total Direct Salary Cost $3,418 $73,500 $0 $42,240 $720 $119,878 Profit at 30% of DLR 0.30 $35,963 Overhead at 148.97% of DLR 1.4897 $178,582 Total Labor Cost $334,422 Direct Costs (Copy, Fedex, ...) Item Unit Amount Printing 10,000 copies @ $0.22 EA $2,200 Mileage 17,000 miles @ $0.58 EA $9,775 Materials Testing 1 @ $10,000.00 EA $10,000 1 @ $0.00 EA $0 $21,975 Total $356,397 *Labor rates are representative of an average actual rate per labor classification listed. Per the Agreement Payment Provisions, invoices will show employee actual rates. 10 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Henry Hash, Public Works BY: Alison Turner, Sustainable Transportation Program Manager Adam Cox, Program Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: April 3, 2020 SUBJECT: PSRC Grant ARplications Transportation Demand Management Program 42"d Avenue S Bridge Replacement Project ISSUE The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program in DCD and Public Works are asking for approval to apply for federal funding for two individual projects through Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) 2023-24 project selection process. BACKGROUND Transportation Demand Manaqement. In recent years, the TDM Program has received Climate Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding through a partnership with WSDOT, who provided pass -through funds to the City. WSDOT is not applying for TDM funding for the 2023- 24 project selection process, therefore the City's TDM Program is applying to continue TDM outreach activities in Tukwila and interested neighboring south King County jurisdictions. 42"d Avenue S Bridge Replacement Project. The 42"d Avenue S Bridge is a fracture -critical and structurally deficient bridge that needs to be replaced in the foreseeable future. City Council recently provided a million dollars to start the design of the replacement bridge as grant applications submitted in 2017 and 2019 for design were unsuccessful. Beginning the design makesfuture grant applications more competitive. DISCUSSION Approximately every two years, Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) funds are made available through a competitive grant selection process. For FY 20233-2024, $104.1 m is available for the countywide competitions. Successful grants will be awarded in January 2021 and funds are generally available in October 2022. A match of 13.5% is required for the federal funds, which can be provided using local monies and other non-federal grants. Transportation Demand Management. The scope of the proposed $450,000 CMAQ project is to provide TDM programming and services to residents, commuters and visitors in Tukwila and south King County. By providing transportation resources and incentives, the project will encourage people to choose sustainable transportation options such as riding transit, walking, biking and carpooling. 42"d Avenue S Bridge Replacement Proiect. Design of the replacement bridge will be starting by summer 2020. The proposed grant would include an additional $1 m for design and $3m for construction through the STP fund. Additional grants for construction will be pursued through BRAC. M INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT Transportation Demand Management. There will be no impact to the general fund from the TDM project. Local match will be provided by the City's TDM Allocation (formerly called Commute Trip Reduction) plus any local in -kind funding secured from partnering agencies should there be any. 42nd Avenue S Bridge Replacement Proiect. A match of $624.3k is required for the $4m request which will be provided from the funds balance -bond shown on the attached draft CIP sheet. RECOMMENDATION Committee is being asked to approve the request to apply for 2023-24 federal funding through PSRC's project selection process for Transportation Demand Management and the 42nd Avenue South Bridge Replacement Project. ATTACHMENTS • Page 15, 2019 CIP • Draft CIP sheet for 42"dAve S Bridge Replacement https://tukwiawa.shareaontmml�te�pubicwmkalengnaangfpw Drop Boxt0l TIC Agenda/TIC 04-06-20201 PSRC GrantAppGcatbMnb Memo -PSRC GrantAppkatbns.docx 12 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2019 to 2024 PROJECT: 42nd Ave S Bridge Replacement Project No. 91810404 DESCRIPTION: Design and construct a replacement structure for the existing 42nd Ave S Bridge near the Tukwila Community Center. JUSTIFICATION: The current bridge has a sufficiency rating of 7.6 (out of 100), is load restricted for AASHTO Type 3 trucks and is structurally deficient. Truck speed was reduced to 15 mph in 2018. STATUS: New project for 2019 - 2024 CIP. In 2017, Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee (BRAC) funding was submitted, but not awarded. If there is a BRAC funding round in 2019, staff will apply for those grant funds. MAINT. IMPACT: New bridge. BRAC funding would be at 80% match for up to $12.5 million. Project partners may include BNSF COMMENT: Railroad as they have over 1,800 trips a day on the 42nd Ave S Bridge and it is the only ingress/egress available for their intermodal yard. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 1,600 1,600 Land (R/W) 1,000 1,000 Wetland Mitigation/Monitoring 250 250 250 750 Const. Mgmt. 750 750 1,500 Construction 5,500 5,400 10,900 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 0 1,600 1,250 6,500 6,400 0 0 15,750 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 1,280 800 5,000 4,920 12,000 Fund Balance -Bond 450 1,500 1,480 3,430 Mitigation 0 City Oper. Revenue 0 0 0 320 0 0 0 0 0 320 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 0 1,600 1,250 6,500 6,400 0 0 15,750 Project Location 1 7 sl S !a a N = C ■ • `S1 t �% 1 _ A LL aA a \ N S � 7 St 1 L � Ste SLa 1 as L_ ' m $ 3051 ■ 13 2019 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program 15 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2021 to 2026 PROJECT: 42nd Ave S Bridge Replacement Project No. 91810404 DESCRIPTION: Design and construct a replacement structure for the existing 42nd Ave S Bridge near the Tukwila Community Center. Council approved design with City funding of $1 M in 2020. JUSTIFICATION: The current bridge has a sufficiency rating of 7.6 (out of 100), is load restricted for AASHTO Type 3 trucks and is structurally deficient. Truck speed win 2018. STATUS: In 2017 and 2019, Bridge Replacement AdAC) funding was submitted, but not awarded. Staff will apply for future BRAC MW Jig for STP funding in 2020 for $4m, PE & CN. MAINT. IMPACT: New bridge. STP funding has 13.5% match rt. BRAC funding would be at 80% match for up to $12.5 million. Project COMMENT: partners may include BNSF Railroad as they have over 1,800 trips a day on the 42nd Ave S Bridge and it is the only ingress/egress available for their intermodal yard. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 300 700 500 1,250 2,750 Land (R/W) 30 30 Const. Mgmt. 1,450 1,450 2,900 Construction 8,000 8,000 16,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 300 700 500 1,280 9,450 9,450 0 0 21,680 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed STP Grant 400 600 2,000 1,000 4,000 Proposed BRAC Grant 6,000 6,500 12,500 Fund Balance -Bond 680 1,450 1,950 4,080 Mitigation 0 City Oper. Revenue 0 300 700 100 0 0 0 0 0 1,100 TOTAL SOURCES 0 300 700 500 1,280 9,450 9,450 0 0 21,680 1 Project Location 1 W* 'I 0 6crB 73t lI a 51 2 se r N t-11 y7 t S 1 1 >> 7 S L S 12 1 1 $T.1 Y 2t3 N $ 30 St � 14 Draft 2021 - 2026 Capital Improvement Program 15 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director BY: Mike Perfetti, Habitat Project Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: April 3, 2020 SUBJECT: Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Project No. 99830105 Grant Application ISSUE Authorize the submittal of grant applications to Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), the King County Flood Control District (Cooperative Watershed Management funds) and other future grants that become available for the Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Project. BACKGROUND The primary goals of the Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Project are to restore fish passage between Gilliam Creek and the Green River, restore salmon habitat, and maintain or improve flood protection. The current 108" flapgate would be removed and replaced with flood protection more suitable to fish passage. DISCUSSION In 2018, the City and NHC consultants completed three conceptual alternatives (see attached). Staff initially preferred Option 2, the middle -of -the road option, as it appeared to meet project goals within a reasonable budget. However, after review by both the State Fish Barrier Removal Board (FBRB) and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), both granting agencies indicated the willingness to only fund a modified version of Option 3, with a flood wall rather than a self-regulating tide gate. Estimated Design Cost Estimated Construction Costs Option 2 $390,000 I $1,800,000 Option 3* $1,800,000 $6,000,000 * Modified Option 3 has not been estimated WRIA 9 has selected to support this project to support within its current cycle of allocated SRFB and CWM funds. Following the initial review, FBRB will be inviting select proponents to submit a grant application via RCO. FISCAL IMPACT A 15% match is required for the SRFB and FBRB grants. There is no match requirement for CWM. The intent is to use all grants to match one another, wherever possible. The Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Project currently has $554,000 budgeted in design with $324,000 in grant funding and $229,000 in Surface Water funding. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends seeking feasibility and design funding for modified Option 3, and Committee approval to submit grant applications for RCO, CWM, and other funding sources for the Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Project Attachments: 2019 CIP, Pg. 99 Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design, NHC, 2018 W APW Eng\PROJECTSW- DR Projects\Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal (99630105)\Grants\Info Memo_Gilliam Creek grant app_20200403.docx 15 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2019 to 2024 PROJECT: Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Project No. 99830105 Construct fish passage improvements at existing flap gate location and replace/modify the flap gate DESCRIPTION: which may include a self-regulating tide gate. JUSTIFICATION: Enable fish access to lower Gilliam Creek under wider range of flow conditions. Analysis of lower Gilliam Creek is being conducted in 2018 to determine the best solution for fish passage STATUS: and to address potential flooding. MAINT. IMPACT: Expected to have an increase in monitoring/maintenance. COMMENT: Grant proposals to State RCO and KC Flood Control District. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 39 22 554 110 725 Land (R/W) 0 Monitoring 15 15 15 45 Const. Mgmt. 200 200 85 485 Construction 1,000 1,000 550 2,550 TOTAL EXPENSES 39 22 0 554 1,200 1,200 15 15 760 3,805 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 325 1,020 1,020 500 2,865 Mitigation Actual 0 Mitigation Expected 0 City Oper. Revenue 39 22 0 229 180 180 15 15 260 940 TOTAL SOURCES 39 22 0 554 1,200 1,200 15 15 760 3,805 Project Location 16 2019 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program 99 GILLIAM CREEK FISH BARRIER REMOVAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Prepared for: City of Tukwila Washington Prepared by: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. Tukwila, Washington August 16, 2018 NHC Ref. No. 002002976 17 1 BACKGROUND Gilliam Creek is a spring -fed creek that emerges from the City of Tukwila's (City's) hillside neighborhoods situated between 1-5 and Sea-Tac Airport (Figure 1). It is an urban stream, flowing among a network of roadways past the commercial hub of Tukwila's Southcenter Mall and into the Green River. The lower reach of the creek flows parallel to Interstate 405 before crossing under 661" Avenue S and discharging to the Green River through a 108-inch diameter top -hinge flap gate. Several species of anadromous fish, including Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and sea -run cutthroat trout, are reported to make use of the lower reach of Gilliam Creek. Access for fish to Gilliam Creek is severely hampered by the flap gate (Photo 1) and splash pad. The City desired an alternatives analysis for the removal or modification of the flap gate to increase fish access into the creek, while maintaining or improving existing flood protection. Alternatives were to also address recreational, aesthetic, and educational opportunities associated with the adjacent Green River Trail and trailside park area, and constraints including adjacent commercial properties, local roads, and 1-405. IN r { e h 1 � r f f 1 % I•f � ts � ti . ;s 518 $ y Grlfiam Creek 1 So�thcenler r Mall i - � + 1 + l I Sea-Tac 99 ■ t*{ Airport j + CC2TdC J % 4 F` —I Tv I.— ila + I J + 1 � c +>1 i 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Figure 1. Location map (approximate watershed boundary shown with dark red line). Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal 1 Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design August 16, 2018 18 Photo 1. Existing Gilliam Creek flap gate, wing walls, and splash pad. Millions of juvenile Chinook salmon pass by the mouth of Gilliam Creek each spring. These fish originate at the State's Soos Creek hatchery, as well as from natural production throughout the Green River Basin: the hatchery alone releases approximately 300,000 yearling and 3.2 million subyearling Chinook salmon each year. Estuarine habitats are important to juvenile Chinook in part as a transition zone between fresh and salt water, but also as rearing habitat where significant growth occurs. However, Duwamish (Green River) Estuary habitat has been largely eliminated to make way for urbanization and industrialization of the Seattle Metropolitan Area. Without available estuary habitat, smaller creeks and creek mouths, including Gilliam Creek, take on an added significance and importance for rearing juvenile Chinook. In recent years, research has indicated a strong propensity for juvenile Chinook salmon to enter and rear at the mouths and in lowermost sections of small streams. This is true both for small streams leading to larger freshwater environments such as Lake Washington (Tabor et al., 2006), as well as those discharging directly into Puget Sound (Beamer et al., 2013). The greatest opportunity for assisting with the recovery of listed fish species at Gilliam Creek is to increase short-term rearing opportunities for downstream -migrant juvenile Chinook salmon by improving access to existing habitat as well as improving habitat quality. Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design August 16, 2018 2 im Photo 5. Trash rack and debris at the inlet of the 66th Avenue S culvert. f 4 Photo 6. Looking upstream from near the 66th Avenue S culvert inlet. Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design August 16, 2018 I 20 Figure 5. Option 3 Daylight at 66th Avenue S vignette. Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design August 16, 2018 22 3.3 Permitting Each design option was evaluated based on which city, state, or federal permits might be required, as well as Tribe consultation, and for each agency whether the specific design aspects of the project will benefit or make more complete the permitting process. This assessment is tabulated in Table 2 and Table 3. 3.4 Cost Estimates Table 1 summarizes the planning level cost estimates for the three alternatives. Cost for the floodplain restoration upstream of 66th Avenue S is the same for all options and is listed as so in the table; however, the design concept is slightly different at 66th Avenue S for the flow control structure there in Option 3. Since that flow control is necessary regardless of whether the upstream floodplain is restored or not, the cost of that structure is lumped with the main Option 3 cost. All three options assume a 30% contingency cost. Table 1. Summary of cost estimates (rounded to two significant digits). Option 1 — Retrofit Existing Culvert Main project cost Estimated Cost $ 290,000 Floodplain restoration upstream of 66th Avenue S $ 270,000 Total for concept design O. Daylight at Trail Main project cost $ 560,000 Estimated Cost $ 1,000,000 Floodplain restoration upstream of 66th Avenue S $ 270,000 Total for concept design $ 1,300,000 O. Daylight at 66 1h Avenue S Main project cost Estimated Cost $ 5,700,000 Floodplain restoration upstream of 66th Avenue S $ 270,000 Total for concept design $ 6,000,000 4 EVALUATION The project alternatives were evaluated with their ability to meet the five metrics established for the project (Section 3.1) and are summarized in Table 4. Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design August 16, 2018 21 23 5 SUMMARY Gilliam Creek is a spring -fed creek that emerges from the City's hillside neighborhoods. Several species of anadromous fish, including Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and sea -run cutthroat trout, are reported to make use of the lower reach of Gilliam Creek and millions of juvenile Chinook salmon pass by the mouth of Gilliam Creek annually. However, fish access to Gilliam Creek is severely hampered by a flap gate and splash pad at the confluence with the Green River. Option 1 is the simplest of the three, retrofitting the existing flap gate with an SRT, that would significantly increase the time duration of a connection between Gilliam Creek and the Green River. A roughened channel between the MTR and the Green River would also improve accessibility to Gilliam Creek. Option 2 is similar in design to Option 1, except adds an approximate 20' bridge crossing over the creek and replaces approximately 30 feet of the existing culvert with a roughened channel, v. Option 1 where the roughened channel is added at the end of the existing culvert. Both Options 1 and 2 include approximately 300' of restored stream channel and floodplain upstream of 66th Avenue S. The third option, the most complex of the three, includes this same restored floodplain area, replaces the entire existing culvert, and reroutes the creek through both a new bridge crossing underneath 66th Avenue S and through new additional added habitat in a widened Green River overbank area. All three options meet the five evaluation criteria (Table 5). Options 1 and 2 are similar in how they meet the objectives, except Option 2 includes more aesthetic and educational features. Option 3, compared to Options 1 and 2, provides much more fish friendly access to Gilliam Creek including complete replacement of the existing culvert with a restored channel, adding additional habitat along the bank of the Green River, and creating a much more aesthetic environment for trail users. Table S. Simplified evaluation of how options meet objectives *Assumes all options include the restored channel and floodplain upstream of 66th Avenue S. Relative simplified ranking: I E Excellent G Good F Fair Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design August 16, 2018 25 24 \` I I I / I IIII /I 11I 1 \I iI II II lI 1I 1I 1i r 11 nIl II II II � onI 'n �I \ \\ \\2:1 GRADING LIMITS �\ FALL PROTECTION I 1 \ \ \ \\ \ 1\ \\ \\ 1 1 i l l l i l i l iiii Ds I BARRIER , >� I I i 11 \ ENGINEERED SLOPE 1:1 ROCKERY OR OTHER, REVEGETATE BANK EDGE OF \\ i i i i 11 11 i 11 IIII 1 li li II II W W 1 / I / r r r r / \ \\ WITH NATIVE SPECIES PAVEMENT \\ I i/ i i i i / i i 11 IIII 11 11111111 Ili 11 W W W IW 1 I III r r r , , \il REVEGETATE ALONG CREEK BANK AT OUTFALL � < I W EXISTING RETAINING WALL II I _ I 1 I i I I 111 I I III 1 C I I r r / SUBSTRATE FOR FISH —PASSABLE r r l / ROUGHENED CHANNEL TO CONSIST OF GUARD RAIL i r I i I i i i i C \ \ I i W r ; ROUNDED BOULDERS AND COBBLE TO FORM W W CASCADES AND RIFFLES VERTICAL WING WALLS I ADDI IONAL�. WOOD �p �`� i i (ROCK TEXTURE) I i i ALONG DAYLIGHTED CHAN EL SECTION I \\ 1\� \\\\ I \ �\ d, NEW ROUGHENED \\ CHANNEL 2 1 1 1 I I NEW SIDE —HINGE I I \ \ \\ I II 11 11 I I FLAP GATE II \I \\ \ �� M� \I 1\ SIDEWALK \\\ \\ \ 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ - - ' LOG JAM HERE TO — \ STREAM 1 I \ \ \ \ \ W\\� \ y y r\ \ y \ \ \ ACCENTUATE EDDY AT MOUTH 1 1 \ \ \I \I 1 \ 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ It \ 1 ADD LOW HEIGHT SILL \ — _ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ REMOVE 30' LF EXISTING FOR INCREASED LOW \ \ \ I ` \ \ ` \ \ \\� CULVERT, HEADWALLS, FLAP \ I I \ 1\ \ \ 1 FLOW DEPTH \ \ I \ \ \ 1 GATE AND SPLASH PAD \ 1 ENGINEERED SLOPE 2:1 ROCKERY OR OTHER, REVEGETATE BANK BRIDGE DECK f20' 1 \ v v WITH NATIVE SPECIES 1 Z � \ ` \ \ GRATED FOR LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE VERTICAL WING WALLS (ROCK TEXTURE) 24"X36" INTERPRETIVE SIGN �o 1P \ \ CITY OF TUKWILA Job:2002976 GILLIAM CREEK FISH BARRIER REMOVAL Rev: 7 6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. SUITE 100 northwest hydraulic consultants 0' 510' 20' Drft:MAO 4 TUKWILA, WA 98188 12787 gateway drive south N tukwila, washington 98168-3308 Chkd: OPTION 2: DAYLIGHT AT TRAIL phone: (206) 241-6000 SCALE 1" — 10' fax: (206) 439-2420 Date: 15Aug18 CONCEPT DESIGN SHEET 2 • • •t�0•�♦ �O� o•♦ e`ra • � •••iwiwb��if� t 1 ••••fA•f••fffl\Ui►,•J� ► Ci�•U•�'•n•�•yw•YNDI►f•1•/ • • • Ol1l�••G•• b0, � �LSACfG'•��O�f���f��'rNIr�1 1{ifA'•i'�O�MiwyG- 11.0/►••Gti'�•��n ••w!N•l111 ,� \A•l/••wN,•L, EXISTING RETAINING WALL � ►O••NAA•l,•w•♦ L�l�tw • • EXISTING CULVERT 1♦�••wNN•1�•wI�AL' ,.,♦ IfA••wYl��•�ih♦�VGj��/i�.. r ON ►•1{!••�o•iw•i1�Ir�•i�l • /•O••1!,•,UAONI/ �rsi �•fj ••U Yh-a o •A IP`� �A- WALL QY VERTICAL �� ■•�•�UOANC�•W©�I�;O�lfs 3� SIDEWALK 1•••••1!•i•r1N�1�S.♦� 11 D•• U• A f U a • ' it ••,•r'� i '����r ®' • •1••••fff•! !►'i�'!"�f • iy� i ••••r• •► �i"•i �.gi'•ii � ni�•ii.°� � � ►•,'� ibO�,•iA•••i•�1 �I • r�i�•+ •iini we •�ii•r !••�/••�••O•ibfi/•�. '�ii �ii���..•ti�•iiQuii' ,� I �,�1`i�■JH©F'�♦1•••�� V �� � ,♦ - • 1 �u•7MQ•�Vf AI! AU- 3I � � A•Glr �� �•�M �' .•i1 IL tA''il1••f •G. I f �•>•i19 11i�1� ••l►A•!••ile•14�flil AN• � • e1"•!•••+. ale _ ••reels-•• •!•f•••wo••Af �-a 0 i i©©• ••• O i O � C•• ,I ©G�i•A••iJ©l.f••f� ■ I I•A••••i•i,,�/AGi••f••••••fi•�iw©•jG♦1 i !�' � All!• f•••A1►Q•••f •�■_ •••iti©•U••••i©Gti�f � litil'i••••'•II�i©G• •• • • ■ .•ff•'i•AAl1•!'i/li•O•G•/►')•!i•A•M•!�i•�ii'fir �� ■ fay.\©c►ciE•�•�•�•�w�e�i\eG�s�N�w`����•,`r• : • • •!••df1.11•••lli�lei• ©��•�•�rl©r©♦'l•"O!•�•�•�•fA�Sr6vP•! !tea Y!•••!•••ffyr©Y©w♦,•••�•N!!•fAfM,�,►�Pl,►an � • • f•rwf •••••fnfAuou s©©ef•••sueceA••o _ : ��•���•�•�i©w©w�iliA�•uw►•irwriibi��ils�. • •• •fw•••f•�•Afu•f,wA�- RESTOR frf•f•'••©w©w!•f•~•fl/f••OL•©w©U•lAI�\ � ���©w1�•••1{••w••••••Ji"llCi1{i!w•UO••��yt\�AA ■ �o Iff fi•i�ii�'aliai��fo•o"�eA� • i O G C f••• A 1, ifGf•fOAw♦{AAA CITY ■ �Cff,•�A�f�f�if•'iA©AG4AfAfOwfvftii�`J1•P'YAw�1 qif©•••AAi�ir1 Gtii•O• •• Al•••••�• A►A•!•IN�i11 fi•�/►©••f,•�11��/�11j�iN•,fill�•G•f•'��"II�IyO�U'\11 !•••11•lR•!i•N•©AGAN•�y11�•A•N••i0i)11StrdV 1 ■ , !i•N♦� ••,••••A•QA•,!w• I1NAGfif•�)•A�YINNYi\ �• A•f•fifNf6f f• � 6©I�N'•fi • N� - 1 • � Il � •fr•NleA•'• iifiirf•••�� e••••u secl► • • �i�f•f,•�f�e�e/e►r'u�►eA�•�ff�A�s �iea�/'�n�'Nn ■ � ewe•!••erieAo�►•'�•e•�'•lwA�►•�r,���A�ry .©l..•i1••••••1 fllyl/©0©w!w!•�wl1Ai•A•7► OF . GILLIAM CREEK FISH • • 11 BARRIER REMOVAL nhi. 6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. SUITE 100 northwest hydraulic consultants 0, 15' 30' 60' x4 1 1 •� �� d 12787 gateway drive south N • 0 OPTIONDAYLIGHT 66TH AVE 1. 1 J D.CONCEPT �_ f_/ �� / /•' �--_'__,- I I 11\\ III I I rl III ___ I 1\\\ \\\\\ I\\\ IIII IIII 1 \\ \ \ 1 \ \ hill\ '�f /—'/ _�'� /—r J t� �'/ ` • '� "` \\ \ \ \\IIII IIII I I11 1\\\ \ \ \I\ \\\I\\ \ lit" r'' r ��\55 CO `J1,;_'-' - REALIGNED \I\�\\\II I,\\.\ \\\\ \t\\ \\I\\\I t\\\ p /� /^ / �\� \ _ l /r I \ 1\ \ \ \ 1 1 I `o - / _ _ CHANNEL \ SLOPE TRANSITION \ \ I II I -��_ 1t \iS`\\\`\\I Ilk, \III \\\ '— J 30 _ /— rj—;��_ ram•— •• r \l . .. . I \\ \ \ ENGINEERED 1:1 SLOPE \ o NATIVE VEGETATION `' 1--`-` \\\ \ \\\\\ _I , �C;` \\ \ \\ WITH VEGETATION THROUGHOUT AND \\\ MAINTAIN EXISTING \, \\\ \\ TREES WHERE POSSIBLE 1\\\ \\\\ts\�\\ \\\\I\ `� S \\ \ \\ \\\\ \ O\ \ / r✓i i dr ' 1 \ \ p \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \\ \� \ \\ADD FLOODPLAIN \ I` /'-�- !%'s• -. s \ III BENCH \\ \\ \\\\\\ \\\\ III \ \ EXISTING \/ \\�11 1�...� CULVERT -'- - ENGINEERED 2:1 SLOPE' - '—I r^\ \ r- �`-`-`- - - - -` ti \ 11 \� r, ( a ... .... . ..... . .. �\ _ \_ \I REMOVE \ o / WITH VEGETATION /( \ \\ \ \ '�' iI j'.�, K� :�` '.` r. `- r - \I \1\ \I\I\RACK \ \ \ 5 - \ \� \ \ I .�+ Z/ CJ` ". �+ �. ��—=ii%iy_'=/�/,��y/—__—/\ — i.•-.'.r_fa . .f _�—� _ r � i—.—.- _— _ _ — — �_ 15 it \ / \ \ XS \ \ // ADD FLAP GATE' -i— REMOVE EXISTING _,- CHANNEL == SEE SHEET 4 FOR — `I �_==— __ _____-_�- _--------- "_ ,_= CONCEPTUAL SLIDES/- - ADD BACKWATER - ram- --- - GATE DESIGN' __ _- _ _-_;=-=- _ __-_ -_--_- _ -FILL EXISTING _� FLOODPLAIN _� � / `_ �v� � ! /'� EXISTING' \\ = _ =2_0- _- = =_ = ___ � _ CHANNEL---- BENCH- ,��., CHANNEL -\_-_,/-` i I i k II 1 \I ________________'------ _-- ------------- CULVERT -�_—_-- -~� 25.�—_---_--------------- ---'I ~�--�--- _ �� ADD BACKWATER i NEW SPAN-- ----�---- '--_---- _-----_------ - ----- --_ -- - _-'___-\ --- _ _ - CHANNEL BRIDGE\I COS / /' /�/// -------APPROXIMATE / --r APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 60" �J\\ GUARD RAIL CO WATER MAIN r TUKWILA PARKWAY ------------ EXISTING PIPES ------------------ � I \ CITY OF TUKWILA nhc Job:2002976 GILLIAM CREEK FISH BARRIER REMOVAL 0' 20' 40' 80, Rev:7 6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. SUITE 100 norrthwesthydraulic cmm12787 gateway drive ttmb N Drft:MAO OPTION 3: FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION TUKWILA, WA 98188 tukwila, washington 98168-3308 phone: (206) 241-6000 SCALE 1" = 40' chkd: (WITH NEW SPAN BRIDGE FOR fax: (206) 439-2420 1 Date: 15Aug18 DAYLIGHT AT 66TH ALTERNATIVE) SHEET 7 28 City of Tukwila Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director BY: Mike Perfetti, Habitat Project Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: April 3, 2020 SUBJECT: Nelsen Side Channel Project No. 91641203 Grant Applications Allan Ekberg, Mayor ISSUE Authorize the submittal of a grant application to the Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) Floodplains by Design (FbD) grant program and other future grant opportunities to fund the Nelsen Side Channel project. BACKGROUND The Nelsen Side Channel is a remnant section of the Green River as it existed prior to the construction of 1-405 in the 1960s. The remnant channel is separated from the mainstem of the river by a constructed levee but offers potential for an off -channel rearing habitat for threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Steelhead. Rearing habitat in the lower Green River and Duwamish River is limited, forcing fry migrants into Puget Sound much too early. Recent research by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) shows that less than 1 % of fry forced out into Puget Sound return as adults, the lowest of inventoried Puget Sound rivers. The Nelsen Side Channel project will set the levee back to create a ±1.2-acre side channel, restore an acre of riparian forest, provide additional flood storage, and provide public access to the shore. DISCUSSION DOE is currently seeking applications for its 2021-2023 FbD Program. Staff submitted a pre - application to obtain design funding and was invited to submit a grant application. City policy requires approval by the appropriate Committee before applying for grants. FISCAL IMPACT There is no specified limit for requesting funding, and the City meets the Disadvantaged Community Criteria, thus waiving match requirements. RECOMMENDATION Committee approval to submit for the FbD Program grant and other grant opportunities that may become available for the Nelsen Side Channel project. Attachments: Page 98, 2019 CIP https //tukwilawa sharepoint.com/sites/publicworks/engineering/PW Drop Box/01 TIC Agenda/TIC 04-06-2020/d. Nelsen Side Channel/Info Memo Nelsen Side Channel grant app_20200403 docx 29 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2019 to 2024 PROJECT: Nelsen Salmon Habitat Side Channel Project No. 91641203 Create an off -channel salmon rearing habitat side channel by connecting a segment of historic river DESCRIPTION: channel with the Green River. JUSTIFICATION: WRIA 9 has identified this project a proposed action in the Salmon Habitat Plan. The project area is primarily within State lands. The project will involve adjacent properties, and the need STATUS: for flood protection will need to be analyzed. The Project scope and project area, including any potential property acquisition, needs to be defined and a feasibility study performed. MAINT. IMPACT: Expected to increase maintenance Property acquisition to the north could create the opportunity for a side channel and additional flood storage. COMMENT: Grant funding proposed from King County Flood Control District and State. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 50 200 250 Land (R/W) 0 Monitoring 15 15 15 45 Const. Mgmt. 100 100 200 Construction 500 500 1,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 1 01 01 50 1 200 1 600 1 600 1 151 151 151 1,495 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 150 500 500 1,150 Mitigation Actual 0 Mitigation Expected 0 City Oper. Revenue 0 0 50 50 100 100 15 15 15 345 TOTAL SOURCES 1 01 01 50 1 200 1 600 1 600 1 151 15 151 1,495 ;D Project Location 8, 9 2019 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program W 30 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Economic Development and Transportation & Infrastructure Committees FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Director & Henry Hash, PW Director BY: Lynn Miranda, Planning Supervisor and Cyndy Knighton, Senior Program Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: March 13, 2020 SUBJECT: Tukwila International Blvd (TIB) Rechannelization Alternatives Report ISSUE Update the Planning and Economic Development Committee (PED) on the City's progress towards implementing the goals and policies of the Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) Element of the Comprehensive Plan, focusing on the rechannelization design alternatives for TIB. This alternative will be used as the basis for the draft zoning code revisions needed to implement the community's vision for the TIB District and improve safety for all users. BACKGROUND In 2015, Council adopted goals and policies in the TIB Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, calling for a transformation of the neighborhood into a walkable, safe, and attractive destination with TIB as a "main street." The following is a summary of actions taken to date on implementing the Plan. A more complete workprogram/timeline of work done to date can be found in Attachment A. Improving Safety The City has adopted and implemented several Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) over the years to improve safety along Tukwila International Boulevard, from the initial major CIP to create the Boulevard with sidewalks and improved pedestrian crossings to the addition of new Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacons (RFRB) for pedestrian crossings. The 2017-2018 Adopted CIP included pedestrian safety improvements on S. 140th to include a new traffic light. When the City was unsuccessful in securing grants for this project, the City in 2018 adopted a plan for the two RFRB crossings near S. 141st, which were added in the 2019-2020 Adopted CIP. There are currently two other RFRB crossings at S. 143rd and S. 151'. Additional RRFB's are being recommended to the S. 1401h Traffic Light CIP in partnership with the City's traffic calming program The City also implemented significant pedestrian safety improvements in 2018 on S. 1441h between 42 d Ave S. and TIB, including new sidewalks and a pedestrian crossing as part of Tukwila Village. In 2005, speed limits were lowered from 40 to 35 miles per hour (mph) when the City took over jurisdiction of the roadway from the state in 2004. 2017 In February, the City and Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) kickstarted implementation of the Comprehensive Plan with a community workshop. In May, CNU briefed the City Council on their recommendations for implementing the City's adopted goals and policies for the TIB neighborhood. The two recommendations were to: 1) reduce the number of through -lanes on TIB and replace with on -street parking and bicycle lanes to provide parking for adjacent businesses and improve safety for all users, and; 2) re*e the zoning regulations for new development as the current zoning code regulations were adopted prior to the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update and allow new land uses and development patterns that are inconsistent with the walkable vision for TIB (Attachment B). Regarding a reduction in lanes on TIB, the CNU report stated that "Traffic studies must be done in advance of this work, but a schematic plan was developed during the workshop" and recommended that "To build a robust main street environment, pedestrians must be able to easily cross the street to access shops on the other side. In addition to crosswalks, new RRFB's are recommended." One of these CNU recommended RRFB's was on S. 1415t St, which was implemented by the City in 2019. Staff discussed with Council the critical role of on -street parking on TIB in setting the main street character. The zoning regulations for development behind the sidewalk depend on the roadway design - with on -street parking, development regulations can be revised to require storefronts oriented to the streets without a setback, parking lots or garages located behind the buildings, and minimal driveway accesses to interrupt the pedestrian. In addition, the presence of features such as on -street parking and small building setbacks achieve an increase in safety benefits for all users as drivers travel at significantly slower speeds. Staff has also included a memo estimating the potential economic development benefits of allowing parking in the curb lane on a portion of TIB (see Attachment C). Council also adopted a 6-month moratorium prohibiting certain auto -oriented and lodging uses in the TIB study area. With the moratorium in place, future development or redevelopment would support the vision and prevent investment in uses that were likely not going to be allowed under the planned revisions to the zoning code. Renewal of the moratorium since 2017 has allowed staff time to draft new standards, design guidelines, and alternative TIB roadway designs. Land use and design consultants Placemakers were contracted to prepare updates to the zoning code, addressing allowable land uses, building heights and placement, and design guidelines for TIB. The Planning Commission and TIBAC reviewed preliminary Land Use Chart and Zoning Map amendments in Fall of 2017. These updates have been on hold awaiting analysis and decision on adding on -street parking and bicycle lanes (rechannelization) options for TIB. Fehr & Peers transportation consultants were contracted to prepare rechannelization design alternatives for TIB and have to date produced three reports studying the impacts of the proposed rechannelization on TIB. The first study (September 2017) looked at existing and future traffic conditions, identified rechannelization options, and analyzed potential traffic diversions on to adjacent streets. Very preliminary cost estimates for the alternatives and mitigation were also provided. This report was presented to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (TIC) in November 2017. The Committee did not arrive at a recommendation but directed staff to conduct additional analysis of traffic impacts on adjacent residential streets and possible mitigation measures. 2018 The Fehr & Peers study was updated in January 2018 with alternative design options for TIB. In September and October 2018 staff met with the TIC, the Community Development & Neighborhood (CDN) Committee and the Council of the Whole to provide an update on the TIB Rechannelization studies and the status of the TIB zoning code revisions. Council was presented with three options for moving forward: A. Complete the TIB zoning code changes with no changes to the configuration of TIB. B. Allocate time & resources to fully study the rechannelization traffic impacts. C. Option B, plus including a cost -benefit analysis of the roadway options and benefits to the community. 32 Council supported completing additional studies of traffic impacts and mitigation alternatives and allocated $100,000 for more detailed cost estimates of alternatives. Council recommended returning these items to CDN and TIC for further discussion. 2019 Fehr & Peers' prepared a third report building upon past analyses and Council direction. The most substantive modification to the report was a comparison of how well the alternatives achieve the community's land use and street design goals, including supporting the vision for a main street, improving pedestrian and vehicle safety, improving mobility, and minimizing local and regional impacts. A variety of design options were presented that have differing outcomes depending on the goal evaluated. In August, a number of Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers participated in a staff -led field trip to West Seattle, Lake City Way, Bothell and Kent to view the relationship between on -street parking options and adjacent building forms and placement. A summary is included in Attachment D. 2020 A final report was delivered by Fehr & Peers summarizing the planning process to date, the alternative rechannelization options for TIB including potential impacts, mitigation, cost and extent to which they achieve the goals for the TIB District (see Attachment E). The current moratorium on certain auto -oriented and lodging uses in the TIB district expires in July. The full set of development regulations and design guidelines implementing the TIB Vision in the Comprehensive Plan are anticipated to be completed by the end of the year (Attachment A). On March 2nd the Planning and Economic Development (PED) Committee requested the Planning Commission to review code amendments to formalize the prohibitions in the moratorium before its expiration and prior to the adoption of the full set of revised development regulations. Amending the code now would eliminate the need to extend the moratorium on these uses in July. The amendment would also serve as a placeholder for the full set of revisions to the development regulations. The Planning Commission will be considering these amendments at their April 23 meeting and forwarding their recommendation to Council. Four design alternatives were developed for TIB, differing in the number of through lanes, bicycle facilities, on -street parking configuration, traffic calming measures intended to mitigate the potential of traffic diverting on to neighborhood streets, and ability to implement the vision for TIB as a walkable "main street" and improve pedestrian safety. The report (Attachment E) is intended to help Tukwila elected officials and the community understand the relative costs, benefits and potential impacts of the design options for implementing the community vision for Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) and the surrounding neighborhood. FINANCIAL IMPACT The four rechannelization alternatives evaluated in the attached report range in cost from $1.55M for the current adopted CIP of a traffic light on S. 140th and two new RFRB's on TIB to $5.95M for a 3-lane conversion from S. 139t" to S. 150t" with on -street parking, bike lanes, and mitigation measures in the neighborhoods. It should be noted that these projects can be designed and constructed in phases. Funding through various grants should also be explored. RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting the PED Committee review and discuss the Summary of Design Alternatives Report t" (Attachment E) at two meetings— March 16and April 20t". The March meeting will focus on the planni, and transportation efforts to date and introduce the rechannelization alternatives. The subsequent meeting in April will focus on discussing the comparative aspects of each rechannelization alternative, including design, impacts and mitigation, ability to achieve the community's goals for TIB, and cost. The PED Committee can then determine how to move the report forward to a Council of the Whole meeting. Due to pedestrian safety needs on TIB, the Administration recommends implementation of Alternative 1 as a baseline. Part of this alternative, the signal at S 140t" Street, is in the City's Adopted CIP with proposed grant funding in 2021 and 2022. The three additional RFRB's between S 144t" Street and S 152nd Street would need to be added into the CIP. In addition, the Administration recommends proceeding with Alternative 2 (on -street parking during non -peak times) as funding is identified. Alternative 2, once implemented, provides the City an opportunity to analyze side street impacts, if any, as they occur, as well as implementing parking enforcement as necessary. The overriding concern with any traffic conversion on TIB is the potential impact to residential side streets, the additional traffic and slow -down to vehicle movement, and the costs for this conversion. Alternative 2 provides a phased -in approach to on -street parking options. This alternative can be more easily reversed with less cost involved than the Alternative 3 or 4 solutions, if necessary, Alternative 2 also provides an opportunity to analyze the impacts of on -street parking during non -peak times to determine if in the future Alternatives 3 and 4 become an option. ATTACHMENTS A. TIB Neighborhood Plan Workprogram B. Excerpt from Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) Legacy Project— Tukwila International Boulevard, 11 April 2017 C. Memo from Derek Speck on Economic Development Benefits of On -Street Parking, dated March 9, 2020 D. TIB As A Main Street Field Trip —Summary, July 2019 E. Tukwila International Boulevard: A Summary of the Design Alternatives Report 34 Attachment A Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) Neighborhood Plan Work Program Work program — 2020 1st Q PED forwards zoning code changes prohibiting auto -oriented and hotel/motel uses to the Planning Commission for review and public hearing PED consider final TIB rechannelization evaluation report 2nd Q • PED Meeting #2 to consider final TIB rechannelization evaluation report and forwards to COW • Planning Commission hearing and recommendation on zoning code changes prohibiting auto - oriented and hotel/motel uses • PED considers Planning Commission recommendations re: zoning code revisions prohibiting auto -oriented and hotel/motel uses and forwards to COW • Council hearing and decision on zoning code changes prohibiting auto -oriented and hotel/motel uses • Council selects preliminary TIB rechannelization alternative — This date may change depending on PED/COW recommendation • Staff finalizes draft comprehensive set of TIB zoning code revisions (incorporating rechannelization alternative) and Design Manual guidelines for public review -This date may change depending on PED/COW recommendation • TIB zoning code revisions & design manual outreach to TIB area property owner, resident and development community - This date may change depending on PED/COW recommendation • Prepare Draft Environmental Checklist (SEPA) • Issue SEPA Determination 3rd Q or 4t" Q (depending on PED/COW recommendation) • City Council/Planning Commission joint work sessions on comprehensive set of TIB zoning code revisions and design manual guidelines. • Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, deliberation, and decision on TIB zoning code revisions and design manual. Products: • Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Zoning Code and Map Amendments • TIB Design Manual • Environmental Checklist and Determination Work completed 2017 • CNU Legacy Workshop in Tukwila — February • CNU Final Report Presentation to City Council Meeting - May • Refined household and employment Yr. 2031 forecasts for TIB neighborhood for traffic analysis on the street modification • Selected a consultant for the SEPA analysis of the proposed TIB Plan • Contracted for additional transportation professional services on design standards for TIB neighborhood street standards 35 • Reviewed draft Land Use Chart and Zoning Map amendments with Planning Commission - August 24, 2017 • Council adopted a moratorium on certain uses in the TIB study area in September • Briefed TIBAC on above draft amendments — October 10, 2017 • Briefed Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (11/14/17) on traffic analysis and associated capital improvement costs and obtained direction for additional analysis • Reviewed consultant's draft street circulation improvements • Contracted for an update to the Tukwila International Boulevard Design Manual 2018 • Contracted for additional engineering services analyzing TIB on -street parking impacts and cost • Began creation and modification of alternative Zoning District boundaries and zoning standards based upon Planning Commission land use discussion, street designations and designs • Drafted new street cross -sections for TIB streets and a new circulation network based on CNU engineering consultant recommendations and anticipated land uses • Council extended moratorium on certain uses in the TIB study area in July and December. • Updated Council on current direction and schedule for implementing TIB zoning changes and possible TIB on -street parking options. Recommended further analysis of TIB on -street parking options. • Consultants delivered draft TIB zoning code revisions and draft of updated TIB Design Manual to staff • Circulated draft Zoning revisions for internal review • City unsuccessful with grant for Adopted CIP for S. 140th Street Traffic Signal pedestrian safety improvements • Council adopted revised CIP to include pedestrian safety improvements near S. 140th of two RFRB crossings 2019 • Contracted for additional TIB rechannelization and mitigation options. • Worked on revisions to the TIB Design Manual • City completed CIP project of two new RFRB crossings near S. 140th in April • Council renewed moratorium on certain uses in the TIB study area in May and December. • Planning Commission and City Council Field Trip to view on -street parking options 36 Attachment B Q W J 0 m J a z 0 Q z w W H z CNU LEGACY PROJECT 17 APRIL 2017 Implementing the Vision _4r, `i 1 �►�vN+ z-p�s o ra MA lQ (A �w a S�J11 A V E- S'3 l+ (A 4117 { Wt�M&" 37 TUKWILA CNU LEGACY PROJECT Boulevard Improvements The evolution of TIB into a walkable main street may begin with two im- mediate changes. The first is restriping the Boulevard from a five lane road into a three lane street. This includes the addition of new crosswalks and a protected bike lane (See page 32 for details). The second step is a change to the zoning ordinance to assure develop- ment will implement the vision. This change includes permitting greater diversity and capacity of uses while allowing incremental development in the short term (See page 42 for de- tails). i a O � ,O Q O � � a � °0 a un Image Credit. Andrew von Maur 38 30 31 IMPLEMENTATION Short term steps for implementation include re -striping the Boulevard and amending the zoning. RESTRIPING PLAN The initial step in the TIB evolution is pedestrian before using a crosswalk. a restriping plan for the Boulevard. The purpose of an RRFB is to increase Traffic studies must be done in ad- vehicle yielding at crosswalks. RRFBs vance of the work, but a schematic are attached to pedestrian crossing plan was developed during the work- warning signs, and are also accompa- shop, shown on the next pages. nied by piano key crosswalks and ad- vance yield makings. The beacons are Some parts of TIB have distances as usually solar powered, and flash us - great as 2,500' without a crosswalk. ing an irregular patten that is similar This distance provides a dangerous to emergency vehicle flashers on po- enviroment where residents cross lice vehicles. midblock with no protection. To build a robust main street environment, KEY pedestrians must be able to easily cross the street to access shops on Existing signal + crosswalk the other side. In addition to cross- walks, new RRFBs are recommended. 0 Existing RRFB A RRFB is an amber -colored flash- ing light (LED) that is activated by a Image Credit: City of Bloomington, Indiana TUKWILA CNU LEGACY PROJECT N S 137th St t S 1381h to J Q N Riverton D :, Crest fD Cemetery N y S 13E�In d1 � m N 32 °7 h 3, 40t S1 ur ti, a 6 = P N S N Q Cascade Viaw Pads 42nd Ave S C V) �J R S 146th St V; Riverton Heights �L to I O VJ Q G M Riverton Heights Post office S-15.4th-S t S 141st St S 142 nd St I 0 t S 144t1t St 0 �y J a N .r S 146[h 5 S 148th St a S 1501h St ® .Rd a S 152nd St H 0 a -SouthcentermBlvd-ONOOOOOOOOOOO / Link Lght S 154th Ln Rai4 TukwiW c5 InfI Blvd 0 C0 J s 1 �"471_0t< g xist' g Cr swalk (City of SeaTac, King County, BLM, ESRI, Garmin, USGS, EPA, USDA) 33 rq a '2 230 ff 310 R S 1501h St S 156th St 39 p➢ n�lnnq�aaao�oaoo® 9 a The plan to the right shows a change from 5 lanes to KEY 3 lanes beginning with S. 139th Street in the north to S. JJ0 152nd Street at the southern end. The new street section;, New crosswalk is illustrated above, as compared to the existing condi- tions in the upper right image. ® New RRFB In addition to the restriping, new pedestrian crosswalks and signals should be added. New RRFBs should be lo- Restriping area cated at S. 141 st Street and S. 1461h Street. New crosswalks should be added at S. 142nd, S. 1481h, S. 1501h, and each _ . _ New streets new east I west street as they are developed over time as shown on the plan to the right. To assure local traffic is managed well, provide additional development opportunities, and create a bicycle and pe- destrian network, new streets should be added to pro- vide multiple routes north/south and east/west. TUKWILA (© Microsoft, 2017) CNU LEGACY PROJECT S 137th St Riverton Crest Cemetery 140lh SI ' ,\ a .4L Q �\ M N` J c s f Q ,., 42nd Ave S a Q' S 14Gth St IFM v, rton " jhts 4-Pbx a a.. r U M Riverton Heights Post office S-154th•S t o oil .6 _T rip ft Plan S 13G1h S Ex U7 A 10 G L m og o S }5tln tit v S 1381h m < Q v L j 139th St m S 141st St V7 a I L I � I S 142nd St I i 1 4b. — Patk S 1441h St N I � I 1 I I ........... I I I I Si IaRth S: It I 1 I � I I 1 .......... It I I I m 2, 1 I S d St r I I h I Q I � o P �Southcenter-'Blvd.."� Link Light S 1541h Ln Ra&Tukwila cy Intl Blvd t � M ^ LLRa g 518 L Q S 15u1h St S 156111 St 34 (City of SeaTac, King County, BLM, ESRI, Garmin, USGS, EPA, USDA) 35 40 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ekberg FROM: Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator CC: Departments of Community Development and Public Works DATE: March 9, 2020 SUBJECT: Economic Development Benefits of On -Street Parking ISSUE This memo is intended to provide an estimate of the potential economic development benefits if the City were to allow parking in the curb lane on a portion of Tukwila International Boulevard. BACKGROUND The City is considering whether to allow on -street parking on Tukwila International Boulevard generally between South 139th Street and South 150th Street. During the hours that parking is allowed in the "curb lane", the lanes available for vehicle travel in one direction would be reduced from two to one. Other City departments have conducted analyses of traffic impacts and costs related to the potential reduction in travel lanes. This memo is intended to provide an estimated range of the potential economic development benefits associated with such a change. This is not a full cost -benefit analysis. DISCUSSION There is no standard way to determine the economic development benefits of on -street parking. City staff conducted online searches for this type of information and sought consultants who can address the question. We contacted four consulting firms and spoke with three. None have answered this particular type of question in the past and they would need to conduct a significant amount of analysis in order to answer this question. Most of the standard analysis is not whether to allow on -street parking where there currently is none, it is how much to charge in order to foster the greatest economic benefit. Part of the challenge is that parking benefit economics depend on the real estate economics for each location, and those economics can change over time. Although there is no standard methodology to address this question, staff believes there can be economic value from on -street parking because there are many examples of developers who create it when constructing new "town centers". For example, because the City does not currently allow parking on Tukwila International Boulevard, the developer of Tukwila Village chose to construct a small access road with seven parking stalls in front of Building A (currently under construction) so that there will be some visible parking in front of the retail stores. In terms of the potential economic development benefits of on -street parking on Tukwila International Boulevard, there are different types of benefits. It is important to understand these are very general estimates only intended to provide a sense of the potential magnitude of the benefits. Staff assumed the northern end of the on -street parking was at South 130th Street instead of South 139th Street as a way of reducing the potential 41 of southbound traffic choosing to drive through the adjacent neighborhoods. Following are the types with estimates of value: (1) Additional Land Value: One method to value additional parking in the curb lane is to assume it frees up an equivalent amount parking on the adjacent private properties. This value could benefit private property owners if they are able to provide less land for on -site parking. The economic development benefit would be the value of the land plus the cost of parking improvements. Staff estimated the raw land value by multiplying the square feet of equivalent parking area by the County Assessor's estimate of land value for properties along TIB. It is important to note this analysis is based on today's land value which reflects the economics of the neighborhood today. If the neighborhood becomes more desirable and receives more development, the land value benefit would increase. Staff estimates this value to range from $4.2 million to $9.0 million. The range depends on whether development occurs near the lower land values toward 130th Street or the higher land values near 1501h Street. The average is $6.6 million. (2) Additional Development Value: Because adding parking in the curb lane is comparable to freeing up an equivalent amount of parking on the adjacent private properties, that additional private land capacity could be improved with more than just parking, it could be developed. Staff estimates the development value based on this methodology to range from $8.5 million to $68.6 million. The range depends on whether development is single -story structures of a similar type and lot coverage that exists along most of TIB today or higher cost and amounts of development such as Tukwila Village. Staff believes this is a very conservative estimate because it only assumes the development would occur on an amount of land equal to the amount that could be freed from parking on the private properties. It is entirely possible that a more desirable pedestrian experience would attract greater development than just the equivalent area of parking. As an example of the potential economic development benefit, a total of ten buildings of the size of the mixed -use building located at 14400 Tukwila International Boulevard could fit on one side of TIB between 144th and 150th Street. The value of nine additional buildings of that size would be approximately $260 million. (3) Increased Business Revenue: Additional parking and on -street parking can increase sales for businesses for multiple reasons. Convenience of Curbside Parking: This concept assumes that customers prefer the convenience of parking on the street in front of a business compared to parking in a lot beside or behind the building. Even when the curbside parking is full, the business may still get more customers when they perceive a chance to get on -street parking. Staff believes this is especially important for retail and service businesses in which the customer is visiting the business for a relatively short period of time. • Desire for Active Spaces: This concept assumes that customers are drawn to retail streets where there is a feeling of activity. Parking on the street in front of a business creates more activity on the street which attracts customers and makes it easier for customers to see and walk to other stores. • Pedestrian Experience: This concept assumes that customers are more likely to walk on sidewalks when the experience is more desirable. On -street parking can increase the quality of the pedestrian experience by creating a feeling of protection from traffic and slowing traffic. Staff estimates the value of these factors range from $2.0 million to $61.9 million. The range is 42 based on data from Melbourne, Australia and Ft. Collins, Colorado that was provide in a presentation by Dennis Burns of Kimley-Horne. If the various types of economic development benefits are added together, the total ranges from $14.7 million to $139.5 million. Based on current conditions, the value would be more likely to be at the lower end of the range. As the neighborhood attracts more customers and development, the value would grow to the higher end of the range. If the parking is not well managed, the benefits will tend toward the low estimate. The better the parking is managed, the more the benefits will tend toward the high estimate. Value of Economic Development Benefits Low High Additional Land and Improvements $ 4,200,000 $ 9,000,000 Additional Development $ 8,500,000 $ 68,600,000 Additional Business Revenue $ 2,000,000 $ 61,900,000 $ 14,700,000 $ 139,500,000 CAVEATS • The benefits shown in this memo assume the City wants a pedestrian friendly, "main street" type of neighborhood along Tukwila International Boulevard. Some types of businesses and other stakeholders may not desire a "main street" type of neighborhood and would see greater value by having a road that carries more and faster traffic. For example, fast food restaurants or warehouse/distribution companies would prefer the current road configuration. • The benefits shown above only reflect one time economic benefits, not annual revenue and costs. There would be costs to install, manage and enforce parking. Additional development would also bring annual revenue and costs for city services. • The business revenue and additional development benefits assume the City implements a parking management program with effective policies and enforcement. • The analysis assumes on -street parking with South 130th Street as the northern terminus, not South 139th Street. CONSIDERATIONS If the City allows on -street parking, one important opportunity would be to use parking revenues to make additional improvements in the neighborhood. Those could be managed by the City through a "parking benefit district" or through a "business improvement district' in which local businesses manage parking enforcement and other community programs such as marketing and safety. There can be other benefits to using the curb side travel lane for purposes besides parking. This "curb lane real estate" can provide parking for bikes, car share, electric vehicles, and loading zones. To the extent these uses are allowed, they would reduce the amount of parking included in this analysis. As development grows along Baker Boulevard in the Southcenter District. The City may need to implement a parking management program for that neighborhood and there may be economies of scale with parking on TIB. OTHER FINANCIAL BENEFITS AND COSTS It is important to note that this memo does not include other financial benefits such as: 43 (1) Parking revenue if the City implements a charge for on -street parking. This can be a very significant benefit to the City and businesses on TIB. (2) City tax revenue related to the increased business sales and development. (3) It is important to note that this memo does not include the costs to provide on -street parking such as signs, painting, and ongoing parking management. SUMMARY If the City has a vision for Tukwila International Boulevard to develop into a pedestrian friendly, walkable, "main street" type of neighborhood with an active street front and more office and multi -family residential development, on street parking can contribute to that goal. Based on conservative methodology, staff estimates the economic development value between $14.7 and $139.5 million. ATTACHMENTS Spreadsheets: Economic Development Value of On -Street Parking 44 Economic Development Benefit of Ern -Street Parking Retail Sales (Melbourne Model Number of Stalls 367 45 Square Feet Per Stall 200 200 Retail Sales per Hour Per Square Foot 0.19 0.19 Hours of Operation Per Day 10 10 Days per Year 360 360 Total Annual Retail Sales 5002570584 6108550488 Retail Sales (Ft Collins Model) Number of Stalls 367 452 Retail Sales Per Stall Per Day 15 60 Days per Year 360 360 Total Annual Retail Sales 109830852 9,766,656 Notes: (1) Melbourne and Ft. Collins retails sales data was taken from presentation at International Parking Institute conference by Dennis Burns of Kimley-Horn and Michael Klein of Klein & Associates. (2) In this method, square feet per stall is estimated at 200 instead of 330 in order to not include the space for drive aisle access. 45 TIB As Main Street — Field Trip SUMMARY A key goal of the Comprehensive Plan's Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) Element is to transition TIB from a regional -serving highway to a "main street" that serves the neighborhood and improves safety. Implementation of the City's vision for TIB started with a Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) community workshop in 2017. CNU's final report and recommendations were given to the City Council and included a discussion of the role of on -street parking in setting the main street character and development parameters for the neighborhood. Staff soon began revising the development regulations, zoning districts, and the design manual for TIB and exploring how to make TIB a "complete street". "Streetscape — the visual elements of a street, including the road, adjoining buildings, sidewalks, street furniture, trees, and open spaces, etc. that combine to form the street's character." Changes to TIB's Streetscape, specifically adding on -street parking, is an important piece in the CNU recommendations for transitioning to a walkable "main street." As alternatives, costs, and mitigation measures were being evaluated, staff organized a field trip for the City Council and Planning Commission to see neighborhood commercial streets in nearby cities with configurations similar to those being considered for TIB in order to experience the relationship between buildings with a variety of uses and the adjacent street design. On Saturday July 20, 2019, several City of Tukwila Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers participated in the half -day field trip visiting the following locations: • Pacific Highway S., Des Moines WA, Between 216th and Kent Des Moines Road See examples of redevelopment with no on -street parking. • Lake City Way, between 115th St and 130th St. See examples of variable time parking and all -hours on -street parking Downtown Bothell See examples of parking/frontage road separated from travel lanes The following are photo examples of streetscapes seen during the field trip. 46 Des Moines, WA Pacific Highway South, between Kent Des Moines Road and S. 216t" St. Redevelopment brought to back of sidewalk with no on -street parking. 47 Lake City Way, Seattle NE 115t" Street to NE 130t" Street Lake City Way & NE 115t" St: Variable on -street parking on NB lane. Bus lane during peak commuting times, 2hr parking max 9am-3pm. 2 travel lanes SB. Lake City Way & NW 125t" St: Permanent on -street parking both sides, both directions. 2 travel lanes each direction with landscaping. 48 Bothell, WA 5-lane cross-section with service lane (travel lane & parking) on both sides. View of the service lane with on -street parking, auto travel lane, and bike sharrows. 49 Tukwila International Boulevard: A Summary of the Design Alternatives 50 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation & Infrastructure Committee FROM: Laurel Humphrey, Council Analyst DATE: April 3, 2020 SUBJECT: Transportation for America: The Congestion Con ISSUE At the 2020 National League of Cities Congressional City Conference, Councilmember Kruller attended a presentation on "The Congestion Con," published by Transportation for America, and requested to add it to the next committee agenda. The Committee agreed to do so. The report summary from the Transportation for America website: In an expensive effort to curb congestion in urban regions, we have overwhelmingly prioritized one strategy: we have spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars widening and building new highways. We added 30,511 new freeway lane -miles of road in the largest 100 urbanized areas between 1993 and 2017, an increase of 42 percent. That rate of freeway expansion significantly outstripped the 32 percent growth in population in those regions over the same time period. Yet this strategy has utterly failed to "solve" the problem at hand —delay is up in those urbanized areas by a staggering 144 percent. Those new lane -miles haven't come cheap and we are spending billions to widen roads and seeing unimpressive, unpredictable results in return. Further, the urbanized areas expanding their freeways more rapidly aren't necessarily having more success curbing congestion —in fact, in many cases the opposite is true. This report examines why our strategies to reduce congestion are failing, why eliminating congestion might actually be the wrong goal, and how spending billions to expand highways can actually make congestion worse by encouraging people to drive more than they otherwise would, a counterintuitive but well -documented phenomenon known as induced demand. The report also has five simple policy recommendations to make better use of our billions of dollars without pouring yet more into a black hole of congestion "mitigation." http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2O2O/O3/Congestion-Report-2020-FINAL.pdf RECOMMENDATION Discussion only. Attachment The Congestion Con Report 51 Transportation fOFAmeFica EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In an expensiv , r# to curb congestion in urban regions, we have &rphelminglypnurnized one strategy: we have spent decades and j Weds of_b' of -dollars wid d building new highways. We ed-30,511 - vfre way I -mi7kn �t�the argest 100 ur ' nized areas 19 d 2017, a 42 percent. That ra of expansion tly o aripped the 3 owth in population those er the Same time pe �ytrategy has utterly failedIve" congestion. 5"--anraa :� in THE CONGESTION CON RJ Transportation for America Those new lane -miles haven't come cheap. We know that states alone spent more than $500 billion on highway capital investments in urbanized areas between 1993-2017, with a sizable portion going toward highway expansion. And the initial construction costs are just the tip of the iceberg. For roads that area I ready in good condition, it still costs approximately $24,000 per year on average to maintain each lane -mile in a state of good repair, creating significant financial liabilities now and for years into the future. We are spending billions to widen roads and seeing unimpressive, unpredictable results in return. In those 100 urbanized areas, congestion has grown by a staggering 144 percent, far outpacing population growth. (For this report, congestion is measured as annual hours of delay using data from the Texas Transportation Institute's Urban Mobility Report). Further, the urbanized areas expanding their roads more rapidly aren't necessarily having more success curbing congestion —in fact, in many cases the opposite is true. Why aren't we reducing congestion? First, the average person drives significantly more each year in these 100 urbanized areas. Vehicle -miles traveled (VMT) per person increased by 20 percent between 1993-2017. This increase in driving is partially due to how we have allowed these urbanized areas to grow: letting development sprawl, creating greater distances between housing and other destinations, and forcing people to take longer and longer trips on a handful of regional highways to fulfill daily needs. We are spending We should be addressing those sources of congestion, but instead, we accept billions to widen more driving and more traffic as unavoidable outcomes that we must address through costly highway expansion. This is a significantly more expensive and roads and seeing less effective approach than reducing the need to drive or length of trips. unimpressive, And unfortunately, spending billions to expand highways can actually make unpredictable congestion worse by encouraging people to drive more than they otherwise results in return. would, a counterintuitive but well -documented phenomenon known as induced demand. Eliminating congestion is also simply the wronggoal. While severe congestion can have real negative impacts, congestion is also generally a symptom of a successful, vibrant economy —a sign of a place people want to be. Instead, we should be focused on providing and improving access. What does that mean? The core purpose of transportation infrastructure is to provide access to work, education, healthcare, groceries, recreation, and all other daily needs. Congestion can become a problem when it seriously obstructs access, but may not be a major problem if it doesn't. Car speeds don't necessarily tell us anything about whether or not the transportation network is succeeding at connecting as many people as possible to the things they need, as efficiently as possible. Yet a narrow emphasis on vehicle speed and delay underlies all of the regulations, procedures, and cultural norms behind transportation decisions, from the standards engineers use to design roads to the criteria states use to prioritize projects for funding. This leads us to widen freeways reflexively, almost on autopilot, perpetuating the cycle that produces yet more traffic. 54 THE CONGESTION CON 09 Transportation for America What needs to happen: Five policy recommendations We need to face the music: we are doubling and tripling down on a failed strategy. We cannot keep relying on the same expensive and ineffective approach. With discussions underway about the next federal transportation legislation —a process that only happens every five years —now is the critical time to make changes before we pour billions more into a solution that doesn't work. This report recommends five key policy changes, many of which could be incorporated into the upcoming transportation reauthorization: 1) Reorient our national program around access —connect people to jobs and services. The only viable way to reduce traffic is to tackle the issue at the source: bring jobs, housing, and other destinations closer together to shorten and reduce the number and length of car trips people need to take. We need to reorient our national transportation program around advancing that goal instead of focusing narrowly on vehicle speed and delay. 2) Require that transportation agencies stop favoring new roads over maintenance. Existing federal law gives states substantial flexibility in how they spend highway dollars. As a result, states continue to spend a significant portion of funding to build new roads at the expense of repair needs. These highway expansions ultimately induce yet more traffic, while simultaneously increasing the cumulative annual price tag to keep the nation's highways in good repair. Congress should require that states focus available funding on our substantial repair backlog. 3) Make short trips walkable by making them safe. Wide, high- speed roads force people to drive for even very short local trips. When local streets —not just highways —are designed to move We need to face the music: we are doubling and tripling down on a failed strategy. We cannot keep relying on the same expensive and ineffective approach. vehicles at the highest speed possible, it denies people the healthy and affordable option to bike or walk. The 2020 transportation reauthorization should include a policy that roads surrounded by development be designed for speeds of 35 mph or under to create safer conditions for walking and biking. 4) Remove restrictions on pricing and allow DOTS to manage congestion. Instead of treating congestion as a foregone conclusion and spending billions of dollars trying to mitigate it —focusing solely on increasing supply —we should be putting policies in place to help manage demand for driving. 5) Reward infill development and make it easier for localities. Developing on the fringes of urban areas results in a preventable "need" to expand roads to accommodate additional traffic. Yet we are essentially rewarding sprawl when we use limited transportation dollars to try to fix the congestion that results over the longer term. We should instead be orienting transportation funding to reward localities that seek more efficient ways of moving people —by bringing destinations closer together through land use decisions, managing driving demand, and making it easier to travel by other modes. IJ 55