Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA E08-009 - CITY OF TUKWILA - WALK AND ROLL PLAN SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
WALK & ROLL PLAN 4242 S 144TH ST [08-009 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials ------------------------- Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor i review Council review 01/12/09 JR ,_../-L-4-4- / 01/20/09 JR ❑ Resolution Mtg Date r- ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date C.\'1.1?(iORY ►1 Discussion ►1 Ordinance ►1 Public Hearing Mtg Date Mtg Date 1/20/09 Mtg Date 07/21/08 ITEM INFORMATION ITEM NO. CAS NUMRk?It: 09... 005 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: JANUARY 12, 2009 AnI;ND,\ I'rr,MTrILr Walk & Roll Plan 1/12/09 ❑ Motion Mtg Date ❑ Resolution Mtg Date ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date C.\'1.1?(iORY ►1 Discussion ►1 Ordinance ►1 Public Hearing Mtg Date Mtg Date 1/20/09 Mtg Date 07/21/08 Si( )NSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Adm Svcs ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ Legal ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW ►1 DCD SI)()NS( )It'S This item was previously discussed at multiple Council Committees and at the July 14, SUM .tARY 2008 Committee of the Whole meeting, and a Public Hearing was conducted on July 21, 2008. The Council is being asked to prioritize items on the list of non -motorized capital facilities and review the ordinance for the Walk & Roll Plan (the non -motorized transportation plan) and complete streets policies. RI W I I .,U'I .0 BY n COW Mtg. ❑ CA&P Cmte ❑ F&S Cmte Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks DATE: Transportation 5/28, 6/10, 11/12, 11/25, /1 Transportation Cmte Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. 12/9/08; CAP 6/9/08 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. COMMITTEE Adoption of ordinance and approval of capital facilities list Unanimous Approval by Transportation Com.; Forward to C.O.W. COST IMPACT/ FUND SOURCE EXPI',NDITURP. REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $200,000/year $200,000/year $ Fund Source: GENERAL FUND Conzinents: This item is listed as Walk & Roll (the non -motorized transportation plan) on page 42 in the CIP, MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 7/14/08 Discussion 7/21/08 Public Hearing was conducted 1/12/09 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 1/12/09 Informational memorandum dated 1/7/09, with Attachments and draft Ordinance Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/9/08 Minutes from the Transportation Committee meetings of 5/28/08, 6/10/08, 11/12/08, 11/25/08, 12/09/08 (Members of the Transportation Committee from 2008 should bring their copies of the Draft Walk and Roll Plan distributed previously) City qf Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard ® Tukwila, Washington 98188 Jim Haggerton, Mayor Memorandum To: Mayor Haggerton From: Jack Pace, Community Development Director; Jim Morrow, Public Works Director Date: January 7, 2009 Subject: Walk and Roll Plan Background In April of this year, the Community Development Department issued a draft nonmotorized plan titled Walk and Roll. It was widely distributed and reviewed by the Parks and Planning Commissions and by the Transportation and Community Affairs and Parks Committees. A public hearing was held before the City Council on July 21, 2008. At the close of the three month public review period, staff organized the public comments and Council direction and began modifying the document to reflect the clarifications and requests. A draft ordinance (Attachment B) to adopt the Walk and Roll Plan and an edited version of the final mark-ups of the Plan have been prepared for your review Adoption of the Plan will: • adopt a complete streets principal for all streets within the City • modify the City's designated bicycle routes and identify bike lanes as the preferred design for specific streets; • establish a system for prioritizing sidewalk construction; • identify potential neighborhood trail locations; • create a capital facilities list of nonmotorized projects; and • create City construction standards and priorities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Issues Nonmotorized Capital Facilities List A nonmotorized capital facilities list (See exhibit in Attachment B) has been drafted that has projects listed for the following categories: paved multi -use trails, unpaved trails, bicycle facilities and sidewalks. (The list of sidewalks awaits the COW's decision.) Unlike the residential streets program, which typically includes roadway work, undergrounding, utility improvements, street lighting, etc., the anticipated sidewalk projects would be limited to just a sidewalk (with potentially a storm water component.) Page 1 of 2 01/07/2009 Phone: 206-433-1800 ® City Hall Fax: 206-433-1833 • www.ci.tukwila.wa.us 3 4 With assistance and review by the Transportation Committee, a prioritization system was created that lists the top 20 street segments on Attachment A. Given the uncertain cost of building a sidewalk ($50 — $600 a linear foot,) the Transportation Committee would like the COW to review and shorten the list of sidewalks to 10 segments. The shortened list would then be the subject of a design report that would produce a more accurate cost estimate for the CIP. The initial list of sidewalks was created using public streets without sidewalks within 1/2 mile of schools and arterial streets whose posted speed limits exceed 25 miles per hour. The top three streets, using the agreed upon rating system, are the two remaining segments of 40th/42nd Avenue S. and Interurban Avenue South. All three of these segments are identified in the City's CIP. Two other segments identified through the rating system — S. 160 St and 42 Avenue South between 160 and 164 Street are the City of SeaTac rights of way. Staff recommends the rank shown on the Attachment A. The existence of existing interim improvements and the critical path components were strongly influencing factors. Walk and Roll Plan (marked -up final) The Plan presented to you is a redlined version so that you can follow the substantive changes that have been made to the Draft in response to Council direction and public comment. Recommendation Two actions are requested of Council 1. Agree on a top 10 list of sidewalk projects to include in the nonmotorized capital facility list and 2. Forward Ordinance and Final Plan to the January 20 Regular meeting. Attachments A. Potential Sidewalk List B. Draft Ordinance C. Walk and Roll "Marked -up" Final (available separately, please bring your copies) P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\adopting Ordinance\09COWmemo112.doc Page 2 of 2 01/07/2009 Potential Sidewalk List Ratings - December 2008 P:\LongRangoP and RoKUnoidraf8Fna - Revisions\sidewalk rating sheet -LH Page 1 7. and PS&E $ budgeted for 2009-2010 Dent Way) (03-RW02: Design and , H S 144th Street (south side of street b/w i. 5P/52nd Ave S (b/w s.sae— International Blvd to Macadam Rd S) 0 Macadam Rd S (b/w S 150th Street & S :, P:\LongRangoP and RoKUnoidraf8Fna - Revisions\sidewalk rating sheet -LH Page 1 Potential Sidewalk List Ratings - December 2008 ba. `y '' a t0 )R Cl) M J R : C:„y c O a Q h O N Q to o o Q. • c<Z p sO . z, a• O iQ Q O h U cif , ' w*C o oc a) D ,....y Mo 0 O O co •C 3 y�w :r•.�FoF fo o o a� cw.w ✓ w v+ v Qf O5' !� o c' p cu ..,so Q,.' y F O .aT a Q¢�io O o N U Q oa `II o mw Q. F ° o, =a � o< y o w F a O Q o O C o Q J ftr /Q o Lh u oN F (2) 0 o U y o u •., o c .a . O g Qp a O C F C y c � O � � � o y 1 Q7Q 2))) . U ' • o .c wy O Q � k. / ft, U ri -c ' 2<ty ` wy . ra O `C Q .c O cu a 9 y c y �c ° °F F ,. y o co o O 2 c Q o O -.c v-- Q S L o Q4.' a,o o•Cc � t. c c o o a o o y my c` Qc OQN Q ph 4: C .a 8,g c ., 3 ,o oo .1° -Z' r 3 O0 Q •� !/ F - .0 F � c o 0° F c o m y cO O:44,..O Q �i QN o co c v�1�a. o o y *, . � o fp 0 zoo a fin, . .c uca o)yy° cH coO Q.y h F Q 0 c O, C�o " y o O a < ` a, oFo o :c:'°` 0)a c o) t 0 •c O c,;.„)-•" Q ch Ok ek o cr ym m .7. ¢ "- p rcr • �0 C �'. A O 0 e, 0 o `.cfg oE oc � j O U y`•_yhi _p < Q ti.O c CZ) o o c F F O U t' co y z,. F -- o ti C 0 o 2Q \ �, cu 0 c U-. 8 a ' a a L w o a Q ti t Uo 4 Klickitat Dr ( b/w 53 AV. S. & SR 518 there is a separated walkway from 53 `�� Ave S to Tukwila's Urban Center on the southwest side of the street) Limited Access WSDOT ROW & will require special permission 1, 0 0 0 0 0 10 25 0 10 0 4 0 i 1 3 rt' 0 3 ptt 46th Ave S (b/w S 144 St. and S. 148 St.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 4 ti. 0 3 H 47th Ave S (north of S 146th Street) dead end street potential private frontage improvements - 0 0 0 0 0 0 H Macadam Road S/ S. 135 St./ 42 Avenue S. (b/w S 144th Street &s Interurban AV S; small segments of sidewalks are provided on one side of the street)) a' 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 : 25 0 10 4 4 4 0 3 S = H Balancing Factors Geographic balance — Does the project improve the balance of sidewalk funding to be spent among geographic sectors of the City? Cost/opportunities — If it is a high-priority project, are there grant opportunities available? Can the project be timed to coincide with other CIP projects making implementation more efficient? Previous commitments — Has a commitment been made to complete a project? Community interest — Is there significant community support for the project? Interim improvements -- P - partial; H - one side; B - both sides Safety/Hazard - Are there significant safety or hazard concerns? Critical Path - Is the segment critical because it bridges significant barriers? P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\sidewalk rating sheet -LH Page 2 ATTACHMENT B AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE WALK AND ROLL PLAN — THE CITY'S NON -MOTORIZED FUNCTIONAL PLAN — AND ADOPTING COMPLETE STREETS PRINCIPLES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTWE DATE. WHEREAS, a plan and guiding principles and practices are needed so that transportation improvements are planned, designed and constructed to allow and encourage walking, bicycling and transit use while promoting safe operations for all users; and WHEREAS, City policy, as stated in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, is to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use as enjoyable modes of transportation, that are safe, convenient and widely available for all people; and WHEREAS, the City engaged in a multi-year planning process that involved residents; employees; employers; bicycle organizations;, transportation demand management groups; adjacent cities; the Washington State Department of Commerce, Trade, and Economic Development; and the Tukwila Parks and Planning Commissions; and WHEREAS, a Complete Streets guiding principle is to design, operate and maintain Tukwila's rights of way to promote safe and convenient access and travel for all users — pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people of all abilities and ages, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers; and WHEREAS, adherence to Complete Streets principles will result in a more equitable transportation system by providing for all transportation users; and WHEREAS, other jurisdictions and agencies nationwide, including the U.S. Department of Transportation; numerous state transportation agencies; and the cities of San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Boulder, Kirkland, Issaquah, Seattle and Portland have adopted Complete Streets legislation; and WHEREAS, the Tukwila Department of Public Works will implement a Complete Streets policy by designing, operating and maintaining the transportation network to improve travel conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, automobiles and freight in a manner consistent with, and supportive of, the surrounding community; and WHEREAS, transportation improvements will include an array of facilities and amenities that are recognized as contributing to Complete Streets, including: street and sidewalk lighting; pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements; access improvements for freight; compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; public transit facilities accommodation including, but not limited to, pedestrian access improvement to transit stops and stations; street trees and landscaping; drainage; and street amenities; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila's Department of Public Works will implement policies and procedures with the construction, reconstruction or other changes of transportation facilities on arterial streets to support the creation of Complete Streets, C\Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \ MSDATA \ Ordinances \ Walk and Roll Plan.doc MB:ksn 1/8/2009 Page 1 of 3 9 10 including capital improvements, re-channelization projects and major maintenance, recognizing that all streets are different and in each case user needs must be balanced; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1783 authorizes the City of Tukwila Public Works Department to create and amend standards for the design and construction requirements of public facilities, including street improvements; and WHEREAS, the Complete Streets principles are an important component in implementing the Tukwila Walk and Roll Plan, the non -motorized plan for the City; and WHEREAS, a Capital Facilities list, attached hereto as Exhibit B, prioritizes implementation of the non -motorized projects identified within the Walk and Roll Plan; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on July 21, 2008 to consider comments on the draft Walk and Roll Plan; and WHEREAS, an environmental analysis was conducted in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act and a Determination of Non -significance was issued on September 22, 2008; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City's non -motorized transportation plan - the Walk and Roll Plan - is hereby adopted, is fully incorporated herein and attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 2. The Bicycle Friendly Routes map in the Walk and Roll Plan shall replace the "Category 1" map in the City's adopted Transportation Plan. Section 3. The City's "Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards" shall be revised to contain infrastructure design and a hierarchical decision- making design process as outlined in the Walk and Roll Plan. Section 4. Tukwila's Public Works Department will plan for, design and construct all new City transportation improvement projects to provide appropriate accommodation for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and persons of all abilities, while promoting safe operation for all users, as provided for below. Section 5. Tukwila's Public Works Department will incorporate Complete Streets principles into: the department's Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards, Transit Plan, Walk and Roll Plan, Transportation Plan and other plans, manuals, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate. Section 6. Because freight is important to the basic economy of the City and has unique right-of-way needs to support that role, freight will continue to be accommodated on appropriate corridors within the City. Complete Street improvements may also be considered that are consistent with freight mobility. Section 7. Except in unusual or extraordinary circumstances, Complete Streets principles will not apply: 1. to ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition (e.g., mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair and surface treatments such as chip seal, or interim measures on detour or haul routes); 2. where other comparable means are available to more effectively support the users; C:\Documents and Settings\All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \ MSDATA \ Ordinances \ Walk and Roll Plan.doc MB:ksn 1/8/2009 Page 2 of 3 3. where factors indicate an absence of current and future need; 4. where inclusion would be contrary to public safety; 5. where cost would be excessively disproportionate to the probable future use or need; and 6. where establishment would violate Comprehensive Plan policies and the Walk and Roll Plan. Section 8. The Walk and Roll Plan and Complete Streets may be achieved through single projects or incrementally through a series of smaller improvements or maintenance activities over time. It is the Mayor and City Council's intent that all sources of transportation funding be drawn upon to implement Complete Streets. The City believes that maximum financial flexibility is important to implement this plan in accordance with Complete Streets principles. Section 9. The most recent versions of the Transportation Plan and the Parks and Open Space Plan are hereby amended to include the Walk and Roll Plan, which shall supplement the capital facility projects identified in those respective plans. The projects identified in the plan may be implemented through Parks and Open Space funding. Section 10. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2009. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Office of the City Attomey Ordinance Number: Attachment: Walk and Roll Plan - Exhibit A Capital Facilities List - Exhibit B C:\Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \ MSDATA \ Ordinances \ Walk and Roll Plan.doc MB:ksn 1/8/2009 Page 3 of 3 11 Nonmotorized Capital Facility List 9nna - 2n12 o eL Project Title CIP Page # a eFaItLe — � & m &' �:m$7i .. Bicycle Routes Design Report 50 0 - $150,000 42 Bicycle Route Signage $50,000 42 Bike Lanes - Tukwila International BL (TIB) Phase 4 (116 St - BAR) 90-RW05 56 Bike Lanes - TIB Phase 2 & 3 (95-RW03 & 95-RW04) (S. 138 St. - S. 116 St.) East Marginal Way (EMW) north City limits to Interurban Ave. S. (89-RW05 partial) 52 Boeing Access Road - S. Ryan Way (partially construct as part of bridge replacement) $25,000 34 42 AV S. from S. 160 Str. To EMW S. 112 St - Green River to EMW S 115 St/42 Av. S./Macadam Rd. S/ 51 Av. S./Klickitat S 125 St - 50 Place S. S 130 St. - Macadam Rd. S. to Military Rd. S. 37 Av S/ 135 St. - TIB to Military Rd. S. 144 St. S. TIB to Macadam Rd. S. S 160 St 52 Av S/53 Av S / Macadam Rd S Southcenter BL - 53 Av. S to Green River Trail (04 -RW -06) $0 60 "S" and "T" Line Bridges and Tukwila Parkway Andover Park East Baker BL S 168 St. (Pond Drive) (84-RW08) $0 62 Minkler BL S 180 St Orillia Rd (expand/improve existing bike facilities) S 200 St. (expand/improve existing bike facilities) �.�_ . Ls West Marginal Plan (extend Green River Trail to northern limits of PAA) Duwamish Riverbend Hill to Airport Way Two Rivers Trail Connector $23,000 17 Southcenter BL to 51 Av S. Railroad Spur: Interuban trail through Southcenter West Bank Green River Trail extension south of S 180 St. •+'' ��r * {at-I���s+. �Q� �%{3 � 'a a ultj � ails (9 �. � Cascade View Neighborhood $37,166 13 McMicken Neighborhood $37,166 13 Riverton & Foster Neighborhood $37,166 13 Ryan Hill, Allentown & Duwamish Neigborhoods $37,166 13 1 12 •tditierr13 Nonmotorized Capital Facility List 2009 2012 2 13 Throndyke Neighborhood $37,166 13 Tukwila Hill Neighborhood $37,166 13 gi arm fi € Sidewalk Design Report and PS&E 2 13 Community Affairs & Parks Committee Minutes June 9, 2008 — Pape 2 C. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Staff summarized and provided a brief overview of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments annual review process. One application has been submitted for the City's consideration. The application is seeking to redesignate a portion of land from single-family residential (LDR) to medium density residential (MDR) near 152XX 65th Avenue South. Staff is seeking full Council determination of whether or not to forward the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Committee requested staff make some corrections in the analysis section of the informational memo clarifying the accuracy of residential density designation of surrounding properties. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 14 DISCUSSION. D. Draft Walk and Roll Plan This item was brought forth to the Community Affairs & Parks Committee as information only; the Transportation Committee will serve as the recommending committee for full Council action. Staff provided an overview of the draft Walk and Roll Plan which was previously distributed to Council. The following six recommend actions were highlighted as tools for building a connected non -motorized transportation network in Tukwila: 1. Adopt Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs - Upgrade/update design standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 2. Designate and Adopt Bicycle Friendly Routes - Update the City's Non -Motorized Transportation Plan. 3. Continue Construction of Neighborhood Links -Prioritize unimproved rights-of-way. 4. More than the Minimum for Pedestrian Safety - Include extra details for improving walkability designs. 5. Railbanking - Use of abandoned railroad spurs for trails. 6. Biking and Walking Programs - Provide education, promotion and participation in such programs. The draft Plan is currently available on the City's website, and staff has been gathering suggestions from the public as well as the City's Planning Commission. Additional review of the Plan will take place at the Transportation Committee meeting scheduled for June 10, 2008. INFORMATION ONLY. III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjoumed at 6:30 p.m. Next meeting: Monday, June 23, 2008 - 5:00 p.m. - Conference Room #3 Committee Chair Approval M nutes by KAM. 14 Transportation Committee Minutes May 28, 2008 — Page 2 Staff also reported that the condemnation notification process has changed, and several new requirements have been placed on the party seeking acquisition (which in this instance is the City). In response to a general inquiry from the Committee, staff reported that this project was delayed for a time due to design issues and discussions with property owners. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NNE 9 COW FOR DISCUSSION. C. Annual Concurrency Model Update — Contract with Fehr & Peers/Mirai for Model Update Staff is seeking full Council approval to enter into a consultant agreement with Fehr & Peeers/Mirai in the amount of $32,453 for transportation modeling services. This consultant agreement will conduct transportation analysis and update the City's Transportation Model and ensure that the City is meeting the needs of the Concurrency Management Program. Current development throughout the City requires that model be updated annually to reflect the needs of the City. As a side note, staff reported that effective June 1, 2008, Mirai will merge with Fehr & Peers. Mirai has provided some of the City's past modeling services (2002, 2006 and 2007). UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JUNE 9 COW FOR DISCUSSION. D. Annual Concurrency Model Update — Contract with Traffic Data Gathering for Traffic Counts As an information only item which ties into the previous agenda item, staff reported that the City is entering into an agreement with Traffic Data Gathering. This agreement will provide services related to traffic counts. Staff has eliminated and added count locations (i.e.: do to congestion, etc.) which need to be updated as well as intersection, turning and 24-hour volume counts. Any substantial/notable changes in traffic counts will return to the Committee for presentation at a later time. INFORMATION ONLY. E. Interurban Avenue South Pavement Repair — Contract Acceptance and Closeout Staff is seeking full Council approval for project completion, contract acceptance and authorization to release retainage for the Interurban Avenue South Pavement Repair which was completed on March 25, 2008. The final cost of the project was $30,655.94, which includes a $2,081.94 overrun as a result of an increase in the amount of asphalt concrete pavement needed to complete the project. This project bid award originally came to Committee on January 15, 2008. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JUNE 2 CONSENT AGENDA. F. Review of Draft Walk & Roll Plan Staff provided a general overview of the draft Walk and Roll Plan which was distributed to Council approximately three weeks ago. The draft Plan is currently available on the City's website, and staff has been gathering suggestions from the public as well as the City's Planning Commission. A brief history of the Plan's formulation was given, including information about the grant through Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development which was awarded to the City in 2006 to develop a City-wide non -motorized plan exclusive to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Once adopted, this will be a functional plan which will be utilized as a guide to assist in project prioritization as well as grant applications. The intent of the Plan is to build on what is currently in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan regarding the building and establishment of the connectivity of pedestrian and bicycle routes. This connectivity can be implemented in three ways: • Through private construction • Through public projects • Through public/private partnerships Committee members reviewed a portion of the Plan and offered the following suggestions for incorporation: • Address needs of shoppers and encourage walkability between stores • Look at school bus policies in relation to connectivity/walkability :Af Transportation Committee Minutes May 28, 2008 - Page 3 • Identify, provide and list potential Council actions items that can be done to assist with and support the Plan • Consider future projects within the Plan to be managed in a way similar to the City's Small Drainage Program The Committee was unable to complete review of the Plan and has requested staff return on June 10 to continue review. RETURN TO JUNE 10 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. III. ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements. IV. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m. Next meeting: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 — 5:00 p.m. — Conference Room 1 PS Committee Chair Approval Minutes by KAM. Reviewed by GL. 16 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes June 10, 2008 - 5:00 p.m. — Conference Room #1 City of Tukwila Transportation Committee PRESENT Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Dennis Robertson and De' Sean Quinn Staff: Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Robin Tischmak, Bob Giberson, Gail Labanara, Moira Bradshaw, and Kimberly Matej CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. L PRESENTATIONS No presentations. H. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Boeing Access Road Bridge Grant Application Staff is requesting approval from the Transportation Committee to submit a grant application to the Federal Highway Bridge Program for partial funding to replace the Boeing Access Road Bridge. There is a required 20% local match for funded projects. The grant application is due June 30. This is the first time in approximately three years that new grant funding has been available for bridges through this program. Submitting an application will allow the City to gauge our competitive rank status as well as identify our need for bridge replacement with the Federal Highway Bridge Program. Committee members expressed concern regarding the budget constraints of identifying local match funds which are approximated at $4 million if the grant is successful. As a result of a detailed discussion, the Committee determined that this request should be forwarded to full Council for discussion. Committee members believe that the number of considerations for this project as well as the respective policy level decisions that may need to be made make this a most prudent discussion and decisions for the Council. Additionally, the Committee has requested detailed information regarding the bridge replacement project being discussed, including but not limited to: identified problem statement, historical bridge information, critical rank for bridge use and repair, regional importance, funding options and priority among other City projects. This information is crucial in order for full Council to discuss this request and reach a decision. Committee would also like to see a memo from Interim Finance Director, Bob Noland, stating his financial opinion on this matter. In closing, Committee Chair Linder stated that she would like to meet with Jim Morrow next week to review the information being forwarded to full Council. FORWARD TO NNE 23 COW FOR DISCUSSION. B. Review of Draft Walk & Roll Plan (continued from May 28 Transportation Committee) Staff and Committee members continued conducting a broad review of the draft Walk & Roll Plan from the May 28 Transportation Committee meeting. In addition to making some smaller scale suggestions, the )K- Committee recommends the following significant modifications: 1. Addition of a seventh Recommended Action (see pages 8-9 of the draft document) creating a dedicated CIP fund for the Walk & Roll Plan. 2. Research alternative presentation options for maps included in that Plan that will be easier to view and interpret. 17 Transportation Committee Minutes June 10, 2008 - Page 2 3. Revise Plan to reference all school districts that serve City residents, including schools that are not within the physical Tukwila city limits. Several schools located outside of the City services local residents (i.e.: South 160 - McMicken Heights, 42nd - all the way through, Ryan Hill area). 4. Require pedestrian connections between adjacent properties and along commercial building fronts for increased walkability within the Tukwila Urban Center. The Council will be able to compare the entire original 'draft document to all recommended changes prior to approving the Plan for adoption. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 14 COW FOR DISCUSSION. III. ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements. W. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Next meeting: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 5:00 p.m. - Conference Room 1 tS 1- Committee Chair Approval Minutes by KAM. Reviewed by GL & MB. 18 City of Tukwila Transportation Committee TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes November 12, 2008 - 5:00 p.in. — Conference Roont #1 **Wednesday Meeting due to Holiday PRESENT Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Dennis Robertson and Verna Griffin (filling in for De'Sean Quinn) Staff: Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Peter Lau, Mike Mathia, Gail Labanara, Lisa Verner, Moira Bradshaw, Jaimie Reavis, Jon Harrison Guests Chuck Parrish CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. East Marginal Way Fiber Interconnect Project Bid Award This project will use surplus overlay funds to install vaults, conduit and junction boxes to interconnect the traffic signals on East Marginal Way South. Once all of the facilities are installed, the future overlay project will be much easier to complete. We are trying to include miscellaneous conduit work with overlay work. Dennis asked that if the overlay fund is not sufficient, then why are we using these funds on an interconnect project. In this case, the surplus was unexpected and we did not have a road segment designed to overlay in this limited time period. This conduit work is also not as weather sensitive as an overlay project. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVERMBER 17 REGULAR DUE TO TThIE CONTRAINTS. B. Sound Transit Street Vacation Ordinance Sound Transit has requested a time extension on this final street vacation at 35''' Ave S to April 30, 2009. Jim Morrow reported that with a street vacation, the property is split in half to the abutting property owners. In this case it would be Sound Transit and WSDOT. WSDOT would like the land donated to them. We have informed Sound Transit to work out the street vacation with WSDOT as Sound Transit facilities have been built on entire parcel. Pam Linder requested an updated memo with all of the Sound Transit street vacations listed in a chart. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION. C. Summary of State Auditor's Performance Audit on Impact Fees Jim Morrow reported that staff had just attended classes regarding the I-900 initiative that authorized the State Auditor to complete performance audits to determine leading or best practices. One of these audits included impact fees. There were five recommendations on traffic impact fees and Tukwila currently has four of these practices in place. The only recommendation lacking is incorporating a tracking system with the Finance Depailment. As the City incorporated traffic impact fees in 2005, Pam Linder asked what the public's comments have been regarding the process and the fees. Jim stated that there have been no complaints regarding the traffic impact fees as the developers are easily able to determine the cost of their potential traffic impact fees on any new development. INFORMATION ONLY. D. Walk and Roll Plan Update Jaimie Reavis summarized the significant changes including the comments from the State Community Trade •X and Economic Development and Transportation Departments. There was agreement that when the Council chooses a new source of funding that a percentage of that new revenue should be dedicated to projects from the Plan. A question was asked about bike facilities from Klickitat into Southcenter and along Southcenter Plcwy. Staff responded that Southcenter Pkwy isn't a regional route for commuters and that it acts as a 19 Transportation Committee Minutes November 13. 2008 — Page 2 20 destination. Southcenter Pkwy in particular is dangerous for cyclists because of the large number of driveways and high vehicle volumes. Staff also responded that a "Complete Streets" policy is being recommended in response to the comments received. A complete streets practice directs that infrastructure designs accommodate all classes of users: pedestrians, trucks, buses, bicyclists and cars whenever feasible and practical. The Bicycle Route Map was distributed and the routes were discussed. Staff said the priority for the CIP fund for the Plan will be to conduct an engineering study to assess what bicycle facilities could be installed on each of the routes. Moira Bradshaw reviewed a draft sidewalk prioritization system. Council thought that there was too much emphasis in the point system given to commercial streets. Council reworked the point system to increase points for sidewalks adjacent to schools and parks and libraries etc. Staff reported that they would be bringing back a marked up version of the Plan to the November 25th Transportation Committee Meeting. MIi FORMATION ONLY. III. ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements. IV. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. NextC meeting: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 — 5:00 p.m. — Conference Room 1 �SV Committee Chair Approval Minutes by GL, reviewed by JM. Transportation Committee Minutes November 25, 2008 — Page 2 B. Tukwila Urban Center Access Project (Klickitat) Supplemental Agreement #2 Staff is seeking full Council approval to enter into Supplemental Agreement #2 with Macaulay and Associates for additional services relative to Local Improvement District Special Benefits Study for the Tukwila Urban Center Access Project (Klickitat). This supplemental agreement will add $25,200 to the current contract, extending the original contract amount to a cost not to exceed $142,100. This agreement will update the appraisals of over 300 properties in the urban center, hopefully leading to the resolution of some right-of-way acquisition issues. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. C. Turnover of Street Improvements by Charter Homes, Inc./Riverton Lane Development Staff is seeking full Council authorization for the Mayor to sign acceptance forms for the turnover of street improvements, street lighting, and a storm drainage system located within South 130th Street and 38th Lane South, adjacent to 3827 South 130th Street. Now that 9-Iot short plat by Charter Homes, Inc./Riverton Lane Development is complete, the developer is transferring assets of the public facilities to the City. This infrastructure will be added to City inventory, and is valued at $63,246. The public facilities/infrastructure has been constructed to City standards and has been inspected by staff. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 1 CONSENT AGENDA. D. Walk and Roll Plan Update The Committee continued to review portions of the Walk and Roll Plan. Staff distributed copies of some minor changes/updates to the document and discussed ongoing efforts to refine the Plan. Committee members were enthusiastic about and supportive of the Plan. However, the Committee did express concern that the budget monies designated for the Plan in 2009-10 might not be enough to begin implementation. This item will return to Committee on December 9 for additional review. It is anticipated that a full presentation and ordinance recommendation will be forthcoming at a January 2009 Council meeting. RETURN TO DECEMBER 9 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FOR ADDITIOANL DISCUSSION. III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Next meeting: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 — 5:00 p.m. — Conference Room,1 PSL_ Committee Chair Approval Minutes by KAM. 21 City of Tukwila Transportation Committee TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes December 9, 2008 - 5:00 p.m. — Conference Room #1 PRESENT Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Dennis Robertson and De' Sean Quinn Staff: Jack Pace, Bob Giberson, Jaimie Reavis and Moira Bradshaw CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. II. BUSINESS AGENDA Walk and Roll Plan (Nonmotorized Transportation Plan) Ordinance The Committee continued discussion of sidewalk prioritization. Staff presented a wide range of cost estimates rn that the rating ($50 — $600 a linear foot) for sidewalk cor uthat are critical linkageseover significant barriersmdid not such as S adequately address areas with walking h 178 St., and streets with heavy use such as S. 160 St. west of 42 Av. S. Staff suggested that those two items, critical links, heavy use and safety concerns could be factored in with "balancing factors," which also includes geographic parity, cost efficiencies, property owner willingness and grant success. The Committee requested that staff revise and correct mistakes on the table and list the top 15 ranked street segments for discussion with the COW. The COW could be involved in selecting the top 10 from a list of the top 15 or so. There was a discussion of the bicycle facility design report and that a similar report could be done for sidewalks so that there are better planning level cost estimates for these facilities. Chairman Linder asked Committee members if there were any issues with the draft ordinance as it is drafted. Staff suggested that the draft ordinance could be revised to add the capital facilities list. The Committee agreed that the marked up version of the Plan wouldcould be more acceptable leformat sily updated.COW UN and to ANIlVIOUS uAPPROVAL. de the Capital Facility list as a separate attachment that FORWARD TO JANUARY 12COW FOR DISCUSSION III. MISCELLANEOUS PSL- Committee Chair Approval Minutes by MB. 22 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS -Initials Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 01/12/09 KAM _4„.('�- 7yu ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date ❑ Public Hearing Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date C.V1'l(G()RY ' Discussion Mts. Date ❑ Mayor ❑ Adm Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ Legal ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW" SPC )NS()R Council Sl>( )NsOR's Council President Hernandez has requested a discussion of Council representation on SuMM.\RY regional, state and national committees, commissions and/or boards for the 2009 calendar year. RI ?\ f W!0 BY n COW Mtg. ❑ CA&P Cmte ❑ F&S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte f l Utilities Cmte ❑Arts Comm. (l Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. DA 1'E: RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. COMMPITEI! Council President ITEM NO. 3. 6• CAS NUMBER: 09_ OD(p ORIGINAL AGENDA DKA E: JANUARY 12, 2009 A(,kND,\. I'l'klyI TITLE Discussion of Council representation on regional, state and national committees, commissions and/or boards for the 2009 calendar year. 01/12/09 ❑ Motion Mtg Date ❑ Resolution Mtg Date ❑ Ordinance Mtg Date ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date ❑ Public Hearing Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date C.V1'l(G()RY ' Discussion Mts. Date ❑ Mayor ❑ Adm Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ Legal ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW" SPC )NS()R Council Sl>( )NsOR's Council President Hernandez has requested a discussion of Council representation on SuMM.\RY regional, state and national committees, commissions and/or boards for the 2009 calendar year. RI ?\ f W!0 BY n COW Mtg. ❑ CA&P Cmte ❑ F&S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte f l Utilities Cmte ❑Arts Comm. (l Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. DA 1'E: RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. COMMPITEI! Council President N/A COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPIsNDVital ; RI ,QUIRLD AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ $ Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 01/12/09 Informational Memorandum dated 01/06/09 00 City of Tukwila MEMORANDUM TO: Joan Hernandez, Council President FROM: Kimberly Matej, Legislative Analyst CC: Tukwila City Council DATE: January 6, 2009 SUBJECT: Council Representation on Regional, State and National Committees City Council Below you will find a DRAFT list of Council representation on committees, commissions and/or boards that were active during the 2008 calendar year. Since there does not appear to be a clearing house for Council participation in local organizations which do not require appointment, I have included an item entitled Miscellaneous Participation below. I am hopeful that this will assist in the discussion that you have requested of such for next week's Committee of the Whole meeting. I will update and add to this information as necessary after full Council discussion. CITY OF TUKWILA — LOCAL REPRESENTATION Firemen's Pension Board Dennis Robertson — As Chair of the Finance & Safety Committee Lodging Tax Advisory Board Joe Duffie — As Council President Equity & Diversity Commission Joan Hernandez Verna Griffin REGIONAL REPRESENTATION Cascade Water Alliance Board of Directors — Mayor's Alternate Verna Griffin Suburban Cities Association — Public Issues Committee (PIC) — Mayor's Alternate Pam Linder South King County Area Transportation Benefit District (SCATBD) Dennis Robertson — As a member of the Transportation Committee South King County Economic Development Initiative (SKEDI) Pam Linder Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Dennis Robertson NATIONAL REPRESENTATION National League of Cities (NLC) - Institute for Youth, Education & Families (YEF) Verna Griffin MISCELLANEOUS PARTICIPATION (Appointment/Designation Not Required) Chamber of Commerce Suburban Cities Association Highway 99 Action Committee Tukwila Children's Foundation Government Affairs Committee (Chamber) Tukwila Historical Society Pacific Northwest Regional Council Tukwila Pantry Puget Sound Regional Council Tukwila Rotary 25 Upcoming Meetings & Events JANUARY 2009 12th (Monday) 13th (Tuesday) 14th (Wednesday) 15th (Thursday) 16th (Friday) 17th (Saturday) > Community Affairs & Parks Cmtc CANCELLED > City Council Committee of the Whole Mtg., 7:00 PM (Council Chambers) > Utilities Cmte, 5:00 PM (CR #I) > Highway 99 Action Cmte, 7:00 PM (Community Center) > Domestic Violence Task Force, 12:00 NOON (CR #5) > Planning Commission (Work Session on the Shoreline Master Program), 6:00 PM (Council Chambers) > Tukwila Historical Society, 7:00 PM (George Long facility) Swim Clinic at Tukwila Pool Free clinic in conjunction with registration for Centennial Swim event on January 24. For more information on the Centennial Swim, see listing on January 24 (below). Free Christmas tree collection service January 12 through 16 for Allied Waste customers who subscribe to a can seryace your Pltree on the curb for collection. Trees must be ; _ �i�I!'r&e free of flocking,tinsel, ornaments and metal hangers. Call 206-682-9735 for more information. ' gi Stow... 19th (Monday) 20th (Tuesday) 21st (Wednesday) 22nd (Thursday) 23rd (Friday) 24th (Saturday) M.L. City offices ii\• King, Jr. Day closed LV 1\ > Transportation Cmte, 5:00 PM (CR #1) > City Council Regular Mtg., g 7:00 PM (Council Chambers) > Crime Hot Spots Task Force Mtg., 10:00 AM (CR #5) > Finance & Safety Cmte, 5:00 PM (CR #3) > Parks Commission, 5:30 PM (Community Center) > Library Advisory Board, 7:00 PM (Foster Library) > Planning Commission & City Council Joint Session (Land Use Training), 6:30 PM (Council Chambers) A Tukwila Centennial event: Tukwila 2.41< Centennial Swim Swim 100 lengths of the pool or water walk 100 widths of the pool. Individuals or relay teams welcome! ---°:Z49----- Hosted by Federal Way Masters Swimmers and City of Tukwila Pool. Contact Wendy at 253-838-8408 or 206-793-9391 for more information (or e-mail wendymal@mac.com). > Arts Commission: 1st Tues., 5:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Contact Stephanie Gardner at 206-767-2342. > City Council Committee of Whole (C.O.W.) Meeting: 2nd & 4th Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall. > City Council Regular Meeting: 1st & 3rd Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall. > Civil Service Commission: 1st Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room 43. Contact Bev Willison at 206-433-1844. > Community Affairs & Parks Committee: 2nd & 4th Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room #3. 1/12/09 meeting has been cancelled. > Crime Hot Spots Task Force: 3rd Wed., 10:00 AM, Conf. Room #5. Contact Phi Huynh at 206-433-7175. > Domestic Violence Task Force: 3rd Thurs., 12:00 Noon, Conf. Room 45. Contact Erie Boykan or Stacy Hansen at 206-433-7180. > Equity & Diversity Commission: 1st Thurs., 5:15 PM, Conf. Room #3. Contact Kimberly Matej at 206-433-1834. > Finance & Safety Committee: 1st & 3rd Tues., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room #3. >Highway 99 Action Committee: 2nd Tues., 7:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Contact Chief Dave Haynes at 206-433-1812. > Library Advisory Board: 3rd Wed., 7:00 PM, Foster Library. Contact Stephanie Gardner at 206-767-2342. > Parks Commission: 3rd Wed., 5:30 PM, Senior Game Room at Community Center. Contact Stephanie Gardner at 206-767-2342. > Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review: 4th Thurs., except 2nd Thursday in Nov. & Dec., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall. Contact Wynetta Birens at 206-431-3670. > Transportation Committee: 1st & 3rd Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf Room 41. > Tukwila Historical Society: 3rd Thurs., 7:00 PM (meeting location varies). Contact Pat Brodin at 206-433-1860. >Utilities Committee: 2nd & 4th Tues., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room 41. Agenda items for 1/13/09 meeting: (A) Interurban Water Reuse—Foster Golf Links Reclaimed Water Pipeline Extension Project bid award. (B) Tukwila Village Northfield Car Wash demolition bid award 27 Tentative Agenda Schedule MONTH MEETING 1- REGULAR MEETING 2 - C.O.W. MEETING 3 - REGULAR MEETING 4 - C.O.W. January 10 —New Years Day (City offices closed) 19th — M.L. King, Jr. Day (City offices closed) 5 12 See agenda packet cover sheet for this week's agenda (Januani 12, 2009 Committee of the Whole Meeting) 20 (Tuesday) Special Presentation: 26 Special Presentation Centennial media outcomes Appointment 2008 COPCAB awards to a citizen and a Police Department employee, and year-end presentation Library Advisory Board Unfinished Business: Walk & Roll Plan (Non -Motorized Transportation Plan)' ordinance February 16th — Presidents' Day (City offices closed) 2 9 17 (Tuesday) Special Presentation: 23 Seattle Southside community report March 30a, - Fifth Monday of the month—no Council meeting scheduled 2 Special Presentation 9 16 23 State of the Municipal Court COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING TO BE FOLLOWED BY A SPECIAL MEETING 28 city of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Memorandum To: Transportation Committee & Mayor Haggerton From: Jack Pace, Director Date: December 2, 2008 Subject: Walk and Roll Plan Background At the November 25, 2009 Transportation Committee meeting, staff distributed a rating sheet for sidewalk prioritization that focuses on streets without sidewalks within 1/2 mile of schools and arterials. The goal of the rating exercise is preparation of a nonmotorized capital facilities list. A critical component is planning level cost estimates for facility construction Issue Sidewalk Cost Estimates Below is a figure prepared by the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) that summarizes typical city street costs. Typical City Infrastructure Costs Today City streets are more than pavement. $47/linear foot + ADA < compliance Street $1,136/1inear foot 5189/linear foot $57t1inear foot Landscaping $133/linear foot + Phase it monitoring 0 $85/1inear foot �--� ittummation / Signatization • Utility Reincation- $284/linear foot GAS ELECTRICAL • STORM DRAINAGE WA TELECOMMUNICATIONS $852/1inear foot �— SEWER ER RIGHT OF WAY LIGHTING SIDEW•__ r • • ELECTRICAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS Purchase R.O.W. $246/linear foot Plus ongoing maintenance, preservation and operating costs. Page 1 of 2 12/03/2008 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 The total per linear foot cost of construction for the entire street section is $3,029. Sidewalks are a small portion of that overall construction cost; which the Public Works Department estimates can range from $50 to $600/linear foot depending on complexity. For example, Chairman Linder asked for the cost of installing a sidewalk along the east side of Macadam Ave. S. (Attachment A) Using the AWC typical costs, the approximate price would be $80,182. Using the $600/linear foot cost estimate, the price for construction of this sidewalk would be more than $1 million. This range demonstrates how accurate estimates, even just planning level estimates, are difficult and require additional survey and engineering work. Staff recommends that a portion of the $200,000 identified for non motorized facilities (Attachment B) be spent for the development of design recommendations and cost estimates for building bicycle facilities along the adopted Bike Friendly Routes. The information from this recommended study will be used to refine the Capital Facilities List. Staff will return to the Transportation Committee with work that refines the nonmotorized capital facilities list — both prioritization and costs - and with draft regulatory changes that are listed in the Walk and Roll Plan. Walk and Roll Plan The Plan (Attachment D) presented to you is a redlined version so that you can follow the substantive changes that have been made to the Draft in response to Council direction and public comment. Next Steps Forward the adopting ordinance for the Walk & Roll Plan (Attachment C) to the January 12 Committee of the Whole meeting. Attachments A. Macadam Av. S. sidewalk length B. 2009-2014 CIP Sheet C. Draft Ordinance D. Walk and Roll "Marked -up" Final (Please bring your copy) P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\adopting Ordinance\ 08transpocommitteememo1209.doc Page 2 of 2 12/03/2008 Macadam Rd S Missing Link Sidewalks (S 144th St - S 150th St) Macadam Missing Link Sidewalks CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2009 to 2014 PROJECT: Walk & Roll Plan (Nonmotorized Transportation Plan) LINE ITEM: 104.02.595. . .32 PROJECT NO. 07-RWO4 DESCRIPTION: Select, design, and construct non -motorized projects including bike lanes, sidewalks, and trails. Enhance bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle safety, provide missing Zink connections to the City and the region's JUSTIFICATION: non -motorized transportation network and encourage use of walking and biking as an alternative. Dependent on adoption of the Walk & Roll Plan. Walk & Roll Plan to be adopted in 2009. Funding of $60,000 is included in 2009 (with Climate funds) for a bicycle signage program. Funds will also be used for an engineering feasibility and design study for bicycle routes. STATUS: MAINT. IMPACT: COMMENT: This project is flagged as a potential project for Climate Change Initiative funds. Ongoing program, funding available as street improvement projects, new development and/or as other opportunities arise. Next update is scheduled in 2015. FINANCIAL Through Estimated in $000's 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 60 50 50 50 50 50 310 Land (R/W) 0 Const. Mgmt. 30 30 30 30 30 30 180 Construction 170 120 120 120 120 120 770 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 260 200 200 200 200 200 0 1,260 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigation Actual 0 Impact Fees 0 City Oper. Revenue 0 0 260 200 200 200 200 200 0 1,260 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 260 200 200 200 200 200 0 1,260 Attachment B 42 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE WALK AND ROLL PLAN -- THE CITY'S NON -MOTORIZED FUNCTIONAL PLAN -- AND ADOPTING COMPLETE STREETS PRINCIPLES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, a plan and guiding principles and practices are needed so that transportation improvements are planned, designed and constructed to allow and encourage walking, bicycling and transit use while promoting safe operations for all users; and WHEREAS, City policy, as stated in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, is to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use as enjoyable modes of transportation as well as safe, convenient and widely available and for all people; and WHEREAS, The City engaged in a multi-year planning process that involved residents, employees, employers, bicycle organizations, transportation demand management groups, adjacent cities, the Washington State Department of Commerce, Trade, and Economic Development, and the Tukwila Parks and Planning Commissions; and WHEREAS, a Complete Streets guiding principle is to design, operate and maintain Tukwila's rights of way to promote safe and convenient access and travel for all users -- pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people of all abilities and ages, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers; and WHEREAS, adherence to Complete Streets principles will result in a more equitable transportation system by providing for all transportation users; and WHEREAS other jurisdictions and agencies nationwide, including the U.S. Department of Transportation, numerous state transportation agencies, the cities of San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Boulder, Kirkland, Issaquah, Seattle and Portland have adopted Complete Streets legislation; and MB:ksn 12/3/2008 mmemm aura C Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS the Tukwila Department of Public Works will implement Complete Streets policy by designing, operating and maintaining the transportation network to improve travel conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, automobile and freight in a manner consistent with, and supportive of, the surrounding community; and WHEREAS transportation improvements will include an array of facilities and amenities that are recognized as contributing to Complete Streets, including: street and sidewalk lighting; pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements; access improvements for freight; compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; public transit facilities accommodation including, but not limited, to pedestrian access improvement to transit stops and stations; street trees and landscaping; drainage; and street amenities; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila's Department of Public Works will implement policies and procedures with the construction, reconstruction or other changes of transportation facilities on arterial streets to support the creation of Complete Streets including capital improvements, re-channelization projects and major maintenance, recognizing that all streets are different and in each case user needs must be balanced; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1783 authorizes the City of Tukwila Public Works Department to create and amend standards for the design and construction requirements of public facilities, including street improvements; and WHEREAS, the Complete Streets principles are an important component in implementing the Tukwila Walk and Roll Plan, the non -motorized plan for the City; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on July 21, 2008 to consider comments on the draft Walk and Roll Plan; and WHEREAS, an environmental analysis was conducted in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act and a determination of Non -significance was issued on September 22, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Walk and Roll Plan ("the Plan") is the City's non -motorized transportation plan, is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is incorporated herein by reference and is hereby adopted. Section 2. The Bicycle Friendly Routes map in the Walk and Roll Plan shall replace the "Category 1" map in the City's adopted Transportation Plan. MB:ksn 12/3/2008 Page 2 of 4 Section 3. The City's "Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards" shall be revised to contain infrastructure design and a hierarchical decision making design process as outlined in the Walk and Roll plan. Section 4. Tukwila Public Works will plan for, design and construct all new City transportation improvement projects to provide appropriate accommodation for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and persons of all abilities, while promoting safe operation for all users, as provided for below. Section 5. Tukwila Public Works will incorporate Complete Streets principles into: the Department's Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards; Transit Plan; Walk and Roll Plan; Transportation Plan and other plans, manuals, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate. Section 6. Because freight is important to the basic economy of the City and has unique right-of-way needs to support that role, freight will continue to be accommodated on appropriate corridors within the City. Complete Street improvements may also be considered that are consistent with freight mobility. Section 7. Except in unusual or extraordinary circumstances, Complete Streets principles will not apply: • to ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition (e.g., mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair and surface treatments such as chip seal, or interim measures on detour or haul routes); • where other comparable means are available to more effectively support the users; • where factors indicate an absence of current and future need; • where inclusion would be contrary to public safety; • where cost would be excessively disproportionate to the probable future use or need; and • where establishment would violate Comprehensive Plan policies and the Walk and Roll Plan. Section 8. The Walk and Roll Plan and Complete Streets may be achieved through single projects or incrementally through a series of smaller improvements or maintenance activities over time. It is the Mayor and City Council's intent that all sources of transportation funding be drawn upon to implement Complete Streets. The City believes that maximum financial flexibility is important to implement this Plan in accordance with Complete Streets principles. MB:ksn 12/3/2008 Page 3 of 4 Section 9. The most recent versions of the Transportation Plan and the Parks and Open Space Plan are hereby amended to include the Walk and Roll Plan, which shall supplement the capital facility projects identified in those respective plans. The Projects identified in the Plan may be implemented through Parks and Open Space funding. Section 10. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2008. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number: Attachment: "Exhibit A," Walk and Roll Plan P:\Long Range Projects \ Walk and Roll\adopting Ordinance\walknrolladoptingORD.DOC MB:ksn 12/3/2008 Page 4 of 4 Potential Sidewalk List Ratings - December 2008 m V 0 i 4 Q a CO w.4 1 O .0 0 (�OQ O,- O V J a co. /9. C a N Q C�F Ci mN i a S i oZ B. O h U py F Y. U C�o ac O v m o y H ) Co Q� Oy,O 4 3 �� atea \ . .: J.. O O • ^ w / i CI J. o o u,N O y C -O ma Q Nmu+Oo o m ca V J° i a o c. V 0 ..c U r - •r Qc3O p— mmo C; CD a, aU , o m ys ... ca °Um Q..... a, c m ` U�o U mQ a, aC mm vu� mr y Fai 3 y y a,° a +- O Oyy c C OFm ° cil �/ a O V F CO a—=o Or.QU .- 0 a O N Q h i 2 W J O vr,. y °F.-.9 aN Nh ,- ° .c ,ci a oro t�t_ °c 0 ° 2.,..F; y FN wCw Q. -r O -m3 a 0 .r o C ; O, ° r 2+O ° °fr o y F3 Ua 4mzoQ LU +O,°0 c r �r Qo .o° 4 —.y ' m°to c 0 r°mm�,r c ma c�a oO -1y io a , Q p° ar' mC 3 -c.--,C 0) a o° O a . r;° "1y m .6 o Q . . tF F v 3_ 0 ° °m F. m J�° Fr Oayi y 4 g..9 Q F ao 0 ` C U a Cm o tU 4 Q 0 0 e2 O'er pr O w q Q co O a i O Q 3c t! a 0 CC "y°.w ov,c ° 0. .0 h. o�v h.. li a o .a m m° t 3 a, c aFi o' 65 m�Ili emcyEf6� Q a . ,v(tca, c `° c `° o i °� .9 o..Q ; 4°FF a as my p ! O -6 a C? v c m O 0 yF • -- 9F 4 " t t?+ a, C 0 C' o o4 F.0 S 0k. ° y FU =y 9. m ao C 0/ p o )p a a m Q. •�CC U 42nd AVS (b/w S. 160 St & Southcenter Blvd) (94-RS03: Design and PS&E $ budgeted for 2009-2010 86 0 0 10 20 0 0 25 10 10 4 4 0 0 3 B Interurban AV S (b/w S 143 St. & Fort Dent Way) (03-RW02: Design and PS&E budgeted for 2012) 68 0 0 10 0 10 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 5 0 P 42/40th AV S (b/w southern end of Southgate Park & S 130th Street) (94- RS01) 66 0 0 0 20 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 0 3 P S 160th Street (b/w 42 Av S & Military Rd S) SeaTac R.O.W. 66 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 10 10 4 4 0 0 3 1 S 152nd Street (b/w TIB & 42 AV S) 64 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 10 10 0 4 0 5 0 H 42 Av S (b/w S 164 & S 160 St) SeaTac R.O.W. 63 0 0 0 20 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 0 0 H 5 S 146th Street (b/w TIB & 47 Av S) 62 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 4 5 0 P/H 6 S 144th Street (south side of street b/w TIB &51St Ave S) 60 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 4 0 3 H 51st AV S (b/w - SR 518 & S. 144 ST) (frontage improvements likely) 60 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 4 0 3 H 2 S 140th Street (b/w TIB and 46 Av S) 58 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 5 0 7 53rd/ 52nd Ave S (b/w S 139th & Interurban AV S) 58 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 5 0 P/H 8 S 130th Street (from Tukwila International Blvd to Macadam Rd S) 58 0 0 0 0 0 10 25 0 10 4 4 0 5 0 H 3 S 141St Street (b/w TIB & 42 AV S) 56 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 0 3 9 S 148 Street (b/w TIB and 46 Av S) 56 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 0 3 P/H 10 S 142nd Street (b/w TIB & 37 AV S) 56 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 0 3 H Macadam Rd S (b/w S 150th Street & S 144th Street) 56 0 0 10 0 0 0_ 25 0 10 4 4 0_ 0 3 ' H W:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\Projects, Cost Estimates, Funding, Priorities\sidewalk rating sheet-LH.xls Page 1 Potential Sidewalk List Ratings - December 2008 CQ V ca 3 a co � O 0t y t Oa R v p / c aiVJ y . y c Q a y 0 NQ. •o Q.) Qw o aOmpk. tro i a Q °. p v, � .o ca o f Q o h U N ° Fi '„a U a 0 c p p'o pc•.. J mo °tr1. , y NC) ` ` o ac� , t:x.va O ap'o p `tr 3 ai J \ 0 .a w ¢ c Q ii... ar iCU o o c. c U a mpF phia +r .3 r C %` 3° c 0 o a• N 00, vQi IIa O (II o i„, uoCi) Ca a� c_ v °c`v 4 m 3 cm0 ai 4, y a c R. o'er a ca ` m a a�Q. c U --c-C-: F ° mQ i ° ic o ar F3ra aU.eocw y (I a a QO c (t,y 0 ---s: c +- F ca m 1 a c �r Z: (2) U ,rO m v F t to CD n/ 0 C 0w a O N Q. la / i iL ..y C oU O c2 y c QF h N N ;- .co cVOV a v' � c _is a ., 0 e m `ay Q c `° r. .a,F 0, ` i , ~ �0)� 4.- o, . v.- 3 o o 3 co s o U vm— a h c' o3 .. a Qm o�m +. , o YU0j p Q i7 o Q ° co .,, ° 0 ,.p c S. t��v a z was 0-a �m 0 oQ Qo.y? er r a 0 •''. o _ ”' so � c im 0 ca S. c r8. U 0-00aD = m 00 O. v F c L. o 0 °. FQ o a o`a.� (Fo , a , oQ Q v a) 0o i cC �C p d• ° F ,F 4/o°° a O/ .= i p z, Q 0i 2 O ,w C .11 O Qwa 0o O�i cO Oi O m o Q a\ 4, a &a,o , .0 0—. ¢c) •a°�a°Q.d Qo.S 1 40 F Q n% oay v li '°)w vo u fir: 6- a 3 a ca3 `0 c , •a� 0o •y a c• -c) QC' o CD Q.) C ny c m e a ` 6- G-Qc0Fo°'o -c4R 0•9 Vt4rr.° e i a o e O m a .9. e Q ra o, OC) 0 a m. 0 Q. oC, U Q R o g a ” c F o° °.c F OEc U Q 0Q , Q F .Z, k c F o a m° 2 vf 0) 0 v� oO U a,p m ar a 8 U 4 Klickitat Dr (b/w 53 AV. S. & SR 518 -- there is a separated walkway from 53rd Ave S to Tukwila's Urban Center on the southwest side of the street) Limited Access WSDOT ROW & will require special permission 52 0 0 0 0 0 10 25 0 10 0 4 0 0 3 S 150th Street (b/w TIB and 42 AV S) 56 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 10 0 4 4 0 0 3 46t" Ave S (b/w S 144 St. and S. 148 St.) 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 4 0 3 H 47th Ave S (north of S 146th Street) dead end street potential private frontage improvements 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 H Macadam Road S/ S. 135 St./ 42 Avenue S. (b/w S 144th Street & Interurban AV S; small segments of sidewalks are provided on one side of the street)) 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 4 0 3 H S 152nd Street (south side b/w Macadam &- 58 AV S) 46 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 0 4 4 0 0 3 59th AV S (b/w S 149 ST and S 142 ST) missing segments 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 0 3 44th Ave S (b/w S 142th & S 137th Streets) missing segments 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 0 3 S 133 St (b/w Military Rd S. & 32 Av S) 43 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 S.164 ST. b/w 51 Av S and Military 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 0 0 43rd Ave S (north of S 142nd Street) 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 4 0 0 0 52nd Ave S (north of 142 AV S) dead end 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 10 4 0 4 0 0 S 149th Street (b/w 56 AV S. & 57 AV. S.) 42 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 25 0 10 4 0 0 0 3_ W:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\Projects, Cost Estimates, Funding, Priorities\sidewalk rating sheet-LH.xls Page 2 Potential Sidewalk List Ratings - December 2008 * m V. vi i a a !a : co /.. ry o Qc ., -sr reNo ,- -c ° / Q : a , co' c o a Q. k Uv RI U'U \ 0 O ° O .2 a . O i` Q o h U « �, F F o.o U 4o`R 0 a °'"oR ." .m , y.'tr tia. °c �...c,c O S o oo)o,o ►. � , a o .a o C° Q� ,.N ia 1 i U0 N c C 0 ULZT- aF ••h% m ~ ppN .c o oi) COaog• U r oO o y o C or ar U ai ry a o U pry U UR1m '. <0 oa) ¢�aa) iv cra ,y as v a U (Er co toi) Cm s ` o ° a Ua ca7QQ! Cb U eCt oa r` v� o o-=-Yo y a) a ra) cCr,r Q o y o c a0NN *-Erg 0 0^ i s cb m U c F C. 0) N 0yi 0 c a RQo r O1 0yw �O a .- 4 NO. / i rQ i S. o r co . rr\o),�or cF a N p aim VU w•. (17 CO' v rm o.- z --(1,--g c o Q. , (Dal,- ,►.� , a a .O U oa: w3 co.� ` 3 ° a) r ° 0 U C oFcaaa F:c y ° .. . U 3w a c m ro OU ,•° o - o 0 O o0 i' -c .'_ � p UU47 c s ° � ar oa a Oo Q a Qp.5 v c a 0)` c ad' c 0 c Z+ ai V C U c i) O�)m.c r U .�? o 00 Q -• r F F e ,- c cc 3o 0 oO...t2- 0. Fa o . u, F° oo a w a) ,¢oo a F a. o `^ -� °e Z Zr .. fr O .r „C U '/oacco a co ` 4 a o N2 ,,. Oi cc°O 40 to z e� 0) 0 0U0Q GIP o ) oa Q a / c..a ' .cc y c .0 yc ° °aO Q 'v, a h F Qo 0 li ). a a r ar GO ° 3a F3 co cy y °V c � °)mt :c - o Q. k k a) c� co (ti 0 h o °w N ` o GO L0 2 R 4c a co 'c y 4 CO a Q� -`� 3 O Qr. o R! o o a U ( a o? . o 4 � o U 0 -QF oU co o a ca. ? C F 0 :- c � f o U r Cl.F R' iF o c U w c Q ay'a ° m 4 N 2 Z N.. a C F U ° 'p j aQ) c w Q°0:7 iQ U 32 Av S (b/w S 135 & S 130 ST) 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 4 4 4 0 3 S. 129th/S. 124th Streets (b/w eastern City limits & 42nd Ave S) 39 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 5 0 115th Street (area in front of future Duwamish/Riverbend Hill Park) 39 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 10 0 4 0 5 0 S. 135 St. (b/w Military and 32 Av S) ( 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 4 4 0 0 3 Segment of Tukwila International Blvd from SR -599 to East Marginal WY) 33 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 4 4 5 0 S 150th Street (east of 46th AV S) 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 16 Av S (b/w South Park Bridge and 32 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 4 4 4 0 0 West Valley Highway west edge (S 180th Street to southern City limits) 31 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 4 4 0 3 East Marginal Way (b/w S 112th Street & Boeing Access Rd) missing 31 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 4 4 0 3 Southcenter Parkway (south of S 180th Street) 31 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 4 4 0 3 West side of Interurban Ave S (b/w 1-5 & Macadam Rd S) 31 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 4 4 0 3 S 132 St (east of 32 Av S) 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 , S 178th Street (from Southcenter Parkway west to City limits) 27 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 Minkler BL (b/w Andover Park West & Industry DR) 26 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 4 4 0 3 S 133`d Street (b/w S 130 ST & 24 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 4 0 0 0 53rd Ave S (b/w S. 144th ST & 139th Street) 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 5 0 Boeing Access Road (minimal, 2' sidewalks are on one side of this street) 21 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 3 W:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\Projects, Cost Estimates, Funding, Priorities\sidewalk rating sheet-LH.xls Page 3 Potential Sidewalk List Ratings - December 2008 C co a i° O. got CD aJ a Ca Q msj .1 O ► C O a RQ t F. VcY .O a h !-, w •ced o ac.a to O cy Q • OE. C)) py v co cajid •. o O hi+v ° o f Q O h U I. 0 a /U/ m ° .0 , oa hrcH „ .ca�°y o cc 4 j O 0 O 0)-o E � a c ... a wL 0 1a *.- 0 'a i h i$0 Om/i;/h/ 0c c a) UU m i. o -ro w0 oC.— Q ° O% Q N cu h,• o a s CO hN o U ; F c �° m 0) •,,-? CC a w (rico •S 71-1 � om Q O i h Q 0 a ac m a 0 r` v,o,. a3mR° o h U •c v a wi° occa8. CO Q°C O ,-• F ca 0 ca C N? C o i '� CO a CD a :9* ar h a h O ni Q CO 1. +.p CD Q .h. •c o Q y N N I. Y�F m c gly UZ• U r CI m 1 m cco � 2` arF ., N cc°y o -.c Q ,- p ca o v c ` c y °C " , o Fca F c 3rh c+Ua o 6 o Q ro m O S- U *- o r 3 k. 0 o Ca+iOC0 aVp o c o) i , ar »o,N ., . o.,r,0c Q ca Q p. h err a °'- p `a° . C ro a a O s ry 3 0 h° o 0 Q •� et F '\ 3 p Q Fap.4, Q o orcm4�hCOF F c co h h o43 Q Q s et 0 oo `.. -Zs c Fc aJ o C� -• coh. h c +• Za! M o= O "' h Q F •p h 00 i co, O b ac r c . roh0V coy .c°cS o a Q. ay h F Q m co c UO o Fr c ' CD COCO v ° o .4, .a a N m aF3 °i c.�a c pQr c.°r 0 Q .:0 Q X k co 0 0 `°c `a Fc ° N 0 o D r•... 4. Rv h R a) m a- O O a) C Q o> O 0 0 al p Q h O U c p .o i a CO c ai F v° p r c F F o U a Om c F F - , —c 17) 0 CO Q v piQ m c0 F 0v 0IC3: a aO a LID- m 0. Q -- o U S 112th Street (b/w river and EMW) 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 4 4 0 3 MLK Way (Boeing Access Rd south to City limits) 13 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Southcenter Blvd (b/w TIB and I -5) -- sidewalks currently under construction 0 0 W:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\Projects, Cost Estimates, Funding, Priorities\sidewalk rating sheet-LH.xls Page 4 Potential Sidewalk List Ratings - December 2008 o i Cr a Cx m .. ► OoQo0.o l V o J .e. kO O a Cw ny oCa a Qc , N U- oF � �' c C.) 0m 0 J ` m o h'.• 0 u -. i F m• U eo a c c j .9, . 0)c .qtr Zo yN -C • Qi c� o 0 40) y 0 cQN 3 o o o tr o .b ti a w..S0oy y t c i a C o �-0� Uaa ., oNa" �,+. ''w°' yS,a cma o 0.�a o a Q. m h o c O h ro/c v o -- c oc, o U F o3or caa �rQ h+t' C 0 c o Q� �ca� o c 0 Q c c` I a h COk. C c c cC4. ai �Q ro E. o �, U a c carCL O ar �, FC cg, e N �i o' 4CQu U •cm y a w 0r m 41 C �.ao`o o �CIP � Qca 4 co o c O F ca N Q m ... Coromo:�v. 4 F u) •- c NcVoRT 2 c w o am w Q. i v 0,._,.. 0- . wr.N Oi _o — c o.,- o •� .� 3 a .0 0 � 3c• iQ ° c°?r. 0 0 r o o F•c - ♦-03h a ��o.r 4mm o:Q o o c 3 i0 C. _ co 7---, ." oc o „Lo�2o3, — h g coyo` u R4 ai w_ 0o . , c�cR1 y 0 a 0 .� v r a of °',c C h 33 ;c c 0 i 00 u c .a r° 0 h.o ...°o 0 0 a •; v w k. o a Co'c F o io h F� 'i�si .- ° c Qi a F et. 0 o `! 8-` u CL) c p a . ' oU Qr c d fio'°,.� m 2 0 d t=o co Q O 'co Q Cco =va 0 FaO o) o .4c ,c:' ° Q 0o�r a b a c co h �•h c.c yr 0tea Q. •, aj to F o_ 0 Ci � v F.- c o) c 0. 0 °L o ..1c .3,, ar 0O o o ac aai F 0) �.�a c ",p0, amc o 0t,• Q. k o a, c cry c m a h o h -. hm Cb r 0 aow 28 ra m 3 4C. •� e. C I.Q 0 W m O C1 a .-� 3 to Q. o0 o 0 cEOm m 0r Q 0. o U .g, c 0 o a' Q o Fa F c �,Q 0 c f o U t. c � .F �i , \�,Q c . H 2Q.� .,, � 0 U ca ar o c a U .a a m u< .�Q c BALANCING FACTORS Geographic balance — Does the project improve the balance of sidewalk funding to be spent among geographic sectors of the City? Cost/opportunities — If it is a high-priority project, are there grant opportunities available? Can the project be timed to coincide with other CIP projects making implementation more efficient? Previous commitments — Has a commitment been made to complete a pro'ect? Community interest — Is there significant community support for the project? • Interim improvements -- P - partial; H - one side; B - both sides Safety/Hazard - Are there significant safety or hazard concerns? Critical Path - Is the segment critical because it bridges significant barriers? - - --- ----- • -- W:\Long Range Projects\Walk and RoII\Projects, Cost Estimates, Funding, Priorities\sidewalk rating sheet-LH.xls Page 5 Potential Sidewalk List Ratings - December 2008 V` 0 L . a)) U Q 0 c ny Hill' k, a ~O o , `°c 03 0 w Oi y N G •c ct O �` C O) N Q. h Q.0 ,O 03 0 o` 'Cr b o `II 0 U O / c i U / a o CCorr 0 Q CO c F c U O N U ar Uo0) 030' 0 0 0 N 0 .) a) ----/ -c- CCQ. 0 o o Nca 0 �O Q j y i I ate) C. 0 UaC. ir a7 Q .516 o � � N 0 0 i Q o R caa) a • C Q. o ON/ F m NO. N 0 0 a) U • O ,w 0 ,C a az C �/ di .07 J [h mai / y Oi cs m 2/h sQ. c m a 0 0 o o o r 0.,,o 0 a) 0 a�F3� CO `a 0 0 w o CL1 P) 0 0 W:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\Projects, Cost Estimates, Funding, Priorities\sidewalk rating sheet-LH.xls Page 6 City of Tukwila Transportation Committee TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes November 25, 2008 - 5:00 p.m. — Conference Room #3* *Room Change for this meeting only PRESENT Councilmembers: Staff: Guests: Pam Linder, Chair; Dennis Robertson and De'Sean Quinn Bob Giberson, Frank Iriarte, Derek Speck, Robin Tischmak, Jaimie Reavis, Moira Bradshaw, Peter Lau, Mike Ronda, Gail Labanara, Mayor Haggerton, Jon Harrison, Jack Pace and Kimberly Matej Mike Hansen, Sabey Corporation CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Tukwila International Boulevard Phases II and III Staff is seeking full Council approval to award a bid to Gary Merlino Construction Company in the amount of $12,261,309.20 for construction of Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) Phase II and III improvements. Robin Tischmak provided a brief overview of the project explaining that these phases will provide roadway improvements on TIB from South 116th Street to South 138t Street. Robin also explained the additive alternate that will now be included in the project due to the bids coming in under the engineer's estimate. The $800,000 additive alternate is a concrete wall fascia that will run on both sides of the highway. The alternate should not be considered an optional addition only to improve the physical attributes of the project; the additive is an integral part of the project which was considered as an additive in order to save money based on predictions of an escalating bid climate. Committee members asked staff to include a sample of what the fascia will look like in the packet which goes to full Council. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. Mike Hansen, a representative from Sabey Corporation, expressed his company's desire for undergrounding wires, specifically in the Homeland Security and Intergate West building locations. Mr. Hansen offered his assistance in encouraging a conversation between the City of Tukwila and Seattle City Light regarding the possibility of pursuing an undergrounding opportunity. Mayor Haggerton briefly explained the undergrounding history and issues the City has been faced with regarding the anticipated high cost of undergrounding. He believes that a facilitated discussion between the City of Tukwila, Seattle City Light and Sabey Corporation will encourage the pursuit of possible undergrounding opportunities. Mayor Haggerton has consistently stated in the past, and currently believes, that undergrounding is in the best interest of the City. Staff stated that Transportation Improvement Board funds will not pay for undergrounding; however, undergrounding was part of the original Improvement Board grant application. Committee members were in support of a facility meeting of the three parties. Transportation Committee Minutes November 25, 2008 - Page 2 B. Tukwila Urban Center Access Project (Klickitat) Supplemental Agreement #2 Staff is seeking full Council approval to enter into Supplemental Agreement #2 with Macaulay and Associates for additional services relative to Local Improvement District Special Benefits Study for the Tukwila Urban Center Access Project (Klickitat). This supplemental agreement will add $25,200 to the current contract, extending the original contract amount to a cost not to exceed $142,100. This agreement will update the appraisals of over 300 properties in the urban center, hopefully leading to the resolution of some right-of-way acquisition issues. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. C. Turnover of Street Improvements by Charter Homes, Inc./Riverton Lane Development Staff is seeking full Council authorization for the Mayor to sign acceptance forms for the turnover of street improvements, street lighting, and a storm drainage system located within South 130th Street and 38th Lane South, adjacent to 3827 South 130th Street. Now that 9 -lot short plat by Charter Homes, Inc./Riverton Lane Development is complete, the developer is transferring assets of the public facilities to the City. This infrastructure will be added to City inventory, and is valued at $63,246. The public facilities/infrastructure has been constructed to City standards and has been inspected by staff. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 1 CONSENT AGENDA. D. Walk and Roll Plan Update The Committee continued to review portions of the Walk and Roll Plan. Staff distributed copies of some minor changes/updates to the document and discussed ongoing efforts to refine the Plan. Committee members were enthusiastic about and supportive of the Plan. However, the Committee did- express idexpress concern that the budget monies designated for the Plan in 2009-10 might not be enough to begin implementation: This item will return to Committee on December 9 for additional review. It is anticipated that a full presentation and ordinance recommendation will be forthcoming at a January 2009 Council meeting. RETURN TO DECEMBER 9 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FOR ADDITIOANL DISCUSSION. III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Next meeting: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - 5:00 p.m. - Conference Room 1 I, Committee Chair Approval Minutes by KAM. INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Haggerton From: ,:Public Works Director Date: November 19, 2008 Subject: Tukwila International Boulevard Phases II & III Improvements Project Nos. 95-RWO3 & 95-RWO4 BID AWARD ISSUE Award the bid for construction of Tukwila International Boulevard Phases II & III Improvements. BACKGROUND This project will provide roadway improvements on Tukwila International Boulevard from S 116th St to S 138th St. The improvements will include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, retaining walls, traffic signal modifications, storm drainage facilities, paving, and other related street amenities. The project will also include sanitary sewer and water utility work that will be reimbursed by the respective districts. The project was advertised for bids on October 9 and 16 and bids were opened November 13, 2008. The bid proposal included a base bid and one additive alternate for concrete wall facings. Ten bids were received with the low base bid of $11,461,309.20 from Gary Merlino Construction Company. The engineer's estimate was $14,974,001.00 in the attached bid tabulation. ANALYSIS The bids were reviewed and tabulated. No errors or irregularities were discovered in the five lowest bids. Two mathematical errors were discovered in the remaining bids that did not affect the bidding order. The sales tax rate was shown incorrectly on the Proposal as 8.8% and was corrected in the bid tabulation (for all bids and the engineer's estimate) to reflect the current rate of 9.0%. A new rate of 9.5% will be instituted in January 2009 that will increase construction costs by approximately $330.00. Staff has reviewed the lowest bid, completed reference checks, and determined the Contractor to be responsive and responsible. Gary Merlino Construction has been given good recommendations from other agencies and has performed satisfactorily on previous construction projects for the City. Since the bids received for the project were very favorable, it is possible to award the base bid, award the additive alternate, retain a 15% construction contingency and still remain within the project budget. Award of the work included for the Valley View Sewer District and Water District 125 is subject to approval by each District's Board. District staff recommendations have instructed us to award their portions of the project at $19,096.80 (sewer) and $52,712.40 (water). BUDGET AND BID SUMMARY Bid Results Eng Estimate Budget Construction (Base Bid) $11,461,309.20 $14,974,001.00 $16,586,000.00 Additive Alternate 800,000.00 1,358,491.00 Contingency (15%) 1,839,196.38 Total $14,100,505.58 $16,332,492.00 $16,586,000.00 RECOMMENDATION Award the base bid, additive alternate and utility work for Tukwila International Boulevard Phases 2 & 3 Improvements to Gary Merlino Construction Company in the amount of $12,261,309.20 ($11,461,309.20 and $800,000.00 = $12,261,309.20). Attachments: Vicinity Map Bid Tabulation P:\PROIECTS\A- RW .G RS Prnirrrc\9SR Wlli TIR7\Award Info M....n Ann 1 S 111 Pt S 111 St S 116 St C S116St ". S 117 St S 1 9 118 St S 120 St S 124 St S 133 St S 13 S 135 St S 130 m a S 138 St S 138 t S 140 St S 144 St S 146 St A S 144 St 'o S 146 St cl S1148 St S 148 St S 150 St IS 150 St S152St 5151 S 154 St S 154 St City of Tukwila Tukwila International Boulevard S 116 St to S 138 St November 2008 Vicinity Map 2 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Tukwila International Boulevard Phases 2 & 3 Improvements -RWO3 & 95-RWO4 11/14/2008 CERTIFIED BID TABULATION Prepared By: Date: Federal Aid Number STPF-STPUL-0099(077) - Phase 2 Mid Mountain Contractors, Inc. SCI Infrastructure, LLC Cost Federal Aid Number HLP-STPUL-0099(103) - Phase 3 Engineer's Estimate Gary Merlino Construction Northwest Contruction, Inc. Marshbank Construction, Inc. Tri-State Construction, Inc. Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price No. Item SCHEDULE A - PHASE 2 PUBLIC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Al Phase 2 Roadway Improvements, Complete 1 LS A2 Wall 2 (North of STA 171), Complete 1 LS A3 Wall 3, Complete 1 LS A4 Wall 4, Complete 1 LS A5 Wall 9, Complete 1 LS Total - Bid $ 4,400.000 $ 4,400,000 5 520,000 $ 520,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 1,660,000 $ 1,660,000 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 Schedule A $ 7,120,000 $ 3,970,000.00 $ 3,970,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 5,570,000.00 $ 6,012,984.00 $ 6,012,984.00 $ 171,376.80 $ 171,376.80 $ 79,134.30 $ 79,134.30 $ 687,590.40 $ 687,590.40 $ 190,454.25 $ 190,454.25 $ 7,141,539.75 $ 4,300,000.00 $ 4,300,000.00 $ 287,000.00 $ 287,000.00 $ 124,000.00 $ 124,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 5,981,000.00 $ 4,400,000.00 $ 4,400,000.00 $ 340,000.00 $ 340,000.00 $ 140,000.00 $ 140,000.00 $ 1,100,000.00 $ 1,100,000.00 $ 230,000.00 $ 230,000.00 $ 6,210,000.00 $ 4,500,000.00 $ 4,500,000.00 $ 550,000.00 $ 550,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 1,100,000.00 $ 1,100,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 6,600,000.00 $ 5,250,000.00 $ 5,250,000.00 $ 620,000.00 $ 620,000.00 $ 130,000.00 $ 130,000.00 $ 800,000.00 $ 800,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 7,100,000.00 SCHEDULE B - PHASE 3 PUBLIC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 61 Phase 3 Roadway Improvement, Complete 1 LS 62 Wall 1, Complete 1 LS 63 Wall 2 (South of STA 171), Complete 1 LS 64 Wall 6, Complete 1 LS Total - Bid $ 3,150,000 $ 3,150,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 240,000 $ 240,000 Schedule B $ 6,610,000 $ 2,900,000.00 $ 2,900,000.00 $ 700,000.00 $ 700,000.00 $ 1,200,000.00 $ 1,200,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 4,950,000.00 $ 2,961,620.00 $ 2,961,620.00 $ 463,656.00 $ 463,656.00 $ 863,176.00 $ 863,176.00 $ 139,120.00 $ 139,120.00 $ 4,427,572.00 $ 3,300,000.00 $ 3,300,000.00 $ 700,000.00 $ 700,000.00 $ 1,200,000.00 $ 1,200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 5,400,000.00 $ 2,900,000.00 $ 2,900,000.00 $ 800,000.00 $ 800,000.00 $ 1,400,000.00 $ 1,400,000.00 $ 160,000.00 $ 160,000.00 $ 5,260,000.00 $ 3,200,000.00 $ 3,200,000.00 $ 850,000.00 $ 850,000.00 $ 1,300,000.00 $ 1,300,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 5,550,000.00 $ 3,925,000.00 $ 3,925,000.00 $ 630,000.00 $ 630,000.00 $ 650,000.00 $ 650,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 5,425,000.00 SCHEDULE C - DISTRIBUTED BID ITEMS FOR PHASE 2 AND 3 IMPROVEMENTS c1 Spill Control, Prevention and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan 1 LS C2 Training 2,000 HR C3 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1 LS C4 Shoring or Extra Excavation Class A 1 LS c5 Shoring or Extra Excavation Class B 1 LS C6 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Pian (SWPPP) 1 LS C7 Potholing for Utilities - As Marked 18 EA C6 Curb Cover With Frame 5 EA 09 Type B Progress Schedule (Minimum Bid $15,000) 1 LS c10 Rock Facing 2,500 SF Total - Bid . $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 2.50 $ 5,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 500 $ 9,000 $ 800 $ 4,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 25 $ 62,500 Schedule C $ 645,500 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 16.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 399,000.00 $ 2,555.00 $ 2,555.00 $ 11.71 $ 23,420.00 $ 203,460.00 $ 203,460.00 $ 1,065.00 $ 1,065.00 $ 1,065.00 $ 1,065.00 $ 92,505.00 $ 92,505.00 $ 1,510.00 $ 27,180.00 $ 620.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 17.35 $ 43,375.00 $ 412,725.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 5.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 780,000.00 $ 780,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 $ 470.00 $ 8,460.00 $ 450.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 16.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 901,610.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 850,000.00 $ 850,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 25.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 1,264,500.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 680,000.00 $ 680,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 450.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 560.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 32.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 821,900.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 5.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 630,000.00 $ 630,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 16.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 739,000.00 SCHEDULE D -WATER DISTRICT 125 IMPROVEMENTS 131 CL 52 D.I. Pipe and Fittings 196 LF D2 Connection to Existing 6" or 8" Watermain 2 EA D3 Additional Fittings 500 LB 04 8" HMA Pavement Patch 100 SY 05 6" HMA Pavement Patch 105 SY D6 Plug & Block Existing Main 1 EA 07 18" Steel Casing 9 LF D8 Trench Safety 1 LS SubTotal - Bid $ 70 $ 13,720 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 $ 5 $ 2,500 $ 60 $ 6,000 $ 50 $ 5,250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 100 $ 900 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Schedule D $ 40,620 $ 130.00 $ 25,480.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 5.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 75.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 60.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 120.00 $ 1,080.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 48,360.00 $ 146.74 $ 28,761.04 $ 2,909.59 $ 5,819.18 $ 3.19 $ 1,595.00 $ 182.24 $ 18,224.00 $ 170.68 $ 17,921.40 $ 3,213.93 $ 3,213.93 $ 85.63 $ 770.67 $ 532.22 $ 532.22 $ 76,837.44 $ 125.00 $ 24,500.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 3,400.00 $ 3.50 $ 1,750.00 $ 205.00 $ 20,500.00 $ 115.00 $ 12,075.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 115.00 $ 1,035.00 $ 870.00 $ 870.00 $ 65,130.00 $ 5,861.70 $ 135.00 $ 26,460.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 77.00 $ 7,700.00 $ 60.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 380.00 $ 3,420.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 59,530.00 $ 5,357.70 $ 130.00 $ 25,480.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 78.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 70.00 $ 7,350.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 950.00 $ 8,550.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 65,680.00 $ 5,911.20 $ 165.00 $ 32,340.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 3.25 $ 1,625.00 $ 75.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 53.00 $ 5,565.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 335.00 $ 3,015.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 54,795.00 $ 4,931.55 Sales Tax (9.0%) $ 3,656 $ 4,352.40 $ 6,915.37 44,276 $ 52,712.40 $ 83,752.81 $ 70,991.70 $ 64,887.70 $ 71,591.20 $ 59,726.55 Total - Bid Schedule D $ SCHEDULE E - VAL VUE SEWER DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS $ 4,560.00 $ 750.00 6,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 650.00 1: $:i:i:::S,200.00 Et Remove Existing Manhole Cone or Flat Top 8 EA E2 Remove Existing Brick Manhole 2 EA E3 Install 1 -foot 48 -inch Diameter Manhole Section 1 EA E4 Install 2 -foot 48 -inch Diameter Manhole Section 3 EA 65 Install 3 -foot 48 -inch Diameter Manhole Section 9 EA E6 Replace Ex. Frame and Cover with Locking Frame and Cover 14 EA E7 Replace Ex. Frame and Cover with Watertight Frame and Cover 2 EA E8 Adjust Casting to Grade 16 EA E9 Remove or Abandon/Fill Sewer Pipe/Casing 170 LF Elo Abandon Sewer Manhole at STA 160+75 RT 1 LS E11 Install New Ladder in MH (STA 160+72 LT) & Cut and Cap Pipes 1 LS E12 Trench Safety 1 LS SubTotal - Bid $ 400 $ 3,200 $ 1,100 $ 2,200 $ 500 $ 500 $ 750 $ 2,250 $ 1,000 $ 9,000 $ 500 $ 7,000 $ 600 $ 1,200 $ 450 $ 7,200 $ 15 $ 2,550 $ 850 $ 850 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Schedule E $ 41,950 $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 400.00 $ 800.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 600.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 6.00 $ 1,020.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 17,520.00 $ 521.25 $ 4,170.00 $ 785.00 $ 1,570.00 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 $ 740.00 $ 2,220.00 $ 900.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 502.00 $ 7,028.00 $ 535.00 $ 1,070.00 $ 525.00 $ 8,400.00 $ 13.75 $ 2,337.50 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 $ 855.00 $ 855.00 $ 1,065.00 $ 1,065.00 $ 38,315.50 $ 570.00 $ 650.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 $ 650.00 $ 1,950.00 $ 900.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 440.00 $ 6,160.00 $ 475.00 $ 950.00 $ 350.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 8.00 $ 1,360.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 550.00 $ 550.00 $ 3,700.00 $ 3,700.00 $ 36,330.00 $ 3,269.70 ,$ $ 750.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,950.00 $ 1,950.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 3,450.00 $ 31,050.00 $ 650.00 $ 9,100.00 $ 700.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 425.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 10.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 71,800.00 $ 6,462.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 650.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 325.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 50.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 56,000.00 $ 5,040.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 900.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 350.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 13.00 $ 2,210.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 38,810.00 $ 3,492.90 Tax $ 3,776 $ 1,576.80 $ 3,448.40 Sales (9.0%) 45,726 $ 19,096.80 $ 41,763.90 $ 39,599.70 $ 78,262.00 $ 61,040.00 $ 42,302.90 Total - Bid Schedule E $ SCHEDULE F - OWNER DIRECTED BID ITEMS F2 Change 15,000 FA F2 Explorative Excavation - As Directed 10,000 FA E F3 Resolution of Utility Conflicts 25,000 FA F4 Unsuitable Excavation and Backfill, Incl Haul 1,000 CY F5 Removal of Shaft Obstruction 25,000 FA F6 Connect Existing Drainage Pipe 30 EA F7 Additional 6 -inch Cleanout 20 EA F8 Removal of Pipe Obstruction 5,000 FA F9 Property Restoration 20,000 FA Flo Planing Bituminous Pavement 17,000 SY 611 HMA Class 1/2" PG 64-22 for Prelevel 1,500 TN 612 Asphalt Cost Price Adjustment 1 CALC Total Bid $ 1 $ 15,000 $ 1 $ 10,000 $ 1 $ 25,000 $ 30 $ 30,000 $ 1 $ 25,000 $ 1,000 $ 30,000 $ 1,000 $ 20,000 $ 1 $ 5,000 $ 1 $ 20,000 $ 3 $ 51,000 $ 85 $ 127,500 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Schedule F $ 508,500 $ 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 32.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 1.50 $ 25,500.00 $ 90.00 $ 135,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 470,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 51.00 $ 51,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 1,935.00 $ 58,050.00 $ 785.00 $ 15,700.00 $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 1.16 $ 19,720.00 $ 93.00 $ 139,500.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 533,970.00 $ 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 24.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 960.00 $ 28,800.00 $ 460.00 $ 9,200.00 $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 3.45 $ 58,650.00 $ 95.00 $ 142,500.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 513,150.00 $ 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 45.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 6.00 $ 102,000.00 $ 95.00 $ 142,500.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 569,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 55.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 w 1,800.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 550.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 4.00 $ 68,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 588,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 36.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ - 500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 350.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 3.00 $ 51,000.00 $ 93.00 $ 139,500.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 498,500.00 - 12,906,351.40 $ 13,447,149.70 $ 13,692,531.20 $ 13,864,529.45 TOTAL BASE BID PRICE $ 14,974,001 $ 11,461,309.20 $ 12,641,323.45 $ SCHEDULE G - PROJECT ADDITIVES ,;• 01 Wall Facing for East -Side Walls, Phase 2 1 LS 02 Wall Facing for East -Side Walls, Phase 3 1 LS Total Bid $ 551,276 $ 551,276 $ 807,215 $ 807,215 Schedule G $ 1,358,491 $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 800,000.00 $ 295,000.00 $ 295,000.00 $ 383,000.00 $ 383,000.00 $ 678,000.00 $ 360,000.00 $ 360,000.00 $ 470,000.00 $ 470,000.00 $ 830,000.00 $ 325,000.00 $ 325,000.00 $ 510,000.00 $ 510,000.00 $ 835,000.00 $ 650,000.00 $ 650,000.00 $ 780,000.00 $ 780,000.00 $ 1,430,000.00 $ 725,000.00 $ 725,000.00 $ 755,000.00 $ 755,000.00 $ 1,480,000.00 - age10 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Tukwila International Boulevard Phases 2 & 3 improvements City Project Numbers 95-RWO3 & 95-RWO4 11/14/2008 Prepared By: Date: 7n1--- 7762-4 x't-,4 /7 - -de Federal Aid Number STPF-STPUL-0099(077) - Phase 2 Federal Aid Number HLP-STPUL-0099(103) - Phase 3 Engineer's Estimate IMCO General Construction, Inc. Ceccanti, Inc. Granite NW dba Wilder Const. Stan Palmer Construction, Inc. Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price . Cost Unit Price Cost No. SCHEDULE A - PHASE 2 PUBLIC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS • Al Phase 2 Roadway Improvements, Complete 1 LS A2 Wall 2 (North of STA 171), Complete 1 LS A3 Wall 3, Complete 1 LS A4 Wall 4, Complete 1 LS A5 Wall 9, Complete 1 LS Total - Bid $ 4,400,000 $ 4,400,000 $ 520,000 $ 520,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 1,660,000 $ 1,660,000 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 Schedule A $ 7,120,000 $ 4,440,000.00 $ 4,440,000.00 $ 364,000.00 $ 364,000.00 $ 141,600.00 $ 141,600.00 $ 1,153,000.00 $ 1,153,000.00 $ 247,700.00 $ 247,700.00 $ 6,346,300.00 $ 5,346,000.00 $ 5,346,000.00 $ 160,000.00 $ 160,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 650,000.00 $ 650,000.00 $ 150,000.00 3 150,000.00 $ 6,386,000.00 5,070,000.00 5,070,000.00 240,000.00 240,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 850,000.00 850,000.00 225,000.00 225,000.00 6,485,000.00 4,930,000.00 4,930,000.00 600,000.00 600,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 1,910,000.00 1,910,000.00 350,000.00 350,000.00 8,040,000.00 SCHEDULE B - PHASE 3 PUBLIC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS et Phase 3 Roadway Improvement, Complete 1 LS B2 Wall 1, Complete 1 LS B3 Wall 2 (South of STA 171), Complete 1 LS B4 Wa116, Complete 1 LS Total - Bid $ 3,150,000 $ 3,150,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 240,000 $ 240,000 Schedule B $ 6,610,000 $ 3,308,000.00 $ 3,308,000.00 $ 823,300.00 $ 823,300.00 $ 1,631,000.00 $ 1,631,000.00 $ 181,900.00 $ 181,900.00 $ 5,944,200.00 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 440,000.00 $ 440,000.00 $ 810,000.00 $ 810,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 6,355,000.00 3,500,000.00 3,500,000.00 650,000.00 650,000.00 1,125,000.00 1,125,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 5,425,000.00 2,400,000.00 2,400,000.00 1,040,000.00 1,040,000.00 1,650,000.00 1,650,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 5,290,000.00 _ SCHEDULE C - DISTRIBUTED BID ITEMS FOR PHASE 2 AND 3 IMPROVEMENTS 01 Spill Control, Prevention and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan 1 LS c2 Training 2,000 HR c3 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1 LS c4 Shoring or Extra Excavation Class A 1 LS C5 Shoring or Extra Excavation Class B 1 LS ce Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 1 LS C7 Potholing for Utilities - As Marked 18 EA C8 Curb Cover With Frame 5 EA 09 Type B Progress Schedule (Minimum Bid $15,000) 1 LS cio Rock Facing 2,500 SF Total - Bid $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 2.50 $ 5,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 500 $ 9,000 $ 800 $ 4,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ • 25 $ 62,500 Schedule C $ 645,500 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 932,400.00 $ 932,400.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 17,800.00 $ 17,800.00 $ 800.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 24.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 1,096,100.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 900,000.00 $ 900,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 14.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 982,600.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5.00 10,000.00 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 800.00 14,400.00 1,600.00 8,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 30.00 75,000.00 2,457,400.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 • 2.00 4,000.00 1,446,000.00 1,446,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 500.00 9,000.00 1,000.00 5,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 30.00 75,000.00 1,626,000.00 " SCHEDULE D - WATER DISTRICT 125 IMPROVEMENTS 70 $ 13,720 $ 200.00 $ 39,200.00 $ 40.00 L:$ ;: ?,.$40;00: 130.00 25,480.00 70.00 13,720.00 D1 CL 52 D.I. Pipe and Fittings 196 LF D2 Connection to Existing 6" or 8" Watermain 2 EA D3 Additional Fittings 500 LB 04 8" HMA Pavement Patch 100 SY 05 6" HMA Pavement Patch 105 SY 06 Plug & Block Existing Main 1 EA D7 18" Steel Casing 9 LF 08 Trench Safety 1 LS SubTotal - Bid $ $ 3,500 $ 7,000 $ 5 $ 2,500 $ 60 $ 6,000 $ 50 $ 5,250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 100 $ 900 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Schedule D $ 40,620 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3.70 $ 1,850.00 $ 150.00 3 15,000.00 $ 90.00 $ 9,450.00 $ 270.00 $ 270.00 $ 220.00 0 1,980.00 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 $ 72,650.00 6,538.50 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 500.00 $ 95.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 85.00 $ 8,925.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 30,065.00 $ 2,705.85 2,000.00 4,000.00 6.00 3,000.00 75.00 7,500.00 65.00 6,825.00 600.00 600.00 180.00 1,620.00 500.00 500.00 49,525.00 4,457.25 700.00 1,400.00 4.00 2,000.00 100.00 10,000.00 94.00 9,870.00 500.00 500.00 100.00 900.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 39,390.00 3,545.10 Sales Tax (9.0%) $ 3,656 $ Total - Bid Schedule D $ 44,276 $ 79,188.50 $ 32,770.85 _ 53,982.25 42,935.10 SCHEDULE E - VAL VUE SEWER,DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS . : 51 Remove Existing Manhole Cone or Flat Top 8 EA E2 Remove Existing Brick Manhole 2 EA E3 Install 1 -foot 48 -inch Diameter Manhole Section 1 EA E4 Install 2 -foot 48 -inch Diameter Manhole Section 3 EA E5 Install 3 -foot 48 -inch Diameter Manhole Section 9 EA E6 Replace Ex. Frame and Cover with Locking Frame and Cover 14 EA E7 Replace Ex. Frame and Cover with Watertight Frame and Cover 2 EA E8 Adjust Casting to Grade 16 EA E9 Remove or Abandon/Fill Sewer Pipe/Casing 170 LF Et0 Abandon Sewer Manhole at STA 160+75 RT 1 LS Ell Install New Ladder in MH (STA 160+72 LT) & Cut and Cap Pipes 1 LS 812 Trench Safety 1 LS SubTotal - Bid $ 400 $ 3,200 $ 1,100 $ 2,200 $ 500 $ 500 $ 750 $ 2,250 $ 1,000 $ 9,000 $ 500 $ 7,000 $ 600 $ 1,200 $ 450 $ 7,200 $ 15 $ 2,550 $ 850 $ 850 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Schedule E $ 41,950 500 $ 4,000.00 1130 $ 2,260.00 210 $ 210.00 210 $ 630.00 210 $ 1,890.00 520 $ 7,280.00 375 $ 750.00 500 $ 8,000.00 100 $ 17,000.00 1600 $ 1,600.00 2000 $ 2,000.00 2000 $ 2,000.00 $ 47,620.00 4,285.80 $ 200.00 $ 1,600 00 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 $ 400.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 450.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 450.00 $ 900.00 $ 300.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 6.00 $ 1,020.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 22,270.00 $ 2,004.30 700.00 5,600 00 900.00 1,800.00 800.00 800.00 1,000.00 3,000.00 1,100.00 9,900.00 600.00 8,400.00 650.00 1,300.00 450.00 7,200.00 35.00 5,950.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 350.00 350.00 500.00 500.00 46,200.00 4,158.0D 400.00 3,200 00 2,000.00 4,000.00 350.00 350.00 500.00 1,500.00 700.00 6,300.00 225.00 3,150.00 350.00 700.00 300.00 4,800.00 5.00 850.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 300.00 300.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 27,150.00 2,443.50 Sales Tax (9.0%) $ 3,776 $ Total - Bid Schedule E $ 45,726 $ 51,905.80 $ 24,274.30 50,358.00 29,593.50 SCHEDULE F' OWNER DIRECTED BID ITEMS .;,; ._,: , <. F1 Minor Change 15,000 FA F2 Explorative Excavation -As Directed 10,000 FA F3 Resolution of Utility Conflicts 25,000 FA F4 Unsuitable Excavation and Backfill, Incl Haul 1,000 CY F5 Removal of Shaft Obstruction 25,000 FA F6 Connect Existing Drainage Pipe 30 EA F7 Additional 6 -inch Cleanout 20 EA F8 Removal of Pipe Obstruction 5,000 FA F9 Property Restoration • 20,000 FA F10 Planing Bituminous Pavement 17,000 SY F11 HMA Class 1/2" PG 64-22 for Prelevel 1,500 TN F12 Asphalt Cost Price Adjustment 1 CALC Total - Bid $ 1 $ 15,000 $ 1 $ 10,000 $ 1 $ 25,000 $ 30 $ 30,000 $ 1 $ 25,000 $ 1,000 $ 30,000 $ 1,000 $ 20,000 $ 1 $ 5,000 $ 1 $ 20,000 $ 3 $ 51,000 $ 85 $ 127,500 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Schedule F $ 508,500 1 $ 15,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 1 $ 25,000.00 60 $ 60,000.00 1 $ 25,000.00 1200 $ 36,000.00 600 $ 12,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 1 $ 20,000.00 1.65 $ 28,050.00 100 $ 150,000.00 150000 $ 150,000.00 $ 536,050.00 $ 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 87.00 $ 130,500.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 446,500.00 1.00 15,000.00 1.00 10,000.00 1.00 • 25,000.00 50.00 50,000.00 1.00 25,000.00 850.00 25,500.00 550.00 11,000.00 1.00 5,000.00 1.00 20,000.00 3.50 59,500.00 89.00 133,500.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 529,500.00 1.00 15,000.00 1.00 10,000.00 1.00 25,000.00 44.00 44,000.00 1.00 25,000.00 500.00 15,000.00 200.00 4,000.00 1.00 5,000.00 1.00 20,000.00 3.00 51,000.00 92.00 138,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 502,000.00 TOTAL BASE BID PRICE $ 14,974,001 $ 14,053,744.30 $ 14,227,145.15 15,001,240.25 15,530,528.60 SCHEDULE G - PROJECT ADDITIVES •- 01 Wall Facing for East -Side Walls, Phase 2 1 LS G2 Wall Facing for East -Side Walls, Phase 3 1 LS Total - Bid . - $ 551,276 $551,276 $ 807,215 $ 807,215 Schedule G $ 1,358,491 440000 $ 440,000.00 660000 $ 660,000.00 $ 1,100,000.00 $ 260,000.00 $ 280,000.00 $ 360,000.00 $ 360,000.00 $ 640,000.00 900,000.00 900,000.00 1,350,000.00 1,350,000.00 2,250,000.00 480,000.00 480,000.00 640,000.00 640,000.00 1,120,000.00 I::::::i:i:i::::::i:::::::::::56ifectbd:Nlsiki Etiri'r•: :':E :� Page 2 of 2 A INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Haggerton From: Public Works Director Date: November 19, 2008 Subject: Tukwila Urban Center Access Project (Klickitat) Project No. 84-RW19, Agreement No. 06-070 Supplement #2 LID Special Benefit Study and Right -of -Way Acquisition Assistance ISSUE Supplement to the contract with Macaulay & Associates for the Klickitat LID Special Benefit Study to increase budget and time for completion. BACKGROUND In July 2005, Lee Voorhees, an attorney with Foster Pepper Shefelman, spoke with staff on the basics of forming Local Improvement Districts (LID). LID'S are complex funding mechanisms that are legally restricted from assessing more than the project would increase property values. Macaulay & Associates was selected out of several appraisers in the fall of 2005 to conduct the feasibility study. The study showed a definite benefit of the project, indicating that formation of an LID would be quite feasible. In June 2006, Macaulay & Associates was further retained to develop a Summary of Formation, Special Benefit/Proportionate Assessment Study (Preliminary Assessment Role) which is the document upon which the LID assessments are based. In 2007, Macaulay & Associates entered into a supplemental agreement to update the market analysis done in 2006. That update was completed in early 2008. ANALYSIS Due to circumstances beyond the control of City staff and Macaulay & Associates, the development of the Preliminary Assessment Role has been delayed. Complications with design and right-of-way acquisition have created the need for this second supplemental agreement that will provide an updated appraisal for the LID. With this supplement of $25,200.00, the LID Special Benefit Study will not exceed a total of $142,100.00. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Macaulay & Associates in the amount not to exceed $25,200.00 to provide supplemental services on the LID Special Benefits Study. Attachments: Supplemental Agreement Scope of Work p:\projects\a- rw & rs projects\84rw19 klickitat_sctr pkwy_i5 access rev\information memo - lid formation macauly supplement 11-19-08.doc SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER 2 TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT NUMBER 06-070 THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Tukwila, Washington, herein -after referred to as "the City", and Macaulay & Associates, Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant", in consideration of the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified. The City desires to supplement the agreement entered into with the Consultant and executed on or about June 23, 2006 and identified as Agreement No. 06-070. 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: 1. Scope of Services, is hereby changed to include reimbursement for direct expenses for costs associated with updating the market data and property owner information associated with the preliminary assessment study for the Klickitat/Southcenter Access Improvement Project, identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 2. Payment, shall be amended as follows: For work associated with the updating the preliminary assessment study, the payment shall be based on a time and materials basis not to exceed $25,200 3. Time for Performance, shall be amended as follows: The Consultant shall perform all services and provide all work product required pursuant to this Agreement by June 30, 2009, unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City. Payment for the work provided by the Consultant as part of this supplement shall be made and the total amount of payment to the Consultant for this work shall not exceed $25,200 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the City. The maximum amount payable under this agreement as supplemented inclusive of all fees and other costs is now $142,100. DATED this day of , 20 CITY OF TUKWILA CONSULTANT 6 Jim Haggerton, Mayor By: Printed Name: Title: 7 acaulay g ssociates, Ltd. Real Estate Appraisers& Consultants Charles R. Macaulay, MAI Robert J. Macaulay, MAI Jim E. Dodge Yvonne Alexander -Smith Teresa M. O'Leary Cyndy Knighton Senior Transportation engineer City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188-2544 2927 Colby Avenue, Suite 100 • Everett, WA 98201 Everett 425-258-2611 • Seattle 206-382-9711 • Fax 425.-252-1210 November 18, 2008. Paul C. Bird Richard JS DeFrancesco Greg Muller Kelly R. Cdao Re: Time and fee proposal for updating the special benefit/proportionate assessment study for proposed. Klickitat/Southcenter Access Improvement Project,Tukwila, WA. Dear Ivls. Knighton: The scope of our services will involve updatingmarket data, :market sales/rental data and the special benefit/proportionate assessment draft report. As part of thenew assignment market value estLmateS both without and with the LID project assumed completed for 268±parcels in the proposed LID boundary area will be updated. Additional scope of services may involve LID formation hearing preparation and meetings, which would be part of a separate agreement. Basedon our hourly rates our fee estimate is summarized below: Appraiser Hours Hourly Rate Total Robert J. Macaulay, MAI Property inspections, analysis, meetings/consultation and report update preparation 80 $225 $8,000. Yvonne Alexander -Smith Market research, report editing and updating preparation 80: $90 $7,20Q Total $25,200 Based on our current work load, the updated report and analysis would be completed by February 20, 2009. If you have any questions or need. additional information please call. Sincerely, JVIACAULAY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.. Robert J. Macaulay, MAI 4v Stale Certified - General Appraiser No, 7100517 Knighton.1108 8 INFORMATION MEMO TO: Mayor Jim Haggerton FROM: Jim Morrow, P.E., Public Works Director DATE: November 18, 2008 SUBJECT: Turnover of Street Improvements, Street Lighting, and Storm Drainage facilities; within Public right-of-way and a Public Easement: located within South 130th Street and 38th Lane South; adjacent to 3827 South 130th Street. ISSUE Accept turnover of street improvements and storm drainage system, constructed within street right-of-way; and street lighting, constructed within public right-of-way and a public easement— all as part of the development known as the Charter Homes, Inc. / Riverton Lane Development. Charter Homes, Inc. / Riverton Lane Development Permit Nos.: PW04-093 / L03-047 Site Address — 3827 South 130th Street within S. 130th Street and 38th Lane South, Tukwila Parcel No. 734060-0803 BACKGROUND: The Charter Homes, Inc. / Riverton Lane Development is now completed. As a condition of the development, the Charter Homes, Inc. / Riverton Lane Development included the construction of; 294 LF of 12 -inch (CPEP) storm pipe, four (4) Type I catch basins, 255 LF of curb and gutter, two (2) wheel chair ramps; 1,200 SF of 5' wide concrete sidewalks, and 650 SY of asphalt pavement. One (1) Service Cabinet, One (1) Streetlight pole with luminaire Tight, 300 LF of Street Light Conduit with four (4) junction boxes; and street appurtenances: including RPM, paint stripes, and other materials. The value of the transferred assets, from the Developer to the City of Tukwila, is $63,246.00 Conditions were placed on the development to provide the following turnover documents: 1. Letter from owner requesting turnover 2. List of Materials/Costs (city format) 3. Deed of Conveyance of Public Improvements 4. Public Street Lighting Easement 5. Two-year maintenance bond 6. As -built plans and CD for proposed public facilities The proposed public facilities have been constructed to City standards and inspected by Public Works staff and are now ready for turnover as public infrastructure. RECOMMENDATION: Request Transportation Committee to move to consent agenda to authorize Mayor to sign acceptance forms. Attachments: Vicinity Map xc: Development File: Charter Homes, Inc. / Riverton Lane Development *NOTE: All documents are available at Public Works and will be presented at the meetings. 9 CHARTER HOMES, INC. (a.k.a.) RIVERTON LANE — 9 LOT SHORT PLAT INFRASTRUCTURE TURNOVER PW04-093 / L03-047 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE iii CD RTS 10 L12 CHARTER HOMES, INC. a.k.a.) RIVERTON LANE —9 LOT SHORT PLAT INFRASTRUCTURE TURNOVER STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ONE (1) STREET LIGHT IS SHOWN AS CIRCLED AND MARKED AS "ST LT" PW04-093 / L03-047 LINUN. UMW_ FOP 14001010V 274.22' L7 ----- 1/4\ OVERHEAD POWER (SEE NOTE 6 — SHEET 1) M2101111111111111IMININO114 CONCRETE STOEMAUC TRANSITION RAMP INSTALL slow 'ENO OF WAL() 2 LOT NO. 735240-0045 CLORE, ALAN LOT 3 LOT 2 LOT 4 STA 1.71.7, 41)17 STACEY 0047 44 SEL OCT. Zr- ;CCESS ROAD PROPOSED IV fAsEmENF UTILITIES EASEMENT I" LOT 5 9' WATERLINE 8' WATER co. LOT 6 15' WIDE 51006 ORAINACE EASEMENT 15 WIDE 5 ORM DRAINAGE 4 SEMENT 774 "Ca : -31N71.1:mS7-12- 11 30' I Qom., Uvi9W G 3H '1S3M 9000 —0801,.1 •n4�< • r� s¢•sez oz og o OS '17 31 NI1 O r -r) rr 1 7-1 0.34 .36 LANE SOUTH CHARTER HOMES, INC. .k.a.) RIVERTON LANE — 9 LOT SHORT PLAT INFRASTRUCTURE TURNOVER STREET & STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PW04-093 / L03-047 1� City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Memorandum To: Mayor Haggerton & Transportation Committee From: Jack Pace, Director , . Date: November 19, 2008 Subject: Walk and Roll Plan Background C 01A) In April of this year, the Community Development Department issued a draft nonmotorized plar��<i titled Walk and Roll. It was widely distributed, it was taken to the Parks and Planning Commissions for their review, it was reviewed by the Transportation and Community Affairs and Parks Committees and it was forwarded to the Committee of the Whole. A public hearing Z 6`K was held before the City Council on July 21, 2008. Mot./444'‘ `4' O o - Scr- 17,f, /0 ' 5 kdak ' 4't — -1-6-0'?oi.(4-s 6 ,.‘itte. cvivery4, Dec,- -- Tc, At the close of the three month public review period, staff organized the public comments and Council direction and began modifying the document to reflect the clarifications and requests. A draft ordinance to adopt the Walk and Roll Plan and an edited version of the final mark-ups of the Plan have been prepared for your review Issue Adoption of the Plan will: • modify the City's designated bicycle routes; • establish a system for prioritizing sidewalk construction; • identify potential neighborhood trail locations; • create a CIP list of pedestrian and bicycle projects; and • create City construction standards and priorities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In early 2009, staff will bring an ordinance to you with proposed modifications of the City's right of way use and subdivision chapters with the intention of supporting the Walk & Roll Plan with regulatory modification. Examples of regulatory changes that could be made include elimination of the sidewalk exemption for single family home development, criteria for right of way vacations and revised block size/perimeter standards. The Walk & Roll Plan presented to you is a redlined version so that you can follow the substantive changes that have been made to the Draft in response to Council direction and public comment. mcb Page 1 of 2 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\adopting Ordinance\revised_08tcmemol 125.doc 11/17/2008 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3613 Recommendation Forward Ordinance and Final Plan to the December 8, 2008 Committee of the Whole meeting. Attachments A. Draft Ordinance B. Walk and Roll "Marked -up" Final (available separately). Additions to the plan are underlined; deletions are called out. mcb Page 2 of 2 11/19/2008 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\adopting Ordinance\revised_08tcmemo1125.doc 14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE WALK AND ROLL PLAN -- THE CITY'S NON -MOTORIZED FUNCTIONAL PLAN -- AND ADOPTING COMPLETE STREETS PRINCIPLES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, a plan and guiding principles and practices are needed so that transportation improvements are planned, designed and constructed to allow and encourage walking, bicycling and transit use while promoting safe operations for all users; and WHEREAS, City policy, as stated in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, is to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use as enjoyable modes of transportation as well as safe, convenient and widely available and for all people; and WHEREAS, The City engaged in a multi-year planning process that involved residents, employees, employers, bicycle organizations, transportation demand management groups, adjacent cities, the Washington State Department of Commerce, Trade, and Economic Development, and the Tukwila Parks and Planning Commissions; and WHEREAS, a Complete Streets guiding principle is to design, operate and maintain Tukwila's rights of way to promote safe and convenient access and travel for all users -- pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people of all abilities and ages, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers; and WHEREAS, adherence to Complete Streets principles will result in a more equitable transportation system by providing for all transportation users; and WHEREAS other jurisdictions and agencies nationwide, including the U.S. Department of Transportation, numerous state transportation agencies, the cities of San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Boulder, Kirkland, Issaquah, Seattle and Portland have adopted Complete Streets legislation; and MB:ksn 11/20/2008 Page 1 of 4 15 WHEREAS the Tukwila Department of Public Works will implement Complete Streets policy by designing, operating and maintaining the transportation network to improve travel conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, automobile and freight in a manner consistent with, and supportive of, the surrounding community; and WHEREAS transportation improvements will include an array of facilities and amenities that are recognized as contributing to Complete Streets, including: street and sidewalk lighting; pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements; access improvements for freight; compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; public transit facilities accommodation including, but not limited, to pedestrian access improvement to transit stops and stations; street trees and landscaping; drainage; and street amenities; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila's Department of Public Works will implement policies and procedures with the construction, reconstruction or other changes of transportation facilities on arterial streets to support the creation of Complete Streets including capital improvements, re-channelization projects and major maintenance, recognizing that all streets are different and in each case user needs must be balanced; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1783 authorizes the City of Tukwila Public Works Department to create and amend standards for the design and construction requirements of public facilities, including street improvements; and WHEREAS, the Complete Streets principles are an important component in implementing the Tukwila Walk and Roll Plan, the non -motorized plan for the City; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on July 21, 2008 to consider comments on the draft Walk and Roll Plan; and WHEREAS, an environmental analysis was conducted in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act and a determination of Non -significance was issued on September 22, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Walk and Roll Plan ("the Plan") is the City's non -motorized transportation plan, is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is incorporated herein by reference and is hereby adopted. Section 2. The Bicycle Friendly Routes map in the Walk and Roll Plan shall replace the "Category 1" map in the City's adopted Transportation Plan. MB:ksn 11/20/2008 Page 2 of 4 Section 3. The City's "Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards" shall be revised to contain infrastructure design and a hierarchical decision making design process as outlined in the Walk and Roll plan. Section 4. Tukwila Public Works will plan for, design and construct all new City transportation improvement projects to provide appropriate accommodation for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and persons of all abilities, while promoting safe operation for all users, as provided for below. Section 5. Tukwila Public Works will incorporate Complete Streets principles into: the Department's Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards; Transit Plan; Walk and Roll Plan; Transportation Plan and other plans, manuals, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate. Section 6. Because freight is important to the basic economy of the City and has unique right-of-way needs to support that role, freight will continue to be accommodated on appropriate corridors within the City. Complete Street improvements may also be considered that are consistent with freight mobility. Section 7. Except in unusual or extraordinary circumstances, Complete Streets principles will not apply: • to ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition (e.g., mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair and surface treatments such as chip seal, or interim measures on detour or haul routes); • where other comparable means are available to more effectively support the users; • where factors indicate an absence of current and future need; • where inclusion would be contrary to public safety; • where cost would be excessively disproportionate to the probable future use or need; and • where establishment would violate Comprehensive Plan policies and the Walk and Roll Plan. Section 8. The Walk and Roll Plan and Complete Streets may be achieved through single projects or incrementally through a series of smaller improvements or maintenance activities over time. It is the Mayor and City Council's intent that all sources of transportation funding be drawn upon to implement Complete Streets. The City believes that maximum financial flexibility is important to implement this Plan in accordance with Complete Streets principles. MB:ksn 11/20/2008 Page 3 of 4 .17 Section 9. The most recent versions of the Transportation Plan and the Parks and Open Space Plan are hereby amended to include the Walk and Roll Plan, which shall supplement the capital facility projects identified in those respective plans. The Projects identified in the Plan may be implemented through Parks and Open Space funding. Section 10. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2008. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number: Attachment: "Exhibit A," Walk and Roll Plan P:\Long Range Projects\ Walk and Roll\adopting Ordinance\walknrolladoptingORD.DOC MB:ksn 11/20/2008 Page 4 of 4 City of Tukwila Transportation Committee TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes November 12, 2008 - 5:00 p.m. — Conference Room #1 **Wednesday Meeting due to Holiday PRESENT Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Dennis Robertson and Verna Griffin (filling in for De'Sean Quinn) Staff: Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Peter Lau, Mike Mathia, Gail Labanara, Lisa Verner, Moira Bradshaw, Jaimie-Reay-is Jon Harrison Guests Chuck Parrish CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. East Marginal Way Fiber Interconnect Project Bid Award This project will use surplus overlay funds to install vaults, conduit and junction boxes to interconnect the traffic signals on East Marginal Way South. Once all of the facilities are installed, the future overlay project will be much easier to complete. We are trying to include miscellaneous conduit work with overlay work. Dennis asked that if the overlay fund is not sufficient, then why are we using these funds on an interconnect project. In this case, the surplus was unexpected and we did not have a road segment designed to overlay in this limited time period. This conduit work is also not as weather sensitive as an overlay project. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVERMBER 17 REGULAR DUE TO TIME CONTRAINTS. B. Sound Transit Street Vacation Ordinance Sound Transit has requested a time extension on this final street vacation at 35"' Ave S to April 30, 2009. Jim Morrow reported that with a street vacation, the property is split in half to the abutting property owners. In this case it would be Sound Transit and WSDOT. WSDOT would like the land donated to them. We have informed Sound Transit to work out the street vacation with WSDOT as Sound Transit facilities have been built on entire parcel. Pam Linder requested an updated memo with all of the Sound Transit street vacations listed in a chart. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION. C. Summary of State Auditor's Performance Audit on Impact Fees Jim Mon -ow reported that staff had just attended classes regarding the I-900 initiative that authorized the State Auditor to complete performance audits to determine leading or best practices. One of these audits included impact fees. There were five recommendations on traffic impact fees and Tukwila currently has four of these practices in place. The only recommendation lacking is incorporating a tracking system with the Finance Department. As the City incorporated traffic impact fees in 2005, Pam Linder asked what the public's comments have been regarding the process and the fees. Jim stated that there have been no complaints regarding the traffic impact fees as the developers are easily able to determine the cost of their potential traffic impact fees on any new development. INFORMATION ONLY. D. Walk and Roll Plan Update Jaimie Reavis summarized the significant changes including the comments from the State Community Trade and Economic Development and Transportation Departments. There was agreement that when the Council chooses a new source of funding that a percentage of that new revenue should be dedicated to projects from the Plan. A question was asked about bike facilities from Klickitat into Southcenter and along Southcenter Pkwy. Staff responded that Southcenter Pkwy isn't a regional route for commuters and that it acts as a Transportation Committee Minutes November 13, 2008 — Page 2 destination. Southcenter Pkwy in particular is dangerous for cyclists because of the large number of driveways and high vehicle volumes. Staff also responded that a "Complete Streets" policy is being recommended in response to the comments received. A complete streets practice directs that infrastructure designs accommodate all classes of users: pedestrians, trucks, buses, bicyclists and cars whenever feasible and practical. The Bicycle Route Map was distributed and the routes were discussed. Staff said the priority for the CIP fund for the Plan will be to conduct an engineering study to assess what bicycle facilities could be installed on each of the routes. Moira Bradshaw reviewed a draft sidewalk prioritization system. Council thought that there was too much emphasis in the point system given to commercial streets. Council reworked the point system to increase points for sidewalks adjacent to schools and parks and libraries etc.' Staff reported that they would be bringing back a marked up version of the Plan to the November 25th Transportation Committee Meeting. INFORMATION ONLY. III. ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements. IV. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Next meeting: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 — 5:00 p.m. — Conference Room 1 SL Committee Chair Approval Mi utes by GL, reviewed by JM. INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Haggerton From: Public Works Directo Date: November 3, 2008 Subject: East Marginal Way South Fiber Interconnect Project Project No. 08-RWO1 BID AWARD ISSUE Award the bid for construction of the East Marginal Way Fiber Interconnect Project as a portion of the 2008 Annual Overlay & Repair Program. BACKGROUND This project will provide the installation of vaults, conduits, and junction boxes at 16 locations within the right -of way of East Marginal Way South, between Boeing Access Road and just north of S 8151 Place. Bids were solicited for this project from the Small Works Roster beginning on October 17, 2008 and bids were opened on October 30, 2008. Eight bids were received with the apparent low bid of $147,303.15 from Dennis R. Craig Construction, Inc. The engineer's estimate was $147,100.00. ANALYSIS The bids were reviewed and tabulated and there was neither error nor irregularity found in the Dennis R. Craig Construction bid. Dennis R Craig has provided successful projects for the City in the past. This project will use the remaining budget of the 2008 Annual Overlay & Repair Program that had a surplus of approximately $207,000. This budget surplus is adequate to cover the low bid and the 10% contingency. BUDGET AND BID SUMMARY EMW Fiber Bid Overlay Balance 2008 Annual Overlay Budget $ 940,000.00 2008 Overlay Construction Contract & COs ( 732,397.75) East Marginal Wy S Fiber Contract $ 147,303.15 10% contingency 14,730.31 Subtotal $ 162,033.46 $ 207,602.25 RECOMMENDATION Award the construction bid for the East Marginal Way Fiber Interconnect Project to Dennis R. Craig Construction, Inc. in the amount of $147,303.15. Forward this bid award straight to the November 17 Regular Meeting as the next COW is on November 24th and the following Regular Meeting is on December 151. This saves two weeks at this critical time of the year for starting a new construction project. Attachments: City Clerk Bid Results Vicinity Map P:\PROJECTS\A- RW & RS Projects\0SRW01 2008 Overlay & Repair East Marginal Way Fiber Optic lnterconnect\Before Construction\lnfo Memo Bid award Dennis R Craig.doc 1 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk BID OPENING East Marginal Way Fiber Interconnect Project 08-RWO1 October 30, 2008 — 10:00 A.M. BIDDER NAME & DATE STAMP OF RECEIPT SECURITY BID REC'D.? GRAND TOTAL °: Including Sales ;:` Tax ADDENDUMS ACKNOWLEDGED . (2) APPARENT = . LOWEST BIDDER' :(RANK ORDER) Dennis R. Craig Construction, Inc. 10/30/08 8:35 AM Yes 147,303.15 Yes 1 Henkels & McCoy, Inc. 10/30/08 8:35 AM Yes 182,952.00 Yes 3 Construct Co. 10/30/08 8:36 AM Yes 537,450.00 Yes 8 Gary Merlino Co., Inc. 10/30/08 8:37 AM Yes 152,400.00 Yes 2 R.W. Scott Construction Co. 10/30/08 8:45 AM Yes 202,700.00 Yes 5 Cannon Construction, Inc. 10/30/08 8:47 AM Yes 231,070.00 Yes 7 TST, Inc. dba Travers Electric 10/30/08 8:50 AM Yes 199,995.00 Yes • 4 Rodarte Construction, Inc. 10/30/08 8:53 AM Yes 217,001.00 Yes 6 ENGINEER'S 'ESTIMATE '. • K.; 147,100.00. . , `.t : ;', r; •r y ' x . The above figures appear as written within bid documents; and as read aloud at bid opening. THEY DO NOT however, REPRESENT ANY BID AWARD; apparent low, or otherwise. DATED this 30th day of October, 2008. /s/ Christy O'Flaherty, City Clerk 2 ' East Marginal Way `'\ Fiber Interconnect S86 PI• It Vicinity Map • ••M .•• mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0 �L n • S. • mmmmmmmmmm 1111 • • i • • 17 1.1 so • S 115St $ • • • • Illn• S 1 INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Haggerton (, From: blic Works Director9' November Date: 5, 2008 Subject: 35th Ave. S. Street Vacation ISSUE Sound Transit has requested a time extension to complete the remaining street vacation. BACKGROUND At the May 12, 2007 Committee of the Whole meeting, an update was presented of the seven Sound Transit light rail street vacations. Four vacations were voided due to conditions that could not be met; one vacation met the conditions and was completed, and two were granted time extensions. Since that time, the 48th Ave S street vacation conditions have been met and finaled. Sound Transit is still negotiating with WSDOT on 35th Ave S street vacation and requires another time extension. ANALYSIS This portion of 35th Ave S lies between Sound Transit property and the WSDOT SR -518 right- of-way. Portions of the Tukwila International Boulevard Station parking lot have been built on this proposed street vacation property. The proposed right-of-way limits run the full length of the abutting properties and include the cul-de-sac bulb. A draft ordinance is attached for review and comment. A vacation is not complete until all of the conditions are met. RECOMMENDATION Approve the street vacation time extension ordinance with Sound Transit to April 30, 2009. Attachment: Draft Ordinance Exhibit A - Street Vacation Map cc: File 3.40.62 P:1B0B1Sound Transit\Street Vacations13.40.62 35th1ST 35th Ave St vacation info memo.doc 5 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, VACATING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY, DEDICATED FOR STREET PURPOSES, GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS 35th AVENUE SOUTH, RUNNING SOUTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD (SOUTH 154TH STREET) FOR APPROXIMATELY 354 FEET, INCLUDING THE PARTIAL CUL-DE-SAC BULB; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila and Sound Transit executed the Development and Transit Way Agreement for Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail Tukwila Freeway Route Project on December 8, 2004; and WHEREAS, Chapter 11.60 of the Tukwila Municipal Code identifies street vacation procedures including public notification; public hearing, review and comment; and submittal of relevant information to City Council, all of which have been done; and WHEREAS, Sound Transit Link Light Rail proposes that a station be constructed at this location; and WHEREAS, 35th Avenue South has been a right-of-way for more than 25 years; and WHEREAS, Sound Transit provided a real property appraisal, from a member of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers in the amount of $446,088.00; and WHEREAS, utilities exist in the right-of-way being vacated; and WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council conducted a public hearing on April 4, 2005, for the purpose of considering the vacation of certain property located in the City of Tukwila, as described in the ordinance title; and WHEREAS, following conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council found that the property should be vacated, subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2087, authorizing the vacation of certain City property to Sound Transit, subject to Sound Transit satisfying certain conditions by April 30, 2007; and WHEREAS, Sound Transit failed to satisfy those conditions by April 30, 2007 and requested additional time for satisfying the conditions for this street vacation; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2007, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2158, authorizing the vacation of certain City property to Sound Transit, subject to Sound Transit satisfying certain conditions by April 30, 2008; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2008, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2203, authorizing the vacation of certain City property to Sound Transit, subject to Sound Transit satisfying certain conditions by October 31, 2008; and C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA\Ordinances\Street Vac 35th Avenue South.doc GL:ksn 11/5/2008 Page 1 of 2 6 WHEREAS, Sound Transit failed to satisfy those conditions by October 31, 2008, and has requested additional time for satisfying the conditions for this street vacation;' NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Vacation. A. The following property located in the City of Tukwila is hereby vacated: Approximately 23,891 square feet of 35th Avenue South, running southwesterly from Southcenter Boulevard (South 154th Street) for approximately 35 feet, including the partial cul-de-sac bulb. B. This vacation is conditioned upon satisfaction, by April 30, 2009, of the following: 1. Provision of compensation for $446,088.00. 2. Provision of utility easement(s). 3. Provision of easement(s) to Sound Transit for construction, operation and maintenance of the Tukwila Freeway Route Project consistent with the Development and Transit Way Agreement referenced herein. Section 2. Duties of Public Works. The Public Works Department is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this ordinance with King County, upon determination by the Public Works Director that the conditions referenced above have been satisfied. Section 3. Amendment of Official Street Map. Upon the recording of a certified copy of the ordinance, the City Public Works Director shall amend the City's official street map to be consistent with this ordinance. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.: Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City. This vacation shall not become effective until the conditions contained herein have been fully satisfied, until all fees owed the City have been paid, and until five working days after the date that this ordinanceand all relevant documents have been recorded with King County Records. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2008. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number: Attachment: Exhibit A, Street Vacation 35th Avenue South, 3.40.62 C:\Documents and Settings \All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA\Ordinances \Street Vac 35th Avenue South.doc CL:ksn 11/5/2008 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A Street Vacation 35th Avenue South 3.40.62 1 , 0770--c92:S. -1-----'.......... - --- ^ ----- 4 zooays i, , f ; ; • 1 • • ,t I . r. I • , --- ..... • r•i: S 154' S t L .... r. r -------- ------ _t. 'ILL . / 1 T. ............... -......... ..g -... . ! % ,--1...--........................4:—..--A.4 . A... / •• AC : -..... 1: s. 1 i 0 i i IZ ; / ....... I (. fli t7 1.1 I .1 .C. la , 0 , , -....• ,, . 4.... , (17 P. ; .'' • [1,1:7 1 4.S) . g ....c / 1.2s . s I--- i / l SR 518 b : : 41 ,:mirtra9N 010 52 NORTH .11 8 To: Mayor Haggerton INFORMATION MEMORANDUM From:,Rublic Works Director Date: " November 4, 2008 Subject: State Auditor Performance Audit Report "Use of Impact Fees in Federal Way,_ Olympia, Maple Valley, Redmond and Vancouver" ISSUE Results from the State Auditor's Impact Fees Performance Audit from five select cities. DISCUSSION The State Auditor selected the cities of Federal Way, Olympia, Maple Valley, Redmond and Vancouver for a performance audit because they had the highest impact fee revenue from 2004 to 2006. In the attached summary of audit results, nine audit issue areas are discussed for school, parks, fire and transportation impact fees. In comparing Tukwila's traffic impact fee system with the findings from the State Auditor, we find that Tukwila updates the traffic model and project costs annually; includes long term projects in the impact fee model; and creates a schedule that allows developers to easily determine the impact fees to be paid upon building permit issuance. The only audit recommendation that has not been incorporated is a tracking system which automatically interfaces to Finance's accounting system. Tukwila not only manages its transportation impact fee program effectively, but our system has already implemented four of the five recommended "leading practices". We will investigate our tracking procedures with Finance to determine the feasibility of integrating traffic impact fees. RECOMMENDATION For information only. Attachment: Performance Audit Report P:\Cyndy\Concurrency & Impact Fees\Info Memo - Impact Fee Profomiance Audit IO-08.doc 9 Performance Audit Report Use of Impact Fees in Federal Way, Olympia, Maple Valley, Redmond and Vancouver Report No. 1000014 October 14,2008 Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag, CGFM www.sao.wa.gov 10 Brian Sonntag, CGFM Washington State Auditor The Puget Sound Region experienced an unprecedented building boom during this decade. Impact fees' purpose is to help offset the costs of services associated with new development, such as roads, schools, fire facilities and parks. We chose this audit to examine whether cities are effectively and efficiently using of this revenue source. We selected the five cities with the state's highest impact fee revenue from fiscal years 2004 to 2006 to find out if: • Cities are collecting and administering impact fees appropriately and in accordance with state law. • The public is getting what it is paying for. Performance audits are conducted under the provisions of citizens Initiative 900. This audit was conducted on our behalf by Ernst & Young in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Cities have an opportunity to improve transparency and access to public information by posting their annual impact fee reports on their Web sites. While cities are required by state law to report the information annually, not all cities are posting the information on their Web sites. It is good policy to make that information readily available to citizens. We hope all cities and counties that impose imact fees will take advantage of the best practices identified in this audit. If you are interested in following up on the audit resolution or public hearings, please check our Web site at: http://www.sao.wa.gov/ PerformanceAudit/audit_reports.htm. What is an impact fee? A i ,.- ,onetimeifee to offset the•cost rof.services associatedwith '- F new,development Cities.:cal?,!,-:: collectfourtipes of -impact - i. fees:°School;_fire, ,parkrand,: i transportationimpact`fees. a I npact fees are intended to . -:. . i supplement'other funding- :: ,;sources and state'Iaw requires that,theybeaspent'on4he.A,= -.• `, }facilitiies for which they are -- -collected' . }fir .Wrt ' ,.. How are)themowyadministered?r',i ' State,law allows: municipalitiess; , 1 thaCarearequired to or`Uchoose ^., to planryuiiderthe Growth . ; Management Act to'assess impact fees'Cities'set the rate 'rfor, and -collect tfie imp . act fees Whopays,impactfees? Impact fees are°chargedto ibuilders:as;part of.the;building ,,.. fpermitprocess.,,Impact feesare typically�passed;mvisiblylfroira, the.builde'rlo the customer{ Mission Statement The State Auditor's Office independently serves the citizens of Washington by promoting accountability, fiscal integrity and openness in state and local government. Working with these governments and with citizens, we strive to ensure the efficient and effective use of publk resources. 11 Objectives The audit was designed to determine: 1. The method each city uses to calculate impact fees based on the direction in state law (RCW 82.20.050); 2. How each city demonstrates that these fees are appropriate; and 3. How effectively each city uses impact fees to pay for public facilities that: • Correspond to the demand for public facilities from new development. • Benefit new development proportionate to its share of the financing of new or expanded facilities; and are consistent with a comprehensive plan or a capital element of a comprehensive land use plan that has been adopted in accordance with state law. If the city does not meet these objectives, what are the resulting costs to all residents and what can be done to reduce those costs? Additionally, the audit addressed the nine elements contained in Initiative 900, outlined on page 5 of this summary. The audit cost $726,466. The complete text of Initiative 900 is available at www.sao.wa.gov/ PerformanceAudit/ PDFDocuments/i900. pdf Legislature Several of the issues identified during the audit are caused by a lack of clarity in laws governing impact fees, particularly regarding the items cities may purchase with impact fee money. For instance, Olympia interpreted the law regarding road impact fees to allow it to spend the money on bike trails. Redmond interpreted the law regarding fire impact fees to allow the City to purchase fire trucks. The law states the fees can only be spent on fire "facilities;" however the law does not define a fire facility. The Legislature has an opportunity to empower cities to improve their performance and definitively comply with state law. Issues The audit identified three main conclusions regarding the five cities' collection and use of impact fees. • Lack of clarity in state law may be causing some cities to calculate and spend impact fees in a manner that could be inappropriate. • One city is charging builders higher impact fees than they should and their fees are not supported by a capital facilities plan as prescribed by law. We recommend that city discontinue charging the fees until they are supported. • New developments in some cities are receiving questionable benefits for the impact fees paid. Best Practices Identified for All Municipalities The audit identifies a number of best practices that streamline or improve the collection, assessment and use of impact fees in order to minimize the costs and maximize the benefits associated with them. Visit www. sao.wa.gov/ PerformanceAudit/ audit reports.htm for: Full report Cities' responses, action plans • Public hearings • Cities' annual status reports 12 Audit Issues 1. Capital Facilities State law defines capital facilities for fire, transportation, park and school impact fees. However, the definitions are ambiguous, resulting in cities applying varying interpretations of the term. Audit Recommendations The Washington Legislature should amend RCW 82.02.090 to better define capital facilities and the following terms: 1. "Fire protection facilities" 2. "Public streets and roads" 3. "School facilities" 4. Address whether transportation impact fees can be spent on multimodal transportation (i.e., biking, walking, etc.). Financial Impacts $876,709 2. Fire Districts The City of Redmond Fire Department has developed a leading practice in its relationship with Fire District 34. The fire department's method of allocating costs of new capital facilities between the city and Fire District 34 should be evaluated for use by other cities and districts. Washington cities should be aware of the City of Redmond's leading practice in its relationship with Fire District 34 and attempt to institute a similar contract if that city has a relationship with a neighboring fire district. A more accurate allocation of costs between a city and related fire districts. . 3. Park Zoning Olympia may not be spending park impact fees as effectively as it could, based on the results of a citizen survey and based on other cities' use of multiple park zones. • Olympia should consider removing the "one-half to one mile" and "10- to 20-minute walk" from its definition of a "Neighborhood Park." • Olympia should consider dividing the City into two park zones to demonstrate a clear relationship between where impact fees are collected and spent. Two zones for park impact fees would appear to be reasonable, as the City is approximately six miles across. $36,974 4. Interest-Bearing Accounts • Each city uses a different method to allocate interest payments to impact fee general ledger accounts. • The City of Vancouver's method of allocating interest is a leading practice among the Cities. • Cities should consider using technology similar to Vancouver's system that allows for daily allocation of interest and minimizes manual data entry. • Cities should not allocate interest based on a rate that is not equal to actual interest earned. • The Legislature should consider modifying RCW 82.02.070 to better define "separate interest-bearing accounts." • Using an automated system will reduce staff ' time currently used in manual processes. • Accurately tracking interest income reduces the risk of errors or fraud. • Clarifying an ambiguous law will help cities. 5. School Impact Fee Interest Olympia and Federal Way do not remit any interest they earn on school impact fees to the school districts; therefore, the interest income is not spent on the purpose for which the impact fee was imposed, as required by state law. Cities should allocate actual interest earnings on school impact fees collected and remit those interest earnings to the appropriate school district(s) so the interest earned on impact fees can be spent in accordance with state law. $9,469 13 Audit Issues 6. Fire Impact Fee Schedule/ Calculation • Olympia's fire impact fee schedule/ calculation does not effectively demonstrate the connection between growth and system improvements. Olympia does not take into account the cost of public facilities necessitated by new development or the availability of other financing. • Redmond has developed a leading practice in its fire impact fee schedule/calculation, specifically the method it uses to take into account the impacts of fire and aid calls by land use type, projected growth by land use type and the fire Capital Facilities Plan. Audit Recommendations • Cities should be aware of Redmond's leading practice for the fire impact fees schedule/calculation. • The City of Olympia should revisit its fire impact fee schedule and consider if it is suitable to continue charging the fire impact fee. Specifically, Olympia should more effectively address RCW 82.02.050 and 82.02.060 in its calculation and demonstrate the fire impact fee it charges reasonably relates to system improvements that are reasonably attributable to growth. • Additionally, the City of Olympia should consider implementing a periodic review of its fire impact fee calculation and schedule to determine if the fee is still adequate, given the city's capital facility needs and anticipated growth. Financial Impacts $185,565 — $345,313 7. School Impact Fee Schedule/ Calculation Some cities that collect school impact fees are not consistently reviewing impact fee calculations prepared by school districts. Cities should revisit their review process of the school impact fee calculation/schedule and capital facilities plan, knowing they may be involved if litigation results from the school impact fee assessed. Cities benefit by having more confidence that the school impact fee they charge is appropriate. 8. Transportation Impact Fee Schedule/Calculation Redmond uses several leading practices in calculating, charging and maintaining its transportation impact fee. • Cities should consider a construction cost adjustment to align transportation impact fees with the cost of projects they fund. • Cities that calculate impact fees based on a short-term project list should consider expanding that list to include projects farther in the future that will be needed to accommodate growth. • Cities should adopt a transportation impact fee schedule that allows developers to easily determine the impact fee to be paid upon building permit issuance. The transportation fee schedule should be based on typical land uses and trips per land use. • Impact fees will more closely match the costs they support. • Cities may charge a fee that better represents the cost of growth. • Developers will be able to calculate and understand their transportation impact fee without outside assistance. 9. Permit System • Redmond inputs collection, interest earnings, and expenditure of each impact fee in a database and in the City's cash receipt system. The City is duplicating work by entering the same information twice. • Vancouver and Olympia integrated their permitting systems with their accounting systems. This is a leading practice that results in more effective internal controls and limits manual data entry. • Redmond should eliminate database tracking of individual impact fee collection, expenditures, and interest allocation to save staff time. • All cities should maintain a permit system that automatically interfaces with its accounting system. Leading practices are in place in Vancouver and Olympia. Total financial impacts: $1.18 million to $1.34 million $76,280 14 nitiative 900 requires the State Auditor's Office to identify best practices during each performance audit. The following best practices were in place at the cities during the audit: Redmond • The City of Redmond Fire Department's method of allocating costs of new capital facilities between the City and Fire District 34 should be evaluated for implementation in other cities and districts. • The City of Redmond's fire impact fee calculation and schedule met all aspects of the related state laws and demonstrates a leading practice by taking the following items into consideration: • System improvements that are reasonably related to growth • The proportionate share of the costs of system improvements related to new development • Redmond employs several leading practices with respect to calculating, charging, and maintaining its transportation impact fee. These leading practices include: • Inflation indexing • Costs based on a long-range plan • Adopted fee schedules by land use Vancouver • The City of Vancouver uses the Emphasys SymPro system to assist in managing the city treasury function, including interest allocation. The system tracks investment earnings and interfaces with the city's general ledger to retrieve the daily balances for all accounts to which to allocate interest. Investment earnings are then allocated across the general ledger accounts based on their average daily balances. • The City of Vancouver's school impact fee review process is a leading practice, as the City demonstrates the most in-depth and comprehensive review of the school impact fee calculation and schedule. Vancouver and Olympia • The cities of Vancouver and Olympia integrated their permitting systems with their accounting systems. This was identified as a leading practice among the Cities due to the tighter internal controls and minimal manual entry. About Initiative 900 Washington voters approved Initiative 900 in November 2005, giving the State Auditor's Office the authority to conduct independent performance audits of state and local government entities on behalf of citizens to promote accountability and cost-effective uses of public resources. 1-900 directs the Office to address the following elements in each performance audit: 1. Identification of cost savings. Identification of services that can be reduced or eliminated. Identification of programs or services that can be transferred to the private sector. Analysis of gaps or overlaps in programs or services and recommendations to correct them. Feasibility of pooling auditee's information technology systems. Analysis of the roles and functions of the auditee and recommendations to change or eliminate rolesor functions. Recommendations for statutory or regulatory changes that may be necessary for the auditee to properly carry out its functions. Analysis of the auditee's performance data, performance measures and self-assessment systems. 9. Identification of best practices. Initiative 900 provides no penalties for auditees that do not follow recommendations in performance audit reports. The complete text of the Initiative is available at: www.sao.wa.gov/ PerformanceAudit/ PDFDocuments/i900.pdf. 15 We made the following recommendations to the Washington Legislature: • Amend RCW 82.02.090 to better define capital facilities and alleviate ambiguity. • Consider modifying RCW 82.02.070 to better define "separate interest-bearing accounts." nitiative 900 requires the legislative bodies for the governments in this report to hold at least one public hearing to consider the audit results and receive comments from the public within 30 days of this report's issue. The corresponding legislative body must consider this report in connection with its spending practices. A report must be submitted by the legislative body by July 1 each year detailing the status of the legislative implementation of the State Auditor's recommendations. Justification must be provided for recommendations not implemented. Details of other corrective action must be provided as well. The state Legislature's Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) will summarize any statewide issues that require action from the Legislature and will notify the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of public hearing agendas. Follow-up performance audits of any state or local government entity or program may be conducted when determined necessary by the State Auditor, Initiative 900 provides no penalties for state agencies or local governments that do not follow recommendations made in performance audit reports. ILARC posts its 1-900 public hearings and agendas at: http:// www.leg.wa.gov/ JLARC/i-900.htm To receive electronic notification of audit reports, sign up at: https://www.sao.wa.gov/applications/ subscriptionservices/ 16 Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag, CGFM sonntagb@sao.wa.gov (360) 902-0360 Director of Performance Audit Linda Long, CPA, CGFM, CGAP Iongl@sao.wa.gov (360) 902-0367 Communications Director Mindy Chambers chamberm@sao.wa.gov (360) 902-0091 To request a public record from the State Auditor's Office: Mary Leider, Public Records Officer Ieiderm@sao.wa.gov (360) 725-5617 For general information from the State Auditor's Office: Main phone number (360) 902-0370 Web site http://www.sao.wa.gov Toll-free hotline for reporting government waste and abuse (866) 902-3900 To find your legislator http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder To contact the City of Federal Way: Mayor Jack Dovey jack.dovey@cityoffederalway.com (253) 835-2401 To contact the City of Olympia: Mayor Doug Mah dmah@ci.olympia.wa.us (360) 753-8447 To contact the City of Maple Valley: Mayor Laure Iddings council@ci.maple-valley.wa.us (425) 413-8800 To contact the City of Redmond: Mayor John Marchione mayor@redmond.gov (425) 556-2101 To contact the City of Vancouver: Mayor Royce Pollard mayor@ci.vancouver.wa.us (360) 696-8211 Americans with Disabilities In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document will be made available in alternate formats. Please call (360) 902-0370 for more information. 17 Initials City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Mayor Haggerton & Transportation Committee From: Jack Pace, Director Community Developme Date: November 6, 2008 Subject: Walk and Roll Plan Background Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director In April of this year, the Community Development Department issued a draft nonmotorized plan titled Walk and Roll. It was widely distributed, it was reviewed by the Parks and Planning Commissions and by the Transportation and Community Affairs and Parks Committees and it was forwarded to the Committee of the Whole. A public hearing was held before the City Council on July 21, 2008. At the close of the three month public review period, staff organized the public comments and Council direction and has begun modifying the document to reflect the clarifications and requests. Issues Key Changes to Plan There was good public participation and comment on the draft plan. Over 150 responses were received by individuals, organizations and agencies. Attachments A — Specific Comments and B — General Comments summarize the public input, with staff response and proposed changes to the Plan. The significant policy recommendations are: • Add a seventh recommendation - to create a nonmotorized improvement facilities list for the CIP for projects in the Walk & Roll Plan. • Draft a Complete Streets Ordinance, and added language about the Complete Streets policy to the plan. • Make specific changes to project sheets. — kuri IIL ttm -re.S • Make specific changes to maps. — 11-5 cur b (b L s f y Th — ' Iy t4"` • Add a bibliography and glossary. • Add recommendation to hire a consultant to determine the feasibility/suitability of recommendations for bicycle improvements on Tukwila's streets, as a follow-up step to adoption of the plan. • Drop Fee in -lieu recommendation for sidewalks. - ; ILLI/3ecf- oyeimai n �, y u ges -ro 40con as r l f - 10 -iv Aden cg4 f flu 11/05/2008 Page 1 of 2 19. • Replace Figure 6, showing blocks longer than 1/4 mile with a connectivity map showing relative block sizes in different areas of the city. • Add the following to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs section: o Signage and Pavement Markings o Multi -Use Trail Design — signage, bollards, crossing areas o Loop Detectors for Bicycles o Pedestrian Flags o Bicycle and pedestrian crossings of freeway on-ramp and off -ramp areas Sidewalk Priorities The pedestrian component of the Plan consists of paved and unpaved multi -use trails and sidewalks. During public review, no strong consensus was given for using either of the two methods. One method suggested evaluating and ranking streets based upon the type of street — principal, minor, collector - and its posted speed limit and the second method would be to consider all streets that are within 1/2 mile radius of schools. Staff also reviewed the prioritization method used for the Residential Streets Program and has prepared a method that combines elements of all methods, taking into consideration, location relative to the urban center, street type and posted vehicle speed limits, proximity to higher density housing, pedestrian generators, and connection of missing segments. The top row of Attachment C is a suggested point system for rating importance for sidewalk construction. Test samples using the suggested methodology for missing sidewalks are arrayed down the page. Next Steps After review of the proposed changes in the Draft Plan (Attachments A and B,) and of the sidewalk prioritization method (Attachment C) staff will return to the November 25, 2008 Transportation Committee with a marked -up version of a draft Final Plan for review and approval. The Plan will then be formatted and printed and brought back to a regular meeting of the Council with an ordinance for adoption. Attachments A. Specific Public Comment Matrix B. General Public Comment Matrix C. Sidewalk Prioritization Sample P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roli\adopting Ordinance\revised08transpocommitteememo1112.doc 20 £ P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL — . 2 ' q / 2 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS ;.-,•—•_ ] v k \ / $ cn ° S. / \~ƒ \ TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 2 IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT Should the Plan address small motorized vehicles like mopeds, electric scooters, segways, and mobility chairs that exist today as well as compact vehicles (smaller than a golf cart) that may evolve in the future? These types of vehicles would not be suitable from a speed and/or safety perspective to share the street with cars/trucks and buses. These alternative vehicles would reduce/eliminate fossil fuel full size vehicles usage in the city. These types of vehicles may effect: minimum radius constraints on corners, transition design to/from trail, visibility requirements, extra signage, path width, to name just a few examples. Instead of designing paths/sidewalks to handle pedistrians, bikes, skate boards, and rollerblades, I'd rather design a generic transportation corridor that regulates the speed, gross weight, dimensions, payload, noise, and maybe fuel (in the event that a gas powered moped wrecks and spills a quart of gas into the river....assuming that would be a bad thing for the ecology/environment). REVIEWER COMMENTS \ & / E @ « '73a, B E CD cD ,5:' !° ]« & o ./.n$ fƒ § rncagc40e P ='&E/a •• w\ K a y CD \\#/�\�2 7f\•e\ /g§<\GrQ e\na ./G$E/ 4ƒ \ ƒ / /\ } \ @ k $ % c\/¢%'®/§E) \ , °\ % 2. CD =E§ STAFF RESPONSE ®8 « pa 0 \ P /// EQe /(D ' 0 \ ] § §. \ &ƒ CHANGES MADE TO PLAN Lv P \Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL w t,,) z o p °° z 00 (DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS -, O C' CD cr =s O — N K co TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) �C VJ IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) pOn O - -1 "�',co ra rn • 0 'L °' `•� �' [ �' O pG G " 0 O -y n s ,g G x 0 -U COs 0'Q 5' O �' W 5, 04 W 5. O Ani . O Ocl„O 0 ^O G , cr CD 0.' ' -t CD `�' fb CD 0 L'. 0 ms' '-* ' 0 .jG - O pucL, !e�O 0OO .hr rivx c • n• rA) ^ 4 0 w '.. M O (IQ ' O2, ro 0 p (fG ' G" CD O 0 ' EXISTING TEXT Identifying "bike friendly" streets that comprise the bicycle network' will provide the basis for your projects in the future. This future should include broader use of the term "complete streets" — that says that the when streets are re-build/redesigned/improved that each street should be seriously considered for providing support for all modes of transportation including: pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and motor vehicles. The City should adopt a policy ordinance for "Complete Streets", which a number of local cities have now done in connection with their non -motorized transportation and comprehensive planning, e.g., the cities of Redmond, Kirkland, and Seattle. l note that on page 97 under the performance goals for "connectivity" it states that "Ensure that hike lanes are included in CIP sheets that include recommended bicycle -friendly routes (I've added the underscores), and sidewalks are included on all CIP sheets." En contrast, under Complete Streets all projects - on all streets - should include bicycle and pedestrian and transit accommodations/facilities regardless of the street segment's non -motorized plan network status unless there are specific major overriding reasons for omitting their provision. Copies of the complete streets policies of the above cities are available from those cities and the Cascade Bicycle Club. REVIEWER COMMENTS sra N�, cD o O a ' 0 G 0 y v: E. = N On O '+' -e S p) STAFF RESPONSE A Complete Streets Ordinance has been drafted as part of the Walk & Roll Plan adopting ordinance. Additional Complete Streets language has been added to the Walk & Roll Plan (see redlined edits to plan). n 0 '.0. p, F 0 'Z 0.. P. 0 . P J) b 0 Z.' 'b rD G. o o 101 cp 0 0 CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL a . , / 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS \ \ E% /\ J / / \/ ƒ/ 5 TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 6 ± 2 IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) _ \ \ , / @ J / / \ \ C e E n ® cro 6 P = o = - g 4 ��o0 8 A Highways as barriers / - 0 H k @ 1 concur with your assessment: that signage is needed. What are obvious changes in trail direction for a local rider can be problematic for a rider that is not familiar with the routes in Tukwila. Today I saw a rider, southbound on the Interurban AV side trail as he passed the Riverside Casino, overshoot the left turn to the! river side trail. He was busy doing a U-turn to get back to the Green River Trail. In "Settings", page 1.1., you recognize the barriers that the .Interstate freeways pose for cycling. I submit to you that every place that motor vehicles can cross the freeway style roads that you provide bicycle crossings. The current 1-405 underpass along Interurban Avenue is a good example of this. PREVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE E _ / ®. & o * / / (/ @ \ () \\ \ ` $ \ e w § o 0± U e&. A= / / \ % E f & g § J t ; e - $ ° o $ / \ / \ 2 \ \ / i \ ƒ \ f \ \ \ } £ § $ E § « 5 a. $ 0 = ® § & / / / P \ \ / \ . _ 0. - & o \ 0 0 ¥ > E \ 9 \_ F. ®& «/� & f a Staff coordinated with Paula Reeves at WSDOT, and added a sheet (see sheet titled "Crossing Areas (Freeway On -ramps and Off ramps) to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs chapter of \alk & Roll. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 17c P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 2 2 0 . \ 0 « 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 3 \ 2 \ / IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) C7' A (7 / 0- 0 &/ƒ \_ \ \ co CD EXISTING TEXT Question whether this is indicating both bike lanes as well as widened shoulders and signed routes. REVIEWER COMMENTS \ rn - 2 \ & 2 P ƒ P j. 0 0 ) • \ fi 5 5-) § \ \ / 8 e « 0 & \ \ \ \ \ / \ ° E * » ] \ 0 E ,-3.-'''' \ • ] CI % A & \ G \ / _ ¢ ƒ E / \ / ƒ # ¢ 0 (/ # \ \ § ¥ » § G ƒ \ \ / \ ° / \ \ J 7 ° § $ \ _ ® « / » % e 2-; ° @ b ƒ (] \ ƒ § ] R » Ln 0 P:1 Cr 0 2? k ƒ c n \ 0 _ a $ \ ; & STAFF RESPONSE P \ \ } 0 ƒ \ \ 0 k \ 7 7 = R R 0 0000 \ 2 & & 7 &-—«\2 0 / \ 0 a & 0 PD ? & \ &0&7 ©E - o & c ; a 7/ a CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 00 z o°° o 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Multi -Modal Connections • 0 0 co o s(D 0 o TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) '17 N A N w N w IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OT -HER) -_ Metro provides bike racks that can carry two bicycles on all Metro buses EXISTING TEXT It should also be noted that the Amtrak and Sounder trains that stop at the former Longacres site will also have provisions to carry bicycles, as will the light rail. Should the City have a procedure/equipment for snow removal on major commuter bikeways? Should we have a policy regarding snow removal so that sidewalks are not used for snow storage? During past snow events it was difficult to walk in the urban center because City snow plows piled the snow on the sidewalks. Will construction of separated sidewalks resolve this issue? REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted - this information can be added to the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Staff will check to see if such procedure / equipment exists or is needed. Staff will check to see if such a policy exists, and how this issue is handled on separated vs. attached sidewalks to see if there is a difference in the effectiveness of one design vs. the other. STAFF RESPONSE Added to final version O. 0 p 0 0 0 0..ril o, 0 CD E : co p.: aa, ,�7 ° ,. a a. ' . O N fnCD N7OOG 'ti co ryo 5 j ..- '") CD N ?r 0 '. ocD Q' w w 5' CDD q CCD o D 0" V) a o. y. c c a • o P. w cco .CS , N •a a a w G0 ter' "_' a. co (D Vn • o� w `C .p a . ' 7 w' F° -t . *. &' ry N 0 G, .moi 0 �Et CD co O o <acD O.N(i4 rno 5. o co a a co CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 01 (i P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL N CD O) 0 A o z o 00 oo DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS n n O 2 V a. o� O 00 co Q. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) -ri ' a 069 ro 6s CD C U 4 CA 0 8 CD N N IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) OMISSION of Military Rd S from the map Potential trail shown on Southcenter Pkwy/Tukwila Parkway bend N O (1,8- a' CD r EXISTING TEXT On the map, Figure 5, Military Rd where is passes through Tukwila 'should be on the Bike -Friendly R.outes. Military R.d needs to be a north -south route along the top of west hill. Its development with bike lanes needs to be established with the affected jurisdictions, SeaTac, Kent, Des Moines, and Federal Way. Where Military Rd crosses 1-5, south of S 180th St (in Tukwila?) WSDOT needs to have a wider bridge that provides Bike Lanes. Do not see this as at all feasible. The proposed trail conflicts with the Klickitat project and is within WSDOT limited access ROW and/or on SPU ROW/easements. It also may run through a WSDOT wetland mitigation site. The first step that should be taken is to develop an implementable and enforceable plan that is adopted by Council. The bike/ped network plan, similar to a street network plan, gives PW the authority to require improvements. Amending the Infrastructure Design Guidelines only tells PW what can go in but does not provide the hammer necessary to require it. REVIEWER COMMENTS Staff will meet with Public Works to find out how the Klickitat project will impact pedestrian and bicycle access in this area. UO 2t (D STAFF RESPONSE Military Rd S added to Bicycle Friendly Routes map; no project sheets will be made for bicycle friendly routes outside the city. Per conversation with Cyndy Knighton on 9/30/2008, this trail segment shall be taken out of final version of the plan because of safety concerns. The designs for this improvement do not include any provisions for bicycles. Staff coordinated with the Public Works Department to develop the Walk & Roll Plan and adopting ordinance. The Infrastructure Design Guidelines will be amended according to recommendations in the Walk & Roll Plan after the plan is adopted by Council. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN LZ P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL . \ / \ 2 (DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS $ @ ® E\( £$) ( 2 a- n f 0- $ _ E3 • § \$) ( 2 a f a. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) ± ƒ e VI ± \ 0) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) - Black River Connector / & > \ 0 > § (EXISTING TEXT One of the badly needed external connections, Figure 5, is the Fort Dent - Green River Trail connection under the BNSF and UP RRs to Monster Rd. This route provides badly needed direct connect between Tukwila and Renton. This would shorten the route between Tukwila and Renton. It will require coordination with UP and BNSF RRs. You list this on page 80 as the Black River connector. It needs to be a paved multi -use trail. In the southern Planned Annexation Area (PAA), Figure 5, north of S 200th St, Frager Rd/Southcenter Pkwy- on the West side of the Green River —needs to be in the future plans. These future plans should have bike Ianes that provide access by bicycle into the Southcenter Business District. The revised road needs to be moved off the Green River .Levee and lined up with the current intersection of Frager and S 200`h St. This would allow a new paved trail to be built on the west side of the Green River between S200th St and S 180th St. On page 83, you list this as the Green River Trail extension. On the same page, the two photographs captions list the photos as on the East Bank of the river — I think, the photos are (should be) on the West Bank. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE Name changed to Two Rivers Trail in project sheet and in Walk & Roll Plan. § O E e H © 0 ° y $2E3©$@§ o z # a. » o co*:»Ccf r @/ $°\ =-. \ \ ' § \ & - \ E \ co E i 7 0 5 R E r / / ' m n * ® 0 Z w A \ $ \ ( 0 CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL "' ... O o L oo DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Connectivity et, lDn n `G. n O O z G v, TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) `C N `r1 CP • C ( Vc IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Continue Construction of Neighborhood Links > U4 O E < ir1 C~/1 - tllX I agree with the importance of connections; often a long potential bicycle journey can be interrupted or even prevented by a small gap in an otherwise safe route. 1 have used Airport Way and E. Marginal Way, Figure 5, outside of commute hours and find them to be good connections into the Seattle area. 1 suspect that they need bike facilities for commute hour riding. I like the idea that you would work to improve the cycling facilities on these two routes. REVIEWER COMMENTS a Cq CD C STAFF RESPONSE Agree - no changes necessary. 0 a ?'° HT. • r o' _z• _ r co • -* c ci ,. ''C m 0 . w CD ; r� N O 0 O a. O ice! --. 0 • �. 6. cr N PD O lj 0 0 v= C O p N o C 0 0 0 '-c -, 0 c x? O g 1 ;- O ..: : ; .T ¢ C1 ter ' do 0 0 a.. .-. v0 .. a, r? 0.. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL \ / \ Q 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS f 2 \ \ 2 TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) • \ IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) / ) § f 5 § EXISTING TEXT Very large concern over feasibility of this kind of program. There is a very high risk of no improvements being built and all fees being refunded. There is no appropriate CIP project to accommodate this at this time, and in most cases, the "sticker shock" of paying a fee that covers the actual cost of constructing the improvement means that the fee gets reduced (by electeds) and a new burden on PW budget is created to fill the gap. Tracking system and staff to monitor program are also concerns. REVIEWER COMMENTS } ƒ / ,. 2 Q \¢( @ & § f// q e • \ CL 7 & && STAFF RESPONSE CD E § 0 / G # @ C / / G 0 'Ti @ ƒ §' m k, E 2 \ \ \ \ o / % ). z / \ _ o ca. \ \ n \ a. • CI ci.n @ E § ' & ° § 5. \ E °G)/\2 // s=/ w/\ 2 i E a' k \] \ \ -. / CL,o •-• . ± / E. §.° » Z g / / \ 7 $ / ƒ ~ o \ \ ® 2 ¥ r n / \ / 3 @ \ 7 2cp el \ CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6171006 abed -.' o o °° o 0 co DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) N fto C ,-t CD CT IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) a) -' O x 0 o vo co pa w EXISTING TEXT `!1- "' O o" 6-+cD 0 w co 05 2- ° y o." 0 0 n .. w V-- 0 O n O 5� ate_ 0. "CD CD CD p <.1rn -. a. 0 g. o a. 0 "cs .J ". N CD H .n-.• W N N O• N .< SCD C 0 '' C7", (9" O - 5 y ,-,..0 p co r. ° REVIEWER COMMENTS co .-,-. ,o- ."' W CD o •0' ',s' 01 N• •F• 0 co on. N •� CCD 75: CCD Q2 6• < rn ; 0 ao o P w a o W ° ,-, o 0.. a: •- 0 0 p o y °a 0- .1 o< a- o N o •W• O W P. G 0 W8. 5- O 10 X O . ST) Q W O W W v' Ufa 5.., CD CD ° O O ••••••••` X UQ' 0 P to p 0 STAFF RESPONSE CD UCD < o P aog ' v N'°. O0o .r .tn ov'°O° CD ° =• CD W aC 0 o a, a. 'IC 5• O 0 .-10j cp~'i CP. p c -— 5 x CD < w W rn" co ; rn cr :4 2, a.° D roo- D a' a, �O0no ?D w a.a.G . ° � o y v•wo x CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 1£ P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6.17 Io 14 e6ed .-- — 00 zp o °° 0 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) P29 - Figure 6 N VD 'r] UI (D a IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Blocks longer than 1/4 mile elJ �. O Iv O cm(D (D 'ti 5 EXISTING TEXT Along Southcenter Parkway, the map is incorrectly not including the S 168th St intersection (Bon Warehouse signal). Some private streets in the Segale business park are identified — is this plan also including private streets in the inventory? REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted - this can be changed in the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. O (D 8 KS N Sgry 6" na.?. 5 K(co 0 CD1< .0 N N a 0 K O .M. "rn p,• g D <. Dg O (0 , cr En N - 'W,. N Cr Q. (D O 2 M, ,-. '+ G N cn (D p C <(D (, 0e a' 7 (D (C CI N 0�` N 'T' N ,-.-CD 0 M h `J' K3 N 0y 0 M K co a' ,.+ CrQ CD CD i cn 0 co STAFF RESPONSE Figure 6 will be taken out of the Walk & Roll Plan. Maps were modified to correctly show the new streets associated with the Wig development. z 0 0 11)a0 CD CD0) CD 0 CD En cn CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 2.4 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL v c 0 NN 1-4 0 z O 0 r00 0 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) W b W IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) 0-'0 d= ° --•0 N" 093. CD .'T.. o�w d 0 4," O ap . 9" EXISTING TEXT Personally, though I use this bridge both for commuting to work and for recreational rides; I haven't seen any conflicts here. The only conflicts I have seen are in Fort Dent Park where spectators at the soccer fields have sometimes set up chairs on the trail, though recently signboards have been put up telling them not to occupy the trial, and this approach seems to be working. There is a reference to a narrow bridge on the Green River Trail and a note that it is a point of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. I cannot be certain which of four bridges is intended. I do not support the notion of dismount zones on trails. If the bridge in question is the trail part of the automobile bridge entering Fort Dent from the south, I would agree with signage suggesting that cyclists use the roadway (I always do so myself). If it is the bridge a little further to the south (close to the junction of the Green River and Interurban trails), which I believe may be more than 6 feet wide, few cyclists would consider dismounting, nor would it be reasonable to do so. Directing cyclists over to Interurban AVe S is not very practical, as it would inevitably involve left turns onto and off of a busy road for cyclists in some directions. REVIEWER COMMENTS clEi 0 coo — 'o a• `CC 0. o ' o -+ 0 v) • `" uo CD r. cr n a w tro 7,' 0 CCD o F. ',74-..: fn w aa N - 4, in" 'C WCE. 0 8- a. cr W0. '' "o . N '+ R 2 Oh URQ ' py0 y. STAFF RESPONSE Guidance on trail signage was added to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs chapter of the plan. Signage should be added to guide bicyclists to ride on the part of the bridge used by automobiles instead of the very narrow area that is wide enough for pedestrians only. wq 1?.,) 2a. a%). a cr.-4. .t, CD rn P. 00 n N 0 0 '.3 CD 0 N 0 'u Z 00 a o 0 0 Co o• 5 0 CD N CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll \final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 617 40 £ I. abed NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 22 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs 00 , 0 6 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS =— ,77 w e, . v, •v, >-: • P.) CD ‘`',.. (1,4 v v 0 ,,,, , -• P P ° 0 0 0 't IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) U 0 0 ,..,, - . 0 0 EXISTING TEXT _ . Sidewalks are a necessary pedestrian facility and should be provided as a bicycle facility for children, youth under the age for a driver license, and adults that choose not to ride on the streets. 1 like to refer to these riders as bicycle -pedestrians. They are acting like pedestrians and following pedestrian rules. On the other hand, Bike, Lanes (and wide outer/curb lanes) are the best facilities for riders that understand and are comfortable with the actions of motor vehicles. I like to refer to these riders as bicycle -vehicles. This includes riders that are commuting to work, exercising, and/or training for racing. They are acting like vehicles and are following vehicle rules. Both sidewalk and bike lanes often need to be present adjacent to the same roadway. See page 17. In infrastructure designs, the document seems to say that either pedestrian or bike facilities are to be provided, however for the reasons listed above both might be needed, page 33. See the discussion on Goals on page 97. See the discussion on Casual and Experienced Bicyclists on page A-7. REVIEWER COMMENTS - - - It is not clear what is being recommended for adoption for new standards. I suggest that clear recommended changes to existing public works standards be proposed, or a clear hierarchy so that any future development provides for bicycle and pedestrians. Better yet, choose standards based on street classifications, and any variances should be addressed at the project level. That way, consistent standards are proposed up front and you know what you are going to build once you get the $. STAFF RESPONSE ' - • 3 : --I . °- f7" e I V ' 'g; j ." r ." °'. 9,-. g' r, 1:4 .F.),. ,..,.,...,:=1. 7,,.- --I , n••-i. r-'' `0<q- • jc0 0 0 c _0) n -0 -,tr: . 0- ''' 0 E S''' ° a' F2.) g •-• 0 c7' 4-ei, CD 2 - : ? - .. -' . . a . 5 r F.,. ;1. -, ,,,b b ...., ....,„ ,.- fic =- n- -- '- i 0 .1 0- z " P (3., , - , o ,,o. o ' 1: $ 0 o 5 - • rt" ' 1: j- . g 5.'_'. b 1:1 -. .-' c 5- ct ,.- • 29 - r:.• ro4 2) .1 st M cr ,P ='. ,..., co ,,,, 0-, ...., co CD T. 0 .-- co , ,-, CD .,., ‘... 0-• •••••••- •,..• ••••, • ..... C C • 0 0'.' 0 0 0 (I'? = ,••,• `.. ,..-• '--' * ',2 "=' :42 • 8 `4 • r; 0 71' `p6°o 9.. - 00 '0 szu , .":"' 1 :6 = -, •n, u.' :3'. c , co P "= 2 „ ,' . • .' - ' = m., — — EA. o ». '''', (1. .1 0 .-, < Pa C1. CD 7C" ' 0 '4 fn CHANGES MADE TO PLAN The design standards are clear; what needs to be done as a next - step is a feasibility study to determine which standards should be applied where for bicycle facilities. 7® P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6b to 14 abed ti, - ® A / \ 2 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS y 0 E 0 CD0 vi / \ E = vl TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 3 4 / = IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) CO } / F 0r \ EXISTING TEXT (cont'd from comment above) (b) Bike Lane adjacent to "High" Barriers - .AASHTO and WS -DOT design guides show 5 feet minimum width (measured from the face of the curb) for bike lane width adjacent to a curb (Tukwila plan p.36). Where there is an extremely high curb, guardrail, "Jersey" barriers, retaining wall or other "tall" barrier at or within a foot of the curb face adjacent to the bike lane, the bike lane should be at least 6 -ft wide measured from the curb -face. This is especially important on horizontal curve alignments and where there is a barrier curb on both the left and right edges of a single traffic lane (e.g., curbed two-lane roadways with a curbed median). Bike lane design guideline elements: (a) Full -standard bike lane with parallel. curb parking case - A total of 15 feet measured from the face of the curb to the outer stripe of the bike lane is required to have a bike lane installation which is free of the parked car opening of the driver -side doors (the "door -zone" safety problem). This provides for a 5 -ft wide bike lane and a 10 -ft wide parking lane (7 or 8 -ft marked parking stalls plus buffer for the door -zone). Unfortunately the American Association of State Highway and Transportation. Official's (AASHTO) current bicycle lane design guidelines does not address this fact. Installations of 13 feet and 14 feet width are shown in the Tukwila plan for several projects: 13 ft for the vital Andover Park East bike route improvement (p. 69), and 14 feet for Baker Blvd (p. 70). REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE 8 / 7 w / a / ® n e 2 \ / 4' @ z 0 ; , \ƒ»/. . = 3 =/ 3 2 0 2 7 EL: \ § VIA § \ E ƒ \ \ /. & r '0 2 » e m ° « .„ \ e e / / / \ \ V. \ \ § \ DOg$)7. . \ \ \ / $ o o 0 ¢) \ ° Q » ( i 0 Cl / I CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6i' In 91. a6ed 00 (DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS m A 0 d co to 0 0 0 0 d coCA CAb TOPIC (ROUTE, LPOLICY) W IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) nt �� r Z NCD N (D4.) C [L co Bike Lanes vs. Paved Shoulder ril H ^- Z rii H As stated in the plan, experienced cyclists prefer wide curb lanes over bike lanes. However, you do not design roadways based on the ,most experienced driver. I prefer bike lanes for several reasons. Wide curb lanes rely on cyclists and drivers to actively maintain safe separation. Both must be constantly vigilant. Bicycle lanes provide an intuitive method of keeping cyclists separate from motorists. Motorists tend to stay within the lines in a roadway and do not have to think about leaving room for cyclists. Also, the presence of bicycle lanes are a constant reminder to motorists to the presence of cyclists on the road. Regarding the choice of Bike Lanes versus Paved Shoulder, it seems like Bike Lanes are appropriate for areas that are urban or being urbanized, where it seems like Paved Shoulders are appropriate for areas that are still rural in character. Considering the growth in the area surrounding Tukwila, it may turn out that Paved Shoulders are temporary. If no shoulder exists, then paved shoulders make a good temporary solution until a full road project with bike lanes updates the route. REVIEWER COMMENTS a 1 N STAFF RESPONSE Bike lanes are the most preferred improvement -maybe we should state this more strongly - that paved shoulders and wide curb lanes are second and third best. Deleted from cons for bike lanes on p. 36: "Some experienced bicyclists prefer to ride in a wide curb lane, shared with automobile traffic. Agree - no changes necessary. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6i' 40 91. a6ed W 0 N N � o 0 oo 0 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN -PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Bike Lanes Bike Lanes to n 0 d w.q rn TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b W u.> 0ON W IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Pros and Cons Bike Lanes - placement in the roadway EXISTING TEXT Under the Pros and Cons of bicycle lanes, there is no mention of maintenance, as there is for other types of facilities. In your new construction standards, do not put bicycle lanes up on the sidewalk. This takes the drivers attention away from the bicycle - vehicle that should be visible on the roadway. What is the difference between a bike lane without a curb and a paved shoulder? REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted - this should be added to the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. `O K 0 v, O � N.� n b y 0 Dn CD 0 '' r N -" CD N 0 0. 0 .a. 'b N • a a'.S o 00 c- , p 5 p- o p- 0 o CD o , `(D 0 a c 0 -. Cr .- 0 n cD §g. o C' ( 94 w 0 i_r:L rD CD Cr r? a pi cao CSD a4 o w ti �• (gyp CD CD n `C o 0 L. .GA 5 oaf o cr 5 .. = �' (D N O ,-y CD CD STAFF RESPONSE Added as bullet under cons. This is not proposed, unless sidepaths are considered adjacent to the sidewalk. z 0 0 g aqw N 0 CA CA CHANGES MADE TO PLAN Lt P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL W W t) N0 W O O Oo . 0 opo 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS .. ta:cn c.4 o- 0 a co 17, Bike Lanes _� rn r 0 TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) -0 0" bb W Ch W CIN IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) -- --- r co 0 `r° Bikes can often be integrated.... b"' td tra --{ vii c) :cr 0y 0 t=i fA G�. t17 k y I 'In the discussion of Wide Curb Lanes, the relatively new concept of "Sharrows" should be available for use on roads where bicycles and motor vehicles share the sante lane. Under Cons, add new bullet: Additional ROW Cost Should be "Bikes can SOMETIMES be integrated...." REVIEWER COMMENTS Agree •ate "t - 0 - 0 Q) " - V) 0 y W .. << C co � W CD `< .) W 0 to 0 X d '+ to ur ; CSD a. N N n �. N 0 N �. a, 20 Hi O b4 O C a a o 1 rn 0 0 P.' o' n a a) 0 o g o ?'. a STAFF RESPONSE Sharrows are not yet adopted in the MUITCD, so anywhere they are installed has to be approved by the FHWA as an experiment. Locations where these are proposed could be identified as part of the bicycle feasibility study, and would need to be identified in an application to experiment to the FI-1WA.. Added as bullet under cons. Z 0 n 0 v, co n N N t$ CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6.17 10 91. abed W w w ,2 C 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS z1 4 y' r'• 0i Multi -Use Trails (D Go 0 0 % ° TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b 0 W P38-39 w J IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) o t4 rn P g• z p 0 4. P. Lighting along the trails un '1ao y X y The frequency of intersections of trails with roads is a function of the location of the trail; for instance on the west side of Foster Golf Course, where the Green River Trail in effect becomes what is sometimes called a sidepath, there are several crossings (from 58th Ave in the south to the driveway south of the on-ramp to I-5 in the north). This is undoubtedly the most dangerous section of the trail. In fact, surveys have indicated a higher frequency of accidents between cyclists and motorists at trail intersections with roads and driveways than in bike lanes. Lights that are lower along the trail (Green River and Interurban) would help in some of the areas that are more isolated and not be invasive to the neighbors of the trail. Are wide shoulders with no lane markings safe? REVIEWER COMMENTS D ( ( _ ° rnwoo„owaa 0°°°0 aa ° °UcR woe)... oD, y o a.. ",,v. :c co.0.~•0 P5 = 0- ° '5 NI 0 Q i P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6t7 Jo 61• a6ed 41, 0 w ,0 w 00 w v Z O 0 o0 Z 8 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Attached vs. Separated Sidewalks Attached vs. Separated Sidewalks 7 N C co co Multi -Use Trails Multi -Use Trails TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 'V .A N -P N "V 41, — "C w ,,O 'T1 41,0 't 'tea IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) - Attached and Separated Sidewalks in the City of Tukwila In more suburban or rural areas,..... Paved Shoulders Multi -Use Trails Design specifications for trails EXISTING TEXT Picture of Southcenter urban center is truly the ugliest picture. Cannot a nicer shot of a separated walkway with street trees be used? No rural areas exist in Tukwila and landscape strip really isn't appropriate in a truly rural setting anyway. Paved shoulders should never have "C" curbing on the fog line. This curb .line between the vehicle lane and the ped/bike area on the shoulder, is very dangerous for cyclists. A cyclists that starts in the vehicle lane and get forced on to the shoulder will take a nasty fall. This "C" curb configuration, even when illuminated with a good bike light, often. looks like a paint stripe that you should be able to ride across. Under Cons, add new bullet: ROW may be difficult to obtain In your construction standards for trails, page 39, the radius for curves should be greater than 50', to provide the necessary sight distances for cycling and to provide a reasonable speed for cycling. REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted - we can add a nicer li picture in the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Since Tukwila is an urban area, it is agreed that separated sidewalks are the most appropriate type of sidewalk design. a CD CD STAFF RESPONSE New picture added. No change necessary. C curbs and sidepaths added to design standards section as facilities not to construct, since they are dangerous for bicyclists. Right-of-way may be needed for all the different design standards for bikes and pedestrians, this was added as a con to all facility types. Each Project will be evaluated individually as opportunities/funding becomes available for design and construction. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN Q17 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and RoII\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 61710 OZ abed A y A A \ § 2 2 / / \m DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Attached Sidewalks ® /$ ' rk Ancillary Infrastructure Desi_ s Separated Sidewalks Separated Sidewalks m 2 \\® \ r& TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) / - A P43-46 / / / IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Attached Sidewalks ƒ / } / U (' § Driveways / CA ....prevent the sidewalk from cracking due to root growth.... If not designed and maintained properly.... EXISTING TEXT Attached sidewalks should not have designs that allow the sidewalk to dip down for each driveway. These dips turn into speeds bumps for bicycle riders. Will curbless natural drainage systems pose the possibility of cars getting stuck or tearing up landscaping if motorists park off the pavement? Will the preferred driveway design automatically require separated sidewalks? Under Cons, add new bullet: Additional ROW needs Add "and buckling" after the word cracking. Also causes problems for street maintenance vehicles — add to bullet REVIEWER COMMENTS ƒ cra ,< §• / z•--1 / 0 a \ » & > _ c % R o w m n ) ®) / 0 \ / ® Si. \\•\,ƒ \ CD 0 » 0 0 7 - < % , 0 n n » B a R gz § \ ; .c \ § CD \ / 0 & 0 ® / CA Noted - this can be changed in the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Noted - this can be changed in the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Noted - this can added in the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. STAFF RESPONSE Separated sidewalks should be the preferred design. No change necessary - these features are likely to be added by private property owners, where drainage/site circumstances allow this type of feature. No change necessary. Right-of-way may be needed for all the different design standards for bikes and pedestrians, this was added as a con to all facility types. Added Added CHANGES MADE TO PLAN I •b P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6i4° I.Z e6ed vt ,-• c.n 0 1i VD A oo Z 0 o o0 Z o 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Mid -Block Crossings Crossing Enhancements n o G,, 0 cn 0 o cn CM Y 1 0 DI TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) ul o vi o vi o A vp IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) - - r cr ii. Graphic and 3rd bullet v) co o z a UV 0 EXISTING TEXT Referencing Kirkland is fine, but Tukwila also has in -pavement lights on TIB near 14300 block and 15100 block. Should the Plan list ''crossing flags" as used in Kirkland and elsewhere? Stop bars at mid -block crosswalks is NOT supported by PW. Using a yield bar (sharks tooth) pattern could be applied per MUTCD. PW has concerns over designing an intersection to accommodate ped crossings when the intention is to prohibit their crossings. !REVIEWER COMMENTS > 0 co 0 Noted - these can be added to the final version of the plan. A meeting with Public Works should be set up to determine the appropriate design. Changes should be made in the final version of the Walk & Roll to reflect the appropriate design. There may be some areas where pedestrian crossing should be discouraged. These areas should be clearly signed for all users, in compliance with ADA requirements. STAFF RESPONSE Tukwila TIB picture added to plan. Added Bullet on stop bars at mid -block crosswalks taken out - agree that what we are required to use what is in the MUTCD. Took out graphic showing stop bars at mid - block crossings. Complete Streets Policy - as much as possible, transportation infrastructure should be designed to be ped/bike friendly, acknowledging that in some areas the bike/ped friendly thing to do will be to discourage these users due to safety concerns. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 61710 ZZ abed f 3 LA / / E DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Crossing Enhancements \ ) & \ 6 5 0 7s-' n K En a / MI 9 0 08 TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 2 Iv 2 — 3 .— IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Curb Bulbs Stop lines are placed parallel to the crosswalk area.... r. R / - \ --- (-1, \ / \ ( EXISTING TEXT Revise the text (page 52) to more clearly state that the bulb -out should not encroach upon or pinch down the travel pathway of a cyclist at the right edge of the traffic lane nor encroach upon the bike lane where a hike lane is present. Stop bars only to be used at controlled intersections, yield bars may be considered at mid -block crossings. I find the use of in -pavement pedestrian activated lighting insufficient. These lights are not very noticeable in the daylight and offer the pedestrian a false sense of security. I would rather see a flashing yellow sign with an associated sign, such as PEDESTRIAN IN CROSSWALK. REVIEWER COMMENTS A meeting with Public Works should be set up to determine the appropriate design. Changes should be made in the final version of the Walk & Roll to reflect the appropriate design. & & B $ ¥> \$2\ \\g/ D, •-• \) co \//2 ,>n ;5- Eƒ/ /oL/ $ — E v, \ E 7 < & $n ° °\ • \_¥ Eo' ƒ 00®ao E STAFF RESPONSE Revised to include this language Bullet on stop bars at mid -block crosswalks taken out - agree that what we are required to use what is in the MUTCD. \ \ ) k ƒ ƒ \ ) § \ ` Q\• J o°® c G .« \ E®» 2 e i g r d E j 0t§/�9 ® ; co _ " v, . ° « o co, 2 =o \ / \ CD " ' ƒ� 7 m / $ § •$ / / © \ - % p § } 7 . n. ` - ° ƒ & •E ;- m a o 0 §'j t e$ \ \ \ ( \ @PC"e \ \k 4- / ¢ / CHANGES MADE TO PLAN L. V P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 61740 £Z abed (A '--1 lA O's Litz V, 0 o 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS tri 0 o n `6' (fp co Z bo �� aci N r>7n n S. tla n) TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b N tV IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Curb Bulbs are appropriate only in areas where there is on -street parking 7 G a' M t✓ d v, EXISTING TEXT Should City standards for street illumination be increased at pedestrian crosswalks? I fail to see the need for on -street parking within the City of Tukwila. The businesses within the city limits provide parking for their customers. On -street parking increases the potential for accidents between motorists and cyclists. Cars pulling in and out of parking spaces increase the chance of accidents. Cars parking on the side of the road make it more difficult for motorists pulling out of driveways by blocking their view of traffic and oncoming traffic's view of them. Curb bulb -outs should extend far enough out to snake the pedestrians visible to the vehicles, but not so far that they encroach in the bike lane/bicycle travel area. A Curb bulb -out that extend too far out forces the cyclists to move into the traffic lane causing a conflict and or injury situation to occur. REVIEWER COMMENTS A meeting with Public Works should be set up to determine the appropriate design. Changes should be made in the final version of the Walk & Roll to reflect the appropriate design. The decision to add on - street parking to Tukwila's streets will be more appropriately addressed as part of the urban center plan. STAFF RESPONSE Lighting is especially important at pedestrian crosswalks. The MUTCD provides guidance on lighting levels for pedestrians in these areas. Curb bulbs are also appropriate where there are transit stops - this is added to the design standard. Language from above comment addresses this comment. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN o o c(.1 0 ooO Z o o0 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Stairs p- o po c- ra p- o vo rn r. 08 TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 'V cn U.) 'C cn N 'TJ Cll N IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Last bullet and bike ramp photo n 5, O' GJ G cr N G cr b0 a' (A EXISTING TEXT Previous bullets discuss the need for handrails but the bike ramp concept doesn't appear to have a hand rail. Hard to be sure with the photo and no text references accommodation of a handrail within the design. Regarding curb bulbs, I have seen instances in Europe where bike lanes continue through curb bulbs at street level and the raised bulbs project further into the roadway, often with vertical posts or bollards, so the pedestrians can stand further out into the street in safety while cyclists pass behind them. Curb bumps make life hell for cyclists! REVIEWER COMMENTS Handrails should still be included on both sides of stairs, even when there is a bike ramp. This can be added to the design detail for stairs. Discuss this design with Public Works and consider adding it to design options in final version of Walk & Roll Plan. Consider design option mentioned in comment below, add to design standards in final version of Walk & Roll Plan. STAFF RESPONSE The picture of the bike ramp/bike gutter illustrates how a handrail fits within the design of this type of facility. In Portland they have a similar design - however, it's not clear if this approach is any safer for bicyclists, since there are potential ped/bike conflicts, and then bikes must merge back into traffic after moving through the curb bulb area. Changes were made to the description/design standards for curb bulbs to include language that curb bulbs should not encroach into bike lanes or (if bike lane is not present) the bike pathway. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 617 40 17Z abed y P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL N - z P 00 L. c 0000 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS b o. CD nn vl4-1, -0 o. CD TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) 1 0 o aN CD CD y 0' o C i5.: 7. y 0 0 Cl.n 6.1 CD (G (.1 o C a EXISTING TEXT This section doesn't seem to have any language regarding the suitability or feasibility of the recommended improvement options. Many places just seem to have "build bike lanes" as the default #1 choice regardless of the actual feasibility of ever doing so. I like the page by page descriptions of each projectiroute segment. Each Project, page 55 thru 83, has a list of "improvement Options" from the most bicycle -friendly to the least bicycle -friendly. I would like to see.you state that "the most bicycle friendly goals will be accomplished in the long term, and that the secondary choices could be done soon and only as interim steps while waiting to the best improvement". REVIEWER COMMENTS 'r? o (D p ~'. <0 CCD .°n 0 r. co pp ,-,. O. 0 0. CD �. bd ..... C' (D • 0 : o CD CL N 'C 00 o a w ",74 - o 00 o ' - 0 -. 0 0- 0 rn p'. a b co 0 STAFF RESPONSE Add recommendation (one of first steps for implementation of the plan) to hire a consultant to identify the specific recommendation for each corridor (feasibility study for bike routes). Added to project pages for bike lanes, as well as the description of the hierarchy description for non - motorized improvements in the plan. Staffs recommendation is that this should also be considered as a policy addition to the Comprehensive Plan CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 61740 9Z 968d K E 2 3 \ \ E \ DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Projects 2. / / ± - / TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) \ \ '77 \ IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) East Marginal Way vs. Airport Way Tukwila International Blvd: Improvement Options section Tukwila International Blvd o - \ § y > 0 � / co EXISTING TEXT I'm in favor of bike lanes on East Marginal but think a few improvements on Airport Way could make it a much better way to go since there are few intersections to slow down cyclists. Constructing of bike lanes on recently improved sections of TIB, and sections that will be improved very shortly, does not seem very feasible. Bike lanes on Tukwila International Blvd would be very good. See also the general comments. These streets are outside of Tukwila's jurisdiction, or primarily outside. They should either not be included in the city's planning document or identified in a separate way to indicate that they are another jurisdiction's responsibility and/or require coordination. REVIEWER COMMENTS > f Further study is needed to No change to plan necessary. A determine the most feasibility study would help appropriate type of bicycle determine the suitability of bike facility for each corridor, lanes on this route. and when these improvements will be feasible. Agree No change to plan necessary. A feasibility study would help determine the suitability of bike lanes on this route. p ; /'m S g » H ° ^ 0 ° _§ n/ 0 m« n\ 4 / \ \ i i / \' \ / a 9 2 / ® -' ` $ R CD ) \ k \ \ / - 0 cc, P. cy / / . \ \ 0 ƒ& ' / & .- \ Cr CD cil CD ( ^ * E m $Peo « n n o ¥( g & ®. % •r §a B /-. }k E0\, L. ƒe \§ -g -' \ $0/\ & _°§ 0 \ \ % 'zi 0 _/ & Cr'\ƒ / \ G/ F.CD ci, \c/ - w STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN No change to plan necessary. A feasibility study would help determine the suitability of bike lanes on this route. 117 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL o VD 00 CN O 00 o 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Projects 'b . 00 r. .d - o. - Projects TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 'ty U J .d t/1 J 'ti t/i J '.b to J IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) East Marginal Way: High speed corridor y� W ' ao `< 01 h PH S' w << East Marginal Way 0 H Only the East Marginal Way section is really a high speed corridor. Once it becomes 40'/42nd the speed limit is much lower. Bike lanes on East Marginal Way would be very good; especially given the large employment locations. I do not believe that using the right-of-way currently occupied by railroad tracks for a trail would be a good idea — the tracks do not extend for the entire distance from the Boeing Plant 2 area to Boeing Access Road in the'', south, and the nature of the right-of-way is such that it seems likely that any trail would not be continuous through the area and would result in cyclists frequently crossing the road while traveling north or south. See also the general comments. The City needs to correct the choke point on East Marginal Way between Boeing Access Road and the Duwamish River created by the light rail in the middle of the roadway. I find it exciting that East Marginal Way is high on your priority list. It's a wide street, and there's no excuse for not making it a safer place for cyclists. REVIEWER COMMENTS a trg CD co a 00 co coco Agree a STAFF RESPONSE This was noted, as a change to the project sheet. No change to plan necessary. The railroad spur will be kept in plan 'as one of the alternatives include in a feasibility study, even though 'bike lanes are preferred according to bicyclists on this route. The choke point on East Marginal Way was added to the existing conditions description for this route's project sheet, as well as ways to address this situation in the short- and long- term as part of the Improvement Options section of the project sheet.. No change to plan necessary. A feasibility study would help determine the suitability of bike lanes on this route. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN & 11 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6i 30 8Z 96ed d / 2 } 2 2 ' \ q- DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS / .'2? / -// / TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 2 « \ « \ « IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Airport Way \ a / > a EXISTING TEXT Not in Tukwila. Much of Airport Way, as is noted, lies within Seattle. Nevertheless, it is probably the best option for a northern extension of the route including the valley trails that currently ends in the vicinity of the south end of Boeing Field. There are some existing paved shoulders from Norfolk St up to the southern entrance to the airport and access to Perimeter Road; this route is currently used by many cyclists (and was part of the Seattle -to -Portland route until it was changed to Lake Washington Blvd and Rainier Ave through Renton). The area I speak of is the South End of Airport Way commencing at what I think is our city boundary. On the Seattle side there is an asphalt shoulder (in poor repair) that allows one to avoid the Airport Way drive lanes, but then one is forced onto Airport Way (or ride on grass due to no shoulder) until the south end of Associated Grocers. That area is likely 1/2 mile long at most. With AIG being redeveloped by Sabey maybe we can get some of that stretch looked at with their Airport Way side area redeveloped. I realize these things take time, no worries, there, but since I'm experiencing the commute weekly (not everyday mind you) it is a very scary part of my 9.5 mile ride home. REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted. CM 00 \• \ - ƒ \ ] Q / § $ \' § \ 7 § ; q e a / . § m / / R (D" ,' R c\\0 /// 0 STAFF RESPONSE This route is on the Recommended Bicycle -Friendly Routes map, but taken out of the Project Sheets since it is located outside of Tukwila. Norfolk Street added as a project sheet to plan. H®•g=H &B¥ » cr -• n o t a Q R /z; o0 z2\»0EG&\F2•&§0&\ / 4 §®' 3/ Q&• ƒ]ƒ\m 0\ )0 C / 3 \ \ CD a >\ r ) C} k0 z .0 m 0-4, CDC4 $ § 0 Pa VI / / ( • \ &� CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 6t, bo 6Z 86ed 0 90 o 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS ti o. CD O EEn 'd o. (D 0 TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) '1:1 cn V t7 LA IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) W N 6'A) n 0 co Ecn En PO 0 0 0. I PO tO W N �a n 0 0 En 0 a I CA EXISTING TEXT This section, covering Boeing Access Road and S Ryan Way, might better be broken up into two parts. If a bike facility across Boeing Access Road could be established, then a better connection to the east might be to utilize Martin Luther King Way to the north up to Henderson St, which provides a much more level route east to Rainier Valley, whereas S Ryan Way is a very steep road (which is also potentially dangerous as a downhill route westbound). In fact, I believe that Boeing Access Road / MLK / Henderson St is the only level crossing of I-5 corridor from Longacres up to Dearborn St. The multiple merge lanes provided by I-5 and Airport Way are not even mentioned in the plan. I feel that simple bike lanes are insufficient to address this problem. REVIEWER COMMENTS X z 0.a. � '7 CD „Oy �' n' �• a.� �'17 z a �Rn CD oC 0 GG Chi. cn N 0 N CD 0 O C7 ° ^? co co STAFF RESPONSE Cr: r�N.�ooa-aa 'G U a. O. c 0 Uy a, °)._s a 0 �° 0'S'' (wj '- 0 C 0. n O (D CD (D ..-t• .4 N ,fp...- uo o„ s- r" co t' Q 0- o �' Z x t o a. 'n 7 — r" ,A) o 0 w = -• o � a �' — Oo 0- .o This route is one of the few east - west routes in the northern part of Tukwila, and connects the Green River Trail with the Chief Sealth Trail. If a suitable on -street facility cannot be provided, an off-road multi -use trail should be provided. This is added as an alternative on the project sheet for this route. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 6t, bo 6Z 86ed 05 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6t7 Io OC abed G DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS b O (D(D o 'dO �O 0 TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b O b U VC) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) S 112th Street Xi W o 2. dQ 0 0 (D N N Po 0 sm a 1 up EXISTING TEXT South 112th St already has a paved shoulder. Its value would depend on East Marginal Way and/or Tukwila International Blvd being an attractive route for cyclists. Boeing Access Road is also constrained by WSDOT limited access restrictions and additional restrictions associated with the railways. Boeing Access Road is built on at least 3 individual bridge structures, 2 owned by Tukwila, 1 by WSDOT which will also constrain what can be done/approved. REVIEWER COMMENTS a Octi (D a CD STAFF RESPONSE No change necessary. This route would likely come out as a low priority for bicycle improvements: A feasibility study would help determine what to recommend for this route in the long term. This route is one of the few east - west routes in the northern part of Tukwila, and connects the Green River Trail with the Chief Sealth Trail. If a suitable on -street facility cannot be provided, an off-road multi -use trail should be provided. This is added as an alternative on the project sheet for this route. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 15 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6b 10 b£ abed CO o o 00 (DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Projects .� o • CD n v, TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b Ch b aN 0 IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) -- -- S 115th Street - 42nd Ave S - Macadam Rd S - 51st Ave S - Klickitat Dr V .1 i O �N O y Jl8 0 co 0E (I tY1 y n - t'21 X - Macadam Rd - 51st Ave S provide little to no access to the surrounding neighborhoods. 51st Ave S crosses over Southcenter Blvd without access. A connection between 51st Ave S and Southcenter Blvd is needed to increase the utilization of access to the Southcenter area. 1This doesn't seem very feasible or safe. S 112th Street is likely to have very high truck traffic volumes that would warrant wider than 10 foot lanes, especially at intersections. REVIEWER COMMENTS 0 co z c �.o on CD z 0" y 7a a CA 4' . 5' Mi W N CT, w O O • X CD ° CD N 'Y O go 8 O 5 7• W K. �+ ‘-ON r. M N y 5 0w o & < 0 - `< 0 ' o r. , O Cd o. o y . o " co a a < y CD ,...1 a w co STAFF RESPONSE A project sheet was added to the plan to include a ramp from Southcenter Blvd up to 51st Ave S. 0 00 .g• E.-2 - tiQ 0 0 ° w �. w CD 0 a o `° 0. a. V g'-'. 511 i r:fiP ., rn C -,- th co O • . CD o (D 0 y0 oE. g �, o c w ., c) (0 . `< o o CD co c a co w _-. O o m n, Q. 5 - `� . o c o 0= v `a a oo CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6b Jo ZE a6ed 3 0000 0 R 0 r. 0. DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS o / / / TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) / / IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) U. < / \ / / ° \ z \ 0 CD §k) \ / z X g 0 § ,(1) / / \// °EE EXISTING TEXT Paved shoulders or bike -lanes would be a very good addition to this corridor, which is already used by many cyclists. Also, it raises a question in my mind about paved shoulders and bike lanes. It is unclear to me from the document (perhaps I have missed this information) whether Tukwila's definition of a bike lane necessarily includes a curb on the outer edge, with or without a sidewalk. Many sections of this stretch would seem to be rather narrow for the inclusion of sidewalks, in which case there would presumably be little reason to add curbs; would a bike facility without outer curbs be regarded as a bike lane as opposed to a paved shoulder? The specific stretch of Macadam Rd S I am concerned with is from S 144th Street to approximately S 147th (Southcenter Community Baptist Church driveway). This road has become a major route for children and youth walking to Foster High School and Showalter Middle School. There are also a number of people who walk this portion of the street daily to bus stops, parks, and local stores and shops. While the speed limit is 25mph on this portion of the street, most drivers exceed that and many go in excess of 40mph. With no curb or sidewalk to differentiate the road from the shoulder, many drivers also cross the white line to drive on the shoulder allowing them to take the corners at higher speeds. Since this road is a major artery for foot traffic between the many apartment complexes on Macadam and the local schools, the use of this road warrants a differentiated sidewalk. REVIEWER COMMENTS \)a Cr I)CD • .§0 rro /' o k0-\oo / ® a ® \ §. § /EF n/\/�cr/ STAFF RESPONSE No change to plan necessary; a bike lane can exist with or without a curb. A feasibility study could help determine the most suitable improvement for this route. E'6 k / / 0 0 , � § f / / \»~n kƒ/�//�«0 0cDg (D . E a r o m_ g Eƒ%\\\ m .0 ^ / E z = ¢ ; g= A m E#\ /# ,. / $ S § & 5, g R . /,_ •/ E S 0 •2§ R /®��/®§qH$,0\/ b. 3 ƒ_ \ 0 ` Do ~ cD / / \ / \ / FIT /. /� °\n\\$% Z" &/naf/ / CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 61710 ££ abed 00 00 O000 00 2 0 ti G O 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS O N O r-. en Projects Projects .b O CD 0 me - en TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b ON Co 'ti 0\ .P "U O\ .P b ON .-, (IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) -- , a 4 V) .4, �, 5. cea a -I co o 1n Ow rG. S 140th Street S 140th Street S 115th Street - 42nd Ave S - Macadam Rd S - 51st Ave S - Klickitat Dr: This route also tends to have less truck traffic than alternatives. EXISTING TEXT The hill west of Macadam Road is so steep that only a few cyclists could ascend it and it would be a dangerous descent. The value of S 140th St would depend on whether there is a traffic light at the intersection with Tukwila International Blvd; if not there would be no good way across such a busy road and the two sections would effectively be severed. A safe method of crossing Tukwila International Blvd must be included in the plan if this street is to be used as a bicycle route. True, except for between S 124`h Street and Interurban, which has extremely high truck volumes AND a very narrow bridge. This should be noted. REVIEWER COMMENTS o .1. c CA N UQ t N 0 C Cra. w< • '.ly'0 0,C n E N O.-.. `D en e,0 (DD 0 0. 0 en f3. O m nO' 6:. czG 0- 6" = ` 8 M (D 77' (i4 UQ CD C51 Cq CD STAFF RESPONSE No change was made to the Bicycle Friendly Routes Map, since topography is not shown on that map, but this information was added to the project sheet for this route. Agree - S 140th Street taken out of plan, since there is no safe crossing of TIB, and S 144th Street provides a nearby alternative. Agree - S 140th Street taken out of plan, since there is no safe crossing of TIB, and S 144th Street provides a nearby alternative. This information was added to the project sheet. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6t, 40 tie abed 1/40 o-- 1/40 Cr) 00 10 00 00 00 "---1 00 01 Z Cr, 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS b 0 co Projects Projects Projects Projects b 0 coco coN TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 00 01 01/4 001 011 01/4 VI IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Southcenter Blvd 52nd Ave S - 53rd Ave S - Macadam Rd S 52nd Ave S - 53rd Ave S - Macadam Rd S S 160th Street S 160th Street S 144th Street from Military Rd S to 53rd Ave S: Special design consideration should be given to the bridge across I-5. EXISTING TEXT Asa resident of SeaTac I bike in Tukwila about twice a week. Improvement of bike travel on Southcenter Blvd would be a major improvement. Of particular concern westbound is moving left through traffic to continue on S 154th Street. Eastbound the issue is moving from the curb lane to go straight and pass the right turns onto 68th Ave S. Should note under the current conditions that this route includes some significant grades. Parts of this route, on Macadam Road south of 144`h St, currently have paved shoulders. It should also be noted that the north end of this route connects with the Green River Trail at the crossing of 56`h Ave. Add the following under new bullet under current conditions: Some significant grades are on the east end of the route. A trail/stairway connecting S 160th Street at 53rd Ave S and Klickitat Drive would increase the access to the Southcenter area from the McMicken Heights neighborhood. This is a serious understatement. The ability to add any width to the roadway for bike lanes or pedestrian facilities is extremely restricted due to the bridge crossing over both I-5 and the new LINK rail line. The real complications of this proposed improvement option should be disclosed. REVIEWER COMMENTS a Vi CD Noted - this should be added to the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Noted - this should be added to the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Noted - this should be added to the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. a (Ei CD CD a CD CD STAFF RESPONSE A feasibility study is proposed for this segment as part of the Lake to Sound Trail project, to determine the most suitable improvement, ranging from bike lanes to an separated trail. Added to project sheet. Added to project sheet. Added. These connections were added as planned trails to the McMicken Neighborhood map. This information was added to the project sheet for this route. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 55 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 617 Jo 9C a6ed Vii A W N O 00 ti 0 O 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS '17 2. CD o N '"d O CD 0 y -C O CD 0 N Projects TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b 0\ b ON 00 b O\ 00 b O0 00 IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Andover Park West Southcenter Blvd V) 0 K 0 0 00 !D oielj CL, Southcenter Blvd EXISTING TEXT This street is not included on the list of Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes. Andover Park West is often used by bikes to get to REI, Bicycles West and other businesses. Strander is busy but usable. This is actually the most important missing east/west connection through Tukwila. Cyclists can use the Green River and Interurban trails north and south and can access Renton to the east via Grady Way or S 158th St (Longacres), and can access Tukwila International Blvd and Burien using Southcenter Blvd / 154th St west of I-5, but the section in the middle is quite bad when traffic is heavy. Simply adding bike lanes to Southcenter Blvd does little to alleviate the danger posed by the I-5 and I-405 access ramps between I-5 and 61st Ave S. A more dramatic response is needed to solve this problem. A trail connecting Southcenter Blvd and 51st Ave S would allow both pedestrians and cyclists to bypass this area. Please add a multi -use trail, ramping up from Southcenter Blvd to 51st Ave S. It is an important neighborhood link and bike connection that is missing in your plan. REVIEWER COMMENTS Further study is needed to determine whether to add Andover Park West and Strander to the list of Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes. YoC14 0 CD H4,a,o a. 0 as o ,, F21. w ow o < a .o ctD cr 0 Noted - this should be added to the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. STAFF RESPONSE Strander and Andover Park West were not added to the map of Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes, based on discussions that have occurred with Planning and Public Works staff for the urban center plan. A feasibility study is proposed for this segment as part of the Lake to Sound Trail project, to determine the most suitable improvement, ranging from bike lanes to an separated trail. A feasibility study is proposed for this segment as part of the Lake to Sound Trail project, to determine the most suitable improvement, ranging from bike lanes to an separated trail. The ramp from Southcenter Blvd up to 51st Ave S was added as a project sheet to the plan. Added to the plan as a project sheet. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN )15 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6b 40 9E 96ed vp } 3 7 2 2 2 . \ DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS ± Projects TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 2 /. /. \ \ 0 \ \ IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Baker Blvd Andover Park East: Improvement Option #1 » EXISTING TEXT / § / M \ Why are connections with transit barely mentioned? Would like to see more detail and discussion. It seems like it should at least be added as a criteria in A-2 and A-3. Per the comp plan and all the modeling done, APE (between Tukwila Parkway and Strander) is planned to be changed to a 3 lane section, not a 2 lane as shown here. On -street parking is neither desirable nor needed on this street. The businesses in this area all have thie own parking and are a distance from the right-of-way, which would make on -street parking undesirable to their customers. On -street parking is dangerous for both motorists and cyclists. Each time a car pulls in or out of a parking spot a new opportunity presents itself for an accident. Also, cars parked along the side of the road obstruct the vision of autos entering the roadway and prevent traffic from seeing cars entering the roadway. If the city has a desire to narrow Andover Park East from 4 lanes to 2 plus bike lanes, I would suggest sidewalks separated from the roadway with landscaping plus a center turn lane. REVIEWER COMMENTS Include this as a dicussion. Noted - this should be added to the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. \$� 7 STAFF RESPONSE @ \c &E�0 § Rf ao §\\/\')0 • Q_ < y 0 & Bus stops are being added to the neighborhood maps. Connections to transit added to the list of criteria in A-2 and A-3, and should be included in any other prioritization system adopted with this plan. This change was made to the project sheet for this route. 0 « 0 0 / CHANGES MADE TO PLAN \/ 7 .8-. \ \ / \ / \ E \ 0 \§/\§ \e e E L5 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 0 0 0 ' 0 VD . Z O CO G 0 CO 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS `71"12) .y 0 CD O N r1 ro CD O M cn `ti .y O. CD O y TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b• J J b J IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) 00 Co q CD CD rf Baker Blvd: ...eventually with speeds slow enough that bike lanes will not be needed. Construct bike lanes....8I61 11.51 11.51618 Baker Blvd EXISTING TEXT This is an obvious opportunity to design bicycle facilities from the beginning rather than after the initial roadway design. I also wonder if there is any intent to create a park by the pond. Recommend that since the future is already expecting that no bike lane would be necessary that the center turn lane/boulevard option not be removed. Baker Blvd is already a fairly good connection, with traffic volumes that are not too high. Its greatest liability is the poor performance of the detector loops at Andover Park East. REVIEWER COMMENTS a an •, 0 Agree - this should be changed in final version of the plan. a on 00 0 STAFF RESPONSE �,� - � ry3• a CD 5. < N o En CD , �-s (D go y 0. „ a -. 2 W 8- ,• — o R. .- 0 cr E~d 0 =. o u) o ti n. 0 CD a. t-,) 0 0 c0D o-, 0 a. N 5-,'• `qC ,Ct G; 0 0 0 p-. v, 0, 0 0- ^cD 6 Gv, CD CD0.y ao 0 En0�ap�� ta 0 A feasibility study will help to determine if any improvement is needed for bicyclists on this route, and how this project would rank on the list of bicycle route projects. A feasibility study will help to determine if any improvement is needed for bicyclists on this route, and how this project would rank on the list of bicycle route projects. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN %. P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and RoII\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 41.� � \ f \ 2 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS / / / / - / 0 TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) § j IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) 5 180th Street - S 178th Street Minkler Blvd 3 (-Cr0 / _ , cn i,/ CD // CD § CD\ EXISTING TEXT On S 180th St, the segment west of Southcenter Blvd that has a 22% grade is totally inappropriate for cycling. It is too steep to climb and total unsafe to ride down. No way is it possible to expect to use brakes to stop without flying over the handlebars. Take the 22% grade out of the plan and find a route than is less steep. (a grade less than 8%). The part of Minkler Blvd east of Andover Park West is already good, the part to the east is rather narrower, and its value depends on improvements to Southcenter Parkway as a bicycle route. PW is okay with this and has agreed in principle during the TUC subarea plan process. Construction of bike lanes on both sides of street is not recommended nor accepted by PW due to ROW constraints with power vaults and rail ROW. REVIEWER COMMENTS / CD / kM. k STAFF RESPONSE Agree - S 178th Street should not be a Recommended Bicycle Friendly Route until it is reconstructed with a grade that is much less steep. This was added to the project sheet for this route. Agree - a feasibility study that includes this bike route will help determine the appropriate bicycle facility, and its priority relative to the other Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes. { § _. 0 f ƒ 0 / » / 5.... » > CD ® Q ƒ 3 ® E / ° & c \ { / \7 e / / _ / ) » -- ~ \ 2 e a $ \ / / § e G , $ ; / / \ / \ \ § / & \ R E § / / 0 / ¢ \ \ / \ # \ \ \ ? \ 0 r ) _ E ƒ •/ § / n f ƒ > / / / § \ @ ® \ 7. & £ / m / \ 00 ® 0 0 / t ® $ = ; « e \ \ \ fl) 0 \ \ / \ k mem ® & \ CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 61710 6£ a6ed \ \ \ \ E 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS /o // TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) j IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) S 180th Street - S 178th Street \ / i @ & / § CA \ » EXISTING TEXT Addition of bike lanes along this route is not really feasible to presume will ever go in within the near -mid range time period. ROW constraints are pretty significant. Also, should add a bullet under current conditions to note the extreme grade constraint on the S 178`h Street hill. S 178th Street is included in the map accompanying this project, but no mention is made to it. S 178th Street is an abomination. The pavement grooves added by the city did very little to add traction for automobiles but greatly added to the dangers to the cyclist. Personally I think S 178th Street should be rerouted to intersect Southcenter Parkway south of S 180th Street so as to elongate it an thereby reduce the grade. Short of the rebuilding of S 178th Street, an alternate trail should be constructed in the greenbelt on the north side of S 178th Street. This could be a winding trail wihich would reduce the grade, making it easier for cyclists to ascend the hill and less perilous coming down. REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted §. / § z §' J K .)II) / 2 2' / / ƒ b ) a \ B $ J 0 k C N. k / \ / / § E n Ci) / \ / E STAFF RESPONSE Project sheet changed to include steep grade information to existing conditions description. . R / & ] ; / Z > o\/.\g)/\/ / ) 9 ( � ( z 8'0 g• { k 0 \ / Q. & 2 ! R » _ R e& a 0 z / e / / ; _ & / CD » , 4 » =• a ° & / E w \ & K� ® \ ° 'Fr @ i 2 E / e CD Q. G \ CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 617P 0i abed 0 0 00 o o 0 00 . 0 0 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS o 2. g Projects b00 0. 0 to w TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b W W IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Southcenter Parkway S 180th Street V) 00 00 5 cD 0 EXISTING TEXT Southcenter Parkway north of S 180th Street is a heavily -travelled arterial which is ignored by the plan. Bicycle lanes should be added at a minimum. A bicycle -friendly S 180"' St from Southcenter Parkway to East Valley Highway would be very nice. When riding down S 178th Street on a bicycle in the area of the S- bend above the intersection with Southcenter Parkway the conditions of the shoulder is a problem. It is normally so full of rocks and other litter that I get onto the grooved concrete for safety. If that portion of the shoulder could be clean and smooth it would make riding there possible. I do use the shoulder above that point because I like to come down slower than the 25mph that most autos use and I don't like to have them stacked behind me. Then it is a matter of finding a suitable gap to merge onto the concrete to pass through the left hand turn. I have commuted over this route since 1986 (mornings). For the afternoon commute, my common choice is to go farther south and come up the hill on Orillia which is a lot less steep. REVIEWER COMMENTS Further research is needed, including a meeting with Public Works on the Klickitat project, to determine whether to include this street on the list of Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes. Agree ED' N.z AD cn o a a ,, V, o - a. w C CD 0 0 b 0 0 0' E. E. 0 CD 0 STAFF RESPONSE No changes necessary, after consultation with Planning and Public Works about recommendations in the urban center plan. No changes necessary. 0 0 CD 0 w 0 p p N° EA 00 v t9 '+ 1.4, p CO o o w R. 0 -t 6 OA 0 u 0 *V 0 '� M 0 cD o r;,'g a(1-1- 'b ,-t ,-t) O. 0 v, 0 ..t Cap N S+ a. .-,- O rn o 0 -t 5, 0 0 CD CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 61710 1•b abed I- A I--• F-, W I-, F+ N .-. M~ -, I-, I-, O Z O p oo . o ooti 'DRAFT WALK &ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Projects `ti �O co nO Projects Projects "d �O co TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) b I"d �d b �C IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER)- S 200th Street Orillia Road -1 _ W 0 A'+ PL. • Grants, mitigation payments.... 0 0 0 (D CD ..+ b PD w EXISTING TEXT Suggest putting this page in a separate section for non -Tukwila projects. Suggest putting this page in a separate section for non -Tukwila projects. Orillia Road and S 200th St currently have bike lanes. Traffic Impact Fees — our current form of collection mitigation payments - cannot be used just for bike lanes. A bicycle -friendly Southcenter Parkway south from S 180th St would be very nice. It would also be a function of the attractiveness of Southcenter Parkway north of 180th St. REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted Noted Noted Noted a CD CD STAFF RESPONSE This will remain in the project sheets section, since it is part of Tukwila's potential annexation area. Non -Tukwila projects taken out of Project Sheets section, but are still included in the Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes map to show how Tukwila bike routes connect up to routes in adjacent jurisdictions. No changes necessary. Noted, but they can (in part) be used for non -motorized projects, including bike lanes. Southcenter Blvd south of S 180th Street taken out of Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes Map and Project Sheets. Southcenter Parkway, for its entire length, will be left out of the plan, after consultation with Planning and Public Works about recommendations in the urban center plan. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN C.'/ 6t7J0 Zb abed 00 ---- - 0 0 °° 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS .o oco o b 0 g Projects b 0 TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) 00 0 b V0 b 00 b 00 IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Black River Connector Duwamish Riverbend Hill to Airport Way First photo West Marginal Place EXISTING TEXT One of the badly needed external connections, Figure 5, is the Fort Dent - Green River Trail connection under the BNSF and UP RRs to Monster Rd. This route provides badly needed direct connect between Tukwila and Renton. This would shorten the route between Tukwila and Renton. It will require coordination with UP and 13NSF RRs. You list this on page 80 as the Black River connector. It needs to be a paved multi -use trail. The value of a trail in the Duwamish River Bend Hill would depend on the ability of Airport Way to attract cyclists. No "Share the Road" sign is visible in this picture. While there may not be enough room for standard bike lanes on West Marginal Way, the existing paved shoulders could still be widened. They are currently narrow for much of this section, but the route is used by many cyclists even so, and it is currently a much better option (for example) than is East Marginal Way. Improvements in the section through South Park, which currently has heavy traffic, narrow lanes, and a poor surface, would add to its attractiveness. REVIEWER COMMENTS Agree uo coco Agree - this should be added in final version of the plan. STAFF RESPONSE Changed name to Two Rivers Trail to match King County and Renton name for this project. No other change to the plan is necessary. Agree - prioritization and construction of this trail should be coordinated with improvements to Airport Way. This information was added to the project sheet for this route. Project sheet changed to exclude information about the "Share the Road" sign. Project sheet changed to include this information. A feasibility study can help determine recommended improvements for this route. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6.17 to £.17 e6ed NA W *A N --r. - II 0 I. O O 00 . 0000 (DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) P92, Figure 14 P 84, Figures 7-14 00 N 'U 00 'C 00 b 00 O IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION,, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) South Annexation Area Contours shown on the maps (thin, light brown lines).... Railroad Spur through Southcenter Trail through WSDOT Right-of-way Trail through WSDOT Right-of-way Black River Connector EXISTING TEXT Is the potential annexation area discussed also a potential annexation area for Kent? With this copy, the topo lines are all but unreadable. An issue to note, perhaps in a bullet, is that in some cases when the rail line is abandoned, the deed returns the ROW to the original owner of the land automatically. This area also includes SPU ROW. Add new bullet: • SPU 60" water main ROW and easement. Project isn't really very feasible because of the WSDOT and SPU issues. A trail through the WSDOT right-of-way on the south of I-405 would be a good connection for the same reasons as for the project described on page 68 (Southcenter Blvd connection to the Green River Trail). The Black River Connector is one of the most significant short connections that could be made; its quality would depend on a good connection to Monster Road (not merely to a sidewalk). REVIEWER COMMENTS z 0 Agree - this should be changed in final version of the plan. Noted Noted Noted a CD STAFF RESPONSE No changes necessary. Changes were made to these maps to make the topo lines readable. New bullet added. New bullet added. A feasibility study is currently under way, led by King County, to determine how to improve this missing link connection in the Lake to Sound Trail. Changed name to Two Rivers Trail to match King County and Renton name for this project. No other change to the plan is necessary. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P \Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 617 Io bb abed c b CO DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 4cp o� �� o CD cD En Performance Goals & Measure-ments 40� V)wo CD 0 n a CD vl TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) ', 1/40 ON 'b VD t IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) 0 4, co cr vi p -e O. n w `� p- o �' 0 W P'. c (IQ "': 0 - o CD . w �. w o 8 o x(D g-- r W "'h o Cr o .-., CD -,.as CD a 2012 Goal EXISTING TEXT Very large concern over feasibility of this kind of program. There is a very high risk of no improvements being built and all fees being refunded. There is no appropriate CIP project to accommodate this at this time, and in most cases, the "sticker shock" of paying a fee that covers the actual cost of constructing the improvement means that the fee gets reduced (by electeds) and a new burden on PW budget is created to fill the gap. Tracking system and staff to monitor program are also concerns. Using 2012 as the first benchmark is too soon. Effectively only 3.5 years will available to achieve a 6 year goal. I do like the performance goals and measurement as a wrap for the reconunendations and a way to benchmark success. I would like to see what your 20 -year goals are. REVIEWER COMMENTS Z 0 (D a Noted STAFF RESPONSE 43'n,T, rD (Cil 7y>2o Ca rn QgY'cil 0 o R CD 0 o. o p ? CSD g n a ..•• N & 'o - p (c CD R N M, N o o -s C W W o -A, a N a' -, R. a !RI o o P- o z' (CD y' ... G' CD 0. CD 00 Dates for goals changed to 2014 to reflect a full 5 -year time horizon. o 'rJH W7Z.�e 7-nH CD `` A 'u o = c 0 ((DD < ' 2 c ` CD (i NO n -, v u, = 4 d ec ft,- (D S C .) , n 'o - fa. 0 .��-., ' 'a cD . Gzz,. ?78 '1a. (D . a �- a N0 6 r 0 T o' Y �' CD R. �' a CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6tIo 917e6ed 1-4 .7 b o' 9. ro Pa uoUzzupoud roFO.id m kCN tic) 0 5 ANQ maO C�`(DV"CD .'"3 'Syr_t,Pl. O "tri ,5 ro ,n (D oO O o 0 CO '5• A P CD 04 CD 0 G G G - • v, w A. 0 '0 (DD Un �, N CD CD M ` O N 8 DI O ocn N 0 Nm ".o. • (D a0 o Pa• O x00 y 8.- 8 . -y • co R CDOnO• G o A. ro $' o 9 N b (D • G. 9 0 O G v' 9. 0 (roj 0 .C-. a Cn CD 0 a. '+ S. CD n A. p CY 7Q -t G 0,0 5 g• CD 0 b 9 • �. " Q; coo v. "%. O 0 0' ("D a' o ,G�.( b tlQ pa A CD ,,,• n. (/D R .y.. (n G a 0 0. �, ., 0 0) w 0 c 0) -, N O CD o h co 0 G , cc▪ i a . CD N 0) P. ,roy N N. CoCy to co Z to O 0 .ti < a Cr O G. o O. Sl..?5. A h sapnpout z -y uo paisll'. uouvuuoJu! sup - pa�OK UOiEZL *Loma loaloJ 0Pa 0 W '< r t r x O r G e;. G ro G+ fl.: rD- A. 0 0 A. 0 . 4, rc 2"."-•O o' N 5 r N `(0 '7:3° � (D O O o y� o '; a. a- c .• 2 V o c 0 O to B ,0r: r.. 0 ` 0 i 0 u:7.1. co 0 ro 6- rn cD 5: :h N• dry" co O c. 0 o coo 5 5 -G 2 v ,w• Ln = O G • co G o. O co 0n t-+ A 0 - 0 0 0 x-, go n. Gr m CD O N ro r- 0 -. O U. 0 0. x ,%. .;`� .�•'' CS' G ,.a.Pa 0 O O ,.. �. `"' to r+ . Cr CS C e A. C7 (GD (fQ ..- 2 . G O el 0. 4 ,,,,...,a- n 55' i vz (fQ. ...F qQ C3" K3 G O r - . G x' .G-' _ rD ;:' Si. -OG •- O- w m a. G 1 r, N .0 < 0 r co • v u• G C G O 0 Pa G 0 ' ti . • nen 2I�I3I.LNiaaI IXai ONII.LSIXa 7y 0 4 3SMOdS32I JiVIS NNW OZ aQVI4i SIONIVHD O 00 C O 00 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 6b Io 9t7 abed 0 z 0 o 00 G DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS - o* 9. �(D .•:0 �. r., N Ai O TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) ''d �t O (D 0 b tO .i N 0 O EXISTING TEXT What is included here is not a prioritization process. It is an identification of criteria used but there is not prioritization or weighting of criteria presented. Tukwila has a system in place, though old and not necessarily addressing all of the concerns identified in this plan, but it is an actual prioritization/ranking process assigning numbers to the projects. A true system would need to be developed between DCD and PW to get a real ranking system. REVIEWER COMMENTS ' U a 0. pq b o 0 Ai (4 N' 0 ,-• K W y co . N w (7 O R° a 0 STAFF RESPONSE N • CW C p!-� 8 O 5 pv 5 0 CD' �, G WZi" .�. Cr b 0 o„ ° 1-1-, 0 o a.a. N 2 .N . —• .1. N' w co fa, co co a a CD p' W wt (JP w` ~' �. 0 o' o ao H P 0 0 0 p. O. U o �4 rn Ua co a rn fl.oi1 0 0. -, CCD (�7,:p_. O O rypro v'' c9 " 00 y O. g ao aO r•-•4 , co o av rn o' 4, o 0 . ED .••.. a. p `< ` a 0 CD c q o w coo CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 1-i P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS REVISIONS 7-14 FINAL 0 -4 0 CD P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 61710 8P abed W rn W v, • W w 1--, N O • 0W °O 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS Planning and Policy Context Needs Analysis Needs Analysis Needs Analysis Z CD Cl. cna 41) cn r TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) oli CO CO 6 IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) Destination 2030 School Survey Needs of Pedestrians vs. Needs of Bicyclists Characteristics of Recreational and Utilitarian Trips CDz CDCL. Y P) y• EXISTING TEXT On page C-3 five non -motorized projects are noted for `Destination 2030'. Some of these seem like very `small potatoes' for a 20 -plus year time horizon. How statistically significant is the survey does it accurately reflect the demographics of Tukwila residents and guests? Facilities that are created for pedestrians to successfully walk for distances up to % mile often lack the continuity that cyclists need when they can easily travel 5-10-15 miles. On page B-3, in the discussion of cyclists making utilitarian trips, organize the key needs in the order of importance: 1 -safety, 2 -direct connections, 3 -facilities on arterials, 4 -protected crossing, and 5 - secure storage at the destination. In the discussion of accident locations it is important to remember that the most dangerous may have fewer or no accidents simply because they attract fewer cyclists, while the presence of more accidents in a location could simply reflect that they are attractive to cyclists. What matters is the ratio of accidents to the number of cyclists present. I've also observed that separated trails are frequently built near safe existing routes rather than near unsafe locations. Where the lack of accidents is an artifact of the absence of cyclists, it should not be taken as an indication of good transportation design. In other words, no cyclists should not be taken as no problem. REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted It is not statistically significant; this should be noted in the final version of the plan. Z 0 a STAFF RESPONSE No change to plan necessary. Plan changed to acknowledge that the survey is not statistically significant. Noted - pedestrians and bicyclists have different needs. No change to plan necessary. Discussion changed to include this organization scheme. Appropriate efforts will be made to organize bicycle counts to obtain better data. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 137 ,Planning and C-4 'Pedestrian Improvement Why are connections with transit barely mentioned? Would like to Noted - more information Bus'stops are being added to the Policy Context ��Zones ��see more detail and discussion. It seems like it should at least be on connections to transitneighborhood maps, and were added as a criteria in A-2 and A-3. should be included in the added as criteria to A-2 and A-3. 1 final version of the plan. NO. TOPIC 'IDENTIFIER EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN (ROUTE, (PAGE, SECTION, j POLICY) PARAGRAPH, 'OTHER) I 0 00 ti c 0 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS iv P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 3 Any construction or reconstruction should explicitly address the question "How will cyclists and pedestrians use this Agree - Complete Streets idea. This will be addressed by the facility?" If there is no good and safe answer to this question, then the project should be rejected or redesigned. Complete Streets Ordinance. 2 All newly -designed and maintained roads, with the exception of some limited -access highways, will be used by cyclists Agree - Complete Streets idea. This will be addressed by the and should be designed to encourage cycling. Complete Streets Ordinance. 1 On numerous occasions I have encountered lists of projects like many of those in this plan, and have always considered Agree - Complete Streets idea. 'A Complete Streets Ordinance that these projects amount to retro -fitting bicycles into a transportation system that was originally designed without has been drafted as part of the cycling in mind, leading to greater eventual costs, long delays, and often sub -optimal designs, typically limited in the i Walk & Roll Plan adopting possible options by the earlier design. Rather than being a characteristic only of past projects, this process still seems to be , ordinance, which will require going forward. It seems to me that instead of retro -fitting bicycle designs into the system after the fact, they should be that impacts to all users of the integrated from the beginning, following some definite standards, such as those below. For example, just in the last year I roadway, including bicyclists East Marginal Way immediately south of Boeing Access Road was resurfaced but no shoulder striping was installed (there', and pedestrians, are considered are strips further south, nearer to S 112th Street). 1when a transportation improvement project is undertaken. II INO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 0 00 , 00 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS C L, P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS REVISIONS 7-14 FINAL ? O O O0 0 co DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS Likewise, immediately to the north of this area, on MILK Way, bicycle lanes could have connected this area with Henderson St, which is one of the few east -west routes following level terrain and having moderate motor -vehicle traffic. A connection could thus have been made between the Interurban and Green River trails and the Rainier Valley. Currently these trails provide safe access all the way from the City of Pacific to the vicinity of the south end of Boeing Field, but to the north most existing routes contain sections which are intimidating to potential bicycle commuters during rush hours. Synergies should be sought for all projects. At a meeting I attended, Ron Sims alluded to the fact that transportation facilities often afford not access, but obstacles to the movement of cyclists and pedestrians; a good example would be I-5 from Tukwila north to Dearborn Street. For this entire stretch there is not a single good, safe east -west route. Pedestrians may find some ways to cross the corridor, usually involving considerable hills, which is also a problem for those in wheelchairs, but for cyclists I cannot name a crossing I would recommend for a person of average cycling skills. Recently an opportunity arose which could have been exploited. Near the Boeing Access Road, the light rail line was built over I-5. The structure could have included a bicycle and pedestrian surface as well, but this was not done. While the matter of what should be done is sometimes asked with regard to cycling issues, what is too rarely asked is what should not be done. A good example is that paved shoulders on main thoroughfares are sometimes eliminated and replaced with additional motor vehicle lanes. Sometimes sidewalks, curbs, and gutters are also added, which are good features for pedestrians and promote landscaping values, but have only negative impacts on the safety, and therefore the general utility, of the road as a cycling facility. Adding bicycle lanes would be a rather obvious solution, but this is not always done. Examples in Tukwila from the last decade and a half include the elimination of paved shoulders from parts of Interurban Ave S near Foster Golf Course and also in the vicinity of I-405 and Grady Way, East Marginal Way north of Boeing Access Road up to Norfolk Street, and Tukwila International Blvd. In some cases separated trails were added but only after several years had elapsed. (REVIEWER COMMENTS CD CD CD CD0 STAFF RESPONSE CD ..go go (CD 0 a ,- a cn (, O `D �, N a. a w Cr 0 0 0" 0 This will be addressed by the Complete Streets Ordinance. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN EL P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS REVISIONS 7-14 FINAL 8 We should consider S Norfolk Street as a connector from Airport Way to East Marginal Way. It's a big street with little Agree - see note above. S Norfolk Street added to plan. traffic and might accommodate bike lanes with just restriping. I think this route could be a relatively inexpensive way to connect Georgetown to the Green River Trail. There is already an underutilized sidewalk along much of Airport Way that could probably be converted to a trail. 7 I don't recall seeing Norfolk Street mentioned in the plan, but it is a connection currently used by cyclists between Airport ',Norfolk Street should be Norfolk added to Way and the north end of the Green River via the Boeing Oxbow lot and S 102nd Street. This route could be a valuable considered as an addition to the Recommended Bicycle connection between downtown Seattle and the trails from the Kent Valley. In fact I don't know of a better route in terms of Recommended Bicycle Friendly, Friendly Routes Map and as a the cycling conditions. It is already used informally but to be listed as an 'official' bicycle route the issue of transiting this Routes in the final version of project sheet. section of private property would have to be addressed. One possibility would be for some sort of transfer from private to the plan. Since the Boeing public hands to overcome private liability issues. Oxbow lot and S 102nd Street are private property, it is agreed that a partnership or agreement may be needed to secure this as a route available to the public. 6 A frequent problem for cyclists is insensitive loop detectors at intersections. An example is Baker Blvd at Andover Park This information should be A loop detector sheet was East. Another issue is that the pushbuttons in place for trail users are often located so that cyclists have to turn the wrong included in the Crossing added to the Bicycle and way and then back up after pushing them, as at the crossing of the Green River Trail at 102nd Street where it also meets Enhancements section of the Pedestrian Infrastructure West Marginal Place and 27th Ave S. Cyclists also cannot trip the sensors at this location when travelling south. final version of the plan. Design chapter of the Walk & Roll Plan, including design guidance on pushbuttons for bicyclists. NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 0 00 ti O 00 'DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS F_ P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS REVISIONS 7-14 FINAL .. W N 1- o Z O 0 00 ti G O 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS OMISSION - Bike access from .Klickitat Dr into the Southcenter Mall area - This is a critical gap and needs more attention (see previous comments about Southcenter Pky). OMISSION - Military Rd S - Military Road should be incorporated into the "Recommended Bike -Friendly Routes" plan ,map (Figure 5). It is an important neighborhood route and alternative travel route and supplement to bike travel on the more challenging Tukwila International Blvd (Hwy 99, formerly Pacific Ave S) with the latter's far greater traffic speed, volume, commercial traffic, and commercial driveways. OMISSION - Military Rd S - On the map, Figure 5, Military Rd where is passes through Tukwila should be on the Bike - Friendly Routes. Military Rd needs to be a north -south route along the top of west hill. Its development with bike lanes needs to be established with the affected jurisdictions, SeaTac, Kent, .Des Moines, and Federal Way. Where Military Rd crosses 1-5, south of S 180th St (in Tukwila?) WSDOT needs to have a wider bridge that provides Bike Lanes. OMISSION - Bicycle -friendly route from the TUC to the Sounder Commuter Rail Station along Longacres Way. I live in Federal Way and work in the Riverton area of Tukwila. I ride my bike to work when conditions permit. It would be great if you could figure something out for that stretch of Military Rd S, south of S 160th - it looks like it's not included in the plan. REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted STAFF RESPONSE This route is included in the project sheets and Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes Map. The bicycle route feasibility study and coordination with WSDOT will help determine what type of improvement is feasible. No change to plan necessary..A feasibility study would help determine the suitability of bike lanes on this route. No change to plan necessary. A feasibility study would help determine the suitability of bike lanes on this route. Longacres Way added to plan as a project sheet and as a Recommended Bicvcl.e Friendly Route. Military Road S removed from project sheets, since SeaTac has jurisdiction over this route. The route is included on the Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes map. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN s L P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Ro11\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL -D 11) CO 01 0 0) 17 OMISSION - MLK Way - This is a regional -class bicycle route. The need for bike accommodation improvements on it as Added to Recommended it enters Tukwila and intersects the draft plan's recommended bicycle facility improvements for Boeing Access Road/Ryan Bicycle Friendly Routes Map. Way should be addressed. 16 OMISSION - MLK Way - This road was totally ignored by the plan. South of the Boeing Access Road it is a high speed This will be examined for This route is an important road that is more of a freeway access ramp than a local arterial. Southbound MLK Way is especially dangerous due to the inclusion in the final version of ',regional connection that was I-5 on -ramps that intersect this 50mph stretch of roadway. the plan. recently improved without any accommodation for bicycles. The route was added to the Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes map. 15 OMISSION - Freeway access ramps - Almost no consideration was given to the dangers of the many freeway access Agree - this information should A sheet was added to the ramps within the city. The only access ramp mentioned in the report is the one at Highway 99 and 599. The report either be included in the final version Bicycle and Pedestrian glossed over or ignored the many other access ramps within the city. of the plan. Infrastructure Designs section of the plan to address freeway on-ramp and off -ramp areas. 14 1 OMISSION - Southcenter Pky: Klickitat Dr to SW 180th St - It is very evident from even a cursory examination of the 1Southcenter Blvd south of S "Existing and Planned Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities" map (Figure 2) that this corridor represents a major north -south ,180th Street taken out of gap in the planned bicycle system. This gap hinders access to major employment and commercial activities in Southcenter. Recommended Bicycle Provision for bicycle accommodation in this vital corridor will be challenging to be sure. but it must be addressed, and it Friendly Routes Map and will also help maximize the benefit of the plan's recommendations for the several planned east -west bike -friendly routes 1 Project Sheets. Southcenter which terminate at this segment of Southcenter Pky. Parkway. for its entire length. ,will be left out of the plan, after consultation with Planning and Public Works about recommendations in the ,urban center plan. NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN o 00 0 00 (DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS 1 P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS REVISIONS 7-14 FINAL d co (D 0) O 1 a) N o-' N 0 r-, ,D 0-+ 00 O i.° ti C O 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS ADDITIONAL PROJECTS - Southcenter Blvd to Klickitat Drive Access - Many cyclists traveling to/from Burien utilize S 150th Street/Southcenter Blvd to access the Southcenter area. Currently 61st Ave S is their first opportunity to cross I- 405 from Southcenter Blvd to the Southcenter area. This entails traversing the very dangerous and high traffic area of Southcenter Blvd between 53rd AVe S and 62nd AVe S. I propose adding a mixed-use trail between Southcenter Blvd and 51st Ave S which follows the on-ramp to westbound Highway 518 at Klickitat Blvd. This would offer several advantages to the current configuration: (1) it would put the Southcenter area within walking distance of the apartments on Southcenter Blvd; (2) it would allow cyclists from Burien to bypass the 1-5/I-405 interchange at Southcenter Blvd when accessing the Southcenter area; (3) it would provide a connection between Southcenter Blvd and the proposed WSDOT right-of-way trail via Klickitat Drive. ADDITIONAL PROJECTS - 40th Ave S Sidewalks - 40th Ave S between Southcenter Blvd and S 152nd Street is currently utilized by both automobiles and pedestrians wishing to avoid the intersection of 42nd Ave S and Southcenter Blvd. The foot and motorized traffic on this route will only increase with the opening of the Light Rail station at Southcenter Blvd and Tukwila International Blvd. Currently 40th Ave S is a narrow residential street with no pedestrian walkway. S 152nd Street is a residential street with a paved shoulder on the north side only. I feel it should be a high priority to add sidewalks to both these streets to accommodate future increases in traffic. ADDITIONAL PROJECTS - South 152nd Street Sidewalks - There are many children living in the apartments on S 152nd Street that walk to Thorndyke Elementary School, Foster High School and Showalter Middle School. This is one of the more heavily travelled side streets in the area by virtue of the traffic light at the intersection of Tukwila International Blvd and S 152nd Street. Therefore it is imperative that S 152nd Street between 42nd AVe S and Tukwila International Blvd be a high priority for sidewalk improvements. ADDITIONAL PROJECTS - Klickitat Drive to McMicken Heights Mixed Use Trail. I would like the city to build one of the following mixed-use trails connecting McMicken Heights to Klickitat Drive: (A) Klickitat Drive to Slade Way at 54th Ave S; (B) Klickitat Drive to 53rd Ave S at S 160th Street. Either of these trails would encourage walking between McMicken Heights and Southcenter. REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted - This will be examined for inclusion in the final version of the plan. Noted - This will be examined for inclusion in the final version' of the plan. Noted - This will be examined for inclusion in the final version of the plan. This will be examined for inclusion in the final version of the plan. STAFF RESPONSE A feasibility study is under way, with the King County Trails Division as project leader, for this missing link segment of the Lake to Sound Trail. To be evaluated for its priority ranking under the proposed sidewalk prioritization system. To be evaluated for its priority ranking under the proposed sidewalk prioritization system. Added as planned trails to the McMicken Neighborhood map. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN LL P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL W N 0 o 00 ti 0 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS Should public facilities, such as multi -use paved trails, meet illumination requirements levied on private projects, which are there to assure safety? Shouldn't illumination be required if we actually expect citizens and guest to transition from car based transportation at all hours of the day? The underpasses on the Green River Trail below Strander and 180th seem dangerous due to narrow path, limited aprons, low lighting, mix of low and high speeds -due to grade change to get under street, no safety rail, and no tethered lifesaving ring/floatation-device to throw to somebody if they run off the path into the river (at least elsewhere you'd get snagged up in blackberries and never make it to the water). REVIEWER COMMENTS 44. CD A) 0 0 0 '.Wt tCD PO PO0 P" Noted STAFF RESPONSE ti,-. H 0-, ,n •o 4. 00 d cD =• a in 0 tro CI. .0 O �y �a a0.ct- cn< a�a.'z V < a $1) FA m (IQ cD cirD n y C '. co 1 CD a w a. 0 N 0 0 Further study is needed to determine if this section of the Green River Trail meets the minimum trail width standard recommended in this plan. If not, options should be explored for trail widening, warning signage, lighting, a rail, or other safety measures. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN &1- P \Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS REVISIONS 7-14 FINAL -0 k _ 0 / O \ / « DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS City could design into the trail, elements that would make them more accessible to the blind (special curb on one side, audible cues like some crossing signals, change in paving material on edges, etc) or wheelchair bound individuals with limited motor skills (for example, in California, experiments are being done with placing magnets in the highway for specially equipped cars to follow, the same idea could be applied to a wheelchair so the user only had to control speed versus both speed and turning). Could we add placement/spacing of things like restrooms, water fountains, benches, picnic tables, etc along trails along with some guidelines for art installations (Art Commissioners could help out here) as well as historical markers/data (Tukwila Historical Society would be a resource here?) It would be cool to have a audio player of some sort that would read RFID tags along the trails/streets/sidewalks and give the story on that area that you could check-out/rent from the library or park department)? Are there certain remote/isolated places along trail, where a emergency phone system/call-box (911 only or direct connection to police station) would make sense? Would extending cameras into the trail and park system help with public safety by serving as a deterrent to crime (attacks, vandalism, etc), and as a detection device if there are problems (person injured, overflowing garbage cans, levee failure, etc), ? REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted Need to meet with Parks and Recreation Department to determine whether they have standards for this. Area for further research. Area for further research. STAFF RESPONSE The City of Tukwila should follow the latest guidance from the Access Board for designing facilities for accessibility. These items are great amenities for trail areas, but are best addressed as part of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. 0 0 3 0 m; E® & \ Q ° § o $ G 0 0 % 0 rt,at ® ; H m 2 g 0 0 c° 0 0 / ; / \ \ «• - Lo v,- / \ / & ` \ g- a»§ c- 0 n 0— o # y R ® ~ \ E / Izs o- T j \ § ) CHANGES MADE TO PLAN L1- Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL -0 Et) _ 0 / Q o 2 Q $ \ 00 (DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS Being aware of the City's expressed desire for walkable communities, I sent a request to the Public Works department to see if the city was interested in acquisition of some of these surfaces in our short plat for trail purposes, but after 15 months of analysis they could find no justification or benefit to the community for such a project. I have no desire to see a error in public records that may support a defacto taking of my property where I am not compensated for its use, yet get all the financial exposure of liability of unauthorized users. With all this in mind, if I understand the locations and concerns identified Table 15 comments # 22 and # 23, I encourage that it be determined to be a high city priority to find a solution for these concerns and that the solution includes trail and emergency access to Sunwood's property and on to Tukwila Elementary and/or 58th Ave along the western edge of Tukwila Elementry Clarification on Figure 6 and Table 3 - Sunwood Blvd is a private street that terminates at the northern edge of my property, where -there is a emergency access easement on my property and an adjacentpropertyin my short plat, that then- - connects to a shared private driveway down to 62nd Ave just south of its intersection with 151st. Neither the public and/or Sunwood has access rights to use the easements, although there is a drainage system that Sunwood is responsible for maintaining as well as access for utilities work. Because these surfaces are paved in our short plat, they are an attractive nuisance for trespassers who use our short plat property. The Tukwila Fire Department, after considering the request for approximately 4 months, would not let me gate this easement. REVIEWER COMMENTS t k\ -.o § ƒ/(\ K \ 2 § & ' / ®-\\ ) »g\/ a o ƒ\i=$ a \ ƒ ° o'-' co STAFF RESPONSE { § ` ° e R co copr m/8 %;]/n ;/g g7 \ c] .q CD (1) E [ S \g 2"- / & j. \ • \ ) n e . o 0 Rk coE § ®Q H _)«'7 E ƒ c \ /7$\/or o $ /.00\/ @ ƒ] ' j -g » ± E & B & a o o g ng CHANGES MADE TO PLAN al P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 91 Io 01, abed Wo 0 00 C 0 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS Would it be better to let these railroad easements go to adjacent properties if they are abandoned, since these properties are currently warehouses, may be developed into a commercial type property that would have a traditional front facing the street network with a need for delivery truck area in the rear where the tracks are now to be economically viable sites? There used to be a rails to trails "rail banking" program, where the right-of-way was preserved for conversion back to rail, should the need surface. If that program still exists, would you recommend the city pursue that if it was to convert these rail spurs to trails, in the event that economic times could change? Is there any way to evaluate the "economic value" the proposed railroad to trail easements would add versus what they would take away? On the surface, they would seem to add to quality of life assuming more trails/sidewalks are good, but wouldn't these alternate/additional paths remove folks from our sidewalk system thus reducing social interaction with other residents and reducing visits to merchants stores? As bike trails, it's not clear how beneficial they would be, since they cross multiple streets (and will cross more as we breakup "super blocks" and punch through existing streets that don't cross the tracks), which contrasts with the Burke Gilman and Interurban Trails. On the other hand, if these right-of-ways were converted to mostly bike paths, they might encourage a separation of bikes from pedestrians on sidewalks or city streets, which might be good. REVIEWER COMMENTS Area for further research. CD mCD w 0 K (D CD CD CD (D P P n 0 STAFF RESPONSE This should be an evaluation that occurs once a railroad easement is abandoned. Agreed - information on this type of program was added to the plan. .". • cr CL. CD oCD Q 0 C '.7 N • CD Q 0 w W CD W ,.y 0 0 (D (D 0 pt 0 O. 0 y- a. o o �D� c�„ p R. '� CD p., �' �• CD a '5. r`Y N 0 0 0 tn O 0 0 0 CD ,may 77' I.+, 0 I. 0 a. so ?' '"� '� r+ .7' 0 0 (.D W 0 ID O. G ''3 g co Ul M 0 CD _�. W --' CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 1$ P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMM ENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 91. Jo6.abed w I36 w w w w z o 00 co (DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS Add signs that show connections between Interuban and Green River Trails to show loop routes for walkers. Add "Share the Road Signs" on E. Marginal Way S. Need for bibliography. I occasionally came across reference to documents/plans/etc that were not specific enough in my mind for the audience to find. One example would be reference to the "Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook" (see page B-5, 1st paragraph). Who is the author/publisher? What revision/date of the document are we referring to? Is there an ISBN number? Is it a unpublished work posted to a website that could be listed? I'd like to see these details included in the plan via a bibliography or reference document section. Would it be economically advantageous to preserve this right-of-way as a portion of dedicated light rail (like the Tacoma system, Portland system, or even the now retired Seattle trolley) or rubber tired (small people mover system) that had priority over street grid car traffic? The public works department tells us that most of the intersection Level Of Service grades for the TUC will be a grade of "F" in the not too distant future. It doesn't seem that an "F" is going to get employees and shoppers into and out of the TUC very well, and they will instead go to the Renton Landing, Kent Station, or elsewhere. In the near term, I suppose folks could ride the Sounder heavy rail system to the station and catch shuttle busses and/or walk. This may seem a little far out, but with the Strander extension to Renton, the BNSF and UP railroad split is moving from the current location near the Fun Center to a southern location that may be far enough south to support direct routing of passenger rail conveyance from points south such as Kent and Auburn (sounder stations with parking garages) to the TUC center via the spur that services it as a fulltime multi -mode transit stop or seasonal temporary station. Do you think there is any economic merit to this possibility that would warrant retaining the track/right-of-way versus conversion to trails? Are "dinner trains" a good thing that we would want to encourage in the Tukwila Urban Center. It seemed like the Spirit of Washington dinner train had a pretty long run when it was based in Renton, but doesn't appear to have done very well when relocated to Tacoma. Is there any data that a business like this generates extra business for merchants in a town with a dinner train? If there is a positive correlation, would you recommend we preserve the rail system to accommodate/attract such a business? REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted Noted Agree - this should be included in final version of the plan. Unknown Area for further research. Unknown - may not be feasible within Tukwila Urban Center STAFF RESPONSE Added to trail signage design standard sheet in Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs. Added to project sheet. Bibliography added to the plan. Unknown - this is something that could be explored at the time of easement abandonment. Unknown - this is something that could be explored at the time of easement abandonment. Unknown - no changes necessary. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS REVISIONS 7-14 FINAL 9L 1oZl.abed ± A $ & 2 2 \ DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS Investment in sidewalks and bike facilities are rare within the industrial employment centers of Seattle and. Tukwila. We urge you to work closely with the City of Seattle to "merge" or "m.arry" your efforts in order to provide more valuable links across city limits for the employees in this area. Because the area has so few residences, pedestrian and bicycle movement through the area is primarily for commute purposes, rather than recreational. For that reason, strategic "spot investments" (e.g. short sidewalk sections) can be very valuable by simply providing a safe passage from transit to controlled crossings. Industrial areas are designed to facilitate the movement of goods and freight. The high concentration of large trucks, the large blocks, and relative lack of transit facilities, all create particular challenges to the pedestrian and bicycle modes. Bringing pedestrians and bikes into this environment requires a special set of considerations. We urge you to review your plans within the M&I Center using a different filter for safety, rather than treating this area in the same way as every other area of the city. Add signage that educates cyclists and pedestrians of rules on sharing REVIEWER COMMENTS Noted STAFF RESPONSE Agree - no change to plan necessary. Agree - no change to plan necessary. $ \ ®/ 0 - 6 6 0/ / f\\ 2»& E t n _ 0 / E \ \' & ` 6 / (& \ \ = E R 6 E E;- a 7 n o r ®. k ® m 0 / / = \ § \ \ \ 0 = ® f ` \ E y » / \ \ ci ° p / 0- ..1 `ft' n \ \ a f Added information on signage to plan. Signs are to be according to the MUTCD. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_F1NAL 91. lo E1. e6ed 0 00 c.....4 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS Have you shared this with WSDOT so that any connections you have identified in WSDOT ROW are reviewed by WSDOT? I did not see a funding plan, and the list of possible funding sources seemed rather light. I just reviewed the Kent Transportation Master Plan and noted some bike lanes that seem to connect into the southern PAA in Tukwila, I would suggest looking at this, as well as any other adjacent jurisdiction. How much growth are you expecting with the next 20 years? .1 note that some improvements are to be included with future .projects. How much can you look at park -impact feestoconstruct trail portions, and developer funded street -- - improvements? For the 2006-2012 portion, you should expect to be 5/20ths of the way of 25% towards completion - unless you expect to :ramp up in the future. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE 'Staff coordinated with WSDOT representatives for connections identified in WSDOT right-of-way. More coordination will be needed during feasibility analyses and design. Additional information was added to the section of the plan on funding, to include parks impact fees and a Walk & Roll CIP budget of $200,000 per year for the next 6 years. Connections to adjacent jurisdictions, including Kent, SeaTac, Renton, Burien, and Seattle were edited on the Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes map, for consistency with these jurisdictions' plans. Projects in the 'Walk & Roll -Plan should be added to Tulcwila's Transportation Master Plan to forecast expected improvements within a 20 -year time horizon. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 91. 40 abed 0 Cr t--, Z 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS Bollards should be placed with enough room in between to allow for a bicycle trailer - the City of Seattle uses a 6 -foot standard spacing width for bollards. The appropriate number of bollards is 3; placement of bollards along the trail in Tukwila is inconsistent, sometimes there are four, sometimes they are metal, sometimes wood. Leaves accumulate in the area along the Green River Trail to the east of City Hall, in the area near the entrance to the trail just north of Southcenter Blvd The brown posts/bollards used on the trail are difficult to see - they should be a different design/color, and include reflective paint or tape so they are easier to see. Is there a wrap-up of any of the suggested code changes that are needed such as the ones noted in the text of the plan? Is there a time goal for proposing these changes? i.e., five lots exemption for sidewalks, change driveway apron standards, code changes to require showers with reduced parking. REVIEWER COMMENTS , STAFF RESPONSE Agreed - this information was added to the Bicycle and .Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs chapter of the plan. Agreed - this information was added to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs chapter of the plan. This item can be addressed as part of trails maintenance, rather than in the Walk & Roll Plan. Design and spacing of bollards was added to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs chapter of the plan. Yes - the spreadsheet that contains Potential Council Action Items has the list of suggested code changes. Changes that are not adopted with adoption of the Walk & Roll Plan, such as the five lots exemption, will be pursued as a follow-up to adoption of the plan. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN cg P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_FINAL 91. JO 91. abed km 4••• CA r, j th N VI ,-‘ 0 C) 00 t..., 0 6 oo !DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS The right lanes on .Hwy 99 should be designated for use by bikes, buses, and carpools. In congested areas of the trail, you should consider using the following scheme for striping: solid yellow line for no passing area; white line for areas where sight distance is good; a few dashes in the middle of straight sections of the trail.. Striping should be used around obstructions like bollards, and especially in areas where the trail curves. Why is the road in Foster Point closed off? .It is a good route for bicycles. A good curve radius for trails is 50 feet; keep in mind tandem bicycle curve radius needed in design of new trails. The •curve in the trail at For Dent is a good radius example for trails. . . REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE Bike lanes are the preferable improvement for bicycles along this route. A feasibility study will identify the most suitable improvement for bicycles along this route. Trail striping was added to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs chapter of the plan, according to guidance provided in the MUTCD. '-ii 7;;J $1) go ,--• v) c) c-_,- ,;-,„• H F; 6 0, g„ crs s:a n '-1 ..1,-; •-, = 0 - • ,.., z- •-+, ".. .- p 2 8 ..". co f.m ..-r c- (D F•-..-.. 6" 9 P (70 7). 0 a. — 0 z ,..,. v) ,••••. ,., :::., • 07.1 '.• c ,:) r..-' .-- § a ,,,0 -• -. (7 = '.:3, N 0 0 A) (I) '-C ,_,., ,...-,-• 5. .0 cr co,, fa., ° 0" -. cr. 7,• c) (4. tr", 0 9 '6' P ri. n•-, '4 izo •-,.• -- CP - . co -oc)0(1)!./4 c) 0 'f7D- "e ' ' o) = ,-., ,y) 0 . a. o Curve radii for multi -use trails •are•contained in the MUTCD, • which should be used as a guide for trail design. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN ij t P:\Long Range Projects\Walk and Roll\final draft\Final - Revisions\COMMENTS_REVISIONS_7-14_F1NAL 91. 40 91, ebed kJ. th Lti 0 0 00 c 6 00 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS Standard for block length - The City's current standards for maximum block length - 1,000 feet for residential areas and 2,000 feet for commercial and industrial areas - are too long and should be reduced. Such long block lengths are now generally seen to be a great impediment for convenient, efficient and environmentally -friendly circulation and access - especially for non -motorized travel, but for motorized travel as well. Adverse examples are Tukwila's greater Southcenter area and Bellevue's downtown, with these superblocks now posing difficult and remedy -costly barriers todevelopment and redevelopment of more efficient circulation and access. The plan should address nominal scheduling for major bicycle facility improvements. An excellent way to convey this to the reader and the public is by providing a map figure series in the report (it can be scaled down in size) showing the completed bicycle facility network for several planning horizon points, e.g., (1) Existing; (2) 2013 (i.e., say 5 years hence); (3) 2018; and (4) Long-range "build out". (See Figure 6, page 59 in the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan report for a good example of this graphic depiction). This graphic is an excellent way to convey the character, scale and speed of the plan's implementation program. Some corresponding implementation tables would also be helpful, or at least the nominal implementation target date could be added to the improvements tables now in your draft report, such as Table 4 "R.ecommended Bike Lanes" (p. 55). The Southcenter shopping mall is a major employer in aggregate. The mall is just east of the missing Southcenter Pky corridor bike route link addressed in my previous comment and should be given the "major employer" map symbol on all system/citywide maps in the report - giving further emphasis to the importance of the draft plan's unmet need discussed in my comments about Southcenter Pky. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE A Connectivity Map added to the plan helps illustrate the importance of sinall block sizes for improved walkability. .A feasibility study to identify the most suitable improvements along Tukwila's Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes will help to determine improvement costs and project priority rankings, which can be used to determine planning horizon points. The Southcenter Mall was added as a "major employer" on maps in the report. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS - W_ STAFF RESPONSE _ __ CHANGES MADE TO PLAN �. . — _ _ 1 Substantive missing mode/class of transporta tion P5 Should the Plan address small motorized vehicles like mopeds, electric scooters, segways, and mobility chairs that exist today as well as compact vehicles (smaller than a golf cart) that may evolve in the future? These types of vehicles would not be suitable from a speed and/or safety perspective to share the street with cars/trucks and buses. These alternative vehicles would reduce/eliminate fossil fuel full size vehicles usage in the city. These types of vehicles may effect: minimum radius constraints on corners, transition design to/from trail, visibility requirements, extra signage, path width, to name just a few examples. Instead of designing paths/sidewalks to handle pedistrians, bikes, skate boards, and rollerblades, I'd rather design a generic transportation corridor that regulates the speed, gross weight, dimensions, payload, noise, and maybe fuel (in the event that a gas powered moped wrecks and spills a quart of gas into the river....assuming that would be a bad thing for the ecology/environment). The plan was drafted with the assumption that is will be most cost-effective to integrate bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the current roadway system. It is difficult to design a new transportation corridor for vehicles that do not yet exist, and it would be difficult to justify the costs for construction of such a system without knowing what the users will be. No change - different users of the roadway/trail shall comply with state and local laws. Page 1 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN Complete Streets P9 This plan expands the concept of transportation from that of keeping cars and trucks moving to looking at transportation from a diversity of perspectives. This concept is often referred to as "complete streets." The City should adopt a policy ordinance for "Complete Streets", which a number of local cities have now done in connection with their non -motorized transportation and comprehensive planning, e.g., the cities of Redmond, Kirkland, and Seattle. I note that on. page 97 under the performance goals for "connectivity" it states that "Ensure that bike lanes are included in CIP sheets that include recommended bicycle -friendly routes (I've added the underscores), and sidewalks are included on all CIP sheets." In contrast, under Complete Streets all projects - on all streets - should include bicycle and pedestrian and transit accommodations/facilities regardless of the street segment's non -motorized plan network status unless there are specific major overriding reasons for omitting their provision. Copies of the complete streets policies of the above cities are available from those cities and the Cascade Bicycle Club. Complete Streets P9 This plan expands the concept of transportation fromthat of keeping cars and trucks moving to looking at transportation from a diversity of perspectives. This concept is often referred to as "complete streets." Identifying "bike friendly" streets that comprise the bicycle network will provide the basis for your projects in the future. This future should include broader use of the term "complete streets" — that says that the when streets are re-build/redesigned//.improved that each street should be seriously considered for providing support for all modes of transportation including: pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and motor vehicles. Agree - this is part of a policy discussion we will have in preparationfor plan adoption. Complete Streets Policy should be adopted that requires that bicycles and pedestrians are considered with any transportation project. Page 2 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. - TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 41 Existing Conditions Pl l Highways as barriers In "Settings", page 1 1, you recognize the barriers that the Interstate freeways pose for cycling. I submit to you that every place that motor vehicles can cross the freeway style roads that you provide bicycle crossings. The current 1-405 underpass along Interurban Avenue is a <eood example of this. Sent email to Paula Reeves - waiting for response Existing Conditions P12 While trail connections are available intermittently along these corridors, more signage is needed to guide trail users to access points. I concur with your assessment that signage is needed. What are obvious changes in trail direction for a local rider can be problematic for a rider that is not familiar with the routes in Tukwila. Today I saw a rider, southbound on the Interurban Av side trail as he passed the Riverside Casino, overshoot the left turn to the river side trail. I -ie was busy doing a U-turn to get back to the Green River Trail_ Sent email to Monica DeWalk (SDOT) for their trail signage info Page 3 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER)_. EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 2 Figure 2, Page 16 Legend shows dashed purple line for recommended bike lanes Question whether this is indicating both bike lanes as well as widened shoulders and signed routes. The bike lanes represented as dashed purple lines were recommended from surveys that were completed as part of the public outreach effort. They are signed bike routes that have bike lanes as the imrpovement, not wide shoulders. They may not be appropriate for this map, since this map is meant to show existing and planned facilities. The map can be changed in the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan so that these "Recommended Bike Lanes" are not shown. U ? -6 5\144 ,i 3 `',If Maintenance 23 Should we have a policy regarding snow removal so that sidewalks are not used for snow storage? During past snow events it was difficult to walk in the urban center because City snow plows piled the snow on the sidewalks. Will construction of separated sidewalks resolve this issue? Staff will check to see if such a policy exists, and how this issue is handled on separated vs. attached sidewalks to see if there is a difference in the effectiveness of one design vs. the other. Email sent to Stan Anderson; response by phone on 9/30: we .. clear the entire roadway of snow, so if there is a ped path/striped shoulder, then snow is removed. Otherwise, snow is not removed on sidewalks and trails, since we don't have the equipment to get ,. Page 4 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08-Jul-08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS - STAFF RESPONSE - CHANGES MADE TO PLAN - - 4 Maintenance 23 Should the City have a procedure/equipment for snow removal on major commuter bikeways? Staff will check to see if such procedure / equipment exists or is needed. into those areas and clear. One benefit of separated sidewalks, to be added to the list of "pros" in the design guidelines, is that they provide an area to pile up snow between the roadway and the l sidewalk. 5�J v/I Multi Modal Connections P24 Metro provides bike racks that can carry two bicycles on all Metro buses It should also be noted that the Amtrak and Sounder trains that stop at the former Longacres site will also have provisions to carry bicycles, as will the light rail. Noted - this information can be added to the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Added to final version N. 6 1 Recommended Actions P25 Steps to be taken The first step that should be taken is to develop an implementable and enforceable plan that is adopted by Council. The bike/ped network plan, similar to a street network plan, gives PW the authority to require improvements. Amending the Infrastructure Design Guidelines only tells PW what can go in but does not provide the hammer necessary to require it. Agree 7 C..if Figure 5/Figure 12 Potential trail shown on Southcenter Pkwy/Tukwila Parkway bend Do not see this as at all feasible. The proposed trail conflicts with the Klickitat project and is within WSDOT limited access ROW and/or on SPU ROW/easements. It also may run through a WSDOT wetland mitigation site. Staff will meet with Public Works to find out how the Klickitat project will impact pedestrian and bicycle access in this area. Per converation with Cyndy Knighton on 9/30/2008, this trail segment shall be taken out of final version of the plan because of safety concerns. The designs for this improvement do not include any provisions for bicycles. Page 5 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) -OTHER) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, -- EXISTING TEXT - - - - - REVIEWER COMMENTS -- -- - - -. - - STAFF RESPONSE - CHANGES MADE TO PLAN - _ - .... Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes Figure 5 OMMISS.ION of Military Rd S from the map On the map, Figure 5, Military Rd where is passes through Tukwila should be on the Bike -Friendly Routes. Military Rd needs to be a north -south route along the top of west hill. Its development with bike lanes needs to be established with the affected jurisdictions, SeaTac, Kent, Des .Moines, and Federal Way. Where Military R.d crosses I-5, south of S 180th St (in Tukwila?) WSDOT needs to have a wider bridge that provides Bike Lanes. Military R.d S added to Bicycle Friendly Routes map; no project sheets will be made for bicycle friendly routes outside the city. V Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes Figure 5 South Annexation Area In the southern Planned Annexation Area (PAA), Figure 5, north of S 200th St, Frager Rd/Southcenter Pkwy- on the West side of the Green River —needs to be in the future plans. These future plans should have bike lanes that provide access by bicycle into the Southcenter Business .District. The revised road needs to be moved off the Green River Levee and lined up with the current intersection of Frager and S 200th St. This would allow a new paved trail to be built on the west side of the Green River between S200th St and S 180th St. On page 83, you list this as the Green .River Trail extension. On the same page, the two photographs captions list the photos as on the East Bank of the river — I think, the photos are (should be) on the West Bank. Edits to GIS map and project sheet complete (NEED TO ADD SOUTHC.ENTER PARKWAY TO PROJECT MAP?) _ /Bicycle 1 Recommended Friendly Routes Figure 5 Black River Connector One of the badly needed external connections, Figure 5, is the Fort Dent - Green River Trail connection under the BNSF and. UP RRs to Monster Rd. his route provides badly needed direct connect between Tukwila and Renton. This would shorten the route between Tukwila and Renton. It will require coordination with UP and BNSF RRs. You list this on page 80 as the Black River connector. It needs to be a paved multi -use trail. Name changed to Two Rivers Trail in project sheet and in Walk & R.oIl Plan. Page 6 of 38 �1n DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes Figure 5 Airport Way & East Marginal. Way I have used Airport Way and E. Marginal Way, Figure 5, outside of commute hours and rind them to be good connections into the�9,,_ Seattle area. I suspect that they need bike facilities for commute hour riding. I Iike the idea that you would work to improve the cycling facilities on these two routes. . jJO c I&Mt -O � , �'"" 8/Connectivity �/ P28 Continue Construction of Neighborhood Links I agree with the importance of connections; often a long potential bicycle journey can be interrupted or even prevented by a small gap in an otherwise safe route Agree Agree 9 Fee -in -lieu rogram P28 Fee -in -lieu program Very large concern over feasibility of this kind of program. There is a very high risk of no improvements being built and all fees being refunded. There is no appropriate CIP project to accommodate this at this time, and in most cases, the "sticker shock" of paying a fee that covers the actual cost of constructing the improvement means that the fee gets reduced (by electeds) and a new burden on PW budget is created to fill the gap. Tracking system and staff to monitor program are also concerns. More research is needed to determine the feasibility of a fee -in -lieu program. Need to require single-family development to build their segment of sidewalk; parks impact fees will cover neighborhood trails Page 7 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS - STAFF RESPONSE -. CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 10 P29 - Figure 6 Blocks longer than 'A mile What constitutes a block or intersection? The figure shows that the roads around Southcenter mall have intersections yet in other places (such as along WVH), though there are private driveways (just as at the mall) they aren't accounted for in the same manner. Also, streets that form a "u" shape are included as a single section whereas from a traffic POV, they are intersections when they "T". A block on this map is the length of sidewalk along a street. When a sidewalk is broken up by a through - street (public or private) that provides a pedestrian with a choice for a different route, it is considered an intersection. Pedestrians would reasonably be expected to walk along the private driveways of the mall to get from one area of the urban center to another. Along West Valley Highway, however, pedestrians would not be expected to walk along the private driveway of the Best Western to get to another destination along West Valley Highway. Better explanation added to Walk & Roll plan, to provide defmition of "block" and "intersection." • Page 8 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN — 11 P29 - Figure 6 Blocks longer than 'A mile Some private streets in the Segale business park are identified — is this plan also including private streets in the inventory? Most private streets are included. Even though more pedestrians are expected to walk along public streets, people generally do not know the difference between public and private streets and some private streets provide through - connections and are the easiest, most direct routes to get to businesses. No change necessary. 12 P29 Figure 6 Blocks longer than 1/4 mile Along Southcenter Parkway, the map is incorrectly not including the S 168th St intersection (Bon Warehouse signal). Noted - this can be changed in the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Need to check with Sharon about how to add this to the maps, and decide which maps need to be changed. Page 9 of 38 I kir DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 13 P31 Narrow bridge on the Green River Trail near Fort Dent Park There is a reference to a narrow bridge on the Green River Trail and a note that it is a point of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. I cannot be certain which of four bridges is intended. I do not support the notion of dismount zones on trails. If the bridge in question is the trail part of the automobile bridge entering Fort Dent from the south, I would agree with signage suggesting that cyclists use the roadway (1 always do so myself). If it is the bridge a little further to the south (close to the junction of the Green River and Interurban trails), which I believe may be more than 6 feet wide, few cyclists would consider dismounting, nor would it be reasonable to do so. Directing cyclists over to Interurban AVe S is not very practical, as it would inevitably involve Left turns onto and off of a busy road for cyclists in some directions. The bridge referenced is in fact the trail part of the automobile bridge. Since there is a narrow width along this part of the bridge, it is agreed that bicyclists should use the roadway, and it is impractical to direct cyclists over to Interurban Ave S. Sent Rick Still email about trail signage; Paul Surek was coordinating with King County on trail signage; he will get back to me with any info they have to date. 1 14 P31 Narrow bridge on the Green River Trail near Fort Dent Park Personally, though I use this bridge both for commuting to work and for recreational rides; I haven't seen any conflicts here. The only conflicts I have seen are in Fort Dent Park where spectators at the soccer fields have sometimes set up chairs on the trail, though recently signboards have been put up telling them not to occupy the trial, and this approach seems to be working. Agree Signage needed Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs It is not clear what is being recommended for adoption for new standards. 1 suggest that clear recommended changes to existing public works standards be proposed, or a clear hierarchy so that any future development provides for bicycle and pedestrians. Better yet, choose standards based on street classifications, and any variances should be addressed at the project level. That way, consistent standards are proposed up front and you know what you are going to build once you get the $. 19' "i Si LV SeGIS I .� `� Page 10 of 38 in-a4411e4769/15 b aced an Sk-eek c i ccs S' f cc-4rvx < DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08-Jul-08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) - — EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE - CHANGES MADE TO PLAN Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs P33 Discussion , Sidewalks are a necessary pedestrian facility and should be provided as a bicycle facility for children, youth under the age for a driver license, and adults that choose not to ride on the streets. I like to refer to these riders as bicycle-pedestrians. They are acting like pedestrians and following pedestrian rules. On the other hand, Bike Lanes (and wide outer/curb lanes) are the best facilities for riders that understand and are comfortable with the actions of motor vehicles. I like to refer to these riders as bicycle-vehicles. This includes riders that are commuting to work, exercising, andlor training for racing. They are acting like vehicles and are following vehicle rules. Both sidewalk and bike lanes often need to be present adjacent to the same roadway. See page 17. In infrastructure designs, the document seems to say that either pedestrian or bike facilities are to be provided, however for the reasons listed above both might be needed, page 33. See the discussion on Goals on page 97. See the discussion on Casual and Experienced Bicyclists on Education program/bicycle rodeo 01—'�zc®jvli►i ND j j coil Qv/ �Qi Sfi {moi `D WGA l s/t? �P S 0 Page 11 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN ,fiprovides Bicycle Designs P34 Bike Lanes Bike lane design guideline elements: (a) Full -standard bike lane with parallel curb parking case - A total of 15 feet meaured from the face of the curb to the outer stripe of the bike lane is required to have a bike lane installation which is free of the parked car opening of the driver -side doors (the "door -zone" safety probelm). This for a 5 -ft wide bike lane and a 10 -ft wide parking lane (7 or 8 -ft marked parking stalls plus buffer for the door -zone). Unfortunately the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's (AASHTO) current bicycle lane design guidelines does not address this fact. Installations of 13 feet and 14 feet width are shown in the Tukwila plan for several projects: 13 ft for the vital Andover Park East bike route improvement (p. 69), and 14 feet for Baker Blvd (p. 70). ✓ Bicycle Designs P34 Bike Lanes (cont'd from comment above) (b) Bike Lane adjacent to "High" Barriers - AASHTO and WSDOT design guides show 5 feet minimum width (measured from the face of the curb) for bike lane width adjacent to a curb (Tukwila plan p.36). Where there is an extremely high curb, guardrail, "Jersey" barriers, retaining wall or other "tall" barrier at or within a foot of the curb face adjacent of the bike lane, the bike lane should be at least 6 -ft wide measured from the curb -face. This is especially important on horizontal curve alignments and where there is a barrier curb on both the left and right edges of a single traffic lane (e.g., curbed two-lane roadways xJuitth a [-a urhntl mprlianl Page 12 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS _ _ STAFF RESPONSE .._ CHANGES MADE TO PLAN Nil Bicycle Designs P34 Bike Lanes vs. Paved Shoulder Regarding the choice of Bike Lanes versus Paved Shoulder, it seems like Bike Lanes are appropriate for areas that are urban or being urbanized, where it seems like Paved Shoulders are appropriate for areas that are still rural in character. Considering the growth in the area surrounding Tukwila, it may tum out that Paved Shoulders are temporary. If no shoulder exists, then paved shoulders make a good temporary solution until a full road project with bike lanes updates the route. Agree ,c��,�/ Na Lk. pd y�L7x-"_ 1 15 Bicycle Designs P36 Bike Lanes vs. Wide Curb Lanes As stated in the plan, experienced cyclists prefer wide curb lanes over bike lanes. However, you do not design roadways based on the most experienced driver. I prefer bike lanes for several reasons. Wide curb lanes rely on cyclists and drivers to actively maintain safe separation. Both must be constantly vigilant. Bicycle lanes provide an intuitive method of keeping cyclists separate from motorists. Motorists tend to stay within the lines in a roadway and do not have to think about leaving room for cyclists. Also, the presence of bicycle lanes are a constant reminder to motorists to the presence of cyclists on the road. Agree Bike lanes are the most preferred improvement -maybe we should state this more strongly - that paved shoulders and wide curb lanes are second and third best. Deleted from cons for bike lanes on p. 36: "Some experienced bicyclists prefer to ride in a wide curb lane, shared with automobile traffic. Page 13 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT - REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 16 Bicycle Designs P36 What is the difference between a bike lane without a curb and a paved shoulder? A paved shoulder is a striped lane, but is usually not up to bike lane standards in terms of width. In Tukwila, many paved shoulders are considered walkways, and are only located on one side of the street. Bike lanes should always be located on both sides of the street, with the exception of steep downhill grades where bikes can be expected to go the same speed as automobiles. ��./ • N© cha-li ii teSS G V I Bike Lanes P36 Bike Lanes -placement in the roadway In your new construction standards, do not put bicycle lanes up on the sidewalk. This takes the drivers attention away from the bicycle- vehicle that should be visible on the roadway. This is not proposed, unless sidepaths are considered adjacent to the sidewalk. —.-. 17 Bike Lanes Pros and Cons Under the Pros and Cons of bicycle lanes, there is no mention of maintenance, as there is for other types of facilities. Noted - this should be added to the al version final of the Walk & Roll Plan. Added as bullet under cons. V Page 14 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE - _ CHANGES MADE TO PLAN -- 18 Bike Lanes P36 Bikes can often be integrated.... Should be "Bikes can SOMETIMES be integrated...." It seems reasonable to expect that the 10 feet needed for bike lanes within an existing roadway can often be accomodated. A street -by -street analysis is needed to determine whether a particular street can be re -striped to add bike lanes or if additional right-of-way is needed. No change. Ni 19iBike vv Lanes P36 Bikes can often be integrated.... Under Cons, add new bullet: Additional ROW Cost Agree Added as bullet under cons. 4 Wide Shoulders P36 Wide Curb Lanes In the discussion of Wide Curb Lanes, the relatively new concept of "Sharrows" should be available for use on roads where bicycles and motor vehicles share the same lane. Sharrows are not yet adopted in the MUTCD, so anywhere they are installed has to be approved by the FHWA as an experiment. / Locations where these are proposed need to be identified in the application to the FHWA. Page 15 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN _._. _ . 20 Wide Shoulders P37 Are wide shoulders with no lane markings safe? They are not as visible to automobile drivers as bike lanes, and bicyclists typically do not feel as comfortable riding within wide shoulders with no lane markings as they do riding in bike lanes. From research for the Walk & Roll Plan, however, we could find no evidence showing that wide shoulders were Less safe +b.', 1,41,-o lo.,00 1\i0 ���'�`"�' 21 Multi -Use Trails P38-39 Lighting along the trails Lights that are lower along the trail (Green River and Interurban) would help in some of the areas that are more isolated and not be invasive to the neighbors of the trail. Agree 22 fsometimes I/ Multi -Use Trails P38-39 Intersections of trails with roads The frequency of intersections of trails with roads is a function of the location of the trail; for instance on the west side of Foster Golf Course, where the Green River Trail in effect becomes what is called a sidepath, there are several crossings (from 58th Ave in the south to the driveway south of the on-ramp to 1-5 in the north). This is undoubtedly the most dangerous section of the trail. north). In fact, surveys have indicated a higher frequency of accidents between cyclists and motorists at trail intersections with roads and - .. 1 . 1 I . . 1 - Agree Sidepaths should only be used when there is no other feasible option for a bicycle facility. ,..-- Page 16 of 38 ►t"0 m1 aru, l 1 4/(4---4 vv► o,s grouts. N p 5 iYDL- -FAV+S C', n c hA 114 (3 605.(4,-1.whcu —1 Ii — „'76 1ad s)I ✓Lc,V(J�c. � GYCI�Sfi� Shoff /c 11°4- riGdt rvt sr daupLucs 47,4/e-"1 - i5 a.((ou/oOt by s+,4 -e_ lM) DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN J Multi -Use Trails P39 Design specifications for trails In your construction standards for trails, page 39, the radius for curves should be greater than 50', to provide the necessary sight distances for cycling and to provide a reasonable speed for cycling. Each project will be evaluated individually as opportunities/funding becomes V available for design and construction. 23 I/ Multi -Use Trails P39, P40 Multi -Use Trails Under Cons, add new bullet: ROW may be difficult to obtain Agree Right-of-way may be needed for all the different design standards v for bikes and pedestrians, this was added as a con to all facility types. J Multi -Use Designs P41 Paved Shoulders Paved shoulders should never have "C" curbing on the fog line. This curb line between the vehicle lane and the ped/bike area on the shoulder, is very dangerous for cyclists. A cyclists that starts in the vehicle lane and get forced on to the shoulder will take a nasty fall." This "C" curb configuration, even when illuminated with a good bike light, often looks like a paint stripe that you should be able to ride across. Should we have a section on things NOT to do? ,/ Q,J2 / � 24 Attached vs. Separated Sidewalks P42 In more suburban or rural areas,..... No rural areas exist in Tukwila and landscape strip really isn't appropriate in a truly rural setting anyway. Since Tukwila is an urban area, it is agreed that separated sidewalks are the most appropriate type of sidewalk design. No change necessary. - 25 J Attached vs. Separated Sidewalks P42 Attached and Separated Sidewalks in the City of Tukwila Picture of Southcenter urban center is truly the ugliest picture. Cannot a nicer shot of a separated walkway with street trees be used? Noted - we can add a nicer picture in the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. 26 JSidewalks Separated P43 If not designed and maintained properly.... Also causes problems for street maintenance vehicles — add to bullet Noted - this can added in the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Added Page 17 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN - 27 i Separated Sidewalks P43 ....prevent the sidewalk from cracking due to root growth.... Add "and buckling" after the word cracking. Noted - this can be changed in the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Added V 28 i Separated Sidewalks P43 Cons Under Cons, add new bullet: Additional ROW needs Noted - this can be changed in the fmal version of the Walk & Roll Plan. Right-of-way may be needed for all the different design standards 1 for bikes and pedestrians, this was added as a con to all facility types. 29� Ancillary Infrastructure Designs P43-46 Driveways Will the preferred driveway design automatically require separated sidewalks? Yes. 60,,,,, q ��, "`"'. "�` v 30 J Separated Sidewalks P44 Natural Drainage Systems Will curbless natural drainage systems pose the possibility of cars getting stuck or tearing up landscaping if motorists park off the pavement? There is the possibility of these things occurring, though it's not clear how likely this is to occur. Curbs can be used in areas with Natural Drainage Systems to prevent cars getting stuck or damage to landscaping. No change necessary - these features are likely to be added by private property owners, where drainage/site circumstances allow this type of feature. V 1Attached Sidewalks P45 Attached Sidewalks Attached sidewalks should not have designs that allow the sidewalk to dip down for each driveway. These dips turn into speeds bumps for bicycle riders. Separated sidewalks should be the preferred design - look for design of attached sidewalks with not dip. Page 18 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER)— _ EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS - STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 31 Crossing Areas P49 Second Bullet PW has concerns over designing an intersection to accommodate ped crossings when the intention is to prohibit their crossings. There may be some areas where pedestrian crossing should be discouraged. These areas should be clearly signed for all users, in compliance with ADA requirements. Complete Streets Policy - as much as possible, transportation infrastructure should be designed,4 to be ped/bike friendly, acknowledging that in some areas the bike/ped friendly thing to do will be to discourage these users due to safety concerns. l v v t,i .zwv(�,( VucPv.says l . 4.:se 32 J Mid -Block Crossings P50 Graphic and 3rd bullet Stop bars at mid -block crosswalks is NOT supported by PW. Using a yield bar (sharks tooth) pattern could be applied per MUTCD. A meeting with Public Works should be set up to determine the appropriate design. Changes should be made in the final version of the Walk & Roll to reflect the appropriate design. Bullet on stopbarsat mid -block crosswalks taken out - agree that what we are required to use what is in the MUTCD. Should 1 find another graphic? --ii CorArh« 33 J Crossing Enhancements P50 Should the Plan list "crossing flags" as used in Kirkland and elsewhere? Noted - these can be added to the fmal version of the Research and add to crossing enhnancements - identify -00,plan. crossing areas where these would be appropriate (i.e., TUC, Southcenter Blvd bus stops, TIB Crossings). 34 • Mid -Block Crossings P50 Last bullet Referencing Kirkland is fine, but Tukwila also has in -pavement lights on TIB near 14300 block and 15100 block. Agree Need picture rs c.4Qve. ud Page 19 of 38 ft cO y�?udt Apti r', DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 35 Mid -Block Crossings P51 In -Pavement Pedestrian Lighting I find the use of in -pavement pedestrian activated lighting insufficient. These lights are not very noticeable in the daylight and offer the pedestrian a false sense of security. I would rather see a flashing yellow sign with an associated sign, such as PEDESTRIAN IN CROSSWALK. A meeting with Public Works should be set up to determine the appropriate design. Changes should be made in the fmal version of the Walk & Roll to reflect the appropriate design. Check in MUTCD, and if there is another design recommendation, add to - crossing enhancements section .4 5k0A1 (iU6 6u/A L t Av j74^ -1/2-A1 m' `� QM W�f4,,2t4,(i'i�(j �J o— k0 `comg- toy' wi AO 1441455 v 36 J Mid Block Crossings P51 Stop lines are placed parallel to the crosswalk area.... Stop bars only to be used at controlled intersections, yield bars may be considered at mid -block crossings. A meeting with Public Works should be set up to determine the appropriate design. Changes should be made in the fmal version of the Walk & Roll to reflect the appropriate design. Bullet on 3t op bars at mid -block' crosswalks taken out - agree that what we are required to use what is in the MUTCD. Should I find another graphic? Nb / d Crossing Enhancements P52 Curb Bulbs Revise the text (page 52) to more clearly state that the bulb -out should not encroach upon or pinch down the travel pathway of a cyclist at the right edge of the traffic lane nor encroach upon the bike lane where a bike lane is present. Agree Revised to include this language JEnhancements Crossing P52 Curb Bulbs Curb bulb -outs should extend far enough out to make the pedestrians visible to the vehicles, but not so far that they encroach in the bike lane;bicycle travel area. A Curb bulb out that extend too far out forces the cyclists to move into the traffic lane causing a conflict and or iniury situation to occur. Language from above comment addresses this comment. V Page 20 of 38 o u.)69°—1,1,5 ie (vuYitw i yt l►g. SIS s 45Qrril ceae 1 Yt� DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 37 liparking On -Street Parking P52 Curb Bulbs are appropriate only in areas where there is on -street I fail to see the need for on -street parking within the City of Tukwila. The businesses within the city limits provide parking for their customers. On -street parking increases the potential for accidents between motorists and cyclists. Cars pulling in and out of parking spaces increase the chance of accidents. Cars parking on the side of the road make it more difficult for motorists pulling out of driveways by blocking their view of traffic and oncoming traffic's view of them To be discussed as part of the urban center plan. Curb bulbs are also appropriate where there are transit stops - this should be added to the design standard - get example from Portland 38 i Crossing Enhancements Should City standards for street illumination be increased at pedestrian crosswalks? A meeting with Public( Works should be set up to determine the appropriate design. Changes should be made in the final version. of the Walk & Roll to reflect the appropriate design. 1 �S • QS�I ��LJ ` u E"" diy}y p✓w p ow v—. 2 if GGtt )."11c9 ,: 39 V Crossing Enhancements P52 Curb Bulbs Curb bumps make life hell for cyclists! Consider design option mentioned in comment below, add to design standards in final version of Walk & Roll Plan. Changes were made to the description design standards for curb bulbs to include language that curb bulbs should not encroach into bike lanes or (if bike lane is V`' not present) the bike pathway. 40 IEnhancements Crossing P52 Curb Bulbs Regarding curb bulbs, I have seen instances in Europe where bike lanes continue through curb bulbs at street level and the raised bulbs project further into the roadway, often with vertical posts or bollards, so the pedestrians can stand further out into the street in safety while cyclists pass behind them. Discuss this design with Public Works and consider adding it to design options in final version of Walk & Roll Plan. In Portland they have a similar design - not sure if this is any safer, since there are potential Ni ped -bike conflicts, and then bikes must merge back into traffic afterwards. \' Page 21 of 38 \n. 121 • (6v DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE __ CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 41 Stairs P53 Last bullet and bike ramp photo Previous bullets discuss the need for handrails but the bike ramp concept doesn't appear to have a hand rail. Hard to be sure with the photo and no text references accommodation of a handrail within the design. Handrails should still be included on both sides of stairs, even when there is a bike ramp. This can be added to the design detail for stairs. Waiting for response from BART lady. 'i Projects P55 Projects — Where should we build? � .o. ; -- 1 like the page by page descriptions of each project/route segment. Each Project, page 55 thru 83, has a list of "Improvement Options" from the most bicycle -friendly to the least bicycle -friendly. I would like to see you state that "the most bicycle friendly goals will be accomplished in the long term, and that the secondary choices could be done soon and only as interim steps while waiting to the best imnrovement": ��, �IYY & 0- P�(M� �.— VOL C1 42 .,r Projects P55 Projects — Where should we build? This section doesn't seem to have any language regarding the suitability or feasibility of the recommended improvement options. Many places just seem to have "build bike lanes" as the default #1 choice regardless of the actual feasibility of ever doing so. Bike lanes are the top recommendation in the hierarchy of facilities for bicyclists. Each corridor will need a more detailed examination to determine the feasibility of different types of improvement options. Add recommendation (one of first steps for implementation of the plan) to hire a consultant to identify the specific recommendation for each corridor. Page 22 of 38 fit yofbd-' vk 4, dxofr DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 43 Projects P55 Table 4: Airport Way, Orillia Rd, S 200th Street These streets are outside of Tukwila's jurisdiction, or primarily outside. They should either not be included in the city's planning document or identified in a separate way to indicate that they are another jurisdiction's responsibility and/or require coordination. They are included because they are important routes to connect Tukwila with nearby jurisdications. The makes note that they are not within Tukwila jurisdiction, and partnerships will likely be required for construction of facilities on these routes. 4.7,14,crol- - 4,4plan 44- / �/ Projects P56 Tukwila International Blvd Bike lanes on Tukwila International Blvd would be very good. See also the general comments. Agree No drawl-ptet¢ u , 4 45 Projects P56 Tukwila International Blvd: Improvement Options section Constructing of bike lanes on recently improved sections of TIB, and sections that will be improved very shortly, does not seem very feasible. Further study is needed to determine the most appropriate type of bicycle facility for each corridor, and when these improvements will be feasible. 14i✓Z ( Ff - +0 vLia✓e ef�ely " oje Wi2G. "tS y,b% 46 / ���/// Projects P57 East Marginal Way vs. Airport Way I'm in favor of bike lanes on East Marginal but think a few improvements on Airport Way could make it a much better way to go since there are few intersections to slow down cyclists. Agree No change to plan necessary. 47 ✓ Projects P57 East Marginal Way I find it exciting that East Marginal Way is high on your priority list. It's a wide street, and there's no excuse for not making it a safer place for cyclists. Agree No change to plan necessary. Page 23 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) — --- - EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS — _. STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN . 184 Projects P57 East Marginal Way The City needs to correct the choke point on East Marginal Way between Boeing Access Road and the Duwamish River created by the light rail in the middle of the roadway. Agree — 49 b Projects P57 East Marginal Way Bike lanes on East Marginal Way would be very good; especially given the large employment locations. I do not believe that using the right-of-way currently occupied by railroad tracks for a trail would be a good idea — the tracks do not extend for the entire distance from the Boeing Plant 2 area to Boeing Access Road in the south, and the nature of the right-of-way is such that it seems likely that any trail would not be continuous through the area and would result in cyclists frequently crossing the road while traveling north or south. See also the general comments. Agree Take trail on railroad right -of - way out of improvement options. d05 Projects P57 East Marginal Way: High speed corridor Only the East Marginal Way section is really a high speed corridor. Once it becomes 40`/42°a the speed limit is much lower. Agree '" 51 Projects P58 Airport Way The area I speak of is the South End of Airport Way commencing at what I think is our city boundary. On the Seattle side there is an asphalt shoulder (in poor repair) that allows one to avoid the Airport Way drive lanes, but then one is forced onto Airport Way (or ride on grass due to no shoulder) until the south end of Associated Grocers. That area is likely 1/2 mile long at most. With AIG being redeveloped by Sabey maybe we can get some of that stretch looked at with their Airport Way side area redeveloped. I realize these things take time, no worries, there, but since I'm experiencing the commute weekly (not everyday mind you) it is a very scary part of my 9.5 mile ride home. This is an area that needs further examination and discussion, and will likely require partnerships (public and private) for improvements. 0-e/t" 41X Page 24 of 38 X c,J tS Cmc 0404 L5 N CIP -7 \t‘13A to ik..e- 1444_, '4" ✓�ctc� 1 411-44 5�9)--/-1c2-57,1L�" 1h. " bew•t. Pr, s' C IAI- e ? -Kat 1 k �'tL DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 52 / �� Projects P58 Airport Way Much of Airport Way, as is noted, lies within Seattle. Nevertheless, it is probably the best option for a northern extension of the route including the valley trails that currently ends in the vicinity of the south end of Boeing Field. There are some existing paved shoulders from Norfolk St up to the southern entrance to the airport and access to Perimeter Road; this route is currently used by many cyclists (and was part of the Seattle -to -Portland route until it was changed to Lake Washington Blvd and Rainier Ave through Renton). Agree Norfolk Street added as a project sheet to plan. \i 53/ Projects P58 Airport Way Not in Tukwila. Noted. Nem .4444 54 1 Projects P59 Boeing Access Road — S Ryan Way The multiple merge lanes provided by I-5 and Airport Way are not even mentioned in the plan. I feel that simple bike lanes are insufficient to address this problem. Noted - a meeting with Public Works should be set up to re-examine how to address accomodating bikes considering multiple merge lanes. Change should be included in the fmal version of the plan. 55 Projects P59 Boeing Access Road — S Ryan Way This section, covering Boeing Access Road and S Ryan Way, might better be broken up into two parts. If a bike facility across Boeing Access Road could be established, then a better connection to the east might be to utilize Martin Luther King Way to the north up to Henderson St, which provides a much more level route east to Rainier Valley, whereas S Ryan Way is a very steep road (which is also potentially dangerous as a downhill route westbound). In fact, I believe that Boeing Access Road / MLK / Henderson St is the only level crossing of I-5 corridor from Longacres up to Dearborn St. Noted - this will be re - examined for the fmal version of the plan. Page 25 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08-Jul-08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 56 if Projects P59 Boeing Access Road – S Ryan Way Boeing Access Road is also constrained by WSDOT limited access restrictions and additional restrictions associated with the railways. Boeing Access Road is built on at least 3 individual bridge structures, 2 owned by Tukwila, 1 by WSDOT which will also constrain what can be done/approved. Agree Bike lanes on Boeing Access Road is included as a project in PSRC's Destination 2030. 57 i Y Projects P60 S 112th Street South 112th St already has a paved shoulder. Its value would depend on East Marginal Way and/or Tukwila International Blvd being an attractive route for cyclists. Agree-(161b 1,41 SQv `/ — 58 J Projects P60 S 112th Street: Future cross .5I10I10I4.5 This doesn't seem very feasible or safe. S 112th Street is likely to This is an area that needs further examination and discussion. While there are trucks along this route, there does not seem to be a high number of vehicles travelling on S 112th. It is one of the few east-west routes that gets you from East Marginal Way and Tukwila International Blvd to the trail. i014.a,e- ,11015 11.49 S-, have very high truck traffic . is es that would warrant wider than 10 foot lanes, especially at intersections. 59 \s./ Projects P61 S 115th Street - 42nd Ave S - Macadam Rd S - 51st Ave S - Klickitat Dr Macadam Rd - 51st Ave S provide little to no access to the surrounding neighborhoods. 51st Ave S crosses over Southcenter Blvd without access. A connection between 51st Ave S and Southcenter Blvd is needed to increase the utilization of access to the Southcenter area Agree Page 26 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN _.._ - - - 60 4 Projects P61 comment related to Macadam Road S The specific stretch of Macadam Rd S I am concerned with is from S 144th Street to approximately S 147th (Southcenter Community Baptist Church driveway). This road has become a major route for children and youth walking to Foster High School and Showalter Middle School. There are also a number of people who walk this portion of the street daily to bus stops, parks, and local stores and shops. While the speed limit is 25mph on this portion of the street, most drivers exceed that and many go in excess of 40mph. With no curb or sidewalk to differentiate the road from the shoulder, many drivers also cross the white line to drive on the shoulder allowing them to take the corners at higher speeds. Since this road is a major artery for foot traffic between the many apartment complexes on Macadam and the local schools, the use of this road warrants a differentiated sidewalk. Agree s 61 V/ Projects P61 S 115th Street - 42nd Ave S - Macadam Rd S - 51st Ave S - Klickitat Dr Paved shoulders or bike lanes would be a very good addition to this corridor, which is already used by many cyclists. Also, it raises a question in my mind about paved shoulders and bike lanes. It is unclear to me from the document (perhaps I have missed this information) whether Tukwila's definition of a bike lane necessarily includes a curb on the outer edge, with or without a sidewalk. Many sections of this stretch would seem to be rather narrow for the inclusion of sidewalks, in which case there would presumably be little reason to add curbs; would a bike facility without outer curbs be regarded as a bike lane as opposed to a paved shoulder? A bike lane doesn't necessarily include a curb, but it is at least 5 feet wide, striped and signed as a bike lane. ✓ Page 27 of 38 ci D ;5" LAS a1(° % s DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08-Jul-08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS __ _ ... . STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 62 Projects P61 S 115th Street - 42nd Ave S - Macadam Rd S - 51st Ave S - Klickitat Dr: This route also tends to have less truck traffic than alternatives. True, except for between S 124th Street and Interurban, which has extremely high truck volumes AND a very narrow bridge. This should be noted. Agree 63 , � J® Projects P64 S 140th Street A safe method of crossing Tukwila International Blvd must be included in the plan if this street is to be used as a bicycle route. Agree S 1 617^ 5-Yet-k" k „yG $�'oy cLt.. -2.2:140$s0 CY7 64 ei Projects P64 S 140th Street The value of S 140th St would depend on whether there is a traffic light at the intersection with Tukwila International Blvd; if not there would be no good way across such a busy road and the two sections would effectively be severed. Agree 1 65 Projects P65 S 144th Street from Military Rd S to 53rd Ave S. The hill west of Macadam Road is so steep that only a few cyclists could ascend it and it would be a dangerous descent. Agree - it is one of the few east-west routes across the freeway. Bicycles moving west across this route would likely need to walk their bikes up this hill. Bicycle maps (including the Bicycle Friendly Routes map) should note this 66 /) C f// Projects P65 S 144th Street from Military Rd S to 53rd Ave S: Special design consideration should be given to the bridge across 1-5. This is a serious understatement. The ability to add any width to the roadway for bike lanes or pedestrian facilities is extremely restricted due to the bridge crossing over both 1-5 and the new LINK rail line. The real complications of this proposed improvement option should be disclosed. Agree Page 28 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) — IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER). EXISTING TEXT __ — REVIEWER COMMENTS — - STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN - 6741 Projects P66 S 160th Street A trail/stairway connecting S 160th Street at 53rd Ave S and Klickitat Drive would increase the access to the Southcenter area from the McMicken Heights neighborhood. Agree i86 Projects P66 S 160th Street Add the following under new bullet under current conditions: Some significant grades are on the east end of the route. Noted this should be added to the fmal version of the Walk & Roll Plan. --- 69 Projects P67 52nd Ave S - 53rd Ave 5 - Macadam Rd S Parts of this route, on Macadam Road south of 144th St, currently have paved shoulders. It should also be noted that the north end of this route connects with the Green River Trail at the crossing of 56th Ave. Noted - this should be added to the fmal version of the Walk & Roll Plan. 70 Projects P67 52nd Ave S - 53rd Ave S - Macadam Rd S Should note under the current conditions that this route includes some significant grades. Noted - this should be added to the fmal version of the Walk & Roll Plan. 71 i Projects P68 Southcenter Blvd As a resident of SeaTac I bike in Tukwila about twice a week. Improvement of bike travel on Southcenter Blvd would be a major improvement. Of particular concern westbound is moving left through traffic to continue on S 154th Street. Eastbound the issue is moving from the curb lane to go straight and pass the right turns onto 68th Ave S. Agree 72 Projects P68 Southcenter Blvd Please add a multi -use trail, ramping up from Southcenter Blvd to 51st Ave S. It is an important neighborhood link and bike connection that is missing in your plan. Noted - this should be added to the fmal version of the Walk &Roll Plan. Page 29 of 38 p , - ? G.e-Gl�lsr r apt DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08-Jul-08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 73 1 Projects P68 Southcenter Blvd Simply adding bike lanes to Southcenter Blvd does little to alleviate the danger posed by the I-5 and I-405 access ramps between I-5 and 61st Ave S. A more dramatic response is needed to solve this problem. A trail connecting Southcenter Blvd and 51st Ave S would allow both pedestrians and cyclists to bypass this area. Noted - this should be added to the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. .i 74 Projects P68 Southcenter Blvd This is actually the most important missing east/west connection through Tukwila. Cyclists can use the Green River and Interurban trails north and south and can access Renton to the east via Grady Way or S 158th St (Longacres), and can access Tukwila International Blvd and Burien using Southcenter Blvd / 154th St west of I-5, but the section in the middle is quite bad when traffic is heavy. Agree 75 Projects P69 Andover Park West This street is not included on the list of Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes. Andover Park West is often used by bikes to get to REI, Bicycles West and other businesses. Strander is busy but usable. Further study is needed to�` determine whether to add Andover Park West and Strander to the list of Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes. I r 5 146-1- /� L ] j� Glu `� h f �is�7/ m �e�c�'1a' �` D✓ - 1) („.. -piGl4-, Page 30 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. _ TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) -- — IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) __ EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN _ _ _ 76 Projects P69 Andover Park East On -street parking is neither desirable nor needed on this street. The businesses in this area all have thie own parking and are a distance from the right-of-way, which would make on -street parking undesirable to their customers. On -street parking is dangerous for both motorists and cyclists. Each time a car pulls in or out of a parking spot a new opportunity presents itself for an accident. Also, cars parked along the side of the road obstruct the vision of autos entering the roadway and prevent traffic from seeing cars entering the roadway. If the city has a desire to narrow Andover Park East from 4 lanes to 2 plus bike lanes, I would suggest sidewalks separated from the roadway with landscaping plus a center turn 1anP Whether or not to have on - street parking is a discussion anticipated with the urban center plan. 77 Projects P69 Andover Park East: Improvement Option #1 Per the comp plan and all the modeling done, APE (between Tukwila Parkway and Strander) is planned to be changed to a 3 lane section, not a 2 lane as shown here. Noted - this should be added to the final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. _ 7, 4, CEJ/ Projects P70 Baker Blvd Why are connections with transit barely mentioned? Would like to see more detail and discussion. It seems like it should at least be added as a criteria in A-2 and A-3. Include this as a dicussion. 79 /J —, J/I Projects P70 Baker Blvd Baker Blvd is already a fairly good connection, with traffic volumes that are not too high. Its greatest liability is the poor performance of the detector loops at Andover Park East. Agree 80 4, Projects P70 Baker Blvd: ...eventually with speeds slow enough that bike lanes will not be needed. Construct bike lanes....816111.5111.51618 Recommend that since the future is already expecting that no bike lane would be necessary that the center turn lane/boulevard option not be removed. Agree - this should be changed in final version of the plan. s / Page 31 of 38 ce DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS _ STAFF RESPONSE _ _- . CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 8lt, Projects P71 S 168th Street This is an obvious opportunity to design bicycle facilities from the beginning rather than after the initial roadway design. I also wonder if there is any intent to create a park by the pond. Agree 4‘10 <-,11,044-y Kecessn 82 VVV Projects P71 S 168th Street: Construct multi -use trail on north side PW is okay with this and has agreed in principle during the TUC subarea plan process. Construction of bike lanes on both sides of Noted _ . street is not recommended nor accepted by PW due to W---- constraints witpow wer vaults and rail ROW. 83 /f _// V Projects P72 Minkler Blvd e p o over er Blvd east of An West is already good, the part to the east is rather narrower, and its value depends on improvements to Southcenter Parkway as a bicycle route. Noted 4 Projects P73 S 180th Street - S 178th Street On S 180th St, the segment west of Southcenter Blvd that has a 22% grade is totally inappropriate for cycling. It is too steep to climb and total unsafe to ride down. No way is it possible to expect to use brakes to stop without flying over the handlebars. Take the 22% grade out of the plan and find a route than is less steep. (a grade less than 8%). `...— 84 Projects P73 S 180th Street - S 178th Street S 178th Street is included in the map accompanying this project, but no mention is made to it. S 178th Street is an abomination. The pavement grooves added by the city did very little to add traction for automobiles but greatly added to the dangers to the cyclist. Personally I think S 178th Street should be rerouted to intersect Southcenter Parkway south of S 180th Street so as to elongate it an thereby reduce the grade. Short of the rebuilding of S 178th Street, an alternate trail should be constructed in the greenbelt on the north side of S 178th Street. This could be a winding trail wihich would reduce the grade, making it easier for cyclists to ascend the hill and less perilous coming down. More information should be included on improvements to S 178th Street as part of the final version of the plan. Comments are noted, and will inform changes to the plan. `-- • Page 32 of 38 (i tL c. � TD WL �C1L S -04e. O k_44- W e H Gv✓ e i c arye 11444- t - j,`" , Ev fvt:ecaL s C + i DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 85 Projects P73 S 180th Street - S 178th Street Addition of bike lanes along this route is not really feasible to presume will ever go in within the near -mid range time period. ROW constraints are pretty significant. Also, should add a bullet under current conditions to note the extreme grade constraint on the S 178th Street hill. Noted 86 Projects P73 S 178th Street When riding down S 178th Street on a bicycle in the area of the S- bend above the intersection with Southcenter Parkway the conditions of the shoulder is a problem. It is normally so full of rocks and other litter that I get onto the grooved concrete for safety. If that portion of the shoulder could be clean and smooth it would make riding there possible. I do use the shoulder above that point because I like to come down slower than the 25mph that most autos use and I don't like to have them stacked behind me. Then it is a matter of fmding a suitable gap to merge onto the concrete to pass through the left hand turn. I have commuted over this route since 1986 (mornings). For the afternoon commute, my common choice is to go farther south and come up the hill on Orillia which is a lot less steep. Noted - short-term solution is to forward this to Public Works street maintenance to clear debris off shoulder. / 87 / Projects P73 S 180th Street A bicycle -friendly S 180`t' St from Southcenter Parkway to East Valley Highway would be very nice. Agree jv0 c14.9.9, 'Yl2t-e-S5 88 J Projects P74 Southcenter Parkway Southcenter Parkway north of S 180th Street is a heavily -travelled arterial which is ignored by the plan. Bicycle lanes should be added at a minimum. Further research is needed, including a meeting with Public Works on the Klickitat project, to determine whether to include this street on the list of Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes. NV GEtE_ E cQ C(�Gc-. "° Page 33 of 38 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 89 Projects P74 Southcenter Parkway A bicycle -friendly Southcenter Parkway south from S 180th St would be very nice. It would also be a function of the attractiveness of Southcenter Parkway north of 180t St. Agree yut ct'o .� 901 Projects P74 • Grants, mitigation payments.... Traffic Impact Fees — our current form of collection mitigation payments - cannot be used just for bike lanes. Noted Notec.Q, jovt -11-2-Y Cbw( &--, r04--) be os4c0gy t' (Q (> 91 Projects P75 Orillia Road Orillia Road and S 200th St currently have bike lanes. Noted 92 rojects P75 Orillia Road Suggest putting this page in a separate section for non -Tukwila projects. Noted 93 j Projects P76 S 200th Street Suggest putting this page in a separate section for non -Tukwila projects. Noted 94 rojects P78 West Marginal Place While there may not be enough room for standard bike lanes on West Marginal Way, the existing paved shoulders could still be widened. They are currently narrow for much of this section, but the route is used by many cyclists even so, and it is currently a much better option (for example) than is East Marginal Way. Improvements in the section through South Park, which currently has heavy traffic, narrow lanes, and a poor surface, would add to its attractiveness Agree this should be added in final version of the plan. 95 Projects P78 First photo No "Share the Road" sign is visible in this picture. Agree - this should be added in final version of the plan. 94 Projects P79 Duwamish Riverbend Hill to Airport Way The value of a trail in the Duwamish River Bend Hill would depend on the ability of Airport Way to attract cyclists. Agree 00-- Page 34 of 38 DvvP frt.,) -to p iert /e In 1 P `f1 A 4 i5 a `""`c��� 67i n Pi f.-es� di YEAS q C Ro e -P cit? � yp�.ss aDet`n..l Zsl ;ncio),, vt tie by c,11014 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) _ EXISTING TEXT . - REVIEWER COMMENTS __ _ . STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN /rojects P80 Black. River Connector One of the badly needed external connections, Figure 5, is the .Fort Dent - Green River Trail connection under the BNSFand UP RRs to Monster R.d. This route provides badly needed direct connect between Tukwila and Renton. This would shorten the route between Tukwila and Renton. It will require coordination with UP and BNSF RRs. You list this on page 80 as the Black River connector. It needs to be a pavedmulti-use trail. Ch&frtr iicone_ -b lwp J 11-a, I 4 tc(4 killyli'l .F 1204,dFrij h _- ,� w 171- ,G4-• N�� GkRivl �7 97 / V Projects P80 Black River Connector The Black River Connector is one of the most significant short connections that could be made; its quality would depend on a good connection to Monster Road (not merely to a sidewalk). Agree l 1 98 Projects P81 Trail through WSDOT Right-of-way A trail through the WSDOT right-of-way on the south of I-405 would be a good connection for the same reasons as for the project described on page 68 (Southcenter Blvd connection to the Green River Trail). Noted • SWC/ 9, . Projects P81 Trail through WSDOT Right-of-way This area also includes SPU ROW.Add new bullet: • SPU 60" water main ROW and easement. Project isn't really very feasible because of the WSDOT and SPU issues. Noted q 10J Projects P82 Railroad Spur through Southcenter An issue to note, perhaps in a bullet, is that in some cases when the rail line is abandoned, the deed returns the ROW to the original owner of the land automatically. Noted 101/ _V Projects P 84, Figures 7-14 Contours shown on the maps (thin, light brown lines).... With this copy, the topo lines are all but unreadable. Agree - this should be changed in fmal version of the plan. S Meat .it:7 /II 4v �44-sb ►- Q- hi art reucPA�-b 1.12-- 102/ 1,01/ Projects P92, Figure 14 South Annexation Area Is the potential annexation area discussed also a potential annexation area for Kent? No No 4 �(c rvOss4 Page 35 of 38 Peas o b ,G,4j vval N ' `S as A_ lr,q/Le,f �- �Z, WSi76� ?tc as Ur iib' � y {: ‹ggi5 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN __ Performance Goals & Measure-ments I. do like the performance goals and measurement as a wrap for the recommendations and a way to benchmark success. I would .like to see what your 20 -year goals are. , to s_4_ p f FO'r.ts L k au r.QAti �J � p-,, ems, tvti iktia ► 103Performance J Goals & Measure-ments P95 2012 Goal Using 2012 as the first benchmark is too soon. Effectively only 3.5 years will available to achieve a 6 year goal. Noted — 104 J Performance Goals & Measure-ments P96 If sidewalks are not required at the time of new construction, a fund should be established, based on X dollars for every linear foot of street frontage, for construction of sidewalks or trails at a later date. Very large concern over feasibility of this kind of program. There is a very high risk of no improvements being built and all fees being refunded. There is no appropriate CIP project to accommodate this at this time, and in most cases, the "sticker shock" of paying a fee that covers the actual cost of constructing the improvement means that the fee gets reduced (by electeds) and a new burden on PW budget is created to fill the gap. Tracking system and staff to monitor program are also concerns. Noted R Project Prioritization A.-2 Project Prioritization Have you developed a prioritized list of improvements? if you were to complete a regional trail and bicycle network, and sidewalks within 1/4 mile of all attractants within the next 20 years, what would it cost? Put another way, how much would it cost per year to complete the major bicycle network throughout Tukwila, and provide pedestrian connections at the highest priority locations over 20 years? Does the plan lay out what the highest priorities are, and then prioritize those? For the pedestrian network, there are two options 1) fix arterials, 2) fix around ped attractors. Have you considered accident locations, and major barriers? ,_ Page 36 of 38 w,p v, t-havi add wa & ±rz 1( ref(cis 4_ gyoryfm 7-144? tryvicR;244.434-4.- Ghli Z®l1 _Itice t „ ;IA -CI A Chin -fo-exev�n p -bas L reco' �' -(koce cf eut41.sT 4t S'3 rAtt'e--h #<- e ice,01 ccJ(cJ ke evi e./[c fib` 11 -f'rai'/9 : peprLs-I-Rec. Iva n U S 19; ke- l6Gyt2 S : t/G�P ott,vele / nyf c2ect;�6P DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT _ REVIEWER COMMENTS _ - - STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 105 ftt Project Prioritization A-2 Project Prioritization An area not addressed specifically under Project Prioritization is regional connections, i.e. those involving other jurisdictions. These create the longest corridors and impact the greatest number of users. Examples include the east/west connections via the Southcenter Blvd, The Black River Corridor, and northern extension of the valley routes such as the Green River and Interurban trails. Another example would be connecting any project affecting Strander Blvd with the planned extension of SW 27th St in Renton. Noted - this information should be added to the fmal version of the Walk & Roll Plan. . I. I 1 t i h i �� LtP file i1 `t`'ktn&-- 00(G9j� 7 106 Project Prioritization A-2 Project Prioritization What is included here is not a prioritization process. It is an identification of criteria used but there is not prioritization or weighting of criteria presented. Tukwila has a system in place, though old and not necessarily addressing all of the concerns identified in this plan, but it is an actual prioritization/ranking process assigning numbers to the projects. A true system would need to be developed between DCD and PW to get a real ranking system. Agree - a system of prioritization is needed for projects in the Walk & Roll Plan. ..� 107 d Needs Analysis B -1-B-7 Needs Analysis There is a discussion about various types of cyclists (casual vs experienced, commuting vs recreational). I've seen much of this material repeated over the years in various other documents, and I'm not all that impressed with such analyses. Most good facilities attract users of various levels of experience who are riding for different purposes. Many of my recreational rides take me fairly close to where I work, and I often use the same roads and trails. Experienced cyclists begin as inexperienced riders. I also note that I never seem to see motorists broken down into categories such as recreational and commuting. Agree ....- Page 37 of 38 tor `,,e cfiun sIkteI,. (c i, fi f S ,`vl aG Ifs5* ik 1-tAii..J2- cart -7 t2 !C ( cC�!J P1 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. TOPIC (ROUTE, POLICY) IDENTIFIER (PAGE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, OTHER) EXISTING TEXT REVIEWER COMMENTS — STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 108 J Needs Analysis B -1-B-7 Needs Analysis In the discussion of accident locations it is important to remember that the most dangerous may have fewer or no accidents simply because they attract fewer cyclists, while the presence of more accidents in a location could simply reflect that they are attractive to� cyclists. What matters is the ratio of accidents to the number of cyclists present. I've also observed that separated trails are frequently built near safe existing routes rather than near unsafe locations. Where the lack of accidents is an artifact of the absence of cyclists, it should not be taken as an indication of good transportation design. In other words, no cyclists should not be taken as no problem. Noted �(Ct 6( Ovr/"lZ e, w,�i lag loth b /12 �� `-j'• G 5 ) Q 02194 �v1 kleRW GiAu Needs Analysis B-3 Characteristics of Recreational and Utilitarian Trips On page B-3, in the discussion of cyclists making utilitarian trips, organize the key needs in the order of importance: 1 -safety, 2 -direct connections, 3 -facilities on arterials, 4 -protected crossing, and 5- secure storage at the destination. - -- Jcl- Needs Analysis B -4-B-5 Needs of Pedestrians vs. Needs of Bicyclists Facilities that are created for pedestrians to successfully walk for distances up to 1/2 mile often lack the continuity that cyclists need when they can easily travel 5-10-15 miles. ��� Pzu 4�. [ `"tl 't' &OP1N1fb123 109 Needs Analysis School Survey How statistically significant is the survey does it accurately reflect the demographics of Tukwila residents and guests? • It is not statistically significant; this should be in the final version of the plan. .a.•••noted 110 JPolicy Planning and Context C-3 Destination 2030 On page C-3 five non -motorized projects are noted for `Destination 2030'. Some of these seem like very `small potatoes' for a 20 -plus year time horizon. Noted 111 J Planning and Policy Context C-4 Pedestrian Improvement Zones Why are connections with transit barely mentioned? Would like to see more detail and discussion. It seems like it should at least be added as a criteria in A-2 and A-3. Noted - more information on connections to transit should be included in the final version of the plan. Bus stops are being added to the neighborhood maps. --- Page 38 of 38 •s. DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 1 / On numerous occasions I have encountered lists of projects like many of those in this plan, and have always considered that these projects amount to retro -fitting bicycles into a transportation system that was originally designed without cycling in mind, leading to greater- eventual costs, long delays, and often sub -optimal designs, typically limited in -the possible options - by by the earlier design. Rather than being a characteristic only of past projects, this process still seems to be going forward. It seems to me that instead of retro -fitting bicycle designs into the sytem after the fact, they should be integrated from the beginning, following some definite standards, such as those below. For example, just in the last year East Marginal Way immediately south of Boeing Access Road was resurfaced but no shoulder striping was installed (there are strips further south, nearer to S 112st Street). Agree - Complete Streets idea. 2 / y All newly -designed and maintained roads, with the exception of some limited -access highways, will be used by cyclists and should be designed to encourage cycling. Agree - Complete Streets idea. 3 J Any construction or reconstruction should explicitly address the question "How will cyclists and pedestrians use this facility?" If there is no good and safe answer to this question, then the project should be redjected or redesigned. Agree - Complete Streets idea. •— 4 While the matter of what should be done is sometimes asked with regard to cycling issues, what is too rarely asked is what should not be done. A good example is that paved shoulders on main thoroughfares are sometimes eliminated and replaced with additional motor vehicle lanes. Sometimes sidewalks, curbs, and gutters are also added, which are good features for and promote landscaping values, but have only negative impacts on the safety, and therefore the general utility, of the road as a cycling facility. Adding bicycle lanes would be a rather obvious solution, but this is not always done. Examples in Tukwila from the last decade and a half include the elimination of paved shoulders from parts of Interurban Ave S near Foster Golf Course and also in the vicinity of I-405 and Grady Way, East Marginal Way north of Boeing Access Road up to Norfolk Street, and Tukwila International Blvd. In some cases separated trails were added but only after several years had elapsed. Agree 7 Z' i+ St di-ipaki S d .-i-7, A -0 1s Rd n fyu,� s/en�l„^�,�1 o--1,pedestrians 0 Stre -1- d ► Q wt,Vt kP. OV f- a� l(t ra (_ann Ert k Ap 4(d CP .G a Pv yi�ce "Seth . of 13 1 P-e&IZ Des t S 1A 5 Ifrom Synergies should be sought for all projects. At a meeting I attended, Ron Sims alluded to the fact that transportation facilities often afford not access, but obstacles to the movement of cyclists and pedestrians; a good example would be I-5 Tukwila north to Dearborn Street. For this entire stretch there is not a single good, safe east -west route. Pedestrians may find some ways to cross the corridor, usually involving considerable hills, which is also a problem for those in wheelchairs, but for cyclists I cannot name a corssing I would recommend for a person of average cycling skills. Recently an opportunity arose which could have been exploited. Near the Boeing Access Road, the light rail line was built over 1-5. The structure could have included a bicycle and pedestrian surface as well, but this was not done. Agree — Likewise, immediately to the north of this area, on MLK Way, bicycle lanes could have connected this area with Page 1 of 9 1b WI/KA- s ti 044 0 C ejj _s SIBS Cowie S-4463 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN Henderson St, which is one of the few east -west routes following level teerain and having moderate motor -vehicle traffic. A connection could thus have been made between the Interurban and Green River trails and the Rainier Valley. Currently these trails provide safe access -all -the -way -from the City of Pacific to the -vicinity of the south end of Boeing -Field; -but to the north most existing routes contain sections which are intimidating to potential bicycle commuters during rush hours. 6 A frequent problem for cyclists is insensitive loop detectors at intersections. An example is Baker Blvd at Andover Park This information should be included in the Crossing aeltbd rf'c4- 01°1--1J J East. Another issue is that the pushbuttons in place for trail users are often located so that cyclists have to turn the wrong way and then back up after pushing them, as at the crossing of the Green River Trail at 102nd Street where it also meets West Marginal Place and 27th Ave S. Cyclists also cannot trip the sensors at this location when travelling south. Enhancements section of the final version of the plan. 7 I don't recall seeing Norfolk Street mentioned in the plan, but it is a connection currently used by cyclists between Airport Way and the north end of the Green River via the Boeing Oxbow lot and S 102nd Street. This route could be a valuable connection between downtown Seattle and the trails from the Kent Valley. In fact I don't know of a better route in terms of the cycling conditions. It is already used informally but to be listed as an 'official' bicycle route the issue of transiting this section of private property would have to be addressed. One possibility would be for some sort of transfer from private to public hands to overcome private liability issues. Norfolk Street should be considered as an addition to the Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes in the fmal version of the plan. Since the Boeing Oxbow lot and S 102nd Street are private property, it is agreed that a partnership or agreement may be needed to secure this as a route available to the public. KorpliG kc Gce £5 Ue(}- 1,114 _0 - <�y 0, `/ r vfe, 0 8 We should consider S Norfolk Street as a connector from Airport Way to East Marginal Way. It's a big street with little / traffic and might accommodate bike lanes with just restriping. I think this route could be a relatively inexpensive way to �/ connect Georgetown to the Green River Trail. There is already an underutilized sidewalk along much of Airport Way that could probably be converted to a trail. Agree - see note above. , ` / 9 / I live in Federal Way and work in the Riverton area of Tukwila. I ride my bike to work when conditions permit. It would be r great if you could figure something out for that stretch of Military Rd S, south of S 160th - it looks like it's not included in plan. Noted FM,I,.zfrk,i aal.&gg +t' 6,4— r. � �� r� - I" Jthe OMMISSION - Bicycle -friendly route from the TUC to the Sounder Commuter Rail Station along Longacres Way. Page 2 of 9 Icsur 41e-Aecks a SJ- 10,1ts dvie 'L° /S4 t„/, firma S. i kt �J �t� -10/410 Mt NJ ifaztivarar DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN /....- — OMMISSION - Military Rd S - On the map, Figure 5, Military Rd where is passes through Tukwila should be on the Bike - Friendly Routes. Military Rd needs to be a north -south route along the top of west hill. Its development with bike lanes needs to be established -with the affected jurisdictions; SeaTac,-Kent, Des _Moines, and Federal -Way. Where Military Rd crosses I-5, south of S 180th St (in Tukwila?) WSDOT needs to have a wider bridge that provides Bike Lanes. — / OMMISSIONy Military Rd S - Military Road should be incorporated into the "Recommended Bike -Friendly Routes" plan map (Figure 5). It is an important neighborhood route and alternative travel route and supplement to bike travel on the more challenging Tukwila International. Blvd (Hwy 99, formerly Pacific Ave S) with the latter's far greater traffic speed, volume, commercial traffic, and commercial driveways. —.----•v OMMISSION - Bike access from. Klickitat Dr inot the Southcenter Mall area - This is a critical gap and needs more attention (see previous comments about Southcenter Pky). NoA-- 5v it it elw To (0, SS - ,$ OMMISSION - Southcenter Pky: Klickitat Dr to SW 180th St - It is very evident from even a cursory examination of the "Existing and Planned Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities" map (Figure 2) that this corridor represents a major north -south gap in the planned bicycle system. This gap hinders access to major employment and commercial activities in Southcenter. Provision for bicycle accommodation in this vital corridor will be challenging to be sure, but it must be addressed, and it will also help maximize the benefit of the plan's recommendations for the several planned east -west bike -friendly routes which terminate at this segment of Southcenter Pky. 1,41; (1 Vt 0�'1K Ll ur�-' -17� G lu ry 0(I q e �NUU AS {ted' •T -4c v©Um-e, 10 OMMISSION - Freeway access ramps - Almost no consideration was given to the dangers of the many freeway access ramps within the city. The only access ramp mentioned in the report is the one at Highway 99 and 599. The report either glossed over or ignored the many other access ramps within the city. Agree this information should be included in the final version of the plan. ]nft7 -- / 11 0 OMMISSION - MLK Way - This road was totally ignored by the plan. South of the Boeing Access Road it is a high speed road that is more of a freeway access ramp than a local arterial. Southbound MLK Way is especially dangerous due to the I- 5 on -ramps that intersect this 50mph stretch of roadway. This will be examined for inclusion in the final version of the plan. v{- Svyy OMMISSION - MLK Way - This is a regional -class bicycle route. The need for bike accommodation improvements on it as it enter s Tukwila and intersects the draf plan's recommended bicycle facility improvements for Boeing Access Road/Ryan Way should be addressed. 1 I 12 litr ADDITIONAL PROJECTS - Klickitat Drive to McMicken Heights Mixed Use Trail. I would like the city to build one of the following mixed-use trails connecting McMicken Heights to Klickitat Drive: (A) Klickitat Drive to Slade Way at 54th Ave S; (B) Klickitat Drive to 53rd Ave S at S 160th Street. Either of these trails would encourage walking between McMicken Heights and Southcenter. This will be examined for inclusion in the final version of the plan. 61LJt.4 x - Neishbt�he S , � {� �� vvittlenje c- t' 13 ADDITIONAL PROJECTS - South 152nd Street Sidewalks - There are many children living in the apartments on S 152nd Street that walk to Thorndyke Elementary School, Foster High School and Showalter Middle School. This is one of the Noted - This will be examined for inclusion in the final version -- Page 3 of 9 eL� K 6rt -'1"tJ „5-_t c f1 =Pu 14444J— tovrter" op," t) :t (rr3 hi2)2, r IM cCacel04 Si s Is, SIL �''�'ri �0 � S DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN more heavily travelled side streets in andS 152nd STreet' Therefore it is imperative a high priority for sidewalk improvements. the area by virtue of the traffic light at the intersection of Tukwila International Blvd that S 152nd Street between 42nd AVe S and Tukwila International Blvd be of the plan. - — _- _ - 14 ADDITIONAL PROJECTS - 40th Ave S Sidewalks - 40th Ave S between Southcenter Blvd and S 152nd Street is currently utilized by both automobiles and pedestrians wishing to avoid the intersection of 42nd Ave S and Southcenter Blvd. The foot and motorized traffic on this route will only increase with the opening of the Light Rail station at Southcenter Blvd and Tukwila International Blvd. Currently 40th Ave S is a narrow residential street with no pedestrian walkway. S 152nd Street is a residential street with a paved shoulder on the north side only. I feel it should be a high priority to add sidewalks to both these streets to accommodate future increases in traffic. Noted - This will be examined for inclusion in the fmal version of the plan. 15 J ADDITIONAL PROJECTS - Southcenter Blvd to Klickitat Drive Access - Many cyclists traveling to/from Burien utilize S 150th Street/Southcenter Blvd to access the Southcenter area. Currently 61st Ave S is their first opportunity to cross I-405 from Southcenter Blvd to the Southcenter area. This entails transversing the very dangerous and high traffic area of Southcenter Blvd between 53rd AVe S and 62nd AVe S. I propose adding a mixed-use trail between Southcenter Blvd and 51st Ave S which follows the on-ramp to westbound Highway 518 at Klickitat Blvd. This would offer several advantages to the current configuration: (1) it would put the Southcenter area within walking distance of the apartments on Southcenter Blvd; (2) it would allow cyclists from Burien to bypass the I -5/I-405 interchange at Southcenter Blvd when accessing the Southcenter area; (3) it would provide a connection between Southcenter Blvd and the proposed WSDOT right-of-way trail via Klickitat Drive Noted - This will be examined for inclusion in the fmal version of the plan. s 16 The underpasses on the Green River Trail below Strander and 180th seem dangerous due to narrow path, limited aprons, low lighting, mix of low and high speeds due to grade change to get under street, no safety rail, and no tethered lifesaving ring/floatation-device to throw to somebody if they run off the path into the river (at least elsewhere you'd get snagged up in blackberries and never make it to the water). Noted Does rf ,2-4- y..,)r Ai ,.r,A-% ,..., . , j .,r,,`c,,.....- 17 i Should public facilities, such as multi -use paved trails, meet illumination requirements levied on private projects, which are there to assure safety? Shouldn't illumination be required if we actually expect citizens and guest to transition from car based transportaion at all hours of the day? Area for further research. (VT r ON { N s.edf CVO __---%-. 5 18Would ✓ extending cameras into the trail and park system help with public safety by serving as a deterrent to crime (attacks, vandalism, etc), and as a detection device if there are problems (person injured, overflowing garbage cans, levee failure,dkof etc), ? Area for further research. may in, 5,��(/((CS� `,f .tom ,5 `n`"r7 post: - -1,174t+i' 19 / 1/ Are there certain remote/isolated places along trail, where a emergency phone system/call-box (911 only or direct connection to police station) would make sense? Area for further research. Mei Page 4 of 9 wo,vn ifrt 5 sr . skeklce we 44 -tie 4. ra/ ? -'� 12e1 e 4_ z) xwIv' Ay It , "WC. -nc v {i t Ce . kiLl4tiu/C?iik.G,jl..�l i 'tZ.o "%c ( • " ytte /0114" J`" DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 20 Could we add placement/spacing of things like restrooms, water fountains, benchs, picnic tables, etc along trails along with some guidelines for art installations (Art Commissioners could help out here) as well as historical markers/data (Tukwila Historical Society would be a resource here?) it would be cool to have a audio player of some sort that would read RFID tags along the trails/streets/sidewalks and give the story on that area that you could check-out/rent from the library or park department)? Need to meet with Parks and Recreation Department to determine whether they have standards for this. �� C��e �d _ Pta - - _ -/_ 21 City could design into the trail, elements that would make them more accessible to the blind (special curb on one side, audible cues like some crossing signals, change in paving material on edges, etc) or wheelchair bound individuals with limited motor skills (for example, in California, experiments are being done with placing magnets in the highway for specially equipped cars to follow, the same idea could be applied to a wheelchair so the user only had to control speed versus both speed and turning). Noted 'F-QATqf v'JjeLy 5 _ �"et� jhiAA 22 Clarification on Figure 6 and Table 3 - Sunwood Blvd is a private street that terminates at the northern edge of my property, where there is a emergency access easement on my property and an adjacent property in my short plat, that then connects to a shared private driveway down to 62nd Ave just south of its intersection with 151st. Neither the public and/or Sunwood has access rights to use the easements, although there is a drainage system that Sunwood is responsible for maintaining as well as access for utilities work. Because these surfaces are paved in our short plat, they are an attractive nuisance for trespassers who use our short plat property. The Tukwila Fire Department, after considering the request for approximately 4 months, would not let me gate this easement. Noted - need to research the liability associated for private property owners who grant access easements for the public across their property. 1 bit) j la pi 11 �A f 1Vt 1 - NA' I 22 (cont'd) Being aware of the City's expressed desire for walkable communities, I sent a request to the Public Works department to see if the city was interested in acquisition of some of these surfaces in our short plat for trail purposes, but after 15 months of analysis they could fmd no justification or benefit to the community for such a project. I have no desire to see a error in public records that may support a defacto taking of my property where I am not compensated for its use, yet get all the financial exposure of liability of unauthorized users. With all this in mind, if I understand the locations and concerns identified Table 15 comments # 22 and # 23, I encourage that it be determined to be a high city priority to find a solution for these concerns and that the solution includes trail and emergency access to Sunwood's property and on to Tukwila Elementary and/or 58th Ave along the western edge of Tukwila Elementry Page 5 of 9 Pvel, S S dck s /rode `mss ,�S ��s�� � f kap ^tam -1- w�- 19 �G+,�' ��a Ccs ���� ADS acQ ���'�� j�'bJPc l�c.� � ,� piss 6L(t� �G--kes,' �-Jt arc ce `f �� l�jau-✓� 1-1 .y, _ v _ n Q w c,1i(Ce ' c'e s_e s fie., C (7 f `, . Okla- ilk w( (,q$01 dY 644'01 DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 23 j....- Is there any way to evaluate the "economic value" the proposed railroad to trail easements would add versus what they would take away? On the surface, they would seem to add to quality of life assuming more trails/sidewalks are good, but wouldn't these alternate/additional paths remove folks from our sidewalk system thus reducing -social -interaction with other residents and reducing visits to merchants stores? As bike trails, it's not clear how beneficial they would be, since they cross multiple streets (and will cross more as we breakup "super blocks" and punch through existing streets that don't cross the tracks), which contrasts with the Burke Gilman and Interurban Trails. On the other hand, if these right-of-ways were converted to mostly bike paths, they might encourage a separation of bikes from pedestrians on sidewalks or city streets, which might be good. Area for further research. - — _.. __ _ __ 24 ‘,/should There used to be a rails to trails "rail banking" program, where the right-of-way was preserved for conversion back to rail, the need surface. If that program still exists, would you recommend the city pursue that if it was to convert these rail spurs to trails, in the event that economic times could change? Yes 25 tdi Would it be better to let these railroad easements go to adjacent properties if they are abandoned, since these properties are currently warehouses, may be developed into a commercial type property that would have a traditional front facing the street network with a need for delivery truck area in the rear where the tracks are now to be economically viable sites? Area for further research. 4..—/ 26Are "dinner trains" a good thing that we would want to encourage in the Tukwila Urban Center. It seemed like the Spirit of Washington dinner train had a pretty long run when it was based in Renton, but doesn't appear to have done very well when relocated to Tacoma. Is there any data that a business like this generates extra business for merchants in a town with a dinner train? If there is a positive correlation, would you recommend we preserve the rail system to accomodate/attract such a business? Unknown - may not be feasible within Tukwila Urban Center• 610 C VL SSS" "7 O 27 The public works department tells us that most of the intersection Level Of Service grades for the TUC will be a grade of "F" in the not too distant future. It doesn't seem that an "F" is going to get employees and shoppers into and out of the TUC very well, and they will instead go to the Renton Landing, Kent Station, or elsewhere. In the near term, I suppose folks could ride the Sounder heavy rail system to the station and catch shuttle busses and/or walk. This may seem a little far out, but with the Strander extension to Renton, the BNSF and UP railroad split is moving from the current location near the Fun Center to a southern location that may be far enough south to support direct routing of passenger rail conveyance from points south such as Kent and Auburn (sounder stations with parking garages) to the TUC center via the spur that services it as a fulltime muti-mode transit stop or seasonal temporary station. Do you think there is any economic merit to this possibility that would warrant retaining the track/right-of-way versus conversion to trails? Area for further research. It Page 6 of 9 twsk laem4f 01A444 poi < c f" «' S DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS \ 08 -Jul -08 1 1 NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 28 / - / ���/// Would it be economically advantageous to preserve this right-of-way as a portion of dedicated light rail (like the Tacoma system, Portland system, or even the now retired Seattle trolley) or rubber tired (small people mover system) that had priority over street grid car traffic? Unknown 29 Imind Need for bibliography. I occasionally came across reference to documents/plans/etc that were not specific enough in my for the audience to find. One example would be reference to the "Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook" (see page B-5, 1st paragraph). Who is the author/publisher? What revision/date of the document are we referring to? Is there an ISBN number? Is it a unpublished work posted to a website that could be listed? I'd like to see these details included in the plan via a bibliography or reference document section. Agree - this should be included in final version of the plan. — 30 Ile Add "Share the Road Signs" on E. Marginal Way S. Noted -- 31 fli Add signs that show connections between Interuban and Green River Trails to show loop routes for walkers. Noted ,- 32 se Add signage that educates cyclists and pedestrians of rules on sharing Noted ..k 9Viltk,v 4 rilli 33 Industrial areas are designed to facilitate the movement of goods and freight. The high concentration of large trucks, the large blocks, and relative lack of transit facilities, all create particular challenges to the pedestrian and bicycle modes. Bringing pedestrians and bikes into this environment requires a special set of considerations. We urge you to review your7GN'7 plans within the M&I Center using a different filter for safety, rather than treating this area in the same way as every other area of the city.I h G i0de in l S. L _1 S044aril 1- ' of "wpe f`l'S, ✓ ,S 3/, i to ,7441 „' 't` ^'I �: "1 ito/ it4Z9 S specs . /Si 4i9t_ 34 Because the area has so few residences, pedestrian and bicycle movement through the area is primarily for commute purposes, rather than recreational. For that reason, strategic "spot investments" (e.g. short sidewalk sections) can be very valuable by simply providing a safe passage from transit to controlled crossings. 0771 Si 'l�i4'liolit‘ 35 investment in sidewalks and bike facilities are rare within the industrial employment centers of Seattle and Tukwila. We urge you to work closely with the City of Seattle to "merge" or "marry" your efforts in order to provide more valuable links across city limits for the employees in this area. 36 How much growth are you expecting with the next 20 years? I note that some improvements are to be included with future projects. How much can you look at park impact .fees to construct trail portions, and developer funded street improvements? For the 2006-2012 portion, you should expect to be 5/20ths of the way of 25% towards completion - unless you expect to ramp up in the future. r QQ 37 i I just reviewed the Kent Transportation Master Plan and noted some bike lanes that seem to connect into the southern PAA, in Tukwila, 1 would suggest looking at this, as well as any other adjacent jurisdiction. �`��� {r/\ 3R AJ\ . (W\. .I did not see a funding plan, and the list of possible funding sources seemed rather light. ._ 39 Have you shared this with WSDOT so that any connections you have identified in WSDOT ROW are reviewed by WSDOT? -- Page 7 of 9 ,,u cSlr�s h• i tit J re c+5Yq lo-b�t cry/net-4-1r441s-I+ j -0is spa as (i vviat. rifujiA--170-14 hk-J3 cred-te-us 46-ut evr54- '5'911 13 Cy Pia 5r` °i` e i' For l k& retke910-4 cii° Ptce"- ce47-L, -fid l oAr Ui 5 L I Pkv{ et, w Au a`S 6�?...01A)0/1. 1J t" ` 191 1114tWW1Or p O i h T4'411(( DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 40 / is there a wrap-up of any of the suggested code changes that are needed such as the ones noted in the text of the plan? Is there a time goal for proposing these changes? .i.e., five lots exemption for sidewalks, change driveway apron standards, - codechanges to -require showers(with reduced -parking.") - - -- - - - - � 1 CuKc� �o1 �rem s(4-1 G.fiw� 7 41 The brown posts/bollards used on the trail are difficult to see - they should be a different design; color, and include If reflective paint or tape so they are easier to see. P 42 1 Leaves accumulate in the area along the Green. River Trail to the east of City Hall, in the area near the entrance to the trail just north of Southcenter Blvd i�y t i f 43 The appropriate number of bollards is 3; placement of bollards along the trail in Tukwila is inconsistent, sometimes there leare four, sometimes they are metal, sometimes wood. .— 44'_Bollards should be placed with enough room in between to allow for a bicycle trailer - the City of Seattle uses a 6 -foot standard spacing width for bollards. 45 *. / A good curve radius for trails is 50 feet; keep in mind tandem bicycle curve radius needed in design of new trails. The V curve in the trail at For Dent is a good radius example for trails. ya w,�.�yccsed 4.71-- pKiccJ_ ivJeJ 46 i Why is the road in Foster Point closed. off? It is a good route for bicycles. _loud off -hmoi" co - 47' , In congested areas of the trail, you should consider using the following sheme for striping: solid yellow line for no passing area; white Iine for areas where sight distance is good; a few dashes in the middle of straight sections of the trail. Striping should be used around obstructions like bollards, and especially in areas where the trail curves. l yr,vG,'r1,40 aifv. Tt v 48 The right lanes on. Hwy 99 should be designated for use by bikes, buses, and carpools. — 49 The Southcenter shopping mall is a major employer in aggregate. The mall is just east of the missing Southcenter Pky I corridor bid-totite lint: addressed in my previous comment and should be given the "major employer" map symbol on all system/citywide maps in the report - giving further emphasis to the importance of the draft plan's unmet need discussed in my comments about Southcenter Pky. No -i- u. LTIZ -affec -e/ �,yt�p(s � • ,ttoLo,ieed ki 410 4 7 - i ItieU 51 50 The plan should address nominal scheduling for major bicycle facility improvements. An excellent way to convey this to the reader and the public is by providing a map figure series in the report (it can be scaled down in size) showing the completed bicycle facility network for several. planning horizon points, e.g., (1) Existing; (2) 2013 (i.e., say 5 years hence); ,/59Y7 (3) 2018; and (4) Long-range "build out". (See Figure 6, page in the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan report for a good example of this graphic depiction). This graphic is an excellent way to convey the character, scale and speed of the plan's irnplementation program. Some corresponding .implementation tables would. also be helpfiil., or at least the nominal • implementation target date could be added to the improvements tables now in your draft report, such as Table 4 "Rnrnn>mnnrinri Rile, 1 ans>c" l» SSi , pus ible ah ri ) �_ �q� � � •l Vv (/��' Lice/Y/ f 1� / a4,147 f�M' Page 8 of 9 in-Gt•urt- ivy otest /( -ZZs J CA, ,� 'raceJt OScree-71)53rier.„,_citt ivt,u �Zr✓ p IS fit, s Pa ss'�ce . '�IV,Q lUv� i5.n( >,,,cy� u� d / 01433;) bdj tVlces rera?,v2t . us 010,)Ot Sfh►, ►J"� DRAFT WALK & ROLL PLAN - GENERAL COMMENTS 08 -Jul -08 NO. REVIEWER COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE CHANGES MADE TO PLAN 51. Standard for 2,000 feet for generally sen especially for area and Bellevue's rerdPvapinnmrnt block length - The City's current standards for maximum block length - 1,000 feet for residential areas and commercial and industrial areas - are too long and should be reduced. Such long block lengths are now to be a great impediment for convenient, efficient and environmentally -friendly circulation and access - non -motorized travel, but for motorized travel as well. Adverse examples are Tukwila's greater Southcenter downtown, with these superb.locks now posing difficult and remedy -costly barriers to development and of rnnrP r'ffiripnt rirnulatinn and arrrcc */e__1110LA/KY.__ Page 9 of 9 eit*di Jung& Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, 3i 'Vhle RpQ vr5 HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing x Determination of Non -Significance Notice of Public Meeting ?pa,v cS Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ — FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this '2-3 day of SP1 -&#n 19. ' in the year 20 (0 g C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\TERI-S\DESKTOP\AFFIDAVITOF DISTRIBUTION.DOC Project Name: Tok w1(C, tActi k. +Roi1 Pia/vi.., Project Number: IO -- CO cl Mailing requested by: �(x j hi (e ?pa,v cS Mailer's signature: 5)1 ey `- C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\TERI-S\DESKTOP\AFFIDAVITOF DISTRIBUTION.DOC City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION 1 II To: Jaimie Reavis, Assistant Planner, City of Tukwila State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division mu,t(Q09\ King County Department of Development and EnvironmentsServices, tit ,, �Q SEPA Information Center CP°f't Anna a. rrd e (j �'' Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic (Dr 1 Development (CTED) .-Cheryl Woodruff 1 Mimi Torchia Boothby Dennis Neuzil -- f a k tory PROJECT: City of Tukwila Walk & Roll Plan FILE NUMBERS: E08-009 ASSOCIATED FILES: N/A APPLICANT: Department of Community Development, City of Tukwila REQUEST: Request for non -project SEPA review of the Walk & Roll Plan. LOCATION: City of Tukwila, city-wide This notice is to confirm the decision reached by Tukwila's SEPA Official to issue a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) for the above project based on the environmental checklist and the underlying permit application. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at: Tukwila Department of Community Development. 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Jaimie Reavis, who may be contacted at (206) 431-3659 for further information. The decision is appealable to the Superior Court pursuant to the Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions, Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70C). JR Page l of l H:\SEPA\Walk & Roll Plan\E08-009 Walk&RollPlan SEPANOD.DOC 09/16/2008 3:59:00 PM A.2/1/l C..,,fh...,..fn« Dn..ln....«A C..Ss.. 411111 - T.. 1....11.. Tdl ..-.- not nn - nL__. nne wn, ',LT/ n _ n _ nn. .... ....� File Number: Applied: Issue Date: Status: City'' Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206-431-3670 Fax: 206-431-3665 Web site: http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) E08-009 05/28/2008 09/23/2008 APPROVED Applicant: CITY OF TUKWILA Lead Agency: City of Tukvvila Description of Proposal: SEPA REVIEW FOR THE WALK & ROLL PLAN. Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township/Range: 6300 SOUTHCENTER BL TUKW 0003200005 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Comments must be submitted by 0ef 7, Z 0'b S . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. �1 Jack ' ce, Res'onsible Official City o Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431-3670 Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) doc: DNS -4/07 E08-009 Printed: 09-22-2008 city of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION To: Jaimie Reavis, Assistant Planner, City of Tukwila State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, SEPA Information Center Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) Cheryl Woodruff Mimi Torchia Boothby Dennis Neuzil PROJECT: City of Tukwila Walk & Roll Plan FILE NUMBERS: E08-009 ASSOCIATED FILES: N/A APPLICANT: Department of Community Development, City of Tukwila REQUEST: Request for non -project SEPA review of the Walk & Roll Plan. LOCATION: City of Tukwila, city-wide This notice is to confirm the decision reached by Tukwila's SEPA Official to issue a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) for the above project based on the environmental checklist and the underlying permit application. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at: Tukwila Department of Community Development. 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Jaimie Reavis, who may be contacted at (206) 431-3659 for further information. The decision is appealable to the Superior Court pursuant to the Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions, Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70C). JR Page l of I H:\SEPA\Walk & Roll Plan\E08-009 Walk&RollPlan SEPANOD.DOC 09/16/2008 3:59:00 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 • Cizy of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST File No: E08-009 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION This proposal is SEPA/Environmental Review in preparation for City Council adoption of the Walk & Roll Plan; a bicycle and pedestrian plan for the City of Tukwila. The Walk & Roll Plan contains recommendations for projects and programs to make walking and biking viable transportation options within Tukwila by expanding the existing network of non -motorized facilities and by encouraging more people to bike and walk. Once adopted, the Walk & Roll Plan will serve as a guide that will show which projects should be built where, and in what order of priority, as opportunities arise for construction of new facilities as a result of public and private investments. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Walk & Roll Plan Applicant: Department of Community Development, City of Tukwila Location: City of Tukwila — projects identified in this plan are located throughout the city. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation: N/A The following information was considered as part of review of this application. 1. SEPA Checklist and ESA screening checklist dated May 19, 2008. 2. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan (January 2008 edition). NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced above may not be attached to all copies of this decision. Copies of exhibits, reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting Jaimie Reavis, Assistant Planner, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, 98188, Phone: (206) 431-3659. JR Page 1 of 6 H:\SEPA\Walk & Roll Plan\E08-009 W&R Plan SEPA SR.doc 09/16/2008 4:05 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 III. REVIEW PROCESS The proposed action is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as the project does not meet the exemptions listed under WAC 197-11-800. IV. BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL The Walk & Roll Plan is an implementation tool for goals and policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. When adopted by Council, the Walk & Roll Plan will serve as a functional plan; a guide for City staff in determining where new bicycle and pedestrian improvements should occur; whether they are built as a stand-alone project, as part of a street resurfacing project, as part of a grant -funded project, or as part of the required improvements of a development project. Elements included in the Walk & Roll Plan include an analysis of existing conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians; design guidance consistent with state and federal guidelines; encouragement programs to try to get more people to travel to more of the places they go around town by as a pedestrian or bicyclist; a list of projects; and implementation strategies, including project prioritization and funding. V. REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements contained within the Environmental Checklist submitted for the proposed project. The numbers in the staff evaluation correspond to the numbers in the Environmental Checklist. If staff concurs with the applicant's response, this is so stated. If the response to a particular item in the checklist is found to be inadequate or clarification is needed, there is additional staff comment and evaluation. A. BACKGROUND: 1-8 - Concur with checklist. 9 — The final draft of the Walk & Roll Plan will need to be adopted by the. Tukwila City Council. Additional ordinances will be needed to implement recommendations in the Walk & Roll Plan, including a Complete Streets Ordinance, and an ordinance to change the exemption from the requirement to construct frontal improvements given for development of less than five single-family homes, currently located in the Tukwila Municipal Code. Amendments to the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) are part of the plan. JR Page 2 of 6 09/16/2008 4:05 PM H:\SEPA\Walk & Roll Plan\E08-009 W&R Plan SEPA SR.doc 10-12 - Concur with checklist. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: a -h - Concur with checklist. 2. Air: a -c - Concur with checklist. 3. Water: a(1-6) - Concur with checklist. b(1-2) - Concur with checklist. c -d - Impacts related to surface, ground, and runoff water shall be reviewed at the project level. Any applicant for a project identified in the Walk & Roll Plan shall comply with federal, state, and local policies and Best Management Practices related to surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. 4. Plants: a -d - Where practicable, the applicant shall retain significant trees regardless of their location within a sensitive area in addition to the requirements contained in the City of Tukwila Tree Regulations (TMC Chapter 18.54). Landscaping and vegetation removal for the projects contained in the plan will be reviewed at the project level, at which time mitigation measures will be determined for proposed impacts. 5. Animals: a -d - A range of birds have been observed in Tukwila, including hawks, eagles, and songbirds. Mammals in Tukwila are generally small, including coyotes, squirrels, possums, etc. The Green/Duwamish River and several streams within Tukwila are salmon spawning areas and migration routes. There are several species of fish in Tukwila, including salmon and trout. Threatened fish species observed in Tukwila include Chinook salmon, bull trout, and Puget Sound steelhead. The City of Tukwila is within the Pacific Flyway, a bird migration route. Impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat will be reviewed at the project level. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a -c - Concur with checklist. 7. Environmental Health: a(1-2) - Concur with checklist. JR Page 3 of 6 09/16/2008 4:05 PM H:\SEPA\Walk & Roll PIan\E08-009 W&R Plan SEPA_SR.doc b(1) - Noise from traffic on surrounding streets and highways, including I-5 and I- 405 exist in the area. Noise from nearby airports, including SeaTac International Airport, the Boeing Airfield, and the Renton Municipal Airport also result in noise impacts in Tukwila. Noise from trains creates periodic noise impacts along the rail corridors within Tukwila. Noise associated with manufacturing and industrial activities is also typical in some areas of the city, including the Manufacturing and Industrial Center and the Tukwila Urban Center. b(2) -b(3) - Concur with checklist. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a -k - Concur with checklist. 1- Land use impacts associated with the plan will be site-specific. Because of this, impacts to land use and environmentally sensitive areas (including land within the 200 foot buffer from the Green/Duwamish River) will be reviewed at the project stage. This plan has been created in accordance with the Growth Management Act, and is consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Projects contained in the plan shall be reviewed individually to ensure consistency with local, state, and federal regulations. 9. Housing: a -c - Concur with checklist. 10. Aesthetics: a -c - Some of the projects in the Walk & Roll Plan, such as bridges, have the potential to obstruct existing views. Since the plan provides a range of location options for different types of facilities, aesthetic impacts and associated mitigation measures shall be reviewed at the project level, once specific sites have been proposed for particular projects. 11. Light and Glare: a -d - Concur with checklist. 12. Recreation: a -c - Concur with checklist. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a -c - Any required studies, including archaeological surveys, will be determined at the project level. The City of Tukwila and its contractors shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws in the case that archaeological or paleontological artifacts are encountered during construction of projects in the Walk & Roll Plan. 14. Transportation: a -g - Concur with checklist. JR Page 4 of 6 09/16/2008 4:05 PM H:\SEPA\Walk & Roll PIan\E08-009 W&R Plan SEPA_SR.doc 15. Public Services: a -b - Concur with checklist. 16. Utilities: a -b - The need for various types of utilities will be part of the project -level review for each new facility. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS: 1-7 - Concur with checklist. VI. COMMENTS: A wide range of comments were received during the public review period for the plan itself. These are compiled in a spreadsheet included in the project file for the Walk & Roll Plan. Within the SEPA review period, comments were received from three different respondents. These comments did not relate to environmental concerns as much as they did to concerns related more generally to the design, policy, and project recommendations in the plan. Cheryl Woodruff, a Tukwila resident, expressed safety concerns along the Green River and Interurban Trails. Her recommendation was for low-level lighting along trails, to provide lighting at night and during the darker winter months, while at the same time minimizing glare to adjacent properties and the surrounding environment, including the Green/Duwamish River and its buffer. She stated that the absence of lighting along the trail in the winter months is one of the reasons why she does not commute to work by bicycle as much during the winter season as during the rest of the year. Mimi Torchia Boothby, of the Boeing Employees Bicycle Club, expressed the need for East Marginal Way to be a high priority within bicycle facility improvement recommendations in the Walk & Roll Plan. She also commented on the design of curb bulbs and the need for them to be designed with consideration of bicycle safety. Dennis Neuzil, of the Cascade Bicycle Club, provided a range of comments related to project areas not included in the plan that are gaps in the network of Recommended Bicycle Friendly Routes. He also provided his recommendations for changes to the Design Standards section of the plan, including bike lanes, bike lanes adjacent to barriers, and curb bulb -outs. He also expressed his support for adoption of a Complete Streets policy ordinance. JR Page 5 of 6 09/16/2008 4:05 PM H:\SEPA\Walk & Roll PIan\E08-009 W&R Plan SEPA SR.doc Comments above were added to the master list of comments received during the public review of the plan, and will be addressed with revisions to the draft in preparation for adoption of a final version of the Walk & Roll Plan. VII. CONCLUSION The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for this project. This DNS is based on impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, and the above Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist File No. E08-009, and is supported by plans, policies, and regulations formally adopted by the City of Tukwila for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions. Prepared by: Jaimie Reavis, Assistant Planner Date: September 23, 2008 JR Page 6 of 6 H:\SEPA\Walk & Roll Plan\E08-009 W&R Plan SEPA_SR.doc 0922/2008 8:52 AM PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS BY FORMULA - A PROCESS R.M. CAMERON, P.E. Transportation Director Everett, Washington The changing social environment and lifestyle creates new engineering problems and solutions. The increasing pedes- trian. activity produces •pedestrian improvement requests. A prone -ss developed to rate locations for pedestrian im- provements along roadways is discussed in this paper. The paper is organized into four parts: Definition of the problem Description of the process involving site ident;fication, evaluation, priority approval, and construction Definition of the formula used to determine an objective priority Examples of improvements made with the process are shown The four parts are intended to describe a method develcped to rate pedestrian improvements in an order of need. It recog- n=zes that the total number of needed improvements exceeds rjnstruction resources. The priority improvement listing pro - /ides a logical approach to selecting .which improvements to construct. Selecting which location to improve with traffic safety measures can be simple or complex. Signing and channelization improvements usually involve use and history evaluation, issuing a work order, and installation. Signal and geometric improvements can invove the study -priority evaluation, admini- stration -council subjective decision involvement, preparation of plans, and construction. The signal improvements are usually based on studies of volumes, accident experience, and speeds used to compile a high hazard list. Traffic signal installations are usually the result of an objective evaluation process. The process involves an intersection being identified as a candidate for signal installation; traffic study of volume, speed, and accident experience warrants; evaluated with a high hazard list, reviewed by the designated decision maker(s) with funding approval authority, preparation of plans, and construction. The signal channelization improvement and signal improvement decision pro- cesses have been established and are scaled in proportion to the technical improvement. This paper explains a ped path improve- ment decision process. Page 2 of 12 PROBLEM DEFINITION Energy inflation, "in -build" policies, and renewed health interests result in more people walking in our urban and suburban environments. Many suburban and urban streets/ roads have no pedestrian amenities or minimal two foot shoulders. The increasing pedestrian traffic produces in- creased ped -vehicle exposure and increased need to provide a walking area outside of the traveled way. The cost of sidewalks with curb, gutter, and drainage prohibits their construction at all locations with past, present, and future funding restrictions. An alternative improvement is the ped pathway - an asphalt or gravel four to six foot wide improve- ment that can last from 5 • ears. They can be constructed ent to e roa wit •utton ►r bars separating the walking area and traveled way. They can be constructed behind the drain- age ditch with a physical separation of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The purpose is to provide an improved path for peds where none exists with limited funding resources. Photo 1 SHOULDER' `t ' -'� •fit' � � ..; :: Its Y Energy concerns, health interests, and other societal changes are factors that increase ped usage on streets without ped facilities. Ped paths can be development mitigation measures separati ng pedestrian and vehicle traffic when exposure is either created or significantly increased. Shopping centers or other generators contribute to off-site safety hazards that should require corr- ection. Sidewalks are one form but their costs are often not palatable to developers and decision makers. The ped path safety improvement is a compromise solution that serves the development and the public need at substantially less cost than the sidewalk or liability exposure of having done nothing. Photo 2 Photo 2 Page 3 of 12 The increasing ped traffic on existing roads and ped path improvement creates a new engineer's problem. A method of selecting the ped path improvement locations that is as objective as possible, relates to political and lay citizen advisory committees,and is an economical process, becomes the new problem. This paper explains a process used to identify a priority listing of routes without ped facilities. It objectively rates the narrow 4000 AWDT arterial shown above with the 1200 AWDT school route shown below. Page 4 of 12 PROCESS DESCRIPTION The process definition can be used to develop a funded program for the budgeting process: It can be used if there already is a funded pedestrian improvement program.. It can be used to relate development mitigation needs to known hazards. There are four process steps outside of the funding issue. The four are similar to the signal evaluation procedure: 1. identifying potential improvement segments or routes 2. evaluating the segments so there is a ranking or priority listing 3. decision maker review and approval 4. preparation of plans and constructing the improvement The segments can be identified by reviewing the citizen complaint file. Maintenance personnel, the police department, bus drivers, school principals, sign crews, and PTAs are all good sources who will help identify potentially hazardous ped routes. Subjective comments should be noted when segments are identified. Candidate segments are generally limited to arterials or streets with volumes of at least 1000 vehicles per day. Routes suggested that appear to be "no problem" should not be excluded. Kr.Jwing and having a number on an apparent "no problem" (safe) route will help in evaluating the whole set of locations. It will help decision makers relate to the priority ranking where they can visually relate the "no problem" segment with a priority number. It shows the "no problem" precedent when a petition or complaint comes in for a similar low ranking site and can be helpful in explaining priority to those who submitted the pet- ition. A significant effort in identifying all candidate segments will help avoid missing any. Stopping the process at decision time to add another site to the ranking can reduce credibility of the program. The second process step is objectively rating the routes. Factors that can Le measured affecting ped safety are used in an equation to relate the potential hazard exposure of each site. The obj- ective factors are: VEHICLE VOLUME VEHICLE SPEED SHOULDER WIDTH ROADWAY WIDTH SEGMENT LENGTH PED USAGE Ped usage is the combination of daily volume and user type with school or handicapped/elderly use receiving added consideration. A formula is used to determine a priority value from each route's objective factors. The third step is review of the sites by the decision maker body(s). Using slides of the sites with a tabular priority value summation helps to determine a priority recommendation. A brief report listing the sites in priority order is helpful. Pictures in the report accompanied by evaluation data and sub- jective comments document the priority work and assist the decision process. Quantifying ped safety improvements with the formula helps the decision makers who are dealing with a subjective matter. The decision makers in Everett are an advisory board, the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). It deals with the TIP, signal lists, all way stops, parking, and transit decisions. It is a citizens group of 20 members appointed by the Mayor with Council confirmation. They represent various community trans- portation elements such as schools, hospitals, the Port, trucking and neighborhoods or business districts. Council can overrule TAC's recommendation when authorizing bid call, but has not in two years of using the process. The fourth process step is preparation of plans and is a routine task. The actual construction project can go to bid by itself, be included with annual overlay orstreet improvement projects, be included with block grant sidewalk and street rehabilitation projects, or be included with Parks Department projects. The "small" scale lets the ped paths be included with several similar improvements. In-house improvement would save the bid process costs if bid laws permit an agency to perform the task itself. THE FORMULA The formula purpose is to provide a numeric index to quantify locations suggested for ped safety improvements. It has been developed to determine an objective evaluation of traffic ele- ments. The traffic elements are ped volume usage, ped type usage, 24 hour vehicle volume, average vehicle speed, shoulder (walking area) width, roadway width, and segment length. The traffic elements combine to form pedestrian safety exposure and the equation quantifies their subjective relationship. The individual measurements are inexpensive to make and variations of each require transportation engineering judgement review and adjustment.- The formula operators adjust the factor magnitudes so they affect the formula product in a "subjective" proportion to their potential hazard. Ped Volumes and Types Ped volumes on typical sites being addressed are relatively low compared to downtown streets, streets already with sidewalks, and vehicle volumes. Most sites have about 100 peds per day or less. The measurement is made using one hour weekday afternoon counts during the 1PM to 3PM period. This volume can be assumed to be about 10% of the daily total (1). The day to day variations on low volume facilities can exceed 25% of the AWDT. To measure a low use volume determining a more specific AWDT would be ex- cessively expensive when considering the number of comparable sites and daily variations. The formula must account for the variations, the practical limit of measurement, the fact that there simply IS exposure, and the defined measurement accuracy. The factor used f o r volume is based on t h e single hour count and is: Use Amount (Ped Volume) Factor slight (10 peds per day) 1.0 occasional (50 Peds per day) 1.1 substantial (100 peds per day) 1.2 The use amount differences are small reflecting the volume variations and accuracy needed. The cost of a more accurate measurement needed to adjust for daily and seasonal differences would be substantial since the program is addressing the concern of regional ped safety. It recognizes obvious differences with a 20% range if all factors are equal. Use Type Routes with handicapped or school pedestrian use are given a factor of 1.75 while all others are given a factor of 1.00 for type of use. Use Factor (Ped Volume) The Ped Use factor is the sum of the Use Amount factor and Use Type factor. The range of use factors is 2.0 to 2.95. A subjective comment relative to use has been that there is ve�••y little volume because there is no place to walk with a "high" vehicle volume. People want to walk but can't or won't due to the various factors. Vehicle Volume The vehicle volume represents the chance of a ped being struck. Volume magnitudes range from several hundred into thousands. The vehicle volume is a significant exposure factor and should bear a major outcome in the formula product but the range is high and a volume of 10,000 would be ten times more hazardous than a location with 1000. The formula uses the cube root of vehicle volume with the highest number used being 10,000. A street with 15,000 would be calculated as 10,000. This adjust- ment results in a factor range of between 10 and 20 maintaining an influence in the equation outcome in proportion to subjective influence. Initial calculations of streets with more than 10,000 using the volume cube root resulted in a priority position that did not subjectively appear in the order of perceived hazard. Most streets with more than 10,000 have ped improvements. Engineering judgement is used for issues involving the 10,000 limit. Page / of le Speed Factor The vehicle speed is perceived as the second highest potential hazard factor. Mean speeds range from the 20s to the 50s. The faster speeds result in more severe collisions, less time to take evasive action by ped or motorist, and more distance or time needed to avoid collision. It has been found that the rate of vehicles failing to yield to pedestrians increases with increasing speed (2). The speed factor is calculated by raising the average speed in the 3/2 power and, then, dividing by 2Q The speed factor range is between 4 and 10. Shoulder Width The shoulder width is the area for pedestrian travel and is measured from roadway edge to farthest edge of walking width. Areas behind a ditch are measured from the roadway edge to the center of the walkway area. The measurement represents tha distance that a ped has as*refuge from vehicular traffic. The widths vary along a segment and an average is used. Determining the average width is the most time consuming part of the study The side of the road used for ped travel or most conducive to ped travel is used which means the least hazardous choice for the other side of the road being equally or more hazardous. The shoulder width factor is calculated by multiplying 2 times 10 minus the shoulder width. The approximate range of shoulder width factors is 12 to 18. A wide 10 foot shoulder for a con- tinuous segment length drips out with a zero priority value indicating that a 10 foot shoulder is equivalent to an improved ped path. Roadway Width Roadway width is the measure that a vehicle has to avoid the ped or both vehicle and ped to share the traveled way. A narrow 18 foot road leaves little room for lateral ped evasion - none if there is opposing traffic and no shoulder. The lateral evasion is a smaller consideration than speed for stopping distance but still is a safety element. The roadway width factor is calculated as the cube root of 30 minus roadway width for 2 lane roads, 40 minus the width for 3 lanes, and 50 minus the width for 4 lanes. The approximate range of roadway width factors is 1 to 2.5. Segment Length The segment length factor is calculated as the sum of 1 plus. the quantity of the segment length divided by 5280. Two prior- ity lists are made - one using segment length factors and one not. The one not using segment length is used for reference in subjectively addressing the absolute value of the measured hazards 40 Page 8 of 12 The factors are simply multiplied together and the product divided by 200. The`, final division by 200 produces a c. The i �u � u, Y i v i v value that generally ranges from 15 to 120. • • • Photo 3 priority These pictures show Holly Drive before and after ped path construction. The 20 foot road with a 2000 AWDT is used by elderly and handi- capped walking to a small grocery -drug store shopping center as well as school children waiting for their bus. Its priority rating was 101. THE FACTORS ARE: USE TYPE (UT) USE VOLUME (UV) USE FACTOR (UF) 1.00 plus 0.75 if school, handicapped, or elderly traffic is generated and uses the segment 1.00 for slight use of 10 per day 1.10 for occasional use of 50 per day 1.20 for substantial use of 100 per day UT + UV is determined by summing the type (UT) and volume (UV) components. Its value is between 2.0 and 2.95 VEHICLE VOLUME (VOL) 3 AWDT is the cube root of the AWDT with a maximum volume of 10,000 used. A volume of 12,000 would be calculated as the cube root of 10,000. Values range between 10 and 20. VEHICLE SPEED (SPD) 1/2 SPD 3/2 is the product of 1/2 times the mean speed raised to the 3/2 2(10-5) power. Values range • between 4 and 10. SHOULDER WIDTH (SW) 2(10 - 5) is calculated as the product of 2 times the quantity of 10 minus the average shoulder width. Values range between 12 and 18. ROADWAY WIDTH (RW) Thydo - R s the cube root of 30 minus the roadway width for two lane roads. Values range between 1 and 2.5. L SEGMENT LENGTH (L) 1 + 5280 is the sum of 1 plus the length divided by 5280 PRIORITY VALUE= PV yC I tib � �< `; = (UF) (VOL)J(SPD)'(SW) (RW) (L) 200 • IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM O J CO N In O M V) S ^ F- czt a. CL N USE VOLUME CU PRIORITY VALUE -J U 0 S- O O N N V) -C N o r D U crs N V) r— •r O) -C 4-) N O r N c r` N M lD r- 01 C•) • r COr '1- 0 (") r M LO r r r ^ O 0 0 0 O 0 O M cd - Cr) O I- O O 0 O CO M LD • Imo• • M • (.O • r- r- r LC)N 00N rr v�- M 0 0 Lf) O In 0 LC) 1.0 C31 • N • r • r • r C1 • 0 • 0 • 0 • ▪ • r N N N N N N N N r — �-- v - — ^ 0.1 0 0 0 LD ap. *1- N CO Ol N t.0 CO rf NLP) CV d' O• � Cf) CV v ^ c ^ lO • Cn • CT Cr) CIOO l M O M N N I- .✓ r r-- ..-i v `i 0 r Lc) o LL C; N v) • � M oD ti J O O N ✓ - • ✓ O •.....0.1r nO O?. O� 8OO Der. Mr N cn SOD r- co • Lnr- r-•r rr r v rr �,� v v v ^ i-. ^ ^ Ln In ^ 0 in al O) N 0 CT >< • X • X • >< • N . N N N • N X CL r-- S.. LC). U..C'O • >< >< S N W 0 O U C a) V) C1' C'3 4-) +- S.. LLI 0 X X X ^ 4--) ^ W 0 0 J ^ N ^ C CC U -J --_I r- !"/ V) L) Ln U 3 W LI Cf) M V) IC O >. I Q 4-3 ►-r O W O 0 I J o d--) N 4) 0 Y .I..) 0 C 4.3 U 0 V) C 4-.) W J r V) 0 W >- S_ V) V) J . r 0 CU 'O In .0) r t0 ✓ > 110 4-) (0 . O 0) L/) (0 .C] CU AC summary shows S_. ro r (0 N •r Page 11 of 12 The equation purpose is to relate ped hazards quantitatively with readil V available measlurements. The data can be coll ected J i values calculated, and a priority list prepared without exten- sive study. Accident data or experience is not addressed since the amount of recorded ped accidents is too small on most seg- ments to relate objectively. The numerical indications of poten- tial hazard used in the decision process provides an objective basis in selecting which segment to improve. The process does not address night (darkness) hazard,does not consider street lighting, or night volumes. The small ped volumes occur nearly entirely during daylight hours unless some special condition exists. The special condition could be add- ressed separately or given a special factor within the equation. The single side improvement does not account for peds who choose not to use it. Younger peds can be seen still walking in the roadway ignoring the paths and sidewalks - a path cannot command safety. There have been many thank you calls from elderly resi- dents and grade school parents. Council received enough public appreciation on one of the early segment improvements that they approved funding the completion of the roadways' remaining segments The remaining segments' costs exceeded the annual ped path budget by a factor of two. A more extensive approach could be developed.• The purpose of this complete process has been to develop an objective means tc address ped safety needs. A Transportation Engineer deals with a wide range of problems in the course of a year. The range includes small parking problems corrected with a sign, any number of traffic signals costing as much as $100,000 each, staff issues, tort claims, and so on. The ped path process details are scaled to the problem and budget magnitude for ped improvements. It is scaled to one problem category in the set of problem categories requiring consideration in the course of a year. The following page shows three ped path examples. (1) "Pedestrian Volume Characteristics", RM Cameron, P.E. ITE 1975 Compendium of Technical Papers ITE 1976 Compendium of Technical Papers (2) "Crosswalk Compliance", RM Cameron, P.E. A research paper in partial fulfillment of MSCE University of Washington, 1977 r a y C IL. VI IL Photo 5 Silver Lake Road Before The route serves elderly walking between a mobile home park and shopping center, school peds, and beach traffic. The road is constructed on a fill with narrow shoulders. Photo 6 Additional fill was added, a 5 foot path constructed, and 12 inch "rumble" bars on 6 foot centers installed. Photo 7 This separated ped path on 3 Ave NW in Seattle has been serving pedestrian traffic for several years. CIP Page # Project Title 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Other sources After Six Years Bike Facilities Bicycle Routes Design Report $75,000 - $150,000 Bicycle Route Signage 50,000 58 Tukwila International BL (TIB) 116 St - BAR 40&41116 TIB Phase II & III St.-138 St. East Marginal Way 0 0 34 Boeing Access Road - S. Ryan Way (partially construct as part of bridge replacement) 25,000 14,375,000 S. 112 St - Green River to EMW S 115 St/42 Av. S./Macadam Rd. S / 51 Av. S./Klickitat S 130 St. - Macadam - Military 37 Av S/ 135 St. - TIB - Military S 160 St 52 Av S/53 Av S / Macadam Rd S 60 Southcenter BL 0 0 0 0 0 0 Andover Park East Baker BL 62 S 168 St. (Pond Drive) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minkler BL S 180 St Orillia Rd (expand/improve existing bike facilities) S 200 St. (expand/improve existing bike facilities) Paved Multi-Use Trails West Marginal Plan (extend Green River Trail to northern limits of PAA) Duwamish Riverbend Hill to Airport Way 17 Two Rivers Trail Connector 23 625 Southcenter BL to 51 Av S. Railroad Spur: lnteruban trail through Southcenter West Bank Green River Tail extension - south of S 180 St. Unpaved Multi-Use Trails 43 43 43 43 43 235 Cascade View Neighborhood McMicken Neighborhood Riverton & Foster Neighborhood Ryan Hill, Allentown & Duwamish Neigborhoods Throndyke Neighborhood Tukwila Hill Neighborhood Sidewalks S 144th Street (south side of street b/w TIB & 51st Ave S) 42/40th Ave S (from southern end of Southgate Park to S 130th Street) Interurban Ave S (sections of the east side of the street) S 152nd Street S 146th Street S 133 St - 132 St east of Military Rd S. 42 Av S( b/w S 164 and S 160 St) S 140th Street S 141St Street S 160th Street (42 Av S - Military Rd S) S 149th Street S 152nd Street (south side) 46th Ave S S 148 Street 47th Ave S (north of S 146th Street) S 142nd Street S 129th Street (from eastern City limits to 42nd Ave S) 59th Ave S (east side of street north of S 147th St and on west side south of S 147th St) S.164 ST. b/w 51 and Military 42nd Ave S (from S. 160 St to Southcenter Blvd) 44th Ave S (between S 140th and S 142nd Streets) 115th Street (area in front of future Duwamish/Riverbend Hill Park) 43rd Ave S (north of S 142nd Street) S 178th Street (from Southcenter Parkway west to City limits) 32 Av S (north of S 135 St) S. 135 St. b/w Military and 32 Av S Macadam Road S (north of S 144th Street)* 52nd Ave S S 149th Street (west of 46th Ave S) Segment of Tukwila International Blvd from SR -599 to East Marginal WY) S 150th Street (east of 46th Ave S) West Valley Highway west edge (S 180th Street to southern City limits) 53rd Ave S (from S 137th to 52nd Ave S) S 132 St (east of 32 Av S) 51St Ave S Macadam Rd S (from S 150th Street to S 144th Street) Macadam Rd S (from S 135th Street north to Interurban Ave S, with the exception of a few small segments where sidewalks are provided on one side of the street) East Marginal Way (from S 112th Street to Boeing Access Rd) Minkler from Andover Park West to Andover Park East 30 PI S (north of S 133 St) 53rd Ave S (from S 144 to 139 Street) Boeing Access Road (minimal, 2' sidewalks are on one side of this street) Macadam Rd S (from S 144th Street to 43rd Ave S, with the exception of a few small segments where sidewalks are provided on one side of the street) S 133rd - s 132nd Street from Military Rd S to Tukwila International Blvd) S 133rd Street (from S 130 St to Interurban Ave S) MLK Way (Boeing Access Rd south to City limits) S 112th Street S 130th Street (from Tukwila International Blvd to Macadam Rd S) 51St Ave S (from Southcenter Blvd to S 151st Street) 16 Av S r _ Klickitat Dr (from Southcenter Parkway to Southcenter Blvd -- there is a separated walkway from 53'd Ave S to Tukwila's Urban Center on the southwest side of the street) Southcenter Parkway (south of S 180th Street) Southcenter Blvd (west of I -5) -- sidewalks currently under construction Military Rd S (SeaTac ROW) West side of Interurban Ave S (from 1-5 to Macadam Rd S) Segment of Tukwila International Blvd from SR -599 to East Marginal WY) SW311 NOIIOV lIONflOO JO ISI1 L QJCI 8002 OI 3Nflf A w ) -1. X 0 am co w a)cn 4t-0 A) CC CD Designation and adoption of recommended "Bicycle -Friendly Routes" m' v a 3 0 E. O 7 Adoption of Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Desi • ns 2nd Paragraph, last sentence Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) 25 (last paragraph) 25 (4th paragraph) 25, 97 (1st row in second table) 9 (last paragraph); Other pages with references to same action Designate and adopt a map of Bicycle Friendly Routes (Figure 5 on p. 27 of the Draft Walk & Roll Plan). This map could be referenced in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, replacing the existing map that represents Category I trips. Consider adopting a hierarchy to be used when deciding the type of pedestrian or bicycle design to use, from most preferable type of improvement to least, based on site conditions/engineering studies, etc. Adoption of Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs A "complete streets" perspective is referenced. Item Description When street system frontage improvements are required per the City regulations, additional right-of- way and pavement may be required if indicated on a designated bicycle route. Amend the city's Development Guidelines & Design and Construction Standards to include the pedestrian and bicycle design standards in section 4 the Draft Walk & Roll Plan. The section of the plan that contains the recommended designs starts on page 33. The Design and Construction standards could also be amended to include a hierarchy, so that the most - preferred facilities are considered first for a particular project. Additionally, the project descriptions for CIP improvements should be expanded to include the range of options within the hierarchy for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Adopt a Complete Streets resolution or ordinance. Potential Action k DRAFT LIST OF COUNCIL ACTION ITEMS 0) cQ CD N 0 800Z '06 BNflf V O) CN 7:1 0 G rn D rn It -0 ,A) W CD More than the minimum for pedestrian safety (J1 -o co N N n. N co N m- Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) 30 (2nd paragraph); 35 (2nd paragraph) (/) (D ---I 0 o N as a F o FET Other pages with references to same action City standards should be changed to improve pedestrian facilities along arterial roadways. This includes requiring additional landscaping buffers on streets with speeds over 30 miles per hour, and improving the safety of driveway aprons. Having an adopted Plan provides opportunities to ask private development to help implement the Plan. Currently the City requires all developments of five residential units or more and all commercial development to construct frontage improvements, which typically consist of storm drainage, curbs, and a sidewalk. If a section of the bicycle network is indicated on a street proposed for capital improvement then plans should include a bike lane during design and construction. Identification as a separate capital project will be needed for streets that have recently been improved or those not currently or likely to be listed as a capital improvement project. Item Description Improving the safety of driveway aprons can be accomplished by adopting the Ancillary Infrastructure Designs (starting on p. 46 of the Draft Walk & Roll Plan) as part of Action #2 above. Amend Chapters 11 and 17 of the TMC to require adequate right-of-way for bike lanes when a development is proposed along a designated Bicycle Friendly Route. Require that all CIP street projects include sidewalks, and all CIP street projects on streets identified as Bicycle Friendly Routes include bike lanes (or other bicycle improvement according to the hierarchy of recommended bicycle infrastructure designs). Potential Action SIN31I NOII3V -1IONfIO0 AO ISI1 ldV2Ia 800Z '01• DNnr -A 0 co 00 X) 0 03 COCO CD 3rd paragraph a) 5 N N co N 1 N Q a) N (0 4) 3 Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) 97 (row 2 in first table on the page) v CO CO W Q O 5. 0) 3 (D Other pages with references to same action As new development occurs, the creation of new pedestrian pathways and/or streets should be considered for improved pedestrian connectivity. A significant amount of development occurs through smaller -scale development of one, two, or three homes. In particular the "pass-through" trails to schools or parks will happen within the residential neighborhoods and will need to occur during residential platting. Much of the City's policies and existing trail system are neighborhood - oriented systems that will not necessarily be competitive for funding on a state or national level. The City of Tukwila currently allows development of less than 5 lots an exemption from the requirement to build sidewalks. Most of the development within residential areas that Tukwila receives is infill involving less than 5 lots. Item Description A budget to allow partnerships with developers during development could provide the extra boost needed to complete a missing link. At a minimum, the easement and/or right-of-way for trails should be required at the time of short platting or permitting. The city should consider funding small trail building efforts. These types of efforts can be combined with community building events and scouting projects. The funding allocated by the City can act as seed money. Amend Chapters 11 and 17 of the TMC to require the construction of sidewalks and trails for new development of one or more lots, including building permits, short subdivisions, and/or boundary line adjustments. Explore a fee -in -lieu program for construction of sidewalks and trails in residential neighborhoods. Each neighborhood could be involved in coming up with the connectivity map showing their preference for sidewalks vs. trails; that would result in a prioritized list of sidewalks/trails to be built. Potential Action SW�lI NOIIOV 1I0Nf1O0 JO 1Sfl ldVIa 8003'0L DNflr A w N 73 0 W M co CO W N co It13 Su CO CD 6th paragraph 3rd paragraph lD Q% n rrt SD O (D E O M Q 1 S N CO S Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) 96 (1st row in Table 7) Other pages with references to same action Lack of shower facilities is a deterrent that keeps people who work in Tukwila from riding a bike to work. Maximum block length should be limited to 700 to 800 feet. Currently, the Tukwila standard for block length in residential areas is up to 1,000 feet, and in commercial and industrial areas it is up to 2,000 feet. Converting rails to trails as rail corridors are abandoned. Unimproved street rights-of-way, utility easements, and railroad rights-of-way are golden opportunities to provide connectivity for pedestrians. In most residential neighborhoods within Tukwila, there are unimproved street rights-of-way and utility easements which represent opportunities toy construct walking trails and/or through streets. Item Description Amend the zoning code to require developers of office buildings to include showers and secure bicycle parking (lockers, locked enclosures). Change the standards for maximum block lengths. Rail trails are long term projects and require the commitment of a staff person to pursue preservation of these track areas for future trail use. Funding for title research, persistence, and a written record is recommended as a strategy that Tukwila should pursue for future development of multi -use trails. Development of partnerships with railroad companies will also be im.ortant. When a street vacation is proposed, it should be examined to make sure that a vacation will not preclude the opportunity for construction/preservation of the corridor for a trail or through street. Potential Action SI/01I NOIlOV 1IONf1OO dO 1S11 1dV2Ia 3Nnr (0 m t0 00 V 00 (7.XI 0 G al o: W v 01 A W-' ID Mt CD Last row in table, under Cost Estimate and Potential Funding Sources 7th paragraph 3rd paragraph 1st paragraph, last sentence 1st paragraph v st -o 0) 1 0) co 0)1 -o Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) W A - v (o tb 6 co Other pages with references to same action Airport Way is within the City of Seattle, but offers the best bicycle connection from Tukwila to Seattle. Explore creating partnerships to build and maintain our trails. Bicycle Route Signage -A study is recommended to determine the type and placement of bicycle signage along the Recommended Bicycle -Friendly Routes in Tukwila. Where there is no other accommodation for pedestrians and/or bicycles, paved shoulders should be added to the roadway until such time as sidewalks and bike lanes can be constructed. On -street bicycle facilities (bike lanes, paved shoulders, wide curb lanes) need to include signage that identifies them for bicycle use if they are designated bicycle routes. Participation in walking and biking programs should be increased. Item Description Form a partnership with the City of Seattle for improvement of Airport Way for bicycles. The Duwamish TMA is another potential partner for this project. An intern with DCD completed a study of potential bike route signage locations. Budget exists for this signage program - stall will move it forward after adoption of the plan. Add as a standard and/or a program in the CIP. Amend the city's Development Guidelines & Design and Construction Standards to require that designated Bicycle -Friendly Routes be signed for bicycle use. Provide budget for additional staff time and departmental programs dedicated to promoting participation in bicycle programs, such as the bicycle rodeo, Bike to Work events, Walk to School events, articles written for the Hazelnut and City of Tukwila website, funds to print and distribute trail and bicycle route maps, and other partnerships would highlight City -sponsored programs and increase participation. Potential Action SIJ1311 NOI10V 11ON11OO dO lSll 1�`d21a 800Z '0l 3Nnf N NXI 0 CO Cl. co r) co a 0 con CO o (0 co 1st paragraph paragraphs 2-4 1st paragraph 1st paragraph cn a a) -63 co 1 0) 13 Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) 10 (1st paragraph); Other pages with references to same action Determine the schedule for updating the Walk & Roll plan once it is adopted. Develop a method to prioritize where sidewalks should be built first. To help build safe routes to school, and obtain Safe Routes to School grant funding, the City should devote staff time to building a partnership with the Tukwila School District. Black River Connector from Green River Trail through Fort Dent Park to Renton. Paved multi -use trail projects to extend the Green River Trail north to Seattle, to connect Tukwila to the Chief Sealth Trail in Seattle, and to connect North SeaTac Park with the Green River Trail will require partnerships with adjacent jurisdictions, and further study to determine the best trail alignments. Item Description Page 93 describes two methods of prioritization: (1) looking at arterials with no sidewalks, focusing on those segments with the highest speeds first; (2) 1/4 mile radius around schools. Partnerships with the City of Renton, King County Parks & Recreation, and railroad companies (for access through area underneath railroad trestles) should be explored for construction of this connection. Potential Action DRAFT LIST OF COUNCIL ACTION ITEMS 900Z `0I 3Nflf A W W cO c W d) W .A A W4t W 1 W 1 ID to 0 3rd bullet point WA Q SQf "'1 - 7- -0 W ill @ 1 � W � a) 73 CD D- 7• co w F DI F3 OfD -0 CO 3 W O 1 7 Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) Other pages with references to same action Sidewalks with utility boxes, lighting poles, or other obstructions detract from the walking environment and can make it difficult or impossible for the mobility - impaired to use the sidewalk. Reduced travel -lane widths are within the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) minimums. The need for full - width travel lanes decreases with speed: (1) Up to 25mph: Travel lanes may be reduced to 10 or 10.5 feet; (2) 30 to 40mph: 11 -foot travel lanes and 12 -foot center lanes may be acceptable; (3) 45mph or greater: try to maintain a 12 - foot outside travel lane and 14 -foot center turn lane if there are high truck volumes; (4) Lanes that accommodate both motor vehicles and bicycles (wide curb lanes) should be 14-16 feet wide The needs of cyclists can be accommodated by retrofitting bike lanes onto many existing urban streets using the following methods: (1) Marking and signing existing shoulders as bike lanes; (2) Physically widening the street to add bike lanes; (3) Restriping the existing street to add bike lanes Item Description Require that utility boxes, lighting poles, and other potential obstructions that are necessary within the right-of-way be located within the landscaping strip between the street and the sidewalks, placed in accordance with sight distance requirements. J. 5 m (Dx 13 a m 3 m v m. 7 6 < N (D (D N1 Q 0 N . CD 2. Q. z. (0 0 r Q (D 0 WN � Q ..G Q - 0 = Q) ( 7 D Q -n n) O Q 7- << n j O CP - 0 O -n 7- C fl) O (n — Potential Action To: ,) From: Subject: Date: City of Tukwila RECEIVED MAY 14 2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEAT Jim Haggerton, Mayor Fire Department Nicholas J. Olivas, Fire Chief Moira Bradshaw Chief Olivas Walk & Roll Plan May 13, 2009 Thank you for sharing the Walk and Roll Plan with us last month. We have several comments about the plan and proposed ordinance. Tukwila is a shopping destination, not a recreation destination; as you know, the city is very dependant on sales tax revenue. Changes to transportation routes that have the possibility of negatively impacting the publics' desire to come here seem to be rather counterproductive. Some of the streets you have identified as bicycle friendly don't make any sense. East Marginal Way South? Andover Park East? South 180th Street? Tukwila Parkway? Did anyone involved in preparing this plan spend any time driving these streets? Although the speed limit on Andover Park East is posted 35 MPH, the traffic is routinely traveling 45-50 MPH. This is a very busy street and is also the primary route to Costco, one of the city's biggest sales tax contributors. Has anyone considered the impact adding bike lanes to Andover Park East while reducing it to two lanes would have on Costco traffic? If you make Costco difficult to get to, people will find a more convenient location to shop. I am your average shopper. There are places I don't go because they are difficult to get to; I'm sure that other shoppers share that sentiment. Narrowing these major thoroughfares to accommodate bicycles will also have an impact on emergency response. It will slow down response and also make it more dangerous. Vehicles that move right for emergency vehicles will be moving into the bicycle lanes, hopefully, without hitting bike lane occupants. Chief Tomaso and I have prepared the following comments: 1) 11.12.040 (A), add a # 4: "Installation of approved Fire Department turnarounds." We have multiple areas in the city that have dead end roads without adequate turnarounds for emergency apparatus. 2) 11.12.040 (D), include footage for maximum block length standard, i.e. 300, 600, etc. 3) 17.20.030 ©, add fire to the list for "unless otherwise approved by" 4) 17.20.030 change language in the first sentence to show that fire is involved in the short plat approval process, not just public works and the city council. 5) 17.20.030© 2, Please see previous e-mail regarding the fire department's responsibility regarding addresses and addressing; names and street numbers and addressing are not subject to the approval of the DCD Director; we will oppose any change to the current practice as stated before. Headquarters Station: 444 Andover Park East • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-575-4404 • Fax: 206-575-4439 ,ti 6) 17.20.030 © 3, add the following sentence: "Emergency Vehicle Access shall be ensured". 7) 17.20.030 © 5, add the following sentence: " Those private access roads 150 feet or greater in length shall have a turnaround constructed to fire department standards". 8) 17.20.030 © 6, after city engineer add "Fire Marshal"; after transit facilities add: "emergency vehicle access". 9) 17.20.030 (6) Type of street table, Change: Alley — Shall be 26 feet of pavement. Private Access roads — greater than 150' shall be 20 feet of pavement. 10)17.20.030 (6) Type of street table add an * next to Cul-de-sac, alley, private access road residential and commercial; at the bottom: "NO on street parking" 11)17.20.030 (6) add a note to the type of street table that states that all cul-de-sacs and turnarounds shall meet minimum fire department requirements. 12)17.20.030 (6b) (2c) after and, add: "all occupied buildings are equipped with an automatic sprinkler system". 13)17.20.030 (D 1) after "minimum of 20 feet of paving" add: "no on street parking". 14)17.20.030 (D 4) Replace "uniform" with "international". 15)17.20.030 (E 1) please clarify whether 250 or 300 is the correct length. 16)17.20.030 (F 1) Common drive easements create fire lane conditions; the current code has made the fire department the fire lane police and mediators for neighbor disputes with regard to parking problems. We need to meet to discuss this item; fire would rather see flag lots with privately owned driveways. 17)17.20.030 (L) add: "Lighting plans shall be identified by the fire and police departments" (in addition to the PW requirements) Please contact Chief Tomaso or me if you have questions regarding these comments. '111(61 61erie6— SIN31I NO110V 110Nf1O0 3O IS1l ldv is 800Z 06 3Nf1r ei;ue;od 101S!7 a) w N X 0 0 w a) al 4t IN (C 0 Designation and adoption of recommended "Bicycle -Friendly Routes" 2 (T) a m CD n o' Adoption of Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs 2nd Paragraph, last sentence Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) 25 (last paragraph) 25 (4th paragraph) 25, 97 (1st row in second table) 9 (last paragraph); Other pages with references to same action Designate and adopt a map of Bicycle Friendly Routes (Figure 5 on p. 27 of the Draft Walk & Roll Plan). This map could be referenced in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, replacing the existing map that represents Category I tris. Consider adopting a hierarchy to be used when deciding the type of pedestrian or bicycle design to use, from most preferable type of improvement to least, based on site conditions/engineering studies, etc. Adoption of Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Designs A "complete streets" perspective is referenced. Item Description When street system frontage improvements are required per the City regulations, additional right-of- way and pavement may be required if indicated on a designated bicycle route. Amend the city's Development Guidelines & Design and Construction Standards to include the pedestrian and bicycle design standards in section 4 the Draft Walk & Roll Plan. The section of the plan that contains the recommended designs starts on page 33. The Design and Construction standards could also be amended to include a hierarchy, so that the most - preferred facilities are considered first for a particular project. Additionally, the project descriptions for CIP improvements should be expanded to include the range of options within the hierarchy for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Adopt a Complete Streets resolution or ordinance. Potential Action ei;ue;od 101S!7 a) SIN31I NOIIOV 1I0Nf1O0 dO lSll IdV Ia 800Z '06 3Nflf V C1 C11 X CC c rn D N rn * -0 A) co AD More than the minimum for pedestrian safety U1 5 cv L -0coN N 0 Q N S Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) 30 (2nd paragraph); 35 (2nd paragraph) N co CD V 0 O N 7 = a. Q N Q CT fD _ Other pages with references to same action City standards should be changed to improve pedestrian facilities along arterial roadways. This includes requiring additional landscaping buffers on streets with speeds over 30 miles per hour, and improving the safety of drivewa a•rons. Having an adopted Plan provides opportunities to ask private development to help implement the Plan. Currently the City requires all developments of five residential units or more and all commercial development to construct frontage improvements, which typically consist of storm drainage, curbs, and a sidewalk. If a section of the bicycle network is indicated on a street proposed for capital improvement then plans should include a bike lane during design and construction. Identification as a separate capital project will be needed for streets that have recently been improved or those not currently or likely to be listed as a capital improvement project. Item Description Improving the safety of driveway aprons can be accomplished by adopting the Ancillary Infrastructure Designs (starting on p. 46 of the Draft Walk & Roll Plan) as part of Action #2 above. Amend Chapters 11 and 17 of the TMC to require adequate right-of-way for bike lanes when a development is proposed along a designated Bicycle Friendly Route. Require that all CIP street projects include sidewalks, and all CIP street projects on streets identified as Bicycle Friendly Routes include bike lanes (or other bicycle improvement according to the hierarchy of recommended bicycle infrastructure designs). Potential Action SW311 NOLLOV 1I0Nf1O0 JO 1S11 13t/�Id 800Z '01. 3Nflf c co co 7J 0 N co D w GQ CD 3rd paragraph O) 3 I 1 N (0 N 13S N 0 a D N Q) (0 N Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) '97 (row 2 in first table on the page) V CO W 1 a CO C n) Other pages with references to same action As new development occurs, the creation of new pedestrian pathways and/or streets should be considered for improved pedestrian connectivity. A significant amount of development occurs through smaller -scale development of one, two, or three homes. In particular the "pass-through" trails to schools or parks will happen within the residential neighborhoods and will need to occur during residential platting. Much of the City's policies and existing trail system are neighborhood - oriented systems that will not necessarily be competitive for funding on a state or national level. The City of Tukwila currently allows development of less than 5 lots an exemption from the requirement to build sidewalks. Most of the development within residential areas that Tukwila receives is infill involving less than 5 lots. Item Description !A budget to allow partnerships with developers during development could provide the extra boost needed to complete a missing Zink. At a minimum, the easement and/or right-of-way for trails should be required at the time of short platting or permitting. The city should consider funding small trail building efforts. These types of efforts can be combined with community building events and scouting projects. The funding allocated by the City can act as seed money. Amend Chapters 11 and 17 of the TMC to require the construction of sidewalks and trails for new development of one or more Tots, including building permits, short subdivisions, and/or boundary line adjustments. Explore a fee -in -lieu program for construction of sidewalks and trails in residential neighborhoods. Each neighborhood could be involved in coming up with the connectivity map showing their preference for sidewalks vs. trails; that would result in a prioritized list of sidewalks/trails to be built. Potential Action SIN31I NOIlOV lIONf1O0 JO ISIl 1JV ICI 800Z '01. 3Nnr A w P> - 73 0 W N W Q W N co * 71 A) CC CD 6th paragraph 3rd paragraph st T 6 ,,m.- N 3 Q 5 = Ca 6 n) Ca 0) 13 3 Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) 96 (1st row in Table 7) Other pages with references to same action Lack of shower facilities is a deterrent that keeps people who work in Tukwila from riding a bike to work. Maximum block length should be limited to 700 to 800 feet. Currently, the Tukwila standard for block length in residential areas is up to 1,000 feet, and in commercial and industrial areas it is up to 2,000 feet. Converting rails to trails as rail corridors are abandoned. Unimproved street rights-of-way, utility easements, and railroad rights-of-way are golden opportunities to provide connectivity for pedestrians. In most residential neighborhoods within Tukwila, there are unimproved street rights-of-way and utility easements which represent opportunities to construct walking trails and/or through streets. Item Description Amend the zoning code to require developers of office buildings to include showers and secure bicycle parking (lockers, locked enclosures). Change the standards for maximum block lengths. Rail trails are long term projects and require the commitment of a staff person to pursue preservation of these track areas for future trail use. Funding for title research, persistence, and a written record is recommended as a strategy that Tukwila should pursue for future development of multi -use trails. Development of partnerships with railroad companies will also be important. When a street vacation is proposed, it should be examined to make sure that a vacation will not preclude the opportunity for construction/preservation of the corridor for a trail or through street. Potential Action SW211 NOIIOb' 119111100 JO 1S11 1.J\AICI 8002 '06 9Nf1f C m o i rn 01 0 ago w v 01 iD CQ CD Last row in table, under Cost Estimate and Potential Funding Sources 7th paragraph 3rd paragraph 1st paragraph, last sentence 1st paragraph 5 ID vig CO F13 Dm Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) co 6 Other pages with references to same action Airport Way is within the City of Seattle, but offers the best bicycle connection from Tukwila to Seattle. Explore creating partnerships to build and maintain our trails. Bicycle Route Signage -A study is recommended to determine the type and placement of bicycle signage along the Recommended Bicycle -Friendly Routes in Tukwila. Where there is no other accommodation for pedestrians and/or bicycles, paved shoulders should be added to the roadway until such time as sidewalks and bike lanes can be constructed. On -street bicycle facilities (bike lanes, paved shoulders, wide curb lanes) need to include signage that identifies them for bicycle use if they are designated bicycle routes. Participation in walking and biking programs should be increased. Item Description Form a partnership with the City of Seattle for improvement of Airport Way for bicycles. The Duwamish TMA is another potential partner for this project. An intern with DCD completed a study of potential bike route signage locations. Budget exists for this signage program - stall will move it forward after adoption of the plan. Add as a standard and/or a program in the CIP. Amend the city's Development Guidelines & Design and Construction Standards to require that designated Bicycle -Friendly Routes be signed for bicycle use. Provide budget for additional staff time and departmental programs dedicated to promoting participation in bicycle programs, such as the bicycle rodeo, Bike to Work events, Walk to School events, articles written for the Hazelnut and City of Tukwila website, funds to print and distribute trail and bicycle route maps, and other partnerships would highlight City -sponsored programs and increase participation. Potential Action SW311 NOIIDV 1I0Nf1O0 3O lS11 13v1a 8002 '06 3Nflf N N O. 0 co a 0 co v, m# w o CD CD 1st paragraph paragraphs 2-4 1st paragraph 1st paragraph w 13 a) Ed v ca al v s Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) 10 (1st paragraph); Other pages with references to same action Determine the schedule for updating the Walk & Roll plan once it is adopted. Develop a method to prioritize where sidewalks should be built first. To help build safe routes to school, and obtain Safe Routes to School grant funding, the City should devote staff time to building a partnership with the Tukwila School District. Black River Connector from Green River Trail through Fort Dent Park to Renton. Paved multi -use trail projects to extend the Green River Trail north to Seattle, to connect Tukwila to the Chief Sealth Trail in Seattle, and to connect North SeaTac Park with the Green River Trail will require partnerships with adjacent jurisdictions, and further study to determine the best trail alignments. Item Description Page 93 describes two methods of prioritization: (1) looking at arterials with no sidewalks, focusing on those segments with the highest speeds first; (2) 1/4 mile radius around schools. Partnerships with the City of Renton, King County Parks & Recreation, and railroad companies (for access through area underneath railroad trestles) should be explored for construction of this connection. Potential Action S11131I NOIl3V 110Nf1O0 JO 1S11 l.d1/2121a 8002 '0I 3Nflf A w n 0 c 6 _ -N 9 6 \ 4* -a ■ 0 3rd bullet point wa k kDEED k = AN. -0 ��2 0(D k m 7" 9 q Paragraph (heading or paragraph #) Other pages with references to same action Sidewalks with utility boxes, lighting poles, or other obstructions detract from the walking environment and can make it difficult or impossible for the mobility- im•aired to use the sidewalk. Reduced travel -lane widths are within the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) minimums. The need for full - width travel lanes decreases with speed: (1) Up to 25mph: Travel lanes may be reduced to 10 or 10.5 feet; (2) 30 to 40mph: 11 -foot travel lanes and 12 -foot center lanes may be acceptable; (3) 45mph or greater: try to maintain a 12 - foot outside travel lane and 14 -foot center turn lane if there are high truck volumes; (4) Lanes that accommodate both motor vehicles and bicycles (wide curb lanes) should be 14-16 feet wide The needs of cyclists can be accommodated by retrofitting bike lanes onto many existing urban streets using the following methods: (1) Marking and signing existing shoulders as bike lanes; (2) Physically widening the street to add bike lanes; (3) Restriping the existing street to add bike lanes Item Description Require that utility boxes, lighting poles, and other potential obstructions that are necessary within the right-of-way be located within the landscaping strip between the street and the sidewalks, placed in accordance with sight distance requirements. $acu § m 3 3 7 2f E ƒECD k a 7^ 0. 0 $ W. 5.m CD oC0 mKr 0 0) $e§ �a Jka § Cr U) 0 § /2J 6a* cil'. Potential Action v 0 0 W Code: Provisions Related to the Pedestrian and fr ar 11.12.030 Street Frontage Improvements _ 11.12.10 Purpose of Provisions 11 Right -of -Way Use Title / Section 1E. The Director under either of the following conditions may waive the requirement for installation of frontage improvements: (1) if adjacent street frontage improvements are unlikely to be installed in the foreseeable future; or (2) if the installation of the required improvement would cause significant adverse environmental impacts D. If, at a time subsequent to the issuance of a building permit, a local improvement district is established that includes the property for which the building permit was issued, the property may be considered in the compilation of the local improvement district assessment with the appropriate amount of costs of construction expended by the developer. IC. When (due to site topography, city plans for improvement projects, or other similar reasons) the Director determines that street frontage improvements cannot or should not be constructed at the time of building construction, the property owner shall, prior to issuance of the building permit, at the direction of the Director: (1) Pay to the City an amount equal to the property owner's cost of installing the required improvements prior to issuance of a building permit. The property owner shall provide documentation satisfactory to the Director that establishes the cost of the materials, labor, quantities; or (2) Record and agreement which provides for these improvements to be installed by the property owner by a date acceptable to the Director; or (3) Record an agreement to not protest a local improvement district to improve the street frontage. B. Complete street frontage improvements shall be installed along the entire frontage of the property at the sole cost of the permittee as directed by the Director. Street frontage improvements may include curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, street lighting, traffic signal equipment, utility installation or relocation, landscaping strip, street trees and landscaping, irrigation, street widening, and channelization. Beyond the property frontage, the Permittee shall provide ramps from the new sidewalk or walkway to the exiting shoulder, and pavement and channelization tapering back to the existing pavement and channelization as needed for safety. A. The installation of street frontage improvements is required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction, other than single-family homes, or prior to final approval for subdivisions and 5-9 lot short plats and Planned Residential Developments. For additions and remodels to existing buildings, see TMC 11.12.070. The purpose of this section is to implement regulations in connection with the development and improvement of land, and to facilitate adequate provision for water, sewer, surface water drainage, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, street and other public improvements by requiring the construction and dedication of such improvements at the time of the construction of industrial, commercial, or residential buildings or developments. The requirements set forth in this chapter are intended to supplement the requirements of RCW Chapter 58.17 and Title 17 of the TMC relating to subdivision of land. Standard Implications Code: Provisions Related to the Pedestrian and a) co CD 0 --n CA) 11.12.050 Easements and Other Dedications xN !T 11.12.040 Dedication of Right -of -Way Title / Section Standard D. Easements and other dedications shall be designated "City of Tukwila nonmotorized public easement", and easement and other dedication documents shall specify the maintenance responsibility. C. Ndnmotorized easements and other dedications shall be wide enough to include the trail width and a minimum clear distance of two feet on each side of the trail. The width of easements and other dedications may vary according to site specific design issues such as topography, buffering, and landscaping. B. Nonmotorized easements and other dedications may be required where necessary to facilitate pedestrian circulation between neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers and other activity centers, even if the facility is not specifically shown on the City'sijnonmotorized•circulation plan. _' A. Easements and other dedications for all public streets and utilities needed to serve the proposed development consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City plans shall be granted by the property owner. Easements and other dedications may be for private streets, sidewalks, street lighting, traffic control devices, utilities, and temporary construction. Design features of a street may necessitate the granting of slope, wall, and other drainage easements or other dedications. D. The owner of a short subdivision may be required to dedicate right-of-way, as a condition of approval of the short subdivision, where such dedication is necessary to mitigate the direct impacts of the short subdivision and: (1) The short subdivision abuts an existing substandard public street and the additional right-of-way is necessary to incorporate future frontage improvements for public safety; or (2) Right-of-way is needed for the extension of existing public street improvements necessary for public safety; or (3) Right -of way is needed to provide future street improvements necessary for public safety for planned new public streets. C. The owner of a short subdivision may be required to dedicate right-of-way, as a condition of approval of the short subdivision, where existing right-of-way for public streets is not adequate to incorporate necessary frontage improvements for public safety and to provide compatibility with the area's circulation system. B. The Director may grant some reduction in the minimum right-of-way requirements where it can be demonstrated that sufficient area has been provided for all frontage improvements, including utilities, within the right-of-way. A. The City may require the dedication of right-of-way in order to incorporate transportation improvements that are reasonably necessary to mitigate the direct impacts of the development. The property owner may be required to dedicate right-of-way to accommodate: (1) Motorized and nonmotorized transportation, landscaping, utility, street lighting, traffic control devices, and buffer requirements; (2) Street frontage improvements where the existing right-of-way is not adequate; or (3) The extension of existing or future public street improvements. Elaborate on expectations? aQ'7l4Vu-f\A- ifs. in 0 Or lane? Bicycle? Plan name change? Implications (0 fD GJ 0 G) cnxDD-0-1 c-0 0 a O -•Cf °I. at 74. < N C ._. 0 y, -, N 0 3 0 V N O N y D N X O 'D fD N Cf rr 111 3 ao 11.12.060 Sites Shall be Served by Paved Streets ITitie / Section The following special provisions shall apply to additions, alterations, repairs, accessory buildings, and campus additions: (1) In the case of real property improvements consisting of additions, alterations, or repairs to an existing structure where square footage is added to the structure, or an accessory building is constructed, street system improvements shall be constructed. The Director)5shall decide the limit of the street system improvements. The cost for these improvements, to be borne by the property owner, will not be more than 10% of the total cost of the improvement. The Director may waive the construction of the street system improvements if it is determined that the street system improvements are negligible and not in the public interest. (2) In the case of real property improvements consisting of construction of an additional structure or structures on a private campus, street system improvements shall be constructed. The Director shall select the street system improvements to be made. The cost for these improvements, to be borne by the property owner, will not be more than 10% of the total cost of the improvement.ln the case of real property improvements consisting of construction of an additional structure or structures on a c2 (3). In the case of corner lots or other development sites fronting more than one right-of-way, should the cost of the real property on the right-of-way or rights-of-way elected by the Director. All development sites shall be served by a paved street surface that connects to an existing paved street surface. E. The City may accept dedications of sensitive areas which have been identified and are required to be protected as a condition of development. Dedication of such areas to the City will be considered when: (1) The dedicated area would contribute to the City's overall open space and greenway system; (2) The dedicated area would provide passive recreation opportunities and nonmotorized linkages; (3) The dedicated area would preserve and protect ecologically sensitive natural areas, wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors; (4) The dedicated area is of low hazard/liability potential; and (5) The dedicated area can be adequately managed and maintained. Standard 3 n O N 11.12.140 Americans with Disabilities Act 11.12.130 Acceptance of Dedicated Private Streets as Public Streets 11.12.120 Private Streets . -0 — a'O 3 o N c cnC xi 3 co y y ta O 52. o co of o Title / Section All street improvements and nonmotorized facilities shall be designed and constructed to meet the intent of applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In accordance with the State law and Federal guidelines established by the ADA, wheelchair curb ramps shall be provided at all pedestrian crossings with curbs. Acceptance of dedicated private streets as public streets will be considered if the street meets all public street design and construction standards. Consideration of acceptance is also subject to the requirements of other City departments. Final acceptance is subject to City Council approval. The following criteria will be evaluated: (1) Acceptability of street and utility construction. Pavement condition shall be brought up to the standards of new construction; (2) Condition of title; (3) Survey requirements for monumentation and conveyance; (4) The need for additional right-of-way and easements; and (5) Cost of accepting the street and future maintenance requirements. Private streets will be allowed when: (1) A covenant that provides for maintenance and repair of the private street by property owners has been approved by the City and recorded with King County; (2) The covenant includes a condition that the private street will remain open at al! times for emergency and public service vehicles; and (3) The private street would not hinder public street circulation; and (4) At least one of the following conditions exists: (a) The street would ultimately serve four or fewer lots; or (b) The private street would be part of a planned residential development; or (c) The private street would serve commercial or industrial facilities where no circulation continuity is necessary. The developer of one single-family residence shall construct the following street system improvements as a condition of building permit approval: (1) If the development site fronts entirely on an unpaved street surface, the developer shall construct a half - street section of street pavement along the frontage of the development site abutting the unpaved surface or, as an alternative, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City waiving the right of the property owner under RCW 35.43.180 to protest the formation of a local improvement district for the construction of a paved street surface and surface water drainage facilities. The agreement shall be recorded with the King County auditor; (2) If the development site is a corner lot and fronts on both a paved street surface and an unpaved street surface, the developer shall construct half -street section of street pavement and surface water drainage facilities along the frontage of the development site abutting the unpaved street surface; (3) If the development site is contiguous to a parcel that is served by paved street surface, the developer shall construct half - street section of street pavement and surface water drainage facilities along the frontage of the development site abutting the existing paved street surface; (4) Surface water drainage facilities in all cases, whether the development site fronts a paved street surface or an unpaved street surface; and (5) If the development site fronts a paved street surface, minor edge improvements to the street pavement, as required by the Director, shall be constructed. Standard Aging population considerations; audible and visual modifications to circulation systems; Consideration for more than wheelchair ramps. 3 'C n at O 7 (1) 13 m CO 0 01 0 J co 11.12.170 Street Ends 11.12.160 Traffic Signals 11.12.150 Nonmotorized Facilities Title / Section D. A landscaped island delineated by curbing shall be provided in the cul-de-sac by the property owner. The landscaping shall be maintained by the homeowners' association or adjacent property owners. The maintenance agreement shall contain this requirement and be recorded with King County. C. Streets which temporarily dead-end and will be extended in the future will not have a turnaround or hammerhead unless determined necessary by the Department and the Fire Marshal. When no turnaround or hammerhead is provided, street -end barricading shall be installed and must conform to the most recent edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). B. A hammerhead may be used in lieu of a circular turnaround if the street is less than 200 feet long and serves six or fewer lots. An alternative design may be used if approved by the Department and the Fire Marshal. A. All dead-end public streets and private streets shall be designed as a cul-de-sac, except as provided below. B. To mitigate the traffic impacts of a development, modification of an existing signal or installation of a new signal may be required. A. When a proposed street or driveway design interferes with existing traffic signal facilities, traffic signal modification or relocation must be provided, at the expense of the developer. D. When street system frontage improvements are required under TMC 11.12.040 additional right-of-way and pavement may be required if indicated on a designated bicycle route as identified in the comprehensive plan for pedestrian and bicycle transportation. C. A paved path shall be provided in lieu of concrete sidewalk when: (1) The Director determines that the paved path is to be temporary in nature; -or -(2)- he-Dir-ectoc.determines that the soil or topographic conditions dictate a flexible pavement; or (3) The1iedestrian and bicycle transportation plan7- dicates that the neighborhood character does not warrant concrete sidewalks. B. Concrete sidewalks shall be provided: (1) On both sides of all arterial streets. (2) On both sides of all non -arterial streets longer than 200 feet and on one side of all non -arterial less than 200 feet in length. (3) On both sides of all public streets which provide access to existing or planned future sidewalks, activity centers, parks, schools, neighborhoods, or public transit facilities. The Director may grant an exception to the requirement for concrete sidewalk when the subdivision design provides an acceptably surfaced and maintained public walkway system. A. The City's goals and policies for nonmotorized facilities are described in the/pedestrian and bicycle transportation planiThe users of nonmotorized facilities are separated in that plan into two categories: pedestrians (which includes people, wheelchairs, horses, and other nonmotorized users) and bicycles. Internal pedestrian circulation systems shall be provided within and between existing, new and redeveloping commercial, multifamily and single-family developments; activity centers; and existing frontage pedestrian systems. Standard -- - Pedestrian or nonmotorized access? X N •J 7: 0 7 N -o v co co 0 CA) 17.and P02.030lans General Standards. B. Compatibility with Existing Land Use a 3 V CI: a C 0 <d<v w:a 0 N o N ' o > > 9% ; 0 SO CD 'a 3 a Title / Section 3. OTHER CITY REGULATIONS- All subdivisions shall comply with all adopted City regulations. In the event of a conflict, the more restrictive regulation shall apply. 2. CONFORMITY WITH EXISTING PLANS -The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designated trail, provisions may be made for reservation of the right-of- way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. The proposed subdivision shall respond to and complement City ordinances, resolutions, and comprehensive plans. 17.20.020 Improvements, supervision, inspections and permits required A. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS: Every subdivider may be required to grade and pave streets and alleys, install curbs and gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm sewers, water mains, fire hydrants, street lights and name signs, together with all appurtenances in accordance with specifications and standards of this code, approved by the Public Works Department, and in accordance with other standards of the City. B. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION: A licensed engineer or engineering firm, acceptable to the Department of Public Works, shall be responsible for the supervision and inspection of all subdivision improvements. All improvements shall be certified in writing as completed in accordance with plans and specifications as approved by the Department of Public Works. C. PERMITS: Prior to proceeding with any subdivision improvements, the subdivider shall obtain those permits from the City as are necessary. The subdivider is also responsible for complying with all applicable permit requirements of other Federal. State and local agencies. 17.14.030 Final Plat: APPLICATION: (8) Maintenance agreements, easements and other documents ready for recording. (D) CRITERIA FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL: The Planning Commission shall base its decision on an application for preliminary plat approval on the following criteria: (1) The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and any other City adopted plans. (3) Appropriate provisions have been made for road, utilities and other improvements that are consistent with current standards and plans. (4) Appropriate provisions have been made for dedications, easements and reservations. 17.14.020. (A) APPLICATION (required materials): (7) All existing conditions shall be delineated. Site and development plans shall provide the following information: © Approximate names, locations, widths and dimensions of existing and proposed public street rights-of-way and easements and private access easements, parks and other open spaces, reservations, and utilities.(g) location, dimensions and purpose of existing and proposed easements. Provide recorded documents that identify the nature and extent of existing easements. (h) Location of any proposed dedications. (n) descriptions, location and size of existing and proposed utilities, storm drainage facilities and roads to serve the lots. Standard Include plan for nonmotorized improvements? Implications w c0 CD CO 0 CA) E L Jo 0 l abed Title / Section d. Half width improvement: (1) Streets abutting the perimeter of a subdivision or short plat of five or more lots shall provide the full improvements on the half of the street adjacent to the site, provided additional paving may be required to ensure safe and efficient roads exist to serve the subdivision; provided further that there are no physical obstructions to completing the other half of the roadway; and that there is a minimum of 20 feet of paving. (3) All privately owned roads that will serve four or fewer houses shall be designed and installed to full width improvement as provided below: (a) Shall be graded as necessary to conform to Department of Public Works standards. (b) Shall be of asphaltic concrete according to Department of Public Works standards. (c) Shall provide storm drainage to be approved by the Department of Public Works. (2) When interior to a short plat of four or fewer lots, all public streets and all privately owned streets that have the potentialto serve five or more lots shall be designed and installed to full width improvement as provided below: (a) Shall be graded as necessary to conform to Department of Public Works standards. (b) Shall be of asphaltic concrete according to Department of Public Works standards. (c) Shall provide storm drainage to be approved by the Department of Public Works. (d) Shall provide sidewalk right -of way or easements at a minimum width as specified in TMC Chapter 11.12. (e) Shall construct or provide L.I.D. no -protest agreements for permanent concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks according to Department of Public Works standards. (f) Shall be dedicated to the City or subject to a binding agreement for future dedication. © Full width improvement: (1) When interior to a subdivision or a short plat of five or more lots, all publicly owned streets shall be designed and installed to full width improvement as provided below: (a) Shall be graded as necessary to conform to Department of Public Works standards. (b) Shall be of asphaltic concrete according to Department of Public Works standards. (c) Shall have permanent concrete curbs and gutters according to Department of Public Works standards. (d) Shall have storm drains consisting of the proper size pipe and catch basins; sizes to be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the public hearing for the preliminary plat. (e) Shall have sidewalks provided at a minimum width as specified in TMC Chapter 11.12. (b) Design: The design and alignment of all public streets shall conform to the following standards unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works: (1) Cul-de-sacs: Cul-de-sacs are not allowed unless there is no reasonable alternative or the cul-de-sac is shown on an officially adopted street plan. When allowed, they shall not exceed a length of 600 feet unless the City Council determines that adequate alternative emergency access will be provided.(2) Street Grades: Street grades shall not exceed 15%. However, provided there are no vehicular access points, grades may be allowed up to 18%, for not more than 200 feet when:(a) Exceeding the grades would facilitate a through street and connection with the larger neighborhood; (b) The greater grade would minimize disturbance of sensitive slopes; (c) The Fire Marshal grants approval of the grade transition; and (d) Tangents, horizontal curves, vertical curves, and right-of-way improvements conform to Department of Public Works standards. Standard 3 -0. w 0 m y £1. Jo I,.°Bed 3 on 7 n co a, = LO 13 c 7 CL io co W 3 V O A co 0 C 3 ei• Title / Section A. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS: Before any final subdivision, short plat, binding site improvement plan or boundary line adjustment is finally approved, the subdivider shall install required improvements and replace or repair any such improvements which are damaged in the development of the subdivision. In lieu of the completion of the actual construction of all required improvements (public and private) and prior to the approval of a final plat, the Public Works Director may accept a bond in an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to the Director, or other secure method, providing for and securing to the City the actual construction and installation of all required improvements. This is in addition to the requirements of TMC 11.08 requiring a performance bond for all work being done in the public right-of-way. If the Public Works Director accepts a bond for the completion of the work, the subdivider shall execute and file with the City an agreement guaranteeing completion of such improvements together with any needed replacement or repair. I. Lighting: Street lighting shall conform to the Department of Public Works standards unless the City Council requires alternative fixtures, poles, and/or spacing to contribute to an overall design concept of the subdivision. H. Street Signs: The subdivider shall be responsible for the initial cost of any street name or number signs, or street markings, including installation thereof, that Public Works finds necessary for the subdivision. (3) PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS: Blocks, roads and pedestrian improvements shall be designed to provide a safe and convenient pedestrian network. (2) WIDTH: Blocks shall be wide enough to allow two tiers of lots, except where abutting a major street or prevented by topographical conditions or size of the property, in which case the City Council may approve a single tier. (E) Blocks: (1)LENGTH: Residential blocks should not be less than 300 feet nor more than 1,000 feet in length, (600 - 2,000 feet for commercial and industrial areas). Where circumstances warrant for the purpose of implementing the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission may require one or more public pathways of not Tess than six feet nor more than 15 feet in width, either by dedication or easement, to extend entirely across the width of the block to connect public rights of -way. (3) Streets abutting the perimeter of a short plat of four or fewer Tots shall provide L.I.D. no protest agreements for construction of frontal improvements on the half of the street adjacent to the site, provided that there is a minimum of 20 feet of paving. (2) If the future grade or alignment of the adjacent public street is unknown and it is not feasible to establish the grade in a reasonable period or the immediate improvement of the street would result in a short, isolated segment of improved street and similar street improvements in the vicinity are unlikely to occur within six years, the City may approve a delay of improvements. The owner(s) must agree to enter into a binding L.I.D. no -protest agreement to further improve the street to full public street standards in the future, however adjacent streets must still be improved to the minimum level necessary, in the judgment of the City Engineer, to safely accommodate traffic generated by the proposed subdivision or short plat.B100 Standard Implications • • CI. °Bed 18.56.130 Development Standards for Bicycle Parking Title / Section D. Process: Upon application to and review by the Planning Commission, subject to a Type 4 decision process outlined in TMC 18.108.040, the bicycle parking requirements may be modified or waived, where appropriate. C. Safety and Security: 1. Legitimate bicycle spaces are individual units within ribbon racks, inverted `U' racks, locking wheel racks, lockers, or other similar permanent structures. 2. If bicycle lockers are used, windows and/or view holes must be included to discourage improper uses. 3. If bicycle parking is not visible from the street, a sign must be posted indicating the location of the bicycle parking spaces. 4. All bicycle parking must be separated from motor vehicle traffic by a barrier, curb, post, bollard or other similar device. B. Location: 1. Required bicycle parking must be located within 50 feet of an entrance to the building or use. 2. Bicycle parking may be provided within a building, but the location must be accessible for bicycles A. Required number of bicycle parking spaces. 1 space/50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces; 1 space per classroom for schools; 1 space/10 stalls for multifamily. B. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Regardless of whether all required improvements are completed prior to final approval of any subdivision of land, as a condition of such approval the subdivider shall execute an agreement to assure successful operation of said improvements. [Note: See TMC 11.08.110 for details.] The agreement shall: 1. Require the subdivider to post a bond or other financial security to secure successful operation of all required improvements and full performance of the developer's maintenance obligation. Such financial security shall be effective for a two-year period following approval of installation of all required improvements. 2. Require the subdivider to perform maintenance functions on drainage improvements for a period of time not to exceed two years from approval of their completion or final plat approval, whichever is later. Such maintenance functions shall be specified bythe Public Works Director, and shall be reasonably related to the burdens that the subdivision will impose on drainage facilities during the time maintenance is required. The City Council may agree to accept and perform maintenance of the improvements, in which case the subdivider's obligation to perform maintenanc discovered following the effective term of the security given. 4. Provide a waiver by the subdivider of all claims for damages agail and other improvements. Standard S Implications a c 0 73 0Oo �Q Roadway Pavement OO .4- (9 8N 1 m C? N N OO - N co Standard Right of Way 80-100 O aO O CO O O CO 0 CD o t1� O 92 diameter O N O N O d' !Title / Section 17.20.030 General Standards !Type of Street (Principal Arterial !Minor Arterial Collector Arterial Access Road Cul-de-sac Roadway Turnaround CI. Q Private Access Roads Residential! Commerical Page 13 of 13 City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: May 19, 2008 Applicant Name: Taimie Reavis, Assistant Planner, City of Tukwila Street Address: 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 City, State, Zip: Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3659 Directions This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, or Cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1-0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (TMC 18.06.370). Please circle appropriate response. (G),_ Continue to Question 2-0 YES - Continue to Question 1-1 (Page 3) 2-0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (18.06.145). Please circle appropriate response. O - Continue to Question 3-0 YES - Continue to Question 2-1 (Page 4) 3-0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18-15). Please circle appropriate response. ftContinue to Question 4-0 S - Continue to Question 3-1 (Page 5) 4-0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173-303 (TMC 18.06.385). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on-site during construction. Please circle a • • ropriate response. e r - Continue to Question 5-0 YES - Continue to Question 5-0 5-0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 6-0 YES - Continue to Question 6-0 Part A (continued) City of Tukwila 4 Screening Checklist 6-0 Will the project involve landscaping or. re -occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one-time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (TMC 18.06.490). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. NO Checklist Complete YES — Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1-1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1-2 YES - Continue to Question 1-2 1-2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1-3 YES - Continue to Question 1-3 1-3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development. Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development (TMC 18.06.445). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 1-4 Part B (continued) City of Tut a ESA Screening Checklist 1-4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2-1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2-2 2-2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self-supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter -breast -height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-3 YES - Continue to Question 2-3 2-3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-4 YES - Continue to Question 2-4 2-4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2-5 2-5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) City of Tukwili A Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish/Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3-1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-2 YES - Continue to Question 3-2 3-2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man-made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-3 YES - Continue to Question 3-3 3-3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-4 YES - Continue to Question 3-4 3-4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross-sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross-sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-5 YES - Continue to Question 3-5 3-5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal City of Tuk ' ESA Screening Checklist from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-6 YES - Continue to Question 3-6 3-6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow/groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-7 YES - Continue to Question 3-7 3-7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-8 YES - Continue to Question 3-8 3-8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Tukwila Draft Walk & Roll Plan 2. Name of Applicant: City of Tukwila 3. Date checklist prepared: May 19, 2008 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Adoption of plan in 2008. 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Additions may be included as part of the public review process. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None has been prepared to date. Environmental studies may be required for some projects during the construction phase of some of the projects in the Walk & Roll Plan, once the plan is adopted and implementation begins. 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. The annexation of the southernmost part of the project area, located south of the Tukwila City limits, is currently under review. Additionally, the City of Tukwila is currently in the process of updating its Shoreline Master Program, which may affect specific multi -use trail projects, including the extension of the Duwamish River Trail and the Black River Connector linking Tukwila with Renton through Fort Dent Park. Agency Comments Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Adoption of the Walk & Roll Plan by the Tukwila City Council. 10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The Walk & Roll Plan is an implementation tool to use as a guide when choosing which pedestrian and bicycle projects to include for construction on the CIP. Potential projects include sidewalks, bike lanes, and paved and unpaved trails, as well as intersection crossing enhancements and other details to improve the walk- and bike- ability of Tukwila's existing non -motorized transportation network. The project site is entire City of Tukwila, as well as its northern and southern annexation areas. 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project area for this proposal includes existing streets, unimproved rights-of-way, railroad spurs, and other areas within the City of Tukwila and its proposed annexation areas. Please refer to the attached map, showing the Tukwila City Limits, as well as the boundaries of the city's annexation areas to view the entire project area for this proposal. 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes — sensitive areas where there are steep slopes, wetlands, and watercourses have been identified as potential locations for new multi -use trails. Trails are a permitted use within sensitive areas in Tukwila, and may be approved only after administrative review and approval by the Director of the Department of Community Development. Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth Agency Comments a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rollin hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The City of Tukwila is generally hilly. Each individual project will be reviewed to determine measures needed to address steep slopes. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. There are a range of different soils in Tukwila. Moist soil types are silt or sand, with some areas that are gravelly. A large portion of the City of Tukwila is classified as Urban Land., and as such was covered by urban development at the time King County conducted its soil survey (SSURGO). Additionally, data is not availabe for northern Tukwila, and so soil conditions will need to be included as part of the project -level review. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Tukwila has many areas classified as areas of potential geological instability. Projects will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Geotechnical studies shall be required for projects areas containing steep slopes. Appropriate measures to address steep slope areas shall be determined, based on a review of geotechnical data. These measures shall be incorporated into project design. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Unknown at this time — individual projects will be reviewed as opportunities arise for construction, and estimates of cut and fill will be assessed by project at that time. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes — erosion could occur in areas where new trails and sidewalks are constructed, especially in areas with steep slopes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Unknown at this time — this figure will vary depending on the type of improvement chosen for each individual project area. Impacts related to the construction of new impervious surfaces will be reviewed at the project level. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Projects will be reviewed individually, as they are planned for construction each year within the CIP. Appropriate measures will be taken to prevent, reduce, and control erosion. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction of the projects contained in the Walk & Roll Plan, dust and emissions from construction equipment could occur — quantities are unknown. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Emissions from automobiles occur in the vicinity of all of the projects contained in the Walk & Roll Plan. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction practices that minimize the amount of dust emitted to the air shall be employed. Additionally, all relevant permits shall be obtained from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency to address emissions to the air associated with individual projects contained in the Walk & Roll Plan. 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Several of the projects within the Walk & Roll Plan will occur in the immediate vicinity of seasonal streams, the Duwamish/Green River, the Black River, and wetlands. These projects will be reviewed individually as opportunities arise for their construction. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The recommended extension of the Duwamish River Trail in the north, as well as the Green River Trail in Southern Tukwila and the south annexation area will involve work within the 200 foot river buffer. Please see the attached "Recommended Bicycle -Friendly Routes" map, with project areas circled. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Estimates are not available for all of the projects recommended in the Walk & Roll Plan. If fill and dredge material will be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands, this will be reviewed as part of the environmental review, planning and construction of each individual project. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Some of the individual projects within the Walk & Roll Plan may be located within the 100 -year floodplain. The location of a particular project within this area will be part of the planning phase for each individual project review. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve: N/A. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff from new impervious surfaces may occur as a result of adoption and implementation of the recommendations in the Walk & Roll Plan. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: All projects shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual drainage requirements. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ✓ Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ✓ Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ✓ Shrubs ✓ Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The removal or alteration of vegetation will be addressed with the review of each individual project. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Measures to be taken to preserve or enhance vegetation will be part of the review of each individual project. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Tukwila is located within the Pacific Flyway migration route for birds. Additionally, the Green River and several streams within Tukwila are salmon spawning areas and migration routes. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: These measures will be reviewed and included at the project level. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric lighting will likely be included for sidewalks and trail areas. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The entire Walk & Roll Plan aims to reduce use of fossil fuels, by encouraging people to make more trips by walking or biking rather than by automobile. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Regular emergency services related to falls or bicycle accidents may be required with the addition of new sidewalks and trails. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Construct new pedestrian and bicycle facilities according to adopted standards, based on those designs that are the best for pedestrian and bicycle safety. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise from automobile traffic, railroad use, and air traffic may affect users of the projects contained in the Walk & Roll Plan. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. In the short term, noise from construction may occur with this proposal as individual projects are built. Trail users could be a source of long term noise impacts within new project areas. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: All construction projects associated with the proposal must meet City of Tukwila noise ordinance requirements. Compliance with applicable local, state and federal noise regulations will mitigate any potential adverse noise impacts associated with these projects. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current use of the site varies from residential to commercial to industrial to parks and open space. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not recently if at all. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Describe any structures on the site. N/A. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The project area includes the entire City of Tukwila. Individual projects, as they occur, will be reviewed for compliance with the underlying zoning district. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? N/A. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes — sensitive areas where there are steep slopes, wetlands, and watercourses have been identified as potential locations for new multi -use trails. Trails are a permitted use within sensitive areas in Tukwila, and may be approved only after administrative review and approval by the Director of the Department of Community Development. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: This plan has been reviewed for consistency with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, the CTR Plan, and the Urban Center and Shoreline Master plans which are currently under development. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? N/A Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest structures included as part of this plan will most likely be stairs and/or retaining walls constructed as part of pedestrian connections through steep slope areas. The height of these structures are not yet known, but will be reviewed at the project level as funding for these individual projects is identified within the CIP. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views will be obstructed with this project. The construction of new pedestrian and bicycle facilities may provide enhanced access to views. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N/A b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None are known. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are areas of parks, trails, and open space dispersed throughout the City of Tukwila. New trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes are meant to provide improved connectivity to existing trails and parks, as well as other major destinations such as schools and libraries, within the city. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No — the project would enhance existing recreational uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No — there are no known objects listed or proposed for National, State, or Local preservation registers. Some areas are mapped as significant cultural and historic sites for Native Americans, including areas along the Green/Duwamish River and Duwamish Riverbend Hill. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. As opportunities for construction of individual projects arise, each project site will be reviewed, including areas where there are indications that there may be historic, cultural, or archaeological artifacts. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: The City and its contractors shall follow all local, state, and federal laws related to work within areas where there is known to be potential for encountering archaeological and/or historic artifacts. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. All of Tukwila's public streets are included in the Walk & Roll Plan. Sidewalk construction is recommended on all public streets which do not currently have them, and regular maintenance is needed for existing sidewalks on Tukwila's public streets. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Tukwila is served by several different transit routes. Connections to transit shall be reviewed with each project. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes — the proposal will require construction of bike lanes and sidewalks as improvements to existing roads or streets. These improvements may either be public or private, but if private shall be granted as an easement for public use. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Yes — some of the projects will occur in the immediate vicinity of the Boeing Airfield, as well as near rail transportation. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. A minimal amount of vehicular trips may be generated by people who drive to parking areas to access new trails for recreational activies. Peak volumes would most likely occur in the evenings and on weekends. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Connections to transit were considered in the choice of which routes have been identified as "Recommended Bicycle -Friendly Routes". Connections to transit shall be considered during project review. The need for parking facilities, and opportunities for shared parking arrangements, shall be considered during the review of each individual project recommended in the Walk & Roll Plan. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Construction of new pedestrian and bicycle facilities may result in a minor increase for police protection and emergency medical care, as new access is provided to areas where the public would normally not have gone prior to the construction of new facilities. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Construct new pedestrian and bicycle facilities according to local, state, and federal standards for safety. Project review shall include a review of surrounding conditions to ensure that proper signage and other measures are installed to improve the safety of all users of the roadway and/or bicycle and pedestrian facility. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system other: N/A Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Lighting for some trail and sidewalk areas may be included, depending on the project. Installation of lighting would involve earthwork to underground power lines. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted://1 /fig (NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposals be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Construction of new trails and bike lanes will likely require the addition of new impervious surfaces in Tukwila, having the potential to increase runoff and discharge to water. Emissions to air may actually be reduced with construction of the projects in the Walk & Roll Plan, by encouraging more walking and bike trips that would otherwise be taken by automobile. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Projects will be designed and reviewed to ensure that proper drainage design is included, and measures are taken to minimize runoff from new impervious surfaces and discharge to water. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? If areas that are currently unimproved are needed for construction of the projets contained in the Walk & Roll Plan, some vegetation and minimal habitat may need to be removed or disturbed. Additionally, with new trail construction or roadway width increases to accommodate bike lanes near the Green/Duwamish River or city streams, there is the potential for an increase in runoff from trail areas to watercourses. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: When projects within the Walk & Roll Plan are constructed, they shall undergo environmental review. Through each individual project review process, necessary mitigation measures shall be identified, to include such measures as replanting in areas where it is necessary to remove or disturb existing vegetation. All projects shall meet or exceed the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Applicant Responses: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? N/A. The increase in non -motorized transportation routes will help conserve energy by offering making walking and biking more convenient, thereby encouraging people to make short trips by foot or on bike rather than driving. This will help conserve fossil fuels, and reduce emissions to the air. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: N/A. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitats, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Some of the proposed connections (via paved/unpaved multi -use trail, or concrete or asphalt sidewalks) are within areas designated as environmentally sensitive. Trail construction in these areas is permitted within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas section of the Tukwila Municipal Code (Chapter 18.45). Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Projects within sensitive areas shall be reviewed to ensure that they are located in areas that have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration. Additionally, the City of Tukwila and any consultants it hires to build the projects contained in the Walk & Roll Plan shall follow all local, state, and federal laws. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal would affect land use by increasing the number of pedestrian and bicycle connections within Tukwila. Easements and/or dedications will need to be obtained by the city for public use of private land, where sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes are constructed on private property. The Walk & Roll Plan has been reviewed for consistency with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and individual projects will be reviewed for consistency with applicable subarea plans including the urban center plan and the Shoreline Master Program.The projects in the Walk & Roll Plan located within the 200 foot shoreline management area will enhance public access to shoreline areas. Public access to "publicly owned areas of the shorelines" and increases in "recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline" are preferred uses of shoreline areas per RCW 90.58.020. Applicant Responses: Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Individual projects will be reviewed for consistency with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and applicable subarea plans. The City and its contractors shall follow all local, state, and federal laws to ensure that impacts to land use and shoreline areas are kept to a minimum, and proper mitigation measures are taken in cases where impacts are unavoidable. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities? The proposal will likely increase use of existing non -motorized transportation system. Additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the public right-of-way will require regular maintenance. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: New pedestrian and bicycle facilities will need to be accounted for within the maintenance budget for city facilities. These budget impacts should be considered in the project planning stages, to ensure that the new facilities can be maintained over time in a good condition. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with Local, State, or Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Agency Comments The proposal will not conflict with any Local, State, or Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In the planning and construction phases, individual projects will be reviewed as required for compliance with local, state, and federal laws. COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow project review to begin and vest the applicant's rights. However, the City may require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206-431-3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206-433-0179 (Department of Public Works). Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning APPLICATION MATERIALS: 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. 2. Completed ESA Screening Checklist, SEPA Environmental Checklist and drawings (5 copies). 3. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" by 11" or 11" by 17". 4. Application Fee $615. 5. Underlying permit application that triggers SEPA review. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: 6. Payment of a $365 notice board fee to FastSigns Tukwila or Provide a 4' x 4' public notice board on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). 7. Payment of a $110 mailing label fee to the City of Tukwila or Provide two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Note: Each unit in multiple -family buildings-- e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks --must be included (see Public Notice Mailing Label Handout). 8. If providing own labels King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: 9. Vicinity Map with site location. 10. Provide four (4) copies of any sensitive area studies such as wetland or geotechnical reports if needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). See the Geotechnical Report Guidelines and Sensitive Area Special Study Guidelines (online at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/dcd/dcdplan.htm) for additional information. 11. Any drawings needed to describe the proposal other than those submitted with the underlying permit. Maximum size 24" x 36". CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW INFORMATION The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires all agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a development before making decisions (43.21C RCW). The purpose of environmental review is to identify a proposal's significant adverse impacts, measures to minimize or avoid such impacts, and allow wide public review for a wide range of projects. REQUIREMENTS: SEPA review is required for any action associated with the following types of decisions: 1. Developing 10 or more dwelling units. 2. Developing agricultural structures over 10,000 s.f. 3. Developing office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings over 12,000 s.f. and 40 parking spaces (certain utility lines, personal wireless communication facilities, and normal maintenance/replacement activities are fully exempt). 4. Developing parking lots with over 40 spaces. 5. Landfills and excavations over 500 cubic yards. 6. Installation of impervious underground tanks with a capacity over 10,000 gallons. The accompanying application must be completed. If a question does not apply, "Does not apply" or "NA" may be entered. Complete answers to the checklist may avoid unnecessary delays later. City staff may also be able to help about governmental designations (e.g., zoning, shoreline, and landmark status). PROCEDURES: At the time you submit your application you must have all of the items listed on the attached "Complete Application Checklist" as well as the submittal for the underlying action (building permit, subdivision etc.). You may request a waiver from items on the checklist that are not applicable to your project. Please discuss this waiver request with City staff either at a pre -application meeting or at the time of application submittal. Within 28 days of receiving your application, City staff will determine if it is complete based on the attached checklist. If not complete City staff will mail you a letter outlining what additional information is needed. If you do not submit requested materials within 90 days from the City's request for additional information the City may cancel your application. Once the application is "complete," substantive review will begin and a "Notice of Application" must be posted/mailed to begin a public comment period. After completing the environmental analysis and considering public comments, the Director will issue a determination for the project. A Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) says that the project as proposed will not have probable, significant, negative environmental impacts. A mitigated DNS will be issued if the project must be modified to mitigate its negative impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared if the probable negative impacts are unavoidable. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: jko fk 11 P/ , LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Address: Phone: FAX: E-mail: Signature: Date: FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus TYPE P-SEPA Planner: ��G hite_ g& vi S File Number: p- (.4 _ OD Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: jko fk 11 P/ , LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Address: Phone: FAX: E-mail: Signature: Date: STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at (city), (state), on , 20 Print Name Address Phone Number Signature On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS on DAY OF 20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My Commission expires