On Sound Transit vote

Councilman Jake Fey introduced some last-minute changes to the term sheet after meeting Friday with representatives of the Dome District. The amendments helped win grudging support of some in the district, including Keith Stone…

Fey said he didn’t anticipate the issue when he was elected to the City Council, and he defended his support for the project from those who expected council members to “throw their bodies of front of it.”

I suspect that many of Tacoma’s current City Council members would move to Lakewood if they could. Some of the conditions, such as air rights, are good ideas. There are numerous good examples of development in which air rights were used to construct buildings over railroad tracks. Sometimes you don’t even know that there are any train tracks close by.

Also, Tacoma is taking a step in the right direction by authorizing mixed-use centers where the current pattern of development is suburban in nature. Now, the City should look at changing the development regulations that would allow buildings that will better fit a mixed use district. Raising the height limit and reducing the off-street parking requirements would be a good start.

The council and Sound Transit have voted to support a “grade separation” option. However, the degree the track impacts the Dome District remains to be seen.

Here is a letter recently sent by Planning Commission and Architect David Boe on the issue to the Tacoma City Council:

Mayor Baarsma, Deputy Mayor Talbert, and Members of the Tacoma City Council,

Further to my presenting to your Study Session on the Sounder Expansion plans through the Tacoma Dome District, I have had the chance to fully review the two reports presented by staff – the Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review and the AHBL Urban Design Assessment – and have the following comments for your consideration:

Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review: As noted in the study session, the Comprehensive Plan is supportive of commuter rail; however, it is the ‘how’ of the commuter rail project that is the issue to assure the project can be a catalyst for ongoing as well as future economic development. This distinction between the ‘If’ and ‘How’ of public infrastructure design in a urban setting is critical. Too many times public agencies get lulled into the ‘Field of Dreams’ concept of “build it and they will come” and commuter rail is no exception to this rule. So while getting the commuter rail service up and running will be a positive for Tacoma, Lakewood and Pierce County, if the infrastructure is not property designed with future economic development considerations for the Tacoma Dome District and through the rest of the City of Tacoma, then the net result could be negative.

AHBL Urban Design Assessment: This report starts to highlight some of these urban design concerns with the project. The fault I see with this report is that is does not accurately delineate the concerns about potential ‘attractive nuisance’ issues with the preliminary Sounder Project designs. One of the lacking elements I have noticed with a number of recent public projects in Tacoma is a perceived the lack of a ‘defensible space’ overlay to projects. Page 28 of the report starts to illuminate these concerns when it notes that safety and night time will be a concern along the train route when it recommends “maintenance and patrols of the A Street land wall” and “Employ lighting at a ‘panic button’ station” as mitigation elements – i.e. increased security and police patrols may be required due to the proposed construction. This should be a warning bell if new infrastructure will require increased staffing of security due to physical constructions not directly related to its use. What happens when there is no funding for increased patrols? Another issue for concern is the lack of ‘on the ground’ aspects of the proposed Sounder Project. Most of the design mitigation recommendations are ‘suburban’ in direction which could have a profound impact to the potential character of the Dome District. Many of the design recommendations would be totally appropriate for a Ruston Way setting – but for the Tacoma Dome District these design elements would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies for this portion of the City.

BOE Recommendation: In meeting with Sound Transit Staff, it has come to my attention that there has not been much detail design completed for either the ‘at-grade’ or ‘separated-grade’ option due to uncertainties related to the route. Most of the design work that has been completed has been at 400 feet in the air – not down at street level. Given this situation, I strongly recommend that the City Council approve the route for the Sounder Train but defer the Pacific Avenue crossing option to a later date once more design, construction and cost analysis can be generated for review. I personally have serious concerns about the significant lowering of Pacific Avenue – from an urban design, project cost, and construction disruption aspect – and firmly believe that the consequences of the design must be identified prior to the City Council voting on the crossing option. Has the cost been calculated on what the different route options will have on existing businesses?

I am unfortunately unable to present these thoughts to you during the Public Comment portion of the City Council Meeting tonight (alas Revels rehearsal) – and thus I am sending you these comments this morning. If you have any questions on the above, please do not hesitate to give me a jingle at 383-7762. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

David Boe