Burke-Gilman Missing Link Economics Discipline Report Sort Numbers 2' g? a .g g3 0 Review Comment Author Designer Name Designer Response (or Disposition Explanation) ?3 Reviewer Name 3 (:51 5 5 1 Jill Macik General Paragraph formatting throughout the report needs to be ?xed. 2 Jill Macik General Please make the numbering of the ?gures and tables consistent with the other DRs. 3 GENERAL: The methodology chapter should be written in past tense, as it describes what work was already completed prior to writing the Mazzola 2-1 1 Economics discipline report 4 Art Brochet 2-1 7 substitute open parenthesis for ""will be" - complement with close paren at sentence end on line 8. 5 Art Brochet 2-1 12 Please characterize "data" 6 "Data collected through outreach When was this done? And to what extent? Are people?s perceptions of effects, concerns, and bene?ts relevant to this study, which attempts to quantify economic impacts? I don't recall any further discussion of people's perceptions in Mazzola 2?1 12 the rest of the document. 7 Suggest revising this bullet to say "Field observation to observe the four build alternative routes and the no build Mazzola 2-1 14 scenario 8 Art Brochet 2?1 14 Not possible to observe the four build alternatives as yet. "Imagine?" - please reword. 9 Mazzola 2-1 16 Please explain "treatment effects" 10 Wlnle 0.5 mlles feels reasonable as a boundary, It seems inappropriate to base this on a report that clalms 0.5 mlles IS the Impact of an effect of a light rail line. Light rail line impact areas are generally walksheds, whereas a bike functionally extends this distance. In addition, this seems to ignore the value of network effects outside of the study area. By having a safe and convenient bike network through Ballard there Jonathan Williams 2-1 20 are likely bene?ts conferred to areas west and east along the trail. Perhaps at least acknowledge these in text? 11 Footnote: these references seem to be related to larger projects- light rail and "large redevelopment initiatives." Are impacts from these Jill Macik 2?1 20 projects comparable to a bike trail? 12 Mazzola 2-1 21 Should be . . within 0.5 mil of the BGT Missing Link alternative routes as the primary affected 13 Mazzola 2-1 24 Please explain what a "natural experimen is 14 Jill Macik 2-1 24 What is a "natural experiment?" 15 Art Brochet 2-1 26-28 Last sentence is awkward at best; and may be construed badly. 16 Mazzola 2-1 27 Should be .. City of Seattle and King County apply to 17 Art Brochet 2-2 6 remove comma after "addition" 18 Jill Macik 2-2 6 Delete comma after "In addition" 19 Mazzola 2-2 8 Please give an example or two of "neighborhood ?xed effects" 20 Mazzola 2-2 9 Please explain what is meant by "varying explanatory variables? 2 1 Models the same as "an economic impact framewor in line 1? Is this a model to predict changes in land value, rents and servicing costs Art Brochet 2-2 9-12 based upon the different alternatives? How many alternative models? Why wasn't one - sufficiently robust - model suf?cient? 22 Jill Macik 2-2 17 Might be helpful to explain what a regression analysis is. 23 GENERAL: (occurs on line 20 and 38 on page 2-2, but other places throughout the document) Please use Missing Link" or "Missing Mazzola 2-2 20 Link" when talking about the project. Can use when talking about the existing trail in general (per Style Guide) 24 Art Brochet 2-2 30-34 This is really vague - the title implies more than is covered and nothing is indicated how this relates to the models or anything else. 25 This is a good point, that mitigation proposed for transportation and land use were considered. However, I suggest saying more here about them than they were just "discussed." Please strengthen this thought by explaining how they were considered in developing the proposed Mazzola 2?2 32 mitigation for economic impacts, such as the need for proposed measures to be consistent 26 Jill Macik 2?2 32-34 Only mitigation is discussed here, no avoidance or minimization. 27 Art Brochet 2-3 1-4 Are we prepared to disclose these quantitative and qualitative assessments? 28 . Mazzola 3-1 2 GENERAL: practically all the paragraphs from this point forward are formatted incorrectly (as hanging instead of block)--please fix 29 Mazzola Fig. 3?1 3-1 9 The boundary description here doesn't match the actual alternative boundaries or what is shown in ?gure 3-1 30 Theresa Barreras Fig. 3-1 3-2 The map of alternatives is not clear. It is dif?cult to see where the Shilshole and Leary routes begin on the western edge. 31 Prepare for assertions that adversely affecting the marine businesses on the north side may precipitate a domino effect extending to the south Art Brochet 3?1 21-25 side (and beyond!). 32 It might be useful to group residential uses and business/industrial/commercial uses into two distinct groups and compare them overall. Is Theresa Barreras 3-3 the dominant use residential or commercial overall and within sections? It seems like the analysis should look at these separately. 33 Mazzola 3-3 2 This says the study area includes 10 primary types of land use but only 9 are listed 34 Mazzola 3-3 4 "included" should be "including" Sort Numbers Review Comment Author Designer Name Designer Response (or Disposition Explanation) Drawing Report or Spec. Section age Reviewer Name 35 Mazzola 3?3 7 Please delete this paragraph as it belongs in the methodology section 36 Mazzola Fig. 3-2 3-4 This ?gure looks really fuzzy-can a crisper ?gure be produced? Perhaps get rid of the underlying satellite image? 37 Mazzola Fig. 3-2-1 3?5 2 Please follow the naming convention of other reports and just name this Fig 3-3 38 Mazzola Fig. 3-2-1 3-6 2 This should be named Fig 3-4 39 This lists government and institutional uses" as one of the top four highest valued land uses-shouldn't it be mixed use? And seems Mazzola 3-6 10 too low?please double check that value 40 This states the Swedish Medical Center as worth over this doesn't seem to be re?ected in the $2.7 3M value given to government and 2 Mazzola 3-6 16 institutional land uses on line 10 (please see previous comment) 41 Mazzola 3-6 17 Suggest putting top 10 property value percentages in a graphic instead of listing them in the narrative 3 42 Please rename figure as 3-5; this graphic shows more than the top 10 valuable parcels-please ?x to show just the top 10 properties and 3 Mazzola Fig, 3?2?3 3-7 2 suggest removing the aerial background and labelling each of the top 10 properties NUJUJUJUJ 43 Theresa Barreras Fig. 3-2-3 What is this map called "Most ValuableBusiness" when it includes single family, etc. It seems like it should be Most Valuable Parcels 44 Art Brochet 3-7 2 Caption is weak; what constitutes most valuable? Top 10%? Top 30? 45 Art Brochet 3-9 5?6 Is mean weighted by square footage? How do vacancy rates get factored in? 46 Mazzola Fig. 3?3-1 3-9 8 Please rename ?gure; please add data points for and axis 2 47 David Goldberg Fig, 33?1 3?9 Figure 3-3-1 missing data increments 011 axis 43 Fig. 3-3-1 3? Theresa Barreras 3?2 Charts don't have and coordinate values 49 Jonathan Williams 3-9 8 Figure lacks axis units 1 50 Art Brochet 3-9 8 Caption should say Mean Rental Price 51 Mazzola Fig. 3-3-2 3-10 1 Please rename ?gure; please add data points for and axis (suggest using two digits for year, as it looks crowded now) 2 52 David Goldberg Fig. 3-3-2 3?10 Figure 3-3-2 missing data increments on axis 53 Jonathan Williams 3-10 1 Figure lacks axis units 1 54 Art Brochet 3-10 5-10 Move this to page 5?9 55 Theresa Barreras 3-10 5-16 Industrial rents are lower in general - it is a function of the land use. Seattle maintains industrial zoning intentionally to preserve this sector. 56 Mazzola 3-10 10 an average of 4.4% per year since 2001] 3 57 Are there any conclusions drawn from this data? It may be misleading to report a decrease in manufacturing jobs without looking into the Theresa Barreras 3-11 possible causes. 58 Mazzola 3-11 2 Suggest adding a sentence about why using density of jobs per acre is useful vs. just using total numbers of jobs 3 59 Art Brochet 3-11 3 6 It would be nice to have labeled vertical scales on right side of graphs as well as left. 60 Change "may predominantly be selling products" to "may predominantly sell products" and change "may predominantly be buying products" Jill Macik 3-12 13-14 to "may predominantly buy products" 61 Jill Macik 3-12 15 Revise to "The largest valued industries by retail sales over this time period are the retail industry and services Mazzola Table 4?5 3-12 20 Rename table (should it be Suggest adding a row with the average taxable retail sales over the time period for each industry 63 Art Brochet 3-12 De?nitely put Table 4-5 data into graph forms - both raw and by of activity in area. 64 Jill Macik 4?1 5 Capitalize the "link" in Missing Link 65 Please remove the last two sentences in this paragraph beginning with "However, all scenario as this information belongs in the 3 Mazzola 4?1 9 Methodology 66 Mazzola 4?1 15 Please remove the next two paragraphs (lines 15 through 27) as this information all belongs in the Methodology 3 67 This refers to the study area for the transportation discipline report?-does this mean that the Economics report is using another study area as 1 Mazzola 4?1 16 well as the one in Fig 3-1? This needs to be made clear one way or the other. 68 Jill Macik 4-1 16 Change "were" to "was" I did not review the Transportation Discipline Report, but does it provide a basis for 0.6% annual growth of traf?c volumes. What is the basis for this number? The 2014 SDOT Traf?c Report shows a steady, but variable, decline of average daily traf?c in Seattle from 2004 to 2013 reduction). Seattle 2035 predicts lower VMT per Jonathan Williams 4-1 24 capita and lower auto mode share in the ?lture. I have several questions and concerns about this methodology: ?rst and foremost should we be considering a monetary impact to delays at intersections, let alone driveways-this goes way beyond anything we do for other projects and is beyond the requirements of SEPA. Is this an acceptable methodology-are there examples of this methodology being used for other projects? The delays cited in the Transportation DR Mazzola 4-1 27 are for peak hour only-yet this seems to assess the daily count of cars-was this factored into the analysis? 71 Jill Macik 4-1 Footnote Do you have a citation for this "standard assumption?" Mazzola Theresa Barreras Art Brochet Theresa Barreras Jill Macik Ron Scharf Mazzola Jill Macik Goldberg Barreras Macik Scharf Scharf Macik Goldberg Barreras Brochet Reviewer Name Table 4-1 Table 4-1 Table 4-1 Table 4?2-2 Table 4-2-2 Table 4-2?2 Table 4-2-2 Sort Numbers Review Comment Author Designer Name The peak hour delay costs don't seem to correspond with the No Action delays as listed in Table 5-1 of the Transportation DR. There are a few intersections that have no additional delays under the No Action alternative yet they have costs associated with them here. Driveways should be taken out of this table there any changes to these intersections planned that would impact this estimate? Why not a total here? a zones, parking will be lost. What about safety concerns for industrial businesses and/or the city and the cost of increased accidents near freight corridors? I don't see any analysis for this. Should "short run" be ?short term?" way too some may may experience decreased operational characteristics", or something similar? delete the terms "winners" and "losers" Do we really want to call people winners and losersresult of other bike trails in the region? cost are you an to owners capitalized value is not as relevant as speci?c changes affecting their business model? should "long run costs" be changed to "medium term impacts"? The introduction to this chapter gave the time frame ?om short to suggest revising to describe the metiwds?used?te-estimate?the construction and operational igure 4-2 should be Figure 3-2 some may . constantly, without causing "material damage" and I would say that the list of impacts in this paragraph (temporary limited access, detours, etc.) wouldn't cause "material damage" are not or on is selected? How long would it take and how long would access be blocked? two paragraphs (lines 33-43) would fit better under Methodology "long-run" to long-term, or just drop the descriptor entirely. our land use categories are listed here. However, line 20 011 page 4-3 suggests seven land use categories are being evaluated. Then the goes on to discuss impacts to nine different land use categories. Please clarify how transaction data from the four categories was used evaluate impacts to the nine different land use categories, and 110w that is consistent with the seven categories listed on line 20. first three paragraphs (lines 1-18) would fit better in the Methodology the "to" just before "for the to "understand". ay any or to support presence of a bike trail? If not, please delete this sentence hould "long-term" be "mid-term?? rename to two - use one area concerns uses within a half-mile. This seems inconsistent or at least unnecessary information. the numbers refer to numbers of parcels. - acres a measure or a measure, use near so uses, them. as of Parcels (by Land Use) able 2 should be Table 1 there any other examples or studies from the local region? to "are likely t_o outweigh" "sighted" be "cited?" pro very connect to more and scenic areas, namely Golden Gardens and Lake Union comma after "included" Designer Response (or Disposition Explanation) Sort Numbers Review Comment Author Designer Name Designer Response (or Disposition Explanation) Item No. Drawing Report or Spec. Section Line Reviewer Name 107 a signi?cant increase in trespassing or significantly diminished privacy." The trail would not be constructed in areas that are Mazzola 4-6 13 not already established transportation corridors?~ca11 we say "noticeable increase in trespassing or diminished privacy"? 2 108 Jill Macik 4-6 13-14 Do we want to refer to these impacts as signi?cant here? 109 Mazzola 4-6 14 Please delete the sentence about dog waste-it seems unnecessary here and not clear 110w that relates to economic impacts 3 110 Mazzola 4-6 16 Please correct to say "Table 2 in Appendix 2 111 Mazzola 4-6 38 Please change "Damages" to "Impacts" 3 112 Jill Macik 4-6 39?40 Are multi-family units more secure than single-family homes? Is there a reference you can provide for this? 113 Mazzola 4-6 42 Please correct to say "Table 3 in Appendix 2 114 Are the urban trails used for comparisons ones that affected the amount of parking that is, did they remove parking ?om in front of affected David Goldberg 4-7 6 commercial businesses. 115 Mazzola 4?7 22 Please change "Damages" to "impacts" 3 116 Mazzola 4-7 25 Please change "pedestrian and bike access" to "pedestrian and bike travel" 3 117 businesses may lose access to existing loading and unloading Is this a certainty, completely losing access rather than Mazzola 4?7 26 having access recon?gured? If not, then please remove this sentence 2 118 Jonathan Williams 4-7 26 Do proposed trail alignments really preclude access to loading docks on private property? 2 119 "conduct loadlng and unloadlng from the pubhc r1ght-of-way" - Suggest deletmg sentence?many bus1nesses currently conduct loadmg and unloading activities from the right-of-way now, and it's not necessarily something that businesses have permission to do now or that they would be permitted to do in the future-we need to clarify what impacts to loading there will be, which may require more internal Mazzola 4-7 27 2 120 Don't a number of these businesses already use public ROW for business purposes, without compensating the city in any way? Is that going Jill Macik 4-7 27-28 to be discussed at all? 121 Ron Scharf 4?7 42 Add to "anticipate". 122 Jill Macik 4-7 42 Revise to "it is anticipated" 123 Ron Scharf 4-7 45 Add to "trail". 124 It would be beneficial to describe how you quantify and compare "access." How does one value the access contributed by 400 parking space, 6-wide sidewalk the carry x?people per hour generated by surrounding land uses, or a multi-use trail that is expected to carry a volume of xx David Goldberg 4-8 5 commuters, recreational cyclists and destination shoppers? 125 Mazzola 4-8 8 Please change "Damages" to ?Impacts" 3 126 Why is there a separate subsection for parking facilities? This seems a little odd as "parking facilities" have not been discussed previously as Mazzola 4-8 13 an important land use. Can parking facilities just be discussed in general along with commercial uses? 2 127 Mazzola 4-8 21 "form" should be "from" 2 128 Jill Macik 4-8 28-31 How do delay in travel and potential increases in accidents affect parking facilities, economically speaking? 129 Mazzola 4?8 34 Please correct to say "Table 4 in Appendix 2 130 Ron Scharf 4-8 34 Change "active" to "activities". 131 Jill Macik 4-8 34 Revise "whose active are? to "whose activities are" 132 Mazzola 4-8 34 "active" should be "activities" 2 133 This sentence is awkwardly worded. Suggest revising to "The principal bene?t of operation of the BGT Missing Link to industrial uses in the Jill Macik 4-9 1-2 Ballard area is improved access for employees." 134 We need to discuss the conclusions here and what makes these potential impacts rise to the level of signi?cance. Speaking about Shilshole in particular, there are already numerous cyclists using Shilshole as a transportation corridor. Businesses along the corridor park, store materials, and conduct business activities within the existing public right-of?way. Under SEPA there are no protections for the private bene?t Mazzola 4?9 4 of a public resource 1 135 Revise to "These additional operating challenges are likely to increase costs of production for these users, and these costs are unlikely to be Jill Macik 4-9 14-15 passed on to consumers." 136 Jill Macik 4-9 15 Why is it unlikely that these costs would be passed on to consumers? Please explain in the text. 137 Jill Macik 4?9 15-17 "Minimizing the number this should go in the discussion of Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation. 133 Please see comment for page 4-9, line 4. I believe these impacts are overstated as signi?cant. Are there any examples within the region of an Mazzola 4-9 18 industrial business having to relocate or going out of business as a result of an adjacent bike trail? 1 139 Jill Macik 4-9 19 What is the "study region?" Do you mean study area? Please remove all references to "study region" and replace with "study area" 140 Ron Scharf 4-9 20 One of the "directly" is probably meant to be "indirectly". 141 Jill Macik 4-9 20 Revise to "directly or mdirectly 142 David Goldberg 4-9 22 What is the point of using How is this relevant to considering the properties on which you assess impacts? 143 . . and in extreme cases, result in some industrial users going out of business." This seems to me to be a subjective worst-case opinion. Ron Scharf 4-9 27 Can we delete it, and end the sentence with profitability." Sort Numbers :3 2 a; 4, ?33 a Review Comment Author Designer Name Designer Response (or Disposition Explanation) r3 Reviewer Name 3 3 t; .E U) 94 D-r t?l 144 Mazzola Fig. 4-2-2-7 4-10 0 Please rename ?gure to match other figures (Figure 145 Jill Macik Fig. 4-2-2-7 15th Ave is labeled twice at its intersection with NW Leary Way 146 Jill Macik Fig. 4?2?2?7 Revise "Burke Gilman Trail" to "Burke-Gilman Trail" 147 4-2-2-7 I'm not sure what source you are using but a cursory review of tax assessments suggests this map is grossly incorrect. David Goldberg Fig. 4-2-2?7 4-10 12503 9009 148 Art Brochet 4-10 Parcel boundaries should have darker outline - also consider presenting splits by $/acre rather than total parcel value. 149 Ron Scharf 4?11 9 There is a double "that". 150 Mazzola 4-11 16 Please change "Damages" to "Impacts" 151 Jonathan Williams 4-11 17 Increase in bike/ped volumes near Swedish causing problems for emergency vehicles seems like a bit of a reach. 152 discuss10n doesn't seem to ht 111 th1s report. Wouldn't the impacts to emergency vehicles just be a function of overall Impacts to traf?c operations? Bikes and peds (just like all other traffic) would have to yield to emergency vehicles if the vehicle had to cross the trail. This does not seem to be an economic (and if this section is left in, please make sure it is consistent with any discussion of emergency Mazzola 4-11 17 vehicles in the transportation DR) 153 Is this consistent with the Transportation Does it mention impacts to operation of emergency vehicles? How is this an economic Jill Macik 4-1 1 17-18 impact? 154 Jill Macik 4-11 24-34 Why is this section separate ?om the section discussing Parking Facilities? 155 Parking supply analysis needs work. The study area contains signi?cant residential areas for which parking utilization rates are significantly different economic importance than commercial, mixed use or industrial areas. Day time utilizations matters for 9-5 business, but not for restaurants and bars. The "spatially acute shortages" are concentrated on commercial streets and therefore you should consider whether your averaging the loss over the study area is more relevant than considering spatially acute shortages. A better area could be established using David Goldberg 4-11 25 standards of how far a person will walk to a parking space when visiting a business. 156 I don't believe the Parking Report study area or "region" matches the study area of the economic impact report. Clarification would be Jonathan Williams 4?11 26 helpful for the reader. 157 Jonathan Williams 4-11 27 Change the word "non-paid" to "industrial" 158 Please clarify that although SDOT does not have target utilization rates for residential and non-paid areas, there is a target utilization rate for Jill Macik 4-11 27-28 commercial and mixed?use areas. The way this is currently written, it is not clear that the 70-85% is an SDOT standard. 159 Mazzola 4-11 33 Please delete the last sentence, beginning with "Signi?cant disruption would 160 Theresa Barreras 4?12 1-4 See comment 99. Impacts should be weighted based on land use within each alternative. 161 Jill Macik 4?12 9 Replace "witness" with "experience" 162 Mazzola 4-12 17 Suggest just saying "operations" instead of "significant operations" 163 Mazzola 4?12 25 Should "Ballard Marina" be "Ballard Mill Marina"? 164 GENERAL COMMENT: For this table, and Similar tables throughout the document: what 1s the rat1onale for 1nclud1ng just these businesses? It seems very subjective to only include this subset of businesses and contains a very subjective ranking of likelihood to be impacted. What is all considered in ranking the likelihood? Volumes of traf?c in and out of the properties and number of deliveries? Times of day that driveways and loading docks are used? The nature of the traffic or deliveries? Ideally these tables would be removed from the Mazzola Table 4-3-2 4-13 1 analysis as too subjective; however, I have some speci?c comments on them below. 165 Table 4-3-2 is a drive-in dock one accessed directly off street? Does this capture the difference between parcels where there conduct loading David Goldberg Table 4-3-2 4-13 and operations off-street verses the smaller parcels that require on street activities? 166 Please rename table to match other tables (Table For Market Street Self Storage--the Shilshole South route would be 011 the south side of this property, and would not cross any loading docks--please remove this business from the table-~also, the Additional notes mentions the proximity of the property to all four "lines" (which should be alternatives) but this table should only be concerned with the Shilshole South alternative, correct? Tombo Construction - same issue--the trail would be on NW 54th and would not cross any driveways for Tombo Mazzola Table 4-3-2 4-13 1 Construction. Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel - why is there "No Data" for drive-in docks? 167 How can Market St Self Storage get an impact of 3? Shilshole South is behind the building on 54th St, where there are no doors and no Ron Scharf Table 4-3-2 4-13 public access. 168 Ron Scharf Table 4-3-2 4-13 1132 NW 45th St is on the north side of the street. Trail is on the south side. How can this property warrant a 3? 169 1115 NW 46th St. Trail is on south side of 45th. Does Radtke warrant a 2 because the new westbound roadway north of the tracks displaces R011 Scharf Table 4-3-2 4-13 parking? 170 There are a few businesses conspicuous by their absence in the table; Northern Lights on 45th, AMC, CSR Marine, Hatton Marine, Salmon Ron Scharf Table 4-3-2 4?13 Bay Cafe? and Covich-Williams, all on Shilshole. Sort Numbers Review Comment Author /Designer Name Designer Response (or Disposition Explanation) Reviewer Name 171 What is the source for the quotation under Additional Notes for Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel? Either provide a reference or remove the Jill Macik Table 4-3 -2 quotation marks. 172 Under Additional Notes for Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel, "and delivery-oriented" is awkward. Perhaps revise to "Salmon Bay is a delivery? ill Macik Table 4-3-2 oriented business and is the Northwest's. .. 173 Jill Macik Table 4-3-2 "High level of impact due to proximity of all four lilies" - what does this mean? 174 Does the transportation analysis take ?eight traffic into account? Should the same $20 per hour estimates apply? It seems like the $20 estimate is trying to monetize the cost of waiting in traf?c in general, but this ultimate cost seems different for a business rather than a Theresa Barreras 4-14 commuter or someone running errands. 1 have a lot or concern and questlons over how we're quantifying the cost or delays. 1 don't 1t's approprlate to monetlze the delay, especially at private driveways - is there another way to discuss the potential impacts of traffic congestion without trying to assign a dollar amount, perhaps at a higher level in terms of whether we think the trail would put any of these businesses out of business (which is really the level of analysis that we should be conducting)? Having said that, I'd like to understand the methodology and the calculations that went into this analysis-what traffic volumes were used, over what period of time, etc. And are all intersections treated the same in terms of Mazzola 4?14 1 importance? If so, is that appropriate? 1 Please rename table to match other tables (Table as mentloned 1n my comment for page 4-14 hire 1, have questlons and concerns over this analysis. However, if we're keeping this table please list the difference in the cost of delay between the 2040 No Build and the Shilshole South Alternative, rather than the total cost under the Shilshole South A1ternative?-this will help the reader understand the Mazzola Table 4-3-3 4-14 7 difference in impact that the Shilshole South Alternative would have compared to the No Build 1 177 Jill Macik Table 4?3-3 Is the Shilshole South Delay also for PM Peak? Please clarify. 178 Jonathan Williams 4-14 7 For this and the following tables, why not have a total row at the bottom to summarize? 3 179 Mazzola 4-15 2 Instead of "damages" please use "delay" or "impacts" 2 180 Parag. or Drawing Line Report or Spec. Section Page 175 176 Again, I don't think we should be discussing this at all, butI do have some questions: is the $1.4 ?gure an aggregated sum for the 10 driveways listed in Table 4-3-3? What are the discount and capitalization rates based on? And what do you mean by "the capitalization costs exceed more than 1% of the appraised parcel value"? Should that be the cost of delay is more than 1% of the appraised value? And when you say "appraised parcel value" is that the appraised value of all 10 properties? Did you break out the properties to evaluate the cost of delay at Mazzola 4-15 7 each driveway against the appraised value for that respective property? 1 181 Jill Macik 4?15 9?10 Revise to "but these measures are unlikely to 132 Is this de?nition of significance some kind of standard, or explained elsewhere in the report? This is the first mention I have seen and it has Jill Macik 4-15 12-13 110 information backing it up or explaining it. 133 As Shilshole is the far edge of the parking study area, it is not likely that street parking in other areas (for example) Leary is a realistic 3 Jonathan Williams 4-15 16 substitute. 184 Mazzola 4-15 17 GENERAL: instead of using "region" or "study region" it should be "study area" Please correct this throughout the document 2 185 Jill Macik 4-15 28 Revise "are not expected" to "is not expected" 186 David Goldberg 4-15 28 Check with Christopher Williams about parking utilization rates on adjacent streets. 187 For Sections 4.4 Shilshole North Alternative, Section 4.5 Ballard Avenue Alternative, and Section 4.6 Leary Alternative please see my Mazzola 4-15 31 comments above for Chapter 4 so far. 1 "Single family homes are the only land use that show a impact." us1ng land values to measure mipacts from operating the trail might not work for all land use types. Industrial lands may not appreciate in value because of the trail, but they appreciate differently than other land use types. They are unique. Obviously they are the only type showing a negative impact and they are one of the Theresa Barreras 4-15 38 most prevalent land uses. It seems like the analysis is ?awed for this reason. 189 Jill Macik 4-16 11 Delete comma after "operations" 190 Jill Macik 4-16 15 Replace "impinged" with "affected" or say "impinged on" 191 Jill Macik 4-16 21-22 Revise to "These results 192 Why are Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel and Ballard Industrial given a 5 and 4 when operations at their driveways get better under the Mazzola Table 4-4-2 4-17 1 Shilshole North Alternative? (at least for the driveways on the south side of Shilshole, for Salmon Bay 2 193 Jill Macik Table 4-4?2 "High level of impact due to proximity of all four lines" - what does this mean? 194 What is the source for the quotation under Additional Notes for Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel? Either provide a reference or remove the Jill Macik Table 4-4-2 quotation marks. 195 Under Additional Notes for Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel, "and delivery?oriented" is awkward. Perhaps revise to "Salmon Bay is a delivery- ill Macik Table 4?4-2 oriented business and is the 196 Jill Macik Table 4?4-3 Is the Shilshole North Delay also for PM Peak? Please clarify. 197 Jill Macik 4- 19 5 Clarify in the text that this is in comparison to the No Build Alternative. 198 Jonathan Williams 4-19 10 Should add the word "study," or similar in front of "region" 2 199 Jill Macik 4-19 18?19 Revise to "Reduced parking from the Shilshole North Alternative are_is not 200 Revise to "These results suggest that theexpeeted?impaet?etlthe operation of the Ballard Alternative is expected to result in impacts that are Jill Macik 4-19 33 negligible to positive." 201 Jill Macik 4-20 3 Replace "witness" with "experience" 188 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 Reviewer Name Ron Scharf Jill Macik Jill Macik Jill Macik David Goldberg Jill Macik Jonathan Williams Macik Macik Macik ill Macik Macik Macik Macik Macik ill Macik Macik Macik Macik ill Macik Goldberg 1a Macik Scharf ill Macik Macik Macik onathan Williams Macik Macik Macik Macik Barreras Barreras Sort Numbers Review Comment Author Designer Name Table 4-5-2 is Ballard Industrial given a 4 when operations at their driveway get better under the Ballard Ave alternative? ve - as a . mean delivery trucks will use both the Ballard Ave side and the Shilshole Ave side? If they use only one side of the building, then the opposite Table 4-5-2 side should be rated lower than 4? Table 4-5-3 the Delay for Ballard Avenue 2040 Peak Please clarify. "intersections" Please relate impacts to economics. . gov . core, on street is over target rate. This is restaurant time. Delete comma after "properties" there a reason why increasing off-street parking supply is not mentioned under previous parking damage sections for other alternatives? Measures to offset impacts belong in Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation section. Also, controlling supply of off-street parking doesn't seem like a feasible option to offset impacts. Are you talking about business owners offering parking, or use uggest to property values" etc. Replace "witness" with "experience" Replace "impinged" with "affected" or say "impinged upon" to read either "the expected economic is displayed." or "the expected economic impacts displayed." Table 4?6?3 the delay for Leary 2040 Peak Please clarify. "witness" with "experience" "born" with "borne" "potential" to "potentially" "if greater traf?c levels tend to reduce automobile - well, do they? Perhaps replace "tend to" with "lead to "travels" with "travelers" to "deter some automobile travelers from the region." to -street like a feasible option to offset impacts. Are you talking about business owners offering parking, or SDOT can?t control off- parking supply. comment 0 suggests a pro It seems that this comment doesn't belong in the analysis if there is no indication that additional principle use off-street parking will built. ust a note to sure are terms 0 measures reports se and Transportation) "nevertheless" the ?rst "to" in the sentence. to property to bicycle, and pedestrian traffic." "posted" to "post" "adding in" to "add in" - is this feasible? in short term parking how and where? Off-street? Convert other areas of on-street parking to short term? "in each build alternative" to "ft; each build alternative." selection of an alternative is not mitigation. don't believe we'd put stop signs or control arms to control the trail at driveway intersections please revise discussion of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation needs to be more robust. to more on suggest strong rents data? Discuss development projects in the area? would be nice to see a summary of the impacts found for each alignment. we to reports e. g. etc.) preserves as a . uses that is not a competitive pressure because we aren't going to rezone the industrial properties in most cases. Thus, you can't state that pressure is going to eventually reduce industrial uses and therefore minimize the ultimate impact on those businesses. I don't it?s fair to bring in the decrease in manufacturing jobs as an explanation for this either. Other changes to manufacturing may be the of a decrease in jobs. Designer Response (or Disposition Explanation) Reviewer Name Theresa Barreras Jill Macik Jill Macik Jill Macik Mazzola Ron Scharf Sort Numbers Appendix Review Comment mean are see any statement. Replace comma after "homes" with a semicolon These seems like an abrupt way to begin your explanation. Revised to in Appendix were were specifically for this analysis or are they standard coef?cients used in economic modelling for the area? Editorial comment only: This sentence just may be the most significant statement in the entire Author Designer Name Designer Response (or Disposition Explanation)