Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

Not much to report for the last city council meeting of the year, but there is an interesting item on the land use committee, which preceded the council meeting.

"Neighborhood Connections" are walks/bikeways that connect some of our cul-de-sac neighborhoods around town. While in some neighborhoods in Olympia driving from point A to point B can take you in a long, circle route, walking may be easier with the aid of these city allowed and private property owner built paths.

The land use committee "provided direction" to city staff last Monday to pursue more neighborhood connection projects.

Read more...

From the staff reports:

The issue “Barriers to Walkability” arose from the Council’s 2006 retreat. The Land Use and Environment Committee (LUEC) discussed this topic at the August 21, 2006, meeting, and determined this item is about Neighborhood Connections. The minutes from the August LUEC discussion are Attachment 1.

Neighborhood Connections are short bicycle and pedestrian pathways that connect streets to parks, schools, and other streets where no motor vehicle connection exists. Neighborhood Connections enhance mobility for bicycle and pedestrians by shortening trip lengths and providing more comfortable off-street
route alternatives.

An inventory of formal and informal neighborhood connections was completed in 2001. Public Works and Community Planning and Development staff refer to this inventory, but to date the City has not developed formal connections. Some connections have been built by private development. Attachment 2 is a review of the connections built or planned by private development, and a review of the connections the City has pursued with neighborhood associations.

At the August LUEC meeting, members developed an interest statement for pursuing Neighborhood Connections:

• Formalize and improve existing neighborhood connections: address maintenance, liability and public process.
• Maximize connectivity in new developments
• Maintain connections that already exist.

The LUEC asked staff to come back with a proposal and how it fits with other Transportation Work Program items. Attachment 3 is a list of major work plan items for transportation planning in 2007.
ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS:

The options below outline a one-year work program for neighborhood connections.
Council direction is sought on:

1. The approach to neighborhood connections next year; and
2. The priority of the neighborhood connections project relative to other transportation planning work.

Option 1. Land Acquisition Strategy. Work with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to identify two to five properties of importance to create connections. Present Council with a funding proposal in 2007 for land acquisition. Approximately 5% of an FTE’s year.

Pros:
• Focuses on purchasing land to establish connections before opportunity is lost.
• One time project.

Cons:
• Existing connections are not formalized.
• Funding for purchasing land is not yet identified.

Option 2. Prioritized List and Maintenance Strategy. Work with BPAC to develop ranking system and final list. Work with Parks to develop a maintenance strategy and budget for the connections. In June 2007, present Council a prioritized list of connections to formalize, a maintenance strategy and a funding proposal. Approximately 8% of an FTE’s year.

Pros:
• Develop neighborhood connections based on a ranking methodology (as opposed to neighborhood interest and initiative).
• Formal ranked list is fair and defensible.
• Annual program will advance neighborhood connections over time.

Cons:
• Less involvement of neighborhood associations.
• Less responsive to neighborhoods with an interest and initiative.
• With less involvement of neighborhoods, there may be more direct City costs to formalize connections.
• Maintenance of connections is new City cost.
• New annual program in CFP will need funding.

Option 3. Neighborhood-Driven. Develop a map of existing informal neighborhood connections. Work with neighborhood associations to formalize connections (construct improvements, etc). Seek commitment from neighborhood associations to maintain connections. Approximately 8% of an FTE’s year.

Pros:
• Minimal City staff involvement in directly building or maintaining connections.
• Responds to neighborhood associations with interest and initiative.

Cons:
• Staff time needed for coordination with neighborhood associations.
• Relies on neighborhood associations’ interest to develop connections.
• Relies on neighborhood associations to maintain connections.
• Without a formal program, the City may not be aware of issues associated with some connections. The City may be liable if problems occur.
• ADA access cannot be assured with connections that are constructed and maintained by neighborhoods.

Option 4. Combination. LUEC develops an approach combining elements from above, including:
• Encourage neighborhoods to formalize connections;
• Formalize connections based on prioritized list;
• Purchase land to develop connections in future;
• City maintains connections; and
• Neighborhoods maintain connections

Some background on current Neighborhood Connections:

The following are the connections built or planned by private development. Some are easements, some are dedications.

• Evergreen Hills on Kaiser to Kaiser Road
• College Station to the County property to the west
• Grass Lake Village to Grass Lake Refuge to the north
• 16th Avenue to Fern Street
• Cyrene to 20th Avenue
• Cooper Crest to the east
• Bethel Park to 26th Avenue
• Briggs Village to Delta Lane
• Pifer Street to South Street (future street connection)
• Sections of the Woodland Trail from Henderson Blvd to Rowen/Hillside
• County plats on Dayton are to include connections to the Woodland Trail

The following are the connections the City has pursued with neighborhood associations:

• Jackson Avenue: At the neighborhood’s urging, in 2001, staff attempted to formalize a connection on Jackson Avenue on the westside. One block of the street grid was not an open street, and it was assumed the area between Cushing and Milroy was public right of way. Pedestrians and bicyclists used the area regularly. Once research was done, it was discovered the right-of-way was vacated by the City and some of the adjacent neighbors had no interest in dedicating property as public right of way.

• Woodard Avenue: for a number of years, the Northwest Neighborhood Association and the City pursued Woodard Avenue on the Westside. Private property purchase is needed to create a trail up this steep slope.

• Sleater Kinney to Chehalis Western Trail: As part of the Sleater Kinney roadway project, Council asked staff to pursue a connection between Sleater Kinney and the Chehalis Western Trail. Four locations were identified but none were pursued.

• Howard Avenue: The Northeast Neighborhood Association is working to formalize this connection which connects East Bay Drive to Reeves Middle School. The connection is on parks property and school property.