Issuu on Google+

Sumner Trail

Master Plan

Prepared by: JongejanŮ GerrardŮ McNeal (1996) City of Sumner Community Development Department for: The City of Sumner June 2008


List of Contributors City of Sumner Mayor David Enslow Sumner City Council Steve Allsop Curt Brown Cindi Hochstatter Ed Hannus Randy Hynek Matthew Richardson Leroy Goff, Deputy Mayor Trail Advisory Committee (1996) Andy Burns Gretchen Carter Krystene Kierman Scott Nelson Claudia Peters Sylvia Russel Richard Smith Ken Woolery Sumner Parks Board Larry Johns Barbara Skinner Paul Surek Jim Woolery Ken Woolery Sumner Staff John Doan, City Administrator Diane Supler, Deputy City Administrator William Shoemaker, Public Works Director Paul Rogerson, Community Development Director John Galle, Police Chief Mike Dahlem, City Engineer Lee Anderson, Parks and Facilities Manager Ryan Windish, Senior Planner, John Morgan, AutoCad/GIS Technician

Consultants (1996) Jongejan•Gerrard•McNeal Landscape Architects David McNeal Len Zickler Roger Dane Elizabeth Rivers Parametrix - Consulting Engineers Dan McReynolds


TABLE OF CONTENTS: I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page EX-1

INTRODUCTION A. Purpose & Scope of Work B. Relationship to Other Plans C. Citizen. Participation D. Goals E. Composite Site Analysis

I-1

F.

I-7

The Missing Link

TRAIL DESIGN A. Introduction B. Trail Design Standards C. Crossings & Bridge Standards D. Trailhead Opportunities E. Trail Furnishings F. Security/Safety Issues G. Planting

I-2 I-4 I-5 I-7

II-1 II-1 II-6 II-9 II-10 II-13 II-13

CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT A. Introduction B. Overall Master Plan C. South Reach D. Sumner Reach E. Golf Course Reach

III-1

IMPLEMENTATION A. Land Use Conversion Policy B. Phasing C. Cost Estimates

IV-1

MAINTENANCE A. Maintenance Strategies B. Operations and Maintenance Defined C. Guiding Principles for a Successful Program D. Trail Safety E. Operations and Maintenance Program F. O & M Costs and Revenue

III-1 III-3 III-5 III-8

IV-1 IV-4 V-1 V-1 V-2 V-3 V-4 V-5

ii


APPENDIX I.

SITE ANALYSIS A. Introduction B. Elements of the Natural Environment • Earth • Air • Water • Plants • Animals C. Elements of the Human Environment • Energy and Natural Resources • Environmental Health • Noise • Land and Shoreline Use • Aesthetics • Light and Glare • Recreation • Historic and Cultural Preservation • Transportation • Public Services • Utilities • Ownership • Regional Trail Connections

II.

WORKSHOP INFORMATION A. Workshop Summaries B. Workshop Agendas C. Sign-up Sheets

III.

CONCEPTUAL PARK & TRAILHEAD DESIGNS A. Regional Active Sports Complex B. Riverbend Park C. Girard Park/Mt. Circle Park D. Confluence Park

IV.

RELATED PLANS A. Pierce County Nonmotorized Transportation Plan B. King County Nonmotorized Transportation Plan

V.

REFERENCES

VI.

SEPA DOCUMENTATION

VII.

ADOPTING RESOLUTIONS

iii


List of Figures Page Number: EX-3 II-3 II-4 II-5 II-8 III-2 III-4 III-7 III-9

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9

Trail Master Plan Class I Trail Standards Bike Lane and Bike Route Standards Secondary Trail and Social Footpath Standards Bridge Crossing/Undercrossing Standards Trail Master Plan Trail Master Plan – Southern Reach Trail Master Plan – Sumner Reach Trail Master Plan – Golf Course Reach

Figure 10 Figure 11

“Mama Stortini’s” Bridge Aerial Railroad Spur Bridge Section

III-10 III-11

Figure 12

Trail Master Plan – Phase Implementation Map

IV-3

Figure 13

Cost Estimate Table

IV-10 Appendix

Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16

100 year Flood Plain Shoreline Management Master Program Existing Regional Trails

APP I-5 APP I-9 APP I-13

iv


Sumner Trail

Executive Summary


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Valley lands at the confluence of the White and Puyallup Rivers offer exceptional opportunities for the development of trails. The city of Sumner is developing a trail system for the benefit of both local and regional communities. The foresight of Sumner has spurred the creation of this trail plan prior to the rapid land use changes expected in the valley, taking advantage of the opportunity before it disappears. Seen on its own, the Sumner trail will offer great opportunities for local residents. River crossings will create a great variety of trail routes, accounting for the needs of both commuters and recreational users. A web of feeder routes consisting of sidewalks and bike lanes will allow residents to get to and from the trails easily. Primary trails and more direct routes are provided to move commuters efficiently along the trail system. Good connections to transit stops are also planned. Recreational users will have ample space and a variety of routes within the system. Much of the trail corridor runs along the shorelines of the Puyallup and White Rivers. Trail placement takes advantage of river protection buffers, which allow public access to riverfront lands while protecting sensitive riparian habitat. This setting provides exceptional scenery, and occasional water access to trail users. The valley bottom location also means that grades are typically gentle, allowing for completely accessible trail grades. On a broader scale, the Sumner Trail Master Plan forms a crucial link in the trail systems joining Puget Sound communities. Local residents will gain access to many miles of existing and proposed trails outside this plan with the completion of links to other regional trails. Major trails in other jurisdictions to the north and south will be linked by the trails envisioned in this Master Plan. Additional branches to smaller local trails to the east and west are also included. In the future people on the Interurban Trail or White River Trail to the north will be able to travel to Tacoma on the Puyallup River Trail or further south on the Foothills Trail when these plans are complete. Broader plans to link Thurston, Pierce, Kitsap and King Counties, and to create a cross-state trail, also rely on the successful completion of the trail links created by this plan in Sumner. Local residents and people from throughout the region will benefit from this proposal as it is constructed. Build-out of the completed system is anticipated within twenty years. A variety of public and private funding sources from local, County, State and Federal sources will be tapped for assistance in trail development. Changing land use patterns offer opportunities for land acquisition and trail construction over a period of years. The character of Sumner has been incorporated into the design of the trail. Trail furnishings will be chosen to match the character of various trail sections. Trailheads and associated facilities will be provided at regular intervals to allow users access to a wide variety of trail routes. Branch routes integrate existing parks, schools and civic facilities, and provide connections to anticipated commercial and residential development.

EX-1


These trails and bike routes have tremendous potential for public benefit, and should be supported by the community to ensure timely linkage with other trails.

EX-2


142ND AV E

HWY E

SUMNER AV

OLIVE AV SE

178TH AV E

162ND AV E

160TH AV E

PARKER RD E

VALLEY AV BOCK AV

CHERRY AV KINCAID AV ALDER AV

GRAHAM AV

PEASE

WOOD AV

AV FRY AR

PARKER RD E

154TH AVCT E

EAST VALLEY

SR167 HWY N SR167 HWY S AV DE N

166TH AV E

134TH AV E

E 170TH AV

NE 2 AV 9TH NE ST

ER IN T

146TH AVCT E

E

SR162 E

34TH ST SE

RIVERSIDE DR

27TH ST SE

25TH ST SE

21ST ST SE

166TH AV E

122ND AV E

127TH AV E

LI N

43RD ST SE

119TH AV E

119TH AV E

126TH AV E 28TH ST SE

$

83RD ST E

88TH ST E

10

E

E

24TH AV SE

0.5

81ST ST E

SR 4

86TH ST E

E

T AV

0.25 AV SE 23RD

Miles 1

ST

S 181

MASTER PLAN 20TH AV SE

182ND AV E

18TH ST SE

E

0

E

SE

SUMNER TRAIL

H 77T

89TH ST E

90TH ST E

SE

Water Access 23RD AV

#

86TH ST E 87TH ST E 87TH STCT E 88TH ST E

ST

! Trail Head F

SE

RD SE

Rest Room

F !

H

Schools

80TH ST E

PIONEER WY E

SHAW

Proposed Bike Route

78TH ST E

15TH AV SE

AV

TE VC HA 70TH ST E

74TH ST E

T 39

Sumner, Proposed Bike Lane

R

TH

67TH ST E

E

16TH A V

ION EE

T 175 64TH ST E

T AV

Sumner, Proposed Trail

80TH ST E

8 17

64TH ST E

75TH ST E



RE ED IDG ER LA K E H AV 176T

63RD STCT E 64TH ST E

72ND ST E

EP

Other Cities, Proposed Trail

E

62ND STCT E

k k

F !

50TH ST E

k

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E 65TH STCT E W 66TH ST E WY RAINIER ST 0H 1 4 SR WILLOW ST YE W H GARY ST 410 SR

Private Trail Section

49TH ST E

50TH ST E 51ST STCT E

60TH ST E

171S

Other Cities, Existing Trail

E

56TH ST E

Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass

k k

Sumner, Existing Bike Lane

R SD PP TA TH

ER E PION EER

AV E

SILVER ST

MAIN ST E

H 170T

ACADEMY ST VOIGT ST PARK ST

S DR

U SO

E PI O NE

Sumner, Future Trail

#

MAPLE ST

ER

Trails Status 12TH AV SE Sumner, Existing Trail

22ND AV SE

k

54TH STCT E

RIVERGROVE DR

7TH AV SE

kk

168TH AV E

INTER AV

k

k

E

E MAIN

LANGDON ST

k

R

F !

52ND ST E DAFFODIL STCT E

16TH ST

ZEHNDER ST

F !

F !

ELM ST E

ELM ST

MAIN ST

TD ES W

HUBBARD

F !

E

PUYALLUP ST

ST AIN WM ELIZABETH ST STATE ST  #HARRISON ST

DE

M 45TH ST E A AV

E

DG RI

E

O

S

P TAP

E

VIS TA DR E

E DR OD

Y AV

53RD STCT E

O EW

VAL LE

NTA

G ED

53RD STCT E MO

E

F !

R

P AP -T

Y HW

T WES

AV

E 51ST S T



163RD AVCT E

ND

RD

48TH ST E

k

S

NE UM

159TH AV E

L EL

45TH STCT E

AC

34TH ST E

40TH ST E

2 16

W LD

T

E ST

31ST ST E

CA

43RD STCT E

H 28T

ST E

34TH ST E

41ST ST E

HA VE

H AV

32ND ST E

35TH ST E

E PI O NE

29TH

ST E 24TH

VE TH A 169

32ND ST E

36TH ST E

k

24TH ST E

VE HA 6T 15

32ND ST E

TON R

F 24TH ST E !

29TH ST E

30TH ST E

HOUS

22ND ST E

185 T

ST E

92ND ST E 93RD ST E

96TH ST E

k

180T H AV 181 E ST AV E

136TH AV E

125TH AVCT E 126TH AVCT E

AV E 118T H

#

24TH ST E



E

27TH ST E 28TH ST E

20TH ST E

17T H

T 179

25TH ST E

LAKELAND HILLS WY

24TH ST E

k

MYERS RD E

16TH ST E

WEST VALLEY HWY

23RD ST E

LAKE TAPPS PKWY E

F# !

18TH ST E

21ST ST E

SE

7TH ST E 8TH ST E

175TH AV E

16TH ST E

ST

62ND ST SE

169TH AVCT E

14TH ST E

H 69T

140TH AV E

13TH STCT E

137TH AV E

THORNTON AV SW

9TH ST E

12TH ST E

k

F !

8THST E

STEWART RD

2ND ST E

PERRY AV SE

BUTTE AV SE

STEWART RD SW

164TH AVCT E

8TH ST E

EVER

120TH AV E

N

F !

E

# AV SE ISAAC Y SE EN W GRE

PN 1 LV D

 E AV S E HAN WY S NAT HILLS LAND LAKE

167 R VI TA B

F !

VALENTINE AV SE

123RD AV E

P SR R AM

119TH AV E

JO

ROY RD SW

Figure 1


Sumner Trail

I Introduction


I. A.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose & Scope of Work The Sumner Comprehensive Plan calls for the formation of a trail system to accommodate non-motorized commuter transportation and recreational uses. The Sumner/Pacific Trail Plan was originally adopted in September 1996 and this is the first major update of this plan. Major elements of the update include revising maps, trail alignments, cost estimates, shoreline and environmental goals and regulations, and updating coordination with regional trail system and maintenance policies. The update includes focusing the plan on the City of Sumner rather than a joint plan with the City of Pacific. Goals of the plan include creating links with regional trails to the north and south of Sumner, as well as linkages with residential areas, parks and open space, schools and civic facilities. The trail should be designed for as many user groups as possible, and for people of all ages and abilities. The trail's design must respect natural resources, and create opportunities for public appreciation of those natural areas, since much of the envisioned trail route lies within or near the natural riparian vegetation corridor along each side of the rivers. During the spring of 1995, through a grant from ISTEA, a consultant team (Jongejan•Gerrard•McNeal - Landscape Architects, with Parametrix - Consulting Engineers) was selected to prepare a master plan for the City of Sumner Commuter Trail. The design team was asked to define a design concept for all phases of the trail. The scope of work included: • • • •

Preparation of graphic and written inventory and analysis of existing conditions in the area of the proposed trail. Presentation of preliminary concepts with design standards and cost estimates. Refining a preferred alternative for preparation of a Master Plan Report including construction and acquisition cost estimates and phasing scenarios. Coordination with a Trail Advisory Committee, city staff, and members of the public throughout the project.

During the course of working with the Trails Advisory Committee, and as the trail route began to take shape, it became clear that trails through Pacific played a central role in connecting with trails to the north. Site visits to portions of the trail included trips to Pacific to establish routes for connection to the Jovita and Interurban trails. As the project progressed the cities of Sumner and Pacific entered into a partnership to develop a trail plan that will serve both cities. The project name was then modified to reflect the joint nature of the project, becoming the "Sumner/Pacific Trail". As mentioned above, the City

I-1


of Sumner and Pacific agreed as part of the 2008 update to have the trail plan be modified to be specific to the City of Sumner. As a result the current plan now is titled “Sumner Trail Plan.” B.

Relationship to Other Plans The trail routes and guidelines established in this plan are coordinated with other city planning documents, local and regional trail plans, and the Pierce and King County Nonmotorized Transportation Plans. The proposed Sumner Trail is planned to link four major regional trails: Foothills Trail, Puyallup River Trail, Interurban Trail, and White River Trail. The Foothills Trail from Buckley and Orting is planned to follow the former Burlington Northern Santa Fe spur right-of-way and 134th Ave. north, meeting with the Sumner Trail at "Anton's bridge" (now “Mama Stortini’s” bridge). From this bridge the Puyallup River Trail will run west along the south bank of the Puyallup River, eventually connecting to Tacoma. To the north, the Interurban trail from Seattle will be met by connections through the City of Pacific. To the northeast an extension of the Sumner Trail is planned to connect with the White River trail leading to Auburn and the Green River Trail. Additional links include connections to Lakeland Hills, to the Lake Tapps area, and to the Jovita Trail at Stewart Road (formerly “8th Street”). Plans for the Jovita Trail extensions will be refined further as these communities develop their trail plans, now at a conceptual stage. The Sumner Comprehensive Plan, Parks and Open Space Plan, and Shoreline Management Program, all establish policies which relate to trail planning. A vital entity used to preserve the trail corridor from development is the Sumner "Shoreline Master Program." This program establishes protective buffers along the rivers in order to preserve natural resources, provide views, and enable public access to the shoreline. Though most types of construction are not allowed within shoreline buffer zones, construction of public trails is specifically encouraged in most areas. The section on land use conversion below goes into greater detail about buffer zones and the uses appropriate in each. Additional information on trail goals contained in the city planning documents is shown in section "D. Goals" below. The Pierce County Nonmotorized Transportation Plan includes "Vision 2020," providing an outline of a desired transportation system of the future, listed as follows: • •

A safe system of nonmotorized facilities that allows citizens to use nonmotorized modes at least as easily as they use motorized vehicles. A safe system that is appropriately designed, widely used and accessible for different types of uses including: commute trips, and recreational trips; and available to all skill levels and uses, diverse physical capabilities, and all age, income and activity interests.

I-2


• • • •

A system that is strongly supported by the public through promotional and educational programs that emphasize the benefits of nonmotorized transportation including: a. improved personal mobility b. reduced traffic congestion c. improved air quality d. protection of open space, greenways, environmental, and wildlife resources A regional system that is coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions and public transit. A system that is clearly defined, planned, and implemented for the future in adopted County policies and regulations. A system that enhances neighborhoods is safe for children and families, and the result of local and regional planning efforts. A system that provides many benefits to the community and one in which the public feels a sense of pride and ownership.

Goals and objectives contained in the local and regional planning documents listed above are summarized in the following points: •

• • • • •

• •

Transportation System: Designate a system of separated trails and paths; bike lanes and paved shoulders; and sidewalks, pathways, and paved shoulders to connect major activity centers and destinations, including linkages with other modes such as transit. Potential Corridors: Use roads and rights-of-way, off-road trail systems, rail corridors, and utility corridors, as links in the bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian system. Nonmotorized Transportation Plan Review: Coordinate planning, construction, and operation of adjoining nonmotorized transportation facilities and programs. Maintain Facilities: Ensure the maintenance of nonmotorized facilities by the public and private sectors to provide safe access and smooth intermodal connections. Funding Priority: Emphasize funding for alternatives to single-occupant vehicles by aggressively pursuing federal, state, local, and private funding sources for nonmotorized transportation projects. Environment: Integrate programs supportive of nonmotorized transportation into efforts to improve air and water quality and reduce motor vehicle trips. Minimize environmental impacts by considering clean water, wildlife habitat, and other functions of critical areas in design. Avoid construction in sensitive areas, and use recycled materials where possible. Neighborhoods: Locate and design transportation systems to contribute to the safety, efficiency, and convenience of residential neighborhoods. Bicycle and pedestrian needs should be incorporated as a central component of this effort. Energy: An energy efficient transportation system should be implemented in part by promoting the use of bicycle and pedestrian-friendly transportation facilities.

I-3


• • •

Intermodal Transportation Systems: Develop a regional transit system that is fully accessible to people of all abilities, and which integrates as thoroughly as possible the access, safety, and parking requirements of bicyclists. Encourage transit access by improving bicycle and pedestrian access from residential, retail, manufacturing, and commercial facilities to proposed transit stops. Safety and Convenience: Emphasize safety, access and user security as an integral element in the design of transportation facilities. Access Control: Encourage the consolidation of automobile access on all through routes and particularly on bicycle routes in order to reduce conflicts between nonmotorized modes of travel and automobiles. Accessibility: Nonmotorized facilities should be consistent with standards in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Accessibility should be maximized for people of all abilities by improving infrastructure, improving existing transportation facilities and developments, and coordination of public and private transportation operators to accommodate people with special needs. New Development: Develop facilities supporting nonmotorized transportation as a regular element of the development review process. Incentives should be provided to the private sector to encourage development of nonmotorized facilities beyond those that are required as dedicated improvements. Equestrian: Incorporate the needs of equestrians in the design of facilities located in areas frequently traveled by equestrians, and integrate these facilities with other nonmotorized needs in use of these areas when the equestrian projects do not limit other transportation modes' use of the corridor.

(for the full text of the goals contained in the Pierce and King County Nonmotorized Transportation Plans see Appendix IV) C.

Citizen Participation In 1996, the consultant team worked closely with a dedicated group of citizens and city staff on the Trails Advisory Committee. This Committee consisted of citizens from Sumner, Pacific, and Puyallup, as well as city staff from Sumner and Pacific. Committee members devoted a substantial amount of time to meetings, public workshops, and site visits in an effort to identify, evaluate and refine trail routes. Input from this committee and from public workshops was instrumental in determining the best possible trail routes, and in forming the character of the trail described in this master plan report. Detailed knowledge of the area was shared by committee members in determining the location of site visits and providing the local understanding of an area necessary to form a successful plan. In addition to committee meetings, a number of public workshops were held to encourage opinions from as many sources as possible. These meetings included a visioning workshop to help establish broad goals and possible trail routes. During the course of the following meetings the consultants formulated plans based upon composites of meeting input and contextual factors. Later workshops focused on refining these composite trail

I-4


route alternatives. The preferred plan is the result of excellent input from the Committee, community, and city staff from Sumner and Pacific in 1996. Workshops and presentations were held on the following dates: • 9/13/95. Trails Advisory Committee Meeting • 9127/95 Open House and Public Workshop • 10/11/95 Trails Advisory Committee Meeting • 10/25/95 Workshop and Charrette • 11/8195 Presentation and Workshop • 11/27/95 Sumner City Council Study Session • 2/13/96 Open House • 2/11/96 Pacific City Council Study Session (See Appendix II for more information on meetings) In 2008, the City sought public input through representation on the City’s Planning Commission and City Council and through public hearings held on the following dates: • • • • • • D.

April 3—Meeting with Planning Commission April 10—Council Community Development/Parks Committee April 17—Planning Commission public hearing May 1—Planning Commission Decision May 19—Council Study Session June 2—Public Hearing and Council Decision

Goals The goals of the Sumner Trail are consistent with the Sumner Parks and Open Space Plan goals, Sumner Comprehensive Plan, and Pierce and King County Nonmotorized Transportation Plans. Specific trail goals stated in the Sumner Comprehensive Plan (Transportation Element) include the following: Pedestrians and Bicycles Pedestrian and bicycle facilities provide for alternatives to automobiles for travel to/from and within Sumner. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are important to promote safety and minimize impacts on overall operation of the transportation system. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities provide access and circulation within neighborhoods and connections to schools, parks, commercial areas, and community facilities.

4.

Promote use of alternative transportation modes by providing an interconnected system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. I-5


2.

4.1

Design standards for principal and minor arterials will include provisions for travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, based on the Sumner/Pacific Master Trail Plan and the Sumner Transportation Plan.

4.2

Collector roads and local streets should be designed and constructed to facilitate access and circulation by pedestrians and bicyclists within the neighborhoods and provide connections to schools, parks, community facilities, transit, and commercial districts. Development application will provide for convenient non-motorized connection where feasible.

4.3

Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of all City streets unless special circumstances, such as topography or environmental constraints, make it cost prohibitive as determined by the Public Works Director.

4.4

The City will pursue the construction of interim asphalt walkways/sidewalks along city streets that are used by a considerable number of children walking to/from school. Interim asphalt walkways/sidewalks should include, but not be limited to, Parker Road, Elm Street, and 160th Street E. The construction of interim walkways/sidewalks is not intended to preclude future full street improvements.

4.5

A system of separated, multi-purpose trails should be constructed to serve transportation and recreation needs of the community. It should also connect with adjacent communities to facilitate regional connectivity. The trail system and connections to the arterial, collector, and other pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be made per the Sumner/Pacific Master Trail Plan.

Sumner Parks and Open Space Plan - Trail Goals

Specific trail goals stated in the Sumner Parks and Open Space Plan include the following: Goal 1 Provide and maintain a safe, attractive, enjoyable, and diverse park system that meets the needs of the City's residents, businesses and visitors. Goal 2 Preserve, protect and enhance significant open space. a. Develop a trail system connecting to similar trails to the west, north and south for recreation and transportation purposes.

Consistent with these goals, through input from the public and the Trail Advisory Committee, the primary feature of the trail system is a continuous primary trail corridor linking other existing and planned regional trails. The needs of non-motorized commuters and many types of recreational trail users will be addressed. Branch routes linking both

I-6


residential areas and future commercial zones with parks, schools, and cultural facilities will provide access to the main trail. Many of the proposed primary trail routes along the river corridors pass through existing residential properties. In the past 10 years much of the rural land to the north of Sumner's downtown core has been developed for commercial/industrial uses. Similarly, large areas along the Puyallup River have been developed for more dense residential buildings. As the use of these lands is converted, the trail corridors have been established without undue disturbance to existing residents. The intent and purpose of this master plan is to establish a long-term policy for acquisition of trail easements or property purchases to complete the trail corridor as development continues into the next 20 years. E.

Composite Site Analysis A complete analysis of each of the existing site conditions can be found in Appendix I Site Analysis. The organization of the information in the Appendix is consistent with a typical environmental checklist format, with information separated into elements of the natural or human environments, and then subdivided into more detailed headings.

F.

The Missing Link Sumner has the unique opportunity to provide the link between several regional trails. Establishing connections with these trails will benefit local residents and trail users throughout the region. This network of trails and bikeways will provide residents better trail connections to surrounding communities. A web of branch routes will provide connections with neighborhoods for both commuters and recreational users. A corresponding network of open spaces including parks, schools, and civic facilities, will be integrated with the trail system. The downtown core of Sumner, including Main Street shops, neighborhoods, and historic register homes, is located near the White and Puyallup Rivers and the proposed trail corridor. Integration of the downtown with the trail system will improve trail access for residents, and encourage trail users to shop in town. The connection to the City of Pacific also has the potential to form a crucial link in the regional trail system. Connections with the Interurban Trail, White River Trail, Lakeland Hills Trail and Jovita Trail can be made through Pacific. Of particular importance is the link from the existing terminus of the Interurban Trail at 3rd Avenue to Sumner at Stewart Road. The Trail's location near the White and Puyallup Rivers creates scenic opportunities, and provides a potential trail corridor within shoreline protection buffers. The riparian area contains sensitive areas to be avoided, however, and the rivers have the potential for occasional flooding. The City of Sumner Shoreline Master Program, 2003 restricts the trail from locating within 200 feet of the White River on publically owned property east of the river and not closer than 100 feet on private property. The City is currently

I-7


requesting an amendment to the SMP that would allow the trail to be located closer than 100 feet and will also be attempting to renegotiate the conditions related to the 24th Street U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit and having the setbacks reduced and reinstating the trail on both sides of the rivers. Any change to these conditions will result in an update to the Trail Plan. Coordination with road/bridge improvements, commuter rail, and bus service adds to the potential use of the trail by commuters. Some existing infrastructure, however, may present obstacles to trail construction. Ownership along the trail corridor is varied and includes private and public property, as well as utility easements. The trail Master Plan provides the basis for public policy which will aid in securing future rights-of-way. As property develops along the proposed corridor, land can be obtained for the trail and the improvements negotiated. Some locations have existing short sections of trail, established easements, or public ownership conducive to building trails. In other areas, owners may not be receptive to a public trail on or near their property. The master planning process identified and evaluated the best routes for future trails. Over time, by several means, the proposed trails can be built. Proposed industrial development in the valley has provided opportunities and will provide future opportunities for trail expansion. In summary, a number of important opportunities and constraints stand out: Opportunities: • Public ownership • Utility corridors • Shoreline protection buffers • Future development/land conversion • Scenic qualities of the towns and river corridors • Potential regional trail connections • Existing local trails • Planned transportation improvements Constraints: • Adverse ownership • Sensitive areas • Reduced opportunity along Shoreline buffers • Water quality issues • Potential flooding • Some existing infrastructure unsuited for trail use (For more detailed information on existing site conditions see Appendix I)

I-8


Sumner Trail

II Trail Design


II. A.

TRAIL DESIGN

Introduction The Sumner Trail system will be comprised of different types of trails and bikeways for a variety of users. Where adequate land is available, a separate, hard surface, multi-use trail will be built. This has many advantages including increased safety by providing separation from driving lanes; flexibility by offering a surface for many types of trail users; and a pleasant trail experience due to the complete separation from auto traffic. Within this primary trail corridor secondary, soft surface trails will be added where possible to better accommodate other users such as hikers, equestrians, joggers, and mountain bikers. These accommodations would occur in light of financial or other design considerations and costs. All users will be required to share the same space where trails are constricted (e.g. at bridge crossings). A system of bicycle lanes and bicycle routes creates better trail connections with the downtown, neighborhood, parks and schools, and commercial areas. These bike routes should facilitate trail access, form more direct routes for bicycle commuters, and increase connections to transit stops. The decision as to whether particular streets will have striped bike lanes, or simply be signed as bike routes will depend primarily upon existing and forecast traffic volumes and pavement widths. High volume streets should be striped to designate lanes for riders, particularly as roads are widened or resurfaced. Many of the bucolic byways between Sumner and Pacific, however, may not require separate bike lanes.

B.

Trail Design Standards 1.

Class I Bikeway (Primary Trail) • Paved, Separated Trail 12' Wide

The primary trail should be at least a 12' wide asphalt path. Greater widths may be advisable in areas where high user volumes are expected, visibility is limited, where trail intersections warrant, or at emergency vehicle access points. A crushed rock shoulder at least 2' wide should follow each side of the trail. A clear zone free of all obstacles should be maintained within 5' of the edge of asphalt paving. A 10' vertical clear area should be maintained over the full width of the horizontal clear zone (trail, shoulder and clear zone). All signs, posts, walls, and furniture should be outside of the clear zone. In locations where barriers or walls may be placed closer to the trail, such as under bridges, handrails should be constructed. Trail surface widths are planned to be similar to the Foothills Trail in Orting and Puyallup trails. Trail construction should be such that safety, emergency and maintenance vehicles can travel the trail without damaging the surface and with ability to maneuver as necessary for access. Where the proposed trail segment is within the Puget Sound Energy easement, the trail surface will need to support heavy power company trucks doing line work. Williams Northwest gas pipeline company will also be contacted prior to any construction to ensure that proper easements and design standards are met.

II-1


2.

Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) • Striped Bike Lane in Public R.O.W.

In a "Class II Bikeway", bicycle lanes are separated from automobile traffic by a traffic stripe. Standards should follow Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT) guidelines which vary depending upon the situation. The minimum bike lane width on roads with curbs is 5' from curb edge to traffic stripe, or 5' from the edge of the designated car parking area to the traffic stripe. Roads without curbs require only a 4' bike lane width. 3.

Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) • Signed Bike Route in Public R.O.W.

In a "Class III Bikeway", bicycle routes are signed, without striped separation from vehicular traffic. These routes are generally chosen on the basis of safety for bike riders, and should be on roads with relatively low traffic volumes. 4.

Secondary Trail • Soft Surface, Separated 8' Wide Trail

Secondary trails should be at least 8' in width, and have a soft surface of compact earth, wood shavings, or crushed rock. The trail should be kept clear of obstructions to an 8' horizontal width and 10' vertical clearance. These paths will be included within the Class I trail corridor where space and site conditions allow. 5.

Social Footpath • Soft Surface, Narrow Walking Path

Social footpaths of narrow widths will develop as people use trails and park sites. These paths could be planned and constructed to prevent haphazard trail formation and trampling of riparian vegetation, especially in areas where the trail is 100-200 feet away from the water’s edge. Of particular concern are areas near trailheads, where foot traffic towards the water's edge may be expected. There is an allowance in the Shoreline Master Program for one social footpath to be constructed every 300 feet to provide access from the paved trail to the water’s edge.

II-2


Figure 2: Class I Trail Standards

II-3


Figure 3: Bike Lane and Bike Route Standards

II-4


Figure 4: Secondary Trail and Social Footpath Standards

Surface: (Equestrian) Compact earth or wood shavings (Pedestrian) Crushed rock

II-5


C.

Crossings & Bridge Standards 1.

Introduction:

Bridge undercrossings present design issues critical to the success of the Sumner Trail. Standards for these areas must be established to ensure public safety and to provide continuity of the trail. Establishing these guidelines and incorporating them into any new bridge construction will save money and ensure that non-motorized traffic is adequately served by new road construction projects. The following is a discussion of both minimum and preferred dimensions, and some details for bridge undercrossings. 2.

Undercrossings: Minimum Standard Vertical Clearance—10’

Adequate vertical clearance will be needed to provide comfortable and safe trail access under bridges. The preferred 10' minimum vertical clearance would allow trail users to pass under bridges without dismounting from bikes, and create a comfortable amount of headroom. Under very wide bridges, clearances greater than 10' are desirable to counteract feelings of being confined. Further increases in vertical clearance would provide trail users a more pleasant experience, but additional clearance must be balanced with the need to elevate the trail above the 25 year FEMA flood level wherever possible. The absolute minimum acceptable vertical clearance is 8' from finished trail surface to the bottom of the bridge beams or other obstructions. An 8' clearance is less desirable because it will require both bicycle riders and equestrians to dismount. The likelihood that some riders may not dismount presents some risk and liability to the City, and presents a strong case for increased vertical clearance. Ideally, the trail surface elevation would be set above the level of the 100 year flood at each undercrossing. This will not be possible in many instances in order to maintain adequate trail user headroom: Where the trail elevation is below flood level some mechanism will be needed to close the trail. Either temporary barriers or permanent gates would prevent the public from entering potentially dangerous flooded undercrossings. The number of times the trail is likely to be closed each year, and availability of safe alternative routes will need to be considered at each bridge when setting trail and bridge/road elevations. A detailed topographic survey of each existing bridge will be required to ascertain the frequency of flooding based on: elevation of the bottom of existing bridge structures; high, mean, and low water elevations; topography; existing and proposed utilities; alternative route availability; and other structures and considerations. Much of the proposed trail corridor between Sumner and Pacific lies within the current designated 100 year floodplain, and bridge undercrossings will probably be lower than the rest of the trail surface. FEMA is establishing revised guidelines for flood levels on the White and Puyallup Rivers and are expected to be adopted in 2008. If the floodplain

II-6


and floodway are reestablished at a new level the new numbers should be used in trail design. 3.

Undercrossings: Minimum Standard Horizontal Clearance—20’

Horizontal clearance minimums should be 20', or the width of the approaching trail (typically 16' plus two 2' shoulders). At undercrossings the entire 20' width should be a paved surface to avoid problems with loose gravel being kicked onto the surface of the trail. The added width will reduce conflicts with oncoming trail traffic and make trail travel feel safe and comfortable. Where 20' is not available the minimum horizontal clear distance should be the width of the approaching path including both shoulders (typically 16' total). Additional details will make bridge undercrossings pleasant and safe. Lighting should be installed under wide bridges for comfort and safety. The design should eliminate niches where people could hide, or trash might collect, to improve security and reduce maintenance. Loose rocks or soil must be prevented from rolling onto the trail to eliminate hazards to trail users. All railings shall be 54" in height and designed in such a manner to meet building codes for openings. Positive drainage should be maintained to prevent water buildup on the trail surface. All manhole covers and gratings within the paving shall be flush with the trail surface. All slots which could catch bicycle wheels shall be placed perpendicular to the flow of traffic. 4.

Overcrossings: Minimum Standard Horizontal Clearance—10’

Bridge overcrossings are equally important to the success of the commuter trail. A combined bicycle/pedestrian lane with a minimum 10' width for each direction of travel is preferred. This allows more flexibility than a separate bike lane and elevated sidewalk configuration. Barriers to protect trail users between traffic lanes and the trail are desirable. In addition, 54" high railings on both sides of the trail are required. Approach grades will meet ADA standards (maximum 5% slope, and maximum 2% cross slopes). As with undercrossings the gratings or manhole covers should be installed flush, and with grooves perpendicular to the line of travel. 5.

Summary: Plan Ahead for Trail Use

All aspects of trail/bridge crossings and undercrossings must be considered during the design of new vehicular and utility bridges to avoid costly remodeling, or the creation of inadequate facilities for trail users. In addition, incorporation of utilities (sewer, water, gas, electrical/communication) on bridges should be accomplished in a manner that will not compromise trail function. A good example of a pedestrian/utility bridge combination is the bridge installed at 24th Street and the White River in 1999.

II-7


Figure 5: Bridge Overcrossing and Undercrossing Standards

II-8


D.

Trailhead Opportunities 1.

Introduction

The master plan calls for trailheads at regular intervals. These are as close as .5 mile apart in some urban areas, and up to 2.5 miles apart. Trailheads should consist of parking areas and basic services such as water and restrooms. It is hoped that trailheads can be kept small by encouraging local users to visit the trail without driving and by providing a system of branch routes. Existing and future parks will serve as trailheads. Where possible, existing public and private facilities with large parking areas (such as the Sumner commuter rail station), which are not used on weekends or during evenings, might be used for trail access. These parking areas could be used during off hours to avoid costly construction of new facilities, and to reduce the amount of park land devoted to parking lots. The size of each trailhead will vary depending upon available land on each site, anticipated user demand for nearby trail reaches, and the extent of developed park facilities on-site. Access to the river's edge will be developed as natural factors allow and social needs dictate. 2.

Parking

Where possible parking can double to serve the trail and existing business or civic facilities, and be coordinated with trailheads on nearby trail systems. Parking areas, either shared or dedicated to trail use, have been planned at regular intervals along the primary trail routes. Parking lot size will be kept as small as possible while adequately serving the needs of anticipated trail users. As the trail system becomes more complete parking needs will probably increase, especially in rural settings away from city streets which could absorb some overflow peak-day parking demand. 3.

Water Access

The White and Puyallup Rivers offer unique recreational opportunities adjacent to the proposed trail route. Most of the trail will provide excellent visual connections with the water, though many areas along the river banks are too steep to allow safe access to the water. Where possible, access to the water's edge will be provided to trail users, or to those who want to launch a small car-top boat. Areas with gentle banks providing good water access occur in conjunction with trailheads at Riverbend Park, 24th St. on the east bank, the confluence/waste water treatment plant area, and at Riverside Park (in Pierce County). Trail was installed at the confluence area in 2006 and the area currently serves as a walk-in fishing area but with no boat launch facilities. At other trailheads boat launches are not currently envisioned. Small car-top boats might be carried from a car to the water's edge at places where easy access to the water is provided.

II-9


4.

Restrooms

Restrooms are planned at major trailheads on the trail system, at approximately 2.5 mile intervals. This should put most people within a 20 minute walk or 5 minute bicycle ride of a restroom at any time. Restroom buildings should be designed to maximize ease of access, ease of maintenance, and safety. The buildings should be designed to fit the context of their settings (rural, small town, etc.). It is hoped that arrangements can also be made to provide trail users access to restrooms in existing public buildings along the trail such as the Sumner commuter rail station. E.

Trail Furnishings 1.

Introduction

Trail furnishings should be selected to create a safe and comfortable environment for trail users, minimize repair and maintenance costs, and to express the unique character of the area. Items may include: lighting, bollards, signs, benches, drinking fountains, bicycle racks, emergency closure gates, trash, mile markers and special paving. 2.

Lighting

The trail is planned to be closed at night, and will not be lit, except in the situations listed below. Closing the trail at night should discourage inappropriate or unsafe use of the trail. As the valley becomes more developed, or if open hours are extended, additional lighting may be added. Portions of the trail planned to be lit are as follows: •

Undercrossings Bridge undercrossings wi11 be lighted at all times. This should discourage unwanted nighttime use of undercrossings, and promote a safe and secure environment. Fixtures at undercrossings will be designed for maximum strength, and vandal resistance.

•

Urban Promenade At some point in the future an urban promenade may be developed along portions of the trail immediately adjacent to the Sumner Central Business District. Light fixtures along this segment should be consistent with those planned along downtown streets. This promenade may be required to be developed outside the Urban buffer area (50 feet) in order to reduce impacts to vegetation along the White River but still provide a view of the water.

II-10


•

Trailheads Trailheads will be lighted to reduce unwanted activity at the trailheads at night and reduce vandalism. For a certain interval after dusk all the lights will be on to allow trail users to safely exit the trail. These timer-controlled lights will provide a beacon for people seeking to exit the trail and then a portion of them will be turned off to conserve energy. Fixtures should be designed for good light distribution, and be vandal resistant.

3.

Bollards/Gates and Barriers

For the safety of trail users vehicles should be physically prohibited from the trail. Bollards or gates will be needed to prohibit unauthorized vehicular traffic from the trail. The use of gates is preferred, and where bollards are used they should be removable to provide efficient access for emergency medical services, security personnel, and maintenance vehicles. Access for official vehicles is proposed at each trail intersection with a road to provide adequate access in case of emergency. Each of these access points will require removable bollards or gates to prevent unauthorized vehicles from entering the trail. Gates should be located in areas where there is a natural restriction to access such as large trees, steep banks, bridge abutments etc. Sturdy steel gates are more effective at keeping out vehicles than bollards that could be removed or damaged by vehicles. A system of gates or barricades will also be needed to close portions of the trail during high water. Much of the trail is within the FEMA designated 100 year floodplain. In particular, bridge undercrossings may cause the trail surface to be located at lower elevations, necessitating a standardized closure system to prevent injuries during floods. In areas where separation between the trail and auto traffic is necessary (e.g. some bridges) a jersey barrier with handrail should be used. 4.

Signs

Signs will display rules, provide directions and information, and disseminate interpretive information, location identifiers, safety warnings, and emergency closure/detour information. Signs should be of a consistent style and material, however, each category of signs (rules, information/directions, and interpretation) could be of a different color or shape. Posts should be set back from the trail surface a minimum of 5' where possible for safety. All signs could be integrated with historical themes representing local culture and iconography. Sign design, color, and shape should be consistent and coordinated with a regional network of trails. •

Regulatory Signs Overall rules for use of the trail will be posted at trailheads and heavily used access points. Information such as open hours, speed limits, and general safety and courtesy information should be included. Directions to the points of interest, and

II-11


civic facilities along the route should be included as needed. General community information could also be displayed at trailheads as deemed necessary by the community. This type of information and design should be consistent with other segments of the regional trail system. •

Directional Roadway Signs Directional signs will be used to help people from outside the community locate trailheads. Small parking areas or natural areas may not tolerate the extra traffic generated by signs advertising their use. Care will have to be taken as to how much advertisement will be provided for certain trailheads. Again, this signage should be coordinated with the regional system as a whole.

•

Locator System A locator system will be convenient for trail users and significantly help emergency vehicles in getting to accidents. One of the difficulties with providing quick response to an emergency is that members of the public may have a hard time identifying their location to authorities. To be most useful, a locator system should be coordinated with the regional trail system as trail users will traverse more than one jurisdiction during a single trip. Numbered mileposts are presently being constructed on the Foothills trail and Puyallup trails south of town. Sumner should adopt similar spacing intervals. There also should be color or letter codes to identify sides of the rivers where the trail is on both sides. Another possibility would be to use a system based upon street addresses. This would have the advantage of being readily expandable to other regional trails without establishing a new basis point.

•

Interpretive Signs A number of interesting elements of the valley warrant interpretative signs in conjunction with the trail. Natural elements could include riparian plants and wildlife, river processes, or volcanic action (since the trail sits on the terminus of two massive volcanic mud flows). The trail route will create unique physical access to these features. The experience of visiting the trail could be made more powerful by forming an intellectual link with these elements. Cultural interpretation also offers strong possibilities, since both early settlers (at least three houses on the national historic register are located in Sumner), and Native American sites could be studied. The area's rich agricultural history offers many possibilities for interpretation, telling the story of changing crops, technology and markets. Another fascinating element of the site which could be presented is the history of railroading. This could be particularly exciting in this area because the trains still roll through Sumner many times a day.

II-12


F.

Security/Safety Issues The trail surface will be designed to support light duty security, emergency and maintenance vehicles. Trail width and construction should be sufficient to convey authorized vehicles without endangering trail users or damaging the trail surface. This would include accessible turning radius, turnouts, and turnarounds as necessary. There may be areas such as undercrossings that may have a limited turning radius and therefore prevent passage of full-size vehicles and would be an area where emergency response would have to approach from two different directions. Regular access points for safety and security vehicles are proposed along the trail. Emergency vehicle access points are proposed at each road crossing. The Sumner police force has also expressed an interest in patrolling the trail with bicycle patrols. Based on trail use in other communities security problems are typically low. Trail users tend to police themselves when adequate numbers of people are using a trail system and a volunteer organization similar to the Foothills trail could be established to augment this system. Because of the connection to other trails the Sumner Trail should be well used, and security problems are anticipated to be low. However, quick convenient access for emergency vehicles is a necessity. Adequate sight lines, lighting under bridges, bike racks at trailheads, and regular patrols should reduce security problems. Installation of cycle lockers are available at the Sounder commuter rail station to provide the most secure bike storage in the area. The parks personnel may maintain and “patrol� of the trail for hazards such as flooded areas, fallen trees, litter, etc. on a daily or bi-weekly level.

G.

Planting Planting along the trail is intended to buffer the trail from adjacent uses, maintain or improve the quality of wildlife habitat in the riparian corridor, and enhance the experience of traveling the trail. There may also be locations where view corridors should be maintained either for adjacent properties or trail users. Planting may be used to shape the activities of trail users, encouraging or discouraging travel in certain locations. While planting design should be consistent on a large scale, and cannot be varied according to each adjacent property owner's taste, it will be important to coordinate overall planting design with neighbors of the trail to promote a well maintained edge along private property near the trail. Plant selection will be coordinated with the character of different trail segments, with a natural feel in rural areas while urban areas are more refined in character, and more carefully maintained. Urban plants might be predominantly exotic ornamentals such as shade trees, shrubs for screening and seasonal color, and groundcovers. Urban area plantings will probably be irrigated. Suburban areas will be planted and maintained as a transition between the urban and rural zones.

II-13


Rural areas should be planted mainly with native species. Primary attributes of plants in outlying areas should be durability, low maintenance and wildlife values. Aesthetic values will be rated higher in more developed areas. There will be no irrigation along the trail in rural sections, so plants should be chosen for their suitability to local soil, light and water conditions. The Shoreline Management Master Program (SMP) is intended to maintain and restore “properly functioning conditions� for fish species listed as threatened, namely Puget Sound Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout. The SMP discusses specific planting requirements for the trail sections along the White River. The riparian buffer is to be restored between the trail the river in conjunction with development of the trail. This is to be predominately native vegetation. The native vegetation that is recommended includes the following: willow, snowberry, vine maple, red-stem dogwood, wild rose, ocean spray, hardhack, evergreen blackberry, hazelnut, Oregon grape, Oregon myrtle, red elderberry, ninebark, serviceberry, mock orange, snowbrush, huckleberry, and hawthorn. Recent recommendations from the state Department of Ecology have discouraged the use of hardhack and evergreen blackberry which appear on this list. Some additions to suggested planting lists might be Oregon ash, Western red cedar, Western hemlock, and red currant. In addition to planting after trail construction, equal attention must be paid to preservation of existing vegetation. The Shoreline Master Program mandates preservation of the maximum amount of existing vegetation. Determining the location and types of plants to retain in each area during detailed trail design, and trail construction will be critical to the success of both aesthetics and habitat. The detailed landscaping design will be consistent with a required habitat management plan that will set forth necessary restoration/mitigation plantings as trail work progresses. Existing soils in the trail corridor should be suitable for planting with little amendment. In areas where native soils have been replaced with structural fill soil amendment may be required to promote vigorous plant growth.

II-14


Sumner Trail

III Corridor Alignment


III. CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT A.

Introduction Features of the proposed trail system include elements designed to provide an outstanding experience for trail users, and to facilitate prompt land acquisition and construction of the trail. Principal elements of the trail corridor include: • • • • • • • • • •

Design primary trails on only one side of the White River, unless already planned or permitted in accordance with the Shoreline Master Program and on both banks of the White and Puyallup Rivers where feasible. Provide maximum public access to the riparian corridor consistent with the goals of the Shoreline Master Program. Provide loop routes where possible. Design hard surface and social footpath trails within the primary trail corridor where possible to accommodate a variety of trail users. Build sidewalks and bicycle routes intended to complete a linkage between the primary trails, open space and civic facilities in the downtown core. Establish commuter connections to proposed transit facilities, and linkages to future commercial areas. Align the trail corridor to take advantage of public lands where possible. Design early phases of the trail to take advantage of easily acquired rights-of-way. Create a policy to establish the importance of a trail as land uses in the valley change. Create the most immediate linkage with regional trails.

These priorities were established with both public input and comments from Sumner and Pacific staff either through the 1996 public outreach or through the development of the Shoreline Master Program update in 2003. B.

Overall Master Plan The overall Master Plan creates direct linkages with other trails in the region, and opens large areas of shoreline to public access. The entire plan encompasses approximately 8 miles of proposed Class I trail (5.41 miles already exists) and over 23 miles of proposed Class II & III bike routes. When completed the trail system will be a truly comprehensive nonmotorized system for Sumner, and will greatly enhance the larger trail systems it joins. In addition to the primary trail corridor, the Master Plan accommodates and enhances connections and branch routes. Community facilities, including parks, historic sites, civic facilities and schools, will be integrated with the trail system. "Neighborhood Centers" established in the Sumner Comprehensive Plan are well served by this network of bike routes. Additionally, the trail enhances accessibility to Sumner's central business district.

III-1


142ND AV E

HWY E

SUMNER AV

OLIVE AV SE

178TH AV E

162ND AV E

160TH AV E

PARKER RD E

VALLEY AV BOCK AV

CHERRY AV KINCAID AV ALDER AV

GRAHAM AV

PEASE

WOOD AV

AV FRY AR

PARKER RD E

154TH AVCT E

EAST VALLEY

SR167 HWY N SR167 HWY S AV DE N

166TH AV E

134TH AV E

E 170TH AV

NE 2 AV 9TH NE ST

ER IN T

146TH AVCT E

E

SR162 E

34TH ST SE

RIVERSIDE DR

27TH ST SE

25TH ST SE

21ST ST SE

166TH AV E

122ND AV E

127TH AV E

LI N

43RD ST SE

119TH AV E

119TH AV E

126TH AV E 28TH ST SE

$

83RD ST E

88TH ST E

10

E

E

24TH AV SE

0.5

81ST ST E

SR 4

86TH ST E

E

T AV

0.25 AV SE 23RD

Miles 1

ST

S 181

MASTER PLAN 20TH AV SE

182ND AV E

18TH ST SE

E

0

E

SE

SUMNER TRAIL

H 77T

89TH ST E

90TH ST E

SE

Water Access 23RD AV

#

86TH ST E 87TH ST E 87TH STCT E 88TH ST E

ST

! Trail Head F

SE

RD SE

Rest Room

F !

H

Schools

80TH ST E

PIONEER WY E

SHAW

Proposed Bike Route

78TH ST E

15TH AV SE

AV

TE VC HA 70TH ST E

74TH ST E

T 39

Sumner, Proposed Bike Lane

R

TH

67TH ST E

E

16TH A V

ION EE

T 175 64TH ST E

T AV

Sumner, Proposed Trail

80TH ST E

8 17

64TH ST E

75TH ST E



RE ED IDG ER LA K E H AV 176T

63RD STCT E 64TH ST E

72ND ST E

EP

Other Cities, Proposed Trail

E

62ND STCT E

k k

F !

50TH ST E

k

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E 65TH STCT E W 66TH ST E WY RAINIER ST 0H 1 4 SR WILLOW ST YE W H GARY ST 410 SR

Private Trail Section

49TH ST E

50TH ST E 51ST STCT E

60TH ST E

171S

Other Cities, Existing Trail

E

56TH ST E

Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass

k k

Sumner, Existing Bike Lane

R SD PP TA TH

ER E PION EER

AV E

SILVER ST

MAIN ST E

H 170T

ACADEMY ST VOIGT ST PARK ST

S DR

U SO

E PI O NE

Sumner, Future Trail

#

MAPLE ST

ER

Trails Status 12TH AV SE Sumner, Existing Trail

22ND AV SE

k

54TH STCT E

RIVERGROVE DR

7TH AV SE

kk

168TH AV E

INTER AV

k

k

E

E MAIN

LANGDON ST

k

R

F !

52ND ST E DAFFODIL STCT E

16TH ST

ZEHNDER ST

F !

F !

ELM ST E

ELM ST

MAIN ST

TD ES W

HUBBARD

F !

E

PUYALLUP ST

ST AIN WM ELIZABETH ST STATE ST  #HARRISON ST

DE

M 45TH ST E A AV

E

DG RI

E

O

S

P TAP

E

VIS TA DR E

E DR OD

Y AV

53RD STCT E

O EW

VAL LE

NTA

G ED

53RD STCT E MO

E

F !

R

P AP -T

Y HW

T WES

AV

E 51ST S T



163RD AVCT E

ND

RD

48TH ST E

k

S

NE UM

159TH AV E

L EL

45TH STCT E

AC

34TH ST E

40TH ST E

2 16

W LD

T

E ST

31ST ST E

CA

43RD STCT E

H 28T

ST E

34TH ST E

41ST ST E

HA VE

H AV

32ND ST E

35TH ST E

E PI O NE

29TH

ST E 24TH

VE TH A 169

32ND ST E

36TH ST E

k

24TH ST E

VE HA 6T 15

32ND ST E

TON R

F 24TH ST E !

29TH ST E

30TH ST E

HOUS

22ND ST E

185 T

ST E

92ND ST E 93RD ST E

96TH ST E

k

18H A VE 181 ST AV E

136TH AV E

125TH AVCT E 126TH AVCT E

AV E 118T H

#

24TH ST E



E

27TH ST E 28TH ST E

20TH ST E

17T H

T 179

25TH ST E

LAKELAND HILLS WY

24TH ST E

k

MYERS RD E

16TH ST E

WEST VALLEY HWY

23RD ST E

LAKE TAPPS PKWY E

F# !

18TH ST E

21ST ST E

SE

7TH ST E 8TH ST E

175TH AV E

16TH ST E

ST

62ND ST SE

169TH AVCT E

14TH ST E

H 69T

140TH AV E

13TH STCT E

137TH AV E

THORNTON AV SW

9TH ST E

12TH ST E

k

F !

8THST E

STEWART RD

2ND ST E

PERRY AV SE

BUTTE AV SE

STEWART RD SW

164TH AVCT E

8TH ST E

EVER

120TH AV E

N

F !

E

# AV SE ISAAC Y SE EN W GRE

PN 1 LV D

 E AV S E HAN WY S NAT HILLS LAND LAKE

167 R VI TA B

F !

VALENTINE AV SE

123RD AV E

P SR R AM

119TH AV E

JO

ROY RD SW

Figure 6


C.

South Reach The "South Reach" along the Puyallup River to the southeast of Sumner occupies a residential/agricultural area. Future land use is planned to change relatively little in this area compared with the rest of the planning area. Residential developments are planned for the northern portion of this reach. Large areas of open space include the W.S.U. Extension Station, Riverside Park (a Pierce County Park), and Alderton Sportsman's Park (proposed for purchase as a public park in the future). Beginning at the intersection of the Foothills Trail and 96th St. SE a bike lane will cross the valley and make connections to the north. A Class I trail corridor is proposed to branch off on the west bank of the Puyallup River, continuing towards Mama Stortini’s bridge. The bridge at 96th St. E has adequate room for pedestrian and bicycle use on its wide shoulders, though clearance underneath the bridge is limited. On the east side of the river routes will follow Riverside Drive north, connecting to Riverside Park where a trailhead is planned. From there it will extend up 166th Ave. E to the east side of Sumner; another will turn west along Riverside Dr. to Valley Ave. From 166th Ave tentative connections are envisioned with the Lake Tapps area via the Sumner-Tapps Hwy. Bike routes into downtown Sumner will be available from this area. On the south side of the Puyallup River at the Mama Stortini’s bridge the trail goes in two directions. Existing Tacoma/Puyallup trail proceeds east along the south side of the Puyallup River and downriver and terminates under State Route 512 where it crosses the river. The trail is planned to proceed east under the Mama Stortini’s bridge and along the south side of the river to a point approximately in line with 141st Avenue and then proceed south along a farm road to the trailhead for the Foothills Trail on 80th Street East. The Foothills Trail continues south to the City of Orting.

III-3


SR167 HWY N

PUYALLUP ST

50TH ST E HUBBARD

158TH AVCT E

PARKER RD E

MARCH LN

GRAHAM AV

153RD AV E

BOCK AV

60TH ST E

64TH ST E

E

151ST AV E

64TH ST E

158TH AV

RAINIER PL

AV

RAINIER ST

63RD STCT E

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E

65TH STCT E

R 41 0 SR E P T M RA 6 T H S 6

66TH ST E TE STC H T 67

E

Y

E MAYBELL ST

GARY ST

k

k

ST E

H 10 SR4

GAULT ST

E RIV

RA

S MP

0R R41

1 PN

WY

W

E

DR RIVERGROVE DR

75TH ST E

80TH ST E

157TH AV E

148TH AVCT E

147TH AVCT E

146TH AV E

144TH AVCT E

78TH ST E

F ! #



H AV E

BOWMAN HILTON RD E

PIONEER WY E

84TH ST E

84TH STCT E

85TH STCT E 86TH ST E

86TH ST E

164TH AV E

AV E 144TH AVCT E 143RD

142ND AVCT E 143RD AV E

144TH AV E

142ND AV E

SR162 E

77TH ST E

157T

ER

154TH AVCT E

15 1 75TH STCT E

159TH AV E

RW AL K

154TH AV E

E

DR GE

AV

141ST AV E 80TH ST E

74TH ST E

75TH STCT E

78TH ST E



153RD AVCT E

D

LA VIL

2N 14

RAMP SR410 RPF1 E

ST

T

72ND ST E

AV

E

RS

166TH AV E

W

RI VE

87TH ST E

Trails Status Sumner, Existing Trail

G ID R

E

R D

SE

89TH ST E

90TH ST E

Sumner, Existing Bike ALLane

T R C Other Cities, Proposed Trail Other Cities, Existing YS Trail

Sumner, Proposed Trail Sumner, Proposed Bike Lane

#

Water Access

SOUTH REACH 0

0.1

0.2

E

43RD ST SE

! Trail Head F

SUMNER TRAIL AV 148TH

36TH ST SE



20TH AV SE Rest Room

40TH ST SE

Proposed Bike Route Schools

88TH ST E

88TH ST E

94TH STCT E

Miles 0.4

$

93RD ST E

RIVERSIDE DR E

39TH ST SE

87TH STCT E

k

1W

WILLOW ST ADELE ST

70T H

Sumner, Future Trail

PN

166TH AV E

SR 41 0H

E PI O NE

162ND AV E

151ST STCT E VALLEY AV

LEWIS AV

MEEKER

MEADE AV

BONNEY AV

AMBAR AV

BOYD AV

SUMNER AV

SILVER ST

OD WO

RAINIER ST

ST CT

E MAIN ST

VOIGT ST

63RD STCT E

CHESTNUT ST 67 TH

MAIN ST E

PARK ST

ALDER AV

THOMPSON ST

E MAIN ST

56TH ST E

62ND STCT E

BOYD

CHERRY AV

RYAN AV

F !

HARRISON ST

ACADEMY ST

55TH ST E

160TH AV E

BONNEY AV

ST AD

RA IL RO NA RR O

AV TR AF FI C

KINCAID AV

W

ST

MAPLE ST



58TH ST E

k

ST

54TH STCT E

54TH STCT E

55TH STCT E

MASON ST

MAIN ST

53RD STCT E

E

ST

LANGDON ST

52ND ST E

Y

AIN

GE

DAFFODIL STCT E

k

WASHINGTON ST

NORTH ST

52ND STCT E

HW

BR ID

52ND ST E

S PP -TA

57TH ST E

WRIGHT AV

PEASE

STEELE AV

FRYAR AV

YS 7 HW

16TH ST

EVERETT

ELM ST E

ER MN SU

SR 1 6

ELM ST

156TH AVCT E

18TH ST

158TH AVC TE

50TH STCT E

ZEHNDER ST

WM

49TH STCT E

92ND ST E

Figure 7 96TH ST E


D.

Sumner Reach Land use in the "Sumner Reach" currently includes large residential areas, with commercial/industrial properties in the center and north of downtown. Zoning calls for increased density in many residential areas, and further development of commercial/industrial sites. Much of this redevelopment will occur north of the downtown core. The major junction with other regional trails at the south end of the system takes place at “Mama Stortini’s” bridge where Traffic Avenue crosses the Puyallup River. Both the Foothills Trail and Puyallup River Trail will join the Sumner system at the bridge. Connections with these trails are difficult due to limited land area and large grade changes with the new road bridge. Merging these trails is critical to the success of the trail system. Once across the bridge bike lanes will continue along Traffic Avenue toward the library where it will join the Class I trail following the east bank of the White River. Ramps are planned to take trail traffic down slope at accessible grades to join the Class I trail under the bridge. A lighted tunnel under the Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks will carry the trail into Girard (Mt. Circle) Park. This city park which has been cut off from public access for years will be available again. From there the trail will continue to the east to join existing trail at Riverwalk and then to bike routes on Valley Ave. The Riverwalk branch of the trail will begin at Mama Stortini’s bridge and proceed east along the north bank of the Puyallup River and connect with existing trails in this location in front of apartments and condominiums. The trail will follow the Williams pipeline easement to Rivergrove Drive and then be on a bike route lane and connect to other trails in the area. There is also planned a major pedestrian overpass over SR410 at the north end of Rivergrove Drive that would connect to Sumner Avenue. This would provide additional pedestrian connections to the Rivergrove neighborhood and safe routes to school. While it is unlikely funding for the pedestrian overpass in the Rivergrove neighborhood would compete directly with funding for the river trail, the pedestrian overpass should be given preference when this does occur. From Mama Stortini’s bridge the trail also continues west through the confluence area. A trailhead at the confluence will be centrally located for access to trails in many directions. Continuing north, sections of Class I trail and bike routes will carry trail traffic along the east bank of the White River and along West Main Street, back under Bridge Street and to the library property where the main trail north continues. Many connections to bike routes in town branch off from the main trail corridor in this area. Each of the many bridges in the area will need careful design consideration to coordinate safe and comfortable undercrossings.

III-5


As detailed design and property acquisition moves forward, it may be necessary to consider an alternate route along Fryar Avenue and avoid environmental and steep slope constraints along the east bank of the White River. In this case bike lanes along Fryar Avenue or a widened sidewalk could be options. Trail crossings at Fryar Avenue and Tacoma Avenue allow access to west bank trails near the Public Works shops and a trailhead. The connection to the West Valley highway is via a bike route from Bridge Street.

III-6


18TH ST

E RYAN AV

k

MEEKER

BOYD

PARK ST

O F

AV

ST CT

W

Y

RAINIER ST

RAINIER CT

E

W

NE

SR 41 0H

W

Y

ADELE ST

k

E

ER RIV ST

141ST AV E

70 T

134TH AV E

WILLOW ST

H

GARY ST

k ST

GAULT ST

E

Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass R OB

INSO

N RD

72ND ST E

RAMP SR410 RPF1 E

VE RO

DR GE

RG

LA VIL

VE RI

Private Trail Section

74TH ST E

DR H 4T 14

AV

H 74T E

Sumner, Existing Trail

T STC

E

75TH STCT E

RI VE

Trails Status

74TH STCT E

Sumner, Future Trail Sumner, Existing Bike Lane

75TH STCT E

RW AL K

DR

Other Cities, Existing Trail

SR162 E

LI N

5T H

RAINIER ST

148TH AV E

10 H

E

M

AI N

SR 4

SUMNER AV

CHRISTINA DR 67 TH

F !

ALDER AV

E

ALDER AV

N

142ND AV E

IO

141ST AVCT E

DE

N

W

SILVER ST

VALLEY AV

CI 0C

AMBAR AV

10

BOYD AV

4 SR 41

CHESTNUT ST

147TH AV E

E

63RD STCT E

GUPTIL AV

1

SR

VOIGT ST

GUPTIL AV

F RP

THOMPSON ST

LEWIS AV

SUMNER AV

RYAN AV

ST W NA RR O

KINCAID AV

ACADEMY ST

F !

CHERRY AV

0 41 SR

NARROW ST

AV



BONNEY AV

ST

FF IC TR A

P

0 RP N1 W

AV

MEADE AV

ST

STATION LN

HUNT AV

M RA

HARRISON ST

SR4 1

MASON ST

NORTH ST

E

ELIZABETH ST

# RAM P

AIN

WASHINGTON ST

MAPLE ST

SPINNING AV

E

SUMNER AV

ST O AD RA IL R

AV FRY AR

BR ID G

E AV

MAIN ST



BONNEY AV

Y

L VA

Y LE

STATE ST

F !

LAWRENCE AV

HW

N TO

MCMILLAN AV

Y LE

RE

57TH ST E

WM

RD

LANGDON ST

EVERETT

N N1 RP

7

WRIGHT AV

AV D O W O

L VA

ZEHNDER ST

F !

6 R1 PS M RA

16TH ST

E ST

D OD

TH 56

O EW

TH

G ED

56

E ST

ST

54TH STCT E

T ES W

55TH ST E

US HO

PEASE

ELM

STEELE AV

53RD STCT E

SR167 HWY N

TE DS

SR167 HWY S

52N

Other Cities, Proposed Trail Sumner, Proposed Trail

77TH ST E

F !

Sumner, Proposed Bike Lane

78TH ST E

NEEHead !OTrail F R

E PI

#

Water Access

0

0.05

0.1

Miles 0.2 80TH ST E

$

78TH S TC 146TH AV E

SUMNER REACH

144TH AVCT E

SUMNER TRAIL 

Rest Room

143RD A VCT E



Schools

142ND AV E

k

141ST AV E

Proposed Bike Route

TE

Figure 8


E.

Golf Course Reach The Golf Course reach has undergone dramatic land use changes over the last ten years. Much of the existing agricultural land has been converted to industrial/commercial uses, with development of significant portions of the trail as a result. While much of the land on the east bank is city owned, or has trail easements negotiated, the west bank is almost completely privately owned. North trail corridors alternate from the east to the west banks of the White River. Much of the land on the east bank is publicly owned and is included in the proposed Phase I trail development. The pedestrian/utility bridge was installed in 1999 and the trail approaches and approximately .5 mi. of trail was completed in 2006 running south of 24th Street. The section of trail from 24th Street East to 16th Street East was completed in 2005 and was constructed completely by private developers. In addition, widened (10’) sidewalks on 24th Street East and 16th Street East and north and south along 140th Avenue East replaces on-street bike lanes. Continuing north on the west bank a trailhead is planned at Riverbend Park. From there connections north to Stewart Road will be via a bridge crossing at the bend in the White River and connect to a trail that will run on the east bank adjacent to the Golf Course. Fitting a trail harmoniously into the fringe of the golf course, even for a short distance, will take careful planning. There appears to be adequate space for a trail along the golf course edge if the trail is held tight to the top of the bank. Netting, fencing and/or thick plantings may be needed in some locations to protect trail users from errant golf balls. Trail design and regulation must take into account the need for golfers to have quiet during their games. The trail will connect with Stewart Road via a new connection from the White River proceeding north along a relocated/manmade creek. The previous option of following the west bank along the White River and adjacent to Manke Lumber company has been deleted due to the lack of room between the shoreline edge and this heavy industrial use. At this point the trail will connect to a 12’ wide detached trail on the north side of Stewart Road that is part of the future Lake Tapps Parkway construction. Due to an agreement with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers on a permit for filling wetlands at the 24th Street Interchange and SR167, the west bank trail corridor south of 24th Street to the Tacoma Avenue Bridge will not be constructed. The areas that have been permitted and constructed are described above. From this area trails branch out to connect north through Pacific to the Interurban Trail, west to the Jovita Trail, northeast to the Auburn's White River Trail, and east to Lakeland Hills.

III-8


F ! 1N 7 RPN SR16 S RAMP RAMP SR167 RPF1

BUTTE AV SE

VALENTINE AV SE

STEWART RD SE 8TH ST E

STEWART RD SW



STEWART RD 8TH ST E

F !

E S PP TA E

1S

126TH AV E

Y

7 RPN

THORNTON AV SW

W PK

SR 1 6

140TH AVCT E

8TH ST E

K LA

P RAM

RAMP SR

167 RPF1

F !

142ND AV E

E

#

ROY RD SE

THORNTON PL SW

BL VD

N

F ! #

16TH ST E

20TH ST E



24TH ST E

AGE R COTT

#

148TH AV E

1N

136TH AV E

RPN

126TH AVCT E

167 P SR

137TH AV E

RAM

132ND AV E

16TH ST E

140TH AV E

VI TA

ROY RD SW

EAST VALLEY HWY E

2ND ST E

2ND ST E

JO



F ! 24TH ST E

DE

67 H S R1

TE

WY

27TH ST C

146TH AV E

TE

30TH STCT E

E AV

YN

142ND AV E

29TH S

H 6T 15

7 HW

145TH AVCT

6 SR1

32ND ST E

E

S

29TH ST E

32ND ST E

38TH ST E

Trails Status Sumner, Existing Trail

41ST ST E

145TH AV E

Sumner, Future Trail Sumner, Existing Bike Lane Other Cities, Existing Trail Other Cities, Proposed Trail

Rest Room

#

E

! Trail Head F

0

Water Access

129TH

AV E

SUMNER TRAIL ! F GOLF COURSE 0.1

0.2

Miles 0.4

$

TA CO MA

AV

45TH ST E

153RD AVCT E

RD

127TH AV E

Schools

LL



WE

k

E

LD

Proposed Bike Route



152ND AVCT

CA

Sumner, Proposed Bike Lane

WEST VALLEY HWY E

Sumner, Proposed Trail

Figure 9 46TH STCT E


FIGURE 10 SUMNER TRAIL PLAN MAMA STORTINI'S BRIDGE SECTION JONGEJAN-GERRARD-McNEAL


FIGURE 11 SUMNER TRAIL PLAN RAILROAD SPUR BRIDGE SECTION JONGEJAN-GERRARD-McNEAL


Sumner Trail

IV Implementation


IV. IMPLEMENTATION A.

Land Use Conversion Policy Like many parts of the Pacific Northwest, the City of Sumner is rapidly developing. The most noticeable changes have been and continue to be the transition of agricultural lands north of the city to light industrial/commercial businesses, and a shift to increasing housing south of the city center along the Puyallup River. The conversion of land uses provides opportunities for trail easement acquisition, land purchases, and trail development. Shoreline protection buffers, which have been designated by the Shoreline Master Program, offer additional opportunities as do utility rights-of-way. The aim of this trail master plan is to provide a basis for securing easements or rights-of-way, particularly as land uses change. The master plan provides guidelines for a trail easement acquisition policy, which can be implemented as land use conversion occurs. Much of the proposed trail is within shoreline protection buffers which will become part of the open space system as adjacent lands are more intensely developed. Three shoreline environmental designations have been established: Urban, Suburban Residential, and Urban Conservancy. These environmental designations offer areas to build the trail, though with some restrictions. The width of the buffers will help determine the character of each trail segment. Shoreline setbacks on the White and Puyallup Rivers are as follows (See Appendix I, Page 7): Shoreline Designation • Urban • Suburban Residential • Urban Conservancy

Buffer Width 50 feet 100 feet 100feet /200 feet

Each shoreline environment designates building setbacks from the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) of the river or floodway, whichever is furthest landward. This buffer is intended to protect the riparian environment and vegetation to preserve wildlife habitat and restore properly function conditions for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout. In all cases public access to the shoreline is also very important, however, some areas of the shoreline will have the trails setback 100 to 200 feet in consideration of the wildlife in the area. Removal of vegetation and topsoil within the buffer is regulated by a number of rules within the "Clearing and Grading" portion of the Shoreline Master Program (See Appendix I, Page 7). Although some limited types of structures may be allowed within the buffer, parking is not allowed. B.

Phasing The trail system will be implemented over a number of years as development occurs and the land and funds become available. Figure 12 shows the sections of the trail that have been completed and the sections remaining. It is hoped that the entire plan can be IV-1


FIGURE 12 PHASE IMPLEMENTATION MAP


C.

Cost Estimates Trail development costs consist of three primary components: land acquisition, survey/design fees, and construction costs. 1.

Land Acquisition Program

There are several components required for the successful realization of a trail project. In addition to the master plan alignment, the Sumner Master Trail Plan must define the process that will be followed when acquiring land or negotiating easements, dedications, or rights-of way. The following outlines types of land that may be acquired (railroad right-of-way, utility easement, private land); ways of acquiring the right to use the land (fee purchase, easement, dedication); methods most often used to determine land value; and funding sources. It should be recognized that trail construction may benefit landowners by increasing the value of their property. Land Types Trail segments on paper plats: The easiest segments of a trail to obtain are those along undeveloped streets or on other publicly owned undeveloped land. Phase I would ideally consist of these segments and therefore, they should be dedicated for the trail as soon as possible. Trail alignment along railroad rights-of-way: Land can be acquired along unused railroad rights-of-way or abandoned railroad tracks through agreements negotiated with the railroad. Railroads are required to clean up unused railroad crossings or unused rights-of-way. In some cases, in exchange for removing the tracks, cleaning the property and making it safe, the railroad relinquishes ownership to the city. In appraisals, railroads are considered a nuisance, so the value will be lower. There may be a low cost to the city for the acquisition, and the city may also be required to pay the legal costs associated with creating transferable parcels. Areas still actively used by the railroad will not be included in trail routes, except if crossing tracks is necessary. Trail alignment along utility easements: Trail segments that follow pipeline or other utility easements are frequently encumbered so that they are accessible for maintenance and repair. These segments may be obtained fairly easily if an agreement can be negotiated with the utility provider.

IV-4


Trail alignment along the White and Puyallup Rivers: As properties along the White and Puyallup Rivers are converted from agricultural to industrial use, development agreements may be used to require trail development. In some instances the trail easements have been required as conditions of approval of shoreline permits to satisfy the public access to shorelines in the Shoreline Master Program. Obtaining land or easements within the buffer area should be at a reduced value as this area is not developable. Easements, however, must still be negotiated. Trail segments on land that is not developed may require fee purchase if easements can not be obtained. In addition to requirements that are connected to permit approval, Sumner should consider adopting "developer incentives" to encourage trail or trailhead enhancement beyond basic requirements. Trail segments on private property: The most difficult segments to obtain are those that cross private property. Of these, those that have hostile landowners are harder still to acquire. It may be necessary to purchase the entire parcel, instead of a piece the width of the trail corridor. Key parcels: While an alignment may be rerouted if segments do not seem obtainable, it should be recognized that the original alignment is the optimal one, so detours to avoid missing segments should be avoided. There will always be a few key parcels that are needed no matter what the cost or difficulty required in obtaining them. The cost of these may be higher, or with time, the perceived value may come closer to matching the market value. The use of professional appraisals may help in negotiating land in the key links category. In extreme, and hopefully rare, cases the City may pursue condemnation of land for key trail connections. Methods of Securing the Right to Use Land for Trails: Easements: Easements frequently are used to complete trail sections at lower cost. The cost of acquiring an easement depends on the agreement reached, but may be 50% or less of the cost to purchase the land outright. The cost of the easement may also be as high as 90% of the land cost, at which point, an attempt to negotiate a fee purchase is probably preferable. Also, the city may expect to pay legal fees for writing and recording the easement agreement.

IV-5


Dedication of land: Landowners may, for a variety of reasons, wish to participate in the trail development program by dedicating land. The city may expect to pay legal fees for writing and recording the dedication agreement. One incentive to dedicating the land is to reduce the tax burden on the property owner. Fee Simple Purchase: The least desirable method of acquiring land for trail use is through outright purchase. This is, however, frequently necessary in order to successfully complete the trail route. A process should be established by the cities whereby the steps are clearly defined, for before and after an offer to purchase is made. The method of obtaining the value, the obligations of both purchaser and seller, and the closing requirements need to be understood by all parties. Determining the Value of Land: Assessed value: The assessed value of land, as provided by the county tax assessor, is frequently used as an element of determining the land value, but is almost never used exclusively due to the fact that it is almost always below the market value. A multiplier may be used in conjunction with the assessed value to approach the market value. Market value: The most often used method of determining land value is by doing an "over the fence" estimate. This requires obtaining the market value of the adjacent, or nearby properties that have the same zoning and current use. Recent, or "comparable", sales of properties having the same or similar conditions and in close proximity to the property in question may also be used. This information is obtainable from title companies. Government agencies are frequently required to pay market value. A request for an exception may be made if the land is critical to the completion of the project, but approval of funding for payment above market price is rare. Appraised value: Frequently, an appraisal is required as part of a grant application. An appraisal by a certified appraiser will include the value of the land in "today's dollars" for the current use and whatever the appraiser deems to be the "highest and best use." An appraisal analysis can provide the value of an easement versus buying the entire parcel.

IV-6


Land Acquisition Cost Estimate Costs of land procurements for all phases are based upon obtaining a 20 foot ide trail corridor. These costs do not include real estate brokerage fees or commissions, which typically range from 4 to 6% of the land costs. The estimated cost of land may be lower if the City can secure land below market value during the process of land development, or costs may be higher if the value of property in questions increases. In cases where access is required by the state Shoreline Management Act, the acquisition cost may be offset by compensation of lost public access. Acquisition Fee Cost Estimate In addition to cost of land, the following costs are typically required for each transaction: • Appraisal and third party review ($3,000 to $6,000) • Hazardous waste assessment ($1,000 to $2,000) • Survey ($2,000 to $4,000) • Title report and insurance ($500 to $1,000) • Closing costs ($500 to $1,000) • Recording fees ($25 to $50) 2.

Survey/Design/Engineering Fees

These overhead fees are expected to be roughly 25% of the construction cost of the project. 3.

Construction Costs

Expense of trail development will vary depending upon a number of factors. A typical range of costs for publicly-bid and recent comparable constructed Class I trail is between $100 and $150 per lineal foot. The lower number includes clearing and grubbing, erosion control, grading, base course, paving, and regulatory signs. Costs will vary depending upon encountered site conditions and quality of materials, finishes, and additional elements such as furniture, lighting, drinking fountains, interpretive signs, trailhead development etc. Difficult site conditions such as unstable soils, wetlands (which would require mitigation), or stream crossings can raise costs dramatically. At this time Geotechnical reports and detailed surveys for the trail route have not been prepared, so it is difficult to determine the impact of these factors on the cost of the trail. Since the trail will follow riverbanks for long stretches it is likely that some soils engineering and wetland mitigation may be required, raising costs.

IV-7


Total Cost Estimate Combining costs of land, procurement, acquisition fees, survey/design fees, and construction costs the phased costs are as follows: Phase I- $1,230,000; and Phase II$3,572,000. Total project costs for all phases are approximately $4,802,000. Phase I Map Reference No. 1 Public Works Shop Loop This section of trail is approximately 2000 feet long from the Fryar Ave. Bridge to the Tacoma Street Bridge. STATUS/COST: The design for this section is complete and the estimated cost for construction is $225,000. Map Reference No. 2 Stewart Road to the White (Stuck) River This section of trail is approximately 1,600 lineal feet from Stewart Road to the White River. The trail follows a newly relocated stream. STATUS/COST: This section of trail is designed and will be going out for bid in 2009. Approximate cost for the construction is $180,000. Map Reference No. 3 North Side of Stewart Road This section of trail is approximately 1,600 lineal feet and is located on the north side of Stewart Road. This trail will connect the trail coming from Lakeland Hills in Auburn to the trail system in Pacific. STATUS/COST: This portion of trail is designed and will be constructed with the Stewart Road improvement project, which is scheduled to go to bid in 2009. Map Reference No. 4 Ramp from Confluence Trail to Traffic Ave. /East Main St. This section of the trail is completed connects the trail from the confluence of the White and Puyallup Rivers to the bridge over the Puyallup River, allowing pedestrians access from Sumner’s Traffic Avenue and Puyallup’s East Main Street. Map Reference No. 5 Confluence Trail to Bridge Street Bridge This section of trail is approximately 2,585 lineal feet that runs from the newly constructed trail along the river to West Main Street. It continues on West Main to the Bridge Street Bridge, connecting the trail system to Downtown Sumner. COST: Approximate design cost is $90,000, right-of-way cost is $125,000, and construction cost is $400,000. Phase II Map Reference No. 6 Bridge Street Bridge to Fryar Ave. Bridge

IV-8


This section of trail is approximately 3,621 lineal feet. From the Bridge Street Bridge, the trail continues along the river f to the Fryar Avenue Bridge, combining with other sections to provide a viable walking route from Sumner’s industrial north to its downtown core. COST: Estimated design cost is $140,000, right-of-way cost is $250,000 and construction cost is $700,000. Map Reference No. 7 White River Trail (Golf Course-Riverbend Park) This trail section will go from the section shown as Map Reference No. 2 above, follow along the Sumner Meadows Golf Course, construct a bridge over the White River to the City owned park, and tie into the existing trail at the south end of the park at 16th Street East. STATUS/COST: The design has been funded by a grant for $217,000. Construction cost estimate is $1,300,000. Map Reference No. 8 24th Street Bridge Connection This section of trail extends the trail south from the trail and 24th Street Bridge constructed in 2006 and continues to the south end of property owned by the City. It links to the other sections to be privately constructed along the White River eventually linking to trails completed south of Tacoma Avenue Bridge. COST: Estimated design cost is $75,000 and the construction cost is $375,000. Map Reference No. 9 Rivergrove Branch of Trail This section of the trail extends from Mama Stortini’s bridge over the Puyallup River along the north bank of the Puyallup River and into the Rivergrove neighborhood. This is approximately 3,960 feet of trail and links this neighborhood to the greater trail network. COST: Estimated design cost at $75,000, right-of-way at $15,000 and construction cost is $420,000.

IV-9


FIGURE 13: Sumner/ Trail Class I Trail Cost Estimates Lineal Feet Phase I Public Works Shop Loop Stewart Road to the White River North Side of Stewart Road Confluence Trail to Bridge Street Bridge Subtotal Phase I Phase II Bridge Street to Fryar Avenue Bridge White River Trail (Golf Course-Riverbend Park) 24th Street Bridge Connection Rivergrove Neighborhood Subtotal Phase II Total Estimated Cost

Design Cost

2,000 1,600 1,600 2,585 7,785

Done Done Done $ 90,000 $ 90,000

3,621

ROW Costs $ 10,000

Construction Cost

Total

$ 125,000 $ 135,000

$ $ $ $ $

225,000 180,000 200,000 400,000 1,005,000

$ 235,000 $ 180,000 $ 200,000 $ 615,000 $1,230,000

$ 140,000

$ 250,000

$

700,000

$1,090,000

2,000 1,500 2,700 9,821

$ 217,000 $ 75,000 $75,000 $ 507,000

$ 15,000 $15,000 $ 280,000

$ $ $

1,300,000 375,000 $420,000 2,795,000

$1,517,000 $ 465,000 $500,000 $3,572,000

$ 17,606

$ 597,000

$ 415,000

$

3,800,000

$ 4,802,000

Source: City of Sumner Public Works Department

Note:

All estimates are in 2006 dollars

4.

Secondary Trail & Bike Routes

Bike lanes, be routes and sidewalks are planned to be constructed or improved in the course of regular transportation projects. 5.

Funding

Funding for trails and bike routes could be obtained through public, private or volunteer sources. City Funding Sources The trails program should submit an annual capital improvement request to the City Councils of Sumner and Pacific in order to fund implementation of a portion of the trail master plan. Other city-based funding sources may include impact fees from new development not directly adjacent to the trail, park funds, excise taxes, bond levies, or from other local sources such as businesses and charitable organizations. Pierce County Conservation Futures Assistance may be available from Pierce County both in the form of technical assistance with land acquisition and with funding for acquisition. The Pierce County Conservation IV-10


Futures Program, administered by the Pierce County Parks Department, requires that grant applications be submitted each spring. The applications are reviewed for appropriateness and recommendations made by the administrator to the Pierce County Council for action. Those projects deemed worthy are granted funds from the program. State Funding Sources Funding from the state of Washington may be available for land acquisition and facilities construction through the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). The IAC provides matching grants for land acquisition. The city does not have to have the entire matching amount in cash, however. Land that has been dedicated to the city can be used as equivalent value (public land can not be considered as an asset for this purpose, unless the public entity has to sell the land, school district property for example). The cost of determining the land value may make up a portion of the matching amount. For example, if $20,000 is required to obtain land appraisals and do other acquisition research, it may be submitted as a substitute for a portion of a $100,000 matching grant request. Other state funding sources include the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program. This program is one of several administered by the IAC. Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction Act requires companies to adopt programs that reduce employee transportation requirements. Building expansion or new construction triggers compliance with the Act. Compliance may include car pool programs or subsidies for bus passes, but participation in a commuter trail system may also qualify as compliance. The Act is administered by cities. The Sumner Trail is a good candidate for funding from IAC and similar programs because it will receive high marks in some of their qualification categories including: • • • • • • • • • •

A well articulated vision for the trail system, showing benefits to local and regional communities. A lack of existing trails in the area. Coordination between Sumner, Pacific, Pierce and King Counties. Comprehensive and well thought out trail design. Excellent linkage with other trails in the area, which will actually improve the quality of those other trails. Excellent linkage within the community. Views of, and physical access to, water through much of the proposed trail corridor. Wildlife habitat connectivity provided by the shoreline protection buffer within which the trail will be located. Exceptional scenic value, including natural and cultural aspects. Demonstration of cost efficiency through cooperative agreements with business and citizens for trail maintenance, and with developers for trail easement acquisition.

IV-11


• • •

Extensive development is allowed under the current land use plan in the valley. Therefore, prompt action should be taken to establish this trail corridor before potential trail routes are occupied. The project has met with strong community support from both citizens and some business. The Sumner Trail conforms closely with both local and regional planning documents and requirements.

Similar state funding from IAC or other sources may also be available for small park and boat launch projects associated with the trail. Federal Funding Sources Funding sources can include federal grants from the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). ISTEA funds are currently available for transportation projects including non-motorized transportation facilities such as trails which facilitate commuting. These funds are locally allocated by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). In addition to ISTEA, the National Recreational Trails Fund Act (NRTFA) may also provide funding. NRTFA is part of the National Highway System bill and is based on taxes paid on fuel used in off-highway recreational vehicles. Other Opportunities Volunteers have the opportunity to have a significant impact upon the construction, and in particular, the maintenance of these trails. The formation of an Adopt-A-Trail program for volunteer crews to help keep the trail clean, could significantly reduce the city's trail maintenance costs. Americorp volunteers (America's domestic Peace Corps program equivalent) may be available for trail construction assistance. Groups mentioned in the Sumner Park and Open Space Plan as possible sources of volunteer labor includes: Rotary, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Rainbow Girls, Adopt-A-Stream, Sumner Promotion, Eastern Star, Masons, Sumner Garden Club, Elementary Schools, High School Clubs, and Day Care Centers.

IV-12


Sumner Trail

V Maintenance


V. A.

MAINTENANCE

Maintenance Strategies Operations, maintenance, and stewardship are essential to the safe use, enjoyment, and long-term success of any trail. Trails must do many things: promote safety, protect the environment, and provide quality experiences. The following is an outline of the key elements contained in an Operation and Maintenance program.

B.

Operations and Maintenance Defined “Operations and Maintenance (O&M)” refers to the day-to-day upkeep as well as the efficient and safe functioning of the trail system. “Stewardship” refers to long-term care and oversight of the trail resource. This is essential to assure it will be sustained as a quality asset of the community infrastructure and a good neighbor to adjacent properties and surrounding natural environment. Stewardship also includes building community support and advocacy so the integrity of the trail will not be compromised in the future. “Routine Maintenance” refers to the day-to-day regimen of litter pick-up, trash and debris removal, weed and dust control; trail sweeping, sign replacement, tree and shrub trimming and other regularly scheduled activities. Routine maintenance also includes minor repairs and replacements such as fixing cracks and potholes or repairing a broken handrail. “Remedial Maintenance” refers to correcting significant defects as well as repairing, replacing, or restoring major components that have been destroyed, damaged, or significantly deteriorated during the life of the project. Minor repairs such as repainting, seal coating asphalt pavement, or replacing signs may occur on a five to ten-year cycle. Major reconstruction items might occur over a longer period— up to 100 years or more— or after an event such as a flood. Other examples include stabilization of a severely eroded hillside, repaving a trail surface, or replacing a bridge. Remedial maintenance should be a consideration in formulating a long-term capital improvement plan, though budgeting could be on an individual and as-needed or anticipated basis. A quality O & M program addresses specific required tasks and begins with sound design, durable components, and a comprehensive management plan. The responsible officials and entities should embrace the plan at the beginning. Programs and protocols that will endure should be instituted, including training of field and supervisory people. In addition, community groups, residents, business owners, developers and other stakeholders should be engaged in the long-term stewardship effort.

V-1


C.

Guiding Principles for a Successful Program The following guiding principles will help assure preservation of a first class system: •

Good maintenance begins with sound planning and design

Foremost, protect life, property, and the environment.

Promote and maintain a quality outdoor recreation experience.

Develop a management plan that is reviewed and updated annually with tasks, operational policies, standards, and routine and remedial maintenance goals.

Maintain quality control and conduct regular inspection.

Include field crews, police and fire/rescue personnel in both the design review and on-going management process.

Maintain an effective, responsive public feedback system and promote public participation.

Be a good neighbor to adjacent properties.

An effective O & M plan should include the following areas: • • • • • •

Maintenance: Routine and Remedial User Safety and Risk Management Programming and Events Resource Stewardship and Enhancement Marketing and Promotion Oversight and Coordination

Mile markers can assist with maintenance as well as provide information for trail users. Following are some of the typical O & M Activities for various types of trail amenities: • • • • • • • • •

Inspection and Citizen Response Trail Surface Maintenance Repaving and Pavement Overlays Sweeping/Street Sweeping (For On-Street Facilities) Street Surface Upkeep and Repair (On-Street Facilities) Parking Lot Repair at Trailheads Maintain Connecting On-Street and Sidewalk Routes Vegetation and Pest Management (e.g. Trimming Overhanging Branches) Irrigation Systems

V-2


• • • • • • • • • • • • • • D.

Litter and Trash Removal Graffiti and Vandalism Control Dust Reduction Address Detours/Disruptions (With Workable Alternative Routes) Remedy "Social Trails" (Such as Shortcuts) Repair Trail Structures and Fixture/Erosion Control Signage (Especially Safety Signage), Striping and Lighting Rest Areas, Shelters and Water Stations (Including Equestrian) Toilet Facility Service Patrol, Security, Enforcement, Safety Hazard Reduction Special Event Policies and Permitting Education and Enforcement Accident and Incident Data Tracking User Safety and Risk Management

Trail Safety User safety is critical to trail design, operations and management. A safety program should be implemented that includes: systematic risk management assessment, interagency design review for all proposed improvements and accident and crime reporting. In addition to department managers, planners, designers and engineers, law enforcement, fire/rescue and field maintenance personnel should be consulted in the design and review process. Important steps in this process include: 1. Use sound design and engineering principals in the planning and design phase. For instance, trail designs should conform to currently established standards such as the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities available from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Safety and regulatory signage should conform to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices available at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ from the Federal Highway Administration. For good references that address accessibility standards, design of primitive trails, mountain bike facilities, bridges, boardwalks, and other facilities, visit the American Trails website: www.americantrails.org. 2. Consult experts in bicycle facility engineering for difficult situations such as atgrade street crossings, trails built next to roads, mid-block crossings and other challengers. It may be advisable to have an engineer review the entire plan set. Remember, bikes are vehicles and should be treated as such. 3. Include all points of view. Involve members of both genders, a variety of age groups, and law enforcement and fire/rescue people in reviewing plans. Concerns with respect to safety and security will vary depending on the perspective.

V-3


4. Implement an emergency response protocol with law enforcement, EMS agencies, and fire and rescue department that includes mapping of trail and open space access points, design of trails and access roads (to accommodate up to 6.5 tons), an "address/location positioning system" such mile markers to identify locations and, where appropriate, 911 emergency phones in remote areas. 5. Implement a data base management system with law enforcement and fire/rescue to track specific location and circumstances of all accidents, reported incidents and crime and create a safety follow-up task force to address any problems that develop. 6. Routinely inspect for safety hazards, defective structures, missing safety signs, etc. 7. Promote user courtesy and trail etiquette and post and enforce safe user behavior and bicycle speed limits (in congested and risk areas). 8. Have a user feedback plan and problem hotline. Develop a procedure for timely and effective response. 9. Identifying roles and responsibilities of all workers is essential to good O & M planning. E.

Operations and Maintenance Program Several steps can be effective on organizing leadership and effective administration of an O & M program including: •

Preparing and distributing an O & M manual with a specific listing of all functions, frequency of tasks, quality standards, and estimated unit costs and/or staffing requirements. This should be translated into an annual budget that anticipates build-out in five-year increments.

The program should be goal-oriented and mission-focused based on the written and agreed to policies and guidelines.

A lead individual or committee should be identified to serve as liaison/advocate for the system. This lead person should also work cooperatively with the respective department and agency heads and staff to assure a coordinated effort amongst all of the participants.

Allocate discrete and adequate funding based on the written O & M program manual and annual budget.

The program must be cost-effective with sustainable funding sources identified.

V-4


F.

Key participants in the O & M program should meet at least twice a year to assess performance for the past season and set direction, priorities, and funding needs for the upcoming season.

Several agencies or jurisdictions may be involved in the management. Greenway systems often including neighboring communities or infrastructure partners such as a stormwater management agency or a highway department. An interagency maintenance agreement may be based on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other agreement that covers responsibilities, sharing of equipment, standards of performance, and cost sharing if applicable.

O & M Costs and Revenue O & M costs can vary substantially depending on the facility, climate, and complexity of the system. For urban trail systems an annual per-mile cost might run from $2,500 to $10,000. Different sources of revenue may be identified including: • • • • •

General fund allocations; Revenue from right-of-way leases such as cable use; Participation and partnering with the stakeholders such as a flood control agency, streets department, or a homeowners association; Creation of an endowment from philanthropic or other sources to generate on-going revenue; Recruiting volunteers, youth and adopt-a-trail participants and sponsors.

While the annual O & M costs may seem intimidating, it is important to note that the return to the community in terms of recreational benefits, health and fitness and economic development have been shown through a number of studies nationwide to be multi-fold. A proper O & M program will reduce long-term costs by extending the life of trails and trail components, and it will win the support of the residents, homeowners, and businesses.

V-5


Sumner Trail

Appendix I Site Analysis


SITE ANALYSIS A.

Introduction A full range of existing conditions within the potential trail corridor were considered by the consultant team and presented to the Trail Committee and to the public to aid in establishing trail routes and project goals. Specific exhibits presented included maps showing: • Wetlands and Floodplain (100 year FEMA) • Ownership (Including parks, restricted access open space, civic facilities, and the city's now completed annexation area) • Utilities (Existing electric transmission lines, high pressure gas lines, and proposed water and storm mains) • Proposed Transportation Improvements (Showing the City's phase I & II improvements) • Constraints and Opportunities The following discussion of existing site conditions is organized consistent with the City of Sumner SEPA environmental checklist elements.

B.

Elements of the Natural Environment 1.

Earth

The proposed trail corridor is situated on a valley floor created by the White and Puyallup Rivers. Overall profile grades are gentle; though building accessible routes under or over some existing bridge or railroad grades will present challenges. To the east and west steep slopes define the valley floor. Some tentative trail connections to the plateau above have been noted, but they are outside the scope of this planning effort. Soils on the valley floor are high in organic material. Because of their compressible nature, the organic soils may need to be excavated and replaced with structural fill in some areas to support the use of maintenance and emergency vehicles on the trails. Where they are encountered hydric soils should be avoided, or mitigation measures may be required if trail routes go through hydric soil zones. The Puyallup and White River valleys are within potential volcanic hazard zones, due to possible mudflows from Mt. Rainier. Seismic hazards on the valley floor are accentuated by the potential liquefaction of soft valley bottom soils. Construction techniques for structural components of the trail should respond to these sensitive conditions. 2.

Air

The trail project may produce dust and fumes from equipment for a short time during construction. In the long run, however, the trail should have a potential positive impact

APPENDIX I-1


on air quality since it promotes non-motorized commuting and recreation, thus reducing air pollution. Businesses or uses such as construction or agriculture which discharge dust or fumes should provide mitigation when they are located near the trail. In addition, businesses proposing to locate near the trail corridor should plan site issues to be compatible with trail uses. 3.

Water

One of the unique features of the Sumner area is its proximity to the White and Puyallup Rivers, which have shaped settlement patterns in the valley. The “Shoreline Master Program" (2003) requires development setbacks which could accommodate a trail corridor as land uses change. The river corridors offer interesting recreational experiences for trail users. While the river banks are steep in many areas, there are good opportunities for water access where banks slope gently in some locations. In areas north of Bridge Street to 16th Street East the trail is to be located between 100 to 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the river unless a variance is approved. Much of the valley floor along both the White and Puyallup Rivers lies within the 100 year floodplain. Trail design in the valley should acknowledge the possibility of occasional high water during the winter or spring. Some means of limiting trail access may be needed to protect trail users during floods. Where possible alternate "high-water" trail or bikeway bypass routes should be provided, but there may be periodic service interruptions due to high water. Water quality should not be greatly affected by the trail project. Mitigation will be provided as needed in order to maintain the quality of surface water, including the White and Puyallup Rivers, Salmon Creek (a small spawning stream which flows into the White River northeast of downtown Sumner), the Puget Sound Energy spillway, and any oxbow lakes or ponds along the trail. Extensive wetlands border the East and West Valley Highways, and should be avoided. A few smaller wetlands are located close to the rivers within desired trail corridors. If avoidance is not possible mitigation may be required in these areas. There will be an increase in impermeable surface from a pre-development condition, but the quantity of runoff from the trail should not be significant since the trail covers a narrow corridor. Vehicular travel will be limited to maintenance or emergency vehicles, so runoff should be comparatively cleaner than that off streets. Runoff from trail surfaces may need to be detained and treated depending upon actual volumes and specific locations. The Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 6, Section 5) contains specific requirements for stormwater run-off to be sheet flowed (as opposed to conveyed) through either an amended soil treatment and/or vegetated filter and then into nearby vegetation.

APPENDIX I-2


4.

Plants

Plant cover in rural areas of Sumner includes agricultural fields, turf farms, pastures, and native riparian trees and shrubs along the river banks. Thick stands of Alder, Cottonwood, and Willow, with an understory of shrubs, predominate on the steep banks within the river channels. Trail routes proposed near the river banks will require that close attention be paid to maintaining the integrity of riparian vegetation. Native plants installed as buffers alongside the proposed trail could increase the width of the riparian plant zone in places. The trail itself should generally be kept on the flat bench above the banks, avoiding erosion and damage to native vegetation. Limiting disturbance during construction to a narrow corridor will help to protect riparian vegetation. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has not identified endangered plants within the trail corridor. To address expected public desire to visit the shorelines footpath access points should be placed where river bank slopes are gentle. Providing planned access points should minimize impacts on vegetation by people seeking access to the rivers, and create safe river access for pedestrians. 5.

Animals

Riparian plant communities provide valuable habitat for a variety of birds and animals. Trail landscaping can be used to improve and expand wildlife habitat. The Draft EIS for the Sumner Comprehensive Plan does not identify endangered animals along the trail route. However, both the White and Puyallup Rivers and tributary streams contain critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout, which are listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The State Department of Fish and Wildlife does list-the following "significant" animals as possible visitors to the Sumner area: • • • • • • •

Bald Eagle Great Blue Heron Western Grey Squirrel Anadromous Fish Species Puget Sound Chinook salmon Bull trout Steelhead

Wildlife issues may place constraints on the timing of trail construction (e.g. timing construction to avoid seasonal bald eagle visits to roost sites, or salmon spawning areas). Additional habitat mitigation/restoration plans will be prepared as trail construction is permitted and detailed designs are completed. The habitat management plan will assess and inventory existing vegetation/habitat and provide a plan for mitigation/restoration of riparian habitat areas to restore properly functioning conditions over time to these areas. The trail corridor should furnish the public with excellent opportunities for viewing birds and animals in the riparian corridor and adjacent river valley lands.

APPENDIX I-3


Pets will be required to be on leash and thereby reducing the potential for harassment of wildlife by dogs. C.

Elements of the Human Environment 1.

Energy and Natural Resources

One of the major goals of the trail mentioned in the Sumner Comprehensive Plan is promotion of non-motorized commuting. The trail system will provide bicyclists and pedestrians the option of commuting to school or work in Sumner or within the regional trail system. The trail system will also be integrated with existing and proposed mass transit facilities such as the Sumner commuter rail/transit station. Energy expended for trail construction will be considerably less than for the equivalent lengths of road. The trail system will take advantage of existing streets, sidewalks, and trails. In addition, trail improvements will be coordinated with planned road, bridge and utility work.

APPENDIX I-4


169TH AVCT E

162ND AV E

160TH AV E

PARKER RD E

GRAHAM AV

BOCK AV SR162 E

146TH AVCT E

159TH AV E

158TH AV E

ST E

TE

166TH AV E

E

ST C

75TH ST E

76 TH

76TH ST E

85TH STCT E 86TH ST E 87TH ST E 87TH STCT E 88TH ST E

80TH ST E RIVERSIDE DR E

34TH ST SE

OLIVE AV SE

86TH ST E

Figure 14

88TH ST E 89TH ST E

90TH ST E

175TH AV E

162ND AVCT E

160TH AV E

154TH AVCT E WRIGHT AV

LEWIS AV

BONNEY AV

VALLEY AV

153RD AV E

134TH AV E

170TH AV E

146TH AV E

145TH AV E PEASE

WOOD AV

ST RA

IL R

OA D

AV FRY AR

FI NA C AV RR O W CHERRY AV ST KINCAID AV ALDER AV

TR AF

AV N DE LI N

NE

AV 29T NE H S T ER SHAW RD SE

164TH AVCT E

148TH AV E

140TH AV E

142ND AV E SR167 HWY N SR167 HWY S

127TH AV E

126TH AV E

166TH AV E

122ND AV E

27TH ST NE

SUMNER AV

119TH AV E 119TH AV E

IN T

21ST ST SE

25TH ST SE

27TH ST SE

$

E

16TH AV SE

E

0.5

S DR

15TH AV SE

WY

H 66T

78TH ST E

PIONEER WY E

Miles 1 15TH AV SE

TAPP

Date: June 1987

EER

R SD PP TA

ION

T WES

YW

H 10 SR4

64TH ST E

AV E

EP

60TH ST E

T 171S

80TH ST E

TH

HW

AV E

10 SR4

H 170T

GARY ST

74TH ST E

O NE ER

U SO

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E

GAULT ST

51ST STCT E

62ND STCT E

RAINIER ST

ST E

168TH AV E

18TH ST SE

E

E PI

167TH AV E

EAST VALLEY HWY E

BUTTE AV SE 137TH AV E

120TH AV E

THORNTON AV SW

E 126TH AVCT E

125TH AVCT

AV E 118T H

136TH AV E

H AV

0.25

MAIN ST E

64TH ST E

SILVER ST

50TH ST E

55TH ST E

63RD STCT E 63RD STCT E

72ND ST E

100 - YEAR FLOODPLAIN

Source: FEMA

0

PARK ST

WILLOW ST ADELE ST

SUMNER TRAIL

12TH AV SE

ACADEMY ST

E

47TH ST E 48TH ST E RIDGE WEST DR E

52ND ST E DAFFODIL STCT E

WASHINGTON ST

ST

E

PS AP T RNE 42ND ST E M U

50TH STCT E ELM ST E

RIVERGROVE DR

E PI ON E ER

T 169

9TH AV SE

ELM ST

MAPLE ST

R

7TH AV SE

LAKELAND HILLS WY

NEE

AV

MAIN ST

70T H

Y

45TH ST E

16TH ST

T

S

HW

44TH ST E A

HUBBARD

RE DD OO

E PIO

43RD ST E

PUYALLUP ST

EW

INTER AV

40TH ST E 41ST ST E

ZEHNDER ST

STATE ST

E MAIN

O M

H 28T

ST E

163RD AVCT E

TA C

AIN S WM

DE

7TH ST E 8TH ST E

67TH ST SE

E

G ED

IST AD RE

56TH ST E

TON R

WY S

E

E E

53RD STCT E

EY A VE

ILLS

AV

RD 51ST S T

E

34TH ST E

ND

L EL 50TH STCT E 52ND ST E

TS

31ST ST E

2 16

W LD

48TH ST E

DS

E

E AV

32ND ST E

CA

45TH STCT E

HOUS

29TH

38TH ST E

43RD STCT E

VAL L

22ND ST E 23RD ST E 24TH ST E

H 6T 15

32ND ST E

53RD STCT E MON TA V

H AND

29TH ST E

35TH ST E

42ND ST E

SE

24TH ST E

36TH ST E

41ST ST E

N WY

24TH ST E

31ST ST E 32ND ST E

SE

29TH ST E 30TH ST E

20TH ST E

2ND ST E

64TH ST SE

S ST

E

YE

27TH ST E

28TH ST E

62N

71ST ST SE

D AGE R COTT

25TH ST E

1N 167 RPF RAMP SR

24TH ST E

WEST VALLEY HW

23RD ST E

E GRE

20TH ST E

IS AV

16TH ST E

18TH ST E

21ST ST E

C FRAN

16TH ST E

H 69T

E

14TH ST E

Y W PK

S

13TH STCT E

8TH ST E

S PP TA

1 RPN

12TH ST E

STEWART RD

EVER

9TH ST E

STEWART RD SW

KE LA

167 P SR RAM

8TH ST E

L LAKE

E

AV SE ISAAC

N

BL VD

PN 1 167 R

ITA

VALENTINE AV SE

P SR R AM

119TH AV E

JO V

ROY RD SW


A shoreline protection buffer has been established to protect riparian habitat along the White and Puyallup. This designation will prohibit buildings and parking lots from the river banks, and prohibit storm detention ponds. However, wetland mitigation, and trail construction are still allowed provided the setbacks for the trail are met. Shoreline setbacks on the White and Puyallup are as follows: General clearing and grading regulations along the shorelines are as follows: 1. Clearing and grading activities shall only be allowed in association with a permitted shoreline development. 2. All clearing and grading activities shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the intended development, including any clearing and grading approved as part of a landscape plan. Surfaces cleared of vegetation and not developed must be replanted as soon as possible. Within two (2) years the vegetative cover must be reestablished. 3. Clearing and grading within shoreline environment setbacks shall comply with the special requirements for Riparian Management Zones (below). 4. Outside of riparian management zones, normal non-destructive pruning and trimming of vegetation for maintenance purposes shall be permitted. 5. Clearing invasive non-native shoreline vegetation listed on the Pierce County Noxious Weed List is permitted in shoreline locations, provided hand held equipment is used and native vegetation is promptly reestablished in the disturbed area. 6. All shoreline development and activity shall use effective measures to minimize increases in surface water run off that may result from clearing and grading activity. The applicant must include in the proposal the methods that will be used to control, treat, and release runoff so that receiving water quality and shore properties and features shall not be adversely affected. Such measures may include but are not limited to dikes, berms, catch basins or settling ponds, installation and maintenance of oil/water separators, grassy swales interceptor drains, and landscaped buffers. 7. Stabilization of exposed erosional surfaces along shorelines shall, whenever feasible, utilize soil bioengineering techniques. • • •

Urban Suburban Residential Urban Conservancy

50' buffer 100' buffer 100’/200' buffer

Smaller streams are regulated under the City's Critical Areas Ordinance which requires buffers as follows: • • •

Type III Type IV Type V

Without enhancement 100' 50' 25'

With enhancement 75' 25' 20'

APPENDIX I-6


A Type III stream buffer may only be reduced if the property is less than 200 feet in depth and there is no more than 10 percent impervious surface within the 25’ reduced buffer area. 4.

Aesthetics

Structures and furnishings associated with the trail should be designed to fit in with the local context. A walk or ride along the trails will provide an opportunity for a large segment of the public to visit the river banks, historic neighborhoods, and working areas of Sumner. While trail users will be within the view of some existing houses, the activity and connections which the trail provides will benefit homeowners. It will also provide them with immediate access to an extensive system of trails. 5.

Light and Glare

Existing light levels in the valley vary greatly depending upon location. The downtown core and developing industrial areas are well lit at night, while rural areas are currently relatively dark. Expected land development will increase overall light levels in these outlying areas. Limited night lighting may be needed at bridge undercrossings and at established trailheads to guide visitors safely off the trail during the evening. A segment of trail near the central business district may be lit. Nighttime use of some other trail segments may be prohibited. 6.

Recreation

A number of parks and civic facilities provide recreation opportunities in the city. Some of these are currently connected by sidewalks, but are isolated from convenient bicycle connections by busy roads. The trail will offer recreation opportunities for pedestrians, bicyclists, rollerbladers, and other users, and facilitate travel to other local parks and open spaces. The trail creates an opportunity to provide access to open space along the rivers which is currently unavailable for public use. Several major regional trails currently end to the north and south of Sumner, making access for Sumner and Pacific residents, and for outside trail users difficult. The Sumner/Pacific Trail will be designed to meet public requests for connections with regional trails. 7.

Historic and Cultural Preservation

The downtown core of Sumner has a wonderful business district and neighborhoods (including three houses on the national historic register). In addition, two railroads which run through town establish a unique cultural heritage. The rail lines create obstacles to some trail routes, but are also a fascinating and unique element of Sumner. The trail

APPENDIX I-7


system within the City of Sumner should take advantage of access to and from the business district, and residential areas. Trails may also help to maintain the vitality and economic viability of the downtown core by enhancing access and creating activity. According to the Sumner Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS, a review of 2004 site records at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation identified no previously recorded archaeological resources within the Sumner City limits, though it is likely that Native American sites existed in the valley (see page 3-139 and accompanying map in the City's draft EIS). There is a possibility that some archeological sites will lie within the proposed trail corridor. Conditions on construction are such that if any archaeological artifacts are discovered in the course of construction that the work ceases until the state has had a chance to assess the findings.

APPENDIX I-8


24TH ST E

SE 160TH AV E

PARKER RD E

GRAHAM AV

SR4

E 75TH ST E

182ND AV E 64TH ST E

67TH ST E MYERS RD E

RAINIER ST WILLOW ST W GARY ST Y W

64TH ST E 65TH STCT E ST E 66T H E WY 10 H

166TH AV E

ALDER AV

VALLEY AV

STEELE AV WOOD AV PEASE

FRYAR AV

CHERRY AV

AV EN LI ND

175TH AV E

SR167 HWY N

WEST VALLEY HWY E

127TH AV E

134TH AV E

TE

NE

AVC

AV

TH

ER

175

IN T

E

E

63RD STCT E

75TH STCT E

34TH ST SE

27TH ST SE

0.5

SR162 E

SHAW RD SE

25TH ST SE

21ST ST SE

0.25

$

Miles 1 15TH AV SE

80TH ST E

84TH S T

PIONEER WY E 87TH ST E 88TH ST E

H 77T

ST

E

81ST ST E

E

50' Setback

78TH ST E

T AV 171S

200' Setback

80TH ST E

Source: EP Sumner Community ION Devlopement Dept.EE R

TE

50TH ST E

SUMNER TRAIL

100' Setback

HS

60TH ST E

74TH ST E

Sumner Shoreline Designations

TE

62ND STCT E

SILVER ST

72ND ST

E

DR

E

O NE ER 7TH AV SE

T AV

INTER AV

16TH ST

171S

E MAIN

HS

4 5T

PS

0H

ELM ST E

ELM ST

MAIN ST MAPLE ST ACADEMY ST

41

P TA

T AIN S WM STATE ST

SR

TH

DE

AV

168TH AV E

IOF S

U SO

E

119TH AV E

OLIVE AV

142ND AV E

AV

7C SR16

A

CT

181ST AV E

E 12 6T H

122ND AV E

D

56TH ST E

VAL LEY AV E

M

PUYALLUP ST

53RD STCT E

53RD STCT E

O

ST

E

H AV

E 38TH ST E WY H PS P 41ST ST E TA RNE M SU 44TH ST E 2N

48TH ST E

TA C

AV

AV E

176T

16

45TH STCT E

0

28T

34TH ST E

41ST ST E

43RD STCT E

E PI

25TH STCT E

TE

H 179T

36TH ST E

TON R

VE HA

32ND ST E

6T 15

32ND ST E

26 TH

VE TH A

S

29TH ST E

30TH ST E

22ND ST E

24TH ST E

HS

18 5T H 1 69

24TH ST E

WY

27TH ST E

HO US

17T

RD E

125TH AVCT

67 H

118T H

S R1

24TH ST E

LAKE TAPPS PKWY E

16TH ST E

AGE COTT

AV E

18TH ST E

STEWART RD

166TH AV E

AV E

12TH ST E

13TH STCT E

EAST VALLEY HWY E

THORNTON AV SW

9TH ST E

140TH AV E

E

137TH AV E

8TH ST E

BUTTE AV SE

VALENTINE AV SE

BL VD

136TH AV E

ITA

2ND ST E

E WY S H IL L S LA N D L AK E AV SE Y SE ISAAC EN W GR E EV ER

ROY RD SW

JO V

E

86TH ST E

88TH ST E 89TH ST E

SR

41

E Figure 15 0


8.

Transportation

A number of road and bridge construction projects in or near Sumner provide opportunities for bike lane or sidewalk improvements. Of particular interest as trail planning tools are projects which are in the City's phase I and II development plan (proposed to be built before the year 2000). Several planned bridge projects have been completed that facilitate trail crossings-and/or allow the trail to pass beneath a new bridge along the river. Other bridges are planned for widening that will also be designed to accommodate the trail. Proper coordination with bridge designers prior to construction should allow smooth trail passage. Retrofitting bridges for trail use after construction should be avoided since it will be much more expensive. While road construction offers opportunities, increased vehicular traffic may not be compatible with pedestrian or bicycle use on a trail corridor. Trail crossings and access must be coordinated with the design of new roads. Sumner's proximity to two rail lines creates a strong identity within the town. The area is served by a transit station that links downtown Sumner to Seattle with the Sounder commuter train that stops 4 times in the morning and evening. A “reverse train� was added in 2008 expanding opportunities for commuters to come to Sumner’s growing employment base. Commuters will have the option to ride transit or to bike or walk to their final destination from downtown. The trail system will play a key role in this transportation link. Sumner is served by Pierce Transit and Sounder bus service. Currently there are no Parkand-Ride lots located within the city limits. Integration of trail design with bus commuter systems at the transit/rail station will form another important commuter link. Increasing the availability of secure bike lockers at the commuter rail station should be considered to foster greater utilization. 9.

Public Services

Judging from the popularity of other trail projects in the area (especially the Foothills Trail to the south); the Sumner Trail should be well used both by locals and nonresidents. Other trail projects have demonstrated that increased trail use should reduce security problems, since trail visitors tend to police themselves to a large extent. However, the trail should be made wide enough to provide access for emergency, security, and maintenance vehicles. Periodic emergency access points are planned along the trail. The trail will be designed to facilitate access to civic and cultural facilities within the town.

APPENDIX I-10


10.

Utilities

Trailheads should be served by utilities such as power, water, and sewer service. Bridge undercrossings may also require power for lighting. Some areas outside the downtown core of the city may require expansion of utilities to serve trails. Utilities will eventually be expanded to serve developing areas, but service to trails will need to be coordinated with the City's long range plans. 11.

Ownership

There is a mix of public, commercial, agricultural and residential property along the White and Puyallup Rivers, and potential trail corridors. The City owns large blocks of land on the White River east of the existing industrial area. In addition, Sumner Links public golf course the city-owned land south of the golf course has a variety of alternatives that have not been fully determined. Ideas range from a regional natural park facility to active sports parks to developing the area as housing or industrial uses. Public open space in the downtown core consists of four parks: Siebenthaler, Loyalty, Daffodil Sports Complex, and Heritage Park, as well as the library/senior center complex, city hall, and school properties. Girard (Mt. Circle) Park south of SR 410 on the Puyallup River has been largely cut off from use because of the freeway. Riverside Park and an elementary school, and the W.S.U. Extension Station are located south of town along the Puyallup River. The town cemetery occupies two parcels west of the city. Large areas of open space restricted from public use, including the Sumner watershed and former Puget Sound Energy generation site, occupy large parcels on the eastern valley slopes. Because of the restricted access these areas are less significant in terms of use, but will be important pockets of open space as the valley floor becomes more urban in character. The proposed trail corridor crosses private properties on which easements have not been secured, and whose owners may be opposed to trail use. As land uses are converted over time from agricultural or residential to commercial or industrial uses the City should request easements for trail access using the trail plan as a foundation. Trails and utility systems make good partners due to the linear nature of each. There are several existing or proposed utility corridors which may lend themselves to trail routes. Puget Sound Energy has numerous transmission lines in the area originating at the generating plant. There may be a possibility of acquiring easements within the power line rights-of-way. Williams Northwest Pipeline has a major natural gas line which crosses the Puyallup River near 72nd St. Southeast, and could provide a trail easement. 12.

Regional Trail Connections

When it is complete the proposed Sumner Commuter Trail will link four major regional trails: Foothills Trail, Puyallup River Trail, Interurban Trail, and White River Trail. The Foothills Trail from Buckley and Orting is planned to follow the Burlington Northern

APPENDIX I-11


Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way and 134th Ave. north toward Sumner. The Puyallup River Trail will run along the south bank of the river, eventually connecting to Tacoma. To the north, the Interurban Trail from Seattle currently exists as far south as 3rd Ave. in Pacific. To the northeast trails will connect to Auburn, and the Green River Trail. In addition, tentative proposals exist for smaller local trails connecting to Edgewood along Jovita Blvd., and to Lakeland Hills which will intersect the Sumner Trail.

APPENDIX I-12


D ST SE

HWY

E

182ND AV E

NER -TAP PS SUM

ST 18 AV E 3R D

18 1

184TH

185TH

187TH

192ND

189TH

89TH 88TH 90TH

D AN

94TH

NE

95T H

100TH 101ST

192ND

LI AN GE

181ST AV E

191ST

191ST

188TH

LOCUST

183RD 184TH 185TH

82ND

84TH 84TH

184TH

184TH

IM ELH IR 17 7T H

189TH

41 ST

178 TH 17 9T H

MYERS RD E

17

6T

H

170T H 171 ST

MYERS

166TH

166TH AV E

DE EON R MCC UTC H

HE E

190TH

STUART AVE SE

160TH

RIVERSIDE DR E

158TH

146TH

SR162

185T H

168TH

182ND AVE E 183RD 184TH AVE E

E OLIVE AV S PERRY AV SE

166TH 162ND

160TH AV E

157TH

PARKER RD E

175TH AV E

160TH

PARKER

154TH

GRAHAM AV

152ND

BOCK VALLEY AV

ALDER AV

167TH 170TH

LLEY T VA EAS

HWY E EAST VALLEY

151ST

PEASE

WOOD AV

STEELE AV

FRYAR AV

CHERRY AV

40TH

38TH

36TH

34TH

41ST 43RD

SE

31ST S T

SHAW

MC G

Figure 16 E

43RD ST SE

SR162 E

34TH

28TH ST SE

28TH

169TH AVCT E

148TH AVE E

142ND

142ND AV E 134TH AV E

34TH ST SE

27TH

LAKELAND HILLS WY

H E AZE L RS STA D TEV I

MO N

140TH 140TH AV E

137TH AV E FRY AR

AV DE N

LI N

134TH

NE

AV

ER IN T

25TH ST SE

24TH 25TH 25TH

QUINCY AVE SE

SE

ELIZABETH AVE SE

50 TH

ST

A ST SE EAST VALLEY HWY

D

OR AV ET ZR

CEDAR LN

ST PAUL BLVD BUTTE AVE

BUTTE AV SE

VALENTINE AV SE

VALENTINE

136TH AV E SR167 HWY N SR167

125TH

127TH AV E 127TH

124TH

23RD 26TH

L IS

ST

20TH ST SE

166TH AV E

124TH

122ND 122ND AV E

21ST 21ST ST SE 22N D

20TH

17TH

17TH ST SE

ALDER LN

VALLEY ST

E WEST VALLE Y

119TH AV E

119TH AV E

THORTON AVE SW

128TH AVE E

126TH AV E E

27TH

HW Y

117TH

118T H

119TH

WEST VALLEY

118T H

125TH AVCT

AV E

116T H 115TH 116TH

15TH

C ST SW

D BLV TA CO MA

VALL EY H WY TAG ER D

FRO N

123RD AV E

120TH AV E

114TH AVE E

E 112TH A VE

114TH

18TH

19T H

Y SK

100TH

68TH

H 188T

17TH

H

T

92ND ST E

TH 97

15TH

T 187

E S 181

89TH ST E

E AV

SR 41 0

181ST AV E

16TH 18TH

INT

D ND 182

14TH

S PO

114TH

JENK

182N

114TH

H

E

12TH

185T

CT

13TH

H

E

V S HA PP TA 175T TH

13TH

T 185

G ID

H 184T

R KE LA

AV E

H 9T 17 H E 8T 17 H AV 8T 17

14 TH

T IN PO TH 186

E

H 176T

E

102ND

MA CO TA

H AV

D

$

96TH ST E

H

H 9T 179T 17

RE DD LAN

R 33

Miles 1

96TH

14T

IS ER DE

H

EN

0.5

77TH

93RD ST E T 148

27TH AV SE

D 3R 17

43RD

41ST ST SE

RE TG

14TH

SE

U SO E

R

H

D SE

T 27

ES

0.25

88TH ST E

92ND

65TH

74TH

E

143RD

41ST

TH 39

BE AM

R SHAW

90TH ST E

REGIONAL CONNECTIONS

0

84TH

62ND

BONNEY LAKE

81ST ST E

86TH ST E

88TH ST E

SUMNER TRAIL

R FO

#TH Water Access 28TH 28 30TH 31ST

86TH 87TH ST E

15TH AV SE

Existing Bike Lane 19THSumner, 19TH AV SE 19T H Other Cities, Existing Trail0T H 2 ST Trail Sumner, Proposed 1 20TH AV SE 2 Other Cities, Proposed Trail 23RD 23RD AV SE 23RD 23RD AV SE Sumner, Proposed Bike Lane 24TH 25TH 24TH AV SE 26TH  Rest Room E RODESCO E OK 26TH Trail Head CHE R

F !

PIONEER WY E

F ! #

T AV

EER

141ST

VISTA

Sumner, Future Trail

67TH ST E 70TH ST E

171S

ION

Foothills Trail HIGHLANDS Orting 15T 16TH

64TH ST E

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E TE RAINIER ST HS WILLOW 66T WILLOW ST SR E WY 41 0H GARY ST 70T 0 1 4 HS SR YW TE HW 0 1 S R4 72ND ST E RIVE RSID E 74TH ST E RI VE 75TH 75TH ST E RW 75TH STCT E 76TH AL K DR 78TH 78TH  78TH ST E 80TH 80TH ST E E ST 80TH 81ST

12TH AV SE

Sumner, Existing Trail

R

F ! EP

H

64TH ST E

0 41

E PI O NE ER

64TH

H

58TH 59TH

59TH

60TH ST E

65TH

159TH

12TH

9TH

63RD STCT E

SILVER ST

TH

50TH ST E

51ST

SR

10TH

E PI O NE ER 7TH AV SE

62ND STCT E

63RD

50TH

P AM

9TH PARK

INTER AV

F !

ACADEMY ST PARK ST

8TH ST E 9TH ST E T 187

17

E

4TH ST E 4TH

TE HS 45T W ES T TA PP S

R

7TH

E MAIN



MAIN ST E

S DR

F !

HUBBARD ELM D ELM ST E O EL M ST 52ND O W DAFFODIL 16TH ST 54TH 54TH LANGDON 55TH ST E

MAPLE ST

P TAP

#

47TH

47TH

MAIN

T WES

E AT STATE ST ST

46TH

SD PP TA

SR ON HOUST

MAIN ST

T AIN S WM

TH

FY !

LLE VA

S

AV

E Y HW 39TH U SO

E

IOF 167 C

45TH

PUYALLUP ST

55TH ST E

DR

M A

S PP A -T

H 27T H 28T

ST

D 3R

18 5T 25 H A TH V E 26 ST T H CT ST E H CT 26T E 28 TH 3RD ST 18 E

25TH STCT E

R NE M 43RD SU 44TH ST E 45TH

43RD

57TH ST SE A STCT E 2ND ST E

16TH ST E 17T HS TE

22ND 24TH

E T AV 171S E H AV 170T 168TH AV E H

IST A

O

41ST ST E

W AY

PS LAKE TAPPS PKWY E 66TH H 10T

H

T 166

53RD STCT E

17 0T

VE TH A

E

D

C

E

73RD

34TH ST E 34TH ST E

163RD AVCT E

DE

N 52

F !

K LA

P TA

72ND

29TH

AV

AV E

ED GE 50TH W OO 51ST D

River Trail DEN LIN Tacoma and Puyallup

EER

24TH ST E

ND

115TH

PION

22ND ST E

2 16

112TH

VAL LEY

NTA V

TA

8TH

169

30TH 32ND

F !

4TH

F24TH ST E !

29TH ST E

32ND

5TH

MAIN

SE E S WY RS HILL HD 57T LAND MES A S E AKE L J AY AV SE W Y SE ISAAC EN W GRE EVER

MO

TON R

S

H

113TH

H 2T 11

52ND 52ND

HOUS

LL HI

6

50TH

SR167



2ND ST E

53RD ST SE Y

62ND

71ST

E AV

T 116

48TH ST E

H 8T 11 53RD

#

2ND

SE

62ND ST SE

E

12

TH

L EL DW

45TH STCT E 48TH

24TH ST E 24TH 24TH ST E

41ST ST E L CA

45TH

20TH

38TH

43RD STCT E

46TH

SE

43RD

Y

41ST

72 ND

H 6T 15

34TH 35TH ST E 36TH ST E

36TH

H 69T

RD AGE COTT

34TH

32ND ST E

W

30TH ST E

67TH

16TH ST E #

R167 RAMP S S WY

27TH ST E 28TH ST E

47TH 49 TH

67 H S R1

24TH ST E 25TH ST E

H 6T 12

23RD

61ST

64TH

PK

21ST ST E

PS

20TH

KE R

60TH

F !

16TH ST E

YE

18TH ST E

P TA

16TH

F !

8THST E

STEWART RD

E

12TH ST E

13TH STCT E

32ND

F !

8TH ST E

9TH ST E

15TH

24TH ST E

E

#

K LA

8TH ST E

13TH

18TH ST E

BL VD

! F

ND

VI TA

W EY H VALL WEST

11TH

JO

ROY RD SW

7 SR 16

114TH

8TH

2ND

LA

5TH

COUNTY LINE RD E 7 SR 16

4TH

119TH AV E

117TH AVE E

JO

S 384TH ST D JO LV VIT AB A VIT

KE

6TH AVE SW

SE SE ST H CT TH 48T 7 E 4 S ST T S 51 LA

5TH AVE SW

SE

AY W

3RD AVE SE

4TH AVE SW

PL

3RD

Y

3RD AVE SW

DR

R VE RI

SE

WES T

3RD AVE NE

2ND AVE SW

Inter-Urban Trail Auburn

SE 42ND ST

R KE

S 3RD AVE

ELLINGSON RD

T SE

S 372ND ST

5TH AVE S

RS

53RD AVE S 55TH AVE S

4TH AVE S

S 101

T


Sumner Trail

Appendix II Workshop Information


Open House & Public Workshop #1 Place: Sumner City Hall Date: 9-27-95 Consultant Team Present: David McNeal, Roger Dane (J•G•M) Dan McReynolds (Parametrix) Committee Members Present: Ken Woolery, Carol Scoffed, Scott Nelson, Cheryl Bertsch, Krystene Kiernan OPEN HOUSE 6-7:00 During the first hour people stopped by to look at the analysis boards, and get some general information about the trail mute. Some arrived expecting to find specific proposals which they could review, but were pleasantly surprised to find that the consultants asked them for their input. Twenty people signed in; a few others dropped by briefly. Six Trail Committee members attended the workshop. Many of the visitors were bicycle commuters. INTRODUCTION 7:15 - 7:30 John Doan introduced the Trail Committee members and consultants, and explained the tasks assigned to the public participants. John said people would be asked to identify preferred trail routes and suggest facilities they would like to see along the trail. David McNeal then gave a short slide presentation outlining some of the issues and opportunities to be addressed. Images of the potential trail corridor, and some similar, completed trails by J-G-M were presented. WORKSHOP 7:30 - 8:30 People were then asked to break into four teams of four or five people, to brainstorm about the trail mute and accompanying facilities. Each team was joined by a consultant or staff person to assist with technical questions. Everyone had been introduced to constraints and opportunities through the analysis maps. This was the team's chance to discuss preferred mutes without getting too caught up in the details of feasibility. Most people began by identifying trail connecting points outside of Sumner. Most trail routes predominantly followed the river. Everyone agreed that some loops were desirable, and a couple of proposals included continuous trails on both sides of the White River. Taking advantage of proposed bridge construction projects and existing public lands or rights-of-way was central to each group's proposals. In addition some suggestions were made to connect the business district, schools, parks, and civic facilities with the trail. The idea of a trail along the Puyallup River upstream of the BNRR bridge to Pierce County's Riverside Park was not widely discussed, since it is off the main northsouth connection to other existing and/or proposed regional trails. Also, some opposition to a trail in that area was expressed by residents of the mobile home park near Girard Park. CONCLUSION 8:30 A spokesperson from each group presented maps and notes to the reassembled participants. People were then invited to attend a follow-up meeting on October 25th to refine alternatives which the consultants will generate from this public input.

APPENDIX II-1


Public Workshop & Charrette #2 Place: Sumner City Hall Date: 10-25-95 Consultant Team Present: David McNeal, Roger Dane (J•G•M) Dan McReynolds (Parametrix) Committee Members Present: Gretchen Carter, Ken Woolery, Carol Scoffed, Scott Nelson, Cheryl Bertsch, Krystene Kiernan IN"IRODUCTION 4:05 -4:15 As people arrived for the meeting each was asked to sign in, and was given a packet containing the day's agenda, a copy of the project schedule, and sketches of standard trail and bikeway types. A copy of the Preliminary Concepts Phase of the scope of work assigned to the consultants was also handed out. Displays included the work from previous meetings, and a revised site plan, and a set of more detailed boards showing trail mutes. These detailed plans consisted of 200 scale aerial photos with mylar overlays portraying proposed trail routes, trail facilities, and some natural features along the river corridor. River miles marked on the maps provided a sense of scale. David McNeal started the meeting by previewing the night's agenda; explaining that people would be asked to review and comment on proposed trail routes and facilities. He introduced the working exhibits to be used during the evening. He explained that the routes chosen were distilled from input gathered at the previous public workshop, and from discussion during the October 11th Committee meeting. Field visits and review of assessor's maps and drainage maps also helped to determine the proposed route alternative. Everyone was reminded to attend the public presentation of the plan on November 8th at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. PRIMARY ROUTE DISCUSSION 4:15 - 5:20 Everyone present was asked to comment upon the proposed primary trail routes. David McNeal led a verbal walk-through of the plan, asking for comments at any point. Comments and suggestions were written on "Post-It" notes, and attached to the plan during the discussion. The suggested primary route joining with other regional trails, and running along both banks of the river was well received. The importance of loop routes was also reiterated by the public, as the loops proposed met with approval While it was agreed that a route along the municipal golf course is desirable, questions arose regarding compatibility between golfers and trail users. Buffers and netting may be needed to protect trail users; particularly if horses are allowed along that reach of trail. In addition, the course would need to be protected from vandalism, and golfers screened from distractions on the trail. The Puget Power tailrace was also seen as within a highly desirable trail route, but in need of extensive safety measures due to rapid fluctuations in water levels. Much of the conversation centered on bridge crossings and busy intersections. Where possible, people agreed that new bridges should be suitable for trail travel across and under bridge decks. The routes chosen during the master plan phase would be acquired and developed over time as land uses convert. Thus many current conflict areas with private owners would be eliminated as land is developed further.

APPENDIX II-2


SECONDARY ROUTE DISCUSSION 5:20 - 5:35 Discussion of secondary routes concentrated on a web of bike routes making connections with residential areas, workplaces, and the primary trail system creating a complete non-motorized transportation system. It was agreed that be lanes were not appropriate along the main street retail corridor. Some additional be routes were added to facilitate commuter connections to the trail, to provide more direct commuter routes through to, and to connect with the Daffodil Sports complex. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 5:35 - 6:15 Distribution and types of proposed facilities such as railheads and restrooms were validated as proposed. Fairly frequent trailheads were seen as a plus to promote both recreational and commuter tail users. Availability of emergency access was cited as critical. Lighting at trailheads, under some bridge undercrossings, and along a more urban "boardwalk" or promenade was suggested. John Doan asked about phasing of construction, and it was agreed that a primary route along the east bank of the White River, upstream of downtown Sumner, providing connections to regional trails, was a likely candidate. City ownerships and easements would streamline trail construction in this stretch of trail. This would also create at least a partial link with regional trails in the area, building momentum for additional trail acquisition and construction. In addition, building on the existing trails at Riverwalk and creating access to Girard Park was important. CONCLUSION 6:15 Everyone was invited to the November 8th meeting. Most of the group stayed to chat about trail issues for another fifteen minutes or so.

APPENDIX II-3


Public Presentation - Workshop #3 Place: Sumner City Hall Date: 11-8-95 Consultant Team Present: David McNeal, Roger Dane (J•G•M) Dan McReynolds (Parametrix) Committee Members Present: Gretchen Carter, Ken Woolery, Scott Nelson, Pat Cates, Krystene Kiernan, Rob Andrioti OPEN HOUSE 7:00 - 7:15 During the first few minutes people browsed exhibits laid out on a table at the front of the Council Chamber. Materials included the aerial photos with mylar overlays from the previous workshop, which had been revised to include public input. A new trail segment along the Puyallup River's south bank was also added, and highlighted for discussion. In addition, a new base map suitable for reduction and use in the final report was displayed, showing a synopsis of the most current trail plan. Several sketches were shown including a typical section through the City's 200' shoreline protection buffer, the Union Pacific Railroad bridge; and the proposed Anton's bridge rebuild. An aerial rendering of trail routes at Anton's bridge was also included o give an indication of how trails could join and disperse at Anton's bridge. About a dozen people, including Trail Committee members, attended the meeting (nine people signed in). PRESENTATION 7:15 - 7:50 John Doan brought the meeting to order and introduced the consultant team at 7:15. David McNeal then presented a slide show detailing the proposed route, alternating between images of maps, sketches, and photographs of sites along the trail corridor. Highlights included the addition of trail routes in the Puyallup south bank, a detailed examination of trail connections at Anton's bridge. The Anton's area was explored in detail because it is at the intersection of three major regional trails, and because if serves as an example of similar problems and potential solutions at other nearby bridges. Studying the undercrossings at Anton's bridge also raises questions about whether some trail segments may need to be closed during periods of high water, placing even more importance on looping routes which would then provide alternatives during floods. Since proposed routes occur adjacent to existing residences people were reminded that the trail plan is a long range plan which will be implemented as land uses change, without disturbing current land uses. The web of be routes providing connections with the trail, alternate looping routes, and more direct commuter links was also presented. Some brief discussion of the character of materials and finishes was also discussed at the end of the presentation. COMMENTS 7:50 - 8:30 People seemed excited about the project, and were particularly engaged by the aerial view o Anton's bridge. Comments included adding to Phase Ito cross the White River at 24th and extended north the Riverbend Park. People also felt that the southern end of phase I needed to be integrated with the Foothills and Puyallup Trails to the south, and with downtown Sumner. Most of the group stayed to chat about getting the trail built until about 8:45.

APPENDIX II-4


Interim Report - City Council Study Session Place: Sumner City Hall Date: 11-27-95 Consultant Team Present: David McNeal, Len Zickler, Roger Dane (J•G•M) INTRODUCTION 5:50 Following some procedural discussion at the opening of the session John Doan gave a brief overview of the trail design project, its timetable, and funding. John mentioned that the next public workshop would take place in January, to be followed by adoption of the trail master plan. He then introduced the design consultants, and turned the presentation over to David McNeal. PRESENTATION 5:55 - 6:20 David McNeal presented a short slide show which addressed the major issues of the trail design process. A brief discussion of site analysis and initial schemes was followed by a short discussion of proposed trails. Highlights included trail routes on both sides of the rivers, a discussion of proposed support facilities (trailheads, restrooms, etc.), and the importance of adapting vehicular bridges to trail needs. Providing connections to nearby regional trails was also stressed as the prime objective of the trail Master Plan. COMMENTS 6:20 - 6:35 Following the presentation council members asked these questions: •

• •

A member of the fire department asked about adequate emergency and security vehicle access. David McNeal responded that the trail tread will be wide enough to accommodate maintenance, emergency, and security vehicles, and that the trail will be designed to be accessible to emergency vehicles at all road crossings, trailheads, etc. It was also suggested that some mechanism to identify locations, such as mileposts, be incorporated into the trail design to help direct emergency/security personnel to specific spots on the trail. The question of whether the trail would be lighted was also raised. The consultants suggested that "developed" urban areas of the trail might be lighted, but that the outlying areas would be closed and unlighted under the current plan. John Doan was asked to confirm that the ISTEA funding provided only trail design work. Funding discussion included possible construction funding sources, and the fact that some facilities, such as river access areas, might need to be funded separately from the trail to qualify for transportation grants. The aerial sketch of trail crossings at Anton's bridge prompted a council member to call for planning access ramps to and from bridge crossings during bridge design negotiations. This also prompted a comment that the city limits

APPENDIX II-5


should be adjusted near the wastewater treatment plant so that the city would have jurisdiction over any activities in that area. The consultants then were thanked for their presentation, and the council moved on to the next topic on their agenda.

APPENDIX II-6


Open House - Workshop #4 Place: Sumner City Hall Date: 2-13-96 Consultant Team Present: David McNeal, Roger Dane (J•G-M) Committee Members Present: Ken Woolery, Pat Cates OPEN HOUSE 6:00 - 8:00 The revised trails Master Plan graphic, with sketches and sections was laid out in the council chamber for people to view and comment upon. A group of about a dozen people who attended, and were very supportive of the plan. A reporter from the Tacoma News Tribune interviewed attendees, asking pointed questions, but was unable to turn up controversial comments. One small piece was added to the plan, extending a bike route north and east from Pacific Park along the Burlington Northern tracks to Ellingson.

APPENDIX II-7


Interim Report - City Council Study Session Place: Pacific City Hall Date: 2/21/96 Consultant Team Present: David McNeal, Roger Dane (J•G•M) INTRODUCTION 7:00 John Doan introduced the design consultants, and gave a brief overview of the trail Master Plan project. He explained the project's timetable, its funding, and the role which citizens and staff from Pacific played in the planning process. He then turned the presentation over to David McNeal. PRESENTATION 7:05-7:25 David McNeal presented a slide show highlighting the major elements of the trail Master Plan as it is planned to date. A brief discussion of the process used in forming the plan, including site analysis and conceptual schemes derived in public workshops, was followed by a short presentation of proposed trails. Highlights included trail routes on both sides of the rivers, a discussion of proposed support facilities (trailheads, restrooms, etc.), and the importance of adapting vehicular bridges to trail needs. The central role which Pacific plays in providing links with nearby trails, along 3rd Avenue and the Puget Power easement, was discussed in greater detail. David Hedges also gave a summation of a recent meeting with Puget Power to negotiate trail access along their power line routes. COMMENTS 7:25-7:35 Following the presentation council members and members of the public asked the following questions: • A question about access to the trail system in Pacific prompted David McNeal to mention that existing park facilities such as Pacific Park will provide good trail access. The planned expansion of the trailhead on the Interurban Trail at 3rd Avenue, and the planned addition of bike lanes and improved sidewalks to 3rd Avenue will start also integrate Pacific with the proposed trail. • The council asked if adequate access for emergency vehicles would be provided, and were pleased to hear that numerous access points are planned. • A Pacific resident asked what effect the trail would have on wildlife in the area. John Doan and David McNeal explained that the trail will help to preserve a strip of land along the river from development, providing habitat as well as creating viewing opportunities for people who don't own property on the water. The council seemed very pleased with the trail plan. They thanked the consultants, and moved on with the agenda.

APPENDIX II-8


Sumner Trail

Appendix III Conceptual Park and Trail Head Designs


CONCEPTUAL PARK & TRAILHEAD DESIGNS A.

Regional Active Sports Complex

A parcel south of the Sumner Golf Course has been purchased by the city for an active sports complex and trailhead. Much of the site is agricultural fields, with a band of trees along the river. A large stand of wetland trees extends inland from the river at 24th. A utility and pedestrian bridge has been constructed across the White River at 24th. In conjunction with field sports and possibly an extension of the golf course the site is excellent for a major trailhead. Since the fields require large parking areas trail users should be able to take advantage of those lots when games are not in session, reducing the total amount of paving. The woodland near 24th should be preserved, and made more accessible with footpaths. Much of this area is wetland, so it should not be developed. It is also one of the larger patches of riparian woodland in the area, and should be preserved as habitat.

APPENDIX III-1


B.

Riverbend Park

The 8 acre Riverbend Park was purchased along with the Golf Course. At present there are stands of tall cottonwoods along the river, and a mix of on fields and blackberry thickets over the rest of the site. The northeast corner of the park is on an inside corner of the river channel and has shallow gravel bars with some wetland vegetation. Wetlands make some of the park off limits to development. The long river edge of the site means that a large portion of the site is protected under the Urban Conservancy 200' river protection buffer. The site is best suited to passive uses, but has the potential to serve as a small trailhead for local use. Extensive tree plantings will enhance habitat values and promote the quiet atmosphere of the site. Maintaining an open ground plane under the tree canopy will allow people to move through the park. Due to the shallow slope of the banks the site offers good access to the water's edge in places. A thick understory should be preserved to protect wetland areas, and to discourage pedestrian access to the water in areas with steep river banks.

APPENDIX III-2


SUMNER TRAIL RIVERBEND PARK JONGEJAN•GERRARD•McNEAL

APPENDIX III-3


C.

Girard Park/Mt. Circle Park

Located between Highway 410 and the Puyallup River, and east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks, the park site is currently largely inaccessible to the public. Construction of the trail will reestablish public access to the park which has been missing for years. With a trail connection the park will form a valuable extension of the open space at the confluence area. Though it is narrow (150'-350' wide), the park is somewhat wider than the Urban Conservancy and Suburban river buffer zones nearby. No improvements to the park are proposed in the City's Parks and Open Space Plan. The long narrow shape, and low setting of the site preclude extensive development for active sports facilities. Existing vegetation consists of a nice mix of established trees, small openings and wetland edge which would make a pleasant passive park. The site is different from surrounding Urban Conservancy river buffers in that it will not be dominated by wetland mitigation and detention facilities, so it will offer more land for public use. The natural character of the site should be largely preserved, with the addition of some mowed openings for passive use and footpaths for exploration. Heavy planting along the border of Highway 410 should help screen the park from the highway.

APPENDIX III-4


SUMNER TRAIL GIRARD PARK JONGEJAN•GERRARD•McNEAL

APPENDIX III-5


D. Confluence Park The site of Sumner's Sewer Treatment Plant at the confluence of the Puyallup and White Rivers is open to limited public access. Very limited public parking exists. The City has agreed to preserve access for fishing at the site. Though the site has outstanding water access its limited size and the fumes generated from the treatment plant combine to pose constraints on future park development. The central location of the site make it an excellent location for a major trailhead. Land purchased added space which could be used for trail access parking. Any improvements to the park must not inhibit potential expansion of the treatment plant. Tree planting should be used to buffer both the highway and treatment plant from trailhead users as much as possible. Proper facilities should be developed to support the fishing community already using the site. Construction of a boat ramp, boat trailer parking and fishermen's shelters and restrooms would improve their experience and help to protect the river corridor. A boat ramp might be best constructed upstream of the treatment plant because most at traffic is on the Puyallup, and the shore is more stable at this location. However, moving the boat launch upstream also eliminates the ability to haul out boats floating the White.

APPENDIX III-6


SUMNER TRAIL CONFLUENCE PARK JONGEJAN•GERRARD•McNEAL

APPENDIX III-7


Sumner Trail

Appendix IV Related Plans


RELATED PLANS A.

Pierce County Nonmotorized Transportation Plan

The Pierce County Nonmotorized Transportation Plan lists the following goals related to trails: • Programming New Projects: Pierce County incorporates nonmotorized improvements in the Annual and Six-Year Transportation Improvement Programs, and Capital Facilities Element by including nonmotorized projects with road projects, and by identifying exclusive nonmotorized projects where there are no roadway. projects proposed. a. the recommended projects contained in the Pierce County Nonmotorized Transportation Plan b. completing links between existing facilities and adjacent jurisdictions c. community support, (projects should be planned in close cooperation with local organizations and residents) d. directness and topography of the proposed route (extra room is vital on uphill grades) e. adjacent land uses and/or connections to other destinations, (schools, parks and playfields, ferry docks, libraries, transit centers/park-and-ride lots (including future regional transit centers), shopping malls/business districts, hospitals, major employers, government offices, trailheads, military base entrances and other traffic generators) f. existing and forecast traffic volumes (heavily traveled roads will not be appropriate for some cyclists, however experienced cyclists will choose the most direct route regardless of traffic volumes, therefore the identification of needed projects should consider the different skill and age levels of cyclists and pedestrians g. speed limit h. the amount of cross traffic - entrances, exits and intersections on the roadway, (potential conflicts should be minimized through limited access and consolidation of entrances) i. the project cost and funding opportunities j. maintenance (consider the ease, efficiency, and economy of maintaining the project) k. the Pierce County Road Design Standards (AASHTO, WSDOT, MUTCD, ADA) 1. nonmotorized collisions (number, type and severity - consider projects to improve safety) m. condition of the pavement surface (bumps, holes, drainage grates, and railroad crossings should be smooth) n. security (design to minimize the potential for criminal activity) o. delays (maintaining momentum is important for many bicyclists in choosing a route) p. the percentage of truck traffic (large vehicles can cause aerodynamic problems for bicyclists and increase pavement deterioration)

APPENDIX IV-1


q.

parking (on-street parking acts as a buffer for pedestrians on a sidewalk, but cars entering the road and open doors are a concern for bicyclists without adequate space) Separated Transportation Trail System: Separated trails and paths that serve transportation purposes are provided for system connection or safety reasons. Examples of where separated transportation trails are appropriate are: a. along of through a limited access corridor b. by-passing a high traffic area or other special conditions where the roadway cannot safely accommodate nonmotorized modes and a separated trail can c. provides access to one or more destinations, or extends an existing trail Bicycle Transportation System: Pierce County designates and improves a system of be lanes, wide curb lanes, and paves shoulders on the urban and rural roadway systems to connect major activity centers and destinations, including linkages with other modes such as transit and ferries. Pedestrian Transportation System: Pierce County designates and improves a system of sidewalks, pathways, and paves shoulders in the urban and rural areas to connect major activity centers and destinations, including linkages with other modes such as transit and ferries. Equestrian Routes: Pierce County identifies and ensures maintenance of offroad trails and shoulders for equestrian use on routes that serve equestrian travel needs to public stables, trailheads, and other equestrian activity centers when the equestrian projects do not limit other transportation modes' use of the corridor. Recognize All Potential Corridors: Pierce County recognizes the roadway system and rights-of-way, off-road trail system, rail corridors, utility corridors, state highway system, and other corridors as potential links in its bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian system. Public and private entities designing new projects in these roadways and corridors should consider nonmotorized use along and across the proposed project. When the factors in Policy 3.1 (Programming New Projects) support an improvement, Pierce County will encourage and support the use of the corridor for public nonmotorized transportation projects. Siting Public Offices: Pierce County supports and encourages alternative travel modes as a commute trip reduction strategy by siring public offices and services in activity, community, and rural centers that serve several needs and are accessible by transit, bicycling, and/or pedestrian facilities. Developer Provided Facilities: Pierce County should establish criteria for the Development Regulations-Zoning, Road Design Standards, Site Development Regulations, and other appropriate regulatory documents. The criteria will determine the nonmotorized facilities required to provide circulation within new developments and to adjacent existing and future developments. New developments meeting the criteria will provide facilities consistent with the list ... of recommended projects ... consistent with the following recommendations based on the type of development proposed, projected level of use, local needs of t he community, and Policy 3.1 (Programming New Projects): a. Sidewalks, walkways, bikeways, paved shoulders, or off-street trails within developments to accommodate internal circulation

APPENDIX IV-2


b.

•

•

•

Direct pedestrian and/or bicycle connections to nearby developments and destinations; (such as arterials, schools, libraries, shopping centers, bus stops, park-and-ride lots, trails, parks major employers, and adjacent residential developments, etc.) c. On-site facilities such as covered be racks, bike lockers, or shower and locker facilities for public and commercial sites, and major employers. Nonmotorized Transportation Plan Review: Pierce County actively coordinates its planning, construction, and operation of nonmotorized transportation facilities and programs to support and complement the nonmotorized plans and facilities of adjacent counties, jurisdictions, cities and towns, communities, local nonmotorized interest groups, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC), Washington State Department of Transportation, Pierce Transit, and other public and private entities. This was accomplished by: a. working with other entities to plan, seek funding for, and implement multi-jurisdictional nonmotorized projects b. formulating decisions that are consistent with current plan documents of incorporated and incorporated area of Pierce County, and jurisdictions adjacent to Pierce County c. including decisions regarding nonmotorized facilities in the interlocal agreements affecting the urban growth areas of the cities within Pierce County d. updating the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan in conjunction with the updates of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The update will include a review of Pierce County's Plan by adjacent jurisdictions and local groups, and by Pierce County of the surrounding jurisdiction's plans. Transit Access: Pierce County encourages transit access by: a. improving bicycle and pedestrian access to proposed transit centers, rail stations, and bus stops b. working with Pierce Transit and the development industry to integrate transit facilities (e.g. transfer centers, bus pullouts, bus shelters, transit information centers) and safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections into residential, retail, manufacturing, commercial, and other types of activity centers. Intermodal Coordination: Pierce County coordinates planning and operation of its nonmotorized transportation facilities and programs to optimize intermodal service connections, including existing and future transit centers and ferry terminals. The County encourages: a. Pierce Transit to continue providing options for accommodating cyclists, including bike racks on buses, and be racks and lockers at transit facilities and bus stops b. the Washington State Department of Transportation and local jurisdictions to provide for multimodal use of their facilities c. existing and future passenger rail service providers to provide protected be storage at stations and to allow bikes on board with little or no disassembly required.

APPENDIX IV-3


• •

• •

• •

Coordination with Schools: Pierce County coordinates with each school district and accredited private school to identify, evaluate, and program nonmotorized projects needed to serve student mobility needs. Coordinate Education and Enforcement: Pierce County supports and promotes efforts to educate motor vehicle drivers, school-age children, and other users of the roadway system of the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists, pedestrians, equestrians, and motor vehicles by: a. consistently citing traffic violations by motorized and nonmotorized operators b. supporting safety programs being conducted by local organizations in Pierce County c. providing information on the roads, trails, and rules of the road through a guidemap, brochures, or other public information sources. Nonmotorized Project Design Standards: Pierce County should adopt nonmotorized project design standards consistent with the guidelines and concepts outlined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Americans with Disabilities Act: Nonmotorized facilities constructed in Pierce County shall be consistent with the applicable standards contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or subsequent legislation. Pierce County maximizes access and service through: a. design standards that reflect the infrastructure needs of persons who are elderly and persons with disabilities b. identifying and improving existing transportation facilities and developments that are not accessible or usable by persons who are elderly or by persons with disabilities c. encouraging greater coordination of public and private transportation operators to accommodate the special needs of persons who are elderly or by persons with disabilities. Access Control: Pierce County encourages the consolidation of automobile access on all through routes and particularly on bicycling routes in order to reduce conflicts between nonmotorized modes of travel and automobiles. Environmental Design: Nonmotorized facilities should be designed and located to minimize environmental impacts by: a. considering the clean water, wildlife habitat, and other functions of critical areas b. recognizing areas too fragile for nonmotorized project construction and use alternative construction methods, circumnavigating the area, or do not build the project c. considering the use of recycled materials in the construction of nonmotorized facilities. Safety and Security: Pierce County should emphasize user security and safety in the design and location of nonmotorized services and facilities. Maintain and Improve Facilities: Pierce County should ensure the maintenance of nonmotorized facilities by the public and private sector to provide safe access

APPENDIX IV-4


2.

and smooth intermodal connections. Pierce County should explore options for involving the public in the identification of low-cost maintenance needs. Protecting Rights-of-way: Pierce County protects public rights-of-way from encroachment by any structure, vegetation, landscaping materials, or other obstruction in order to: a. provide safety for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users of the public roads b. preserve the integrity of County roads, drainage systems, and other publicly provided and maintained facilities c. protect access for all travelers using motorized and nonmotorized travel modes. Pursue Nonmotorized Funds: Emphasize transportation investments that provide alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, such as transit, bikeways and pedestrian paths, passenger ferry service, and demand management. Pierce County should continue to aggressively pursue federal, state, local, private, and other sources of funding for nonmotorized transportation projects. Cost Effective Solutions: Pierce County seeks to keep the costs of providing and maintaining adequate transportation facilities as low as possible by emphasizing the most cost effective solutions to meet transportation access needs and by equitably distributing the costs of providing the improvements in proportion to the benefits received. Public Involvement: An advisory commission composed of local citizens, and a County nonmotorized designee should be continued to help develop a nonmotorized system through planning, reviewing grants, providing education to the community, and advising the County. Implementing the Nonmotorized Policies: The Pierce County Subdivision Code, Pierce County Development Regulations-Zoning, Pierce County Site Development Regulations, Pierce County Road Design Standards and other implementing regulations and codes should be reviewed, revised and monitored for compliance with the policies of the Pierce County Nonmotorized Transportation Plan. King County Nonmotorized Transportation Plan

The King County Nonmotorized Transportation Plan includes similar goals as follows: • Environment: The County should integrate programs and policies supportive of nonmotorized transportation into efforts to meet air and water quality and motor vehicle trip reduction standards established in state and federal legislation. • Neighborhoods: The County should locate and design transportation systems in such a manner as to contribute to the safety, efficiency, and convenience of residential neighborhoods. Bicycle and pedestrian needs should be incorporated as a central component of this effort. • Energy: Comprehensive Plan policies calling for the development of an energy efficient transportation system should be implemented in part by promoting the use of bicycle and pedestrian-friendly transportation facility design and land use.

APPENDIX IV-5


• •

Intermodal Transportation Systems: The County shall work with transit providers and regional agencies to develop a transit system that is fully accessible to pedestrians and the handicapped, and which integrates as thoroughly as possible the access, safety, and parking requirements of bicyclists. Safety and Convenience: King County shall emphasize nonmotorized safety and access in the development of nonmotorized modes as an integral element of transportation planning and facility development. Dedicated Facilities/New Development: The development of facilities supporting nonmotorized transportation shall be required as a regular element of the development review process. Incentives should be provided to the private sector to encourage development of nonmotorized facilities beyond those which are required as dedicated improvements. Funding Priority: King County should give nonmotorized transportation increased funding priority in order to meet the goals of this plan. This should be accomplished through the expansion of funding for existing programs as well as by placing increased emphasis on the nonmotorized elements of proposed transportation projects. Equestrian: King County should incorporate the needs of equestrian travel in the design of facilities located in areas populated of frequently traveled by equestrians, and strive to integrate these facilities with other nonmotorized needs of these areas.

APPENDIX IV-6


Sumner Trail

Appendix V References


REFERENCES A Riverfront Trail for Puyallup, City of Puyallup Department of Planning and Community Affairs, 1987 A Riverfront Trail for Puyallup, City of Puyallup Department of Planning and Community Affairs, 1987 City of Pacific Parks and Recreation Plan, Hedges and Roth Engineering, Inc., 1995 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Sumner Comprehensive Plan Update, City of Sumner, WA, 1993 Foothills Linear Park/Trail Segment Master Plan (Nisqually Delta/Mount Rainier), Pierce County Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, 1989 King County Draft Nonmotorized Transportation Plan, King County Department of Public Works, 1992 Pierce County Draft Nonmotorized Transportation Plan, Pierce County Public Works and Utilities, 1995 Sumner Comprehensive Plan, City of Sumner, WA, 1994 Sumner Comprehensive Planning Area, Wetland Inventory, Parametrix, Inc., 1990 Sumner Parks and Open Space Plan, City of Sumner Board of Park Commissioners, Sumner Community Development Department, 1994 Sumner Shoreline Management Master Program (Proposed), Parametrix, Inc., 1991 WSDOT Design Manual, Facilities for Nonmotorized Transportation, Washington State Department of Transportation, 1989-94

APPENDIX V-1


APPENDIX VI. SEPA DOCUMENTATION

CITY OF SUMNER 1104 Maple Street, Suite 250 Sumner, Washington 98390-1423 253.299.5530 y Fax: 253.299.5509 Community Development Department Paul Rogerson, Community Development Department

MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal:

The Sumner/Pacific Master Trail Plan was originally adopted in 1996 and is being updated to address changed circumstances over the last 12 years. The amendments focus on updating the maps, trail alignments, goals and policies to be consistent with approved plans, and updating cost estimates and maintenance policies. The Plan establishes standards for trail and bikeway design, and guidelines for trail furnishings and development of access points and trailheads.

Proponent:

City of Sumner 1104 Maple Street, Suite 250 Sumner, WA 98390

Project Number:

PLN 2008-00032

Location of Proposal:

City Wide

Lead Agency:

City of Sumner

The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.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. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. X

This DNS is issued under 197-11-340 (2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below.

Responsible Official:

Paul Rogerson

Position/Title:

Community Development Director

Phone:

(253) 299.5521

Address:

1104 Maple Street, Suite 250, Sumner, WA 98390

Date:

May 8, 2008

Signature:

________________________________ Paul Rogerson, AICP

Published:

May 10, 2008

WAC 197-11-970 Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (DNS)


SEPA MITIGATION MEASURES Description of proposal:

The Sumner/Pacific Master Trail Plan was originally adopted in 1996 and is being updated to address changed circumstances over the last 12 years. The amendments focus on updating the maps, trail alignments, goals and policies to be consistent with approved plans, and updating cost estimates and maintenance policies. The Plan establishes standards for trail and bikeway design, and guidelines for trail furnishings and development of access points and trailheads.

Proponent:

City of Sumner 1104 Maple Street, Suite 250 Sumner, WA 98390

Project Number:

PLN 2008-00032

Location of Proposal:

City Wide

Lead Agency:

City of Sumner

(NOTE: Conditions 1 through 15 appeared in original MDNS (Case No.:96-015/7-5-1996) 1. The trail shall be accessible to service vehicles. 2. The trail surface shall be able to support the imposed load of an aid vehicle. 3. There shall be identifiers that relate to location of an area for ease of identification to respond in case of injury or accident. 4. There shall be an emergency communications strategy along the trail. 5. The trail shall not be aligned immediately adjacent to any watercourses except for stream and river crossings wherever possible. 6. Stream crossings shall be perpendicular to the stream flow and utilize bridging methods. 7. Trails shall be located an adequate distance from the top of stream banks to prevent destabilization of the stream banks and to preserve streamside riparian habitat. 8. The trail should always maintain a vegetated buffer consisting of large trees, between the trails and streamcourses. 9. Trails shall preserve existing stands of trees wherever and whenever possible by routing the trails around the stands. 10. A vegetation enhancement plan for areas adjacent to the trail shall be designed by a certified landscape architect. 11. Facilities to be located near the northeastern trailhead of the Mater Plan shall be located in conjunction with the City of Auburn. 12. Trails that are to be located on Washington State Department of Transportation rightof-way shall have an Air Space Lease prepared by the Department of Transportation Real Estate Services section. 13. Improvements (such as restrooms) shall be landscaped. 14. Light and glare shall be minimized by directional shades on all lighting. 15. Adequate points of river access shall be provided to discourage “wildcat� paths. 16. Trail construction shall not diminish properly functioning conditions of the riparian habitat along the Puyallup and White Rivers for species listed as threatened or endangered and shall be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program.

WAC 197-11-970 Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (DNS)


APPENDIX VII. ADOPTING RESOLUTION

n.ESOLUTION NO. 1240 CITY ()F SUMNER, WASHINGTON A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUMNER, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE SUMNER MASTER TRAIL PLAN AS A GUIDE TO THE CITY'S INVESTMENT IN TRAILS. WIIEREAS, the City of Sumner City Council adopted Resolution No. 948 on October 21, 1996 adopting the SUlnner Master Trail Plan; and WHEREAS, over the course of 12 years portions of the trail have been constructed, permitting and environmental conditions have changed; and funding and design constraints have necessitated an update to the Master Trail Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Sunlner Comprehensive Plan prOlnotes the developlnent of trails for recreation and transportation purposes (COlnlnunity Character Policy 7.6; Parks and Open Space Policies 1.12 and 2.6, Transportation Policies 2.3, 3.6, Goal 4, 4.1, and 4.5); and

WHEREAS, the SUlnner Master Trail Plan is consistent with, and a key component of, the inlplementation of the Shoreline Master Program as it would provide additional access (both visual and physical) to the shorelines of the state within the City of SUll1ner and Pacific; and WHEREAS, the City of Sumner is located geographically to provide a Inlsslng connection between several regional trail networks and connecting trails fronl Mount Rainier to Seattle and TaC0111a; and WHEREAS, the City of Sumner issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance for the Sumner Master Trail Plan on July 5, 1996; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2008, the proposed resolution and draft Master Trail Plan were sublnitted to the State Depart111ent of Comlnunity, Trade, and EconOlnic Development (CTED) for a review per the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.215; and WIIEREAS, the Sumner Planning Commission was briefed on these atnendlnents on June 7, 2007 and April 3,2008 and held a public hearing on April 17, 2008; and WHEREAS, the SUlnner Planning COlnmission voted 5 to 1 in favor of a recommendation for the City Council to adopt amendments to the Sumner Master Trail Plan; and

WHEU.EAS, the COlnmunity Development Comlnittee of the City Council was briefed on April 11, 2008 on the alnendments to the Master Trail Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council was briefed on the Master Trail Plan at a Study Session on May 19, 2008 and held a public hearing on June 2, 2008 at a regular Council meeting; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it sin in the public interest, and consistent with the City's COlnprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan to adopt amendments to the SUlnner Master Trail Plan (dated April 2008) as a guide for the City's future investlnent in recreational and COlnlnuter trails, a copy of which is attached hereto and l11arked as Exhibit "A";

1


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUMNER, WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Sumner hereby adopts the Sumner Master Trail Plan (dated June 2008) as a guide for the City's future investment in recreational and commuter trails, and bike routes, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "Al). APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2 nd day of June, 2008.

c:v~

G-,

Mayor Dave Enslow

ATTEST:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney Brett Vinson

2


Trail plan