Begin forwarded message:From: "Luedke, Christopher" <>Subject: RE: Another Greenwood-Phinney DR 2015-10 SDOT AbdicationDate: September 13, 2021 at 5:57:07 PM PDTCc: "Holloway, Diana" <Diana.H...@seattle.gov>Mr. MacDonald,I wanted to follow up with you about your message that included City of Seattle Street Use Staff in expressing concerns about pedestrian access concerns in the 8000-8300blocks of Greenwood Ave N. I’m not sure that I can speak to every concern and comment raised but want to assure you that we take your input seriously.Street Use personnel were dispatched to the site following your request to ensure that no unpermitted work impacts were continuing to take place and verify that existing impacts were permitted and operating under approved plans. We will do our best to make sure that those provisions under which projects in the area are permitted to operate are abided by.As to the suitability of pedestrian routes and SDOT Traffic policy in terms of use of marked or unmarked cross-walks I can reach out and see if we can connect you with more information if you wish, but pedestrian detours may generally use state-defined legal crossing points, which is a different criteria from whether or not the crossing is formally marked or signalized.Christopher LuedkeInspections Manager, Street UseO: 206-733-9773 | M: 206-475-4281 | christoph...@seattle.gov*He/Him/HisFrom: Douglas MacDonald <dbmac...@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:07 PM
To: Greenwood-Phinney Greenways Google Group <greenwood-phi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Byers, Susan <Susan...@seattle.gov>; Burgesser, David <David.B...@seattle.gov>; Dougherty, Brian <Brian.D...@seattle.gov>; Nelson, Alyse <Alyse....@seattle.gov>
Subject: Another Greenwood-Phinney DR 2015-10 SDOT AbdicationCAUTION: External EmailIn the Phinny-Grseenwood area here’s another example of SDOT’s seemingly complete abandonment of DR 2015-10 to protect pedestrian accessibility at construction sites that block sidewalks This is apartment building construction site is at 8103 Greenwood Avenue North.No pedestrian protection whatsoever! This is how the site was left for Saturday morning of a three-day holiday weekend.Of course, this is a heavily used urban village sidewalk, even on a Saturday morning. so walkers just use the roadway with not even a shadow of protection from live vehicle traffic (view from the south).Viewed from the north, this is what you see.The suggested “detour” would take you across Greenwood at a busy intersection with no marked crosswalk.This lack of pedestrian markings on Greenwood has seemingly led exasperated anonymous citizen sidewalk painters to paint a crosswalk themselves at 83rd.The lack of pedestrian protection at the construction site in the 8100 block isn’t because SDOT thought the curb lane couldn’t safely be sacrificed for pedestrian protection (as indicated by DR 2015-10). One block to the south in the 8000 block, SDOT has been perfectly happy with, and permitted, the curb lane to be re-purposed for a beer garden.Does anybody think it’s strange that during the pandemic as SDOT landed on “walkability” as an important response that would put streeteries in curb lanes and “Safe Healthy Streets” around the city as the focus for its dollars and staff, SDOT couldn’t stay on top of enforcing DR 2015 -10 rules for the basic proposition of protecting everyday sidewalk accessibility on everyday sidewalks around everywhere construction sites?
Mr. MacDonald,
In reference to your response here and the additional attached:
Street Use is charged with and does enforce the Director’s Rule – starting with applying it to approved conditions for work (including traffic control requirements, hours of operation for impacts, etc.) during the permitting process. In the case of unpermitted work, we are unfortunately left in the undesirable situation of reacting to it as we encounter it. Response can also be complicated by conditions at time of Inspection – which do not always match conditions that may be encountered at all times.
Inspections staff was dispatched to evaluate the conditions described in this area. Unpermitted work was addressed and cleared at that time, and to the best of the Inspector’s ability to determine at the time, remaining impacts were compliant with permit conditions.
Daily inspection of specific sites in not typical given our resource limitations and workload. However, given the issues in play here I certainly agree that elevated attention is needed, and will work with my staff to ensure both an added level of auditing and review of area traffic control/pedestrian provisions, and elevated monitoring of potential unpermitted work that may be popping up here at this time.
|
Christopher Luedke |
Begin forwarded message: