BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WA

BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WA AB 4087 May 1, 2006 Regular Business PEAK PROJECT UPDATE - CITY RELATED ISSUES Proposed Council Action: Receive update. No action required. DEPARTMENT OF COUNCIL LIAISON EXHIBITS City Manager, (Rich Conrad) Bryan Cairns Dan Grausz El Jahncke 1. PEAK City-Review Timeline 2. School District Parking Plan 3. SE 40 th Corridor et al Study Results 4. Information on Roundabouts 5. Amended Six-Year TIP - including SE 40 th & ICW projects APPROVED BY CITY MANAGER AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE $ N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED $ N/A APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ N/A SUMMARY At its January, 2006 Planning Session, the City Council discussed issues connected to the Boys & Girls Club/School District proposed PEAK Project. The following summary comes from the approved minutes: Most Councilmembers support the proposed PEAK project. Council recommends staff be proactive and help the School District and the Boys and Girls Club problem solve ways to deal with traffic and parking issues. Now and through the first quarter of 2006: o The Council will actively engage in the process. o The PEAK Subcommittee will be the Council s representative. o The Council s role is primarily, although not exclusively, regulatory (the City is not the project lead but will be involved in problem solving and some partnering activities). o $1 million earmarked by the City will be invested in a legal manner to support the project. o The Subcommittee will generate and analyze options to do so and will recommend how to invest the $1 million to the full Council (this will include appropriate public involvement). o Solutions to address both parking and traffic issues (including the existing parking deficit) will be sought. Staff Technical Committee & Council/Board Committee Work Given the Council s direction, the City Manager organized city staff to assist in problem solving in the areas of traffic and parking. City staff continued to act in its regulatory role particularly regarding the processing of Page 1

the Boys & Girls Club request to amend the zoning code s impervious surface requirements. Staff participating in this effort included the Directors of Maintenance, Development Services and Parks & Recreation, the City Engineer, Neighborhood Traffic Coordinator and the City Manager. City staff met three times with School District and Boys & Girls Club representatives as a Technical Committee to understand traffic and parking issues and to explore possible solutions. In addition, the City Manager convened two meetings of the City Council s and School Board s PEAK project liaisons to brief the elected officials on the work of the Technical Committee. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a timeline documenting when the Technical Committee, Council/Board Liaison Committee have met as well as when the various traffic, parking and regulatory processes have (or will) occurred. I. Impervious Surface Requirements AB 4083 Agenda Bill 4083 on the Council s May 1 st agenda deals exclusively with the impervious surface code text amendment request. The topic is fully aired in AB 4083 and, consequently, is not covered in this agenda bill. II. Traffic SE 40 th Corridor & ICW/SE 44th Background At the 2006 City Council retreat, Council members discussed the PEAK project and its potential impacts, including increased traffic. Council members recognized that it is the City s responsibility to address existing congestion on SE 40 th street if the Level of Service (LOS) is below the threshold of C identified in the Comprehensive Plan. On February 21, 2006, Council appropriated funding for the SE 40 th Street Corridor Study and directed staff to proceed with the study. The scope of the study includes documenting existing LOS and developing a realistic set of alternatives for transportation system improvements to address the needs of the corridor. The Council was briefed on the status of the study by the City Engineer on April 3 rd following presentation of the proposed Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. The City Engineer indicated that the corridor study alternatives would be presented for a decision as part of the PEAK Project Update to Council on May 1st. The corridor study process included opportunities for public involvement as requested by the Council. Two open house meetings were held for the public. The meetings were advertised in the Mercer Island Reporter, City website, on notice boards within the corridor, and by postcards to over 3,000 residents in the surrounding area. The first open house was an introductory meeting for residents to express their thoughts on how to improve the corridor. The second open house provided residents with an opportunity to see and comment on possible design alternatives for the corridor. 47 residents attended the first open house and 54 attended the second open house. A general summary of the public comments is contained in Exhibit 3 (Pages 17 & 18). Additionally, staff met with representatives from the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church located on the southwest corner of SE 40 th Street and 86 th Avenue SE to discuss possible impacts to their property given various alternatives proposed for the intersection. Page 2

Results The existing intersection Level of Service is shown below. Existing Level of Service Location SE 40th Street / Island Crest Way SE 40th Street / 86th Avenue SE SE 40th Street / 88th Avenue SE SE 40th Street / Gallagher Hill Road Island Crest Way / SE 44th Street / Merrimount Drive LOS D F C D F Growth Management Act & Level of Service The 1990 Grown Management Act (GMA) requires that adequate street capacity be provided concurrently with development to handle the increased traffic projected to result from growth and development in Mercer Island. Concurrency is a statutory requirement of the GMA prohibiting Mercer Island from approving a proposed development if that development would cause the LOS of a transportation facility to fall below the City s adopted standard (Mercer Island s current LOS standard is C ), unless revenues are secured to complete mitigating transportation improvements concurrent with the development or within six years from the development (RCW 36.70A.070 (6)). However, the City always has the option of lowering its LOS C by amending its Comprehensive Plan. The Council could consider lowering LOS. However, even lowering it significantly to LOS E doesn t eliminate the requirement for improvements. In fact, it doesn t change things much at all. SE 40 th St./86 th Ave. SE, Island Crest Way/SE 44 th St., and the turn lane extensions between Island Crest Way and 86 th Ave. SE will still be required. A shift from LOS C to LOS E corresponds to an approximate doubling of the delay at an intersection. Project Alternatives The menu of alternatives is shown in tabular form in Exhibit 3 (Page 16) by intersection. The table includes a brief description of the alternative, planning level cost and corresponding level of service. Exhibit 3 (Pages 19-30) also shows the existing configurations and alternatives in graphical form. They are conceptual but there has been enough evaluation to determine that each is feasible. SE 40 th Island Crest Way to 86 th Ave. SE The main focus on SE 40 th Street is between Island Crest Way and 86 th Avenue SE. The roadway will need to be widened to extend the westbound right and left turn lanes east to 85 th Ave. SE and 86 th Ave. SE, respectively. In an effort to minimize the impact to adjacent properties through this roadway widening, the striped shoulders will be eliminated and used to create some of the roadway widening. Nevertheless, some right of way acquisition will still be necessary. The asphalt paths on both sides of the street would be relocated as needed. The roadway widening for turn lanes is a necessary partner to all three alternatives for the intersection improvements at 86 th Ave. SE. (Page 20) SE 40 th at 86 th Ave. SE The intersection at 86 th Ave. SE has three alternatives: 1. Maintaining the 4-way stop and providing additional roadway widening to add lanes on 86 th Ave. SE and SE 40 th Street east of the intersection. (Page 22) 2. A new traffic signal and northbound turn lane. (Page 23) 3. A new roundabout and removal of the eastbound right turn lane on SE 40 th Street. (Page 24) Page 3

Staff recommends pursuing Alternative 3. It provides an equivalent level of intersection efficiency when compared to a traffic signal and has the added benefit of allowing the free flow of traffic through the intersection. It also improves the ability for pedestrians to cross the street and has a less urban feel. Staff received generally positive responses about the roundabout alternatives at the second open house and subsequent interactions such as with the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church. Each of these alternatives requires right of way acquisition and also includes traffic calming measures in the neighborhood in the vicinity of 86 th Ave. SE north of SE 40 th Street. SE 40 th at 88 th Ave. SE There are no changes proposed for this intersection. The LOS will remain at C and there is no requirement to improve the operation of this intersection. SE 40 th at Gallagher Hill Road The intersection at Gallagher Hill Road has two alternatives: 1. Modify the pavement markings to improve operation of this intersection and its interaction with 90 th Ave. SE. This includes adding an eastbound left turn lane, installation of a C-curb to restrict left turns from SE 40 th Street to 90 th Ave. SE, modification of the southbound lane configuration, and restricting the 90 th Ave. SE approach to SE 40 th Street as a right turn only. (Page 27) 2. A new traffic signal and modification of the southbound lane configuration. (Page 28) Both alternatives would return the LOS to an acceptable level. However, staff recommends pursuing Alternative 1 as a modest approach both in cost and type of improvement. No right of way acquisition is proposed. Island Crest Way & Merrimount Dr./SE 44 th St. The intersection at Island Crest Way & Merrimount Dr./SE 44 th St. has one alternative. It involves signalization of the intersection, some realignment of the intersection, improvements to lane configuration, and some right of way acquisition. Staff recommends installation of the traffic signal at this location. This intersection had the greatest level of delay/congestion of all intersections studied. Signalization of this intersection in advance of corridor improvements on SE 40 th Street will provide the neighborhood south of SE 40 th Street with a way to get in and out of the neighborhood when SE 40 th Street is under construction. (Page 30) Modern Traffic Signals Traffic signals now include standard technology to operate in a manner that improves the convenience of users, especially during times of low traffic volume. They rarely operate on a timer now but include standard programming in their controls that make them smart. There are sensors in the street pavement that alert the signal controller of approaching vehicles to actuate the signal. The controller can also be programmed to give priority to traffic on the major street which in our case is Island Crest Way Street while the minor street (Merrimount/SE 44 th Street) would be red. When traffic is light, vehicles will not have to stop on the major street unless there are vehicles on the minor street that would prompt the signal to turn red on the major street and green on the minor street. This means that the light in the direction of the major street could be programmed to remain green, except when cars approach from the minor street. When cars approach in this scenario, the signal for the minor street can turn green immediately or there could be a slight delay if programmed in that manner. Roundabouts Roundabouts have existed in Europe for years but have only become common in the U.S. in recent years. Washington has approximately 90 roundabouts including a couple in Sammamish and one at Redmond Ridge near the Trilogy Golf Club. Exhibit 4 provides additional information about roundabouts. Some of the benefits stated in the exhibit include speed control, reduction of accidents, improved pedestrian crossings, can accommodate emergency and large sized vehicles, and can at times accommodate higher traffic Page 4

volumes with less delay than a traffic signal. Some consider roundabouts more user friendly than traffic signals on streets with low volumes during off-peak times. Drivers can drive around the roundabout while with a traffic signal, a driver may have to stop first. The location of the roundabout was shifted to the southeast to reduce the impacts on the single family residential lots at the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends proceeding with design and construction of the projects listed in the Menu of Alternatives (Page 16) shown with heavy lines around them and described above. They include: Turn Lane Extensions (Island Crest to 86 th Ave. SE) Roundabout (at 86 th Ave. SE) 4-Way Stop Lane Reconfiguration at Gallagher Hill Road Traffic Signal at Island Crest & Merrimount/SE 44 th St. The total estimated cost of the improvements is $1,475,000. These improvements will have an impact on the Street Fund and staff s ability to manage and construct projects already included in the Six Year TIP. If Council supports the addition of these projects into the TIP, staff will present on May 15 th a Six-Year TIP that reflects the inclusion of the corridor project. In light of the estimated cost and magnitude of the project, the Street Fund cannot accommodate the cost of the project without deferring projects to provide sufficient funding or obtaining an alternative funding source. Additionally, there is insufficient staff and consultant resources to accommodate both the projects already included in the TIP and these corridor improvements without the addition of staffing and other resources. Staff is currently evaluating the resources necessary to accommodate all of this work if the Council directs staff to pursue all of it. Staff can provide a strategy to accomplish this in the agenda bill for the TIP adoption scheduled for May 15 th. Alternatively, staff can also reprogram the TIP and present a modified TIP that accommodates the project using available Street Fund balance. This approach will require significant reprogramming of TIP projects. As a follow up to the two open house meetings held for the study, staff will mail a postcard update to all attendees and those who received the original postcard invitations to provide a summary of the City Council s decision. III. Parking School District & PEAK The PEAK Project proposal includes approximately100 parking spaces on school district land. Traffic engineers hired by the Boys & Girls Club have concluded that the proposed spaces will be adequate for the operational characteristics on the proposed project. Performing its traditional regulatory role, City staff will formally evaluate the PEAK parking plan upon receiving the B&G/School District s formal submittal for SEPA review and a Conditional Use Permit. That review is expected in August/September. In order to evaluate the B&G Club s proposed parking plan, the Technical Committee compared the School District s existing parking plan (submitted to the City for high school renovation SEPA approval), its current parking practices and the PEAK proposed plan. It was clear from the comparison that the PEAK proposal and approved District plan contained overlap of some of the same parking spaces. The Committee concluded that addressing the District s parking issues such that the overlap no longer exists would go a long way towards addressing parking demands and neighborhood spill-over parking concerns. Towards that end, the Technical Committee asked District staff to inventory all existing parking spaces and reallocate them in a way that would meet the demand for parking. The goal was to re-establish a new parking plan that would meet the requirements of the original SEPA approval. In effect, the City would consider a new high school/education campus parking plan as having met SEPA review standards as long as the new plan was realistic and the District was committed to its ongoing implementation. Page 5

Proposed School District Parking Management Plan Attached as Exhibit 2 are the results of the District s efforts. Included are summary tables of Existing Parking behaviors, Proposed Parking Plans and a map of parking lots. Following that is a narrative of a proposed parking management plan that increases student fees for on-campus parking, allocates student spaces primarily to seniors, creates new carpool spaces for students and sets fines and enforcement strategies for non-compliance. City staff are encouraged in the school district s new approach and commitment to managing parking demand. We believe the District is taking meaningful and realistic steps to get students to either park in approved lots or to use District-provided transportation to get to school. In order to make the new parking plan effective and enforceable, City staff have concluded that parking restrictions on most or all neighborhood streets around the campus will be necessary. Staff are prepared to design a Residential Parking Zone (RPZ) which meets the needs of the adjacent property owners and prevents spill-over parking on to neighborhood streets. Contacting and listening to neighborhood concerns would be part of the design process. Creation of Additional Parking The Council/Board Committee has directed the Technical Committee to explore the possibility of creating additional parking spaces on the education campus that could be used to serve PEAK project and/or School-related needs. So far, the Technical Committee has looked as various ways to move school bus parking to an alternate location, freeing up spaces at the current bus parking lot. As part of the same review, School officials have asked that the City consider moving bus maintenance operations to the City maintenance shops. The Technical Committee has not completed its work in this area. So far no fatal flaws have been found in the dual-pronged concept (new bus location and bus maintenance at the City shop). However, so far projected costs to implement the concepts appear to be significant. Next Steps: 1. The Council will consider and decide the requested impervious surface code text amendment on May 1 st and May 15 th. 2. Based on Council direction on SE 40 th Corridor (et al) traffic options, staff will return with a revised TIP on May 15 th for Council approval. 3. The Technical Committee will continue to review and address parking issues. RECOMMENDATION City Manager MOVE TO: No action required. Provide feedback concerning SE 40 th Corridor alternatives to be included in a revised TIP. Page 6