Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-29 NCBC Agenda Pkt_ rescheduledYakima City Council Committee Neighborhood & Community Building Committee (NCBC) Council Chambers, City Hall – 129 N 2nd St, Yakima, WA Wednesday March 29, 2017 2:00 p.m. RESCHEDULED from March 16, 2017 City Council City Staff Councilmember Dulce Gutiérrez (Chair) Cliff Moore, City Manager Councilmember Avina Gutiérrez Joan Davenport, Community Development Director Councilmember Carmen Méndez Councilmember Holly Cousens (alternate) Agenda 1. Draft Comprehensive Plan Briefing to Prep for Joint Study Session (Calhoun) 2. Summary of Barge-Chestnut Traffic Calming Project (Davenport) 3. Parks Updates (K. Wilkinson) a. Performance Area Costs and Schematics – MLK Park & SE Community Park b. Summary of Yakima Valley Trolley Corridor and other Trails c. Status of Perry Tech and Yakima Youth Soccer Association contract report 4. Board Appointed Reports – Standing Item a. Community Equity Program (J. Davenport) b. Comprehensive Plan Update (J. Calhoun) c. Homeless Network (C. Méndez) d. Parks & Recreation Commission (D. Gutiérrez) e. Henry Beauchamp Community Center (A. Gutiérrez) f. Historic Preservation (A. Gutiérrez) g. TRANS-Action Committee (D. Gutiérrez) h. Transit Development Plan / Transit Related Issues (D. Gutiérrez) i. Ethics & Human Rights Committee (A. Gutiérrez) – 2/2/17 & 2/16/17 Minutes j. Community Integration Committee (D. Gutiérrez) – 1/25/17 Minutes k. Bike/Pedestrian Committee (C. Méndez) 5. Other Business / Requests a. Approve Minutes of 02/14/2017 b. Recap of Deliverables for Next NCBC Meeting c. Future Items d. Interpreter for Next Meeting (48-hr advance notice) 6. Audience Participation Next Meeting: April 20, 2017 The complete agenda packet is available online at: https://www.yakimawa.gov/council/city-council-committees/ 3/15/2017 1 City of Yakima  Comprehensive Plan Update March 16, 2017 Topics •Purpose of the update •Timeline and next steps •Element highlights 2 002 3/15/2017 2 Purpose of the Update •Required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) •Guides Yakima’s physical development over 20 or  more years ‐ 2040 •Establishes land use plan that is implemented by  zoning and other programs •Plans for Yakima’s long term expected growth targets  in population (17,167), and jobs (8,556) •Coordinates services and capital investments  •Addresses community values, city functions •Provides a statement of policy  •Required to receive state funding Plan Elements •Land Use •Economic Development •Housing •Transportation •Capital Facilities •Utilities •Parks and Recreation •Natural Environment •Energy •Historic Preservation 3 Timeline and Next Steps 4 2015 •Public Participation Plan – Identify process and key  stakeholders •Create Comp Plan Specific  Webpage •Consultant Selection 2016 •Council workshop – 2/23/16 •Visioning Open House  meeting and Community  Survey – 5/25/16 •Existing Conditions Report •Establish Future Land Use  Designations and  Implementing Zones •Draft element review by  Planning Commission •Buildable Lands Analysis •Environmental Scoping 2017 •Finalize draft elements and  Environmental Impact  Statement •Invite public comment  (March 17 – May  16) •Joint Planning  Commission/Council Study  Session (April 11) •Public Open House (April 11) •Planning Commission Hearing  (May 10) •City Council Hearing (June 6) 003 3/15/2017 3 Timeline and Next Steps 5 Element Highlight –Land Use 6 Old Plan •1:1 Future Land Use (FLU) and Zoning •10 FLU Designations •Most changes go through a lengthy  amendment process New Plan •Streamlined Future Land Use (FLU)  and Zoning •7 FLU Designations •More options for new development 004 3/15/2017 4 Element Highlight –Economic Development 7 •Goals and Policies consistent with  2017‐2020 Economic Development  Strategic Plan •Continuation of Cascade Mill Site  Goals – Important for LIFT Funding •Support of Downtown Revitalization  efforts and Community Pride  initiatives 31,560  16,260 17,167  8,556   ‐  5,000  10,000  15,000  20,000  25,000  30,000  35,000 Population 2015‐2040 Jobs 2012‐2040 Capacity Target 1 34% 2 12%3 12% 4 7% 5 8% 6 0% 7 27% NEW JOBS CAPACITY  Element Highlight ‐ Housing 8 •Goals and Policies promote a diversity  of housing choices •Supportive of upper‐floor downtown  residential •New Goal –“Foster a caring  community that nurtures and  supports individuals, children, and  their families” 31,560  16,260 17,167  8,556   ‐  5,000  10,000  15,000  20,000  25,000  30,000  35,000 Population 2015‐2040 Jobs 2012‐2040 Capacity Target 1 3%2 9%3 6%4 2% 5 8% 6 15% 7 57% NEW HOMES CAPACITY 005 3/15/2017 5 Element Highlight ‐ Transportation 9 •Goals and Policies promote multi‐ modal transportation •Integrates with the 2040  Transportation Systems Plan •Level of Service (LOS) analysis for key  intersections •Project list based upon 2040 Traffic  Forecasts 31,560  16,260 17,167  8,556   ‐  5,000  10,000  15,000  20,000  25,000  30,000  35,000 Population 2015‐2040 Jobs 2012‐2040 Capacity Target Element Highlight –Capital Facilities 10 •Inventory of city owned facilities – water, sewer, fire, police, etc. •Identifies project funding and  revenue sources •Estimates future needs based on  growth targets •Consistent with Capital Facilities Plan 31,560  16,260 17,167  8,556   ‐  5,000  10,000  15,000  20,000  25,000  30,000  35,000 Population 2015‐2040 Jobs 2012‐2040 Capacity Target 006 3/15/2017 6 Element Highlight ‐ Utilities 11 •Inventory of electricity, natural gas,  and telecommunications providers •Goals and Policies that coordinate  future development with utility  providers 31,560  16,260 17,167  8,556   ‐  5,000  10,000  15,000  20,000  25,000  30,000  35,000 Population 2015‐2040 Jobs 2012‐2040 Capacity Target Element Highlight –Parks and Recreation 12 •Inventory of park acreage and trail  miles •LOS/Goals and Policies consistent  with the Parks and Recreation  Comprehensive Plan 2017‐2022 31,560  16,260 17,167  8,556   ‐  5,000  10,000  15,000  20,000  25,000  30,000  35,000 Population 2015‐2040 Jobs 2012‐2040 Capacity Target 007 3/15/2017 7 Element Highlight ‐ Natural Environment and Shorelines 13 •Updated mapping for Floodplains,  Wetlands and Streams, Wildlife,  Geologic Hazards, and Aquifers •Goals and Policies consistent with  Best Available Science •Incorporated Shoreline Element Goals  and Policies adopted in 2014 by City  of Yakima/Department of Ecology 31,560  16,260 17,167  8,556   ‐  5,000  10,000  15,000  20,000  25,000  30,000  35,000 Population 2015‐2040 Jobs 2012‐2040 Capacity Target Element Highlight ‐ Energy 14 •New Element – Optional under GMA •Includes goals and policies that  encourage alternative energy sources  (solar, wind, geothermal) for new  development and re‐development  projects 31,560  16,260 17,167  8,556   ‐  5,000  10,000  15,000  20,000  25,000  30,000  35,000 Population 2015‐2040 Jobs 2012‐2040 Capacity Target 008 3/15/2017 8 Element Highlight –Historic  Preservation 15 31,560  16,260 17,167  8,556   ‐  5,000  10,000  15,000  20,000  25,000  30,000  35,000 Population 2015‐2040 Jobs 2012‐2040 Capacity Target •Optional Element under GMA •Includes goals and policies, consistent  with the Historic Preservation Plan,  that promote the awareness,  protection, and rehabilitation of  historic sites and structures •Identifies potentially eligible  properties 16 Questions? 009 City of Yakima Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program and the BCNA Petition Background The City of Yakima adopted guidelines for a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program in May of 1995 after a very lengthy debate regarding a request for speed humps on Scenic Drive. The citizen petition on Scenic Drive resulted in the installation of 5 speed humps, of which three of the speed humps were removed a year later due to additional citizen protests. Other speed humps have been installed on Viola Avenue, Prasch Avenue and in an alley near the 11th Avenue Medical Center using these procedures. Speed Tables were added as a mitigation measure by Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital on 30th and 31st Avenues. The Program was a petition driven citizen request process but there was no funding to support the program. The lack of available city funding and the lengthy petition procedure proved very discouraging to citizens concerned about speeding and cut- through traffic on neighborhood streets. Between 2000 and 2007, the City of Yakima received over 100 complaints regarding numerous streets with neighborhood speeding and cut through traffic. Effective traffic calming programs do not rely solely on the installation of speed humps and other physical devices on public streets. A combination of enforcement of speed limits and public education must also be incorporated into a program to modify driver behavior. As staff resources have become constrained, the ability of Yakima Police Department to respond to neighborhood speeding complaints through their targeted enforcement program has diminished. Program Status and the Pilot Project The Yakima City Council approved a $50,000 Budget Policy Issue for 2007 to revise the Traffic Calming Program and implement a pilot project. To support the Yakima Police Department efforts and assist in the public education component, the pilot project funds were used to purchase equipment that would benefit the entire community. With $42,422 of the 2007 demonstration funds, the following items were purchased and installed or distributed. 1. Four stationary radar operated “YOUR SPEED IS” signs were purchased. These signs are placed on neighborhood streets during Phase One of the program and supported by a targeted enforcement effort of the Yakima Police Department. The signs Yakima Traffic Calming Program and the BCNA Petition History Page 1 of 4 010 have remained on the neighborhood street for up to one year. Public Works Street Department staff installs the radar signs. Installation of these signs is labor intensive, as the computerized sign component requires calibration and programming. The availability of the sign crew to implement this program has become increasingly constrained. Cost of the four signs: $22,900 1. One portable trailer equipped with a radar-operated “YOUR SPEED IS” was purchased for the Yakima Police Department. YPD operates the sign and locate it on streets where citizen concerns have been expressed. Cost: $7,800 2. High contrast thermoplastic crosswalk material was installed on 8th Street at the Convention Center to add visibility to the pedestrian crossing from the parking lot to the Center. Although this material has now been removed with the remodel in 2010, the pilot project proved beneficial to safety. Cost of the enhanced crosswalk material: $7,472. 3. Purchase of 5,000 “KEEP KIDS ALIVE Drive 25” stickers for refuse containers. These stickers were attached to new refuse bins by the refuse department. Also, they were distributed at no charge to citizens requesting information about the traffic calming program as part of the education component of the program. Cost of the stickers: $4,250 Current Traffic Calming Program In 2007, staff reviewed the current procedures used by other cities in Washington State to address Traffic Calming on neighborhood streets and determined our 1995 Program needed to be modified. Most cities had implemented a two-phased approach for responding to Traffic Calming requests. (1) Phase One concentrates on enforcement, education and data collection. During Phase One, some signage, pavement marking or other low cost approaches compliment an enforcement effort and education process. Phase One usually lasts at least one year. Based on review of the success of Phase One approach and the data collected, some streets may require additional or more permanent improvements. (2) Phase Two of the Program may lead to installation of physical traffic calming devices, such as speed humps, traffic circles or other measures. Citizen involvement and support of the physical devices is important and must be demonstrated by a vote of the residents prior to City Council approval of the devices. The two-phase approach Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program was presented to Fire Department, Police Department, Code Enforcement, Planning and Engineering in May of 2007. On May 10, 2007, the revised Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program was presented to the City of Yakima Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. On August 21, 2007 the program was presented to the City Council Transportation Committee and in April 2008 the program was presented to the full City Council at a study session. Yakima Traffic Calming Program and the BCNA Petition History Page 2 of 4 011 The Barge-Chestnut Neighborhood Area Traffic Calming Petition The petition from the Barge-Chestnut Neighborhood Association, filed in May of 2007 posed significant staff resource challenge due to the scale of the proposal, the complexity of the planned devices and public participation process. There is no dedicated staff for the Traffic Calming program. As previously described, the process for evaluating traffic calming petitions was under revision. The BCNA petition suggested installing 19 speed humps, 7 traffic circles and 8 diagonal diverters. The study area is over one-half square mile in size, over 1,000 properties and includes 12 different public streets. The BCNA organization had significant contact with city staff (Public Works and Planning) prior to submitting the petition. Additionally, the BCNA had made several presentations of their intended Traffic Calming Plan to the City Council and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. One stated objective of the BCNA Traffic Calming Plan was to be prepared when Memorial Hospital files for their campus expansion plan. Once the BCNA Traffic Calming petition was final and submitted to the City Public Works Department, staff solicited proposals for a professional transportation engineering firm to review the petition and make recommendations to the City. Two proposals were received, one from Transpo for $51,000 and another proposal from Kittelson Associates for $9,000. City Council authorized a contract to hire Kittelson Associates to analyze the petition and make specific recommendations, with cost estimates of the proposed devices. City Traffic Engineering staff collected traffic speed and volume counts for all public streets within the BCNA area. Staff also supplied traffic accident records to Kittelson. Several interim meetings were held with the BCNA Traffic Committee as the Kittelson report was drafted. In summary, the analysis of the petition concluded: 1. Some traffic calming measures would be warranted when Memorial Hospital implements their closed campus arrangement. 2. Diagonal diverters inside the neighborhood are not recommended 3. The total traffic calming proposal should be phased in as traffic patterns grow and change. The number of devices proposed in the BCNA petition was more than necessary for the first closed campus phase and perhaps into the first few phases of the Memorial Hospital Campus expansion project. The need for additional devices should be studied at a later time. In a good faith effort to support the BCNA proposal, in 2009 the City pledged the availability of $50,000 toward construction of the first phase of the Traffic Calming Plan. Current Status of the BCNA Traffic Calming Plan The City of Yakima Street Manager recommended a few modifications to the Phase One plan included in the Kittelson report, at the suggestion of the neighborhood and labeled as “Option 1” on the ballot. A mailed ballot was sent to all the properties within the neighborhood area in December of 2009. A total of 1004 ballots were sent out; 22 ballots were returned as undeliverable. Of the 982 remaining ballots, 508 were returned (51.7%). Yakima Traffic Calming Program and the BCNA Petition History Page 3 of 4 012 The tally was 161 votes for No Traffic Calming; 256 votes for Option 1 (proposed Phase One plan) and 89 votes for Option 2 (have neighborhood fund additional devices. A clear majority (69%) of those who returned the ballots favored installing traffic calming devices. Based on the City of Yakima Traffic Calming Policy, the City Council is responsible for conducting a public hearing and direct staff as necessary to install any traffic calming devices. In this case, funding of up to $50,000 has been ear-marked for this project out of the Arterial Street Fund. Yakima Traffic Calming Program and the BCNA Petition History Page 4 of 4 013 Barge-Chestnut Neighborhood Traffic Calming Recommendations Yakima, Washington Prepared For: City of Yakima 2301 Fruitvale Road Yakima, WA 98902 Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 228-5230 Project No. 8952.0 October, 2009 014 015       MEMORANDUM   Date: August 28, 2009 Project #: 8952  To: Joan Davenport  City of Yakima  2301 Fruitvale Road  Yakima, WA 98902  From: Matt Hughart, AICP & Julia Kuhn, P.E.  Project: BCNA Traffic Calming  Subject: Traffic Calming Recommendations    INTRODUCTION The Barge‐Chestnut Neighborhood Association (BCNA) have submitted a Citizen Petition asking  for traffic calming measures for their neighborhood. The stated rationale behind the request is  that there is a sizeable amount of non‐neighborhood traffic using the neighborhood streets as a  cut‐through route to/from the larger regional arterial network and the adjacent Yakima Valley  Memorial Hospital. Furthermore, the BCNA believes that this cut‐through traffic and Yakima  Valley Memorial Hospital (YVMH) traffic is adversely impacting the safety and livability of their  neighborhood. To address these concerns, the Citizen Petition contains an identified list of traffic  calming projects along the neighborhood streets. These projects include the provision of speed  humps, traffic calming circles, and traffic diverters that are designed to significantly alter traffic  patterns within and through the neighborhood.   Subsequent to the receipt of the BCNA petition, there have been a number of meetings held  between the BCNA, City of Yakima and YVMH representatives. In addition, the BCNA has  presented an alternative traffic calming plan to the City for review. The City has requested that  Kittelson & Associates, Inc. perform an independent assessment of the traffic conditions within  the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood and develop a list of potential traffic calming  recommendations. This memorandum summarizes the evaluation and development of these  recommendations, including a response to the BCNA’s alternative proposal.   EXISTING CONDITIONS The Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood is a large (15 city blocks by 6 city blocks) single‐family  neighborhood roughly bordered by Summitview Avenue to the north, Tieton Drive to the south,  36th Avenue to the west, and Gilbert Drive/Stanley Boulevard to the east. The east‐west streets of  Barge Street, Yakima Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue are a series of continuous parallel travel  corridors that traverse the entire neighborhood. The north‐south streets of 36th Avenue, 32nd  FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\8952 - TRAFFIC CALMING PETITION REVIEW\REPORT\DRAFT\BCNAPRELIMREC_REVISED (2).DOC 016 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 2 Avenue, 30th Avenue, 28th Avenue, 26th Avenue, and 24th Avenue traverse the neighborhood from  Summitview Avenue to Tieton Drive. Collectively, all of these streets form a street grid pattern  that provides access to/from the neighborhood and the larger arterial street network.  As shown in Figure 1, all streets within the BCNA are classified as Local Streets with the  exception of 32nd Avenue and the border roadways of Summitview Avenue and Tieton Drive.  Table 1 below summarizes the existing functional classification and identifies the basic  characteristics of the neighborhood streets and border roadways.  Table 1 Neighborhood Streets Characteristics Table Roadway Functional Classification Speed Limit Sidewalks? Bicycle Lanes? Summitview Avenue Primary Arterial 30 mph Yes No Tieton Drive Minor Arterial 30 mph Yes No 32nd Avenue Neighborhood Collector 25 mph No Signed Bike Route All other streets within the BCNA Local Street 25 mph1 No No2 1 Chestnut Avenue and Stanley Boulevard have posted speed limits of 20 mph. 2 In addition to 32nd Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, 24th Avenue, Stanley Boulevard, and portions of 36th Avenue are signed Bike Routes. Existing Traffic Volumes/Travel Speeds In 2008, the City of Yakima performed a comprehensive series of traffic volume and vehicle speed  counts along the majority of streets within the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood. The traffic volume  counts illustrate the number of vehicles traveled on each of the neighborhood streets over the  course of a typical weekday. This is known as an average daily traffic volume (ADT). For the  same neighborhood streets, the speed counts illustrate the maximum speed at which 85% of the  surveyed vehicles are traveling. This is known as the 85th percentile speed. A graphical summary  of the volume and speed counts are provided in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.  Traffic Volume Observations As shown in Figure 2, there is variation in traffic volumes amongst the neighborhood streets. The  following observations can be drawn from this graphical summary:  • With an ADT of approximately 4,000 vehicles, 32nd Avenue from Summitview to Tieton is  the most heavily traveled corridor within the neighborhood. These traffic volumes can be  attributed to the continuous north‐south alignment of the 32nd Avenue corridor and the  connections that it makes to the larger regional street network. As a classified  Neighborhood Collector, 32nd Avenue has an ADT that is appropriate for its classification,  size, and role within the larger street network.1                                                           1 The City of Yakima Transportation System Plan has identified a Targeted ADT of 3,000‐5,000 vehicles for  a Neighborhood Collector.  Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 017 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 3 • Traffic volumes on 28th Avenue and 30th Avenue are higher than other adjacent north‐ south local streets. These higher volumes are likely the result of employee and visitor  traffic traveling to/from the Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital.  • With ADT volumes ranging from 1,400 to 2,300 vehicles, Yakima Avenue is the second  most heavily traveled corridor within the neighborhood. This volume of traffic can be  attributed to the direct connections that the Yakima Avenue corridor makes with  downtown Yakima to the east.  • Per industry standards and the Yakima Transportation System Plan, a targeted range of  ADT for Local Streets is 3,000 vehicles per day or less. All Local Streets within the Barge‐ Chestnut neighborhood have ADTs that fall within this range.  Travel Speed Observations As shown in Figure 3, all of the neighborhood streets tend to have 85th percentile speeds in excess  of the posted speed limit although the speeds are not atypical of neighborhood travel speeds. The  following observations can be drawn from this graphical summary:  • All of the continuous north‐south and east‐west neighborhood streets have 85th percentile  speeds between 6 and 8 mph in excess of the posted speed limit.  • With a lower posted speed limit, Chestnut Avenue had an 85th percentile speed of  approximately 11 mph in excess of the speed limit. However, in comparison to all the  other major neighborhood streets, vehicles traveling on Chestnut Avenue are traveling at  essentially the same speed.    Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 018 S 26TH AVEBARGE STN 31ST AVES 19TH AVEN 25TH AVES 25TH AVES 32ND AVEN 36TH AVETIETON DRS 30TH AVES 28TH AVEGILBERT DRN 24TH AVEN 37TH AVES 34TH AVEN 27TH AVEN 30TH AVEN 34TH AVEN 35TH AVESTANLEY BLVDN 23RD AVECLEMAN AVEN 28TH AVEN 29TH AVES 31ST AVES 36TH AVES 35TH AVES 24TH AVES 37TH AVES 27TH AVEN 26TH AVES 18TH AVES 21ST AVEN 32ND AVETAYLOR WYS 23RD AVEN 22ND AVES 22ND AVES 20TH AVEPARK LNS 29TH AVEW YAKIMA AVEN 33RD AVEDELMAR TERVOLTAIRE AVEN 18TH AVEBROWNE AVEPARK AVEHENRY AVEHOME DRPALATINE AVEN 21ST AVES 33RD AVESHELTON AVEGRAHAM STL E S T E R A V E SUMMITVIEW AVEELEANOR STW CHESTNUT AVEW WALNUT STCORRIGAN WYCANTERBURY LNBELL AVELABAN AVEHILLCREST CTS 24TH AVES 19TH AVES 23RD AVES 24TH AVEN 22ND AVEELEANOR STN 30TH AVEW WALNUT STN 27TH AVEN 28TH AVES 22ND AVES 18TH AVES 23RD AVEN 37TH AVEN 34TH AVEN 18TH AVEW WALNUT STBCNA Traffic Calming StudyMay 2009STREET FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONBARGE-CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOODYAKIMA, WA1FIGURENLEGENDKittelson & Associates, Inc.transportation engineering / planningH:\projfile\8952 - Traffic Calming Petition Review\gisFunctional ClassificationPRIMARY ARTERIALMINOR ARTERIALNEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTORLOCAL STREETSBARGE-CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY019 S 26TH AVEBARGE STN 31ST AVES 19TH AVEN 25TH AVES 25TH AVES 32ND AVEN 36TH AVETIETON DRS 30TH AVES 28TH AVEGILBERT DRN 24TH AVEN 37TH AVES 34TH AVEN 27TH AVEN 30TH AVEN 34TH AVEN 35TH AVESTANLEY BLVDN 23RD AVECLEMAN AVEN 28TH AVEN 29TH AVES 31ST AVES 36TH AVES 35TH AVES 24TH AVES 37TH AVES 27TH AVEN 26TH AVES 18TH AVES 21ST AVEN 32ND AVETAYLOR WYS 23RD AVEN 22ND AVES 22ND AVES 20TH AVEPARK LNS 29TH AVEW YAKIMA AVEN 33RD AVEDELMAR TERVOLTAIRE AVEN 18TH AVEBROWNE AVEPARK AVEHENRY AVEHOME DRPALATINE AVEN 21ST AVES 33RD AVESHELTON AVEGRAHAM STL E S T E R A V E SUMMITVIEW AVEELEANOR STW CHESTNUT AVEW WALNUT STCORRIGAN WYCANTERBURY LNBELL AVELABAN AVEHILLCREST CTS 24TH AVES 19TH AVES 23RD AVES 24TH AVEN 22ND AVEELEANOR STN 30TH AVEW WALNUT STN 27TH AVEN 28TH AVES 22ND AVES 18TH AVES 23RD AVEN 37TH AVEN 34TH AVEN 18TH AVEW WALNUT STBCNA Traffic Calming StudyMay 2009EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMESBARGE-CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOODYAKIMA, WA2FIGURENKittelson & Associates, Inc.transportation engineering / planning93056040605001060144050160820930150100508022501403901060LEGENDH:\projfile\8952 - Traffic Calming Petition Review\gisAverage Daily Traffic (ADT)<500500-1000>1000STREETS NOT COUNTEDBARGE CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARYADT##020 S 26TH AVEBARGE STN 31ST AVES 19TH AVEN 25TH AVES 25TH AVES 32ND AVEN 36TH AVETIETON DRS 30TH AVES 28TH AVEGILBERT DRN 24TH AVEN 37TH AVES 34TH AVEN 27TH AVEN 30TH AVEN 34TH AVEN 35TH AVESTANLEY BLVDN 23RD AVECLEMAN AVEN 28TH AVEN 29TH AVES 31ST AVES 36TH AVES 35TH AVES 24TH AVES 37TH AVES 27TH AVEN 26TH AVES 18TH AVES 21ST AVEN 32ND AVETAYLOR WYS 23RD AVEN 22ND AVES 22ND AVES 20TH AVEPARK LNS 29TH AVEW YAKIMA AVEN 33RD AVEDELMAR TERVOLTAIRE AVEN 18TH AVEBROWNE AVEPARK AVEHENRY AVEHOME DRPALATINE AVEN 21ST AVES 33RD AVESHELTON AVEGRAHAM STL E S T E R A V E SUMMITVIEW AVEELEANOR STW CHESTNUT AVEW WALNUT STCORRIGAN WYCANTERBURY LNBELL AVELABAN AVEHILLCREST CTS 24TH AVES 19TH AVES 23RD AVES 24TH AVEN 22ND AVEELEANOR STN 30TH AVEW WALNUT STN 27TH AVEN 28TH AVES 22ND AVES 18TH AVES 23RD AVEN 37TH AVEN 34TH AVEN 18TH AVEW WALNUT STBCNA Traffic Calming StudyMay 2009Kittelson & Associates, Inc.transportation engineering / planning85TH PERCENTILE SPEED IN EXCESS OF POSTED SPEED LIMITBARGE-CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOODYAKIMA, WA3FIGURENH:\projfile\8952 - Traffic Calming Petition Review\gisLEGEND85% Speed In Excessof Posted Speed<5 MPH5-10 MPH>10 MPHBARGE CHESTNUT NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY12566766181144528-26STREETS NOT COUNTEDSPEED IN EXCESS OF POSTED SPEED##021 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 7 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Neighborhood Safety The fundamental premise behind any neighborhood traffic calming assessment is ensuring that  traffic volumes and travel speeds are appropriate for the context of the travel way and adjacent  land use. An imbalance in either of these two areas can contribute to the potential for  neighborhood safety issues. A summary of historical neighborhood crash patterns is outlined in  the following paragraphs.  Intersection Crash History The City of Yakima keeps vehicle collision records at all intersections within the city. Historical  crash records were reviewed at all intersections within the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood dating  back to January 1, 2003. A summary of the intersection crash history is provided in Table 2 for the  past six and a half years. Based on a thorough review of the crash records, the following key  points can be reasonably concluded:  - With a few exceptions, there were a minimal number of crashes (4 out of 32 total) that  involved injuries. While the data is limited in terms of the detail provided, a lack of  injuries can most often be attributed to collisions that occurred at slower travel speeds.  This is important to keep in mind when thinking about the context of travel speeds along  neighborhood streets.  - There were no reported collisions that involved pedestrians at any of the neighborhood  intersections.  - There was one reported collision that involved a bicyclist at the 24th Avenue/Yakima Street  intersection.  - There were five crashes that involved DUIs.   - Yakima Avenue east of 32nd Avenue has experienced a higher number of crashes (13) than  similar segments of Barge Street (3) or Chestnut Avenue (3). The higher number of crashes  is likely the result of higher average daily traffic volumes than any specific geometric or  roadway deficiency.  - While Chestnut Avenue experiences the greatest differential in speeds above the posted  speed limit, there were no vehicle collision patterns that suggest safety issues associated  with higher travel speeds relative to the posted travel speed.   - Some intersections have experienced a proportionally higher number of crashes than other  locations such as 32nd Avenue/Chestnut Avenue where the data suggests a possible sight  distance deficiency. Based on a review of all of the data, there is no evidence to suggest  that neighborhood speeding or cut‐through traffic is attributing to these collisions.  While a review of the historical crash patterns can be a useful tool in deciphering the presence of  existing safety issues, the data for the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood intersections does not  appear to have a direct link to the perceived speeding and cut‐through traffic concerns expressed  by the BCNA.  022 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 8 Table 2 Intersection Crash Summary (1/03 – 5/09) Collision Type Severity Intersection # of Crashes Rear End Broad-side Turning Side-swipe Fixed Object Bike / Ped Injury Property Damage Comments 22nd Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 22nd Avenue / Yakima Avenue 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 - One crash involved one vehicle striking a fixed object. 22nd Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 23rd Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 23rd Avenue / Yakima Avenue 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 - There were no injuries with the crash, suggesting relatively low travel speeds. 23rd Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 24th Avenue / Barge Street 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 - There were no injuries with the crash, suggesting relatively low travel speeds. 24th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 - One crash involved a DUI - One crash involved a bicyclist. There were no injuries reported. 24th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 - Crash involved one vehicle striking a fixed object. 25th Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 25th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 26th Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 26th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 4 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 - Two crashes involved DUIs - One of the broadside collisions involved an injury. 26th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 - There were no injuries with the crash, suggesting relatively low travel speeds. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 023 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 9 Collision Type Severity Intersection # of Crashes Rear End Broad-side Turning Side-swipe Fixed Object Bike / Ped Injury Property Damage Comments 26th Avenue / Walnut Street 0 - - - - - - - - 27th Avenue / Walnut Street 0 - - - - - - - - 28th Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 28th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 - There were no injuries with either crash, suggesting relatively low travel speeds. 28th Avenue / Chestnut Ave 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - Crash involved a vehicle rear-ending a parked car along Chestnut Avenue. 28th Avenue / Walnut Street 0 - - - - - - - - 30th Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 30th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 30th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 31st Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 31st Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 32nd Avenue / Barge Street 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 - There were no injuries with either crash, suggesting relatively low travel speeds. 32nd Avenue / Yakima Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 32nd Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 3 3 - Five crashes involved broadside collisions suggesting a possible intersection sight distance issue. 34th Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 024 Collision Type Severity Intersection # of Crashes Rear End Broad-side Turning Side-swipe Fixed Object Bike / Ped Injury Property Damage Comments 34th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - Crash involved a DUI. 34th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 35th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 - Crash involved one vehicle striking a fixed object. 36th Avenue / Barge Street 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 - Crash involved a DUI and a vehicle striking a fixed object. 36th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 - Crash involved one vehicle striking a fixed object. 36th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 - Crashed involved one vehicle sideswiping a fixed object. 36th Avenue / Walnut Street 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Crash involved one vehicle rear-ending a parked vehicle. Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 t 28, 2009 Page 10 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon BCNAAugus   025 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 11 Volume, Speed, and Crash History Summary Overall, the observed traffic volumes on Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood streets are not atypical or  excessive when compared against the range of traffic volumes typically deemed appropriate for  that street type. However, it is likely that traffic volumes on some neighborhood streets are  artificially high as a result of the adjacent Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital. As such, it could be  concluded that a series of traffic calming measures aimed at significantly altering travel patterns  throughout the entire neighborhood is not an appropriate first step. Instead, a phased approach  of targeted traffic calming measures focused on reducing employee/visitor hospital traffic and  minimizing the convenience of cut‐through routes is a more appropriate response.  Furthermore, there are no documented safety problems that indicate the need for traffic volume  or speed mitigation measures.  With regards to travel speeds, the more significant neighborhood streets all have 85th percentile  speeds in excess of the posted speed limit by 5‐10 mph. As a result, a targeted response of speed  reduction devices appears to be an appropriate level of response. The following sections outline  the assessment of different traffic calming devices and the traffic calming recommendations for  the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood.  Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 026 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 12 TRAFFIC CALMING ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS As previously stated, a phased approach to traffic calming in the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood is  an appropriate method for addressing traffic volume and travel speed concerns. The following  sections outline an assessment of potential traffic calming measures for use within the  neighborhood. Based on this assessment, a phased set of recommendations has been developed.  Potential Traffic Calming Measures Several potential traffic calming measures were considered as a result of this investigation. A  short description of these measures is outlined below.  Traffic Diverter A traffic diverter is a raised channelization island that is most often used at intersections. Traffic  diverters are designed to eliminate through trips or other forms of intersection turning  movements and divert them to other streets, thereby changing travel patterns and altering traffic  volumes. The cost of diverters vary with size and design.  Traffic Calming Circle A traffic calming circle is an elevated circular island that can be placed in the middle of  intersections. Traffic calming circles force traffic to slowly navigate in a counterclockwise manner  around the island as they pass through the intersection. Depending on the design, traffic calming  circles can cost anywhere from $5,000‐$15,000 per intersection.  When evaluating the ability to install a traffic calming circle, the design guidelines outlined in  Table 3 were used. These design guidelines provide dimensional standards for ensuring a  properly sized circle according to existing roadway widths and curb return radii.  Modification of Intersection Traffic Control Devices Modification of traffic control devices include the conversion of uncontrolled movements to  controlled movements or the replacement of yield signs with stop signs. The cost of the measures  is typically very minimal ~ $500.  Speed Humps and Speed Cushions A speed hump is a raised hump (approximately 3.5 inches high) in the roadway with a parabolic  shape that extends across the street at right angles to traffic. Typically placed in groups along a  roadway, speed humps are primarily used to slow traffic down. Sometimes they can result in a  reduction of traffic volumes on streets where they are employed by diverting traffic to other  nearby streets that don’t have speed reduction devices. Depending on the design, speed humps  can cost anywhere from $2,000‐$2,500 per location.  Speed cushions are typically asphalt or rubber mounds that are 3‐4 inches in height and 10 feet in  length. Spaces between the cushions allow emergency vehicles to straddle or partially straddle  Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 027 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 13 the devices, thus resulting in minimal impact to emergency response times. Depending on the  manufacturer, speed cushions can cost anywhere from $3,000‐$5,000 per location.  Table 3 Traffic Calming Circle Design Guidelines A Street Width B Curb Return Radius C Off-Street Distance D Circle Diameter E Opening Width Reconstruct Curbs 22’ <14’ 15’ 20’ 25’ 5.5’ 4.5’ 4.0’ 11’ 13’ 15’ 16’ 18’ 19’ Reconstruct Curbs 24’ <12’ 12’ 15’ 20’ 25’ 5.5’ 5.0’ 4.5’ 3.5’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 17’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 20’ 30’ 10’ 12’ 15’ 18’ 20’ 25’ 5.5’ 5.0’ 5.0 4.5’ 4.0’ 3.0’ 19’ 20’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 24’ 16’ 17’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 32’ 10’ 12’ 15’ 18’ 20’ 25’ 5.5’ 5.0’ 4.5’ 4.0’ 4.0’ 2.5’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 24’ 27’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 19’ 20’     Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 028 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 14 Traffic Diverter Assessment and Recommendation Traffic diverters change travel patterns in neighborhoods by regulating or precluding certain  movements. Within the context of the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood, the use of traffic diverters  was given considerable consideration. However, with its traditional street grid pattern, a sizeable  and complex implementation of traffic diverters would be needed to adequately minimize cut‐ through traffic to the level desired by the BCNA. Although cut‐through traffic would be  minimized, a series of diverters would also minimize the response times for emergency service  vehicles, force neighborhood residents to alter desired travel patterns, complicate wayfinding for  residents and visitors, and artificially increase traffic volumes on some street segments that are  relatively quiet today. Faced with these potential outcomes, it was felt that a more targeted use of  traffic diverters/roadway closures that are aimed at minimizing hospital cut‐through traffic was a  more realistic and appropriate response.  The use of diverters can be an appropriate treatment to address the Yakima Valley Memorial  Hospital’s direct traffic impacts on the neighborhood. As such, the identified traffic mitigation  treatments outlined in the hospital’s campus master plan appear to be appropriate and feasible.  Table 4 outlines specific recommendations from that master plan as they relate to traffic volume  reductions in the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood.  Table 4 Traffic Diverter/Street Closure Assessment and Recommendation 28th Avenue / Walnut Street Intersection Observations - 28th Avenue provides direct access to/from the Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital. As a result, 28th Avenue tends to have higher traffic volumes than other parallel north-south streets in the neighborhood as a result of the employee and visitor traffic. Recommendations - It is recommended that a traffic diverter be installed at the 28th Avenue/Walnut Street intersection per the YVMH master plan. Phasing - As this is an existing condition, the traffic diverter installation should occur in the near- term prior to any additional hospital expansion. 29th and 30th Avenues Observations - 29th and 30th Avenue provide direct access to/from the Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital. As a result, these streets tend to have higher traffic volumes than other parallel north-south streets in the neighborhood. Recommendations - It is recommended that 29th and 30th Avenue be modified such that they become closed to through traffic between Tieton Drive and Chestnut Avenue per the YVMH master plan. Phasing - As this is an existing condition, the street closure should occur in the near-term prior to any additional hospital expansion and at the same time as the 28th Avenue/Walnut Street intersection diverter.   Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 029 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 15 Traffic Calming Circle Assessment and Recommendation The most significant form of traffic calming considered as part of this assessment is the use of  traffic calming circles. As mentioned previously, traffic calming circles are an effective speed  reduction device. Based on those neighborhood streets that have 85th percentile speeds of 5‐10  mph over the posted speed limit, the potential use of traffic calming circles was investigated at a  number of intersections. These intersections include the following:  • 32nd Avenue/Barge Street  • 32nd Avenue/Chestnut Avenue  • 30th Avenue/Yakima Avenue  • 26th Avenue/Yakima Avenue  • 26th Avenue/Chestnut Avenue  The following table provides a summary of the observations, assessments, and recommendations  at each of these intersections for the use of traffic calming circles.  Table 5 Traffic Calming Circle Assessment and Recommendation 32nd Avenue/Barge Street Observations - 85th percentile speeds along 32nd Avenue are approximately 6 mph over the posted speed limit of 25 mph. - Traffic on 32nd Avenue is uncontrolled at Barge Street, creating an opportunity for vehicle speeds to increase along this portion of the corridor. Challenges1 - As illustrated in Appendix A, all four existing curb returns are small and each would need to be reconstructed to a minimum 12’ radius. - The curb return reconstruction would likely necessitate the relocation of two existing utility poles located in the northwest and northeast quadrants. - The differences in street widths between 32nd and Barge Street would necessitate a custom form elliptical circle that would be difficult to manufacture and navigate. Recommendations - Due to roadway geometry constraints, a traffic calming circle would be difficult to construct at this intersection without a significant amount of curb reconstruction and utility pole relocations. For these reasons, a traffic calming circle is not recommended at this location. Instead, speed reduction devices in the form of speed cushions appear to be a less intrusive and cost effective option for reducing speeds along 32nd Avenue. 32nd Avenue/Chestnut Avenue Observations - 85th percentile speeds along 32nd Avenue are approximately 6 mph over the posted speed limit of 25 mph. - Traffic on 32nd Avenue is uncontrolled at Chestnut Avenue, creating an opportunity for vehicle speeds to increase along this portion of the corridor. Challenges1 - As illustrated in Appendix A, a major utility pole located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection is located directly behind the existing curb return. This utility pole would be located in the “clear zone”, a buffer zone that should be free of obstructions. - The differences in street widths between 32nd and Chestnut Avenue would necessitate a custom form elliptical circle that would be difficult to manufacture and navigate. Recommendations - Due to roadway geometry constraints and utility pole conflicts, a traffic calming circle would be difficult to construct at this intersection. For these reasons, a traffic calming circle is not recommended at this location. Instead, speed reduction devices in the form of speed cushions appear to be a less intrusive and cost effective option for reducing speeds along 32nd Avenue. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 030 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 16 30th Avenue/Yakima Avenue Observations - 85th percentile speeds along Yakima Avenue are approximately 6 mph over the posted speed limit of 25 mph. - Traffic on Yakima Avenue is uncontrolled at 30th Avenue, creating an opportunity for vehicle speeds to increase along this portion of the corridor. Challenges1 - The existing intersection has poor pavement conditions. The entire intersection would likely need to be resurfaced prior to implementing any form traffic calming measure. - As illustrated in Appendix A, all four existing curb returns are too small and each would need to be reconstructed to a minimum 12’ radius. - The curb return reconstruction would likely necessitate the relocation of an existing utility pole located in the northwest quadrant and storm inlets located in the northeast and southwest quadrants. - The differences in street widths between 30th Ave and Yakima Ave would necessitate a custom form elliptical circle that would be difficult to manufacture and navigate. Recommendations - Due to roadway geometry constraints, a traffic calming circle would be difficult to construct at this intersection without a significant amount of resurfacing, curb reconstruction and utility pole relocations. For these reasons, a traffic calming circle is not recommended at this location. Instead, speed reduction devices in the form of speed humps appear to be a less intrusive and cost effective option for reducing speeds along Yakima Avenue. 26th Avenue/Yakima Avenue Observations - 85th percentile speeds along Yakima Avenue are approximately 6 mph over the posted speed limit of 25 mph. - Traffic on Yakima Avenue is uncontrolled at 26th Avenue, creating an opportunity for vehicle speeds to increase along this portion of the corridor. Challenges1 - As illustrated in Appendix A, all four existing curb returns are too small and each would need to be reconstructed to a minimum 12’ radius. - The curb return reconstruction would likely necessitate the relocation of an existing utility pole located in the northwest quadrant. - The differences in street widths between 26th Ave and Yakima Ave would necessitate a custom form elliptical circle that would be difficult to manufacture and navigate. Recommendations - Due to roadway geometry constraints, a traffic calming circle would be difficult to construct at this intersection without a significant amount of resurfacing, curb reconstruction and utility pole relocations. For these reasons, a traffic calming circle is not recommended. Instead, speed reduction devices in the form of speed humps would be a less intrusive option for reducing speeds along Yakima Avenue. 26th Avenue/Chestnut Avenue Observations - 85th percentile speeds along Chestnut Avenue are approximately 11 mph over the posted speed limit of 20 mph. - Traffic on Chestnut Avenue are uncontrolled at 26th Avenue, creating an opportunity for vehicle speeds to increase along this portion of the corridor. Challenges1 - As illustrated in Appendix A, all four existing curb returns are too small and each would need to be reconstructed to a minimum 15’ radius. - The curb return reconstruction would likely necessitate the relocation of an existing utility pole located in the northwest quadrant and storm inlets located in the northeast and northwest quadrants. - Could be potential underground utility line conflicts along Chestnut Avenue. Recommendations - A traffic calming circle would help keep travel speeds along Chestnut Avenue appropriate for a residential street. Despite the potential need for curb reconstruction and utility pole relocations, cross street uniformity makes this a potential candidate for the installation of a traffic calming circle. It is recommended that the City perform a more in depth review of the potential utility conflicts. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 031 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 17 1 See Appendix A for a detailed intersection geometry assessment. As outlined in Table 5, all of the potential locations for traffic calming circles are faced with  significant safety and design challenges that will lead to fairly intrusive and expensive  construction efforts. With the exception of the 26th Avenue/Chestnut Avenue intersection, it is  recommended that other traffic calming measures be considered in lieu of traffic circles.   Speed Hump/Speed Cushion Assessment and Recommendation As a relatively low cost speed reduction measure, the comprehensive use of speed humps and/or  speed cushions throughout the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood can be an appropriate traffic  calming device. The following table provides a summary of the observations, assessments, and  recommendations for the use of speed humps/speed cushions.  Table 6 Speed Hump/Cushion Assessment and Recommendations 24th Avenue Observations - 24th Avenue provides a continuous travel route between Tieton Drive and Summitview Avenue, resulting in moderate, but not unreasonable traffic volumes for a local neighborhood street. - The steep grade along 24th Avenue (south of Chestnut Avenue) needs to be accounted for when considering appropriate traffic calming measures. - The ¼ mile segment of S. 24th Ave between Tieton and Chestnut has an 85th percentile speed that is approximately 8 mph in excess of the posted speed limit of 25 mph. Recommendations - To mitigate speeds along 24th Avenue and help deter the attractiveness of this route as a quick north-south route, it is recommended that two speed humps (3.5” high, 12’ wide) be installed between Tieton Drive and Chestnut Avenue. The first speed hump should be placed approximately 250’ north of Tieton Drive and the second speed hump should be placed approximately 300’ south of Chestnut Avenue. Additional speed humps are not recommended between these two points due to the roadway grade. - Per the BCNA’s request, two additional speed humps can be considered north of Yakima Avenue and south of Summitview Avenue as a second phase, if deemed appropriate at that time. Phasing - The two identified speed humps on 24th Avenue between Chestnut Avenue and Tieton Drive should be installed as part of Phase 1. - The two speed humps on 24th Avenue between Yakima Avenue and Summitview Avenue should be considered a Phase 2 project following a review of change in traffic patterns from Phase 1. 32nd Avenue Observations - As a classified Neighborhood Collector street, 32nd Avenue is a natural north-south travel way between Tieton Drive and Summitview Avenue. - Of all the roadways within the BCNA (excluding Tieton and Summitview), 32nd Avenue is the highest traveled roadway with an ADT of approximately 4,000 vehicles per day. - With the Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital potentially becoming a closed campus, it is likely that 32nd Avenue will become a diversionary route and experience higher traffic volumes in the future. Recommendations - To ensure travel speeds remain appropriate for a Neighborhood Collector, three speed cushions (3.5” high, 12’ wide) spaced approximately 300 feet apart are recommended along 32nd Avenue between Tieton and Chestnut Avenue. - Install a speed cushion (3.5” high, 12’ wide) mid-block between Yakima Avenue and Barge Street. - Install a speed cushion (3.5” high, 12’ wide) mid-block between Barge Street and Summitview Avenue. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 032 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 18 Phasing - All 5 identified speed cushions should be installed on 32nd Avenue as part of Phase 1. 26th Avenue Observations - With the Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital potentially becoming a closed campus, it is likely that 26th Avenue will become a diversionary route and experience higher traffic volumes and travel speeds in the future. - The use of all-way stop control at the Walnut Street intersection is a more appropriate treatment than additional speed humps on the south section of 26th Avenue. Recommendations - Install a speed hump (3.5” high, 12’ wide) mid-block between Yakima Avenue and Barge Street. - Install a speed hump (3.5” high, 12’ wide) mid-block between Barge Street and Summitview Avenue. Phasing - The two identified speed humps on 26th Avenue should be installed as part of Phase 1. W Yakima Avenue Observations - Yakima Avenue has an 85th percentile speed that is approximately 6 mph over the posted speed limit of 25 mph. - The Yakima Avenue corridor is a natural east-west corridor that provides direct access with downtown Yakima to the east. Recommendations - Install speed hump (3.5” high, 12’ wide) between 32nd Avenue and 30th Avenue. - Install speed hump (3.5” high, 12’ wide) between 30th Avenue and 28th Avenue. - Install speed hump (3.5” high, 12’ wide) between 28th Avenue and 26th Avenue. - Install speed hump (3.5” high, 12’ wide) between 26th Avenue and 24th Avenue. Phasing - The four identified speed humps on 26th Avenue should be installed as part of Phase 1. W Chestnut Avenue Observations - Although the travel speeds are similar to other roadways in the neighborhood, they are higher relative to the posted speed of the street. This posted speed is reflective of the Chestnut Avenue corridor serving as a strategic walking and bicycle route. Recommendations - Install speed hump (3.5” high, 12’ wide) between 36th Avenue and 35th Avenue. - Install speed hump (3.5” high, 12’ wide) between 35th Avenue and 34th Avenue. - Install speed hump (3.5” high, 12’ wide) between 34th Avenue and 33rd Avenue. Phasing - The three identified speed humps on Chestnut Avenue should be installed as part of Phase 1. 36th Avenue Observations - Travel speeds on 36th Avenue were slightly lower than other parallel north-south streets. - The average daily traffic volume (ADT) was approximately 560 vehicles per day. For a neighborhood street, this volume is far below other parallel streets in the neighborhood that provide a continuous connection between Summitview Avenue and Tieton Drive. - For a street that directly serves upwards of 55 homes, it is likely that a large majority of this traffic volume is being generated by the residents that live along the street . This is not to say that 36th Avenue is devoid of cut-through traffic. However, a review of speed and volume data does not suggest that 36th Avenue is experiencing the same level of perceived speeding and cut-through traffic concerns. Recommendations - While there is no evidence to suggest consistent excessive speeding along 36th Avenue, there is also no real reason why the speed humps could not be installed. If it is the neighborhood’s desire to implement these traffic calming measures as a speed reduction measure, it is suggested that they be considered following a review of change in traffic patterns after implementation of traffic calming measures along 32nd Avenue. Phasing - Speed humps on 36th Avenue should be reviewed as part of Phase 2. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 033 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 19 28th Avenue Observations - The recommended traffic diverter at 28th Avenue/Walnut Street will significantly decrease traffic volumes on 28th Avenue and likely mitigate cut-through traffic. While there will likely be some residual traffic demand on 28th Avenue after the diverter is initially installed, the inconvenience and out of direction travel it will cause will likely lead drivers to eventually seek alternate travel routes in the long run. Recommendations - If it is the neighborhood’s desire to implement speed humps as a speed reduction device, it is suggested that speed humps on 28th Avenue be part of a phased implementation that follows a review of traffic patterns after the installation of a traffic diverter at the 28th Avenue/Walnut Street intersection. Phasing - Speed humps on 28th Avenue should be reviewed as part of Phase 2. 31st Avenue Observations - The BCNA proposal recommends three speed humps between Chestnut Avenue and Tieton Drive to deter drivers from using 31st as an alternative to 32nd. - Although no traffic volume or speed information was conducted as part of this study effort, field observations do not suggest that this type of cut-through is occurring in significant numbers today. Recommendations - The potential use of speed humps should be considered following a review of changes in travel patterns associated with the construction of speed cushions on 32nd Avenue. Prior to then, the city should collect traffic volume and speed data to provide a perspective on conditions today. Phasing - Speed humps on 31st Avenue should be reviewed as part of Phase 2. Intersection Traffic Control Assessment & Recommendation The following table provides a summary of the observations, assessments, and recommendations  for the use of new intersection traffic control.  Table 7 Intersection Traffic Control Assessment and Recommendation 26th Avenue / Walnut Street Intersection Observations - 26th Avenue as it crosses Walnut Street is slightly offset and uncontrolled. - Traffic volumes are currently low and at an appropriate volume (<500 ADT) for a local residential street. With the future installation of a traffic diverter at the 28th Avenue/Walnut Street intersection, traffic volumes may increase at this intersection. Recommendations - The slightly offset and uncontrolled intersection is a concern. To mitigate this condition and account for a potential increase in traffic volumes, it is recommended that the intersection be converted to an all-way stop-controlled intersection. Phasing - Stop signs on 26th Avenue should be installed as part of Phase 1. 23rd Avenue / Chestnut Avenue Intersection Observations - The southbound approach along 23rd Avenue is yield controlled. Recommendations - Install a stop sign at the southbound 23rd Avenue approach to match typical driver expectations at intersections and ensure a consistent form of intersection traffic control throughout the BCNA. Phasing - The stop sign on 23rd Avenue should be installed as part of Phase 1. 22nd Avenue / Chestnut Avenue Intersection Observations - The southbound approach along 22nd Avenue is yield controlled. Recommendations - Install a stop sign at the southbound 22nd Avenue approach to match driver Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 034 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 20 expectations and ensure a consistent form of intersection traffic control. Phasing - The stop sign on 22nd Avenue should be installed as part of Phase 1. 34th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue Intersection Observations - The northbound approach along 34th Avenue is yield controlled. Recommendations - Install a stop sign at the northbound 34th Avenue approach to match typical driver expectations at intersections and ensure a consistent form of intersection traffic control throughout the BCNA. Phasing - The stop sign on 34th Avenue should be installed as part of Phase 1. 35th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue Intersection Observations - The northbound approach along 35th Avenue is yield controlled. Recommendations - Install a stop sign at the northbound 35th Avenue approach to match typical driver expectations at intersections and ensure a consistent form of intersection traffic control throughout the BCNA. Phasing - The stop sign on 35th Avenue should be installed as part of Phase 1.   Curb Bulbouts The BCNA proposal suggests the inclusion of curb bulbouts that that would eliminate turning  movements from Walnut Street onto 27th Avenue southbound. As stated above, it is believed that  the 28th Avenue/Walnut Street traffic diverter will significantly reduce traffic volumes on 28th  Avenue by creating enough out‐of‐direction travel such that it becomes an undesirable travel  route. It is subsequently felt that there will only be a small increase in traffic volumes along 27th  Avenue in the short term as drivers adjust and find new alternate routes. As such, the  recommended curb bulbouts and turning movement restrictions are likely unnecessary.  Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 035 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&S 26TH AVEBARGE STN 31ST AVES 19TH AVEN 25TH AVES 25TH AVES 32ND AVEN 36TH AVETIETON DRS 30TH AVES 28TH AVEGILBERT DRN 24TH AVEN 37TH AVES 34TH AVEN 27TH AVEN 30TH AVEN 34TH AVEN 35TH AVESTANLEY BLVDN 23RD AVECLEMAN AVEN 28TH AVEN 29TH AVES 31ST AVES 36TH AVES 35TH AVES 24TH AVES 37TH AVES 27TH AVEN 26TH AVES 18TH AVES 21ST AVEN 32ND AVETAYLOR WYS 23RD AVEN 22ND AVES 22ND AVES 20TH AVEPARK LNS 29TH AVEW YAKIMA AVEN 33RD AVEDELMAR TERVOLTAIRE AVEN 18TH AVEBROWNE AVEPARK AVEHENRY AVEHOME DRPALATINE AVEN 21ST AVES 33RD AVESHELTON AVEGRAHAM STL E S T E R A V E SUMMITVIEW AVEELEANOR STW CHESTNUT AVEW WALNUT STCORRIGAN WYCANTERBURY LNBELL AVELABAN AVEHILLCREST CTS 24TH AVES 19TH AVES 23RD AVES 24TH AVEN 22ND AVEELEANOR STN 30TH AVEW WALNUT STN 27TH AVEN 28TH AVES 22ND AVES 18TH AVES 23RD AVEN 37TH AVEN 34TH AVEN 18TH AVEW WALNUT STBCNA Traffic Calming StudyAugust 2009RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICESYAKIMA, WANKittelson & Associates, Inc.transportation engineering / planningÁÁÁÁ!PH:\projfile\8952 - Traffic Calming Petition Review\gis\Figure04.mxdÁÁÁÁDÅHÅHLEGENDINSTALL SPEED CUSHIONÁINSTALL TRAFFIC CALMING CIRCLEINSTALL STOP SIGN!PÅHÅHDINSTALL TRAFFIC DIVERTERIMPLEMENT STREET CLOSURE4FIGURE&EXISTING STOP SIGNSDINSTALL SPEED HUMP (PHASE 2)INSTALL SPEED HUMP (PHASE 1)036 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 21 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information summarized above, Table 8 presents a summary recommendation of  traffic calming measures for Phase 1 as well as an estimated cost of construction.    The preliminary cost estimates have been requested by both City of Yakima staff and YVMH  representatives. BCNA representatives noted that our initial recommendation report either  focused solely on or placed too much of an emphasis on cost as a determining factor for the  inclusion of traffic calming measures. While cost was one of the evaluation criteria, other factors  were evaluated with equal or more weight such as safety (previously outlined), roadway  geometrics, and the general appropriateness of various forms of traffic calming devices. As with  all improvement projects, the issue of cost must be considered given the current state of available  funding sources.  Table 8 Recommended Traffic Calming Plan Calming Measure Approximate Construction Cost YVMH Campus Plan Mitigation Measures Traffic diverter at 28th/Walnut to close campus Depends on extent of landscaping, etc. Closure of 29th and 30th between Tieton and Chestnut Depends on extent of landscaping, etc. Phase 1 Following Closure of YVMH Campus 2 Speed Humps on 24th between Tieton and Chestnut $4,000 5 Speed Cushions on 32nd $17,500 - $25,000 2 Speed Humps on 26th north of Yakima Avenue $4,000 All-way stop control at 26th/Walnut Street $1,000 4 Speed Humps on Yakima Avenue $8,000 3 Speed Humps on Chestnut Avenue $6,000 Stop sign on southbound 22nd at Chestnut Avenue $500 Stop sign on southbound 23rd at Chestnut Avenue $500 Stop sign on northbound 34th at Chestnut Avenue $500 Stop sign on northbound 35th at Chestnut Avenue $500 Total Estimated Phase 1 Costs $42,500 - $50,000 Note: Estimated Cost of a Speed Hump = $2,000 Estimated Cost of a Speed Cushion = $3,500 Estimated Cost of a Stop Sigh Installation = $500   In addition to the Phase 1 improvements, the following measures can be considered after a  comprehensive monitoring study following implementation of the hospital street closures and  Phase 1 devices:  • Traffic Circle at 26th/Chestnut  Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 037 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 22 • Speed humps on 24th north of Chestnut  • Speed humps on 28th north of Yakima  • Speed humps on 36th  • Speed humps on 31st   Depending on the results of the monitoring studies, other measures may also be investigated in  the future.  Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 038 BCNA Traffic Calming Project #: 8952 August 28, 2009 Page 23 MONITORING PLAN A follow up evaluation should be performed to ensure that the recommended traffic calming  measures remain effective.  Traffic patterns can be expected to change over time, due to factors such as general city growth,  driver response to increasing roadway congestion along the arterial street network, and new  development such as the Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital expansion. As such, periodic  monitoring of traffic conditions should be conducted within the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood,   including the following:  • Traffic volume counts and speed survey data at one or more locations on each through  street.  • An ongoing review of intersection and roadway crash data.  • A review of traffic data prior to and after implementation of traffic calming devices to  identify the potential for further refinements.  We look forward to working with the City, Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital, and BCNA  representatives to finalize the traffic calming plan. Please let us know if you have any questions in  the meantime.  Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 039   Appendix A Traffic Calming Circle Dimensions 040 041 042 043 044 045    FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\8952 - TRAFFIC CALMING PETITION REVIEW\REPORT\FINAL\RESPONSE TO BCNA COMMENTS_SAFETY.DOC      July 20, 2009 Project #: 8952  Joan Davenport & Joe Rosenlund  City of Yakima  2301 Fruitvale Boulevard  Yakima, WA 98902  RE: BCNA Traffic Recommendations Response  Dear Joan,  We have reviewed the Barge Chestnut Neighborhood Association’s (BCNA) correspondence  regarding our May 2009 BCNA Traffic Calming Recommendations report. To assist the City and  BCNA as they work towards a resolution on future traffic calming plans, this letter provides  additional detail behind the initial set of recommendations and addresses the specific comments,  questions, and counterproposals offered by the BCNA.   BCNA QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS An initial draft of the BCNA Traffic Calming Recommendations report was submitted to the City  of Yakima in early May and subsequently distributed to the BCNA for review and comment.  Upon receipt of this initial recommendation, several letters and e‐mails have been submitted from  members of the BCNA. These letters contained a number of questions/comments regarding the  supporting data, the need for certain traffic calming measures, and counterproposals for  additional traffic calming recommendations. In an attempt to directly address some of the more  fundamental questions and comments from the BCNA, the first part of this letter provides  additional insight and background behind the rationale of the initial recommendation report. The  second part contains a response to the additional traffic calming measures outlined in the BCNA  counterproposal.  Neighborhood Safety The fundamental premise behind any neighborhood traffic calming assessment is ensuring that  traffic volumes and travel speeds are appropriate for the context of the travel way and adjacent  land use. An imbalance in either of these two areas can contribute to the potential for  neighborhood safety issues. While not included in the original recommendation report, a  summary of the neighborhood intersection crash patterns has been provided in this letter and is  outlined in the following paragraphs.  046 BCNA Traffic Calming Response Project #: 8952 July 20, 2009 Page: 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Intersection Crash History The City of Yakima keeps vehicle collision records at all intersections within the city. Historical  crash records were reviewed at all intersections within the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood dating  back to January 1, 2003. A summary of the intersection crash history is provided in Table 1. Based  on a thorough review of the crash records, the following key points can be reasonably concluded:  • With a few exceptions, there were a minimal number of crashes (4 out of 32 total) that  involved injuries. While the data is limited in terms of the detail provided, a lack of  injuries can most often be attributed to collisions that occurred at slower travel speeds.  This is important to keep in mind when thinking about the context of travel speeds along  neighborhood streets.  • There were no reported collisions that involved pedestrians at any of the neighborhood  intersections.  • There was one reported collision that involved a bicyclist at the 24th Avenue/Yakima Street  intersection.  • There were five crashes that involved DUIs.   • Yakima Avenue east of 32nd Avenue has experienced a higher number of crashes (13) than  similar segments of Barge Street (3) or Chestnut Avenue (3). The higher number of crashes  are likely the result of higher average daily traffic volumes than any specific geometric or  roadway deficiency.  • While Chestnut Avenue experiences the greatest differential in speeds above the posted  speed limit, there were no vehicle collision patterns that suggest safety issues associated  with higher travel speeds relative to the posted travel speed.   • Some intersections have experienced a proportionally higher number of crashes than other  locations such as 32nd Avenue/Chestnut Avenue. Based on a review of this data, there is no  evidence to suggest that neighborhood speeding or cut‐through traffic is attributing to  these collisions.  While a review of the historical crash patterns can be a useful tool in deciphering the presence of  existing safety issues, the data for the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood intersections does not appear  to have a direct link to the perceived speeding and cut‐through traffic concerns expressed by the  BCNA.            047 BCNA Traffic Calming Response Project #: 8952 July 20, 2009 Page: 3 TABLE 1 INTERSECTION CRASH SUMMARY (1/03 – 5/09) Collision Type Severity Intersection # of Crashes Rear End Broad-side Turning Side-swipe Fixed Object Bike / Ped Injury Property Damage Comments 22nd Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 22nd Avenue / Yakima Avenue 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 − One crash involved one vehicle striking a fixed object. 22nd Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 23rd Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 23rd Avenue / Yakima Avenue 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 − There were no injuries with the crash, suggesting relatively low travel speeds. 23rd Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 24th Avenue / Barge Street 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 − There were no injuries with the crash, suggesting relatively low travel speeds. 24th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 − One crash involved a DUI − One crash involved a bicyclist. There were no injuries reported. 24th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 − Crash involved one vehicle striking a fixed object. 25th Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 25th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 26th Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 26th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 4 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 − Two crashes involved DUIs − One of the broadside collisions involved an injury. 26th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 − There were no injuries with the crash, suggesting relatively low travel speeds. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 048 BCNA Traffic Calming Response Project #: 8952 July 20, 2009 Page: 4 Collision Type Severity Intersection # of Crashes Rear End Broad-side Turning Side-swipe Fixed Object Bike / Ped Injury Property Damage Comments 26th Avenue / Walnut Street 0 - - - - - - - - 27th Avenue / Walnut Street 0 - - - - - - - - 28th Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 28th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 − There were no injuries with either crash, suggesting relatively low travel speeds. 28th Avenue / Chestnut Ave 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 − Crash involved a vehicle rear-ending a parked car along Chestnut Avenue. 28th Avenue / Walnut Street 0 - - - - - - - - 30th Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 30th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 30th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 31st Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - 31st Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 32nd Avenue / Barge Street 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 − There were no injuries with either crash, suggesting relatively low travel speeds. 32nd Avenue / Yakima Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 32nd Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 3 3 − Five crashes involved broadside collisions suggesting a possible intersection sight distance issue. 34th Avenue / Barge Street 0 - - - - - - - - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 049 Traffic Calming Response Project #: 8952 uly 20, 2009 Page: 5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Collision Type Severity Intersection # of Crashes Rear End Broad-side Turning Side-swipe Fixed Object Bike / Ped Injury Property Damage Comments 34th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 − Crash involved a DUI. 34th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 0 - - - - - - - - 35th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 − Crash involved one vehicle striking a fixed object. 36th Avenue / Barge Street 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 − Crash involved a DUI and a vehicle striking a fixed object. 36th Avenue / Yakima Avenue 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 − Crash involved one vehicle striking a fixed object. 36th Avenue / Chestnut Avenue 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 − Crashed involved one vehicle sideswiping a fixed object. 36th Avenue / Walnut Street 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 − Crash involved one vehicle rear-ending a parked vehicle. BCNAJ     050 BCNA Traffic Calming Response Project #: 8952 October 12, 2009 Page: 6 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Diverters The following comments were provided in a letter from Jeffrey Feen:  Reducing the volume of traffic in the neighborhood is important from a variety of safety  aspects.  Fewer vehicles/trips should correspond with a smaller likelihood of vehicle and  vehicle/ pedestrian accidents.   Additionally, a reduction in the ease and speed at which the  neighborhood can be navigated should result in a reduction of opportunistic criminal  activities.  Reduced traffic volume should also assist in making people/vehicles/ activities  that are out‐of‐place become more noticeable.  Thus, traffic calming devices that discourage  cut‐through traffic should be more fully investigated.  Interestingly, the KA recommendations discount the need for diverters, and recognize (pg.  9) that diverters can force traffic to adjacent streets.  The KA recommendations then support  closure/ diversion of traffic on 28th & 30th, without any consideration for adjacent streets  that will experience an increased volume of traffic.  This recommendation is contradictory to  the comprehensive approach advocated by the BCNA for decreasing the volume of traffic and  sets the stage for making one neighbor’s relief, another neighbor’s new headache.  For  example, a quick glance of KA’s recommendation (pg. 15) suggests that those drivers  currently using 28th & 30th Aves. to gain access to Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital  (Memorial), from the north will just move to 24th Ave. and 31st Ave./Chestnut Ave/ 30th  Ave. because there is little to nothing to discourage them from doing so.  So, while diverters in the traditional sense have apparently been dismissed, more must be  done to discourage cut‐through traffic from finding a new path of least resistance.  The  addition of speed cushions on the north‐south streets may be a viable alternative.  Traffic diverters change travel patterns in neighborhoods by regulating or precluding certain  movements. Within the context of the Barge‐Chestnut neighborhood, the use of traffic diverters  was given considerable consideration. However, with its traditional street grid pattern, a sizeable  and complex implementation of traffic diverters would be needed to adequately minimize cut‐ through traffic to the level desired by the BCNA. Although cut‐through traffic would be  minimized, a series of diverters would also minimize the response times for emergency service  vehicles, force neighborhood residents to alter desired travel patterns, complicate wayfinding for  residents and visitors, and artificially increase traffic volumes on some street segments that are  relatively quiet today. Faced with these potential outcomes, it was felt that a more targeted use of  traffic diverters/roadway closures that are aimed at minimizing hospital cut‐through traffic was a  more realistic and appropriate response.  051 BCNA Traffic Calming Response Project #: 8952 July 20, 2009 Page: 7 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. REVIEW OF BCNA TRAFFIC CALMING COUNTER PROPOSAL In response to our initial recommendation report, the BCNA submitted a counterproposal of  modifications and additional traffic calming recommendations. A review of these  recommendations are outlined in the sections below.  Speeds on Chestnut Avenue As mentioned in the initial recommendation report, Chestnut Avenue is a signed bicycle route.  As such, it has a lower posted speed limit (20 mph) when compared to the parallel Yakima  Avenue (25 mph) and Barge Street (25 mph) corridors. With the lower posted speed limit,  Chestnut Avenue had an 85th percentile speed of approximately 11 mph in excess of the speed  limit. However, when compared to all the other major neighborhood streets, the actual 85th  percentile speeds on Chestnut Avenue are not much different. In other words, vehicle speeds on  Chestnut Avenue are not traveling any faster than vehicles on Barge Street or Yakima Avenue.  While this is an important distinction to point out, comments from the BCNA have reiterated the  importance of the Chestnut Avenue corridor as a strategic walking and bicycle route. As such,  some additional consideration of traffic calming measures west of 32nd Street has been  investigated. While there is no safety evidence to suggest a need for additional speed humps,  there is also no evidence to suggest additional speed humps would be inappropriate or  detrimental. As such, recommendations for additional speed humps are included in the revised  traffic calming recommendations.  28th Avenue As part of the BCNA counter proposal, it is felt that additional speed humps are needed on 28th  Avenue north of Yakima Avenue citing a belief that cut‐through traffic will continue to try and  use 28th Avenue even after a traffic diverter is installed at the 28th Avenue/Walnut Street  intersection.  Speed humps are primarily a speed reduction device and are not an effective deterrent for  managing cut‐through traffic. This issue aside, it is felt that the traffic diverter at 28th  Avenue/Walnut Street will significantly decrease traffic volumes on 28th Avenue as a whole.  While there will likely be some residual traffic demand on 28th Avenue after the diverter is  initially installed, the inconvenience and out of direction travel it will cause will likely lead  drivers to eventually seek alternate travel routes in the long run. As such, the BCNA counter  proposal for additional speed humps on 28th Avenue is likely unnecessary. However, if it is the  neighborhood’s desire to implement these traffic calming measures as a speed reduction device, it  is suggested that speed humps on 28th Avenue be part of a phased implementation that follows a  review of traffic patterns after the installation of a traffic diverter at the 28th Avenue/Walnut Street  intersection.  052 BCNA Traffic Calming Response Project #: 8952 July 20, 2009 Page: 8 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 27th Avenue The BCNA counter proposal suggests the inclusion of curb bulbouts that that would eliminate  turning movements from Walnut Street onto 27th Avenue southbound. As stated above, it is  believed that the 28th Avenue/Walnut Street traffic diverter will significantly reduce traffic  volumes on 28th Avenue by creating enough out‐of‐direction travel such that it becomes an  undesirable travel route. It is subsequently felt that there will only be a small increase in traffic  volumes along 27th Avenue in the short term as drivers adjust and find new alternate routes. As  such, the recommended curb bulbouts and turning movement restrictions are likely unnecessary.  26th Avenue As noted in the initial recommendation report, 26th Avenue as it crosses Walnut Street, is slightly  offset and currently devoid of traffic control. To mitigate the potential for safety issues, it was  recommended that the 26th Avenue/Walnut Street intersection be converted to an all‐way stop  controlled intersection. In lieu of the BCNA’s recommended additional speed humps, it is felt that  the all‐way stop control will have a traffic calming affect on existing and future travel speeds  along the southern portion of the 26th Avenue corridor.  24th Avenue As noted in the initial recommendation report, two speed humps were recommended for 24th  Avenue between Chestnut Avenue and Tieton Road. The placement of these speed humps took  into consideration the existing steep grade along the middle portion of this segment of 24th  Avenue. Given the grade, the BCNA’s counter proposal for a third speed hump is not  recommended as speed humps can pose safety concerns when placed on steeper roadway  segments.  If it is the neighborhood’s desire to implement additional speed humps along the northern half of  24th Avenue as a speed reduction device, it is suggested that they be considered following a  review of change in traffic patterns after implementation of the recommended speed humps for  the southern portion of 24th Avenue.  31st Avenue The BCNA counter proposal recommended the inclusion of three speed humps along 31st Avenue  between Chestnut Avenue and Tieton Drive to deter drivers from using 31st Avenue as an  alternate parallel route to 32nd Avenue. Given that traffic volumes were not obtained along 31st  Avenue as part of the data collection effort, it can not be determined if this is in response to an  existing problem or a prediction of probable events. Regardless, speed humps are primarily a  speed reduction device and should not be used solely as a deterrent for cut‐through traffic.  32nd Avenue Several comments were made regarding the use of speed cushions along 32nd Avenue as opposed  to the initial recommendation for speed humps. Although speed cushions are slightly less  053 BCNA Traffic Calming Response Project #: 8952 July 20, 2009 Page: 9 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. effective at reducing travel speeds, they are often preferred by emergency service providers for  their ability to better accommodate emergency vehicles. Given the significance of 32nd Avenue,  speed cushions can be an appropriate traffic calming device.  36th Avenue Like all other streets within the BCNA, traffic volumes and travel speeds were reviewed along  36th Avenue. Based on this review, several important observations were noted. First, travel speeds  on 36th Avenue were slightly lower than other parallel north‐south streets. Second, the average  daily traffic volume (ADT) was approximately 560 vehicles per day. For a neighborhood street,  this volume is far below other parallel streets in the neighborhood that provide a continuous  connection between Summitview Avenue and Tieton Drive. Furthermore, for a street that directly  serves upwards of 55 homes, it is likely that a large majority of this traffic volume is being  generated by the residents that live along the street 1 . This is not to say that 36th Avenue is devoid  of cut‐through traffic. However, a review of speed and volume data does not suggest that 36th  Avenue is experiencing the same level of perceived speeding and cut‐through traffic concerns. As  such, the initial report did not recommend any traffic calming measures on 36th Avenue.  As part of the BCNA counter proposal, it was recommended that two speed humps be installed  between Tieton Drive and Chestnut Avenue and two additional speed humps be installed  between Yakima Avenue and Summitview Avenue. While there is no evidence to suggest  consistent excessive speeding along 36th Avenue, there is also no real reason why the speed  humps could not be installed. If it is the neighborhood’s desire to implement these traffic calming  measures as a speed reduction measure, it is suggested that they be considered following a  review of change in traffic patterns after implementation of traffic calming measures along 32nd  Avenue.  Cost On a number of comments, it was noted that our initial recommendation report either focused  solely on or placed too much of an emphasis on cost as a determining factor for the inclusion of  traffic calming measures. While cost was one of the evaluation criteria, other factors were  evaluated with equal or more weight such as safety (previously outlined), roadway geometrics,  and the general appropriateness of various forms of traffic calming devices. As with all  improvement projects, the issue of cost must be considered given the current state of available  funding sources.                                                         1 Studies conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and documented in Trip Generation, 8th  Edition, have found that on average, a single family detached home generates approximately 9.57 vehicle  trips per day.  054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 To: Neighborhood and Community Building Committee From: Ken Wilkinson, Parks & Recreation Manager Date: Thursday, March 16, 2017 RE: J. M. Perry Soccer Complex In 1993, the City of Yakima entered into an agreement with Perry Technical Institute, a not for profit technical school, for the development of property that Perry Technical Institute owned for soccer fields. At the same time, the City of Yakima entered into an agreement with Yakima Youth Soccer Association [YYSA], a not for profit youth serving organization, for use of the fields for their community youth soccer program. As part of the agreement, YYSA donated $50,000 to assist with the cost to develop the fields. At the February 14, 2017 meeting, the Neighborhood and Community Building Committee [NCBC] asked about the agreement and what is stated in the agreement regarding ending the contract between the City of Yakima and the two parties. Language regarding the termination of the contract is listed below. As part of the agreement, the City of Yakima Parks Maintenance staff mows the turf weekly, picks up trash and pays for the refuse bin pickup. Parks Maintenance maintains and repairs the irrigation system for the soccer fields. YYSA pays for fertilizer and paints the soccer field lines. YYSA organizes and manages the youth soccer leagues that play at the soccer complex. A majority of the cost of maintaining the soccer complex is in staff labor. The estimated annual maintenance cost for the soccer complex is $40,000. Termination of the two contracts will not result in a savings of $40,000 to the Parks Maintenance budget unless staffing is reduced. Currently, parks maintenance remains understaffed. Termination of agreement with Perry Technical Institute 10. Termination. Either party to this Agreement may terminate the Agreement at any time prior to the end of the Term for any reason by giving the other party sixty (60) days’ written notice at the addresses written below. Upon termination of this Agreement at any time pursuant to this Section or Section 2 above, all improvements located on the Licensed Premises shall become the property of J.M. Perry; provided, however, that YYSA may retain bleachers, sprinkler heads, timers and associated irrigation equipment together with soccer goals. Upon termination, neither party shall be required to return the Licensed Premises to its original condition, except that YYSA shall return the Licensed Premises in a good and reasonable condition and state of repair. Termination of agreement with Yakima Youth Soccer Association 9. Termination. Either party hereto may terminate this Lease at any time, without cause, prior to the end of the Term, or any extension thereof, for any reason by giving the other party written notice of such termination. Termination shall become effective 180 063 days following receipt of such written notice of termination. Upon termination at any time of this Lease Agreement pursuant to this section or Section 2 above, all improvements located on the Leased Premises shall become the property of Lessor; provided, however, that Lessee may reclaim bleachers, together with soccer goals and portable toilet facilities. In the event of a termination pursuant to this section or otherwise, Lessee shall return the premises in a good and reasonable condition and state of repair. In the event of termination for any cause, Lessee shall terminate, upon the requisite notice, any use or other agreements entered into between Lessee and any other party for use of the Leased Premises. 064 TRANSIT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2/15/17 MEETING MINUTES Meeting was called to order by Alvie Maxey at 5:30 P.M. AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Alvie began the meeting by introducing himself and the staff that was a part of the meeting. Members present from staff included: Alvie Maxey, Transit Manager; Jeff Beaver, Transit Operations Supervisor; Agustin Ortega, Transit Operations Specialist; Jennifer Orlando, Community Transportation Coordinator; and Naeem Kara, Transit Office Assistant. 2. Alvie indicated that 4 new 35’ buses will be coming in March. These buses will be used to replace some of the older models, and the new buses will have new wheelchair restraint systems. 3. Alvie stated that the new adjustments to Routes 3 & 4 have been very positive. He explained that he had heard great things about the new stops from the drivers and the community, and stated that the stops were very busy and highly utilized. 4. Alvie then discussed the new Remix software that was purchased by Transit. This software will help Transit review and modify its existing routes to provide better service to the community. Alvie indicated that Link Transit had also purchased the software, and it had great reviews. Link Transit stated that the accuracy of the software was within a minute. 5. Looking towards the future, the Federal Transit Administration is requiring all Transit agencies to look into alternative fuel buses. Alvie indicated that he has been working with the Equipment and Facilities Manager in trying to find a good long-term solution for this. There are several options currently being looked at, including: Biodiesel, Electric, Natural Gas, etc. 6. Jennifer discussed the Dial-A-Ride recertification process. She indicated that Dial-A-Ride services are provided for individuals that have disabilities that prevent them from using the Fixed-Route bus services. Every 5 years, Transit has to recertify Dial-A-Ride applicants, and Jennifer stated that they have changed this to doing it every 3 years. This is to help filter and update the number of existing applicants. This number is constantly changing as people move away, or no longer live within the city limits, etc. 7. Jen indicated that there were no new Dial-A-Ride or Vanpool vehicles that would be purchased for this year, and she is currently in the process of removing the older vehicles from the fleet. 8. Naeem did a quick presentation on weather conditions and how they have been affecting the Transit services. He indicated there were multiple resources to find out about service delays, 065 including: Checking the website, signing up for e-mail alerts, Facebook updates, and Twitter updates. 9. Naeem discussed some of the recent and upcoming changes for Yakima Transit:  The Yakima-Ellensburg Commuter had its original 2 stops restored in Ellensburg (Super 1 and Safeway stops)  Transit has received a grant to build new shelters with solar-panel lighting (and retro-fit some of the existing shelters with solar-panel lighting)  Transit has set aside monies for sidewalk improvements. We will be looking at areas with high traffic that need sidewalks improved, to make bus stops easier accessible for our passengers. OPEN DISCUSSION: 10. Electric Buses: It was brought up that Proterra buses had the ability to run approx. 23 miles with a 10 min. charge. Alvie stated that Transit would be getting a sample electric bus to test. He indicated that he was working with Link Transit (as they have similar operations to Yakima Transit) on finding out how feasible an electric bus would be. Link Transit stated that electric buses don’t work very well in the cold weather and battery performance is reduced in the Winter season. Alvie explained that it would be a huge investment to run electric buses. We would have to build charging stations into the Transit Center, so that the buses could charge during the wait times. Alvie also stated that the electric buses cost nearly double what our current diesel buses cost, however there is far less maintenance involved in the long-run. The Equipment and Facilities Manager will be looking at which option will ultimately provide a better service for the City. 11. Remix Software: It was brought up that we should keep our routes consistent every hour, instead of having a progressive time. (For example, all routes start on the hour, make the same stops at the same time each hour [6:15, 7:15, etc.].). Agustin stated that with the new Remix software, we can look at providing service at a higher frequency (instead of having 10 runs per day, having 12) and serve more passengers. He also said that Transit is looking at getting rid of the giant loops, as they are not running as efficiently. Alvie stated that the Transit system, as it is, works, but he is looking towards making it better. His ultimate goal/hope is to have passengers be able to get to their destination within 30 minutes or less. 12. Service Delays: It was brought up that there were more service delays this year than in previous years. Alvie indicated that the service delays were a means of better protecting the public. If the buses were running on schedule, passengers using the service would have been walking outside in the ice, and this would have been very dangerous. 13. Pear Tree Stop: It was very much appreciated by the public. It was requested to possibly place a bench at the stop. Alvie indicated that he would work with the Supervisors to determine the best location to place a bench. 14. Blue Zone Project: Virginia Mason and the Chamber are working closely in trying to get people to be more active. One of the avenues that they are promoting includes riding the bus. It 066 was brought up that nearly 200 new employees have moved to the old Dept. of Ecology building, and with limited parking, Transit would be a great service option for that community. Alvie indicated that he would further look into the matter and work with Memorial on it. Alvie stated that he is always looking for opportunities to better provide Transit services and that he appreciates having public input. 15. Agustin discussed some of the updates that he is currently working on:  Moving towards more web-based commercials  New commercials, sharing info on how to use the Transit Applications  Where’s My Bus? App: Trying to have the map refresh (update the bus location) quicker  Looking into adding alerts (you will receive alerts when the bus arrives at certain locations). 16. There was an inquiry regarding submitting a Senior Citizen Application. Jen indicated that they accept the applications at the Transit Center or Public Works. If approved, the applicant will have to come by Public Works to have their picture taken. Bus passes can be bought at Public Works, the Transit Center, Wrays, the Harmon Center, City Hall, etc. 17. Alvie discussed that looking forward, Transit is looking into providing the Summer Swim & Ride program again for this year. When individuals pay the fare to use the swimming pools, they also receive bus tickets to get to and back from the pools. Meeting was adjourned at 6:45 P.M. 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 Yakima City Council Committee Minutes Neighborhood & Community Building Committee (NCBC) City Council Chambers, City Hall February 14, 2017 Committee Members Staff Dulce Gutiérrez (Chair) Cliff Moore, City Manager Ken Wilkinson Avina Gutiérrez Joan Davenport, Community Dev Director Scott Schafer Carmen Méndez Sara Watkins Alvie Maxey Joseph Calhoun Chair Dulce Gutiérrez called the meeting to order at approximately 2:03 p.m. Presentation: Henry Beauchamp Community Center (HBCC) – Adrianne Garner, HBCC Executive Director, provided a summarized presentation of the programs, services, and activities offered at the community center in 2016. The center operates with three full-time and three part-time employees and many volunteers. The HBCC center runs an after school, summer and spring break program; People for People serves senior meals; Yakima Valley Regional Library and Yakima Neighborhood Health provide services there; they also operate a food pantry, assist with tax preparations, and provide an annual Christmas dinner to families in the community, among various other things. In response to capacity levels, Garner stated that capacity has to do with limited funding and staff availability and suggested the idea of partnering with AmeriCorps again. She then talked about the challenges the facility itself has endured such as HVAC failure, snow & ice removal, outdated bathrooms. She acknowledged Randy Pitney’s dedication in ensuring the facility remains safe. The committee members expressed appreciation for all the volunteer and staff hours. Parks Updates – Wilkinson briefed the committee on the draft Comprehensive Master Parks Plan. He emphasized that planned park improvement projects that do not get completed carry forward to the next plan. He announced the three public meeting dates to share and discuss the results of the survey with the community. All meetings begin at 5:00 p.m. and they are February 15th at the Henry Beauchamp Community Center; February 21st at the Harman Center; and February 23rd in the City Hall Council Chambers. Méndez voiced concern with regards to the City’s involvement in providing maintenance to the Perry Tech soccer fields and suggested the city’s resources be utilized at another park. To which Wilkinson elaborated on the maintenance agreement with Perry Tech Soccer Complex and the use of the fields by the Yakima Youth Soccer Association. Staff will further the two contracts. The discussion continued about the possibility of installing an event stage to provide shade for performers at parks, several parks were brainstormed. Phil Mattoon, Yakima Bikes and Walks, pointed out that the parks plan doesn’t contain improvements for connectivity to West Valley trails and pathways. He would like that to be included and he suggested seeking funding opportunities such as the State RCO (State Recreation and Conservation Office) grants. Wilkinson replied that trails and pathways are incorporated in the Transportation Plan, Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Parks Plan. He also described the connectivity issues with Yakima Valley Trolleys and explained the 50/50 match funding requirement for RCO grants. Robert Strader, Yakima Bikes and Walks, also commented about the connectivity of trails in West Valley and noted that the survey results showed high usage from participants. He encouraged the City to further explore the possibility of connecting the trails east-west. After brief discussion, D. Gutiérrez entertained a motion, Méndez moved, seconded by A. Gutiérrez, to have a presentation on the condition of trails/pathway corridors at the next NCBC meeting. Motion carried by unanimous vote. Board Appointed Reports – Standing Item Community Equity Program – Davenport introduced Felicity Farias and Ismael Rios, interns working on the equity study. Their main task is the sidewalk condition study. Davenport also introduced America Cuevas who is job shadowing City staff through her coursework at Yakima Valley Community College. Moore mentioned that staff is awaiting a response from the WSU Metro Center. Comprehensive Plan Update – Calhoun received a draft comprehensive plan from the consultants. Staff will be reviewing it and providing edits and feedback to the consultant. A joint study session with the Yakima Planning Commission and City Council has been scheduled for April 11th in the morning, as well as an Page 1 075 evening public session, to review the Comprehensive Plan. Staff suggested having a prep session at the next NCBC meeting to prepare for the study session. Homeless Network – Cliff reported that the Homeless Network meetings are the 3rd Thursdays at 9:00 a.m. at Yakima Neighborhood Health Services. He also expanded on the current funding cycle, the earmarks total $300K, of which $200K will be allocated to long term shelter projects and the remainder will be set aside for potential emergency homeless issues. The Committee requested the Homeless Network meeting minutes. Parks & Recreation Commission – Wilkinson stated the previous meeting was cancelled due to weather. The next meeting will be March 8th. Henry Beauchamp Community Center – Conversation included an advisory board vacancy and renaming of the Southeast Community Park to align with the recent renaming of the community center. Historic Preservation – The next meeting is February 22nd. Calhoun announced that Historic Preservation awards for research, project, and person will be presented to Jo Miles, Jason Eaton, and John Baule. They will also receive Council recognition in March. TRANS-Action Committee – Council members will be notified of the date of the Washington D.C. delegation trip once it has been determined. It was mentioned that it would be appropriate for the Mayor to represent the City’s interests and accompany that delegation. Transit Development Plan/Transit Related Issues – Maxey stated that the previous meeting was postponed again due to weather conditions. It will be rescheduled to February 15, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Public Works Training Room. Ethics & Equal Rights Committee – A. Gutiérrez reported on the progress and mentioned that the committee chair will provide a report to Council in March. Moore attended the last meeting and he shared the adopted state and legislative priorities as background information with the exploratory committee. Community Integration Committee – D. Gutiérrez indicated that the exploratory committee is focused on a mission statement and deliberating on ideas for community outreach. She encouraged the public to attend or view the meetings on YPAC. Bike/Pedestrian Committee – Phil Mattoon, Vice-Chair, reported that a study session has been scheduled for February 15th at 6:00 p.m. in the 2nd Floor Conference Room to review and familiarize themselves with the Bicycle Draft Plan and the Transportation Plan. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be February 21st. Approve Minutes of 01/26/2017 – Motion made by Méndez, seconded by A. Gutiérrez, to approve the minutes of 01/26/2017 as presented; motion carried by unanimous vote. Other Business/Requests – Staff reviewed the list of deliverables from this meeting. • Review the contracts with Perry Tech and Yakima Youth Soccer Association and report to Council. • Research cost for a stage/performance area at a park. • Report on condition of trails/abandoned corridors for next NCBC meeting. • Publicize the board vacancy for the Henry Beauchamp Community Center Advisory Committee. • Obtain minutes/agendas from the Homeless Network meetings. D. Gutiérrez reminded the public that interpretation services need to be requested 48 hours in advance. Audience Participation Lynn Buchanan, city resident, provided pictures to illustrate his concerns related to traffic control and proper signage for speed bumps, specifically in the Barge-Chestnut area, in comparison to speed bumps in other neighborhoods. He talked about damage to vehicles and safety issues for bicyclists. Staff will report on the Barge-Chestnut Traffic Calming project at the next NCBC meeting. Steve Hill, city resident, inquired about having a pool in east Yakima. He was invited to attend the Council Study Session on this topic which will be March 28th at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers. Tony Courcy, city resident, encouraged the committee to consider the community’s concerns. Page 2 076 Adjourn – D. Gutiérrez adjourned this meeting at 3:20 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday March 16, 2017. Approved by: Date Approved: Prepared by: Rosalinda Ibarra, Community Development Administrative Assistant Page 3 077