HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-16 - Ord. Amending Ord. 129-08 Revising Chapter 8 Transportationdif
ORDINANCE NUMBER - 16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 129.O8 REVISING
CHAPTER VIII TRANSPORTATION OF THE MASON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter VIII — Transportation — of the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, under the authority of RCW 36.70A.
WHEREAS, the Washington Growth Management Act (RCW 37.70A) requires each county,
including, Mason County, to take legislative action to review and revise its Comprehensive Plan
and development regulation periodically, if needed, to ensure that the plan and regulations
continue to comply with the requirements of the Act; and
WHEREAS, Mason County last updated the Transportation element December 9, 2008, under
Ordinance 129-08; and
WHEREAS, the County identified through the periodic update checklist, revisions that need to
meet regulation requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act.
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2016, the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission held a public
hearing about the proposed changes to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
and passed a motion to recommend the approval of said changes; and
WHEREAS, based upon staff reports, the proposed revisions to the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan and public testimony, the Mason County Board of Commissioners has
approved the finding of facts to support its decision.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this ordinance amends those portions of Ordinance 129-
08 pertaining to Chapter VIII - Transportation;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED, that the Board of Commissioners of Mason
County hereby approves and adopts revisions to the Transportation Element (Chapter VIII) of
the Mason County Comprehensive Plan (Attachment A).
DATED this
day of June 2016.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: , MA;•ON COTY, WASHINGTON
ike
Julie Alanzor, Clerk of the B
AP --ROVED-AS TO FORM:
Tim Whifhhe d
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Terri Jeffrair
Tim Sheldon, Vice Chair
RanNeatherlin, Commissioner
A
Draft Mason County Transportation Plan
Summary of Public Comments Received Since May 27, 2016 - Interagency Review Comments, Responses, and Proposed Language
City of Shelton
Comment I Response and Proposed Language Change
Population projections on page 11 should be revised to reflect an increase of 4,000 people above the OFM medium growth series. Also, increase
the total share of future growth going into Shelton and its UGA from 1/3 of all future growth to 50% of all future growth. This deviation was
vetted with Mason County Community Development Department and is documented in a memo dated 4.20.16. Population references in the
plan should be updated to reflect this increase. Assume that 90% of Shelton Hills will be built out between 2022 and 2036; assume that the
potential Goldsborough development intended for the expanded UGA would occur late in the twenty year planning horizon.
Response and Proposed Language Change
Confirmed with Mason County staff that population forecast should be increased by 4,000 people. [page 11]
n County Long -Range Growth Forecast
Mason
County
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Population
60,699
63,203
67,545
71,929
76,401
877-84
2419-
88,919
78,401
82,784
73,929
21,869
14,700
19,594
24,488
29,382
34,276
39,170
Employment
Source:
Population - "Projections of the Total Resident Population for the Growth Management Act, Medium Series: 2010 to 2040 by Five Year Intervals." Office of
Financial Management, Forecasting. May 2012. Adjusted upward by 4,000 people as per forecasting agreement between Shelton and Mason County.
Employment - Mason County's 2025 High Growth Scenario for employment, used to demonstrate sufficient system capacity in the 2008 Transportation Plan, is
used as a surrogate for 2040 employment.
Notes:
Forecast is for Mason -County including Shelton and its urban growth area.
The planning horizon for this Comprehensive Plan is 2036. It is interpolated from the 2035-2040 forecast figures. Note that 2010 is based on actual Census
counts.
Update the traffic forecast analysis to reflect the population adjustment described above.
Response and Proposed Language Change
The proposed shift in population projections from rural County into Shelton and its UGA reduces the projected long-range growth in traffic
elsewhere in Mason County. Even with the additional increase, the County's 2040 population and employment forecast remains lower than the
previous 2025 forecast on which prior plans were based and approved.
No changes are proposed.
1
City of Shelton
Comment I Response and Proposed Language Change
Add the Railroad Avenue Corridor project to the Tong -range CFP as a place -holder. Current planning efforts just getting underway will identify the
project package details at a later date.
Response and Proposed Language Change
Add a placeholder project to Mason County's project list that speaks to the intent of the Railroad Avenue Corridor Study and the need to
improve the multimodal and "gateway" character of this important corridor, from US 101 to the westerly city limits. Proposed language: [page
47]
Mason County Long-range Transportation Capital Facilities Plan
Project Lead
Mason County
Project Name
Railroad Avenue
Corridor Project
Project Description & Notes
Project will improve motorized vehicle safety and mobility, and enhance the non -
motorized transportation system along the Railroad Avenue corridor between the
western city limits and US 101, building off of results of the 2016 Railroad Avenue
Corridor Study. Protect may include sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, illumination,
srgnager landscaping, street side amenities or other features. Project details and
costs to be determined during the Corridor Study.
Estimated Cost
TBD
Funding Source
State grants
Federal grants
Developer
mitigations
Local sources
Add a discussion to the Intergovernmental Coordination section regarding the upcoming request by Shelton to Mason County for an amendment
to the Shelton UGA boundary. Such an amendment is likely to result in a new traffic analysis for the UGA and potential list of mitigations, some
of which Mason County will need to execute until such time that Shelton annexes the UGA. A Planned Action Ordinance is envisioned for the
Shelton UGA.
Response and Proposed Language:
Reference to this will be added to the section on Intergovernmental Coordination on page 55.
... These partnerships all shape and inform Mason County's transportation policies, projects, and future activities. For example, an expansion of
the urban growth area proposed by Shelton will not only entail coordination between the City and the County to implement such a changer it
will also require on -going collaboration between the two jurisdictions since the County will be responsible for implementing development
regulations and permitting in the urban growth area until such time that it is annexed by the City. intergovernmental coordination ensures that
all parties are involved in the decision -making process for changes such as this and are onboard with the proposed changes. {page 551
2
•
Mason County
Comment I Response and Proposed Language Change
Correct the title and description of the Belfair Area Safety and Widening improvements project on page 48. This should be Stage 2 of this
project, with extents from SR 106 to the southern extents of Stage 1, at Sweetwater Creek.
Response and Proposed Language:
Rename as Stage 2 — Belfair Area Safety and Widening project with updated limits and costs. [page 48]
WSDOT
Stage 2 - Belfair
Area Safety and
Widening
Improvements
Widen SR 3 from its existing two-lane configuration between SR 106 and Old Belfair
Sweetwater Creek to a three -lane roadway with bike lanes and sidewalks in
each direction, a two-way left turn lane, and a closed drainage system. Stage 1 is
underway and will be complete in early 2017; it extends from Sweetwater Creek to
Ridge Point Boulevard. The project was identified by WSDOT as a part of the
Bremerton Economic Development Study (BEDS) recommendations. It supports
recommendations of the PRTPO Human Services Coordinated Transportation Plan to
increase safe pedestrian access to transit corridors.
$19,000,000
$6,000,000
State grants
Federal grants
Local revenues
Skokomish Indian Tribe
Comment I Response and Proposed Language Change
Pg 12, Policy Action 1.1.4: "Partner with the Tribes to maintain safe and convenient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles to tribal
enterprises for visitors, vendors, and employees.
Response and Proposed Language:
Update policy action language.
1.1.4 Partner with the tribes to maintain safe and convenient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles to tribal enterprises for visitors,
vendors, and employees. [page 12]
Pg 15, Policy Action 3.2.3: "Periodically review posted speed limits in corridors or areas that have experienced recent growth to ensure they
are appropriate for the current land use, including the degree of pedestrian activity in the area and support local jurisdictions in their attempt
to reduce the speeds for pedestrian safety."
3
Skokomish Indian Tribe
Comment Response and Proposed Language Change
Response and Proposed Language:
Update the language as requested, with clarification that there may be times when additional considerations may over -ride the local
jurisdiction's desire to reduce the speed limit or other means of reducing vehicle travel speeds.: "...including the degree of pedestrian activity
in the area and support local jurisdictions in their attempt to reduce the speeds for pedestrian safety as warranted." This acknowledges
3 2.3 Periodically review posted speed limits in corridors or areas that have experienced recent growth to ensure they are appropriate for the
current land use, including the degree of pedestrian activity in the area and support local jurisdictions in their effort to reduce the speeds for
pedestrian safety as warranted. [page 15]
Pg 20, regarding vegetation control: Efforts to clean equipment between roadside mowing should be encouraged to reduce the spread of
invasive non-native plants.
Response and Proposed Language:
Add additional language to this effect.
Keeping the roads safe and life cycle costs as low as possible requires a non-stop regimen of:...
• vegetation control —Mason County's lush vegetation must be continuously pruned and maintained to keep the rights -of -way clear,
improve sight distance for travelers, and reduce roadside fire risks. Care is needed to ensure invasive non-native plants are not
inadvertently spread by maintenance equipment when mowing and pruning. The County uses a fully integrated vegetation control plan
that is cost effective and still remains sensitive to the environment as needed. [page 20]
Pg 34, regarding non -motorized facilities: Efforts should be made to use street sweepers along the shoulders to keep them clean for bicyclists
and to reduce pollutants in the waterways.
Response and Proposed Language:
Add language to the non -motorized facilities section beginning on page 34 regarding importance of maintaining shoulders. Add language to
policy action 5.1.2 (pg 17) recognizing the value of street sweeping for reducing pollutants that contaminate waterways.
...Because so much of its transportation network is highly rural in character, Mason County must apply practical solutions such as wide
shoulders and trails as well as traditional sidewalks and bike lanes where appropriate in more urbanized settings. As the County and others
undertake work on rural roads, five -foot -wide shoulders are added to each side where possible and street sweeping activities strive to keep
4
Skokomish Indian Tribe
i
Comment I Response and Proposed Language Change
shoulders free of debris that can create conflicts for cyclists. In this way, non -motorized infrastructure is gradually becoming more widely
available for those who walk or cycle Mason County's rural roads. [page 17]
5.1.2 Minimize transportation -related impacts on salmon, shellfish, and other wildlife or habitats through the replacement or retrofit of
inadequate facilities, reducing and treating stormwater runoff, regularly sweeping streets to reduce runoff of waterway pollutants, and
decreasing toxics used in road maintenance. [page 34]
Pg 57, last paragraph: In some cases, the lanes may be restriped to allow for a wider shoulder for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Response and Proposed Language:
This comment pertains to the section on Road Standards on page 61 of the draft for County Commissioner review. Additional language will be
added to clarify what is meant by "practical" approaches to non -motorized facilities, such as what was proposed.
ROAD STANDARDS
While Mason County has few issues with congestion on its local roads, there are outstanding concerns about design standards. This effort will
revisit County standards for collectors and local access roads, updating those standards to incorporate practical non -motorized facilities such
as wide shoulders and evaluating the local system with these new standards to identify and prioritize deficiencies. [page 61]
Appendix, Page 6f: "The County is also working to improve the walkability of small community destinations like Hoodsport and Skokomish,
where residents and tourists alike must navigate US 101 on foot to reach the local destinations."
Response and Proposed Language:
This comment pertains to the Department of Commerce compliance checklist, which is not included in the County Commissioner review draft.
Language in the checklist will be updated to include this reference.
Non -Motorized Facilities [page 34]
o "...`Complete Streets' policy pointed to a strong desire for better walking and biking options on Mason County roads."
o "Within its urban growth areas, Mason County is working to create a more walkable, bike -friendly environment through its road
standards, site design, and building standards. This includes sidewalks, bike lanes, and pathways as well as a connected grid of
local streets that provide more route options for non -motorized travelers. The County is also working to improve the walkability
of small community destinations like Hoodsport and Skokomish, where residents and tourists alike must navigate US 101 on foot
to reach the many local establishments."
Skokomish Indian Tribe
Comment 1 Response and Proposed Language Change
Appendix, Page 9 — Please add Squaxin and Skokomish Tribes to the Intergovernmental Coordination list.
Response and Proposed Language:
This comment pertains to the Department of Commerce compliance checklist, which is not included in the County Commissioner review draft.
Language in the checklist will be updated to include this reference. Note that in the plan itself, on page 55 in the section on Intergovernmental
Coordination, a paragraph in that section is devoted to government to government relations and consultation between Mason County and the
Skokomish Indian Tribe and the Squaxin Island Tribe.
Mason County maintains active transportation partnerships with: Shelton, the Skokomish Indian Tribe, the Squaxin Island Tribe, Mason Transit
Authority, Port of Shelton, Peninsula RTPO, Kitsap County, Kitsap Transit, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, Jefferson County, Thurston
County, Thurston Regional Planning Council, Grays Harbor County, and the WSDOT.
Ensure the Skokomish Indian Tribe is referenced consistently throughout the plan.
Response and Proposed Language:
Correct the reference on page 29 to the Skokomish Tribal Nation.
MTA is partnering with the Skokomish Tribal Nation Indian Tribe in a Pilot Transportation Project with funding secured by the Tribe through
the Federal Transit Administration's Tribal Transit Grant Program.
Note that the Tribe's long-range plan is available on request.
Response and Proposed Language:
Update the language on page 3.
Tribal Plans
The Skokomish Tribe is completing its long-range transportation plan in 2016, which will be reflected in the next update to this transportation
plan. The Skokomish Tribe's plan will be available on request.
6
Squaxin Island Tribe
Comment I Response and Proposed Language Change
Pg 3 — Squaxin Island Tribe has a 2015 Tong -range transportation plan. Change reference to this, remove Zink to old plan, and add note that the
current plan is available on request.
Response and Proposed Language:
Update the language on page 3.
Tribal Plans
Squaxin Island Tribe 2015 Tribal Transportation Program Roadway Inventory Update & Long Range Transportation Plan. Copies available on
request.
Pg 29 There is an incorrect reference to the Squaxin Island Tribe. Also ensure internal consistency in references to Skokomish Indian Tribe.
Response and Proposed Language:
Replace Squaxin Indian Tribe with its correct name, Squaxin Island Tribe. Replace reference to Skokomish Tribal Nation to Skokomish Indian
Tribe on page 29, as described previously.
The Squaxin Indian Island Tribe operates Squaxin Transit, a free public transportation service serving the residents and employees of the
Squaxin Tribal community and the surrounding Kamilche area.
Mason Transit Authority
Comment Response and Proposed Language Change
Ensure all references to the transit agency use the full name
Mason Transit Authority — or the official abbreviation, MTA.
Response and Proposed Language:
Reviewed plan and found no inconsistencies on naming convention for the agency.
7
TIP -CAP
Comment I Response and Proposed Language Change
Page 3, Urban Growth Area Plans
1. Was the Belfair Future Roads study used in the development of the transportation plan and also be listed?
2. Please consider using the graphic on page 69 of the Allyn sub -area plan.
Response and Proposed Language:
A copy of the map created as a part of that study effort in 2009 was reviewed; a study report or plan was not available. We are not aware of
any formal adoption of suggested routes and connections. Instead, it appears that findings from this work found their way into the Belfair
Bypass Proviso report, Belfair Bypass EA, and the Bremerton Economic Development Study. Other suggestions, such as the need to define
future access and circulation enhancements through a Belfair circulation study are addressed in this plan through follow-up activities
identified for the SR 3 corridor. No language changes proposed.
The existing graphic on page 3 will be replaced with the requested graphic, which is an illustration of potential circulation routes in relation to
zoning.
Page 3, Modal Plans - Reference the 2013 Mason County Parks and Trails Comprehensive Plan?
Response and Proposed Language:
The 2013 Parks and Trails plan was reviewed and should be referenced in the transportation plan. Update language to include this.
Modal Plans
•
•
Mason County Parks and Trails Comprehensive Plan 2013: https://www.co.mason.wa.us/formsJparks/park plan.pdf
2008 Mason County Regional Trails Plan: https://www.co.mason.wa.us/forms/parks/trails plan 2008.pdf
• Mason Transit Authority's 2015-2020 Transit Development Plan: http://www.masontransit.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/Final-TDP-adopted-9-15-2015.pdf
Page 11, Table 1: 2036 Population and Employment Projections - Is there more recent data than 2010? Are these projections consistent with
those used in the rest of the Comp Plan? How does the growth forecast relate to the long-range revenue and expenditure forecast on page
54?
8
TIP -CAP
Comment I Response and Proposed Language Change
Response and Proposed Language:
2010 provides a starting point for population forecasts because it is the actual count derived from the decennial census. The forecast itself
was developed by the Office of Financial Management and adopted in 2012. It is the most recent Tong -range forecast for Mason County. Note
that in a previous comment by the City of Shelton and as supported by Mason County planning, the population forecast for the County will be
increased by 4,000 people from the OFM forecast.
The text accompanying this table indicates that when the County completes its population and employment forecast then these numbers will
be reviewed. If the new forecast is significantly higher than what is projected by OFM and currently used in this plan, and/or it results in a
significant increase in the share of growth locating in rural Mason County (unlikely) then traffic forecasts should be reviewed to ensure they
are still relevant.
In terms of the relation between the growth forecast and the revenue and expenditure forecast, it is primarily attributable to the Road Levy
collected by the County, which is based on property valuation. Most of the expenditures are required, with or without changes in population
projections. No language changes proposed.
Page 17, 5.1.3 - Consider adding private partners to the sentence: "... and work with private, local, regional...".
Response and Proposed Language:
Change language as requested.
5.1.3 Support 'smart' charging infrastructure for plug-in/electric vehicles at park -and -ride Tots and other local locations, and work with local,
regional, private, and state partners to establish a robust electric vehicle charging network for the US 101 Olympic Peninsula loop.
Page 19, 6.3 - We recommend adding a statement about being good financial stewards of the transportation system.
Response and Proposed Language:
Change language as requested.
6.3 Make transportation decisions and investments that best support community needs.
6.3.6 Ensure transportation investments reflect good financial stewardship of the transportation system.
9