HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/1994, 1 - PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITIES ON RAMONA p�I MEETING DATE:
'IIIN�Il�lllll�OIIIIj�IIUIII City Of San LUIS OBISPO May 24, 1994
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Director
PREPARED BY: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: Pedestrian Crossing Facilities on Ramona
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff to design and install trial pedestrian
facilities on Ramona Drive.
L REPORT IN BRIEF
Last October,the Council reviewed alternatives for installing a midblock pedestrian crossing
on Ramona Drive linking The Village senior housing project with the Lucky Shopping
Center. The Council did not support the installation of a crossing. Councilmember
Roalman has since met with Village residents and has requested that the Council consider
an inexpensive solution. This report evaluates the proposed solution and recommends that
it be installed on an trial basis pending the adoption of a Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plan for the Ramona Drive area as called for by the draft Circulation Element.
IL BACKGROUND
A. The Situation
Elderly residents of The Village at 55 Broad Street are apprehensive about walking across
Ramona Drive at mid-block to access the Lucky Shopping Center. Residents maintain that
crossing at this unmarked location is.a safety problem.
On October 26, 1993,the City Council considered an Agenda Report that presented possible
causes of the problem,pertinent liability issues, and alternatives for pedestrian crossings and
street designs (see Exhibit A). The Council supported Staffs recommendation not to install
additional crossing facilities and directed staff to:
❑ Study "squaring off' the southwest comer of Ramona and Broad Street; and
❑ Study traffic speeds in neighborhoods throughout the City and return to the Council
to discuss both issues (see Council Minutes excerpt, Exhibit B).
In January, 1994 Councilmember Roalman reported that he had met with The Village
residents to discuss the following crossing solution: create temporary bulb outs on either side
of Ramona Drive by using plastic cylinders similar to the ones on Marsh Street at Santa
Rosa (the vacant Farm Boy Restaurant site). This particular alternative had been discussed
by the City Council at its October 26th meeting.
—/
city of San lues OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
B. History o is Management Problems in the Ramona Drive Area
A 1990 report prepared by DKS Associates identifies areas in San Luis Obispo where
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans should be prepared. These recommendations are
now part of the draft Circulation Element recommended by the Planning Commission.
Ramona Drive is one of the areas identified by DKS as warranting additional traffic
management. The consultant's report presents the following conclusions:
Ramona Drive, during peak hours, is a logical short cut and straight path for motorists
to avoid the Broad Street/Foothill Boulevard intersection. Tassajara Drive is a logical
street from which to deviate to Ramona.
Staff also notes that the width of Ramona Drive, its alignment and the limited use of curb
parking near the Lucky Center contribute to the speed of traffic.
C. Follow Up on Council Directed Studies (Reference Paragraph A above)
Due to work priorities, Staff has not undertaken the. evaluation of traffic speeds in
residential areas throughout the City.
Staff has evaluated the concept of squaring off the southwest corner of Ramona Drive at
Broad Street. This change could be accomplished with little effect on traffic patterns.
Vehicles would tend to take greater care in turning south onto Broad Street from Ramona
Drive; and pedestrians would be more visible to motorists. Broad Street is not a designated
truck route south of Ramona and therefore only trucks with deliveries to neighborhood land
uses should be using this street segment. A small curb radius (eg. five feet) could be
installed but would be run over by delivery vehicles.
Squaring off the comer is less aggressive than the concept recommended by DKS Associates
for the Broad-Murray Area (see Exhibit Q. The attached sketch shows the application of
bulb outs at both the Ramona/Broad and Minecke/Broad intersections. The purpose of
the bulb outs is to discourage traffic from cutting through the area using Ramona, Broad,
Minecke and Murray Streets. Constructing bulb outs was included in past City budgets but
was eliminated by Council action due to lack of funds.
Squaring off the southwest comer of Ramona Street at Broad will not be more convenient
for The Village residents since it does not provide a direct connection between the project
and the shopping center. Only if high traffic volumes on Ramona Drive preclude midblock
crossings, would residents use the Broad Street crossing. (A median barrier could be
installed in the center of Ramona Drive to preclude midblock crossings. However, this is
not recommended because it would complicate vehicle circulation accessing the shopping
center.)
i
���n�► ��IIIII���I j� �1 city of san Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff suggests that the squaring off of the Ramona-Broad comer and other alternatives be
considered when the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan is prepared for the Ramona
area.
D. Related Policy Issues
In a separate Agenda Report for the May 24, 1994 meeting (reference Augusta Street), staff
has recommended a strategy that will affect the installation of facilities along streets
targeted for future neighborhood traffic management. This strategy issue should be resolved
first before the Council considers Ramona Drive. The recommended strategy is reproduced
on the following page.
III. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED CROSSING SCHEME
A. Proposed Design
Ramona Drive is 40-feet wide (curb to curb) with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Speed
surveys conducted in 1989 measured the critical speed (85th percentile) at 36 mph.
The City would use plastic cylinders to create interim bulb outs on both sides of Ramona
Drive. Red curbs would be installed in advance of- and beyond the bulb outs on both sides
of the street. The existing passenger loading zone on the south side of Ramona would be
shifted slightly eastward to provide separation between vehicles queuing at the curb and
pedestrians using the bulb out area. Traffic lanes would be narrowed to 11 feet to reduce
the pedestrian crossing distance from 40 to 22 feet and to increase visibility of people
queuing in the bulb out area (see attached sketch, Exhibit D).
B. Installation and Maintenance Costs
Each plastic cylinder costs the City about $40 to purchase and about $10 to install.
Considering the number of cylinders that might be needed and the cost of paint, this
particular solution would cost about $1,000 or less to install.
Ongoing maintenance costs of the project could be significant. Based on maintenance costs
experiences by other installations of cylinders and the continual replacement of signs in this
neighborhood, maintenance costs could exceed $7,000 per year. Staff recommends that this
solution clearly be considered as "trial', that performance (and maintenance costs) be
monitored, and that the preparation of a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan for this
area consider:
❑ More durable and less costly to maintain permanent solutions;
0 Other solutions that do not involve a crossing at this location; or
������i�►►►�IIIIIIIIlI�° il�I�l city or san Uis osIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Requiring an agreement with a Village to help support ongoing maintenance costs
of this particular crossing.
Strategy for Proceeding with Neighborhood Traffic Management Planning
A The City Council will adopt the draft Circulation Element. The Element identifies
seven areas where Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans will be prepared. The
Element should include procedures for identifying other areas and/or neighborhoods
where traffic management may be warranted. Traffic management devices will not
be installed in areas not targeted for neighborhood traffic management planning.
B. After the Circulation Element is adopted, the Council will adopt a Transportation
Work Program. The work program will establish Council priorities for implementing
the Circulation Element. Neighborhood traffic management is one of 29 programs
(some of which have many parts) included in the Circulation Element.
C. Assuming that the Transportation Work Program targets neighborhood traffic
management as high priority, the Council should budget for additional resources (as
identified in the work programs) to complete the plans — if plan adoption is desired
within one or two years. More time (eg. five years) will be needed if existing staff
is asked to prepare the management plans.
D. Once a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan has been adopted, the City will
install inexpensive interim facilities. If, after a year or two, monitoring shows that
they are effective, more permanent and attractive facilities will be installed. Area
residents and organizations will be asked to help pay for the installation and
maintenance of interim and permanent facilities.
E. If the Public Works Department receives requests for traffic management facilities
in areas were Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans will be prepared:
❑ The Department will not install interim or permanent traffic management
facilities in these areas until the management plans have been adopted.
❑ However, "trial" facilities may be installed when the Public Works Director
decides that documented public safety concerns warrant immediate action.
❑ City capital costs for trial facilities shall not exceed $10,000. In all cases, the
Director will seek the financial help of residents and organizations with the
installation cost of trial facilities.
❑ The purpose of trial facilities is to test the effectiveness of a design solution
at a particular location. Trial facilities will be inexpensively constructed and
may be removed, if they cause problems or are rejected by the neighborhood,
or replaced after Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans are adopted.
/ 8p-3
��� � ►�IIIII���I ���1► city of San*LIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
C. Consistency with ew Neighborhood Traffic Management Strategy
To be consistent with the new strategy identified above, this project must:
❑ Address a documented public safety concern.
Comment: Accident records do not show Ramona Drive as a reoccurring accident
location. However, senior residents of The VdIage have expressed their concern for
pedestrian safety at the mid-block crossing.
❑ Involve City installation Costs of less than $10,000 and the financial help of residents
or organizations .
Comment: This interim project should cost about $1,000 or less to install. Staff will
solicit funding for the bulb outs from The Village residents.
IV. FISCAL IMPACTS
Depending upon the amount of contributions received, it is anticipated the maximum impact
to the City would be $8,000 ($1,000 installation; $7,000 maintenance). Staff recommends
that the fund authorization sought (i.e. $50,000 in 1994-95 budget) be approved.
V. SAFETY ISSUES
The overall objective of this project is to improve safety for pedestrians traffic accessing
Lucky Shopping Center. To the extent possible,the Staff will utilize standard facility designs
that have a record of fostering safety. Other non-standard designs will be carefully
evaluated for their effects on safety before they are installed.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: October 26, 1993 Council Agenda Report (Ramona Drive)
Exhibit B: Council Meeting Minute Excerpt, October 26, 1993
Exhibit C: Near Term Recommended Improvements, Broad-Murray Area (DKS
Associates, 1988)
Exhibit D: Concept design for Ramona mid-block pedestrian crossing
ramom/mm3
ftp II`1II I' MEETING DATE:
Il���wll�ilul`�II" ��`I city of Sd iS OBISp0 October 26 1993
COUNCIL AGENDA RE RT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Directorpl�y✓`�
SUBJECT: Request for Pedestrian Enhancement: Ramona Drive
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
By motion, direct staff to maintain existing traffic patterns and
establish a neighborhood communications forum to facilitate better
understandingregarding speeding traffic issues.
BACKGROUND:
During the recent campaign for Council membership, the Mayor stated that
the residents of The Village voiced their fear and apprehension of
crossing Ramona Drive to each of the candidates, and requested help in
resolution of the perceived problem.
In March of 1993, the Public Works Department was asked to study the
problem. The Mayor contacted Dr. Laura Joines, a Cal Poly professor of
architecture, with student input, to likewise study the problem. Ms.
Joines agreed to use the problem as a class project.
In April of 1993, the Public Works Director and Ms. Joines met to discuss
the results of her class. From that discussion, several scenarios were
developed which would address the problem. The scenarios ranged in cost
and effectiveness from minimal to extensive.
In May of 1993, the Mayor, the Public Works Director, and Ms. Joines met
with the residents of The Village. The meeting was attended by over 50
residents and was --all received. The first half of the meeting consisted
of receiving the residents' "view" of the problem. The second half of
the meeting ccns_stad a ==5=:on wl:srain =" z
residents diagrammed their own solution to the problem.
Comments received during the meeting ranged from "there is no problem" to
"the problem includes driveway exiting, skateboards, speeding, noisy
students, truck loading zones and speeding vehicles which makes crossing
the street unsafe" . The range of resident-proposed solutions varied:
1. speed bumps;
2. stop sign;
3 . cross walks;
4. prohibit traffic from exiting the Lucky Center to Ramona;
5. close the street;
6. install speed bump dots; and
7. provide a crossing guard.
The proposed solution of the Cal Poly students was presented by Ms.
Joines. This solution included: . 1) the creation of bike lanes on Ramona
with the concurrent loss of on-street parking; 2) the narrowing of the.
effective paved street width with the concurrent widening of the
sidewalk/parkway area on the north side of the street from Lucky's
' driveway to Broad Street (a variation of the Berkeley "SLOW STREET"
design) ; 3) the encouragement of stores, within the shopping center
city Of sa is OBISPO
a COON L AGENDA RE ORT
Ramona Drive
page 2
complex which back onto Ramona within the area of #2 , to provide an
opening to Ramona and provide for business opportunities and promotion
via those openings. The proposal was received by the residents as
"interesting" but none of their own solutions included this proposal.
In late September, the Public Works Director met with the steering
committee of The Village and reviewed the precursor to this staff. report,
its findings, conclusions and recommendations. Subsequently, the
steering committee met with the interested residents in early October and
achieved consensus that residents of The Village favor implementation of
Alternative Solution A1-install bulb-outs.
Cause of= the Problem:
Before a'solution can be formulated, the root cause of the problem needs
to be identified. In the late 1960's, the Lucky Center was constructed.
The development was designed to face onto Broad and Foothill. No direct
access to the site was provided from the northwest corner of Broad and
Ramona. Access to the site from Ramona was solely provided by the
driveway to the Center on Ramona located approximately 210' west of Broad
Street.
Later, The Tropicana complex was built and marketed solely to the student
population. The complex was designed with the sole access to the
shopping center in mind. An exit facility was designed and constructed
directly opposite the driveway to the shopping center. Thus the design
of the housing complex encouraged pedestrians to cross Ramona at an
unmarked mid-block location. As the student population is, in general,
young and agile, the issue of fear of being hit by speeding vehicles did
not occur.
In approximately the late 19801's, the student population within the
complex was replaced in total by . seniors. As seniors began to use the
same location for their access to the shopping center, the issue of I
crossing safety arose. Lucky's responded to the concern by providing
free delivery of goods. However, this action did not alleviate the
perceived problem.
A marked cross walk at the intersection of Broad and Ramona received
little use by the student population and receives little use by the
senior population. The combination of single access .to the shopping
center and a designed, convenient, exit from the residential complex
directly across from that access point creates a most desirable
opportunity to jaywalk.
Traffic Data:
A. Speed
Actual measurements of traffic speed on Ramona were taken. The
average vehicular speed was found to be 32 mph, while the 85th
3-z-
city of san s oBispo
COUNCIE AGENDA RE RT
Ramona Drive
page 3
percentile speed was 36 mph. Ramona Street is designated in the
Draft Circulation Element as a residential-collector street, with a
desired 85th percentile speed of 25 mph. Thus it is readily shown
that existing speeds exceed desired speeds. This situation is
common to most residential and residential-collector streets in the
City and reflects the tendency of all citizens to drive at higher
acceptable speeds than they believe acceptable as pedestrians or
residents.
B. Accident History
In the past five years, no pedestrian or vehicle accidents have been
recorded at the location under discussion on Ramona Street. Of the
sixteen recorded accidents, four occurred at Broad Street, and seven
occurred near Palomar. One accident did occur between these two
cross streets between a skateboarder and a vehicle, whereby the
skateboarder angled across the eastbound travel lane and was side-
swiped by an eastbound vehicle.
Legal Issues:
The two most often proposed solutions are the placement of a stop sign
and the placement of a marked cross walk. Both have significant legal
issues which affect the City's ability to implement either of these.
The Caltrans Traffic Manual, Chapter 4, Section 3 , Regulatory Signs,
addresses the stop sign issue. Although the Manual details the
conditions for a stop "TEE" intersection of streets, the same criteria
can be applied to a heavily used "TEE" intersection of a street and a
driveway. Using this criteria, the number of vehicles required to
justify installation of a stop sign far exceeds the vehicle counts at the
intersection of Ramona and the driveway to the shopping center and
therefore this intersection cannot be justified. Although the City
Council can "find" a need to provide a stop intersection, several
lawsuits have been successfully adjudicated against cities with non-
warranted stop intersections. Thus a non-warranted stop intersection
could be . a possibility, although staff would not recommend it due to
liability concerns.
Mid-block cross walks are specifically discouraged by the Caltrans
Traffic Manual, Chapter 6, Section 2.12. A marked cross walk is intended
to channelize pedestrians where the preferred path is not readill
apparent. Cross walks are not intended to be used as a safety device, in
fact significant data has been collected which shows that vehicle-
pedestrian accidents occur at a greater rate in a marked cross walk than
in areas not marked. As a result, many cities currently are removing
marked crosswalks to facilitate pedestrian safety.
Almost all possible solutions which follow in some degree or another do
not comply with various areas of the Traffic Manual. This does not mean
that the City cannot implement a particular solution or solutions, but
��� city orsais osispo
COUN L AGENDA REItORT
Ramona Drive
page 4
only that, in case of an accident, the City's legal exposure is
proportionately higher as is the likelihood of an adverse judgement.
Possible Solutions:
1. Use Existing Markings
The residents of The Village would walk to the corner of Ramona and
Broad and use the existing marked cross walk and stop intersection.
More agile elderly could continue to cross mid-block while others
could cross at the cross walk at- whatever pace they could manage.
An education program could be established to help residents
individually determine their safety limits. Also, a conjunctive
program could be established to create a dialog between student
groups and the residents to create awareness of and sensitivity to
the "speeding" issue.
Compliance with Traffic Manual: Full
Cost to Implement: $0
Impacts: 1) Less agile elderly would be required to walk an extra
410' to reach the driveway to the Lucky shopping center.
2) No precedence for future similar requests.
2. Install Speed Bumps
The majority of the input received from residents of The Village
showed fear of high traffic speeds in the eastbound travel lane.
Some concern was raised for westbound traffic. . Many residents
suggested speed bumps. Speed bumps can be designed for specific
speed limits, thus a speed bump could be designed to generally limit
traffic to 25 mph. As recently seen in a presentation by the
Chamber of Commerce, speed bumps can be lessened in intensity
without substantial increases in vehicle speed. The Fire Department
and other emergency services do not favor speed bumps, because they
reduce response time and can damage equipment.
While many residents favored speed bumps, others complained of noise
generated by freight trucks parked and running on Ramona. These
trucks must await their turn to unload items at the major stores in
the complex and refrigerated units must be kept running at all
times. Noise complaints from neighbors along Broad Street near
existing speed bumps indicate that the City will receive new and
additional noise complaints from residents of The Village if speed
bumps are installed.
Limiting traffic to 25 mph will. greatly enhance a person's ability
to safely cross Ramona at the non-marked mid-block crossing. The
fear of being struck while crossing should diminish, however, t ere
3-
city Of Satl&IS OBISPO
COUNCMAGENPARE&RT
Ramona Drive-
page 5
is no guarantee that all fear (and complaints) can or will be
eliminated.
Compliance with Traffic Manual: Not approved as a speed control
device.
Cost to implement: $1, 500 each
Impacts: 1) Speed in the eastbound direction would most likely be
reduced. In some instances, higher vehicle speeds result
in a smoother ride over the bumps.
2) Precedence setting impacts could be large:
a) The City is home to many elderly and as such many such
individuals or groups could request similar actions; and
b) The Public Works Department regularly receives requests
for installation of speed bumps throughout the City.
3) Could contribute to erratic driving behavior as some
drivers try using the gutters, crossing diagonally or
speed up/slow down maneuvers.
4) May impact traffic patterns in the neighborhood
causing other residential streets to become residential-
collector streets.
5) Would cause change in SLO Transit bus routes.
Installation of speed bumps on Broad Street was found
detrimental to the structure of SLO buses and as such the
existing bus route on Broad was abandoned. In discussions
with the Transit Manager, the bus stop at the intersection
of Ramona and Palomar has a typical daily passenger pick-
up of 200-300 people - "the single largest pick-up point
in the system" . Alternative bus routes (to Ramona) have
been previously attempted and found unacceptable.
3. Install a Mid-block Stop Sign
As discussed previously, this option would totally stop traffic and
would include a marked cross walk. Full pedestrian access would be
made available by installation of handicapped ramps on either side
of the street.
Compliance with Traffic Manual: It is a legal traffic control
device; not an approved speed control device; cannot be justified
(warranted) to meet requirement of the manual.
Cost of Installation: $4, 000
Impacts: 1) Sets precedent for other non-warranted stop sign/cross
walk installations.
3-�
city ofsa is OBispo -
COUN L AGENDA RE ORT
Ramona Drive
page 6
2) The result of non-warranted stop signs is a general
disregard for its existence. Because cross traffic,
either vehicular or pedestrian is. so infrequent, the
public becomes complacent, and either partially or fully
ignore its placement. This increases the likelihood of
accidents and complaints to the Police Department for
enforcement action.
4. Construct Bulb Outs
Part of the "fear" of- the residents is related' to the walking
distance from curb to curb. By constructing dual bulb outs on
either side of the street, the walking distance can be reduced to
26' from 40' . Visibility of motorists by those wishing to cross the
street and vice versa is greatly enhanced. Traffic safety is also
greatly improved with better visibility. However, fixed solid
objects are now located within the traveling road right-of-way and
key design considerations need attention to preclude fixed
object/vehicle collisions.
Compliance. with Traffic Manual: The manual is silent on bulb outs
for either traffic or speed control. In this case the bulb out is
used for visibility enhancement, not traffic or speed control. They
do not encroach upon the traveled way, except when the street is
totally void of parked cars. Bulb outs already exist on Monterey
Street and are approved for use in the Downtown Concept Plan.
Therefore, precedent has already been set.
Cost of Installation: $8, 000
Impacts: 1) Although built for improved visibility, a case (in
court) could be made that the City "channelized" the
jaywalkers and therefore de-facto created a non-marked
cross walk: encouraging such activities to take place.
2) Additional requests for bulb outs throughout town can
be expected.
3) Unless specifically allowed for, bulb-outs would force
bicycle riders into the traffic lane.
5. Close Ramona Street (at Palomar) to Eastbound Traffic
Since the majority of opinion focused on perceived high speed
eastbound traffic, closing of Ramona to eastbound traffic at Palomar
would eliminate all eastbound traffic, except residents of The
Village. Effectively, 50% of the traffic on Ramona would be
eliminated. Only buses would be allowed use of the eastbound lanes.
Ramona Street, in this area, would become very lightly traveled
(21100 ADT WB) and relatively easy to cross at any point. Access
/ �-/0
�����iim►11111 ► ��l`I city of SarijILAS OBISp0
COUNC31L AGENDA RE RT
Ramona Drive
page 7
westbound at Broad would remain, allowing freight and customer
access to the shopping center.
Compliance with Traffic Manual: Traffic Manual allows restriction
in vehicle access.
Cost: $500
Impacts: 1) Traffic southbound on Chorro, between Murray and
Foothill, may increase as access to Broad via Ramona would
be denied.
2) Traffic on Serrano and Palomar would increase as they
would become the "Ramona BY-PASS" .
3) Traffic on Tassajara would increase as the neighborhood
access to Broad would now be via Tassajara and Foothill.
4) Southbound traffic on Broad (Foothill to Serrano) ,
eastbound traffic on Meinecke and Murray should decrease.
NOTE: In the absence of a traffic study, exact impacts
are unknown.
6. Install "SLOW STREET" Solution
Because direction changes (i. e. curved streets) control traffic
speed, realigning an existing straight street to one containing a
tight (small) reverse curve will slow down traffic. Additionally,
narrow lanes and reduced visibility contribute to decreased vehicle
speed. This would include a few of the changes recommended by the
Cal Poly students: 1) realignment and replacement of curb, gutter
and sidewalk; 2) new landscaping; 3) removal of on-street parking
and creation of Class II-B bike lanes.
Reduced visibility may also contribute to increased accidents
depending on the attitude of the driver. The minimal crossing
distance proposed, in combination with lane widths and alignment,
would allow an easier crossing for pedestrians at a non-marked mid-
block location. As all curbside parking would be removed, no room
would be left for delivery vehicles to await unloading operations,
forcing those vehicles to take up customer parking spaces inside the
shopping center which already has traffic circulation problems.
Compliance with Traffic Manual: Streets with specific design speeds
can be designed with curves associated ,with those speeds. Lane
widths as proposed are acceptable. However, the proposed solution
is not a "standard" design for a collector street.
Cost: $66, 360
3-
����►► aVI1111�Ip ����� city Of SAnf is OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Ramona Drive
page 8
Impact: 1) Precedent could be set for major reconstruction of
existing infrastructure to control speeding traffic.
2) Access to utilities under the street would be more
difficult.
Note: A fairly inexpensive alternative (6A) of $4, 000 would involve
the placement of an asphaltic berm (curb) placed in the same
alignment as the more expensive version. This is the only work
proposed and then an observation period could be established to
determine its effectiveness and acceptance. If found positive,
additional funding through contributions and/or budget allocations
by Council would allow full implementation.
Findings and Conclusions:
1. . students walk, run, drive and live fast. The elderly walk slow and
may have impaired hearing or sight. The City of San Luis Obispo is
blessed or burdened (depending on one's point of view) with large
and significant populations of both students and the elderly. Any
solution must not only address the needs of these two groups, but
also consider the needs of all citizens.
2. The requests for change have only come from the residents of The
Village. No requests have been received from other residents of
Ramona Street. • Some of the solutions to this particular request
will have impacts on surrounding areas and other neighborhoods (e.g.
Chorro Street) .
3. People take the quickest route, be it by foot, car, or bicycle. The
driving public will take the quickest route to their destination, if
traffic speeds are significantly reduced, on Ramona so as to affect
their route time, they will switch to a faster route with less
travel time. While this removes traffic from Ramona, it impacts
traffic on other streets.
Likewise, the elderly are no. different. Having once been young
themselves, they still desire the quickest route to their
destination. Although safety concerns become a factor, this paper
is being prepared because of a number of complaints about an
existing (quickest) pedestrian route perceived as unsafe.
The quickest route dominates the public's thinking, rather than what
is safe or the safest route. If the public would drive by set speed.
limits and the elderly would use the existing cross walk, these
requests/complaints would not have occurred.
4: Solutions proposed, but not offered for consideration, were as
follows: Q
�� V
JJJQ11QJ1A0 JJJlJ city of san s OBispo
COUNCM AGENDA RE RT
Ramona Drive
page 9
A. "Bot Dot" rumble/warning strip in-lieu of speed bump. This is an
area of high bicycle usage by students and the slick surface of Bots
Dots are known hazards to cyclists.
B. Prohibit traffic from exiting the shopping center to Ramona.
The existing traffic patterns in this shopping center are difficult;
this proposal would exacerbate that situation, and probably severely
impact the viability of the shopping center. The City would most
likely be required to purchase the access rights to the center or
face a losing court case of inverse condemnation.
C. Close the street. This was seen as a waste of the public
infrastructure to service the public. All traffic would be focused
on to Broad Street as access to Palomar and West Ramona would be
denied.
D. Provide a crossing guard. This was seen as a tremendous
financial drain upon the City to provide service rarely needed.
5. Delivery service for the shopping center is available to residents
of The Village so the issue is not one of goods transportation but
singularly one of access ease.
6. There has* not been a recorded accident at the studied site since
1988. This reinforces the idea that the requests/complaints were
generated out of "fear of an accident" . This is not to dismiss the
requests but simply to put the matter into perspective.
7. Measured traffic speeds exceed desired traffic speeds for this type
of street. This is typical throughout the City and, as such, a
solution chosen should apply in the broad context of what is best
for the entire City.
8. Virtually any solution chosen by the City Council will set a
precedent of one sort or another. This study verifies an existing
policy to study perceived problems and look for solutions. Solution
1 concludes existing facilities are sufficient and confirms the
existing policy. Remaining solutions involve City financial
participation with general fund revenues to try to solve particular
cultural/sociologic problems -- in this case, traffic speed versus
the perception of crossing safety. The financial impact to the City
could be lessened as. interest groups contribute funds toward desired
solutions. ' This idea could become a Council policy by which
solutions become possible if certain safety and financial criteria
are met.
Alternatives:
As described in Finding No. 8 above, staff is following existing policy.
Staff feels that to recommend use of City funds for projects such as this
one would set a new policy of giving priority over solution to known
� a:ih �lllll�l�lu ����11 city Of saIs OBIspo
COUN L AGENDA REPORT
Ramona Drive
page 10
documented traffic problems. Prior to any such action, staff would seek
Council consideration and direction. As such, the following alternative
solutions and policies are offered for consideration:
Alternative Solutions:
Al. Implement Solution 4. INSTALL BULB OUTS. Increased visibility and
a shorter travel distance should result in a better "feeling" of l
safety.
Impact: High demand for more installations elsewhere in the city.
IF NOT ACCEPTABLE, choose Solution 5.
A2. Implement Solution 5. CLOSE RAMONA TO EASTBOUND TRAFFIC. This is
very quick to install, has full compliance with the Traffic Manual
and can be easily removed if impacts are shown to be severe.
Impact: without a traffic study, it is impossible to ascertain the
traffic impacts to neighboring streets and residential areas.
Policies:
A. Give directions to staff to develop for council consideration a
policy concerning private party financial participation toward
solutions of traffic speeding/pedestrian safety issues.
Dependent upon A above, open discussions/negotiations for financial
participation of selected solution.
B. Establish a policy to guide staff in time allocation and funding
priority for traffic safety related requests. Such a priority could
take the form of setting percentages of time for non-documented vs.
documented hazzard abatement. or funding limitations on a per fiscal
year basis, etc.
Fiscal Impact:
The CAO recommendation has no fiscal impact to the adopted budget. Staff
time spent coordinating and facilitating neighborhood meetings will not.
impact the budget, but will affect time available to pursue other Council
goals and objectives. The budgetary impact of alternative solutions is
given in the description of each; the funding source being unappropriated
General Fund reserves.
Allage.mm2
3-%0
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 26, 1993 - 7:00 PM Page 6
Mavor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed if majority consent had been obtained from all new areas in the proposal,
alternatives for issuing parking permits, and the equity of the phase-in proposal.
Moved by Roalman/Raooa to direct staff to clarify 50%agreement with residents in the expansion and
administrative clarification areas; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to direct staff to work with residents in the parking district to identify
solutions to mitigate excessive on-street parking in an equitable manner; motion carried (5-0).
BUSINESS ITEMS
3. RAMONA DRIVE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING (File No. 772)
Council considered a request for pedestrian enhancement on Ramona Drive.
Mike McCluskey Public Works Director, reviewed the request for a crosswalk and made the
recommendation that a forum be established in the neighborhood rather than providing pedestrian
improvements in the area.
Fred Bingham 55 Broad Street, spoke in support of bulbouts or traffic delineators because of the
elderly residents crossing the street in the area.
Frank Bear spoke in favor of bulbouts.
Jerry Snodgrass 364 Tigertale Drive, Arroyo Grande, urged the enforcement of the speed limit.
Council discussed various alternatives including bulbouts, delineators, crosswalks, and speed limit
alternatives.
Moved by Settle/Pinard to install two traffic signs as requested by the residents with stovepipe
temporary delineators for a crossing area that is striped on an interim basis to determine impacts;
motion was lost (2-3, Council Members Rappa, Roalman and Romero voting no).
Moved by Ranoa/Romero to address the issue of speed in this particular case and the issue of speed
in other neighborhoods; motion carried (3-2, Council Member Roalman and Mayor oinard voting no).
Mavor Pinard suggested altering the sidewalk at Broad and Ramona.
Moved by Roalman/Settie to direct staff to evaluate the Mayor's proposal (to square-up the corner at
Broad and Ramona); motion carried (4-1, Council Member Rappa voting no).
4. WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT- DRAFT EIR (File No. 521)
Council considered appropriating funds in the amount of $65,000 from the Water Fund to the Water
Reclamation Project for contract services in support of the preparation of an EIR.
Moved by Rappa/Romero to continue this item to Tuesday, November 9, 1993 at 9:00 AM; motion
carried (5-0).
5 Coordinate
signals and
reduce cycle
length
y �r
4 Add free
J
right turn
lane T�
r
Choke intersection down to Choke Intersection down�- ,:
30 toot travel way through, - �— to 32 foot travel way.
Add 4 way stop control
Intersection off sets.
Add textured walk and textured crosswalks
I `'' '.111 � . ,r � •.
yt r 1 1 1 1
djb
a � tlil
� r
i
1•
Add � '� �, -• t
textured40,
crosswalks ` ,S <s 01 3
Figure 3.8
L City of NEAR TERM RECOMMENDED
san tuts ostspo IMPROVEMENTS
990 Patm StreetrPost Office Boa 8100-San Luis OOiso*.CA 9343-8100 Broad-Murray Area
-A
Ped Sign ( I
V CJ
C • C
a a
ro > >
\\� Plastic
> \\ Cylinders E. /
u
v with
H I \ Stripe
ILucky
: Store
°
N \
� Shopping Center
Sidewalk
e
d
m
m
A4
:J
\ ✓� U4
Shopping
' s ~ e Center
c Driveway
�• d d
7 N
VJ �
'f L
u1 N
N '
1
NSKETCH OF PEDESTRIAN Ped Xing—
CROSSING SCHEME Sign �
For RAMONA Dr've
�v! (Scale - 1" - 10' !�
_ D EM #IT
N 1991
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
v, �-
W U.
¢ �v�c - 2. ' ..._. ��cL� /7` LyP�vri �y(��s�Y/u%r -c� 4,c;
r cc
o z ¢ o a
O W 0 CO3 0000
F W
3 C3
<r,-ccs
resQ� y y
J W W LL. � // _ Q/l // 7 .GL�y7/f(.,•(icG_Yfili' � /dzLQ/l�
���•�- �C/��� ��.!'Zld.1�.. �'YZ4�•L�� /J/'L(s Go •:�Eri�(. Q-
N o
��^
... . . _ - v�-L [• /J�jZ//Z/•f- �/J�'f'/'�'G2 C. �i' ,p/L!/S.�T�GG77.�/ �(/�`ZLa�i. i��G'4/�
��u•�'t s�v (.�_G-Za�-Z.a- �ru-r-�L'� �z-�2-�` �'c?� �--�ea-rlc-q�
J�� �� Zr—z V7`' .
•- �c
/�2-o�LGcsz.G•�
t .r
ell .._..........
��Z / �L G�'� //-��� iL-I•ft,�ii? /v�Z d��`��'Z. —�zFh L-
�/`zL;ti
1772L 'f
-��IV 164,
�-v�i 2 �������. �1ve.-�-d-�n,� .�u-tet.•`
(75 HCl./i(i ai�?cQ SYZ�
Q3�cs-