Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2002, PH-2 - AUGUSTA STREET NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (NTM) PLAN T i council Janyazy 22,2002 acenaa uepout 1�N° b�PN- C I TY O F SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Director Prepared by: Peggy Mandeville,Transportation Associate SUBJECT: AUGUSTA STREET NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT(NTM)PLAN CAO RECOMMENDATION: By resolution, adopt the Augusta Street NTM Plan that calls for the installation of three speed tables on Augusta Street between Bishop and Sydney Streets. DISCUSSION Background. Over a two-year period, residents of the Augusta Street neighborhood and City Transportation staff have been working on a plan to slow traffic speeds on Augusta Street. This effort has resulted in an NTM plan that calls for the installation of three speed tables and associated pavement markings and signage between Bishop and Sydney Streets. (see Attachment 1, Exhibit A). Consistent with the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines (1998), the following steps were taken to develop this draft plan. a. Initial Neighborhood Contacts: In the fall of 1999, the Public Works Department received sufficient requests for action from Augusta Street households to initiate the NTM process for this neighborhood. b. Petition Circulation: Several Augusta Street neighborhood residents then circulated a" petition that asked their neighbors whether they supported the preparation of an NTM Plan to address traffic speeding concerns. Over 40% of the area's total households indicated that they supported such a planning effort (a minimum of 25% support is required to initiate the planning process). C. Survey of Traffic Conditions: In August and September of 2000 the Transportation staff completed its analysis of traffic conditions on Augusta Street and concluded that motorists are driving faster than stipulated by City NTM standards (an average of 32 mph southbound observed vs. 25 mph City standard). d. Initial Concept Development: Throughout 2000, staff and interested Augusta Street neighborhood residents (the "Action Team") met to discuss options for slowing traffic speed. The team chose the installation of three speed tables as the preferred solution. Other options that were discussed included: stop signs; chicanes, roundabouts and pavement markings (see NTM Guidelines provided in Council Office for examples). Action team members chose the speed table solution because: 1) speed tables have been proven to reduce speeds; 2) their installation costs fall within the budget established by the NTM Guidelines therefore there would be no out of pocket cost to residents; and 3) they anticipate that speed tables will not shift significant amounts of traffic onto other local streets such as Sydney Street. 1 Council Agenda Report: Augusta Street NTM Plan Page 2 e. Neighborhood Meeting: Neighborhood residents and homeowners were invited to a meeting held on October 3, 2001 at Sinsheimer Elementary School to discuss the draft NTM Plan for Augusta Street. The ten people in attendance asked questions about various options for slowing traffic. Although some opposition to the speed tables was received,the Action Team chose to proceed with putting the Action Plan to a vote of the neighborhood. f. Distribution of Action Plan and Ballot: On October 31, 2001, City staff mailed the Draft Action Plan and voting ballot to all households within the study area. Of the 40 households within the study area, 23 (57%) households returned ballots in support of the speed table proposal. At least 51% support is needed for the proposal to be forwarded to the Council. Attachment 2 shows the households that supported the installation of the speed tables. Evaluation of Alternatives. All traffic management plans have positive and negative aspects. Concerning this particular situation, staff supports the installation of speed tables because they will have some effect on slowing traffic and appear to be acceptable to neighborhood residents. Other alternatives considered by staff and the Action Team include: a. One Speed Table(instead of three speed tables)was considered but dismissed because of the likelihood that motorists would speed up after only one speed table to make up for the lost time slowing down for the speed table. Studies have shown that in order to be effective, speed tables must be placed every 100 meters(3 00 ft) or so as the Action Team has proposed. b. . Stop Signs were considered but not chosen because they would not be used for their intended purpose as traffic control devices, and therefore some motorists might not fully stop at the controlled intersection creating the potential for a hazardous situation. C. Traffic Circles/Roundabouts require motorists to slow down to drive around them. These features were not considered because their cost exceeds the project's funding allowance provided by the City and therefore household financial participation would be needed. d. Chicanes require motorists to shift their line of travel from one side of the travel lane to the other. This change can be accomplished by extending the curbs on either side of the street to, in essence, change it from a wide straight street to a narrower "wave" alignment. This removes on-street parking in the chicane area and is very costly because of the amount of curb work involved within the street's 60 foot right of way. It was therefore eliminated as a possible traffic calming solution. Had budget not been a significant consideration for the Action Team, chicanes probably would have been chosen as the traffic calming solution proposed to the Augusta Street neighborhood for a vote. e. Pavement Markings (such as the lane markings installed on High Street Iasi fall) were considered, however not chosen because their effectiveness has not been proven. Within the next few months, Transportation staff will be conducting traffic speed and volume studies on High Street to determine the traffic calming effectiveness of the pavement markings. z-z Council Agenda Report:Augusta Street NTM Plan Page 3 f. Enhanced Police Enforcement would not require changing the street's design, but would generally not be effective in sustaining lower traffic speeds. Police enforcement is effective in curtailing flagrant violations of the vehicle code but not effective in changing the every day driving behavior of motorists. Also,enhanced enforcement is costly to sustain. Plan Monitoring. Staff proposes that traffic conditions along Augusta Street between.Bishop and Sydney Streets be monitored for at least one year (in six month intervals) after the speed tables are installed. If the data suggests that the speed tables have not been effective at reducing speeds, then the neighborhood and City Council should consider alternative methods for slowing traffic. CONCURRENCES The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the speed table proposal and although the departments would prefer not to have any devices in the roadway that may reduce the response time for emergency vehicles, the departments have chosen not to object to the neighborhood's request to "traffic calm"their street. FISCAL IMPACT The project will be paid for with monies from the Neighborhood Traffic Management account 400.53901.99501 that currently has a balance of$99,035.00. The NTM Guidelines establishes an allowance of$140.00 per household for traffic management devices. If a project is estimated to cost more than the funding allowance, the cost overrun is equally divided between the City and the study area households. The Augusta Street study area consists of 40 households; making $5,600.00 of City funding available for the design and installation of three speed tables. Although the average speed table costs about $2,400.00 to design and construct, staff believes that City crews can construct all three within the allowed $5,600.00 budget, and therefore financial participation by the neighborhood is not required. Should costs exceed that amount, the overage will be absorbed by the City. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may: 1. Decide not to adopt a NTM Plan for Augusta Street. 2. Modify the proposed plan to include alternative features. 3. Continue consideration and direct staff and/or the neighborhood Action Team to consider alternative traffic calming features. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Resolution adopting the Augusta Street Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan including Exhibit A:Augusta Street Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Attachment 2: Map Showing Household Support of Speed Tables 2-3 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (NTM)ACTION PLAN FOR THE AUGUSTA STREET NEIGHBORHOOD WHEREAS, in June 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution 8811 which establishes guidelines that direct how Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans should be prepared;and WHEREAS, consistent with these adopted guidelines, residents of the Augusta Street neighborhood have worked with City Transportation Staff to prepare a draft NTM Plan for Augusta Street which calls for the installation of three speed tables between Bishop and Sydney Streets; and WHEREAS, ballots distributed to all households within the study area requesting support of the draft NTM plan resulted in 57% support of the plan, and this level of support exceeds the minimum level required(51%); and WHEREAS; the City Council finds that the preparation of the Action Plan is consistent with the standards and protocol contained within the NTM guidelines adopted by Resolution 8811 and that the installation of speed tables is a reasonable method for pursuing City NTM goals along this particular corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby: 1. Adopts the Augusta Street Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, attached as Exhibit A, and directs the Public Works Department to install improvements called for by the plan. On motion of Council Member seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT:- The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of January 2002. Allen K. Settle,Mayor —jq Resolution No. (2002 Series) Page 2 ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J e Jo ens ;Ci Attorney �IIIIIIII ;;j�� �jlll!III� �� EXHIBIT A 0111ON rD -- a� 19°' =' Augusta Street Neighborhood Traffic Management Action Plan (()cipher_ 2001) Background In the Fall of 1999, a number of residents in the Augusta Street neighborhood contacted the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department and complained about traffic speeds on Augusta Street between Bishop and Sydney Streets. The Public Works Department staff surveyed traffic speeds along this segment of Augusta Street in August and September 2000 and found that 15% of the motorists were driving at speeds of 32 miles per hour or faster with 85% driving at 31 miles per hour or slower (see Attachment 1, Traffic Survey completed in September). These speeds exceed the City's 25 miles per hour standard for residential collector streets. Concerned residents circulated a petition that asked Augusta Street neighborhood households (see Attachment 2, Study Area Map) if they supported the preparation of an "Action Plan" to address traffic problems. Over 40% of the households indicated that they supported such a planning effort (a minimum of 25% support is required to initiate this planning process). An Action Team was formed with four residents and City staff to develop an equitable and affordable.solution to resolve the speeding problem. The Action Team established goals, considered a variety of options to slow traffic speeds, and selected one preferred solution. This preferred solution (the placement of three speed tables and associated pavement markings and signage) was reviewed by the neighborhood at a community meeting on October 3, 2001. Although some opposition to the speed tables was received at the meeting from property owners who do not reside in the study area, the Action Team chose to proceed with putting the Action Plan to a vote of the neighborhood. A minimum of 51%support of the study area households(one vote per household) is required to approve the plan. If approved by the neighborhood, the Action Plan will then be submitted to the City Council for review and adoption. Action Team Objectives The Action Team (made up of Augusta Street neighborhood residents and City staff) developed agreed-upon goals that form the basis for this neighborhood traffic management plan. Those include: 1. Reduce excessive speeds on Augusta Street between Bishop and Sydney Streets. Although the corridor average is 31 miles per hour, the 85" percentile speed southbound in the 2300-2400 block of Augusta Street range from 30—36 miles per hour. 2. Develop an Action Plan that can be implemented within the budget established by the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines so there will be no cost to the Augusta residents. 3. Achieve a solution that does not shift significant amounts of traffic onto other local streets. The neighborhood has identified Sydney Street as a possible street that could be impacted by the 2 -� placement of speed tables on Augusta Street. To ensure traffic will not be diverted to Sydney Street, City staff is working with Sydney Street residents to"traffic calm"their street. Action Plan Solutions The Action Team proposes the placement of three speed tables with associated pavement markings and signage on Augusta Street between Bishop and Sydney Streets. Three tables were chosen because research (see Attachment 3, Spacing of Measures) indicates that placing these devices approximately every 300 feet is more effective. The speed tables are located between Rich and San Mateo Streets, between San Mateo and San Carlos Streets, and San Carlos and Santa Clara Streets (see Attachment 4, Proposed Speed Table Locations and Visual Survey photographs). Their locations do not interfere with existing driveways or City infrastructure access points. The speed tables are approximately 24 feet long and 3 inches high(see Attachment 5, Speed Table Examples). This design is similar to the middle speed table/crosswalk located on Augusta Street by the elementary school and Ramona Street behind the neighborhood shopping center. The design and location on Augusta have been reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Department. The Action Team considered other possible solutions such as stop signs, chicanes,roundabouts and pavement markings. The Action Team eliminated stop signs because they felt that the stop signs would not be used for the intended purpose as traffic control devices, and therefore some motorists might not fully stop at the controlled intersection. Additionally, statistics show that traffic accidents can increase at locations where stop signs are placed when wan-ants for those stop signs are not met. Chicanes were eliminated due to the wideness of the street(60 foot right of way) with few cars parked on the street. Roundabouts were not considered due to the cost to construct and maintain them. Pavement markings were not chosen because their effectiveness has not been proven.. The Action Team discussed the drawbacks (noise and inconvenience) of speed tables and concluded that the speed table option is the only affordable solution that is proven to be effective (see Attachment 6, Speed Control Devices). Implementation/Monitoring Schedule The three speed tables are proposed to be installed at one time, rather than in phases. After the speed tables have been in place for six months, a traffic survey will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the speed tables. If the survey concludes that traffic speeds have not decreased,the neighborhood may wish to pursue other traffic calming measures to reduce speeds. Cost Estimates/Financing The Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines establishes an allowance of$140 per household for traffic management devices. If a project is estimated to cost more than the funding allowance, the cost overrun is equally divided between the City and the study area.households. The Augusta Street study area consists of 40 households; making $5,600.00 of City funding available for the design and installation of the three speed tables. Although the average speed tables costs about $2,400.00 to design and construct, staff believes that all three can be constructed within the allowed $5,600.00 budget,therefore financial participation by the neighborhood is not required. COUNCIL AGENDA "VTORT- EXHIBIT A — ' Attachment 1 Neighborhood Traffic Management A Survey of Augusta Street, between Bishop and Sydney BACKGROUND Residents living in the vicinity of Augusta Street, between Bishop and Sydney, contacted the City's Public Works Department regarding vehicle speeds along Augusta Street. The residents felt that vehicular speeds were excessive and inappropriate for a residential neighborhood. At least one person also questioned the desirability of using Augusta Street as a bus route and would like to see buses rerouted to Johnson Avenue. Augusta Street serves a residential neighborhood and extends from Laurel'Street to Bishop Street and continues a few hundred feet north of Bishop Street. The southern portion of Augusta is characterized by dense, multi-family housing and senior care housing. The northern segment, the portion subject to this study, serves exclusively single-family residential homes. There are several streets that intersect with Augusta at right angles along this segment and there is private driveway access as well. Sinsheimer Elementary School bisects these two distinct segments of Augusta Street and is a major generator of traffic at the beginning and ends of school days. EVALUATION STANDARDS AND PARAMETERS Augusta Street is a north-south undivided street with two-way travel and provisions for on-street parking. The segment subject to this study is approximately 373m (0.23 miles) compared to approximately a 1070m (0.67 miles) total street length, or about 1/3 of the . total street length. The City's general Plan Circulation Element classifies Augusta Street as a Residential Collector. This classification has a desired performance standard of 3,000 vehicles per day (VPD) and a desired maximum speed of 25 miles per hour(mph). STUDY ELEMENTS As noted above, the segment of Augusta subject to this study is between Bishop and Sydney, 2200 block through the 2400 block. Traffic monitoring equipment was placed in the 2200 block, 2300 block, the 2450s and the 2470s. The map at the end of this report has the approximate locations where the monitoring equipment was placed DATA COLLECTION Traffic counters were installed on September 26, 2000 for a 24-hour period. These counters began collecting data at 12 noon on Tuesday the 26`h and terminated collection at noon on Wednesday the 27th. This mid-week date was selected because this period typically reflects "normal" traffic patterns and behavior. GATransportation\NTM Projcas\Augusta Findings 10000 The average traffic volume along Augusta Street is significantly below the Circulation Element standard of 3,000 vehicles per day and is wt eligible for NTM efforts to reduce traffic volume. •=Monitoring Equipment Locations !l\ r ^-r -St GATransportation\NTM ProjectMugusta Findings10000 Table 1: Traffic Volume (Vehicles PerDay) Block Northbound Southbound TOTAL 2200 1113 877 1990 2300 1134 858 1992 2450s 1023 775 1798 2470s 963 733 1696 Corridor Average 1 1058 811 1869 The traffic volumes recorded are within the City's standards of 3000 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) established by the Circulation Element. The traffic volume is 62 percent of the City's standard for a Residential Collector. TRAFFIC SPEED The City's General Plan Circulation Element establishes a 25 mph maximum desired speed for Residential Collector streets. Vehicle speeds recorded during the study period exceeded this standard. The 85`h percentile speeds recorded speeds in the 2200 block were close to the Element's standards with an average speed of 27 mph, within the margin of error of the sampling technique used. At all other sampling locations, traffic speeds exceeded City standards established by the Circulation Element for residential streets. Table 2 below summarizes the vehicular speeds recorded during the study period. Table 2: Traffic Speed (85th Percentile Speeds) Block Northbound Southbound AVERAGE 2200 28 mph 26 mph 27 mph 2300 30 mph 36 mph 33 mph 2450s 32 mph 35 mph 34 mph 2470s 30 mph 30 mph 30 mph Corridor Average 1 30 mph 32 mph 31 mph CONCLUSIONS Traffic speeds along this segment of Augusta moderately exceed the Circulation Element standard of 25 mph by about 6 mph. These traffic speeds are the result, in part, of the street width and the general topography of the street segment. Augusta is approximately 35 feet wide with on street parking permitted, but little on street parking is taking place, effectively providing motorists an unimpeded roadway to travel. This seemingly wide roadway promotes a higher level of comfort for the motorist resulting in speeds moderately exceeding the limit of 25 mph. A negative slope from Bishop to Sydney dominates the topography of the street. The combination of the slope and comfortable driving environment combine to accommodate vehicular speeds exceeding the- speed limit of 25 mph by 6 mph, on average. Based on these findings, Augusta Street is eligible for efforts to reduce speeds as part of the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. GATransportationWTM Projects\Augusta Findings 10000 a�� COUNCIL AGENDA P"PORT- EXHIBIT A Attachment 2 Augusta Street NTM Boundaries of the Study Area R ` , C p m A a � !N \q � Q COUNCIL AGENDA.' PORT- EXHIBIT A Attachment-3 Spacing of Measures individual neighborhood as the optimal scale for plan- Early traffic calming initiatives in the United States tended ning purposes. to space slow points far apart.Humps were often spaced The case for areawide traffic calming is clear from sev- at intervals of well over 500 feet.An early study of speed eral examples. In Gainesville, all-way STOP signs were humps in Phoenix found almost no midblock speed re- installed on one neighborhood street.They created a prob- duction when humps were spaced so far apart. lem by diverting cut-through traffic to another street as There were also a few early cases of spacing slow points drivers sought to avoid the STOP signs.Many drivers also close together,to the dismay of even residents who usu- ran the STOP signs,a common problem when unwar- ally support speed control measures on their streets.Traf- ranted STOP signs are used simply to slow traffic.The fic managers must remember that residents are also mo- cut-through problem was solved only by closing another torists and are inconvenienced by traffic calming measures street to create a circuitous route through the neighbor- many times over for every time the targeted cut-through hood.Austin,Bellevue,Sarasota (see figure 3.46),Seattle, driver is inconvenienced. West Palm Beach,and other featured communities have Bellevue provides good examples of both spacing prob- experience with both spot and areawide traffic calming. lems.Every other hump originally spaced 150 feet apart Lessons from these places are reviewed in "Warrants, on Somerset Drive had to be removed to produce a more Project Selection Procedures, and Public Involvement" satisfactory 300-foot spacing.Conversely, humps spaced (chapter 8). 1,000 feet apart on SE 63rd Street had to be supplemented to bring the spacing down to 500 feet. DANM Figure 3.45,based on data from outside the United o AUS States,shows midpoint speeds plotted as a function of the d 40 ❑ BRMSH aM spacing of slow points.For a midpoint speed of 20 mph, E slow points were typically spaced no more than 200 to 250 feet apart.For 25 mph,the typical spacing increased to about $ 30 400 feet,and for 30 mph,typical spacing was 600 feet or o greater.The types of roadways (local versus collector) and E 20 ° 4 the types of traffic calming measures were not specified. ti Spacing guidelines of featured communities are pre- 10 sented in table 3.10. They can be compared with points in figure 3.45 to see what speeds will likely result.The z p likely speeds are generally consistent with posted speed 0 200 400 600 800 1000 limits in these same communities. Spacing of Slow Points(feet) Gwinnett County goes beyond basic spacing guide- lines to consider sequencing.The county wants to avoid Figure 3.45.Midpoint Speed versus Distance Between Slow Points. having the first hump in a series approached at high speeds. Source:R.Ewing,Best Development Pmaires,American Planning " Association(in cooperation with the Urban Land Institute), Therefore,the county positions the first hump at a point Chicago,IL,1996,p.64. 100 to 200 feet downstream of a tight curve or a STOP sign. i From Spot to Areawide Treatments Table i Traffic calming cfforts in most communities begin with Communities10. .Communities. spot treatments of problem streets.When problems reap- pear at nearby locations,traffic managers often switch from Community Spacing(feet) volume to speed controls, or from speed controls with more diversion potential (standard humps) to those with Bellevue,WA 200-300 less diversion potential(traffic circles,for example).When Berkeley,CA 150-400 even the speed control measures produce diversion,pro- Boulder,CO 150-800 Gwinnett County,GA 350-500 gram managers begin to rethink their whole approach. Howard County,MD 400-600 The national experience suggests that traffic calming Montgomery County,MD 400-600 should be planned on an areawide basis,but not over such Phoenix,AZ 500 or less a wide area that it becomes difficult to achieve consensus Portland OR 300-600 on a plan.Having prepared plans for individual streets and Sources:Memos and reports of respective traffic calming for large subareas of the city, Portland has settled on the programs;interviews with staffs. Chapter 3:Traffic Calming Measures•63 t1_ COUNCIL AGENDA R"ORT- EXHIBIT A _ Attachment 4 b N a .o y v o ~ W V . O 0 Wofo \!,-P'1 W � , 03 Iv, Con p , , T,��'►'��.� �,MS'S���f� tla;� y. �� .� �; AA r�iCr� . • ,� i a. �� f _ 49 L _ a i3 l ti W r } f W � Wt Z11'It > w T WM s. T J r F W � �1 yc n i r W^ �� Con C*n n fi ` e' I`1`1 �14�? TIM L � a-Ps w ' IS11i: J l � c V { f o O c= AF5 � � t .���---, • �� ��, j is t I � J � 1 COUNCIL AGENDA P'''ORT- EXHIBIT A Attachment 6 Y 'D G� � � O O O O O .yj O O qyj 4=1 � z z z z z } z z } 0 •� X Li. O vi O Y 0 0 � .� N C C •� C ' •p id N 'C i0 L •C L i0 i 6Cl O t �" fl 9 G•° y q .Q y ty0 — u 5 H O 0Da m m u O T u N — V Oj QO E Y Y Y 3 Y v� Y c ... o v �N Oi O` .n 3 .O N W . t N C Y 2 O y L Chi '- C Y L Q 5- V) 0. .EZYSFY 3 -0Ya n luN c < 30 p Y m z E E E e e M C o /'1 a o c E 'v N vi ui C � = 0 0 0 3 N u O ' r1 ad 3 > u m m m >' Q M ep h7 U v °D c le m E Q Q r+ >at u 0 c .° E o f o f Y rn ¢ LL Y a Y a Y O r. C. i� N Y Y d >. � o s .moi Vu v O � W C O 0 •H 4 N N � N y y T � � Y OD ¢ C QCS �• o _� x .. 0/ Y 1 Y N El N T C C40 WSJ C Q •IOM N O N V �• .p 00 Y c u . a 40 N 1 U ` O - 3 F � C Y y �. D p 9 0 .O y N N V t Cl Y y N •Q •N C Y •� ... a e ° m o o •3 N m `° ° 2 tO 3 9 i � > u o C o ,L" pip Y C Y O N N N C '0 .0 .5 U N O N R > y UQ y u w m a m . aui u Y V E °° 3 ° ° N o` - u O .y t aui E > e u E m ¢ CL ¢ c Gn u v v U o m .ol a •O Ir oo ° r cE e � 3N cod •3 o y w y E � E .a C u = n E C 9 •moo m E .� u F C 4 m Y Y G. Y O > •�. O Y O :O Y E Q Fi ICA C., arnrn cna— 3vai U 3FCL a ¢ Fa � n d - - N O O N N N N N mE' Q V is r u u u u u u s a� a7 T m O N V vt > J d > t O O y t fl t J u c 3 T T eD u h O m C ui A 'C . a � .o „ d ° u a .0 °pE u � uom n u9 v u a� •.CL c a = tO a` 3 h o.3 Ou •Ou 6. .0 rt u u u E u m o ,o e� •y � Y u E E •E ►a a .o Y > a w ° � � � ucy •3 cr co ° o 0 'to d ; > — u s el .ruu.. a ° u m > CIAd r O O V G 0 a o ' uEcr ucar o " � oo d O c > h a D > c a` cEi a` aEi a` aEi d d z z > z z° } } z z Ci u u u m d m z z z S a d T u v } Y y } Y z z d } d s c.. u c u w N o 0- m 0 •� y a ons 0 o c T c no m o 3 a T m u g h L ° 3 � � E o v as �t o TA ar O H C o N e c a u u a m u'E y e c E an Q u N uLZ u co E N � ` u EE' > dO0eN u o t;d nu D = ` VCa EC J < N:Na o TN 'C pa O N X C t v Y p 17 V C c d 05 msN E �3 � 0 90No o 6ne mo $ nT e U o c 'O c L ° > O t x m `m m `u' E- v5O m OUVO W- mu a» a O in V a--i 9 ATTACHMENT 2 0 CL Z W 3 rn 0 W Q. 'a W a° LL W m � W 0 W x w y N _ cS co H � ' Z � � W O opo o LL ui 0 UJ a W cn Z � P .• � - co %., �• IL . Q OdWd� 134 GWA31nos J 77 F-F—I 7 7 _ JNCIL DID I IY6 f AGENDA 0 FIN . R. ❑ FIDIRCHIEF +6tE._1-22-02—RNEY ITEM#.= !!! L.ERK/ORIG ED POLICE CHF Epi kADS0 AEC DIR E I�TI6 SIR 4-6 NN �'1�/ (7'�•'D`' 24450FA�A ca 93401-5315 V �wis oe�sao. �„�,,� ,c.�✓ , ,S,,I,,,,,e. RECEIVED SLO CITY COUNCIL � 1 flfl ��II IIflfl �. -- _�_.._ ���IIV�I�IIIIhIIIIIIII�III �IIhIIIII�I IIIIII�I ILI city osAn tuis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 January 11,2002 rTmv nnrTwTnn nrroT VC A L�T►Tr XTnm"rtc L.l i s &. a VLara t as • AUGUSTA STREET NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the August Street Neighborhood Traffic Management Action Plan. The Public Hearing portion of the meeting will be held on Tuesday,January 22,2002, beginning at 7:00 pxL in the Council Chamber at City Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is welcome to attend and comment. Written comments are encouraged. Applicants and appellants,or their designated representatives, are allowed to present testimony to the City Council. The time permitted for this testimony is ten minutes. All other public comments are limited to three minutes. Other items may be discussed before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at,or prior to,the public hearing. The Qa "AA«e�,nrF j��l.�i7i»D r�CCTh en r�o�i�n bit rtnTf .,ill h� �•.WilnWz 4b :v!':e psi n iho Office of the City Clerk(Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting. For more info ation„please contact Peggy Mandeville in the Public Works Department at 781- 90. Lee ice, City Clerk OThe City San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommuofnications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # msn.4 Hotmail hoffstot2@hotmail.com Inbox I Previous P_e From: Mailer-Daemon@slodmz.slocity.org NCIL To: hoffstot2@hotmail.com CDD DIR Subject: Message status-undeliverable � FIIoN DIR Date: Wed, 16)an 2002 19:19:11 -0800 '�+ RNEI, �;1' CHIEF I[ The message that you sent was undeliverable to the follow ng ❑�LERWORIG L7� CIE CHF pmanderville@slocity.ora (user not found) C 2 T EAD REC DIR Possibly truncated original message follows: l C] UTIL DIR HR DIR Peggy: thanks again for calling me back two days ago. My house is at2 25 Augusta St - rented now. I still live in SLO. A primary reason that I moved - was the traffic noise on Augusta. It was getting out of hand. The speed bumps may be a noble effort -but I doubt they will be effective-remembering the dreadful experience the City had with Chorro St. Instead, I strongly recommend the following:l.) traffic to and from Sinsheimer School be reflowed to only come on and off of Laurel Lane and then down to Augusta-with a u-turn required back out to Laurel Lane. The Sinsheimer "parents", as I mentioned, I found to be the worst offenders of excessive speed with their monster SUVs! 2.) Augusta St be made officially "a not a Thru street"-with necessary police enforcement for the first few months. 3.)that the SLO bus service be re-directed over to Johnson Ave(never have understood why the bus came down such a "residential" street?, and finally 4.) that Augusta St be restricted against any commercial traffic. There are lots of dump trucks, trailer trucks -that seem to love using Augusta as a perceived short-cut to going via Johnson Ave. Thanks for the chance to have input. Sincerely, Ridge Hammond, te1:545-5927 MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: ©2002 Microsoft Corporation.All rights reserved.TERMS OF USE AdvertStater nen Approved Privacy Stateent GetNetwi mw7n, se j JAN 1 3 2002 I - 1'7., G- 3AN LUIS GE;_-PO f RECEIVED SLO CITY COUNCIL. 1_ TING AGENDA DATE /Zz-0Z tTEM #-A?� From: <Jhildinger@aol.com> To: <sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: 1/22/02 8:35AM ❑ CDD DIA Subject: letter to council members re:Augusta St. Traffic Mgmt Plan OLERLK40RIG ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FI CHIEF Dear Council Members, W DIR We live on Reba Street and would like to comment on the proposed Augusta St. ❑ POLICE CHF traffic management plan. After experiencing the ineffectiveness of speed ❑ REC DIR bumps placed on Chorro Street several years ago, we would much prefer to seeUTIL DIR one or two stop signs placed on Augusta between Sydney and Bishop streets. 0 HR DIR We also would like to suggest painting a median stripe in the street from Sinsheimer school down to Laurel Lane. This area often is congested with parking on both sides of the street and a middle line would be a useful reference for drivers. While we appreciate the signage and postal note we received regarding this issue, it would have been nice to receive more details about it sooner. Is the traffic management plan available online? If not, can you please send us a full copy? Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Judith Hildinger& Eric Meader 1268 Reba St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 jhildinger@aol.com CC: <EricMeader@aol.com> RECEIVED !At" Z 2 200? SLA CITY COUNCIL : AGENDA DATE / z2 ITEM #. From: "Abbie Woodward" <AbbieW @fix.net> S�UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR To: <pmandeville@slocity.org> U CAO ❑ FIN DIR Date: 1/22/02 12:11 PM i�t,�RNEY ❑_ D FIRE CHIEF Subject: speed bumps on Augusta �LERK/ORIO ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT IaL 0 REC DIA Cl LITIL DIR Dear Ms. Mandeville, ❑ HR DIR Since I am unable to attend tonight's meeting regarding the Augusta Street Neighborhood Traffic Management Action Plan I wanted to again express my feeling toward the proposed plan. I am a homeowner, residing at 1281 San Mateo Dr., and have been made aware through my neighbors_ and mailings from the City regarding the proposed three speed bumps to be placed on Augusta Street. I responded to the City stating I was not in favor of adding the speed bumps, but if it was to be I suggested two instead of three. It would seem to me that all homeowners with homes in the area that use Augusta should have been notified of this proposal by mail. Placing signs in the ground does not alert all the area homeowners, nor do all people read the newspaper. It is not just the two houses in on San Mateo, San Carlos, and the other streets that drive on Augusta. Should this plan end up being over budget I do not want to pay the additional expense as a homeowner when others use the surface also. Certainly there is an issue of safety for children and others if speeding is happening. Over speed limit driving happens on all streets in our town. Speed bumps to me would be the LAST resort, especially since the experiment on Chorro Street with bumps, etc., was not successful. Perhaps additional stops signs would be a better plan at slowing down traffic, or use the overhead camera to take pictures of speeders or reckless drivers. Seems to me that would be monetarily profitable to the City. Also continuing with the plan to put Bishop Street through to Broad Street would eliminate much of the Augusta Street traffic. My recommendation is NO to Speed Bumps on Augusta Street. Thank You Abbie Woodward 1281 San Mateo Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805/543-6126 RECEIVED 1 :.. - ..AII ,- 20012 SLO CITY COUNCIL