Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/2009, B6 - LAGUNA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ACCESS IMPROVEMENT REQUESTS counat "'`hep eember 15,2009 j acEnaa Repout ,�N -b CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director Prepared by: Tim Bochum, Deputy Director Public Works Jake Hudson, Senior Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: LAGUNA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ACCESS IMPROVEMENT REQUESTS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve an action plan to improve access to the Laguna Village Shopping Center and operations of the Madonna/LVSC Driveway intersection. 2. Defer the request for signalization of the Madonna/LVSC Driveway until the action plan measures have been undertaken to improve operations of the location and these measures have been evaluated for their effectiveness. REPORT-IN-BRIEF This report details staff's review and recommendations regarding requests from the Laguna Village Shopping Center (LVSC) to the City Council. LVSC requested that the City provide improved access to the Center by installing a traffic signal at the Madonna/LVSC driveway, realigning, restriping and widening the driveways on Madonna and Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) and modifying the intersection of LOVR/Madonna Road. The report discusses work completed by the City at this location to improve safety and traffic flow as well as alternatives that can be considered to improve access to LVSC. DISCUSSION Background On July 1, 2009 the Council received a written request to schedule a hearing regarding access to the Laguna Village Shopping Center. At its July 7 1 meeting the Council received verbal comment from Randy Poltl, the Property Manager for LVSC regarding the request and the need to schedule a hearing to discuss the installation of a traffic signal and other traffic mitigation measures to improve access and safety near the Center. The Council agendized the item for September 15`h .and directed staff to formally review the request and return with recommendations, as necessary,regarding the proposed improvements. Laguna Village Shopping Center Driveway Access Requests Page 2 Elimination of left turns into LVSC from Madonna Concerns regarding safety at the Madonna/Pereira/LVSC driveway date back to 2002 when the 2002 Annual Traffic Safety Report identified a high number of collisions at this location. This was before much of the recent commercial development was completed along LOUR. To address this condition the City made numerous operational and safety related changes at the intersection of Madonna/LOVR and at the Madonna driveway to LVSC to attempt to reduce the collision rates. Sight visibility was increased, channelization was modified to separate right turns from the adjacent Madonna/LOVR intersection, and pedestrian crossings were prohibited across Madonna at the driveway to reduce conflicts. These mitigations resulted in reductions in collisions at the driveway for the years 2002 through 2005; however collisions again began to rise in 2006 and 2007. Staff reassessed this location during that time and concluded that turn conflicts at the driveway (due to the significant offset between Pereira and the LVSC driveway along with the competition for limited space in the intersection) were contributing factors to many of the collisions. The primary collision pattern was from the exiting movements from the driveway. Options that were considered at the time to reduce the collision types included: 1. Restricting Left turns in 2. Restricting Left turns out 3. Restricting turns into Pereira 4. Restricting turns out from Pereira To reduce the number conflicts at the driveway and to allow the exiting driveway movement fewer distractions in making that maneuver left turn ingress was restricted. There are additional "approaches"into LVSC that can replace the need for this left tum into the site. Based on this analysis, the left turn ingress to the driveway was restricted in November 2007. This resulted in a significant reduction in the number of broadside collisions coming from the driveway, as demonstrated in Table I below and in Attachment 2. However, it resulted in concerns expressed by LVSC regarding access to its center, effects on pedestrians, and economic impacts to the businesses. The representatives of LVSC have stated that increased volumes resulting from the development along LOVR (Costco, Irish Hills Plaza) created this safety issue and caused the City to act, but it staff's opinion that this is not the case. This issue is related the geometry of the roadway, not traffic volumes, and predates much of the commercial development on LOVR. Table 1:Pre 1 Post Collision Reduction Satistics %Reduction %Reduction 712to Month 18 Months 18 Month 18 Months 18 Month 35 Months 18 Months Rate Prior Rate After Rate Before/18 Before/l8 Months After Months After Total Collisions 13 0.371429 9 0.50 6 0.333333 10.26% 33.33% Driveway Related Collisions 9 0.257143 5 0.28 3 0.166667 35.19% 40.000% Driveway Exiting Collisions 8 10.2285711 5 1 0.28 1 2 10.11111111 51.390/6 1 60.00% Driveway Left&Thru Exiting 7 0.2 5 0.28 2 10.11111111 44.440h 1 60.00% Laguna Village Shopping Center Driveway Access Requests Page 3 City Staff Concerns about signalizing the driveway to LVSC Traffic signals should generally be considered for installation only when the benefits outweigh the concerns. The cost/benefit is found when one or more warrants (State and Federal thresholds for traffic conditions) demonstrate conditions under which signalization might be considered and less restrictive measures have been implemented but proved unable to resolve the operational or safety issues. Due to their basic function of traffic control, signals often introduce other effects which can result in an increase in collisions not previously experienced as well as cause significant delays for the majority of traffic. Signalization at the Madonna/Pereira/LVSC driveway has been considered as a possible solution for as long as the City has been observing the collision pattern at this location. Past reviews have indicated that only a portion of one of the eight State signal warrants would be met for the existing conditions. Also, less restrictive measures can be implemented (such as widening and aligning the driveways or reducing other conflicts) which eliminate the need for a signal. Staff conducted two assessments based on signal warrants in response Lusk's most recent request for signalization. One considered existing conditions; and the other assumed the driveway was realigned and widened to provide appropriate exit lanes from LVSC. Both of these assessments indicate that signalization is not appropriate at this location. This information is included in Attachment 3. City staff does not solely rely on the warranting system to determine the appropriateness of signalization. Staff does utilize it for an indication of the minimum level conditions at which signalization would likely result in negative operational and safety impacts. Staff also uses this system as one of the primary tools for reviewing all signalization requests within the City. In this way, all such requests are processed in a similar and fair manner. This process provides better protection to the City for liability purposes, while ensuring a very high level of public scrutiny for fairness and safety At the time of writing of this report there continues to be disagreement between City staff and LVSC regarding the safety and operational aspects of, and the need for a traffic signal as the initial remedy to the Madonna/Pereira/LVSC driveway issues. City staff has continued to meet with the LVSC representatives to make attempts to reach an agreement on the incremental approach to addressing the needs at this driveway, but were unable to reach consensus at the time of writing this staff report. Staff continues to have two significant concerns about safety and congestion arising from signalization of this driveway as discussed below. Safety Concerns Staff is concerned that increased safety issues would arise at a signal location in close proximity (330') to the major intersection of Madonna/LOVR. Based on industry research, standard practices, City staff experience, and the conditions of the LVSC driveway, if the driveway is signalized an increase in rear-end traffic collisions can be expected. With regard to the close proximity.to LOVR, staff strongly believes that the additional signal controls at the driveway would be visually and intuitively unexpected to drivers, likely resulting in a higher than average red light violations. This is primarily due to a very short "dilemma zone" (the decision making area where a driver's perception, reaction time, and breaking time occur) which would be created between LOVR and the LVSC driveway. This type of condition will potentially increase right ^3 Laguna Village Shopping Center Driveway Access Requests Page 4 angle collisions and introduce a new rear-end collision pattern at the location, as some drivers will not see or expect a signal there. Of critical note regarding this potential problem is staff s concern regarding reintroducing pedestrian crossings at this location when the dilemma zone is at a minimum and vehicles may not stop even when the pedestrian has the right of way. While pedestrians continue to violate the current crossing prohibitions, this does not in and of itself lead to the conclusion that pedestrian crossings will be safer under signalized control. Staff believes there is a high likelihood that pedestrian/vehicle conflicts at this location under signalized control that would be problematic and unnecessary with an alternative signalized crossing location less than 330' away, a distance of less than a Downtown city block. Congestion Concerns Signalizing the Madonna/Pereira/LVSC driveway and coordinating the two signals to allow the major intersection of LOVR/Madonna to still function properly without extreme congestion requires a very long signal cycle (likely to be greater than 110 seconds). While signalization allows for controlled access to the site, it also causes a significant increase in delay for vehicles exiting the LVSC driveway during peak times. As it exists now, turning traffic can make turns when available gaps occur. Under the fully signalized scenario, these available gaps would be exchanged for a hard and fast traffic control that would limit the number of side street movements (albeit controlled), and will likely result in longer queues exiting the driveway. The consultant for LVSC proposes a fix to this issue by balancing the cycle times between these two locations; however, this will impact the intersection of Madonna/LOVR and cause additional congestion for the vastly higher numbers of pedestrian and vehicles at Madonna/LOVR. Implementing improvements to the intersection of Madonna/LOVR (as discussed at the Prefumo Creek Commons (PCC) hearing On September 1s`) will reduce the queue problems currently occurring sporadically during peak times. However, these are less restrictive measures that should be considered first, prior to signalization, to make sure the likely results discussed above are not created without first implementing all reasonable alternative solutions. Finally, it is important to note that both staff and LVSC are in agreement that most of the issues regarding access to the site occur almost exclusively only in the peak times mostly in the afternoon/evening peak. Although this is the case, the data shows that collisions do occur at other times of the day. Installing a signal to address a short duration event will cause the potential negative results to be in place at all other times during the day. The consultant hired by LVSC concluded in a letter to the City that signalizing the driveway to LVSC will, "...generally accomplish the goal of access for LVSC and a reasonable operation of Madonna Road and the Madonna Road/LOVR intersection...", but the consultant has not provided a full and accurate analysis of signal operations showing signalization of the Madonna/Pereira/LVSC driveway or evidence that it will not result in excessive delay or substantially increase congestion within both the driveway intersection or at Madonna/LOVR. Although their statement that may be correct it does not fully address the technical and operational concerns raised by City staff. Based on a thorough analysis, City staff continues to conclude that signalization of the Madonna/Pereira/LVSC driveway would have a significant and 134 _ / Laguna Village Shopping Center Driveway Access Requests Page 5 negative effect on congestion and safety issues along Madonna Road and potentially back to LOVR. Are there other shopping centers with similar access in the city? None of the other similarly sized shopping centers within the City (Foothill Plaza, Scolari's, Marigold Center, and Trader Joes) have a signalized driveway solely to their site. Each one has driveway access to City streets and intersections with traffic signals nearby. Major regional shopping centers (Madonna Plaza, the Promenade, and Irish Hills) have signalized access driveways that were built as part of those developments. There are similar access issues that occur at these locations during the peak hour and, as shown in the City's Traffic Safety Report, there are some collisions that occur. For the same reasons as noted above, City staff would not be in support of installing traffic signals at these other shopping center driveways. Can the City and LVSC do anything to improve access and safety short of installing a traffic signal? The City has worked with LVSC to develop potential solutions that could be implemented to improve access out of the center without causing secondary safety and congestion issues. The existing narrow driveway the offset of the driveway in relation to Pereira Drive have been in place since the shopping center was built in the early 1980s. While initially these operational deficiencies were not pronounced, roadway conditions have changed over time, and these factors contribute to the conditions being observed today. Widening of both the Madonna & LOVR LVSC driveways has long been an incremental improvement step that the LVSC could complete to address fundamental deficiencies at these access locations. While LVSC has requested that these improvements (Madonna Driveway Widening and Periera Realignment and Signalization) be made the responsibility of PCC, the project EIR for PCC concluded that the conditions do not sufficiently worsen at these locations due to traffic from PCC. LVSC could itself make the driveway improvements to help alleviate delays associated with their access. Action Plan City staff believes that a phased approach is most beneficial in order to improve the LVSC Madonna driveway and that an action plan can be implemented to facilitate an incremental approach to improving access to LVSC. Below is an action plan, followed by more detailed explanations of the proposed work elements. ACTION PLAN in prioriN order to Improve Access to LVSC ResponsibilityWork Element 1) Work with LVSC to relocate, widen, and re-channelize the LVSC (City to contribute$30,000 driveway on Madonna Road. from traffic safety account for im rovements in the street 2)Work with LVSC to relocate, widen, and re-stripe the driveway on LVSC (striping on LOVR can be LOVR. Additionally, work with LVSC to identify on site implemented by PCC as part of operational measures (such as adjusting employee work mitigation). schedules and delivery times) to reduce congestion at peak times. 3) Implement the widening of LOVR (PCC Mitigation Measure PCC Option#3, or modified Option#3 as identified in the PCC EIR). t Laguna Village Shopping Center Driveway Access Requests Page 6 ResponsibilityWork Element 4) Work with LVSC, adjacent property owners and PCC to widen City (improvements may be the southwest comer of Madonna/LOVR and re-stripe WB included with PCC mitigation approach lanes as identified in MM Option #1 to reduce project by allowing TIF credits for queues from the intersection. work). 5) Conduct study after items 1-4 are implemented to determine if City the left turn access into LVSC can be reestablished. If collision patterns return to the LVSC driveway after items 1-4 have been implemented, return to Council with recommendations for potential traffic control changes including a new assessment of si nalization 6) As part of the Circulation Element update or other large scale City, LVSC, others planning effort, analyze the Madonna Road Corridor and adjacent neighborhoods for potential long-term strategies to address congestion, access, and safety. Work Element#1: Relocate and widen Madonna driveway The City has approximately$30,000 in traffic safety money remaining for helping LVSC relocate and widen the Madonna/LVSC/Pereira driveway. This contribution would find the City's responsibility in addressing curb, gutter, and sidewalk reconstruction costs. LVSC has previously offered to pay for the private property site reconstruction of the drive aisles, parking and landscaping areas, and staff concurs that this should be LVSC's responsibility. Sharing in some of the cost of this improvement could also result in completion in a shorter timeframe. u u +z tt a��Ge. 4 T J ,P tT YAl WNA�,A( Tr Work Element#1 —Align and Widen Driveway Work Element#2: Relocate and widen LOVR driveway The re-striping of the tum lane into and out of the Madonna/Pereira/LVSC driveway can be included in the work to be performed by Prefumo Creek Commons (PCC) or under separate City permit. Driveway widening and lane changes would be the responsibility of LVSC. Laguna Village Shopping Center Driveway Access Requests Page 7 4 Z. J �r r Work Element#2—Widen Driveway on LOVR and restripe turn lane Work Element#3: Widen LOVR PCC will be responsible for completing the widening of LOVR and adding the third North Bound through lane through the intersection. This work will be eligible for Transportation Impact Fee(TIF) crediting for the project. — s ' Work Element#3 —Widen LOVR and add third NB Through Lane Work Element#4: Widen SW Corner of Madonna/LOVR Staff initially did not concur with LVSC's conclusion that reassigning lane approaches and the widening of LOVR would improve queuing on the West Bound approach. However, as discussed in the PCC EIR this option does in fact help with this issue and if implemented along with Work Element #3, will deliver substantial service improvements to the intersection. While not a mitigation measure required of the PCC development, staff concludes that working on improving this approach to the intersection should help mitigate the sporadic queues that sometimes occur in the peak times. / Laguna Village Shopping Center Driveway Access Requests Page 8 Pursue widening or alternative channelization sa •6v Restripe lanes to reduce queue potential Work Element #4—Widen SWC of LVSC and Relocate WB through lane Work Element# 5: Conduct study and investigate reestablishment of the left turn access to LVSC Even if Work Elements one through four are implemented, staff still has concerns that reestablishing the left turn ingress from Madonna Road into LVSC may recreate the conflicts at the driveway or limit the ability of vehicles to enter the West Bound left turn lanes for the intersection of Madonna/LOVR. However, the restriction of the left turn was done to address collisions occurring at the driveway along with the queuing issue. If the improvements completed under Work Elements one through four prove successful in alleviating back up through the intersection, and the low collisions rates continue to be observed, reestablishment of the turn pocket may be considered if it does not significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Madonna/LOVR left turn lanes. Work Element# 6: Long term investigation of Madonna Corridor Staff concurs with LVSC that a major work effort should be undertaken to address potential long term circulation, operational and safety issues that could occur in the corridor. Unfortunately the current Circulation Element does not contain.specific projects or programs for this corridor since it received an "override" determination as part of the final changes to the Land Use EIR. This deficient condition, particularly at the intersection of Madonna/LOVR could continue to be problematic when there may be modifications that can be planned and implemented that will avoid further degradation of the corridor. Laguna Village Shopping Center Driveway Access Requests Page 9 Staff recommends that the Council identify long term circulation in this area of the City as an important issue that should be brought back as part of the Circulation Element update, and such update should identify potential improvements that could be undertaken to better plan for corridor changes over time. FISCAL IMPACT Depending on final Council determination of appropriate improvements associated with this issue there could be a fiscal impact to the General Fund if City participation is needed to construct some improvements. Currently there is $30,000 in the Traffic Safety Account that could be used to help fund the driveway modification along Madonna Road. Other improvements included in the work plan can potentially be accomplished using TIF credits if the work is part of mitigation and conditions stemming from the Prefumo Creek Commons project. If TIF crediting is not possible, there may be the need to return to Council with recommendations for funding either from the TIF account (which is currently over programmed) or the General Fund. If Council decides to signalize the driveway (estimated at $200,000 - $250,000) it is likely that this funding would need to come either fully or partially from the General Fund since the improvement is not fully tied to development, and would not be a TIF eligible project. ALTERNATIVE Immediately signalize the Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Driveway. Staff does not recommend this as an alternative until all other measures are implemented in the work plan. Opting to signalize this driveway without first implementing other, less restrictive, traffic control measures could set a precedent in signalizing other locations within the City and may pose a liability problem for the City. Other locations that have been requested for signalization include South/King, Los Verdes Park One and Two, Auto Park Way, CapitolioBroad, among others. The signal is estimated to cost between $200,000 and $250,000 largely due to the need to coordinate with the adjacent signal at Madonna/LOVR and fully integrate the communications systems. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity& LVSC Access Point Map 2. LVSC Madonna Driveway Collision Diagram 3. June 2009 Traffic Signal Assessment 4. April 29, 2008 Laguna Village Shopping Letter 5. June 12, 2008 City Response Letter to Laguna Village Shopping Letter Available in the Council Reading File Laguna Village Shopping Center Correspondence File / 7 ATTACHMENTIL l 4 CD Ilk IIAI\ � �\ DC7 ••v� �r*'� -�J `h"sr' � , � o. / j '. ' `�r "'�c:''`` {VV/ O '. \ 90 I. Ij' rC kz -Alp CD cn g • Ir I " lo AV Ivy ® �'JS • � � � cSY.. ZTrr yq�� � � � v •����.�� •P .�. al } vi � SIF ®l YYY///�. _ (\J�/� -M, ✓��. � , � . � !�v 1 T'S j���� r� lir-��.'•�c�\`'� l'� iJ� ,��� �"" � ��j /� � • ve r� ATTACHMENT _I N O o " � iIItt Z "� � pm [ o = a = 0 °e = g—m n 8�t IL Y U H. CD f� d cn o � n `0 3 �,,@Oxx { � r� O21cM p �e /�Y� r ro r1. I u a f y ro �Ra z" p � L0 E313 0 C) X y J kG (D b 0 y Cl) p ro m CD r"rl 10 is cQ {- n ao © oxxa otl Op O p� � o• In® C N NCD ro n o CDD ATTACHMENT ' uu /b-7 memo To: Tim Bochum, Deputy Public Works Director From: Jake Hudson, Senior Traffic Engineer Date: August 24, 2009 Re: Madonna & Laguna Village Shopping Center Traffic Signal Warrant Background You have asked for an update to the traffic signal assessment that we conducted regarding the Laguna Village Shopping Center driveway. This report includes new investigation for the need,justification and altematives associated with traffic control for the driveway location and access to the center. To respond to the Laguna Village Shopping Center's (LVSC) request for signalization of their Northerly Madonna Driveway to improve egress from the shopping center, City traffic engineering staff has completed an assessment of this driveway for signalization using the methodologies established in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control (MUTCD) and the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) supplement to the MUTCD. The City uses these manuals and warranting system to assess the needs for traffic control modifications. Our primary conclusion regarding this issue is that the location is not appropriate for signalization at this time since other improvements can be made to the driveway and surrounding area that will improve operations. Signalization of this location may be warranted at some point in the future but due to the numerous negative effects expected with signalization other less restrictive measures should first be undertaken to address operational concerns at the location. The assessment of these warrants indicates that none of them can be considered fully met for current conditions. One warrant — the Peak hour Warrant is partially satisfied for the current narrow driveway configuration. However, that warrant may not be appropriate in this particular situation since the California MUTCD recommends that this warrant only be applied at certain locations with very high peak factors such as industrial complexes or office parks. Further, the driveway offset with Pereira Drive in conjunction with the narrow exit approach, continue to be the two primary factors in the difficulty of motorists using this location. This situation should be corrected first prior to signalization of the driveway since signalization would require this improvement anyway. After reviewing the various conditions of the driveway and applying these guidelines we conclude that signalization of this driveway without these remedial improvements will substantially increase delay for vehicles exiting the driveway and on Madonna, reduce handling capacity and degrade traffic flow at Los Osos Valley Road at Madonna, limit future signal optimization efforts along Los Osos Valley Road, and would likely increase the frequency of traffic collisions at the driveway. There may also 0 Page 1 !1 C r te ATTACHMENT be traffic diversion onto adjacent neighborhood routes if it is perceived that the signal causes undue delay along Madonna Road. Existing Conditions The LVSC currently has five driveways supplying access to the site, three on Los Osos Valley Road and two on Madonna Road. The center has expressed concerns regarding two driveways and has requested signalization of the driveway along Madonna Road. The driveway in question is the most northerly driveway on Madonna Road. The driveway is currently in the same configuration as when constructed in the early 1980's and is a one lane commercial driveway approach with an exiting peak hour volume of approximately 190 vehicles; it remains to be misaligned with Pereira Drive by approximately 40-50', with a negative offset that causes a conflict for turning traffic at the two access points. Madonna Road is a four lane arterial with a peak hour volume of 1,918 passing by the driveway. Traffic counts were collected on February 13"' 2008 (Attachment A); these results are summarized in the attached data sheets and tables. On going field observations have been conducted at various times of the day dating back to 2003. The driveway was evaluated for signalization under two conditions; Condition A: the driveway in its current configuration as of August 24th, 2009 and Condition B: the driveway widened to accommodate a separate right tum and left tum lane. Condition B also represents the reconfiguration of the driveway physically required in order to accommodate a traffic signal. Prior Driveway Analysis and review In 2004 as part of the 2003 Annual Traffic Safety Report, this driveway was identified as a high collision rate location primarily due to limited sight distance from the driveway. As part of that report City staff conducted a cursory signal warrant analysis of the driveway and found that the driveway partially satisfied Warrant 7, crash history. At the time signalization was not recommended due to the driveway not satisfying any of the other seven warrants or fully satisfying Warrant 7 without having an adequate trial of alternatives that has reduced collisions as required in the established warrant. Following approval of the 2003 Annual Traffic Safety Report staff implemented trimming of the bottlebrush trees on north side of LOVR, which successfully led to a reduction in the collision frequency. In addition, as part of the 2005-07 Financial Plan the City programmed up to $35,000 as part of the Traffic Safety Program to work on resolving driveway issues if they continued. Some of this money has been used to perform traffic signing and striping changes, sight distance improvements. Approximately$30,000 of this funding remains. Changes to the traffic signal and approach lanes at LOVR/Madonna Road have been undertaken in this same period to improve operations and pedestrian safety at the location. Continued monitoring of the location as part of the Annual Traffic Safety Program saw a reduction of the collisions until 2006 when the location again experienced five collisions and was ranked in the top twenty of similar locations. Although not identified as a top five intersection needing mitigation, the five collisions were considered important to address and staff reviewed the location again and determined they were occurring primarily due to low gap acceptance due to turning conflicts and offset conflict points. By the 2007 Traffic Safety Report the location had risen to tenth highest in the city in its category. After several months of extensive conflict and access analysis it was determined that the left tum into the westerly Madonna LVSC driveway was a primary conflict point contributing to the collision pattern and 0 Page 2 B ( -(3 ATTACHMENT 3 that this left tum was a redundant access point to the center. Full access from all approaches is possible without the left tum and with a relatively low volume in comparison with the other LVSC driveways the decision was made to restrict this movement to reduce the conflicts at the driveway and improve egress from the center. In September of 2007, the City restricted the left tum at this location which has corrected much of the collision pattern. '1 • v s. I X � ♦ - ' AV Ovsk f r Figure 1 —Driveway Conflict Points (turning movements) Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis State and Federal MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrants have again been used to evaluate this traffic signal request. The approach volumes and individual warrants for this intersection are shown in attached data sheets and tables. Traffic signals are often viewed by the public as a panacea for all traffic safety and congestion problems. Unfortunately that is not the case as unwarranted signals can actually induce delay, increase certain types of traffic collisions and cause voluntary traffic diversions into alternative streets if undue delay is perceived. The choice of signalization should only be made when a proper engineering based assessment is conducted weighing the benefits of signalized control against the detriments. The warrants below represent thresholds adopted by FHWA and Caltrans which represent conditions that indicate if signalization is or is not appropriate. As mentioned in all warrant language the satisfaction of any individual warrant , or even multiple warrants, is not in and of itself an indication that traffic signalization should be undertaken. 0 Page 3 l ATTACHMENT Condition A: Traffic Signal Assessment-Current Driveway Configuration WARRANT 1 —EIGHT HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 2—FOUR HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 3—PEAK HOUR PARTIALLY SATISFIED WARRANT 4—PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NOT APPLICABLE WARRANT 5—SCHOOL CROSSING NOT APPLICABLE WARRANT 6—COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 7—CRASH HISTORY NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 8—ROADWAY NETWORK NOT SATISFIED Condition A represents the location in its current state with the narrow single lane approach as well as the offset with Pereira. Under condition A, of the eight warrants possibly indicating the need for a traffic signal, the LVSC driveway only partially satisfies Warrant 3 —the Peak Hour warrant. This is logical since most involved in the discussions of the location recognize difficulties in accessing the driveway are worst during the peak time of the street. Although Warrant 3 is satisfied under this condition, the warranting system is dear that other potentially less restrictive measure should be undertaken first to try and mitigate operational or safety issues. This is the case with the LVSC driveway since both the narrowness and the offset of the driveway cause problems with ideal use of the location by drivers turning or crossing the location. Condition B: Driveway Reconfiguration—Separating Right&Left Turn Lanes WARRANT 1 —EIGHT HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 2—FOUR HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 3—PEAK HOUR NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 4—PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NOT APPLICABLE WARRANT 5—SCHOOL CROSSING NOT APPLICABLE WARRANT 6—COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 7—CRASH HISTORY NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 8—ROADWAY NETWORK NOT SATISFIED Condition B reviews the location assuming the driveway is widened to separate out left turning and right turning vehicles. Because this widening would allow for reduced delay from the driveway and not have individuals unduly stack back from the intersection, even Warrant 3 would not be considered warranted based upon traffic volumes since the driveway will function more efficiently. Under condition B, none of the eight warrants indicating if signalization of the LVSC driveway is appropriate are satisfied. Perception-Reaction Analysis Perception-reaction time is the time that elapses between when a driver sees a conflict, perceives what that conflict is, and decides how to react to it, and safety stops to avoid that conflict. This of particular importance when installing any type of traffic control on a side street within in close proximity to a major intersection because vehicles turning from the major approach may not be able to stop in time for the side street signal or for vehicle queued back from that side street signal. 0 Page 4 3 — - `ATTACHMENT 3 Based on field observations, speed surveys, and the industry standard calculation for estimating safe stopping distance the minimum distance need to safely stop is approximately 250'-300'. Currently the driveway is approximately 330' from the intersection, if the intersection is realigned for signalization the driveway would then be approximately 300'-310'. Given these distances drivers could have difficulty perceiving the traffic signal and safely stopping for it after completing a tum from LOVR where they may be preoccupied completing their initial tums at Madonna/LOVR. If any vehicles are queued back from the proposed driveway signal along Madonna Road drivers turning from LOVR could have an even higher level of difficulty to safety stop to avoid a rear end collision with the stopped vehciles. Pedestrian Access There has been much discussion regarding pedestrian restrictions currently in place at the location and the need to accommodate pedestrian crossings at the driveway location. Pedestrian access across these legs of the intersection have been an issue for a long time. Pedestrians collisions have occurred at the location both when it was originally marked with a crosswalk as well as when the crossing was permitted but no markings were in place. In analyzing pedestrian movements and safety at this location staff concluded that due to the Gose proximity of the signal at LOVR/Madonna which is approximately 340' away (or one downtown block)the appropriate location for pedestrians to have the highest degree of safety to cross Madonna was at this signal. In essence, repeated observations of pedestrians crossing at this location has shown that motorists do not expect pedestrian crossings at this location primarily due to the close proximity of Los Osos Valley Road and the perception reaction time needed to stop for pedestrian after tuming onto Madonna from LOUR. While a signal will help this issue if vehicles yield right of way under signalized stop control when a pedestrian is in the crossing it is not assured that they will do so as we see often at other locations in the City. Currently pedestrians that choose to violate the restriction do so after significant checking of the approach traffic and have a higher awareness of traffic than pre- restriction observations. This likely has assisted in the reduction in pedestrian related collisions. In addition to the potential "set up" concems, the crossing and clearance times necessary to allow pedestrians passage at this location will make average delays increase for all other movements at the intersection and reduce timing coordination efforts with the Madonna/LOVR signal. Although the City takes pride in allowing maximum pedestrian access and crossings within the City, this particular location is troublesome in that the pedestrians are not expected at the location and with the conflicts at the driveway, are sometimes lost in the critical crossing areas. While some have debated that this is a natural crossing location for pedestrians, the actual crossings are being done in violation of the posted restrictions and staff continues to believe the most appropriate and highest degree of safety for crossing is at the signal at LOVR. The pedestrian signal warrants are not met for this location under any condition assessment analyzed above. 0 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Level of Service Analysis Table 1:LOS Signalized Intersections Beyond the initial warrant assessment above staff also LOS Signalized Intersections considered what effects signalization could have on delay for the driveway itself. This analysis was done to Control Delay per determine if signalization was to occur, and appropriate LOS Vehicle(s/veh) coordination was to occur between the adjacent major A < 10 intersection of LOUR, what effect on driveway delay s > 10-20 might occur. One argument being made by the c >20-35 proponents of the signal is that it can be installed and D >35-55 can be coordinated with LOUR without significant E >55-80 issues. This is not the case. Intersection level of service (LOS) is a function of delay and it is important to have an appropriate level of analysis in making conclusions regarding the reasonableness of signal coordination and side street delay. Table 1 depicts the LOS grade associated with the City's range of delay used in planning and operation reporting. Traditionally these delay values are estimated using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology; however the HCM states "The methodology does not take into account the potential impact of downstream congestion on intersection operation. Nor does the methodology detect and adjust for the impact of tum pocket overflows on through traffic and intersection operation." Therefore due to the close proximity of the Los Osos Valley Road/Madonna intersection this estimation methodology is not appropriate for a detailed operational level assessment for this intersection. In lieu of using this estimation methodology, City staff has calculated delay using a combination of manual field measurements and micro simulation. These calculations are based on existing roadway and driveway geometries for both un-signalized and signalized control of the driveway. Table 2 shows actual and forecast delays for the LVSC driveway approach under current and signalized control. It is important to note that the current delay calculations include the right tum movements from the driveway that will be substantially reduced if the driveway is aligned and widened. Currently under peak hour conditions Table 2: Delay Comparison the average control delay per vehicle AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY is approximately 22 seconds for the NO SIGNAL SIGNAL Madonna approach to LOVR and 21 MADONNA 1 22 Sec. 40 Sec. seconds for the LVSC driveway EV-SC DRIVEWAY 20 Sec. 1 68 Sec. exiting the center. If the LVSC is signalized and the City maintains the appropriate signal timing to serve the major movements at the intersection of LOVR, the average control delay per vehicle is projected to increase by approximately 55% to 40 seconds for Madonna Road and by 254% (68 seconds) for the LVSC driveway. It's important to note that these values represent an average of the entire peak hour, some individual driver delays were measured as high as 60-70 seconds. However, in order to meet the timing demands of the major intersection the coordinated cycle lengths of these two locations would need to be set near the 110 second cycle length as optimized by staff. If this timinq is implemented at a signal at the LVSC driveway, almost all of the existing driveway exiting traffic would experience greater delay and queuing even if available gaps in traffic •Page 6 P b _ ' J ATTACHMENT 3 along Madonna are occurring. This side street delay will partially be offset by gaps being created by a signal and allowing movement under control but still will result in significantly longer back ups into the shopping than what occur today. There will also likely be occurrences during the peak times of the shopping center when left tum vehicles may not be able to get out of the driveway in one cycle if the queues stack up far from the intersection. This will likely occur in peak seasons, like the holidays, when all commercial centers experience greater demand. Complicating this situation would be the potential reintroduction of pedestrian crossings at the location that require minimum clearance times to cross Madonna Road. These clearance times would make the coordination plans very difficult and may result in shorter pedestrian crossing times at LOVR, as well as pedestrian crossings at the driveway under a red signal when pedestrians perceive that gaps occur in traffic along Madonna. Because the signal in essence operated 24 hours a day, the intersection of Madonna/LOVR ends up with limited efficiencies for timing because coordination of the driveway signal would limit timing changes. Overall, when the two intersections are compared together, it is estimated that the two intersections operating together would diminish a full level of service in the E-F range with overall average control delays in excess of 80 seconds. Summary Although there is an unacceptable level of delay and a concern for safety for vehicles exiting the LVSC driveway, signalization is not the recommended solution.at this time. Of the eight warrants justifying consideration of signalization none are met, if the first improvement to the location driveway widening and relocation is completed. This recommendation is also supported by Level of Service analysis indicating that signalization would increase delay by 55% on Madonna and by 254% for the LVSC driveway. Staffs conclusion of these issues is that a signal is not warranted in this location at this time. Recommendations So what can be done to improve the driveway operations and safety? 1) To address the conflicts at the driveway, widening and relocation of the LVSC driveway to align with Pereira should occur prior to any signal controlled intersection implementation. 2) The City needs to work with LVSC to implement the driveway widening and relocation. This improvement is a valid first step prior to investing $200,000 in signalization, which given sound traffic engineering practice, is not appropriate at this location. 3) The City needs to work with LVSC and the Prefumo Creek Commons project to implement possible modifications at the intersection of LOVR/Madonna Road to optimize the capacity and signal timing such that green time may be reallocated to the Madonna approach. This improvement will allow for greater clearance of traffic in front of the driveway approach and assist in creating gaps along Madonna Road. 0 Page 7 B ( 4Y Y JATTACHMENT 3 4) The City needs to continue to support and pursue the connection of Froom Ranch Road between Dalidio and Los Osos Valley road to alleviate congestion along Madonna Road. 5) The City needs to determine if neighborhood access issues in the Pereira Drive and Oceanaire neighborhoods should be addressed at the same time final conclusion to this driveway access is undertaken. Determining driveway access control only addresses one access issue in the area when the City has received many others. 6) The City needs to asses widening along the SB Madonna approach to LOVR along the Fire Station driveway as part of the City's circulation element update in order to further improve safety and reduce congestion. 7) As a last alternative If these improvements do not significantly resolve the access issues, reconsider signalization of the driveway as part of follow up assessments. Attachments Attachment A:Traffic Counts Attachment B: Warrant Analysis—Condition A Attachment C:Warrant Analysis—Condition B Attachment D: Micro Simulation Analysis Results 0 Page 8 �� 9 � 'ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT A City Traffic Counters 626.256.4171 File Name : PerMad Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 2/13/2008 Page No : 1 Groups Printed-1-Unshifted Pereira or Madonna Rd Pereira or Madonna Rd Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound W N- E- A Int. Start Time Left Thru Right leg Left Thru Right leg Left Thio Right leg Left Thru Right Total Peds Peds Peds Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -1.0 10 10 10 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM 4 1 1 0 1 25 8 0 0 0 2 1 0 70 1 0 114 07:15 AM 7 0 2 0 1 38 3 0 4 0 2 0 0 101 0 0 158 07:30 AM 10 0 3 1 2 62 7 0 2 1 11 0 0 170 4 2 275 07:45 AM 9 0 7 0 9 129 5 1 2 0 6 2 3 236 2 0 411 Total 30 1 13 1 13 .254 23 1 8 1 21 3 3 577 7 2 958 08:00 AM 9 1 4 2 6 128 9 2 40 2 0 2 230 8 1 408 08:15 AM 8 1 11 1 3 85 12 0 1 1 6 0 1 141 1 0 272 08:30 AM 13 0 9 3 3 72 14 0 1 0 6 1 0 155 3 0 280 08:45 AM 14 0 12 0 2 76 13 2 2 2 8 0 1 199 5 0 336 Total 44 2 36 6 14 361 48 41 8 3 22 1 4 725 17 1 1296 04:00 PM 18 4 24 0 15 201 36 0 1 0 6 2 2 160 7 1 477 04:15 PM 24 3 22 0 4 218 47 0 4 3 5 0 5 186 8 0 529 04:30 PM 18 5 19 1 9 229 50 2 2 1 5 3 3 182 5 0 534 04:45 PM 24 2 19 0 6 212, 37 4 0 1 4 2 7 197 6 0 521 Total 84 14 84 1 34 860 170 6 7 5 20 7 17 725 26 1 2061 05:00 PM 14 3 29 0 5 216 52 0 3 1 4 3 3 219 8 0 560 05:15 P M 21 6 24 2 7 254 51 1 2 1 1 0 0 182 5 0 557 05:30 PM 16 2 26 1 7 215 40 0 0 2 11 2 6 174 5 1 508 05:45 PM 26 5 21 0 9 226 38 0 2 0 5 0 4 186 5 0 527 Total 77 16 100 3 28 911 181 1 7 4 21 5 13 761 23 1 2152 Grand Total 235 33 233 11 89 2386 422 12 30 13 84 16 37 2788 73 5 6467 Apprch% 45.9 6.4 45.5 2.1 3.1 82.0 14.5 0.4 21.0 9.1 58.7 11.2 1.3 96.0 2.5 0.2 Total% 3.6 0.5 3.6 0.2 1.4 36.9 6.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.6 43.1 1.1 0.1 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT B GcNoVr.*A A- CWAL6+& ' 09X"WA*( C4M"PQftV"T Pi California MUTCD Page 4C-11 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Figure 4G101'(CA)..Trafirc.Signat Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 1 of 4) COUNTDATE 2.1131208 CALC SDA DATE A1811Zo09 01ST CO RTE PM CHK DATE MgiorSt MAMM4A Critical Approach Speed 4T mph MlnorSt LVSL PRsalEwA'( Critical Approach Speed 2S h mp Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic>64 kmlh(40 mph)......:. RURAL(R) In built up area of Isolated community of<10,000 population.......................❑ ❑ URBAN(U) WARRANT 1 -Eight Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO� (Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and B must be satisfied) Condition A-Minimum Vehicle Volume 106%SATISFIED YES ❑ NOX MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80%SATISFIED YES ❑ NO X (80%SHOWN IN BRACTS) U ® BRACKETS) R APPRp v d LANES 1 2 or More moo° w� ° Hour Both Approaches 500 350 600" 2 Major $treet (400) (280) (480) 36 8$g IIlo9 11332 `cil� wgMi orStrereett� (120) iso) 266091 iiz 44 82 IB2 193 14 . Condition B-Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100°1,SATISFIED YES ❑ NO X MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80%SATISFIED YES NO ❑ (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U ® U;More LANES APPROACH 1 2 moa ° Hour Both Approaches 750 525 90Maj Sptrreeettroa (600) (420) (72BSA IW7 18100 100 Hi 100 70 wino A t5 reef80) 475 3 6044' 97 1St 193 Combination of Conditions A&B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT CONDITION FULFILLED TWO CONDITIONS A. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME s SATISFIED 80% qND Yes ❑ No� B. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC J AND.AN ADEQUATE TRIAL OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD CAUSE LESS DELAY AND INCONVENIENCE TO TRAFFIC HAS FAILED Yes ❑ Nox TO SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. ( 3 Chapter 4C Traffic t Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Pert 4—FLghway Traffifficc Signals r )ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT B California MUTCD Page 4C-12 {FIiWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-101(CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 2 of 4) WARRANT 2-Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NOX Record hourly vehicular volumes for any four hours of an average day.r J at APPROACH LANES One More Aur Both Approaches-Major Street X 1111 l83t 1910 Higher Approach-Minor Street )( 11 , 4¢ 62 l9'L 1 -Ail plotted points fall above the curves In Figure 4C-1. (URBAN AREAS) Yes ❑ Nog L&All plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-2. (RURAL AREAS) Yes ❑ No Rr WARRANT 3-Peak Hour SATISFIED YES X NO ❑ (Part A or Part B must be satisfied) PART A SATISFIED YES ❑ NO fG (All parts 1,2,and 3 below must be satisfied for the same one hour,for any four consecutive 1S-minute periods) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach(one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane Yes ❑ No -- approach,or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach;AND 2,4, H e 2. The volume on the same minor street aroach(one direction only)equals or exceeds r2( No ❑ - 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 1ppp50 vph for two moving lanes;AND is S Yes l" 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for Intersections with Yes No [Ithree approaches. 2tto Jp►1 PART B SATISFIED YES NO ❑ 'o 2 or APPROACH LANES One More y Hour Both Approaches-Major Street x 1918 Higher Approach-Minor Street X The plotted point fails above the curve in Figure 4C-3. Yeso No ❑ DR,The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-4. Yes 0 No ❑ The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. I ) Y .I 1 Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Sigmis u j3� '�2 TTACHMENT ATTACHMENT B California MLTrCD Page 4C-13 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) R'gifre4c-.101(CA).Traffic Signal.Warrants WorkShbet(Shopt 3 of 4). WARRANT 4-.Pedestrian Volume (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) SATISFIED YES 0 NO El Part A(Parts,l ar 2 must be satisned) / / Hol6irs---> SATISFIED YES 0 NO El I Pedestrian Volume Any hour Z Igo Yes [:1 No ❑ ORany 4hours Z10o Yes 0 No ❑ [I IS Adequate Crossing Gaps AND<60 pplhr Yes 0 No 2. Pedestrian Volume Any hour Z;95 1 Yes 0 No No 01 &U9 Palo Crossing<I-2mis(4 ftfsec)I Yes [:I No [I I Part'B SATISFIED YES El NO 13 AND,The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street Is greater X9090 m(300 it) Yes 0 No [3 OR The proposed traffic signal will not restrict progressive traffic flow along the major street Yes ❑ No 0 WARRANT 5-School Crossing SATISFIED YES ❑ NO El (Parts A and B,or Part C Must Be S T atlSfied) Part A SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0 Gapffillnutes;and#of Children Hour Gaps hilinInss Children Using Crossing vs Minutes Number of Adequate Gaps Gaps<Minutes YES ❑ NO ❑ School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street f hr AND Children>20/hr YES ❑ NO ❑ AND,consideration has been given to less restrictive remedial measures. I Yes 10 No 0 Part B SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0 The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater a than So m(300 ft) Yes 0 No 0 OR,The Proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Yes 0 No ❑ Part C(All Parts 1,2,and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED YES 0 NO [I U R,,7- 1. Vehicles/hr -Soo $50 Yes 0 No 0 AND School Age Pedestrians CrcWjI1jg Street r I Yes [J No [3 . 002 I OR School Age Pedestrians CroSsifig Street/ Y 500 1 35D I I Yes 0 No ❑ When the critical(85thercentile approach Speed exceeds 55 km/h(35 mgh)or the sight distance to the Intersection Is less than required stopping distance.rural criteria should e used. 2. Other signal warrants are met. I Yes [] No ❑ 3. The distance to the neaTeStConlrdled Crossing isgreater than 18o m(600 ft). Yes 0 No E] "llp The satisfaction.of a traffic Signal warrantor not in itself require the Insta liat[On Of a traffic 00 1 signal. ..ntro Chapter 4C-Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part4-lfighwayTraffic Signals 13L c31 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT B California MUTCD Page 4C-14 (F'13WA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-101(C4). Trac Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 4 of 4) WARRANT 6-Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (All Parts Must Be SatiSfed) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL, >_300 in(1000 ft) N ft, S 350 ft, E ft, W It Yes❑ NOX On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction,the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning.two-way — Yes[INo� Q6 On a o-way street,adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platoonmg and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation WARRANT 7-Crash Experience Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO� (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash Frequency. Yes❑ No� REQUIREMENTS Number of crashes within a 12 month period susceptible to correction by a traffic signal,and involving injury or Yes❑ No� ----- damage exceeding the requirements for a reportable crash. ----------- ---------------------------------- 5 OR MORE 3 REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONS Warrant 1,Condition A Minimum Vehicular Volume_ ONE CONDITION DR,Warrant 1,Condition B- SATISFIED 80% Interruption of continuous traffic Yes❑.No❑ Q@,Warrant 4,Pedestrian Volume Condition Ped Vol>152 for any hour Qg,Ped-Vol>80 for any 4 hours WARRANTS-Roadway Network SATISFIED YES ❑ NO� (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES REQUIREMENTS / FULFILLED During Typical Weekday Peak Hour 301Veh/Hr and has 5-year projected traffic volumes that meet one or more 10DO Veh/Hr of Warrants 1,2,and 3 during an average weekday. -------------- —— OR —— �l lewE4— --- --— Yes❑ Non During Each of Any 5 Hrs.of a Sat.and/or S8n Veh/Hr CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES ROWMAJOR ROI�JTE a i Hwy.System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic YE a, _ _N0__ Ruralor -------- ---------- V Suburban_Highway Outside Of,Entering,or Traversing a_City _l E_5 _ _ND— Appears as Major Route on an Official Pian YES NO 7 Any Major Route Characteristics Met,Both Streets Yes❑ No i The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal- 1 1 Chapter 4C-Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part 4-Highway Traffic Signals - - - - - - - a� ay ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT C Cowper t3— Lu SG DPs�tEwaY Wsp6,►tiurt,t California MUTCD Page 40-11 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Rguie 4C401(CA). TrafricSignal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet t of d) COUNT DATE 2t13I2OoA CALC SDk1 DATE-41;5112"A DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major St MgCouNA Critical Approach Speed mph Minor St LU SL DRILLE corn Critical Approach Speed mph Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic>64 k Vh(40 mph)........ 6'1 RURAL(R) In built up area of Isolated community of<10,000 population.......................❑ I ❑ URBAN(U) WARRANT 1 -Eight Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO;lr (Condition A or Condition 8 or combination of A and B must be satisfied) Condition A-Minimum Vehicle Volume 100%SATISFIED YES ❑ NO J� MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80%SATISFIED YES ❑ NO X (80%SHOWNIN BRACKETS) U ® U ® �• APPROACH 11iNES 1 2 or More nti� �� �y.. X08 Hour B MaAor s B9 (40D) (2350 60D(48000) SS=I 1169 1832 t HlgMficr.Sfree el' (azo �0 lien) i Sl 4(, 98 95 44 Condition B-Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100%SATISFIED YES ❑ N09 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80%SATISFIED YES ❑ NOO (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) APPROACH LANES 1 2 or More „�° � h Hour Bath Approaches 750 525 800 FAa' .Street (600) (420) 7201004 asillivillwdigid H 75 1 53 MMinorAStreetch1 (80) 1 (42 ('8000) 4(o JcI8 % a Combination of Conditions A 8 B SATISFIED YES ❑ NOR( i REQUIREMENT CONDITION V FULFILLED j A. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME TWO CONDITIONS Yes El No� SATISFIED 80% AND, B. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC J AMD,AN ADEQUATE TRIAL OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD �( 1 CAUSE LESS DELAYAND INCONVENIENCE TO TRAFFIC HAS FAILED Yes E3No J`'` TO SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS y The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. 1 i Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 j Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals ) w �� �r) K ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT C California MUTCD Page 4C-12 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-101(CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 2 of 4) WARRANT 2-Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NOG( Record hourly vehicular volumes for any four hours of an average day.v APPROACH LANES One Mae 4 d y$Hour Both Approaches-Major Straet )( 1I I tudl I t Z l9i Hoar Approach-Minor Street X 11 141, 199 19Sd *All plotted points fail above the curves In Figure 4C-1. (URBAN AREAS) Yes ❑ No Q3,All plotted points fag above the curves In Figure 4C-2. (RURALAREAS) Yes ❑ No WARRANT 3-Peak Hour SATISFIED YES ❑ NOX (Part A or Part B must be satisfied) PARTA SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Ja' (Ali parts 1,2,and 3 below must be satisfied for the same one hour,for any four consecutive 15-minute periods) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach(one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehide-hours for a one-lane Yes ❑ No - approach,or five vehide-hours for a two-lane approach;AND Z, ppg 2. The volume on the same minor street approach(one direction only)equals or exceeds Yes ❑ No -- 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;AND 98 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with Yes X No ❑ three approaches. '4042 PART yr SATISFIED YES ❑ NO � Q I. APPROACH LANES One More y Hour Both Approaches-Major Street X l9r Higher Approach-Minor Street )( c9 s I The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-3. Yes ' =o Q13,The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 46-4. Yes ❑ No l The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself requirethe installation of a traffic control signal. 1 i i v Chapter 4C-Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part 4-Highway Traffic Signals ij 1 r _) i TTA HMENT 3 ATTACHMENT C California MUTCD Page 40-13 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision i,as amended for use in California) R,wre4c-foiMA).ftfflt<SIP81 Waffat4PWdrftheet(84eet3oM WARRANT'4 Pedeserlen-Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ No p (AO Parts NhtSt it sat+biled) Pan A(Parts 1 ort must'bhb satlsRed) Hrwrs---> SATISFIED YES [3NO [31. Pedestrian Volume Any hour_>190 Yes 0 No ❑ ORany 4no==100 Yes ❑ No 0 Is Adequate Crossing� ANp�60 gapmr Yes ❑ No ❑ 2 Redestrian Vofuhhte Any hWtr_>95 Yes; NO S26 4,hours.�.50 Xes.❑ _N002 ElANQ ped aosNn <1.2rft 14 W50 Yes 13 Pan B SATISFIED YS$ ❑ NO ❑ z ND The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major sheet Is greater than m(300 tit) Yes ❑ No ❑ OR,The proposed traffic signal will not restrictprogressive traffic now along the major street .Yes ❑ No ❑ WARRANTS-School Crossing SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ (Parts A and%or Pan C Must Be Satisfied) PanA SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ Gaptfninutes and 8 of Children Hour Gaps Minutes"dren Using Crossing Mtnuiea Num bar ctAdequate Gaps<Minutes YES ❑ NO ❑ .5 School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street/hr AM Children>20/hr YES ❑ NO ❑ -A AND.Consideration has been given to less reslricNve remedial measures. Yes ❑ NO ❑ Pan B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ o tThhareh 9000 ftjre nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes ❑ No ❑ Qom,The proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of trade. Yes ❑ No ❑ Part C(Alt Pan Parts 1,2,and s below must be satisfied) SATISFIED YES ❑ NO [3 a U h. VPMdesRtr 500 350 Yes ❑ No ❑ ZAND School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street/hr 100 70 Yes ❑ No ❑ O$,School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street!day Soo 350 Yes ❑ No ❑ 'Ytmen the critical(85th percentile approach speed exceeds 55 km/h(35 mph)or the sight distance to the Intersection is lass start the required stopping distance,rural cflteria should be used. 2 Other s>gthal warrants are met Yes (] No [J3. The distance to the nearest controlled crossing is greater than 180 m(600 ft). Yes ❑ No E3Toa satisl8ctiorh of a t[af8c stgnal.vmrrantor wamanissball.not In ItmW.require the installation of a iremc rrcrltrol signal. Chapter 4C—Tmffic Control Signal Needs Studies Pact 4—Highway Traffic Signals September 26,2006 - - 13L-c ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT C California=CD Page 4C-14 (FHWA's MLTCCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in Califamia) Figure 4C-101(M. 7Yaiirrc Signa/Waffants Worksheet(Sheet 4 of 4) WARRANT 6-Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED YES p NO� (All Parts Must SO Satisfied) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL >300 m(1000 ft) N n S-155-0 tt, it—ft, W ft Yea[3 Non On a one-way sheet or a street that has traffic predominantly In one direction,the adjacent bafc control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehlalarplatooning_————_ QB a yy street,ad;acent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary Yes No degree of pia�otttng end the proposed and adjacent traffic oon l signals win cotiedrvely Provide a progressive operation. WARRANT Parts M77--Crash Experience Warrant SATISFIED YES p No retl�uceuate the�h fre�vessflwith satisfactory observance and enforcement tiecy, s failed to Yes❑ No REQUIREMENTS Number of crashes within a 12 month period susceptible to correction by a traffic signal,and Involving Injurryy or Yes[:3N ------------ danmge exceeding the requirements for a repottaWe crash. 09 ------------------ ---------==- 5 OR MORE .3 REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONS Warrant 1,Condition A- Minimum Vehicular Volume ONE CONDITION interruption Warrant 1,Condition B- SATISFIED 80% of continuous traffic Yes❑ No❑ Carrant 4,Pedestrian Volume Condition Warrant 152 forany hour QS Ped VW>80 for any 4 tours WARRANT 8-Roadway Network SATISFIED YES ❑ NO� (All Parts.Must So Satisfied) M VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES-ALLAPPROACHE3 REQUIREMENTS LFULFILLEDDuring 1Y lral Weekday Peak Hour 04VewHr andhas 5 year projected traffic volumes at mee one or more 1000 Veh(Hr of Warrants 1,2,and 3 during an average weekday.OR t LouRsR During Each ofAny 5 Hrs.Of a Sat and/or Stm Veh"CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR MAJO ROUTEA ROUTES Hwy.System Serving as Principal Network for Through TrafficYEg F10 Rural or --------- —v--- -- Suburban Higtrvray Outside Of,Enter nj,,or Traversinn Appears as Major Route on an Official Pian Y es NO — Any Major Route Characteristics Met,Both Sheets Yes❑ No The satisfaonon of a traffic signal warrant or warrant shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. E g 9 (Impar 4C-Traffic Contra)Signal Needs Studies Part 4-Highway Tmflic Signals September26,2006 I - - T3 L-a&.rage I/ — — A ��iLLd��; �Tx ATTACHMENT D MICRO SIMULATION DELAY ANALYSIS-DRIVEWAY UNSIGNALIZED SimTraffic Performance Report Zone 5 812412009 11: Madonna Rd &Los Osos Valley Rd Performance by approach Approach - EB WB NB SB All Total Delay(hr) 0.5 0.9 1.6 1.1 4.1 Delay/Veh(s) 45.9 20.2 26.4 30.9 27.1 Slop Delay(hr) 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.9 3.1 St DeWeh(s) 41.4 16.8 17.9 23.0 20.5 Total Stops 35 107 134 92 368 Stop/Veh 0.88 0.65 0.63 0.69 0.67 Travel Dist(mi) 3.3 11.6 64.6 23.3 102.9 Travel Time(hr) 0.6 1.3 3.2 1.8 6.9 Avg Speed(mph) 5 9 20 13 15 Fuel Used(gal) 2.3 5.2 26.3 11.3 45.0 Fuel Eff.(mpg) 1.4 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.3 HC Emissions(g) 0 0 2 1 4 CO Emissions(g) 93 171 1276 637 2176 NOx Emissions(g) 1 1 9 5 16 Vehicles Entered 39 163 223 142 567 Vehicles Exited 41 165 204 126 536 Hourly Exit Rate 246 990 1224 756 3216 Input Volume 225 1009 1356 950 3540 %of Volume 109 98 90 80 91 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 Density(fUveh) 238 193 367 319 310 Occupancy(veh) 4 8 19 11 41 San Luis Obispo SimTraffic Report Page 52�j f3 � � A=11ME; T 3 ATTACHMENT D MICRO SIMULATION DELAY ANALYSIS-DRIVEWAY UNSIGNALIZED SimTraffic Performance Report Zone 5 8/24/2009 38: Madonna Rd & Driveway Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All - - - -- - - Total Delay(hr) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 Delay IVeh(s) 1.6 1.5 10.1 19.2 2.9 Stop Delay(hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 St DelNeh(s) 0.2 0.2 9.2 17.8 1.5 Total Stops 0 2 7 23 32 StopNeh 0.00 0.01 1.00 1.10 0.10 Travel Dist(mi) 8.9 8.0 0.5 2.1 19.4 Travel Time(hr) 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.9 Avg Speed(mph) 23 26 11 11 21 Fuel Used(gal) 7.8 2.3 0.2 0.7 10.9 Fuel Eft.(mpg) 1.1 3.5 2.7 2.8 1.8 HC Emissions(g) 1 0 0 0 2 CO Emissions(g) 722 138 3 25 887 NOx Emissions(g) 4 1 0 0 6 Vehicles Entered 114 187 7 24 332 Vehicles E)dted 115 189 7 19 330 Hourly E1dt Rate 690 1134 42 114 1980 Input Volume 804 1128 25 184 2141 %of Volume 86 101 168 62 92 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 Density(fUveh) 371 335 402 411 Occupancy(veh) 2 2 0 1 6 San Luis Obispo SimTraffic Report Page 13 C5(c;,-3� ATTA�x: ETI�TT ATTACHMENT D MICRO SIMULATION DELAY ANALYSIS-DRIVEWAY SIGNALIZED SimTraffic Performance Report Zone 5 6/2412009 11: Madonna Rd & Los Osos Valley Rd Performance by approach Approach EB WS NB SB All Total Delay(hr) 0.5 1.3 1.6 1.7 5.1 Delay/Veh(s) 45.9 30.5 27.7 37.6 32.5 Stop Delay(hr) 0.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 4.0 St DelNeh(s) 40.8 25.8 20.3 28.8 25.6 Total Stops 31 94 125 116 366 Stop/Veh 0.82 0.61 0.59 0.72 0.65 Travel Dist(mi) 3.2 11.0 63.8 26.9 104.9 Travel Time(hr) 0.6 1.7 3.2 2.4 7.9 Avg Speed(mph) 5 6 20 11 13 Fuel Used(gal) 2.4 6.8 26.4 13.2 48.8 Fuel E6.(mpg) 1.3 1.6 2.4 2.0 2.1 HC Emissions(g) 0 1 2 2 5 CO Emissions(g) 93 271 1293 700 2357 NOx Emissions(g) 1 2 9 6 18 Vehicles Entered 38 156 211 163 568 Vehides Exited 38 153 214 161 566 Hourly Exit Rate 228 918 1284 966 3396 Input Volume 225 1009 1356 950 3540 %of Volume 101 91 95 102 96 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 Density(fVveh) 247 152 362 234 269 Occupancy(veh) 4 10 19 14 47 San Luis Obispo SimTraffic Report Page 5 3 (o - 3 ( ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT D MICRO SIMULATION DELAY ANALYSIS-DRIVEWAY SIGNALIZED SimTraffic Performance Report Zone 5 8124/2009 38: Madonna Rd & Driveway Performance by approach Approach ES WB NB SB All Total Delay(hr) 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.4 Delay/Veh(s) 4.4 9.4 29.3 68.0 14.3 Stop Delay(hr) 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.7 1.1 Sl DelNeh(s) 1.6 6.6 28.8 63.0 11.3 Total Stas 25 62 2 42 131 StopNeh 0.18 0.36 1.00 1.05 0.38 Travel Dist(mi) 10.4 7.2 0.1 3.6 21.4 Travel Time(hr) 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.9 2.1 Avg Speed(mph) 19 12 6 4 10 Fuel Used(gal) 8.0 2.6 0.1 3.1 13.8 Fuel Eff.(mpg) 1.3 2.7 1.8 1.2 1.6 HC Emissions(g) 1 0 0 1 2 CO Emissions(g) 594 78 1 142 815 NOx Emissions(g) 3 1 0 1 5 Vehides Entered 136 172 2 41 351 Vehicles Exited 137 168 2 39 346 Hourly Exit Rate 822 1008 12 234 2076 Input Volume 804 1128 25 184 2141 %of Volume 102 89 48 127 97 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 Density(f/veh) 256 165 87 181 Occupancy(veh) 3 4 0 5 13 San Luis Obispo SimTraffic Report Page 13 0 L -- 3 lr�- ATTACHMENT 4 R.POLTL AND ASSOCIATES INC. SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT LEASING AND MANAGEMENT April 29,2008 Mr. Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officer City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93041 Mr. Jay Walter,Director of Public Works City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Mr. John Mandeville,Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93041 Re: Traffic and Access Concerns Laguna Village Shopping Center Madonna Rd.@ Los Osos Valley Rd. San Luis Obispo,CA Dear Sirs: I've attached an aerial photo of Laguna Village Shopping Center for your reference. I manage Laguna Village Shopping Center(LVSC). The owners,Knstie and Rudy Molina,have asked me to open discussions with the City of San Luis Obispo and pursue .a resolution regarding traffic and access problems that have had a significant negative effect on this shopping center recently. These new traffic and access problems at LVSC are a result of the significant increase in automobile traffic at the intersection of Madonna Rd.and Los Osos Valley Rd.caused primarily by development of the Home Depot/Costco/Irish Hills Shopping Center. Additionally,we understand that yet another high volume shopping center(the"gap property'l,across the street from Irish Hills Shopping Center(on the north side of Los Osos Valley Rd.)is now working its way through the City's review process.This new shopping center will,undoubtedly,add to the automobile traffic volume and automobile access problems that surround LVSC. As noted below,part of the City's solution in addressing the increased traffic volume at this intersection over the past year has been to prohibit certain automobile turning movements j into LVSC and to give our customers traffic tickets for not noticing the new prohibitions. The increase in the volume of traffic has also made it much more difficult for our customers to tum left when leaving LVSC onto Madonna Rd. and it has made neighborhood access and turning movements into and out of Periera Drive(a t i o-mal-nn Iily[o�tpold.com j Tele-805/781-9100 Fax:8051781-9101 eB/� —3 3 ;{ 1328 Madocma Road,San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 f� L • P ATTACHMENT_ 4 - Ken Hampian,Jay Walter,John Mandeville,City of San Luis Obispo Re: Access to Laguna Village Shopping Center Tuesday,April 29,2008 Page 2 of 6 neighborhood feeder street that is located directly across Madonna Rd from our driveway)very dangerous.The cumulative result of these traffic problems is that Laguna Village Shopping Center's economic viability and the Periera Drive neighborhood access are being strangled by problems that we did not create. LVSC is a"neighborhood" shopping center that neighbors can no longer access conveniently as a result of traffic mitigation measures recently imposed To remain economically viable and competitive, our customers and merchants need safe access into and out of our shopping center. Our major anchor tenants(Longs Drags and Albertson)are suffering as a result of these new traffic/access problems. Our needs are immediate and significant. PRIMARY SOLUTION:NEW MADONNA RD.TRAFFIC LIGHT• To resolve these Madonna Rd access problems into and out of our shopping center and the Periera Drive neighborhood,we propose that the City(and/or new proposed shopping centers,as part of their traffic mitigation/EIR process)pay.for the design and installation of a new traffic light to be located on Madonna Rd.at Periera Drive.The owners of LVSC have agreed to pay for the on-site design and relocation of their Madonna.Rd driveway so that it will line up properly with this new traffic light and Periera Drive across the street. The new traffic light would obviously have to be sequenced and timed to work in conjunction with the light on Madonna Rd&LOVR. SECONDARY SOLUTIONS:WIDEN TWO (2)ENTERY/=DRIVEWAYS: We propose that the Landlord shall, at Landlord's expense, design and construct improvements to increase the width of the Madonna.Rd eotrY/exit(near Longs)and the LOUR entry/exit(near Burger King)because both drivevhys are currently only two(2) lanes wide(one(1)entry and one(1)exit lane).The new improvements will provide three(3)lanes of traffic:one(1)entry lane and two(2)exit lanes—one(1) for turning right and one(1)for turning left These additional exit lanes will make exiting this center a little easier and a little faster for our customers. LANDLORD'S DIRECTIVES: The owners of Laguna Village Shopping Center(LVSC)have directed me to do the following: 1. Hire a transportation engineer and architect(and an attorney,if needed). We have hired,Richard Pool,of Associated Transportation Engineers(ATE),and Paul Poirier,Architect 2. Devise a solution to this traffic problem that has been created on Madonna Rd 3. Work with the City staff and present solutions to the City staff 4. Expedite the execution of the solutions to solve the problems immediately. n 4 !i ii 3 _ ATTACHMENT Ken Hampian,Jay Walter,John Mandeville,City of San Luis Obispo Re: Access to Laguna Village Shopping Center Tuesday,April 29,2008 Page 3 of b 5. If necessary,work with our merchants and customers to petition the City with their concerns regarding LVSC access,police ticketing,and endorsement of solutions. INITIAL MEETING WITH CITY REPRESENTATIVES: To begin our dialogue with the City,we met yesterday,Monday April 28,2008,with the following people: Mr.Tim Bochum,City Deputy Director of Public Works/Transportation and Development Review Mr.Jake Hudson,City Traffic Engineer Dick Pool,Associated Transportation Engineers Paul.Poirier and Katie Corliss,Poirier+David Architects Kristie Molina,Owner of Laguna Village Shopping Center Julie Galvin,R. PoItI And Associates, Shopping Center Management Atthis meeting,we explained our concerns and the background of these problems(as set forth below).We reviewed site plans and aerial photos.Tim Bochum explained the City's approach to identifying and solving traffic problems at major intersections within the City,and he and Jake Hudson were very informative,willing to listen to our concerns and ideas, and they were very knowledgeable regarding traffic issues. We understand,of course,that Tim and Jake cannot make any representations on behalf of the City regarding our request that the City construct the subject traffic light without going through proper City channels of discussion,review and approval. After meeting for some time in my office(in Laguna Village Shopping Center),we then walked the entire perimeter of LVSC to visualize and discuss the problems,ideas,and potential solutions. NEXT STEPS: At the conclusion of our meeting,Kristie Molina,the owner of Laguna Pillage Shopping Center,agreed to hire the architect(Paul Poirier)and the Traffic Engineer(Dick Poole/ATE),at her expense,to perform the following tasks: 1. Dick Poole will setup traffic counts at the access driveways of the LVSC this Thursday and Friday—May ls`and May 2"a. These car counts will be helpful in engineering the design to widen two of our entry/exit driveways. y T3 �-3S ATTACHMENT Ken Hampian,Jay Walter,John Mandeville,City of San Luis Obispo Re: Access to Laguna Village Shopping Center Tuesday,April 290 2008 Page 4 of 6 2. Paul Poirier will prepare the following preliminary drawings: a. Madonna Rd.Entry/Driveway(near Longs): is Move this driveway slightly to the south so that it lines up with Periera Drive(the residential feeder street directly across Madonna Rd. from our entrance), and possibly show a bulb-out on Madonna Rd. for right tum lane into LVSC(which is currently striped as a bulb-out),and apossible pedestrian cross-walk(even though it may be too difficult to include a pedestrian crossing in the new traffic light design because it eats up too much time during the lighting sequencing). iL Widen this driveway throat to three(3) lanes wide(one entry drive and two exit drives). uL Revise interior shopping center parking lot plan to accommodate moving the Madonna Rd. access driveway so that it will line up with Periera Drive across Madonna Rd,as will be required for the new traffic light. b. Los Osos Valley Rd.(LOVR)Entry/Driveway(near Burger King): L Widen this driveway throat to three(3)lanes wide(one entry drive and two exit drives). 3. Dick Poole will prepare a schematic drawing of our requested new intersection/traffic light at Madonna Rd @ Periera Drive that will also show our new proposed on-site driveway relocation(plans to be prepared by Paul Poirier, architect)that will be one leg of this new traffic light. BACKGROUND: We did not oppose the recent development and construction of the new shopping centers (Home Depot,Costco,and Irish Hills Shopping Center)•near our site. We assumed that you,the City of San Luis Obispo,would have adequately addressed appropriate traffic mitigation and street improvements that would be required due to the significant automobile traffic these projects generate—per traffic studies that I'm sure were required of these developments.Unfortunately,you did not foresee and/or adequately address the resulting traffic and access problems these new developments would create for our shopping center. Furthermore,we do not intend to oppose the proposed new development of the"gap"shopping center on the north side of LOUR,however we do r expect the City to include,as part of their EIR process,a new traffic study that addresses and resolves problems at(1)Madonna Rd @ Periera Drive intersection(the installation of a traffic light),and(2)Madonna Rd. @ LOVR intersection(and the need for a long- ' i 4 J _ ATTACHMENT 4 Ken Hampian,Jay Walter,John Mandeville,City of San.Luis Obispo Re: Access to Laguna.Village Shopping Center Tuesday,April 299 2008 Page 5 of 6 term solution/redesign of this intersection with a new traffic light system,a round about, or some other long-term solution to resolve queuing and stacking problems). In particular,the southbound stacking lanes on Madonna Rd.at the light of Los Osos Valley Rd. (LOVR)—the comer of our shopping center. To solve the problem after the fact,you eventually installed a second left-hand turn lane from southbound Madonna Rd. onto eastbound LOUR and you restriped that section Madonna Rd. from LOVR to our main driveway entrmce/exit on Madonna Rd. Then you realized that this new restriping was now causing problems/conflicts between your new stacking lanes and our customers that were turning left from Madonna Rd.into our shopping center. So,after realizing that you have created the turning movement conflict with our customers,you then chose to forbid our customers from turning left from.Madonna Rd. °'into"our shopping center by painting double lines in Madonna Rd. (no left turns). And then,when our customers ignored your striping, you installed more"no left turn"signs and you stationed a SLO Policeman in our shopping center to hand out traffic violation tickets when our customers failed to see your"no left tum"signs and turned"into"the shopping by crossing the double line. Now,we hear that the City is considering installing a raised median in the middle of Madonna Rd that would fiuther restrict traffic by ending left turns"out"of our shopping center onto Madonna Rd. The manager at Longs Drugs informed us some time ago that they submitted a written complaint to the City and the Albertson's manager has asked us repeatedly to resolve this very important problem Furthermore,as you can imagine,our merchants have received many,many complaints from customers who have been targeted/ticketed by the SLO Police,who wait in our shopping center to hand out tickets. As a result of the traffic generated by these new shopping centers and your makeshift solutions,it is no longer possible for our customers to come out of our shopping,at either enhance and make a.-safe left-hand.turn during rush hour. It is also impossible for our customers who live cross Madonna Rd.to simply drive out of our driveway and go directly across the street to enter their neighborhood on Periera Drive.These Periera Drive neighbors from across the street and our other customers who want to go north on Madonna Rd.,now have We=west-bound on LOVR and then drive through the neighborhood to get back over to the intersection of Madonna Rd.Qa Oceanaire Drive near Laguna Lake/Madonna Rd.shopping center area. And,as noted above,it is impossible for customers to enter our shopping center when travelling northbound on Madonna Rd. The effect of your actions to date are that you have allowed the new shoppl,centers near us (Costco,Home Depot,Irish Hills Shopping Center and soon a third(3 shopping center the north side of LOVR)to be developed with excellent points of access into and out of their shopping center(traffic lights),while at the same time you restrict and eliminate access to our shopping center. You are giving these new shopping centers(big box tenants)an additional significant advantage by limiting customer access to our shopping center and creating physical and psychological barriers to our shopping 4 y i ATTACHMENT 4 Ken Hampian,Jay Walter,John Mandeville,City of San Luis Obispo Re: Access to Laguna Village Shopping Center Tuesday,April 29,2008 Page 6 of 6 center. I'm hopeful that you appreciate our concerns and you will work with us, in a timely manner,to correct these problems.The owners of Laguna Village Shopping Center have directed me to write this letter to you,to share their grave concern and to explain that your actions are having a severe negative effect on the commercial viability of their shopping center. You are cutting off their shopping center from their neighborhood customer base by creating barriers to and from this shopping center. We successfully turned this shopping center around in the late 1990's. It was 30%vacant when we took it over in 1996. We have taken great pride in bringing in a successful tenant-mix and upgrading our building architecture. We are thankful for the community's support.and-for the architectural/beautification certificates that have been awarded.to us.We hope to continue to keep this shopping center vibrant in the future, even in the face of severe competition,by continuing to update our tenant-mix, as tenants leave,and by investing in fiuther improvements to our landscaping and building architecture.However,easy and reasonable access to and from our shopping center by our customers is the most critical and basic requirement for the continued success of our shopping center. Our customers are complaining about these new restrictions imposed by the City that have closed certain access points into our shopping center. This is becoming a very negative long-term problem for our customers and therefore,for our merchants. Our customers will eventually find a way to shop elsewhere—where it is easier. I am hopeful that our meeting yesterday was the beginning of a process and working relationship with the City that will solve these traffic problems. We look forward to working with you. Feel free to call me at any time to discuss our concerns. Sincerely, R POLTL AND ASSOCIATES,INC. �v "� Randall P.FOlt, f Property Manager u Laguna Village Shopping Center u Cell: 805/441-0777 y cc. Kdstie and Rudy Molina, Owners of Laguna Village Shopping Center Julie Galvin,R Pohl And Associates,Inc. ✓ lin Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works,City of San Luis Obispo Jake Hudson,Traffic Engineer,City of San Luis Obispo Paul Poirier and Katie Corliss,Poirier+David Architects Dick Poole,Associated Transportation Engineers Jasper Cardinale,Store Manager,Albertson's Stephanie Moore,Store Manager,Longs Drugs `� � -33 Fa VT �m ��7,I,pi 0� -7, 74.VM11 l­Iwvi,-IlI-­. 7(DI Y7 Ax S wE N' 14 5v Mm .4 a", i-. .. Ire, i.....I...... eo P7; tlL V 31. 1_7 IN ... ... (. ATTACHMENT �T City Of san tuis OBIS PO Public Works Department • 919 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 June 12, 2008 Randy Pold R. Pold and Associates, Inc. 1328 Madonna Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Subject: Laguna Village Shopping Center Traffic Issues Dear Mr. Poltl: Your letter dated April 29, 2008 was forwarded to me for review and response. Thank you for talking the time to express your concerns and suggestions regarding traffic operations and safety along the Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road corridors. You are correct that the traffic volumes at the intersection of Madonna/Los Osos Valley Road have been increasing for quite some time and that recent development along the Los Osos Valley Road corridor has changed traffic patterns in the area. The City, along with private development along Los Osos Valley Road, have implemented a number of traffic control changes near the intersection to help mitigate these traffic changes. As Tim Bochum and Jake Hudson discussed in the meeting with you on April 28, 2008, Madonna Road near the Laguna Village Shopping Center (LVSC) driveway and Pereira Street has been problematic in the past and has risen to the top of our Annual Traffic Safety Report prioritization system on a number of occasions. The change to turning access by the City near the driveway was installed to attempt to mitigate the turn collision problems observed there and also to assist with operations at the intersection of Madonna Road/Los Osos Valley Road. Even with the left tum ingress restriction from Madonna Road, LVSC remains accessible from all directions. These changes were not anticipated to have'significant negative impacts to the center because redirected vehicles from this location still are able to use the three Los Osos Valley road driveways to access the site. The conversion of the middle left-through lane on westbound Madonna Road was identified as a mitigation measure associated with the Irish Hills development and was implemented to help mitigate the anticipated increase in turning movements of that project. You are correct that the City needed to place further restrictions at this location due to queuing and turn conflicts; however, the turning conflicts existed at this location even prior to the new developments along Los Osos Valley Road. Regarding the other issues and proposals in your letter, I offer the following comments for your consideration: OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ATTACHMENT �- Driveway Modifications You are correct that a good starting point to address the left turn.egress issue from the shopping center may be to redesign the exit lanes from the two major driveways out of the parking areas. These driveways, which currently have a single exit lane, have been observed backing up onto the site even before changes to Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road were made by the City. The widening and realignment of the driveway along Madonna Road will likely assist in vehicles exiting the center. Si-enalization of Madonna Road at LVSC Due to its close proximity to the intersection of Madonna/Los Osos Valley Road it is unlikely that the City would support signalization of this location as you have requested. The current driveway is within 380 feet of the adjacent intersection and this distance will likely be reduced when the driveway is realigned across from Pereira. Signalizing this location with its very short spacing to a major intersection could have significant negative effects at the intersection of Madonna/Los Osos Valley Road. This would be due to the reduction in efficiency of having to coordinate flows between the two intersections so close to each other. Currently the intersection of Madonna Road/Los Osos Valley Road needs to run independent of adjacent signals to handle traffic volumes in peak times. Environmental Review of the "Gap" Property You have requested that the environmental review of the "Gap" project (known as the Prefumo Commons project) include an assessment of the Madonna/Pereira and Madonna/Los Osos Valley Road locations. The current scope of work of the environmental review for the project includes assessment of the intersection of Madonna Road/Los Osos Valley Road. It is not known at this time if this project will have a project specific significant effect on the intersection that would exacerbate the turning movements from Madonna onto Los Osos Valley Road. However, it is likely that turning volumes will increase and that the restrictive measures put in place by the City will continue to be necessary at this location. We have forwarded your concerns and suggestions on to the lead consultant in charge of preparing the environmental review for the project so that they can consider them as part of their work.. Lome-Tenn Issues along Madonna and Los Osos Valley Road You are correct that a long term plan for Madonna Road and the intersection of Madonna/Los Osos Valley Road should be undertaken. This will be a significant planning effort since it will likely include not only LVSC and the adjacent neighborhoods, but also need to extend along Madonna Road to the intersection of Oceanaire (and maybe further). The ultimate configuration of the intersection of Madonna/Los Osos Valley Road will need to be determined and issues such as Pereira Drive and Oceanaire Drive at Madonna will also likely need to be reviewed. The current Circulation Element of the City did not recommend significant changes along Madonna Road or at Madonna/Los Osos Valley Road even though it did anticipate significant changes to traffic. Since this location is significant in the performance of the City's transportation system, I anticipate that it will need significant focus as part of the Circulation Element update process. - ATTACHMENT We anticipate that the Council will consider funding an update to the Circulation Element as part of the upcoming two-year Financial Planning process which should begin in fall of this year. If funded, we expect that review of potentially deficient corridors such as Madonna Road in the vicinity of LVSC will be undertaken as part of that process. Where to from Here? Tim Bochum has informed me that your consultants are currently working on preparing conceptual layouts for the driveway modifications that you are proposing. As stated previously, I believe that to be a good starting point for LVSC to address queuing from the major driveways of the center. City staff will be ready to assist you through the planning and encroachment permit process when you are ready to submit proposed improvement plans for review. You may want to schedule an additional follow-up meeting with Mr. Bochum, his staff and the planners when you want to submit formal plans for consideration. We will await your submittals regarding the driveway redesigns and review them for implementation when you are ready. Again, thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. If you have any other questions or concerns feel free to contact me at the information below. Sincerely, Ja 11alter Di` or of Public Works `\Ci of San Luis Obispo Phone 805.781.7200 Email jwalter@slocity.org cc : City Council K. Hampian S. Stanwyck T. Bochum J. Hudson G:1Administrative\CorrespondencelCitizensW-R\Poltl,Rand)ARepsonse5-I Cr08.doc t `qf L Page 1 of.1 Council,SloCity From: Jan William Slmek Dsimek@calpoly.edu) Sent: Wed 9/16/2009 12:26 PM To: Council,SloClty Ce: Walter,Jay;Bochum,Tim;Hudson,Jake Subject: LVSC summary Attachments: Council members. TJD('r—Jp/I�,Q-L 1 would like to send you this one final email with my thoughts after last night's meeting. ,CD2 SCAT, 15 C.D v NCrL M EC A)6 , First,1 commend you for,your patience and stamina. Youmust hem a lot ofirrational,or at least self-serving,comments,and.you have a difficult job separating the real issues from the emotions. I dont envy you yourjobs. Second,the staff reports on the traffic and circulation and safety were superb. I was astonished at the quality of the information as well as the clarity of presenmtion. We are fortunate to have such fine staff members working for the City. Third,my comments specifically on the issues surrounding LVSC are below. As a scientist,I ask myself one fundamental question: what conclusions does the evidence support? That question got lost In most of the public comments. My comments to the Council would have been very different if I had spoken after the others rather than near the beginning. A) fie claim that the r SWCted left tum Into LVSC fiam Madonna has hurt buslness was not substantiate. Those business owners are justifiably nervous in the current economic dimate,but.they have fallen Into the human pitfall of associating two,almost unrelated,events: the dosing of the left turn lane and the downturn in business: "Correlation does not prove causation"is one of our standard prindples in science. There are so many other,more probable reasons for business to be down,both in terms of general economy and In terms of specific stores In LVSC. I'm a regular shopper there and I see what is going on. Someone--a customer—needs to have a serious talk with the owners. The Immediate problem with the signal request is that bad data lead to false conclusions,meaning that if you start from the mistaken premise that the left turn lane is critical for survival,then it is a short but erroneous leap to the "need"for a signal at.Pereira. B) fie evidence shows that the public has accepted the no-left-turn reshiction. The Police Chief gave the important data near the end,that citations at the comer of Pereira and Madonna are almost negligible. The inescapable conclusion Is that the.regularshoppers have adapted.to the traffic restrictions. The other evidence is the lack of public comment in favor of a signal by the general public,that is,those who do not have a financial stake in LVSC,despite one of themost astonishing public relations campaigns that I have ever witnessed locally. Up until when I had to leave at 11 PM,there was not a single person from the general public supporting the signal for left-tum reasons. (I'll address the pedestrian issue below.) C) The primary function ofgovemment is to protect the health andsafety of the citizens Bravo! This was articulated by either Mr.Carter or Mr.Ashbaugh, and It is absolutely correct. The traffic safety report shows that accidents at this intersection have dropped to ZERO since stopping left turns into LVSC from Madonna. That is the strongest evidence that this was the right move. Now,I agree.that It helps the community to support local business and let's do that where we can,but that doesn't come first. We should rot accede to the business Interests if it would compromise the safety of the drivers and pedestrians,as the staff report describes. I believe Mr.Carter described how this critical Intersection serves many neighborhoods,not just the LVSC,and Impeding traffic with another signal would be counterproductive. Along these lines,the financial offer of LVSC to pay for installation is not relevant,at least not yet. The signal should stand or fall on its merits of safety and improving traffic flow,not just because it is a"good deal". D) Not every intersection needs to be made accessible to pedestrians I.believe Mr..Carter made this Important observation. We all have sympathy for the elderly man who was hit by a car attempting to cross Madonna at Pereira,but If Mr..Ashbaugh is correct that this man has been hit TWICE,I guess he didn't learn his lesson the first time. We have several 4-lane roads in the city that do not have pedestrian crosswalks at every Intersection: Broad St.,Foothill,parts of Santa Rosa,and Madonna--so why should pedestrians expect that it would be safe to cross 4 lanes of high-volume traffic slowing from 45 mph? It doesn't pass the"reasonable"test. I'm sorry if peoplehaveto walk another 300 feet to get to Madonna/LOUR,and I am sympathetic to thedifficulty of people with restricted mobility from members of my own family,but we cant make every Intersection in the City pedesMan friendly. My final comment is possibly out-of-line,.because It is a suggestion on how to improve your dedsion-making process. When I got home around 11:30 PM,my wife and I watched your discussion and voting until the bitter end at 12:20 AM,and it was painful to watch. I'm sure you were all tired and perhaps not thinking most clearly,out you couldhave arrived at the same placemuch sooner If you had done two things(1 believe Ms.Marx was on the right track by attempting to make twomotlons): put into the first motion everything that everyone agrees on: In this case,that would be the four sets of restriping and lane changes recommended by staff which.had unanimous support. Approval will go quickly for this type of motion. Then spend the remainder of your time focusing on the contentious issue,the signal. Basically,there were four choices for what to do with the request for the signal: 1) tum It down; 2) accept and approve it; 3) bring It back to the Council after the staff has had time to analyze the consultants report;or 4)bring it back to Council after the lane changes and restriping have been accomplished and studied to determine their effectiveness. Options 1 and 2 were the extreme positions,and you rightfully did not choose those. I believe that you bundled into one motion option 3,which was ultimately approved. If I read the staff report correctly,staff recommended option 4. I would worry that a decision on a signal would be premature without evidence from the lane improvements,but that's your business. Thank you for listening and reading. Your job of balancing competing Interests must be very challenging. RECEIVED Jan William Simek SEP 17 2009 SLO CITY CLERK https:Hnmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/LVSC%20summary.EML?Cmd=open 9/17/2009 0 From: Carolyn D. Bassford [cbassford@sbcglobal'.net] R E C E N E Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:35 PM To: Chippendale, Sue SEP 15 2009 Subject: Fwd: Possible Signal at Madonna&the Shopping Center SLO CITY CLERK > Jake D. Hudson, Senior Traffic Engineer Public Works, Transportation > Div_ > City of San Luis Obispo > 919 Palm Street > San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 > PH 805.781.7255 > FAX 805.781.7198 > Jake - I just want to pass my thoughts on to you about this situation. > I live in the new de Tolosa tract (on Foreman) and I use this shopping > center frequently. Even before there was a "no left turn" sign > posted, I did the easy thing and turned left at LOVR and went into the > center through the closest driveway (gas station) . Then getting out > was simply a matter of turning right on Madonna. Simple as pie. > Now, I am no engineer but after much analyzing it appears to me the > only people who would have a problem would be ones coming from the > west on LOVR as it is difficult turning left on that street. One big > problem I see is people coming out of the gas station onto Madonna who > cross all the way over to turn left (toward Dalidio) and also, turning > left out of the center (by CVS) is really difficult at times. I don't > believe this traffic situation has anything to do with business in > that center. > Parking lots are empty like that all over town. An example: across > from Ross on Monterey on a senior Tuesday (half empty - it used to be > packed) . > I hope you can understand all this, and whether it does any good or > not I wanted to pass on that it has never been a problem for me. It > is a troublesome situation for you so I will be watching to outcome > with great interest. You did such a good job fixing that intersection > when our new development went in; I have faith in you! > > Thanks for listening. Carrie > > HUP QPY 6--M F/L [1`COUNCIL ErICDD DIR Y EjIeAf'04111m62 Er'PlN DIR = RED FILE C�ASAGAWe PZtEr#IRE CHIEF O-ATTORNEY, 20'PW DIR - MEETING AGENDA r E DEPT HEADS OL dIpCHF DATE ITEM # o- PSP ZViL bo � NHJn�Es �Cou�UC�L 'tarry rnG2 1 f.L&2K Page 1 of 1 ®This message was sent with high importance. Council,SloCity From: Barbara Atkinson[batkinson2@earthlink.net] Sent: Tue 9/15/2009 7:58 AM To: Council,SIOCIty Cc Subject: tonight's agenda Attachments: Dear Council Members and Mayor: I have been watching with Interest the ads and news articles regarding a request for a new stoplight for the Laguna Lake Shopping Center. Because I'm not a traffic specialist,I'm not sure what the best answer Is,but I want to let you know the following: the concern of the shopp/ng center bhat the poor access and exits cs boring!Ls businesses Is absolutely correct In my cane I live on Laurel Lane,not dose to the shopping center in question. There have been many,manytimes over the years when I wanted to go to Longs(now CVS),a restaurant,or the grocery store in the center,and I have not The reason Is because when I leave the shopping center,I must make a difficult left turn. (I could make a right if I'm going straight home,but then I'm faced with a split second to get Into the left-tum lane for Madonna Road,assuming there Is even room.) There is often a back-up to get out,and once It's my tum to go left,the visibility Isn't great,and I have to make a mad dash,assuming rm not waiting for eons. Because of this,I dont use that center very Oren. There must be hundreds like me. Please take this Into consideration In your discussions tonight. Much has been done to help big box laden,Madonna owned land. We need to remember our small business owners,especially during these hard times. Thank you. Barbara Atkinson 1360 Laurel Lane,Condo u6 SLO 93401 RECEIVED SEP 15 2009 SLO CITY CLERK flame L'�Py C�lAfL COUNCIL :?CDC) DIR RED FILE 2_e*eCi"1J14,L0"FIN DIR O_AGAeA%r0r1mcz2-FIRE CHIEF - MEETING AGENDA O'ATTORNEY lypw Dip DAT �ToITEM # $ Q'CLERK/ORIG 0"POLICE CHF -� ❑ DEPT HEADS OfiREC DIA Q'UTIL DIS toA)u IR bIf � N(�cJYIn1Es � C®uAJC1t_ C r'ry Mole https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/sl oc itycounci VInbox/tonight%27 s%20agenda.EML?Cmd... 9/15/2009 council memoi.anbum L Date: September 14'', 2009 I.f;KD COPY Cyrtq rt TO: City CouncilCIL CDD DIR 9=4ry fik-L EY-FIN DIR CfAe*aAzrr-11Nc12 O FIRE CHIEF VIA: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager 13'ATT0RNEY 2,PW DIR II ffCLERWORIG n-POLICE CHF FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director ❑ DEPT HEADS C'I-REC hIH T PrP D'R Jake Hudson, Senior Traffic Engineer / ����— alJTIL SUBJECT: Response to Galvin Letter-Council Agenda Item B6 NE�J rlmc� et r'4 �r� Background On Friday September 1 Ph, the City received a letter from Julie Gavin representing Laguna Village Shopping Center. In the letter Ms. Gavin raises questions about information contained in the agenda report for Item B-6 for the September 15'h Council Meeting. Public Works staff has prepared the following response to the letter: RED FILE Distance between Madonna Road and Pereira/LVSC - MEETING AGENDA QLTheDATE 910 ITEM #-2L— There re are a number of distances referred to in the agenda report and also in various communications regarding the distance between the driveway and intersection of Madonna Road/Pereira Drive. All of those distances are essentially correct however they refer to different reference points. The following photo illustrations show dimension from various locations: {,V late Sry „ � Y Approximately 440' 31 Pereira Centerline to LOVR Centerline Distance (not discussed in report) / 1 � �> f _/�•.. . . � -.fit ♦ -:`.i s. y Widened & relocated F U _ — — + Widened Approximate distance of pedestrian separation after Mitigation measure#3 (widening LOVR) and relocation of LVSC driveway) While there are discrepancies in the distances that are referred to in the letters and staff report they are generally a result of differing reference points. The main issue of concern with the LVSC driveway signalization request has to do with the queue area and the distance that a pedestrian would need to walk from Pereira to LOVR if the Action Plan items are put in place. Staff's calculations have determined that the pedestrian distance,after widening LOVR and relocating the LVSC driveway would be 330' or less. The two widened locations then also reduce the queue area between the LOVR signal crosswalk and the new driveway location to about 330' as discussed in the staff report. This of course is the area identified by staff of critical concern and even an additional 10-20' of space does not override concerns regarding the proposed signal,left turn or pedestrian crossings. The other intersections identified in the Galvin letter are in the Downtown. These intersections occur along block lengths that have been fixed for decades, and so discussion of them having shorter spacing that what is proposed along Madonna Road is not a similar comparison. In addition,the Downtown has a more complex set of traffic and pedestrian conditions that led to signal control. g:lsi 4epmtb agendastninules\_amemosNMVvsc gaMn mpww.dw Page 1 of 1 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA' Cound4 SGoGty nATC 9J/5Y0$TFM # L7 ,Io From: Steve@cathyfrancis.com[steve@cdthyfrands.com] Sent: Sat 9/12/200911:41 AM To: Council,SloCity ca Subject: Madonna Road/Pereira Drive Intersection Attachments: =RECEIVEDI am opposed to the addition of a traffic light at the intersection of Madonna Road and Pereira Drive. .I frequently shop at the Laguna Village Shopping Center,and then travel north on Madonna Road. I appreciate the recent improvements with the"Keep Clear"Zone,the northbound turn pocket,and the restriction on left turns from northbound Madonna Road. It has significantly increased the ability to egress the Center. Ejy7,4t COUNCIL CDD DIR The intersection of Madonna Road and Pereira Drive is too close to CAO IN DIR Madonna Road for a traffic light to function properly. There is ACAO IRE CHIEF approximately 300 feet between the intersections. Northbound Madonna 9PATTORNEY rPW DIR Road will be stopped for the desired traffic light cycles. Assuming ZCLERK/OR10 POLIEE CHF the average car takes twenty feet of space at a light, fifteen cars ❑ DEPT HEADS REG DIA per lane can be accommodated. I assume far more then 30 cars tum P1�3___ fit'L1TIL- DIR from LOVR eastbound and westbound onto northbound Madonna Road. I TE/ E_ rr r-IIS 0111 expect a light at Pereira (with a pedestrian --$ g cycle)would result in significant traffic backups at the Madonna/LOVR intersection. /-IEV7144tS C ou...j cLL- �` C TY n2Cz/L I also question the value of pedestrian crosswalk at Pereira. Many of the stores(and most of the eateries)front to Los Osos Valley Road,so the pedestrian would have to travel this distance anyway if they used the existing crosswalk. I doubt many people would walk the distance to buy groceries even with the light and crosswalk. Another factor-with the proposed addition of additional stores north of the Froom Ranch intersection,I expect people's shopping habits may change to use that center also. This would reduce the need to this crosswalk and there would be no major arterial to cross. Steve Francis 2435 Sendero Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-440-5361 https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/sl ocitycounciVInbox/Madonna%2ORoad_xF8FF_Pereira... 9/14/2009 Page 1 of 1 C Council,siocdy From: Christine Mulholland[cdev@thegrid.net) sent: Sat 9/12/2009 2:46 PM To: Council,SloCity subjecttraffic study Attachments: To the Mayor and City Council members: I will not be attending your Sept. 15 meeting, but I find your effort to seek solutions to the traffic mess in the LOVR/Madonna Rd area to be an example of too little,too late. The stranglehold on the older neighborhood shopping center and the cutting off of the older neighborhood is antithetical to our talk of pedestrian friendliness and creating community, and unfair to the owners of the businesses that have long thrived and provided revenue for the city. It is increasingly difficult to access and egress the neighborhood and the shopping center, but you have voted to exacerbate this condition by approving a huge new development in the same area, without regard for the pre-existing businesses and homes. I think it is beyond ridiculous to now ask the community to come up with solutions for the bad situation you have already agreed to make worse. I do not think a light at Pereira is a good solution, but I encourage you to do what you can to open access and egress for the local neighborhood and shopping center. Perhaps rescinding your vote to approve more development until you figure it out is the better way. I hope your solution does not include a new traffic lane in front of the fire station,at the expense of the beautiful old cypress trees. Christine Mulholland https://maii.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciL/Inbox/traffic%20study.EML?Cmd=open 9/14/2009 Page 1 of 1 Council,SloCity From: Richard Kranzdorf[rkranzdo@calpoty.edu] Sent: Sun 9/13/2009 6:44 PM To: council,Slocity Cc: rkranzdo@calpoly.edu Subject: City CDundI Meeting of September 15 Attachments: Dear Council Members, Given the 5-0 vote of the Council on September 1st for plowing ahead with the Irish Hills Plaza project I have little hope my concerns will be heard regarding mitigations for the Laguna Lake Shopping Center. These few lines are sent because it is easier than waiting two or three hours to say three minutes worth of"beware, beware, beware." A traffic light or even an additional lane for traffic will do little to absorb the crush of the coming years. When you add in the Irish Hills Commons or, perish the thought,the Dalidio project, both in the same area, in the next few years the cumulative effects will be staggering. I will take no pride in saying in years to come(assuming I am still alive) that"I told you so." Dedicated open space will presumably be gained, something that I much care about. But the impact on nearby neighborhoods cannot be measured or foreseen. Though you will not I cry out for you to relent. Resignedly, Richard Kranzdorf https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/City%2OCouncil%2OMeeting%20of... 9/14/2009 Gentlemen, I have read your report with the excellent analysis of the entrances to the Laguna Village Shopping Center. The proposal to add a stoplight at Madonna and Pereira is misguided, to put it kindly. I may speak to this at the Tuesday night meeting. I am curious as to the omission of what I think is the obvious solution to the difficulty (real or perceived) in traffic exiting LVSC onto Madonna Road. If the Madonna frontage road, currently blocked off next to Longs/CVS,were opened up, and the driveway from the shopping center onto Madonna closed,then all traffic from Madonna into and out of the shopping center would go through a stoplight at Madonna and Oceanaire. In other words, the shopping center owner would have a signal as they wish—it would just be one displaced by a couple of blocks and one that already exists. I can guess that the residents along that frontage road would not be pleased with the increased traffic,but it is the same as the frontage road on the other side of Madonna, i.e., open at both ends. It might be possible to allow exiting traffic only to use the frontage road, and make all entering traffic come in on LOVR where there are already three entrances. I see in your report that you recommend making some changes in the way LOVR is configured to improve these entrances. Anyway, I was suprised that using the frontage road was not even mentioned in the report as an option. Jan William Simek r DECEIVED - SEP 112009 SLO CITY CLERK. LPG ANA VILLAGE S H 0 P. P 'I N G ' C E NTE R Ffiday, September 11, 2009 1-fAto CoPY 6 ,c_ CTCOUNCIL . p CDD DIR /M&Z- 0-FIN DIR To: The City of San Luis Obispo �^RCAOgssrcnin��f3 FIRE CHIEF Mayor Dave Romero �EITTORNE.Y aPW DIR Vice Mayor Allen K. Settle CLERK/ORIG. Q POLICE CHF City.Council Member Andrew Carter O DEPT HEADS ITREC DIR �'-p►�'' �i UTIL DIR City Council Member Jan Howell Marx r _T2, Qom_ LIT LIR City Council Member John Ashbaugh &)c V__ Mr. Kenneth Hampian, City Manager C,-ry Matz- Re: 62Re: Request for Traffic Light and Other Street Improvements Laguna Village Shopping Center Dear Mayor Romero,City Council Members and Mr. Hampian: After further review of all factors involved regarding our subject request and in an effort to expedite the construction of these traffic improvements my husband and,I have decided to offer to pay for all of our requested improvements. We will have to borrow the money and this financial burden will-not be easy to handle, but we feel these improvements are absolutely necessary for the resolution of the'traffic problems including the ticketing of customers. We have summarized our concerns.and proposed solutions, including our offer to pay for all improvements, in the.enclosedadverti.sement/article that we plan to run in the Tribune this weekend and early next week before the Council meeting. We would appreciate any money the City may be willing and able to contribute towards these improvements but we will not make the City's contributions a:condition in order to move forward. We have extended offers to all of you to meet with us individually before the Council meeting. Feel free to callus to arrange a convenient time'and place,if you would like to meet to discuss this matter further. We are hopeful that our offer to pay for,all improvements willmake your decision Tuesday night easier. Sincerely, RED FILE LAGUNA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER MEETING AGENDA . � J. � DA '71151-oITEM # .86 '�stie Moliner cc. Timothy S. Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works, City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 3415 San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Telephone 805/781-9100 Telefax 805/781-9101 JOIN THE FIGHT FOR THE LIGHT. 11171__PIP mylyj " Lail W all III Dear Neighbors, BACKGROUND WHO PAYS FON ALL OF THIS We know that the relocation of our driveway,various street improvements,and the construction of a new traffic light will cost money and we am As you know,overthe past several years,the intersection of Madonna Road at Los Ours valley Road has become aware that the City Is suffering(with all of us)through these difficult ecumomic times and much more congested with automobile traffic and all experts agree Mat traffic volumes at this intersection will therefore,the City may net have the funds necessary to do this work.Therefore,we are willing continue to Increase in the future. to borrow the money to pay for all of these improvements,at our own expense. We would appreciate any The Increase in traffic has caused cars to stack up on Madonna Rd past Pereira Drive and past our driveway financialhelp that the City could provide but we would not require any financial help. at Laguna Village Shopping Center,increasing traffic accidents and making access Into and out of Laguna WHAT HAPPENS IF THESE NEW IMPROVEMENTS NE®REVISIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS IN 'solution'imposed by Village and the Pereira Driveneighborhood was the removal difficult.h emoval of the left-not impossible,during peak traffic hours.To dale,the only THE FUTURE?After these improvements are constructed and implemented we are willing to monitor the Me City was lane into Laguna Village Shopping Center.So, instead of addressing the larger traffic Issues that are causing the cars to back-up in the first place,the City,In traffic and provide revisions,if needed,at our expense. our opinion,took the easiest solution available which was to remove the lett-tum into LVSC without discussing the idea with us first(the business owners of.Laguna Village Shopping Center). We have spent the lash few years designing solutions to resolve these significant traffic problems.A very experienced traffic engineer is confident that we can coordinate the timing of the new light with the existing Immediately after the City took away our leff-Mn access,they directed the police department to sten ticketing light on Madonna Rd 0 LOVR to maintain appropriate levels of service. our customers like crazy hoping to'modify their behavior."In 2000 alone,they issued at least 200 tickets for the"illegal'left tum at a total cost to our customers of more than$40,000.00!They also issued lots and lots of Please attend the City Council meeting this coming Tuesday evening,at 7 PM if you would like to see these tickets In 2007 and 2009.And,unfortunately,the ticketing continues today.Obviously,the 2 year"experiment In design solutions implemented. behavior modification'has not worked. Everyday our customers still think they can tum lett Into our center.We don't blame them.It looks like any normal driveway that anyone can Wm lett into and apparently,no one notices WE NEED YOUR HELP! the"no left tom'signs that litter the sides at the street No signs are posted in the middle of the street. Thank you very much, .. We actively initiated discussions with the City when they removed the lett-bum in 2007 and since then we have hired numerous experts to collect data,design solutions,and submit numerous plans to City Public Works LAGUNA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER. Department to correct this serious problem—including design solutions to the comer of Madonna Rd&LOVR and solutions for the Intersection of Pereira Drive ii Madonna Rd&the driveway to Laguna Village Shopping Center. Kdstie Molina,Owner PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS: A LEGAL LEFF-TURN LANE: We need a design solution to stop the ticketing of our JOIN US customers who tum left into am center from Madonna Rd.we agree to realign our driveway on Madonna Rd so that it will line up Pereira Drive to solve the City's=cams with conflicting turning AND ATTEN TH E movements and we agree to put the left-tom lane back in place so that this left-tum will once again be legal for our customers. CITY COUNCIL MEETING! TRAFFIC BACKING UP AND BLOCIO NG OUR DRIVEWAY AND PEREIRA DRIVE:We have provided design solutions to the intersection of Madonna Rd @ LOVR that would help solve these"back-up problems" TUESDAY • SEPTEMBER 15th • 7PM A NEW TRAFFIC LIGHE We need a IBR-tum out of our shopping center that is sate and easy for our customers to use at all hours of the day.Our customers(many at whom are elderly), who come to shop at CVS(formerly Longs)Drug/Pharmacy and Spencer's Fresh Market,cannot exit our center(especially during rush hours)by taming left onto Madonna Rd because there is no light to provide safe and orderly protection,All grocery/drug/pharmacy anchored shopping centers require safe,easy and ' orderly access in and out of their centers at all times of day—especially during the peak shopping hours. We have the same needs.A traffic light Is the only long-tern solution for our shopping center. Trying to come out of on shopping center on Madonna Road and tum left during peak shopping hours is currently a dangerous proposition because traffic on Madonna Rd is no required to stop to let our customers exit. = _ PEDESTRIAN CROSSING: We need to provide a design solution for the pedestrians that continue to jaywalk across Madonna Rd @ Pereira Drive.Our design of the new traffic light includes a pedestrian crosswalk that would only activate when needed. For more information,please call: Brenda 805-781-9100 SE? ? = 1009 SLO C7Y CLERK LAGLANA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER .�/hfR2Deopy 6011A1L =1 COUNCIL 2 CDD DIR RED FILE Lfi8ke47Y�'- EYFIN DIR 0 AGAe-ASSrcrnAM1!r'FIRE CHIEF September 11, 2009 MEETING AGENDA ErATTORNEY B*PW DIR M'CLERK/ORIG C-}-POLICE CHF DATE 9/So ITEM #--L3o DEPT dEA0S Z-FjeC DIR C5 LML DIA Wemo to fiCe �C.l7"l /1?62 � C LE�ic RE: Distances between existing signalized intersections in the City of San Luis Obispo The distance between the existing traffic signal at Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road and the proposed new light at Madonna Road and Pereira Drive is approximately 440 feet (centerline to centerline) (provided by Lauren Hobson, ATE). The Staff Report states the distance is "less than 330 feet". For your reference the follows is a sample summary of distances as taken from the city GIS system between signalized intersections here in the city. , Santa Rosa Street from Mill Street to Palm Street: 360 feet Santa Rosa Street from Palm Street to Monterey: 405 feet Santa Rosa Street from Monterey to Higuera Street: 291 feet Santa Rosa Street from Higuera Street to Marsh: 338 feet Higuera Street from Chorro Street to Morro Street: 438 feet Higuera Street from Morro Street to Osos: 336 feet Marsh Street from Nipomo to Broad Street: 453 feet The sidewalk distance from the existing pedestrian crossing at Madonna Road at Los Osos Valley Road to the proposed pedestrian crossing from Pereira Drive to the Laguna Village Shopping Center (curb to curb) is 350 feet (provided by Katie Corliss of offices of Paul H. Poirier, Architect). r u 'eG R. Pold and Associates, Inc. (805) 781-9100 r.0. 53x 34'5 Say cl 0b opo, Ca' *o !j 93403 `e ephcne 605/75'-9100 `elefax 50517&'.-910' - C RECEIVE® R. POLTL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SEP ) 92009 SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT LEASING AND MANAGEMENT SLO CITY CLERK September 9, 2009 RED FILE Dave Romero, Mayor - MEETING AGENDA Allen Settle, Vice Mayor DATE ` %3'o ITEM It- John Ashbaugh, Council Member Andrew Carter, Council Member Jan Howell Marx, Council Member City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Hand Delivered RE: Laguna Village Shopping Center Traffic Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: In response to the request for public input on the proposal for a traffic signal at Laguna Village Shopping Center and Pereira Drive on Madonna Road, the management office of the Laguna Village Shopping Center has received numerous calls. One such call was from a woman who was involved in a serious traffic accident at that the intersection in June of last year. She wanted to have input into the dialogue, but she is unavailable to attend the City Council Hearing on September 15th. In lieu of attending the hearing, she has delivered a letter describing her accident for us to forward to you. Enclosed is her letter. /f -eP 000Y 6;6J4-tz. Thank you, 2'COUNCIL 2rCDD DIR R. Poltl and Associates, Inc. ZZAG Ciy�M62 2-FIN DIR 2-AGA0AQ;;,eift/)& -2rFIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY CSW DIR 2rCLERK/ORIa O-POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS G"'REC DIR Julie Galvi �'B e-UTIL DIR Aleut TIM6,S - GCOUaJCcL Cc: Ken Hampian, City Manager �Crt+1 A16& e cc—av 1328 MADONNA ROAD, SAN LUIS OSISPO, CALIFORNIA 93405 TEL 805/781 -9100 • FAX 805/781 -9101 September 4, 2009 To The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: My name is Lisa Marie Donnahoo. This declaration is in support of the "Join the Fight for the Light!" Due to previously scheduled engagements I was unable to attend the September 1, 2009, City Council meeting, and am I able to attend the September 15, 2009, meeting. I am a paralegal for Rossi Law Offices located at 11555 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo. I have worked for attorney Rossi for just shy of 5 years. Traveling to and from work I either drive Madonna or Los Osos Valley Road. On June 24, 2008, I had left my office at approximately 12:30pm, fora dentist appointment in Atascadero. As I crossed LOVR on Madonna,the first thing I noticed was how traffic was backed up due to road work at the intersection; once I crossed the intersection I saw that a van was making an illegal left-hand turn into the Laguna Village Shopping Center and I proceeded to change lanes to avoid hitting it. As I passed the van,the next thing I remember is my Chevy Blazer sliding,then coming to rest on its side. At this time there are many, many different scenarios that passed through my mind- where was I? What happened? Will I be hit again? Can I feel the rest of my body? The pedestrians who stopped and took their time to talk to me helped calm me down, because only then did I did realize I wasn't going to get struck again. Although I will never know who those people were, I thank them. The woman who struck my vehicle had been coming out of the shopping center to cross over to Pereira. From what I understand she had been"flagged"it was ok to come across the road by other drivers who didn't see me due to the van making the illegal tum into the shopping center. My Blazer rolled I '/z times before coming to rest. All my windows were blown out on impact. Emergency personnel had to cut my car apart to get me out. Madonna Road was closed for almost an hour, in both directions. My husband has been a police officer for over 25 years, not in San Luis Obispo, and in charge of traffic(accidents,tickets, etc.). The first time he viewed the pictures from this accident,he had to turn and walk away. When we talked,through his tears,all he could say was I should have been killed... I am one of the lucky ones as, although serious, my injuries have mostly healed,post surgery and physical therapy. I still cringe when I have to drive past that intersection and avoid it, if possible. There are times I lay awake at night due to a dream I had in fear of another automobile accident. Mentally, there are definite residuals from the accident. Again, I am one of the lucky ones because the woman who hit me was fully insured and a caring person. I ask the City Council and all members to consider the installation of this light. Before and after my accident, I have witnessed many illegal turns, outrageous driving, and near misses at that same intersection. I have witnessed individuals and families pushing baby carriages running to cross that street. How many people have to be hit, hurt or possibly killed before the problem is remedied? Lisa Mane Donnahoo (805)235-6335 Page 1 of 1 Council, SloCity From: O C Davidson [odavidsonn@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Mon 9/7/2009 5:34 PM To: Council, SloCity Cc: R E C E I V E L, Subject: Entrance to Laguna Lake Shopping Center Attachments: SEP 0 9 7009 Dear Council Members, SLO CITY CLERK There have been numerous ads and news reports concerning the Madonna Road entrance for the Laguna Lake shopping center. I emphatically disagree with them. SLO Police should continue to enforce the prohibition against left turns Into to the shopping center. The"re-striping"of Madonna Road was a huge improvement! The re-striping has made exiting the shopping center much safer,quicker and easier. Before the re-striping, it was VERY hard to exit the shopping center with a left turn on to Madonna Road. Vehicles often backed up past the entrance to Long's Drugs,and frustrated drivers took risky chances. Now exiting is much easier,quicker and safer. Using other exits from the shopping center is not an option if one needs to go northeast on Madonna Road.These other exits require exceedingly difficult left turns onto LOVR followed by a left tum on to Madonna Road. Vehicles which now left tum from Madonna Road into the center can just as easily enter from LOVR. There are stop lights with and tum arrows at Madonna and LOVR.This makes It is easy for everyone to enter the shopping center from LOVR.There is NO need for people to left tum into Laguna Lake Shopping Center from Madonna Road. I think the problem is our drivers. Many do not know(or pay attention to)traffic law.The California drivers information booklet dearly states that you may not cross solid,double-double,yellow fines. Yet some do it routinely. Beside the Laguna Lake shopping center,many people left tum from Dalidio Drive into the main Post Office. It had happened so often that the striping was worn off! I'm glad to see that Daiid!o Drive was recently re-striped. Respectfully, Otto C. Davidson P.S. Yes,I live on the opposite side of town from the shopping center. However, my wife and I have enjoyed almost two decades of walks at Laguna Lake Park.After walking we shopped at the Laguna Lake center-Albertson's and Long's were our preferred stores. 14/a-2p OPy &M q 14-- [?tOUNCIL 2 COD DIR RED FILE 12MA&an, chew E'FIN DIR MEETING AGENDA 0"A8A9AWrCAm6e2-FIRE CHIEF []`ATTORNEY aPW DIR DATEILI-Y401 ITEM # S& 2-CLEAK/ORIG 2rPOLICE CHF ❑ DEPT BEADS p'REC DIR Zr-UTIL DIR x_772 r � E'HFI D n AJ&d 7-117l65 _--Ce"A)ei L G fit fiJCJL_ https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Entrance%2Oto%2OLaguna%2OLake... 9/9/2009 Page 1 of 1 Council,SloCity From: Linda [lin.bag91@att.net] Sent: Tue 9/8/2009 1:04 PM To: Council,SloClty Cc: Subject: Traffic signal on Madonna near LOVR RECEIVE-E-1-1, Attachments: SEP 0 9 2009 Mayor Romero: I feel a light that near LOVR will cause more problems than it would SLO CITY CLERK solve. Please choose: return to the left-turn lane NB Madonna into the shopping center, with NO LIGHT. Then monitor the flow and accidents (if any) and make further changes if they seem warranted. Thank you for your consideration of my opinion. Sincerely, Will Powers, Ph.D 1028-B Pacific Street, SLO 93401 805-748-7766 drwill.powers7@gmaii.com t AIZO Cot &M/4 — 12r COUNCIL TCDD DIR RED FILE f-�C1rti&e,e 2-FIN DIR p'�AGA9A55rCrrj/Ik-,P-�IRE CHIEF - MEETING AGENDA ATTORNEY Q"pW DIR DATE 's'o ITEM # 86 1 113tLERK/OR1G L5POLICE CHF I O DEPT HEADS [TREC DIR C"UTILDIR ii=177-laNA& 71'� DIR AJ&W Tindes ��u uCtC -�Ctrri /n62 https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInbox/Traffic%20signal%20on%20Madonn... 9/9/2009 September 2, 2009 142E 2D GLOP+/ C.- jf}-tL LTCOUNCIL CDD DIR San Luis Obispo City Council RED FILE E�C11*1 � ZrFIN DIR City of San Luis Obispo �A��srcye� yFIRE CHIEF 990 Palm Street – MEETING AGENDA 2 ATTORNEY L PW DIR San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 DAT /s ITEM # ak L'1�CLERK/ORIQ O'POLICE CHF p ❑ DEPT HEADS C�REC®IR 31- PI5 Z'UTIL DIR ! ?2igUA)& 2'HRnil Dear City Council, - NEui nmts - 11—&U �,�= This letter is regarding the proposed light for the proposed light for the Laguna Village `' m62 Shopping center at the corner of Pereira and Madonna. I believe a traffic light would increase congestion without increasing safety or access to the Laguna Village Shopping Center.The light would be so close to the Madonna and Los Osos Valley Road intersection, it seems unlikely that the it would not cause traffic to back up onto Los Osos Valley Road. Drivers can currently make a left turn out of the shopping center safely. The light at Oceanaire sufficiently breaks up traffic to allow for drivers to safely turn into the center turn lane. I believe any danger from this turn comes from drivers turning directly into the eastbound lane of traffic on Madonna.That problem could be solved by creating a turn lane protected by islands,thereby forcing the drivers into the turn lane before merging with traffic on Madonna. The argument that the lack of a left turn into shopping center prevents access to the center is unfounded. Westbound traffic on Madonna Road can make a left turn or go straight at the Los Osos Valley Road intersection with equal ease. If drivers make a left at Los Osos Valley Road, they can turn right into the Laguna Village Shopping Center.This is no more difficult than making the proposed light. Northbound traffic on Los Osos Valley Road has the option of turning right on Madonna, followed by a left into the shopping center; or simply making a right into the shopping center off of Los Osos Valley Road. Southbound traffic on Los Osos Valley Road already has a center turn lane to use to enter the shopping center from Los Osos Valley Road, using the proposed light would cause them to make an additional left to rn. I do believe this would make access from Pereira Drive easier and safer; however, due to the potential for congestion,this appears to always inconvenience many for the occasional benefit of a few. This sounds like a move by the Laguna Village Shopping Center to get something, anything, out of the Irish Hills Plaza Shopping Complex by appealing to people's emotions by claiming safety. Sincerely, Kenji-Yoshino kenji.r.yoshino@gmail.com Page 1 of 1 Council,SloGity From: Larry Pennington[Inkpen@hotmail.com] Sent: Tue.9115/2009 2:46 PM To: Council,SloCity Cc: Subject. No light Attachments: Good afternoon council members, I do not live in the neighborhood but I do occasionally shop at the Laguna center. There are times when one has to wait a little to exit the center but most of the time I have no real trouble getting in and out. �fr�7 I believe the proposed traffic light would only foul things up more,so I vote no and I hope you do to. D 6 Thanks, ((// Larry Pennington 440 Corrida Dr RECEIVE® SEP 15 2009 SLO CITY CLERK �GL'- 15E 6 � ICES rlLES X02 https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/No%201ight.EML?Cmd=open 9/15/2009 Are you concerne.d . Illegal U-turns coo Rolling stops *.b Difficult passage of public safety vehicles 4;b Esthetic of our historical neighborhood Skate boarding in the intersection If you have these or any others concerns about the Bill Roalman Bike Blvd, please attend the City Council Meeting on Tuesday September 15'h at 7:00 PM at City Hall. For more information contact: Doug at 783-1312 or pastordoug @charter.net Ic ' �— Q I t 'kr, ------- . V LLk17 — O CMD yi ob r 0 a , 0 �1 r rl O • ' 1� C \ J O � �I C. . P"' r � r