Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/16/2010, B1 - LAGUNA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS i Maeda Dae couna March 16, 2010 j acEnba uEpoRt 1.N..b.N°mb CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Timothy S. Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager SUBJECT: LAGUNA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDATION Approve a modified action plan addressing traffic congestion, safety, and access in the vicinity of Madonna and Los Osos Valley Road and the Laguna Village Shopping Center.. REPORT-IN-BRIEF On September 15, 2009, the Council considered a request from the Laguna Village Shopping Center (LVSC) to improve access to its shopping center. This request included signalization and reestablishing left turn access at the LVSC's number two Madonna Driveway. Staff could not support signalization as an initial measure at that time due to the likely increase in traffic congestion, potential increase in collisions, diversion of traffic into the Oceanaire neighborhoods, and potential blockage and delay to emergency vehicles at Fire Station #4. In lieu of signalization as the initial step, staff recommended that several other improvements be implemented and tested before the determination to signalize was made. Many of these improvements were supported by LVSC as well as the City. LVSC also requested that Council reconsider signalization as an initial step based on new information provided by its traffic consultants. Because this information had not been presented to City staff prior to the meeting, the Council directed staff to review the information and return to the Council at a subsequent meeting. The Council also approved a modified action plan which included widening of LVSC's LOVR & Madonna driveways, widening of Los Osos Valley Road, widening on South West corner of Madonna/LOVR, and an assessment of long-term solutions as part of the City's Circulation Element. Following the Council meeting, staff and LVSC have worked together to build consensus on the background information under which both parties could draw a final conclusion. Numerous exchanges of information and additional studies have occurred since that time. Consensus was reached on a base set of information to be used in "warrant" and other technical analysis by both parties. Both LVSC and City staff conducted additional background studies "to develop final conclusions. Although differing interpretations of this data and studies performed by each party still exist, ultimately staff has used the set of studies and engineering data that it concluded was most appropriate to draw final engineering conclusions on the issue of signalization of the driveway. A full detailed discussion of this information is included in Attachment 1. Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 2 DISCUSSION Background At the September 15, 2009 Council Meeting, the Council considered a request from representatives of the LVSC to improve access to its center. Part of that request was that the City approve signalization of the shopping center's number two Madonna Driveway. At that time, staff did not support signalization due to the likely increase in traffic congestion, the proven reduction in traffic collisions that have resulted from other measures, and potential diversion of arterial traffic into the Oceanaire neighborhoods. In preparation for the September 15, 2009 Council Meeting, staff performed a traffic signal warrant assessment, analyzed the AM and PM peak periods and indicated that warrants were not met for those periods of the day. In lieu of signalization as an initial first step, staff therefore proposed, and Council approved, a series of other measures that would improve operations and access to the center and that these be completed and evaluated prior to considering signalization. Most of these improvements were proposed or supported by the LVSC. During the LVSC presentation to Council, its consultant, Associated Traffic Engineers (ATE), requested that the City reconsider immediate signalization based upon new information that it had prepared for the Council. This included expanding the signal warrant assessment to other hours of the day and operational simulations that showed how signalization might work at the location. Because this information had not been made available to City staff prior to the meeting, the Council directed staff to review the new information, determine if it changed staff s recommendation, and then to return to the Council. In addition to reconsidering signalization as an initial step, the action plan approved by Council on September 15`h, 2009 is as follows: Action Plan Work Elements 1. Widen, and re-channelize the driveway on Madonna Road. 2. Relocate, widen, and re-stripe the driveway on LOVR. Identify on site operational measures (such as adjusting employee work schedules and delivery times) to reduce congestion at peak times. 3. Widening of LOVR (PCC Mitigation Measure Option #3, or modified Option #3 as identified in the PCC EIR). 4. Widen the southwest comer of Madonna/LOVR and re-stripe WB approach lanes as identified in this action plan to reduce queues from the intersection. 5. Conduct study after items 1-4 are implemented to determine if the left tum access into LVSC can be reestablished. If collision patterns return to the LVSC driveway after items 14 have been implemented, return to Council with recommendations for potential traffic control changes including a new assessment of signalization 6. As part of the Circulation Element update or other large scale planning effort, analyze the Madonna Road Corridor and adjacent neighborhoods for potential long-term strategies to address congestion, access, and safety: B —oZ Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 3 What's Happened since the September 15, 2009 Council Meeting? After the September 15, 2009 Council meeting, staff continued to work towards implementing the action plan approved by Council as well as work with LVSC on the request to reconsider signalization of the driveway as an initial step. Staff conducted a review of ATE's information and had concerns with the basic background information used to conduct its warrant analysis. It was mutually agreed, by staff and LVSC representatives, that new traffic count information would be taken at the location and a full signal warrant analysis would be conducted. Since that time, City staff and ATE/LVSC representatives have worked together in multiple meetings and exchanges of information to establish a common set of base-data from which to draw final conclusions. Revised Approach to Addressing LVSC's Concerns Staff has developed and is recommending to the Council a revised phased approach that attempts to equitably balance the LVSC access issue with Madonna Road traffic, Los Osos Valley Road traffic, Fire Station #4 emergency access and the Oceanaire neighborhoods. This phased-in approach includes reestablishing the left-turn into the LVSC complex earlier than previously recommended and also includes signalization of the driveway if these measures should prove ineffective in maintaining safety at the location or improving access from the center. The revised approach includes the previously approved action plan items along with further geometric improvements as a first phase that returns the left-turn access into the center, partial signalization of the driveway as a second phase, and then full signalization as the final phase. If approved, staff will implement Phase I changes along the roadways and then monitor traffic conditions for a 12-month period. If Phase I improvements fail to meet a set of criteria based on the access concerns that LVSC has raised, then staff will move to Phase 11. Staff has revised the approach originally recommended at the September 15, 2009 Council meeting to accommodate as many of LVSC's concerns without prematurely degrading conditions or safety for all users of the location. After further analysis, staff has concluded that full signalization of the driveway is not appropriate as an initial traffic control change. Although some of the signal warrant criteria can be considered as "met" for this location, staff s final conclusion is that the driveway capacity and offset to Pereira Drive continues to be the primary cause of delay and conflict that occurs at the location. Each of the access improvements or traffic control changes at the LVSC driveway considered as part of this request have some form of operational or safety trade-off or risk for Madonna Road, Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) and the surrounding neighborhoods. Full signalization of the driveway is considered the most severe in terms of trade-offs for operations along the arterial roads, traffic diversion into the neighborhood, and emergency vehicle access. Until all of the improvements approved by Council as part of the September 2009 action plan are implemented and the LVSC driveway is relocated to align with Pereira— and all these changes combined are determined not effective in improving access to the center— staff believes that full signalization is not a prudent next best step in addressing all issues at this location. Therefore staff is recommending the phased approach to address the myriad of issues at this location. Bi —3 Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 4 Traffic Signal Warrants City staff has now completed a full traffic signal warrant assessment using mutually agreed upon traffic data. Attachment 1 to this report contains a detailed discussion of traffic signal warrant analysis and other issues associated with traffic control changes that were considered as part of this report. Traffic signal warrants are adopted State and Federal thresholds that represent conditions below which signalization should not be considered, because it would likely create less safe and/or more congested conditions. If one of these warrant thresholds is met, that does not alone suggest that a traffic signal should be installed. Due to the unique characteristics of the location and its close proximity to the intersection with LOVR, the City's warrant assessment also includes additional investigation of operational conditions at the location other than just traffic volume assessments and collision comparisons. Under State Traffic Signal warrants there are two sets of numeric criteria which can been considered, Urban or Rural, determination of which one to use is based on speeds. While State of California warrant language allows discretion as to the use of the posted speed limit or 85th percentile approach speed at the location (whichever is higher) for the choice of the rural or urban criteria (and associated thresholds), this choice is discretionary based upon engineering judgment. In this particular location, the actual 85th percentile approach speeds are critical in warrant review, gap analysis, and sight distance calculations for the location. Because of the unique characteristics, applying the individual rural or urban criteria was deemed inappropriate by staff. For this reason, both sets of criteria were considered in this analysis. What are the rural and urban criteria established by the State and why do they differ? In essence, two sets of criteria have been developed to try and address characteristics that may vary due to population and speeds. The set of criteria developed for low population areas (less than 10,000 population) or for major streets speeds of greater than 40 miles per hour (MPH) are generally referred to as the "rural" warrants. The urban criteria has been developed for use in suburban and urban locations where higher populations exist and speeds are 40 MPH or lower. Again, the use of either criteria is discretionary based upon sound engineering judgment to determine if either or both should be reviewed. Even though both criteria have been reviewed and used for staff s final conclusions, of the two, the urban criteria may be most appropriate for this location since this reflects the transition of this area from the former rural county to the urban uses that have developed in the last ten years that surround the location. Table 1 below summarizes staff's assessment of all California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) traffic signal warrants. Based on this warrant assessment, the results indicate that some form of signalization is a potential option if less restrictive measures have first been implemented and proven ineffective in addressing access issues for the shopping center. I I � Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 5 Table l: Traffic Si nal Warrant Assesment.Summar Urban lin mediate Warrants Criteria Rural Criteria Additional Consideration Signal Justification Warrant I: Eight HourVolume NO YES Adequate Gaps NO Condition A NO NO None NO Condition B NO YES Adequate Gaps NO Condition A&B NO NO Alternatives Available NO arrant 2c. Four Hour Volume YES YES Degraded Safety &Ops. NO Part NO NO None NO Part B YES YES Degraded Safety 8 Ops. NO Warrant 3: Peak Hour NO YES Warrant Not Applicable NO Part A NO NO Warrant Not Applicable NO Part 8 NO YES Warrant Not Applicable NO arra nt:4:, edestrian Volume NO NO None NO Part NO NO None NO Part B NO NO None NO arrantchool Volume NO NO None NO Part A NO NO None NO EPart B NO NO None NO PartC NO NO None NO arrantSignal System NO NO None NO Crash Experience NO NO None NO Roadway Network NO NO INone NO Notes: 1)The Urban Four hour Warrant was not met howeverwas sufficeintly close to be considered satisfied. 2)The Peak hour warrant is Not Appliciable in this case, however the data is shown for refrence only. Traffic Safety and Operational Issues 1. Concerns regarding Signalizadon as a First Step in Improvements Attachment 1 contains a full discussion of concerns regarding signalization of the driveway as a first step in addressing the access request from LVSC. The primary safety concern regarding full signalization of the driveway is the overlapping operational area of the two intersections. Based on further analysis and investigation, staff has found that forecasted queue lengths at the LVSC driveway signal could potentially back up as far as 75 to 100 feet (based upon simulation rums) toward the Madonna and LOVR intersection. This back-up could be higher depending on actual field conditions and the time of day volumes at this intersection. This creates a safety problem for drivers that may have difficulty stopping in time for queued traffic after turning from LOVR onto Madonna and then facing an immediate decision point along Madonna Road. Staffs conclusion is that introducing the stop conditions of the proposed signal, extending the functional area of the vehicle queues from the Pereira stop condition and weaving the proposed left tum lane into the LVSC complex, will increase conflicts within the stopping sight distance length and that this may increase the likelihood of rear-end collisions at the Madonna/Pereira intersection. This condition will occur even if the signals are coordinated and signal indications are readily visible to approaching drivers. 2. Fire Station 4 Emergency Access There is the potential for queued traffic to block the Fire Station 4 driveway and cause delays to exiting emergency service vehicles. The Fire Department has reviewed the LVSC's request and does not support signalization of the LVSC driveway until other measures have been tried and Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 6 they fail to address access concerns from the center. Currently there are approximately 3-4 emergency vehicle responses per day from this location and 1-2 occurring during the PM peak in traffic when queuing from the proposed signal would be the highest. This proposed signal also would receive emergency vehicle preemption from ambulances and fire engines from other stations. As a result emergency preemptions at the proposed signal can occur as many as 5-10 times per day with 3-5 occurring within the PM peak. The Fire Department already has expressed concerns regarding queues associated with the Madonna/LOVR signal that preemption does not fully resolve and this will be further complicated with signalization at the LVSC driveway. At present, Engine 4 has the ability to access the northbound lanes on Madonna to turn right or use emergency lights and siren to turn left and enter the LOVR intersection from the left side of the street. With the proposed signalization, the northbound lanes will at times be blocked by the queue at the proposed signal and would exacerbate this exit strategy even with preemption. While the proposal from LVSC contains a proposed method of emergency vehicle preemption and control between the two signals, analysis indicates that there is a, risk of inducing congestion and standing vehicles blocking the front of the Fire Station #4 Driveway as a result. Overall this could result in an increase in emergency response time. 3. Traffic Congestion and Neighborhood Impacts One of the primary considerations for signalization under State and Federal criteria is that a traffic control signal should be installed only if it can be demonstrated that the signal will improve operation of the street system and will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. Based on extensive operational simulation by both parties, staff has found that although signalization of the driveway can be implemented, it will cause an increase in vehicle queuing and delay traffic exiting the shopping center; increase overall travel time in the vicinity; and create a higher level of congestion as opposed to un-signalized control. There is a well-documented historical neighborhood involvement with the two Oceanaire neighborhoods (both north and south) regarding neighborhood traffic intrusion with vehicles avoiding LOVR and Madonna Road. A particular concern to staff is the potential for additional diversion of traffic and cut-through impacts which may occur if the driveway is signalized. From a previous Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) studies performed for the north Oceanaire neighborhood in 2003, 2005, and 2009, the current average travel time through the neighborhood is approximately 20 seconds longer than going through the LOVR/Madonna traffic signal (based upon field runs). Approximately 11% of motorists traveling from southbound Madonna to westbound LOVR still choose to cut-through the Oceanaire neighborhood even with this longer time. Signalization of the LVSC driveway could increase the average travel time through the Madonna/LOVR and Madonna/LVSC/Pereira traffic signal by as much as 30 seconds (assuming coordination can be optimized). This could result in additional cut-through routes through the north Oceanaire neighborhood, particularly for more impatient drivers. Signalization of the driveway without first exhausting alternative measures to address the LVSC access issues is inconsistent with the commitment the City made to the Oceanaire neighborhood in March 2009 as part of the NTM efforts. An outcome of this NTM process was that the City committed to make every effort to improve operations where possible on Madonna in order to discourage cut through traffic. Even if neighborhood traffic management issues are only Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 7 perceived by the neighbors to be worsened by signalization of the driveway location, additional requests for NTM involvement and police enforcement are likely. 4. Intersection Sight Distance for Pereira Drive As part of the expanded review of the traffic signal request, staff investigated additional issues at the intersection of Madonna/LVSC/Pereira. One issue that has been identified is the continued sight limitations for Pereira that is caused by a row of Cypress trees located on the south west corner of the intersection. Visibility is limited due to these trees and does not meet the minimum recommendations for signalized or non-signalized control. Although there has not been a defined collision pattern resulting from this sight-restriction, staff is recommending that the first three trees adjacent to the intersection be removed to improve sight distance for traffic exiting Pereira. This sight distance is necessary for vehicles turning right from the side street and should be done regardless of whether the intersection is controlled by a signal. The City's tree policies do allow for removal of Trees if they pose a safety hazard. Now that these trees have been deemed a safety hazard, if the action plan is approved, Staff will proceed with the standard tree removal process which includes review by the Tree Committee and final approval by the Council. Proposed Action Plan Staff recommends that the City continue to proceed with a phased improvement approach at this location. Unfortunately due to continuous discussions and negotiations with LVSC, staff has not been able to a clear and complete plan the Oceanaire neighborhood until now. Therefore, if the action plan is approved, staff will begin discussions with the Oceanaire Neighborhood prior to proceeding with the action plan and make any minor additions and/or adjustments as necessary per those discussions. Should these improvements prove unsuccessful in alleviating the access issues expressed by the center (particularly the queuing back from Madonna/LOVR or continued driveway delays), installation of a traffic signal (phased half then full) would then be a next step in the phased improvements for the location. The objective of this phased approach is to address as many of the LVSC access goals as expressed with the least level of secondary impact to surrounding arterials, neighborhoods and emergency access routes. The Action Plan should be considered a three-phased approach starting with the least restrictive measures and becoming progressively more restrictive with each phase. In order to proceed to the next phase, a set of established criteria that represents an acceptable level of access and safety at the LVSC driveway that must be met or exceeded before proceeding with subsequent more restrictive phases. It is also critical to assess changes in traffic conditions that occur from the September 15, 2009 Action Plan implementation in order to adequately evaluate the further effects of signalization before signalization actually occurs. Staff is now recommending a more detailed Action Plan for the specific Madonna/LVSC driveway/Pereira Road location than was approved by the Council in September 2009. One component of the expanded Action Plan is to reestablish the left turn ingress at Madonna Road as an initial phase as opposed to waiting until a later time. BI - � Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 8 Phase 1 Phase 1 includes all the measures originally approved by the Council on September 15, 2009, out outlined earlier in this report. The widening of LOVR adjacent to Fire Station #4 as well as the corner intersection improvement is moving forward as part of the Prefumo Creek Commons off- site improvement plans being reviewed by the City. In addition to these previously approved items, the new recommended first phase of the Action Plan includes the following: 1. Install striping and signage in Shell Service Station/LVSC driveway to reduce left turn restriction non-compliance. 2. The LVSC exit lanes on the driveway should be widened to a minimum of 30 feet. This would provide two wider exit lanes under the initial phased improvements and if the location should ultimately be fully signalized a left-through-right turn lane configuration, could be provided to reduce the time needed to serve the driveway under signalized control. The driveway should also be designed for minimum grade break across the sidewalk/gutter to promote higher exit speeds from the center. 3. Remove the 3-4 sycamore trees on the south side of Madonna Road west of the intersection to increase intersection sight distance particularly for right turn vehicles. This improvement is recommended regardless of signal or non-signal control of the intersection. As indicated previously in this staff report, if the action plan is approved staff would proceed with the standard review process for removing trees which includes review by the tree committee and final review by the Council. 4. Implement the LVSC consultant proposed channelization for westbound Madonna at LOVR. If the proposed channelization as proposed by ATE should result in continuation of imbalanced stacking of traffic in the #2 dual left turn lane, then the City should modify the approach such that the two westbound through lanes should be trapped into the dual left turn lanes to reduce the queue lengths and staggered lane volumes. Figure 1 —Phase 1 Modifications to Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Intersection Widen/Align Departure Lane Widen Drive wa i LVSC i Improve Driveway Sight Distance f + ttt Reestablish Left Tum f donna s e ____ _s___ ~ Improve Lane Configuration a re e e t flt Remove 3 Trees Widen Los Osos Valley Road tp Restrict Left&Thru Movements >> (I I I i i Improve Departure Lane Configuration Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 9 Figure 1 depicts the action plan items that would be completed as part of Phase l improvements. Most notable changes from the September 2009 recommendations are the reestablishment of the left turn lane back into the LVSC driveway, the removal of the trees that are sight restrictions at Pereira and the slightly wider driveway considered necessary at the LVSC exit location if signalization should be needed in the future. The proposed channelization for Madonna is pursuant to that proposed by ATE consultants. However, staff is concerned that imbalanced flows for the dual left turn lanes at LOVR may continue at this location. We will monitor this issue and if it occurs one option would be to modify the approach lanes such that the two westbound Madonna through lanes trap into the dual lefts thus splitting the queue lengths.. The draft criteria to move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 are provided in attachment 2, the City's monitoring program. However staff along with LVSC need to refine this criteria to be clear when the next phase should be implemented. Phase 2 Phase 2 is partial signalization of the driveway which allows all primary movements to and from the driveway under signalized control, while not interrupting northbound Madonna traffic. In order to accommodate partial signalization, this phase also includes hard channelization of the left in and out movements from LVSC. Also this phase includes restriction of left turns into Pereria in order to accommodate a dedicated acceleration lane for vehicles exiting LVSC. Motorists turning left from LVSC would do so under signalized control into a protected and dedicated acceleration lane where they would be able accelerate and change lanes onto Madonna. Figure 2—Phase 2 Modifications to Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Intersection 1 'ti I tl t II /+ t LVSC t�li 40 4 1y1, t�t�t Madonna 4 t r ---------- fl � f t t l NB Madonna Unsignalized c O Partial Signalization of SB Madonna/LVSC Driveway t Figure 2 depicts the Phase 2 improvements as proposed by staff if initial improvements prove unsuccessful in addressing the access issues that have been expressed by LVSC. The primary next step in this phase would be to provide some signalization of the driveway (stopping only the F3/-7 Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 10 conflicting westbound through movements) and allowing exiting and left turn entering traffic to be conducted under controlled circumstances. This "half signal" proposal would avoid creating some of the secondary impacts of a full signal (such as the emergency response issues and the south Oceanaire neighborhood intrusions) and yet allow more guaranteed access to the center rather than relying on natural gaps on Madonna if queuing issues are not resolved. The draft criteria to move from Phase 2 to Phase 3 are provided in attachment 2, the City's monitoring program. However staff along with LVSC need to refine this criteria to be clear when the next phase should be implemented. Phase 3 Phase 3 is full signalization of the driveway that allows all movements to and from the driveway under signalized control but would require interruption of northbound Madonna traffic. In order to accommodate full signalization, the Madonna frontage road would have to be closed due to the excessive number of conflicts associated with that approach under signalized control. Figure 3—Final Phased Modifications to Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Intersection Full Signaliration of Madonna/LVSC Driveway LVSC Madonna 49 } Restore Pereria Left Tum iy ttt __-___ .� _-_------- y _- y Remove Channelization&Shorten Left Turn Pocket t t Restrict Frontage Road E)dt I 0 I Reconfigure Frontage Road Approach m Figure 3 depicts the final phased improvements that would be recommended if prior phases do not prove effective in addressing LVSC access issues. This phase includes full signalization of the location and reestablishing some access into Pereira. Based upon signal simulations conducted by staff and ATE, if full signalization is ultimately installed at this location, staff recommends closing part of the Madonna frontage road (exit only) due the high degree of complexity of serving this maneuver and the additional inefficiencies it creates along Madonna Road. Emergency and public access into the neighborhood via the frontage road would be maintained. Phased Improvement Monitoring Criteria Determining when to move from Phase 1 to any proposed later phases is an important decision. .LVSC has asked that staff develop criteria that would be used to help determine when Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 11 transitions would occur as part of the revised action plan development. At a minimum, the location should be specifically reviewed as part of the Annual Traffic Safety Report. However, because LVSC is concerned that phases may be overly delayed if only reviewed as part of this process, staff has developed a set of"draft" conditions as set forth in Attachment 2 that the City would use to transition from one phase to the next without having to reanalyze all of the signalization issues. More frequent monitoring of the location is recommended as well as criteria that could be used to address driveway delays and blockage that may not be reflected in collision patterns. If conceptually approved by the Council, staff would work with LVSC to finalize these draft criteria, complete the proposed Phase 1 improvements and implement the monitoring program on a continual basis. The Future of Madonna Road and LOVR As part of the September 2009 Action Plan approved by the Council, the longer term issues for the Madonna Road Corridor and surrounding area will be reviewed as part of the Circulation Element Update. Staff still supports this recommendation. However, the additional analysis conducted as part of this review has indicated that more detailed approaches as part of that update will be likely, such as: 1. If the Madonna/Pereira/LVSC location is signalized, causing additional operational constraints along Madonna, the City should work with LVSC to secure an irrevocable offer of dedications for 10 feet of additional right-of-way across the north side of Madonna across the property frontage that may be used in the future when the additional westbound right turn lane is needed on Madonna at LOVR. 2. As part of the update to the Circulation Element, the City may need to consider establishing a plan line on LOVR from Royal Way to south of Madonna to install a third southbound through lane on Madonna in the vicinity of LOVR. 3. Alternative intersection design (such as continuous flow or roundabouts) should be considered at Madonna/LOVR in lieu of widening the intersection. 4. The City should work with the north Oceanaire neighborhood to determine if opening an access from LVSC to the frontage road would allow partial neighborhood access. Concerns regarding cut through traffic could be partially offset by closing the current frontage road access at Madonna/Oceanaire, which may also provide operation improvements at this intersection. Quite simply, future forecasts for the intersection of Madonna/LOVR are grim (as approved in the existing Circulation Element) and will likely be worse if the City signalizes the intersection of Madonna/LVSC/Pereira. While the level of service is expected to degrade to unacceptable levels under future forecasts regardless of signalization, if the driveway is signalized, these unacceptable conditions will likely occur sooner then if un-signalized and may necessitate acceleration of the Froom Ranch Road connection to Dalidio, Prado Road interchange, and other alternative circulation solutions to alleviate this degraded situation. These longer term circulation improvements have significant beneficial impacts to the Madonna corridor and access to the neighborhoods that will help alleviate congestion and operations when they are completed. 8/-/� Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 12 CONCURRENCES Fire Department The Fire Department has reviewed the LVSC's request and supports the staff recommended action plan. Specifically the Fire Department does not support full signalization of the LVSC driveway until other measures have been tried and fail to address access concerns from the center. As noted earlier there are potential queuing impacts on emergency vehicle egress from Fire Station #4 as well as for other emergency service vehicles in the area during peak periods, The Fire Department has expressed concerns regarding queues associated with the Madonna/LOVR signal that preemption does'not fully resolve. At present, Engine 4 usually has the ability to access the northbound lanes on Madonna Road to turn right or use their emergency lights and siren to turn left and enter the LOVR intersection from the left side of the street. If full signalization is implemented, the northbound lanes will at times be blocked and would exacerbate this exit strategy, even during preemption. The LVSC proposed method of emergency vehicle preemption and control between the two signals runs the risk of inducing congestion and standing vehicles blocking the front of the Fire Station #4 driveway which could result in an increase in emergency response time. As a result of these factors the Fire Department supports the staff recommended action plan. Police Department The Police Department has reviewed the signal request and supports the staff recommended action plan. Specifically the Police Department does not support full signalization of the LVSC driveway until the approved Action Plan has failed to address access and congestion issues. Since the left turn restriction was installed, collisions have been reduced. There is currently high demand for speed enforcement in the Oceanaire neighborhood due to cut-through traffic from motorists trying to avoid the single signal at Madonna and LOVR, and staff believes that adding a second signal will only exacerbate this problem and lead to greater police resource allocation requests by the neighborhood. FISCAL IMPACT As discussed during the September 2009 Council meeting, LVSC has offered to pay for the full cost of signalizing the driveway location. This is an offer tendered to alleviate strains on the General Fund if signalization should be needed to be installed and as an encouragement to complete the improvements sooner rather than later in the phased approach. Staff has reviewed this proposal and concurs that when signalization of the improvements is considered necessary, additional outside financial assistance would be welcome but not required. The fact that the center is offering to pay for the signal now to advance installation does not affect the engineering judgment used to arrive at the recommendations for safe and efficient operations of the location. Rather, if roadway conditions are such that they continue to effect the LVSC driveway location, staff considers this a general public issue and the City should be responsible for the cost of these improvements. This recommendation does not reject the offer of the center to ultimately accelerate the installation of the signal at a future time when deemed necessary but does not rely on it to complete improvements when they are needed. /S/-/a- i 1 Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 13 The proposed additional phased project's funding is not identified in any financial plan or previously approved action by the Council. However, staff has been successful in working with the Prefumo Creek Commons project to incorporate most of the previously approved work at Madonna/LOVR into its public improvement plans. Relocation of the LVSC driveway should be completed by the LVSC as part of the joint improvements in the area. Phase 1 Costs Staff recommends funding the following Phase 1 work in the amount of$85,000 from available funding in the City's Annual Traffic Safety and Operations program budget: Design 10,000 Construction 65,000 Inspection 10,000 Total 85,000 Staff is recommending that only Phase I improvements be funded at this time. Should subsequent phases become necessary, staff will return to the Council with additional funding requests at that time. These costs only represent those of the City improvements in Phase 1: as noted above, there are also projects which are funded by the Prefumo Creek Commons development, and internal driveway improvements funded by LVSC. Estimated Costs for Subsequent Phases The preliminary Engineer's Estimate for Phase 2 (half-signal) is approximately $200,000 and an added $80,000 for Phase 3 III (full signal: $280,000 total). Most of the signal infrastructure installed as part of Phase II (Half-Signal) would be kept in place and become part of the full signal, resulting in a modest added cost for Phase 3 These phases would be considered operational improvements and therefore would be eligible for funding out of the City's General Traffic Signal System account, which is funded by State Highway Account (SHA) grant funding. Currently this account has a balance of$446,912. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Immediate Signalization of the Laguna Village Shopping Center. Amend the Action Plan approved on September 15, 2009 to provide for immediate signalization . In the event Council approves this alternative, the City Attorney has recommended that the City obtain a hold harmless agreement from the LVSC that would obligate LVSC to defend and indemnify the City against liability arising from the signal installation. To the extent that Council directs such action in reliance on data and recommendations provided to the City by LVSC consultants, such an agreement would insulate the City from liability costs in the event that the City's design immunity were to be compromised if conditions degrade and collisions occur following signalization. If this alternative is approved, the City Attorney requests that Council provide direction to her office to negotiate the agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement. Staff does not recommend this alternative because of significant safety and J1 —/3 Laguna Village Shopping Center Access Improvements Page 14 operational impacts and inconsistency with the Circulation Element and Major Council Goal to reduce traffic congestion. 2. Approve the Action Plan without Phase II: Approve the staff recommend Action Plan without Phase II (Half Signal), proceeding directly to full signalization if phase I fails to meet the established criteria and obtain a hold harmless agreement from the LVSC that would obligate LVSC to defend and indemnify the City against liability arising from the signal installation. However, staff does not recommend this approach because of the significant safety and operational impacts likely to occur by implementing the most severe measure prematurely. Staff has evaluated other possible phasing alternatives in detail and determined that each phase of staffs proposed action plan are essential steps prior to full signalization and represent the shortest acceptable path to full signalization. Implementing an Action Plan without phase II is inconsistent with the City's successful practice of make incremental improvements. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Staff Technical Assessment 2. Monitoring Program. 3. March 4th, 2010 letter from Laguna Village Shopping center on proposed phasing plan 4. Vicinity Map tlOoundl agenda mportslpublic woks cm12O1 OUransportationllvsc\wr laguna village shopping center.doc �1—lye ATTACHMENT 1 Executive Summary The city has been working with the Laguna Village Shopping Center for the past two years on improving access to and from their center as well as operational improvements along Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road. On September 15, 2009, the Council received an initial report and recommendations for access improvements. The Council voted 5:0 to adopt the proposed action plan as developed by staff and directed staff to return to Council with a review of information provided at the hearing by ATE Associates, traffic consultants for the center. Staff has been working with LVSC and ATE to perform a full signal warrant analysis and any commensurate recommendations regarding the need to signalize the intersection at this time. The attached signal warrant summary discusses staff's investigation of this issue. The proposed signalization of the intersection of Madonna Road/LVSC Driveway/Pereira is a highly complex issue that has no perfect answer. Trade-offs and risks exist for all forms of traffic control considered for the location. Because of the variation in approach speeds the application of the state warrants includes consideration for both rural and urban conditions. Traffic volumes at the location, including driveway egress volumes satisfy volume criteria established in two of the State traffic signal warrants under the rural classification (greater that 40 MPH approach speeds). Volumes at the location does not satisfy these warrants if the urban criteria are used however, they are very close for the Four Hour wan-ant and it should be considered satisfied for urban criteria. Staff investigated additional issues at the intersection to determine if interruption of continuous traffic is occurring naturally and can be improved by other alternatives or if a signal is critical at this time. A gap analysis was performed along with field observations that indicate there are sufficient gaps in traffic along Madonna Road, albeit sporadic, to allow all egress traffic to occur at the current driveway. With the improvements planned for the driveway, the available gaps are expected to increase substantially. The narrowness and alignment of the driveway continues to be a primary cause of delay and confusion at the driveway location. Pedestrian volumes at the location do not meet State warrants for signalization. Collisions do not meet State warrants for signalization of the location. Potential queues and other operational issue are of concern particularly regarding emergency response and potential neighborhood intrusion. Review of the stopping sight distance indicates there is sufficient distance for most drivers to observe stopping needs for current conditions although introducing stop condition queue lengths and the weave area for the driveway left turn ingress will encroach into the functional area of the adjacent Madonna/LOVR intersection. This relatively short distance may introduce rear-end collisions where they currently do not exist and could introduce angle collisions if approach vehicles do not track the proposed signal indications in time to stop at the location. ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 2 Recommendations 1. Based upon all factors taken into consideration as part of this review a full traffic signal at this location is not appropriate until other measures have been implemented on a trial basis and proved ineffective at improving the access for the LVSC center. It is recommended that the City continue with a phased improvement approach at this location that includes implementing the previously approved Action Plan from September 2009. This phased approach includes relocation and widening of the LVSC driveway. Should these improvements prove unsuccessful in alleviating the access issues expressed by the center (particularly the queuing back from Madonna/LOVR, installation of a traffic signal (either full or half) would be a next step in the phased improvements for the location. 2. Remove the 3-4 sycamore trees on the south side of Madonna Road west of the intersection to increase intersection sight distance particularly for right turn vehicles. 3. The LVSC exit lanes on the driveway should be widened to a minimum of 30'. This would provide two wider exit lanes under the initial phased improvements and if the location should ultimately be fully signalized a left-through-right tum lane configuration could be provided to reduce the time needed to serve the driveway under signalized control. The driveway should also be designed for minimum grade break across the sidewalk/gutter to promote higher exit speeds from the center. 4. The two WB through lanes should be trapped into the dual left turn lanes to reduce the queue lengths and staggered lane volumes. 5. Install striping and signage in Shell Station/LVSC driveway to reduce left turn restriction non-compliance. 6. An alternative to the current EB left turn lane restriction into LVSC is possible. Since volumes from Pereira Drive are lower than the LVSC driveway, one option that could be considered would be to "flip" the turn restrictions from the EB left turn lane into LVSC and instead restrict the turns in and out of the south Oceanaire neighborhood. This option would reestablish primary access into the center and restrict the lower volumes from Pereira that have alternative access choices. The raised median of this option would provide additional control to discourage restricted pedestrian and vehicle movements. If the EB left turn is reestablished, a minimum 60' left turn storage bay for the EB LVSC driveway should be provided. This left turn lane should be as long as possible without hindering the length of the opposing WB turn lanes at Madonna/LOVR. 7. Monitor the intersections of Madonna/LOVR and Madonna/LVSC/Pereira as part of the Annual Traffic Safety Report and Bi-Annual Operations Reports and mitigate as needed. / - ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 3 Long-term Circulation Conclusions 8. As part of the update to the Circulation Element establish a plan line on LOVR from Royal Way to south of Madonna Road to install a third SB through lane and on Madonna Road in the vicinity of LOUR. 9. Alternative intersection design (such as continuous flow, roundabout, etc.) should be considered at Madonna/LOVR in lieu of widening the intersection. 10. The City should work with the north Oceanaire neighborhood to determine if opening an access from LVSC to the frontage road would allow partial neighborhood access. Concerns regarding cut through traffic could be partially offset by closing the current frontage road access at Madonna/Oceanaire which may also provide operation improvements at this intersection. I /1 J\ ATTACHMENT 1 Introduction The following is a traffic signal warrant assessment conducted by City staff for the intersection of Laguna Village Shopping Center (LVSC) Driveway/Pereira and Madonna Road. Data collected at the site has been compared to the guidelines set forth in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and other roadway design documents. The MUTCD establishes eight warrants as criteria necessary to justify consideration of traffic signal installation. The eight warrants are listed as follows: CA MUTCD Signal Warrants Warrant 1 - Eight-hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Warrant - Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5 - School Crossin Warrant 6 - Coordinated Si al System Warrant 7 - Crash Experience Warrant 8 - Roadway Network The CA MUTCD states: 1. The Satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. 2. A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this Chapter(Warrants)are met. 3. A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. 4. A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic now. The installation of a traffic signal must improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. Satisfying one or more warrants alone does not in itself provide justification to install a signal. A thorough analysis and sound engineering judgment that considers crash history, field conditions such as sight distances, gap acceptance analysis, speed limits, along with other engineering principles must all be weighed carefully along with potential risks before the installation of a traffic signal should be undertaken. In general, the CA MUTCD suggests that an engineering study for warrant assessment should include the following data: A. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during 12 hours of an average day. It is desirable that the hours selected contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic volume. / (y � � �lQ - ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 2 B. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, classified by vehicle type (heavy trucks, passenger cars and light trucks, public-transit vehicles, and, in some locations, bicycles), during each 15-minute period of the 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon during which total traffic entering the intersection is greatest. C. Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the. vehicular counts in Item B above and during hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where young, elderly, and/or persons with physical or visual disabilities need special consideration, the pedestrians and their crossing times may be classified by general observation. D. Information about nearby facilities and activity centers that serve the young, elderly, and/or persons with disabilities, including requests from persons with disabilities for accessible crossing improvements at the location under study. These persons might not be adequately reflected in the pedestrian volume count if the absence of a signal restrains their mobility. E. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the location. F. A condition diagram showing details of the physical layout, including such features as intersection geometrics, channelization, grades, sight-distance restrictions, transit stops and routes, parking conditions, pavement markings, roadway lighting, driveways, nearby railroad crossings, distance to nearest traffic control signals, utility poles and fixtures, and adjacent land use. G. A collision diagram showing crash experience by type, location, direction of movement, severity, weather, time of day, date, and day of week for at least 1 year. Due to the unique characteristics of the location and its close proximity to the intersection with Los Osos Valley Road, the City's warrant assessment also includes additional investigation of operational conditions at the location other than just traffic volume assessments and collision comparisons. The critical approach speeds of the location are a significant issue in application of the warrant system. Because the recorded approach speeds at the intersection itself differ from the posted speed of the entire corridor, the use of the "Rural" or "Urban" warrant criteria outlined in the MUTCD alone is questionable. In essence using one criteria or the other does not provide full information on the operational characteristics of the driveway location and need for a signal. For this reason, staff reviewed both rural and urban warrant criteria to assist in determining the appropriateness of signal control at this location. The CA MUTCD also suggests that: "The following data, which are desirable for a more precise understanding of the operation of the intersection may be obtained...", A. Vehicle-hours of stopped time delay determined separately for each approach. _ ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 3 B. The number, time, and distribution of acceptable gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street for entrance from the minor street. C. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control. The warrant assessment for the LVSC signalization request contains analysis of these issues which prove critical for determining the immediate need for signalization or other alternative improvements. Methodology In order to perform a traffic signal warrants analysis for the Laguna Village Shopping Center(LVSC) Driveway/Pereira/Madonna Road intersection, traffic data was collected and then compared to the CA MUTCD warrants. A prior warrant analysis conducted by staff in 2009 focused on the AM and PM peaks of the location. This warrant assessment is based upon 8-hour turning movements and other traffic volumes visually counted and validated by City staff through the City's traffic signal detection equipment. This data represents actual field conditions for the location as observed over the period of October 26d' though November 2nd 2009. Staff considered Wednesday, October 28`h as representative of an average day at the intersection to review volume criteria in the warrants. Additional data, including spot speed studies and gap analysis was conducted on other dates and are provided in the Appendix to this report. Location Data Speed Information: Madonna Road Posted Speed: 45 MPH Madonna Road 85`h percentile Approach Speeds: Eastbound(Northbound) Madonna Road: 37 MPH Westbound(Southbound)Madonna Road: 41 MPH Pereira Drive Approach Speed(Stop): <25 MPH LVSC Driveway Approach Speed(Stop): <15 MPH As part of the final signal wan-ants analysis, staff conducted additional spot speed studies on the approaches to the location. The current 45 MPH speed limit on the Madonna Road segment between LOVR and Oceanaire has been established based on mid-segment surveys per the California Vehicle Code and the CA MUTCD. While appropriate for establishing speed limits along the corridor, mid-segment speed surveys do not reflect actual approach speeds at the Madonna/LVSC/Pereira intersection. Therefore additional speed studies were conducted at that location. Speeds at this location are lower than the mid-segment speeds used to establish the segment speed limit. While State of California warrant language allows discretion as to the use of the posted speed limit or 85h percentile approach speed at the location (whichever is higher) for the choice of the rural or urban criteria (and associated thresholds) this choice is discretionary based upon engineering judgment. In this particular location, the actual 85`h percentile �/ a0 ENTI Traffic Signal Warrant Review-Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive ATTACHM4 approach speeds are critical in warrant review, gap analysis and sight distance calculations for the location. Because of the unique characteristics, applying the individual rural or urban criteria was deemed inappropriate by staff. For this reason, both sets of criteria were considered in this analysis. Full traffic signal warrant sheets are shown in Attachments 1 and 2. Approach Lanes: The LVSC driveway is currently offset east of Pereira Drive by approximately 40' (centerline to centerline) and is restricted to a single egress lane (Figure 1). The driveway is proposed to be relocated and widened as part of the access improvements proposed by the center. After discussions with City staff, ATE (LVSC's consultants) has submitted a driveway configuration (see Figure 2) that includes modifying the proposed driveway to a shared left turn/through lane as well as an exclusive right turn lane. ''"�� � ,tel., ����'�;� �, ,.:�`• �, •� - IN IL +�� � � �� `moi � ' •� �•,� �, r.� `� .� ✓ • Figure 1 -Existing Alignment (BI-ai ATTAC:���ENT I Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 5 J Ir IT 'r EXHIBIT I Figure 2—December 1'f 2009 revised ATE Driveway Alignment As part of this warrant assessment, the assumed driveway configuration was a shared left turn/through lane as well as an exclusive right turn lane. Volumes for left turns were combined with through volumes on this approach with a single lane approach designation. Warrant 1: Eight Hour Vehicular Volumes It is intended that Warrant I be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then the criteria for Wan-ant I is satisfied and Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and B are not needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant I is satisfied and the combination of Conditions A and B is not needed (note: excerpts from the CA N1UTCD are provided in box outline for reference). Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher- volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. B/ ate � ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSCIPereira Drive Page 6 Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-I m_ be used in place of the 100 percent columns. (emphasis added) Guidance: The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems. Warrant IA: Minimum Vehicular Volume - .Not:flet Application of this warrant is intended for locations where a large volume of intersection traffic during the highest eight hours of an average weekday is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Currently the volume of vehicles exiting the shopping center at this driveway does not meet the minimum criteria for consideration of a traffic signal under this warrant for either rural or urban criteria. WARRANT i -Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Rural Criteria (Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and B must be satisfied) Condition A-Minimum Vehicle Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO O (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R 11 U I R APPROACH t 2 or More �o o� od 00 on �tb Hour Both Approaches E(04O 350 600 420 tdajorStreet (480) (336) f3110 1488 tfo5t Vn H'�g%lestqp proaeh 105 200 l�9inorStreet (8a) (160) (t12) (p$ req ID2 9t �9 �5 69 Slo l a3 (� ATTACHMINT I Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 7 WARRANT 1 -Eight Now Vehicular Volume urban Criteria (Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and S mu6T oe sa is e Condition A-Minimum Vehicle Volume 100° SATISFIED YES ❑ NO [� MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 801/6 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Er (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U I R U R FAPPROACHt or More oa� y`� !� �° CP ,v Hour 500 350 600 420 (280) (480) {335) t81f. 14?8'u t ' tq&4 tt,Z4' wi rmest 120 105 140 f (64) t6oJ 1112) 1,13 fog tot_ Qt 74 7S T Fi ure 3 - Warrant 1A rural and urban Neither the rural or urban criteria for Warrant I A are met. Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic• . . , -, Urban Alot Jlet Warrant IB is specifically intended for application at locations where the side street traffic suffers excessive delay due to conflicts in major street traffic for all eight hour periods of highest volume of an average weekday. Figure 4 shows the recorded traffic volume applications of the warrant for the rural and urban criteria. Mural Criteria Condition B-Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES O NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES X NO ❑ (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U I R g U I R o APPROACH &12 BotbApproaches 750Ala' rStreet (600) I-Aw ttt' 8 ttost 146(0 trd7.a %taut 1'480 rstwPighestApprozch 75Minor Street (60X13 (09 tot 9( �9 �5 (,d g(p Urban Criteria .Condition'B-Interruption,of Continuous Traffic 100%SATISFIED YES ❑ NO [ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80%SATISFIED YES NO ❑ (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U JR u I R APPROACH ,� ,a o LANES t r More �.• �%� .a `�,• y` `v" t�°a Hour Both Approaches 75D 525 900 63D Maior Street (420) 720) (504). t3?b 147B 16t[7q t'f F621 rtdo 1930 t(istA roach -75 53 64nor tree% 6 (42) (80) (56) le4a (,q 102 4S 64 g(o Figure 4- Warrant IB Rural and Urban Z/ a� ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review-Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 8 The LVSC driveway traffic volume meets the minimum criteria for satisfaction of the rural warrant for the posted speed of the roadway. The warrant threshold is exceeded by as little as eleven vehicles for one hour and less than twenty vehicles for three hours. The `urban" criteria is not warranted at the 100% threshold (75 vehicles on the side approach) but does exceed the 80% criteria of 60 vehicles. The urban warrant is not considered to be satisfied. It is therefore important to review additional conditions at the location to determine if signal control is essential at the location in order to interrupt the continuous flow of the main street. The intent of this warrant is to indicate the need of a signal for the purpose of providing adequate gaps in continuous traffic; however extensive gap analysis has shown that the upstream signal at Madonna and Oceanaire is already providing interruptions in continuous traffic. Field reviews have indicated that vehicles continue to be able to exit the driveway location albeit poorly under the current driveway configuration, location and at certain times of the day. LVSC traffic has difficulty taking full advantage of these gaps due to the present driveway location and configuration. Therefore, although the minimum numeric criteria is met for this warrant under some conditions, other alternatives exist to improve driveway operations, such as widening and relocation the driveway to align with Pereira. Warrant 1 Combinations of Conditions A & B— :Vot,Vet If Warrant IA and IB are not considered satisfied the warrant allows for consideration of a combination of the two to determine signal need. Since the urban criteria for both Warrants I A and I B are not met it is appropriate to analyze the combination warrant for this location. Figure 5 shows the assessment of these conditions for the location. Combination of Conditions A&8 SATISFIED YES El NO,+� REMIREMENT CONDITION J FULFILLED TJdOCONDITIONS A' NNIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 80% AND. Yes ❑ no B. INTERRUPTIO"OF C09%, vUOUS TRAFFIC f AN AAEOUATE TRIAL OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD JSZLESS DELAY AND INCONVENIFWCE TO TRAFFIC HAS FAILED Yes ❑ No TO SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PR09LEMS Tho tatis:acwn of a track Skjr1S%Tfraat of o`arrants atoll not in Itself rcWbv the tn.Mtauon W a b'Wfcc control signal. Figure 5 Warrant 1 Combination of Conditions A & B Staff does not consider the combinations warrant to be satisfied at this time since there are other available alternatives that have been identified that will address problems at the location and shorten queues along Madonna Road. These improvements cause less overall delay and inconvenience to motorists at this location. These include the proposed driveway modifications as identified by the shopping center as well as operational improvements recommended for the intersection of Madonna/LOVR that will improve upon the queue issue backing from the intersection of Madonna/LOVR. An adequate trial period of these alternative measures should be undertaken prior to considering Warrant 1 satisfied. y ATTACHMENT I Traffic Signal Warrant Review-Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 9 The signal warrant analysis conducted by ATE concludes differently on this issue in that they have concluded that all other alternative measures have been implemented at this location and that lack of traffic signal control is the primary issue at this location. Warrant 2: Four Hour Vehicular Volume Urban ,tor jblet Application of this warrant is intended for locations where the volume of intersection traffic during the highest four hours of an average weekday is the principal reason for installing a traffic control signal. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th:percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1. Rural Criteria WARRANT 2•Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED' YES f/f NO ❑ Ree,rtl ba.u@y vpnlrrar vetwnes foram fair hours of an average WY,, 2 ar APPROACH LANES one W=e :' � .a' �qi Hour Eofh APproachos-Max cSuvef X Wst 14Wp I tt.2y M%0 Nigher Approach-NMor Strep: 7C 102 R1 '49 8to •AD Pto>"etl pptnfa fab obwe the curves En FNpee aGf. (URBAN AREAS) Yes ❑ No ,M Aft Pf=od POMM fa0 above thn awes In Figure eC.2, (RURAL AREAS) Yes k( No [] ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—MadonnalLVSC/Pereira Drive Page 10 Urban Criteria WARRANT 2•Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISF(E©" YES 0 NO Record hourly vehicular volumes for arty tour hours of an average day. 2 or APPROACH LANES One More Hour Both Approaches-Major Street X 11 t(.Sl 1411. Ib row; Higher Approach-Minor Street X tot 9 t Z9 t, F 'Ali Plotted poirra fag above the curves in Figure 4C•1. (URBAN AREAS) Yes ❑ No Q$,All plotted points tall above the curves in Figure 40.2 (RURAL AREAS) Yes ❑ No 0 hl/,t ¢vac. Figure 6—Warrant 2 Four Hour Warrants Rural and Urban As shown in Figures 6 and 7, the rural warrant criteria (60) is met for four hours at this location. A strict interpretation of the urban criteria minimum of 80 vehicles would not satisfy the warrant, but comes sufficiently close in the fourth highest hour (79) to consider the warrant satisfied due to daily variation in volumes. Rural Criteria Figure 4C-2- Warrant Z Four-Hour Vehicular Volume(70%Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10.000 POPULATION OR AEOV&78 94 kmrh OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) ' a 400 = I ORM LANES&2 ORM I nE LANES a 300 Wq W¢ 2 O MORE LANES&1 LANE ¢° I I NW Zee 1 LANE&1 LANE gJ M>0 loe W _ _ •AiY�� -�� — _ — _0 200 See 400 500 see 700 goo Soo 1000 17;00 MGD. lbw MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-- VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH) 'Nota 80 Vph applies as the laver threshold vdumo for a minor-atmot approach with tWO Of Moro lanes and60 vph applies as tho.lowei threshold volume 41r a minorstrea[approaGh with one lane. B� C � 0 �� ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review-Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 11 Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four4lourVehieularllolume urban Criteria > 500 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES Q 400 u2 oR MO LANES& i LANC- W 2 Q300 1 LANE&1 iLANE �w z� 200 cc 7 cc tw •115 ... S 300 400 500 600 700 900 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 t400 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— 4mv IL °jG Hoot 10.61 VEHICLES PER HOUA (VPH) ru�uuu.f 'Note:115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with'trro or more lanes and 80,;Ph applies as the laver throshoirl YNunl9 ieramt"or-street approach vA!h one lane. Figure 7-Four Hour Warrant Figures, Rural and Urban Because the charts in Figure 7 can be difficult to read, Table 1 below depicts the numeric criteria for satisfaction of this warrant under various criteria (those shown in Figures 6 and 7). Four of the hours shown must meet this criteria or the warrant is not satisfied. Although not used in the consideration of this warrant criteria, information regarding a two lane exit approach from the LVSC driveway is also included in the table to compare the thresholds against an alternative of providing an additional egress lane to separate the left turns from the through movements at the location (not currently proposed by the center). Table 1—Four Hour Warrant Assessment 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 1600 17:00 18:00 LVSC 68 69 102 91 79 75 64 86 Driveway Volume: Urban Criteria 80 No No No No No Low Threshold 1 Lane) Urban Criteria 115 No No No No No No No No Low Threshold 2 Lanes Rural Criteria 60 Low Threshold l Lane) Rural Criteria 80 No No No No No Low Threshold (2 Lanes) Based upon the posted speed of the location, the volume of vehicles exiting the shopping center meets the absolute minimum criteria for consideration of a traffic signal under this warrant if the 70%rural criteria are applied. ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review–Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 12 Due to its nature, the shopping center generates solid traffic volumes starting at the noon period and lasting throughout the PM peak period. However, observations of the location continue to indicate that egress traffic from the driveway is accommodated throughout this period primarily due to the platooning of vehicles along Madonna road coming from Oceanaire. In order to test the adequacy of these gaps to provide disrupted flow for the intersection including the highest four hours, a gap study was performed to determine if natural gaps provide sufficient periods for traffic to enter the stream of traffic on Madonna Road from the LVSC driveway. Driveway Gap Analysis On November 4`h, 2009 City staff conducted a gap study at the intersection of Madonna and the LVSC driveway. Staff measured the frequency and duration of acceptable gaps for vehicles turning left and through from the LVSC Driveway across WB Madonna lanes, EB Madonna lanes, and across all lanes in both directions. Acceptable gaps are estimated based on the two way stop control methodology established in the Highway Capacity Manual, the 6-7 second gap represents an acceptable gap assuming a two-stage left turn or through maneuver and the 8-9s gap represents an acceptable gap assuming a single-stage left turn maneuver. The results of this gap analysis are shown below in Table 2 and Figures 8 & 9. Full tables are included in Attachment 3. 6-7s Gap 8-9s Gap �—f 6-7s Gap 8-9s Gap Used Used Fteq_ Fre q_ Volume Time Time e Time 6-7 Time 8-9 11:00-12:00 91 70 68 1108 982 408 544 12:00-13:00 104 74 69 1156 976 414 552 13:00-14:00 111 85 102 1442 1286 612 816 14:00-15:00 103 69 91 1130 926 546 728 15:00-16:00 92 64 79 L193241 918 474 632 16:00-17:00 79 63 75 938 450 600 17:00-18:00 78 63 64 812 384 512 18:00-19:00 102 87 86 1234 516 688 Table 2:Acceptable Gaps Vs.LVSC Driveway Volume Comparing the frequency of gaps to the volume of traffic is one method for evaluating interruption of continuous traffic. It is also conservative in that this method does not consider single gaps which may be long enough to accommodate multiple vehicle movements. Figure 8 depicts the total number of observed gaps available for LVSC traffic to exit versus the amount of left turn and through movements out of the driveway to serve the volume of traffic exiting the LVSC driveway. ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant,Review— Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive -_ Page 13 Gap Frequency 120 111 104 103 702 02 100 91 92 85 87 86 80 78 T4 75 70 69 69 n - - 64 63 63 64 7 50 s 1 40 20 0 11:00-12:00 12:00-13:07 13:00-14:00 14:00-15:00 15:00-16:00 16:00-17:00 17:00-18:00 1800-1900 Hour X O I Ilgh Sap Tbrohold» Through+Left Tum Volume D Lc Gap Thr shdc k Table 8—Available Gap Frequencies The lower threshold of gaps (8 seconds or more in duration) reflects the availability of traffic to turn left with little disruption to through traffic or by completing the left turn maneuver in one stage. The upper threshold reflects the gaps (more than 6 seconds) that would allow exiting traffic to complete the maneuver but possibly having to perform some of the left turns in a two stage maneuver. As an example, there was a demand of 68 vehicles in the LVSC driveway during the 11:00- 12:00 period. These vehicles were turning left and going through across to Pereira from the driveway. A lower threshold of 70 gaps were observed and an upper threshold of 91 gaps. Because the actual demand was below the lower threshold there were adequate gaps such that all of the movements should be able to be completed within available gaps without affecting the main line roadway. In hours where the demand falls between the upper threshold and the lower (and assuming all left turns needed to be completed individually by themselves) there may be the need to perform the movement in a two-staged maneuver utilizing the two way left turn lane on Madonna Road. These calculations reflect actual conditions observed in the field that indicate vehicles are able to make these movements under current conditions but may need to wait until a sufficient gap is presented. Although the needed gaps to complete turns without impeding traffic in one turn stage is exceeded for three of the hours analyzed, many of the turns are Z /�3v A ATTACHMENT I Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 14 being made in tandem (two or more during one gap) during longer gap periods along Madonna Road. Two stage left turn movements (utilizing the two way left turn lane to accelerate onto Madonna Road) have been observed in the field. These are acceptable movements as long as they can be done safely and with low fi-iction for the through vehicles on Madonna Road. Field observations have indicated that this is the case and although some vehicles may have to wait for an available gap and may feel discomfort in making this maneuver. To further review the gap conditions an additional analysis was conducted to determine the adequacy of the total gap time available versus that needed due to the demand at the location. Gap Time 1600- 1442 1400 286 1324 1234 1200- i4fis 1108 1130 1086 . 1034 1000 982 976 92G -W,_8 902 0 816 812 8 800 ..728- I 672 .832 6B 600 600 - - 74S12 516 8 414 - 450 400 200-- 0---- i 100-12 DO 00D1100-12:D0 12:00-13:00 1390-11:OC 14:00-15:00 15b616:D0 1600-17'AO 17:00.18:00 16:00-19.00 Hour Usea Cap Time Range NI h 85 0 FICh Cao Tare, 0 U LOW 65 Ip L..Gap TIIIC=Ia as Figure 9: Acceptable Gap Time Vs. LVSC Required Gap Time This assessment reflects the driveway's ability to serve multiple egress movements during longer gaps occurring on the main street. It compares the cumulative gap time for the two gap thresholds and the total gap time of demand for exiting. This analysis used the same conservative left turn times of 8 seconds to complete the maneuver as well as a 6 second lower threshold. As shown in Figure 9, there is adequate gap time for accommodating exiting LVSC traffic. This is reflected in observed field conditions where multiple vehicles are able to turn during longer gaps along Madonna Road. Observations also indicate that although there are available gaps, vehicles are not always able to take advantage of them because the single lane approach is sometimes blocked by right turning traffic. From these observations staff concludes that a significant part of the ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 15 delay (and frustration) for the exiting movements continues to be caused by left turn and through vehicles currently stacking in the signal lane approach and potentially being blocked from naturally occurring gaps on Madonna Road. These gaps occur because the upstream signal at Madonna & Oceanaire is, already providing interruption of continuous traffic during all periods of the day. This has been observed over numerous hours of video review as well as actual field observations. Proposed driveway widening, realignment, and extending the two way left turn acceleration lane will improve this situation dramatically. Access to available gaps will improve under these changes and driveway delay may be reduced between 30%-500/o from that which currently occurs. Given these results, staff concludes that the delay experienced exiting the LVSC driveway is primarily due to deficient driveway geometry. Due to the margin in which this warrant is satisfied and given that modifications to the driveway will improve these conditions, staff concludes that traffic volume satisfaction of Warrant 113 is not sufficient in and of itself to require the need for signalization at this time. Signal control will guarantee disruption of traffic along Madonna Road but the impact of this will be a trade off in the amount of traffic stopping along Madonna when it is not needed for the majority of the day. In addition, overall delay will increase due to the stoppage of this traffic that is not absolutely necessary because gaps already exist. Warrant 3: Peak Hour— Not Applicable The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of I hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This warrant is usually applied only in the vicinity of facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short period of time. The state warrant is specific on this point and states: "This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such.as office complexes, manufacturing plants,industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. " Although there are peaking uses in the vicinity of the intersection (Laguna Middle School) they do not influence the operations of the location during peak times. LVSC is currently designated as a neighborhood commercial center with less than a 40 vehicle per hour variation in hourly traffic volumes. Peaking conditions for the driveway appear to occur during the 1:00 PM period which correlates to lunch hours for part of the uses in the center. LVSC does not fit within the land use or travel characteristics definition for this warrant and based upon the specific language of the warrant, the peak hour assessment is not applicable. However, in order to do a direct comparison with the ATE submitted information, staff has assessed the volumes at the location using the peak hour criteria to provide additional information for the location. ,51-3a •,� ,� ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 16 Warrant 3 Peak Hour, Part A— Rural Not Mei, Urban Not Met Side street delay for the LVSC driveway does not meet the warrant criteria. The City recorded 1.2 vehicle-hours of delay at the LVSC driveway by observing and recording each vehicles arrival and departure time at the location. ATE observed the arrival and departure time at the location but used a method that takes incremental 15 second snap shots of the cars queued at the location. This is an acceptable method for estimating delay and resulted in a calculated 2.4 vehicle-hours of delay for the driveway. The warrant criteria establish 4.0 vehicle-hours of delay as the minimum criteria for side street delay. Table 3—Vehicle-hours Delay LVSC Drive ay Delay Warrant Satisfied Observed/Calculated Requirement Vehicles-Hours Vehicles-Hours City 1.2 4.0 No ATE 2.4 4.0 No Neither of these delay amounts satisfies the warrant requirement. WARRANT 3-Peak Hour C� (Part A or Part B must be satisfied) SATISFIED YES [:1 NO PART A SATISFIED YES ❑ No (Afl parts 1,2,and 3 below most be satbffed for the same one hour,for any four consecutive I6-minytLeperiods) 1. The total decay experienced Por traffic on one minor street approach(one direction only) controned by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours fora one-lane Yes ❑ ,No approach,or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach;AND -l.Z va+�rte�-(ZSv�I+ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach(one direction only)equals or exceeds - -- 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;AND. Yes 0 No 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hourequals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 6s6 vph for Intersections with Yes d No ❑ three approaches. Figure 10—Warrant 3A Warrant 3 Part B - Urban Not Met Both ATE and staff conclude that volumes at the location satisfy the rural requirements at the location. However, the 102 vehicles recorded in the peak hour are only slightly over the minimum recommended threshold for the urban criteria (100 vehicles in the peak) but fail to meet the minimum volumes needed to satisfy the warrant at 100% for the urban criteria. ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 17 PART 8 SATISFIED YES fiT NO2 or ❑ 0 APPROACH LANES One More � Hour Rural Criteria Both Approaches-Major Street x }�54 Higher Approach-Minor Street X lot. The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-3. Yes Q No o ¢$The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-4. Yes Jam' No The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. PART13 SATISFIED YES 0 Noy 2 or 0 APPROACH LANES One More �1* Hour Urban Criteria BothApproaofles-Major Sheet ✓ lt.5t Higher Approach-MInorStmet v lot The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 40-3. Yes ❑ Mo MM The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-4, resp No ❑ rhe satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Figure 11 —Warrant 311, Rural and Urban Criteria Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3,Peak Hour(70%Factor) Rural (COWUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE;9 64 kmlh OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) I d , 40D 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES — -- wI 2 OR MORE-LANES& 1 LANE Q IL 3o0 W I 1 LANE& 1 LANE cc 02 inn �O J � + CE 100 — .� $0D 400 500 600 700 800 ?00 1000 1100 -,200 1300 Pica M0 V,= vino MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:100 vph applies as the.lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the loner threshold volume for a minor-sireet approach with one lane. B �-3� ATTACHMENT Traffic Signal Warrant Review–Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 18 Flgure 4C-3. Warrant 3,Peak Hour Urban Criteria x Sao = 500 9 U 2 OR MORE LAN &2 OR MORE LANES [ Sao A1+�E1644L7rgW LU 2 2 OR MOAE LANES&1 LANE IL66 45 wSao rao YENttI�W.flrturd ZM 1 LANE &1 LANE / 3etgrs Z/1 ,g0 200 CdcLIE wic-, US 140 t 1S0 X r 100 b6z) 400 500 eoo 700 800 800 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1000 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR{VPH} 'Note:150 wh apptias as me brier threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more tones and 100 aph applies as the lower threshold volume(ora minor straetapproach with one lane. Fi re 12–Warrant 3B, Rural and Urban Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume–Not 11let Application of this warrant is intended for locations where pedestrian volumes are high and the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Currently the pedestrian crossings at the location are restricted and pedestrians are directed to the intersection of Madonna/LOVR which is approximately 340' away. A small amount of pedestrians continue to cross at the location and not adhere to the crossing restriction. Because pedestrian crossings at the driveway are currently restricted, staff also recorded volumes of pedestrians diverting to the signal at the Madonna/LOVR intersection. In order to be conservative, these pedestrian volumes were combined and used in the warrant assessment. As shown in Figure 13, the volume of pedestrians crossing at the shopping center driveway does not meet the minimum criteria for consideration of a traffic signal under this warrant even when combined with those adhering to the crossing restriction. No school aged pedestrians were observed crossing at this location during the study periods. It is important to note that during peak times more pedestrian crossings from LVSC to Pereira were observed diverting to the Madonna/LOVR intersection rather than choosing to violate the restrictions at Madonna/Pereira at the LVSC driveway. Observations indicated that over half of pedestrians adhered to the restriction and diverted to the intersection of Madonna/LOVR. This is logical since there are more gaps in traffic during the non-peak times when pedestrians may take a chance by crossing at the restricted location. 18/ –3 ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 19 Pedestrians violating the restriction were observed doing so with a heightened level of awareness, likely due to the restriction as well as approach conditions. PEDESTRIAN X-INGS TOIFROM LVSC 100 80 z 70 a it 60 Criteib to Pro-side Signal for Pedestrian Crossius 54 w 40 _ a 30 20 10 6 10 0 11:00 14:00 15:00 17:00 X-In (0 Madonna/LOVR I X-Ina,1),LVSC Dnveemv I I TolaLX-ina.to.LVSC HOURQ X-Ing @ Madonna/LOVR '11:0D 2 1 6 - 1d 2 3 s OX-Ing @Driveway 15:00 5 11 10 - - - 117:001 7 -1 3 11 10 Figure 13: Warrant 4 Pedestrian Volume Criteria WARRANT 4-Pedestrian Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) Part A(Parts 1 or 2 must.be satisfied) SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Hours---> I.- Pedestrian Volume Anyhour a190 Yes ❑ No (p s 10 10 OR any 4 hours 2100 Yes ❑ No Jam' Adequate Crossing Gaps n 22. 24 } AND<60 gap/hr Yeso No ❑ 2.1 Pedestrian.Volume I -Any hour>_9-5 Yes ❑ No QB Any 4_hours>50 186s ❑ .No AND ped crossing,<1.2 Is 4 ft/sec)I Yes rA No ❑ .Part B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO AND,The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes No ❑ Dian 90 m(300 ft) OR,The proposed traffic signal will not restrict progressive traffic flow along the major street. Yes ❑ No Figure 14—Pedestrian Warrant l 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review-Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 20 The existing pedestrian restrictions at Pereira Drive are not considered excessive for current conditions. The approach sight distance on EB Madonna Road as well as offset in LVSC driveway to Pereira drive necessitates these restrictions. The pedestrian crossing volumes (even with the combined volumes of diverted pedestrians) do not satisfy current signal . warrant criteria. The final distance between Pereira Drive and the LOVR crosswalk will be 325'+ when widening of LOVR is completed. This walking distance is also not considered excessive as is only slightly above the 300' minimum identified in Part B of the signal warrant shown in Figure 14. Although it is expected that more pedestrians would cross at this location if the driveway is signalized it is not anticipated that additional pedestrian volumes would come close to volumes necessary to satisfy the warrant criteria. Warrant 5: School Crossing— Not Met Application of this warrant is intended for use where school aged children are crossing the major street and are the principal consideration. No school age pedestrians were observed crossing at the driveway when pedestrian counts were taken. This is largely due to the fact that a crossing guard is provided at the intersection of Madonna & LOVR. Staff also evaluated the path of children crossing to determine if routes through a signal at the LVSC driveway would be desirable. However, no such routes were observed and splitting the school aged pedestrian at the two locations may be problematic. Currently the volume of school age children crossing at the shopping center driveway does not meet the minimum criteria for consideration of a traffic signal under this warrant. Although no school aged pedestrians were observed crossing at this location, if the location is signalized, some school aged pedestrians may choose to cross Madonna at this location even though there is a long established crossing guard at the LOVR/Madonna intersection. If signalized, unsupervised schools aged pedestrians may be problematic and take chances crossing the street when under current conditions they are not crossing at this location. Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System—Not fillet Application of this warrant is intended for locations where maintaining progressive movement or vehicle platooning along a corridor may be achieved by the addition of a traffic signal. Currently, intersection spacing between the LVSC Driveway and LOVR/Madonna Road intersection does not meet the minimum spacing requirements for consideration of a traffic signal under this warrant and significant platooning is already occurring along Madonna Road coming form the signal at Oceanaire S 3-iL ATTACHMENT l Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 21 WARRANT 6-Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED YES p NO (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL 1300 m(1000 ft) N_� 0� ft. S 341' ft, E — ft, W — ft Yes❑ No pf 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. ______----- Q$ On a two-way street,adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary Yes Nog degree of platoonutg and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. Figure 15—Coordinated Signal System Warrant Warrant 7: Crash Experience—Not Met The collision frequency at the LVSC driveway does not meet the minimum criteria for consideration of a traffic signal under this warrant. There have been less than five (5) right angle collisions at the location (which are considered correctable by a traffic signal) in the last 12 month period. The left turn restriction that was put in place in 2007 has been instrumental in removing conflicts and reduced right angle collisions dramatically at the location. I: ,.<. ,5aa�,n2xF�;,ar.•t rSI;U � dol_ ' onn8 BL ex_e ra 4 Accidents 05/01/08-06/08/09 eamcrr�nn. Ll —Strija .=-,PmkeA Pcdesuiwl Fited&jCc4; ..--.Stopped ....Emc X Bicycle a ,rsra a Iron ..-Ilnlmown t"J(AV of control mpy' . ^md y CwA •...Backing �`142W nml () F"t) •T:cc Anand .....pcertakiu3 Left nm h"iJmime Ril cewcle .e Sideampe Q•tuerl nut Fina data Figure 16— 12 Month Collision Diagram ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 22 Since the September 2009 Council meeting, staff is aware of one additional collision that occurred at the driveway(a rear end driveway collision due to an illegal left tum maneuver), however no collision report was taken for that incident. No other collisions since that time have been officially reported. Other changes that have been previously implemented to reduce collisions include improving visibility at the intersection, channelization modification, installing "Keep Clear" stencils and diverting pedestrians to the adjacent signalized intersection at LOVR/Madonna. These changes have been successful in reducing collisions at the intersection. Staff expanded the time of review for collision history to review the 18`h month period before and after the tum restriction was implemented. This comparison indicates there was a 60% reduction in the reported collisions for movements involving left and through vehicles exiting the driveway after this restriction was implemented. Table 4: Pre/Post EB Left Turn Restriction - Collision Reduction Statistics Rate Reduction %Reduction 712o Month 18 Months 18 Month 18 Months 18 Month 35 Months 18 Months Rate Prior Rate After Rate Before/18 Before/18 Months After Months After Total Collisions 13 0.371 9 0.50 6 0.333 10.26% 33.33% Driveway Related Collisions 9 0.257 5 0.28 3 0.167 35.19% 1 40.00% Drivewa ExitingCollisions 8 0.229 5 0.28 2 0.111 51.39% 60.00% Driveway Left&Thru Exiting 7 0.200 5 0.28 2 0.111 44.44% 1 60.00% Due to the close proximity to the adjacent major intersection of LOVR/Madonna Road, even with coordinated flow as proposed by the shopping center consultants, there is potential for introducing rear-end and pass-thru collisions at this location under stop conditions.This stop condition will extend the functional area of the Madonna/Pereira intersection westward on Madonna Road such that it begins to interact with the functional area of the LOVR/Madonna Intersection. Staff has investigated this issue extensively to find studies that have identified methodologies to determine the likelihood of rear-end accident collisions. Numerous documents discuss the issues but provide conflicting recommendations on how to calculate adequate stopping sight distances for close proximity signal locations. In order to investigate this issue staff conducted field measurements of motorists turning right from LOVR onto Madonna to identify the location at which they first begin tracking conditions on.Madonna after completing their turn from LOVR. Figure 17 depicts the field methodology used by staff to record these locations. A partial closure was set up near the intersection of Pereira Drive that would present drivers with a decision input as well as a rough location of where potential queues from the proposed signal may occur. These distances were then correlated with spot speed surveys conducted by both ATE and City staff in order to determine the range of motorist's ability to safely stop in time for the proposed LVSC driveway signal and/or cars queued at it. ATTACHMENT I Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 23 J � t r r s. a. — — — — — x_9. -- I�cL•gnrvl Chal: :'AM1Y a C!/.�r� "'��— v�)'—'— ,/ f!/ M � Figure 17—Functional Area/Sight Distance Methodology Staff observed that vehicles began tracking on Madonna between 50' and 110' from LOVR. Sixteen percent (16%) of drivers begin tracking between 50' to 70' and would be able to safely stop for the proposed signal and projected peak traffic queues. 64% of drivers begin tracking prior to 100' from Madonna/LOVR and should be able to safely stop in time for the potential LVSC traffic signal but may have trouble stopping in time for projected peak traffic queues at the signal. These queues are projected between 75-100' back from the Pereira stop line. The remaining 36% of observed drivers begin tracking by 100' feet and fall into a category of potentially having difficulty stopping in time for the proposed signal. This condition is exacerbated by potential driver distractions that may occur for drivers approaching the intersection and not expecting the signal. For these drivers, and any others passing the 110' mark without noticing the signal indications, there could be possibilities of"pass through" violations of a stop indication. The final conclusion is that introducing the stop conditions of the proposed signal, extending the functional area of the vehicle queues from the Pereira stop condition, and the weave for the proposed left turn lane into the LVSC center will increase conflicts within the stopping sight distance length and that this will increase the likelihood of rear-end collisions at the Madonna/Pereira intersection. This condition will occur even if the signals are.coordinated and signal indications are readily visible to approach drivers. ATTACI-1NIENT 1 J: Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 24 ' ' I r �•P II r h'rl N' z Z Ir 1 O }� , r $ LLJz 6 VW ® z Q �6 > z 37 37 LLJ- J Onnot^ �� C �� App I Nm �� m � n a. ��+ Yp� 9 � �a to 0� 0 � �J o a zd=3� 4 Cn+ n. �� b4 C o a h«0 $LIOlbTOLi J Q _� 4rI -- 5 {.L W ................... 4 EC C 6 G 4 Q Q AI �C L 2 pcn }}�i � Idde2ii io :rs 8 W sa -----------Ay IjjNal do s;zz J -- - N o LL r � } Z z _ _ LL C7 z z� € 0 a O y g > ssz AsLLI i-moi�o�saz C) O I yl Z z iL M 0 013:Vul j0:9 _ w U) L) i % i'}` LU OO ; l 1 ;Gal Al IouL-Vi:u_do%0 _ O e Q 2 Z �0"el A Ul��val dU 46Z -- L=7 nmo - -� -�- -el- - r�rcr-?,uz W W W I �,rjl t' --;-- - ------ crd roses�D = ss I_ ti 1 --------Flarrrct ,U W -- - - - -- W Q os ~o _ � --- -----------pal"cc c z' J 0 G9 Z' v —�- -I - - � - -------aarssA - Q �- ---------------par'. �s mLU Z O W ..�: i 'J1A0•ll'J- 7NN�� 1 O Q 01ji Jail N�f111)iJIL I i CL (LW b �4 � Figure 18—Stopping Sight Distance Measurements and Potential Issues ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 25 Warrant 8: Roadway Network—Not Met Application of this warrant is intended for locations where concentration and organization of traffic flow on the network is the principal consideration. The characteristics of the LVSC driveway/Pereira Drive fail to meet the minimum criteria for consideration of a traffic signal under this warrant. Other Considerations Intersection Sight Distance for Pereira Drive As part of the expanded review of the traffic signal request, staff investigated additional issues at the intersection of Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive. One issue that has been identified is the continued sight limitations-for Pereira Drive that is caused by the Cypress tree row that is located on the south west corner of the intersection. Visibility is limited due to these trees and does not meet minimum recommendations for signalized or non- signalized control. Although there has not been a defined collision pattern'resulting from this restriction, staff is recommending that the first three trees adjacent to the intersection be removed to improve sight distance for traffic exiting Pereira. This sight distance is necessary for vehicles turning from the side street and should be done regardless of whether the intersection is controlled or not. Potential Traffic Diversion There is a well documented historical neighborhood involvement with the two Oceanaire neighborhoods (both north and south) regarding neighborhood traffic intrusion with vehicles avoiding LOVR and Madonna Road. A particular concern to staff is the potential for additional diversion of traffic and cut-through impacts which may occur if the driveway was signalized. From a previous NTM study performed for the north Oceanaire neighborhood, the current average travel time thru the neighborhood is approximately 20 seconds longer than going through the LOVR/Madonna traffic signal (based upon field runs). Approximately 11% of motorists traveling from SB Madonna to WB Los Osos Valley road still choose to cut-through the Oceanaire neighborhood even with this longer time. Signalization of the LVSC driveway could increase the average travel time thru the Madonna/LOVR and Madonna/LVSC/Pereira traffic signal by as much as 30 seconds (assuming coordination can be optimized). This could result in additional cut-through routes through the north Oceanaire neighborhood, particularly for more aggressive drivers. Signalization of the driveway without first exhausting alternative countermeasures to address the LVSC access issues is inconsistent with the commitment the City made to the Oceanaire neighborhood in March of 2009 as part of a Neighborhood Traffic Management effort. An outcome of this NTM process was that the City committed to make every effort to improve operations where possible on Madonna in order to discourage cut through traffic. Even if neighborhood traffic management issues are only perceived by the neighbors to be worsened by signalization of the driveway location, additional requests for NTM involvement and police enforcement are likely. ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 26 Similar Intersection Treatments Staff requested, and the consultants for LVSC provided, a group of similarly spaced intersections that have signalization that could be used as examples for comparative purposes. Staff reviewed these examples and discussed issues with two of the public agency engineers where some of these locations exist. While all of the examples share some characteristics with the subject location, none of the examples have all of the characteristics associated with the location under review. It is difficult to draw absolute conclusions from these comparisons since each of the locations differ as to spacing, pedestrian control, number of approaches, speed and frontage road existence. Emergency Services Review Fire Department The San Luis Obispo Fire Department has reviewed the LVSC's request and does not support signalization of the LVSC driveway until other measures have tried and they fail to address access concerns from the center. Currently there are approximately 3-4 emergency vehicle responses per day from this location and 1-2 occurring during the PM peak in traffic when queuing from the proposed signal would be the highest. This signal also receives emergency vehicle preemption from ambulances and fire engines from other stations, emergency preemptions at this signal can occur as many as 5-10 times per day with 3-5 occurring within the PM peak. The Department already has expressed concerns regarding queues associated with the Madonna/LOVR signal that preemption does not fully resolve. At present, Engine 4 usually has the ability to access the northbound lanes on Madonna Road to turn right or use their emergency lights and siren to turn left and enter the LOVR intersection from the left side of the street. With the proposed signalization, the northbound lanes will at times be blocked and would exacerbate this exit strategy even with preemption. The LVSC proposed method of emergency vehicle preemption and control between the two signals runs the risk of inducing congestion and standing vehicles blocking the front of the Fire Station #4 Driveway which would result in an increase in emergency response time. Police Department The San Luis Obispo Police Department has reviewed the signal request and do not support signalization of the LVSC driveway until the approved action plan has failed to address access and congestion issues. Since the left turn restriction was installed, all but a small fraction of motorists cited for illegal maneuvers indicated that they were unable see and react to the restriction by the time they were at the driveway. Enforcement of the illegal left turns has diminished awaiting resolution of the access issue. There is currently high demand for speed enforcement in the Oceanaire neighborhood due to cut-through traffic from motorists trying to avoid the single signal at Madonna & LOVR, and staff believes that adding a second signal will only exacerbate this problem and lead to greater police resource allocation requests by the neighborhood. a�- �3 ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 27 Conclusions and Recommendation The proposed signalization of the intersection of Madonna Road/LVSC Driveway/Pereira is a highly complex issue that has no perfect answer. Trade-offs and risks exist for all forms of traffic control considered for the location. Traffic volumes at the location, including driveway egress volumes satisfy volume criteria established in two of the State traffic signal warrants under the rural classification (greater that 40 MPH approach speeds). Volumes at the location does not satisfy these warrants if the urban criteria are used however, they are very close for the Four Hour warrant and it should be considered satisfied for urban criteria. Staff investigated additional issues at the intersection to determine if interruption of continuous traffic is occurring naturally and can be improved by other alternatives. The gap analysis along with field observations indicate there are sufficient gaps in traffic along Madonna Road, albeit sporadic, to allow all egress traffic to occur at the current driveway. With the improvements planned for the driveway, the available gaps are expected to increase substantially. Pedestrian volumes at the location do not meet State warrants for signalization. Review of the stopping sight distance indicates there is sufficient distance for most drivers to observe stopping needs for current conditions although introducing stop condition queue lengths and the weave area for the driveway left turn ingress will encroach into the functional area of the adjacent Madonna/LOVR intersection. This relatively short distance may introduce rear-end collisions where they currently do not exist and could introduce angle collisions if approach vehicles do not track the proposed signal indications in time to stop at the location. x'77 ATTACHMENT I Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 28 Table 5: Traffic Signal Warrant Assesment Summary Urban Effects Immediate Warrants Criteria Rural Criteria Additional Consideration Conditions Signal Justification Warrant 1: Eight Hour Volume NO YES Adequate Gaps YES NO Condition A NO NO None NO Condition B NO YES Adequate Gaps YES NO Condition A&B NO NO Alternatives Available YES NO Warrant 2: Four Hour Volume YES YES Degraded Safety&Ops. NO Part A NO NO None NO Part B YES YES Degraded Safety&Ops. Possible NO Warrant 3: Peak Hour NO YES Warrant Not Applicable NO Part A NO NO Warrant Not Applicable NO_ Part B NO YES Warrant Not Applicable NO Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume NO NO N/A Part A NO NO Part B NO NO Warrant 5: School Volume NO NO N/A Part A NO NO Part B NO NO Part C NO NO Warrant 6: Signal System NO NO None Warrant 7: Crash Experience I NO NO INone Warrant 8: Roadway Network I NO I NO INone Notes: 1)The Urban Four hour Warrant was not met however was sufficeintly close to be considered satisfied Final Recommendations 11. Based upon all factors taken into consideration as part of this review a full traffic signal at this location is not appropriate until other measures have been implemented on a trial basis and proved ineffective at improving the access for the LVSC center. It is recommended that the City continue with a phased improvement approach at this location that includes implementing the previously approved Action Plan from September 2009. This phased approach includes relocation and widening of the LVSC driveway. Should these improvements prove unsuccessful in alleviating the access issues expressed by the center (particularly the queuing back from Madonna/LOVR, installation of a traffic signal (either full or half) would be a next step in the phased improvements for the location. 12. Remove the 3-4 sycamore trees on the south side of Madonna Road west of the intersection to increase intersection sight distance particularly for right turn vehicles. 13. The LVSC exit lanes on the driveway should be widened to a minimum of 30'. This would provide two wider exit lanes under the initial phased improvements and if the location should ultimately be fully signalized a left-through-right tum lane configuration could be provided to reduce the time needed to serve the driveway ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review—Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 29 under signalized control. The driveway should also be designed for minimum grade break across the sidewalk/gutter to promote higher exit speeds from the center. 14. The two WB through lanes should be trapped into the dual left turn lanes to reduce the queue lengths and staggered lane volumes. 15. Install striping and signage in Shell Station/LVSC driveway to reduce left turn restriction non-compliance. 16. An alternative to the current EB left tum lane restriction into LVSC is possible. Since volumes from Pereira Drive are lower than the LVSC driveway, one option that could be considered would be to "flip" the turn restrictions from the EB left turn lane into LVSC and instead restrict the turns in and out of the south Oceanaire neighborhood. This option would reestablish primary access into the center and restrict the lower volumes from Pereira that have alternative access choices. The raised median of this option would provide additional control to discourage restricted pedestrian and vehicle movements. If the EB left turn is reestablished, a minimum 60' left tum storage bay for the EB LVSC driveway should be provided. This left turn lane should be as long as possible without hindering the length of the opposing WB turn lanes at Madonna/LOVR. 17. Monitor the intersections of Madonna/LOVR and Madonna/LVSC/Pereira as part of the Annual Traffic Safety Report and Bi-Annual Operations Reports and mitigate as needed. Long-term Circulation Conclusions 18. As part of the update to the Circulation Element establish a plan line on LOVR from Royal Way to south of Madonna Road to install a third SB through lane and on Madonna Road in the vicinity of LOVR. 19. Alternative intersection design (such as continuous flow, roundabout, etc.) should be considered at Madonna/LOVR in lieu of widening the intersection. 20. The City should work with the north Oceanaire neighborhood to determine if opening an access from LVSC to the frontage road would allow partial neighborhood access. Concerns regarding cut through traffic could be partially offset by closing the current frontage road access at Madonna/Oceanaire which may also provide operation improvements at this intersection. Final Conclusions regarding potential signal operation at the Madonna/Pereira/LVSC location 21. Any traffic signal control at this location has the potential to cause some diversion of traffic into the two Oceanaire neighborhoods. If a signal option is implemented ATTACHMENT1 Traffic Signal Warrant Review- Madonna/LVSC/Pereira Drive Page 30 additional neighborhood traffic management and police resources to respond to citizen requests will likely be needed. 22. If the Madonna/Pereira/LVSC location is signalized, causing additional operational constraints along Madonna Road, the City should work with LVSC to secure an irrevocable offer of dedications for 10' of right of way across the north side of Madonna Road across the property frontage that may be used in the future when the additional WB right turn lane is needed on Madonna Road at LOVR. 23. A half signal alternative provides adequate access for the LVSC issues without inducing secondary impacts at the location that include, potential Fire Department emergency response conflicts, EB approach stopping sight distance issues, and overall increases to delay for EB vehicles along Madonna Road. 24. A pedestrian crossing should only be installed on the west leg of the intersection to concentrate the crossing. Neighborhood outreach to parents and school officials may be necessary to inform them of the limitations of this crossing location and use of the crossing guard at Madonna/LOVR. 25. Additional near side heads on both sides of Madonna Road in advance of the intersection are recommended. A pedestrian warning sign is recommended on the EB approach to the intersection. 26. If a full signal is ultimately installed, the Madonna Road frontage road should be partially closed to entrance only and prohibit exiting traffic from congesting the intersection. A "Keep Clear" stencil needs to be installed and advance detection on Pereira at the frontage stop bar to allow traffic from Madonna Road to enter the frontage road when vehicles are queued at the signal approach. This restriction would not be necessary under the half signal option. \\chstorc4\Publicworks\Transportation-Data\_Traffic Operations\_Current ProjcctsVakc-LVSC\Warrants and to do\2-2010 Signal Review DocumentvIdoc BI-Z/� �. ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 1 Urban Warrant ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD Page 4C-1 I (FI WA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-101(CA). Trac Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet ? of 4) COUNT DATE L40 toIZ21211ID CALC DATE 1-20-616 DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major St MACONN A QDA17 Critical Approach Speed 3441 Minor St PC�Q YCA i, Critical Approach Speed 4-to mph Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic>64 km/h(40 mph)........ ❑or J RURAL(R) In built up area of isolated community of<10,000 population.......................❑ CY 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 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NCIEK MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS . 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO L7 (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APPROACH °° o° tl' o° tP a° °, p° LANES 1 2 or More ��; `4 `y y �V ` `� Hour Both Approaches a(400) 50 600 420 Major Street 80) (480) (336) 132E 14?$ U,ry ILIV. la4 wzt 1ZQD t33oHighestApproach 05 200 140 Minor Street 84) 11 (160) 1 (112) fa$ 69 tn2 41 7�f 7S : ro4 B6 Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 3/ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES Er NO ❑ (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R. 0 APPROACH H 1 2orMore �:� y `,y `a� y� `�.° `,�• �1 Hour Both Approaches 750 525 Soo 630 Major Street (600) (420) (720) (5D4L ISM, 14713 t6Si i4s& 1,624 i621 rlm Is3o Highest Approach 75 53 100 70 Minor Street so) (a2 (80) (56) &Db (,q toZ q I Z4 7S c,¢ gto Combination of Conditions A& B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT CONDITION V FULFILLED TWO CONDITIONS A MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 800/0 AND, Yes ❑ No B. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC AND,AN ADEQUATE TRIAL OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD CAUSE LESS DELAYAND INCONVENIENCE TO TRAFFIC HAS FAILED Yes ❑ No TO SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS _T The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies. September 26,2006 Pari 4-Highway Traffic Signals ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD Page 4C-12 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision I,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-909 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 2 of 4) WARRANT 2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO LR Record hourly vehicular volumes for any four hours of an average day. 2 orAPPROACH LANES One More N� $4110*0rw Hour Both Approaches-Major Street X G.SI i4�8t+Higher Approach-Minor Street X `All plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-1, (URBAN AREAS) Yes ❑ No Er Q@,All plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-2. (RURALAREAS) Yes ❑ No ❑ IS/r4 5&A Rules WARRANT 3 -Peak Hour SATISFIED YES ❑ NO QIA (Part A or Part B must be satisfied) J PART A SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 53/ (All parts 1,2,and 3 below must be satisfied for the same A one hour,for any four consecutive 15-min periods) J 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 1,7,ya_q!S (2SN1+ _ $ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach(one direction only)equals or exceeds -- 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;AND. Yes No ❑ �. d ------- -- ------------ -- ------ --- 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph 1 for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with Yes E No ❑ S^, three approaches. 0 v � .e. PART 8 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ¢ 2 or 9 4 APPROACH LANES One More �� Hour c Both Approaches-Major Street ✓ lt.Tt Higher Approach-Minor Streetv 102 Z The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-3. YeS ❑ No 3.n QS,The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-4. Yes ❑ No ❑ The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C-Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals l�- lSD ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD Page 4C-9 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision I,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four.-Hour Vehicular Volume x 500 2 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES U ¢ 400 j O 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE Lu P Q 300 1 LANE& 1(LANE rn ¢w kZ 200 �.O 100 "115 x 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— lJoro` ou` {1cvt btl`°` VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) M1alq�.¢ "Note:115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume(70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE;8 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) X 400 o. .> x ,,�2 OR MORE LANES&.2 OR MORE LANES !- Q 300 w d 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE CC OL W 200 1 LANE& 1 LANE .0 M O 2,J > 100 L uJ '80 _ '60 L'3 x 200 300 400 500 . 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals . 81 -5/ - ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD Page 4C-10 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour = 600 o- s0a 2 OR MORI LANES&2 OR MORE rNES � . flrtJoa 7f�N WW CC 400 1/OtyB{E 1025+S k6w O- 2 OR MOFIE LANES& 1 LANE a 300 loo VERICLe 041�I ittLym O g 1 LANE &1 LANE 9'� BIfIOW ?/! D 2D0 CUEtlir LluE, •150 w 100 � •100 � J I �itsl� t oZ r 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour(70%Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE;9 64 kmih OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) x a 400 2 OR MORE LANES&2 JOR MORE LANES H m Q 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE jr a 300 Cl)a 1 LANE&1 LANE ¢W Zj 200 _J g0 w 100 '100 '75 x 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume fora minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,3006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals Q ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision I,as amended for use in California) Page 4C-13 Figure 4C-909 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 3 of 4) WARRANT 4-Pedestrian Volume SATISFIED YES D NO [� (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) Part A(Parts 1 or 2 must be satisfied),o� 00 CP 09 Hours---> �� `y' �/�' SATISFIED YES ❑ NO LJ' 1. Pedestrian Volume Any hour>190 Yes ❑ No [' fP 5 1 0 10 OR any 4 hours_100 Yes [INo [ff'o Adequate Crossing Gaps Z3 ZZ 21} 1-j AND<60 gaplhr Yes [T No ❑ 2. Pedestrian Volume Any h iur>95 Yes ❑ No Any 4 hours a 50 Yes ❑ . No 6w ed crossing<1.2m/s(4 fUsec)I Yes No ❑ Part B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO p' AND,The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater nR'Nco) IAan90 m(300 ft) Yes ❑ORThe proposed traffic signal will not restrict progressive traffic flow along the major street Yes o [� WARRANTS-School Crossing SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Y (Parts A and B,or Part C Must Be Satisfied) Part A 0� SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ge Gap/Minutes and#of Children �f�'• Hour Gaps Minutes Children Using Crossing vs Minutes JrNumber of Adequate Gaps 2y Gaps<Minutes YES ❑ NO [' School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street!hr (j AND Children>20/hr YES ❑ NO B' AND,Gonsitleration has beengiven to less restrictive remedial measures. Yes ❑ No Q' Part B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO p' The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 90 m(300 ft) Yes [`r No ❑ OR The proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Yes ❑ No [Er Part C(All Parts 1,2,and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ff� 1. Vehicles/hr 500 350 Lo 61 lgts Yes [" No ❑ AND,Schooi Age Pedestrians Crossing Street/hr 100 70 o Yes ❑ No B' OR,School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street/day 500 350 o Yes ❑ No [T 'When the critical(85th percentile approach speed exceeds 55 km/h(35 mph)or the sight distance to the intersection is less than the required stopping distance,rural criteria should be used. 2. Other signal warrants are met. Yes ❑ No Et or The distance to the nearest controlled crossing Is greater than 180 m(600 ft). Yes ❑ No [r The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall notin itself require the installation of a tragic control signal. Chapter 4C—Tmffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 2ti,2006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals r L2) rte ATTACHMENT California MUTCD Page 4C-14 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-909 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 4 of 4) WARRANT 6-Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED YES ❑ NO [R" (Ali Parts Must Be Satisfied) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGN AL 300 m(1000 ft) N rl4a ft, S 14 1 ft, E ft, W ft Yes❑ No[3' 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. __ ----- — Yes[] No Qom, On a two-way street,adjacent trafficcontrol signals do not provide the necessary degree of piatoonrng and the proposed and adjacent traffic control.signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. WARRANT 7-Crash Experience Warrant SATISFIED YES El NO 2" (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[!r ---------------- damage exceeding the requirements for a reportable crash. 5 OR MORE ---=----------------------------- REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONS V, Warrant 1,Condition A- Minimum Vehicular Volume ONE CONDITION M Warrant 1, Condition B.- ✓ Yes[�No❑ SATISFIED 80% Interruption of continuous traffic OR,Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Condition Ped Vol a 152.for any hour Q)3,Ped Vol>80 for any 4 hours WARRANT 8-Roadway Network SATISFIED YES ❑ NO p' (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES REQUIREMENTS J [FULFILLED During Typical Weekday Peak Hour 14e Veh/Hrand has 5-year projected traffic volumes t at meetoneormor 1000 VehMr of Warrants 1,2,and 3 during an average weekday. OR----------- — s E3 No❑ During Each of Any 5 Hrs.of a Sat.and/or Sun VehiHr CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES nwjoR MAJOR ROUTEA ROUTE Hwy.System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic ►moo————————————— Yt _ Rural or ------ Suburban Highway Outside Of,_Entering,or Traversing a_City —� C Appears as Major Route on an Official Plan Yes Na Any Major Route Characteristics Met,Both Streets Yes❑ No The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C-Traffic Control Sipal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD Page 4C-17 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Table 4C-7. Warrant f, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A—Minimum Vehicular Volume Vehicles per hour on higher-volume Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major street minor-street approach moving traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%' 80%b 70%` 560/o° 100%a 80%b 700/6` 56%° 1................. 1................. 500 400 350 280 150 120, 105 841 2 or more... 1................. 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 841 2 or more.... 2 or more... 600 480 420 336 200 160 140 112 1 a+ 1................. 2 or more.... 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 , alp J t �w d Condition B—Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per hour on higher-volume Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major street minor-street approach moving traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%' 80%Ob 700/o` 56%' 100%' 80%b 700/o` 56%° t 1.......:......... 1................. 750 600 525 420 75 i 60 53 42 2 or more... 1................. 900 720 630 504 75 1 60 53 42 2 or more... 2 or more... 900 720 630 504 100 r 80 70 56 1................. 2 or more.... 750 600 525 420 100 180 70 56 ;10 Basic minimum hourly volume. s Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures. y irtay be used when the major-street speed exceeds;G kniA 64 Wh or exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a a population of less than 10,000. May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major- street speed exceeds 64 kmih or exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000. (Mis space left intentionally blank) Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals _ H I Hl.l-IIVIGIV I 12 IONVt 1+�my Madonna & Pereira 4 Accidents 05/31:/08 - 05/29/09 06!24/2008 13:20 09/23/2008 15:31 09/19/2008 10:49 - a � W 09/09/2008 13:06 = �t n o Intersection acc� ents wi msu iaent ate r isp a 49 Straight ® Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: • i Stopped <t . Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General a Pole • Unknown Out of control O Injury ® signal ® Curb �-•• Backing i�, Right turnp Fatality -- ® Tree K Animal Overtaking oee— Left turn sp- Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle o — Sideswipe �-- U-turn DUI w Extra data 6/-15-z ' . .. . M I 1 h%l_Ir IIVICIV I I Per LT eesmi mus j Madonna & Pereira 34 Accidents 01/01/02 - 11/01/07 02/12/2003 13:03 08/0.2/2005 1-n2 Cl) 3/?-4R007 14:52. 02/11/2005 16 `D 03122/2005_16:52 �1 12/2003 11:52 CD _ N 11/29/2003.•1.7:30 . �A�___11/23/2003 12:30 1/09/2003 1 o10/26/2003 17:16 /07/2002 12:12 12/23/2003 11:40 04/23 002 10:53 -_ 5/111//00p5//2Z00125 14:15 4/ZOOZ-'I S:Z0:49 02/05/2:3 12/29/2IS0/2004 17:58 12/16/200613:40 _�- 11/11/2005 15:04 , , 10/30/2007 20:174 16: 07/03/2004 13:60 09107/2004 14:15 01/2012006 15:51 07/27/2007 11:18 061229/2006 17:23 10/303 13:00 12/04/2006 17:45 11/18/2002 18:08 01/31/2007 17:30 it in o ntersection 0 acct en s wit ensu dent a or is a �— Straight ® Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: e--� Stopped -< . Erratic ,X Bicycle ❑ General ® Pole 0 Unknown -:x� Out of control p Injury ® signal ® curb �•• Backing %,— Right turn p Fatality ® Tree 95 Animal -9� Overtaking Ae— Left turn gip. Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle 4 Sideswipe C57 — U-turn w DUI Extra data B� �� A I I AGHMEN 11� 1 IgM. N h2wL. ro �Pf- n.711n1 Y.a'-SIxw-T Madonna & Pereira 9 Accidents 05/01/0.6 - 11/0 IA07 * i I 05/27/2007 15:49 i 03/24/2007 14:52 08/02/2006 12:52 l:. 10/30/2007 20:17 12/16/2006 13:40 07/27/2007 11:18 06/29/2006 17:23 12104/2006 17:4 370 1/31 07 17:30 -Wittiin 5 o intersection, acct e'�iih ins cient ata0r isplay �-- Straight ® Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: �--i Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General ® Pole Unknown Out of control O Injury ® signal ® Curb �-•• Backing ® Tree 95 Animal � Right turn � Fatality Overtaking ,e— Left turn :ems Nighttime 3rd vehicle Sideswipe (i->7-- U-tum DUI Extra data3l'S� .. 1 .. RM .�� n I i M%% F-nwCiv 1 i IY�J MOtJT �oST tVQ� VCrSIrI�[71x1 Madonna & Pereira 6 Accidents 11./01/07 - 05/28/09 IF 04/07/2008 13:30 06/24/2008 13:20 12105/2007 14:16 09/19/2008 10:49 a�a 09/23/2008 15:31 09/09/2008 13:06 in on terse dc ion, Oacct_ents'vAth insufficient data Fbp ay • Straight ® Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: • -1 Stopped <. . Erratic X Bicycle o General ® Pole — Unknown <-v- Out of control O Injury ® Signal ® curb I BackingRight turn ® Tree 3i Animal � $ � Fatality Overtaking or— Left turn <p Nighttime 3rd vehicle Sideswipe lj>-7— U-turn DUI _ Extra data _S� • •• • 1. 1 11• •• • • • 1 • • 111 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF SAN L UIS OBISPO-PUBLIC WORKS DEPT:/TRAFFIC DIV. SPOT SPEED STUDY Street: Madonna Location: NB Approach: 200'S ofLVSC Driveway Between: LOVR and Pereira Ref. 9 Cumulative Date: Thursday 7/23/09,Tuesday 7/28/09 Speed Frequency Percent Percent Weather. Clear/Sunny 15 1 0.99% 0.99% Hours: 9:30 To 11:30 16 1 0.99% 1.98% Recorder: JH and BW 17 1 0.99% 2.97% Posted Speed: 45 18 1 0.99% 3.96% Remarks: 19 0 0.00% 3.96% 20 10 9.900/0 13.86% 21 8 7.92% 21.78% 22 4 3.96% 25.74% DATA ANALYSIS: 23 6 5.94% 31.68% Mean Speed: 26 24 8 7.92% 39.60% Standard Deviation: 4 25 9 8.91% 48.51% Standard error of the mean: 0.4 26 6 5.940/c 54.461/o 50th Percentile: 26 27 11 10.89% 65.35% 85th Percentile: 31 28 8 7.92% 73.27% 97th Percentile: 33 29 5 4.95% 78.220/c 30 Me Pace: 20 to 29 30 6 5.94% 84.16% %of Samples in 10-Mile Pace: 74.26% 31 8 7.92% 92.08% Comments: 32 4 3.96% 96.04% 33 2 1.98% 98.02% 34 2 1.980/0 100.000/0 35 0 0.00% 100.00% Cumulative Frequency Distribution 36 0 0.00% 100.000/0 120% 37 0 0.000/0 100.000/0 100% 38 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 39 0 0.00% 100.00% � 80% 40 0 0.00% 100.000/0 60% 41 0 0.00% 100.00% 4096 42 0 0.00% 100.000/0 E 43 0 0.00% 100.00% ' 20% 41111111141 11111111 U 44 0 0.00% 100.000/0 0% 45 0 0.00% 100.000/0 45 19 + ry9 0 by 46 0 0.000/0 100.00% Spot Speed,mph 47 0 0.00% 100.000/c 48 0 0.00% 100.00% 49 0 0.00% 100.00% 12 Frequency Distribution 50 0 0.00% 100.000/0 51 0 0.00% 100.00% 10 52 0 0.00% 100.00% �e 53 0 0.00% 100.000/0 c 54 0 0.000/0 100.00% '6 55 0 0.00% 100.000/a 4 56 0 0.000/0 100.00% 57 0 0.000/0 100.00% 2 58 0 0.00% 100.000/0 D- 5 0 0.000/0 100.00% ^h .$ ry'` L6 3� °' ^R 99 b`l 43 0 1' 4, 4 Total: - 101 1000/0 Spot Speed,mph 'pd f--* �j-�U ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF SAN L UIS OBISPO-PUBLIC WORKS DEPT./TRAFFIC DIV.SPOT SPEED STUDY Street: Madonna Location: SB Approach:200'N of LVSC Driveway Between: LOUR and Perei a Cumulative Date: Tuesday 10/27/09,Thursday 10/29/09 Speed Frequency Percent Percent Weather: Clear 15 0 0.00% 0.00% Hours: Tue:2:55 PM-4:10 PM,Thaw:9:47- 10:49 AM 16 0 0.00% 0.00% Recorder: Jessie Holzer 17 0 0.00% 0.00% Posted Speed: 45 MPH 18 0 0.000/0 0.00% Remarks: 19 0 0.00% 0.00% 20 0 0.00% 0.00% 21 0 0.00% 0.00% 22 0 0.00% 0.00% DATA ANALYSIS: 23 0 0.00% 0.00% Mean Speed: 37 24 0 0.00% 0.001/6 Standard Deviation: 4 25 0 0.00% 0.00% Standard error of the mean: 0.4 26 0 0.00% 0.00% 50th Percentile: 36 27 0 0.00% 0.00% 85th Percentile: 41 28 0 0.00% 0.00% 97th Percentile: 45 29 2 1.98% 1.980Yo 10 Mile Pace: 33 to 42 30 3 2.97% 4.95% %of Samples in 10-Mile Pace: 84.16% 31 2 1.98% 6.93% Comments: 32 2 1.98% 8.91% 33 6 5.94% 14.85% 34 20 19.80% 34.65% 35 13 12.87% 47.52% Cumulative Frequency Distribution 36 9 8.91% 56.44% 120% 37 7 6.93% 63.37% 100% - -- 38 6 5.94% 69.31% Cr 80°k - - 39 6 5.94% 75.25% a - 40 5 4.95% 80.20% 0 60% 41 6 5.94% 86.14% m 40% I If -- 42 7 6.93% 93.07% E - - 43 2 1.98% 95.05% a' 20% _ - 44 1 0.99% 96.04% 0% 45 3 2.97% 99.01% sh ati 4 46 1 0.99% 100.000/0 Spot Speed,mph 47 0 0.00% 100.00% 48 0 0.00% 100.00% 49 0 0.000/0 100.00% 20 Frequency Distribution 50 0 0.00% 100.00% 1g 51 0 0.00% 100.00% 16 --- 52 0 0.00% 100.00% :,14 - -- 53 0 0.00% . 100.00% e12 54 0 0.00% 100.00% a18 55 0 0.000/0 100.00% a 6 56 0 0.00% 100.00% 4----- 57 -57 0 0.00% 100.00% 2 58 0 0.000/( 100.00% 0 59 0 0.00% 100.00% Ny N$ . 11' ti� ti1 90 10 'b'b 10 NI 0 pIb h1 Total: 101 100% Spot Speed,mph - ATTACHMENT i CITYOFSANL UIS OBLYPO-PUBLIC WORa DEPT 1MFFICDIY.SPOT SPEED STUDY Street Madonna Location: North Bound Approach to Pereira Intersection Between: Pereira and Los Osos Valley Road. Cum nalativeDate: Monday,Dec�nber 28,2009 Speed Frequency Percent Percent Weather. Overcast 15 0.00% 0.00% ours: 1340 4402 16 0.00% 0.00% ecorder: Mateo Echabarae 17 0.00% 0.00% Posted Speed: 45 MPH 18 0.00OA 0.00% Remarks: 19 0.00% 0.00% 20 0.00% 0.00% 21 0.00OA 0.00% 22 0.00% 0.00% DATA ANALYSIS- 23 O.00% 0.000/a Mean Speed 24 0.00% 0.00% Standard Deviation: 33 -- 3 25 OA0°b 0.00% Standard error of the mean: 0.28 26 0.00% 0.00% 50th Percentile: 34 27 3 2.70% 2.70%6 85th Percentile: 37 28 6 5.41% 8.11% nth Percentile: 39 29 2 1.800A 9.91% 10 Mile Pace: 28 to 37 30 9 8.11% 18.02% %of Samples in 10-Mile Pace: 89.19% 31 8 7.21% 25.23% Comments: 32 11 9.91% 35.14% 33 16 14.41% 49.55% 34 16 14.41% 63.960/a 35 15 13.51% 77.48% Cumulative Frequency Distribution 36 8 7.21% 84.68% 1201/6 37 8 7.21% 91.89% 1 e 100% 38 1 090'/0 92.790 2 39 5 4.50% 97.30% @ EOOb U. 40 2 1.80% 99.10% 60% 41 1 0.90% 100.00% A 40% 42 0 0.00% 100.00% E 43 0 0.00% 100.000: 0 20% 44 0 0.00% 100.000/0 0% 45 0 0.00% 100.00% �°� .� .� q� 0 0 til Z� 3° -,n- 46 0 0.00% 100.00% Spot Speed mph 47 0.00% 100.00% 48 .0.00% 100.00% + 49 0.00% 100.00% 20 Frequency Distribution f 50 0.00% I00.00% 51 0.00% 100.00% 78 4 52 0.00% 100.00% w4 53 0.00% 100.00% 2 2 _ 0.00% 100.00% C 55 0.000/0 100.00% L'6 56 0.00% 100.00% 4 57 0.00% 100.00% 2 58 0.00% 100.00% 0 AIINI 59 0.00% 100.00% o NN ,(b q° 'P '0 '61 'lP ,'b 4) '91 A, p'� 0 h1 b°� h` � hh Total: 1 I 1 1009/0 Spot peed,mph ge3 3 - ATTACHMENT 1 CITYOFSANLUIS OBISPO-PUBLIC YYORSSDEPT./TRAFFICDIT�SPOT SPEED STUDY Street: Madonna cation: NB Approach:200'S of LVSC Driveway,SB Approach 20V N of LVSC Driveway Cumulative te: 723,728,10/17.1029 7009 Speed Frequency Percent Percent y: TucsdayThrusday 15 1 0.50% 0.50% eather: Clear/Sunny 16 1 0-506/00.99% arse 9:34 To 11:30 17 1 0.50% 1.49%[Rcorder: JH&BW 18 1 0.50% 1.98% sted Speed: 45 19 0 0.00% 1.98% Remarks: NB&SB Approaches to LVSC Driveway 20 10 4.950/a 6.93% 21 8 3.96% 10.89% 22 4 1.98% 12.87% DATA ANALYSIS: 23 6 2.97% 15.849/6 Mean Speed: 31 24 8 3.96% 19.80% Standard Deviation: 7 25 9 4.46% 24.26% Standard error of the mean: 0.49 26 6 2.97% 27.23% 50th Percentile: 32 27 I1 5.45% 32.67% 85th Percentile: S9 28 8 3.960/a 36.63% 97th Percentile: 43 29 7 3.470/a 40.10% 10 Mile Pace; 27 to 36 30 9 4.46% 4455% %of Samples in 10-Mlle Pace: 50.99% 31 10 4.95% 49.50% Comments: 32 6 2.979/0 52.48% 33 8 3.9601a 56.44% 34 22 10.890/0 67.33% 35 13 6.44% 73.76% Cumulative Frequency Distribution 36 9 4.46% 7822% 120% 37 7 3.47% 81.68% 2'100% 38 6 2.97'/0 84.65% LLLLIJi 39IT 6 2.97% 87.62% �% 40 5 2.48% 90.10% > 8096 41 6 2.97% 93.07% 42 7 3.47% 96.53% 20% 432 0.990/C 97.52% u 44 1 0.50% 98.020/6 0% 45 3 1.49% 99.50% "Ib �� ry° 11 H ry'l P P 4 yA dry 0 0 46 1 0.50% 100.00% Spot Speed mph 3 47 0 0.00% 100.00% 48 0 0.00% 100.00% l 49 0 0.00% 100.00% 12 Frequency Distribution $ 50 0 0.00% 100.00% 51 0 0.00% 100.000A 10 - - - 52 0 0.00% 100.000 53 0 0.00% 100.0000 8 54 00.00% 100.00% '0 6 - 55 0 0.00% 100.00% 4 ---.. ..---........ 1 56 0 0.00% 100.00% 2 57 0 0.009A 100.00•/0 58 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 59 0 0-()0%1 100.00% �.`� a� q` ryb ry1 go °b btal: 202 100°/6 '-b 201 mph JI-� _ ATTACHMENT Attachment 2 Rural Warrant ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Page 4C-I I Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 1 of 4) COUNT DATE WIR )% IZAf ZccA DIST CO RTE PM CHK :TVA DATE 1112-17c1�I CHK DATE Major St MAon".,asp Critical Approach Speed 39 mph 145'��Sf� Minor St W t- Pga4F. 'r Critical Approach Speed fJ 1A mph Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic>64 km1h(40 mph)........0I or 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 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO fZ( MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R LCH ANES 1 2 or More AID 04 a Hour Both Approaches EOO) 350 600 420 Major Street (280) (480) (336) 13'Uo 14-4 %6,51 440(o Ib . taZ1 1480 1330 Highes tApproach 105 200 140Minor treet (sal (160) 012) US &A u>1 G4 etc Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES V NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 817%SATISFIED YES g NO ❑ (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APPROACH a c� LANES 1 E2e Hour Both Approaches 750 525Major Spptrreet (600) (420) 132 14}S ►b51 1460 IV 1102.1HMiiror4Stre%ta (6ch 0 (42 Combination of Conditions A&B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO f a' REQUIREMENT CONDITION FULFILLED TWO CONDITIONS A. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 80% AND Yes ❑ No B. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC f AMID,AN ADEQUATE TRIAL OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD CAUSE LESS DELAYAND INCONVENIENCE TO TRAFFIC HAS FAILED Yes ❑ No TO SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS The satisfacction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals September 26,2/006 1 �IOJ ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD Page 4C-12 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signa!Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 2 of 4) WARRANT 2 -Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED* YES X NO ❑ Record hourly vehicular volumes for any four hours of an average day. 2 or d /90�400 APPROACH LANES One More �'�?o ��` Hour Both Approaches-MajorStreet X Ib5! 1436 Ib2�1 1330 HigherApproach-MinorStreet X ID2 ql �°I $fo *All plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-1. (URBAN AREAS) Yes ❑ No Q&All plotted points fail above the curves in Figure 4C-2. (RURAL AREAS) Yes No ❑ WARRANT 3 -Peak Hour -- - SATISFIED YES NO ❑ (Part A or Part B must be satisfied) PART A - SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (Ail parts 1,2,and 3 below must be satisfied for the same one hour, for any four consecutive 15-minute periods) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach(one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane Yes ❑ No approach,or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach;AND -------------------------------------------------------- 2. The volume on the same minor street approach(one direction only)equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;AND Yes g No ❑ 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for Intersections with Yes No ❑ three approaches. PART B SATISFIED YES NO2 or ❑ APPROACH LANES One More � Hour Both Approaches-Major Street lzi Higher Approach-Minor Street X I o2 The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-3. Yes _[] No Q$,The plotted point falls above the curve In Figure 4C-4. Yes Sff No The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C-Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September.26,2006 Part 4—her ighway Traffic Signals . _ ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Page 4C-13 Figure 4C-109 (CA), Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 3 of 4) WARRANT 4-.Pedestrian Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO J" (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) Part A(parts 1 or 2 must be satisfied) o aG 00 0� Hours-=-> a �� SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 1... Pedestrian Volume Any hour 190 Yes ❑ No (D 5 to 10 OR any 4 hours>100 Yes ❑ No Adequate Crossing Gaps 2.3 ZZ. 24 1";l­ AND<60gap1hr Yelp No ❑ 2. Pedestrian Volume Any hour a 95 Yes ❑ No -MAny 4 hours>,50 Yes.0 No AM ped crossing<1.2mis(4 fUsec)I yek,_2L No ❑ Hart B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO AND,The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater tFian 90 m(300 ft) Yes No ❑ OR,The proposed traffic signal will not restrict progressive traffic flow along the major street. Yes ❑ No WARRANTS -School Crossing SATISFIED YES ❑ NO RJ (Parts A and B,or Part C Must Be Satisfied) Part A SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Gag/Minutes and#of Children A� Hour Gaps Minutes Children Using Crossing vs Mlnutes Number of Adequate Gaps 2 Gaps<Minutes YES [3 NO 13 School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street/hr Q AND Children >201hr YES ❑ NO AND,Consideration has been given to less restrictive remedial measures. Yes ❑ No Part B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO O The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater PYes ,/ than 90 m(300 ft) No ❑ OR,The proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. No�'i Part C(All Paits 1,2,and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED YES ❑ NO U A3,50 �,- `ei� 1. Vehid_es/hr 500 Ito IgiS Yes ❑ NoAND:School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street/hr 100 p p Yes ❑ No OR,School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street!day Soo b 0 Yes ❑ No When the critical(85th percentile approach speed exceeds 55 km/h(35 mph)or the sight distance to the intersection Is less than the required stopping distance,rural crkeda should pe used. 2FThe signal warrants are met. Yes No ❑ 3. istance to the nearest controlled crossing Is greater than 180 m(600 ft}. Yes-0N The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installatlon.of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD Page 4C-14 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in,California) Figure 4C-109 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 4 of 4) WARRANT 6-Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL >_300 m(1000 ft) N i:4p` it, S 341' ft, E - ft, W - ft Yes❑ No 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 platoo_ning. ____ Q&On a two-way street,adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary - Yes❑ No9 degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively p progressive operation. WARRANT 7-Crash Experience Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (Ali Farts Must Be Satisfied) Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory-observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency. Yes❑ No1zf 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 REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONS Warrant 1,Condition A- Minimum Vehicular Volume ONE CONDITION M Warrant 1,Condition B- SATISFIED 80% Interruption of continuous trafficYes19 NOD OR,Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Condition Ped Vol>152 for any hour Qq, Ped Vol>80 for any 4 hours WARRANT 8 -Roadway Network SATISFIED YES ❑ NO �( (AU Parts Must Be Satisfied) MINIMUM VOLUME I ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES REQUIREMENTS ti/ FULFILLED During Typical Weekday Peak Hour 941 Veh/Hr and has 5-year projected traffic volumes t amt meet one or more 1000 Veh/Hr of Warrants 1,2,and 3 during an average weekday. Y ------OR----------- - YesNO[] During Each of Any 5 Hrs,of a Sat.and/or Sun Veh/Hr CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR MAJOR ROUTER ROUTES Hwy.System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic ivS Rural or anHig ----- -v -- �a-- Suburbhway Outside Of, Entering,or Traversing _1 a_City E5 _ _�n Appears as Major Route on an Oficial Plan 1l Any Major Route Characteristics Met, Both Streets Yes❑ No The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C-Tmffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals ATTACHMENT 1 California M[JTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Page 4C-9 Figure 4G 1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume > 500 _ = 2.OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES U a 400 W j 0 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE a. fL 300 1 LANE&1(LANE 2.J 200 20 ir 100 — Lu 0 = 300 400 500 600 700 800=-: i)- 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 a5oo . IW= I�oO MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF ROTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER H`0UR-(VPH) 'Note:115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes arid=80:bph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 417-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular t/olume(70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR A80VE-4 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Z: 400 j MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES q 300 ~ 0 Lu a 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANEI a W 200 1 LANE& 1 LANE 0 O� ?J >O 100 LU m CD S .200 300 400 500 600 .700 800 900 1000 papa i4w two MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER PPROACHES—VEHICLESPER HOUR(VPH) "Note:80 vph applies as the lower thresholt volume for a minor.street approach with two.or more lanes.ancr60 vph applies as the.lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with.one lane. Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs studies September 26,2006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals �1-�q ATTACHMENT 1 California MUTCD Page 4C-10 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 600 a = 500 a 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANE W400 LU a 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE (n W 300' .02 1 1 LANE&1 LANE g0 200 *150 Lu 100 S 100 C7 S 4007__500 600 700 800 900 t000 1100 1200 1300-1400-1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:150 vph.applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour(70%Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE a 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) s a > V 400 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES ta w Ir 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE Cr a 300 Cl)¢ 1 LANE&1 LANE tr w Z 200 J O> CE 100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 AW LVO usoa 100 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) `Note:100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a.minor-street approach with one.lane. Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26,2006 Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals � 1�76 ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 3 Gap Analysis Figures -74 z W 2 03 N M O C O O O O O O N N O C0O O O O O O U ^ ^ Q F— <Q N R M O N 00 O' lO N N p N � N N n r 0 N V N R R N (D N CN F CN F N M N N Cn {l) N C N C Cl) M O M N � 0 0 0 N N p N V' V N W 7 T h N N Cl) M M Cl) N C V W co i N N N N (00 (OD W aOD N N N I 04 04 N R N O t0 u7 O N 00 v O N O N N N N O m O 0 m N O O V R O O C0OONN Cl) m m n'n O O I r CP U O O C M m O C O (00 04 Q O Q 61 O C N 0 O N O N w m O 7 d' O O y N O N M O CO wLU � wf0 Edi nm � mm �nm Q r _ a � a N 'T O O O C N O O R CD LL co r r CO Cl) 0 N � N R 00 IT �- E C V CO O C R M to cal 9 'NO O (O O O N M D. O O N M M I C14 co V co mmm N m m m CON co m O 0 N � r i M co 0 N N a v p E � r N N I m r � P N O N �.� r co G 1 O .- Nr rrO OM M 000 �ONr � VM pRC � 70 , E0 < c7 O M V M O ' O O N M m N V R O O O CO O N N N N rO I CO CO N � I O O r �- �- �- NI n OO'C OOO � r N MtOOO COO O OO i E w M N OCfJ RO O N M N M N O N O m O I O O O m n r w O i. a iOv0m vcn MC` N I n n O CO CO CO CO CO OO w v OO OO O C7 M V MM 7'M NMMONNcO V of y O r C7) lL i co d_ _� M M OOw w00 � UCq OOO Nw wwN � d' , M N C r- nc0 c0M NM O .vv mmpZ ow N �f mO7O Mn ^ O n LL 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 00000000 NMa CO On Om -N M V COOn Om NM � OOn Om 1 r r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e- � � 1 1 r l l � e I l 00000000 00000066 66666666 0 o p o 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FNM g000 NM NM7000 rO � � r• � � � r .- � � � � .- � � � � � � � � � ter- /�^/ z W Q � m Q - o a o 0 Q a o a 0 0 � (' L co r � a CD a m 10 3 M O 11 o tCl CO IFr - i 00 O O re E � M - O E _ r H � O � O � L O 7 L 0D O r N O rn O tfj of I 2 0 d w _ o LL m to IC o Qo O i r in O o Q r O co co _ Q Q n M O Q � N C O O N0 000 CO V N 0 r r sde!D;o# F- z W U v o Q oW 0 M m o a F- <Q o O N N CM O `1 (U T ~ CL o_ O a7 0 N O = J co O ❑ T p O os y Ito T Qw V C O O @y p to O CU = J ccO � (nF T a � to O r CO N N D M h O O O Of CO T t0 p co O O � T L O 3 E_ ^ , _ F to 0 Q. N iq T U' cn 0 r O r T to N O tD O O iD o N V T T N O' p T M r to to O t0 O h Ch Of r O O O O in r N T co V' O tt! Q O N O O N 01 T co O O O r r O O O O O O O O O (O C N O apo COO v N T T T T spuooag deE) �� -- ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 4 Sight Distance Figures R i i i I N t 0 i D o 0 0 A V N a0 O ap (O N Z N N N z LU ! I 0 0 O Q I I 0 H W �I I � � = lqr0 .tc) o J V I N y Q Q jij jg I # o z O o 1L x y o Ij W 0000 LOU) 00 LL wCN7 N. N N �— w a. O a O Z g d33N d _o 0 o in Ln o w 5 N m CSO { 0 0 C `I HV310 +,OSB ASSNOlYiOJA a ----------- in O �................. 1 ' O /V uJ � L L L L L L L 00 LLL ��o4lei ID E E E E E E E zz F— ,Ny II z Z 6L �� _ 0 00 CO M O 00 to p Q O O x IddtlLll d0%K d a a ujm J II o rn co o co mLMU N m ' IS oez:A9 Ljzlviu Jo%ZZ __ _; < i J U < I ^ �I� -- o Z Z o cW7 I ,09Z1A9 IddbZLL_d0__/°8Z _ _ -- z p LL z W � o a. o Q F I > 2 , ,SIZ AS Iddb21l�0%OZ 6 D O I i I J _U 2 W D O w (~j I w I S OO �{ MA 01=1=1"1 JO%9,. o p J O Z ` I I,! £�A 01ddV2il d0%Z,_ .... , LU p W . ,ou zQ -- -- -i--- - ,- -FfdW9?AZ7• V 0�L W z - --I -I-j--� --i- ----Ffd7Pi£LBIbiL LLJ O ,0M co o - - --;-------- ------trdWgz�Tbat LL w ------ I cr w F 06 w I_ it —1-- Aatnr9r�T,b CD LV Q ` os o --r--I -----I�-:I- ------------Raju�Cc�T,D z - ------- - — C% Z OL w z - - --' -- �--�-- ----------------MAT W J O os zce - -�- �------ ------------------aawa��,b Q ~ os ' --� - s---�- - ---------------------aaalrs��r,os ~ Z ° f z Wo O Y o nonoa i / 1D MNN.-�� Q 3IddV21Num SBO-IfiJla a wa a3na3sao ao% �IV4 u O ClIN-3clim �� -- ATTACHMENT 1 %OF OBSERVED m RIGHT TURN TRAFFIC D O _- �I I ~ sow-t,�neea------------------- --- -'-- =-` p Z Q'r�aesaed----------------- -1 ---- - -- -- - i► �° z —Z_I m7s-�mekL------------- ---I ' !, D 50' D l i .A � ° Z n 60' r -@-22-(deli---------- ---�r-P-- - -- q m 0 _4 I O z 70' Z fJ z� cn x 1QZA2,B 9PUi----- ---U-- -- -- -! - 9 m 8D' Z _ I D 14Q3]1GP�1__ L__ fn (y I m C ca T 120''jaA ---+`'----- -- -- --� zcmil°°' m m m !� Dz110' C o -i - 2%'OF TRA IC 81'130' X17 II u f 120' C O m Z n 6%OF TRA IC E 160' k v 0 hE `L O �i B%OF TRA IC ' 1 9' �� m Z x m m E I �t 11� I Z Z o - -- - 20%OFT FIC IY 215' O v m I �' 4 0 � m '< _ I -0 D '- m - - -- 28%OFT FIC Y 250' I - z Q O m Z_ _ _ t7_ -n �' � �i m Z Z z D - --' 22h OF - FIC gI �; m T1 r- > I I o I' c O N �i 19 m 9 171 o o d o o IIF TRA- 14%OF---FFIC Y fly ;o I < Q o j m r' cn n �a o O O c0ncuowrnC01— n z 3339BBB �n D cva s o -zr -------- 3l� � -- m p° m VIOLATOR 350'+ m O O N,m O O O .N.. -0 •� ?t i ;o Z. ~ n y i y - ��; T _ O z o Z q && r M N N N W N z `a, 1. i m 07 Q W 001" m N W I TI n O O O:07 O O O O m� o = mi i O gg � CD n A O a , O 3 A j -4 A. �I F m Crz CD I m 0 — 0 O 0 z 11 i ;o D a m0c O ON0 N A N I S F �e O e o ATTACHMENT 1 N N_0 ------------- W 0 Gm Gal� � cz v I h m m Q m O - o o o v o3 (0 � N S 22 m CD X � 3 m m m o n 70��. I w-I-- o A W O f m 7 lip c I � � I � 7 � 1 m 0 O m r I � � m 0 i D C o U) D = C R M r _ N M z � h rn O v m z m o o cn Tx a m I� �' z ��� Z = g � = z v v, 1 n _ o o eco v_ m m aa = D --i cn�o � mm� Z Irl m CSI-�S ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 5 Other Documents Z l♦ - -� � t .� r O in ai'� m / 1 75 maM 27, - 1VN O Q I) I a 2, ani :5 • 1� II I � � 0 M L u r _ r rs TK') 1 n ,1 NI to ? y r N w U Q o E =o v o N o = '�c-° u Q ` = E ° n EW u mEoE F. c u res N W y u y q c u •o 'y u 'y a ao 0 oO viR- .Ttc O.s � ws Eu nm 3s 3s WN 3. m E 'E�:. E c 3 C n c ° q u o �°, E •- =� U 3 s A � O •O E'.aES LCCCO W > v 'y ? N'O U - >. 0 UL' O CCti � a7 9WL Oyu o W ¢ o R g E 9 u L L q u c 3 E 2 u = E U c'= u o > W p E ._ or_ E U E u u = c a " � c P. Eoc c '- o u u o $ =.E = E o 0 0 E . L E o Y u E W O O O O O O c W C E `o -yEo2� a = to cmc 'O V Vl — 4^ i V U O Lr. 6 o U E E E E E v u U U 'a •v_ y E E E vcE ° �e� u �.�3 u = u u u 'y'€.B d = u U •y R u a n a co- E'L. y: E_ £ E E E U c `� ,Z E E E U E.= t _ y T W = •a E o � c c > E > y Ep >3 W q s g m E w n m A 9 E a n m > A iti A c C O m > n A m c Z, E E E �ro'r a E E E zo O U o y.E v� rn rn O O U o y.E rn rn �n O n W Y U U U > C C U 6 q C U U > E V 6 � T y O W '- U X U m O Y T `y p >q •_ V ` > � tito Wc u3c o 4ucLy°p•.0WEW D>Oy�:'rcyu L`u�'yc �ryyo.r=° m uq huT` cecEq =u 4uW: A L=sW 'm^ ayci T Ec.-`vE .9E ° ' pcu .`ERO•CaO HE moo E $ u O o 2 wE ° qEo 2 ` 8Em ` q cuq cm E .c o n E.S E E o•o 8 0 o u `o ` c •O E o o '.� `o mr � > c._ u E•c o o u o m- ,� to E a a �^ u 9 a r c •o E `� E.° a 0 0 o> E � .0 > .2 >' c ° c � t0a = .. oar .>. ? Acp U E W q ._ O W W C C 6 U O `o B c c 3 v q o c r s a ` E A c. u 3 •'.0 m .-1 p m - u c o -2 -Sc q O O '[+ c o W 3 a E c 2` q e.° T � u > L G [—>i E s o . 't °v p E o c u 'E ` ` > a c 'O E u c W a p�.J •g,•- - O t4.2 .0 p 9'.= Y >.C. > E'C _ u'O ° E E 0 0 to 0 cc on to v T A 7 a W W U R C U U W •= R `" u m u 'c O E d W 1 O q u ° O C W t a d c e 'o yo'' c'oiC > > E -vC u U > cUE u > p m0 v u o A E > U _ o m c a A x x c -to " x x c u o C �+ . o U U o �`+ u ° y 00 N E C 0 O L'fl Vl m F c' fns > � .>.i .>a a E. F FZ >F .>a .>.i � = EE BI B I �'� ATTACHMENT 3 R.POLTL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT LEASING AND MANAGEME.NT Thursday, March 4, 2010 Hand Delivered Mr. Tim Bochum Deputy Director of Public Works City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm.Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Traffic Light Design Laguna Village Shopping Center San Luis Obispo, CA Mr. Bochum: ATE will be mailing you a separate letter tomorrow Friday, March 5`h to provide their comments on your draft signal warrant assessment, on your proposed"Median Half- Light" design, and their recommendations for signalizing the intersection of Madonna Rd @ Pereira@ LVSC Driveway. Kristie and Rudy Molina, the owners of Laguna Village Shopping Center, have directed me to prepare and deliver this letter to you. It is in response to several meetings and telephone conversations that we have had since my last letter dated February 23, 2010. At our meeting on Thursday,February 18`h,you gave us a schematic"Median Left-In, Left-Out"design for our consideration. You explained that this design would not include a traffic light initially,but a traffic light could be added at some point in the future thereby creating the"Median Half-Light."You asked for our opinion of this"Median Half-Light"design. You have since informed us that you may be willing to consider going to the"Median Half-Light"quickly, subject to certain criteria to be set forth in writing between the parties. At our next meeting on Tuesday, February 23d, I provided a written response explaining that the Molinas were not interested in the"Median.Half-Light"design; however, I also listed the following items that the Molinas and the City agree on: 1. The fact that the intersection of the Madonna Rd @ Pereira Dr @ LVSC driveway meets the warrants, in general,necessary to require a traffic light. 2. The LVSC Madonna Rd driveway should be moved to align with Pereira Dr as part of the intersection and traffic light design. 3. The LVSC Madonna Rd driveway should be widened from 2 lanes to 3 (plus the decel channelized lane) lanes as part of the intersection and traffic light design. 4. The Madonna Rd decel lane should be channeled into the LVSC entry driveway as part of the intersection and traffic light design. e-mail randv(ul� Te1e:8051781-9100 Fax: 8 805!5/781-9101 1328 Madonna Road,San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 ATTACHMENT 3 Mr. Tim Bochum, City of San Luis Obispo, CA Re: Laguna Village Shopping Center Thursday,March 4,2010 Page 2 of 3 We also agree on other improvements: 1. The Prefamo Creek Commons plans to commence construction of the following improvements that will effect the traffic flow: a. widen Madonna Rd in front of Neal-Truesdale Insurance, b. restripe the turning movements in the southbound lanes on Madonna Rd at LOVR, c. add a right-tum lane on westbound LOVR at Madonna Rd, d. stripe a third westbound lane on LOVR adjacent to LVSC, and e. stripe LOVR to provide a left-turn pocket for ingress and egress to the Burger King driveway. 2. The Molinas/LVSC will remove the existing monument sign and install a new monument sign at the Madonna Rd entry after moving the driveway. 3. The Molina/LVSC will install a new shopping center monument sign at the LOUR Shell station driveway. 4. The Molinas/LVSC will widen the Burger King driveway and remove the existing monument sign and install new monument sign. 5. The Molinas/LVSC will widen the driveway throat into the alley behind Burger King. At our meeting on Monday, March I", City Staff once again proposed that the Molinas consider the"Median Half-Light"design; and the Molinas informed me yesterday that they still have no interest in proceeding with this project if the goal is to install the "Median Left-In/Left-Out without a light"or a"Median Half-Light"design. The Molinas feel that the"Median Left-In/Left-Out with or without a light"will have a significant long-term negative impact on LVSC. The solution that is acceptable to the Molinas for the intersection of Madonna Rd @ Pereira Dr @ LVSC driveway is as follows: 1. LVSC and the City would agree that the preferred traffic light to be constructed at this intersection shall be the"4-sided Light"(not the"Median Left-In/Left-Out with or without a light") and with that agreement,the Molinas are wilting to move forward and widen their Madonna Rd driveway so that it aligns with Pereira Drive and they will construct all other improvements, at their expense. Without that agreement(to the"4-sided Light"),the Molinas are not willing to move forward and widen their Madonna Rd driveway. 2. LVSC and the City agree that the"Median Half-Light"will be considered as a secondary solution only after the 4-sided light is installed and operational and if specific problems persist over a period of time that would require the"4-sided light"to be converted into a"Median Half-Light." � 1 — V � ATTACHMENT 3 Mr. Tim Bochum, City of San Luis Obispo, CA Re: Laguna Village Shopping Center Thursday,March 4, 2010 Page 3 of 3 3. The"4-sided Light"shall be installed all at once(as recommended by our transportation engineers) or installed in phases.(if required by City staff). 4. The"4-sided Light"shall, upon completion, include the following: a. Left-turn from Madonna Rd into LVSC with pocket length of 80 feet. b. Left-tum out of LVSC onto Madonna. c. Full electronic coordination with the light at Madonna @ LOVR. d. Pre-emptive devices necessary for the fire station,possibly including a hard-wire connect at the station exit. e. Modification of the Madonna Frontage Road at Pereira to limit traffic to one-way inbound to eliminate an extra signal phase(as recommended by Staff). 5. Develop and implement a monitoring program with specific adjustments and/or improvements set forth to solve problems, if any are detected.We are willing to work with City to create a specific monitoring plan and list of criteria for solving problems that may appear, if any. The monitoring plan may include, for example, some of the following: a. Conduct evaluations 6 months and 12 months after signal installation(and at 6 month intervals thereafter if problems persist). b. If problems related to right-toms from LOVR to Madonna Road occur, then perhaps we modify the signal timing and phasing plan to limit right- turn movements during the red phase. c. If certain problems persist,then perhaps we restrict access to the Pereira Drive approach(for example, right-in right-out only) to reduce the complexity of traffic movements and phasing at the intersection. d. If certain problems persist,then perhaps, as a last resort,we consider modifying the full 4-sided signal to create a"Median Half-Light, Left-In, Left-Out" as shown on the City's proposed plan. 6. All costs of the design, construction,review and adjustments of this new traffic light shall be bome by Mr. and Mr. Molina, the owners of LVSC. We are hopeful that you find this outline acceptable. If so,we are willing.to work with you to develop the details and present the solutions to the City Council on March 16`s. Sincerely, R:POLTL ANDA SSOCIATES,INC. Randaloltl Property Manager,Laguna Village Shopping Center Cc. Mr. and Mrs.Molina, LVSC P. Terence Schubert,Esq. Scott Schell,ATE, and Nazir Lalani,Traffex Engineers, Inc. . J Attachment 4 VICINITY MAP 0 LVSC Fro / G �So nal Re t - q c 2 ��PJ� LL a J LL w � C) ¢ x¢w ¢¢ C C) Lr y o ? Y3owi.- ¢ u 3 N o � ���$g6gs � uEE •� � .u. � ctO o m T� O� v .. � 04 v o � r on � S = uv7 c3 u�.>`o wE' _m :2v >.tgNv •Ee t'vAa9i O a1} O U U = ( ~O ¢ F-� m .No.o � a> ° .EEm s3 �'E •mV�s = OQ ~ � W� C u`J 'o U Q U o ° E u E -ca ,o =A96 > m W ° E U m •o'c o m > e 3 .y m yi ° 'T' 3 o s m o E_ e u ai0 `o uo� z F-'c o mcr m vim _. u Dcm-i e'H F � Qv m v C m c '6 — to9� s c' vv> Ecy omE 9 cc O N A is G ' L T 5 =0 Li m C N .. C C� c tO` v __ °vo p e Y C _ DOD .4e = `° E E > a�a � a uma, x00v m Q o c s y v z II n G E e 3 E c v u 3- v E �. vAEEEe�.O � cd9 vm >� E� > >.ce � O E o E m u.o m A .0 o �`a v T W y =9 d r C=c v y o =C a o .C> o,'c a u .a"N U u C v c m�.o. C E 3r:- oo E. O m a >. w'E E OE bO L.2 uv v Q 4 v 3 E -9 c u ° C R 9 GN > y _ r 0 9 A a o n 3 2 E E c a E E ti E a Euc7` ,v,VTS L c QI=t0 cQ �au 0-6 Eo =v ^ ° S o Ev0v � Ef m u 0. •u E m m N L �ap y�y 2 E m9u y 6 m v ee�Nu .0 ty > > b y O W A o ^ >v 16 z OE o > uuoua mvh A E Eu ° w > $ ° vE ,uv ` uom tu'CBA> o U - v .gyp ` r o s C °> E F- E o�c� > > .0 a0 m:..l u .u. a0 :a v ° v o 7 � o 2 'm _ .0 O O P � > e MOUE G- u. O' >z m m R u u E u a w E Zui Y N Z ` m N u � W 'W L p uC v a CC —1 �R a. '.2 ie .c a d v UJ Q e e > W Z O c W �t E � 3 c u w g O ic L m m N C m > > W ` F z ti� O c 'w >d � ., ..t 0 "c > v A h > > p U — E o f E s .p u c•.; a v> mm f <{0 "�° u c�� °c W E� E:o ° ° L°� �•E yO C't-yp p C •p v �+S H O W Z v y C m� U "_ �0 E u u c -• ,y ".p T E o'y •� is O m C .m O r O •U 'E C E`OVA - O' C O � C � O @uv o W vE ung �e0c qu �o o r °d,i-• u.� a F o m °0 > E > P_' m u ° ° c E.y •r U G W d O Z y VJ g y E n 212 12 � E y� S > > > 0 0 G O N i'p S s.�o c E W �^ a u E m p0'J ? eu E ,o E u a c a > o c v� ~ U A U ¢N U U U V d 6 9 4.L .O 0 V) NG 6 m E v c .! - u w Q n y o c >t cl `E =- EE ou o E `" u o c0 '3 aLi c tr �_ ,� o E'EN O a3i E3 0 ° u V E•c o V y ao m E r m. °J •Ai.s v C oD U a ad' a$ 00 70 op > E E bS E s o oCc j •o a 'G $• C _ N L C_ •O m 0 v., C 6 A a� N O C •C as y `h u�•y > ° ° o $e A ° Q `n O y U V.� •`00!�L 'QO a 'h C'G >` p O^ D A = 00`v - v •5 Z.'o ,1Oo, E o c o 2 C's �:. p vi m °�,v c u p p _ u u y :p o or E 0 2 g o o s m uu o Y.4 eso: 'A r °'y y o A h v_= 0 °' C> ❑ °° o o E z.y w E c `u .E w6� v o a u C > H •_ O u R 0l ., O C N °L 4.. O 0 L•O G C N y 0 y Y {O t0 •Vl U Co C O O � d v"i ttl 6 N > O N V N IL L G{L U C7 F C y N N i _ O O a A V d t co v9 �> � c o m N a m Fv�V � m � � > � Z