HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-2016 Item 11, SchmidtCOUNCIL MEETING: C9 v F, t 16
ITEM NO.:� I I
To: Gallagher, Carrie
Subject: RE: Agenda: Luneta Opening
From: "Richard Schmidt" <
Date: Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:18 AM -0700
Subject: Agenda: Luneta Opening LEE
To: "E-mail Council Website" <emailcouncil(@slocity.org>
Re: Luneta Connection
Dear Council Members,
support keeping Luneta closed.
Several comments:
1. Studies should be paid for by developer, not taxpayers. I don't understand why any of the
"study" costs should be picked up by taxpayers. The only reason we're talking about opening Luneta
is because of a proposed development at 71 Palomar. The changes to Luneta are part of that
development, and all their costs should be paid for by the developer, not the taxpayers. I would
suggest the council adopt a policy statement that Luneta remain closed, and then, if the development
proceeds, do the studies and charge the developer. If the development goes away, no studies or
costs are needed. Win-win to do it this way.
2. History. Since I believe I am largely responsible for the fact Luneta is closed, I'd like to inform you
of some of the history that predates staff memory.
When the deep lots on Serrano were subdivided to allow houses facing Luneta, I recognized that
connecting Luneta would cause a huge increase to traffic on Serrano, a steep, narrow, dangerous
street that already had too much through traffic on it, and went to the Council and explained the
problems, and they said "keep it closed."
The existing closure allows emergency vehicle passage (locked bollards). This is a reasonable
alternative to a huge paved turnaround.
3. Traffic. So what are the downstream traffic issues with opening Luneta? Traffic coming down
Luneta from points west of the closure (staff estimates at 1,300 vehicles per day, which I view as a
conservative underestimate) must turn at Palomar, either north to Ramona, or south to Serrano.
Ramona is a collector street, designated to carry this sort of traffic. However, the Palomar-Luneta
intersection is a largely blind one both for cars coming out of Palomar and for eastbound vehicles on
Ramona. In other words, increasing traffic on it by the two increments of opening Luneta and the
proposed dormitory would be dangerous at this intersection. Add in bikes, pedestrian crossings while
texting, and the old folks home and you have a potential fatal intersection. (For what it's worth, the
argument the new connection is needed to relieve traffic on Ramona is nonsense. Ramona, as stated
above, is a collector street designated for higher through -traffic volumes. All the other streets
mentioned here are neighborhood local streets not designated for through traffic.)
Serrano, as mentioned before, is steep, narrow, dangerous, and a neighborhood local street intended
to carry only its own residential traffic, meaning it's not supposed to be functioning as a collector,
which opening Luneta would turn it into.
Some things to understand about Serrano as a collector serving Luneta through -traffic:
• Until the mid-1970s, Serrano was a country lane without curb, gutter, sidewalk on the north side
between Broad and Palomar. This changed when the Forden farm was subdivided.
• To save heritage trees and protect a section of seasonal creek from needing to be culverted, a
portion of Serrano was built out to a narrow width, just broad enough for two cars to pass.
• None of Serrano is particularly wide. Cars moving in opposite directions when passing parked cars
must proceed with caution. The street was meant to serve its residences, not Luneta's traffic. (It
already has considerable through traffic due to the continuation of Palomar to the student apartments
at Palomar/Ramona.)
• The city has no traffic counts for Serrano, so it's clueless how much traffic there is already on the
street. There's a lot. My estimate is it is already at the maximum for a neighborhood local street.
Adding Luneta traffic would boost this by another 1000+ vehicles per day, well into the collector level
of traffic. This would be improper policy implementation, in addition to being dangerous.
• The Broad/Serrano intersection is another dangerous doozey. First of all, vision is very poor for cars
on Serrano. Second, Broad is narrow, and with cars parked, pulling out of Serrano means cars
making the turn must turn partially into the oncoming lane of traffic. Third...
• Engineering of the gradient change at Broad/Serrano is awful, with no way to fix it. Many times per
day, cars making the turn onto Broad bottom out, scrape with the most gawdawful noise (the scrape
marks in the paving tell this story graphically), disturbing the neighborhood peace. While the car noise
is a constant annoyance, what happens when a big truck tries to go up Serrano is beyond hilarious.
Every few months this happens, the truck — or in one case a tour bus — gets hung up, and it takes
hours to free the thing with tow trucks or whatever (recently a semi driver jacked up his trailer,
unhitched his tractor, then had to unload the trailer to free it!), all the while the intersection on both
Serrano and Broad is blocked. Why would you want to add to this mess by connecting Luneta?
4. Broad Street Bike Boulevard. Serrano dumps mid -block into the future Broad bike boulevard.
Why would you want to dump an extra 1,000+ cars mid -block onto a bikeway where you want to limit,
not increase, vehicular traffic?
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt