Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 HrngAVBRmvNoRghtTrnSgnCITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date' July 25, 1988 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Repeal of City of Dublin Ordinance 6-83 (Prohibiting Right Turns on Red - East and Westbound Amador Valley Boulevard at Donohue Drive) EXHIBITS ATTACHED' RECO~R'IENDATION' 3) 4) 1) Draft Ordinance 2) Request from Alameda County Library 3) Agenda Statements - April 25, 1983, and May 9, 1983, City Council Meetings 4) Minutes - February 14, 1983, April 25, 1983, and May 9, 1983, City Council Meetings Location Map Open public hearing Receive Staff presentation and public comment Question Staff and the public Close public hearing and deliberate Waive reading and introduce ordinance repealing Ordinance 6-83 FIN~YCIAL STATEMENT: Hinor cost of labor to remove signs. DESCRIPTION: The "No Right Turn on Red" ordinance for A=mador Valley Boulevard at Donohue Drive was adopted in 1983 in response to concern that pedestrians were not able to safely cross Amador Valley Boulevard on the pedestrian phase of the signal because of motorists turning right from ~mador Valley onto Dcnohue. The Staff analysis oresented at the April 25, 1983, meeting stated that Right Turn on Red" signs are typically not effective because they are ignored or not perceived by motorists. Copies of the staff reports and minutes of those 1983 City Council meetings are included with this agenda statement. At the July 1!, 1988, meeting, Staff presented a report regarding a cross-access easement between the Dublin Librar~ and the Target Store parking lot. This easement is required as a condition of approval for the expansion of Target's outdoor nursery area. The Alameda County Librarian has agreed to the easement providing certain conditions are met, one of which is removal of the "No Right Turn on Red" sign at ~nador Valley Boulevard and Donohue Drive. The County Librarian feels that this prohibition of right turns on red ~ould encourage vehicles to short-cut through the library parking lot to reach the Target parking lot. Staff does not necessarily feel that the library parking lot would be used as a short cut, and at the meezins of July tlth, Dublin Librarian Rayme >lever stated that removal of the "~o Right Turn on Red" sign was the lowest priority of the conditions. The City Council indicated that Staff should prepare an ordinance to repeal the "No Right Turn on Red" prohibition for the July 25th City Council meeting and that the matter could be discussed further during the public hearing. It was noted during discussion at the July 11, 1988, meeting that (t) many drivers violate the "No Right Turn on Red" sign and (2) that since the Gemco grocery store no longer exists, pedestrian traffic may have lessened. TJKM's position has not altered since the 1983 report was ~¢ritten. At the time of writing this report, Staff had not been able to locate the specific persons who requested the signs in 1983~ however, notices have been sent to the apartment buildings on Donohue and Amador Valley Boulevard. Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing, waive the reading, and introduce the ordinance repealing Ordinance 6-83. ~ .t? COPIES TO: Rayme Meyer, Dub]in Libra~'y ITEbl NO._ ~./~ TJK~t ORDINANCE NO. -88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REPEALING CITY OF DUBLIN ORDINANCE NO. 6-83 (TRAFFIC REGULATIONS) The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: Section 1. The provisions of City of Dublin Ordinance 6-83 (prohibiting right turns on red, east or westbound Amador Valley Boulevard at Donohue Drive) are hereby repealed and removed from Chapter 5 of the City of Dublin Traffic Code. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption by the City Council. Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this th day of , 1988. AYES' NOES' ABSENT: £~ or ATTEST' City Clerk Cd: -'~,A ' ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY GINNIE COOPER COUNT%' LIBRARIAN 3721 DM, EILO AVE. HAY",*,'ARD. CALIFORNIA 9454§-27B7 M,I~I 670-6270 3une 8, 1988 Hr. Laurence L. Tong Planning Director City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Larry: E'O'EIVED DUBLIN PL,~NNINO SUB3ECT: ALTERNATE TARGET STORE/DUBLIN LIBRARY ACCESS EASEMENT This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1988, regarding an alternate location for a cross access easement between the Dublin Library and the Target Store. The County Library would agree to the proposed alternate location for access on the east side of the library parking lot. We remain concerned about the possible increase of traffic through the library parking lot that may result from the easement. Should this become a problem, we would expect the City to revoke the access. The following conditions should make the library parking lot less attractive as a "short-cut:" l. We request the removal of the "No Right Turn On Red" sign at Amador Valley Boulevard and Donahue Drive. 2. We request that speed bumps be provided to slow down traffic through the library parking lot. It is our understanding that the granting of this easement will not result in any costs to the County. It is also our understanding that there will be no further request for a cross access easement on the library's southern property line. Please call me if you have any questions about what I have said. Very truly .~ours, Gin~i~ Cooper I~ Alam'ECda County Librarian GC:AA:ej cc: Rayme Meyer, Dublin Branch Nanager Adolph Martinelli, Planning Dept. Pete Hegarty, Dublin City Council, Alameda County Library Advisory Commission 0644L MEMBER OF THE BAY .AR:'A LIBRARY AND INFC'RM &?,ON SYSTEM CITY OF DUBLIH AGE~i'DA STATEMEiiT MEETIHG DATE' April 25, 1983 SUBJECT ' Improved Pedestrian Safety at Signalized Intersections EXHIBITS ATTACHED ' Memo from City Traffic Engineer, dated April 20, 1983 RECOMMENDAT i 0~l ~'~:/'~ 1) 2) Review and accept Traffic Engineer's Report and take no-further action at this time. Direct Staff to include pedestrian walkways in future improvements ~o Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road intersection. FINANCIAL STATEMENT' None DESCRtPTIOii ' At its meeting of February ll, 1983, the City Council asked Staff to report on Cm. Hegarty's request for improved pedestrian safety at Amador Valley Boulevard/Donahue Drive and at Amador Valley Boulevard/San Ramon Road. The attached report from tile City Traffic Engineer contains his comments and recommendations. HERORANDUR TO: Richard Ambrose FROH: Chris D. Kinzel DATE' April 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Pedestrian/Vehicular Conflict at Signalized Intersections At the last City Council meeting, Councilman Hegarty expressed concern regarding possible unsafe conditions for pedestrians at two signalized intersections - Amador Valley Boulevard at Donohue Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard at San Ramon Road. I subsequently discussed this matter with Councilman Hegarty to pinpoint the area of concern. At the Donohue Drive intersection, pedestrians crossing Amador Valley Boulevard have a pedestrian pushbutton and a WALK signal. The WALK is displayed during the same time that traffic on Donohue Drive has a green signal display. During the green signal, motorists can make right or left ~urns or continue straight across the street. The right or left turns cross crosswalks which could have pedestrians crossing under conditions. During this conflict, pedestrians have t~he legal right of way although they may be intimidated and/or disregarded by motorists. This condition and conflict potential is typical of virtually all signalized intersections with protected pedestrian movements. The variation from intersection to intersection is with the relative volume of pedestrians and motorists and the geometric configuration of the intersection itself. At Donohue Drive, the intersection is relatively standard in configuration with moderate volumes of pedestrians and vehicles · ~n general, pedestrians and motorists are both given simultaneous and yet conflicting GO messages because they can clearly see one another and safety problems in the form of accidents rarely occur under these circumstances. While the pedestrian has the legal right of way, for safety purposes it ~s the pedestrian's responsibility to be alert for motorists who fail to yield their right of way. It is possible for motorists to be primarily concerned with other automobile traffic at the intersection and inadvertently not see pedestrians. The solution to the particular problem outlined is to ensure that motorists and pedestrians alike are alert and act in a lawful fashion. Our experience has been that no additional signs, markings or changed signal operation can bring this about. There is an advantage in treating similar intersections with similar installations and this intersection is treated in a standard fashion. Occassionally, crosswalks are omitted and pedestrians are forced to cross at a safer side of the street. In even rarer cases, pedestrians are given an exclusive signal phase during which time all vehicular traffic movement stops. The elimination of a crosswalk in this case -1- would not seem to be beneficial and the consideration of an exclusive pedestrian phase would be congestion-producing and annoying to motorists alike who would likely soon disobey the intent of such a provision. The other possible conflict involving motorists is one in which pedestrians are crossing the artery (in this case Amador Valley Boulevard) and vehicular traffic on Amador Valley Boulevard with a light makes a right turn on red across the crosswalk with a WALK signal. Again, motorists in this situation must legally yield %o all pedestrians but may ignore or inadvertently not see such a pedestrian. The theoretical solution to this is a NO RIGHT TURN ON RED sign. Unfortunately, again the experience for the use of this sign to attempt to regulate or eliminate pedestrian/vehicle conflicts is poor. The reason for such a sign is not readily apparent to motorists and is frequently violated. In addition, most motorists are not expecting to see such a sign and simply do not see it. Therefore, the use of ~0 RIGHT TURN ON RED sign is very ineffective and not recommended. other changes are reco~nended at the intersection at this time. At the San Ramon Road-Amador Valley Boulevard intersection, similar issues of pedestrian versus vehicle conflicts are involved. In this case, these issues are complicated by the presence of generally higher speed traffic, an adult crossing guard during por~-ions of the day, and a complete lack of improvements such as sidewalks, concrete curb and gutter, etc. In addition, pedestrian walkway areas are not improved or defined. At this location, there is a very high level of ad'~ance warning signing (for school age pedestrians) and a need for impro'~ed vehicular capacity. In a separate item, the City Council is considering the long term and short term improvements recommended for San Ramon Road at and near this intersection. This intersection is a high priority location needing street and signal improvements. When such improvements are installed, it will also be appropriate ~o improve pedestrian provisions in the area including defined walkways and appropriate pedestrian refuge areas. At this intersection, it is recommended that no changes to signing or striping be made at this time but that the Council include improvements for pedestrians in its consideration for an intersection improvement proj ecS. -2- CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT MEETIb~G DATE: Hay 9, 1983 SUBJECT ' Installation of NO RIGHT TURN ON RED signs east and westbound on Amador Valley Boulevard ac Donahue Drive EXHIBITS ATTACHED ' RECOMMENDATION~ FINANCIAL STATEMENT' DESCRIPTION : Draft Ordinance 1) Waive reading and introduce ordinance 2) Adopt ordinance on an urgency basis 3) Instruct Staff to monitor the installations for effectiveness and report back in 4 to 6 months Approximately $100 for sign panels and installation plus cost of traffic review in the future. The City Council at its Aoril 28th meeting directed Staff to have installed two "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" signs east and westbound on Amador Valiev Boulevard at Donahue Drive. The attached draft ordinance formalizes this action so that the signs may be enforced. An alternate solution to one of the signs is to remove one of the crosswa~= across Amador Valley Boulevard and provide a physical barrier and signs directing pedestrians to cross the street on the opposite side of donahue Drive. This is an expensive a!cernate and will require some peoole to cross three streets when they only wanted ~o ma[<e one crossing. It is Staff's recommendation tha~ an initial heavy warning and enforcement program be undertaken and that a later /say 4-6 months) traffic analysis be made to revi'ew ti~e effectiveness of the sign installations · ITEN NO. ,.7 ' / ORDINANCE NO. 6 - 83 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS \, as follows' The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain Section 1. RIGHT TURNS PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED: Title 6 - Vehicles and Traffic, Chapter 1 - Traffic Regulations - County Highways of the Alameda County Ordinance Code previously a~op~d by the City of Dublin is amended by the addition of bec~zon to read: 6- Amador Valley Boulevard and Donahue Drive. No person traveling west or east bound on ~.mador Valley Boulevard shall turn a vehicle within the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Donahue Drive against a red traffic control signal. Section 2. IMMEDIATE EFFECT This ordinance shall take effect imediately upon its enactment because the adoption and immediate effect thereof is necessary in order to protect vehicular and pedestrian safety. Section 3. POSTING OF ORDINANCE The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the · City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. ~° PASSED ASD ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 9th day of May, 1983~ by the following votes' AYES ' ' = ~' ~ ","'- Moffatt and Councilmembers Burton, ~tavor Snvder NOES · ABSENT' Counczlmem~ ~ Jeffery ~layor ATTEST' the Amador High School system, to receive approximately $50,000-$60,000o Walk Signal Timing Cm. Moffatt asked if Staff could check the timing of the "WALK" signal at the interesection of Amador Valley Boulevard at Donahue Drive and also Amador Valley Boulevard at San Ramon Road. The timing seemed extremely short, and did not allow sufficient time for seniors to cross the street. The City Engineer indicated the push button had recently been relocated, and thought the timing had also been lengthened, but would double check. Underground Wiring Cm. Jeffery cuestioned status of undergrounding wiring. The City Engineer indicated he will be meeting next week with the underground committee set up to discuss priorities. Cm. Jeffery suggested an ordinance could be looked into, stating that if street ~s going to be dug uo for any reason, at that time we could put down the underground wiring. In this way, at least cur commercial streets would not have to be dug uo several times. SB 142 (Signs) Consensus of Council was to write '=~ ~ ~ opposition of this SS, which preempts !cca! ability to remove non-conforming, ch-premise advertising signs. It would eliminate the City's ability to amortize large, garish, on-site advertising structures which do not conform with current standards. Dublin's Birthday Ce!ehra:ion Cm. Jefferv thanked the Staff for t~ pro~a~aticn that went into the City reception -held earlier in the evening, prior to the City Council meeting. ' ~= ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ef ~=ha!f of Staff Mayor Snyder added that ~y all a~p~ec~a~d the forts on .... Library Commission Meeting Cm. Hegarnv advised that the April meeting of the Library Com_.nission would be held ~n Dublin, anc. that he wou,_~ see to in that all Councilmembers were noticed re the meeting- Regular Meeting February 14, 1953 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OF AHADOR VALLEY BLVD & DONAHUE DRIVE At its meeting of February 11, 19¥3: the City Council asked Staff t:o report on Cm. Hegarty's request for improved pedestrian safety at Amador Valley Boulevard at Donahue Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard at San Ramon Road. Yhe City Traffic Engineer prepared and presented a detailed report to the City Council. The City Traz~ic-.,o,-~,-Fn~;n~=r- ind~_cate~ that all the recommendations they are based on safety as a primary issue and the movement of traffic and the avoidanc= of congestion as secondary. The City Traffic Engineer explained ~ ' ~ ~ t~ey that because most motorists are no: expecting ~o see such a simply do no~ see it. Therefore~ the use of '~NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" signs is very ineffective and was not recommended. With regard to bicycle regulations, it was clarified that motorists must go into bike lanes to make ~'=~ ' ~ -- · ' ~ont nanc ~urn (in absence of bicyclists) Cm Moffatts~_~e'~ sted a possibl~ si~n~, indicating "Pedestrians H=~e Right Of =..-~m~ moved ~' ' this item be tabled until we have a Way" Cm. Roffatt ~~ chance to publicize the issue. !ne motion '4-~ 'or lack second :~ hat the ~ Several menbe s of the audience t ..... st problem was the lacm and pedestrians of enforcement. Motoris=s simply disregard uedesurians, crossing in a crosswalk with no s~na!ization are really taking ihe~ ~ves into their ewn hands. Cm. Jeffery felt that such a si~n wcu!d give uedesurians a fz!se sense security~ kuu perhaps there were other alternatives which co~zd be considered urior to putting uu this sign. On motion of Cm. Hegarty~ seconded by Cm. Burton, and bv majoritF voue~ Staff was directed to have "NO RiGEY TURN ON RED" signs placed east and ,~ ~ Blvd onto Donahue Drive northbound~ and into westbound cn ~,,ado= Valley the Gemco Center southbound. Vo~iuE no on ~n~s issue were Cm. jez~ery and Cm. >ioffa~n. ST~mET NAHiNG & NAbIE CHANGING PROCEDURE On motion cz C.m. Jefferv, seconded by un;. blo~zac~, and by unanzmous vote, the reading was waived ~nd an ordinance adopted establishin~,~ the orocedure ORDINANCE NO. 4 - 83 rC~ PROCEDURE OF THE ESTABLISn.~zNY & CHANGING OF STREET NA}!ES Re~uLlar Hee:zno C}1-2-60 April 25, 19S3 California. They are the largest provider of healthcare in the state. Revenues this past year at a corporate level exceeded $1.4 billion. They have a net worth of approximately 5t50 million. They wished to assure the communities that they have the abilities and the resources to do what they say they will do. ~ Mr. Hankwitz stated they would like to come back to the Council in the near future, after the Council has had a chance to study and discuss the issues, and ask formally for the Dublin City Council's endorsement ORDINANCE ESTABLISHti';G "biO RIGHT TURN ON RED" EAST & WESTBOUND ON A?IADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD @ DOYAHUE DRIVE The City Council at its April 25th meeting directed Staff to have installed two "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" signs east and westbound on Amador Valley Boulevard au Donahue Drive. A draft ordinance was presented to formalize this action, in order that the signs may be enforced. Cm. Hegarty questioned the feasibility of prohibiting the turns at certain hours on!v. It was felt that this would simply cause more confusion. )favor Snvder stated he had strong concerns as co whether Chis would be an zeccive solution, ~nc CUestin-~S, r~e City E .... n~o~ on how i~ will be determined whether or not this is an effective measure. ~-!r. Thompson indicated that TJKbl will ohvsica!!v have someone there to monitor the intersection and repor~ whether peooie are stopping at the simms. The amount of traffic ba^~'=' . ~ up and de!eyed will also be moni~ore~ On motion of Cm. Hegar~y, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by majority vote, the Council 1) waived the reading and introduced ordinance; 2) adopted ordinance on an urgency basisl 3) instructed Staff to monitor the ins~ai[a~ion for effecc~v=noss_ ~.~ and retort back in 6 months. Cm. Je=~erv vo~ed against the motion. ORDINANCE NO. 6 - 83 ESYABL!SHi]f$ TRAFFIC REGULA?!ONS ~,XINC ORDINANCE zn. qAN RAFION ROAD AREA PARCELS OF LAND IN ~"= Cm. Burton excused himself from this' issue because of a potential conflicz. At the April 25th Council meeting? the Council referred the issue of the specific plan to the Pianntng Cor~:mission regarding San Ramen Road area and also directed Staff ~o puet~aue an interim zoning o~-dinance to prohibit uses in conflict with the contemplated sz~ecific plan. The objectives of the specific elan could be: Regular- Heating blay 9, 19S'~ -~~ F/C EXqT. NSIO N FACE OF CLUB REGULATORY SIGN ELECTROLIER STANDARD -- TRAFFIC SIGNAL I'~,,\'1 I': JANUARY 7, 1986 ( AERIAL ) ~c'vi'~ t~' 1.'4 CITY of, DUBLIN INTERSECTION PROJECT AMADOR VALLEY DONOHUE DR.