Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 HrngAVBNoRghtTrnRedSgnCITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: August 28, 1989 ~UBJECT: Public Hearing: Repeal of City of Dublin Ordinance 6-83 Prohibiting Right Turns on a Red Signal - East and Westbound Amador Valley Boulevard at Donohue Drive (Report by Public Works Director Lee Thompson and TJ~ Traffic Consultants) EM~IBITS ATTACHED: RECOMiMENDATION: 1) Draft Ordinance- 2) Report from TJKM 3) Request from Alameda County Library 4) Agenda Statements - April 25, 1983, May 8, 1983, and July 25, 1988 City Council Meetings 5) Minutes February 14, 1983, April 25, 1983, May 9, 1983, and July 25, 1988 Meetings 6) Letters from Jean DeFreze and Jean Thompson 7) Location Map 1) Open public hearing 2) Receive Staff presentation and public comment 3) Question Staff and the public 4) Close public hearing and deliberate 5) Waive reading and introduce ordinance repealing Ordinance 6-83 FiN~NCIAL STATEMENT: Minor cost of removing signs. DESCRIPTION: The "No Right Turn on Red" ordinance for Amador 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 Amador Valley Boulevard onto Donohue. The Staff analysis presented at the April 25, 1983, meeting stated that "No Right Turn on Red" signs are typically not effective because they are ignored or not perceived by motorists. Copies of previous Staff reports and meeting minutes are included as exhibits with this agenda statement. The issue of removing the signs was brought up at the July 11, 1988, meeting during discussion of a cross-access easement between the Library parking lot and the Target Store parking lot. The easement was required as a condition of approval for the expansion of Target's outdoor nursery area. The Alameda County Librarian agreed to the easement providing certain conditions were met, one of which was removal of the "No Right Turn on Red" signs. The Librarian felt that the prohibition of right turns on red would encourage drivers to take shortcuts through the Library parking lot to reach the Target store. At the July 11, 1988, meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance repealing the "No Right Turn on Red" prohibition. A public hearing was held regarding this issue at the July 25, 1988, meeting, at which time testimony was received from Cx~thia Yoland, the resident manager of the small apartment complex at the corner of Donohue and A~nador Valley, that she felt small children did not have enough time to get across the street and that the ordinance should not be changed. At this same meeting, Ginnie Cooper, Alameda County Librarian, said that the Library's request to remove the signs was not a condition but only a suggestion. The City Council then directed Staff to wait until the new traffic signal was installed at the Amador Valley/Amador Plaza intersection and re-study the need for the "No Right Turn on Red." ITF~[ NO. ~ '~', COPIES TO: TJKM In the meantime, Staff received requests from Ms. Jean DeFreze of Ironwood Drive and Ms. 3ean Thompson (copies attached) that the signs be removed. TJ~, the City's Traffic Engineer, has prepared an updated report which states their recommendation that the signs be removed. Obse~¢ation of the intersection indicates poor compliance by some motorists and lack of understanding of the reason for the signs by others. Enforcement of the regulation by the Police Department is of low priority when compared to other police issues. A check of the citation records for the last nine months (since these records became computerized) indicates a total of 13 citations were issued during that time° When the signs were initially put up in 1983, the walk time was also lengthened for pedestrians crossing Amador Valley Boulevard. TJKM feels that prohibiting right turns on a red light for _Amador Valley traffic does not address the problem of conflict between pedestrians crossing Amador Valley and vehicles turning right from Donohue Drive onto Amador Valley as both have a green light at the same time. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, waive the reading, and introduce the ordinance repealing Ordinance 6-83. -2- ORDINANCE NO. -89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REPEALING CITY OF DUBLIN ORDINANCE NO. 6-83 (TRAFFIG 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 a red traffic signal, east and westbound Amador Valley Boulevard at Do~ohue 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 , 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk × iBIT MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 17, 1989 Lee Thompson Chris Kinzel Possible Removal of "No Right Turn On Red" Signs /4UG !7 i989 F.UBLtC: Y /ORKS On May 9, 1983 the City Council adopted an ordinance approving "No Right Turn On Red" signs on Amador Valley Boulevard at Donohue Drive. The attached correspondence from 1983 includes the statement of the issue, the TJKM recommendation against such action and the Council minutes. In 1988, the County Librarian requested removal of the signs, but the Council decided to reconsider the issue after the new signals at Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road became operational. The signals are now in operation. TJKM observations indicate very poor compliance of the signs by some motorists and lack of understanding of the reason for the signs by others. Enforcement of the regulation by the Police Department is understandably of low priority when compared to other police issues. In 1983, the concern raised was the amount of time the pedestrians had to cross the street and the potential conflict between pedestrians crossing the street on a WALK signal while Donohue Drive motorists turn right across the crosswalk with a green light. The pedestrian crossing time was lengthened but it is ironic that the "No Right Turn On Red" signs on Amador Valley Boulevard do not address either of the problems. The signs affect Amador Valley Boulevard motorists with a red light, not Donohue Drive motorists with a green light. In 1988, in addition to the request for removal of the signs by the librarian, the Public Works Department received two letters supporting the removal. At the public meeting one citizen, Cynthia Yoland, requested retaining the signs, but cited crossing time as a reason, not right turns on red. For the reason described, we recommend the Council repeal Ordinance 6-83, which would cause the "No Right Turn On Red" signs to be removed. rhm ~,~ ~ ~' ? * '.~ ~-. Attachments 157-001 4~7 Cha~t Ddve, Suite 214, Pleasanton, California ~6 · (415) 463-~11 PLEAS~TON · ~C~MENTO. FRESNO. ~NCORD ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY GINNIE COOPER COUNTY LIBRARIAN 3121 DIABLO AVE. HAY'WARD. CALIFORNIA 9,4545'2787 141511 670-~5270 June 8, 1988 Mr. Laurence L. Tong Planning Director City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Larry: SUB3ECT: I 'EIVED DUBUN PLANNINO ALTERNATE TARGET STORE/DUBLIN'I]IBRARY 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:" 1. 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 yours, Gi n~i~a Cooper tO Alam'~da County Librarian GC:AA:ej cc: Rayme Meyer, Dublin Branch Manager Adolph Martinelli, Planning Dept. Pete Hegarty, Dublin City Council, Alameda County Library Advisory Commission 0644L MEMBEROFTHEBAYAREALIBRARYANDINFORMA~ONSYSTEM CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT _ MEETING DATE' April 25, 1983 SUBJECT : Improved Pedestrian Safety at Signalized Intersections EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Memo from City Traffic Engineer, dated April 20, 1983 RECOMMENDATION~~: l) 2) FINANCIAL STATEMENT' None Review and accept Traffic Engineer's Report and take no-further action at this time. Direct Staff to include pedestrian walkways in future improvements to Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road intersection. DESCRIPTION ' At its meeting of February 11, 19~3, 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 the City Traffic Engineer contains his comments and recommendations. ? CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: April 25, 1983 SUBJECT : Improved Pedestrian Safety at Signalized Intersections EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Memo from City Traffic Engineer, dated April 20, 1983 RECOMMENDATION~~ l) 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 to Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road intersection. FINANCIAL STATEMENT' None DESCRIPTION : At its meeting of February ll, 19B3, 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 the City Traffic Engineer contains his comments and recommendations. HEHORAHOUH TO: Richard Ambrose FROM: 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 turns or continue straight across the street. The right or left turns cross crosswalks which could have pedestrians crossing under WALK conditions. During this conflict, pedestrians have the 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 js 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 witt~ 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 ar, tery lin this case Amador Valley Boulevard) and vehicular traffic on Amador Valley Boulevard with a red light makes a right turn on red across the crosswalk with a WALK signal. Again, motorists in this situation must legally yield to 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 poo~. The reason for such a sign is not readily apparent to motorists and is frequently violated. In addition, most motorists are not expecting ~o see such a sign and simply do not see it. Therefore, the use of NO RIGHT TURN ON RED sign is very ineffective and not recommended. No other changes are recommended 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 ~he presence of generally higher speed traffic, an adult crossing guard during portions 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 advance warning signing (for school age pedestrians) and a need for improved 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 al so be appropriate to improve pedestrian provisions in the area including defined walkways and appropriate pedestrian refuge areas. At this intersection, it is recommended that no changes to si§ning or striping be made at this time but that the Council include improvements for pedestrians in its consideration for an intersection improvement project. -2- CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: May~, 1983 SUBJECT : Installation of NO RIGHT TURN ON RED signs east and westbound on Amador Valley Boulevard at Donahue Drive EXHIBITS ATTACHED RECOMMENDATIONi~I) 2) 3) FINANCIAL STATEMENT: : Draft Ordinance Waive reading and introduce ordinance Adopt ordinance on an urgency basis 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. DESCRIPTION : The City Council at its April 28th meeting directed Staff to have installed two "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" signs east and westbound on Amador Valley 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 crosswalks 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 alternate and will require some people to cross three streets when they only wanted to make one crossing. It is Staff's recommendation that an initial heavy warning and enforcement program be undertaken and that a later (say 4-6 months) traffic analysis be made to rev£-ew the effectiveness of the sign installations. 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 adopted by the City of Dublin is amended by the addition of Section to read: 6- ' Amador Valley' Boulevard and Donahue Drive. No person traveling west or east bound on Amador 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 AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 9th day of May, 1983, by the following votes: AYES: Councilmembers Burton, Hegarty, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder NOES: ABSENT' Councilmember Jeffery N one .~ ~ ~ ATTEST: CITY 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) EY~HIBITS ATTACHED: 5) RECO.~MENDATION: ~~2~ 3) 4) 5) 1) Draft Ordinance 2) Request from Alameda County Libra~% 3) Agenda Statement~- 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 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Minor cost of labor to remove signs. DESCRIPTION: The "No Right Turn on Red" ordinance for Amador 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 Amador Valley onto Donohue. The Staff analysis presented at the April 25, 1983, meeting stated that "No 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 11, 1988, meeting, Staff presented a report regarding a cross-access easement between the Dublin Library 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 Amador Valley Boulevard and Donohue Drive. The County Librarian feels that this prohibition of right turns on red would 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 meeting of July llth0 Dublin Librarian Rayme Meyer stated that removal of the "No 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 (1) many drivers violate the "No Right Turn on Red" sign end (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 written. 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. ITF3! NO. _~__  3the Amador High School system, to receive approzimately $50,000-$60,000. Walk Signal Timing Cm. Moffatt asked if Staff could check the timing of the "WALK" signal at the interesection of Amador Valley Bou,levard 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. ery questioned status of undergrounding wiring. The City Engineer indicat he will be meeting next week with the underground committee set up to discuss ,riorities. Cm. Jeffery ;ted an ordinance could be looked into, stating that if street is going be dug up for any reason, at that time we could put down the underground g In this way, at least our commercial streets would not have to be dug ~evera! times. SB 142 (Signs) Consensus of Council was to ~ ~tter in opposition of this SB, which preempts local ability to remove onforming, on-premise advertising signs. It would eliminate the City's ility to amortize large, garish, on-site advertising structures which do t conform with current standards. Dublin's Birthday C on Cm. Jefferv thanked the Staff for the preparation went into the City reception,'held earlier in the evening, prior to the Council meeting. Mayor Snyder added that they all appreciated the efforts behalf of Staff. Library Commission Meeting Cm. Hegarty advised that the April meeting of the Library Commission be held in Dublin, and that he would see to it that all Councilmembers noticed re the meeting. ld Regular Meeting FebruarY 14, 1983 PEDESTRIA?I SAFETY SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OF AMADOR VALLEY BLVD & DONAHUE DRIVE At its meeting of February 11: 1983, the City Council asked Staff to report~ on Cm. Hegarty's request for improved pedestrian safety at Amador Valle7 Boulevard at Donahue Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard at San Ramon Road. The City Traffic Engineer prepared and~ presented a detailed report to the City Council. The City Traffic Engineer indicated that all the recommendations they make are based on safety as a primary issue and the movement of traffic and the avoidance of congestion as secondary. The City Traffic Engineer explained that because most motorists are not expectin=~ to see such a sign, they simply do not 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 right hand turn (in absence of bicyclists). Cm. Moffatt suggested a possible sign indicating "Pedestrians Have Right Of Way" Cm. Moffatt further moved that this item be tabled until we have a chance to publicize the issue. The motion died for lack of a second. Several members of the audience f~!t that the bi=gest problem was the of enforcement. Motorists simply disregard pedestrians, and sedestrians ]1 crossing in a crosswa-~ with no sizna!ization are really taking their lives into their o~n hands. Cm. Jeffery felt that such a sign would give sedestrians a false sense of security, but perhaps there were ocher alternatives which could be considered prior to putting up this sign. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded bv Cm. Burton, and by majority vote, Staff was directed to have "NO RIGHT'TURN ON RED" signs placed east and westbound on Amador Valley Blvd., onto Donahue Drive northbound, and into the Gemco Center southbound Vot~n= no on this issue were Cm. Jeffery and Cm. Moffatt. STREET NAME CHANGING PROCEDURE On motion of Cm. Je ~nded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the reading was waived and ~ ~nce adopted establishing the procedure for changing of street names. ORDINANCE NO. FOR PROCEDURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT & CHANGING OF STREET NAMES C,~-2-60 Regular ~Ieeting April 25, 1983 California. They are the largest provider of healthcare in the s Revenues this past year at a corporate level exceeded $1 on. They have a net worth of approximately $450 million. ~ed to assure the communities that they have the abilities resources to do what they say they will do. Mr. Hankwitz stat ~ld like to come back to the Council in the near future, a Council has had a chance to study and discuss the issues, ~rmally for the Dublin City ~ouncil's endorsement ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" EAST & WESTBOUND ON AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD ~ DONAHUE 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 at 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 only. It was felt that this would simply cause more confusion. Mayor Snyder stated he had strong concerns as to whether this would be an effective solution, and questioned the City Engineer on how it will be determined whether or not this is an effective measure. Mr. Thompson indicated that TJKM will physically have someone there to monitor the intersection and report whether people are stopping at the signs. The amount of traffic backed up and delayed will also be monitored. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by majority vote, the Council 1} waived the reading and introduced ordinance; 2} adopted ordinance on an urgency basis; 3) instructed Staff to monitor the installation for effectiveness and report back in 6 months. Cm. Jeffery voted against the motion. ORDINANCE NO. 6 - 83 ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS INTERIbl ZONING ORDINANCE ~ RE CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAN RAMON ROAD AREA~~-- Cm. Burton excused himself fr a potential conflict. At the April 25th C~ng, the Council referred the issue of the specific pla~on regarding San Ramon Road area and also d'~m zooming o!.dinance to p~-ohibit uses objectives of the pecific plan could be: CM-2-73 Regular ~leeting ',Mav 9..19S~ pUBLIC HEARING - REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 6-83 PROHIBITING RIGHT TURNS ON RED - AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD @ DONOHUE DRIVE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. City Engineer Thompson advised that the no right turn on red ordinance for Amador Valley Boulevard at Donohue Drive was adopted in 1983 in response to concern that pedestrians were unable to safely cross Amador Valley Boulevard on the pedestrian phase of the signal because of motorists turning right from Amador Valley Boulevard onto Donohue Drive. The Staff Report presented at the April 25, 1983 meeting stated that these signs are typically not effective because they are ignored or not perceived by motorists. At the last Council meeting, Staff presented a report regarding a cross- access easement between the Dublin Library 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 Amador Valley Boulevard and Donohue Drive. On July 11, 1988, the Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance to repeal the no right turn on red prohibition, and hold a public hearing for further discussion. It was noted during the July llth meeting that many drivers violate the sign and since the Gemco grocery store no longer exists, pedestrian traffic may have lessened Cynthia Yoland addressed the Council and indicated that she manages the apartments across the street, the older units. She felt that people generally observe the signs. There is not enough time to cross the street. She appreciates the Library, but could not use the Library if she couldn't get across the street with her small children. Cm. Snyder questioned if she uses other crosswalks around town. bls. Yoland responded that this is the only crosswalk she uses. Cm. Snyder asked her if there were still a large number of senior citizens that live in her building. bls. Yoland responded that there are only 8 units in her complex. There is 1 senior, 1 partially handicapped, and 4 units have children under 3. Ginnie Cooper, Librarian, clarified that removal of the signs is not a condition, but merely a suggestion because of people using the Library as a shortcut. blayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty indicated that back in 1983, people called him to request this. The signs were put up for safety reasons. If they are removed, he hoped that it would not happen until the stop signal goes in at Amador Valley Boulevard @ Amador Plaza Road. @+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@~@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+ Cbl-7-239 Regular Meeting Ju~y 25, 1988 Chri. s Kinzel adv£sed that tile walk time was lengthened at the time that the signs were put in. Cm. i,loffatt indicated that people in the crosswalk have the right-of-way and this is the only intersection in Dublin witbr this type of a sign. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if there was a means to determine how many tickets have been issued for violation of the no turn on red signs. Sgt. A1Chavarria advised that Police Services can obtain this information by doing some research. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council continued discussion of this item until afte9 the signal goes in at Amador Valley Boulevard (Y Amador Plaza Road. The topic shall be brought back before the Council for discussion at'~that time. C~,~. Hoffatt, and ["layor Jeffery voted against this motion. IC HEAR I?IG [SHi. IE~¥£ OF F, IGI-tT-OF-~..h\Y LIliES FOR NEW ROAD PARALLEL TO & Or: DUBLIN BOULEV,'\i~,D (BETilEEi.I A~-IADOR PLAZA ROAD AND REGIONAL ST:,~ET'~ '~ £.layor Je ~ ppened the public hearing. Planning Direc ong advised that this item was continued from the June 27 1988 Council meeti~ The Circulation Plan :he Dublin Downtown Specific Plan includes recom- mended changes to improve circulation. One such improvement is a new stre~ pa~-allel to and :herlv of Dublin Boulevard, connecting R~ona Street to Amador Plaza Road. Downtown Plan shows the approximate location of this road midway bet~, Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. The precise alignment of the street must be est ished through adoption of a right-of- way line. Ordinance i;o. 44-87 ?rovides procedures fo ~itiating and establishing rigi~t-of-way lines. Section 1! states that s unlawful to construct or erect any building or structure within the newl tablished right-of-way line. Tim purpose of the right-of-way line (or~pl line) is to notify adjacent property owners of future roadway requireme If adjacent property is developed prior to the construction of the d within a new or revised right-of-way line, then that future development e property, includin$ yard requirements, must observe the location of !uture road. The ~oh~-of-way l~ne can help guide development in an area to sure that circulation iml~rovements can be accommodated. City Engineer Tl~omt)so~ described the 3 Alternates and advised the es costs include acquisition, design: improvement and environmental miti Tim costs were Alte~:native 1 - $3 ~aillion; Alternative 2 - $6.7 million; Alternative 3 - $3.3 million. :ed ~+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+9+@+@+9+@+~+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+@+9+@+@+@+ Cbl-7-_~O Regular bleeting July 25, 1988 September 20, 1988 Dept. of Public Works 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, Ca. 94568 Dear Mr. Thompson; I am requesting the "No right' turn on Red" signs be removed both ways on Amador Valley Blvd. to Donohue Dr. in Dublin. As a longtime resident of Dublin, I think the signs are a great inconvenience to me and all the other people living in this area. I don't feel removing the signs would cause any more problems there than anywhere else. To my knowledge they are the only "no right turn on Red" signs in Dublin and I'm sure there are more potentially dangerous intersections. I will appreciate being kept informed of any changes made and any meetings held on this issue. Sincerely, Jean DeFreze 7530 Ironwood Dr. Dublin, Ca. 94568 September 20, 1988 Dept. of Public Works 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, Ca. 94568 Dear Mr. Thompson; I am requesting the "No right.turn on Red" signs be removed both ways on Amador Valley Blvd. to Donohue Dr. in Dublin. As a longtime resident of Dublin, i think the signs are a great inconvenience to me and all the other people living in this area. I don't feel removing the signs would cause any more problems there than anywhere else. To my knowledge they are the only "no right turn on Red" signs in Dublin and I'm sure there are more potentially dangerous intersections. I will appreciate being kept informed of any changes made and any meetings held cn this issue. Sincere ,// 20' 20! �yw�9 1 1 o N • -...•NM • N 14‘.1- N WI1 _----"\"----------"- I 1 o N0 W Itigek) 03 1-1-1 Z 4! 12 0 12' O \Zl —_I LEGEND I -r REGULATORY SIGN '-- TRAFFIC SIGNAL 7..___.7. F/C EXTENSION ELECTROLIER MAST ARM FACE OF CURB STANDARD DAl I:: JANUARY 7, 1986 (AERIAL) SCALE: 1"=20' CITY of. DUBLIN 0 Nu. By Date Revisions INTERSECTION PROJECT Zv, ►- —— A?.A A nOR VALLEY BLVD. / (-) - u.5._r .1 ;, 2:i� 1/�///� DONOHUE DR.