HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Speed Feedback Demo G~S~ Off' DU~~~
- i9' ~~"--'~~-s~ 'sZ STAFF REPORT CITY C L ER K
~~~Ll~~l~~ f.7UBLIN CITY COUNCIL Flle # ~
DATE: December 21, 2010
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers -
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJEC Speed Feedback Demonstration Project
Prepared By: Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This item is a follow-up item to the December 15, 2009, agenda item related to strategies for
addressing traffic safety. A project (Project #960024) was created and approved as part of the
2010-2011 Capital Improvement Program to purchase and install six speed feedback signs so
that their effectiveness at reducing vehicle speeds could be assessed. This report provides a
recommendation for the installation locations of the signs and seeks City Council approval of
the sign locations and authorization to advertise for bids to purchase the signs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The procurement and installation of six speed feedback signs is anticipated to cost
approximately $57,600. The budget, which will be funded using Gas Tax, was approved as part
of the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Capital Improvement Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the recommended speed feedback sign
locations and authorize staff to advertise for bids for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Speed Feedback
Demonstration roject.
v--~.
Sub fitted By Reviewed By
Public Works Director Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. o I
DESCRIPTION:
On December 15, 2009, the Dublin City Council reviewed the current process which staff
undergoes to respond to residents' requests regarding safety and compared it to the processes
employed at various neighboring agencies,(Attachment 1 -Staff Report and Attachment 2
Minutes). It was determined that staff would continue with the current process. A specific
enhancement to the existing program identified by staff was the implementation of a speed
feedback sign pilot program that would test the effectiveness of speed feedback signs as a
means of reducing vehicle speeds. The City Council supported staff's recommendation and
directed staff to create a new CIP project. Dublin Police Services currently deploys a portable
speed feedback sign mounted on a trailer on a periodic basis throughout the City. The City
Council requested that, in addition to fixed signs, procurement of additional portable signs be
considered.
Consideration for Portable versus Permanent Signs
Currently, the Dublin Police Services (DPS) manages the deployment of a portable speed
feedback sign that is affixed to a trailer. The sign is typically placed on residential streets where
complaints have been received regarding speeding. Staff from DPS drives the trailer to the
desired location, usually on a Tuesday, and leaves the trailer in place until Friday. While the
trailer is not a tool for enforcing the speed limit, it is intended to educate motorists and residents
alike. It is a visual reminder to motorists of their current travel speed, .and it also helps to
educate concerned residents as to what the actual travel speeds are on the roadway.
Estimating travel speeds is very difficult without proper training, and often residents perceive
travel speeds to be higher than they actually are.
The speed trailer is used approximately 1 to 2 times per month and is located on a complaint
basis. Because it is not used every week, there is capacity to use the existing trailer more
frequently if needed. Also, because of the size of the trailer, there are limitations as to where it
can be placed so as not to create a hazard for motorists or bicyclists. As such, it is
recommended that the current Capital Improvement Project include the procurement and
installation of permanent signs, rather than a second portable trailer. It should be noted that the
permanent signs can each be removed and reinstalled at a new location if desired.
Recommended Sign Locations
A typical sign is illustrated on Attachment 3. The recommended sign locations are provided on
Attachment 4. Each location, as well as the justification for the proposed location, .is described
below:
Amador Va/ley Boulevard, east of Brighton Drive -Facing westbound traffic, this sign would
be placed between the Iron Horse Trail Crossing and Brighton Drive. The critical speed (or 85tH
percentile speed) on this. road segment is 33 mph. It is a two-lane roadway with a median and
is classified as a Class I Collector. The sign would be located in advance of the portion of
Amador Valley Boulevard that contains dense residential driveways fronting the roadway as well
as intersecting streets that provide access to four schools. Earlier this year, the speed limit on
Amador Valley Boulevard (between Village Parkway and Stagecoach Road) was increased
from 25 mph to 30 mph based upon the findings of an updated Engineering & Traffic Survey.
Residents were concerned that an increase in the limit would result in an overall increase in
travel speeds. -The installation of a speed feedback sign may help to address this concern.
Page 2 of 4
North Dublin Ranch Drive, east of Woodshire Lane -Facing westbound traffic, this' sign
would be located between Blackstone Road and Woodshire Lane. The critical speed {or 85tH
percentile speed) on this road segment is 35 mph. It is a two-lane roadway with a median and
is classified as a Class II Residential Collector. The roadway has a downward slope in the
westbound direction, which can lead to higher travel speeds. Also, there is a crossing guard
located at an uncontrolled crosswalk at Woodshire Lane and homes front the roadway, so it is
desirable to maintain safe travel speeds.
Antone Way, east of Grafton Drive -Antone Way is a two-lane undivided roadway and is
classified as a Glass II Residential Collector... Facing westbound traffic, the sign would be
located between the school driveways and Grafton Street. It would be placed in advance of a
crossing guard located at an uncontrolled crosswalk at Grafton Street. While congestion can
occur at and around the school driveways as well as at the Bridgepointe Lane intersection due
to the stop signs, placing the sign a short distance west of the school should be effective at
capturing the attention of motorists speeding up as they depart from the congestion and
approach the crossing guard.
Central Parkway, east of Aspen Street -Facing westbound traffic, this sign would be located
between Aspen Street and Persimmon Drive in advance of a crossing guard located at an
uncontrolled crosswalk at Aspen Street. The roadway is two, lanes with a center median and is
classified as a Class I Collector. The critical speed along this segment is 39 mph. The higher
travel speeds and proximity to the school boundary and the school crossing guard make this a
desirable location for maintaining safe travel speeds.
Dublin Boulevard, west of Brigadoon Way -Facing eastbound traffic, this sign would be
located in advance of Brigadoon Way. Dublin Boulevard is the primary access road into the
Schaefer Ranch development and connects to Schaefer Ranch Road, which connects to Dublin
Canyon Road. As a result, traffic volume has increased over the last few years along this road
segment. With the downward grade along eastbound Dublin Boulevard approaching Brigadoon
Way, travel speeds tend to be high. While the roadway has not yet been accepted by the City
west of Royshill Lane, the posted speed limit east of Royshill Lane is 40 mph.
Vomac Road, north of Millbrook Avenue -Facing southbound traffic, this sign would be
located in advance of Millbrook Avenue. Vomac Road is a Class II Residential Collector with
two undivided travel lanes. The recommended sign location would be in advance of the Dublin
Elementary school boundary and would help facilitate safe driving speeds in front of the school.
There is a STOP sign and crossing guard located at Shannon Avenue, so this sign would help
manage travel speeds along the straight segment between the curve to the north and Shannon
Avenue.
"Before and after" speed surveys will be conducted to measure the effectiveness of the speed
feedback signs at reducing vehicle speeds. In addition to approval of the sign locations; staff is
seeking City Council authorization to advertise for bids to procure the speed feedback signs.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Residents adjacent to the final sign locations will be notified in writing prior to sign installation. .
Furthermore, information about the project will be disseminated to the general public by way of
the City website and/or other communication resources. -
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff report from December 15, 2009, City Council meeting,
without attachments.
2. Minutes from December 15, 2009, City Council meeting,
' Agenda Item 7.2.
3. Photo of a Speed Feedback Sign
4. Recommended Speed Feedback Sign Locations
Page 4 of 4
Off' Dp~~
j I p
G ~ 2
i9\~;~lz STAFF REPORT C,I T Y CLERK ,
~ ~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # 90~-~ DO
~~LIFpR~~
DATE: December 15, 2009
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJE Follow-Up Regarding Dublin Ranch Safety and Evaluation of Current
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program
Prepared By: Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This item is a follow-up item to the December 2, 2008, and February 17, 2009, agenda items
related to traffic safety. This report reviews current procedures for evaluating neighborhood
traffic safety and re-evaluates the need for a crossing guard at North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak
Bluff Lane/Groveland Lane. This item seeks direction from City Council on whether to proceed
with a pilot program to evaluate the effectiveness of speed feedback signs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
A pilot program to assess the effectiveness of speed feedback signs, including installation of six
signs throughout the City, would cost approximately $40,000. It is recommended that this
program be funded using gas tax money. Additional signage and striping at the Antone
Way/Bridgepointe Lane intersection would cost approximately $1,000, which could be covered
by the Street Maintenance Operating Budget. If developed; implementation of a Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program (NTMP) would cost an estimated $100,000 to $150,000 per year,
including staff time. Funds would need to be identified for annual NTMP implementation.
Placement of a new crossing guard at North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Bluff Lane/Groveland
Lane would cost approximately $11,100 per year. Existing crossing guard services are covered
through the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City continue with its current program when responding to
neighborhood traffic safety requests. Staff does not recommend the placement of a crossing
guard at North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Bluff Lane/Groveland Lane. Finally, staff recommends
that the City Council direct staff to implement signing and striping improvements at Antone
Way/Bridgepointe Lane. Staff recommends that the City Council consider with the Fiscal Year
2010-2011 budget development of a Capital Improvement Program project to implement a
citywide speed feedback sign pilot program. '
~ .
ubmitted By Revie d y ~ - ~ ,
Public Works Director Assistant City Manac l~
;ATTACHMENT ~
P~no 1 of 7 ITEM
DESCRIPTION:
On December 2, 2008, the Dublin City Council was presented by staff the results of a City-wide
study entitled School Crossing Guard and Pedestrian Operations/Safety Study for Selected
Intersections in the City of Dublin (Attachment 1). ,After taking testimony from residents and
after considering the data and recommendations provided in the staff report, the City Council
directed staff to implement several improvements City-wide, some of which were located within
Dublin Ranch, including the following: (1) yellow crosswalks were marked on all four crossings
at North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Bluff Lane-Groveland Lane; (2) a crossing guard was placed
on Oak Bluff Lane just east of Newfields Lane; (3) signage and markings were placed on Oak
Bluff Lane to alert motorists of pedestrian activity at the crossing guard location; and (4) red
curb was placed to establish no parking zones on 'Oak Bluff Lane adjacent to the crosswalk.
To respond to residents' continued concern for safety, the City Council also directed staff to
conduct afollow-up traffic safety study for North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Bluff Lane/Groveland
Lane. The findings of the supplemental study were presented to the City Council on February
17, 2009 (Attachment 2 -Staff Report and Attachment 3 -Minutes). After consideration of the
item and additional testimony from residents, the City Council directed staff to complete the
following at the subject intersection: (1) Install advanced "School Crossing" signs on North
Dublin Ranch Drive; (2) install lateral markings in all four crosswalks to improve visibility; (3)
paint stop lines in advance of the crosswalk lines on all four approaches; (4) install "Yield to
Pedestrians" signs under all four STOP signs; and (5) install advanced "Stop Ahead" signs and
pavement markings .on North Dublin Ranch Drive. All of the aforementioned improvements
were completed immediately following City Council approval and are summarized on the.
illustration included as Attachment 4. The total cost for the improvements was roughly $12,000,
not including the crossing guard services.
In addition to implementing physical improvements, the City Council also directed staff to review
options for traffic calming measures, not only in Dublin Ranch but Citywide, and to re-evaluate
the need for a crossing guard at North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Bluff Lane/Groveland Lane.
Each of these items is discussed in this report.
Following implementation of the second set of improvement measures in spring 2009, staff
began monitoring traffic operations at and around the North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Bluff Lane-
Groveland Lane intersection. To allow motorists time to adjust their driving behavior in
response to the newly installed measures, evaluation of the need for an additional crossing
guard was scheduled to occur once school returned to session in the fall. Following additional
monitoring in the fall, staff evaluated existing conditions and prepared recommendations for City
Council consideration.
Evaluation of Existing Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program
Staff frequently receives requests from residents and the public regarding various traffic
concerns, some of which involve speeding or cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets..The
standard procedure for responding to such requests is as follows:
• Requests are made either via Request Partner, aweb-based tool, on the telephone, in
person, or in a written letter. If not already in writing, staff will ask for a written
description of the specific concern(s) and specific request(s) being made.
Dino 7 .,f 7
~~~-l~
• Staff will review the request and conduct a site visit, if appropriate, to review existing
conditions. Typically, no data (such as traffic volumes or a speed survey) is collected at
this time.
• The concern is then brought before the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) for discussion.
The TSC is comprised of Public Works Traffic and Maintenance staff and police officers
from the ,Traffic Unit of Police Services. Input is provided by Police Services in terms of
how much enforcement occurs at the subject location, what type of citations are issued
and how frequently, how much traffic a specific roadway experiences, and whether there
are any safety concerns of which they are aware.
• Depending on the outcome of the discussion at the TSC, low cost measures might be
implemented immediately, such as striping revisions or additional signage. Extra police
enforcement at the subject location might occur as a result of the discussion, and Police
Services might place their speed trailer to help alert motorists of their driving speed. In
some iristances, follow up analysis is, requested, which might require the collection of
data. The item might be brought before the TSC again for additional discussion.
• Finally, a written response is provided to the requestor to notify them that their request
has been reviewed and to document any specific actions taken.
To date, implemented physical measures. have primarily been limited to signing and striping
enhancements.' There currently are no speed humps located on_.City of Dublin public streets.
When residents make a request for speed humps, it is communicated to them that the City is
reluctant to install speed humps because of ,the implication they have on emergency response
times and because of additional issues that they present, such as added noise for adjacent
residents.
As stated above, improvements are typically limited to low-cost items and can therefore be
covered through the Street Maintenance Operating Budget. Staff recommends that the City
continue implementation of the current program.
Evaluation of Neighborhood Traffic Safety Programs in Neighboring Cities
To assist the City Council in understanding how our current program compares to the programs
of neighboring cities, staff conducted a thorough review of programs in place at five cities and
towns in the area; namely, City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, City of San Ramon, Town of
Danville, and City of Lafayette.. For each of these agencies, a formal program has been
developed and approved by their respective City or Town Council, the policies and procedures
of which are documented in a written report. Staff compared the content included in each
report and conducted phone interviews with staff from the agencies. In each community, funds
are set aside on an annual basis, when available, for program implementation. Although each
.agency .has a specific program. name, for simplicity, the programs will be referred to as
Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs (NTMP).
An NTMP is a program that establishes standards for responding to citizen requests and.
_ implementing traffic calming measures in a consistent and meaningful manner. Traffic calming
refers to specific actions taken to reduce vehicle speeds, improve safety, and enhance quality
of life. Possible solutions for calming traffic are often described by the three "E's," traffic
education, enforcement, and engineering. Education strategies might involve brochures or
flyers, sign campaigns, or classes. Enforcement might include increased police presence,
photo enforcement, or radar speed trailers. Engineering strategies might involve the placement
of additional striping or signs; horizontal measures, such as bulbouts, traffic circles, .or median
nano ~ ~f ~
~ ~
islands; vertical measures, such as speed humps, raised crosswalks, or textured pavement; ~or
diversion measures, .such as turn prohibitions or partial/full ,roadway closures. As described
above, the City of Dublin uses enforcement and low-cost engineering strategies as traffic
calming measures.
Of the agencies examined, the key elements of their respective programs are very similar. The
programs include an application process, an analysis and prioritization process, and procedures
for implementation. The key elements of the programs are described in greater detail below.
• Initiation: The process is initiated when a resident submits a request for traffic calming
on their street. One of the agencies surveyed requires that a petition of support for traffic
calming be signed by 15 neighbors before the reques# is even considered.
• Staff Evaluation:' Staff reviews the request and determines whether traffic calming is
appropriate for consideration.
• Prioritization: Data is collected to quantify the severity of the problem. The street must
satisfy minimum speed and volume criteria before even being considered for the
program.. Using the speed and volume data, along with information like date of
application, collision history, pedestrian features, fronting land uses, and proximity to
schools and other pedestrian generators, each application is scored and ranked against
the other applications once each year. Those applications at the top of the list will be
given first priority to move into the implementation phase of the program.
• Levels: Each program contains two levels of measures with the exception of Lafayette,
which includes three levels of measures. The first level typically covers Education,
Awareness and Enforcement. This might include increased enforcement, placement of a
speed trailer, landscape trimming, signage and other educational outreach. Minor
Engineering might also be considered as a Level 1 measure, such as roadway striping to
narrow travel lanes. Level 2 measures include improvements that alter the configuration
or characteristic of the roadway, tend to be more expensive, typically require engineering,
and typically are not implemented immediately. Level 2 measures should be
implemented only after extensive community outreach.
• Order: Level 1 measures should be explored first. !f the goals and objectives are not
met, then Level 2 measures can be considered but only after the. location is prioritized
against other locations submitted by residents. Under Level 2, speed control measures
should be considered before volume control measures (such as partial or full roadway
closures or turn restrictions, for example).
• Public Involvement: Once an application reaches top ranking, an initial neighborhood
meeting is held. Staff will identify a study area, and all residents within that study area
will be invited to attend. The study area might change as the process progresses. A
Neighborhood Captain is identified, and in some cases a Neighborhood Traffic
Committee (NTC) is created. Staff works directly with the NTC to develop solutions,
which are then presented to the larger neighborhood group at a follow-up meeting.
• Approval: Some agencies require a specified percentage of residents voting for support
prior to even developing a traffic calming plan. Once a plan is developed by staff and the
NTC and presented to the affected neighbors, support for the plan must be achieved.
Required approval ranges from 60% to 75% and may be different for those residents on
the street where the measures are being implemented versus those residents on feeder
streets or adjacent streets. Greater support might also be required of those living
immediately next to a proposed measure. Typically, the City or Town Council must
approve the plan before it is implemented, especially if the plan includes Level 2.
improvements.
- ~ ~ ~
Funding: Most agencies fully fund the program and- construction, while at least one
agency requires that the residents pay for 25% of the construction costs. A range of
annual funding from between $50,000 to $100,000 per year has been designated for the
program. Funding has been covered through General Funds, gas tax and Measure J
(Contra Costa County) return-to-source money. In at least one agency, the program has
been placed on hold pending availability of General Fund money. '
• Monitoring: Most cities conduct follow-up studies to identify the effects of the measures
implemented.
• Removal: The removal of a device may occur if it is deemed unsafe or at the request of
the residents, pending support by a certain percentage of the residents living near the
device (60% or 67%, for example). Typically, the residents must fully pay for the removal
of the device.
When residents contact the City to request traffic calming measures, most often speed humps
are specifically requested because speed humps seem to be the most .well known measure.
Although these can be effective in reducing vehicle speeds and diverting traffic to other
roadways, they should be considered on a limited basis because of the disadvantages
associated with this device. Namely, speed humps can cause discomfort for people with certain
skeletal disabilities, can create a noise nuisance for adjacent residents, can reduce emergency
vehicle- response time, can increase maintenance costs for emergency vehicles, can increase
air pollution, can result in an increase in vehicle speeds between speed humps if not
appropriately spaced,_ can result in an undesirable increase of traffic on an adjacent roadway,
and can be aesthetically displeasing.
Staff does not recommend the installation of vertical traffic calming measures, such as speed
humps, on an as-requested basis, as this could result in an excessive number and could be
detrimental to public safety. Instead, requests should be analyzed based on the location of the
request, the Characteristics.of the roadway and adjacent land uses; and on prevailing traffic
conditions. In some instances, a less obtrusive or less expensive solution might be available to
reduce traffic speeds and/or cut-through traffic volumes.
Evaluation of the Need for an Additional Crossing Guard
At the February 17, 2009, City Council meeting, it was agreed that the need for a crossing
guard at North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Bluff Lane/Groveland Lane would be further studied
and a Higher Service Level would be brought back for City Council consideration during budget
discussions for. Fiscal Year 2009-2010. During the budget discussion, it was recommended by
the City Manager that the discussion regarding a Higher Service Level for crossing guard
services wait until afollow-up study is complete.
Since completion of the measures installed following approval at the December 2, 2008, and.
February 17, 2009, City Council meetings, Public Works staff has conducted several field visits
to monitor traffic operations and pedestrian safety and has communicated regularly with Police
Services regarding enforcement of traffic laws within Dublin Ranch. Observations indicate that
the improvements installed have modified driver behavior; that is, more motorists have been
observed coming. to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. Motorists
rolling through stop signs is typical behavior, especially in residential areas, and has been
reported not only in Dublin Ranch but in all parts of the City. While specific improvements can
help to minimize this occurrence, there is no combination of improvements that will completely
correct this behavior.
Donn K of 7
~
Placement of a new crossing guard at North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Bluff Lane/Groveland
Lane would cost approximately $11,100 per year. Existing crossing guard services are covered
through the General Fund. Staff recommends that a crossing guard not be placed at this
location because it is an all-way stop controlled location with many added signing and striping
safety enhancements. Furthermore,. there is a crossing guard at Oak Bluff Lane/Newfields
Lane, which is only 250 feet away from the North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Bluff Lane/Groveland
Lane intersection and immediately adjacent to the path that connects to the school grounds.
Rather, the use of General Fund money to cover additional crossing guard services should be
limited to uncontrolled crossings or controlled intersections that experience high vehicular
volumes.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In advance of the meeting, letters were sent to the principals at Green Elementary School and
Fallon Middle School, as well as three residents who commented during the prior City Counci!
meetings (Attachments 5 through 8). Written responses were received from Principal Nomura
of John Green Elementary, Mr. and Mrs. Morehead, and Mr. and Mrs. Ogden (Attachments 9
through 11). In addition, a copy of this staff report was provided to Mr. Nick Colletti and Mr. Ken
Anderson, additional residents who have requested to be informed regarding upcoming City
Council meetings related to neighborhood safety.
Generally, the response letters communicate support for the measures that have been installed
to date and indicate that they have a positive effect on motorist behavior. However, support for
additional traffic calming measures is provided.
In response to a comment provided by Mr. and Mrs. Morehead regarding motorists not waiting
for pedestrians to fully cross the street, it should be noted that in California, motorists are
required to yield to pedestrians, which means that they cannot impede their progress. However,
waiting for pedestrians to fully cross the street before proceeding is not required by law.
Mr. and Mrs. Ogden specifically requested that a moving drop off lane be added on Oak Bluff
Lane just east of the crosswalk, similar to the drop off lane in front of the school that is located
on school grounds in the parking lot. - Observations at the access point on Oak Bluff Lane
indicate that most parents, about 90 percent, walk their children to school from home or from a
parked vehicle, while the other 10 percent drop off their child. Of the 10 percent, a very small
number, one or two parents, stop in the red zone to drop off their child.. On-street parking west
of Newfields Lane generally fills up, while availability for on-street parking generally remains
between Newfields Lane and Sugar Loaf Court and along most of the north side of Oak Bluff
Lane. Police Services is aware of the reported motorists stopping along the red curb, and they
do look out for these violators. Because the number of violators is so small and because most
parents accompany their child onto school grounds, it is recommended that the on-street curb
space on Oak Bluff Lane remain available for parking rather than converted to a loading zone.
Principal Nomura sta#ed that he has not received specific complaints related to safety along
Oak Bluff Lane since implementation. He did indicate, however, that there is on-going concern
regarding vehicular volumes and speeds on Antone Way in front of the school during the
morning and afternoon, as well as regarding safety at the Antone Way/Bridgepointe Lane
intersection. Within the last two years, one resident contacted City staff regarding pedestrian
D~nc R of 7
~ ~
safety at Antone Way/Bridgepointe Lane. The issue was addressed through additional Police
enforcement, as well as education regarding the yield to pedestrians law. Because this is an
on-going complaint, some similar measures to those implemented at North Dublin Ranch
Drive/Oak Bluff Lane/Groveland Lane are recommended for this location. Staff recommends
the installation of "Yield to Pedestrians" signs under all four STOP signs and the installation of
traverse lines within the four existing yellow crosswalks at the Antone Way/Bridgepointe Lane
intersection. Furthermore, staff recommends the placement of speed feedback signs
(Attachment 12) on Antone Way (one eastbound and one westbound) in front of the school. To
assess the effect that the speed feedback signs have on driver behavior, before and after
speed surveys are desirable. To study the effect of speed feedback signs as possible traffic
calming measures, it is recommended that the installation on Antone Way be part of a Citywide
pilot program with installations on the west side and central parts of the City as well. Additional
locations could be Dublin Boulevard between Inspiration Drive and Silvergate Drive (eastbound
and westbound) and Amador Valley Boulevard between York Drive and Stagecoach Road
(eastbound and westbound).. Development of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project
would be required, as the total cost would be approximately $40,000 for six new speed
feedback signs, which could be funded by gas tax money. Staff recommends that the City
Council consider a new CIP for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff report from December 2, 2008, except for Attachment 3
(School Crossing Guard and Pedestrian Operations/Safety
Study for Selected Intersections in the City of Dublin, CA,
prepared by Omni Means, dated November 2008).
2. Staff report from February 17, 2009, excep# for Attachment 1
(School Crossing Guard and Pedestrian OperationslSafety
Study for Selected Intersections in the City of Dublin, CA,
prepared by Omni Means, dated November 2008).
3. Minutes from February 17, 2009, City Council Meeting Item 7.1.
4. Study Area Completed Improvements
5. Letter from Public Works to Principal Keith Nomura of John
Green Elementary, dated September 29, 2009.
6. Letter from Public Works to Principal Tess Johnson of Fallon
School, dated September 29, 2009.
7. Letter from Public Works to James and Mary Morehead, dated
September 29, 2009.
` 8. Letter from Public Works to Dana Ogden, dated September 29,
2009.
9. Email response from Principal Nomura, dated October 6, 2009.
10. Email response from James and Mary Morehead, dated
October 2, 2009.
11. .Email response from Dana and Jerry Ogden, dated October 1,
` 2009,
12. Speed Feedback Sign
o..,.,, ~ ,.r ~ .
.
Campbell Green and the Iron Horse Plaza". The City Council received an update on the Transit
Center Public Art Project.
On motion of Vm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Biddle and by unanimous vote (Cm. Scholz
absent), the City. Council accepted an offer from Avalon Bay flevelopment to contribute $50,000
for artwork for the median strip adjacent to Campbell Green; directed Staff to include conditions
related to the artwork contribution in the Development Agreement for the Avalon Bay Site 'C
.project; and prepared an amendment to the Agreement with artist Cliff Garten to delete the
requirement to prepare a design for the median strip adjacent to Campbell Green.
Follow-Up Regarding Dublin Ranch Safety'
and Evaluation of Current Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program
8:16 p.m. 7.2 (590-90)
Traffic Engineer Jaimee Bourgeois presented the Staff Report and advised that this item was a
follow-up item to the December 2, 2008, and February 17, 2009, agenda items related to traffic
safety. This report reviewed current procedures for evaluating neighborhood traffic safety and
re-evaluated the .need for a crossing guard at -North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Bluff
Lane/Groveland Lane. This item sought direction from City Council on whether to proceed with
a pilot program to evaluate the effectiveness of speed feedback signs.
Cm. Biddle asked for clarification of location of traffic monitoring devices.
Ms. Bourgeois responded that Dublin Police Services had a speed feedback trailer that was
rotated in various locations in the City. However, the proposed monitoring devices to be
implemented would be permanent installations at each location referenced, for a total of six
devices.
Vm. Hildenbrand asked if specific locations of such traffic monitoring devices were typically
located near schools.
Ms. Bourgeois responded that other jurisdictions might place them at any roadway segment or
at city boundaries.
Vm. Hildenbrand noted a specific area of concern was South Dublin Ranch Drive approaching
North Dublin Ranch Drive and asked for consideration of the traffic monitoring devices placed at
this location.
City Manager Pattillo stated the traffic study evaluation would be brought back for consideration
under the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget and would include this specific site.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES~________-_____ s _
VOLUME 28
REGULAR MEETING a~~~~~~~~~
December 15, 2009
~ 1
Vm. Hildenbrand added that providing traffic monitoring at this specific location would hopefully
change the driving .behaviors that have been taking place.
Mayor Sbranti asked for clarification of specific traffic study locations and if signs were fixed
speed feedback signs versus a portable speed feedback trailer.
Ms. Bourgeois clarified that these devices would be fixed to a pole and solar powered. Included
in the study would be before and after statistics to further identify if this would prove to be an
effective traffic calming measure.
Mayor Sbranti stated his interest would be to conduct further study in both portable and fixed
devices and have the data to substantiate whether to implement either systems or none at all, in
the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget.
City Manager Pattillo suggested to the City Council that Staff could come back with
recommendations on renewable energy a_Iternatives for the portable devices in addition to the
stationary pole devices.
Cm. Hart complimented Staff on the thorough report for this traffic safety program.
City Manager Pattillo provided clarification on Staff recommendations with the addition of
researching costs on a renewable energy speed monitoring trailer.
The City Council directed Staff to: continue with its current program when responding to
neighborhood traffic safety requests; did not recommend the placement of a crossing guard at
North Dublin Ranch Drive/Oak Biuff Lane/Groveland Lane; implement signing and striping
improvements at Antone Way/Bridgepointe Lane; and would consider, with the Fiscal Year
2010-2011 budget, development of a Capital Improvement Program project to implement a
Citywide speed feedback sign pilot program. '
Municipal Financinu District Partnership
8:45 p.m. 7.3 (530-10)
Administrative Analyst Roger Bradley presented the Staff Report and advised that the City
Council would consider adopting a resolution indicating that the City of Dublin intended to
partner with the County of Alameda and the City of Piedmont in a municipal financing district.
The City Council would also Jconsider directing Staff to prepare a future report outlining
participation in the CaliforniaFIRST municipal financing district program.
Mayor Sbranti asked for clarification of funding specifics and how residents would participate in
this program once implemented.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES s
VOLUME 28 ~ ~ G1~~~~y
REGULAR MEETING 19,~~~,~
December 15, 2009
~`~L! R~~
ICJ o~ ` ~
Speed Feedback Sign
,
3
A~
`~s
~ ~ 1
ae
i ` a.` ~ ~ ~ ~ r
~ ~ ~ 9 s
m y,i gyp, ~~tf ~
~~1.F¢1~~.f nl ~ s
d F
M
_ ~'r.'
Source: SpeedCheck Solar Power Brochure, 04-15-08
ATTACHMENT
II~~I ~
Pro osed S eed Feedback Si n Locations ~~~~~~--°-~Bl;Z
P P 9
~19j ~-i~ ~82~
Speed Feedback Sign -Proposed Sign Location Facing Stated Direction of Travel
School '~11 FORS'
~ Park
Street
~ City of Dublin
~ Parks RFTA
Note: Locations shown are approximate
pending review of field conditions
and utility conflicts,
3 ~.Y .,,~u
~fl ~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
a ~ R ~ ~ i
,/WAY.. O~W' DPoVE ~ Dubiln ._n ~ ~
~ \ rt4' a High a ~.A
_.tA~W~'F ~ ~ Sd~ool ~ " ~ ~ h
1
~ ~ BGM~oR~~m ~ Antone Way
C 4
y
~ ~
...m,
s_ ~ _r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ South Dublin R ~ ~ - eiea~~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
J .,.,1 ~ ~ t 9RODEFSfREET ~ MurrayFa~on ~
~ . Vomac Rd anch Dr scno„~ ~ ~ ~
' ti ki d Amador Valley Blvd _ ~ _ ~
_,.J ~
~11 ,J ~ Facto„
~ ` E_
~ SPGfL1
~ ~ 5 Park
s
. ~~K~ ~ ~ ~ Central Pkwy - ~ ~
~ F ~ ~ w
n
~
ATTACHMENT
a~..~~
_
Dublin Blvd ` _
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
December ZO l 0 Miles