Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbouttecp_031009UKIAH CIVIC CENTER Conference Room No. 3 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 TUESDAY, March 10, 2009 3:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Kageyama, Jordan, Baxter, Seanor, Turner, Taylor, Lampi, and Whitaker 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 18, 2008 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: The Traffic Engineering Committee welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than 10 minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on non -agenda items. 4. OLD BUSINESS: 5. NEW BUSINESS: a. Discussion and possible action regarding a request for STOP Signs on School St. and Clay St. b. Discussion and comment on Traffic Analysis for the Downtown Streetscape Improvement Plan. F,JEpU6JTLj mil• 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 6th day of March, 2009. Amanda Davis, Administrative Secretary UKIAH CIVIC CENTER ANNEX Conference Room No. 5 411 West Clay St. Ukiah, California 95482 TUESDAY, November 18, 2008 3:00 P.M. Members Present Steve Turner, Chair (arrived at 3:17PM) Dan Baxter, MTA, Vice -Chair Ric Tr( Jol Be Jei Kir 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Randy and mbers present to approve lorth Pine Street a'j kpprove the request for a ,treet/Grove Avenue. 2) Public speaking to the item: Randy Barton, a local resident, lives at the North West corner of Grove Avenue and is concerned of his own safety and that of others in this area due to excessive speeding and reckless driving and of various drivers. His property and the surrounding neighbor's property are being affected by this. /S Tu rner/Wh kaker, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to deny the request for a STOP sign on North Pine Street at its intersection with Snuffin Street/Grove Avenue. ABSTAIN: Seanor. TEC 11/18/08 Page 1 of 2 a. Discussion and possible action regarding a Yellow Loading Zone on South State Street at Church Street 3:33:40 PM Member Seanor presented the item. Recommended Action: 1) Deny the request for a yellow loading zone. 2) Refer to staff for further analysis. M/S Turner/Taylor, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to 1) Deny the request for a yellow loading zone. ABSTAIN: None. a 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: 3:57:36 PM Member Seanor: A presentation is being given by MWG'attomorrow night's City Council meeting. It is being presented to the County Board of Supervisors today. The presentation will include looking at traffic impact fees between the City and the County,, and how development will impact both the City and the County. Member Seanor: At Scott and Pine, there is a3`-" Public Works/ City Engineer Tim Eriksen sugges possibly moving it to a different location on Pine. Member Kageyama: The Member Kageyama: Introduction 8. ADJOURNMENT: 4:09:06 "PM> There being no further business, the meetin Amanda Davis, Recording Secretary Street at -dan Se sign intersection. The Director of ving one of the stop signs and has been completed. Planner. adjourned at 4:09 p.m. TEC 11/18/08 Page 2 of 2 DATE: March 10, 2009 TO: Traffic Engineering Committee FROM: Ben Kageyama, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding STOP signs on School Street at Clay Street Agenda Item 5a. REQUEST: The Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) received a letter from Laura Fogg, instructor with the Mendocino County Office of Education, along with seven attached letters from Community Transition Program students (see Attachment "A"), all requesting STOP signs for School Street at Clay Street based on alleged "unsafe" conditions for pedestrians crossing School Street. DISCUSSION: Currently, STOP signs are posted only for east and westbound traffic on Clay Street at the School Street/Clay Street intersection. There are sidewalks on both sides of Clay Street and School Street, crosswalks are marked for all four legs of the intersection, and curb ramps are in place at each corner. The speed zone survey completed in May 2006 verified that vehicle speeds were consistent with the posted 25 mph speed zone on School Street. On February 13, 2007, the TEC previously considered and denied a request to create a four-way stop control at this intersection based on a citizen's safety concerns for vehicles crossing School Street when sight distance was limited by parked cars. (See Attachment "B") The current request for a four-way stop control is based on pedestrian safety of the Community Transition Program (CTP) students, whose facilities are located at the southeast corner of the subject intersection. Reasons cited for the requested four-way stop control include excessive traffic speed and failure to yield to pedestrians — with concerns especially for the safety of CTP students with visual, physical and/or mental handicaps. Staff reviewed the collision history at the subject intersection. Since the last TEC report in February 2007, up to the most recent data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) updated to June 2007, no additional accidents were reported at this intersection. Also, none of the three previously reported accidents involved pedestrians. Since the collision warrant requires at least five collisions in a 12 -month period, and only three accidents were reported within the period from January 2004 to June 2007, there is Page 2 Discussion and Possible Action Regarding STOP signs on School Street at Clay Street March 10, 2009 insufficient collision history to warrant the installation of STOP signs. Staff has provided information (see Attachment "C") from the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement regarding STOP sign applications. This information clearly states that STOP signs should not be used for speed control. Based on review of the MUTCD, STOP signs are not warranted on School Street at Clay Street. As an alternative to STOP signs on School Street, traffic calming measures might be considered for School Street, such as intersection bulb -outs, and diagonal parking. The Downtown Ukiah Parking Improvement Study has recommended diagonal parking on the east side of School Street, between Seminary Avenue and Clay Street. (See Attachment "D") Bulb -outs or landscape planters to narrow the street can be effective at reducing vehicle speeds, making pedestrians more visible to drivers, and shortening cross -walk distances. However, there currently is no funding in the City's budget for these improvements. Staff could add this project to the City's capital improvement program for consideration of future funding. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC. Staff has provided the following options for consideration: 1. Deny the request for STOP signs on School Street at Clay Street 2. Refer to staff for further analysis. cc: file MENDOCINO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION Aor-40IMSNT "A 00 Paul A. Tichinin, Superintendent of Schools ' V ' 2240 Old River Road - Ukiah, CA 95482-6156 - 707 467-5000 - Fax 707 462-0379 City of Ukiah Public Works Department 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Traffic Engineer, I have a concern about the safety of the ii�tersectio� o c ' S is ire Ukiah. The cross traffic on Clay has stop signs in both directions, but there are no stop signs controlling School -Street traffic. Many cars are traveling faster than the speed limit as they approach that intersection from either direction, and many of those cars don't stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. On the southeast corner of that intersection is the Community Transition Program for. adults with developmental disabilities, run by Ukiah Unified School District. Those students are all learning to get around this community on foot (or in wheelchairs), as they must do since none of them are able to drive cars. They must cross School Street throughout the day to walk to and from downtown destinations, to get to the MTA bus stop, and to meet the school bus that takes them home. Sometimes it is possible for them, if they are heading north or south anyway, to walk to the Perkins or Mill Street intersections to make a safe crossing where there is a stop sign, but if they are heading east or west it would be an 8 -block detour to get to a stop sign. My worry is that one of these days a student from CTP will get hit by a car. We make every effort to teach the students street crossing skills, but it is not always possible for people with visual, physical and/or mental handicaps to do it right every time. They would be far safer if there were a 4 -way stop at that intersection. I am an Orientation and Mobility Instructor for MCOE, and I have worked with many students from CTP over the past years. I can testify that there is no safe way for any of the students at CTP to cross School Street safely without a stop sign. I hope you can install a 4 -way stop sign at that location as soon as possible. a Sin rely, n aura Fogg, Orientation and Mobility Instructor I Fo C , " i Ft. 149i'bt iso i x� fig. � d f t. �� I d" . 1- pr` I l r"' f 4 rte.: ....�s .p I UKIAH CIVIC CENTER Conference Room No. 3 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 3:00 P.M. Members Present Trent Taylor, UPD Ben Kageyama, Staff Dan Baxter, MTA Rick Seanor, Staff John Lampi, Public Representative Jerry Whitaker, Staff Members Absent Steve Turner, Chair Dave Lohse, Staff Others Present Ernie Fine Eve Fisheu, Beverly Sanders Realty Konnie Sanders, Beverly Sanders Realty Staff Present .JoAnne Currie, Recording Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER: 3:03:37 PM Acting Chairman Kageyama called the meeting to order at 3:03 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January.9, 20073: 04:43 PM M/S Taylor/Seanor, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to approve the January 9, 2007, minutes as submitted. NOES: none ABSTAIN: none 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS O., None. 4. OLD BUSINESS: a. Discussion and possible action regarding the MTA Bus Stop/No Parking Zone at 291 Washington Avenue 3:04:47 PM Member Seanor reviewed the report and provided the following options for consideration: (1) Reduce the length of the no parking zone by eight feet, (2) Post a sign to clarify no -parking during certain hours of the day to coincide with the bus schedule, (3) Refer to staff for further analysis. 3:07:16 PM Mr. Fine addressed the bus stop, distributed a picture of a no -parking sign during certain hours as an example of an option to allow public parking when the bus is not running. Discussion ensued and moving the bus stop to a different location in front of 291 Washington Avenue which would block the drive way for a few minutes was discussed as a possibility. Mr. Fine responded he is willing to explore that avenue. M/S Taylor/Whittaker, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to approve the move of the Bus Stop in front of Mr. Fine's property if Mendocino Transit Authority and Mr. Fine can come to an agreement on location; if an agreement is not reached, the item will be brought back to the Committee for further review. NOES: none ABSTAIN: Member Baxter 5. NEW BUSINESS: a. Discussion and possible action regarding a request for STOP signs on School Street at Clay Street 3 : 31 : 4 0 PM. Member Seanor reviewed the report and provided the following options for consideration: (1) Deny the request for STOP signs on School Street at Clay Street, (2) Refer to staff for further analysis. 3:3S: 13 PM Ms: Fisheu addressed the Committee regarding her safety concerns when driving on Clay street crossing School Street stating visibility is limited. Discussion ensued. M/S Baxter/Taylor, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to deny the request for a STOP sign at School Street at Clay Street. NOES: none ABSTAIN: none 6. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS: a. Update on City Traffic Circulation Study (verbal report)3 :49 :.1s PM The Final Draft has been received by the City of Ukiah; it will be distributed to the Committee. b. Update on City Parking Study (verbal report)4.01: os PM Member Seanor reported that there is nothing new to report c. Update on Crosswalks —flexible crosswalk signs (verbal report)4 : 02:25 PM Member Whitaker reported flexible crosswalk signs will be installed on Leslie Street by the Senior Center and on State Street at Freitas Avenue as a test. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:4: 07:40 PM Member Kageyama brought up the need to fill the position of Vice -Chair. Consensus of the Committee is to make appointment at.the next meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT 4:10:54 PM There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. J nne Currie, Recording Secretary CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM DATE: February 8, 2007 TO: Traffic Engineering Committee FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works SUBJECT: STOP sign request — School Street at Clay Street Agenda Item 5a. REQUEST: Staff received a letter Attachment "A" from Eve Fishell requesting that STOP signs be posted on School Street at Clay Street. Ms. Fishell cited the following reasons for her request: poor visibility and unacceptable rates of speed. DISCUSSION: At the subject intersection there are existing STOP signs posted for eastbound and westbound traffic on Clay Street. There are sidewalks on both sides of School Street and Clay Street. Curb side parking is provided for both sides of School Street. Curb side parking is permitted only along the north side of Clay Street at this location. The streets are in good condition with no particular restrictions to sight distance at the intersection. The speed zone survey completed in May 2006 verified that vehicle speeds were consistent with the posted 25 mph speed zone on School Street. Staff reviewed the collision history at the subject intersection. During the period January 1, 2004 through September 30, 2006 there were three reported collisions at this intersection. On March 18, 2004, a westbound vehicle collided with a southbound vehicle. On December 29, 2004, an eastbound vehicle collided with a northbound vehicle. On April 23, 2005 an eastbound vehicle collided with a southbound vehicle. The eastbound vehicle was.a hit and run. Since the collision warrant requires at least 5 collisions in a 12 -month period, there is insufficient collision history to warrant the installation of STOP signs. Staff has provided information Attachment"B" from the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement regarding STOP sign applications. This information clearly states that STOP signs should not be used for speed control. Based on review of the MUTCD, STOP signs are not warranted on School Street at Clay Street. For reference, staff has provided Section 21802. of the California Vehicle Code which provides information on STOP controlled intersections. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC. Staff has provided the following options for consideration: 1. Deny the request for STOP signs on School Street at Clay Street. 2. Refer to staff for further analysis. enc. cc: file �, of Affach elft Eve Fishell 320 South State Street Ukiah, Ca 95482 707 462-5198 January 10, 2007 City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, Ca 95482 Attention: Public Works Department RE: Traffic/Streets Dear Public Works Department: I work on the corner of State and Clay with parking on Clay Street. At least two, three times a day I have to cross School Street with my car. There are two stop signs on Clay but none on School Street. Most of the time, there is poor visibility with which to judge oncoming traffic on School Street. One has to stop and then come out to make sure the road is clear. If one stops before the cross walk and then proceeds "hoping" that it is safe to do so, one runs a risk of getting in a collision with a car that may be traveling at 35 mph. If a driver "noses" out to check the traffic, he or she may be cited by law enforcement for being too far out in the road. There is no safe way of crossing School Street at Clay without fear of being hit by another car or getting a ticket. On the other hand it is a routine for some drivers speeding down School Street in either direction and on occasions making U-tums at the intersection. I hope you will find an opportunity to look into this situation and install 4 -Way stop signs that would help a lot of people and contribute to the safety of those who have to use that intersection. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Aeishell -, )'abs= 2B-6 . � diYttCit` � qyI` Table 2B-1. 2003 Edition ATTACHMENrRegulatory Sign Sizes (Sheet 5 of 5) Vk Sign MUTCD Section Conventional Expressway Freeway Minimum Oversized Code Road Keep Off Median R11-1 28.47 600 x 750 — — — — 24x30 Road Closed R11-2 213.48 1200 x 750 — — — — 48x30 Road Closed - Local R11 -3,3a, 2B.48 1500 x 750 — — — — Traffic Only 3b,4 60 x 30 Weight Limit . R12-1,2 213.49 600 x 750 900 x 1200 — — 900 x 1200 24x30 36x48 36x48 Weight Limit R12-3 213.49 600 x 900 — — — — 24x36 Weight Limit 812-4 213.49 900 x 600 — — — — 36x24 Weight Limit R12-5 28.49 600 x 900 900 x 1200 1200 x 1500 — — 24 x 36 36 x 48 48 x 60 Metric Plaque R12-6 28.49 600 x 225- 24x9 Weigh Station R13-1 26.50 1800 x 1200 2400 x 1650 3000 x 1100 — — 72x48 96x66 120x84 Truck Route R14-1 213.51 600 x 450 — — — — 24 x 18 Hazardous Material R14-2,3 ....... . 24 x 24 -- 30-X -30Y 36 x 36 42'x 42 -- National Network R14-4,5 2B.53 600 x 600 750 x 750 900 x 900 — 1050 x 1050 24x24 30x30 36x36 42x42 Railroad Crossbuck R15-1 8B.03 1200 x 225 — — - — 48x9 Look R15-8 8B.16 900 x 450 — — — — (36 x 18) Notes: 1. Larger signs may be used when appropriate. 2. Dimensions are shown in millimeters followed by inches in parentheses and are. shown as width x height. Section 2B.05 STOP Sign Applications .................. Guidance: STOP signs should be used if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: A. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. Street entering a through highway or street; C. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area; and/or D. High speedis, restricted view, or crash records indicate a need for control by the STOP sign. Standard: Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, STOP signs shall not be installed at intersections where traffic control signals are installed and operating except as noted in Section 4D.01. Portable or part-time STOP signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary traffic control zone purposes. Guidance: STOP signs should not be used for speed control. STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the numbers of vehicles having to stop. At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at -all times, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Section 2B.08). Sect. 2B.05 November 2003 2003 Edition Page 2B-7 Once the decision has been made to install two-way stop control, the decision regarding the appropriate street to stop should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be stopped. A STOP sign should not be installed on the major street unless justified. -by a traffic engineering study. Support: The following are considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate street upon which to install a STOP sign where two streets with relatively equal volumes and/or characteristics intersect: A. Stopping the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes; B. Stopping the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds; C. Stopping the direction that has the longest distance of uninterrupted flow approaching the intersection; and D. Stopping the direction that has the best sight distance to conflicting traffic. The use of the STOP sign at highway -railroad grade crossings is described in Section 8B.08. The use of the STOP sign at highway -light rail transit grade crossings is described in Section l OC.04. Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement. Standard: The STOP sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to which it applies. When the STOP sign is installed at this required location and the sign visibility is restricted, a Stop Ahead sign (see Section 20.29) shall be installed in advance of the STOP sign. The_STOP sign_shall_.be_located_as_close as,practical to the intersection ft -regulates, while_optimiz ng_ ts- visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate. STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be mounted on the same post. Guidance: Other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no sign should be mounted back-to-back with a STOP sign in a manner that obscures the shape of the STOP sign. Support: Section 2A.16 contains additional information about separate and combined mounting of other signs with STOP signs. Guidance: Stop lines, when used to supplement a STOP sign, should be located at the point where the road user should . stop (see Section 3B.16).: If only one STOP sign is installed on an approach, the STOP sign should not be placed on the far side of the intersection. Where two roads intersect at an acute angle, the STOP sign should be positioned at an angle, or shielded, so that the legend is out of view of traffic to which it does not apply. Where there is a marked crosswalk at the intersection, the STOP sign should be installed in advance of the crosswalk line nearest to the approaching traffic. Option: At wide -throat intersections or where two or more approach lanes of traffic exist on the signed approach, observance of the stop control may be improved by the installation of an additional STOP sign on the left side of the road and/or the use of a stop line. At channelized intersections, the additional STOP sign may be effectively placed on a channelizing. island. Support: Figure 2A-2 shows examples of some typical placements of STOP signs. Section 2B.07 Multiway Stdp Applications Support: Multiway stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multiway stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multiway stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. The restrictions'on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.05 also apply to multiway stop applications. November 2003 Sect. 2B.05 to 2B:07 Page 2B-8 Guidance: 2003 Edition The decision to install multiway stop control should be based on an engineering study. The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multiway STOP sign installation: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. A crash problem, as indicated b� 5 or more reported crashes in a 12 -month- period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Such crashes include right- and left -tum collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 -hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, With an average delay to minor -street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 3. If the 85th -percentile approach speed of the major -street traffic exceeds 65.km/h or exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Option: Other -criteria -that may -be. -considered in an engineering study include: ...... _..... _ _ ... _ . A. The need to control left -turn conflicts; B. The need. to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to reasonably safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where muldway stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. Section 2B.08 YIELD Si=n (R1-2) Standard: The YIELD MI. -2) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall be a downward -pointing equilateral triangle with. a wide red border and the legend YIELD in red on a white background. Support: The YIELD sign assigns right-of-way -to traffic- on -certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need to slow down or stop when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicting traffic. Section 2Bo09 YIELD Sign Applications Option: YIELD signs may be used instead of STOP signs if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: - A. When the ability to see all potentially conflicting traffic is sufficient to allow a road user traveling at the posted speed, the 85th -percentile speed, or the statutory speed to pass through the intersection or to stop in a reasonably safe manner. B. If controlling a merge -type movement on the entering roadway where acceleration geometry and/or sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operation. C. The second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width at the intersection is 9 m (30 ft) or greater. In this case, a STOP sign may be installed at the entrance to the first roadway of a divided highway, and a YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the second roadway. D. An intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign. Standard: A YIELD (Ill. -2) sign shall be used to assign right-of-way at the entrance to a roundabout intersection. Sect 2B.07 to 2B.08 November 2003 MUTCD 2003 California Suyp...,nent Page 2B-1 CHAPTER 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS Section 2B.01 Application of Regulatory Sims The following is added to this section: Standard: Orders, ordinances and resolutions by local authorities which affect State highways shall be approved by Department of Transportation. Support: Signs required for enforcement are normally placed by, and at the expense of, the authority establishing the regulation. Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Sims The following is added to this section: Support: Sign design details are contained in FHWA's "Standard Highway Signs" book and Department of Transportation's "Traffic Sign Specifications". See Section IA.l 1 for information regarding these publications. Table 211-101 shows a list of California Regulatory Signs. Figure 211-101 shows California Regulatory Signs. , 1" V v v v� Section 211.05 STOP Sign Applications The following'is added to this section: Support: A STOP (R1-1) sign is not a "cure-all" and is not a substitute for other traffic control devices. Often, the need for a STOP (R1-1) sign can be eliminated if the sight distance is increased by removing obstructions. Through Highways Option: �. STOP (R1-1) signs may be installed either at or near the entrance to a State highway, except at signalized intersections, or at any location so as to control traffic within an intersection. Refer to CVC 21352 and 21355. See Section IA.l 1 for information regarding this publication. Support: When STOP (RI -1) signs or traffic control signals have been erected at all entrances, a highway constitutes a through highway. Refer to CVC 600. Authority to place STOP (RI -1) signs facing State highway traffic is delegated to the Department of Transportation's District Directors. Option:' ,...... Local authorities may designate any highway under their jurisdiction as a through highway and install STOP (RI -1) signs in a like manner. Refer to CVC 21354. Standard: No local authority shall erect or maintain any STOP (RI -1) sign or other traffic control device requiring a stop, on any State highway, except by permission of the -Department of Transportation. Refer to CVC 21353. Support: The Department of Transportation will grant such permission only when an investigation indicates that the STOP sign will benefit traffic. May 20, 2004 Parking Recommendations Following is a set of recommended improvements to improve downtown parking conditions. it is expected that these improvements would be implemented over many years; some could take place in the near-term, while others may be unneeded until parking occupancies rise with increased infill and development. A suggested implementation program providing some direction on timing is presented following the recommendations. Engineering • Consolidate driveways and parking lots where possible, particularly along the Main Street Corridor and on Standley Street between Main and Mason Streets, as shown in Figure 8. • Replace curbs and on -street parking where former driveway. curb cuts have been abandoned. Management Time, Limits An exhibit showing the recommended locations of downtown parking by type and time limit is shown in Figure 10. The exhibit is intended to provide an overall framework and logical parking pattern that may be implemented in the downtown core area, rather than a compulsory representation of how individual parking spaces should be designated. Further, changes to current time limits and permit areas would likely take place over a number of years (see "Implementation" section below for further information), • Eliminate the 90 minute and 5 hour parking restriction categories. The 90 minute category would generally be replaced by 2 hour, and the 5 hour category generally replaced by 10 hour. • Create a new 4 hour parking category to accommodate longer shopping and/or dining trips in the downtown core. The 4 -hour spaces wouldbe located in Lot E and a portion of Lot C. • Remove all meters in parking lots and replace with multi -space parking kiosks. • implement 2 -hour time limits for on -street spaces within the core downtown area and along State Street, and limit parking to 10 hours for spaces on `peripheral streets, Pricing and Fee Collection • Remove all parking meters and replace with multi. -space parking kiosks, with a minimum of one kiosk per block face and one kiosk per public parking lot provided. • The most efficient parking management practices use pricing to create efficient turnover and maintain parking space availability for the intended users. All prime parking spaces in the central business district should ultimately have hourly fees. The City should coordinate with downtown businesses in developing Downtown Ukiah Parking Improvement, Study for the City of Ukiah — Draft Report December 27, 2007 Page 19 w-tranf -frena I in ' • pil I'll, :111walm 'R, J.!�'•! DATE: March 10, 2009 TO: Traffic Engineering Committee FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Discussion and Comment on Traffic Analysis for the Downtown Streetscape Improvement Plan Agenda Item 5b. DISCUSSION: RRM Design Group along with its sub -consultant Wtrans is under contract with the City to complete a Downtown Streetscape Improvement Plan. This plan encompasses the area on State Street and Main Street from Norton Street to Gobbi Street. Recently, Wtrans completed the traffic analysis for the Downtown Streetscape Plan. The attached printout of Wtrans' PowerPoint slide show is a summary of the traffic analysis and is provided for discussion. Wtrans will present its Executive Summary of the traffic analysis to City Council on April 1, 2009. Comments from the TEC will be provided to City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide comments. cc: file SuensAi Pa�Wg Tta CLane i aLm�TraiN tune imtll.zrc ?��Fsg _'al �_ i UaDW Stale Street Section 2 Affac enfi /23/2009 80' Stale Street Section 2/23/2009 I 2/23/2009 2/23/2009 15.0'. B s':.