HomeMy WebLinkAbouttecp_121112TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER ANNEX
Conference Room No. 5
411 West Clay Street
Ukiah, California 95482
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2012
3:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
Turner, Baxter, Seanor, Whitaker, Kageyama, Lampi, Taylor, Jordan
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 9, 2012
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:
a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Traffic Concerns in the Vicinity of North Oak Street,
Cypress Avenue and North Pine Street (Report attached)
b. Discussion and Possible Action crosswalk request - Observatory Avenue (Report attached)
c. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Vehicle Parking along Carolyn Street and Mill Street
(Verbal Report)
5. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs at Nokomis School on
Washington Avenue (Report Attached)
b. Discussion Regarding Making Bush Street a through Street (Verbal Report, Chair Turner)
I
c. Discussion Regarding Parking at 798 Sbuth Spring Street and Pomolita Way (Verbal Report)
d. Discussion Regarding After Hours Valet Parking for 2 existing Parking spaces in the 100 block
of West Standley (Verbal Report, Member Taylor)
e. Discussion and Possible Action regarding TEC meeting date and time (Verbal Report)
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 6t" day of December, 2012.
Jarod Thiele, Public Works Administration
6. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS:
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
8. ADJOURNMENT:
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 6t" day of December, 2012.
Jarod Thiele, Public Works Administration
1 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES
2
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER
Conference Room No. 3
5 300 Seminary Avenue
6 Ukiah, California 95482
7
8 TUESDAY, October 9, 2012
9 3:00 P.M.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2F
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Members Present
Steve Turner, Chair
Dan Baxter, MTA, Vice -Chair
Ben Kageyama, Staff
John Lampi, Public Representative
Trent Taylor, UPD
Kim Jordan, Staff
Jerry Whitaker, Staff
Rick Seanor, Staff
Members Absent
Tm Eriksen, Staff
1.. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Turner called
Member Jordan'{ "fie the
Page 2, item 5a, 2 " 1t . t to
probably can't be put
ullet W.
- 21 Motion: Ba its
io on N. Oak Stre
MIS Jor� axter to app
-
AYE voice .
Engineel of
/m/ 14,' �
correction
ollards coy
ue o
/�j e /�
�f. The otYf��r�,
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
to„at 3:06 p.m.
used to provide more safety to the affected corner
,ng requirements.'
see more use than these particular ones.'
°�nce followifff§' should read, 'Discussion ensued in regards to the
`....xiev and Smith Streets.'
minufe f February 14, 2012, as amended. Motion carried by an all
3. AUDIENCE CORNIENTS ON N-AGENDA ITEMS
Antonio Andrade:
• There have been a n rrow signs inserted on the Bush Street end of Oak Street relative to the new
walking trails for the Ci kiah.
• While he is supportive of these directional walking signs pointed out there is one sign at the end of the
pathway along Orr Creek that directs pedestrians across the street to a further path that goes along
Pomolita Middle School that has no crosswalk in this location. Questions whether or not it is appropriate for
the City to be installing these arrow signs that essentially encourages people to jaywalk. This is likely a
safety concern.
Member Jordan:
• This may have been a Paths, Open Space and Creeks Commission (POSCC) project.
TEC October 9, 2012
Page 1 of 10
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3 y ,�
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Member Whitaker: The City Street Department was instructed to place the arrow signs where directed
Member Seanor: The project was orchestrated by the Ukiah Valley Trail Group and /or in combination with
another citizen's group through grant funding.
Chair Turner: Jaywalking is legal term and does not apply to that particular street in question. While he
understands Mr. Andrade's point, the aspect of jaywalking can only occur between two signalized intersections.
4. OLD BUSINESS
5. NEW BUSINESS j /� /�
5a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Traffic Conce the Vicinity of North Oak Street,
Cypress Avenue, and North Pine Street
Member Taylor:
• Has reviewed the traffic concerns with some
trailer provided some mitigation measures in/.
provide direct feedback to drivers of their
• A traffic survey has been completed on -;��
area, as well as enforcement thereof.
• The focus has been with the traffic issues o%/ n
with traffic concerns on Cypress_Avenue and C`
Member Seanor:
• Referred to his memorandum
concerning traffic issues on N
driving, and also signage on C
• North Oak Stree J nate
Gap Road wit n
• In May 201 -eed su
is consistenr he speed
• Explained how,r,d zones
In this case, driver re tr,,
nue an
6� < as vu
"rth � fail
jypress Avenue.
also an o
ment'B' of the NJ
• Sta I earched the a
deter r �, in the last
of
a as a"
and is inl
ompleted
�e"�feighborMI) and through the use of -the radar
�// Bard. The sped dar trailer is an effective tool to
,,"compared to the po eed zone.
Oak Street and this al /� r the use of radar in this
Oak S but more reY. the focus has been
L reg item and gave a staff report
eighb complaints about speeding, reckless
rth
WIN n alternate route to connect Low
. n a local residential street.
rmed the posted 25 mph speed zone
;areas are s sed on the 85th percentile speed of the surveyed traffic.
/25 mph so ' is no justification for a change to the speed limit.
On/sified , -cal streets in the neighborhood that provide access
route ,,,� ita �� le School.
and has a ��utter for street drainage purposes at its intersection at
�;ff /, ss Avenue at its intersection with North Pine Street as shown in
it recofrfor North Pine Street and Cypress Avenue intersection and
years there have been only two reported accidents at the intersection
related t ! g under th' luence.
• With regar� view o nage applications for the intersection of North Pine Street and Cypress
Avenue, staff .;� / i i� IP sign with a 10 mph advisory speed plate and a Turn sign with a 10 mph
advisory speed be appropriate for this location. Attachment'C' provides examples of a DIP
Sign, Advisory Sp e ., ate that would be 10 mph and Turn Sign.
• Requests the committee discuss the traffic concerns and consider his recommendation as provided for
in his memorandum.
Chair Turner recommended the discussion begin with North Oak Street followed by Pine Street and Cypress
Avenue.
North Oak Street
Julie Price:
• Would like to know more about the location of the speed zone study conducted on North Oak Street.
TEC October 9, 2012
Page 2 of 10
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2e
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
• Resides on that section of North Oak Street at Henry Street and Scott Street.
• When heading north just past the former U S Post Office the street drops down such that people speed
coming down the hill.
• Would guess that people are traveling faster than 25 mph in this section.
Member Seanor: Hilly areas are typically avoided when conducting a speed survey because it is not a true
representation of the natural flow of traffic.
Member Taylor: The traffic survey included the street segment from Scott Street to Low Gap Road.
Member Seanor: N. Oak Street from Henry to Scott Street is classified
James Connerton:
• Resides to the south of Orr Creek on North Oak
Gibson Street ends.
• It is interesting that of the 85% of the cars sure
observed in this area that while most people tra
than 25 mph down the incline.
• Likes that there speed awareness mechanism
• While he estimates that approximately 506 of the
• Is of the opinion the only way to likely change the F
some type of a deterrent. �
the range
street.
the incline comes down from where
actually traveling 25 mph. Has
�h, people tend to drive faster
on streets to remind pe"i�,
�s speed, it's enough to
i of speeZ,and /or re
• Signage is visible heading souther" a hill of N. 001/1
from the Downtown area has only�� 5 mph sig
The sign is located on N. Oak Street`0%, r ��" treet.
Antonio Andrade:
• Understands the sp t done
• Likes the speed c / j/ ca reminds
• Frequently walk.,,, oth Bus et and
mph on these str��
Member Seanor: Explained 9' p u �' one
calibrated t /, � €f �n they ,� . �,��1
essential) surve , 00 cars
but rat ; �, mg times w affic fC ormall .
conside number of acct on th t and c
, %/ ;. / /
engineer C "��,� the study. / / / /ice.
their speed.
*concern.
vers is to implement
is noticed by driver's" However, coming
sign is not clearly visible to motorists.
as a warning.
traveling much faster than 25
r gun. The gun must be certified are checked and
'son conducting the survey sits in a car that is
Daylight hours, not necessarily during peak times
to the speed survey, the traffic study takes into
on the street. When complete, a registered traffic
Jeff Trouette: ��:��
• Requests ,TEC meetin =e held after regular business hours so more people would have the
opportunity to/ nd.
,
• Speed surveys, a hard that should take into consider street widths and other factors.
• Supports the Cit ��
pp y ` :; � Q � i ent do some traffic surveying on their own by taking a period of time, write
some tickets and se s a problem. If there is a traffic issue, then there is concrete information with
which to inform the rest
• Has observed as a mitigation measure and /or traffic deterrent the effectiveness of solar powered signs
similar to those of the radar trailer.
• The purchase of solar powered signs for neighborhoods that have traffic issues is not really necessary
when TEC meetings offer the opportunity to discuss what type of mitigation measures would be
appropriate.
• Recommends the Police Department observe traffic on City streets, particularly during peak times as a
possible mitigation measure /deterrent.
55 Member Baxter:
1
TEC October 9, 2012
Page 3 of 10
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2r
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
5�
'
• If a speed study finds the speed should be higher, the speed limit must be changed to reflect this find.
• Allowing for an automated sign does remind people to look at their speed and slow down.
Daphine MacNeil:
• Resides on N. Oak Street and has observed that someone in the early morning hours regularly drives very
fast. It is likely this individual would not pay any attention to an automatic speed sign.
• Suggests the construction of a small roundabout right at the intersection of Cypress Avenue and N. Oak
Street. Roundabouts have been done successfully constructed in neighborhoods with narrow streets and
cited some examples in other cities. It is likely the City Fire and Police Departments would oppose this
approach looking at the history of the roundabout on Clara Avenue.
• It is remarkable how few accidents there are given the traffic vo and recklessness that occurs on N.
Oak Street. , % /R %PP
There was discussion concerning the approximate costs of the ay ar machines.
Emily Turula: /
• It may be that increasing the signage on N. 0 at by posting 25 mph signs would alter the
behavior of drivers. People might be thinking treet is a 30 mph sj one.
• Suggests putting signage on the hilly areas of ,ak Street.
Member Whitaker:
• Noted the speed limit in residentiVAJ as is 25 mph reg • More signs mean more maintena , e part of City
James Connerton: ' / /� ° °'!
• People should know the speed limit in N /de
• Is of the opinion a visual s eed caddy fu
/ / /�i,
• Concurs that spee�� /�� /' /ould be corm
hours because p eri , A6 ed when $
• Providing fora speed camas signa
speed would rem < op le abo eeding.
Antonio e�
• �/ north of the d "f�''' will set
r the
• Ha % erved on Pine 5. chi
sign.
• Has witn d that people i4
exists:
• One way to s proble j
Street to Oak St c,
of
is 25 m
as remind the more visible the better.
:d not durin - Aar hours but rather during peak
.are rain as late for work or an appointment.
er typ 1 eterrent in a place where it is easy to
transmission oil from cars that hit the dip going too
ball on Pine Street. There are trees that would obscure a stop
hitting the dip in the street because they are not aware it
dip in the road is for the City to put in a storm drain system from Bush
It was noted 'Stop' would be 09W the street advising of a stop sign.
Member Whitaker:
• Would like to see a stop sign at Pine Street and Cypress Avenue. In this way, people will have to stop and
go through the dip slowly.
• Is of the opinion providing for a DIP sign and an arrow sign at Mr. Trouette's driveway would be ineffective.
A better approach would be to have a stop sign at Pine Street with no other signage.
• The problem with having too much signage is the opportunity for vandalism.
• Traveling in the reverse direction does not appear to be a problem. The problems essentially occur
northbound.
• Acknowledged the configuration of the road gives the illusion Cypress Avenue continues right down Mr.
TEC October 9, 2012
Page 4 of 10
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
5`
Trouette's driveway.
Jeff Trouette:
• Is the property owner that has damage to his property as a result of persons speeding recklessly and /or
intoxicated and not being able to make the curve. People do not understand the street veers to the left and
they must turn on Cypress Avenue when proceeding northbound. People have the concept the street
continues straight, which is right though his property. The damages to his property have been extensive
and costly.
• There have been three reported accidents in the last 12 years to his property.
• There have been other accidents to neighboring properties.
• Has reported this problem to a former City Engineer in which no pt has been made on the part of the
City to find a solution to the problem. It appears the City has rest in doing anything to remedy the
situation.
• Supports the solution proposed by Member Whitaker of " p sign at N. Pine Street and Cypress
Avenue. This will reduce accidents in this area except f 1 %,, .
• People are not cognizant that a dip exits, particular) / ig t. While �s no warning sign advising that a
dip exists is not sure striping would be a workable n.
A hazard does exist and the City
• y has an obli g �' - ind a solution.
• It may be this case requires more analysis /stu
• Would like to see some resolution.
• City could consider providing for some curb and gu ng the of the street corner.
Daphine MacNeil: %
• Suggested painting a broad arrow i
• Also likes the idea of having a stop
There was discussion about
Member Seanor:
• State reg
• The process of
because..ttie Cal
•
•
Emily Turula: It is unlike
are not a lot of accidents,
i an arrow sign would be helpful.
Avenue.
`n the a"'(, ion of stop signs subject to specific
etc.
evaluation based on California- versed standards
indard. Staff cannot recommend making a decision
„all the conditions and required warrants have been
n that is warranted. If not warranted, people are not
control' mechanism. It is important stop signs are properly placed
ht sign fd'r'this location.
0 mph advisory speed plate would be appropriate.
as an accident. However, this may be a factor to consider that while there
. scrapes that go unreported.
Chair Turner:
• Sees a condition where a valley gutter and turn are not obvious to people when driving down the street. To
this end, there may be some warrants in the list that would allow for an exception and /or qualifying factor
that allows for a stop sign in this case.
Member Jordan:
• Would like to have more information at the 'warrants' needed for a stop sign as to whether a stop sign is
feasible or warranted in the proposed location just because a DIP sign with 10 mph speed advisory and
arrow sign seems like a lot to consider in a short amount of time.
TEC October 9, 2012
Page 5 of 10
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Member Seanor:
• Will provide the committee with the documentation necessary for a stop sign.
• A new stop sign requires a process.
• Again, no decision can be made about a stop sign at this meeting.
Chair Turner:
• The agenda for this item states a 'discussion and possible action.'
• Does not support having another meeting about this matter.
Member Kageyama:
• Has a concern about traffic coming eastbound on Cypress Aven
Street because people traveling eastbound traffic on Cypress
higher rate of speed. There is the possibility that people
collide with a car proceeding north from the stop sign
having a blind curve in this location.
continuing thru Pine Street into Oak
do not have to stop and travel at a
eastbound on Cypress Avenue could
>treet and Cypress Avenue. It is like
• It is possible for a driver to be heading east on Cyp Avenue to W Xel/fi/he Street at the same time a car is
stopped at N. Pine Street thinking it is clear t ed without s car coming eastbound on
Cypress Avenue unless there is a three -wad/ sign. There could / /fight distance issue at this
location.
Member Whitaker: ' ' /NS
• Is of the opinion having a stop si n, N. Pine and C
P 9 p 9 , / / /���, would not creat� � zardous situation
for traffic eastbound on Cypress A
Recess: 3:45 p.m. �� �
Reconvene: 4:07 p.m. j� � %��/
Member Seanor:
• Referred to an e� ,K� California ,< plea / / nual cif Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), 201 n and Rd Multi -wa : t / licatio / provided for in Section 213.07 of the
supplement appl y the traffi- cern bean ssed. A m - ay stop must be considered because
Cypress Avenue al���rr has a si - • � j�j�
rocess for a sto
The °s
• p p .,, ;= invo alysis a vided for in subsection 213.07 of the supplement.
• The the o ana
• 3 a ,be co - - d for re �, ,ijie in November.
Chair 7 Quickly lookin °g'/ a cone warrantindYstop sign, this is a low volume intersection with a high
'%i ��, iii ai... is
volume of ern. /job /
Member Baxtes"D / / / / / /��/
• Subsectio -.- ; 6 item B St ign Applications indicates 'a restricted view exists that requires road users
to stop in or c� ' b&/'/adequately, 'erve conflicting traffic on the through street or highway and /or .......'
• Understands the se is an i. in this regard.
Member Seanor:
• Clarified the intent with r - to item B references the view when a person has problems seeing to make a
turn left or right.
• Staff is not prepared to make a recommendation about the traffic concern on N. Pine Street and Cypress
Avenue.
Member Taylor:
• While there may be restrictions as to how the traffic concerns can be regulated, it may be that putting in
grooved pavement back far enough on N. Pine Street before the dip like those used on Highway 20 and 53
would be helpful.
TEC October 9, 2012
Page 6 of 10
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
G
Member Whitaker: The problem with this approach is the noise impacts to the neighborhood.
Member Taylor:
• In talking with Mr. Troulette the way his driveway is configured it may be a good idea 'to paint a barrier' on
the inside of the corresponding corner of the street that is highly visible and painted at an angle leaving the
driveway open to make it apparent there is a driveway as opposed to a street.
• Has seen areas in Ukiah where painted barriers have made a difference.
• If a 10 mph advisory sign is placed through the dip according to the California Vehicle Code there is
nothing the UPD can do as far as enforcement because it is advisory only. What can be done in this regard
is the incident would have to be justified as reckless driving, exhib� ion or the like, which would have to be
witnessed. The rumble strips may be noisy, but they do slow p If the stop sign could not be
implemented, rumble strips would certainly warn people that �i d is coming up and somehow flag the
dip with signage to let people know it is there. Is sure many do not know the dip is in the road.
It was noted a rumble strip would require compliance with
notified.
Member Taylor: j
• The dip in the road essentially acts as a spee -, tri
roundabouts that have been implemented in an° '-
Staff noted rubber speed bumps do make noise for the neigh]
Chair Turner: Speed bumps do have neig ation irr
their effectiveness and use.
Steve Scalmanini:
• Acknowledged there
• Asked about how rf
Member Taylor:
• As per the Calif on:, /eh
enforceable not even
en aint i /a / Thee is
Memb j e ama: E.
• ;1h , pp0I Live O. a SL
• ey t issue is drive
• As an tive to the W1
right in th of the veh
.,iii,.
Same scenar' eastbou
make the turn. %io,,.
neighborhood would have to be
mechanism. It is mu" "" the speed bumps and /or
i the City.
neighborhoods do have opinions about
can drive across a painted barrier if it is to be
a would have to be left open. Ukiah no longer has
For an inside corner has no idea about what the
a W1 -6 sign or horizontal arrow that would be placed
headlights at the end N. Pine Street for northbound traffic pointing left.
ffic with the arrow pointing right. This would alert the driver he /she must
Member Seanor:
• The aforementioned si ;g/ 'highly visible and would work on many applications, but in the location of N.
Pine Street and Cypress lvenue this type of sign would not work because Mr. Trouette's driveway is right
in the alignment area where the sign would have to be placed for northbound traffic.
Member Baxter: Recommends also evaluating painting the curb with diagonals and use yellow
darts /arrows /reflectors on the asphalt to call out the attention of drivers that a hazard would occur around the bend.
There was discussion about potentially eliminating the street parking that currently exists in the area in order to
provide for some mitigation measures.
M/S Baxter/Whitaker to defer further discussion regarding agenda item 5a so staff can review the warrants and
TEC October 9, 2012
Page 7 of 10
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2('
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
5'
conditions for a stop sign as well as the alternative measures expressed here today to include review of all other
planning documents as part of the original staff report for this matter.
Discussion: Members expressed concern whether or not the analysis can be completed by November.
Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present. (8 -0).
Chair Turner: Recommended those persons interested in having TEC meetings later in the day to contact City
Engineer Tim Eriksen.
5b. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding crosswalk request — Observatory Avenue
Member Taylor spoke to agenda item b and is in favor of a crossw %tfie proposed location of Observation
Avenue at Marwen Drive. /'dr,
Chair Turner advised Observatory Avenue originates at S.
Member Seanor:
• Referred to his Memorandum for this agenda i
• Martin Bradley is requesting a crosswalk bd
students and other pedestrians walking to ar
Avenue.
• At some point Observatory Park will be more
access though the proposed cross 04/1100/1
• Observatory Street operates east
opposite the Community Transition
Pp Y �ii
• There are no ADA curb ramps at the i ° ec
• The proposed crosswalk would be c 'de
intersection at the re ocation.
• Mid -block crosswe erally pre
than intersectio �/
• Crosswalks can edestrian alse sense
• The proposed crossw. would /��'ide the ne
goo i
at the specified locatio��/
Sho /���,,,,,,. Ik be i %, %�r��,,,, r
•
• R�.._ c %�� ".cfr�tttaa raga nri rnne
d October 4, 2012'
d on Observato ry �
Ave �� t Marwen Drive to assist
the Community Transits �j ogram on Observatory
leve��an to the public
W, W"I1411el
the park could be
n Drive e , a T- intersection with Observatory Avenue
Observatory Avenue.
gre is not a through cross street
crosswalks at locations other
rity that there protected from traffic.
channelization to make certain all pedestrians cross
could be utilized to provide additional safety.
ndation provided for in his memorandum.
Martin ty: � ///FOR. ,�
• Is V0///J/l enting the scho - equest ossible crosswalk.
. ��/ ! ER
• A c/guar d wouldely be e j le or necessary. The students attending the program 18 to 21
years
• Currently, pts get off th ,has on Washington Avenue and walk west to Observatory Avenue. One of
the problems' , re are no s alks in some portions of the street.
ffirm
The students u,
• i� k for tr :''ortation and the bus does not have a route where it can drop students in
front of the school. - w a good solution in terms of a safety measure.
• Is of the opinion a cro . / necessary in the location proposed as a safety precautionary measure.
• People cross the stree - ecause there is no easy /accessible exit to Dora Street. Accordingly, there is
parking in front of the school such that people are walking in the street.
• Is of the opinion people would use the crosswalk unless they want to take a short cut. If a crosswalk exists,
it is likely people would use it as a safety precaution.
• Has observed it is difficult for the students to safely cross the street.
• Pedestrian traffic will increase in the area when Observatory Park is open to the public, particularly on the
Observatory Avenue side. People and /or students will no longer have to go around the block. This is a
factor in the future.
• Observatory Avenue has a natural flow of traffic because it is located in a neighborhood where people are
coming and going. There may be peak times during the day as people drive on Observatory Avenue
TEC October 9, 2012
Page 8 of 10
1 coming from Helen Avenue.
2
Member Seanor:
j • At first glance in his initial review of the project, the proposed crosswalk did not meet the requirements for a
5 'school crosswalk.'
7 Committee comments:
8 • It may be a good idea in terms of looking at a potential crosswalk to look at the definition of a 'school' since
9 the students that attend the transition program are essentially adults. The educational facility is not a K -12
10 school, but rather a secondary school as it relates to the appropriate color of the paint for the crosswalk.
11 • The color of the crosswalk was not discussed in staff's report. j
12 • The location of transition educational program is not within rter of a mile of Nokomis Elementary
13 School in terms of the appropriate color for the crosswalk, i. or yellow.
14 .
Discussion about whether it is problematic to put a new, swalk where there is no curb cut and
15 this is of concern to the Committee.
16 • The sidewalks in the area are not ADA compliant.
17 • There is a driveway opening on north side of could function curb cut. Accordingly, it was
18 determined the driveway does not line up w, end of one of the alks. There is, however, a
19 driveway on the north side of the curb retur , O h closely lines up and chi unction as a curb return.
20 There is no such infrastructure on the south sid�' jam/
21 • The sidewalks in the area are narrow having a tigh s. �
22 . Discussion whether the crosswalks, a required to be. degrees to the. The driveway to
23 the facility could be modified in so so so it is not a and made into a curb t so that it lines up
24 with the crosswalk. % / / / / ��
25 Further discussion about feasibility perspecti / a mid -block crosswalk that would not
26 connect to any sidewalk or to a side wa % at i/ , '' A comp �� his situation could eventual) change
27 in the future when Observatory Park is / °" Ion ei��� "" ivep ar�O''- mor y g
�� ry g �/��, p a open to the public where a
28 crosswalk would ac b neficial in t�- cation. no sid / on the south side of the street.
2 Q - ` Discussion about weef the vicinit ��" e of ha a sidewalks.
3, 1 • Just because a alk gets <� ailed does it will bed.
,. ��/" % iii ,�„
31 • Expressed concer,, t 1) peop(� W not chan� r habits and 2) drivers do not necessarily pay attention
32 to crosswalks and q e ned wl1 r the propo idewalk is really a safe approach to take.
33 Does not,,ne„cessarily a ha/�tssuvalk woe used.
34 Dis WOUICT/"b/ 6" 6" "" : stree crosswalk was installed.
35 • �/ �i{c� / ccur , rsection T •,{had fiddle of a block. Drivers do not anticipate traffic
36 / s mid - b lock, /,•. er at ��" ections.
37 noted many pe,use �n Drive as it is a straight shot to Helen Avenue in terms of traffic
38 be •" ,
39 Discu about whether�of the srd " Iks on Marwen Drive line up with a sidewalk across the street
40 on Obser Avenue. It etermine' here is a curb and planter strip.
41 • People take cuts to acc ifferent streets in the area.
42 0 The crosswal c� ,;� be okay i proposed location even though it is not at a regular T- intersection. Such
43 a crosswalk w ventu erve Observatory Park when it is developed and it would be located
44 approximately mid -�� Dora Street and Helen Avenue for convenience purposes.
45 • The concern with ha . mid -block crosswalk is the need to for the crosswalk to line up with the
46 sidewalks on either side o the street and /or the concern of placing a crosswalk in a spot where there is no
47 pedestrian ramp /curb cuts.
48 • It may be the City will adopt such sidewalk improvements into its sidewalk improvement plan as a long term
49 solution.
50 • It was noted the City has a list of future curb ramps but they are for existing crosswalks.
51 • It would be beneficial to look at funding sources for sidewalk improvements such that a crosswalk could
52 effectively serve the public safely. There may be funding available related to Observatory Park where a
53 pedestrian ramp /curb cut can be part of the Park development plan.
54 • Questioned whether drivers would be expecting a crosswalk mid -block on Observatory and is more of
5;" safety hazard than a precautionary measure.
TEC October 9, 2012
Page 9 of 10
1 • It may be during peak times when school is over is when traffic and pedestrian traffic escalate in the area.
2 • Not having connecting sidewalks on either side of the crosswalk is problematic.
' ) • Drivers would probably like to have some warning that a crosswalk exists mid - block.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2,F
3k.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Member Jordan:
• Asked if Mr. Bradley's would be open to waiting and possibly pursuing a solution to pedestrian traffic issues
in connection with the full development of Observatory Park.
• What is the prospect of being able to install a crosswalk with signage? Is it feasible to put a newly painted
crosswalk where there is no curb cut?
Member Seanor:
• The signage would have to be maintained by City crews.
• A driveway exists but it does not line up correctly for a pc
Member Baxter:
• If someone wanted to use the crosswalk and if the nearby
far would this be to the crosswalk? What about a soay lutions?
Committee comments:
• Would not want to put a crosswalk leading into s. " e s dri
• Persons would have to travel approximately 20 fee the
ADA accessible sidewalks for the c swalk.
r/// /9"'9 v„
• What is essentially occurring is p �,� or a crosswa
street to use the crosswalk. °m // / / /��
• Providing for a new crosswalk would
,�, re
/.f
in the street to access the crosswalk. ° %re is
want to happen ?
• It was noted people a they wan r
• .
Discussion abou � ive�s�� � ns that wo -
• The most effect proach be to insta
a
• Asked staff to pr / more in ation aboG
Avenue at Marwene
M/S
6. COfi
Member Sep
Street and E
rted on streef
treet and from
7. MISCELLANEW,
Member Baxter referre',�/,,
house on the corner of OE
rocks to prevent reckless d
n
Ik.
to access the crosswalk how
to the cro &VW,/' since there are no
same time sending "people out into the
knowingly people would be walking
i to the crosswalk. Is this what we
rfrt marking on the street and red curbing.
whe sidewalk improvements are done.
feasibility of providing a crosswalk on Observatory
ore information from staff about the feasibility of a
rried by an all AYE voice vote of the members
progress in the City particularly at the intersection of S. State
to S. Main Street.
ne"F —tion of E. Gobbi Street and Babcock Lane and noted the owner of the
e took matter into his own hands by landscaping his yard with very large
itting his house.
8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
TEC October 9, 2012
Page 10 of 10
CITY OF UKIAH
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 6, 2012
TO: Traffic Engineering Committee
FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Traffic Concerns in the
Vicinity of North Oak Street, Cypress Avenue, and North Pine Street
Agenda Item 4a.
BACKGROUND: At the October 9, 2012 Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) meeting,
the TEC requested additional analysis of the North Pine Street and Cypress Avenue
intersection. Specifically, an analysis of a STOP sign installation at the intersection and
placing diagonal striping, yellow reflectors /arrows on the pavement to notify drivers of the
curve were requested.
DISCUSSION:
In October 2012, the City's street striping contractor painted a white edge line to help
delineate the curve at North Pine Street and Cypress Avenue. To date, feedback on this
additional striping has been positive.
Staff reviewed the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2012
Edition (see Attachment "A ") regarding the suggestion for installation of a STOP sign on
North Pine Street at Cypress Avenue. Based on an engineering review of the factors,
guidance, and standards of the MUTCD, a STOP sign is not warranted nor recommended
for installation at this location.
Staff reviewed the MUTCD section regarding Chevron and Diagonal Crosshatch Markings
(see Attachment "B "). These types of markings are typically used to discourage travel on
certain paved areas. Staff does not recommend installing additional markings at this time.
As discussed previously, staff recommends that "DIP" signs with a 10 mph advisory speed
plate would be appropriate for this location. In addition, staff recommends installation of
turn signs with 10 mph advisory speed plates for this location.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Post two each DIP signs with 10 mph advisory speed plates;
2) Post two each TURN signs with 10 mph advisory speed plates; 3) Take no action;
4) Refer to staff for further analysis.
cc: file
Attachment #
California MUTCD 2012 Edition Page 134
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California)
Standard:
03 Except as provided in Paragraphs 4 and 5, the minimum sizes for regulatory signs facing traffic on
multi -lane conventional roads shall be as shown in the Multi -lane column of Table 2B -1 and 2B-1 (CA).
Option:
04 Where the posted speed limit is 35 mph or less on a multi -lane highway or street, other than for a STOP sign,
the minimum size shown in the Single Lane column in Table 213-1 and 2B -1(CA) may be used.
os Where a regulatory sign, other than a STOP sign, is placed on the left -hand side of a multi -lane roadway in
addition to the installation of the same regulatory sign on the right -hand side or the roadway, the size shown in
the Single Lane column in Table 213-1 and 2B -1(CA) may be used for both the sign on the right -hand side and the
sign on the left -hand side of the roadway.
Standard:
06 A minimum size of 36 x 36 inches shall be used for STOP signs that face multi -lane approaches.
07 Where side roads intersect a multi -lane street or highway that has a speed limit of 45 mph or higher,
the minimum size of the STOP signs facing the side road approaches, even if the side road only has one
approach lane, shall be 36 x 36 inches.
os Where side roads intersect a multi -lane street or highway that has a speed limit of 40 MPH or lower,
the minimum size of the STOP signs facing the side road approaches shall be as shown in the Single Lane
or Multi -lane columns of Table 2B -1 and 2B -1(CA) based on the number of approach lanes on the side street
approach.
Guidance:
o9 The minimum sizes for regulatory signs facing traffic on exit and entrance ramps should be as shown in the
column of Table 2B -1 and 2B -1(CA) that corresponds to the mainline roadway classification (Expressway or
Freeway). If a minimum size is not provided in the Freeway column, the minimum size in the Expressway column
should be used. If a minimum size is not provided in the Freeway or Expressway Column, the size in the
Oversized column should be used.
Section 2B.04 Right -of -Way at Intersections
Support:
of State or local laws written in accordance with the "Uniform Vehicle Code" (see Section IA.1l) establish the
right -of -way rule at intersections having no regulatory traffic control signs such that the driver of a vehicle
approaching an intersection must yield the right -of -way to any vehicle or pedestrian already in the intersection.
When two vehicles approach an intersection from different streets or highways at approximately the same time,
the right -of -way rule requires the driver of the vehicle on the left to yield the right -of -way to the vehicle on the
right. The right -of -way can be modified at through streets or highways by placing YIELD (R1 -2) signs (see
Sections 213.08 and 213.09) or STOP (R1 -1) signs (see Sections 213.05 through 213.07) on one or more approaches.
Guidance:
02 Engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following factors should be
considered:
A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches;
B. Number and angle of approaches;
C. Approach speeds;
D. Sight distance available on each approach; and
E. Reported crash experience.
03 YIELD or STOP signs should be used at an intersection if one or more of the following conditions exist:
A. An 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. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and /or
C. An unsignalized intersection in a signalized area.
Chapter 2B — Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012
Part 2 — Signs
California MUTCD 2012 Edition Page 135
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California)
04 In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or
local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following
conditions exist:
A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches
averages more than 2,000 units per day;
B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in
compliance with the normal right -of -way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or
C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right -of -way at the
intersection under the normal right -of -way rule have been reported within a 3 -year period, or that three or
more such crashes have been reported within a 2 -year period.
o5 YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.
Support:
06 Section 2B.07 contains provisions regarding the application of multi -way STOP control at an intersection.
Guidance:
07 Once the decision has been made to control an intersection, the decision regarding the appropriate roadway
to control should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the roadway carrying the lowest volume of
traffic should be controlled.
o8 YIELD or STOP sign should not be installed on the higher volume roadway unless justified by an
engineering study.
Support:
o9 The following are considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate roadway upon
which to install a YIELD or STOP sign where two roadways with relatively equal volumes and /or characteristics
intersect:
A. Controlling the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school
walking routes;
B. Controlling the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower
operating speeds; and
C. Controlling the direction that has the best sight distance from a controlled position to observe conflicting
traffic.
Standard:
io Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, YIELD or STOP signs
shall not be used in conjunction with any traffic control signal operation, except in the following cases:
A. If the signal indication for an approach is a flashing red at all times;
B. If a minor street or driveway is located within or adjacent to the area controlled by the traffic control
signal, but does not require separate traffic signal control because an extremely low potential for
conflict exists; or
C. If a channelized turn lane is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island and the channelized
turn lane is not controlled by a traffic control signal.
10a STOP signs shall not be erected at any entrance to an intersection controlled by traffic signals. Refer to CVC
21355(a).
> > Except as provided in Section 2B.09, STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be installed on different
approaches to the same unsignalized intersection if those approaches conflict with or oppose each other.
12 Portable or part -time STOP or YIELD signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary
traffic control zone purposes.
13 A portable or part -time (folding) STOP sign that is manually placed into view and manually removed
from view shall not be used during a power outage to control a signalized approach unless the maintaining
agency establishes that the signal indication that will first be displayed to that approach upon restoration
of power is a flashing red signal indication and that the portable STOP sign will be manually removed
from view prior to stop- and -go operation of the traffic control signal.
Option:
14 A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is electrically or mechanically operated such that it only
displays the STOP message during a power outage and ceases to display the STOP message upon restoration of
power may be used during a power outage to control a signalized approach.
Chapter 2B — Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012
Part 2 — Signs
California MUTCD 2012 Edition Page 136
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California)
Support:
15 Section 9B.03 contains provisions regarding the assignment of priority at a shared -use path/ roadway
intersection.
Section 2B.05 STOP Sign (Rl -1) and ALL WAY Plaque (Rl -3P)
Standard:
of When it is determined that a full stop is always required on an approach to an intersection, a STOP
(111-1) sign (see Figure 2B -1) shall be used.
02 The STOP sign shall be an octagon with a white legend and border on a red background.
03 Secondary legends shall not be used on STOP sign faces.
04 At intersections where all approaches are controlled by STOP signs (see Section 2B.07), an ALL WAY
supplemental plaque (R1-3P) shall be mounted below each STOP sign. The ALL WAY plaque (see Figure
213-1) shall have a white legend and border on a red background.
os The ALL WAY plaque shall only be used if all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs.
06 Supplemental plaques with legends such as 2 -WAY, 3 -WAY, 4 -WAY, or other numbers of ways shall
not be used with STOP signs.
Support:
07 The use of the CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W44P) plaque (and other plaques with variations of
this word message) is described in Section 2C.59.
Guidance:
os Plaques with the appropriate alternative messages of TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP
(W4 -40) or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4 -4bP) should be used at intersections where STOP
signs control all but one approach to the intersection, unless the only non - stopped approach is from a one -way
street.
Option:
o9 An EXCEPT RIGHT TURN (R1 -10P) plaque (see Figure 213-1) may be mounted below the STOP sign if an
engineering study determines that a special combination of geometry and traffic volumes is present that makes it
possible for right- turning traffic on the approach to be permitted to enter the intersection without stopping.
Support:
to The design and application of Stop Beacons are described in Section 4L.05.
tt 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:
12 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 1A.11 for
information regarding this publication.
Support:
13 When STOP (R1 -1) signs or traffic control signals have been erected at all entrances, a highway constitutes a through
highway. Refer to CVC 600.
,a Authority to place STOP (R1 -1) signs facing State highway traffic is delegated to the Department of Transportation's
District Directors.
Option:
15 Local authorities may designate any highway under their jurisdiction as a through highway and install STOP (R1 -1) signs
in a like manner. Refer to CVC 21354.
Standard:
is No local authority shall erect or maintain any STOP (111.1) 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 (R1 -1)
sign will benefit traffic.
Chapter 2B — Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012
Part 2 — Signs
California MUTCD 2012 Edition Page 137
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California)
l Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Applications
I Guidance:
of At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using
less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B. 08 and 2B.09),
02 The use of STOP signs on the minor - street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment
indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:
A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day;
B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on
the through street or highway; and/or
C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a
STOP sign have been reported within a 12 -month period, or that five or more such crashes have been
reported within a 2 -year period. Such crashes include right -angle collisions involving road users on the
minor - street approach failing to yield the right -of -way to traffic on the through street or highway.
Support:
03 The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 813.04 and 8B.05.
Section 2B.07 Multi -Way Stop Applications
Support:
of Multi -way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.
Safety concerns associated with multi -way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other
road users to stop. Multi -way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is
approximately equal.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 213.04 also apply to multi -way stop
applications.
Guidance:
03 The decision to install multi -way stop control should be based on an engineering study.
oa The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi -way STOP sign installation:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi -way 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. Five or more reported crashes in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi -way stop
installation. Such crashes include right -turn and left -turn 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 40 mph, the minimum vehicular
volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2.
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:
05 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 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 multi -way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the
intersection.
Chapter 2B — Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012
Part 2 — Signs
California MUTCD 2012 Edition Attachment # - Page 700
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California)
Option:
12Retroreflective or internally illuminated raised pavement markers of the appropriate color may be placed on
the pavement in front of the curb and /or on the top of curbed as noses of raised medians and curbs of islands, as a
supplement to or substitute for retroreflective curb markings used for delineation.
Support:
13 Refer to Section 26.46 for Parking Regulations.
14 In California, curb markings are not used for delineating traffic. They are mainly used for parking regulations.
Standard:
to The color of curb markings shall conform to CVC 21458 quoted below:
(a) Whenever local authorities enact local parking regulations and indicate them by the use of paint upon curbs,
the following colors only shall be used, and the colors indicate as follows:
(1) Red indicates no stopping, standing, or parking, whether the vehicle is attended or unattended, except that
a bus may stop in a red zone marked or sign posted as a bus loading zone.
(2) Yellow indicates stopping only for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers or freight for the time as
may be specified by local ordinance.
(3) White indicates stopping for either of the following purposes:
(A) Loading or unloading of passengers for the time as may be specified by local ordinance.
(B) Depositing mail in an adjacent mailbox.
(4) Green indicates time limit parking specified by local ordinance.
(5) Blue indicates parking limited exclusively to the vehicles of disabled persons and disabled veterans.
(b) Regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be effective on days and during hours or times as
prescribed by local ordinances.
16 Parking regulations shall be covered by ordinance or order of the authority having jurisdiction over the street or
highway.
Option:
17 Curb markings may supplement standard signs,
18 Prohibitions or restrictions enacted by local authorities under Sections 22506 or 22507 may be indicated by marking
curbs as prescribed by CVC Section 21458.
Policy on Parking Restrictions
Support:
to Loading Zones - Local authorities are authorized by Section 21112 of the CVC to license and regulate the location of
stands on streets and highways for use of taxicabs and other public carriers for hire. Where such stands are located on State
highways, and highway maintenance is not delegated to the local authority, the approval of the Department is required. The
District Directors have been delegated authority to approve local ordinances establishing such stands.
20 Loading zone ordinances restricted for certain segments of traffic such as "hotel patrons only" will not be approved. Bus
stand ordinances are generally approved.
Standard:
21 Whenever practicable, bus stands shall be located on the far side of the intersection.
Section 3B.24 Chevron and Diagonal Crosshatch Markings
Option:
of Chevron and diagonal crosshatch markings may be used to discourage travel on certain paved areas, such as
shoulders, gore areas, flush median areas between solid double yellow center line markings or between white
channelizing lines approaching obstructions in the roadway (see Section 313.10 and Figure 313-15), between solid
double yellow center line markings forming flush medians or channelized travel paths at intersections (see
Figures 313-2 and 313-5), buffer spaces between preferential lanes and general - purpose lanes (see Figures 313-2
and 3D -4), and at grade crossings (see Part 8).
Standard:
02 When crosshatch markings are used in paved areas that separate traffic flows in the same general
direction, they shall be white and they shall be shaped as chevron markings, with the point of each chevron
facing toward approaching traffic, as shown in Figure 3" 3B- 8(CA), Drawing A o Figure 3134 3B- 9(CA),
Figure 31319 3B- 10(CA), and Drawing C of Figure 3B -15.
Chapter 313 — Pavement and Curb Markings January 13, 2012
Part 3 — Markings
California MUTCD 2012 Edition Page 701
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California)
03 When crosshatch markings are used in paved areas that separate opposing directions of traffic, they
shall be yellow diagonal markings that slant away from traffic in the adjacent travel lanes, as shown in
Figures 3B -2 and 311-5 and Drawings A and B of Figure 313-15.
04 When crosshatch markings are used on paved shoulders, they shall be diagonal markings that slant
away from traffic in the adjacent travel lane. The diagonal markings shall be yellow when used on the left -
hand shoulders of the roadways of divided highways and on the left -hand shoulders of one -way streets or
ramps. The diagonal markings shall be white when used on right -hand shoulders.
Guidance:
05 The chevrons and diagonal lines used for crosshatch markings should be at least 12 inches wide for
roadways having a posted or statutory speed limit of 45 mph or greater, and at least 8 inches wide for roadways
having posted or statutory speed limit of less than 45 mph. The longitudinal spacing of the chevrons or diagonal
lines should be determined by engineering judgment considering factors such as speeds and desired visual
impacts. The chevrons and diagonal lines should form an angle of approximately 30 to 45 degrees with the
longitudinal lines that they intersect.
os Diagonal and chevron markings should be used, when in the opinion of an engineer, it is necessary to add emphasis or
to discourage vehicular travel upon a paint formed roadway feature such as an unusually wide shoulder area, a pedestrian
refuge island, or a traffic divisional or channelization island.
m Diagonal lines, when used, should be installed between an edge line and traffic island, or between pairs of double yellow
lines.
oa Chevron markings, when used, should be installed between channelizing lines for traffic flows in the same direction.
Support:
os The applicable channelizing lines for chevron markings are shown in Figure 3A -1I O(CA), Details 36, 36A and 36B and
pairs of lines shown in Figure 3A- 112(CA), Details 38 and 38A.
to The diagonal lines or chevron markings are normally 12 inch wide.
Standard:
11 Diagonal lines and chevrons shall be the same color as the line or lines to which they connect and shall point at
a 45- degree forward angle.
U Diagonal lines or chevrons, if used, shall be the same color as the edge line.
Option:
13 The spacing between these lines may vary from 1 feet in a pedestrian crosswalk to 200 feet for vehicular traffic.
Section 3B.25 Sneed Hump Markings
Standard:
of If speed hump markings are used, they shall be a series of white markings placed on a speed hump to
identify its location. If markings are used for a speed hump that does not also function as a crosswalk or
speed Table, the markings shall comply with Option A, B, or C shown in Figure 311-29. If markings are
used for a speed hump that also functions as a crosswalk or speed Table, the markings shall comply with
Option A or B shown in Figure 313-30.
Support:
02 Per CVC 440, speed humps or bumps are not official traffic control devices.
Section 3B.26 Advance Speed Hump Markings
Option:
of Advance speed hump markings (see Figure 3B -31) may be used in advance of speed humps or other
engineered vertical roadway deflections such as dips where added visibility is desired or where such deflection is
not expected.
02 Advance pavement wording such as BUMP or HUMP (see Section 3B.20) may be used on the approach to a
speed hump either alone or in conjunction with advance speed hump markings. Appropriate advance warning
signs may be used in compliance with Section 2C.29.
Standard:
031f advance speed hump markings are used, they shall be a series of eight white 12 -inch transverse lines
that become longer and are spaced closer together as the vehicle approaches the speed hump or other
Chapter 3B — Pavement and Curb Markings January 13, 2012
Part 3 — Markings
CITY OF UKIAH
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 6, 2012
TO: Traffic Engineering Committee
FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Avk-
SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Crosswalk Request —
Observatory Avenue
Agenda Item 4b.
REQUEST: At the October 9, 2012 Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) meeting, the TEC
requested additional information regarding the proposed crosswalk on Observatory Avenue at
Marwen Drive. Specifically, the TEC requested information on ADA curb cut requirements,
feasibility of installing the crosswalk without curb cuts, crosswalk signage, etc.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Martin Bradley provided additional photographs along with a sketch of the
sidewalk and planter strip at the proposed crosswalk location. Please refer to Attachment "A ".
}Upon further review and discussion with other engineering professionals, staff learned that it is
not recommended to install a crosswalk at locations without ADA curb cuts. Staff therefore does
not recommend approving installation of a crosswalk on Observatory Avenue at Marwen Drive
prior to the installation of necessary curb cuts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC.
Staff has provided the following options for consideration:
1. Deny request for crosswalk since there are no ADA curb cuts at the proposed crosswalk
location.
2. Refer to staff for further analysis.
enc.
cc: file
0
M
s
w
Vi
w
a
Q
x
a
3
m
a
a
a
v
x
Attachment # n ��
Ila x:
I u`
[y
i 7 !
�
iii
?;f
I'
+' 1
s1xC,L.�. } ) ,��1.1 i. L.� �� ,• (� � 11 t Ii '. � i1�X4`
- --- -------
t 5Y
714
(9 & 5 e-"47vol
cgo.6s"W
(9cf- 'ZotZ
loFt
s'l
- --- -------
t 5Y
714
(9 & 5 e-"47vol
cgo.6s"W
(9cf- 'ZotZ
s'l
Glen Donalson
463 Luce Ave.
Uldah, CA 95482
Oct. 16.2012
462 -6673
Chief Chris Dewey
Public Safety Officer
300 Seminary Ave.
tlidah, CA 95482
Dear Chief Dewey.
have phoned Police Dispatch 3 times in the last couple of months about an illegally parked
8' wide truck van and an 8' open trailer at 110 Carolyn St.
At first they were both parked on the south side of Mill St. After a short stay In the Blue Drug
parking (?) lot the trailer was moved to Caroio and has remained there.
After the second report f made, the responding officer told me he met with the owner and his
attorney and they asserted the vehicles were moved every 72 hours. t travel on Mll St. ,
several times weekly and the vehicles are always on MI or Carolyn. In fact they have been
there for months or years and for about 3 years there was always, lurriticr, pallets, barrels, dirt
etc. strewn about with one or more vehicles parked on the street while they landscaped ..
I maintain that both vehicles are traffic hazards. Almost all eastbound traffic on Mil St, will
swing out past the center dividing tine while passing the 8' truck. Frequently there are other
trucks, trailers and cars parked on the north side of MCI St. Nadi SL is narrpwAm than 40'
and Is the opsiest east-west street between Gobbi and Perkins.
The trailer is also 8' wide with low solid sides. k Is parked facing the wrong direction on
Carolyn St.. It is black and the tongue Is on blocks and protrudes T more or less beyond
the reflectors on the trailer bed, Being low and dark the tongue could be hard to see by a
driver attempting to park nextto it.
The trailer has a partial load of builders sand which could be put on the concrete drivewayy on
Carolyn, next to the cement mixer.
it seems to me that the parking ordinance should be enforced against serial offenders, in
hazardous situations or else the City Council should be petitioned to repeal it.
SwIcereiy.
G on Donalson
Ye,
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES
Members Present
Steve Turner, Chair
Dan Baxter, MTA, Vice -Chair
Rick Seanor, Staff
Ben Kageyama, Staff
John Lampi, Public Representative
Trent Taylor, UPD
Kim Jordan, Staff
Jerry Whitaker, Staff
Members Absent
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER
Conference Room No. 3
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, California 95482
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011
3:00 P.M.
Others Present
Will Heimberg
Staff Present
Jarod Thiele, Recording Secretary
q C'
1. CALL TO ORDER:3:03 pm
M /S: Turner /Jordan to call the meeting to order. Motion was carried by an all AYE voice vote.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 3:04 pm
MIS: Taylor /Baxter to approve the minutes of February 8, 2011. Motion was carried by an all AYE
voice vote with Member Jordan abstaining.
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: 3:00pm
None
5. NEW BUSINESS: 3:17 pm
a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Vehicle Parking along Carolyn Street and
Mill Street. (Report attached)
Member Seanor was contacted by Ms. Laura Cook in regards to the intersection of Mill and
Carolyn Streets who had concerns about tall and oversized trucks parking on the street and at
times blocking her driveway. She cited City code section 7154.5. Member Seanor requested she
TEC 5/10/11
Page 1 of 3
send a letter stating her requests. Will Heimberg, neighbor of the affected area was present.
Discussion ensued with the following comments:
• Member Taylor commented that there have been several complaints regarding this same issue.
• Mr. Heimberg commented that a chipper and tree truck are parked in front of each homeowner's
house as is his truck. Mr. Heimberg also commented that in the past he has parked his truck on
Carolyn Street but started parking it in Mill Street because his diesel tank was siphoned.
• Mr. Heimberg said he does move his vehicles every day and utilizes them but is more than happy
to comply with whatever is safe but the ordinance must be enforced evenly. Mr Heimberg said
safety is the issue and the 6 foot vehicle height ordinance does not address the safety issue.
• Vice -Chair Baxter commented that looking at the photos it could be a sight hazard to see
oncoming traffic.
• Member Seanor commented that he thought the truck had been parked in front of Ms. Cook's
house. Mr. Heimberg said that he parked his truck there so the street sweeper can clean the
street. Normally he parks it in front of his own house.
• Member Taylor commented that there is no statistical data to suggest there have been accidents
and that the police department does write speeding tickets in that area; Mr. Heimberg has
complied with all of his requests in the past. There are many intersections with the same issues
but where there are not a lot of crash reports at this intersection.
• Member Jordan asked about prohibition of commercial vehicles on residential property. Member
Taylor said they are based on vehicle weight.
• Chair Turner asked if Mr. Heimberg had considered parking his truck in his pharmacy lot and he
said he has in the past and his truck is broken into or vandalized as has his property.
• Member Seanor brought up another option and due to the nature of the streets, the residents who
cannot see at this particular intersection, could use a different street. Member Kageyama
suggested adding a short distance of red curb; Mr. Heimberg said there is red curb already.
M /S: Baxter /Jordan to not make any changes. Motion passed by an all AYE voice vote.
6. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS: 3:46 Pm
None
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: 3:04 pm (These items were discussed prior to New Business to
allow time for interested parties to arrive)
Chair Turner requested an update on the bike corral. Member Seanor commented that several
council members requested that the Public Works Department look into removing up to 3 parking
spaces on Standley Street near Patrona. The city will build an ADA approved surface to extend the
seating and have room for bicycle parking. Member Kageyama said he had been researching a
modular decking system that would rest on the surface of the pavement.
Vice -Chair Baxter commented that the pavement on Airport Park Blvd is still deteriorating. The curb
section appears to be separating from the pavement. Member Seanor commented that the City
currently has a project in place that will fix the pavement and widen some of the turns.
Member Kageyama informed the commission that the Clara Avenue project is complete; bulb -outs for
crosswalks have been installed as well as new storm drains. Additional funds in the future will allow
the sidewalks to be repaired as well as more crosswalks and bulb -outs to be installed. Vice -Chair
Baxter congratulated Member Kageyama on his management of the project and for coordinating
TEC 5/10/11
Page 2 of 3
efforts amongst agencies.
8. ADJOURNMENT: 3:46 pm
M /S: Taylor/Whitaker to adjourn. Motion was carried by an all AYE voice vote. Meeting adjourned at
3:46 pm.
( "0
Jar Thiele, Rec rding Secretary
TEC 5/10/11
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF UKIAH
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 6, 2012
TO: Traffic Engineering Committee
FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Pedestrian Crossing Signs
on Washington Avenue at Nokomis School
Agenda Item 5a.
BACKGROUND: Staff received a letter from Jan McGourty of Nokomis Elementary School
(Attachment "A ") requesting pedestrian crossing signs for the two crosswalks nearest the
school. Please see Attachment "B ", a photomap showing the crosswalk locations.
DISCUSSION:
Staff reviewed the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2012
Edition (see Attachment "C ") regarding in- street pedestrian crossing signs. In California,
the R1 -6 in- street pedestrian crossing sign (YIELD) is approved for use. The proposed sign
would provide an additional visible reminder to drivers regarding right -of -way at crosswalks.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Recommend to the Director of Public Works /City Engineer to
post an in- street pedestrian crossing sign in each of the two crosswalks nearest to
Nokomis School 2) Take no action; 3) Refer to staff for further analysis.
enc.
cc: file
Tim Erickson
Attn: Traffic Engineering Committee
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Tim,
Attachment # ,j >q /r
Jan McGourty
Nokomis Elementary School
495 Washington Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
February 10, 2012
RECEIVED
FEB 2 12012
CITY OF UKIAH
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
This letter is to document an issue regarding traffic around our school. The car
traffic on Washington Avenue is quite unsafe for Nokomis students crossing the
street after school. There is a huge line of parents waiting to go into the short
roundabout area where they can pick up their students in front of the cafeteria.
Often this line blocks traffic on the street. In addition, there is a crosswalk right
there where a teacher has after school duty to stop traffic with a stop sign while
students and parents cross the street. There is another crosswalk at the east side of
the campus that is unattended. I have served that crossing duty at the west side of
campus and have seen people drive right through the crosswalk while I am standing
in the middle of the street holding a stop sign.
In addition, the intersection at Washington and Dora Streets is quite dangerous.
Going south on Dora, there are two broadly marked crossing areas several blocks
north of this intersection. But the crosswalks at Dora & Washington are simply
marked with parallel yellow lines which are hard to see since there is a slight dip in
the road there. Last month a Pomolita student was hit by a car in that particular
crosswalk while on the way to the school bus stop in front of Washington Circle.
I suggest that there be some in- street signs (see below) in the middle of the
intersections at both ends of the Nokomis campus marking a pedestrian crossing.
Also, the crosswalks at Washington and Dora Streets could be more boldly marked
with broad horizontal lines so it is easier for drivers to see.
Thanks for your consideration. I look forward.to hearing from you.
Sincerely, STATE Sa3 S4.3
LAW
YIELD
U nne
TO
Jan McGourty.. • TO Da FOR
WITHIN Ri.c Rt u
CflOSSWALK
R:. aM: w= =9.Ri.T n \'..`TiO' MUTCD2003
y)�i IR �`i � �!•M�1 4 �1 �
v� M1
1 T.
1w
r
i-
1
i
,t.
F
_ 9 °
,z}sa,:Fa�x rr7' aL fi.,e mt%3•`"l �n -s' sue, •v Y,xx,.cs
IA
P >. I w* �JysS# 1} 1 w'f awkct��`i: I .. ✓t
? 1 %h°` J'` �` yy....��,,��11..,��tttt �.'— ;,.®•�'( Mn : ]' �'y4i� � iF i f .s� ..rF, r"4
UI lr��
E
ti
1 � • �� 9 '� a —.. a _ --
� s
a
Attachment # %\ C
California MUTCD 2012 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California)
Page 140
Section 2B.11 Yield Here To Pedestrians Signs and Stop Here For Pedestrians Signs (RI-5 Series)
Standard:
of Yield Here To (Stop Here Pedestrians (Rl -5, 111-5a, R 5b, ^r- R Se) signs (see Figure 211-2) shall
be used if yield (stop) lines are used in advance of a marked crosswalk that crosses an uncontrolled multi-
lane approach. The Stop Here for Pedestrians signs shall only be usedwhere the law speeifleally r . .
that a driver- most stop for a pedestrian in a . The legend STATE LAW may be displayed at the
top of the 111 -5, 111-5a, R1 5b, and R1 5e signs, if applicable.
Support:
oia The Stop Here for Pedestrian signs (131 -5b and R1 -5c) are deleted as a stop is not required in California per CVC
21950.
Guidance:
o2 If yield (stop) lines and Yield Here To (Step Mere -Fer) Pedestrians signs are used in advance of a crosswalk
that crosses an uncontrolled multi -lane approach, they should be placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of the nearest
crosswalk line (see Section 3B.16 and Figure 3B -17), and parking should be prohibited in the area between the
yield (stop) line and the crosswalk.
03 Yield (stop) lines and Yield Here To Pedestrians signs should not be used in advance of
crosswalks that cross an approach to or departure from a roundabout.
Option:
04 Yield Here To (Step Here For-)-Pedestrians signs may be used in advance of a crosswalk that crosses an
uncontrolled multi -lane approach to indicate to road users where to yield (4eo even if yield (stop) lines are not
used.
os A Pedestrian Crossing (W1 1-2) warning sign may be placed overhead or may be post- mounted with a
diagonal downward pointing arrow (W 16 -7P) plaque at the crosswalk location where Yield Here To (Step Mete
Fer)- Pedestrians signs have been installed in advance of the crosswalk.
Standard:
06 If a W11 -2 sign has been post- mounted at the crosswalk location where a Yield Here To (Stop Here
For} Pedestrians sign is used on the approach, the Yield Here To (Stop Hem For-)-Pedestrians sign shall not
be placed on the same post as or block the road user's view of the W11 -2 sign.
Option:
07 An advance Pedestrian Crossing (W 11 -2) warning sign with an AHEAD or a distance supplemental plaque
may be used in conjunction with a Yield Here To (Stele Far) Pedestrians sign on the approach to the same
crosswalk.
os In- Street Pedestrian Crossing signs and Yield Here To (Step LTA Pedestrians signs may be used
together at the same crosswalk.
—01- Section 2B.12 In- Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing Signs (Rl -6, R1 -6a, R1-9, and 111-9a
Option:
of The In- Street Pedestrian Crossing (R1 -6 or- R! 6 ) sign (see Figure 213-2) or the Overhead Pedestrian
Crossing (R1 -9 eF R! 9-a) sign (see Figure 213-2) may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right -of-
way at an unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk. The legend STATE LAW may be displayed at the top of the R1 -6,
R! , R1 -9, and R! 9 signs, if applicable. On the R1 -6 and R! 6 signs, the legends STOP E) YIELD may be
used instead of the appropriate STOP signer YIELD sign symbol.
02 Highway agencies may develop and apply criteria for determining the applicability of In- Street Pedestrian
Crossing signs.
Support:
02a The In- Street Pedestrian crossing (R1 -6a) and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing (R1 -9a) signs are deleted as a stop is not
required in California per CVC 21950.
Standard:
03 If used, the In- Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be placed in the roadway at the crosswalk location
on the center line, on a lane line, or on a median island. The In- Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be
post- mounted on the left -hand or right -hand side of the roadway.
Chapter 2B — Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012
Part 2 — Signs
California MUTCD 2012 Edition Page 141
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California)
j
04 If used, the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be placed over the roadway at the crosswalk
location.
05 An In- Street or Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be placed in advance of the crosswalk to
educate road users about the State law prior to reaching the crosswalk, nor shall it be installed as an
educational display that is not near any crosswalk.
Guidance:
06 If an island (see Chapter 37) is available, the In- Street Pedestrian Crossing sign, if used, should be placed on
the island.
Option:
07 If a Pedestrian Crossing (W 11 -2) warning sign is used in combination with an In- Street or an Overhead
Pedestrian Crossing sign, the W 11 -2 sign with a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque may be
post- mounted on the right -hand side of the roadway at the crosswalk location.
Standard:
0e The In- Street Pedestrian Crossing sign and the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be used at
signalized locations.
o9 The STOP FOR legend shall only be used in States where the State law specifically requires that a
driver must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
to The In- Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend (except for the red STOP or YIELD
sign symbols) and border on a white background, surrounded by an outer yellow or fluorescent yellow -
green background area (see Figure 213-2). The Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black
legend and border on a yellow or fluorescent yellow -green background at the top of the sign and a black
legend and border on a white background at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 213-2).
i i Unless the In- Street Pedestrian Crossing sign is placed on a physical island, the sign support shall be
designed to bend over and then bounce back to its normal vertical position when struck by a vehicle.
Support:
12 The Provisions of Section 2A.18 concerning mounting height are not applicable for the In- Street Pedestrian
Crossing sign.
Standard:
13 The top of an In- Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be a maximum of 4 feet above the pavement
surface. The top of an In- Street Pedestrian Crossing sign placed in an island shall be a maximum of 4 feet
above the island surface.
Option:
14 The In- Street Pedestrian Crossing sign may be used seasenably seasonally to prevent damage in winter
because of plowing operations, and may be removed at night if the pedestrian activity at night is minimal.
15 In- Street Pedestrian Crossing signs, Overhead Pedestrian Crossing signs, and Yield Here To (Stop Here Per -
Pedestrians signs may be used together at the same crosswalk.
Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2 -1)
Support:
oo The setting of speed limits can be controversial and requires a rational and defensible determination to maintain public
confidence. Speed limits are normally set near the 85th - percentile speed that statistically represents one standard deviation
above the average speed and establishes the upper limit of what is considered reasonable and prudent. As with most laws,
speed limits need to depend on the voluntary compliance of the greater majority of motorists. Speed limits cannot be set
arbitrarily low, as this would create violators of the majority of drivers and would not command the respect of.the public.
Standard:
of Speed zones (other than statutory speed limits) shall only be established on the basis of an engineering
and traffic survey (E &TS) stud-y that has been performed in accordance with traffic engineering practices.
The engineering study shall include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free - flowing vehicles.
02 The Speed Limit (R2 -1) sign (see Figure 213-3) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance,
regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency based on the engineering study. The speed limits
displayed shall be in multiples of 5 mph.
Chapter 2B — Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012
Part 2 — Signs
California MUTCD 2012 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California)
Figure 213-1. STOP and YIELD Signs and Plaques
YIELD
/ •
TO EXCEPT
ONCOMING RIGHT
TRAFFIC TURN
RI-1 R1 -3P 111-2 RI-2aP R1 -10P
v YIELD
HERE •
f
TO
YIELD
TO
•
R1 -6
Figure 213-2. Unsignalized Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs
YIELD
HER
Vol
PEDESTRIANS
R1 -5a
R1 -6a
W
M
HERE
DESTRIA
R1 -5b R1 -5c
R1 -9a
�k The legend STATE LAW is optional. A fluorescent
yellow -green background color may be used instead
of yellow for this sign.
Page 199
Chapter 2B — Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012
Part 2 — Signs
YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS
R1 -9
tF
TATE LA
R1 -9a
�k The legend STATE LAW is optional. A fluorescent
yellow -green background color may be used instead
of yellow for this sign.
Page 199
Chapter 2B — Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012
Part 2 — Signs
5c,
Rick Seanor
From: Trent Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:20 AM
o: Steve Turner; Tim Eriksen; Rick Seanor; Trent Taylor; Ben Kageyama; Dan Baxter; Kim
Jordan; Jerry Whitaker; John Lampi; Jarod Thiele
Subject: Another request for the TEC agenda
TEC,
I received this email from this lady today requesting a change in the parking rules to allow residents there to
park nose in to the curb on this inside corner. I had a discussion with another resident earlier in the year about
this issue. The vehicle code and our city code state that all vehicles must park with any portion of the right side
tires (front and rear) no more than 18" from the curb. We have a number of situations like this one in the City
and we also have an issue with them parking nose in, in those areas. One of the main concerns with them
parking nose in is access for fire equipment when there is a fire or medical aid.
Please put this on the agenda and provide notification to the requesting party.
"Parking at 798 South Spring Street & Pomolita Way
Historical circumstances
I purchased 798 South Spring in August, 1989. At that time, cars parked by my neighbors, Joye & Dave
Sperry, as well as Flory Delacruz M.D., owner, parked nose in towards curb. I continued the practice, nose
;n towards curb, 2 front wheels no more than 18 inches from the curb. Monday, April 9, 2012 at 3:30 AM,
Iny current neighbor Joe Scriven, got a parking ticket for not having right wheels 18 inches from the curb. I
sent out emails to friends & clients, informing them that they had to 'parallel" park on a curve. For a
number of vehicles, it is physically impossible to have 18 inches from the curb for both front & back
tires. Would you like me to drop off an actual drawing of the curve, designed to accommodate a 90 degree
turn from the end of S Spring to Pomolita Way, a 2 block long street on the north & a one block long street
on the south? Also, I started to gather signatures from people about the parellel parking' impossible
situation. Today, November 27th, I cannot put my hands on the petition but I will, if you would like to see it.
I believe Terry Gross, Esq. had also had a phone conversation with you the week of April 12th.
Please advise.
Kind Regards,
Darca Nicholson
462 -3547"