Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTSC Packet 09-09-2010CITY OF SARATOGA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: September 9, 2010 TIME: 6:30 PM - 9:30 PM LOCATION: Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Call to Order Roll Call: Biester, Bustamante, Coulter, Guichard, Kane, Kirk, and Vita Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 1, 2010. Accept Agenda Items: No additional items may be added pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Oral & Written Communication Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. Approval of Draft Minutes Draft Traffic Safety Commission Minutes for July 8, 2009 Sheriff's Report to the Commission Old Business 1. Traffic Matrix #251 Issue: Review Radar Feedback sign locations on Quito Road Action: TSC will make recommendation New Business 2. Traffic Matrix #253 - Danny Swanson Issue: Request Stop Signs on Farwell Avenue Action: TSC will make recommendation 3. Discuss topics for Joint Meeting with the City Council on October 6, 2010 4. Development of Stop Sign warrants information for website Announcements by Commissioners and Staff Adjournment to Next Regular Meeting Thursday, November 4, 2010* *Note: This meeting date moved because our regular meeting schedule falls on Veterans Day. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability - related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 408.868.1269 or ctclerk@saratoa.ca.us Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of material provided to the Traffic Safety Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Public Works Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the Public Works office at the time they are distributed to the Traffic Safety Commission. Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Public Works Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 1, 2010 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. CITY OF SARATOGA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Study Session Draft Action Minutes DATE: July 8, 2010 TIME: 6:30 PM — 9:30 PM LOCATION: Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Call to Order at 6:30p.m. Roll Call: Biester, Bustamante, Coulter, Guichard, Kane, Kirk, and Vita Absent: Biester & Bustamante Staff: Transportation Engineer Hervol and Analyst Borel Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 2, 2010. Borel reports Accept Agenda Items: No additional items may be added pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. No changes Oral & Written Communication Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. No speakers Approval of Draft Minutes Draft Traffic Safety Commission Minutes for May 13, 2009. Approved 4-0. Sheriff's Report to the Commission Captain Calderone reports Discussion Items 1. Crosswalk policy (6:50 p.m.) Review policy from San Mateo developed by Fehr & Peers 2. Community signs (7:15 p.m.) Review studies about effectiveness of Community signs 3. Safe route to school training (7:35 p.m.) Review training from Traffic Safe Communities Network 4. Stop sign warrant description (8:25 p.m.) Review draft description from Fehr & Peers Commission discussed the above items for educational purposes — no motions or actions were taken on these items. Announcements by Commissioners and Staff None Adjournment at 8:50 p.m. to the Next Regular Meeting Thursday, September 9, 2010 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability - related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 408.8681269 or ctcler1..@saratoga ca.us Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of material provided to the Traffic Safety Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Public Works Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the Public Works office at the time they are distributed to the Traffic Safety Commission. Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Public Works Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on July 2, 2010 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Public Works Department MEMO TO: Traffic Safety Commission FROM: Kristin Borel DATE: September 9, 2010 RE: Item 1- Traffic Matrix #251 This item came to the TSC on May 13, 2010 - the resident asked for Stop Signs on Quito Road. The Commission did not approve Stop Signs but recommended that the Traffic Engineer investigate locations along Quito Road for radar feedback signs, and have the TSC review the locations at a future meeting. Franziska Church will present the Commission with recommended locations at the meeting. Traffic Matrix #253 DATE: August 23, 2010 TO: Farwell Residents & John Cherbone, Public Works Director, City of Saratoga FROM: Farwell Resident Group RE: New Proposals for Control of Cut -Through Traffic As a Representative of Farwell Residents, I have attempted to learn what my neighbors would like in the interest of controlling "cut -through traffic" on Farwell. In talking to our Public Works & Planning Departments, I've learned what the City can and cannot do to provide the roadway conditions that will contribute to safer traffic flow. While we've been encouraged recently by the City to consider "Speed Humps," which have been demonstrated to slow down some traffic and cause vehicles to choose other arteries, most of us do not see that as a viable alternative, for the following reasons: 1. The faster one drives over speed humps, the less impact one feels (especially Targe SUVs, pick-ups, etc.) 2. Taken slowly, people with back/neck pain have more discomfort driving over them. 3. Due to the physical disruptions to roadway from raised humps extra signage & bold markings, some perceive decrease in their property values. 4. May slow response time for Fire Dept. & other emergency vehicles. 5. Vehicles may swerve towards edge to avoid hump, thus endangering people & parked vehicles. 6. Drivers often speed up between humps to make up lost time. As an alternative, I had considered requesting "Stop Signs," however the original purpose of Stop Signs was to control "right of way," not Speed; and they have been shown in numerous traffic studies to be unsuccessful in reducing speed & may actually increase danger. (e.g. "Disrupting the smooth flow of traffic increases the probability of accidents!") The single factor that might still force us to consider this alternative is that we have a major drop in elevation from Highway 9 to Fruitvale Avenue, which tends to increase the downhill speed and makes stopping more problematic in emergencies. Our primary request, therefore, in the interest of "Safety First," is to propose that the City consider the following physical alterations on Farwell: 1. Define "Center of road" and clear foliage & debris that obscures edges of pavement 2. Paint a CENTER LINE, allowing breaks for access roads. 3. Determine width of narrowest possible traffic lane and paint uniform white lines along edges (delineating the width of lane in relation to edge of road.) Advantages: The effect will be that drivers will slow down, as they maneuver perceived lanes. Construction workers may decide they cannot park just any place they want, especially not if encroaching on traffic lanes. Emergency vehicles will not be encumbered by Speed Humps & Stop Signs. Disadvantages: We would have to call attention to the Speed Limits by other means. City would need to re -paint lines every few years. This seems like a painless first step in lessening the dangers of our increased school -year traffic. We would need the help of our Sheriff's Dept. and an occasional installation of a temporary Radar Feed -back sign to make people aware of their speeds. The installation of "in -road speed signs" is still being considered by the City; however, the permanent Radar Feed -back signs will not be installed at this time, due to resident disagreement. Please note that we requested that the City allow us to install "Signs," calling attention to our problems, which they refused to allow us to do. If Residents choose to install "Signs" on their private property, (e.g. Slow Down, Caution, etc.), they would be in violation of the City's Sign Codes.... When someone complains about the signs, the City would request that the homeowner remove the signs, in compliance with the Codes. Since our Plan is to work with the City, engaging their help in controlling our Cut - Through Traffic , I would like to suggest that you take every opportunity to get to know the people at City Hall who can explain their purposes & processes. Public Works Director, John Cherbone 868-1241 icherbone@saratoga.ca.us His Assistant, Kristin Borel 868-1258 kborel@saratoga.ca.us £'beers tj 71044.1.s, Pmin.s1 Sw xnson. Danny & Bob Swanson 19616 Farwell Avenue Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3466 867-0954 danny@rspartnership.com Page 1 of 2 Kristin Borel From: John Cherbone Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:50 AM To: Kristin Borel Subject: FW: Farwell Traffic Report From: Danny Swanson [mailto:danny@rspartnership.com] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:14 PM To: 'Hari Pillai'; John Cherbone Subject: RE: Farwell Traffic Report Thank you for your input, Hari! It's so important for us to hear from every resident, regarding preferences for controlling the problem we have on Farwell. Since you live on Versailles, you may not experience the "fears & frustrations" caused by the cut -through traffic that some of the residents of Farwell do, but since you use Farwell regularly, you do understand how disruptive something like speed bumps & humps would be. We all seem to agree that increased monitoring by our Sheriff's Department would be the ideal solution, but every resident of Saratoga seems to feel that way, and unfortunately, we have very few deputies available to cover the entire city. I did ask for a commitment of one morning per week, during the worst hours of our morning school commute (7:30 to 8:30), and the Sheriff's Department has agreed to that. The worst of our problem is beginning tomorrow morning, so we'll see how successful our plan will be. The suggestion of "painted lines on the roadway" is in the interest of increased SAFETY, because, according to traffic engineers, it encourages traffic to flow in a safer manner. I wish we could do this without lines, but we haven't come up with a better solution. Again, your ideas are appreciated. Thank you for writing. C• .eers, ✓ annt, From: Hari Pillai[mailto:hari.pillai@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:45 PM To: John Cherbone; Danny Swanson Subject: Re: Farwell Traffic Report Hi John, Danny, As requested, here are my inputs. • I am totally opposed to speed bumps. I feel they spoil the rural feel of the Farwell area and they are a nuisance for the majority of law abiding people. • I definitely do not want to see more signs polluting the visual environment. I think we already have far too many of them. As an example Hwy 9 is supposed to be a scenic highway but is littered/cluttered with no parking signs and several other signs. • I am very opposed to adding permanent electronic speed monitoring signs like the ones on Saratoga -LG road (by the Village). I think they are ugly and degrade the neighborhood 8/31/2010 Page 2 of 2 making it more tacky. . I also do not support more surface markings on Farwell. This is for the same reasons as above - it detracts from the rural feel/character of the area and makes it more urban. It also is a waste of City money. • If residents want to stop contractors parking badly I think we should be able to just tell the contractors to not park badly. After all they are there working for residents. • I do not support or condone speeding and I think the 25 mile limit on Farwell is fair and appropriate. I think the solution is to have the Sheriffs Department enforce the speed limit and get the message across to speeders. It seems speeding is the primary issue we are trying to solve and I think the most effective deterrent is strong enforcement of rules that are already on the books. In summary, I think the City should ask the Sheriff's department to step up enforcement on Farwell and write a few tickets (or many) to get the message across but do nothing else. Regards, Hari Pillai 8/31/2010 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL & TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Joint Meeting Agenda DATE: October 7, 2009 TIME: 6:00 PM LOCATION: Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 AGENDA 1. Review Commission Activities 2. Review resulting actions 3. Discuss potential policy implications of trends - "Solution Creep" 4. Discuss HOA representation issues 5. Status of Oak Street Task Force and Herriman Task Force Adjournment Item 3 DATE: TIME: LOCATION: Call to Order CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL & TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Joint Meeting Agenda December 17, 2008 6:00 PM Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 11, 2008. Oral & Written Communication Any member of the public may address the Council about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. The Council may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. AGENDA 1. Traffic trends 2. Oak Street Task Force Update 3. TSC flowchart 4. Increased enforcement and radar feedback signs 5. Election of TSC Chair and Vice Chair Adjournment In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability - related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 408.868.1269 or ctclerkA`saratona.ca.us Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of material provided to the Traffic Safety Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Public Works Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the Public Works office at the time they are distributed to the Traffic Safety Commission. Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Public Works Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on December 11, 2008 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 131(/ Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. CITY OF SARATOGA City Council & Traffic Safety Commission Joint Meeting DATE: June 20, 2007 TIME: 6:00 PM LOCATION: Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Items for Discussion • Increased Traffic Enforcement • Communication with the City Council Sign Proliferation Safety vs. Quality of Life Feedback from the Council Traffic Safety Commission Work Plan For 2009 • Continue to investigate, review and analyze traffic safety issues raised by the Community • Promote education to the Community regarding traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety • Continue to refine the TSC process to find ways to improve website information and communication to the public. • Establish guidelines for Traffic Calming as needed • Review projects on the Capital Improvement Project list and prioritize for funding Public Works Department MEMO TO: Traffic Safety Commission FROM: Kristin Borel DATE: September 9, 2010 RE: Stop Sign Warrant Discussion Item 4 Here is the description that Fehr & Peers provided to the TSC in July on Stop Sign Warrants. I asked that they also develop one that is more informal, which is included below. The determination and need for the installation of a stop -sign at an unsignalized intersection is typically based on guidance from the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is based on the federal document, but refined by Caltrans for use in California. Stop -signs should be installed after a review of site conditions, and engineering judgment should be used to evaluate the location for the following conditions: • 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 • Street entering a through highway or street • Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area • High speeds, restricted view, or crash records indicate a need for control by the STOP sign The MUTCD also specifies where stop signs should NOT be used, including for speed control or on a major street unless justified by an engineering study (showing that the conditions listed above are met). They should be installed so that a minimum number of vehicles have to stop (a Yield sign may also be considered). 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: • Stopping the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes • Stopping the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds • Stopping the direction that has the longest distance of uninterrupted flow approaching the intersection • Stopping the direction that has the best sight distance to conflicting traffic A less formal version A common request to address speeding in neighborhoods is the installation of stop signs. The determination and need for the installation of a stop sign at an unsignalized intersection is typically based on guidance from the State of California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which is based on the federal document of the same name, but refined by Caltrans for use in California. Stop signs are appropriate at intersections for use in controlling traffic and defining right-of-way where vehicle or pedestrian volumes meet the minimum thresholds defined in the MUTCD. The MUTCD specifies that stop signs should NOT be used for speed control. Stop signs may seem like an easy way to reduce vehicle speeds, however, stop signs used for traffic calming can actually create a less desirable situation. Stop signs that are used as a traffic -calming measure can cause a high incidence of drivers intentionally violating the required stop condition. This puts pedestrians and cross -traffic at risk. Additionally, inappropriate stop sign installation often results in an increase in rear -end collisions. When vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is often only effective in the immediate area, since motorists will then increase their speed to make up for lost time. This can result in increased mid -block speeds. Further, stopping and starting increases braking and engine noise; thus residents living near the stop will experience an increase in traffic noise. Stopping and idling at unwarranted stop signs also increase automobile exhaust and fuel consumption unnecessarily.