Title
Uphold the Public Works Director’s Decision to Remove One Parking Space at the Corner of Walnut Street at San Antonio Avenue to improve intersection visibility and safety
Body
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Transportation Commission
From: Scott Wikstrom, City Engineer
BACKGROUND
On August 23, 2017, staff received a request to paint red curbs at the intersection of Walnut Street and San Antonio Avenue in order to improve visibility. Staff reviewed this item, and on January 17, 2019, staff sent a notice to residents, within a 300 foot radius of the intersection, requesting comments on the City’s proposal to paint red curb and remove one parking space each on the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection.
Staff reviewed the comments submitted and based on engineering analysis with consideration to those comments, staff determined to move forward with the planned improvements. Per Alameda Municipal Codes (AMC) 8-1.3, 8-1.2, 8-7.1, and 8-8.5 (Exhibit 1), staff was required to notice decisions that result in a loss of parking (items 1 and 3) and allow for an appeal period.
On March 6, 2019, Mr. Steven Mack and Ms. Mary Fisher submitted an appeal (Exhibit 2) to the planned painting of red curb and loss of one parking stall on the southwest corner of the San Antonio Avenue and Walnut Street intersection. In accordance with the AMC, the appeal is brought to the Transportation Commission for a hearing.
Existing Conditions
The Walnut Street and San Antonio Avenue intersection is a two-way stop controlled intersection with the stops located on San Antonio Avenue and uncontrolled movement on Walnut Street. Walnut Street is a narrow roadway and parking is only allowed on the west side (southbound direction) of the street. Parking is currently allowed on Walnut Street up to the curb return at the northwest corner and to within 5 feet of the curb return at the southwest corner. Painting red curb on Walnut Street would increase visibility for motorists on San Antonio prior to entering the intersection and increase safety at the intersection.
Previous City Actions
In 2012, staff reviewed a request to install an all-way stop at the subject intersection. The intersection did not meet the warrants established by the California Department of Transportation in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. During that review, staff determined that visibility could be improved, and that would be a suitable improvement in lieu of an all-way stop.
The proposal at that time, was to remove one parking space on the southwest corner. This corner was chosen due to staff’s collision analysis. This three year analysis found two collisions - both of which involved eastbound and northbound vehicles. The proposal to remove parking on the southwest corner was a response to this trend.
Public feedback did not support the parking removal, and at that time, the City’s policy was to balance parking and safety. So, staff recommended to paint nine feet of red curb, which, by staff calculations, would not have resulted in a loss of parking. Nonetheless, Mr. Mack appealed the decision. He stated that the red curb would not improve visibility and it would result in the loss of one parking space. In order to balance parking and visibility, the Public Works Director and appellant reached a compromise of five feet of red curb on Walnut Street at the southwest corner.
Recent Council Direction
In May of 2019, in order to advance the City’s efforts towards Vision Zero, City Council directed staff to develop and establish the Policy for Improvements to Visibility (Exhibit 3). City Council also directed staff to evaluate current processes and provide options on how to further advance Vision Zero - prioritizing safety over parking.
On July 2, 2019, staff presented City Council with changes to the AMC, making these types of decisions non-appealable, which made safety, specifically daylighting, easier to implement. On July 16, 2019, City Council unanimously approved these changes which went into effect 30 days after the decision. The policy establishes that, 1) safety is the absolute, primary priority; and 2) although secondary, parking should be removed with care, consideration, and proper justification.
DISCUSSION
Staff has recommended the following improvements at the intersection of Walnut Street and San Antonio Avenue:
1. Northwest corner on Walnut Street, add red curb and remove one parking space;
2. Northwest corner on Walnut Street, install signs that limit the height of parked vehicles to 6 feet tall for the three parking spaces closest to the corner;
3. Southwest corner on Walnut Street, add red curb and remove one parking space;
4. Southwest corner on Walnut Street, install signs that limit the height of parked vehicles to 6 feet tall for the two parking spaces closest to the corner; and
5. San Antonio Avenue corners, paint red curb without removing parking.
Staff received a total of 8 responses to the notifications sent to residents within 300 feet of the intersection. A summary of the responses is included in Table 1. Based on engineering analysis with consideration to those comments, staff determined to move forward with the planned improvements. At that time, per Alameda Municipal Codes (AMC) 8-1.3, 8-1.2, 8-7.1, and 8-8.5 (Exhibit 1), staff was required to notice decisions that result in a loss of parking (items 1 and 3) and allow for an appeal period.
Table 1. Summary of Submitted Comments
|
# |
Planned Improvements |
Support |
Opposed |
|
1 |
NW corner, remove one parking space |
4 |
4 |
|
2 |
NW corner, install signs that limit the height of parked vehicles to 6 feet tall for the three remaining parking spaces |
4 |
1 |
|
3 |
SW corner, remove one parking space |
4 |
4 |
|
4 |
SW corner, install signs that limit the height of parked vehicles to 6 feet tall for the two remaining parking spaces |
4 |
1 |
|
5 |
Other corners, paint red curb without removing parking |
4 |
0 |
On March 6, 2019, Mr. Steven Mack and Ms. Mary Fisher submitted an appeal (Exhibit 2) to planned improvement #3. Their reasons are:
1. Parking impacts
2. Additional impacts to parking with respect to a red curb painting in 2012
3. No measurable impact from the 2012 red curb painting
4. Collisions are due to speeding, not visibility
5. No changes to their previously observed traffic patterns and Planned Improvement #3 would not improve the visibility of southbound motorists.
6. Making on-street parking more difficult for working families is not the best way to maintain visibility and promoting public safety.
Basis for Appeal #1. Parking impacts
“Our home is very close to the space proposed for removal and we will be directly impacted by this decision. Parking is only allowed on one side of Walnut Street, and our driveway is the closest to San Antonio Avenue on the side of Walnut Street where parking is available, with approximately 65 feet between our driveway and the corner curb-cut at the intersection.
There are at least 19 (single- and multi-unit) dwellings that need parking on our street, and most of the families on our street drive two vehicles. Our section of Walnut Street is two blocks from Alameda High School, and AHS students park on our street during the day. When we purchased our home on Walnut Street in 2010, 12 vehicles could park on our block.”
As of July 16, 2019, City Council prioritized safety over parking. The appellants’ (as well as nearby residents’) parking may be impacted, but the safety of any road user (pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorist), who may or may not be from this neighborhood, far outweigh the value of any parking space.
Basis for Appeal #2. Additional impacts to parking with respect to a red curb painting in 2012
“In 2012, the [Public Works Department] installed five feet of red curb at the southwest corner of the intersection for the purpose of improving visibility.”
“This installation removed one of the four functional parking spaces between our home and San Antonio Avenue. Recommendation #3 would effectively eliminate a second functional parking space, leaving space for only ten vehicles on our block.”
In 2012 staff originally proposed the removal of one parking space in order to improve visibility. Based on neighborhood feedback, staff reduced the recommendation to nine feet of red curb. Mr. Mack appealed that recommendation resulting in five feet of red curb. The final decision was ultimately a compromise to maintain parking, which is counterproductive to visibility improvements.
When evaluating parking impacts, staff relies on engineering standards for parking space lengths and determines the integer number of parking spaces between an intersection and the nearest residential driveway. This approach is similar to that used when parking T’s are requested on a residential street. Using this methodology the five feet of red curb painted in 2012 did not remove a parking space. By extension, the current recommendation to paint a total 27 feet of red curb at the southwest corner would result in a first parking space removal, not a second.
Basis for Appeal #3. No measurable impact from the 2012 red curb painting
“The installation of five feet of red curb in 2012 has not had a measurable impact on vehicular safety, which we assume is why these five new improvements have been proposed.”
The appellants’ statement is correct. The 2012 compromise reached for a diminished length of red curb is not sufficient for proper intersection visibility. These appeals are the reason why we continue to revisit the recommendation to remove one parking space.
Basis of Appeal #4. Collisions are due to speeding not visibility
“[T]he many accidents that have occurred over the last seven years have been primarily due to speeding, and not necessarily to a lack of visibility.”
Staff reviewed all of the collisions occurring since January 2012 found five (Table 2). All five of these collisions were categorized as broadside and the primary collision factors (PCF) were either failing to yield to oncoming traffic or not stopping at a stop sign. The only report that indicated unsafe speed was from 2012. The officer mentions unsafe speed as an associated factor, but not a PCF.
Table 2. Collision Analysis (January 2012 through May 2019)
|
Date |
Notes |
NB & WB |
NB & EB |
SB & WB |
SB & EB |
|
1/12/12 |
Broadside. WB right turn, NB straight |
X |
|
|
|
|
8/24/13 |
Broadside. EB straight, NB straight |
|
X |
|
|
|
5/1/16 |
Broadside. EB straight, SB straight |
|
|
|
X |
|
11/13/16 |
Broadside. EB straight, NB straight |
|
X |
|
|
|
2/1/19 |
Broadside. WB left turn, NB straight |
X |
|
|
|
Basis of Appeal #5. No changes to their previously observed traffic patterns and Planned Improvement #3 would not improve the visibility of southbound motorists
“In 2012, we timed the vehicles traversing Walnut Street between Encinal Avenue and San Jose Avenue and concluded that improved visibility was more important for vehicles traveling south than for vehicles traveling north.”
Appellants cite their 2012 speed study and findings. Appellants also reference a traffic study that the City performed, agreeing with theirs.
“In the seven years that have passed since we performed this study, we have not observed a change in this pattern; most of the speeding traffic on Walnut Street is southbound. The visibility of our intersection to southbound drivers will not be improved by removing additional parking on the southwest corner.”
Regarding the appellants’ 2012 speed study and findings, without understanding the specific methods of their data collection, staff cannot confirm whether the data is correct or not. However, their bar graphs seem incorrect as they show an upward trend. Bar graphs for speeds are usually bell-shaped, which reflect standard human behavior. The appellants also cite a traffic study by the City, affirming their findings. However, staff was unable to find any speed study from 2012.
Since 2012, four of the five collisions involved northbound travelling vehicles. Therefore, it is appropriate to focus on increased visibility for the southwest corner.
Basis of Appeal #6. Making on-street parking more difficult for working families is not the best way to maintain visibility and promoting public safety.
“We are concerned about maintaining visibility and promoting public safety. However we don’t think that making on-street parking more difficult for working families is the best way to achieve these goals.”
Working families and children throughout the City use this intersection. Staff’s intention is to improve the visibility and safety at this intersection for all users. The visibility of school aged children is of particular importance as they are easily obstructed by a parked vehicle (for example) on the southwest corner to a northbound motorist. In addition, per City Council direction, the City has prioritized the safety of all users of the street above parking.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Curb painting is programmed into the Public Works Department’s normal maintenance costs.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFRENCE
The recommendation is in conformance with City Council’s direction, which resulted in the revisions of AMC 8-1.2 and 8-8.5 (Exhibit 1) as well as the establishment of the Policy for Improvements to Visibility (Exhibit 3).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) Existing Facilities (Minor alterations to existing facilities).
RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the Public Works Director’s decision to remove one parking space to improve visibility, i.e. deny the appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott Wikstrom, City Engineer
Exhibits:
1. Alameda Municipal Codes
2. Appeal Submittal
3. Policy for Improvements to Visibility