Loading...
1990-0628_ORANGE, COUNTY OF_Staff Memo46 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Stephen B. Julian, City Manager FROM: Bud Vokoun, Traffic Engineer June 28, 1990 SUBJECT: School Crossing Guard for Ambuehl Elementary School SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A school crossing guard study was done on April 24 and 26, 1990. The results indicate that neither of the crossings at the intersection of San Juan Creek Road and Calle Cartagena (on San Juan Creek Road east of Calle Cartagena or on Calle Cartagena south of San Juan Creek Road) meets the required traffic volumes as defined in the Caltrans Traffic Manual and City policy for Warrants for Adult Crossing Guards. Therefore, Public Works Engineering recommends not supporting the installation of a crossing guard at this time in accordance with the "Review Process for Consideration Requests for School Crossing Guards" as approved by City Council on April 5, 1983. The Traffic and Transportation Commission reviewed this item on June 13, 1990, and made a motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council for the installation of a crossing guard for Ambuehl Elementary School at the intersection of San Juan Creek Road and Calle Cartagena in that the warrants will shortly be met because of increased vehicular volumes generated by new development opening up to the east and because the 1989 speed survey is outdated. BACKGROUND In late 1989, the Capistrano Unified School District sent the City a request to study the intersection of San Juan Creek Road and Calle Cartagena for the installation of a crossing guard for Ambuehl Elementary School. The City went out to bid for the data to be collected, and then issued a work order to a traffic data collection firm. The data was collected on April 24 and 26, 1990, and is contained herein. As per the "Review Process for Consideration Requests for School Crossing Guards" as approved by City Council on April 15, 1983, and Caltrans Warrants for a crossing guard, over 300 vehicles must cross a crosswalk at an uncontrolled rural crossing for at least two separate hours in a 24-hour period. Rural is defined as a street which has an 85th percentile vehicle speed exceeding 40 mph (see attached speed limit studies in this area). The AM study indicates a vehicle volume of 259 on the 24th and 267 on the 26th. The PM study indicates a vehicle volume of 172 on the 24th and 184 on the 26th (see attached counts). All of these counts indicate a deficiency of the required 301 vehicles crossing the crosswalk for two hours in one day when school children are present. The school indicates an attendance of 96.7% on April 24 and 96% on April 26. Because of this substantial deficiency, Staff can only recommend not supporting the request for a crossing guard at this time in accordance with the "Review Process for Consideration Requests for School Crossing Guards" as approved by City Council on April 15, 1983. Stephen B. Julian • • June 28, 1990 Page 2 The School District and City Staff have met and attempted to help the internal circulation. However, because of a parking shortage and insufficient room for good circulation, many traffic problems spill out into the street. This spillover problem cannot be fully resolved until the District creates additional parking and enhances circulation. As all of this spillage is Staff/parent related, the school and PTA should continue to diligently work to gain the support and cooperation of the parents. Certainly, a major deficiency is also the fact that there is insufficient development to the east of the school site and that San Juan Creek Road does not go through - both of which would generate more traffic. Staff is more than willing to work with the District to continue to monitor the area and the traffic for future consideration. At this time, Staff recommends that parents and school staff continue to cooperate and escort children across the street as needed. A number of houses are complete or under construction to the east of the school. How quickly they are occupied will determine how fast the warrants are met. In any case, Public Works staff feels that the increased traffic will come sufficiently close to or exceed the warrants toward the end of the 1990-91 school year. It should be noted that the warrants for school flashers were met this year. Public Works staff recommended not installing the flashers as they are intended to bring attention to pass-through traffic that is unfamiliar with the area. The general nature of this area is that few drivers are not going to the school or they live in the area and, therefore, are aware of the school. Also, there are no verticle or horizontal curves of any significance, and there is little heavy truck use on this road in this area except for local construction. COMMISSION/BOARD REVIEW, RECOMMENDATIONS The Traffic and Transportation Commission reviewed this item on June 13, 1990, and made a motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council for the installation of a crossing guard for Ambuehl Elementary School at the intersection of San Juan Creek Road and Calle Cartagena in that the warrants will shortly be met because of increased vehicular volumes generated by new development opening up to the east and because the 1989 speed survey is outdated. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Costs for the crossing guard study were $845.00, plus nominal Staff time. Costs for maintaining a crossing guard is $6,000.00 annually. BJV:cl 126, Mr. Merr ade an oral kre's%s tatic• Cou Ci ar. Friess outlined s pectationsr t eproject.Approval of ro'e t Descrion: t as moved Co cilman S hwartz seconde by C ncil a us rfer to prov the gen al de ription, form d C ten for the ener Plan p gram a dio-vis 1 pr enta 'on as t for in th agenda 'tem da t d Apri 5, 198 and o estab is a arget to of ember for camp l tion the p oject. The m ion was ubsequ ntly ende to in ude a ointme of ouncilman ries to work wi h st f on e sc e of the roj ct and the ti car 'ed animou DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 1. REVIEW PROCESS TO HANDLE REQUESTS FOR SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS (78) Written Communications: Report dated April 5, 1983, from the Director of Public Works, forwarding a procedure for considering school crossing guard requests. The report advises that approval of a crossing guard request would cost approximately $5,000 per year. Approval of Procedure: It was moved by Councilman Hausdorfer, seconded by Councilman Schwartze and unanimously carried to approve the procedures set forth in the document titled "Review Process for Considering Requests for School Crossing Guards." COMMISSION% BOARDS. AOi4MITTEES 22 (67% TI1, Report ofVcti 22, 1X83, COUNC RAIL OAD ROSSI G A DEL O SPO S 8) ounci man ausdo er as ad 'sed en is ued or re it f the oa O 'spo reet at th ra road o re rt i to b submi to to Co 2. ORT ITS PAS MAYO ( ) Co ncil n F iess n ed at rt Bu heim d ast-May hwart ro ping. ing issiq�at eive6 a7►d at a-RurcrVse o derma con 'tio on el \ n an ff- enda stat is are eed of y r r inclus n the y -12- 4/5/83 AGENDA ITEM TO: Stephen B April 5, 1983 Julian, City Manager FROM: W. D. Murphy. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Review Process to Handle Requests For School Crossing Guards SITUATION The Traffic and Transportation Commission's recent review (Fall, 1982) of school zone safety adjacent to the Del Obispo/Marco Forster School has pointed out the need for a clearly defined City policy to handle requests for implementation of school crossing guards within City street right-of-ways. In recognition of this, the City Council at their December 7, 1982 meeting directed the City Manager to oversee the development of a process to handle requests for school crossing guards. Since that time staff has developed a process which has been reviewed and discussed by the Traffic Commission on two separate occasions, the most recent on March 9, 1983. The process provides for a step by step procedure that the City will be able to follow whenever school crossing guard requests are submitted for consideration. Staff also developed "The Courtesy Adult School Crossing Guard Program" (attached) which would have provided a means for the City to implement placement of an adult school crossing guard at an unwarranted location if the requesting organization fully reinbursed the City for all associated costs. However, after discussion, the Traffic Commission, by a vote of 4-0, approved a motion to deny implementation of "The Courtesy Adult School Crossing Guard Program." It was their consensus that such a program was not a necessary procedural item and therefore should not be adopted. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no immediate costs to the City associated with the proposed review process. However, as requests are received for implementation of school crossing guards in the future, staff time will be required for processing of the requests as well as a possible expenditure of City funds to implement a school crossing at a designated location. Such a cost would be in excess of $5,000 per guard per year. Review Process to Handle Requests -2- for School Crossing Guards ALTERNATE ACTIONS 1. Approve the review process. 2. Do not approve the review process. 3. Request further information from staff. April 5, 1983 RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve the "Review Process For Considering Requests for School Crossing Guards." Respectfully submitted, W.jl-) W. D. Murphy WDM:DRK/rem Attach. REVIEW PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING REQUESTS FOR SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS SUBMITTAL TO CITY OF REQUEST FOR AN ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD A. The City of San Juan Capistrano will only consider those requests for implementation of adult school crossing guards which come directly from the applicable school district headquarters, or in the case of private schools, their Board of Directors. Requests must be in writing and submitted to the City Manager's Office. 2. The request shall contain a statement delineating the financial support that the school district or Board of Directors (Private Schools) will provide to the City for implementation of an adult school crossing guard program. 3. The request must include reasons why the school district feels an adult crossing guard is warranted at a specific location. In addition, the school operation hours shall be stated as well as the specific hours when a crossing guard would be needed. 4. The school district or Board of Directors (Private Schools) shall substantiate that the location at which a crossing guard is requested lies along the "suggested safe route to school". B. The City Manager's Office shall forward valid requests to the Public Works Department for engineering analysis and Traffic and Transportation Commission agendizing. II. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF THE POSSIBLE CROSSING GUARD LOCATION A. Vehicular and pedestrian movement counts shall be performed for periods when elementary school pedestrians are present. B. A thorough field review of the area will be performed. Such items as, but not limited to: roadway curvature, width, grade, sight restrictions, and current traffic control devices will be evaluated and special problems which are unique to the location will be noted. -2- C. A review of the accident history shall be performed. D. The Sheriff's Department shall be consulted for their input on the matter. E. The "adult crossing guard warrant evaluation" form shall be completed to determine whether the standard warrants established by the California Department of Transportation are met or not. F. An agenda item summarizing the results of the engineering analysis shall be prepared for the Traffic and Transportation Commission's consideration. III. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEWS THE REQUEST A. The appropriate individuals shall be notified of the. Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting. B. A Staff Report shall be presented at the meeting. 1. The Report shall summarize the findings of the engineering analysis. 2. The Report shall make a specific recommendation concerning the need for an adult'school crossing guard. 3. The Report shall make other recommendations if needed, -concerning improvements to such items as existing traffic control devices. C. Public Testimony shall be taken on the issue. D. The Commission shall consider the issues and shall recommend to the City Council whether the request should be either approved or denied. IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISION A. The City Council shall be notified of the Traffic and Transportation Commission's recommendation on the matter and shall consider the recommendation along with a report from the City Manager concerning necessary appropriations and budget amendments. B. The School District or Board of Directors (Private Schools) shall be notified of the City's decision on the request. C. If the request is approved, the City, in conjunction with the Orange County Sheriff's Department shall implement an adult crossing guard program at the specified location.