Public Workshop #3

RRM Design Group
190 Foss Creek Circle, St
Healdsburg, CA 95448
P: (707) 473-0620
F: (707) 473-0625
www.rrmdesign.com
  Public Workshop #3:
Considering Alternative Concepts
Report on Results

25 April, 2005
Revised 9 May 2005

Introduction

On April 23, 2004, Lake County/City Area Planning Council in coordination with Lake County Redevelopment Agency hosted the third series of public workshops for the Highway 20 Traffic Calming and Beautification Plan. This series consisted of three separate workshops on the same date held consecutively at the Robinson Rancheria Casino in Nice, the Alpine Senior Center in Lucerne, and the Live Oak Senior Center in Clearlake Oaks. At these workshops facilitated by the consulting team of RRM Design Group (RRM) and Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc. (W-Trans), three (3) contrasting alternatives were presented envisioning three different ways of dealing with traffic volumes, turning movements, and vehicular and pedestrian safety through the corridor.

The workshops started off with introductions from Andy Peterson of the Lake County Redevelopment Agency. Andy gave some background on the project and its funding and then turned the presentation over to Demae Tillotson of RRM Design Group. Summaries of the first two workshops were given in each community followed by a brief educational presentation by Zack Mately of W-Trans. The W-Trans presentation addresses specific traffic calming devices and how they may present a benefit or a hindrance to the communities of Nice, Lucerne, and Clearlake Oaks. Round-a-bouts in particular were discussed to educate the general public on their benefits, followed by a discussion of how traffic measures can be combined for maximum effect.

Following the traffic presentation features of each alternative were displayed via a PowerPoint presentation. During and after that presentation, the consulting team responded to a number of questions regarding traffic volumes and speeds, queuing, access to businesses along the Highway 20 corridor, and concerns for pedestrian safety.

At the conclusion of the Q&A period the team handed out report cards to all attendees who were then asked to fill them out and provide qualitative input to the workshop and the planning and design process. Participants were asked to respond to four questions:

  1. Which is your preferred plan?
  2. What do you like about this plan?
  3. What don’t you like about this plan?
  4. What would you change?

Responses to Report Card Exercise


Below are the results by community:

Clearlake Oaks:

Of the 30 people who attended the session, 17 completed report cards. The results of the report card exercise are outlined in the following pages.

Clearlake Oaks Alternative One

Workshop 3 CLO Alt

Alternative One is the more minimalist option providing a lower cost option including such amenities as:

  • LED speed signs
  • 11 foot wide travel lanes
  • Dedicated left turn lanes (as opposed to continuous)
  • 6 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Highway 20 where feasible
  • Angled parking (Short to Foothill)
  • Hardscape medians (Windmill to Red & White, Foothill to Lake, Lake to Shaul, Butler to Hoover, Hoover to Keys)
  • Class 1 bike path
  • Striped crossing (Tower Mart, Windmill, Lake)
  • In ground lighted crossing (High Valley, Hoover, Red & White)
  • Striping at entry
  • Gateway elements at entries (accent planting on road side west of Island Drive east of Keys)

Clearlake Oaks Alternative Two

Workshop 3 CLO Alt2

Alternative Two focuses most of its attention on the “business core” of town between Pine and Foothill. The plan incorporates:

  • Traffic light (Keys)
  • Landscaped bulb outs (Pine, Foothill, Lake, High Valley, Hoover, Keys)
  • 10 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Highway 20 where feasible
  • Parallel parking (Short to Foothill)
  • Class 2 bike lane
  • Decorative crossings (Foothill, Lake, High Valley, Hoover, Keys)
  • Striped crossings (Pine, Tower Mart, Red & White)
  • Pedestrian islands (Tower Mart, Foothill, Lake)
  • Overhead lighted crossings (Red & White, High Valley)
  • Street trees both sides of Highway 20 (west short to Foothill)
  • Rumble strips at entry
  • Gateway arch over Highway at entry
  • Realign Island Drive (see W-Trans opps & cons)
  • Realign East Foothill Dr Intersection (see W-Trans opps & cons)

Clearlake Oaks Alternative Three

Alternative Three represents the most transformative of the three alternatives for Clearlake Oaks. The following elements are represented in this plan:  

  • Landscape round-a-bouts (Pine & Keys)
  • 10 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Highway 20 where feasible
  • Street trees both sides
  • Landscape bulb-outs (Foothill, Lake, High Valley, Hoover)
  • Landscape medians (Island to Tower, Foothill to Lake, Hoover to Keys)
  • Parallel parking both sides of Highway 20
  • Class 2 bike lanes
  • Decorative crossing (Foothill, Lake, High Valley, Hoover)
  • Striped crossing (Tower Mart, Red & White)
  • Overhead lighted crossing
  • Stone gateway arch (west of Island, east of Keys)
  • Realign Island Drive
  • Realign (slightly) Acorn Dr Intersection
  • Realign High Valley Road
  • Realign East Foothill Dr Intersection

1. Which Alternative was preferred?

While three (3) alternatives were presented, Alternative Three received the most support from the audience. Only two people preferred Alternative One, and three people supported Alternative Two. However, 16 of the participants favored Alternative Three. Eleven of the respondents declined to state a preference.

2. What was liked about the preferred plan?

The participants that favored Alternative Three were most supportive of the landscaping opportunities and sense of place created by this alternative. Contrary to the results of workshop 2 a significant number of people (5) were in support of round-a-bouts. We found that with the educational presentation done by W-Trans more people felt that round-a-bouts would work for their community.

Attendees who preferred both Alternatives One and Two did not elaborate on the aspects that they liked most about their preferred plan. Instead they discussed changes they would like to see to these plans which will be addressed in questions four.

3. What was disliked about the preferred plan?

Of those that preferred Alternative Three, two disliked the arched gateway at the entries to town. They did not appear to be against gateways but only about the arch over the Highway. LED signs and stop lights were considered ugly by a few participants. There was one suggestion to relocate the round-a-bout from Pine Street west to Island Drive. This participant was aware of the site distance issues and was hoping that they might be overcome so that Island Drive could be made safer. Unfortunately the hillside at Island Drive severely limits the site distance and restricts the ability to locate a roundabout at that intersection. Two people wanted to see the intersection at Keys Blvd. address in more detail. One was particularly concerned with access to the many businesses and potential conflicts with existing driveways that the round-a-bout might cause.

Participants that preferred Alternative Two were not supportive of stop lights and also commented that they didn’t like the gateway elements in this alternative. One person commented that they didn’t want long median strips in their preferred alternative.

Proponents of Alternative One did not list any dislikes with this alternative. With one respondent adding that they felt Alternative One could be implemented in Clearlake Oaks.

4. What would you change about your preferred plan?

Of the Alternative Three supporters, two suggested removing the round-a-bout from Pine. One of those two suggested moving it instead to Island Drive, while the other suggested closing one of the streets with an acute angle. One person suggested the use of red buds in the landscape plans for this alternative. One of the persons who had disliked the idea of the arched gateway suggested putting gateway elements at road level with this alternative.

Two of the proponents for Alternative Two would like a class one bike lane in this alternative, with one of them liking the idea of round-a-bouts at the Windmill and post office buildings for this alternative. Adding more landscaping was also a change that was requested from those preferring this alternative.

There were no comments on what could be changed about Alternative One but one of the participants added the comment that the ten foot wide sidewalks in the other two alternatives would require property owners to lose their street frontage. This statement suggests there may have been a misunderstanding in the presentation as the improvements in all alternatives are within the Highway right of way.

General Workshop Comments
In addition to the responses about the Conceptual Alternatives, ten participants had comments about the workshop and project in general. A few respondents commented that more handouts that described each alternative and element in more detail would have been helpful as well as having the information in advance of the workshop to review. Having the workshops on Saturday was important to a few of the participants who can’t make evening workshops. Two attendees were interested in receiving more detailed information regarding cost and maintenance of each of the possible solutions and one person suggested leaving Highway 20 as it is.

Lucerne:

It is important to note at the outset that while many participants in Workshop #1 were interested in seeing pedestrian crossing improvements at Lucerne Elementary, sight distance caused significant safety concerns at that location. Similarly, streets at bends in the road also had sight distance complications that prevent locating a safe crossing at those intersections. In addition, all alternatives for Lucerne attempt to work in concert with the Lucerne Promenade Plan and will continue to do so in the Refined Concept Plan.

14 people signed in at the Lucerne workshop with 12 filling out report cards. While two of those who filled out report cards did not identify a preferred plan, they did note their likes and dislikes in general terms.

Lucerne Alternative One
Lucerne Alt 1

Alternative One is the more minimalist option providing a lower cost option, using angled parking and narrower travel lanes to reduce speeds. This alternative includes such amenities as:

  • LED Speed signs at entries to town
  • 11 foot wide travel lanes
  • Dedicated left turn lanes (as opposed to continuous left turn lane)
  • 6 foot wide sidewalks where feasible on north side (promenade on south)
  • Angled parking (from 1st to 5th, and from 12th to 15th)
  • Class 1 bike lane (Lucerne Promenade provides this)
  • Striped crossing (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th,10th,13th, 16th )
  • Pedestrian islands (13th, 16th, 9th, 3rd)
  • Overhead lighted crossing (2nd, 10th)
  • Bus shelter (1st, 5th, 10th, 16th)
  • Gateway elements at entries (accent landscaping west of Foothill, east of country club)

Lucerne Alternative Two
Lucerne Alt 2

Alternative Two focuses attention on visually narrowing the entry into town between Foothill and First as well as a focus on the high collision area between Eight and Thirteenth. The plan incorporates:

  • Traffic light (at 13th)
  • 10 foot wide sidewalk north side of Highway 20 where feasible (promenade on South)
  • Medians with planting and hardscape (10th – 12th, 14th – 16th)
  • Entry median with landscaping (Foothill)
  • Parallel parking (near 13th and parks)
  • Street trees (from Foothill to 1st and along parks and 13th)
  • Class 2 bike lanes
  • Decorative crossing (1st, 3rd, 9th, 10th, 13th)
  • Striped crossing (5th, 8th, 15th)
  • In ground lighted crossing (3rd, 10th)
  • Bus shelter (1st, 5th, 10th, 15th)
  • Cobble strips at entry
  • Gateway elements at entries (public art at road sides west of Foothill, east of Country Club)

Lucerne Alternative Three 

Lucerne Alt 3
Alternative Three represents the most transformative of the three alternatives. The following elements are represented in this plan:

  • Landscape roundabouts (Foothill, 13th)
  • Landscape bulb-outs (1st, 3rd, 5th, 9th, 10th, 15th)
  • Parallel parking along both sides of Highway 20
  • 10 foot wide sidewalk north side of Highway 20 where feasible (promenade on south)
  • Class 2 bike lanes
  • Decorative crossings (1st, 3rd, 10th)
  • Striped crossings (5th, 9th, 15th)
  • Overhead lighted crossing (3rd, 5th, and 10th)
  • Stone gateway arch (west of Foothill, east of Country Club)
  • Street trees both sides of highway

1. Which Alternative was preferred?

Alternative Three was the most preferred alternative with 8 votes. Alternative Two came in second with 2 votes and while Alternative One did not get any votes in support of it there were 2 report cards that did not specify a preferred plan.

2. What was liked about the preferred plan?

Street trees and round-a-bouts were the most favored part of Alternative Three. One participant added that the parallel parking in this alternative was what they liked. Two people did not respond to the question, only noting which alternative they preferred.

Proponents of Alternative Two like the parallel parking and sidewalks on both sides of the highway. One attendee specified that they also like the class 2 bike lane, entry monument and LED signs.

3. What was disliked about the preferred plan?

Three attendees were not supportive of the gateway arch in Alternative Three, preferring gateway elements to be at road level.

Dislikes mentioned for Alternative Two was the small amount of landscaping and not having left turn lane consideration from 1st Avenue to Foothill.

4. What would you change about your preferred plan?

Of those in support of Alternative Three, two participants would like to see medians in the refined plan for Lucerne. One person suggested additional round-a-bouts at 3rd Avenue and 8th Avenue as well as using decorative paving at more intersections.

Suggested changes to Alternative Two included left turn pockets at all median islands [intersections]. Both supporters of this alternative commented on parking for this alternative.

One would like to see parallel parking throughout town (as opposed to only select locations) and the other would like off highway parking requirements to be addressed.

General Workshop Comments

There was only one general workshop comment and while not in the project area, one participant would like to see the 9th Avenue creek area turned into a park. This comment was also heard during the stakeholder interviews and has the potential to add an urban park to downtown Lucerne. There were also a few comments about holding “personal interest” questions until the end of the workshop so as not to take time away from the presentation and the Highway 20 Traffic Calming & Beautification Plan.

Nice:

Though many community residents had indicated an interest in previous workshops for a pedestrian crossing at Manzanita near the post office, site distance issues prevent a safe crossing at that location. In attempt to provide a crossing nearest the post office, all three alternatives show a mid-block cross at the World Mark site.

13 attendees signed in for Workshop #3 in Nice with 12 filling out report cards for this workshop. Two of the attendees failed to answer the questions regarding the alternatives and 4 responded with general likes and dislikes but not associated with any one alternative. 

Nice Alternative One
Nice Alt 1

Alternative One is the more minimalist option of the three providing a lower cost option, using angled parking and narrower travel lanes to help reduce speeds. This alternative includes such amenities as:

  • LED speed signs at entries to town
  • 11 foot wide travel lanes
  • Dedicated left turn lanes (as opposed to continuous left turn lanes)
  • 6 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Highway 20 where feasible
  • Angled parking (from Sayre to Crump & Howard to Hudson)
  • Class 1 bike path
  • Decorative crossings (Sayre, Howard, Hinman)
  • Striped crossings (Crump, Hudson & WorldMark)
  • Pedestrian Island s(Hudson & WorldMark)
  • Overhead lighted crossing (WorldMark because it is mid-block)
  • Bus shelter (Keeling, Hudson, E. Manzanita)
  • Gateway elements at entries (accent landscaping on side of road, striping or dots in road)

Nice Alternative Two
Nice Alt 2

Alternative Two focuses attention on visually narrowing the entry into town between Foothill and First as well as a focus on the high collision area between Eight and Thirteenth. The plan incorporates:

  • Traffic light (Sayre)
  • 10 foot wide sidewalks both sides of Highway 20 where feasible
  • Medians with planting and hardscape (Hinman park, Howard to marina grill, marina grill to Hudson, WorldMark)
  • Parallel parking (business district only)
  • Street trees both sides of Highway 20 (business district only)
  • Class 2 bike lane
  • Decorative crossings (Hinman park, Hudson)
  • Striped crossings (Howard, WorldMark, Sayre)
  • In ground lighted crossing (Hudson)
  • W. Manzanita one way (westbound)
  • Bus shelter (Keeling, Hudson, E. Manzanita)
  • Cobble strips at entries
  • Gateway monument signs and neckdowns at entries

Nice Alternative Three
Nice Alt 3

Alternative Three represents the most transformative of the three alternatives. The following elements are represented in this plan:

  • Landscape roundabout (Howard)
  • Landscape bulbouts (Sayre, Hudson, Hinman Park)
  • Landscape medians with barrier (Howard to Marina Grill, Marina grill to Benton, Benton to Hudson, Hudson to WorldMark, WorldMark to E. Manzanita)
  • 10 foot wide Sidewalks both sides of Highway 20 where feasible
  • Parallel parking both sides of Highway 20
  • Street trees both sides of Highway 20
  • Class 2 bike lanes
  • Close W. Manzanita between Howard and Highway 20
  • Decorative crossings (Hinman park, WorldMark, post office)
  • Striped crossings (Sayre, Hudson)
  • Stone gateway arch (West of Sayre, east of post office)

1. Which Alternative was preferred?

There was no clear preferred alternative in Nice. 2 people preferred Alternative One, 3 people preferred Alternative Two, 1 person preferred Alternative Three, while 4 people didn’t indicate a preferred alternative.

2. What was liked about the preferred plan?

Of those that preferred Alternative One only one person responded to this question. That person indicated that the lack of landscaping to maintain is what they liked about this alternative.

None of the people preferring Alternative Two indicated any amenities that they particularly liked.

The person who preferred Alternative Three only indicated that they liked the round-a-bout in this alternative.

3. What was disliked about the preferred plan?

For Alternative One the one attendee whom responded to this question disliked the angled parking.

Two of the proponents of Alternative Two did not like the gateway in this alternative.

The supporter of Alternative Three did not like the parallel parking in this alternative.

4. What would you change about your preferred plan?

One of the attendees that preferred Alternative One would like a round-a-bout at Howard Street, the other attendee commented that there are existing gateway signs in Nice.

Only one of the proponents of Alternative Two responded to this question suggesting that a round-a-bout should be in this alternative.

The person preferring Alternative Three would like to see hardscaped medians as opposed to landscaped medians.

General Workshop Comments

There were a number of comments that were written down that were general likes and dislikes for the Highway 20 corridor in Nice. Two attendees liked the idea of medians on the highway, one of which preferred hardscaped medians due to maintenance concerns. Concerns over the cost and maintenance of street trees were also mentioned by a participant. Another participant suggested only locating trees from Hudson to Sayre. Reducing the speed limit to 35 miles per hour through Nice was mentioned and was also a theme throughout earlier workshops as well. Gateways received a mix of suggestions: one for no gateways, one for no arched gateway over the highway, one commented that the gateway monuments were too close in, and one for entrance pillars. One participant also requested not to see changes to Triangle Park commenting that the round-a-bout would not warrant side traffic. In response to this last comment, our mapping exaggerated Triangle Park to draw attention to it and it was not intended for the round-a-bout to change Triangle Park.

Recommended Preferred Concept Improvement Program

With the results of this workshop RRM Design Group and W-Trans will prepare a more detailed and refined Concept reflecting what we feel is the desires of each community. Residents of each community will have the opportunity to once again evaluate this plan and indicate their likes, dislikes and suggested changes.

A. Features

Clearlake Oaks:
Street Trees in bulbouts
Six foot wide sidewalks
Street lights
Landscaped Roundabout
    Keys
Road realignments
    Island
    Pine
    High Valley
Parallel parking
Landscaped medians
    Island to Towermart
    Windmill to Red & White
    East Foothill to Lake
    Lake to Shaul
    Hoover to Keys
Gateway monmuments (no arch)
LED speed sighs as part of gateway
Rumble strips at gateways
Class I bike lane
Sheltered bus stops:
    Towermart
    Lake Street
    Schidler (near school)
    Keys
Decorative crossings
    Towermart
    Red & White
    East Foothill
    Lake
    High Valley
    Hoover
Pedestrian Islands
    Red & White
    High Valley
    Hoover
In ground lighted crossings
    Towermart
    Red & White
    East Foothill
    Lake
    High Valley
    Hoover
Landscaped Bulbouts
    Towermart
    Red & White
    East Foothill
    Lake
    High Valley
    Hoover
Lucerne:
Street Trees in bulbouts
Six foot wide sidewalks
Street lights
Landscaped Roundabout
    Foothill
    Thirteenth (both ends)
Parallel parking
Landscaped medians
    Third to Forth
    Sixth to Seventh
    Tenth to Eleventh
    Fourteenth to Fifteenth
    Seventeenth to Country Club
Arched Gateway
LED speed sighs as part of gateway
Rumble strips at gateways
Class II bike lane north side
Sheltered bus stops:
    First
    Fifth and Country Club
    Tenth and Country Club
    Thirteenth and Country Club
    Fifteenth and Country Club
Decorative crossings
    Foothill (part of roundabout)
    First
    Third
    Fifth
    Ninth
    Tenth
    Thirteenth (part of roundabout)
    Fifteenth
In ground lighted crossings
    Third
    Fifth
    Ninth
    Tenth
    Fifteenth
Landscaped Bulbouts
    First
    Third
    Fifth
    Ninth
    Tenth
    Fifteenth
Pedestrian Islands
    Ninth
    Tenth
Nice:
Street Trees in bulbouts
    Sayre to Hudson
Six foot wide sidewalks
Street lights
Parallel parking
Stop light at Sayre
One way (westbound) at Manzanita
Landscape & hardscape medians
    Hinman Park
    Howard to Hudson (break for Ace)
    WorldMark to Post office (break for WorldMark driveway)
Landscape at entry to town
LED speed signs as part of gateway
Rumble strips at gateway
Class II bike lane north side
Sheltered bus stops:
    Keeling
    Hudson
    WorldMark (need crossing)
Decorative crossings
    Hinman
    Howard
    Hudson
Striped Crossings
    Sayre
    WorldMark
In ground lighted crossings
    Hudson
    WorldMark
Landscaped Bulbouts
    Hinman
    Howard
    Hudson

Next Steps


RRM and W-Trans will prepare a refined concept plan that illustrates the above written programs for each community. The refined concept plan will include detailed graphics to visually describe the plan in a clear easy to read manner. A PowerPoint presentation will then be developed depicting the Preferred Concept Plan, its features and implications to show how these improvements would appear to pedestrians and/or motorists.