City of Homer Master Roads and Streets Plan

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

MASTER PLAN
FOR
ROADS AND STREETS

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CETQTT'E-Q,

A L. ASK P'@-

lWarch 31, j964

HE
356.5
H66
C56 PREPARED BY:
1984
CITY OF HOMER - ENGINEERING DEPT.

CITY OF HOMER - DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DOWL ENGINEERS

DECEMBER,1984

CITY OF HOMER
MASTER 9(YADS AND STREETS PLAN

December, 1984

Prepared by:

City of Homer Engineering Department
City of Homer Department of Community Development
Dowl Engineers

The preparation of this document was financed in whole or in part
by funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as
amended, administered by the office of Coastal Zone Management,
National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, and administered by the Division of Local Government
Assistance, Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.

PREFACE

This report, written in 1984-85, presents a master plan for
the integrated and rational development of Homer's roads and
streets system.

In its definitive form, it is a single map covering the
corporate limits of the city of Homer and graphically
depicting the routes of existing and proposed future
arterials! collector streets and local service roads. In its
broader context, it examines the physical needs and
deficiencies of the existing transportation system, proposes
alternatives, and outlines a set of policy and capital project
programming recommendations to implement the plan. Its
success is predicated upon the accuracy of the plan's
perceptions of future development trends, existing street
problems, future transportation needs, and, upon the
application of sound transportation planning and management
principles.

Homer's roads and streets, both existing and proposed, are
products of, and operators upon, the larger community
environment. The expansion of the roads and streets system
should be viewed in relation to the physical needs of the
existing system and as part of the overall community's
development needs. The 1980's represent a transitional growth
period for Homer. Rural settings are being replaced with
suburban development. Country roads, once adequate for low
volume traffic, are now impacted with commuter traffic. Core
commercial roads which were never designed and constructed to
urban standards are carrying in excess of 8,000 vehicles per
day. The situation of Homer's street system must be brought
into focus with the dynamic growth situation of Homer also in
clear view.

Originally, this Master Roads and Streets Plan was conceived
as a physical facilities plan to augment the 1979 Master Roads
and Streets Plan (Silvers Engineering) . It was to include
preliminary engineering and plan and profiles of roads
proposed in the 1979 report. Immediately, it became apparent
that such a project could not be undertaken without a
concomitant re-evaluation of the community's growth patterns
and existing system's deficiencies.

This plan presents revised and updated inventory data
necessary for rational decision-making. Hopefully, the plan
and its recommendations will generate serious discussion on
the very nature of the issues, problems and opportunities
facing Homer as it develops its road transportation network.

MASTER ROADS AND STREETS PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Preface
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables iv

Executive Summary 1

Chapter.One: Background for Planning 5

Chapter Two: Introduction 12

Chapter Three: Survey of Existing conditions 14

Chapter Four: Problem Areas 23

Chapter Five: Policy and Practice Inventory 30

Chapter Six: Issues and Problems Identification 61

Chapter Seven: Functional Classification System 76

Chapter Eight: Project Recommendations 90

Chapter Nine: Policy Recommendations 97

Chapter Ten: Implementation Measures 104

APPENDICES

1. Traffic Counts 108
2. Road and Street Design Criteria Comparison 112
3 Proposed Street Design & Construction Standards
Ordinances 114

I
I iii
I LIST OF FIGURES
I Figure Number Figure page
1 1 Master Plan 3
1 2 vicinity map 6
1 3 Zoning map 39
1

I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I

LIST OF TABLES

Table Number Table Pacfe

Past and Projected Population
Trends 10

2 Economic Data 11

3 Accident Summary 18,19

4 Functional Classification -
Existing Streets 81-83

5 Proposed Functional Classification
Design Standards 86

SUMMARY,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Master Roads and Streets Plan was prepared to supply
the necessary background data to recommend improvements,
management, and expansion of the street system. The Plan
contains specific project recommendations, policy
recommendations and a Master Plan Map which classifies each
street in the system as to its function and ultimate design
standard. Adoption and implementation of this plan will
direct government and individuals' actions along a planned
course of street development, which will ultimately produce
an integrated and functioning street system.

As demonstrated in the text of the plan, the condition of
the Homer street system is clearly the result of many,
individuals' and governments' past -and current policy
decisions and, practices. By continuing. to allow the
construction of substandard streets and driveways in public
rights-of-way, and by ignoring' the impact of increased
traf f ic volumes on ex isting . streets, the City is assuming
an enormous financial and safety liability.

Substandard streets will eventually become the future road
network for the City. And public pressure to "do something
about" the deficiencies will, more than likely, increase.
The solution is to stop the 'proliferation of the problems
and begin to correct the deficiencies on the existing
streets.

In order to stop the proliferation of substandard streets,
draft ordinances, contained in Appendix 3, were prepared and
are recommended for adoption by the City Council. These
ordinances are currently undergoing review. Passage will
guarantee that no more substandard streets will be allowed
to be built within subdivisions. Streets will have to be
built to a specified City standard. @ These "standards" are
not out-of-line with how roads need to be built to withstand
the soil conditions, topography and drainage of the area.
Paving is not a requirement; but the plan does recommend
that paving begin on arterial 'and collector streets. This
recommendation is made because gravel roads are uneconomical
and unsuitable for urban areas where increaseed traffic
volumes contribute to road surface degradation.

Homer's traffic volumes are far in excess of the norm for
gravel roads. According to Oglesby in Highway Engineerin
4th Ed. (Wiley 1982): "The upper lim .it of traffic volumes
for which untreated (gravel or crushed roc,k) road surfaces
are economical varies, but is low; possibly in the range of.
100 to 250 vehicles per day when vehicle operating costs are
considered."

By comparison, Ben Walters Lane had 744 average daily
traffic volumes (ADT) in the summer of 1984.; East Hill Road
had 1000 ADT; Fairview Avenue had 830 ADT; Kachemak Bay
Drive had 2000 ADT; Kachemak Way (south of Pioneer Avenue)
had 1731 ADT; and Main Street had 1708 ADT. All these roads
are gravel surfaced.

Stopping the proliferation of substandard streets in Homer
will only solve part of the street system's problems.
Correcting the deficiencies on the existing streets is also
essential. As the plan points out in Chapters 3 - 5 nearly
all the arterials,, collectors and local service roads have
problems. Major intersections, such as: Homer Bypass and
Lake Street; Pioneer Avenue and Main Street; Pioneer Avenue
and Lake Street; Fairview Avenue and Hohe Street; are unsafe
and, poorly defined. Streets functioning as arterials do not
have any access control, thereby reducing their
effectiveness. Few streets have sidewalks and most road
prisms are too narrow to safely accommodate both pedestrians
and vehicles.

Th e existing problems occur, and will continue, because
neither regulations nor@ enforcement nor funding has kept
current with Homer's rapid development.

By adopting a Master Plan for street development, the City
can begin corrective measures. The master plan map for roads
and streets, Figure 1, represents the visual plan for the
road system for Homer. The map is basically a modification
and refinement of the 1979 Master Roads and Street Plan
(Silvers Engineering). It identifies by functional
classification the existing road rights-of-way and proposed
future corridors. The functional classification of
arterial/collector/local service roads is,used in this plan.
.Where existing roads now function on a different level of
service, they will need to be brought into compliance with
the plan.

The map accommodates two levels of planning: system-wide
planning and localized planning. On a system-wide basis
the map reflects the routes needed to provide travel
continuity, efficiency and corridors for movement. it
attempts to avoid concentrating additional traffic on
existing congested streets. Planned route extensions were
chosen to complement the upgrade of existing roads.

On a, localized level the plan recommends specific route
selections. Design criteria for intersection spacing, curve
radii, topographic constraints, land use, and sight
distances were used to determine the best route. Where
preliminary engineering has been performed for selected
roads, the route is generally established. As part of this
plan, preliminary engineering had been done for Fairview
Avenue (west extension), Grubstake Avenue, Svedlund Street,

Bayview Avenue exter d,Beluga Lake North Shore Road.
In other cases where detailed engineering is lacking,
additional analysis will be necessary.

The' natural tendency of a community to concentrate on
existing road upgrades, to the exclusion of new road
construction, is counter-productive and ineffective. New
roads may be necessary to improve mobility or alleviate
traffic volumes on congested streets. Both levels of
improvements are necessary to achieve an operable
transportation network.

In order to plan and phase the necessary improvements for
the street system, a capital budgeting program should be
established. This program would phase right-of-way
acquisition costs, with construction costs based on the
classification of the road and the appropriate cost-sharing
mechanism. The plan recommends that a criteria-based
ranking system be established which would determine the
phasing of long-range improvements. Need and the
willingness of property owners to participate in road
improvements should be weighed heavily in any ranking
system.

The plan also recommends that roads be built concurrently
with water and sewer extensions since these improvements
encourage development and increase traffic loads on the
road. It is also recommended that sidewalks and/or bike
paths be built concurrently with arterial or collector
street upgrades or extensions.

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER ONE - BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING

Political Environment

The City of Homer is a f irst class city organized pursuant to
Alaskan Statute Title 29 under a council-manager form of
government. Homer was incorporated on March 31, 1964. Powers
exercised by the City include police, water and sewer
utilitiest roads, port and harbor, zoning, parks and
recreation, library and a volunteer fire department.

Homer is also included as a unit of government within the
Kenai Peninsula Borough, an organized, second class borough.
The Borough has assumed four area-wide powers: assessment and
taxes; education; planning, zoning and platting; and solid
waste collection.

There is also one special service area, the South Kenai
Peninsula Hospital Service Area.

Physical Environment

Topography.

The city limits encompass an area of approximately 6,400
acres, or 10 square miles, located on the north. shore of
Kachemak Bay on the southern Kenai Peninsula, see Vicinity
Map, Figure 2. City development has occurred on a natural
bench below a steep escarpment known as Diamond Ridge. This
bench area is characterized by a man-made lake (Beluga Lake) ,
wetland areas, low knolls and hummocks, tidal flats, and-major
drainages and minor gullies. The Homer Spit, a natural sand
spit, protrudes from this bench area approximately 4.5 miles
into Kachemak Bay. The City's topography extends from sea
level (Homer Spit) to approximately 1,000 feet elevation
(Diamond Ridge) . Most of the City's core development is
between 70 to 400 feet elevation.

The net effect of these major topographic features is to
constrain development in a linear east-west direction, and to
also provide an opportunity for natural segregation of
incompatible land uses. Industrial areas are concentrated
around the Homer airport and Beluga Lake (a float plane
facility). The Homer Spit houses the port, harbor, marine
industrial and marine commercial uses. Retail commercial and
residential areas are stratified along the bluff Is f ootslope
with, residential sites occupying the elevated "view"
properties.

...........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corporate i
Li ts,

j
.............. .
5 1 15
LIMIT OF STUDY AREA
N.- r Aorner
FAA

sts

LA
21 -:"Uke
Homer
19 Mnicipal T.V . ......... ...
'er
V4
FAA SRA
St.
Lakt 1,P I T
@j
lip

8 4W
29 ..

...........

ALASKA 7

0 2 Miles Archi-8ndrifof "Is
City of
Homer Scale in Feet:
FIGURE 2
LOCATION MAP

Geology.

Homer's topographic features are a result of the area's
geologic history which has been marked by repeated glaciation,
seismic activity, volcanic ash depositism, erosion and
sedimentation. The underlying geology of the entire area is
known as the Kenai Formation, a layer of sand, silt, clay,
sandstone, shale and conglomerates interbedded with lignite
coal, to a depth of 10,000 feet. Knowledge of the subsurface
rock strata and glacial deposits is important in the planning
process as subsurface features provide a method of cleansing
waste deposits, support heavy construction activity, and are a
source of water and mineral deposits. Structural damage to
roadways and buildings can result from improper use or
disregard of subsurface geology.

soils.

The major soil types overlaying the Kenai Formation are the
Beluga soil series and the Kachemak soil series. The bluff
areas are composed of the Kachemak soils with the top 20 to 30
inches comprised of volcanic ash deposits. The footslopes
below the 400 foot elevation are of Beluga series, comprised
mainly of glacial fill, clay, lake sediments, glacial outwash
and colluvium.

Less prevalent soils scattered throughout the bench area
include Mutnala soils, tidal silt and beach deposits, morainal
deposits, a combination of Mutnala-Beluga soils, and peat
deposits.

From an engineering and construction standpoint, the soils in
the Homer area are considered marginal to poor with low shear
strength and high frost susceptibility. The groundwater table
tends to be close to the surface in almost all areas, causing
soil saturation and further reducing bearing capacity.
Development is therefore dependent on drainage of the native
soils, and importation of sandy gravels. The nearest quality
gravel pits are located a haul distance of approximately 10 to
15 miles from Homer.

Drainage.

Homer's drainage flows in a north-to-south direction, via both
surface runoff and groundwater seepage, terminating in
Kachemak Bay.

The largest drainageways are Bidarki Creek (a/k/a Coal Creek),
located west of West Hill Road; Woodard Creek (a/k/a Woodward
Creek) , located west of Bartlett Street; and Palmer Creek
(a/k/a Bear Creek or Nordby Creek), which is east of the
Cooper Subdivision area. Each of these creeks has gouged
large canyons into Diamond Ridge. Woodard Creek and Palmer

Creek have repeatedly flooded, demonstrating their capacity to
cause property damage.

Numerous other smaller drainages emerge as seepage from bluf f
areas, cut rills or gullies, and cross the footslopes. This
downslope drainage may take many forms, either as "sheet"
drainage, open channel flow, or infiltration and seepage.
There are also open drainageways which at low elevations
burrow beneath the vegetative layer such that they disappear
and "flow underground".

Much of Romer is considered wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and is subject to permit review under the River and
Harbor Act; Clean Water Act; and Marine, Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act. The largest single wetlands complex is
the Beluga Lake area, including the Palmer Creek flats which
feed into Beluga Lake; and the Beluga tidal flats, the outlet
of Beluga Lake.

Vegetation.

The four major vegetative zones in Homer are dune and beach
grass; fresh water marsh and muskeg; sitka spruce forest; and
native grasslands. This cover material is important in
stabilizing the shoreline and bluff, preventing soil erosion,
providing wildlife habitat and contributing to scenic
amenities.

Climate.

Homer's climate, classified as "maritime" by the Natural
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is among the mildest
in Southcentral Alaska. Because the area is protected by
surrounding mountain ranges, the average annual precipitation
of 24 inches is well below the other Alaskan maritime coastal
communities. The average annual snowfall is from 5 to 24
inches at sea level, but increases dramatically to 105 inches
(average) at the 1,000 foot elevation of Diamond Ridge.

Temperatures are moderate for Alaska. The coldest month of
the-year is January, with a mean temperature of 21OF; the
warmest months. are July and August with mean temperatures of
520F. During severe winters the soils can freeze to depths of
7 feet, though generally freeze depth is limited to 4-5 feet.
The air freezing index (which is used to calculate frost
penetration in designing embankment structures) is 1,750 to
1,820 frost degree days.

Spring "break-up" usually occurs from mid-April to mid-May,
with heavy surface run-off continuing until late May. Break-
up is a poor construction period due to soil saturation and
truckload limits on local roads.

Social Environment

The north shore of Kachemak Bay was settled by coal
prospectors beginning in the 18001s. As coal mining
diminished in the early 1900's, subsistence homesteaders and
fishermen slowly began to develop the area. By 1964, when the
city was incorporated, there were estimated to be
approximately 800 residents. Growth accelerated during the
1970's spurred in part by the Trans-Alaskan Oil Pipeline
construction so that by 1980 there were 2,209 residents. The
most recent population survey estimates 3,432 people in the
city for an average annual growth rate from 1970-1980 of
10.4%, see Table 1.

Homer also serves as a regional trade and service center for a
service area of approximately 50 square miles. As can be seen
in Table 1, the population base in this area has also been
increasing rapidly. Combining the area's population counts
with the city's population reveals that the City services over
6,000 residents.

The Homer Comprehensive Plan (1983) prepared future population
projections for Homer and the surrounding area; Table 1. The
Comprehensive Plan proposed low, intermediate and high
projections based on different growth rates. The intermediate
projection, which uses a 7.5% growth rate to 1985, 6.5% to
1990 and 5.5% thereafter, is used for this study. Increases
are projected to triple the population over the next two
decades, to 9,400 people in the city and 18,200 for the entire
area.

Economic Environment

Homer's economic base is a combination of activities that
draws income into the city (basic income) or recycles it
through respending (non-basic income). As Homer's economy has
matured with the expansion of the services and trade sector,
more and more money is being respent locally creating a
healthy diversified economic base.
Tn the past the fishing industry has generated most of Homer's
income. Even today, fishing comprises 43% of the basic source
of income; see Table 2. Government spending -represents the
second highest basic source of income, 27%. Sales to
nonresidents and tourism represent the next highest sources of
new income to Homer.

Non-basic income is lead by the retail and wholesale trade
sector. Transportation is the next highest industry recycling
money in the economy.

Economic projections prepared by the 1983 Comprehensive Plan
anticipate growth in the manufacturing, transportation, retail
and service sector and business industry.

TABLE 1

Past Population Trends in the City of Homer
and Surrounding Area*

City of Homer Surrounding Total Homer
Area Area

Annual Annual Annual
Growth Growth Growth
Rate Rate Rate

1964 Approx. 800 N/A N/A N/A
1970 1,083 2.1% N/A N/A N/A
1980 2,209 10.4% N/A N/A N/A
1982 2,897 15.6% 2,069 N/A 4,966 N/A
1984 3,432 9.2% 2,837 13.5% 6,269 10.4%

Surrounding area comprises Diamond Ridge and Fritz C reek.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska
Department of Labor

Projected Population Growth Trends in the City of Homer
and Surrounding Areas

Surrounding Total Homer
City Area Area

1985 3,400 2,800 6,200

1995 6,200 5,600 11,800

21100 8,100 7,500 15,600

2005 9,400 8,800 18,200

*Surrounding area comprises Fritz Creek and Diamond Creek election
precincts.

Source: Homer Comprehensive Plan 1983, Pacific Rim Planners &
Engineers, Intermediate Projection

Table 2

Homer's Economic Base
(Xajor Sources of Basic Income)
Xillions of 1980 Dollars

Percent
Dollars of total-

Fish & Fish Processing (1) $42.0 42.9%

Federal Government (2) $13.7 13.0%

Other Sales to Non-residents (3) $10.7 10.9%

Tourists & Other Visitors $10.5 10.7%

State Government (4) $ 7.7 7.9%

Household Income Earned Outside
of Homer (5) $ 6.5 6.6%

Local Government (6) $ 5.0 5.1%

Contract Construction $ 1.9 1.9%

TOTALS $98.0 100.0%

NOTES;
1. Figures revised to avoid double counting of sales
revenues
2. Direct spending by Federal agencies, including Post
Office and Coast Guard.
3. Principally sales to Anchor Point, Seldovia, English
Bay, Port Graham, and Halibut Cove residents and
businesses.
4. Direct spending by State agencies.
5. Primarily pensions, investments, and outside wage and
salary earnings.
6. Includes spending by Borough and local spending financed
by grants.

Source: Pacific Rim Planners & Engineers, Olympic Assoc.
Co.

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER TWO - INTRODUCTION

Purpose, Scope and Methodology.

The goal of this plan is to present data sufficient to provide
a rational basis for improving, managing and expanding the
Homer street system. The products of this plan are inventory
data, policy recommendations, a revised master plan for
arterials and collectors, and implementation proposals.

The boundaries of the study area are the corporate limits of
the City. While the effects of the traffic influx into and
out of Homer were not ignored, any improvements for outside
the city limits are beyond the scope of this plan. The
planning period under consideration is a twenty year time
frame.

As a prerequisite to this study, it was necessary to examine
the existing street infrastructure and re-examine the 1979
Master Roads and Streets Plan's recommended extensions.
Analysis of the data was based on perceived needs of the
community's transportation network within the framework of
recent and proposed land use patterns which ultimately
determine travel patterns

Nature of Street System

The City of Homer is experiencing a period of rapid population
growth. Its growth rate, of approximately ten percent per
year, sustained over the past decade, makes this the greatest
period of development in its history. This growth is
transforming Homer from a remote rural settlement into a
regional economic center. The impact on its public facilities
infrastructure is exacting; with the most poignant and
difficult infrastructure problem being the City's roads and
streets system. Amidst the increasing development pressure
and rising community expectations for better roads, is the
need for a well-integrated and well-constructed transportation
system.

In order to give an insight into Homer's needs, it is
necessary to examine the nature and function of street
systems. The common perception is that streets exist
primarily to serve two functions: travel between destinations
(mobility) and access to properties. To some degree these two
functions lack compatibility. The access function provides
the tie-in of streets with land use on abutting property,
while the mobility function allows traffic emerging from
properties to travel over extended distances to different
destinations; ideally, with minimal interference and at
maximum design speed.

In the way that the network serves these functions, it also
defines the design of the road. Lane widths, type of
surfacing, geometric elements such as grades and curvatures,
driveway and intersection spacing are all reflected in design.
Additionally, physical constraints, such as the bearing
capacity, frost susceptibility, and groundwater table
influence design.

Elements extraneous to the vehicular travelled way, such as
water, sewer, telephone and electric must also be accormodated'
in the design aspect of many streets. . Miscellaneous other
features may be present in the border area between the
roadway's edge and the abutting property line, such as curbs
and gutters, ditches, driveways, street lights, fire hydrants
and guardrails. Street rights-of-way also transmit, in
addition to vehicular traffic, pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

All these diverse demands demonstrate that streets are
infrastructure spines as well as conduits for motorized and
non-motorized traffic. Thus, there is a great deal of
planning necessary to ensure that warranted improvements are
included at the design and construction phases. This
intertwine of elements is the essence of the design process
which calls upon engineers, planners, developers, financiers
and others to carefully craft plans and consider the streets
as segments in relation to the whole system.

CHAPTER3

CHAPTER THREE - SURVEY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

Roads and Streets - General Situation

Perhaps the most striking f eature of the Homer street system
to the casual observer is the prevalence of unpaved roads.
While most of Homer's major arterials are now paved, almost
every side street is gravel. The road base and surf ace for
these side streets consist of gravel, sand or native material.
The quality of these road types is variable. In 1985 there
are estimated to be 40.5 miles of streets within the city
limitsf exclusive of private drives. The acceptance of these
roadways by the City for maintenance, upgrade and repair is
dependent on past policy decisions and current voluntary
construction standards. The City does not require subdividers
and developers to construct dedicated road rights-of-way at
the time of subdivision development. The result -of this
policy is that Homer has nearly one quarter of its road system
only minimally maintained or not maintained by the City. the
City fully maintains approximately 13.25 miles of streets. An
additional 5 miles gets only winter maintenance of
snowplowing. And, 4 miles of roads get no maintenance at all.

Arterial Streets

The bulk of maintained roads in Homer are those that the State
of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT/PF) maintains. Approximately 18 miles of roads are
maintained by the State. These roads also happen to be the
major traffic carriers and provide the skeletal and spinal
framework for the entire road system. With the exception of
the Homer Bypass, each of these roads has existed for over 30
years. These roads are:

0 Sterling Highway (The only road linking Homer with the
rest of the Alaskan road system.)
0 Pioneer Avenue/East End Road (These roads link the areas
east of Homer with the Sterling Highway; Pioneer Avenue
is, in addition, the center of the City's commercial
activity.)
0 East Hill Road/West Hill Road (Although these are two
separate facilities, their overall function is identical:
they link Homer with the Diamond Ridge area and provide
access to abutting hillside properties.)
0 Lake Street/Ocean Drive/Spit Road (These streets provide
the road link to the end of the Homer Spit.)
0 Homer Bypass (This provides a direct link between the
Sterling Highway and the Lake Street/Ocean Drive/Spit
Road link to the Spit, effectively "bypassing" the
existing commercial strip on Pioneer Avenue.)

0 Kachemak Bay Drive (This road, while less important than
the others due to its lower volumes and decentralized
location, is the only access to the Homer Airport and is
the sole alternate access to the Spit, aside from Lake
Street and Ocean Drive.)

The function of these roads serve to provide continuous,
direct service over long trip lengths, hence forming important
links in the regional and statewide transportation network.
Some of these roads also serve as access roads to abutting
properties, thus eroding their purpose of mobility. All of
these roads can be considered as "arterials" since their
primary function is to provide mobility. Moreover, all,
except for East Hill Road and Kachemak Drive (east of the
Homer Airport), are paved. The State also has paved* (and
maintains) the road access via Bartlett Street, Fairview
Avenue, and Hohe Street to the South Peninsula Hospital. No
city maintained roads are paved.
The Homer arterial system is set up to promote west-to-east
movement and movements linking the western entrance of the
City with the end of the Spit. A driver may, for instance,
drive from the City's western entrance to the end of East End
Road without encountering a stop sign. Westbound movements
along the same route do encounter stop signs. similarly, a
driver entering the City (western entrance) may proceed to the
Homer Bypass, via Lake street, Ocean Drive, and the Spit Road
to the proximal end of the Spit without stop control. The
reverse movement is also free of stop signs. Except for the
southbound parts of the Bypass-Lake Street-Ocean Drive-Spit
Road route, most southbound movements on north-south roads are
interrupted by stop signs. Currently, no traffic signal
lights exist in the City of Homer.

A particularly noteworthy link in the arterial system is Lake
Street. This street, which traverses the Beluga Tidal Flats,
provides a direct link between the central business portion of
the City with the industrial sections of town. The roadway
embankment acts as an impoundment structure for the freshwater
drainage upstream of the roadway, thereby creating Beluga
Lake. Beluga Lake is itself an important component of Homer's
transportation system, as it serves as float plane base. The
lake also has recreational value, serving as a skating area
and automotive ice-racing area.

Non-Arterial Street System

The non-arterial street system is composed of streets which
serve as collector and local service roads. Collectors serve
to funnel traffic from abutting properties to the arterial
system. Local service roads function to access individual
properties. With few exceptions, these roads are maintained
(if maintained at all) by the City. These non-arterial roads
are generally the creation of subdivision activity and

constructed by private developers. The City and State have
reconstructed several collector streets over the past five
years (Kachemak Way, north Main Street) ; but, almost all new
additions to the street system have been constructed by
private developers.

Except for a portion of Main Street and Fairview Avenue, Hohe
Street, and Bartlett Street (Pioneer Avenue to Fairview
Avenue), the non-arterial streets are unpaved. Many of these
gravel streets do not meet minimum city performance and
construction standards. They are, in many cases, too narrow,
lack proper drainage, and/or lack sufficient fill for
structural stability. The City maintains these roads but in
principle does not accept any more such streets for permanent
maintenance.

Traffic Data Inventory

Traffic data counts were compiled and analyzed to gain
insights into the traffic loads on various Homer streets.
Most of the counts were taken in the summer of 1984, but any
previous counts taken by the State were also included.
Appendix ; contains the traffic data summary.

The traffic volumes recorded do not cover all city streets.
The City attempted to collect data at the most significant
roads and at the most important intersections.

Pioneer Avenue was found to have the heaviest traffic volumes.
Pioneer Avenue is the City's main thoroughfare through the
central business district. The highest volumes on the roadway
occurred between Svedlund Street and Lake Street (the location
of the only post of f ice in Homer) . Weekday traf f ic counts
were tabulated at approximately 11,500 vehicles per day (vpd)
(summer 1984).

The next highest traffic counts occurred at the Sterling
Highway, west of the Bypass/Pioneer Avenue intersection,
followed closely by volumes at the East End Road, Lake
Street/Pioneer Avenue intersection. The recorded figures for
the Sterling Highway, 8120 vpd in May 1984 and 7051 vpd in
October 1984, may represent an inflated passenger vehicle
figure due to heavy truck traffic entering the City at that
point. The method of recording requires the traffic counters
to assume all vehicles have two axles. If heavy truck (more
than two axles) traffic occurs, the data will represent an
overestimate of actual traffic volumes.

Accident Record Summary

Accidents, considered synonomous with collisions, are the
result of a combination of factors. Conditions that must be
present for an accident to occur include motion, human or

mechanical failure, and physical components. In order for an 17
accident to occur, there must be a vehicle in motion, inertia
of motion, against avoidance of collisions, and evasive action.
A human operator must f ail to negotiate the road or vehicle,
or the vehicle must fail to operate sufficiently. Thirdly,
there may be physical conditions that are present which either
directly contribute to the lack of control or lay in wait.

Accident data has been summarized in Table 3. From January 1,
1981 to December 31, 1983, there were 191 accidents reported
in the, State of Alaska's statistical surveys. Table 3 lists
all the streets in Homer in which more than two,accidents were
reported. These fourteen streets represent 90 percent of all
of the accidents reported.

As might be expected the arterial and collector system
accounted for the majority of the accidents. The arterial
system represents the bulk of roadway miles; thus, the more
miles the more exposure to accident potential. Other factors
which make the arterial system more susceptible to increased
accident potential are the higher traffic volumes and travel
speeds, the poor geometric design, and the unlimited and ill-
defined ingress/egress points.

In terms of gross numbers, the highest incidence of accidents
occurred on Pioneer Avenue and the Homer Spit Road, which each
sustained 33 accidents. East End Road from Lake Street to the
eastern city limits boundary was next highest with 22
accidents. The Sterling Highway from the western city limits
boundary to Pioneer Avenue had 19 accidents, Lake Street had
17 accidents and Ocean Drive had 12 accidents. Noteworthy,
and disproportionately high, the Homer Spit Road had three of
the six traffic fatalities, as well as eight of the twenty-six
major injuries sustained in vehicle accidents.

These observations, while instructive, do not provide a
legitimate basis for comparison of the travel safety aspect of
a roadway for several reasons. As one would expect, a higher
traffic volume road will, all other things being equal,
sustain a higher accident rate than a low volume road since
more traffic invites more conflict opportunities. Likewise,
for any given volume of traffic, the number of accidents
should be proportionate to the roadway length: a greater
length provides more conflict opportunity. These two
observations show that the safety effectiveness of a road
should at least be indexed to the number of accidents per
million trips and the number of accidents per unit length of
roadway. This index would provide a measure of the geometric
safety, or the number of physical p .roblems in the unit length
of the road.

Table 3, column 7, represents the "raw accident rate" (RAR)
which is the number of accidents per trip per mile, expressed
as the order of ten to the minus sixth, or the number of
accidents per million trip miles. This number is reached by

TABLE 3 - ACCIDENT SUMMARY (1981-83)

Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Weekday Raw Acci- Adjusted
Traffic Length dent Rate Rate
Volume of Accidents Severity AAR
Tot. Tot. Maj. Min. (Fall 1984) Section Per Trip Index Per Trip
Acc. Fat. Inj. Inj. (VPD) (Miles) Per Mile (S) Per Mile
STREETISECTION 81-83
Bartlett Street 7 0 1 2 2,600 0.39 6.3xlO-6 11 10.OX10_6
(Pioneer to Fairview)
Ben.Walters Lane 4 1 1 3 750 0.61 8.OxlO_6 12 23.9xlO-6
Bypass 5 0 0 3 3,200 0.98 1.5xlO-6 8 2.4xlO-6
East End Road 12 1 2 6 6,550 @0.80 2.lxlO-6 25 4.4xlO-6
(Lake St. to East
Hill Road)
East End Road 10 0 4 2 2,350 1.69 2.3xlO-6 20 4.6xlO-6
(East Hill Road to
city limits)
East Hill Road 4 0 0 2 1,000 1.55 2.4xlO-6 6 3.5xlO-6
(to city limits)
Homer Spit Road 33 3 8 15 2,000 4.43 3.4xlO-6 73 7.5xlO-6
(est.)
Kachemak Drive 4 0 0 1 2,050 3.09 0.6xlO-6 5 0.7xlO-6
Kachemak Way (S.) 3 0 0 0 1,750 0.095 16.9xlO-6 3 16.9xlO-6
(Klondike to Pioneer)

Severity Index = [(Column 1 + Column 4) + 2(Column 3) + 3(Column 2] CO

TABLE 3 ACCIDENT SUMMARY (1981-83)
(Continued)

Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Weekday Raw Acci- Adjusted
Traffic Length dent Rate Rate
Volume of Accidents Severity AAR
Tot. Tot. Maj. Min. (Fall 1984) Section Per Trip Index Per Trip
Acc. Fat. Inj. Inj. (VPD) (Miles) Per Mile (S) Per Mile
STREET/SECTION 81-83
Kachemak Way (N.) 3 0 0 1 650 0.44 9.6xl0_6 4 12.7xl0_6
(Pioneer to Bayview)
Lake Street 17 0 3 4 5,756 0.91 3.0x10_6 27 4.7xl0_6
(est.)
Main Street 3 0 0 1 1,350 0.97 2.1x10_6 4 2.8xl0_6
Ocean Drive 12 0 0 1 4,450 0.54 4.6x10-6 13 4.9xl0_6
(Spit Road to
Lake Street)
Pioneer Avenue 33 0 3 14 10,000 1.00 3.0xl0_6 53 4.8xl0_6
Sterling Highway 7 0 0 2 7,050 0.93 1.0X10-6 9 1.3xlO-6
(Pioneer to West
Hill Road)
Sterling Highway 12 11 4 9 4,500 2.08 1.2xlO-6 32 3.1xl0_6
(Past West Hill (est.)
and Baycrest)
West Hill Road 2 0 0 0 950 1.59 1.2x10-6 2 1.2x10-6

TOTAL: 171 6 26 66

Severity Index = [(Column 1 + Column 4) + 2(Column 3) + 3(Column 2]

dividing the total number of vehicle trips (column 5) over
the three year period*, divided by the number of miles in the
roadway section under examination, (column 6).

The raw accident rate (RAR) yields interesting comparisons.
The highest rate was recorded on the south section of Kachemak
Way (Klondike to Pioneer Avenue) at 16.9, with the next
highest rate on Kachemak Way from Pioneer Avenue to Bayview
Avenue at 9.6. All of these accidents occurred prior to, or
during, reconstruction of Xachemak Way. The main problem
areas are around the switchback north 'of Rainbow- Avenue, the
intersection of Kachemak Way and Klondike Avenue (which had
been previously channelized in a poor manner), and the
intersection of Kachemak Way and Pioneer Avenue, which has
poor sight distance and which has a high volume driveway
located nearby.

The next highest rate is f ound on Ben Walters Lane, with a
rate of 8.0. Several accidents, including one fatality and a
major injury, occurred due to incompatibility between travel
speeds and alignment curvature'. Bartlett Street also
experienced a relatively high RAR, at 6.3. Accidents included
pedestrian collision and several angle collisions due to
relatively high speeds for traffic, the' large number of
driveways, and possibly inattentive drivers. Ocean Drive from
Lake Street to Spit Road was next highest, at a rate of 4.6,
followed by Homer Spit Road at 3.4 and Pioneer Avenue at 2.0.
East End Road had surprisingly low rates considering the
rollercoaster topography, the unmarked intersections (leading
to surprise stops), the poor sight distance at many driveways
and intersections, the narrow width, and the relatively high
speeds. The rates were 2.3 east of East Hill Road and 2.1
west of East Hill Road. The Bypass also had a low accident
rate at 1.5, as did the Sterling Highway. (The Sterling
Highway may be deceptive, considering the high recorded
volumes during the fall 1984 period.) These areas will be
further analyzed in Chapter Three - Problem Areas.

Table 3 presents a refinement of the raw accident rate
according to accident. severity. As noted, the raw accident
rate uses only the total number of recorded accidents, without
regard to severity. Column 8 in Table 3 presents the results
of weighting accidents according to the number of injuries. A
severity index. is defined as the gr Ioss number of accidents
added to the number of minor injuries plus twice the number of
major injuries plus three times the number of fatalities. The
severity index thus represents a weighting of accidents
incidence; the severity index is divided by the number of
trips times roadway length, to yield an "adjusted accident
rate" (AAR), (column 9, Table 3).

Based on the average weekday traffic volumes measured in
October 1984 assumed to be equivalent to the three year
period under examination.

The AAR is not in itself quantitatively meaningful. it
clearly represents the equivalent of adding apples and
oranges, and it further could be manipulated to yield
altogether different results. Nonetheless, as a first cut, it
at least weights data in the manner equal for all streets, and
it can serve as an index, albeit flawed, of the hazard
potential.

Using the AAR, Ben Walters Lane rates highest. Kachemak Way
and Bartlett Street also show high AAR values, as does the
Spit Road. The moderate range is occupied by.East End Road,
Lake Street, Ocean Drive and Pioneer Avenue, which show almost
identical values. Lower values are exhibited for the Sterling
Highway, East Hill Road, Main Street, the Bypass and West Hill
Road. Again, the Sterling Highway figures should be treated
with some caution.

The RAR and AAR figures provide a quantitative basis for
evaluating the safety of individual roadway segments.
However, there are several significant error sources, which
should be considred prior to wholesale acceptance of the
figures. Some of the errors are identified below:

a) The accident statistics are based primarily on state
summaries of police accident reports. Unreported
accidents constitute an undetermined percentage of the
reported accidents -and are, of course, omitted. Also,
failure to enter the accident records into the data bank
can and does occur.

b) Intersection related accidents are assigned to one or the
other cross street. Often such an accident is caused by
actions or factors related to both streets; the
assignment to one street may artificially create a higher
rate on one and a lower one on the other.

C) The AAR and RAR values are sensitive to the roadway
length used for study. The Kachemak Bay Drive statistics
provide an illustration of this: it appears likely that
three of the four reported accidents occurred between the
intersection with Spit Road and the beach access road;
however, this is unprovable in the absence of complete
accident reports, which are no longer available. The use
of a longer section may artificially depress the accident
rate in a particularly dangerous section and mask the
presence of a dangerous stretch. The Baycrest Hill area'
is an area which also appears to be so masked.

d) The nature and causes of the accidents are not available
using this approach. Analysis must often refer to the
diagrams shown on the original accident reports.
e) Traffic volumes recorded in October 1984 may, for some
reasons, be unrepresentative of the 1981-83 period. it

is suspected that the Sterling Highway at Baycrest Hill
recorded a much higher volume during that period,
relative to the changes on other streets.

f) Accidents may have discrete, identifiable causes related
to roadway character and condition and traffic volumes.
They are also to some extent random and probablistic in
nature. A short, low volume street recording two
accidents in a year period may appear to have a. high
accident rate, but this may really be atypical of most
years, and represent a statistical quirk.

Despite these shortcomings, this approach, combined with the
qualitative analysis of accident reports and the inventory of
existing conditions, is useful in deriving the problem areas
detailed in Chapter Three.

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER FOUR - PROBLEM AREAS

The traf f ic volumes and accident report data f rom Chapter three
suggest that there are general problems and specific problem
areas throughout the Homer street system. These problems can
relate to the operational nature, structural integrity,
maintenance, or design of the road. Extensive problems exist on
many streets.

The root cause of many of these problems can be traced to the
lack of required performance standards for street construction.
Prior to 1974, the City had no street construction standards.
After 1974, the City adopted voluntary standards, with City
maintenance as the incentive for compliance. This approach has
only worked in a few cases where subdivision developments sought
federally insured home loans. Many more subdivisions have been
"paper platted" with rights-of-way dedicated (required by Kenai
Peninsula Borough and City Codes) , but no road construction or
minimal road development. The result has been that land is
being sold for residential lots with the buyers constructing
minimal access roads. This practice has proliferated
substandard streets throughout the City. The problem is then
compounded as more and more lots are sold and the substandard
road extends further into the subdivision. Increased traffic on
the road deteriorates the bed which causes the residents to look
to the City for repairs and maintenance. A liability has been
created with pressure on the City to "do something about it".
Local improvement districts can be initiated but usually the
district is rejected because taxpayers believe , the City is
responsible for paying for the road.

The problem of substandard roads exists throughout the City;
but, equally alarming is the impact of increased traffic volumes
on main arterial and collector streets. The community's rapid
growth has accelerated degradation of these roads. Heavy
traffic volumes can promote rapid formation of transverse
corrugations or subbase contamination, which deteriorates the
road. only high maintenance costs or reconstruction is the
answer at this point. The main streets in Homer, with major
problem areas, are:

Bartlett Street

Bartlett Street is an existing paved collector street of about
20 feet to 22 feet width. Shoulders are very narrow, 1 foot or
less. Prior to 1984, no sidewalk existed, and the dedicated
right-of-way was only 30 feet wide, thus forestalling sidewalk
construction. Lack of sidewalks presented a safety hazard in
that pedestrians (who were present in relatively large numbers)
were forced to walk in the roadway, and compete with the
relatively high automobile traffic volumes on the street.
Although a walkway has now been constructed, it is little more

than a temporary structure. The walkway is susceptible to
glaciation and is therefore not usable during much of the
winter. The City does not maintain the sidewalk. Therefore,
pedestrians are still forced to walk in the roadway.at certain
times. Drainage, topography and existing conditions on the
roadway and on abutting property made construction of a
permanent concrete sidewalk difficult to build, as well as
costly.

Traffic operation is also complicated by the large number of
side drives, and the moderately steep grade, promoting excessive
speeds on downhill runs. The road embankment is in some areas
excessively elevated above abutting properties and ditching is
not defined. Exiting from abutting properties is hazardous and
perhaps diverts the drivers' attention from oncoming traffic.
At least one major accident in the 1981-83 period resulted from
egress movement.

Pavement on Bartlett Street is observed to be fatigued and
failing in some areas. The alignment wanders within the right-
of-way, but this is not as noticeable.

Ben Walters Lane

Ben Walters Lane is an existing collector street with one of the
highest accident rates in the City. This accident rate does not
reflect the many unreported cases in which vehicles end up in
the side ditches during winter months due to an inability to
negotiate curves.

The curvature of this roadway appears designed to slow the
traffic, an objective basically incompatible with the road's
function and character. The lower Section (south of Nielsen
Avenue) serves commercial and office land uses, which generally
promote higher speeds during business hours. The upper section
(north of Nielsen Avenue) serves numerous residential cul-de-
sacs. Moreover, the entire road serves as a bypass or shortcut
around the Lake Street/ East End Road intersection. The traffic
character thus tends towards high speeds. There is particular
difficultly observed in negotiating the long curve north of
Nielsen Avenue and the south section of Ben Walters Lane. This
intersection and curve area accounts for most of the accidents
in this section.

The problems are compounded by the lack of sight distance at the
Ben Walters Lane/Nielsen Avenue intersection and the use of a
yield sign, instead of a stop sign.

The reverse curvature does not encourage slower traffic: it
merely encourages encroachment into oncoming lanes. The high
speeds maintained in the Area also create dry-weather dust
problems. Additionally, sight distances from driveways are
restricted because of curvature or foliage in some locations,
causing hazardous egress.

East End Road

East End Road serves as the major arterial linking the city
center with the eastern section of the City, Kachemak City and
areas beyond. The population east of Homer's city center is
rapidly increasing, and-the traffic volumes on East End Road are
growing rapidly.

This arterial is observed to have several operational pr oblems.
The major problems are related to the roadway width,
insufficient shoulder width, lack of pedestrian and bicycle
amenities, "roller coaster" or "hidden dip" profile, steep
approaches (caused partially by the embankment height), unmarked
intersections, lack of illumination, relatively high speeds, and
growing traffic volumes.

The posted speed on East End Road is 35 mph. The travel speed
on East End Road is observed to vary between 40 and 4 5 mph;
frequently speeds are dangerously in excess of this figure. The
narrow road width and rolling profile places vehicles. in
conflict Vith opposing lanes, And with any bicycles or
pedestrians on the roadway. Several intersections or driveways
are ef f ectively hidden at the base of dips, restricting sight
distance and promoting a high accident potential. This is
particularly evident at the intersection of East End Road and
Rochelle Street.

Properties and subdivisions on the south side of East End Road
must approach East End Road at a steep grade in many cases.
These steep approaches, which are partially due to the steep
embankment height, are problematic in that they inhibit speed of
egress, increasing exposure time at intersections. This is
particularly true during the winter when snow and ice make
approaches very slick.

The road lacks illumination and street signs, making it
difficult to identify intersections at night or in. some cases,
to distinguish between individuals I driveways and public roads.
This adds to the saf ety hazards, in that lack of warning leads
to sudden braking action or to such unsaf e maneuvers as backing
up to an intersection after passing it.

The accident rate along East End Road is observed to be
relatively moderate, despite the operational problems. it
should be noted, however, that traf f ic growth on this road has
been substantially greater than the average growth rate of
traf f ic along roads where historical data is available. Thus,
the use of 1984 data for computation of the accident rate yields
a disproportionately depressed accident rate.

East Hill Road

East Hill Road is presently serving as a major residential
collector. The existing road is a silty-sandy-gravel of poor
quality. During dry summer months, this causes formation of
transverse corrugations, and generation of a great deal of
airborne dust. During wet periods, drainage and seepage promote
subgrade failure and pumping of subgrade into pond embankment
material. The worst period, however, is in the spring breakup
period, when the road may become virtually impassable due to the
mud depth. (The worst area f or this is north of the westerly

While the accident rate is demonstrably low, probably because of
the restricted speeds imposed by road surface conditions and the
difficult alignment, the road is not without its hazards. Snow
or ice conditions can make it extremely difficult to negotiate
around the curves; there have been many reported incidents in
which drivers barely avoided sliding into the canyon at the end
of the western switchback. There have been cases, also, in
which cars have slid off of the East Hill Road embankment.

Fairview Avenue/Hohe Intersection

This intersection was first noted as a conflict area in the 1979
"Master Plan for Roads and Streets", and has not been corrected.
This is a three-leg intersection with Hohe Street intersecting
Fairview Avenue from the north. Because the main access to the
South Peninsula Hospital is along the paved Bartlett Street -
Fairview - Hohe alignments, the intersection is constructed in a
manner favoring left turns from Fairview to Hohe and,
@onversely, right turns from Hohe to Fairview. This 900 bend
is super-elevated to promote through movement. Through movement
westbound along Fairview is controlled by a stop sign at Hohe.

The east and west approaches of Fairview Avenue to Hohe Street
are staggered. The eastern section of the roadway is centered
on the right-of -way centerline. The western section, however '
is offset and lies almost entirely within the southern 30 feet
of the right-of-way. The western section is also of substandard
width (18.5 feet pavement width) as is the Hohe Street roadway.
The intersection approach at Fairview has restricted sight
distance; moreover, the intersection confronts the driver with
an unnatural set of required movements. Through-traffic sweeps
around a 900 bend on a narrow pavement strip, while Fairview
Avenue movements are required to stop and judge approach speeds.
As a practical matter, there is no good reason why the through-
movement between west Fairview and Hohe must be preserved. This
does not significantly improve the access to the hospital.

Homer Spit Road

This road is observed to have a high incidence of accidents due
to high traffic volumes, high speeds and driver inattention.
Wave action acting on the road embankment is another problem.
One portion of the road is particularly exposed to this wave
action, due to the proximity of the embankment to the western
mean-sea-level shoreline. This has promoted erosion of the Spit
in this area and has caused significant damage to the roadway
structure. Riprap and seawall maintenance have been costly.

There are no near term solutions to these problems.. In the long
term the best- answer may be widening of the, road and re location
of the road closer to the Mud Bay side.

Xachemak Bay Drive

Kachemak Bay Drive serves as both a residential collector and an
industrial route. The major problems with this road are the
poor drainage promoting subgrade failure, the dry-weather dust
problem, and the poor driving quality of much of the road. The
first 0.36 miles of the road is paved, but only 20 foot wide and
minimal shoulders. This section from the Homer Spit Road to the
airport, although, paved, has" poor recovery from slippage, etc.
due to the geometrics of the road.

Lake Street

This two lane road, which serves as the major corridor linking
Homer with the airport and the Homer Spit, has several
problematic features. Traffic volumes are growing; creating
congestion areas between Pioneer Avenue and the Bypass. Acute
congestion occurs at the Pioneer Avenue intersection, the
Lakeside Mall driveway, the Nielsen Avenue intersection,.the Ben
Walters Lane intersection, and, at various business driveways.
Congestion can develop readily at any driveway or intersection
along the street; usually by left turns impeding oncoming
traffic which in turn impedes the progress of through-traffic.

The congestion problem is worst at the intersection of Lake
street and the Pioneer Avenue/East End Road junction, where long
queues develop on Lake Street's northbound approach at peak
hours. At present the intersection is controlled by stop signs
at the westbound approach of East End Road and the northbound
approach of Lake Street; eastbound traffic along Pioneer Avenue
is not stopped. No channelization is designed. Vehicles on
Lake Street must await clearance of Pioneer Avenue drivers prior
to execution of turning movements, and during peak hours, this
can mean a long delay.

The Lake, Street/Bypass intersection is another particularly
dangerous intersection due to the design curve. Several
accidents have occurred on Lake Street due to the curves between

Pioneer Avenue and the Bypass. The relatively steep grades and
arterial character of the roadway tend to speed traf f ic to or
beyond the design speed of the curves, creating the potential
f or loss of control, particularly during periods of snow and
ice. This preponderance of accidents related to curves has been
on the curve north of Nielsen Avenue, although numerous others
have occurred on the curve south of Nielsen Avenue. A further
effect of curves has been to restrict sight distance at various
driveways and intersections inhibiting execution of turning
movements.

There is insufficient room for walking and bicycling along Lake
Street. Pavement distress and corrugation also occurs at some
places on the road.

Main Street

Main Street currently suffers from deficiencies with respect to
both the road surface and the cross-section. The poorest
section, from the Homer Bypass to Pioneer Avenue, is subject to
extensive subgrade failure and heaving as a result of poor
drainage, insufficient embankment depth and lack of separation
between embankment and subgrade. The surface of this section is
particularly silty and creates a dust problem during dry
periods. The road carries about 1700 vehicles per day, making
it an important collector street; yet, it is actually
underutilized because most drivers avoid use of it in favor of
better alternative north-south routes. This result creates
additional traffic loads on Pioneer Avenue and Lake Street.

The section of Main Street north of Pioneer Avenue is, by
comparison, structurally sound. The major problems are caused
by the f act that the road is unpaved. The result is severe
corrugation, and a dry-weather dust problem. In addition, no
sidewalk exists along the road and pedestrians must walk in the
roadway.

Main Street is the only constructed street, other than Lake
@treet, connecting the Homer Bypass and Pioneer Avenue. The
intersections with both of these streets deserve consideration
as problem areas. Main Street and Pioneer Avenue intersect at
an acute angle, causing difficulty in executing turning or
through-movement. This problem, however, will be corrected by
the Pioneer Avenue reconstruction project. The,intersection of
the Bypass and Main Street has problems caused by the Main
Street approach. The approach's vertical alignment is such that
the Bypass is obscured and the driver is visually led to believe
that there is no road there. The majority of accidents on this
@omer Bypass in the 1981-83 period were congregated at this
intersection, and most of these were related to the approach
problem.

Pioneer Avenue

Pioneer Avenue, at the time of this study, suffered from a
number of deficiencies, which have been documented in project
study documents, see Problem Issue Identification, Technical
Memo #2, Pioneer Avenue Reconstruction Project, by the Transpo
Group, May, 1984. The 1985 Pioneer Avenue reconstruction
project is intended to mitigate all of the major problems.

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER FIVE - POLICY AND PRACTICE INVENTORY 30

The Homer street system is the cumulative result of many
individuals' or governments' policy decisions. Some of these
decisions have been based on certain design philosophies or
planning rationales related to route selections or cross-section
designs. Othertimes, decisions have been based on immediately
tangible, pragmatic considerations. Passable access has often
been the highest goal and the "accepted street standards" might
consist of the easiest and cheapest road that would suffice for
access. The approach taken at any given time depended on
prevailing local and state government ordinances and
philosophies, lending institution regulations, and/or economic
conditions.

The expansion and management of Homer's streets - including
traffic management - has taken place in a social atmosphere in
which individuality and property rights have been highly valued
and opinions on governmental control, local or otherwise, have
been mixed. Nonetheless, area development has led to an
increased demand for improved basic services. These in turn
have led to increased municipal services, and regulations
controlling use of these services. What has emerged in Homer is
a mixture of regulations (parking/ traffic laws, zoning, and
right-of-way controls) and non-regulation (nonenforcement of
laws and ordinances, lack of subdivision improvement
installation requirements, and permits to construct substandard
access on city rights-of -way) . This mixture defines Homer's
transportation activities and practices. It follows that an
understanding and appreciation of the existing conditions on
Homer's streets depends in part on an understanding of the
legal/social/administrative environment, past and present, which
has helped shape them.

The first roads in Homer were not really built to any
"standards". The test of the road's acceptability was its
ability to carry traffic. No governmental entity assumed
maintenance responsibility. Gravel or sand was apparently added
by users as needed; often extracted from the beach or the Spit.

The Homer Public Utility District, which was created in 1949 and
disbanded in 1964 (with the creation of the City of Homer), did
not assume road maintenance responsibilities. No City equipment
existed with which to perform maintenance. The State of Alaska
had already assumed responsibility for constructing,
reconstructing and/or maintaining some of the city's streets.

The assumption of City maintenance began after the Homer water
supply system was constructed (circa 1966-67). The water system
demanded the addition of City personnel to operate and maintain
the system. It is reported that the City Council determined if
water maintenance personnel were on staf f then they could also
be used for part-time City road maintenance work. Thus, a

grader was purchased, and maintenance began on all non-State-
maintained roads then in existence.

The City, for most of its history, relied exclusively on private
developers and the State for street development. it is
reported, however, that some subdivision roads were developed
with City aid. Also, the City authorized incidental road
upgrades as part of some water and sewer improvement projects,
such as upper Bartlett Street. It was in about 1980 that the
City began to take on street improvement projects in their own
right. Svedlund Street, upper Heath Street, Main Street,
Fairview Avenue, and Kachemak Way have all been constructed or
reconstructed as City projects, using State grant monies. At
this writing, the City is also establishing a new precedent by
taking over the design and construction management for the
reconstruction of Pioneer Avenue, a State-maintained roadway.
This followed a successful lobbying effort to obtain funding for
the street. Both the lobbying and the City assumption of
project responsibility represent departures from the previous
practice of promoting and managing City street facilities, while
leaving State roads to State jurisdiction.

In 1974, the City adopted two ordinances: the first governed
the installation of driveways and activities in rights-of-way,
and the second was a street construction ordinance. Each was of
major significance. The "driveway" ordinance asserted City
control over right-of-way usage and access. The street
construction ordinance was written as a "standard" for City
streets. If a street was built to this standard, it would be
accepted for city maintenance; if not, it would not be
maintained.

The construction and maintenance of streets has often been a
controversial issue. A particularly sensitive issue has been
City assumption of street maintenance responsibility. Because
maintenance has been the sole "incentive" for construction to
City specifications, the City has been reluctant to accept any
road for maintenance until certain criteria are met. Moreover,
maintenance equipment and budgets are limited; and maintenance
of all roads, no matter how substandard, is financially
infeasible.

The conditions existing on Homer's streets are directly related
to certain policies and practices. The following pages review
what these policies and practices are, and the effect they have
on the street system. The analysis is broken down into four
parts: Ordinances, Administrative Regulations, Plans, and
Capital Improvement Programs.

ORDINANCES 32

The City of Homer has adopted several ordinances and policies
pertaining to street management and construction. ordinances
governing "Street Construction," "Driveways," and "Construction
Tn Right-Of-Way" have been adopted; other related ordinances
include those governing local improvement districts, off-street
parking, and zoning. Adopted State laws include administrative
code and statute provisions regarding highways and the function
of the Department of Transportation.

TITLE 7, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, Homer Municipal Code, contains
the traffic regulations applicable to the City of Homer. it
contains prohibitions against stopping and parking vehicles,
dangerous maneuvers, snowmobile use, intoxicated driving, etc.
It also contains the off-street parking ordinance, with
modifications recommended by the 1979 Master Roads and Streets
Plan.

Chapter 7.04, entitled "General traffic provisions," adopts by
reference all laws of the State of Alaska and any rule or
regulation adopted by any duly authorized agency of the State of
Alaska pertaining to motor vehicles, their licensing, safety
measures, rules of the road, and any and all other rules and
regulations pertaining to motor vehicles..." The laws and
regulations adopted by reference are generally patterned after
the "Uniform Vehicle Code." The most recently updated version
is 1979, and it is published by the National Committee on
Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, an independent, non-profit,
voluntary association representing governments and industries
interested in traffic laws.

The off-street parking section of Title 7 is probably the most
controversial section of the ordinance. Enforcement of its
provisions has been difficult due to unavailability of staff and
budgetary constraints.

TITLE 11,' STREETS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION Ordinance,
was enacted in 1974. The ordinance suffers from three flaws.
First@ its intent is unclear. It was never established what
roads' it was to apply to, or where requirements were to be
uniformly enforced. Second, there are problems with the
ordinance content, in that some sections are contradictory and a
number of key terms are undefined. Finally, actual construction
practices evolved past the ordinance, and some requirements have
become outmoded.

The street and right-of-way width section typifies some of these
flaws. No definition is established for any of the design
classes (arterials, secondary, etc.) , and the ordinance carries
two standards related to right-of-way widths. The standards
also deviate from those recommended in the 1979 "Master Plan for
Roads and Streets," and arterials or collector rights-of-way
widths are not the same as the Kenai Peninsula Borough's
subdivision ordinance. The net effect of these contradictions

is that it is difficult to obtain a right-of-way width in excess
of 60 feet, since the contradictions and ambiguities usually
default to the 60 feet minimum.

The cross-section requirements are perhaps the most f lawed of
the ordinance. There is a great deal that is not accounted for,
yet the ordinance reads like a substitute for plans and
specifications. Variations in site conditions are not
adequately addressed by this "boiler-plate" approach, nor is
there any control of vertical alignment (profile). The base
course and leveling course requirements were established
considering frost penetration in the area, rather than on a
subgrade strength basis; however, they were reportedly scaled
back based on economics. These standards predate the use of
geotextiles in Homer, which has allowed thickness reductions in
certain applications. The slope provisions contained in the
ordinance could be interpreted as the opposite of what was
intended.

The minimum driveway culvert length is specified at 21 feet, but
culverts typically come in 20 foot lengths. It is also
impractical to conform to the 0.1 foot requirements in some
cases and the provision is routinely ignored. The requirement
that the construction shall leave no possibility of scour is not
well defined.

The plan and profile requirements do not specify that they are
actually required prior to street construction; they only
specify that, if the plan and profile are provided, they must
adhere to certain guidelines. (However, the "driveway"
ordinance includes a provision suggesting that plans and
profiles as as-builts are required.)

The staking requirements do not explain what information is to
be placed on the stake, nor what the intent or procedure
involved in "staking."

The ordinance states some "requirements" for street design and
construction; however, there are in practice no actual
requirements. They are, in reality, standards to be followed by
any road builder or subdivider wishing the City to assume
maintenance. The ordinance does not state this, however, nor
does it state whether it applies to new subdivision roads or
existing roads. The question of applicability can also be
extended to certain of the requirements. For instance, will the
City refuse to accept for maintenance a designated arterial or
collector which has not been constructed to its full width; or,
will the City accept a lesser width as an interim standard until
the volumes actually warrant full-width standards.

It was originally intended that this ordinance, by stipulation
of standards, would control the quality of roads which the City
assumed maintenance responsibility for. To the extent that the
ordinance aimed at this goal, it failed. Some roads built after
the ordinance was adopted were not built to these standards, yet

were accepted for "winter maintenance" (snowplowing and sanding)
and some have been upgraded to permanent maintenance.

Chapter 11.08, Driveway Construction Permits requires permits
before performing driveway construction (or any other
construction within the right-of -way of City streets, roads or
trails) and prohibits certain kinds of disruptive or destructive
actions within "road" or "street" rights-of-way. "Roads" or
"streets" are defined as "any dedicated public right-of-way 21
feet or more in width, which may or may not be in use as a
travelled way."

This chapter (which predates the street construction chapter by
several months) attempts to establish basic control over public
rights-of-way. Its objectives, as noted in the ordinance
preamble, are as follows:

"(a) To provide maximum protection to the public
through the orderly control of traffic moving onto and
off of a road or street.

(b) To provide a uniform practice in the design and
construction of entrances and exits.

However, its scope was considerably broader. While the
preamble's objective probably led to the ordinance's misleading
label ("Driveway Construction Permits") , the ordinance clearly
did establish regulations over all rights-of-way construction,
as well as certain noxious behaviors impacting travel on rights-
of-way. The most noxious problem was the electric and telephone
utilities installation in the right-of-way. Prior to this
chapter, the City was in the position of paying for street
repair after the electric and phone companies excavated in City
streets.

Section 11.08.050, subsections "a. It 11b. ft and It c. ft were
originally labelled a. "Driveway, approaches, 11 and b. and c.
were labelled "Traveled ways or streets. 11 These headings were
apparently administratively deleted in 1981 when the Homer
Municipal Code numbering system was revamped. This action had a
major effect on the section's meaning. Previously, the section
requires all streets to be designed and constructed according to
the requirements of the street construction ordinance, and
would, if enforced, have halted construction of substandard
streets in City rights-of-way. The deletion of the heading
renders the section ambiguous. It is not clear that street
construction is affected by this section. Realistically, the
section was never enforced, and the construction of substandard
roads continues well after passage of the ordinance.

The design requirements have been the subject of some review and
controversy in the recent past. Some sections contain ambiguous
clauses, which restricts their enforceability. The most

controversial section is that which bars more than two driveways
per lot, unless approved by the Public Works Director. The
implied guarantee is that each property is guaranteed at least
two driveways. If this is the meaning, then the objective of
consolidated access on major streets can easily be defeated. In
such circumstances, common driveways or single driveways per lot
are the desire from a traffic viewpoint. Finally, the design
requirements do not specify approach widths. In practice, the
City has adhered to the DOT's design standards for appropriate
widths for different business types.

Chapter 11.12, Street and House Numberin establishes an
addressing system in the city limits and a nomenclature system
for right-of-way naming. The system specifies, for example,
that "streets" are, north-south thoroughfares, while "avenues"
run east and west. It is also stated that "street names shall
not duplicate others in the City."

Chapter 11.16 Construction in Right-of-Way was enacted in
November 1979, modified in 1981, and requires a permit before
proceeding with any construction, or any other act which would
alter the condition of a public right-of-way. A bond is
required "in an amount deemed adequate by the City Manager" in
order to pay for damages to public or private property or for
personal injuries. Typically, this bond is in the amount of
$1,000.00. Denial of a permit can, by the ordinance, be
appealed to the City Council.

Permit issuance is currently handled, for the most part, at City
Hall by City staff, often in conjunction with driveway permits
and/or building permits. The permit itself costs $5.00; where
plans and specifications are "required," a $25.00 fee is
charged. The plans and specifications requirement is enforced
for construction of water and sewer mains, but not for
construction of substandard roads on City rights-of-way.

In 1983, the City began to issue a separate permit for
construction of utilities (i.e., telephone and, electrical
utilities with possible future application to natural gas and
cable TV) in public rights-of-way. The permit form was adapted
from the State DOT's utility permit form. The reason a separate
permit was devised is that construction of utilities in rights-
of-way is a one-time affair; yet, once constructed, utilities
are operational. Operation often leads to maintenance or
repair, and utilities must sometimes be relocated during future
construction proj ects. The City has, in the past, allowed
telephone and electrical cable to be buried almost randomly
within right-of -way, with little inspection to determine that
the cable was buried where shown on plans. When street, water
and/or sewer projects are undertaken; the City must often pay
the price of relocating buried utilities elsewhere in its own
right-of-way, in spite of the fact that the utilities themselves
or their contractors may have been responsible for causing the
problems. In addition, no as-builts were required. The
original construction in right-of-way permit did provide the

City some control over construction, however, the permit did not
address utility problems, and the utility permit was devised to
fill that void. To date, however, issuance of these permits has
been erratic. The utility permit. is administered strictly by
the Public'Works Department.

Title 17, IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, governs formation of local
improvement districts (LID's). Improvement districts (also
known as "assessment district") are a means by which part or all
of the cost of capital projects are borne by those who actually
benefit. In Homer, LID's have usually provided part or all of
the funding for water and sewer projects; however, their use in
funding street projects has been erratic. Nonetheless, street
project are eligible for LID funding and, in fact, one street
construction project has been undertaken on that basis.

chapter 17.04 of the code lays out the basic mechanism for the
formation of improvement districts. The mechanism is primarily
derived from the Alaska Statutes, Title 29, which governs
assessment district processes. The intent of the' formation
process is to ensure that LID creation is done with proper
public notification, follows due process, and generally done
with the consent of those affected. According to State law,
however, a city can force an LID under certain circumstances.
The use of LID's has been primarily for water and sewer
improvements. A check of City resolutions does not reveal any
street improvement district proposals prior to 1978. At that
time, property owners along Fairview Avenue (between Mullikin
and Wright Streets) petitioned the City to form an LID for
upgrading the street. The improvement district was expanded by
the City to include the section from Mullikin Street to Bartlett
Street. Although a public hearing was held in 1978, the issue
was not resolved until 1981, when it was defeated. The road
itself was eventually upgraded by City Public Works crews, over
a period of years. The reason the petition was initiated was
that no other funding source existed, and the City was not
pursuing street upgrade projects.

Since the Fairview Avenue LID proposal, there have been eleven
street improvement districts proposed: Hansen Avenue, Bay
Avenue, "New Street" (Chamberlain-Watson Subdivision) , "No-View
Avenue," Soundview Avenue, Main Street (Fairview to Bayview),
Cityview Avenue (Bartlett to Main), Kachemak Way, Shannon Lane,
Rangeview Avenue and Heath Street (Pioneer Avenue to Bypass) .
This list does not include resubmittals of, or substitutions
for, the same LID's. As of the fall of 1984, only the Main
Street (Fairview to Bayview) project has been constructed as a
Local Improvement District, and assessments covered only a
modest share (20%) of project costs. The rest of these
improvement district proposals were either withdrawn by the
petitioners or failed in the ratification process. Others were
passed and authorized by City Council but were not constructed.
These were Hansen Avenue, Bay Avenue, and "New Street.fl At
least one street LID (Heath Street from Klondike Avenue to the

Bypass) was approved by the property owners but was not approved
by the City Council.

Reviewing the history of these LID's, one can deduce several
reasons underlying their failure.

1. The expense was more than property owners wanted to bear.
2. Property owners felt that the City somehow was obligated to
bear the costs of upgrading the road.
3. In cases where the Council itself killed LID's, it was
often because the Council felt the project would somehow
create adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods.

As previously mentioned, LIDs arose because no alternative
funding sources were available. Street projects were often not
vigorously promoted for capital funding since many other project
priorities existed. Policy for prioritizing and financing
street projects had been developed in the Capital Improvement
Program packages submitted to the State legislature. Street
improvements were prioritized by the City Council and. funding
requests for those projects were submitted to the legislature,
generally according to the citizens' input at public hearings.
If funding was not awarded to a project, persons desiring a
street improvement would either form an LID to fund it, or press
for the project to be placed on the next year's capital
improvement program to be funded by the State. It is not
surprising therefore, that the State legislature became the most
popular potential funding source; however, there were limits to
the amount of money that could be obtained from the State
through the legislative process.

In late 1981 and early 1982, the City attempted to establish
clearer policy guidelines for street funding. Some City
personnel and council-persons were opposed to full City funding
of residential street projects, because it would lead to an
inequitable disbursement of funds, and to subsidies of
neighborhood improvements on an unequal basis. Also the limited
grant money that was being devoted to a single project could be
allocated to several worthy projects, and it was felt by some
that a method should be adopted to achieve the most widespread
benefits. This philosophy was endorsed in a non-binding
resolution (Resolution 82-65), which states "the City Council
may set aside a percentage" of State street construction funds
by allocating 25% of such funds to neighborhood streets, 25% to
commercial streets, and 50% to arterial streets or "emergency
routes." As a matter of policy, benefitting property owners on
commercial and neighborhood streets were to participate in costs
by providing 20% of project funding, while no assessments would
be applied to projects upgrading "arterial streets" or
"emergency routes."

This policy has never been implemented. To the contrary, the
Xachemak Way street improvement districts failed with the
proposal of 80% City funding and 20% assessments. Failure was
based largely on the-property owners' apathy and/or opposition

to assessments. However, the Council decided to go ahead and
fully fund the street improvement project in spite of the
beneficiaries' unwillingness to participate. Under Resolution
82-65, as noted, the full funding could be warranted by
designating Kachemak Way as an Remergency route". However, it
must be pointed out that every street can be considered to be an
emergency route for its residents.

An important factor in the defeat of many LID's has been the
lack of long-term financing mechanisms. In residential
districts, 20 or 30 year assessment district bonds can be sold
to the Farmer's Home Administration, depending on its financial
constraints. In commercial districts, financing must be
obtained from a commercial bank, usually with a three to five
year payback period.

Issuance of long-term assessment district bonds, with sale to
the open market may appear to be attractive. However, there is
no guarantee that such bonds could be sold.

Sale to an agency such as the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank also
has some advantages, except that such bonds would have to be
backed by the full f aith and credit of the City, so that the
City would probably have to have general obligation bonds. Such
bonds, besides requiring voter approval, would affect the City's
bond rating (which is affected also by existing. school district
and hospital service area bonds) and perhaps limit its ability
to.finance projects of widespread community benefit.

Title 21, ZONING, of the Homer Municipal Code, was enacted in
1982, after many years of development and debate. This
ordinance will have a significant impact on the future Homer
street system because land use has a direct relationship with
the street system and its use.

The zoning ordinance divides the City of Homer into eight zoning
districts: Rural Residential (RR), Urban Residential (UR),
General Commercial 2 (GC2), Marine Commercial (CM), Marine
Industrial (IM)l and Open Space-Recreational (OSR). The
district boundaries are established by an official map, which
has been revised several times since the zoning ordinance
enactment, see Figure 3.

The zoning ordinance impacts the road and street system in a
number of ways. It promotes the type of development allowed in
each district, which, in turn, af f ects land value. The timing
and intensity of land development affects the number of trips
made on the road system, which affects the timing of improved
transportation facilities. Improved transportation facilities
then lead to further increases in accessibility and land value,
which leads to even more intense land development. Trip-
generation characteristics are related to the specified uses.
Other aspects of the zoning ordinance affect development density
on steep slopes. These provisions, in their present form, are

regarded as basically unenforc 'eable by the City administration.
The slope provisions, for example, specify no definition of
slopes, nor how the area's slopes are to be calculated.
Although all develope *d area is to be counted, there is potential
that two parties could not agree on what area is to be
considered developed.

Drainage provisions are also very broad, and cover mainly those
@reas mapped in the drainage management plans. Much of the City
is not included in these plans.

The provision requiring shared access for entrances onto
arterials and collectors is controversial, but could be
effective in preventing proliferation of driveways, if enforced.

Title 20, SUBDIVISIONS, of the Kenai Peninsula Borough code,
regulates subdivision of lands in the City. Title 20 falls
within the planning, platting, and zoning powers which the
State, AS 29.33.070, requires for Boroughs.

Subdivisions must be approved by the Borough Planning Commission
prior to transfer, sale, or entry into a contract to sell any
"lots, tracts, parcels, or other division of land" within the
Borough. With certain exceptions, a plat is required for
commission approval and subdivisions must be surveyed.
Monumentation requirements are specified.

The Borough requires that in a first-class or home-rule city, a
subdivider first submit a preliminary plat to the Borough, and
the Borough will transmit three prints of the plat to the City
Advisory Planning Commission for its review. The ordinance
states (KPB 20.12.050): "Recommendation of the City Advisory
Planning Commission based upon lawful ordinance shall be
incorporated into the final plat. The f inal plat will only be
submitted to said City for review when the design deviates from
the preliminary in a manner which has not been recommended by
the City. 11 The preliminary plat must be acted upon by the
Borough Planning Commission (i.e. approve, disapprove, or
conditionally approve). The subdivider's responsibility is then
to prepare a final plat which incorporates the conditions or
corrections of the planning commission, , and the f inal plat
must be approved by the Borough Planning Commission. If the
f inal plat is not received within one year of the preliminary
plat, the Borough Planning Commission may require submission of
a new preliminary plat. In many cases, the Planning Commission
grants extension's on. preliminary plats. As a result of this
policy, a number of preliminary plats which are outdated as a
result of subdivision activity on abutting property or by
revision of comprehensive street plans are, nevertheless, ready
for filing at any time.

There are certain design requirements which each subdivision
must comply with, unless a variance can be obtained. The design
requirments include a number of standards governing street

dedication and access requirements, lot sizes and designs. Each
lot must abut a dedicated street; lots must be at least 6, 000
square feet if water and sewer are available, 40,000 square feet
if both well and sewer systems are on-site, 20,000 square feet
if either public water or sewer is avialable.

Finally, if a first-class or home-rule city requires
installation of improvements, no final plat of a subdivision can
be recorded prior to compliance with such ordinance.

The ordinance as written allows subdivision of land and street
dedication without requiring actual construction. All lots must
@but on a dedicated street, and the subdivider's responsibility
is only to demonstrate that, if the street is constructed it can
meet the requirements of the Borough's ordinance. Because the
City of Homer has its own street standards, the onus falls on
the City to check for compliance. However, the ordinance does
provide a mechanism whereby street construction may be required
by the City under an installation agreement.

While the ordinance does state that the City Advisory Planning
Commission's recommendations are to be included, the Borough
Commission has, on occasion, overruled the City in the past.

Some of the particular Borough design standards deviate from
those of the City of Homer. It is common practice for the
Borough Planning Commission to require adherence to City
standards within the City limits if the City Planning Commission
recommends adherence to them.

The width requirement for arterials in the Borough code is only
60 feet wide. This is considerably less than the City's
requirement and is viewed as an important area of conflict
between the City and Borough ordinances. Prior to 1981, the
Borough required an arterial width of 100 feet. This was scaled
back because some subdividers contended the requirement unjustly
penalized properties abutting or traversed by an arterial. The
Borough is, again, in 1985, contemplating a return to the 100
foot standard.

ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 42

No codified policies exist regarding street maintenance,
however, administrative policies do exist. At present, five
maintenance classifications exist for Homer's streets. These
classes are as follows:

A) State-maintained roadways (permanent maintenance)
B) Permanent City-maintained roads
C) Roads maintained by the City only in winter (winter
snowplowing and sanding only)
D) Roads not maintained by City or State
E) "Nonexistent" roads (i.e., vacant rights-of-way)

State Maintained Roads

State maintained roadways in Homer actually constitute the
majority! in mileage, of Homer's maintained roads (about 18
miles). State roads in Homer include the Sterling Highway, West
Hill Road, Pioneer Avenue, the Homer Bypass, East End Road, Lake
Street, Ocean Drive, Homer Spit Road, Kachemak Bay Drive, East
Hill Road, Lower Main Street, and a portion of Bunnell Avenue
and Olsen Lane. Maintenance programs of the State Department of
Transportation (DOT) Homer Maintenance shop include grading and
repair of gravel roads (which are now limited in the city to
East Hill Road and Kachemak Bay Drive), pavement patching,
culvert thawing, ditching, and winter snowplowing and sanding.
Snow is not removed to dump sites, but is instead plowed to the
side of the road.

Homer's only sidewalks or walkways are along State-maintained
roads (the Bypass, a portion of the Sterling Highway and Pioneer
Avenue near the Homer Middle School site, East End Road,
Bartlett Street, and Lake Street area/East End Road, and across
the Beluga Lake tidal flats.) The State's graders blade off snow
on the Bypass sidewalk, and the walks on East End Road, Pioneer
Avenue and the Sterling Highway. These walkways were State-
constructed and abut the roadway. The State does not maintain
the Bartlett Street and Lake Street sidewalks, which were City-
built and privately-constructed, respectively.

The State typically runs a grader blade over all asphalt
surfaces on a daily basis in the winter to combat icing (aufeis)
problems. Street sweeping is usually performed once a year,
after the end of spring break-up, to rid streets of winter sand.
The State must rent a sweeper or hire a contract sweeper to
perform the work. Additional sweeping may be performed if
restriping work is done. It is apparent from visual inspection
that the once-a-year sweep is inadequate. Large quantities of
dirt, spilled from dump trucks or carried from abutting gravel
parking lots and gravel streets end up on the paved roadways.

The State also claims regulatory jurisdiction over all its
maintained roadways. -Driveway permits onto the State system are

issued by the DOT under State driveway regulations. The DOT may
also impose axle load limits to prevent roadway damage in the
spring. The local DOT maintenance foreman determines the timing
and duration of the limit period, based on continuous
monitoring. The load limits affect the start of construction
projects in the spring of each year, making it uneconomical to
haul until the load limits are lifted.

Finally, responsibility for funding, and usually contract
administration, of reconstruction projects on State roads is
considered a State responsibility. The 1984-85 Pioneer Avenue
project is an exception to the contract administration
generality, in that the City is supervising planning, design,
and inspection; however, the State has fully funded the project.
No serious proposal has been advanced in Homer to require or
allow project cost-participation by property owners abutting on
and benefitted by a State road for reconstruction pro3ects.

The State maintains its roads on a permanent basis; no "winter
snowplowing only" category exists. The DOT does not, in
practice, accept new roads for maintenance unless it is
constructed under DOT auspices; thus, there is little or no
chance that existing city-maintained or non-maintained streets
could be transferred to the State for maintenance. The City
attempted some transfers in 1972, but was refused.

City Maintained Roads

Approximately 13.25 miles of roadway are "accepted" by the City
of Homer for permanent maintenance. All of these are gravel
roads.

Maintenance programs are carried out by the City Public Works
Department. These programs include grading; repair of roadway
during breakup (usually by adding gravel) , or at other times as
needed; culvert and catch-basin thawing on an as-needed basis
(normally by steam-thawing) ; and ditch maintenance, on an as-
needed or pre-programmed basis. Each year, the Public Works
Department schedules and budgets for ditching of City-maintained
streets to expedite surface drainage, remove sloughed material
and debris. surface repair is also undertaken. In 1984, for
instance, a great deal of gravel was added to Kachemak Way to
replace lost material.

Prior to 1984, the City oiled many of its streets to control
dust. In 1984, the State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
prohibited use of waste oil for that purpose. The Public Works
Department is now experimenting with alternate methods of
stabilizing roadways. Lignosulfate was tried on Kachemak Way in
the summer of 1984, but that caused significant damage. The
City has budgeted for application of -asphalt emulsions in 1985
for the worst areas, i.e. , Main Street and Kachemak Way. The
City has, in the past, also leased a water truck to help control
dust, but this has been very expensive and ineffective.

City street maintenance rolling stock is now confined to a
sander, steam truck, loader, and two graders. Other equipment
is owned by the City, but is not normally used for street
maintenance. A backhoe is available for ditching, however. The
graders consist of a ten year old Champion and a fifteen year
old Wabco; the latter was intended as a standby but is in fact
employed full-time. The Public Works Department has for a
number of years, requested funding for a replacement grader
(costing about $120,000), but has been unsuccessful.

The Public Works Director estimates the street maintenance
equipment needs for the forseeable future as two graders
(including the replacement grader), a loader, a sander, and one
other vehicle for plowing (front-end plow truck). If the City
takes over maintenance of Pioneer Avenue, and/or constructs and
maintains some new paved urban-type streets, the City will have
to acquire additional equipment. Public Works estimates that a
snow blower, a large wheel loader, and 10-cubic yard end dump
will be needed for snow removal. Pavement maintenance will
require a distributor truck and tank, and possibly a spreader.

Graveling to repair or maintain the City's roads is usually done
for the City by contractors. Streets which have recently
required this repair include Crittenden Drive, Bunnell Avenue,
Olsen Lane, Soundview Avenue, Mullikin Street, the Hillside
Campground Road, Danview Avenue, Fairview Avenue, Bayview
Avenue and Kachemak Way. Gravel used for such purposes is
usuall@, a "dirty" mix (i.e., 10% to 12% by weight of gravel
passed through a No. 200 standard sieve in a shaker). This mix
is supposed to "bind" better than a standard specification
gravel, which would have a finer content of around 0% to 5%.

Street lighting and signage are rare and inconsistently applied.
Street signs are typically furnished and installed by Public
Works. The City does not require developers to install them.
Very little money is available for street signage, and there is
a problem of theft and vandalism of street signs that are
installed.

Although not specifically codified, maintenance has historically
been the City's major weapon in attempting to ensure that
streets were built to "City standards." If a road is not
constructed to standards, then theoretically, the City will not
accept maintenance responsibility. The theory was simple: the
street would not be a problem or concern for the City if the
City did not have to maintain it. It would not be within City
jurisdiction, so no liability for reconstruction could be
assigned to the City, and there would be no maintenance costs.
If abutting property owners wanted the City to grade and provide
winter services, they would first be required to upgrade the
road to "City standards," as specified in the street
construction ordinance.

The question of which roads have been actually accepted for
maintenance, and why, is interesting and somewhat controversial.
As mentioned earlier, the City simply did not maintain roads
prior to the construction of the water system. When water
system maintenance personnel were added (circa 1966-67), the
City decided to use these personnel on a part-time basis for
grading the streets that then existed; thus a grader was
purchased. Later, the City determined that it was no longer
acceptable to take on any road for maintenance, and that some
criteria should exist to determine what roads warranted
maintenance. At that time, many of the "roads" on public
rights-of-way were little more than foot-trails. This led to
the streets ordinance, Title 11. A policy was established that
streets had to be built to the standards of the ordinance, or
would not be accepted for maintenance on either permanent or
winter-only basis.

In many ways, however, the ordinance's intent was undermined.
Intermittent maintenance on roads that were not accepted has
occurred. Most streets in lower Glacier View Subdivision, for
instance, were never constructed to any acceptable standard,
have never been accepted for permanent maintenance, yet the City
has dumped a considerable amount of gravel on these streets. In
fact, the streets' present condition (marginal but driveable) is
due largely to the Public Works Department's efforts. The City
had apparently felt compelled to respond to the residents'
complaints, despite the City's proclamations of non-
responsibility.

A further degradation of the street standards policy developed
from a practice that reportedly existed in the mid-1970's. At
that time, the City is reported to have participated in
constructing streets with private firms. City equipment and
operators, while on maintenance duty, would spread and shape
gravel for private contractors. Streets allegedly included in
this practice were Ocean Drive (in Oscar Munson Subdivision) ,
Williams Road, Fairview Avenue (Main to Hohe) , Early Spring
Street and Mark White Avenue, a portion of each Bayview Avenue,
Heath Street, and Main Street (Pioneer to Fairview).

Finally, the City accepted winter maintenance responsibilities,
based on certain criteria that did not include the street's
construction standards. According to some, the City had in
practice been maintaining streets on a winter- snowplowing-only
basis for a number of years prior to official adoption of the
policy allowing this practice. According to present policy, the
City must plow and sand a road in the winter if the. following
criteria are met:

111. The entrance to the road by the individual user
is within 500 feet of the nearest neighbor or
another maintained travelway, either City or
State.

2. The average of road users shall equal at least 46
one user to each 500 feet of road or street to be
maintained.

3. Distances as used herein shall be determined by
measure from the point of private entrance to the
public travelway, or the non-private entrance
where road is maintained.

4. The roadway must be built to a standard to allow
City equipment to operate in a normal manner; the
roadway must be wide enough and firm enough to
accommodate a grader, front end loader or similar
snow removal and/or sanding equipment without
damaging the roadway and allow maneuvering room
for turning around and disposing of snow.

5. Driveways leading onto the public travelway must
be kept clear of vehicles and obstructions to
allow snow removal and sanding.

THE CITY OF HOMER WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAINTENANCE OF CULVERTS, DRAINAGE PROBLEMS OR
GLACIATION... 11

This policy was perhaps the deathknell to the effectiveness of
the maintenance-incentive policy.

Maintenance responsibility has been assumed by the City under
the following circumstances:

a) It existed at the time the City first began maintenance,
and was thus always maintained as a matter of course.

b) It was accepted for full-time maintenance subsequent to
that time, either by administrative action or City Council
action, (often without regard to whether it was built to
standards).

C) It was accepted because it was built to City standards; and
all development requirements were met.

d) It was never accepted for permanent maintenance, but was
accepted for winter maintenance because it met the above
criteria.

The results of these policies has been displayed on a map
prepared by the Public Works Department, showing maintenance
responsibilities. This map has been an item of controversy,
because of the absence of specific accepted procedures for
streets being added or subtracted.

It can be seen that the consequences of accepting a street for
maintenance are broader than simply requiring expenditure of
funds to send graders to blade it. It entails an assumption of

responsibility for the road's condition and public liability for
ensuring passability and emergency ingress and egress. Thus,
once a street is accepted for maintenance, it is difficult to
quit maintaining it, even when the road becomes a quagmire,
requiring great expenditures of maintenance monies, and abutting
property owners refuse to participate in the cost of the road's
upgrade. Thus, the City may be trapped into paying the full
cost of reconstruction.

Denial of acceptance of substandard roads for maintenance is
thus viewed by many as the solution to the problem. However,
this strategy has not worked. Inevitably, population growth
will, under current rules, warrant winter maintenance, and the
City has often provided summer maintenance on "unaccepted"
roads. Moreover, the basic premise of this strategy, that the
city can refuse liability for its unaccepted rights-of-way, is
perhaps questionable, in light of the fact that it has assumed
regulatory jurisdiction over construction in its rights-of-way.

PLANS

There are seven planning documents that impact the street system
of Homer: the Homer Comprehensive Plan (1983), Homer Master
Roads and Streets Plan (1979), Homer Comprehensive Sewer Plan
(1983), Homer Comprehensive Plan for the Distribution of Water
(1983), Homer Drainage Management Plan (1979), Homer Revised
Drainage Management Plan (1982), and the Kenai Regional
Transportation Study (1981-83).

1. The Homer Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1982 and
enacted by the Borough and City in 1983. The plan included
a land use plan, a transportation plan, improvement plans
for water and sewer, and proposed polices. Goals,
objectives and policies were included for the City with two
areas receiving special treatment: the Central Business
District (CBD) and the Homer Spit.

The CBD plan called for fostering an area which would serve
as the community's focal point. To that end, the plan
stated an objective of improving "pedestrian safety,
convenience, (and) business viability." Specif ic actions
proposed included establishment of "a program to encourage
more intensive (commercial) development of the node areas " 11
and development of "a plan and program to improve parking
and pedestrian saf ety by identifying and designing parking
areas, sidewalks and drainage improvements in public right-
of -way and private property. 11 The plan also called for
"attract(ing) private investment into the CBD while
retaining and enhancing the district's positive features."
This included City actions such as providing "advisory
design information" on amenities such as boardwalks and
landscaping on private property, and exploring "a program
of tax breaks or other incentives" to encourage merchants

and property owners to accommodate public uses, such as
parking and pathways, on their property.

The Homer Spit Land Use Plan called for organization and
expansion of parking areas, and encouraged the institution
of shuttle-bus service.

The Comprehensive Plan also set forth goals and policies
for management of drainage, and water and sewer utilities.
The water and sewer policies included the recommendation
that water and sewer extensions be programmed so that
"areas of higher existing or potential population density
and industrial areas where it is feasible to operate and
maintain the system" will 'receive service first. Drainage
recommendations included "a provision for adoption of a
@rainage ordinance, construction of key drainage
improvements, and acquisition of drainage easements via
plats."

The plan also detailed a capital improvement program, which
included an analysis of the City's capital improvement
financial potential and a list of potential projects,
including a large number of street projects. The projects
expected to be fully funded and constructed by the State or
other agencies were omitted, with the notable exception of
port and harbor facilities.

The capital improvement projects were evaluated by each
department according to perceived need, numbers of users to
be served, cost effectiveness, and the degree to which the
project was compatible with adopted plans and policies.
Departments used a "high," "medium," or "low" criteria
system to rate each project. Twelve street projects were
rated, totalling $6.2 million (December 182), most of which
involved upgrade of local or collector streets. They are:
pave Main Street, upgrade lower Main Street, upgrade
Glacierview Subdivision roads, upgrade Danview Avenue '
upgrade Soundview Avenue, upgrade Fairview Avenue, upgrade
Bayview Avenue, extend Fairview to Heath Street, CBD
parking lots and sidewalks, upgrade Cityview Avenue,
upgrade roads in Cooper Subdivision, and put in street
signs. Only one new street project (Fairview extension to
Heath Street) was included, and it was rated "very low."

The transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan
included eight policies and sixteen "actions" to achieve
the land transportation goal to "Provide safe, durable and
cost effective road access to all existing or planned
developed areas of the City in a manner which allocates
costs equitably." The seven policies are:

Policy 1: Road extensions and improvements shall be
designed to promote the objectives and policies
of the comprehensive plan while providing access
for the greatest numbers of existing and future
residents.

Policy 2: Traffic flow and safety shall be improved through
consideration of intersection and parking area
design for collector and arterial roads.

Policy 3: Road standards and construction methods shall
recognize the variability of local soil substrate
and hydrologic conditions, while providing a cost
effective solution to road transportation needs
and functions.

Policy 4: The bypass road shall be maintained as a limited
access major arterial corridor from Pioneer
Avenue to Lake Street, with Main Street the
principal cross-section point.

Policy 5: In recognition of traffic congestion and safety
problems, business owners shall be responsible
for providing adequate parking for employees,
customers and other visitors.

Policy 6: In recognition of the public support for
pedestrian facilities, the City shall support the
development of a master plan for the inventory
and development of trails, pathways and
sidewalks.

Policy 7: Responsibility for financing initial
construction, upgrading and maintenance of roads
shall reflect their use and function.

2. The Homer Master Plan for Roads and Streets (Silver's
Engineering, 1979) included a review and analysis of
existing conditions, analysis of physical constraints,
existing facilities, traffic volumes, circulation patterns,
network geometrics, and laws and ordinances. Population
trends and demographics were analyzed, and problem areas
were identified. Road and street.standards and functional
use guidelines were proposed. Finally, a master map for
road and street extensions was presented.

The plan was prepared during the construction of the Homer
Bypass and was somewhat reserved about the impact the
Bypass would have on congestion along Pioneer Avenue. it
identified the basic problems along Pioneer Avenue and
recommended several actions to alleviate them.

Concerning the Bypass, the plan states: 50

"One particular decision that should be made
immediately, is whether or not to allow direct
frontage on the Bypass Road.

It is recommended that frontage be controlled,
providing as few access points as possible to
preserve the true function of Bypass Road, a
major arterial that provides access around the
CBD. If policies regarding this issue are not
resolved and guidelines established, it is
foreseen that the Bypass Road will develop in a
similar pattern as Pioneer Avenue, to the
detriment of the City as a whole. it is
therefore recommended that a detailed analysis of
the core area be accomplished and policies and
guidelines be established that preserves the
central core and allows development to occur
along a pattern that enhances the natural
amenities of the City.11

Among other elements contained within the plan, five
specific segments of Homer's road network were identified
as needing substantial improvements. First, the
intersection of Pioneer Avenue, Lake Street and East End
Road was determined to be inadequate and redesign of the
intersection was suggested, (via creation of a separate
eastbound to southbound lane and channelization of the
intersection). Nearby, the plan also recommended redesign
of the intersection of Lake Street and Nielsen Avenue to
improve traffic flow around the Lakeside Center Mall by
installing a left turn storage lane southbound, an
acceleration lane for westbound to southbound traffic and
widening and channelizing the Nielsen Avenue approach.
Third, the plan called for redesign of the Main Street and
Pioneer Avenue intersection by reconstruction of the
approaches of Main Street, channelization, and restriction
of parking along Pioneer Avenue in the vicinity of the Main
Street approaches. Fourth, the plan called for structural
improvements to improve access to the hospital by providing
stop sign control on Hohe Street, a four-way stop at the
intersection of Bartlett Street and Fairview Avenue and
paving Bartlett Street to the hospital. Finally, the plan
called for upgrading Pioneer Avenue to relieve the problems
caused by numerous left-turning movements and on-street
parking, by consolidating the number of access points,
restricting on-street parking and creating a left-turn
lane.

In response to these recommendations, funding priority was
established for each 'of these projects (excepting the
Bartlett Street project) through their inclusion in the
Kenai Regional Transportation Study. This study

constitutes the basis upon which State funding is awarded
for projects of such nature within the Borough.

The Master Plan identified issues and other portions of the
surface transportation network where additional research
and analysis were needed. First, the Master Plan called
for the issuance of City policy guidelines on the function
and use of the Spit because of the growing and diverse
demands which might be placed upon this unique feature of
the City. As the plan points out, traffic volumes are
directly related to land use and guidelines should be
established to govern or control the long-term use of the
land along the Spit; and, therefore the corresponding
traffic demand. It was also suggested that future traffic
volumes on the Spit Road might warrant expansion to four
lanes.

The Master Plan classified Homer's present and proposed
future street network into three categories, 11maj or
Arterial," "Neighborhood Arterial," and "Collectors." The
designated major arterials included the Sterling Highway,
Pioneer Avenue, East End Road, Lake Street, Fairview
Avenue, East and West Hill Roads, Bypass Road, Ocean Drive,
Kachemak Bay Drive, the Homer Spit Road, East Lane, and the
Beluga Lake North Shore Road. These major corridors would
receive the most traffic and provide the basic circulation
system for the City.

Neighborhood arterials were those which route the
"neighborhood" traffic to the ma]or arterials. The
neighborhood arterials included Bartlett Street, Main
Street, Heath Street, Bayview Avenue, Fairview Avenue, and
Ben Walters Lane. Proposed extensions included a link
between Main Street and Lake Street, through the Central
Business District, via Grubstake Avenue, and Fairview
Avenue extended to West Hill Road.

3-4. The Homer Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the Comprehensive
Plan for Distribution of Water were updates of the City's
1977 plans. The plans were prepared by the same
engineering firm (CH2M-Hill) which performed most of
Homer's municipal engineering services from the mid-1970's
to 1982.

The water comprehensive plan recommends several map
improvements, included a new 18 inch water pipeline to
replace the existing Homer Spit water line, and development
of a new water source to replace the Bridge Creek dam
(which was estimated to operate at capacity by 1989). The
plan also recommended various water extensions and
improvements throughout the City.

The Sewer Comprehensive Plan recommended various sewer
extensions throughout the City and expansion of the Homer
Sewer Treatment Plant.

Both plans recommended phased development of the systems,
concentrating development in the city center with
extensions to more remote areas as demand warranted. The
plans have not accurately anticipated much of the actual
extensions in Homer. Because project financing typically
is provided in part, or in whole, by property owners or
developers benefitting from the extensions, the timing of
extensions is dictated almost entirely by their desires.

The availability of adequate sewer treatment capacity is a
critical issue. If the capacity of the existing sewage
lagoons is not expanded, it is probable that new sewer
hookups will not be allowed. This would in turn slow'the
City's development or at least promote development in
places where lot size allows construction of septic
tank/soil absorption systems.
@ikewise, if water demand exceeds supply, much of the same
impact will occur. A 1982-83 study recommended
construction of a dam at Fritz Creek to supply water to the
City of Homer. The dam and transmission line were found by
the study's consultants to be the most cost-effective
supply source. The most competitive alternate source was
China Poot Lake, located across Kachemak Bay from Homer.
Costs for China Poot Lake were $22.5 million in 1982, as
opposed to $19.3 to $28.1 million for the Fritz Creek Dam,
depending on size. The City is currently pursuing
reservation of the Fritz Creek watershed for possible dam
construction.

The development of Homer's water and sewer system is
relevant to its road system, in that all three provide the
necessary infrastructure for land development. At present,
the existence of municipal water and sewer service is the
most important advantage the City of Homer provides to
developers.

Another important feature of the relationship between roads
and water/sewer utilities is that utilities are normally
constructed within public rights-of-way underneath
roadbeds. This arrangement has advantages and
@isadvantages. The advantages are that the utilities are
in accessible locations and can be conveniently extended or
repaired, and that utility easements need not be required
across private property. The disadvantages are that
repairs, extensions, or service additions can be costly
(due to the need to repair the road after construction) and
disruptive or dangerous to traffic and workmen. Typically,
right-of-way widths are insufficient to allow placement of
utilities outside some portion of the roadway prism. Also,
if water and sewer are constructed prior to the street
construction, the street profile may necessitate raising or
lowering or relocating the water or sewer lines. These
disadvantages can be compensated for by constructing all

improvements simultaneously. In addition, simultaneous
utility construction averts the adverse policy consequences
of extending water and sewer into a subdivision with
unconstructed or poorly constructed streets. Such
extensions encourages population influxes and result in
demands for the City to upgrade the street. It also-
eschews the problem inherent in "restoration" of a
previously substandard road to the same level once
utilities are extended. Local residents insist that the
road's poor condition is the City's fault and demand that
the City upgrade it.

5-6. The Homer Drainacfe Management Plan (1979) and the Homer
Revised Drainacre Management Plan (1982) were prepared in
response to a rising awareness of drainage and "potential
flooding" problems in the Homer area. Much preparatory
work was done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the
mid-1970's including a history of flooding (compiled mostly
from anecdotal sources), ,and a potential flooding study.

The major impetus for plan preparation was a moratorium
imposed by the Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA) in the
1970's on a number of home loans in Homer. This
moratorium, was to be effective until the City established
legal control of its drainageways. The City responded with
a three phase program proposal:

a) Prepare a drainage management plan.
b) Prepare plans and specifications for construction of
drainage improvements.
C) Construct the drainage improvements.

Thus far, parts (a) and (b) have been completed: these
were the objectives of the original "Drainage Management
Plan" and the revised plan, respectively.

The issue of drainage is relevant to the road system in
that surface and subsurface drainage has been one of the
most critical design problems in roads. Moreover, if the
City does assert control over its drainages, its control
will center on the culvert crossings on roadways and on
underground storm drain systems. The choice of drainage
@odes (open ditch vs. buried storm drain) has an undeniable
impact on the character of the roadway; it is the choice
between rural design and urban/ suburban design.

The original drainage plan (1979) included an inventory of
all cross-culverts then in existence, and established for
each culvert the existing culvert capacity (in cubic feet
per second) as compared to the required design capacity
(based generally on 25-year recurrence interval storms).
The inventory also established required future culvert
locations for unconstructed streets. This present and
future inventory provided the basis for a complete drainage
system made up of "trunk drainageways" and "local

drainageways.11 The system was designed to take advantage
of natural creeks, and improvements would be designed to
include construction of open ditches. Buried storm drains
would be avoided because of "high capital and maintenance
costs (due to) icing and sediment blockage problems." The
plan also discouraged storage detention ponds. The plan
included standard details for culverts and erosion-control
elements and established a program for drainage plan
implementation, including a suggested drainage ordinance.

The 1981 revised plan presented a plan/profile mapping of
drainageways in the downtown core area complete with
culvert size, alignment, and proposed drainageway slopes.
Accompanying the plans and profiles was a set of standard
construction specifications for drainageways. The revised
plan also mapped several drainageways not specifically
included in the original plan: these included drainageways
feeding into Beluga Lake and those which drain off the
bluff area south of the Sterling Highway. In addition, a
design plan/profile of the Fairview Avenue west extension
(Ridgeview Acres to West Hill Road) was drawn and culverts
were sized for it. Finally, a revised and simplified
drainage ordinance was included.

It should be noted that some of the proposed drainage
improvements have been constructed; however, actual design
practice has considerably deviated from the plan
recommendations. Land values in the downtown area have
escalated to the point that storm drain systems are
preferred to natural drainageways which, in many cases,
bisect and sometimes inundate private properties. Drainage
easement acquisition, recommended by both plans, has been
pursued on an erratic basis, mostly during the subdivision
platting process. The City still has little control over
drainage, although the zoning ordinance does include some
regulations.

The design proposed cross-culverts, included in the revised
plan, cannot be regarded as final: in reality, the
culverts may conflict with buried water and sewer lines,
and erosion may have changed the channel configuration
since the original design was completed.

7. The Kenai Regional Transportation Stud (KRTS) was one of a
series of regional, multimodal transportation planning
efforts conducted in the early 1980's by the State of
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
The study was conducted in three phases:

The Phase I report (completed February 1981) was a
data and information assembly effort that included
traffic network analysis and preliminary forecasts of
transportation needs.

The Phase II report (issued August 1981) was an
analysis of community and economic development needs
for transportation improvements and alternative ways
of meeting these needs. It included a "demand
analysis and forecast for transport services."

Phase III report (issued March 1983) identified Kenai
Peninsula transportation improvement proj ects and
classified them according to priority.

The KRTS reports examined all modes of public
transportation impacting the Kenai Peninsula economy.
Thus, facilities that were examined included roads, rail,
air, and ports. The study's conclusions found that the
Borough is served "by a comparatively extensive, well
developed multimodal system. If it -were not for the
significant development potentials, the system might be
considered overdeveloped for the size of the regional
economy and population." This did not mean that additional
improvements were not necessary, rather that most major
links were currently under-utilized or operating with a
significant unused capacity. The railroad, some pipelines,
some air services, most ports, and many roads fell into
this category.

The plan found that of "all the modes, the
regional and local road networks provide the
least acceptable level of service. Thus, while
their design capacities are not fully utilized,
road conditions restrict their use - sometimes
severely. community priorities focused almost
exclusively on the need for better levels of
service on these local and regional roads to meet
present traffic demands.

In general, current road design capacities were
not found to be a problem. The demand/capacity
evaluations for highways did not result in the
identification of any major new demands or
overall network improvements even when traffic
forecasts for the year 1980 were used as demand
functions. The few facilities requiring added
design capacities by 1990 included the Homer Spit
Road, portions of the Kenai Spur, the Soldotna
Frontage, and East End Road in Homer. The
implications of this finding are that the present
regional system, if upgraded to provide a minimum
level of service, would satisfy most development
needs."

The plan also identified 62 projects as high-priority on
the basis of their being either:

1) Ongoing DOT/PF, KPB, or municipal projects.
2) High on the list of projects required to meet
community development goals.
3) Required to support economic development potentials in
the KPB, or
4) Their having current traffic or service levels higher
than their design capacities or maintenance levels.

Generally, this process led to identification of State-
owned, State-maintained roads (or other transportation
facilities such as docks) in need of improvement. Very few
of the road priorities (none of those identified in Homer)
were locally maintained roads. Major road projects in, or
impacting, the Homer area included the following:

- Upgrade Sterling Highway (MP 36-58, MP 79-95, and MP
120-175)
- Airport Bypass/Kachemak Bay Drive reconstruction
- Bear Creek Drive (Kachemak City) reconstruction (Note:
this road had not been on the State system)
- Skyline Drive (widen, pave, install guardrails)
East End Road reconstruction, Phase I to IV.
(Includes as Phase III the reconstruction and repaving
5 to 32 feet of the section from the Lake Street
intersection to Mil 9.81.)
- East Hill Road (reconstruct, widen, pave)
Lake Street/Pioneer Avenue (reconstruct)
- Olsen Lane/Bunnell Avenue/Main Street (reconstruct,
pave)
- West Hill Road (reconstruct, pave)

"Low priority" projects included:

- Homer Spit Road (widen to 4 lanes)
- Diamond Ridge Road (pave)
- Ohlson Mountain Road
- Bartlett/Fairview/Hohe reconstruction
- Tustemena Loop Road (East End Road to North Fork or
Oilwell Road)

The projects outside the Homer city limits would generally
be administered either by the. State directly or by the
Kenai Peninsula Borough with State funding.

In the Homer area, the West Hill Road and Bear Creek Drive
projects have been completed, (1983-84), and the Pioneer
Avenue reconstruction project is funded for construction in
1985.

A June 1983 worksession of the KRTS Advisory Board (which
included DOT personnel, borough and local officials) led to
the addition of two new Homer projects to the "high

57
priorityl@' list: Lake Street/Bypass intersection and
Bartlett/Fairview/Hohe (which was transferred from its low
priority status). The Borough and City also requested that
Fairview Avenue be addedf because of its importance to the
new Homer High School.

After the summer of 1983, there were turnovers of DOT/PF
planning personnel; thus KRTS Advisory Board meetings have
not been held recently, and the KRTS document's importance
as a document guiding transportation funding has apparently
declined.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

The City of Homer has adopted three comprehensive capital
improvement programs. The first was a 1969-75 program prepared
for the City by the Alaska State Housing Authority, as part of
the original Homer Comprehensive Development Plan. The second
was the 1975-81 program, developed in-house by the City of Homer
staff.

The latest program was developed in 1984 by the City
administration, and covers the period 1986 to 1991. Between
1980 and 1984, there was no comprehensive program, but, rather
legislative priority lists were compiled on a year by year
basis.

Street improvements proposed in the 1969 plan included the
following projects (the status of each is given in parentheses):

- "Spit Road - repair and stabilize erosion damage"
(Completed in 1969)
- "Spit Road - pave from Pioneer Avenue to Airport Road"
(Completed in 1970)
- "Spit Road - pave from Airport Road to end of Spit"
(Completed in 1971)
- "Sterling Highway - (realign) in front of high school"
(not constructed)
- "Pioneer Avenue - reconstruct, pave, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and install storm drains from Sterling Highway to
Spit Road" (Strip paving done in 1970 but degenerated
rapidly, and was redone in 1976). (Reconstruction project
underway summer 1985.)
- "Central Collector"/"Industrial Bypass Road" (These
projects were combined, to become the Homer Bypass project,
which was placed on the Central Collector's alignments and
completed in 1979.)
- "Collector streets - construct gravel streets and storm
drain"/ "Collectors - pave, curb, and gutter". (One
designated collector street, Main Street from Pioneer to
Fairview was constructed in the early 70's and
reconstructed in 1982. Bartlett Street and Fairview Avenue
were reconstructed or upgraded in the late 1970's and early
1980's, and Kachemak Way was reconstructed in 1983.) The

only collector street paving as of 1984 has been on the
Bartlett Street/Fairview Avenue/Hohe Street route to the
South Peninsula Hospital, and on a portion of lower Main
Street.
"Residential access streets - reconstruct, pave, curb and
gutter" (No construction by 1984).

Between 1969 to 1975, only the projects involving State roads
were completed. The 1975-81 Comprehensive Plan noted that among
the 1969-75 proposed projects, the largest portion of
unconstructed projects were those involved with street
improvements and drainage.

other projects that were completed in that period included
airport expansions, equipment purchases, hospital renovations,
Hillside Park, the Spit (distal End) campground, main dock
expansion, small boat harbor facilities, sanitary sewer system
and treatment plant, Homer Public Works Building, Spit
restrooms, dog pound, Bridge Creek water reservoir and

Lake Street to Fritz Creek in 1976.

The 1975-81 program included street improvements, storm drains,
and street lights, but was not project specific. The estimated
cost of street improvements (1975 dollars) was $200,000, while
the storm drain cost was $2 million and the street light
estimate was $10,000. Other proposed projects included the
public safety building (City's top priority) ; a new city hall;
new water mains on Kachemak Drive, West Hill Road and the Spit;
various sewer system collectors; equipment purchases;
neighborhood parks, small boat harbor expansion; construction of
a new fish dock; and main dock expansion. As of 1985, several
of these projects have been completed; others are still in
progress.

After 1980, the City adopted year-by-year priorities for capital
funding. The projects that were continually promoted for
funding were Fairview Avenue (Hohe to Main and Bartlett to
Mullikin); Main Street (Pioneer to Fairview); and Kachemak Way.
With the exception of Fairview Avenue from Bartlett Street to
Mullikin Street, these projects were all eventually constructed.
Other priorities were Svedlund Street (Pioneer Avenue to Senior
Citizen's Center), Heath Street (Pioneer Avenue to Fire
Station), and east Klondike Avenue. These, also, were
constructed. All were financed by State grants.

In 1981, the City prepared a new capital improvement packet
specifically for legislative requests. A total of $6.6 million
was requested for improvements of ten streets: Kachemak Way
(Klondike to Bayview), Svedlund Street, Bartlett Street
(Fairview Avenue to Hospital), Fairview Avenue East Extension
(to East End Road), Fairview Avenue West Extension (to West Hill
Road) , Main Street (Pioneer Avenue to Fairview Avenue) , Bayview
Avenue, Rangeview Avenue, Heath Street, and Lucky Shot Street,
(Klondike to Bypass,) . Lucky Shot Street would be new

construction. No State-maintained roads were included in the
request.

The City, in 1982, designated as priority road projects, several
State-owned roads: Kachemak Drive and East Hill Road (as
regional" projects) and lower Main Street from Pioneer Avenue
to Lee Avenue. It should be noted that the lower Main Street
project was not included in the final capital improvement
priority list adopted in November 1982 for the 1983 legislature.
This was the first time a yearly capital improvement program had
been compiled for presentation to the State legislature with
public hearing on improvement priorities. Local (city-owned)
street projects designated as priority improvements in 1982 were
Fairview Avenue (Main Street to Heath Street) , Rainbow Avenue
(Kachemak Way to Heath Street) , Lucky Shot to Bypass, Fairview
Avenue (Bartlett to Mullikin), and Soundview Avenue (Bartlett to
Mullikin). None of these projects were funded by the 1983
legislature; however, the City's first priority, the Small Boat
Harbor Expansion, was funded.

The City Council, in 1983, designated Lucky Shot to the Bypass
as its first priority because of its perceived need as an
emergency ingress-egress to lower Glacier View Subdivision.
Ironically, this street had never been recommended in official
plans. Moreover, it would have had few advantages to the
transportation system as a whole, and would have benefitted as a
service road only one large unsubdivided tract. Further
consideration of such concerns caused the Council to shift its
priority to lower Heath Street (Klondike to Bypass) . The City
was authorized ' at that time, to acquire right-of-way for Heath
Street from the Bypass to Pioneer A-venue. Funding for this
project was to come from unspent funds remaining from prior
legislative grants.

The 1983 capital improvement request list (prepared for the 1984
state legislature) did not include Heath Street because of the
existing funding. In direct contrast to the packet prepared for
the 1984 legislature, the City promoted, as top priority,
several State roads for "upgrade and transfer to City
maintenance": these were Pioneer Avenue, Bartlett Street/
Fairview Avenue/Hohe Street and lower Main Street. The City
also sought full funding for paving Main Street and Kachemak Way
(both of which had recently been reconstructed to a high-type
gravel standard) and upgrading Lake Street from Pioneer Avenue
to the Bypass. "Regional projects" included the Fairview Avenue
@ast Extension, and "State projects" included Homer Spit Road
improvement, East Hill Road reconstruction, Kachemak Bay Drive
and the Sterling Highway from Homer to Anchor Point. Street,
road and highway projects constituted most of the 21 projects
for which the City sought funding. Requests for port and harbor
facilities were conspicuously absent probably due in part to
public disenchantment with the preoccupation with port and
harbor facilities. During the 1984 legislative session, the
City lobbied for only one street project, Pioneer Avenue. The
lobbying effort was successful, and the long-awaited project,

which would include sidewalks, storm drain, curbs and gutters,
originally proposed in 1969, was funded for 1985 construction.

In 1984, the City administration decided to return to the five
year CIP format. The program includes 50 construction and
reconstruction projects, costing almost $100 million. The
projects include nineteen projects on State-maintained streets,
nine on future City arterials, fifteen for City collectors (new
or existing), and nine local neighborhood streets.

The 1983 legislative request package, prepared in 1984 from the
five-year CIP document was also dominated by street projects.
"Local" street projects included reconstruction and repair of
lower Main Street (with sidewalks and storm drains), paving
upper Main Street, and paving and sidewalks for Kachemak Way.
Fairview Avenue from Bartlett Street to East End Road was
proposed for construction with pavement and sidewalks.

CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER SIX - ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

Nearly everyone in Homer will agree that there are problems with
the street system, whether it be conditions on a particular road
or the process for funding road improvements. The focus of this
chapter is to address the general problems and issues, not the
specific deficiencies on each road. The problems identified
fall into three groups: inherent; planning and zoning; and
maintenance and administration.

INHERENT PROBLEMS

Problems inherent to the street system involve topography, soil
conditions, the social perception of change and the community's
transportation needs, and the conditions of existing constructed
streets.

Problem #1: ToPography. The hillside slope and saturated
lowlands constrain development in an east-west direction within
buildable areas. The hillside area above approximate elevation
325 feet becomes progessively steeper with the increase in
elevation. maximum grades occur at around the 450 foot
elevation. The slopes effectively limit development in much of
the area from about 350 feet to 800 feet. In addition, the
Diamond Ridge area is characterized by numerous canyons, gullies
and rills. These constrict development laterally along the
hillside. Further topographical irregularities are present in
the form of knolls and/or steep grade transitions in the lower
hillside reaches.

There are several street and road-related problems caused by the
hillside topography. These include the following:

1. When snow and/or ice is present, a number of roads become
difficult or impossible to climb. Even worse, it may be
difficult or impossible to stop a vehicle heading downhill
under icy conditions. The frequency of such incidents are
lessened when road grades, particularly at intersection
approaches, are kept to within city standards, as detailed
in the Homer Municipal Code.

2. The City standards with respect to maximum grade and
curvature cannot always feasibly be met. This is
particularly true when existing roads are reconstructed.
An example of this is East Hill Road, which could only meet
all requirements if the road was radically realigned.
However, a radical realignment would create additional
problems and increase the cost.

The existence of these maximum grade and curvature
requirements in the City code does allow the Homer Planning
Commission to disapprove subdivision plats in steep areas

where requirements cannot be met. The Commission has
exercised this option on occasion, and this has proven
effective in controlling dangerous bluff development.
However, the Commission has also granted exceptions and
approved some nonconforming street dedications.

3. The existing topography often forces roadways to be
designed with large cut and fill sections, particularly in
steep or rolling areas. This leads to high project costs
because the cut material is usually unsuitable for fill,
and fill material must therefore be imported from distant
pits. This also makes depressed (urban) street designs
impractical or impossible in some cases.

open ditches and/or high cut or fill banks are often
unavoidable. These design elements use a great deal of
space and little room is left for sidewalks. This problem
is also manifested by the fact that driveways abutting
roads in these areas often have very steep grades. The
dilemma is that a street that maintains good design
standards in these areas may necessitate excessive grade
transitions to adjoining lots, and this makes for poor
ingress and egress.

4. The slope gradients cause stormwater to assume high in-
stream velocities. This can, in turn, lead to a rapid
erosion and scour in ditches unless channels are armored
and the side slopes vegetated. Revegetation is not always
done, hence roadway embankments become undercut.

5. View lots will always be in demand in Homer. As lower
hillside areas are developed, houses will compete with each
other for views. The demand thus moves uphill to steeper
areas. This development destabilizes the slope areas by
removing vegetation and excavating steep slopes. Thus it
could be argued that roads on these areas are problematic
by their very presence. They allow access and hence
encourage unwise development.

Problem #2: soils. Many areas within Homer are characterized
by saturated soil conditions. These areas include not only the
lowlands around Beluga Lake, but upland areas are also subject
to frequent saturation. This saturation is partly due to the
slope gradient, which is in some areas steeper than the
groundwater profile, thereby causing outcroppings of seepage
into surface water. Moreover, the fineness of native soils
causes saturation due to capillary rise from the groundwater
table; and, low permeability causes low infiltration rates.
Sheet drainage from various sources also figures prominently in
this situation. This poor drainage is often accompanied by very
poor soils, including thick peat layers. Such accompaniment is
natural, as saturation helps cause peat bog formation and peat
formation exacerbates drainage problems, The presence of these
saturated conditions increase construction difficulty0and costs.
It has, in past years, also helped to bring about severe

11breakup" problems which decrease the service life of roadways
and increase maintenance costs. Moreover, these factors have in
the past made paving appear unattractive. Gravel roads were
expensive enough to build and pavement would often disintegrate
after a short time. This condition owed itself largely to poor
subdrainage and to lack of subgrade separation. Proper design
would mitigate this problem.

A legal facet of the groundwater problem is that the 1977 Clean
Water Act requires that dredging or filling operations on
wetland areas be permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This requirement has a substantial impact on the Homer area as
large portions of the City, including hillside areas, are
technically classified as "wetlands." Most such areas are not
considered to be biologically sensitive; however, permit
processes must be followed in every case and these can require
long review periods.

The Beluga series soils predominate in the areas of greatest
development potential. Peat formations of the Salamatof,
Doroshin and Starichkof series are also present in spots. The
Beluga Loams are unsuitable as a source of road f ill due to low
bearing capacity, susceptibility to frost heaving and poor
drainage. Peat formations impose even more severe limitations
on roads and street development potential.

Problem #3: Social Perceptions. An inherent part of any
transportation project is the project's interaction with the
people affected. Every project brings about physical changes;
existing facilities are enhanced or new facilities are added.
These changes allow or force modification of social behavior.
Actions and/or opportunities will be different after a project
than they were before. And each project has costs, not only in
terms of money expended, but also in terms of opportunities and
resources forfeited by project selection choice. A further cost
is often necessary for ultimate project success: the facility's
use, after construction must be controlled. Transportation
projects bring about these changes, costs and controls.

In Homer, these are felt very acutely. A number of people
oppose change, even though they would like improvements. Such
features of road projects as partial access control or street
pavement are likely to find opposition from individuals who
basically prefer the status quo. Controls as apparently
innocuous as driveway width limitations have been hotly disputed
by persons who contend that their access rights are being
infringed. Some people in Homer are neither accustomed to nor
@avorably disposed toward such regulations. Projects that
impact traditional land use will face strong opposition, as will
those with some adverse environmental impact.
It is often true that road and street projects alter previous
travel and development patterns. These alterations will be
welcomed by some and opposed by others. Construction of new
streets in undeveloped areas may be protested by those who feel

that investments should be made in existing streets. Upgrade of
existing streets may be opposed by people who feel it will
invite extra traffic and the negative effects of construction
(i.e. inconvenience and dislocation).

Homer's sustained rapid growth has created a demand for new
residences, businesses and apartments. These, in turn, demand
development of new streets and new facilities on existing
streets. The net effect has been to force increases in traffic
on existing streets. The problem is how to adequately
accommodate the growth in traffic and how to do so in a socially
acceptable manner. The problem actually has two parts: first,
how to handle the additional load on existing arterials and
i@ajor collectors; second, how to develop new subdivision streets
in an orderly controlled manner which fits in with the rest of
the system.

If the problem is one of volumes approaching capacity on
existing streets, then one must consider whether capacity can be
increased by additional lanes. However, it must also be
examined whether in the long term, new streets may n eed to be
developed to keep traffic within acceptable limits.

If new streets are envisioned, is it possible to design them
compatible with the existing street network? The objective is
to provide a rational layout for new streets in order to
maximize the utility of each street, new or existing. The
challenge is how to do this, particularly when topographical
constraints and existing tract geometrics work against an
orderly layout. It is inevitable that if rational planning does
not precede street development, disorder will occur. As one
example, the actual function of a roadway may be misjudged and
poor design criteria used. Another common complication in Homer
has been created by the proliferation of tee intersections,
particularly along Pioneer Avenue and East End Road. These lead
to inefficient and circuitous travel patterns and increased
congestion and conflicts along major through streets.

Street improvements and new construction are in large part
arranged by existing demographics and growth patterns. The
community's growth patterns are the warrants for such projects;
however, these same growth patterns may occur in ways that
preclude optimum route selections or right-of-way acquisition.
The proposed Bypass Extension, for instance, may be very
expensive if right-of-way is not secured in the near future,
simply because of the development likely to occur there.
Moreover, such an extension could be very controversial in that
it would likely require extensive purchase and/or condemnation
of existing lots. It would also skirt residential subdivisions.
These project prerequisites have social and political
significance in their own right. Indeed, the societal costs may
be judged far more important than the technical benefits.

Problem #4: Existing Streets. Homer's street system
incorporates a wide mix of street layout philosophies. Some
routes were created by following the most advantageous path with
regard to topography, soils and linkage to distant destinations.
Others were created by subdivision according to aliquot parts.
Some were created using modern residential subdivision
philosophies. Others were crude layouts by paper plat.

The effect of this mix has been creation of a relatively
randomized street system which, in turn, causes circuitous,
inefficient travel patterns which artificially concentrate
traffic onto arterials. Other undesirable design elements, such
as acute street intersection angles, also have developed.
Problems found on existing streets range from unappropriate
layouts, to varying right-of-way widths, to varying building
setback requirements or geometric deficiencies.

Some street layouts have been developed which are not
appropriate to the traffic characteristics which they support.
The best example of this is found in Lakeside Village
Subdivision. This subdivision is laid out quite well for
residential traffic service; curves were used to slow traffic.
The subdivision has access to Lake Street on the west and East
End Road to the north. Nielsen Avenue and Ben Walters Lane
connect the two arterials. Unfortunately, the subdivision roads
are being used as a detour around the Lake Street/Pioneer Avenue
intersection for movements from Lake Street (northbound lane) to
East End Road (eastbound) . This is the very movement that the
subdivider attempted to guard against, by use of curves.
Traffic using Ben Walters and/or Nielsen for this purpose tends
toward speeds in excess of the residential character of abutting
lots, the condition of the roadway, and the curvature. This
example provides a lesson in that the intention behind the
geometric design has been defeated by actual usage.

Throughout the Homer street system, right-of-way (ROW) widths
vary from street to street. The width has depended on the
prevailing subdivision regulations at the time of dedication.
This has resulted in inadequate widths in a number of cases, a
condition which can severely impact the City's or State's
ability to construct needed improvements. In some cases, lane
and/or shoulder width is compromised. In other cases,
pedestrian facilities are sacrificed. There is sometimes no
alternative to right-of-way acquisition, and this can be very
expensive, particularly if building relocation or demolition is
involved. The ROW expense can easily deplete a project budget.
After purchase, remaining funds may be insufficient for
necessary improvements such as sidewalks. In such a case, the
overwhelming temptation may be to save the money that would have
gone toward ROW acquisition and divert it toward another more
affordable project. The effect of this decision is to transfer
the problem to the future, at which time ROW costs may be even
higher.

Building setback requirements have also varied over the years,
which can make road reconstruction impossible or costly. A 10
foot setback was in effect until the mid-Seventies, when 20 feet
was adopted. Minimal building setbacks can lead to restricted
sight distances at intersections or driveways, or cost
prohibitive right-of-way acquisition expenses.

Examples of geometric deficiencies on some existing streets are:

- Insufficient lane and shoulder width for Bartlett Street,
East End Road.
- The "roller coaster" profile of East End Road, which
obscures sight distance to and from driveways and
intersections.
- Steep grades and sharp curvature on West Hill and East Hill
roads.
- Promotion of through -movements around 75o to 90o bends at
intersections (these intersections include Fairview
Avenue/Hohe Street, Bypass/Lake Street, Lake Street/Ocean
Drive, and Ocean Drive/Spit Road). This generally becomes
problematic only when third or fourth streets (or
driveways) also join the intersection. There is no easy
solution to the operational and traffic control problems
that result.

PLANNING AND ZONING

Planning for future streets, both design and construction,
creates numerous problems, as outlined below.

Problem Area #1: Undeveloped Rights-of-Way. Perhaps the City's
most important underlying problem, arises from a loophole in the
City zoning ordinance and the Kenai Peninsula Borough's
subdivision ordinance. The problem is that subdividers are
allowed to subdivide property and provide "legal access" to all
subdivided parcels via paper platted rights-of-way. However,
there is no obligation to actually construct the streets thus
created. Thus a subdivider/developer is not required to build
the roads, but, if he/she chooses to do so, he/she must
theoretically follow the City's standards.

The justifications for this loophole are that construction
requirements would impose undue hard,ships on so-called "mom and
pop" subdividers, and that such requirements would also infringe
on the rights of individuals to dispose of property as they
choose. It has also been argued, somewhat speciously, that
water and sewer should always be installed prior to, or
concurrent withl street construction in order to hold down costs
of later installation. The net effect is that. these
requirements would make lots very expensive and therefore
difficult to sell.

The case against this loophole is that it causes a large number
of adverse impacts.not only on the area abutting the undeveloped
right-of-way, but also on the community at large. Undeveloped
and inaccessible lots are likely to be developed along
substandard roads. Access to these lots is likely to be poorly
constructed. Ultimately, the community often ends up providing
the street improvements, at full public expense. Hence, the
taxpayer subsidizes the subdivision's improvements. The
loophole provides a means by which improvement costs are, in the
end, transferred from the beneficiaries to the public. In this
manner, Homer is gradually acquiring a large liability.

Problem Area #2: Master Plan/Plat Review. A second problem
relates to the existing "Master Plan for Roads and Streets
(1979). The problem is how strictly to abide by the plan's
stipulations, particularly with regard to route alignment.
Moreover, should the City Planning Commission accept dedication
of rights-of-way along its arterials (or even collectors) which
are not specifically planned for and called out on the Master
Plan?

There may be a number of local streets dedicated which were not
anticipated by the Plan. This may lead to "unwanted" rights-of-
way which do not conform to spacing requirements along major
roads or which create staggered tee intersections. Therefore,
the administration and Planning Commission face the problem of
determining importance of these elements (as they apply on a
case-by-case basis) , and of developing reasonable alternatives
which overcome problems. In the process, the legitimate access
rights of subdividers must be balanced with the need to protect
highway utility. The same can be said for exceptions to street
construction guidelines.

Problem Area #3: Resubdivisions or Development on Substandard
Roads. Individuals resubdividing lots on substandard roads are
essentially creating additional traffic on roads which cannot
service existing traffic. The only controls available to the
City Planning Commission have been by means of conditional use
permits, and to some extent, plats.

Problem Area #4: Access Control, Setbacks, Driveway Spacing/
Frontacfe Requirements. A comprehensive, city-wide policy for
access control, setbacks and driveway spacing has not been
formulated. Access control measures are being applied on the
Bypass and some other roads with limited success. Many
developers feel 11singled out" by the existing practice.
Generally, developers would not object to control measures
provided the treatment is equal and objective. Since the City
has not adopted formal zoning regulations limiting access on
roads such as the Bypass, restrictions have been placed on
access during the subdivision plat process. There also appears
to be a well entrenched school of opinion that the City is
helpless without "access right" purchase; which is a dubious
contention.

Problem Area #5: Existing ordinances. Street construction
standards are codified by means of Title 11, Homer Municipal
Code. This ordinance was enacted to provide a minimum of
quality standards which would serve as the basis for accepting
or rejecting streets. for maintenance. Its standards are,
therefore, usually viewed as semi-voluntary guidelines, with
City acceptance providing the only "incentive" to conform.
However, the literal interpretation does, in fact, assert a
minimum standard to be used for all street construction of
whatever scale.

The ordinance has many drawbacks, however, and has not been
well-respected in recent years. It predates the use, in Homer,
of geotextiles for reinforcement and subgrade separation; a
development which has altered actual practice in design and
construction. A number of key terms are left undefined. It is
unclear whether the street must be designed or not. Even if it
is, prior approval by the City is not specifically required.

Acceptance of streets for maintenance is contingent on prior
submission and approval of engineered plans and specifications,
construction according to the plans, and preparation of "as-
builts.11 Administrative policy has been to ignore those
provisions of the ordinance that are outdated or counter
productive.

To the extent that the ordinance is not literally enforced, the
ordinance's power is diminished. Exceptions to its provisions
have been taken as precedents. The problem, therefore, is that
@hile standards were adopted, they were adopted in flawed and
inflexible form.

Problem Area #6: Unpaved Roadways. Perhaps the street-related
issue of greatest notoriety is Homer's gravel surface standard.
Before dealing with this issue, it must be noted that the gravel
roads constructed here in recent years are, by all accounts,
superior to the earth/gravel roads built in former years. This
improvement alone provides satisfaction to many long-time
residents. Persons who endured the road conditions for years
may therefore have difficulty understanding the complaints and
demands of newer residents.

The gravel surface standard is used throughout the world;
however, the use is normally limited to rural roads, where
traffic volumes do not justify paving, or to areas where
bituminous or concrete paving materials are unavailable and/or
prohibitively expensive. These conditions are not truly present
in Homer.

Oglesby's standard text, "Highway Engineering", 4th ed. (Wiley;
1982) reports:

"The upper limit of traffic volumes for which
untreated (gravel or crushed rock) road surfaces are
economical varies, but is low; possibly in the range
of 100 to 250 vehicles per day when vehicles operating
costs are considered. At higher traffic volumes,
surface pitting, the formation of transverse
corrugations, the cost of replacing materials that
erode or blow away, and the dry-weather dust problem
all militate against their use."

For comparison purposes, upper Main Street in May 1984, carried
approximately 1300 vehicles per day. It is likely that volumes
would be greater if the severe corrugation problem did not
exist, causing traffic to divert to other streets.

It is also true that gravel roads are subject to degradation by
many processes. For example, f ines are lost as dust into the
atmosphere, causing surface armoring and subsequent frictional
degradation of aggregate. Moreover, the road surface is exposed
and vulnerable to contamination by unsuitable material, usually
when native clays and peats are spread or dropped onto the road
surface by construction activities on abutting lots. On some
streets, storm water washes down the street, carrying away
suitable materials but depositing a residue of fines/organics.
Such material can easily work into the base course. Over a
period of time, contamination could progress to such an extent
that frost-heaving and "pumping" could occur. At that point,
the road will require reconstruction.

Problem Area #7: Sidewalks. There has been no standard policy
regarding sidewalks or bicycle facilities on Homer's roads and
streets. As a result, there are few sidewalks or bike paths,
and those that exist are anomalous and discontinuous. Most
major streets do not have them. This creates a conflict between
pedestrians, bicyclists and automobiles. The conflict is
particularly acute where shoulders do not exist or are commonly
occupied by parking.

It is difficult to discretly quantify the benefits to the City
(or State, in the case of State-maintained roads) by separating
vehicles and pedestrians. This is largely a matter which
involves such irreducible values as the need to protect human
life. on a more litigious level, however, the City or State
might not be held immune from tort liability for negligence if a
plaintiff can prove, among other things, that a potentially
dangerous defect existed (i.e. no reasonable facility for
pedestrian use) , that the defect was the proximate cause of an
accident and that the reponsible agency had actual prior
knowledge of 'the hazardous condition. There are some areas,
especially East End Road, in which the State in particular could
be exposed to large claims due to lack of pedestrian facilities

should an accident occur. This may be one argument for adhering
to generous design standards, including pedestrian ways. it
could also represent a strong argument against City takeover of
State-maintained roads before they are constructed and upgraded
to proper standards.

Problem Area #8: Engineering Design, Testing and Analysis. it
has previously been mentioned that the City does require that
engineered plans and specifications be prepared, by a registered
professional civil engineer, and approved prior to construction.
Failure to do so will result in refusal to accept the road for
maintenance. The process of preparing these plans always
involves some level of field reconnaisance. At the very least,
a survey must be performed and the designer must inspect the
site. Often, good practice distates the need for more
sophisticated reconnaisance techniques, especially soil testing
and use of groundwater observation wells. These may not always
be warranted; however, test results and actual test data are
what provide the rationale behind roadway foundation design.
The City has not stipulated requirements or even guidelines for
when these tests are to be performed. Nor has it, in the past,
consistently demanded an analytical and rational design approach
to road design. This has tended to encourage, or even force,
designers to adopt "cookie-cutter" design procedures, especially
in private development designs. While engineers might prefer an
analytical/empirical approach to design, such an approach can be
expensive, and the expense is impossible to justify to clients
if the City is ambivalent about the need for testing and
analysis.

Problem Area #9: Capital Prolect Selection. In recent years,
most of Homer's street projects have been new streets,
constructed as part of private subdivision developments. These
developments are, of course, undertaken for profit. City street
projects are normally selected for different reasons. They are
usually chosen via a political process which focuses attention
on the problems of existing streets. This process is excellent
for highlighting the needs of existing areas. It is almost
axiomatic in transportation planning that if the public thinks a
problem exists, then a problem exists. However, the process is
flawed in several respects.

First, the political process magnifies reactions to problem
symptoms. The danger with this is that decision makers will
respond to these reactions sincerely and favorably, but without
a larger perspective of the role of a particular street in the
system and without an understanding. of project's policy
implications. Second, the pressure will almost always be in
favor of improving existing streets. This may not necessarily
be the most rational decision, given that the future viability
of the transportation network (and the community it serves) may
depend on construction of selected new streets or highways.
Finally, the City of Homer has not, in the past, pursued a
rational, independent project programming/ f easibil ity analysis
approach to complement the political process. Such an approach

would, if property carried out, provide a means by which
decision-makers could make capital allocation decisions on the
basis of "most bang for the buck," instead of relying
exclusively on compilation of requests, "wish lists" and
complaints. This is not to suggest that citizen participation
and input is without merit. To the contrary, it is a healthy
and crucial part of the process. Feasibility reports and
economic analyses are meant to complement citizen input.

Problem Area #10: Prolect Planning and Organization. Projects
which are selected for capital funding are vulnerable to many
problems which often were unexplored during the selection phase.
Lack of sufficient right-of-way is often a major obstacle, as is
location of funding sources. Local improvement districts
(LID's) can be used to allow project costs to be borne, or at
least shared, by actual beneficiaries. However, LID formation
for streets is often resisted on the basis of cost. Property
owners who would be eligible for LID assessments often argue
that it is the City's or State's responsibility to fund or build
the road.

In addition, LID assessments are, in Homer, computed on the
basis of area immediately abutting the improvements. This is
not the most equitable method for assessments for arterial and
collector streets. It is more equitable to include and assess
areas along side streets as well, since service will be provided
to them. However, this assessment should not be as great as for
abutting properties. This "ripple effect" mechanism cannot
feasibly be used at present because Homer is not a home-rule
city. It is bound by the requirements of the "Special
Assessment Districts" Chapter Title 29, Alaska Statutes. These
requirements effectively block use of the "ripple effect" or
similar mechanisms to allow costs to be divided on an area-wide
basis, rather than along a strip.

Problem Area #11: Improvement District Implementation. While
LIDs are an attractive, equitable means of project funding, they
are difficult to initiate, set up and administer. The law
requires that due process be followed during the LID initiation.
This process is designed to protect objectors. This is done by
ensuring that all parties are notified and have reasonably
correct information (regarding costs, project scope, etc.). The
process therefore can have profound legal implication.
Adminsitrative work on LIDs is therefore cautious as well as
cumbersome. Petitioners and administration alike are frustrated
by the amount of time that is required. The time and detail
that is applied may, in fact, place an upper limit on the number
of LIDs that the City can produce without hiring additional
staff.

Problem Area #12: Citv Involvement in State Projects. In the
past, the City has failed to become involved in the planning and
design of State road projects until the project progressed too
far to allow changes. The result has been adoption of designs

which do not meet City standards or which cause numerous
negative side effects when constructed.

Problem Area #13: Private Development. in the past, the City
has been vigilant in assuring quality control on city-funded
projects (including. water and sewer as well as streets).
However, there is little City quality control for privately
constructed improvements which are to be turned over to the City
for maintenance. This was not due to lack of interest; rather
it is because the City did not have a full-time inspector. Even
now, the City's project inspector must divide his time between
City projects and private ventures. Moreover, inspection costs
on private developments are being borne by the taxpayers. This
is not consistent with the fact that City-sponsored improvement
districts pay for their own inspection. In essence, this
amounts to a development subsidy.

The private developer in Homer who wants the City to take over
the improvements after project completion must first hire an
engineer to prepare plans and specifications. The engineer
submits these to the City for approval and/or changes. After
revision and final approval, the developer's contractor begins
work. The contractor sometimes tries to get variances from
plan/specification requirements and the City generally refuses.
Quality-control or material problems may appear and the City may
require that portions of work be redone. This is sometimes a
difficult thing to enforce. However, the City does have the
?ption of not accepting any of the improvements until all work
is done. For example, water won't be turned on until the street
is fixed. Or a bond is required to guarantee project
completion. Toward the end of a pro]ect, developers begin to
assure realtors and private builders that work is done, or,
under pressure to get the project completed, they say the City
is stalling. This triggers a flood of phone calls from
realtors, builders and prospective property owners demanding
explanations for why the City isn't accepting the improvements.
The City administration sometimes bows to the pressure and
allows partial acceptance etc. which may weaken the ability to
enforce completion of all project details.

Problem Area #14: Pro! ect Costs. Street construction costs
have escalated in 1984, after a period of' relative stability.
This escalation is due in large part to escalation of gravel pit
prices. many individuals in and out of City government are
alarmed at the increase and believe it unwarranted. (It has
therefore been proposed that the City promote new sources or,
perhaps, purchase its own borrow source.) The gravel costs
threaten water and sewer projects, as well as street projects.
In the long term, it is hoped that prices will stabilize, but
for now, the City hopes that competitive free-market forces will
lower the price.

Problem Area #15: Drainage. Drainage remains generally
unregulated, in spite of the Drainage Management Plans of 1979
and 1981. Because of this lack of policy, property owners are

basically free to alter or disturb drainage patterns as they
please. Cross-road drainage culverts are often placed in such a
manner as to "daylight" stormwater onto private lots. Road
improvements open up new areas for development, which increase
the surface runoff and exacerbate surface drainage problems,
even when drainage is confined to a natural drainageway. This
not only leads to flooding, but also erosion upstream and
sedimentation downstream. The sedimentation redirects drainage
and causes additional trouble. The City has been responsible
for increasing problems in some cases. The City has often
requested drainage easements dedicated along property lines in
new subdivisions. This ensures that drainage will be diverted
into straight ditches in those locations. Unless these ditches
are properly armored and energy dissipators provided, scour and
erosion will occur and deposit sediment and random drainage
downstream.

MAINTENANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

Maintenance on existing streets and administrative policy
relating to enforcement of parking and street regulations raise
additional problems.

Problem #1: Maintenance. The rural, gravel surface prevalent
on almost all of Homer's roads cause many maintenance problems.
Ditches must be maintained or be subject to siltation/
aggradation, and loss of function because of vegetation growth.
Some ditches must be armored and plunge basins constructed to
prevent erosion. Unfortunately, the Public Works Department
does not have sufficient resources to continually perform ditch
maintenance. The work can only occur on selected streets on a
programmed basis, or periodically as time allows.

The gravel surfaced roads are also subject to corrugation,
particularly on uphill grades. The road must be bladed
periodically to "smooth-out" the corrugations. However, there
are some roads which are armored at the surface with large
pitrun gravel and cannot be worked. It also becomes
progressively more difficult to blade with any effect as the
road ages, due to loss of material as dust into the atmosphere,
and by other mechanisms. By that time, the only workable
process may be scarification prior to grading, blading and
recompaction. This can be very expensive, and the process will
still not cure the problem. Corrugation would continue, albeit,'
perhaps at a retarded pace.

Roadway embankments are also subject to some degree of mass-
wasting, as material on the slopes will invariably ravel, to
some extent, under stress. This must be compensated by "pulling
ditches". Unfortunately, this operation is likely to result in
poor material on the road surface. This is the reason why the
City has required full-depth crushed material, yet this kind of
cross-section is not economical. A paved surface will, in the

long run, effect greater cost savings than the amount of crushed
material required in the cross section.

The dust problem has been combatted in the past by oiling
roadways. This practice is no longer allowed by the State Dept.
of Environmental Conservation. The City has experimented with
lignosulfate for dust control, however, the result was a
tremendous increase in corrugation of Kachemak Way. Emulsions
are now under consideration, however, application costs are very
high and maintenance costs may be as well. This raises the
issue of whether it may be, in fact, more economical to "bite
the bullet" and pave, rather than continue gravel surface
maintenance.

Problem #2: Enforcement. Many of the City's traffic
regulations are regularly violated. The 25 mph speed limit on
City streets is obeyed only if traffic volumes and road
conditions do not permit higher speeds. The higher limits on
the Bypass and Spit Road are also regularly ignored. The
problem is, in part, lack of enforcement. However, it is also
@ecause speed limits have not been set by a rational method. it
is widely agreed in the transportation engineering community
that speeds should be set in the 5 mph increment above the 85th
percentile of speed ranges. This is a way of acknowledging that
drivers are generally good at regulating their speeds according
to conditions, and that irresponsible drivers generally
represent, in reality, a small proportion of the total. It has
been found, in many traffic engineering studies that arbitrarily
set low speed limits are not respected, therefore enforcement
may be futile anyway.

On-street parking and loading regulations are also not enforced
unless parked vehicles are clearly impeding traffic. There is a
city ordinance that pr Iohibits backing onto arterials or parking
in such a manner as to require such maneuvers, and this
ordinance is not being effectively enforced.

Deferred enforcement is also occurring with the Homer Off-Street
Parking Ordinance, pending release of administrative staff
personnel from other project commitments. The ordinance is
controversial and requires a great deal of liaison and
negotiation, and so may not have a speedy resolution.

Problem #3: Permitting. Construction within rights-of-way is
regulated by the City. The permitting process is performed in a
circuitous manner, with various branches of administration
involved. Poor liaison frequently occurs. Inspection occurs as
much as allowed under time constraints.

Problem #4: Spot Maintenance. The City denies permanent
maintenance to substandard roads. However, "spot" maintenance
is sometimes provided if the City's Public Works Department is
directed to do so. Winter snowplowing is provided to many
substandard roads. In some cases, this maintenance is done
under severe operational problems, i.e. inadequate turnaround

for graders, etc. The denial of maintenance is the only
substantial protection the City has against assumption of
substandard private road development as public liability.
However, the City's position on this policy may be weakened in
that it does take stewardship of rights-of-way by means of the
construction in the right-of-way permits.

Problem #5: Cost Sharincf. The City has no operative policy
regarding cost-sharing for street improvements. In 1982, a
resolution (No. 82-6S) established some "guidelines"
establishing levels of public participation to be established
(as matches to LID assessments) for each functional
classification of roadway. This resolution's provisions have
never been followed. Kachemak Way, Main Street (Pioneer -
Fairview) and Fairview Avenue (Main to Hohe) were all
reconstructed without assessment contributions. Each is a
collector street and provides service to other areas besides
abutting properties. Thus, it is reasonable that abutting
property owners should not have to bear all of the project
costs. It appears inconsistent that the City has demanded no
assessments from these benefitting property owners, while
declaring that other property owners should pay their fair
share.

Problem #6: Utility Installation Concurrent with Road
Construction. Water and sewer have been installed in a number
of areas prior to construction of City standard streets. Most
recently, this has occurred in Cooper Subdivision and Fritz
Subdivision. This encourages subdivision into smaller lots, and
increased population. In turn, this increases pressure on the
City to "do something about the road." Conversely, street
construction which is undertaken prior to water and sewer
installation forces increased utility installation prices when
they are installed later.

CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER SEVEN - FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

The problems and issues identified in Chapters Four, Five
and Six will be addressed in Chapters Seven through Nine.
This chapter proposes a functional classification system,
whereby the primary function of-the roadways are identified
and appropriate policies and standards are applied for each
classification. Chapter Eight will address project
recommendations; Chapter Nine will present policy
recommendations.

The Homer roads and streets system is not a homogeneous
entity. Within this system are many kinds of roads, built
to various design standards And conditions. Some roads are
minimally constructed roads originally built to service
single residences or businesses, while others have been
constructed to relatively high standards, including paving
and generous shoulder width. Within the Homer road network,
there are local roads in excellent condition and through-
roads in poor condition. The road's function does not
necessarily determine the level or degree of constructed
condition.

In addition, all streets are not equal in their importance
to the community. Some will service the entire population
while others will channel only local traffic to abutting
properties. The former category will include the highest
volume roads and will generally include the most important
internal roads; these are important to the social and
economic well-being of the community. It is also generally
true that the least important roads will have the least
volumes. However, importance is not necessarily a function
strictly of volume. The Sterling Highway is a vital link
for Homer; however, its volumes are substantially less than
most downtown streets.

There are several criteria which determine the traffic
volume levels which any given road will sustain. Among
these are the following:

1) ACCESS/MOBILITY. Does this road provide direct access
to abutting properties? If so, what kinds of traffic
generators exist on these abutting properties?

2) LOCATION. Is the road located proximate to major
population areas within the City? Does it provide a
smooth, direct link between the major traffic
"Producers" and traffic "magnets" within the community?
Does it feed into other roads which provide the major
traffic service?

3) SYSTEM CONTINUITY. How does this road fit in with the
road system as a whole? Does the system allow direct,
noncircuitous travel? Does the road f it as a link in
the trip patterns - does it allow only local access or
does it service longer "desire lines"'> If it services
longer "desire lines," is it because of lack of other,
more direct links between areas? Does it link
continuously with other roads servicing longer trip
desire lines? or does it provide intermediate service,
in a hierarchy-like fashion, between streets providing
only local access and roads providing through-service?

4) GEOMETRIC/STRUCTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS. Is the road
surface paved, gravel or earth? Is the surface fairly
level, or are steep grades encountered? Is the
horizontal alignment reasonably straight using large-
radius curves? Is the shoulder width generous with
separate pedestrian facilities, or are there no
shoulders?

These factors define the desirability of travel along a
given street or road for major movements; drivers will, as a
whole, generally choose the most direct and favorable route
for each trip and these criteria are the most important in
their choices. Therefore, travel behavior defines roadway
@unction. It follows that if a street system is developed
in a random and unplanned fashion, travel patterns will
evolve in a manner that is most user-favorable within the
system.

It is therefore desirable to plan the street system in
advance of actual street construction. Each road or street
should have an identifiable function within the system; that
is, it should play a specific role in serving the
community's transportation needs. And the road should be
designed and developed in accordance with the function.

Functional classification of a road is, therefore the
foundation for the rational planning of a street system. It
also forms the basis for the policies that will govern the
system and the streets therein.

Given the import of the system, it is critical to understand
the functions provided by the existing streets under
existing conditions. This understanding is necessary before
one can intelligently select future streets and the
functional classifications of these streets.

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION HIERARCHIES: ACCESS VS. MOBILITY

The ' central idea behind functional classification
hierarchies is that a road's basic goals are to provide

access to abutting lots and/or to provide mobility (speed
and ease of travel to distant areas).
Access is described by "A Policy on Design of Urban Highways
and Arterial Streets" (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, 1973) as follows:

"Control of access is the condition where the
right of owners or occupants of abutting land or
other persons to access, light, air or view in
connection with a highway is fully or partially
controlled by public authority.

Full Control of access means that the authority to
control access is exercised to give preference to
through traffic by providing access connections
with selected public roads only and by prohibiting
crossings at grade or direct private driveway
connections.

Partial Control of access means that the authority
to control access is exercised to give preference
to through traffic to a degree that, in addition
to access connections with selected public roads,
there may be some crossings at grade and some
private driveway connections.

The type of highway to be built should be
coordinated with the local land use plan to ensure
that the desired degree of access control can be
maintained through local zoning ordinances and
subdivision regulations...

Access control is generally accomplished either by
legally obtaining right of access from the
abutting property owner, usually at the time of
purchase of right-of-way, or by the use of
frontage roads. Where a highway is developed on
new location, access rights are acquired at no
cost to the highway agency because the adjoining
property owner generally has no inherent right of
direct access to a highway that does not exist.
This is separate and distinct from damages
resulting from severance due to construction of
the highway."

A road which provides unlimited access to a large number of
abutting properties will by definition have a large number
of driveways and/or intersections. These are the areas
where conflict opportunities exist. These conflict areas
diminish the road's desirability for through-movements and
hence diminish the road's mobility function. A road which
provides a high level of mobility must therefore have
restricted access, and different levels of access control

must be established according to the level of mobility
desired.

A functional classification hierarchy is arranged according
to the emphasis on access or mobility. Freeways provide the
highest mobility, followed in descending order by
expressways, arterials, collectors, and local roads or
streets. Conversely, local roads/streets provide the
highest degree of access, followed in descending order by
collectors, arterials etc.

EXISTING HOMER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

The Homer "Master Plan for Roads and Streets" (Silvers
Engineering, 1979) proposed three basic classifications for
the Homer road system: "arterial," "neighborhood arterial,"
and "collector." The distinctions between these classes are
as follows:

1) ARTERIAL. An arterial "provides for through-traffic
between areas and across the City. Direct access to
abutting property is limited by control of entrances
and exits, or eliminated by use of service roads or
local-street-access-only development requirements."

2) NEIGHBORHOOD ARTERIAL. This type "services a
subdivision or district of a city, provides for traffic
movement between arterials and local streets, and
provides direct access to abutting property."

3) COLLECTOR. A collector "provides for only local
traffic movement with direct access to abutting
property."

Associated with each of these functional classes is a set of
design parameters for design speed, current average daily
traffic (ADT), design hourly volume (DHV), etc.

One minor disadvantage of the Silvers system is its non-
conformity with usual functional classification systems.
Although it is true that roads and streets within a
community should be classified relative to each other, it
is also the case that classifications should be compatible
with State standards or a national norm. Silvers'
classification causes problems when interfacing with other
agencies.

Other important considerations that the plan did not address
include the following:
The plan's classifications were applied strictly to
future functions, and did not address present
functions. While this allowed establishment of design

standards for ultimate future construction, it did not
provide a basis for rational interim design or for
interim policy development. This has led to confusion
regarding treatment of these streets on a policy level.
Fairview Avenue provides an excellent example of the
problem. It is not an "arterial" according to the
Silvers system. Yet one portion (from Main Street to
Hohe Street) was reconstructed to future arterial
width, far in advance of need. At the same time, no
effort has been made to control access or establish
setbacks in consideration of this design class.

The policy implications of the functional
classifications were not, deeply explored which
prevented certain controversial aspects of the plan
from being openly discussed and debated; and,
consequently, its importance is not fully understood.

COMPARISON TO OTHER AGENCY STANDARDS

Appendix 2 of this plan is a comparison of design standards
applied to streets of similar classification categories from
four agencies: the City of Homer, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) and the State of Alaska
DOT/PF. It should be noted that these other agencies have
adopted the arterial-collector-local street nomenclatures
and format. The Municipality of Anchorage has further
subdivided the collector category into three types:
neighborhood, local residential, and commercial industrial,
with each of these types being assigned a specific standard
road cross-section.

PROPOSED REVISED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

This plan proposes a revised functional classification for
each street in Homer, see Table 4. The purpose of this
revision is to adopt standard engineering nomenclature,
along with the generally accepted criteria and standards; to
clarify the role of difference road types; and to provide a
means of better distinguishing road types within the same
classifications. The revised system is as follows:

1) ARTERIALS. "Arterials" will represent the highest
level of mobility in the Homer road system. (It is not
anticipated that highways of an expressway or freeway
class will be warranted within the plan study period;
therefore, these classes are discarded.) Generally,
arterials are streets or highways which have controlled
access and which promote through-movements.

TABLE 4 - FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION - EXISTING STREETS

The current functional classification of Homer's streets, as they now
exist and functiont and the proposed functional classification, is as
follows:

EXISTING PROPOSED
NAME OF STREET/ FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL
ROAD/HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION

"All Street Local Local
Aspen Lane Local Local
Augustine Drive Local Residential
Collector
Bartlett Street Residential Residential
collector Collector
Bayview Avenue Residential Residential
Collector Collector
Bayview Court Local Local
Bay Vista Pl./ Local Local
Bay Vista Ct.
Ben Walters Lane Residential Residential/
Collector Commercial/Indus-
trial Collector
Bishop's Beach Access Local Local
(Beluga Avenue)
Bonanza Avenue Local Local
Bunnell Avenue Local Local
Bypass Road Minor Arterial Major Arterial
Calhoun Court Local Local
alhoun Street Local Local
Cityview Avenue Local Local
C

Claudia Court Local Local
Clover Lane Local Local
Clover Place Local Local
Crittenden Avenue Local Local
I'D" Street Local Local
Danview Avenue Local Local
"Ell Street Local Local
Early Spring Street Local Residential
Collector
East End Road Minor Arterial Major Arterial
East Hill Road Residential Minor Arterial
Collector
Elderberry Court Local Local
El Sarino Court Local Local
FAA Tower Road Local Local
Fairview Avenue Residential Minor Arterial
Collector
Forest Glen Drive Local Local
Frisbee court Local Local
Gavin Court Local Local

EXISTING PROPOSED
NAME OF STREET/ FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL
ROAD/HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION

Grubstake Avenue Local Commercial/Indus-
trial Collector
Hansen Avenue Local Local
Heath Street Local Commercial/Indus-
trial Collector
Herndon Street Local Local
Hillfair Court Local Local
Hillside Place Local Local
Hillview Place Local Local
Highland Drive Local Residential
Collector
Jenny Lane Local Local
Kachemak Bay Drive Commercial/Indus- Commercial/Indus-
trial Collector trial Collector,
Minor Arterial
Kachemak Way Residential
Collector
Klondike Avenue Local Local/Commercial
Industrial
Collector
Lakeshore Drive Local Local
Lakeside Drive Local Local
Lake Street (Pioneer to Minor Arterial Major Arterial
Ocean Drive)
Lake Street (south of Ocean Local Local
Drive a/k/a Munson)
Lambert Lane Local Local
Larkspur Court 'Local Local
Latham Lane Local Local
Lee Drive (Svedlund to Local Local
Main Street)
Lee Drive (Svedlund to Local Local
Heath Street)
Lucky Shot Street Local Local
Main Street (Upper: Residential Residential
Pioneer - Bayview) Collector Collector
Main Street (Lower: Commercial/Indus- Commercial/Indus-
Pioneer - Bishops Beach) trial Collector trial Collector
Mariner Drive Local Local
Mark White Avenue Local Residential
Collector
Mattox Street Local Residential
Collector
Meadow Drive Local Local
Mullikin Street Local Local
Mt. View Drive Local Local
Myhill Road Local Local
Nielsen Avenue Residential Commercial/Indus-
Collector trial Collector
No-View Avenue Local Local

EXISTING PROPOSED
NAME OF STREET/ FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL
ROAD/HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION

Ocean Drive (Lake St. to Minor Arterial Minor Arterial
Spit Road)
Ocean Drive (Within Oscar Local Local
Munson Subdivision)
Olsen Lane Local Local
Pennock Street Local Local
Pioneer Avenue Minor Arterial Major Arterial
Rainbow-Avenue Local Local
Rangeview Avenue Local Local
Rochelle Road Local Local
Sabrina Road Local Local
Saltwater Drive Local Residential
Collector
Shannon Court Local Local
Shannon Lane Local Local
Shelford Street Local Local
Soundview Avenue Residential Residential
Collector Collector
South Slope Road Local Residential
Collector
Spit Road Minor Arterial Major Arterial
Sterling Highway Minor Arterial Major Arterial
Svedlund Street Residential Commercial/Indus-
Collector trial Collector
Tamara Street Local Local
Waddell Street Local Local
West Hill Road Residential Minor Arterial
Collector
Wright Street Local Local

The primary use of an arterial street will be to
transport high volumes of vehicles and, goods. The
primary goal of arterial design and layout will be to
facilitate that kind of use, i.e., make it easier to
accomplish high-volume transport using the facility.
Therefore, access to 'abutting properties will be
limited and on-street parking will be prohibited,
unless specifically compensated for in the road's
design.

There are two kinds of arterials:

MAJOR ARTERIALS. These streets or highways are the
principal traffic movers to serve major cross-town
traffic movements by interconnecting the major traffic
generators. They provide a favored route for movements
into and out of the urban area. Therefore, they should
have continuity with rural arterials. The average
annual daily traffic (AADT) volume should exceed 10,000
vehicles per day (vpd) to qualify as a major arterial.
Speed limits should be set at relatively high levels
(i.e., 35 to 55 mph) and access should be limited.
Minimum spacing between access points should be 300
feet, with 600 feet preferred; therefore, access points
should provide for major side streets, (i.e., minor
arterials, collectors, and possibly ingress/egress
points for major commercial developments) . No more
than one direct access should be allowed for each
individual parcel; provided that the access points are
no more frequent that one per 300 feet. It may be
possible that an existing street functions as a major
arterial in spite of historically uncontrolled direct
access.

MINOR ARTERIALS. These streets are subordinate to the
major arterials, even though they are critical links in
the same basic network. They prov ide system continuity
by linking directly with the major arte*rials. They
mainly provide for moderate length intra-urban trips at
a somewhat lower level of traffic mobility than the
major arterials, and they do this because the areas to
which they distribute traffic are smaller and/or less
densely populated than those which major arterials
service. Minor arterials should have speeds from 25 to
35 miles per hour, with access points preferably
limited to block length (300 feet preferred, 150 feet
minimum). Minor arterials should support present or
expected future volumes between 3,500 and 15,000 vpd.

2) COLLECTORS. Collectors represent an intermediate level
in the mobility/access spectrum. Their primary role is
the distribution of trips from local streets or
abutting generators to arterials, and vice-versa.
Thus, collectors may cross neighborhoods or central

business district areas. Driveways are permissible,
but access should be provided via local side streets or
cul-de-sacs whenever possible. Collectors will
generally consist of two sub-types: residential and
commercial- industrial with different design standards
f or each. Traffic volumes for collectors will vary
from 500 to 6,000 vpd. On-street parking may be
permissible if parking lanes are designed.

3) LOCAL STREETS/ROADS. These are streets or roads which
do not meet the requirements for arterial or collector
classification. Their function is primarily, to
provide access to abutting lots. On-street parking may
be allowable if the road width permits. On-street
parking is not permissible for any street
classification when it blocks the travelled way.
Typical kinds of local roads and streets include
country lanes, subdivision feeders and cul-de-sacs.

Proposed design standards for future construction or upgrade
of each classification is summarized in Table 5, Proposed
Functional Classifications Design Standards.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS

There are at least two levels of policy implications that
arise from functional classification. The first is how to
treat existing streets or roads which have acquired their
basic roles within the transportation grid by fact of usage.
The second is how to plan for future extensions to
accommodate growth or remedy system deficiencies. The
former set of decisions considers the existing functional
roles and distinctions and deals with the existing
operational problems. The latter uses planning, design,
decision-making and other arts to consider how to develop
and manage new roads in an enhanced network; as such,
functional classifications are assigned to the new roads.
Designs and controls are established as necessary to protect
the planned function.

Existing Streets

The problem of how to handle existing streets is a difficult
issue. Pioneer Avenue is illustrative of this type of
problem. It is a street which accommodates arterial-level
traffic volumes and remains, even after construction of the
Bypass, a crucial link for eastbound-westbound through-
movements. Yet there has never been any access control.
There is a proliferation of long-strip driveways and the
road shoulders physically accommodate parking and loading,
to the detriment of pedestrians and general safety. While
some arterial design parameters are met, the right-of-way
requirement is not-, and this severely constrains the number

TABLE 5
CITY OF HOMER PROPOSED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION DESIGN STANDARDS

DESIGN MIN. TRAV.
NUMBER DEGREE MAX. MIN. SPEED WAY MIN.
CRITERIA OF MIN. ROW ADT OF GRADE GRADE MINIMUMS DIMEN. SHOULDER
LANES WIDTH (ft) THOUSANDS CURVE (MPH) (ft) WIDTH (ft)

DESIGN CLASS

MAJOR 3-6 100 10+ 8 6 0.30 50 36 8
ARTERIAL 85001

MINOR 2-4 80 3.5-15 8.5 8 0.30 45 24 6
ARTERIAL 10 5001

COLLECTOR 2 60 0.5-6 11 10 0.30 40 24 4
RESIDENTIAL 8-curves
12 5001

COLLECTOR 2-4 70 0.5-6 8.5 8 0.30 40 24 4
COMMERCIAL/ 6-curves
INDUSTRIAL 10 5001

LOCAL 2 60 1 57 10 0.30 25 22 4
ROADS & 8-curves
STREETS 12 5001

of lanes. Additional right-of-way would be prohibitively
expensive in many areas because of buildings within
setbacks. An examination of the existing system makes it
clear that, in the short term, Pioneer Avenue must continue
to serve a major portion of traffic movements. The design
of the street must battle the reality of existing access
dependency and substandard width.

Another problem is illustrated by the Homer Bypass. This
road exists as a major through-route; indeed, it is at this
time the only alternate to Pioneer Avenue for east-west
movements within Homer. It also is centrally located within
the central business district, which encourages commercial
development of abutting property. The issue between desire
to preserve the Bypass as an arterial for mobility vs. the
desire to provide access must be resolved. The State DOT
did not plan the Bypass as a limited access facility;
instead, DOT officials declared that access control should
be effected by zoning controls. The City has recognized the
importance of access limitation in the 1'983 Comprehensive
Plan, but has not implemented any ordinances to require
compliance.

A final illustration demonstrating the problem of existing
streets is the case of Grubstake Avenue. It was recommended
in the 1979 Master Roads and Streets Plan that Grubstake
Avenue be developed from Main Street to Lake Street, as a
middle east-west link. Yet the existing Grubstake Avenue
section is characterized by a 50 foot right-of-way, no
access control, and residential uses. Furthermore, the road
is of extremely poor quality and was never constructed to
even minimal standards. The area is zoned Central Business
District. Clearly, a road improvement would benefit
abutting properties, as long as it is assumed that access to
existing lots would be preserved. Therefore, it is
reasonable that a portion of the cost should be borne by
abutting property owners by means of a local improvement
district (LID). However, the exact proportion is likely to
become an issue of controversy, because residents are likely
to oppose the street extension due to the expected increase
in traffic. This leads to questions of whether it is fair
to the general taxpayer to bear the entire cost of improving
a local street or collector street which was never accepted
by the city or constructed in a proper manner.

New Street Extensions

With new street or road extensions, it is necessary to
consider many factors. If a major arterial, or even a minor
arterial, bisects a residential neighborhood, it can be
certain that some negative impacts, i.e. increased traffic,
will be inflicted on that neighborhood. Moreover, if an
arterial is constructed along an existing street alignment

which abutting properties depend on for access, then the
project design agency, i.e. City or State, must sacrifice
access controll or pay heavy compensation to abutting owners
for deprivation of access and loss of lot utility (this is
known as "buying access rights"), or provide reasonable
alternate ingress and egress to abutting properties, either
via a frontage road or rear access road. A controlled
access policy depends on an understanding of the rights
regarding the ability to limit access points, and the
importance of preserving mobility on high-volume roads.

There are also design standards for each class of roads for
which some flexibility must be exercised, because of
topography and other constraints. However, each variance to
design standards will diminish the road's utility with
respect to its design function. And it may also introduce
undesirable design elements which would increase the
opportunity for accidents.

Another controversial issue of new street extensions
involves cost-sharing for development of new arterials or
collectors. It has been deemed reasonable to require
subdividers to dedicate the required right-of-way for each
class of roadway, within the subdivision. A policy
addressing compensation for right-of-way dedication for
arterials has not been adopted. In addition, many local
governments require that subdividers construct streets and
other improvements prior to plat recording. Homer does, in
practice, enforce proper right-of-way dedication for
collector and local service roads, but there is no
requirement that dedicated rights-of-way be developed. If
developers are required to construct streets to City
standards, it must be acknowledged that developers should
have a reasonable right to access the roads they build. It
should also be recognized that the roads they do construct
should not greatly exceed their needs. For example, it is
unreasonable to require a developer of a moderate-sized
subdivision to dedicate an expansive right-of-way and
construct a paved, high-type multilane facility to which
he/she has been prohibited access. In consideration of
these problems, some compromises and some degree of cost
participation by the City may be warranted.

It should also be noted that the functional classification
of existing roads has a substantial impact on how capital
pimprovement funds are allocated. Clearly arterials have
greater priority to the community than do local streets.
Every direct access road is of vital importance to owners of
properties abutting the road; however, such roads may not be
of major consequence to the community as a whole.
Invariably, the major collectors will sustain the heaviest
loads, causing loss of structural quality and reduced
levels-of-service. These have community-wide impact and,
therefore, capital-improvement and maintenance funds will be

1
89
1 tipped towards projects mitigating the problems on these
roads.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

CHAPTER 8

CHAPTEREIGHT - PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents specific capital improvement for some of
Homer's major existing streets and project recommendations for
proposed future streets.

SPECIFIC PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

It is not enough to draft a revised master roads plan
designating future arterials and collectors, without addressing
the needs of the existing systems. Chapter Four highlighted the
needs of several of Homer's major streets. Since most of these
roads are State roads, specific recommendations to address
deficiencies are as follows: State Dept. of Transportation
funding will be necessary.

Bartlett Street.

a) Reconstruct entire road section to urban standards.
Redesign roadway on centerline. Include curbs, gutter,
sidewalks, street lighting, adjust grade.

Ben Walters Lane.

a) Replacement of existing yield sign with stop sign and
consideration of three-way stop control at the Ben Walters/
Nielsen intersection.

b) Realignment of existing reverse curve on south Ben Walters
to direct north-south alignment.

C) Paving, in order to mitigate the dry-weather dust problem.

d) Enforcement of speed limits.

East End Road.

a) Acquire additional right-of-way to 100 foot width.

b) Redesign and reconstruct to eliminate "roller coaster"
profile.

C) Widen to four lanes, include sidewalks! street lighting,
delineate intersections.

East Hill Road.

a) Reconstruct entire roadway, to include pedestrian
facilities.

Fairview/Hohe.

a) Control intersection with a stop sign on Hohe Street
approach favoring through-movements for Fairview Avenue.

b) Reconstruct and realign Fairview segment to right-of-way
centerline, west of Hohe.

C) Reconstruct and widen Hohe with sidewalk.

Homer Spit Road.

a) Continue to monitor bank stabilization efforts.

b) Pursue long-range permanent solution to erosion problem.

Kachemak Bay Drive.

a) Reconstruct entire road to 40 foot traveled-way urban
standard to include paving, drainage, lighting, pedestrian
facilities and grading.

Lake Street.

a) Redesign the intersection at Lake Street/Pioneer
Avenue/East End Road into a three-way stop. In the short-
term, traffic volumes do not warrant installation of a
traffic signal. It is recommended that traffic volumes
should be monitored and a signal installed when warranted.

b) Acquire additional right-of-way, or road easements to 100
feet width.

C) Reconstruct roadway. Widen to three lanes with center turn
lane between Pioneer Avenue and'Homer Bypass, becoming four
lanes along Ocean Drive. Realign intersection of Bypass/
0
Lake Street to 90 . Construct sidewalks and street
lighting. Realign roadway to straighten curves.

Byloass.

a) Stripe roadway to delineate four lanes.

b) install additional street lighting-

C) Control access at designated intersections.

Main Street.

a) Pave upper Main Street (Pioneer Avenue to Bayview Avenue) .
Construct a sidewalk along one side at minimum, and install
additional street lighting.

b) Reconstruct to urban standards lower Main Street, include
multi-lanes, paving, sidewalks and lighting, storm drains.
Adjust vertical geometric at the Homer Bypass intersection,
if possible.

PROPOSED FUTURE STREETS

Five future Homer streets are recommended as either new street
construction or extensions from existing streets. They are:
Fairview Avenue (extension to West Hill Road) ; Svedlund Street
(construction Pioneer Avenue to Homer Bypass) ; Grubstake Avenue
(reconstruction and construction Main Street to Lake Street) ;
Bayview Avenue (construction from South Slope to Kachemak Way) ;
and, Beluga Lake North Shore Road (construction Lake
Street/Homer Bypass to East End Road).

Each of these roads have their genesis in the 1979 Master Roads
@nd Streets Plan.. while all have been evaluated and found
important, or even vital, to Homer's future road system, there
has been little concrete effort to ensure the roads will be
built. In order to define the actual route, it was necessary to
do reconnaissance work, route selection and plan/profile design.
This information could then be used to provide subdividers
guidance as they design road links in the system.

The common thread to each of these road and street extensions is
that they are all, partially or wholly, situated on private
land. Each is therefore of indeterminate status and subject to
redesign or omission in the subdivision process, unless a
preliminary design is officially adopted or endorsed.

Moreover, the interests of the land owner or prospective
subdivider do not necessarily correspond with the "public
interest" of improving the transportation network. For example,
a subdivider does. not normally wish to dedicate more than the
minimum legally required right-of-way widths; also, in a
developing residential zone, subdividers will usually oppose
placement of an arterial, fearing that it will reduce the area's
desirability for prospective buyers and hence, will decrease
property values. 'Access to an arterial would also normally be
limited to side streets at specified minimum spacings. This,
too, runs contrary to subdivider's normal desires. The
incentives are thus heavily weighted against cooperation with
the intent of the "Master Plan for Roads and Streets1f unless

positive steps are taken to identify the streets' corridors, and
the rationale for each project is overt and explicit.

Fairview Avenue (extension to West Hill Road)

The 1979 "Master Plan for Roads and Streets" proposed that a
link between West Hill Road and East End Road be constructed
utilizing the Fairview Avenue right-of-way. This same project
had, in essence, been proposed in the 1969 Homer "Comprehensive
Development Plan," except that the plan also proposed that a
through-link be constructed to the Sterling Highway.

The 1979 plan classified the link as a "major arterial"; in
essence, the street would primarily serve as a conduit for east-
west through-movements which lack origins or destinations on
Pioneer Avenue. The street would also serve as a secondary
(northerly) bypass around downtown Homer, and simplify and
economize north-south movements when all existing or proposed
Pioneer Avenue to Bypass links (i.e., Swatzell Street, Main
Street, Svedlund Street, Heath Street, Lake Street) are
completed or upgraded.

For many years, Fairview Avenue has been recognized as laying in
a particularly strategic location; it is placed amidst some of
Homer's most rapidly developing neighborhoods. Because it is
centered on a section-line boundary (possibly subject to a
section line easement) , it has been very likely to be dedicated
at least in half width as part of aliquot-part subdivisions.
Therefore, it has been dedicated continuously between Ridgeview
Acres and Heath Street and discontinuously in other areas.
Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the topography of the
proposed route is favorable to a road with fairly gentle and
even grades, and soil conditions are average or better for this
area. Thus, Fairview Avenue provides a unique opportunity for
Homer's transportation network.

Svedlund Street Extention

This project would consist of extending Svedlund Street - which
presently ends -at a tee intersection on the north side of
Pioneer Avenue - approximately 1,500 feet south to the Homer
Bypass. This extension is an integral part of the plan for the
Homer central business district transportation system, first
proposed in the 1979 Master Roads and Streets Plan. The system
has periodically been re-evaluated; the most recent re-
evaluation occurring as part of this study and as part of
spinoff studies related to the Pioneer Avenue reconstruction
project. Each re-evaluation has validated the need for and
desirability of the system configuration proposed by the 1979
plan.
The 1979 plan showed four north-south streets linking Pioneer
Avenue with the Bypass: Lake Street, Heath Street, Main Street

and an unnamed right-of-way known as New Street, or Swatzell
Street extension. Actually, Svedlund Street was not depicted as
linking directly with Pioneer Avenue: rather it would link
indirectly by means of Klondike Avenue and Kachemak Way.

It can be safety surmised that the reason southern Svedlund
Street was not depicted as linking with Pioneer Avenue was that
the link could only be constructed if right-of-way was acquired
through an existing private parking lot. The prevalent
philosophy was that right-of-way purchase and/or condemnation
should be avoided.

By 1984, it had become evident that development and planning in
the City had escalated to the point that, in many cases, right-
of-way purchase or condemnation could no longer be avoided. it
had also become evident by 1984 that traffic volumes on Pioneer
Avenue had grown to approximately the capacity of a two-lane
street, and that was due largely to the absence of alternate
through-streets and side streets. The lack of side streets in
the Central Business District core was recognized as helping to
cause a pattern of strip development, which particularly
manifested itself on Pioneer Avenue. All of these interrelated
factors point to the need for side streets penetrating into the
core of the Central Business District.

Grubstake Avenue

Like the Svedlund Street Extension, Grubstake Avenue was
envisioned in the 1979 plan as an integral part of the inner
Central Business District street grid. It would essentially
provide an internal east-west link between Main Street and Lake
Street; the street would also effectively link Lakeside Village
Subdivision with the Central Business District's center, because
Grubstake would be extended to the Lake Street/Nielsen Avenue
intersection.

The purpose of this street would be similar to that of Svedlund
Street, except that it runs east and west. It would provide a
spine for the development within the Central Business District
in an east-west direction and would also allow east-west traffic
an alternate to Pioneer Avenue and the Bypass: thus, it could
help alleviate traffic congestion on these major streets by
improving circulation.

Bavview Avenue Extension (Kachemak Way to South Slope Road)

This proposed road is important because it directly connects two
separate areas of the City, the central portion of Homer's urban
residential district and the East Hill Road area. It will also
provide a tremendous improvement in the linkage between the East
Hill/Diamond Ridge area and downtown Homer.

The 1979 Master Roads and Streets Plan showed two connections
between Kachemak Way and East Hill Road. One was a north-
easterly extension of Kachemak Way which would join Shellfish
Avenue (in Barnett's South Slope Subdivision). The other was an
easterly extension of Mountain View Drive to meet South Slope
Road. Actually, other logical alternates were also available
including the option to extend Bayview Avenue to South Slope
Road; however, that was not recommended, probably because of the
structure that exists at the eastern end of Bayview Avenue.
Whichever option is chosen, however, it would be necessary to
cross some rather deep and formidable drainage gullies.

After the adoption of the 1979 plan, an extension of Mountain
View Drive was platted (as part of the Anderson 1980
Subdivision). Construction of this extension was completed in
1984. The alignment of this extension was not in strict accord
with the 1979 plan, which called for a direct east-west
connection. Rather the road was curved toward the northeast,
which severely complicates a further extension to South Slope
Road in the manner proposed in the 1979 plan. Therefore, the
Bayview Avenue extension was re-examined and is being
recommended.

Beluga Lake North Shore Road

The 1979 Master Roads and Streets Plan proposed that an east-
west arterial be constructed on the north side of Beluga Lake.
This arterial would link East End Road with Kachemak Bay Drive,
beginning at Mattox Street and an east-west section-line street
(commonly referred to as a portion of Fairview Avenue) . Toward
the eastern end of the road, connection would be provided to
East End Road by means of a north-south connection to Kachemak
Bay Drive. This follows the East Lane right-of-way, which now
exists at the end of the airport runway.

The justification for the arterial are twofold. First ' it will
provide a spine for access and development in a large section
within Homer's rural residential and general commercial zones.
Second, it provides a much more direct link to the Kachemak Bay
Drive area, which is likely to see increased development upon
the inevitable water and sewer extensions in the area. The road
would improve traffic circulation by taking some east-west
traffic off of East End Road, particularly by providing an
alternate access route to subdivisions such as Meadow-Wood, Bear
Creek Heights, Tietjen and Mariner Park. Finally, it would aid
system continuity by providing a much more direct link between
the city center area and Kachemak Bay Drive, and by providing a
second direct connection between two arterials (East End Road
and Kachemak Bay Drive).
The alignment proposed by the 1979 plan has genuine
inadequacies, some of which are related to the underlying
philosophy of avoiding right-of-way purchase or condemnation at
all costs. Thus, the simpler and more logical option of an

eastward extension of the Bypass extension was not considered.
The Bypass extension would avert diversion of heavy traffic
volumes onto Mattox Street. The geometrics of the Mattox Street
link would be poor, the impact on the existing neighborhood
would be negative, and it would still be necessary for traffic
to use East End Road to get to this arterial. By contrast, the
Bypass Extension would have avoided most of these problems,
truly relieve traffic pressure on East End Road by providing a
true bypass around the Lake Street/East End Road area, provide a
direct link between the Central Business District and General
Commercial area, and allow development of a truck route
bypassing Pioneer Avenue and Lake Street. If the Bypass were
extended, the same route east of the elementary school would be
followed as proposed in the 1979 plan.

Preliminary route selection, drainage design, plan and profile,
and cross sections have been prepared for each of these proposed
roads, due to the importance each plays in the economic and
transportation needs of the community.

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER NINE - POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations proposed in this chapter primarily focus on
policy changes, although recommendations are also made for
specific actions and programs. The rationale for each
recommendation is discussed, as are potential ramifications to
the recommendations.

Recommendation #1: Adopt this revised Master Plan for Roads and
Streets, including the revised functional classification system,
the Master Plan Map, and design guidelines for streets of each
functional classification.

The adoption of the plan will expedite a number of actions and
opportunities, such as the following:

a. The Homer Advisory Planning commission may require, as part
of the platting process, dedication of the rights-of-way
required for construction of the streets detailed on the
plan.

The Planning commission should direct that where
applicable, the right-of-way dedications conform to the
alignments shown on the Homer Future Streets preliminary
plans and profile sheets; in the case of other proposed
streets, the Commission should ensure that R.O.W. is
dedicated approximately along the corridor shown. Grade,
access and curvature requirements must be adhered to, and
unnecessary curvature and access can be eliminated at the
platting stage.

b. A logical collector/arterial grid will be established, and,
if used in conjunction with access spacing and other design
criteria, a logical local street grid can also be formed.

C. The framework for right-of-way purchase and legislative
street funding requests will be provided. Indeed, the
major utility of a plan is that it can be pointed to as an
indicator of community resolve regarding projects and as a
source of project recommendations which have official
sanction.

d. Standards for project cost-participation and access spacing
can be established; these standards can be enforced on new
streets and, to a lesser extent, on projects upgrading
existing streets.

Recommendation # 2 : Establish a program for right-of-way
acquisition along designated future road/street corridors, with
a portion of the City's Capital Improvement Budget being
reserved for right-of-way acquisition.

Most of the proposed road and street extensions in the Master
Plan either cross through "unsubdivided.11 parcels, thus allowing
right-of-way acquisition to be accomplished during the platting
process, or they basically take advantage of existing rights-of-
way or stay within the large "unsubdivided" parcels.

Given the tremendous expense of constructing transportation
facilities, it is more economical to construct a more expensive
route that motorists will use than to construct a less expensive
route that motorists will not use. Other circumstances can also
dictate the need for right-of-way acquisition. There may not be
an alternative. In other instances, alternatives exist but are
poor and/or likely to exacerbate current traffic problems.

There are many miles of proposed road and street extensions
shown on the Master Plan. Four such purchase areas are of
critical importance now.

The first is a strip within the existing Acropolis parking lot,
which is part of the proposed Svedlund Street Extension, from
Pioneer Avenue to the Bypass.

The second area needed is a 30 foot strip immediately south of
the access road to the "FAA tract," currently owned by Cook
Inlet Region, Inc., and occupied by radio station KBBI. This is
necessary for the Grubstake Avenue extension.

The third area is the intersection of Pioneer Avenue with the
proposed Heath Street extension, which will require a large turn
radius.

Fourth, the Bypass extension should be pursued. Right-of-way
should be obtained immediately, particularly within Waddell Park
and Lakeside Village Subdivision.

Recommendation #3: Require that subdividers construct streets
dedicated by plat to City standards and under City supervision.

As pointed out earlier, it is now permissible in Homer to plat
and sell lots without constructing the physical facilities for
servicing the lots. This sets into motion a chain of events
that is likely to culminate in City reconstruction of the
street. Present City policy allows substandard access to be
developed inside City rights-of-way, in order for property
owners to get access to their land. What appears at face value
to be a mutually beneficial practice for the City and property
owner, eventually opens the door to public maintenance.
Ultimately, the taxpayer pays the heavy cost of maintenance and
reconstruction.

Recommendation #4: Develop an official set of minimum street
design/construction standards, accompanied by required design/
construction/ inspection/ acceptance procedures for construction
of all streets.

The City's current street ordinance is outdated and often
ambiguous. This has made the problem of street acceptance for
maintenance a more sensitive issue. Street maintenance is
contingent upon bringing the street up to "City standards" but
the official standards are archaic and poorly defined. The
standards need to be updated and adopted.

Recommendation #5: Establish and codify access spacing
requirements for each classification in Homer's street
functional classification system. Secure DOT's approval for the
system.

It is in the interest of the City and State to control access
onto newer road facilities, while the abutting properties remain
mostly undeveloped. Such control also works to the property
owner's advantage. Controlled access provides consolidation and
logical ordering of accesses, so that conflict between through-
movements and access movements is minimized. Access is actually
expedited, in that it is simpler and more orderly. Also, the
street's capacity is preserved. Unlimited access would diminish
the road's capacity and the resulting congestion would
discourage access and through-movement alike.

Recommendation #6: Establish a cost sharing allocation system
for road improvement projects, depending on the functional
classification of a given roadway. Secure funding for City's
share of road improvment projects.

A cost sharing system can be used to allocate costs between the
government agency and the developer in a proportion representing
ratio of public to private benefits. The cost sharing system
is the most equitable in terms of allocating costs to those who
receive benefits.

While it can be argued that streets are public ways and anyone
may use them, the primary benefits usually accrue to abutting
properties. The amount of costs borne by abutting properties
should, however, bear some relation to the service received. A
local street provides local benefit almost exclusively, and it
is reasonable that the property owners bear the full cost
burden. Collectors provide, in theory, less benefit to abutting
properties and more general system benefits, therefore adjacent
properties should have a substantially lessened cost burden.
Arterials should provide little service to abutting properties
and therefore funding should be more of a public burden.
However, where properties abutting collectors and arterials are
@ranted unrestricted access, it is not unreasonable to consider
increased assessment costs.

100

Several methods exist for determining a cost sharing allocation
system. It is recommended that the City administration conduct
a study into the cost allocation's appropriate to each
functional design class. Based on this study, an ordinance
should be prepared and the cost sharing formula should be
codified.

Recommendation #7: Establish a criteria-based ranking system
for long term programming for streets construction.

A comprehensive street improvement criteria and ranking system
that considers benefit/cost ratios, functional classification,
and other appropriate factors could be developed to provide an
objective means by which to program improvements.

A criteria based system would put the improvement priorities and
allocation methods on a more rational basis, which will allow
more effective allocation of public funds.

Recommendation #8: Require that water, sewer and street
improvements be phased concurrently whenever possible; require
that construction of water and sewer lines into undeveloped or
new subdivisions be accompanied by road construction.

It is widely acknowledged that, given Homer's subsurface
conditions, it is of great advantage to install water and sewer
lines concurrent with the street. This is to prevent the need
to excavate the roadway later, which will severely undermine the
roads structural integrity and necessitate expensive repair
work.

When water and sewer utilities are made available, a tremendous
incentive for residential and commercial development occurs.
"Passable" roads can be developed to provide access in most
seasons, and that is all many people want (at f irst) . Thus,
development occurs around the water and sewer lines. Because
the City has jurisdiction over these lines, it has a stake and
investment in the roads (if only to get access to manholes,
valves, meters, and pressure reducing stations). Moreover, the
development will soon lead to demands for winter maintenance.
As has been previously argued, this creates the chain of events
leading to assumption of full City maintenance and, probably,
public rebuild of the streets. Water and sewer extensions made
without street construction requirements act to encourage, and
often to initiate, this sequence of events, a sequence which can
be described as a means by which private development costs are
ultimately transferred to the public.

Many other communities have adopted requirements for
improvements as a condition of subdivision activity because of
the increasing awareness of public financing limitations, and

101

that private enterprise must accept their responsibility for
development costs.

It is recommended that prior to plat approval, engineered plans
and specifications for street improvements be required in order
to verify that the proposed improvements will meet City
standards.

Recommendation #9* Adopt a paved surface standard for arterial
and collector streets and investigate feasibility of paving
local streets.

There are many factors that make the gravel surface standard
unsuitable for urban areas. These factors include: the dust
problem, vehicle maintenance costs, road maintenance costs, and
reconstruction costs due to degradation of roadway material by
loss of fines, armoring, washouts, surface contamination, etc.

Pavement is part of the overall complex of urban street
@menities, which can be very costly. Pavement is not, in
itself, responsible for that high cost.

Roads are currently not paved for the following reasons. Paving
is not required. Paving is perceived to be prohibitively
expensive; and, Homer's soil conditions are such that advantages
and economy is gained by deferring pavement operations until one
or two years after the road is constructed. The problem is that
paving, once deferred, usually continues to be deferred.

If a comprehensive paving standard was established, paving costs
could be reduced in that at least one hot plant may establish
locally. The economics of paving would thus be more favorable
than at present, with no paving requirements and scattered
paving jobs.

Recommendation #10., Require that sidewalks or bicycle paths be
constructed alongside all streets of arterial or collector
classification, as noted on the Master Plan Map.

The access and transport functions of roads and streets are not
limited to motor vehicles. Pedestrian and bicyclists also play
a major part of a city's transportation system.

Separation of motor vehicles from pedestrians and bicyclists is
desirable. Pedestrians and bicyclists are basically
incompatible with automobiles, and if facilities are not
provided for them, their presence often creates a safety hazard
for all concerned. Sidewalks (with curbs and gutters) can aid
in defining the travelled way, thus enhancing space efficiency
and defining ingress/egress points. There can be aesthetic
benefits to sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes as opposed to simply
reserving shoulder space.

102

Recommendation 011: Require that new driveway permits onto
"unaccepted" City streets (those streets which have not been
accepted for maintenance by the City) be issued contingent upon
a waiver of the right to object to formation of a street
improvement district.

This recommendation is intended to stop the problem of poorly
constructed roads becoming public liabilities.

When a parcel is subdivided, right-of-way is dedicated to
provide legal access to the subdivided lots. Lots are sold but
the streets abutting the lots are not built. Lot purchasers who
want immediate development are then faced with the problem of
attaining access. They request City permission to construct
driveways in the undeveloped right-of-way. When these owners
construct their driveways they do not build them to City street
standards. Adjacent property owners begin using the same
driveway for access to their lots. Thus, once such a driveway
is built, it encourages development of a neighborhood. When
this occurs, the driveway becomes a local street.

This situation has repeated itself many times in many areas of
the City. The streets created in this manner are too narrow for
adequate residential traffic service. They meander within the
right-of-way and sometimes onto adjoining lots. They usually
have inadequate or unsuitable provisions for drainage. They may
?r may not adhere to minimal structural standards and additional
increases in traffic will soon lead to rapid structural
degradation of the roadbed.

When a neighborhood becomes well developed along a substandard
"driveway" street (e.g., lower Glacier view Subdivision) public
outcry often mandates remedial "quick fix" actions. The City's
position is that these local "driveways" benefit primarily the
street residents, and that it is unfair to burden the general
taxpaying public with the responsibility to reconstruct a local
service "driveway" that was never properly built. A street
improvement district should be formed, and the abutting property
owners should bear the improvement costs. Property owners,
however, often resist street improvement districts because of
the cost.

The recommended solution would be to require lot owners to sign
an agreement for driveway construction on an unaccepted right-
of-way (which would allow the lot owner to access the street) ,
to stipulate that the permittee (or any future lot owner) waive
his/her rights to object to the formation of a street
improvement district. Then, as more people build along the
street, additional waivers are collected. This continues until
a sufficient number of property owners are committed and the
street LID is formed.

103

This mechanism is recommended because it would simultaneously
protect the City and public interest, while also serving the
private individual's access needs.

Recommendation #12: Abandon the policy of acceptance of streets
for winter maintenance.

The reason why maintenance is not provided on all roads is that
the City established maintenance acceptance as the "incentive"
to construct roads to City "standards." The advent of "winter
maintenance" compromised the effectiveness of this policy, as it
reduced the incentive to build roads to City standards.

As soon as the City provides winter maintenance on roads, the
following consequences occur: population densities are likely
to increase, as City winter maintenance is certainly attractive
to prospective residents; political pressure will arise after a
number of years to accept the street for full-time maintenance;
this chain of events eventually culminates in a demand for total
road rebuild.

Recommendation #13: Modify parking ordinance standards to allow
liberalized space requirements for paved parking lots.

Homer parking lots are by and large,'unpaved and unmarked. This
condition makes space utilization inherently inefficient,
because parking stalls are not marked. It is recommended that
liberalized parking standards, in accordance with national
standards, be adopted for paved and striped parking lots. This
action will allow more efficient space utilization without
compromise to the integrity of the standards, and it will also
serve as an incentive for paving parking lots which will help to
curb Homer's dust problem.

Recommendation #14: Enforce the "stopping and parking"
ordinance.

This will prevent on-street parking and/or loading on arterials
and will also stop the hazardous pattern of backing onto
arterials.

CHAPTER 10

104

CHAPTER TEN - IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

In order to achieve the upgrade of existing roads and the
construction of new streets to proper standards ' and to
integrate the development of the street system, it is
essential to formulate implementation measures to effectuate
action. Questions as to how road improvements will be
financed; how City's standards will be assured; and how
future street rights-of-way will be safeguarded, will be
addressed in this chapter.

IMPROVEMENT FINANCING

The major obstacle to constructing and/or improving roads is
the difficulty of securing financing or funding. Funding
sources are limited. Presently, most road improvements
constructed by the City are funded by the State of Alaska
either by special legislative grants, or grants via the
Local Service Roads & Trails Program (LSRT) . The f ormer
grants are awarded by the legislature on a year-by-year
basis, subject to availability of State revenues. The City
has prepared special capital improvement lists with priority
ratings outlining requested projects.

The latter program, the LSRT program, awards grant funds
based on a formula established by statutes, subject to
availability of state revenues. Generally, these grants are
too small to fund any major road projects.

Grant awards have been declining in recent years as State
revenues have been declining, making it difficult to secure
State funding for needed improvements, or anticipate funding
levels for future projects. It must be recognized 'at the
onset, that the City will never receive the amount of
financial assistance necessary to fully fund all the various
projects the City needs. Decisions must be made as to which
projects are most needed in the short term and which ones
can safety be deferred to the future. It must also be
decided which improvmeents should be funded by the
taxpayers -at-l arge and which should be funded by users or
project beneficiaries.

Aside from State funding, other available funding sources
for road developments could include private-sponsored
projects, local improvement districts, or city bonding.

Private-sponsored. Private sponsored road improvements are
those roads developed by private developers or as part of
subdivision activity. At present, private-sponsored
projects are voluntary. The recommendation of this plan is
that subdividers be required to construct all streets
dedicated by plat to city standards. In cases where the

105

road functions as an arterial or collector, a cost-sharing
method should be used. The City's advantage for using this
approach is that funding derives from the private sector and
the benefitting properties share the cost. The subdivider's
advantage is improved access and City maintenance.

Local Improvement Districts. Local Improvement Districts
(LIDs) occur when a majority of private property owners
organize to fund a local improvement and are assessed the
cost of the project. The cost burden is placed on the
benefitting properties.

It is recommended that the LID mechanism be used to finance
the majority of local road construction projects. For
arterial and collector projects, participation should be
shared with the City providing for the upsizing of the
facility. On arterials, if access is fully controlled, the
costs should not be charged to properties because direct
benefits are very difficult to ascertain.

There are several disadvantages of LIDs. They are difficult
to organize, cumbersome to administer and politically
unpopular. Since the project is publically sponsored and
subject to State wage requirements, higher project costs
accrue.

It is preferable for property owners on residential streets
to privately organize construction of street improvements,
via private improvement associations. This mechanism is
experimental and places the burden of organization and
construction on the property owners.

City Bonding.,In order for the City to share in the cost of
street improvements, it will be necessary for the City to
secure funding separate from State legislative grants. One
promising local source is through the use of sales tax
revenue. Sales tax revenue could be reserved in a special
acccount specificcally for. road improvements. This pool
would be used as the matching share for local improvement
districts.

Another opportunity to use sales tax revenue would be to
back general obligation bonds. General obligation bond
sales would require voter approval. A disadvantage of this
approach is the amount of tax revenue required for debt
service. While general obligation bonds could raise
substantial capital in the short term, in the long term
there would be a substantial amount of interest due.

Another source of local funds to generate city revenue is
through property taxes. The City is at present committed to
holding property taxes to 6 mils. The likelihood of voter
approval of higher taxes is slim.

106

Financing Mechanisms

The most readily available source from private financial
institutions is the Farmers Home Administration which will
provide 20 year or more financing for public improvement
projects in residential districts. It is also recommended
the City explore means of providing long-term financing for
commercially or industrially zoned projects.

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING.

Assuming the City secures local funding for street
improvements, the next objective is to establish a rational
method for allocating those funds. It is recommended the
the City develop prioritized improvement programs. This
program would rate the proposed city street upgrade projects
such that the project of the "highest need" would be listed
as top priority, the project rated as second highest need
would be the second priority, etc. The project of highest
need would get the first chance of receiving a shared cost
grant from the City. Thus property owners along an existing
street would be given an opportunity to form an LID or
private association to finance improvement projects, and the
City would make the cost sharing funds available if they did
SO.

If property owners choose not to accept the City offer (by
refusing to form an LID or association) then the grant money
is simply made available to another porject of lower
priority. Each year, therefore, the City would make offers
to all of the top priority projects which would be fundable,
and declined offers would be made available to the lower
priority projects. The City would re-evaluate the
priorities annually.

IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

Financing and programming the reconstruction of existing
substandard streets will eliminate a large portion of
Homer's street problems. It will not stop the proliferation
of substandard streets. In order to prevent the problems
from continuing it will be necessary to adopt a set of
ordinances dealing with street design and construction
standards, and subdivision improvement regulations. Draft
ordinances have been prepared and submitted for City Council
action, see Appendix 3.

The Street. Design and Construction Standards ordinance
replaces the existing street ordinance, Title 11, with
revised and updated construction standards. The ordinances
will apply to streets and utilities in existing rights-of-
way, as well as new subdivisions. The ordinances requires
that all new subdivisions have streets constructed to City
standards.

107

In addition, the ordinances adopt the Street Master Plan,
and require dedication of streets shown on the Master Plan
in subdivisions through which the streets traverse. This
effectively secures right-of-way dedication, at no cost to
the public, through the subdivision platting process.

It should be noted that the street standards ordinance does
not require paving of streets. It is recommended that the
City consider phasing a paving requirement, first to perhaps
apply to all new streets in the commercial and urban
residential area, then to all new collector and arterial
streets, and finally to all new streets in all districts.

CHAPTER 8

CHAPTER EIGHT - PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents specific capital improvement for some of
Homer's major existing streets and project recommendations for
proposed future streets.

SPECIFIC PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

it is not enough to draft a revised master roads plan
designating future arterials and collectors, without addressing
the needs of the existing systems. Chapter Four highlighted the
needs of several of Homer's major streets. Since most of these
roads are State roads, specific recommendations to address
deficiencies are as follows: State Dept. of Transportation
funding will be necessary.

Bartlett Street.

a) Reconstruct entire road section to urban standards.
Redesign roadway on centerline. Include curbs, gutter,
sidewalks, street lighting, adjust grade.

Ben Walters Lane.

a) Replacement of existing yield sign with stop sign and
consideration of three-way stop control at the Ben Walters/
Nielsen intersection.

b) Realignment of existing reverse curve on south Ben Walters
to direct north-south alignment.

C) Paving, in order to mitigate the dry-weather dust problem.

d) Enforcement of speed limits.

East End Road.

a) Acquire additional right-of-way to 100 foot width.

b) Redesign and reconstruct to eliminate "roller coaster"
profile.

C) Widen to four lanes, include sidewalks, street lighting,
delineate intersections.

East Hill Road.

a) Reconstruct entire roadway, to include pedestrian
facilities.

Fairview/Hohe.

a) Control intersection with a stop sign on Hohe Street
approach favoring through-movements for Fairview Avenue.

b) Reconstruct and realign Fairview segment to right-of-way
centerline, west of Hohe.

C) Reconstruct and widen Hohe with sidewalk.

Homer Spit Road.

a) Continue to monitor bank stabilization efforts.

b) Pursue long-range permanent solution to erosion problem.

Kachemak Bay Drive.

a) Reconstruct entire road to 40 foot traveled-way urban
standard to include paving, drainage, lighting, pedestrian
facilities and grading.

Lake Street.

b) Acquire additional right-of-way, or road easements to 100
feet width.

C) Reconstruct roadway. Widen to three lanes with center turn
lane between Pioneer Avenue and Homer Bypass, becoming four
lanes along Ocean Drive. Realign intersection of Bypass/
Lake Street to 90 0. Construct sidewalks and street
lighting. Realign roadway to straighten curves.

By,pass.

a) Stripe roadway to delineate four lanes.

b) Install additional street lighting.

C) Control access at designated intersections.

Main Street.

a) Pave upper Main Street (Pioneer Avenue to Bayview Avenue) .
Construct a sidewalk along one side at minimum, and install
additional street lighting.

b) Reconstruct to urban standards lower Main Street, include
multi-lanes, paving, sidewalks and lighting, storm drains.
Adjust vertical geometric at the Homer Bypass intersection,
if possible.

PROPOSED FUTURE STREETS

Five future Homer streets are recommended as either new street
construction or extensions from existing streets. They are:
Fairview Avenue (extension to West Hill Road) ; Svedlund Street
(construction Pioneer Avenue to Homer Bypass) ; Grubstake Avenue
(reconstruction and construction Main Street to Lake Street);
Bayview Avenue (construction from South Slope to Kachemak Way) ;
and, Beluga Lake North Shore Road (construction Lake
Street/Homer Bypass to East End Road).

Each of these roads have their genesis in the 1979 Master Roads
and Streets Plan. While all have been evaluated and found
important, or even vital, to Homer's future road system, there
has been little concrete effort to ensure the roads will be
built. In order to define the actual route, it was necessary to
do reconnaissance work, route selection and plan/profile design.
This information could then be used to provide subdividers
guidance as they design road links in the system.

Moreover, the interests of the land owner or prospective
subdivider do not necessarily correspond with the "public
interest" of improving the transportation network. For example,
a subdivider does not normally wish to dedicate more than the
minimum legally required right-of-way widths; also, in a
developing' residential zone, subdividers will usually oppose
placement of an arterial, fearing that it will reduce the area's
desirability for prospective buyers and hence, will decrease
property values. Access to an arterial would also normally be
limited to side streets at specified minimum spacings. This,
too, runs contrary to subdivider's normal desires. The
incentives are thus heavily weighted against cooperation with
the intent of the "Master Plan for Roads and Streets" unless

positive steps are taken to identify the streets' corridors, and
the rationale for each project is overt and explicit.

Fairview Avenue (extension to West Hill Road)

Svedlund Street Extention

This project would consist of extending Svedlund Street - which
presently ends at a tee intersection on the north side of
Pioneer Avenue - approximately 1,500 feet south to the Homer
Bypass. This extension is an integral part of the plan for the
Homer central business district transportation system, first
proposed in the 1979 Master Roads and Streets Plan. The system
has periodically been re-evaluated; the most recent re-
evaluation occurring as part of this study and as part of
spinoff studies related to the Pioneer Avenue reconstruction
project. Each re-evaluation has validated the need for and
desirability of the system configuration proposed by the 1979
plan.

The 1979 plan showed four north-south streets linking Pioneer
Avenue with the Bypass: Lake Street, Heath Street, Main Street

Grubstake Avenue

Bavview Avenue Extension (Kachemak Way to South Slope Road)

Beluga Lake North Shore Road

The 1979 Master Roads and Streets Plan proposed that an east-
west arterial be constructed on the north side of Beluga Lake.
This arterial would link East End Road with Kachemak Bay Drive,
beginning at Mattox Street and an east-west section-line street
(commonly referred to as a portion of Fairview Avenue). Toward
the eastern end of the road, connection would be provided to
East End Road by means of a north-south connection to Kachemak
Bay Drive. This follows the East Lane right-of-way, which now
exists at the end of the airport runway.

The alignment proposed by the 1979 plan has genuine
inadequacies, some of which are related to the underlying
philosophy of avoiding right-of-way purchase or condemnation at
all costs. Thus, the simpler and more logical option of an

eastward extension of the Bypass extension was not considered.
The Bypass extension would avert diversion of heavy traffic
volumes onto Mattox Street. The geometrics of the Mattox Street
link would be poor, the impact on the existing neighborhood
would be negative, and it would still be necessary for traffic
to use East End Road to get to this arterial. By contrast, the
Bypass Extension would have avoided most of these problems,
truly relieve traffic pressure on East End Road by providing a
true bypass around the Lake Street/East End Road area, provide a
direct link between the Central Business District and General
commercial area, and allow development of a truck route
bypassing Pioneer Avenue and Lake Street. If the Bypass were
extended, the same route east of the elementary school would be
followed as proposed in the 1979 plan.

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER NINE - POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 01: Adopt this revised Master Plan for Roads and
Streets, including the revised functional classification system,
the Master Plan Map, and design guidelines for streets of each
functional classification.

The adoption of the plan will expedite a number of actions and
opportunities, such as the following:

a. The Homer Advisory Planning Commission may require, as part
of the platting process, dedication of the rights-of-way
required for construction of the streets detailed on the
plan.

The Planning Commission should direct that where
applicable, the right-of-way dedications conform to the
alignments shown on the Homer Future Streets preliminary
plans and profile sheets; in the case of other proposed
streets, the Commission should ensure that R.O.W. is
dedicated approximately along the corridor shown. Grade,
access and curvature requirements must be adhered to, and
unnecessary curvature and access can be eliminated at the
platting stage.

b. A logical collector/arterial grid will be established, and,
if used in conjunction with access spacing and other design
criteria, a logical local street grid can also be formed.

d. Standards for project cost-participation and access spacing
can be established; these standards can be enforced on new
streets and, to a lesser extent, on projects upgrading
existing streets.

Recommendation #2: Establish a program for right-of-way
acquisition along designated future road/street corridors, with
a portion of the City's Capital Improvement Budget being
reserved for right-of-way acquisition.

Most of the proposed road and street extensions in the Master
Plan either cross through "unsubdivided" parcels, thus allowing
right-of-way acquisition to be accomplished during the platting
process, or they basically take advantage of existing rights-of-
way or stay within the large "unsubdivided" parcels.

Given the tremendous expense of constructing transportation
facilities, it is more economical to construct a more expensive
route that motorists will use than to construct a less expensive
route that motorists will not use. other circumstances can also
dictate the need for right-of-way acquisition. There may not be
an alternative. In other instances, alternatives exist but are
poor and/or likely to exacerbate current traffic problems.

There are many miles of proposed road and street extensions
shown on the Master Plan. Four such purchase areas are of
critical importance now.

The first is a strip within the existing Acropolis parking lot,
which is part of the proposed Svedlund Street Extension, from
Pioneer Avenue to the Bypass.

The third area is the interse ction of Pioneer Avenue with the
proposed Heath Street extension, which will require a large turn
radius.

Fourth, the Bypass extension should be pursued. Right-of-way
should be obtained immediately, particularly within Waddell Park
and Lakeside Village Subdivision.

Recommendation #3-. Require that subdividers construct streets
dedicated by plat to City standards and under City supervision.

Recommendation #4: Develop an official set of minimum street
design/ construction standards, accompanied by required design/
construction/ inspection/ acceptance procedures for construction
of all streets.

Recommendation #5: Establish and codify access spacing
requirements for each. classification in Homer's street
functional classification system. Secure DOT's approval for the
system.

It is in the interest of the City and State to control access
onto newer road facilities, while the abutting properties remain
mostly undeveloped. Such control also works to the property
owner's advantage. Controlled access provides consolidation and
logical ordering of accesses, so that conflict between through-
movements and access movements is minimized. Access is actually
expedited, in that it is simpler and more orderly. Also, the
street's capacity is preserved. unlimited access would diminish
the road's capacity and the resulting congestion would
discourage access and through-movement alike.

Recommendation #6* Establish a cost sharing allocation system
for road improvement projects, depending on the functional
classification of a given roadway. Secure funding for City's
share of road improvment projects.

A cost sharing system can be used to allocate costs between the
government agency and the developer in a proportion representing
a ratio of public to private benefits. The cost sharing system
is the most equitable in terms of allocating costs to those who
receive benefits.

While it can be argued that streets are public ways and anyone
may use them, the primary benefits usually accrue to abutting
properties. The amount of costs borne by abutting properties
should, however, bear some relation to the service received. A
local street provides local benefit almost exclusively, and it
is reasonable that the property owners bear the full cost
burden. Collectors provide, in theory, less benefit to abutting
properties and more general system benefits, therefore adjacent
properties should have a substantially lessened cost burden.
Arterials should provide little service to abutting properties
and therefore funding should be more of a public burden.
However, where properties abutting collectors and arterials are
Fanted unrestricted access, it is not unreasonable to consider
increased assessment costs.

100

Recommendation #7: Establish a criteria-based ranking system
for long term programming for streets construction.

A criteria based system would put the improvement priorities and
allocation methods on a more rational basis, which will allow
more effective allocation of public funds.

Recommendation #8.* Require that water, sewer and street
improvements be phased concurrently whenever possible; require
that construction of water and sewer lines into undeveloped or
new subdivisions be accompanied by road construction.

When water and sewer utilities are made available, a tremendous
incentive for residential and commercial development occurs.
"Passable" roads can be developed to provide access in most
seasons, and that is all many people want (at first) . Thus,
development occurs around the water and sewer lines. Because
the City has jurisdiction over these lines, it has a stake and
investment in the roads (if only to get access to manholes,
valves, meters, and pressure reducing stations). Moreover, the
development will soon lead to demands for winter maintenance.
As has been previously argued, this creates the chain of events
leading to assumption of full City maintenance and, probably,
public rebuild of the streets. Water and sewer extensions made
without street construction requirements act to encourage, and
often to initiate, this sequence of events, a sequence which can
be described as a means by which private development costs are
ultimately transferred to the public.

Many other communities have adopted requirements for
improvements as a condition of subdivision activity because of
the increasing awareness of public financing limitations, and

101

that private enterprise must accept their responsibility for
development costs.

It is recommended that prior to plat approval, engineered plans
and specifications for street improvements be required in order
to verify that the proposed improvements will meet City
standards.

Recommendation #9* Adopt a paved surface standard for arterial
and collector streets and investigate feasibility of paving
local streets.

Pavement is part of the overall complex of urban street
amenities, which can be very costly. Pavement is not, in
itself, responsible for that high cost.

Roads are currently not paved for the following reasons. Paving
is not required. I Paving is perceived to be prohibitively
expensive; and, Homer's soil conditions are such that advantages
and economy is gained by deferring pavement operations until one
or two years after the road is constructed. The problem is that
paving, once deferred, usually continues to be deferred.

If a comprehensive paving standard was established, paving costs
could 'be reduced in that at least one hot plant may establish
locally. The economics of paving would thus be more favorable
than at present, with no paving requirements and scattered
paving jobs.

Recommendation #10: Require that sidewalks or bicycle paths be
constructed alongside all streets of arterial or collector
classification, as noted on the Master Plan Map.

The access and transport functions of roads and streets are not
limited to motor vehicles. Pedestrian and bicyclists also play
a major part of a city's transportation system.

Separation of motor vehicles from pedestrians and bicyclists is
desirable. Pedestrians and bicyclists are basically
incompatible with automobiles, and if facilities are not
provided for them, their presence often creates a safety hazard
for all concerned. Sidewalks (with curbs and gutters) can aid
in, defining the travelled way, thus enhancing space efficiency
and defining ingress/egress points. There can be aesthetic
benefits to sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes as opposed to simply
reserving shoulder space.

102

Recommendation #11: Require that new driveway permits onto
"unaccepted" City streets (those streets which have not been
accepted for maintenance by the City) be issued contingent upon
a waiver of the right to object to formation of a street
improvement district.

This recommendation is intended to stop the problem of poorly
constructed roads becoming public liabilities.

This situation has repeated itself many times in many areas of
the City. The streets created in this manner are too narrow for
adequate residential traffic service. They meander within the
right-of-way and sometimes onto adjoining lots. They usually
have inadequate or unsuitable provisions for drainage. They may
or may not adhere to minimal structural standards and additional
increases in traffic will soon lead to rapid structural
degradation of the roadbed.

When a neighborhood becomes well developed along a substandard
"driveway" street (e.g., lower Glacier View Subdivision) public
outcry often mandates remedial "quick fix" actions. The City's
position is that these local "driveways" benefit primarily the
street residents, and that it is unfair to burden the general
taxpaying public with the responsibility to reconstruct a local
service "driveway" that was never properly built. A street
improvement district should be formed, and the abutting property
owners should bear the improvement costs. Property owners,
however, often resist street improvement districts because of
the cost.

103

This mechanism is recommended because it would simultaneously
protect the City and public interest, while also serving the
private individual's access needs.

Recommendation #12: Abandon the policy of acceptance of streets
for winter maintenance.

Recommendation #13: Modify parking ordinance standards to allow
liberalized space requirements for paved parking lots.

Homer parking lots are by and large, unpaved and unmarked. This
condition makes space utilization inherently inefficient,
because parking stalls are not marked. It is recommended that
liberalized parking standards, in accordance with national
standards, be adopted for paved and striped parking lots. This
action will allow more efficient space utilization without
compromise to the integrity of the standards, and it will also
serve as an incentive for paving parking lots which will help to
curb Homer's dust problem.

Recommendation #14: Enforce the "stopping and parking"
ordinance.

This will prevent on-street parking and/or loading on arterials
and will also stop the hazardous pattern of backing onto
arterials.

CHAPTER 10

104

CHAPTER TEN IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

In order to achieve the upgrade of existing roads and the
construction of new streets to proper standards, and to
integrate the development of the street system, it is
essential to formulate implementation measures to effectuate
action. Questions as to how road improvements will be
financed; how City's standards will be assured; and how
future street rights-of-way will be safeguarded, will be
addressed in this chapter.

IMPROVEMENT FINANCING

Grant awards have been declining in recent years as State
revenues have been declining, making it difficult to secure
State funding for needed improvements, or anticipate funding
levels for future projects. It must be recognized at the
onset, that the City will never receive the amount of
financial assistance necessary to fully fund all the various
projects the City needs. Decisions must be made as to which
projects are most needed in the short term and which ones
can safety be deferred to the future. It must also be
decided which improvmeents should be funded by the
taxpayers -at- large and which should be funded by users or
project beneficiaries.

Aside from State funding, other available funding sources
for road developments could include private-sponsored
projects, local improvement districts, or city bonding.

Private-sloonsored. Private sponsored road improvements are
those roads developed by private developers or as part of
subdivision activity. At present, private-sponsored
projects are voluntary. The recommendation of this plan is
that subdividers be required to construct all streets
dedicated by plat- to City standards. In cases where the

105

City Bonding.. In order for the City to share in the cost of
street improvements, it will be necessary for the City to
secure funding separate from State legislative grants. One
promising local source is through the use of sales tax
revenue. Sales tax revenue could be reserved in a special
acccount specificcally for. road improvements. This pool
would be used as the matching share for local improvement
districts.

106

Financing Mechanisms

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING.

If property owners choose not to accept the City offer (by
refusing to form an LID or association) then the grant money
is simply made available to another porject of lower
priority. Each year, therefore, the City would make offers
to all of the top priority projects which would be fundable,
and declined offers would be made available to the lower
priority proj ects. The City would re-evaluate the
priorities annually.

IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

The Street Design and Construction Standards ordinance
replaces the existing street ordinance, Title 11, with
revised and updated construction standards. The ordinances
will apply to streets and utilities in existing rights-of-
way, as well as new subdivisions. The ordinances requires
that all new subdivisions have streets constructed to City
standards.

107

APPENDIX 1.

108

APPENDIX 1 - TRAFFIC COUNTS

STREET NAME/ ADT ADT
LOCATION DATE(S) (weekday)- (weekly)

1) BARTLETT ST.
a) north of Pioneer 8/13/82-8/18/82 1622 1556
b) north of Pioneer 5/23/84-5/24/84 2550
c) north of Pioneer 10/22/84-10/26/84 2617
d) north of Fairview 11/2/84-11/4/84 241

2) BAYVIEW AVE.
a) east of Main St. 10/28/84-10/30/84 336
b) west of Kachemak Way 10/28/84-10/31/84 274

3) BEN WALTERS LANE
a) south of East 10/30/84-11/l/84 744
End Rd.
b) east of Lake St. 10/30/84-11/l/84 544

4) EAST END ROAD
a) east of Lake St./ 8/13/82-8/18/82 5162 4960
Pioneer Jct.
b) 10 8/l/83-8/7/83 6702 6299
C) If 8/16/84-8/21/84 7494 7035
d) It 10/18/84-10/24/84 6554 6106
e) east of East Hill 10/22/84-10/24/84 2370
Road Jct.

5) EAST HILL ROAD
a) north of East 8/4/82-8/6/82 1001
End Rd.
b) it It 10/16/84-10/18/84 1008
c) south of Skyline Dr. 8/4/82-8/6/82 332
(outside city limits)

6) FAIRVIEW AVE.
a) between Main St. 10/26/84-10/28/84 285
and Hohe
b) west of Bartlett 10/26/84-10/28/84 815 750
(projected)
c) between Bartlett 10/19/84-10/21/84 830
and Hohe

7) HOMER BYPASS
a) west of Lake St. 8/13/82-8/16/82 3532 3408
Jct.
b) east of Pioneer/ 8/13/82-8/17/82 3163 3117
Sterling Jct.

109

STREET NAME/ ADT ADT
LOCATION DATE(S) (weekdayl (weekly)

c) west of Main St. 8/l/83-8/7/83 3385 3295
Intersection
d) east of Main St. 8/l/83-8/7/83 3856 3755
Intersection
e) east of Pioneer/ 5/20/84-5/22/84 4541
Sterling Jct.
f) west of Lake St. 8/2/84-8/8/84 4249 4079
Jct.
g) west of Main St. 10/18/84-10/26/84 2851 2639
Intersection
h) west of Lake St. 10/18/84-10/24/84 3209 2956
Jct.

8) KACHEMAK BAY DRIVE
a) east of Spit Road 8/10/82-8/17/82 1844 1698
of it 9/20/84-9/24/84 1939 .1762
of of 10/18/84-10/24/84 2057 1870
b) east of pavement 8/10/82-8/12/82 1511
end, before
terminal/parking
C) east of airport 10/18/84-10/24/84 948 855
terminals

9) KACHEMAK WAY
a) north of Pioneer 8/28/84-8/31/84 445
(one lane; doubled)
b) If if 10/28/84-10/30/84 663
c) south of Pioneer 8/29/84-8/31/84 1731

10) LAKE STREET
a) south of Pioneer/ 10/6/80-10/30/80 6168 5554
East End
b) If 8/13/82-8/18/82 7619 6924
C) of 8/1/83-8/7/83 7869 7201
d) of 8/17/84-8/21/84 7177 6700
(note: this is extrapolated from north-only data)
e) north of Bypass 8/2/84-8/8/84 7159 6886
Jct.*
f) south of Bypass 8/2/84-8/8/84 8910 8774
Jct.* * Extrapolated from north-only data
g) south of Bypass Jct. 10/24/84-10/25/8 4 6008

11) MAIN STREET
a) south of Pioneer 8/13/82-8/18/82 1708 171
Avenue
b) 11 5/10/84-5/14/84 1213 1169
C) if 10/22/84-10/26/84 1338
d) north of Pioneer 5/10/84-5/17/84 1380 1376
Avenue

110

STREET NAME/ ADT ADT
LOCATION DATE(S) (weekdayl (weekly)

12) OCEAN DRIVE 10/18/84-10/21/84 4450 4325

13) OLSEN LANE 8/13/82-8/18/84 638 647

14) PIONEER AVENUE
a) west of Lake St./ 10/6/80-10/12/80 5732 5268
East End Road
b) it of 8/13/82-8/18/82 9072 8457
C) of 8/l/83-8/7/83 11441 10531
d) 4/29/84-5/5/84 9926 9308
e) 8/16/84-8/21/84 11404 10582
f) 10/16/84-10/21/84 10037 9277
g) 10/18/84-10/25/84 9913 9154
h) east of Kachemak Way 8/28/84-9/l/84 11229
i) west of Kachemak Way 8/28/84-9/l/84 11376
j) east of Svedlund St. 6/21/84-6/28/84 11642 10977
k) west of Svedlund St. 6/21/84-6/28/84 11064 10316
1) east of Shelford St. 4/29/84-5/5/84 9888
m) east of Main St. 5/10/84-5/17/84 9641 9305
n) west of Main St. 10/7/80-10/14/80 5622 5148
0) it if 5/10/84-5/17/84 8582 8371
p) east of Barlett St. 5/23/84-5/25/84 5431
q) west of Bartlett St. 5/23/84-5/25/84 4980
r) north of Sterling 8/13/82-8/18/82 5124 4872
Hwy/Homer Bypass
S) of to 5/20/84-5/22/84 6632

15) ROCHELLE ROAD 11/5/84-11/8/84 435
(south of East End Rd)

16) SABRINA ROAD 11/5/84-11/8/84 503
(south of East End Rd)

17) SOUNDVIEW AVENUE 11/2/84-11/4/84 795
(west of Bartlett St.)

18) SPIT ROAD
a) north of Kachemak 10/7/80-10/13/80 2246 2168
Drive
b) south of Kachemak 1980 year round
Drive Jct.
C) It It 1981 year round
d) It It 1982 year round
e) of 1983 year round 2905

STREET NAME/ ADT ADT
LOCATION DATE(S) (weekday)- (weekly)

19) STERLING HIGHWAY

a) west of Homer 10/7/80-10/13/80 2881 2778
Bypass/Pioneer
(at Middle School)
b) it 8/13/82-8/19/82 6022 5568
C) 5/20/84-5/22/84 8120
d) 10/22/84-10/26/84 7051
e) At Baycrest Hill 10/24/84-10/26/84 4051
(entrance to City)

20) STERLING LOOP (a/k/a RODGERS LOOP)
(north of Sterling Hwy) 8/4/82-8/6/82 68

21) SVEDLUND, STREET 6/25/84-6/28/84 672
(north of Pioneer Ave.)

22) WEST HILL ROAD
a) north of Sterling 8/4/82-8/6/82 694
Hwy.
b) It if 10/16/84-10/18/84 1000
C) If of 10/22/84-10/26/84 953
d) south of Diamond 8/4/82-8/6/82 340
Ridge

APPENDIX 2

ROAD AND STREET DESIGN CRITERIA MWARISON Page I of 2

Source of Number of Minimum ROW A.D.T. Max. Degree Alignment Grade
Criteria Type of Facility Lanes Width (ft) (thousands) of Curve Maximum W Minimum (A)

MAJOR ARTERIAL L R M
Homer - 100 - - -
ADOT/PF 4-6 18-26 a 3 4 5 0.30
ASHTO 4-6 3 4 5 0.35
MOA 4-6 100 15-30 0.30

MINOR ARTERIAL
Homer - 80 10 (8,10 < 5001)
ADOT/PF 2-4 2.4-10 8.5 3 4 6 0.30
ASH10 2-4 3 4 6 0.35
MOA 2-4 60 8-15 0.30

COLLECTOR: NEIGHBORHOOD
Homer - 60 15 *(10,8 on Curves, 12 < 5009
ADOT/PF 2 0.75-1.5 11 6 a 9 0.30
ASHTO 2 6 a 9 0.35
MOA 2 60 <4 0.30

LOCAL RESIDENTIAL
Homer - so 0.75-1.5
ADOT/PF 2 11 6 8 9 0.30
ASHTO 2 6 8 9 0.35
MOA 2 80 <8 0.30

COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
Homer - BO 11
ADOT/PF 2-4 0.75-1.5 6 a 9 0.30
ASHTO 2-4 6, a 9 0.35
MOA 2-4 70 <8 0.30

LOCAL RESIDENTIAL
Homer - 60 <0.1 <57
ADOT/PF 2 <0.4 49 a 11 16 0.30
ASHTO 2 <0.4 49 8 11 16 0.35
HOA 2 50 <4.5 0.30

APPENDIX 2 - Continued
ROAD AND STREET DESIGN CRITERIA CONPARISON Page 2 of 2

Design Speed Minimums Max. Roadwary
(MPH) Side Slopes Dimensions Traveled
Source of Way Dimen.
Criteria Type of Facility L R M Fill cut (ft)
Homer MAJOR ARTERIAL 1.5: 1 2:1 68
ADOT/PF 60 55 50 2:1 2:1 52 36
2:1 2:1
ASHTO 2:1 2:1
MOA
Homer MINOR ARTERIAL 1.50 2:1 42
ADOT/PF 2:1 2:1 40 24
ASHTO 2:1 2:1
MOA 45 2:1 2:1
Homer COLLECTOR: NEIGHBORHOOD 1.50 2:1 30
ADOT/PF 2:1 2:1 28 20
ASHTO 2:1 2:1
MOA 40 2:1 2:1
Homer LOCAL RESIDENTIAL 1.50 2:1 30
ADOT/PF 2:1 2:1 28 20
ASHTO 2:1 2-1
MOA 40 2:1 2:1
Homer COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL 1.50 2:1 30
ADOT/PF 2:1 2:1 34 22
ASHTO 2:1 2:1
MOA 40 2:1 2:1
Homer LOCAL RESIDENTIAL 1.50 2:1 26
ADOTIPr 20 20 20 2:1 2:1 28 20
ASHTO 2:1 2:1
MOA 25 2:1 2:1

40'

Lp
0 y

FIGURE V11.4.1 NEWBURYPORT WATERFRONT RENEWAL AREA
(This is au e-tilarged section of Figure 11.1)

.114
APPENDIX 3

FINAL DRAFT

Chapter 11.04
STREET DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.
STANDARDS

Sections:

11.04.010 Intent
11.04.020, Applicability
11.04.030 Definitions
11.04.040 Street Design & Construction Requirements-
General
11.04.050 Master Roads and Streets Plan
11.04.055 official Maintenance Map - Adopted
11.04.058 Design Criteria Manual - Adopted
11.04.060 Geometric Design
11.04.070 Required Cross-section
11.04.080 Drainage and Erosion Control
11.04.090 Intersections
11.04.100 Utilities in Right-of-Way
11.04.110 Street Lighting
11.04.120 Sidewalks
11.04.130 Traffic Control Devices and Street Signs
11.04.140 Construction Requirements
11.04.150 Violation - Penalty

11.04.010 Intent. The intent of this chapter is to:

a. Promote the safety, convenience, comfort, and common
welfare of the public by providing for minimum standards
to regulate design and construction of public streets,
roads, and highways within the City.

b. Minimize public liability for publicly and privately
developed improvements by ensuring that roads and streets
will be built to city standards.

11.04.020 Applicability. The requirements of this chapter
shall govern the construction or reconstruction of roads and
streets within the City of Homer.

11.04.030 Definitions. In this chapter, unless otherwise
provided, or the context otherwise requires, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings set forth below:

-1-

115

a. "Arterial" means a street or highway which provides as a
major function the transmission of vehicular through-
traffic along its prolongation or length, (in preference
to traffic entering the street or highway from an
abutting lot or intersecting road), and which performs a
major role in serving the transportation needs of the
community (by serving relatively longer trip lengths with
minimal interference and higher speeds), and which is
identified as an arterial on the Homer Master Roads and
Streets Plan.

b. "As-built drawings" means the plan and profile drawings
of the improvements as constructed, drawn to the same
level of detail as the original design drawings.

C. "Base Course" means a layer of crushed aggregate placed
atop the*subbase, according to a specified gradation.

d. 11cityll means the City of Homer, a municipal corporation,
acting through the City Manager and/or his designees.

e. "Collector" means a street which collects traffic from
local streets and/or relatively large traffic generators,
and channels it into the arterial system, and is
identified as a "commercial/industrial collector" or as a
"residential collector" in the Homer Master Plan for
Roads and Streets. (A "commercial/ industrial collector"
is a collector located in a commercial or industrial
zoning district, while a "residential collector" is a
collector located in a residential district.)

f. "Cross culvert" means a culvert which crosses beneath the
travelled way of a street, such that its ends are exposed
on the embankment of each side of the street.

9. "Cul-de-sac" means a street that is closed at one end and
which is therefore required to provide a circular
turnaround.

h. "Design Criteria Manual" means a publication issued by
the City of Homer entitled "Design Criteria Manual for
Streets and Storm Drainage", dated April 1985.

i. "Design engineer" is a professional civil engineer,
registered in the State of Alaska, who shall. perform the
project design for the Developer.

"Developer" means a person,, firm, association,
partnership, corporation, governmental unit, or
combination of any of these which proposes to install
street improvements, either as part of a subdivision
development or as a development project on an existing
right-of-way.

-2-

11.6

k. "Drainage Management Plan" refers to the City of Homer"s
documents entitled "Drainage Management Plan - Homer,
Alaska" (dated August, 1979) and "Revised Drainage
Management Plan - Homer, Alaska" (dated February, 1982).

1. "Driveway" means an entrance/exit roadway which provides
lateral access to a private property from a public right-
of-way, and which is located on private property except
for its junction with the public road within such right-
of-way.

M. "Driveway intersection" means the junction of a drivbway
with a street or other public road.

n. "Local street" is a street which services primarily
relatively short trip lengths and low traffic, allowing
transmission of traffic from abutting lots to the
collector or arterial system, and which does not qualify
for designation as a collector or arterial. For the
purposes of this ordinance, local streets are segregated
into two subclasses: "local residential" streets are
those local streets situated in residential zoning
districts and "local commercial/ industrial 11 streets are
those local streets located in commercial or industrial
zoning districts.

0. "Master Roads and Streets Plan" refers to the document
labelled such, adopted by the City of Homer.

P. "Permanent maintenance" means grading, pavement patching,
ditching, culvert thawing, snowplowing, sanding, and
other work, performed on an all-seasons basis for
maintenance of city streets.

q. "Right-of-way" means land, property, or interest therein,
usually in a strip,. acquired for or dedicated to the
public for transportation purposes.

r. "Road" is a general term de *noting a public way or track,
or any length thereof, generally in rural areas, used for
purposes of vehicular travel.

S. "Roadway" means the portion of a street, road, or
highway, including shoulders, for vehicular use.

t. "Shoulder" means the portion of the roadway contiguous
with the travelled way for accomodation of stopped
vehicles for emergency use, and/or for lateral support of
base and surface courses.

U. "Street" is a general term denoting a public way or
track, or any length thereof, in urban settings, used for
purposes of vehicular travel.

-3-

117

V. "Street intersection" means the junction of two or more
public roads, i.e., roads located within public rights-
of -way.

W. "Subbase" means the specified or selected material of
planned thickness placed atop the subgrade and below the
base course.

X. "Subdivider" means a person, firm, association,
partnership, corporation, governmental unit, or
combination of any of these which may hold any recorded
or equitable ownership interest in land being subdivided.
The term shall also include all heirs, assigns or
successors in interest, or representatives of the
subdivider, owner, proprietor or developer.

Y_ "Subdivision" means the division of a tract or parcel of
land into two or more lots, sites, or-other divisions for
the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale, lease,
or building development, including any subdivision, and
when appropriate to the context, the. process of
subdividing or the land subdivided. A "new subdivisionol
is a subdivision in which a plat is recorded after the
effective date of this chapter.

Z. I'Subgradell means the basement soil material in excavation
(cuts), embankment (fills), and embankment foundations
immediately below the first layer of subbase and to such
depth as may affect the structural design of the roadway.

aa. "Traveled way" means that portion of the roadway reserved
for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of shoulders.

bb. "Winter maintenance" means snowplowing and sanding of
roads during winter-months; this definition specifically
excludes culvert maintenance and prevention or
alleviation of glaciation (aufeis) effects.

11.04.040 Street Construction, Desicm, and Dedication
Requirements - General.

a. All streets or roads hereinafter constructed or
reconstructed within the City of Homer shall adhere to
the dedication, design and construction standards set
forth in this chapter and shall also be designed and
constructed according to the procedures and standards set
forth in Chapter 11.20.

b. The City shall require new subdivisions to dedicate the
rights-of-way according to the widths specified in
Section 11.04.060(f) below, according to the appropriate
functional classification. Arterials and collectors are
as designated in the Master Roads and Streets Plan.

-4-

C. The Planning Commission shall require the dedication of a
half street if the other half of the street has been
dedicated or can reasonably be expected -to be dedicated,
unless it determines the street would be unnecessary or
undesirable. It shall further require half-street
dedications if the street is on the Master Plan for Roads
and Streets Map as a planned improvement or is the
logical extension of an existing street.

d. When a subdivision borders or contains a street
designated an arterial on the Master Plan map, the Homer
Advisory Planning commission may require shared access or
the dedication of a frontage street. Alternatively, an
interior road may be required (along the rear lot lines
of the lots abutting the arterial) which will serve the
access requirements of all the lots fronting the
arterial.

11.04.050 Master Roads and Streets Plan - Adopted.

a. The City hereby adopts the functional classification
system, Master Plan map, and preliminary plans and
profiles of future streets contained in the Master Roads
and Streets Plan.

b. In all new subdivisions, excepting those specifically
exempted in Chapter 22.10, the subdivider shall be
required to dedicate street rights-of-way designated as
arterials or collectors on the Master Plan for Roads and
Streets map, in general agreement with the location and
geometrics outlined on the map and, if preliminary
engineering plans have been prepared, in general
accordance with the route layout specified therein. The
Planning Commission may require adjustments to the
proposed plat at the preliminary platting stage if it
finds that such geometrics-and alignments are not adhered
to.

C. If a development includes a segment of an arterial or
collector street as shown on the Master Plan, the
developer shall construct the streets on the alignment
adopted in the Master Roads and Streets Plan, and
according to the geometric requirements (maximum grade,
curvature, and intersection grade, and minimum
intersection curb return radius) conforming to the
respective classification. The developer, in such case,
shall be required to construct the street to a 28 foot
width (22 foot travelled way and 3 foot shoulder on each
side), in accordance with the minimum requirements of a
local residential street; provided, however, that the
City may, upon direction of the City Council, elect to
require construction to the full standards and
reimbursement of the cost difference between the required
street and the design street.

-5-

119

d) The City council, upon recommendation of the Homer
Advisory Planning -Commission, shall be empowered to
designate additional routes as arterials and collectors
beyond those adopted on the Master Plan map.

11.04.055 Official Maintenance Map - Adopted.

a. The "Official Maintenance Map of the City of Homer" is
enacted by reference and declared to be part of this
chapter in its exact f orm, as it exists on the date that
this ordinance is adopted by the City Council. This map
shall be kept in the City offices for public inspection.

b. After the effective date of this ordinance, the City
shall not accept maintenance responsibility for any
roads, existing or future, which are not constructed or
reconstructed to the standards of this ordinance, unless
such road is shown on the "Of f icial Maintenance Map of
the City of Homer."

c . City maintenance service, as specified on the official
map, shall be provided.on a permanent (year-around) basis
and on a winter-maintenance-only basis (snowplowing and
sanding only). In no case shall a winter-maintained road
be upgraded to permanent maintenance unless it is
reconstructed to the standards of this chapter.

d. If the map becomes lost or damaged, the map or
significant parts thereof remaining after partial
destruction shall be preserved. The City Council may by
ordinance enact a new map which shall be consistent with
and supersede the old map.

e. The map shall be signed by the City Clerk with a note of
the date of enactment by the City Council. Amendments by
ordinance shall be immediately added to the "Official
Maintenance Map of the City of Homer" with a notation of
the date of enactment of said ordinance by the City
Council.

11.04.058 Design Criteria Manual Adopted.

The City of Homer hereby adopts by reference the "Design
Criteria Manual f or Streets and Storm Drainage", dated April
1985. The "Design Criteria Manual" shall augment the
standards of this chapter and shall govern site reconnaissance
(survey and soils) and design for streets and storm drains.

120

11.04.060 Geometric Design Reauirements.

The following design criteria shall be adhered to on all
street construction within the City.

a. Street alignment. The street construction shall coincide
with the right-of-way centerline unless. otherwise
approved by the City.

b. Street design. Streets shall be designed to meet the
following objectives:

1. To drain adjacent property where possible;
2. To match existing driveways where possible, and in
all cases to match existing cross-street grades;
3. To minimize cross-street or driveway grades;
4. To provide drainage of roadways;
5. To facilitate continuity of natural drainage
patterns if storm drains are not incorporated in
accordance with the Drainage Management Plan.

C. Grade and curvature maxima. The following design
limitations shall apply to grades and curvature according
to the street's functional classification:

MINIMUM
MAXIMUM SHORT DISTANCE MAXIMUM CURVE
CLASSI- GRADE MAXIMUM GRADE (%) GRADE ON RADIUS
FICATION M (Less than 5001) CURVE M ffeet)*

Major arterial 6 8 6 700
minor arterial 8 10 6 600
Collector 8 12 6 500
Comm./Indus.
Local: Comm./ 8 12 6 500
Indus.
Collector Res. 10 12 8 500
Local: Res. 10 12 8 150
Radius shall be'measured to right-of-way centerline.
In hilly terrain (as defined by the "Design Criteria
Manual") , the minimum curve radius for residential
collector streets may be reduced to 275 feet, and the
minimum curve for local residential streets may be
reduced to 120 feet, upon approval of the, City Public
Works Engineer.

d. Street design criteria (e.g., pavement thickness, roadway
widths, etc.) shall be based on 20 year traffic forecasts
as approved by the City. Forecasts for local streets
shall be based on estimated trip generation, said
estimates to be obtained on per-unit basis from the
"Design Criteria Manual" and standard texts and
calculated by the design engineer for the given land-use
intensity and type.

121

e. Cul-de-sacs must not be longer than 600 f eet and must
have turnaround, with a minimum radius to outer edge of
pavement or shoulder of 48 feet.

f . Right-of -way, traveled way, and shoulder width standards
for city streets shall, at minimum, be as follows:

SHOULDER
FUNCTIONAL CLASS RIGHT-OF-WAY TRAVELED WIDTH, EACH
OR TYPE WIDTH (ft) WAY WIDTH (ft) SIDE (ft)

Arterial - Major 100 36 8
Arterial - Minor 100 24 6
Collector - 80 24 4
Comm./Indus.
Collector - Res. 80 24 4
Local 70 24 4
(Comm./Indus.)
Local (Res.) 60 22 3
Cul-de-sac 50 (radius) 38 (radius) 2
turnaround radius

Shoulder width reductions may be allowed on roads with curb
and gutter.

9. The right-of-way width standards of Section 11.04.060(f)
above shall constitute minimum dedication requirements
for subdivisions for respective street classification.
Subdividers and developers shall be required to construct
roadways to the width specified for local residential
streets, regardless of the street classification.

h. Other design criteria shall be as specified in the City
of Homer "Design Criteria Manual for Streets and Storm
Drainage." Further explanation and elaboration of the
requirements in (c) through (f) above is also set forth
in the "Design Criteria Manual."

11.04.070 Required cross-section.

a. All cross-section designs shall be performed in
conformance with the City of Homer Street Design Manual.
Thickness shall be based on analysis of native soil and
groundwater conditions, as detailed in the Street Design
Manual using limited subgrade frost penetration, reduced
subgrade strength, California Bearing Ratio, or other
methods as appropriate for the functional classification
of each roadway, provided that in no case shall the
combined thickness of subbase and base course be less
than 2 4 11. Base course thickness shall be 411 on paved
roads and 611 on unpaved roads.

122

b. Prior to the placement of roadway structural f ill
material, native material shall be excavated to subgrade,
and geotextile f abric, of a type approved by the City,
shall be placed atop of subgrade prior to placement of
structural fill.

C. Base course and subbase gradation shall be as specified
in the Municipality of Anchorage Standard Technical
Specification, except as otherwise approved or specified
by the City Public Works Engineer.

11.04.080 Drainage and Erosion Control.

a . An adequate drainage system, which may include necessary
storm drainage facilities, drain inlets, manholes,
culverts, bridges, and other appurtenances, shall be
provided to conduct stormwater efficiently and to protect
the roadway's integrity. The flow requirements for each
particular drainageway shall be established by the City,
using the City Drainage Management Plan as a data base.

b. Hydraulic structures shall be designed in accordance with
the "Design Criteria Manual".

c . Underground storm drain systems will be required after
preparation and official adoption of an official storm
drain network plan, if the development occurs on the
route of a storm drain, as provided on such official
plan. Storm drains shall be designed in accordance with
the "Design Criteria Manual".

d . Cross culverts shall have a minimum inside diameter of
2419, and shall be larger if the flow through said culvert
will require larger diameter pipe, as determined by the
City Public Works Engineer. Cross-culverts shall be
fitted with end sections in all cases. Driveway culverts
will be a minimum of 1811 in diameter.

e . Plunge basins or other methods, as approved by the City,
shall be employed to dissipate energy at culvert outfalls
where the City or design engineer determines such methods
are necessary, in accordance with the "Design Criteria
Manual".

f. Ditch lining or other methods shall be required if
necessary to prevent ditch erosion.

11.04.090 Intersections (Street and Driveway).

a. Right-of-way requirements. Rights-of-way shall intersect
at an angle as close to ninety degrees as feasible, and
in no event at an angle less than sixty degrees.

123

b. At all intersections, right-of -way radius returns shall
be a minimum of 25 feet. Additional radius shall be
required in cases where the intersection angle is less
than ninety degrees; the rounding shall permit
construction of curb returns or turning radii as required
in (c) below, and radius returns in such cases shall not
be less than 40 feet.

C. Curb returns and turning radii. Turning radii at
intersections shall be designed and constructed to
accommodate the turning path of design turning vehicles
with minimal encroachment on shoulders and opposing
lanes; the design. turning vehicles are as specified in
the "Design Criteria Manual", according to the street's
functional classification.

d. The distance between street intersection centerlines
shall be not less than 200 feet, measured along the
centerline of the intersected street. Street intersec-
tions created by new subdivisions shall be spaced at
intervals of not less than 600 feet on major arterials,
300 feet on minor arterials, and 200 feet on collectors.

e. Intersection grades shall not exceed 3% within 60 ft. nor
4% within 100 feet, of the intersection with the through-
road centerline. The through-road grade shall not exceed
7% approaching the intersection if possible.

f. Intersections shall be planned and designed to provide
sight distances in accordance with the "Design Criteria
Manual."

9. For new subdivisions, the Homer Advisory Planning
Commission may. specify separation intervals between
driveway and/or street intersections on arterial and
collector streets, not to exceed the street intersection
interval specified above.

11.04.100 Utilities in Right-of-Way. New streets to be
constructed for acceptance by the City shall also include the
construction of applicable utilities in accordance with the
Development Agreement. Placement of utilities in right-of-way
shall be governed by the standards of the City of Homer
"Design Criteria Manual."

11.04.110 Street Lighting. Street lighting shall be
installed in all streets in conformance with the requirements
of the City of Homer "Design Criteria Manual" and the
standards of the electric utility.

_10-

124

11.04.120 Sidewalks.

a. New streets to be accepted by the City may, at the
Developer's option, have sidewalks and/or bicycle paths.

b. Sidewalks and/or bicycle paths shall be designed in
accordance with the design criteria of the City of Homer
"Design Criteria Manual."

C. The Planning Commission may require the dedication of
additional right-of-way for pedestrian walkways where it
finds that pedestrian walkways are necessary to
convenient pedestrian circulation or to protect
pedestrians from hazardous traffic, and the existing or
proposed street right-of-way is insufficient for such
purposes.

11.04.130 Traffic Control Devices and Street Sicms.

a. Street signs and other traffic control devices, including
striping where applicable, shall be provided in
accordance with the Alaska Traffic Manual.

b. Street name signs shall be provided at all intersections,
on fixtures and according to style specified in the
Alaska Traffic Manual.

11.04.140 Construction Requirements. Street construction
within right-of-way dedicated or to be dedicated to the public
within the City shall be subject to the following:

a. Construction methods, materials, and practices for all
work related to streets within the City shall conform to
the Standard Specifications of the Municipality of
Anchorage; amendments to these specifications shall be
subject to approval or shall be specified by the City of
Homer.

b. Construction procedures and responsibilities shall be as
specified in Chapter 11.20.

11.04.150 Violation - Penalty. The violation of any
provision contained herein shall be punished under Section
1.16.010.

125

FINAL DRAFT

Chapter 11.20
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES WITHIN
CITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND SUBDIVISIONS
(STREETS AND UTILITY MAINS)

Sections

11.20.010 Intent
11.20.020 Scope and Applicability
11.20.030 Definition
11.20.040 Development Permit Process
11.20.050 Permit Application
11.20.060 Design Phase Procedures
11.20.070 Preconstruction Requirements
11.20.075 Public Liability Insurance
11.20.080 Construction Inspection and Quality
Control Requirements
11.20.090 Project Completion Procedure
11.20.100 Project Acceptance Procedure
11.20.110 Violation - Penalty

11.20.010 Intent. The intent of this chapter is to establish
procedures for constructing streets and utility mains in
existing rights-of-way or public rights-of-way or easements to
be dedicated by plat.

11.20.020 Scope and AoRlicability. This chapter governs all
street and utility main construction in public rights-of-way
which are greater than 201 in width, excepting those rights-
of-way which are specifically claimed for ownership and
maintenance by the State of Alaska. It shall further govern
such construction of streets and utility mains in rights-of-
way or easements proposed to be dedicated as part of pending
subdivision plats, as required in Chapter 22.10 of the Homer
Municipal Code.

11.20.030 Definitions. In this chapter, unless otherwise
provided or the context otherwise requires, the following
definitions shall have the meanings set forth below:

a. "As-built drawings" means plan and profile drawings of
the improvements as constructed, drawn to the same level
of detail as the design drawings.

b. "City" means the City of Homer, a municipal corporation
acting through the City Manager and/or his designees.

-1-

126

C. "City Inspector" is an individual employed by the City of
Homer, who shall monitor construction progress and
quality on a daily basis to the satisfaction of the City
of Homer, who shall record whether the project is
proceeding according to the plans and specifications and
who shall receive change requests and documentation
related to the project, including "as-built" drawings, i
nspection field books and copies of the surveyors field
notes.

d. "City Public Works Engineer" means the individual
carrying such title, who is employed by the City of Homer
Department of Public Works.

e. "Contractor" means the person or company providing labor,
materials and other services necessary to construct and
install street and utility improvements for the
Developer, according to the plans and specifications.

f. "Design Criteria Manual" means a publication issued by
the City of Homer entitled "Design Criteria Manual for
Streets and Storm Drainage", dated April 1985.

9- "Design engineer" is a professional civil engineer,
registered in the State of Alaska, who shall perform the
project design for the Developer.

h. "Developer" means the party proposing to, install an
improvement or improvements- in exising public rights-of-
way or subdivision developments, and assuming
accountability for compliance with all city regulations
pertaining to construction of such improvements; said
party shall appoint or designate an individual, known as
the Project Manager, to conduct its interactions with the
City and to be responsible for Developer's adherence to
all pertinent city regulations.

i. "Erosion control plan" means a plan, submitted to the
City for preventing erosion onsite and/or sedimentation
offsite during construction.

j. "Field change" means a change in the design of a project,
made in the field by the Contractor under the approval of
the Project Engineer, which is inconsequential in nature
and which does not impact the integrity of the design or
the intent of the project, and does not cause violation
of city ordinances or design standards.

k. "Inspector" is an individual employed by the Developer
who shall monitor construction progress and quality on a
daily basis, and who shall prepare daily inspection
reports for submittal to the City.

-2-

127

"Major change" means a change in the design which, if
executed, would lead to a consequential deviation in its
intent or integrity or to a violation of city standards
or ordinances, in the opinion of the City Public Works
Engineer.

M. "Project Engineer" is a professional civil. engineer,
registered in the State of Alaska, who shall be.employed
by- the Developer and whose responsibilities shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:

- Verify that all work is accomplished in accordance-with
the plans and specifications;
- Supervise the Inspector, Surveyor, and Testing Firm;
- Authorize and document minor deviations in the design,
known as "field changes";
- Submit proposals for major design deviations, known as
"major changes" to the City;
- Verify field notes and inspection reports as detailed
in Section 11.20.080 below.
- Sign and stamp "as-built" drawings.

n. "Project Manager" is the person charged with representing
the Developer with regard to project work, to the City on
the Project.

0. "Right-of-way" means land, property, or interest therein,
usually in a strip, acquired for or dedicated to the
public for transportation purposes.

P. "Road" is a general term denoting a public way or track,
or any segment thereof, used for purposes of vehicular
travel.

q. "Site" means the area of construction, as defined on the
project plans.

r. "Street" is a general term denoting a public way or
track, or any segment thereof, and of any length 'and
Jocation within the City, used for purposes of vehicular
travel. For the purposes of this ordinance, it is
synonymous with the term "road".

S. "Street construction" includes all clearing, grubbing,
@ompaction, grading and drainage improvement work
involved in building a street.

t. "Subdivision" means the division of a tract or parcel of
land into two or more lots, sites@, or other divisions for
the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale, lease,
or building development, including any subdivision, and
when appropriate to the context, the process of
subdividing or the land subdivided. A "new subdivisionif
is a subdivision in which a plat is recorded after the
effective date of this chapter.

-3-

128

U. "Surveyor" is a professional land surveyor, registered in
the State of Alaska.

V. .."Traffic control pl'an" is the plan showing signage and
traffic management on-site or entering/ exiting the site
during construction.

Other key terms are as def ined in the text of the f ollowing
regulations or, where no such definitions are found, as
defined in Homer Municipal Code, Chapter 11.04.

11.20.040 Development Permit Process. No. street or utility
main construction shall be permitted within public rights-of -
way prior to the Developer I s receipt of a Development Permit,
Notice of Design Approval, and Notice to Proceed with
Construction.

11.20.050 Permit APRlication. Prior to issuance of the
Development Permits, the Developer must submit an Application
f or Development Permit to the City. This application shall
contain the following details at minimum:

a) Design concept and preliminary layout showing location
and extent of proposed improvements;

b) Written scope of work, to consist of the type of
improvements to be installed and approximate quantities.

c). Identification of the Design Engineer, who shall be a
professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Alaska and who shall perform the project design for the
Developer;

d) Identification of the Project Manager, who shall be the
Developer's representative authorized to contact and
negotiate with the City.

e) Estimated project completion date or duration.

Upon acceptance of the application, a Development Permit shall
be issued by the City Public Works Engineer. This permit
shall be a Notice to Proceed with design, based on approval of
design concept and the preliminary layout, as required in (a)
above.

-4-

129
11.20.-.060 Desicm Phase Procedures. After receipt of the
Development Permit, the Developer shall prepare and submit to
the City a design of the proposed utility or street
extensions. This design (consisting of plans, specifications,
and supporting material including, but not limited to, soil
test data, survey notes, and design criteria reports) shall
adhere to the following requirements:

a) Design must conform to all pertinent City of Homer
standards for street and utility construction, and shall
be stamped and signed by the design engineer;

b) Survey and soils data shall be obtained, and plans and
specifications shall be prepared, in conformance with the
standards of the "Design Criteria Manual".

c) Design must be accompanied by a statement from the design
engineer that he has personally inspected 'the site, and
must be accompanied by the design report. Design report
requirements are as specified in the "Design Criteria
Manual."

d) Design must also be accompanied by a signed and notarized
statement from the Developer that the Developer has
reviewed the design, and shall enforce adherence to the
design during construction, excepting changes made in
conformance with Section 11.20.080 below.

e) If the Developer's proposed improvements include a water
line extension, the design shall in all cases be
accompanied by a design for reconstruction of the roadway
to City standards, in accordance with this. chapter; said
reconstruction shall be required as part of' the project
work.

f) The Developer shall provide copies of the following:
- Approval or compliance certification letter for
water and sewer facilities from the State of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
- Corps of Engineers permit for construction in wetlands
as necessary.
- Permits, where applicable, from the State Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities.
- Telephone and power installation or relocation
agreements.

Upon satisfactory completion of these requirements, and
approval by the City of the plans and specifications, the City
shall issue a Notice of Design Approval to the Developer.

130

11.20.070 Preconstruction Recruirements. Following receipt of
the Notice of Design Approval, the Developer shall submit the
following to the City:

a) A construction schedule;

b) Erosion control plan and traffic control plan for the
area of the. development project, if determined necessary
by the Public Works Engineer.

C) Identification of the following personnel, who shall be
required to perform their respective duties during the
construction of the project:
1) Contractor
2) Project Engineer
3) Inspector
4) Surveyor
5) Testing Firm (a firm employed by the Developer to
perform soils, compaction, and other tests deemed
necessary by the Proj ect Engineer to ensure
conformance of work to plans and specifications).

d) A development fee to cover costs of inspection and
administration of the project. The fee shall be
generally in relation to the design engineer's
construction cost estimate, according to the following
schedule below:

Cost Estimate Development Fee
Less than $100,000 1.0% of cost estimate, but not
less than $250
$100,000 to $500,000 0.75% of cost estimate, but not
less than $1,000
Above $500,000 0.50% of cost estimate, but not
less than $3,750

e) Design engineer's construction cost estimate. This cost
estimate shall be accompanied by the calculations upon
which the cost estimate is based. IThe estimate and
calculations are subject to verification and concurrence
by the City Public Works Engineer.

f) A performance bond or other acceptable guarantee in the
amount of 100% of the project cost, which bond shall be
waived in the case of new subdivisions, in which right-
of-way dedication, via plat filing or recordation, cannot
occur until improvements are installed and accepted.

g) Proof of liability insurance listing the City, as an
additional insured in accordance with the requirements of
Section 11.20.075 below. The insurance may be purchased
and maintained either by the Developer or the Contractor.

-6-

131

h) A notarized statement that the Developer shall hold the
City harmless from any claims arising from construction
including, but not necessarily limited to, liability or
nonpayment'of subcontractors or suppliers.

i) The Developer shall submit to the City, in accordance
with the form specified by the City, a quality control
program for the construction of the improvements. The
quality control program shall provide sufficient
inspection and test procedures to determine compliance
with all applicable plans, specifications, and safety
requirements. The program shall include at least the
following:

1) The frequency and type of all tests to be performed.
2) A list of all firms or persons who will perform
tests and inspections.
3) Procedures for coordinating testing and inspections.
with the City, and for providing advance notice to
the City of all inspections and tests which the City
may opt to witness.
4) Procedures for reporting quality control activities,
including discoveries of deficiencies in the work.

In addition, the Developer must sign a Performance Agreement
with the City that work shall be completed according to the
plans and specifications, and allowing the City the right to
enter upon and inspect the project, and to order work
stoppage, tests, and field changes in, accordance with Section
11.20.080 below.

Upon completion of the above requirements to the satisfaction
of the City, the City shall issue a Notice to Proceed with
Construction.

11.20.075 Public Liability Insurance.

The Developer or Contractor is required to purchase, and
maintain throughout the life of the project, such Public
Liability Insurance as shall protect the. City and the
Developer and/or Contractor against losses which may result
from claims for damages for bodily injury, including
accidental death, as well as from claims for bodily damages
which may arise from any operations related to the development
project, whether such operations be those of the Developer,
Contractor, or subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly
employed by any of these parties. Such Public Liability
Insurance shall include coverage for the following:

-7-

132

1. Comprehensive General Liability Minimum Limits

Bodily Injury and Property Damage $500,000
Liability;
Premises Operations including Combined Limit
underground; Each Occurrence
Products and Complete Operations; and Aggregate
Broad Form Property Damage;
Blanket Contractual;
Personal Injury

2. Comprehensive Automobile Liability Minimum Limits

Bodily Injury and Property Damage, $500,000
including all owned, hired and Combined Limit
non-owned automobiles per Accident

11.20.080 Construction Inspection and Ouality Control
Reguirements. Following receipt of the Notice to Proceed, the
contractor shall complete the improvements under the
inspection of the Proj ect Engineer, the Inspector, and the
City, according to the plans and specifications and the
procedural requirements of this chapter. The inspection and
quality control requirements shall be as follows:

a The Developer shall submit to the City, on the Monday of
each week during construction, copies of all inspection
reports, surveyor's field notes, and materials test
reports of the prior week. The reports shall contain a
specific listing of any changes, either field* changes or
major changes, made,to the design in that week.

b The City may perform, in a timely manner, any and all
inspections it deems appropriate for the project; it
shall, morever, reserve the right to enter the project
site at any time for purposes of inspection and to
require additional tests if in the City's opinion,
testing by the Developer's testing firm has previously
been inadequate. The Developer shall pay for such tests
if the tests, reveal noncompliance with construction or
material requirements; any test which confirms compliance
shall be paid for by the City. The City may also issue a
notice of rejection of materials or methods to the
Developer, which may state that the City will not release
the performance bond or other accepted guarantee, or
approve the project until the conditions cited in such
notice are remedied. Furthermore, the City may issue an
order to the Developer to stop work within 24 hours,
under conditions including, but not necessarily limited
to, the following:

1) If inspection reports, field notes, and test reports
are not submitted to the City when required;

133

2) If the project creates a condition that the City
deems hazardous or detrimental to the public;
3) If unauthorized deviations from the design occur
which are, in the City's opinion, substantial and
which the Developer refuses to remedy in a timely
manner after Developer's receipt of notices from the
City regarding these defects.

C) Surveyor's notes must include horizontal and vertical
data for all improvements as installed, and shall include
the date of installation.

d) The Developer must submit to the City Public Works
Engineer, and the City Public Works Engineer must approve
in writing, any proposal for "major changes" in the
design prior to authorizing such change and prior to such
change being executed in construction.

e) The Project Engineer shall authorize any "field changes"
in the design prior to such change being executed in
construction; if requested by the City, the Project
Eng ineer shall be required to give written justification
of any such "field change."

11.20.090 Project Completion Procedure. Prior to issuance of
Notice of Project Acceptance, the following are required:

a) The Developer's Project Manager, Project Engineer, and
the City Public Works Engineer must conduct an inspection
to determine if the project is complete and if the
project has been completed in accordance with the
Contract Documents and if the Contractor has fulfilled
all of his obligations. A written "punch list" shall be
prepared identifying all observed defects, if any. Said
defects shall be remedied, to the satisfaction of the
City Public Works Engineer, and a final inspection
conducted to verify that these have been remedied, prior
to acceptance of the improvements by the City.
b) The Developer must provide the City with a *f inal
submittal on the improvements that includes triplicate
copies of project as-builts drawings. Said as-built
drawings shall contain a record of all improvements as
installed and shall show all field changes and major
changes. The f inal as-built drawings will be on 3 mil
mylar 2411 x 3611 sheets, and marked "AS-BUILT" in bold
letters on all sheets of the plans. The as-built
drawings shall use the design plan and prof ile drawings
as a base, unless otherwise approved or specified by the
City Public Works Engineer.

Included on the first sheet of the as-built drawings will
be the following statement, stamped, signed and dated by
the Project Engineer:

-9-

134

"The following sheets are record drawings prepared by the
Project Engineer, (insert name), based in part on
information provided to us by others. We have carefully
checked this information and believe it to be a
reasonable and accurate representation of the work as
constructed."

C) The Developer shall, following completion of all public
improvements, restore all disturbed or destroyed
monuments or lot corners.

11.20.100 Prolect Acceptance Procedure.

a) After the City Public Works Engineer is satisf ied that
the improvements are 100 percent complete and acceptable,
he shall forward to the Homer City Council a
recommendation for project approval and acceptance for
maintenance.

b) The Homer City Council shall consider, and take action
uponr the recommendation of proj ect approval and
maintenance prior to -any f ormal acceptance and approval
by the City administration. Acceptance f or maintenance
shall be as prescribed in Section 11. 04. 055 of the Homer
Municipal Code.

c) Within 15 days of f ormal project approval and acceptance
for maintenance by the Homer City Council, the City
Public Works Engineer shall write a letter to the Kenai
Peninsula Borough stating that the improvements are
complete and accepted by the City.

1) In the case of new subdivisions, in which plat
recording or f iling is contingent upon improvement
completion, this letter shall constitute notice of
compliance with installation improvement regulations
pursuant to Section 20.16.060 of the Kenai Peninsula
Borough Code of Ordinances, and shall further
authorize the Kenai Peninsula Borough to approve the
final plat and forward the plat for filing and
recording.
2) This letter shall further constitute final
authorization f or the City to allow operation and
maintenance of water, sewer, and street
improvements.

d) A one -year construction warranty on the work shall be
established starting from the date the City takes over
maintenance and operations of the improvements; the
Developer shall correct any observed defects stemming
from the design or construction methods within the one-
year period, as directed by the City. To secure the
Developer's performance of the warranty, the Developer

_10-

3 5

shall provide a warranty guaranty via warranty bond,
deposit in escrow, letter of credit, or deed of trust.
The amount of the warranty guaranty shall be the
percentage of the estimated cost of all improvements
determined by the following table:

Estimated Cost of Percent to Secure
All Improvements Warranty

0-$500,000.00 102%
$500,000.01-$1,000,000.00 7.5%
$1,000,000.01 and over 5-%

If the Developer has provided a performance guaranty in
accordance with Section 11.20.070(f) above, the Developer
may elect to allow the City to retain the performance
guaranty until the end of the warranty period, in lieu of
a separate warranty bond.

11.20.110 Violation - Penalty. The violation of any
provision contained herein shall be punished under Section
1.16.0104

FINAL DRAFT 136

CHAPTER 22.10
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS

Sections

22.10.010 Intent
22.10.020 Scope and Authority
22.10.030 Definitions
22.10.040 Applicable and Exempted Subdivisions
22.10.050 Improvement Requirements - General
22.10.060 Appeals
22.10.070 Violation - Penalty

22.10.010 Intent

The intent of this chapter is to specify regulations
supplemental to the Kenai Peninsula Borough subdivision
ordinance and to specify the improvements to be required f or
each subdivision, and exemptions to the requirements.

22.10.020 ScoRe and Authority

This chapter shall govern all subdivisions within the City of
Homer under the authority of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Code,
Chapter 20.

22.10.030 Definitions

The following words and phrases shall have the meanings set
forth herein, unless otherwise provided or the context
otherwise requires: '

a. "Subdivider" means a person., firm, association,
partnership, corporation, governmental unit or
combination of any of these which may hold any
recorded or equitable ownership interest in land,
and dividing or proposing to divide such land so as
to constitute a subdivision as herein defined.
This term shall also include all heirs, assigns or
successors in interestl or representatives of the
subdivider, owner, proprietor or developer.

b. "Subdivision" means the division of a tract or
parcel of land into two or more lots, sites, or
other divisions for the purpose, whether immediate
or future, of sale, lease, or building development,
including any subdivision or resubdivision. When
appropriate to the context, the term shall refer to
the process of subdividing or to the land or areas
subdivided.

-1-

137

22.10.040 AD-olicable and Exempted Subdivisi ons

The standards of this chapter shall apply to all subdivisions
in the City of Homer. Exemptions from the requirements of
Chapter 22 of the Homer Municipal Code may be granted
concurrent with preliminary plat approval by the Homer
Advisory Planning Commission under the following conditions:

a. Resubdivision- of existing subdivisions not to exceed
three lots, and involving no new dedications of rights-
of-way.

b. special conditions and circumstances exist which are
peculiar to the property involved, and are not generally
applicable to other properties in the City. These
special conditions can not be caused by the actions of
the applicant.

C. Financial hardship or inconvenience shall not be reason
for granting an exception.

d. Previous exceptions shall not be considered grounds for
granting exception.

22.10.050 Improvement Reguigements - General

a. No subdivision plat shall be approved by the Kenai
Peninsula Borough, nor shall such plat be recorded or
filed at the State Recorder's Office, until - the
subdivider or developer of such subdivision constructs
streets in all rights-of -way dedicated by said plat, and
all other utilities and other public improvements to be
constructed in said rights-of-way, according to the
standards and procedures required under Title 11 of the
Homer Municipal Code, Subdivision plat approval,
recording and filing shall not be performed until the
City of Homer issues written approval of said street and
utility improvements to the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
b. Preliminar@ plat approval by the Homer Advisory Planning
Commission shall, in all cases except for those
subdivisions specifically exempted in Section 22.10.030
above, be contingent upon subdivider's receipt of a
Development Permit as specified in Chapter 11.20 of the
Homer Municipal Code.

-2-

.'l 3 8

C. The subdivider shall be required to dedicate street
,rights-of-way according to the, standards and
specifications of Chapter 11.04, Homer Municipal Code,
and the City of Homer "Design Criteria Manual".
Horizontal- alignments are subject to City review; the
City may require realignment of streets on proposed plats
if the alignments do not conform to Chapter 11.04 and the
"Design Criteria Manual". Final plat approval shall thus
be subject to the approval of horizontal alignments by
the City Public Works Engineer.

d. All street and utility main improvements to be
constructed as part of a subdivision improvement project
shall be constructed according to the procedures of
Chapter 11.20, Homer Municipal Code. The City shall
accept no such improvements unless a development
@greement is executed prior to construction of such
improvements.

22.10.060 Appeals

Any person or persons who are affected by an action or
determination taken under this chapter, may appeal said action
under the appeals procedure outlined in Chapter 21.68 of the
Homer Municipal Code.

22.10.070 Violation - PSnalty. The violation of any
provision contained herein shall be punished under Section
1.16.010.

-3-

149w-
I

I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

.
3 6668 14109 8436 L