HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Tustin Avenue Speed Limit - Public CommentsAgenda Item No. 13
PETITION Public Comments
77-u 5TH h �J I-c
To improve safety by re- classifying -to "Local" Road between 23`d and 22 "d street, and
put the speed limit back to 25MPH. Due to the lack of sidewalks and increased speed often
times over 45 MPH, I am petitioning the city to bring the speeds back to 25MPH. Many
children use this street to go to school, mothers with children, pregnant woman and elderly
people as pedestrians use this road. There have been many close calls of people almost being
hit by cars traveling well above the speed limit. For safety, it is important to bring the speed
back to 25MPH.
Name
•.��a� MAGf'Gh /9y�
1ij Pr
Address Phone Si ture
397 /34Ye 94g- 57�r -26z[
3& V /1rAIuYA qf`J
37 l/ /s � syg &Azdz
q 8¢a -y��a
b4 PAL C: 6W re-
bwk sub
ZvBS � use
Z5--z V, z f-, ta,e
9- -s4�;/ - 3g
qt Ml Z 9� 6 czq
I Sj 1353 3- -
9a
�av� GuncU r
W
N,�iP, -C,
1
J.sm ve l�rya 5�9�
z5z-3 yisia &o X-1.6. 9Z(,6 0
�:5k c0
356 t&Fkbow 6o
9
396
-7 9f�2 c> 4 /11
IV% 72—�k
dhe
,A WM
U { L
S�
/VaA c
t�d1�a''- X14 tlr�
A c�c,` rte
3 � 5 ow �,n,
h0hC
p2, a..,
2 t2 -i- ( S #a-,
zqll vitl M(jJjr p--
2.016
(�
Jr!c��,tz '
aS�i S,�e ., (Jt °l`fi -7�d
-'5
,� ri �V f y i�Gi ti'Y`��✓r1�
P .£ten
Q d
9V-1 -6ik2 -99;75
hogi5 LC!
Z4 /z
Kell
Z + Zn si era 1015 �5 51D
#k l ,L- lit Uz4
-2>V06
NM(o(Z-: L4OL)say aFloI gt�u 0-91" 909
Sbt\ n - L( t5 S' "e rv�n V�{� -- qqj237D1�'S� S'
- �Il/�L� cp 2�Sai s /,�Ff1 //.cS`T�i' y�`J -.X��_ •/Psi
vwr (jw
LA m Caen
G aj'n,t S;�uA �y
SEA ice• Vol
s
2wi vILMOYMA-)
(I .152o
zqll vitl M(jJjr p--
'7rtT �;.
,� ri �V f y i�Gi ti'Y`��✓r1�
S -r(ol/' t
I
pt a �l lzbh
g4,cR L--A
221/ LLCZ2tA /,14 6 V S t-
22 t\ ✓f�itJ ' `
4a sa Y.
`3o C v) 6e4,\ V` "f,
9Q%I- CMG 3 S
qu i - 3 I ��
y,o0.tiinr, fd q .sq� -93y
/5/ 2
QV
2�
iS 4l -
s 6 ✓�sfw ��nw NR
9�fi- 52s -�Y6
i
��
$� K, �' : i
.�� � �.
y
�M s'0. �' .�� /. �._ sl �� �^' >�a�
��Y-., /.
_ r i __
.t @ _
'... _
4
fir- � `+ -= - �-- (�
!�� �
+� _. ! l
� +�. _ - - -
.,�,u;<
<F
14
_ k ,
I
• T
,�
iPEE'l
LIMIT
r.
SPEED
LIMIT
30
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title I between 22nd St & 23rd St
6 376
Site- Tustin Ave
Title2
0
0
1 0 0
Title')
% of Totals
Direction: NB
20.8-- ---6.4
Data for Friday
2/19/2010
---0.0----
62 0-0 -------- 0-0 ---
Vehicle Count Statjstjc�
-
I
AM W " 1:1
1 1:oo
Pm 02:45
1
[Sees]
5
4XM-W m51Wwo,
Bill Totals
43 21
19
12 20 30
0( 3
0 76
11 12 5
18 218
% of Totals
------ -- R---- 4.9 -----
4-Y ------
_L3
------ 43-
1.7 ------
�3- 1� ------
4.- i -------------
-- -4�
Sneed Statistics
I
MPH
M
?EG 23, OM sl
Bill Totals
1
6 10 52 130
220 67 15 1 1 0 0
1 1
% of Totals
1.2
- ---
2.0 10.3 25.8
--------------------- - -- --------------------------------
43.7 13.3 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
- - --------------------------- - ----
0.2 0.2
------------------ - ---------- ---
Avg. Speed
30.27 MPH
O/oile
1: 0
Speeds
F
23.4 MPH 25.3 MPH
31.2 MPH 35.8 MPH 37.7 MPH
Pace
Speed
25-35 MPH
Number in pace
350
% in pace
69.4
Speed Exceeded
Percentage
0.8
0.4 0.4
Totals
4
2 2
Class Statistics
Bill Totals
6 376
105
2 14 0
0
0
1 0 0
0 0
% of Totals
---------1.2- 74.6-
20.8-- ---6.4
--- 2.8---- U
.0.0--
---0.0----
62 0-0 -------- 0-0 ---
0.- 0- ------- OY-0 -- -- - -------
Gap Statistics
[Sees]
MOXV3. 45WI8., NWN�W Wys,�4WRVM
4XM-W m51Wwo,
Bill Totals
43 21
19
12 20 30
20
12
11 12 5
18 218
% of Totals
------ -- R---- 4.9 -----
4-Y ------
Y.-I ---- - 4� ------ 6._9
------ 43-
1.7 ------
�3- 1� ------
4.- i -------------
-- -4�
Error Statistics
Sensor
Total Hits 1,815 1,787
Percent Used 93.0 95.0
Avg Axles Per Vehicle 2.01
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase 9.5 ft.
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel between 22nd St & 23rd St Site: Tustin Ave
Title2
Title3 Direction: NB
Data for Saturday 2/20/2010
AM
10 15
PM sPs:3cu
01:30
Bin Totals 1
42
' <<S{el` "E
51
Avg. Speed
0.81
X41., *^
0.85
/
1U::..::. ,. %; , ; .,:E7Ea...<.. ;-
-- -:
,. ,
22.7 MPH 24.6 MPH 30.21bIPH 35.0 MPH 37.3 MPH
Pace
Speed
sneea statistics j
5 386 105
MPH .
is i4:.1::.i4 26, itS 2.:tt .3t1 35 3 €6. ,44. 18.; 49.Si1, ygS9: t. :#4r9:7�I ;J
Bin Totals 1
5 10 66 163 186 54 16 4 0 0 0 0 1
% of Totals `.
1.0 2.0 13.1 32.3 36.8 10.7 32 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Avg. Speed
i
29.59 MPH
%ile Speeds
/
1U::..::. ,. %; , ; .,:E7Ea...<.. ;-
-- -:
-0.0-------0 .--------
22.7 MPH 24.6 MPH 30.21bIPH 35.0 MPH 37.3 MPH
Pace
Speed
25 -35 MPH
Number in pace
349
% in pace
69.1
Exceeded
i
:3ST{33�f1i
Speed
..
Percentage
24, (t t. _.,3 =J.if3 ka ii.::ksi50.,51.5:5 .39? :t43a' 1A.
1.0 0.2 0.2
Totals
11
5 1 1
Class Statistics
Bin Totals
5 386 105
0
7 0
0
2
0 0
0 0 0
% of Totals
--.......1.0... 16. ..... 20.8 ------
0.0 -------
f. ------- 0.0----
-0.0 ......0.4
-- -:
-0.0-------0 .--------
0------0.0 -------0- -.-0-
Gap Statistics
t
IScesl
5., . 317 14 .t 3 i.4,tt.a4la
24, (t t. _.,3 =J.if3 ka ii.::ksi50.,51.5:5 .39? :t43a' 1A.
Bin Totals
25 22 21
11
21 26
10
12
11 15
13 17 238
%of Totals
.... ..... 3.7 ...... 5.0 -----4.5 ------
2.5 ------
4. ------- 5.9 ......
2.3.....2.7
------
23 -------- 3.4------2.
-------- 3.8 ----- 53.5..
Error Statistics
Sensor
Total Hits
1,854 1,804
Percent Used
94.0 96.0
Ava Axles Per Vehicle
2.01
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase
9.4 ft.
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Thiel between 22nd St & 23rd St Site: Tustin Ave
Title2
Title3 Direction: NB
Data for Sundav 2/21/2010
MPH
Bin Totals
% of Totals
Avg.Soced
%ile Speed
Pace
Sneed
Number in pace
% in pace
Speed Exceeded
Percentage
Totals
Class Statistics
Bin Totals
'/(, of Totals
AM i<;epkati'
10:30
PM s'eaYsi2u
1230
[Secs]
39
"` 4?`'
57
z:.
0.70
I fr
0.84
2.8
2.5 3.0 3.0 51.2
6 15 52 131 201 65 18 1 2 0 0 0 1
1.2 3.0 10.6 26,6 40.9 13.2 3.7 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,2
.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.....- --.............................
30.07 MPH
22.8 MPH 25.0 MPH
25 -35 MPH
332
67.5
0.8
4
31.0 MPH 36.1 MPH 37.9 MPH
0.2 0.2
1 1
5 374 105 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 76.0 21.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gap .Statistics
[Secs]
s si
. ..&,.O,s.10....,1F#.15�,�k9•�S .24.:3s .Z9.3f3:. 4.3g_R 3[V%4 35.,:4 .5? .5�.•b5 sa9?fSY1 b sS 9. [:Y.'..
Bin Totals
36 25 14 27 20 15 12 13
12
11 13 13 221
%ofTotzds
------ .6 --------------------------------------------------------------
£3.3 5.8 3.2 6.3 4.6 3.5 - 2.8 3.0
2.8
2.5 3.0 3.0 51.2
Error' Statistics
Sensor
Total Hits
Percent Used
Ave Axles Per Vehicle
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase
1,754 1,723
94.0 96.0
2.01
9.3 ft.
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Enpincerijig
Titlel between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site- Tustin Ave
Titic2
Title3
Direction: NB
Data for Mondav
2/22/2010
Vehicle Count Stat st ci
AM .... ... ..
07:45
PM All 03:00
X. f�
91
ffivffiam
70
X
:Fates.
0.53
0.71
sAt43.d
MPH R 1, �901.6
Bin Totals I
i 9 9 56 174 324 121 16 0 0 1 0 1 0
% of Totals 1 1.3 13 7.9 24.5 45.6 17.0 2.3 0,0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
-- -------- -------------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------- ----
Avg. Sneed 1 30.65 MPH
%ilc Speeds
Pace
Speed
Number in pace
% in race
Speed Exceeded
Percentage
Totals
Class Statistics
24.8 MPH 25.9 MPH
25-35 NTH
498
70.0
0.3
2
31.7 NTH 36.4 IvTH 37.8 JvTH
0.3 0.1
2 1
Bin Totals 10 512 179 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
of Totals f ------- -1 -- -1�-6 ----- n.2 - ------- T.s ------- 0-.-0 --- ---- 0-.-D- ------- 0-.1 -------- Q-.-O -------- 0-.-0- -------- 0-0 -------- 0-.-0- --- 0 --- -.-0 --------- ---
Gan Statistics
ISecsl I IV
& 1�10 M�OMOMW=� �E- MWN
;:W
WS �u
Bill totals 56 55 41 29 28 26 21 25 25 21 14 18 252
% of Totals - ------ 0-1 ------ 9.0 ------- 6-.1 ------ 4.7 --4.-6- ---- --- 4-3 -------- 3-A -------- 4.1 -------- 4-A -------- 1-4- -------- 2-.3 ------- 19 -- --- 4-1."2 ........ . .... - --------------
Error Statistics
Sensor,
Total Hits 2,692 2.673
Percent Used 94.0 94.0
Ave Axles Per Vehicle 2.00
Ave Two Axle Wheelbase 9.5 ft.
� I NIWOU2 prmted
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title between 22nd St & 23rd St
8 20 58 194 314 104 22 2 0 0 0 0 2
%of Totals
Site: Tustin Ave
Title2
30.34 MPH
1 0
°in °fu;.;,.,
%,ileSpeeds
Title3
0
Direction:
NB
.....
Data for Tuesdav
2/23/2010
Number in pace
' SOS
% in pace
Vehicle ount Statistics
------ 0.0 ------0.0
3S£SQ Fs iFj:i i s� j ...........
Speed Exceeded
ifts
?l1 iutl?�3 }.Ftssi3, =.F��f'F =.s.:.sl5�(1Yi:..
< �. ,Fa %4
Percentage
0.6 0.3 0.3
Totals
4 2 2
tif.. ..ff3Yu1
AM ;;;;- e} f cttt�
07:45
PM i fitY
02:45
Gap Statistics
YP, lit
84
Utsiuiii`'
122
�.
§ 0%'W�0999,,;;:s:.,,
724
?,?�,;
0.64
i.0946
0.66
9
3f3 :i ;5 33:46•
ii
4n•> it3•.54:5
„.sA,A,afA..
Bin Totals
MP :.'i::. ::L'% R'i .:;::s'.'< (.,:''rS3:`:.(3 ✓9's£'rz'5"3:.riO
H € >�a<t� >14:'f aid.':: 1< 9<: r�. i3�i��=: ��: ys�9':<:: �f F:=..:.. �..:..:.. 3�.. �t >$ > €: :9Ai3#�s:'.!t..,�h::3�..5 , .
Bin Totals
8 20 58 194 314 104 22 2 0 0 0 0 2
%of Totals
1.1 2.8 8.0 26.8 43.4 14.4 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
..............- --....- --- -------- ....---------- --- --- ---------------------- ------------------------ --------------- ......-------
Avg. Speed
30.34 MPH
1 0
°in °fu;.;,.,
%,ileSpeeds
: ..,.,,::Itf a ,;:.,., . ».:,:,, ., 0, .,.,.; 5f ..:.. ... 4y�� .:...,:€
0
23.9 MPH 25.6 MPH 31.3 MPH 36.1 MPH 37,8 MPH
Pace
.....
Speed
; 25 -35 MPH
Number in pace
' SOS
% in pace
70.2
------ 0.0 ------0.0
3S£SQ Fs iFj:i i s� j ...........
Speed Exceeded
ifts
?l1 iutl?�3 }.Ftssi3, =.F��f'F =.s.:.sl5�(1Yi:..
< �. ,Fa %4
Percentage
0.6 0.3 0.3
Totals
4 2 2
Class Statistics
Bin Totals
15
526
167
0
13
1 0
2
0 0 0
0
0
% of Totals
.........2;.1.....72.7
.....
3. 1......
O .O.......f'8.......0.1......0.0
.....-0.3
------ 0.0 ------- 0.0 ------ 0.0
------ 0.0 ------0.0
...................................
Gap Statistics
�.
§ 0%'W�0999,,;;:s:.,,
[Sees]
:.,.,.� -,9 1i9
3415-
i.0946
24.:2
9
3f3 :i ;5 33:46•
ii
4n•> it3•.54:5
Bin Totals
66
42
44
31
31
37 23
30
22 13 26
26
231
%of Totals .........
1-0.6......6.8
......7.1.
....... .0
------ 5. --------
5.9------3.'7 ------4.5------3.5
------2.1 ------4.2------41
- ----
37. 1... .....--- .......................
Error Statistics
Sensor
Total Hits
Percent Used
Avg Axles Per Vehicle
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase
2,738 xFa::...,.............:.,:., :<2 703
93.0 95.0
2.01
9.5 ft.
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel between 22nd St & 23rd St Site: 'Nstin Ave
Title2
Tftle3 Direction: NB
Datafori Wednesday 2/24/2010
MPH
Bin Totals
% of Totals
Avg. Sveed
'Voile Speeds
Pace
Sneed
Number in pace
'Yu ill pace
Speed Exceeded
Percentape
Totals
Class Statistics
, AM
07-45
PM
01:30
3
113
1
94
1
0.67
0 0
0.73
-- - --- F.6 -----
0.-1 -----
Y4-.7
'uA
3.9
UY
0.0 ......0.0......0.1.......
9 14 74 230 327 89 21 2 1 0 0 0 1
1.2 1.8 9.6 29.9 42.6 11.6 2.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
...... ............ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ................
29.95 NTH
23.6 MPH 25.4 MPH 30.9 NTH 35,0 MPH 37.1 MPH
25-35 MPH
557
72.5
0.5 0.1 0.1
4 1 1
Bill Totals
12
531
190
3
30
1
0 0
1
0 0
0 0
% of Totals
-- - --- F.6 -----
0.-1 -----
Y4-.7
'uA
3.9
UY
0.0 ......0.0......0.1.......
0......0.0......0.0
- ---0.0--
Gill) Statistics
Isecs]
Bin Trials
72
66
43
38
30
20
30 27
29
22 14
16 263
14 of Totals
------- 716-.7 -----
9.9 -------
6-A -------
53 ------
- 4.5 -------
30 ------
41.5 ------- 4.0 -------
4-3 --- ---
3.3 ------- 2-A --------
2.4 ------ 3-9.3---
E1.1-01, Statistics
Sensor
Total Hits
2,696
2.682
Percent Used
95.0
96.0
Ave Axles Per Vehicle
2.01
Ave, Two Axle Wheelbase
9.6 ft.
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineemw
Titlel I between 22nd St & 23rd St
Title2
Titic3 Direction: NB
Data for Thursday 2/25/2010
MPH
Bin Totals
of Totals
Avg. Speed
%ile Speeds
Pace
Speed
Number in pace
% in pace
Speed Exceeded
Percentaie
Totals
Class Statistics
Site: Tustin Ave
9 11 62 195 324 112 29 2 0 0 0 0 1
1.2 1.5 8.3 26.2 43.5 15.0 3.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
30.57 MPH
24.4 MPH 25.8 MPH 31.5 MPH 36.5 MPH 38.1 MPH
25 -35 MPH
519
69.7
0.4 0.1 0.1
3 1 1
Bin Totals
l 14 506 195
AM i a t3lkGy
07:45
PM < >> OUt��R�
02:30
1 0
97
s'`f3'3.:0#3117KH 3
105
' %,ofTotals
0.51
" 'YS;3
0.67
0. 6 ------
U. O.....-
0. 1 ------ Oa) -------
0.0 -----
Site: Tustin Ave
9 11 62 195 324 112 29 2 0 0 0 0 1
1.2 1.5 8.3 26.2 43.5 15.0 3.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
30.57 MPH
24.4 MPH 25.8 MPH 31.5 MPH 36.5 MPH 38.1 MPH
25 -35 MPH
519
69.7
0.4 0.1 0.1
3 1 1
Bin Totals
l 14 506 195
1
28
0
0
1 0
0
0
0 0
' %,ofTotals
-------79-----67.9.. 26. 2 ......
0. 1-------
3. 8-----
0. 6 ------
U. O.....-
0. 1 ------ Oa) -------
0.0 -----
0.0 ......
Oa------016
Gao Statistics
[Se 81
5 e:4C3w,d4,.i5.; "2ti} j9< C1as3L35 y9 AtS id.d� -;: 5Un �13,05 9 W.
Bin Totals
61 60 44
39
32
34
33
24 9
16
22
21 239
%ofTotals
........... ........ • ------ -.
9.6 9.� 6.9
6.2
---. ..........-'-----------------
5.0
5.4
5.2
----------- A..............-----------------------
3.3 1.4
2.5
3.5
3.3 3'i.7
Error Statistics
Sensor
Total Hits
Percent Used
Ava Axles Per Vehicle
Avtc Two Axle Wheelbase
WNW
s ee ss.,
2.741 2.70E
94.0 95.t
2.00
9.6 ft.
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title I between 22nd St & 23rd St Site Tustin Ave
Title2
Title3 Direction: NB
Data for ! Fridav 2/26/2010
MPH
Bin Totals
'%o of Totals
Avg. Soced
%ile Soceds
Pace
Soced
Number in pace
% in pace
Sneed Exceeded
Percentage
Totals
Class Statistics
AM >' ? dut'i= 07.45 PM %t dkit> 01.30
.,:. 93 86
t
r3'Gfb" 0.70 ';i; ".��. 0.80
5 12 29 105 174 69 18 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.2 2.9 7.0 25.5 42.2 16.7 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
............. ............................... .. - -----------------.... --------- - - - - ------------------ -- - -- - - --------------- ------
30.56 MPH
24.3 MPH 25.8 MPH
25 -35 MPH
279
67.7
0.0 0.0
0 0
0.0
0
Bin Totals
11
292 94 0 14 1 0 0
0
0 0
0 0
%ofTotals j
23
70.9 22.R ...... b .0......3.4 ....... t>.2 ...... 0 .'0 0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 O.b------------------------
Gan Statistics
s s s .... .: .. .. , .
1
ISeesl
..., S- .9: kiA..
1�#,.1 ,I3.2t .2A: :.Z9::�Y L 2 3L3< :.dtt „45.,.:4
, Ci
.S�d',SSa 3WK15
K:54s��_. 99_
Bin Totals 35
29 21 17 20 18 19 18
22
13 10
14 130
% of Totals 9.6
7.9 5.7 4.6 ------- 5.5 ...... 4.9..... 5.2 - -----4.9----
-6.0
1.6 2.7
3.8 35.5 .................. ...
Error Statistics
ME , 2i z;.
Sensor
�
Total Hits
1,539 1,527
Percent Used
96.0 97.0
Avg Axles Per Vehicle
2.01
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase
9.5 ft.
aliol5uuu2 Printed: 03102/2010 Page:
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title I between 22nd St & 23rd St Site Tustin Ave
Title2
Title3 Direction: SB
Data for Friday 2/19/2010
MPH I
Bin Totals
%ofTotals j
i
Avg. Speed
°/pile Speeds
Pace
Speed
Number in pace
% in pace
Speed Exceeded
Percentage
Totals
Class Statistics
AMi1jSa
09:45
PM s'`CHxC >#7US'
03:00
0
32
0
40
0 0
0.67
1.2
0.77
-- 0.3------3.6--- -0.3------0.0
---0.0......0.0.....
.0.0 ------
0.0 ------
0
0.......0.0
i
2 11 56 101 104 50 14 2 0 0 1 0 2
0.6 3.2 16.3 29.4 30.3 14.6 4.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6
29.80 MPH
22.0 MPH 23.5 MPH 30.1 MPH 36.8 MPH 38.5 MPH
25 -35 MPH
205
59.8
1.5 0.9 0.6
5 3 2
Bin Totals I4IL
4
227 97
1 13 1 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
%ofTotals
1.2
66 .2....28.3...
-- 0.3------3.6--- -0.3------0.0
---0.0......0.0.....
.0.0 ------
0.0 ------
0
0.......0.0
i
Crap Statistics
[Secs] .
• ,9•S,IW
•Iwt•1.5.:-<,f9.•2t1
2 "' _'Z9 (3`W, ; a •3x1 ;•�t€�
•44..45:
•52i .�f.35=
.;4.613
:a4oY �i�9
Bin Totals
15
12 6
6 11 11 5
4
5
17
11
9 188
%of Totals ..........5.U"'
A0 ------- 2.6 ------
2.0------ 3.'7 ------ 3.7 ......Y. ........
1.3 --1.7
5.7
17
3 "0" 6277
Error Statistics
Sensor
Total Hits
Percent Used
Avg Axles Per Vehicle
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase
1,815 1,787
93.0 95.0
2.01
9.5 ft.
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
NIPH
Bin Totals
°G, of Totals
Avg. Speed
%ile Speeds
Pace
Speed
Number in pace
%, in pace
Speed Exceeded
Percentage
Totals
Class Statistics
1 13 65 96 111 59 14 0 0 2 0 0 0
0,3 3.6 18.0 26.6 30.7 16.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
..................................-----...------....... .............................._ ----......-----------------------------
29.61 MPH
21.8 MPH 23.2 MPH 30.3 MPH 36.8 MPH 38.3 MPH
25 -35 MPH
207
57.3
0.6 0.6 0.0
2 2 0
Bin Totals 1
3
256
92 0 10 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
...o.D ---------------
'%of Totals F
0.8
70.9
255......0.0 1.- g 0.0
0.0 6.0......0.0-
0.- u
0.0..-
0.0
C:m Statistics
� c
�3,$€b.:6e4.,
'!..:...;
ISecsl F...
_V.,30;,1tb•
- 1A -1.5
:1�. Zts ::24`.2x._29 ,Jt G 3S_,.35
d(3 ku:4� :4r3 5tS
�1
55 1y4., ,',
Bin Totals
12
10
14 5 11 9
13 10 6
10
8 9 209
------------
' %uof Totals
.....................
3.7
3.1
......1-.5----------------- ---
4.3 1.5 3,4 2.8--- -
.......... .......---------------------T--
- -4.0 3.1 1.8
3.1
- ---- -
2.5 - - - -� 2.8 64.1 ----------- -�-�
Error Statistics
Sensor .......,.<..,..,..,.. .w......,_....i:n5o::_:..:� „$;
Total Hits 1.854 1,804
Percent Used 94.0 96.0
Avg Axles Per Vehicle 2,01
Avg, Two Azle Wheelbase 9.4 ft.
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel between 22nd St & 23rd St Site: Tustin Ave
Title2
Title3 Direction: SB
Data for, Sunday 2/21/2010
MPH
Bin Totals
% of Totals
Avg. Speed
%ile Speeds
Pace
Speed
Number in pace
'% in pace
Speed Exceeded
Percentage
Totals
Class Statistics
4 10 63 93 104 42 16 0 2 1 0 0 0
1.2 3.0 18.8 27.8 31.0 125 4.8 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------- --------....................... .........................
29.29 MPH
21.6 MPH 22.9 MPH
25 -35 MPH
197
58.8
0.9
3
29.9 MPH 36.3 MPH 38.3 MPH
0.3 0.0
1 0
Bin Totals
6
238
AM ea a%i5?`:.
09:00
PM GP St.[ m
03:00
1
26
;% llitil
36
R.
N
0.81
,
;:.... %... fex;
0.69
71.
.. ......
25.4
..............--------
0.0
l.e
--- ---
0.0 0.0
-- ------
O.s
-------
0.0
- -------
0,0
4 10 63 93 104 42 16 0 2 1 0 0 0
1.2 3.0 18.8 27.8 31.0 125 4.8 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------- --------....................... .........................
29.29 MPH
21.6 MPH 22.9 MPH
25 -35 MPH
197
58.8
0.9
3
29.9 MPH 36.3 MPH 38.3 MPH
0.3 0.0
1 0
Bin Totals
6
238
85
0
5
0 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
%ofTotals
.........
].8
71.
.. ......
25.4
..............--------
0.0
l.e
--- ---
0.0 0.0
-- ------
O.s
-------
0.0
- -------
0,0
------
0.0
-------
0.0
0 --------------- ....................
0.0
Gap Statistics
ISecsl
, .. 5 ' .!'IU-
..14.f
5mf T
4 :s
,��,.302�
V,1* .:� •da`,45
PW
j�� . tJ.,
5q;55.;'�t3
4"
9k3; •...: , , ,, ....:, . _
am
Bin Totals
9
8
10
9
7
7 13
6
9
4
8
9
212
'%� of Totals
2.9
...�.6.....
.................'
3.2
2.9
---...............4.'2.........
2.3
2.3 4.2
19
2.9
. ..-----...
13
............---.....
2.6
2.9
..... ...... _.............-----
68.2
Error Statistics n „m RI
Sensor 11' -,.. : Vii '.- ...N,. ...................,,
Total Hits 1.74 1.723
Percent Used 94.0 96.0
Avg Axles Per Vehicle 2.01
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase 9.3 ft.
Citv of Newaort Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel between 22nd St & 23rd St Site: Tustin Ave
Title2
Title3 Direction: SB
Data for j Monday 2/22/2010
i
AM Ii
07:30
PM aie nur
02:15
MPH
.X4;:5 :5 ;b(3 .
Bin Totals
10 17 62 109 222 96 30 7 0 0 0 0 2
of Totals
0.56
Avg. Speed
0.74
.uz
L #3 °la. i� °.:...::.::. N5�
0.0
...::. .:.:.:.:::.:.(f
22.3 MPH 24.6 MPH 31.8 MPH 37.7 MPH 39.2 MPH
Pace
Onceu 3utrIJIIGJ
5
344 186 0 18 1 0 1
;; 1= <I '7 i9 tU:..2i Za =, S9 6', 435,' °'Atl [4 '.:'44 i:mWo4
MPH
.X4;:5 :5 ;b(3 .
Bin Totals
10 17 62 109 222 96 30 7 0 0 0 0 2
of Totals
1.8 3.1 11.2 19.6 40.0 17.3 5.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
............... ............................... _............. _............-----------............-------------------------------------
Avg. Speed
! 30.73 MPH
Suecds
L #3 °la. i� °.:...::.::. N5�
0.0
...::. .:.:.:.:::.:.(f
22.3 MPH 24.6 MPH 31.8 MPH 37.7 MPH 39.2 MPH
Pace
Sneed
25 -35 MPH
Number in pace
331
'Y' in Dace
59.6
Speed Exceeded
Ess as srrs,s.s.. t
M (y ',,.,,ssCiSfl�a
j ,:i.; <, "liv1PF
Percentage
j 1.6 0.4 0.4
Totals
1 9 2 2
Class Statistics
Bin Totals
5
344 186 0 18 1 0 1
0
0
0
0
0
AofTotals
........................
0.9
i
.....' -- ---'-----.......4---.... ..---- .........................
62.0 33.5 0.0 12 0.2 0.0 0.2
...........---..........................
0.
0.0
OA
0.0
...............................
0.O
Cap Statistics
[Secs]
.... �..,;9ft ,ix[ iv.I91 2#tLa:�9.3•(1 ::x}.,85 �mJ•tY >5..'.:?j`.Si7:'54.6 ,�5 faQ •�hra9 44,:: ":. ':
.:
Bin Totals 34
35 31 23 23 21 22 20
12
12
13
9
226
'%, of Totals .1
....... ". ------IS-------
7.3 6.4 4.8 4.R 4.4 4.6 4.2
2,5
------------
2,5
--------
2.7
1.9
- . ...............
47.0
Error Statistics
Sensor;,,,;,;,,;,;,,;,,,;;,
,,,<;,,..,,..,.,;,:$:,;x:;.a;.,
Total Hits
2,692 2,673
Percent Used
94.0 94.0
Avg Axles Per Vehicle
2.00
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase
i 9.5 ft.
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title I between 22nd St & 23rd St
7
Site: Tustin Ave
Titic2
is
2
Title3
Direction: SB
0
Data for Tuesdav 2/23/2010
% of Totals
--- ----- 13 -----
Vehicle Count Stat stics
OA -------
34.- 3 ----
-- OA ------
0,0 ------- 0-.0 ------
Dsitlsttittl AM Yapx
08 :00
Pm 02:30 0
78
62
Gap Statistics
551 NOW
0.53
0.82
Speed Statistics
fsecsl
IAOZAWA�00
pmunmm my Q4 2;
a n.
MPH
Bin Totals
37
SON, R N
Bin Totals
j 10 17 60 138
208 76 33 3 1 1 1 0
3
% of Totals
1.-8 3.1 10.9 25.0
-------------------------------------- -------------------
-
37.7 13.8 6.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5
Avg. Speed
30.46 MPH
---------
41
4.-9, .....
%ile Speeds
4'.5 ........ ........
4.5
��'g ... .... j 2, ........
2,.-6 --------
22.4 MPH 24.7 MPH
31.2 NTH 37.4 MPH 39.1 NTH
Pace
Speed
25-35 NTH
Number in pace
346
% in pace
62.8
M,
Speed Exceeded
A
Percentage
1.6
0.9 0,5
Totals
9
5 3
Class Statistics
Bin Totals
7
367 155
2
is
2
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
% of Totals
--- ----- 13 -----
66.6 ----- 29-.1 -------
OA -------
34.- 3 ----
-- OA ------
0,0 ------- 0-.0 ------
OJO ------- 61-0 ------
60 ------
0.-0-
Gap Statistics
fsecsl
IAOZAWA�00
pmunmm my Q4 2;
W 50 ��"W
Bin Totals
37
23 24
19
23
22
21 21
is 15
12
9 226
% of Totals
--------- 7.9 -
---- 4.0 ------- 3 -- --
.1
---------
41
4.-9, .....
.. 4,J .......
4'.5 ........ ........
4.5
��'g ... .... j 2, ........
2,.-6 --------
1.7 4-- 8--.2--
Error Statistics
Sensor
Total Hits
Percent Used
Avg Axles Per Vehicle
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase
2,738 2,703
93.0 95.0
2.01
9.5 ft.
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel
between 22nd St & 23rd St
0 0 0 0 2
%of Totals
Site: Tustin Ave
Title2
Avg. Sneed
30,06 MPH
64.1 -- 29.2 ------ 0.0 ------- 5.5
`%,ilc
[` .. t
TWO
..,.;:ti'tl?ta. ..::, ,.::i.s��a %,:.:.:;...{3.....;.. .......ia ....:.:.:'i3�ltt.......:
Direction:
SB
38.5 MPH
Data for
Wednesday
2/24/2010
Sneed
25 -35 MPH
Vehicle
ount Statistm
i --
% in pace
63.2
Ikz
20 23 29 23
bsuly Ttfitt7.
I AM T3aux
07:45
PM Oar ",
04.00
5 .1......6.5.......5.1 ------2.9-
¢�i"ffi
95
nitttnr
53
i 4 2 2
513
actflr ;,
0.64
'R
0.83
0.83
: 5 : .:..::..........::::.:::::.:...
SensorIM
,.....
M
MPH .::.1
Bin Totals
7 15 67 128 196 71 25 2
0 0 0 0 2
%of Totals
1.4 2.9 13.1 25.0 38.2 13.8 4.9 0.4
i..------ ---- - -------------------------------------- ------------- .............---.................-------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
------- ......------ .....---
Avg. Sneed
30,06 MPH
64.1 -- 29.2 ------ 0.0 ------- 5.5
`%,ilc
[` .. t
Speeds
..,.;:ti'tl?ta. ..::, ,.::i.s��a %,:.:.:;...{3.....;.. .......ia ....:.:.:'i3�ltt.......:
22.2 MPH 24.1 MPH 31.0 MPH 36.7 MPH
38.5 MPH
Pace
Gan Statistics
Sneed
25 -35 MPH
Number in trace
324
- •54 :.1i3.}4 3.5.;:19:3 24s.2 2A 3(3, ?q5- ,346. k44S'K9.5i�.,:z3 >,.64.b455 #9
% in pace
63.2
Ikz
20 23 29 23
13 14 15
tat <t S .
t �ifl
10 228
Speed Exceeded
i ; ? 3 ARM.'- ) < <, .:. a€ f33;: 1 #:<,: � €'Y[P ,_
f
5 .1......6.5.......5.1 ------2.9-
Percentage
1 0.8 0.4 0.4
Totals
i 4 2 2
Class Statistics
Bin Totals
5
329 150 0 28
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
of Totals
1.0
64.1 -- 29.2 ------ 0.0 ------- 5.5
--- 0. ------- 0.0 .0.0
0.0 T 0.0 ------
0. ........ 0.0
Gan Statistics
ISecslr•
- •54 :.1i3.}4 3.5.;:19:3 24s.2 2A 3(3, ?q5- ,346. k44S'K9.5i�.,:z3 >,.64.b455 #9
Bin Totals
34
20 23 29 23
13 14 15
14 12 12
10 228
`Yo of Totals ..........7.6......4.5
5 .1......6.5.......5.1 ------2.9-
----311-------3.4 -----
-3-------------------------------------------- 1...1.
Error Statistics
SensorIM
M
Total Hits
2,696
2,682
Percent Used
95.0
96.0
Avg Axles
Per Vehicle
2.01
Avg Two Axle
Wheelbase
9.6 ft.
Titlel between 22nd St & 23rd St
Title2
Title3
Data for j Thursday 2/25/2010
MPH
Bin Totals
% of Totals
AvP. Speed
(Yoile Speeds
Pace
Speed
Number in pace
% in pace
Speed Exceeded
Perceptave
Totals
Class Statistics
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineeriru4
Direction: SB
AM
07:30
PM
04:45
86
62
0.69
0.77
Site: Tustin Ave
4 17 71 136 195 93 23 3 0 1 0 0 1
0.7 3.1 13.1 25.0 35,8 17.1 4:2 0.6 0,0 0.2 0,0 0,0 0.2
...................................... I .......................... -111, ----------------------- -----------------------------------
30.27 MPH
22.4 MPH 24.3 MPH 31.1 MPH 37.2 MPH 38.6 MPH
25-35 MPH
331
60.8
0.9 0.4 0.2
5 2 1
Bin Totals 1. 6 341 176 1 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
% of Totals LA ------ 623 ----- YI-A ------ 6.2 -- 1-5 -------- 0"."0 ....... U.'O ......... 0'.2, . ..... UJO ------ 6.0 ---- 0-.6 ------- 0.-0 ------ (10 ...... ........ --------
Gav Statistics
[Seest
Bin Totals
% of Totals
Error Statistics
32 31 27 20 20 10 16 24 18 8 8 18 235
. ...................... ...................... -------------------------- - ----- . ...............
-6. � ------ 6.6 ------ 5-.X ------ zr.-� ----- 4.13 2.1 3.4 5.1 3.9 1.7 1.7 �,9 wN
Sensor
Total Hits
Percent Used
Avp Axles Per Vehicle
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase
M` .9
2,741 2,708
94.0 95.0
2.00
9.6 ft.
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Ein4incefirw
Titlel between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site Tustin Ave
Title2
13 0
Title3
Direction: SB
Data for Fridav 2/26/2010
0 0
Vehicle Count Stat sties
0 0
0 0
0
IA of Totals -
-- -- -- !.9 61.-9 ..... 31-1- - 0
0.0------4.0 -
------0- -
-.-0 ------- 0
AM @ a5tt
07:45
PM OUT 12.30
.............. ... .
6.-0 ---- 0
0-0 -------- 0
0-.-0- -------0.0------
83
51
3 1 2.7'.
0.55
0.85
MPH
Sg 6..04 N
10-
Bin Totals
5 8 40 78
119 51 24 1 0 0 1 0 0
% of Totals
1.5 2.4 12.2 23.9
36.4 15.6 7.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
L........................... ------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg, Speed
30.50 MPH
%ile Speeds
22.5 MPH 24.6 MPH
31.4 MPH 37.7 MPH 39.4 MPH
Pace
Speed
25-35 MPH
Number in pace
197
'Yo in pace
60.2
Speed Exceeded
.4� �i* .....
Percentage
0.6
0.3 0.0
Totals
2
1 0
Class Statistics
Bin Totals 6
6 202 105 0
0 1
13 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
IA of Totals -
-- -- -- !.9 61.-9 ..... 31-1- - 0
0.0------4.0 -
------0- -
-.-0 ------- 0
0-.-o ---- -
- 0-.3 - 6
6.-0 ---- 0
0-0 -------- 0
0-.-0- -------0.0------
Error Statistics
N
Sensor
"
Total Hits 1.539 1,527
Percent Used 96.0 97.0
Avg Axles Per Vehicle 2.01
Avg Two Axle Wheelbase 9.5 ft.
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title I :
between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site:
Tustin Ave
Title2
Date:
02/19/10
Title3
Direction:
NB +SB
Benin Total
114
1519
20 -24
25 -29
30 -34
35 -39
40 -44
45 -49
i0 -54
55 -59
60 -64
65 -69
70 -99
AvR
-1 irate
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
12:AM
01:00
*
#
#
*
#
+
+
#
#
#
k
k
#
#
02:00
03:00 k
K
#
#
k
#
#
#
#
m
m
#
#
04:00 m
m
#
m
k
#
#
#
#
#
#
Y
a
x
K
05:00
06:00
07:00 m
#
#
k
m
k
m
#
#
#
m
x
Y
#
08:00
x
k
#
#
k
k
x
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
09:00 18
0
1
7
2
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
30
10:00 65
0
1
13
22
21
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
11:00 60
0
1
4
17
20
13
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
32
12TM 68
1
1
7
19
25
12
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
31
01:00 70
2
3
8
18
22
10
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
02:00 79
1
4
11
14
34
14
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
03:00 96
1
1
10
22
43
17
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
04:00 80
0
0
11
15
35
16
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
31
05:00 92
0
2
7
22
43
11
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
31
06:00 72
1
1
9
24
31
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
07:00 44
0
0
4
17
16
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
08.00 41
1
5
7
15
9
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
09:00 27
0
1
4
11
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
30
10:00 23
1
0
2
10
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
11:00 12
0
0
4
3
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
Daily 847
8
21
103
231
IN
117
29
3
I
0
1
I
3
30
Totals
Percent
0.9
2.5
12.8
27.3
38.3
13.8
3.4
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
ut "Total
Percentile Speeds
1,0 %
15%
50%
85%
90%
22.6
24.6
30.9
36.2
38.0
10 MPH Pace. Sneed
: 25 - 35
Number in nice
555
% in pace
65.5
Speed Exceeded
45 MPH
55 MPH
0 MPH
Percentage
1.1
0.6
OS
Totals
9
5
4
.... .. ... ......... _..... _.__ ____.. - -_ _.. _.._._ ..__.- -_. - -- ..__..... ... ..._..._. .._.__...... .
Data File: $TMS0002 Printed 03 /02/2010 PaRe: I
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel :
between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site:
Tustin Ave
Title2
Date:
02/20/10
Title3
Direction:
NB +SB
Be�in Total
1 -14
IS -l9
20 -24
25 -29
30 -34
35 39
40-44
45 -49
50 -54
55 59
60 -64
65 -69
70-99
Av-
Time
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
12: AM 3
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
01:00 6
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
02:00 2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
03:00 2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0400 1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
05:00 2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0600 II
0
0
1
4
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
07:00 18
0
1
3
5
7
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0800 53
0
3
10
12
18
7
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
29
09:00 53
0
2
3
16
24
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
10:00 69
1
2
10
20
28
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
11:00 77
0
3
11
22
26
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
12: PM 64
2
0
9
19
23
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
01:00 66
0
2
13
20
15
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
02:00 62
1
4
9
17
20
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
03:00 56
I
0
7
25
15
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
04:00 50
0
0
8
13
23
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
05:00 70
0
0
11
21
29
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
06:00 65
0
2
11
21
IS
10
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
07:00 35
0
0
8
6
15
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
08:00 40
1
I
5
16
8
6
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
30
09:00 21
0
1
4
6
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
1000 21
0
0
3
6
9
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
11 t00 19
0
1
2
4
4
6
0
0
0
l
0
0
1
35
.......
Daily 86G
_...__.._.__.._
6
23
_...
131
.............—
259
297
............... .....—
113
30
--
4
.........
0
_.........._---
2
_.......
0
-- Of
0
l
__.....
30
Totals
Percent
0.7
2.7
15.1
29.9
34.3
13.0
3.5
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
Ol Total
Percentile Speeds
10%
15%
50%
85%
90%
22.2
23.9
30.2
35.9
37.8
10 MPI I Pace Sneed
: 25 -35
Number in pace
556
% in pace
64.2
Speed Exceeded
45 MPH
55 MPH
65 MPH
Percenlaee
0.8
03
0.1
totals
7
3
1
.__- _____. ....__...._— ........... .......__ —_ ....... ........_.. - -_.. ....._.._ —._ .... __
Data Pile: $TM$0002 Printed: 03/02/2010 Page: 2
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel between 22nd St & 23rd St
Title2
Title3 Direction: NB +SB
Begin
'Total
1 -14
15 -19
20 -24
25 -29
30 -34
35 -39
40 -44
45 -49
50 -54
55 -59
Time
529
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
12AM
7
0
0
0
2
4
0
1
0
0
0
01:00
5
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
02:00
5
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
03:00
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0400
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
05:00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
06:00
II
0
0
2
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
07:00
7
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
08:00
27
0
0
3
5
10
5
4
0
0
0
0900
47
1
2
8
14
15
4
3
0
0
0
10:00
52
0
0
5
14
24
5
4
0
0
0
11:00
59
1
3
7
17
20
10
1
0
0
0
12:PM
82
2
0
10
19
35
10
4
0
1
0
01:00
85
0
2
14
20
29
19
1
0
0
0
0200
78
0
6
16
16
24
15
0
0
1
0
03:00
79
0
2
11
23
28
9
5
0
1
0
0400
64
3
0
15
17
17
6
6
0
0
0
05:00
63
0
3
5
15
28
8
3
1
0
0
0600
45
0
5
4
10
21
4
0
0
0
1
07:00
51
1
1
7
22
16
3
0
0
1
0
0800
34
1
0
2
10
15
5
1
0
0
0
09:00
II
1
0
2
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
1000
10
0
1
2
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
11:00
2
0
0
0
1
l
0
0
0
0
0
Daily
827
10
25
115
224
305
107
34
1
4
I
Totals
Percent 1.2 3.0 13.9 27.1 36.9 12.9 4.1 0.1 OS 0.1
of Total
Percentile Speeds
10%
15%
50% 85% .9.0%
MPH
22.1
23.9
30.7 36.1 38.1
10 MPH Pace Speed:
25 -35
0
32
Number in pace
529
0
32
% in pace
64.0
0
32
Speed Exceeded
45 MPH
55 MPH
65 MPH
Pcrccntaflc
0.8
0.2
0.1
Totals
7
2
1
Site: Tustin Ave
Date: 02/21/10
60 -64
65 -69
70 -99
-
Avg
MPH
MPH
MPH
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
26
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
29
0
0
1
31
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
26
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
30
0
0
1
.......30 .
0.0
0.0
0.1
Data File: $TM$0002 Printed. 03/02/2010 Page: 3
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineerin.¢
Titlel
between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site:
Tustin Ave
Titlel
Date:
02/22/10
Title3
Direction:
NB +SB
Begin Total
114
1519
20 -24
25 -29
30 -34
35 -39
40 -44
45 -49
50 -54
55 -59
60 -64
65 -69
70 -99
Av,,
Time
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
12 AM 1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
01:00 2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
02:00 1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
03:00 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
04:00 3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
46
05:00 3
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
06:00 18
0
0
4
8
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
07:00 68
1
0
8
16
22
16
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
08:00 170
3
4
9
25
82
44
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
31
09:00 57
3
1
11
13
17
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
30
10:00 71
0
3
5
12
39
9
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
11:00 64
1
0
6
11
25
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
12:11M 70
1
2
5
17
28
13
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
31
01:00 97
1
3
6
25
41
18
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
31
02:00 t01
1
2
13
15
39
20
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
32
03:00 147
4
5
7
27
76
22
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
31
04:00 116
2
0
II
26
51
20
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
05:00 108
1
1
8
29
52
IS
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
06:00 68
0
2
8
19
32
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
07:00 43
0
2
4
15
19
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
08:00 24
0
0
7
8
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
09:00 20
1
0
3
7
3
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
10:00 10
0
0
1
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
11:00 4
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
Daily L266
19
26
118
283
546
217
46
7
0
1
0
1
2
31
Totals
Percent
1.5
2.1
9.3
22.4
43.1
17.1
3.6
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
02
of Total
Percentile Speeds
10%
15%
50%
85%
90%
23.5
25.5
31.7
37.0
38.4
10 MPH Pace Speed
: 25 -35
Number in pace
829
% in pace
65.5
Speed Exceeded
45 MPH
55 MP11
65 MPH
Percentage
0.9
0.3
0.2
Totals
11
4
3
.. ._ ... .._. ........ ............... .. - --. ----- ----- .. ......---- ..... ...... . .. .... ..
Data File: $TM$0002 Printed 03/02/2010 Pa-_c : 4
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title I between 22nd St & 23rd St
Title2
Title3 Direction: NB +SB
Be -in Total 1
1 -14 1
15 -19 2
20 -24 2
25 -29 3
30 -34 3
35 -39 4
40 -44 4
45 -49 5
50 -54
Time M
MPH M
MPH M
MPH M
MPH M
MPH M
MPH M
MPH M
MPH M
MPH
12;AM 5 0
0 0
0 0
0 I
I 4
_....- 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 _
Data File: $ "PMS0002
Site: Tustin Ave
Date: 02/23/10
55 -59 60 -64 65 -69 70 -99 Avg
MPH MPH MPH MPH
0 0 0 0 31
0 0 0 0 30
0 0 0 0 27
0 0 0 0 30
0 0 0 0 22
0 0 0 0 31
0 0 0 0 24
0 0 0 0 29
0 0 0 0 32
0 0 0 0 30
0 0 0 0 31
0 1 0 0 30
0 0 0 1 32
0 0 0 1 31
0 0 0 0 31
0 0 0 1 31
0 0 0 1 31
0 0 0 0 30
0 0 0 0 29
0 0 0 0 29
0 0 0 1 31
0 0 0 0 25
1 0 0 0 33
0 0 0 0 30
1 1 0 5 30
0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4
Pane: 5
0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4
Pane: 5
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title 1
:
between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site:
Tustin Ave
Title2
Date:
02/24/10
TiTle3
Direction:
NB +SB
Begin
Total
1 -14
15 -19
20 -24
25 -29
30 34
35 -39
40 -44
45 -49
50-54
55 59
60 64
65 -69
70 -99
Avg
Time
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPII
MPH
12:AM
...._
0
.................
0
0
_--...
0
0
D
...
0
......._.....
0
..
D
....
0
.....
0
0
........_____..
0
_..._._._
0
............._.
0
01:00
3
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
02 :00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
03:00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
04:00
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
05:00
6
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
06:00
23
0
1
5
5
9
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
07:00
58
1
2
7
I5
21
7
3
1
l
0
0
0
0
30
08:00
199
2
1
8
34
100
38
12
1
0
0
0
0
3
33
09:00
52
0
1
8
17
15
9
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
10:00
60
3
3
3
18
27
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
11:00
61
1
2
8
17
23
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
12: PM
71
0
0
4
24
33
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
01:00
126
0
3
11
43
49
17
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
02:00
107
2
3
15
31
41
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
03:00
98
3
0
8
22
51
11
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
04:00
123
t
2
17
36
42
19
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
05:00
99
0
4
9
34
41
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
06:00
77
1
3
14
23
30
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
07:00
44
2
2
10
12
14
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
08:00
29
0
0
4
8
10
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
09:00
28
0
2
1
13
9
2
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
10:00
11
0
0
4
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
11:00
5
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
Daily
L2S1
16
29
141
358
523
160
46
4
1
0
0
0
3
30
totals
Percent
o1'Total
Percentile Speeds
1.2 2.3 11.0 27.9 40.8 12.5
10% 15% 50%
23.0 25.1 30.9
10 MPH Pace Speed : 25 - 35
Number in pace 881
'% in pace 68.8
Speed Exceeded 45 MPH
Percentage 0.6
Totals 8
55 MPH 65 MPH
0.2 0.2
3 3
85% 90%
35.7 37.7
3.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
_._..__— .._.... ...... ... ....._....._ —. __3.. ....._.
Data PJc..... $TM$0002 ................ ......_...- ..... Printed : 03/02/2010 Pa¢e......6
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel :
between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site:
Tustin Ave
Title2
Date:
02/25/10
Title3
Direction:
NB +SB
Begin "Total
I -14
IS -19
20 -24
25 -29
30-34
35 -39
40 -44
45-49
50 -54
55 -59
60 -64
65-69
70 -99
Aw
Time
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPII
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
12:AM 3
..... 0_......_.....0...
.....--_._1
._- ........_ ..........
.......0.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
01:00 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
02:00 1
0
0
0
0
l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
03:00 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
04:00 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
05:00 4
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
06:00 Is
0
1
2
9
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
07:00 64
0
0
7
21
29
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
08:00 171
4
2
9
28
90
31
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
09:00 58
1
3
9
14
13
13
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
10:00 55
0
1
8
16
24
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
11:00 63
0
0
8
20
24
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
12:PM 81
1
1
5
24
30
Il
7
1
0
0
0
0
1
32
01:00 97
1
5
9
21
39
17
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
02:00 113
2
3
12
26
50
16
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
30
03:00 145
2
4
10
34
53
38
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
31
04:00 123
0
0
9
28
53
23
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
32
05:00 112
2
5
13
42
37
9
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
29
06:00 60
0
0
6
14
27
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
07:00 43
0
1
8
9
19
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
08:00 32
0
0
6
6
11
7
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
09:00 33
0
1
8
12
11
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
10:00 8
0
0
1
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
11:00 5
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
Doily 1.289
13
29
_....
133
331
>l9
205
52
5
0
1
0
0
2
30
'Folals
Percent
1.0
2.2
10.3
25.7
40.3
15.9
4.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
of Total
Percentile Speeds
10%
15%
50%
85%
90%
23.3
25.3
31.3
36.8
383
10 MPH Pace Speed
: 25 -35
Number in pace
850
in pace
65.9
Sneed Exceeded
45 MP11
55 MPH
65 MPH
Percentalte
w 0.6
0.2
0.2
'I otals
8
3
2
. ...__......._......_......_—_-_......_.....-__.._-.._......_.-_ .. -- _... 02
___.__.._— _...._....... ..s
Data File: $TM$0002 ..... .. Printed: 03//2010 - Paage: 7
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic En);ineerinr
Title]
:
between 22nd St & 23rd St
Percentile Speeds
10%
23.7
10 MPH Pace speed :
25 - 35
Number in pace
Site:
Tustin Ave
Title2
m
45 MPH
Pereentaae
0.2
'Totals
1
Date:
02/26/10
Title3
Direction:
NB +SB
t3eain
Total
1 14 ..
...... -Li 1920
-24
25 -29
30 -34
�5 -39
40 -44
45 -49
50 -54
55 -59
60 64
65 -69
70 -99
Ava
Time
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
12:AM
1
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
01:00
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
02:00
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
03:00
1
U
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
04:00
2
0
0
0
I
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
05:00
8
0
1
1
1
2
2
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
06:00
16
0
1
l
9
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
07:00
67
0
3
5
12
27
14
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
32
08:00
169
1
0
7
35
80
37
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
09:00
54
1
1
7
13
20
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
10:00
54
1
2
4
15
20
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
11:00
67
0
2
8
14
29
13
1
0
0
U
U
0
U
30
12:11M
86
0
2
13
27
30
10
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
01:00
115
3
5
10
27
44
20
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
02:00
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
03:00
04:00
*
%
•
#
#
*
R
#
*
#
*
#
#
%
#
05:00
•
*
*
«
*
#
#
#
*
=
R
#
#
*
R
06:00
%
•
*
*
*
R
#
*
#
#
*
#
%
07:00
R
*
*
*
#
#
#
#
#
08:00
09:00
*
#
#
*
#
#
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
R
10:00
*
#
11:00
Daily
642
6
17
57
155
259
111
36
1
0
0
0
0
0
31
I otals
Percent
0.9
of Total
Percentile Speeds
10%
23.7
10 MPH Pace speed :
25 - 35
Number in pace
414
% in pace
64.5
Speed Exceeded
45 MPH
Pereentaae
0.2
'Totals
1
Data File.
2.6 8.9 24.1 40.3 173 5.6 0.2
15% 5.0% 85% 90%
25.5 31.7 37.3 38.8
55 MPH 65 MPH
0.0 0.0
0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
....._ ..__._................ ...
Printed: 03102/2010 Pace: 8
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title]
between 22nd St & 23rd St
Title2
Title3
Interval
Begin
r......... NB .......__._ _...
SIB — ...
— ........ Combined
12:AM
*
*
0
01:00
*
*
0
02:00
*
*
0
03:00
*
*
0
04:00
*
*
0
05:00
*
*
0
06:00
*
*
0
07:00
*
*
0
08:00
*
*
0
09:00
6
12
18
10:00
37
28
65
11:00
38
22
60
12:PM
36
32
68
01:00
42
28
70
02:00
44
35
79
03:00
56
40
96
04:00
46
34
80
05:00
57
35
92
06:00
49
23
72
07:00
24
20
44
08:00
28
13
41
09:00
16
11
27
10:00
14
9
23
11:00
11
1
12
Totals
504
343
847
Split %
59.5
40.5
AM Peak
11:00
10:00
10:00
Volume
38
28
65
PM Peak
05:00
03:00
03:00
Volume
57
40
96
Site: Tustin Ave
Date:" 02/19/10
Day: Friday
Data Pilc: $ "fM$0002 Printed 03/021'2010 Pale: 1
City of Newport Beach
Traffic EnQineerin -�
Title 1
: between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site: Tustin Ave
Title?
Date: 02/20/10
Title3
Interval
........... __. ......
....... - -. __.....__..
- — ...
_ . ......
Day: Saturday
Begin
NB .............. - --
.. SB -
. .... Combined.
12 AM
..._.... ............... ...._..
2
.....---- - -._... -...
1
.... -- --- -- --... .... __.--- ._....
3
...._ _..._........ ............
01:00
4
2
6
02:00
1
1
2
03:00
1
1
2
0400
1
0
1
05:00
1
1
2
06:00
6
5
11
07:00
10
8
18
08:00
27
26
53
09:00
24
29
53
10:00
41
28
69
11:00
40
37
77
12:PM
32
32
64
01:00
48
18
66
02:00
39
23
62
03:00
35
21
56
04:00
27
23
50
05:00
44
26
70
06:00
36
29
65
07:00
25
10
35
08:00
29
11
40
09:00
9
12
21
10:00
14
7
21
11:00
9
10
19
'Totals
_..._ .............
505
361
- - -- ---
866
Split %
58.3
41.7
AM Peal:
10:00
11:00
11:00
Volume
41
37
77
PM Peal:
01:00
12:00
05:00
Volume
48
32
70
- - -- ..__........ — -- -- - - -- - - -- ..... 1..
Data File: $ "rmt0002 Printed: 03/0212010 PaRe: 2
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel
between 22nd St & 23rd St
Title2
Title3
interval
Begin
NB —._ _......
SB
12:AM
4
3
01:00
5
0
02:00
4
1
03:00
1
1
04:00
1
0
05:00
0
0
06:00
2
9
07:00
3
4
08:00
15
12
09:00
21
26
10:00
34
18
11:00
34
25
12:PM
52
30
01:00
54
31
02:00
53
25
03:00
43
36
04:00
39
25
05:00
38
25
06:00
31
14
07:00
29
22
08:00
19
15
09:00
4
7
10:00
5
5
11:00
1
1
Totals
492
335
Split%
59.5
40.5
AM Peak
10:00
09:00
Volume
34
26
PM Peal:
01:00
03:00
Volume
54
36
Data File: $TM$0002
Combined
7
5
5
2
1
0
11
7
27
47
52
59
82
85
78
79
64
63
45
51
34
11
10
2
11:00
59
01:00
85
Site: Tustin Ave
Date: 02/21/10
Day: Sunday
............
Primed. 03/02/2010 Paae: 3
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title]
between 22nd St & 23rd St
Title2
Title3
Interval
.... _.... _....... ..... .......
...... __ ......... .. .....
Begin
_. Ng .... _..
SB ......._._....
12:AM
1
0
01:00
1
1
02:00
1
0
03:00
0
0
04:00
1
2
05:00
0
3
06:00
6
12
07:00
34
34
08:00
88
82
09:00
28
29
10:00
39
32
11:00
31
33
12:PM
47
23
01:00
63
34
02:00
44
57
03:00
96
51
04:00
74
42
05:00
57
51
06:00
41
27
07:00
22
21
08:00
17
7
09:00
9
11
10:00
8
2
11:00
3
1
Totals
711
555
Split %
56.2
43,8
AM Peak
08:00
08:00
Volume
88
82
PM Peal:
03:00
02:00
Volume
96
57
Data Pile: $TM$0002
Combined
2
1
0
3
3
18
68
170
57
71
64
70
97
101
147
116
108
68
43
24
20
10
4
1,266
08:00
170
03:00
147
Site:
Date:
Day: Monday
Tustin Ave
02/22/10
Printed: 03/02/2010 Pa --e: 4
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Title 1
: between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site: Tustin Ave
Title2
Date: 02/23/10
Title3
Interval
. ... _._........ -- ...—
_...... __ ... ...... -
— .._
... ... — — ............ .
Day: Tuesday
Begin
_..._. NB
- SB _._.
_. --- Combined. ..
12:AM
_ ._—
3
...._.. ... .....
2
-- -- .._.. _ .. ..
5
-- -..... _. ....._..-
01:00
3
0
3
02:00
0
1
1
03:00
1
1
2
04:00
1
0
1
05:00
3
3
6
06:00
5
12
17
07:00
36
35
71
08:00
78
78
156
09:00
30
31
61
10:00
25
24
49
11:00
35
38
73
12:PM
43
30
73
01:00
56
32
88
02:00
55
51
106
03:00
121
51
172
04:00
56
53
109
05:00
51
35
86
06:00
52
35
87
07:00
30
15
45
08:00
15
13
28
09:00
16
4
20
10:00
9
5
14
11:00
0
2
2
Totals
724
551
1,275
Split %
56.8
43.2
AM Peak
08:00
08:00
08:00
Volume
78
78
156
PM Peak
03:00
04:00
03:00
Volume
121
53
172
Data File : $TM$0002 Pnnted : 03/02/2010 Paec : 5
Title I
between 22nd St & 23rd St
Title2
110
Title3
01:00
Interval
78
Begin
NB - -- —
12:AM
0
01:00
2
02:00
0
03:00
0
04:00
0
05:00
2
06:00
10
07:00
31
08:00
110
09:00
27
10:00
33
11:00
37
12:PM
48
01:00
78
02:00
74
03:00
62
04:00
70
05:00
61
06:00
46
07:00
25
08:00
19
09:00
23
10:00
7
11:00
3
Totals
768
Split % 60.0
AM Peak
08:00
Volume
110
PM Peak
01:00
Volume
78
Citv of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
SB --- --.........
........... - -.... Combined —
6-
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
6
13
23
27
58
89
199
25
52
27
60
24
61
23
71
48
126
33
107
36
98
53
123
38
99
31
77
19
44
10
29
5
28
4
11
2
5
13
1,281
40.0
08:00
89
04:00
53
08:00
199
01:00
126
Site: Tustin Ave
Date: 02/24/10
Day: Wednesday
_... .... - - - -._ —._.. ... -.-- .
Data File: $'I'M$0002 Printed 03/02/20]0 Pa_e: ..6..
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel
: between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site: Tustin Ave
Title2
Date: 02/25/10
Title3
Interval
Day: Thursday
Begin
NB
SB
- -- Combined
12:AM
... .._. 2
1 ........
3
01:00
0
0
0
02:00
1
0
1
03:00
0
0
0
04:00
0
0
0
05:00
2
2
4
06:00
8
10
18
07:00
31
33
64
08:00
96
75
171
09:00
30
28
58
10:00
29
26
55
1:00
38
25
63
12:PM
49
32
81
01:00
61
36
97
02:00
67
46
113
03:00
94
51
145
04:00
67
56
123
05:00
58
54
112
06:00
35
25
60
07:00
28
15
43
08:00
18
14
32
09:00
19
14
33
10:00
7
1
8
11:00
5
0
>
Totals
745
544
1,289
Split %
57.8
42.2
AM Peal<
08:00
08:00
08:00
Volume
96
75
171
PM Peak
03:00
04:00
03:00
Volume
94
56
145
Date File ; $l'M$0002 Printed : 03/02/2010 Pa:,c : 7
City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineering
Titlel
: between 22nd St & 23rd St
Site: Tustin Ave
Title2
Date: 02/26/10
Title3
Interval
Day: Friday
Begin
........ NB ....._ ..
SB
Combined..........
12:AM
(
0
1
01:00
1
0
1
02:00
0
1
1
03:00
0
1
1
04:00
2
0
2
0 5:00
3
5
8
06:00
7
9
16
07:00
34
33
67
08:00
89
80
169
09:00
27
27
54
10:00
28
26
54
11:00
40
27
67
12:PM
44
42
86
01:00
77
38
115
02:00
0
0
0
03:00
*
*
0
04:00
*
*
0
05:00
*
*
0
06:00
*
*
0
07:00
*
*
0
08:00
*
*
0
09:00
*
0
10:00
0
11:00
*
0
Totals
353
289
642
Split %
55.0
45.0
AM Peak
08:00
08:00
08:00
Volume
89
80
169
PM Peak
01:00
12:00
01:00
Volume
77
42
115
_— ... - —.
Data Pile : $'1'M$0002 Printed . D3/02/2D_ -10 Paae : 8
Tustin Ave between 22nd St & 23rd St Count Data
02/20/2010
02/21/2010
02/22/2010
02/23/2010
02/24/2010
02/25/2010
Direction
Data
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Daily Total
503
491
709
724
767
743
NB
185% Speed (mph)
35.0
36.1
36.4
36.1
35.0
36.5
SB
Daily Total
360
334
555
550
513
544
85% Speed (mph)
1 36.8
1 36.3
1 37.7
1 37.4
1 36.7
1 37.2
NB +SB
Combined Daily
Total Volume
863
825
1264
1274
1280
1287
* Counters installed 2/19/2010 and removed 2/26/2010
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Leo Gallagher [mailto:leo gallagher@dot.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:37 AM
To: todd @netcomworldwide.com
Cc: Sarah Chamberlain
Subject: Newport Beach: FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines
Hi Todd,
Cities are responsible for initiating requests for changes in functional
classification of streets within their jurisdiction. The FHWA Functional
Classification Guidelines are written with flexibility. If the City of
Newport Beach follows the Flowchart to Change Functional Classification, we
will be glad to expedite.
Newport Beach General Plan
CRS Map 14W22
Thank you,
Leo Gallagher
Statewide Functional Classification Coordinator Division of TSI, MS 38
Department of Transportation P.O.. Box 942874 Sacramento, Ca 94274 -0001
(916) 654 -1134
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Sarah Chamberlain (mailto:sarah chamberlain @dot.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:33 AM
To: Todd Macfarland
Subject: Functional Classification changes
(See attached file: Funcchange.xls)
Hi Todd,
Above is the form that needs to be completed for changing the classifications
of any arterials, major, minor, collectors and locals.
Then you will need to print out the CRS maps and circle the changes in red.
Once this form and maps are completed it needs to be sent to me for
concurrance of the changes.
A letter explaining /justifying the changes needs to be written and submitted
to myself and SCAG.
These changes will need to go through the City Council and a Resolution needs
to be passed and a copy of the rescluation will become part of the packet.
Once these things are done, you will submit all the does to myself and to
SCAG. If the changes are reasonable I will write a concurrance letter and
SCAG will also need to write a concurrance letter and mail it to me.
I will then submit the packet to FHWA and they will hopefully agree with the
changes and the CRS maps will then reflect the changes.
If you have any questions please contact me.
Sarah
949.756.7826
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Sarah Chamberlain [mailto:sarah chamberlain @dot.ca.gov]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:23 AM
To: Todd Macfarland
Subject: RE: Functional Classification changes
Correct, as the Traffic Engineer needs to go to the City Council and have the
change recorded in the form of the Resolution.
The formality of it is to then come to us and SCAG and have FHWA puts an
official stamp on the CRS map.
Sarah
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Sarah Chamberlain (mailto:sarah chamberlain @dot.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:23 AM
To: Todd Macfarland
Subject: Definition of Residence District per CVC.
Hi Todd,
Below is the link and residence definition.
Sarah
http: / /www.dmv.ca.gov /pubs /vctop /d0l /vc5l5.htm
Residence District
515. A "residence district" is that portion of a highway and the property
contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of
which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous
property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses
or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway,
collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous
property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses
or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one - quarter
of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business
structures to the length of the highway exists.
= HPF.1S- Funct5- 15- C19,ppt [Compatibility Mode) - Microsoft PowerPoint
�d
Home Insert Design Animations Slide Show Review View Developer Help
J Copy
Paste
Format Paint?
Olpbaard
-J Layout - — ffII Text Direction _ A . ` t Shape rill
a — r 1111 0 .. ���
J Reset __ !] Align Text Z - Shape Outline
New Tt U $ `€V Fi Arrange Quick
Slide icy Delete I Convert to SmartArl St�l =s - Shape Effects
Slides Font Paragraph Drawing
't Security Weaning References to external pictures have been blocked C]ptiort
Slide 28 of 70 'Default Design
Find
...Replace -
Utit Select -
Editing
im
4011
Y
r
Determination of Street Types and Speed Limits
• CVC Section 40802, defining Speed Traps, however, prohibits the
enforcement of excessive speed, utilizing radar, on non -local streets in
business and residence districts unless the speed limit is justified by a
current Engineering and Traffic Survey. Therefore, roads that are in
residence or business districts but are not defined as local streets can not be
enforced using radar technology, unless the speed limit is established
through an Engineering and Traffic Survey. Speed traps are a viable
concern for motorists leaving rural highways and entering residence or
business districts, in remote areas, yet they are also prohibited in urban
environments.
• An Engineering and Traffic Survey must include consideration of: prevailing
speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements; accident
records; and highway, traffic and roadside conditions not readily apparent to
the driver. The recommended speed limit should be established at the five
mile per hour increment closest to the 85th percentile speed (which is the
speed 85% of the drivers are traveling at or below). However, in matching
existing traffic safety needs of the community, engineering judgment may
indicate the need for a reduction of five miles per hour.
HPMS- Fun€t5- 15 -09.ppt [Compatibility Model - Microsoft PowerPoint
Se[uirty Warning References to external pictures have been blocked Options
r mi
L J
Slide 12 of 70 'Default Design'
Q [:10 0 1:1-1 Shape Fill
L - LO Shape Outline
_ Arrange Quick
- Styles - Shape Effects
Drawing
Find
4ac Replace -
kS Select -
Editing
M
_�Txl
.r,I I
L]
Home Insert
Design Animations
Slide Show Review View
Developer Help
._ut
Layout -
II—
,. I A !i �I a'
;_ _ ii � r=
1�°` Text Direct ion
J!
upg
J Reset
--
r
Align Text
Paste
New i�
i "
I
I
_
I I
.�
_,
sfi Fr m ain
at Pte'
Slide' A� Delete
` '
` _ —I Con lie rt to Smart4rt
Clipboard
Slides
Font
Paragraph
Se[uirty Warning References to external pictures have been blocked Options
r mi
L J
Slide 12 of 70 'Default Design'
Q [:10 0 1:1-1 Shape Fill
L - LO Shape Outline
_ Arrange Quick
- Styles - Shape Effects
Drawing
Find
4ac Replace -
kS Select -
Editing
M
_�Txl
.r,I I
L]
=�ut
Layout -
-opp
J Reset
Paste
IN ew
Horne
insert
design Animations Slide Show Review
=�ut
Layout -
-opp
J Reset
Paste
IN ew
f Format Pairte
Slide -
Delete
Clipboard
Slides
HPPAS- Funct5- 15- 09.ppt [Compatibility Model - Microsoft PowerPoint
View _ developer Help
�A �� "'.� �;__- �r l��iText C�ire€tion
Align Teet
_onvertto SmartArt
Font Paragraph
'IQ Security Warning References to eaternar pictures have been blocked Options,..
r mi
L A
■
Slide 15 of 70 "default Design
Shape Fill - MFind
Shape Outline Replace
_ .Arrange Quack
- Styles - Shape Effect; Select -
Drawing Editing
iii
_rrxI
10) 1
Y
2Cc1t
Tov�"
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
- TOA,r- J }WefG
APPROVED d6b
AUG 2 2 2006X
Cify of %vport Seach
Study Session No. SS2
August 22, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
-
FROM: Public Works Department govt` n`"�'
Antony Brine, P.E.
949- 644 -3311 ortbrine @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING GUIDELINES, �O
S�sy
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the "Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines" dated July 2006 and direct
staff to place the guidelines on a future City Council Agenda for final approval.
DISCUSSION:
The guidelines presented to the City Council are the culmination of comprehensive
research by staff in the field of traffic calming. This research included reviews of many
similar national and international programs, attendance at local and national seminars,
review of periodicals and textbooks on the subject, and membership in the Southern
California Traffic Calming Users Group. Staff used traffic calming programs from the
cities of Pasadena, Ventura, Sunnyvale, Portland (Oregon), Houston (Texas), Collier
County (Florida), and Boulder (Colorado) as references in the preparation of the initial
draft guidelines. The initial draft guidelines were tailored to meet the unique
characteristics of Newport Beach neighborhoods.
The topic of neighborhood traffic calming has been discussed at several City Council
meetings and study sessions in the past two years. Staff reports for the Council
meetings of June 22, 2004, and July 27, 2004, presented neighborhood study updates,
a summary of previous traffic calming practices in the city, definitions of traffic calming
"tool box" measures, and a discussion of evaluation processes and funding policy. The
previous staff reports are attached for reference.
At the August 10, 2004, City Council meeting, the Council approved Resolution No.
2004 -75 creating a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Ad Hoc Committee. The members of
the Committee included Mayor Webb, Councilman Rosansky, the City Manager, the
Public Works Director, the City Traffic Engineer, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief.
Meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee were held between December 2005 and April 2006.
The Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the initial draft guidelines and provided specific
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Guidelines
August 22, 2000
Page 2
comments and direction which led to the "Neighborhood Traffic Management .
Guidelines" submitted to the Council at this meeting.
The final Guidelines include a comprehensive step -by -step process addressing the
receipt of a resident request, collection of traffic data, review of the existing
neighborhood conditions, and implementation of different levels of traffic calming
measures. The step -by -step process is the backbone of the program. The way in
which the public and the residents are treated by staff, and the process by which
various alternatives are analyzed is as important as any physical improvement or
administrative regulation implemented. The process, however, cannot include Public
Works staff only. This program requires significant citizen involvement. Residents will
seek to create traffic management programs in their specific neighborhood, and their
active and on -going participation is absolutely necessary to achieve a successful
program. A project developed by both staff and the residents jointly will have a greater
likelihood of area -wide acceptance.
Another key aspect of the program is the neighborhood petition process. Should a
particular street or neighborhood qualify for traffic management improvements, surveys
will be mailed out and neighborhood meetings will be held to discuss a potential project.
The next step would be to invite residents to a Traffic Affairs Committee meeting to
discuss and review a draft project plan. Should a draft plan be approved by the Traffic
Affairs Committee, the residents will be required to circulate a petition throughout the
neighborhood for signature. The Guidelines require that the petition for support be
signed by 70 percent of all residential addresses. This petition process is a very
important part of the overall program. It places responsibility on the residents to
discuss the issues with their neighbors, and garner support for a proposed project. The
previous City 'Road Bump" program was ultimately eliminated by the City Council in
1994 because, in some cases, misinformation and insufficient support led to
divisiveness among neighbors regarding proposed projects.
As part of this Program, the guidelines state that the City Council shall establish an
annual budget for traffic calming improvements. The annual budgeted amount in the
last several CIPs has been $ 50,000. It should be noted that a limited number of traffic
calming improvements can be completed within this established budget. Because it is
anticipated that the requests for improvements will exceed the budget, the Program
includes a priority process for budgeting of improvements. The proposed program
guidelines do not require funding from residents to install any improvements. However,
a higher priority will be assigned to projects where residents or Homeowners
Associations commit to provide funding for all or part of the costs of the design and
construction of improvements.
The neighborhoods most recently studied were Newport Heights /Cliff Haven, and
Newport Hills /Harbor View. Community meetings were held in each neighborhood to
receive input and to discuss the respective projects. Both neighborhood studies, with
proposed improvements, were completed in August 2004. The planned improvements
in these neighborhoods were placed on hold pending the approval of city -wide Traffic
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Guidelines
August 22, 2008
Page 3
Calming Guidelines. Approved uniform guidelines,. minimum speed and volume
thresholds, and other criteria need to be in place so that every neighborhood in the city
could be analyzed in a consistent and fair manner. The Capital Improvement Program
for 2006 -07 includes $187,000 for improvements in Newport Heights /Cliff Haven, and
$40,000 for improvements in Newport Hills /Harbor View.
Environmental Review:
Not applicable at this time.
Prepared by: .
Antony Brine, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
SheppardMullin
May 1, 2013
VIA E -MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Aaron Harp
City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Beach Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Email: aharp @newportbeachca.gov
Re: Speed Limit for Tustin Avenue Between 22nd and 23rd
Dear Mr. Harp:
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626- "993
714.513.5100 main
714.513.5130 main fax
vomN. s h e p p a rd m u li i n. com
714.424.2894 direct
gwillis@sheppardmullin.com
File Number: 35AZ- 176259
I have been retained by a group of Newport Beach residents concerned about the health and
safety risks caused by cars travelling at high rates of speed on Tustin Avenue between 22nd
and 23rd streets (the "Segment "). This Tustin Avenue Segment is narrow (less than 36 feet
wide), entirely residential, lacks sidewalks and is functionally further narrowed by prevalent
street parking. Speed of traffic concerns on this Segment are made even more significant by
the fact that the lack of sidewalks results in residents frequently biking, running or walking their
dogs in the street just beyond cars parked on the street. It is apparent from simple visual
observation that the vast majority of the traffic on the Segment is travelling at speeds far in
excess of the speed limit.
Until City residents raised concerns about the dangerous speed of the flow of traffic, the
Segment had an unposted prima facie residential speed limit of 25 miles per hour. A 25 mile
per hour speed limit is consistent with the City's General Plan
( http : / /www.newportbeachca.gov /PLN /General Plan /Figures /FigCE1 MasterPlanofStreetsandH
ighways 11x17color web.pdf). Despite this planned and safe speed limit, it was obvious from
simple visual observations that the vast majority of the traffic on the Segment was travelling at
speeds far in excess of that speed limit. These anecdotal observations were later demonstrated
to be accurate by a traffic speed survey conducted by the City which showed that 85% of the
traffic on the Segment was travelling at 36 miles per hour or faster, at least 11 miles per hour
faster than the then current speed limit. A copy of that City traffic speed survey is attached
hereto.
From anecdotal observations, virtually all of the traffic on the Segment (90 % +) is using the
Segment as a cut - through to either avoid the slowing caused by the presence of crossing -
guards on nearby Santa Ana Avenue during the morning rush hour or the slowing caused by
SheppardMulfin
Mr. Aaron Harp
May 1, 2013
Page 2
multiple stop lights on Irvine Boulevard in the afternoon. These natural "traffic calming
measures" on other streets has unfortunately dramatically increased the number of cars and the
speed of those cars on the Segment.
Residents first contacted the City about the unsafe traffic speed conditions on the Segment
almost two years ago. Residents near the Segment were seeking the "traffic calming
measures" required by the Newport Beach City Code through City Policy " 1-26" adopted on
September 12, 2006, and attached to this letter. As stated in the City's Policy, in the case of
unsafe traffic speed conditions like those found on the Segment, the City should take steps to
reduce the speed of traffic on the Segment to reduce average speeds to safe conditions. In
pertinent part the City's Policy provides:
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT POLICY
The City has developed Neighborhood Traffic Management
Guidelines in an effort to provide residents with traffic concerns
access to traffic management measures that can serve to alleviate
their concerns. It is the intent of this policy to identify traffic
calming measures; establish speed and volume thresholds for the
implementation of measures, and define step -by -step procedures
to address neighborhood traffic concerns.
GENERAL
The Goals of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program are:
A. Manage the speed of vehicles on residential streets with
"demonstrated speeding concerns" (as defined in this Policy) to
levels consistent with residential speed limits, or other posted
speed limits as determined by the California Vehicle Code or the
City of Newport Beach Municipal Code.
B. Discourage the use of local residential streets by non -local
(cut- through) traffic by making the streets less attractive as
commuter routes.
C. Develop and emphasize focused neighborhood
educational programs that will address residential traffic concerns
This shall be accomplished by the preparation of a traffic calming
pamphlet; holding neighborhood meetings; and public hearings
before the City Traffic Affairs Committee and the City Council,
D. Implementation of selective police enforcement actions in
neighborhoods with traffic related concerns.
E. Minimize impacts on emergency vehicle response times,
which may potentially be caused by implementation of
neighborhood traffic calming measures.
SheppardMullln
Mr. Aaron Harp
May 1, 2013
Page 3
F. Limit the potential for shifting traffic from one residential
street (or neighborhood) to another when implementing traffic
calming measures.
G. Respond to complaints in a timely manner.
The City's adopted Traffic Calming Policy was directly triggered by the concerns of the City
residents near the Segment. The City's need to utilize its Traffic Calming Policy was made even
more clear by the criteria established under the Policy itself:
CRITERIA
The implementation of Level 2 Tools will be considered for those
public streets meeting all of the following criteria:
1. The street should be primarily a local, residential street
with a posted (or prima facie) speed limit of 25 mph or 30 mph.
2. The section of road shall have no more than one lane in
each direction, and shall be a maximum of 44 feet in width curb -
to -curb. The street segment shall also be at least 800 feet in
length, and have no intermediate STOP signs.
3. The volume of traffic on the street shall be between 500
and 4000 vehicles per day.
4. A speed survey must demonstrate that the 85 percentile
speed is greater than 32 mph on a posted 25 mph street, or
greater than 37 mph on a posted 30 mph street. Speeds above
these thresholds indicate a "demonstrated speed concern."
5. The street must have a sustained longitudinal grade of 6
percent or less.
6. The street must have a horizontal and vertical alignment
such that there is adequate sight distance, as determined by the
City Traffic Engineer.
7. Level 2 measures will not be installed if, in the opinion of
the City Traffic Engineer, they will result in excessive diversion of
traffic to parallel local residential streets.
8. Proposed Level 2 measures will be reviewed by the Police
and Fire Departments for potential impacts to public safety
response times.
All of these criteria are met by the conditions on the Segment and the City should have
implemented Traffic Calming Measures. City staff did begin the street safety review process
SheppardMuffln
Mr. Aaron Harp
May 1, 2013
Page 4
correctly by agreeing to conduct a traffic speed survey on the Segment. Not surprisingly to the
Segment's residents, the traffic speed survey showed that the vast majority of the cars traveling
on the road were driving at least 11 miles per hour faster than the then current prima facie 25
miles per hour speed limit for the Segment. A simple reading of the City Policy quoted at length
above demonstrates that the traffic speed survey results should have required staff to consider
and implement Level 2 Tools as provided in the Policy.
Instead, City staff turned the adopted City Policy on its head and made traffic conditions on the
Segment more dangerous by actually increasing the speed limit on the Segment and posting 30
miles per hour speed signs overriding the previously unposted prima facie speed limit of 25
miles per hour.
In written communication to City residents, City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer Tony Brine
detailed his legally incorrect reasoning for raising the speed limit on the Segment:
The Vehicle Code outlines a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph
would apply to a local street "unless a different speed is
determined by local authority under procedures set forth in
this code ".
The procedures set forth in the Vehicle Code indicate that the
results of an "engineering and traffic survey" have to justify the
prima facie speed limit or the roadway can be designated a
"speed trap ". This is the process that was used to establish all of
the speed limits throughout our city. Caltrans Policy Directive 09-
04 and the California MUTCD both state that "When a speed limit
is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5 mph
increment of the 85th percentile speed ". The speed limit can be
reduced an additional 5 mph with conditions and justification. This
is a Standard, not guidance. The term "shall" is mandatory.
It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction to determine if a
prima facie speed limit of 25 mph is appropriate. With the 85%
speed of 36 mph, the lowest we can set the speed limit on Tustin
Avenue is 30 mph. Perhaps the city of Truckee felt comfortable
that a 25 mph was the correct posting on their roads. It is my
responsibility as City Traffic Engineer to continue using the
Caltrans Policy Directive and the MUTCD as the method to
establish the proper speed limits in our city, and not make Tustin
Avenue an exception to the rule. Westminster Avenue and Cliff
Drive are both streets within residential areas with 30 mph speed
limits.
The final speed for this segment of Tustin Avenue should be, and
will remain, at 30 mph. This is the appropriate and enforceable
speed limit. (Emphasis in original.) Attached to this letter is a
copy of this correspondence from the City Traffic Engineer.
Sheppard Muffin
Mr. Aaron Harp
May 1, 2013
Page 5
According to this opinion from the City's Traffic Engineer, the results of the traffic speed survey
gave the city no choice but to increase the speed limit for the Segment. Unfortunately, the
opinion of the City's Traffic Engineer is simply legally incorrect and actually improperly reverses
the presumption of California law that safety is the first and primary concern when establishing a
speed limit. The opinion of the City's Traffic Engineer is in opposition to both CalTrans' policies
and the policies of cities around the state of California that have kept their focus on safety first.
If the City continues to follow this incorrect legal opinion, my clients fear that the City will incur
the significant and continuing liability coming from speed limits set without concern for safety.
The California Vehicle Code is very clear about the priorities and findings the City must make in
determining speed limits:
The prima facie limits are as follow and shall be applicable unless
changed as authorized in this code, and, if changed, only when
signs have been erected giving notice thereof:
(2) Twenty -five miles per hour:
(A) On any highway other than a state highway, in any
business or residential district unless a different speed is
determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this
code. Cal.Veh. Code §22352 (a)(2)(A).
There are several essential findings a City must make before increase the prima facie speed of
a street:
Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an
engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles
per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic
and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a
state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles
per hour, the local authority may by ordinance determine and
declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40, 45,50, 55, or 60
miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour,
whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly
movement of traffic and is reasonably safe. Cal.Veh. Code
§22357 (a)(emphasis added).
Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an
engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles
per hour in a business or residence district ... is more than is
reasonably safe, the local authority may, by ordinance or
resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20
or 15 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to
facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonably
safe. Cal.Veh. Code §22358.3(emphasis added).
SheppardMulhn
Mr. Aaron Harp
May 1, 2013
Page 6
Accordingly, in direct opposition to the opinion provided by the City Traffic Engineer, the City
has absolute discretion to decrease, increase or keep unchanged a speed limit, regardless of
any traffic speed survey, based upon what the City determines to be "reasonably safe." In fact
if the City raises the speed limit (as it has already done in the present case), it is required to
make all of the following legally supported findings: (1) the increase in speed limit is necessary
to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic; (2) the increase in speed limit is both reasonable
and safe, and (3) that a change in speed limit is the most appropriate to facilitate orderly
movement of traffic AND is safe. Instead, the City Traffic Engineer did not allow the City to
make any of these findings and instead incorrectly opined that the City had no legal choice but
to increase the speed limit based upon the traffic speed survey.
The opinion of the City Traffic Engineer would render the City's Traffic Calming Policy moot if it
were followed. According to the City Traffic Engineer, whenever the City is faced with a traffic
speed survey that shows that drivers are travelling greatly in excess of the speed limit, the City
should simply raise the speed limit to match the reckless and unsafe driving speeds measured
rather than take any of the recommended measures in the City Policy to reduce traffic speed to
match the conditions of the street. Under the City Traffic Engineer's theory, there would NEVER
be a time when the City's Traffic Calming Policy could be implemented because the City would
always be required to raise the speed limit to match the reckless speed of current drivers. The
City Traffic Engineer's opinion would eliminate the application of the City Policy to ANY driving
or street conditions. This nonsensical result is neither legally correct, consistent with City and
state policy nor in any way logical.
The City residents near the Segment are seriously concerned that someone is going to be killed
by drivers travelling at unsafe speeds. The City has made worse, not better, the driving safety
concerns on the street by actually raising the speed limit instead of following its own Policy and
putting in place traffic calming measures. We respectfully request that the City take appropriate
action to reverse the decision to increase the speed limit on the Segment to 30 miles per hour,
that the City act to reduce the speed limit on the Segment to either 20 or 25 miles per hour, that
the City put in place reasonable traffic calming measures to reduce speeds on the Segment
back to safe speeds and that the City address the Citywide misapplication of state and City laws
by a City Traffic Engineer which is putting the residents of the City at risk every day.
vu wci c'y
} t
tI °
for SHEPPARDIIyMULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Attachments
cc: David Kiff, City Manager, City of Newport Beach
David Webb, Director of Public Works, City of Newport Beach
Tony Brine, Traffic Engineer, City of Newport Beach
Tustin Ave between 22nd St & 23rd St Count Data
02/20/2010
02/21/2010
02/22/2010
02/23/2010
02/24/2010
02/25/2010
Direction
Data
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Daily Total
503
1 491
1 709
724
1 767
743
NB
185% Speed (mph)
35.0
1 36.1
36.4
36.1
35.0
36.5
I Daily Total
360
334
555
550
513
544
SB
185% Speed (mph)
1 36.8
1 36.3
1 37.7
1 37.4
1 36.7
1 37.2
NB + SB
Combined Daily
ITotal Volume
863
825
1264
1274
1280
1287
* Counters installed 2/19/2010 and removed 2/26/2010
L-26
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT POLICY
The City has developed Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines in an effort to
provide residents with traffic concerns access to traffic management measures that can
serve to alleviate their concerns. It is the intent of this policy to identify traffic calming
measures; establish speed and volume thresholds for the implementation of measures
and; define step -by -step procedures to address neighborhood traffic concerns.
GENERAL
The Goals of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program are:
A. Manage the speed of vehicles on residential streets with "demonstrated speeding
concerns" (as defined in this Policy) to levels consistent with residential speed
limits, or other posted speed limits as determined by the California Vehicle Code
or the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code.
B. Discourage the use of local residential streets by non -local (cut- through) traffic
by making the streets less attractive as commuter routes.
C. Develop and emphasize focused neighborhood educational programs that will
address residential traffic concerns. This shall be accomplished by the
preparation of a traffic calming pamphlet; holding neighborhood meetings; and
public hearings before the City Traffic Affairs Committee and the City Council.
D. Implementation of selective police enforcement actions in neighborhoods with
traffic related concerns.
E. Minimize impacts on emergency vehicle response times, which may potentially
be caused by implementation of neighborhood traffic calming measures.
F. Limit the potential for shifting traffic from one residential street (or
neighborhood) to another when implementing traffic calming measures.
G. Respond to complaints in a timely manner.
L-26
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TOOL BOX
Traffic management measures generally fall into three (3) categories:
A. Level 1 Tools are comprised of actions and programs that are primarily
educational and enforcement based. These tools include neighborhood
meetings, police enforcement, signing, and the use of a speed radar trailer.
B. Level 2 Tools include the construction of physical improvements to address
documented speed concerns. These tools include road narrowing, chokers,
gateways, traffic circles, speed bumps, speed tables, and intersection
channelization.
C. Level 3 Tools include the construction of physical improvements to reduce traffic
volumes on a local residential street. These tools include neckdowns, turn
restrictions, cul -de -sacs, diagonal diverters, half -closures.
The definitions for the different traffic calming tools are included in the Neighborhood
Traffic Management Guidelines document.
CRITERIA
The implementation of Level 2 Tools will be considered for those public streets meeting
all of the following criteria:
1. The street should be primarily a local, residential street with a posted (or prima
facie) speed limit of 25 mph or 30 mph.
2. The section of road shall have no more than one lane in each direction, and shall
be a maximum of 44 feet in width curb -to -curb. The street segment shall also be
at least 800 feet in length, and have no intermediate STOP signs.
3. The volume of traffic on the street shall be between 500 and 4000 vehicles per
day.
4. A speed survey must demonstrate that the 85 percentile speed is greater than
32 mph on a posted 25 mph street, or greater that 37 mph on a posted 30 mph
street. Speeds above these thresholds indicate a "demonstrated speed concern
2
L-26
5. The street must have a sustained longitudinal grade of 6 percent or less. The
street must have a horizontal and vertical alignment such that there is adequate
sight distance, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
6. Level 2 measures will not be installed
if, in the
opinion of
the City Traffic
Engineer, they will result in excessive
diversion
of traffic
to parallel local
residential streets.
7. Proposed Level 2 measures will be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments
for potential impacts to public safety response times.
The implementation of Level 3 Tools will be considered for those public streets meeting
criteria 1, 2, 6, and 7 as noted above, and as required by Level 2 Tools. In addition the
following criteria must be met:
1. The volume of traffic on the street shall be greater that 4000 vehicles per day.
PROCESS
The following step -by -step procedures will be used by the City to address
neighborhood traffic concerns:
A. A resident will inform the City of a potential problem area. Any traffic calming
request is required to include a petition signed by at least five (5) residents
within the immediate vicinity of the problem area.
B: The City will review the roadway conditions and collect the appropriate traffic
speed and volume data. If it is determined that an immediate safety issue exists,
staff will initiate a project to address the situation. Otherwise, staff will initiate
the appropriate Level 1 traffic calming measures.
C. The Level l measures shall be in place for a minimum of three (3) months. If the
Level 1 measures do not address the residents concerns, the City will review the
traffic data that has been collected, discuss the issues with the Police and Fire
Departments, and determine if the street qualifies for Level 2 or Level 3
measures. The residents will be informed of the results of the traffic analysis.
D. If the traffic data indicates that the street(s) may qualify for Level 2 or Level 3
measures, a survey will be mailed out to the neighborhood to identify specific
concerns. After responses to the survey are received, a neighborhood meeting
3
L-26
will be held. This meeting may be used to develop recommended Level 2 or
Level 3 implementation measures. A representative of the Public Works
Department and the Police Department will attend the meeting.
E. A draft improvement plan shall be prepared, and submitted to the residents.
The City will schedule a meeting of the Traffic Affairs Committee. The area
residents will be invited to the meeting to provide their input. The Traffic Affairs
Committee will recommend approval or denial of the project. If approved, the
project will be submitted to the residents with an approved petition for
signatures.
F. A neighborhood representative shall be responsible for circulation of the petition.
The petition will be prepared by City staff together with the residents, and shall
be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to circulation. The City will
provide a map of the affected area and a listing of all residents' addresses to the
designated neighborhood representative. The petition should include only
residents or businesses within the affected area. Person(s) circulating the petition
shall attempt to contact all affected residences or businesses. Residents must be
at least 18 years old to sign. The petition must include the current address,
printed name, and signature for each resident. The petition requesting the
neighborhood traffic management measures must be supported by seventy (70)
percent of the total number of residential units/ businesses.
G. If neighborhood support is demonstrated through the petition process, the
project will be forwarded to City Council for approval. All Level 2 or Level 3
measures shall be approved by City Council prior to design or construction. If
the petition process is unsuccessful, City staff will continue undertaking the
appropriate Level I actions.
PRIORITY
Requests for the installation of traffic calming measures using City funds shall be
prioritized by the City Traffic Engineer considering the following factors:
1. Date of petition submittal.
2. Volume of traffic using the street.
3. Percentage of traffic exceeding the threshold speed limit.
4
L-26
4. Other factors including, but not limited to, number of houses, presence of parks
or schools, street width, and number of residential driveways.
The City shall also take into account any letters of interest from the residents (or
Homeowners Associations) to provide funding for all or part of the costs of the design
and construction of the improvements.
Adopted - September 12, 2006
5
From: Brine, Tony [mailto:tbrineCa)newoortbeachca gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:20 PM
To: Todd Macfarland
Cc: Hill, Rush; Badum, Steve; Webb, Dave (Public Works); Sommers, Brad
Subject: Tustin Avenue
Dear Mr. Macfarland:
I spoke with Sarah Chamberlain at Caltrans last week. Ms. Chamberlain and I have no difference of opinion regarding all
of the issues you discussed with me. This includes the process to establish a local street designation, and the fact that a
local jurisdiction can set the speed limit based on this designation. other cities have followed this process, which I am
not questioning. I was satisfied with our conversation, and feel there is no additional need to speak with other Caltrans
representatives. That said, it is important to understand that the Vehicle Code outlines a prima facie speed limit of 25
mph would apply to a local street "unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth
in this code ".
The procedures set forth in the Vehicle Code indicate that the results of an "engineering and traffic survey" have to
justify the prima facie speed limit or the roadway can be designated a "speed trap ". This is the process that was used to
establish all of the speed limits throughout our city. Caltrans Policy Directive 09 -04 and the California MUTCD both state
that "When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85t' percentile
speed ". The speed limit can be reduced an additional 5 mph with conditions and justification. This is a Standard, not
guidance. The term "shall" is mandatory.
It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction to determine if a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph is appropriate. With the
85% speed of 36 mph, the lowest we can set the speed limit on Tustin Avenue is 30 mph. Perhaps the city of Truckee
felt comfortable that a 25 mph was the correct posting on their roads. It is my responsibility as City Traffic Engineer to
continue using the Caltrans Policy Directive and the MUTCD as the method to establish the proper speed limits in our
city, and not make Tustin Avenue an exception to the rule. Westminster Avenue and Cliff Drive are both streets within
residential areas with 30 mph speed limits.
The final speed for this segment of Tustin Avenue should be, and will remain, at 30 mph. This is the appropriate and
enforceable speed limit.
Tony Brine, P.E., T.E.
City Traffic Engineer
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949)644 -3329 phone (949)644 -3318 fax
tbri ne@ newpo rtbeachca.gov
�,
Via E -Mail & U.S. Mail
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Aaron C. I l;arp, Cuv At.tornev
June 7. 2013
Geoffrey K. Willis, Esq.
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 4'h Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993
RE: Speed Limit for Tustin Avenue between 22nd and 23rd
Dear Mr. Willis:
Thank you for your letter dated May 1, 2013 regarding the concerns of your clients over
the established speed limit on Tustin Avenue between 22nd Street and 23rd Street (the
"Segment ") in the City of Newport Beach ("City "). We have taken the time to review this
matter. Our review, conducted in consultation with the City's Traffic Engineer, has
determined that the speed limit of 30 miles per hour ( "mph ") is reasonable and safe and
has been properly established by the City under the requirements of the Vehicle Code.
At the outset, it is important to note that until the
Segment, the area was under the control of the
jurisdiction to set or establish speed limits fc
concerns being raised by area residents, the i
conducting a City wide engineering and traffic ,
part of this survey and it was this survey that ult
adoption of Ordinance No. 2011 -1 that set tt
Santiago Avenue to 23rd Street at 30 mph.
( "NBMC ") section 12.24.080.)
City annexed the area that included the
County of Orange and the City had no
r the Segment. In addition, prior to
:ity had already begun the process of
;urvey. The Segment was included as
mately culminated in the City Council's
e speed limit for Tustin Avenue from
(See Newport Beach Municipal Code
Turning to your letter, you assert that prior to concerns being raised by residents, "the
Segment had an unposted prima facie residential speed limit of 25 [mph]." We presume
in making this assertion you are referring to Vehicle Code section 22352(a)(2)(A). if this
assumption is true, we do not find your assertion to be accurate.
Section 22352(a)(2)(A) only establishes a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph for any
highway located in a business or residence district. The Segment, however, is not
located within a "business district" or "residence district," as those terms are defined in
Mr. Geoffrey Willis, Esq.
June 7, 2013
Page; 2
Vehicle Code sections 235 and 515, respectively. Section 22352(a)(2)(A)'s prima facie
speed limit of 25 MPH is thus not applicable to the Segment. Therefore, prior to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 2011 -1, as a street that was not located within a business or
residence district, the Segment was subject to California's "basic speed law" contained
in Vehicle Code section 22350. The "basic speed lam" does not set or establish a
maximum speed, but rather prohibits a person from driving "at a speed greater than is
reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the
surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the
safety of persons or property."
Next, your letter notes that an unposted 25 mph is consistent with the City's General
Plan. We find this contention to be unavailing. The City's General Plan does not
establish speed limits on the City's streets. The purpose of the Master Plan of Streets
and Highways contained in the City's General Plan, which you cite in your letter, is to
organize the City's roadway classification system and to provide for planning of long-
term roadway capacity needs. It does not follow that because a street is not "color
coded" on the Master Plan as a commuter roadway, secondary road, primary road, etc,
that the street must then have a speed limit of 25 mph. There are several instances of
streets within the City that are not "color coded" on the Master Plan and have speed
limits set in excess of 25 MPH.
Further, your letter contends that the City was required to implement "traffic calming
measures" pursuant to Council Policy L -26 because all eight listed criteria were met.
This contention is not accurate. As Indicated in the "Criteria" section of Council Policy
L -26, Level 2 Tools will be considered for those streets meeting all of the listed criteria.
Our review has found that the Segment did, and still does, not meet all of the required
criteria to warrant consideration of Level 2 Tools. As you noted in your letter, the
Segment did not have a posted speed limit. Further, and as noted above, the Segment
was not subject to a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Therefore, the Segment did not
meet the first criteria listed in Council Policy L -26 at the time of the initial complaint from
residents and the City was not required to consider the implementation of Level 2 Tools.
Finally, your letter contends that the City did not follow the requirements of the Vehicle
Code and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ("MUTCD "). As
indicated above, the premise of your contention that the Segment is subject to a 25 mph
speed limit is Incorrect. In addition, without any factual or legal support, you assert that
the City set the speed limit without considering what speed would be reasonable and
safe. Here again, your assertion is without merit.
Vehicle Code sections 22357 and 40802 require the City to conduct an engineering and
traffic survey prior to setting speed limits. Vehicle Code section 627 defines the term
"engineering and traffic survey" and requires such a survey to include and consider
many different components, such as prevailing speeds, accident records, conditions not
readily apparent to the driver and pedestrian safety. Moreover, Vehicle Code section
22358.5 prohibits the City from downward speed zoning based on conditions that are
Mr. Geoffrey Willis, Esq.
June 7, 2013
Page: 3
readily apparent to a driver
The City's engineering and traffic survey established that the 85th percentile speed for
the Segment was 36 mph which would require a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Then,
based on the City Traffic Engineer's training, experience and professional judgment, he
found there were conditions present that were not readily apparent to a driver and
recommended the speed limit be reduced an additional 5 mph, to 30 mph. (See NBMC
sections 12.24.050 and 12.24.080.) Those conditions included a reference to heavy
non - school related pedestrian use. in reviewing the accident history, there have been
no accidents along this segment of Tustin Avenue from January of 2006 until the
engineering and traffic survey was completed. in fact, through the end of May of 2013,
there have still been no accidents along the Segment.
The 30 mph speed limit was posted in March 2011. This speed limit is both reasonable
and safe based upon the conditions present, traffic volumes and accident history.
Moreover, in following the Vehicle Code and MUTCD, the lowest speed limit that can be
posted and allow for legal enforcement is 30 mph based upon an 85th percentile speed
of 36 mph. We believe it is also worth noting that the remainder of Tustin Avenue
between 17th Street and 22nd Street has a posted speed limit of 30 mph.
In sum, the City has determined that the Segment's posted speed limit of 30 mph is
legally correct, reasonable and safe for the public, and a legally enforceable speed limit.
Therefore, at present, the City will not be seeking to reduce the speed or implement
traffic calming measures.
Sincerely,
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
/I "� ( , 9 Z_,�_
Aar n C. Harp
City Attorney
ACH:KER:emg
cc: Dave Kiff, City Manager
Dave Webb, Director of Public Works
Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer
[A13- 00300] - Willis from ACH 6.7.13
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
City Council Regular Meeting
January 11, 2011— 7:00 p.m.
II. CLOSED SESSION - 6:15 p.m.
A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9
(a)): Two matters:
1. City of Newport Beach u. Bach Bay Court, LLC, Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 30-2010-00385190
2. Mead o. City of Newport Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30.2010-
00342608
B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation - Exposure to Litigation
(Government Code ✓z 54956.9(b)): Two matters:
1. Potential exposure to litigation arising from threat of violation from California
Coastal Commission for brush clearance allegedly being performed without a Coastal
Development Permit on City Sunset Ridge Park property prior to City ownership.
2. Potential exposure to litigation from allegations that the Morningside Zoning
Agreement was not properly adopted under state law.
C. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code 0 54967(b)(1)):
The City Council will meet in closed session to consider the appointment, employment,
evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of three public employees.
Titles: City Manager; City Clerk; and City Attorney
D. Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Government Code 4 54956.8):
Property : 19752 MacArthur Blvd, Irvine, APN 445- 132 -009
City Neeotiator: Dave Webb, City Engineer; Andy Tram Senior Civil Engineer
Negotiating Parties: South Coast Thrift & Loan (First California Bank)
Under Neeotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
Property: 19742 MacArthur Blvd, Irvine, APN 445- 132 -011
City Negotiator: Dave Webb, City Engineer; Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer
Negotiating Parties: Bates Johnson Building, Ltd.
Volume 60 - Page 5
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
Property: 19712 MacArthur Blvd, Irvine, APN 445.132 -018
City Negotiator: Dave Webb, City Engineer; Andy Tian, Senior Civil Engineer
Negotiating Parties: CIP Centerpoint 123, LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
III. RECESS
IV. RECONVENED AT 7.00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
V. ROLL CALL
Present: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tent Gardner, Mayor Henn,
Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
VI. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Hunt reported that, regarding II.B.2 (potential litigation relative to Morningaide Zoning
Agreement), Council unanimously authorized the defense of the matter if it is filed, but instructed
staff to keep the lines of communication open since the filing party is a citizens group from the City.
VII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member Hill
VIII. INVOCATION -Mr. Frank Carpenter
Junior Lifeguard of the Year
Fire Chief Morgan highlighted the accomplishments of 9 year old Junior Lifeguard, Christopher
Hughes, and provided him with a certificate and scholarship check. He also introduced Lifeguard
Battalion Chief Rob Williams, Lifeguard Captain Brent Jacobsen, Junior Lifeguard Instructor Jenne
Murphy, and Junior Lifeguard D Group Leader Jeff Pratt.
x NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
P,471
Council Member Daigle announced that she attended the swearing -in ceremony for Supervisor
Moorlach, along with Council Member Hill, Aviation. Consultant Tom Edwards, and many members of
Air Fare, the Airport Working Group (AWG), and the Santa Ana Heights PAC. She noted the
importance of working with Supervisor Moorlach on airport issues.
Council Member Curry announced that February 6 marks the centennial birth of former President
Ronald Reagan and that, on January 27, the Lido Theater will he premiering Ronald Reagan An
American Journey. He noted that, if approved; Item S27 will allow the City to accept private
donations to be used toward the creation of a statue or similar work honoring former President
Ronald Reagan.
Council Member Sehch requested that Council discuss the property at 443 Harbor Island Drive at a
Volume 60 - Page 6
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
future meeting since it has been sitting uncompleted for four years.
Mayor Henn discussed the boat parade, announced that the boat parade awards ceremony will take
place on January 28, stated that the Lido Village conceptual plan was discussed at the study session
and will be recapped at Speak Up Newport on January 12 at 6:00 p.m., announced that he attended
the Yacht Association Installation, announced that Restaurant Week will be held January 21 to
January 28, reported that Council will conduct its annual priority setting meeting on February 5 at
8:30 a.m. at the OASIS Senior Center, announced that the Mayor Facebook page will be started
shortly, and stated that he intends to continue the Meet the Mayor sessions throughout the City
during his term.
XII. CONSENT
CALENDAR
A. READING
OF MINUTES/ORDINANCES AND RESOL UTIONS
1.
MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2010 AND
REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 2010. Waive reading of subject
minutes, approve as amended, and order filed.
Council Member Daigle requested that the December 6 minutes be amended to
indicate that she believed that the Balboa Yacht Basin rates should be the same as
Cal Rec rates; and that the December 14 minutes be amended to reflect that she
expressed her gratitude to everyone.
2.
READING OF ORDINANCES. AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of all
ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title
only.
C. RESOLUTIONS
FOR ADOPTION
5.
RESOLUTION UPDATING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES FOR
2011 UNDER THE CITY S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE. Adopt Resolution
No. 2011.2 adopting the 2011 Designated Employees List.
6.
CITY COUNCIL'S REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR FOR 2011. Adopt
Resolution No. 2011.3 relating to the City Council's 2011 meeting calendar.
7.
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO ORANGE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA) FOR FUNDING UNDER
THE MEASURE M2 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
PROGRAM (CTFP). Adopt Resolution No. 2011.4 approving the submittal of the
Newport Beach Widening Project to the OCTA for funding under the M2 CTFP.
S.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO ADOPTING MOORING SUB - PERMIT FEES.
Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -5 establishing mooring sub - permit fees,. effective
immediately, as recommended by the County Board of Supervisors.
D. CONTRACTS
AND AGREEMENTS
11.
2010 -2011 SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT -
AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 4f61. a) Approve the project plans and
specifications; b) award Contract No. 4561 to Grigolla & Sons Construction Company,
Volume 60 - Page 7
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
Inc. (Grigolla & Sons) for the total bid price of $475,370.00, and authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute the contract; and c) establish an amount of $95,000,
approximately 20 percent, to cover the cost of unforeseen work and anticipated work
not included in the original project limits.
12. OASIS SENIOR CENTER REBUILD PROJECT - COMPLETION AND
ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT NO. 3888. a) Accept the completed work and
authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project; b) authorize the
City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials Bond 35 days after the Notice of
Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil
Code; and c) release the Faithful Performance Bond one year after Council
acceptance.
13. EASTBLUFF PARK AND BONITA CREEK PARK RECYCLED WATER
RETROFITS - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT NO. 4134.
a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of
Completion for the project; b) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and
Materials Bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in
accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and c) release the Faithful
Performance Bond one year after Council acceptance.
14. CORPORATION YARD FLEET SHOP CNG MODIFICATION PROJECT
(CONTRACT NO. 4815) - BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SUPPORT SERVICES. Approve Budget Amendment No. IIBA -021 appropriating
$20,000.00 from unappropriated AQMD Fund Balance 290 -3605 to Account No. 7290 -
C8002014.
15. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITH MERCHANTS
LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC. TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
FOR CITY MEDIANS AND ROADWAYS. Approve the amendment to the existing
agreement with Merchants Landscape Services, Inc. for the landscape maintenance at
OASIS Senior Center at a cost of $50,000 per year.
16. CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH RAINBOW DISPOSAL TO PROVIDE
REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE AT CITY BEACHES. Approve the ten year
agreement with Rainbow Disposal for the collection of beach refuse containers at a
cost of $127,441 per year.
17. JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT - ANNUAL AWARD. a) Approve the agreement
to transfer funds for Fiscal Year 2010, Justice Assistance Grant annual award, and
authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement per Council Policies F -3 and F.
25. Therefore, to comply with Council Policy F -3, the City Manager may accept
grants or donations of up to $30,000 on behalf of the City; and b) approve Budget
Amendment No. 11BA -027 increasing revenue estimates in the amount of $13,322 in
Account No. 129.5257, and increase expenditure appropriations in Account No. 1290-
7095.
18. FUNDING FOR MULTI -YEAR SUPPORT FOR COMPUTER AIDED
DISPATCH (CAD) AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. a) Approve an
expenditure of $161,279.29 for hardware and software support for the Police
Department's Computer Aided. Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System
(RMS) from Northrop Grumman (formerly PRC) for July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011; b)
approve an expenditure of $185,093.24 for hardware and software support for the
Police Department's CAD and RMS from Northrop Grumman for July 1, 2011 to June
Volume 60 - Page 8
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
30, 2012; c) authorize a single- source contract with Northrop Grumman, the product
manufacturer of the Police Department's CAD and RMS systems; and d) authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with the
vendor, as approved by the Office of the City Attorney.
E. MISCELLANEOUS
19. ACCEPTANCE OF THE UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCIES (UPA) GRANT
FUND ALLOCATION. a) Accept the UPA Grant Fund Allocation in the amount of
$20,000.00 to be utilized for reimbursement of the completion costs associated with
the implementation of Assembly Bill No. 2286, which requires all regulated
businesses and UPA to use the internet to file required Unified Program information
electronically; b) approve Budget Amendment No. 11BA -022 to deposit $20,000.00
UPA Grant into Account No. 2330 -489G; and c) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -44
approving the acceptance of the Unified Program Agencies (UPA) grant fund
allocation.
20. APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR TO THE COUNCIL /CITIZENS AD HOC
COMMITTEES, THE JOINT GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEES, AND THE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEES. Confirm the appointments outlined in the
staff report.
21. BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ACCEPT A CHECK FROM CALIFORNIA STATE
LIBRARY AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR LITERACY SERVICES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 10 /11. Approve Budget Amendment No. IIBA -026 to accept a check
from the California State Library to improve the Newport Beach Public Library
Literacy Services and Programs.
22. BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EMERGENCY METHANE BLOWER
REPLACEMENT AT NEWPORT TERRACE LANDFILL. Approve Budget
Amendment No. IIBA -024 transferring a total of $14,827.78 from Environmental
Liability unappropriated fund balance, 292 -3605, to Environmental Liability, Services
Professional & Technical, 3155 -8080, to fund the emergency replacement of one (1)
methane gas blower at the Newport Terrace Landfill.
S27. RESOLUTION RELATING TO ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR A STATUE OR
SIMILAR WORK HONORING THE BIRTH CENTENNIAL OF RONALD
REAGAN. Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -10 relating to accepting donations for a statue
or similar work honoring the birth centennial (February 6, 2011) of former President
Ronald Reagan.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, seconded by Council Member Rosansky to
approve the Consent Calendar, except for the items removed (3, 4, 9 and 10) and noting the
amendment to Item 1 by Council Member Daigle.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
XIII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
3. ESTABLISH UPDATED SPEED LIMITS ON CITY STREETS.
In response to Council questions, Public Works Director Badum explained how the speed
survey is used to determine speed limits on most arterials throughout the City. He further
discussed the rationale for changing the speed limits near Cameo Shores due to the transition
Volume 60 - Page 9
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
zone and indicated that speed mitigation measures can be looked at for the area. City Traffic
Engineer Brine reported that the City is no longer allowed to round down the speeds,
explained that free flowing conditions are required when the surveys are taken, and
emphasized that the speed limits need to be enforceable for the Police Department,
Regarding Vista del Oro, he stated that the speed limit was changed to make it consistent
with the rest of the street. City Manager Kiff noted that traffic calming measures will be
discussed at the next study session.
Council Member Curry pointed out that the City is acting on State mandates and that failure
to act in response to the survey means that the Police Department cannot enforce any speed
laws and the courts could not uphold speeding tickets.
Farhed Shah - Hossein, Cameo Highlands Homeowners Association Board Member, stated
that the community is opposed to increasing the speed limit and expressed concern for
pedestrian tragic.
Dan Pierson expressed concern for pedestrian traffic traveling to and from Cameo Shores to
Corona del Mar.
Robert Hawkins requested that Irvine Avenue between Westeliff and Santiago be re- surveyed
due to the configuration of the road.
Nicole Foster, Cameo Highlands, requested that the speed limits be reduced due to pedestrian
traffic. She noted that electric vehicles can only go 35 mph but the speed limit will be 45
mph. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated that leaving the speed limit at 35 mph would be a
speed trap, there is nothing written to lower the speed limit in order to encourage the use of
electric vehicles, and pedestrian counts were not conducted. Public Works Director Badum
noted that this area is signalized, as opposed to the pedestrian areas of Riverside Avenue
or Lido.
Leann Bowman, Irvine Terrace Homeowners Association Board Member, expressed concern
for pedestrian tragic if the speed limit at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road were increased
to 50 mph.
Karen Tringali provided statistical information for Cameo Highlands and expressed hope that
this information is enough to warrant reconsideration.
BJ Johnson expressed concern for the speed limits at the entrances into Corona del Mar,
believing that they are too high already.
Motion by Council Member Rosanskv, seconded by Council Member Curry to a)
introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -1 amending Chapter 12.24 (Special Speed Zones) of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code regarding increasing and decreasing State speed limits, and
pass to second reading on January 25, 2011; and b) upon final adoption of the Ordinance,
direct stag' to replace /modify all speed limit signs requiring changes to reflect new speed
limits.
Council Member Selich requested that Council Member Rosansky amend his motion to also
conduct further study on Irvine Avenue between Westeliff and Santiago, Vista del Oro in
Eastbluff, Coast Highway and Cameo Shores, and on Bayside Drive.
Curry to a) introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -1 amending Chapter 12,24 (Special Speed Zones) of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code regarding increasing and decreasing State speed limits,
and pass to second reading on January 25, 2011; b) upon final adoption of the Ordinance,
Volume 60 - Page 10
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
direct staff to replacelmodify all speed limit signs requiring changes to reflect new speed
limits; and c) direct staff to conduct further study on Irvine Avenue between Westcliff and
Santiago, Vista del Oro in Eastbluff, Coast Highway and Cameo Shores, and on Bayside
Drive.
The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
4. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE AN OPERATOR LICENSE FOR
CERTAIN ESTABLISHMENTS THAT OFFER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR ON-
SITE CONSUMPTION IN COMBINATION WITH LATE HOURS, ENTERTAINMENT,
AND /OR DANCE (PA2010 -041).
Acting Planning Director Campbell reported that the operator license would apply to new or
expanded operations, and would be looked at concurrently with the use permit process. He
noted that the license runs with the operator and is not transferrable. Associate Planner
Murillo utilized a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the operator license process and noted
that it is issued by the Police Chief, but appealable to the City Manager.
Council Member Selich expressed support for the operator license, but indicated that he
envisioned that the request would go before the Planning Commission, not the Police Chief.
Acting Planning Director Campbell indicated that staff believes that the proposed process will
allow for quicker enforcement, be a better approach, and still provide due process. He
discussed a proposed amendment (Section 5.25.050.13) relative to public noticing.
Mayor Henn requested that the Police Chief solicit public input and take that into
consideration prior to making any decisions.
Council Member Hill requested clarification relative to when a use permit ends that runs
with the land and when an operator license would begin. Council Member Selich expressed
concern that the appeal process would not reach the City Council level. City Attorney Hunt
indicated that using the same process as a use permit may make the operator license difficult
to enforce all the way to termination. Further, as written, the process provides for more
flexibility in addressing operational issues. He added that use permits convey property
rights, but licenses or permits do not have constitutional protection and are a privilege, not a
property right. Council Member Curry indicated that proposed Section 5.25.050.13 addresses
the issue of due process and noticing.
Police Chief Johnson reported that he oversaw this type of issue and had similar authority in
Long Beach He reviewed his methodology for reviewing the licenses and emphasized that he
is pro-business but businesses need to, be responsible. He indicated that it was never
conveyed to him if getting an operator license is a burden.
Associate Planner Murilllo stated that operators would only be able to appeal to the City
Manager. Mayor Henn expressed the opinion that resident should also be able to appeal the
license. City Attorney Hunt indicated that the ordinance can be amended to include this, if
desired.
Marcia Dossey believed that the City needs more establishments for dancing and suggested
that the Police Chief also review the impacts of the adjoining businesses, especially if they
have entertainment. She noted that these establishments generate revenue and agreed that
the Police Department should provide the enforcement, not Code Enforcement. She believed
that Council should be the appellant body and requested that the review period be longer
Volume 60 - Page 11
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
than 10 days.
John Kenney believed that the City should maintain a representative form of government.
Dan Pierson believed that Council should hear the appeals and expressed concern with giving
the Police Chief this type of authority.
Robert Hawkins, Planning Commissioner, believed that the Planning Commission should
make the initial findings and is able to separate the use permit and operator license issues.
He expressed concern that this process gives authority to investigate, adjudicate, and enforce
to one person. He pointed out that the operator license should not conflict with the use
permit. Acting Planning Director Campbell reported that staff is proposing Section 5.25.050.1)
that does not allow the conditions to be less restrictive than required by any applicable use
permit.
Council Member Rosansky suggested that, in order to avoid redundancy, use permits should
not address hours of operation so it does not run with the land. He recommended having the
operator license address this issue. Acting Planning Director Campbell indicated that the use
permit typically addresses hours of operation because conditions are applied to the use
permit. He noted that the Police Chief will make more restrictive conditions depending on
how the business operates and will not be changing any land use rights.
Charles Unsworth, Planning Commissioner, stated that citizens are entitled to some type of
notice. He believed that the Police Chief can provide information to the hearing board, but it
is not appropriate for him to make rules, adjudicate it, and then impose sanctions to revoke
the license.
George Schroeder noted that there are areas in the City that have overconcentration of liquor
licenses. He agreed with being pro-business but cautioned against oversaturation.
Ali Zadeh, Port Restaurant, expressed support for the Police Chiefs role since he also provides
enforcement; however, suggested more analysis before changing the law.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Gardner, seconded by Council Member Daigle to a)
introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -2 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code and
incorporating Chapter 5.25 establishing the requirement for an Operator License, and pass to
second reading on January 25, 2011, with the addition of Section 5- 25.050.B, but change the
noticing period from 10 days to 14 days; addition of Section 5.25.050.D, include the ability for
the public to appeal the operator license; and allow the decision to be appealable to the City
Council, not the City Manager; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -1 establishing the
application fee for an Operator License.
Mayor Henn noted that the noticing period requests written comments and suggested
changing the 14 days to 21 days.
Amended motion by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, seconded by Council Member Daigle
to a) introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -2 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code and
incorporating Chapter 5.25 establishing the requirement for an Operator License, and pass to
second reading on January 25, 2011, with the addition of Section 5.25.050.B, but change
the noticing period from 14 days to 21 days; addition of Section 5.25.050.1), include the ability
for the public to appeal the operator license; and allow the decision to be appealable to the
City Council, not the City Manager; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -1 establishing the
application fee for an Operator License.
Mayor Henn believed that the appeal process to the City Manager is the most legally
Volume 60 • Page 12
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
defensible method and proposed a substitute motion.
Substitute motion by Mavor Henn, seconded by Council Member Hill to a) introduce
Ordinance No. 201.1 -2 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code and incorporating
Chapter 5.25 establishing the requirement for an Operator License, and pass to second
reading on January 25, 2011, with the addition of Section 5.25.0503, but change the 10 days
to 14 days; addition of Section 5.25.050.1), include the ability for the public to appeal the
operator license; and allow the decision to be appealable to the City Manager; and b) adopt
Resolution No. 2011 -1 establishing the application fee for an Operator License.
Council Member Rosansky expressed support for trying the proposed process, noting that it
can be amended if necessary. Council Member Selich indicated that protecting the ordinance
is more important than how appeals are handled. He agreed that it can be adjusted in the
future if necessary.
The substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich,
Council Member Curry
Noes: Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Council Member Daigle
9. APPROVAL OF THE POINT OF DISPENSING SITE PLANNING SERVICES
AGREEMENT.
In response to Council Member Daigle's question, Fire Chief Morgan clarified that this would
only be activated if there was an emergency, but the City has the option to utilize flu shots as
part of a drill.
Motions Council Member Curry, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner to adopt
Resolution No. 2011 -6 approving the Point of Dispensing Planning Services Agreement for
Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 and authorizing the Mayor to act as the "Authorized Agent" to execute
for, and on behalf o$ the City any actions necessary to implement the Agreement and obtain
financial assistance provided by the County of Orange Health Care Agency.
The motion carried by the following roll can vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosanaky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry
Noes: Council Member Daigle
10. AWARD CONTRACT FOR BALBOA YACHT BASIN MANAGEMENT.
Mayor Henn requested that staff also develop a fiscal year 2011.2012 capital improvement
program for the Balboa Yacht Basin for an amount not to exceed $50,000 over the next two
years that goes beyond the maintenance items listed in the staff report.
Motion by Mayor Henn, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner to a) approve and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Basin
Marine, Inc. for Balboa Yacht :Basin management for three years; b) approve Budget
Amendment No. 11BA -023 appropriating $35,165 from the unappropriated Tidelands Fund
Balance Account No. 230 -3605 to Harbor Resources Account No. 2371 -8080; and c) direct staff
to develop a fiscal year 2011 -2012 capital improvement program for the Balboa Yacht Basin
for an amount not to exceed $50,000 over the next two years that goes beyond the
maintenance items listed in the staff report.
Volume 60 - Page 13
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
XIV. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
Mayor Pro Tem Gardner discussed the Citizens Bicycle Safety Committee meeting and announced
that they will be conducting an outreach program to solicit input relative to implementing sharrows
on Coast Highway through Corona del Mar.
Mayor Henn reported that the Finance Committee discussed pension liability, decreasing the number
of investment managers, the Request for Qualifications (R.FQ) for Citywide parking meter services,
revenue trends, and how the State budget may impact the City.
XV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
23, NEWPORT BUSINESS PLAZA (PA2008 -164) - 4699 JAMBOREE ROAD AND 5190
CAMPUS DRIVE - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2008 -007 - PLANNED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2009 -001 - TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010 -006 (COUNTY TMPM NO. 2010 -101).
City Manager Kifi' indicated that Council can require a Development Agreement (DA) or will
need to adopt findings in order to a waive the need for the DA. Acting Planning Director
Campbell explained the policies in the General Plan that require a DA, discussed why larger
projects have been required to have a DA, and highlighted NBMC Section 15.45 that provides
for conditions that could waive the requirement. He reported on the review process if a DA
was required.
In response to Council questions, Acting Planning Director Campbell indicated that applying
fair share traffic contribution fees is required regardless if there was a DA. He reported that
DAa are reviewed by Planning Commission and the City Council.
Council Member Rosansky reviewed why he feels that a DA is necessary. Council Member
Selich believed that he could make findings that would require a DA. Council Member
Daigle noted that the project is a public benefit since the location is at the gateway to the
City.
Mayor Henn opened the public hearing.
Meg Shockley, representing the applicant, discussed why the waiver is appropriate
and explained how the project has changed due to concessions they have made.
Regarding the potential public benefits that are listed on page 5, Acting Planning Director
Campbell indicated that they have not determined the costs involved with implementing the
improvements. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner indicated that she would be willing to waive the DA
if the applicant conducted some of the improvements.
John Young, applicant, indicated that they would be willing to do the first four items on the
list, as long as it was just in front of the property and not all along the main streets. He
believed that the suggested improvements would cost $50,000 to $100,000, but should be
reviewed by Public Works to determine if they are needed.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Henn closed the public hearing.
City Manager Kiff noted that the street trees should be standard size. It was the consensus of
Volume 60 - Page 14
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
Council that all the improvements should be subject to review and approval by Public Works.
Council Member Rosansky expressed support for the improvements, but believed that the
issue should be continued to January 25 for further review.
Council Member Hill believed it is appropriate to further define the DA policy for gray areas.
Motion by Council Member Daigle. seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner to a) waive
the requirement for a development agreement and approve the project as recommended in the
October 26, 2010 staff report; b) adopt Resolution No. 2011.7 which includes findings in
support of a waiver of the requirement for a development agreement for the project; c)
introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -3 approving Planned Community Development Plan
Amendment No. PD2009.001, and pass to a second reading for adoption on January 25, 2011;
and d) include as conditions of approval of the project the following public benefits, subject to
review and approval by the Public Works Department: 1) Enhanced aesthetic improvements
to the surrounding pedestrian easements, installation of non - standard sidewalks, pavers and
landscaping; 2) Improvements to the median/island at the southwest corner of Campus Drive
and Jamboree Road, including enhanced landscaping that would be maintained by the
applicant; 3) replacement of existing street trees along Campus Drive and Jamboree Road; 4)
and change-out of existing streetlights with new LED streetlight heads.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Seheb, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
24. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN SERIES 2011 HEALTH CARE
FACILITY REVENUE BONDS.
City Manager Kiff provided the staff report and noted that the item was heard by the Finance
Committee who recommended bringing this before Council for approval. Mayor Pro' Tem
Gardner emphasized that the City is not responsible for these bonds.
Mayor Henn opened the public hearing.
Dennis O Neil, representing Hoag Hospital, recommended approval and noted that the
consultants are also in attendance to answer any questions.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Henn closed the public hearing.
Motion by Council Member Rosansky. seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner to adopt
Resolution No. 2011 -8 authorizing the preparation, execution and delivery of the City of
Newport Beach Health Care Facility Revenue Bonds (Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian)
Series 2011 in an amount not to exceed $120 million, and authorizing the execution and
delivery of certain documents and directing certain actions in connection with the issuance,
sale and delivery of said bonds.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council. Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
It was the consensus of Council to hear Items 25 and 26 together.
25. AMENDMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 8 - FIRE
Volume 60 - Page 15
i
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
CODE.
26. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES AND
NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION OF THE 2009
INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND 2009 UNIFORM
SWIMMING POOL AND HOT TUB CODE.
Interim Community Development Director Fick provided the staff report, discussed the public
workshops that were conducted, and highlighted the amended recommendation relative to the
installation of sprinklers for additions or reconstruction projects.
Interim Community Development Director Fick and Fire Marshal Gamble explained the
current regulations related to sprinkler systems and the recommended amendment to the
Fire and Building Codes. They noted that the amended recommendation does not impact
smaller homes. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner noted her preference to have the threshold for
sprinklers be based on a percentage and not just percentage and square footage. Council
Member Curry stated that the proposed method could be costly for smaller homes and noted
that the amended recommendation was vetted through the Building Industry Association
(BIA). Council Member Selich expressed the opinion that a change is not needed. Interim
Community Development Director Fick introduced a proposed amendment and indicated that
the proposed amendment would have only affected six homes over the last 12 months.
Council Member Rosansky believed that the amended recommendation is a good compromise
between what Mayor Pro Tem Gardner and Council Member Selich want.
Motion by Council Member Rosansky. seconded by Council Member Curry to
introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -4 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9,
Chapter 9.04 (Fire Code), by amending Section 9.04.040, Section 9.04.060, Section 9.04.060,
Section 9.04.070, and Section 9.04.0120, including the amendment to the sprinkler system
requirement, and pass to second reading on January 25, 2011.
Mayor Henn opened the public hearing.
Brion Jeannette, architect, stated that the ordinance as written is acceptable, but added that
he supports staffs amended recommendation for sprinkler systems. He suggested including
an alternate means and methods statement that would allow the Building Official to make
amendments when the circumstance merits. Interim Community Development Director Fick
expressed support for this.
Amended motion by Council Member Rosanskv seconded by Council Member
Curry to introduce Ordinance No. 2011.4 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Title
9, Chapter 9.04 (Fire Code), by amending Section 9.04.040, Section 9.04.060, Section 9.04.060,
Section 9.04.070, and Section 9.04.0120, with the amendment to the sprinkler system
requirement and adding an alternate means and methods statement, and pass to second
reading on January 26, 2011.
The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
Regarding the Building Code, W.R. Dildine stated that no other municipality has made
amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code, took issue relative to the
Minimum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) increase from 7 to 8 for HVAC air filters; and
expressed concern that the Task Force on Green Development reviewed code issues. He
discussed commercial dishwashers, elevator standards, and the responsibility of the design
Volume 60 - Page 16
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2011
professionals. He believed that the amendments will be difficult for the Building Department
to inspect.
Mayor Pro Tem Gardner stated that several architects were members of the Task Force on
Green Development, and that a representative from the BIA attended all the meetings and
signed off on the recommendations. Deputy Building Officer Jurdi confirmed that
the ordinance is only requiring a MERV with a higher value than 7, not necessarily MERV 8.
Motion by Council Member Rosanskv, seconded by Council Member Curry to a)
introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -5 relating to adoption of the subject codes and amendments
(2010 California Building Codes and Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2009 International
Property Maintenance Code and 2009 Uniform Swimming Pool and Hot Tub Code), with the
amendment to the sprinkler system requirement and adding an alternate means and methods
statement, and pass to second reading on January 25, 2011; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011.
9 setting forth findings for the proposed amendments for adoption on January 25, 2011.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS -None
Fil,iii y s s s t
XVIII. ADJOURNMENT -10:90 p.m.
The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on January 5, 2011, at 2:60 p.m on the City
Hall Bulletin: Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building.
The supplemental agenda for the Regular. Meeting was posted on January 7, 2011, at 5:80
p.m on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach
Administration Building..
ZA , Q bWIV---
City Clerk
Volume 60 - Page 17
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
City Council Regular Meeting
January 25, 2011 — 7:00 p.m.
I. STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m
II. CLOSED SESSION - 5:58 p.m
A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code & 54956.9
JaD: One matter:
Statue Report on Pending Litigation: We will report on a global basis on all pending
litigation involving the City. This is an informational item only. No action, however, may
be taken on any item unless it is specifically noticed below.
Basabe vs. Avila, at at, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30.201000433049.
Pacific Shores va. City of Newport Beach, USDC Case No. SACV 08 -00457 AG (PLAx).
Newport Coast Recovery vs. City of Newport Beach, USDC Case No. SACV 09 -0701
DOC (ANx).
B. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code 154957(b)(1)):
The City Council will meet in closed session to consider the appointment, employment,
evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of two public employees.
Titles: City Manager and City Clerk
C. Conference with Legal Counsel - Exposure to Litigation (Government Code $
54956.9(b)):
Potential exposure to litigation from allegations that the Morningside Zoning Agreement
was not properly adopted under state law.
III. RECESS
IV. RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
V. ROLL CALL
Present: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn,
Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
VI. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
- .City Attorney Hunt reported that just prior to entering into tonight s Closed Session, Council vote[
unanimously to add Morn u. City of Newport Beach which has threatened litigation arising out o:
the Morninevaide Settlement Agreement. The item arose after the Closed Session Agenda was
posted. No reportable action was taken with the exception of the matter of Basabe v. Avila, et at foi
Volume 60 - Page 23
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 26, 2011
which Council voted 7 -0 to authorize defense of the matter.
VH. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member Rosansky
VIIL INVOCATION - Reverend Karl Stuckenberg, Newport Center United Methodist Church
Q
Proclamation Designating February 6, 2011, as Ronald Reagan Day - Mayor Henn read the
proclamation and presented it to Larry Porricelli, Regency Theaters District Manager.
X NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
t"
Council Member Hill announced that he and his colleagues attended the OPIS Network "Helping
100 Businesses in 100 Days" workshop.
Mayor Pro Tom Gardner announced that the Citizens Bicycle Safety Committee will meet on
Monday, February 7 at 4:30 p.m. in the Fire Conference Room.
Council Member Daigle announced that she attended the business workshop and stated that it is
the City's intent to remain proactive with respect to business. She reported that a makeup session
of the "Helping 100 Businesses in 100 Days workshop will be held this Saturday at 9:00 a.m. at
the OASIS Senior Center.
Council Member Curry encouraged everyone to take advantage of "Restaurant Week." He
announced that he attended in the Police promotion ceremony. He noted the premier of the film
Ronald Reagan. - An American .tourney on Thursday at 7:30 p.m. at the Lido Theater and noted
that attendees will have an opportunity to view a clay model of the Reagan memorial and meet the
artist.
Council Member Selich attended the 1/1 Marine Foundation Beach Challenge fundraiser to raise
money to assist marines with unexpected expenses for their families.
Mayor Henn discussed the Ill Marine Foundation fundraiser and related events. He encouraged
everyone to participate in the February 5 e -waste collection event from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at
the Newport Coast Community Center and the February 5 Council Priority Goal Setting Session at
the OASIS Senior Center at 8:30 a.m. He reported that he also attended the Sister Cities dinner,
the Speak Up Newport event, the launch party for Restaurant Week, and multiple D.A.R.E
graduations. He announced that his newest granddaughter, Reagan Victoria, was born a week ago
today at Hoag Hospital.
XII. CONSENT CALENDAR
B. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
8. CITYWIDE SPEED LIMIT ORDINANCE - SECOND READING. (100-20111
a) Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2011 -1 amending Chapter
12.24 (Special Speed Zones) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code regarding
increasing and decreasing State speed limits; and b) direct staff to replace/modify
all speed limit signs requiring changes to reflect new speed limits.
Volume 60 - Page 24
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 25, 2011
C.
D.
5. NEWPORT BUSINESS PLAZA (PA2008 -164) - 4699 JAMBOREE ROAD
AND 5190 CAMPUS DRIVE - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
GP2008 -007 - PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. PD2009 -001 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010-
006 (COUNTY TMPM NO. 2010 -101). [100 -20111 a) Conduct second reading
and adopt Ordinance No. 2011 -3 approving Planned Community Development
Plan Amendment No. PD2009 -001 to amend the Koll Center Newport Planned
Community text.
6. AMENDMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 9 -
FIRE CODE. 1100 -20111 Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No-
2011-4 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.04 (Fire
Code), by amending Section 9.04.040, Section 9.04.050, Section 9.04 -060, Section
9.04.070, and Section 9.04.0120.
7. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING
CODES AND NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION OF
THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND
2009 UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL AND HOT TUB CODE. [100 -20111 a)
Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2011 -5 relating to adoption of
amendments to the 2010 California Building Codes and Newport Municipal Code,
and adoption of the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code and 2009
Uniform Swimming Pool and Hut Tub Code; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -9
setting forth findings for the proposed amendments.
8. PUBLIC PIER TIME LIMITS AND RULES: ORDINANCE RELATING TO
AMENDING THE TIME LIMITS AND RULES FOR THE CITY'S PUBLIC
PIERS. [100 -20111 Introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -6 amending Newport Beach
Municipal Code Section 17.01.030, Section 17.25.010, and Section 11.20.060 which
amends the time limits and rules for the City's public piers, including the added
definition for "Dinghy" or "Tender," and pass to second reading on February 8,
2011,
9. BUCK GULLY RESTORATION PROJECT - CONTRACT NO. 3780 -
ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND).
[28/100 -20111 Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -12 approving the Buck Gully
Restoration Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) on the basis of the entire
environmental review record.
10. RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE PAYING AND REPORTING OF THE
VALUE OF THE EMPLOYER PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTION FOR
PART -TIME EMPLOYEES AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. 1100 -20111
Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -13 to modify the paying and reporting of the value of
the Employer Paid Member Contribution to the California Public Employees
Retirement System (PERS) for Part -time Employees and City Council Members.
E. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
12. DREDGING REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT RENEWAL AND SEDIMENT
Volume 60 - Page 25
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 25, 20 11
TESTING - APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH NEWFIELDS (C- 41718). 1381100 -2011] Approve a Professional Services
Agreement with NewFields for sediment analytical services for the renewal of the
Citys RGP -54 at a contract price of $112,500, and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the agreement.
18. PURCHASE OF 2011 JUNIOR LIFEGUARD PROGRAM UNIFORMS. [100-
2011] Award the 2011 City of Newport Beach Junior Lifeguard Program uniform
purchase to Quiksilver, for the total cost of $138,000, plus tax.
14. GRANT OF EASEMENT AND JOINT USE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT -
2700 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (C- 4715). [381100 -2011] Approve the Grant of
Easement and Joint Use Maintenance Agreement between the City and Mariners
Mile Company (Ned McCune, Grantor and General Partner).
F. ( MCELLANEOUS
16. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JANUARY 20, 2011. [100-
2011] Receive and file written report.
18. PAPER REDUCTION PROJECT - I- PAD /TABLET PILOT. [200-
2011] Receive and file.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tam Gardner, seconded by Council Member Rosansky to approve
the Consent Calendar, except for the items removed (1, 2, 4, 11, 16, 17, 18 and 20)
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tam Gardner, Mayor Henn,
Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
1. MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY
11, 2011. [100 -2011)
In addition to the amendments provided to Council, Council Member Hill requested that
page 2 of the minutes be amended to read, "...believed that more pedestrian pods are
needed..."
Motion by Council Member Curry. seconded by Council Member Rosanskv to
waive reading of subject minutes, approve as amended, and order filed.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tam Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS.
Jim Mosher reminded Council that the City, in accordance with Cbarter Section 4.12, is
required to read at least the titles of each ordinance and resolution before adoption.
City Attorney Hunt responded similar to his response in October 2010 that this is a
convention utilized as part of the City's culture and that it does not result in any failure to
report or provide information to the public. All of the City's agendas, agenda items,
Volume 60 - Page 26
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 25, 2011
ordinances and resolutions are posted on the internet. The nuance exists that Council has
the power to control its own agenda and, in his opinion, the Council need not take action
contrary to its current practice to fulfill its obligation.
Motion by Council Member Selicb, seconded by Council Member Rosansky to
waive reading in full of all ordinances.and resolutions under consideration, and direct City
Clerk to read by title only.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
4. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -2 PERTAINING
TO A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE AN OPERATOR LICENSE
FOR CERTAIN ESTABLISHMENTS THAT OFFER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
FOR ONSITE CONSUMPTION IN COMBINATION WITH LATE HOURS,
ENTERTAINMENT, AND /OR DANCE (PA2010 -041). [100 -20111
Milo, speaking as a musician, believed that the proposed ordinance would allow police to
blame the musicians and certain ethnic groups for crowd disruption. Mayor Henn
explained that there is an appeal right through the City Manager.
Mayor Pro Tem Gardner stated that she was also opposed to the ordinance but would
further consider the matter.
Council Member Hill pointed out that the ordinance does not focus on musicians and
crowds, but on the operator of the establishment.
Motion by Council Member Hilh seconded by Council Member Rosansky to a)
conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2011 -2 amending the Newport Beach
Municipal Code and incorporating Chapter 5.25 establishing the requirement for an
Operator License; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -11 establishing the fee for filing an
appeal of the Chief of Police'& determination on an Operator License.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Hems, Council Member
Selich, Council Member Curry
Noes: Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Council Member Daigle
11. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JON C. KINLEY DBA
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION SERVICES (ECIS) FOR
GREASE CONTROL DEVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM, GREASE CONTROL
DEVICE PLAN REVIEW AND SERVICES, AND POST SANITARY SEWER
OVERFLOW INSPECTIONS. [281100 -20111
In response to Council questions, City Manager Kiff stated that in the past, the City has
not charged for this type of inspection because the City believes that the inspections are
essential to keeping the bay and ocean free from sewer spills. He also stated that, if a
restaurant has a tank that was less than 750 gallons, the facility would be subject to more
frequent maintenance depending on the type of food provided by the establishment. No
establishment is required to go back and reinstall a larger receptor. However, new
improvements would require compliance with the 750 gallon tank requirement.
Motion by Council Member Curry, seconded by Council Member Rosansky to
Volume 60 -Page 27
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 26, 2011
approve an agreement with ECIS for grease control device inspection program, plan review
services and post sanitary sewer overflow inspection services for one year with an option of
two one -year extensions, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
agreement.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem. Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
lb. CORONA DEL MAR WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN - PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT NO. 4603. [381100 -20111
Dick Nichols stated that he was not clear whether this report pertains to a water or sewer
main. He also asked what it was supposed to do, why it was needed at this time, and why
the City needed a 30 -inch main going to a 24 -inch main. City Manager Kiff reported that
the City has a Water Main Master Plan. Each year the Council assigns money from the
water rate revenue to continue upgrading the City's water main system on a priority basis,
depending on the age of the main, and this project is consistent with the City's Master
Plan. Council Member Daigle added that this project is related to a water transmission
main since it comes from the Big Canyon Reservoir.
Motion by Council Member Curry, seconded by Council Member Selich to approve
a Professional Services Agreement with PSOMAS of Santa Ana, for design and
construction support services at a not-to -exceed fee of $302,617, and authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute the agreement.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tern Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
17. REQUEST FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER SPECIALTY LITIGATION
COSTS - PARTICULARLY GROUP HOMES LITIGATION. 1100 -20771
Council Member Daigle questioned the Specialty Litigation Costs, indicating that footnote
2 stated that the Office of the City Attorney is prepared and capable of handling thiE
matter in -house if directed to do so. She wondered whether it might be more cost- effective
to handle these matters with outside counsel. City Manager Kiff responded that he
believed Council Member Daigle was referring to the Morn v. City of Newport Beach mattea
during which he identified the amount of money he anticipated it would coat the City tc
litigate the case should it actually be filed and pursued. Council Member Curry states
that he would defer to the City Attorney to determine whether a matter should be handles
in -house or referred to outside counsel because the City has a good track record it
successfully dealing with these types of issues.
Council Member Selich indicated that he appreciated that this matter was before the
Council now rather than after monies have been spent.
Denys Oberman asked why the City decided to enter into a 26 -year agreement with 2
business owner who has refused to comply and who apparently disrespects this community
and this business owner was not required to apply for a use permit in a manner required o:
other similar business owners. City Attorney Hunt responded that this is a very complex
issue that was addressed in the context of the Morningside Zoning Agreement for wbiet
many public hearings were held and that matter is not the subject of the matter at hand.
Volume 60 - Page 28
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 25, 2011
He believed that the speaker's questions go beyond the scope of the published agenda. The
Council deliberated the matter and determined that this project brings value to the City
'that renders this matter worth pursuing and this item simply addresses the cost of that
matter, should it be filed and prosecuted. Mayor Henn stated that it is germane to the
City's obligation to defend the matter and City Attorney Hunt agreed.
Dick Nichols stated that this item is about group homes and that the business is supposed
to have a license to operate these types of homes. Mayor Henn pointed out that this item
is about a budget amendment.
Jim Mosher stated that he could not understand what amount is being requested_ City
Manager Kiff stated that the $262,000 is intended to cover the budget for the balance of
the year. The other amount is what he forecasted for the balance of the year that was
available from other budget accounts. The net budget increase is $262,000.
Lori Morris believed that Mr. Nichol'e question was valid. City Attorney Hunt explained
that this request is for monies for out-of-pocket expenses the City would likely incur as a
result of multiple litigations during the balance of the year. It highlights where the money
has been spent to date and what he anticipates will be spent for the balance of the next six
months. There is a possibility that a small portion of that amount may be utilized should
the City be sued by Morningside Recover and whether, in that event, the City Council will
decide to utilize in -house counsel or seek outside counsel. He emphasized that he wanted
the Council to see what the anticipated expense would be for the balance of the year. This
item is not about Morniageide Recovery and this agenda item is not specifically about
group homes, but discusses the expenses for outside counsel and the need to augment the
City's budget to cover those expenses.
Motion by Council Member Selich, seconded by Council Member Rosansky to
approve Budget Amendment No. 11BA -028 to transfer $262,900 from reserves to budget
line item 0510.8657 in order to cover the cost of Group Homes litigation and other
specialty litigation year to date and through the balance of the year.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
18. REVIEW OF OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MISSION, GOALS AND
STANDARDS. [100 -20111
Jim Mosher believed that the Office of the City Attorney needs to improve its interface
with the public. He urged Council to scrutinize this office more carefully.
Motion by Council Member Selich, seconded by Council Member Rosansky to
receive and file.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
20. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL POLICY F -14 AND PURCHASING
POLICY F-5. [I00 -20111
City Manager Kiff presented amended language relative to reporting out contract
Volume 60 - Page 29
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 25, 2011
information to Council.
Jim Mosher questioned Council's desire to delegate contracting authority to certain staff
members and asked whether the Brown Act would be subverted. He requested that typos
be corrected.
City Attorney Hunt stated that there is no issue with respect to the Brown Act since the
provision states that it is a notification and it is not polling the Council- He added that, if
any Council Member wishes to have an issue brought to them regarding an emergency
contract, that one Council Member can take that action.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Gardner's questions, City Attorney Hunt explained that
"Department Director" is clear within the organization and the Municipal Code needs to be
updated because the City is currently reorganizing. He stated that staff is comfortable
that Department Director titles meet the City's needs for the long term. He indicated that
he was not familiar with any conflict between F -5 and F -14 and that the City Clerk's Office
maintains contracts.
Motion by Council Member Curry, seconded by Council Member Rosanskv to
adopt Resolution No. 2011 -16 amending Council Policies F -14 (Authority to Contract for
Services) and F -5 (Purchasing Authority for Goods and Materials).
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
XIV. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES - None
XV. CURRENT BUSINESS
21. MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
PERMIT (PA2010 -046) - 36 RIDGELINE DRIVE - TELECOM PERMIT NO. 2010 -005
- REQUEST FOR A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT TO
INSTALL A SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM. (100-
20111
Acting Planning Director Campbell provided the staff report. Council Member Curry
abstained from participating in this decision because, although he lives outside of the 500
foot notification radius, he can see the facility.
Motion by Council Member Rosanskv, seconded by Council Member Selich to a)
review the application, pursuant to Section 15.70.070(F) of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011.16 approving Telecommunications Permit No.
2010 -005, subject to the findings and conditions of approval.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner,
Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Daigle
Abstain: Council Member Curry
Without objection, it was the consensus of Council to consider Item 23. prior to
discussing Item 22.
Volume 60 - Page 30
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 25, 2011
23. FIRST READING AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTIONS 6.04.070 AND 6.040.240 OF TITLE 6 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COLLECTION OF GARBAGE AND
RECYCLABLES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 6.04. [100-
20111
Police Lieutenant Martin thanked staff for their help in drafting the proposed ordinance
and provided the staff report.
Mayor Pro Tem. Gardner asked who should be called when violations are witnessed and Lt.
Martin responded that either Code Enforcement or the Police Department. However, his
department prefers to respond to more significant violations because higher priority calls
might be delayed.
Mayor Henn stated that it was his understanding that adjacent cities have more stringent
ordinances that call for tougher penalties and, as a result, Newport Beach has been widely
known as a target of opportunity and low risk. Lt. Martin agreed and stated that if the
proposed ordinance is adopted, it will give enforcement much greater leverage to
prosecute. Mayor Henn stated that given these facts it would be incumbent upon staff to
make sure that it is widely publicized that Newport Beach has put themselves in the ranks
of other cities that have implemented this type of policy and for enforcement to make some
arrests. Although this may be a low priority matter, he would encourage the Police
Department to raise the priority to a higher level and make some arrests. He asked if this
ordinance permitted the impounding of vehicles. Lt. Martin responded that if the police
department arrests the commercial operator, the vehicle can be impounded.
Council Member Rosansky asked if this kind of behavior was typically done at night and
Lt. Martin responded that the usual times are early morning and early afternoon, but it
can occur at any hour.
Motion by Council Member Rosanskv. seconded by Mavor Henn to introduce
Ordinance No. 2011 -7 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 6.04.070 and
6.040.240 of Title 6 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code pertaining to collection of
garbage and recyclables and penalties for violations of chapter 6.04, and pass to second
reading on February S, 2011.
Mayor Pro Tem Gardner pointed out that the offenders seem to know the trash pickup
schedule.
Cindy Roller thanked Chief Johnson and the Police Department for their responses and
proposing these changes because she believed it would make a difference on the Peninsula
since there are daily occurrences in her area.
Dan Persol thanked Council for considering this new ordinance.
Lori Morris thanked Chief Johnson and the officers who respond quickly when called. She
believed that the new ordinance will greatly deter the offenders.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council. Member Roaansky, Mayor Pro Tem. Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Sehrh, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
22.. LIDO VILLAGE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. (100 -20111
Acting Planning Director Campbell provided the staff report and recommended that if
Volume 60 -Page 31
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 25, 2011
appropriate, the City Council approve Alternative 5B. Tim Collins, TC Collins and
Associates, announced that tonight's presentation materials will he uploaded to the City s
website. He indicated that this presentation would conclude hi company's contract
obligations with respect to this project, but that his firm would be available for further
input should the Council so determine. Mr. Collins presented an overview of the
conceptual plan as he moved through the PowerPoint presentation that included
additional information and conclusions set forth by Council during the January 11 Study
Session. Todd Lerner, William Hezmalhalch Architects, spoke about the architectural
structure of the plan as it would beet function within the footprint, and how it would beet
capture the synergy of the surrounding uses and merge the indoor /outdoor lifestyle of
Newport Beach for the current and long term future uses.
City Manager Kiff discussed the City's community centers and their programs and how the
proposed facility would enhance those programs. He further outlined staff a
recommendation.
In response to Council questions, City Manager Mff stated that there would be some
repetition in facilities and programming but the primary need for the community is the full
sized gym; due to challenges during the recent storm with the waves coming so close to the
lifeguard facility and parking lot, it would be appropriate to consider relocating that
facility to perhaps the Marina Park where portions of the facility could be used as training
rooms; since it consistent with coastal uses; and a smaller second story gym could be
contained within the height limits shown on the drawings, but a full size gym would
probably require adding 10 to 15 feet to the facility height.
Mayor Pro Tem Gardner recalled that the Council had not reached full agreement on the
retail aspect of the plan and asked for further discussion on that subject this evening. She
stated that she was concerned because there had been some very thoughtful public input
that was in conflict with earlier discussions.
Council Member Daigle stated that she also has concerns about whether the City would be
further restricted with respect to future retail. In addition, she confirmed that the
discussion about housing type would require further study because no decision had been
reached.
Council Member Hill stated that, although building the community center would take
away from the profitability of the site, he believed that this is a good opportunity for a
community center. He added that, if the City could achieve the community center with
little or no capital cost and produce a revenue stream to pay for the ongoing operations
costa, that would be the perfect solution. He expressed support for including the gym,
believed the gym would draw individuals to the retail areas, and the gym would offer a
synergistic marketing opportunity. He noted that, if the City closed the 15kh Street
community center, it could be leased and that location could be used for assisted living
housing, and the the money could be pledged into COPS which may be able to fund the
capital costa to build the center. He suggested keeping Finley Avenue as joint use and
believed that the canal would be costly to construct and maintain. He emphasized that the
area needs to remain a space for people. He expressed opposition to building the sky bridge
since it would take people away from the retail environment; however, the sky bridge path
should be the path for the public. He requested that the loading area be fully screened
with an articulated concrete wall on the sent side.
Mayor Henn indicated that he agreed with the community that Council should move
forward carefully. He emphasized that thiais a concept plan only and this matter will not
Volume 60 - Page 32
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 25, 2011
be concluded this evening since Council has many facets to consider before reaching final
decisions, like determining how the specific planning for the area proceeds forward with
the concept plan as a launching platform, and as Council continues to refine it, more public
input is received, and financial analysis is completes.
Don Howard, Duda Company, representing the owners of the Via Lido Plaza, expressed
support for Alternative 5B. He asked that Council approve the concept this evening with
two exceptions: 1) removal of the sky bridge and 2) further discover the opportunities for
access on Finley Avenue. Mr. Howard stated that his group strongly encourages a parking
management study that includes taking a close look at the party boat permitting process
and how those permits would impact the parking apace availability required for the retail
operators. Mr. Howard submitted additional letters of support from tenants and property
owners.
Council Member Selich believed that the grocery store area had been increased and that
there were insufficient parking spaces. Mr. Howard stated that at Alternative 5B would
include rooftop parking spaces.
Hugh Helm, Lido Isle resident, stated that he appreciated Mayor Henn's comments about
the Council taking time to complete its due diligence in order to make the best possible
decision. He encouraged Council to work out the lot line adjustment issue with Via Lido to
allow them to proceed with their planning. He agreed that the project is an effort to
revitalize the area so the City is successful in the future and is designed to be a
destination. He added that the Lido Isle Homeowner Association agrees that the canal and
slip bridge should be eliminated, and recommended market value housing.
Louise Fundenberg, Central Newport Beach Homeowner Association, asked that the
Council delay its decision until more outreach is conducted and other alternatives are
considered. She indicated that the association believes that the City should move forward
with the lot line adjustment and retain Finley Avenue access, but not commit to
development restrictions that would limit the value of the property.
Lyndon Golin, Regency Theaters, stated that he would welcome any enhancements to the
communal experience of the theater and the center in general.
Craig Battey agreed with Mayor Henn about slowing down the process and congratulated
the City on holding seven public input meetings because people need to understand the
project. He stated that he did not understand what adopting the concept plan means, how
the project would move forward, and what components would be included and
implemented.
Bob Rush believed that the discussion and analysis is incomplete and wondered what
would be agreed upon tonight and whether a center would attract the type of visitor that
would provide sufficient revenue to sustain it.
Linda Klein, Lido Isle, stated that she was surprised about how many rehabilitation
clients are in the area and expressed the opinion that their presence would deter residents
and visitors away from the center.
Robin Sinclair remembered the communal spirit that existed 25 years ago and would love
to have a revitalized area downtown rather than having to go to Fashion Island.
Denys Oberman felt that some of the proposed uses might cannibalize hotel uses but
Volume 60 - Page 33
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 25, 2011
supports the destination and urged Council to commit to the anchor uses before City Hall
uses were finalized. She also encouraged Council to look at market rate residential uses
that would be compatible with surrounding uses, rather than assisted living and affordable
housing which would be more suitable for other areas.
Willie Longyear stated that he would like Council to consider an open space/central plaza
with high quality housing. He believed that the Lido Village seems to have been taken
over by recovery homes which has placed a burden on the area.
Dave Olson, Via Lido Drug, felt the project would work to the benefit of the community and
other retailers in the area.
Lori Morrie stated that residents may benefit from the proposed uses but expressed
concern that meeting rooms and some businesses would be taken over by rehabilitation
facilities. She also expressed concern about parking and agreed that the canal should be
removed, stated no preference relative to the sky bridge, but stated that people need to
cross the street. safely. She also felt an anchor hotel would help. .
Mayor Pro Tem. Gardner felt that if the meeting rooms were staffed with City personnel,
there would be strict operating hours and users would not be allowed to linger.
Motion by Mavor Henn, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Gardner to approve the
amended Alternative 5B as the concept plan, with the following changes: 1) Village center
size up to 15,000 square feet, subject to further review upon receipt of a master plan study
from staff for City facilities and programming in the westside of Newport Beach; 2) a
residential element of approximately 85 dwelling units of market rate housing; 3) no
determination for now as to inclusoin of retail elements on the site; 4) elimination of the
sky bridge; 5) retention of greenbelt and public plaza areas, but deferral of canal feature
pending further study for feasibility and cost; 6) require parking demand for party boats
docked at Lido Marina to be satisfied outside the planning area upon rebuilding of the
marina; and 7) incorporation of points of consensus reached at the Council Study Session
of January 11, 2011, to the extent not inconsistent with this motion, including dual access
for Finley Avenue, the need to complete the Via Lido Plaza lot line adjustment quickly,
willingness to consider density increases in return for open area, and willingness to
consider height variances in return for improved view plans and more open apace.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
24. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL AND STAFFING CHANGES IN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
1100 -20111
City Manager Iliff provided the staff report and requested that Council approve the
staffing changes outlined in the staff report.
In response to Council questions, City Manager Riff explained the division of duties,
indicated that he is considering contracting out some of the services but has not made a
decision about moving forward in that direction at this time, and believed the City has not
clearly defined economic development to determine whether this can be handled in-
house.
Volume 60 - Page 34
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 25, 2011
M1
Council Member Hill congratulated City Manager Kiff on this thought process and
direction. He viewed the Deputy Community Development Director position as an
ombudsman for business and an overview position that could coordinate fur, traffic, etc.
He believed the economic development function should report directly to the Community
Development Director. In the essential job duties description, he suggested adding a bullet
dedicated to economic development.
Council Member Curry congratulated staff on improving the City's operations and said he
would like to see a more customer centric focus as a part of these changes.
Council Member Daigle felt it was essential to modernize the City's organization and
agreed that the Deputy Community Development Director should oversee all areas of
concern for better integration.
Mayor Henn stated that he was pleased to move into this phase of organization and
encouraged the inclusion of a strategic IT plan.
Jim Mosher expressed concern that regarding the proposal since these changes, according
to the Charter, require an ordinance.
City Attorney Hunt agreed, but reported that there will need to be a change to the
ordinance and staff requires direction from Council in order to make those changes. He
added that once staff has direction from Council the ordinance will be brought before the
Council for approval-
Motion by Council Member Sel'ch, seconded by Council Member Rosansky to
approve proposed staffing and organizational changes for the Community Development
Department and City Manager's Office.
City Manager Kiff noted that he will add customer service and economic development
bullets to the Community Development Director's job description.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor
Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle
Joel Ojora, Protect Our Parks, reminded Council that it has been 6% years since a hotel at the
Marina Park site had been rejected by the voters and 54 years since a park was recommended on
the site. He asked for a status report on the Marina Park project with emphasis on the resource
analysis and where the project fits in the City{s overall vision.
Mayor Henn indicated that there has been a lot of work done on the Marina Park project and
believed that a meeting of the Marina Park Committee would be held in about a month to update
the residents.
Craig Morrisette, Central Newport Beach Community Association, stated that the association is
disappointed that the Marina Park project was not on the Coastal Commission's January 2011
agenda. He indicated that the association members are ready to help move this item forward and
would be willing to attend Coastal Commission meetings in other jurisdictions.
Diane Romick, Pacific Ridge, presented a thank you card to Detective Prouty who assisted with the
arrest of individuals who had overtaken a property in her neighborhood.
Volume 60 - Page 36
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 26, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Gardner hoped that Council consider moving Public Comments to an earlier spot
on the agenda.
XVII. MQTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None
XVIII. ADJOURNMENT -10:22 p.m.
The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on January 19, 2011, at 4:10 p.m. on the
City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration
Building. The supplemental agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on January 21,
2011, at 4:44 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport
Beach Administration Building.
tX k. "'�
City Clerk
Mayor
Volume 60 - Page 36
Agenda Item No. 13
Public Comments
November 30, 2013
Newport Beach City Council
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to ask the Newport Beach City Council to lower the speed limit on Tustin Avenue between
Santiago Drive and 23rd street, from the current limit of 30 miles per hour, to 25 miles per hour. The
change may seem small, but it would send the right message to proceed more carefully through this
quiet residential neighborhood where children play, people walk their dogs, jog, and socialize.
I and my family live in a home located at 2291 Tustin Avenue. We have lived in our home for two years.
During that time I have become increasingly concerned about the speed of cars driving through this
neighborhood. It seems that many cars use this street to short -cut from Kaiser School to Costa Mesa
neighborhoods. My daughters ride their bikes to school and with cars speeding through our street, it is
very dangerous. It can also be dangerous to pull out from our driveway, particularly during the morning
hours. This problem is compounded by the absence of stop signs at the 23rd street and Tustin Avenue
intersection, where cars accelerate from 23`d onto Tustin Avenue.
We've also noticed that late at night, particularly weekends, cars speed through this street, using it as a
race course. There is an increasing feel of lawlessness on this street. I believe that lowering the speed
limit will help make this neighborhood safer.
Sincere reg ds, % yn
y
Bill, Anne, Katherir>e, and Elizabeth Lyon
2291 Tustin Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
February 4, 2014
Newport Beach City Council
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to ask the Newport Beach City Council to lower the speed limit on Tustin Avenue
between
22nd and 23rdstreet, from the current limit of 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. I ride my
bike often and walk with my dogs, and have found it to be dangerous, as many cars are driving
with excessive speed down the street. I and my family live in a home located on Vista Baya.
I have become increasingly concerned about the speed of cars driving through our
neighborhood. It seems that many cars use this street to short-cut from Santa Ana to avoid the
traffic and crossing guard on that street. I have found that I have almost been rear ended while
trying to turn onto my street while waiting for oncoming traffic to pass. It can also be
dangerous to pull out from our street as cars are moving extremely fast during the morning and
evening hours.
This problem is compounded by the absence of stop signs at the 23rdstreet and Tustin Avenue
intersection, where cars accelerate from 23rd onto Tustin Avenue.
I ask you to please reduce the speed to 25mph, have law enforcement enforce that speed and
look at traffic calming procedures.
Sinc a y,
Pam Do C) 1Ac_''_ �C C) _ OSt /�
387 Vista Baya 7
January 29, 2014
Newport Beach City Council
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to ask the Newport Beach City Council to lower the speed limit on Tustin Ave between 23'd
and 2nd street back to 25mph. The change may be small, however it would send the right message to
drivers to proceed more slowly though this quiet residential neighborhood. I am concerned not only for
my safety; as I walk though this area on the street due to the lack of sidewalks, but also for the children
that ride to and from school to Kaiser, Newport Harbor and Ensign. The road is a narrow road way and
when cars are driving past children on their bikes the cars have to swerve into the opposite side of the
street to go around them; these cars are driving excessively fast and often the drivers are texting or
talking on their cell phone. By reducing the speed to 25mph, and having police enforce that speed limit,
you would increase safety, while at the same time sending a message to the drivers.
It has become apparent many of these drivers are using this section of Tustin as a cut - though deviating
from Santa Ana or even Irvine and speeding down our street. By slowing the speed down and engaging
modest police enforcement, it will be safer for the children and other residents riding their bikes and or
walking. I am asking you for my safety and for the safety of the children, to please reduce the speed
back to 25mph of which it had been for many years.
Sincerely,
Steve Johnson
ROBERT FASULO
January 27, 2014
Newport Beach City Council
c/o Todd Macfarland
Newport Beach
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to support the effort to reduce the speed limit to 25 MPH on Tustin Avenue
between 22nd and 23rd streets in Newport Beach.
As a family of four with two young children, and with many other children in this
neighbourhood, we are concerned that drivers use this section of Tustin Avenue as a cut
through to get to Irvine Avenue or to Newport Boulevard.
On a regular basis, we have witnessed drivers at elevated speeds in front of our home
on 2285 Tustin.
We would very much encourage and support this change for the well -being and safety
of the residents of this part of Newport Beach.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincer
C
Rober
Robert Fasulo Internauonal LLC
2285 Tustin Ave - Newport Beach, CA 92660 - USA
Mob: ( +I 949) 7350479 ♦ email: rlf@roberdasulo.com
November 15i° 2013
To: Newport Beach City Council,
I'm writing to let you know of my concern for the safety of myself, my dog, and other residents of my
Vista Baya & Tustin Avenue neighborhood. Since there are no sidewalks between Santiago and 23rd
Street, we have to walk in the street. Many of cars travelling on Tustin Avenue do so at a high rate of
speed. This creates a hazardous situation for pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers, children and the elderly.
All of these residents are out there on a daily basis; from before the sun rises, all day long, until way
after dark.
The speed limit on Tustin Avenue should be lowered to 25 miles per hour. Not to do so, creates a huge
liability for the City of Newport Beach. I urge you to address this situation before someone is severely
hurt.
Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter.
Regards,
1
Charles . Groux
2534 Vista Baya
Newport Beach, CA 92660
2500 Vista Baya
Newport Beach, CA 92660
November 17, 2013
City of Newport Beach, CA
100 City Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Madams /Sirs:
As a current resident of Newport Beach, CA, it is my hope that the speed limit on Tustin Avenue gets
reduced. My family and I reside on Vista Baya, which is directly off of Tustin Avenue, and many vehicles
travel Tustin Avenue in order to have access to their residences and the many places of business we are
fortunate to have at our disposal. In addition to motor vehicles, Tustin Avenue is also used by area
residents for walking and bike riding, especially those children attending local schools. In the best
interest of safety, it would be beneficial to all of us if the speed limit is lowered and enforced.
Respectfully yours,
Virgi is Gan car
February 2, 2014
Newport Beach City Council
Dear Council Members,
It is our belief that the speed limit through our neighborhood on Tustin Avenue between 23rd
Street and Santiago Drive is presently too fast for the safety of the pedestrian traffic sharing that
avenue. Our family regularly bikes and walks on our street and the cars seem to zip past
awfullyfast. Sometimes drivers can be seen accelerating from either end of this segment while
also looking at their phones.
We live on Vista Baya, a cul de sac and are thus obligated to use this portion of Tustin Avenue
for walking or biking. Our family's safety is jeopardized by this higher speed that is not proper
for a residential neighborhood which has no businesses anywhere within the area defined.
A speed of 25 MPH seems reasonable and proper for a residential neighborhood. We're sure
the City might have had a reasonable and proper reason for setting the current speed to 30
MPH; however, since it seems clear that no reasonable justification has been given, nor can be
provided to the public, for maintaining this higher speed than is considered appropriate for a
fully residential neighborhood, our family will greatly appreciate the increased safety brought
about by lowering the current speed to 25 MPH.
Thank you for your time and prudence,
Dr. Russ and Laura Alterman
393 Vista Baya "ZJ/lz -"
Newport Beach, CA 92660
October 13, 2013
Members of the Newport Beach City Council:
My name is Sadie Kelly and I am a long time resident of Meadow Lane in Newport Beach. This
letter is to express my concern about all of the speeding drivers along Tustin Avenue between
22nd and 23rd streets. I walk there with my friends almost every evening. Each time we are
extremely nervous. There are no sidewalks, which lead us to walking in the street, and there
are no streetlights, which create an even more dangerous element to our exercising. For years
now I have witnessed many of these fast and unsafe drivers and I would like something done
about it. A reduction in the speed limit on Tustin Ave in this area would be a good start. Please
consider our neighborhood's safety.
Thank you,
Agenda Item No. 13
Todd Macfarland Public Comments
From: Geoffrey Willis [GWillis @sheppardmullin.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:31 PM
To: Todd Macfarland
Subject: Fwd: Speed Limit for Tustin Ave. Between 22nd and 23rd
Per our discussion.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Harp, Aaron" <aharp @ new portbeachca.gov>
Date: October 24, 2013 at 3:58:12 PM PDT
To: 'Geoff rey Willis' <GWillis @sheppardmullin.com>
Subject: RE: Speed Limit for Tustin Ave. Between 22nd and 23rd
Hi Geoffrey,
Just to confirm, w9 know we have the authority to seek a change in the functional classification;
however, the City's decision as to whether the City believes it is appropriate to designate this road as a
local, and submit for the change in designation. Based on FHWA documents, this roadway meets the
specific characteristics of an urban collector road and our Traffic Engineer does not believe a "local"
designation is appropriate.
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA, 92660
Phone: (949) 644-3131
Fax: (949) 644 -3139
Email: aharp @newportbeachca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of the
addressees only. The information is subject to the attorney - client privilege and /or may be attorney work -
product. Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly accessible records. If you are not an
addressee or an authorized agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to a designated addressee, you have
received this e-mail in error, and any further review, dissemination distribution, copying or forwarding of this
e -mail is strictly prohibited. Moreover, such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the
attorney - client privilege as to this communication. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately at (949) 644 -3131. Thank you.
From: Geoffrey Willis[ ma ilto: GWillis(absheppardrn u I lin. coil 1]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:46 PM
To: Harp, Aaron
Subject: RE: Speed Limit for Tustin Ave. Between 22nd and 23rd
Thanks for the response. What the record reflects at the time of the adoption of the ordinance that
allowed street speed limit changes was that City staff told the City Council that the City did not have the
Agenda Item No. 13
Flowchart of Public Comments
Process to Change Functional Classification
Step 2. Caltrans district coordinator reviews and
writes a district concurrence letter.
Step 3. Caltrans headquarters
presents the proposed changes to
FHWA for approval.
Step 4. The approved CRS maps are
posted on the internet. The district
coordinator and HPMS branch are
notified.
(REV. 8/2008)
.J
y
Step 1. Local Jurisdiction submits the following to
Caltrans district coordinator.
• "Functional Classification Change Request Form"
• Marked -up CRS Map showing changes
• City /County resolution
• MPO /RTPA concurrence letter
Step 2. Caltrans district coordinator reviews and
writes a district concurrence letter.
Step 3. Caltrans headquarters
presents the proposed changes to
FHWA for approval.
Step 4. The approved CRS maps are
posted on the internet. The district
coordinator and HPMS branch are
notified.
(REV. 8/2008)
.J
y
August 31, 2006
Agenda Item No. 13
Public Comments
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
303 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California 92832 -1775
Sarah Chamberlain, Transportation Planner
Department of Transportation
3337 Michelson Drive, #380.
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894
Re: City of Fullerton- Functional Classification Changes
Dear Sarah:
Telephone • (714) 738 -6845
Facsimile • (714) 738 -3115
Website: www.ci.fullerton.ca.us
Enclosed are the requested changes to the City of Fullerton functional classification maps for
your review and processing. These changes have been approved by the City's Transportation
and Circulation Commission and a resolution has been adopted by the City Council at their
meeting of August 1, 2006. 1 have included all minutes from the Transportation and Circulation
Commission and the City Council as well a copy of Resolution No. 9843.
The following is a summarization of each segment shown on the map and change sheet. The
change will affect thirty -six (36) segments of streets. All of the segments were chosen based on
the justification that continuity will be established between the City's General Plan and the
Federal Aid Classification maps; the changes allow the Police Department to issue citations for
excessive speed with the use of radar without posting the speed limit or conducting radar
surveys. All of the streets /segments are considered with a prima facie speed limit of twenty -five
miles per hour. These changes will also make the Federal Aid Map consistent with the
countywide Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
We are requesting each of the following segments change the classification from "Collector" or
"Principal Arterial" streets to "Local" streets.
Avolencia Drive - Between Richman Avenue to West Valley View Drive
Baker Avenue - Between Pacific Drive to Highland Avenue
Calle Sereno - Between Westerly Terminus to Camino Centroloma
Camino Centroloma - Between Conejo Lane to Northerly Terminus
Camino La Vista - Between Rosecrans Avenue to Paseo Dorado
Carhart Avenue - Between Malvern Avenue to West Valley View Drive
Clarion Drive - Between Lakeview Drive to Terraza Place
Conejo Lane - Between Sunrise Lane to Parks Road
Domingo Road - Between Verona Drive to Terraza Place
Highland Avenue - Between Baker Avenue to Orangethorpe Avenue
Lakeside Drive - Between Terraza Place to Hermosa Drive
.Lark EAen !.Drive - Between Ponderosa Drive to Laurel Avenue
Laurel Avenue - Between Lark Ellen Drive to North City Limits
Longview Drive - Between Brea Boulevard to Dorothy Lane
Maple Avenue - Between Rolling Hills Drive to North City Limits
Morelia Avenue - Between Bastanchury Road to Laguna Road
Oak Avenue - Between Courtney Avenue to Basque Avenue
Olive Avenue - Between Magnolia Avenue to Courtney Avenue
Paseo Dorado - Between Camino La Vista to Easterly Terminus
Ponderosa Avenue - .Between Rolling Hills Drive to Lark Ellen Drive
Puente Street - Between Bastanchury Road to Rosadta Drive
Quartz Lane - Between Placentia Avenue to Sapphire Road
Richman Avenue - Between Commonwealth Avenue to Chapman Avenue
Richman Avenue -..Between Houston Avenue to Valencia Drive
Rolling Hills Drive - Between Puente Street to Brea Boulevard
San Carlos Drive - Between Santa Clara Avenue to Clarke Avenue
Sapphire Road - Between Quartz Lane to Yorba Linda Boulevard
Southgate Avenue - Between Courtney Avenue to Basque Avenue
Sunnycrest Drive - Between Valencia Mesa Drive to West Valley View Drive
Sunrise Lane - Between Las Lanas Lane to Conejo lane
Terraza Place - Between Domingo Road to Lakeside Drive
Valencia .Mesa Drive - Between Bastanchury Road to Harbor.Boulevard
Verona Drive - Between Paseo Dorado to Domingo Road
West Valley View Drive - Between Bastanchury Road to Fern Drive
Woods Avenue - Between Baker Avenue to Valencia Drive
Woods Avenue - Between Commonwealth Avenue to West Valley View Drive
If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 738 -6330.
Si cerely,
Ma Miller
City Traffic Engineer
C: Everrett C. Evans
enclosures
S:\Engineering\Teric \Word \Letters \FAU map changes 2006.doc
(Page 1 of 1)
RESOLUTION NO. 9843
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
FOR SELECT STREETS WITHIN THE CITY
OF FULLERTON.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FULLERTON HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Approve the functional classification changes on select streets within
the City of Fullerton from "Collector streets to "Local" streets on the Federal Aid
Classification map as follows and as shown in Exhibit "A ".
Street
Limit
1.
Avolencia Drive
Richman Avenue to West Valley View Drive
2.
Baker Avenue
f
Pacific Drive to Highland Avenue
Centroloma
3.
Calls Sereno
Westerly Terminus to Camino
4.
Camino Centroloma
Conejo Lane to Northerly Terminus
5.
Camino La Vista r
Rosecrans Avenue to Paseo Dorado
6:
Oarhart Avenue
Malvern Avenue to West Valley View Drive
7.
Clarion Drive
Lakeview Drive to Terraza Place
8.
Conejo Lane J
Sunrise Lane to Parks Road
9.
Domingo Road
Verona Drive to Terraza Place
10.
Highland Avenue v
Baker Avenue to Orangethorpe Avenue
11.
Lakeside Drive J
Terraza Place to Hermosa Drive
12.
Lark Ellen Drive J
Ponderosa Drive to Laurel Avenue
13.
Laurel Avenue f
Lark Ellen Drive to North City Limits
14.
Longview Drive J
Brea Boulevard to Dorothy Lane
15.
Maple Avenue
Rolling Hills Drive to North City Limits
16.
Morelia Avenue
Bastanchury Road to Laguna Road
17.
Oak Avenue v
Courtney Avenue to Basque Avenue
18.
Olive Avenue J
Magnolia Avenue to Courtney Avenue
19.
Paseo Dorado,
Camino La Vista to Easterly Terrninu§
20.
Ponderosa Avenue
Rolling Hills Drive to Lark Ellen Drive
21.
Puente Street 4
Bastanchury Road to Rosarita Drive
22.
Quartz Lane
Placentia Avenue to Sapphire Road
23.
Richman Avenue 4
Commonwealth Avenue to Chapman Avenue
24.
Richman Avenue,
Houston Avenue to Valencia Drive
25.
Rolling Hills Drive f
Puente Street to Brea Boulevard
26.
San Carlos �
Santa Clara Avenue to Clark@ Avenue
27.
Sapphire Road
Quartz Lane to Yorba Linda Boulevard
28.
Southgate Avenue If
Courtney Avenue to Basque Avenue
29,
Sunnycrest Drive J
Valencia Mesa Drive to West Valley View Drive
30.
Sunrise Lane /
Las Lanes to Conejo Lane
31.
Terraza Place l
Domingo Road to Lakeside Drive
(Pagel of 1)
Resolution No. 8843
Page 2
Qk rA '3 \91
32. Valencia Mesa Drive Bastanchury Road to Harbor Boulevard 'I
33. Verona Drive Paseo Dorado to Domingo Road
34. West Valley View Drive • Bastanchury Road to Fern Drive jo 0 'V
35. Woods Avenue . Baker Avenue to Valencia Drive /,hO \ 1
36. Woods Avenue . Commonwealth Avenue to West Valley View Drive
ADOPTED BY THE FULLERTON CITY COUNCIL on August 1, 2006.
ATTEST.,
V !_ ST�' C��
Beverley White, City Clerk
ti
Lel nd Wilson, Mayor
(Pagel W 7(
%d /m F L:M"VJ 1
I u in n
K
J
(Page 1 of 1)
City of Fullerton
RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF FULLERTON )
RESOLUTION NO. 9843
I, Beverley White, City Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Fullerton, Califomia,
hereby certifies that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Fullerton is five;
and that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 9843 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the 1" day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBER AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBER NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT:
Beverley White, City Clerk
Wilson, Bankhead, Jones, Nelson, Quirk
None
None
None
NO, 5
8 -1 -06
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 1, 2006
TO: CITY COUNCIUCITY MANAGER
FROW ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION MAP REVISIONS
Approved for Agenda:
City Manager's ffiice
SUMMARY
1103 -01
City Council is being asked to consider a Transportation and Circulation Commission
(T &CC) recommendation to re- designate certain "Collector' streets to "Local" streets on
the Federal Classification maps. Staff recommended the changes to reflect existing
classifications in the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 9843 approving, functional classification changes for select streets
within the City of Fullerton from "Collector" streets to "Local' streets.
DISCUSSION.
The change will affect thirty -six (36) sections of streets as listed in the Resolution.
Aside from providing, continuity between the City's General Plan and the Federal Aid
Classification maps; the proposed changes allow the Police Department to issue
citations for excessive speed utilizing radar without posting the speed limit or
conducting radar surveys. All of the streets are considered residential with a prima
facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
These changes will also make Federal Aid Classification, maps consistent with the
countywide Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
Federal Classification Map Revisions
August 1, 2006 — Page 2
Copies of the staff report to the T &CC (Attachment #1) and draft minutes of its June 5,
2006 meeting (Attachment #2) are attached for Council's reference.
y
Donald -K. Hoppe
Director of Engineering
DH /DLangstaff /sm
Attachments
Resolution 9843 w /Exhibit °A"
Attachment #1 — T &CC Staff Report
Attachment #2 — T &CC Minutes
S:\Engimering\ Council .GenemhWord \TrattiG2006\CA 06-01 Federal Map Revisions.doc
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION COMMISSION
Monday, June 5, 2006 - -- 4:00 p.m.
City Council Chamber - - - - -- City Hall
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: J. Michael Cochran, Chairperson
Angela Lindstrom, Vice Chairperson
Robert Gonzalez
Stephen Hall
Rosa Nowels
John Olmsted
Patrick Robeson
STAFF PRESENT: Mark Miller, Consultant City Traffic Engineer
Donald K. Hoppe, Director of Engineering
Sgt. Lorraine Jones, Fullerton Police
Department
Dave Langstaff, Traffic Engineering Analyst
Teri Carlson, Senior Traffic Engineering Aide
Susan McGraw, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Cochran called the Transportation & Circulation Commission meeting to
order at 4 :00 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
1. CONSIDERATION OF STAFF REQUEST TO UPDATE THE FEDERAL AID
CLASSIFICATION MAPS.
City Traffic Engineer Miller presented stairs report stating that periodically city maps
and street plans are reviewed to determine if they should be reclassified to conform to
existing classifications of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan.
These particular streets have been on the list for over a year and have been determined
to be the most appropriate to declassify from collector streets to local residential. The
most noticeable of these streets would be Valencia Mesa Drive from Harbor Boulevard
to Bastanchury Road. If declassified, it will be posted at 25 mph. The Police have no
exceptions per Lt. Cave; and this list will be processed with Caltrans to change the
Federal map.
Questions from the Commissioners were responded to by Mr. Miller.
Since a prima facie speed limit is 25 miles per hour, these streets will not be posted
with signs, with the exception of Valencia Mesa Drive which has been posted at its
current speed for a number of years.
Attachment #2
Page 1 of 2
Chairman Rosa Nowels Vice Chairman J. Michael Cochran Patrick Robeson
Robert Gonzalez Stephen Hall Angela Lindstrom John Olmsted
• Because these streets are classified as residential, and automatically considered a
25 mph zone (prima facie), the police can use radar for ticketing.
• Mr. Miller was not certain why some of these streets were initially designated as
collectors, except that when applying for federal funding for certain improvements,
the streets must be classed differently than a local street. Some streets in
Fullerton may have been originally classified as collectors with intentions to build
larger roadways than what was actually developed.
• Mr. Hoppe explained that these streets would most likely NOT be eligible for federal
funding when competing against heavier trafficked streets locally and in South
County.
• The reasoning for declassifying Valencia Mesa as a residential street is based on
the same criteria as the other streets on the list despite of the appearance of the
roadway being more rural and open. Also, Mr. Miller was attempting to preempt a
neighborhood meeting by alleviating the multiple concerns of residents in this area,
especially in light of the Providence development between Laguna Road and Sunny
Crest, north of Valencia Mesa.
Lt. Cave stated the Police would like to see 25 mph speed limit signing on Valencia
Mesa as a reminder and to educate the public.
Commissioner Olmsted made a motion to support stairs recommendation for revisions
to the Federal Classification Map. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously.
Attachment #2
Page 2 of 2
Chapman Rosa Nowels Vice Chairman J. Michael Cochran Patrick Robeson
Robert Gonzalez Stephen Hall Angela Lindstrom John Olmsted
TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION
COMMISSION AGENDA
MEETING DATE: JUNE 5, 2006
TO: TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION COMMISSION
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: FEDERAL AID CLASSIFICATION MAPS UPDATE
SUMMARY
To consider re- designating certain "Collector' streets to "Local" streets on the Federal
Aid Classification maps.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve and recommend to City Council a resolution requesting the indicated roadway
changes from "Collector' streets to "Local" streets on the Federal Aid Classification
maps as shown in Exhibit "A ".
DISCUSSION
Staff is recommending the change to reflect existing classifications in the Circulation
Element of the Fullerton General Plan. The change will affect 36 sections of roadway.
Aside from providing continuity between the City's General Plan and the Federal Aid
Classification maps; the proposed changes allow the Police Department to issue
citations for excessive speed with the use of radar without posting the speed limit or
conducting radar surveys. All of the streets are considered residential with a prima
facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
The following is a list of the streets proposed for change:
Street
Limit
1.
Avolencia Drive
Richman Avenue to West Valley View Drive
2.
Baker Avenue
Pacific Drive to Highland Avenue
3.
Calle Sereno
Westerly Terminus to Camino Centroloma
4.
Camino Centroloma
Conejo Lane to Northerly Terminus
5.
Camino La Vista
Rosecrans Avenue to Paseo Dorado
6.
Carhart Avenue
Malvern Avenue to West Valley View Drive
7.
Clarion Drive
Lakeview Drive to Terraza Place
8.
Conejo Lane
Sunrise Lane to Parks Road
Attachment #1
Page 1 of 2
Federal Aid Classification Maps Update
June 5, 2006 — Page 2
9.
Domingo Road
Verona Drive to Terraza Place
10.
Highland Avenue
Baker Avenue to Orangethorpe Avenue
11.
Lakeside Drive
Terraza Place to Hermosa Drive
12.
Lark Ellen Drive
Ponderosa Drive to Laurel Avenue
13.
Laurel Avenue
Lark Ellen Drive to North City Limits
14.
Longview Drive
Brea Boulevard to Dorothy Lane
15.
Maple Avenue
Rolling Hills Drive to North City Limits
16,
Morelia Avenue
Bastanchury Road to Laguna Road
17.
Oak Avenue
Courtney Avenue to Basque Avenue
18.
Olive Avenue
Magnolia Avenue to Courtney Avenue
19.
Paseo Dorado
Camino La Vista to Easterly Terminus
20.
Ponderosa Avenue
Rolling Hills Drive to Lark Ellen Drive
21.
Puente Street
Bastanchury Road to Rosarita Drive
22.
Quartz Lane
Placentia Avenue to Sapphire Road
23.
Richman Avenue
Commonwealth Avenue to Chapman Avenue
24.
Richman Avenue
Houston Avenue to Valencia Drive
25.
Rolling Hills Drive
Puente Street to Brea Boulevard
26.
San Carlos
Santa Clara Avenue to Clarke Avenue
27.
Sapphire Road
Quartz Lane to Yorba Linda Boulevard
28.
Southgate Avenue
Courtney Avenue to Basque Avenue
29.
Sunnycrest Drive
Valencia Mesa Drive to West Valley View Drive
30.
Sunrise Lane
Las Lanas to Conejo Lane
31.
Terraza Place
Domingo Road to Lakeside Drive
32.
Valencia Mesa Drive
Bastanchury Road to Harbor Boulevard
33.
Verona Drive
Paseo Dorado to Domingo Road
34.
West Valley View Drive
Bastanchury Road to Fern Drive
35.
Woods Avenue
Baker Avenue to Valencia Drive
36.
Woods Avenue
Commonwealth Avenue to West Valley View Drive
Exhibit "A" is attached for the Commissions' reference. If approved, staff will submit the
adopted Resolution to Caltrans, from where it will be forwarded to the Federal Highway
Administration.
MM /DLangstaff /sm
Attachment— Exhibit "A"
c: Commissioners
Police Traffic Bureau
City Traffic Engineer
S:\ Eng gineeringlTCCIWord ',StatfRepons\20061SR 6 -5 item 'I Federal Aid Nlap.doa
Attachment #1
Page 2 of 2
♦s
C
3
v
t
a
s
o`
u0mol
•pq joqJop
-eny puol !H
IF
. *Ad
•xny
0
X
Transportedon System
InformationProgmm
Office of Highway System Engineering
Fuctional Classification
Request Form
Junsdictlonal Agency C'.ity of ller_ton
oats Auo.2006 Page 1 of 2
d
rn E
U z
o
`o
U
v
o
U
Jurisdiction
Change/
AADT/
Add New
/ Delete _
Road
From
To
From
Class
To
Class
Length
New
AADT
14V41
17= Collector
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Avolencia Dr
Richman Ave
W. Valley View Dr
17
19
0:3
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Baker Ave
Pacific Dr
Highland Ave
17
19
1.62
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Calle Sereno
Westerly Terminus
Camino Centroloma
17
19
0.07
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Camino Centroloma
Conejo Ln
Northerly Terminus
17
19
0.34
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Camino La Vista
Rosecrans Ave
Paseo Dorado
17
19
0.17
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Carhart Ave
Malvern Ave
W. Valley View Dr
17
19
0.4
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Clarion Dr
Lakeview Dr
Terraza PI
17
19
0.24
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Conejo Ln
Sunrise Ln
Parks Rd
17
19
0.38
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Domingo Rd
Verona Dr
Terraza PI
17
19
0.15
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Highland Ave
Baker Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
17
19
0.17
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton-
Change
Lakeside Dr
Terraza PI
Hermosa Dr
17
19
0.21
14V42
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Lark Ellen Dr
Ponderosa Dr
Laurel Ave
17
19
0.07
14V42
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Laurel Ave
Lark Ellen Dr
North City Limits
17
19
0.08
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Longview Dr
Brea Blvd
Dorothy Ln
17
19
0.82
14V32
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Maple Ave
Rolling Hills Dr
North City Limits
17
19
0.12
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Morelia Ave
Bastanchury Rd
Laguna Rd
17
19
0.23
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Oak Ave
Courtney Ave
Basque Ave
17
19
0.78
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Olive Ave
Magnolia Ave
Courtney Ave
17
19
0.73
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Paseo Dorado
Camino La Vista
Easterly Terminus
17
19
0.41
14V41/42
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Ponderosa Ave
Rolling Hills, Dr
Lark Ellen Dr
17
19
0.48
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Puente St
Bastanchury Rd
Rosarito Dr
14
19
0.59
14V42
12
1 ORA
Fullerton
Change
Quartz Ln
Placentia Ave
Sapphire Rd
17
19
0.26
Functional
Classification Codes
Rural Functional Class Code: Urban
Functional Class Codes:
01 =Principal Arterial Interstate
11= Pdneipal Arterial Interstate
02 =0ther Principal Arterial
12= Prncipal Arterial -Other Fwys or Expwys
06 =Minor Arterial
14 =01her Principal Arterial
07 =Major Collector
16 =Minor Arterial
08 =Minor Collector
17= Collector
09 =Local
19 =Local
Transportation System
Information Program
Office of Highway System Engineering
Fuctional Classification
Request Form
Jurlsdicidonal Agency City of Fullerton
Date A_ u Page 2 of 2
r d
(0 E °o
U z
U
u
t;
G
r
c
v
Jurisdiction
Change/
AADT/
Add New
/ Delete
Road
From
To
From
Class
To
Class
Lenath
New
AADT
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Richman Ave
Commonwealth Ave
Chapman Ave
17
19
0.24
14V41
12
rdRA
Fullerton
Change
Richman Ave
Houston Ave
Valencia Dr
17
19
0.8
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Rolling Hills Dr
Puente St
Brea Blvd
17
19
0.35
14V42
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
San Carlos Dr.
Santa Clara Ave
Clarke Ave
17
19
0.34
14V42
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Sapphire Rd
Quartz Ln
Yorba Linda Blvd
17
19
0.34
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Southgate Ave
Courtney Ave
Basque Ave
17
19
0.74
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Sunnycrest Dr
Valencia Mesa Dr
W. Valley View Dr
17
19
0.35
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Sunrise Ln
Las Lanes Ln
Conejo Ln
17
19
0.1
14V41
12
ORA
Fullerton
Change
Terraza P1
Domingo Rd
Lakeside Dr
17
19
1.19
Functional Classification Codes
Rural Functional Class Codes: Urban Functional Class Codes:
01= 13rincipal Arterial Interstate
02 =0ther Principal Arterial
06 =Minor Arterial
07 =Major Collector
08 =Minor Collector
09 =Local
11=Principal Arterial Interstate
12= Principal Arterial -Other Fwys or Fxpwys
14 =Other Principal Arterial
16 =Minor Arterial
17= Collector
19 =Local
I:RIIIV I I H
Received After Agenda Printed
Agenda Item No. 13
Public Comment
Local Cities through the functional classification
Re- Classified Collectors to "Local" Roads
The Functional Classification normally receives the majority of changes during Census years. In
2000 there were many changes in OC.
Here is the list of cities that changed collectors to locals:
Anaheim
Costa Mesa
Cypress
Dana Point
Fountain Valley
Huntington Beach
Laguna Beach
Tustin
Villa Park
In 2002, Santa Ana and Orange made changes from collectors to locals.
Then in 2006, Fullerton submitted the largest number of changes of the collectors to locals in
the County.
Received After Agenda Printed
Agenda Item No. 13
Public Comments
AGENDA ITEM RZ
ED
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2007
TO Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Daniel P. Wilkins, Public Works Dire /Tow Engineer %V1
SUBJECT: Federal Aid System (FAS) Map Mo ifiratio s
APPROVED BY
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Public Works Director/Town Engineer to modify the Town's
Federal Aid System map, designating all Town owned roadways as local, and forward the revised
map to the Nevada County Transportation Commission, Caltrans, and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for their approval; and approve speed limit policy as described in this staff
report.
DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the current Federal Aid System (FAS) functional classification
maps for roadways within the Town and recommends changing our current functional classification
system map. We would recommend reclassifying all Town owned roadways as local roadways,
leaving only 1 -80 and State Routes 89 and 267 on the FAS (see Draft Resolution 2007 -13 shown as
Attachment A and revised FAS map shown as Attachment B).
The reason for this recommendation originates with our ability to post and enforce speed limits on
Town owned roadways, consistent with the 2006 California Vehicle Code. Section 40802 (shown
as Attachment C) of the California Vehicle Code requires that speed surveys be conducted and
updated on non -local highways and that speed limits are to be posted at the nearest 5 MPH to the
85`" percentile speed in order to be enforceable by radar. Previously, the speed survey
methodology referenced by the Vehicle Code allowed local jurisdictions to round the 85" percentile
speeds down to the nearest 5 MPH speed, then reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 MPH
based on other factors not readily apparent to the driver and use this as the posted speed limit.
Implementing the 2006 Vehicle Code requirements would result in an increase of 5 MPH to most of
Truckee's speed limits and an increase of 10 MPH on several roadways. Reclassifying the
roadways as local would allow us to set speed limits prima facie by local ordinance without the need
for a traffic study. Staff has drafted a memo to Dan Landon of the Nevada County Transportation
Commission (NCTC) formalizing this request (shown as Attachment D).
Town Council Staff Report
Page 1 of 2
AGENDA ITEM
Staff is also recommending a policy for posting speed limits on the more heavily traveled local
roadways so that there is a technical rationale for establishing speed limits on heavily traveled
roadways. The roadways shown in red on the map, shown as Attachment E would establish posted
speeds using the formal speed limit policy. The policy would essentially require the posted speed
limits to be set at the 85`1" percentile speed (rounded down to the nearest 5 MPH), but would give
the Town Council the flexibility to reduce the speed limit by up to an additional 10 MPH for factors
not readily apparent to the driver. For all roads not highlighted on the map, the Council would have
full discretion over the establishment of speed limits without the need for a speed survey.
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS: None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Draft Resolution 2007 -13
Attachment B — Proposed New FAS Map
Attachment C — Section 40802 of the 2006 California Vehicle Code
Attachment D — Memo to Nevada County Transportation Commission (Dan Landon)
Attachment E — Map Showing Roadways Where New Speed Limit Policy Would Apply
Town Council Staff Report
Page 2 of 2
AAcv_1A►men+ A
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
California
Draft RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 13
A RESOLUTION OF THE TRUCKEE TOWN COUNCIL REMOVING ALL TOWN OWNED
ROADWAYS WITHIN THE TOWN OF TRUCKEE FROM THE FEDERAL AID SYSTEM
WHEREAS; Resolution No. 2007 -13 would supersede Resolution 99 -63, and
WHEREAS; the following roadways are presently on the Town of Truckee Federal Aid
System (FAS):
Road
Classification
Interstate 80
Interstate
State Route 267
Minor Arterial
State Route 89
Minor Arterial
Commercial Row
Minor Arterial
Domier Pass Road
Major Collector
Glenshire Dr.
Major Collector
West River Street
Major Collector
Old Highway 40
Major Collector
Spring Street
Major Collector
Jibboom Street
Major Collector
Northwoods Boulevard
Minor Collector
Alder Creek Road
Minor Collector
Fjord Road
Minor Collector
Prosser Dam Road
Minor Collector
Donner Lake Road
Minor Collector
Palisades Dr.
Minor Collector
Martis Valley Road
Minor Collector
Dorchester Dr.
Minor Collector
The Strand
Minor Collector
State Route 267 By -Pass
Minor Arterial
McIver Crossing
Major Collector
East Jibboom Street
Minor Collector
East Alder Creek Road
Minor Collector
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Truckee Town Council hereby
requests only the following roadways remain on the FAS for the Town of Truckee and
that all Town owned roadways be designated as local roadways'
Road
Interstate 80
State Route 267
State Route 89
Classification
Interstate
Minor Arterial
Minor Arterial
The foregoing Resolution was introduced by seconded by
at a Regular Meeting of the Truckee Town Council, held on the _ day
of 200_ and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Judy Price, CIVIC, Town Clerk
Richard Anderson, Mayor
Attachment B: PROPOSED FEDERAL AID SYSTEM (FAS) MAP
FAS Classifications
Interstate
Other Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Local Roads
0.5
4
■ Miles
R. And nJ272W7
M uk9
N
W +E
S
hl
i
moo
FF
1�
§ 40800
VEHICLE CODE
purpose of enforcing the traffic laws. (Stais.1959, c. 3, p.
1780, § 40801). Amended 5.Y .Slots.1961, c. 202. p. 1212,
§ 2)
Cross References
Officers as mincsses. competency, see Vehice Code. § 40804.
Powers and duties of director. generally, see Vehicle Code
§ 16% ctseq.
Prohibited ownership of vehicle painted as law enforcement
cehiac. see Vehicle Code § 27605.
Repainting or. vile of law enforcement vehicles. see Vehicle
Code§ 27604.
Unauthorized wearing of uniforms, misdemeanor. see A'NFan=
sod,, l,ra.,s Codv§ 4.
ti'carhw et uniforms ?.v Vcht& ('ode § ]561.
§ 40801, Speed trap prohibition
No peace officer or other person shall use if speed trap
at arresting or parrieipatirg or assisting in the arrest of.
any pe!sor. fix any alleged violation of this code not duel
any speed trap he used in securing evidence as to the
speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or
prosecution under this code. (Stats.1959, c. 3, p. 1780,
§ 40801.)
k 40802. Speed trap defined
f- (a) A "steed trap' is either of the following
(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to
distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or
otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle
may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle
to travel the known distance.
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie
speed limit that is provided by this code or by local
ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under
Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 223583, if that prima
facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and
traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date
of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed
limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic
device that measures the speed of moving objects. This
pars raph does not apply to a local street, road, or school
zone.
.� (bifl) For purposes of this section a local street or
roadis dine y e ales rise Iona usag�e and federa -
ata' s stem maps submitted to the erTeraT ty
a ton excep at wren these maps rave not
been submitte , or when the street or road is not shown
on the maps, a "local street or road' means a street or
road that primarily provides access to abutting residential
property and meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet
(B) Not more than one -half of a mile of uninterrupted
length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control
signals as defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.
954
(2) For purposes of this scciion "'school zone' 71
that area approaching or passing it school building OF Ih,
grounds thereof that is contiguous to a high,,, I.11
which is pos=ed a standard SCHOOL' acamimc "_
while children are going to br leaving the nchw,l ,14 .
during school hours or during the noon recess peri.�
"School zone" also includes the arc, appnyacMne
passing any school grounds that are not
the highway by e fence, gmc. or other physical oard,:
while the grounds are in use by children it that h�hu :n -_
posted with a standard "SCI IDOL" tiarni o!
(c)( -1) When a!1 of tbc followine criai.i
paragraph (2) of this suhdir -isirm sha'I .I L - :,, T,6 -
subdivision (a) shall nor he applicahle
(A) When radar Is use <I. the nrrcaim '.tree, r
successtuliy completed a rrlar ,per.00r c,Ill, C of c,a 61
than 24 hours on the use of police lndi,- mere. Ind;t,
course was approved and :eniGccl by the Cammtssi,n
Peace Offiecr Standards and I raininu.
(6) When laser or any other electrum' dr•aa a arc
to measure the speed of mo,ing ohjcet the anz -atn.;
officer has successfully completed the irmntrm required:-.
subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of
not less than two hours approved and certified M Ilk
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Trit aint
(C)(i) The prosecution prurcd that the arrcainie ,,,T,. cer complied with subparagraphs IA) and (i3) and that ir
engineering and traffic sunny has been conduned ir .
accordance with subparagraph (F3) of paraaraph (2). Tlx
prosecution proved that. prior to the officer issuine the
notice to appear, the urresting officer established slut ak
radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed IV llic
requirements of subparagraph (D).
(ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the acnuG
was unsafe for the conditions present in the time d
alleged violation unless the citation w°os for a ciolatitmd
Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
(D) The radar, laser, or other elecuonic device Incline
measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds Ibt -
minimal operational standards of dte National Trillk
Highway Safety Administration, and has been calltraw
within the three years prior to the date of the s04 <
violation by an independent certified laser or radar repo
and testing or calibration facility.
(2) A "speed trap' is either of the following: -a
(A) A particular section of a highway recasttted .
distance and with boundaries marked, deli__.
otherwise determined in order that the spec
may be calculated by securing the time it takes 16k.
to travel the known distance.
(B)(i) A particular section of a highway a
highway with a prima facie speed limit that is ..
this code or by local ordinance under surfs
of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Se
established under Section 22354. 22357.
22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is nW --
an engineering and traffic sur conducted
Ft 1ollUr
,nation
5e of ra
M spzzt
1) Ex
(11) If
tare Iha
edition..
:f the hie
, eAwl
fat net I
s. mad
Iii) Th
Nd. at
iB.?iJ)
SEGi.39Yi
!W9,, Sr
ii , 5!c
attf (S)
A9280)
1 !0807.5
9 141
180803.
(11 \'a
*Way s
R petit
liege mI
Aimed u
III n
@) In
111
0
bAVe I
Iy Mal
A- 4ot6t)w%ev• j
.oW. o.
TR�C�E
DATE: April 5, 2007
TO Dan Landon, Executive Director NCTC
FROM: Daniel Wilkins, Public Works Director /Town Engineer
SUBJECT FAS Map Modification
The Town of Truckee has reviewed our current Federal Aid System (FAS) functional classification
map and would like to modify our current functional classification system within the Town
boundaries. We would like to reclassify all Town owned roadways as local roadways, leaving only
1 -80 and State Routes 89 and 267 on the FAS.
Our primary reason for doing so originates from our ability to post and enforce speed limits on Town
owned roadways, consistent with the 2006 California Vehicle Code. Section 40802 of the California
Vehicle Code requires that speed surveys be conducted and updated on non -local highways and
that speed limits are set at the nearest 5 MPH to the 85th percentile speed, in order for speed limits
to be enforceable by radar. Previously, the speed survey methodology referenced by the Vehicle
Code allowed local jurisdictions to round down to the nearest 5 MPH speed from the 85h percentile
speed, then reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 MPH based on other factors not readily
apparent to the driver. The end result of the new speed survey methodology would require most of
Truckee's speed limits to be increased by 5 MPH and several by as much as 10 MPH_
Reclassifying the roadways as local would allow us to set speed limits prima facie by ordinance
without the need for a traffic study.
The proposed changes in classification for all Town -owned roads are summarized in the attached
Table A. The Town would request that the NCTC ratify the Town's recommendation and forward
these modifications to Caltrans and FHWA for inclusion in the 2007 functional classification map
updates. We appreciate your time and consideration of this matter. Please fee free to call me at
(530) 582 -7700 if I can provide you any further detail regarding this request.
Table A: Proposed Changes to FAS Map Classifications
Roadway Segment
Current
Classification
Proposed
Classification
Brockway Road
Minor Arterial
Local Road
Donner Pass Road (Bridge Street to SR 89 North
Minor Arterial Local Road
Brid a Street Jibboom Street to Donner Pass Road
Major Collector
Local Road
-Donner Pass Road Truckee Town boundar to Brid a Street
Major Collector
Local Road
Glenl shire Drive
Jibboom Street (Spring Street to Bridge Street )
Major Collector Local Road
Major Collector Local Road
McIver Crossing
Major Collector
Local Road
Spring Street (Donner Pass Road to Jibboom Street)
Major CollectorL
Local Road
West River Street
Alder Creek Road (Fjord to Prosser Dam Road)
r _.. —
Deerfield Drive
Major Collector Local Road
Minor Collector Local Road
_
Minor Collector Local Road
Donner Lake Road
—. --
Dorchester Drive
Fjord Road _
Jibboom Street Brid e Street to Keiser Avenue
Mnor Collector Local
_Road
1 Minor Collector Local Road
_Minor Collector Local Road _
Minor Collector Locai Road
Mortis Valley Road (Old Mill Road to Brockw�Road
Northwoods Boulevard
Minor Collector Local Road
Minor Collector L cal Road
Palisades Drive (Torre Pine ine Road to Brockway Road)
Minor Collector Local Road
Prosser Dam Road
Minor Collector ! Local Road
South Shore Drive
Minor Collector
Local Road
The Strand (Dorrington Lane to Glenshire Drive)
Minor Collector
Local Road