Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Tustin Avenue Speed LimitCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 13 February 11, 2014 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department David A. Webb, Public Works Director 949 - 644 -3330, dawebb @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Antony Brine, City Traffic Engineer 949 - 644 -3329, tbdne @newportbeachca.gov APPROVED: 1fl_ A TITLE: Tustin - Avenue Speea Limit — Santiago Drive to 23rd Street ABSTRACT: At the request of the City Council, staff would like to present and discuss the current speed limit posting on Tustin Avenue between Santiago Drive and 23rd Street. A resident of Vista Baya (which is an adjacent cul -de -sac street off Tustin Avenue) has raised a concern to staff about the existing posted speed limit of 30 mph on this segment of Tustin Avenue. The resident initially requested the installation of traffic calming measures on Tustin Avenue to address his concerns about speeding and pedestrian safety. He then further requested that the speed limit on Tustin be changed to 25 mph. Staff reviewed the request and determined the street is properly classified and that the current speed limit is correctly and legally posted at 30 mph. Staff further spent a considerable amount of time thoroughly discussing with the resident the reasons for staffs position regarding this posted speed limit, including supporting State Vehicle Code and Caltrans policies. However the resident has been unwilling to accept staffs position on this item. This Staff Report includes a discussion of the existing speed limit establishment, and the roadway classification of this segment of Tustin Avenue. Maintain the existing posted speed limit of 30 mph for Tustin Avenue between Santiago Drive and 23rd Street per the requirements of Caltrans Policy Directive 09 -04, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Vehicle Code for setting speed limits. Alternative Action if Desired: 1. Direct staff to begin the process with Caltrans for a functional classification change of Tustin Avenue between Santiago Drive and 23rd Street from 1 of 17 Tustin Avenue Speed Limit — Santiago Drive to 23rd Street February 11, 2014 Page 2 "collector" street status to "local" street status on the California Road System (CRS) maps. Should the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approve the classification change, direct staff to post the speed limit on Tustin Avenue at 25 mph; or 2. Provide specific alternative direction to staff with regard to this segment of Tustin Avenue. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Funding requirements are undetermined at this time and depend upon the direction City Council would like to pursue with regard to this segment of Tustin Avenue. DISCUSSION: The segment of Tustin Avenue under review is a quarter mile in length and runs between and connects to Santiago Drive to the south and 23rd Street to the north (see Attachment A). The primary function of the roadway is to collect traffic and direct it to and from the 73 homes on the adjacent cul -de -sac streets of Meadow Lane, Vista Baya, Sierra Vista, and Via Marina. The trips generated from the cul -de -sac properties, combined with additional neighborhood thru traffic on Tustin Avenue, are then distributed in and out of the area via Santiago Drive /22nd Street and the continuation of Tustin Avenue to the south, or 23rd Street to the north. In addition to the cul -de -sac homes, there are a total of eleven (11) houses that front this segment of Tustin Avenue from both sides of the street. This segment of Tustin Avenue is thirty -eight (38) feet in width curb -to -curb, and provides for two 11' travel lanes, and 8' of parking on both sides of the street. There is a four -way stop sign at the intersection of Tustin Avenue /Santiago Drive, as well as a stop sign at the intersection of Tustin Avenue /23`d Street. There are also short, intermittent sections of existing sidewalk along this segment of Tustin Avenue. The City annexed this area, including Tustin Avenue, from the County in 2003. In March of 2011 after a comprehensive speed survey was conducted, the current 30 mph speed limit signs were installed on Tustin Avenue between Santiago Drive and 23rd Street. Staff is not aware if there were any posted speed limit signs prior to annexation. A resident of Vista Baya has indicated that there are speeding and pedestrian safety issues on this segment of Tustin Avenue. The resident initially requested installation of traffic calming measures, and has also requested that the speed limit be reduced to 25 mph. In order to address the question of the potential safety issues, staff conducted field visits to Tustin Avenue, observed traffic flow and operation, and reviewed the most current speed survey and accident history for this segment of Tustin Avenue. The speed data indicated that the 85th percentile speed is 36 mph. Caltrans Policy Directive 2 of 17 Tustin Avenue Speed Limit — Santiago Drive to 23rd Street February 11, 2014 Page 3 09 -04 requires that the speed limit be posted within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed. This would indicate that the posted speed limit is required to be set at 35 mph for legal enforcement. However, the City followed Caltrans and MUTCD requirements which allows for the application of "conditions not readily apparent' to reduce the posting an additional 5 mph to 30 mph. 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 between January 2006 and May 2013. The 30 mph speed limit is both reasonable and safe based upon the traffic speeds, roadway width, volumes and accident history. A question was raised by the resident as to whether the speed limit could be set at the "prima facie" speed limit of 25 mph, which is typical of dense residential neighborhood streets. However, per Vehicle Code Section 22352, the "prima facie' speed limit of 25 mph is not applicable here because Tustin Avenue is not a "residence district' roadway as defined in the Vehicle Code and does not pass a School Building or Senior Center. In Section 515 of the California Vehicle Code (see Attachment C), this segment of Tustin Avenue does not meet the definition of a 'residence district' roadway because there are less than sixteen (16) dwelling houses that front Tustin Avenue within a quarter of a mile. There were seven (7) e -mails and several phone conversations between March 2012 and June 2012, and other previous communication, explaining to the resident the support for the current speed limit and the legal process followed by staff to establish the 30 mph speed limit. Mayor Hill attended a meeting with the resident on April 4, 2012 where the issue was fully discussed with the resident. Further letters were exchanged between an attorney for the resident and the City Attorney in May 2013 and June 2013 (Attachments D and E). It is important to note that per the California Vehicle Code Section 40802, a "prima facie' posting of 25 mph on this segment of Tustin Avenue would meet the definition of a "speed trap." However, the speed trap designation does not apply to a local street or road that is functionally classified as "local' on the "California Road System Maps." This segment of Tustin Avenue is functionally classified as a "collector" road on the CRS maps (see Attachment B). The resident has requested that the City submit to Caltrans for a change in the functional classification of Tustin Avenue from the current "Collector" Street status to "Local" Street status. This request is being made in an effort to technically eliminate the potential "speed trap" designation, and allow for a 25 mph posting. Unless Tustin Avenue was functionally re- classified as a "local' roadway on the CRS maps, the lowest the speed limit that could be legally posted for enforcement is 30 mph. As noted by the resident and his attorney, and confirmed to him by staff, the City does have the discretion to request a change in the functional classification of a road (in this 3 of 17 Tustin Avenue Speed Limit — Santiago Drive to 23rd Street February 11, 2014 Page 4 case from "collector' to "local ") should we believe that classification can be supported. However, as indicated to the resident and his attorney, staff believes this segment of Tustin Avenue is properly classified as a "collector." Staff chose to not submit for the change in functional classification for the following reasons: 1) Based on the function and the qualitative description of the roadway, Tustin Avenue meets the FHWA characteristics for an urban collector roadway, not a local street. Amongst other factors, the FHWA describes an urban minor collector roadway as a road that "distributes and channels trips between local roads (in this case, the cul- de -sacs) and arterials (Irvine Avenue, etc.)." 2) Together with the 85th percentile speed of 36 mph and with no accident history, the posted speed limit of 30 mph is reasonable and safe and has been properly established per the requirements of Caltrans, the MUTCD, and the Vehicle Code. 3) With the measured 85th percentile speed of 36 mph (the speed that 85% of drivers are driving at, or below), a posting of 25 mph is not appropriate. 4) Importantly, the southerly remainder of Tustin Avenue between Santiago Drive and 17th Street is posted 30 mph (and is also designated as a collector). As the width and character of this segment of Tustin Avenue does not change, reducing it to 25 mph would not necessarily translate into drivers actually driving at slower speeds, and continual enforcement would most likely be required to achieve the desired result. Should the City Council believe a request to change the functional classification of this roadway is warranted; there is a four -step process to do so. This process is as follows: 1. The local jurisdiction submits a standard form, a marked -up map, a Resolution of the City Council, and a concurrence letter from either OCTA or SCAG to Caltrans; 2. Caltrans District Coordinator reviews and writes a District concurrence letter if they agree with the local jurisdiction; 3. Caltrans Headquarters presents the proposed changes to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for approval; and 4. If approved by the FHWA, the revised State roadway system maps are posted on the internet, and the Caltrans District coordinator is notified. It should be noted that the City does not have the sole authority to reclassify the roadway as "local." The FHWA makes the final determination. 4 of 17 Tustin Avenue Speed Limit — Santiago Drive to 23rd Street February 11, 2014 Page 5 In consideration of all legal requirements for establishing and enforcing speed limits, the lack of an accident history, and the actual "collector" function of Tustin Avenue in primarily providing access thru the area and to the adjacent cul -de -sac streets, it is staff's recommendation that the functional classification and speed limit on Tustin Avenue be maintained at 30 mph. Should the City Council support the position that the street should be re- classified as a "local" rather than a "collector," staff will begin the formal process to submit to Caltrans for a Functional Classification Change of Tustin Avenue between Santiago Drive and 23rd Street from "collector" street status to "local" street status. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). In addition, the concerned resident has been noticed and invited to this meeting to participate in this discussion. Submitted by: David A. ebb Public Works Director Attachments: A. Map of Area Streets B. California Road System Map C. California Vehicle Code Sec. 515 D. Letter from Resident's Attorney E. Letter from City Attorney 5 of 17 Sze4 Rr A� P, 44 P A� r o affAkk IRW MAP OF AREA STREETS ATTACHMENT A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 02/11/2014 M. Sri ATTACHMENT B SEE MAP 14W21 b yF \ m oa f O N O i m m V' m i b'aa !' a' '+w•,,., p Fear i O jf l F� m Y a cn m l64�, T S �a oP m N EZMK dVVY 33S N L 7 of 17 ATTACHMENT C §slo —2( Repair Shop .510. A "repair shop" is a place where vehicles subject to registration under this code are repaired, rebuilt, reconditioned, repainted, or in any way maintained for the public at a charge. _ Representative 512. A "representative" is any person regularly employed by a manufacturer or distributor for the purpose of negotiating or promoting the sale of the manufacturer's or distributor's vehicles to their franchisees or for regularly supervising or contacting franchisees or prospective franchisees in this state for any purpose. Added Ch. 996, Stets. 1973. Operative July 1, 1974. 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. Resident 516. "Resident" means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12 -month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency. The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration: (a) Address where registered to vote. (b) Location of employment or place of business. (c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education. ` (d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school. (e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption. (f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence. (g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident. (h) Possession of a California driver's license. (i) Other •acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient. Amended Ch. 13, Stars. 1991. Effective February 13, 1991. Retail Sale 520. A "retail sale" is a sale of goods to a person for the purpose of consumption and use, and not for resale to others, including, but not limited to, an arrangement where a motor vehicle is consigned to a dealer for sale. Added Ch. 1284, Stats. 1976. Effective January 1. 1977. Retarder 521. A "retarder" is a device, other than a brake, which, 'i 8 of 17 I� Sheppard Muir 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: ATTACHMENT D Sheppard Mullin Richter 3 Hampton LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 714.513.5100 main 714.513.5130 main fax www.sheppardmijilin.com 714.424.2894 direct gwillis@ s heppardmullm. Qom 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 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 9 o 17 Sheppard uRlln 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 "L -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. 10 of 17 Sheppard ullin 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 11 of 17 Sheppard uffln Mr. Aaron Harp May 1, 2013 Page 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. 12 of 17 Sheppard uffln 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). 13 of 17 Sheppard elfin 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. Sincerely kl� ON Geoffre Wil,�s j for SHEPPARD,;MULLIN, 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 14 of 17 PO V O •1.� Q F U }Ii. 1 c,I<fFOnN r Via E -Mail & U.S. Mail ATTACHMENT E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Aarmi C Il:irp, C'i( A11orneY June 7, 2013 Geoffrey K. Willis, Esq. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4'" Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 RE: Speed Limit for Tustin Avenue between 22nd and 23rd NTM. 81f1ANIF111l1% 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 City annexed the area that included the Segment, the area was under the control of the County of Orange and the City had no jurisdiction to set or establish speed limits for the Segment. In addition, prior to concerns being raised by area residents, the City had already begun the process of conducting a City wide engineering and traffic survey. The Segment was included as part of this survey and it was this survey that ultimately culminated in the City Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 2011 -1 that set the speed limit for Tustin Avenue from Santiago Avenue to 23rd Street at 30 mph. (See Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ") section 12.24.080.) 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 15 of 17 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 law" 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 16 of 17 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 Tar 6n C. Harp City Attorney ACH:KER:emg cc: Dave Kiff, City Manager Dave Webb, Director of Public Works Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer [A13- 003001- Willis from ACH 6.7.13 17 of 17