HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2001/01/18 NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT
Notice is hereby given that at its Regular Meeting of January 16, 2001, the City
Council adjourned said meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting to be held on
Thursday, January 18, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the City's
all-way stop policy. The meeting will be held in the Council Conference Room,
located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue.
Dated: January 17, 2001 Donna Norris, Deputy City Clerk
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF TItE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Council Conference Room
Administration Building
276 Fourth Avenue
January 18, 2001 4:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Rindone, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton
Safety Commission Members White, Lopez, Cochrane, McAlister, Liken,
Acton, and Chairperson Gove
1. DISCUSSION OF ALL-WAY STOP POLICY
City staff, in conjunction with City Council and the Safety Commission, will conduct a
workshop to review and evaluate the All-Way Stop policy to determine if the current
policy is responsive to Council direction and the needs of the traveling public.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of January 23, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECt: Safety Commission Policy - Delegating POLICY
Additional Authority NUMBER DATE PAGE
. 110-09 3/14/95 1
ADOI~I~r..O BY: Resolution 17833 - (Replaces Polity Nmnber 110-09 DA'I~_.D: 3/14/95
adopted 03-05-73 by Resolution 6772)
BACKGROUND
On March 6, 1973, the City Council adopted a Safety Commission policy establi,~hlug a procedure to be
followed by the Safeby Commission in evalualing matters of vehicular or pedestrian safety wi,h~ the public
right-of-way within the City of Chula Vista. The March 6, 1973 policy limits the Safety Commission
responsibility to an advisory role to the City Council Presently, £mal authority to implement traffic control
measures rests with the City Council.
In recent years there has been a greater awareness and concern over traffic and safety related issues. Due to
population, vehicular ownership, and traffic growth in the City, this awareness and concern has resulted ia an
increase in traffic items brought before the City Council. This situation coupled with other pressing demands
on the City Council has adversely impacted their ability to schedule public hearings and resolve the higli
number of traffic and safety matters initiated by the public that warrant special consideration.
Due to the importance placed on traffc end safety matters and the need to deal with such matters
expeditiously, the City Council has determined a need to create an administrative process in which delegation
of authority is empowered to the Safety Commission and staff to act upon traffic and safety matters.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish an administrative procedure for the Safety Commission to conduct
public hearings on matters related to traffic and safety issues. This policy prescribes guidelines and criteria
for determining appropriate actions in accordance with City Council directions and delegation of authority.
1. GENERAL POLICY
It shall be the policy of the City, to be implemented by such ordinances and resolutions as may be required,
that, within, the budgetary constraints set by Council through the budget, the City cotmcil hereby delegates
authority to establish and maintain vehicular and pedestrian traffic control measures, standards, and
requirements in the public right of way ("Traffic Control Measures"), except as hereinbelow provided, to the
City Engineer after review by the Safety Commission ("Commission"), unless, on affn'mative vote of a majority
of the membership of the Safety Commission, the Commission objects to the proposed action by the City
Engineer. In such case, the matter shall be referred to the City Cotmcil and the authority as to such matters,
shall, on such referral, be vested in the City Council to be exercised on the afflnna~ve vote of three memliers
of the City Council
The Commission shall not have the power to ini~iata or order the implementation of a Traffic Control
Measure, but shall have the power to recommend to the City Engineer that s/he consider a proposed Traffic
Control Measure. If the City Eugineer shall consider and decline to implement a Traffic Control Measure
proposed by a majority of the Commission, the Commission shall by a vote of at least four (4) Commissioners
have the power to refer the matter to the City Council, and upon such referral, the authority to inkiate and
order the Traffc Control Measure shall be thereupon revested in the City Council.
COUNCIL POLIt~ a/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Additional Authority NTJMiBER DATE PAGE
110-09 3/14/95 3 offle/._
BY: Resolution 17825 I DATED: 3/14/95
2. EXCEPTIONS (con~ued)
D. Traffic Control Measures Affee6~g Community Businesses.
The City Council reserves authority over all Traffic Control Measures desig~aed to, or having
un impact on, the availability of parking for businesses, including but not limited to:
(1) A~gle Parking
(2) Parking Meters
E. Traffic Control Measure associated with new developments md/or City projects.
3. INCLUSIONS
A. Trial Traffic Reg~alations Chapter 10.12
Traffic Control Devices Chapter 10.24
Through Streets and Stop Intersections Chapter 10.32
Yield Right-of-Way Streets Chapter 10.36
Turn'ns Movements Chapter 10.40
One-Way Streets and ALleys Chapter 10.44
Stopping, Standing and Parking Chapter 10.52 (Except Angle Parking)
Loading Zones Chapter 10.60
Bicycle Parking Zones Chapter 10.72
Pedestrians Chapter 10.76
Permit Parking in Residential Zones Chapter 10.86
Final action~ on matters requiting an Ordinance from City Council regarding Speed Regulations (Chapter
10.48); A~gle Parking (chapter 10.52); Parking Meter Zones (chapter 10.56); Permit Parking (Chapter
10.56) and Truck Routes (Chapter 10.64) shal] be exempt from this policy. These items will be referred to
the City Council with recommendations from staff and the Safety Commission for final disposition.
PROC,~DUR~S
A. PUBLIC INQUIIUES
1. Citizen requests for traffic and safety related improvements are submitted to the City
Engineer for evaluation.
2. The City Engineer performs traffic smclies as necessary including the collection of pertinent
dataand any other reference material.
3. The City Engineer analyzes the traffic data and makes a traffic engineering determination on
what, if any, traffic engineering improvements are needed.
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECr: Safety Commission Policy - Delegating POLICY 51-k'k. CTIVE
Additional Authority NUMBER DATE PAGE
110-09 3/14/95 5 ors
ADOPTED BY: Resolution 17833 J DATED: 3/14/95
A. PUBLIC INQUIRIES (eonfnued)
c. If the Safety Commission's vote is contrasy to the City Engineer's recommendation,
the traffic item will be referred to the City Council and the authority as to such
matters shal], on such referral, be vested ia the City Council to be exercised on the
affirmative vote of three members of the City CounciL The Commission shall ,~ot
have the power to initiate or order the implementation of a Traffic Control Measure,
but shall have the power to recommend to the City Engineer that s/he consider a
proposed Traffic Control Measure. If the City Engineer shall consider and decline to
implement a Traffic Control Measure proposed by a majority of the Safety
Commission, the Commission shall, by a vote of at least four (4) Commissioner~, have
the power to refer the mar[er to the City Council, and upon such referral, the
authority to initiate and order the Traffic Control Measure shall be thereupon vested
in the City Council. If new information or evidence presented at the hearing diselosas
that the original recommendation is no longer valid, the City Engineer may take an
item off the City Council Agenda and concur with the Safety Commission's
recommendation thus waiving the appeai process.
B. TRAFFIC PLANNING
1. Any precise plans or site plans for the construction of buildings or facilities that are proposed
to be bulk adjacent to or having access to or impact on major streets which, in the opinion of
staff (i.e. Director of Planning, Dkector of Publ~e Work~, or City Engineer) may in light of the
plans submir[ed create the potential for a hazardous condition which may have a detrimental
effect on ~.~ehicular or pedestrian traffic, will be forwarded, through the City Engineer, to the
Safety Commission for review, evaluation, and recommendations.
2. The Safety Commission shall evaluate said prerise plans ~ud site plans ia referen~ to their
effect upon traffic problems, and shall submit their recommendations to the Pla~n;,g
Commission and City Council at the time such plans are considered by said bodies.
3. Trial Traffic Regulation, Municipal Code 10.12.030 - In cases where authority has been
delegated to the Safety Commission and City Engineer to approve traffic control devices, the
Safety Commission will hereby be authorized to approve the iastallation with the concurrence
of the City Engineer's recommendation.
4. The Safety Commission will adopt a recommendation embodying such regulation, or any part
thereof, aher the 8-month trial period or which regulation shall cease to be effective. Where
an ordinance is required for final approval, the Safety Commission will forward their
recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the ordinance embodying such
regulation.
All-way Stop Policy History - 2 -
Ma,/2, 2000: Council directed staff to revise the all-way stop policy as a result of the proliferation of
stop signs throughout the City.
Between 7/27/99 and 5/2/00, twenty-three (23) intersections were studied for all-way stop
controls. Seven (7) intersections were denied, and sixteen (16) intersections were
approved; however, all but two intersections were installed. The two intersections not
installed were East "J" Street/La Senda Way and Rancho Del Rey Parkway/Milagrosa
Way. Installation of all-way stop control at those intersections is pending the resolution
of the current all-way stop policy.
Oct. 12, 2000: At their regularly scheduled meeting, the Safety Commissioners requested that staff take
the necessary steps to schedule a workshop with the City Council in order to resolve
issues surrounding the all-way stop policy.
Jan. 18,2001: A workshop for City Council, Safety Commission and City staff is scheduled to discuss
the proposed revisions to the existing warrant system and to reach consensus regarding
the policy.
H 5HOMEXENGINEER\TRAFFIC\allway-hist.ma.doc
ALL-WAY STOP POLICY HISTORY
April 23.1991: Council approved the all-way stop policy, by resolution No. 16147.
May 13. 1997: Council directed staff to re-examine the existing all-way stop warrants to determine if the
warrants could be more responsive to other contributing human factors rather than relying
only on formulas or numbers. This was due to recent all-way stop requests that were
denied by st,afl and the Safety Commission, and later were appealed to Council.
June 12.1997: Staff and the Safety Commission members started a working session to discuss the
revisions of the all-way stop policy. This extensive process would require input and
consensus from the Director of Public Works, the City Engineer and the Safety
Commission before any revisions could be forwarded to the City Council.
May 13. 1999: Staffand Safety Commission finalized the all-way stop revisions for adoption by the City
Council. As a result, the Safety Commission recommended the approval of the new
policy by Council at a future City Council meeting.
Between 6/12/97 and 5/13/99, fifteen (15) intersections were studied for all-way stop
control. Seven (7) intersections were approved for installation, Three (3) intersections
were studied but were never presented to the Safety commission for recommendation and
five (5) intersections were denied after Safety Commission heatings (please see attached
list of all-way stops studied for consideration since 1997). One of the intersections denied
was the intersection of Broadway and Flower Street, which was later scheduled for
installation of a traffic signal.
July 27. 1999: Council approved the new all-way stop policy, by resolution No. 19547.
Nov. 11, 1999: The Safety Commission concurred ~vith staff's recommendation to install an all-way stop
control at the intersection of East "J" Street and La Senda Way.
Dec. 7, 1999: During the City Council meeting, Mr. David Krogh, a member of the public, appealed the
decision of staff and the Safety Commission to install an all-way stop control at the
intersection of East "J" Street and La Senda Way. He further alleged that the existing
policy was too liberal, and staff could manipulate the point system to approve all-way
stops.
Jan. 25, 2000: Council directed staff to re-evaluate the all-way stop study at the intersection of East "J"
Street and La Senda Way, and return to council with recommendation.
Mar. 9,2000: The Safety Commission unanimously concurred with staffs re-evaluation and
recommendation to install an-all way stop at East "J" Street and La Senda Way.
COUNCIl. POLICY
CTIT OF CH'ULA VISTA
SUBJECT: Safety Commission Policy - Delegating POI.ICI' EFFEt.:IIVE
Additional Authority NUMBER DATE PAGE
110-09 3/14/9S 4 off
ADOI~IED BY: Resolution 17832 [ DATED: 3/14/95
A. PUBLIC INQUIRIES (continued)
4. The City Engineer prepares a report to the Safety Commission presentiug his/her findings
accompanied with a recommendation to accept or deny the citizen's traffic safety
improvement request.
5. The City Engineer's report is placed on the Safety Commission's meeting agenda.
6. Citizen and other affected individuals ar~ notified of the date when their item will appear
before the Safety Commission. Notices are sent out not later th~u six days before the Safety
Commission meeting.
7. The Safety Commission conducts a public hearing, where staff presents their recommendation
to deny or approve the citizen's traffic safety improvement request to the Safety Commission.
8. The Safety Commission, by a majority vote of the Safety Commission, makes a determination
based on established Council policies, the Municipal Code, the California Vehicle Code, and
standard traffic engineering practices to concur with or disagree with the City Engineer's
report to approve or reject the citizen's traffic safety improvement request
a. If the Safety Commission vote affirms the City Engineer's recommendation to approve
the citizen's traffic safety improvement request, staff is authorized to implement the
traffic safety improvement.
b. If the Safety Commission, by n majority vote of the Safety Commission, ~lrms the
City Engineer's recommendation to deny the citizen's traffic safety improvement
request, the denial is final and will not be forwarded by staff to the City Council for
their consideration unless one member of the Council wirh;,~ 10 deys desires to hear
the item. Staff will notify Council of the Safety Commission hearing results through
the forwarding of an information memo ourllni~g the action taken. Appeals to the
City Council from decisions of the Safety Commission or City Engineer are n priority
and will normally be schedul?d for a hearing 3 to 4 weeks from the date the appeal is
filed. After conducting a public h~ring, during which time the applic:~nt and
interested pm-ties may speak, the Cotmeil may approved, conditionally approve, or
deny the request. The City Cotmeirs decision is final.
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: Safety Commission Policy. Delegating POLICY I=~-t'~&.I1VE .
Additional Authority NIYMBER DATE PAGE
110-09 3/14/95 2 offi
ADO¥1eJ) BY: Resolution 17833 DATED: 3/14/95
2. EXCEPTIONS:
A. Traffic Control Measures budgeted by the City as a Capital Improvement Project Budget.
The authority to establish a Traffic Control Measure for which the City has appropriated funds
in the City's CIP bu~lget shall be vested ha the City Council, subject to recommendations of the
City Engineer and Safety Commission.
B. Special Event Regulations
(1) Public Community Events.
The authority to establish and maintain Traffic Control Measures for community
events using the public right-of-way.
(2) Road Construction Projects.
The authority to establish and maintain temporary Traffic Control Measures for road
construction projects shall be vested in the City Engineer, unless overruled by the
affirmative vote of three members of the Council. The City Engineer shall, under the
following circumstances, advise the Council seven days in advance in writing of the
following proposed Traffic Control Measures exerdsed under the authority of this
exception:
(a) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve complete road closures on
any road;
(b) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve significant interference
with traffc on high volume roads;
(c) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve long term partial road
closures on any road;
(d) the proposed Traffic Conn'ol Measure may involve interference with access to
may business;
Ce) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve the rerouling of traffic
through residential ~reas.
C Emergancy Traffic Regulations. ..
Warrant Definitions
1. Accident:
Points are assi_aned for each accident susceptible to correction by four-way stop comrol
during a 12-month period prior to investigation.
2. Caltrans criteria:
.~ny of the following conditions may warrant the installation of an all-way stop control:
a. A multi-way stop siL~n may be implemented as an interim measure to installing a
traffic si~maal.
b. An intersection that has an accident problem. Suer accidents include fight and
left mm collisions as well as right angle collisions.
~m all-way stop is also warranted if:
a. Total vehicular volume average is 500 for any 8 hours of an average day, and
b. Combined vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the minor street is at least
200?ar with an average delay of at least 30 sec./vehicle during maximum hour.
'~W'nen the 85th percentile approach speed of the minor street traffic exceeds 40 mph. The
minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above total requiremems.
3. Interim to traffic signal installation:
~ere a T~--~-ffic signal is warranted and urgently needed, a multi-way stop may be
5astalled to control traffic until a traffic sisal is installed.
4. Intersection design:
A geometric problem in intersection design may exist to the extent that a controlled flow
cf vehicular ~--affic throu~ ~he intersection is required, and sflch consol cannot 5e
accomphshed by less restrictive means.
5. Pedestrian:
Points are assigned based on the volume of pedestrians crossing the main s~eet
~>proaches during certain highest hours of au average day.
6. Primary:
One oft_he struts at an inter~ecfion must be a through slxeet before the intersection can be
considered for ~way stop control.
7. Progressive movement:
On the more heaxfty traveled street, the closest STOP si~.~ must be located at ]east 600
feet away, and 1,000 feet away from a signalized intersection.
H:;~H O M EkEN G LN-EEP.\TR.AFFI CWiA.IE D"ail-x~*y s t op~.Ml'~*y_d efinifi OhS .ma- doc
ALL-WAY STOP POLICY
USES USES
CALTRANS OWN
CITY COMMENTS
The total possible poin~ are 100, ~ere 35 .min.
CHU~ VISTA X )~n~ are needed to jus~ ~e ins~liaflon.
P~i~ ~s approve~ on August ~, 1979.
CORONADO X
~ ~ 7~c ~viso~ ~mmmee ma0e up of
COU~ OF SAN DIEGO X raps. from Cairns, Sh~s Offi~, CHP,
~o make d~Qs ohs ~ ~y stops.-, .
DEL M~R X . .
The to~l possible poin~ are 50, ~ere 30 mm.
EL C~ON X ~oin~ am needed to jus~ ~e ins~l~afion.
Tn~ ~1 p~ssiDle pmn~ are 55, ~ere 25
ENCINTTAS j X jp3in~ ~re needed to jus~ ~e ins~llafion.
ESCONDIDO X a total of 50 point. H~ever, minimum to quali~
IMPE~IAL B~CH ~ X
J The poli~ mammy oaa~s ~m minimum
~ MESA ~ X v~ umes and number of ~den~.
,I I~ainm are needed to jus~ ~e ins~lla~on.
NATION~ C:~' J X
OC=~SIDE X [ ls~m but ~ey are not adorned by ~e Oi~,
I
SAN DIEGO X p2inm are 50, ~ere ~ pain~ sre needed t~
{ The poii~ is DaseO on Cairns' stop
SAN M~RCSSJ J X ~n~. Only b~l s~ quali~ for
SANT~E X ~ ~[ming device in o~er ~ reduce vehi~lar
j s2eeds.
SOLANA B~2H , X I::in% are needed m jus~ ~e ins~l
I
Foh~ Cairns' manual an~ me Ci~ of San
VISTA X ! jDiep=s p9ii;y.
' OUTSIDE THE SAN DIEGO COUN~ AREA
i H:~H O M E~N GIN ~ER~FFIC~M~ ED'~il~y.m a
ALL WAY STOPS STUDIED FOR CONSIDE1L~TION SINCE 1/1/1997
PREVIOUS POLICY EXISTING POLICY DATE
N &3,IE ~ PTS 100 PTS
1 ]EAST J STREET & CASSIA PI-&CE 8 ] NO I 1 12/24/96 1/9/97
2 TEKKA NO\'A D P. JVE & PLKZA DEL CiD ~ YES (1) 25 12/24/96 2/13/97 6/2/97
3 LAKESHORE DR/CREEKWOOD WAY YES (I) 9/18/96 4/15/97 4/23/97
4 tILa24CHO DEL KEY PK~q' & RIDGEBACK RD 2~ YES 66 4/18/97 5/8/97 6/9/97
5 IEASTLAKE PKWY & GKEENSGATE DPdVE 1~ NO 68 YES (l) §/20/97 9/11/97 10/10/97
6 MELROSE A\~ENUE & SPRUCE STREET NO 13 NO 8'27/97 9..'11/97
7 ]EAST PALOMAR STREET & MONSEILkTE AVE 1796 NO 23 NO 8/27/97 9/11/97
8 ]CUYAMA,CT~ AVENUE & INKOPAH STREET NO 17 NO 8/28/97 9/11/97
9 ]HIDDEN \ ISTA DRIVE & WINDROSE WAY YES(l) 30 9/22/97 10/9/97 10/30/97
~ NO 168 NO(2) 9.'25/97 10/9/97
10 BROADWAY & FLOWER STREET
11 HIDDEN VISTA DRIVE & WOODHOUSE AVENUE YES(1 ) 35 9.'29/97 10/9/97 3f9/98
2 CREST DRJVE & DOUGLAS STREET 13 NO NO 2/20t98 3/12/98
', 3 EAST OXFORD & MELROSE AVENUE 20 YES 3,'2Y98 4/9/98 4/16/98
14 EAST NAPLES STREET & MEDICAL CENTER DR 24 'FES 6"1/98 7/9/98 8/27198
15 HILLSIDE DK~PORT ILENWICK;RUE CHAM ON D 18 YES 10'20~98 11/12/98 I2/1/98
16 MELROSE AVENUE & J AM22L .AVENUE 1 i NO ] } ! 1 '25~98 l ~4/99
17 MELROSE AVENnUE & INKOPAH 1.4 5'ES I V25/98 I/4/99 1/22/99
18 OLE.'kNDER AVENUE & SEQUOL~. STREET NO 11/20'98 1/14/99
9 OLE~NDER AVENUE & TAJvLKRJd~ STREET I 8 I NO 11 '20~98 1/14/99
20 CAMTNO DEL SOL & TIEKRA DEL REY 5~ES 8/10/99 9/9/99 10/6/99
.1 RANCHO DEL REY PKWY & C.aJvIINO BISCAY 17 NO YES 8'16t99 9t9/99 I/6/00
~2 PASEO BURGA & RANCHO DEL KEY PKWY t 36 YES 896/99 9/9/99 11/12/99
23 ]RANCHO DEL KEY PKWW & DEL REy BLVD 12 NO YES 8/17~99 9/9/99 11/17/99
24 [RANCHO DEL REY PKWY & TEKIL~_ NOVA DP, JVE 18 NO ] 68 [ YES 89 7/99 9t9/99 t 0/I/99
25 t KANCHO DEL REy PKWY & AVENIDA DEL KEY 20 NO I 66 YES 8/17t99 9/9!99 9,30/99
26 IEAST J STRE~'-i- & LOLL! L&~NE ] 4 NO YES 8/20'99 9/9/99 l 0/6/99
27 lEAST J STREET & NAC1ON AVENUE I 50 YES $/19/99 10,'14~99 12/16/99
28 INORELLA STREET & RANCHO DEL REY PKWY I 35 YES 8/16/99 11/11/99 1/7/00
29 IALLEN SCHOOL LN & SUKR~y DRIVE I 40 NO 10'27/99 I 1/I 1/99
30 IEASTJ STKEET&MELROSEA\qENuE I 55 5'ES 1I/I7~99 1/13/00 1/21/00
31 I MILAGROSA WAy & KANCHO DEL REY PKWY [ 45 NO(3 ) 12/16/99 1/13/00
32 IEASTRIDGE LOOP & N GKEENs\r[EW DRIVE j 29 NO 12/27/99 1/13/00
33 'EAST OXT:ORD & NACION AVENrUE 34 "ES 1/18/002/10/003/15/00
34 IEAST NAPLES STREET &JAMULAVENUE 15543 YES 1120/00 2/10/00 3115/00
35 tHILLTOP DRIV'E & TELEGILkPH CYN RD I YES 2/2/00 2/10/00 3/29/00
36 GREENSGATE DRIVE & N CREENSV[EW DR I 66 YES 2/I 7/00 3/9/00 3/30/00
37 AUGUSTA PLACE & N GREENSVrEW D Pd-VE I t ii NO 2/17/00 3/9/00
38 lEAST J STtLEET & CAIvffNO k{[EL NO 2/28/00 3/9/00
39 lEAST J STREET & LA SENDA WAY NO(3) 2/1/00 3/9/00
40 ' LANE AVENUE & SADDLEBACK STREET ' 15 NO 3/24/004/I3/00
41 LAN-E AVENUE & STONrE CANYON ROAD
28 NO 4/13/00 4/13100
42 NOLAN A V'E~N'I JE & EAST PAl. OMAR STREET NO 6/9/00 5/11/00
(1) INSTALLED WITH COUNCIL'S REVIEW
(2) A T P. AFFIC SIGNAL WAS INSTALLED INSTEAD
(3) SHOULD BE INSTALLED SINCE BOTH STAFF AND SAFETY COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
THE ALL-WAY STOP AT THIS INTERSECTION
(4) STUDIED UNDER PREVIOUS POLICY ON 6/1~2000 AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY ENGINEER