HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/04/23 Item 23
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 23
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Resolution tl,,1*7 Adopting a revised Council pol icy for
the installation of all-Way..~:~ signs
Director of Public work~~
City Manager &1~1b (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
f~ Council Referral #2089
At the August 14, 1990 meeting, during discussion of the Oleander Avenue and
East Oxford Street traffic problem, the City Council indicated a need to
modify the exi st i ng all-way stop pol icy to allow more emphas is on school age
pedestrian activity areas. In response to this concern, staff has prepared a
revi s i on of the City' s all-way stop pol icy that provides greater emphas is on
pedestrian activity areas.
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Council also raised quest ions on the 1 ega 1 authority of establ i shi ng all-way
stops. Additionally, staff has prepared the following commentary on the City
legal authority to install all-way stops and establish criteria for its
installation.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Counci 1 approve staff's report and adopt the
attached revised all-way stop policy by resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At the Safety Commission meeting of
November 8, 1990, the Safety Commission voted 7-0 to approve staff's report.
DISCUSSION:
Local agencies, such as the City of Chula Vista, do have the authority to
adopt their own warrant system for the installation of all-way stop controls.
There is no mandated point or warrant system for the placing of all-way
stops. California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21354 leaves the weighing of criteria to
the discretion of local authorities. The California Vehicle Code, Section
21350 thru 21355, gives the authority to local agencies to install all-way
stop traffic controls upon streets in their respective jurisdiction.
The City's current policy for the installation of an all-way stop control is
based on a 50 point system. Points are assigned to traffic factors based on
the severity of traffic conditions. A minimum of 30 points are required.
Factors measured are:
1. accident records
2. unusual conditions
3~ pedestrian volumes
4. traffic volumes
5. traffic volume differentials
It is recognized that the existing all-way stop policy does not provide
speci a 1 provi si ons for an all-way stop where unusual traffi c condit ions at
residential intersections adjacent to school age pedestrian activity
facilities exist.
~~.\
Page 2, Item ~jf
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Accordingly, staff has revised the all-way stop policy to incorporate concerns
addressed by the City Council.
The proposed all-way stop pol icy wi 11 provide greater emphas is in assess i ng
the need for all-way stops in residential neighborhoods. Additional changes
are recommended to refl ect current pract ices in the San Di ego area and to
incorporate CalTrans all-way stop warrants.
Primary changes have been made in the following areas:
1. Through Street Warrant - Thi s warrant has been dropped because it is
covered by Volume Warrants.
2. Accident Warrant - no change.
3. Unusual Conditions Warrant changed to allow the City Traffic
Engineer to apply greater emphasis in qualifying intersections in
residential neighborhoods for an all-way stop control where there is a
high concentration of school-age pedestrian activities adjacent to
collector streets coupled with unusual topography or roadway geometries.
4. A separate Pedestrian Volume Warrant has been added.
5. Vol ume Warrant has been changed to refl ect current practices in the
San Diego area.
6. Traffic Count Information - a place for traffic count data has been
provided for in the all-way stop evaluation form. Keeping traffic volume
data wi th the all-way stop eva 1 uat i on allows for all pert i nent volume
data to be in one place, and allows future reviews of stop installations
to be conducted more easily.
7. Total Points Possible has increased from 50 to 54. A minimum of 30
points is still required to justify the installation of an all-way stop.
8. The 30 point requirement is exempted if the CalTrans all-way stop
criteria or on local residential streets where there are unusual
traffic and school activity conditions.
In summary, the revised policy retains the features of the existing policy and
its 30 point qualifying requirement but allows for an an exception for
1 ocat ions where there are high con cent rat ions of school age activit i es, and
CalTrans criteria is met.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
FR/mad
WPC 5547E:CY-016/KY-119/KY-158 (2089)
Attachments: CVC 21350 thru 21355
All-way stop policy (Existing)
All-way stop policy (Proposed)
Informational item dated 11/20/90
Safety Commission minutes 11/8/90 (excerpt)
2.J .:z.
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUl.A VISTA
All-Way stop Policy
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PKE
SUBJECf
1 of 2
ADOPTED BY:
DATED:
BACKGROUND
The CalTrans Traffic Manual and the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices list criteria in determining the need for an all-
way stop. Actual need for an all-way is determined by an
engineering study which examines the special characteristics of
the site.
All-way stop signs are very restrictive controls since they
require all motorists entering the intersection to stop at all
times. When stop signs are installed for speed control and/or
there is no apparent traffic reason for the stop (little or no
cross traffic), motorists regard the stop sign as an unnecesary
impediment and oftentimes do not make a complete stop. When this
occurs the expectations of other drivers and pedestrians are
altered, thereby jeopardizing the safety performance of the
intersection. Although speeds will be lower in the vicinity of
the stop, speeds will be higher midblock as motorists try to
makeup for the time lost at the unwarranted stop sign. Another
negative aspect of unwarranted stop signs is the increase in noise
and pollution as vehicles apply their brakes to slow down and
accelerate out of the intersection.
It is impractical and impossible to install an all-way stop (or
other traffic control device such as a traffic signal) whenever
and where ever a request is made; otherwise during peak periods,
extended delays to motorists may result, thus forcing motorists to
seek alternate routes through parallel streets, often a
residential area. A Traffic Engineer's primary goal is to
maintain safety and reduce vehicle delay.
PURPOSE
The purpose of a fully justified, properly installed all-way stop
is to effectively assign right-of-way, maintain safety and reduce
vehicle delay. Generally, all-way stops are installed where
traffic signals are warranted and/or an accident history has been
indicated by reported accidents of a type susceptible to
correction by an all-way stop.
~..3
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
All-Way stop Policy
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PPGE
SUBJEcr
2 of 2
ADOPTED BY:
DATED:
POLICY
It shall be the policy of the City of Chula Vista, through the
Department of Public Works/Engineering Division, to warrant the
installation of All-Way stops in accordance with the following
policy statements:
The California Vehicle Code, Section 21350 thru 21355, gives the
authority to local agencies to install all-way stop traffic
controls upon streets in their respective jurisdiction.
According to Federal and state traffic control guidelines, all-way
stop installations should be reserved for the control of vehicular
traffic conflicts at intersections and should not to be used as
devices to control speed.
The City'S policy for the installation of an all-way stop control
is based on a point system. Points are assigned to traffic factors
based on the severity of traffic conditions. Factors measured are:
1. accident records
2. unusual conditions
3. pedestrian volumes
4. traffic volumes
5. traffic volume differentials
See Attached Allway stop Control Warrants:
I
2~.4 J;'j~/8
,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL WARRANTS
Date:
Major Street/Minor Street
Total Points
( -00)
INTERSECTION
GENERAL:
A fully justified, properly installed all-way stop can effectively assign
right of way, reduce vehicle delay, and decrease accidents. Generally, an
all-way stop is reserved for the use at the intersection of two through
highways, and only as an interim traffic control measure prior to
signalization. Stop signs are not to be used for speed control.
The posting of an intersection for all-way stop control should be based on
factual data. Warrants to be considered include:
1. Accident records
2. Unusual conditions
3. Traffic volumes
4. Traffic volume difference
5. Pedestrian volume
Points are assigned to each of these warrants. The total points possible are
54. The installation of an all-way stop control is justified with a minimum
of 30 points, unless anyone of the CalTrans criteria is met.
ALL-WAY STOP POINT SYSTEM CRITERIA:
1. ACCIDENT WARRANT:
Two points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correction by an
all-way stop control during one full year prior to the investigation date.
Total number of accidents correctible by all-way stop:
Maximum 14 points
SCORE:
Points
2. UNUSUAL CONDITION WARRANT:
Where unusual conditions exist, such as a school, fire station,
pl ayground, horizontal or vertical curves, etc., points are assigned on
the bas is of engi neeri ng judgment. Unusual condi t ions shall be
considered only if within 500 feet of the subject intersection. In
residential neighborhoods where there is a concentration of school age
children activities separated from the residential neighborhood by a
23-6
collector street and coupled with other conditions, the City Traffic
EnQineer may apply traffic engineering judgment and waive the 30-point
minimum point requirement to qualify the intersection for an all-way stop
control.
The 30-point minimum requirement may be waived and an all-way stop may be
installed only if less restrictive controls have not corrected a
documented problem.
All-way stops mav be justified based on projected volumes and accident
frequency when traffic signals are warranted and will be installed within
a specified period of time.
Maximum 10 points
SCORE:
Points
3. PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES
Consideration is given to large numbers of pedestrians crossing the major
street during the four busiest hours of an average day.
Pedestrian CrossinQ Maior Street. Total durinQ 4 busiest traffic hours
Volumes: 1-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-0VER
Points: 1 2 3 4 5
Maximum 5 points
SCORE:
Points
4. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Points are dependent upon the magnitude of vehicular volumes entering the
intersection during the four busiest hours of an average day.
Traffic Counts (circle four highest hour volumes):
Hour Ending At:
Dir 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
NB
SB
EB
WB
T
iJ"~
-2-
Traffic Volumes Warrant
Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following tables:
Total of Total of
Major Approach Legs Minor Approach Legs
4-hour Volume Points 4-hour Volume Points
o - 1000 0 o - 400 0
1001 - 1300 1 401 - 600 1
1301 - 1600 2 601 - 800 2
1601 - 1900 3 801 - 1000 3
1901 - 2200 4 1001 - 1200 4
2201 - 2600 5 1201 - 1400 5
2601 - 2900 4 1401 - 1600 6
2901 - 3200 3 1601 - 1800 7
3201 - 3500 2 1801 - 2000 8
3501 - 3800 1 2001 - 2200 9
3801 - over 0 2201 - over 10
SCORE: Points SCORE: Points
Maximum 5 Minimum 10
5. TRAFFIC VOLUME DIFFERENCE
All-way stops operate best when the
traffic volumes are nearly equal.
accordance with the following table:
24-Hour Minor St. Aocroach Volumes
24-Hour Maior St. Accroach Volumes X 100% =
major and mi nor street approach
Points shall be assigned in
Points
95 - 100
85 - 94
75 - 84
65 - 74
55 - 64
45 - 54
35 - 44
25 - 34
15 - 24
5 - 14
o - 4
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
o
SCORE:
Points
Maximum 10 Points
~a-l -3-
CALTRANS CRITERIA (Chaoter 4 CalTrans Traffic Manual)
Any of the following conditions may warrant a multi-way STOP sign installation:
1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multiway stop
may be an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic
while arrangements are being made for the signal installation.
2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents
within a 12 month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multiway
stop installation. Such accidents include right- and left-turn collisions
as well as right-angle collisions.
3. Minimum traffic volumes
(a)
The total vehicular volume entering the intersection
approaches must average at 1 east 500 vehi cl es per hour
hours of an average day, and
from a 11
for any 8
(b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or
highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8
hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at
least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but
(c) When the 8S-percent il e approach speed of the major street traffi c
exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70
percent of the above requirements.
Ja-I -4-
ALL-WAY STOP SUMMARY
INTERSECTION:
(
-00)
DATE INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETED:
TOTAL SCORE: points out of a possible 54. The minimum
required to justify an all-way stop control is 30 points.
INTERSECTION DIAGRAM:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
REMARKS:
WPC 5546E
t3..'1 -5-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ALL-WAY STOP EVALUATION WORKSHEET
(Major)
(Minor)
File
Date
Investigator
Intersection
Qualifies for All-Way Stop based on 30 or more points:
Yes No Points
Qualifies for All-Way Stop based on other criteria:
If yes, explain:
Yes
No
Sketch of intersection with visibility data
On back Attached
I. Accident History Points Possible
From / / to / /
Accidents/year correctable by Stops x 2 pOints/accident
14
2. Unusual Conditions
10
3. Pedestrian Volume
Pedestrians
crossing the major street during 4 hour count
5
4. Traffic Volumes (Peak 4 Hours)
Major approaches
Minor approaches
5
10
5. Traffic Volume Difference
10
TOTAL
Minimum Points Required
54
30
WPC 5546E
ZJ-ID -6-
CHAPTER 2. TRAFFIC SIGNS, SIGNALS, AND MARKINGS
Article 1. Erection and Maintenance
Trolfie and Pedestrian Regulation on SIal. Highways
21352. The Department of Transportation may erect stop signs at any
entrance to any state highway and whenever the department determines
that it is necessary for the public safety and the orderly and efficient use
of the highways by the public, the department may erect and maintain,
or cause to be erected and maintained, on any state highway any traffic
control signal or any official traffic control device regulating or
prohibiting the turning of vehicles upon the highway, allocating or
restricting the use of specified lanes or portions of the highway by
moving vehicular traffic, establishing crosswalks at or betwe~n
intersections, or restricting use of the right~of-way by the public for other
than highway purposes.
Amended Ch. 545, Stats. 1974. Effective January 1, 1975.
Amended Ch. 413, Stats. 1981. Effective January 1, 1982.
loeal Regulalion Affecling Slale Highway Traffic
21353. No local authority, except by permission of the Department of
Transportation, shall erect or maintain any stop sign or traffic control
signal in such manner as to require the traffic on any state highway to
stop before entering or crossing any intersecting highway or any railroad
grade crossing.
Amended Ch. .545, Stats. 1974. Errective January 1, 1975.
Amended Ch. 413, Stats. 1981. Effective January I, 1982.
Slale Aulhorily
21350. The Department of Transportation shall place and maintain, or
cause to be placed and maintained, with respect to highways under it's
jurisdiction, appropriate signs, signals and other traffic control devices as
required hereunder, and may place and maintain, or cause to be placed
and maintained, such appropriate signs, signals or other traffic control
devices as may be authorized hereunder, or as may be necessary
properly to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this code, or to
warn or guide traffic upon the highways. The Deparhnent of
Transportation may, with the consent of the local authorities, also place
and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, in or along city
streets and county roads, appropriate signs, signals and other traffic
control devices, or may perform, or cause to be performed, such other
work on city streets and county roads, as may be necessary or desirable
to control, or direct traffic, or to facilitate traffic flow, to or from or on
slate highways.
Amended Ch. 483, Stats. 1965. Effective September 17, 1965.
Amended Ch. 754, Stats. 1968. Effective November 13, 1968.
Amended Ch. 968, Stats. J970. Effective September 14, 1970, by terms of an urgency clause.
Amended Ch. 648. Stats. 1974. Effective January 1, 1975. Supersedes Ch. 545.
~
W
,
......
-
local Aulhorily
21351. Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place
and maintain or cause to be placed and maintained such traffic signs,
signals and other traffic control devices upon streets and highways as
required hereunder, and may place and maintain or cause to be placed
and maintained, such appropriate signs, signals or other traffic control
devices as may be authorized hereunder or as may be necessary properly
to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this code or local traffic
ordinances or to warn or guide traffic.
Use 01 Melric Sy,'em Oe.ignalion.
21351.3. Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may place
and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, speed limit, speed
advisory, and mileage signs, or suitable plates affixed to or near existing
signs, which indicate. speeds and distances both in common standards of
measures, as specified in Section 12302 of the Business and Professions
Code, and in measures of the metric system authorized by Congress.
Added Ch. 462, Stats. 1974. Efrcctive January 1, 1975.
Slop Sign. 01 Railroad Crossing.
21351.5. The Department of Transportation or local authorities, with
respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may erect stop
signs to require the traffic on a highway to stop before crossing any
railroad grade crossing designated by the agency having jurisdiction of
the highway as a major crossing with a demonstrated need for stop signs,
except a railroad grade crossing which is controlled by automatic signals,
gates, or other train.actuated control devices,
Added Ch. 58, Stats. 1974. Erfcctive March 8, 1974 by terms of an urgency clause.
Deal Child Warning Signs
21351.7. Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may place
and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, appropriate signs
along city streets or county roads which indicate that a deaf child is near.
Added Ch. 719, Stats. 1983. Erfective January 1, 1984.
Stop SIgn. on locol Hlghwtly.
21354. Subject to the provisions of Section 21353, a local authority may
designate any highway under its jurisdiction as a through highway and
may erect stop signs at entrances thereto or may designate any
intersection under its exclusive jurisdiction as a stop intersection and
erect stop signs at one or more entrances thereto,
Slop Sign.
21355. (a) Stop signs erected under Section 21350, 21351, 21352, or
21354 may be erected either at or near the entrance to an intersection.
The Department of Transportation and local authorities in their
respective jurisdictions may erect stop signs at any location so as to
control traffic within an intersection.
When a required stop is to apply. at the entrance to an intersection
from a one-way street with a roadway of 30 feet or more in width, stop
signs shall be erecled both on the left and the right sides of the one-way
street at or near the entrance to the intersection.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, stop signs shall not
be erected at any entrance to an intersection controlled by official traffic
control signals, nor at any railroad grade crossing which is controlled by
automatic signals. gates, or other train-actuated control devices except
where a stop sign may be necessary to control traffic on intersecting
highways adjacent to the grade crossing or when a local authority
determines, wilh the approval of the Public Utilities Commission
pursuant to Section 21110, that a railroad grade crossing under its
jurisdiction presents a danger warranting a stop sign in addition to a
train.activated control device.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), local authorities, with respect to
streets under their jurisdiction, are not required to conform lawfully
established intersection configurations existing on January I, 1985, to
meet the requirements of subdivision (a) unlil January 1, 1990.
Amended Ch. 840, Stats. 1969. Effective November 10, 1969.
Amended Ch. 606. Stats. 1973. Effective january I, 1974.
Amended Ch. 700. Stats. 1984. Effective anuary 1. 1985.
f3,<I_STlNc. pOI-lei
CITY OF CHULA VISTA POLICY
ALL-WAY ~IUP ~UNIRUL
Date:
INTERSECTION
Tota 1 Poi nts
PURPOSE:
A fully justified, properly installed four-way stop can effectively assign right of way,
reduce vehicle delay and decrease accidents. Generally, a four-way stop is reserved for
use at the intersection of two through highways, and only as an interim traffic control
measure prior to signalization.
GENERAL:
The posting of an intersection for four-way stop control should be based on factual
data. Warrants to be considered include:
1. Through street conditions.
2. Accident records.
3. Traffic and pedestrian volumes.
4. Volume splits.
5. Unusual conditions such as proximity of schools, fire stations, vision obscurement,
etc.
Poi nts are assi gned to each of these warrants. The total possi b1 e poi nts is 50. The
installation of four-way stop control is justified with a total of 30 points.
THROUGH STREET WARRANT:
One of the approaching streets to the intersection must be a through highway before the
intersection can be considered for four-way stopCOiitrol. A through highway shall
extend at least one mile in both directions from the intersection under consideration
and shall meet conditions set forth on Page 8, Section 2f of the Highway Capacity
Manual, 1965.
A. If only one of the intersecting streets is a through highway
B. If both streets are through highways
1-3 Poi nts
3-5 Points
Maximum 5 Points
SCORE:
Points
ACCIDENT WARRANT:
Two poi nts are assi gned for each acci dent suscepti bl e to correcti on by four-way stop
control during one full year prior to the investigation.
Total number of accidents correctible by four-way stop:
Maximum 14 Points
SCORE:
Points
UNUSUAL CONDITION WARRANT:
Where unusual conditions exist at the intersection such as a school, fire station,
playground, vision obscurement, etc., points are assigned on the basis of engineering
jUdgment. Unusual conditions shall be considered only if within 500 feet of the
i ntersecti on:
Maximum 10 Points
U-I'L
SCORE:
Poi nt s
!3xIST/Ii)L"... pOL-Ie y
-2-
VOLUME WARRANT:
A. Total entering vehicle volume must equal 2,000 vehicles for four highest hours
in average day.
B. Minimum side street vehicular and pedestrian volume must equal 600 vehicles
during same four hour period.
Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following tables:
ALL APPROACHES
MINOR STREET PEDESTRIAN &
VEHICLE VOLUME (BOTH APPROACHES)
o - 1400
1401 - 1700
1701 - 2000
2001 - 2300
2301 - 2600
2601 - 2900
2901 - 3200
3201 - 3500
3501 - 3800
3801 - 4100
4101 - 4400
4401 - 4700
4701 - 5000
5001 - 5300
5301 - 5600
5601 - 5900
Over 5900
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
o
Highest Four Hour Volume Points
600 - 800 1
801 - 1200 2
1201 - 1400 3
1401 - 1600 4
1601 - Over 5
Highest Four Hour Volume
Points
Maximum 13 Points
SCORE
Points
VOLUME SPLIT WARRANT:
Four-way stops operate best where the minor approach volume and the major approach
volume are nearly equal. Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following
table:
24-Hour Minor St. Volumes
24-Hour Major St. Volumes %
95+
85 - 94
75 - 84
65 - 74
55 - 64
45 - 54
35 - 44
25 - 34
o - 24
Points
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
o
~'axi mum 8 Po; nts
SCORE:
Points
23../3
ex's-rt/V~ pOL-lei
-3-
ALL-WAY STOP SUMMARY
INTERSECTION:
DATE INVESTIGATION Cot~PLETED:
TOTAL SCORE: points out of a possible total 50. Minimum score for four-way
stop control is 3U pOlnts.
REMARKS:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
WPC 3287E
Pw-E-23
J.5../~
/
Safety Commission Meeting
(
Minutes
November 8,1990
Recreation staff and do as directed in your motion.
Commissioner Chidester asked the Chair if it would be feasible for the Traffic
Engineer to explore the possibility of Parks and Recreation transferring those
activities out of there to nearby schools--exploring the possibility of doing that.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that was outside his purview. All I can do is refer to them the
concerns of the Safety Commission and request that they respond to what you have
asked us to do.
Commissioner Chidester repeated his statement--to explore the avenues of
transferring these activities to schools playgrounds, even if it is a Saturday and they
have to open the school lots.
MOTION
That the Safety Commission accept staffs proposal.
MSDC, [ThomaslBraden] 7-0, approved.
(
(3B) Report on revised all.wav stop policv
L
Mr. Rosenberg gave staffs report. This is an item that is of concern to the City
Council. It deals with the policy for the installation of all-way stops that I am sure
you recognize as a problem that we have to wrestle with from time to time. Our
Council policy, actually it is not a Council policy, it is a department policy--it has not
been adopted by the City Council by resolution; although we do call it a policy. It
uses a point system for the installation of stop signs, all-way stops. When we get a
request for an all-way stop installation, we look at numerous factors that are shown
in this report--accidem data, traffic volumes, the difference in traffic volumes.
pedestrian activities, unusual conditions such as the curvature of the roadway hillside,
and using what we call empirical Engineering Traffic judgment, we apply a point
system. When you reach 30 points you qualify the location for an all-way stop. The
City Council felt that, often times when we make our presentation, that while it
appears to be a very technical and sound way of evaluating the need for all-way stops,
it doesn't take into consideration the exceptional cases in residential neighborhoods.
For example. . he one that we recently installed on Oleander Street. Therefore. they
asked us to ',rch and maybe even change state legislation. Actually we don't have
to change st egislation because enabling laws allow us to develop our own criteria
for deterlllinli'g when an all-way stop is needed. So therefore, Traffic Engineering
staff reviewed the policy and made some adjustments. In particular, we made an
adjustment in the area where an unusual eondition(s) which would allow staff to use
a little bit more judgment in determining whether or not an :dl-way stop would applv.
The point system here would not necessarily apply if in the judgment of the Tr:ltfic
13
J,J-Ir-
Safety Commission Meeting
(
Minutes
November 8,1990
Engineer, me, determined that there was extraordinary situations in that particular
location that would warrant an all-way stop. For example, a playground separated
by a street on one side where there were high density developments, lots of children,
a combination of schools, church, parks and recreation center, and the like; and, it
is basically the gist of the report. Additionally, the warrant system that uses the
number of cars that enter the intersection would also change slightly, to also provide
a little more flexibility in the justification for an all-way stop. Rather than get into
the real details and the specifics of the numbers, which are again, very empirical, the
basis of the all-way stop warrants is to ensure that we aren't forced into putting all-
way stops at every intersection. Otherwise, traffic wouldn't move at all and motorists
would just learn to disrespect the stop sign because it would be more of a nuisance
and there wouldn't be an apparent need why they have to stop at an intersection.
That is the end of my report on this subject. I welcome any questions you might
have on what I just said.
Chair Braden called a recess at 7:55 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back into session at 8:05 p.m.
(
Commissioner Koester noted that one paragraph on this item mentions the (Chapter
2, Traffic Signs, Signals, and Markings) use of metric system designations. We aren't
going to put anything like that on signs are we.
Mr. Rosenberg responded, stating that was a section out of the Vehicle Code. No,
we are not required to do that, nor are we contemplating doing that.
~
Mr. Rosenberg stated that what he would like to do on this item--this is an action
itern--what I would like is the Safety Commission to approve the report. If you have
any concerns about it, about the technical data in it, you can at least give me a
motion to approve it in content.
MOTION
That the Safety Commission approve the content of staffs report.
MSUC, [BradenlKoester] 7-0, approved.
Commissioner Matacia asked if the all-wny stop policy was designed to slow traffic
down, because I find so many intersections--particularly in the new area, where
Bonita Long Canyon area--wherc thcre is so little cross traffic that it scems
unnecessary for everybody to stop 24 hours a day at a street, unless it is really
designed to slow traffic down.
L
:vIr. Rosenberg rcsponded no, to answer your qucstion, it is an cmphatic no.
However, often times we are directed to put stop signs in for that purpose. Bec:llIsc
of the motions and thc perccption of thc public that feci that thc stop signs. in bct.
I-r
ta .,I/'
Safety Commission Meeting
(
Minutes
November 8, 1990
do control speed, we reported numerous times to other members of the Safety
Commission, and I know you are new so you aren't familiar with some of the
previous reports that we have made, but for your benefit, there have been studies to
show that, yes, stop signs do slow traffic down because they require motorists to stop.
But as soon as they leave the stop sign, they are frustrated and they speed up and we
find that speeds between stop signs actually is higher than they were before the stop
signs were installed. Stop signs are generally used, Commissioner Arnold just
mentioned (stop signs as precursor to installation of a traffic signal device), but
generally speaking, we wouldn't recommend a traffic signal unless there were a
demand or a recognized need--in other words, there was cross traffic. So, what we
try to do is put an all-way stop in where the traffic is generally balanced, so that there
is a recognized need for the right of way through the intersection. All-way stops are
really only intended to designate right of way, so people can alternate their time as
they go through the intersection.
4. TRIAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS:
(
(4A) Parkin!! prohibited for vehicles over 6 feet in hei!!ht on East Flower Street
Mr. Rosenberg gave staffs report. The trial traffic regulation is an item that we
found to be necessary to prevent large vehicles from parking in an area where there
is a visibility problem. We had a fatality accident at this location and when the
accident occurred, there were a number of campers (vehicles) parked adjacent to the
drivewaJi. We felt that the installation of a new provision of the Vehicle Code was
appropriate here, which would prohibit vehicles in excess of 6 feet in height from
parking. Generally speaking, you can see through automobile windows if they are
parked adjacent to a driveway. The sight visibility at this particular driveway location
is adequate if you don't have these large vehicles parked in that area. Using our
powers vested in us through ordinance for trial tratlic regulations, I ordered the
installation and prepared a report to the City Council telling them why I was doing
this. The signs are now up. We wiII return to the City Council in six months and
give them a report and ask them to pass a resolution making them final.
Commissioner Militscher (looking at a view graph of the area) asked just what did
staff do at that point there.
l
:VIr. Rosenberg responded, noting that staff added a sign that says "no parking,
vehicles over 6 feet in height". It begins at one location (pointing to a location on the
view graph) and emling the other side of the driveway. I3etween those two driveways
you cannot park the large vehicles. Staff will apply this elsewhere too; wherever we
find that there is a preponderance of large vehicles. I3ecause what Iwppens here,
SO!l1e people who own these large vehicles. they don't realize the sight proble!l1 they
15
t!../7
INfQRMAIIQNAL IIEM
DATE:
TO:
November 20, 1990
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Goss, City Manager
FROM: John Lippitt, Director of Public Work~
SUBJECT: The revision of the City's All-Way Stop Policy, in response to Council
Referral #2089
At the August 14, 1990 City Council meeting, staff presented a report that recommended
denial of a request for an all-way stop at the intersection of Oleander Avenue and East
Oxford Street. Staff reported that the intersection did not meet the City's all-way
stop warrant criteri a. The eva 1 uat i on of the intersection was based on the Ci ty' s
existing all-way stop pol icy which assigns pOints according to the severity of various
traffi c conditions. The Council expressed concern wi th the City's 1 ega 1 authority to
install all-way stops in intersections having a need for traffic control, but not
qualifying according to the City of Chula Vista existing all-way stop policy. At that
time, Council directed staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature to
appropri ate State offi ci a 1 s regardi ng des i red changes to the State Warrant System to
allow local agencies more flexibility in determining the need for all-way stop controls.
Staff has researched the issue and has concluded that local agencies, such as the City
of Chula Vista, do have the authority to adopt their own warrant system for the
i nsta 11 at i on of all-way stop controls. It is not necessary to change State 1 aw as the
California Vehicle Code coupled with the State Traffic Planning Manual provides latitude
to local agencies in determining when and where stop signs should be installed. Our
research has uncovered the following conclusions:
1. California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21100 provides authority for local agencies to
install traffic control devices including all-way stops.
2. CVC 21400 refers to the State traffic manual for uniform standards in implementing
the installation of traffic control devices.
3. The CalTrans traffic manual provides gUidelines and criteria for all-way stops (see
attachment), but CVC 21354 leaves the weighing of criteria to the discretion of
local authorities. There is not a mandated point or warrant system for the placing
of all-way stops.
4. The City of Chula Vista, as a legal authority, can develop it's own all-way stop
policy using its own point/warrant system provided that the legal requirements of
CVC 21400 are met, and that the basis for the all-way stops and the State traffic
standards are the basis for the installation.
In response to Council's interest and concerns, staff has prepared a draft revision of
the City's all-way stop policy that would provide more flexibility in the criteria for
installing all-way stops in residential neighborhoods. The draft revised all-way stop
pol icy was presented to the Safety Commission at their November 8, 1990 meeting. The
Safety Commi ss i on approved the draft all-way stop pol icy. Staff wi 11 present the fi na 1
revised all-way stop policy to the Council within the next two months.
WPC 5296E
7.3..18
RESOLUTION NO. 11.1+1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A REVISED COUNCIL POLICY
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALL-WAY STOP SIGNS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, at the August 14, 1990 meeting, during
discussion of the Oleander Avenue and East Oxford Street traffic
problem, the City Council indicated a need to modify the existing
all-way stop policy to allow more emphasis on school age
pedestrian activity areas; and
WHEREAS, Council also raised questions on the legal
authority of establishing all-way stops; and
WHEREAS, local agencies, such as the City of Chula
Vista, do have the authority to adopt their own warrant system
for the installation of all-way stop controls since there is no
mandated point or warrant system for the placing of all-way
stops; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21354 leaves the
weighing of criteria to the discretion of local authorities and
California Vehicle Code, Section 21350 thru 21355, gives the
authority to local agencies to install all-way stop traffic
controls upon streets in their respective jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, staff has prepared a revision of the City's
all-way stop policy that provides greater emphasis on pedestrian
activity areas; and
WHEREAS, at the Safety Commission meeting of November 8,
1990, the Safety Commission voted 7-0 to approve staff's report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt a revised Council
policy for the installation of all-way stop signs as set forth in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
as if set forth in full.
Presented by
I
cd 11
orm by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
869la
ruce M. Booga d, City Attorney
'-
1.3"1'1
TIllS PAGE BlANK
J. 3 ' ).t>