HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/02/12 Item 7
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
2/12/08, Item --::r
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA TO DENY THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SAFETY
COMMISSION REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF AN ALL-
WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAKESHORE
DRIVE AND HARTFORD STREET AND AFFIRM THE DECISION
OF THE CITY ENGINEER
DIRECTOR OF EN~. EERING AND GENERAL SERVICES (j-!<r
CITY MANAGER
ASSISTANT CITY NAGER ~"/
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO ~
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND
On September 11, 2007 a request to install an all-way stop control at the intersection of
Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street was received by staff. Staff performed an all-way stop
control warrant study, per Council Policy #478-03, at this intersection and presented a report to
the Safety Commission at their regular meetings on November 8, 2007 and January 8, 2008.
Since this intersection does not meet the requirements warranting all-way stop control, staffs
recommendation is to deny the request to establish all-way stop control at this intersection.
However, the Safety Commission agreed with the concerned residents present at the public
hearing and voted to establish the requested all-way stop control at this location. In accordance
with Council Policy 478-03, this item is therefore forwarded to the City Council for their
consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies
for a Class I categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301(c) (Existing Facility) of the State
CEQA Guidelines because it involves installation of an all way stop sign within an existing
intersection. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
City Council deny the recommendation of the Safety Commission regarding the installation of an
all-way stop control at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street and affirm the
decision of the City Engineer.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
7-1
2/12/08, Iteml
Page 2 of 7
The Safety Commission, at their meeting of November 8, 2007, voted 5-0-2 (LikenlNavarro
absent) to not concur with staff's recommendation, and instead, recommended the installation of
all-way stop control at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street. It should be
noted that, at the Safety Commission meeting of November 8, 2007, four citizens attended the
meeting and voiced their opinion about the proposed all-way stop. All of the citizens in
attendance were in support of the proposed all-way stop. In addition to these citizens, five
additional citizens called or e-mailed Traffic Engineering staff, with two in favor and three in
opposition to the installation.
The Safety Commission, at their meeting of January 8, 2008, voted 6-0-1 (Perrett absent) to
approve a resolution recommending that City Council review the request for all-way stop control
at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street and pursuant to Council Policy 110-
09(A)(8)( c), and order the installation of said all-way stop control at such intersection based on
the below-listed findings in accordance with Council Policy 110-09(8):
. The Safety Commission has taken testimony from the public in 8/96, on 10/10/96, and on
11/8/07, on traffic concerns along Lakeshore Drive in the vicinity of Hartford Street; and
. The residents have reported an inability for pedestrians to safely cross Lakeshore Drive to
use the recreational facilities; and
. Traffic volume along Lakeshore Drive has drastically increased from 3,765 vehicles per
day in 1996 to 9,768 vehicles per day in 2007 (an increase of over 250%); and
. A similar intersection at Lakeshore Drive and Creekwood Way is currently an all-way
stop controlled intersection with no reported accidents within the past six years compared
to two reported accidents at Lakeshore Drive and Hartford.
DISCUSSION
The intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street has been the subject of several Safety
Commission and City Council meetings over the past decade. According to what staff was able
to find, a request to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Lakecrest Drive and
Clearbrook Drive, an intersection near to and similar to the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and
Hartford Street, was made in 1996. The item was brought before the Safety Commission in
August of that year, however, it is not clear what staffs recommendation at that time was. The
Safety Commission ultimately voted to deny the request for the intersection of Lakeshore Drive
and Clearbrook, but asked staff to return with better speed data along Lakeshore Drive, and to
make recommendations for the intersections of Lakeshore Drive and Creekwood Way and
Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street.
On October 10, 1996 staff presented their findings for the Creekwood and Hartford Street
intersections to the Safety Commission with the recommendation that all-way stops not be
installed at either intersection. The Safety Commission did not agree with staff's
recommendation, and both intersections were forwarded to the City Council for consideration at
their December 10, 1996 meeting. The City Council, after some discussion, agreed with staff's
recommendation not to install the all-way stops at either intersection.
According to the records staff was able to [md, the next action regarding these intersections
occurred on February 4, 1997. During the Mayor's Report, Mayor Horton asked staff for a
follow up report on all-way stop control at Lakeshore Drive and the intersections of Hartford
7-2
2/12/08, Item -=i
Page 3 of7
Street and Creekwood Way. Staff presented their follow-up report at the Council meeting on
April 15, 1997. Although the minutes for this City Council meeting state the Council voted to
install a single stop sign at Lakeshore Drive and Creekwood Way (rather than all-way stop
control), all-way stop control measures were installed at LakeshoreDrive and Creekwood Way.
The work order for the installation is dated two days after the Council meeting suggesting the
meeting minutes may be incorrect and Council actually voted in favor of the all-way stop control
measures. Regardless, all-way stop control measures were only installed at the intersection of
Lakeshore Drive and Creekwood Way.
On September 11, 2007, staff received a letter from Ms. Denise Ward requesting the installation
of all-way stop control at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street. Staff
conducted an all-way stop warrant study, per Council Policy #478-03, at this intersection and the
results of the study are presented below.
Please see the attached meeting minutes for all of the meetings referenced above.
The intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street is a "T" intersection. Lakeshore Drive is
a Class III Collector roadway and is 42' wide curb-to-curb with two lanes, one lane in each
direction. Lakeshore Drive is striped with a double yellow centerline, 6' wide bike lanes for both
directions, and a 7' wide painted parking aisle on the south side of this roadway. The total daily
approach traffic volume is 9,768, with a posted speed limit of 30 mph, and 85th percentile speeds
of 35 mph in the eastbound direction and 31 mph in the westbound direction of travel.
Currently, there is an existing stop sign on Hartford Street at this intersection. The average daily
volume for Hartford Street is 697 vehicles per day.
When considering an intersection for all-way stop control, several factors are studied to
determine the need for an installation. Pedestrian and vehicle volumes, accident history, along
with physical factors such as sight distances, vehicle speed, roadway alignment (such as
horizontal and vertical curves), and topography, are all taken into consideration.
All-Wav Stop Warrant Studv:
Physical Conditions:
The following table shows the existing conditions for the streets at this intersection:
Street Lakeshore Drive Hartford Street
DirectionlWidth East-West/42' North-South/36'
ADT 9,768 (9/2007) 697 (10/2007)
Approaching only
Exist. Speed limit 30mph (Posted) 25 mph (prima facie, not
posted)
85th % speed 35 mph (eastbound) Unknown
31 mph (westbound)
Number of Lanes One lane in each direction One lane in each direction
7-3
2/12/08,IteD1~
Page 4 of 7
Double yellow centerline, bike lanes
Striping for both directions, and Stop Legend and Limit Line
7' wide parking striping on the south
side of the roadwav
On-Street Parking Allowed on south side of the Allowed
roadway only
Classification Class III Collector Residential
Vertical Alignment EB approach, + 1.00% grade NB approach, -1.00% grade
WB approach - 1.00 % grade
EB: 480' Radius, ends at centerline
Horizontal Alignment of Hartford Street Approx. 200' Radius
WB: 800' Radius transitioning to
tangent at centerline of Hartford St.
Other conditions
The Council Policy regarding all-way stop warrant evaluation was applied and the subject
intersection has been awarded 28 points based on the following:
Accident Historv: (10 points assigned out of a maximum of 25 points)
10 points were assigned because there were two reported, correctible accidents prior to the
investigation date within a 12-month timeframe as described in the warrant study policy.
Unusual Conditions: (5 points assigned out of a maximum 21 points)
o point was assigned for required sight distance being less than 100%.
2 points were assigned for an intersection leading to an arterial.
1 point was assigned for prevailing speed of unstopped approaches being up to 5 mph higher
than the posted or prima facie speed limit.
2 points were assigned for the intersection being adjacent to a bus stop.
.. It should be noted that Eastlake Elementary School is in the general area, but is not close enough to
warrant any "Unusual Condition" points.
Pedestrian Volume: (4 points assigned out of a maximum 20 points)
4 points were assigned for observing 6 pedestrians in the "peak hour" crossing this intersection.
Traffic Volume: (8 points assigned out of a maximum of 24 points)
8 points were assigned for the following reason:
8 hours were found to have a vehicular volume of 500 or more entering the intersection from all
approaches, but with less than a 100 vehicles from the minor approach.
Traffic Volume Difference: (1 point assigned out ofa maximum of 10 points)
1 point was assigned because of the intersection volume ratio. Hartford Street approach volumes
are 12.2 % of the approach volumes on Lakeshore Drive.
7-4
2/12/08,Item~
Page 5 of7
Intersection Sight Distance:
When investigating sight distance measurements, field measurements are compared to the
required stopping sight distance values, as listed in the City of Chula Vista Design Standard
TR07-A. The following table summarizes our findings:
Street Direction Speed Limit 85th% Speed Required Measured
Name of Traffic (Lakeshore (Lakeshore Sight Sight Distance Adequate
Drive Drive Distance Hartford Str.
*Lakeshore EB 25 mph 35 mph 250' 400' Yes
Drive WB 31 mph 210' 450' Yes
* These vehicles are traveling on Lakeshore Drive being viewed from Hartford Street by motorists stopped behind
the existing limit line.
Motorists traveling southbound on Hartford Court, wishing to enter Lakeshore Drive, have 400'
and 450' of available sight distance when looking toward eastbound and westbound traffic,
respectively. This measured sight distance is adequate for .the 85th percentile speed of 35 mph
eastbound and 85th percentile speed 31 mph westbound (250'and 210' of stopping sight distances
are required respectively).
Concerns raised by residents in the area regarding the speed of vehicles traveling along
Lakeshore Drive are understandable, however, actual speeds measured along Lakeshore Drive
seem to be within reason when compared to other City streets with similar characteristics. The.
85% speed measured for traffic traveling eastbound on Lakeshore Drive is 5mph above the
posted speed limit while the 85% speed for westbound traffic is only lmph above the posted
speed limit. Review of the previous safety commission reports regarding Lakeshore Drive shows
speeds in 1996 were higher than they are now. In 1996, the 85% speed in the eastbound
direction was 38mph while the 85% for westbound traffic was 41mph. Staff believes the
decrease in speed over time is due to the significant increase in traffic utilizing Lakeshore Drive.
In 1996, the average daily traffic for both directions totaled 3,765 vehicles/day. As measured in
September of 2007, eastbound traffic on Lakeshore averages 4,041 vehicles/day while the
westbound direction averages 5,727 vehicles/day. This equates to an increase in average daily
traffic of 6,003 vehicles/day.
The City has set thresholds for major roadways in Chula Vista regarding acceptable levels of
service as described in the City of Chula Vista General Plan. These thresholds, or levels of
service (LOS), are based on the average delay a motorist can expect as a result of traffic
volumes, and are reported as letter grades A through E with A being the best grade possible. For
major arterials, the delay motorists experience is measured on an annual basis by City staff that
drives these streets, recording the time it takes to get from "Point A" to "Point B." Their results
are then reported to the City's Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC), which
requires major arterials operate at a LOS C or better. Levels of service can also be estimated for
smaller streets using the City of Chula Vista Street Capacity Standards that are based on the
volume traveling along a particular classification of roadway. According to the street capacity
standards, a Class III Collector such as Lakeshore Drive operates at LOS C if the average daily
7-5
2/12/08, Iteml
Page 6 of 7
volume (ADT) of the roadway is 7,500 trips/day or less. As measured in September of 2007,
Lakeshore Drive currently handles 9,768 trips/day, resulting in an estimated LOS E. This
decrease in level of service would support the decrease seen in the 85% speed along Lakeshore
Drive. The installation of all-way stop control along Lakeshore Drive will cause delays to
motorists, and result in a decreased level of service.
Accident reports are generated by the City of Chula Vista Police Department for every reported
accident, and then are submitted to the State of California. The data ultimately is organized and
downloaded on a quarterly basis by City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Staff for analysis
and data gathering purposes. Staff analyzed six years of available accident data and only found
two reported accidents (one in 2001, one in 2002) at the subject intersection, both of which may
have been avoidable had all-way stop control measures been in place at the subject intersection.
This equates to an accident rate well under the State Average and suggests that pedestrians and
motorists are exercising appropriate levels of caution when traveling through the intersection.
As part of the all-way stop warrant analysis, a pedestrian count was taken in an attempt to
determine the number of pedestrians crossing either road during what is typically the peak hour
for pedestrian activity. In this case, staff observed the intersection on October 30 from 4:30 -
5:30p.m.. This time was chosen assuming the nearby lake would attract a significant number of
pedestrians as residents returned home from work. Staff counted 6 pedestrians during this "peak
hour." This does not indicate a heavy amount of pedestrian activity at the subject intersection.
The nearby intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Creekwood Way is very similar in nature to the
subject intersection. Since its construction, the City of Chula Vista has installed all-way stop
control at this intersection. Although the all-way stop studies completed for the intersection did
not indicate the intersection warranted all-way stop control, the decision was made to install it
anyway. One of the main concerns staff has when installing "unwarranted" stop signs is that it
may result in an increase in the number of accidents. City staff, while reviewing the intersection
of Lakeshore and Hartford, reviewed the accident history for Lakeshore and Creekwood and
found that, over the past six years, there have been no reported accidents.
CONCLUSION
The intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street received a total of 28 points out of a
possible 100 points, where a minimum of 45 points are required to justifY the installation of an
all-way stop control. Therefore, in accordance with Council Policy 478-03 and based on I) the
points awarded by the warrant study, 2) the lack of a significant accident history, 3) the low
pedestrian usage and 4) the already low level of service, staff does not recommend the
installation of all-way stop control at this intersection.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staffhas reviewed the property holdings of the City Council Members and has found no property
holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
Installation of stop signs and pavement markings at a cost of approximately $1,000.00 can be
accomplished within the existing Public Works operational budget.
7-6
2/12/08, Item~
Page 7 of7
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Letter of Request
3. All-Way Stop Control Warrant Study
4. Past Council Meeting Minutes
5. Safety Commission Resolution
Prepared by: Hasib Baha, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering
M:\Engineer\AGENDA \CAS2008\02-12-08\RESO-Lakeshore_Hartford _A WS.doc
7-7
ATTACHMENT I
~
.....::~ ~fJl~>
- ~:S
~lcf
u
.ATT~ENT 2>
Q/II/01
\ & cf\
,6Jr
ATTACHMENT
~
r...
!
I ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT SUMMARY
LOCATION Lakeshore Dr. / Hartford Street .
DATE 10/24/2007
POLICY NUMBER 478-03 I EFFECTIVE DATE 103/06/2001
GENERAL
PAGE
10F6
Points are assigned to each of these warrants. The total points possible are 100. The instailation of an all-way
stop control is justified with a minimum of 45 points, unless:
Case 1:
If Caltrans' criteria is met, the point system is not applicable.
Case 2:
If any of the five criteria is met to the extent of 100% an all-way stop control intersection may be warranted
even though the minimum number of points is not accumulated.
Case 3:
If the foil owing conditions are met:
(a)The street to be controiled is within a residence district as defined in Section 515 of the California Vehicle
Code, and No
(b)The street to be controiled is classified a coilector or is functioning as a collector, and Yes
(c)The subject intersection is not within 600 feet from the nearest controiled intersection along the coilector,
and No
(d)There is a parailel arterial highway that can be used as an alternative route, then Yes
The subject intersection shall receive a bonus of 10 points.
POINTS:
o
ALL-WAY STOP POINT SYSTEM CRITERIA:
1) ACCIDENTWARRANT: (25 points)
Five Points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correction by an ail-way stop control during any 12-
month period prior to the investigation date.
Total number of accidents correctible by ail-way stop: 2
( Maximum 25 points)
POINTS:
10
2) UNUSUAL CONDITION WARRANT: (21 points )
1) Adjacent to school, fire station, playground, senior center and/or amusement park.
(7 points maximum)
a) within 100' of the intersection.
b) between 101'-250' from the intersection. 0 pts
c) between 251'-400' from the intersection.
d) within 500' of the intersection.
7 points
5 points
3 points
1 point
7-10
ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT SUMMARY
LOCATION Lakeshore Dr. / Hartford Street
DATE 10/24/2007
POLICY NUMBER 478-03 EFFECTIVE DATE 03/06/2001
2) Any visibility obstruction including horizontal and/or vertical curves which result in limited stopping sight
distance based on either the posted speed limit or the 85% tile speed, whichever is higher.
(7 points maximum)
PAGE
20F6
400 x 100 =
250
o pls
7 poi nts
6 points
5 points
4 points
3 points
2 points
1 point
2 pls 2 points
a) provides for less than 40% of the required sight distance.
b) provides for less than 50% of the required sight distance.
c) provides for less than 60% of the required sight distance.
d) provides for less than 70% of the required sight distance.
e) provides for less than 80% of the required sight distance.
f) provides for less than 90% of the required sight distance.
g) provides for less than 100 % of the required sight distance.
3) An intersection leading to an arterial from an interior (circular) collector.
4) Intersection with steep grades within 500' from the intersection on the downhill approach.
a) greater than 9% grade
b) greater than 8% grade
c) greater than 7% grade
d) greater than 6% grade
Lakeshore = 1.00%
Hartford = 1.00%
Opts
7 points
5 points
3 points
1 point
5) Intersection is on "Suggested Route To School" and no other controlled crossing is located within 600'.
(7 points maximum)
a) intersection is 300' from school grounds.
b) intersection is 400' from school grounds.
c) intersection is 500' from school grounds.
d) intersection is 600' from school grounds.
Opls
7 points
5 points
3 points
1 point
6) High approach speeds.
a) 'revaiiin"s eedsareu.,tQ.6.m hhi MrJhan steds eed...
p gP. ...J). . P . is. .l'gH . P
b) prevailing speeds are up to 10 mph higher than posted speed.
c) prevailing speeds are more than 10 mph higher than posted speed.
1
4
7 points
Speed limit (Hartford St.) = unposted (25 mph prima facie)
Approach Speeds (Lakeshore Dr.): 35mph easthbound / 31 mph westbound
mailbox
School bus drop-off
2 pls 7 points
(Maximum 21 points)
POINTS: 5
7-11
ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT SUMMARY
LOCATION Lakeshore Dr. / Hartford Street PAGE
DATE 10/24/2007 30F6
POLICY NUMBER 478-03 I EFFECTIVE DATE 103/06/2001
3) PEDESTRIAN VOLUME (20 points )
Consideration is given to large numbers of pedestrians crossing the major street during the busiest hour of an
average day.
Peak Hour: 12:00 -1 :00 pm Number of Pedestrians: ,...,....; ':<,i..':C:
Pedestrians crossino maior street. Total durino the oeak oedestrian hour
Voiumes: 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-0VER
Points: 4 8 12 16 20
( Maximum 20 points) POINTS: 4
4) TRAFFIC VOLUME (24 points )
Points are dependent upon the magnitude of vehicular volumes entering the intersection during the eight
busiest hours of an average day.
Traffic Counts (circle eight highest hour volumes):
DIRECTION 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 TOTAL
NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SB 51 77 .34 27 22 33 26 25 67 44 52 51 48 30 24 0
SUBTOTAL 51 77 34 27 22 33 26 25 67 44 52 51 148 30 24 0
EB 175 202 188 199 193 234 237 238 250 278 315 392 301 243 182 3627
WB 191 281 348 235 235 252 265 263 319 425 431 491 470 386 248 4840
SUBTOTAL 366 483 536 434 428 486 502 501 569 .703 746 883 771 629 430 8467
TOTAL 417 560 570 461 450 519 528 526 636 747 798 934 819 659 454 8467
~ . 1 I
. i
POINTS 1 1 i . 1 ! 1 1 1 . 1
:
-3 POINTS ARE ASSIGNED PER HOUR WHEN TOTAL ENTERING VEHICULAR VOLUMES EXCEED 500
AND MINOR STREET VOLUMES (INCLUDING PEDESTRIANS) EXCEED 200.
-2 POINTS ARE ASSIGNED PER HOUR WHEN TOTAL ENTERING VOLUMES EXCEED 500 BUT MINOR
STREET VOLUMES ARE LESS THAN 200, BUT MORE THAN 100.
-1 POINT IS ASSIGNED PER HOUR WHEN TOTAL ENTERING VEHICULAR VOLUMES EXCEED 500 BUT
MINOR STREET VOLUMES ARE LESS THAN 100.
-1 POINT IS ASSIGNED PER HOUR WHEN TOTAL ENTERING VEHICULAR VOLUMES DO NOT MEET 500,
BUT MINOR STREET VOLUMES EXCEED 200.
In residence districts as defined by Section 515 CVC, if the 85th percentile approach speed of the major street
exceeds 35 miles per hour, the minimum vehicuiar volume warrants is 70% of the above requirements.
( Maximum 24 points) POINTS: 8
7-12
ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT SUMMARY
LOCATION Lakeshore Dr. / Hartford Street
DATE 10/24/2007
POLICY NUMBER 478-03
5)
PAGE
40F6
EFFECTIVE DATE
ERENCE (10 POINTS)
03/06/2001
All-way stops operate best when the major and minor street approach traffic volumes are nearly equal. Points
shall be assigned in accordance with the following table:
'24-Hour Minor Sl. Ap roach Volumes
'24-Hour Major Sl. Approach Volumes
x 100 =
697
5,727
x 100 =
PERCENTAGE
95-100
85-94
75-84
65-74
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
15-24
POINTS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0-4
o
( Maximum 10 points)
POINTS:
1
'For T-intersections, the percent is the ratio of the minor street approach volume to the highest single leg
approach volume on the major street multiplied by one hundred.
CAL TRANS CRITERIA Cha tar 4 CalTrans Traffic Manual
ny of the following conditions may warrant a multi-way STOP sign installation, regardless of the point system:
1) Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multi-way 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 multi-way stop installation. Such accidents include right- and left-turn collisions
as well as right-angle collisions.
3) Minimum traffic volumes - The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must
average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 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 vehicuiar traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the
maximum hour, but when the 85th percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per
hour ( " ), the minimum vehicular volume warrant Is 70 percent of the above requirements.
( ") This speed applies only to CalTrans Criteria
7-13
ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT SUMMARY
LOCATION Lakeshore Dr. / Hartford Street
DATE 10/24/2007
POLICY NUMBER 478-03 EFFECTIVE DATE 03/06/2001
PAGE
5 OF 6
ALL-WAY STOP SUMMARY
INTERSECTION:
Lakeshore Drive
(Major)
Hartford Street
(Minor)
DATE INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETED:
October 24, 2007
TOTAL SCORE: 28 points out of a possible 100.
The minimum required to justify an all-way stop control is 45 points.
INTERSECTION DIAGRAM:
7-14
I ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT SUMMARY
LOCATION Lakeshore Dr. / Hartford Street
DATE 10/24/2007
POLICY NUMBER 478-03 1 EFFECTIVE DATE 103/06/2001
RECOMMENDATIONS:
PAGE
60F6
This intersection received a total of 28 points of a possible 100 points, where a
minimum of 45 points are required to justify the installation of all-way stop control.
Therefore, this intersection does not warrants the installation of an all-way stop
control.
REMARKS:
J:/EngineerrTraffic/Staff/Susanm/AII-Way Stop Studies/A-W Stop (Lakeshore Dr - Hartford St).xls
7-15
EventCount-716 Page 1
MetroCount Traffic Executive
Event Counts
atasets:
Site:
InplltA:
Input B:
Survey Duration:
File:
Identifier:
Algorithm:
Data type:
SLJ.l e: L.A l<b D/2..
[Lakeshore Dr] North of ~laaF.:atBr'PI
1 - South bound. - Excluded from totals. (0)
3 - North bound. - Added to totals. (1}.
15:00 Monday, September 24,2007 => 15:31 Friday, September 28, 2007
C:IDocuments and SettingslericamlDesktoplLakeshore Dr (Near Bluelake Dr) A is S6.ECO (Plus)
E943AN2C MC56-6 [MC55] (c)Microcom 02103101
Event Count
Axle sensors - Split (Count)
..J
Profile:
Filter time:
Name:
Scheme:
Units:
In profile:
14:00 Tuesday, September 25, 2007 => 14:00 Friday, September 28,2007
. Factory default profile
Count events divided by two.
Non metric (ft, ml, ftIs, mph, Ib, ton)
41928 Events
. Tuesday, September 25, 2007=2244 (Incomplete) ,15 minute drops
0000 0100 0:200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 OBOO 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300
1400
2.0
..
70
72
54
1500 16~O 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100
293 315 372 308 261 205 107
74 83 116 96 91 66 33
67 83 94 97 62 37 27
76 70 86 58 S4 48 25
76 79 7Ei 57 54 54 22
2200 2300
74 49
21 11
21 15
,. .
13 10
.
7
.
3
. Wednesday, September 26, 2007=4042, 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200
22 B 1. 6 19 55 us US 2].1 219 207 232 236
6 1 Q :2 1. 7 37 54 53 78 55 33 S4
7 :2 0 1. 4 11 23 54 40 45 52 73 50
6 1. 1. 1 7 20 48 55 59 4.8 50 59 63
3 4. 0 2 7 17 58 52 55 48 50 67 65
AM Peak 1115 _1215 (253), AM PHF=0.87 PM Peak 1S45 -1745 (409). PM PHF....O.82
. Thursdal, September 27,2007=4040,15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0500 1000 1100 1200
21 B 6 5 20 64 175 202 188 199 193 234 237
9 3 4 0 4 9 38 50 4.3 72 39 4.1 58
8 1. 0 1 4. 1& 2S 45 35 37 46 62 60
3 3 2 2 3 15 4.9 49 57 46 53 59 54
1 1 0 2 9 24 63 54 53 44 55 62 65
AM Peak 1115 .1215 (251J.AM PHF=0.91 PM Peak 1700 -1800 (392), PM PHF=O.79
. Friday, September 28, 2007=1812 (Incomplete), 15 minute drops
0000-0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 11.00 1200 1300
20 10 14 4 19 58 153 154. 189 210 213 209 233 286
12 2 2 0 4 11 34 47 51 69 52 46 57 73
6 3 4 2 4 11 20 39 43 43 70 4S 44 74
1 3 5 2 4. 24 45 50 50 54. 42 53 61 63
1 :2 2 0 7 12 S4 48 45 44 49 55 71 76
AM Peak 0930 .1030 (220), AM PHF=0.79
1300 1400 1500 1500 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
2.2 250 2.0 311 398 292 264 175 128 82 23
55 51 47 .. 125 77 71 43 3. 2. . .
77 75 70 .2 95 .. " 4Q 28 19 7 .
57 72 7. 82 " 71 .0 .. 27 15 . 3
73 52 .7 " " 7. 55 4' 35 22 1 1
1300 1400 1500 1500 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
23' 250 278 315 392 301 243 182 128 " .2
.0 .. .3 7Q 124 sa .0 " 47 29 25 12
.. 6. 7Q " 95 .. 5. 4. 30 34 23 .
.. .0 " " " as .3 57 28 ,. 7 1
.. .5 .. 7. .3 72 .4 41 23 17 7 1
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
-4/dt t
~O"\ I
5"12\
q/l&e
7-16
atasets:
ite:
IputA:
Iput 8:
urvey Duration:
i1e:
lentifier:
Igorithm:
ata type:
rofile:
i1ter time:
ame:
cherne:
nits:
I profile:
MetroCount Traffic Executive
Event Counts
[Lakeshore Dr] North of Clearwater PI
1 - South bound. - Added to totals. (1)
3 - North bound. C Subtracted from totals. (-1)
15:00 Monday, September 24,2007 => 15:31 Friday, September 28, 2007
C:\Documents and Settings\ericam\Desktop\Lakeshore Dr (Near Bluelake Dr) A is SB.ECO (Plus)
E943AN2C MC56-6 [MC55] (c)Microcom 02103/01
Event Count
Axle sensors - Split (Count)
,.
14:00 Tuesday, September 25, 2007 => 14:00 Friday, September 28, 2007
'Factory default profile
Count events divided by two.
Metric (meter, kilometer, mis, kmlh, kg, tonne)
41928 Events
Tuesday, September 25,2007=3803 (Incomplete) , 15 minute drops
1000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 o~co 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
399 505 562 586 563 471 311 214 118 73
91 125 128 167 lSei H7 101 72 27 21 8
99 114 137 134 152 104 66 57 4.3 24 12
96 133 136 138 127 101 67 45 22 14 a
1].3 134 lGl 147 128 99 77 40 26 14 7
Wednesday, September 26,2007=6066,15 minute drops
lOOO 0100 0200 0300 0400 OSOO Q600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200
35 10 11 32 37 65 208 322 401 261 280 328 336
8 3 0 10 10 10 37 65 107 83 75 64 81
12 1 3 4. 6 13 33 83 9S 58 63 Sl 91
a :2 4. 5 10 U 50 73 107 52 56 516 30
7 4 4 13 11 23 88 101 92 68 85 8"1 74
M Peak 0745.0845 (410), AM PHF=O.96 PM Peak 1630 ~ 1730 (560), PM PHF=0.90
Thursday, September 27,2007=5388,15 minute drops
JOOO 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 05100 1000 1100 1200
38 23 14 25 34 51 1511 281 348 235 235 252 265
19 12 3 3 11 12 34 49 84 53 51 58 61
51 3 3 6 51 12 31 54 95 51 53 60 51
4 3 3 8 6 51 49 7i 75 lO6 68 60 53
lO 5 5 8 8 28 77 102 94 55 53 74 SO
M Peak 0730 - 0830 (357), AM PHF::q().88 PM Peak 1645 -1745 (497), PM PHF"0.91
1300 1400 1500 1500 1700 1800 15100 2000 2100 2200 2300
350 334 33. 4" 556 51' 441 278 '" 120 47
88 87 87 131 155 125 122 83 57 41 14 "
85 '4 '2 10. 145 125 U, 70 37 31 11 ,
84 73 U5 12' 110 12. 113 53 4' 23 14 4
93 " 104 1S> 145 137 87 62 56 25 8 0
1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
253 3>> 425 4S> 491 470 386 248 168 UO "
67 80 loa 105 130 123 " 54 45 31 " 15
62 84 100 105 136 121 102 67 41 30 16 13
54 70 100 .. 109 123 '7 72 4S 32 12 5
80 85 117 >22 116 lOJ 88 55 37 23 11 4
Friday, September 28,2007=2395 (Incomplete) , 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300
37 16 22 21 51 68 180 269 352 274 248 253 274 330
15 5 4 5 18 16 32 50 95 88 66 66 64 100
13 ) 4 6 11 13 24 63 81 71 72 60 63 76
5 6 7 1 9 17 43 64 87 57 62 54 71 70
4 2 7 9 13 22 81 92 89 58 48 73 76 84
.M Peak 0745 - 0845 (355), AM PHF=O.93
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
S:7-;;2.7{~)
@
7-17
.
MetroCount Traffic Executive
Event Counts
:asets:
::;ite:
Input A:
Input B:
Survey Duration:
File:
Identifier:
Algorithm:
Data type:
C:V1::\IlI.JUUllL~f.J..J r=!:::r""' ,
[Hartford St] North of Lakeshore Dr
3 - South bound. - Added to totals. (1)
o _ Unused or unknown. - Excluded from totals. (0)
12:00 Tuesday, October 30,2007 => 15:02 Wednesday, October 31,2007
C:\Documents and Settings\eMcam\Desktop\Hartford (North of Lakeshore Dr).ECO (Plus)
E7523R4Z MC56-6 [MC55] (c)Microcom 02103/01
Event Count
Vehicle sensors - Separate (Count)
Profile:
Filter time:
Name:
Scheme:
Units:
In profile:
14:00 Tuesday, October 30, 2007 => 14:00 Wednesday, October 31, 2007
. Factory default profile
Count events divided by two.
Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph; Ib, ton)
698 Events
. Tuesday, October 30, 2007=349 (Incomplete). 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
67445251
11 B 21 15
11 5 14 5
33 13 9 20
12 18 8 11
1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
48 30 24 14 13 Ii
5115282
11 5 3 4. ]. ].
24 7 :3 5 2 0
8 7 13 :3 .2 3
. Wednesday, October 31,2007=348 (Incomplete), 15 minute drops
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 14.00 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
o :2 4. 3 9 3S 51 71 34 27 22 33 26 25
o 2 4. ]. 0 7 12 20 17 4. 5 12 Ii a
o 0 0 a 4. 7 Ei 18 Ii 9 9 11 4. 5
o 0 0 2 :2 9 13 20 0 7 Ii Ii Ii 4.
o 0 0 0 :3 12 20 19 11 7 2 4. 10 8
AM Peak 0645 - 0145 {78}, AM PHF=o.91
7-18
,;
)&-:=.
(;97
~
o
o
o
o
~
Sir-
A
AW
D
/ 8 L4-/t.e5~
*
~.
PEDESTRIAN COUNTS
DATE: I (), 3tJ-07 LOCATION:
. A A B B C. C D D
TIME (PM) School Age Adult Age School Age Adult Age School Age Adult Age School Age Adult Age
4:37 I
/.f:t.f> "3
5: aO 2-
-
TOTAL 5 f
REMARKS:
-
TOTAL
7-19
.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA - VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY
SEGMENT UNDER STUDY L.AtESH-O,(e DIl. Wft-r if F J-h4.P-:iPtJLD 5:r.
DATEJ.D.dM:LSURVEYSITE 2M' wlo J..!..4..IL-rPfJI2D Sr. POSTEDSPEED .,,0
TIME START tHo AM~ TIME END ~ . At.tt€fi) WEATHER FiHfL
DIRECTION: =0 =/
MPH 5 10 15 20 TOTAL % CUM%
45 I
44 I
43 I
42 I
41
40
39
38
37
36 /' . /00 ). S<"
35 /' t:;t(
34 I . ,~
33 / V Iv V I ,
32 ./ /' V ./ './ '/ -j ./ I I I , ?A'I'i
31 " '/ ./ ./ '/' '/ I I. I 76.l.{t
30 '/' /' /' /1 I I ;)'
29 7 /' /' /' ./ '/ /1/ /' '/ r'2,)
28 j /' /' / :/ /' /' /' 21
27 ./ /' ./ ./ ./ "'/ '/ I I tJ 13
26 f7 ./ '/" I I IA 6
25 f7 1 I I ":l
24. 1/ -"-I I" . .. 1 , '2-
- -- . ..
23 VI I I 1 '1.. I
22 1 I I 1 I
21 I I I I I I I I 1 I
20 I I I I 1
19 I I.. I I
18 I .. I ... 1- - 1
17 I I ..
16 I I
15 I I 1 I .
14 I 1
13 I.
12 I I
11 I
10 I
s I .
8 I
7 I I
6 I I I I I I
RECORDER: ~ ITOT AL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: t5~
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\TRAJ'FIClSpeed_Surveys\Speed Limit Surveys 45.xls
7-20
.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA - VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY
SEGMENT UNDER STUDY LAtA:J.W)/};::fJJ2 (3)4<v M" ,~1=Pt2J) <t r
DATE (O-30..& SURVEY SITE ~/ B'M ~J2./J $1"". POSTED SPEED 30
TIME START ~-vJl1(}PJ>A/PM ' TIME END '5"'30' AM/PM WEATHER .P;zt-tf2-
DIRECTION: @i2. =0 =/
MPH 5 10 15 20 TOTAL % CUM%
45
44
43
42 01
41
40 I
39 0
38 0
37 rJ ,rJ
36 rJ f) to 0
35 n 1,-, 0 I/? 0 6'
""54 ~ 0 /? h -:;:; .:.,. D D 0 I
33 L. I/J ~ ,010 0
32 r:ln n I I 1 [
31 1(" t!; 0 .010 0 [
30 , I...:: 0 '/?If? It? t:?
29 i'?1.n I I
28 "'" /) 1.0
27 [
26 (;) 0 o' I I
25 101 I 1 I I
24. . .1 - '-1 I. .. . I I I
.. - -- . ..
23 I I [ I [ I I
22 I I I I I I I
21 1 I I I I I I I I I I
20 I I I I
19 I I.. I I
18 I .. I ... I - - 1 I
17 [
16 I
15 I I 1 I
~4 . !
13 I I I
12 I I
11 I I
10 I
9
8
7 I I
6 I 1 I I
RECORDER: ~ (TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: ss-
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\TR.;FFIC\Speed_Surveys\Speed Limit Surveys 45.)(15
7-21
fa
....
VI
:>
fa
::I
.=
U
....
o
>-
:!::
U
c:
o
VI
:~
c
CI
c:
';:
Q)
Q)
c:
CI
c:
W
u
!E
fa
...
I-
...
0
0 -
N
N Ol S2 0 0
!2 Cl
- III
- ~
:5- 0 -
t::
o
Co
Q)
c::
~
o
....
.!!!
J:
c
o
:~
"0
u
u
!E
fa
...
I-
CD
o
o
t:!
.....
Ql'"
QlN
.t:...
Ill,
"'C
......
~g
CUt:!
:q;
--
...
o
Ql
>
'C
C
e"i
Ot::
.c 0
In 0.
Ql Ql
~e:::
...I Ql
tll
C C
0"
~a::
.. Ql
U..
o CU
...IC
II.
U
~
~g ~g
o 19 0 CO
"5 ,2 "5:Q
<l:> <l:>
N
_ . C) OJ
C= c: c:
EOlUO =c__:o_
Q)J:: Q)..t:
~U ~.g>B.Q)
o e e~ e~
:;:~ a.CIl a.CIl
-
ON
.Ja;
" >
l!! III
S~
-
- .
c=
CD 0
EU
~ U
o l!!
:;:0..
-
0_
.Ja;
" >
l!! III
.- ...
CI-
.c
-
.c~
CD",
> Ol
... >
0-
_ 0
o >
:;:.5
_ C
o 0
QJ';;;
a.=
>>-
1-8
..:
is
....
on
is
Ol
E
i=
CD
-
"
C
o
z
t::
o
0.
~
u;
III
W
10
~
'il
...J
Ol
c
:i::E
" ::I
:;;1-
Ol
.!:: u
a;lE
-"
c ...
WI-
.c
1::
o
Z
.c
S
o
CIl
...
.s
o
:;;"
"'0
".-
.c.c
_OJ
0>
...
.s
o
:;;'"
"'0
".-
.c.c
_ '"
0>
'"
"0
'u;
"0
'"
e
'"
"
"0
'u;
"0
"
e
'"
~
.E
o
:5
.E
o
'"
-
N
-
co
N
,:.:
o
-
o
o
~
-
-
N
o
o
~
co
NO:
~o: CO
_C: CO
~C: 0
au: f'-..
N ~ co
0-('\ C\I
...~ 0
MC:
N
Ui
c
o
~
'0
U
-
o
...
Ol
.c
E
::I
Z
jij
-
o
I-
7-22
....
..
~
=
01
..
Q
...
"c:l
~
'"
;;l
'"
ell
=
.~
.....
.....
~
r;r,
II
j
...
"
-
" ..
> 'il" ::1l
'i: IoioI
~ .t: =
Q,l Cf.l ,....t \0 .S
."C==_
Q ... = 0: U
-5~~C!~
Q,l - ..... ...... ""'
~-~~~
r:\iI ~ -,...l N =
~==,....c~
..
'"
..-
'"
e
..
..
..
~
Q,} 'tool ~ Q,l =
e Q,l CC ~ 0
~~~~~
"t :; :::: .5 C
Q,) 0 ... "C Q,J
... ... cc = _
ooUoo~~
MEETING MINUTES
Excerpts from:
1. 8/8/96 Safety Commission Minutes
2. 10/10/96 Safety Commission Minutes
3. 12/10/96 City Council Minutes
4. 2/4/97 City Council Minutes
5. 4/15/97 City Council Minutes
7-23
ATTACHI',AENT
4
Safety Commission Minutes
August 8,1996
" Page 2
~ J." v1p~ 0 + Sl? l/A( A ~/.f/.8/-r ....E~
y~ V/\ ~ II IVI'f Yvtl 1tl-7
exit from the school parking lot and on East) Street south curb line as law permits into the school parking lot (Item
#11), and to create bus turnouts on East J Street (Item #13). The Commission supported the concept of a flashing
light on East J Street, (Item #6), but felt it would be too expensive to implement.
MS (Smith/Acton) set up four priorities in order as action should be taken. The priorities were:
1. To have the parking lot restriped immediately;
2. To install "No Left Turn" signs on East J Street and parking lot exit to prohibit left turns into and out of the
school parking lot, as the law permits;
3. To move the school bus loading and unloading zone further west, adding footage from the parking lot as
permitted; and,
4. To entertain the adDition of a new turnout area on the north side of the school, east of the existing parking
lot.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: (Uken) to have staff report back on effects of Items 1, 2, and 3 in December and if
they do not work then look at Alternative 13. Agreed to by maker of motion.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Approved fHl.G.1 with Vice Chair Miller abstaining due to conflict of
interest.
Chair Liken asked Dr. Madison to send letters to the parents on the Safety Commission decision.
6. RP-DOrl on Traffic Concern!; at Bonita Vi~ta Middle Schonl and Bonita Vida Hi'Zh School
I
Frarik Rivera presented staffs report.
Tom Silva, Sweetwater Union High School District, 1130 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911, Director of
Planning, said the District was in favor of staffs recommendation with one exception. The District was not in
favor of flashing beacons in a future CIP. He did not recommend a split phasing to the traffic signal timing
because he felt it would cause additional delays.
Chair Liken said he did not agree with the need for flashing beacons and that he wanted to see how the larger
speed limit signs worked out. He wanted to start out with the less expensive items. If the changes that were
made were not satisfactory, the District could come back to the Commission with other ideas. He wanted to see
police enforcement of the signs.
Commissioner Cochrane was in favor of solar powered flashing beacons and suggested they be included in the
CIP .budget.
CorAmissioner Smith felt flashing beacons were not a good idea. He feit there were more pressing issues that
needed to be covered by the CIP.
MSClC (Miller/Hoke) to accept staff's report on Traffic Concerns at Bonita Vista Middle School and Bonita Vista
High School.
1i
,.
7. -Reoort on An-Wav StOD ReclUest at Clearbroolc Drive and Lak~hore Drive
!
Frank Rivera presented staff's report.
i
Geoffrey aemmons, 1948 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91913, said thal motorists did not slow down on
lakeshore Drive. Vehicles on lakeshore Drive seemed to have less visibility. He agreed to the installation of
an all-way stop at Creekwood Drive rather than Ciearbrook Drive, He believed there was community support
for the all-way stop at Creekwood Drive.
UNOFFICIAL P.fo11~,rl ,-r-S
' 18-"3" ~ .lilli'n.nt;
7-24
Safety Commission Minutes
August 8, 1996
Page 3
(
David Villegas, 1936 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91913, said that every new development had growing
pains. Eastlake I had speeding problems. He asked why there were only two crosswalks on lakeshore Drive.
He had been involved in near misses because of vehicular speed. ;
Chair Liken said there Were only two crosswalks because there were two all-way stop locations. Crosswalks were
installed in conjunction with al!-way stops. If crosswalks were installed at uncontrolled intersections, It co~ld
give pedestrians an illusion of safety. . .
Commissioner Smith asked if the streets were dedicated or private.
i
,.
Frank Rivera answered that Eastlake Shore Terrace and the streets inside the lakeshore Drive loop were private.
lakeshore Drive and the streets outside the loop were dedicated. !
Commissioner Smith asked if there was a Homeowners Association and asked if the CC&R's would allow fim,.
on speeders.
Mr. Clemmons said there was a Homeowners Association, but that it could not enforce speeding or gel involved
in speed issues.
Frank Rivera commented that Eastlake I had an office at lhe clubhouse and it published a monthly newsletter with
general information. He felt an article about speeding could be put in the newsletter.
Mr. Clemmons commented that most of the residents in Eastlake I community are renters and putting something
in the newsletter was not a long term solution. An all-way stop would be a long term solution.
Mr. Villegas said the Homeowners Association was aware of the speeding issues. The Homeowners Association
wanted to install speed humps on lakeshore Drive, but it did not meet standards for speed humps.
Commissioner Cochrane spoke in favor of the all-way stop. He had witnessed vehicular speeds and would like
the inslallation of an all-way stop at Creekwood Drive and Lakeshore Drive on a trial basis.
Chair Liken informed the public about all-way stop guidelines. He mentioned that the Commission looked at
special circumstances. Statistics showed that cars tended to speed up in between stop signs. He entered into the
record that he received 13 postcards in support of the all-way stop. Twelve postcards were received from area
residents, and one from a resident of Eastlake Hillside. He asked if the 'SMART' unit has been ~ up pn
lakeshore Drive. .
Sgt. d'Ablaing said the machine was in for repairs.
Chair liken said although the roadway did not meet the all-way stop criteria, the Commission looked at special
circumstances.,and said he would like staff to monitor the area. He asked staff to conduct a radar survey.
Commissioner Cochr..ne asked if an all-way stop was ultimately planned by the City, why it could not be
installed immediately.
Frank Rivera commented that if staff was given a choice for the location of an al!-way stop, the preference would
be Creekwood Drive.
r
Chair liken suggested tabling the item until September when it could be broughl back with a study on Hartford
Street and a current radar study.
Commissioner Smith commented on the traffic counts and how the vast amount of speeding was done on or after
7pm and felt it was possible that Lakeshore Drive was being used as a race track.
IP''' .J'?
UN9t:~CIAL MINUTES
7-25
;
I
}
Safety Commission Minutes
August B, 1996
r~ Page 4
Mr. Villegas commented that with the development of Eastlake Greens, motorists were filtering through the
community which created more traffic.
MSUC (Smith/Acton) to deny an all-way stop at Lakeshore Drive and Clearbrook Drive and that staff bring back
an all-way stop study and speed survey in September on Creekwood Drive and Hartford Drive.
Frank Rivera suggested hoiding off the report until October so that staff would have more time to conduct all the
nec~ssary studies while school is in session.
The Commission by consensus agreed to postpone the report until October.
8. Oral Communit"atinns - None.
STAFF REPORTS
9. Adion Summa.rv Uodate/Staff Cnmml!nts
. 'Request for all-way stop at Second Avenue & Oxford Street and East Paisley Street & Monserate Avenue.
j
Frank Rivera indicated that staff was working on a report and would present it at the October meeting.
. Request for speed humps in vicinity of 600 block of Garrett Avenue.
,
Frank Rivera indicated that a letter was prepared and delivery attemped to the resident. The home was found
vacaht and with a 'For Sale' sign in the yard.
i
Chai~ liken asked staff to contact Mayor Horton to see how to proceed on the request.
!.
,
10. Traffic Accident SummarY Mav & lune 1996. Distributed for Commission information.
,
11. Information.1 ReDor! . Proposed Rancho del Rey Middle School at East J Street and Paseo Ranchero.
\
. Presentation by Mr. Tom Silva, Director of Planning, Sweetwater Union High School District.
Tom Silva presented a report on the Rancho del Rey Middle School. The school is expected to open in July 1998.
He wanted to work closely with City staff and the Commission to avoid any traffic issues that could arise.
OTHER BUSINESS
12. j:y 1996-91 Elections
MSUC (8ierdlHokel to keep present officers of John liken as Chair and Cindy Miller as Vice Chair.
13. Commissioner Comments:
,
,
,~ John Liken. Annual schedule of meetings.
I
Chair Liken asked why the July meeting was cancelled.
; 1.
.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
/8'~y ~
7-26
:?xLtrf of [Of[l>[~~ \M(~0
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OFTHE CHULA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION
Thursday, October 10, 1996
7:00 p.m.
Counci I Chambers
Public Services Building
CAll TO ORDER
1. Roll Call:
Present Chair Liken, Vice Chair Miller, Commissioners: Acton, Bierd, Cochrane, and Smith
Absent: Commissioner Hoke
Also present: Bill Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer; Mike Donnelly, Asst Engineer II; Sgt. Gene d'Ablaing; and
Diana Vargas, Recording Secretary
2. Pled..e of Alle.iancelSilent Praver
3. Ooenin.. Statement - Read by Chair Liken
4. Aooroval of Minutes: August 8, 1996
MSC (Acton/Smith) to approve the minutes of August 8, 1996 as presented. Approved 6-0-1 with Commissioner
Hoke absent.
MEETING AGENDA
5.
Reoort on AII-Wav StOD Reouest at lakeshore Drive at Clearbrook Drive.
ff
Back..round: The Commission directed staff at the August 8, 1996 meeting, to prepare a follow-up report on this
item, and requested that an updated speed survey be conducted at this intersection. Staff requested that the speed
survey be delayed until after the schools were in session in order to acquire a more accurate survey of the traffic
and speed conditions at that intersection.
Bill Ullrich presented staff's follow-up report and indicated there were no changes to the previous report. He
further indicated that the updated speed survey showed no difference in the 85th percentile speed of 40 MPH,
which exceeds the posted speed limit of 30 MPH.
In addition, the warrant evaluation conducted at this intersection assessed a lotal of 9 points out of a possible 54
points. According to Council's policy on the installation of an all-way stop, a minimum of 30 points are required
to justify the in~tallation.
Staff Recommendation: Mr. Ullrich indicated that utilizing established guidelines, the outcome failed to
demonstrate the need for the installation of an all-way stop at this location and therefore, staff recommends denial
ofthe request.
Public Hearin..: Chair Liken opened up the Public Hearing and indicated there were five request slips to speak.
Geoffrey Clemmons, 1948 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, indicated he contested the sight
distances that were noted by staff during the slide presentation, and indicated the speed at which
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
,E i~ /i'~J'
7-27
Safety Commission Minutes
October 10, 1996
Page 2
offenders are driving, cuts down on the reaction time. He further stated that although he would like to
see the all-way stop installed at Clearbrook Drive, he supported staff's recommendation that perhaps the
better alternative site would be at Creekwood Way because of the proposed connection of Creekwood
Way to Chateau Court when the adjacent Telegraph Canyon Estates development is completed. He
encouraged the Commission to continue to look into creative ways that could slow down the speed of
cars traveling on the southwest side of the loop.
Armando Montes Jr., 1975 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated he lives on the corner lot of this
intersection and he personally witnesses speeding cars. He further stated that because he will not
jeopardize the safety of his family, he has had to place his home on the market to prevent a tragedy from
occurring and have a car end up in his front living room.
Ruben Padilla, 801 Woodspring Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that on June 14, 1995 al 7:35 p.m.
he had a car fly into his back yard and ended up approximately 5 feet from his kitchen. Fortunately, his
four children were inside the house, and a greater tragedy did not occur. Mr. Padilla stated that because
of the angle the photos were taken, he did not believe they represent a true picture of the sight distance.
Joseph Dombrowski, 1967 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that he and his 6 and 8 year
old sons frequently cross that intersection on their way to visit a family member that lives inside the loop.
There is no pedestrian crosswalk and there is poor visibility on lakeshore Drive when they are coming
back home. There have been times when his children will wait up to 10 minutes trying to crOSS
lakeshore Drive, due to poor visibility and speeding cars.
Ken Comardo, 1966 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that in his opinion there is a blind spOI
created by the curve on the lakeshore Drive where you don't see the car coming for the last 100 feet
before reaching Clearbrook Drive. He felt that the photos were not a true representation of the sight
distance motorists have when they are at the intersection.
Public Hearing Closed.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Acton questioned whether the Commission has discussed the feasibility of installing speed bumps
at the last hearing.
Chair Liken indicated that due to the collector street and it posted over 25 MPH, it did not meet the criteria stated
in the speed bump policy.
Commissioner Cochrane expressed his concern over the safety of this area and indicated he has personally
witnessed the speeding cars because he and his wife regularly walk through this neighborhood. Commissioner
Cochrane stated that if the 85th percentile is traveling 10 miles in excess of the posted speed limit, that means
thai the remaining 15 percent are traveling at speeds that far exceed the posted speed limit. He indicated that
he believes an all-way stop sign at this intersection is warranted.
Commissioner Miller indicated that she empathized with the residents and felt that perhaps the Commission could
review this item with the next item on the agenda, and somehow come to a consensus on where to recommend
the installation of an all-way stop.
Bill Ullrich indicated that the photos are taken from an angle that closest represents the motorists' view.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES /J>'.-t/p
. ~ /&
7-28
4
Safety Commission Minutes
October 10, 1996
Page 3
Chair Liken indicated that the Commission does make an effort to visit these sites prior to them being discussed
at the meetings, and they do drive in and out of the different approaches to get a well-rounded perspective. He
further indicated that speed in this area is a concern to the Commission as a whole, and asked staff what measures
could be implemented to control speed.
Bill Ullrich indicated that there could be stricter enforcement of the speed limit.
Chair liken stated that, although he is concerned about the speeding cars, he would not support the all-way stop
at the Clearbrook Drive intersection, but rather, at the next intersection, which is Creekwood Way and lakeshore
Drive. He further indicated that it would be at this location that the all-way stop could be warranted at a future
date with the impact the adjacent development wi II have when it is completed.
Bill Ullrich indicated that staff could reevaluate the installation of an all-way stop at the Creekwood Way and
lakeshore Drive intersection at a later date, after the connection to Chateau Court and the completion of the
development.
MSC(Mitler/Bierd) to approve staff's recommendation to deny the installation of an all-way stop at lakeshore
Drive and Clearbrook Drive. Approved 4-2-1 with Commissioners Smith and Cochrane voting no, 'and
Commissioner Hoke absent.
6.
R~Dort on AU..Wav Stoo reauest at Creekwood Way and lakeshore Drive
Backeround: The Commission directed staff at the August 8, 1996 meeting to prepare a study on this item as an
altemative location to a request to install an all-way stop at the Clearbrook Drive and lakeshore Drive
intersection. Staff requested that the study be delayed until after the schools were in session in order to acquire
a more accurate survey of the traffic and speed conditions at that intersection.
Bill Ullrich reported that staff conducted the study utjJizing the same evaluation methodology as the other
intersection and it did not receive enough points to warrant the installation of an all-way stop at this time.
Staff Recommendation: That the Commission deny the request for the installation of an all-way stop at the
Creekwood Way and lakeshore Drive intersection, and that staff be directed to re-evaluate it when the Telegraph
Canyon Estates are completed.
Public Hearine: Chair Liken open the Public Hearing and indicated that there were two request slips to speak.
Ken Comardo, 1966 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that he did not support the stop sign
at this location. He urged the Commission to stop looking at a point system policy, and make their
determi{1ation on a case by case basis based on merit and safety.
Armando Montes Jr., 1975 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated he too did not support the stop
sign at this location and urged the Commission not to wait to reevaluate this item until the completion
of a future development that may not take place,
Public Hearim!: Closed.
Commission Discussion: Commissioner Bierd asked_ staff if there was a time frame of when to expect the
completion of this project.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES J~, J"/
.c :;,-- /0' '/,
...-
7-29
~
Safety Commission Minutes
October 10, 1996
Page 4
Bill Ullrich indicated that Baldwin Builders was going through bankruptcy court, and they had received
authorization from the court to move forward and complete the existing homes that had been partially framed.
He further stated that it was his understanding that the work would commence as soon as possible, however, it
was uncertain if the courts were going to allow them enough funds to complete it. In addition, Mr. Ullrich
informed the Commission that it was uncertain if they were going to be able to complete the additional phases
of the project where construction of homes had not yet begun.
Commissioner Acton stated that she supported the Commission taking measures that would mitigate the existing
needs, addressing the residents' cqncerns, and not wait until the the conditions are exacerbated by possible future
development.
Commissioner Cochrane stated that he supported Commissioner Acton's previous comment and felt that the City
needed to be able to offer some kind of relief to these residents and alleviate the speeding problem at this
location.
Commissioner Acton questioned the appropriateness of discussing these two item together, rather than as two
unrelated items.
Commissioner Smith indicated that he remembered discussing this issue at a previous workshop, and that the
Commission had agreed that they needed to take the items as listed on the agenda, and that if it was their desire
to revisit or combine items, staff could be directed to do so and bring it back at a future meeting.
Commissioner Smith offered his reasoning for voting against staff's recommendation in the previous item.. It is
his opinion that a stop sign is needed at both intersections, because by culling down on the distance between SlOp
signs that are fairly separated, motorists tend to modify their behavior and slow down because they know that
another stop sign is coming up.
Chair Liken stated that he disagreed with the previous comment, and stated that in his opinion placing too many
stop signs that are too close together, tends to make the drivers roll through the stop sign, which gives the other
motorists a false sense of security. Similarly, pulling crosswalks where you don't have an intersection, then
people feel that as soon as they step into the crosswalk they have the right-of-way, which is a false sense of
security for those pedestrian.
Commissioner Miller stated that she agreed with Chair Liken's comment, and felt that this is the intersection that
makes sense because of the future development, although it may not be in the immediate future, and did not
agree with staff's recommendation to deny the stop sign at this location.
MSC (Miller/Acton) that the Commission not approve staff's recommendation to deny the stop sign and that
the Commission request that an all-way stop sign be placed at Creekwood Way and Lakeshare Drive. Approved
&-0-1 with Colll(t1issioner Hoke absent.
7.
Reoort on AII..Wav StOD Evaluation on lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street.
Backeround: The Commission directed staff at the August 8, 1996 meeting to study the installation of an all-way
stop at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street as part of the Commission's review of stop control
needs on Lakeshore Drive.
Staff conducted the study and the intersection received a total of 7 points out of a possible 54 points. A minimum
of 30 points are required to justify the installation of an all-way stop.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
.L 1- /~, '/...<
7-30
Safety Commission Minutes
Odober 10,1996
Page 5
Staff Recommendation: That the Commission deny the installation of an all-way stop at lakeshore Drive and
Hartford Street.
Public Hearine: Chair Liken indicated there were no request slips to speak on this item.
Commission Discu5!i:ion: Chair Liken stated he had requested the review of an all-way stop at this location
because if an all-way stop was installed at one end of the loop, then it would be a mailer of time before the
residents on the other side would be requesting the instaliation of a stop sign at their end of the loop. If a stop
were to be installed at the south end of the loop, the tendency would be for motorists to take the alternate loop
where there are no stops and would also encourage speeding at the north side of the loop.
Commissioner Cochrane supported Chair Liken's comments and recommended a all-way stop be installed at
Hartford Street and the other at Clearbrook Drive to balance out the loop.
Commissioner Miller asked staff if there were any 'Children Playing' signs posted where there are parks. If not,
could the homeowners association place one?
Mr. Ullrich indicated that there were no 'Children Playing' signs because they cannot be placed in the public
right-of-way. and would be a zoning violation to place them in private property.
MSC (Liken/Smith) that an all-way stop be installed at Hartford Street and lakeshore Drive. Approved 6'()-1
with Commission Hoke absent.
8. ReDort on all-wav dOD reoue!;t at Oxford and S~cond Avenue.
Backeround: In July 1996, staff received a petition to consider installation of an all-way stop at this intersedion.
The request cited the need because of the high speed of vehicles traveling east-west on Oxford Street and the lack
of traffic control devices on Oxford Street between Third Avenue and Hilltop Drive.
Staff conduded a study and this intersedion received a total of 14 points out of a possible 54. A minimum of 30
points is required unless there are overriding considerations such as a high accident rate history of the type of
accident susceptible to corredion by an all-way stop installation. During the period 4/1/94 to 3/31/95, there were
five accidents susceptible to correction by an all-way stop, and therefore, meets the Caltrans criteria contained
within Council policy to warrant the installation of the all-way stop.
Staff Recommendation: That the Safety Commission accept staff's report and recommend the installation of an
all-way stop at this location.
Public Hearine: .!=hair Liken opened up the Public Hearing and indicated there was one request slip to speak.
Donna Saar, 221 Oxford Street, Chula Vista, stated that ten years ago she spoke before the Safety
Commission on this same mailer and the request was denied. She has personally witnessed many
accidents at this intersection, most recently involving one of her students in .the Teen Motner Program
who was 4 months pregnant. The safety of this intersedion is of great concern to the residents of that
area.
Public Hearin2 dosed:
Commission Discussion: Commissioner Miller thanked staff for their support and recommendation for approval
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES /8' 'i?
~f ..>
7-31
f
Ex U--Yft- of 1-2-/ (0 /qif t\(\VlS
Minutes
December 10, 1996
Pal" 11
BOARD AND cnMMm"ION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
18. RF.PORT DENYING REQUEST FOR ALL-W A Y STOPS ON LAKESBORE DRIVE AT HARTFORD
STREET AND LAKESHORE DRIVE AT CRBEKWOOD WAY - At \be 8/8/96 Safety Commission meeting,
a report was presented reprding a wrillell request from Geoffrey Clemmoas at 1948 ctearbrook Drive requeslins
an all-way IiIop be iDstal1ed olll.alceshore Drive at ctearbrook Drive. At that meeting, the Safety Commission voted
to deny an all-way stop and that staff bring bock all-way stop studies and new speed surveys for Creekwood Way
and Hartfonl Street at the October Safety CommissiOll meelins. Staff recommenda Council IIlll IIpprove the
iDstal1atiOIl of all-way stops at Creekwood Way and at Hartfonl Street 011 Lakeshore Drive. (Director of Public
Wotks)
CoUllcUmember Padilla abstained from voting due to the proximity of the subject intersection to his residence.
Cliff Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works, stated City staff reviewed the subject intersections at the request
of the Safety CommissiOll &lid foUlld they did lIot meet the warnmts for all-way stops. Staff recommends denial
of installing the all-way stops.
MS (Rindone/SaIas) to aa:ept staff's recommendation to deny the installation of all-way stops at Creekwood
Way and Hartford Street, on Lakeshore Driye.
CoUllci\member Moot stated this is not the first time staff's recommendation differs with the recommendation of
a Commission. He UDderstood the wammt system which is partly based on post accidents, but often the purpose
of the IiIop sign is to prevent an accident from occurring.
Mr. Swanson explained there are several reasons for stop signs, &lid speeding is not olle of them. Accident wammt
is OIIe of the COIIditions and it depends how many accidents happen. Both these intersections have a good accident
rate with none in nine years. Installing stop signs that are not warranted could cause accidents.
. Geoffrey Clemmons, 1948 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista, CA, a resident in \be neighborhood, has observed
&II OIIgoing problem with the excessive speed of traffic aroUlld the loop road of l.aIceshore. Approximately six
months ago, he brought his concerns to the Safety Commission with a suggestion that a IiIop sign might alleviate
the problem. The Safety Commission recognized a problem existed and asked the Engineering Department for
alternative rec('m.......dpl;ons. The Engineering Department did not come up with &IIY alternatives. Although the
Safety Commission recognized that stop signs were not the preferred method of controlling speed, they approved
the installatiOll of all-way stop signs. He requested Council deny staff's recommendation and support the Safety
Commission's decision to install the all-way stop signs.
. 10hn Liken, 609 Forrester Lane, Chula Vista, CA, Chair of the Safety Commission, opposed staff's
recommendation and suggested a joint meeting of the Safety Commission and Council.
VOTE ON MOTION: Passed 3-1-0-1, with Moot opposed and Padilla ahstaining.
7-32
Minutes
February 4, 1997
Page 8
~u-rrt uP ~(4-/tj1 \M;~5
Budl.!et Process. Mr. Goss reported last year as part of the budget process, department heads presented information
regarding their department's operations and budgets. He asked Council if they wanted staff to repeat what was done
last year in an updated fashion.
Councilmember Moot indicated the preference for staff to concentrate on the goals and performance criteria and
requested staff not repeat historical information in their presentations. He also requested that Council receive a copy
of last year's goals and objectives prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Rindone requested the department heads provide an assessment of the goals and objectives as to
what they perceive they achieved and to assess what wasn't achieved and how it could be better addressed.
15. MAYOR'S REPORTfSI
a. Ratification of appointments: Child Care Commission - Sylvia Cunningham (to fill vacancy created hy
resignation of Commissioner Gish, whose term expires 6/30/97); and, Housing Advisory Commission - M. Theresa
Ahamed (to fill vacancy created by resignation of Commissioner Massey, whose term expires 6/30/97).
MSC (HortonlMoot) to appoint Sylvia Cunninghnm to the Child Care Commission, and M. Theresa Ahnmed
to the Hou.sing Advisory Commission, approved 4-0-1 with Padilla ahsent.
b. Reconsideration of all-way stop signs on Lakeshore Drive at Hartford StJ"ed;t and Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood
Way.
~
Mayor Horton requested reconsidering this item for the all-way stop signs at these locations due to an accident that
occurred near this location.
MSC (Horton/Moot) to reconsider the all-way stop signs, approved 4-0-1 with Padilla absent.
c. City Council committee assignments.
Mayor Horton stated Council wac; provided with a list of the committee assignments for the year. There were a
few adjustments with Council member Salas taking over positions held by former Councilmemher Alevy, plus
moving her into Councilmember Moot's position on the South County Economic Development Council. Everything
else remained the same except for the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives which meets once
or twice a year with Councilmemher Moot, the delegate, and Councilmember Rindone, the alternate.
Council member Rindone felt it would be more beneficial for other Councilmem~rs to have exposure with the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives and suggested Councilmember Salas as the alternate.
Councilmember Salas agreed.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Salas
Planninl! Commission. Councilmember Salas urged Council to forward their selection of applicants to interview
in order to appoint a new Conunissioner as soon as possible.
7-33
4
Minutes
April IS, 1997
Page 6
t'lttrpf of L/1(6/~1 ~j~~
12. RESOLUTION 18632 APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1997198 TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 4.5 CLAIM FOR HANDYTRANS OPERA nON FUNDING - The
TDA Article 4.5 claim will fund HandYt....ms operation frnm 711197 through 9130197. A change in HandYtrans
service is proposed beginning 10/1197 to facilitate Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service
requirement'. StatT recommends Council approve the resolution and accept the report. (Director of Public Works)
REPORT PROPOSED CHANGES TO HANDYTRANS OPERATION EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1997
RESOLUTION 18632 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text was waived, title
read, passed, and approved unanimously 5-0.
13. REPORT FOLLOW-UP ON REQUEST FOR ALL-WAY STOPS ON LAKESHORE DRIVE AT
IfAR![EORD STREET AND CREEKWOOD WAY - At the Council meeting on 214197, the Mayor requested
that staff reconsider the instaUation of all-way stops on Lakeshore Drive at ear.Wrd Street and Creekwood Way.
Subsequent to the Mayor's request. staff conducted further investigations into the traftic conditions on Lakeshore
Drive in the EastLake area. Sfaff recommends Council accept the report and deny the recommendation of the Safety
Commission to install the all-way stops. (Dir~tor of Public Works)
Cliff Swanson. City Engineer, stated as a result of notices the City sent out and signs which were placed at the
proposed stop sign locations, statT received approximately 21 phone calls: 14 calls againslthe stop signs and 7
phone calls in favor of the stop signs. He explained that several alternatives were looked at to control sp~ing such
as speed humps and rumble strips. Since Lakeshore Drive is a collector street and designed to carry through traffic,
it is on a curve and did not fit the Council policy for speed humps. The general use of rumble strips are for
locations where there is an advance of a stop sign where a driver has driven for some distance and may miss the
stop sign or be unaware of unanticipated conditions. In addition, the rumble strips would increase the noise level
and was eventually ruled out. Staff also looked at additional speed limit signs and speed limit pavement markings.
Another alternative is the selective enforcement by the Police Department, particularly during the periods when
pedestrians are most prevalent which staff observed to be between the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The cost
to install the speed limit signs and street pavem~nt markings at four locations would be approximately $2.000 to
$2,500. He stated funds were available for these items from the street signs operation budget. and unless directed
other.vise by Council. staff will proceed. with this signing and marking alternative.
Councilmember Padilla abstained from voting due to the proximity of su~iect location to his residence.
*""'*Councilmernber Padilla left the dais at 7:20 p.m. ***
. John Liken. 609 Forester Lane. Chula Vista, Chair of the Safety Conunission. indicated that the Safety
Commission continues to unanimously recommend that stop signs be placed on Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way
and Hartford Street. He mentioned accidents have occurred at this location. Although only approximately 50
percent of all accidents ca1led in to the Police Department result in actual police reports, their history is not an
accurate reflection of accidents. He stated he previously drove around the curve at one of the proposed locations
and b..is vehicle was nearly stnlck as a vehicle pulled dirlXtly in front of him. There were incidents where a vehicle
went through a retaining wall and nearly missed colliding into a residence and where a vehicle crashed into a utility
cable box:. He stated Council should rely on the history of accidents the residents in the area have observed as
opposed to actual police reports on file.
Councilmember Salas noticed that in the staff report of 12/10/96. there were no reported accidents, and in the staff
report of 4/15/97. it indicated there were three accidents reported. She asked if there were any other differences
in the two staff reports.
7-34
Minutes
April 15, 1997
Page 7
Mr. Swanson slaled the general wording in the 12110/96 report included a review of the accident history for this
intersection, and at that time staff studied the stop signs at specific intersections. There were no accidents at the
two intersections; however. the staff report of 4/15/97 was expanded to look at the entire Lakeshore Drive. The
staff report indicates two of the accidents occurred at Ashbrook Place and Lakeshore Drive, and one accident
occurred at Clearbrook Drive and Lakeshore Drive. With this information. it supports stafFs recommendation that
a stop sign will not necessarily stop accidents. An analysis revealed that two of the accidents would not bave been
~orrected by a stop sign, because they were caused by driver inattention; none of accidents were determined to be
speed related. He stated the third accident may have been corrected by an all-way stop sign, but not at the locations
. on Lakeshore Drive at HiliffjillJ Street and Creekwood Way.
Councilmember Salas noted the posted speed limit for the ar... is 30 miles per hour and the 85 percentile speed is
41 miles per hour. She understood that installing slop signs was not really a good method to slow down speeders
but it seemed to her in this particular case, the fact drivers have to stop and then build up their speed again will
somewhat slow speeding cars. She stated her decision on 12/10/96 for staff's recommendation to deny the stop
signs was based on the point system; however, she felt Council should consider the needs and wants of the
community.
. Ann Ngnyen, 804 Southshore Drive, Chula Vista, spoke in support of staffs recommendation to deny the stop
signs. She understood the conceI11 of s~ding in the arM but felt stop signs would not take care of the problem
and only increase the noise level. She did not believe the volume of traffic at this intersection warranted a stop sign
and suggested increasing Jaw enforcement, installing adtlitional speed limit signs, and painting the pavement to show
the speed limit at 30 miles pt::r hour.
. Joseph Dombrowski, 1967 Clearbrook Drivt::. Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. He
was aware of four accidents that occurred in the area and felt the majority of poople will stop at a stop sign if one
were present. He indicated stop signs are needed in the area to slow the speed of tr4lftic.
. Brad Nguyen, 804 Southshore Drive, Chula Vista. spoke in support of staffs recommendation to deny the stop
signs. He was unaware a problem existed with speeding in the area and felt the accidents mentioned were isolated
incidents. He expressed concern regarding the validity of the stop signs. as well as environmental issues due to the
increased pollution and noise. He telt that instal1ing the stop signs would create a more dangerous situation, and
the City should not penalize the ~iority of drivers who obey the speed laws. He suggested more enforcement be
conducted in the area.
. Jeffrey Clemmons. 1948 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista, stated he has pursued this issue for the past 10 months.
He stated both the Engineering Department and the Safety Commission acknowledge a problem exists on Lakeshore
Drive, and he was unaware prior to this evening that staff had alternate solutions. He provided photographs which
showed damage caused by an unreported accident that occurred at this location. He requested Councll approve
installation of the stop signs on Lakeshore Drive atllllTmlml Street and Creekwood Way.
Councilmember Moot indicated he was the only Council member who voted on 12/10/96 to install the stop signs,
because he felt the application of a warrant system on a purdy numhers hasis did not give a true retlection of
whether or not an intersection or area is dangerous. He visited the loop road many times and observed the excessive
speed of vehicles on this road. He tdt that by installing a stop sign, the rnlt.iority of people will obey it, and it will
help to slow trdffic.
Mayor Horton noticed that a loop road in Rancho del Roy m~ar Discovery Park had a new stop sign installed, and
she asked why.
Mr. Swanson explained there was input from the community and the Saft:ty Commission, the location in Rancho
del Rey is a route to schools. and it is an extremely high pede..<;trian crossing location.
7-35
Minutes
April 15, 1997
Page 8
Mayor Horton stated making decisions on stop signs can be difficult because em,lncH has a history of not supporting
them unless, through an analysis presented by staff. the sign is found to be warranted. She felt there is a high
probability an accident can occur at this location, and she supported installation of the stop signs. When she
recently visited this location during peak hours, she observed cars ~'Peeding in tbe area while many children were
riding their bicycles. She felt a stop sign will help to slow down the speed of traffic and hoped staff could come
up with a creative way to slow down traftic. She felt the City cannot wait until something tragic happens, and she
supported the Safety Corr.llI1ission's recommendation to install the stop signs. She further stated that in looking at
the design of the loop road ofLakeshore Drive, the arta where most of the accidents have occurred is in the western
end of the loop road because the degign is dift~rent than the eastern end. She suggested installing oDe stop sign at
Lakeshore Drive and Creekwood Way for a test period of time, because there may not be a need for a second stop
sign at the eastern side of the loop because of the curvature of the road.
Councilmember Rindone felt the oth~r options staff recommended to slow the speed of traffic were more effective
than installing stop signs. He supported staff's rtl:commendation because stop signs are not warranted in this case
and would cause additional noise, added fuel costs to citizens. and pollution to the area. He concurred with
Mr. Nguyen that the majority of people who obey the posted speed limits should not be penalized by installiog the
stop signs.
Councilmember Salas stated the approximate distance between the two points Mayor Horton pointed out is
approximately 2,045 feet. She stat~ there is a stop sign approximately 1,000 feet from her residence. and she has
observed that it does not slow traffic. She stated she would consider a compromise to support one stop sign to see
if it helps to resolve the problem.
MSC (MootlHorton) to approve installation of a single stop sign on Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way.
approved 3-1-0-1 with Rindone opposed and Padilla abstaining.
***Councilmember Padilla returned to the dais at 8; 10 p.m. ***
13.1 REPORT REGARDING HUMANE SOCIETY REPORT ABOUT THE CHULA VISTA ANIMAL
SHELTER - On 4/8/97, Council requested a report be done by staff on short term solutions to the 12 issues raised
by the Humane Society. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Chief of Police)
John Goss. City Manager, reported that staff does not necessarily agree with all of the positions taken by the
Humane Society and others on the 12 iss.ues. but staff is evaluating some of these points as they develop a more
comprehensive report which they will bring fOlward in three weeks. There have been different views on some of
the issues of operations of shelter management such as euthanasia procedures, contract veterinarians versus on-site
veterinarians, collar usage, exercise, and cage size. The Police Department is attempting to address all of these
issues~ He pointed out tbat one of the problems at the animal shelter was due to low staffing levels. Another
context issue is that over a period of time, a general plan for the shelter was to be included as part of the
corporation yard; however, that site is now being reserved for other developments in lbe City.
Councilmember Rindone staled during the past week, he spoke with Councilmembers from the three cities .tbat
contract with Chula Vista for animal shelter services. In every case, the Councilmembers expressed concern
regarding Chula Vista's animal shelter and asked what is Chuta Vista doing to address the issues. As Council
previously directed, staff will have a report available to the public and positive steps to address the 12 concerns will
be part of the public record to show that Chula Vista is concemed. He felt this item lS of great deal of concern and
should be brought to a conclusion before ultimately deciding on the long-term aspect which could be a relocation
and modernization of the entire facility. He requested staff forward a copy of the staff report to the Mayors and
7-36
A TTACHMENl .
.5
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-002
RESOLUTION OF THE SAFETY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW THE ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE
INTERSECTION OF LAKESHORE DRIVE AND HARTFORD
STREET AND ORDER THE INSTALLATION OF AN ALL-
WAY STOP CONTROL AT SUCH INTERSECTION
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, a request to install an all-way stop control at the
intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street was received by City Engineering staff; and
WHEREAS, staff performed an all-way stop control warrant study at this intersection,
per Council Policy No. 478-03, and presented reports to the Safety Commission at their regular
meetings of November 8, 2007, and January 8, 2008; and
WHEREAS, since this intersection did not meet the requirements warranting an all-way
stop control, staff's recommendation was to deny the request to establish all-way stop control at
this intersection; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission took testimony from the public in August 1996,
October 10, 1996, and November 8, 2007, on traffic concerns along Lakeshore Drive in the
vicinity of Hartford Street; and
WHEREAS, the residents have reported an inability for pedestrians to safely cross
Lakeshore Drive to use the recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, traffic volume along Lakeshore Drive has drastically increased from 3,765
vehicles per day in 1996 to 9,768 vehicles per day in 2007 (an increase of over 250 percent); and
WHEREAS, a similar intersection at Lakeshore Drive and Creekwood Way is currently
an all-way stop controlled intersection with no reported accidents within the past six years
compared to two reported accidents at Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street within the same time
period; and
WHEREAS, based on the above, the Safety Commission finds that an all-way stop is
warranted at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2007, the Safety Commission agreed with the concerned
residents present at the public hearing and voted to establish the requested all-way stop control at
this location; and
7-37
Resolution No. 2008-002
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Safety Commission of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby reconnend that City Council review the all-way stop control at the
intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street and order the installation of an all-way stop
control at such intersection.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the Safety Commission of the City of ChuIa Vista, California,
this 8th day of January 2008 by the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners: Caudillo, Cochrane, Liken, Moriarty, Navarro, and Rosario
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Connissioners: Perrett
ATTEST:
~!i[~ U
Florence Picardal, Secretary
7-38
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TO DENY THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE SAFETY COMMISSION REGARDING THE
INSTALLATION OF AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE
INTERSECTION OF LAKE SHORE DRIVE AND HARTFORD
STREET AND AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CITY
ENGINEER
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, a request to install an all-way stop control at the
intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street was received by City Engineering staff; and
WHEREAS, staff performed an all-way stop control warrant study at this intersection,
per Council Policy No. 478-03, and presented reports to the Safety Commission at their regular
meetings of November 8, 2007, and January 8, 2008; and
WHEREAS, since this intersection did not meet the requirements warranting an all-way
stop control, staffs recommendation was to deny the request to establish all-way stop control at
this intersection; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission took testimony from the public in August 1996,
October 10, 1996, and November 8, 2007, on traffic concerns along Lakeshore Drive in the
vicinity of Hartford Street; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2007, the Safety Commission voted 5-0 (Liken/Navarro
absent) and agreed with the concerned residents present at the public hearing and voted to
establish the requested all-way stop control at this location; and
WHEREAS, based on the following, staff believes that an all-way stop control is not
appropriate at this location:
1.) The intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street received a total of only 28
points out of a possible of 100 points where a minimum of 45 points are required to
justify the installation of an all-way stop control.
2.) There is a lack of significant accident history at the intersection
3.) There is low pedestrian usage
4.) The existing low level of service
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby deny the recommendation of the Safety Commission regarding the installation
of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street and
affirming the decision of the City Engineer.
C:\Documenls and SettingsIJorip\Local Settings\Temporary Internel Files\OLK23\FINAL Lakeshore A WSLdoe
7-39
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 2
Jack Griffin
Director of General Services
Presented by:
C:\Docunumts and Settings\loripILocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23\FINAL Lakeshore A WSI,doc
7-40