HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 TRAFFIC CNTL'S 04-21-86AGENDA--s,
DATE:
APRIL 14, 1986
NEW BUSINESS
NO. 1
4-21-86
Inter- Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
MAIN STREET TRAFFIC CONTROLS
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
At their April 7, 1986 meeting, the City Council directed staff to investigate the
cost, source of funding and installation time of a traffic signal installation at
Main and Pacific Streets, and a four-way stop sign installation at Main and "B"
Streets.
DISCUSSION:
The Main and Pacific Streets intersection is an off-set type intersection with the
northerly leg of Pacific Street being off-set approximately 180 + feet westerly ~f
the southerly leg of Pacific Street. The proposed traffic sFgnal installation
would require the signalization at both intersections. The estimated cost for
this work is between $90,000 - $95,000, plus a $4,000 design engineering fee based
upon an accelerated design schedule.
Funding sources for this signalization project could be Redevelopment Agency
monies, General Fund monies or Gas Tax monies. All available Gas Tax monies and
General Fund monies available to the City are committed through 1987-88 on other
projects and it is suggested that Redevelopment Agency monies be utilized to fund
this project.
A tentative schedule fo~ design and construction of the traffic signal
installation would be as follows:
Engineering design ........................... 1 month
Bid advertisement ............................ 1 month
Bid award/contract execution ................. 1/2 month
Construction/installation .................... 3 months
Total - 5-i-~-months
In October, 1982, the Main St. and "B" St. intersection was studied for the
installation of stop signs. This study revealed that the intersection did not
meet the standard warrants as outlined in the CalTrans Traffic Manual for a
four-way stop installation. Staff is in the process of updating the stop sign
warrant study for this intersection to determine if any 'of the standard warrants
can be met at this time. The warrant study should be completed prior to April 21
and will be provided verbally at the City Council meeting.
APRIL 14, 1986
PAGE TWO
In the event stop signs are Installed on Main St. at the "B" St. intersection It
will be necessary for the City Council to adopt the attached Resolution which
designates the placement of certatn stop signs.
The subject intersection has been reviewed with respect to visibility and stop
sign location. It has been determined that the eastbound motori, sts will have
difficulty in seeing the proposed stop sign at the southwesterly corner of Main
and "B' Streets due to the existence of a large tree in front of 320 West Main
St. Consequently, it is suggested that if stop signs are installed at the "B"
St. intersection that additional signs be installed in the center of Main St. for
both directions of travel. In addition to the extra signs, two curb areas
adjacent to the signs located behind the curb should be red zoned for a minimum
distance of fifty feet easterly and westerly of the curb returns. These red zones
will eliminate two on-street parking spaces in front of 320 W. Main St. and two
on-street parking spaces in front of 225 West Main St. An alternative to the
additional stop signs in the center of Main St. would be the removal of parkway
trees that would obstruct visibility.
For the City Council's reference, I have attached a copy of a memo dated 11-16-82
from the City Attorney's office discussing concerns of the original 1982
installation proposal.
Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
BL:jr
Attachment
cc: Chief Thayer, Tustin Police Department
L
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 86-54
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING PLACEMENT OF CERTAIN STOP SIGNS
The City Council of the City of Tustin, California does hereby resolve as
follows:
Stop signs for eastbound and westbound Main Street at "B" Street are
hereby designated as authorized stop signs in the City of Tustin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Tustin, California, held on the day of , 1986.
..... Mayor
ATTEST:
Cit~ Clerk
DATE:
TO:
FROH:
$ UBJ ECT:
lnter-Com
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
3AMES G. ROURKE, CITY ATTORNEY
ROBERT L. LAVOIE, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
PLACEMENT OF STOP SIGN AT MAIN STREET AND "B" STREET IN
THE CITY OF TUSTIN
The matter of stop signs at Main and B Streets hn.s raised the question of whether the
City may be exposed to potential liability where it locates a stop sign at an
intersection when the location of the stop sign at the intersection is not supported by
the state standards.
The state standards promulgated by the California Department of Transportation set
forth three individual standards :[or the placement o:[ a stop sign in an intersection:
1. Il/here a traffic signal is urgently needed and a stop sign is used as a temporary
measure; or
2. The intersection has a traf:[ic accident problem (five or more accidents in the
preceding twelve months); or
3. Two o:[ the following three are satisfied:
a. The total volume at the intersection is at least 500 cars per hour;
b. The combined vehicle/pedestrian traffic is 200 per hour on the less trafficked
street causing an average delay of 30 seconds per car on the street with the
greater voJumei or
c. 85% of the approach speeds exceed b0 miles per hour wherein 70% of the
numbers used in subparagraph a. and b. may be used.
In conversations with Norm Hower only item 3a. above is satisfied at the intersection
of Main Street and B Street in Tustin.
Mr. Hower has additionally advised that one reason for the promulgation o:[ the stop
sign standards was that stop signs have a tendency to increase accidents on streets
where either the speeds are high or the location of a stop sign on the street is
unsuspected. Stop signs are "unsuspected" when they are located on streets not
justified by the state standards.
Generally unsuspected stop signs create accidents of two sorts. The first is The
situation where a car stops on a ]ow volume street at a stop sign, and then proceeds
through the stop sign even though another car is advancln§ on the cross street ex-
pecting the oncoming car to stop at its stop sign. Often, this will result in an
accident. The second kind of accident that will occur at unsuspected stop signs
involves pedestrians crossing the street with the expectation that the oncoming car
will honor his right-of-way.
The state standards are advisory and not mandatory and the City may exercise
discretion in complying with the state standards. Evidence that public property was
constructed or improved in non-compliance with applicable safety codes or standards
has, however, been deemed to be relevant, although not conclusive, on the question
the dangerous character of the construction. Curreri v. San Francisc0, 262 Cai.App.2d
6O3
All of the cases that we have been able to locate concerning the location of traffic
signals involve either signals and signs obstructed from view, or the failure of cities
and counties to provide traffic signals or signs when conditions indicated that signals
or signs were appropriate. We have not locatec: any case which indicated liability
when a stop sign was placed at an intersection when the sign was not supported by the
state standards. Still, the placement of a sign where not indicated appropriate by
state standards 'might subject a public entity to greater potential for liability than the
failure to provide for traffic control signals or signs.
In Curreri v. City and County o( San Francisco cited above, the City of San Francisco
has standard specifications developed by the Department of Public Works for the City
requiring ail curbs to be at least six inches in height. A plaintiff, minor, was
seriously injured when an automobile went over the curb at a point where the curb
height was between two and three inches. At 262 Cal. App.2d 609 the court
determined that the specifications were "guides" or "recommended procedures" rather
than regulations having the force of law. The court then continued, "while the failure
o~ the City to provide curbs on Greenwich Street: six inches in height cannot be
interpreted as negligence as a matter of law, the 'standard specifica¢ions do voice the
City's interpretation as to the height a curb should be for safety purposes ..... Here, a
standard height is fixed by the city engineers (reasonable men) who intended the
section to be a safety requirement for the protection of persons lawfully using the
adjoining sidewalk or property. Their determination is ore factor to be considered."
The question concerning the placement of a stop sign at Main and B Street is
analogous to the situation in Curreri v. San Francisco in that the state standards set
forth the factors to be used in determining whether the location of a stop sign at an
intersection is appropriate. The standards are advisory, not mandatory. One of the
purposes for the standards concerning stop signs is to avoid unnecessary stop signs in
that they tend to increase accidents, particularly on streets where speeds are high or
stop signs are unsuspected. It would appear that given these circumstances, the City's
risk is increased by the placement of a stop sign which is not in compliance with the
state standards.
Page Two
Even though the placement of a stop si§n may not be justified by the state standards,
the City may be eneitled to the design immunity provisions of Government Code §
830.6. UnderGovernment Code § 830.6, a public entity is generally not liable for in-
juries caused by a dangerous condition of public property if (1) the plan or design of
the improvement or structure was approved in advance of construction or
improvement by the legislative body, or by another authorized body or officer of the
public entity~ exercising discretionary authority to approve it~ or it was prepared in
conformity with standards previously so approved; (2) the trial or appellate court
determines as a matter of law that some substantial evidence exists on the basis of
which the plan or design, or the standards used i~n preparing the plan or design, could
reasonably have been adopted or approved; and (3) the injury was caused by an
approved feature of the plan or design. The problem with applying Government Code
§830.6 is the second requirement above which is that a court must determine as a
matter of law that substantiaJ evidence exists on the basis of which the plan or design
was adopted. The court may determine that the placement of a stop sign should be in
conformance with the state standards and without such conformance the design was
unreasonable.
It must always be kept in mind in those instances where a serious accident occurs~
resulting in great bodily harm, large medical bills~ long or permanent diability and/or
loss of the life or earning power of a breadwinneG etc.~ that there may be a strong
desire on the part of a jury to compensate the injured party and it may look closely
for some basis to fix responsibility for the loss on someone, particularly if a so-called
"deep pocket"~ e.g. a corporation, public entity~ etc., is involved. Thus~ even if the
basis of fault would be felt sli§ht by unemotional~ objective observers~ a city ma)' be
held liable on the basis of a thin or weak thread of fault. Accordingly, a stop sign
erected without being in compliance with state st~indards might~ in the event of an
accident at the interesection~ provide a basis for holding the City liable.
The problems of limitations on visibility of the proposed stop signs and the proposed
installation of stop signs in the middle of the street add to the City's exposure to
liability in the event of accidents.
RLL:3GR:se:R:I 1/16/g2
cc: ~/Huston
RLedendecker
CThayer
Page Three