HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Santiago Drive Speed ReductionCity of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 27, 1999
City Council Meeting, May 9, 2000
Agenda Item I115
Santiago Drive, Supplemental Report
9. REVISED PARKING LOT FEES FOR BALBOA PIER AND
DEL MAR PARKING LOTS. (Taken out of order.)
Council Member Ridgeway stated that the parking m Bement plan for the
peninsula and the Balboa Pier parking lot items 1 be heard by the City
Council before November. He stated that it d be more appropriate to
discuss the fees for the Balboa parking lot a same time.
Motion by Council Member RiMeway to continue the item until the
Peninsula Parking Managemen an and the Balboa Pier Parking Lot items
are before the City Council 125/99).
The motion carried the following roll call vote:
Ayes: A ms, Glover, Thomson, Debay, Ridgeway, Mayor O'Neil
Noes: one
Ali in: None
sent: Noyes
SANTIAGO DRIVE SPEED LIMIT (contd. from 9/13/99).
Transportation/Development Services Manager Rich Edmonston stated that
the item was continued from the previous City Council meeting to provide
staff the time to meet with the residents in the area. He stated that the
meeting included residents from Santiago Drive, Windward Lane, Francisco
Drive and Holiday Road, and that as a result of the input received at the
meeting, the recommendations by staff were revised. He stated that the key
changes included a specific program showing what the enforcement would
look like over the six -month trial period, a provision for before and after
studies of speed and volume on the streets, and a component for developing a
City -wide neighborhood traffic control plan. He stated that the plan would
include various items, or a menu, which could be looked at by the City
Council when considering traffic control measures on various streets in the
City.
For the members of the public in attendance at the meeting, Council
Member Debay announced that extra staff reports on the issue were
available in the Chambers Lobby.
Per Council Member Debay's request, Mr. Edmonston provided information
on the process that has taken place to date. He stated that in October of
1997, the Public Works Committee discussed the downgrading of just a
portion of Santiago Drive, but had to work with the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) to change some of the rules that did not
allow this at the time. He stated that the City was successful in getting two
key revisions made to their process, which included approval to change the
designation of an arterial street at a logical point rather than just the whole
street.
Council Member Debay confirmed with Mr. Edmonston that if the
Volume 53 - Page 15
Balboa Pier &
CdM Parking Lot
Fees
(40185)
Ord 99.25
Santiago Drive
Speed Limit
(85)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 27, 1999
I a 1 D►,
downgrading of Santiago Drive had not been accomplished, nothing could
have been done to calm the traffic on the street, except for enforcement.
Mr. Edmonston added that the second revision that the City was successful
in working on with the OCTA was the approval to allow traffic calming on a
collector arterial street, as long as the calming does not reduce the capacity
of the street below what the demand is.
Thelma Krone, 2237 Donnie Road, stated that she wants the 25 -mph speed
limit maintained on Santiago Drive between Irvine Avenue and Tustin
Avenue. She stated that it is a short distance between the two streets and
that there is no reason to increase the speed. She added that the traffic has
increased in the area and that children use the street to get to school.
Ms. Krone stated that the use of a police officer in the area to monitor the
traffic is an inefficient use of personnel. She stated that, instead, the current
speed limit should be maintained and traffic bumps should be installed.
Jane Farwell, 2426 Santiago Drive, stated her support for the downgrading
of Santiago Drive. She added that she has lived on Santiago Drive for 34
years and has seen more development than people probably imagined could
take place in the area. She stated that she and her neighbors are not
objecting to the number of cars on the street, they are only objecting to the
speed at which they are driven. She stated that the streets are zoned
residential, and are also pedestrian and bicycle byways. She stated that
there is not enough police manpower to control the traffic continuously. She
requested that if the traffic enforcement plan being recommended does not
work, that the City promise to implement a satisfactory and permanent
solution to reduce speeds on Santiago Drive.
Bryan Bond, 2431 Santiago Drive, stated that a meeting was held on
September 20, 1999, with the residents but that the plan presented to the
City Council by City staff did not include the input of the residents nor any
other traffic calming ideas. He said that the Newport Highlands
Homeowners Committee, which was formed in 1997, met again on
September 26, 1999, to discuss ideas to control traffic on their streets. He
referred to a fax sent earlier in the day and requested that the City include
other traffic calming options in its plan. Mr. Bond stated that he met with
Glen Campbell of the OCTA and Mr. Campbell said that other options could
work if done properly.
In responding to Council Member Glover's question, Mr. Bond stated that he
had not seen the staff report. She asked that he read it and come back to the
podium later in the evening to cover some key points. Council Member
Debay suggested that he specifically read Page 3 of the report. City
Manager Bludau stated that nothing had changed in the staff
recommendations from what was presented to the residents at the meeting
of September 20, 1999.
Chris Schwartz, 2401 Santiago Drive, stated that he has two children and
wants the street to be safe. He stated that he attended the September 20,
1999, meeting and feels that the 30 mph speed limit is being forced upon the
residents, despite their objections. He feels that once the temporary period
of intense enforcement is over, the speeds will go back up. He added that
Volume 53 - Page 16
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 27, 1999
INDEX
staff has said they will consider other options if the studies show that the
speeds did not go down during the test period. He stated that the only
option that the residents support is speed bumps and that is what they are
asking for. He stated that the other options are too expensive. Mr. Schwartz
requested that if the 30 -mph speed limit is approved and does not work, the
City will automatically guarantee that speed bumps will be installed.
Mr. Schwartz then presented a survey conducted with the residents on 16th
Street, a 25 -mph street with speed bumps. He stated that the residents
overwhelmingly responded that the speed bumps have slowed the traffic and
created a safer environment.
Council Member Glover asked Mr. Schwartz why he doesn't want a traffic
circle. He stated that the street is not wide enough to accommodate a traffic
circle and still maintain a safe clearance around it for pedestrians. He added
that there are no sidewalks on the street. Council Member Glover stated
that many in the City do support traffic circles.
Julie Ryan, 1748 Bayport Way, stated that she was representing Holiday
Road and the associated cul -de -sacs. She stated that the residents on the
four streets involved have worked together as a unit for several years. She
stated that they came up with a good, workable plan and presented it to the
Public Works Committee some time ago. Ms. Ryan stated that they are
willing to go along with the concession made by the residents on Santiago
and give the increased enforcement a chance, but that they want a
commitment from the City that an alternate plan will be implemented if it is
proven that the increased enforcement did not work.
Council Member Glover stated that if the City Council changes the speed or
impediments on a street and it disturbs the other streets, the change cannot
be made. She stated that she is convinced that Santiago Drive has a
problem, but that a study must be done first to determine if the changes can
be made without impacting other streets.
Gary Cohen, 2406 Francisco Drive, stated that the changes proposed for
Santiago Drive will directly impact Francisco Drive. He stated that
Francisco Drive is the last street before the light on Santiago that has a
pocket turn to head towards Irvine Avenue from Tustin Avenue, and he feels
that drivers will use this alternate access. He suggested that the monitoring
program include a study of what happens on all four streets during the
Santiago Drive test period. He suggested that if it is found that any of the
streets have increases, some sort of speed control system should then be
implemented for that street. He stated that Francisco Drive could
accommodate a traffic circle.
Rob Boullon, 2312 Francisco Drive, began by stating his support for having
Santiago Drive downgraded. He stated that the residents of the four streets
involved have been working together as a committee for a couple years. He
read from a resolution, dated October 21, 1997, that was written by the
committee and included four recommendations. He stated that the
committee spent time with the City to develop the recommendations and
that speed bumps on Santiago Drive were included on the list. Mr. Boullon
stated that it is important to implement all four recommendations together,
Volume 53 - Page 17
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 27, 1999
and should be possible
INDEX
recent downgrading of Santiago Drive.
Al Bartolic, 2312 Windward Lane, stated that the residents on Windward
Lane support the recommendations of the residents on Santiago Drive.
Sara Rollins, 386 E. 22nd Street, stated that the changes on Santiago Drive
will effect 22nd Street. She stated that it makes no sense to increase the
speed to 30 mph for only a portion of Santiago Drive. She stated her support
for speed bumps and feels that they are the only way to keep the speed
down. She stated that all of the residents in the area are concerned about
the speed on Santiago Drive, and she does not understand why the
recommendations of the residents can't be implemented.
Council Member Ridgeway asked Mr. Boullon if the resolution that he
referred to earlier had been signed. Mr. Boullon responded that it had not
been signed.
Steve Berger, 2001 Centella Place, stated that the residents in the area have
been trying to solve the problem for over three years. He stated that the
average speed on Santiago Drive is 39 mph and, recently, a ticket was issued
for a driver going 64 mph. He stated that he does not believe that tickets are
being written for reckless driving, failures to stop, failures to yield or 3 -ton
trucks. He related a story of driving speeds on Irvine Avenue and feels that
if it is not being patrolled adequately, how can Santiago Drive. He stated
that he understood from the Police Department that they would ticket
speeders going 37 mph in a 30 -mph zone, but he later found out that no
specific speed for issuing tickets would be guaranteed. Mr. Berger feels that
this is inappropriate. He also expressed his concern regarding the plan due
to the recent lack of enforcement, the inaccurate studies being done on the
average speed and an unreasonable list of suggestions. He sees no
concurrence between the Police Department and the City. He stated that he
feels that the only way that the problem can be solved is with the use of
speed bumps.
Council Member Glover stated that in the State of California, speed limits
are determined on streets based on at what speed a greater percentage of the
drivers are actually driving on that street. She added that the police cannot
issue a ticket unless the street is posted for 30 mph or greater.
Robert Walker, 2001 Irvine Avenue, stated that he has lived in the area for
43 years. He stated that no matter what speed limit is posted, the drivers
will always go faster. He added that no pedestrian access on Santiago Drive
has been provided for those that want to get to the new bay trail. He stated
that Santiago Drive is being used more by both vehicles and pedestrians due
to development in the area. He said that he does not think that the
residents are concerned about more cars, they just want the speeds reduced.
Council Member Adams stated that the reason that the City is planning to
increase the speed limit on Santiago Drive from 25 mph to 30 mph is that it
allows the Police Department to legally use radar to enforce speed violations.
Additionally, State Law requires that a street, as determined by an
engineering study, be posted relatively close to the average speed of 85% of
Volume 53 - Page 18
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 27, 1999
INDEX
the drivers when they are not affected by the movement of any other cars.
Council Member Adams stated that the average speed on Santiago Drive
was 39 mph a few years ago, and with some minor changes to the street, has
been reduced to 36 mph. He stated that this is a relatively significant
decrease.
Council Member Adams stated, however, that he does feel that there is a
speeding problem on Santiago Drive. He stated that recent monitoring by
the Police Department has shown that there are a significant number of
vehicles flagrantly violating the 25 -mph speed limit. He added that there is
nothing that can be done about it until the Police Department can use radar.
He stated that he feels that for safety reasons, the excessive speeders must
be cited. He stated that the Police Department concurs with this
recommendation.
Council Member Adams stated that many of the streets in the City are not
posted, but have a speed limit of 25 mph by State Law. He stated that,
unfortunately, Santiago Drive is not a residential street. It was a secondary
arterial before being recently downgraded to a collector arterial. Council
Member Adams stated that it makes Santiago Drive part of the backbone of
the City's street system and that although speed bumps have been
recommended, he feels that they are wholly inappropriate on any street
other than a residentially classified street. He pointed out that he is not
opposed to speed bumps in general, and feels that they do have their place
and can be effective, but that collector streets serve more than the people
that live on that street and are not appropriate for speed bumps. He stated
that data in the transportation literature supports this.
Motion by Council Member Adams to introduce Ordinance No. 99 -25
amending Chapter 12.24 (Special Speed Zones) of the NBMC to establish a
speed limit of 30 mph on Santiago Drive between Irvine Avenue and Tustin
Avenue; 2) direct staff to proceed with the Santiago Drive Implementation
Plan; and 3) direct staff to expand the study analyzing the effectiveness of
focused enforcement on Santiago Drive to include what effect the
enforcement on Santiago Drive will have on the rest of the City; a clear
understanding of the nature of the problems on Windward Lane, Francisco
Drive and Holiday Road; consideration for applying the efforts on Santiago
Drive to other similar streets in the City; a comprehensive program that can
be used throughout the City; articulate documentation on the methodology
used during the data collection process; how pedestrians and bicyclists will
be accommodated on Santiago Drive; a determination as to why people often
run the stop sign at the intersection to the west; and a careful analysis of the
various options that can be utilized to calm traffic (speed bumps, chokers,
etc.), how each would be implemented and the impact of each on bicyclists
and pedestrians.
Council Member Adams added that the residents are concerned that nothing
will be done after the increased period of enforcement is over. He stated that
he will do what he can to make sure this does not happen. He added that
the police will continue to patrol all of the streets in the City. Council
Member Adams stated his disagreement with the suggestion for the City to
make a promise to do a specific alternative if it is found that the increased
Volume 63 - Page 19
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 27, 1999
INDEX
enforcement did not work. He said that the results of the study he is
suggesting should be looked at first. He added that posting the speed limit
at 30 mph is as low as the City can go and still meet State requirements. He
wants the alternative solutions to be looked at during the trial period, so
that more immediate action can be taken, if appropriate. He stated his
concern for setting precedence and he urged great care when performing the
study and forming conclusions. He said the backbone arterial collector
system should be preserved, and the residents need to realize that this street
must carry east -west traffic.
Council Member Ridgeway requested that Public Works staff explain the
reason why speed bumps are improper. He stated that he is in support of an
incremental approach, and knows from his experience on the peninsula that
the speed does increase when the police are not present. He also requested
that Police Department staff talk about the issue of enforcement. He agreed
with previous speakers that the City has changed, and he has seen the
problems on Santiago Drive and in the area. He stated that Santiago Drive
was designated as a secondary arterial before the 55 Freeway was extended.
He said that behavioral modification has to be done to get drivers to use the
streets that can accommodate the heavier traffic. He also disagreed with
making any promise as to what will be done if the test period does not work,
but understands the residents' concerns and assured them that something
will be done. He feels that the issue is speed not volume.
Mr. Edmonston stated that there are not enough streets in the City with
speed bumps for him to know what effect they have on the volume on streets,
such as Santiago Drive. He stated that he has been in touch with the City of
Costa Mesa and is hoping to obtain some information from them. He said
that people tend not to like speed bumps and may utilize another street for
that reason.
Mayor O'Neil asked about the recommendation mentioned earlier in the
evening about a committee working with the City and recommending speed
bumps. Mr. Edmonston stated that it was the outcome of a committee of the
four streets.
Council Member Adams pointed out that national transportation literature
states that traffic volume is reduced by an average of 18% on streets with
speed bumps.
Council Member Ridgeway asked what alternative streets the drivers would
use if speed bumps were placed on Santiago Drive. Mr. Edmonston stated
that it is a combination of traffic, many are using Santiago to connect with
north -south streets, others are traveling east -west.
Council Member Glover stated that, after their studies, Costa Mesa came to
the conclusion that people should be encouraged to use the commercial
streets and not the residential streets. She felt that the same thing should
be encouraged in Newport Beach. She said the residential streets need to be
maintained as streets that people can live on and where children can be
raised.
Volume 53 - Page 20
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 27, 1999
INDEX
Council Member Adams stated that it sounds good to route traffic through
commercial streets, but people still need streets to get from the commercial
streets to their homes. He stated that the established hierarchy of the street
system is heavily relied upon.
Police Chief McDonell responded to Council Member Ridgeway's question
about continued enforcement at the end of the trial period, by stating that
there will be a conditioning period and the Police Department would like the
opportunity to attempt enforcement on Santiago Drive. He stated that the
streets in the City that have high traffic volume will have activity by the
Police, and studies help the police to determine when certain streets have
problems with speeders. He stated that a speed trailer on Santiago Drive
recorded 11,300 cars in a 58 -hour period.
Police Chief McDonell continued by responding to some of the comments
made earlier in the evening by Mr. Berger. Police Chief McDonell stated
that he has not been asked for information on the number of citations issued
on Santiago Drive for violations other than speeding, but he would be certain
that such citations have been written. Additionally, Police Chief McDonell
stated that he was at the same meeting as Mr. Berger on Monday and no
specific speed was given for when police officers would begin issuing
citations. He said it is at the judgement of the police officer at the site.
Lastly, Police Chief McDonell said that there is full concurrence between the
City and the Police Department. The Police Department all along has asked
for a realistic speed survey.
Council Member Ridgeway asked about the available manpower. Police
Chief McDonell responded that manpower could be a problem, but for some,
there is never enough enforcement and he won't know about the specifics on
Santiago Drive until they're given a chance.
Council Member Ridgeway stated his feeling that people use Santiago Drive
to access Coast Highway via Dover Drive. Police Chief McDonell stated that
demographic information will be available through the ticket citations.
Mayor Pro Tem Thomson stated that the residents in the Santiago Drive
area have gotten together and worked for over two years to solve a problem
in their neighborhood. He stated that they want to know that if the speed
enforcement trial does not work, that another alternative will be sought and
something will be done to slow the traffic on their street. Mayor Pro Tern
Thomson stated his opinion that some assurances should be given to the
residents.
Council Member Ridgeway stated his support for Council Member Adams'
motion and the incremental approach to the problem, with any decisions
being made after the test period and the results of the studies are available.
Council Member Ridgeway asked that the residents be patient and he would
certainly consider speed bumps at a later date, if appropriate.
Council Member Glover asked about the commercial traffic on Santiago
Drive and her request that traffic calming issues be looked at in conjunction
with the traffic phasing ordinance (TPO). She stated her understanding that
Volume 63 - Page 21
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 27, 1999
traffic would be directed out of the neighborhoods.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Adams, Glover, Debay, Ridgeway, Mayor O'Neil
Noes: Thomson
Abstain: None
Absent: Noyes
PUBLIC COMMENTS
k Sedler, 260 Cagney Lane, #119, apologized to the Mayor and the City
,0-1 1 for his behavior at the previous City Council meeting. He stated
that a thinks there are people who would be willing to put up money to
keep t Cannery and Snug Harbor open. He stated that both are assets to
the City nd should not be closed. He further stated that he had talked to
Bill Campbf ll and Mr. Campbell is willing to let someone else take control.
Allan Beek, 07 Highland, stated that the decision has been made on the
traffic phasing di lane (TPO), but he said that it still needs to be decided if
the City dislikes \ftime ore or the infrastructure it takes to avoid the
congestion. He e amended TPO gave the City the power to
collect money ahfor intersections before they get congested. He
stated, h owever City must have a plan regarding what
improvements wio the infrastructure, how much building will be
allowed, how wi designed and how much new traffic will be
generated.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
30. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN 99 -2(E) - REQUEST TO EXPAND
THE SECOND FLOOR OFFICE EA IN AN EXISTING BUILDING
BY APPROXIMATELY 882 SQUA FEET AND A REQUEST TO
RELOCATE A SMALL SPORTS ME ORABILIA MUSEUM, KNOWN
AS THE NEWPORT SPORTS COLL CTION FOUNDATION, INTO
THE BOTTOM FLOOR OF THE B DING — REQUIRES THE
APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN NDMENT TO PERMIT
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SINCE TH RE IS NO ADDITIONAL
FLOOR AREA ALLOCATED IN THIS PART F NEWPORT CENTER
AND THE APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT T PERMIT A SPORTS
MEMORABILIA MUSEUM AS AN ACCESS Y USE TO THE
PRINCIPAL OFFICE USE (100 NEWPORT CENTE DRIVE).
Planning Director Patty Temple stated that the Pla g Commission
recommended approval of both the general plan amendmen and the use
permit. She added that a general plan amendment was require because of
the lack of available development allocation in that part of Nei t Center.
The Planning Commission identified one major issue, which s the
maintenance of some existing trees in the vicinity of the project. Asa suit
of this concern, they added a condition of approval to the use permit at
addressed the maintenance of the existing trees and their replacement,
they needed to be removed.
Volume 63 - Page 22
Q197 �►:1
Res 99 -69
GPA 99 -2(E)/
Directors Use
Permit 40/
100 Newport Center Dr.
(45) .
SP' 'DPLOT 2 Spot Speed Analys' Ver. 2.00A /McTRANS
SANTIAGO DRIVE: IRVIN- TO TUSTIN
DIRECTION(S) ....... EASTBOUND
DATE ............... 3/ 9/2000
TIME ...............10:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.30 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................31
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................35
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 26 through 35
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 77.1
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 13.7
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 9.2
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................16 to 41
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................131
AVERAGE SPEED .......................30.8
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - --+
100 * * * * * * * *10
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 70
60 * 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 * 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 15
10
5
■
+----+----+---- +--- - +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
10
5
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
0
- --
0
- - --
0.0
- - - --
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0.0
0.0
4
0
0.0
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
1
0.8
0.8
17
0
0.0
0.8
18
0
0.0
0.8
19
0
0.0
0.8
20
1
0.8
1.5
21
2
1.5
3.1
22
0
0.0
3.1
23
2
1.5
4.6
24
2
1.5
6.1
25
4
3.1
9.2
26
8
6.1
15.3
27
7
5.3
20.6
28
6
4.6
25.2
29
12
9.2
34.4
30
16
12.2
46.6
31
16
12.2
58.8
32
9
6.9
65.6
33
13
9.9
75.6
34
9
6.9
82.4
35
5
3.8
86.3
36
8
6.1
92.4
37
1
0.8
93.1
38
1
0.8
93.9
39
5
3.8
97.7
40
2
1.5
99.2
41
1
0.8
100.0
42
0
0.0
100.0
43
0
0.0
100.0
44
0
0.0
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
>46
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................31
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................35
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 26 through 35
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 77.1
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 13.7
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 9.2
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................16 to 41
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................131
AVERAGE SPEED .......................30.8
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - --+
100 * * * * * * * *10
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 70
60 * 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 * 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 15
10
5
■
+----+----+---- +--- - +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
10
5
SF DPLOT 2 Spot Speed Analys Ver. 2.00A /McTRANS
SANTIAGO DRIVE: IRIVhz TO TUSTIN
DIRECTION(S) ....... WESTBOUND
DATE ............... 3/ 9/2000
TIME ...............10:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.30 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................32
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................35
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 27 through 36
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 79.3
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 6.9
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 13.8
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................18 to 41
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................116
AVERAGE SPEED .......................31.1
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +-- -- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * * * *10
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 * 50
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 20
10 ** 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +--- - +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - --+
15 15
10
5
+----+----+---- +---- +--- - +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
10
5
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
0
- --
0
- - --
0.0
- - - --
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0.0
0.0
4
0
0.0
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0..0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
0
0.0
0.0
17
0
0.0
0.0
18
1
0.9
0.9
19
1
0.9
1.7
20
1
0.9
2.6
21
1
0.9
3.4
22
2
1.7
5.2
23
2
1.7
6.9
24
1
0.9
7.8
25
2
1.7
9.5
26
5
4.3
13.8
27
11
9.5
23.3
28
9
7.8
31.0
29
7
6.0
37.1
30
2
1.7
38.8
31
11
9.5
48.3
32
9
7.8
56.0
33
12
10.3
66.4
34
10
8.6
75.0
35
13
11.2
86.2
36
8
6.9
93.1
37
1
0.9
9.4.0
38
2
1.7
95.7
39
3
2.6
98.3
40
1
0.9
99.1
41
1
0.9
100.0
42
0
0.0
100.0
43
0
0.0
100.0
44
0
0.0
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
>46
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................32
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................35
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 27 through 36
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 79.3
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 6.9
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 13.8
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................18 to 41
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................116
AVERAGE SPEED .......................31.1
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +-- -- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * * * *10
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 * 50
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 20
10 ** 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +--- - +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - --+
15 15
10
5
+----+----+---- +---- +--- - +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
10
5
SP' "')PLOT 2 Spot Speed Analysi Ver. 2.00A /McTRANS
SANTIAGO DRIVE: IRVIN- TO TUSTIN
DIRECTION(S) ....... EASTBOUND
DATE ............... 3/ 9/2000
TIME ............... 1:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.30 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................32
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................37
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 28 through 37
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 67.7
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 14.4
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 18.0
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................19 to 43
VEHICLES OBSERVED .... .................167
AVERAGE SPEED .......................32.2
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * *10
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 50
40 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +--- - +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +-- -- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15
10
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
15
10
5
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
0
---
0
- ---
0.0
- - - --
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0.0
0.0
4
0
0.0
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
0
0.0
0.0
17
0
0.0
0.0
18
0
0.0
0.0
19
1
0.6
0.6
20
1
0.6
1.2
21
1
0.6
1.8
22
2
1.2
3.0
23
4
2.4
5.4
24
2
1.2
6.6
25
2
1.2
7.8
26
8
4.8
12.6
27
9
5.4
18.0
28
8
4.8
22.8
29
10
6.0
28.7
30
9
5.4
34.1
31
18
10.8
44.9
32
15
9.0
53.9
33
7
4.2
58.1
34
10
6.0
64.1
35
12
7.2
71.3
36
12
7.2
78.4
37
12
7.2
85.6
38
5
3.0
88.6
39
8
4.8
93.4
40
6
3.6
97.0
41
4
2.4
99.4
42
0
0.0
99.4
43
1
0.6
100.0
44
0
0.0
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
>46
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................32
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................37
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 28 through 37
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 67.7
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 14.4
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 18.0
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................19 to 43
VEHICLES OBSERVED .... .................167
AVERAGE SPEED .......................32.2
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * *10
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 50
40 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +--- - +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +-- -- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15
10
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
15
10
5
SP 'DPLOT 2 Spot Speed Analys' Ver. 2.00A /McTRANS
SANTIAGO DRIVE: IRVIN., TO TUSTIN
DIRECTION(S) ....... WESTBOUND
DATE ............... 3/ 9/2000
TIME ............... 1:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.30 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................31
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................36
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 26 through 35
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 78.9
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 15.5
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 5.6
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................15 to 44
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................142
AVERAGE SPEED .......................31.3
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - -- -+
100 * * * * *10
90 ** 90
80 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 50
40 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 10
p * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +- --- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - --+
15
■
10
5
I am I I
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +- --- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
15
10
5
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
0
- --
0
- - --
0.0
- - - --
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0.0
0.0
4
0
0.0
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
1
0.7
0.7
16
0
0.0
0.7
17
0
0.0
0.7
18
0
0.0
0.7
19
0
0.0
0.7
20
2
1.4
2.1
21
1
0.7
2.8
22
0
0.0
2.8
23
1
0.7
3.5
24
0
0.0
3.5
25
3
2.1
5.6
26
10
7.0
12.7
27
7
4.9
17.6
28
11
7.7
25.4
29
9
6.3
31.7
30
20
14.1
45.8
31
18
12.7
58.5
32
8
5.6
64.1
33
10
7.0
71.1
34
7
4.9
76.1
35
12
8.5
84.5
36
6
4.2
88.7
37
5
3.5
92.3
38
4
2.8
95.1
39
1
0.7
95.8
40
2
1.4
97.2
41
0
0.0
97.2
42
2
1.4
98.6
43
0
0.0
98.6
44
2
1.4
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
>46
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................31
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................36
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 26 through 35
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 78.9
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 15.5
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 5.6
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................15 to 44
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................142
AVERAGE SPEED .......................31.3
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - -- -+
100 * * * * *10
90 ** 90
80 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 50
40 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 10
p * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +- --- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - --+
15
■
10
5
I am I I
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +- --- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
15
10
5
SP DPLOT 2 lot Speed Analyst Ver. 2. A /McTRANS
SAN.IAGO DRIVE: TUSTIN TO IRVI".
DIRECTION(S) ....... EASTBOUND
DATE ............... 1/ 4/2000
TIME ............... 9:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.30 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ..................34
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED........... ``" 3'8"
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 27 throWh 3,6'x.;,
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED............ §
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED ............ X1.2"
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED ............. �'8.3'
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................16 -tb 44.
VEHICLES OBSERVED .................;;.180
AVERAGE SPEED ..................... °.`:32'.8'
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * *10
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 70
60 * 60
50 * 50
40 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 ** 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 ,
10
5
+----+----+---- +---- +- --- +---- +---- +---- + - - --+
0 10 20 30 40
15
10
5
= rq
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
0
- --
0
- - --
0.0
- - - --
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0.0
0.0
4
0
0.0
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
1
0.6
0.6
17
0
0.0
0.6
18
0
0.0
0.6
19
0
0.0
0.6
20
1
0.6
1.1
21
0
0.0
1.1
22
3
1.7
2.8
23
4
2.2
5.0
24
0
0.0
5.0
25
2
1.1
6.1
26
4
2.2
8.3
27
6
3.3
11.7
28
14
7.8
19.4
29
10
5.6
25.0
30
11
6.1
31.1
31
8
4.4
35.6
32
2
1.1
36.7
33
20
11.1
47.8
34
22
12.2
60.0
35
32
17.8
77.8
36
9
5.0
82.8
37
4
2.2
85.0
38
10
5.6
90.6
39
9
5.0
95.6
40
1
0.6
96.1
41
3
1.7
97.8
42
2
1.1
98.9
43
0
0.0
98.9
44
2
1.1
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
>46
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ..................34
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED........... ``" 3'8"
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 27 throWh 3,6'x.;,
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED............ §
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED ............ X1.2"
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED ............. �'8.3'
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................16 -tb 44.
VEHICLES OBSERVED .................;;.180
AVERAGE SPEED ..................... °.`:32'.8'
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * *10
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 70
60 * 60
50 * 50
40 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 ** 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 ,
10
5
+----+----+---- +---- +- --- +---- +---- +---- + - - --+
0 10 20 30 40
15
10
5
= rq
SP DPLOT 2 )ot Speed Analyst Ver. 2. k /:"
SAN.iAGO DRIVE: TUSTIN TO IRVIi,.
DIRECTION(S)
.......
WESTBOUND
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED
DATE
...............
1/ 4/2000
85TH PERCENTILE SPEEL
TIME
...............
9:00
10 MPH PACE SPEED....
POSTED
SPEED
LIMIT.30
MPH
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED
PERCENT OVER PACE 8Yr
PERCENT UNDER PACE Si
CUM
RANGE OF SPEEDS......
MPH NO.
PCT.
PCT.
VEHICLES OBSERVED....
___
___
____
_____
AVERAGE SPEED........
0
0
0.0
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS.
2
0
0.0
0.0
------------------------------
3
0
0.0
0.0
100
4
0
0.0
0.0
-
5
0
0.0
0.0
90
6
0
0.0
0.0
-
7
0
0.0
0.0
80
8
0
0.0
0.0
-
9
0
0.0
0.0
70
10
0
0.0
0.0
-
11
0
0.0
0.0
60
12
0
0.0
0.0
-
13
0'
0.0
0.0
50
14
0
0.0
0.0
-
15
0
0.0
0.0
40
16
1
0.8
0.8
-
17
0
0.0
0.8
30
18
0
0.0
0.8
-
19
0
0.0
0.8
20
20
1
0.8
1.6
-
21
0
0.0
1.6
10
22
0
0.0
1.6
-
* **
23
0
0.0
1.6
0 * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
24
2
1.6
3.2
------------------------------
25
1
0.8
4.0
0
10 20 -
26
2
1.6
5.6
27
5
4.0
9.5
28
7
5.6
15.1
29
4
3.2
18.3
PERCENT VS. SPEED -
30
7
5.6
23.8
+----+----+----+----+----+---
31
5
4.0
27.8
15
32
15
11.9
39.7
-
33
18
14.3
54.0
-
34
17
13.5
67.5
-
35
14
11.1
78.6
-
36
3
2.4
81.0
10
37
1
0.8
81.7
-
38
8
6.3
88.1
-
39
10
7.9
96.0
-
40
2
1.6
97.6
-
41
1
0.8
98.4
5
42
2
1.6
100.0
-
43
0
0.0
100.0
-
44
0
0.0
100.0
-
45
0
0.0
100.0
-
46
0
0.0
100.0
-----------------------------
>46
0
0.0
100.0
0
10 20 -
SP DPLOT 2 S t Speed Analyst Ver. 2.0r /McTRANS
SANT-.GO DRIVE: TUSTIN TO IRVINh
DIRECTION(S) ....... EASTBOUND
DATE ............... 1/ 4/2000
TIME ............... 1:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.30 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................33
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................38
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 29 through 38
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 69.3
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 13.2
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 17.5
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................18 to 51
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................114
AVERAGE SPEED .......................33.2
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * ** *100
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +- --- +---- +---- + - -- -+
10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 15
10
5
10
5
11 11110111 MR _
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - ---+
10 20 30 40 50
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
<10
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
0
0.0
0.0
17
0
0.0
0.0
18
1
0.9
0.9
19
0
0.0
0.9
20
1
0.9
1.8
21
0
0.0
1.8
22
1
0.9
2.6
23
1
0.9
3.5
24
3
2.6
6.1
25
1
0.9
7.0
26
5
4.4
11.4
27
3
2.6
14.0
28
4
3.5
17.5
29
7
6.1
23.7
30
4
3.5
27.2
31
5
4.4
31.6
32
11
9.6
41.2
33
13
11.4
52.6
34
13
11.4
64.0
35
11
9.6
73.7
36
4
3.5
77.2
37
4
3.5
80.7
38
7
6.1
86.8
39
6
5.3
92.1
40
1
0.9
93.0
41
1
0.9
93.9
42
1
0.9
94.7
43
2
1.8
96.5
44
0
0.0
96.5
45
0
0.0
96.5
46
0
0.0
96.5
47
1
0.9
97.4
48
1
0.9
98.2
49
1
0.9
99.1
50
0
0.0
99.1
51
1
0.9
100.0
52
0
0.0
100.0
53
0
0.0
100.0
54
0
0.0
100.0
55
0
0.0
100.0
>55
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................33
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................38
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 29 through 38
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 69.3
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 13.2
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 17.5
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................18 to 51
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................114
AVERAGE SPEED .......................33.2
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * ** *100
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +- --- +---- +---- + - -- -+
10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 15
10
5
10
5
11 11110111 MR _
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - ---+
10 20 30 40 50
SP 3PLOT 2 S t Speed Andlys_ Ver. 2.0r lMcTRANS
SANT-.GO DRIVE: TUSTIN TO IRVINE.
DIRECTION(S) ....... WESTBOUND
DATE ............... 1/ 4/2000
TIME ............... 1:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.30 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED...........
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED..........
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 32 ti-
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED...........
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED.........
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................
VEHICLES OBSERVED ...............
AVERAGE SPEED ...................
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+---- +---- +---= +---- +---- +---- + -- - -;
100 * * **
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 * **
10
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
15
10
5
10 20 30 40
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
< 5
0
0.0
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
1
0.8
0.8
14
0
0.0
0.8
15
0
0.0
0.8
16
0
0.0
0.8
17
1
0.8
1.6
18
0
0.0
1.6
19
0
0.0
1.6
20
0
0.0
1.6
21
0
0.0
1.6
22
1
0.8
2.4
23
1
0.8
3.2
24
2
1.6
4.8
25
1
0.8
5.6
26
1
0.8
6.4
27
2
1.6
8.0
28
8
6.4
14.4
29
5
4.0
18.4
30
3
2.4
20.8
31
2
1.6
22.4
32
11
8.8
31.2
33
13
10.4
41.6
34
12
9.6
51.2
35
17
13.6
64.8
36
6
4.8
69.6
37
4
3.2
72.8
38
9
7.2
80.0
39
9
7.2
87.2
40
4
3.2
90.4
41
5
4.0
94.4
42
4
3.2
97.6
43
2
1.6
99.2
44
0
0.0
99.2
45
0
0.0
99.2
46
1
0.8
100.0
47
0
0.0
100.0
48
0
0.0
100.0
49
0
0.0
100.0
50
0
0.0
100.0
>50
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED...........
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED..........
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 32 ti-
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED...........
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED.........
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................
VEHICLES OBSERVED ...............
AVERAGE SPEED ...................
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+---- +---- +---= +---- +---- +---- + -- - -;
100 * * **
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 * **
10
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
15
10
5
10 20 30 40
SPEF SLOT 2 Spot Speed Analysis =_r. 2.00A /McTRANS
SAI%.!AGO DRIVE: IRVINE BOULEVAI%. TO TUSTIN AVENUE
DIRECTION(S) ....... EASTBOUND,
DATE ...............11/ 8/1999
TIME ...............10:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................33
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................39
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 31 through 40
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 77.0
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 5.3
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 17.7
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................20 to 50
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................113
AVERAGE SPEED .......................34.1
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * ** *100
90 * 90
80 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 * 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 ' 15
10
5
10
5
�-
10 20 30 40 50
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
< 5
- --
0
- - --
0.0
- - - --
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
0
0.0
0.0
17
0
0.0
0.0
18
0
0.0
0.0
19
0
0.0
0.0
20
1
0.9
0.9
21
0
0.0
0.9
22
0
0.0
0.9
23
1
0.9
1.8
24
0
0.0
1.8
25
2
1.8
3.5
26
1
0.9
4.4
27
2
1.8
6.2
28
3
2.7
8.8
29
5
4.4
13.3
30
5
4.4
17.7
31
10
8.8
26.5
32
11
9.7
36.3
33
19
16.8
53.1
34
8
7.1
60.2
35
4
3.5
63.7
36
7
6.2
69.9
37
7
6.2
76.1
38
10
8.8
85.0
39
4
3.5
88.5
40
7
6.2
94.7
41
0
0.0
94.7
42
1
0.9
95.6
43
1
0.9
96.5
44
1
0.9
97.3
45
1
0.9
98.2
46
1
0.9
99.1
47
0
0.0
99.1
48
0
0.0
99.1
49
0
0.0
99.1
50
1
0.9
100.0
>50
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................33
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................39
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 31 through 40
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 77.0
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 5.3
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 17.7
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................20 to 50
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................113
AVERAGE SPEED .......................34.1
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * ** *100
90 * 90
80 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 * 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 ' 15
10
5
10
5
�-
10 20 30 40 50
SPEF 'SLOT 2 Spot Speed Analysis '_r. 2.00A /McTRANS
SAh_lAGO DRIVE: IRVINE BOULEVAn.j TO TUSTIN AVENUE
DIRECTION(S) ....... WESTBOUND
DATE ...............11/ 8/1999
TIME ...............10:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................32
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................39
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 27 through 36
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 65.0
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 26.7
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 8.3
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................17 to 46
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................120
AVERAGE SPEED .......................32.9
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+---- +---- +---- +- --- +---- +- - - - + -- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * ** *100
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 70
60 * 60
50 * 50
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 ** 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +-- -- +---- +---- +---- +--- - + -- - -+
10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 15
10
5
10 20 30 40 50
10
5
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
< 5
- --
0
- - --
0.0
- - - --
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
0
0.0
0.0
17
1
0.8
0.8
18
0
0.0
0.8
19
0
0.0
0.8
20
1
0.8
1.7
21
1
0.8
2.5
22
0
0.0
2.5
23
0
0.0
2.5
24
1
0.8
3.3
25
4
3.3
6.7
26
2
1.7
8.3
27
3
2.5
10.8
28
9
7.5
18.3
29
16
13.3
31.7
30
10
8.3
40.0
31
5
4.2
44.2
32
9
7.5
51.7
33
10
8.3
60.0
34
6
5.0
65.0
35
3
2.5
67.5
36
7
5.8
73.3
37
3
2.5
75.8
38
8
6.7
82.5
39
4
3.3
85.8
40
7
5.8
91.7
41
3
2.5
94.2
42
1
0.8
95.0
43
2
1.7
96.7
44
1
0.8
97.5
45
2
1.7
99.2
46
1
0.8
100.0
47
0
0.0
100.0
48
0
0.0
100.0
49
0
0.0
100.0
50
0
0.0
100.0
>50
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................32
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................39
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 27 through 36
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 65.0
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 26.7
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 8.3
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................17 to 46
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................120
AVERAGE SPEED .......................32.9
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+---- +---- +---- +- --- +---- +- - - - + -- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * ** *100
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 70
60 * 60
50 * 50
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 ** 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +-- -- +---- +---- +---- +--- - + -- - -+
10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 15
10
5
10 20 30 40 50
10
5
SPET SLOT 2 Spot Speed Analysis "er. 2.00A /McTRANS
SAh.fAGO DRIVE: IRVINE BOULEVAxj TO TUSTIN AVENUE
DIRECTION(S) ....... EASTBOUND
DATE ...............11/ 8/1999
TIME ............... 2:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.
CUM
MPH NO. PCT. PCT.
<15 0 0.0 0.0
15 2 1.2 1.2
16 1 0.6 1.9
17• 1 0.6 2.5
18 0 0.0 2.5
19 0 0.0 2.5
20 1 0.6 3.1
21 1 0.6 3.7
22 0 0.0 3.7
23 0 0.0 3.7
24 0 0.0 3.7
25 2 1.2 4.9
26 3 1.9 6.8
27 0 0.0 6.8
28 7 4.3 11.1
29 12 7.4 18.5
30 6 3.7 22.2
31 8 4.9 27.2
32 10 6.2 33.3
33 13 8.0 41.4
34 12 7.4 48.8
35 14 8.6 57.4
36 16 9.9 67.3
37 15 9.3 76.5
38 10 6.2 82.7
39 6 3.7 86.4
40 12 7.4 93.8
41 6 3.7 97.5
42 0 0.0 97.5
43 1 0.6 98.1
44 1 0.6 98.8
45 0 0.0 98.8
46 0 0.0 98.8
47 0 0.0 98.8
48 0 0.0 98.8
49 0 0.0 98.8
50 0 0.0 98.8
51 0 0.0 98.8
52 0 0.0 98.8
53 0 0.0 98.8
54 0 0.0 98.8
55 1 0.6 99.4
56 0 0.0 99.4
57 0 0.0 99.4
58 0 0.0 99.4
59 0 0.0 99.4
60 1 0.6 100.0
>60 0 0.0 100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................35
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................39
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 29 through 38
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 71.6
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 17.3
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 11.1
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................15 to 60
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................162
AVERAGE SPEED .......................34.1
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +--- - + - -- -+
100 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 * 50
40 * 40
30 30
20 ** 20
10 * 10
0 * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
20 30 40 50 60
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +- --- +-- -- +---- +-- -- +- --- + - - - -+
15 15
I
10
5 5
-� ■ jam I-
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
20 30 40 50 60
SPET ')LOT 2 Spot Speed Analysis 'er. 2.00A /McTRANS
SAN.IAGO DRIVE: IRVINE BOULEVAn,j TO TUSTIN AVENUE
DIRECTION(S) ....... WESTBOUND
DATE ...............11/ 8/1999
TIME ............... 2:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................33
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................39
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 31 through 40
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 71.2
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 7.1
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 21.8
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................25 to 49
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................156
AVERAGE SPEED .......................33.9
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * ** *100
90 * 90
80 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 50
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 ** 20
10 * 10
p * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 ' 15
10
5
10
5
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
10 20 30 40 50
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
--
< 5
- --
0
- - --
0.0
- - - --
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
0
0.0
0.0
17
0
0.0
0.0
18
0
0.0
0.0
19
0
0.0
0.0
20
0
0.0
0.0
21
0
0.0
0.0
22
0
0.0
0.0
23
0
0.0
0.0
24
0
0.0
0.0
25
2
1.3
1.3
26
5
3.2
4.5
27
11
7.1
11.5
28
4
2.6
14.1
29
6
3.8
17.9
30
6
3.8
21.8
31
13
8.3
30.1
32
15
9.6
39.7
33
25
16.0
55.8
34
9
5.8
61.5
35
4
2.6
64.1
36
10
6.4
70.5
37
8
5.1
75.6
38
11
7.1
82.7
39
9
5.8
88.5
40
7
4.5
92.9
41
2
1.3
94.2
42
0
0.0
94.2
43
2
1.3
95.5
44
1
0.6
96.2
45
4
2.6
98.7
46
0
0.0
98.7
47
0
0.0
98.7
48
1
0.6
99.4
49
1
0.6
100.0
50
0
0.0
100.0
>50
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................33
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................39
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 31 through 40
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 71.2
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 7.1
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 21.8
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................25 to 49
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................156
AVERAGE SPEED .......................33.9
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * ** *100
90 * 90
80 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 50
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 ** 20
10 * 10
p * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
15 ' 15
10
5
10
5
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
10 20 30 40 50
s City Council Meeting
April 11, 2000
Agenda pItpem # 19
c �U9,0 i u 1� u6
Santiago Drive Speed Profiles C�0e 5 5 00
. NOTES
1
2
0
Pace is the 10 MPH increment with the greatest number of vehicles.
The upper limit is generally at or near the 85th percentile speed.
Each entry is based upon 110 - 180 measured speeds.
/Direction
Date `
Time
85% speed
Pace
% in pace
% over pace
Highest Speed
11/08/1999
East
AM
39
31 -40
77
5.3
50
West
AM
39
27 -36
65
26.7
46
East
PM
39
29 -38
71.6
17.3
60
West
PM
39
31 -40
71.2
7.1
49
01/04/2000
East
AM
38
27 -36
74.4
17.2
44
West
AM
38
30 -39
77.8
4
42
East
PM
38
29 -38
69.3
13.2
51
West
PM
39
32 -41
72
5.6
46
0310912000
East
AM
35
26 -35
77.1
13.7
41
West
AM
35
27 -36
79.3
13.8
41
East
PM
37
28 -37
67.7
14.4
43
West
PM
36
26 -35
78.9
15.5
44
. NOTES
1
2
0
Pace is the 10 MPH increment with the greatest number of vehicles.
The upper limit is generally at or near the 85th percentile speed.
Each entry is based upon 110 - 180 measured speeds.
0
March 28. 2000
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. 14
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council CORM Al
FROM: Public Works Department ma. it fi 100
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON SANTIAGO DRIVE SPEED REDUCTION
PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Reduce the level of enforcement activity for remainder of six -month trial period.
Direct staff to continue the development of a Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program Guide, including specific recommendations for Santiago Drive, Windward
Lane, Francisco Drive and Holiday Road.
DISCUSSION:
On October 25, 1999, the City Council approved an increase in the speed limit from 25
to 30 MPH on Santiago Drive between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue. The new
speed limit became effective 30 days after its approval and the Police Department
began a special, high - priority enforcement program on this street. The higher speed
limit was necessary to allow the Police Department to use radar for enforcement.
Staff was also directed to establish a traffic - calming program to address concerns from
all areas of the City about speeding traffic on neighborhood streets. A consultant has
been hired to assist staff in this effort and a draft report will be submitted for Council
review in approximately 60 days.
Enforcement Activity
Enforcement began on November 29, 1999. Between November 29 and December 31,
1999, 150 motorists were stopped and either issued a written warning or a citation. The
majority of the enforcement contacts during the initial period resulted in warning
citations, since there was an anticipated conditioning period, based upon the change in
the posted speed and the resulting stepped up enforcement. Between January 1 and
March 2, 2000, another 200 enforcement stops were made, of which 111 were written
warnings and 89 were citations resulting in a fine or other Court action. A little over half
of the citations were for speeding, with the remainder for violations such as expired
driver's license, proof of insurance, and equipment violations, etc. Warning citations are
typically issued when the threshold (speed, magnitude of the violation, etc.), for a
"moving violation' has not been met, in the discretion of the issuing officer.
SUBJECT: Status of Santiago Drive -
March 28, 2000
Page 2
Motor officers work a ten -hour shift and there are an average of three motor officers on
duty each day. During their shift, each officer has a portion of their day available for
discretionary radar enforcement. Since the first of the year, Santiago Drive has
received a substantial portion of that discretionary time, resulting in_ the 350
enforcement contacts.
Effectiveness of Efforts
Extensive traffic counts, including vehicle speeds, have been collected including just
before and just after the new speed limit was posted as well as again early this month.
These counts were collected on Santiago Drive as well as Windward Lane, Francisco
Drive, Holiday Road, and 23rd Street. The streets parallel to Santiago Drive were
studied to collect background data and to determine if heavy enforcement would lead to
a shift in traffic. The information from these counts is shown in the attached Table A.
This data is the average of three days of counts and shows a drop of approximately
1000 vehicles per day on Santiago Drive, with an increase of ayproximately 200
vehicles per day on Holiday Road and less than 100 per day on 23 Street. There is
some uncertainty about the November count on Santiago Drive as it is higher than
previously measured and it would be unusual to show a reduction in volumes by nearly
20 percent due to enforcement activity.
Daily volumes commonly vary as much as 10 percent and some smaller variation would ,
be expected even with these three -day averages. There is some variation in traffic
speeds as well, and the speeds from the traffic counters shown in Table A are quite
consistent. In addition to the speeds measured by the counters, radar speed samples
were conducted on Santiago Drive before and after the program was implemented.
These speeds are shown in Table B. It can be seen that the 85th percentile speeds
were reduced from 39 to 36 MPH.
Conclusion
The extensive enforcement effort on this short segment of Santiago Drive has been
effective in reducing the speed of traffic by about three miles per hour. During the first
three months of the program 350 motorists were stopped and issued warnings or
citations. Traffic volumes appear to have dropped on Santiago Drive and gone up
slightly on Holiday Road and 23rd Street. These streets provide alternate connections
between Irvine Avenue and Newport Boulevard. Windward Lane and Francisco Drive
do not show increases in traffic.
The program approved by the City Council in October provided for enforcement to be
scaled back during the remaining three months if speeds were reduced during the first
three months. Another set of count and speed data will be collected at the end of the
six -month period, which will demonstrate whether random enforcement over the next •
three months will maintain the lower speeds.
SUBJECT: Status of Santiago Drive
March 28, 2000
Page 3
A draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Guide is being prepared for City
Council review prior to the completion of the six -month trial period. This document will
include a variety of actions that can be taken to address traffic speeds along with
guidelines on where each action is most appropriate. Specific recommendations will be
made with respect to Santiago Drive, Windward Lane, Francisco Drive, and Holiday
Road.
Resp ully su fitted,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don Webb, Director
By:
R hard Ed onston, P.E.
Transportation and Development Services Manager
Attachment: Tables A and B
September 13 City Council Minutes, pages 696 -698
0
F:\ Users \PBW\Shared \COUNCIL \Fy99 -00 \March- 28\Sanbago Drive Status.doc
N
d
d
Q (s
W
J cc
m cc
Q W
H d
C
N
E
o.
C
7
O
U
.N >.
O
U L
T
f0 y
y O cc
L £'
y
L f0
L
f0 O
� L
O N
(A L
>
a O O
a) t a
N d
N O y
cn
(D c
3 U
O d
a
N N LO
L C 00
W 0 y
. L
An N
N
7
0 CL
> 0)
1- (Ni
N
V
d
47
Q.
m �
W >
m �
H o
WI
C
cc
a)
C
d
E
7
N
c
L_
3
y
O
y
m
N
O
O.
y
d
c
N
L
a)
CL
Lo
co
a)
m
y
N
Q.
M
C
m
F
1
O
•
0
0
O
c
Eo
$°o>o>cc
�
M
M
M
Q
d
C
0-0
O
C
C
L
O
.'MMMM
aU)
�w
cn
C
C
`
7
M
M
C°
�
M
G
'D
jjy
C
7
r
C
C
Lo
ar�°�MMM
U)
'C
to
W
w
O
moo
Y
O
O
N
co
4)
j
�e-M
r
C
d
E
7
N
c
L_
3
y
O
y
m
N
O
O.
y
d
c
N
L
a)
CL
Lo
co
a)
m
y
N
Q.
M
C
m
F
1
O
•
0
0
•
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 13, 1999
for their tenacity, explaining that they had to go to the City of Costa Mesa
and then to OCTA to begin this endeavor.
There being no further testimony, Mayor O'Neil closed the public hearing.
Motion by Council Member Glover to adopt Resolution No. 99 -63,
adopting General Plan Amendment 98 -3(D).
The motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay, Ridgeway, Noyes, Mayor O'Neil
Noes: • None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
CONTINUED BUSINESS
20. PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
PUBLIC INPUT ON NEWPORT CENTER PLANNING (contd. from
8/09/99 & 8/23/99).
Motion by Council Member Debay to receive public input at Planning
Commission Study Sessions and other public meetings.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay, Ridgeway, Noyes, Mayor O'Neil
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
CURRENT BUSINESS
21. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12.24 (SPECIAL SPEED
ZONES) OF THE NBMC TO ESTABLISH A SPEED LIMIT OF
30 MILES PER HOUR ON SANTIAGO DRIVE BETWEEN IRVINE
AVENUE AND TUSTIN AVENUE.
Motion by Council Member Adams to continue this item to the
September 27, 1999 Council meeting.
Council Member Adams stated that he has had discussions with Santiago
Drive residents and believed that some of the citizens would like to see an
action plan that goes with the proposal so that they have some assurance
that the City will provide an effective traffic calming measure. He indicated
that more dialogue and staff work needs to be done prior to discussing this.
Council Member Glover stated that she would like the City Manager to set
up a community meeting and provide notices to the public. She requested
that Police Chief McDonell and Transportation/Development Services
Manager Edmonston also attend.
Volume 52 - Page 696
INDEX
Newport Center
Planning
(68)
Special Speed Zones
Santiago Drive
(85)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes .
September 13, 1999 INDEX
• Bryan Bond, 2431 Santiago Drive, asked who will be noticed about this
meeting. City Manager Bludau stated that the City might not want to invite
everyone from every street so that the numbers are more manageable,
noting that there are some key people that Council and the Police Chief have
been talking with. Mr. Bond indicated that a meeting was already conducted
that involved all the streets when Council Member Debay was Mayor. He
expressed concern that these issues are being continually discussed and
hoped that the goal will be approached at some point.
Council Member Adams stated that it is his understanding that the problem
deals with speeding on Santiago Drive. He agreed that, if discussions are
about issues that affect the parallel streets, those residents should be
included. However, at this point, he believed that the most productive
meeting would be to meet with representatives on Santiago Drive.
Council Member Glover stated that she called the City Manager last week to
let him know that he should be the point person because she keeps receiving
different comments about this and so that the City Manager will be able to
ensure that the changes occur.
Al Bartolic, 2312 Windward Lane, took issue with Council Member Adams'
statement and noted that he has children who live on Francisco Drive and
Holiday Lane, and that he lives on Windward Lane, which are all parallel to -
Santiago Drive. He emphasized that they are affected by Santiago Drive and
• are in favor of slowing down traffic on Windward Lane, Francisco Drive, and
Holiday Lane, as well as on Santiago Drive. He stated that Santiago Drive
will affect his streets and affirmed that they would like to be included in the
discussions. Council Member Glover believed that the City parallel streets
can be involved in the discussions.
Judy Mader, 2418 Holiday Lane, stated that the past discussions have been
a cooperative effort between the four streets and that they have tried to work
together to make it advantageous to each street. Noting that each of the
streets have traffic problems, although Santiago Drive's problems are the
greatest, she emphasized that whatever affects them, affects the other three
streets. She requested that they be included in any conversations regarding
these streets.
In response to Council Member Debay's questions, Ms. Mader indicated that
her street now has sidewalks. Council Member Debay believed that part of
the problem was that pedestrians walk in the streets on Santiago Drive
because they have no sidewalks.
Council Member Adams stated that he has no problem with including
representatives from the other streets in the discussions. He emphasized
that he has only been contacted by a constituency that say there is a
speeding problem on Santiago Drive. He stated that he has been trying to
work with them and the City to solve that problem, and noted that he has
not been contacted by anybody from the parallel streets probably because
• they are not in his district. He indicated that he is fine with the City
Manager making them aware of the meetings.
Volume 52 - Page 697
•
•
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 13, 1999
Chris Schwartz, 2401 Santiago Drive, stated that he lives right in the middle
of Tustin and Irvine Avenues, and offered his property as the meeting place.
Mayor O'Neil stated that the City Manager will take that into consideration.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay, Ridgeway, Noyes, Mayor O'Neil
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
22. UNSCHEDULED VACANCY ON THE CITY ARTS COMMISSION AND
APPOINTMENT BY MAYOR OF AN AD HOC APPOINTMENTS
COMMITTEE.
Motion by Mayor O'Neil to accept the resignation of Pat Brubaker from
the Arts Commission effective immediately (term expires June 30, 2001);
direct the City Clerk to advertise the vacancy pursuant to Council Policy
A -2; and appoint Council Members Noyes, Ridgeway, and Adams to serve on
the Ad Hoc Appointments Committee.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay, Ridgeway, Noyes, Mayor O'Neil
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
23. REVIEW OF AUTOMOBILE SALES TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM
AND REQUEST FROM JAGUAR FOR CITY FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING A NEWPORT BEACH DEALERSHIP.
Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the Economic Development
Committee (EDC) reviewed the incentive program and recommends
retaining the program for high tax generating businesses. They also
recommend limiting the time a business can apply for this assistance to be
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.
Motion by Mayor O'Neil to adopt Resolution No. 99 -64 and direct staff to
prepare a Sales Tax Increment Reimbursement Agreement with Jaguar that
provides for reimbursement not to exceed $112,000.
Council Member Glover disagreed with the statement on page 2 of the staff
report which states, "EDC also recommended modifying the program to limit
the time in which a dealership may apply for assistance to avoid the recent
situation in which the City Council was considering a request for assistance
from a dealership that has been operating profitably for some time." She
reported that the City worked with this dealership for several years and that
it came to Council at a late time. She believed that the City should honor its
commitments.
Volume 52 -Page 698
INDEX
Arts Commission
Vacancy
(24)
Res 99 -64
Automobile
Sales Tax
Incentive
Program
(40)
sla100 — :# is
police Chid co dd you please arrewa thefdlovdng 8 questions
1 did you receive from Courcil Adams, Don Webb or Rich Edrtanston oro9y or in wdag, procedures andAw specifications
with respect to measuring speed an Sadlego
2 did you receive from Council Adams, Don Webb or Ride Edmmistton orally or in v"M a speed timilsto arderce
3 knowing the new City posted speed Urnit on Santiago was 30 MPHs at what epeed did you
Leif your Itdfic officers to slatvwWV tickets at an Sardago
4 At the last council meetrg where Sardlagds speed problem was discussed you stated
A your new traffic equipment could pmAde new amdstieel data
B you depaMml'e service was avallable24 hours a day days a weelr
C abatis, art September 27, 1909 and aammdng 7.5 , mill 225 days and 5,400 hours how merry mwPh dkl ymr
department provide eryacernerd on Santiago
D on a 1 to 10 ecde (10 being the highest) plane compare your departments highly focused enforcement on Sandlago with
any other highly speed enforced street in Newport Basch since you became Police Chief
E ova the peat 7.5 moraine d er/ereernrarf, out of approodmatdy 5,000 vehicles per day on Santiago or 1,125,500 vehicles
per day over the testing period how mercy tickets were:
1 issued In toil for speeding 89 0.01%
2 Issued beiMmen 31 and 39 MPH
3 lasted beaveah 40 and 45 MPH
4 Issued over 46 MPH
5 weekdaysfrom 7:30 AM to 9 AM school time
6 Week days from 5 PM to 8 PM resident leisure time
7 weekends 7:30 PM to 10 AM resident let"e time
8 weekends 4 PM to 7 AM resided Ieiare time
9 ova the 90 day teat haw marry vehicles drove at or blow the
10 new 30 mph speed limit
11 over your 7 12 month erdorcetad period tarn marry Ve hides drove below 15 MPH
issued to trucks over 3 tare
5 do you Weave that over an additional 90 days whmad ehrerearherd on Senaago by your depart m i
that traffic speeds of 38 mph vole 7
a remain at 36 MPH
b drop below 39 MPH
c Increase above 36 MPH
6 in yw ophyon arotmmc speeds above 38 mph on Santiago age to the residents when wafking,
bitting. burning Into their dMeways and chHdmn walldng to a emerdery ached
7 Is it your job as Poke Chief to eryoroe the speed limit as pooled by the City Cancl
8 do you believe your darawh evd did W bed job to eraerce the CdYs speed hrrit on Santiago
Gary Adams could you pleas answer the following 14 questions
Ed the lad council meeting September 27,1888 approximately 71/'2 months ago involving aandago did you?
A repressd to the Council are the r ®dads of Newport Beach that you world
personally set up sterdarda and pocedures to mat trdfie speed on SanBago
B may we sae these standards and procedures you preeen ed to the City andror the Police 7
C Do you concur wah the repesndetive va0dily of the speed tests which ware conducted as follows under your
supeMsim ?
1 Monday, November 8, 1999 10:00 AM 233 vwhkles swayed
Monday, November 8, 1999 2:00 PM 318 vehicles surveyed
2 Tuesday January 4th 2000 9:00 AM 330 vehicles surveyed
Tuesday January 4th 2000 1:00 PM 284 vehicles surveyed
3 Thursday March 9th 2000 10:00 AM 247 vehicles surveyed
Thursday March am 2000 1:00 PM 309 vaddessrveyed
D when did you become aware es k who earduoled the ar+vey end how the peremetasfa the speed a rvey
was astabllshed 7
E based upon your paieadonel credentials and your self acknowledged expert reputation as a traffic a gineer, do you
belleve that record traffic surveys have va9d statistical "aft In measuring Santiago traffic speed on a 24 hour a day 7
e week task on Santiago ?
F M as much there was may vehicles parked on Sardiego with conetruction workers, vectors and delivery trucks
bloskng and slowing traffic on January 4th and March 9th who were working on the Johnson home, what direction
did you oRa the City and t We testers with respect to this street dockage during the mating time and period ?
G please eneww yes a re 1 At this point do you recommard that the City Carroll give any aedarce the a rvey
N plesse aswar Me following questions wah respect to the validity of the speed survey.
1 why were testing times conducted between 9 AM and 3 PM on week days, which represent the Wowed times
2 why were no rcior" (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) evening (5:30 PM to 8:00 PM ) or weakend teatlrg was conducted
3 why was Leading was conducted from Cartalm (113 of street) as opposed to where the motercycle police
ffi In Chris Schwar4b driveway which Is In the middle of the tasting range and more representative of speed 7
4 do vehicles normally slow down when a police car Is In clear dew
5 why you testing vehicle was in clear dew of vehicles driving west
to east on Santiago this reedted In vehicles slowing down during the testing
I have you repeatedly stated' when residents purchased tholes Santiago homes they veers aware Santiago was one:
1 Santiago Is rot a reeiderdW aired
2 When people purchased their homes on Saraago they knew Santiago was a had and busy street
3 Santiago Is ones of Newport Beach's most important eastOwest strafe and back bore street to NPB
J have you repeatedly amI "Sartlego Is a very dangerous teest "you would highly recorm and that then be
no pedestrian traffic, walkers, bike ridding adrar chiltlmn walking to Kaiser Elemenmry school'
Norvport Beach's most important esWwWbd back bore streets and the residents of Santiago should
be good cazers eat just IM the speed because it Is age
K have you dated 'twit under no circumstance would you slow speed bumps to be utilized on Santiago as a speed
Wring meagre and do not care what the residents of Smglego ward
L are you aware that as the result of the Police speed alorcoment on Santiago that traffic volumes have decreased ?
M Mr. Adams, do you have a Rd of Newport Beach residents supporting your position ?
N Mr. Adams when speed marls we Installed In the 4 street rdghbahood plan:
1 whet will the speed of tre1Rc be on Seraglio
2 g trelRC leaves Smaago as the reap 00 the speed mounds where will the traffic Raw move to
City Manager
Homer 7 questions?
A
At the September 271899 City Council Meetifg do you recall:
a what writhe speed Omit adopted by the City Cmawil30 MPH 7
b was Mee to be a e morM testing period vAdch was up March, 27,2000 which Is 45 day ago
e
Is It not true that as tits result of speed erdorcenent battle volumes hews declined an Sandago
C
Wlan Mr. Berger mdacted you cone Irig the validity of to C4%moat record speed survey did
you call Mr. Begs back and imam him that you talked to Mr. Webb and Edmmeon and that twee the
CW9 poshim that the City maragod speed survey wee vaNd ?
D
When requested by Mr. Berger and Bad why did the City refuse to retest a week before Oils council
meeting by putting speed counter tubs in frond of Mr. Schwah drive wayW a 7 day 24 hour tasting?
E
Is it still Me postton of the City that the speed findings as preaaded to the Council is eEeI Wly valid
and repreeahbtve of Me reel speed along Sehtago
F
have you ever Informed the Nevport Beach Chid of Police to erdorce the 30 MPH speed Nndt as adopted at the September 27
1999 City Cesaii meear g 7 Do you support the Cays adopted 30 MPH epse0limit m Sardtagu 7
G
have Mae over been disc uaelm or vmtenh cmespandaxe bebween you and the Chid of Police or Mr. Adams as to
whst speed speeding tickets Should be fared at 7
H
Do you support the Cfiys adopted 30 MPH speed limit m Serdrego 7