Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15- Development Services - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: MICHAEL E. RAYS , Director Subject: Authorization to prohibit all left-turn movements at the intersection of Rosewood Drive and Det evelopment Services p O ply Tippecanoe Avenue. January 27, 1999 Date, File No: 13.1R _ Synopsis of Previous Council Action: MCC DATE: Febmary 15, 1999 January 27, 1997 — Plans for the rehabilitation of pavement and installation of curbed median on Tippecanoe Avenue from I-10 to Hospitality Lane approved with the condition that left-tum lanes for northbound and southbound traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue at Rosewood Drive be maintained Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution Michael E. Hays Contact Person: ANWAR WAGDY, Traffic Engineer Phone: 5213 Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Map, and Resolution Ward: 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $ 1000.00 Source (Acct. No.) 001-187-5111 (Acct. Description) Signing and Striping Ma is Finance: Cc Notes: Agenda Item No. �j CITY OF SAN BPERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT a• Authorization to prohibit all left-turn movements at the intersection of Rosewood Drive and Tippecanoe Avenue. Backeround• On December 14, 1998, the Police Department temporarily prohibited left-turn movements at the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue and Rosewood Drive. This action was taken in response to the extraordinary increase in automobile accidents at the intersection. Thirty-eight (38) accidents have been reported at the intersection from January 1, 1998 through December 14, 1998 (more than twice the accidents reported for the same period on Waterman and Hospitality). As a definite proof on the effectiveness of this action, no accidents have been reported at the intersection since the left-tum movements were prohibited. The same issue was previously discussed in November of 1996 by the Traffic Safety Committee. The Committee recommended the construction of a median, as part of a pavement rehabilitation job, to physically restrict left-tuna movements at the intersection. When this issue was addressed by the Mayor and Council, opposition was raised by adjacent commercial properties (primarily by the two gas stations and In-N-Out Burger). This prompted the council not to adopt the Committee's recommendation. However, the council felt that if the situation gets worse, or conditions change, the issue should be reconsidered again. illowing summarizes the main reasons to consider approving this action: ♦ Significant increase of traffic accidents directly attributed to the unsafe left-turns at the intersection (the recent temporary restriction has proved its effectiveness). ♦ The intersection has been declared unsafe by the Police Department. ♦ The recent and continual rapid growth in traffic volume on Tippecanoe Avenue (an increase of 8,000 to 10,000 cars per day in the last year alone)is the major factor. ♦ Excessive and intolerable delays to the public at this key-entry location to the City gives a negative image not only to the general public but also to potential developers. ♦ The existing congestion has made this section of Tippecanoe "capacity deficient", which would curtail the future redevelopment of Norton and the airport. ♦ The Tri-City traffic study has made the same recommendation to mitigate the traffic impact. ♦ Redesign is currently underway for the I-10 / Tippecanoe Interchange. The ramps will likely move closer to Rosewood Drive. No other reasonable improvements, such as a traffic signal, would effectively work due to the close proximity to the freeway ramps. January 20, 1999 meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee, the committee was briefed on our intention to t__ this issue to the Mayor and Council, and asked if they wish to open the issue for discussion. The committee reconfirmed their prior recommendation to restrict left-tums. While the proposed left-tam restriction may cause some inconvenience to the customers of the adjacent businesses, we believe the overall reduction in congestion, delay and accidents will outweigh those inconveniences. In addition, we propose adding several guide signs to direct the motorists to safer alternatives (i.e. through Hospitality Lane or even the next street,Laurelwood Drive). In view of the seriousness of these problems, staff recommends that the left-turn prohibitions be approved on a permanent basis (the existing temporary restrictions will expire on February 14, 1999). If approved, the left- turns will be restricted with plastic delineators and signs. However, the permanent solution is to construct a median as designed and recommended two years ago. If left-turn movements are to be permanently prohibited, staff will initiate action to identify funding and construct the median Letters have been sent to the businesses that opposed this action two years ago notifying them that this item will be heard by the Mayor and Council at 10:00 a.m. Monday, February 15, 1999. These businesses include the two service stations on the east side of Tippecanoe Avenue and the In-N-Out Burger on the west side. Staff, therefore, requests that this item be scheduled at this date and time. P-ancial Impact: . __.,ling for installation of materials and signs to prohibit left turns will come from the general fund's signing and striping materials account. This action is considered routine; consequently, there will be no major impact to the account. Recommendation: Adopt Resolution authorizing the prohibition of all left-turn movements at the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue and Rosewood Drive. TIPPECANOE AV. AT ROSEWOOD DR. 60 i t0" a ; a E VIc=A 6Y i v E u a two loo ST RYOI ST R 1100 .n E iWOf a3i HARD, E& Z6 goo E i/ BRIER E f p B D ST ST r^ftlR0 ID0 3 aF i w E DAVI �" e e $T E I' PS F. f�,f �' HDSPITAIiIY IN EIXBI �� E 1900 u ` QP a E ~ a 1600 ST W[OOISIOX FWY ff $ e t [wl u rE[u E RI wMWOOD W E �00 TALITY NAB DUN E RISE1B10 Fes' ti TRT cm LN aii ow e F N a CWER t E aszw _ 0 AFDLAN BLV z � ST g h 500 ST puy, AV �i 8 .. ION L110 4 u s� G rorr w rnl AC/W Ll �u C'�Fi' .. dg z AV LOCATION OF PROPOSED LEFT TURN PROHIBITIONS Re: Tippecanoe and Rosewood The following graphs show the recent and significant increases in traffic volume and accidents at the subject intersection. Tippecanoe Avenue (South of Rosewood) Daily Traffic Volume 40,000 35,000 ■ 1996 CD 30,000 ❑ 1997 ■ 1999 25,000 20,000 1996 1997 1999 Year Tippecanoe at Rosewood Accident History (1996-1998) 40 30 ■ 1996 20 - 101997 v ■ 1998 a 10 0 1996 1997 1998 Year Tippecanoe Av & Rosewood Ave 7 Accidents 01/01/97 - 12/31/97 �rn m 3 ry Ln rv_ o 1184 i N m n m N_ Iry 0 1� 16:44 ((Intersect<> Yes)), acct ens W —in—sufficiern data for display If Straight c--= Parked a Pedestrian Fixed obj6cts: 9 1( Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General a Pole CUnknown air Out of control Q Injury ® Signal ® curb L Backing �_ Right turn Q Fatality ® Tree 3� Animal �.< Overtaking a— Left turn Nighttime 3rd vehicle �a Sideswipe U-turn DUI v Extra data Tippecanoe & Rosewood Ave 36 Accidents including 17 Injuries 01/01/98-12/31/98 (1 Year) Tippecanoe Ave MIST 1 , L1J 1 1 > d ' b o _ I _ OE 16-__x_ 1 I 1 StralgLt ® lalar7 Right tea O Property Damage jett turn 13 Object Accident Rate = 3. 1/MV RESOLUTION No. 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2086 ENTITLED, IN PART, "A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN STREET INTERSECTIONS WHERE A LEFT-TURN IS 3 PROHIBITED . . . . " AND PROVIDING THAT LEFT-TURNS ARE PROHIBITED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TIPPECANOE AVENUE AND ROSEWOOD DRIVE. 4 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY 5 OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS : 6 SECTION 1 . Resolution No. 2086 which prohibits "LEFT-TURN" 7 movements at certain street intersections, Section one, is 8 amended by adding the following intersection: 9 " Tippecanoe Avenue at Rosewood Drive " 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- RESO: AMENDING RESOLUTION 2086 TO PROHIBIT LEFT TURNS AT THE 1 INTERSECTION OF TIPPECANOE AVENUE AND ROSEWOOD DRIVE 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly 3 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 4 Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the 5 day of , 1999, by the following vote, to-wit : 6 Council Members : AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 7 8 ESTRADA 9 LIEN 10 MCGINNIS 11 SCHNETZ 12 DEVLIN 13 ANDERSON 14 MILLER 15 16 Rachel Clark, City Clerk 17 The forgoing resolution is hereby approved this day 18 of 1999 . 19 20 Judith Valles, Mayor 21 City of San Bernardino 22 Approved as to form 23 and legal content : 24 James F. Penman City Attorney 25 26 By 27 28 -2- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON uP ATTORNEYS AT LAW FORTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90071-1448 WRITERS DIRECT LINE TELEPHONE (213)620-1760 OUR FILE NUMBER FACSIMILE (2131 620-1396 (213) 617-4216 VLL- j.be.Q.ii..m February 12, 1999 Entered into Rocord et CauncillCmyDevCma Mtg: BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL by _ San Bernardino Common Council re Agenda Item City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street { -r ° San Bernardino, California 92418 City ClerkICDC Secy City of San Bernardino Re: Tippecanoe/Rosewood Intersection; Proposed Amendment to Resolution No. 2086 Honorable Mayor and Councihnembers: This firm represents In-N-Out Burger Corporation("In-N-Out"), which has operated a drive-thru restaurant for over 14 years at 1944 South Tippecanoe Avenue, at the northwest corner of Tippecanoe Avenue and Rosewood Drive (the "Intersection"). As you may know, over two years ago, at its January 27, 1997 meeting, the Common Council considered and rejected a proposed plan to prohibit left-tums at the Intersection by constructing a raised, landscaped median(the "Median") along Tippecanoe Avenue. At that time, In-N-Out and other concerned businesses strongly opposed the Median. However, the Department of Development Services has now requested that the Common Council reverse its previous decision and permanently prohibit left-turns at the Intersection by amending Resolution No. 2026 (the "Project"). Left-turns have temporarily been prohibited at the Intersection since approximately December 14, 1998. In-N-Out first learned of this proposal approximately two weeks ago when it received a notification letter regarding the February 15 hearing before the Common Council. However, that letter disclosed neither the specific rationale for the proposed reversal of the Common Council's decision in 1997 nor the means by which S LOS ANGELES • ORANGE COUNTY • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO a-IS--2 7 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP San Bernardino Common Council February 12, 1999 Page 2 the City proposed to prohibit left-turn movements. In-N-Out officials contacted City staff for additional information regarding these issues, but staff was unwilling to provide that information.'- As a result, these questions remained unanswered until Wednesday evening, less than two days ago, when we received a copy of the Staff Report for the February 15 hearing. The Staff Report indicates that City staff has renewed its efforts to permanently prohibit left-turn movements at the Intersection based on 36 accidents that allegedly occurred at the Intersection during 1998. While the Staff Report includes an attachment regarding those accidents, that attachment is wholly inadequate to permit any meaningful review to determine the extent to which those accidents related to left-turn movements at the Intersection, or whether the prohibition of left- turn movements is the only way to remedy the alleged unsafe condition at the Intersection. Among other things, we would appreciate a meaningful opportunity to review the accident reports and any other source information regarding the alleged 36 accidents and prepare an informed response to the staffs proposal. In addition, In-N-Out has directed its traffic consultant, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. ("WPA"), and its consulting engineering firm, MSL Engineering, = We should also note to-N-Out's frustration regarding the manner in which it was notified of the City's proposal. Two years ago, at the conclusion of the prior administrative proceedings, the Common Council assured In-N-Out and the other affected businesses that they would be invited to participate in any subsequent City discussions regarding proposed modifications to the Intersection. Common Councilmembers made those remarks in response to concerns raised by In-N-Out and the other businesses that City staff had failed to notify In-N-Out and the other businesses regarding City meetings with respect to the proposed Median, had not meaningfully responded to legitimate concerns regarding the proposed Median, and was generally uncommunicative. Unfortunately, not only were In-N-Out and the other businessesnot invited to participate in the City's current discussions regarding the Intersection, but the staff has once again cloaked its proposal in a shroud of secrecy, with the result that In-N-Out could not even determine the precise nature of the proposal or the reasons for it. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP San Bernardino Common Council February 12, 1999 Page 3 Inc., to respond to the numerous conclusory statements in the Staff Report in support of the proposed action, particularly the statement that "[n)o other reasonable improvements, such as a traffic signal, would effectively work due to the close proximity to the freeway ramps." Two years ago, WPA submitted traffic studies to the City which demonstrated that signalization of the Intersection was a preferable alternative to the prohibition of left-turn movements. However, traffic conditions at the Intersection have obviously changed over the past two years, and WPA will require a reasonable amount of time to update its earlier traffic analysis and submit a new traffic study to the Common Council for its consideration. Therefore, we respectfully request, on behalf of In-N-Out, that the Common Council take testimony at the February 15 public hearing, but then continue the hearing for approximately 30 days to provide In-N-Out and other interested parties with a minimal amount of time to respond meaningfully to the staffs proposal and permit more informed decisionmaking by the Common Council. During that period, In-N-Out has no objection to the continued temporary prohibition on left-turn movements at the Intersection. Although we have clearly had insufficient time to review and comment on the staffs proposal, In-N-Out preliminarily objects to it for several reasons. First, the staff has once again rejected the signalization of the Intersection with no supporting traffic analysis. Over two years ago, WPA submitted a traffic study to the City which demonstrated that traffic volumes at the Intersection would satisfy Caltrans' traffic signal warrants and permit signalization of the Intersection. WPA also cited specific examples of similar intersections in the area that had been signalized. To our knowledge, City staff never refuted, or even attempted to refute, that analysis. Second, the City has not undertaken any environmental review of the staffs proposal in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Two years ago, the City prepared an Initial Study with respect to Public Works Project No. 96-01 which, at its inception, included the construction of the Median. However, prior to the Common Council's approval of Plan Np. 9459 for that project, the Common Council modified the project to exclude the Median. Therefore, the Negative Declaration adopted by the Common Council on January 27, 1997 for Project No. 96-01 did not cover any environmental issues relating to the prohibition of left-turn movements at the Intersection. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP San Bernardino Common Council February 12, 1999 Page 4 In addition, during the comment period on the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration, In-N-Out and its attorneys and consultants raised significant and compelling objections regarding the failure of the Initial Study to address the traffic impacts associated with the construction of the Median. Among other things, it was noted that (1) the Initial Study acknowledged that the construction of the Median would alter then-present patterns of circulation, but completely failed to address the potential adverse traffic impacts associated with that altered traffic circulation, (2) the construction of the Median would in fact result in potentially significant traffic impacts, (3) in support of the Median, City staff relied solely on the 1991 Traffic Impact Study for Tri-City Corporate Centre Master Plan which, even at that time, was based on outdated data and assumptions, as demonstrated in some detail by WPA in its written submissions to the City, (4) the Initial Study included no discussion or analysis regarding the efficacy of signalizing the Intersection, (5) the City failed to prepare any contemporaneous traffic study to assess the potential benefits and impacts of the proposed Median and(6)the Median should not be constructed until plans for the modification of the I-IO/Tippecanoe interchange have been finalized. It is apparent that the prohibition of left-tum movements at the Inter- section constitutes a discretionary project subject to CEQA review. There is no claim in the Staff Report that the proposed Project is exempt from CEQA requirements, and we do not believe that any purported exemption would be applicable due to the unusual circumstances here. Third, as In-N-Out's representatives discussed in some detail during the prior administrative proceedings, the prohibition of left-turn movements at the Intersection would cut off In-N-Out restaurant patrons from the primary access point to the restaurant. The restaurant's driveway off Tippecanoe Avenue is not the desired access point for the site because vehicles attempting to enter the site from that driveway could be impeded by other vehicles entering the drive-thru lane to place their orders. That could result in vehicles queuing back to Tippecanoe Avenue. Fourth, In-N-Out believes that the prohibition of left-turn movements at the Intersection would substantially impair access to its restaurant and constitute a "taking" under the U.S. and California Constitutions. Once again, these are preliminary objections because In-N-Out will require a reasonable opportunity to review the new accident data compiled by City SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP San Bernardino Common Council February 12, 1999 Page 5 staff and determine (1) whether that data warrants further modification to the Intersection and (2) if so, whether any alternative modification(e g_ signalization) would mitigate any unsafe conditions without significantly impairing the operation of In-N-Out's restaurant. We hope and expect that, in fairness, the Common Council will provide that opportunity. We look forward to discussing these issues further at the February 15 meeting. Very truly yours, ?Jack Rubens for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER& HAMPTON LLP LA2:LRMLEN06.X11174700.1 cc: Henry Empeno, Jr., Esq. (BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL) Mr. Fred G. Encinas (BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL)