City of La Habra Heights
HACIENDA BLVD REALIGNMENT QUESTIONS
(From the Public)
Answers coordinated / prepared by City staff for the 6-29-00 Town Hall Meeting
June 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Statements made within the following questions are by community members, not the City.
Could the proposed bike lane be turned into a traffic lane in the future?
The City's legislative body (the City Council) could make changes to Hacienda Blvd. in the future, including transforming bike lanes into traffic lanes. This would be a local decision, however, and not one made by the County or other legislative body, unless said control was expressly given by the City. The City Council can make numerous changes to the road in the future should they have the desire, the funding and the road right-of-way to do so. Of course a bike lane could be turned in to a traffic lane if it fit the engineering standards, however, any area of street right-of-way could possibly be turned into a traffic lane as well.
Does the County already have problems/concerns with our current traffic? Isn't the traffic already above the daily limit where the County would be recommending two lanes in each direction?
The City and County do not have current traffic counts, although a two day average vehicle count (1/21/99 &1/22/99) for Hacienda Blvd south of Reposado Drive was 16,023. On 10/23/95 the count on Hacienda Blvd. south of Avocado Crest Road was 15,740.
Will the remaining funding be available to the City and is the City at liberty to dictate the study?
The RFAU funding earmarked for the preliminary engineering (PE) and environmental assessment and the MTA Call for Projects funding for the first phase improvements (West Road to south City boundary) can be transferred to the City (and the County has expressed a desire to do so). Once transferred, the City will be the lead on the PE and environmental assessment and any subsequent improvements. An environmental document that follows local, state and federal environmental documentation guidelines for a project to enhance regional mobility and safety along Hacienda Boulevard from Skyline Drive to south City boundary should be eligible for reimbursement.
Could the money be used for Proposal C instead of Proposal B?
As stated above in response to Question 3, funding is currently available to undertake the preliminary engineering and environmental assessment for a project to enhance regional mobility and safety along Hacienda Boulevard. This process will determine the recommended alternative considering all of the environmental factors. If Proposal C is the recommended one, the MTA may be able to approve this change to the scope of work for the grant, however, the ultimate decision would be up to the MTA Board of Directors.
What are the strings to the funding?
Generally, the MTA funds have restrictions which are stipulated under Article XIX of the State Constitution. This can be accessed via the Internet at HYPERLINK http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_19 Additionally, the State has developed guidelines for funds, which are made available under the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). These guidelines can be accessed via the Internet at HYPERLINK http://svhqsgj4.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/stip.htm . Also, the City and the County each have a Master Agreement with the State for the conditions which are in place for the use of STIP funds. Caltrans will develop a Program Supplement to the Master Agreement once the funds are approved for an allocation by the California Transportation Commission.
In terms of money, construction and grade change, what would it take to eliminate the Canada Sombre curve?
There are numerous answers to this question, some of which were detailed in the prior County proposals. A response to this question should be developed once the City's consultant assumes responsibility for the design.
Information is needed regarding the Federal Government, Caltrans, and MTA's design standards.
The Federal government does not have design standards that apply to the City. Federally funded construction projects require that Caltrans design standards be followed. These design standards can be found in Chapter 11 of the "Local Assistance Procedures Manual" (Caltrans) with designs references such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Caltrans Design Manuals. This Manual can be accessed via the Internet at http:/svhqsgi4.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm. MTA does not have design standards that apply to the City for roadway construction. An MTA grant generally requires that local standards be followed.
What are the Federal traffic standards that apply to the City?
No Federal traffic standards apply to the City unless the city accepts a construction grant which specifically requires that the roadway be constructed to meet existing and probable future traffic in a "manner conductive to safety, project economics, durability and economy of maintenance." (Caltrans Local Programs Manual).
How much money has the County spent to date on the project?
Approximately $140,000.
Can local control be removed from the City at a later point in time?
Local control can only be given to another entity (such as the County) with the consent of the City Council. The City controls the roads within its borders that it owns and controls. Unless the City Council acts by resolution to cede control over a roadway in the City (as has been done on a temporary basis in the past to allow multi-jurisdiction traffic signal coordination projects and the like) there is no means by which it can lose control over Hacienda Boulevard. As discussed below, however, the City must manage the roadway consistently with its obligations under state law and may not block traffic from outside the city to the detriment of other communities.
If the City proceeds with the design process, can the City be denied reimbursement of expenditures?
If the City chooses to proceed with the preliminary engineering and environmental process, and follows local, state and federal environmental documentation guidelines for a project to enhance mobility and safety along Hacienda boulevard from Skyline Drive to south City boundary, the City should not be denied reimbursement for their expenses. Note that the environmental document must include a complete analysis of the no build/maintenance alternative. There may be some financial risk in completing the EIR should a "no build" alternative be chosen. Further research is necessary to identity these risks, if any.
The County will provide information in outline format regarding funding of grants, matched funding, and funding designation.
This information is contained in the project financial plan in the County's application and the adopted STIP amendment, which is provided as a handout for tonight's meeting.
Are variances allowed regarding funding designation where work involves Hacienda Boulevard but may not actually pertain to the design of Hacienda?
(The response was this information would be made evident in the design process and handled under design exceptions.)
A design exception is a deviation from criteria contained in the Caltrans' Highway Design Manual (e.g., sight distance, horizontal curve/design/speed). The design of Hacienda Boulevard improvements must be in compliance with this manual in order to receive the funds from the MTA (through the STIP). Deviations from the manual are documented through the preparation and approval by the City's Director of Public Works (registered Civil Engineer) of a design exception. Design exceptions are allowed if they are properly documented and approved by the City's Director of Public Works. However, all design work must involve improvements to Hacienda Boulevard since that is the project which received the grant funds.
Since the $4.5 million is based on changing the curve south of Avocado Crest, how drastic of a change is required?
As noted in prior answers, the design of the improvements to Hacienda Boulevard must be in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Any deviations from the provisions of this manual must be documented and approved by the City's Director of Public Works (who must be a registered Civil Engineer).
Why after 13 years?
It appears that the City has been trying to attain funding for realignment of the two major curves on Hacienda for quite some time, with studies shown as early as 1974. As to why MTA funded this application vs. prior ones is unknown. It has been about 4 years since the City Council took formal action on attaining outside funding. There has been a long-standing history of the City and County to address realigning Hacienda Boulevard and focusing on the elimination of the two sharp curves at the northern and southern portions of the road. The City received a grant to see if Hacienda Boulevard could be built to State Standards. The County applied for funds to construct a portion of the improvements. Receiving MTA funds for construction has increased the priority for this project.
Who initiated the re-submittal of bid?
The resubmittal was made by the County of Los Angeles. The County initiated the submittal of the application to the MTA for grant funds. This was done at a time that the County believed local consensus existed for the project.
How unsafe is the curve?
The City does not, and will not, concede that the current condition of Hacienda Boulevard is unsafe. The City has periodically reviewed the design and condition of Hacienda and made improvements as necessary. Last year's program to trim the slope at The Park to improve sight distances, the placement of "bots dot", restriping, and new signage are the most recent examples. Having said this, the City can, and should, periodically review the design, signage, and other characteristics of Hacienda and other roadways in the City to ensure that public safety is protected, consistently with the City's other objectives, such as aesthetics, traffic calming and control, and community design objectives.
What are the statistics, how many accidents have there been in the last two years?
Over the last ten years, there have been 63 accidents in the Avocado Crest & Janine area, with 38 of them (60%) injury accidents. Accidents were split about 50/50 for day vs. night; 83% occurred in dry weather, 17% occurred in wet weather. In the last ten years there have been no traffic-related deaths at this intersection.
If we don't comply with the study, will we lose the $495,000?
If the City does not proceed with the PE and environmental assessment the grant will revert back to the MTA. If the City chooses to perform the PE and environmental assessment, and once completed chooses not to implement the recommendations of the environmental assessment, the County believes the City will have to reimburse the MTA for the expenses incurred.
It seems to me that it would not be wise to invest time and money doing an EIR of alternatives for Hacienda Road that are strongly opposed by residents (the County proposal). Let's focus on the alternative the residents favoróa scenic country road with one lane in each direction, and figure out how to get funding to do that. Do you agree?
This is certainly one of many options.
What can be done to ensure that the road remains limited to two lanes no matter what improvements or changes occur?
This is a decision left up to the City Council.
Can someone who is objective make a legitimate list of the options for reducing liability, including options in addition to widening the road and then publish the list so the public can be informed about the pros and cons of the options?
This is an option that could be pursued by the City Council.
Is there any reason to change the road that benefits La Habra Heights residents other than reduction of liability?
Enhancing safety is usually reason enough for a roadway project to be undertaken. However, improving mobility of residents, allowing for a two-way left-turn lane for better access to their properties and reducing damage to automobiles due to rough driving conditions are also benefits of the project.
What is the traffic count on Hacienda now ñ daily?
A two day average vehicle count (1/21/99 ñ 1/22/99) for Hacienda Blvd south of Reposado Drive was 16,023. On 10/23/95 the count on Hacienda Blvd. south of Avocado Crest Road was 15,740.
Has the traffic increased or decreased since the building of Harbor?
Traffic on Hacienda Blvd. has decreased since the construction of Harbor Blvd.
Traditionally, does the installation of a traffic light slow traffic down? How much?
The installation of a series of traffic signals will slow down traffic. The "slow down" amount is dependent on the spacing and timing of the signals.
Can we install cameras on our two traffic lights to catch drivers running the red light, East and West at Hacienda?
Yes, it is an option. Cameras can be installed on signals to "catch" drivers running red lights. The County of Los Angeles has installed a number of these cameras and are determining their effectiveness. Of course, funding is always a consideration.
The County applied in January '99 for a 5 lane highway from Orange county line to Glenmark Drive. The MTA asked for it to be phases. The decision before the Council is NOT just the East Rd south portion but the whole road. Is that true?
The proposed study, which would include preliminary engineering and environmental assessment, would include the entire limits of the project. If the EIR is approved and the City receives approval from Caltrans and MTA to proceed, the MTA grant funds can only be used for the improvements from East Road to the south City boundary. No funding is available to construct the improvements for the remainder of project.
Phase I has been approved. State funding officials have assured me that it is virtually impossible they would not fund the rest. The purpose in phases is to allow better monitoring of the work and fund use. Do you have comments about this?
Rather than insist on full-funding, which the MTA indicated was not available at the time under the Call for Projects, the County agreed to phase the work. The intent is that future phases would be applied for under subsequent Calls for Projects. The MTA looked at the various needs throughout the County and agreed that partial funding for the Hacienda Boulevard project was worthwhile. Funding for the remainder of the project is not guaranteed.
What is the agreement/pact/contract the City has to sign regarding liability, control, authority, etc with the County and/or state regarding Hacienda Blvd? Please supply a copy(s).
The only agreement needed between the City and the County would be for the County to provide the matching funds to the City for the project. This agreement will not be developed until the City decides to proceed with the project. Since Hacienda Boulevard is currently a City street, the City is already responsible for liability, control and authority for what is performed currently and in the future on the roadway. If the City receives the FAU funds and the future STIP funds from the State, it must secure a Program Supplement to the City-State Master Agreement.
What are the addresses of the parcels to be condemned and taken in their entirety along the entire road?
Until a final decision is made as to the actual design, affected parcels cannot be identified. This information will be available upon conclusion of the environmental process. Providing this level of detail now may compromise and prejudice the process.
What are the addresses and what are the land area amounts of the partial parcel takings?
See above answer.
Many of these homes have been sold in the last year or two. Were these people notified/warned of the impending situation? If not, why not?
The County did receive several calls from prospective buyers/sellers since 1995. The County responded to these inquiries by providing information based upon the approved Proposal C alternative. They often referred these residents to the plans mounted on the wall at City Hall.
What is the County volume threshold for a 2-lane road, like Hacienda, to be converted to a 4-lane road?
If the traffic volume on Hacienda Boulevard exceeded 8,000 to 8,500 vehicles per lane per day, the County considers the need for additional lanes to provide the needed capacity for the higher volume of cars.
What is the current traffic volume?
See answer to Question 24, above.
The most recent known traffic study for Hacienda Blvd was in 1997, done for the Albertson/Rite Aid development in La Habra. They predicted traffic volume on Hacienda Rd as 40,000 cars per day in ten years. Is this true?
As of 6/22/00 City of La Habra staff could not validate the ADT number of 40,000 referenced above. Orange County Transportation 2020 estimate for Hacienda Blvd. at Whittier Blvd. is 29,100 ADT.
If the City does have the decision authority over increasing to 2 travel lanes in each direction, what decision criteria will be used to make that decision?
The City DOES have decision authority over changes to Hacienda Blvd. and the Council will determine what decision criteria will be used to make decisions, if any, to alter Hacienda. To construct a four-lane highway (Hacienda Blvd.) an EIR for the construction must be completed and certified by the City. Funds must then be allocated by the City. The EIR process will determine if 4 lanes are desired/needed. The EIR will analyze existing and future traffic and the manner required to move this traffic safely and economically.
What is the design plan for the 80-foot deep cut through the Skyline Dr summit? Will the sides be retaining walls? Graded slopes?
It will be a combination of retaining walls and graded slopes. These questions refer to Proposal B2, which was not approved by the City Council.
How will East and West Skyline Dr residents get access to their street? Please provide a diagram.
This alignment study shouldn't be considered as a completed set of highway construction plans. Details such as the joins for the side streets would be determined during the actual design phase. However, access will continue to be provided to Skyline Drive from Hacienda Boulevard under the proposed realignment (although this proposal continues to be under discussion and has not been approved by the City Council). For Proposal B2, the final design would probably have to include realigning the east and west approaches to Skyline Drive at its intersection with Hacienda Boulevard as shown on Proposal B2.
How will the 3800 block on Hacienda gain access to the street both onto the final road and during construction? Please provide a diagram.
See response to Question 39. No diagram is available at this time.
The extensive grading necessary for the Skyline phase appears to make it impossible for traffic during construction. How long will the road be closed?
Details of traffic control during construction are determined once the final plans are completed. Generally, local access is maintained during construction except for short periods when it is not feasible to do so.
Who has the authority to close a road to through traffic? What are the criteria?
The City has the authority to close a street if the street is no longer needed to serve the public or if public safety demands the closure; no other agency has that authority. However, there do not appear to be circumstances that would justify a decision by the City to close Hacienda to through traffic. Doing so would have adverse impacts on the City of La Habra and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and perhaps in Whittier and other cities as well. A decision to close the street would require an environmental review, likely an EIR, and compliance with the public hearing procedures required by state law for street closures. If the City were to close the street, it should anticipate a suit from one or another of the affected governments. On the information now available, I see no basis to successfully defend such a suit. A recent example of such litigation is the City of Hawaiian Gardens' successful suit against the City of Long Beach over a street closure that diverted freeway off-ramp traffic from Long Beach into Hawaiian Gardens. In short, the City of La Habra Heights has a duty to maintain Hacienda Boulevard for use by its residents and others.
How are homeowners on Hacienda Blvd supposed to get in and out of their driveways with 4 lanes of traffic travelling at 50 - 70 m.p.h.?
There is no indication at this time that Hacienda will have travel speeds of 50-70 m.p.h.
The proposed paved width is 58 feet. What is the proposed right of way width? How much more paved area for shoulders?
The proposed right of way width is 64 feet. There isn't really a shoulder since the proposed bikeway is adjacent to the travel lane. There is a three-foot wide graded parkway, which is the area between the curb and the property or right of way line.
City officials repeatedly mention road safety as a reason to straighten and widen the road. Accident statistics for the 11-year period 1988-1998 show the road is at least as safe as similar roads. Is this true?
The Average Accident Rate per million vehicle miles for roads similar to this within the County is 1.82-2.11 (per County); the Average Accident Rate per million vehicle miles for Hacienda Blvd. over the last ten years (actual time: 1/89 ñ 2/00) is 2.21.
The highest percentages of accident causation are wet surface, at about 41%, and unsafe speed, at 48% (there is overlap). Is this true?
As noted in the prepared accident summary page, the highest accident causation is unsafe speed (48%). The majority of accidents themselves, however, occur during dry weather conditions (56%).
What steps has the City taken to lessen/warn drivers of these two main factors?
The City made numerous minor improvements to Hacienda, including the addition of "Bot Dots", warning signs, increased sight distance, striping and increase traffic speed enforcement. The Sheriff's Department increased the issuance of traffic speed citations by 122% between 1997 and 1998 and an additional 16% between 1998 and 1999, for a total increase from 1997 to 1999 of 158%.
Have, low cost, "Slippery When Wet" signs been installed?
No.
Have, low cost and allowed, "Stop" signs or other methods been used or considered to slow vehicles down?
Stop signs have been discussed in the past and are referenced in numerous County documents regarding Hacienda. Stop signs on arterial streets should not be used unless Caltrans Standards for their installation have been met. These standards include the proportionality of the traffic on the main street to the secondary street and the interruption of traffic flow on the major street. Other traffic calming principals and ideas have been discussed briefly at City council meetings and are anticipated to continue in future discussions.
If these simple and inexpensive solutions have not been implemented or considered, why is a high cost, widening and/or straightening project being considered/applied for/funded?
Clearly there are extensive differences in result between placing a traffic control sign and realignment of a roadway. It continues to be the decision of the City Council which options they would like to pursue.
Conversely, County documents, studies, and funding applications make little or no mention of the safety "problems" of the road. Indeed, their study says the road is already as safe as similar roads. Their concerns are all about traffic flow, speed and to increase both of them. How can these two opposite concerns be rectified?
These concerns have to continue to be addressed as we move through this process.
What is the average or "acceptable" accident rate for roads like Hacienda? How is this rate determined?
While there is no "acceptable" accident rate, there is an Average Accident Rate per million vehicle miles used for comparison purposes. The County's Average Accident Rate for roads similar to Hacienda is 1.82-2.11. The Average Accident Rate per million vehicle miles for Hacienda Blvd. over the last ten years (actual time: 1/89 ñ 2/00) is 2.21. (Ref: Los Angeles County Department of Public Work).
The January 28, 1999 MTA Project Funding Application on page 13 indicates that the County expect both trucks and transit buses to use the roadway. Earlier County documents estimate truck traffic will be 600-1000 trucks per day. If the City turns Hacienda over to the County after construction, who will make the decision about truck/bus access?
The City has already restricted truck traffic through the implementation of a 3-ton weight limit on all City streets, including Hacienda, except for local traffic. There has been no indication that the City would turn over Hacienda Blvd. to the County after construction and the decision for weight limits would continue to rest with the City Council.
Who will make decisions about further widening to 3 travel lanes in each direction?
The City Council of the City of La Habra Heights.
Where are these decision-maker roles written down?
City Council roles are defined within State law. As discussed in question 10 above, the City controls its streets under State law. There is no single legal authority that represents this proposition. If the City Council would like the City Attorney to devote the time to research and write a memo outlining these authorities, he can do so. For now, it may be sufficient to refer the questioner to the court decision in the Hawaiian Gardens/Long Beach case described above: City of Hawaiian Gardens v. City of Long Beach, 61 Cal.App.4th 1100 (1998).
The County will be spending $1.6 million of department funds on Phase I and $8.2 million of it's own funds for the entire Widening/realignment project. Redoing the road in its current width and alignment, with added safety improvements (non-skid pavement, stop signs, pavement edge markers, etc) would be less than $1 million. Why can't the City request just 10 cents on the dollar the County is willing and able to spend to widen the road to just fix in its current width and alignment?
Generally, County funds provided to City's are intended to be utilized to improve regional mobility. Proposal C satisfies this criteria. The cost to maintain Hacienda Boulevard is the responsibility of the City. The County has committed to fund the local match for the RFAU grant for the study. Although the application to the MTA indicates that the County will provide the local match of $1.6 million, these funds have not yet been budgeted or approved.
The City Road Reconstruction Bond proposal budgeted about $500,000 to repair/repave Hacienda Blvd. It appears that only a few hundred thousand more would allow us to make the road safe, repaired, and good for another 20 years in its current width and alignment. Factoring in the money the City already has budgeted, we need really only 2 cents on the dollar from the County's commitment for the widening.
The 1995 budget (which is carried forward to current Fiscal Year) for pavement improvements to Hacienda Blvd. is $309,000.
What is the City's estimate to repair the road and make it safe in its current alignment? If no estimate has been made for this, why not?
The Citywide District No. 1 (Bond Issue) was to rehabilitate roadway surfaces. Realignment and widening was not part of the voter approved bond issue.
Liability and a threat to the financial viability of the City are also mentioned as reasons to consider the County proposal. How many court cases have been filed against the City concerning accidents on Hacienda Blvd in the last 1, 5, 10 and 15 years?
Two cases within the last 10 years. Three cases since 1980.
How many court cases have been won by the City?
One court case was denied due to lateness of filing on the plaintiff's part. The other two were settled out of court.
What was the payment amount(s)?
One case was settled out of court for $15,000; the other was settled for $10,000.
How many non-court claims have been filed against the City concerning accidents on Hacienda Blvd in the last 1, 5,10,15 years?
Six claims since 1983.
How many received payments?
Three.
What is the average payment? What is the range?
Average payment was $1,805.00. The range was $1,000 - 3,134.
How much did it cost the City in the last 1, 5, 10, 15 years in attorney's fees to defend against the above court cases and direct claims?
This information is unavailable at this time.
What is the average cost to the City for the past 1, 5, 10, 15 years for attorney' fees, settlement amounts, and payments concerning accidents on Hacienda Blvd?
This information is unavailable at this time.
What insurance does the City carry to protect against these financial hazards?
The City is part of a JPIA (Joint Powers Insurance Authority) which is not, technically, a form of insurance - it is a pooled risk. The pooled system coverage is for a maximum of $50 million per occurrence. The City is responsible for the first $20,000. The JPIA then covers from $20,001 up to 5 million. After 5 million, the pooled cities will pay up to the $50 million/occurrence limit. The amount each City pays is based on payroll share and would be a different amount for each city.
Any claim over the 50 million becomes the sole responsibility of our City along with the 1st $20,000. City premiums are based on the total number of claims filed by all of the member cities (approximately 78 member cities). Each year the premium will be different based on $ paid out to each city's claims.
What type of case/settlement would result in a financially destabilizing payment not covered by insurance?
Any amount below $20,000 and exceeding $50 million, depending on the number of cases. The City would also have to pay its fair share of amounts between $5 ñ 50 million.
What does the City consider to be a financially destabilizing amount?
An amount which would severely impact the City's ability to be able to financially provide necessary City services.
Under what circumstances would the City lose insurance protection against these risks?
According to JPIA, there is no maximum dollar amount at which they would stop covering us and tell us we couldn't belong to the pool anymore. As is typical, the City would have to remain current in membership and required payments to stay in the pool.
If the City is currently not insured against these risks, why not? What is the cost?
The City is insured within the parameters noted above.
The Heights Christian School is depending on La Habra to narrow their part of Hacienda to two lanes to accommodate a left turn lane into a new entrance. They assumed La Habra Heights was maintaining two lanes. How would the school, traffic flow & safety, and student arrival/departure traffic flow & safety be impacted if La Habra does not allow narrowing to two lanes, a reasonable decision on La Habra's part if they see LA County desiring to widen our Hacienda to 5 lanes, their end being on the Orange county master plan of roads and La Habra had also applied to Orange County to WIDEN their end of Hacienda to 5 lanes in October 1999?
Answer to Questions 72-79: The Heights Christian School is currently in the process of finalizing their parking & traffic circulation plan. The revised plan will affect the answer to these questions.
How would the school, traffic flow & safety, and student arrival/departure traffic flow & safety be impacted if our Hacienda Blvd is widened to five lanes?
See Question 72, above.
The County Hacienda Funding application, along with a City letter of support is dated January 1999. The City Manager, at least, was aware of this. Family Resource Ministries applied for a CUP to expand the school facilities, which was handled by the City substantially in the May to September 1999 period, initially with the intimate involvement of the City Manager. The school provided a traffic study. This study did NOT discuss the effect the proposed, and by July funded, widening would have. Sadly, the school was negligent in not even bothering to contact LA or Orange County transportation department officials who would have informed them. Worse though, our City, who knew of the widening, did not tell them or require them to address this. Why were they not told?
See Question 72, above.
If they were told, why was it ignored?
See Question 72, above.
What would the impact be on the school's proposed parking lot remodeling and expansion if the proposed and funded expansion proceeds?
See Question 72, above.
A likely scenario is that La Habra does not allow narrowing to 2 lanes. Combine this with the proposed and funded expansion in LHH. What does the school do for access?
See Question 72, above.
What will the traffic flow be?
See Question 72, above.
Who determines if the school should address these likelihoods?
The City of La Habra Heights.
Shouldn't this all be figured out before the school is allowed to expand their lot and rearrange traffic flow?
The decision-making process to determine if the widening should take place is estimated to take at least eighteen months. To date the City Council is only on record to support a two-lane concept. To defer the expansion of the Heights Christian School parking facility based on an unimproved concept of four lanes does not seem prudent.
What is the liability risk to the City, if the road is widened, because of this omission? The school could easily and justifiably charge financial loss and unacceptable safety risk to their customers, which could have been averted or mitigated if they had known.
Any decision to widen or otherwise improve Hacienda Boulevard would occur, if at all, only after an appropriate environmental review, including a traffic study. Provided that the ultimate design of any improvements is approved by a properly licensed and insured engineer, the City will have both insurance protection and the protection of the "design immunity doctrine" from suits alleging the new design constitutes a dangerous condition of public property. Suit by a landowner alleging a new design reduced the utility and value of their property would have to show that access to and from their property was unreasonably impaired. Successful suits of this type typically involve situations in which medians, culverts, raised roadways, and the like actually block a driveway and make property less useful. No property owner has a right to compel the City to manage its roadways so as to maximize access to that owner's land. Accordingly, I do not perceive a substantial risk of suit from the Heights Christian School arising from any likely decision with respect to the management of Hacienda Boulevard.
At the January 2000 City Council meeting, all council members and staff, including the manager who wrote the letter of support for the project claimed not to know anything about it.
The item unknown was that the funding had been approved. Said funding approval was reported to the City Council by the current City Manager immediately upon discovery.
A County representative says the City will be more liable if the project is turned down because they City had the chance to "fix" the road at no cost and turned it down. Is this true and if so please explain the risks and circumstances?
To prove a case against the City on the ground that Hacienda Boulevard constitutes a "dangerous condition of public property" which caused injury to the plaintiff (the theory of the two recent suits arising from accidents on Hacienda), the plaintiffs must prove that the road was in an unreasonably dangerous condition, that the danger caused the accident, that the City had notice of the danger for a "reasonable time" and failed to correct the danger. The amount of time considered "reasonable" turns on the steps necessary to correct the danger and the resources available to correct it. Accordingly, if the current design of Hacienda Boulevard were unreasonably dangerous, a point the City does not concede, the availability of funding from county, state and federal sources to correct that alleged danger would be a factor in determining if a "reasonable time" for correction had run. Again, and as discussed more fully above, the City does not concede that Hacienda Boulevard is unreasonably dangerous.
City official(s) have intimated that no one in the City really did know about the funding application or expansion to 5 lanes and that the County "manufactured" the letter of support from the City. If the County really did pursue this on their own, would not they bear the liability increase, if any, for our turning down the project?
The County submitted the application for funding based on Proposal B2, not on Proposal C, which was approved in concept by the City Council in May 1996. See answer to Question 85 and 87 below. Because the County does not own or control Hacienda Boulevard, it is not possible to hold the County liable for accidents arising on that road. A public agency can be held liable on the theory that its property is in an unreasonably dangerous condition only if it owns or controls that property.
In April 1996, the Council authorized the County to study "2" lane road proposal "C". In January 1999 the County applied for funding for proposal B2 - a 5-lane road. Who in the City authorized the County to pursue B2?
No one at the City authorized the County to pursue the B2 alternative.
Who in the City authorized the County to go beyond "study" and to apply for funding?
The County interpreted the approval and discussion of Alternate C proposal at the May 1996 Council meeting as authorization for the County to continue to apply for funds when the opportunity existed.
Who authorized City Manager Les Doolittle to support the B2 application?
To the best of the City's understanding, Mr. Doolittle's January 1999 letter of support was for, he thought, Proposal C, not for B2. Proposal C was approved in concept by the City Council at their May 1996 City Council meeting.
If Les Doolittle acted on his own volition isn't this outside the authority granted him by the Municipal Code, specifically 2107j?
The City Manager had implicit authority to write letters on the City's behalf. Mr. Doolittle's letter to the County apparently represented his understanding of policy previously established by the City Council. Whether his letter correctly stated the City Council's views is, of course, for the City Council to determine.
If he acted outside his authority would the actions he took be invalid?
A letter from a City Manager is not sufficient to commit the City to any particular course of action with respect to the management of Hacienda Boulevard.
Who is responsible for overseeing the City Manager generally and on a day to day basis?
The City Manager's duties are outlined in Municipal Code Section 2107. The City Manager is under the direction and control of the City Council.
Who works with the Manager deciding Council agenda items and prioritizing City business?
The Mayor and City Council.
Who does the Manager call when he has questions about policy, personnel, project, or other topics?
The City Manager contacts numerous persons during the course of performing her administrative duties, including the Mayor and City Council, City Attorney, City Engineer, Planning Director, Fire Chief, Sheriff's Department, other municipal professionals, the League of California Cities and JPIA (Joint Powers Insurance Authority).
MTA funding officials say that they try to make sure that elected officials are "on-board" for proposed projects and that virtually all applications come with support letter(s) from elected official(s). Who on the Council is/was the contact person for the County on the project?
The County received a support letter from the City Manager, who, as noted above, is directed by the City Council, which was included in their application. A Council "contact" is unknown.
The diagram on the back wall of the meeting room represents the "C" proposal the City approved for study in April '96. The County at the May 4, 2000 meeting showed a different proposal "C" diagram that purports to say only the curves would be straightened and no other changes made. Which "C" is the real "C" and why is there a difference?
The Proposal C alignment that was approved in May 1996 by the City Council is the real C. The City Council modified the County's Proposal C to this alignment at that same council meeting, which incorporated some components of the B2 Proposal for the "dog leg" curve below Avocado Crest.
The City is in the midst of a 6 million dollar road project of most roads in the City. No Environmental Impact Report was required to do this. When you are not changing things, no EIR is needed. If the City does not want a 5-lane highway and/or straightened & widened Hacienda Blvd, why do an EIR?
The City Council has not currently determined that no change will occur. "Change" could include the consideration of a two-lane highway with curve modifications, for example.
The final conclusion of the EIR is substantially determined by the proposition to be studied, the options chosen, the consultant chosen and who is paying the bill. No matter how bad a potential impact, the catch-all solution is to say it has been mitigated to the greatest extent possible. The County has been saying for decades they "need" to widen and straighten the road, claiming pollution reduction, time savings, regional traffic and economic advantage, among other things. City documents claim the road is unsafe and is falling apart. It does not take a rocket scientist to see where the EIR could end up. Can initiating the EIR process send the City down a path where a likely conclusion is what no one wants?
The EIR could determine that certain alternatives are better than others, including the alternative to do nothing. The "conclusion" of what can be done with Hacienda Blvd. may very well be altered based on the information provided by an EIR document. This is a decision-making factor which the Council will need to consider.
If the EIR finds the proposed widening & straightening environmentally o.k. or possibly advantageous, is there a liability danger or increase if the City chooses to keep the road as it is?
The primary function of an EIR is to identify a reasonable range of alternative project designs that could feasibly accomplish the objectives of the project, and to evaluate the environmental consequences of each. Thus, the project description and the range of project alternatives is critical to determining whether and how the EIR can assist the City in determining how best to manage Hacienda Boulevard. Presumably the project goals, to be determined by the City as "lead agency" with respect to the EIR, will include traffic safety as well as other General Plan objectives, such as slowing traffic, reducing noise impacts from roadways, and preserving the City's community design and aesthetic goals. It may therefore be unlikely that an EIR would conclude that the County's proposed widening of Hacienda Boulevard is the only feasible means to accomplish the City's objectives. Further discussion of liability issues appears above.
These next three questions relate to the County's follow through, commitment to their agreements and possible loss of City control over its own future: If traffic flow on Harbor Blvd increases to require 3 lanes in each direction, does the City have to authorize widening it or does the County now control it?
The County has jurisdiction over Harbor ONLY for the purposes of maintenance, not for new construction. Should changes be desired in the future, they would have to be authorized by the City Council.
What is the volume threshold on a roadway like Harbor Blvd for an increase from 4 to 6 lanes?
Per RKA, a four-lane roadway such as Harbor Blvd. is expected to handle 33,800 average vehicles per day.
Under the agreements to install Harbor Blvd, the slopes were supposed to be planted and irrigated by the County. Five plus years later this has still not been done. When will the County fulfill its agreements?
Further research is needed to determine what is required at this site. City staff will continue researching this item.
County documents estimate that of the approximately 14,000 more cars per day that will use a widened/straightened road, "3,000 will be diverted from Colima and 5,000 from Fullerton"(Harbor).
Why would we want, not only a dramatic increase in traffic, but for 60% of the cars to be taken off alternative routes and brought through the heart of the City?
Again, the decision for which proposal (therefore the number of lanes) will be chosen will affect the answer to this question.
102. Recent news articles and statements by City officials have indicated that those officials believe the 1995/96 County proposal "C" to be a two-lane road. County officials have told me, that in order to qualify for funding, the width of a "C" road would have to be increased from the proposed 54 feet wide to 58 feet wide. Four lane proposal B2 is also 58 feet wide. Thus "C" is "two" lanes in name only.
Do City officials realize that proposal "C" is almost identical, short of the Skyline cut, to B2?
The decision as to how many vehicle travel lanes will be formally constructed, regardless of the width, will rest with the City Council.
103. At the May 4, 2000 meeting Caltrans design exceptions were discussed.
a. What are the criteria for a design exception in cases such as ours? Please provide a copy.
b. What is the minimum change, if any, to the current road width and alignment to qualify for a design exception and still be qualified for state funding to repair and improve the existing road?
This is a complex question and information will be provided in response at the Town Hall Meeting on June 29, 2000.
104. City officials are interested in getting some or all of the 4.5 million dollars the County/State has allocated for the first phase of Hacienda. A road contractor familiar with Hacienda, has stated that it may cost less than one million dollars, possibly as little as $750,000, to fix Hacienda in its current alignment. The City has already budgeted $500,000 from the Roads Renovation Project to repair Hacienda.
a. Would it be better/easier/quicker to just go after the additional couple of hundred thousand the City needs for Hacienda directly rather than to indirectly obtain the money from the $4.5 M?
b. What is the financial status of the Road's Project?
c. What will be left for Hacienda after Fullerton Rd is done? ... compared to the originally budgeted amount?
The City has budgeted $309,000 for Hacienda Blvd (1995 Program). These funds are currently still available and targeted for Hacienda Blvd. for repairs. The overall Roads projects are on the budget. Additional funds in the amount of $250,000 should be available for Hacienda Blvd rehabilitation after the Phase III Chip Seal and Fullerton Road.
105. In January 2000 the County offered to turn over the Hacienda Road project, as proposed, to the City for its execution. County documents indicate a substantial sum will be expended for project engineering and oversight. Our current roads project had both design and oversight by RKA Engineering. It is expected RKA would be either in charge of the Hacienda project or a candidate to be in charge.
a. What are the criteria for determining conflict of interest in a case like this? Who determines if a party should "conflict out" of a situation?
b. Might RKA be inclined to favor the widening project over fixing the road in its current width and alignment because of the substantial and significant potential revenue to the company from widening & straightening?
c. Are either or both of our City engineers traffic engineers?
Various regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission recognize that governments often employ contract consultants in lieu of full-time staff. These consultants often are called upon to make recommendations, which, if accepted, could lead to more or less work for their firms. Such recommendations do not constitute "making or participating in a government decision" in which they have "a material, financial interest" provided that those recommendations are subject to "significant intervening substantive review." See 2 Code of California Regulations Section 18702.2(a). Another exemption permits such consultants to negotiate their own compensation with a government agency, a recognition that no one else may practically do so, and that the entity with which they negotiate obviously understands that a consultant speaks for itself and not the public in such negotiations. See 2 Code of California Regulations Section 18702.4(a)(3). As any recommendations RKA may make with respect to the management of Hacienda Boulevard will be subject to review by the City Council, which will make the ultimate decision cognizant of the potential cost of consulting services necessary to implement those recommendations, no legal conflict of interest arises.
Ronald Kranzer of RKA is a registered traffic engineer.
106. At the May 4, 2000 meeting the City engineer stated that STOP signs can only be used to assign right of way and may/would represent a liability to the City if they were used to slow cars down on Hacienda. Contradicting the City Engineer, a recent LA Times article described a new policy in Los Angeles to use STOP signs to slow cars down, rather than just for assigning right of way. I spoke extensively to the traffic engineer/assistant general manager for transportation in Los Angeles who wrote the new policy. He said that using STOP signs to slow traffic down has proven to be quite effective and is used across the country for that purpose. He said that if a City has policies describing how and where the STOP signs will be used, and follows the policy, there is little/no liability. (I have the Los Angeles policy and conversation notes if any of you are interested.)
a. Would the City consider using STOP signs, or other traffic calming techniques, on Hacienda Blvd to slow cars down (as well as divert many) and make it safer for residents if it can be shown that this is being used elsewhere and represents no more liability than any other similar solution?
b. Has the city investigated the effectiveness and liability, if any, of this new use of STOP signs or any other traffic calming techniques?
The new City of Los Angeles' policy on stop signs only apply to low volume streets. Hacienda Blvd does not meet the criteria included in their stop sign policy for streets to be considered.
107. The widening/straightening project will entail moving water lines.
a. Who will pay to move the water lines?
b. If it is the water company, that means we will pay. How much will it cost to move water lines for both Phase one and the whole project?
The answer is determined by who had prior rights (road vs. water lines), which would need to be legally verified to determine who is responsible for relocation costs.
108. The $897,000 to do initial design and environmental review was granted and/or matched by the state and county circa 1987. What are the rules (strings) that come with this money? Please provide a copy of the grant rules and county matching rules.
The rules are included in a 4-inch thick binder, which will be available at the Town Hall meeting.
109. Other than the $150,000 the county has estimated they spent, this money should have been collecting interest over the past 13 years. This interest alone could pay for the amount, over the $500,000 the city already budgeted for phase I, needed to repair and make safe the road in its current width and alignment.
a. What are the rules governing use of accrued interest on unexpended funds?
b. If the current rules are unfavorable to our getting the interest, what were the interest rules in 1987 when the funds were granted?
c. Has anyone investigated getting this interest?
Federal funding is nearly always released on an "entitlement" basis, whereby the funds are expended and reimbursement is then sought. Whatever interest has accrued continues to belong to the original funding agency (i.e., the Feds).
110. Completion of Phase I will leave the City with a four lane to two-lane bottleneck at East road for northbound traffic.
How does the City plan to handle safety and congestion problems associated with the four lanes of high speed traffic dumping into a 2 lane country road in the middle of the City at East Rd?
This question requires an in-depth study beyond the scope of the turn-around in answering these questions, but should this be decided as an alternative by the City Council, it would probably be handled like the current transition in front of the City Hall.
111. What are the Federal, State, and County programs or sources that the City could take advantage of for funding the repair and improvement of Hacienda Blvd in its current width and alignment other than the $4.5 M approved for the widening & straightening?
No current programs other than the Citywide Assessment District, City's General Fund and Gas Tax.
112. Ninety percent, or so, of the vehicles using Hacienda are commuters or through traffic.
What legal obligation, if any, does the City have to expedite and/or increase capacity flow of commuters (at the expense of the property values, safety, and quiet enjoyment of residents)?
The City does not have an obligation to maximize traffic flow on Hacienda Boulevard. It does have the obligation to reasonably exercise its power to manage Hacienda and other city streets and may not take actions that unreasonably burden the area's street system. These points are addressed more fully above.
113. I had the opportunity to review the notices of claims against the city from the past five years. There was only one claim regarding Hacienda Blvd and vehicles. A driver who had never before driven on a wet, windy road lost control of his car and went over the side. This groundless claim was settled for $15,000, plus the city's attorney costs. One (groundless) claim out of approximately 30 million vehicles using the road during this period does not seem to me to be a liability crisis. The statistics suggest that liability concerns should not be grounds to alter the road, yet the county and City officials have mentioned that liability in case of accidents is one of the main reasons for straightening and widening the Hacienda. What statistics can the city and county provide which support the argument that if Hacienda is widened and straightened the City's liability will be reduced in case of accidents?
Although the two cases that the City Attorney has monitored for the City in recent years arising from accidents on Hacienda Boulevard were settled for relatively small amounts, the City's potential exposure in those cases was greater. Accordingly, while the City does not concede that Hacienda Boulevard is unsafe, the City Attorney cautions against reading too much into the amounts of the two most recent settlements.
114. a. Does the City expect to turn control of and/or responsibility for Hacienda Blvd over to the County as part of or in conjunction with this project?
In the past, the City has considered turning responsibility over to the County ONLY for the construction phase of Hacienda Blvd., however, the County has made clear that they would not desire nor request control for improvements to Hacienda Blvd. at this time.
b. If so, please state the reasons for turning the road over and supply documentation to support the reasons including, but not limited to, comparisons to like cities and situations.
See above response.
115. There have been fatalities on other Heights roads.
Are there any other roads that the City feels are a liability risk? ....... and need to be "improved" and/or turned over to the County? If so, please name them and describe the problems.
On the advice of the City Attorney, the City will never publicly identify any roadway in the City that can be made safer. If residents of the City have concerns about the safety of particular roads and intersections, it is recommended they report those conditions to the City so that they can be evaluated.
116. What is the average fatality rate for roads like Hacienda?
Unknown.
117. What is the fatality rate of accidents on Hacienda?
The fatality rate is 1%. Over the last ten years there have been 2 fatalities on Hacienda Blvd. out of 324 reported traffic accidents. The fatalities were from two separate accidents, one at the East Road intersection and one at the Reposado intersection.
118. Approximately 90 percent of the vehicular volume through the city is non-residents. Recent estimates to repair and improve Hacienda in its current width and alignment range from $1 million to $1.5 million. The County should pay its 90 percent share.
a. Does the County have a program or fund for reimbursing cities to maintain city-owned roads that carry significant through and/or commuter traffic?
b. If so, please provide details and county documents describing the program(s) and qualifications.
No, the County does not have a program for reimbursing cities, nor is the City required to reimburse the County for roads traveled by our citizens in unincorporated areas. The County can consider utilizing their funds for roadway improvements (but rarely for maintenance) for regional traffic flow improvements on a case by case basis.
119. An alternative to increasing capacity would be to gate off the City.
a. What would it cost to gate off the City? Please provide details to the extent that the estimate can be supported as realistic.
b. What are the legal, logistical, political, and time issues regarding gating the City off?
As discussed above, the City does not have the power to gate its public streets. It appears that the City did research this item in prior years.
120. When the City declines the County/State project, the City will need to repair the road. In the current economy, with prudent and frugal spending, a fund can be built to accomplish this without "selling the soul" of the City to the County. What steps have Council members and staff taken to ensure that the City budget has no unnecessary or wasteful spending?
The City Council and City staff continue to review the budget for efficient and effective spending.
121. A cursory review of the proposed 2000-01 City budget reveals, at least, $200,000 that could be easily cut to provide for repair of Hacienda Blvd. The cuts range from General Plan update consultant $80,000, Senior Analyst $65,000 to the podium $1,000. What other cuts have been recommended?
City staff is currently reviewing the Proposed FY 2000-01 Budget for additional reductions.
122. A few years ago, a controversy arose regarding using some of the Park land for City offices. It was stated that the Park land was deeded for only specific uses. One third of an acre, much larger that any City office would have been, will be condemned and taken for construction of the highway. Will this condemnation and taking of Park land conflict with the deed and the use of the Park?
While the City cannot devote parkland to non-park uses, it can widen roads adjacent to the park within easements previously mapped for that purpose. The "park" land that is protected from non-park use does not include the easements. Moreover, modest expansion of roadways that provide access to a park would likely be viewed as a "park" use.
123. A few months ago, newspaper articles reported on the State of California frantically calling for Cities to send in applications for transportation related projects in order to spend the huge budget surplus. What transportation projects did our City send in applications for? Hacienda Blvd?
This item was considered, however, the State's quick "call for projects" required that the project provide an element in it which improved mass transit. Hacienda Blvd did not qualify, nor did any other roadway in the City, therefore application was not made.
124. A recent LA Times article reported that the city of Del Mar periodically closes down a main city street, that is a through artery, when traffic is expected to be too high. Drivers then need to seek alternative routes.
a. Has our City investigated closing Hacienda down (to non-residents) when road or utility construction occurs on the road as well as for special events, such as Music In the Park?
b. What are the legal and cost issues, if any, that would prevent this from being done?
The City cannot comment on Del Mar's actions without more information, however, the temporary closure of a street for a parade or block party, or to avoid traffic jams near the site of a major public event, are legally different than the permanent closure of a street in order to divert traffic to other communities. The latter is discussed above, particularly in respect to the Hawaiian Gardens / Long Beach dispute. These comments are also applicable to question number 125 below.
125. A possible cost issue in the previous question is signage that would need to be placed alerting those coming into the City of the road closure. Crimson Oil will shortly (we hope) be installing their pipeline. The City could require, for safety and expediting the project, that Hacienda be closed to through traffic during the project and that Crimson turn over the signs used to the City, which the City could then use for future closings.
a. Has closing the road during Crimson's construction been considered?
b. If so, what are the issues?
c. If not, why not?
The Crimson Oil pipe line as currently proposed is off on the wide east shoulder of Hacienda Blvd. Closing of the street is not necessary. The disruption of closing Hacienda Blvd, the only north/south street through the central portion of the City, just for the sake of closing the street, does not appear warranted at this time. The rerouting of even local traffic to El Travesia, Encanada, Ardsheal and/or Skyline Drive presents a great disruption to those residential areas.
126. A Traffic Engineer could determine a safe flow rate of vehicles on Hacienda that would allow for proper spacing and provide "gaps" for residents to enter and exit side streets and driveways. A meter (red light-green light), similar to those used on freeway on-ramps, could then be placed at the City borders, set to allow the safe flow rate of traffic.
a. What would the cost and effectiveness of such a system be?
b. What, if any, other issues are involved?
This question cannot be answered without conducting a major traffic study, which is far beyond the scope of a timely response for the Town Hall meeting. For the reasons discussed above in prior questions, the City could not "meter" access to its streets merely to serve the convenience of its residents. The only meters the City is aware of are those used with respect to freeways and those are used to enhance traffic flow on the freeway, not to reduce it.
127. Since January 2000, City staff and elected officials have repeatedly stated they did not want to reject the County/State proposal because they needed to be sure that we could not get at least some of the money allocated for the 5 lane highway Residents independently contacting the funding authorities (MTA, CTC), learned (and reported to city staff and elected officials) that, absent minor changes, the project must be completed as originally planned and applied for. If changes are made, funding is lost and a new application must be filed.
With the high importance placed on this project, which council members and city staff have called the funding authorities within the last six months to ask them about the impact of City requested scope changes on funding and what did they find out?
The City Manager has had discussions with MTA staff regarding changing the scope of the funded project within the last six months. Although MTA staff do not feel major changes will be acceptable, it is up to their Board to make final determinations, which could not occur until the City resubmits a new proposal.
128. County documents indicate that the County wants to widen the Hacienda Blvd to expedite the flow of people & goods and reduce congestion. They also state that Hacienda is the only part of Route 39 between the 10 and 5 freeways that is two lanes. A drive from the 10 Freeway via Glendora, Hacienda and Beach roads finds that our Hacienda is the least congested, freest flowing part of the route. If our road is widened drivers will still hit gridlock going through unincorporated LA county in Hacienda Heights and in the City of Industry between Colima and Valley Blvds.
What plans does the County have to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion in that area, as well as on Fullerton Road, north of Colima?
The City did not receive a response from the County for this question in time for the Town Hall meeting.
129. Who will be the lead agency under CEQA for the EIR?
The County has indicated that they would like to turn this entire project over to the City, therefore the City of La Habra Heights would be the lead agency.
130. Would the City allow the County to proceed with the preparation of the EIR if the one lane alternative in each direction (without the potential to widen it to two lanes in each direction) is not the "Project Description"?
See above answer; this will have to be determined by the City Council.
131. How would the City of La Habra, within Orange County, deal with the increased traffic volumes at the Hacienda/Whittier intersection, which is already a poorly designed intersection? Would traffic accident potential increase at that intersection with the added traffic from Hacienda.
The City of La Habra Heights and the City of La Habra would have to pursue these questions together should this project proceed, however it has been previously stated that the County of Orange predicted a traffic flow at that intersection in the year 2020 of 29,100.
132. Recognizing that there may be no mandate to do so, does the 4-lane County proposal fall within the City's Grading Ordinance criteria? This includes the amount of cut and fill area allowed to be graded in relationship to the area that must remain natural and tree removal.
The City's Grading Ordinance primarily deals with the development of residential parcels, not roads. Section 8501 of the City's Municipal Code refers to road development and deals with protecting the values of adjacent property and ensures that the development of streets occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent land.
133. Are there traffic engineering facts and analysis that support the County philosophy that the straightened Hacienda, which will travel at a higher rate of speed, will decrease the number or severity of accidents?
Not in time for this meeting, however, a detailed analysis of old Fullerton Road vs. new Harbor traffic accidents and injuries may be of interest. This analysis could be conducted by the City. In 1998, the Average Accident Rate per million vehicle miles on the new Harbor was 0.37. The current Average Accident Rate per million vehicle miles on Hacienda (based on approximately 10 years of data) is 2.21.