Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2001 0905 CC REG ITEM 10ACt ITEM ®- Crux OF MOOR-PARX, CALIFORNIA City CQuncH Meeting ACTION: Did: s774AF 7�0 t3R IVG MOORPARK CITY COUNC AGENDA REPORT TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: August 24, 2001 (Council Meeting 9 -5 -01) SUBJECT: County of Ventura's Moorpark Road Realignment Project BACKGROUND On June 20, 2001, the City Council approved an appeal filed by the County of Ventura and directed the- issuance of an Encroachment Permit for the work on City streets required by the subject project. Subsequent to that action, there were discussions between the City and the County about the possible re- design of the County's project to prevent or discourage the flow of north -south through traffic between the "new" Moorpark ,Road and Miller Parkway. On August 1, the City Council briefly discussed this possible redesign and asked staff to bring back a report regarding options available for prohibiting north -south through traffic. Staff provided a Memo to the City Council, dated August 7, 2001, which outlined a number of alternative concept plans for the control of traffic through the Miller Parkway intersection. Some of those concepts are discussed again in this report. DISCUSSION A. Alternate `A': Through Traffic 1. County's Initial Design: Plans initially submitted to the City called for modifications to the Miller Parkway / Tierra Rejada Road intersection (hereinafter "New Intersection ") to Mpkrd_010814 00000i Moorpark Road Realignment Project August 24, 2001 Page 2 accommodate the additional fourth leg of the New Intersection. That plan proposed to convert the southbound right turn lane to a "Thru- Right" lane. The City expressed concern about this design approach. 2. Right Turn Lane: In a revised plan (see Exhibit 1) submitted to the City subsequent to the City Council action of June 20, the County shows a revision to the concept plan which adds southbound right -turn lane. If Alternate A is selected, the Encroachment Permit will require these improvements. B. Alternate `B': No North -South Through Traffic 1. County's Suggested Design: If the City Council selects this Alternate, it appears from the analysis performed by staff, that the only feasible design is the one set forth as an attachment in the August 6th letter from the County (Exhibit 5) . That design is discussed in detail in Section C of this report. 2. Background: August I Meeting: At its meeting of August 1, the City Council discussed a possible re- design of the County's project to restrict north -south through traffic through the New Intersection. Staff was directed to work with the County to develop that concept and report back to the City Council on September 5. 3. Left -Turn Movements: The concept discussed on August 1 proposed the restriction of north -south through traffic with no restriction of the four left -turn movements. Also discussed was the desire for placement of physical barriers to the north -south traffic flow. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a diagram which shows the paths of the left -turn movements at the New Intersection. As illustrated by this diagram, any physical barriers to north -south traffic flow, placed in the middle of the intersection, would be in conflict with these left turn movements. 4. Worm: Attached as Exhibit 3 is a diagram which shows the placement of a raised median [or "Worm "] through the New Intersection which prevents north -south through traffic. Although the northbound and southbound left -turn movements are preserved, eastbound and westbound left -turn movements would not be possible. _ M krd010808 P l a Moorpark Road Realignment Project August 24, 2001 Page 3 5. Re- Directed Traffic Flow: Discussed below is an alternative design prepared by the County which prevents the north -south through traffic movement through the use of traffic controls [signing, striping, etc.] only. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a diagram of a design which takes the County's concept and expands it to attempt to re- direct the eastbound and westbound left -turn traffic away from a possible through movement. This concept is the product of an effort to explore every possible option. However, this concept is not recommended for a number of reasons, including: • Unusual design, possibly confusing to the driving public; • Long delays for amber light for east -west traffic, due to the "extra" length of the intersection; • Requires curb -to -curb width (north and south legs) to be increased to twice the current or proposed width; and • Right -of -way and construction costs would be considerable [no cost estimates have been prepared]. 6. Summary: From the above analysis, it does not appear to be feasible to provide a physical barrier to through traffic while maintained all four left -turn movements. The design concepts discussed above are, therefore, not recommended. C. August 6th Letter from the County In a letter (see Exhibit 5) dated August 6, 2001, from Ron Coons, Director of Public Works of the County, Mr. Coons summarizes recent events regarding the subject project and the issuance of a City Encroachment Permit for same. In that letter Mr. Coons expresses the County's preference for a design which would not impede the functionality of the intersection [discussed above as Alternate `A']. But, in response to interest expressed by the City Council, the letter indicates that the County would modify the design to restrict through traffic in a manner consistent with the sketch included with the letter (Exhibit 5). That concept is briefly discussed as follows: 1. Traffic Controls Only: The County's plan would prohibit north - south traffic via traffic controls only [signing, striping, etc.]. 2. Striping: The County's plan shows striping which prevent north -south through movements. Mpkrd_010808 000003 Moorpark Road Realignment Project August 24, 2001 Page 4 3. Signing: The proposed striping would be supported by appropriate signing directing the east and west turning movements and possibly prohibiting through movements. 4. Traffic Signal: The traffic signal modifications at the New Intersection would provide for restricted left -turn phases [GREEN ARROWS] for eastbound and westbound left -turn movements. It should be noted that all phases of the traffic signal operation would have cross traffic which would be in conflict with an illegal north or south through movement. 5. Possible Future Change: It should be noted that should the City Council select Alternate B and there is a subsequent decision to revise the traffic controls to allow north -south through movements, there would be no provisions made for the addition of a southbound right -turn lane. 6. City Engineer Approval: Mr. Coon's letter (Exhibit 5) requests that, should the City Council wish the County to revise the design as shown in the County's sketch, that such direction be signed and sealed by the City Engineer. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Attachments: Exhibit l: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Mpkrd_010808 Left Turn Movements Right -Turn Lane Sketch of "Worm" Island Sketch of Improved Channelization August 6th Letter from the County 56+00 17 3 O tY D REALIGNMENT & MILLER PARKWAY I ALIGNMENT WESTERLY PARKWAY ry 0 0 :2 36" CMWD WATER LINE 8' BIKE LANE EXST 12' PARKWAY 1 4i JOIN EXST C&G 70+51).D 0 lv�gssl -TkON BEGIN F-C=71+09-39 I II EXST 8' SIDEWALK 27' 133' 71+40.00 CL --EDNTRANSITI N 91 9' PARKWAY w 12' 01 112 5' BIKE LAN 7' SIDEWALK I RELOCATE CATCH BASIN TIERRA RA RELOCATE CM WD VAULT 40 PA 72+40.00 co 56+00 17 3 211A"I'� 1_j2 12 X' U00005 O tY D REALIGNMENT & MILLER PARKWAY I ALIGNMENT WESTERLY PARKWAY ry 0 0 :2 211A"I'� 1_j2 12 X' U00005 =M, EXIA� (InT 3 M NoA)r\ C- TI E- R ED%4 Rof\,b N\D UEV-T TURN 000007 August 6, 2001 Steve Kueny, City Manager City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 SUBJECT: Encroachment Permit Moorpark Road at Tierra Rejada Project No. 50221 Dear Mr. Kueny: Deputy Directors of Public Works Wm. Butch Britt Transportation John C. Crowley Water Resources & Engineering Lane B. Holt Central Services Kay Martin Solid Waste Management Jeff Pratt Flood Control At the City Council meeting June 20, 2001, the City Council overturned the City Public Works Director's denial of the County's request for an encroachment permit for improvements to subject intersection. They directed issuance of a permit conditioned to provide a dedicated right turn lane on the northerly leg of the intersection (south bound Miller Parkway). After the meeting I had a brief, conversation with Councilman Millhouse. I explained to Councilman Millhouse that I thought we could provide a median barrier or other configuration, which would restrict north and south bound through traffic onto or from Miller Parkway, but allow all other movements that are currently present on Miller Parkway. I directed my staff to analyze several alternatives and provide those alternatives to the City Public Works Director. However, upon more detailed analysis, my staff determined that the concept of providing a median barrier to restrict north bound and south bound through traffic was impractical. Not only would a median barrier restrict north and south bound through traffic, it would restrict east and west bound left turns. On June 28, Mr. Britt met with Mr. Gilbert and provided an intersection design that provided a dedicated right turn lane, left turn lane and a through lane for south bound Miller Parkway. Mr. Gilbert was advised that we had looked at other configurations including various median barrier configurations, but that we had not submitted these to him as alternatives because they appeared impractical. Mr. Gilbert advised that he felt the design provided to him on June 28, substantially complied with the Council's direction, and that an encroachment permit would be issued within a few days. 000009 Hall of Administration L # 1600 800 S. Victoria Ave, Ventura, CA 93009 • (805) 654 -2018 • FAX (805) 654 -3952 • www.ventura.org /VCPWA Steve Kueny, City Manager City of Moorpark August 6, 2001 Page 2 On July 31, 2001, Mr. Gilbert contacted Mr. Britt by phone. He advised that the encroachment permit was still on hold and that the City Council would consider the concept of a median restriction to restrict north and south bound through traffic at their regular meeting on August 1, 2001. Mr. Britt offered to attend the meeting to respond to any questions from the Council, but reminded Mr. Gilbert that we had not been able to make any configuration with a median restriction work satisfactorily. Mr. Gilbert supposedly commented that he was not surprised, because he had independently reached the same conclusion. On August 1, 2001, your Council directed you to work with the County to further evaluate the proposed intersection. The attached sketch reflects our best attempt to comply with the desire of your Council in restricting through movements from or to Miller Parkway. It does not contain a center median restriction. Although not shown on this sketch, detailed design would include modification to the existing signal for dedicated left and right arrows and appropriate signage. Other enhancements could include placing raised pavement markers or flexible channel delineators in the striped areas. We do not recommend any design, including the one attached, that reduces the functionality of the intersection and, in our opinion, does not adequately meet the expectations of the average motorist. However, we would implement the attached layout if proposed by the City as a requirement of an encroachment permit. Such direction should be signed and sealed by a registered engineer employed by and on behalf of the City. We would be willing to include this work in our upcoming construction contract as a condition of an encroachment permit. We are also willing to meet with you and or your staff to discuss alternate alignments proposed by the City. We suggest that such a meeting be held here at the Government Center to facilitate access to design plans and appropriate staff, if necessary. We have agreed to appear before the City Council on September 5, 2001 to report on our efforts to further evaluate the proposed intersection. Our recommended alignment remains the alignment proposed in our encroachment permit request dated February 6, 2001. This alignment complies with the City Council direction of June 20, 2001. Alternatively, we are willing to include in our construction contract at County expense the alignment provided to Mr. Gilbert on June 28, 2001. We are also willing to include at County expense an alignment consistent with the attached sketch. �tl Steve Kueny, City Manager City of Moorpark August 6, 2001 Page 3 This issue has been ongoing since July 19, 2000 when Mr. Gilbert denied our first encroachment permit. Further delay in issuing an encroachment permit could jeopardize the health and safety of the traveling public by delaying the realignment project. The County has made substantial good faith efforts to resolve the City's concerns. I understand that your Council has strong feelings of opposition to the project, but the project was processed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the objections and concerns of your Council and staff were reviewed and responded to in accordance with CEQA. Should you have any questions please contact me at (805) 654 -2073. Very truly yours, onald C. Coons Director of Public Works RCC- WBB.621:sa Attachment c: Supervisor Judy Mikels Dan Murphy Wm. Butch Britt C COUNTY OF VENTURA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY S 64 PROJECT MOORPARK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ff m INTERSECTION OF TIERRA REJADA do MILLER PARKWAY C a C Q u JOB NO. 50221 DESIGNED AIG CHECKED 1 9 _ �^r- - --- C/ TIERRA REJAD � RC ff� � I SHEET OF DATE 08 -01 -01 DATE U().