12-20-1994 - Traffic Committee Minutes - 01/03/95i
City of West Covina
i
Memorandum
TO: City Manager and City Council
AGENDA
i
FROM: Thomas M. Mayer, Secretary ITEM NO. C 5
DATE January 3, 1995
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Attached are the Minutes of the • Traffic Committee Meeting .held on December 20, 1994.
Thomas M. Mayer, retary
Traffic Committee
TMM:gc
Attachments
I
i
• I
REG'ULA MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC C ITTEE
CITY OF WEST COVINA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1994
2:00 P.M.
POLICE DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM'
i
I
PRESENT: Patrick J. Glover, City Engineer; Commander Ron Gannon, PD; Tom Mayer,
Principal Engineer; Theron Page, Visitor - (Item No. VII) .
I. REOUEST:
i
City Initiated.)
I
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY OF LA PUENTE ROAD
SUMMARY.
The following is a summary of the pertinent items required in the Engineering and
Traffic Survey.
a. Prevailing Speeds (MPH)
Street Segment
Limits i
Critical Approach
Speeds
1994
10 mph
Pace
(MPH)
Existing
Speed
Limit
(MPH)
Recommended
Speed Limit
(MPH)
1990
1994
85%
85%
(mph)
(mph)
=NogalesSentous
45
46
34 to 43
40
45
Sentous - East City' Limit
45
50
39 to 48
45
45
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT, THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE ESTABLISHED
AS SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS:
NOGALES STREET TO SENTOUS AVENUE 45
2. THAT'THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE RETAINED AS SHOWN
BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS:
SENTOUS AVENUE TO EAST CITY LIMIT 45
3. THAT THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE FINDINGS BE FORWARDED TO THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR THEIR
CONCURRENCE.
i
0
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
i
II. REOUEST:
City Initiated.
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC, SURVEY OF BADILLO STREET
j
SUMMARY:
The following is a summary of the pertinent items required in the Engineering and Traffic
Survey.
a. Prevailing Speeds (MPH)
Critical Approach
1994
Existing
Recommended
Street Segment
Speeds
10 mph
Speed
Speed Limit
Limits
Pace
Limit
(MPH)
1989,
1994
(MPH)
(MPH)
85%,
85%
(mph)
(mph)
West City Limit - Sunset
45
46
35 to 44
45
45
Sunset - Vincent
46
48
39 to 48
45
45
Vincent - East City Limit
45
48
38 to 47
45
45
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT THE SPEED LIMIT ON BADILLO STREET BE ESTABLISHED AS
SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS:
WEST CITY LIMIT TO EAST CITY LIMIT 45 MPH
2. THAT THE TRAFFICCOMMITTEE FINDINGS BE FORWARDED TO
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK FOR THEIR CONCURRENCE.
REQUEST:
City Initiated
i
INFORMATIONAL REPORT, ON SPEED HUMPS
SUMMARY:
The City intermittently receives requests for the installation of "Speed Humps" on
residential streets. The California Traffic Manual has not approved the installation of
any form of Speed Humps. ! Irregardless, numerous municipalities have adopted
procedures and guidelines regarding the installation of Speed Humps.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE CITY POLICY BE CONTINUED TO ONLY USE APPROVED
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CITY STREETS.
i
ii
De <Mq"m
Traffic Committee Meeting.
December 20, 19941
I
IV. REQUEST:
City Initiatedi.
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY OF ORANGE AVENUE
4
SUMMARY
i
The following is a summary of the pertinent items required in the Engineering and
Traffic Survey.
i
a. Prevailing Speeds (MPH)
Street Segment
Limits'
Critical Approach
Speeds
1994
10 mph
Pace
(MPH)
Existing
Speed
Limit
(MPH)
Recommended
Speed Limit
(1ViPH)
1990
85%
(mph)
1994
85%
(mph)
Fairgrove - Francisquito *
38
44
33 to 42
35
n/a
Francisquito - Merced
40
42
33 to 42
35
n/a
Merced - Cameron'
38
44
35 to 44
35
n/a
Cameron - northerly to cul-
de -sac
n/a
29
20 to 29
25
25
Garvey. No. - Puente
40
45
35 to 44
40
40
Puente - Badillo '
40
40
32 to 41
40
40
Badillo - San Bernardino
34
38
29 to 38
35
35
* Joint Jurisdiction with Los Angeles County
i
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
i
1. THAT' THE SPEED LIMIT ON ORANGE AVENUE BE RETAINED
BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS:
Badillo Street to San Bernardino Road 35
Cameron Avenue Northerly to Cul-de-sac 25
Garvey Avenue North to Badillo Street 40
2. THAT THE TRAFFIC AND ENGINEERING SURVEY FOR ORANGE
AVENUE BETWEEN FAIRGROVE AVENUE AND CAMERON AVENUE
BE HELD OVER FOR FURTHER STUDY.
i
3. THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUE THE USE OF RADAR
TO ENFORCE THE 25 MPH LIMIT IN THE VARIOUS SCHOOL ZONES.
ON ORANGE AVENUE WHILE SCHOOL CHILDREN ARE PRESENT.
I .
Dec%sum
Traffic Committee Meeting•
December 20, 1994
•
V. - REQUEST:
Mr. and Mrs. Jose A. Nunez, 1339 East Loma Vista .Street, 91790
I
THAT A "NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH"9 "NOT A THROUGH STREET" (W-53)
AND A "CHILDREN PLAYING" OR "WATCH FOR CHILDREN" SIGNS BE
INSTALLED ON LOMA. VISTA STREET EAST OF ASTELL AVENUE.
SUMMARY:
The requirements for the installation of a "Neighborhood Watch" sign have been
completed. The City has in the past installed "Not A Through Street" signs at the
entrances to cul-de-sac streets upon request. Requests for signs reading "Children At
Play", "Watch For Children" or other similar wordings are not uncommon. However,
the California Traffic Manual does not recognize and Federal guidelines discourage the
use of these types of signs.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT A "NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH SIGN" BE INSTALLED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOMA VISTA STREET AND ASTELL
AVENUE.
2. THAT A "NOT A THROUGH STREET" SIGN (W-53) BE INSTALLED ON
LOMA VISTA STREET AT ASTELL AVENUE.
3. THAT THE REQUEST FOR A "CHILDREN PLAYING" SIGN BE
DENIED.
VI. REOUEST:
John Hill, Program Manager, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS
ON BADILLO STREET BETWEEN INTERSTATE 210 AND INTERSTATE 605
BE APPROVED.
SUMMARY:
The project consists primarily of traffic signal modifications at 35 signalized intersections
along Badillo Street. The traffic, signal modifications at these .four intersections include
the installation of traffic signal detector loops. When detector loops are located near
curbs parking must be prohibited.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE REQUEST BE HELD OVER TO ALLOW MORE RESPONSE TIME
TO THE POSTCARD SURVEY.
VII. REOUEST:
i
Ellie Downing, Manager, Heritage Park Senior Apartments,
1800 West Badillo Street, 91790
Theron Page, 1818 West Grovecenter, 91790
THAT PARKING BE PROHIBITED ON ORANGE AVENUE AND BADII,LO
STREET ABUTTING THE HERITAGE PARK SENIOR CITIZENS APARTMENT
COMPLEX.
iv
Dec%sum
•
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
VII. REQUEST: (continued)
lu Qi �3:3`�i
The requests were prompted by complaints that parked vehicles obstruct the vision of
drivers at the three drive approaches to the senior citizens apartment complex and from
the northbound approach of Orange Avenue to Badillo Street. As has been the case with
other requests of this type a scaled drawing was prepared showing the conflicting
vehicles. Staff is conducting a postcard survey.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
THAT ALL THE REQUESTS FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS BE HELD OVER
FOR COMPLETION OF THE POSTCARD SURVEY.
VIII. REQUEST:
Samuel Adams, 1319 Mardina Street, 91791
THAT TIME LIMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS OR RED CURB BE INSTALLED
ABUTTING 1319 MARDINA STREET.
SUMMARY:
The request was prompted by a variety of problems experienced by the resident at 1319
Mardina Street. Complaints associated with heavy parking demand near apartments or
condominiums are not uncommon.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE REQUEST BE DENIED.
IX. REQUEST:
City Initiated.
0
THAT THE GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PARKING
RESTRICTIONS BE REVIEWED.
SUMMARY:
The City may install as much as several hundred feet of various types of parking
restrictions each year. All written requests for traffic control devices within the public
right-of-way are subject to review by the Traffic Committee.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
ALL REQUESTS FOR RED CURB SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE TRAFFIC
COMMITTEE AND A POSTCARD SURVEY BE DONE WITHIN AT LEAST 200
FEET ON THE STREET ON WHICH THE RED CURB IS BEING REQUESTED.
THE INFORMATION FROM THE POSTCARD SURVEY SHALL BE USED IN
CONJUCTION WITH TRAFFIC INVESTIGATONS TO ARRIVE AT A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
X. REQUEST:
Teresita D. Granflor, 1772 Kam Court, 91792
THAT A PROTECTED EAST/WEST LEFT TURN PHASE BE INSTALLED AT
THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OF AMAR ROAD AND SHADOW OAK
DRIVE.
v
Dec%sum
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
X. REQUEST: (continued)
SUMMARY:
This is the intersection of a major
month period between September 21
collision reports at this intersecti(
protected left turn phase is satisfii
movements during the peak hour.
One of the traffic warrants
modification. Meeting one wai
additional information being gi
warrant documentation. Since
the speeds on Amar Road a
Therefore, the traffic signal mi
THAT THE REQUEST
IMPLEMENTATION ACI
XI. REOUEST:
City Initiated.
THAT A "NOT A THROUGH
ENTRANCE TO THE ALLEY
AVENUE.
SUMMARY:
arterial with a residential collector. During the 12
1993 and September 21, 1994 there were 5 left turn
n. The accident warrant for the installation of a
d. Staff has not yet recorded the addition turning
ccidents). is met for installing the left turn
it is sufficient to justify the modification and the
-ated by staff will provide for completion of the
traffic signal modification is justified and since
high, any accidents are of a serious nature.
ication should be done on a priority basis.
APPROVED AND THAT APPROPRIATE
BE TAKEN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
ZEET" SIGN (W-53) BE INSTALLED AT THE
RTH OF STUART AVENUE EAST OF AZUSA
This is a dedicated alley that previously extended to Garvey Avenue South. Because of
the expansion of the auto dealership the alley ends 300 feet to the north of Stuart
Avenue. The installation of a "Not A Through Street" (W-53) sign can increase vehicle
operator awareness.
THAT A "NOT A TH]
ENTRANCE TO. THE
AVENUE.
STREET" SIGN (W-53) BE INSTALLED AT THE
NORTH OF STUART AVENUE EAST OF AZUSA
vi
D=94sum
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 19941
I
I. REOUEST: ,
City Initiated
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY OF LA PUENTE ROAD
The effective' enforcement of posted speed limits with radar on certain streets requires
that an Engineering and Traffic Survey must have been completed within the previous
five years. The majority of drivers comply with the law but disregard regulations which
they consider) unreasonable. A small segment of the population is repeatedly inclined to
be reckless, unreliable, or have faulty judgment and must be controlled by enforcement.
According to � the California State Traffic Manual:
"The speed limit normally should be established at the first five mile per
hour increment below the 85 percentile speed. "
"Speed limits should be established preferably at or near the 85
percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which
85 percent of the traffic is moving. The 85 percentile is often
referred to _ as critical speed. Pace speed is defined as the 10-mile
increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles. "
I
"Section 22358 of the Vehicle Code states that it is the intent of the
Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and
surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to the driver,
in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed
zoning. "
f
FINDINGS:
The following is a summary of the pertinent items required in the Engineering and
Traffic Survey.
a. Prevailing Speeds (MPH)
I
I
Street Segment
Critical Approach
Speeds
1994
10 mph
Existing
Speed
Recommended
Limits (
Pace
Limit
Speed Limit
j
1990.
1994
(MPH)
(MPH)
(MPH)
85%
85%
(mph)
(mph)
Nogales - Sentous
45
46
34 to 43
40
45
Sentous - East City Limit
45
50
39 to 48
45
45
b. Accident Records
I
The following analysis of the accident history for La Puente Road is in accordance
with the procedures outlined in "Guidelines for Uniform Traffic Controls" distributed
by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. County guidelines classify,
as excessive any accident rate that exceeds 1.6 times the County expected rate
determined from the County -wide experience charts. If the'City mid -block accident
rates are in excess of 1.6 times the County expected rate, a 5 mph reduction of the
speed limit may be justified. This is to say that if. the Priority Rating meets or
exceeds 1.6, 'a 5 mph reduction of the speed limit from the critical approach speed
(85 %) may be justified.
Dec%reo 1
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
I.. REOiTEST: (continued)
1. MID -BLOCK ACCIDENT -
County
City
Expected
Accident
Accident
No. of
Rate
Rate
Priority
Limits
Accidents
A/MVM *
A/MVM *
Rating
Nogales - Sentous
0
I 0
1.9
0
Sentous - East City
0
0
1.9
0
Limit
* Denotes accidents per million
vehicle miles.
None of the mid -block accident
2.
are excessive.
County
City
Expected
Accident
Accident
No. of
Rate
Rate
Priority
Cross Street
Accidents
A/MV **
A/MV **
Rating
Nogales
1 I
0.06
0.80
0.08
Sentous
1
0.18
0.62
0.29
Paseo Del Caballo
0
0
0.25
0
Forecastle
1
0.31
0.30
1.03
Whitingham
0
0
0.30
0
Flemington
0I
r 0
0.32
0
** Denotes accidents per
million vehicles entering the intersection.
None of the intersection accident rates are excessive.
C. Physical Conditions
1. Horizontal Alignment - There are two horizontal tangents along these
segments of La Puente Road.
2: Vertical Alignment - The maximum grade is 2.5%.
3. Roadside Friction - There are signalized intersections at.Sentous and Nogales.
There are several driveway approaches between Nogales and the east City limits.
d. There are no conditions that are not readily apparent to the driver.
e. Analysis
The Critical Approach Speeds (85 %) have increased relative to 1990. The established
speed limit between Nogales Street and Sentous Avenue should be increased to 45 mph
to remain in compliance) with the California Traffic Manual.
mare 1 2
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
I. REOUEST: ((continued)
f. Conclusions
The retention of the existing speed limit on La Puente Road between La Puente Road and
the east City limit will still provide reasonable speed limit. However, the segment
betweein, Nogales Street and Sentous Avenue should be increased to 45 mph. This will
also provide a uniform speed limit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT THE SPEED LIMITS ON. LA PUENTE ROAD BE ESTABLISHED AS
SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS:
i
NOGALES I STREET TO SENTOUS AVENUE 1 45
2.
THAT THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE RETAINED AS SHOWN
BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS:
SENTOUS AVENUE TO EAST CITY LIMIT 45
f
3. THAT THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE FINDINGS BE FORWARDED TO THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR THEIR
CONCURRENCE.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE ESTABLISHED AS
SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS:
NOGALES STREET TO SENTOUS AVENUE 45
2. THAT, THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE RETAINED AS SHOWN
BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS:
i
SENTOUS AVENUE TO EAST CITY LIMIT 45
i
3. THAT�THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE FINDINGS BE FORWARDED.TO THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC .WORKS FOR THEIR
CONCURRENCE.
Dec%reo 1 3
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
H. REOUEST:
City initiated.
ENGINEERING AND
INTRODUCTION:
SURVEY OF BADII.LO STREET
The effective enforcement of posted speed limits with radar on certain streets requires
that an Engineering and Traffic Survey must have been completed within the previous
five years. The majority of drivers comply with the law but disregard regulations which
they consider unreasonable. A small segment of the population is repeatedly inclined to
be reckless, unreliable, or have faulty judgment and must be controlled by enforcement.
According to the California State ITraffic Manual:
"Speed limits should be established preferably at or near the 85
percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which
85 .percent of the traffic is moving. The 85 percentile is often
referred to as critical speed. Pace speed is defined as the 10-mile
increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles. "
"Section 22358 of the Vehicle Code states that it is the intent of
the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature,
grade and. surface conditions, or any other condition readily
apparent to the driver, in the absence of other factors, would not
require special downward speed zoning. "
FINDINGS:
The following is a summary of the pertinent items required in the Engineering and
Traffic Survey.
a. Prevailing Speeds
Street Segment
Critical
Speeds
Approach
1994
10' mph
Existing
Speed
Recommended
Speed Limit
Limits
Pace
Limit
1989
1994
(MPH)
(MPI-10
85%
85%
(mph)
(mph)
West City Limit - Sunset
45
46
35 to 44
45
45
Sunset -Vincent
46
48
39 to 48
45
45
Vincent - East City Limit
45
48
38 to 47
45
45
b. Accident Records
The following analysis of the accident history for Badillo Street is in accordance with
the procedures outlined in "Guidelines for Uniform Traffic Controls" distributed by
the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. County guidelines classify as
excessive any accident rate that exceeds 1.6 times the County expected rate
determined from the County -wide experience charts. If the City mid -block accident
rates are in excess of 1.6 times the County.expected rate, a 5 mph reduction of the
speed limit may be justified. This is to say that if the Priority Rating meets or
exceeds 1.6, a 5 mph reduction of the speed limit from the critical approach speed
(85 %) may be justified.
Dec94rep . 1 4
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
H. REQUEST: (continued)
1. MID -BLOCK ACCIDENT - JANUARY 1993 TO DECEMBER 1993
County
City
Expected
Accident
Accident
No. of
Rate
Rate
Priority
Limits
Accidents
A/MVM *
A/MVM *
Rating
Orange - Sunset
1
0.63
1.3
0
Sunset - Vincent
0
0
1.3
0
Vincent - Lark Ellen
0
.0
1.3
1
0
* Denotes accidents per million vehicle miles.
None of the mid -block accident rates are excessive.
2. INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS - JANUARY 1993 TO DECEMBER 1993
County
City
Expected
Accident
Accident
No. of
Rate
Rate
Priority
Cross Street
Accidents
A/MV **
A/W **
Rating
Orange
3
0.46
0.84
0.54
Sunset
12
0.98
0.79
1.24
Vincent
1
0.07
0..81
.0.08
Lark Ellen 7_6
0.48
0.84
0.57
** Denotes accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection.
None of the intersection accident rates are excessive.
c. Physical Conditions
1. Horizontal Alignment - The entire street section from the west
City limits to Lark Ellen is tangent.
2. Vertical Alignment - The maximum grades does not exceed 2
3 Roadside. Friction - This section of Badillo consists mainly of major
'intersections and minimal entry points into Badillo from a service collector
road which.exists between Orange and Vincent on the north side of the
street. There are no minor four-way intersections which exist along this
segment.
d. There are no conditions that are not readily apparent to the driver.
Dec94ren 5
0
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
H.
REQUEST: (continued)
e. Anals:
f.
1.
The Critical Approach Speeds along Badillo Street have increased relative to
1990. However, the Critical Approach Speeds do not exceed 48 mph. None of
the accident rates are excessive relative to the County expected accident rates.
However, according to the West Covina Municipal Code Sections 22-132, the
established speed limit on Badillo Street between the west City limit and the east
City limit is .40 mph. According to the previous Traffic and Engineering Study
dated July 10, 1990, the Traffic Committee recommended that the speed limit be
established at 45 mph. The existing speed limit signs on Badillo Street show 45
mph. In order to remain in compliance with the provisions in the California
Vehicle Code, the West Covina Municipal Code should be revised to show an
established speed limit of 45 mph on Badillo Street from the west City limit to
Lark Ellen Avenue.
Conclusions:
According to the guidelines in the California Traffic Manual, the speed limit
along Badillo Street between the west City limit and Lark Ellen Avenue should
be established at 45 mph.
P RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE SPEED LEWr ON BADILLO STREET BE
ESTABLISHED AS SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING
LIMITS:
WEST CITY LIMIT TO EAST CITY LIMIT 45 MPH
2. THAT THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE FINDINGS BE FORWARDED TO
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK FOR THEIR CONCURRENCE.
1. THAT THE SPEI
ESTABLISHED AS
LIMITS:
LIMIT ON BADILLO STREET BE
'OWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING
WEST CITY LIMIT TO EAST CITY LIMIT
45 MPH
I
2. THAT THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE FINDINGS BE FORWARDED TO
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK FOR THEIR CONCURRENCE.
D=94rep . I 6
M. REQUEST:
City Initiated
INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON SPEED HUMPS
BACKGROUND:
The City intermittently receives requests for the installation of ".Speed Humps" on
residential streets. Speed Humps are asphaltic berms generally 12 feet in length and 3
to 4 inches 'in height. Speed Humps should not be confused with the much shorter speed
bumps. Typical speed bumps which can be seen in many parking facilities, are only 6
to 12 inches in length. The primary difference between a Speed Hump and a Speed
Bump is that because of the less. abrupt change in grade the Speed Hump will cause much
less driver discomfort. Speed Humps will typically span most or all of the travel lanes
to reduce vehicle off tracking. The typical cost for the installation of a single speed
hump is between $600 and $800.
DISCUSSION:
Numerous municipalities have adopted guidelines for the installations of Speed Humps.
However, the California Traffic Manual has not approved the installation of any form of
Speed Humps. Irregardless, numerous municipalities have adopted procedures and
guidelines regarding the installation of Speed Humps. The guidelines vary from City to
City and often have significant differences.
According to the ITE, Traffic Engineering Handbook:
"A study of the use of speed. humps recommended that the
pavement undulations should be used only under the following
conditions:
1. The street serves a purely local access function.
2. There is no more than one lane per direction.
3. The street is not a transit or truck route.
4. The street is not zoned above 25 mph.
5. The 85th percentile speed exceeds 30 mph.
6. There is evidence of a speed -related accident problem.
Undulations should. be located no. less than 200 ft. from an
intersection or sharp horizontal curve, and each undulation should
be visible for at least 200 ft. Standard warning signs (e.g., Sign
W8 in the MUTCD) should be used. The use of pavement stripes
has also been suggested, but these might give the appearance of
crosswalks, which could mislead motorists.
The following is an excerpt from Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering:
"b. Application. Humps should be usedonly under the
following conditions:
(1) The street serves a purely local access
function.
(2) There is no more than one lane per
direction.
(3) The street is not a transit or truck route.
(4) The location is not near a fire or police
station or a hospital.
(5) The street is not zoned above 25 mph.
(6) the 85th percentile speed exceeds 30 mph.
Dec94rep 7
Traffic Committee Meeting•
December 20, 1994
0
III. REQUEST: (continued)
(7) There is i
problem.
of a speed -related accident
C. Design and Location of Humps. Since residential area
speed limits are 25 mph, the 4" hump may be unduly
restrictive, and a height of 3-1/2", 3", or even 2-5/8" may.
be most appropriate. The profile in the plane along the
centerline is circular with a base length of 12 ft. Australia
also uses a flat-topped hump, often with a brick finish, up
to 40 ft.. long with ramps sloping at 7-2 % to connect it with
the normal roadway surface. Speed hump design should
also take into consideration street drainage and the potential
need to provide for bicycle traffic.
Spacing between successive humps is in the general
range of 300-800 ft. Ref. 7 gives formulae for this
spacing as a function of desirable speed and height
of humps; however, spacing will depend primarily
on finding suitable locations for . each hump.
Humps should not be located within severe
horizontal or vertical curves, where minimum
stopping sight distances are inadequate, or opposite
driveways or fire hydrants. - No hump should be
less than 200 ft. from an intersection. "
The City of Pasadena has adopted some of the guidelines shown above. However, some
cities have added certain requirements regarding minimum . traffic volumes and
submission of petitions that often require a minimum of 65 % to 75 % of the residents
approving of the installation of speed humps.
The City of Pasadena has installed 335 speed humps on 86 street segments. Attached is
a summary of a Pasadena staff report on Speed Humps. The full report. is on file in the
Engineering Department. Pasadena's residential streets typically have relatively long
tangents. Drivers are more likely to use residential streets with long tangents as alternate
routes to avoid congestion on arterial and collector streets.
It is not usual to have both a reduction of vehicle speeds and average daily traffic volume
after the installation of speed humps. Some of the problems experienced after the
installation of Speed Humps are 'inhibiting; street sweeping, emergency vehicle response
time, street reconstruction and utility excavations.
The attached drawing shows a typical Speed Hump installation and denotes some of the
typical parameters.
ANALYSIS:
The California Traffic Manual does not comment on Speed Humps. It is highly unlikely
that Speed Humps, which its proponents describe as a roadway feature will ever be
approved by Cal Trans. As is the case with the City of Pasadena's guidelines for Speed
Hump installation most authoritative documentation will explain that Speed Humps are
an experimental roadway feature. The installation of any .traffic control device or
roadway feature not specifically shown in the California Traffic Manual can increase
liability exposure. There are a myriad of possible accident scenarios that could easily
result in litigation. Any conditioIn that causes a driver to decelerate will increase the
probability of rearend collisions. Vehicles involved in rearend collisions can be deflected
off the traveled way and collide with parked vehicles or run -off -the -road endangering
pedestrians. Speed Humps may also cause some drivers to swerve toward the gutterline
Dec94rep
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
M. , REQUEST: (continued)
(known as off -tracking) to reduce discomfort. Vehicles with smaller wheel radii such as
motorcycles, bicycles and scooters may loose control. Dare devil drivers may increase
speed for thrills. Passengers in the rear of pick-up trucks may be thrown from the truck
beds. When speed humps are installed there have been reductions of the average speeds
and daily traffic. However, making these residential streets less attractive to drivers may
only divert traffic to other nearby streets. Complaints of noise from vehicle suspension
systems and constant braking or acceleration are not uncommon.
CONCLUSION:
The inclusion of the term experimental in reference to Speed Humps would seem to
imply that the ultimate effects of these traffic control devices are as yet unproven. All
the problems associated with Speed Bumps; noise, accidents, off tracking and inhibiting
emergency vehicle response time are also likely to be experienced with Speed Humps but
probably to some lessor degree. The installation of any traffic control device not in
conformance with the provisions and guidelines in the California Traffic Manual can
increase liability exposure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE CITY POLICY BE CONTINUED TO ONLY USE .APPROVED
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CITY STREETS.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE CITY POLICY BE CONTINUED TO ONLY USE APPROVED
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CITY STREETS.
DeMrm 9
i
i
•
•
� j
i
1
l0
w
i
i
.
i
TYPIC�AL SPEED HUMI',
I. .ONLY RESIDENTIAL STREETS MAY HAVE SPEED HUMPS (SPEED HUMPS
SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED -ON RESIDENTIAL COLLECTORS)
2. MAXIMUM STREET WIDTH IS 40 FEET
3. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC SHALL BE FROM 500-TO 3000 ADT
4. MINIMUM DISTANCE TO NEAREST INTERSECTION SHALL BE 200 FEET
5. SPEED HUMPS SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 300 FEET
TO A MAXIMUM OF 800 FEET ON CENTER
8. SPEED HUMPS SHALL BE LOCATED PROXIMATE TO STREET LIGHTS IF POSSIBLE
7. LOCATE SPEED HUMPS AT PROPERTY LINE IF POSSIBLE
8. LOCATE SPEED HUMPS A MINIMUM OF 5' FROM ANY DRIVEWAY APPROACHES
9. SPEED HUMPS SHALL NOT CONFLICT WITH UTILITY VALVES OR MANHOLES
200' MINIMUM 300' MINI NUM
I I r1l.AL JrJ CL ri V 1VIrD
INSTALLATION
J
z
0
U)
•W
m
z
0
W
m
r
m
W
a
0
i
.12" REFLECTIVE WHITE-
MEN
_LTY P
_R
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
�EXISTIMG:: GUTTE
-,
LCORB
CURB.. _ 'a' MA 12u TAP..ER
I_vmms)".. .. A.C. STANDARD
:: _ .. WARNING FLAGS
.FACE—
318 MIX
02-AR-4000
30" X 36, W37R
5:(o%ASPHALT
WARMING SIGN
TACK COAT ° BINDER
BUMPS
BLACK
YELL W ...
SECTION A
6"sER)Eslf
— I ISTALLATION [7 TAI 9. -
I) SPEED HUMPS SHALL NOT BE PLACED OVER MANHOLES,
WATERGATES; JUNCTION CHAMBERS, ETC;
2) EDGE OF SPEED HUMP SI-IALL.BE 5 FEET MINIMUM
_
i� ;= . - �� (�5) S IGN
FROM EDGE OF DRIVEWAY...........
WHENEVER POSSIBLE SPEED HUMPS -SHALL BE..._
MPH
PLACED AT PROPERTY LINES INSTEAD OF MID -LOT.
4) WHENEVER. POSSIBLE SPEED HUMPS SHALL BE. PLACED
SIGN LOCATIONS: iaS.
ADJACENT TO STREET LIGHTS. • '
DIRECTED BY En;GINEER.
, ..
- N
�►._..�I�
r i 4 i
SECTION BE
TYvf_
T 4 f ��'4 I• 4 4 4� � �.
CITY OF PASADENA - PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. - TRAFFIC DIVISION
DRAWN: S:FABBRO. _-____.._ ._..__
u SCALE: �A
STANDARD 3
CHECKED: NN-14MLIER-._-:: -- - DRAWING NO.
SPEED:HUMP .
APPROVED' -454
9b
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
I � .
I
Agenda Report
J I
i
I,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
City Manager
Date: April 25, 1991
Evaulation of the Speed Hump Program and
Recommendations for Program Modification
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that:
1. The Speed -Hump Program be continued in the City of Pasadena.
2. The Board of Directors authorize staff to prepare modifications
to the existing Speed Hump Program Policies and Procedures.
These modifications should reflect the following:
A. A technical analysis be made to determine the expected
environmental impact, of a proposed speed hump installation
prior to the approval of such an installation.
B. The appeal process be modified to reflect the above
recommended modifications to the Policies and Procedures.
C. A procedure for removal of existing speed humps be
developed to allow the residents and the City to remove
speed humps that are; no longer required or necessary.
BACKGROUND:
On November 21, 1989, the Board asked staff to suspend the annual
speed hump program until the effects of the program (then in its
sixth year) is evaluated. Stuff has conducted a study to determine
the effectiveness of speed humps and their impacts on traffic
operations and on other City functions.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 • I • 6 : 3 0 PM
Board of Dir
ors -2- April 25, 1991
The main issue that brought this matter before the Board was the
sudden increase in requests for speed humps by the residents.
To date, there are 335 speed humps on 86 street segments throughout
the City. The 11ocation of the existing speed -hump streets is shown
on the attached map (Attachment 1). Thirty-five of the 86 street
segments (1:37 humps, 41% of total) were approved for installation
during the sixth year of the program alone. Currently there are
150 inquiries regarding requests for speed humps representing 85
street segments pending staff evaluation.
THE STUDY:
Issues addressed in the speed hump study were the following:
1. Do speed humps actually reduce speeds?
2. Do they divert traffic to other streets?
3. Are they popular with the public?
4. Impacts of speed humps on emergency services (police and
Fire) ,
5. Impacts on the street sweeping program
6. Impacts on the cost of the existing street resurfacing
program, and
7. The potential for proliferation of speed humps on other
City streets.
The results of �the.survey conducted on the speed hump program are
tabulated and presented in a separate report. See Attachment 2.
CONCLUSIONS:
The study has shown that speed humps have significant impact on
traffic. They are effective in reducing speeds, but the impacts on
other traffic operations, such as diversion, vary by location.
Response from various City services indicates that Fire Department
operation is most effected by the speed hump program.
9d
•
Board of Directors
-3-
April 25, 1991
Since speed hump installations have varying impacts on the adjacent
neighborhood, depending on the specific traffic conditions of each
location, it is recommended that the existing procedures in
determining the eligibility of a street for speed humps be modified
to: I
1'. Require a case -by -case technical analysis of each speed hump
request to determine the level of impact a speed hump
installation could have'on'the requested street and the
surrounding neighborhood.,
2. Deny a speed hump request if it is determined that the
installation of speed humps on a particular street would
result in a significant impact to the surrounding neighborhood
as determined by the'City.
3. Require that when a speed hump request is denied by the City
and the.applicant wishes to appeal, the appeal may only be
accepted when it is substantiated by a technical report
prepared bya, qualifiedlauthority.
4. There are no procedures established for the removal of existing
speed humps in the City.; Since there are 335 speed humps
already in place, procedures for removal of such speed humps
should be developed should removal of a particular speed hump
be determined necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT
The current speed hump program would allow the installation of
speed humps on the remaining 150 miles of local residential
streets. In addition to severe traffic problems, this could result
in the installation of additional 2650 speed humps, at an estimated
cost of $2,240,000. Currently $30,000 is budgeted annually for
this project.
If. the Board of Directors ;chooses to continue the Speed Hump
Program, then additional appropriations will need to be made in the
future as part of the Capital Improvement Program budget.
� qd
Resp O; u11y�,S itt
ILI A. HA
j Cit anager
i
I
•
Board of Directors
Prepared by:
c;.,,,� zt, - Xc/t.�-
SEROP D -BOGHqSSCIAN
TrahsportatiorY Manager
and.Traffic Engineer
Approved by:
C HIA J KURTZ DLrector
lic W ks and Transportation
Concurrence:
MARY J . �RADLEY (J
Finance Director/
'IL/Gu 9 a!G a"e l--
,f4V, V I CTO J1.V KALETA
City A orney.
-4- April 25, 1991
La
D V. E F v v
Xi I
> P-1
S' t Fi is j
/5
NEW rC4< DR
7.,
V— .1
'fl
r
I
•
V . , -44
•L-i jr.:(L t
w . it i.-
r
_j .
da A.,
z i —Lis 1 7-
w
L, •i SIERRA MAORE ek 1D/
J c
f 3.16f rROVE MID .3
' ull W
—a Do __v_ I 1 it
. _111 -1.
_r7- j- L
.. ....... ..
If
f
T-1
U, cat 1. / 1i f OTHILL BLVD
1�1 ..
ST WAU FMT)' L
W4(
...............
if
c c 0 L%
-L L it j . ..... 1
! .
•
fl 1.
r2_,!
it I'd
c I FLIU1
1 1 PASOUAL Tf
V, h 4� CAI BLVD
fill
V
. itai % R
Z"
GIV
_\X
SPEED HUMP PROGRAM — AGENDA REPORT APRIL 1991
CITY OF PASADENA
r
E)(ISTINrq SPEED HUMP 57afe75
AS of 4191
E F G H
ATTACHMENTI
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
IV. REOUEST:
City initiated.
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY OF ORANGE AVENUE
INTRODUCTION:
The effective enforcement of posted speed limits with radar on certain streets requires
that an Engineering and Traffic Survey must have been completed within the previous
five years. The majority of drivers comply with the law but disregard regulations which
they consider unreasonable. A small segment of the population is repeatedly inclined to
be reckless, unreliable, or have faulty judgment and must be controlled by enforcement.
According to the California State Traffic Manual:
"Speed limits should be established preferably at or near the 85
percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which
85 percent of the traffic is moving. The 85 percentile is often
referred to as critical speed. Pace speed is defined as the 10-mile
increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles."
"Section 22358 of the Vehicle Code states that it is the intent of the
Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature,, grade and
surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to the driver,
in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed
zoning. "
FINDINGS:
The following is a summary of the pertinent items required in the Engineering and
Traffic Survey.
a. Prevailing Speeds (MPH)
Street Segment
Limits
Critical Approach
Speeds
1994.
10 mph
Pace
(MPH)
Existing .
Speed
Limit
(MPM
Recommended
Speed Limit
(M[PH)
1990
85%
(mph)
1994
85%
(mph)
Fairgrove - Francisquito *
38
44
33 to 42
35
n/a
Francisquito - Merced
40
42
33 to 42
35.
n/a
Merced - Cameron
38
44
35 to 44
35
n/a
Cameron - northerly to cul-
de -sac
n/a
29
20 to 29
25
25
Garvey No. - Puente
.40
45
35 to 44
40
40
Puente - Badillo
40
40
32 to 41
40
40
Badillo - San Bernardino
34
38
29 to 38
35
35
* Joint Jurisdiction with Los Angeles County
Dec94rep 10
Traffic Committee Meeting• •
.December 20, 1994
IV. REQUEST: (continued)
b. Accident Records
The following analysisof the accident history for Orange Avenue is in accordance with. the
procedures outlined in "Guidelines
Guidelines for Uniform Traffic Controls" distributed by the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works. County guidelines classify as excessive any accident rate that
exceeds 1.6 times the County expected rate determined from the County -wide experience charts.
If the City mid -block accident rates are in excess of 1.6 times the County expected rate, a 5 mph
reduction of the speed limit may be justified. This is to say that if the Priority Rating meets. or
exceeds 1.6, a 5 mph reduction of the speed limit from the critical approach speed (85 %) may be
justified.
1. MID -BLOCK ACCIDENT -
I
County
City
Expected
Accident
Accident
No.
of
Rate
Rate
Priority
Limits.,
Accidents
A/MVM *
A/MVM *
Rating
Fairgrove - Francisquito
1
0.83
2.5
0.33
Francisquito - Merced
01
0 .
2.5
0
Merced - Cameron
01
0
2.5
0
Cameron - northerly to cul-
0
0
2.5
0
de -sac
Garvey No. -.Puente
1
0.93
2.5
0.37
Puente -Badillo
01
0
2.5
0
Badillo - San Bernardino
01
0
2.5
0
None of the mid -block accident rates are excessive.
2. INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS -
County
City
Expected
Accident
Accident
No.
of
Rate
Rate
Priority
Cross Street
Accidents
A/MV **
A/MV **
Rating
Fairgrove
0�
0.00
0.37
0
Francisquito
3
0.28
0.79
0.35
Merced
3
0.41
0.82
0.50
Cameron
5
0.57
1.11
0.51
Garvey No.
1
0.15
0.24
0.63
Puente
21
0.36
0.29
1.24
Badillo
3
0.46
0.83
0.55
San Bernardino Road
1
0.12
0.86
0.14
* Denotes accidents per million
vehicle miles.
** Denotes accidents per million
vehicles entering the intersection.
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
I
I
IV. REQUEST: (continued)
C. Phvsical Conditions
j
1. lHorizontal Alignment - Essentially tangent throughout its more than
three-mile length and terminates into a cul-de-sac at the southerly side of
the I-10 freeway.
I
2. !Vertical Alignment - The maximum vertical grade along the streets
I profile is approximately 2
3. Roadside Friction - Most of the area served by Orange Avenue is residential
j with many private driveway openings.
A) Openings - There are twenty-nine (29) side street "T" type intersections,
four (4) two-way stops, three (3) multi -way stops, and four (4) signalized
intersections.
j B) On Orange Avenue, approximately 88 % of the east parkway has sidewalks
and the remainder is. traversable for pedestrians. The west side has
sidewalks over approximately 70% with most parkways traversable by
pedestrians.
j
C) There are school crossings on Orange Avenue at Puente Avenue (a four-
way stop) and at Eldred Avenue for the elementary students attending
Monte Vista School.
I
d. There are no conditions that are not readily apparent to the driver.
e. Analysis
The Critical Approach Speeds (85 % percentile speeds) have increased relative to 1990
along most segments of Orange Avenue between Fairgrove Avenue and San Bernardino
Roads. None of the mid -block nor intersection accident rates is excessive. None of the
Critical Approach Speeds exceeds 45 mph. However, the Critical Approach Speeds
between Fairgrove and Cameron Avenue exceed the established speed limit by more than
5 mph.
f. Conclusions:
According to the guidelines in the California Traffic Manual, the speed limits along
Orange Avenue, between Fairgrove Avenue and Cameron Avenue, should be increased
to 40 mph. The speed limits on Orange Avenue between Cameron Avenue and San
Bernardino Road are within the guidelines set forth in the California Traffic Manuals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
I
1. THAT THE SPEED LIMIT ON ORANGE AVENUE BE RETAINED BETWEEN
THE FOLLOWING LIMITS:
i
Badillo Street to San Bernardino Road 35
j Cameron Avenue Northerly to Cul-de-sac 25
Garvey Avenue North to Badillo Street 40
2. THAT THE TRAFFIC AND ENGINEERING SURVEY FOR ORANGE AVENUE
BETWEEN FAIRGROVE AVENUE AND CAMERON AVENUE BE HELD OVER
FOR FURTHER STUDY.
I
DecNmp 12
Traffic Committee Meeting •
December 20, 1994
IV. REQUEST: (continued)
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT THE SPEED LIMIT ON ORANGE AVENUE BE RETAINED BETWEEN
THE FOLLOWING LIMITS:
Badillo Street to San Bernardino Road 35
Cameron Avenue Northerly to Cul-de-sac 25
i
Garvey Avenue North to Badillo Street 40
2. THAT THE TRAFFIC AND ENGINEERING SURVEY FOR ORANGE AVENUE
BETWEEN FAIRGROVE AVENUE AND CAMERON AVENUE BE HELD .OVER
FOR FURTHER STUDY.
3. THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUE THE USE OF RADAR TO
ENFORCE THE 25 MPH LIMIT IN THE VARIOUS SCHOOL ZONES ON
ORANGE AVENUE WHILE SCHOOL CHILDREN ARE PRESENT.
Dec94rep .13
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
V. REOUEST:
Mr. and Mrs.
THAT A
"CHILD:
LOMA I
FINDINGS:
The 1300 blc
of Loma Vi,.
from Astell .
Jose A. Nunez, 1339 East Loma Vista Street, 91790
[GHBORHOOD WATCH", "NOT A THROUGH STREET" (W-53) AND A
PLAYING" OR "WATCH FOR CHILDREN" SIGNS BE INSTALLED ON
k STREET EAST OF ASTELL AVENUE.
of Loma Vista Street is a residential street ending in a cul-de-sac. - This segment
Street is 32 feet in width curb to curb and is approximately 400 feet in length
enue west to the cul-de-sac.
A Neighborhood Watch presentation was held on November 5, 1994 for the residents on the
1300 block of Loma Vista Street. The requirements for the installation of a "Neighborhood
Watch" sign have been completed.
The City has in the past installed "Not A Through Street" signs at the entrances to cul-de-sac
streets upon request. There is no evidence that such signs can do harm and they can provide
notice to do ers unfamiliar with the immediate neighborhood.
Request for signs reading "Children At Play", "Watch For Children" or other similar wordings
are not uncommon. The California Traffic Manual does not recognize and Federal guidelines
discourage the use of these types of signs. The primary reason. that these signs are not .used is
that they may encourage juveniles to play within the public right-of-way. Attached is a brief
informational report regarding these types of signs.
1: THAT A "NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH SIGN" BE INSTALLED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOMA VISTA STREET AND ASTELL AVENUE.
2. THAT A "NOT A THROUGH STREET" SIGN (W-53) BE INSTALLED ON LOMA
VISTA STREET AT ASTELL AVENUE.
3.
1.
2.
3.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR A "CHILDREN PLAYING" SIGN BE DENIED.
THAT A "NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH SIGN" BE INSTALLED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOMA VISTA STREET AND ASTELL AVENUE.
THAT A "NOT A THROUGH STREET" SIGN (W-53) BE INSTALLED ON LOMA
VISTA STREET . AT ASTELL AVENUE.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR A "CHILDREN PLAYING" SIGN BE DENIED.
Dec%rep 14
13 3Z
L3
T
S72
R3, A
ry,
casa
N
v19
"
Aft
C24T
_`
o
151
16 �
17•p " 18
i40
.041
n
N
N
26
1
LS
9 7
tT 1
20
14 r^
13 N
It u
N
•,d
N
� 11
- —•—�.1
N 10
2N
3w
4V
S
6N
Tn;
8q' N9
C�
I.
5-6
g
mw
1C1
rt i
Z3 N
24a
ss N
ss « 27 a
-
o
c
0 42 ro
4,7
J .
R O W L- .
m c
P+
o •
P/avE�
vD
SCHOOL
�`
a
ZIAY 'I
28 a — — - --- ✓ a RI
7 S P I" 46 �sy
i * P P a o J.
39 40 4/ /Z Jwi 4.4
q JS 36 37.. 3a 39 40 4/ 43 2
�' , .3c, 36� "34 " 3 :l 212 , s•9 ` 60
04 � 33 d2 3/ � : t3Op1 �,� � 3 � � a51 � � � � 1 � s .a '. '� ` 47 � y
,1; �.. T \ F v �� nd P .T 9s �o )o sae ti 10,
3/ •A27
i' y y a:)e p•. �y N M/IRB09" BURY S7 TQ .
r STREET 4� r'
• .. ,rf . tip ti� a.sa , +. !(•
S • 3 a 8 .,44?2d v 9 24 ° 2S 21i i 2� 2.4 *'29 `9p 41
_o AVA"4
7.07
s �a S 2 414 6 Ll--3
as l ♦'JG 3 a} / (e • S[iv sr
i $ 27 22 2/ 20 /� /9 /7 .» Orr M pti/4Oro /9 26 7% • %v
1p ,aS eo4 as THELBOR THEL.90R "i • • �3
,3 4e., � 20 • 26 � e i,• a srt�F��`"�
07
n I.
"fc� 400 2/ • I $ ' 4.uL t35
% 36y.0 ip/3' /I a � /s /s3S4 y a \ n '517s,is4 2c °e3 seee THiLe
^ R , C z , s�
+4! by ^�B oS U . w vD
d2 2/ Zs � Jew
4 aW /S _ N . 5 °s �t y5 y 270
ST E P
2• 3jB ' `6 .°.aJ 4 YYI•It0 f4 �. .47•
f3+ a is 2S 329 5 24 23 d 2/ 2p /.D /B �a.a
Y
I /4 /9 6 63 20
ors '''
+cs AS 27 5 0 26� 2 2B dp 30� ; 3/g 92 9 52 a+r 7a'
as! e s ✓aa ` _p VSR/VI
Ar—
/i /7 ..,•.� of .ri7 +,,+ + ,O
4 a YEQNESd NEU. � ' S
4 p.d' iu •r' �.! r� +j I • j' d • ' _ t S/
—✓E/T/VLSS oSTYPEET--'' J3 •',�� .r 7c .• 34 r
I J""~ +r o s..w a• 3/49 C 3 vl �� •40\ \ r' I `\ 3S0 ' ~w //O 1 /2
/6.. I. 3S ra
2 ss .1 J2 d/ • �.tO, �. 3n' �. n ax It i Q 71'
\ >+�
' e«. o 4,�43 44 ••/6 i' ) «/ Pm LOT • f / 2
o- rz u' M AMC •� DLK. Is 1 i�
6 v. �� r�KIP4 a'o/ = C 0 •o
o \ �/rRACT \ 4B •bb I c o '�
1n„ •• — ----.-
10
—Ai�E— —_ f ry ec n s� sr c. rov w w nt7
4 :t e e T G T N
zu G(oJ ao]' .3 • 0 (su �y `! ' ,p a � Q^ scar
1 G•'g ,�, '' � ' 4 h �/ 3 S2 �Sn 4\ 36 2 °; 3 ? 2• : 1M7jj
ad p �7' • �
14a C •% 2 -
: ( „? 5
.9 58 57, / � % �• B ` 6' a _I 9�\1�:' - �/3 �\/t� ti4 S'42 ` ♦M ^ / A
•v
TRAFFIC
INFORMATION
PROGRAM
S ERIES
WHY WON? THEY PUT UP "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGNS?
An often heard; neighborhood request concerns the posting of generalized warning signs
with "SLOW -CHILDREN AT PLAY" or other similar messages. Parental concern for the
safety of children in the street near home, and a misplaced but wide -spread public faith
in traffic signs to provide protection often prompt these requests.
Although some other states have posted such signs widely in residential areas, no factual
evidence has been presented to document their success in reducing pedestrian accidents,
operating speeds or legal liability. Studies have shown that many types of signs
attempting to warn- of normal conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve. the
desired safety benefits. If signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an
added degree of protection, which the signs do not and cannot provide, a great disservice
results.
Because of these serious considerations, California law does not recognize, and Federal
Standards discourage, use of "Children at Play" signs. Specific warnings for schools,
playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where clearly
justified.
Children should not be encouraged to play within the street travelways. The sign has
long been rejected since it is a direct and open suggestion that this behavior is acceptable.
i .•
Q,
h I lal�
�t Play
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
•
VI. REQUEST:
John Hill, Program Manager,
THAT THE PRELIMINARY
BADILLO STREET BETW
APPROVED
FINDINGS:
Angeles County Department of Public Works
1S FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS ON
INTERSTATE 210 AND INTERSTATE 605 BE
The project consists primarily of traffic signal modifications at 35 signalized intersections along
Badillo Street. Four of the intersections are at least partially under West Covina jurisdiction.
The four intersections are at Lark Ellen Avenue, Vincent Avenue, Sunset Avenue and Orange
Avenue. The traffic signal modifications at these four intersections include the installation of
traffic signal detector loops. Detector loops are copper wires installed in the pavement in travel
lanes. They.are used to detect the presence of vehicles in a particular travel lane. Some of the
detector loops will be installed in curb side travel lanes. When detector loops are located near
curbs parking must be prohibited. The installation of red curb is the most expeditious means
of installing short segments of prohibited parking. There are several relatively short segments
of red curb shown on the preliminary plans. These segments vary from 10 to 25 feet in length.
Staff has attached excerpts from the Los Angeles County plans showing the proposed red curb.
Staff is conducting a P ostcard survey of the residences and property owners abutting the
proposed red curb. The letters were certified to ensure delivery. No response has as yet been
received.
THAT THE REQUEST BE
THE POSTCARD SURVEY.
THAT THE REQUEST BE
THE POSTCARD SURVEY.
J
OVER TO ALLOW MORE RESPONSE TIME TO
OVER TO ALLOW MORE RESPONSE TIME TO
uT —f— zs .76'
- w
. UUP jb. s
t
J N
J t s.r• =v ,B. K. 6
z v 307 e65
e PP XOJL
rob.gt• a
PP 391 n
. vi w
PP544 ZV S64 ray y
' PP 460 P
z 1
3 TRACT .�
14
• sy
— - I —BAD/LLO— -- - -- ---- -- --------- --- -
•. ti
� ;a -
fECENTER
RAcr
77s
.22729 i
B. G09 -95
.H00L u
/67
• - k i.:.. n. e• .,)u• i2i of as :• .o ,. .� o . �. + '.(v�
747 I( 4 »s/ 1 'w R 3 u 9 9 i. /O
n o ��. + ". ,n :.�•..r -_-�� e 7a.+ p, ,5.. % ll\ /6 P4
6 h 7 g 9 9 " ' x ' LOUISA -AVE k // v /0 0� ,a 7„ . _V r1
,� 747 t 14,1 �... ^ JO! •'+. qIt `� ,o ��a n'r� _ "�'�.' +.,�
U/SA AVENUE �— 7 ��;; t f c 7 I�% t %/N /4S
o.
it
, J
1.15
Q .. :.. Z
.y` ,� 6 12 to �t 14 20
_V
RAW
_
<1
5
RCI_ND _COPS (6' D'AME _�i
I ..0
W
U
U
_x. 393
J
z_
v
PP# GT73767
u
` 00
r
F_
W --
Futility vault
i I.
INSTALL NEW PB IN SAME ABANDON Ex " . iFire
gn
L OC ATIOII AS EXISTING I -works siGn
# and sns -
Ex. "City of west Covina"
sign and R36(3 tons)
# INSTALL NEW P8 W SAME
2"C ILOCATION AS EXISTING G66-`
s16b
utility vault O # # # - " vauI
utility
IP--ABANDON-------
I%J$TALc
Ex. yel. cw; _
b—I_ _ _ -._—INS TACC -k34—
REMOVE & SALVAGE! Ex. oIN 22 REMOVE & SALVAGE EX.
3-8"(R,Y.G) & INSTALL
E\� 1-12"(R) 2-8 (YG) & 1
INSTALL 3-12"(R.Y.G) i 3-12'(R,Y.G)
_�SJv: _orJcltC'IHG �gai�c:NC_ ` f �.v.:rJIL K� --------------- ---- ---
---- I •1.
ABANDON
SPLICE TO Ex. OLC' (1) ��"
INSTALL R10A I O INSTALL TYPEs.fi I Ex. yet. cw '.I Y ---_ - -----'----------------------
4— -WX
(6J2U) - -- -- --- -
--- — --
-- - (6J2L) 6'■ ]o' -'
I I
R A _ LLD—
INSTALL T PE K` Ex R10
- r Ex. yel. cw O -- --
ABANDON REMOVE &SALVAGE Ex. SPLICE TO EX, DtC (1)
---B"(RLY,G) & INSTALL
- - - -- -. --_ 125.Y,G) ri :DIN Ex. "Cit.y of Covinc
22' REMOVE &SALVAGE Ex !!' : _; R48(mod.) & R3o%3
IEx- No fireworks"
1-12"(R) 2-8"(Y,G) & sign & sns
n 'iir, J INSTALL 3-12"(R.Y.G) I
�,� ;� G �'
/ LEx. R2(40) 1�
NE'.V PB IN SAME '� #. # * 14 � L-S?ik-�_
•I�ty '^bane[ —I LCCA";�3N AS EXITING Ez g361 �/ EX. TYPE 8-2 SERVICE
. _ .. (3 .onS%ram ,l .
INSTALL ANTENNA!. -
(SE--- NOTES J
6 Ex. yel. * * # SPLICE TO Ex. DLC (I)
_- ... i V CONTROLLERDLC S
Ex.pf6 pb INSTALL 2 ADDITIONAL
.. I - - TO THE
-
r
-
-
-BAD1440
- - -
ry
r
' �
Q.��
�
31
o•
o.
S,� 6:^ 7`r A
v
N I A
STRE T
a 1
T R°5.
Iu
7 Q 3i 9 /� I
o ^
'rJ'/.IB 17 16
/•
S //
/3
/2
< e
.f.fr`
S6
55 S4;
S.i<I
i7•" �
o o
�
c
h
za 21 z
22 23
25
26`'0 27`
4-/.:
6 i
L 7'
,��_ OVECENTEq STREET :p .. b SROYE �=;v'r=rc-- -- -- ,• -• ,•. - —
// V757
17/B /9 G0 0"
K.36
a
., iIl,2• .:.:.,.
sa.�.•
I
}
0 36 34 33 `
92
31 el 30 a 29 ° 28 a 42
4/
�p :
.79
` M
• ; �, B.
; 37� 30
467
27 9
4°
3 44%
7
44 `
9, i r'
a_vEvuE
iv.vr•
5/
;Q
q
51 50
r
49 4g
47 a
46
28,,
2L
2S
739
.. ;5 ^4
:3 27
o
127 i
�QI
01
5 9�—
35.57
15c
WI
! r
59 60`
61
62'
63`�I
C9
i� i W gas vent
I'fll I I Ex. "City of Covina sign
01a. i ~ ;t ilplll: i and R48(mod.)
J InN '
Z. nl I PROTECT
gas vault
z ml�i EX. (LOOP WIRESi
_ < I
BCR i �,tl &x.R`OAe K REMovE CONFLlLTI1.IC.
OINSTALL NEW pl6 PULL BOX IN i * i t-, I Exi 1.1. R73-2 4 M4Rk�NC,S
SAME LOCATION AS EXISTING. O I -- -- _ ! k�' --(special) -----
%" ---_=1-- m SPLICE TO EX. DLC (1)
REMOvE h — O— 4- Ex. cw `Plp� INSTALL 2 ADDITIONAL
CONFLIGTIN(., # # # - 6 I, ,] O, OLC'S TO THE CONTROLLER
mwd vent MARKINGS ~ ----------T ------- ------ 28
s p - JI SPLICE NEW Loop t
Ex. 3-12"(RA,YA,GA) I a PP
^�� - -- TO EX. DLC(
cone. s.w. - I INSTALL CW
I - - INSTALL CW !
Ex. 3-12*(RA,YA,GA) Al *. * * (212L) Ex. r.c.
R h REMOVE & SALVAGE EX.
i./ i/ .� ® f • 3-12 (R.Y.G))& INSTALL iI /I `II - 214L �• •
ri7- I Ex. cw i --- -- ------ABAN_DON ---- ----
---- ---- ----------------------
Ex. #
I.I. R73-2 '
s ecial ! , ' SPLICE NEW LOOP ; r Y 9 # (214U)
STRrPInIG i 1 TO EX. DLC W. I Lj Ex. 3-12"(RA,YA,GA) I i t. #' TYP.
0000 PROTECT EX. LOOP wI 6'I ii���ii I -------------------------------------------------------
I, Ex., Type K i
- -- —-- a-----r:-- i & R1OA _ G. 1
,� A1t � �r�^t f^^t (5J1U)
1^.
(111U) ��j t��r �cl���c r,I�� i t e' Ex. Type
--------------------------------9-------------� Ex. 3-12" RA,YA.GA i�i� & RiOA
" ABANDON t i I i ( ) 61 PROJECT EX. LOOP WIRES ABANDON
(6J4U) * TYP SPLICE NEW LODP TO EX. DLL 4)
AB2NDt11L------______- 4 Ex. cw i--
cn ---- ---- i REMOVELVAGE -w ' (special)
(6J4L) # * l* * i 3-8 (R,YG) & S i EX.. STRIPInICa
- I 3-12 (M?
(6,12L)
* 1 #-----* RT
I # i i i if
_L I
Ex! 3-12" Ex. Type SPLICE NEW LOOP
:sP PP# 1483052E dA,YA;GA) & R10A TO EX. DLC (1) I f �„ c.b. _
'\ Ex. cw Ex.3-12"(RA,YA,GA)
------- -- ----------------
EA I} � LL 25- X. --- - - - r / dirt
R.C. C. \ in
sip ,. ;
LICE C (t), t w
INSTALL 2 ADDITIONAL y�------- �'1 r i \ REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTINC
ExTE ND RZO Cur. 2� LC'S TO THE CONTROLLER c� i. I J I PP O
m A II * SCR CONTROLLER.
I �' i_ ' I - �� REUSE EXISTING TYPE IV CABINET C'
Ex. I.I. R73t I !I ' ' I
X INS7ALL y6 PB IN SAME'..
SENSOR UNITS• 2.4 CHANNEL I.L.D.'.
!
LOCATION AS EXISTING.
PACKS. INSTALL TYPE 90 IMULT:
I ! I t I I
Ex. "City of West Covina" !` I # # * CONTROLLER AND 3 A.C. ISOLATION 1
sign and R36(3 tons)
11 All V I I N 1
uLi EX TEN D R n C I�IRe 25
I
W La
t0 3i!
I.
I i
II m Io 1
ABANDON IS i m v v
=
P°I.stq
TRACT
40183
I
'a
I 1 Z. W d?4
'
1 Z.G1dt
.
I
uuo 1
?I oa
65 66 67
► A
68: 69 70. 71 7 so
2l
•
__ EI_6ENIA
...
TREE
7613 >
T
38 .. 37
13 s
3 36 8u
..
•'uj IS 12ui
40. 35H
a:: t
-------------w ---------r_7G3 - J
r- Q
9i7
16 11
BQ &1 I
PP 434
UUP 9e ' Z
41 36 •
' 3
�„
9I7•, 10
�. -------- a=
42 3,3
—
WI
dog 18 9
—7-------- -------
;3 32 doa
-
2;
e
tuz!
g
>+
do:
19 8 �s >!
so
4 31 a
.
a'
20-
--------- _
1 -----------
I
o 7
-----------
R 710 /
.
77
,
1 29 ,.. I
s 22 5
-,a 2 � i
�
!
3
7!o 3
o 79, 7"28
71,
i
. 23 4
AN
I
27 »r elo
PP i2i
,o Zv 72e i
4
74 a
V
/9ln W 7AN
iv 24 3 n a.o
"
! 26 7,
5
lo s
�e -./ , :�o z7 ^
ao .f
25a Jr
��
4I . N
20
" IEN rE I I
J�
Q
!e I' -�! =B I .■
3!
28
l i'.
2j;:
\
.i __..__- -- --*^ - �•"' �' I � _. .-' ,� _
A�
RC : _ ',•i .
-7777;
fl /. I. Pul 4—I --- - - S� -a�7i-"_ — - -- - - — -- - _ = _ l� j ULI, p,m vruG ✓
- � ""_ -' �. -� _ �.a�y�-c - =-=X: '•- _- --- - it\ C -1_-._�.—L/ W/KE5
uca-
pV
/.Wl
- 4 RRJ;
• I
-.24riryier OXTLND RlD
GuR R 15
I
POLE SC:�EJUl
MIrI a;C 3E7
>,en
�IGtbAL l J 71Ij N
td G- �!. Ih. - 0. �HA SS-
A.. G 2"Z //
1 - ,a' :>v,,s:. �-- E.. X!yl -,. ?elloot Cam• ��. /� 7 `) '
^� IX
`
�.,
�' _ J /0
4�.1.•_.i t., _ r I I _Jr
\ 6I REIAOV
ADAPT
i
RG+{ �. �' 06 - Zi'.� -- - -L \� ,fin •\ D(ISTR
P1si L�
• /9 �sF i � .�RC'`I V'= __'1: CORRE
PACKS'
NST,A
HAFNi
C �3 '4- C. �� I SOU,
<
q 'UL
f9� sD� f7� ^ � AI� •�
v 717
�9N13 - _ •• � •
Z O f F c
w
M. B. 47 - / /3 h
y X
49
.- .. .__� i•e' . < wn- r. f, o. r c- s. ,.,. .a,' <s ' ,.t _:'',.a} - ll {Yh�'..>a',. `3', FY£;�Yr rltt *y.. ..-? fir. 4# .w.. -7{. x{ - q
- I I Z V f 7
' ^� j
674
M
f. P. to
BYRE ET �
- .p - - -- - -- - -- - -
' zt•616 *M .0
2.V If7 PO i/7
• r.
N.Q.
PP76! lCO435 u"o�� :,.. PPP i�r . 7 63 s q ! �65CPA at-#� 66 .67 68
w `y- :C 974 JO o t • E
--GE NIA
4! I!/� // A43 146 47� Iraso.er t 62r8"e
�+i ` K A m C I rn R 49 ' JO r W 38 37 .. r
0%3 i61 a,f� I ! Flo6,S
„K "Ih 6U a t B,. 39c
SCALE 1"=20'
:chstall Joe
Rer) CUKA
0
wlk"l
0
ff
�0
4tc
D fit. L`0--STRE-E T
264WM
(13=) rNDICATZ3 LOOP ASSIGNMENT IN THE CONTRC..
SMALL RaVa a MAR1123 LEAD-0 CABLE "0' T!!--
LCO" (6, olam"my MAY Em SUSSTITUTW
3-6, DxAmwrzR ROM LOOP& AT 6. sphicam MAY
LOOP.:
41 INDICATES EXISTING QUEUE CLIAmium LOO
INDICATES MWVWZD QUEUE CLEARING LOOP.
c'
Ia.!.
LOOPS SHALL. U cmasm ix T" Lam UNLESS 0-':.
1:;.
FOR DISPOSITION Or, SALVAGEO MATERIALS, COMTAc-:
SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
121
ALL EXISTING CONDUITS SMALL BE REUSED UNLESS
SHALL 83 USED THROUGHOUT. THE EXTENT OF 71-
APPROV19D BY,THR ENGINEER.
13.
ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE STAND
TRAFFIC, SIGNALS OF THE Couirry of L.S
•
14-'
KAjUK:xQs BY =3 CONTRACTOR.
ALL.L2384 : AND MARKINGS ORKIL CONFORM
spscxrlca=vs XPATIONW
Th"W" ccmm%ic%,mG kmiNcs
---05
VLt-;rvw
/_901
—7—
. Traffic Committee Meeting�
• December 20, 1994
VII. REOUEST:
Ellie Downing,, Manager, Heritage Park Senior Apartments, 1800 West Badillo Street, 91790
Theron Page, 1818 West Grovecenter, 91790
THAT PARKING BE PROHIBITED ON ORANGE AVENUE AND BADILLO STREET
ABUTTING THE HERITAGE PARK SENIOR CITIZENS APARTMENT COMPLEX: .
FINDINGS:
The requests were, prompted by complaints,.ahat parked vehicles obstruct the vision of drivers
at the three drive approaches to the senior citizens apartment complex and from the northbound
approach of Orange Avenue to Badillo Street. This is the intersection of a minor arterial with
a residential collector street. The intersection'of Badillo Street with Orange Avenue is controlled
by a traffic signal. As has been the case with other requests of this type a scaled drawing was
prepared showing vehicles at the driveways and the conflicting vehicles on the street at the safe
stopping sight distance on wet pavement at the critical approach speed. A line is drawn between
the two vehicles representing the line of sight between the two drivers at the safe stopping sight
distance on wet pavement at the critical approach speed (85%).
Vehicles parked along the south side of Badillo Street .west of Orange Avenue do not seriously
obstruct the visibility of eastbound vehi8fes on Badillo Street from drivers located at the
northbound approach of Orange Avenue 1 If red curb were installed along the south side of .
Badillo Street west of Orange Avenue theincreased sight distance from the northbound Orange
Avenue approach could make executing a: right turn on a red signal somewhat less difficult.
However, the south side of Badillo. Street.; has heavy parking demand evidenced during field
trips. The installation of red curb could cause spillover parking into nearby streets. Any vehicle
at the northbound approach need only wait for a green signal indication before turning right onto .
Badillo Street..
There are three. driveway approaches to the senior citizens apartments located on the. southwest
comer of Badillo Street and Orange Avenue. There are two on Badillo and one on Orange
Avenue. As can be seen on the drawing the; installation of 60 feet of red curb to the west of the
driveway approaches on Badillo Street and,jo the north of the driveway approach on Orange
Avenue will provide adequate sight distance.
Staff has distributed thirty letters to the' senior citizen apartments located nearest to the three
proposed segments of red curb. The letters; included a self addressed and pre -stamped postcard -
to simplify their response. No response has as yet been received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT THE REQUEST FOR PARKING RESTRICTION ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF BADILLO STREET WEST OF ORANGE AVENUE BE DENIED.
2. THAT THE REQUEST FOR PARKING PROHIBITIONS ADJACENT TO THE
THREE DRIVEWAY APPROACHES TO THE HERITAGE PARK SENIOR \
CITIZENS APARTMENTS BE HELD OVER.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
THAT ALL THE REQUESTS FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS BE HELD OVER FOR
COMPLETION OF THE POSTCARD SURVEY.
Dec94iep 1 16
, � v
r u.�
a
a o 4
�a
O pp
o o �
Traffic Committee Meeting
December 20, 1994
VIII. REQUEST:
Samuel Adams, 1319 Mardina Street, 91191
THAT TIME LIMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS OR RED CURB BE INSTALLED
ABUTTING .1319 MARDINA STREET.
FINDINGS:
The request was prompted by a variety of problems experienced by the resident at 1319 Mardina
Street. The following is an excerpt from his request letter;
"On a continuous basis vehicles are left in front of my home for two to three days
at a time, on several occasions. trash has been thrown out of the car windows onto
my front yard. Some of the vehicles have severe oil and transmission leaks and
when they move their. vehicles I rni stuck having to clean up the mess their
vehicles leave behind, also the apartment complex has rocks for a yard covering
and every week several rocks seenijo find a way across the street into my yard
and I have to pick rocks out of pay _lswn before I can cut my grass.
Eight weeks ago I called for assis."taiiee from the police department . because one
of the apartment tenants' drug my trash cans up into my drive way so he could
park in front of my:house !'
Complaints associated with heavy parkuig demand abutting single family homes located near
apartments or condominiums are not uncommon. However, this is a public street intended for
public .parking. The: installation of parking; restrictions at this location may only cause the.
vehicles to be relocated to curbs abutting nearby residences which can result in further requests
for parking. restrictions.
Problems with. room for trash cans can lie solved by locating the trash cans in front of the
driveway approach which will not be .in, conflict with curb parked vehicles. Residents in
condominiums often locate their trash cans. in alleys or private streets abutting their garage
doors. However, it is somewhat inconvenient to stop a vehicle in the street and then move trash
cans before accessing the driveway or garage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE REQUEST BE DENIED.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
•-Y_i
THAT THE REQUEST BE DENIED.
Dec94rep 17
.----.._. .- .:. M ,ram _ I .IY , _1"_a.-- .7,.1 1 •fir 16/ ___li _._. 1 .:
ulree r- VEiTNLSSeSTREET--
X O " •.� }--� 1, YBRNE5J..... 3 T 3
— t
29 �;' ' J ner vo ]a' LLw•.Jc'' `• 394 a7cf
\ r''• Jc.oa • o A. '• l.•• 3fo i t" title 29 V —
--..a,l L it -��'` £- ✓is. �- I t+arr D E I 1 3 .7,]
• 1 1'- = O �`a � c✓'1 � --I�lu 1 aQ
k• L h �1
fell!;210•l. _"- g,/ 0 -
•.. _-._.i�.fi-- 7J Oo ub /Il.DO c1.O ,
- — - c� - na 2 ♦ 4 ]o */ p , 3 /.. ' 6
jjll \ . QU
4,.� : • n19 3ry O �b m ^ ° p m 41,1rl. y �dS .i6 .l7 .9a9 J9 40 3
tx,[a---- �•�L•. t �•35.: ti36 3.7 �, JdM JJ :' v: .;In/ q �I Np ti 9._
6 '4 Yd ,•+•-
• ' w40
\ t •• \ {t♦ ./i Y7 .10/ K t 11 �t f� ,: .. .. GA 7J.1� .. � - -I.' .G•'. ^�I 6L'• �Y. FO'
- ----- AVENUE'"
WORKMAN _�--- v 3.„ oq S ti i 2
4 R 3
.t
L•.,r r t', • 17.,i 6lLlf' F,.o3' • , .. ) f, o F
6o salt ? `6 �i
MB9' 98 6 7 B6 B5 8 41 63 ry B2 B/ 60 7t9 B 77 76� 5 2 ' //6 d ' / 1 ¢. ry . y :. X /h z� 3 4 5 -
o M 460� 5/ .• ° T RY s.
t C R N A I ;z36 R A % t ._ „fir 51ed.f co.B1
g C' T ry n //7 �" 2' —'— -- F— .... Me• 29=_ /4 T P A
, T R A W - t. 5 7 B f
/B j ^ NO
S9 5B S 7,
66 6 9 70 7/ 72 74 a 75 p tr7 o ya P o 8�
62 63, 64, 6S 66^ 67 D t Y t N� ry tl h z' Go.Y4
//9 , j tav7 6T 1 6/' - ,.al T/Q�
J
1: 9t• jc Gd >l
G 3 • , t' r.. re 60 s r• -� » •' t. at 4 14 49 -41 YB l %
_ . O Yw e
.o /2 n 13 i
J. 4S7 /t9, 6 49 ' SO 52 S3' S4Q 55Q 56
i S9-1 5-8 57. Ss� 56' 54 S3 52. S 49 n 49 iZal d �' ACT ti ? Y`
-� ].I. SO'\ b� 9� G� 03
r-+ 6S 5,26 — M.d: 47J
T� _
— —
6� 7 q _ 6 B 48., 47 44 3 �2 / . 4 /9 n lB ^ /M17 .' /6 ^ 5' ♦2 e✓l n
ab 45 <s q / 0 2
7..'� YB 't 39. ; .<:40 4 /C.. 42 43 i .44D� p4 h �r > h n v "M
3 7., 4 -a4 ;a`I 4 r V 11 4 •j v . /2•� a.;° r $h ;3 r 'il s., Fr.,,..;>'i:. e h ,
.a...''�iW.' V h� : ..r.� ;.ti � 'I •.t,. '� "• —
k..:E :�.d€J C1, i; 'h Yj;, .:.;: 1 ,r'. yy '': ..., a:: <,..,, N v 3 �.�•• ,.7J= \ilr` 1
F I . tc::; ,71 I: . ;. ;.. ..:r4, •d;{, /,'.�i .� 3.. . e5:. \ .. 1.a . h �t� �"� j`: �'; .h':
,Y 'r+.. ;..o5r. ..,,. .:A-.- e , iC ::. R $t r S' 2 .F , 1 ',1�2 ae w,l • fw
E.
S; •.,S . 4 -.M1. .f! I: l!I ` - 3�, 5 f� •,^rv�i 5.. Fl.� a.=L� .I:::. - A .7
r, rY G• ai.k: �. ,.:4.. `p; :rk':x ;'�:+,,,5.: �i+G_ �iw! :7fi`" tl.x� _
II
g ... t a�?: i... ... �:.Jf.. i s.',i '.,' y �- +�' `�'' � �' `b � .: = � , . :a:,•a:n, � :ym,�._�. .. ,., ,xr�?-� ..try'
t .. aels--�•,.co /S�' :-/0
'f.
r - -
e ti ; .;.�, /4 I / 22 23 . 24 .
j'5 h 6 \ 7C4 .B y �. /.� ;,93 3 I 3 ►� `
34%i I a R A C ; T ' •a4 . LT - N
/o .71
., _ •I' I •.,✓, Ga.au ✓l,uu' ' 1'
�2,9 :•2B�.. �-�,a 11-ssw ALLEY _ ;
27 26 I ''� �P12 .'�, - eo.o� Joo1 a of GrY1'. �_ / Vq. /; 6 7. 3 BI ry29 28 ;` 27 `6 2�5
F' ? o' `t /3• 30 22B t9" 1' 27r 24• 25` A M
14 '/ 9 P. P. 66 N. 60 _ - 25-
22 •. Q. n t�s_ii-� 6nt • ,�] EL /- 'Ja•7 wo a,�>` /c9 I h'� Yr. c.:' . i^a- ' • .. S FREE tC••44 .mac•' GI
-
RAIAN
../ rY `•
zv 2/B /9', tor; 2/i; 22Q 2fti 24 w �, '� - ev Ise 41/
V I ti you PHILLIPS TRACX 34 3f L
•rt ZO : I9 /d /% /6 0 (5 .
ff � \ i„ � 41019 3�, s Z♦ HLv ii/, , trot' L�Ot ]
lj—• ,..n _N• .I�cc ncRi
ihis _ ••. 115 ..�_. i�� e _ __ .�.._ I:.. _. ^Ih _ .. _. •
♦ e4
V t.f QQcc ARDL&__ _
- — _ _- _ —_
yell UI tINIYrIUN Dllt DLAtN1Y IIOM Wlt 4t tLNIY IIUN DAII Da/cNl/IIUM��- DAII UI JCNIY IION _ D.C111Y11UN Dalt UL CNIYIIUN O,tit Ut CIIIYII N �UAI(' -
ADt.l'�Y}ION
D3 E3
D
Traffic Committee Meetif
December 20, 1994
IX. REOUEST:
City Initiated.
i
THAT THE GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS.
BE REVIEWED.
FINDINGS:
This Traffic Committee item was discussed by the City Council at its December 6th meeting and
returned to staff for further review.
In a similar matter, several years ago written requests for street sweeping parking restrictions
became an extremely tune consuming process and occasionally involved the City in
neighborhood disagreements. The City was distributing hundreds of postcards annually through.
the mail to determine if neighbors were in favor of parking restrictions for street sweeping
purposes. The Traffic Committee adopted a procedure that requires that the requestor circulate
a petition with a map denoting. the bounds of the proposed parking restrictions for street
sweeping purposes prior to submittal to the Traffic Committee. Only those properties not
signing the petition are sent a postcard.
0
The same procedure may be applicable to requests for red curb. A written request for the
installation of red curb should include a petition form and map that the requestor must circulate
within 300 feet of the residence proposing the parking restriction before the Traffic Committee
review. Comer lots would be required to circulate the petition only on the street where the red
curb is proposed. This procedure is very similar to the procedure for handling requests for
street sweeping parking restrictions except that street sweeping parking restrictions require a
66% majority of the abutting residences approving of the parking restrictions. The petition for
red curb should not have a set percentage of favorable signatures and should be considered as
added input to the decision making process.
This procedure would probably limit the number of red curb requests. However, no procedure
should prevent a resident from making a personal appeal at a City Council Meeting.
Also, there has previously been authorization for administrative approval of up to 100 feet of
red curb. With the desire to have more property owner input into the decision ,process, the
administrative authorization should be discontinued and all requests for red curb should be
processed through the Traffic Committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ALL REQUESTS FOR RED CURB SHALL BE . DIRECTED TO THE TRAFFIC
COMMITTEE AND BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SUPPORTING PETITION
CIRCULATED WITHIN AT LEAST 300 FEET ON THE STREET ON WHICH THE RED
CURB IS BEING REQUESTED AND THOSE PROPERTIES NOT INCLUDED IN THE
PETITION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN A POSTCARD SURVEY.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
ALL REQUESTS FOR RED CURB SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE TRAFFIC
COMMITTEE AND A POSTCARD SURVEY BE DONE WITHIN AT LEAST 200 FEET
ON THE STREET ON WHICH THE RED CURB IS BEING REQUESTED. THE
INFORMATION FROM THE POSTCARD SURVEY SHALL BE USED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH TRAFFIC INVESTIGATIONS TO ARRIVE AT A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Dec94rep I 18
Traffic Committee Meet •
f. !i
November 15, 1994
Q AX.
1. REQUEST:
City Initiated
. j
THAT THE GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PARKING
RESTRICTIONS BE REVIEWED.
BACKGROUND
All requests for traffic control devices within the public right-of-way are reviewed by the
Traffic Committee before being forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation.
A Traffic Committee review can be prompted by a written request from virtually anyone
or may be City initiated. The requests for the installation of red curb on minor
residential streets are typically submitted by abutting property owners. The requests for
redcurb are 'often prompted by residents experiencing difficulty exiting their driveway
approaches because of vehicles obstructing their view of approaching vehicles. Some
other conditions prompting such requests are vehicles parked for long durations abutting
their property' , vehicles that inhibit street sweeping, disabled vehicles that are perceived
as eyesores and numerous vehicles parked with "For Sale" signs.
The requested parking restrictions are recommended or denied based on two primary
considerations. These are the reactions of the abutting property owners and whether
there is an identified safety concern. Nearby property owners are not typically contacted
regarding their reactions. An identified safety concern may be either a written complaint
usually detailing a sight distance- problem- and/or an accident or 'accident frequency that
may have been associated with a vehicle operators vision being obstructed by curb parked
vehicles.
The City may install as much as several hundred feet of various types of parking
restrictions each year. The more common types of parking restrictions are no stopping
anytime, noIparking anytime, no parking, for street sweeping purposes, during certain
hours on certain days, no parking except by permit and time limit parking. Most of the
various types of parking restrictions are denoted by signs. However, the installation of
red curb denotes a curb segment where parking and stopping is prohibited at all times.
When relatively short segments of curb line are involved, the installation of red curb is
more expeditious relative to the installation of signs.
I
DISCUSSION:
Requests for parking restrictions are sometimes related to, or may become part of an
ongoing neighborhood dispute. The adversaries in these neighborhood disputes will
typically take opposing positions on almost any issue.
6
Stricter guidelines regarding the installation of red curb may reduce the frequency of the
City becoming involved in neighborhood disputes. Specifically, it has been suggested that
red curb should only be installed if all three of the following conditions are met:
1. There is an identified safety concern verified by an accident frequency that is
likely to be mitigated by installing parking restrictions denoted by red curb.
1
2. The ;property owners immediately abutting the parking restrictions have no
objections or are in favor of the installation of the red curb.
3. All nearby residents either do not object or are in favor the installation of red
curb! This would typically include four to six residences.
i
�fep I 18a
Traffic Committee Meeting
November 15, 1994
I. REOUEST: (continued)
ANALYSIS:
It is highly improbable that all three of these conditions would ever be satisfied at any
location. Moreover, there are specific problems associated with each of the three
aforementioned conditions. If an identified safety concern is that which must be verified
by an accident frequency the City may have an increase of liability exposure. This is
because written requests for red_ curb typically cite a safety concern involving parked
vehicles obstructing the view of conflicting vehicles from a driveway or an intersecting
street and any written request may be considered to be actual notice as part of a tort
liability case. Conversely, if an identified safety .concern is defined liberally as any
written complaint that vehicles parked at a particular location can obstruct the view from
driveway approaches and intersecting streets all such requests may result in a
recommendation for installation of red curb.
The second condition is rarely a problem on minor residential streets because usually the
abutting residents have requested the red curb. However, it has been a problem when
the City has identified a location where the installation of certain traffic control requires
red curb. The typical scenario is when a left turn lane is recommended because of the
frequency of left turn type collisions. In order to provide the additional traveled way for
the left tern lane parking has to be restricted on one or both sides of a street.
It is questionable whether the third condition could ever be satisfied when there is an
ongoing neighborhood dispute. Very often, the requested red curb has little to do with
the cause of the dispute but becomes . a catalyst for its continuation. Even in
neighborhoods where there is no ongoing dispute it is still difficult for all nearby
residents to agree on the installation of red curb.
Historically, the reactions of the abutting .property owners has been one of the primary
concerns. This is because property owners often perceive the abutting street as their
personal parking area. This is somewhat of a misperception because the street is usually
publicly owned and maintained by funds from gasoline and registration taxes which all
vehicle owners pay. However, it is usually practical to adopt guidelines that are likely
to gain public acceptance. The adherence to guidelines that are in conformance with the
beliefs and seem logical to the majority tends to increase the level of public acceptance
and reduce objections.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff will attempt to recognize and avoid neighborhood disputes by conducting postcard
.surveys of the nearby residences. This would include the residences to either side of the
proposed red curb and the three residents opposite the proposed red curb. Staff can
apply the more rigorous definitions of an identified safety concern and either recommend
denial of the request for red curb or limit the installation to relatively short segments.
The postcard survey will not eliminate personal appeals at Council meetings by the
adversaries in these neighborhood disputes. However, occasionally these problems can
be resolved with the installation of a relatively short segment of red curb. If staff had
authorization to approve installation of up to ten feet of red curb adjacent to driveway
approaches, some of these neighborhood concerns may be avoided while minimizing the
staff time spent on relatively minor requests for parking restrictions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
THAT ANY REQUEST FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS WILL BE REVIEWED
BY THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE ONLY AFTER A POSTCARD SURVEY OF
THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
THAT STAFF HAVE A PERMISSION TO INSTALL NOT MORE THAN TEN
FEET OF . RED CURB ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY
APPROACHES WITHOUT A REQUIRED TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REVIEW.
Traffic Committee Meels
November 15, 1994
I. REQUEST: (continued)
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
THAT REQUEST FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS WILL BE REVIEWED BY
THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE ONLY AFTER A POSTCARD SURVEY OF THE
EMN EDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
THAT STAFF HAVE A PERMISSION TO INSTALL NOT MORE THAN TEN
FEET OF RED CURB AT A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH
WITHOUT A REQUIRED TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REVIEW.
A
�� �.
18c
h
Traffic Committee M'eetinf
December 20, 1994 1
U
X. REQUEST:
r
Teresita D. Gi anflor, 1772 Kam Court, 91792
THAT A PROTECTED EAST/WEST LEFT TURN PHASE BE INSTALLED AT THE
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OF AMAR ROAD AND SHADOW OAK DRIVE.
FINDINGS:
This is the intersection of a major arterial with a residential collector. The Average Daily
Traffic Volumes entering this intersection are as follows:
STREET
APPROACH
ADT
I.
Amar Road
Eastbound
21,450
-Amar Road
Westbound
16,700
Shadow Oak Drive
Northbound
4,750
According to the California Traffic Manual;
"Protected left turn phases should be considered where such alternatives cannot
be utilized, and one or more of the following conditions exist:
1. Accidents. Five or more left turn accidents for a particular left turn
movement during a recent 12-month period.
2. Delay. Left -turn delay of one or more vehicles which were waiting at the
beginning of the green interval and are still remaining in the left turn lane
after at least 80 % of the total number of cycles for one hour.
3. Volume. At new intersections where only estimated volumes are
available, the following criteria may be used. For a pre -timed signal or
a background -cycle controlled actuated signal, a left turn volume of more
than two vehicles per approach per cycle for a peak hour; or for a traffic -
actuated signal, 50 or more left turning vehicles per hour in one direction
with the product of the turning and conflicting through traffic during the
(peak hour of 100,000 or more.
4. Miscellaneous. Other factors that might be considered, include but are
not limited to: impaired sight distance due to horizontal or vertical
j curvature, or where there is a large percentage of buses and trucks."
Staff has not yet recorded the turning movements during the peak hour. However, any of the
four conditions may warrant a left turn phase. Staff has prepared the attached collision diagram
showing all accidents reported at this intersection between January 1993 and October 1994.
There were a total of eight east/west left turn collisions with eleven associated injuries. During
the 12 month period between September 20, 1993 and September 21, 1994 there were 5 left turn
collision reports at this intersection. Therefore the accident warrant for the installation of a
protected left turn phase is satisfied.
STAFF RECOMAMNDATION:
THAT THE REQUEST BE HELD OVER FOR FURTHER STUDY.
Dec%rep 19
i
Traffic Committee Meetin$0
December 20, 1994
I
X. REQUEST: (continued)
i
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
One of the traffic warrants (accidents) is met for installing the left turn modification.
Meeting one warrant is sufficient to justify the modification and the additional information
being generated by staff will provide for completion of the warrant documentation. Since
the traffic signal modification isl justified and since the speeds on Amar Road are high, any
accidents are of a serious nature. Therefore, the traffic signal modification should be done
on a priority basis.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE REQUEST BE APPROVED AND THAT APPROPRIATE
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS BE TAKEN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
j
i
D=94rep 120
Traffic Committee Meeting*
December 20, 1994
Is
A
XI. REQUEST:
City. Initiated.
THAT A "NOT A TY.
ENTRANCE TO THE
AVENUE.
STREET" SIGN (W-53) BE INSTALLED AT THE
NORTH OF STUART AVENUE EAST OF - AZUSA
FINDINGS:
This is a dedicated alley that previously extended to Garvey Avenue South. Because of the
expansion of the auto dealership the alley now ends 250 feet north of Stuart Avenue. The
installation of a "Not A Through Street" (W-53) sign can increase vehicle operator awareness.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
THAT A "NOT A THROUGH STREET,, SIGN (W-53) BE INSTALLED AT THE
ENTRANCE TO THE ALLEY NORTH OF STUART AVENUE EAST OF AZUSA
AVENUE.
i
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
THAT A "NOT A THROUGH STREET" SIGN (W-53) BE INSTALLED AT THE
ENTRANCE TO THE ALLEY NORTH OF STUART AVENUE EAST OF AZUSA
AVENUE.
Dec94rep
21
- rrtCC,9ar
:3 9/
!K
J39NI y�o
L�11
l
`a
O
i
lA1•�•
NOQ
ms4
N,IOS
v
1
7�
.
/0zoo 7
•
2e4
L66
76115
v
:.
LI.
.dsr•
) dr
0,,�s
•
• 77 w • 1 9s w�
/ap
• ,x LI h ` Zza
214E
,xl•. a
h
L
2L ]V. o)'
Z2s
� iAf M' 7
r0 A 79
//2 2V
/sd•
e!' /ai'
�O
6 •' T
1/a
140
/J.9
/.7s
477
/Ji
/.7S
5
9
8
5
'
ar
_
9
/0
//
/2r,
/ \
/4
/S
/6
'4/
/40'YY
'v
r
9
°
30N
i• 31E
319
36
/39
/d
34
3/
x
Js'S '
xi
sai
137
/36
3S'
s
40f.
4m
Ie3 i
'34
/35'
�
, 36
s
4w
29
4e•
/32
/33
1
37
r' f.
4K
414
.}}M
/2e
39
41111
- Q � a
I26
/t
I 40
AS
,
Y 14
`�
/24
/PS
,v/
V
411
I••0
/2P
_... _
/23
\OSTUART
,,,";—A Vk
-�
,•' 8
4
O
1
in
a Lq
'
4
Ga
JLr '!q
O
a
i
z
:
�
11O
11
169
Lta
168
1.
*7
12
166
165
164
Gr
163 1
.).m
152_
153
154
155
156
IS7
IS&
y
' 160
•
marl
u•
•n
�
.* 159
LL •�H
v
WALNUT
CREEK
COURT
1}
•n 1byn!
Ir6
e ♦
h
�
• Tg
V
151
ISOJ
149
148 147
146
` •�
�tl,
�S•
M40
IM
142
145
143 144
'
4
•.
f. r•
a, •)
.•
/
�Y
- WAL UT--Aif ,1
21a o
.S 134
Lo