01-02-1996 - Traffic Committee Minutes - 12/19/95• .. City o{Vat 'Govau
Memorandum
` TO: City Manager and City Council AGENDA
FROM: Thomas M. Mayer, Secretary ITEM NO. C-4
DATE January 2; 1996
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES
®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Ili
Attached are the Minutes of the Traffic Committee Meeting held on December 19, 11995.
Thomas M. Mayer, Secretary
Traffic Committee
TMM:ge
TRAFFIC:trafmmo
Attachments
l
i
II�
l
II
` III
Traffic Conunittee Meet* •
December 19, 1995 1
MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE
CITY OF WEST COVINA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1995
2:00 P.M.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Present: Lieutenant Schimanski, PD; Gordon Williams and Tom May(
Building and Engineering Department
I.
II.
19 PilIi1
City Initiated.]
'll
i
THAT THE HOURS OF THE EXISTING PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS
PROXIMATE TO CAMERON PARK BE AMENDED TO BETWEEN 4:00 P.M.
AND 10:00 Pa.M. ON MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND BETWEEN 9:00 A.M.
AND 10:00 P.M. ON SATURDAY AND SUNDRY, EXCEPT BY PERMIT.
THAT THE LIMITS OF THE PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS BE
EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE SOUTH SIDE OF MOBECK STREET: FROM
DAWLEY AVENUE TO AVINGTON AVENUE. lI
The request was prompted by concerns expressed during the public hearing', for the
installation of sports lighting at Cameron Park. There are three street segments °abutting
or near Cameron Park that have existing limited parking restrictions during certain hours
and on certain days. It may be prudent to expand the hours and days of the limited
parking restrictions because sports lighting can allow games to extend to approximately
9:00 p.m. at ,which time they will be automatically de -energized. Ij
1
TRAFFIC'' VnMMiTTFF RTi f'nAiiA4L'Wn A TinNc.
THAT THE HOURS OF THE EXISTING PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS
PROXIMATE TO CAMERON PARK BE AMENDED TO BETWEEN 4:00 P.M.
AND 10:00 P� M. ON MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND BETWEEN 9:00 A.M.
AND 10:00 P.M. ON SATURDAY AND SUNDRY, EXCEPT BY PERMIT,.
THAT THE LIMITS OF THE PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS BE
EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE SOUTH SIDE OF MOBECK STREET FROM
DAWLEY AVENUE TO AVINGTON AVENUE WITH RESTRICTIONS !!BEING
FROM DUSK TO 10:00 P.M. l
�i
REQUEST: �I
Leaf Clark, 1311 -Peppertree Circle 91792
THAT SPEED BUMPS BE INSTALLED ON THE 2100 BLOCK OF
EVENINGSIDE DRIVE.
SUMMARY: a
The City does not install speed bumps nor speed humps. These devices Bare not
recommended by the California State Traffic Manual. Tests of these devices have
revealed numerous problems. The Traffic Committee has reviewed speed bumps and
speed humps earlier this year. Those reports are attached.
THAT THE
vrl 1%iLl.V1V11V1L` 114MA JL x"Im.
f
BE HELD OVER FOR REQUESTOR'S FURTHER INPUT.
i
TRAFFIC:dec%sum.
Traffic Committee r
Ddcember 19, 1995
11
III. REOUEST:
City Initi
THAT THE I REQUEST FOR PARKING AND STOPPING BE PROHIBITED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF BADILLO STREET FROM LARK ELLEN TO 600 FEET
WEST AND ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM 570 FEET EAST OF VINCENT
AVENUE AT THE CITY LIMIT TO LARK ELLEN AVENUE BE HELD OVER.
SUMMARY:
During the Planning Commission Public Hearing for their use permit, Faith Community
Church had no objections to prohibiting parking along the abutting portion of Badillo
Street. Staff contacted the Faith Community Church, Covina Valley Hospital and
Grovecenter School Administrations regarding the proposed parking restrictions abutting
their property. As of December 12, only Grovecenter. School returned the pre -stamped
and .self-addressed postcard.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR PARKING AND STOPPING BE PROHIBITED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF BADILLO STREET FROM LARK ELLEN TO 600 FEET
WEST ANDI ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM '570 FEET EAST OF VINCENT
AVENUE AT THE CITY LIMIT TO LARK ELLEN AVENUE BE HELD OVER.
IV. REQUEST
Mr. and Mrs.' Victor Perilla
127 North Maplewood Avenue 91790
THAT THE EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY (PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT)
BETWEEN MAPLEWOOD AVENUE AND VINCENT AVENUE ABUTTING THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE 10 FREEWAY BE REMOVED
(VACATED)'
SUMMARY:
The request was initiated by a recent petition signed by 113 residents in this
ne I ighborhood.1 The walkway functions as a transportation link from Maplewood Avenue
to Vincent Avenue. Staff conducted a postcard survey of the residences that may be
affected by the removal of this walkway. The majority of the responses to the postcard
survey were opposed to the closure of the walkway.
THAT THE REQUEST BE HELD OVER FOR FURTHER STUDY.
ii
TRAFFIC:dec95sum.
Traffic Committee r
November 21, 1995
ng� •
I. REQUEST:
City Initiated
THAT THE L
CAMERON P,
FINDINGS:
The request wa
with the installa
abutting or nea
certain hours at,
west side of Da,
side of Mobeck
east and west si
The existing sib
P. M. SAI'URD
no fee parking i
are shown on t
during 1984 ani
T'ED PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS PROXIMATE TO
BE MODIFIED AND EXPANDED.
prompted by concerns expressed during the public hearings associated
on of sports lighting at Cameron Park. 'There are three street segments
Catneron Park that have existing limited parking restrictions during
on certain days. 'The limited parking restrictions are located along the
ley Avenue between Cameron Avenue and Mobeck Street, on the north
itreet between Dawley Avenue and Avington Avenue and on both tine
es of Avington Avenue between Mobeck Street and Larkwood Street.
is read "NO PARKING 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. MON-FRI 9 A.M. TO 5
Y EXCEPT BY PERMIT,,. Each abutting residence receives up to four
!rmits. The three street segments and the existing permit parking signs
attached drawing. These limited parking restrictions were installed
the related 'Traffic Committee minutes are attached.
The parking restrictions were installed at the request of a majority of the abutting
property owners) The limited parking restrictions are intended to reduce the heavy street
parking associated with the use of the softball fields at Cameron Park and Cameron
School. Prior to the installation of the permit parking restrictions, vehicles frequently
blocked residential driveways and disposed of trash in streets and parkway areas, abutting
the single family residences.
It may be prudent to expand the hours and days of the limited parking restrictions.
Baseball leagues now schedule games on Sundays and sports lighting can extend games
to 9:00 p.m. each day. The sports lighting will be de -energized automatically at 9:00
p.in. Area residients have reported that all parked vehicles may not leave the area until
30 minutes or more after the softball games have ended. Therefore, the hours of the
limited parking estrictions should be extended to 10:00 p.m.
The City Council has also expressed concerns that park patrons at these softball games
will park their vehicles along the south side of Mobeck Street abutting the softball field
rather than at the City parking facility which is 400 to 500 feet to the south and south
east. Given nunIierous choices of available parking stalls, a typical driver will usually
park at the location nearest to their ultimate destination. however, expansion of the
limited parking restrictions to include the south side of. Mobeck Street can motivate park
patrons to use thIe Cameron Park parking area. There are approximately 140 parking
stalls existing in'' the Cameron Park parking area. 'Phis should be sufficient for most
occasions. There is also additional parking permitted on the abutting Cameron Avenue
and Lark Ellen Avenue.
It is probably unnecessary to expand the limited parking restrictions to include the east
side of Dawley Alvenue between Cameron Avenue and Mobeck Street. Dawley Avenue
is More than 200' feet from the softball field at Cameron Park and is therefore not as
likely to be used by park patrons. however, this street segment may be used by leagues
utilizing the playing fields within the Cameron School grounds. This street segment can
be reviewed in the future if a problem develops.
THAT PARKING PROXIMATE TO CAMERON PARK BE RESTRICTED AND
EXPANDED i3C'TwEEN 'TIIE IIOURS Or, 4:00 P.M. AND I0:00 P.M. ON
IVIONDAV THRUUG11 FRIUAY AND BETWEEN 9:00 A.M. AND 1(1:()(1 1'.111. ON
SATURDAV AND SUNDAX, EXCEPT' BV PERMIT.
HOLD OVER
i�+ tI)A'1'ION:
FURTHER STUI_t sl'.
TRAFFIC: noMfrp. 2 a
Co I+ 3
619
-77 Z
I.ARKWOOD STREET
V►
Ln
r-
mnnprx
CTDL�L�T'
z
¢ i
INN
um
CAMERON
Traffic Committee Meeting
June 19, 1984
II. Request]
City Initiated.
OVERNIGHT PARKING RESTRICTION IN LIMITED AREA WITH PERMIT
PARKING.
Findings:
On October 24, 1983; City Council, at their regular meet-
ing, requested staff to research, review and propose
further definition to an existing parking program for
limited areas by providing for a permitting process. This
program, which addresses the problem of on -street parking,
is part of the overall Property Maintenance Program effort
in which the City Council desires to implement.
A committee consisting of Police, Engineering and Community
Services Department representatives reviewed the available
data and developed a proposed program (see attached) as a
solution to the on -street parking problem. The solution,
recommended by the committee, would include an overnight
restriction from 2:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. initiated by
citizen request and to include a permit process.
Possessing the permit
park their vehicles on
hours. Enforcement of
Police Department.
Financial Implications
would allow qualified residents to
the street during the restricted
the restriction would be with the
The precise costs cannot be determined at this time; how-
ever, it is anticipated that the number of requests will
be -few bases on the number of requests that have been re-
ceived thus far. The cost to Engineering will include
some additional staff time since this is an expansion of
a current program. Police anticipates that additional
staff will be required at that time because of the light
coverage i4hich currently exists.
Staff Recommendation:
That the program be approved for implementation.
2c
Traffic Committee Meeting
June 19, 1984
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
The proposed overnight parking restrictions at limited
locations would be labor intensive and costly to enforce.
They should be limited to very specified problem.. areas
and would require.extensive signage in order to adequately
notify the residents of the specific area.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Thatlthe program be approved for implementation.
2d
W
EDURE FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING RESTRICTION
N A LIMITED AREA WITH PERMIT PROCESS
The following is the proposed outline of the program that staff
will use. It can be divided into three areas (1) Citizen Parti-
cipation, (2) City Process, and (3) Permit Process.
Citizen Participation'
1. The citizen requests a parking restriction from theCity's
Engineering Department.
2. Engineering establishes a boundary for the site.
a. Boundaries are to be flexible enough to handle pro-
blem, while minimizing undue cost to 'the City.
b. Natural boundaries,.open spaces and cul-de-sacs,may
be �used as boundaries.
I.
3. Engineering determines number of'people in affected P � d 'area.
.I
4. Engineering will provide the citizen with a petition�lfor
circulation.,
5.
a. City will require 75% or more responses of those re-
sidences in the affected area and
I I',
b. Of the responses, 75% must approve the restriction.
it
C. Each person in an apartment will be allowed to sign
the petition.
d. Property owners will be notified of the request.
e. Residents not signing the petition will be considered
"No" response. i
f. The date on which the Traffic Committee will act on
the request will be given at this time.
Engineering will provide the citizen with information re-
garding:
a. Current parking laws;under conditions of a parking
restriction.
b. Parking permit process with its -renewal provision.
l
I
q
:2e
II
PROCEDURE FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING RESTRICTION
IN A LIMITED AREA WITH PERMIT PROCESS
Page 2
City.Process
1. Engineering Department will survey affected area during
the time the petition is circulated.
a. The number of licensed drivers and number -of all
licensed vehicles at each residence will be 111
reviewed.
b. The available parking at each site will be re
viewed.
c. Adetermination of the on -street arkin condit P 9 ions
will be used as the basis for granting parking11
per-
mits.
2. Residents will be advised of the Traffic Committee meeting
at which the request will be discussed.
a. Written objections to the request are to be filed
with the Engineering Department rior to the meeting.
b. Anyone filing a written objection will have the
opportunity to be heard at the Traffic Committee
meeting.
3. The Traffic Committee will..review the data gathered land testi-
mony taken and make a recommendation on the parking (restric-
tion request.
4. a. Established restrictions will remain in force 'a mini-
mum of one year.
b. To revoke the restriction will require the same
method of_petition with 75% response and approval.
c. Restrictions which have been revoked will remain so
for a minimum of -one -year..
Permit Process
1. The Traffic _Committee will determine qualifications for a
maximum of two permits per residential unit.
A. Parking survey information gathered by the Engineering
Department will form the basis for evaluation of permit
requests.
b. The duration of the_.permit_is one year.
C. Permits may be revoked for appropriate cause.
I
PROCEDURE FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING RESTRICTION
r IN A LIMITED AREA WITH PERMIT PROCESS
Page 3
d. Permits are renewable on a calendar year basis.
e: The permit'is registered to a specific addresi,and
may be transferred from vehicle to vehicle.
f. A permit fee as adopted from time to time by resolu-
tion of the City Council shall be charged to cover
processing costs.
2. The Police Department will enforce the parking restrictions.
J
2g
•
u
Traffic Committee Meeting
.,July 17;'1984
I: Request:
Mr. and Mrs. Joe Mcdaha
1317 Mobeck
THAT RESIDENT PARKING ONLY PERMITS BE ISSUED FOR
DAWLEY AVENUE FROM CAMERON 900' NORTH, ON MOBECK
STREET BETWEEN DAWLEY AVENUE AND AVINGTON AVENUE
A14D ON AVINGTON AVENUE FROM MOBECK STREET NORTH
TO LARKWOOD STREET.
Findings:
This request was held over from the May 22, Traffic
Committee Meeting in order to allow the requestee
time to discuss with the residents of the street
the subject of the possibility of.prohibiting parking
on weekends. On June 27, a community meeting involving
the citizens of the area, school officials, city offi-
cials and representatives of the Bobby Sox League was
held to discuss several options which will be pursued
to reduce the parking problem. 'One of the recommenda-
tions derived from the community meeting was to have
focused parking restrictions and permits for the re-
sidents along Mobeck Street, Dawley and Avington.
Based upon the present usage of the playing field, a
weekday parking restriction between the hours of 4:00 P.M.
and 7:00 P.M. should provide an adequate time period and
a restriction from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturday
should be'adequate.
At present Section 22-174 of the West Covina Municipal
Code -does allow for the installation of signs.prohibiting
or restricting parking of vehicles on certain streets or
portions thereof. The requirements of this section in-
clude the issuance of one permit per dwelling unit and
the payment of a fee for the permit as established by the
City Council from time to time. The permit must be dis
played in plain view on the dash or hanging from the rear
view mirror. Since the permit is registered to a parti-
cular address and not a particular vehicle, it may be used
for visitors' vehicles, or"vehicles of the property owner.
In order to enforce preferential parking on Dawley, Mobeck
and Avington, Section 22-174 of the West Covina Municipal
Code would require the addition of these streets.
2h
Traffic Committee Meeting
July 17, 1984
Staff Recommendation:
That no parking between the hours of 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on
Saturday be instituted for the west side of Dawley between
Cameron and Mobeck, for the north side of Mobeck between
Avington and Dawley and for the east side and west side
of Avington between Mobeck and Larkwood and that parking
permits be issued to the residents in accordance with
Section 22-174 of the West Covina Municipal Code.
Traffic Committee Discussion:
That the fire hydrants on the school side of Mobeck and
Dawley have red curb installed and that the present system
of issuing permits under Section 22-174, which is one per-
mit per address, be utilized in this area also.
Traffic Committee Recommendation:
That no parking between the hours of 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on
Saturday be instituted for the west side of Dawley between
Cameron and Mobeck, for the north side of Mobeck between
Avington and Dawley and for the east side and west side
of Avington between Mobeck and Larkwood and that parking
permits be issued to the residents in accordance with
Section 22-174 of the West Covina Municipal Code. That
fire hydrants along the school frontage have red curb in-
stalled and that only one permit be issued per address.
That the restriction be a seasonal restriction for the
period of March 1 through August 31.
214
Traffic Committee Meetio
December 19, 1995
II. REQUEST:
Leaf Clark, 1311 Peppertree Circle 91792
THAT SPEED BUMPS BE INSTALLED ON THE 2100 BLOCK OF
EVENINGSIDE DRIVE.
FINDINGS:
The City periodically received requests for the installation of speed bumps and/or speed
humps. The City does not install speed bumps nor speed humps. These devices are not
recommended by the California State Traffic Manual. Tests of these devices have
revealed numerous problems. Vehicle operators often swerve or steer around such
devices. Some vehicle operators will actually accelerate when traversing speed bumps
to reduce discomfort. The operators of smaller vehicles (motorcycles, bicycles and
scooters) may lose control of their vehicles when traversing even relatively mild grade
changes.
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers;
"The control of speeding in residential neighborhoods, while
maintaining acceptably safe street and roadway conditions, is a
wide -spread concerti which requires persistent law enforcement
effort. The inability of posted speed limit signs to curb the
intentional violator, leads to frequent demands for installation of
"speed bumps" in public streets and alleys. However, actual tests
of various experimental designs have demonstrated the physical
inability of a speed bump to control all types of light weight and
heavy weight vehicles successfully. California courts have held
public agencies liable for personal injuries resulting from faulty
designs. Increased hazard to the unwary; challenges to the dare-
devils; disruption of the movement of both emergency and service
vehicles; and undesirable increase in noise have caused speed
bumps to be officially rejected as a standard traffic control
device. "
The Traffic Committee completed an extensive review of speed bumps and speed humps
earlier this year. Those reports are attached.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE REQUEST BE DENIED.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE REQUEST BE HELD OVER FOR REQUESTOR'S FURTHER INPUT.
TRAFFIC: dec95 rep. 3
City of West Covina
Memorandum
TO: City Manager and City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Glover
City Engineer/Public Works Director
SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON SPEED HUMPS
AGENDA
ITEM No. D-2
DATE February 7, 1995
® PRINT ON
SUMMARY: In response to the City Council's request, staff has
performed further research on the installation of humps and
bumps. Humps are being used by other cities with some
success and with some problems.
INTRODUCTION
Until the 1970's, the effects of motor vehicle traffic on the quality of urban residential
environments were largely neglected. Since then, however, a number of converging forces
have increasingly brought these effects to the attention of both citizens and local
transportation officials. Many local governments are finding themselves under intense
pressure to reduce the speed and volume of traffic on neighborhood streets to address both
real and perceived safety and quality of life issues.
While neighborhood streets are typically public property, many residents feel an "ownership"
of their streets and often vocalize objections of drivers from outside their neighborhood who
appear to be speeding or are discourteous. Speed humps were developed with the intent of
reducing speeding in residential neighborhood.
It is probably necessary to first distinguish between speed humps as opposed to the more
familiar speed bumps. A speed hump is dramatically different from a speed bump. Figure
1 is a cross-section drawing showing two typical speed bumps and a typical speed hump.
Speed humps normally have a maximum height of three to four inches with a travel length of
approximately 12 feet. Speed bumps commonly used in parking lots and on some private
roadways, are generally from three to six inches in height with a length of one to three feet.
From an operational stand -point, humps and bumps have critically different impacts on
vehicles.
Within typical residential speed, humps create a gentle vehicle rocking motion that causes
some driver discomfort and results in most vehicles slowing to near 15 mph at the hump and
20-25 mph between properly spaced humps in a system. At higher speeds, a hump jolts the
vehicle suspension, its occupants and/or cargo.
A speed bump, on the other hand, causes significant driver discomfort at typical residential
speeds, and generally results in vehicles slowing to 5 mph or less at the bump. At high
speeds, bumps tend to have less overall vehicle impact because non -rigid suspensions will
quickly absorb the impact before the vehicle body can react. In general, bicycles,
motorcycles, and other vehicles with rigid or near -rigid suspensions are more susceptible to
damage and loss of control from humps and bumps than vehicles with flexible suspensions.
However, speed humps generally represent a lesser risk to those vehicles than do speed
bumps. The Fire Department advises that speed bumps and humps can permanently damage
the frame of a fire truck.
Speed bumps cause more problems than benefits and are generally discouraged. Speed
humps, on the other hand, are being used in a few locations with varied results. Therefore,
the remainder of this report will only concern speed humps and not speed bumps.
HISTORY
Speed humps were originally developed. ;n flee early 1970's by the Transportation and Road
Research Laboratory'(TRRL) in Great BziC in. TRRL tested various hump sizes and shapes
and several vehicle types operating over a r:)nge of speeds. From this work, the TRRL
parabolic profile hump was developed. Since then, speed humps have been tested in Europe,
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States, and other countries. A growing number of
cities in the United States are installing speed humps on minor residential streets.
Installations of speed humps began in the United States during 1979.
3a
City Manager and City Council
February 7, 1995
Page Three
ANALYSIS (continue)
Staff included 178 California cities in a postcard survey regarding their policies toward speed
humps. Staff received 117 replies. Table 1 lists the results of this survey. Thirty-four of
the cities have policies that allow the installation of speed humps. Thirty-eight cities have
installed speed humps. Seventy-nine cities have not installed speed humps on public streets.
The guidelines for the installation of speed humps vary from city to city. However, certain
standard requirements appear in most. Specifically, speed humps can only be installed on
minor residential streets. No arterials or collector streets may have speed humps. The street
must have a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph and be 40 feet or less in width curb to curb.
Although 34 cities presently have policies allowing speed humps most have relatively few
speed humps installed. The only city with numerous speed humps is Pasadena which has
347. Pasadena has a waiting list for speed humps and more are installed each year. Only 8
cities have between 15 and 49 speed humps. The primary reason that many of the cities
have few speed humps is that their criteria is somewhat difficult to satisfy. Some example of
these criteria are that a spot speed study must verify that the Critical Approach Speed (85 %)
is between 30 and 35 mph, that traffic volumes exceed 2000 or 3000 ADT, that the street
segment be at least 1/4 mile in length uninterrupted by stop signs and traffic signals, that a
petition be circulated by the requestor showing that 67 % of the abutting property owners
favor the speed humps and that the requestor be required to pay for the installation of the
speed humps.
In general, the installation of speed humps is becoming more popular with the public. Many
people perceive them as an effective traffic control device to reduce vehicle speeds. The
State Department of Transportation will not designate speed humps as a traffic control device
but has recently designated them as a roadway design feature. If the State Department of
Transportation had designated speed humps as a traffic control device, Caltrans would have
had to develop a standardized design, installation warrants and/or guidelines regarding where
and under what conditions they might be installed.
The typical driver will reduce his speed when crossing the hump but immediately thereafter
he will accelerate. Overall, the prevailing speeds of vehicles are reduced. However, the
noise from vehicles constantly accelerating and the jolted suspension systems seems to be a
common complaint. Although the diversion of vehicles to other streets may not be desirable,
it is often the case in practice and is apparently the next greatest concern. Vehicle off -
tracking (gutter running), inhibiting street sweeping, lengthening emergency response time
and increased street maintenance are not considered serious problems by the survey
respondents. Liability concerns are not borne out by the experiences reported from cities
that have speed humps.
If there is a very high level of neighborhood support and an actual speeding problem, speed
humps can be of some benefit. According to Table 1, most cities that allow speed humps
have relatively few. The City of Brea was one of the first California cities to install speed
humps and yet they only have a total of nine. Only the City of Pasadena has a relatively
large numbers of speed humps at 347. Although Pasadena policy requires a petition with
65 % of the property owners approving of speed humps, that number is probably easy to
achieve given the horizontal street alignment characteristics of many of Pasadena's streets.
3c
w
�1
F3"
�- 25 FT Lz FT L 12 F F -
SPEED BUMPS SPEED HZTMP
LJ
•
e
FIGURE 2
TYPICAL SPEED HUMPS, PAVEMENT MESSAGES AND SIGNS
3f
Do you have a
Have you installed .
If Yes,-
olic regarding
P _,;Y , g g>
"Sp* eed Hum s"
P
How
the installation of
;on any streets?
Many
Illspeed humps"? .
are
existing
- Yes
No
Yes
No
City';:
comments':.-
Commerce
X
X
N/A
Do have a few in City
parking facilities.
Compton
X
X
16
Corona
X
X
10
Three streets - install 13
years ago. They no longer
install them. Council will
never do it again.
Coronado
X
X
N/A
Will not install unless they
become recognize by State
Department of
Transportation and MUTCD.
Costa Mesa
X
X
13
Located on three streets.
Culver City
X
X
4
In mist of demonstration
project.
Cupertino
X
X
7
Speed humps work, but be
careful where you place
them.
Desert Hot Springs
X
X
N/A
Diamond Bar
X
X
N/A
They deny requests for speed
humps.
Downey
X
X
N/A
They are currently reviewing
speed humps.
Duarte
X
X
N/A
El Cajon
X
X
N/A
Escondido
X
X
N/A
Fontana
X
X
N/A
They are considering the
Modesto approach - i.e.
The requestor pays.
Fountain Valley
X
X
N/A
They are presently reviewing
a policy.
Fullerton
X
X
N/A
Garden Grove
X
X
N/A
Have a policy but have been
directed not to install humps
at this time.
Glendale
X
X
N/A
Grand Terrace
X
X
N/A
Lomita
X
X
N/A
Los Alamitos
___ _ .
X
X
N/A
Los Angeles
X
X.
15
Plan to expand to 30 + this
year through gas tax money
or resident's money.
3h
TABLE 1
Do you have a Have you installed If Yes;
olk re ar.dm
P Y h g"
Seed Hum s
P - P
How
the. installation of
on any: Streets.
Many.
..speed humps"T:
_
are
exisfing
,
:
:No
es
o
CeCity
ommnts
Adelanto
X
X
N/A
Agoura
X
X
16
Uses 2 5/8" Hump
Anaheim
X
X
2
Apple Valley
X
X
N/A
Arcadia
X
X
N/A
Baldwin Park
X
X
N/A
Installed humps only in
alleys.
Banning
X
X
N/A
Bell
X
X
N/A
Bellflower
X
X
N/A
Berkeley
X
X
10
Drug traffic area and traffic
problems are two criteria for
speed humps.
Beverly.Hills
X
X
8
Four streets.
Bradbury
X
X
3
Installed against the
recommendation of the City
Engineer.
Brawley
X
X
N/A
Have not addressed the
problem.
Brea
X
X
9
First city in USA to install
speed humps. No particular
problems.
Buena Park
X
X
N/A
Campbell
X
X
1
Reduced speed and shifted
traffic.
Carlsbad
X
X
N/A
City Council stated that
speed humps are undesirable.
Carpinteria
X
X
N/A
Carson
X
X
N/A
Council has rejected such
request - usually because of
neighborhood objections.
Cathedral
X
X
N/A
Cerritos
X
X
N/A
Chino
X
X
N/A
Will not consider until
approved by Caltrans.
Claremont
X
X
1
Try to stay away from it due
to liability.
Clovis
X
X
6
Will send packages regarding
speed humps.
3g
Do you have a>
.re arding.
the installation of
'rspeed humps"?
Haoe you installed
"S d3Polee'Ium s. "
an any; streets
If Yes,
Hicow .
Many
are
existing,
Comments
Yes
No
Yes
No
Lynwood
X
X
N/A
Maywood
X
X
N/A
Mission Viejo
X
X
17
Seven streets - have reduced
complaints of speeding.
Monrovia
X
X
N/A
Montclair
X
X
N/A
Montebello
X
X
12
Monterey Park
X
X
N/A
Several requests but none
met their criteria.
Moorpark
X
X
N/A
Moreno Valley
X
X
N/A
Morro Bay
•
X
X
N/A
Presently investigating
installing them on one street.
National City
X
X
20
Installed in pairs.
Needles
X
X
N/A
Newport Beach
X
X
10
Program was killed by
Council in part because of
traffic diversion.
Norco
X
X
3
Controversial - Not
recommended by the Traffic
Engineer.
Oceanside
X
X
N/A
Ontario
X
X
N/A
Discouraged because of
liability concerns.
Oxnard
X
X
N/A
Palmdale
X
X
N/A
Prohibited by Ordinance.
Palos Verdes Estate
X
X
N/A
Paramount
X
X
40
Pasadena
X
X
347
Popular - city has many long
straight residential streets.
Pismo Beach
X
X
N/A
Placentia
X
X
8
Very effective if used under
right circumstances.
Pomona-
X
X
N/A
Port Hueneme
X
X
N/A
Strongly discourage.
Poway
X
X
3.
Rancho Cucamonga
X
X
N/A
Policy not to install based on
City Attorney's advise.
3i
City
Do you: have a: _
policy regarding;
the installation of
:"speed MPS:;::.:.
Have you installed
''Speed; Humps"
on any streetsry
If Yes,
How,
: Many
are
existing
Comments
Yes;:
No
Yes
No
South El Monte
X .
X
N/A
No one has met the criterion
- including a petition.
South Gate
X
X
N/A
South Pasadena
X
X
N/A
Stanton
X
X
N/A
Temple City
X
X
N/A
Thousand Oaks
X
X
12
Torrance
X
X
N/A
Tustin
X
X
N/A
Upland
X
X
N/A
However, three are existing
in alleys.
Ventura
X
X
3
Discourage it after being
reviewed.
Vernon
X
X
N/A
Victorville
X
X
N/A
Villa Park
X
X
N/A
Vista
X
X
1
Four more humps under
construction - still need to
develop guidelines.
Walnut
X
X
N/A
Requests have not met
requirements.
Westminster
X
X
5
Rarely are approved.
Yorba Linda
X
X
8
Five more speed humps will
be installed.
Yucaipa
X
X
N/A
31•.
Traffic Committee M
December 19, 1995
III. REQUEST:
City Initiated.
L1
THAT THE REQUEST FOR PARKING AND STOPPING BE PROHIBITED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF BADILLO STREET FROM LARK ELLEN TO 600 FEET
WEST AND ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM 570 FEET EAST OF VINCENT
AVENUE AT THE CITY LIMIT TO LARK ELLEN AVENUE BE HELD OVER.
FINDINGS:
This Traffic Committee Request was held over for further study from the November
meeting. The south side of Badillo Street between Vincent Avenue and Lark Ellen
Avenue is abutted by a 6 foot block wall from Vincent Avenue to 2000 feet east. The
remaining 600 feet to Lark Ellen Avenue abuts the Grovecenter Elementary School.
The masonry wall is congruent with the rear property lines of the single familyi,homes
which face ElRIenia Street.
The first 570 feet of curb along the north side of Badillo Street east of Vincent Avenue
is under the jurisdiction of Covina. The remaining 2000 feet to Lark Ellen Avenue is
within -the City limits of West Covina. The Faith Community Church and Covina Valley
Community Hospital abut the north side of Badillo Street. within West Covina.
During the Planning Commission Public Hearing for their use permit, Faith Community
Church had no objections to prohibiting parking along the abutting portion of iBadillo
Street. The reactions of the hospital and the school are unknown at this time. They will
be losing their abutting street parking privileges on Badillo Street. However, the abutting
single family homes along the 2000 foot south section of Badillo Street will not be
affected because the masonry wall blocks access from their lots.
Staff contacted the Faith Community Church, Covina Valley Hospital and Grovecenter
School Administrations regarding the proposed parking restrictions abutting their
property. As of December 18, only the Grovecenter School responded to survey. They
are opposed to parking restrictions abutting their school.
k
The Traffic Committee recommended that parki
ng ng and stopping be prohibited along the
south side of Badillo Street from Vincent Avenue to 2000 feet east at their November
meeting. Staff has prepared a work order for the installation of the necessary signs along
that -segment.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR PARKING AND STOPPING BE PROHIBITED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF BADILLO STREET .FROM LARK ELLEN TO 600 FEET
WEST AND ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM - 570 FEET EAST OF VINCENT
AVENUE AT THE CITY LIMIT TO LARK ELLEN AVENUE BE HELD OVER.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR PARKING AND STOPPING BE PROHIBITED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF BADILLO STREET FROM LARK ELLEN TO 600 FEET
WEST AND ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM 570 FEET EAST OF VI I'CENT
AVENUE AT THE CITY LIMIT TO LARK ELLEN AVENUE BE HELD OVER.
TRAFFIC:dec95rep. I 4
Traffic Committee �Meog •
December 19, 1995
IV. REOUEST:
Mr. and Mrs. Victor Perilla
1.27 North Maplewood Avenue 91790
THAT THE EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY (PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT)
BETWEEN MAPLEWOOD AVENUE AND VINCENT AVENUE ABUTTING THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE 'INTERSTATE 10 FREEWAY BE REMOVED
(VACATED).
This request) was held over from the November Traffic Committee meeting to provide
more time for a greater response to a postcard survey.
The walkway functions as a transportation link from Maplewood Avenue to Vincent
Avenue. Staff is conducting a postcard survey of the residences that may be affected by
the removal �of this walkway. The Traffic Committee reviewed the same request during
1993. At that time, staff completed a postcard survey of the residences that might be
affected by the closure of the walkway. The majority of the responses to the postcard
survey were opposed to the closure of the walkway. The minutes of that Traffic
Committee meeting are attached.
The request was initiated by a recent .petition signed by 113 residents in this
neighborhood. The attached base map denotes the residences signing the petition.
Although the petition reads that the "easement be removed", the walkway is within this
easement and the intent is to remove the walkway in its entirety. The concrete walkway
provides pedestrian access to Vincent Avenue from the intersection of Maplewood
Avenue and Garvey Avenue North. If the walkway were closed, pedestrians would have
to walk north on Maplewood than'I'west on Workman Avenue and south on Vincent
Avenue. The alternate route is 1400 feet further in length to access the identical location
on the east side of Vincent Avenue. Renderings of the walkway and the abutting
structures are attached.
Staff has conducted a postcard survey of the residents that may be inconvenienced by the
ii
removal of the concrete walkway. The residences contacted are outlined on the attached
base map. A letter and a self addressed, pre -stamped postcard were mailed to each
single family home and apartment within the area outlined the attached map. The owners
of the apartment buildings were also contacted. There were a total of 190 letters mailed
.to residences, businesses and property owners. As of December 12, 1995, 56 postcards
were returned. Of the 56 postcards-, returned 31 were opposed and 22 were in favor of
the removal of the walkway. Three of the residents returning postcards did not care if
the walkway were removed. The results of the postcard survey are shown on the attached
tabulation and denoted on the attached base map. It is apparent that there is still
considerable objections to removing the walkway.
I
If the wall
would chat
freeway ca
scaling the
that the shi
THAT
THAT
iay were removed or closed, it is highly questionable whether conditions
e appreciably. The masonry block wall and chain link fence surrounding the
be scaled relatively easily. If a teenage individual were given the choice of
call or fence rather than walking an alternate route of 1400 feet, -,;it is likely
ter route would be chosen.
REQUEST BE DENIED.
REQUEST BE HELD OVER FOR FURTHER STUDY.
TRAFFIC AP05rep. 1 5
4 r I
r�
I F
� z0
7 w F A
e 1026 1027 0 1028 1027 1026 4C
MAPLEWOOD AVENUE
n c.
N N cam! o! N N ccll N
z
x
x
0
COMMERCL►L STORES
PARKING LOT AREA
VINCENT AVENUE
� � I
MAPLEWOOD AVENUE
Lo
CQ
Cat C\2
li!iiill Il�liill. Illliiil .III ill. Illlllf ,
Ili. iil , 4 lilt. II{Ill�ii illl�lli. � II ;` , ,
�I Illlliiilil i III '�!ii I. �I�Iliil�,�ii�lliill� ,
COMMERCIAL STORES
PARKING LOT AREA a r• ,' j
AN
L:
�
Ul
ITT
20
co CT
.S6 i S7 `. Sd mg60 0 6/, ` ° 33 I 2`T
7 L.4 o 9 27
9 gip'
°��J� ` a1 ��' r.y Z� � .GL h Qv +, r'� s °' •, I _ 28 �S /6 x ...lc 'J -
.� u! t� !. ` Jz/ ` �.. ,ems �� :F.,r ,.r..r ..r s +; I •'28 ..
��� v � � V�� qw � Yazd I I �' —� ° • ', ti'�� q
.°• (� I7S Q O S�. • e Ji6 i �y! I el ! ° e.o 3cY I .. oc >r
• ,� V ..� • A �` ui'1 >. ` JQ7 K � ` l V � � ' v _) -. �, : Q— .� �C' - b.i _ _
/S' s.q JrO Joi F 0 $ °- w 3S b 3 a q` �l f�; pi 0 •.fS q' .�6 .f7 °iC I y �/
2 9�5r,+',les.ro ;r Jo arsi �a �.� Yo ss / j` q M °I ..'J9 �4p�
!n I MF fl. JD .abi �q 1!' c ti v 91 R 0
Sa I:'4.�Q I J •6- 87 >, 60• ssal > :' Y .w�.LZ�''r ��" 1.4LV o Fa 3• . .. " �.
sd ,zo• � 84A- B3 o 82�BO 7�9 77 76'�s3 ls'rb'b
ScYf¢ Ey uo, 7 zoo tw�I, I F. Af 29_I/4 r
J �6 1ill I 3 =/,„�
A 64, 6(y 7/. '7Z� a s9 S7. /Y° /2 3 6 ¢
— , Q d2_= •� � yr il' 1 Fe' � C � .15 � � � � I '� f O ' �' i
50
61
M. <kc
soe�ti R I I _
6/ oI 60, sB_ 57 Sd� SS s4 _ S/ O 49� /2/��p I Gory 52P 54^' SSQ 56
Al r.1
a77"
lI.IS S O
,2' uur.lu — . 20c' � I
I r /6 v r 43 ,s �
� ec.,e' 47 tl6 45 I4.¢ I43 •dig 4/
t 4 -A . N
LLs S12 I
n
.Uo. ca. oo u.w .. • ., „
.5
3.¢c 1 I 34
i 0 Ni 39p
'1
3Sr`i 36ti 37�f.•
,p, �',r•• co' 64. d,C • .
C S
P. Pi re6 11.6. 641�
(� '(/� Tp` •>; _ '°� ,u � � Ezc 96 /zzl
P.P et
��S)/Zvr. N/lF is 11i
POSTCARD SURVEY
:�:�':ij�::1{':�>;ry:"•�?Ji::i:JG?$•'.'••'::::::'::::::::S
. !R!.14H .�YN<�:<•i:.::•:?i4:?•:
....
:;i:::; :;G:i:: 5 :.
:••::i: )iti+ff;
•• i i •' .r'.�1`yri�: ' ••{' 4::i::ii::
.?::??.;.; >:;: .::i a•^•••..TI!. iii:oii:
�1Y
:::i:i•:?•iii: .: :•: /i'i'�i:i•►M.�; .. � ......:.'..i::::: i�::!•:
:•>::•s:•i:•>:• ; iii :'�'+.. :??aiii:.;
:. ii...... r.{�:: F:. :! �1 ::i•: Y.
::::ii:.i?:F✓.Y.I:I.i\::Y (F:'<.:�':
::i{:::Yy.i':::::?::}:i i:Cf'�?:•: }: :•,??:i:•:::i::i �,,
N. i ,;. »»>:;::;:emvval waltcwaK.::.<.:<?::af,.;rettttiv...zf;o
:,,'<:}i':ti:•:•,:•:. i:::: ::::::::::{'�::>:: `�::C:i::'.•::•,:: .
. rzEkw.
.
:....:•:!:i::::::'r::::::'r'i'i:::
?......;:.;;;;:<.;:.;:.::.::.;;:::::..;'..::
88
15
20
2 .:>.
3
.......
.
..:::::.:•::.::.::.::.;:.;;;:::.......::::.:....:::::....::.::.::::::.:.......................
.
56