01-19-2010 - Traffic Committee Minutes - 12/15/09~ • • City of West Covina
r1VNemorandum
AGENDA
TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager ITEM NO. D-4
and City Council DATE January 19, 2010
FROM: Shannon A. Yauchzee, Director/City Engineer
Public Works Department
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Receive and file the attached minutes of the Traffic Committee meeting held
on December 15, 2009.
2. Introduce the following ordinance to reduce the speed limit on Virginia
Avenue from 35 miles per hour to 25.miles per hour:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SECTION 22-131 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL
CODE . RELATING TO INCREASE OF STATE. LAW
MAXIMUM SPEEDS (VIRGINIA AVENUE)
V V
Prep e by: Iffliguel Hernandez
Civil Engineering Associate
Attachment No. 1 — Report
Attachment No. 2 — Ordinance
Reviewed/Approved by: �inannon A. Y aucnzee
Director/City Engineer
1
Z:\TRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 2009\December TC 2009 Minutes.doc
Tuesday
December 15, 2009
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
I. REQUEST:
City Initiated
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TRAFFIC .COMMITTEE
CITY OF WEST CO hINA
3:00 p.m.
City Hall, Room 314
Management Resource Center
Miguel Hernandez, Shannon A. Yauchzee, and
Sergeant Pat Cirrito
Mathew Brazas, West Covina Resident
THAT THE TRAFFIC CONDITION ON VIRGINIA AVENUE FROM
BARRANCA STREET TO GRAND AVENUE BE REVIEWED.
FINDINGS:
Speed limits are established in accordance with the California Vehicle Code
(CVC) and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) guidelines.
Maximum speed limit in urban areas is 55 miles per hour. All other speed limits
are called prima facie limits, which are considered to be safe under normal
conditions. Prima facie limits is set by the CVC and include 25 miles per hour in
business and residential districts, 25 miles per hour in school zones, and 15 miles
per hour in alleys and railroad crossings.
Speed limits between 25 and 55 miles per hour are established by a traffic and
engineering . study, which takes into account a sampling of vehicular speeds,
collision history, and roadway conditions. A safe and reasonable speed is set at or
below the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers drive:
Speed limit for residential, as mentioned above, is 25 miles per hour. In order for
a street to be considered as a residential street, it needs to have. the following
characteristics:
• The width cannot exceed 40 feet.
• The interrupted length cannot be more than one-half mile (2,640-feet).
Interruptions include official traffic control devices such as stop signs and
traffic signals.
• There can be no more than one traffic lane in each direction.
Virginia Avenue between Barranca Street to Grand Avenue is 40 feet in width,
has one traffic lane in each direction, and is uninterrupted for about 2,894 feet.
Thus, the speed limit for Virginia Avenue must be established by a traffic and
engineering study. Presently, the speed limit is established at 35 miles per hour.
Recent stop speed study measured the 85% speed at 37 miles per hour, which is
not considered excessive.
In order to shorten the uninterrupted length, staff considered placing a multi -way
stop at the intersection of Virginia Avenue and Mesa Drive. Staff conducted
traffic volume counts and reviewed collision histories for the intersection.
2
Z:\TRAFFIC COMMITTEE = 2009\December TC 2009 Minutes.doc
In order to shorten the uninterrupted length, staff considered placing a multi -way
stop at the intersection of Virginia Avenue and Mesa Drive. Staff conducted
traffic volume counts and reviewed collision histories for the intersection.
I. REQUEST: (Continued)
MUTCD guidelines require that certain criteria, called warrants, be met before the
installation of a multi -way stop. Warrants take into consideration the traffic
volume on the major and side streets, the delay'of vehicles entering the major
streets, and collision history. Staff used the collected data in determining the need
for a multi -way stop in accordance with MUTCD. Multi -way stop warrant
evaluation form is attached for four intersections and shows that none of the
warrants for a multi -way stop are met.
However, according with the State law using engineering judgment, a stop sign
may be installed at an intersection where a combination of high speeds and
restricted. sight distance exists.. Attached is existing condition diagrams that
reflect the configuration for the intersection of Virginia Avenue and Mesa Drive.
As indicated in the diagrams, the safe stopping sight distance for the intersection,
taking into consideration the obstructions, horizontal and vertical alignment of
Virginia Avenue is partial restricted. The measure safe stopping sight distance is
261 feet and the minimum safe stopping sight distance is 278 feet. Additionally,
in 2008 there was one intersection collision reported.
Staff will be recommending the installation of a multi -way stop at the intersection
of Virginia Avenue and Mesa Drive based. on the restricted sight distance. With
the proposed multi -way stop at Mesa Drive, the uninterrupted length is about
25000 feet. With the uninterrupted length less than one-half mile, this would
allow Virginia Avenue to be classified as a residential street and set the speed
limit at 25 miles per hour.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT STOP SIGNS, STOP AHEAD SIGNS, AND APPROPRIATE
PAVEMENT MARKINGS. BE PLACED ON THE WEST AND
EASTBOUND APPROACHES OF VIRGINIA AVENUE AT MESA
DRIVE.
THAT VIRGINIA AVENUE FROM BARRANCA STREET TO GRAND
AVENUE BE POSTED AT 25. MILES PER HOUR.
THAT THE RADAR TRAILER BE UTILIZED TO MAKE DRIVERS
AWARE OF THEIR VEHICLE SPEED ALONG VIRGINIA AVENUE
AND THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INCREASE SPEED
ENFORCEMENT AS FEASIBLE.
3
Z:\TRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 2009\December TC 2009 Minutes.doc
CITY OF WEST COVINA
MULTI -WAY STOP WARRANT
Date of Traffic Count: November 4, 2009
Intersection of Virginia Avenue at Mesa Drive
A. VOLUME WARRANT SATISFIED
1 300 or more vehicles per hour (average) entering
intersection from major street approaches (total
from both approaches) for any eight hours , and
2 200 or more combined vehicles and
pedestrians per hour (average) entering
intersection from minor street for the
same eight hours, with
3 An average delay to minor.street vehicular
traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle
during the maximum hour
B. SEVENTY WARRANT SATISFIED
When the 85-percentile approach speed of
the major street exceeds 40 mph, the .
minimum vehicular volume warrant is
70 percent of the above requirements.
C. ACCIDENT WARRANT SATISFIED
Five.or more accidents of.types
susceptible of correction by multi -way
stops within a twelve-month period..
(January 2008-December 2.008)
D. INTERIM MEASURE WARRANT SATISFIED
Where traffic signals are warranted and
urgently needed
4
Z:\TRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 2009\December TC 2009 Minutes.doc
NOT SATISFIED X
126 v/hr
39 v/hr
None
NOT SATISFIED X
85% = 37 mph
N/A
NOT SATISFIED X
NOT SATISFIED X
None
w
Existing Wall
VIRGINIA AVENUE AT MESA DRIVE
SAFE STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
Install stop. ahead sign and
appurtenant -pavement markings
M
13
PROPOSED MULTI. -WAY STOP
VIRGINIA AVENUE AT MESA DRIVE
Install stop sign and appurtenant
pavement markings
II. REQUEST:.
Jose Victoria, West Covina Resident
THAT THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL BE CONSIDERED AT
THE HOLLENBECK AVENUE AND VINE AVENUE INTERSECTION.
FINDINGS:
Hollenbeck Avenue is a 60-foot wide arterial street with two lanes of travel in each
direction. Arterial streets are typically multi -lane roadways serving commercial and
residential land uses. Vine Avenue is a 40-foot wide collector street with one lane of
travel in each direction. Collector streets typically carry. the traffic from local and
residential streets to the arterial streets. This intersection is controlled by stop signs at all
four approaches. The stop sign for southbound Hollenbeck Avenue is slightly obstructed
by over -grown tree branches.
The 24-hour traffic volumes of Hollenbeck Avenue and Vine Avenue intersection are
shown in the following table:
s%Streeim
`!.�11' rection
11/21%0,9
lzlr/22/09
, 11/23/09
' . 1/24L09.'5":
Hollenbeck.
Avenue
Northbound
3,011
2,447
3,895
4,152
Hollenbeck
Avenue
Southbound
3,111
2,447
4,299
4,401
Vine Avenue
Westbound
1,897
1,562
2,175
2,286
Vine Avenue
Eastbound
1,709
1,313
2,295
2,477
Total
9,728
7,769
12,664
13,316
Presently, the posted speed limit. on Hollenbeck Avenue is 40 miles per hour. A recent
study of vehicle speeds indicates the critical approach speed (85%) is 40 miles per hour.
The posted speed limit on Vine Avenue is 40 miles per hour and the critical speed (85%)
was measured at 41 miles per hour. The speed limits on both streets are required to be
posted based on traffic and engineering study.
The review of the collision history for the intersection shows that one collision occurred
in 2008. No collisions have occurred in the.first nine -months of 2009.
Traffic signals are installed to provide an orderly movement of traffic, to increase
capacity of the intersection, to reduce frequency and severity of certain types of
accidents, especially right-angle collisions, to coordinate the continuous traffic flow at a
defined speed and to interrupt heavy traffic flow to allow other traffic to cross.
To justify the installation of a traffic signal, the location must meet certain criteria or
warrants. The "Uniform Traffic Control Device Manual" (MUTCD) is the traffic control
guide by U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration
(FHA). The manual lists eight warrants for traffic signal installation, where at least one
of which must be met to justify the installation. These are:
1. 8-Hour Vehicular Volume: Traffic volumes must exceed prescribed minimums
for eight hours of each weekday.
2. 4-Hour Vehicular Volume: Traffic volumes must exceed prescribed minimums
for four hours of each weekday.
3. Peak Hour: This is applied only in unusual cases, such as office parks, industrial
complexes, or park and ride lots that attract or discharge large number of vehicles
in a short time. The side road traffic suffers undue delays. when entering and
crossing the major street.
4. Pedestrian Volume: If traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that
pedestrians experience excessive delays in crossing.
5. School Crossing: If there are not enough. safe gaps in traffic for school children to
safely cross street.'
5
Z:\TRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 2009\December TC 2009 Minutes.doc
•
II. REQUEST: (Continued)
6.. Coordinated Signal , System: Used for places where the adjacent traffic control
signals do! not keep traffic grouped together efficiently.
7. Crash Warrant: If five of more right-angle and cross traffic turn collisions have
occurred in a twelve month period, the volumes for the eight and four hour
warrants may be reduced.
8, Roadway Network:. Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might
be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a
roadway network.
Traffic signals do not always prevent collisions. In many instances, the frequency of
rear -end and sideswipe collisions increases when signals are installed. Right angle and
left -turn collisions usually decrease. It should be noted that due to the low volumes on
the minor streets, the traffic signal would rest on green on the major street approaches for
a majority of the time until the vehicle detectors are tripped on the minor streets.
Additionally, the installation of a traffic signal often increases traffic on that minor street
leading to the irritation of the local residents. The, estimated cost is about $225,000.
The traffic signat warrants were applied to the intersection and found that Warrant No. 2,
Four Hour Vehicular Volume, was met (see attached). However, meeting one or more
warrants does not require the installation of a traffic signal, only suggests that they may
be suitable. Staff believes that a traffic signal at this location may lead to an increase in
vehicle speed and increased traffic conflicts.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
THAT ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS BE INSTALLED AT THE CENTERLINE OF
HOLLENBECK AVENUE IN FOUR -FOOT WIDE RAISED MEDIANS FOR THE
NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND APPROACES AT VINE AVENUE.
6
Z:\TRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 2009\December TC 2009 Minutes.doc
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet I of 4)
CALC JB DATE 11/30/09
DIST CO RTE PM CHK MH DATE
Major St: Hollenbeck Avenue Critical Approach Speed 40 mph
Minor St: Vine Avenue Critical Approach Speed 41 mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h - 40 mph- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -® }
OR. RURAL (R)
in built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - ® URBAN (U)
WARRANT I — Eight Hour Vehicular Volume I
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS
700 800 1200 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
U R
U R
Approach Lanes
1
2 or more
Both Approaches.
Major Street
500
(400)
350
(280)
600
(480)
420
(336)
859
650
447
674
755
73.9
761
518
Highest Approach.
Minor Street
150
(120)
105
(84)
200
(160)
140
(112)
227
206
147
296
189
164
219
163
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Approach Lanes
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS
700
U R
U R—
1
2 or more
Both Approaches.
Major Street
750
(600)
525
(420)
900
(720)
630
(504)
859
Highest Approach.
Minor Street
75
(60)
53
(42)
100
(80)
70
(56)
227.
Combination of Conditions A & B -
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
800
1200
1 1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
650
447
674
755
739
761
518
206
147
296
189
164
219
163
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT
WARRANT
FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS
SATISFIED 80%
1.MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
YES ❑ NO
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
c: msoffice\word\files\traffic\traffic.sig 7
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 2 of 4)
WARRANT 2- Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES ® NO ❑
Record hourly volumes. for four hours
Approach Lanes
One
2 or
More
700
800
1800
1900
Both Approaches — Major Street
X
859
650
543
521
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
X
227
206
297
254
I.
All plotted points fall above the curves. in MUTCD Figure 4C-1 or, 4C-2 YES ® NO ❑
II.
WARRANT 3 - Peak Hour PARTS A OR PART B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
PART A SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(All parts 1;2 and 3 below must be satisfied)
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five
vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach; AND
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 .vph for intersections with
YES ❑ NO
YES ® NO ❑
three approaches. YES ® NO ❑
PART B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
Approach Lanes
One
2 or
More
700
800
1800
1900
Both Approaches — Major Street
859
650
543
521
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
227
206.
297
254
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour
higher volume vehicle minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute
period) fall above the applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.
c: msoffice\word\files\traffic\traffic.sig 8
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 3 of 4)
CALC JB DATE 11/30/09
DIST co RTE PM CHK MH DATE
Major St: Hollenbeck Avenue Critical Approach Speed 40 mph
Minor St: Vine Avenue Critical Approach Speed 41mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h - 40 mph- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -®}
OR RURAL (R)
in built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ® URBAN (U)
WARRANT 4 — Pedestrian Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
0800 0900 1000 1100 Any hour > 190 YES. ❑ NO ❑
Pedestrian Volume OR 4 hours > 100 YES ❑ NO ❑
Adequate Crossing Gap And < 60 gap/hr YES ❑ NO ❑
AND, The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
than 90m (300)----------------------- YES ❑ NO ❑
AND,. The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow in
The major street -----=----------------- YES ❑ NO ❑
WARRANT 5 — School Crossing
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
Part A
C_an/Minntes and tt of Children
Each of Two Hours
Gaps
Vs.
Minutes
Minutes Children
Using Crossing
Number of
Adequate gaps
School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street
Part B
Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing
Is Nearest Controlled Crossing More than 180m (600 ft) away?
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
Gaps < YES ❑ NO ❑
Minutes
Children > YES ❑ NO ❑
20/hr
SATISFIED YES ® NO ❑
c: msoffice\word\files\traffic\traffic. Sig 9
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 4 of 4)
WARRANT 6 — Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED YES [:]NO
(All Parts Must Re Satisfied)
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
FULFILLED
> 1000 FT
1300 FT
YES ❑ NO
On one way isolated streets or streets with one way traffic significance and adjacent signals are so far apart that
necessary. platooning and speed control would be lost
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooning and speed control proposed
signals could constitute a progressive signal system
YES ❑ NO
WARRANT 7 — Crash Warrant
SATISFIED YES [:]NO
REQUIREMENTS
WARRANT
✓
FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED--
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
80%
-OR
WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
YES ❑ NO
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
®
❑
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY
❑
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF COR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR > /$500 DAMAGE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------MINIMUM REQUIREMENT
NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5 OR MORE 1 sideswipe type collision from 01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008
❑
WARRANT 8 — Roadway Network SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED
REQUIREMENT
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 1,880 VEH/HR
1000 VEH/HR --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. 3600 VEH/HR YES ❑ NO
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST.
HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------------------=-----------------
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY x
---------------------------------------------------------=-----------------------------------------------------------
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN X X
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET,BOTH STREETS YES ® NO ❑
The. satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the
need for assignment must be shown.
c: msoffice\word\files\traffic\traffic.sig 10
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-1. WarrantFour-Hour Vehicular Volcrme
z.
�.Q.
w 0:
400
to
Q
300LLI
075
z J
200:
M
100
w
c�
.l 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES i
f
2 OR;MORE LANES.&,i LANE
} f
�1 LANE.& I LANE '
MAJOR STREET. —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES..—
VEHICLES.PER HOUR (VPH):
'Note; 115 vprr applies as the loer tlireshold vglurne (or a rnihor-street
approach with iwo or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower'
threshold: volume for a mirior-st(eet approach will) one lane.
Page 4C-9
°aa
Figure. 4.C-2: Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor).
(COM, MUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATIONOR ABQVE NQ 64 km,'fi QR ABOVE 40 rnph QN MAJOR STREET) I
.= 400
Q
z
to m
w a.
�n
200
0S
z0
z.J
0 1(lU
rL
W
C3
S
'8U
MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF:BOTH APPROACHES -
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
`Note: 8Q vph applies as the lowerthreshold volume far a rninar SUeet
approach 4vith.two or more lanes and Wvph applies as:the lower
threshold volume:foi- a minor -street approach with one lane.
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26, 2006
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-3 ;Warrant, 3, Peak Hour
T_ 600
a-
z So
c.�
w0 400
cc
cc
0) w 36o
0 :�
s 0 2t)U
w 100
_.
c�
100. 500 0 0 700. 800 000 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1506 16661,700 1,6{
f1l
NOR `STREET—TOTAL:OF BOTH APPROACHES--
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
'Note: 150.vph applies.as ilia lower threshold volurne for aminor-street
approach with twobr more. lanes and ..10Q vph applies as the lower`
ttlreShOld +-ohrrne for a minor -street approach with one lane.
Page 4C-10
Figure 4C-4: Warrarit3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10.,OOO;POPULATION.OR ABOVE 70 64:kmlh OR: ABOVE:4O.mph ON MAJOR STREET)
I
U 400
�a
L.UO
CC
L CL a 30�0.
r-
sLU
O goq
J
t 0
7
W 100
2
0
S
MAJOR -STREET. TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES
VEHICLES. PER HOUR (VPH)
'Note:.10.0. vph,applies,as the.lower threshold vo Urne:for.a;minor-street
approach with two or more: lanes and 75 vph applies :as the lower
threshold -volume for a minor -street. approach tivith :one lane.
Chapter 4C — Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 — Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
10—b
1
HOLLENBECK AVENUE AT VINE AVENUE
PROPOSED STOP SIGN INSTALLATION
•
Install stop sign in raised
concrete median
dl
SHOP
--- � � ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SECTION 22-131 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO INCREASES OF STATE LAW
MAXIMUM SPEEDS (VIRGINIA AVENUE).
The City Council of the City of West Covina does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 22-131 of the West Covina Municipal Code is amended
such that the sub -paragraph labeled Virginia Avenue from Barranca street to Grand Avenue... is
deleted:
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance
and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 19th day of January 2010..
Mayof Shelly Sanderson
ATTEST:
City Clerk Laurie Carrico
I, LAURIE CARRICO, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon
its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the Iof 2010.
That thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the day of 2010, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Clerk Laurie Carrico
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman
Z:\ORDINANCE - 2010\Virginia Avenue Speed Limits.doc