CC 2015-08-25_11a Resolution_Farroll Ave Speed LimitsMEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BY: MATI HORN, CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FARROLL AVENUE SPEED LIMITS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
The Traffic Commission recommends the City Council review the status of the
roadway signage and posted speed limits on Farrell Avenue and: 1) Direct staff to
remove school zone signage on Farrell Avenue between Elm Street and Oak Park;
and remove senior facility signage on Farrell Avenue between Elm Street and Oak
Park and 2) Adopt a Resolution establishing the speed limit on Farrell Avenue from
Halcyon Road to Oak Park Boulevard.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
A minor amount of staff time will be incurred to revise roadway signage. This work
effort is not related to the Critical Needs Action Plan.
BACKGROUND:
At the February 10, 2015 City Council meeting, a member of the public, Dr. John R.
Ziomek spoke during public comment and submitted a letter requesting that the
established speed limit on Farrell Avenue between Elm Street and Oak Park be
revised. At that time, the City Council directed staff to review this issue.
Dr. Ziomek's letter included as an attachment part of a San Luis Obispo Superior
Court's Ruling and Judgment of Not Guilty after Trial concerning a vehicle code
infraction for speeding. The facts contained in the Ruling and Judgment of Not Guilty
after Trial indicate that Dr. Ziomek received a speeding ticket on Sunday, November 2,
2014 on Farrell Avenue between Elm Street and Oak Park. Dr. Ziomek was traveling
approximately 45 MPH (obtained from radar gun) in an area of road with a posted
speed limit of 25 MPH. The Judgment indicates that the Court has evaluated the
roadway signage and determined that it was in compliance with the California Manual
for Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) 2014 edition. The ticket was dismissed,
however, since the Court stated it had not been presented with information concerning
the City's determination to implement the prima facie or statutory speed limit on this
section of Farrell Avenue for a Senior Facility.
It should also be noted that between December 2013 and March 2014, staff updated
Item 11.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FARROLL AVENUE SPEED LIMITS
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
PAGE2
radar survey information for 37 road segments , which were presented to the Traffic
Commission on April 28 , 2014. On May 13 , 2014 , Council adopted a Resolu ti on
certifying the radar speed survey results and establishing revised speed limits .
Area of Senior Facility
This item was reviewed by the Traffic Commission on April 20 , 2015 . The Traffic
Commission 's advisements are included as the recommendations of this report .
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Although trial court rulings are not precedential in nature, based upon Dr. Ziomek 's
letter and the City Council 's direction , staff has evaluated the speed limits on Farrell
Avenue in relation to his complaint and the Court 's ruling. Based on the MUTCD , the
posting of a speed limit sign constitutes a determination . Additionally , since the change
in speed limit was completed to return to prima facie statutory speed limit , an
Engineering and Traffic Survey is not required. Unfortunately , several provisions in the
California Vehicle Code are not consistent within itself and not consistent with the
MUTCD.
The MUTCD defines posted speed limits and provides the standard application of
speed limits :
posted speed limit -a speed limit determined by law or regulation and
displayed on speed limit signs .
The California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices states that:
Item 11.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FARROLL AVENUE SPEED LIMITS
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
PAGE3
The setting of speed limits can be controversial and requires a rational and
defensible determination to maintain public confidence. Speed limits are
normally set near the a5th percentile speed that statistically represents one
standard deviation above the average speed and establishes the upper limit of
what is considered reasonable and prudent. As with most Jaws, speed limits
need to depend on the voluntary compliance of the greater majority of motorists.
Speed limits cannot be set arbitrarily low, as this would create violators of the
majority of drivers and would not command the respect of the public.
Speed zones (other than statutory speed limits} shall only be established
on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey (E& TS} study that has
been performed in accordance with traffic engineering practices. The
engineering study shall include an analysis of the current speed distribution of
free-flowing vehicles.
The 2014 California Manual for Setting Speed Limits by the California Department of
Transportation states:
Prima Facie Speed Limits by Statute
CVC Section 22352 sets the prima facie speed limits in California. The term
"prima facie", as used in the eve, is a speed limit that applies when no other
specific speed limit is posted. It is a Latin term meaning "at first face" or "at first
appearance". It sets two speed limits covering six classes of location. The first
speed limit is 15 mph; and it is applicable to uncontrolled railway crossings;
blind, uncontrolled intersections; and alleyways. The second speed limit is 25
mph; and it is applicable to business and residential areas without other
posted speed limits; school zones, and areas immediately around senior
centers.
Based on this guidance, the prima facie speed limits are set by statute and are the
base line speed limit. If, however, it is appropriate to change a speed limit from the
prima facie statutory speed limits an Engineering and Traffic Survey must be
completed.
The California Vehicle Code section 22352(b), also includes a provision related to
senior facilities and provides that they are in the 25 MPH prima facie speed category
when properly signed:
22352. The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless
changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs
have been erected giving notice thereof:
(b) Twenty-five miles per hour:
(1) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or
residence district unless a different speed is determined by local
authority under procedures set forth in this code.
Item 11.a. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FARROLL AVENUE SPEED LIMITS
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
PAGE4
(2) When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds
thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard
"SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the
school either during school hours or during the noon recess period.
The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing
any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by
a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use
by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL"
warning sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard
"SCHOOL" warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500
feet away from school grounds.
(3) When passing a senior center or other facility primarily
used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a
state highway and posted with a standard "SENIOR" warning
sign. A local authority may erect a sign pursuant to this
paragraph when the local agency makes a determination that
the proposed signing should be implemented. A local authority
may request grant funding from the Pedestrian Safety Account
pursuant to Section 894. 7 of the Streets and Highways Code, or
any other grant funding available to it, and use that grant funding
to pay for the erection of those signs, or may utilize any other
funds available to it to pay for the erection of those signs,
including, but not limited to, donations from private sources.
It appears that the Judge's ruling in Dr. Ziomek's case was based upon a conclusion
that " ... there was no evidence on the determination by the City of Arroyo Grande to
implement the prima facie 25 per hour zone" as well as the lack of a Engineering and
Traffic Survey. California Vehicle Code section 40802(a)(2), which defines "speed
trap" states in part that a "speed trap" includes:
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is
provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (AJ of
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under
Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is
not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five
years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the
speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that
measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a
local street, road, or school zone.
Despite this language, however, staff believes that based on Vehicle Code Section
22352 to sign and enforce a senior citizen facility, the local agency must only determine
that it is appropriate. Once that determination is made, even if an Engineering and
Traffic Study is completed, the speed limit must be 25 MPH.
Item 11.a. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FARROLL AVENUE SPEED LIMITS
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
PAGES
22357. (a) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an
engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour
would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be
reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise
subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour, the local authority may
by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40,
45, 50, 55, or 60 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per
hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly
movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe. The declared prima facie
or maximum speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving
notice thereof are erected upon the street and shall not thereafter be
revised except upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. This
section does not apply to any 25-mile-per-hour prima facie limit which is
applicable when passing a school building or the grounds thereof or when
passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens.
(b) This section shall become operative on the date specified in subdivision (c)
of Section 22366.
In any case, staff has further evaluated the speeds on Farrall Avenue and based upon
this analysis is making recommendations for improvement.
Area of Analysis
Based on Council direction, staff initially reviewed the area in question, but determined
that perhaps a larger scale review of the signage and speed limits might be
appropriate. Staffs area of analysis begins on Farrall Avenue at Halcyon and
terminates at Farrall Avenue at Oak Park.
Item 11.a. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FARROLL AVENUE SPEED LIMITS
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
PAGES
Farroll Avenue
Area of Analysis
Farrell Avenue is classified as a collector roadway connecting Halcyon Road to Oak
Park in Grover Beach. Farrell Avenue provides two-way traffic with one travel lane in
each direction as well as parking on both sides of the roadway. The curb-to-curb width
of Farrell Avenue varies from approximately 36 to 45 feet. The posted speed limit
varies traveling westbound depending on time of day and day of week starting at 25
MPH , 30 MPH , 35 MPH , 25 MPH and then finally 35 MPH.
Staff reviewed roadway signage , speed survey information , and roadway widths to
better understand if Farrell Avenue may be improved. Based on this information, staff
believes the roadway signage could lend to confusion and posted speed limits might be
better served to be more uniform.
Roadway Signage
Traveling westbound on Farrell Avenue at Elm Street roadway signage exists providing
the driver information that they are entering a Senior Facility Zone and the posted
speed limit is 25 MPH. Continuing west bound on Farrell Avenue , approximately 350
feet past Elm Street, additional signage exists that provides information that a school
zone is present and the posted speed limit is 25 MPH when children are present. If
Item 11.a. - Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FARROLL AVENUE SPEED LIMITS
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
PAGE7
children are not present , the speed limit is still 25 MPH since the driver is still within a
senior facility zone. This signage could lead to confusion . Staff recommends removing
this school zone signage since this facility does not currently operate as a schoo l.
Additionally , staff recommends removing the senior facility designation in this area.
This senior facility tends to support a senior population that are not mobile. Based on
recently obtained traffic data , staff believes that removing the senior facility designation
signs will not affect traffic speeds . Vehicle traffic is widely disregarding the roadway
senior facility 25 MPH designation and the a5th percentile vehicular speeds are slightly
greater than 35 MPH, the posted speed limit on the remainder of the roadway.
FarrollAve
Speed Limit SI~•
,, 25MPH
• 30MPH
e 35MPH
--==---Feet
250 500 1,00 0
Display Showing Existing Signage
Farrall Ave -Halcyon Road to Victorian Court
Th is map dep lets where speed limlt
si!,TlS are located <iong Farroll Ave,
wllat tile signs read . as well as tile
cond l1i ons 111cler wticll certain speed
li mits are enforced (W here applicable). 1\
A
Farrall Avenue from Halcyon Road to Victorian Court is adjacent to Harloe Elementary
School with a posted speed limit of 30 MPH unless children are present and then the
posted speed limit is 25 MPH. This roadway section width is less than 40 feet wide
from curb to curb therefore qualifying for prima facie speed limit of 25 MPH . Based on
roadway width , a5t h percentile speed information, the residential area and being
Item 11.a. - Page 7
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FARROLL AVENUE SPEED LIMITS
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
PAGES
adjacent to Harloe Elementary lends support for a permanent 25 MPH posted speed
limit.
Farrall Ave -Elm Street to Oak Park
Farrall Avenue from Elm Street to Oak Park is adjacent to Grover Beach which
roadway section has a posted speed limit of 35 MPH. The 85th percentile speeds
information correspond to either a posted speed limit of 35 MPH or 40 MPH. 35 MPH
is recommended for this roadway section to be consistent with Grover Beach's speed
limit and correspond more closely to the actual measured speeds.
Farrall Ave -Victorian Court to Elm Street
Connecting these two sections of Farrall Avenue is the portion of Farrall Avenue from
Victorian Court to Elm Street. Staff recommends connecting the 35 MPH section of
Farrall Avenue and the 25 MPH section of Farrall Avenue with a section of Farrall
Avenue that has a posted speed limit of 30 MPH. This will allow a more gradual
change in driver speeds and corresponds well with the 85th percentile speed
information.
Street From To Road Width 35th3 Speed Recommended
MPH
Farrall Ave Halcyon Victorian 36 to 39 ft 30.64 East 25MPH 28.98 West
Farrall Ave Victorian Elm 43 to 45 ft 34.81 East 30 MPH 32.64 West
Farrall Ave Elm Oak Park 43 to 44 ft 35.77 East 35 MPH 37.57 West
Item 11.a. - Page 8
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FARROLL AVENUE SPEED LIMITS
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
PAGE9
Proposed Speed Limits
Display showing recommended speed zones
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council 's consideration :
• Approve Traffic Commission 's recommendations;
• Do not approve Traffic Commission 's staff recommendations; or
• Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Approving Traffic Commission 's recommendations will remove roadway signage that
may lead to driver confusion . Revising roadway speed limits will provide consistent
posted speed limits as well as provide for transition between different speed zones .
DISADVANTAGES:
None known at this time .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (c).
Item 11.a. - Page 9
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FARROLL AVENUE SPEED LIMITS
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
PAGE10
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, September 3, 2015. The
Agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, September 4,
2015.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Dr. John R. Ziomek's letter
2. Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes -April 20, 2015
3. Engineering and Traffic Survey
Item 11.a. - Page 10
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION .OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING THE SPEED
LIMIT ON FARROLL AVENUE FROM HALCYON ROAD
TO OAK PARK BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande previously certified engineering and
traffic speed surveys on various City streets in accordance with the requirements of the
California Vehicle Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer prepared an Engineering and Traffic Survey for Farrall
Avenue from Halcyon Road to Oak Park Boulevard dated August 28, 2015 (the
"Survey"); and ·
WHEREAS, the Survey developed a posted speed limit reduction justification for Farrall
Avenue through analysis of the currently certified vehicle surveys, in accordance with
the requirements of the California Vehicle Code; and
WHEREAS, the Police Chief supports the recommendations of the City Engineer, the
Community Development Director, and the Traffic Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
1. The City Council, pursuant to the California Vehicle Code finds that the speed
permitted by State law upon Farrall Avenue from Halcyon Road to Oak Park
Boulevard is greater than is necessary for the safe operation of vehicles thereon
as determined on the basis of the August 28, 2015 Engineering and Traffic Survey
-Halcyon Road to Oak Park Boulevard.
2. The City Council does hereby determine and declare the speed limit for Fair Oaks
Avenue as follows:
Farrall Avenue (Halcyon Road to Victorian Court)
Farrall Avenue (Victorian Court to Elm Street)
Farrall Avenue (Elm Street to Oak Park Boulevard)
25 mph
30 mph
35 mph
3. The City Council hereby certifies the August 28, 2015 Engineering and Traffic
Survey -Farrall Avenue -Halcyon Road to Oak Park Boulevard, incorporated
herein by this reference, which shall be kept on file at the Community Development
Department.
4. The establishment and enforcement of the speed limit listed in Section 2 of this
Resolution will not become effective until speed limit signs have been posted to
provide for public notice.
Item 11.a. - Page 11
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE2
On motion of Council Member
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
, seconded by Council Member , and on the
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this sthday of September 2015.
Item 11.a. - Page 12
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE3
JIM HILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
DIANNE THOMPSON, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HEATHERWHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 11.a. - Page 13
ATTACHMENT 1
:.; •. ~~~~ ~~~~~~.~ ~~~~~-................... ~/~4.~~:'. ~ ..... 1 ~r~~?r~~~J; '.~~~ ·
em oil: drjziomek@gmail.com Pub Ii' comi'/l.J1A 145 South Halcyon, Suite A
Mayor Jim Hill
Mayor of Arroyo Grande
Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420
February 10, 2015
Jf...l/Yll 7 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
:r">•'·r·,·~1\ v•--n §~:::·:-:.., ~;: d w t:t.J
1:1 '! ~ j •,r ''ti!~; '..... ' ' ' ~. \} ~)
C~T\ C!.. n ;~·'f 1·"t. (~ntt.j\~fJL
~:W'i!! 'f·' I .,,, ., ,"}fi",\ff:·:v:~:NT
REQUEST FOR IMMEADIATE CEASE AND DESIST FOR TRAFFICE INFRACTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF 25
MPH SPEED LIMIT ON FARROLL RD BETWEEN OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND ELM STREET.
Dear Mayor Hill,
On November 2, 2015 at 7:00 AM on Sunday morning I was cited by an AG Officer for violation of the
basics peed limit which is posted at 25 MPH. The basis of this speed limit is the purported "Senior Center
FacilitV' law !n California.
I challenged the ticket in traffic court on January 15, 2015 and was found not quilt.
The Judge's decision is self-explanatory. The enforcement of this speed limits violates the Ca VC sec.
40802 (a) and (c) which defines a speed trap.
It is the judge's decision that the 'City of Arroyo Grande and the Arroyo Grande Police are operating a
speed trap on the above mentioned roadway.
Therefore the City of Arroyo Grande City Council should take immediate steps to insure no further
innocent citizens suffer the embarrassment and financial insult which was handed to me that morning.
In addition the officer I believe violated my civils right by enforcing California vehicle Code from private
church property. It is my opinion this violates the basic tenet that there must be a separation of church
and state. The infraction also occurred on Sunday the Sabbath. Supposedly the officer had permission
from the church to set up his speed trap on the Landmark Baptist Church property. This further fuels the
idea of collusion between church and state which is in my opinion a violation of my first Amendment
rights.
The Landmark Missionary Baptist Church also no longer has the Central Coast Christian Academy (CCCA)
on their premises. The CCCA left the property last summer yet the signage for the school still persists. It
must be removed.
Sincerely~ Jo~:~
Item 11.a. - Page 14
o County Superior Court
x Sen Luis Obispo B b, 801 Omrul Ave.
San Luis Obispo, It\ 93401
a Paso Robles Bran 549 10th Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446 a Grover Beach ~b, 214 South 16th Street, Graver Beach, CA 93433
e State of California,
Plaintiff,
V.·
Defendant.
ent of Not Guilty after Trial
---·-......... ..
FSlED
JAN 212015
SAN WI.., ·--i' ~ SUPE~l~R COURT BY " 1 , £f()t/J o.-
Q" ~;~.-lepuiYCl~erk"1"-'--
14C-42110
On November 2014, the defendant was cited for violating Vehicle Code §22350. The basis for
the citation w Vehicle Code §22352(b )(3) which establishes a 25 mile per hour prima facie
speed limit for eas adjacent to senior citizen facilities. According to the officer the defendant
was travelling proximately 45 miles per hour; however, ·the defendant stated that his speed was
37 miles per h ur, 2 miles per hour over 35 mile per hour zone preceding the senior center
::--ho'llSing·area.· -·Defendant admitted he did not-see the-"Senier E!itizeil Facility'·!..stgll-abovEfthe·
twenty-five · e per hour regulatory speed sign. Tlie basis for the officer's determination of
speed was by of a radar device. ·
Vehicle Code 22352 establishes a ''prima facie" 25 mile per hour speed zqne in three situations;
namely, reside :tial and business districts; school zones; and senior center or facility zones. The
latter is con ' ed in subsection (b) (3) and provides that the local governing body has authority
to determine t an appropriate sign be ccimplemented" to notice the zone. According to Vehicle
Code §21400 e sign must conform to standards established by the California Department of
Transportatio According-to the evidence it appears that the sign establishing the "senior zone"
complies with e Manual ~n Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 edition.
The difficulty i that there was no evidence on the determination by the City of Arroyo Grande to
implement the rima facie 25 mile per hour zone. This becomes important in light of Vehicle
Code §40802 hich defines a speed trap. If seCtion 40802 applies and no engineering and traffic
survey was ev uated in ·the process of detennining the speed zone then the officer was
incompetent to testify pursuant to Vehicle Code §40804 and the defendant should be fqund not
guilty.
Vehicle Code · 40802 (a) and (c) defines a speed trap as any section of highway when radar is
used where a • · facie speed limit is established under the Vehicle Code unless the speed limit
is supported a traffic and engineering survey. The exceptions are local streets or roads and
school zones. • position is supported by People v. Studley. (1996) 44 Cal.App. 4th Supp. 1, at
1
........... --
Item 11.a. - Page 15
~ · .. ·. -' ,·-· -. ··: ........... --.. -.
'~ ;\(~'\~ ,.,, .
• '-< ;: f. ... --. . ,,
.0
Supp. 3, where the court stated: "[A]fter close reading of the statutes in question, we find the
Legislature's , tipathy toward any radar-based prosecution of any speed law vic;ilation in any
posted zone, ere the prima facie speed limit is not justified by proof of a timely engineering
survey, is abso ute and unequivocal"
Because no en · eering and traffic survey was introdueed the officer became incompetent to
testify and ther fore tl!ere are no facts to support the speeding charge. Consequently, the
defendant is fo d not guilty.
Notwitbstand" g, it should be noted that it is this court's assumption that there "is in existence a
traffic and en · eering study which supports the 35 mile an hour zone surrounding the senior
center area. e court does not intend this ruling to mean that a separate traffic aJ]d engineering
study needs to e done to support the senior facility sp~ed zone. But at a minimum. the existing
study, or any ture study, should discuss the factors which justify the establishment of the, zon:e
and its length. How else then could the local authority determine that ''the proposed signing
should be impl mented'?" (See Vehicle Code §22352(b )(3)).
Dated: Janu
-----~---------~ ~-·--:.
Commissioner
2
. .,
Item 11.a. - Page 16
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2015
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ross called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLLCALL
ATTACHMENT 2
Traffic Commissioners: Commissioner Aaron Henkel, Commissioner Janette Pell,
Commissioner Kenneth Price, Vice Chair Jim Carson,
Chair Steven Ross
Commissioners absent:
Staff present:
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
None
Matt Horn, City Engineer, Kevin McBride, Police
Commander; Geoff English, Director Public Works; and
Jane Covert-Lannon, Office Assistant II.
Chair Ross led the pledge of allegiance.
4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
5.a. Approval of Minutes
ACTION: Vice Chair Carson moved to approve the minutes of the March 23, 2015
special meeting as submitted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Henkel, Pell, Price, Carson, Ross
None
6. BUSINESS ITEMS
6.a Consideration of Revised Fair Oaks Avenue Striping
RECOMMENDATON: It is recommended that the Commission review revised striping
on Fair Oaks Avenue from California Street to Valley Road and advise the City Council
to approve revised striping or maintain the existing roadway striping that is in place on
Fair Oaks. ·
,.
Item 11.a. - Page 17
MINUTES: REGULAR TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2015
PAGE 2 OF 5
( -'
Matt Horn, City Engineer, gave the staff presentation. Matt Horn, CE, said that the I
Traffic Commission gave staff feedback at the March 23, 2015 special meeting regarding
the striping. One of the suggestions was to change the lane width on the section from
the Highway 101 off-ramp to Valley Road_ The recommended section is a concern
because the lane width of 11 feet doesn't allow enough operational area for both
vehicles and bicyclists. Staff responded to questions from the Commissioners.
Chair Ross opened the public comments. Jim Dececco -Oceana School, Teacher -
stated that the School district did know of the plans. He stated he was concerned about
looking at the road as a conduit for cars only. Bicyclists need safe access to the Village.
He stated that having a bike lane indicates that cyclists are welcomed to use the road.
Upon hearing no further comments Chair Ross closed the public comments.
ACTION: Vice Chair Carson moved for the approval of Class II Bike Lanes and four ten
foot lanes. Commissioner Price seconded the motion and the motion passed on the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Carson, Price, Pell
Henkel, Ross
None
6.b Consideration of Restricting Parking adjacent to 171 Brisco Road
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission advise the City Council
to install red curbing adjacent to 171 Brisco Road.
Matt Horn, City Engineer, gave the presentation to the Commissioners. The City
received a complaint concerning cars parking near the driveway entrance reducing sight
distance and creating difficulties for the residents of 171 Brisco Road. Staff responded
to questions from the Commissioners.
Chair Ross opened the public comment. The following members of the public spoke:
Tim Moore, Brisco Road stated that he likes the recommended plan and wants the south
side red curbing expanded. He stated that people park up close to the driveway and
when school gets out drivers cannot get out of the driveway to turn left toward the
freeway. Ashley Bean, 170 Brisco Road, states she does not want the red curbs. She
says that the best visibility is at the sidewalk and if someone pulls forward past the
sidewalk that there is a blind spot and they cannot see at all. She said that they cannot
lose more street parking spaces. Dr. John Ziomek, Woodland Drive stated that his office
is on 145 S. Halcyon and is a commercial building that is surrounded by dense housing ~.
units. He suggested posting signage for no parking during certain hours as most of the
parking is by residents at night.
Upon hearing no further comments, Chair Ross closed the public comment.
Item 11.a. - Page 18
-,
MINUTES: REGULAR TRAFFIC COMMITIEE MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2015
PAGE 30F 5
ACTION: Chair Ross moved to continue this item to the next Traffic Commission
meeting and requested staff to bring back information regarding different options, and
after all persons effected by the change are noticed. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Pell and the motion passed on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Ross, Pell, Henkel, Price, Carson
None
None
6.c Consideration of restricting parking on Le Point Terrace between Crown Hill
Street and East Branch Street.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission advise the City Council
to install restricted parking on both sides of Le Point Terrace between Crown Hill Street
and East Branch Street.
Matt Horn, City Engineer, made the presentation to the Commission. He stated that the
width of Le Point Terrace is approximately 25 feet from curb to curb. He stated that in
order to provide parking on both sides of the road and two-way traffic, Le Point Terrace
needs to be a minimum of 34 feet wide. He said that City Maintenance vehicles and
other large vehicles are unable to use the roadway when vehicles are parked on the
roadway and they have requested that the parking be eliminated.
Chair Ross opened the public comment. Upon hearing no comments, Chair Ross
closed the public comment
ACTION: Vice Chair Carson moved to paint fifteen feet from each intersection red and
include this in the April 28, 2015 City Council Agenda to be included in the Circulation
plan to study the possibility of turning this into a one way street. Commissioner Henkel
seconded the motion and the motion passed on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Carson, Henkel, Pell, Price, Ross
None
None
6.d. Consideration of Farron Avenue Speed Limit Complaint.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission advise the City Council
to revise roadway signage and posted speed limits on Farron Avenue.
Matt Horn, City Engineer, made the presentation to the Commission. He stated that at
the February 10, 2015 City Council Meeting, Dr. John R. Ziomek spoke during public
comment and submitted a letter requesting that the established speed limit on Farrall
Avenue between Elm Street and Oak Park be revised. At that time the City Council
directed staff to review the issue.
Item 11.a. - Page 19
MINUTES: REGULAR TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2015
PAGE 4 OF 5
Dr. Ziomek received a ticket on Sunday November 2, 2014. He was cited for driving
approximately 45 MPH (as obtained from the radar gun) in a 25 MPH zone. Dr. Ziomek
went to trial for the ticket and the San Luis Obispo Superior Court's Ruling and judgment
of Not Guilty after Trial was attached to the letter. The judgment indicated that the Court
has evaluated the roadway signage and determined that it was in compliance with the
California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) 2014 edition. The ticket
was dismissed however because the Court stated it had not been presented with
information concerning the City's determination to implement the prima facie or statutory
speed limit on this section of Farrell Avenue for a Senior Facility.
Matt Horn, CE stated that the City could remove several signs and provide a more
uniform speed limit for the drivers. Staff recommends removing the school and senior
facility signage and revising speed limits on Farroll Avenue as follows:
• Halcyon -Vernon Standard 25 MPH
• Farrell Avenue -Vernon Standard 30 MPH
• Elm -Oak Park Standard 35 MPH
(The speed from Elm -Oak Park dovetails nicely into Grover Beach}
Chair Ross opened the public comment. The following member of the public spoke: Dr.
John Ziomek, Woodland Drive stated that he received the ticket at 7:00 a.m. on a
Sunday morning. He said that Farrell Avenue is a major arterial route and the signage is
incorrect. Dr. Ziomek stated that he supported what staff has proposed. He said he
hoped that the Commission approves the staff proposal.
Upon hearing no further comments, Chair Ross closed the public comment.
ACTION: Vice Chair Carson moved to accept staff recommendation in its entirety
including removing signage and adjusting the speeds to those recommended by staff.
Commissioner Henkel seconded the motion and the motion passed on the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Carson, Henkel, Pell, Price, Ross
None
None
6.e. Consideration of Adoption of Traffic Commission By-Laws
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Traffic Commission review and adopt
Traffic Commission by-laws.
Matt Horn, City Engineer, made the presentation to the Commission. He said that the
Traffic Commission reviewed the by-laws on March 23, 2015 and requested revisions to
the by-laws directing staff to work with both a commission representative as well as legal
staff to modify the language to reflect the Traffic Commission's standard practice.
[
1, -,
Item 11.a. - Page 20
MINUTES: REGULAR TRAFFIC COMMITIEE MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2015
PAGE50F 5
ACTION: Commissioner Pell moved to accept the staff recommendation. Vice Chair
Carson seconded the motion and the motion passed on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Pell, Carson, Henkel, Price, Ross
None
None
7. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Matt Hom, City Engineer said that the following would be on the agenda for the May 18,
2015 Traffic Commission meeting:
• 170,171 Brisco Road
e Canyon Way, speed survey
• Rodeo -red curb request
• Grand Avenue/Alpine
8. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chair Carson suggested that a listing of websites be compiled and placed on the
City website to help residents who do not have a clear understanding of traffic laws and
other issues they may want to be changed within the City. This would enable them to do
some research independently and educate themselves.
Commissioner Henkel suggested that a good resource for the City is the ASHTO Green
book and the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) could be immediately
provided.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Ross adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m.
Steven Ross, Chair
(Approved at TC Mtg: 5/18/15)
Item 11.a. - Page 21
ATTA CHMENT 3
CITY OF
A_R_ROYO GR.A.NOEi
CALIFORNIA
The CVC Section 22352 provides guidance for 25 MPH prima facie speed category when
properly signed:
22352. The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as
authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving
notice thereof:
(b) Twenty-five miles per hour:
(1) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or
residence district unless a different speed is determined by local authority
under procedures set forth in this code.
(2)_ When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof,
contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning
sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school
hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also
apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which are not
separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier
while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a
standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. For purposes of this subparagraph,
standard "SCHOOL" warning signs may be placed at any distance up to
500 feet away from school grounds.
(3) When passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior
citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with
a standard "SENIOR" warning sign. A local authority may erect a sign
pursuant to this paragraph when the local agency makes a determination
that the proposed signing should be implemented. A local authority may
request grant funding from the Pedestrian Safety Account pursuant to
Section 894.7 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other grant
funding available to it, and use that grant funding to pay for the erection of
those signs, or may utilize any other funds available to it to pay for the
erection of those signs, including, but not limited to, donations from private
sources.
The portion of Farrall Avenue from Halcyon Victorian Court to Elm Street may either have a
posted speed limit of 30 MPH or 35 MPH. This section of roadway is directly adjacent to
Farrall Avenue from Halcyon Road to Victorian Court that has a recommended posted speed
limit of 25 MPH. Therefore, a 30 MPH posted speed limit will allow a more gradual change
from or to the 25 MPH zone and is recommended.
The portion of Farrall Avenue from Elm Street to Oak Park Boulevard may either have a
posted speed limit of 35 MPH to 40 MPH .. Since the posted speed limit on Farrell near Oak
Park Boulevard in Grover Beach is 35 MPH this section of roadway is recommended to match
this existing speed limit and is more appropriate to allow drivers to transition to the 30 MPH on
Farrall at Elm Street.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT• 300 E. Branch Street• A1rnyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 473-5420 •Fax: (805) 473-0386 ° E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org •Website: www.arroyogrande.org
Item 11.a. - Page 22
CITY OF
R DEi
CALHFORN!A
The California Manual for Setting Speed Limits Section 3.4.4 indicates:
3.4.4 Applying a 5 Mile Per Hour Reduction
When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5 mph
increment to the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic, rounding as standard
mathematics directs. Under some circumstances. the posted speed may be reduced by
5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed.
If a 5 mph reduction is justified, the E&TS shall document in writing the conditions and
justification for the lower speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer. The reasons for the lower speed limit shall be in compliance with eve
Section 22358.
The following examples are provided to explain the application of these speed limit
criteria:
1. If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 37 mph, then
the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph
increment to the 37 mph speed. The 35 mph established speed limit can be
reduced by 5 mph fo 30 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower
speed limit are documented in the E& TS and approved by a registered Civil or
Traffic Engineer.
2. If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 33 mph, then
the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph
increment to the 33 mph speed. The 35 mph established speed limit can be
reduced by 5 mph to 30 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower
speed limit are documented in the E& TS and approved by a registered Civil or
Traffic Engineer.
eve 21400 allows for setting the speed limit at the 5 mph increment below the a5th
percentile even if mathematical rounding would require the speed to be posted above
the a5th percentile. If this option is used, then the additional 5 mph reduction cannot be
used. In effect. this law allows an engineer to round down to the nearest increment of
the 85th instead of up. The engineer cannot then take a further reduction.
Conclusion
On Farrell Avenue from Halcyon Road to Oak Park Boulevard the posted speed limit for this
section of roadway is proposed to have three different speed zones allowing for vehicles to
gradually change speed. Two of the three limits are fixed in that Farrell Avenue from Halcyon
Road to Victorian Court is fixed due to prima facie compliance. Farrell Avenue from Elm Street
to Oak Park Boulevard is also fixed due to the need or strong preference to match existing
posted speed ·limits on the adjacent portion of roadway controlled by Grover Beach. The
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT" 300 E. Branch Street" Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 473-5420 •Fax: (805) 473-0386 "E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org"Website:www.arroyogrande.org
Item 11.a. - Page 23
CITY OF
ARROJYQ, GRA.NDE
CALIFORNIA
section of roadway on Farroll Avenue from Elm Street to Victorian Court is proposed to be 30
MPH is allow for a gradual change in vehicle speed.
Complete by:
Matthew A. Horn
City Engineer, City of Arroyo Grande
August 28, 2015
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 300 E. Branch Street 0 Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 473-5420 •Fax: (805) 473-0386 ° E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org 0 Website: www.arroyogrande.org
Item 11.a. - Page 24