CL_AGN_240926_TC_AgendaPacket_F1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
This is the appropriate time for the Chair or Commissioners to approve the agenda as is or reorder.
5.BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the
printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
6.PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
This section is intended to provide members of the public with the opportunity to comment on any subject that does not
appear on this agenda for action. Each speaker will be permitted to speak only once. Written requests, if any, will be
considered first under this section.
7.CONSENT CALENDAR
Business items, except those formally noticed for public hearing, or those pulled for discussion are assigned to the
Consent Calendar. The Chair or any Commissioner may request that any Consent Calendar item(s) be removed,
discussed, and acted upon separately. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be taken up under the "Excluded
Consent Calendar" section below. Those items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. The
Chair will call on anyone wishing to address the Commission on any Consent Calendar item on the agenda, which has
not been pulled by Commission for discussion.
7.A.APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2024
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
7.B.APPROVE THE FOLLOWING TRAFFIC COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 25, 2024
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
8.EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
9.PRESENTATION
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
AGENDA
Regular Traffic Commission
Meeting
TRAFFIC COMMISSION
Thursday, September 26, 2024
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
8:30 AM
CL_AGN_240926_TC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
CL_MIN_240725_TC_F.pdf
1
9.A.RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, LOMITA STATION, ON TRAFFIC STATISTICS FOR
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR JULY-AUGUST 2024 (VERBAL REPORT)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
10.OLD BUSINESS
11.NEW BUSINESS
11.A.ZONING CASE NO. 24-073: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ENLARGE AND
MOVE A DRIVEWAY APRON APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET ON A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 10 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 2-CH), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(FRYKMAN), AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the driveway and apron to the
City Council.
11.B.ZONING CASE NO. 24-074: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR A NEW
DRIVEWAY THAT LEADS TO A NEW BARN AND CORRAL AT 2 POSSUM
RIDGE ROAD (LOT 123-RH), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (WHITCOMBE), AND
DETERMINING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the driveway and apron to the
City Council.
12.MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
12.A.RE-DISCUSS SIGNAGE AT CREST ROAD EAST AND EASTFIELD DRIVE
LEADING TO CREST ROAD EAST GATE AND FINDING THE ACTION
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide direction.
CO_TRC_240926_RH Traffic Stats 07-01-24-08-31-24.pdf
CO_TRC_240926_SupplementalTraffic_0724.pdf
CO_TRC_240926_Email_SgtMcCoy_SupplementalTraffic_0824.pdf
Attachment 1: Memo from City Traffic Engineer - 10 Crest West Dwy 09.18.pdf
Attachment 2: CO_TRC_240926_10CrestRdW_Driveway_Pics.pdf
Attachment 3: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-
073_LotCoverageCalcs_240909_Ext.Dwy.pdf
Attachment 4: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-073_Driveway_Closeup.pdf
Attachment 5: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-073_RevisedSitePlan.pdf
Attachment 1: Memo from Traffic Engineer - 2 Possum Ridge Road Dwy 09.18.2024.pdf
Attachment 2: CO_TRC_240926_2PossumRidgeRd_Driveway_Pics.pdf
Attachment 3: PL_ADR_2PossumRidgeRd_ZC24-074_240918_All_Calculations.pdf
Attachment 4: PL_ADR_240904_2PossumRidgeRd_ZC24-
074_Plans_TrafficCommission.pdf
Attachement A - CL_AGN_TC_230928_TrafficEngineerMemo_Crest-Eastfield Signage.pdf
Attachment B - CO_TRC_230913_CrestRoadEastSigns.pdf
Attachment C - CO_TRC_240328_SampleEmergencySignsLights.pdf
2
13.MATTERS FROM STAFF
13.A.UPDATE ON REQUIREMENTS FOR ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff.
13.B.CONSIDERATION OF MOVING THE NOVEMBER TRAFFIC COMMISSION
MEETING TO THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2024, OR ANOTHER DAY
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide direction to staff.
14.ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Thursday, November 21, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in the City Council Chamber,
Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274.
CO_TRC_240926_Email_TrafficSurvey_Redacted.pdf
CO_TRC_240926_Email_SheriffsDept_TrafficSurvey.pdf
Rolling Hills E&T Report 2018.pdf
Notice:
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in
the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for
your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting.
3
Agenda Item No.: 7.A
Mtg. Date: 09/26/2024
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2024
DATE:September 26, 2024
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_240926_TC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
4
Administrative Report
7.A., File # 2470 Meeting Date: 9/26/2024
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In compliance with the Brown Act, the following materials have been posted at the locations below.
Legislative Body Traffic Commission
Posting Type Regular Meeting Agenda
Posting Location 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
City Hall Window
City Website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/city_council/city_council_archive_agendas/index.php
Meeting Date & Time SEPTEMBER 26, 2024 8:30am
As City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, I declare under penalty of perjury, the document noted above was
posted at the date displayed below.
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Date: September 20 , 2024
5
Agenda Item No.: 7.B
Mtg. Date: 09/26/2024
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE THE FOLLOWING TRAFFIC COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY
25, 2024
DATE:September 26, 2024
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_MIN_240725_TC_F.pdf
6
MINUTES – TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, July 25, 202 4
Page 1
Minutes
Rolling Hills Traffic Commission
Thursday, July 25, 2024
Regular Meeting 8:30 a.m.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Traffic Commission of the City of Rolling Hills met on the above date at 8:32 a.m. Chair Wilson presiding.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Margeta, Virtue, Raine, Vice Chair Bobit, Chair Wilson
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Serena Lopez, Administrative Assistant
Vanessa Munoz, Traffic Engineer
RHCA Staff Present: Mark Grindle, RHCA Gate Supervisor
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Chair Wilson
4. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA – NONE
5. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Motion by Commissioner Margeta, seconded by Commissioner Virtue to approve to receive and file
additional materials for Blue Folder Item 6A. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Margeta, Virtue, Raine, Bobit, Chair Wilson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
7.A. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF
JULY 25, 2024
7.B. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING TRAFFIC COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 30, 2024
7.C. RECEIVE AND FILE TRAFFIC CONCERNS AT EASTFIELD GATE ENTERING FROM PALOS
VERDES DRIVE EAST AND FINDING THE ACTION CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Motion by Commissioner Margeta, seconded by Commissioner Bobit to approve consent calendar. Motion
carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Margeta, Virtue, Raine, Bobit, Chair Wilson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7
MINUTES – TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, July 25, 202 4
Page 2
8. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS – NONE
9. PRESENTATION
9.A. RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, LOMITA STATION, ON TRAFFIC STATISTICS FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS FOR MAY – JUNE 2024 (VERBAL REPORT)
Presented by Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputy Sullivan
Motion by Vice Chair Bobit, seconded by Commissioner Raine to receive and file the report. Motion carried
unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Vice Chair Bobit, Raine, Virtue, Margeta Chair Wilson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chair Wilson directed staff to send a copy of the reports to residents who submitted public comment and to
inquire about fine amounts for municipal code violations.
10. OLD BUSINESS
10.A. REVIEW AND APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT WITH LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
Presented by Planning & Community Services Director John Signo
Motion by Commissioner Raine, seconded by Vice Chair Bobit to approve as presented. Motion carried
unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Margeta, Virtue, Raine, Bobit, Chair Wilson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chair Wilson directed staff to track and report time spent for Fiscal Year 24/25 against the adopted budget.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.A. CONSIDERATION TO PLACE A TEMPORARY SIGN AT PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND
RANCHERO ROAD
Presentation by Planning & Community Services Director John Signo
Public Comment: Kristen Raig, RHCA Manager
Motion by Chair Wilson, seconded by Vice Chair Bobit to approve the sign with a recommendation to remove
the “slide” verbiage and ensure the sign does not exceed seven feet in height. Motion carried with the
following vote:
AYES: Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Bobit, Margeta, Virtue
NOES: Commissioner Raine
ABSENT: None
8
MINUTES – TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, July 25, 202 4
Page 3
12. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
12.A. DISCUSS SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD CONDITIONS SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND SIGNAGE SPECIFIC TO PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND
SADDLEBACK ROAD SOUTHERN INTERSECTION
Presentation by Planning & Community Services, Director John Signo
Chair Wilson directed staff to not place the sign due as work would be completed before placement.
13. MATTERS FROM STAFF
13.A. UPDATE ON REQUIREMENTSFOR ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Presentation by Traffic Engineer, Vanessa Munoz
Chair Wilson directed staff to inquire with the Torrance Traffic Court regarding enforceability of the municipal
code and fee schedule, and requested Traffic Engineer Munoz contact the City of Hidden Hills to learn about
similarities or differences compared to the City of Rolling Hills.
Chair Wilson recommend postponing further action on the item until answers to previous direction could be
presented. Without objection, so ordered.
Commissioner Raine inquired about an email from resident Alfred Visco regarding the Crest Road East gate
and requested agendizing a future item to discuss.
14. ADJOURNMENT : 9:44 A.M.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 a.m. to a regular meeting of the Traffic Commission scheduled to be
held on Thursday, September 26, 2024, beginning at 8:30 a.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills
City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Approved,
____________________________________
Patrick Wilson, Chair
9
Agenda Item No.: 9.A
Mtg. Date: 09/26/2024
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, LOMITA STATION, ON TRAFFIC
STATISTICS FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR JULY-AUGUST
2024 (VERBAL REPORT)
DATE:September 26, 2024
BACKGROUND:
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department provides traffic enforcement and other public
safety services for the City of Rolling Hills. Hazardous citations are usually moving violations
such as speeding, unsafe turning, following too closely, etc. Non-hazardous citations consist
of broken taillights, seatbelt violations, no license plates etc. Speeding tickets are usually
issued using radar or lidar (light detection and ranging).
The Sheriff's Department provides regular enforcement covered under a contract with two
other Peninsula cities. Supplemental enforcement is under a separate fund that covers
overtime for officers.
Regular Traffic Enforcement
Regular traffic enforcement for the period between July 1, 2024 and August 31, 2024 are as
follows:
Total Number of Citations: 39
Total Number of Violations: 40
Total Number of Hazardous Citations: 32
Total Number of Hazardous Violations: 32
Total Number of Radar Citations: 31
10
Supplemental Traffic Enforcement
Supplemental traffic enforcement for July included the following:
July 2024
Speeding Violations: 16
Resident Cites: 9
Non-Resident Cites: 7
Stop Sign Violations: 6
Resident Cites: 1
Non-Resident Cites: 5
There was no supplemental traffic enforcement for August.
Traffic Collisions (year to date): None
DUI Arrests (year to date): None
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
CO_TRC_240926_RH Traffic Stats 07-01-24-08-31-24.pdf
CO_TRC_240926_SupplementalTraffic_0724.pdf
CO_TRC_240926_Email_SgtMcCoy_SupplementalTraffic_0824.pdf
11
Citation Summary Report
9/18/2024
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Lomita Sheriff's Station
From 7/1/2024 to 8/31/2024 City: ROLLING HILLS
Category Quantity
Total Number of Citations 39
Total Number of Violations 40
Total Number of Hazardous Citations 32
Total Number of Hazardous Violations 32
Total Number of Non-Hazardous Citations 7
Total Number of Non-Hazardous Violations 8
Total Number of DUI Arrests 0
Total Number of DUI Citations 0
Total Actual DUI 0
Total Number of Parking Citations 0
Total Number of Radar Citations 31
Total Number of Pedestrian Citations 0
Total Number of Pedestrian Violations 0
Total Number of Bicycle Citations 0
Total Number of Bicycle Violations 0
Total Number of Safety Belt Citations 0
Total Number of Safety Belt Violations 0
Total Number of Child Restraint Citations 0
Total Number of Child Restraint Violations 0
Total Number of Financial Responsibility Citations 0
12
Jul-24ROLLING HILLS TRAFFIC 25RE010129DATELOCATION VIOLATION SPEEDRESIDENT CITESNON-RESIDENT CITESDEPUTY7/10/2024 Crest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 47 1 0 SullivanCrest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 45 1 0 Sullivan Crest Road/Portuguese Bend Road Stop Sign 0 1 Sullivan Crest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 46 0 1 SullivanCrest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 45 1 0 Sullivan7/16/2024 Crest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 51 0 1 Sullivan Crest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 47 0 1 Sullivan Open Brand/Eastfield Drive Stop Sign 0 1 SullivanOpen Brand/Eastfield Drive Stop Sign 0 1 Sullivan Open Brand/Eastfield Drive Stop Sign 1 0 Sullivan7/18/2024 Crest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 50 0 1 Duran Crest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 4701Duran Portuguese Bend Road/Poppy Trail Speed 51 1 0 DuranPortuguese Bend Road/Poppy Trail Speed 48 0 1 DuranPortuguese Bend Road/Poppy Trail Speed 46 1 0 Duran7/30/2024 Crest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 45 1 0 SullivanCrest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 46 0 1 SullivanCrest Road/Eastfield Stop Sign 0 1 Sullivan Crest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 49 1 0 SullivanCrest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 47 1 0 SullivanOpen Brand/Eastfield Drive Stop Sign 0 1 SullivanCrest Road/St. John's Canyon Road Speed 45 1 0 SullivanInventory List9/18/202413
1
John Signo
From:McCoy, Tina M. <TMMcCoy@lasd.org>
Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2024 5:11 PM
To:John Signo
Subject:RH Supplemental
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links,
opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Hi John,
There were 0 hours utilized for Supplemental Traffic for the month of August. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Thank you,
Sgt. McCoy
Sergeant Tina McCoy
Lomita Station
26123 Narbonne Avenue
Lomita CA 90717
310‐891‐3227
14
Agenda Item No.: 11.A
Mtg. Date: 09/26/2024
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
ZONING CASE NO. 24-073: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ENLARGE
AND MOVE A DRIVEWAY APRON APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET ON A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 2-CH),
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (FRYKMAN), AND DETERMINING THE
PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
DATE:September 26, 2024
BACKGROUND:
Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 49,658 square feet (SF) (1.14 acres).
For development purposes, the net lot area is 40,914 SF (0.94 acres ), which excludes the
roadway easement and 10 feet around the property. The lot is developed with a 4,385 SF
main residence, 750 SF attached garage, 1,104 SF swimming pool, 100 SF pool equipment
area, 735 SF stable, 234 SF attached covered porches, 450 SF attached trellises, and other
improvements. The total structural coverage excluding exempt structures is 7,848 SF or
19.18% of the lot (Attachment 3).
The existing driveway is 3,340 SF with an additional 480 SF for a motor court and parking.
The area of the driveway in the front setback area is 11%. The area of the driveway in the side
setback area is 38.4% and the area of the motor court in the side setback is 9.4%, for a total of
48%.
Applicant Request
On September 3, 2024, the applicant, Dan Bolton, on behalf of the property owner, Karl
Frykman, submitted an application to repave and move the driveway approximately 10 feet
east (8'-7" according to site measurement; see Attachment 2). The maximum width of the
15
driveway will be 20 feet. According to site measurements, the driveway apron will be
approximately 29'-5"; the existing driveway is approximately 24' wide based on aerial photo
measurements. The existing asphalt will be removed and replaced with permeable pavers. An
increase of 30 SF will be added to the driveway bringing the total to 3,370 SF (Attachment 4
and 5).
Pursuant to Section 17.16.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC), the driveway may
not cover more than 20% of the setback area in which it is located, and uncovered parking
areas and motor courts may not cover more than 10%. The project will increase the front yard
setback coverage from 11.0% to 11.3%, which is under the 20% maximum. No change will be
made to the side yard setback coverage for the driveway and motor court, which are legal
nonconforming at 38.4% and 9.4%, respectively. The project will eliminate 3,820 SF of
impervious area and replace it with 4,113 SF of pervious surface.
Approximately 4 cubic yards (CY) of balanced grading is required to level the site. No dirt will
be exported or imported to the site and no retaining walls are proposed. The maximum
drainage allowed for a driveway is 12%, and the first 20 feet of the driveway cannot exceed
7%. The existing driveway is steeper than 12%, however, the project will improve this
condition by being slightly less steep.
DISCUSSION:
Traffic Commission Review
Pursuant to Section 10.08.020(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC), the Traffic
Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding driveway curb cuts
(aprons). Section 15.04.100 of the RHMC states "all new and relocated driveways require
approval of the City of Rolling Hills Traffic Commission prior to construction."
The driveway is existing, but the applicant is requesting moving it approximately 10 feet east
to improve access as the existing driveway is slightly angled. The existing driveway already
encroaches into the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) easement and the proposed
project has been forwarded to RHCA for review.
The City's traffic engineer has reviewed the proposal and visited the site and finds the
proposal acceptable (Attachment 1).
Other Approvals
The project is subject to Traffic Commission review because it moves and widens the
driveway apron. Typically, driveway improvements are approved administratively provided
code requirements are met. Approval by RHCA is still required.
Environmental Review
The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3, Section 15303. The project is for new
construction for accessory structures to a single-family residence.
16
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the driveway and apron to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Memo from City Traffic Engineer - 10 Crest West Dwy 09.18.pdf
Attachment 2: CO_TRC_240926_10CrestRdW_Driveway_Pics.pdf
Attachment 3: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-
073_LotCoverageCalcs_240909_Ext.Dwy.pdf
Attachment 4: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-073_Driveway_Closeup.pdf
Attachment 5: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-073_RevisedSitePlan.pdf
17
Memorandum
TO: John Signo, AICP Director of Planning and Community Services
FROM: Vanessa Munoz PE, TE, City Traffic Engineer
DATE: September 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 10 Crest Road West Driveway
This memorandum is in response to the request by the city to review and provide input on
the proposed driveway improvements submitted by the residents of 10 Crest Road West.
The project is realigning the existing driveway and shifting it to the east approximately 10
feet, the proposed driveway aisle width is 20-feet and permeable pavers will be used for
the surface.
A field review of the existing conditions was performed, and the proposed driveway was
staked for visual inspection. Based on review of the plans, visual field observations and
engineering judgement, the proposed driveway location and width is acceptable.
18
10 CREST ROAD WEST – DRIVEWAY RELOCATION
TOP: Driveway at 10 Crest Road West viewed from across street
BOTTOM LEFT: Width of driveway apron (approx. 29’‐5”)
BOTTOM RIGHT: Movement of eastern edge (approx. 8’7”)
19
10 CREST ROAD WEST – DRIVEWAY RELOCATION
TOP: View looking eastward.
BOTTOM: View looking westward.
20
DATE: 8/30/2024 0
TOTAL
NET LOT AREA 40,914 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 40,914
RESIDENCE 4,385 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 4,385 sq.ft
GARAGE 750 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 750 sq.ft
SWIMMING POOL/SPA 1,104 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 1,104 sq.ft
POOL EQUIPMENT 100 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 100 sq.ft
GUEST HOUSE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
CABANA 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
735 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 735 sq.ft
RECREATION COURT 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES 234 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 234 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED TRELLISES 450 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 450 sq.ft
*DETACHED STRUCTURES:
(circle all that applies)
32 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 32 sq.ft
227 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 227 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
72 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 72 sq.ft
SERVICE YARD 90 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 90 sq.ft
OTHER:0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
BASEMENT AREA:0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
(Volume to be included in grading quantities)
DEPTH OF BASEMENT 0 sq.ft 0 ft 0 ft
TOTAL STRUCTURE 8,179 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 8,179 sq.ft
%STRUCTURAL COVERAGE 19.99% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 19.99% sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES
7,848 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 7,848 sq.ft
% STRUCTURAL COVERAGE 19.18% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 19.18% sq.ft
10 Crest Road West
EXCLUDING UP TO 5 AND UP TO 800 sq.ft.
detached structures that are not higher than 12 ft.
ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE,
BREEZEWAYS
SHEDS, TRELLISES, GAZEBO, BARBEQUE,
OUTDOOR KITCHEN,ROOFED PLAY EQUP.-
over 15 ft. high and over 120 sq.ft. in area,
WATER FEATURES, ETC.
AREA AND
STRUCTURES
STABLE (dirt volume to be
included in grading quantities
EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS:
ALL STRUCTURES MUST BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN
CALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGE
16
21
DATE: 8/30/2024 0
TOTAL
PRIMARY DRIVEWAY 3,340 sq.ft 30 sq.ft 3,370
2,231 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 2,231 sq.ft
POOL DECKING 230 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 230 sq.ft
480 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 480 sq.ft
TOTAL FLATWORK 6,281 sq.ft 30 sq.ft 6,311 sq.ft
15.35%0.07%15.43%
14,460 sq.ft 30 sq.ft 14,490 sq.ft
35.34%0.07%35.42%
14,129 sq.ft 30 sq.ft 14,159 sq.ft
34.53%0.07%34.61%
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 27,046 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 27,046 sq.ft
% DISTURBED AREA 66.10%0.00%66.10%
GRADING QUANTITY 4 C.Y.
EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 10 Crest Road West
ALL FLATWORK MUST BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN
PAVED WALKS, PATIO AREAS,
COURTYARDS
OTHER PAVED DRIVEWAYS, ROAD
EASEMENTS, PARKING PADS
%TOTAL FLATWORK
COVERAGE
TOTAL STRUCTURAL &
FLATWORK COVERAGE
All structures (attached and detached) must be listed.
(include future stable, corral, and access way;
basement and all other areas to be graded)
*Free standing accessory structures such as sheds, trellises, covered patios, gazebo, fountains, barbecue, outdoor
fireplace, etc. are not counted towards coverage and disturbed area unless their combined area exceeds 800 sq.ft., or if
there are more than 5 such structures on the property.
%TOTAL COVERAGE
TOTAL STRUCTURAL &
FLATWORK COVERAGE
Excl. the allowance of up to 5- 800 sq.ft.
structures from previous page.
% TOTAL COVERAGE
17
22
DATE: 8/30/2024 0
TOTAL
BUILDING PAD 11,050 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 11,050
RESIDENCE 4,385 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 4,385 sq.ft
GARAGE 750 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 750 sq.ft
SWIMMING POOL/SPA 1,104 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 1,104 sq.ft
POOL EQUIPMENT 100 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 100 sq.ft
GUEST HOUSE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft - sq.ft
CABANA 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
-sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SPORTS COURT 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SERVICE YARD 90 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 90 sq.ft
ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES
Primary Residence 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
Accessory Structures 0 sq.ft -sq.ft 0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft sq.ft 0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED TRELLISES 450 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 450 sq.ft
*DETACHED STRUCTURES:331 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 331 sq.ft
(From 1st page)
72 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 72 sq.ft
OTHER:0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 1 7,210 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 7,210 sq.ft
%BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 65.25% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 65.25% sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 1
6,501 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 6,501 sq.ft
% BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 58.83% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 58.83% sq.ft
Not incl. attached trellises,
Not incl. allowed deductions,
and incl. the area of covered porches that exceed 10% of the
size of the residence / accs structures
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 10 Crest Road West
STABLE
AREA OF ATTACHED COVERED
EXISTING PROPOSED
CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
BUILDABLE PAD AREA AND
STRUCTURES
PAD NO. 1- MAIN RESIDENCE
PORCHES THAT EXCEED 10% OF THE SIZE OF
RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURES
(From 1st page not including allowed deductions)
ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE,
BREEZEWAYS
ALL DETACHED STRUCTURES
18
23
DATE: 8/30/2024 0
TOTAL
BUILDING PAD 1,371 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 1,371
RESIDENCE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
GARAGE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SWIMMING POOL/SPA 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
POOL EQUIPMENT 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
GUEST HOUSE - sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
CABANA 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
735 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 735 sq.ft
SPORTS COURT 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SERVICE YARD 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES
Primary Residence 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
Accessory Structures 234 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 234 sq.ft
161 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 161 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED TRELLISES 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
*DETACHED STRUCTURES:0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
(From 1st page)
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
OTHER:- sq.ft - sq.ft 0 sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 2 969 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 969 sq.ft
%BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 70.68% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 70.68% sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 2
896 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 896 sq.ft
% BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 65.32% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 65.32% sq.ft
ALL DETACHED STRUCTURES
CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
BUILDABLE PAD AREA AND
STRUCTURES
EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 10 Crest Road West
STABLE
AREA OF ATTACHED COVERED
PORCHES THAT EXCEED 10% OF THE SIZE OF
RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURES
ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE,
BREEZEWAYS
PAD NO. 2-- STABLE PAD
(From 1st page not including allowed deductions)
Not incl. attached trellises,
Not incl. allowed deductions,
and incl. the area of covered porches that exceed 10% of the
size of the residence / accs structures
19
24
DATE: 8/30/2024 ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS:
Grading Quantities:Cubic Yds.Max Depth
0 N/A
For other structures (i.e. walls)
List 0 N/A
For driveway(s)2 N/A
For yard areas 0 N/A
For basement excavation 0 N/A
For pool/spa excavation 0 N/A
Overexcavation 0 N/A
TOTAL CUT 2 2
TOTAL Balanced Export
FILL
0 N/A
For other structures (i.e. walls)
List 0 N/A
-
For driveway(s)2 N/A
For yard areas 0 N/A
For basement excavation 0 N/A
For pool/spa excavation 0 N/A
Recompaction 0 N/A
TOTAL FILL 2 2
4
Existing pad elevations House Other Pad:
Finished Floor 799.00 -
Finished Grade 798.00 -
Proposed pad elevations
Finished floor
Finished grade
0
Max Depth Location
CUT/EXCAVATION
For house/addition
PAD 1: HOUSE
10 Crest Road West
GRADING AND EXCAVATION INFORMATION
Widened Driveway
PAD/FLOOR ELEVATIONS
TOTAL GRADING (Sum
of total cut and total fill):
Widened Driveway
0
For house/addition
21
25
DATE: 9/9/2024 ZONING CASE NO.:
EXISTING
3340 sf 3370 sf
TOTAL MOTOR COURTS 480 sf 480 sf
AND PARKING PADS
AREA OF FRONT SETBACK 9,342 sf 9,342 sf
AREA OF SIDE SETBACK 5,098 sf 5,098 sf
AREA OF DRIVEWAYS IN SIDE 1,960 sf 1,960 sf
SETBACK
% OF SIDE SETBACK COVERED 38.4% 38.4%
AREA OF MOTORCOURT IN SIDE 480 sf 480 sf
SETBACK
% OF SIDE SETBACK COVERED 9.4% 9.4%
AREA OF DRIVEWAYS IN FRONT 1,024 sf 1054 sf
SETBACK AREA
% OF FRONT SETBACK COVERED 11.0% 11.3%
AREA OF MOTORCOURT IN FRONT 0 sf 0 sf
SETBACK
% OF FRONT SETBACK COVERED 0.0% 0.0%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 3,820 sf 0 sf
PERVIOUS SURFACE 0 sf 4113 sf
TOTAL PROPOSED
0 ADDRESS: 10 Crest Road West
CALCULATION OF DRIVEWAY(S) AND MOTOR COURT(S) COVERAGE; IMPERVIOUS/PERVIOUS
SURFACES AND INCLUDING FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND, IF REQUIRED
TOTAL DRIVEWAYS
26
10 CREST ROAD WEST
27
℄℄⅊⅊⅊⅊
⅊⅊4"D4"D4"D4"D4"D4"DLIMIT OF GRADINGLIMIT OF GRADINGLEGENDACROYNMS4"D5"AAPLANSECTION A-A110102010Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
planning submittal
C1.0ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ONTHESE PLANS WERE PLOTTED FROM CITY RECORDS. NOADDITIONAL UTILITY OR SUBSTRUCTURE RESEARCH HAS BEENPERFORMED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THEEXISTENCE AND THE TRUE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONAND SIZE OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES ANDSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTION, ADJUSTMENT, ORDAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES SHOWN OR NOTSHOWN HEREON. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BERESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING U.S.A./DIG ALERT AT 1-800-227-2600FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY MARKING AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIORTO COMMENCING ANY CONSTRUCTION. CONSTRUCTION SHALLNOT COMMENCE PRIOR TO SAID UNDERGROUND UTILITY MARKING.UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA1C1.02028
Agenda Item No.: 11.B
Mtg. Date: 09/26/2024
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
ZONING CASE NO. 24-074: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR A NEW
DRIVEWAY THAT LEADS TO A NEW BARN AND CORRAL AT 2
POSSUM RIDGE ROAD (LOT 123-RH), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(WHITCOMBE), AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
DATE:September 26, 2024
BACKGROUND:
Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property is located in the southern portion of the City at the northwestern intersection of
Portuguese Bend Road and Crest Road West. The property is traversed by Possum Ridge
Road and is zoned RAS-2. The lot area excluding the roadway easement is 4.2 acres
(181,429 square feet (SF)). For development purposes the net lot area is 3.5 acres (151,990
SF). The net lot area is used for calculations throughout this report.
Applicant Request
On September 4, 2024, the applicant, Megan Campbell, on behalf of the property owner, John
D. Whitcombe, submitted an application for a new stable with driveway access and other
improvements (Zoning Case (ZC) No. 24-074). The new driveway will be located on the
eastern side of Possum Ridge Road and made of decomposed granite (DG). The driveway
width will be approximately 16' and the apron width will be 23'-2". There is an existing
driveway on the western portion of the lot which will not be affected. The new driveway will be
across the existing driveway (Attachment 2 and 4).
Pursuant to Section 17.18.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC), "No less than a
six-foot wide roughened surface or dirt vehicular accessway to the stable and corral area for
delivery of feed and removal of waste shall be provided. Such accessway shall not exceed a
29
slope of twenty-five percent. This accessway shall not be entirely paved." Further, the
vehicular approach "shall be subject to approval by the Traffic Commission and shall not be
considered a second driveway within the meaning of Section 17.16.040(A)(1) if it provides
access exclusively to a stable or corral. For stables of one thousand square feet or larger,
access shall comply with the Fire Department requirements."
DISCUSSION:
Traffic Commission Review
Pursuant to Section 10.08.020(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC), the Traffic
Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding driveway curb cuts
(aprons). Section 15.04.100 of the RHMC states "all new and relocated driveways require
approval of the City of Rolling Hills Traffic Commission prior to construction."
There is an existing driveway on the western portion of the lot which will not be affected. The
proposed driveway will be located on the western portion of the lot for access to a new stable
and corral.
The new driveway is part of a larger project to redevelop the site. Approval was already
granted for an addition to the residence and other improvements on the western portion of the
site. Improvements include redoing the existing driveway on the western portion and replacing
much of it with permeable pavers. In total, the applicant will add 2,425 square feet of paver
driveway and remove 225 square feet of previously approved paver driveway, for a net
increase of 2,200 square feet of permeable pavers. The total pervious surface will be 10,124
square feet and the total impervious surface will be 750 square feet. Driveway area in the front
setback covers 4.7% (Attachment 3).
The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal for a new driveway and finds it
acceptable (Attachment 1).
Additional Review
The new driveway is part of a larger project under ZC No. 24-074 that must be approved by
the Planning Commission. Approval from the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) is
also required prior to submittal for building plan check. Information on the larger project is
found in the calculation sheets (Attachment 3).
Environmental Review
The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3, Section 15303. The project is for new
construction for accessory structures to a single-family residence.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
30
Recommend approval of the driveway and apron to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Memo from Traffic Engineer - 2 Possum Ridge Road Dwy 09.18.2024.pdf
Attachment 2: CO_TRC_240926_2PossumRidgeRd_Driveway_Pics.pdf
Attachment 3: PL_ADR_2PossumRidgeRd_ZC24-074_240918_All_Calculations.pdf
Attachment 4: PL_ADR_240904_2PossumRidgeRd_ZC24-074_Plans_TrafficCommission.pdf
31
Memorandum
TO: John Signo, AICP Director of Planning and Community Services
FROM: Vanessa Munoz PE, TE, City Traffic Engineer
DATE: September 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 2 Possum Ridge Road Driveway
This memorandum is in response to the request by the city to review and provide input on
the proposed driveway improvements submitted by the residents of 2 Possum Ridge
Road. The project is proposing a barn on the undeveloped side of the lot east of Possum
Ridge with a decomposed granite (DG) driveway with a proposed driveway aisle width that
is 15’-11” and a proposed driveway apron that is 23’-2” wide.
A field review of the existing conditions was performed, and the proposed driveway was
staked for visual inspection. Based on review of the plans, visual field observations and
engineering judgement, the proposed driveway location and width is acceptable.
32
2 POSSUM RIDGE ROAD– DRIVEWAY FOR STABLE/CORRAL
TOP: Proposed driveway looking across road from existing driveway.
BOTTOM: Aerial of Possum Ridge Road
33
2 POSSUM RIDGE ROAD– DRIVEWAY FOR STABLE/CORRAL
TOP: Looking south on Possum Ridge Road.
BOTTOM: Looking north on Possum Ridge Road.
34
DATE: 8/26/2024 0
TOTAL
NET LOT AREA 151,990 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 151,990
RESIDENCE 6,230 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 6,230 sq.ft
GARAGE 890 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 890 sq.ft
SWIMMING POOL/SPA 1,200 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 1,200 sq.ft
POOL EQUIPMENT 80 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 80 sq.ft
GUEST HOUSE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
CABANA 217 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 217 sq.ft
1,075 sq.ft 2,305 sq.ft 3,380 sq.ft
RECREATION COURT 0 sq.ft 6,000 sq.ft 6,000 sq.ft
ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES 980 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 980 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED TRELLISES 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
*DETACHED STRUCTURES:
(circle all that applies)
SHED 1+2 524 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 524 sq.ft
MIXED USE 0 sq.ft 1,075 sq.ft 1,075 sq.ft
170 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 170 sq.ft
372 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 372 sq.ft
SHED 3 880 sq.ft -880 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SERVICE YARD 90 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 90 sq.ft
OTHER: Remodeled Stable to mixed use 0 sq.ft 1,075 sq.ft 1,075 sq.ft
BASEMENT AREA:3,580 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 3,580 sq.ft
(Volume to be included in grading quantities)
DEPTH OF BASEMENT 0 sq.ft 10 ft 10 ft
TOTAL STRUCTURE 16,288 sq.ft 9,575 sq.ft 25,863 sq.ft
%STRUCTURAL COVERAGE 10.72% sq.ft 6.30% sq.ft 17.02% sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES
10,762 sq.ft 8,500 sq.ft 19,262 sq.ft
% STRUCTURAL COVERAGE 7.08% sq.ft 5.59% sq.ft 12.67% sq.ft
2 Possum Ridge
EXCLUDING UP TO 5 AND UP TO 800 sq.ft.
detached structures that are not higher than 12 ft.
ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE,
BREEZEWAYS
STABLE (dirt volume to be
included in grading quantities
EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING CASE NO.:ADDRESS:
ALL STRUCTURES MUST BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN
CALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGE
OUTDOOR KITCHEN
FIRE PIT
9.4.24
35
DATE: 8/26/2024 0
TOTAL
PRIMARY DRIVEWAY 8,674 sq.ft 2,200 sq.ft 10,874 sq.ft
4,013 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 4,013 sq.ft
POOL DECKING 1,810 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 1,810 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
TOTAL FLATWORK 14,497 sq.ft 2,200 sq.ft 16,697 sq.ft
9.54%1.45%10.99%
30,785 sq.ft 11,775 sq.ft 42,560 sq.ft
20.25%7.75%28.00%
25,259 sq.ft 10,700 sq.ft 35,959 sq.ft
16.62%7.04%23.66%
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 47,500 sq.ft 26,300 sq.ft 73,800 sq.ft
% DISTURBED AREA 31.25%17.30%48.56%
GRADING QUANTITY 4,226 C.Y.
(include future stable, corral, and
access way; basement and all other
areas to be graded)
*Free standing accessory structures such as sheds, trellises, covered patios, gazebo, fountains, barbecue, outdoor
fireplace, etc. are not counted towards coverage and disturbed area unless their combined area exceeds 800 sq.ft., or if
there are more than 5 such structures on the property.
%TOTAL COVERAGE
TOTAL STRUCTURAL &
FLATWORK COVERAGE
Excl. the allowance of up to 5- 800 sq.ft.
structures from previous page.
% TOTAL COVERAGE
PAVED WALKS, PATIO AREAS,
COURTYARDS
OTHER PAVED DRIVEWAYS, ROAD
EASEMENTS, PARKING PADS
%TOTAL FLATWORK
COVERAGE
TOTAL STRUCTURAL &
FLATWORK COVERAGE
All structures (attached and detached) must be listed.
EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 2 Possum Ridge
ALL FLATWORK MUST BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN
36
DATE: 8/26/2024 0
TOTAL
BUILDING PAD 46,830 sq.ft 4,900 sq.ft 51,730
RESIDENCE 6,230 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 6,230 sq.ft
GARAGE 890 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 890 sq.ft
SWIMMING POOL/SPA 1,200 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 1,200 sq.ft
POOL EQUIPMENT 80 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 80 sq.ft
GUEST HOUSE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft - sq.ft
CABANA 217 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 217 sq.ft
1,075 sq.ft -1075 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SPORTS COURT 0 sq.ft 6000 sq.ft 6,000 sq.ft
SERVICE YARD 90 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 90 sq.ft
ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES
Primary Residence 980 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 980 sq.ft
Accessory Structures 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
357 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 357 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED TRELLISES 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
*DETACHED STRUCTURES:1946 sq.ft 1075 sq.ft 3021 sq.ft
(From 1st page)
372 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 372 sq.ft
OTHER:0 sq.ft 1075 sq.ft 1075 sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 1 12,708 sq.ft 7,075 sq.ft 19,783 sq.ft
%BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 27.14% sq.ft 13.68% sq.ft 38.24% sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 1
10,511 sq.ft 6,000 sq.ft 16,511 sq.ft
% BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 22.45% sq.ft 11.60% sq.ft 31.92% sq.ft
PORCHES THAT EXCEED 10% OF THE SIZE OF
RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURES
(From 1st page not including allowed deductions)
ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE,
BREEZEWAYS
ALL DETACHED STRUCTURES
Not incl. attached trellises,
Not incl. allowed deductions,
and incl. the area of covered porches that exceed 10% of the
size of the residence / accs structures
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 2 Possum Ridge
STABLE
AREA OF ATTACHED COVERED
EXISTING PROPOSED
CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
BUILDABLE PAD AREA AND
STRUCTURES
PAD NO. 1- MAIN RESIDENCE
37
DATE: 8/26/2024 0
TOTAL
BUILDING PAD 0 sq.ft 8,055 sq.ft 8,055
RESIDENCE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
GARAGE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SWIMMING POOL/SPA 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
POOL EQUIPMENT 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
GUEST HOUSE - sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
CABANA 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 3,380 sq.ft 3,380 sq.ft
SPORTS COURT 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SERVICE YARD 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES
Primary Residence 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
Accessory Structures 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED TRELLISES 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
*DETACHED STRUCTURES:0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
(From 1st page)
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
OTHER:- sq.ft - sq.ft 0 sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 2 0 sq.ft 3,380 sq.ft 3,380 sq.ft
%BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 0.00% sq.ft 41.96% sq.ft 41.96% sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 2
0 sq.ft 3,380 sq.ft 3,380 sq.ft
% BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 0.00% sq.ft 41.96% sq.ft 41.96% sq.ft
(From 1st page not including allowed deductions)
Not incl. attached trellises,
Not incl. allowed deductions,
and incl. the area of covered porches that exceed 10% of the
size of the residence / accs structures
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 2 Possum Ridge
STABLE
AREA OF ATTACHED COVERED
PORCHES THAT EXCEED 10% OF THE SIZE OF
RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURES
ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE,
BREEZEWAYS
PAD NO. 2- STABLE
ALL DETACHED STRUCTURES
CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
BUILDABLE PAD AREA AND
STRUCTURES
EXISTING PROPOSED
38
DATE: 8/26/2024 ZONING CASE NO.:
Cubic Yds.Max Depth (ft)
0 0.00
For other structures (i.e. walls)
List Stable 443 3.6
Sports Court 1,120 7.1
For driveway(s)0 0.0
For yard areas 0
For basement excavation 0 0
For pool/spa excavation 0 0
Overexcavation 550 4.0
TOTAL CUT 2,113 0.80
TOTAL Balanced Export
FILL
0 0
For other structures (i.e. walls)
List Stable 1,050 11.1
Sports Court 138 2.8
For driveway(s)0 0
For yard areas 0 0
For basement excavation 0 0
For pool/spa excavation 0 0
Recompaction 925 4.0
TOTAL FILL 2,113 0.0
4,226
Existing pad elevations House Garage Stable
Finished Floor 1271.50 1270.64 1273.57 1261.50
Finished Grade 1270.50 1270.00 1272.45 1260.50
Proposed pad elevations House Garage Basement
Finished floor 1259.00
Finished grade 1258.50
Export less exempt:
PAD/FLOOR ELEVATIONS
TOTAL GRADING (Sum
of total cut and total fill):
0
For house/addition
2 Possum Ridge0 ADDRESS:
GRADING AND EXCAVATION INFORMATION
Max Depth Location
CUT/EXCAVATION
For house/addition
0
39
DATE: 9/17/2024 ZONING CASE NO.:
EXISTING
8675 sf 13025 sf
TOTAL MOTOR COURTS 0 sf 0 sf
AND PARKING PADS
AREA OF FRONT SETBACK 52,015 sf 52,015 sf
AREA OF SIDE SETBACK 10,345 sf 10,345 sf
AREA OF DRIVEWAYS IN SIDE 0 sf - sf
SETBACK
% OF SIDE SETBACK COVERED 0.0% 0.0%
AREA OF MOTORCOURT IN SIDE 0 sf 0 sf
SETBACK
% OF SIDE SETBACK COVERED 0.0%0.0%
AREA OF DRIVEWAYS IN FRONT 1,345 sf 2,445 sf
SETBACK AREA
% OF FRONT SETBACK COVERED 2.6%4.7%
AREA OF MOTORCOURT IN FRONT 0 sf 0 sf
SETBACK
% OF FRONT SETBACK COVERED 0.0% 0.0%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 750 sf 750 sf
PERVIOUS SURFACE 7,925 sf 12,275 sf
0 ADDRESS: 2 Possum Ridge
TOTAL DRIVEWAYS
CALCULATION OF DRIVEWAY(S) AND MOTOR COURT(S) COVERAGE;
IMPERVIOUS/PERVIOUS SURFACES AND INCLUDING FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND, IF
REQUIRED
TOTAL PROPOSED
40
(;,67,1*)(1&()5217<$5'6(7%$&.($6(0(17
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
&/&5(67
&/32578*8(6(%(1'3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(
3(50($%/(3$9(56 3266205,'*(5'7851287
6,'(6(7%$&.)52176(7%$&.35(9,286&2857287/,1(
35(9,286&2857*5$'('$5($
(;,67,1*6,7(
:$//725(0$,1
'(02/2)7&+$1*(2)86(
725(&5220*8(67+286(
&2 5 5 $/6 (7$6,'('*
%(*,11,1*2)833(56,675$,/
(48(675,$1*$7(
352326('%$51
:,7+6)7$&.5220/2)7
352326('[
63257&2857
352326(''*'5,9(:$<)25
$*(48,30(176(3$5$7(
75$)),&&200,66,21
$33529$/)25$'',7,21$/
'5,9(:$<
;
%$51
35,9$&<3/$17,1*
0,12502',),&$7,21723+5(6
$77$&+('3(5*2/$$7287'225.,7&+(1
5(/2&$7,212)322/$1'),5(3,7
%$6(0(17(1/$5*(0(17 67,//81'(5%8,/',1*)22735,17
3+$6(6&23(
&+$1*(2)86(2)(;,67,1*67$%/(720,;('86( 5(&5220*8(67+286(
,1&/8'(65(029$/2)/2)7
1(:%$512181'(9(/23('6,'(2)/27 ($672)3266805,'*(
1(:63257&2857210$,1+286(6,'(2)/27
9$5,$1&(6 %$51 &2857(1&52$&+0(17,1726(7%$&.
&83 63257&2857
&+$1*(2)86( 67$%/(725(&5220&219(56,21
&21',7,212)$33529$/ +(,*+72)/$1'6&$3($/21*&5(67
5('8&(5$',86
2)352326('
'5,9(:$<
%850
322/ ),5(3,75(/2&$7,21
(1/$5*('%$6(0(17
$77$&+('3(5*2/$
(;,67,1*)(1&(725(0$,1
($6(0(17
)52176(7%$&.
9,(:,1*$5($'*
352326('/,0,72)*5$',1*
6&23,1*6,7(3/$13+$6(
1
5(9'$7('(6&5,37,21
$OOLGHDVGHVLJQVDQGSODQVLQGLFDWHGRUUHSUHVHQWHGE\WKHVHGUDZLQJVDUHRZQHGE\DQGDUHSURSHUW\RIWKH$UFKLWHFW
DQGZHUHFUHDWHGDQGGHYHORSHGIRUXVHLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHVSHFLILHGSURMHFW1RQHRIVXFKLGHDVGHVLJQVRUSODQV
VKDOOEHXVHGIRUDQ\SXUSRVHZKDWVRHYHUZLWKRXWWKHZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQRIWKH$UFKLWHFW
'(6,*1(5
6&$/(
$0
:+,7&20%(5(6,'(1&(
3266805,'*(52$'
52//,1*+,//6&$
6.(7&+
S$
'5$)73+6&23,1*
6,7(3/$1
41
19" TR
E
E
1296.2
0'
24" TR
E
E
1269.
3
3'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
XXXXXXXXXX X X X
XXX
XXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X
XXXXED
AC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
AC
1300
1300
1300
1300X XXXX1295
1295X1290
1290
1285
128512801
2
8
0
1
2
8
0
12801280XXX12
75127
5
12
7
5
1275
1275
1275127512751275XXXXX
1
2
7
0
12
70
1270 127012701270
1270
XXXXXXXX126
5126512601260 1260X X
1255 12551255125012501
2
5
0
12
5
0 12501250X250XXXXX1245124512451245124512451
2
4
5
1
2
4
5
12451245XX1240
1240124012401240124012401235123512351
2
3
5 12351235X
123012301
2
3
0 12301230X
12251
2
2
5 1225122512201
2
2
0 12201220XX
1
2
1
5
1
2
1
5 12151215XX1
2
1
0
1
2
1
0 12101210X1
2
0
5
12
0
5 12051205X
X1
2
0
0
1
2
0
0 12001200XX1
1
9
5
1
1
9
5 11951195XX 11901190900 1185118511851185851180
118011801175WM
ED PB
VLT
HYD
ED VE
N
T
ED VE
N
T
TEL M
H
HYD
ED VE
N
T
ED VE
N
T
WV
TW:12
7
1.
4
6'
FS:12
7
0.
9
8'
TW:12
7
1.
4
6'
FS:12
7
0.
9
1'
TW:12
7
1.
5
4'
FS:127
0.
9
2'
TW:12
7
1.
5
7'
FS:12
7
0.
0
0'
WM
TW:12
7
1.
3
1'
NG:12
7
0.
3
1'
TW:12
7
1.
3
0'
FS:12
7
0.
8
7'
TW:12
7
1.
0
0'
FS:127
0.
4
8'
TW:12
7
0.
4
7'
FS:12
7
0.
0
6'
TW:12
7
1.
1
7'
FS:12
7
0.
8
3'
SHED
SHED
CABA
N
A
COMP
O
SI
T
E
D
E
C
K
COMP
O
SI
T
E
S
T
E
P
S
POSSUM RIDGEPORTUGUESE BEND ROADCREST ROAD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD1 STORY HOUSERH:1284.78'FF:1271.77'1 STORY HOUSE
RH:1284.39'
FF:1271.57'GARAGERH:1284.75'FF:1270.64'STABLERIDGE:1294.18'FF:1273.57'BUIL
D
I
N
G
RH:1
2
8
4
.
7
5
'
FF:1
2
7
0
.
6
4
'
CONC
DRIVE
W
A
Y ASPHALTSTREETASPHALT
STREET ASPHALTSTREETTRAILCONC
CONCCONCHEAV
Y
B
R
U
S
H
HEAV
Y
B
R
U
S
H
HEAV
Y
B
R
U
S
H
HEAV
Y
B
R
U
S
H
HEAV
Y
B
R
U
S
H
ED
1270.6
0'
1270.
3
2'
1270.6
9'1270.6
7'
1270.3
0'
1270.9
5'
1270.7
9'
1270.1
9'
1270.1
1'
1269.
5
6'1270.05'1270.77'1270.69'1270.23'1270.27'1270.4
8'1269.63'1270.
6
8'1270.84'1270.74'1270.61'1278.08'1275.23'1275.14'1273.17'1273.45'1272.45'1272.61'1275.40'1274.32'1273.32'1254.01'1252.76'1291.13'1293.9
3'
1295.3
5'
1297.
2
0'
1298.
8
3'
1299.
3
7'
1299.
6
4'
1299.
8
3'
1291.8
4'
1289.
4
8'1284.8
5'
1278.6
5'
1260.3
2'
1248.4
7'
1238.4
5'
1273.5
7'1271.5
3'
1270.7
8'
1270.
5
4'
1270.6
1'
1270.3
6'
1270.
3
7'
1272.
4
4'
1270.4
0'1270.74'1274.62'1270.
5
1'
1270.4
0'
1270.
0
7'1269.05'1267.35'1268.46'1267.35'LOT 1
2
3
ROLLI
N
G
HI
L
L
S
T
R
A
C
T
M.B.20
1
P
G'
S
2
9-
3
5
LOT 1
2
3
ROLLI
N
G
HI
L
L
S
T
R
A
C
T
M.B.20
1
P
G'
S
2
9-
3
5
SET R
E
B
A
R
&
C
A
P
LS 97
5
8
A
T
P
C
SET R
E
B
A
R
&
C
A
P
LS 97
5
8
A
T
P
C
SET R
E
B
A
R
&
C
A
P
LS 97
5
8
A
T
P
C
FD 2" I
R
O
N
PI
P
E
RE 12
2,
4.
0
0'
DOWN
A
T
P
C
FD 2" I
R
O
N
PI
P
E
RE 12
2,
O
N
P
L
A
T
ROAD
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
FD 2" I
R
O
N
PI
P
E
RE 12
2,
O
N
P
L
A
T
ROAD
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
FD RE
B
A
R
&
C
A
P
LS 89
5
8,
O
N
P
L
38.00'
W'
L
Y
O
F
C
L
INTER
S
E
C
TI
O
N
WITH
N'
L
Y
LI
N
E
SET R
E
B
A
R
&
C
A
P
L
S
9758,
O
N
P
L
1
1
0.
0
0'
E'LY O
F
P
C
NOTHI
N
G
F
O
U
N
D
O
R
SET, I
N
A
C
C
E
S
SI
B
L
E
NOTHI
N
G
F
O
U
N
D
O
R
SET, I
N
A
C
C
E
S
SI
B
L
E
NOTHI
N
G
F
O
U
N
D
O
R
SET, I
N
A
C
C
E
S
SI
B
L
E
SET R
E
B
A
R
&
C
A
P
L
S
9758,
O
N
P
L
3
5.
0
0'
W'LY O
F
P
C
SET N
AI
L
&
T
A
G
LS 97
5
8
A
T
P
CGENERATORCONCCONCCONCCONCCONC1278.
0
7'
TOS:1276.31'BOS:1270.87'POWE
R
P
O
L
E
24" T
R
E
E
25'
2
5'50'50'50'40' 40'
30 30 60
30SCALE: 1" = 30'
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY C0.1
1235
1271.53'
42
1295
2951290
1290
1285
128512801
2
8
0
1
2
8
0
1280128012751275
12
7
5
1275
1275
12751275127512751
2
7
0
1270
1270 127012701270
1270
12
6
512651260 126012551255125012501250 12502502502501245124512451245124512451
2
4
5
1
2
4
5
1245124512401240124012401240124012401235123512351
2
3
5 12351235123012301
2
3
0 1230123012251
2
2
5 122512201
2
2
0 12201
2
1
5
1
2
1
5 12151
2
1
0
1
2
1
0
12101
2
0
5
12
0
5 12051
2
0
0
1
2
0
0 12001
1
9
5
1
1
9
5 1195ED
127012701270
20 20 40
20SCALE: 1" = 20'
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY C1.0
1235
43
1295
2951290
1290
1285
128512801
2
8
0
1
2
8
0
1280128012751275
12
7
5
1275
1275
12751275127512751
2
7
0
1270
1270 127012701270
1270
12
6
512651260 126012551255125012501250 12502502502501245124512451245124512451
2
4
5
1
2
4
5
1245124512401240124012401240124012401235123512351
2
3
5 12351235123012301
2
3
0 1230123012251
2
2
5 122512201
2
2
0 12201
2
1
5
1
2
1
5 12151
2
1
0
1
2
1
0
12101
2
0
5
12
0
5 12051
2
0
0
1
2
0
0 12001
1
9
5
1
1
9
5 119520 20 40
20SCALE: 1" = 20'
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY C1.1
1235
44
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY C2.0
SCALE: 1" = 10'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
45
Agenda Item No.: 12.A
Mtg. Date: 09/26/2024
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RE-DISCUSS SIGNAGE AT CREST ROAD EAST AND EASTFIELD
DRIVE LEADING TO CREST ROAD EAST GATE AND FINDING THE
ACTION CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
DATE:September 26, 2024
BACKGROUND:
This item was put on the agenda at the request of Commission Raine at the July 25, 2024,
Traffic Commission meeting. The item was previously discussed on May 30, 2024, in which
the Traffic Commission unanimously received and filed the item making no changes to
signage and keeping the status quo.
Previous Discussions
This item was discussed at the September 28, 2023, Traffic Commission meeting. City Traffic
Engineer Vanessa Munoz investigated the issue and recommended signage be replaced with
taller signs (see Attachment A). Photos of the existing signs are included as Attachment B.
The Commission took no action but indicated the issue involved more than just the City.
On December 11, 2023, the Traffic Commission voted to recommend signage prior to the
Crest Road East gate at Eastfield Drive that directs vehicular egress during an emergency.
The Traffic Commission also requested the Traffic Engineer to recommend combining existing
traffic signs with emergency egress signs.
History
At the September 11, 2023 City Council meeting, the Mayor directed staff to include an item
on the Traffic Commission's agenda regarding emergency signage posted on Crest Road East
near the egress gate. The direction was given after Alfred Visco provided public comment that
the sign at the intersection of Crest Road East and Eastfield Drive that leads to the locked gate
at the end of Crest Road East be changed to indicate "emergency evacuation only when green
lights flashing" or similar. During an emergency, the gate can be opened and the flashing
lights can direct people toward the exit. During non-emergencies, drivers have been known to
drive to the end of Crest Road East only to find out the gate is locked and there is no exit. Mr.
46
Visco brought the issue to the attention of RHCA, but they referred him to the City. He
indicated the existing signs were reviewed and approved by the Traffic Commission.
DISCUSSION:
Staff discussed this issue with Kristen Raig of the Rolling Hills Community Association
(RHCA) and she indicated no change should be made. Staff contacted Ms. Raig prior to
preparing this staff report, and her position has not changed. RHCA already has remote
access to the gate and can open it in an emergency. During an emergency, the emergency
operations center (EOC) or command center will be able to direct residents to appropriate
exits. The Fire Department and Sheriff's Department will also assist with evacuation.
On March 15, 2024, staff met with Mr. Visco at the Crest Road Gate to discuss signage. Mr.
Visco recommended to City Manager Banales and Director Signo a sign with lights that lets
residents know the Crest Road Gate is open for egress. The lighting should have remote
access that can be activated without the need for an attendant. Sample signage and lighting is
included as Attachment C.
Staff and the City Traffic Engineer discussed the item and believe new signage is
unnecessary. As mentioned by Kristen, emergency personnel will be able to direct residents to
appropriate exits. However, to improve visibility the signs could be replaced in kind at a height
of seven feet.
Any action has been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and is
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(g) (Existing
Facilities; signs) and 15311(a) (Accessory Structures, on-premise signs) of the CEQA
Guidelines, which exempts new copy on existing on and off-premise signs and on-premise
signs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and provide direction.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachement A - CL_AGN_TC_230928_TrafficEngineerMemo_Crest-Eastfield Signage.pdf
Attachment B - CO_TRC_230913_CrestRoadEastSigns.pdf
Attachment C - CO_TRC_240328_SampleEmergencySignsLights.pdf
47
Memorandum
TO: John Signo, AICP Director of Planning and Community Services
FROM: Vanessa Munoz PE, TE, City Traffic Engineer
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Crest Road and Eastfield Drive – End of Road Signage Review
This memorandum is in response to the request by the city to review the signage for the
dead end road on Crest Road east of Eastfield Drive.
Based on my review of the signage in the field, there is no need to supplement the
existing signage. However, the signs are not at the recommended height per the
California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and are worn out. Placing the signs
at the correct height allows drivers to view the signs at a greater distance and make the
necessary decisions prior to reaching the intersection of Crest Road and Eastfield Drive.
When signs are lower than recommended, drivers’ line of sight may take longer to read
the information, therefore, require greater time to react and decide what next steps to
take. Furthermore, the signs in the field should be replaced once the retro reflectivity of
the sign has worn down since this makes it difficult to see but particularly at night. Since
this requires greater analysis and it can be costly, it is a common practice by cities to
replace the signs with roadway resurfacing projects or have a sign replacement program.
To improve the compliance with the signs, I recommend the signs be replaced in kind but
installed at a height of 7-feet.
48
CREST ROAD EAST SIGNS
1
TOP: From intersection of Crest Rd. E. & Eastfield Dr. BOTTOM: View of signs.
49
CREST ROAD EAST SIGNS
2
50
CREST ROAD EAST SIGNS
3
TOP: Looking east toward locked gate. BOTTOM: Looking west in opposite direction.
51
SAMPLE EMERGENCY SIGNS AND LIGHTS
52
Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 09/26/2024
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:UPDATE ON REQUIREMENTS FOR ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC
SURVEY
DATE:September 26, 2024
BACKGROUND:
At the May 30, 2024, Traffic Commission meeting, Traffic Engineer Munoz indicated that the
City is due for an Engineering and Traffic (E&T) Survey. These surveys are conducted every
seven years and are used to justify and update the posted speed limits along eight street
segments in the City of Rolling Hills.
The last two E&T surveys were conducted in 2011 and 2018, respectively, with the latter
attached. The E&T Survey is carried out in accordance with applicable provisions of the
California Vehicle Code (CVC) and follows procedures outlined in the California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The E&T Survey is intended to satisfy CVC
requirements to enable the continued use of radar for traffic speed enforcement.
The Traffic Commission directed staff and the City Traffic Engineer to research the topic and
provide a report at the next meeting. Based on the research, staff would seek direction from
the Traffic Commission on whether the City should continue using the 2018 E&T Survey or
consider conducting a new survey.
Prior to the July 25th Traffic Commission meeting, Traffic Engineer Munoz contacted the LA
County Sheriff's Department regarding the CVC the station uses to enforce the speed limit in
the City. She asked about enforcement on private streets and the use of radar to issue
citations. In her conversation with the Sheriff's Department, she indicated that an E&T Survey
is needed for enforcement.
Staff also reached out to the City Attorney's office about the issue and were advised that the
city does not need an E&T Survey because of the private roads.
53
Setting speed limits . Speed limits on private roads are generally not set or enforced by
government authorities like they are on public roads. Private roads are typically owned
and maintained by individuals, homeowners' associations, businesses, or other private
entities. The speed limits on private roads are usually determined by the owner of the
road or the organization that manages it. In most cases, the property's owner or
governing body will set the speed limit on a private road.
Local street exemption for E&T Survey. The speed limit for local streets is exempt from
the radar study and, therefore, does not require an E&T Survey (CVC § 40802(b)(1)).
Local streets primarily provide access to abutting residential property that meets the
following three conditions: (1) roadway width of not more than 40 feet, (2) not more than
one-half mile of un-interrupted length, and (3) not more than one traffic lane in each
direction.
Speed limit enforcement. Law enforcement officers can enforce speed limits on private
roads that primarily provide access to non-commercial buildings in unincorporated areas
of the City if certain procedures are followed by the road owners and the City.
CVC § 21107.5 addresses the necessary procedures setting up enforcement on
private roads open for public use which connect with highways such that the public
cannot determine that the roads are not highways.
CVC § 21107.7 discusses the required procedures for enactment of enforcement
on privately-owned and maintained roads not generally held open for public
vehicular travel (which by reason of their proximity to or connection with highways
are best served by enforcement of the CVC). CVC enforcement in the
unincorporated areas of the City is the responsibility of the California Highway
Patrol (“CHP”). Approval of the resolution by the City Council does not constitute a
commitment by the CHP or Sheriff’s Department to provide enforcement patrols on
a regular basis.
At the July 25, 2024, Traffic Commission meeting, staff was directed to do further research
and report back.
DISCUSSION:
Since the July 25th Traffic Commission meeting, staff has done additional research and found
the following:
LA County Sheriff's indicated they do not need current speed surveys to issue citations
behind the gates. Speed surveys are needed for any road that isn't a "local road." All
roads behind the gates are "local roads" per California law.
LA County Traffic Court indicated they would enforce traffic tickets in the City of Rolling
Hills in the same way as any other community.
Traffic Engineer indicated local streets are 25 miles per hour (MPH) per prima facie.
54
Crest Road and Portuguese Bend Road have speed limits above 25 MPH.
While an E&T Survey is not necessary for private roads, speed limits cannot be reduced or
set, and the Sheriff's Department cannot enforce speeds without support from an E&T Survey.
If the current speed limits remain unchanged and the Sheriff agrees to enforce them without
the survey, then it is not needed. However, it is advisable for cities to review speed limits every
seven years.
Since the City already has the 2018 E&T Survey on file, it will continue being used for
enforcement purposes.
Updated Engineering and Traffic Survey
If the Traffic Commission considers recommending an updated E&T Survey, Willdan can
conduct the survey at a cost of $6,400.
Conclusion
Based on the provided information, the City has the current 2018 E&T Survey and does not
require a new study if the current one is still valid and enforced by the Sheriffs. However, if the
Traffic Commission decides to change speed limits in the future, it is recommended that these
changes align with a new E&T survey. Therefore, staff seeks direction from the Traffic
Commission on whether to continue using the 2018 E&T Survey or recommend that the City
Council conduct a new E&T Survey.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Willdan can conduct a survey at a cost of $6,400. This survey is not part of the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2024-25 adopted budget. A budget amendment is necessary to cover additional costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
CO_TRC_240926_Email_TrafficSurvey_Redacted.pdf
CO_TRC_240926_Email_SheriffsDept_TrafficSurvey.pdf
Rolling Hills E&T Report 2018.pdf
55
1
John Signo
From:Vanessa Munoz <vmunoz@willdan.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2024 5:54 AM
To:John Signo
Subject:RE: Traffic Commission Information Requested.
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links,
opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Hi John,
I think the clarification from the court would be if they would require and engineering and traffic survey to
consider the ticket valid.
Regarding the street classification it’s not as simple as just stating your streets are local, because they were
surveyed in the past and local streets are 25 mph per prima facie. I don’t dare recommend that Portuguese
bend, Crest and Eastfield be 25 mph. We would need to check a Federal map to see how they are classified
and make sure funding is not tied to these streets not being local.
Thanks,
Vanessa Munoz PE, TE
Willdan Engineering | Comprehensive. Innovative. Trusted.
13191 Crossroads Parkway N. Ste 405
Industry CA 91746
T. 562.368.4848 | C. 562.447.6844
From: John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:01 PM
To: Vanessa Munoz <vmunoz@willdan.com>
Subject: RE: Traffic Commission Information Requested.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Willdan. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
and know the content is safe.
Hi Vanessa,
I reached out to the traffic court. They said they would still process the way any other ticket is processed in any other
City.
We did get a response from the Sheriff’s Department and they said they do not need a current speed survey to issue
citations behind the gates. Speed surveys are needed for any road that isn’t a “local road” and all ours are local.
Traffic Commission directed us to do further research and report back, but not sure this is ready. We could do in
November.
John F. Signo, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Services
56
2
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274
310.377.1521
jsigno@cityofrh.net
From: Vanessa Munoz <vmunoz@willdan.com>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 6:51 AM
To: John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net>
Subject: RE: Traffic Commission Information Requested.
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening
attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Yes we need discuss with them how they would handle a ticket if they did not have an engineering and traffic
survey that was updated within the 7 year period. Would the ticket be dismissed?
Vanessa Munoz PE, TE
Willdan | Comprehensive. Innovative. Trusted.
13191 Crossroads Parkway N. Ste 405
Industry CA 91746
T. 562.368.4848 | C. 562.447.6844
From: John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 12:50 PM
To: Vanessa Munoz <vmunoz@willdan.com>
Subject: FW: Traffic Commission Information Requested.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Willdan. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
and know the content is safe.
Vanessa,
See below. Is there anything else we need to ask the Torrance Traffic Court?
John F. Signo, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Services
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274
310.377.1521
jsigno@cityofrh.net
From: Serena Lopez <slopez@cityofrh.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 11:40 AM
To: John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net>
Cc: Stephanie Grant <sgrant@cityofrh.net>
Subject: Traffic Commission Information Requested.
John,
I have taken the liberty of finding the information that was directed to you from Councilmember Wilson.
57
3
Speeding citation fees in Rolling Hills (as of 10/2006):
$150.00 for exceeding speed limit up to 15 MPH
$200.00 for exceeding the speed limit over 16 MPH
Traffic Enforcement Penalties / traffic violations / traffic fees
Traffic (LA County Court) and Judicial Bail
Committee ph:
to Judicial Bail Committee
Torrance Superior Court
This was found in the Rolodex.
Thank You,
Serena Lopez
Administrative Assistant
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274
o: 310.377.1521 ext. 101
e:Slopez@cityofrh.net
58
1
John Signo
From:Karina Banales
Sent:Monday, July 29, 2024 6:12 PM
To:John Signo; Christian Horvath; Samantha Crew
Subject:Fw: Traffic Study - Is a NEW one REQUIRED to issue Speeding Citations
FYI...
Sincerely,
Karina
Karina Bañales
City Manager
This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message.
WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e‐mail. The recipient should check this e‐mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e‐mail.
From: Duran, Patrick C. <PCDuran@lasd.org>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 5:13 PM
To: Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net>
Cc: Cervantes, Paul S. <PSCervan@lasd.org>; Schloegl, Johann A. <JASchloe@lasd.org>; Sullivan, Kyle A.
<kasulliv@lasd.org>; Guerrero, Kimberly <KGuerre@lasd.org>
Subject: Re: Traffic Study ‐ Is a NEW one REQUIRED to issue Speeding Citations
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening
attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Good afternoon Karina! Didn't realize when you left RPV you were going to RH!
This is going to be long, so bear with me. Part of the purpose of this e‐mail is for future reference because I've
done a deep dive in the past and promptly forgotten why we don't need an E&TS for the city of Rolling Hills.
The short version is: My understanding is we do not need current speed surveys to issues cites behind the
gates. Speed surveys are needed for any road that isn't a "local road." All roads behind the gates are "local
roads" per California law. We also enforce RHMC, not CVC (except those CVCs that apply to private or public
property). If we wanted to enforce CVCs, the provisions of 21107.7 VC would have to be met.
The technical details are as follows:
59
2
40802 defines a speed trap. As part of that definition, it says a speed trap is:
"(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local
ordinance under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) 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, school zone, senior zone, business activity district, or speed limit adopted under
Section 22358.7 or 22358.8." (40802(a)(2) VC)
It further says:
“(b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as “local” on the
“California Road System Maps,” that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by
the Department of Transportation. It may also be defined as a “local street or road” if it primarily provides
access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one‐half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control
signals as defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction” (40802(b)(1) VC)
All roads behind the gates are considered “Local” per the California Road System Maps
(https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495797c969a3e5668538),
meaning the speed trap definition does not apply.
If there's anything else I can help with, please let me know!
Deputy Patrick Duran
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Lomita Sheriff's Station
From: Karina Banales <kbanales@cityofrh.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 12:16 PM
To: Guerrero, Kimberly <KGuerre@lasd.org>
Subject: Traffic Study ‐ Is a NEW one REQUIRED to issue Speeding Citations
Importance: High
This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments
Good afternoon Cpt. Guerrero,
Our traffic engineer contacted the Lomita station (not sure who exactly), inquiring about E&T surveys. Below is
what we have in our report to the Traffic Commission:
60
3
"Traffic Engineer Munoz contacted the LA County Sheriff's Department regarding the CVC the station uses to
enforce the speed limit in the City. She asked about enforcement on private streets and the use of radar to
issue citations. In her conversation with the Sheriff's Department, she indicated that the E&T Survey is needed
for enforcement."
The City of Rolling Hills has not had a traffic study performed since 2018. Because we have private roads, we
are not required to have a new one done (even if it's customary to do so every seven years).
My question is... do we have to have a current one on file in order for the deputies to issue speeding tickets?
Also, a very important question: We need a deputy present at our next meeting to discuss statistics. I am not
sure who will come, but we need them present. It is on July 25 at 8:30am.
Thanks,
K
61
Engineering and Traffic
Survey
March 2018
Prepared by:
FOR THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS
62
March 14, 2018
Mr. Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Subject: 2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
Dear Mr. Cruz:
As requested, Willdan has completed an Engineering and Traffic (E&T) Survey to justify
and update the posted speed limits along 8 street segments in the City of Rolling Hills.
These segments were last surveyed in 2011, and require an update to comply with the 7-
year limitation set forth in the California Vehicle Code (CVC).
We are pleased to submit the enclosed Report that describes the E&T survey procedures
and contains recommendations for posted speed limits on the City’s arterial and collector
street system. A summary of these recommendations is included in the Analysis.
Supporting documentation for each speed zone recommendation is provided in the
Appendices.
The Report was conducted in accordance with app licable provisions of the CVC, following
procedures outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California
MUTCD) dated April 2017, and as required by Section 627 of the CVC. The Report is
intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 40802 of the CVC to enable the continued
use of radar for traffic speed enforcement.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Rolling Hills and the assistance and
cooperation afforded to us during the course of this study.
Very truly yours,
WILLDAN
Vanessa Munoz, P.E., T.E.
Traffic Engineer
Enclosure
63
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
City of Rolling Hills
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1-2
Elements of the Engineering and Traffic Survey ........................................ 2-3
SURVEY CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 4
Survey Locations ........................................................................................ 4
Data Collection ........................................................................................... 4
Speed Data ............................................................................................ 4
Collision Data ......................................................................................... 5
Field Review Data .................................................................................. 5
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 6
Criteria ........................................................................................................ 6
Results and Recommendations ................................................................. 6-7
Table 1-Street Segments With Recommended Speed Changes ............... 8
Table 2-Summary of Recommendations .................................................... 9
Segments with Special Conditions ............................................................. 10-11
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCES .................................................................... 12
Applicable Sections of California Vehicle Code ......................................... 12-17
APPENDIX A - Street Segment Data
APPENDIX B - Radar Speed Distribution Forms
- Raw Radar Speed Distribution Forms
APPENDIX C - Survey Equipment Used
64
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
1 City of Rolling Hills
INTRODUCTION
This Engineering and Traffic (E&T) Survey is intended to be the basis for the
establishment, revision, and enforcement of speed limits for selected streets within the City
of Rolling Hills. This E&T Survey presents recommended speed limits for 8 street
segments in the City of Rolling Hills. E&T Surveys are required by the State of California to
establish intermediate speed limits on local streets and to enforce those limits using radar
or other speed measuring devices. These surveys must be updated e very 5 or 7 years to
ensure the speeds reflect current conditions as dictated by the California Vehicle Code
(CVC). The CVC also requires that the surveys be conducted based on the methodology
required by The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control D evices (California MUTCD)
dated April 2017.
The survey was requested by the City for the proper posting of speed limits and to enable
the Sheriff’s Department to utilize radar or other electronic speed measuring devices for
speed enforcement. CVC Sections 40801 and 40802 require E&T Surveys that verify the
prima facie speed limit before enforcement by such a device is legal. The law further
specifies that these surveys be conducted every 5 years. The surveys can be extended to
7 years provided the City’s police officer(s) have completed a 24 -hour radar operator
course [CVC 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)]. Additionally, some surveys may be extended to 10 years
if a traffic engineer certifies that no changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred
[CVC 40802 (c)(2)(B)(i)(II)]. These provisions assure that posted speed limits are kept
reasonably current.
The E&T Surveys for the City were conducted in accordance with procedures outlined in
the California MUTCD dated April 2017 and as required by Section 627 of the CVC. The
Code further describes three elements of an engineering and traffic survey:
1. Measurement of prevailing speed;
2. Accident history; and
3. Roadway characteristics not readily apparent to the motorist.
Posted speed limits are established primarily to protect the general public from the reckless
and unpredictable behavior of dangerous drivers. They provide law enforcement with a
clearly understood method to identify and apprehend violators of the basic speed law (CVC
Section 22350). This law states that "No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a
speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the
traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which
endangers the safety of persons or property." The posted speed limit gives motorists a
clear warning of the basic speed that is reasonable and prudent under typical driving
conditions.
65
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
2 City of Rolling Hills
The basic fundamentals for establishing speed limits recognize that the majority o f drivers
behave in a safe and reasonable manner, and therefore, the normally careful and
competent actions of a reasonable driver should be considered legal. Speed limits
established on these fundamentals conform to the consensus that those who drive the
highway determine what speed is reasonable and safe, not on the judgment of one or a
few individuals. A radar speed study is usually used to record the prevailing speed of
reasonable drivers.
Speed limits are also established to advise drivers of condi tions which may not be readily
apparent to a reasonable driver. For this reason, accident history, roadway conditions,
traffic characteristics, and land use must also be analyzed before determining speed limits.
Speed limit changes are usually made in coordination with physical changes in roadway
conditions or roadside developments. Unusually short zones of less than one -half mile in
length should be avoided to reduce driver confusion.
Additionally, it is generally accepted that speed limits cannot be s uccessfully enforced
without voluntary compliance by a majority of drivers. Consequently, only the driver whose
behavior is clearly out of line with the normal flow of traffic is usually targeted for
enforcement.
ELEMENTS OF THE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
The California MUTCD dated April 2017 specifies the methodology to be used for
completing E&T Surveys. This methodology includes an evaluation of current vehicle
speeds, accident history and conditions not readily apparent to motorists. The basic
elements of the Engineering and Traffic Survey are discussed in more detail as follows:
Speed Sampling
Existing vehicle speeds are surveyed by a certified radar operator with a calibrated radar
unit in an unmarked vehicle. Speed samples are taken for ea ch segment representing a
statistically significant sample of current traffic. This data is then evaluated to identify the
distribution of speeds. A key element in the evaluation is the identification of the 85th
percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of
the traffic travels. This threshold represents what is historically found to be a safe and
reasonable speed for most drivers based on common roadway conditions. Therefore, a
speed limit is established at the nearest 5-mile per hour (mph) increment to the 85th
percentile speed, except as shown in the two options below.
Options:
1. The posted speed may be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of
the 85th-percentile speed, in compliance with CVC Section 627 and 22358.5.
2. For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85 th-percentile speed would
require a rounding up, then the speed limit may be rounded down to the nearest 5
mph increment below the 85th percentile speed, if no further reduction is used.
Refer to CVC Section 21400(b).
66
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
3 City of Rolling Hills
If the speed limit to be posted has had the 5 mph reduction applied, then an E&T Survey
shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit. The
reasons for the lower speed limit shall be in compliance with CVC Section 627 and 22358.5
The following examples are provided to explain the application of these speed limit criteria:
A. Using Option 1 above and first step is to round down: 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.
As indicated by the option, this 35 mph established speed limit could be reduced by
5 mph to 30 mph if conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are
documented in the E&T Survey.
B. Using Option 1 above and first step is to round up: If the 85 th 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. As
indicated by the option, this 35 mph speed limit could be reduced by 5 mph to 30
mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are
documented in the E&T Survey.
C. Using Option 2 above and first step is to round up: If the 85 th percentile speed in a
speed survey for a location was 33 mph, instead of rounding up to 35 mph, the
speed limit can be established at 30 mph, but no further reduction can be applied.
Collision History
Reported collisions are reviewed for each street segment to determine if there is a higher
than average rate of collisions. A segment that has an above -average collision rate
typically suggests conditions that are not readily apparent to moto rists.
A summary of the collision rates for the 8 surveyed street segments is provided in Table 2.
Conditions Not Readily Apparent To Motorists
Each street segment is field inspected to identify roadway conditions that may not be
readily apparent to motorists. A determination is made whether any conditions are
significant and warrant the recommendation of the speed limit 5 mph or more below the
basic speed limit. It is important to note that the California MUTCD dated April 2017
recommends exercising great care when establishing speed limits 5 mph or more below
the basic speed limit.
67
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
4 City of Rolling Hills
SURVEY CONDITIONS
SURVEY LOCATIONS
The procedures described below describe the criteria and methods used to survey selected
streets within the City of Rolling Hills. The specific location of the radar speed survey for
each street segment was selected after considering the following:
1. Minimum stop sign and traffic signal influence.
2. Minimum visibility restrictions.
3. Non-congested traffic flow away from intersections and driveways.
4. Minimum influence from curves or other roadway conditions that would affect
the normal operation of a vehicle.
DATA COLLECTION
Data of existing conditions was obtained including prevailing speed of vehicles, traffic
collisions, visibility restrictions, and roadway conditions within the community. Speed data
and field reviews were conducted at 8 locations during the month of November 2017.
Speed Data
Radar speed measurements were conducted at 8 locations during the month of November
2017. The radar speed distribution forms are in Appendix B. All surveys were conducted
in good weather conditions, during off -peak hours on weekdays. The radar unit was
operated from an unmarked vehicle to minimize any influence on driver behavior .
Typically, a minimum sample size of 100 vehicles or the total samples during a maximum
period of 2 hours were obtained for each segment. Traffic speeds in both directions were
recorded for individual segments.
68
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
5 City of Rolling Hills
Collision Data
Collision data was obtained from Los Angeles County’s Sheriff’s Department’s Collision
Summary Report. For this study, collision data was used from the latest 4 years of reported
accidents from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016. The collision rates for the 8
segments are expressed in accidents per million vehicle miles (A/MVM). To calculate these
rates, 24-hour traffic volumes were collected for each street segment. This information was
then entered into the following formula to determine the collision rate:
xlxvyear
daystx
AxR
365
000,000,1
A = Number of midblock collisions over time period
R = Collision Rate (accidents/million vehicle miles)
t = Time Period Covered (in years)
l = Length of Segment (miles)
v = Traffic Volume (average daily traffic)
The segment collision rate was then compared to the average statewide collision rate. The
average statewide collision rates were obtained from 2014 Collision Data on California
State Highways published by Caltrans.
Field Review Data
A field review was conducted for each of the selected street segments in the City with
consideration for the following factors:
1. Street width and alignment (design speed);
2. Pedestrian activity and traffic flow characteristics;
3. Number of lanes and other channelization and striping patterns;
4. Frequency of intersections, driveways, and on -street parking;
5. Location of stop signs and other regulatory traffic control devices;
6. Visibility obstructions;
7. Land use and proximity to schools;
8. Pedestrian and bicycle usage;
9. Uniformity with existing speed zones and those in adjacent jurisdictions; and
10. Any other unusual condition not readily apparent to the driver.
69
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
6 City of Rolling Hills
ANALYSIS
CRITERIA
Survey data was compiled and analyzed to determine the recommended speed limit in
accordance with several criteria contained in the California MUTCD dated April 2017.
Some of the criteria used are:
A. The critical speed or 85th percentile speed is that speed at or below which 85
percent of the traffic is moving. This speed is the baseline value in determining
what the majority of drivers believe is safe and reasonable. Speed limits set higher
than the critical speed are not considered reasonable and safe. Speed limits set
lower than the critical speed make a large number of reasonable drivers "unlawful,"
and do not facilitate the orderly flow of traffic. The “basic speed limit” is the nearest
5 mph increment to the 85th percentile speed.
B. The 10 mile per hour (mph) pace speed is the 10 mph increment that contains the
highest percentage of vehicles. It is a measure of the dispersion of speeds across
the range of the samples surveyed. An accepted practice is to keep the speed limit
within the 10 mph pace while considering the critical speed and other factors that
might require a speed lower than the critical speed.
C. The collision rate for each street segment is compared to average collision rates
that can be reasonably expected to occur on streets and highways in other
jurisdictions, in proportion to the volume of traffic per lane mile. These average
collision rates have been developed by the State of California and are considered
reasonable for use in the City of Rolling Hills.
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The E&T Survey Forms, presented in Appendix A, illustrate results of a thorough
evaluation of the available data and recommend a speed limit for each street segment
surveyed. A complete summary of all recommendations is shown in Table 2 . In each
case, the recommended speed limit was consistent with the prevailing behavior as
demonstrated by the radar speed measurements. Typically, a speed limit in the upper
range of the 10-mile pace was selected unless a collision rate significantly higher than
expected was discovered or roadway conditions not readily apparent to the driver were
identified. Any segments with recommended speed limits 5 mph or more below the basic
speed limit are fully explained later in this report.
The Legislature, in adopting Section 22358.5 of the CVC, has made it clear that physical
conditions, such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition
readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not be the basis for
special downward speed zoning. In these cases, the basic speed law (CVC Section
22350) is sufficient to regulate such conditions.
The recommendations contained in this Report are intended to establish prima facie speed
limits. They are not intended to be absolute for all prevailing conditions. All prima facie
70
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
7 City of Rolling Hills
speed violations are actually violations of the basic speed law (CVC Section 22350). This
statute states that a person shall not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is safe having
regard for traffic, roadway, and weather conditions. A prima facie limit is intended to
establish a maximum safe speed under normal co nditions.
Table 1 identifies the street segments with recommended changes in posted speed limits
and Table 2 summarizes the recommendations for all surveyed segments.
71
TABLE 1
STREET SEGMENTS WITH RECOMMENDED SPEED CHANGES
Street From To Existing New ChangeNo.
Eastfield Drive Chuckwagon Road Palos Verdes Drive East 530254+
Saddleback Road Poppy Trail Portuguese Bend Road 530257+
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
City of Rolling Hills
NP= Not Posted
PL= Post Limit
8
72
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Street From To ADT
Dist.
(mi.)
Collision
Rate***
Exp.
85%
Speed
10 mi.
Pace
% in
PaceAct.
Posted
Speed
Limit
Rec.
Speed
Limit CommentsNo.
Crest Road
West
West City Limit Portuguese Bend
Road
1,938 371.14 27-360.001.03 74 *30301%
Crest Road East Portuguese Bend
Road
Eastfield Drive 1,825 371.14 28-370.501 75 *30302%
Eastfield Drive Crest Road East Chuckwagon
Road
1,008 321.41 23-320.001 82 *25253%
Eastfield Drive Chuckwagon Road Palos Verdes
Drive East
1,364 331.41 25-342.680.75 79 California MUTCD Option 230254%
Portuguese
Bend Road
Crest Road E/W Poppy Trail 1,728 351.41 25-340.531 76 *30305%
Portuguese
Bend Road
Poppy Trail Saddleback Road 1,978 361.41 27-360.000.65 81 *30306%
Saddleback
Road
Poppy Trail Portuguese Bend
Road
408 331.41 23-320.001.34 73 California MUTCD Option 230257%
Southfield Drive Crest Road East Packsaddle Road 314 291.41 20-290.000.47 82 California MUTCD Option 225258%
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
City of Rolling Hills
* See "Segments with Special Conditions" Section for Comments
** 25 mph when children are present
9
*** Accident rate units: Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
Exp.= Expected Collision Rate
Act.= Actual Collision Rate
73
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
10 City of Rolling Hills 10
SEGMENTS WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The following segments surveyed had recommended spe ed limits that were 5 miles per
hour (mph) or more below the critical speed due to conditions not readily apparent to the
driver. Each segment is discussed below.
Segment #1 – Crest Road West – West City Limit to Portuguese Bend Road
This segment is currently posted at 30 mph and has 1 through lane in each direction with
an ADT of 1,938 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is rural residential and
equestrian nature in a flat to rolling terrain. The critical speed is 37 mph and would
normally justify a 35 mph posted speed limit. However, due to vertical and horizontal
curves, various hidden driveways, and equestrian traffic that may not be apparent to
unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit
remain at 30 mph for the above reasons.
Segment #2 – Crest Road East –Portuguese Bend Road to Eastfield Drive
This segment is currently posted at 30 mph and has 1 through lane in each direction with
an ADT of 1,825 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is rural residential and
equestrian nature in a flat to rolling terrain. The critical speed is 37 mph and would
normally justify a 35 mph posted speed limit. However, due to vertical and horizontal
curves, various hidden driveways, and equestrian traffic that may not be apparent to
unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit
remain at 30 mph for the above reasons.
Segment #3 – Eastfield Drive – Crest Road to Chuckwagon Road
This segment is currently posted at 25 mph and has 1 through lane in each direction with
an ADT of 1,008 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is rural residential and
equestrian in a mountainous terrain. The critical speed is 32 mph and would normally
justify a 30 mph posted speed limit. However, due to vertical and horizontal curves,
various hidden driveways, and equestrian traffic that may not be apparent to unfamiliar
drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain at 25
mph for the above reasons.
Segment #5 – Portuguese Bend Road – Crest Road E/W to Poppy Trail
This segment is currently posted at 30 mph and has 1 through lane in each direction with
an ADT of 1,728 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is rural residential and
equestrian nature in a mountainous terrain. The critical speed is 35 mph and would
normally justify a 35 mph posted speed limit. However, due to vertical and horizontal
curves, various hidden driveways, and equestrian traffic that may not be apparent to
unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed lim it
remain at 30 mph for the above reasons.
74
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
11 City of Rolling Hills 10
Segment #6 – Portuguese Bend Road – Poppy Trail to Saddleback Road
This segment is currently posted at 30 mph and has 1 through lane in each direction with
an ADT of 1,978 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is rural residential and
equestrian nature in a mountainous terrain. The critical speed is 36 mph and would
normally justify a 35 mph posted speed limit. However, due to vertical and horizontal
curves, various hidden driveways, and equestrian traffic that may not be apparent to
unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit
remain at 30 mph for the above reasons.
75
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
12 City of Rolling Hills 10
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCES
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 1. Section 627 of the Vehicle Code:
Section 627.
(a) “Engineering and traffic survey,” as used in this code, means a survey of highway and traffic
conditions in accordance with methods determined by the Department of Transportation for
use by state and local authorities.
(b) An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed
necessary by the department, consideration of all of the following:
(1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements.
(2) Accident records.
(3) Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.
(c) When conducting an engineering and traffic survey, loca l authorities, in addition to the
factors set forth in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b) may consider all of the
following:
(1) Residential density, if any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of
highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district:
a. Upon one side of the highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the
contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate
dwelling houses of business structures.
b. Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of
a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more
separate dwelling houses or business structures.
c. The portion of highway is longer than one-quarter of a mile but has the ratio
of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the
highway described in either subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) Pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Section 21400.
(b) The Department of Transportation shall revise the California M anual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices, as it read on January 1, 2012, to require the Department of Transportation
or a local authority to round speed limits to the nearest five miles per hour of the 85th
percentile of the free-flowing traffic. However, in cases in which the speed limit needs to be
rounded up to the nearest five miles per hour increment of the 85th -percentile speed, the
Department of Transportation or a local authority may decide to instead round down the
speed limit to the lower five miles per hour increment, but then the Department of
Transportation or a local authority shall not reduce the speed limit any further for any reason.
Basic Speed Law
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonabl e or
prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the
highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
76
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
13 City of Rolling Hills 10
Speed Law Violations
Section 22351.
(a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section
22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in
violation of the basic speed law.
(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the p rima facie speed limits in Section
22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant
establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a
violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.
Prima Facie Speed Limits
Section 22352.
The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unles s changed as authorized in this
code and, if so changed, only when signs have been er ected giving notice thereof:
(a) Fifteen miles per hour:
(1) When traversing a railway grade crossing, if during the last 100 feet of the
approach to the crossing the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of
the crossing and of any traffic on the railway for a distance of 400 feet in both
directions along such railway. This subdivi sion does not apply in the case of any
railway grade crossing where a human flagman is on duty or a clearly visible
electrical or mechanical railway crossing s ignal device is installed but does not then
indicate the immediate approach of a railway train or car.
(2) When traversing any intersection of highways, if during the last 100 feet of the
driver’s approach to the intersection, the driver does not have a clear and
unobstructed view of the intersection and of any traffic upon all of the highways
entering the intersection for a distance of 100 feet along all those highways, except at
an intersection protected by stop signs or yield right-of-way signs or controlled by
official traffic control signals.
(3) On any alley.
(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.
77
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
14 City of Rolling Hills 10
(3) When passing a senior center or other facility prim arily 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 s igning 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 e rection 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.
Increase of Local Speed Limits to 65 Miles Per Hour
Section 22357.
(a) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineer ing 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, whicheve r 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 ce nter or other facility primarily used by senior
citizens.
(b) This section shall become operative on the date specified in subdivision (c) of Section
22366.
Downward Speed Zoning
Section 22358.5.
It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface
conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would
not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of Section 22350 is sufficient
regulation as to such conditions.
Boundary Line Streets
Section 22359.
With respect to boundary line streets and highways where portions thereof are within different
jurisdictions, no ordinance adopted under Sections 22357 and 22358 shall be effective as to any
such portion until all authorities having jurisdiction of the portions of the street concerned have
approved the same. This section shall not apply in the case of boundary line streets consisting of
separate roadways within different jurisdictions.
Speed Trap Prohibition
Section 40801.
78
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
15 City of Rolling Hills 10
No peace officer or other person shall use a speedtrap in arresting, or participating or assisting in
the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in
securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under
this code.
Speed Trap
Section 40802.
(a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries
marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle
may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known
distance.
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided b y this
code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) 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 surv ey
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 object. This paragraph does not apply to a local
street, road, or school zone.
(b)(1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as
“local” on the “California Road System Maps,” that are approved by the Federal Highway
Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. When a street or road
does not appear on the “California Road System Maps,” it may be defined as a “local street
or road” if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following
three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include
official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.
(2) For purposes of this section “school zone” means that area approaching or passing a school
building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a
standard “SCHOOL” warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either
during school hours or during the noon recess period. “School zone” also includes the area
approaching or passing any school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a
fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are i n use by children if that highway
is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign.
(c)(1) When all the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable
and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable:
(A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator
course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course
was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training.
79
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
16 City of Rolling Hills 10
(B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving
objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in
subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours
approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(C)(i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A)
and (B) and that an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted in
accordance with subparagraph (B) of para graph (2). The prosecution proved that,
prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that
the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of
subparagraph (D).
(ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions
present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of
Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
(D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the
accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic
Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior
to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repai r
and testing or calibration facility.
(2) A “speed trap” is either of the following:
(A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries
marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle
may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known
distance.
(B)(i) A particular section of a highway or state highway with a prima facie speed limit that
is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) 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 one of the following time periods, prior to the date
of the alleged violation, and enforcement of speed limit involves the use of radar or
any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects:
(I) Except as specified in subclause (II), seven years.
(II) If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than seven years
prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a registered engineer evaluates
the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in
roadway or traffic conditions have occurred including, but not limited to,
changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume,
10 years.
(ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.
Speed Trap Evidence
Section 40803.
(a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon
the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed
80
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
17 City of Rolling Hills 10
of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use
of a speed trap.
(b) In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where
enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed
of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, a s part of its prima facie case, that the
evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2)
of subdivision (a) of Section 40802.
(c) When a traffic and engineering survey is required pursuant to paragraph (2) of sub division
(a) of Section 40802, evidence that a traffic and engineering survey has been conducted
within five years of the date of the alleged violation or evidence that the offense was
committed on a local street or road as defined in paragraph (2) of subd ivision (a) of Section
40802 shall constitute a prima facie case that the evidence or testimony is not based upon a
speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) subdivision (a) of Section 40802.
81
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
City of Rolling Hills
APPENDIX A
Street Segment Data
82
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 1
STREET Crest Road West
FROM West City Limit TO Portuguese Bend Road
Average Daily Traffic 1,938 Date Counted 11/8/2017
Date of Speed Survey 11/8/2017
Time of Speed Survey 10:25AM
50th Percentile Speed (Mean Speed)32
85th Percentile Speed 37
10 mph Pace Speed 27-36
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace 74
Posted Speed Limit 30
Number of Years Studied 3
Total Collisions 0
Statewide Average Collision Rate 1.14
Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles 0.00
Number of Lanes 2, DYCL, BROKEN YCL
Type of Traffic Control STOP @ WEST CITY LIMIT, PORTUGUESE BEND RD
Crosswalks?NONE
Pedestrian Traffic OCCASIONAL, EQUINE
Truck Traffic LIGHT
On-Street Parking OFF-STREET ON SHOULDERS
Length of Segment 1.030
Vertical Curve?SLIGHTLY ROLLING
Horizontal Curve?SLIGHTLY WINDING CURVE
Visibility LIMITED AT CURVES
Roadway Conditions GOOD
Sidewalks?DIRT SHOULDERS, ROLLED CURB
Driveways?YES, SOME HIDDEN
Lighting NONE
Width 21
Adjacent Land Use RURAL RESIDENTIAL, EQUESTRIAN
Field Study By NS Checked By VM
CERTIFICATION DATE
Number of Survey Samples 215
SPEED FACTORS
mph
mph
COLLISION HISTORY
TRAFFIC FACTORS
ROADWAY FACTORS
CERTIFICATION: I, Vanessa Munoz, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within
the City of Rolling Hills was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly
registered in the State of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic).
Vanessa Munoz Date State Registration Number
TE 2341
Collisions/MVM
years
feet
miles
Recommended Speed Limit 30
VERT & HORIZ CURVES,
EQUESTRIAN, HIDDEN DWYS
mph
Speed Justification
mph
Average Speed 32 mph
Collisions/MVM
83
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2
STREET Crest Road East
FROM Portuguese Bend Road TO Eastfield Drive
Average Daily Traffic 1,825 Date Counted 11/8/2017
Date of Speed Survey 11/30/2017
Time of Speed Survey 9:07AM
50th Percentile Speed (Mean Speed)32
85th Percentile Speed 37
10 mph Pace Speed 28-37
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace 75
Posted Speed Limit 30
Number of Years Studied 3
Total Collisions 1
Statewide Average Collision Rate 1.14
Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles 0.50
Number of Lanes 2, DYCL, BROKEN YCL
Type of Traffic Control STOP @ PORTUGUESE BEND RD, SOUTHFIELD DR, EASTFIELD
Crosswalks?@ CABALLEROS RD; HORSE XING @ GEORGEFF RD
Pedestrian Traffic OCCASIONAL, EQUINE
Truck Traffic LIGHT
On-Street Parking OFF-STREET ON SHOULDERS
Length of Segment 1.000
Vertical Curve?SLIGHTLY ROLLING
Horizontal Curve?MODERATLY WINDING CURVE
Visibility LIMITED AT CURVES
Roadway Conditions GOOD
Sidewalks?DIRT SHOULDERS, ROLLED CURB
Driveways?YES, SOME HIDDEN
Lighting NONE
Width 22
Adjacent Land Use RURAL RESIDENTIAL, EQUESTRIAN
Field Study By NS Checked By VM
CERTIFICATION DATE
Number of Survey Samples 208
SPEED FACTORS
mph
mph
COLLISION HISTORY
TRAFFIC FACTORS
ROADWAY FACTORS
CERTIFICATION: I, Vanessa Munoz, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within
the City of Rolling Hills was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly
registered in the State of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic).
Vanessa Munoz Date State Registration Number
TE 2341
Collisions/MVM
years
feet
miles
Recommended Speed Limit 30
VERT & HORIZ CURVES,
EQUESTRIAN, HIDDEN DWYS
mph
Speed Justification
mph
Average Speed 32 mph
Collisions/MVM
84
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 3
STREET Eastfield Drive
FROM Crest Road East TO Chuckwagon Road
Average Daily Traffic 1,008 Date Counted 11/8/2017
Date of Speed Survey 11/9/2017
Time of Speed Survey 11:15AM
50th Percentile Speed (Mean Speed)28
85th Percentile Speed 32
10 mph Pace Speed 23-32
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace 82
Posted Speed Limit 25
Number of Years Studied 3
Total Collisions 0
Statewide Average Collision Rate 1.41
Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles 0.00
Number of Lanes 2, DYCL
Type of Traffic Control STOP @ CREST RD, OPEN BRAND RD, HACKAMORE RD, CHUC
Crosswalks?@ OPEN BRAND; HORSE XING N/O HACKAMORE RD
Pedestrian Traffic OCCASIONAL, EQUINE
Truck Traffic LIGHT
On-Street Parking OFF-STREET ON SHOULDERS
Length of Segment 1.000
Vertical Curve?DOWNHILL N/B, MOUNTAINOUS
Horizontal Curve?TIGHTLY WINDING CURVES
Visibility BLIND CURVES, HIDDEN DRIVEWAYS
Roadway Conditions GOOD
Sidewalks?DIRT SHOULDERS, ROLLED CURB
Driveways?YES, SOME HIDDEN
Lighting NONE
Width 21
Adjacent Land Use RURAL RESIDENTIAL, EQUESTRIAN
Field Study By NS Checked By VM
CERTIFICATION DATE
Number of Survey Samples 149
SPEED FACTORS
mph
mph
COLLISION HISTORY
TRAFFIC FACTORS
ROADWAY FACTORS
CERTIFICATION: I, Vanessa Munoz, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within
the City of Rolling Hills was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly
registered in the State of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic).
Vanessa Munoz Date State Registration Number
TE 2341
Collisions/MVM
years
feet
miles
Recommended Speed Limit 25
VERT & HORIZ CURVES,
EQUESTRIAN, HIDDEN DWYS
mph
Speed Justification
mph
Average Speed 28 mph
Collisions/MVM
85
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 4
STREET Eastfield Drive
FROM Chuckwagon Road TO Palos Verdes Drive East
Average Daily Traffic 1,364 Date Counted 11/8/2017
Date of Speed Survey 11/9/2017
Time of Speed Survey 1:21PM
50th Percentile Speed (Mean Speed)28
85th Percentile Speed 33
10 mph Pace Speed 25-34
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace 79
Posted Speed Limit 25
Number of Years Studied 3
Total Collisions 3
Statewide Average Collision Rate 1.41
Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles 2.68
Number of Lanes 2, DYCL
Type of Traffic Control STOP @ CHUCKWAGON RD, OUTRIDER RD, PVDE
Crosswalks?HORSE XING SOUTH OF OUTRIDER RD
Pedestrian Traffic OCCASIONAL, EQUINE
Truck Traffic LIGHT
On-Street Parking OFF-STREET ON SHOULDERS
Length of Segment 0.750
Vertical Curve?DOWNHILL N/B, MOUNTAINOUS
Horizontal Curve?TIGHTLY WINDING CURVES
Visibility BLIND CURVES, HIDDEN DRIVEWAYS
Roadway Conditions GOOD
Sidewalks?DIRT SHOULDERS, ROLLED CURB
Driveways?YES, SOME HIDDEN
Lighting NONE
Width 21
Adjacent Land Use RURAL RESIDENTIAL, EQUESTRIAN
Field Study By NS Checked By VM
CERTIFICATION DATE
Number of Survey Samples 141
SPEED FACTORS
mph
mph
COLLISION HISTORY
TRAFFIC FACTORS
ROADWAY FACTORS
CERTIFICATION: I, Vanessa Munoz, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within
the City of Rolling Hills was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly
registered in the State of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic).
Vanessa Munoz Date State Registration Number
TE 2341
Collisions/MVM
years
feet
miles
Recommended Speed Limit 30
CALIFORNIA MUTCD OPTION 2
mph
Speed Justification
mph
Average Speed 28 mph
Collisions/MVM
86
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 5
STREET Portuguese Bend Road
FROM Crest Road E/W TO Poppy Trail
Average Daily Traffic 1,728 Date Counted 11/8/2017
Date of Speed Survey 11/8/2017
Time of Speed Survey 2:10PM
50th Percentile Speed (Mean Speed)30
85th Percentile Speed 35
10 mph Pace Speed 25-34
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace 76
Posted Speed Limit 30
Number of Years Studied 3
Total Collisions 1
Statewide Average Collision Rate 1.41
Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles 0.53
Number of Lanes 2, DYCL
Type of Traffic Control STOP @ CREST RD
Crosswalks?HORSE XING: S/O POPPY TR, PHESANT LN, N/O WAGON
Pedestrian Traffic OCCASIONAL, EQUINE
Truck Traffic LIGHT
On-Street Parking OFF-STREET ON SHOULDERS
Length of Segment 1.000
Vertical Curve?STEEP DOWNHILL N/B, MTN.
Horizontal Curve?TIGHTLY WINDING CURVES
Visibility BLIND CURVES, HIDDEN DRIVEWAYS
Roadway Conditions GOOD
Sidewalks?DIRT SHOULDERS, ROLLED CURB
Driveways?YES, SOME HIDDEN
Lighting NONE
Width 24
Adjacent Land Use RURAL RESIDENTIAL, EQUESTRIAN
Field Study By NS Checked By VM
CERTIFICATION DATE
Number of Survey Samples 212
SPEED FACTORS
mph
mph
COLLISION HISTORY
TRAFFIC FACTORS
ROADWAY FACTORS
CERTIFICATION: I, Vanessa Munoz, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within
the City of Rolling Hills was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly
registered in the State of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic).
Vanessa Munoz Date State Registration Number
TE 2341
Collisions/MVM
years
feet
miles
Recommended Speed Limit 30
VERT & HORIZ CURVES,
EQUESTRIAN, HIDDEN DWYS
mph
Speed Justification
mph
Average Speed 30 mph
Collisions/MVM
87
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 6
STREET Portuguese Bend Road
FROM Poppy Trail TO Saddleback Road
Average Daily Traffic 1,978 Date Counted 11/8/2017
Date of Speed Survey 11/9/2017
Time of Speed Survey 9:06AM
50th Percentile Speed (Mean Speed)32
85th Percentile Speed 36
10 mph Pace Speed 27-36
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace 81
Posted Speed Limit 30
Number of Years Studied 3
Total Collisions 0
Statewide Average Collision Rate 1.41
Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles 0.00
Number of Lanes 2, DYCL
Type of Traffic Control STOP @ SADDLEBACK RD
Crosswalks?NONE
Pedestrian Traffic OCCASIONAL, EQUINE
Truck Traffic LIGHT
On-Street Parking OFF-STREET ON SHOULDERS
Length of Segment 0.650
Vertical Curve?STEEP DOWNHILL N/B, MTN.
Horizontal Curve?MODERATELY WINDING CURVES
Visibility BLIND CURVES, HIDDEN DRIVEWAYS
Roadway Conditions GOOD
Sidewalks?DIRT SHOULDERS, ROLLED CURB
Driveways?YES, SOME HIDDEN
Lighting NONE
Width 24
Adjacent Land Use RURAL RESIDENTIAL, EQUESTRIAN
Field Study By NS Checked By VM
CERTIFICATION DATE
Number of Survey Samples 190
SPEED FACTORS
mph
mph
COLLISION HISTORY
TRAFFIC FACTORS
ROADWAY FACTORS
CERTIFICATION: I, Vanessa Munoz, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within
the City of Rolling Hills was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly
registered in the State of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic).
Vanessa Munoz Date State Registration Number
TE 2341
Collisions/MVM
years
feet
miles
Recommended Speed Limit 30
VERT & HORIZ CURVES,
EQUESTRIAN, HIDDEN DWYS
mph
Speed Justification
mph
Average Speed 32 mph
Collisions/MVM
88
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 7
STREET Saddleback Road
FROM Poppy Trail TO Portuguese Bend Road
Average Daily Traffic 408 Date Counted 11/8/2017
Date of Speed Survey 11/9/2017
Time of Speed Survey 7:00AM
50th Percentile Speed (Mean Speed)27
85th Percentile Speed 33
10 mph Pace Speed 23-32
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace 73
Posted Speed Limit 25
Number of Years Studied 3
Total Collisions 0
Statewide Average Collision Rate 1.41
Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles 0.00
Number of Lanes 2, DYCL, BROKEN YCL
Type of Traffic Control STOP @ PORTUGUESE BEND RD (BOTH ENDS)
Crosswalks?HORSE XING WEST OF POPPY TR
Pedestrian Traffic OCCASIONAL, EQUINE
Truck Traffic LIGHT
On-Street Parking OFF-STREET ON SHOULDERS
Length of Segment 1.340
Vertical Curve?STEEP DOWNHILL W/B, MTN.
Horizontal Curve?TIGHTLY WINDING CURVES
Visibility BLIND CURVES, HIDDEN DRIVEWAYS
Roadway Conditions FAIR
Sidewalks?DIRT SHOULDERS, ROLLED CURB
Driveways?YES, SOME HIDDEN
Lighting NONE
Width 24
Adjacent Land Use RURAL RESIDENTIAL, EQUESTRIAN
Field Study By NS Checked By VM
CERTIFICATION DATE
Number of Survey Samples 63
SPEED FACTORS
mph
mph
COLLISION HISTORY
TRAFFIC FACTORS
ROADWAY FACTORS
CERTIFICATION: I, Vanessa Munoz, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within
the City of Rolling Hills was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly
registered in the State of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic).
Vanessa Munoz Date State Registration Number
TE 2341
Collisions/MVM
years
feet
miles
Recommended Speed Limit 30
CALIFORNIA MUTCD OPTION 2
mph
Speed Justification
mph
Average Speed 27 mph
Collisions/MVM
89
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 8
STREET Southfield Drive
FROM Crest Road East TO Packsaddle Road
Average Daily Traffic 314 Date Counted 11/8/2017
Date of Speed Survey 11/8/2017
Time of Speed Survey 4:00PM
50th Percentile Speed (Mean Speed)24
85th Percentile Speed 29
10 mph Pace Speed 20-29
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace 82
Posted Speed Limit 25
Number of Years Studied 3
Total Collisions 0
Statewide Average Collision Rate 1.41
Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles 0.00
Number of Lanes 2, DYCL
Type of Traffic Control STOP @ PACKSADDLE RD, RINGBIT RD, CREST RD
Crosswalks?NONE
Pedestrian Traffic OCCASIONAL, EQUINE
Truck Traffic LIGHT
On-Street Parking OFF-STREET ON SHOULDER, WEST SIDE
Length of Segment 0.470
Vertical Curve?STEEP DOWNHILL S/B, MTN.
Horizontal Curve?MODERATELY WINDING CURVES
Visibility BLIND CURVES, HIDDEN DRIVEWAYS
Roadway Conditions FAIR
Sidewalks?DIRT SHOULDERS, ROLLED CURB
Driveways?YES, SOME HIDDEN
Lighting NONE
Width 24
Adjacent Land Use RURAL RESIDENTIAL, EQUESTRIAN
Field Study By NS Checked By VM
CERTIFICATION DATE
Number of Survey Samples 44
SPEED FACTORS
mph
mph
COLLISION HISTORY
TRAFFIC FACTORS
ROADWAY FACTORS
CERTIFICATION: I, Vanessa Munoz, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within
the City of Rolling Hills was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly
registered in the State of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic).
Vanessa Munoz Date State Registration Number
TE 2341
Collisions/MVM
years
feet
miles
Recommended Speed Limit 25
CALIFORNIA MUTCD OPTION 2
mph
Speed Justification
mph
Average Speed 24 mph
Collisions/MVM
90
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
City of Rolling Hills
APPENDIX B
Radar Speed Distribution Forms
91
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
Eastbound & Westbound
DATE:Location:
TIME:Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry
Speed
mph ALL Vehicles
<=10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 1
23 1
24 1
25 8
26 6
27 16
28 12
29 16
30 17
31 19
32 19
33 13
34 20
35 13
36 15
37 16
38 9
39 5
40 4
41
42 2
43
44 1
45
46 1
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
>=70
Class Count Range
50th
Percentile
85th
Percentile
10 MPH
Pace # in Pace
Percent in
Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace
ALL 215 22 - 46 32 mph 37 mph 27 - 36 160 74%7% / 17 18% / 38
SPEED PARAMETERS
Crest Rd W Bet. W City Limit & Portuguese Bend Rd
City of Rolling Hills
Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds
10:25-12:05
11/8/2017
Project #: 17-5707-001
0 5 10 15 20 25
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Speed -MPHNumber of Vehicles
92
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
Eastbound & Westbound
DATE:Location:
TIME:Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry
Speed
mph ALL Vehicles
<=10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 2
21
22
23 2
24 3
25 3
26 9
27 6
28 17
29 11
30 19
31 21
32 17
33 19
34 16
35 14
36 14
37 9
38 6
39 6
40 7
41 3
42 1
43 2
44 1
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
>=70
Class Count Range
50th
Percentile
85th
Percentile
10 MPH
Pace # in Pace
Percent in
Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace
ALL 208 20 - 44 32 mph 37 mph 28 - 37 157 75%12% / 25 13% / 26
SPEED PARAMETERS
Crest Rd E Bet. Portuguese Bend Rd & Eastfield Dr
City of Rolling Hills Estates
Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds
09:07-10:48
11/30/2017
Project #: 17-5785-002
0 5 10 15 20 25
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Speed -MPHNumber of Vehicles
93
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
Eastbound & Westbound
DATE:Location:
TIME:Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry
Speed
mph ALL Vehicles
<=10
11
12
13
14
15
16 1
17 1
18 3
19
20 3
21 1
22 2
23 10
24 10
25 14
26 13
27 14
28 12
29 13
30 15
31 10
32 11
33 1
34 6
35 5
36 2
37 2
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
>=70
Class Count Range
50th
Percentile
85th
Percentile
10 MPH
Pace # in Pace
Percent in
Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace
ALL 149 16 - 37 28 mph 32 mph 23 - 32 122 82%7% / 11 11% / 16
SPEED PARAMETERS
Eastfield Dr Bet. Crest Rd E & Chuckwagon Rd
City of Rolling Hills
Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds
11:15-13:15
11/9/2017
Project #: 17-5707-003
0 5 10 15 20
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Speed -MPHNumber of Vehicles
94
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
Northbound & Southbound
DATE:Location:
TIME:Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry
Speed
mph ALL Vehicles
<=10
11
12
13
14
15 1
16
17
18
19 2
20 4
21 1
22 1
23 4
24 4
25 13
26 15
27 17
28 13
29 13
30 12
31 7
32 9
33 7
34 5
35 3
36 6
37 1
38 2
39
40
41
42 1
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
>=70
Class Count Range
50th
Percentile
85th
Percentile
10 MPH
Pace # in Pace
Percent in
Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace
ALL 141 15 - 42 28 mph 33 mph 25 - 34 111 79%12% / 17 10% / 13
SPEED PARAMETERS
Eastfield Dr Bet. Chuckwagon Rd & Palos Verdes Dr E
City of Rolling Hills
Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds
13:21-15:21
11/9/2017
Project #: 17-5707-004
0 5 10 15 20
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Speed -MPHNumber of Vehicles
95
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
Northbound & Southbound
DATE:Location:
TIME:Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry
Speed
mph ALL Vehicles
<=10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 2
24 8
25 13
26 15
27 16
28 18
29 18
30 17
31 17
32 16
33 17
34 14
35 10
36 10
37 9
38 5
39 2
40 2
41 2
42
43
44 1
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
>=70
Class Count Range
50th
Percentile
85th
Percentile
10 MPH
Pace # in Pace
Percent in
Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace
ALL 212 23 - 44 30 mph 35 mph 25 - 34 161 76%4% / 10 20% / 41
SPEED PARAMETERS
Portuguese Bend Rd Bet. Creest Rd & Poppy Trail
City of Rolling Hills
Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds
14:10-15:55
11/8/2017
Project #: 17-5707-005
0 5 10 15 20
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Speed -MPHNumber of Vehicles
96
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
Northbound & Southbound
DATE:Location:
TIME:Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry
Speed
mph ALL Vehicles
<=10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 2
23
24 1
25 3
26 4
27 10
28 11
29 12
30 19
31 21
32 18
33 21
34 18
35 12
36 12
37 5
38 3
39 4
40 4
41 3
42 2
43
44 1
45 2
46
47
48 1
49 1
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
>=70
Class Count Range
50th
Percentile
85th
Percentile
10 MPH
Pace # in Pace
Percent in
Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace
ALL 190 22 - 49 32 mph 36 mph 27 - 36 154 81%5% / 10 14% / 26
SPEED PARAMETERS
Portuguese Bend Rd Bet. Poppy Trail & Saddleback Rd
City of Rolling Hills
Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds
09:06-11:06
11/9/2017
Project #: 17-5707-006
0 5 10 15 20 25
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Speed -MPHNumber of Vehicles
97
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
Northbound & Southbound
DATE:Location:
TIME:Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry
Speed
mph ALL Vehicles
<=10
11
12
13 1
14
15 1
16
17
18
19
20 2
21 3
22
23 5
24 5
25 7
26 5
27 3
28 6
29 2
30 5
31 7
32 1
33 4
34 3
35
36
37
38
39 1
40 1
41 1
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
>=70
Class Count Range
50th
Percentile
85th
Percentile
10 MPH
Pace # in Pace
Percent in
Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace
ALL 63 13 - 41 27 mph 33 mph 23 - 32 46 73%11% / 7 16% / 10
SPEED PARAMETERS
Saddleback Rd Bet. Poppy Trail & Portuguese Bend Rd
City of Rolling Hills
Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds
07:00-09:00
11/9/2017
Project #: 17-5707-007
0 5 10
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Speed -MPHNumber of Vehicles
98
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
Northbound & Southbound
DATE:Location:
TIME:Posted Speed:25 Clear/Dry
Speed
mph ALL Vehicles
<=10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 1
18 1
19
20 5
21 5
22 4
23 5
24 3
25 2
26 2
27 5
28 2
29 3
30 1
31 3
32
33
34
35
36 1
37 1
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
>=70
Class Count Range
50th
Percentile
85th
Percentile
10 MPH
Pace # in Pace
Percent in
Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace
ALL 44 17 - 37 24 mph 29 mph 20 - 29 36 82%4% / 2 14% / 6
SPEED PARAMETERS
Southfield Dr Bet. Crest Rd E & Packsaddle Rd
City of Rolling Hills
Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds
16:00-18:00
11/8/2017
Project #: 17-5707-008
0 5 10
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Speed -MPHNumber of Vehicles
99
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
City of Rolling Hills
Raw Radar Speed Distribution Forms
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
City of Rolling Hills
APPENDIX C
Survey Equipment Used
109
2018 Engineering and Traffic Survey
City of Rolling Hills
SURVEY EQUIPMENT USED
The radar equipment used to collect speed measurements for this survey was a K-55
Model Hand-Held Traffic Radar manufactured by MPH Industries of Owensboro, KY. The
calibration of the units was checked before each series of measurements were taken.
Tests of the unit were conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
The K-55 Traffic Radar was last calibrated on March 14, 2016 by PB Electronics Inc.
110
111
112
113
114
Agenda Item No.: 13.B
Mtg. Date: 09/26/2024
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONSIDERATION OF MOVING THE NOVEMBER TRAFFIC
COMMISSION MEETING TO THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2024, OR
ANOTHER DAY
DATE:September 26, 2024
BACKGROUND:
The regularly scheduled Traffic Commission meeting on November 28, 2024, falls on
Thanksgiving holiday. Staff requests the Commission consider moving the meeting to the
previous Thursday, November 21, 2024, or to another date and time suitable for all
commissioners.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
115