Loading...
0531­.:.", .. ......... RESOLUTION NO. 531. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A SECOND DRIVEWAY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 CREST ROAD EAST, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES. HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section of the Covenants, Conditions.and Restrictions of the_6mmunity Association re- quires City approval of all double access driveways. Section 2. An application has been filed by Phillip Belleville, 12 Crest Road East, for a second driveway access to his home, easterly of the existing driveway. The requested driveway has been approved by the Board of Directors of the Community Association and has been brought before the City pursuant to Section _E (5) recited above. Section 3. The Traffic Commission has reviewed the application and recommended denial on the ground that insufficient sight distance along Crest Road rendered the re- quested driveway hazardous. Section 4. The City Council held'hearings on the application on January 28 and February 11, 1985, The Council makes the following findings: 1. As concluded by the City's traffic engineer consultant, Tom Brohard of Willd ' an Associates,,there is inadequate sight distance to provide a safe second drive- way due to the presence of a thirty inch diameter eucalyp- tus tree and several,fences on the property. The report of Mr. Brohard ' dated January 14, 1985 -is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 2. The applicant has revised his plans in accordance with Mr. Brohard's,letter of January 14, 1985 .and has provided for the removal of the obstructing tree and fences. 3. In his letter of February 8,,1985, Mr. Brohard concludes that with the removal of the tree and fences, the requested driveway will be safe from a traffic safety point of view. The letter of February 8, 3 I 1985 is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein by reference. 4: As revised, the plan does not present any traf- fic safety problems. Section 5. In view of the foregoing findings, the City Council approves the placement of the requested.drive- way in accordance with the plan attached hereto as Exhibit C and. subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit R 4nd D. . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2�tY� day of FPhriaary , 1985. MayIn CA -T ' ATTEST: Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 531 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills, California at a"regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of February, 1985 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Murdock, Pernell, Swanson, Mayor Leeuwenburgh NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Heinsheimer 7t7Clerk/ -2- . �.` _- :. - � .:�, --_-• . -. .�..�.._..-T�:�o�1AZES ; D l�i..D AN ASS ENGINEERS & PIANNEf� S W _ Anoheim, No ork. VrnVa. Lcncoster. Son 8emordino and SonU.ego• CoGtomta EXHIBIT' A ' - January 14, 2985 _.. Mr.: -Joseph Pe Leach rY - ' Ci ty Manager .� M ; .. .. •.' - ' City of Rolling Hills "'•.,� 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ii•,�:. ':'. ''7. a- •sem ,:' Dear: Mr. Leach. • .•Y+. .,ia..s:r+.., vti"EI''•+IiNJ��i„- ...... !^ :.- .i`:-=+. ":'J:•.::;s:• :: >,.. `fit: .:J}:::,','.1..`. -w,.:{:.. t CREST ROAD SIGHT DISTANCE AT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY "•,'�•..• ._:� .,,. � •. '.,•,....,. .` •., •. -. "' '' '- '.-. n..�• ..'fie._•: -.mss.-. As you requested, a study has been conducted of sight distance at a� new driveway proposed on a site plan for an addition and remodel at 12 Crest Road: Our study included review of the site plan at the location, field measurements. of sight distance at various locations along the frontage of the property and c comparison of the' field measurements with accepted traffic engineering guidelines. Our report begins by discussing traffic engineering guidelines for stopping sight distance and then relates them to conditions . at 12 Crest Road. Our report concludes with recommendations for consideration regarding -the driveway as proposed as, well as alternate locations for access to this - property. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), an internati6nal association of professional engineers,. published the second edition of the "Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook" in 2982. This book contains guidelines and suggestions on a variety of transportation and traff•i c engineering items including ' stopping sight- distance. The enclosed ITE' guidelines on this topic are the same as published by others including the .timerican Association .of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). in "A.Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets% 1984. . • Stopping sight distance, is directly related to vehicle speeds. When +_ examining an existing roadway, the critical or 85th percentile speed is gen— orally used. This value is the speed at which or below 85 percent of the motorists travel. Stopping sight distance is'the sum -of two distances, brake reaction distance and braking distance. Brake reaction distance *is the distance traversed by a vehicle from the instant the driver sights an object necessitating a stop to the instant the brakes are applied. While some studies suggest shorter perception/reaction times, 2.5 seconds is generally used in these calculations as'90% of drivers will react within this time. Braking distance is the distance required* to stop the- vehicle from the instant brake application begins. Braking distance depends upon pavemen condition and friction factors associated with wet roads are generally used in _these calculations. Downgrades on a roadway increase the braking distance in proportion to the severity of the slope. Mr. Joseph P. Leach --2•- January 14, 3985 Speeds along this portion of Crest Road were measured by the Los Angeles County Road Department on December 10, 1982, between 10:20 and 11:20 a.m. These measurements, taken in both directions. on Crest Road 100 feet east of Georgeff Road, disclosed that the critical or 85th percentile speed was 35' mph. Based upon this speed, 2.5 seconds for brake reaction time, wet road - - conditions and a downslope of 2%0 stopping sight distance has been calculated <s to be 250 feet. This value,has been used in our assessment of sight distance at driveways proposed at 12 Crest Road. i. . When evacuating stopping siight distance •at driveways, lines bf sightC17- "'•t are measureU from a point 10 ..feet behind. the edge of pavement in both di x = rections along.. the roadway- to a point at which the front bumper of an ap- proaching vehicle becomes .visible. Within the area of vision between the sight lines, obstructions to sight-distance should be minimized. • - : During- our field review you indi cated that all trees along the front %• age of the property as well as the three-rail Asso' ation'fence immediately J.. .. east of the-proposed driveway will remain in place.. There is a 30" diameter tree approximately 60 feet east. of the proposed driveway together with an - ' existing horizontal curve further east on Crest Road. The combi.nati an of these factors at the proposed driveway limits sight distance to _the east to 180,feet, 70 feet less thin the minimum stopping sight distance calculated for-conditions. Further, a motorist exiting the proposed driveway would be - required to look between the rails of the Association fence. Based upon these.. factors, construction of the proposed driveway at the location shown on the site plan is not recommended. Sight distance at the existing driveway at the western end .of the property is excellent, exceeding 500 feet in both directions. °The same sight distance is also available from the area immediately east of the existing driveway. While a second access to the property could occur approximately 100 feet east of the existing driveway location, it appears that on-site cir-- culation_could be altered and both driveways consolidated. In this,regard, a single driveway at either the existing location of access or at -a new. ='==. 'location approximately 100 feet east of the existing access point, centered in . .; the large gap between existing trees, is recommended. • - We. appreciate the opportunity to conduct this study and to be of service to-the City of Rolling Hills. Should you have.any questions or should You need additional information, please contact me at your. convenience. Very truly yours, ' WILLDAN ASSOCIATES - Tom Brohard u _ Manager Transportation Engineering Department TWB:kj . Enclosure %whIJ: P SC A.*bu, Bus Minimu.nrwning 24 (7.3) 42 (12.8) 33 (11.6) 42, (12.8) radius (ft tMI) Mini -num inQc 14.9 (4.7) 27.9 (2.7) 11 (6.4) 24.0 (7.1) radius lit trol loo J. .4 % NN% Path No of left front wheel % Ab Cl* Ar % 4 LI of overhang CI Path of right t f rear wheel WB -50 design ri semitrailer combination 0 5 10 1520 25 $tale in ft ; 91 Sight distance Stopping sight distance. Sight distance is the length of highway visible to the driver. Sight distance everywhere along, a highway should be adequate for all but a few of the fastest drivers to come to a safe stop before reaching an Object. Stopping sight distance used for design is the sum --of two distances: (1) the distance a vehicle travels after the driver sights an object and begins braking and (2) the dis- tance it travels during braking. The stopping sight distance (SSD) in feet is determined from the formula V2 SSD = 1.47PV + 30 (19.1) (f :t g) where V = speed from which stop is made, mph P — perception -reaction time, S f = coefficient of friction (for wet pavement used for design) percent of grade divided by 100 (added for upgrade and subtracted for downgrade) 590 Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook WB -40 13O-50 WB -60 40 (17-2) 45 (11.7) 45 17.7 (6.1) 16.6 (6-0) 21.4 (6.9) % el: Figure 19.1. Minimum design path of typical de• sign truck (%VB -50 design vehicle): (Metric corover. sion factor multiply value by 0.305 n-d[t.) SouRa- A PvIk7 on Geometric Design of Rural Afieh ways, Washington. D.C.: American Association- of State e Jfigbway Officials, 1965. p. $4. If vehicle speed is inkm/h,the stopping sight,distance in meters is . V-2 SSD = 0.278PV +(19.2) 225(f g) The range of minimum stopping sight distances for high. ways having various design speeds is shown in Table 19- 5. Minimum distances assume that the vehicle is traveling at less than the design speed -{the assumed speeds on, Which the tainimuni stopping distances are based). Longer dis- tances assume that the vehicle is traveling at the design Wed. Stopping sight distance is measured. from a "seeing" height of 3.5 ft (1.05 m) to an object height of 0.5 ft (15 cm). Desirable stopping sight distance values should be used fordesion whenever possible., Stopping eightdistan V cc values less than the minimum should never be considered_ Decisionsight distance. Where conditions encounter by the dnvc*r are complex, there is often - 2 need to provi 1 sufficient space for a driver to do more than come to a sto l This space, termed decision sight distance, is defined as the e _ TABLE 19-5 %linlmum Stopping Sight Distance on Suet pavements* Design $take Reaction Stopping Sight Distanco (4) Spent _ Assume Coefficient Braking - Speed for of Dist: -MCC Rounded Condition Time Distance Friction, on level Computed for Design mptt kWh toph (luurb) . M- {ft) J (ft) 00 {ft) 20 30 20 (30) 23 73 0.40 33 106 420 30 50 28 (45 -3 (30) 2.3 103-•110 0.33 7546 178-196 200-200 40 65 36 (33)-40 (65) 2.5 132-147. 0.32 133-167 267-314 273-32S Sp 80 4i (70}•30 {80) 23 _ 161-183 0.30 215-278 376-461,. 37$-i75 60' 95 32 (M)-60(95) 2.3 191-10 0.29 311-414 302=634:' 523-650 65 105 55 (9 (103) ' 23 202-238 0.29 348-486 350.724. $SO 725 0}63. - 70 113 58 (93)70 (113) 2.5 213-257 0.28 400-383" 613-M f ` 623-850 73 120 ,: • ; 61 (100)-73 (120) 23 223-273 0.2& 443-670. 661-445 . ' 673450 80 130 .' b4 (103}80 (430) 23 233-293 0.27 306-790 741-1083 ' - : 750-1100 metric conrerstoa factor: multiply valve by 0 303 uYR ' : • ^' > .:.: .. ` TABLE I" .•s _ . .... Vactsiots Sig)it Dista ma DesiRa Tum (!) Ckcwoe Stgh[ - SPS (n) • ' ... � ,. ' . . - ' - Ytetnaetntves • ' Veteenon aad DKeslon and Maneuver Rounded mph k Recognition Respotw mita ion (tans d=39) Summation Computed for Desiga 30 30 l3-3 4.2-6.3 4.3 1002-14 449-616 430.623 40 63 1.3••3 4.2-6.5 43 10.2-14 398-821 • '600425 30 80 l3-3 . 4.2-63 43 10.2-14 748-10-17 ' 730-102.5 60 93 2 3 4.7-7.0 4.5 113-14.3 986.1276 p . 1000-1213 70 113 2-3 4.7-7.0 4.0 10.7-14 10984437 1100-1450 80 130 - 2-3 4.7-7.0 4.0 t0.7--14 1255-1643 1250-1650 °Metric conversion factor multiply -value by 0.303.trLA. " SOURCE: blcGes. H. W.. Moore. W.. Knipp.8. G.. and Sartdas. 1. H Arcttioer Sight Dinmtce JaPHighway Derign and Trak Requiremrnu, U.S. Department' of 1'rmspottafica, FitwA. Washingtm. D.C. 1978: distance at which drivers can detect a signal or hazard in TABLE 19-7 ' a cluttered or visually noisy roadway environment, recog- Minimum Paising Sight Distance : "nize it, and perform the required actions safely. Its values Used for Design Used for Pavement Marion; are substantially longer than those for stopping sight dis- tance.Design ss� Locations where it is desirable to provide decision sight Minimum Passing Percentile Minimum Pasting - p hSpeed g Speed Sight Distance Speed Sight Distance distance are: (1) complex interchanges and intersections; (2) any locations where unusual or unexpected maneuvers mph k't"h n °t mph 1"t''� n '" ' are required; (3) any variation in cross sections, such as toll 20 3e 800 243 - - 4 plazas and lane drops; (4) where roadway elements, -traffic 30 50 lice 333 30' •43 dots 13.; and signs, signals, and other traffic control devices compete; �► ssoo • • io 63 600 ts3 and 5 areas where -an unexpected maneuver .ma be re- 30 80 2x00 640 30 80 •800 .r -33 t) pe Y be 97 2400 'bio ' 60 97. ' • ; .1000. 305 yuired. 63 103 2300 300 701 - -- -- " 70 113. 2 76- 70 113• 133 ' •366 Table 1976 shows a range of decision sight distances 75 421 -16M 193 -- -- -- based on most complex situations. In measuring decision so 129 2700 8'3 -- -- " q sight distance, the 3.5 -ft (1.05-m) seated eye height criterion used to measure stopping sight distance is retained. How -Table used for design, given in Table 19-7, are. based on ever, the 6 -in. (I5 em) object height is not retained and a various traffic behavior assumptions." zero height of object is adopted. Table 19-6'also shows the Passing sight distances for purposes of pavement marking" factors used to compute decision sight distances. are also given in Table 19-7. No -passing zone markings, given in the Manual an Uniform traffic Control Devices, 14 Passing sight distance. Passing sight distance is appli- cable -only an two-lane, two-way highways. Passing Sight t`•A policy on Drsiga of Rural Highways'" pp. 140-145. XTso rcfcrty the new A.ASKTO poticr on rural and urban high- ays when it is published. distance is the length of highway ahead necessary for one - PFEoEfLAL Htt;" AT AnM1%tsTRATIp.N• V.S. DErARTMENtOF TRA.%%PMT.'.Tt0%v vehicle to pass another before meeting an opposing vehicle ppC1 ftannertortL'nifwmTiaffit' Control UrriatsJwStrtrtFunJikchs.uvs,lWashinctws. Which might appear after the pass began. Passing sight dis- - D.C.: Government printing Office. 1973). p. 311-8. Geometric Design 591 ASSOCIATES ❑ ENG(► AEERS & PLANNERS Anche rn. NoN olk. %ler-%.r . Lcncoster. Son B2rnordtno crd San Dego. Cctikynto w E)TIBIT B February 8, 2985 Mr. Joseph P. Leach City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2.Portuguese Bend Rd. - Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Leach: SIGHT DISTANCE AT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AT 12 CREST ROAD On January 14, 1985, our study regarding sight distance at a proposed driveway at 12 Crest Road was submitted. This report was based upon your indication to us that all trees along the frontage of the property as well as the Association's three rail fence would remain in place. With these items remaining, sight distance would be limited to approximately 180 feet, about 70 feet less than the minimum stopping sight distance calculated for existing conditions.. As a result, our previous report did not recommend construction of the proposed!,.driveway as shown on the site plan. During discussion of this .report by the City Council on January 28,. 1985, it was determined that a meeting should be held at the location with representatives of Mr. Philip Belleville to jointly review existing condi- tions and to discuss alternative solutions. On Friday, February 1; 1985, a meeting was held with Mr. George Shaw of Edward Carson Beall and Associates and' Mr. Doug McHattie of South Bay Engineering. Following is a -summary of our field meeting: 1. Thirty inch diameter eucalyptus tree - It was agreed that the 30 inch diameter eucalyptus tree located approximately 60 feet east of the proposed driveway limits sight distance. With this tree in place, motorists exiting the proposed driveway would be unable to see a westbound vehicle in the area between_ 180 and 260 feet east of the proposed driveway. Removal of this tree would allow motorists exiting the proposed driveway to view westbound vehicles approaching on Crest Road but they would still be required to look between the three rails of the Association's fence. 2. Property owner fence - The existing fence owned by Mr. Belleville Is presently 10 feet from and parallel to the edge of pavement on Crest Road. The site plan indicates that this .fence will be -relocated 10 feet further away. from Crest Road so that it will be 20 feet from the edge of pavement. At the proposed location, this fence will not interfere with sight distance from the posi— tion at which a vehicle would stop prior to entering Crest Road. 14714 CARIVIENITA ROAD • SUITE 300 • NORWALK • CALIFORNIA 90650-5284 • (213) 921-8215 • (714) 523-4702 J Ll 479:. Mr. Joseph P. Leach - -2- February 8, 1985 = 3. Parallel portion of Association's three rail fence -The Associa tion's three rail fence is now five feet from and parallel to the existing edge of pavement. These 2 x 6 rails are located 18 inches, 32 inches, and 48 inches above the ground. From the position of a motorist's eye at a height of 3.5. feet above the proposed driveway elevation and 10 fee.t'from the edge of pavement on Crest Road, it was agreed that motorists exiting the proposed driveway would be required to look between the rails of the Association's fence in its present position. Relocation of the portion of the Association's fence which* parallels ' Crest .Road - back from the 'edge of pavement by an additional seven feet would eliminate this portion of the sight distance limitation., With this, the Association's fence would be a total of 12 feet from the edge of pavement. Return portion of Association's three -rail fence - Approximately 5 feet east of the proposed driveway, the Association's three rail fence flares open from the trail toward' -Crest Road.. This return on the fence also has three 2 x 6 rails located at the same elevation above the ground level, with the return ending approxi- mately 2 feet from the edge. of pavement. To permit a motorist leaving the proposed driveway to look over and not be obstructed by this portion of the fence, it was agreed that. the`.return `p portion should be no higher. than 3 feet above ground level. This b could be accomplished by eliminating the top rail on the return portion of the fence. In regard to relocation of the Association's fence, Mr. ,Shaw has advised us that he.met with them yesterday and obtained their approval for relocation of their fence and for modification of the -return as discussed above. He also noted that relocation of both fences would create"an un- obstructed trail width of at least 8 feet, with this being acceptable to the Association. . . With removal of the thirty inch diameter tree, relocation of the property owner fence to a position 20 feet from the edge.of pavement, relo- cation of the Association's fence to a position 12 feet from the edge of pavement and the height limitation of 3 feet for the return portion of the Association's fence, stopping sight distance at the proposed driveway would be approximately 300 feet. This exceeds the calculated stopping sight distance of 250 feet for existing conditions at this location. While several other alternatives for driveway access to and from 12 Crest Road were discussed at our field meeting, Mr. Shaw indicated that these would not be acceptable to Mr. Belleville for aesthetic and other reasons. . Considering all factors, construction of the proposed driveway with the S= various conditions discussed above would be acceptable from a traffic engineering viewpoint. _3_ February 8, 1985 � x Mr. Joseph P. Leach i4 We appreciate the opportunity to Prov -i de this. additional' info.rmatiorr to the City of Rolling Hills for your consi derati.on. Should. you have any.. questions or should , you need additional information., please contact. me at. your convenience. Very truly. yours, WILLOAN ASSOC.I'ATES. Tom Brohard Manager Transportation- Engineering�Depar`tmen.t, TWB:dmv JN 55432 EXHIBIT C I ; -4- .I--..'EDWARD CARSON $FALL AND :ASSOCLA.TT.S' ' } , . ,.. I- _ 23727HAWTHORNE BOUi:EYARD' � .V . � ..,..}._ t.•�•�-- . T .;. T.ORitAN E. CA, 90503 C' it d SSG l� 1 ' z... r i... 1 ( i to t, .4 - ——�.__._.;F ., �_ .j..i_ .^i ..._�...r. � - i ` i i...;,.:.;. . i ' . � . �.:_�. -j ..+ . _; �_.�..., _�,.�,,..�. 1 ,.+-i i--�—`�• -�_-:, .•!•-. jl—. -1. }-- •�j— —}." �'"4- 1 _ • ` ... � 1 i I . , , t ,r � .t _•.. _ i . i. •_y--. ..—t:..�..� ., _ �s . -r'i_.. _....i._..�_•— : r. i .�•,—i 4 .,_ ..-.: {' r-.•�--'�--- Y-••�-':r, .._.._,._` _ _ .' _(...1-..a ._ - _ .�: j. _J, 4_: � �.� , jY..-,..'�...... , '*'� 1 t.. � i i t -j' ••i t . ;_.�_, G.. i � -! �± Lr.�. .`�. � -(....�.._..a_.>._,� � .� . t. .. �.._��•_--�'.}..i.. __.i ..1 .-i..:J-- ._ t F�_�_ ; .., �.. ..,_.1._.�._..:l=.{I_.i... ��.. ...�-,�. _..�...i..i j;..} -•i �-.� � .1.._ .. _R , ' i ' .�..i. i , ' ..., {�a �...i. i. .; 1 ; ..t..i.. .' ; � � � �'t-•� �'w � � ; L _ , f 1 ,.j4"} t ; 1 �', �'�'r �_ i..} l_1 i {.►_) , I. }}� i..i..t-;--fir,-}��,.�•.�4-, }�1 .a� _,_.;_ `Y 11R of +i tL X11 i 1 1 i'1 I , , n EXHIBIT D Zoning Case No. 300, Philip Belleville, 12 Crest Road East Additional Conditions of Approval: 1. No landscaping, plantings, structures or obstructions of any kind shall be installed, erected, constructed, or permitted to grow in the area between Crest Road and the Belleville and Community Association fences. 2. The applicant shall sign an affidavit declaring that he is aware of and accepts all of the conditions that have been imposed upon this approval. This affidavit shall be recorded in the office of the County :Recorder. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the execution and recordation of the affidavit..