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..