The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/17/1996 B A K E R S F I.E L D Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Gall E. Waiters AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, January 17, 1996 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 6, 1995 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. SPEED HUMP PROGRAM - Rojas B. SPECIFIC TRAILS PLAN - Hardisty 6. NEW BUSINESS A. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - Roja$ B. STOCKDALE HIGHWAY MEDIAN LANDSCAPING - Fabbri C. DESTEC PARK FUNDING - Andersen 7. ADJOURNMENT GEW:jp FILE CO?Y BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Alan~h"dy,~ty I~lana(:J~r ~ Randy Rowles Staff: Gall E. Waiters ..~ Patdcia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 6, 1995 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:25 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; and Randy Rowles Absent: Councilmember Patricia Smith 2. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 7, 1995 MINUTES Approved as submitted 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None · URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE : AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, December 6, 1995 Page -2- 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. STATUS OF HIGHWAYS Staff provided the Committee with a written update on the status of the Kern River Freeway, Crosstown Freeway, Highway 99, South Beltway and the Coffee Road Grade Separation. The Committee asked that staff provide more information on the Crosstown Freeway and the southern alignment. CalTrans has given staff notice that they anticipate closing the bike path at Highway 99 for six months. Staff will be working to reassess the need and minimize that time frame. There was also discussion as to any progress on traffic impact fees. A memo from the Director of the County's Transportation Management Department was distributed. Staff will prepare some information to present to the Committee at their January 17 meeting regarding a possible local set aside for both City and County, and a potential "isolation of monies" specifically designated for freeways. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. SHAFTER CEMETERY ASSESSMENT The City Attomey suggested de-annexing the City from the district so that citizens would not have to pay the assessment. If citizens wanted to utilize the Shafter Cemetery, should the City de-annex, Bakersfield citizens would likely have to pay a higher pdce. The Committee asked staff to prepare information for a proposed de-annexation and submit it to the City Council. B. 1996 MEETING SCHEDULE The Committee approved the proposed schedule with one change -- the February meeting will be on the 15th and not the 14th. Staff will provide the entire Council with a master schedule of all Council Committee meeting dates. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjoumed 1:25 p.m. GEW:~ GAIL WAITERS ASST CITY MANAGER B A K E R 5 F I E k D MEMORANDUM December 13, 1995 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER .~r ~Z~ SUBJECT: DECEMBER 13, 1995 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 11. d., PAGE 6 SPEED HUMP PILOT PROGRAM Enclosed is the Traffic Engineering report of the Pavement Undulation Study for the pilot program test of pavement undlulation type speed bumps in the City. AT:rs Attachments BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director . DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO COUNCIL REFERRALS Enclosed please find responses to the following Council referrals: Re[erral Record# I5541 Letter from Ralph Vanderberg regarding the intersection of Laurel Drive and Planz Road. (Salvaggio) Traffic Engineering staff is investigating the operation of the intersection during the high volume hours. The report should be complete in approximately three weeks. Referral Record# 15544 Speeding problems on University Avenue. Christmas Tree Lane and Panorama Drive. (Smith) Attached is a copy of the report regarding a speeding problem concern and the feasibility of a stop sign at University Avenue. Referral Record# 15550 Speed limit zones at Fairview Road and Panama Lane. (Salvaggio) Traffic volume counts and speed profiles will be taken this week. The speed profile data will be shared with the Police Department Traffic Division for their use. A formal response will be made based upon the data collected. Four *_5 mph signs were installed on Chester W. Nimitz Street between Fairview Road/Panama Lane on November 21, 1995. Referral Record# 15551 Speed bumps. (Salvaggio) A copy of the "Pavement Undulation (Speed Bumps) Pilot Program Test Study Results" is attached for your information. This smdv was completed bY Traffic Engineering in April 1995. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: June 1, 1995 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN !_ WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: SPEED BUMP (PAVEMENT UNDULATION) PILOT PROGRAM TEST RESULTS REPORT. Final Report Attached for your transmittal to the City Manager is the Traffic Engineering report of the Pavement Undulation Study for the pilot program test of pavement undulation type speed bumps in the City. Following is a brief summary of the test results. Based on our study results, the speed bumps used did not reduce spccds to the desired 25 mile per hour limit. As shown on the following summary table, the speeds were reduced by only 3.55 mph on Parsons Way, 5.45 mph on Kleinpell Ave. and 3.4 mph on Flintddge Drive. On Toluca Drive, which is near a school, the speed increased by 1/4 mile per hour. "After" data was not obtained on Clifton Street due to repeated vandalism and destruction of our traffic counting equipment. Clifton Street had the lowest "before" speed of the five test sites with an average of 29.55 miles per hour. Averaged 85th Percentile Speed Reduction (MPH) Street Before (MPH) After (MPH) or (Increase) Parsons Way 31.70 28.15 3.55 Kleinpell Avenue 33.28 27.83 5.45 Toluca Drive 32.36 32.61 (0.25) Fiintddge Drive 36.8 33.4 3.4 Clifton Street 29.55 (No data due to vandalism/destruction of counters) Although from a traffic engineering view, the speed bumps did not produce the goal speed reduction to. 25 mph or less, the general public was pleased with the results and other neighborhoods are interested in getting speed bumps on their streets. cc: Traffic Engineenng File - Pavement Undulations Study slw:ADATA\W~1995\bum13cw4.mem PAVEMENT UNDULATION (SPEED BUMPS) PILOT PROGRAM TEST STUDY RESULTS APRIL 1995 Prepared by TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PAVEMENT UNDULATION STUDY GENE~ BACKGROUND The City of Bakersfield Councilmembers, and Public Works Traffic En~neering staff, continue to receive comments or complaints from residents about cut through traffic and speeding along prima facie 25 mph local residential streets. These concerns cannot always be met by traffic law enforcement due to the limited available resoUrces of the Police Department. Some Councilmembers, and citizens, have travelled in other cities where speed bumps, technically called "pavement undulations" by traffic engineering professionals to differentiate this design feature from the abrubt "bump" placed on some private parking lots, have been installed by the local agency to curtail excessive speeding. Therefor, the City Council requested that Public Works staff explore the possibility of installing speed bumps to reduce speeding. The request was first investigated by the City Traffic Committee whose members include the Risk Manager, the Police Department's Traffic Lieutenant, an attorney from the City Attorney's Office and the Public Works Department Traffic En~neer. In August 1993, the City. Traffic Committee recommended that a City-financed Pilot Program be initiated. A list of potential locations for each council ward was prepared by the Traffic Engineer and distributed to the Councilmembers for their review. These 1 locahons were ones in which multiple complaints of speeding had been received over the previous year or more, and were of a street type where pavement undulations might be an appropriate tool to use. The Public Works Departmem presented the initial proposal to start a pilot program to the Council's Urban Development Committee on October 11, 1993. Over the next several momh~, the Traffic Engineer worked with the Committee to develop the list of test locations for ge project, refine the informational notice letter to be mailed and define the area to be noric~l. On June 16, 1994, the Committee recommended to the Council that the Public Works Department be given authorization to implement the pilot program of pavement un~iurions. The implementation plan for the pilot program was submitted to the full Cornel on July 20, 1994 for a public hearing and approval of the plan_ Upon receiving authorization, notice letters were mailed and construction initiated. For this pilot .t~rogram the construction of the undulations was performed by the Public Works Street Maimanance Division. The pilot program test location speed bumps were constructed in lam .-Mlgust 1994. 2 PROIECT PURPOSE The purpose of a speed bump installation is to reduce speeding on prima facie 25 mph local residential streets. The pilot program would allow the Public Works Department to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and public acceptance, of the type of speed bumps currently used by various California cities, within several residential areas of Bakersfield. PROIECT DESCRIPTION The pilot program involved the installation of no more than seven pavement undulation type speed bumps, one in each council ward, and all on local residential streets. The test period would be for six months, during which time no additional pavement undulations would be ~n.~talled. The Traffic Engineer would perform before and after traffic studies at each location. A report would be prepared for submittal to the Urban Development Committee with conclusions of study results. The Committee would then make a recommendation to the full Council regarding future use of speed b~mps. PROIECT APPROACH An initial list of seven locations, one in each ward, was formulated with input from each Councilmember. From this list, design proceeded for each location, utilizing the practices. set forth in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps." A traffic survey, prior to speed bump installation, would be set at a minimum of two locations along the street segment. This survey would be for a twenty-four hour period and would provide speed bump and volume data at various locations along the street segment prior to speed bump installation. Installation of the 3 speed bumps and required sigaing, striping and marking would be installed by the Public Works Department, at no cost to the residents. Upon completion of speed bump installation, a ~af~c survey would be set at the same locations as the "before" speed bump survey was taken. This "after" survey would be done two times, one month and three months after speed bump installation. The "after" survey would be for a twenty-four hour period and would provide speed bump and volume data that would be compared with the data gathered in the "before" survey. Conclusions are to be made from the study results and included in the report. Prior to any studies or installations, an informational letter was sent to residents in the area, who would be affected by the speed bump installation. These residents were asked to respond on a survey card whether or not they approved of a speed bump installation on the subject street segment. The survey information was summarized and provided to the City Councilmembers prior to the public hearing on the pilot program. The hearing was held during the July 20, 1994 Council Meeting. The City Council was to approve the implementation of the pilot speed bump program, prior to proceeding. 4 PROIECT LIMITATIONS Utilizing the rrE Guideline spacing recommendations (200 feet to 500 feet) it was our original design to install multiple speed bumps on most of the chosen street segments. However, during the course of making the final plans for implementation, staff was directed to limit the in.~tallafion to one pavement undulation type speed bump per council ward. Due to the length of several of the street segments, it was noted that one speed bump would likely have limited effectiveness and possibly skew the results of the pilot program. Using only one speed bump on the longer street segments may reduce speeds adjacent to the speed bump, but would have little or no impact on speeds a greater distance from the speed bump. The number of installations was reduced from seven to five, as none of the proposed locations in two wards were considered appropriate as test locations. The reduction in the number of locations somewhat limited the amount of data we would be gathering to measure the effectiveness of the pavement undulations. The wards that did not receive speed bumps were Ward 2 and Ward 6. EXISTING CONDITIONS Ward 1 - Clifton Street is a local residential street 1,930 feet in length and 36 feet wide, that begins at Wilkins Street on the south and extends to Virginia Avenue on the north. The terrain is fiat and speed limit 25 mph. The center block, between Texas Street and East 3rd Street, of this three block (600' blocks) street is the location of the speed bump installation. Ward 2 - No test location. Ward 3 - Flintridge Drive is a local residential street 3200 feet in length and 40 feet wide (the southerly 1300 feet is within the city limits), that begins at College Avenue on the south and dead ends on the north. The terrain is approximately a five percent slope from north to south and the speed limit is 25 mph. The north end of the segmem within the city limits, approximately 270 feet south of Country Club Drive (city limit) is the location of the speed bump installation. Ward 4 - Toluca Drive is a local residential street 2,180 feet in length and 44 feet wide, that begins at Hildalgo Drive on the west and extends to Boca Del Rio on the east. The terrain is fiat and speed limit 25 mph. Del Rio Elementary School is located on the north side and at the west end of Toluca Drive. The center, 6 between Los Mochis Drive and La Paz Court and at the east boundary of the school, is the location of the speed bump installation. Ward 5 - Kleinpell Avenue is a local residential street 1,650 feet in length and 36 feet wide, that be~n.q at Rio Bravo Drive on the west and dead ends on the east. The terrain is flat and speed limit 25 mph. Van Horn Elementary School is located on the south side and at the east end of Kleinpell Avenue. The west end, approximately 350 feet east of Rio Bravo Drive is the location of the speed bump installation. This street is subject to cut through traffic travelling between Stockdale Highway and California Avenue, thereby avoiding the signalized intersection of these two streets. Ward 6 - No test location. Ward 7 - Parsons Way is a local residential street 900 feet in length and 36 feet wide, that begins at Panama Lane on the south and extends to McCleaxy Way on the north. The terrain is flat and speed limit 25 .mph. The cemer, approximately 400 feet south of McCleary Way, is the location of the speed bump installation. 7 DESIGN Design of the pavement undulation type speed bump was based on the [mtitute of Transportation Engineers, "Guideline for the Design and Application of Speed Humps." Spacing recommendations were not used due to the one speed bump per street limitation. The single speed bumps were located on each street so that the greatest impact may be achieved, and to allow additional speed bump installation, should a speed bump policy be adopted. The speed bump location planned for Kleinpell Avenue was originally to be located at the approximate' midpoint of the street. However, after working with .the residents the proposed location was moved to the west, closer to Rio Bravo Drive. This is the only location that was altered from the original one speed bump design. The speed bump profile was constructed per the ITE Guidelines as a parabolic shape three inches in height. It was determined after several speed bumps were installed that the profile may be too "soft" or ineffective, and a more abrupt alternate profile was constructed on Flintridge Drive. Thi~ alternate profile, also in the ITE Guidelines, is a trapezoidal shape four inches in height. Additionally, warning si~.~ and pavement markings were installed, per the 1TE Guidelines, to alert motorists of the upcoming pavement undulation. See Detail 1 and 2, Appendix A. CONSTRUCTION Construction of the speed bumps were performed in August 1994. All work was done by City employees from the Streets and General Services Divisions of the Public Works Department. Employees of the Streets Division, with assistance of those in the Equipment Division manufactured a screed that was used as a slip form for the speed bump profile. The screed was attached behind a "bobcat" tractor and dragged across the street to make the asphalt conform to the proper profile. The screed was manufactured with an allowance for compaction of the asphalt when it is was rolled. The materials and labor costs for .the speed bump installations were less than $1000 per speed bump, including the si~tming and pavement markings. STUDY RESULTS INTEREST SURVEY - Results of the survey card sent to residents were positive for all locations. The return of the survey cards ranged from a low of 43% fOr Tolucca Drive to a high of 68% for Parsons Way. Of the survey cards received, those in favor of speed bump installation ranged from a low of 67% for' Tolucca Drive to a high of 91% for Klienpell Avenue. See Table 1, Appendix B. 9 TRAFFIC SURVEYS Clifton Street - Vandali.~m occurred during the fa'st attempt at gathering data after the speed bump was constructed. We were advised by the Police Department not to do further studies in thi.~ area. No comparative data was obtained for thi~ location See Table 2, Appendix B. Flintridge Drive - No reduction in the number of vehicles traveling on the street was found. The average speeds at all survey locations were reduced, with the greatest reduction near the speed bump of 4.5 mph. The 85th percentile speeds were reduced, after vehicles had traversed the speed bump, by 8.5 mph northbound (uphill) and 3.4 mph southbound (downhill). The percentage of vehicles traveling 30 mph to 40 mph was reduced at both near and far locations. The greatest reduction, occuring after vehicles had just traversed the speed bnmp in the northbound direction, was 31.4 percent and the smallest reduction, occuring further away from the speed bump, was 0.9 percent. See Table 3, Appendix B. Toluca Drive - No reduction in the number of vehicles traveling on the street was found. The average speeds at survey locations near the speed bump were reduced, with the greatest reduction being 6.3 mph. The average speeds at survey locations further from the speed bump showed an increased of up to 5.6 mph. The 85th percentile speeds were reduced, after vehicles had just traversed the speed bump, by 6.3 mph westbound and 1.8 mph eastbound. Further away from the speed bump, .the 85th percentile speeds also increased, with the greatest increase being 8.5 mph. The percentage of vehicles traveling 30 mph to 40 mph was reduced at locations near the speed bump with the greatest being 13.9 percent 10 in the westbound direction after traversing the speed bump. Increases in the percentage of vehicles traveling 30 mph to 40 mph were found further away from the speed bump with the greatest being 24.5percent. See Table 4, Appendix B. Klienpell Avenue - No reduction in the number of vehicles traveling on the street was found. The average speeds at all survey locations were reduced, with the greatest reduction, occuring near the speed bump, of 11.9 mph. The 85th percentile speeds were reduced most in the westbound direction with the greatest reduction being 10.5 mph. The 85th percentile speeds in the eastbound direction were also reduced with the greatest reduction being .6.0 mph. The percentage of vehicles traveling 30 mph to 40 mph was reduced at all locations with the greatest reduction of 24.4 percent occuring in the westbound direction prior to traversing the speed bump. See Table 5, Appendix B. Parsons Way - Reduction in the number of vehicles traveling on the street was found, with the greatest being 13%. The average speeds at all survey locations were reduced, with the greatest reduction of 8.2 mph occuring near the speed bump. The 85th percentile speeds were reduced the most south of the speed bump and was also 8.2 mph. The percentage of vehicles traveling 30 mph to 40 mph was reduced at most locations. The greatest reduction for this speed range occuured in the southbound direction after traversing the speed bump for a change of 22.3 percent. One location showed a small increase of 1 percent in the number of vehicles travelling 30 mph to 40 mph in the southbound direction before traversing the speed bump. See Table 6, Appendix B. 11 PUBLIC COMMENTS Many phone calls were received during the interest survey and prior to installation of the speed bumps. Examples of the comments received are: "good idea"; "need more than one speed bump"; "speed bump located in the wTong location"; "not good in street, tickets would be better"; %vaste of tax payer money, have a volunteer parent give tickets." Comments or letters received after installation of the speed bumps were. few. Two phone calls were received from citizens in the Tolucca Drive area, one expressed an opinion that the speed bump does not work and the other declared that the number of vehicles on San Estaban had increased due to the speed bump installation on Tolucca Drive. Two letters were received from citizens in the Flintridge Drive area. One said that the speed bump was reducing speeds and the other called the speed bump a "barrier" or "hazard" and said that vehicles are "launched" when going over the bump. One letter was received from a citizen on Kleinpell Avenue who reported that the installation was a success at reducing both speeds and cut through traffic. See Appendix C. 12 CONCLUSIONS Public Response- While little in the way of response was received from citizens after installation of the speed bumps, what was received indicates that the public perception is that the speed bumps have provided some reduction in speeds and finds them acceptable. Traffic Volumes - The before installation speed studies were taken in August, when schools were not in session. Many of the streets have school frontages or were affected by school activities. Therefor, many of the traffic volumes showed an increase, not allowing a proper comparison to find the effect the installations had on traffic volumes and cut through traffic. 85th Percentile Speeds - The speed data gathered indicated only a slight overall reduction of the 85th percentile speeds, with the exception of some locations near the speed bumps. Some of the 85th percentile speeds actually increased, indicating that the speed bumps only impact a short length of the street segment. Most 85th percentile speeds were between 28 mph and 34 mph, well above the 25 mph speed limit. The speed bump's effect on the 85th percentile speeds was minimal and did not provide the reductions desired. 30 mph to 40 mph Range - The most dramatic impact the speed bumps had was in the reduction of vehicles travelling 30 mph to 40 mph. Many of the "before" study vehicles traveling 30 mph to 40 mph, reduced speeds to the 25 mph to 30 mph range. This reduces the perception of numerous vehicles travelling at excessive speeds. While we were limited to one speed bump per street segment, the survey data indicates that all locations would have better results if more than one speed bump was installed. It is believed that 13 constructing additional speed bumps along each segment would have a greater impact in slowing traffic. In summary, the technical results do not indicate that speed bumps really slow down traffic to the extent desired. The public, however, seems to embrace the speed bump as a cure to speeding and perceive the results to be a positive improvement. Based on the technical data collected, I cannot make a recommendation for speed bumps of the type tested. Should speed bump installation still be desirable to the Council, we recommend installations be made in accordance with spacing recommendations of the Institute of Transportation En~neers' Guidelines, and a specific policy similar to that of the "Policy of the City of Ventura Relative to the Use of Road Undulations for Traffic Speed Control on Public Streets." See Appendix D. 14 TABLE 1 INTEREST SURVEY Ward 1 - Clifton Street Mailed - 25 Received - 14 (56%) Yes - 10 (72%) No - 3 (21%) Neutral- I (7%) Ward 3 - Flintridge Drive Mailed - 46 Received - 24 (52%) Yes - 21 (88%) No - 2 (8%) Neutral- 1 (4%) Ward 4 - Toluca Street Mailed - 175 Received - 75-(43%) Yes - 50 (67%) No - 18 (24%) Neutral - 7 (9%) Ward 5 - Kleinpell Mailed - 63 Received - 32 (51%) Yes - 29 (91%) No - 3 (9%) Ward 7 - Parsons Way Mailed - 31 Received - 21 (68%) Yes - 18 (86%) No - 2 (10%) Neutral- 1 (4%) 15 APPENDIX A lvIAP$ AND DETAILS '~ ,. 'x, 21~ I ' \ I ~ I 7 " 185 184 . 185 I~1 .' ~,~ \ · I 182 ., ~ 221 224 ...... / ~% Ill IFI 179 I~0 ~. No. TRY CLUE DRI" 34 45 44 ~7 47 ..... AVENUE'-- 4~ 40 26 51 57 IZ /~ 23 ',0.~ · SPEED SURVEY 61 -. ]~ SPEED HUMP 16 19 17 .~AN--" .. AVENUE ' ° "' *'" -,-~(~ , ~SAN LAZARO-----AVENUE. ' .... FJ , 84 49 4 -dUAREZ 'AVE. .o COURT 48 83 16 I0 7'2 73 ]'4 75 76 77 78 79 80 4]' TRACT 4709 . 6,6o.. ,0 . ~ .' :A ,-- - L~CA -ORI a -- al ~1 4, 4. l~' i19 Z9 A SPEED SURVEY ~o . , , . . . 4. .4 i~ z7 SPEED HUMP ~e , II e--- bRIVE P'"' ~ '~ ~ R M. 199 13 P.M. Bk. 9, p 47 PAN g "LALIfORNIA AVl ~ ORO. NO IIII N l ,,,~ --K ..... I--.AVEN ,-- ' · ..... C-ARISSA AVENUE VA hi FI 0 R hI ' $CFIOOL 0 '"'~ & SPEED SURVEY SPEED HUMP .... '. . · . ,x, AVENUE. ., P.M. 6838 , PORtlOH , ,~. m: i ,~,.,,i:,; , _.~..........~r h, i ', Pl~4 ~11 ' ,,~ ,o,.,~ ~ .~a~_~.~ '~- -~ -~ '2- ,, · ; ..~ ,.~ - ' ~..~ '. ~ ' & SPEED SURVEY ' ~ ~. '~ ~ - ~ ~ SPEED HUMP Reflective white ~" ~ ~ / povement marking C~ ra-cbh 1() Advonced ~ 12" Reflective White --- ~:~[~ ~~ Worn in g Sign P Typical Street Plan View Direction of Travel Height = 5 in. max Road Surface I.ength = 12 fi Cross Section & Bump dimensions Detail 1 ""/"/"',,.. Type 1 Design Traffic Engineering I~oml~g Fie: ~:P~N11JNO.DWO Reflective white Advanced ~ x__ 12"' Reflective White Warning sign--~ ~ Stripes @ 6' O.C. Advanced Warning Sign ~ Typical Street Plan View Direction of Travel Height = 3 in. max Road Surface ........ /.._e. n_cj t..h._----_._ 1 ? _ ft ...................... Cross Section & Bump dimensions Detail 2 "'"'",..,,p. Type '~. Design Traffic Engineering I~a~lng Irl~ S:P~ APPENDIX B SURVEY DATA TABLE 1 INTEREST SURVEY Ward I - Clifton Street Mailed - 25 Received - 14 (56%) Yes - 10 (72%) No - 3 (21%) Neutral - 1 (7%) Ward 3 - Flintridge Drive Mailed - 46 Received - 24 (52%) Yes - 21 (88%) No - 2 (8%) Neutral - 1 (4%) Ward 4 - Toluca Street Mailed - 175 Received - 75 (43%) Yes - 50 (67%) No - 18 (24%) Neutral - 7 (9%) Ward 5 - Kleinpell Mailed - 63 Received - 32 (51%) Yes - 29 (91%) No - 3 (9%) Ward 7 - Parsons Way Mailed - 31 Received - 21 (68%) Yes - 18 (86%) No - 2 (10%) Neutral- 1 (4%) TABLE 2 SPEED SURVEY - CLIFTON STREET DATE LOCATION DIST/OIR TRAVEL AVERAGE 85%1LE ~. VEH1%VEH ~ VEHI ~ VEH ~It VEH1%VEH · VEHI %VEH TOTAL TO HUMP DIRECTION SPEED SPEED 0 TO 25 MPH 25 TO 30 MPH 30 TO 40 MPH OVER 40 MPH VEHICLES Aug 3, 1994 Clifton N/O Texas Northbound 18.1 29.7 188 70.4 53 19.9 24 9 2 0.8 267 Sept 27, 1994' 0 Aug 3, 1994 Clifton N/O Texas Southbound 14.9 24.6 227 90.1 15' 6 7 2.8 3 1.2 253 Sept 27, 1994' 0 Aug 3, 1994 Clifton S/O E. 3rd Northbound 19.2 32 167 69 34 14 28 11.6 13 5.4 242 Sept 27, 1994' 0 Aug 3, 1994 Clifton S/O E. 3rd Southbound 19.3 31.9 171 66.3 43 16.7 40 15.6 4 1.6 25~ Sept 27, 1994' 0 · No data received, vandaism TABLE 3 SPEED SURVEY - FLINTRIDGE DRIVE DATE LOCATION DIST/DIR 'IRAVEL AVERAGE 85%1LE #VEHI%VEH ~VEHI%VEH #VEHI%VEH ~VEHI%VEH TOTAL FROM HUMP DIRECTION SPEED SPEED 0 TO 25 MPH 25 TO 30 MPH 30 TO 40 MPH OVER 40 MP~ VEHICLES ~Jg 4, 1994 Flintridge S/O Country Club 240' N Soulhbound 19.9 33.8 '311 ~ 68.5 47 10.4 75 "- 16.5 21 4.6 454 Sept22, 1994 17.8 30.2 387i 75.3 59 11.5 58 11.3 10 2 514 Nov IS, 1994 18.8 31.9 347 69.7 68 13.8 78 15.6 7 1.4 498 Aug 4, 1994 Flint~tdge SIO Country Club 240' N Norlhbound 209 36.,I 27~ 64.6 33 ' 7.'-~ 96 2'~.4 2~ 5.4 ~29 Sept 22, 1994' 16.2 27.5 302 61.4 44 11.0 25 6.7 0 0 371 Nov 18, 1994 16.4 27.9 359 80.1 57 12.7 31 7 1 0.2 448 Aug 4, 1994 Flintridge N/O Ridgetop 300' S Soulhbound 30.2 40.1 103 21.3 96 19.8 230 47.5 55 11.4 483 Sept 22, 1994 24 33.8 201 38.2 194 36.9 125 23.8 6 1.2 526' Nov 18, 1994 27.2 36.7 136 26...7' 287 56.4 82 16.1 4 2.4 509 Aug 4, 1994 Flintddge S/O Ridgetop 380'S Nollhbound 25.~ 37.3 225 38.5 122 20.9 216 38.9 21 3.7 584 Sept 22, 1994 24 35.2 229 41.9 151 27.7 154 28.212 2.2 546 Nov 1.8, 1994 23.4t 34.6 243 44.2 141 25.6 157 28.6 9 1.7 550 Aug 4, 1~94 Flintridge N/O Juanito 735' S Southbouncl 30. j ~.~ 114 18.6 154 25.1 290 47.3 5~ g 613 Sept 22, 1994 25.4 34.6 203 31.8 226 35.4 199 31.2 I1 1.7 639 Nov_J 8_~_, j 994 26.4 35.5' 193 29.6 138 28.9 258 39.6 12 1.9_ .6._~5! Aug 4, 1994 Flintridge S/O Juanito 765' S Northbound 24 33-:§ 1~ 37.9 ~66 32.~' 147 29 ~ 0.4 507 Sept 22, 1994 22.8 33.2 208 44.1 154 32.6 110 23.3 0 0 472 Nov 1.8, 1.994 22.9 33.9 282 45.7 1.62. 26.3 171 27.7 2 0.3 .6.1[ TABLE 4 SPEED SURVEY - TOLUCA DRIVE DATE LOCATION DIST/DIR TRAVEL AVERAGE 85%1LE · VEHI %VEH · VEHI% VEH # VEH1%VEI-I · VEHI %VEH TOTAL FROM HUMP DIRECTION SPEED SPEED 0 TO 25 MPI~ 25 TO 30 MPH 30 TO 40 MPF' bVER 40 MPH!VEHICLES Aug 2, 1994 Toluca E/O Quintana 640' W Westbound 14.5 23.6 125 94 4 3: JO ....0 4 3 133 Sept 20, 1994 21.4 33.9 144 58.7 52 20.5 52 20.5 6 2.4 25= Nov 16, 1994 20.1 32.1 176 60.7~ 62 21.4 49 18.9 3 1 290 Aug 2, 1§94 Toluca F_JO Quintana 690' W Eastbound 18.~ 30.5 75 72.8 14 13.6 i 1 10.6 ~ 2.9 103 Sept 20, 1994 18.2 27.4 218 81.5 34 12.8 14, 5.3 1 0.4 265. Nov 1.6.~ 1.994 18.9 31 187 67 50 17.9 41 14.7 I 0.4 279 AUg 2, 1994 Toluca F_JO Mazatlan 320' W Westbound 2~.~ 38.z ~ 29.5 46 30.9 47 34.5 12 8.1 149 Sept 20, 1994 19 30.5 239 65.8 77 21.2 46 12.7 1 0.3 363 Nov 16, 1994 20.9 32.2 208 64.7 103 27.1 67 17.6 2 0.5 380 Aug 2, 1994 Toluca E/O Mazatlan 320'W Eastbound 19.9 30.7 88 59.9 39 26.5 20 13.6 0 ~ 147 Sept 20, 1994 18.8 30.6 209 67 61 19.6 41 13.1 1 0.3 312 Nov 16, 1994 18.9 30.5 215 66.4 67 20.7 40 12.4 2 0.6 324 July 28, 1994 Toluca F__/O La Paz 280' E Westbound 2:~.3 34.' 115 53.5 49 22.~ 39 ~1~.2 12 5.~ 21,~ Sept 20, 1994 22.4 33.3 200 47.4 125 29.6 93 22 4 0.9 422 Nov 16, 1994' Oi Aug', 1994: Toluca EJO La Paz 340' E Eastbound 23.8 35 86 42.4 58 28.6 54 26.6 5 2.5 2~! Sept20, 1994// 20.9 32.3 161 55.1 77 26.4 53' 18.2 1 0.3 292 Nov 16, 1994 22 32.9 186 49.9 110 29.5 73 lg.6 4 1.1 373 July 28, 1994 Toluca W/O Las Arenas 670' E Westbound 19.4 31.4 i48 63.2 48 20.5 38 i8.2 0 ~ 2§3 Sep~ 20, 1994 '25.1 34.5 144 33.4 147 34.1 137 31.8 3 0.6 431 Nov 16, 1994 24.8 34.2 147 33.8 158 36.3 129 29.6 I 0.2 435 ;J~l~ 28, i994 Toluca W/O Las Arenas 820' E Eastbound 25.5 35.~ I~,~ 08.~ 69 27.8 6-~ 5.2 15 § ~ Sept 20, 1994 25.9 35.6 122 31.5 125 32.3 128 33.4 12 3.1 387 Nov 16. 1994 24.9 34.7 131 34.3 134 35.11 114 29.7 3 0.8 382 "Machine Failure #Data not complete, vandaism TABLE 5 SPEED SURVEY - KLIENPELL AVENUE DATE LOCATION DIST/DIR TRAVEL AVERAGE 85%1LE ~VEHI%VEH it. VEHI~VEH .ItVEHI%VEH #VEHI%VEH TOTAL FROM HUMP DIRECTION SPEED SPEED 0 TO 25 MPH 25 TO 30 MPH 30 TO 40 MPE OVER 40 MPH VEHICLES July 26, 1994 Klienpell F_JO Rio Bravo 70"W Westbound 26.7 35.3 243 27.2 367 41.1 244 27.3 40 4.4 89~ 89pt21, 1994 15 25.2 1003 88 99 8.7 38 3.2 2 0.2 1140 NorS. 1994 14.8 24.8 1176 89.2 102 7.7 41 3.1 0 0 1319 ~July 26, ~9~4 Klienpell F_JO Rio Bravo 170' E Eastbound 22.5 32 370 43.9 321 38.1' 146 1~.,i 5i 0.6 '8;12 Sept21, 1994 17.9 29.3 866 73.4 210 17.8 79 6.7 25 2.2 1180 Nov 8, 1994 16.5 28 1053 78.8 213 15.9 67 5 4 0.3 1337 July 26, 1994 Klienpell W/O Hewlett 440' E Westbound 24.7 35.2 322 38 224 26.4 295 34.7 7 0.~ 848 Sept 21, 1994 21.8 32.6 648 58.2 278 25 80 7.2 107 9.7 1113 Nov 8, 1994 19.3 30.2 799 62.4 348 27.2 131 10.3 3 0.3 128! July 26, 1994 Kdienpell F_JO Hewlett 650' E Eastbound 2~.~ 3~.~ 38~ 50.8 279 36.8 '93 J2.3 1 O. 1 75~ Sept 21, 1994 16.7 28.1 861 77.6 195 17.6 47 4.3 7 0.? 1110 Nov .8., 1994 16.9 28.3 1082 77 245 17.4 88 4.9 9 0.8 I~4.04. TABLE 6 SPEED SURVEY - PARSONS WAY DATE LOCATION DIST/DIR 'rRAVEL AVERAGE 85%1LE ~VEHI%VEH, #VEHI%VEH ~VEHI%VEH _~VEHI%VEH TOTAL FROM HUMP DIRECTION SPEED SPEED 0 TO 25 MPH 25 TO 30 MP~ 30 TO 40 MPH OVER 40 MPH VEHICLES Au93,1994 Parsons N/O Panama 170'8 N0rthb~und 22.6 33.5 '~131 46.8 1331:29.2 :1051 23 '41 'b.9 455 88pt27,1994 17.7 29.2 3321 71.4 1001 21.5 a~I e.e 21 0.4 465 Nov22, 1994 18.1 29.6 2881 69.4 901 2~ I 8,_7 __'11 0_2 __415 July27, 1994 Parsons N/O Panama 100' $ Southboun(~ 23.5 33.9 1~I 42 13sI 3o.6 11.I 25.9 61 1.3 448 88pt27, 1994 15.1 24.9 4441 89 381 7.6 loI 2 7] 1.4 499 Nov22,1994 15.3~ 25.7 4011 65.9 491 ~0.5 171 $.ll 0t 0 487 [JUly27,1994 Parsons $/O Mc Cleary 230'N Northbound 20.6 30.9 2481 59.2 1101 26.3 4~I lb.5 1~----~~ 419 Sept27, 1994 16.9 28.2 3,341 76.6 62| 18.9 171 3.9 2l 0.5 435 iNov22, 1994 17.4 26.6 2c~I 72.9 801 21.9 181 4.9 1 / °.31 365 IAu93,1994 ParsonsS/OMcCleary 290'N Southbound 17.3 28.5 3161 73.:J 1031 23.7 1~-I 2.8 2/ 0.41 435 Sept27, 1994 15.6 26.5 37oI 83.3 7o/ 15.8 31 0,7 1 / 0.2] 444 Nov22, 1994 17.1 28.5 2921 74..1. 66[ 21_~8 151 3.8. 1J 0.3.] 394 APPENDIX C CORRESPONDENCE November 10, 1994 Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA 93306 SUBJECT~ STREET SPEED BUMPS There is a new "speed bump/ramp' on Flintridge between C.ollege and Country Club. It has been both my observation and experience that this has both routed traffic from Flintridge to Country Club and has also created a significant hazard for children, many compact cars, vans, and other vehicles. Ten miles per hour speed l{-4t signs are located 110 feet from this hazard, but should be five M.P.H. Maximum. The barrier will 'launch" an E-150 Ford passenger van if it is traveling more than three miles per hour. A situation occurs whereby the van is out of control and is a hazard to my children and grand children. Many cars, especially compacts, are suspended, straddling the oversize, flat topped barrier, with all four tires hanging down. This is due to the approxlm~tely eight to nine feet of flat area on top of the barrier's flat top. The barrier, located on the straight and flat section of Flintridge, has routed traffic onto Country Club Drive with it's many blind curves and hills. The Flintridge barrier has created a much greater hazard than it has resolved. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to post residential areas with 25 miles per hour speed limit signs than expensive launching platforms. Has anyone considered "washboard- areas of t~ree inch high ridges, three inches apart, in the middle ten feet of every city residential block~ Better yet, how about posted speed limits and sporadic enforcement. There are usually two Highway Patrol Officers and occasionally one City Police Officer on College between Oswell and Fairfax, equipped with Radar. Why don't they occasionally take the two block run up Flintridge? Finally, who is responsible for death, injury, proper~y damage, damaged vehicle under-carriages, wheel and alig-m~nt damage, when in full compliance with the posted ten mile per hour speed limit? Additionally, how many currently manufactured vehicles are capable of climbing on top of a flat plateau, straddling a wheel to wheel len~h of asphalt With the rear wheels free of traction, and the fron= wheels capable of turning, but not steering the vehicle? w~_i~ t~e_~fference between a s~ inch deep hole in the road, elgn= =ee= Long and the same confi~ration above the ground? I PREFER T~ HO~ many times over the ramped launching platform. Funds for smooth and well maintained streets make good use of our r~dmaintenance money --- why pay for dangerous road-top dest~ction? Ro~ M. As~eck 4283 Count~ Club Dr. Bakersfield, CA 93306 cc: Members, Bakersfield Ci~ Council cc= County of Kern, Bo~d of Supervisors cc: The Bakersfield Californian ' 6 / FIELD SERVICE 3104 FlintJ-iclge Drive · Bakersfietcl. CA 93306 · 80,5-87~.-16~.~. Rankly Rowles. Councilperson 1501 Truxton Ave. ~mkersfield, CA 93301 August 19, 1994 ,qnctosed are a series of pictures which I took of the creationof the first~,,. u-alTic bump on a Batersfield street. Kleinpell Ave. You must add these - prints to a scrap book of your achievementsl At this point, we believe that the bump has slowed traffic and discouraged cut-through, non-resident traffic, as welL Time will tell the complete stm-y ~ the success of the bump. We are most appreciative of the pilot program an~t that Kleinpell is a part of the program. h would be remiss of me not to mention how thoughtful and professional were ail those who worked on the installation. Johfl and I were impressed · nd pleased with the entire process and all personnel involved. A~n G. Baird 5813 Kleinpell Ave. Bakersfield. CA 93309 R,~ul M. Rojns Stephen L. Walker APPENDIX D SAMPLE POLICY DRAFT POLICY OF ll4E CZTY OF VENTURA RELATZVE TO THE U$£ OF ROAD UNDULATIONS FOR TRAFFIC SPEED CONTROL ON PUBLIC STREETS purpose of this policy is :o set forth the process and criteria by · ~ii~b the installation of road undulations may be recmmended to the City C~macil by the City's Ad Hoc Transportation and Traffic Co~ittee and to -.:d~mtify the conditions under which they may be installed. ~~UND ~se of road undulations is not intended as a solution for all traffic speed control problems, It will be the City's policy to carefully. ~ each request for the installation of a road undulation to ensure ~ the proposed location and attending circumstances meet all the :~r~a outlined in this policy. The initiation of requests for Speed H~ installations shall be in accordance with the following: a, All requests shall originate from the residents of the street, :..~, All requests shall be in the form of a formal petition {forms will be supplied by the Public Works Department). c. All petitions shall be circulated by the residents themselves. The sponsor of the petition shall contact one resident residing i ,' at each residence that accesses the street block on which undulations are being requested to be installed. If the sponsor is unable to contact a resident, BNO CONTACT,' will be noted on · . the petition signature space with the days and times that contact was attempted. The sponsor must make. at least two attempts to contact a resident. i~1. A separate petition shall be used for each street block. Petitions shall be circulated among those residents residing in buildings facing the street and located within: 75 feet of the .face of curb on each block where road undulations are to be located or who lives in a residence that accesses the street block where road undulations are to be placed. Completed petitions shall be returned to: City Engineer, City of San Buenaventura, P.O. Box 9g, Ventura, CA g3oog. DRAFT g. A petition supporting the installation of undulations must be submitted containing signatures of residents desiring the installation of road undulations on the subject street. h. Each petition supporting the installation of undulations shall contain the signatures of residents representing at least 75% of the residences that face directly on the street block where undulations are to be placed and are located within 75 feet of the curb on the street and will include.all residences that access the street block. 2. Road Undulations shall only be installed in conformance with design guidelines that have been established by the City Engineer. 3. Since road undulations are still experimental roadway features, additions, alterations or removals of any or all road undulations by the City may occur at any time. 4. Prior to the installation of road undulations, the City Engineer will notify the Fire Department, the Police Department and ambulance services of each installation. 5. If, after undulations are installed, residents wish to have the undulations removed, each petition requesting removal of the undula- tions shall contain at least 7§4 of the residents that face directly on the street block where undulations are to be placed and located within 75 feet of the curb on the street and will include all residences that access the street block. A separate petition shall be provided for each block. The petition for removal will be presented to the City Engineer for its-consideration. WARRANTS The installation of road undulations on public streets will be considered only if all of the followinq conditions are met over the entire propased street segment as determined by the City Engineer: 1. The average daily traffic volume shall be more than 500 but less than 2500 through vehicles per day. 2. More than 854 of the surveyed motorists must exceed the posted or prima facia speed limit. 3. The street shall not be over 40 feet wide. 4. The street shall have no more than 2 through traffic lanes. The curb adjacent to the road undulation locations must be of the raised six or eight inch standard barrier curb type and not roll-over curb. 5. The street shall have good vertical sight distance, pavement surface quality, horizontal sight distance, drainage and street lighting. It must be free of unusual features which, might affect the safe operation of road undulations. 6. The street shall have a posted speed limit of 25 or 30 mph or be unposted with a prima facie limit of 25 mph. 7. The street shall be a residential, local or collector street meeting the following definitions as stated in the California Vehicle Code: "A residential street is defined as a road having 13 or more buildings on one side of the road or 16 or more buildings on both sides of the road, within a distance of 1/4 mile. Buildings must be located within 75 feet of the roadway curb face and they must face and access the street. The street must be at least 300 feet in length and not exceed a total of one mi le." 8. To avoid approach speeds of greater than 40 mph, the location of the first prol~osed road undulation shall be such that the approach speed in advance of the first undulation can be effectively controlled via a physical design feature such as a curve or controlled intersection. 9. Installation of a road undulation will not be permitted where substan- tial diversion of traffic to other local streets will occur as determined by the City Engineer. I0. Road Undulations shall not be considered for streets that serve as bus routes or are con,only used by emergency vehicles as an access corridor. I1. Road Undulations shall not be installed on. a street where they would cause an aggregate 30 seconds delay in Fire Department response time or if they cause the response to exceed six minutes. 12. Street Lighting must exist on the street blocks where undulations are proposed to be installed. PROCEDURES I. After a petition is received, the City Engineer will (using the process outlined in Figure 4): a. Verify that each petition contains the requisite number of signatures by calculating the total number of residents that are entitled to sign the petition and ensure that the 75~ criterion has been met. b. Obtain necessary traffic data. c. Verify com!~liance with all warrants. d. Calculate a relative "Priority Index" for each street. The priority index will be based on the total number of points allocated to a specific location based on the following system: £'R'AFT i. Points '~i11 be given based on average daily traffic v o 1 umes: 500 - 999 vpd: i points I000 - I499 vpd: 2 points I500 - I999 vpd: 3 points 2000 - 2egg vpd: ~t points ii.One point '~ill be given for each accident that has occurred within the past year involving excessive speed. iii. If a church or school is located on the street blocks where the undulations ,~ould be installed, 5 points will be given to a specific location for each church or school. iv. One. point will be allocated for each percent over 85) that the percentage of vehicles exceed the posted speed limit or if unposted, 25 mph. v. One point will be deducted from the priority index for every 100 vehicles that the undulation would divert to adjacent streets. 2. All requests for road undulations that meet all policies and warrants will be taken before the Traffic Advisor7 Conmittee. The Conmittee will discuss all relevant issues and then make recommendations as to ,~hich streets should receive road undulations. 3. Whenever the Traffic Advisory Committee recon~ends installing road undulations on a particular street, a--City Council hearing will be scheduled. A notice will be hand delivered to all the affected residents located on the street wher~ the road undulations would be installed notifying them of the date, time and location of the City Counci 1 hearing. 4. Once funding for road undulations is approved for a specific location by the City Council, staff will prepare design plans and contracts to comp)ere construction of the approved road undulations. 5. Those locations that are not funded by the City Council will be placed on a new priority list and will compete again for funding in the 'next six month cycle on an equal basis with all other requests. If a location fails to be approved in four consecutive periods, it will be deleted from the priority list. 6. The City will not form an assessment district to fund road undula-. tions. DRAFT INSTALLATION Construction 1. All undulations should be constructed ~n accordance ~it'h Figure I, and 3. Where there Js a potential for diversion ~o.a parallel s~ree~, road undulations may be constructed inches. 2. The undulations shall be installed across the entire roadway to the Iii3 of the gutter with the last one foot tapered flush with the pave- ment to minimize gutter running and to preserve gutter flows {see Figures I and 2). Warninq Oev(ces 1. A standard Caltrans W37 30" ~arnin9 sign stating "Buoq~$" with S inch series £ letters should be installed at least 100 feet from the undulation. 2. Speed advisory signs stating 10 ml3h should be installed below the "Bumps" warning signs. 3. Orange flags should be placed on the street side of each sign for a period of go days at which time they should be removed. 4. Additional W37 signs with the legend "Bumps" should be placed in advance warning position on both app~ache$ to the street segment controlled by huml3s. These should be acco~anied by the supple- mentary plate "Next xxxx ft." to indicate where undulations must be expected. 5. Bm~o.$ signs {W37-plural) should also be placed on the approaches on cross streets from which significant volumes of traffic-turning onto the undulation controlled street, if not on all cross streets inter- setting the undulation controlled segment. These should be accom,. panied by supplementary warning arrow plates {W55 or W57) indicating the direction or directions in which the undulations are to be ex- pected. 6. Signs and markings shall be installed with undulation construction. 7. 8-foot high 'Bum!3" legends should be painted in white at approxi- mately ~0 to 100 feet in advance of road each undulation. These legends should remain for up to one year after installation of the unclulation after which time the legend may be removed. 8. One foot ~ide longitudinal ladder markings should be painted on each undulation at 6 feet on center. Double yellow centerline should be provided in the vicinity of the undulation. DRAFT Placement of Undulations Road Undulations should be placed according to the following guidelines: 1. Undulations should be placed from 200 to 300 feet away from inter- sections, stol) signs or shaw curves so that drivers are unlikely to approach them at high speed. This ensures that sufficient driver reaction time is provided. Undulations should be spaced from 200 to 400 feet apart. 3. The final positioning of the undulations should take into considera- tion the following which should be field verified prior to installa- tion: a. All undulations shall not be located over manholes or within 30 feet of hydrants. b. Undulations should be located downstream of storm drains. c. Undulations should be located on property lines when possible. d. Undulations should be 10 feet away from driveways. f. Vertical curves and grades should be evaluated with respect to advance visibility of undulations. Typically, all undulations should be placed at least 200 feet away from sharp horizontal curves and be readily visible from at least 200 feet if placed near vehicle curves. g. Undulations should not be placed on horizontal curves of less than 300 feet radius. 4. Undulations should not be placed on streets with grades greater than 104 or in a location that is not clearly visible for at least 200 feet. NL:4-ZSZ ~ Direclion of Tralflc ~- _ __ Ii Heighl 3 In. ~ Road Sm'lace 2 Segmenl of circle .,,,, ' ' Radius - 54.22 FI. I~" . L~nOhl 12 FI.. .. ~ Road Undulation Design Full Heighl .'".':':':':':':':':':':':':':',"' I ~ I 5 FI ~ I ~-- I I:1. + ,.j / umn Gullet pan Taper Road Undulation Edge Taper Design CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA ~""~'"~'"°' c~[cx~o e,, , ROAD UNDULATION T-r_MPI_ATE: CIRCULATE J PETITION~ I I AC~NO~LEDGE PETiTiON BY LETTER I ENTER PRELIMINARY DATA INTO REOUEST LO~ ESTABLISH OATA FILE ICOLL£CT NECESSARY TRAFFIC DATA PREPARE REPORT AND ~ECOI4M~HOATIQN$ J PREPARE CZTY COUNCIL ... HEARING NOTTCES 1 J SEND NOTICE LETTER TO ALL AFFECTED flESIOENT$/AGENCIES I OESIG~I UNDULATIONS IAOMINISTER CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATIQN STUDIES , i'lL: 9-ZOZ FIGURE 4 ROBERT and JERI PRESS 5717 Chester W. Nimitz Street Bakersfield, CA 93304 MR. MARK SALVAGGIO December 28, 1995 Councilman, Ward 7 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Speed bump program and control of speeding problems on Chester Nimitz Street Dear Mr. Salvaggio: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support concerning the above entitled matter. Since our initial letter dated November 8, 1995, the street received four (4) posted speed limit signs stating the speed limit of 25 M.P.H. Your efforts have also brought forth a study of traffic flow and speed as well as one (1) ticketing effort by the Bakersfield Police Department. The residents on this street look at this as an initial first step to a large problem and don't want the effort to stop with this initial response. We feel that one traffic citation incident over 45 days is not enough effort on the part of the Bakersfield Police Department's traffic division. There needs to be several more instances of ticketing speeders on this street than just one between November 8, 1995 and present. However, the effort is appreciated by the residents. I have also had an opportunity to peruse the Pilot Program Test Results Report you sent me in mid November. Although I did not read the entire 30 page memorandum line by line, in summary, it appears the majority of the' residents involved in this pilot program were pleased and satisfied with the speed bump results. However, because of the recommendations of ONE (1) Traffic Engineer who wrote the following in this report: "In Summary, the technical results do not indicate that speed bumps really slow down traffic to the extent desired. The public, however, seems to embrace the speed bump as a cure to speeding and perceive the results to be a positive improvement. Based on the technical data collected, I cannot make a recommendation for speed bumps of the type tested." The Urban Planning Committee never brought any recommendations to the City Counsel. They simply "shelved" it in hopes that the speed bump program would simply go away. This paragraph and the actions of the Urban Planning Committee seems to state, "your opinion and perceptions (the residents and general public) regarding this program DON'T MATTER." This angers us, as citizens and tax payers who live with this problem of speeding vehicles on our street on a daily basis. In short, we as a community look at the initial efforts you have put forth as a good starting point and intend to continue to emphasize this problem to the City Counsel as a whole. For the present, we would appreciate being kept informed as to the results of the traffic flow study which was conducted on Chester VV. Nimitz Street during the months of November and December 1995. We also would like to be notEied when this study will go before the City Counsel as well as any meetings having to do with the adoption and allocation of speed bumps on our street. Again, please encourage the Bakersfield Police to patrol our street using radar to keep speeding to a minimum. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation regarding this matter. /~, truly yours, i~'obert and Jeri Press - - cc: The Bakersfield Police Department, Traffic Division, Attn: S.E. Brummer Bakersfield Public Works Dept. The Bakersfield Californian, At'm: Mark Benjamin BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: Raul M. Rojas. Public Works Director DATE: January 11. 1996 SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee Program. Phase II Proposed Ordinance Please find attached the draft Amended Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance for your review and comment, along with the proposed fee schedule. Once the draft has been finalized, it can be scheduled for the two readings at the City Council. The County has prepared a draft ordinance in substantially the same form. County staff will be going to the Board of Supervisors on January 23 to request a hearing on February 12. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact Marian Shaw at 3579. P:\'rII~PH2ORD.MEM RMR:m~ xc: R~mii~ File Droj~ct Fil~ Jac~lu~ R. La Rocta~lle ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.84 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ON ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 15.84 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE Sections: 15.84.010 Short title. 15.84.020 Purpose. 15.84.030 Definitions. 15.84.040 Imposition of transportation impact fee. 15.84.050 Computation of fee. 15.84.055 Reduction or waiver for Iow-income housing projects. 15.84.060 Payment of fee. 15.84.070 Use of funds. 15.84.080 Refund of fee paid. 15.84.090 Exemptions and credits. 15.84.100 Appeal. 15.84.010 Short Title "Tr ' This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the' ansponat~on Impact Fee Ordinance". 15.84.020 Purpose A. This ordinance is intended to implement and be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. B. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the use and development of land so as to assure that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital expenditures necessary to provide a regional transportation system consistent with the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. 15.84.030 Definitions' Whenever used in this chapter, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the words set out in this section shall have the following meanings: A. "Administrator" means the City Public Works Director or designee. B. "Building permit" means an official document or official certification which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Area. In the case of a change in use or occupancy of an existing building or structure, the term shall specifically include Certificates of Occupancy, as defined in Section 109 of the Uniform Building Code, 1994 edition, and subsequent editions as may be adopted by the City Council. 'C. "Capital improvements" means transportation planning, preliminary engineering, engineering design studies, land surveys, right-of-way acquisition, engineering, permitting and construction of all the necessary features for any transportation facility projects including, but not limited to: 1) Construcuon of new through lanes. 2) Construction of new turn lanes. 3) Construction of new frontage or access roads. 4) Construction of new bridges and widening. 5) Construction of new drainage facilities in conjunction with new roadway construcuon. 6) Purchase and installation of traffic signalization (including both new and upgrading signalization). 7) Construction of curbs, medians, and shoulders in conjunction with new roadway construction. 8) Relocating utilities to accommodate new roadway construction. 9) Other capacity increasing improvements, such as transportation systems measures. D. "Expansion" of the capacity ora road means all road and intersection enhancements and includes, but is not limited to extensions, widening intersection improvements, upgrading signalization and improving pavement conditions. E. "Fee payer" means a person commencing a land development activity which generates or attracts traffic and who is applying to the City for the issuance of a building permit for a type of land development activity specified in the current resolution adopting the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule, regardless if the fee payer owns the land which is developed. F. "Land development activity generating traffic" means any change in land use or any construction or expansion of buildings or structures, or any change in the use of any building or structure that attracts or produces vehicular trips as determined by the Administrator. G. "Level of Service" (LOS) means a qualitative measure that represents the collective factors of speed, travel time, traffic interruption, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience and operation costs provided by a highway facility under a particular volume condition as set forth in the 1985 (or current edition ) Highway Capacity Manual.' H. "Major residential facilities" means only multi-family complexes consisting often (l 0) or more individual units constructed under one permit. I. "Regional Transportation Facilities List" means those projects in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan area which are included in the adopted Capital Improvement Plan annually updated by the City Council. These facilities constitute some of the regional facilities needed to maintain a LOS "C" or not to permit the degradation of roads which are currently below LOS "C" as shown in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan - Circulation Element. J. "Site-related improvements" means capital improvements and right-of-way dedication for direct access improvements to the development in question. Direct access improvements include but are not limited to the following: 1) Site driveways and roads. 2) Median cuts made necessary by those driveways or roads. 3) Right turn, left turn, and deceleration or acceleration lanes leading to or from those driveways or roads. 4) Traffic control measures for those driveways or roads. 5) Access or frontage roads not identified on Regional Transportation Facilities List. K. "Transportation ImPact Fee Schedule" means the schedule of fees imposed on various land use types which is annually adopted by the City Council. This fee schedule contains the fee per living unit for residential land use types and the fee per trip for non-residential land use types. 15.84.040 Imposition of Transportation Impact Fee. A. Except as provided in Section 15.84.090 ofthi~ chapter, an person who applies to the City for the issuance ora building permit to make an improvement to land for one of the uses which is specified in the current resolution adopting the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule and which will generate or attract additional traffic, as determined by the Administrator, shall be required to pay a transportation impact fee in the manner and amount set forth in this ordinance. B. In the case of structures, mobile homes, or recreational vehicles which are moved from location to another, a transportation impact fee shall be collected for the new location if the structure, mobile home or recreational vehicle is a type of land development listed in the current resolution adopting the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule, regardless of whether transportation impact fees had been paid at the old location, unless the use at the new location is a replacement of equivalent use at the new location. If the structure or mobile home so moved is replaced by an equivalent use within 5 years, no transportation impact fee shall be assessed the replacement use. If replaced within 10 years, 50% of the otherwise applicable fee shall be paid: If replaced at~er 10 years, 100% of the otherwise applicable fee shall be paid. In every case, the burden of establishing past payment of transportation impact fee or equivalency of use rests with the fee payer. C. Nothing in this ordinance shall exempt land development from the provisions of the Major Retail Ordinance. 15.84.050 Computation of Transportation Impact Fee A. The following rules shall govern the computation of the fee: l) The reference in the schedule to square feet refers to the gross square footage of each floor of a building measured to the exterior walls, and not usable, interior, rentable, non-common or other forms of net square footage. 2) When more than one Land Use Type is prOposed within the same structure (i.e., an office as part of an industrial complex), each Land Use Type will be calculated separately and the total of the various uses will be assessed. 3) If the type of development activity for which a building permit is applied is not clearly specified on the current fee schedule as adopted by resolution, the Administrator shall use the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable type of land use on the above referenced fee schedule. The Administrator shall be guided in the selection of a comparable type by the report titled Trip Generation: An Information Report, Institute of Transportation Engineers (latest edition). If the Administrator determines that there is no comparable type of land use on the above fee schedule, then the Administrator shall determine the fee by: a) Using traffic generation statistics from the above-named sources; and b) Applying the formula set forth in Subsection B of this Section. 4) When a change of use, redevelopment or modification of an existing use requires the issuance of a building permit, the transportation impact fee shall be based upon the net increase in the impact fee for the new use as compared to the previous use. However, should the change of use, redevelopment or modification result in a net decrease, no refunds or credits for past transportation impact fees paid shall be made or credited. The Administrator shall follow the same procedure to determine "increase" as is outlined above for a determination of"comparable use". B. Residential fees shall be as specified in the current resolution adopting the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. The computation of non-residential fee will utilize the following formula: Transportation Impact Fee = ADT x Units x Fee per Unit where the "ADT" is Average Daily Traffic per 1,000 square feet, acre or unit listed; "Units" is the land use rate (number of 1,000 square feet, number of acres; number of units); and "Fee per Unit" is the established fee for each "Unit" proposed. The established "Fee per Unit" to be used in computing the required fee is specified in the current resolution adopting the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. C. Where there is any question regarding the land use and corresponding ADTs, the Administrator shall make the determination, which decision shall be final. D. Ifa fee payer decides not to have the'transportation impact fee determined according to the requirements of this Section, then the fee payer shall prepare and submit to the Administrator an independent fee calculation study for the land development activity for which the building permit is sought. The independent fee calculation study shall measure the impact of the development in question on the road system by following the prescribed methodologies and formats for the study established by the Administrator. Any decision of the Administrator pursuant to this subsection may be appealed as set forth in Section 15.84.100. 15.84.055 Reduction or waiver for low-income housing projects. A. Reduction of fee for rental housing. The fee may be reduced by twenty-five percent (25%) for those projects where rent levels for all units will be affordable to low-income families as defined by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The project units shall remain affordable for a minimum period often (10) years. B. Waiver of fee for owner-occupied housing. The fee may be waived entirely for owner occupied housing if it can be demonstrated that the cost of the home would change from being affordable to a low-income family to being affordable to a moderate income family solely as the result of payment of the impact fee. C. Documentation required for reduction or ~vaiver of fee. 1. Rental projects seeking a fee. reduction pursuant to subsection A of this section shall follow the following procedure: a. Pay the current fee as set forth in Section 15.84.050. b. Submit evidence certifying that the units will be occupied by low-income tenants. This information shall include any mortgage or rent subsidy contracts requiring occupancy by low-income families as a condition of approval or recorded deed restriction restricting o,ccupancy of the units to low-income families, project data certifying tenant population to be low-income families, project data certifying tenant occupancy change to a higher income, or any other information deemed necessary to determine eligibility of the project for a fee reduction. An agreement to pay the full fee should occupancy change to a higher income group shall also be submitted. c. Once it is determined that the project qualifies for a reduction in fee, twenty-five percent (25%) of the fee paid pursuant to Section 15.84.050 will be refunded. 2. Owner-occupied projects seeking a fee waiver pursuant to subsection B of this section shall following procedure: a. Pay the current fee required as set forth in Section 15.84.050. b. Submit evidence that the cost of the home would change from being affordable to a low-income family to being affordable only to a moderate-income family soley as a result of payment of the impact fee. This information shall include a copy of escrow instructions, closing statements, family income tax statements, loan closing statements and any other information deemed necessary to determine eligibility of the project for a fee waiver. c. Once it is determined that the project qualifies for a waiver of the fee, the monies paid pursuant to Section 15.84.050 will be refunded. 15.84.060 Payment of Fee A. For residential uses, other than major residential facilities, the fee payer shall pay the transportation impact fees required by this ordinance to the appropriate city department prior to the issuance of a building permit for which the fee is imposed. No building permit may be issued for any residential development other than major residential facilities, until such fee has been paid. B. For non-residential and major residential facilities, the fee payer shall pay the ~ transportation impact fee required by this chapter to the appropriate city department, as determined by the Administrator, on or before the date of the final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first. "Final inspection" and "certificate of occupancy" as used in this section, have the same meaning as described in Section 305 and 307 of the Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 1985 Edition. C. In lieu of cash, the transportation impact fee may be paid by the use of credits which are created in accordance with provisions of Section 15.84.090 of this chapter. D. All funds collected pursuant to this ordinance shall be deposited into the appropriate Transportation Impact Fee Trust Fund and used solely for the purposes specified in this chapter. 15.84.070 Use of Funds. A. Funds collected from transportation impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital . improvements to transportation facilities associated with the Regional Transportation Facilities List. Such improvements shall be of the type as are made necessary by new development. No funds shall be used for periodic or routine maintenance. Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements within the City or for projects outside the City but within the Bakersfield Metropolitan 2010 Plan area which are a direct benefit to the City. B. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advance provision of road capital improvements for which roads impact fee may be expended, transportation impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the type described in Subsection A above. C. Each fiscal year, the Administrator shall present to the City Council a proposed update to the capital improvement plan for road construction projects as set forth in Section 15.84.030(C). Such plan shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all improvements to be financed with transportation impact fees. Such plan shall be updated by the City Council at a noticed public hearing as required by Government Code Section 66002. D. Each fiscal year, the administrator shall present to the City Council a proposed fee schedule as defined in Section 15.84.030. The fee schedule shall be evaluated to account for changes in the Regional Transportation Facilities List, changes in cost estimates for the various projects on the list, and any other item which would change new development's proportionate share of the cost of the Regional Transportation Facilities List. This fee schedule shall be adopted by the City Council following a noticed public hearing. 15.84.080 Refund of Fee Paid. A. If a building permit expires, is revoked or is voluntarily surrendered and is therefore voided, and no construction or improvement of land has been commenced, the fee payer shall be entitled to a refund together with any interest accrued thereon, of the transportation impact fee paid as a condition for its issuance. B. Any funds not expended or encumbered by the end of the calendar quarter immediately following five (5) years from the date the transportation impact fee was paid shall be refunded to the then current owner or owners of lots or units of the development project or projects on the prorated basis, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 66001. 15.84.090 Exemptions and Credits. A. The following shall be exempted from payment of the transportation impact fee if claimed at the time of application for a building permit: 1) Alterations or expansions of an existing building or use of land where no additional living units will be produced over and above those in the existing use of the property, the use is not changed, and where no additional vehicular trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing use. 2) Construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not produce additional vehicular trips over and above those produced by the principal building or use of the land. 3) The replacement of a lawfully permitted building, mobile home or structure, the building permit for which was issued on or before the effective date of this ordinance or the replacement of a building, mobile home or structure that was constructed subsequent thereto and for which the correct transportation impact fee, which was owed at the time the building permit was issued, was paid or otherwise provided for, with a new building, mobile home, or structure of the same use and at the same location, provided that no additional vehicular trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. 4) A building permit for which the transportation impact fee thereof has been or will be paid or otherwise provided for pursuant to a written agreement, zoning approval or development agreement which, by the written terms thereof, clearly and unequivocally was intended to provide for the full mitigation of such impact by enforcement of the agreement, zoning approval or development order, and not by the application of this ordinance. 5) A building permit which does not result in any additional generation or attraction of traffic as determined by the Administrator. B. Credits may be granted under the following procedure and when proper claims are made at the time of application for a building permit: 1) No credit shall be given for local roads or payments to special assessment or taxing district. · 2) All other capital improvements for approved roads on the Regional Transportation Facilities List shall be credited against roads impact fees in the amounts to be established pursuant to paragraph B.3) of this section· However, determination of whether a capital improvement will be approved for credit purposes lies exclusively with the Administrator, unless the improvement is required under state Or city development approval, in which case credits shall be given to the extent required by law. 3) When a fee payer requests that a credit be given for construction of any facility included in the Regional Transportation Facilities List, including dedication of fight-of-way for an approved road permitted by paragraph B.2) of this section, the fee payer shall submit a project description in sufficient detail and with complete costs estimates consistent with the unit costs established by the Regional Transportation Facilities List support data to permit the Administrator to evaluate the request. Credit requests for land dedication or roads listed in the Regional Transportation Facilities List require: a) Deed to convey title to the appropriate governmental body; b) Title report prepared within sixty (60) days of submission thereof, c) Costs consistent with the unit costs established by the Regional Transportation Facilities List support data. 4) Credits for construction shall be created when the construction is completed and accepted by the appropriate governmental body for maintenance. Credits for land dedication shall be created when the title to said land has been accepted by the City. C. Fee payers claiming credits shall submit documentation sufficient to permit the determination of whether such credits claimed are due and, if so, the amount of such credits. The amount of credit shall be actual documented costs, not, to exceed the facility's Regional Transportation Facilities List total cost. 15.84.100 Appeal· Any decision made by the Administrator in the course of administering this chapter may be appealed to the City Council by filing a written notice of appeal within ten days after the decision with the City Clerk, setting forth the grounds for appeal. The cost to file a notice of appeal is three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00). The City Council shall hear such appeal at a regular meeting no later than three (3) weeks following the filing of the appeal with the City Clerk. The appellant shall be given notice of the appeal no less than three (3) days prior to said heating. The City Clerk shall notify the Administrator of said hearing and shall furnish the Administrator with copies of all documentation submitted by the appellant. The City Council may, upon said hearing, sustain or overrule the decision of the Administrator, which decision ~hall be final and conclusive. P:\TIF~TOFORD2B.TIF raps January 11, 1996 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule ~, January 11, 1996 TABLE 1 FEE PER UNIT CHART FOR BAKERSFIELD METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM LAND USE GENERATOR CATEGORY' IMPACT FEE 1 Single Family, Detached Residential, each $2,197 2 Multi-Family Residential, each unit $1,471 3 Industrial, per ADT $42 4 Office Commercial, per ADT $39 Retail Commercial, per ADT 5 Under 100,000 square feet $50 6 100,000 to 399,000 square feet $91 Over 400,000 square feet subject to individual study P:\TIF~PH2FEESCH.TBL mpa