Agenda packet — Garden Grove City Council, November 26, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

SECTION 1.0
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to document the results of an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) conducted to update the speed limits on the City of Garden Grove street network on City‐selected arterial, collector, and local roadways. The overall study was conducted to comply with existing State regulations concerning the increasing or decreasing of speed limits within City boundaries. Roadways within business and residential districts have an established speed limit of 25 miles per hour while alleys and blind intersections are 15 miles per hour, both limits are designated by California law. As such they are not typically included in the E&TS. Intermediate speed limits between 25 and 65 miles per hour may be established by local authorities based on the E&TS.

It is a common belief that posting of speed limit traffic signs will influence drivers to drive at that speed.

However, the facts indicate otherwise. Driver behavioral research conducted in many parts of this country over a span of several decades shows that the average driver is influenced by the appearance of the highway itself and the prevailing traffic conditions in choosing the speed at which a person drives. Recognizing this, the California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires that speed limits be established in accordance with appropriate engineering practice and methods. Excerpts from the CVC regarding regulations governing speed limits and definition of terms used in speed zone surveys are detailed in Appendix A.

This report contains sufficient information to document that the conditions of the latest edition of the California Vehicle Code Section 627 have been satisfied and that other conditions not readily apparent to motorists are properly identified. To legally use radar for speed enforcement, Section 40802 of the CVC requires that speed limits be established per Sections 22357 and 22358 of the CVC, the limits must be justified by an E&TS conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation. However, a change in State law allows cities to extend the survey period up to seven or ten years depending on specific criteria1 .

The latest edition of the CVC has highlighted bicycle and pedestrian safety as part of the engineering and traffic survey, and this aspect was considered as a part of this report.

The current study will verify, increase, or decrease existing speed limits within the City based on the data and results of this survey. The Citywide surveys were conducted over a span of two months, August and September 2021.

Spot speed surveys were taken at 143 locations on the City’s network in conformance with the State law for conducting engineering and traffic surveys for the purpose of establishing prima facie speed limits. The data was collected per the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), November 7, 2014 edition. Sections of the CA MUTCD detailing regulations for conducting the required “Engineering and Traffic Survey” are presented in Appendix B.

The actual speed zone surveys were conducted by AGA Engineers, Inc. (AGA). A California registered traffic engineer from AGA reviewed the streets, the survey data, and the crash statistics to arrive at the recommended speed limits for each segment.

1 Refer to Appendix A for specific survey criteria.
2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 2 ends

SECTION 2.0
Study Methodology
The study involved three major categories of data collection and analysis: (1) geometric and characteristic street surveillance; (2) spot speed survey; and (3) accident rate analysis.

The streets were surveyed by field observation to determine the existing roadway characteristics, condition and placement of signs and markings, adjacent land uses, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and to identify roadway characteristics that are not readily apparent to vehicle drivers.

The spot speed surveys, utilizing a calibrated radar gun, were conducted at 143 locations to determine existing vehicular travel speeds. A minimum of 100 observations (50 for each direction of travel) were recorded when possible. This data was used to calculate statistical information such as the 85th percentile speed, 10 mile per hour pace speed2
, percent of vehicles within the 10 mile per hour pace, median speed and other pertinent data for analysis.

Certification of the radar technician and the radar gun used for the speed surveys is found in Appendix C. The radar technician successfully completed a course on the operation of the radar devices per Section 40802 of the CVC.

Accident data was provided by the City for a two‐year period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020 for all roadway segments. The accident rate was calculated and considered in recommending the speed limit.

2 Refer to Appendix A for definition of terms.
2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 3 ends

SECTION 3.0
Survey Results

3.1 Street Surveillance
Section 2B.13 “Speed Limit Signs” of the CA MUTCD (see Appendix B), states that the speed limit should be established at the nearest five mile per hour increment rounded per standard mathematical practice, to the 85th percentile speed recorded during the spot speed survey. However, in matching existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community, engineering judgment may indicate the need for a further change in speed. Whenever such factors are considered to establish the speed limit, they should be documented on the speed survey or in the accompanying engineering report.

The survey streets were reviewed by Mr. Ruben Perales, P.E., T.E, and Senior Design Engineer at AGA Engineers, Inc., who is a registered Traffic Engineer in the State of California. The roadway characteristics, location of speed limit signs, conditions not readily apparent to the driver, type of area adjoining the street (commercial, residential, school zone, parks, etc.) and type of roadway (divided, undivided, number of lanes, etc.) were recorded as part of the study. The roadway characteristics were used to determine if any physical conditions warranted consideration of a five mile per hour reduction of the recommended speed in accordance with CVC Section 627. The speed survey segment roadway characteristics for each segment are indicated on the Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary sheets in Appendix D. The field survey data sheets are provided in Appendix E.

3.2 Accident Rate Analysis
The accident rate for each speed survey segment was determined by using the most recent accident records as required by CVC Section 627. Based on a review of the State of California’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and City‐provided Crossroads Collision Database reports from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020, mid‐block accident rates were calculated for each street surveyed. The results of the accident rate calculations, including the Average Expected Accident Rates for each type of roadway facility, are shown in Table 1 on the following page and in the Engineering and Speed Survey Summary sheets in Appendix D.

The Average Expected Accident Rates are based on the 2017 Collision Data on California State Highways3 and
are summarized below:

Roadway Type Average Expected Accident Rate
Conventional 2 lanes or less (< 45 mph) 1.0
Conventional 2 lanes or less (> 45 mph) 1.6
Divided 4 lanes (< 45 mph) 0.9
Divided 4 lanes (> 45 mph) 1.0
Divided 5 lanes or more (< 45 mph) 1.0
Divided 5 lanes or more(> 45 mph) 0.8

3 2017 Collision Data on California State Highways, State of California Department of Transportation, Revised March 2020.
2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 4 ends

Brookhurst Street 1 Hazard Avenue to Westminster Avenue 0.50 2,662 42,800 7 0.44 1.0 2 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue 0.50 2,637 53,800 14 0.71 1.0 3 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard 0.50 2,641 46,900 6 0.35 1.0 4 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.56 2,933 36,500 7 0.47 1.0 5 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.50 2,649 37,400 9 0.66 1.0 6 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 0.50 2,665 33,100 11 0.90 0.8 7 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 0.50 2,640 30,500 5 0.45 0.8 Dale Street 8 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.50 2,657 9,700 3 0.84 1.0 9 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.41 2,149 10,700 2 0.63 1.0 10 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 0.50 2,645 8,700 1 0.31 1.0 11 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 0.50 2,658 11,900 6 1.37 1.0 Euclid Street 12 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue 0.50 2,656 48,200 3 0.17 1.0 13 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard 0.50 2,656 37,500 8 0.58 1.0 14 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.56 2,944 30,400 1 0.08 1.0 15 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.50 2,632 34,200 2 0.16 1.0 16 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 0.50 2,635 29,400 7 0.65 1.0 17 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Street 0.50 2,640 31,900 12 1.03 1.0 Gilbert Street 18 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.50 2,656 9,100 1 0.30 0.9 19 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.50 2,648 9,500 0 0.00 0.9 20 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 0.48 2,555 14,200 3 0.60 0.9 21 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 0.50 2,649 10,500 2 0.52 0.9 Harbor Boulevard 22 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue 0.50 2,653 48,700 14 0.78 1.0 23 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard 0.51 2,670 37,200 11 0.80 1.0 24 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.66 3,508 26,300 7 0.55 1.0 25 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.49 2,613 25,200 4 0.44 1.0 26 Chapman Avenue to Wilken Way (north city limits) 0.29 1,509 23,200 0 0.00 1.0 Haster Street 27 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.50 2,656 18,900 6 0.86 0.9 28 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.50 2,656 18,800 5 0.72 0.9 29 Chapman Avenue to Simmons Avenue (north city limits) 0.50 2,656 17,500 2 0.31 0.9 Knott Street 30 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.59 3,089 33,000 2 0.14 1.0 31 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.50 2,648 29,900 1 0.09 1.0 Knott Avenue 32 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 0.51 2,678 28,300 1 0.10 1.0 33 Orangewood Avenue to Patterson Drive (north city limits) 0.19 987 28,900 1 0.25 1.0 Magnolia Street 34 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue 0.50 2,645 41,500 15 0.99 1.0 35 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard 0.58 3,058 32,600 4 0.29 0.9 1 City of Garden Grove Crossroads Program Accident Data from 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2020 2 Caltrans 2017 State Highway Collision Data
3 ADT calculated from adjacent zone survey segments

Page 1 of 4 ends

Expected2
Accident
Rate
City of Garden Grove
Table 1: 2021 Speed Zone Survey - Accident Survey Analysis Street No. Location Distance
(mile)
Distance
(feet) 2021 ADT Accidents1
(2 years)
Accident
Rate
2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 5 ends

Magnolia Street (Cont) 36 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.50 2,651 29,200 5 0.47 0.9 37 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.50 2,647 27,800 0 0.00 0.9 38 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 0.50 2,655 23,200 6 0.70 0.9 39 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue 0.50 2,656 26,000 6 0.63 0.9 Main Street 40 Garden Grove Boulevard to Acacia Parkway 0.50 2,656 3,900 0 0.00 1.0 41 Acacia Parkway to Euclid Street 0.30 1,604 6,000 2 1.50 1.0 Nelson Street 42 Garden Grove Boulevard to Stanford Avenue 0.25 1,326 8,800 1 0.62 1.0 Newhope Street 43 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue 0.50 2,656 29,600 5 0.46 0.9 44 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard 0.50 2,656 22,500 1 0.12 0.9 Newland Street 45 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue 0.50 2,647 19,800 2 0.28 0.9 46 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard 0.50 2,642 20,300 8 1.08 1.0 Ninth Street 47 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.50 2,656 10,400 4 1.05 1.0 48 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.50 2,656 9,900 2 0.55 1.0 49 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 0.50 2,656 7,400 7 2.58 1.0 Nutwood Street 50 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.50 2,655 5,700 3 1.43 1.0 51 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.50 2,635 5,500 2 1.00 1.0 Springdale Street 52 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.50 2,634 5,400 0 0.00 0.9 53 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.51 2,686 7,100 0 0.00 0.9 54 Chapman Avenue to Santa Catalina Avenue (north city limits) 0.23 1,200 5,900 0 0.00 0.9 Taft Street 55 Westminster Boulevard to Trask Avenue 0.50 2,646 9,900 2 0.55 1.0 56 Trask Avenue to Century Boulevard 0.35 1,873 8,100 0 0.00 1.0 Ward Street 57 Hazard Avenue to Morningside Drive 0.28 1,502 7,500 1 0.64 1.0 West Street 58 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.50 2,656 13,300 4 0.82 0.9 59 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.50 2,656 12,200 5 1.12 0.9 60 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 0.50 2,656 14,400 1 0.19 0.9 61 Orangewood Avenue to Ricky Avenue (north city limits) 0.50 2,656 12,600 0 0.00 0.9 Western Avenue 62 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.50 2,661 17,100 4 0.64 1.0 63 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.50 2,647 15,200 1 0.18 1.0 64 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 0.50 2,645 19,000 3 0.43 1.0 65 Orangewood Avenue to Lincoln Way (north city limits) 0.19 993 20,400 0 0.00 0.9 Valley View Street 66 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue 0.76 3,992 46,500 6 0.23 0.8 67 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue 0.46 2,443 44,700 2 0.13 0.8 68 Chapman Avenue to Santa Catalina Ave (north city limits) 0.23 1,189 41,300 2 0.29 0.8 Century Boulevard 69 Garden Grove Boulevard to Euclid Street 0.50 2,640 12,900 0 0.00 0.9 1 City of Garden Grove Crossroads Program Accident Data from 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2020 2 Caltrans 2017 State Highway Collision Data
3 ADT calculated from adjacent zone survey segments
City of Garden Grove
Table 1: 2021 Speed Zone Survey - Accident Survey Analysis

Page 2 of 4 ends

Street No. Location Distance
(mile)
Distance
(feet) 2021 ADT Accidents1
(2 years)
Accident
Rate
Expected2
Accident
Rate
2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 6 ends

Chapman Avenue 70 Bailey Street to Valley View Street 0.22 1,154 6,800 2 1.84 0.9 71 Valley View Street to Springdale Street 0.50 2,641 11,100 1 0.25 0.9 72 Springdale Street to Knott Street 0.50 2,642 10,700 1 0.26 0.9 73 Knott Street to Western Avenue 0.55 2,914 16,000 3 3 0.47 0.9 74 Western Avenue to Santa Paula Street (mid-east city limits) 0.42 2,221 18,100 3 0.54 0.9 75 Briarwood Street (mid-west city limits) to Magnolia Street 0.63 3,303 22,200 4 0.39 0.9 76 Magnolia Street to Gilbert Street 0.46 2,434 20,600 6 0.87 0.9 77 Gilbert Street to Brookhurst Street 0.50 2,644 23,200 10 1.18 1.0 78 Brookhurst Street to Nutwood Street 0.50 2,656 25,500 4 0.43 0.9 79 Nutwood Street to Euclid Street 0.50 2,656 25,800 5 0.53 0.9 80 Euclid Street to Ninth Street 0.50 2,656 25,600 7 0.74 0.9 81 Ninth Street to West Street 0.50 2,656 24,100 2 0.23 0.9 82 West Street to Harbor Boulevard 0.50 2,656 27,400 4 0.40 0.9 83 Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street 0.50 2,656 29,200 7 0.65 1.0 84 Haster Street to Lewis Street 0.50 2,656 27,600 7 0.69 1.0 Garden Grove Boulevard 85 Knott Street to Western Avenue 0.35 1,829 20,900 0 0.00 1.0 86 Western Avenue to Beach Boulevard 0.49 2,607 25,400 3 1 0.11 1.0 87 Beach Boulevard to Dale Street 0.51 2,685 23,500 3 0.34 1.0 88 Dale Street to Magnolia Street 0.50 2,652 26,900 5 0.51 1.0 89 Magnolia Street to Gilbert Street 0.48 2,510 26,300 4 0.44 1.0 90 Gilbert Street to Brookhurst Street 0.69 3,619 23,000 8 0.70 1.0 91 Brookhurst Street to Nelson Street/Century Boulevard 0.50 2,656 28,000 4 0.39 1.0 92 Nelson Street to Euclid Street 0.50 2,656 24,600 3 0.33 1.0 93 Euclid Street to Newhope Street 0.50 2,656 28,800 3 0.28 1.0 94 Newhope Street to Harbor Boulevard 0.50 2,656 29,300 6 0.56 1.0 95 Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street 0.50 2,656 26,700 10 1.02 1.0 96 Haster Street to Lewis Street 0.50 2,656 22,500 2 0.24 1.0 Hazard Avenue 97 Cork Street to Brookhurst Street 0.28 1,455 14,600 3 1.02 0.9 98 Brookhurst Street to Ward Street 0.50 2,656 13,800 1 0.20 0.9 99 Ward Street to Euclid Street 0.50 2,656 12,700 3 0.64 0.9 Lampson Avenue 100 Manley Street (west city limits) to Valley View Street 0.68 3,586 11,500 3 1 0.18 1.0 101 Valley View Street to Springdale Street 0.57 3,000 10,100 1 0.24 1.0 102 Springdale Street to Knott Street 0.50 2,641 10,200 2 0.54 0.9 103 Knott Street to Western Avenue 0.56 2,951 12,100 2 0.41 0.9 104 Western Avenue to Santa Rosalia Street (mid-east city limits) 0.19 992 11,500 1 0.63 0.9 1 City of Garden Grove Crossroads Program Accident Data from 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2020 2 Caltrans 2017 State Highway Collision Data
3 ADT calculated from adjacent zone survey segments
Location Distance
(mile)
Distance
(feet) 2021 ADT Accidents1
(2 years)
Accident
Rate
City of Garden Grove
Table 1: 2021 Speed Zone Survey - Accident Survey Analysis

Page 3 of 4 ends

Street No.

Expected2
Accident
Rate
2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 7 ends

Lampson Avenue cont. 105 San Marcos Drive (mid-west city limits) to Dale Street 0.36 1,927 12,000 2 0.63 1.0 106 Dale Street to Magnolia Street 0.50 2,643 8,500 1 0.32 1.0 107 Magnolia Street to Gilbert Street 0.46 2,447 7,800 1 0.38 1.0 108 Gilbert Street to Brookhurst Street 0.50 2,655 7,400 0 0.00 1.0 109 Brookhurst Street to Nutwood Street 0.50 2,656 8,200 4 1.33 1.0 110 Nutwood Street to Euclid Street 0.50 2,656 7,100 3 1.15 1.0 111 Euclid Street to Ninth Street 0.50 2,656 6,800 5 2.00 1.0 112 Ninth Street to West Street 0.50 2,656 7,700 0 0.00 1.0 113 West Street to Harbor Boulevard 0.50 2,656 6,800 1 0.40 1.0 114 Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street 0.50 2,656 10,500 4 1.04 1.0 115 Haster Street to Lewis Street 0.50 2,656 7,900 4 1.38 1.0 Orangewood Avenue 116 Knott Street to Western Avenue 0.54 2,877 5,500 1 0.46 1.0 117 Jane Way (mid-west city limits) to Dale Street 0.32 1,687 7,700 0 0.00 1.0 118 Dale Street to Magnolia Street 0.50 2,635 8,100 1 0.34 1.0 119 Magnolia Street to Gilbert Street 0.46 2,445 7,000 1 0.42 1.0 120 Gilbert Street to Brookhurst Street 0.51 2,667 5,700 1 0.48 1.0 121 Brookhurst Street to Palmwood Drive 0.50 2,656 7,000 1 0.39 1.0 122 Palmwood Drive to Euclid Street 0.50 2,656 7,500 1 0.36 1.0 123 Ninth Street to West Street 0.50 2,656 8,600 1 0.32 1.0 124 West Street to Eugene Street (east city limits) 0.50 2,656 12,600 1 0.22 1.0 Trask Avenue 125 Beach Boulevard to Newland Street 0.51 2,706 11,700 0 0.00 0.9 126 Newland Street to Magnolia Street 0.50 2,641 12,700 3 0.65 0.9 127 Magnolia Street to Galway Street 0.53 2,795 12,800 12 2.43 0.9 128 Galway Street to Brookhurst Street 0.48 2,510 27,200 4 0.42 0.9 129 Brookhurst Street to Benton Street 0.50 2,656 14,400 1 0.19 0.9 130 Benton Street to Euclid Street 0.50 2,656 14,400 3 0.57 0.9 131 Euclid Street to Newhope Street 0.50 2,656 17,300 3 0.47 0.9 132 Newhope Street to Harbor Boulevard 0.50 2,656 11,800 4 0.92 0.9 133 Harbor Boulevard to Clinton Street 0.50 2,656 9,400 4 1.16 0.9 134 Clinton Street to Fairview Street 0.50 2,656 9,200 1 0.30 1.0 Westminster Avenue 135 Newland Street to Magnolia Street 0.34 1,820 28,500 0 0.00 0.9 136 Magnolia Street to Bushard Street 0.50 2,662 30,000 2 0.18 1.0 137 Bushard Street to Brookhurst Street 0.50 2,656 32,500 14 1.17 0.8 138 Brookhurst Street to Bowen Street 0.43 2,251 25,600 5 0.63 0.8 139 Bowen Street to Euclid Street 0.57 3,006 27,200 7 0.62 0.8 140 Euclid Street to Newhope Street 0.50 2,642 22,800 1 0.12 0.8 141 Newhope Street to Harbor Boulevard 0.50 2,642 24,300 1 0.11 0.8 142 Harbor Boulevard to Clinton Street 0.50 2,642 25,300 2 0.22 0.8 143 Clinton Street to Buena Street (east city limits) 0.22 1,155 23,100 1 0.27 0.8 1 City of Garden Grove Crossroads Program Accident Data from 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2020 2 Caltrans 2017 State Highway Collision Data
3 ADT calculated from adjacent zone survey segments
City of Garden Grove
Table 1: 2021 Speed Zone Survey - Accident Survey Analysis

Page 4 of 4 ends

Street No. Location Distance
(mile)
Distance
(feet) 2021 ADT Accidents1
(2 years)
Accident
Rate
Expected2
Accident
Rate
2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 8 ends

The mid‐block accident rate in terms of “accidents per 1,000,000 vehicle miles of travel” for each segment surveyed was calculated and is shown on the Engineering and Traffic Survey summary sheets. The following shows a sample calculation.

The rate was calculated using the following equation:

Accident Rate = Number of Midblock accidents x 106
24‐hour volume x 365 x segment length x number of years Where:
 Number of mid‐block accidents based on two years (January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020)  24‐hour volume (both directions) in the survey segment  Segment length in miles.

The 24‐hour volume counts were conducted in October and November 2021. The ADT counts are summarized in Figure 1 and provided in the Appendix F.

Example:

To calculate the accident rate on Brookhurst Street between Hazard Avenue and Westminster Avenue (segment # 1) where:
 7 = Number of mid‐block accidents
 42,800 = 24‐hour volume (both directions) in the survey segment  0.5 = Segment length in miles
 2 = Number of analysis years
Accident Rate = 7 x 106
42,800 x 365 x 0.50 x 2
= 0.44 accidents per million vehicle miles (A/MVM)

The Average Expected Accident Rate for the roadway segment type is 1.00. The calculated accident rate of

0.44 is below the expected rate for this segment.

One of the observed high accident rates in the City was noted at Trask Avenue between Magnolia Street and Galway Street (segment # 127). With an accident rate of 2.43, it is well above the Expected Accident Rate of

0.9 based on the statewide average accident rate. This observed accident rate is due to the following factors:
 Relatively low traffic volume ‐ 12,800 vehicles,
 Relatively short segment ‐ 0.53 miles, and
 Number of collisions ‐ 12 collisions in the two year analysis period. 2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 9 ends

2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 10 ends

3.3 Spot Speed Survey
Spot speed surveys were conducted at each of the 143 street segments to establish a reasonable and effective speed limit based on the premise that the speed limit thus established conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists. The speed limit should normally be established at the first five mile per hour increment nearest the 85th percentile speed recorded, mathematically rounded, for the surveyed segment. However, engineering judgment and other factors such as street surveillance (Section 3.1) and accident rates (Section 3.2) may indicate the need for further reduction in establishing reasonable and effective speed limits.

The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices identifies two options for a reduction of speed:
 Option 1 states that a “posted speed may be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed, in compliance with CVC Section 627 and 22358.5.”  Option 2 states that “for cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed would require a rounding up, then the speed limit may be rounded down to the nearest 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile speed if no further reduction is used.” The criteria used in conducting the radar survey are listed in Appendix B.

The information collected and data calculated for the radar speed survey are as follows:
 Posted speed limit  Number of vehicles observed
 Direction of survey  Average speed
 Date and time of speed survey  Accident History
 85th Percentile speed  Accident Rate
 50th Percentile speed  Average Daily Traffic
 10 mph pace speed  Road Description
 Percent over pace speed  Pedestrian and bicycle activity  Range of speeds
The summary contains information about vehicular speed data observed, accident data, street classification, and any unusual conditions at the location.

2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 11 ends

SECTION 4.0
Survey Findings and Recommendations
In accordance with the State‐imposed speed limit establishment regulation as defined by CVC Section 627, there are several factors that may be considered to justify setting the prima facie speed limits five miles per hour below the observed 85th percentile speed.

It should be noted that the regulations found in Appendix B also state that “the establishment of a speed limit of five mph below the 85th percentile speed should be done with great care.” The factors to be considered are:
 Most recent accident record (mid‐block)  Profile condition  Roadway design speed  Intersection spacing offsets
 Safe stopping sight distance  Commercial driveway characteristics (land use)  Super‐elevation  Pedestrian traffic with and without sidewalks  Grades  Pedestrian and Bicycle safety
 Shoulder condition
The above factors for each roadway segment surveyed are listed in the Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary sheets in Appendix D. The 85th percentile speed and the above factors were considered in verifying existing speed limits and recommending speed limit changes (increase or decrease). The 2021 Speed Zone Survey – Accident Survey Analysis (Table 1) lists the total number of accidents, calculated accident rate, and the expected accident rate. Table 2 shows the surveyed road segments with posted and recommended speed limits. California Vehicle Code sections are defined in Appendix A.

The recommended speed limits are shown in Figure 2.
2021 Engineering
& Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 12 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

10-Mile % in 50th 85th Recommended
Street No Dir. Date Pace 10-Mile % Tile % Tile Speed Limit Comments (mph) Pace (mph) (mph) (mph)
Brookhurst Street 1 Hazard Avenue to Westminster Avenue N/S 8/27/2021 34-43 74 37 43 40 40 No Change, 85th % 2 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue N/S 8/27/2021 31-40 81 34 39 40 * 40 No Change, 85th %3 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard N/S 8/27/2021 34-43 66 37 43 40 40 No Change, 85th %4 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 8/27/2021 35-44 64 38 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %5 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 8/27/2021 34-43 61 37 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %6 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue N/S 8/27/2021 39-48 69 42 48 45 45 No Change, 85th %7 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue N/S 8/27/2021 40-49 63 43 50 45 45 No Change, On-Street Parking, Continuity of Speed, 40 mph in Anaheim Dale Street 8 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 9/1/2021 27-36 81 31 35 35 35 No Change, 85th % 9 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 9/1/2021 31-40 75 35 40 35 * 35 No Change, On-Street Parking, Continuity of Speed, Mid-Block Crosswalk, Multiple Driveways, Adjacent to School 10 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue N/S 9/1/2021 30-39 71 34 39 35 35 No Change, 85th %11 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue N/S 9/1/2021 34-43 67 38 44 35 * 40 Increase, 85th % Euclid Street 12 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue N/S 9/2/2021 34-43 75 36 44 40 40 No Change, 85th % 13 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard N/S 9/2/2021 33-42 65 38 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %14 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 9/2/2021 33-42 72 37 42 40 40 No Change, 85th %15 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 9/2/2021 38-47 64 41 46 40 40 No Change, Multiple Driveways, Continuity of Speed16 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue N/S 9/2/2021 37-46 70 40 45 40 40 No Change, Continuity of Speed, Lane Drop, On-Street Parking17 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Street N/S 9/2/2021 35-44 70 40 45 40 40 No Change, High Accident Rate, Continuity of Speed, 40 mph in Anaheim Gilbert Street 18 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 8/30/2021 29-38 87 33 37 30 30 No Change, Narrow Road, No Curb & Gutter, Multiple Driveways, No Sidewalks 19 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 8/30/2021 29-38 79 33 37 30 30 No Change, Narrow Road, Multiple Driveways, No Sidewalks20 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue N/S 8/30/2021 35-44 80 38 42 35 35 No Change, Multiple Driveways, On-Street Parking, Dip in Roadway, No Left Turn Channelization 21 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue N/S 8/30/2021 36-45 68 40 45 35 * 40 Increase, 85th %, On-Street Parking, No Left Turn Channelization Harbor Boulevard 22 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue N/S 8/26/2021 34-43 68 37 44 40 40 No Change, 85th % 23 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard N/S 8/26/2021 32-41 70 35 41 40 40 No Change, 85th %24 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 8/26/2021 35-44 66 38 45 40 40 No Change, Multiple Driveways, Horizontal Curvature, Continuity of Speed 25 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 8/26/2021 33-42 65 39 46 40 40 No Change, Continuity of Speed, HAWK pedestrian signal 26 Chapman Avenue to Wilken Way (north city limits) N/S 8/26/2021 35-44 74 38 44 35 40 Increase, 85th %, 40 mph in Anaheim Haster Street 27 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 9/13/2021 38-47 71 41 46 40 40 No Change, On-Street Parking, Adjacent to Park, High Pedestrian Activity 28 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 9/13/2021 31-40 71 37 43 40 40 No Change, 85th %29 Chapman Avenue to Simmons Avenue (north city limits) N/S 9/13/2021 35-44 74 40 45 40 40 No Change, On-Street Parking, Continuity of Speed, 40 mph in Anaheim Knott Street 30 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 9/16/2021 37-46 67 41 46 40 40 No Change, Horizontal Curvature, Trap Lane SB approaching Garden Grove Blvd, Continuity of Speed, 40 mph in Cypress 31 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 9/16/2021 38-47 73 42 46 40 40 No Change, Adjacent to High School, Industrial area with heavy truck traffic, Continuity of Speed32 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue N/S 9/16/2021 35-44 65 41 47 40 40 No Change, Adjacent to School, Continuity of Speed33 Orangewood Avenue to Patterson Drive (north city limits) N/S 9/16/2021 37-46 73 40 45 40 40 No Change, Continuity of Speed, On-Street Parking, 40 mph in Anaheim Magnolia Street 34 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue N/S 8/30/2021 34-43 70 37 43 40 40 No Change, 85th % 35 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard N/S 8/30/2021 33-42 71 37 42 35 40 Increase, 85th %36 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 8/30/2021 34-43 78 37 43 40 * 40 No Change, 85th %37 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 8/30/2021 34-43 74 39 44 40 * 40 No Change, 85th %38 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue N/S 8/30/2021 33-42 70 38 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %39 Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue N/S 8/30/2021 38-47 71 41 46 40 * 40 No Change, On-Street Parking, Continuity of Speed, 40 mph in Anaheim Main Street 40 Garden Grove Boulevard to Acacia Parkway N/S 9/20/2021 16-25 97 18 21 25 25 No Change, 85th % 41 Acacia Parkway to Euclid Street N/S 9/20/2021 23-32 90 26 30 25 25 No Change, Angled On-Street Parking, Adjacent to Park, Continuity of Speed, High Accident Rate * - 25 mph when children are present
Posted
Speed Limit
(mph)
Table 2: Segment Spot Speed Survey 2021
2021 Engineering
& Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 13 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

10-Mile % in 50th 85th Recommended
Street No Dir. Date Pace 10-Mile % Tile % Tile Speed Limit Comments (mph) Pace (mph) (mph) (mph)
Nelson Street 42 Garden Grove Boulevard to Stanford Avenue N/S 9/20/2021 29-38 77 33 38 35 35 No Change, 85th %Newhope Street 43 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue N/S 9/20/2021 34-43 84 37 41 40 * 40 No Change, 85th % 44 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard N/S 9/20/2021 33-42 82 37 41 35 * 35 No Change, Bike Lanes, Multiple Driveways, Adjacent to School Newland Street 45 Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue N/S 9/20/2021 37-46 71 39 44 40 * 40 No Change, 85th % 46 Trask Avenue to Garden Grove Boulevard N/S 9/20/2021 34-43 70 36 42 40 * 40 No Change, 85th % Ninth Street 47 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 9/10/2021 29-38 86 31 36 35 35 No Change, 85th % 48 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 9/10/2021 30-39 77 35 39 35 35 No Change, 85th %49 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue N/S 9/10/2021 33-42 71 38 44 35 * 40 Increase, 85th %, High Accident Rate Nutwood Street 50 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 9/13/2021 27-36 91 30 34 35 35 No Change, 85th % 51 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 9/13/2021 28-37 75 30 36 35 35 No Change, 85th % Springdale Street 52 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 9/20/2021 36-45 73 39 45 35 * 40 Increase, 85th %, Adjacent to Schools, Continuity of Speed 53 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 9/20/2021 37-46 81 41 45 35 * 40 Increase, 85th %, No Left Turn Channelization, On-Street Parking, Continuity of Speed 54 Chapman Avenue to Santa Catalina Avenue (north city limits) N/S 9/16/2021 35-44 81 39 43 40 40 No Change, 85th % Taft Street 55 Westminster Boulevard to Trask Avenue N/S 9/20/2021 29-38 76 34 39 35 35 No Change, 85th % 56 Trask Avenue to Century Boulevard N/S 9/20/2021 26-35 77 30 34 35 * 35 No Change, 85th % Ward Street 57 Hazard Avenue to Morningside Drive N/S 9/20/2021 30-39 81 33 37 35 * 35 No Change, 85th %West Street 58 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 9/10/2021 36-45 66 41 46 35 40 Increase, 85th %, On-Street Parking, No Left Turn Channelization, Multiple Driveways 59 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 9/10/2021 34-43 70 39 45 35 * 40 Increase, 85th %, On-Street Parking, No Left Turn Channelization, Multiple Driveways, Uncontrolled Crosswalk 60 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue N/S 9/10/2021 32-41 68 38 45 35 40 Increase, 85th %, On-Street Parking, Multiple Driveways, No Left Turn Channelization, Continuity of Speed 61 Orangewood Avenue to Ricky Avenue (north city limits) N/S 9/10/2021 36-45 76 39 44 40 40 No Change, 85th % Western Avenue 62 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 9/9/2021 38-47 68 40 46 45 45 No Change, 85th % 63 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 9/9/2021 34-43 69 39 46 45 45 No Change, 85th %64 Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue N/S 9/9/2021 38-47 68 42 48 45 45 No Change, 85th %65 Orangewood Avenue to Lincoln Way (north city limits) N/S 9/9/2021 38-47 68 42 47 40 40 No Change, Continuity of Speed, 40 mph in Anaheim Valley View Street 66 Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue N/S 9/16/2021 39-48 71 42 48 45 45 No Change, 85th % 67 Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue N/S 9/16/2021 37-46 70 41 47 45 45 No Change, 85th %68 Chapman Avenue to Santa Catalina Ave (north city limits) N/S 9/16/2021 38-47 63 41 48 45 45 No Change, 85th % Century Boulevard 69 Garden Grove Boulevard to Euclid Street N/S 9/13/2021 32-41 74 36 42 40 * 40 No Change, 85th %Chapman Avenue 70 Bailey Street to Valley View Street E/W 9/7/2021 22-31 86 25 29 25 25 No Change, 85th %, High Accident Rate 71 Valley View Street to Springdale Street E/W 9/7/2021 41-50 74 44 49 45 45 No Change, 85th %72 Springdale Street to Knott Street E/W 9/7/2021 41-50 64 44 50 45 45 No Change, Bike Lanes, Continuity of Speed, Uncontrolled Crosswalk 73 Knott Street to Western Avenue E/W 9/7/2021 39-48 65 43 47 40 40 No Change, 85th %74 Western Avenue to Santa Paula Street (mid-east city limits) E/W 9/7/2021 34-43 74 39 44 40 * 40 No Change, 85th %75 Briarwood Street (mid-west city limits) to Magnolia Street E/W 9/7/2021 34-43 71 39 45 40 * 40 No Change, Bike Lane, Continuity of Speed, Adjacent to School 76 Magnolia Street to Gilbert Street E/W 9/7/2021 35-44 71 38 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %77 Gilbert Street to Brookhurst Street E/W 9/7/2021 31-40 77 35 40 40 40 No Change, 85th %78 Brookhurst Street to Nutwood Street E/W 9/7/2021 35-44 80 39 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %79 Nutwood Street to Euclid Street E/W 9/7/2021 36-45 72 40 46 40 40 No Change, Bike Lane, Continuity of Speed80 Euclid Street to Ninth Street E/W 9/7/2021 37-46 75 40 45 40 40 No Change, Bike Lane, On-Street Parking, Continuity of Speed81 Ninth Street to West Street E/W 9/7/2021 37-46 71 41 46 40 40 No Change, Continuity of Speed82 West Street to Harbor Boulevard E/W 9/8/2021 35-44 71 39 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %83 Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street E/W 9/8/2021 37-46 74 41 44 45 45 No Change, 85th %84 Haster Street to Lewis Street E/W 9/8/2021 35-44 70 40 45 45 45 No Change, 85th % * - 25 mph when children are present
Posted
Speed Limit
(mph)
Table 2: Segment Spot Speed Survey 2021
2021 Engineering
& Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 14 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

10-Mile % in 50th 85th Recommended
Street No Dir. Date Pace 10-Mile % Tile % Tile Speed Limit Comments (mph) Pace (mph) (mph) (mph)
Garden Grove Boulevard 85 Knott Street to Western Avenue E/W 9/14/2021 33-42 80 38 42 40 40 No Change, 85th % 86 Western Avenue to Beach Boulevard E/W 9/14/2021 35-44 76 39 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %87 Beach Boulevard to Dale Street E/W 9/14/2021 35-44 66 39 46 40 40 No Change, WB Lane Drop at Fern St, Continuity of Speed88 Dale Street to Magnolia Street E/W 9/14/2021 33-42 75 38 42 40 40 No Change, 85th %89 Magnolia Street to Gilbert Street E/W 9/14/2021 33-42 84 37 41 40 40 No Change, 85th %90 Gilbert Street to Brookhurst Street E/W 9/14/2021 33-42 69 37 43 40 40 No Change, 85th %91 Brookhurst Street to Nelson Street/Century Boulevard E/W 9/15/2021 34-43 70 38 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %92 Nelson Street to Euclid Street E/W 9/15/2021 34-43 74 37 42 40 40 No Change, 85th %93 Euclid Street to Newhope Street E/W 9/15/2021 34-43 75 38 43 40 40 No Change, 85th %94 Newhope Street to Harbor Boulevard E/W 9/15/2021 34-43 72 39 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %95 Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street E/W 9/15/2021 35-44 68 38 43 40 40 No Change, 85th %96 Haster Street to Lewis Street E/W 9/15/2021 37-46 73 40 45 40 * 40 No Change, Heavy Traffic due to Freeway On/Off Ramps, Continuity of Speed Hazard Avenue 97 Cork Street to Brookhurst Street E/W 9/13/2021 37-46 74 40 44 40 40 No Change, 85th % 98 Brookhurst Street to Ward Street E/W 9/13/2021 36-45 72 41 47 40 40 No Change, On-Street Parking, No Left Turn Channelization, Continuity of Speed 99 Ward Street to Euclid Street E/W 9/13/2021 36-45 69 38 44 40 * 40 No Change, 85th % Lampson Avenue 100 Manley Street (west city limits) to Valley View Street E/W 8/31/2021 38-47 65 43 49 45 45 No Change, 85th % 101 Valley View Street to Springdale Street E/W 8/31/2021 37-46 82 41 45 40 * 40 No Change, Bike Lanes, Horizontal Curvature102 Springdale Street to Knott Street E/W 8/31/2021 36-45 76 41 45 40 * 40 No Change, Bike Lanes, Adjacent to High School, Continuity of Speed103 Knott Street to Western Avenue E/W 8/31/2021 36-45 72 38 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %104 Western Avenue to Santa Rosalia Street (mid-east city limits) E/W 8/31/2021 33-42 73 36 41 40 40 No Change, 85th %105 San Marcos Drive (mid-west city limits) to Dale Street E/W 9/1/2021 32-41 79 35 40 40 * 40 No Change, 85th %106 Dale Street to Magnolia Street E/W 9/20/2021 33-42 77 37 42 35 * 35 No Change, Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking, Road Narrows east of Dale St107 Magnolia Street to Gilbert Street E/W 8/31/2021 28-37 72 33 38 35 35 No Change, 85th %108 Gilbert Street to Brookhurst Street E/W 8/31/2021 31-40 73 34 39 35 * 35 No Change, 85th %109 Brookhurst Street to Nutwood Street E/W 8/31/2021 29-38 84 32 35 35 35 No Change, 85th %110 Nutwood Street to Euclid Street E/W 9/1/2021 30-39 79 33 37 35 * 35 No Change, 85th %111 Euclid Street to Ninth Street E/W 9/1/2021 25-34 83 29 33 35 * 35 No Change, 85th %112 Ninth Street to West Street E/W 9/1/2021 33-42 74 35 40 35 35 No Change, Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking, Continuity of Speed113 West Street to Harbor Boulevard E/W 9/1/2021 31-40 77 33 38 35 * 35 No Change, 85th %114 Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street E/W 9/1/2021 29-38 75 34 39 35 35 No Change, 85th %115 Haster Street to Lewis Street E/W 9/1/2021 33-42 82 37 41 35 * 35 No Change, Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking, Adjacent to Elementary School, Continuity of Speed Orangewood Avenue 116 Knott Street to Western Avenue E/W 9/9/2021 32-41 77 36 39 40 40 No Change, 85th % 117 Jane Way (mid-west city limits) to Dale Street E/W 9/10/2021 33-42 81 36 40 40 * 40 No Change, 85th %118 Dale Street to Magnolia Street E/W 9/9/2021 31-40 74 35 41 40 40 No Change, 85th %119 Magnolia Street to Gilbert Street N/S 9/9/2021 36-45 73 39 43 35 40 Increase, 85th %120 Gilbert Street to Brookhurst Street E/W 9/10/2021 27-36 82 31 35 35 * 35 No Change, 85th %121 Brookhurst Street to Palmwood Drive E/W 9/9/2021 30-39 82 35 39 35 * 35 No Change, 85th %122 Palmwood Drive to Euclid Street E/W 9/10/2021 34-43 76 37 42 35 * 35 No Change, Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking, Horizontal Curvature, Continuity of Speed 123 Ninth Street to West Street E/W 9/10/2021 34-43 85 36 40 35 35 No Change, Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking, Road Narrows east of Janette Ln, Continuity of Speed 124 West Street to Eugene Street (east city limits) E/W 9/9/2021 32-41 71 36 41 35 35 No Change, On-Street Parking, Multiple Driveways, Continuity of Speed, High Accident Rate * - 25 mph when children are present
Posted
Speed Limit
(mph)
Table 2: Segment Spot Speed Survey 2021
2021 Engineering
& Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 15 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

10-Mile % in 50th 85th Recommended
Street No Dir. Date Pace 10-Mile % Tile % Tile Speed Limit Comments (mph) Pace (mph) (mph) (mph)
Trask Avenue 125 Beach Boulevard to Newland Street E/W 9/3/2021 33-42 68 38 43 35 * 40 Increase, 85th % 126 Newland Street to Magnolia Street E/W 9/3/2021 32-41 67 36 42 40 40 No Change, 85th %127 Magnolia Street to Galway Street E/W 9/3/2021 35-44 65 40 46 40 * 40 No Change, On-Street Parking, Multiple Driveways, Continuity of Speed, High Accident Rate 128 Galway Street to Brookhurst Street E/W 9/3/2021 34-43 67 39 45 40 40 No Change, On-Street Parking, Multiple Driveways, Continuity of Speed 129 Brookhurst Street to Benton Street E/W 9/3/2021 33-42 65 40 47 40 40 No Change, Bike Lane, Multiple Driveways, Continuity of Speed130 Benton Street to Euclid Street E/W 9/3/2021 35-44 75 39 44 40 * 40 No Change, 85th %131 Euclid Street to Newhope Street E/W 9/3/2021 36-45 75 40 44 40 40 No Change, 85th %132 Newhope Street to Harbor Boulevard E/W 9/3/2021 38-47 70 40 46 40 * 40 No Change, On-Street Parking, Multiple Driveways, No Left Turn Channelization, Continuity of Speed 133 Harbor Boulevard to Clinton Street E/W 9/3/2021 32-41 71 37 42 35 * 35 No Change, Trap Lane onto Freeway east of Harbor, On-Street Parking, Bike Lanes, Adjacent to School 134 Clinton Street to Fairview Street E/W 9/3/2021 33-42 73 35 41 35 * 35 No Change, EB Lane Drop at Clinton St, On-Street Parking, Adjacnet to School, Continuity of Speed Westminster Avenue 135 Newland Street to Magnolia Street E/W 9/9/2021 33-42 75 37 42 40 40 No Change, 85th % 136 Magnolia Street to Bushard Street E/W 9/9/2021 34-43 75 37 43 40 40 No Change, 85th %137 Bushard Street to Brookhurst Street E/W 9/8/2021 36-45 70 40 46 45 45 No Change, 85th %138 Brookhurst Street to Bowen Street E/W 9/9/2021 33-42 72 39 45 45 45 No Change, 85th %139 Bowen Street to Euclid Street E/W 9/8/2021 35-44 70 40 46 45 45 No Change, 85th %140 Euclid Street to Newhope Street N/S 9/8/2021 37-46 72 40 45 45 45 No Change, 85th %141 Newhope Street to Harbor Boulevard N/S 9/8/2021 35-44 65 41 46 45 45 No Change, 85th %142 Harbor Boulevard to Clinton Street N/S 9/13/2021 34-46 61 42 49 45 45 No Change, 85th %143 Clinton Street to Buena Street (east city limits) N/S 9/13/2021 38-47 78 41 46 45 45 No Change, 85th % * - 25 mph when children are present
Speed Limit
Posted
(mph)
Table 2: Segment Spot Speed Survey 2021
2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 16 ends

2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 17 ends

4.1 Speed Limit Signing – General
All California motorists are required to know the basic 15, 25, and 65 mph statutory or prima facie speed laws and are tested on the subject when applying for a driver’s license. The maximum speed limit on most California highways is 65 mph. However, drivers are permitted to travel 70 mph where posted as such. Unless otherwise posted, the maximum speed limit in California is 55 mph on two‐lane undivided highways and for vehicles towing trailers provided the street is not within a business or residential district. Consequently, speed limit signs covering these prima facie conditions need not be posted on City streets. Although not required by law, speed limit signs for these limits can be posted by a jurisdiction when an engineer determines doing so would enhance public awareness and compliance of the basic speed law.

Typically, such postings occur upon streets that have the following:
 significant daily vehicular traffic volumes,
 cut‐through traffic problems,
 significant grades,
 continued violation of residential 25 mph speed zones, or  other unusual environmental or traffic flow characteristics.

It is standard engineering practice to recommend the posting of speed limit signs only on streets that have specific speed limits enacted by City ordinance or determined to be justified by an engineer who has performed an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS).

When an E&TS shows that the statutory or prima facie speed limits are not applicable for the existing conditions, the speed limits can be altered with the posting of a different speed limit, which must be determined according to the findings of the E&TS. CVC Section 22354 covers decreasing highway speeds from 65 mph, and CVC Section 22358 addresses decreasing local speed limits. The CVC does not address decreasing the speed limit below 55 mph on undivided highways; however, the CA MUTCD states that speed zones (other than statutory speed limits) shall only be established on the basis of an E&TS that has been performed in accordance with traffic engineering practices. Even though it is not codified in the CVC, Caltrans has established the practice of using an E&TS for any reduction below a statutory 55 mph speed limit. Law enforcement agencies and courts are accustomed to seeing surveys for these areas and it may be difficult to defend a speed violation citation without one.

Speed limit signs should be installed at approximately every one‐half mile on streets which have been speed zoned. Signs are typically installed at the beginning of the speed zone on the departure side of a traffic signal controlled intersection. It is also advisable to install signs at key intersections where there is high side street vehicle entry. It is important that motorists be given adequate notice of the speed limit without over signing, since doing so increases maintenance costs and rarely results in increased compliance.

The CA MUTCD outlines speed limit sign size specifications based on the type of roadway facility. Sign sizes vary from a minimum of 24‐inches by 30‐inches on a single lane conventional roadway to 48‐inches by 60‐inches on a freeway. It is also important to post signs in a manner that they are clearly visible to approaching traffic from a distance. Care should be taken to maintain landscaping and other vegetation so it does not grow to block the motorist view of signs. In certain circumstances, when an engineer has determined that additional motorist awareness of the speed limit is needed, the speed limit can also be painted on the street immediately adjacent to a speed limit sign.
2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 18 ends

Enforcement problems can occur when, (a) the highway is posted with inappropriate speed limit signs, (b) the highway is improperly or inadequately posted; or, (c) the highway is not posted nor covered by ordinance and therefore falls under the basic speed law. In any of these events, the result is a debatable validity that may be questioned in court cases where citations are issued and contested.

2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 19 ends

SECTION 5.0
Summary and Conclusions
 The engineering and traffic surveys and the data collection were conducted per CVC Section 627.  One hundred forty‐three (143) roadway segments on the City’s roadway network were surveyed.  The Accident Survey Analysis (Table 1) for the majority of the street segments surveyed is within the average expected accident rate of various types of roadway facilities within the City area.  Based on the engineering and traffic surveys, the majority of the existing speed limits on the City’s arterial, collector, and local street network are reaffirmed and remain unchanged.  Based on the engineering and traffic surveys, the posted speed limits on the following roadway segments listed below are recommended to be modified as follows:

1. Segment # 11 Dale Street between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue – increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

2. Segment # 21 Gilbert Street between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue – increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

3. Segment # 26 Harbor Boulevard between Chapman Avenue and Wilken Way (north city limits) – increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

4. Segment # 35 Magnolia Street between Trask Avenue and Garden Grove Boulevard ‐ increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

5. Segment # 49 Ninth Street between Chapman Avenue and Orangewood Avenue – increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

6. Segment # 52 Springdale Street between Garden Grove Boulevard and Lampson Avenue – increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

7. Segment # 53 Springdale Street between Lampson Avenue and Chapman Avenue – increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

8. Segment # 58 West Street between Garden Grove Boulevard and Lampson Avenue – increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

9. Segment # 59 West Street between Lampson Avenue and Chapman Avenue – increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

10. Segment # 60 West Street between Chapman Avenue and Orangewood Avenue – increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.
2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 20 ends

11. Segment # 119 Orangewood Avenue between Magnolia Street and Gilbert Street – increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

12. Segment # 125 Trask Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street ‐ increase from 35 mph to 40 mph based on the 85th percentile speed.

The roadway segments with recommended posted speed limit increases are shown in Figure 3. 2021 Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Report

Page 21 ends

APPENDIX B
Speed Zoning Regulations from Caltrans
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

November 7, 2014
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 133
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Standard:
03 If used, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be placed in the roadway at the crosswalk location on the center line, on a lane line, or on a median island. The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be post-mounted on the left-hand or right-hand side of the roadway. 04 If used, the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be placed over the roadway at the crosswalk location.
05 An In-Street or Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be placed in advance of the crosswalk to educate road users about the State law prior to reaching the crosswalk, nor shall it be installed as an educational display that is not near any crosswalk.

Guidance:
06 If an island (see Chapter 3I) is available, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign, if used, should be placed on the island.

Option:
07 If a Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) warning sign is used in combination with an In-Street or an Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign, the W11-2 sign with a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque may be post-mounted on the right-hand side of the roadway at the crosswalk location.

Standard:
08 The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign and the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be used at signalized locations controlled approaches.
09 The STOP FOR legend shall only be used in States where the State law specifically requires that a driver must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
10 The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend (except for the red STOP or YIELD sign symbols) and border on a white background, surrounded by an outer yellow or fluorescent yellowgreen background area (see Figure 2B-2). The Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend and border on a yellow or fluorescent yellow-green background at the top of the sign and a black legend and border on a white background at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 2B-2). 11 Unless the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign is placed on a physical island, the sign support shall be designed to bend over and then bounce back to its normal vertical position when struck by a vehicle.

Support:
12 The Provisions of Section 2A.18 concerning mounting height are not applicable for the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign.

Standard:
13 The top of an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be a maximum of 4 feet above the pavement surface. The top of an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign placed in an island shall be a maximum of 4 feet above the island surface.

Option:
14 The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign may be used seasonably seasonally to prevent damage in winter because of plowing operations, and may be removed at night if the pedestrian activity at night is minimal. 15 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs, Overhead Pedestrian Crossing signs, and Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians signs may be used together at the same crosswalk.

Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1)
Support:
00 The setting of speed limits can be controversial and requires a rational and defensible determination to maintain public confidence. Speed limits are normally set near the 85th-percentile speed that statistically represents one standard deviation above the average speed and establishes the upper limit of what is considered reasonable and prudent. As with most laws, speed limits need to depend on the voluntary compliance of the greater majority of motorists. Speed limits cannot be set arbitrarily low, as this would create violators of the majority of drivers and would not command the respect of the public.

Artificially low speed limits can lead to poor compliance as well as large variations in speed within the traffic stream. Increased speed variance can also create more conflicts and passing maneuvers. 00a The most effective way to reduce speeds is through a combination of strategies using traffic control devices related to speed management, roadway design and engineering solutions, traffic calming techniques and measures, public education, Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised January 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

November 7, 2014
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 134
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) and enforcement efforts. Effectively managing road user speed relies on numerous factors, which include enforcement, roadway characteristics, surrounding environment, adjacent land use, and traffic control devices. Many studies find that engineering changes, such as change a road’s infrastructure, are one of the most important factors in reducing vehicle operating speeds. Engineering changes are also one of the most effective interventions at reducing pedestrian injury and fatality rates. Potential street engineering changes, such as curb extensions, median islands, raised crosswalks, roundabouts, and speed bumps or speed humps, naturally result in lower speeds. It is realized that these engineering changes can be costly and time-consuming to implement.

Standard:
01 Speed zones (other than statutory speed limits) shall only be established on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) study that has been performed in accordance with traffic engineering practices. The engineering study shall include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles. 02 The Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 2B-3) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency based on the engineering study. The speed limits displayed shall be in multiples of 5 mph.
03 Speed Limit (R2-1) signs, indicating speed limits for which posting is required by law, shall be located at the points of change from one speed limit to another.
04 At the downstream end of the section to which a speed limit applies, a Speed Limit sign showing the next speed limit shall be installed. Additional Speed Limit signs shall be installed beyond major intersections and at other locations where it is necessary to remind road users of the speed limit that is applicable. 05 Speed Limit signs indicating the statutory speed limits shall be installed at entrances to the State and, where appropriate, at jurisdictional boundaries in urban areas.

Support:
06 In general, the maximum speed limits applicable to rural and urban roads are established:

A. Statutorily – a maximum speed limit applicable to a particular class of road, such as freeways or city streets, that is established by State law; or
B. As altered speed zones – based on engineering studies. 07 State statutory limits might restrict the maximum speed limit that can be established on a particular road, notwithstanding what an engineering study might indicate.

Option:
08 If a jurisdiction has a policy of installing Speed Limit signs in accordance with statutory requirements only on the streets that enter a city, neighborhood, or residential area to indicate the speed limit that is applicable to the entire city, neighborhood, or residential area unless otherwise posted, a CITYWIDE (R2-5aP), NEIGHBORHOOD (R2-5bP), or RESIDENTIAL (R2-5cP) plaque may be mounted above the Speed Limit sign and an UNLESS OTHERWISE POSTED (R2-5P) plaque may be mounted below the Speed Limit sign (see Figure 2B-3).

Guidance:
09 A Reduced Speed Limit Ahead (W3-5 or W3-5a) sign (see Section 2C.38) should be used to inform road users of a reduced speed zone where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 10 mph, or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice to comply with the posted speed limit ahead. 10 States and local agencies should conduct engineering studies at least once every 5, 7 or 14 years, in compliance with CVC Section 40802 to reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone significant changes since the last review, such as the addition or elimination of parking or driveways, changes in the number of travel lanes, changes in the configuration of bicycle lanes, changes in traffic control signal coordination, or significant changes in traffic volumes. 11 No more than three speed limits should be displayed on any one Speed Limit sign or assembly. 12 When a speed limit within a speed zone is posted, it should be within 5 mph of the 85th-percentile speed of freeflowing traffic.

CVC Section 22358.6 – 85th-Percentile, Rounding, 5 mph Increment, 5 mph speed reduction and Maximum Speed Reduction
Standard:
12a When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic (CVC Section 22358.6(a)), except as shown in the two Options below for rounding down and using 5 mph speed reduction (CVC Section 22358.6(b)), or rounding up (CVC Section 22358.6(c)), or if using Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised January 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

November 7, 2014
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 135
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) additional 5 mph speed reduction on local agency roadways for safety corridor designation (CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1)) or adjacent to land or facility generating high concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians (CVC Section 22358.7(a)(2)).

Option:

1. For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed would require a rounding down, the posted speed may be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed, in compliance with CVC Sections 627 and 22358.5. CVC Sections 22353, 22353.2, 22353.3, 22353.4, and 22353.5, may also be considered, if applicable. See Standard below for documentation requirements. Refer to CVC Section 22358.6(b).

2. For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed would require a rounding up, then the speed limit may be rounded down to the nearest 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile speed, if no further reduction is used. Refer to CVC Section 21400(b). Refer to CVC Section 22358.6(c).

Standard:
12b If the speed limit to be posted has had the 5 mph reduction applied, then an E&TS shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. The reasons for the lower speed limit shall be in compliance with CVC Sections 627 and 22358.5. Refer to Section 22358.6(b).
12c The total reduction in the speed limit using the nearest 5 mph increment (CVC Section 22358.6(a)), rounding up (CVC Section 22358.6(c)), rounding down and using 5 mph speed reduction (CVC Section22358.6(b)), additional 5 mph speed reduction for safety corridor designation (CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1)) or adjacent to land or facility generating high concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians (CVC Section 22358.7(a)(2)), this speed reduction shall not exceed

12.4 mph from the 85th-percentile speed. Refer to CVC Section 22358.6(e).

Support:
12d Refer to Tables 2B-103(CA) and 2B-104(CA), which provides examples of 85th-percentile speed values and the application of the speed limit policies and criteria applicable per CVC 22358.6 and 22358.7. 12e Any existing E&TS that was performed before January 1, 2022 in accordance with previous traffic control device standards is not required to be updated until it is due for reevaluation per the 5, 7 or 14 year criteria.

CVC Sections 22358.7, 22358.8 and 22358.9 – Applicability on State Highway System & Local Agency Roadways Standard:
12f CVC Sections 22358.7, 22358.8 and 22358.9 and their related policies shall not be applicable to roadways on the State Highway System.

Support:
12g CVC Sections 22358.7, 22358.8 and 22358.9 and their related policies are applicable on local agency roadways. 12h CVC Sections 22358.7, 22358.8 and 22358.9 and their related policies are also applicable on any privately owned and maintained roads or commercial establishments, if the private road or private property has been subjected to the CVC application by the private property owner or a particular city or county enacts an ordinance or resolution to this effect. Refer to CVC Sections 21100, 21100.1, 21107, 21107.5, 21107.6, and 21107.7.

Standard:
12i The additional 5 mph speed reduction allowed by CVC Section 22358.7 on designated safety corridors or on portions of highway adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, shall not be applicable on any roadway segment that is on the State Highway System 12j The option allowed by CVC Section 22358.8 to retain the currently adopted speed limit or restore the immediately prior adopted speed limit, shall not be applicable on any roadway segment that is on the State Highway System. 12k Declaring prima facie speed limits of 25 mph or 20 mph on a highway contiguous to a business activity district allowed by CVC Section 22358.9 shall not be applicable on any roadway segment that is on the State Highway System.

CVC Section 22358.7 – Safety corridor and Land or Facilities Generating High Concentrations of Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Standard:
12l Additional lowering of the speed limits from those calculated using rounding (up or down) per CVC Section 22358.6(b) and 22358.6(c) and 5 mph speed reduction using CVC Section 22358.6(b), as included in paragraph 12a, Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised January 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

November 7, 2014
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 136
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) and Options #1 and #2 processes, is prohibited, except for the local agency roadway segments designated as “safety corridor” or “land or facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians” in compliance with CVC Sections 22358.6(d) and 22358.7.

Option:
12m Local agencies may additionally lower the speed limits by 5 mph from those calculated using rounding (up or down) per CVC Section 22358.6(b) and 22358.6(c) and 5 mph speed reduction using CVC Section 22358.6(b) if, after completing an E&TS, find that the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe, for either of the following reasons:

1. The portion of a highway has been designated as a safety corridor.

2. The portion of highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, especially those from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused.

CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) – “Safety Corridor” Definition Standard:
12n A safety corridor shall be defined as a roadway segment within an overall roadway network where the highest number of serious injury and fatality crashes occur.
12o One or more of the required crash weighting factors listed in the Table 2B-105(CA) shall be used to prioritize the locations of fatal and serious injury crashes in developing the “Safety Corridor”.

Option:
12p Data used to determine a safety corridor may be from the most recent Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) performed.

The crash data source may include, but is not limited to, California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

Standard:
12q The prioritized subset of safety corridors shall:

1. Identify specific locations with high crash occurrences.

2. Identify corridor-level segments with a pattern of crash reoccurrence.

3. Be able to be stratified by mode.
12r Safety corridors shall represent a prioritized subset of the overall roadway network within an authority’s responsibilities and shall not exceed one-fifth of the overall roadway network.

Guidance:
12s A jurisdiction should use three to five years of the most recent crash data to determine a safety corridor based on Fatal and Serious Injury data.

Option:
12t For crash coverage, safety corridors may identify the subset of the overall roadway network where a minimum of 25% of the Fatal + Serious Injury (F+SI) crashes occur.
12u To identify logical termini, the geographic extent of a safety corridor may be determined by non-engineering staff.

Standard:
12v A licensed professional engineer shall sign off on logical termini identified for a safety corridor using existing E&TS.

Option:
12w Crash/Volume rate may be used to provide additional locations to be included in the safety corridor. Local agencies may use proactive measures as indicators.

CVC Section 22358.7(a)(2) – “Land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians” definition Standard:
12x Except for the Option in first paragraph below, a land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians shall be defined as the portion of the highway where one or more of any of the generators listed in Table 2B-106(CA) are present within a distance of 1320 feet.

Option:
12y Crash data that demonstrates a highway segment is within the top twenty percent of pedestrian and/or bicyclist fatalities or serious injuries over a three-to-five-year period may be used in lieu of one of the generators listed in Table 2B-106(CA).

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised February 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

November 7, 2014
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 137
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Standard:
12z A highway segment shall be defined as the portion of the highway where a location that meets the aforementioned criteria is present within a distance of 1320 feet.

Option:
12aa A highway segment may be longer than 1320 feet provided that a minimum of one location within the top twenty percent of fatal and serious injury pedestrian and/or bicyclist crashes within a three-to-five-year period is present for every 1320 feet.

Standard:
12ab The top twenty percent of pedestrian and/or bicyclist fatalities or serious injury crashes within a three to five year period shall be based on the geographic area within the jurisdiction of the Engineer performing the E&TS.

Option:
12ac A high concentration of pedestrians and bicyclists may be longer than 1320 feet provided that a minimum of one generator is present for every 1320 feet.
12ad Data used to determine high concentration locations may be obtained from the most recently performed Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS).

Standard:
12ae The provisions of CVC Section 22358.7 to additionally lower the speed limit (by designating safety corridor or on portion of highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians), shall not be applicable until actions required per CVC Section 22358.7 by Department of Transportation and Judicial Council are completed or June 30, 2024, whichever is sooner.

CVC Section 22358.8 (Retain currently adopted or restore immediately prior speed limit) Option:
12af Local agency may retain the currently adopted speed limit without further reduction or restore the immediately prior adopted speed limit without further reduction as provided in CVC Section 22358.8.

Standard:
12ag Currently adopted speed limit or immediately prior adopted speed limit shall only be retained, by ordinance, if after completing an E&TS, local agency finds that the speed limit is still more than reasonable or safe, and that speed limit was established with an E&TS and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established the prior speed limit.
12ah If local agency decides to use lower speed limit based on CVC Section 22358.8, after completing an E&TS and finding that the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe, it shall not be reduced by any more than 5 mph from the currently adopted speed limit nor below the immediately prior speed limit. Refer to CVC Section 22358.8(b).

CVC Section 22358.9 – Business Activity District
Option:
12ai A local authority may, by ordinance, determine and declare a 25 or 20 mph prima facie speed limit on a highway contiguous to a business activity district when posted with a sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 or 20 mph if the highway segment meets all of the following conditions:

1. A maximum of four traffic lanes.

2. A maximum posted 30 mph prima facie speed limit immediately prior to and after the business activity district, if establishing a 25 mph speed limit.

3. A maximum posted 25 mph prima facie speed limit immediately prior to and after the business activity district, if establishing a 20 mph speed limit.
12aj A “business activity district” is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto that includes central or neighborhood downtowns, urban villages, or zoning designations that prioritize commercial land uses at the downtown or neighborhood scale and meets a least three of the following four requirements:

4. No less than 50 percent of the contiguous property fronting the highway consists of retail or dining commercial uses, including outdoor dining, that open directly onto sidewalks adjacent to the highway.

5. Parking, including parallel, diagonal, or perpendicular spaces located alongside the highway.

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised January 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

November 7, 2014
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 138
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California)

6. Traffic control signals or stop signs regulating traffic flow on the highway, located at intervals of no more than 600 feet.

7. Marked crosswalks not controlled by a traffic control device.

Standard:
12ak A local authority shall not declare a prima facie speed limit on a portion of a highway where the local authority has already lowered the speed limit as permitted for designated safety corridors (CV Section 22358.7) or using the land or facility adjacent to high concentration of pedestrians and bicyclists (CVC Section 22358.7) or retained the currently adopted speed limit (CVC Section 22358.8) or have restored the immediately prior adopted speed limit (CVC Section 22358.8). Refer to CVC Section 22358.9(c).
13 Speed studies for signalized intersection approaches should be taken outside the influence area of the traffic control signal, which is generally considered to be approximately 1/2 mile, to avoid obtaining skewed results for the 85th-percentile speed.

Support:
14 Advance warning signs and other traffic control devices to attract the motorist’s attention to a signalized intersection are usually more effective than a reduced speed limit zone.

Guidance:
15 An advisory speed plaque (see Section 2C.08) mounted below a warning sign should be used to warn road users of an advisory speed for a roadway condition. A Speed Limit sign should not be used for this situation.

Option:
16 Other factors that may be considered when establishing or reevaluating speed limits are the following:

A. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance; B. The pace;
C. Roadside development and environment;
D. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and
E. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period. 17 Two types of Speed Limit signs may be used: one to designate passenger car speeds, including any nighttime information or minimum speed limit that might apply; and the other to show any special speed limits for trucks and other vehicles.
18 A changeable message sign that changes the speed limit for traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the appropriate speed limit is displayed at the proper times. 19 A changeable message sign that displays to approaching drivers the speed at which they are traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit sign.

Guidance:
20 If a changeable message sign displaying approach speeds is installed, the legend YOUR SPEED XX MPH or such similar legend should be displayed. The color of the changeable message legend should be a yellow legend on a black background or the reverse of these colors.

Support:
21 Advisory Speed signs and plaques are discussed in Sections 2C.08 and 2C.14. Temporary Traffic Control Zone Speed signs are discussed in Part 6. The WORK ZONE (G20-5aP) plaque intended for installation above a Speed Limit sign is discussed in Section 6F.12. School Speed Limit signs are discussed in Section 7B.15. 22 Speed limits in California are governed by the California Vehicle Code (CVC), Sections 22348 through 22413; also, pertinent sections are found in Sections 627 and 40802 and others referenced in this section. See Section 1A.11 for information regarding this publication.
23 Refer to Part 6, Section 6C.01 for speed limit signs in temporary traffic control zones. Refer to Part 7 for speed limit signs in school areas.

Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS)
Support:
24 CVC Section 627 defines the term “Engineering and traffic survey” and lists its requirements.

Standard:
25 An engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by Caltrans, consideration of all of the following:

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised January 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised November 7, 2014 January 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 139
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) A. Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements.

B. Collision records.

C. Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.

Guidance:
26 The E&TS should contain sufficient information to document that the required three items of CVC Section 627 are provided and that other conditions not readily apparent to a driver are properly identified. 27 Prevailing speeds are determined by a speed zone survey. A speed zone survey should include:

A. The intent of the speed measurements is to determine the actual speed of unimpeded traffic. The speed of traffic should not be altered by concentrated law enforcement, or other means, just prior to, or while taking the speed measurements.

B. Only one person is required for the field work. Speeds should be read directly from a radar or other electronic speed measuring devices; or,
C. Devices, other than radar, capable of accurately distinguishing and measuring the unimpeded speed of free flowing vehicles may be used.

D. A location should be selected where prevailing speeds are representative of the entire speed zone section. If speeds vary on a given route, more than one speed zone section may be required, with separate measurements for each section. Locations for measurements should be chosen so as to minimize the effects of traffic signals or stop signs.

E. Speed measurements should be taken during off-peak hours between peak traffic periods on weekdays. If there is difficulty in obtaining the desired quantity, speed measurements may be taken during any period with free flowing traffic.

F. The weather should be fair (dry pavement) with no unusual conditions prevailing.

G. The surveyor and equipment should not affect the traffic speeds. For this reason, an unmarked car is recommended, and the radar speed meter located as inconspicuously as possible.

H. In order for the sample to be representative of the actual traffic flow, the minimum sample should be 100 vehicles in each survey. In no case should the sample contain less than 50 vehicles.

I. Short speed zones of less than 0.5 miles should be avoided, except in transition areas.

J. Speed zone changes should be coordinated with changes in roadway conditions or roadside development.

K. Speed zoning should be in 10 mph increments except in urban areas where 5 mph increments are preferable.

L. Speed zoning should be coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions.

Support:
28 Physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to the driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning. Refer to CVC 22358.5.

Option:
29 When qualifying an appropriate speed limit, local authorities may also consider all of the following findings:

A. Residential density, if any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district:

1. Upon one side of the highway, within 0.25 miles, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.

2. Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of 0.25 miles the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.

3. The portion of highway is larger than 0.25 miles but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway described in either subparagraph 1 or 2 above.

B. Safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, with increased consideration for vulnerable pedestrian groups including children, seniors, persons with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and the unhoused. 30 The following two methods of conducting E&TS may be used to establish speed limits:

1. State Highways - The E&TS for State highways is made under the direction of the Caltrans District Traffic Engineer. The data includes:
a. One copy of the Example of Speed Zone Survey Sheet (See Figure 2B-101(CA)) showing:
• A north arrow
• Engineer's station or post mileage
• Limits of the proposed zones

November 7, 2014
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 140
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) • Appropriate notations showing type of roadside development, such as “scattered business,” “solid residential,” etc. Schools adjacent to the highway are shown, but other buildings need not be plotted unless they are a factor in the speed recommendation or the point of termination of a speed zone. • Collision rates for the zones involved
• Average daily traffic volume
• Location of traffic signals, signs and markings
• If the highway is divided, the limits of zones for each direction of travel • Plotted 85th percentile and pace speeds at location taken showing speed profile b. A report to the District Director that includes:
• The reason for the initiation of speed zone survey.
• Recommendations and supporting reasons.
• The enforcement jurisdictions involved and the recommendations and opinions of those officials. • The stationing or reference post in mileage at the beginning and ending of each proposed zone and any intermediate equations. Location ties must be given to readily identifiable physical features.

2. City and County Through Highways, Arterials, Collector Roads and Local Streets. a. The short method of speed zoning is based on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists, and that by measuring motorists' speeds, one will be able to select a speed limit that is both reasonable and effective. Other factors that need to be considered include but are not limited to: the most recent two-year collision record, roadway design speed, safe stopping sight distance, superelevation, shoulder conditions, profile conditions, intersection spacing and offsets, commercial driveway characteristics, and pedestrian traffic in the roadway without sidewalks.
b. Determination of Existing Speed Limits - Figures 2B-103(CA) & 2B-104(CA) show examples of data sheets which may be used to record speed observations. Specific types of vehicles may be tallied by use of letter symbols in appropriate squares.
31 In most situations, the short form for local streets and roads will be adequate; however, the procedure used on State highways may be used at the option of the local agency. 32 Any agency may lower the speed limit below the prima facie speed limit after performing, and based on the results of an E&TS.

Guidance:
33 The establishment of a speed limit of more than 5 mph below the 85th percentile speed should be done with great care as studies have shown that establishing a speed limit at less than the 85th percentile generally results in an increase in collision rates; in addition, this may make violators of a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers.

Support:
34 Generally, the most decisive evidence of conditions not readily apparent to the driver surfaces in collision histories. 35 Speed limits are established at or near the 85th percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85th percent of the traffic is moving. The 85th percentile speed is often referred to as the critical speed. Pace speed is defined as the 10 mph increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles (See Figure 2B-102(CA)). The lower limit of the pace is plotted on the Speed Zone Survey Sheets as an aid in determining the proper zone limits. Speed limits higher than the 85th percentile are not generally considered reasonable and prudent. Speed limits below the 85th percentile do not ordinarily facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and require constant enforcement to maintain compliance. Speed limits established on the basis of the 85th percentile conform to the consensus of those who drive highways as to what speed is reasonable and prudent, and are not dependent on the judgment of one or a few individuals. 36 The majority of drivers comply with the basic speed law. Speed limits set at or near the 85th percentile speed provide law enforcement officers with a limit to cite drivers who will not conform to what the majority considers reasonable and prudent.

Further studies show that establishing a speed limit at less than the 85th percentile (Critical Speed) generally results in an increase in collision rates.

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised January 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates November 7, 2014 Part 2 – Signs

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 141
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Option:
37 When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to drivers, as indicated in collision records, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified. Concurrence and support of enforcement officials are necessary for the successful operation of a restricted speed zone.

Guidance:
38 Speed zones of less than 0.5 miles and short transition zones should be avoided.

Signs
Standard:
39 The Speed Limit (R2-1) sign shall be used to give notice of a prima facie or maximum speed limit except as provided under Prima Facie Speed Limits in CVC 22352.
40 When used, the TRUCKS, 3 AXLES OR MORE 55 MAXIMUM (R6-3(CA)) sign shall be installed approximately 750 feet following each R2-1 sign.
41 The ALL VEHICLES WHEN TOWING 55 MAXIMUM (R6-4(CA)) sign shall be installed approximately 750 feet following the R6-3(CA) sign.

Guidance:
42 The R6-3(CA) and R6-4(CA) signs should be placed on highway segments where speeds in excess of 55 mph are permitted.

Option:
43 The existing AUTOS WITH TRAILERS, TRUCKS 55 MAXIMUM (R6-1(CA)) sign may remain in place until it is knocked down, damaged, stolen, vandalized, or otherwise reaches the end of its useful life. 44 The local California Highway Patrol office may be consulted to identify highway segments where enforcement is an issue.

On these segments early replacement of existing R6-1(CA) signs may be necessary.

Support:
45 Refer to CVC Section 22406 for types of vehicles subject to the 55 mph maximum speed limit.

Option:
46 The Speed Zone Ahead (R2-4(CA)) sign (see Figure 2B-3(CA)) may be used to inform the motorist of a reduced speed zone.

Standard:
47 The R2-4(CA) sign shall always be followed by a Speed Limit (R2-1) sign installed at the beginning of the zone where the reduced speed limit applies.
48 The End Speed Limit (R3(CA)) sign shall only be used to mark the end of a speed zone. 49 The R3(CA) sign shall not be used at a transition into a change in speed limits within a reduced zone.

Option:
50 The R3(CA) sign (see Figure 2B-3(CA)) may be used with the TRUCK (M4-4) plaque to mark the end of truck speed zones on descending grades.

Standard:
51 Speed limit signs shall be placed at the beginning of all restricted speed zones.

Option:
52 Where speed zones are longer than 1 mile, intermediate signs may be placed at approximate 1 mile intervals. For three or more lanes in each direction, dual installation may be used.

Standard:
53 The Speed Limit (R2-1) and End Speed Limit (R3(CA)) signs, as appropriate shall be placed at the end of all restricted speed zones.
54 Freeways with 65 mph and those segments where a speed limit of 70 mph has been approved by Caltrans, with approval by the California Highway Patrol, shall be posted as follows:
• At the segment entrance, R2-1 signs shall be installed right of traffic off of the right shoulder. • R2-1 signs shall also be installed off of the right shoulder only, throughout the segment, at a maximum of 25 mile intervals.

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 142
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Option:
• The 25 mile interval may be modified to include locations following entrance ramps.

Standard:
• The R6-3(CA) sign (see Figure 2B-3(CA)) shall be installed approximately 750 feet following each R2-1 sign, both at the beginning and throughout each 60, 65 or 70 mph segment. • The R6-4(CA) sign (see Figure 2B-3(CA)) shall be installed approximately 750 feet following each R6-3(CA) sign.

Option:
• The SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT (R4-3) signs may be installed at locations where there is a tendency of the motorists to drive in the left-hand lane(s) below the normal speed of traffic.

Standard:
• Signs shall be placed in protected locations.
• At the end of the 70/65 mph segment, R2-1 signs shall be installed off of the right shoulder. 55 Freeway segments where a 55 mph speed limit has been approved by Caltrans, with the approval of the California Highway Patrol, shall be posted as follows:
• The beginning of the segment shall be posted with an R2-1 sign installed on the right shoulder and left shoulder where the median is of sufficient width to permit sign maintenance without lane closures.

Guidance:
• Subsequent signs should then be posted on the right shoulder, on approximate 3 mile intervals, with no more than 3 interchanges between signs.
• At the end of the segment, an R2-1 sign with the appropriate number for the next speed limit should be posted on the right shoulder.
56 Conventional highways with 55 mph speed limits should be posted as follows:

Standard:
• The beginning of the segment shall be posted with an R2-1 sign installed on the right shoulder.

Guidance:
• Subsequent signs should then be posted on approximate 5 to 10 mile intervals and immediately after locations where significant volumes of traffic enter the segment.
• At the end of the segment, an R2-1 sign with the appropriate number for the next speed limit should be posted on the right shoulder.

Conventional highways with 65 mph speed limits should be posted as follows:
• The beginning of the segment should be posted with an R2-1 sign installed on the right shoulder. • Subsequent signs should then be posted at 5 to 10 mile intervals and after locations where significant volumes of traffic enter the segment.
• At the end of the segment, an R2-1 sign with the appropriate number for the next speed limit should be posted on the right shoulder.

Option:
57 Pavement markings with appropriate numerals (see Section 3B.21) may be used to supplement speed limit signs.

Standard:
58 The R2-1 and R6-3(CA) and R6-4(CA) signs giving maximum statewide speed limits for various types of vehicles shall be installed on all State highways near the points of entrance into California.

Guidance:
59 The R2-1 and R6-3(CA) and R6-4(CA) signs should be placed in a location to be most effectively viewed by the approaching motorists.

Standard:
60 Speed Limit (R2-1) signs shall be installed throughout segments of freeway with posted speed limits of 65 mph or 70 mph at a maximum of 25 mile intervals.

Option:
61 The 25 mile interval may be modified to include locations following entrance ramps.

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates November 7, 2014 Part 2 – Signs

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 143
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Standard:
62 Speed Limit (R2-1) signs shall be installed throughout segments of conventional highways with a posted speed limit of 65 mph at 5 mile to 10 mile intervals.
63 Speed Limit (R2-1) signs shall be installed throughout segments of freeway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph at approximately 3 mile intervals with no more than 3 interchanges between signs. 64 Speed Limit (R2-1) signs shall be installed throughout segments of conventional highways with a posted speed limit of 55 mph at 5 mile to 10 mile intervals.

Speed Enforced Signs
Option:
65 The SPEED ENFORCED BY RADAR (R48(CA)) sign (see Figure 2B-3(CA)) may be used where the California Highway Patrol has received authority to use radar and requests such signs.

Guidance:
66 One sign should be used in each direction at the beginning of the segment of roadway, and at intervening major route intersections, where radar enforcement is in effect.

Support:
67 The R48(CA) sign is a stand-alone sign intended to alert motorists that speed is enforced by radar on a particular segment of roadway.

Option:
68 The RADAR ENFORCED (R48-1(CA)) sign (see Figure 2B-3(CA)) may be used in combination with the Speed Limit (R2- 1) sign on any roadway where law enforcement has the authority to use radar.

Guidance:
69 When used, the R48-1(CA) sign should be placed below the R2-1 sign, at the beginning of the segment of roadway and at intervening major intersections, where radar enforcement is in effect.

Option:
70 The SPEED ENFORCED BY AIRCRAFT (R48-2(CA)) sign (see Figure 2B-3(CA)) may be placed, when requested by the California Highway Patrol, on sections of highway regularly patrolled by aircraft.

Standard:
71 The R48-2(CA) sign shall be used for both directions of travel.

Guidance:
72 The R48-2(CA) sign should be placed at the beginning of the section and spaced at 25 mile intervals. See Figure 3B105(CA).

Vehicle Speed Feedback Signs
Option:
73 A Vehicle Speed Feedback sign that displays to approaching drivers the speed at which they are traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit (R2-1) sign.

Standard:
74 If a Vehicle Speed Feedback sign displaying approach speeds is installed, the legend shall be YOUR SPEED XX.

The numerals displaying the speed shall be white, yellow, yellow-green or amber color on black background. When activated, lights shall be steady-burn conforming to the provisions of CVC Sections 21466 and 21466.5. Vehicle Speed Feedback signs shall not alternatively be operated as variable speed limit signs.

Guidance:
75 To the degree practical, numerals for displaying approach speeds should be similar font and size as numerals on the corresponding Speed Limit (R2-1) sign.

Option:
76 When used, the Vehicle Speed Feedback sign may be mounted on either a separate support or on the same support as the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign.
77 In lieu of lights, legend may be retroreflective film for flip-disk systems. 78 The legend YOUR SPEED may be white on black plaque located above the changeable speed display.

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates November 7, 2014 Part 2 – Signs

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 144
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Support:
79 Driver comprehension may improve when the Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign is mounted on the same support below the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign.
80 Vehicle Speed Feedback Signs are appropriate for use with advisory speed signs and with temporary signs in temporary traffic control zones.

Basic Speed Law and Prima Facie Speed Limits – See CVC 22350 & 22352 Support:
81 The basic speed law states “No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.” Standard:
82 Prima facie speed limits are specific limits and shall apply unless changed based upon an engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) and signs are posted that display the new speed limit.

Option:
83 Prima facie speed limits may be preempted by the basic speed law, when roadway, traffic or weather conditions warrant a lower speed.

Use of Metric System Designations – See CVC 21351.3
Option:
84 Dual units for speed limits on signs may be placed on local streets and roads in both Metric and English units.

Guidance:
85 If used, dual unit speed limits should be rounded to the nearest 10 km/h for Metric and 5 mph for English units for posting on signs on local streets and roads.

Support:
86 Refer to AASHTO’s Traffic Engineering Metric Conversion Factors. See Section 1A.11 for information regarding this publication.

Standard:
87 Metric speed limits shall not be placed on State highways. For use in this California MUTCD, 70 mph shall be shown as a metric equivalent of 110 km/h, neither of which shall be used on any local street or road.

Legal Authority for Establishing Speed Limits
Support:
88 Delegation of legal authority to set speed limits on State highways is given to Caltrans District Directors. The District Director of each transportation district is authorized to issue orders regulating the speed of traffic, up to 65 mph on State highways. The Director of Caltrans retains the authority to approve variable, minimum, and maximum speeds up to 70 mph on State freeways.

Standard:
89 The speed limits shown in Table 2B-101(CA) shall apply, unless changed upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey (E&TS).

Option:
90 The speed limits shown in Table 2B-102(CA) may apply, unless changed upon E&TS.

Variable Speed Limits on Freeways - See CVC 22355
Option:
91 The following speed limits may apply:
• Whenever Caltrans determines based upon an engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) that the safe and orderly movement of traffic upon any freeway segment will be facilitated by the establishment of variable speed limits. • Caltrans may erect, regulate, and control signs upon the state highway which is a freeway, or any portion thereof, which, if used, signs shall be designed to permit display of different speeds at various times of the day or night. • Such signs need not conform to the standards & specifications per CVC 21400, but if used, shall be of sufficient size and clarity to give adequate notice of the applicable speed limit.

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 145
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Minimum Speed Limits on State Highways - See CVC 22400
Option:
92 The following speed limits may apply:
• Whenever Caltrans determines based upon an engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) that slow speeds on any part of a state highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, Caltrans may determine and declare a minimum speed limit. Appropriate signs giving notice shall then be installed on that segment. • A motorist can be cited for stopping or impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation and in compliance with the law.

Speed Traps
Support:
93 Refer to CVC 40802 for Speed Traps.

Standard:
94 A speed trap shall not apply to a local street, road, school zone, senior zone, or business activity district.

Support:
95 Senior zone is an area approaching or passing a senior center building or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard “SENIOR” warning sign pursuant to CVC Section 22352.
96 Business activity district is a section of highway described in CVC Section 22358.9(b) in which a standard 25 mph or 20 mph speed limit sign has been posted pursuant to CVC Section 22358.9(a)(1).

Standard:
97 A section of highway shall be defined as a speed trap if the prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) within five years, and the enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. 98 This time provision shall be extended to seven years when using radar and all of the following criteria are met:
• The arresting officer has successfully completed a minimum of 24 hours of certified radar operator course training.
• The radar used to measure the speed meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within three years of the alleged violation. 99 This time provision shall be extended to seven years when using laser or other electronic device (other than radar) and all of the following criteria are met:
• The arresting officer has successfully completed a minimum of 24 hours of certified radar operator course training.
• The arresting officer has successfully completed a minimum of 2 hours of additional approved certified training. • The radar used to measure the speed meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within three years of the alleged violation.

Option:
100 This time provision for an E&TS may be extended to fourteen years when all of the above conditions are met and no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume as determined by a registered engineer.

Truck Speed Zone on Descending Grades
Guidance:
101 Highway descending grades, if used for posting TRUCK Speed Limit signs (R2-1 and M4-4) for trucks travelling downhill, should have recorded incident history of runaway commercial vehicles. Descending grades shorter than 1 mile should be avoided for posting signs because deceleration of vehicles due to braking action can generally provide sufficient control on descending grades of less than 1 mile.

Support:
102 To establish a downhill truck speed limit, a physical profile showing length and gradient and a downhill speed profile for three or more axle commercial vehicles with a gross rating of 10,000 lbs. or more will be provided.

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates November 7, 2014 Part 2 – Signs

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised March 2 November 7, 2014 7, 2020 Part 2 – Signs

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 146
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Standard:
103 Speed profiles for truck speed limits shall be prepared on the same form as other speed surveys. An analysis of collisions involving trucks shall be prepared. Revised January 6, 2023 Guidance:
104 Posted speeds should be on the low side of the scale, generally within the pace of loaded commercial vehicles.

Standard:
105 If warranted, the Caltrans District Director shall issue a standard speed zone order.

Support:
106 Posting of the regulation will be by placement of a standard 36 x 45 inch Speed Limit (R2-1) sign with a TRUCK (M4-4) plate above.

Standard:
107 A standard End Speed Limit (R3(CA)) sign with TRUCK (M4-4) plate shall be posted at the end of the truck zone when appropriate.

Speed Zones in Temporary Traffic Control Areas
Support:
108 For signing and establishing speed zones in temporary traffic control areas, refer to Section 6C.01 in Part 6.

Speed Zones and Traffic Signals
Standard:
109 An agency changing the speed limits within its jurisdiction shall report the speed limit change to the agency operating and maintaining traffic signals within the speed zone no later than 30 days before changing the posted speed limit.

Support:
110 Changing the signal timing and adjusting the advance detector loops based on the revised speed limits can enhance the operations of the traffic signal.

Section 2B.14 Truck Speed Limit Plaque (R2-2P)
Standard:
01 Where a special speed limit applies to trucks or other vehicles, the legend TRUCKS XX or such similar legend shall be displayed below the legend Speed Limit XX on the same sign or on a separate R2-2P plaque (see Figure 2B-3) below the standard legend.
02 The Truck Speed Limit (R2-2) sign shall not be used in California. The TRUCK (M4-4) plaque placed above the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign shall be used instead.
03 The TRUCK (M4-4) plaque shall be placed above the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign to indicate the truck speed limit. It shall also be placed above the End Speed Limit (R3(CA)) sign to mark the end of truck speed limits.

Support:
04 Refer to Section 2B.13 for more details.

Section 2B.15 Night Speed Limit Plaque (R2-3P)
Standard:
01 Where different speed limits are prescribed for day and night, both limits shall be posted.

Guidance:
02 A Night Speed Limit (R2-3P) plaque (see Figure 2B-3) should be reversed using a white retroreflectorized legend and border on a black background.

Option:
03 A Night Speed Limit plaque may be combined with or installed below the standard Speed Limit (R2-1) sign.

Support:
04 Refer to CVC 22355.

____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 258
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Table 2B-1(CA). California Regulatory Sign and Plaque Sizes (Sheet 7 of 7)

Sign or Plaque Sign
Designation Section
Conventional Road
Single Expressway Freeway Minimum Oversized
Lane
MultiLane

FREEWAY - ACCESS RIGHTS

RESTRICTED ON THIS SECTION OF

HIGHWAY
S3-1(CA) 2B.39 30 x 24 30 x 24 --- --- --- ---

STATE PROPERTY - NO DUMPING -
NO PARKING - NO TRESPASSING S8(CA) 2B.111 36 x 22 36 x 22 --- --- --- ---

STATE PROPERTY - ANY PERSON

REMOVING OR MOLESTING SAME

WILL BE PROSECUTED
S20(CA) 2B.111 24 x 18 24 x 18 --- --- --- ---
Weigh Station Repair Service plaque S21(CA) 2B.60 36 x 24 36 x 24 --- --- --- --- Rest Area/Vista Point 8 HOUR
PARKING S23(CA) 2B.46,
2I.05 24 x 24 24 x 24 --- --- --- ---
DAYLIGHT HEADLIGHT SECTION S30-1(CA) 2B.64 84 x 54 84 x 54 --- --- --- ---

TURN ON HEADLIGHTS NEXT X
MILES S30-2(CA) 2B.64 108 x 54 108 x 54 --- --- --- ---

END DAYLIGHT HEADLIGHT
SECTION S30-3(CA) 2B.64 84 x 66 84 x 66 --- --- --- --- TURN ON HEADLIGHTS S30-4(CA) 2B.64 84 x 42 84 x 42 --- --- --- --- CHECK HEADLIGHTS S30-5(CA) 2B.64 84 x 42 84 x 42 --- --- --- --- Safety Corridor Sign S33(CA) 2B.64 102 x 48 102 x 48 --- --- --- --- Table 2B-101(CA). Standard Application of Speed Limits per California Vehicle Code Speed Determined
by Roadway Facility CVC Section
15 mph State or
local authority
 Railroad grade crossing with obstructed view
 Uncontrolled highway intersection with obstructed view  An alley
22352.a.1
15 & 20 mph State or
local authority
Where the prima facie speed of 25 mph is more than is reasonable or safe  Narrow street not exceeding 25 feet other than a State Highway in a business or residential area or in a public park
 Road near a school or senior center facility
22358.3 &
22358.4
25 mph State or
local authority
 Any highway in any business or residential district
 A street contiguous to senior citizen facility other than a State highway  Adjacent to a children’s playground in a public park, but only during particular hours or days when children are expected to use facilities 22352.b &
22357.1
Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised February 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates
Part 2 – Signs
Revised February 6, 2023

cle Code
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 259
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Table 2B-102(CA). Standard Application of Speed Limits per California Vehicle Code Speed Determined by Roadway Facility CVC
Section
15 to 60 mph Caltrans State highway, based on an E&TS where ethe limit of 65 mph is more than reasonable or safe 22354
15 to 60 mph
Local city council
or county board
of supervisors for
Caltrans
State highway, local entities may conduct a public hearing on proposed increases or decreases and the State Department of Transportation shall take into consideration the results of the public hearing
22354.5
30 to 65 mph Local authority
Any street other than a State highway, by ordinance, may post a prima facie speed limit based on an E&TS where a speed > 25 mph would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe
22357
15 to 60 mph Local authority
Any street other than a State highway, by ordinance, may post a prima facie speed limit based on an E&TS where the limit of 65 mph is more than is reasonable and safe
22358.8(a)
20 to 50 mph for
Trucks
State or
local authority
Highways under their respective jurisdiction where 55 mph is more than is reasonable or safe for vehicles mentioned in CVC 22406 (Trucks and other large vehicles)
22407
Maximum Speed
55 mph
State or
local authority
 Two-lane, undivided highway
 Any highway if driving any of the following vehicles:
a. Motortruck or truck tractor with > 3 axles
b. Passenger vehicle or bus towing any other vehicle
c. School bus transporting any school pupil
d. A farm labor vehicle when transporting passengers
e. A vehicle transporting explosives
f. A trailer bus
22349.b & .c
and 22406
Maximum Speed
Limit of 65 mph
State or
local authority
Any highway, posted at 65 mph based upon an E&TS, for
vehicles not subject to CVC 22406
22349(a) &
22349
Maximum
Freeway Speed
Limit 70 mph
Caltrans
Freeways, after consultation with the California Highway Patrol, based upon an E&TS, or upon the basis of appropriate designs standards and projected traffic volumes in the case of newly constructed freeway segments, for vehicles not subject to CVC 22406
22356

November 7, 2014
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 260
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Table 2B-103(CA). Examples showing applicability of rounding and additional speed reduction on State Highway System
85th-Percentile
Speed (mph)
Rounding to
nearest 5 mph
increment (CVC
22358.6(a))
If rounding to
nearest is up,
may round down
(CVC 22358.6(c))
If rounding to
nearest is down,
may additionally
lower by 5 mph
(CVC 22358.6(b))

47.5-50.0 50 45 N/A

45.1-47.4 45 N/A 40

42.5-45.0 45 40 N/A

40.1-42.4 40 N/A 35
Note – CVC Sections 22358.7, 22358.8 & 22358.9 are applicable to local agency roadways and public properties subjected to CVC, they are not applicable to the State Highway System. Refer to Section 2B.13 for more details.

Table 2B-104(CA). Examples showing applicability of rounding and additional speed reduction on Local Agency’s Roadways & Private Property Subjected to CVC
85th-Percentile
Speed (mph)
Rounding to
nearest 5 mph
increment (CVC
22358.6(a))
If rounding to
nearest is up,
may round down
(CVC 22358.6(c))
If rounding to
nearest is down,
may additionally
lower by 5 mph
(CVC 22358.6(b))
If safety corridor or
adjacent to high
concentration of
bicyclists &
pedestrians, may
additionally lower by
5 mph (CVC 22358.7)*

47.5-50.0 50 45 N/A 40

45.1-47.4 45 N/A 40 35

42.5-45.0 45 40 N/A 35

40.1-42.4 40 N/A 35 30
* Note – CVC Sections 22358.7, 22358.8 & 22358.9 are applicable to local agency roadways and private properties subjected to CVC, they are not applicable to the State Highway System. Refer to Section 2B.13 for more details.

Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised February 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

November 7, 2014

Table 2B-105(CA). Safety Corridor Definition Requirements Category Factors
Crash Weighting Factors to
Develop One Serious/Fatal
Injury Safety Corridor
Crash weighting can be developed using fatal and serious injury crash data and other factors to prioritize safety corridors. Suggested weighting factors are as follows:
 Crash severity: Fatal Crashes, Serious Injury Crashes  Mode: Pedestrian-bicycle related crashes, vehicle/other  Disadvantaged Community Status: MPO/RTPA or locally defined disadvantaged community status based on most current version of CalEnviroScreen
 Vulnerable Populations: Seniors (age 65 and older) and Youth (under age 15) based on the American Community Survey
 School proximity (within 0.25 miles) based on the California School Campus Database
Crash Density
Each roadway segment block can be converted into ~ 0.25 mile overlapping “corridor” segments to create a consistent unit of measurement and asses the concentration of linear patterns of injuries within a define distance. The highest scoring (i.e. most fatal and serious injury crashes per mile) “corridor” segments within a street needs to be identified and an appropriate threshold set to determine safety corridor eligibility.

Maintenance The jurisdiction can establish a review and re-evaluation frequency for safety corridors. However, such frequency need not exceed seven years.

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 261
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised February 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

Category Generator
Employment centers
Presence of retail
Parks, multi-use trails, and recreational destinations
Land Use Schools/universities
Senior Centers
Cultural areas, entertainment space areas, or areas of community significance Religious facilities
Health/medical facilities
Transit Factors Transit stops
Transit Oriented Developments/Transit Priority Areas
Sidewalk presence
Presence of Crosswalk presence
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Bikeway presence
Infrastructure Nearby signalized intersections on four-way intersections Presence of micromobility devices such as bicycles or scooters Demographic Factors
Presence of vulnerable groups including children, seniors, persons with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and the unhoused MPO/RTPA or locally defined disadvantaged community status Presence of students (all levels)
Local Data Need identified in a safety analysis such as a road safety audit or formalized planning document such as a local road safety plan
November 7, 2014
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 262
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1,2, &3, as amended for use in California) Table 2B-106(CA). Requirements to determine Land or Facility that Generates High Concentrations of Bicyclists or Pedestrians
Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Revised February 6, 2023 Part 2 – Signs

APPENDIX C
Traffic Radar Certifications
Traffic Radar Equipment Certification
Traffic Radar Operator Certification
Created With Tiny Scanner
Created With Tiny Scanner
Created With Tiny Scanner

APPENDIX D
Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Reports
Collision Summary Reports
Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Reports

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Minor Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: Two lanes each direction, two-way left turn center lane, on-street parking61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential, School59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Cloudy55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13,010 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.50 miles53 052 051 X 1 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 4 midblock collisions50 X 149 0 ACCIDENT RATE: 0.84 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 0.64 acc/mvm48 X X X X 447 X X 246 X X 2 85TH %: 44 M.P.H.45 X X X 344 X X X 3 * 50TH %: 39 M.P.H.43 X X X X X X 6 *42 X X X X X X X 7 * 15TH %: 35 M.P.H.41 X X X X X X X X X X 10 P40 X X X X X X X X X 9 A AVERAGE SPEED: 40 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X X X X 9 C38 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 E 10 MPH PACE: 35 - 44 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X 8 *36 X X X X X X X X 8 * % IN PACE: 81%35 X X X X X X X X X X 10 *34 X X 2 % OVER PACE: 13%33 X 132 X X 2 % UNDER PACE: 6%31 X 130 029 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple Driveways, On-Street Parking, Dip in Roadway, School Area28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales
35 ROADWAY: Dale Street
9/11/24
LIMITS: Orangewood Ave to Katella Ave
11:50 AM - 12:15 AM

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
TRAFFIC No. 2838

1. DalOraKat.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Minor Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: One lane each direction, two-way left turn center lane, buffered bike lane61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 14,996 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.50 miles53 052 051 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 4 midblock collisions50 049 0 ACCIDENT RATE: 0.73 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 1.07 acc/mvm48 X 147 X X 246 X X 2 85TH %: 42 M.P.H.45 X 144 X X 2 * 50TH %: 38 M.P.H.43 X X 2 *42 X X X X X X X X X 9 * 15TH %: 36 M.P.H.41 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 P40 X X X X X X X X X 9 A AVERAGE SPEED: 39 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X X 7 C38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 E 10 MPH PACE: 35 - 44 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 *36 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 * % IN PACE: 92%35 X X X X 4 *34 X X 2 % OVER PACE: 6%33 032 0 % UNDER PACE: 2%31 030 029 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple Driveways, On-Street Parking, Dip in Roadway28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 35 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales
ROADWAY: Gilbert Street
9/11/24
LIMITS: Chapman Ave to Orangewood Ave
10:45 AM - 11:05 AM

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
N
TRAFFIC No. 2838

2. GilChaOra.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Minor Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: One lane each direction, two-way left turn center lane, buffered bike lane61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential, school59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11,538 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.50 miles53 052 X 151 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 6 midblock collisions50 049 0 ACCIDENT RATE: 1.42 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 1.07 acc/mvm48 X X X 347 X X X X X 546 X X 2 85TH %: 45 M.P.H.45 X X X X X X 644 X X 2 * 50TH %: 39 M.P.H.43 X X X X 4 *42 X X X 3 * 15TH %: 36 M.P.H.41 X X X X X X X 7 P40 X X X X X X 6 A AVERAGE SPEED: 40 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 C38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 E 10 MPH PACE: 35 - 44 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 *36 X X X X X X X X X 9 * % IN PACE: 79%35 X X X X X X X X 8 *34 X 1 % OVER PACE: 17%33 X X 232 X 1 % UNDER PACE: 4%31 030 029 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple Driveways, On-Street Parking28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
35 ROADWAY: Gilbert Street
9/11/24
LIMITS: Orangewood Ave to Katella Ave
11:05 AM - 11:25 AM
TRAFFIC No. 2838

3. GilOraKat.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Principal Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: Three lanes each direction, two-way left turn center lane61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Commercial, hotels59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 28,375 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.28 miles53 052 051 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 0 midblock collisions50 049 0 ACCIDENT RATE: 0.00 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 0.75 acc/mvm48 047 X 146 0 85TH %: 39 M.P.H.45 044 0 50TH %: 36 M.P.H.43 X 142 X X X X X X X X 8 * 15TH %: 34 M.P.H.41 X 1 *40 X X 2 * AVERAGE SPEED: 36 M.P.H.39 X X X X X 5 P38 X X X X X X X X X 9 A 10 MPH PACE: 33 - 42 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 C36 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 E % IN PACE: 88%35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 *34 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 * % OVER PACE: 2%33 X X X 3 *32 X X X X X X X 7 % UNDER PACE: 10%31 X X 230 X 129 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple Driveways, hotel and shopping center area28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales
35 ROADWAY: Harbor Boulevard
9/11/24
LIMITS: Chapman Ave to Wilken Way
9:00 AM - 9:20 AM

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
TRAFFIC No. 2838

4. HarCahWil.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Principal Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: Two lanes each direction, raised median, horizontal curves61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential, commercial59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 36,383 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.58 miles53 052 051 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 18 midblock collisions50 049 0 ACCIDENT RATE: 1.16 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 0.64 acc/mvm48 047 046 X 1 85TH %: 42 M.P.H.45 X X 244 X 1 50TH %: 37 M.P.H.43 X X X 3 *42 X X X X X X X X X 9 * 15TH %: 32 M.P.H.41 X X X 3 *40 X X X X X X 6 P AVERAGE SPEED: 37 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X X X X X 10 A38 X X X X X X 6 C 10 MPH PACE: 34 - 43 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X X 9 E36 X X X X X X X 7 * % IN PACE: 72%35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 *34 X X X X X X 6 * % OVER PACE: 4%33 X X X 332 X X X X X X 6 % UNDER PACE: 24%31 X X X X 430 X X X X X 529 X X X X X 5 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple Driveways, On-Street Parking28 X 1 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales
35 ROADWAY: Magnolia Street
9/11/24
LIMITS: Trask Ave to Garden Grove Blvd
1:00 PM - 1:55 pm

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
TRAFFIC No. 2838

5. MagTraGar.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Major Collector63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: One lane each direction, two-way left turn center lane, bike lane (SB)61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 10,553 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.50 miles53 052 051 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 1 midblock collisions50 049 X 1 ACCIDENT RATE: 0.26 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 1.07 acc/mvm48 X 147 046 X X X X 4 85TH %: 43 M.P.H.45 X 144 X X X X X 5 * 50TH %: 39 M.P.H.43 X X X X X 5 *42 X X X X X X X X 8 * 15TH %: 37 M.P.H.41 X X X X X X X X X 9 P40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 A AVERAGE SPEED: 40 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 C38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 E 10 MPH PACE: 35 - 44 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X X 9 *36 X X X X X 5 * % IN PACE: 88%35 X X X X X 5 *34 X X X 3 % OVER PACE: 7%33 X 132 0 % UNDER PACE: 5%31 X 130 029 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple Driveways, On-Street Parking28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales
35 ROADWAY: Ninth Street
9/11/24
LIMITS: Chapman Ave to Orangewood Ave
10:00 AM - 10:25 AM

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
TRAFFIC No. 2838

6. NinChaOra.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Minor Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: Two lanes each direction, striped double yellow centerline, on-street parking61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential, school59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 14,491 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.50 miles53 052 051 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 0 midblock collisions50 049 X 1 ACCIDENT RATE: 0.00 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 0.66 acc/mvm48 X X 247 X X 246 X X X X X 5 85TH %: 44 M.P.H.45 X 144 X X X X X 5 50TH %: 39 M.P.H.43 X X X X X X X X 8 *42 X X X X X X X X 8 * 15TH %: 34 M.P.H.41 X X X X X X X X X 9 *40 X X X X X X 6 P AVERAGE SPEED: 39 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X 6 A38 X X X 3 C 10 MPH PACE: 34 - 43 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X X X 10 E36 X X X X X X X X X X 10 * % IN PACE: 71%35 X X X X 4 *34 X X X X X X X 7 * % OVER PACE: 16%33 X X X X X X 632 X X X X 4 % UNDER PACE: 13%31 X X 230 029 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Vertical curve, frontage road adjacent to segment28 X 1 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales
35 ROADWAY: Springdale Street
9/11/24
LIMITS: Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue
12:55 PM - 1:15 PM

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
TRAFFIC No. 2838

7. SprGarLam.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Minor Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: Two lanes each direction, striped double yellow centerline61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential, schools59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 X X 2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 15,840 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.51 miles53 X 152 X X 251 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 0 midblock collisions50 049 0 ACCIDENT RATE: 0.00 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 0.66 acc/mvm48 X 147 X X 246 X X X X X X X 7 * 85TH %: 45 M.P.H.45 X X X X X X X X 8 *44 X X X X X X X X X X 10 * 50TH %: 41 M.P.H.43 X X X X X X X 7 P42 X X X X X X X X X 9 A 15TH %: 36 M.P.H.41 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 C40 X X X X X 5 E AVERAGE SPEED: 41 M.P.H.39 X X X X 4 *38 X X X X X 5 * 10 MPH PACE: 37 - 46 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X 6 *36 X X X X 4 % IN PACE: 74%35 X X X 334 X X X 3 % OVER PACE: 8%33 X X 232 X 1 % UNDER PACE: 18%31 X 130 X 129 X X X 3 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS No Left Turn Channelization28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales
35 ROADWAY: Springdale Street
9/11/24
LIMITS: Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue
12:35 PM - 12:55 PM

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
TRAFFIC No. 2838

8. SprLamCha.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Minor Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: One lane each direction, two-way left turn center lane, buffered bike lanes, on-street parking61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 15,201 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.50 miles53 052 051 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 8 midblock collisions50 049 0 ACCIDENT RATE: 1.45 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 1.07 acc/mvm48 047 046 0 85TH %: 39 M.P.H.45 044 0 50TH %: 36 M.P.H.43 X X X 342 X X 2 * 15TH %: 34 M.P.H.41 X X X X X 5 *40 X X X X X 5 * AVERAGE SPEED: 37 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X X X 8 P38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 A 10 MPH PACE: 33 - 42 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 C36 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 E % IN PACE: 92%35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 *34 X X X X X X X X X X 10 * % OVER PACE: 3%33 X X X X X X X X 8 *32 X X 2 % UNDER PACE: 5%31 X X 230 X 129 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple Driveways, On-Street Parking28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
35 ROADWAY: West Street
9/11/24
LIMITS: Garden Grove Boulevard to Lampson Avenue
9:20 AM - 9:40 AM
TRAFFIC No. 2838

9. WesGarLam.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Minor Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: One lane each direction, two-way left turn center lane, buffered bike lanes, on-street parking61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential, school59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 14,601 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.49 miles53 052 051 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 8 midblock collisions50 049 0 ACCIDENT RATE: 1.52 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 1.07 acc/mvm48 X X 247 046 X X X X 4 85TH %: 43 M.P.H.45 X 144 X X X X X X X 7 * 50TH %: 39 M.P.H.43 X X X X 4 *42 X X X X X X 6 * 15TH %: 36 M.P.H.41 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 P40 X X X X 4 A AVERAGE SPEED: 39 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 C38 X X X X X X X X X 9 E 10 MPH PACE: 35 - 44 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 *36 X X X X X X X X X 9 * % IN PACE: 89%35 X X X X X X X 7 *34 X X X X 4 % OVER PACE: 7%33 032 0 % UNDER PACE: 4%31 030 029 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple Driveways, uncontrolled school crossing28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
35 ROADWAY: West Street
9/11/24
LIMITS: Lampson Ave to Chapman Ave
9:40 AM - 10:00 AM
TRAFFIC No. 2838

10. WesLamCha.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Minor Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: One lane each direction, two-way left turn center lane, buffered bike lanes, on-street parking61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 17,114 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.50 miles53 052 051 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 0 midblock collisions50 049 0 ACCIDENT RATE: 0.00 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 1.07 acc/mvm48 047 046 0 85TH %: 41 M.P.H.45 X X 244 X X X 3 50TH %: 39 M.P.H.43 X X X 3 *42 X X X X X X 6 * 15TH %: 36 M.P.H.41 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 *40 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 P AVERAGE SPEED: 39 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 A38 X X X X X X 6 C 10 MPH PACE: 34 - 43 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X X 9 E36 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 * % IN PACE: 93%35 X X X X X X X 7 *34 X X X X X 5 * % OVER PACE: 5%33 032 X X 2 % UNDER PACE: 2%31 030 029 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple Driveways28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales
35 ROADWAY: West Street
9/11/24
LIMITS: Chapman Ave to Orangewood Ave
10:25 AM - 10:45 AM

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
TRAFFIC No. 2838

11. WesChaOra.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Minor Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: One lane each direction, two-way left turn center lane, bike lanes, on-street parking61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 8,189 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.46 miles53 052 051 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 1 midblock collisions50 X 149 X X X 3 ACCIDENT RATE: 0.36 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 1.07 acc/mvm48 X 147 X 146 X 1 85TH %: 43 M.P.H.45 X X 244 X X 2 * 50TH %: 40 M.P.H.43 X X X X X X X 7 *42 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 * 15TH %: 36 M.P.H.41 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 P40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 A AVERAGE SPEED: 40 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 C38 X X X X 4 E 10 MPH PACE: 35 - 44 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X X X X 10 *36 X X X X X X X X 8 * % IN PACE: 84%35 X X X 3 *34 X X 2 % OVER PACE: 9%33 X 132 X X X 3 % UNDER PACE: 7%31 X 130 029 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Bike lanes, on-street parking28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales
35 ROADWAY: Orangewood Avenue
9/11/24
LIMITS: Magnolia St to Gilbert St
11:25 AM - 11:50 AM

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
TRAFFIC No. 2838

12. OraMagGil.xlsx

SPEED VEHICLES SURVEYED TOTAL
(MPH) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES DATE: TIME :
65 064 0 STREET CLASIFICATION: Minor Arterial63 062 0 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION: Two lanes each direction, striped double yellow centerline61 060 0 ADJACENT LAND USE: Residential, school, church59 058 0 ROADWAY CONDITIONS: Good57 056 0 WEATHER: Clear55 054 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 10,995 vehicles SEGMENT LENGTH: 0.52 miles53 052 051 0 ACCIDENT HISTORY DATES: 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2023 (2 years) # OF ACCIDENTS: 0 midblock collisions50 X 149 X 1 ACCIDENT RATE: 0.00 acc/mvm EXPECTED RATE: 0.66 acc/mvm48 047 046 X X X X X 5 85TH %: 43 M.P.H.45 X X 244 X X X X X X 6 50TH %: 38 M.P.H.43 X X X X X X 6 *42 X X 2 * 15TH %: 34 M.P.H.41 X X X X 4 *40 X X X X X X X 7 P AVERAGE SPEED: 38 M.P.H.39 X X X X X X X X X X 10 A38 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 C 10 MPH PACE: 34 - 43 M.P.H.37 X X X X X X X 7 E36 X X X X X X X 7 * % IN PACE: 73%35 X X X X X X X X X X 10 *34 X X X X X X X X X 9 * % OVER PACE: 15%33 X X X X 432 X X 2 % UNDER PACE: 12%31 X X X X 430 X X 229 0 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple Driveways, No Left Turn Channelization28 0 NOT APPARENT TO DRIVERS: 27 026 025 024 023 0 EXISTING SPEED LIMIT: 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT CHANGE (Y/N):22 021 0 ROADWAY SHARED WITH: N/A PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT: M.P.H.20 019 0 SHARED JURISDICTION SPEED: N/A M.P.H.18 017 016 0 OBSERVED BY: Counts Unlimited, Inc.15 0 GRAND TOTALS 100 REVIEWED BY: Ruben Perales
35 ROADWAY: Trask Avenue
9/11/24
LIMITS: Beach Blvd to Newland St
1:15 PM - 1:35 PM

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ENGINEERING AND SPEED SURVEY
Y
TRAFFIC No. 2838

13. TraBeaNew.xlsx
Collision Summary Reports
Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 8
Injury Collisions: 4
Fatal Collisions: 0
DALE ST from ORANGEWOOD AVE to KATELLA AVE Page 1 of 2
9426854 3/18/2022 14:25 Friday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

DALE ST - KATELLA AVE
Unsafe Speed
190' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 19
Assoc Factor: Violation
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2014 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 34
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2006 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9502461 8/22/2022 22:36 Monday
Head-On Other Motor Vehicle

DALE ST - KATELLA AVE
Driving Under Influence
30' Direction: South
23152A Hit & Run: No Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 42
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver North 2013 - Pickups and Panels No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 54
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2010 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 22
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 3 Driver North 2020 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9521084 9/23/2022 09:10 Friday
Vehicle - Pedestrian Pedestrian

DALE ST - KATELLA AVE
Unsafe Speed
314' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: Felony Severe Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dusk - Dawn Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver South 0 - Unknown Hit and Run Vehicle Involvem No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Male Age: 30
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Other
Veh Type: Pedestrian Sobriety: HBD Not Under Influ
Party 2 Pedestrian West 0 - Pedestrian No Injury
9519933 1/8/2023 17:21 Sunday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

DALE ST - KATELLA AVE
Driving Under Influence
41' Direction: South
23152A Hit & Run: Misde Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dusk - Dawn Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 42
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver North 1999 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 83
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2000 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9551494 2/4/2023 Saturday
Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle

DALE ST - DAVMOR AVE
Improper Turning
150' Direction: North
22107 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Other Unsafe Turning
Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver North 0 - Unknown Hit and Run Vehicle Involvem No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle North 2021 - Mini Van No Injury
4 DALE ST from ORANGEWOOD AVE to KATELLA AVE Page 2 of 2 9571183 3/30/2023 18:36 Thursday
Hit Object Fixed Object

DALE ST - ORANGEWOOD AVE
Unsafe Speed
100' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 22
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2013 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9574671 4/11/2023 20:03 Tuesday
Rear-End Motor Vehicle on Othe

DALE ST - ORANGEWOOD AVE
Unsafe Speed
40' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver South 0 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 38
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2017 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9589013 5/24/2023 09:04 Wednesday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

DALE ST - ORANGEWOOD AVE
Improper Turning
230' Direction: North
22107 Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Daylight Cloudy Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 40
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Right Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2017 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 59
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Right Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2015 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Segment Length: 0.50 miles (2,663')
Collisions per mile: 15.86
Settings for Query:

Segment: DALE ST between ORANGEWOOD AVE and KATELLA AVE Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (ORANGEWOOD AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (KATELLA AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 4
Injury Collisions: 1
Fatal Collisions: 0
GILBERT ST from CHAPMAN AVE to ORANGEWOOD AVE Page 1 of 2 9412550 2/8/2022 18:47 Tuesday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

GILBERT ST - SKYLARK BLVD
Unsafe Lane Change
98' Direction: North
21658A Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:

Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Changing Lanes
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver North 2008 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 47
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 1995 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9574676 4/4/2023 18:35 Tuesday
Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle

GILBERT ST - SKYLARK BLVD
Improper Turning
162' Direction: North
22107 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 76
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2009 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle South 2016 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 3 Parked Vehicle South 1985 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9592555 6/7/2023 23:33 Wednesday
Rear-End Parked Motor Vehicle

GILBERT ST - SHANNON AVE
Driving Under Influence
141' Direction: South
23152A Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 29
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver South 2020 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle South 2018 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 3 Parked Vehicle South 2014 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Not Stated
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: Not Stated
Party 4 Parked Vehicle South 2003 FORD Pickups & Panels No Injury 9603088 6/21/2023 18:25 Wednesday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

GILBERT ST - SKYLARK BLVD
Unsafe Speed
38' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: No Severe Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0
Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Required Not Stated
Male Age: 55
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Motorcycle Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2015 - Motorcycle No Injury
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 54
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2001 - Sport Utility Vehicle No Injury GILBERT ST from CHAPMAN AVE to ORANGEWOOD AVE Page 2 of 2 Segment Length: 0.50 miles (2,639')
Collisions per mile: 8.00
Settings for Query:

Segment: GILBERT ST between CHAPMAN AVE and ORANGEWOOD AVE Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (CHAPMAN AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (ORANGEWOOD AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 6
Injury Collisions: 4
Fatal Collisions: 0
GILBERT ST from ORANGEWOOD AVE to KATELLA AVE Page 1 of 2 9404591 1/31/2022 04:30 Monday
Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle

GILBERT ST - DEWEY DR
Unsafe Lane Change
153' Direction: North
21658A Hit & Run: No Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 20
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 1995 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle South 2018 - Sport Utility Vehicle No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 3 Parked Vehicle South 2008 - Sport Utility Vehicle No Injury 9426858 3/15/2022 20:09 Tuesday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

GILBERT ST - DEWEY DR
Unsafe Lane Change
126' Direction: South
21658A Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 83
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Changing Lanes
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2014 FORD Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 24
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2008 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9456501 5/22/2022 10:46 Sunday
Broadside Other Motor Vehicle

GILBERT ST - MAUREEN DR
Auto R/W Violation
65' Direction: South
21801A Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 32
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Left Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2012 FORD Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 48
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2012 FORD Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9521407 10/24/2022 07:46 Monday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

GILBERT ST - MAUREEN DR
Unsafe Starting or Backing
106' Direction: South
22106 Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 5 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 42
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Merging
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2009 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 30
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2007 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep Complaint of Pain 9540148 1/3/2023 18:40 Tuesday
Hit Object Fixed Object

GILBERT ST - OMA PL
Unsafe Speed
70' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Raining Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 17
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2007 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9613131 8/12/2023 16:55 Saturday
Hit Object Fixed Object

GILBERT ST - JOYZELLE DR
Unsafe Speed
150' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
GILBERT ST from ORANGEWOOD AVE to KATELLA AVE Page 2 of 2 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 54
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Ran Off Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2010 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Segment Length: 0.50 miles (2,652')
Collisions per mile: 11.95
Settings for Query:

Segment: GILBERT ST between ORANGEWOOD AVE and KATELLA AVE Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (ORANGEWOOD AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (KATELLA AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 1
Injury Collisions: 0
Fatal Collisions: 0
HARBOR BLVD from CHAPMAN AVE to WILKEN WAY Page 1 of 1
9627188 8/24/2023 21:14 Thursday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

HARBOR BLVD - CHAPMAN AVE
Driving Under Influence
12' Direction: North
23152A Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed School Bus Related
Male Age: 31
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver South 2018 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Deployed School Bus Related
Female Age: 63
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2014 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Segment Length: 0.28 miles (1,481')
Collisions per mile: 3.57
Settings for Query:

Segment: HARBOR BLVD between CHAPMAN AVE and WILKEN WAY Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (CHAPMAN AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (WILKEN WAY): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
0 Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 25
Injury Collisions: 5
Fatal Collisions: 0
MAGNOLIA ST from TRASK AVE to GARDEN GROVE BLVD Page 1 of 5 9380597 1/9/2022 20:19 Sunday
Head-On Fixed Object

MAGNOLIA ST - CANNERY ST
Unsafe Speed
79' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: No Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Required Not Stated
Female Age: 2
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Motorcycle Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2012 - Motorcycle No Injury
9406109 1/22/2022 08:11 Saturday
Hit Object Fixed Object

MAGNOLIA ST - IMPERIAL AVE
Driving Under Influence
195' Direction: South
23152A Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 49
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Other Unsafe Turning
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver South 2015 FORD Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9409494 2/20/2022 13:05 Sunday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - CENTRAL AVE
Improper Turning
100' Direction: South
22107 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 62
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Other Unsafe Turning
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver Not S 2005 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Required Not Stated
Male Age: 55
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Motorcycle Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2021 - Motorcycle No Injury
9475082 5/20/2022 08:29 Friday
Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - CENTRAL AVE
Unknown
20' Direction: South
Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Raining Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car with Tr Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno Party 1 Driver South 2005 FORD Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle South 2019 FORD Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9475369 6/23/2022 21:53 Thursday
Rear-End Parked Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - TRASK AVE
Improper Turning
275' Direction: North
22107 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 42
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2004 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Parked Vehicle North 2003 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: HNBD
Party 3 Parked Vehicle North 2004 - Pickups & Panels No Injury 9496015 7/22/2022 02:01 Friday
Overturned Parked Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Unsafe Lane Change
424' Direction: South
21658A Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Other Unsafe Turning
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver South 2018 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 18 MAGNOLIA ST from TRASK AVE to GARDEN GROVE BLVD Page 2 of 5 Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle South 2012 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 3 Parked Vehicle South 2016 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9479519 7/24/2022 19:19 Sunday
Broadside Other Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - CENTRAL AVE
Unsafe Speed
43' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver North 0 - Unknown Hit and Run Vehicle Involvem No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 25
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Left Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver West 2016 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9502634 8/25/2022 17:40 Thursday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Improper Turning
5' Direction: South
22107 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Right Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver South 0 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Male Age: 26
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making U Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2017 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9502661 9/8/2022 Thursday
Rear-End Parked Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - BESTEL AVE (N)
Improper Turning
60' Direction: South
22107 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Parked Vehicle North 2009 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9495143 9/18/2022 19:35 Sunday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Auto R/W Violation
189' Direction: South
21804A Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Entering Traffic
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver South 2013 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 28
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2022 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9502290 10/9/2022 00:50 Sunday
Hit Object Fixed Object

MAGNOLIA ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Driving Under Influence
79' Direction: South
23152A Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 32
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Ran Off Road
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver South 2003 - Pickups & Panels No Injury
9537103 11/21/2022 17:16 Monday
Hit Object Fixed Object

MAGNOLIA ST - CENTRAL AVE
Unsafe Lane Change
9' Direction: North
21658A Hit & Run: Misde Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Violation
Changing Lanes
Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver South 0 - Unknown Hit and Run Vehicle Involvem No Injury Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 16
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2012 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9466934 12/24/2022 04:35 Saturday
Hit Object Fixed Object

MAGNOLIA ST - LARSON AVE
Unsafe Speed
136' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Fog Pty at Fault:1
MAGNOLIA ST from TRASK AVE to GARDEN GROVE BLVD Page 3 of 5 Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 24
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Truck Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2017 - Two-Axle Tow Truck No Injury 9540111 1/1/2023 07:41 Sunday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Driving Under Influence
90' Direction: South
23152A Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 39
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Changing Lanes
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver South 2004 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 38
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2019 - Sport Utility Vehicle No Injury 9540098 1/3/2023 21:27 Tuesday
Hit Object Fixed Object

MAGNOLIA ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Unsafe Speed
90' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Raining Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 47
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Left Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2014 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9551469 1/15/2023 23:24 Sunday
Hit Object Fixed Object

MAGNOLIA ST - CENTRAL AVE
Unsafe Speed
86' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Raining Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 39
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2019 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9555316 2/18/2023 16:28 Saturday
Rear-End Parked Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - TRASK AVE
Unsafe Speed
157' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 23
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2007 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle North 2009 - Pickups & Panels No Injury 9562589 3/18/2023 Saturday
Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Improper Turning
450' Direction: South
22107 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Raining Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Other Unsafe Turning
Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver South 0 - Unknown Hit and Run Vehicle Involvem No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle South 2017 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9573277 4/15/2023 17:40 Saturday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Unsafe Speed
22' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver North 2011 FORD Pickups & Panels No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 35
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2021 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9575712 5/16/2023 09:02 Tuesday
Overturned Parked Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - CENTRAL AVE
Improper Turning
116' Direction: North
22107 Hit & Run: No Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 51
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making U Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2020 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle Not S 2010 - Sport Utility Vehicle No Injury MAGNOLIA ST from TRASK AVE to GARDEN GROVE BLVD Page 4 of 5 Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 3 Parked Vehicle North 2017 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9557832 5/27/2023 03:03 Saturday
Hit Object Fixed Object

MAGNOLIA ST - LARSON AVE
Driving Under Influence
76' Direction: North
23152A Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Other Not Stated
Male Age: 27
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Truck Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver North 1989 - Three Axle Tank Truck No Injury 9624603 7/2/2023 14:56 Sunday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - TRASK AVE
Unsafe Lane Change
50' Direction: North
21658A Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver South 0 - Sport Utility Vehicle No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 38
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2019 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9469291 8/27/2023 18:03 Sunday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Unsafe Speed
218' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 63
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2007 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 66
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver Not S 2010 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9469347 8/30/2023 19:24 Wednesday
Head-On Bicycle

MAGNOLIA ST - TRASK AVE
Wrong Side of Road
100' Direction: North
216501 Hit & Run: No Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:

Not Stated Not Stated
Female Age: 15
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Bicycle Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Bicyclist South 0 - Bicycle No Injury
Not Stated Not Stated
Male Age: 33
Assoc Factor: Violation
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver East 2007 FORD Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9616868 9/7/2023 22:06 Thursday
Rear-End Parked Motor Vehicle

MAGNOLIA ST - CENTRAL AVE
Unsafe Speed
50' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 66
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2006 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Stated
Party 2 Parked Vehicle South 2001 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Stated
Party 3 Parked Vehicle South 2017 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Stated
Party 4 Parked Vehicle East 2006 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury MAGNOLIA ST from TRASK AVE to GARDEN GROVE BLVD Page 5 of 5 Segment Length: 0.58 miles (3,080')
Collisions per mile: 42.86
Settings for Query:

Segment: MAGNOLIA ST between TRASK AVE and GARDEN GROVE BLVD Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (TRASK AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (GARDEN GROVE BLVD): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 4
Injury Collisions: 3
Fatal Collisions: 0
9TH ST from CHAPMAN AVE to ORANGEWOOD AVE Page 1 of 2
9497027 8/18/2022 15:19 Thursday
Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle
9TH ST - CHAPMAN AVE
Improper Turning
664' Direction: North
22107 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Female Age: 50
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Not Stated
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2010 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle North 2020 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 3 Parked Vehicle North 2012 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9447612 8/26/2022 15:08 Friday
Vehicle - Pedestrian Pedestrian
9TH ST - ORANGEWOOD AVE
Unknown
12' Direction: South
Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0
Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 40
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Left Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2012 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Male Age: 13
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Pedestrian Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Pedestrian East 0 - Pedestrian Complaint of Pain 9541392 11/19/2022 23:04 Saturday
Head-On Other Motor Vehicle
9TH ST - CHAPMAN AVE
Unknown
51' Direction: North
Hit & Run: No Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 23
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Left Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver East 2019 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 48
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver West 2013 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9545244 1/23/2023 18:09 Monday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle
9TH ST - CHAPMAN AVE
Unsafe Speed
148' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: No Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 33
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2001 - Pickups & Panels No Injury
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 22
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2016 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 1 9TH ST from CHAPMAN AVE to ORANGEWOOD AVE Page 2 of 2 Segment Length: 0.50 miles (2,628')
Collisions per mile: 8.04
Settings for Query:

Segment: 9TH ST between CHAPMAN AVE and ORANGEWOOD AVE
Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (CHAPMAN AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (ORANGEWOOD AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 1
Injury Collisions: 0
Fatal Collisions: 0
SPRINGDALE ST from GARDEN GROVE BLVD to LAMPSON AVE Page 1 of 1 9540110 1/6/2023 14:21 Friday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

SPRINGDALE ST - LAMPSON AVE
Other Hazardous Movement
10' Direction: South
23123A Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 25
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2012 FORD Pickups & Panels No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 24
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2019 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Segment Length: 0.50 miles (2,635')
Collisions per mile: 2.00
Settings for Query:

Segment: SPRINGDALE ST between GARDEN GROVE BLVD and LAMPSON AVE Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (GARDEN GROVE BLVD): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (LAMPSON AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
0 Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 1
Injury Collisions: 0
Fatal Collisions: 0
SPRINGDALE ST from LAMPSON AVE to CHAPMAN AVE Page 1 of 1 9424133 3/8/2022 23:30 Tuesday
Hit Object Fixed Object

SPRINGDALE ST - LAMPSON AVE
Driving Under Influence
77' Direction: East
23152A Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 41
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver East 1997 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Segment Length: 0.51 miles (2,681')
Collisions per mile: 1.97
Settings for Query:

Segment: SPRINGDALE ST between LAMPSON AVE and CHAPMAN AVE Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (LAMPSON AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (CHAPMAN AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
0 Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 9
Injury Collisions: 5
Fatal Collisions: 0
WEST ST from GARDEN GROVE BLVD to LAMPSON AVE Page 1 of 3 9380570 1/2/2022 13:11 Sunday
Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - LAMPSON AVE
Unsafe Speed
479' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:

Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle South 2016 FORD Mini Van No Injury 9450743 5/1/2022 18:16 Sunday
Broadside Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Improper Turning
86' Direction: North
22107 Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 3 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 67
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making U Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 1995 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 37
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2016 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep Complaint of Pain 9438118 5/3/2022 07:35 Tuesday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Improper Turning
273' Direction: North
22107 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Cloudy Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 41
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Changing Lanes
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2016 AUDI Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 42
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: School Bus Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2006 - School Bus Public Type I No Injury 9495198 9/22/2022 18:12 Thursday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - MORGAN LN
Unsafe Speed
29' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 46
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2018 JEEP Sport Utility Vehicle No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 19
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2017 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 19
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 3 Driver North 2019 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9516999 12/3/2022 11:53 Saturday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - COLLEGE AVE
Unknown
30' Direction: South
Hit & Run: Misde Complaint of Pain # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:

Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Other
Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver North 0 - Unknown Hit and Run Vehicle Involvem No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 31
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2020 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep Complaint of Pain 8 WEST ST from GARDEN GROVE BLVD to LAMPSON AVE Page 2 of 3 9551498 2/12/2023 15:38 Sunday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - DUNKLEE LN
Improper Turning
80' Direction: South
22107 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Cloudy Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making U Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver South 2010 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 19
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2009 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9562182 3/10/2023 03:37 Friday
Rear-End Parked Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - DUNKLEE LN
Driving Under Influence
485' Direction: North
23152A Hit & Run: No Other Visible Injury # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 24
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver North 2016 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle North 2022 - Sport Utility Vehicle No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 3 Parked Vehicle North 2003 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 4 Parked Vehicle North 2003 - Mini Van No Injury
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 5 Parked Vehicle North 2006 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9577129 4/8/2023 15:42 Saturday
Broadside Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Improper Turning
338' Direction: North
22107 Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 48
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making U Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2017 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 36
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2013 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9586135 4/30/2023 05:54 Sunday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - GARDEN GROVE BLVD
Unsafe Speed
1064' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 29
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 1994 - Pickups & Panels No Injury
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle South 2012 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 3 Parked Vehicle South 2011 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 4 Parked Vehicle South 2012 - Sport Utility Vehicle No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 5 Parked Vehicle South 2007 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury WEST ST from GARDEN GROVE BLVD to LAMPSON AVE Page 3 of 3 Segment Length: 0.50 miles (2,617')
Collisions per mile: 18.16
Settings for Query:

Segment: WEST ST between GARDEN GROVE BLVD and LAMPSON AVE Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (GARDEN GROVE BLVD): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (LAMPSON AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 9
Injury Collisions: 5
Fatal Collisions: 0
WEST ST from LAMPSON AVE to CHAPMAN AVE Page 1 of 2
9425668 3/24/2022 14:41 Thursday
Broadside Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - CHAPMAN AVE
Wrong Side of Road
161' Direction: South
21460A Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:

Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 21
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Entering Traffic
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver West 2005 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 60
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2013 FORD Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9503881 9/12/2022 05:10 Monday
Sideswipe Parked Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - LAMPSON AVE
Improper Turning
322' Direction: North
22107 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Impairment Un
Party 1 Driver North 2002 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle North 2017 - Pickups & Panels No Injury 9530627 10/31/2022 07:26 Monday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - COMSTOCK RD
Unsafe Speed
19' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 3 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 19
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Slowing/Stopping
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2013 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Other Not Stated
Female Age: 31
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Left Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2010 - Sport Utility Vehicle No Injury 9541520 12/10/2022 01:22 Saturday
Rear-End Parked Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - LAMPSON AVE
Driving Under Influence
338' Direction: North
23152A Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 52
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Under Influence
Party 1 Driver South 2004 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle South 2018 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9562374 3/19/2023 20:55 Sunday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - COMSTOCK RD
Improper Passing
40' Direction: South
21755A Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Raining Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 46
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2018 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 34
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Changing Lanes
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2017 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9584274 4/20/2023 17:36 Thursday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - CHAPMAN AVE
Unknown
177' Direction: South
Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:
8 WEST ST from LAMPSON AVE to CHAPMAN AVE Page 2 of 2
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 21
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2005 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 53
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2013 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9587678 5/18/2023 13:47 Thursday
Broadside Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - COMSTOCK RD
Auto R/W Violation
17' Direction: North
21802A Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 Daylight Cloudy Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 19
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Left Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2021 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 48
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2019 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9469274 6/23/2023 01:14 Friday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - CHAPMAN AVE
Unsafe Speed
30' Direction: South
22350 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Stopped in Road
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2005 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 55
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 2 Driver North 2018 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9469149 7/30/2023 20:50 Sunday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - CHAPMAN AVE
Other Hazardous Movement
967' Direction: South
22109 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Other Unsafe Turning
Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver South 0 - Unknown Hit and Run Vehicle Involvem No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 23
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Pickup Truck Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2002 - Pickups & Panels No Injury
Segment Length: 0.49 miles (2,613')
Collisions per mile: 18.19
Settings for Query:

Segment: WEST ST between LAMPSON AVE and CHAPMAN AVE
Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (LAMPSON AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (CHAPMAN AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 2
Injury Collisions: 1
Fatal Collisions: 0
WEST ST from CHAPMAN AVE to ORANGEWOOD AVE Page 1 of 1
9502868 8/4/2022 00:10 Thursday
Rear-End Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - CHAPMAN AVE
Traffic Signals and Signs
42' Direction: North
21453A Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HBD Impairment Un
Party 1 Driver West 2013 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Female Age: 64
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver South 2003 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9603086 6/12/2023 23:54 Monday
Head-On Other Motor Vehicle

WEST ST - ORANGEWOOD AVE
Auto R/W Violation
5' Direction: West
21801A Hit & Run: No Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 24
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Making Left Turn
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver South 2016 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 25
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver North 2015 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Segment Length: 0.50 miles (2,635')
Collisions per mile: 4.01
Settings for Query:

Segment: WEST ST between CHAPMAN AVE and ORANGEWOOD AVE Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (CHAPMAN AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (ORANGEWOOD AVE): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
0 Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 2
Injury Collisions: 1
Fatal Collisions: 0
ORANGEWOOD AVE from MAGNOLIA ST to GILBERT ST Page 1 of 1 9450590 5/5/2022 06:02 Thursday
Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle

ORANGEWOOD AVE - GILBERT ST
Improper Passing
90' Direction: West
21755A Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:

Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Passing Other Vehicle
Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver West 0 - Unknown Hit and Run Vehicle Involvem No Injury Air Bag Not Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 48
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver West 2018 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9530595 11/10/2022 02:55 Thursday
Head-On Parked Motor Vehicle

ORANGEWOOD AVE - HOMEWAY DR
Improper Turning
16' Direction: East
22107 Hit & Run: No Complaint of Pain # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Dark - Street Ligh Clear Pty at Fault:1
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 19
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Other Unsafe Turning
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Stated
Party 1 Driver West 2022 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle East 2019 - Mini Van No Injury
Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 3 Parked Vehicle East 2009 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 4 Parked Vehicle West 2018 - Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Segment Length: 0.46 miles (2,439')
Collisions per mile: 4.33
Settings for Query:

Segment: ORANGEWOOD AVE between MAGNOLIA ST and GILBERT ST Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (MAGNOLIA ST): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (GILBERT ST): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time
1 Collision Summary Report
City of Garden Grove
Traffic Engineering Department
10/10/24
From 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2023
Total Collisions: 0
Injury Collisions: 0
Fatal Collisions: 0
TRASK AVE from BEACH BLVD to NEWLAND ST Page 1 of 1
Segment Length: 0.52 miles (2,754')
Collisions per mile: 0.00
Settings for Query:

Segment: TRASK AVE between BEACH BLVD and NEWLAND ST
Include Intersection Related at Limit 1 (BEACH BLVD): False Include Intersection Related at Limit 2 (NEWLAND ST): False Include Intersection Related at Intermediate Intersections: False Sorted By: Date and Time

APPENDIX E
Average Daily Traffic Counts

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
Dale Street
B/ Orangewood Avenue - Katella Avenue
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG001
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/17/24 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 10 45 11 105
12:15 9 58 12 101
12:30 5 52 7 116
12:45 7 55 31 210 20 93 50 415 81 625
01:00 9 46 12 82
01:15 1 48 1 106
01:30 2 71 2 136
01:45 3 54 15 219 1 113 16 437 31 656
02:00 1 60 4 135
02:15 2 91 5 124
02:30 4 86 6 121
02:45 4 81 11 318 5 158 20 538 31 856
03:00 4 80 5 212
03:15 2 151 3 224
03:30 11 110 5 150
03:45 10 80 27 421 3 148 16 734 43 1155
04:00 3 93 5 129
04:15 5 85 8 189
04:30 12 111 18 157
04:45 18 94 38 383 15 141 46 616 84 999
05:00 13 117 18 189
05:15 29 122 30 160
05:30 23 121 36 148
05:45 31 129 96 489 47 160 131 657 227 1146
06:00 23 109 45 137
06:15 31 100 51 144
06:30 54 97 58 119
06:45 51 95 159 401 80 138 234 538 393 939
07:00 68 71 114 107
07:15 83 67 179 121
07:30 65 42 126 107
07:45 77 49 293 229 170 100 589 435 882 664
08:00 81 44 202 95
08:15 137 52 324 94
08:30 69 42 111 85
08:45 50 43 337 181 101 94 738 368 1075 549
09:00 48 26 98 63
09:15 60 36 90 66
09:30 48 36 93 57
09:45 44 23 200 121 102 49 383 235 583 356
10:00 38 20 96 52
10:15 53 28 95 43
10:30 55 23 88 66
10:45 45 18 191 89 70 42 349 203 540 292
11:00 54 22 93 50
11:15 50 15 94 37
11:30 60 12 77 41
11:45 61 7 225 56 107 23 371 151 596 207
Total 1623 3117 1623 3117 2943 5327 2943 5327 4566 8444 Combined
Total 4740 4740 8270 8270 13010
AM Peak - 07:45 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 364 - - - 822 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.664 0.634
PM Peak - - 05:00 - - - 02:45 - - - -
Vol. - - 489 - - - 744 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.948 0.830
Percentag
e

34.2% 65.8% 35.6% 64.4%
ADT/AADT ADT 13,010 AADT 13,010

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
Gilbert Street
B/ Chapman Avenue - Orangewood Avenue
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG013
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/10/2024 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 14 120 8 100
12:15 15 106 6 85
12:30 12 112 6 82
12:45 8 126 49 464 9 68 29 335 78 799
01:00 6 112 6 102
01:15 4 114 6 87
01:30 4 120 13 96
01:45 4 107 18 453 7 88 32 373 50 826
02:00 9 134 2 100
02:15 5 140 6 127
02:30 5 122 3 166
02:45 1 146 20 542 4 98 15 491 35 1033
03:00 4 158 4 90
03:15 1 142 4 124
03:30 4 154 3 138
03:45 6 144 15 598 7 124 18 476 33 1074
04:00 5 170 6 120
04:15 5 154 5 98
04:30 11 174 11 116
04:45 2 166 23 664 24 116 46 450 69 1114
05:00 10 215 15 118
05:15 10 179 30 105
05:30 11 190 34 136
05:45 14 183 45 767 31 114 110 473 155 1240
06:00 22 184 28 130
06:15 34 181 47 124
06:30 44 154 65 134
06:45 43 140 143 659 72 90 212 478 355 1137
07:00 65 154 78 104
07:15 61 132 92 103
07:30 82 138 142 96
07:45 108 142 316 566 134 96 446 399 762 965
08:00 95 136 198 90
08:15 128 128 138 79
08:30 76 124 120 70
08:45 92 106 391 494 128 56 584 295 975 789
09:00 98 86 98 62
09:15 80 112 110 63
09:30 79 72 110 60
09:45 94 75 351 345 90 30 408 215 759 560
10:00 120 63 122 34
10:15 114 62 92 40
10:30 102 52 78 31
10:45 105 42 441 219 89 19 381 124 822 343
11:00 124 42 101 20
11:15 104 30 92 18
11:30 122 25 104 14
11:45 111 18 461 115 88 10 385 62 846 177
Total 2273 5886 2273 5886 2666 4171 2666 4171 4939 10057 Combined
Total 8159 8159 6837 6837 14996
AM Peak - 11:00 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 461 - - - 612 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.929 0.773
PM Peak - - 05:00 - - - 03:15 - - - -
Vol. - - 767 - - - 506 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.892 0.762
Percentag
e

27.9% 72.1% 39.0% 61.0%
ADT/AADT ADT 14,996 AADT 14,996

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
Gilbert Street
B/ Orangewood Avenue - Katella Avenue
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG002
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/10/2024 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 12 93 10 76
12:15 9 83 9 62
12:30 8 80 3 73
12:45 8 80 37 336 8 62 30 273 67 609
01:00 3 82 6 74
01:15 7 80 7 72
01:30 6 96 12 60
01:45 5 86 21 344 6 66 31 272 52 616
02:00 2 78 5 80
02:15 7 93 4 100
02:30 4 136 3 89
02:45 1 117 14 424 3 88 15 357 29 781
03:00 4 119 2 87
03:15 2 109 4 76
03:30 5 128 2 118
03:45 5 123 16 479 3 108 11 389 27 868
04:00 12 118 4 97
04:15 2 137 5 108
04:30 11 104 8 91
04:45 13 135 38 494 10 100 27 396 65 890
05:00 7 124 17 108
05:15 14 146 15 86
05:30 18 138 28 117
05:45 15 148 54 556 28 110 88 421 142 977
06:00 20 120 20 84
06:15 24 134 30 101
06:30 44 121 36 96
06:45 52 110 140 485 48 90 134 371 274 856
07:00 51 98 54 80
07:15 68 104 67 83
07:30 74 99 80 99
07:45 84 91 277 392 93 69 294 331 571 723
08:00 107 79 116 68
08:15 97 76 100 66
08:30 86 102 95 56
08:45 64 81 354 338 92 36 403 226 757 564
09:00 84 79 74 54
09:15 76 72 70 48
09:30 62 68 84 56
09:45 76 63 298 282 68 32 296 190 594 472
10:00 73 44 60 43
10:15 82 51 79 22
10:30 75 38 43 29
10:45 72 32 302 165 64 21 246 115 548 280
11:00 92 35 60 20
11:15 76 28 65 22
11:30 97 16 66 13
11:45 82 18 347 97 76 10 267 65 614 162
Total 1898 4392 1898 4392 1842 3406 1842 3406 3740 7798 Combined
Total 6290 6290 5248 5248 11538
AM Peak - 07:45 - - - 07:45 - - - - -
Vol. - 374 - - - 404 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.874 0.871
PM Peak - - 05:00 - - - 03:30 - - - -
Vol. - - 556 - - - 431 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.939 0.913
Percentag
e

30.2% 69.8% 35.1% 64.9%
ADT/AADT ADT 11,538 AADT 11,538

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
Harbor Boulevard
B/ Chapman Avenue - Wilken Way (North City Limit)
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG003
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/10/2024 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 47 138 72 146
12:15 46 141 64 164
12:30 47 162 56 150
12:45 36 171 176 612 39 164 231 624 407 1236
01:00 29 170 35 151
01:15 30 172 31 191
01:30 30 170 32 177
01:45 13 180 102 692 21 169 119 688 221 1380
02:00 17 178 17 191
02:15 21 195 15 170
02:30 17 196 20 178
02:45 22 224 77 793 11 194 63 733 140 1526
03:00 14 201 11 194
03:15 14 201 18 180
03:30 15 234 13 202
03:45 23 230 66 866 18 210 60 786 126 1652
04:00 22 268 17 209
04:15 32 221 19 198
04:30 41 267 25 229
04:45 47 267 142 1023 38 250 99 886 241 1909
05:00 40 293 38 256
05:15 52 290 58 274
05:30 55 249 59 299
05:45 64 246 211 1078 54 262 209 1091 420 2169
06:00 68 264 68 273
06:15 93 216 82 244
06:30 128 238 89 260
06:45 125 266 414 984 120 215 359 992 773 1976
07:00 132 255 150 251
07:15 176 187 146 179
07:30 189 212 153 175
07:45 198 193 695 847 194 186 643 791 1338 1638
08:00 216 197 202 179
08:15 243 192 203 189
08:30 257 157 196 176
08:45 243 182 959 728 206 144 807 688 1766 1416
09:00 235 167 236 142
09:15 247 154 209 146
09:30 265 135 251 160
09:45 263 148 1010 604 234 146 930 594 1940 1198
10:00 207 141 236 174
10:15 202 129 224 154
10:30 198 134 281 152
10:45 179 111 786 515 214 131 955 611 1741 1126
11:00 174 83 209 144
11:15 144 77 157 104
11:30 163 62 145 109
11:45 163 54 644 276 155 93 666 450 1310 726
Total 5282 9018 5282 9018 5141 8934 5141 8934 10423 17952 Combined
Total 14300 14300 14075 14075 28375
AM Peak - 09:00 - - - 09:45 - - - - -
Vol. - 1010 - - - 975 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.953 0.867
PM Peak - - 04:30 - - - 05:15 - - - -
Vol. - - 1117 - - - 1108 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.953 0.926
Percentag
e

36.9% 63.1% 36.5% 63.5%
ADT/AADT ADT 28,375 AADT 28,375

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
Magnolia Street
B/ Trask Avenue - Garden Grove Boulevard
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG004
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/17/24 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 56 221 41 322
12:15 45 247 28 327
12:30 41 238 22 326
12:45 30 244 172 950 21 276 112 1251 284 2201
01:00 25 269 16 259
01:15 15 229 16 301
01:30 21 230 15 276
01:45 19 238 80 966 14 345 61 1181 141 2147
02:00 18 277 8 352
02:15 11 286 19 322
02:30 19 308 11 271
02:45 16 290 64 1161 17 335 55 1280 119 2441
03:00 10 354 16 301
03:15 10 304 15 264
03:30 12 318 36 292
03:45 14 334 46 1310 29 270 96 1127 142 2437
04:00 15 370 43 293
04:15 11 377 61 276
04:30 24 354 91 287
04:45 24 393 74 1494 94 258 289 1114 363 2608
05:00 37 362 100 312
05:15 39 381 100 278
05:30 53 364 158 375
05:45 67 343 196 1450 166 282 524 1247 720 2697
06:00 61 354 189 321
06:15 68 360 197 288
06:30 84 351 329 270
06:45 113 325 326 1390 305 232 1020 1111 1346 2501
07:00 101 301 392 257
07:15 153 296 349 232
07:30 178 314 325 200
07:45 241 235 673 1146 305 192 1371 881 2044 2027
08:00 223 258 345 178
08:15 260 217 303 153
08:30 255 206 278 127
08:45 222 181 960 862 309 147 1235 605 2195 1467
09:00 235 167 265 121
09:15 208 189 294 129
09:30 199 169 328 120
09:45 189 173 831 698 260 95 1147 465 1978 1163
10:00 213 118 258 107
10:15 229 131 317 98
10:30 238 97 270 70
10:45 224 88 904 434 292 66 1137 341 2041 775
11:00 204 93 245 50
11:15 242 81 274 53
11:30 229 59 307 46
11:45 276 59 951 292 284 44 1110 193 2061 485
Total 5277 12153 5277 12153 8157 10796 8157 10796 13434 22949 Combined
Total 17430 17430 18953 18953 36383
AM Peak - 07:45 - - - 06:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 979 - - - 1375 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.941 0.877
PM Peak - - 04:45 - - - 01:30 - - - -
Vol. - - 1500 - - - 1295 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.954 0.920
Percentag
e

30.3% 69.7% 43.0% 57.0%
ADT/AADT ADT 36,383 AADT 36,383

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
Ninth Street
B/ Chapman Avenue - Orangewood Avenue
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG005
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/10/2024 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 9 57 9 30
12:15 7 54 7 41
12:30 8 56 2 60
12:45 9 58 33 225 9 54 27 185 60 410
01:00 6 51 8 45
01:15 5 62 5 64
01:30 8 56 6 48
01:45 1 61 20 230 1 52 20 209 40 439
02:00 3 58 2 56
02:15 2 82 3 55
02:30 6 73 3 49
02:45 5 80 16 293 2 73 10 233 26 526
03:00 1 106 2 82
03:15 4 98 5 78
03:30 6 110 3 58
03:45 4 94 15 408 2 78 12 296 27 704
04:00 7 98 7 65
04:15 6 122 4 73
04:30 4 138 5 74
04:45 15 132 32 490 10 70 26 282 58 772
05:00 5 146 9 88
05:15 7 120 16 112
05:30 16 155 20 96
05:45 21 148 49 569 18 98 63 394 112 963
06:00 18 155 25 85
06:15 24 152 40 80
06:30 22 140 44 80
06:45 35 142 99 589 63 64 172 309 271 898
07:00 43 106 58 62
07:15 42 97 100 85
07:30 57 85 137 52
07:45 57 70 199 358 156 56 451 255 650 613
08:00 70 66 147 46
08:15 73 56 140 37
08:30 84 47 122 42
08:45 84 48 311 217 103 36 512 161 823 378
09:00 81 36 84 26
09:15 114 43 106 27
09:30 122 37 102 37
09:45 113 28 430 144 108 29 400 119 830 263
10:00 120 44 115 26
10:15 104 31 152 19
10:30 118 29 96 27
10:45 100 28 442 132 85 18 448 90 890 222
11:00 62 17 70 16
11:15 65 20 61 10
11:30 49 14 50 13
11:45 60 14 236 65 46 11 227 50 463 115
Total 1882 3720 1882 3720 2368 2583 2368 2583 4250 6303 Combined
Total 5602 5602 4951 4951 10553
AM Peak - 09:15 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 469 - - - 580 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.961 0.929
PM Peak - - 05:30 - - - 05:00 - - - -
Vol. - - 610 - - - 394 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.984 0.879
Percentag
e

33.6% 66.4% 47.8% 52.2%
ADT/AADT ADT 10,553 AADT 10,553

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
Springdale Street
B/ Garden Grove Boulevard - Lampson Avenue
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG006
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/17/24 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 12 68 10 92
12:15 9 92 4 82
12:30 6 118 8 75
12:45 6 87 33 365 7 60 29 309 62 674
01:00 4 91 7 91
01:15 4 101 0 72
01:30 6 115 2 92
01:45 5 95 19 402 4 94 13 349 32 751
02:00 8 124 1 105
02:15 3 148 2 98
02:30 5 175 1 126
02:45 1 183 17 630 2 141 6 470 23 1100
03:00 3 171 7 153
03:15 4 144 3 142
03:30 8 181 4 143
03:45 2 175 17 671 10 134 24 572 41 1243
04:00 8 181 10 134
04:15 5 221 7 112
04:30 10 222 33 140
04:45 16 228 39 852 49 133 99 519 138 1371
05:00 16 262 36 154
05:15 21 254 43 148
05:30 24 205 86 130
05:45 45 192 106 913 107 128 272 560 378 1473
06:00 35 168 67 116
06:15 46 148 93 88
06:30 56 153 126 94
06:45 65 120 202 589 142 75 428 373 630 962
07:00 82 92 146 84
07:15 93 103 148 65
07:30 107 79 181 52
07:45 143 81 425 355 178 59 653 260 1078 615
08:00 148 63 177 46
08:15 115 55 159 43
08:30 111 63 173 42
08:45 101 48 475 229 113 44 622 175 1097 404
09:00 82 55 86 30
09:15 68 45 97 43
09:30 71 32 78 40
09:45 63 28 284 160 66 36 327 149 611 309
10:00 90 38 73 25
10:15 72 24 73 30
10:30 64 32 72 13
10:45 81 22 307 116 81 18 299 86 606 202
11:00 88 22 55 17
11:15 63 28 64 10
11:30 93 12 57 14
11:45 79 10 323 72 66 13 242 54 565 126
Total 2247 5354 2247 5354 3014 3876 3014 3876 5261 9230 Combined
Total 7601 7601 6890 6890 14491
AM Peak - 07:45 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 517 - - - 695 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.873 0.960
PM Peak - - 04:30 - - - 02:45 - - - -
Vol. - - 966 - - - 579 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.922 0.946
Percentag
e

29.6% 70.4% 43.7% 56.3%
ADT/AADT ADT 14,491 AADT 14,491

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
Springdale Street
B/ Lampson Avenue - Chapman Avenue
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG007
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/17/24 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 9 65 12 78
12:15 4 98 1 80
12:30 7 96 7 78
12:45 4 91 24 350 4 71 24 307 48 657
01:00 4 97 5 85
01:15 4 90 0 88
01:30 1 93 1 89
01:45 5 94 14 374 2 114 8 376 22 750
02:00 7 125 3 122
02:15 3 146 1 123
02:30 4 136 2 259
02:45 1 160 15 567 1 197 7 701 22 1268
03:00 1 258 6 207
03:15 4 201 4 218
03:30 6 190 8 210
03:45 5 201 16 850 6 185 24 820 40 1670
04:00 3 152 9 188
04:15 6 224 8 183
04:30 7 171 34 192
04:45 16 234 32 781 44 218 95 781 127 1562
05:00 14 242 37 222
05:15 15 231 44 207
05:30 20 202 77 180
05:45 29 177 78 852 98 161 256 770 334 1622
06:00 37 203 64 148
06:15 33 165 79 121
06:30 52 149 113 119
06:45 55 133 177 650 132 110 388 498 565 1148
07:00 77 108 145 98
07:15 104 111 150 76
07:30 94 76 196 80
07:45 134 84 409 379 259 73 750 327 1159 706
08:00 164 52 262 63
08:15 149 56 238 41
08:30 212 71 185 43
08:45 106 46 631 225 99 55 784 202 1415 427
09:00 53 41 88 37
09:15 65 50 100 48
09:30 72 33 65 36
09:45 56 27 246 151 60 37 313 158 559 309
10:00 82 25 60 22
10:15 67 34 70 21
10:30 69 21 74 14
10:45 65 22 283 102 71 25 275 82 558 184
11:00 86 31 51 16
11:15 67 19 73 11
11:30 81 8 60 14
11:45 74 11 308 69 73 13 257 54 565 123
Total 2233 5350 2233 5350 3181 5076 3181 5076 5414 10426 Combined
Total 7583 7583 8257 8257 15840
AM Peak - 07:45 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 659 - - - 955 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.777 0.911
PM Peak - - 04:45 - - - 02:30 - - - -
Vol. - - 909 - - - 881 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.939 0.850
Percentag
e

29.4% 70.6% 38.5% 61.5%
ADT/AADT ADT 15,840 AADT 15,840

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
West Street
B/ Garden Grove Boulevard - Lampson Avenue
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG008
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/10/2024 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 16 92 24 88
12:15 11 94 26 86
12:30 16 89 23 72
12:45 13 92 56 367 22 87 95 333 151 700
01:00 12 98 12 82
01:15 9 103 13 82
01:30 4 108 12 96
01:45 8 123 33 432 15 109 52 369 85 801
02:00 4 138 5 105
02:15 10 103 4 170
02:30 2 134 12 102
02:45 7 116 23 491 14 143 35 520 58 1011
03:00 8 129 8 114
03:15 12 148 5 126
03:30 6 154 14 120
03:45 9 154 35 585 8 119 35 479 70 1064
04:00 14 132 14 103
04:15 10 120 11 128
04:30 29 140 24 117
04:45 25 144 78 536 14 119 63 467 141 1003
05:00 23 136 30 132
05:15 47 154 34 138
05:30 54 159 46 144
05:45 48 140 172 589 44 140 154 554 326 1143
06:00 53 150 54 134
06:15 60 120 61 138
06:30 75 136 86 116
06:45 88 125 276 531 108 132 309 520 585 1051
07:00 100 128 112 114
07:15 103 102 130 111
07:30 143 104 166 100
07:45 130 96 476 430 200 84 608 409 1084 839
08:00 122 103 201 97
08:15 126 84 170 70
08:30 121 94 156 79
08:45 94 81 463 362 124 72 651 318 1114 680
09:00 78 85 124 69
09:15 84 62 95 56
09:30 81 72 104 62
09:45 75 60 318 279 102 60 425 247 743 526
10:00 62 54 98 50
10:15 94 45 92 60
10:30 65 47 96 50
10:45 74 39 295 185 83 53 369 213 664 398
11:00 78 38 74 58
11:15 77 34 76 48
11:30 82 30 96 53
11:45 92 9 329 111 82 37 328 196 657 307
Total 2554 4898 2554 4898 3124 4625 3124 4625 5678 9523 Combined
Total 7452 7452 7749 7749 15201
AM Peak - 07:30 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 521 - - - 737 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.911 0.917
PM Peak - - 05:15 - - - 05:15 - - - -
Vol. - - 603 - - - 556 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.948 0.965
Percentag
e

34.3% 65.7% 40.3% 59.7%
ADT/AADT ADT 15,201 AADT 15,201

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
West Street
B/ Lampson Avenue - Chapman Avenue
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG009
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/10/2024 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 12 86 32 80
12:15 11 94 26 80
12:30 12 84 27 76
12:45 11 80 46 344 13 71 98 307 144 651
01:00 11 92 17 77
01:15 11 90 12 70
01:30 2 105 12 80
01:45 6 102 30 389 9 106 50 333 80 722
02:00 5 130 3 132
02:15 7 133 4 152
02:30 2 128 13 109
02:45 5 106 19 497 14 128 34 521 53 1018
03:00 6 112 7 128
03:15 14 134 6 124
03:30 8 145 13 102
03:45 12 148 40 539 4 125 30 479 70 1018
04:00 16 122 9 118
04:15 13 124 8 126
04:30 42 145 17 123
04:45 28 123 99 514 13 135 47 502 146 1016
05:00 34 142 22 135
05:15 57 138 22 148
05:30 60 138 43 140
05:45 50 132 201 550 30 134 117 557 318 1107
06:00 71 138 49 144
06:15 71 116 40 132
06:30 92 112 59 112
06:45 96 110 330 476 82 142 230 530 560 1006
07:00 120 115 101 106
07:15 120 85 126 109
07:30 184 102 164 98
07:45 147 86 571 388 202 80 593 393 1164 781
08:00 102 99 194 90
08:15 124 89 152 80
08:30 121 68 136 80
08:45 92 68 439 324 116 86 598 336 1037 660
09:00 74 68 108 65
09:15 81 54 85 64
09:30 79 54 104 56
09:45 62 42 296 218 102 66 399 251 695 469
10:00 68 50 78 54
10:15 94 39 80 62
10:30 50 48 81 56
10:45 60 32 272 169 75 56 314 228 586 397
11:00 65 41 88 51
11:15 58 37 72 64
11:30 68 24 82 48
11:45 86 4 277 106 77 38 319 201 596 307
Total 2620 4514 2620 4514 2829 4638 2829 4638 5449 9152 Combined
Total 7134 7134 7467 7467 14601
AM Peak - 07:00 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 571 - - - 712 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.776 0.881
PM Peak - - 05:00 - - - 05:15 - - - -
Vol. - - 550 - - - 566 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.929 0.956
Percentag
e

36.7% 63.3% 37.9% 62.1%
ADT/AADT ADT 14,601 AADT 14,601

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
West Street
B/ Chapman Avenue - Orangewood Avenue
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG010
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/10/2024 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 28 104 48 84
12:15 13 125 33 72
12:30 17 99 41 81
12:45 14 104 72 432 19 88 141 325 213 757
01:00 15 118 25 77
01:15 11 100 20 76
01:30 11 118 12 79
01:45 5 112 42 448 10 110 67 342 109 790
02:00 9 135 9 118
02:15 6 156 11 126
02:30 7 152 16 118
02:45 6 126 28 569 19 168 55 530 83 1099
03:00 9 152 8 120
03:15 10 138 4 115
03:30 14 171 12 134
03:45 18 176 51 637 6 155 30 524 81 1161
04:00 18 170 9 140
04:15 16 162 10 137
04:30 37 178 17 132
04:45 42 166 113 676 15 136 51 545 164 1221
05:00 42 158 20 161
05:15 63 172 23 150
05:30 84 171 32 186
05:45 71 176 260 677 51 165 126 662 386 1339
06:00 62 173 42 164
06:15 95 148 44 177
06:30 115 131 64 161
06:45 120 144 392 596 84 164 234 666 626 1262
07:00 124 138 93 136
07:15 127 130 114 115
07:30 157 114 116 111
07:45 197 114 605 496 166 102 489 464 1094 960
08:00 158 102 199 114
08:15 144 112 202 92
08:30 140 89 149 98
08:45 80 85 522 388 141 104 691 408 1213 796
09:00 50 104 138 76
09:15 61 84 135 65
09:30 42 88 154 72
09:45 29 64 182 340 126 80 553 293 735 633
10:00 48 61 152 62
10:15 37 64 144 86
10:30 18 66 112 80
10:45 34 48 137 239 125 74 533 302 670 541
11:00 65 57 146 59
11:15 88 50 98 73
11:30 83 26 93 62
11:45 115 17 351 150 90 59 427 253 778 403
Total 2755 5648 2755 5648 3397 5314 3397 5314 6152 10962 Combined
Total 8403 8403 8711 8711 17114
AM Peak - 07:30 - - - 07:45 - - - - -
Vol. - 656 - - - 716 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.832 0.886
PM Peak - - 05:15 - - - 05:30 - - - -
Vol. - - 692 - - - 692 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.972 0.930
Percentag
e

32.8% 67.2% 39.0% 61.0%
ADT/AADT ADT 17,114 AADT 17,114

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
Orangewood Avenue
B/ Magnolia Street - Gilbert Street
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG011
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/10/2024 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 7 50 7 50
12:15 5 45 5 52
12:30 6 38 10 48
12:45 6 48 24 181 2 60 24 210 48 391
01:00 6 44 8 49
01:15 4 46 2 62
01:30 3 36 7 54
01:45 4 65 17 191 4 53 21 218 38 409
02:00 4 44 4 70
02:15 2 66 6 72
02:30 4 79 8 99
02:45 3 60 13 249 1 77 19 318 32 567
03:00 1 76 8 86
03:15 0 96 4 86
03:30 4 98 3 82
03:45 5 95 10 365 3 82 18 336 28 701
04:00 7 64 2 82
04:15 1 82 5 84
04:30 4 58 4 84
04:45 9 56 21 260 16 81 27 331 48 591
05:00 6 60 9 104
05:15 12 77 12 108
05:30 12 80 14 105
05:45 14 70 44 287 14 88 49 405 93 692
06:00 6 68 27 72
06:15 29 60 15 98
06:30 18 86 24 64
06:45 24 66 77 280 41 72 107 306 184 586
07:00 46 70 67 71
07:15 62 44 77 69
07:30 93 33 68 64
07:45 90 34 291 181 88 58 300 262 591 443
08:00 118 43 121 58
08:15 98 52 112 59
08:30 99 38 57 54
08:45 60 40 375 173 53 41 343 212 718 385
09:00 46 30 43 36
09:15 67 23 46 46
09:30 51 22 40 42
09:45 54 28 218 103 54 31 183 155 401 258
10:00 46 12 40 27
10:15 44 20 60 27
10:30 58 8 48 26
10:45 26 17 174 57 48 19 196 99 370 156
11:00 44 12 51 18
11:15 46 7 42 10
11:30 42 16 56 12
11:45 44 5 176 40 47 7 196 47 372 87
Total 1440 2367 1440 2367 1483 2899 1483 2899 2923 5266 Combined
Total 3807 3807 4382 4382 8189
AM Peak - 07:45 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 405 - - - 389 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.858 0.804
PM Peak - - 03:00 - - - 05:00 - - - -
Vol. - - 365 - - - 405 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.931 0.938
Percentag
e

37.8% 62.2% 33.8% 66.2%
ADT/AADT ADT 8,189 AADT 8,189

Page 1 ends

City of Garden Grove
Trask Avenue
B/ Beach Boulevard - Newland Street
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
GRG012
Site Code: 030-24772
Counts Unlimited, Inc
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: 951-268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 9/10/2024 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 9 93 8 79
12:15 9 79 4 80
12:30 12 80 8 108
12:45 3 81 33 333 6 82 26 349 59 682
01:00 7 71 9 78
01:15 2 75 7 89
01:30 6 77 4 93
01:45 5 81 20 304 2 79 22 339 42 643
02:00 7 101 6 106
02:15 3 99 4 81
02:30 2 85 2 100
02:45 3 111 15 396 3 116 15 403 30 799
03:00 3 101 5 93
03:15 2 93 6 74
03:30 2 103 8 111
03:45 3 107 10 404 5 97 24 375 34 779
04:00 2 115 6 80
04:15 6 98 6 84
04:30 3 142 13 88
04:45 4 123 15 478 17 102 42 354 57 832
05:00 6 122 12 104
05:15 9 117 21 108
05:30 5 125 21 97
05:45 7 118 27 482 27 95 81 404 108 886
06:00 17 112 36 78
06:15 19 85 49 85
06:30 21 89 56 61
06:45 38 86 95 372 57 87 198 311 293 683
07:00 39 82 67 72
07:15 59 61 81 91
07:30 95 76 113 62
07:45 109 63 302 282 147 54 408 279 710 561
08:00 105 62 146 66
08:15 98 74 107 56
08:30 86 49 105 51
08:45 79 65 368 250 122 56 480 229 848 479
09:00 61 42 85 51
09:15 75 45 96 43
09:30 59 46 82 23
09:45 76 27 271 160 73 30 336 147 607 307
10:00 71 29 90 25
10:15 61 31 82 26
10:30 66 25 87 25
10:45 88 22 286 107 78 28 337 104 623 211
11:00 78 27 68 15
11:15 67 18 71 10
11:30 63 15 85 13
11:45 75 9 283 69 85 23 309 61 592 130
Total 1725 3637 1725 3637 2278 3355 2278 3355 4003 6992 Combined
Total 5362 5362 5633 5633 10995
AM Peak - 07:30 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 407 - - - 513 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.933 0.872
PM Peak - - 04:30 - - - 04:45 - - - -
Vol. - - 504 - - - 411 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.887 0.886
Percentag
e

32.2% 67.8% 40.4% 59.6%
ADT/AADT ADT 10,995 AADT 10,995

APPENDIX F
Field Radar Survey Sheets
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: Dale Street
65 0 0 65 0
64 0 0 64 0
63 0 0 63 0 Between: Orangewood Avenue - Katella Avenue 62 0 0 62 0
61 0 0 61 0
60 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear
59 0 0 59 0
58 0 0 58 0
57 0 0 57 0 Date:
56 0 0 56 0
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0 Time
53 0 0 53 0 From: 11:50
52 0 0 52 0
51 1 0 51 X 1 Time
50 1 0 50 X 1 To: 12:15
49 0 0 49 0
48 2 2 48 X X X X 4 Existing
47 1 1 47 X X 2 Speed Limit: 40 MPH
46 1 1 46 X X 2
45 1 2 45 X X X 3
44 2 1 44 X X X 3 *
43 3 3 43 X X X X X X 6 *
42 3 4 42 X X X X X X X 7 *
41 7 3 41 X X X X X X X X X X 10 P Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 40 6 3 40 X X X X X X X X X 9 A % Over Pace: 14% 12% 13% 39 3 6 39 X X X X X X X X X 9 C
38 5 6 38 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 E % In Pace: 82% 80% 81% 37 2 6 37 X X X X X X X X 8 *
36 6 2 36 X X X X X X X X 8 * % Under Pace: 4% 8% 6%
35 4 6 35 X X X X X X X X X X 10 *
34 2 0 34 X X 2 Average Speed: 40 MPH 39 MPH 40 MPH
33 0 1 33 X 1
32 0 2 32 X X 2 Pace Speed: 35 - 44 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 31 0 1 31 X 1
30 0 0 30 0
29 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 36 MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH 28 0 0 28 0
27 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 40 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH 26 0 0 26 0
25 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 44 MPH 43 MPH 44 MPH 24 0 0 24 0
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0
21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0
18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0
16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: Gilbert Street
65 0 0 65 0
64 0 0 64 0
63 0 0 63 0 Between: Chapman Avenue - Orangewood Avenue 62 0 0 62 0
61 0 0 61 0
60 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear
59 0 0 59 0
58 0 0 58 0
57 0 0 57 0 Date:
56 0 0 56 0
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0 Time
53 0 0 53 0 From: 10:45
52 0 0 52 0
51 0 0 51 0 Time
50 0 0 50 0 To: 11:05
49 0 0 49 0
48 1 0 48 X 1 Existing
47 2 0 47 X X 2 Speed Limit: 35 MPH
46 1 1 46 X X 2
45 1 0 45 X 1
44 1 1 44 X X 2 *
43 1 1 43 X X 2 *
42 3 6 42 X X X X X X X X X 9 *
41 8 6 41 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 P Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 40 4 5 40 X X X X X X X X X 9 A % Over Pace: 10% 4% 6%
39 3 4 39 X X X X X X X 7 C
38 8 9 38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 E % In Pace: 90% 96% 92% 37 10 7 37 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 *
36 5 6 36 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 * % Under Pace: 0% 0% 2% 35 2 2 35 X X X X 4 *
34 0 2 34 X X 2 Average Speed: 40 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH
33 0 0 33 0
32 0 0 32 0 Pace Speed: 35 - 44 MPH 34 - 43 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 31 0 0 31 0
30 0 0 30 0
29 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 37 MPH 36 MPH 36 MPH 28 0 0 28 0
27 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 38 MPH 38 MPH 38 MPH 26 0 0 26 0
25 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 42 MPH 42 MPH 42 MPH 24 0 0 24 0
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0
21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0
18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0
16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: Gilbert Street
65 0 0 65 0
64 0 0 64 0
63 0 0 63 0 Between: Orangewood Avenue - Katella Avenue 62 0 0 62 0
61 0 0 61 0
60 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear
59 0 0 59 0
58 0 0 58 0
57 0 0 57 0 Date:
56 0 0 56 0
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0 Time
53 0 0 53 0 From: 11:05
52 0 1 52 X 1
51 0 0 51 0 Time
50 0 0 50 0 To: 11:25
49 0 0 49 0
48 1 2 48 X X X 3 Existing
47 3 2 47 X X X X X 5 Speed Limit: 40 MPH
46 0 2 46 X X 2
45 3 3 45 X X X X X X 6
44 1 1 44 X X 2 *
43 3 1 43 X X X X 4 *
42 1 2 42 X X X 3 *
41 5 2 41 X X X X X X X 7 P Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 40 2 4 40 X X X X X X 6 A % Over Pace: 8% 24% 17%
39 9 3 39 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 C
38 10 6 38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 E % In Pace: 86% 76% 79% 37 5 7 37 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 *
36 4 5 36 X X X X X X X X X 9 * % Under Pace: 6% 0% 4%
35 2 6 35 X X X X X X X X 8 *
34 0 1 34 X 1 Average Speed: 40 MPH 40 MPH 40 MPH
33 0 2 33 X X 2
32 1 0 32 X 1 Pace Speed: 36 - 45 MPH 33 - 42 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 31 0 0 31 0
30 0 0 30 0
29 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 37 MPH 35 MPH 36 MPH 28 0 0 28 0
27 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 39 MPH 38 MPH 39 MPH 26 0 0 26 0
25 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 44 MPH 45 MPH 45 MPH 24 0 0 24 0
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0
21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0
18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0
16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: Harbor Boulevard
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0
53 0 0 53 0 Between: Chapman Avenue - Wilken Way
52 0 0 52 0
51 0 0 51 0
50 0 0 50 0 Weather: Clear
49 0 0 49 0
48 0 0 48 0
47 1 0 47 X 1 Date:
46 0 0 46 0
45 0 0 45 0
44 0 0 44 0 Time
43 1 0 43 X 1 From: 9:00
42 5 3 42 X X X X X X X X 8 *
41 0 1 41 X 1 * Time
40 1 1 40 X X 2 * To: 9:20
39 2 3 39 X X X X X 5 P
38 4 5 38 X X X X X X X X X 9 A Existing
37 7 6 37 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 C Speed Limit: 35 MPH 36 11 8 36 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 E
35 10 6 35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 *
34 4 8 34 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 *
33 2 1 33 X X X 3 *
32 2 5 32 X X X X X X X 7
31 0 2 31 X X 2 Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 30 0 1 30 X 1 % Over Pace: 4% 8% 2%
29 0 0 29 0
28 0 0 28 0 % In Pace: 92% 90% 88%
27 0 0 27 0
26 0 0 26 0 % Under Pace: 4% 2% 10%
25 0 0 25 0
24 0 0 24 0 Average Speed: 37 MPH 36 MPH 36 MPH
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0 Pace Speed: 33 - 42 MPH 31 - 40 MPH 33 - 42 MPH 21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 34 MPH 32 MPH 34 MPH 18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 36 MPH 36 MPH 36 MPH 16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 40 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH 14 0 0 14 0
13 0 0 13 0
12 0 0 12 0
11 0 0 11 0
10 0 0 10 0
9 0 0 9 0
8 0 0 8 0
7 0 0 7 0
6 0 0 6 0
5 0 0 5 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: Magnolia Street
65 0 0 65 0
64 0 0 64 0
63 0 0 63 0 Between: Trask Avenue - Garden Grove Boulevard 62 0 0 62 0
61 0 0 61 0
60 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear
59 0 0 59 0
58 0 0 58 0
57 0 0 57 0 Date:
56 0 0 56 0
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0 Time
53 0 0 53 0 From: 1:35
52 0 0 52 0
51 0 0 51 0 Time
50 0 0 50 0 To: 1:55
49 0 0 49 0
48 0 0 48 0 Existing
47 0 0 47 0 Speed Limit: 40 MPH
46 1 0 46 X 1
45 1 1 45 X X 2
44 1 0 44 X 1
43 3 0 43 X X X 3 *
42 5 4 42 X X X X X X X X X 9 *
41 2 1 41 X X X 3 * Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 40 5 1 40 X X X X X X 6 P % Over Pace: 6% 16% 4%
39 9 1 39 X X X X X X X X X X 10 A
38 2 4 38 X X X X X X 6 C % In Pace: 84% 82% 72%
37 6 3 37 X X X X X X X X X 9 E
36 4 3 36 X X X X X X X 7 * % Under Pace: 10% 2% 24%
35 3 10 35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 *
34 3 3 34 X X X X X X 6 * Average Speed: 38 MPH 35 MPH 37 MPH 33 1 2 33 X X X 3
32 3 3 32 X X X X X X 6 Pace Speed: 34 - 43 MPH 29 - 38 MPH 34 - 43 MPH 31 1 3 31 X X X X 4
30 0 5 30 X X X X X 5
29 0 5 29 X X X X X 5 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 34 MPH 30 MPH 31 MPH 28 0 1 28 X 1
27 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 39 MPH 35 MPH 36 MPH 26 0 0 26 0
25 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 42 MPH 39 MPH 42 MPH 24 0 0 24 0
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0
21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0
18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0
16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: Ninth Street
65 0 0 65 0
64 0 0 64 0
63 0 0 63 0 Between: Chapman Avenue - Orangewood Avenue 62 0 0 62 0
61 0 0 61 0
60 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear
59 0 0 59 0
58 0 0 58 0
57 0 0 57 0 Date:
56 0 0 56 0
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0 Time
53 0 0 53 0 From: 10:00
52 0 0 52 0
51 0 0 51 0 Time
50 0 0 50 0 To: 10:25
49 1 0 49 X 1
48 1 0 48 X 1 Existing
47 0 0 47 0 Speed Limit: 40 MPH
46 2 2 46 X X X X 4
45 1 0 45 X 1
44 3 2 44 X X X X X 5 *
43 2 3 43 X X X X X 5 *
42 4 4 42 X X X X X X X X 8 *
41 2 7 41 X X X X X X X X X 9 P Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 40 8 5 40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 A % Over Pace: 10% 4% 7% 39 6 9 39 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 C
38 7 7 38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 E % In Pace: 82% 94% 88% 37 3 6 37 X X X X X X X X X 9 *
36 3 2 36 X X X X X 5 * % Under Pace: 8% 2% 5%
35 3 2 35 X X X X X 5 *
34 2 1 34 X X X 3 Average Speed: 40 MPH 40 MPH 40 MPH
33 1 0 33 X 1
32 0 0 32 0 Pace Speed: 35 - 44 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 31 1 0 31 X 1
30 0 0 30 0
29 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 36 MPH 37 MPH 36 MPH 28 0 0 28 0
27 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 39 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH 26 0 0 26 0
25 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 44 MPH 42 MPH 43 MPH 24 0 0 24 0
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0
21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0
18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0
16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: Springdale Street
65 0 0 65 0
64 0 0 64 0
63 0 0 63 0 Between: Garden Grove Boulevard - Lampson Avenue 62 0 0 62 0
61 0 0 61 0
60 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear
59 0 0 59 0
58 0 0 58 0
57 0 0 57 0 Date:
56 0 0 56 0
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0 Time
53 0 0 53 0 From: 12:55
52 0 0 52 0
51 0 0 51 0 Time
50 0 0 50 0 To: 1:15
49 0 1 49 X 1
48 0 2 48 X X 2 Existing
47 2 0 47 X X 2 Speed Limit: 40 MPH
46 4 1 46 X X X X X 5
45 1 0 45 X 1
44 2 3 44 X X X X X 5
43 2 6 43 X X X X X X X X 8 *
42 5 3 42 X X X X X X X X 8 *
41 7 2 41 X X X X X X X X X 9 * Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 40 1 5 40 X X X X X X 6 P % Over Pace: 22% 14% 16%
39 4 2 39 X X X X X X 6 A
38 1 2 38 X X X 3 C % In Pace: 66% 78% 71%
37 5 5 37 X X X X X X X X X X 10 E
36 3 7 36 X X X X X X X X X X 10 * % Under Pace: 12% 8% 13% 35 1 3 35 X X X X 4 *
34 3 4 34 X X X X X X X 7 * Average Speed: 39 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH 33 3 3 33 X X X X X X 6
32 3 1 32 X X X X 4 Pace Speed: 33 - 42 MPH 34 - 43 MPH 34 - 43 MPH 31 2 0 31 X X 2
30 0 0 30 0
29 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 33 MPH 34 MPH 34 MPH 28 1 0 28 X 1
27 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 39 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH 26 0 0 26 0
25 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 44 MPH 43 MPH 44 MPH 24 0 0 24 0
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0
21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0
18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0
16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: Springdale Street
65 0 0 65 0
64 0 0 64 0
63 0 0 63 0 Between: Lampson Avenue - Chapman Avenue
62 0 0 62 0
61 0 0 61 0
60 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear
59 0 0 59 0
58 0 0 58 0
57 0 0 57 0 Date:
56 0 0 56 0
55 0 0 55 0
54 2 0 54 X X 2 Time
53 1 0 53 X 1 From: 12:35
52 2 0 52 X X 2
51 0 0 51 0 Time
50 0 0 50 0 To: 12:55
49 0 0 49 0
48 1 0 48 X 1 Existing
47 2 0 47 X X 2 Speed Limit: 40 MPH
46 4 3 46 X X X X X X X 7 *
45 3 5 45 X X X X X X X X 8 *
44 5 5 44 X X X X X X X X X X 10 *
43 4 3 43 X X X X X X X 7 P
42 2 7 42 X X X X X X X X X 9 A
41 6 7 41 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 C Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 40 1 4 40 X X X X X 5 E % Over Pace: 12% 0% 8%
39 3 1 39 X X X X 4 *
38 3 2 38 X X X X X 5 * % In Pace: 66% 82% 74%
37 2 4 37 X X X X X X 6 *
36 3 1 36 X X X X 4 % Under Pace: 22% 18% 18%
35 1 2 35 X X X 3
34 0 3 34 X X X 3 Average Speed: 42 MPH 40 MPH 41 MPH
33 1 1 33 X X 2
32 1 0 32 X 1 Pace Speed: 38 - 47 MPH 37 - 46 MPH 37 - 46 MPH 31 1 0 31 X 1
30 0 1 30 X 1
29 2 1 29 X X X 3 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 36 MPH 35 MPH 36 MPH 28 0 0 28 0
27 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 42 MPH 41 MPH 41 MPH 26 0 0 26 0
25 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 47 MPH 45 MPH 46 MPH 24 0 0 24 0
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0
21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0
18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0
16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: West Street
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0
53 0 0 53 0 Between: Garden Grove Boulevard - Lampson Avenue 52 0 0 52 0
51 0 0 51 0
50 0 0 50 0 Weather: Clear
49 0 0 49 0
48 0 0 48 0
47 0 0 47 0 Date:
46 0 0 46 0
45 0 0 45 0
44 0 0 44 0 Time
43 1 2 43 X X X 3 From: 9:20
42 1 1 42 X X 2 *
41 4 1 41 X X X X X 5 * Time
40 3 2 40 X X X X X 5 * To: 9:40
39 4 4 39 X X X X X X X X 8 P
38 6 8 38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 A Existing
37 6 6 37 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 C Speed Limit: 40 MPH 36 9 6 36 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 E
35 4 9 35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 *
34 7 3 34 X X X X X X X X X X 10 *
33 3 5 33 X X X X X X X X 8 *
32 1 1 32 X X 2
31 1 1 31 X X 2 Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 30 0 1 30 X 1 % Over Pace: 2% 4% 3%
29 0 0 29 0
28 0 0 28 0 % In Pace: 94% 90% 92%
27 0 0 27 0
26 0 0 26 0 % Under Pace: 4% 6% 5%
25 0 0 25 0
24 0 0 24 0 Average Speed: 37 MPH 36 MPH 37 MPH
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0 Pace Speed: 33 - 42 MPH 33 - 42 MPH 33 - 42 MPH 21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 34 MPH 33 MPH 34 MPH 18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 36 MPH 36 MPH 36 MPH 16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 40 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH 14 0 0 14 0
13 0 0 13 0
12 0 0 12 0
11 0 0 11 0
10 0 0 10 0
9 0 0 9 0
8 0 0 8 0
7 0 0 7 0
6 0 0 6 0
5 0 0 5 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: West Street
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0
53 0 0 53 0 Between: Lampson Avenue - Chapman Avenue
52 0 0 52 0
51 0 0 51 0
50 0 1 50 X 1 Weather: Clear
49 0 0 49 0
48 1 1 48 X X 2
47 0 0 47 0 Date:
46 3 0 46 X X X 3
45 1 0 45 X 1
44 4 3 44 X X X X X X X 7 * Time
43 2 2 43 X X X X 4 * From: 9:40
42 3 3 42 X X X X X X 6 *
41 7 5 41 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 P Time
40 1 3 40 X X X X 4 A To: 10:00
39 9 10 39 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 C
38 4 5 38 X X X X X X X X X 9 E Existing
37 7 5 37 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 * Speed Limit: 40 MPH 36 3 6 36 X X X X X X X X X 9 *
35 4 3 35 X X X X X X X 7 *
34 1 3 34 X X X X 4
33 0 0 33 0
32 0 0 32 0
31 0 0 31 0 Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics
30 0 0 30 0 % Over Pace: 10% 4% 7%
29 0 0 29 0
28 0 0 28 0 % In Pace: 88% 90% 89%
27 0 0 27 0
26 0 0 26 0 % Under Pace: 2% 6% 4%
25 0 0 25 0
24 0 0 24 0 Average Speed: 40 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0 Pace Speed: 35 - 44 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 36 MPH 36 MPH 36 MPH 18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 39 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH 16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 44 MPH 42 MPH 43 MPH 14 0 0 14 0
13 0 0 13 0
12 0 0 12 0
11 0 0 11 0
10 0 0 10 0
9 0 0 9 0
8 0 0 8 0
7 0 0 7 0
6 0 0 6 0
5 0 0 5 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: West Street
65 0 0 65 0
64 0 0 64 0
63 0 0 63 0 Between: Chapman Avenue - Orangewood Avenue 62 0 0 62 0
61 0 0 61 0
60 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear
59 0 0 59 0
58 0 0 58 0
57 0 0 57 0 Date:
56 0 0 56 0
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0 Time
53 0 0 53 0 From: 10:25
52 0 0 52 0
51 0 0 51 0 Time
50 0 0 50 0 To: 10:45
49 0 0 49 0
48 0 0 48 0 Existing
47 0 0 47 0 Speed Limit: 40 MPH
46 0 0 46 0
45 1 1 45 X X 2
44 1 2 44 X X X 3
43 0 3 43 X X X 3 *
42 3 3 42 X X X X X X 6 *
41 6 6 41 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 * Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 40 6 6 40 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 P % Over Pace: 4% 2% 5% 39 10 9 39 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 A
38 3 3 38 X X X X X X 6 C % In Pace: 94% 92% 93%
37 2 7 37 X X X X X X X X X 9 E
36 10 4 36 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 * % Under Pace: 2% 6% 2% 35 4 3 35 X X X X X X X 7 *
34 3 2 34 X X X X X 5 * Average Speed: 38 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH 33 0 0 33 0
32 1 1 32 X X 2 Pace Speed: 34 - 43 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 34 - 43 MPH 31 0 0 31 0
30 0 0 30 0
29 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 35 MPH 36 MPH 36 MPH 28 0 0 28 0
27 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 39 MPH 39 MPH 39 MPH 26 0 0 26 0
25 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 41 MPH 42 MPH 41 MPH 24 0 0 24 0
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0
21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0
18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0
16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed EB WB VEH. Location: Orangewood Avenue
65 0 0 65 0
64 0 0 64 0
63 0 0 63 0 Between: Magnolia Street - Gilbert Street
62 0 0 62 0
61 0 0 61 0
60 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear
59 0 0 59 0
58 0 0 58 0
57 0 0 57 0 Date:
56 0 0 56 0
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0 Time
53 0 0 53 0 From: 11:25
52 0 0 52 0
51 0 0 51 0 Time
50 1 0 50 X 1 To: 11:50
49 1 2 49 X X X 3
48 0 1 48 X 1 Existing
47 1 0 47 X 1 Speed Limit: 40 MPH
46 0 1 46 X 1
45 2 0 45 X X 2
44 1 1 44 X X 2 *
43 4 3 43 X X X X X X X 7 *
42 6 5 42 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 *
41 8 7 41 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 P Eastbound Westbound Combined Statistics 40 1 12 40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 A % Over Pace: 6% 8% 9% 39 6 5 39 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 C
38 2 2 38 X X X X 4 E % In Pace: 80% 88% 84%
37 5 5 37 X X X X X X X X X X 10 *
36 5 3 36 X X X X X X X X 8 * % Under Pace: 14% 4% 7%
35 2 1 35 X X X 3 *
34 1 1 34 X X 2 Average Speed: 40 MPH 40 MPH 40 MPH
33 0 1 33 X 1
32 3 0 32 X X X 3 Pace Speed: 36 - 45 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 35 - 44 MPH 31 1 0 31 X 1
30 0 0 30 0
29 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 36 MPH 37 MPH 36 MPH 28 0 0 28 0
27 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 39 MPH 40 MPH 40 MPH 26 0 0 26 0
25 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 43 MPH 43 MPH 43 MPH 24 0 0 24 0
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0
21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0
18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0
16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Eastbound Westbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24
MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed EB WB VEH. Location: Trask Avenue
65 0 0 65 0
64 0 0 64 0
63 0 0 63 0 Between: Beach Boulevard - Newland Street
62 0 0 62 0
61 0 0 61 0
60 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear
59 0 0 59 0
58 0 0 58 0
57 0 0 57 0 Date:
56 0 0 56 0
55 0 0 55 0
54 0 0 54 0 Time
53 0 0 53 0 From: 1:15
52 0 0 52 0
51 0 0 51 0 Time
50 1 0 50 X 1 To: 1:35
49 0 1 49 X 1
48 0 0 48 0 Existing
47 0 0 47 0 Speed Limit: 40 MPH
46 3 2 46 X X X X X 5
45 2 0 45 X X 2
44 6 0 44 X X X X X X 6
43 3 3 43 X X X X X X 6 *
42 2 0 42 X X 2 *
41 2 2 41 X X X X 4 * Eastbound Westbound Combined Statistics 40 2 5 40 X X X X X X X 7 P % Over Pace: 12% 12% 15%
39 7 3 39 X X X X X X X X X X 10 A
38 4 7 38 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 C % In Pace: 72% 82% 73% 37 4 3 37 X X X X X X X 7 E
36 3 4 36 X X X X X X X 7 * % Under Pace: 16% 6% 12%
35 3 7 35 X X X X X X X X X X 10 *
34 3 6 34 X X X X X X X X X 9 * Average Speed: 39 MPH 37 MPH 38 MPH 33 2 2 33 X X X X 4
32 0 2 32 X X 2 Pace Speed: 35 - 44 MPH 32 - 41 MPH 34 - 43 MPH 31 2 2 31 X X X X 4
30 1 1 30 X X 2
29 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 34 MPH 34 MPH 34 MPH 28 0 0 28 0
27 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 39 MPH 37 MPH 38 MPH 26 0 0 26 0
25 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 44 MPH 41 MPH 43 MPH 24 0 0 24 0
23 0 0 23 0
22 0 0 22 0
21 0 0 21 0
20 0 0 20 0
19 0 0 19 0
18 0 0 18 0
17 0 0 17 0
16 0 0 16 0
15 0 0 15 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Eastbound Westbound
City of Garden Grove
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
9/11/24

APPENDIX F
2024 Posted Speed Map
City Of Garden Grove FIGURE 1
Department Of Public Works 2024 POSTED SPEED
MAP
Engineers, Inc.
1 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN
GROVE AMENDING SECTION 10.36.030 OF CHAPTER 10.36 OF TITLE 10 OF THE GARDEN GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING SPEED

LIMITS FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED CITY STREETS BASED UPON AN UPDATED TRAFFIC AND ENGINEERING SPEED SURVEY.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Section 10.36.030 of Chapter 10.36 of Title 10 of the Garden Grove Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SECTION 10.36.030 Speed Limits Established.

Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Sections 22357 through 22358, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, the speed permitted by state law upon the following streets for safe operation of vehicles are as established herein. The prima facie speed limit shall be as set forth in this section on those streets or parts of streets herein designated when signs are erected giving notice thereof:

Declared
No. and Prima Facie
Name of Street Portion Affected Speed Limit
116 Brookhurst Street Hazard Ave. to Chapman Ave. 40
116 Brookhurst Street Chapman Ave. to Katella Ave. 45
155 Century Boulevard Garden Grove Blvd. to Euclid St. 40 159 Chapman Avenue Lewis St. to Harbor Blvd.. 45
159 Chapman Avenue Harbor Blvd. to Knott St. 40
159 Chapman Avenue Knott St. to Valley View St. 45
159 Chapman Avenue Valley View St. to Bailey St. 25
197 Dale Street Katella Ave. to Orangewood Ave. 35
197 Dale Street Orangewood Ave. to Garden Grove Blvd. 35 269 Euclid Street Katella Ave. to Westminster Ave. 40
318 Garden Grove Boulevard Lewis St. to Knott St. 40
329 Gilbert Street Katella Ave. to Chapman 35
329 Gilbert Street Chapman Ave. to Garden Grove Blvd. 30 354 Harbor Boulevard Westminster Ave. to Chapman Ave. 40 354 Harbor Boulevard Chapman Ave. to Wilken Wy. 35
360 Haster Street Simmons Ave. to Garden Grove Blvd. 40 363 Hazard Avenue Euclid St. to Cork St. 40
465 Knott Street Patterson Dr. to Garden Grove Blvd. 40 466 Lampson Avenue Lewis St. to Dale St. 35
466 Lampson Avenue Dale St. to Valley View St. 40
466 Lampson Avenue Valley View St. to Manley St. 45
531 Magnolia Street Katella Ave. to Garden Grove Blvd. 40 531 Magnolia Street Garden Grove Blvd. to Trask Ave. 35 531 Magnolia Street Trask Ave. to Westminster Ave. 40
533.10 Main Street College St. to Garden Grove Blvd. 25 607 Nelson Street Garden Grove Blvd. to Stanford Ave. 35 2 610 Newhope Street Garden Grove Blvd. to Trask Ave. 35 610 Newhope Street Trask Ave. to Westminster Ave. 40
611 Newland Street Garden Grove Blvd. to Westminster Ave. 40 616 Ninth Street Orangewood Ave. to Garden Grove Blvd. 35 618 Nutwood Avenue Chapman Ave. to Garden Grove Blvd. 35 637 Orangewood Avenue Eugene St. to West St. 40
637 Orangewood Avenue West St. to Magnolia St. 35
637 Orangewood Avenue Magnolia St. to Knott St. 40
816.6 Springdale Street Garden Grove Blvd. to Lampson Ave. 35 816.6 Springdale Street Lampson Ave. to Chapman Ave. 35 816.6 Springdale Street Chapman Ave. to Santa Catalina Ave. 40 Taft Street Westminster Ave. to Century Blvd. 35
866 Trask Avenue Fairview St. to Harbor Blvd. 35
866 Trask Avenue Harbor Blvd.to Beach Blvd. 40
866 Trask Avenue Beach Blvd. to Newland St. 35
866 Trask Avenue Newland St. to Harbor Blvd. 40
Ward Street Hazard Ave. to Morningside Dr. 35
932 West Street Ricky Ave. to Orangewood Ave. 40
932 West Street Orangewood Ave. to Garden Grove Blvd. 35 933 Western Avenue Lincoln Wy. to Orangewood Ave. 40
933 Western Avenue Orangewood Ave. to Garden Grove Blvd. 45 935 Westminster Avenue Buena St. to Bushard St. 45
935 Westminster Avenue Bushard St. to Newland St. 40
890 Valley View Street Santa Catalina Ave. to Garden Grove Blvd. 45 Section 2. City Clerk Certification and Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance to be published as required by law.

Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after passage.

Item 484/2024
Final
City of Garden Grove

INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa L. Kim From: William E. Murray
Dept: City Manager Dept: Public Works
Date: 11/26/2024
Subject: Award a contract to Iteris, Inc. for the installation and integration of equipment for the Bolsa Chica Street-Valley View Street Traffic Signal Synchonization Project. (Cost: $545,121) (Action Item)

OBJECTIVE
To request City Council authorization to award a contract to Iteris, Inc. to install and integrate equipment for the Bolsa Chica Street-Valley View Street Traffic Signal Synchronization Project (TSSP).

BACKGROUND
The Cities of Garden Grove, Huntington Beach and Westminster were awarded a Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program (CTFP) grant from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to implement the Bolsa Chica Street-Valley View Street TSSP. The construction task of the project for Garden Grove involves the procurement and installation of various field equipment at five (5) signalized intersections along Valley View Street from Cerulean Avenue to Chapman Avenue. The field equipment includes traffic signal cabinets, service cabinets, controllers, video detection systems, CCTV cameras, APS pedestrian push buttons, Ethernet switches, pull boxes, conduits and conductors. The project also includes the installation and integration of communication equipment to the Garden Grove Traffic Management Center (TMC). The task of installation and integration of communication equipment requires the expertise of a transportation engineering consultant firm. In October of 2024, staff issued a request for proposal (RFP) to seek a qualified consultant firm to implement the construction task of the project.

DISCUSSION
Staff released the RFP to four (4) transportation engineering consultant firms for the construction of the Bolsa Chica Street-Valley View Street TSSP. All four (4) firms have experience with past TSSP from various agencies throughout Orange County. At the conclusion of the RFP deadline, the City received one (1) formal proposal from Iteris, Inc. A panel consisting of three (3) staff members rated the proposal on the basis of qualifications, work plan and references. All members rated the proposal with high scores and determined that Iteris, Inc. met all criteria required in the RFP. Staff conducted interviews with references Item 484/2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

provided by Iteris, Inc. and all references responded with outstanding comments and positive work reviews. In addition, staff has had positive experiences with past projects completed by Iteris, Inc. in Garden Grove, which includes the Brookhurst Street TSSP in 2019 and Harbor Boulevard TSSP in 2016.

The total proposed not-to-exceed amount for the system construction is $545,121. The amount is 0.9% under the Engineer’s estimate of $550,000 and is within the current project budget.

The anticipated contract schedule is as follows:

Award Project - November 26, 2024
Begin Project (estimated) - January 13, 2025
Complete Project (estimated) - May 13, 2025

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total project cost will be funded by $436,096.80 of OCTA CTFP grant and $109,024.20 in local match. The local match will include $83,160 in ‘in-kind’ contribution, and $25,864.20 as cash contribution from the Traffic Mitigation Fees. The in-kind contribution is equipment previously purchased by the City which will be installed by Iteris, Inc. as part of the project.

There is no impact to the General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council:
 Award a contract to Iteris, Inc., in the amount of $545,121, for the system construction of the Bolsa Chica Street-Valley View Street Traffic Signal Synchronization Project; and  Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreement and make minor modifications as appropriate thereto, on behalf of the City.

By: Ken Vu, Associate Engineer

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Iteris Proposal

2. Agreement

THE SYSTEM

CONSTRUCTION OF

THE BOLSA CHICA ST -
VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP
Request for Proposals for
November 8, 2024
11477-230.25
Submitted to:

November 8, 2024
Mr. Dai Vu
Traffic Engineer
City of Garden Grove, Public Works Department Engineering Division 11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92842
Re: Proposal for City the System Construction of the Bolsa Chica St. – Valley View St. TSSP in the City of Garden Gove
11477-230.25
Dear Mr. Vu
Iteris is a trusted leader in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) space. Over the past five years, we have launched more than 1,000 ITS/engineering, construction, and planning projects for a wide range of public and private entities, spanning local and regional agencies, counties, and Caltrans. This extensive track record underscores our capability and dedication to delivering superior transportation solutions. Iteris is proposing a team of seasoned professionals for construction and implementation tasks, each possessing extensive experience across every phase of project deployment and construction. This breadth of expertise in multiple disciplines ensures seamless project continuity, encompassing technical solutions and stakeholder engagement needed to deliver a successful project. At the project’s conclusion, Iteris ensures the city will have a fully functioning system that they understand and can utilize for years to come.

Iteris proposes Mr. Brian Akerley, MELE, as Project Manager for this project. He will be the principal contact with the City and other entities per the City’s direction. Mr. Akerley will oversee work from project inception to completion and will also be responsible for coordinating staff activities and meetings. Iteris will provide the City with the following distinct advantages:

Iteris Does It All.

Iteris is a “one-stop-shop” turnkey integration solutions provider offering a full spectrum of services in planning, consulting, design, installation, integration, and operations and maintenance. Our extensive expertise across transportation disciplines equips our team with a comprehensive understanding of the steps necessary to successfully complete ITS projects.

We Know Garden Grove.

With a long, successful history of collaboration with the City of Garden Grove, the Iteris team possesses an in-depth understanding of the City’s transportation network and objectives. Our project team’s professional experience provides valuable insight into the technical background and needs of the area, while our personal experience gives firsthand knowledge and a local connection to the project.

This proposal is valid for ninety (90) days from date of submittal.

We have included sample certificates to show coverage included in the Appendix and we are asking the City of Garden Grove to consider accepting our policies and limits as-is. Our current coverage does not include the loss payee endorsement, however, upon award and negotiation with the City, Iteris is open to discussing options to obtaining additional coverage.

Iteris carries the following insurance coverage for our electrical contracting line of business:
• CGL: $1M per occurrence / $2M in the aggregate
• Excess: $3M per occurrence and in the aggregate
• Professional / Pollution Liability: $1M per claim and in the aggregate Additionally, Iteris carries the following policies for the business overall:
• Auto: $1M combined single limit
• WC: $1M each accident/disease
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our proposal. Iteris looks forward to working with the City on this important project. Please contact me at (949) 270-9647 or [email protected], or the designated Project Manager (PM), Mr. Akerley, MELE, at (657) 652-8288 or [email protected], should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Iteris, Inc.

Steven Bradley, PE - Regional Vice President | Mobility Consulting Solutions  Steven has the authority to bind and negotiate on behalf of Iteris. iii | Iteris, Inc.

MICROSIMULATION MODEL DEVELOPMENT FOR HARBOR BOULEVARD
A. QUALIFICATIONS, RELATED EXPERIENCE, AND REFERENCES OF OFFEROR COVER LETTER………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………I TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….III COMPANY OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT TEAM ..............................................................................................................................................................3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE .................................................................................................................................................6 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH..............................................................................................................10 SCOPE OF WORK..........................................................................................................................................................10 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……14 APPENDIX: CONTRACTOR LICENSE | INSURANCE COVERAGE | RESUMES .................................................................15 Tables
Table 1 – Project Qualifications Matrix .........................................................................................................................6 Figures
Figure 1 – Project Team Organization ...........................................................................................................................4 Figure 2 – Proposed Project Schedule.........................................................................................................................14 1 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

COMPANY OVERVIEW
Iteris, Inc. is the market leader in smart mobility infrastructure management since 1987. Iteris’ 470 staff have decades of expertise in traffic management, along with superior services and patented products that help detect, measure, and manage traffic and vehicular performance, minimize traffic congestion, enhance safety, and empower Iteris clients with solutions to better manage their transportation networks.

Iteris team members are experts in the fields of ITS
construction, transportation planning, traffic engineering, and Implementation. Knowledge of these practice areas
enables Iteris to provide comprehensive services ranging from initial traffic impact studies, transportation
modeling, planning, systems engineering, and detailed
design, through implementation and performance
measurement/monitoring. Iteris combines the knowledge
of transportation engineers, construction professionals, system integrators, software engineers, and
transportation planners to offer an unmatched
combination of talent and experience. Iteris develops and deploys innovative solutions that help agencies reduce traffic congestion, enhance transit use, monitor, and manage transportation networks and provide greater access to reliable traveler information.

Iteris, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Almaviva S.p.A., is a financially solvent corporation with the financial capability to fulfill all project requirements subject to this RFP. Financial filings for its annual fiscal year-end 2024 and first quarter filing for its current fiscal year 2025 are available at SEC website at the following URL under company name “Iteris, Inc.” or ticker symbol “ITI” - www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.

Core Disciplines
Iteris was founded based on the principle of providing quality solutions on time and within budget. Committed to the transportation industry, Iteris applies in depth knowledge to solve the most challenging problems associated with the movement of people and goods to enhance a growing economy. Iteris delivers precise solutions that meet customer needs and expectations in the following areas:

Field Installation
&
Implementation
Safety
Evaluation
Model
Development
Traffic Signal
Timing
Development
Data
Insights
Operations
Performance
Evaluation
Before/After
Analysis
2 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

COMPANY OVERVIEW
Knowledge in ITS Construction and Implementation
Successful project delivery starts with people, and our unrivaled team of experts draws from a deep industry understanding to guide the way forward to success. The Iteris construction management team has completed design, procurement, construction, integration, and quality control tasks for similar projects throughout Orange County. Many of these projects have the same construction and technology aspects to them as the Garden Grove TSSP project does. Iteris has even completed a handful of full TMC buildouts with cutting edge video wall technology throughout California and Texas. Additionally, with Brian Akerley’s experience as a Master Electrician (MELE), we have an all-encompassing proficiency that covers every aspect of construction, integration, and project management. In fact, Iteris has been providing construction management level support on ITS projects dating back to the early 2000s.

Iteris is also known in the ITS industry as being uniquely qualified to perform every aspect of ITS related project deliverables, from upfront planning to design and construction, and onto operations. This is primarily because Iteris has a long, demonstrated history of planning, designing, constructing, and implementing successful projects both as a licensed Professional Services firm and as a licensed Electrical Contractor. When applicable, leveraging analytics from Iteris’ traffic sensors and software products further differentiates Iteris as a leader in the transformation to smart mobility management. As a result, Iteris is recognized as a “One-Stop-Shop" and has had the pleasure of working with state and local agencies for several decades, including agencies like OCTA, LA Metro, Santa Ana, and Garden Grove to name a few.
3 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

PROJECT TEAM
35 BRIAN AKERLEY, MELE
Project Manager
Mr. Akerley serves as a Vice President for Iteris’ Consulting Solutions division and has been with the firm since 2022. He has over 24 years of comprehensive experience as a results-focused professional with extensive experience in electrical engineering, electrical contracting, telecommunications, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) installation and maintenance. His performance track record is characterized by successful planning, implementation, and execution skills, as well as an effective participatory management style that reflects strong coaching, delegation, and leadership skills, as well as an ability to establish clear and measurable goals. Brian has been responsible for the oversight and delivery of many high-level projects for Municipalities, County and State DOTs, and transit agencies. In addition to his leadership, and project delivery skills, Brian is the licensing Qualifier for Iteris and is responsible for acquiring the state licensing necessary to lay the groundwork for business development nationally.

Education &
Registrations
BS, Business and
Leadership Studies
Electrical Contractor
Licensing
CA #1096882
Project Team Organization
With local offices in Santa Ana, Los Angeles, and
Oakland, Iteris has the resources of over 100 team
members throughout California dedicated to Traffic
Engineering, Transportation Planning, and ITS. Iteris’
proposed team organization is provided in Figure 1.

We have partnered with Anderson Howard as our subcontractor for this project to perform the fiber optic tasks and to provide a Corning Landscape warranty where applicable. Anderson Howard is a leader in fiber optic installation, offering comprehensive services
tailored to meet the needs of both Industrial and
commercial clients. With a dedicated team of certified
technicians and state-of-the-art equipment, Anderson
Howard ensures efficient and reliable installation
processes that meet or exceed industry standards. These installation capabilities cover all aspects of fiber optic deployment, including:
• Underground and Aerial Installations: Expertise in
both underground and aerial installations,
ensuring adaptability to various environments.
• Splicing and Termination: High-precision splicing
Mr. Akerley has 24+
years in Electrical
Contracting experience.
4 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

PROJECT TEAM
and termination of fiber cables, ensuring optimal performance and minimal signal loss. • Testing and Certification: Comprehensive testing procedures to validate network integrity, including OTDR testing, power loss measurements, and certification according to Corning and industry standards. • Troubleshooting, and repair services to ensure long-term reliability and performance of fiber optic networks.

Additionally, Anderson Howard has a long collaborative history of working with their partners and customers while adhering to their core tenants of authenticity and trust.

Figure 1 – Project Team Organization
Proposed Project Organization
KEY
 Task Lead
Anderson Howard (Sub)
Joshua McNeill, PE, TE, PTOE
QA/QC & Senior Advisor
Brian Akerley, MELE
Project Manager
Peyvand Hajian
Deputy Project Manager
Project Team Profiles

EXPERT ADVISORY PANEL
Iteris aims to solve clients’ project problems by offering effective, innovative, and smart solutions. Our clients know Iteris as a firm that goes above and beyond expectations to make client projects successful. One method to achieve these goals is by offering clients an Expert Advisory Panel whose mission it is to assist the Project Team with innovation ideas, problem solving solutions and quality control (QA/QC). Iteris is pleased to offer Mr. Joshua McNeill, PE, TE, PTOE and Ms.

Payvand Hajian, as the Expert Advisory Panel for this project.

JOSHUA MCNEILL, PE, TE, PTOE
Role on Project
QA/QC Senior Advisor
Education &
Registrations
MS, Civil Engineering
BS, Civil Engineering
PE, CA #79151
PE, UT #9480116
Mr. McNeill serves as a Principal Engineer for Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions and has been with the firm since 2017. He has 17 years of experience working in the fields of transportation engineering and planning.

Mr. McNeill has delivered PS&E packages for traffic signal system upgrades, fiber optic communication networks, freeway traffic management systems, as well as other traditional traffic handling, signing and pavement delineation plans. He has also managed signal timing development and implementation for several agencies. He provides solutions to traffic problems while effectively managing budgets and scope of

CONSTRUCTION INTEGRATION
Kent Spurr  Alek Ingoglia 
Alex Morales, IMSA
Joshua Lemestre, IMSA
Alex Gallardo, IMSA
Juan Ramos 
Andrew Freeman, PE, PTOE
Raymond Liang
5 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

PROJECT TEAM
TE, CA #2792
PTOE #4870
work. Mr. McNeill is committed to providing sustainable transportation design with an emphasis on systems engineering analysis and utilization of emerging technologies. As a resident of Garden Grove, Josh enjoys several of the amenities along Valley View such as the bowling alley and movie theatre. His local knowledge allows him to understand the community’s needs.

PAYVAND HAJIAN
Role on Project
Deputy Project
Manager
Education &
Registrations
MS, Civil Engineering
BS, Civil Engineering
Ms. Hajian serves as a Senior Engineer for Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions and has been with the firm since 2024. Ms. Hajian has 10 years of experience working in the field of Transportation Infrastructure. Mrs. Hajian is a resourceful and analytical transportation engineer with experience in transit, intelligent transportation systems, and transportation infrastructure projects. Ms. Hajian has demonstrated the ability to design, permit, construct, and develop scope for complex large-scale, multimillion-dollar projects involving striping, traffic control, stage construction, and neighborhood traffic management.

KEY PERSONNEL
Iteris is pleased to present the following key personnel assigned to the project who will assist Mr. Akerley with the successful delivery of this project to the City.

KENT SPURR
Role on Project
Task Lead
Education &
Registrations
FOA Fiber Optic
Certification
#4090055 CFOT
CSLB C‐10 Electrical
Contractors License
#1081585
Mr. Spurr serves as a Technical Field Support IV for Iteris’ Consulting Solutions division and has been with the firm since August 2022. He has over 21 years of experience working in the field of ITS electrical installation, operations, and maintenance. Mr. Spurr has spent his career as the “GoTo” technical lead for projects requiring a master level of expertise. This level of expertise is consistently leveraged to assist our clients with equipment issues, troubleshooting devices, and finding solutions to some of the industry’s most complicated challenges. As the Task lead for the construction portion of this project, Kent will oversee every aspect of the field work to ensure code compliance and specification adherence.

ALEX INGOGLIA
Role on Project
Task Lead
Education &
Registrations
BS, Civil Engineering
EIT, CA #160812
Mr. Ingoglia serves as a Senior Engineer in Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions division and has been with the firm since April 2017. Mr. Ingoglia has over 7 years of experience in the fields of Traffic Signal Operations, Signal Timing & Coordination, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) planning, design, and integration, Traffic Engineering & Design, and Municipal Traffic Engineering. His project experience includes preparing and implementing signal timing and synchronization, operational analysis, installing ITS and communication equipment, preparing signing and striping plans as well as reviewing traffic studies and traffic control plans. Mr. Ingoglia has knowledge in signal timing, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), electrical systems, and integration. Mr. Ingoglia is proficient in the use of design and traffic analysis software such as AutoCAD, MicroStation, and Synchro. Mr. Ingoglia grew up in nearby Huntington Beach and Westminster along the Bolsa Chica-Valley View corridor and is familiar with the corridor and frequently visits the area to visit family.
6 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Iteris is well known within the industry and has a long history of successful projects similar in scope for several California agencies. With a proven track record of on-time, within-budget performance, Iteris encourages the City/Agency to verify with the references provided for the project qualifications provided. Iteris has initiated over 1,000 ITS/Engineering and Planning projects within the last five years for a wide range of public and private entities including local agencies, counties, MPO, and Caltrans.

Approximately 70% of these projects represent repeat clients - a testament to Iteris’ ultimate goal of client satisfaction. Iteris’ extensive traffic engineering, transportation planning and ITS experience is demonstrated by the projects are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 – Project Qualifications Matrix

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
ITS ConstructionITS IntegrationConstruction Management / SupportITS Design Installation and Integration for the Citywide Bus Signal Priority Project – City of Downey, CA
Countywide Signal Priority (CSP) Upgrade and Expansion Next Gen – Los Angeles, CA
First Street and Bolsa Avenue Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project (RTSSP), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) – Orange County, CA
Alternative Signal Communication Demonstration Pilot, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) – Orange County, CA Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) Project For Tustin Avenue & Rose Drive – City Of Orange, CA
Over 70% of Iteris’ ITS/Engineering and Planning projects represent repeat clients - a testament to Iteris’ ultimate goal of client satisfaction. 7 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Project Qualifications
INSTALLATION AND INTEGRATION FOR THE CITYWIDE BUS SIGNAL PRIORITY PROJECT – CITY OF DOWNEY, CA
Reference Mr. Edwin J. Norris, PE, TE, Deputy Director of Public Works, City of Downey, 11111 Brookshire Avenue,Downey, CA 90241, (562) 904-7110, [email protected]
Staff Brian Akerley (PM), Kent Spurr (Field installation leader), Omid Modaghegh (Integration task leader) Duration 2/2023 – 12/2024 Budget $920,000
Iteris is responsible for constructing and
implementing the bus signal priority
system for 92 intersections along six
major corridors. Iteris had previously
done the development of plans,
specifications, and construction cost
estimate for 2.2-mile gap closures in the
city’s fiber-optic traffic signal
communications network, to enable the
connection of additional signalized
intersections to the City’s Traffic
Management Center (TMC), and
recommendations of bus signal priority systems to be integrated onto the DowneyLINK automatic vehicle location (AVL) system. The signal priority system is based on IEEE 802.11-compliant wireless bus-to-intersection communications; and upgraded intersection traffic controller technologies. In addition to the installation of radios, antennas and supporting cabling, Iteris is responsible for integration of the Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) network including any interties that are required for network monitoring for each corridor. The WLAN network design will be consistent with Metro’s Countywide Signal Priority architecture and system.

Project Relevance: Similar to the Valley View TSSP project, there is an abundance of controllers, ethernet switches and TMC network equipment in this project that Iteris installed, configured, and integrated into the city’s system.

COUNTYWIDE SIGNAL PRIORITY (CSP) UPGRADE AND EXPANSION NEXT GEN – LOS ANGELES, CA Reference Steven Gota, Engineer, Metro, 1 Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012, (213) 922-3043, [email protected] Staff Alek Hovsepian (Project Manager), Steven Bradley (Principal-In-Charge), Omid Modaghegh (WLAN Communication Design), Delbert Smith-Lavezzari (System Design Engineer) Duration 10/2021 – 8/2024 Budget $2,639,548
Iteris was responsible for evaluating and
implementing bus signal priority system for several
multi-jurisdictional Metro local corridors as part of
Metro’s Next Gen Bus Service and existing
Countywide Signal Priority corridors. Iteris provided
engineering design services, intersection system
hardware and installation services, jurisdictional
coordination support expansion and upgrade of the
CSP System for 12- local service corridors. The CSP
system is based on IEEE 802.11-compliant wireless
bus-to-intersection communications; and upgraded
intersection traffic controller technologies. In
addition, Iteris prepared the Preliminary Design
Report (PDR) that describes the overall design of the
8 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) network including any interties that are required for network monitoring for each corridor. The WLAN network design is now consistent with Metro’s CSP architecture and system. Based on the design approach developed for the PDR and agreed upon by the local agencies, Iteris procured all specified equipment in accordance with applicable Metro procurement standards and performed a pre-installation checkout (PIC) prior to receiving authorization to proceed with any equipment installations. Finally, Iteris successfully deployed, configured, and integrated all equipment as designed for a successful end result.

Project Relevance: Iteris successfully installed, configured, and integrated WLAN radios, antennas, ethernet switches, CAT6 cabling and related ITS equipment into the CSP infrastructure.

FIRST STREET AND BOLSA AVENUE REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT (RTSSP), CONTRACT TASK ORDER (CTO) (AGREEMENT C-9-1812), ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA) – ORANGE COUNTY, CA
Reference Alicia Yang, Project Manager III, OCTA, 600 S. Main Street, Orange, CA 92868, (714) 560-5362, [email protected] Staff Josh McNeill (PM), Bowen Yang, Michelle Haas, George Gener, Omid Modaghegh, , Evan Shipley, Delbert Lavezzari, Natali Mendez, Jason Xu, Bernard Li, Kassra Rafiee, Jin Eo, Stuart Hunter, Alex Nguyen, Steven Bradley, Alex Ingoglia, Sahila Sarjana, Lesley Ng, Eric Chiu
Duration 8/2021 – 12/2025 - Ongoing Budget $3,871,890
Iteris is assisting OCTA with multi-jurisdictional signal coordination for a 13.1-mile stretch of First Street/Bolsa Avenue. The project includes various traffic signal improvements and the retiming of 55 signalized intersections along First Street/Bolsa Avenue from Bolsa Chica Street in the City of Huntington Beach to Newport Avenue in the City of Tustin and five (5) signalized intersections offset from the corridor in the City of Santa Ana. Iteris designed and is managing the installation of traffic signal equipment, communication network equipment, and fiber optic cable for five (5) agencies along the corridor.

The team also coordinated the selection
and installation of a new video
management system for the City of
Westminster TMC. Iteris collected traffic
count data to create Synchro models that
will help optimize and synchronize the
signal timing along First Street/Bolsa
Avenue. Also included in the scope of the
project, Iteris has developed and will
implement new timing plans for the AM,
midday, PM, and Weekend peak periods.

Project Relevance: Iteris installed APS, CCTV cameras, Video Detection Systems (VDS) as part of this project, which included configuration and field testing similar to the Valley View TSSP project ALTERNATIVE SIGNAL COMMUNICATION DEMONSTRATION PILOT (22411) – ORANGE COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA)
Reference Alicia Yang, Project Manager III, OCTA, 600 S. Main Street, Orange, CA 92868, (714) 560-5362, [email protected] Staff Bernard Li, Omid Modaghegh, Delbert Lavezzari, Natali Luevanos-Mendez, Raymond Liang Duration 6/2022 – 12/2023 Budget $250,000
This project provided traffic signal communication improvements throughout various city’s traffic signal networks within Orange County. Cities that required upgrades as part of the base tasks are the Cities of Huntington Beach, La Habra, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Rancho Santa Margarita, Seal Beach, and Yorba Linda. 9 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
The cities received upgrades to their existing communication infrastructure at intersections that were either offline, had outdated equipment, and/or seeking alternatives solutions to ensure reliability, enhanced security, and scalability for a robust network that will be viable for the next 10 to 15 years. The primary goal of this project was to analyze and test connectivity at locations where there is existing interconnect (copper, fiber, and wireless) systems, so that appropriate design measures can be applied to deploy new ethernet switches, ethernet cards, wireless radios, and/or cell modems to support the management of each city’s traffic network.

The result of these proposed improvements or alternative recommendations provided the cities with a robust, modern traffic signal communication system that will support future ITS deployments.

Project Relevance: Iteris installed ethernet switches, 170 communication modules, and dual panel ethernet radios to support the intended communications infrastructure

REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROGRAM (RTSSP) PROJECT FOR TUSTIN AVENUE - ROSE DRIVE – CITY OF ORANGE, CA
Reference Gabrielle Hayes, PE, Principal Civil Engineer Public Works – Traffic, City of Orange, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866, (714) 744-5561, [email protected] Staff Andrew Freeman (PM), Tom Petrosino, Omid Modaghegh, Evan Shipley, Delbert Lavezzari, Quan Nguyen, Brian Funk, Natali Luevanos, Raymond Liang, Jason Xu, Kassra Rafiee, Stuart Hunter, Nicole Richardson, SungWoo Jo, Alex Ingoglia, Richard Luo, Alex Nguyen
Duration 9/2021 - Ongoing Budget $1,100,000
Iteris provided ITS design, bid and
construction support, and traffic signal
synchronization services along the Tustin
Avenue/Rose Drive corridor from First Street
in the City of Tustin to Wabash Avenue in
the City of Yorba Linda. The project area
comprises of 54 signalized intersections in
Orange County, California, spanning six cities
(Tustin, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Orange,
Placentia, and Yorba Linda) as well as several
highway ramps under Caltrans jurisdiction.

ITS equipment upgrades installed as part of
this project include fiber-optic communications, closed-circuit television (CCTV), video detection systems (VDS), radar detection systems, traffic signal controllers and cabinets, and wireless radios. Iteris assisted the lead agency, the City of Orange, in assembling bid and contract documents. Additionally, Iteris provided construction support throughout the project, including scheduling and leading meetings, reviewing submittals, responding to requests for information (RFIs), reviewing change orders, investigating, and troubleshooting field issues, verifying, and documenting construction quantities, and assisting in preparing and processing reimbursements.

Iteris developed traffic signal coordination timing plans for the 54 signalized intersections and continues to provide management and signal timing support services throughout the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) phase of the project. Iteris also conducted a Before and After corridor analysis, which included a detailed report and video highlighting the improvements along the corridor. This project commenced in August 2020 and is currently in the (O&M) phase.

Project Relevance: Iteris provided design, integration, and construction management support services to install traffic signals controllers and cabinets, video detection systems (VDS), and CCTV cameras. 10 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
Project Understanding
The City of Garden Grove has requested
proposals to provide professional services for
the System Construction of the Bolsa Chica
Street – Valley View Street Traffic Signal
Synchronization Project (TSSP). This project
entails the furnishing and installation of
communication equipment at the Garden
Grove Traffic Management Center (TMC) and
field equipment at the following five
signalized intersections along Valley View
Street:

1. Valley View Street & Chapman Avenue 2. Valley View Street & West Grove Center

3. Valley View Street & Belgrave Avenue 4. Valley View Street & Lampson Avenue

5. Valley View Street & Cerulean Avenue
The scope of work includes procurement and/or installation of traffic signal cabinets, service cabinets, controllers, video detection systems, CCTV camera systems, APS pedestrian push buttons, ethernet switches, pull boxes, conduits, and conductors. Iteris’ familiarity with the City of Garden Grove’s existing infrastructure, combined with our extensive experience in ITS design, construction and construction management support ensures that we are fully capable of completing this project on-time, within budget, and to the City’s satisfaction.

Prior to procurement, Iteris will submit cut sheets detailing product information and specifications for City review and approval. Immediately upon approval, Iteris will coordinate with vendors to begin the procurement process. Additionally, Iteris will verify that all necessary testing for equipment has been performed and that the equipment meets the project requirements. Lastly, Iteris will complete the construction, configuration, and integration of communication equipment into Garden Grove’s existing network as described in the RFP.

SCOPE OF WORK
The following paragraphs describe Iteris’ general approach to providing professional services for System Construction, and is divided into the following tasks:

1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Iteris is committed to the principle that exceptional project management is essential to the successful completion of any project, with success defined as achieving project completion within budget, on schedule, and to the client’s satisfaction. As Project Manager, Mr. Akerley will lead the Iteris project team and oversee this project from inception to completion, ensuring the delivery of a high-quality product while maintaining regular communication with the city. To keep the city informed of project progress, Iteris will hold bi-weekly meetings which will result in a Valley View Street / Lampson Avenue
11 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
written progress report and meeting minutes. This report will detail the activities conducted during the previous period as well as outline upcoming project tasks and identify potential roadblocks.

Kickoff Meeting
As part of the Project Management task, Mr. Akerley will lead a kick-off meeting with City staff and other project stakeholders. During this kickoff meeting, Iteris will present a detailed project schedule encompassing the full scope of work and project milestones. The purpose of this meeting will be to ensure that all participants understand and support the project goals and the plan to achieve them.

Bi-weekly Construction Updates
Consistent and regular communication is a
cornerstone to successful project management. As
such, Iteris will hold bi-weekly update meetings with
designated city staff and project stakeholders to
keep all parties abreast of progress, schedule
adherence, field work changes, and any challenges
that may arise. Following each meeting Iteris will
distribute meeting minutes to all parties and will
keep a log of meeting attendance and activity
highlights.

Construction Documentation
It is imperative to document the condition of all
equipment that is accessed or modified through this
project prior to and after construction activities so that the condition of all equipment is documented, and the post construction condition does not negatively impact the existing traffic equipment. Equally important is to document the existing condition of all system and communication components prior to replacing the existing systems, so the status and expectations of the new system is documented, and all operational elements of the new system must be operational when the new system is activated.

Post Construction
Iteris will assist City inspectors in the final walk-through ensuring compliance with construction requirements and providing a thorough “punch-list” of items that must be corrected and/or completed to satisfy the project requirements. Iteris will maintain an accurate record of all changes in the plans which include any change orders, RFIs, addendums, and additional details. Iteris will compile and submit final as-built drawings to the city.

Deliverables
• Detailed Project Schedule
• As-builts
• Monthly Invoices and Progress Reports

2. EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT
Product Submittals
Iteris recognizes that extended procurement times can disrupt project timelines. To mitigate these effects, Iteris will prioritize the procurement process to ensure the project remains on schedule and is completed promptly. The procurement process will begin with the submittal of detailed product specification sheets to the City for review and approval. This step ensures that the equipment to be procured is compatible with the City’s proposed design and fully meets the project’s needs and requirements.

Equipment Ordering and Tracking
Upon receiving City approval for the equipment, Iteris will immediately proceed with placing orders through vendors based on the approved submittals. Iteris will secure invoices for all ordered equipment, track estimated 12 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
shipping times, and monitor shipment tracking. This information will be reviewed against the construction schedule and the City will be informed of potential schedule adjustments needed based on anticipated equipment arrival times.

Equipment Testing
Once the equipment has been procured and is in Iteris’ possession, Iteris will review the installation manuals provided and testing information to identify any potential additional testing that may be required. If necessary, Iteris will conduct additional product testing or engage a third-party testing service to verify the equipment is fully functional and meets the product specifications. This thorough testing procedure will reduce the likelihood of errors and defects occurring in the field, thereby minimizing the need for equipment replacement and preventing delays in the construction schedule.

Deliverables
• Product Submittals
• Product Testing Information

3. CONSTRUCTION
Iteris offers specialized installation services for traffic signal cabinets, service cabinets, video detection cameras, CCTV systems, APS systems, conduits, pull boxes, and conductors. We utilize the latest technology and equipment to ensure high-quality installations. Our skilled technicians are trained in best practices for installation and integration, allowing us to consistently deliver reliable systems that meet the specific needs of each project. While Iteris is known for being a “One-Stop-Shop,” for this project we will be focused on the following construction tasks:
• Traffic Signal Cabinet and foundation
Installation
• Service Cabinet Installation
• Video Detection Cameras and Supporting
Cabling
• CCTV Cameras and Supporting Cabling
• APS System/Push Button Installation
• Conduit Installation
• Pull Box Installation
• Conductor Installation
• Fiber Optic cabling, splicing, terminations,
testing
Our experienced team is dedicated to successful project delivery while keeping safety in focus as our top priority.

We adhere to all safety regulations and guidelines during installation to protect our team and the public. Our commitment to quality ensures that all installations are performed to the highest standards, providing long-lasting and dependable traffic management solutions.

Deliverables
• Expertly installed devices, equipment and supporting infrastructure

4. CONFIGURATION, INTEGRATION & DOCUMENTATION OF INSTALLED DEVICES Upon receipt and verification of the ordered equipment and verified the equipment has been tested to meet its requirements, Iteris will begin configuration of the project equipment, including the following:
• Traffic signal controller hardware and firmware
• Communication systems, including field Ethernet switches 13 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
• CCTV cameras and Video Detection Systems (VDS)
• Traffic Management Center (TMC) upgrades, including hub switches, SFPs, and firewalls Iteris’ configuration process will include setting up initial login information, updating IP addresses to align with the City’s network, and performing any other necessary tasks required to prepare the devices for operation. This configuration will be completed prior to field installation to minimize the likelihood of issues occurring during deployment.

Following configuration, Iteris will proceed with installation of the equipment in the field and TMC, including removing unnecessary equipment, furnishing, and installing all required cables and connectors, and securing equipment within the cabinets or TMC. The newly installed field and TMC equipment will be tested to ensure full communication with the City’s network and complete restoration of previous functionality. Connectivity between field equipment and the TMC will be tested and verified to meet the required bandwidth and latency needs. Iteris will collaborate with the equipment vendors and manufacturers to secure and activate the necessary licenses, ensuring the equipment is fully operational upon deployment. Iteris’ comprehensive configuration and integration process guarantees that the operations and connectivity of installed devices meets the City’s requirements.

If needed, Iteris’ in-house experts will expand upon or create new Virtual Local Area Network (VLANs) for the communications network. Iteris will coordinate with the City’s traffic and IT department to keep all stakeholders informed of the proposed solutions. Iteris’ networking experts will also be able to evaluate the communication topology and network schema to ensure optimal designs for the current project and future citywide operations.

To support the City in maintenance and recordkeeping efforts, Iteris will document configuration settings (including login information and IP addresses) for all project equipment and provide this information in a Configuration Settings Spreadsheet. Additionally, Iteris will provide the City with a Device Documentation Package, including relevant user manuals and warranties. These detailed records will assist the City maintaining and operating the equipment.

Deliverables
• Configuration Settings Spreadsheet
• Device Documentation Package
14 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP

PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
Iteris has provided the following proposed project schedule as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Proposed Project Schedule
15 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP APPENDIX: CONTRACTOR LICENSE | INSURANCE COVERAGE | RESUMES Contractor License
• C10 California Contractor License
Insurance Coverage
• Certificate of Liability Insurance
• Evidence of Construction Insurance
Resumes
ITERIS, INC.
• Brian Akerley, MELE
• Joshua McNeill, PE, TE, PTOE
• Peyvand Hajian
• Kent Spurr
• Alex Ingoglia
• Alex Morales, IMSA
• Joshua Lemestre, IMSA
• Alex Gallardo, IMSA
• Andrew Freeman, PE, PTOE
• Raymond Liang

ANDERSON HOWARD
• Juan Ramos
16 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP APPENDIX: CONTRACTOR LICENSE | INSURANCE COVERAGE | RESUMES 17 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP APPENDIX: CONTRACTOR LICENSE | INSURANCE COVERAGE | RESUMES 18 | Iteris, Inc.

SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA – VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP APPENDIX: CONTRACTOR LICENSE | INSURANCE COVERAGE | RESUMES Moving smarter, together.

Mr. Akerley serves as a Vice President for Iteris’ Consulting Solutions division and has been with the firm since 2022. He has over 23 years of comprehensive experience as a results-focused professional with extensive experience in electrical engineering, electrical contracting, telecommunications, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) installation and maintenance. His performance track record is characterized by successful planning, implementation, and execution skills, as well as an effective participatory management style that reflects strong coaching, delegation, and leadership skills, as well as an ability to establish clear and measurable goals. Brian has been responsible for the oversight and delivery of many high-level projects for
Municipalities, County and State DOTs, and transit agencies. In addition to his leadership, and project delivery skills, Brian is the licensing Qualifier for Iteris and is responsible for acquiring the state licensing necessary to lay the groundwork for business development nationally.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

ITS CONSTRUCTION & INTEGRATION
Loop Detector Repair and Replacement - Caltrans District 7, Los Angeles, CA
Mr. Akerley served as Program Control Specialist as the contract champion and technical advisor for this $22M, three-year contract.

The project began with the initial intent of replacing four thousand loops, two million feet of DLC cable, four hundred 334 cabinets, and an abundance of network equipment throughout LA County. A change in agency direction shifted the scope of work to include the installation of over four hundred miles of fiber optic cable and associated splice enclosures, fiber distribution units (FDU), Ethernet and Aggregation Switches, and power conditioners. The project was a tremendous success and resulted in increased network uptime, added device visibility/functionality, added corridor communications, and provided an additional level of network redundancy. Despite the many challenges a project of this magnitude presents, the project began in January of 2019 and was delivered in December of 2021 on-time and within budget.

EDUCATION
BA, Business and Leadership Studies,
California State Polytechnic University,
Humboldt, CA

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: 2 Total: 23

REGISTRATIONS
Electrical Contractor Licensing
AL #05322, 2022
AZ #299909, 2015-Present
CA #1096882, 2017-Present
FL #EC13006423, 2014-Present
GA #EN216554, 2014-Present
HI #CT-37570, 2020-Present
MD #12969, 2014-Present
NC #30582-U, 2014-Present
NM #410767, 2014-Present
OH #47630, 2015-Present
SC #CLM.116661, 2014-Present
TX #30536, 2014-Present
VA #2705184094, 2014-Present
WA #EC ITERII*782ML, 2015-Present
WV #M566864RENC0814, 2014-Present

CORE DISCIPLINES
Electrical Contracting & Engineering
Traffic Engineering & Operations
ITS Device maintenance
Quality Control Specialist

AFFILIATIONS
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)
Trustee
IMSA
BRIAN

AKERLEY, MELE

PROJECT MANAGER

BRIAN AKERLEY, MELE

PROJECT MANAGER
Moving smarter, together.

BACKHAUL COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
Express Lanes Backhaul Communications
Network, BAIFA – San Francisco, CA
Mr. Akerley served as Program Control Specialist as
the contract champion and technical advisor for this
$5.5M project. The purpose of the project was to
provide an effective, robust, and secure backhaul
network that could support the needs of the new
express lane tolling system being implemented along
I-680 in Northern California. Highlights of the work
involved include proofing and installation of
underground conduit infrastructure, install fortyfour miles of 144-strand fiber optic cable, and provide, install, and configure the network
equipment necessary for the completion of a fully
functional backhaul network. The project began in
November of 2015 and was completed in August of
2019. The O&M support continued for another two
years and ended in August of 2021.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE
Traffic-Related Electrical Devices Maintenance
Program - City of Glendale, CA
Mr. Akerley served as Program Control Specialist and
technical advisor to perform maintenance of all
traffic-related electrical devices including 235 traffic signals, 44 CCTV Camera locations, 13 hard-wired
flashing beacon systems, 41 solar-powered wireless
flashing beacon systems, one (1) in-roadway warning
light systems, and miscellaneous electrical
maintenance services for the City of Glendale. Mr.

Akerley was responsible for having his team
available with readily accessible required vehicles,
tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, and
material to perform all work necessary to maintain
the traffic related electrical devices in compliance
with latest State of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) standards and
specifications, as well as the latest City of Glendale
Specifications. The team provided and maintained
emergency service response twenty-four (24) hours
a day, seven (7) days per week basis, including all
holidays. This contract was $1 million annually. This
project begin 2018 and was completed in 2022.

Traffic Signal Maintenance - City of Santa Ana,
CA
Mr. Akerley served as program control specialist
technical advisor for dozens of traffic signal
maintenance projects during his time at Econolite
Systems, but one that stands out with high-level
visibility and achievement is the signal maintenance
contract with the City of Santa Ana. Mr. Akerley
assumed responsibility for Santa Ana’s multi-year
Traffic Signal Maintenance contract under Econolite
Systems, Inc. in 2015. With over three hundred
signalized intersections, the city of Santa Ana has an
abundance of ITS devices and assets to maintain so
that providing optimal levels of throughput and
safety for the City’s motoring public is realized daily.

The purpose of the project is to provide exceptional
levels of preventative and reactionary maintenance
to ensure the City’s traffic signal system is
operational at the highest level possible. Mr. Akerley
assumed oversight responsibility for the City’s Signal
Maintenance contract in 2015 and managed its
performance until 2022, when Mr. Akerley departed
Econolite Systems, Inc. to join Iteris. This project
begin 2015 and was completed in 2022.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS OPERATIONS
& MAINTENANCE
Caltrans District 11 & 12 TOSNET - San Diego
& Orange County, CA
Mr. Akerley served in Program Control Specialist and
technical advisor for the Caltrans On-Call
Maintenance and Repair of the Transportation
Management Field Systems and Communications
(TOSNET) project. This contract was a critical
program for Caltrans as our technical field staff were
responsible for troubleshooting, repairing, and
supporting all of the communications infrastructure
within Caltrans districts 11 & 12. Typical tasks
included the troubleshooting, repair, and/or
replacement of ethernet switches, modems, twisted
pair cables, fiber optic cables, VDS devices, CCTV
devices, and the configuration and integration of
new ITS equipment and software. Mr. Akerley
assumed oversight responsibility for this contract in
2015 and oversaw its performance until 2022 when
Mr. Akerley departed Econolite Systems, Inc. to join
Iteris. This project begin 2018 and was completed in
2022.

Moving smarter, together.

Mr. McNeill serves as a Principal Engineer for Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions and has been with the firm since 2017. He is a registered professional Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer with 16 years of experience working in the fields of transportation engineering and planning. Mr. McNeill has delivered PS&E packages for traffic signal system upgrades, fiber optic communication networks, freeway traffic management systems, as well as other traditional traffic handling, signing and pavement delineation plans.

He has also managed signal timing development and
implementation for several agencies. He provides solutions to traffic problems while effectively managing budgets and scope of work.

Mr. McNeill is committed to providing sustainable transportation design with an emphasis on systems engineering analysis and utilization of emerging technologies.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
OCTA First Street and Bolsa Avenue Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project (RTSSP), Contract Task Order (CTO) (Agreement C-9-1812), Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) – Orange County, CA
Mr. McNeill is serving as Project Manager for the First Street/Bolsa Avenue Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project, which entails traffic signal improvements and synchronization. The project includes various traffic signal improvements and the retiming of 55 signalized intersections along First Street/Bolsa Avenue from Bolsa Chica Street in the City of Huntington Beach to Newport Avenue in the City of Tustin and five (5) signalized intersections offset from the corridor in the City of Santa Ana. Iteris designed and is managing the installation of traffic signal equipment, communication network equipment, and fiber optic cable for five (5) agencies along the corridor. The team also coordinated the selection and installation of a new video management system for the City of Westminster TMC.

Iteris collected traffic count data to create Synchro models that will help optimize and synchronize the signal timing along First Street/Bolsa Avenue. Also included in the scope of the project, Iteris will develop and implement new timing plans for the AM, midday, PM, and Weekend peak periods. This project began in August of 2022 and is expected to be completed in June of 2026.

EDUCATION
MS, Civil Engineering (Transportation
Systems), University of California, Irvine,
2012
BS, Civil Engineering, University of
California, Irvine, 2008

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: 7 Total: 16

REGISTRATIONS
Civil Engineer (PE)
CA #79151, 2011
UT #9480116-2202, 2015
Traffic Engineer (TE)
CA #2792, 2015
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer
(PTOE)
#4870, 2020
League Cycling Instructor (LCI)
#6087, 2018

CORE DISCIPLINES
Traffic Engineering
Transportation Planning
ITS Planning and Design

AFFILIATIONS
Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE)
Orange County Traffic Engineering
Council (OCTEC)
JOSHUA

MCNEILL, PE, TE, PTOE

QA/QC & SENIOR ADVISOR

JOSHUA MCNEILL, PE, TE, PTOE

QA/QC & SENIOR ADVISOR
Moving smarter, together.

I-405 Design-Build Improvement Project,
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
– Orange County, CA
Mr. McNeill is serving as Electronic Toll and Traffic
Management (ETTM) System Infrastructure Design
Lead for Iteris, acting as a subconsultant of a
multidisciplinary design and construction team, on
this $1.2 billion dollar design build project in Orange County California. The project will improve 16 miles
of the I-405 between the SR-73 freeway in Costa
Mesa and the I-605 near the Los Angeles County line.

The project includes adding one regular lane in each
direction from Euclid Street to I-605, making
improvements to freeway entrances, exits and
bridges, and will also implement Express Lanes that
expands the existing HOV lane from one lane to two
lanes in each direction from SR-73 to I-605. Iteris is
responsible for the design of the Caltrans ITS field
infrastructure, temporary ITS field infrastructure
supporting maintenance of traffic during
construction, toll system infrastructure and
coordination, street lighting, agency traffic signal
improvements along the corridor and development
of the project Traffic Management Plan. The project
began in January 2017 and construction was
completed October 2023.

OCTA Main Street Regional Traffic Signal
Synchronization Projects (RTSSP), Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) –
Orange County, CA
Mr. McNeill served as the Signal Timing Lead
under this project agreement, which provided
services that upgraded traffic signal electronics
and communications equipment, and optimize
signal timing along Main Street, a major northsouth corridor that comprises 67 major signalized intersections. As part of the project, Iteris’
Intersection-as-a-Service™ end-to-end solution
offering delivered proactive monitoring of traffic
signal operations at all project intersections. The
primary goal of this project was to deploy new
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) equipment
and communication infrastructure to support the
management of the cities’ transportation
network, implement optimized coordination
timing plans to achieve optimal traffic flow, and
improve safety for all road users, including
vehicles, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. The
project began April 2019 and the O&M phase was
completed in June 2023.

Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program
(RTSSP) Project for Tustin Avenue - Rose Drive
– City of Orange, CA
Mr. McNeill serves as Signal Timing Lead on this
project. Under the project agreement, Iteris will
make infrastructure upgrades, signal coordination
and timing improvements, develop signal timing
plans for all signalized intersections along the
corridor, provide vehicle turning movement
counts and perform before-and-after corridor
analysis along the Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive
corridor from First Street in the City of Tustin to
Wabash Avenue in the City of Yorba Linda. The
project area comprises 54 signalized intersections
spanning six cities – Tustin, Santa Ana, Anaheim,
Orange, Placentia, and Yorba Linda – as well as
key highway on/off ramps under Caltrans, in
Orange County, California. The project started in
September 2021 and is ongoing. Construction
started in Summer 2023.

A&E On-Call Roadway Design and Project
Development and Construction Services
(Caltrans D12) – Orange County, CA
Iteris is part of the TranSystems team on this
Caltrans D12 On-Call contract to provide
consultation, research, professional and technical
services required for Roadway Design and related
Project Development and Construction Services,
including, but not limited to, field sampling,
construction materials testing, analysis, reports,
plant inspection and work related to testing
equipment calibration, on an “as-needed” basis to
support the Caltrans D12, from Project Report phase
to construction phase completion of three State
Route (SR) 91 Multi-Asset Projects, EA 12-0R312,
arrive. The Iteris team helped the City to turn on a
traffic signal before the school started. The traffic
signal installation was the result of a left turn
phasing analysis at the same intersection based on
existing guidelines as provided in the California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(CAMUTCD, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and
Federal Highway Signal Timing Manual. The project
started November 2016 and construction was
completed in December 2018.

Iteris, Inc. | 1
Ms. Hajian serves as a Senior Engineer for Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions and has been with the firm since 2024. Ms. Hajian has 10 years of experience working in the field of Transportation Infrastructure. Mrs. Hajian is a resourceful and analytical transportation engineer with experience in transit, intelligent transportation systems, and transportation infrastructure projects.

Ms. Hajian has demonstrated the ability to design, permit, construct, and develop scope for complex large-scale, multimilliondollar undertakings.

PRIOR PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Riverside County Transportation Authority (RCTC), Express Lane Connector (ELC), County of Riverside, CA
Ms. Hajian served as the Tolling Manager that oversaw all aspects of construction, which included electrical work, job site survey, coordination with internal quality inspectors and Caltrans representatives.
• Orchestrated the comprehensive management of Tolling
turnover packages, roadway barriers, and landscaping projects, seamlessly coordinating efforts among three subcontractors to ensure on-time delivery without compromising quality.
• Demonstrated adept management skills, overseeing
subcontractors with a commitment to no delay in project timelines, and resolving issues promptly to maintain project schedules. • Proactively communicated project updates, addressed
concerns, and ensured alignment with objectives through clear and concise letters to subcontractors and the agency.
• Applied strategic planning and problem-solving skills to overcome challenges, consistently optimizing project efficiency to achieve on-time delivery of all scope of work.
• Collaborated closely with internal teams to streamline processes, enhancing overall project coordination, and contributing to a track record of on-time, high-quality project outcomes. • Facilitated meetings with the owner and subcontractor on weekly basis.
• . Developed clear and persuasive position papers, supporting organizational claims on various issues.
• Collaborated with subject matter experts and stakeholders to gather insights and refine arguments

EDUCATION
MS, Civil Engineering, California State
University, Fresno, CA, 2016
BS, Civil Engineering, Razi University of
Kermanshah, Iran, 2010

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: <1 Total: 10

CORE DISCIPLINES
Construction and Program Management
(PM/CM)
Toll Management
Transportation Planning
Traffic Signal Installations and Detection
Integrator
Traffic Signal Networking
Advanced Transportation Management
Systems (ATMS)
Adaptive Traffic Signals

AFFILIATIONS
Women in Transportation Seminar (WTS)
Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Advancing Women in Transportation
(WTS)
Associate Member of American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Construction Management Association of
America (CMAA)

PEYVAND
HAJIAN

DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER

PEYVAND HAJIAN

DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER
Iteris, Inc. | 2
Multi-model Transportation Project in Palm
Desert, Coachella Valley Association of
Government (CVAG),
Ms. Hajian served as a Construction Manager and
oversaw all aspects of design constructability, which
included environmental issues, job site survey,
coordination with other local projects and agencies,
and cost estimates.
• Developed and provided daily site inspection
reports to verify compliance with approved
plans, specifications, and codes, including
asphalt concrete pavement, clear and grubbing,
concrete sidewalk, class II aggregate base, JPCP,
slurry seal, and solar LED lights for the CVLINK
project.
• Represented Coachella Valley Association of
Government (CVAG) for the CVLINK project,
which promotes healthy, alternative
transportation that aligns with the goals and
regulations set forth in California’s Global
Warming Solutions Act.
• Administered contracts daily and assisted
resident engineer with bid analysis, preconstruction meetings, and award coordinating activities.
• Monitored and documented contractor labor,
materials, and equipment usage for field
changes, and time and material work for project
billing.
• Estimated 70% of cost, measured and recorded
pay quantities based on California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) specification for Pay
app, and utilized an invoice to ensure
contractors accurate monthly payment.
• Reviewed submittals and requests for
information (RFIs) based on Caltrans
specifications.
• Executed safety protocols and adhered to
regulations and policies based on Caltrans
requirements, facilitated safety meetings every
10 days, and performed safety audits.

PROJECT ENGINEERING
Ms. Hajian provided reviews of the existing
hydrology and hydraulic systems and evaluated
improvements needed for the street widening to
alleviate street ponding. All suggestions for
improvements complied with the city’s Bureau of
Engineering (BOE) and the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District (LACFCD). Reviewed work of 2
employees.

Selected Project Highlights
• Reseda Boulevard Complete Street Project, City
of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
• Engineered the quality control (QC) for the
utility plans and utility matrices.
• Alameda Street Widening  Hydrology and
Hydraulic Studies, City of Los Angeles, Los
Angeles, CA
• Planned QC/quality assurance (QA) for the
project submittals, involving hydrology and
hydraulic reports, drainage plans, and related
permitting.
• Dudley, Kinney St., and Grand Ave –
Revitalization and Street Improvement, City of
Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
• Executed design studies and analysis of ADA
compliant curb ramps and wrote report.
• Performed quality review with emphasis on ADA
compliance.
• Potrero Canyon – Cost Estimate, City of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
• Estimated construction cost and quantity take
offs for the irrigation system

CIVIL DESIGNER
Ms. Hajian supported the High-Speed Rail project,
reviewed work of 2 employees, oversaw IBM DOORS
and managed more than 5000 contract
requirements and developed cost estimate template
for Transportation Business Line (US West), which
realized easier and faster cost estimates for the LA
Metro proposals.

Quality Assurance Task Manager, High-Speed
Rail Project (CP2-3)/Design Build Contract
• Directed QA, verification, and validation (V&V)
activities as part of the project and contract
management consulting services contract.
• Oversaw the design and construction
specification.
• Managed 500+ submittals, RFIs, and change
orders. Maintained contract documents and a
complete set of procedure records for the
project. Efficiently processed all submittals,
documents, and work logs.
• Led QA audit ensuring compliance with ISO
standards.

Moving smarter, together.

Mr. Spurr serves as a Technical Field Support IV for Iteris’ Consulting Solutions division and has been with the firm since August 2022. He has over 21 years of experience working in the field of ITS electrical installation, operations, and maintenance.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
OCTA First Street and Bolsa Avenue Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project (RTSSP), Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) – Orange County, CA
Mr. Spurr serves as the Technical Field Manager on this project for OCTA. Iteris is assisting OCTA with multi-jurisdictional signal coordination for a 13.1-mile stretch of First Street/Bolsa Avenue.

The project includes various traffic signal improvements and the retiming of 55 signalized intersections along First Street/Bolsa Avenue from Bolsa Chica Street in the City of Huntington Beach to Newport Avenue in the City of Tustin and five (5) signalized intersections offset from the corridor in the City of Santa Ana. Iteris designed and is managing the installation of traffic signal equipment, communication network equipment, and fiber optic cable for five (5) agencies along the corridor. The project began in August 2021 and is ongoing.

Alternative Signal Communication Demonstration Pilot,
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) – Orange
County, CA
Mr. Spurr serves as the Technical Field Manager on this project for OCTA. This project will provide traffic signal communication improvements throughout various city’s traffic signal networks within Orange County. The cities are getting upgrades to their existing communication infrastructure at intersections that are either offline, have outdated equipment, and/or seeking alternatives solutions to ensure reliability, enhanced security, and scalability for a robust network that will be viable for the next 10 to 15 years. The primary goal of this project is to analyze and test connectivity at locations where there are existing interconnect (copper, fiber, and wireless) systems, so that appropriate design measures can be applied to deploy new ethernet switches, ethernet cards, wireless radios, and/or cell modems to support the management of each city’s traffic network. This project began in June 2022 and is ongoing.

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: 2 Total: 21

REGISTRATIONS
IMSA Traffic Signal Field Technician level
2 Certification #BE_91918
FOA Fiber Optic Certification #4090055
CFOT
CSLB C‐10 Electrical Contractors License
#1081585

CORE DISCIPLINES
Traffic Signal Planning
Traffic Impact Analysis
Construction Support/Inspection
Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Traffic Signal Priority (TSP)
Fiber Optic Installation & Testing

KENT SPURR

TASK LEAD - CONSTRUCTION

KENT SPURR

TACK LEAD - CONSTRUCTION
Moving smarter, together.

Professional Engineering Services for the
Citywide Bus Signal Priority Project – City of
Downey, CA
Mr. Spurr serves as the Technical Field Manager for
this project. Iteris is responsible for evaluating and
implementing bus signal priority system for 92
intersections, along six major corridors,
development of plans, specifications, and
construction cost estimate for 2.2-mile gap closures
in the city’s fiber-optic traffic signal communications network, to enable the connection of additional
signalized intersections to the City’s Traffic
Management Center (TMC), and recommendations
of bus signal priority systems to be integrated onto
Downey LINK automatic vehicle location (AVL)
system. This project began in February 2022 and is
ongoing.

Countywide Signal Priority (CSP) Upgrade and
Expansion Next Gen – Los Angeles, CA
Mr. Spurr serves as the Technical Field Manager for
this project. Iteris is responsible for evaluating and
implementing bus signal priority system for several
multi-jurisdictional Metro local corridors as part of
Metro’s Next Gen Bus Service and existing
Countywide Signal Priority corridors. Iteris is
responsible for providing engineering design
services, intersection system hardware and
installation services, jurisdictional coordination
support expansion and upgrade of the CSP System
for 12- local service corridors. This project began in
October 2021 and is ongoing.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
Prime Electrical Maintenance Service LLC,
Yucaipa, CA
Electrical Contractor/Owner, September 2021 –
August 2022
Duties:

Provide traffic signal field services for City Agencies, Contractors, and Vendors, such as:
• NEMA/332 Cabinet installations and
modifications
• Video Detection installations (ITERIS &
Gridsmart)
• Flash calls, cabinet, or video troubleshooting
• Turn‐on support
• UPS installation and troubleshooting
Create or revise existing traffic signal cabinet and
video specifications for City Agencies.

Review new traffic signal plans or intersection
remodels for City Agencies.

Perform surveys at the intersection such as,
controller cabinet type (TS1, TS2‐2, 33X or ATC),
video or in‐ground detection, communication type
(fiber, twisted pair, Cat6), controller type (170, 2070 and NEMA).

Installation of residential/commercial load centers
and sub‐panels.

Light commercial and residential building re‐wire.

Underground utility installation.

Street light installation.

Commercial and residential electrical inspections for
fire damaged structures.

Underground electrical locating services.

City of Redlands, Redlands, CA
Traffic Signal Technician, June 2019 – September
2021
Duties:
• Oversee signal operations and maintenance for
72 intersections Citywide.
• Perform monthly PM’s for each signalized
intersection within the City.
• Repair or replace damaged 1A poles involved in
traffic collisions.
• Install, troubleshoot, and program video
detection (Iteris, Gridsmart).
• Create, modify, or maintain specifications used
by the City of Redlands for NEMA TS2‐1
cabinets; controller unit, UPS system and video
detection system.
• Perform 80 hour burn‐in testing for all newly
acquired traffic signal cabinets, components,
and plug‐ins.
• Maintain accurate inventory records of all traffic
signal equipment such as; LED’s, Ped push
button assemblies, 1A assemblies, etc.
• Meet with Vendors to discuss upcoming
projects, product upgrades or replacement
orders.
• Perform USA locating services intended for
traffic signals and streetlights.
• Troubleshoot flash conditions for NEMA, 332
and ATC cabinets.
• Manage contractors during new traffic signal
installations or modifications.

Moving smarter, together.

Mr. Ingoglia serves as Engineer of Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions division and has been with the firm since April 2017. Mr.

Ingoglia has over 6 years of experience in the fields of Traffic Signal Operations, Signal Timing & Coordination, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) planning, design, and integration, Traffic Engineering & Design, and Municipal Traffic Engineering. His project experience includes preparing and implementing signal timing and
synchronization, operational analysis, installing ITS and communication equipment, preparing signing and striping plans as well as reviewing traffic studies and traffic control plans. Mr.

Ingoglia has knowledge in signal timing, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), electrical systems, and integration. Mr. Ingoglia is proficient in the use of design and traffic analysis software such as AutoCAD, MicroStation, and Synchro.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS
Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) Project for Tustin Avenue - Rose Drive – City of Orange, CA Mr. Ingoglia serves as a Project Engineer on this project assisting with signal timing efforts. Under the project agreement, Iteris will make infrastructure upgrades, signal coordination and timing improvements, develop signal timing plans for all signalized intersections along the corridor, provide vehicle turning movement counts and perform before-and-after corridor analysis along the Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive corridor from First Street in the City of Tustin to Wabash Avenue in the City of Yorba Linda. The project area comprises 54 signalized intersections spanning six cities – Tustin, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Orange, Placentia, and Yorba Linda – as well as key highway on/off ramps under Caltrans, in Orange County, California. Mr. Ingoglia is developing the synchro model and proposed timing updates to the Tustin-Rose corridor. The project started in September 2021. Construction is slated to start in Summer 2023 and scheduled to be completed December 2024.

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering, , California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona, 2017

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: 3 Total: 6

REGISTRATIONS
Engineer-In-Training (EIT)
CA #160812, 2017

CORE DISCIPLINES
Traffic Signal Operations
Signal Timing & Coordination
ITS Planning, Design, & Integration
Traffic Engineering & Design
Municipal Traffic Engineering

AFFILIATIONS
Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE)
Orange County Traffic Engineering
Council (OCTEC)
ALEX

INGOGLIA
TASK LEAD – SWITCH INTEGRATION

ALEX INGOGLIA
TASK LEAD – SWITCH INTEGRATION
Moving smarter, together.

Euclid Street Corridor Project Regional Traffic
Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) – City
of La Habra, CA
Mr. Ingoglia serves as a Project Engineer on this
signal synchronization project for City of La Habra.

Project includes the synchronization of sixty-seven
(67) traffic signals and sixty-nine (69) offset traffic signals throughout the Cities of La Habra, Fullerton,
Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Fountain
Valley along Euclid Street. Iteris is providing
communication system analysis for the City of
Fullerton and the City of Santa Ana through this
project. Iteris will conduct all engineering,
construction management, inspection, and
administrative tasks necessary to complete the
project. After the construction and implementation
phase of the project, Iteris will provide operations,
and maintenance services for three years. The
project began in March 2023 and is expected to be
completed March 2028.

Traffic and Intelligent Transportation Systems
Engineering Services, Katella Avenue, Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) –
Orange County, CA
Mr. Ingoglia serves as Project Engineer on this
Project and participated in the timing
implementation and finetuning in the field or
through TMC central program for each city.

Additionally, Mr. Ingoglia installed edge switches at
project intersections to provide communication to
the traffic controllers. As part of the project, Iteris’ Intersection-as-a-Service™ end-to-end solution
offering will deliver proactive monitoring of traffic
signal operations at all project intersections. The
primary goal of this project is to deploy new
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) equipment
and communication infrastructure to support the
management of the cities’ transportation network,
implement optimized coordination timing plans to
achieve optimal traffic flow, and improve safety for
all road users, including vehicles, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. The project began in February 2020 and
is scheduled to be completed June 2023.

Culver Drive/Bonita Canyon Drive/Ford Road
Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program
(RTSSP) Project – City of Irvine, CA
Mr. Ingoglia serves as Project Engineer on this traffic signal synchronization project and assisted with the
development of the optimized synchronization
timing and lead the implementation of the new
timing. Mr. Ingoglia also assisted with preparing of
the before study. Project started in April 2019 and
was completed in April 2023.

Lake Forest Traffic Signal Management On-call
Services – City of Lake Forest, CA
Mr. Ingoglia is serving as Project Engineer and
monitors the operations and communication of all
traffic signals within the City of Lake Forest.

Additionally, Mr. Ingoglia investigates City Staff and
resident concerns about signal timing and makes
timing adjustments due to construction activities.

Project started in 2021 and is scheduled to be
completed in June 2025.

Irvine Center Drive – Edinger Ave Regional
Traffic Signal Synchronization Project O&M
(RTSSP), Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) – Orange County, CA
Mr. Ingoglia is serving as Project Manager on the
O&M of the Irvine Center Dr –– Edinger corridor
through the Cities of Irvine and Tustin. The project
began in Dec 2020. Mr. Ingoglia’s involvement on
the project began in January 2022 and was
completed in December 2022.

Design and Construction Inspection Services for
Traffic Signal Infrastructure Upgrades: Phase II
& III – City of Diamond Bar, CA
Mr. Ingoglia is serving as Project Engineer for the
City’s replacement of 4.3 miles of twisted-pair
copper traffic signal interconnect with 96-strand
Single Mode Fiber-Optic (SMFO) cables along
Diamond Bar Blvd between Grand Ave and Highland
Valley Rd; and Golden Springs Dr. between Diamond
Bar Blvd and High Knob Rd. The PS&E package will
include intersection re-wire design plans, signal
inventory, controller upgrades, detail drawings for
fiber assignments and communications pull boxes,
splice boxes and conduits details. Iteris will also
provide ongoing support during the construction
phase of the project. Phase II project began in May
2016 and was completed in December 2017. Phase
III began in May 2017 and is expected to be
completed in December 2018.

Moving smarter, together.

Mr. Morales serves as a Journeymen Electrician for Iteris’ Consulting Solutions division and has been with the firm since January of 2024.

He has over 8 years of experience working in the fields of ITS electrical installation, operations, and maintenance.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

ITS BUILDS
City of Huntington Beach Valley View/Bolsa Chica Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP)- City of Huntington Beach, CA
Mr. Morales serves as Journeyman Electrician on this RTSSP project for the city of Huntington Beach. Iteris was selected to provide ITS design, bid support, construction support, traffic signal synchronization services, and maintenance services to 22 signals along Valley View Street/Bolsa Chica Street, a major north-south arterial. The project covers approximately 5.35 miles of roadway from Chapman Avenue to Warner Avenue within the Cities of Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Garden Grove. ITS equipment improvements include fiber-optic communications, CCTV, VDS, and traffic signal controllers, cabinets, and foundations. As part of this project, improvement plans and specifications will be separately prepared for each City and each City will be issuing separate construction contracts; Iteris will also be responsible for developing signal synchronization plans that are compatible with the recently synchronized Warner Avenue and Edinger Avenue corridors along with major arterials including Westminster Boulevard, Garden Grove Boulevard, and Chapman Avenue. The project began in October 2023 and is ongoing, scheduled to end in October 2026.

Professional Engineering Services for the Citywide Bus Signal Priority Project – City of Downey, CA
Mr. Morales served as a Journeyman Electrician for evaluating and implementing bus signal priority systems for 92 intersections, along six major corridors, development of plans, specifications, and construction cost estimate for 2.2-mile gap closures in the city’s fiber-optic traffic signal communications network.

EDUCATION
IBEW electrician apprenticeship in State
certified Electrician, 2021
Certificate of Completion in
Industrial/Commercial/Residential
Electrician, 2014

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: <1 Total: 8

REGISTRATIONS
Journeyman Electrician #E169878G
IMSA Work Zone Safety
IMSA Traffic Signal Technician 1

CORE DISCIPLINES
Construction Support/Inspection
Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Traffic Signal Priority (TSP)
Foundation and Pull Box Installation
Underground conduit
Concrete Restoration

ALEXANDER

MORALES

JOURNEYMEN ELECTRICIAN

ALEXANDER MORALES

JOURNEYMEN ELECTRICIAN
Moving smarter, together.

This enabled the connection of additional signalized
intersections to the City’s Traffic Management
Center (TMC), and recommendations of bus signal
priority systems to be integrated onto DowneyLINK
automatic vehicle location (AVL) system. The signal
priority system is based on IEEE 802.11-compliant
wireless bus-to-intersection communications; and
upgraded intersection traffic controller technologies.

In addition, Iteris is responsible preparing the
Preliminary Design Report (PDR) that describes the
overall design of the Wireless Local Area Network
(WLAN) network including any interties that are
required for network monitoring for each corridor.

The WLAN network design will be consistent with
Metro’s Countywide Signal Priority architecture and
system. The project began in October 2023 and was
completed October 2024.

First Street and Bolsa Avenue Regional Traffic
Signal Synchronization Project (RTSSP),
Contract Task Order (CTO) - Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange
County, CA
Mr. Morales serves as Journeyman Electrician on this
multi-jurisdictional signal coordination for a 13.1-
mile stretch of First Street/Bolsa Avenue. The project
includes various traffic signal improvements and the
retiming of 55 signalized intersections along First
Street/Bolsa Avenue from Bolsa Chica Street in the
City of Huntington Beach to Newport Avenue in the
City of Tustin and five (5) signalized intersections
offset from the corridor in the City of Santa Ana.

Iteris designed and is managing the installation of
traffic signal equipment, communication network
equipment, and fiber optic cable for five (5) agencies
along the corridor. The project began in August 2021
and is ongoing, due to end in October 2026.

Alternative Signal Communication
Demonstration Pilot - Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Mr. Morales serves as Journeyman Electrician on this
traffic signal communication improvements
throughout various city’s traffic signal networks
within Orange County. There are seven cities that
are getting upgrades to their existing communication
infrastructure at intersections that are either offline, have outdated equipment, and/or seeking
alternatives solutions to ensure reliability, enhanced
security, and scalability for a robust network that will be viable for the next 10 to 15 years. The primary
goal of this project is to analyze and test connectivity at locations where there are existing interconnect
(copper, fiber, and wireless) systems, so that
appropriate design measures can be applied to
deploy new ethernet switches, ethernet cards,
wireless radios, and/or cell modems to support the
management of each city’s traffic network. The
project began in June 2022 and is ongoing due to
end in December 2024.

Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program
(RTSSP) Project for Tustin Avenue - Rose Drive
– City of Orange, CA
Mr. Morales serves as Journeyman Electrician on this
infrastructure upgrades, signal coordination and
timing improvements, develop signal timing plans
for key signalized intersections, provide vehicle turn
movement counts and perform before-and-after
corridor analysis along the Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive
corridor from First Street in the City of Tustin to
Wabash Avenue in the City of Yorba Linda. The
project area comprises 54 signalized intersections
spanning six cities – Tustin, Santa Ana, Anaheim,
Orange, Placentia, and Yorba Linda – as well as key
highway on/off ramps under Caltrans, in Orange
County, California. The project started in August
2020 and is ongoing. The project began in
September 2021 and is ongoing, ending May 2025.

Moving smarter, together.

Mr. Lemestre serves as a Traffic Operations Technician for Iteris’ Consulting Solutions division and has been with the firm since October 2023.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
OCTA First Street and Bolsa Avenue Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project (RTSSP), Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) – Orange County, CA
Mr. Lemestre serves as a Technician on this project for OCTA. Iteris is assisting OCTA with multi-jurisdictional signal coordination for a

13.1-mile stretch of First Street/Bolsa Avenue. The project includes various traffic signal improvements and the retiming of 55 signalized intersections along First Street/Bolsa Avenue from Bolsa Chica Street in the City of Huntington Beach to Newport Avenue in the City of Tustin and five (5) signalized intersections offset from the corridor in the City of Santa Ana. Iteris designed and is managing the installation of traffic signal equipment, communication network equipment, and fiber optic cable for five (5) agencies along the corridor. The project began in August 2021 and is ongoing.

Alternative Signal Communication Demonstration Pilot,
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) – Orange
County, CA
Mr. Lemestre serves as a Technician on this project for OCTA. This project will provide traffic signal communication improvements throughout various city’s traffic signal networks within Orange County. The cities are getting upgrades to their existing communication infrastructure at intersections that are either offline, have outdated equipment, and/or seeking alternatives solutions to ensure reliability, enhanced security, and scalability for a robust network that will be viable for the next 10 to 15 years. The primary goal of this project is to analyze and test connectivity at locations where there are existing interconnect (copper, fiber, and wireless) systems, so that appropriate design measures can be applied to deploy new ethernet switches, ethernet cards, wireless radios, and/or cell modems to support the management of each city’s traffic network. This project began in June 2022 and is ongoing.

EDUCATION
Electrical Lineworker Program, Northwest
Lineman College, Meridian, ID, 2023
Introduction to Electricity 1, 2, 3, Los
Angeles Trade Technical College, Los
Angeles, CA, 2022
Hayden Electrical Craft Helper Course
Los Angeles Trade Technical College, Los
Angeles, CA, 2021

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: <1 Total: <1

CERTIFICATIONS
IMSA Work Zone Safety
IMSA Traffic Signal Technician 1
Class A CDL w/airbrakes
Climbing Certified
First Aid Certified
CPR Certified
Pole Top Rescue Certified
Aerial Lift Rescue Certified
Enclosed Space Rescue Certified
Chainsaw Safety Certified
Digger Derrick Certified
OSHA 10-Hour ET&D
Rigging
Forklift Certified
JOSHUA

LEMESTRE, IMSA

ELECTRICIAN APPRENTICE

JOSHUA LEMESTRE

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS TECHNICIAN
Moving smarter, together.

Professional Engineering Services for the
Citywide Bus Signal Priority Project – City of
Downey, CA
Mr. Lemestre serves as Technician for this project.

Iteris is responsible for evaluating and implementing
bus signal priority system for 92 intersections, along
six major corridors, development of plans,
specifications, and construction cost estimate for

2.2-mile gap closures in the city’s fiber-optic traffic signal communications network, to enable the
connection of additional signalized intersections to
the City’s Traffic Management Center (TMC), and
recommendations of bus signal priority systems to
be integrated onto DowneyLINK automatic vehicle
location (AVL) system. This project began in October
2023 and was completed in October 2024.

Countywide Signal Priority (CSP) Upgrade and
Expansion Next Gen – Los Angeles, CA
Mr. Lemestre serves as a Technician for this project.

Iteris is responsible for evaluating and implementing
bus signal priority system for several multijurisdictional Metro local corridors as part of Metro’s Next Gen Bus Service and existing Countywide Signal
Priority corridors. Iteris is responsible for providing engineering design services, intersection system
hardware and installation services, jurisdictional
coordination support expansion and upgrade of the
CSP System for 12- local service corridors. This
project began in October 2021 and is ongoing.

Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program
(RTSSP) Project for Tustin Avenue - Rose Drive
– City of Orange, CA
Mr. Lemestre serves as a Technician on this
infrastructure upgrades, signal coordination and
timing improvements, develop signal timing plans
for key signalized intersections, provide vehicle turn
movement counts and perform before-and-after
corridor analysis along the Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive
corridor from First Street in the City of Tustin to
Wabash Avenue in the City of Yorba Linda. The
project area comprises 54 signalized intersections
spanning six cities – Tustin, Santa Ana, Anaheim,
Orange, Placentia, and Yorba Linda – as well as key
highway on/off ramps under Caltrans, in Orange
County, California. The project started in August
2020 and is ongoing. The project began in
September 2021 and is ongoing, ending May 2025.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
Greens Metal Cutoff - Santa Fe Springs, CA
Mr. Lemestre served as a Machine Operator. His
duties included:
• Managed orders and machines to complete
orders in a timely fashion.
• Deburred and clean cut parts to specifications of
orders.
• Ran forklift to receive material for future orders.

Josh worked from February 2022 until February
2023.

S&L Contracting - Westminster, CA
Mr. Lemestre served as a General Helper. His duties
included:
• Dug footings for posts and support beams.
• Assist in framing walls and ceilings per job.
• Walked through finished jobs to fix any missed
hardware or fixtures per the specs of order.

Josh worked every summer from 2017 to 2021.

Moving smarter, together.

Mr. Gallardo serves as an Electrician Apprentice for Iteris’ Consulting Solutions division and has been with the firm since January 2024.

Alex has spent his tenure at Iteris focusing on ITS related Electrical device installation, operations and maintenance. In addition to working as an Electrician Apprentice, Alex also provides technical support for our Sensors division and provides turn-on support for our video detection solutions.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

ITS ELECTRICAL
City of Huntington Beach Valley View/Bolsa Chica Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP)- City of Huntington Beach, CA
Mr. Gallardo serves as an Electrician Apprentice on this RTSSP project for the city of Huntington Beach. Iteris was selected to provide ITS design, bid support, ITS device installation, construction support, traffic signal synchronization services, and maintenance services to 22 signals along Valley View Street/Bolsa Chica Street, a major north-south arterial. The project covers approximately 5.35 miles of roadway from Chapman Avenue to Warner Avenue within the Cities of Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Garden Grove. ITS equipment improvements include fiber-optic communications, CCTV, VDS, and traffic signal controllers, cabinets, and foundations.

The project began in October 2023 and is ongoing, scheduled to end in October 2026.

Citywide Bus Signal Priority Project – City of Downey, CA Mr. Gallardo is serving as an Electrician Apprentice for the installation, integration and testing of bus signal priority devices and systems for 92 intersections along six major corridors. This project enables the connection of additional signalized intersections to the City’s Traffic Management Center (TMC), and integration into the DowneyLINK automatic vehicle location (AVL) system.

EDUCATION
Los Angeles Trade Tech, 2015
El Camino Community College, 2012

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: <1 Total: <1

CERTIFICATIONS
IMSA Work Zone Safety
IMSA Traffic Signal Technician 1

CORE DISCIPLINES
Construction Support/Inspection
Traffic Singal System Upgrade
Traffic Signal Priority (TSP)
Transportation Planning for Safety
Analysis and Managed Services

ALEXANDER

GALLARDO, IMSA

ELECTRICIAN APPRENTICE

ALEXANDER GALLARDO

ELECTRICIAN APPRENTICE
Moving smarter, together.

The signal priority system is based on IEEE 802.11-
compliant wireless bus-to-intersection
communications; and upgraded intersection traffic
controller technologies. Iteris is responsible for
installing the radios, antennas, network switches,
2070 controllers and supporting CAT6 cabling at
each intersection.

Alternative Signal Communication
Demonstration Pilot - Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Mr. Gallardo serves as an Electrician Apprentice on
this traffic signal communication improvement
project that extends throughout various city’s traffic
signal networks within Orange County. There are
seven cities that are getting upgrades to their
existing communication infrastructure at
intersections that are either offline, have outdated
equipment, and/or seeking alternatives solutions to
ensure reliability, enhanced security, and scalability
for a robust network that will be viable for the next
10 to 15 years. The primary goal of this project is to
analyze and test connectivity at locations where
there are existing interconnect (copper, fiber, and
wireless) systems, so that appropriate design
measures can be applied to deploy new ethernet
switches, ethernet cards, wireless radios, and/or cell
modems to support the management of each city’s
traffic network. The project began in June 2022 and
is ongoing due to end in December 2024.

Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program
(RTSSP) Project for Tustin Avenue - Rose Drive
– City of Orange, CA
Mr. Gallardo serves as an Electrician Apprentice on
this project which involves infrastructure upgrades,
signal coordination and timing improvements,
development of signal timing plans for key signalized
intersections, vehicle turn movement counts and
performing before-and-after corridor analysis along
the Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive corridor from First
Street in the City of Tustin to Wabash Avenue in the
City of Yorba Linda. The project area comprises 54
signalized intersections spanning six cities – Tustin,
Santa Ana, Anaheim, Orange, Placentia, and Yorba
Linda – as well as key highway on/off ramps under
Caltrans, in Orange County, California. The project
started in August 2020 and is ongoing. The project
began in September 2021 and is ongoing, ending
May 2025.

Moving smarter, together.

Mr. Freeman serves as a Senior Engineer for Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions division and has been with the firm since July 2023. He has 10 years of experience working in the fields of traffic engineering and traffic signal design.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS
Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) Project for Tustin Avenue - Rose Drive – City of Orange, CA Mr. Freeman serves as Project Engineer on this project. Under the project agreement, Iteris will make infrastructure upgrades, signal coordination and timing improvements, develop signal timing plans for all signalized intersections along the corridor, provide vehicle turning movement counts and perform before-and-after corridor analysis along the Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive corridor from First Street in the City of Tustin to Wabash Avenue in the City of Yorba Linda. The project area comprises 54 signalized intersections spanning six cities – Tustin, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Orange, Placentia, and Yorba Linda – as well as key highway on/off ramps under Caltrans, in Orange County, California. The project started in August 2020 and is ongoing. Construction is slated to start in Summer 2023.

Yorba Linda Boulevard/Weir Canyon Road Corridor Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project- City of Yorba Linda, CA Mr. Freeman serves as Project Engineer on this project. Under the project agreement, Iteris will make infrastructure upgrades along Yorba Linda Boulevard from Van Buren Street to new River Road in the City of Yorba Linda. Additional, Iteris will analyze signal coordination and timing improvements, develop signal timing plans for all signalized intersections along the corridor, provide vehicle turning movement counts and perform before-and-after corridor analysis on Yorba Linda Boulevard from State College Boulevard in Fullerton to Canyon Drive in Anaheim. The project began in July 2023 and is ongoing.
.

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering, University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign, IL, 2014

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: 1 Total: 10

REGISTRATIONS
Civil Engineer (PE)
IL #062.070815, 2018
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer
(PTOE)
#4607, 2019

CORE DISCIPLINES
Traffic Engineering
Traffic Signal Design
Traffic Signal System Upgrades

AFFILIATIONS
Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE)

ANDREW FREEMAN,

PE, PTOE

SENIOR ENGINEER

ANDREW FREEMAN, PE (IL) PTOE

SENIOR ENGINEER
Moving smarter, together.

Alternative Signal Communication
Demonstration Project – Orange County, CA
Mr. Freeman serves as Project Engineer on this
project. Iteris was selected by OCTA to provide low
cost solution to bring intersection online and/or
provide additional redundancy to the traffic
network. This project will provide traffic signal
communication improvements throughout various
cities’ traffic signal networks within Orange County.

Cities that require upgrades as part of the project
are:
• City of Huntington Beach
• City of La Habra
• City of Lake Forest
• City of Newport Beach
• City of Rancho Santa Margarita
• City of Seal Beach
• City of Yorba Linda
The cities will be getting upgrades to their existing
communication infrastructure at intersections that
are either offline, have outdated equipment, and/or
seeking alternatives solutions to ensure reliability,
enhanced security, and scalability for a robust
network that will be viable for the next 10 to 15
years. The primary goal of this project is to analyze
and test connectivity at locations where there is
existing interconnect (copper, fiber, and wireless)
systems, so that appropriate design measures can be
applied to deploy new ethernet switches, ethernet
cards, wireless radios, and/or cell modems to
support the management of each city’s traffic
network. Iteris will procure, configure, and install all the equipment as part of this project. The project
started in August 2022 and is expected to be
completed by August 2023.

PREVIOUS PROJECT EXPERIENCE

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS
C*NECT Capital Improvements Projects, Design
and Project Management – Chicago Department
of Transportation, Chicago, IL
Mr. Freeman served as Project Manager on this
project. While with another firm, Mr. Freeman
provided engineering and project management
services to develop traffic signal improvements and
modernizations for the Chicago Department of
Transportation’s capital improvement programs. Mr.

Freeman was responsible for traffic signal design,
interconnect fiber design, quantity and cost estimate
calculations, and agency coordination.

Traffic Engineering Services - Illinois Tollway
Mr. Freeman served as Project Engineer on this
project. While with another firm, Mr. Freeman
provided an assessment and recommendations to
improve the existing secondary crash processing and
identification logic for the Illinois Tollway. Mr.

Freeman provided data analysis support and assisted
in develop dashboards in PowerBI to ease data
manipulation and assist in trend analysis.

Village of Crestwood Traffic Signal
Modernization Project – Village of Crestwood, IL
Mr. Freeman served as Project Manager on this
project. While with another firm, Mr. Freeman
develop engineering and project management
services to provide traffic signal modernization plans
to three intersections in the Village of Crestwood.

Mr. Freeman was responsible for traffic signal design
including equipment layout, interconnect fiber
design, quantity and cost estimate calculations,
street sign layouts, and agency coordination.

In-House Traffic Consultant – Chicago
Department of Transportation
Mr. Freeman served as an in-house Project Engineer
for the Chicago Department of Transportation on
this project. While with another firm, Mr. Freeman
developed detailed plans for pavement markings,
signage, and geometric improvements including
pedestrian refuge islands and curb extensions. Mr.

Freeman was also responsible for analyzing crash
data to identify trends and potential improvements
to pedestrian and vehicle safety for corridors and
intersections. Mr. Freeman provided review of
proposed site plans and developments throughout
Chicago to ensure compliance with traffic
engineering best practices and city standards.

Moving smarter, together.

Mr. Liang serves as Associate Engineer for Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions and has been with the firm since 2019. He has over 4 years of experience working in the fields of Traffic Engineering, ITS Designs, and Operations. Mr. Liang has ITS design experience with multiple TSSP projects around Orange County. Mr. Liang has prepared many PS&E packages for various local agencies and Caltrans in the Southern California Region. Mr. Liang’s software knowledge includes AutoCAD, Microstation, Microsoft Word, Excel, MATLAB, Synchro and ArcGIS.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Euclid Street Corridor Project Regional Traffic Signal
Synchronization Program (RTSSP – City of La Habra, CA
Mr. Liang serves as a Project Engineer on this signal synchronization project for City of La Habra. Project includes the synchronization of sixty-seven (67) traffic signals and sixty-nine (69) offset traffic signals throughout the Cities of La Habra, Fullerton, Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Fountain Valley along Euclid Street. Iteris is providing communication system analysis for the City of Fullerton and the City of Santa Ana through this project. Iteris will conduct all engineering, construction management, inspection, and
administrative tasks necessary to complete the project. After the construction and implementation phase of the project, Iteris will provide operations, and maintenance services for three years. The project began in March 2023 and is expected to be completed March 2028.

Tustin-Rose Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project (RTSSP) – Orange County, CA
Mr. Liang serves as the associate engineer to deploy new ITS communication infrastructure and implement optimized
coordination timing plans to achieve optimal traffic flow for Cities of Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Tustin, and Yorba Linda along the main corridors of Tustin Ave/Rose Dr. VDS, CCTV and fiber optic interconnect upgrades will be implemented throughout the main corridors. His responsibilities includes drafting the fiber communication plans and signal modification plans. The project began in September 2021 is ongoing.

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering, University of Irvine,
CA, 2019

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: 4 Total: 4

REGISTRATIONS
Engineer-In-Training (EIT)
CA #169619, 2019

CORE DISCIPLINES
Traffic Engineering & Operations
ITS Planning/Design/Integration
Traffic Signal Design
Operations and Maintenance

AFFILIATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE)
Orange County Traffic Engineering
Council (OCTEC)

RAYMOND

LIANG, EIT

ASSOCIATE ENGINEER

RAYMOND LIANG, EIT

ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
Moving smarter, together.

Professional Design and Construction Support
for the TSS for ATMS – Rancho Cucamonga,
CA
Mr. Liang serves as the assistant engineer to deploy
new ITS communication infrastructure and
implement optimized coordination timing plans to
achieve optimal traffic flow for City of Rancho
Cucamonga along the main corridors of Haven
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. CCTV, VDS, and fiber
optic interconnect upgrades will be implemented
throughout the main corridors. His responsibilities
includes drafting the fiber communication plans and
signal modification plans. The project began in
August 2019. Mr. Liang’s involvement on the project
began in August 2019 and is ongoing. The project
will be completed in August 2020, followed by two
years of Operations and Maintenance (O&M),
ending August 2022.

Traffic and Intelligent Transportation Systems
Engineering Services, Katella Avenue (TSSP),
(OCTA) – Orange County, CA
Mr. Liang served as Assistant Designer on this
Project. As part of the project, Iteris’ Intersection-asa-Service™ end-to-end solution offering will deliver proactive monitoring of traffic signal operations at
all project intersections. The primary goal of this
project is to deploy new Intelligent Transportation
System (ITS) equipment and communication
infrastructure to support the management of the
cities’ transportation network, implement optimized
coordination timing plans to achieve optimal traffic
flow, and improve safety for all road users, including
vehicles, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. The
project began in February 2020 and is ongoing.

Traffic and Intelligent Transportation Systems
Engineering Services, Main Street Regional
Traffic Signal Synchronization Projects
(RTSSP), (OCTA) – Orange County, CA
Mr. Liang serves as Associate Engineer on this
project, which will provide services that will upgrade
traffic signal electronics and communications
equipment, and optimize signal timing along Main
Street, a major north-south corridor that comprises
67 major signalized intersections. As part of the
project, Iteris’ Intersection-as-a-Service™ end-to-end
solution offering will deliver proactive monitoring of
traffic signal operations at all project intersections.

The primary goal of this project is to deploy new
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) equipment
and communication infrastructure to support the
management of the cities’ transportation network,
implement optimized coordination timing plans to
achieve optimal traffic flow, and improve safety for
all road users, including vehicles, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. The project began in December 2019
and is ongoing.

A&E On-Call Roadway Design and Project
Development and Construction Services
(Caltrans D12) – Orange County, CA
Mr. Liang is serving as an Associate Engineer with
Iteris as part of the TranSystems team on the
Caltrans District 12 On-Call contract to provide
consultation, research, professional and technical
services required for Roadway Design and related
Project Development and Construction Services,
including, but not limited to, field sampling,
construction materials testing, analysis, reports,
plant inspection and work related to testing
equipment calibration, on an “as-needed” basis to
support the Caltrans D12, from Project Report phase
to construction phase completion of three State
Route (SR) 91 Multi-Asset Projects, EA 12-0R312, EA
12-0R313 and EA 12-0R314 in Orange County
between Los Angeles County Line to Riverside
County Line. Iteris' task focuses on performing
design service for Traffic Management Systems
(TMS) and electrical elements through PA&ED, PS&E,
and construction phase. The TMS/electrical
elements improvement includes, but not limited to,
CCTV, CMS, loop detectors, census station, RMS, FOC
and conduit. The project began in January 2021 and
is ongoing.

OCTA Warner Avenue Regional Traffic Signal
Synchronization Project (RTSSP) – Orange
County, CA
Mr. Liang serves as the associate engineer to deploy
new ITS communication infrastructure and
implement optimized coordination timing plans to
achieve optimal traffic flow for Cities of Huntington
Beach, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana along the
main corridors of Warner Avenue. VDS, CCTV and
fiber optic interconnect upgrades will be
implemented throughout the main corridors. His
responsibilities includes drafting the fiber
communication plans and signal modification plans.

The project began in November 2020. Mr. Liang’s
involvement on the project began in August 2021
and is ongoing.

Snap, Inc., Santa Monica
Juan Ramos | Service Foreman
Summary
Juan Ramos has over 25 years of experience in the construction industry with a focus on fiber optic technology installation, repairs and maintenance. The role of service foreman for our communications division is to lead and coordinate the activities of the project team and provide full time daily supervision across the construction site. • Strong understanding of fiber optic technology, testing equipment, industry standard protocols and equipment.
• Plan and supervise activities includes determining method of construction, manpower levels, material quantities equipment, temporary power sources, work schedule and documenting hours worked.
• Attend weekly coordination meetings, monitor safety program, review and coordinate drawings and submittals, insure quality installation, and monitor work progress according to schedule.
• Schedule, coordinate and supervise employee activities. Coordinate assigned work with work of different crafts, company departments, or other contractors. • Maintain liaison with engineering, estimating, and planning to ensure work complies with drawings, specifications, and schedule.
• Assist in resolving construction hurdles as required. • Monitor compliance with project safety program requirements; document and ensure implementation.
• Maintain liaison with other departments (i.e., material control, purchasing, quality control, engineering) to ensure all materials, equipment, inspections and schedule.
• Represents Anderson Howard in a manner that meets the highest standards of professional conduct and integrity.

Certifications / Training / Specialties
• Panduit Certification
• Corning Certification
• Sumitomo Certification
• Specializes in fiber installation:
• Traditional fiber
• Air blown fiber
• Terminating with fusion
• Terminating with mechanical connectors
• Fiber testing and transmission signal integrity testing Google, Multiple Locations
Apple, Multiple Locations
NBCUniversal, Los Angeles
iteris 949.270.9400 1700 Carnegie Avenue, Suite 100 iteris.com Santa Ana, CA 92705

FEEPROPOSAL
November 8, 2024
Mr. Dai Vu, Traffic EngineerCity of Garden Grove
11222Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92842
Re: FEE PROPOSAL FOR SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA ST. - VALLEY VIEW ST. TSSP
11477-230.25
Dear Mr. Vu,
Iteris, Inc. (Iteris) submits our fee proposal to provide ser/ices for the system construction of the Bolsa Chica Street and Valley View Street TSSP project. Table 1(page 2) summarizes the lump sum price of the total project fee.

Proposal is valid for 90 days following submission.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our Fee Proposal. Iteris looks forward to assisting the City on important traffic and transportation engineering projects. Iteris accepts the terms and conditions of the sample contract as-is. Please contact me at (949) 270-9647 or [email protected], or the designated Project Manager, Mr. Brian Akerley, MELE at (657) 652-8288 or [email protected], with any questions.

Sincerely,
Iteris, Inc.
f^JI:

Steven Bradley, PE
Regional Vice President | Mobility Consulting Solutions •Stei/en Bradley, PE, is authorized to negotiate the contract on behalf of Iteris and our project manager.
iteris 949.Z70.9400 1700 Carnegie Avenue, Suite 100 iteris.com Santa Ana, CA 92705 Table 1 - Fee Proposal
BOLSA CHICA ST. - VALLEY VIEW ST.

CITf OF GARDEN GROVE

FEE PROPOSAL FORMAT
Item 1
System Construction at the intersection of Chapman Ave../Valley View St. per Drawng No. T-943.3 (Attachment E) and Specifications (Attachment D)'.

Item 2
System Construction at the intersection of West Grove Ctr./ Valtey View St. per Drawing No. T 943.4 (/Mtachment E)
and Specifications (Attachment D)'.

Item 3
System Construction at the intersection of Be (grave Ave. /Valley View St. per Drawing No. T-943.5 (Attachment E) and Specifications (Attachment D)'.

Item 4
System Construction at the intersection of LampsonAveYValley View St. per Drawing No. T'943.6 (Attachment E) andSpecifications (Attachment D)'.Item 5 System Construction at the intersection of Cerutean AveY Valley View St. per Drawing No. T-943.7 (Attachment E) ard Specifications (Attach ment D)'.ItemS
System Construction in the Garden Grove TMC per DrawingNo. T'943.10 (Attachment E) and Specifications (Attachn-wnt D).Procure, Install and Configure equipment.

Total Project Fee (in figures): Not to Exceed
TSSP
Lump Sum Price
$ 79,823.00$66,368.00
$ 95,132.00
$ 101.622.00
$ 121,819.00
$ 80,357.00
$ 545,121.00
*Lump sum cost shall indude all the tasks listed in the Scope of Services IndLriing procurement of field equipment & install per plan and specifications, configure ard integration of equipment, test equipment and coordinate equipment testing as needed, provkie construction management sup port as needed.

CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of 20__, by the CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, a municipal corporation, (“CITY”), and Iteris, Inc., a California Corporation (‘‘CONSULTANT”).

RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement:

1. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Garden Grove Council authorization dated ______________

2. CITY desires to utilize the services of CONSULTANT to install and integrate equipment for the Bolsa Chica St.-Valley View St. Traffic Signal Synchronization Project.

AGREEMENT
THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Term of Agreement: This Agreement shall cover services rendered from date of this Agreement until completed.

2. Services to be Provided: The services to be performed by CONSULTANT shall consist of the services as further specified in CONSULTANT’S proposal or bid attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. CONSULTANT agrees that is provision of Services under this agreement shall be within accepted accordance with customary and usual practices in CONSULTANT’S profession. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT warrants that it has carefully considered how the work should be performed and fully understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the work under this agreement.

3. Compensation. CONSULTANT shall be compensated as follows:

3.1 Amount. Compensation under this Agreement shall be per fee/cost schedule included in the Proposal.

3.2 Not to Exceed. Compensation under this Agreement shall not exceed $545,121.00.

3.3 Payment. For work under this Agreement, payment shall be made in accordance with Section 28 below.

3.4 Reserved.
2 3.5 Termination. CITY and CONSULTANT shall each have the right to terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving thirty-(30) days written notice of termination to the other party. If CITY terminates the project, then the provisions of paragraph 3 shall apply to that portion of the work completed.

4. Insurance and Bonds

4.1 COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. CONSULTANT shall not commence work under this Agreement until all certificates and endorsements have been received and approved by the CITY. All insurance required by this Agreement shall contain a statement of obligation on the part of the carrier to notify the city of any material change, cancellation, or termination at least thirty (30) days in advance. A waiver of subrogation shall be provided by the insurer for each policy waiving subrogation against CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for this agreement and all public agencies from whom permits will be obtained and their directors, officers, agents, and employees, as determined by the CITY, Claims made and modified occurrence policies shall not be accepted for any policy. All Subcontractors shall be required to provide and maintain the same insurances as required of CONSULTANT under this agreement.

CONSULTANT shall be required to collect and maintain all required insurances from all Subcontractors.

4.2 CONSULTANT is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement.

4.3 CONSULTANT and all Subcontractors shall carry workers' compensation insurance for the protection of its employees during the progress of the work. The insurer shall waive its rights of subrogation against the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for this agreement and all public agencies from whom permits will be obtained and their directors, officers, agents, and employees, as determined by the CITY, and shall issue a waiver of subrogation.

4.4 Before CONSULTANT performs any work at, or prepares or delivers materials to, the site of construction, CONSULTANT shall furnish:

Additional Insured Endorsements, ongoing and products-completed operations, for the Commercial General Liability policy, including mobile equipment and not excluding XCU. Endorsements shall designate CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for this agreement and all public agencies from whom permits will be obtained and their directors, officers, agents, and employees, as determined by the CITY, as additional insureds for liability arising out of 3 work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANT shall provide to CITY proof of insurance and endorsement forms that conform to CITY’s requirements, as approved by the CITY. (Form CG 20 26 07 04 & Form CG 20 37 07 04 or equivalent) (Claims made and modified occurrence policies are not
acceptable; Insurance companies must be acceptable to CITY and have a minimum A.M. Best Guide rating of A-, class VII or better, as approved by CITY).

An Additional Insured Endorsement for an Automobile Liability policy and shall designate CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for this agreement and all public agencies from whom permits will be obtained and their directors, officers, agents, and employees, as determined by the CITY, as additional insureds for automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANT shall provide to CITY proof of insurance and endorsement forms that conform to CITY’s requirements, as approved by the CITY. (Form CA 20 48 02 99 or equivalent) (Claims made and modified occurrence policies are not acceptable; Insurance companies must be acceptable to CITY and have a minimum A.M. Best Guide rating of A- , class VII or better, as approved by CITY).

A Loss Payee Endorsement for the Course of Construction policy designating the City of Garden Grove as Loss Payee. (Claims made and modified occurrence policies are not acceptable; Insurance companies must be acceptable to CITY and have a minimum A.M. Best Guide rating of A-, class VII or better, as approved by CITY).

In the event any of CONSULTANT’S underlying policies do not meet policy limits as required here in, CONSULTANT shall provide the schedule of underlying polices for a follows form excess liability policy, state that the excess policy follows form on the insurance certificate, and an additional insured endorsement for the excess liability policy designating CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for this agreement and all public agencies from whom permits will be obtained and their directors, officers, agents, and employees, as determined by the CITY, as additional insureds. (Claims made and modified occurrence policies are not acceptable; Insurance companies must be acceptable to CITY and have a minimum A.M. Best Guide rating of A-, class VII or better, as approved by CITY).

For any claims related to this Project, the CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for this agreement and all public agencies from whom permits will be obtained and their directors, officers, agents, and employees, as determined by the CITY. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for this agreement and all public agencies from whom permits will be obtained and their directors, 4 officers, agents, and employees, as determined by the CITY, shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and not contribute with it.

4.5 Before CONSULTANT performs any work at, or prepares or delivers materials to, the site of construction, CONSULTANT shall furnish:

CONSULTANT shall maintain all of the foregoing insurance coverage in force until the work under this Agreement is fully completed. The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance shall not derogate from the provisions for indemnification of CITY by CONSULTANT under Section

5.17 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding nor diminishing the obligations of CONSULTANT with respect to the foregoing, CONSULTANT shall subscribe for and maintain in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement, the following insurance in amounts not less than the amounts specified and issued by a company admitted and licensed in California and having a Best's Guide Rating of A-Class VII or better (claims made and modified occurrence policies are not acceptable):

Workers’ Compensation As required by the State of
California.

Employer’s Liability Not less than $1,000,000 per
accident for bodily injury or disease.

Commercial General Liability
(including on-going operations, products
- completed operations, and mobile
equipment, and not excluding XCU)
Not less than $5,000,000 per
occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property
damage.

Automobile Liability, for all automobiles
including non-owned and hired vehicles
Not less than $2,000,000 combined
single limit for bodily injury and
property damage.

Follows Form Excess Liability Required for any underlying policy that does not meet the underlying
policy limits required herein.

If CONSULTANT maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, CONSULTANT shall provide coverage for the higher limits otherwise maintained by the CONSULTANT.

CITY or its representatives shall at all times have the right to inspect and receive a certified copy of all said policies of insurance, including certificates and endorsements at CONSULTANTS sole cost and expense. CONSULTANT shall pay the premiums on the insurance hereinabove required.
5 4.6 Bonds. CONSULTANT shall, prior to entering into performance of this Agreement, furnish a performance bond, on the CITY's bond form in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the Agreement price, to guarantee the faithful performance of the work, and a payment bond, on the CITY's form in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the Agreement price, to guarantee payment of all claims for labor and materials furnished. Bonds submitted on any form other than the CITY's form will be rejected. The required bonds shall be from a surety licensed to do business in the State of California and with a current A.M. Best's rating of A-, VII. This Agreement shall not become effective until such bonds are supplied and approved by the CITY.

5. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the CITY. No official or employee of CITY shall be personally liable to CONSULTANT in the event of any default or breach by CITY, or for any amount, which may become due to CONSULTANT.

6. Non-Discrimination. CONSULTANT covenants there shall be no discrimination against any person or group due to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, age, handicap, national origin or ancestry, in any activity pursuant to this Agreement.

7. Independent Contractor. It is understood and agreed that CONSULTANT, including CONSULTANT’s employees, shall act and be independent contractor(s) and not agent(s) or employee(s) of CITY, and that no relationship of employer-employee exists between the parties. CONSULTANT’s assigned personnel shall not obtain or be entitled to any rights or benefits that accrue to, or are payable to, CITY employees, and CONSULTANT shall so inform each employee organization and each employee who is hired or retained under this Agreement. CITY is not required to make any deductions or withholdings from the compensation payable to CONSULTANT under the provisions of this Agreement, and is not required to issue W-2 Forms for income and employment tax purposes for any of CONSULTANT’s assigned personnel.

CONSULTANT hereby expressly assumes all responsibility and liability for the payment of wages and benefits to its assigned personnel, and all related reporting and withholding obligations. CONSULTANT hereby agrees to indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any and all claims or liabilities that CITY may incur arising from any contention by any third party, including, but not limited to, any employee of CONSULTANT or any federal or state agency or other entity, that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Agreement, including, without limitation, claims that CITY is responsible for retirement or other benefits allegedly accruing to CONSULTANT’s assigned personnel.

8. Compliance With Law. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government.

CONSULTANT shall comply with, and shall be responsible for causing all contractors and subcontractors performing any of the work pursuant to this Agreement, if any, to comply with, all applicable federal and state labor 6 standards, including, to the extent applicable, the prevailing wage requirements promulgated by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California Department of Labor. The City makes no warranty or representation concerning whether any of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement constitutes public works subject to the prevailing wage requirements.

9. Disclosure of Documents. All documents or other information developed or received by CONSULTANT are confidential and shall not be disclosed without authorization by CITY, unless disclosure is required by law.

10. Ownership of Work Product. All documents or other information developed or received by CONSULTANT shall be the property of CITY. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with copies of these items upon demand or upon termination of this Agreement.

11. Conflict of Interest and Reporting. CONSULTANT shall at all times avoid conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest in performance of this Agreement.

12. Notices. All notices shall be personally delivered or mailed to the below listed addresses, or to such other addresses as may be designated by written notice.

These addresses shall be used for delivery of service of process. (a) Address of CONSULTANT is as follows:
_________
_________
_________
_________
(b) Address of CITY is as follows (with a copy to):

Engineering: City Attorney
City of Garden Grove City of Garden Grove
P.O. Box 3070 P.O. Box 3070
Garden Grove, CA 92840 Garden Grove, CA 92840

13. CONSULTANT’S Proposal or Bid. This Agreement shall include CONSULTANT’S proposal or bid, Exhibit “A” hereto, which shall be incorporated herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of the proposal and this Agreement, this Agreement shall govern.

14. Licenses, Permits and Fees. At its sole expense, CONSULTANT shall obtain a Garden Grove Business License, all permits and licenses as may be required by this Agreement.
7 15. Familiarity With Work. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT warrants that: (1) it has investigated the work to be performed; (2) it has investigated the site of the work and is aware of all conditions there; and (3) it understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions of the work under this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by CITY, it shall immediately inform CITY of this and shall not proceed, except at CONSULTANT’S risk, until written instructions are received from CITY.

16. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

17. Limitations Upon Subcontracting and Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of CONSULTANT, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for CITY to enter into this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not contract with any other entity to perform the services required without written approval of the CITY. This Agreement may not be assigned voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of CITY. If CONSULTANT is permitted to subcontract any part of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be responsible to CITY for the acts and omissions of its subcontractor as it is for persons directly employed. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between any subcontractor and CITY. All persons engaged in the work will be considered employees of CONSULTANT. CITY will deal directly with and will make all payments to CONSULTANT.

18. Authority to Execute. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement and that by executing this Agreement, the parties are formally bound.

19. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT agrees to protect, defend, and hold harmless CITY and its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, or damages of any nature, including attorneys' fees, for injury or death of any person, or damages of any nature, including interference with use of property, arising out of, or in any way connected with the negligence, recklessness and/or intentional wrongful conduct of CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT'S agents, officers, employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors hired by CONSULTANT in the performance of the Agreement. The only exception to CONSULTANT'S responsibility to protect, defend, and hold harmless CITY, is due to the negligence, recklessness and/or wrongful conduct of CITY, or any of its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents, or employees.

This hold harmless agreement shall apply to all liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by CONSULTANT.
8 20. Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any previous agreements, oral or written. This Agreement may be modified only by subsequent mutual written agreement executed by CITY and CONSULTANT.

21. Waiver. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing by the appropriate authorities of the CITY and CONSULTANT.

22. California Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action commenced about this Agreement shall be filed in the central branch of the Orange County Superior Court.

23. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted as though prepared by both parties

24. Preservation of Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement be found invalid or unenforceable, the decision shall affect only the provision interpreted, and all remaining provisions shall remain enforceable.

25. Time of Commencement and Completion.

The Contract time shall commence on the date the Notice to Proceed is issued by the City. The CONSULTANT shall submit shop drawings within seven (7) calendar days. The CONSULTANT shall diligently prosecute the work within eighty (80) working days to completion as required per the plans and specifications excluding delays caused or authorized by the CITY.

26. Extra Work. The Agreement price includes compensation for all work performed by CONSULTANT, unless CONSULTANT obtains a written change order signed by a designated representative of CITY specifying the exact nature of the extra work and the amount of extra compensation to be paid.

CITY shall extend the time for completion of the Project by the number of days reasonably required for CONSULTANT to perform the extra work, as determined by CITY’S Engineer. The decision of the Engineer shall be final.

27. Liquidated Damages for Delay. The parties agree that if the total work called for under this Agreement, in all parts and requirements, is not completed within the time specified in Section 25 herein, plus the allowance made for delays or extensions authorized under Section 26 herein, the CITY will sustain damage which would be extremely difficult and impractical to ascertain. The parties therefore agree that CONSULTANT will pay to CITY the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each and every calendar day during which completion of the project has not been completed within eighty (80) working day period. CONSULTANT agrees to pay such liquidated damages and further agrees that CITY may offset the amount of liquidated damages from any monies due or that may become due CONSULTANT under the Agreement.

28. Method of Payment.
9 Progress payments shall be made to the CONSULTANT on a monthly basis for each successive month as the work progresses. The CONSULTANT shall be paid such sum as will bring the total payments received since the commencement of the work up to ninety-five percent (95%) of the value of the work completed, less all previous payments, provided that the CONSULTANT submits the request for payment prior to the end of the day required to meet the payment schedule.

The CITY will retain five percent (5%) of the amount of each such progress estimate and material cost until 30 days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion.

29. CONSULTANT 's Employees Compensation.

29.1 General Prevailing Rate. CITY has ascertained CONSULTANT and its Subcontractors shall comply with all applicable requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code and all applicable federal requirements respecting the payment of prevailing wages. If there is a difference between the minimum wage rates predetermined by the Secretary of Labor and the prevailing wage rates determined by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) for similar classifications of labor, the CONSULTANT and its Subcontractors shall pay not less than the higher wage rate. The DIR will not accept lower State wage rates not specifically included in the Federal minimum wage determinations. This includes "helper" (or other classifications based on hours of experience) or any other classification not appearing in the Federal Wage determinations. Where Federal wage determinations do not contain the State wage rate determination otherwise available for use by the CONSULTANT and Subcontractors, the CONSULTANT and its Subcontractors shall pay not less than the Federal Minimum wage rate which most closely approximates the duties of the employees in question."

29.2 Forfeiture for Violation. CONSULTANT shall, as a penalty to the CITY, forfeit one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each calendar day or portion thereof for each worker paid (either by the CONSULTANT or any subcontractor under it) less than the prevailing rate of per diem wages as set by the Director of Industrial Relations, in accordance with Sections 1770-1780 of the California Labor Code for the work provided for in this Agreement, all in accordance with Section 1775 of the Labor Code of the State of California.

29.3 Apprentices. Section 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the Labor Code of the State of California, regarding the employment of apprentices is applicable to this Agreement and the CONSULTANT shall comply therewith; provided, however, that this requirement shall not apply if and/or to the extent that the Agreement of the general CONSULTANT, or the contracts of specialty contractors not bidding for work through a general or prime contractor involve less than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00).
10 29.4 Workday. In the performance of this Agreement, not more than eight (8) hours shall constitute a day's work, and CONSULTANT shall not require more than eight (8) hours of labor in a day from any person employed by him hereunder except as provided in paragraph (5.14.2) above. CONSULTANT shall conform to Article 3, Chapter 1, Part 7 (Sections 1810 et seq.) of the Labor Code of the State of California and shall forfeit to the CITY as a penalty, the sum of twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by CONSULTANT or any subcontractor for each calendar day during which any worker is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one week in violation of said Article. CONSULTANT shall keep an accurate record showing the name and actual hours worked each calendar day and each calendar week by each worker employed by CONSULTANT in connection with the Project.

29.5 Record of Wages: Inspection. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain accurate payroll records showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight-time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker or other employee employed by it in connection with the Project and agrees to require that each of its subcontractors does the same. The applicable CONSULTANT or subcontractor or its agent having authority over such matters shall certify all payroll records as accurate. CONSULTANT further agrees that its payroll records and those of its subcontractors shall be available to the employee or employee's representative, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and shall comply with all of the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, in general.

CONSULTANT shall comply with all of the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, and shall submit payroll records to the Labor Commissioner pursuant to Labor Code section 1771.4(a)(3). The CONSULTANT shall submit copies of certified payroll reports and payment records for labors, every two weeks to the Engineer. Certified payroll and cancelled checks submittals are due one month after start of construction and every two weeks thereafter. If the certified payroll and cancelled checks are not submitted, the CONSULTANT will be notified that compliance is required within five (5) working days or contract work must cease. The CITY will not be responsible for any delay or acceleration charges or any incurred costs or damages as a result of the work stoppage due to CONSULTANT’s failure to comply. Work shall be ceased in an orderly, safe fashion with all vehicle access restored. Should this not occur, CITY will correct the deficiencies and deduct the cost from funds due to the CONSULTANT. In addition, no progress payment shall be made until the copies of certified payroll reports and cancelled checks are submitted.

29.6 Contractor Registration. CONSULTANT and its subcontractors must be registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. This Agreement shall not be effective until CONSULTANT provides proof of registration to the CITY.
11 29.7 Posting of Job Site Notices. CONSULTANT shall comply with the job site notices posting requirements established by the Labor Commissioner pursuant to Title 8, California Code of Regulations Section 16461(e) or other regulation promulgated pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4(a) (2).

29.8 Notice of DIR Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, this Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

30. Warranty. The CONSULTANT agrees to perform all work under this Agreement in accordance with the CITY’s designs, drawings and specifications.

The CONSULTANT guarantees for a period of one (1) year from the date of the notice of completion of the work that the completed work is free from all defects due to faulty materials, equipment or workmanship and that he shall promptly make whatever adjustments or corrections which may be necessary to cure any defects, including repairs or any damage to other parts of the system resulting from such defects. The CITY shall promptly give notice to the CONSULTANT of observed defects. In the event that the CONSULTANT fails to make adjustments, repairs, corrections or other work made necessary by such defects, the CITY may do so and charge the CONSULTANT the cost incurred. The performance bond shall remain in full force and effect through the guarantee period.

The CONSULTANT'S obligations under this clause are in addition to the CONSULTANT'S other express or implied assurances of this Agreement or state law and in no way diminish any other rights that the CITY may have against the CONSULTANT for faulty materials, equipment or work.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

12 IN WITNESS THEREOF, these parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date set forth opposite the respective signatures. “CITY”

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
Dated: , 2020 By:

City Manager
ATTEST "CONSULTANT"
By:

City Clerk Title:

Dated: , 202_ Dated: , 202_

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

If CONSULTANT/CONTRACTOR is a
corporation, a Corporate Resolution
and/or Corporate Seal is required. If
a partnership, Statement of
Partnership must be submitted to
CITY
Garden Grove City Attorney
Dated: , 202_
Item 475/2024
Final
City of Garden Grove

INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa L. Kim From: John Montanchez
Dept: City Manager Dept: Community Services
Date: 11/26/2024
Subject: Authorization of the issuance of a purchase order to Innovative Playgrounds Company, Inc. for new playground equipment for Jardin de los Ninos Park and Haster Basin Park. (Cost: $262,307.72)(Action Item)

OBJECTIVE
To request City Council authorization to purchase playground equipment from Innovative Playground Company, Inc. through the Sourcewell competitive bid program, Contract #010521-BUR.

BACKGROUND
In May 2023, City Council approved a Grant Agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to receive a $1 million grant from the Community Funding Grant Program that would be utilized for park improvements at three city parks. These park improvements are part of the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan and priorities outlined in the 15-year Parks and Facilities Master Plan. The three city parks include Jardin de los Niños, Haster Basin Park, and West Haven Park. For both Jardin de los Niños and Haster Basin parks, improvements include the replacement of the playground equipment and playground surface.

The HUD funding will be used for installation, concrete, additional construction materials and playground surface for the parks. The playground equipment will be purchased with Citywide Park Fees.

DISCUSSION
Sourcewell solicits, evaluates, and awards contracts to companies through a competitive bid process. As a member of Sourcewell, the City is able to utilize Sourcewell bid awards for equipment purchases. Staff recommends to purchase this playground equipment through this competitive bid program, Contract #010521-BUR for Innovative Playground Company, Inc. Experience has shown that the City’s buying power is enhanced through joining with other public agencies to purchase this type of equipment.

Item 475/2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

Garden Grove City CouncilNovember 26, 2024

Garden Grove City Council
November 26, 2024