Hemet City Council
January 10, 2023

17.L

 
 



 
 
 








 
!

! "#$%&

'( '( )* *)* )*
( +(( (+(( )* *)* )*
( +( (+( )* *)* )*
(, +( (,+( )* *)* )*
(- +(. (-+(. (()/* *.)*, .)*
(/ +(0 (/+(0 (()/*( *)-* -()0*
 +( +( )-*( *)* 0(-),*
 + + )-* *0)(*(,)*
, + ,+ 0)(* *(,)*,)*
- +. -+. )* 0*(,)*,)*
/ +0 /+0 .().*, .*)*,(.,)*
 +( +( 0)(*, .*(-),*0)0*
 + + )* *)*0-),*
, + ,+ (()/* *()/*,0/)*
- +. -+. )* *)*,0/)*
/ +0 /+0 )*( *()/*()*
10 10 )* *)* ()*
234
5"36675688
5"36
,)*
,)*
9:;<=>?>@A
BBBC=D<:>@><A
32EF4E2E4 E 8


2 G4H
I
543"35E8

2 JKL"

45 "38
M
(
0A(AC?
=<DC@><A
L
"


45 "38

L"

45 "38

((A(,AC?
?9N
O<C:D<:>@><A
OPQR
46E2!EI G4H
I
2S
C@NOA
6

74 TG
5I5GG8E"3H

,)*

F3 "3U

2833"
9<@:9:A
L



:>OD@><<V@OCVV>DA
D<?9=W>X D<?9=W>X
"6
G4H
I833" S
BOYW:C@A PPQZ[\Q]QZ0[
BOYW@CO@@>?A
BOYW:@>?A
@O@D=C>V>DC@><A
2^E_`%!%a
#b$#&%Ec^dE&^ee%_fb#2b


(-),*
\PDg
]Z



VQ
E5


2 Chij9Qk


0)(*
43E7E53


2833"
.,)*
D<==D@<OA
<V=CA
Ril9Qk>9Qk
m



/()/*
nonpqonpronpsonptonpunonpuqonpuronp
nvun
unwuu
uqwux
urwuy
uswuz
utwu{
qnwqu
qqwqx
qrwqy
qswqz
qtwq{
xnwxu
xqwxx
xrwxy
xswxz
xtwx{
n|x{
}~€~‚ƒ„
†‡~ˆ‰‚Šƒ‡
‹Œ~~ŠŽŠ~‡Œ~ƒ‘
}~€~‚ƒ„’ƒ‚‰
†‡~ˆ‰‚Šƒ‡
‹“”•“p –“”—“p

17.L






 
 
 







 !

"
!

"
 #$%&'
()* ()* +, ,+, +,
)* -) )*-) +, ,+, +,
) -). )-). +, ,+, +,
)/ -)0 )/-)0 +, ,+, +,
)1 -* )1-* +,* *,*+, +,
* -*) *-*) ))+,* *,+,1 1+,
** -* **-* ))+, ,*+,))+,
* -*. *-*. 00+,,0+,**+,
*/ -*0 */-*0 00+,/ /,+,+,
*1 - *1- +,. .,+,+,
 -) -)+, ,+,.1.1+,
* - *- 00+, ,)+,00+,
 -. -. +,. .,+,1)1)+,
/ -0 /-0 ))+,* *,+,1/1/+,
1 - 1- +, ,+,1010+,
 -) -) +,) ),)+,+,
2) 2) +, ,+, +,
3456789678



+,
8
:;
)

<7

=>
!

?
@A4B678

)+,

CD =E=>D
!

?FD D#
/+,
GHIIGJHKL
H<I@L
?MMN>&OP$OCQ
&ROMST&E&''S?UVEUMQ"&UTOR?U


0+,
#W
!XCY
ZFD D#![
\K]^_@JL J:`7;a<A:7;0a))
\K]^J@KJJ9bL
\K]^_J9bL
JKJGI@9<9G@J9HL
+,

cD!#Dd!

?FD D#
6HJ_6_L
e

_9KGJ9HH<JK@<<9GL
GHb6I^9f GHb6I^9f
W

EC
gX
>Z>X XF=#DY

D?=cC=?=C!=
F
!

?!XCY
Z
>CD#D>=F!

?
hi
#


C>
#DF
j
*
LL6b
IHG@J9HL

#


C>
#DF
k
#


C>
#DF

)LL6b
b6l
KH@_GH_9J9HL
K`73
CW=?"=Z!XCY
Z
?[
@JlKL
?DC
>#DWWE>WFF
>#DW
+,
+,
6_mHI9b9JL
\\\@IGH_9J9HL
nonpqonpronpsonptonpunonpuqonp
nvqw
qwxqr
qyxqs
qzxqt
q{xwn
wuxwq
wwxwr
wyxws
wzxwt
w{xrn
ruxrq
rwxrr
ryxrs
rzxrt
r{xyn
yuxyq
n|yq
}~€~‚ƒ„
†‡~ˆ‰‚Šƒ‡
‹Œ~~ŠŽŠ~‡Œ~ƒ‘
}~€~‚ƒ„’ƒ‚‰
†‡~ˆ‰‚Šƒ‡
‹“”•“p –“”—“p

17.L






 
 
 






 
!

! "#$%&

'( '( )* *)* )*
( +(, (+(, )* *()*( ()*
(- +(. (-+(. )* *)*( ()*
(/ +0 (/+0 )* *()* )*
0 +0( 0+0( )*0 0*)*. .)*
00 +0 00+0 )* *()*)*
0 +0, 0+0, )*, ,*)*(()*
0- +0. 0-+0. ,,)*((*.)*0/0/)*
0/ + 0/+ --)*, ,*0)*(()*
 +( +( ..)*- -*)*,-,-)*
0 + 0+ ..)*, ,*)*..)*
 +, +, )* */)*//)*
- +. -+. )* *()*/(/()*
/ + /+ 00)* *)*/,/,)*
 +( +( )* *()*/./.)*
0 + 0+ (()* *()*)*
1 1 )* *)* )*
234
5"36675688
5"36
)*
)*
9:;<=>?>@A
BBBC=D<:>@><A
32EF4E2E4 E
8 

2 G4H
I
543"35E8

2 JK
"


45 "38
L

A(AC?
=<DC@><A

M"


45 "38
N
"


45 "38

AAC?
?9O
P<C:D<:>@><A
CQR
46E2!EI G4H
I
2S
C@OPA
6

74 TG
5I5G G8E"3H

)*

F3 "3U

283 3"
9<@:9:A
V

:>PD@><<W@PCWW>DA
D<?9=X>Y D<?9=X>Y
"6
G4H
I83 3" S
BPZX:C@A [[Q\]^Q_Q\(/]((
BPZX@CP@@>?A
BPZX:@>?A
@P@D=C>W>DC@><A
2``a5%bc#b4d
7e`d!%efbg2eh
icNNN


)*
^[
_\


WQ

E5


2 Cjkl9Qm

0)*

43 E7E53


283 3"
-()*
D<==D@<PA
<W=CA
Rkn9Qm>9Qm

M

.-)*
opoqrpoqspoqtpoqupoqvopoqvrpoqvspoq
owrx
rxyrt
rzyru
r{y|o
|vy|r
||y|s
|xy|t
|zy|u
|{yso
svysr
s|yss
sxyst
szysu
s{yxo
xvyxr
x|yxs
o}xs
~€‚ƒ„
†‡ˆ€‰Šƒ‹„‚ˆ
ŒŽ‹‚‹ˆ€‘„’€
~€‚ƒ„
“„ƒŠ†‡ˆ€‰Šƒ‹„‚ˆ
Œ”•–”q —”•˜”q

17.L






 
 
 



!"

#
 "

#
! $%&'(! !
) *) **+*,* *,*+*,* *+*,
 - - **+*,* *,*+*,* *+*,
. - .- **+*,* *,*+*,* *+*,
/ - /- *+,* *,*+, *+,
0* -0 0*-0 0+.,* *,0+., +,
00 -0 00-0 *+,0 0,0+., .+,
0 -0 0-0 0+/,/ ,/+/,+,

0. -0 0.-0 *+,0,+,*0.+,
0/ -0 0/-0 +,,+,0+.,
* - *- +, /,+,.+*,
0 - 0- +,,+,/+.,
 - - *+,/ ,+,/0+,
. - .- 0+.,. ,+,**+,
/ - /- +, ,+,*/+,
* - *- *+, ,+,0/+0,
0 - 0- **+*,0 0,+/,**+*,
1 *1 **+*,* *,*+*, **+*,
2345$36
6756885$36

.+,
*+,
9:;<=>?>@A
BBBC=D<:>@><A
32EF4E2E4"E
8"
2"G4HI
543$35E8"
2 JK
$

45 $38L

A*A**C?
=<DC@><A

M$


45 $38N
$

45 $38
*A0A**C?
?9O
P<C:D<:>@><A
PQRS
46E2#EI"G4HI2T
C@OPA

6 74UG
5I5G G8E$3H
+,
F3"$3
V"
283 3$
9<@:9:A


W

:>PD@><<X@PCXX>DA
D<?9=Y>Z D<?9=Y>Z
$6
"G4HI83 3$"T
BP[Y:C@A @\QR]^_R\R]0/^0*0*
BP[Y@CP@@>?A
BP[Y:@>?A
@P@D=C>X>DC@><A
2``a5'bc%b4d

ecNNNf7'ghe'c2h
W

.+,
Di
\]
0

XR

E5"
2 Cjkl9Rm

0+,

43 E7E53"
283 3$
./+,
D<==D@<PA
<X=CA
Skn9Rm>9Rm

M

/0+,
opoqrpoqspoqtpoqupoqvopoqvrpoqvspoq
owvs
vsxvy
vtxvz
vuxv{
roxrv
rrxr|
rsxry
rtxrz
ruxr{
|ox|v
|rx||
|sx|y
|tx|z
|ux|{
soxsv
srxs|
o}s|
~€‚ƒ„
†‡ˆ€‰Šƒ‹„‚ˆ
ŒŽ‹‚‹ˆ€‘„’€
~€‚ƒ„
“„ƒŠ†‡ˆ€‰Šƒ‹„‚ˆ
Œ”•–”q —”•˜”q

17.L

 









 !

"# $$

%"&'

17.L

CALIFORNIA | FLORIDA | TEXAS
Corporate Oce 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925.463.0611 | www.TJKM.com
TJKM

17.L

STEVE NERO
Senior Director Business Development
312.339.0436
[email protected]

CITY OF HEMET
Interwest's Technical and Cost Proposal
for Citywide Engineering and Traffic
Services
November 22, 2022 at 2:00 PM
MAIN CONTACT:
www.interwestgrp.com
Electronic

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

CONTENTS
Introductory Letter and Required Statements .....................................................................................3 Corporate Profile..................................................................................................................................5 Statement of Qualifications..................................................................................................................8 Relevant Experience...........................................................................................................................10 References .......................................................................................................................................13 Project Team .......................................................................................................................................15 Description of Services.......................................................................................................................22 Quality Control...................................................................................................................................25 Availability .......................................................................................................................................27 Cost Proposal (Submitted Separately).................................................................................................29 Appendix .......................................................................................................................................30 2

17.L

Introductory Letter
and Required
Statements
3

17.L

1500 S. Haven Ave, Suite 220
Ontario, CA 91761
P (909) 295-3142
www.interwestgrp.com
City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services November 22, 2022
Noah Rau, PE
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Hemet, Engineering Department
445 E. Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 95243
Re: Proposal to Provide Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Dear Mr. Rau,
Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. (Interwest) understands that the City of Hemet (City) is seeking a qualified consultant to prepare an Engineering and Traffic Survey (ETS) per the requirements of the latest edition of the CVC and the CA MUTCD. Interwest brings two decades of expert-level Traffic Engineering service and stands capable, qualified, and ready to serve the City, its staff, and your community.

Since our founding in 2002, Interwest has provided expert municipal services to over 200 cities across California. These cities include South Gate, South Pasadena, Maywood, Pomona, Santa Ana, Brea, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Eastvale, just to name a few. We are uniquely qualified to perform the requested service, as evidenced by our proven track record and testimony of our past and current clients. We pride ourselves in building long, sustaining relationships in the Cities we work with—providing solutions that will strengthen your community. We believe that the extensive knowledge and experience held by our proposed team qualifies us to be the best to perform the services requested by the City.

Our proposed team has combined decades of experience successfully providing engineering and traffic engineering services on similarly sized and scoped federally funded projects and are well-versed in Caltrans LAPM procedures.

Serving the City in the role of Project Manager and primary project contact to the City is Nicole Jules, PE. Steve Nero, Senior Director of Business Development, will serve as the main point of contact for the City for the duration of the proposal process.

Required Statements
9 Interwest confirms that the proposal terms provided within our submittal will remain in effect for ninety (90) days following the date proposal submittals are due.
9 Interwest does not knowingly have any direct or indirectly interest with the City which could cause a conflict in any manner.
9 The Interwest Contract and Legal team have carefully reviewed the contract terms presented in the Sample Standard Agreement included as Attachment A. We respectfully requested modifications that can be found in the Appendix:
9 Interwest acknowledges receipt of Addendum 1, Addendum 2, and Addendum 3 via PlanetBids As President of Operation of Interwest Consulting Group, I am authorized to sign any agreements that may result from this proposal and will provide contract support to the proposed Interwest team. We appreciate the opportunity to present our qualifications to the City and look forward to serving your community once again. Should any questions arise, I can be contacted at 619.372.9962 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul Meschino
President of Operations

PROPOSAL MAIN
POINT OF CONTACT:

STEVE NERO
Sen. Director of Business
Development
312.339.0436
[email protected]
4

17.L

Corporate Profile
5

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Corporate Profile
Firm Overview
Interwest is prepared to assist the City of Hemet by providing Engineering and Traffic Survey Services. Since our founding in 2002, Interwest has been a multi-disciplinary firm that provides a range of services to municipalities across California including Planning, Engineering and Public Works, Building and Safety, Transportation Planning, and Real Property. Our total client list exceeds 330 public agencies in California and our team has provided services to municipalities for two decades.

Relying on our deep experience with current practices and regulations, we are dedicated to reaching successful outcomes for our public agency clients. Our approach is to complete the assignments in a manner consistent with the City’s adopted policies, regulations, and practices. Our proposed team can provide a broad range of the services requested by the City, with team members selected specifically for their strong backgrounds, extensive knowledge, and relevant experience.

Members of our team have been involved in project management, engineering and traffic engineering surveying projects for cities and public agencies throughout California. We have experience in providing solutions or alternative approaches to traffic engineering and are confident that we can provide the City with the requested services, and much more.

Our staff has held senior and executive management positions within numerous California cities and public agencies, including the titles of City Engineer, Public Works Director, Construction Manager, and other management personnel. This depth of experience brings a high level of expertise and sensitivity towards community and special interest group issues.

We value the importance of a focus that represents the interests of our public agency clients and reflects positively on the citizens they serve. We furnish both technical excellence and a thorough understanding of the regulatory process to assist our clients through the sometimes-daunting complexities associated with the delivery of projects, implementation of important public programs, and adoption of significant public policy.

INTERWEST PROFILE
LEGAL BUSINESS NAME:

Interwest Consulting Group, Inc.

CORPORATION:

C-Corporation
YEAR FOUNDED:
2002
EMPLOYEES:

More than 400
NUMBER OF OFFICES:
10 OFFICE LOCATIONS:

CA Offices:

Ontario | Roseville
Elk Grove | Fremont | Fresno
Irvine | Perris | San Diego
Other Offices:

Las Vegas, NV | Boulder, CO
PROJECT OFFICE:

Interwest Ontario Office
1500 S. Haven Ave, Suite 220
Ontario, CA 91761
FULL SERVICE OFFERING:

Planning & Urban Design
Building Safety
Capital Projects
City Engineering
Construction Management
Development Services
Land Development Design
Right of Way & Real Estate
Traffic Engineering
Transportation Planning
Transportation Programming
6

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services The Interwest Advantage
Experience in California: Interwest has had the privilege to serve a number of California agencies, providing Engineering Plan Check, Staff Augmentation, Project Management, Traffic Engineering, Construction Management and Inspection, and City Planning Services. Our staff’s local experience gives us valuable insight into the unique concerns of the area, familiarity with all relevant local standards and regulations, and relationships with the community and local agencies.

Small Firm Focus, Large Firm Resources: Our primary focus is providing turnkey staff augmentation services to California municipal clients. Unlike many of our competitors – either too small to provide a full range of dedicated services, or too large and dispersed to provide a local focus – Interwest is a full-service organization with the resources to provide any and all of the expertise required and the ability to scale our services to the City’s changing needs.

A Wealth of Relevant Municipal Experience: Our staff has served as municipal employees, often in management roles, so we understand how the system works from the inside out. For the same reason, our staff understands how to manage projects while representing the City’s goals responsibly and respecting budgetary and time limitations.

Financial Interests
We are 100% owned by SAFEbuilt Inc. and we are managing partner of subsidiaries, EsGil, BroadSpec, Kutzmann and Associates, TriLake, and CPSI. Our business has been under the name of Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. since 2002.

Company Hierarchy

MANAGEMENT NAME TITLE
Mundt, Bradley J. Chairman
Burke, Elizabeth Director
Giordano, Christopher Director
McCurdie, Michael C Director
Schlachet, Loren J. Director
Giordano, Christopher Chief Executive Officer
Meschino, Paul President President
Burke, Elizabeth Vice President and Secretary
Haynes, Daniel J. Vice President and Treasurer
Schlachet, Loren J. Vice President
Aiken, Michelle Assistant Secretary
Jorgensen, Warren Kent Vice President of real Estate and Broker on Record Kniff, David Assistant Assistant Secretary
7

17.L

Statement of
Qualifications
8

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Statement of Qualifications
Ability to Provide the Required Services
For the past 20 years, Interwest has provided engineering and traffic engineering services to municipalities throughout California, and in doing so, we have cultivated a reputation for expedient and cost-effective services provided by qualified and customer-focused professional consultants. We have the capacity and capability to provide these services and have proposed a comprehensive team of traffic engineer specialists to work with City staff to successfully achieve the City’s vision and ensure compliance with State and Federal regulations and funding source requirements.

The following is a snapshot of our experience providing Engineering / Traffic Engineering services, inclusive of Traffic Surveys across California. Project descriptions and references are provided in the following sections: Relevant Experience, and References of this proposal.

CLIENT AGENCY ENGINEERING SERVICES PROVIDED
City of Anaheim Traffic and Transportation Plan Review, Development and Grading Plan Review Town of Atherton Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, Civil Engineering, Capital Project Delivery, Grant Writing/Administration
City of Antioch Traffic and Transportation Plan Review , Development and Grading Plan Review City of Ceres Traffic Engineering, Transportation Programming, Capital Improvement Project Planning and Delivery
City of Compton City Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Construction Management City of Costa Mesa Interim Public Works Director, Civil Engineering, Traffic Engineering Construction Management and Inspection
City of Eastvale City Engineering, Construction Management, Public Works Inspection, Engineering Plan Check,Engineering Support, NPDES, Transportation Planning, Traffic Engineering, Drainage Engineering, Grant Administration City of Elk Grove City Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Project Management, Plan Checking City of Hermosa
Beach
Traffic Engineering Services, Engineering Plan Check
City of Maywood City Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Permit Inspections City of Oxnard Traffic Engineering, Project Management, Plan Checking City of Palm Desert Traffic Engineering
City of San Juan
Capistrano
City Engineering Services, Project Management, Construction Inspection, Traffic Engineering Services, and Private Development Conditions of Approval City of Santa Ana Traffic Engineering
City of Seal Beach Traffic Engineering and Plan Check/Permit Engineering City of South
Pasadena
Traffic Engineering
City of Vallejo Traffic Engineering
City of WIldomar City Engineering, Public Works Inspection, Transportation Traffic Engineering, Drainage Engineering, Grant Writing & Administration
9

17.L

Relevant Experience
10

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Relevant Experience
We currently provide Engineering and Traffic Engineering services to agencies throughout California. The following is a representative list of Southern California municipal clients to whom Interwest staff currently provides comparable services; due to the City’s page limit, additional client listings are available upon request. Services have been provided on multiple individual projects on an ongoing basis over the range of years indicated.

Additionally, we have provided reference information for similar projects to demonstrate Interwest’s qualifications.

CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES Address: 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Dates of Work:
2013-Current Contact: Tom Toman, Director of Public Works | 949-443-6337 | [email protected]
In October 2013, Interwest was selected to provide City Engineering and Traffic Engineering Services for the City of San Juan Capistrano. Our staff oversees the development processing, assists in the preparation of the annual Capital Improvement Program, and managing the transportation planning and traffic engineering. Major projects under design include the $25 million Ortega Highway Widening Project, Camino Capistrano ADA Ramp Improvements, and the Northwest Open Space Park. Interwest is also assisting the City to prepare grant applications for sidewalk and pedestrian safety improvements, prepare a ADA Transition Plan, and assist the City to close out a federally funded bridge widening project. We currently provide the following services: City Engineering, Traffic Engineering Services, Grant Funding Assistance.

CITY OF COMPTON ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES
Address: 205 S. Willowbrook Ave., Compton, CA 90220 Dates of Work:
2020-Current Contact: John Strickland, Project Manager | 310.605.5505 | [email protected]
Interwest Consulting Group provides on-call civil and traffic engineering services to the City of Compton including reviewing and providing recommendations and approvals for Traffic Impact Analyses for public and private projects, performing warrant studies for traffic signal and stop sign installations, providing conceptual engineering and presentations for grants and regional transportation planning, and developing traffic control plans for capital improvement projects.

CITY OF OXNARD ON-SITE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES
Address: 305 West Third Street, Oxnard, CA 93030 Dates of Work:
2019 - Current Contact: Tatiana Arnaout, City Engineer | 805.385.8341 | Tatiana. [email protected]
Interwest staff currently provides on-site traffic engineering support and resources which include responding to citizen requests, evaluating traffic safety concerns, managing the City’s Traffic Management Center (TMC), overseeing neighborhood traffic calming requests, managing small projects, optimizing traffic signal operations, coordinating with citizens and interest stakeholders, Engineering Plan review, 11

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services and reviewing and managing encroachment permits. The contract value of Transportation and Traffic Engineering Services provided to the City is approximately $420,000.

CITY OF COSTA MESA ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES Address: 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa CA 92626 Dates of Work:

Contact: 2016 - Current Raja Sethuraman, Public Services Director | 714.754.5173 | [email protected]
Interwest staff currently provides on-site Traffic Engineering support services, 2 days per week, including assistance with OCTA grant management, managing/ responding to citizen requests, assistance with the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, attending monthly meetings of the City’s Bicycle Walk Committee, and reviewing City policies. Interwest has provided traffic services to the City of Costa Mesa since 2016.

The contract value of services provided to the Taddransportation Services Division is approximately $684,000.

We also provide the City with civil engineering services, project management, construction management and inspection, civil and grading plan check, building and fire life safety plan check, building inspection and permit technician services. We have also served in interim positions over periods of several months, including Interim Director of Public Works and Interim Building Official.

CITY OF EASTVALE ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES Address: 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa CA 92626 Dates of Work:

Contact: 2010 - Current Jimmy Chung, City Engineer | 915.703.4473 | jchung@ eastvaleca.gov
Interwest currently provides as-needed Traffic Engineering Support services to the City of Eastvale, which include City Traffic Engineering, Development review, Citywide speed surveys, responding to citizen requests, reviewing traffic impact studies and evaluating traffic counts and warrants. Interwest’s fees for traffic-related services are approximately $40,000 per year. Since the City was incorporated in 2010, Interwest has performed a variety of services that resulted in the delivery of efficient and costeffective services, including the gathering of essential information and key data which served as the basis for confirming service area responsibilities for the City of Eastvale; preparation of fiscally prudent and conservative operating budgets; and identifying cost-effective, efficient, and innovative methods of providing Public Works, Planning, Building and Safety activities and services transitioned from the County of Riverside.
12

17.L

References
13

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services References
Interwest is pleased to present the following list of client references who can attest to the quality and timeliness of our services.

City of Palm Desert
Randy Bowman, Deputy Public Works Director
760.776.6493 | [email protected]
Duration: 2018 - 2020 | Status: Complete
Nicole Jules, PE and Ruth Smith, TE, PTP have
completed review of scoping agreements and traffic
impact reports for private development projects in the
City. We prepared multi-way stop warrant analysis for
residential intersections and developed and designed
traffic calming improvements for a major tourist
corridor with heavy pedestrian and night-life activities.

City of Maywood
Jennifer Vasquez, City Manager
323.562.5714 | [email protected]
Duration: 2019 - 2020 | Status: Complete
Since 2017, Interwest has provided daily on-site traffic engineering support and resources which include
responding to citizen requests for neighborhood
traffic-calming solutions; reviewing traffic control
plans associated with encroachment permit requests;
updating the City’s Engineering and Traffic Surveys
for speed limits; evaluating requests for speed
humps; coordinating the submission of data to State
agencies for compliance and reporting; reviewing
and commenting on signing, striping and traffic signal
improvement plans.

City of San Juan Capistrano
Tom Toman, Assistant Director of Public Works
949.493.1171 | [email protected]
Duration: 2016 - Present | Status: On-going
Interwest provides Traffic Engineer services: review
of private development projects in regards to traffic
impact studies; review the need for and recommend
traffic control devices; respond to citizen and Council requests; work in cooperation with other government
agencies including Caltrans, OCTA, and the County of
Orange; make presentations at Planning Commission
and City Council meetings; and assist in the
preparation of the Capital Improvement Program.
14

17.L

Project Team
15

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Project Team
Organizational Chart
Our proposed team members have significant direct experience working as municipal employees and as contract staff members in jurisdictions throughout California. Individually, the professionals selected to serve the City excel in each of their backgrounds. As a team, they possess the professional capability to innovatively create and implement effective solutions to serve the interests of your community. The organizational chart provided below highlights our project team, company roles, areas of expertise, and the organization of our project team.

Resumes of our key project staff are included on the pages that follow; due to the page limit, we will be happy to provide more resumes of our staff at the City's request.

CITY OF HEMET

INTERWEST ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY TEAM
Traffic Engineer
Ruth Smith
Traffic Engineer
Seth Jenison
Associate Engineer
Joseph Mullaney
Engineering Technician
Keith Vines

PROJECT MANAGER
Nicole Jules, PE
Short Biographies
Below are short biographies summarizing our team’s qualifications. Due to the page limit listed in the City’s RFP and to refrain from redundancy, we ask that the City please refer to section Relevant Experience for information on similar projects that our proposed team has worked on. Detailed resumes, inclusive of all requested information from the City’s RFP, for all key staff have been provided on the pages that follow.

Nicole Jules, PE // Project Manager (Primary Contact): Nicole Jules, PE, has served as Project Manager and Consulting Traffic Engineer for assignments in the Cities of Lodi, Oxnard, South Pasadena, Rancho Palos Verdes, Hermosa Beach, Maywood, Compton, Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, Eastvale San Jacinto, Wildomar and Palm Desert. She will be the City’s primary contact for the project during the conractual period.

She has provided services including traffic signal design and construction, geometric design, traffic impact studies, traffic circulation and parking analyses, construction staging and traffic control plan design. 16

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Ruth Smith, TE, PTP // Traffic Engineer: Ruth is an experienced traffic engineer and transportation planner with 40 years of experience. She began her career in the private sector, preparing traffic impact studies, then moved to the public sector as a Senior Traffic Engineer for the City of Santa Ana for 14 years. Ruth then returned to the private sector, where she not only prepared traffic impact studies, but also used her experience to perform a variety of traffic engineering and transportation planning duties for client cities, including serving as contract City Traffic Engineer. Ruth’s wide-ranging and unique experience in both the public and private sectors makes her an asset. Her municipal experience impressed upon her the importance of ensuring that traffic impact studies for private development are correct and complete, and that site access and on-site circulation are fully addressed. Ruth also has a rich background in neighborhood traffic plans, starting with managing the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, Speed Hump and Permit Parking programs in the City of Santa Ana, to more recently assisting the Cities of Temecula, Brea, San Marino and Costa Mesa in preparing neighborhood traffic plans to reduce cut-through traffic and speeding.

Seth Jenison, PE, TE, PTOE // Traffic Engineer: Seth is a registered Traffic Operations Engineer with seven years of experience in the industry. He’s provided traffic engineering and civil engineering services to municipal clients in Southern California. His experience includes civil design for transportation plans, grading plans, signing & striping plans, utility projects, and street improvements.Seth has also provided plan review on development projects and undertaken preliminary engineering studies to address infrastructure issues all while providing excellent customer service and completing tasks in an accurate, timely, and friendly manner. Overall, Seth is an adaptable individual who embraces new challenges exceptionally
Joseph Mullaney, EIT // Associate Engineer: Joseph possesses years of experience providing civil engineering services in the public arena working with various municipalities. He has extensive experience in design, investigation and coordination of fiber optic systems. He also is familiar with FTTP design regulations. Joseph’s experience also includes providing support in the areas of traffic engineering, construction project management, and land development.

He is known for his ability to efficiently multi-task on projects providing our clients with a broad range of services. He is consistently professional and exercises good judgment in his handling of all matters.

Keith Vines // Engineering Technician: Keith is an AutoCAD Permit Designer with a strong work ethic and excellent oral and written communication skills. He has extensive knowledge of Telecommunications and Traffic engineering and is capable of creating drawings from actual components and sketches. 17

17.L

Nicole Jules, PE

DIRECTOR // TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES // CA

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER
Nicole has over 25 years of progressive professional experience and a results-oriented track record. She has managed a variety of complex, controversial public works improvement projects in both private and public employment and enjoys being a civil servant. Her 27-year career spans all aspects of civil engineering, including working in a variety of environments.

Her well-rounded experience has developed an ability to work successfully with varied clients and communities. Nicole has expertise in understanding how to balance good engineering with practical and feasible solutions. She has provided services that include traffic signal design and construction, roadway and pavement management techniques, traffic impact studies, traffic circulation and parking analyses, construction staging, and temporary traffic control plan design. Additionally, she is proficient in roadway design, curb, gutter, sidewalk and median design, precise grading and storm drain facilities. Her experience includes project management for the construction of storm drain facilities, roadway rehabilitation projects, traffic signal modifications projects, a landslide stabilization project, and park improvements.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
P ro je ct Ma n a g e m e n t
 Fairview Road HSIP, City of Costa Mesa
 Slauson Avenue Corridor Improvement Project, Measure R, City of Maywood
 Citywide Residential Rehab FY18-19, City of Lynwood
 Crenshaw Blvd at Crestridge Road HSIP, City of Rancho Palos Verdes  Hawthorne Blvd Roadway Improvement Project, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
 Hawthorne Blvd Pedestrian Safety Project HSIP, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
 San Ramon Landslide Remediation Project, City of Rancho Palos Verdes  Point Vicente Interpretive Center Lead Remediation Project, Rancho Palos Verdes
 Citywide ADA upgrades CDBG, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Tra ffic Sig n a l, Sig n in g a n d St rip p in g / St a g e Co n s t ru c t io n De s ig n  Perris Blvd/Nuevo Rd Striping Concepts Wal-Mart, City of Perris  Traffic Signal Construction Wal-Mart, City of Fountain Valley  Traffic Signal/Signing & Striping Lowe’s, City of Santee  Traffic Signal/Signing & Striping Sam’s Club, City of El Monte  Traffic Signal Lowes, City of San Jacinto
 Traffic Signal/Signing & Striping Nordahl Road/Medical Ctr Way, City of San Marcos
 Signing & Striping Lowe’s, Town of Apple Valley
 College Blvd/Salk Avenue Traffic Signal, City of Carlsbad  El Toro Road Signing, Striping & Stage Construction, City of Mission Viejo
Ye a rs o f Exp e rie n c e : 27
Ye a rs w / In t e rw e s t : 5
Ed u c a t io n
 BS, Civil Engineering,
University of California,
Irvine
 MS of Planning,
Transportation Planning,
University of California,
Los Angeles
Re g ist ra t io n s/Ce rt ifica t io n s
 CA Registered Civil
Engineer | 65984
P ro fe ssio n a l Affilia t io n s
 Member, American Public
Works Association (APWA)
 Member, American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
 Member, Institute of
Transportation Engineers
(ITE)
18

17.L

 Alameda Corridor, Mid-Corridor Signing & Striping, Cities of Compton, Lynwood, Los Angeles  Redondo Beach Blvd & Rehabilitation, City of Gardena
 Harry Bridges Road Construction Staging, City of Los Angeles  Traffic Signal/Signing & Striping Kmart, City of Hesperia  Traffic Signal Wal-Mart, City of Anaheim
 Carson Street WTCP, City of Carson
 Saint Claire Catholic Church Signing & Striping, City of Santa Clarita Civil De sig n
 Bake Parkway Median Modification, City of Irvine
 Precise Grading & Street Improvements, Disney Parking Lot #6  Dominquez Channel Bicycle and Multipurpose lane, City of Compton  Caltrans Storm Water BMP Pilot, District 12
 Spring Street medians, City of Signal Hill
 Walnut/Bixby Road Pressure Reducing Station & Bypass Line, City of Signal Hill  Long Beach Naval Yard Demolition Project, City of Long Beach Tra ffic Im p a c t a n d P a rk in g St u d ie s
 Pacific Place Mixed-use Development, City of El Monte  Atlanta Plaza Health Spa, City of Monterey Park
 Gateway Crossing Movie Theatre & Shopping Center, City of La Cañada-Flintridge  Alameda Corridor EIR/EIS, City of Los Angeles
 Huntington Beach Medical Center Parking Survey, City of Huntington Beach  Resurrection Cemetery Mausoleum Addition, City of Montebello  Prescott College Precise Plan, City of Prescott, AZ
 Foothill Blvd./Gould Ave. Retail Center
 Avenue I/SR-2 PS&E, City of Santa Clarita
 Douglas Street Grade Separation EIR, City of El Segundo  Homeland Cultural Center Expansion Parking study, City of Long Beach  St. John of the Cross, City of Lemon Grove
 Ventana Real Lots (1-4), City of Carlsbad
 Date Street Development, City of Murrieta
 Carmelo Street Motel, City of Oceanside
 World Petrol III, City of San Diego

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
D ire c t o r o f Tra ffic Se rv ic e s / In t e rw e s t Co n s u lt in g Gro u p / 20 17 – Present Nicole manages Interwest’s group of traffic engineers throughout California and provides on-call traffic engineering and analysis, project management, staff support, wireless telecommunications support and plan review for clients including the Cities of Lodi, Oxnard, South Pasadena, Rancho Palos Verdes, Hermosa Beach, Maywood, Compton, Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, Eastvale San Jacinto, Wildomar and Palm Desert.

De p u t y Dire ct o r o f P u b lic W o rk s / Cit y o f Ra n c h o P a lo s Ve rd e s , CA / 20 14 - 20 17 Nicole performed advanced engineering work in planning, organizing, and directing the day-to-day activities of the Public Works Department. She managed and oversaw the administrative division as well as supervise the design, construction, maintenance and operation of streets, public structures, parks, water and sewer systems, and other City public works projects. She managed all federally-funded projects to ensure compliance with funding agencies. Nicole provided engineering assistance and coordination to other City departments and managed professional consultants and contractors on public works improvement projects. She assisted in preparing the Department’s budget and Capital Improvement Plan. Reviewed the preparation of plans for critical and politically-sensitive projects including design study reports, environmental impact statements, and traffic engineering reports as well as review departmental staff 19

17.L

reports for City Council and advisory board meetings. Nicole served as staff liaison to the Infrastructure Advisory Committee, Traffic Safety Committee and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority. She served as Operations Sections Chief during the City’s annual Emergency Preparedness training and drills. Nicole provided leadership and support to a team of 16 dynamic individuals to follow-through with the goals of the organization.

Se n io r En g in e e r / Cit y o f Ra n c h o P a lo s Ve rd e s , CA / 20 0 1 – 2004 and 2009 - 20 14 Nicole managed several large capital improvement projects, resulting in major improvements to the City's infrastructure and roadway network. Implemented a 7-year roadway rehabilitation program to preserve the City's roadway infrastructure. She managed projects and maintenance activities within the City's rights-ofway. Administered the City's encroachment permit and parking permit programs. Supervised and managed a team of 5 consisting of Associate Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Permit Technicians and Public Works Inspectors. Nicole also improved the Department's delivery of customer service by streamlining permit requirements and coordinating permit activities with other departments.

Tra ffic Ma n a g e m e n t / Ra n c h o P a lo s Ve rd e s Project Manager and Staff Liaison | Provided various municipal traffic engineering improvements, including traffic signal maintenance, signing and striping plans, investigating citizen requests for traffic controls and traffic safety analysis. Served as the staff liaison to the City’s Traffic Safety Committee. 25t h St re e t Ro a d w a y a n d Dra in a g e Re h a b ilit a t io n / Ra n c h o P a lo s Ve rd e s Project Manager | Provided Project Management services for construction of storm drain improvements and roadway resurfacing along 25th Street in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This $500,000 project included 36” HDPE pipe, an outlet structure, several drain inlets, asphalt rubber and metal beam guard rail modifications.

Sa n Ra m o n Dra in a g e a n d La n d s lid e St a b iliza t io n / Ra n c h o P a lo s Ve rd e s Project Manager | Provided Project Management services of a $4 million landslide stabilization project on private property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The project included construction of 36” HDPE storm drain pipe, an outlet structure, over 75,000 tons of highly engineered imported fill, 4” subdrains, v-ditches, landscaping and irrigation.

P rin cip a l / To rra n c e , CA / 2004 - 2009
As a consulting engineer, Nicole provided professional engineering services to municipal and private clients.

Services included traffic signal design, pavement delineation, project management, traffic and parking studies. Managed a team of 12 professionals.

Se n io r En g in e e r / Ra n c h o P a lo s Ve rd e s , CA / 200 1 - 2004 Nicole managed several large high-profile capital improvement projects, including museum improvements, storm drain enhancements, landslide stabilization, lead remediation, pavement rehabilitation, traffic improvements and transportation management strategies. Directed and managed a host of consultants and contractors. Coordinated with other City Departments on complex development projects and also participated in leadership development activities.

As s o c ia t e En g in e e r / To rra n c e , CA / 20 0 1 - 2001 Nicole was the Project Manager for several capital improvement projects including water main improvements, storm drain connections and pavement rehabilitation. Managed the city's pavement management system.

Ne w t o n /Ma d is o n St re e t a n d W a t e r Im p ro ve m e n t / To rra n c e , CA Construction Manager | Construction Manager of water main construction and roadway rehabilitation on Madison Street and Newton Street. This $2 million project included water main replacement, storm drain improvements, roadway widening and curb, gutter, sidewalk improvements. 20

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Adelanto | City Building and Safety Services

PERSONNNEL AREA OF EXPERIENCE LICENSES/

CERTIFICATIONS
Nicole Jules, PE
Project Manager
Project Management, Citizen’s Request, Traffic
Operations, Speed Zone Surveys, Traffic Studies, Staff
Reports, Council and Committee Presentations
CA Registered
Civil Engineer |
65984
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP
Traffic Engineer
Speed Zone Surveys, Staff Reports, Neighborhood Traffic Calming, Grant Applications & Reviews, Traffic Study
Review, Prepare Work Orders
CA Registered
Traffic Engineer |
TR1650
Professional
Transportation
Planner Certificate
Seth Jenison, PE, TE, PTOE
Traffic Engineer
Speed Zone Surveys, Staff Reports, Data Analysis,Traffic engineering, Civil Design for Transportation Plans,
Grading Plans, Signing & Striping Plans, Plan Review
CA Registered
Civil Engineer
| 89064
CA Registered
Traffic Engineer
| 2980
Joseph Mullaney, EIT
Engineering Associate | Traffic
Support
Data Collection, Field Reviews, Transportation Plan
Review, Prepare Work Orders
CA Engineer |
22461
Keith Vines, Engineering Technician Cadd Technician, Data Summary, Field Reviews,Traffic Control Design, Traffic Signing, Striping and Signal Plans N/A Qualifications of Key Staff
Our proposed staff has significant direct experience working throughout California providing services similar to the services the City of Hemet requires. The Interwest personnel assigned to this project for the City are highly qualified and experienced in providing Engineering and Traffic Survey services to California municipal clients.

Below is the requested information outlined from the City’s RFP. Due to the City's page limit, our team can provide additional resumes and qualifications at the City's request.

DEDICATED STAFF
21

17.L

Description of
Services
22

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Description of Services
A. Project Understanding
Interwest understands that the City of Hemet requires a qualified consultant to prepare an Engineering and Traffic Survey (ETS) per the requirements of the latest edition of the CVC and the CA MUTCD. It is our understanding that the project shall include 144 street segments.

Interwest has provided engineering and traffic engineering, inclusive of survey services for the past 20 years, and our proposed project staff has many years of combined relevant municipal experience. We believe we are uniquely qualified to perform the requested services, as Interwest provides a wide array of traffic engineering services to public agencies throughout California. Additionally, we have cultivated a reputation for cost-effective services provided by qualified and customer-focused professional consultants.

Our team stands ready and qualified to provide the detailed services to the City of Hemet that are detailed in the RFP. We have thoroughly read and understand the Description of Services, below is our general approach in response to requirements 1 - 3.

Work Plan
Task 1 - Project Management/Meetings with Stakeholders
Task 1.1 - Communication
9 Stay informed of all project activities and approvals which are required prior to any changes to the project. 9 Coordinate activities with the City and the general public. 9 Meet with City staff to review the scope of work, deliverables, and expectations of the project 9 Review City documents that include General Plan, exisitng land use, road and traffic conditions, speed zone, anc collision history
9 Provide recommendations to modify any street segments to be evaluated Interwest understands and will provide the following Deliverables: Meeting Agendas, Minutes, Recommendations, and Project Schedule.

Task 2 - Field Review/Data Collection
Task 2.1 - Collision Data
9 Traffic collision data will be collected for each street segment and used to calculate the collision rate 9 Traffic collision data, if provided by the City, will be used in conjuction with data downloaded from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) website.
9 Typically collect traffic collisions for the most recently available 2-year period, we understand coordination with City Staff is needed
9 Only mid-block, speed-related collisions will be used in the analysis. • Collisions should be at least 50’ from the intersection (measured from the edge of the crossroad, not the centerline), but may be more for large intersections – at least beyond the intersection left-turn/right-turn lanes. • Will only use collisions identified as Unsafe Speed or CVC 22350. 9 We will identify any mid-block, speed related collisions for the relevant 2-year period for each study segment 9 Our team will review City supplied collision history report/data, gather collision data from the SWITRS Interwest understands and will provide the following Deliverables: Field Documentation, Survey Data, Radar Speed Data, Traffic Volume Counts, SWITES Collision Data 23

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Task 2.2 - Volume Data
9 Daily 24-hour traffic counts per segment will be collected. The consulting Traffic Engineer may specify data collection location.
• Counts should be collected at a location that’s approximately mid-segment, away from intersections or large driveways, is representative of the segment, and where there would not be any interference with the counting device. • Traffic counts and spot speed surveys will be ordered at the time Notice To Proceed is given since the data collection will take some time
9 Since the pandemic has affected traffic volumes, an extra step is necessary to estimate what traffic volumes would normally be:
• Collect existing traffic count data for the study segments from recent years to provide a baseline for comparison • Compare the new counts to the baseline counts
• Adjust the new counts, as necessary
Task 2.3 - Speed Data
9 Radar speed surveys will be conducted to determine the 85th percentile speed, which is used to set the speed limit, and other speed parameters that may be used in the analysis 9 Consulting Traffic Engineer may specify survey location, which should not be too near the count location. 9 Surveys are collected per CA MUTCD, as follows:
• For at least 1 hour, with a minimum of 100 readings, with at least 50 readings in each direction • Under normal, free-flow, traffic conditions, with nothing that disrupts the normal flow of traffic, such bad weather, nearby roadway construction/traffic detours. If any such conditions exist, the survey shall be rescheduled. • During off-peak hours so traffic is free flowing
• Speed surveys will contain the following
Pdfs of the original handwritten survey sheets
Usual summary survey sheets
Certifications for the radar/lidar gun and the operator(s) Task 3 - Final Field Check/Report
9 A final field check will be conducted to determind the most appropriate and reasnable speed limit. The field check will be conducted by driving each street segment during prevailing traffic conditions. 9 Interwest will submit draft reports of the ETS.
9 We will verify that the speed limit indicated by the speed survey should be adjusted, based on CVC & CA MUTCD rules
9 Existing conditions will be reviewed, noting certain parameters such as conditions not readily apparent to motorists, adjacent land uses, presence of pedestrians and bicyclists, heavy trucks, buses, horizontal & vertical curves, poor pavement, etc.
9 We will prepare a list of conditions to look for, for each segment, prior to doing the field review (can provide sample).
9 For segments included in previous E&TSs, this information may be available and only needs to be confirmed/ updated.
9 Reports will also include applicable codes, Strip Map, vehicle speed survey sheet, recommendations for new posted speed limits, results and data
9 We will provide a final ETS report after review and incorporation of all comments provided during City review.

Additionally, Interwest will provide a presentation that summarizes the final ETS report to the City Council.

Interwest understands and will provide the following Deliverables: Draft ETS Report, Final ETS Report, Response to City Comments, Final Field Recommendations. 24

17.L

Quality Control
25

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Quality Control
Quality Control Measures
For all projects, Interwest staff committed to creating and applying a tailored management systems that work for the City and will carefully monitor program effectiveness, closely tracking work quality, quantity, and cost.

Delivering projects under aggressive schedules requires careful management, administration, and oversight of project development teams from inception to completion with committed, complete ownership of all aspects.

Despite this approach, some projects may fall behind schedule. If this occurs, Interwest will quickly review the reasons for the delay, identify options for getting the project back on track, and implement the selected option after consulting with the City. Scope, schedule, and budget impacts of the delay will be scrutinized to ensure critical elements are not jeopardized by implementation of the corrective action.

We know that our continued success relies upon delivering high quality products to our clients with attention paid to details. Quality control is not just a review of the final work product prior to its delivery; rather, true quality control is a commitment to a process of ongoing “critical eye” review and team and project oversight. Routine and formal checks on assignment progress to us is critical for successful completion and client satisfaction. Therefore, we will create and maintain detailed schedules and provide progress reports where needed and provide internal quality control reviews of data collected and recommendations made.

As most of our staff are former public officials, we understand the public impacts of our reports and recommendations.

Recognizing the importance of Quality Control / Quality Assurance, Nicole Jules, PE, as the Project Manager, will assure Interwest’s services are of the highest quality and integrity. We feel that our following approach to resolving issues is a key reason we have been successful with our clients:
9 Identify the issue as a team, in a transparent manner, with an attitude of responsibility 9 Develop solutions while keeping the City’s best interest as our priority 9 Implement the solution as a team
9 Evaluate the process and system to determine the cause of the issue 9 Learn from the issue and develop systems or training to address the weakness 26

17.L

Availability
27

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Availability
Our staff is intimately aware of the challenges facing jurisdictions today, and we are dedicated to providing the highest quality municipal service. The familiarity and knowledge gained by working side-by-side with local agency staff, in developing collaborative relationships with community and business stakeholders, and by partnering effectively with state and federal regulatory agencies, results in successfully completed projects and services, and thoroughly satisfied clients. Below is the project team we propose to serve the City of Hemet. Interwest guarantees that we will have the necessary staff to meet all the needs and will always be 100% available to the City.

STAFF/PROJECT ROLE CURRENT PROJECTS AVAILABILITY
Nicole Jules, PE
Project Manager
• City Of Perris Traffic Plan Review
• City of San Jacinto Traffic Plan Review
• City of Palm Desert - Lupine Plaza Design Project
8 hours/week
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP
Traffic Engineer
• City of Compton - On Call Traffic Engineering
• City of Costa Mesa - Transportation Support
• City of El Monte - E&TS
16 hours/week
Seth Jenison, PE, TE, PTOE
Traffic Engineer
• City Of Perris Traffic Plan Review
• City of Oxnard Grant Writing Support
• City of Antioch On Call Traffic Support
20 hours/week
Joseph Mullaney, EIT
Engineering Associate |
Traffic Support
• City of Compton - On Call Traffic Engineering
• City of El Monte - E&TS
• City of Rancho Palos Verdes - Permit Assistance
16 hours/week
Keith Vines • City of Vallejo - Striping Design
• City of El Monte - E&TS
20 hours/week as
needed
28

17.L

Cost Proposal (Separate)
29

17.L

Appendix
30

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services Exceptions
The Interwest Contract and Legal team have carefully reviewed the contract terms presented in the Sample Professional Services Agreement in the RFP. We respectfully request the following modifications to the agreement terms:

SECTION 6 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.

All original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files and other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Contractor in the course of providing the Services pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of the Contractor. Upon completion, expiration or termination of this Agreement, Contractor shall turn over to City all such original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files and other documents. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Agreement shall be understood to grant City rights to pre-existing intellectual property of Contractor, including Contractor software and licensed software, or to any improvements thereto.

SECTION 10 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS; PERMITS AND LICENSES.

Contractor shall keep itself informed of and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations and rules in effect during the term of this Agreement. Contractor shall obtain any and all licenses, permits and authorizations necessary to perform the Services set forth in this Agreement. Neither City, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees or agents of City, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a result of any failure of Contractor to comply with this section. Nothing in this Section shall be understood to modify the applicable standards of performance, specified in Section 9.

SECTION 16 INDEMNIFICATION.
(a) Indemnification by Contractor. As provided under Civil Code Section 2782.8, Contractor shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all third party claims, actions and proceedings (whether at law or equity, administrative or judicial), demands, orders, judgments, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, (collectively “Claims”) to the extent same arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any entity or individual that Contractor shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this Agreement. In the event Claims are found by the trier of fact to have been caused by the joint or concurrent negligence of the City, its contractors and other Contractors, and Contractor, damages and expenses from both indemnity and duty to defend obligations shall be borne by each party in proportion to its negligence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event one or more defendants are unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, Contractor shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs. The provisions of this section pertaining to Contractor’s duty to defend shall not apply if there is a project-specific general liability policy of insurance that insures all project participants for general liability exposure on a primary basis and also covers all Contractors involved with the project for their legal liability arising out of their professional services on a primary basis. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, Contractor shall have the right to defend and settle any action for which indemnification is sought, provided that it shall not enter into any settlement that requires an admission of wrongdoing by any indemnitee without that indemnitee’s approval. Contractor’s obligations under this Agreement are contingent upon timely receipt of notice of the claim for which indemnification is sought, such that defense of the claim is not prejudiced, and the reasonable assistance of the indemnitee in connection with the defense of the claim.

SECTION 18 ASSIGNMENT.

The expertise and experience of Contractor are material considerations for this Agreement. City has an interest in the qualifications and capability of the persons and entities who will fulfill the duties and obligations imposed upon Contractor under this Agreement. In recognition of that interest, Contractor shall not assign or transfer 31

17.L

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS. THRIVING COMMUNITIES.

City of Hemet | RFP - Engineering and Traffic Survey Services this Agreement or any portion of this Agreement or the performance of any of Contractor’s duties or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City , which shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. Any attempted assignment shall be ineffective, null and void, and shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling City to any and all remedies at law or in equity, including termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 20 “Termination of Agreement.” City acknowledges, however, that Contractor, in the performance of its duties pursuant to this Agreement, may utilize subcontractors.

A. Insurance Requirements

4. Except with respect to Workers’ Compensation coverage, Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by Agency shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of Agency before the Agency’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

On the following page, Interwest has included the Sample E&T Survey, as well as the required signed forms of Attachment B.
32

17.L








 !"###

$%#!&#
!
&#' &#(#)"(


*
+&#'*,!

(#"*(&' 

#
-

./0.012/3
456789:;<7;=<>?@

ABB/2113
C2D2.E0=2=FGH2/41@3

./I=C=AG23

1IJ=ACF/23
CICD23 BAC23

KLMKMLKMNO NKMNNP MOQNRMN

N
(#"
!#S#S#"'#!
#)S#')'"S
'#
,!
'
*"")&'
' T
(S$ UVWW%-
XYZY[\X[]^_`abX\`^\aYc\`ddYeZ`_]\fcg_Ya`Xgd\Xa]h]d`a\[`aa`di\fhYjjYk]_^ai][Z`^-M '& ('&!
#
&
&##'##&#
&
&#

'#" ""*(#-
L
#"#


!)#"(#

(-
KS#&!"

#&
(
#
*$l%&
(
#&
#S#!


&
(
#mON$*$l%#!
#"%-K&
(
###&
(
#
"! ##(
#!
n')#"#""&

##&&
(
#
"! 

'#"""*#
&
&#- 
(
##"
#)#o'
-

Interwest Consulting Group
1500 S. Haven Ave, Suite 220, Ontario CA 91761
909.295.3142
Paul Meschino
President 11/22/2022
33

17.L

 




Paul Meschino President
Interwest Consulting Group 909.295.3142
1500 S. Haven Ave, Suite 220 Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected] 11/22/2022
34

17.L

DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
TITLE 49, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 29
The bidder, under penalty of perjury, certifies that, except as noted below, he/she or any other person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, manager:
•
is not currently under suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion, or determination of ineligibility by any Federal agency;
• has not been suspended, debarred, voluntarily excluded or determined ineligible by any Federal agency within the past 3 years;
• does not have a proposed debarment pending; and
• has not been indicted, convicted, or had a civil judgment rendered against it by a court of competent jurisdiction in any matter involving fraud or official misconduct within the past 3 years.

If there are any exceptions to this certification, insert the exceptions in the following space.

Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award, but will be considered in determining bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above, indicate below to whom it applies, initiating agency, and dates of action.

Notes: Providing false information may result in criminal prosecution or administrative sanctions.

The above certification is part of the Proposal. Signing this Proposal on the signature portion thereof shall also constitute signature of this Certification.

Printed Name and Title Signature
Paul Meschino President
Interwest Consulting Group has no exceptions to this section. 35

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY 5

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS 8

3.1 Spot Speed Radar Survey 8

4.0 Collision Rate Analysis 10

4.1 Roadway Segment Field Review 13

4.2 SURVEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14

4.3 Speed Limit Signing 15

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 16

5.1 Speed Limit Ordinance 17

APPENDIX

APPENDICES
A Regulations Governing Speed Limits
(Excerpts from the California Vehicle Code)
B Speed Zoning Regulations from the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Definitions of Terms
C Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Sheets
D Strip Maps
E Speed Survey Data Sheets
F Collision Data Sheets
G Radar/Lidar Gun and Operator(s) Certifications

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
1 Segment Spot Speed Survey 9
2 Collision Analysis 12

17.L

17.L

Introduction
1 SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to document the results of an engineering and traffic survey conducted to update and to establish the speed limits for thirty-seven (37) segments of the City of Eastvale arterial street network. The overall study was conducted to comply with existing State regulations concerning the increasing or decreasing of speed limits within City boundaries.

Posted speed limits are established to inform drivers of the safe speed limit and to protect the general public from reckless and unpredictable behavior of irresponsible drivers. Research has shown that most drivers travel at speeds that are safe and reasonable, therefore, speed limits are established primarily on the consensus of the majority of those who use the roads. Speed limits are not based on the actions of few.

The California Vehicle Code requires the limits to be established on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey rather than by arbitrary methods.

Posted speed limits also provide law enforcement with a clearly understood method of identifying and apprehending violators of the Basic Speed Law (CVC Section 22350), which states: No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. The posted speed limit gives drivers a clear warning of the maximum speed that is reasonable and prudent under typical driving conditions.

It is generally accepted that speed limits cannot be successfully enforced without voluntary compliance by a majority of drivers. Consequently, only the driver whose behavior is clearly out of line with the normal flow of traffic is usually targeted for enforcement.

This report contains sufficient information to document that the conditions of the latest edition of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 627 have been satisfied and that other conditions not readily apparent to a motorist are properly identified. To legally use radar for speed enforcement, Section 40802(b) of the CVC requires that limits be established per Sections 22357 and 22358 of the CVC, the limits must be justified by an Engineering and Traffic Survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation. Section 40802(c) of the CVC allows cities to extend the survey period up to seven or 14 years depending on specific criteria. California Assembly Bill (AB) 43, related to traffic safety, was signed into law on October 8, 2021. AB 43 modifies certain sections and adds new sections to the CVC pertaining to speed limits. Certain sections of AB 43 took effect on January 1, 2022. Details of these CVC criteria and modifications are provided in Appendix A. CVC Section 627 also requires that the Engineering and Traffic Survey be conducted in accordance with the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Details of these CA MUTCD criteria are provided in Appendix B. AB 43 also modified sections of the CA MUTCD, but they do not take effect until the next revision of the CA MUTCD is approved.

On July 10, 2013, City Council approved the establishment and update of speed limits on street segments in Eastvale, followed by amendments approved on February 12, 2014, June 24, 2015 and July 11, 2018.

Since the 2018 approval of the speed surveys, the following thirty-seven (37) street segments have been studied.

1. 58th Street between Scholar Way and Hamner Avenue

17.L

Introduction
2 3. 65th Street between Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue

4. 65th Street between Hamner Avenue and Wells Spring Street

5. 68th Street between Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue

6. 68th Street between Hamner Avenue and East City Limit

7. Archibald Avenue between Bluff Street and Wind River/Grapewin Street

8. Archibald Avenue between Wind River/Grapewin Street and Schleisman Road

9. Archibald Avenue between Schleisman Road and Bellegrave Avenue/North City Limit

10. Baron Road between Archibald Avenue and Northerly Terminus

11. Bellegrave Avenue between Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue

12. Bellegrave Avenue between Hamner Avenue and East City Limit

13. Blossom Way between Harrison Avenue and Sumner Avenue

14. Chandler Street between Hellman Avenue and Harrison Avenue

15. Citrus Street between Harrison Avenue and Hamner Avenue

16. Fieldmaster Street between Hall Road and Archibald Avenue

18. Hamner Avenue between South City Limit and Schleisman Road

19. Hamner Avenue between Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue

20. Hamner Avenue between Limonite Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue

24. Harrison Avenue between Chandler Street and Schleisman Road

25. Harrison Avenue between Schleisman Road and Blossom Way

26. Hellman Avenue between River Road and Chandler Street

27. Hellman Avenue between Chandler Street and Limonite Avenue

28. Hellman Avenue between Limonite Avenue and the North City Limit

29. Mission Boulevard between S Milliken Avenue and Ontario Freeway (I-15)

32. Orange Street between Sumner Avenue and Scholar Way

33. Prairie Smoke Road between Hellman Avenue and Whitewell Road

34. River Road between Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue

35. Riverboat Drive between Massy Harrison Way and Wells Springs Street

37. Schleisman Road between Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue

38. Schleisman Road between Archibald Avenue and Sumner Avenue

39. Schleisman Road between Sumner Avenue and Scholar Way

40. Schleisman Road between Scholar Way and Hamner Avenue

42. Scholar Way between Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue

43. Scholar Way between Limonite Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue

44. Sumner Avenue between Citrus Street and 65th Street

17.L

Introduction
3 45. Sumner Avenue between 65th Street and Bellegrave Avenue

46. Whitewell Road between Schleisman Road and Prairie Smoke Road The segments below were studied for the following reasons:

1. Establish the speed limit for new segments:
 Hellman Avenue – Segment 28
 Mission Boulevard – Segment 29
 Scholar Way – Segment 43

2. Segments that required a resurvey in order to ensure speed limits are appropriate and enforceable:
 58th Street – Segment 1
 65th Street – Segments 3 & 4
 68th Street – Segments 5 & 6
 Archibald Avenue – Segments 7 – 9
 Baron Road – Segment 10
 Bellegrave Avenue – Segments 11 & 12
 Blossom Way – Segment 13
 Chandler Street – Segment 14
 Citrus Street – Segment 15
 Fieldmaster Street – Segment 16
 Hamner Avenue – Segments 18 – 20
 Harrison Avenue – Segments 24 & 25
 Hellman Avenue – Segments 26 & 27
 Orange Street – Segment 32
 Prairie Smoke Road – Segment 33
 River Road – Segment 34
 Riverboat Drive – Segment 35
 Schleisman Road – Segments 37 – 40
 Scholar Way – Segment 42
 Sumner Avenue – Segments 44 & 45
 Whitewell Road – Segment 46
This survey will either verify, increase, or decrease the existing speed limits for the selected thirty-seven (37) roadway segments within the City of Eastvale based on the data and results obtained.

At thirty-seven (37) locations on the City’s network, spot speed surveys were taken in conformance with the State law for conducting engineering and traffic surveys for the purpose of establishing/updating prima facie speed limits. The data was collected in accordance with the latest edition of the CA MUTCD 2014 (rev 6). Sections of the CA MUTCD that contain the regulations for conducting the required

17.L

Introduction
4 “Engineering and Traffic Survey” are presented in Appendix B. Also in Appendix B are definitions of terms used in speed zone surveys. As previously noted, excerpts from the CVC regarding regulations governing speed limits are presented in Appendix A. The speed zone radar surveys were conducted by Counts Unlimited, Inc. Certifications for their staff and equipment are provided in Appendix E.

17.L

Study Methodology
5 SECTION 2.0

STUDY METHODOLOGY
The basic fundamentals for establishing speed limits recognize that the majority of drivers behave in a safe and reasonable manner, and, therefore, the normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable driver should be considered legal. Speed limits established on the fundamentals conform to the consensus that those who drive the highway determine what speed is reasonable and safe, not on the judgement of one or a few individuals. A radar spot speed survey is usually used to record the prevailing speed of reasonable drivers.

Speed zones are established to inform drivers of the safe speed limit and to protect the general public from unreasonable and reckless drivers. Research has shown that most drivers travel at speeds that are safe and reasonable, therefore, speed limits are established primarily on the consensus of the majority of those who use the roads. Speed limits are not based on the actions of few. The California Vehicle Code requires the limits to be established on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey rather than by arbitrary methods.

Speed limits are also established to advise drivers of conditions which may not be readily apparent to a reasonable driver. For this reason, collision history, roadway conditions, traffic characteristics and land use must also be analyzed before determining speed limits.

The study involved the three major elements of data collection and analysis, as required by California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 627 and as outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), 2014 Edition, rev 6. The three elements of an Engineering and Traffic Survey, as described in the CVC, are:

1. Prevailing speed as determined by a spot speed survey

2. Collision records

3. Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver Other factors that may also be considered include:
 Residential Density (as defined in CVC Section 627)
 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.

Spot Speed Survey. Spot speed surveys, performed by a certified radar technician utilizing a calibrated radar gun, were conducted for thirty-seven (37) roadway segments to determine existing vehicular travel speeds. A minimum of 100 observations were recorded, 50 for each direction of travel, on all the surveyed street segments. This data was used to calculate statistical information such as the 85th percentile speed, 10 mile per hour pace speed, percent of vehicles within the 10 mile per hour pace, median speed and other pertinent data for analysis. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is traveling. This threshold represents what is historically found to be a safe and reasonable speed for most drivers based on common roadway conditions.

17.L

Study Methodology
6 Collision Rate. Mid-block traffic collision data for the thirty-seven (37) roadway segments was tabulated from the City’s and County’s collision records as reported to the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020 (three years). The collision rate was calculated and considered in recommending the speed limit.

Field Review. The streets were field reviewed to determine/confirm the existing roadway characteristics, condition and placement of signs and markings, adjacent land uses, pedestrian and bicycle activity (with increased consideration of vulnerable pedestrian groups), and to identify roadway characteristics that are not readily apparent to vehicle drivers.

Analysis. The three elements and two other factors described above were used to determine the recommended speed limit. The analysis began with the 85th percentile speed from the spot speed survey and was modified, as appropriate, by the collision rate, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and existing conditions not readily apparent to the driver.

The speed limit is initially established at the nearest 5 mph increment to the 85th percentile speed. It can then be reduced by 5 mph if it meets one of the following two options:

Option 1. CVC Sections 627 and 22358.5 allow the speed limit to be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed under certain circumstances.

Option 2. For cases where the nearest 5 mph increment would require rounding up, CVC Section 21400(b) allows the speed limit to be rounded down to the nearest 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile speed, however, no further reduction is allowed.

The following examples explain the use of these speed limit criteria:

A. Using Option 1, when the 85th percentile speed is rounded down (i.e. the 85th percentile speed is 37 mph, so the speed limit would be established at 35 mph), the speed limit could be reduced another 5 mph, to 30 mph, if the special conditions are met and justification for using the lower speed limit are documented in the engineering and traffic survey.

B. Using Option 1, when the 85th percentile speed is rounded up (i.e. the 85th percentile speed is 38 mph, so the speed limit would be established at 40 mph), the speed limit could be reduced by 5 mph, to 35 mph, if the special conditions are met and justification for using the lower speed limit are documented in the engineering and traffic survey.

C. Using Option 2, when the 85th percentile speed is rounded up (i.e. the 85th percentile speed is 38 mph and would normally be rounded up to 40 mph), instead of rounding up, the speed limit can be reduced by 5 mph (established at 35 mph), but no further reduction can be applied.

A greater-than-expected collision rate is one of the special conditions under Option 1, allowing the speed limit to be established 5 mph lower than the rounded speed limit. The collision rate is based on mid-block collisions only. It is determined using the equation shown below and is then compared to the statewide average collision rate for similar roadways, found in Collision Data on California State Highways (roads miles, travel, collisions) published by Caltrans every two years. The latest edition, 2018, was used for this 2021 analysis.

The collision rates are calculated using the following equation:

Collision Rate = Number of Midblock collisions x 106
24-hour volume x 365 x segment length x number of years

17.L

Study Methodology
7 Where: Number of mid-block collisions based on 3 years (January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020), 24-hour traffic volume (both directions) in the survey segment and segment length in miles. Rates are shown in Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles (per year) or Col/MVM.

California Assembly Bill (AB) 43 modified certain sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and also pertains to certain sections of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Some of the modified sections of the CVC became effective on January 1, 2021, whereas the relevant sections of the CA MUTCD do not go into effect until the CA MUTCD is updated. AB 43 created new CVC Section 22358.8, which, as of January 1, 2022, allows local authorities to maintain the current speed limit if they determine that the speed limit based on the 85th percentile speed is more than is reasonable or safe, and certain conditions are met. Details are provided in Appendix A. CVC Section 22358.8 was applied to two street segments in order to maintain the existing speed limits.

17.L

Survey Results
8 SECTION 3.0

SURVEY RESULTS

3.1 Spot Speed Radar Survey
Spot speed radar surveys were conducted at each street segment 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 five mile per hour increment nearest the 85th percentile speed, as recorded for the surveyed segment. However, engineering judgment and other factors such as collision rates (Section 3.2) and Roadway Segment Field Review (Section 3.3) may indicate the need for further reduction in establishing reasonable and effective speed limits. Table 1 shows the existing speed limit and the 85th percentile speed for each studied segment.

The criteria used to conduct the radar survey are listed in Appendices A and B.

Appendix C contains the Engineering and Speed Survey Summary sheets for each of the thirtyseven (37) segments surveyed as well as those for segments previously studied. The data collected and information calculated for the radar speed survey are as follows:
 Posted speed limit
 Direction of survey
 Date and time of speed survey
 Weather conditions
 Number of vehicles observed in each direction
 Speed of each surveyed vehicle
 15th percentile speed
 50th Percentile speed
 85th Percentile speed
 10 mph pace speed
 Percent over pace speed
 Percent in pace speed
 Percent under pace speed
 Average speed
The summary contains information about vehicular speed data observed, collision data, street classification, and any unusual conditions at the location.

17.L

9 Table 1: Segment Spot Speed Summary1
(April, June, July & September 2021)
No Street Between Dir
Existing
Speed Limit2
(mph)
85th%ile
Speed (mph)
Recommended
Speed Limit
(mph)
Comments3
1 58th Street Scholar Way and Hamner Avenue E/W 35 40 35 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 22 65th Street Archibald Avenue and Sumner Avenue E/W 40 44 40 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 23 Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue E/W 40 47 40 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 – Pedestrian & bicyclist safety, particularly for vulnerable pedestrian groups4 Hamner Avenue and Wells Spring Street/East City Limit E/W 35 42 35 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 – Pedestrian & bicyclist safety, particularly for vulnerable pedestrian groups 56 68th Street Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue E/W 45 49 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 2 Hamner Avenue and East City Limit E/W 45 47 45 No Change - 85th%ile 7 Archibald Avenue Bluff Street and Wind River/Grapewin Street N/S 55 57 55 No Change - 85th%ile8 Wind River/Grapewin Street and Schleisman Road N/S 50 57 50 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 – Pedestrian & bicyclist safety, particularly for vulnerable pedestrian groups9 Schleisman Road and Bellegrave Avenue/North City Limit N/S 50 55 50 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 10 Baron Road Archibald Avenue and Northernly Terminus E/W 35 40 35 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 1112
Bellegrave Avenue Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue E/W 50 53 50 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 2 Hamner Avenue and East City Limit E/W 50 48 50 No Change - 85th%ile 13 Blossom Way Harrison Avenue and Sumner Avenue E/W 30 37 30 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 – Pedestrian & bicyclist safety, particularly for vulnerable pedestrian groups 14 Chandler Street Hellman Avenue and Harrison Avenue E/W 45 52 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 – Pedestrian & bicyclist safety, particularly for vulnerable pedestrian groups 15 Citrus Street Harrison Avenue and Hamner Avenue E/W 45 47 45 No Change - 85th%ile16 Fieldmaster Street Hall Road and Archibald Avenue E/W 40 43 40 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 217 Goodman Way Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road & Hamner Avenue N/S & E/W None 41 35 Establishing Speed Limit - 85th%ile, Option 1, Very heavy truck traffic, many peds, no bike lanes18 Hamner Avenue South City Limit and Schleisman Road N/S 50 52 45 Decrease - 85th%ile, Option 119 Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue N/S 45 51 45 No Change, - 85th%ile, Option 1 - Reduction of speed due to crash history20 Limonite Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue N/S 45 51 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 121 Bellegrave Avenue & Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road N/S None 55 50 Establishing Speed Limit - 85th%ile, Option 222 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road & Riverside Drive N/S None 55 50 Establishing Speed Limit - 85th%ile, Option 223 Riverside Drive & Philadelphia Street N/S None 55 50 Establishing Speed Limit - 85th%ile, Option 2 2425
Harrison Avenue Chandler Street and Schleisman Road N/S 45 50 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 Schleisman Road and Blossom Way N/S 45 47 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 – Pedestrian & bicyclist safety, particularly for vulnerable pedestrian groups 2627
Hellman Avenue River Road and Chandler Street N/S 50 56 50 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 Chandler Street and Limonite Avenue N/S 50 55 50 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 28 Limonite Avenue to North City Limit N/S None 42 35 Establishing Speed Limit – 85th%ile, Option 1 – Pedestrian :& bicyclist safety; very heavy truck traffic 2930 Limonite Avenue Archibald Avenue & Sumner Avenue E/W 45 53 50 Increase - 85th%ile, Option 2 Sumner Avenue & East City Limit E/W 45 52 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 - Segments of missing sidewalk, heavy pedestrian usage, no bike lanes 31 Mission Boulevard S. Milliken Avenue and Ontario Freeway (I-15) E/W None2 59 55 Establishing Speed Limit - 85th%ile, Option 2 32 Orange Street Sumner Avenue and Scholar Way E/W 30 45 30 No Change – AB 43 - New CVC Section 22358.833 Prairie Smoke Road Hellman Avenue and Whitewell Road E/W 35 42 35 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 134 River Road Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue E/W 40 49 40 No Change – AB 43 – New CVC Section 22358.835 Riverboat Drive Massy Harris Way and Wells Springs Street E/W 40 44 40 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 236 Riverside Drive Hamner Avenue & East City Limit E/W 50 47 45 Reduce - 85th%ile, Continuity with adjacent segment37 Schleisman Road Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue E/W 50 57 50 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 138 Archibald Avenue and Sumner Avenue E/W 45 49 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 239 Sumner Avenue and Scholar Way E/W 45 48 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 240 Scholar Way and Hamner Avenue E/W 45 51 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 4142 43
Scholar Way Citrus Street & Schleisman Road N/S 35 39 35 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 2 Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue N/S 35 43 40 Increase - 85th%ile, Option 2Limonite Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue N/S None2 43 40 Establishing Speed Limit - 85th%ile, Option 2 4445
Sumner Avenue Citrus Street and 65th Street N/S 45 51 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 65th Street and Bellegrave Avenue N/S 45 51 45 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 46 Whitewell Road Schleisman Road and Prairie Smoke Road N/S 35 40 35 No Change - 85th%ile, Option 1 - Reduction of speed due to crash history 1 Roadway segments that have not expired, and therefore are not being updated, are highlighted in gray.2 Three segments, currently studied (Nos. 28, 31 and 43), did not previously have speed limits set by an Engineering and Traffic Survey.3 See Appendix A for modifications to CVC by new CA law, AB 43. See Appendix B, Line 12a, for explanations of Option 1 and Option 2.

17.L

10 Survey Results

3.2 Collision Rate Analysis
The mid-block collision rate for each roadway segment was determined by using the most recent collision records as required by CVC Section 627. Traffic collision data for the roadway segments was collected from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision records for the City of Eastvale from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2021. Based on this data, the mid-block collision rates were calculated for each roadway segment in terms of “collisions per 1,000,000 vehicle miles of travel.”
It was then determined if any of the collision rates warranted a 5 mph reduction in the rounded 85th percentile speed per Option 1. The collision rates were compared to the statewide average collision rates for similar roadways. If the collision rate is greater than the statewide rate, a 5 mph reduction may be considered. All but three (3) of the calculated roadway segment collision rates were less than the statewide average, indicating that only three (3) of the roadway segments qualified for the 5 mph reduction. Segment 19, Hamner Avenue between Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue, had a calculated collision rate of 0.53, which is greater than the Statewide average of 0.41. Segment 32, Orange Street between Sumner Avenue and Scholar Way, had a calculated collision rate of 1.78, which is greater than the Statewide average of 1.60. Lastly, Segment 46, Whitewell Road between Schleisman Road and Prairie Smoke Road, had a calculated collision rate of 3.06, which is greater than the Statewide average of 1.60.

The results of the collision rate calculations are shown in Table 2 and in the Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary sheets (Appendix C). A sample collision rate calculation is shown below.

Example:

Collision Rate = Number of Collisions x 106
Vehicles/Day x 365 Days/Year x Miles x Years of Collision Data Collision rate on: Hamner Avenue between Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue:

Collision Rate = 10 x 106
18,890 x 365 x 1.00 x 3
= 0.48 collisions per million vehicle miles (Col/MVM)

17.L

11 The comparison collision rates vary from year to year. The 2018 Statewide average rates, which are the most recent rates available, were used for the thirty-seven (37) segments studied in the 2021 analysis, and are as follows:

No. Street Between
Statewide
Average
Collision
Rate
1 58th Street Scholar Way and Hamner Avenue 1.60
3 65th Street Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue 0.93
4 Hamner Avenue and Wells Spring Street 1.60
5 68th Street Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue 1.32
6 Hamner Avenue and East City Limit 0.93
7 8
9 Archibald Avenue Bluff Street and Wind River/Grapewin Street 0.93 Wind River/Grapewin Street and Schleisman Road 1.29
Schleisman Road and Bellegrave / North City Limit 0.98
10 Baron Road Archibald Avenue and Northerly Terminus 1.60 11 Bellegrave Avenue Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue 0.78 12 Hamner Avenue and East City Limit 0.93
13 Blossom Way Harrison Avenue and Sumner Avenue 1.60
14 Chandler Street Hellman Avenue and Harrison Avenue 0.91 15 Citrus Street Harrison Avenue and Hamner Avenue 0.93 16 Fieldmaster Street Hall Road and Archibald Avenue 1.32 18 Hamner Avenue South City Limit and Schleisman Road 0.98 19 Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue 0.41
20 Limonite Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue 0.91
24 Harrison Avenue Chandler Street and Schleisman Road 0.93 25 Schleisman Road and Blossom Way 0.93
26 Hellman Avenue River Road and Chandler Street 1.32
27 28
Chandler Street and Limonite Avenue 0.93
Limonite Avenue and North City Limit 0.91
31 Mission Boulevard S Milliken Avenue and Ontario Freeway (I-15) 0.86 32 Orange Street Sumner Avenue and Scholar Way 1.60
33 Prairie Smoke Road Hellman Avenue and Whitewell Road 1.60 34 River Road Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue 1.32
35 Riverboat Drive Massy Harris Way and Wells Spring Street 1.32 37 Schleisman Road Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue 0.98 38 Archibald Avenue and Sumner Avenue 0.93
39 Sumner Avenue and Scholar Way 1.32
40 Scholar Way and Hamner Avenue 0.91
42 Scholar Way Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue 0.91 43 Limonite Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue 1.60
44 Sumner Avenue Citrus Street and 65th Street 0.93
45 65th Street and Bellegrave Avenue 0.93
46 Whitewell Road Schleisman Road and Prairie Smoke Road 1.60

17.L

12 Table 2: Collision Analysis1
(Amended December 2021)
No Street Between
Segment Length
(mile)
Segment Length
(feet)
Average Daily
Traffic (ADT)
(vehs/day)
Midblock
Collisions2
(3 yr total)
Collision
Rate
(Col/MVM)3
Statewide
Collision
Rate
Segment
Rate More
Than
Statewide
Rate?
1 58th Street Scholar Way and Hamner Avenue 0.49 2,568 1,522 0 0.00 1.60 No 234
65th Street Archibald Avenue and Sumner Avenue 1.00 5,300 5,400 1 0.25 Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue 0.87 4,590 3755 1 0.24 0.93 NoHamner Avenue and Wells Spring Street 0.31 1,642 2,561 0 0.00 1.60 No 56 68th Street Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue 1.00 5,260 5,239 1 0.17 1.32 No Hamner Avenue and East City Limit 0.50 2,650 8,469 1 0.22 0.93 No 789
Archibald Avenue Bluff Street and Wind River/Grapewin Street 1.46 7,700 13,631 3 0.14 0.93 No Wind River/Grapewin Street and Schleisman Road 1.63 8,580 20934 7 0.19 1.29 NoSchleisman Road and Bellegrave/North City Limit 1.14 6,010 22,487 3 0.11 0.98 No 10 Baron Road Archibald Avenue and Northerly Terminus 0.38 2,030 369 0 0.00 1.60 No 1112
Bellegrave Avenue Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue 1.07 5,650 10,629 2 0.16 0.78 No Hamner Avenue and East City Limit 0.49 5,450 10,308 0 0.00 0.93 No 13 Blossom Way Harrison Avenue and Sumner Avenue 0.50 2,650 2497 0 0.00 1.60 No14 Chandler Street Hellman Avenue and Harrison Avenue 1.53 8,075 3828 1 0.16 0.91 No15 Citrus Street Harrison Avenue and Hamner Avenue 1.49 7,885 7,787 7 0.55 0.93 No16 Fieldmaster Street Hall Road and Archibald Avenue 0.99 5,215 1,616 0 0.00 1.32 No17 Goodman Way Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road & Hamner Avenue 0.68 3,600 4,800 0 0.00 181920212223
Hamner Avenue South City Limit and Schleisman Road 0.62 3,295 18,287 1 0.08 0.98 No Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue 1.00 5,275 18,890 11 0.53 0.41 YesLimonite Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue 0.91 4,800 22,223 16 0.72 0.91 NoBellegrave Avenue & Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road 0.83 4,400 19,500 5 0.42Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road & Riverside Drive 1.23 6,500 17,500 5 0.32Riverside Drive & Philadelphia Street 0.99 5,200 23,400 1 0.06 2425
Harrison Avenue Chandler Street and Schleisman Road 1.00 5,266 5,333 1 0.17 0.93 No Schleisman Road and Blossom Way 1.34 7,080 8,461 2 0.16 0.93 No 26 27 28
Hellman Avenue River Road and Chandler Street 0.97 5,100 6,324 2 0.30 1.32 No Chandler Street and Limonite Avenue 1.54 8,120 10,594 3 0.27 0.93 NoLimonite Avenue and North City Limit 0.20 1,070 7,317 0 0.00 0.91 No 2930
Limonite Avenue Archibald Avenue & Sumner Avenue 1.00 5,300 22,300 8 0.49 Sumner Avenue & East City Limit 1.53 8,100 29,400 35 1.07 31 Mission Boulevard S Milliken Avenue and Ontario Freeway (I-15) 0.50 2,620 19,234 0 0.00 0.86 No32 Orange Street Sumner Avenue and Scholar Way 0.50 2,630 1,027 1 1.78 1.60 Yes33 Prairie Smoke Road Hellman Avenue and Whitewell Road 0.26 1,380 1,129 0 0.00 1.60 No34 River Road Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue 0.75 3,970 7806 4 0.62 1.32 No35 Riverboat Drive Massy Harris Way and Wells Springs Street 0.66 3,500 735 0 0.00 1.32 No36 Riverside Drive Hamner Avenue & East City Limit 0.44 2,300 9,900 0 0.00 37383940
Schleisman Road Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue 1.00 5,300 34,671 11 0.29 0.98 No Archibald Avenue and Sumner Avenue 0.99 5,238 14,855 2 0.12 0.93 NoSumner Avenue and Scholar Way 0.50 2,650 7,737 1 0.24 1.32 NoScholar Way and Hamner Avenue 0.58 3,040 7,682 0 0.00 0.91 No 4142 43
Scholar Way Citrus Street & Schleisman Road 0.63 3,300 5,600 4 1.55 Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue 0.99 5,250 4721 0 0.00 0.91 NoLimonite Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue 0.70 3,700 6678 1 0.20 1.60 No 4445
Sumner Avenue Citrus Street and 65th Street 1.12 5,935 4,028 0 0.00 0.93 No 65th Street and Bellegrave Avenue 1.03 5,422 7,857 2 0.23 0.93 No 46 Whitewell Road Schleisman Road and Prairie Smoke Road 0.29 1,542 2,056 2 3.06 1.60 Yes 1 Roadway segments that have not expired are highlighted in gray. 2 Number of speed-related mid-block traffic collisions during most recently available 3-year period 3 Col/MVM = Collisions (Accidents) per Million Vehicle Miles per year; An actual rate greater than state average rate indicates condition that may allow a lower speed limit.

17.L

13 Survey Results

3.3 Roadway Segment Field Review
Section 2B.13 of the CA MUTCD 2014, “Speed Limit Signs” states that the speed limit should be established at the nearest five mile per hour increment 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 reduction in speed, as allowed under Option 1. 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 roadway segments were driven by Mrs. Nadia Geesman, P.E., Associate Engineer (contracted through Interwest), who is a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California. The roadway characteristics, location of speed limit signs, conditions not readily apparent to the driver (lack of sidewalks/bike lanes, driveways with limited sight distance, clustered driveways, heavy truck activity, etc.), type of land use adjoining the street (commercial, residential, school zone, parks, etc.) and type of roadway (divided, undivided, number of lanes, on-street parking etc.) were recorded as part of the study in Strip Maps Found in Appendix D. The roadway characteristics recorded were used to determine if any physical conditions warranted consideration of an additional five mile per hour reduction of the recommended speed in accordance with CVC Section 627.

The results of the roadway segment field review for each segment are indicated on the Engineering and Speed Survey Summary sheets in Appendix C.
 Collision History
 Collision Rate
 Average Daily Traffic Volume
 Road Description, including on-street parking and unusual lane configurations  Lack of Sidewalks and Bike Lanes
 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Truck activity
 Driveways with limited sight distance or clustered driveways  Nearby schools and parks
 Adjacent land uses

17.L

Survey Findings and Recommendations
14 SECTION 4.0

SURVEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with the State-imposed speed limit establishment regulation, as defined by CVC Section 627 described in Appendix A, there are several factors that may be considered to justify setting the prima facie speed limit five mph below the rounded 85th percentile speed under Option 1.

The factors to be considered are highway, traffic, and roadside conditions, specifically including those listed below, however, factors that are readily apparent to motorists are not to be considered.  Most recent collision record (mid-block)
 Roadway characteristics
 Shoulder condition
 Grade
 Alignment
 Sight Distance
 Roadside development and environment
 Parking practices and pedestrian activity
 Commercial driveway characteristics (land use)
 Pedestrian traffic with and without sidewalks
 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.
 Residential density
The above factors for each roadway segment surveyed are listed in the Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary sheets in Appendix C. The 85th percentile speed and the above factors were considered in verifying existing speed limits and recommending speed limit changes (increase or decrease). Additionally, discussions were held with City staff in making decisions with respect to changing existing speed limits. This allowed for consideration of any special knowledge of the segment. Table 1 shows the surveyed road segments with posted and recommended speed limits. The July 2018-June 2021 Collision Survey Analysis in Table 2 lists the street traffic volumes, total number of collisions and calculated collision rate.

17.L

Survey Findings and Recommendations
15 4.1 Speed Limit Signing
All California motorists are required to know the basic 15, 25, and 55 MPH speed laws and are tested on the subject when applying for a driver’s license. Consequently, speed limit signs covering these conditions need not be posted on City streets. However, although not required by law, speed limit signs for these situations may be posted on streets that have significant daily vehicular traffic volumes, a by-pass traffic situation, the continued violation of a residential 25 MPH speed zone, or with other applicable warrants.

It is normal policy to recommend the posting of speed limit signs only of streets that have been covered by the City speed limit ordinance or by warranted situations covered above.

Speed limit signs should be installed at about one-half mile intervals on the City streets which have been speed zoned. Signs are normally installed on the exit side of traffic signal controlled intersections and the more important intersections where there is high side street vehicle entry. It is important that motorists be given adequate information while not over signing, which tends to confuse the motorist.

Enforcement issues 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.

17.L

Summary and Conclusions
16 SECTION 5.0

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1. The radar survey and the raw data collection were conducted per CVC Section 627 and California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014, rev 6, Section 2B.13.

2. Daily traffic counts for thirty-six (36) of the selected roadway segments on the City’s arterial roadway network were collected in 2021 on February 10 (18 segments), February 11 (7 segments), February 17 (1 segment), July 22 (3), July 29 (5) and September 14 (2).

Radar speed surveys were taken in 2021 on February 12 (2 segments), February 17 (17 segments), February 18 (7 segments), July 22 (3), July 29 (5) and September 14 (2). The daily traffic count and radar speed survey for new Segment 28, Hellman Avenue between Limonite Avenue and North City Limit, which is shared with the City of Chino, was collected by the City of Chino for the Engineering and Traffic Survey they were concurrently updating. The daily traffic count was collected on April 6, 2021 and the radar speed survey was taken on April 21, 2021.

3. Bicycle and Pedestrian mid-block collision frequency was low.

4. A summary of recommended speed limits is provided in Table 1.

5. It was concluded that the existing speed limits on the thirty-seven (37) studied roadway segments in the City of Eastvale should remain unchanged except for the roadway segments listed on the next page.

17.L

Summary and Conclusions
17 Roadway Segments with Recommended Changes to Speed Limit No. Street Between
Existing
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Recommended
Speed Limit
(mph)
Comments
18 Hamner Avenue South City Limit and
Schleisman Road 50 MPH 45 MPH Decrease Speed Limit
– 85th percentile,
Option 1
28 Hellman Avenue Limonite Avenue and North
City Limit None 35 MPH Establishing Speed
Limit – 85th
percentile, Option 1
31 Mission
Boulevard
S Milliken Avenue and Ontario
Freeway (I-15) None 55 MPH Establishing Speed
Limit – 85th
percentile, Option 2
42 Scholar Way Schleisman Road and Limonite
Avenue 35 MPH 40 MPH Increase Speed Limit
– 85th percentile,
Option 2
43 Scholar Way Limonite Avenue and
Bellegrave Avenue None 40 MPH Establishing Speed
Limit – 85th
percentile, Option 1

5.1 Speed Limit Ordinance
Based on the recommended speed zone changes, the revised “Speed Zone Ordinances” are as follows:

17.L

17.L

ORDINANCE NO. 22-01

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 10.02 OF TITLE
10 TO THE EASTVALE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING SPEED

LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Sections 22357 and 22358 provide that local entities may declare prima facie speed limits greater than 25 miles per hour on City streets on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 40802 provides for the enforcement of the posted speed limit by the use of radar or other electronic devices which measures the speed of moving vehicles; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 627(b) defines an engineering and traffic survey to include consideration of all of the following:
1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements; 2) Accident Records;
3) Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eastvale has completed a new engineering and traffic survey required under California Vehicle Code Section 22357 and 22358.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 10.02 of TitlelO to the Eastvale Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
"Sec. 10.02.010. - Findings.
(a) The City Council of the City of Eastvale finds that an engineering and traffic survey has been completed in full compliance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code and the recommendations in the survey should be implemented. Based upon the review of the survey and related information, the City Council finds the prevailing or 85th percentile speeds of the vehicles are:

No Street Between
85th
Percentile
(mph)
1 58th Street Scholar Way and Hamner Avenue 40
2 65th Street Archibald Avenue and Sumner Avenue 44
3 Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue 47
4 Hamner Avenue and Wells Spring Street/East City Limit 42 5 68th Street Sumner Avenue and Hamner Avenue 49
6 Hamner Avenue and East City Limit 47

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

APPENDIX A
Regulations Governing Speed Limits
(Excerpts from the California Vehicle Code)
(Updated January 2022

17.L

17.L

1 Appendix A

RADAR SPEED ZONE SURVEYS

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an Engineering and Traffic Survey for establishment of speed limits on city streets as required by Sections 22357 and 22358 of the California Vehicle Code. The review included radar surveys of prevailing vehicle speeds for each roadway segment, recent traffic counts, an analysis of reported traffic collisions recorded during the specific three-year interval of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021, and a field review of each roadway segment regarding roadway characteristics.

In order to enforce speed limits by radar or other electronic devices, a study must be conducted every five years. Section 40802 of the California Vehicle Code defines a speed limit enforced by radar and “….which speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation…” constitutes a speed trap, unless the following criteria are met:

If officers have completed specialized training courses that are approved by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards Training, the time span between studies can be extended to seven years.

If after seven years, “ …a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume…” the time span between studies can be extended to 14 years.

Since speed traps are illegal, the lack of an adequate study effectively precludes the police from using radar enforcement. Through adoption of this Engineering and Traffic Survey, the police department will be able to enforce posted speed limits with radar equipment.

17.L

2 Appendix A

REGULATIONS GOVERNING SPEED LIMITS
Under California law, the maximum speed limit for any passenger vehicle is 65 miles per hour (mph). All other speed limits are called prima facie limits which “on the face of it”, are safe and prudent under normal conditions. Certain prima facie limits are established by law and include the 25 mph limit in business and residential districts; the 15 mph limit in alleys, at blind intersections and blind railroad grade crossings; and a part-time 25 mph limit in school zones when children are going to and from school.

Intermediate speed limits between 25 and 65 mph may be established by local authorities based on engineering and traffic surveys. Such surveys include the analysis of roadway conditions, collision records, and the prevailing speed of prudent drivers using the highway under study. If speed limits are established below what the majority of drivers consider reasonable, they are often not obeyed and consequently, are difficult to enforce. Those drivers who do not comply with posted reasonable speed limits are, conversely, subject to equitable enforcement action.

The California Vehicle Code provides that the use of radar to enforce speed limits, which have not been based on an engineering and traffic survey within the preceding five years, constitutes a “speed trap”. Since speed traps are also prohibited by the code, lack of the required study effectively prohibits local agencies from using radar enforcement.

APPLICABLE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTIONS
Increase of Local Limits
22357. Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hours, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe. The declared prima facie or maximum speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street and shall not thereafter be revised except upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey.

The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect to any 25-mile-per-hour prima facie limit, which is applicable when passing a school building or the grounds thereof.

Decrease of Local Limits
22358. Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the limit of 65 miles per hour is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of any street other than a state highway where the limit of 65 miles per hour is applicable, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 60, 55, 50, 45,

17.L

3 Appendix A
40, 35, 30, 25, 20 or 15 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe, which declared prima facie limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street. (This section was modified by Assembly Bill 43 to include “20 or 15” and became effective on January 1, 2022.) Downward Speed Zoning
22358.5 It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of Section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions.

Maintaining Existing Speed Limit
22358.8. (a) If a local authority, after completing an engineering and traffic survey, finds that the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance, retain the current speed limit or restore the immediately prior speed limit if that speed limit was established with an engineering and traffic survey 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 the completion of the traffic survey that established the prior speed limit. (b) This section does not authorize a speed limit to be reduced by any more than 5 mph from the current speed limit nor below the immediately prior speed limit. (c) A local authority shall issue only warning citations for violations of exceeding the speed limit by 10 miles per hour or less for the first 30 days that a lower speed limit is in effect as authorized by this section.

Note: Section 22358.8 was added to the CVC by Assembly Bill 43, and became effective on January 1, 2022.

Business Activity District Prima Facie Speed Limit
22358.9. (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a local authority may, by ordinance, determine and declare a 25 or 20 miles per hour 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 miles per hour. (2) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply only to highways that meet all of the following conditions:
(A) A maximum of four traffic lanes.
(B) A maximum posted 30 miles per hour prima facie speed limit immediately prior to and after the business activity district, if establishing a 25 miles per hour speed limit. (C) A maximum posted 25 miles per hour prima facie speed limit immediately prior to and after the business activity district, if establishing a 20 miles per hour speed limit. (b) As used in this section, 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 at least three of the following requirements in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive:
(1) No less than 50 percent of the contiguous property fronting the highway consists of retail

17.L

4 Appendix A
or dining commercial uses, including outdoor dining, that open directly onto sidewalks adjacent to the highway.
(2) Parking, including parallel, diagonal, or perpendicular spaces alongside the highway. (3) Traffic control signals or stop signs regulating traffic flow on the highway, located at intervals of no more than 600 feet.
(4) Marked crosswalks not controlled by a traffic control device. (c) A local authority shall not declare a prima facie speed limit under this section on a portion of highway where the local authority has already lowered the speed limit as permitted under Sections 22358.7 and 22358.8.
(d) A local authority shall issue only warning citations for violations of exceeding the speed limit by 10 miles per hour or less for the first 30 days that a lower speed limit is in effect as authorized by this section.

Note: Section 22358.9 was added to the CVC by Assembly Bill 43, and became effective on January 1, 2022. Section 22358.7, which is referenced, will not go into effect until 2024, and is, therefore, not included in this document as an applicable CVC section.

Speed Trap
40802. (a) A “speed trap” is either of the following:
(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance. (2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit provided by this code or by local ordinance pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, school zone, senior zone, or business activity district. (This section was modified by Assembly Bill 43 to add “senior zone, or business activity district” and became effective on January 1, 2022.) (b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as “local” on the “California Road System Maps,” that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. It may also be defined as a “local street or road” if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions (This section was modified by Assembly Bill 43 regarding “local street or road” with no change to the meaning, and became effective on January 1, 2022.):
(D) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(E) Not more than one-half mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control devices as defined in Section 445. (F) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.

17.L

5 Appendix A
(2) For purposes of this section, “school zone” means that area approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. “School zone” also includes the area approaching or passing any schoolgrounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in used by children if that highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign. (3) For purposes of this section, “senior zone” means that 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 Section 22352. (This section was added by CA AB 43 and became effective on January 1, 2022.)
(4) For purposes of this section, “business activity center” means a section of highway described in subdivision (b) of Section 22358.9 in which a standard 25 miles per hour or 20 miles per hour speed limit ahs been posted pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of that section. (This section was added by CA AB 43 and became effective on January 1, 2022.)
(c) (1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable:
(A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of subparagraph (D). (ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356 or 22406.
(D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility.
(2) A “speed trap” is either of the following:
(A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries

17.L

6 Appendix A
marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance. (B) (i) A particular section of highway or state highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within one of the following time periods, prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects:
(I) Except as specified in subclause (II), seven years. (II) If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, 14 years. (ii) This subparagraph does not apply to local street, road or school zone, senior zone or business activity district. (This section was modified by Assembly Bill 43 to add “senior zone, or business activity district” and became effective on January 1, 2022.) Speed Trap Evidence.
40803. (a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speed trap
(b) In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 40802.
(c) When a traffic and engineering survey is required pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 40802, evidence that a traffic and engineering survey has been conducted within five years of the date of the alleged violation or evidence that the offense was committed on a local street or road as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 40802 shall constitute a prima facie case that the evidence or testimony is not based upon a speed trap as defined in subdivision (b) 40802.

Engineering and Traffic Survey
627. (a) “Engineering and traffic survey” as used in this Code, means a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the Department of Transportation for use by the state and local authorities. (b) An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consideration of all the following

17.L

7 Appendix A
1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements. 2) Collision records.
3) Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. (c) When conducting an engineering and traffic survey, local authorities, in addition to the factors set forth in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b) may consider all of the following:
(1) Residential density, if any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district:
(A) Upon one side of the highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.
(B) Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.
(C) The portion of highway is longer than one-quarter of a mile but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway described in either subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) 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. (This section was modified by Assembly Bill 43 to add the increased consideration for vulnerable pedestrian groups, and became effective on January 1, 2022.)
Business District
235. A “business district: is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent of more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b) upon both sided of which highway, collectively, for a distance of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the distance specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings in use for business to the length of the highway exists.

Residence District
515. A “residence district” is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sided of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling housed or business structures. A residence

17.L

8 Appendix A
district may be longer than one quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists.

Business and Residence District: Determination
240. In determining whether a highway is within a business or residence district, the following limitations shall apply and shall qualify the definitions Section 235 and 515:
a) No building shall be counted unless its entrance faces the highway and the front of the building is within 75 feet of the roadway.
b) Where a highway is physically divided into two or more roadways, only those buildings facing each roadway separately shall be counted for the purpose of determining whether the roadway is within a district.
c) All churches, apartments, hotels, multiple dwelling houses, clubs and public buildings, other than schools, shall be deemed to be business structures. d) A highway or portion of a highway shall not be deemed to be within a district regardless of the number of buildings upon the contiguous property if there is no right of access to the highway by vehicles from the contiguous property.

Maximum Speed Limit
22349. Except as provided in Section 22356, no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.

Basic Speed Law
22350. 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 surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

Speed Law Violations
22351. (a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law.
(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

17.L

9 Appendix A
Prima Facie Speed Limits
22352. The prima facie limits are as follows and the same shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:
(a) Fifteen miles per hour:
1) When traversing a railway grade crossing, if during the last 100 feet of the approach to the crossing the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the crossing and of any traffic on the railway for a distance of 400 feet in both directions along such railway. This subdivision does not apply in the case of any railway grade crossing where a human flagman is on duty or a clearly visible electrical mechanical railway crossing signal device is installed but does not then indicate the immediate approach of a railway train or car.
2) When traversing any intersection of highways if during the last 100 feet of his approach to the intersection the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the intersection and of any traffic upon all of the highways entering the intersection for a distance of 100 feet along all such highways, except at an intersection protected by stop signs or yield right-of-way signs or controlled by official traffic control signals.
3) On any alley.
(b) Twenty-five miles per hour:
1) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or residence district unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code.
2) When passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period.

Such prima facie limit shall also apply when passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign.
3) When passing a senior center or facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard “SENIOR” warning sign.

Boundary Line Streets
22359. With respect to boundary line streets and highways where portions thereof are within different jurisdictions, no ordinance adopted under Sections 22357 and 22358 shall be effective as to any such portion until all authorities having jurisdiction of the portions of the street concerned

17.L

10 Appendix A
have approved the same. This section shall not apply in the case of boundary line streets consisting of separate roadways within different jurisdictions.

Multiple-Lane Highways
22361. On multiple-lane highways with two or more separate roadways, different prima facie speed limits may be established for different roadways under any of the procedures specified in Sections 22354 to 22359, inclusive.

Speed Trap Prohibition
40801. No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.

17.L

APPENDIX B
Speed Zoning Regulations from
Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices And Definitions of Terms
(Updated June 2021)

17.L

17.L

1 Appendix B
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(Regarding Speed Limits)
(Updated June 2021)
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.

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

17.L

2 Appendix B
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 10 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 free-flowing traffic.

Standard:
12aWhen 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, except as shown in the two Options below.

Option:

1. The posted speed may be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed, in compliance with CVC Sections 627 and 22358.5. See Standard below for documentation requirements.

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(f).

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.

Support:
12c The following examples are provided to explain the application of these speed limit criteria:

Example 1. Using Option 1 above and first step is to round down: If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 37 mph, then the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 37 mph speed. As indicated by the option, this 35 mph established speed limit could be reduced by 5 mph to 30 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&TS and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer.

Example 2. Using Option 1 above and first step is to round up: If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 33 mph, then the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 33 mph speed. As indicated by the option, this 35 mph speed limit could be reduced by 5 mph to 30 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&TS and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer.

Example 3. Using Option 2 above and first step is to round up: If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 33 mph, instead of rounding up to 35mph, the speed limit can be established at 30mph, but no further reductions can be applied (which is allowed in the two examples above).

Standard:
12d Examples 1 and 2 for establishing posted speed limits shall apply to engineering and traffic surveys (E&TS) performed on or after July 1, 2009 in accordance with the Department’s Traffic Operations Policy Directive Number 09-04 dated June 29, 2009.

Option:
12e After January 1, 2012, Example 3 may be used to establish speed limits. Refer to CVC 21400(f).

17.L

3 Appendix B
Support:
12f Any existing E&TS that was performed before July 1, 2009 in accordance with previous traffic control device standards is not required to comply with the new criteria until it is due for reevaluation per the 5, 7 or 10 year criteria.
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:

CVC Section 627 defines the term “Engineering and traffic survey” and lists its requirements.

Standard:

17.L

4 Appendix B
24 An engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consideration of all of the following:

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:
25 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. 26 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 mile 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:
27 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:
28 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 mile, 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 mile the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.

17.L

5 Appendix B

3. The portion of highway is larger than 0.25 mile but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway described in either subparagraph a or b.

B. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
29 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 Department of Transportation’s 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
• 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.
30 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.

Guidance:
31 The factors justifying a reduction below the 85th percentile speed for the posted speed limit are the same factors mentioned above. Whenever such factors are considered to establish the speed limit, they should be documented on the speed zone survey or the accompanying engineering report. 32 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.

17.L

6 Appendix B
Support:
33 Generally, the most decisive evidence of conditions not readily apparent to the driver surface in collision histories.
34 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. 35 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.

Option:
36 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:
37 Speed zones of less than 0.5 mile and short transition zones should be avoided.

Signs
Standard:
38 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. 39 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.
40 The ALL VEHICLES WHEN TOWING 55 MAXIMUM (R6-4(CA)) sign shall be installed approximately 750 feet following the R6-3(CA) sign.

Guidance:
41 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:
42 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. 43 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:
44 Refer to CVC Section 22406 for types of vehicles subject to the 55 mph maximum speed limit.

Option:
45 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.

17.L

Standard:
7 Appendix B
46 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.
47 The End Speed Limit (R3(CA)) sign shall only be used to mark the end of a speed zone. 48 The R3(CA) sign shall not be used at a transition into a change in speed limits within a reduced zone.

Option:
49 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:
50 Speed limit signs shall be placed at the beginning of all restricted speed zones.

Option:
51 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:
52 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.
53 Freeways with 65 mph and those segments where a speed limit of 70 mph has been approved by the Department of Transportation, 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.

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. 54 Freeway segments where a 55 mph speed limit has been approved by the Department of Transportation, 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.
55 Conventional highways with 55 mph speed limits should be posted as follows:

17.L

Standard:
8 Appendix B
• 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:
56 Pavement markings with appropriate numerals (see Section 3B.21) may be used to supplement speed limit signs.

Standard:
57 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:
58 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:
59 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:
60 The 25 mile interval may be modified to include locations following entrance ramps.

Standard:
61 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. 62 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. 63 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:
64 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:
65 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:
66 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:
67 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.

17.L

9 Appendix B
Guidance:
68 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:
69 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:
70 The R48-2(CA) sign shall be used for both directions of travel.

Guidance:
71 The R48-2(CA) sign should be placed at the beginning of the section and spaced at 25 mile intervals. See Figure 3B-105(CA).

Vehicle Speed Feedback Signs
Option:
72 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:
73 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:
74 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:
75 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.
76 In lieu of lights, legend may be retroreflective film for flip-disk systems. 77 The legend YOUR SPEED may be white on black plaque located above the changeable speed display.

Support:
78 Driver comprehension may improve when the Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign is mounted on the same support below the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign.
79 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:
80 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:
81 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:
82 Prima facie speed limits may be preempted by the basic speed law, when roadway, traffic or weather conditions warrant a lower speed.

17.L

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

Guidance:
84 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:
85 Refer to AASHTO’s Traffic Engineering Metric Conversion Factors. See Section 1A.11 for information regarding this publication.

Standard:
86 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:
87 Delegation of legal authority to set speed limits on State highways is given to Department of Transportation’s 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 the Department of Transportation retains the authority to approve variable, minimum, and maximum speeds up to 70 mph on State freeways.

Standard:
88 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:
89 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:
90 The following speed limits may apply:
• Whenever the Department of Transportation 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.
• The Department 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.

Minimum Speed Limits on State Highways - See CVC 22400
Option:
91 The following speed limits may apply:
• Whenever the Department of Transportation 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, the Department 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.

17.L

11 Appendix B
Speed Traps
Support:
92 Refer to CVC 40802 for Speed Traps.

Standard:
93 A speed trap shall not apply to a local street, road, or school zone. 94 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. 95 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.
96 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:
97 This time provision for an E&TS may be extended to ten 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:
98 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:
99 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.

Standard:
100 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.

Guidance:
101 Posted speeds should be on the low side of the scale, generally within the pace of loaded commercial vehicles.

Standard:
102 If warranted, the Department of Transportation’s District Director shall issue a standard speed zone order.

17.L

12 Appendix B
Support:
103 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:
104 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:
105 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:
106 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:
107 Changing the signal timing and adjusting the advance detector loops based on the revised speed limits can enhance the operations of the traffic signal.

17.L

13 Appendix B
Definitions of Selected Terms Used in the CA MUTCD
Text Headings
Standard—a statement of required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice regarding a traffic control device. All Standard statements are labeled, and the text appears in bold type. The verb “shall” is typically used. The verbs “should” and “may” are not used in Standard statements.

Standard statements are sometimes modified by Options.

Guidance—a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in non-bolded type. The verb “should” is typically used. The verbs “shall” and “may” are not used in Guidance statements.

Guidance statements are sometimes modified by Options.

Option—a statement of practice that is a permissive condition and carries no requirement or recommendation. Option statements sometime contain allowable modifications to a Standard or Guidance statement. All Option statements are labeled, and the text appears in non-bolded type.

The verb “may” is typically used. The verbs “shall” and “should” are not used in Option statements.

Support—an informational statement that does not convey any degree of mandate, recommendation, authorization, prohibition, or enforceable condition. Support statements are labeled, and the text appears in non-bolded type. The verbs “shall,” “should,” and “may” are not used in Support statements.

Words and Phrases
Speed—speed is defined based on the following classifications:
(a) Average Speed—the summation of the instantaneous or spot-measured speeds at a specific location of vehicles divided by the number of vehicles observed. (b) Design Speed—a selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of a roadway.
(c) 85th-Percentile Speed—the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motor vehicles travel.
(d) Operating Speed—a speed at which a typical vehicle or the overall traffic operates.

Operating speed might be defined with speed values such as the average, pace, or 85thpercentile speeds. (e) Pace—the 10 mph speed range representing the speeds of the largest percentage of vehicles in the traffic stream.

17.L

14 Appendix B
Speed Limit—the maximum (or minimum) speed applicable to a section of highway as established by law or regulation.

Posted Speed Limit—a speed limit determined by law or regulation and displayed on Speed Limit signs.

Speed Zone—a section of highway with a speed limit that is established by law or regulation, but which might be different from a legislatively specified statutory speed limit.

Statutory Speed Limit—a speed limit established by legislative action that typically is applicable for a particular class of highways with specified design, functional, jurisdictional and/or location characteristics and that is not necessarily displayed on Speed Limit signs.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT)—the average 24 hour volume, being the total volume during a stated period divided by the number of days in that period. Normally, this would be periodic daily traffic volumes over several days, not adjusted for days of the week or seasons of the year.

Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and, if used, signs. See Class II Bikeway.

Business District - A "business district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings in use for business to the length of the highway exists. Refer to CVC 235.

CVC – California Vehicle Code.

Class II Bikeway (such as a Bike Lane) – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Refer to California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. Refer to Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual Index 1003.2 for design criteria.

Divided Highway – A highway with separated roadbeds for traffic in opposing directions.

Engineer – a person registered under California Professional Engineers Act as a professional engineer, including any of the branches thereof. Refer to California Business and Professions Code Section 6706. 63b. Engineering and Traffic Survey – Refer to CVC 627.

Engineering Judgment—the evaluation of available pertinent information, and the application of appropriate principles, experience, education, discretion, provisions, and practices as contained in this Manual and other sources, for the purpose of deciding upon the applicability, design, operation, or installation of a traffic control device. Engineering judgment shall be

17.L

15 Appendix B
exercised by an engineer, or by an individual working under the supervision of an engineer, through the application of procedures and criteria established by the engineer. Documentation of engineering judgment is not required.

Engineering Study—the comprehensive analysis and evaluation of available pertinent information, and the application of appropriate principles, engineering judgment, experience, education, discretion, provisions, and practices as contained in this Manual and other sources, for the purpose of deciding upon the applicability, design, operation, or installation of a traffic control device. An engineering study shall be performed by an engineer, or by an individual working under the supervision of an engineer, through the application of procedures and criteria established by the engineer. An engineering study shall be documented.

Median—the area between two roadways of a divided highway measured from edge of traveled way to edge of traveled way. The median excludes turn lanes. The median width might be different between intersections, interchanges, and at opposite approaches of the same intersection.

Multi-Lane—more than one lane moving in the same direction. A multi-lane street, highway, or roadway has a basic cross-section comprised of two or more through lanes in one or both directions. A multi-lane approach has two or more lanes moving toward the intersection, including turning lanes.

Pedestrian—a person on foot, in a wheelchair, on skates, or on a skateboard. As per CVC 467, (a) A "pedestrian" is a person who is afoot or who is using any of the following: (1) A means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle. (2) An electric personal assistive mobility device. (b) "Pedestrian" includes a person who is operating a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian, as specified in subdivision(a).

Pedestrian Facilities—a general term denoting improvements and provisions made to accommodate or encourage walking.

Roadway—that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel and parking lanes, but exclusive of the sidewalk, berm, or shoulder even though such sidewalk, berm, or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles or other human-powered vehicles. In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term roadway as used in this Manual shall refer to any such roadway separately, but not to all such roadways collectively. Refer to CVC 527.

Shared-Use Path (Class I Bikeway) —a bikeway outside the traveled way and physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent alignment. Shared-use paths are also used by pedestrians (including skaters, users of manual and motorized wheelchairs, and joggers) and other authorized motorized and non-motorized users. Refer to the Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual Index 1003.1 for design criteria.

17.L

16 Appendix B
Shoulder – The portion of the highway contiguous with the roadway for accommodations of pedestrians, bicyclists, stopped vehicles, for emergency use, and for lateral support of base and surface courses.

Sidewalk—that portion of a street between the curb line, or the lateral line of a roadway, and the adjacent property line or on easements of private property that is paved or improved and intended for use by pedestrians. As per CVC 555, "Sidewalk" is that portion of a highway, other than the roadway, set apart by curbs, barriers, markings or other delineation for pedestrian travel.

Traffic Control Device—a sign, signal, marking, or other device used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street, highway, private road open to public travel (see definition of private road open to public travel), pedestrian facility, or shared-use path by authority of a public agency or official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of a private road open to public travel (see definition of private road open to public travel), by authority of the private owner or private official having jurisdiction.

17.L

APPENDIX C
Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Sheets
(Updated December 2021)

17.L

17.L

Location: 58th Street
Between: Scholar Way & Hamner Avenue
Survey Date: July 29, 2021
Segment No.: 1
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.60
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
1,522
2,586

0.49 Single Lane Each Direction
Collector
Speed Survey Data
40 mph
31-40 mph
35 mph

0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Sidewalk on north side only at Scholar Way.

Roadway Geometrics:
85th percentile speed, Option 2
(rounded to 40 mph, then reduced 5mph)
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Comments:

Ped/bike safety
Residential
No
35 mph
Recommendation
12/20/2021

17.L

17.L

Location: 65th Street
Between: Sumner Avenue & Hamner Avenue
Survey Date: July 22, 2021
Segment No.: 3
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group 85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 45 mph, then reduced 5mph due to ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Comments:
ped/bike safety
Residential
No

0.24, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Sidewalk located next to curb, so vehicular traffic is in close proximity to pedestrians and any bike traffic. Near Cedar Creek Park at Cedar Creek Rd. Rosa Parks Elementary School at Harrison Ave.

Roadway Geometrics:
40 mph
Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
3,755
5,300

1.00 2 Lanes Each Direction w/painted median
Secondary
Speed Survey Data
47 mph
39-48 mph
40 mph
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
1 12/21/2021

17.L

Location: 65th Street
Between: Hamner Avenue & Wells Spring Street/East City Limit Survey Date: July 22, 2021
Segment No.: 4
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.60
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
2,561
1,642

0.31 Single Lane Each Direction
Collector
Speed Survey Data
42 mph
30-39 mph
35 mph

0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Roadway Geometrics:
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 40 mph, then reduced 5 mph due to ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Comments:
ped/bike safety
Residential
No
35 mph
Recommendation
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: 68th Street Survey Date: February 10, 2021
Between: Sumner Avenue & Hamner Avenue Segment No.: 5
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.32
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
5,239
5,260

1.00 Single Lane Each Direction
Local
Speed Survey Data
49 mph
39-48 mph
45 mph

0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Sun for westbound direction is very bright in the evening. No bike lanes. Street parking near Harada Park.

Roadway Geometrics:
85th percentile speed, Option 2
(rounded up to 50 mph, then reduced another 5mph)
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Comments:

On-street parking, residential density, and ped/bike
safety
Residential
No
45 mph
Recommendation
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: 68th Street Survey Date: February 10, 2021
Between: Hamner Avenue & East City Limit Segment No.: 6 Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
8,469
2,650

0.50 2 Lanes Each Direction w/painted median
Major
Speed Survey Data
47 mph
39-48 mph
45 mph

0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Road transitions from 2 lanes each direction undivided at Hamner Avenue to 2 lanes undivided at City Limits.

Roadway Geometrics:
85th percentile speed
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Comments:
trucks present, residential density, and ped/bike safety Residential
No
45 mph
Recommendation
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Archibald Avenue Survey Date: February 17, 2021 Between: Bluff Street & Wind River/Grapewin Street Segment No.: 7 Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
3 0.14, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:
2 NB/SB from Bluff to Baron, 3 NB/SB from Baron or River/Kendra, 3SB & 2NB merge to 1NB River/Kendra to Corbin/Prado Basin, 3SB & 1- 2NB Corbin to Wind River
Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential
55 mph
No
85th percentile speed
Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
13,631
7,700

1.46 3SB, 2NB w/ Painted Median
Arterial
Speed Survey Data
57 mph
48-57 mph
55 mph
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Archibald Avenue
Between: Wind River/Grapewin Street & Schleisman Road
Survey Date: September 14, 2021
Segment No.: 8
Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.29
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
20,934
8,580

1.63 3NB/SB Lanes w/Raised Median
Arterial
Speed Survey Data
57 mph
48-57 mph
50 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
4 0.14, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential
50 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 55 mph, then reduced 5 mph due to trucks present and ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Archibald Avenue Survey Date: February 18, 2021 Between: Schleisman Road and Bellegrave/North City Limit Segment No.: 9 Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range: July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.98
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
22,487
6,010

1.14 3SB, 2NB w/Painted & Raised Median
Arterial
Speed Survey Data
55 mph
46-55 mph
50 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
4 0.14, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Speed limit sign n/o 65th St is in poor condition and not regulatory size. 3SB/3NB Lanes at Schleisman merge to 3SB/2NB Lanes at Branding Iron Dr to s/o 65th, 3SB/2NB Lane from n/o 65th to Providence Wy, 2SB/2NB Providence Wy to Limonite, 1SB/1NB from Limonite to NCL.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential / Commercial-Retail / Light Industrial
50 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(reduced by 5mph from 55mph down to 50 mph, due to trucks present and ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Baron Road Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Between: Archibald Avenue & Northernly Terminus Segment No.: 10 Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.60
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(reduced by 5mph from 40 mph down to 35 mph, due to on-street parking and residential density) Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
369
2,030

0.38 Single Lane Each Direction
Collector
Speed Survey Data
40 mph
27-36 mph
35 mph
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Cul-de-sac near River Road.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
on-street parking and residential density
Residential / Public Facilities / Conservation
35 mph
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Bellegrave Avenue Survey Date: February 17, 2021 Between: Sumner Avenue & Hamner Avenue Segment No.: 11
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.78
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
10,629
5,650

1.07 Single Lane Each Direction w/ Painted Median
Major
Speed Survey Data
53 mph
45-54 mph
50 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
2 0.16, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

No bike lanes. No sidewalk on north side. Construction cones along segment from w/o Mill Creek Rd to Hamner Ave on WB direction only.

Houses being built NW of Hamner Ave.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present
Residential / Undeveloped Property
50 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 2
(rounded up to 55 mph, then reduced another 5mph)
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Bellegrave Avenue Survey Date: February 17, 2021 Between: Hamner Avenue & East City Limit Segment No.: 12 Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
10,308
2,575

0.49 2 Lanes Each Direction w/painted median
Major
Speed Survey Data
48 mph
39-48 mph
50 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

No bike lanes. 2EB/2WB w/o Homecoming, 1EB/1WB from Homecoming to City Limit.

Roadway Geometrics:

Vertical Curve at I-15.

Comments:
trucks present
High Density Residential / Commercial
50 mph
No
85th percentile speed
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Blossom Way
Between: Harrison Avenue & Sumner Avenue
Survey Date: July 29, 2021
Segment No.: 13
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.60
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
2,497
2,650

0.50 Single Lane Each Direction
Local
Speed Survey Data
37 mph
27-36 mph
30 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

No bike lanes. 1EB/1WB lanes.

Roadway Geometrics:

Vertical Curve at I-15.

Comments:
ped/bike safety
High Density Residential / Commercial
30 mph
No
CVC Section 22358.8, which allows retaining the existing speed limit under certain conditions, which are met. New section created by AB 43, effective 1/1/2022. 85th percentile speed limit considered too high due to ped/bike safety
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Chandler Street
Between: Hellman Avenue to Harrison Avenue
Survey Date: July 22, 2021
Segment No.: 14
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.91
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
6,828
8,075

1.53 2 Lanes Each Direction w/Raised & Painted Median
Arterial / Collector
Speed Survey Data
52 mph
41-50 mph
45 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
1 0.16, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Painted Median from Archibald to Harrison. Raised Median from Hellman to Archibald.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential / Commercial Retail
45 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 50 mph, then reduced 5 mph due to trucks and ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Citrus Street Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Between: Harrison Avenue to Hamner Avenue Segment No.: 15 Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
5 0.39, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Single Lane Each Direction between Harrison and Sumner and between Scholar and Hamner. 2WB/1EB e/o Sumner to w/o Scholar.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential
45 mph
No
85th percentile speed
Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
7,787
7,885

1.49 2 Lanes Each Direction w/painted Median
Collector
Speed Survey Data
47 mph
41-50 mph
45 mph
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Fieldmaster Street Survey Date: February 17, 2021 Between: Hall Road and Archibald Avenue Segment No.: 16 Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.32
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group No
85th percentile speed, Option 2
(rounded up to 45 mph, then reduced another 5mph)
Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
1,616
5,215

0.99 Single Lane Each Direction
Local
Speed Survey Data
43 mph
35-44 mph
40 mph
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Established shoulders, but no bike lanes. Adjacent Halfmoon Park at Cherry Creek Circle.

Roadway Geometrics:

Horizontal Curves.

Comments:
on-street parking and ped/bike safety
Residential
40 mph
12/20/2021

17.L

17.L

Location: Hamner Avenue Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Between: South City Limit & Schleisman Road Segment No.: 18 Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.98
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Yes, 10 mph increase
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 50 mph, then reduced another 5mph due to trucks present, vertical curve and ped/bike safety) Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
18,287
3,295

0.62 3NB, 2-1SB w/Painted Median
Arterial
Speed Survey Data
52 mph
44-53 mph
50 mph
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
3 0.24, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Roadway Geometrics:

Road narrowing in the southbound direction south of Schleisman Road Comments:
trucks present, vertical curve and ped/bike safety
Residential / Commercial Retail / Recreation
45 mph
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Hamner Avenue Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Between: Schleisman Road & Limonite Avenue Segment No.: 19 Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.41
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 50 mph, then reduced another 5mph due to high collision rate, trucks present and ped/bike safety)
Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
18,890
5,275

1.00 3 Lanes Each Direction w/Raised & Painted Median
Arterial
Speed Survey Data
51 mph
42-51 mph
45 mph
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
6 0.29, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Bike Lanes. Painted Median from Riverboat to 65th. Raised Median between 65th Street and Limonite Avenue. Reduction of speed due to crash history.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
high collision rate, trucks present and ped/bike safety Residential / Commercial Retail
45 mph
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Hamner Avenue Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Between: Limonite Avenue & Bellegrave Avenue Segment No.: 20 Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.91
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
22,223
4,800

0.91 Single Lane Each Direction w/Raised Median
Arterial
Speed Survey Data
51 mph
42-51 mph
45 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
8 0.36, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:
bike lanes. No sidewalk on west side s/o 58th. 2SB/3NB from Limonite to n/o Eastvale Gateway, 1SB/1NB n/o Eastvale Gateway to n/o 58th, 2SB/3NB from n/o 58th to Bellegrave.

Roadway Geometrics:

Roadway width reductions.

Comments:
high driveway density, trucks present and ped/bike safety Residential / Commercial Retail
45 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 50 mph, then reduced another 5mph due to high driveway density, trucks present and ped/bike safety)
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

17.L

17.L

17.L

Location: Harrison Avenue Survey Date: February 18, 2021 Between: Chandler Street & Schleisman Road Segment No.: 24 Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
5,333
5,266

1.00 2 Lanes Each Direction w/Painted Median
Collector
Speed Survey Data
50 mph
42-51 mph
45 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

No bike lanes. Moderately heavy traffic midday.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
ped/bike safety
Residential
45 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(reduced by 5mph from 50 mph down to 45 mph, due to trucks present and ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Harrison Avenue
Between: Schleisman Road & Blossom Way
Survey Date: July 29, 2021
Segment No.: 25
Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 50 mph, then reduced 5 mph due to trucks and ped/bike safety) Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
8,461
7,080

1.34 2 Lanes Each Direction w/Painted Median
Collector
Speed Survey Data
47 mph
38-47 mph
45 mph
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

No bike lanes. Road ends 500 ft n/o Blossom. Rosa Parks Elementary, Ramirez Intermediate, Eastvale Community Center.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:

Trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential
45 mph
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Hellman Avenue Survey Date: February 18, 2021 Between: River Road & Chandler Street Segment No.: 26
Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.32
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
6,324
5,100

0.97 Single Lane Each Direction
Collector
Speed Survey Data
56 mph
47-56 mph
50 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 20210
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Roadway not fully improved without shoulders or curb and gutter. 1WB/1EB lanes. Roadway easily drives 60 mph.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present
Residential
50 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 55 mph, then reduced another 5mph due to trucks present) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Hellman Avenue Survey Date: February 18, 2021 Between: Chandler Street & Limonite Avenue Segment No.: 27 Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
10,594
8,120

1.54 2 Lanes Each Direction w/Painted Median
Collector
Speed Survey Data
55 mph
46-55 mph
50 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
3 0.27, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Mixed with residential improvements and lack of fully improved street sections. 1SB/1NB n/o Chandler to Outback. 1SB/2NB n/o Outback to Schleisman.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present
Residential
50 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(reduced by 5mph from 55 mph down to 50 mph, due to trucks present) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Hellman Avenue
Between: Limonite Avenue & North City Limit
Survey Date: April 21, 2021
Segment No.: 28
Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.91
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
7,317
1,070

0.20 2 Lanes Each Direction w/Raised Median
Collector
Speed Survey Data
42 mph
33-42 mph
N/A
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

No bike lanes, heavy truck traffic, industrial buildings on west side, industrial building and vacant land, under development, on east side.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:

Heavy truck traffic
Industrial
35 mph
Establishing Speed Limit
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(reduced by 5 mph from 40 mph down to 35 mph, due to heavy truck traffic and pedestrian/bicycle safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

17.L

17.L

Location: Mission Boulevard
Between: S Milliken Avenue & Ontario Freeway (I-15)
Survey Date: February 18, 2021
Segment No.: 31
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.86
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
January 1, 2018 - December 31, 2020
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

No bike lanes nor sidewalks. 55 mph EB sign east and 55mph WB sign west of City Limits. Currently posted as 60mph east of S Milliken.

Roadway Geometrics:

Horizontal Curve between S Milliken Ave and Cornerstone Drive.

Comments:
trucks present
Commercial
55 mph
Establishing Speed Limit
85th percentile speed, Option 2
(rounded up to 60 mph, then reduced another 5mph)
Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
19,234
2,620

0.50 2 Lanes Each Direction w/2 Lanes on vertical curve to Milliken Arterial
Speed Survey Data
59 mph
49-58 mph
N/A
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Orange Street
Between: Sumner Avenue & Scholar Way
Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Segment No.: 32
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.6
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
1,027
2,630

0.50 Single Lane Each Direction
Collector
Speed Survey Data
45 mph
36-45 mph
30 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Student/Pedestrian Activity. Eastvale Elementary to the north & River Heights Intermediate to the south. Reduction of speed due to crash history.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
high collision rate, on-street parking, and ped/bike safety Residential
30 mph
No
CVC Section 22358.8, which allows retaining the existing speed limit under certain conditions, which are met. New section added to CVC by SB 43, effective 1/1/2022. 85th percentile speed considered too high due to high collision rate, on-street parking, and ped/bike safety Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Prairie Smoke Road
Between: Hellman Avenue & Whitewall Road
Survey Date: February 18, 2021
Segment No.: 33
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.60
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
1,129
1,380

0.26 Single Lane Each Direction
Collector
Speed Survey Data
42 mph
31-40 mph
35 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Single Lane Each Direction from Hellman to Whitewall.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
residential density and ped/bike safety
Residential
35 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 40 mph, then reduced another 5mph due to residential density and ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: River Road
Between: Hellman Avenue & Archibald Avenue
Survey Date: September 14, 2021
Segment No.: 34
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.32
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
7,806
3,970

0.75 2 Lanes Each Direction w/Painted Median
Collector
Speed Survey Data
49 mph
41-50 mph
40 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
2 0.31, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Local business generate large vehicle traffic. Single Lane Each Direction from Hellman to Hall. 2 Lanes Each Direction from Hall to Archibald.

Agricultural land west of Hall.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential / Agricultural
40 mph
No
CVC Section 22358.8, which allows retaining the existing speed limit under certain conditions, which are met. Created by new AB 43, effective 1/1/2022. 85th percentile speed considered too high due to trucks present and ped/bike safety.

Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Riverboat Drive
Between: Massy Harris Way & Wells Springs Street
Survey Date: February 18, 2021
Segment No.: 35
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.32
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
735
3,500

0.66 Single Lane Each Direction
Collector
Speed Survey Data
44 mph
35-44 mph
40 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Pedestrians present. 1EB/1WB lane. Turnaround area w/o Massy Harris.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
on-street parking and ped/bike safety
Residential / Commercial
40 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 2
(rounded up to 45 mph, then reduced another 5mph)
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

17.L

Location: Schleisman Road
Between: Hellman Avenue & Archibald Avenue
Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Segment No.: 37
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.98
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
34,671
5,300

1.00 3 Lanes Each Direction w/Painted and Raised Medians Arterial
Speed Survey Data
57 mph
49-58 mph
50 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
15 0.13, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:
3 Lanes Each Direction between Hellman and e/o Aldergate Rd/Whitewell Rd. 3WB/2EB e/o Aldergate/Whitewell w/o Gypsum Creek, 2WB/2EB w/o Gypsum Creek and w/o Kenton Pl. 2WB/3EB w/o Kenton to Archibald.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential
50 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 55 mph, then reduced another 5mph due to trucks present and ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Schleisman Road
Between: Archibald Avenue & Sumner Avenue
Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Segment No.: 38
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
14,855
5,238

0.99 2 Lanes Each Direction w/Painted and Raised Medians Arterial
Speed Survey Data
49 mph
40-49 mph
45 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
2 0.12, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:
3EB/3WB between Archibald and Moonflower, 2EB/3WB between Moonflower and Harrison, 2EB/2WB between Harrison and Cedar Creek Rd, 1EB/2WB between Cedar Creek and Sumner.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential / Commercial Retail
45 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 2
(rounded up to 50 mph, then reduced another 5mph)
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Schleisman Road
Between: Sumner Avenue & Scholar Way
Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Segment No.: 39
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions: 0
Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.32
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021

0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Undeveloped land to the south
Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present
Residential / Undeveloped
45 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 2
(rounded up to 50 mph, then reduced another 5mph)
Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
7,737
2,650

0.50 Single Lane Each Direction w/Painted Median
Arterial
Speed Survey Data
48 mph
39-48 mph
45 mph
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Schleisman Road
Between: Scholar Way & Hamner Avenue
Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Segment No.: 40
Direction of Travel: East/West
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.91
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
7,682
3,040

0.58 2 Lanes Each Direction w/Painted Median
Arterial
Speed Survey Data
51 mph
42-51 mph
45 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Curved roadway, location of church. 2 Lane Each Direction between Scholar and Raymond. 1EB/2WB between Raymond and Hamner.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential / Commercial
45 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 50 mph, then reduced another 5mph due to trucks present and ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

17.L

Location: Scholar Way
Between: Schleisman Road & Limonite Avenue
Survey Date: July 29, 2021
Segment No.: 42
Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.91
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
4,721
5,250

0.99 Single Lane Each Direction w/Painted Median
Secondary
Speed Survey Data
43 mph
35-44 mph
35 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

No bike lanes. 2SB/1NB between Limonite to Peach Blossom. Heavy pedestrian/student/bicyclist activity. Harada Park & Harada Elementary School.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential
40 mph
Yes, 5 mph increase
85th percentile speed, Option 2
(rounded up to 45 mph, then reduced 5 mph)
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Scholar Way
Between: Limonite Avenue & Bellegrave Avenue
Survey Date: July 29, 2021
Segment No.: 43
Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.60
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed: 40 mph
Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
6,678
3,700

0.70 Single Lane Each Direction w/Painted Median
Secondary
Speed Survey Data
43 mph
34-43 mph
N/A

0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

No bike lanes. Sidewalk only on west side of roadway. Armadillos and delineators between 58th St and Bellegrave Ave. Empty lot to east and residential to the west between 58th St and Limonite Ave. Residential on both sides north of 58th St.

Roadway Geometrics:

Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:

Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Comments:

On-street parking, residential density, and ped/bike
safety
Residential
85th percentile speed, Option 2
(rounded up to 45 mph, then reduced 5 mph)
Establishing Speed Limit
Recommendation
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Sumner Avenue
Between: Citrus Street & 65th Street
Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Segment No.: 44
Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
4,028
5,935

1.12 2 Lanes Each Direction w/Painted Median
Major
Speed Survey Data
51 mph
43-52 mph
45 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
0 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

Bicycle Lanes, with bicyclists present. 1SB/2NB between Citrus and Cool Meadow, 2SB/2NB between Cool Meadow and Pheasant Knoll, 1SB/1NB Pheasant Knoll and Schleisman, 1SB/2NB between Schleisman and Starflower, 2SB/2NB between Starflower and 65th.

Roadway Geometrics:

Roadway narrow between Schleisman and Orange.

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential
45 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 50 mph, then reduced another 5mph due trucks present and ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Sumner Avenue
Between: 65th Street and Bellegrave Avenue
Survey Date: February 17, 2021
Segment No.: 45
Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions: 1
Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 0.93
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
7,857
5,422

1.03 2 Lanes Each Direction w/Painted Median
Major
Speed Survey Data
51 mph
41-50 mph
45 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021

0.11, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:
bike lanes, with pedestrians and bikes present. Orchard Park. Pedestrian/Bicyclist Activity.

Roadway Geometrics:

Comments:
trucks present and ped/bike safety
Residential / Commercial Retail
45 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(rounded down to 50 mph, then reduced another 5mph due trucks present and ped/bike safety) Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

Location: Whitewall Road
Between: Schleisman Road & Prairie Smoke Road
Survey Date: February 18, 2021
Segment No.: 46
Direction of Travel: North/South
Average Daily Traffic:

Length of Segment (feet):

Length of Segment (miles):

Lane Configuration:

Street Classification:
85th Percentile:
10 mph Pace:

Posted Speed Limit:

Date Range:

Total Collisions:

Collision Rate (Accidents/MVM):

Statewide Collision Rate: 1.60
Adjacent Land Use:

Recommended Speed:

Speed Limit Change:

Recommendation based on:
* Contract services provided by lnterwest Consulting Group Collision History
City of Eastvale
Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Traffic Data
2,056
1,542

0.29 Single Lane Each Direction
Local
Speed Survey Data
40 mph
29-38 mph
35 mph
Ruth Smith, TE, PTP TE 1650 Date
Recommendation
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2021
2 0.00, less than statewide collision rate
Conditions Not Readily Apparent
Conditions:

No bike lanes.

Roadway Geometrics:

Straight Alignment. Jog in the roadway near Prairie Smoke Road. Single Lane Each Direction w/ no centerline or edgelines. Residential Single Lane Collector.

Comments:
high collision rate, residential density, and ped/bike safety Residential
35 mph
No
85th percentile speed, Option 1
(reduced by 5mph from 40 mph down to 35 mph, due to high collision rate, residential density, and ped/bike safety)
Approved and Authorized for release by City Traffic Engineer•:
12/20/2021

17.L

APPENDIX D
Strip Maps
(Updated December 2021)

17.L

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):
58TH STREET

SCHOLAR WAY TO HAMNER AVE

0.49 mi

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
58TH STREET

UNDEVELOPED
NOT TO SCALE North SCHOLAR WAY JAMESTOWN AVENUE HAMNER AVENUE • 35 MPH

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):
65th Street
Archibald Avenue to Sumner Avenue
1 mi
North

ARCHIBALD AVENUE
65TH STREET
• 40 MPH

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

NOT TO SCALE

SUMNER AVENUE

HARRISON AVENUE
• 40 MPH
• 40 MPH
• 40 MPH

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

17.L

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):
65TH STREET

HAMNER AVENUE TO WELLS SPRING ST (NCL)

0.31 mi

RESIDENTIAL
65TH STREET

RESIDENTIAL
NOT TO SCALE North 35 MPH • HAMNER AVENUE WELLS SPRING ST • 35 MPH

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
68TH STREET
NOT TO SCALE North SUMNER AVENUE SCHOLAR WAY HAMNER AVENUE 68TH STREET

SUMNER AVENUE TO HAMNER AVENUE
1 mi

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
• 45 MPH
45 MPH •
• 45 MPH
45 MPH •

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):
68TH STREET

0.5 mi

RESIDENTIAL
68TH STREET

RESIDENTIAL
NOT TO SCALE North HAMNER AVENUE WELLS SPRING ST I-15 INTERSTATE HWY

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

CITY LIMITS
45 MPH •

WELLS SPRING STREET
(ECL)

HAMNER AVENUE TO WELLS SPRING STREET (ECL)

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

ARCHIBALD AVENUE

BLUFF STREET TO WIND RIVER/GRAPEWIN STREET

1.46 mi
NOT TO SCALE North

RIVER STREET

ARCHIBALD
AVENUE

RIVER RD
WIND
BARON
ROAD
BLUFF

GRAPEWIN
STREET
55 MPH •
KENDAL
ROAD
RIVER
ROAD
55 MPH •
• 55 MPH
STREET

CITY LIMITS

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

UNDEVELOPED

UNDEVELOPED

UNDEVELOPED

UNDEVELOPED

RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

ARCHIBALD AVENUE

1.63 mi
NOT TO SCALE North SCHLEISMAN ROAD WIND RIVER RD

GRAPEWIN
STREET

CHANDLER STREET

FIELDMASTER
STREET

SMITH RIVER
ROAD
SLATE

CREEK EASTVALE
PKWY
AVENUE
ROAD
• 50 MPH

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
50 MPH •
• 50 MPH• 50 MPH• 50 MPH

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
50 MPH •
• 50 MPH

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

ARCHIBALD AVENUE

SCHLEISMAN RD TO BELLEGRAVE AVE (NCL)

1.14 mi
NOT TO SCALE North INDUSTRIAL

ARCHI BALD SCHLEISMAN ROAD
AVENUE 65TH STREET LIMONITE AVENUE BELLEGRAVE AVENUE

CITY LIMIT
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL • 50 MPH • 50 MPH • 50 MPH WHISPERING HILLS DR • 50 MPH 50 MPH • 50 MPH • 50 MPH •

RESIDENTIAL

17.L

17.L

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

BELLEGRAVE AVENUE

HAMNER AVENUE TO EAST CITY LIMIT

0.49 mi
NOT TO SCALE North

HAMNER AVENUE

COMMERCIAL
I-15
50 MPH •

CITY LIMIT BELLEGRAVE AVENUE

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL INTERSTATE HWY

CITY LIMIT

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

BLOSSOM WAY

HARRISON AVENUE TO SUMNER AVENUE

0.5 mi

BLOSSOM WAY
NOT TO SCALE North HARRISON AVENUE CEDAR CREEK ROAD SUMNER AVENUE 30 MPH • • 30 MPH

REDSIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 30 MPH • PINE GROVE PL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

RESIDENTIAL

CHANDLER STREET
NOT TO SCALE North HELLMAN AVENUE ARCHIBALD AVENUE HARRISON AVENUE

CHANDLER STREET

HELLMAN AVENUE TO HARRISON AVENUE

1.53 mi
RESIDENTIAL • 45 MPH

SELBY AVENUE

SHOREHAM
STREET
• 45 MPH
• 45 MPH

CITY LIMIT

UNDEVELOPED

UNDEVELOPED

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
45 MPH •45 MPH •45 MPH •45 MPH •

RESIDENTIAL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

CITRUS STREET
NOT TO SCALE North HARRISON AVENUE SUMNER AVENUE HAMNER AVENUE

CITRUS STREET

HARRISON AVENUE TO HAMNER AVENUE

1.49 mi
• 45 MPH

SCHOLAR WAY
• 25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE)
• 25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE)
25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE) •
45 MPH •
• 45 MPH

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
HIGH
SCHOOL
PARK

RESIDENTIAL
45 MPH •

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

NOT TO SCALE North

FIELDMASTER STREET

HALL ROAD TO ARCHIBALD AVENUE

0.99 mi

RESIDENTIAL

FIELDMASTER
STREET
40 MPH •
• 25 MPH
• 40 MPH
• 40 MPH
25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE) •
(SCHOOL ZONE)
CR
E
E
K
RD
C
H
E
R
R
Y
MEADOW
BROOK

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL
PARK

HALL RD

ARCHIBALD AVE

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

GOODMAN WAY

CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH ROAD TO HAMNER AVENUE

0.68 mi
North

GOODMAN WAY

RESIDENTIAL

NOT TO SCALE

HAMNER AVENUE

COMMERCIAL/

INDUSTRIAL

CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH ROAD

COMMERCIAL/

INDUSTRIAL
• 35 MPH
35 MPH•
35 MPH•
• 35 MPH

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

NorthRIVERBOAT ROAD

HAMNER AVENUE

HAMNER AVENUE

0.62 mi CITRUS STREET

NOT TO SCALE

CITY LIMITS

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL
45 MPH •
• 35 MPH
• 35 MPH

FAIR GROUNDS

PARK RESIDENTIAL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

RIVERBOAT ROAD

HAMNER AVENUE

HAMNER AVENUE
1 mi

LIMONITE AVENUE

NOT TO SCALE
68TH STREET

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

OAKDALE STREET
• 45 MPH
• 45 MPH• 45 MPH• 45 MPH

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 65TH STREET 45 MPH • 45 MPH • 45 MPH •

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL
• 35 MPH

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

RESIDENTIAL
North
HAMNER

HAMNER AVENUE

0.91 mi

LIMONITE AVENUE

NOT TO SCALE
58TH STREET
• 45 MPH

SWAN LAKE

BELLEGRAVE AVENUE

CITY LIMIT

UNDEVELOPED
• 45 MPH
AVENUE
45 MPH •

COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name: Hamner Avenue
Street Segment: Bellegrave Avenue to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Segment Length (MI): 0.83 mi
NorthCANTU-GALLEANO RANCH ROAD

BELLEGRAVE AVENUE

HAMNER AVENUE
• 50 MPH

CITY OF ONTARIO

CITY OF EASTVALE

ONTARIO RANCH ROAD

NOT TO SCALE

COMMERCIAL &

INDUSTRIAL

AGRICULTURE
• 50 MPH

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

HAMNER AVENUE

CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH ROAD TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE

1.23 mi
North NOT TO SCALE

HAMNER AVENUE

CANTU-GALLEANO RANCH ROAD

RIVERSIDE DRIVE

INDUSTRIAL

INDUSTRIAL

CITY OF ONTARIO

CITY OF EASTVALE
• 50 MPH
• 50 MPH
VACANT
LAND

UNDEVELOPED

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

Hamner Avenue
Riverside Drive to Philadelphia Street

0.99 mi
North NOT TO SCALE

HAMNER AVENUE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
SR 60 FREWAY

MISSION BLVD

UNDEVELOPED INDUSTRIAL

COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL

CITY OF ONTARIO

CITY OF EASTVALE
• 50 MPH
• 50 MPH

UNDEVELOPED

UNDEVELOPED INDUSTRIAL

PHILADELPHIA AVENUE

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI): CHANDLER STREET
North

HARRISON AVENUE

HARRISON AVENUE

CHANDLER STREET TO SCHLEISMAN ROAD
1 mi
• 45 MPH

RESIDENTIAL

SCHLEISMAN ROAD
CITRUS STREET • 45 MPH

NOT TO SCALE
45 MPH •

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
45 MPH •

17.L

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

HELLMAN AVENUE

RIVER ROAD TO

0.97 mi

CONSERVATION
AREA

NOT TO SCALE

HELLMAN AVENUE CITY LIMITS

RIVER ROAD

CHANDLER STREET

UNDEVELOPED

RESIDENTIAL

AGRICULTURE
• 30 MPH
(W1-1) 50 MPH •

UNDEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED
CHANDLER STREET Page 792 of 1236

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

HELLMAN AVENUE

NOT TO SCALE

HELLMAN AVENUE CITY LIMIT

CHANDLER STREET

SCHLEISMAN ROAD
UNDEVELOPED 25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE) • 50 MPH •
SCHOOL

WALTERS STREET ALDERGATE
ROAD

MARKETSTREET

PINE AVENUE PRAIRIE SMOKE ROAD LANDERWOOD DRIVE BICKMORE AVENUE

1.54 mi

CHANDLER STREET TO LIMONITE AVENUE
AVENUE

LIMONITE AVE

PARK INDUSTRIAL
ks
STREET
50 MPH •
VELO25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE) •

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

UNDEVELOPED

RESIDENTIAL

INDUSTRIAL CHINO CORONA ROAD KIMBALL AVENUE

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North NOT TO SCALE

HELLMAN AVENUE

LIMONITE AVENUE TO NORTH CITY LIMIT

0.20 mi

HELLMAN AVENUE CHANDLER STREET INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL LIMONITE AVE

INDUSTRIAL SUMMIT DR

INDUSTRIAL HELLMAN AVENU CITY LIMIT ENTERPRISE WAY (PRIVATE)

1.54 mi KIMBALL AVENUE

CITY LIMIT INDUSTRIAL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name: Limonite Avenue
Street Segment: Archibald Avenue to Sumner Avenue
Segment Length (MI): 1 mi
North

LIMONITE AVENUE

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

ONTARIO RANCH ROAD

NOT TO SCALE

SUMNER AVENUE

HARRISON AVENUE
• 50 MPH
• 50 MPH
• 50 MPH

UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

ARCHIBALD AVENUE

UNDEVELOPED

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name: Limonite Avenue
Street Segment: Sumner Avenue to East City Limit
Segment Length (MI): 1.53 mi
North NOT TO SCALE

AGRICULTURE

SCHOLAR WAY

HAMNER AVENUE
• 45 MPH

LIMONITE
AVENUE

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

SUMNER AVENUE
• 45 MPH
I-15 FWY

COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL
• 45 MPH
• 45 MPH
• 45 MPH

UNDEVELOPED

AGRICULTURE
RETAIL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

MISSION BLVD
S MILLIKEN AVENUE TO ONTARIO FREEWAY (I-15)

0.5 mi

NOT TO SCALE

MISSION
S. MILLILKEN AVENUE
BLVD

MANUFACTURING

INDUSTRIAL
North
CITY LIMITS (I-15)

COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL 60 MPH •

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

ORANGE STREET

SUMNER AVENUE TO SCHOLAR WAY

0.5 mi

NOT TO SCALE
SCHOOL

ORANGE STREET
30 MPH •

SUMNER AVENUE
• 30 MPH

SCHOLAR WAY
25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE) •
• 25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE)

AGRICULTURE RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE

RESIDENTIAL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

PRAIRIE SMOKE ROAD

HELLMAN AVENUE TO WHITEWELL ROAD

0.26 mi

NOT TO SCALE

RESIDENTIAL

PRAIRIE SMOKE ROAD

HELLMAN AVENUE

WHITEWELL ROAD
35 MPH •
• 35 MPH

RESIDENTIAL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

RIVER ROAD

HELLMAN AVENUE TO ARCHIBALD AVENUE

0.75 mi

NOT TO SCALE

ARCHIBALD AVENUE

RESIDENTIAL

CITY LIMITS HELLMAN AVENUE

RIVER ROAD

HALL ROAD

AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE
40 MPH •

RESIDENTIAL

17.L

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name: Riverside Drive
Street Segment: Hamner Avenue to East City Limit
Segment Length (MI): 0.44 mi
North NOT TO SCALE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE

HAMNER AVENUE

INDUSTRIAL
I-15 FWY
• 50 MPH

MILLIKEN AVENUE

INDUSTRIAL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

SCHLEISMAN ROAD

HELLMAN AVENUE TO ARCHIBALD AVENUE
1 mi

NOT TO SCALE

SCHLEISMAN ROAD

HELLMAN AVENUE

ARCHI BALD AVENUE

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
• 50 MPH

CITY LIMIT
50 MPH •
50 MPH •

COMMERCIAL

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

SCHLEISMAN ROAD

ARCHIBALD AVENUE TO SUMNER AVENUE

0.99 mi

NOT TO SCALE

SCHLEISMAN ROAD

ARCHIBALD
SUMNER

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
• 45 MPH

HARRISON
AVENUE

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL

COMMUNITY
CENTER

AVENUEAVENUE
• 45 MPH
• 45 MPH
25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE) •
45 MPH •45 MPH •45 MPH •45 MPH •

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

SCHLEISMAN ROAD

SUMNER AVENUE TO SCHOLAR WAY

0.5 mi

NOT TO SCALE

SCHLEISMAN ROAD
SUMNER

SCHOLAR

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

UNDEVELOPED
AVENUE
WAY
UNDEVELOPED 45 MPH •

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

SCHLEISMAN ROAD

SCHOLAR WAY TO HAMNER AVENUE

0.58 mi

NOT TO SCALE

SCHLEISMAN

HAMMNER

SCHOLAR

RESIDENTIAL
AVENUE
WAY
ROAD

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL
45 MPH •

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name: Scholar Way
Street Segment: Citrus Street to Schleisman Road
Segment Length (MI): 0.63 mi
North NOT TO SCALE

SCHOLAR WAY

CITRUS STREET

SCHLEISMAN ROAD

RESIDENTIAL
PUBLIC SCHOOLS & LIBRARY• 35 MPH

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

SCHOLAR WAY

SCHLEISMAN ROAD TO LIMONITE AVENUE

0.99 mi

NOT TO SCALE

SCHOLAR

SCHLEISMAN ROAD

LIMONITE AVE
WAY
• 25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE)

RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL
PUBLIC
PARK

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
North
25 MPH(SCHOOL ZONE) •
35 MPH •
35 MPH •
• 35 MPH• 35 MPH
35 MPH •

17.L

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

SUMNER AVENUE
CITRUS STREET TO 65th STREET

1.12 mi

NOT TO SCALE
SUMNER

CITRUS STREET
65th STREET
AVENUE

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

SCHLEISMAN ROAD
• 45 MPH• 45 MPH

RESIDENTIAL
• 45 MPH
45 MPH •
45 MPH •

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

SUMNER AVENUE
65th STREET TO BELLEGRAVE AVENUE

1.03 mi

NOT TO SCALE
SUMNER
65TH STREET
AVENUE 45 MPH •

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

LIMONITE AVENUE

RESIDENTIAL
• 45 MPH

ORCHARD
PARK

SHOPPING
CENTER
• 45 MPH

BELLEGRAVE AVENUE

CITY LIMIT

17.L

CITY OF EASTVALE
Department of Public Works

STRIP MAP
Street Name:

Street Segment:

Segment Length (MI):

North

WHITEWELL ROAD

SCHLEISMAN ROAD TO PRAIRIE SMOKE ROAD

0.29 mi

NOT TO SCALE

WHITEWELL

SCHLEISMAN ROAD
ROAD

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
• 35 MPH

PRAIRIE

SMOKE RD

17.L

APPENDIX E
Speed Survey Data Sheets
(Updated December 2021)

17.L

17.L

MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed EB WB VEH. Location: 58th Street
55 0 0 55 054 0 0 54 053 0 0 53 0 Between: Scholar Way - Hamner Avenue52 0 0 52 051 0 0 51 050 0 0 50 0 Weather: Clear49 0 0 49 048 0 0 48 047 0 0 47 0 Date:46 0 3 46 X X X 345 0 0 45 044 0 2 44 X X 2 Time43 2 1 43 X X X 3 From: 11:0042 2 2 42 X X X X 441 2 1 41 X X X 3 Time40 2 4 40 X X X X X X 6 * To: 12:0539 2 3 39 X X X X X 5 * 38 7 5 38 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 * Existing
37 7 3 37 X X X X X X X X X X 10 P Speed Limit: 25 MPH
36 7 4 36 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 A
35 4 2 35 X X X X X X 6 C34 4 4 34 X X X X X X X X 8 E33 1 1 33 X X 2 * 32 2 6 32 X X X X X X X X 8 *31 0 4 31 X X X X 4 * Eastbound Westbound Combined Statistics 30 1 1 30 X X 2 % Over Pace: 0% 18% 15%29 3 1 29 X X X X 428 3 1 28 X X X X 4 % In Pace: 78% 72% 72%27 1 2 27 X X X 326 0 0 26 0 % Under Pace: 22% 10% 13%25 0 0 25 024 0 0 24 0 Average Speed: 36 MPH 36 MPH 36 MPH23 0 0 23 022 0 0 22 0 Pace Speed: 34 - 43 MPH 31 - 40 MPH 31 - 40 MPH21 0 0 21 020 0 0 20 019 0 0 19 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 30 MPH 31 MPH 31 MPH18 0 0 18 017 0 0 17 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 36 MPH 36 MPH 36 MPH16 0 0 16 015 0 0 15 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 40 MPH 42 MPH 40 MPH14 0 0 14 013 0 0 13 012 0 0 12 011 0 0 11 010 0 0 10 0 9 0 0 9 08 0 0 8 07 0 0 7 06 0 0 6 05 0 0 5 0
Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Eastbound Westbound
City of Eastvale
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
7/29/21

17.L

MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed EB WB VEH. Location: 65th Street
65 0 0 65 064 0 0 64 063 0 0 63 0 Between: Archibald Avenue - Sumner Avenue62 0 0 62 061 0 0 61 060 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear59 0 0 59 058 0 0 58 057 0 0 57 0 Date:56 0 0 56 055 0 0 55 054 1 0 54 X 1 Time53 1 0 53 X 1 From: 9:2552 0 0 52 051 1 0 51 X 1 Time50 1 0 50 X 1 To: 9:4549 0 0 49 048 0 0 48 0 Existing47 1 1 47 X X 2 Speed Limit: 40 MPH 46 5 3 46 X X X X X X X X 8 *45 2 2 45 X X X X 4 *44 5 1 44 X X X X X X 6 *43 5 5 43 X X X X X X X X X X 10 P 42 4 7 42 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 A41 8 3 41 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 C Eastbound Statistics Westbound Statistics Combined Statistics 40 3 5 40 X X X X X X X X 8 E % Over Pace: 2% 8% 6%39 3 5 39 X X X X X X X X 8 * 38 3 7 38 X X X X X X X X X X 10 * % In Pace: 86% 78% 82% 37 1 5 37 X X X X X X 6 *
36 1 1 36 X X 2 % Under Pace: 12% 14% 12%
35 1 1 35 X X 234 2 2 34 X X X X 4 Average Speed: 40 MPH 42 MPH 41 MPH33 0 0 33 032 1 0 32 X 1 Pace Speed: 37 - 46 MPH 38 - 47 MPH 37 - 46 MPH31 1 1 31 X X 230 0 1 30 X 129 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 37 MPH 36 MPH 36 MPH28 0 0 28 027 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 41 MPH 39 MPH 40 MPH26 0 0 26 025 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 45 MPH 42 MPH 44 MPH24 0 0 24 023 0 0 23 022 0 0 22 021 0 0 21 020 0 0 20 019 0 0 19 018 0 0 18 017 0 0 17 016 0 0 16 015 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 Eastvale
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
6/5/18

17.L

MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed EB WB VEH. Location: 65th Street
65 0 0 65 064 0 0 64 063 0 0 63 0 Between: Sumner Avenue - Hamner Avenue62 0 0 62 061 0 0 61 060 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear59 0 0 59 058 0 0 58 057 0 0 57 0 Date:56 0 0 56 055 0 0 55 054 0 0 54 0 Time53 0 0 53 0 From: 1:0052 1 0 52 X 151 1 1 51 X X 2 Time50 2 0 50 X X 2 To: 1:3049 1 2 49 X X X 348 4 2 48 X X X X X X 6 * Existing47 5 5 47 X X X X X X X X X X 10 * Speed Limit: 40 MPH 46 6 0 46 X X X X X X 6 *45 2 4 45 X X X X X X 6 P
44 4 3 44 X X X X X X X 7 A43 3 5 43 X X X X X X X X 8 C42 4 5 42 X X X X X X X X X 9 E41 2 7 41 X X X X X X X X X 9 * Eastbound Westbound Combined Statistics 40 5 4 40 X X X X X X X X X 9 * % Over Pace: 10% 2% 8%39 4 2 39 X X X X X X 6 * 38 1 1 38 X X 2 % In Pace: 78% 74% 76%
37 3 4 37 X X X X X X X 736 1 1 36 X X 2 % Under Pace: 12% 24% 16%35 0 2 35 X X 234 0 1 34 X 1 Average Speed: 43 MPH 42 MPH 43 MPH33 1 1 33 X X 232 0 0 32 0 Pace Speed: 39 - 48 MPH 40 - 49 MPH 39 - 48 MPH31 0 0 31 030 0 0 30 029 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 39 MPH 37 MPH 38 MPH28 0 0 28 027 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 44 MPH 42 MPH 43 MPH26 0 0 26 025 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 48 MPH 47 MPH 47 MPH24 0 0 24 023 0 0 23 022 0 0 22 021 0 0 21 020 0 0 20 019 0 0 19 018 0 0 18 017 0 0 17 016 0 0 16 015 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 Eastvale
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
7/22/21

17.L

MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed EB WB VEH. Location: 65th Street
65 0 0 65 064 0 0 64 063 0 0 63 0 Between: Hamner Avenue - East City Limits62 0 0 62 061 0 0 61 060 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear59 0 0 59 058 0 0 58 057 0 0 57 0 Date:56 0 0 56 055 0 0 55 054 0 0 54 0 Time53 0 0 53 0 From: 12:4552 0 0 52 051 0 0 51 0 Time50 0 0 50 0 To: 1:3549 0 1 49 X 148 1 2 48 X X X 3 Existing47 2 1 47 X X X 3 Speed Limit: 35 MPH 46 3 2 46 X X X X X 5
45 1 4 45 X X X X X 544 0 1 44 X 143 3 3 43 X X X X X X 642 0 2 42 X X 241 4 2 41 X X X X X X 6 * Eastbound Westbound Combined Statistics40 3 2 40 X X X X X 5 * % Over Pace: 20% 32% 26%39 5 2 39 X X X X X X X 7 * 38 1 3 38 X X X X 4 P % In Pace: 70% 64% 67%
37 5 5 37 X X X X X X X X X X 10 A
36 2 2 36 X X X X 4 C % Under Pace: 10% 4% 7%
35 1 4 35 X X X X X 5 E
34 6 4 34 X X X X X X X X X X 10 * Average Speed: 38 MPH 39 MPH 38 MPH 33 3 4 33 X X X X X X X 7 *
32 5 4 32 X X X X X X X X X 9 * Pace Speed: 32 - 41 MPH 32 - 41 MPH 32 - 41 MPH 31 1 0 31 X 130 3 1 30 X X X X 429 1 1 29 X X 2 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 32 MPH 33 MPH 32 MPH28 0 0 28 027 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 37 MPH 37 MPH 37 MPH26 0 0 26 025 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 43 MPH 45 MPH 45 MPH24 0 0 24 023 0 0 23 022 0 0 22 021 0 0 21 020 0 0 20 019 0 0 19 018 0 0 18 017 0 0 17 016 0 0 16 015 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 Eastvale
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
2/11/21

17.L

MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed EB WB VEH. Location: 68th Street
65 0 0 65 064 0 0 64 063 0 0 63 0 Between: Sumner Avenue - Hamner Avenue62 0 0 62 061 0 0 61 060 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear59 0 0 59 058 0 0 58 057 0 0 57 0 Date:56 0 0 56 055 0 0 55 054 0 1 54 X 1 Time53 1 0 53 X 1 From: 11:2552 1 0 52 X 151 1 3 51 X X X X 4 Time50 4 1 50 X X X X X 5 To: 11:5049 1 2 49 X X X 348 1 3 48 X X X X 4 * Existing47 4 4 47 X X X X X X X X 8 * Speed Limit: 45 MPH 46 7 2 46 X X X X X X X X X 9 *45 4 3 45 X X X X X X X 7 P 44 4 3 44 X X X X X X X 7 A43 3 3 43 X X X X X X 6 C
42 5 6 42 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 E
41 5 4 41 X X X X X X X X X 9 * Eastbound Westbound Combined Statistics 40 2 4 40 X X X X X X 6 * % Over Pace: 18% 14% 15%39 2 3 39 X X X X X 5 * 38 3 1 38 X X X X 4 % In Pace: 78% 70% 72%
37 1 5 37 X X X X X X 636 0 2 36 X X 2 % Under Pace: 4% 16% 13%35 1 0 35 X 134 0 0 34 0 Average Speed: 44 MPH 43 MPH 44 MPH33 0 0 33 032 0 0 32 0 Pace Speed: 38 - 47 MPH 39 - 48 MPH 39 - 48 MPH31 0 0 31 030 0 0 30 029 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 40 MPH 38 MPH 39 MPH28 0 0 28 027 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 44 MPH 42 MPH 44 MPH26 0 0 26 025 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 49 MPH 48 MPH 49 MPH24 0 0 24 023 0 0 23 022 0 0 22 021 0 0 21 020 0 0 20 019 0 0 19 018 0 0 18 017 0 0 17 016 0 0 16 015 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 Eastvale
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
2/11/21

17.L

MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed EB WB VEH. Location: 68th Street
65 0 0 65 064 0 0 64 063 0 0 63 0 Between: Hamner Avenue - East City Limits62 0 0 62 061 0 0 61 060 0 0 60 0 Weather: Clear59 0 0 59 058 0 0 58 057 0 0 57 0 Date:56 0 0 56 055 0 0 55 054 0 0 54 0 Time53 0 1 53 X 1 From: 11:0052 1 0 52 X 151 1 0 51 X 1 Time50 0 1 50 X 1 To: 11:2049 2 2 49 X X X X 448 2 2 48 X X X X 4 * Existing47 5 1 47 X X X X X X 6 * Speed Limit: 45 MPH 46 3 5 46 X X X X X X X X 8 *45 7 3 45 X X X X X X X X X X 10 P 44 4 3 44 X X X X X X X 7 A43 6 4 43 X X X X X X X X X X 10 C 42 4 4 42 X X X X X X X X 8 E
41 5 3 41 X X X X X X X X 8 * Eastbound Westbound Combined Statistics 40 4 8 40 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 * % Over Pace: 4% 14% 8%39 2 3 39 X X X X X 5 * 38 1 2 38 X X X 3 % In Pace: 84% 78% 78%
37 2 4 37 X X X X X X 636 1 4 36 X X X X X 5 % Under Pace: 12% 8% 14%35 0 0 35 034 0 0 34 0 Average Speed: 44 MPH 42 MPH 43 MPH33 0 0 33 032 0 0 32 0 Pace Speed: 40 - 49 MPH 37 - 46 MPH 39 - 48 MPH31 0 0 31 030 0 0 30 029 0 0 29 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 40 MPH 37 MPH 39 MPH28 0 0 28 027 0 0 27 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 43 MPH 42 MPH 43 MPH26 0 0 26 025 0 0 25 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 47 MPH 46 MPH 47 MPH24 0 0 24 023 0 0 23 022 0 0 22 021 0 0 21 020 0 0 20 019 0 0 19 018 0 0 18 017 0 0 17 016 0 0 16 015 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 Eastvale
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
2/11/21

17.L

MPH Vehicles Surveyed TOT.

Speed NB SB VEH. Location: Archibald Avenue
75 0 0 75 074 0 0 74 073 0 0 73 0 Between: Bluff Street - Wind River Road / Grapewin Street72 0 0 72 071 0 0 71 070 0 0 70 0 Weather: Clear69 0 0 69 068 0 0 68 067 0 0 67 0 Date:66 0 0 66 065 0 0 65 064 0 0 64 0 Time63 0 1 63 X 1 From: 10:0062 0 1 62 X 161 0 0 61 0 Time60 0 3 60 X X X 3 To: 10:2559 1 2 59 X X X 358 1 1 58 X X 2 Existing57 9 4 57 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 * Speed Limit: 55 MPH 56 6 2 56 X X X X X X X X 8 *55 5 2 55 X X X X X X X 7 *54 3 5 54 X X X X X X X X 8 P 53 1 6 53 X X X X X X X 7 A52 6 5 52 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 C 51 2 1 51 X X X 3 E Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics 50 4 4 50 X X X X X X X X 8 * % Over Pace: 4% 16% 10%49 1 3 49 X X X X 4 * 48 6 4 48 X X X X X X X X X X 10 * % In Pace: 86% 72% 79% 47 2 2 47 X X X X 446 3 3 46 X X X X X X 6 % Under Pace: 10% 12% 11%45 0 1 45 X 144 0 0 44 0 Average Speed: 53 MPH 53 MPH 53 MPH43 0 0 43 042 0 0 42 0 Pace Speed: 48 - 57 MPH 48 - 57 MPH 48 - 57 MPH41 0 0 41 040 0 0 40 039 0 0 39 0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 48 MPH 48 MPH 48 MPH38 0 0 38 037 0 0 37 0 50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 53 MPH 53 MPH 53 MPH36 0 0 36 035 0 0 35 0 85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 57 MPH 58 MPH 57 MPH34 0 0 34 033 0 0 33 032 0 0 32 031 0 0 31 030 0 0 30 029 0 0 29 028 0 0 28 027 0 0 27 026 0 0 26 025 0 0 25 0 Total 50 50 GRAND TOTALS 100
Corona, CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
Northbound Southbound
City of Eastvale
Radar Speed Survey
Radar Survey Conducted By:

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
2/17/21