HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - NB-3 - Request for Speed Bumps on St. Clair St - 1/19/2016CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 19, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: IVB -3
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS ON SAINT CLAIR STREET
DATE: JANUARY 7, 2016
FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT - TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RAJA SETHURAMAN, MANAGER,
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (714) 754-5032
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction on the speed humps request on Saint Clair Street between Drake Avenue and
Velasco Lane.
BACKGROUND:
The Public Services Department received a written request for the installation of speed humps
on Saint Clair Street between Drake Avenue and Velasco Lane from Mr. Jay Litvak, a resident
of Velasco Lane. The written request along with a signed petition were submitted to the City
on February 10, 2015 (Attachment 1).
Based on the request, staff collected data and analyzed the traffic conditions along this
segment of Saint Clair Street. Saint Clair Street carries about 1,600 vehicles per day and the
85th percentile speed is 33 miles per hour. The analysis revealed that installation of speed
humps was not recommended as it did not satisfy the requirements included in the City
Council -adopted "Guidelines for Study of Installation or Removal of Speed Humps" (Attachment
2). According to the guidelines, speed humps could be considered if the average daily traffic
volumes exceed 3,500 vehicles and the 851h percentile speed is greater than 30 miles per
hour. Therefore, in order to address the speeding concern, staff recommended the installation
of transverse thermoplastic striping across Saint Clair Street, which was included in a written
response sent by City staff to Mr. Litvak (Attachment 3).
Subsequent to the submittal of the written response, Mr. Litvak requested consideration of
another alternative (raised markers) that could help alleviate the speeding concerns. This
alternative consists of the installation of several rows of raised markers glued to the pavement
which cause vibrations to vehicles when they are driven over, to alert the driver. The raised
markers were installed in April 2015 across Saint Clair Street and have helped in providing
additional warning for speeding motorists.
The above information was provided to the City Council via a Memorandum in November
2015. Council Member Foley directed that the Saint Clair Speed Humps request be
agendized to the regular City Council Meeting in January 2016.
ANALYSIS:
Staff regularly receives speeding concerns along residential streets in neighborhoods
throughout the City. Typically, after receiving these types of concerns from residents, staff
conducts a field review, collects daily traffic count data, conducts a speed survey, and obtains
five (5) years of accident data for the subject location. The information collected is analyzed
and compared to the thresholds included in the Council -adopted guidelines for installation or
removal of Speed Humps (Attachment 2). If a particular location does not satisfy the Council -
adopted guidelines, staff recommends other alternatives such as signage, pavement
markings, raised markers, etc., that can help alleviate speeding concerns.
In order to address resident concerns fairly and effectively, and to maintain consistency
throughout the City, staff does not deviate from the requirements listed in the City's
Guidelines. In the last 12 -month period, Public Services staff has received fifteen (15) requests
for installation of speed humps at the locations listed in the table below.
No
Street Segment
Limits
Posted/Prima
Facie
Speed Limit
Observed
Speed
(85th
percentile
Daily
Traffic
Volume
Satisfies
City
Guidelines
From
To
1
Europa Dr.
Balearic Dr.
Calvert Av.
25
28
489
No
2
Labrador/Bermuda
Baker St.
Gisler Av.
25
27
900
No
3
Hamilton St.
Harbor Blvd.
Thurin Av.
25
33
3,200
No
4
Hamilton St.
Harbor Blvd.
Pomona Av.
25
32
6,000
Yes
5
Avocado St.
Fairview Rd.
College Av.
25
32
2,500
No
6
Cabrillo St.
Irvine Av.
Tustin Av.
25
30
550
No
7
Monte Vista Av.
Orange Av.
SAanta Ana
25
33
1,700
No
8
Thurin Av.
Victoria St.
Hamilton St.
25
30
3,700
Yes
9
E. 18th St.
Tustin Av.
Irvine Av.
25
35
1,900
No
10
Santa Ana Av.
19th St.
20th St.
30
35
6,000
No
11
Bermuda Dr.
Madagascar
St.
Barbados
PI.
25
29
255
No
12
Maple Av.
Hamilton St.
W. 19th St.
25
31
3,500
Yes
13
Iowa St.
New Hampshire Dr.
Gisler Av.
25
34
2,400
No
14
Pomona Av.
Hamilton St.
W. 19th St.
25
28
6,100
No
15
Saint Clair St.
Velasco Ln.
Drake Av.
25
33
1,600
No
While based on the review of existing data, three (3) locations did satisfy the criteria included in
the speed hump guidelines, staff considered other options in lieu of speed humps which will
require budget authorization. Pavement markings and placement of transverse raised markers
were recommended on Hamilton Street. On Thurin Avenue, a new all -way STOP control was
added at Hamilton Street. On Maple Avenue, speed humps were not recommended due to the
potential diversion of traffic to other parallel streets. Additional speed limit signs and legends
were added on Maple Avenue.
0
Based on an analysis of the existing conditions, staff does not recommend consideration of
speed humps on Saint Clair Street at this time. Since the installation of raised markers eight (8)
months ago, staff has not received any further complaints. In addition, due to the number of
speeding complaints and requests for speed humps, the application of Council -approved
guidelines consistently has enabled equal treatment of this issue Citywide.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council could direct staff to install speed humps on Saint Clair Street. If this is
recommended, staff will request a budget authorization for the installation. Another alternative
is to not recommend speed hump installation.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The cost to install speed humps at one location is approximately $4,000. In order to effectively
implement this type of speed control measure, speed humps have to be installed at two (2)
locations (minimum), which will result in a total cost of approximately $8,000. If authorized, funds
for the installation will be requested during the mid -year budget review or during the next budget
period.
LEGAL REVIEW:
There is no legal review required for this speed humps request.
CONCLUSION:
Staff, in response to an earlier request for speed humps from resident Mr. Jay Litvak,
determined that the guidelines for the installation of speed humps are not met and installed
other measures to address speeding concerns. Council Member Foley directed that
consideration of speed humps on Saint Clair Street be agendized for the January meeting.
Staff requests Council's direction on this request.
ERNESTO MUNOZ
Public Services Director
ATTACHMENTS: 1 Resident Request
2 City Guidelines City
3 Response
DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer
RAJA SETHURAMAN, Manager
Transportation Services Division
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
City Attorney
City Clerk Division
Staff
File
3
Raja Sethuraman, Transportation Services Manager, City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
ata Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 754-5032
E-mail: raia.sethuraman@costamesaca.gov
Jay B. Litvak
2895 Velasco Lane,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
AA r. Sethuraman:
ATTACHMENT 1
This letter is to serve as a formal request for the installation of speed humps on St. Clair St.
between Drake and Velasco Lane in Costa Mesa. Over the years, there have been multiple
requests for speed humps, but traffic studies have revealed a traffic flow rate below the
threshold of 3,500 vehicle trips/day. We have always registered in the range of 2,500 trips/day
(give or take). These requests go back to some of our original owners some 40 years ago.
Over time, the traffic issues here have escalated in terms of the speed and aggressiveness of
drivers. This pass-through also seems to attract drivers who are impaired and attempting to avoid
major streets. Most recently we have had our garage run into by a drunk.driver, and a drunk
driver who ended up in our neighbor's yard. Going back a few years, we have had a drunk driver
end up in our driveway, two vehicles hit on Velasco in the early morning, and one vehicle hit on St.
Clair St.—this along with innumerable vehicles that have failed to navigate the St. Clair to Velasco
turn and bounced off of the curb. The screeching.tires at 2 a.m. are generally a wonderful wake-
up call.
The residents of St. Clair—who were anxious to sign the petition and have speed humps added to
eir street—described how they felt that drivers were driving faster, more aggressively (i.e.,
-tailgating when they were abiding the speed limit), and making it -difficult for them to simply back-
out of their driveways. The latest incident at 2895 Velasco Lane involved several close calls
relating to possible bodily injury. I understand that the 3,500 number represents a volume
threshold; however, 2,500 with extenuating circumstances deserves very serious and thoughtful
consideration in terms of SAFETY. Over the last decade or so, the demographic of this
neighborhood has changed. Many original owners have passed their homes to their children or
have sold their homes, and we now have a younger group of residents who have younger children or
are starting families. This last incident occurred at 7:20 a.m. At this time of morning, mothers
are walking their children to school, and this December 9` incident was way too close for comfort.
My conclusion is this: I do not believe you need to waste money on another traffic study: I do not
think much will have changed, and a traffic study cannot quantify the nature of the drivers that
do come through here nearly as effectively as speaking with those who live with the problem. This
is not a traffic flow problem; this is a PUBLIC SAFETY PROBLEM. Whether or not that stems
from enforcement issues or not, it is still OUR problem. We—COLLECTIVELY—would like this
problem solved—finally. No more stops signs, reflective bumps, or warning signs as the only
solution. We want speed humps like the ones on EI Camino. I have spoken to many of the
homeowners on that street, and, to a person, they would not trade those speed humps even though
they may provide minor inconveniences—like having to slowing down. For them it isn't just about
volume either.
When this issue reaches the point at which you are ready for public input, let me know. Every
signatory has expressed an explicit desire to voice their safety concerns: That includes St. Clair
St. as well as several homeowners on Velasco Lane.
Thank you,
Jay B. Litvak
PETITION FOR SPEED HUMPS ON ST. CLAIR ST. BETWEEN DRAKE ST. AND VELASCO
LANE COSTA hfESA, CA, 92626
JANUARY 201E
ADDRESS PRINTED NAME 1 SIGNATURE DATE
811 ST.* CLAIR ST.
812 ST. CLAIR ST.'
816 ST. CLAIR STp�
820 ST. CLAIR ST..
�v
'823 ST. CLAIR ST. '< t G- f '• �3 -yam
824 ST. CLAIR ST. P?AU(QCZ- CSAajy
27 ST. CLAIR ST. V7 0 % PJI
828 ST. CLAIR ST.Aft
O
,--� --- _
r
X829 ST. CLAIR ST. � [��� �� : � 5[_...�. _
830 ST. CLAIR 5
833 ST. CLAIR ST
834 ST. CLAIR ST. 14 `j ps
837 ST. CLAIR ST.
838 ST. CLAIR ST. � � -ip � CA
j 8 ST. CLAIR ST.ku r ,'
V1. /-tp9tea
840 ST. CLAIR ST.
813 ST. CLAIR ST. L hn5 'S>W a
844 'ST. CLAIR ST. 19 f
847 ST. CLAIR ST. ,kms 6t,/u P>'� I 1 SW I s
848 ST. CLAIR ST. �(�Q�,�
�;4
851 ST. CLAIR ST.
/�r�
ADDRESS
PRINTED NAME
852 ST. CLAIR ST.AIM
855 ST_ CLAIR ST.
861F ST_ CLAIR ST.
B� ST. CLAIR ST.
867 ST_ CLAIR ST.
fig"
868 ST. CLAIR ST.
LWe� 6'4-lk'
DATE
/1-5
101
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 RO. BOX 1200
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER
GUIDELINES FOR STUDY OF INSTALLATION OR REMOVAL, OF SPEED HUMPS
The City. of. -Costa Mesa has determined that the use of. speed humps:
is appropriate' in... areas- where•other methods have failed and a
true public hazard exists, and'the use.o'f speed humps should be '
limited only to 'this type. of situation and not as a first -level
traffic control device. _
1. Candidate.'streets shall meet the -following requirements:
a•) Streets must " not be more :than one lane '.in' each-
d•irection.'
b) Streets• must not be -Master Plan designated higher than. a
commuter. on City of Costa Mesa or Orange County .Master
Plan of Arterial Highways.
c) Streets must. "not be on a street segment adjacent to an
emergency response station (police or fire statiori).
d) " Streets must not be: on an' establ'ishe'd "Orange County
Vransit•District Route.
e) Streets must be in a•"residence•distr•ict." A residence"
district '• as defined in the California Vehicle Code is.an
area with contiguous property on both -sides of the street
consisting of sixteen (16) •or• more separate dwelling
houses: or business. structures per one-quarter mile...
(or • ratio thereof) , with not less "than ".51 percent of the.
structures occupied by residents'.
f) The posted or prima •facie" speed limit' shall be no greater.,
than- 25 miles per hour (MPH)
g) The* 85th percentile speed of"traffic must be - equal to or
greater than 30 miles per hour' (MPH)
h) The average daily traffic volume must be -equal -to or
greater than 3;500 vehicles, total in .both directions, in
a 24-hour period, on an average weekday-
-T7 FAIR DRIVE (i14)75A-5334
Speed Hump Guidelines
-
Page Two
i) Street geometry must provide at least 200 feet of clear
visibility on approaches to. speed 'humps, . with humps
located not' less than 200 feet or more than 450 -feet
apart; must provide hump locations -at least 200 feet away
from intersections and sharp horizontal curves; must
provide . roadway grades of less. - than five percent at hump
locations; .. must 'provide . raised curbs to: physically. .
discourage motorists from driving. off- , the
street' to avoid the speed humps; and - must not have.
utility- manholes, fire. hydrants, or driveways at hump
locations.
j) Speed humps are not recommended in those communities
where the roadway system 'is of - a grid pattern -where
paralleling streets may be - used. by -- traffic as an .
alternate route to avoid the street ith .speed.humps.
k) Use. of speed. humps should not be'intprrupted within.a
-segment unless •-a • distinct .. -change occurs- in terms of
roadway. designation, - speed` limit, number-- of lanes, and.
other geometrics and roadway characteristics.
1) The City. of Costa Mesa's 'Fire and Police Departments
wild be consulted on candidate streets for -speed .hump
installations.
m) At least 50 percent of 'households (one signature per
household) within 75' feet of face of'.- curb -'a -long a
"qualifying street segment" .(i.e.., two-lane street with a•
ratio -of at least sixteen (•16)- separate structures per
one-quarter mile; of which 51 percent must be occupied by
residents; .with segments identified by Transportation
Services Manager on basis of through, traffic patterns)
must sign a petition to -install or to remove, speed* hump$.
2. Standards for speed hump installation:'-.-
a)
nstallation: .a) In profile -'view - generally circular, 12 feet in .length
and with. .a mean lielght at its midpoint of 3.5 inches,
with an allowable tolerance of + 0.5 inch.
b) *In plan view - across the street to a point near the edge
of the. travelway with the last 1 to 3 feet tapered so
that it is.flush with the roadway at the joint with the
gutter.
' f
Speed Hump Guidelines
Page Three ,
c) Advance. warning signs and pavement legends to'note "Hump.
Ahead" and advisory speed of 15- miles :per.hour (MPH) a
minimum of 100 feet in advance of each hump.on each side
of the. street; * doubleyellow. centerline in vicinity of
speed' hump; raised pavement markers to -.delineate the
roadway- centerline. over the hump; and Vertical-pavement
markings on the. speed hump (parallel to. direction of
travel) to illustrate the raise in -pavement.
3. Revlew and Removal P=bcedures
-a) Twelve months after installation of speed humps.a review
of traffic cond�tibns will be.conducted.' The findings of
this review wild.- be reported to the Transportation*
Commission and may *be- utilized to evaluate the
performance of the speed humps and to -aid in refining
qualifications for -the'installation giiidelines. - * -
b) After the initial,..rtwelve-month .review, those s_ treets that
have been furnished with. speed humps will be included in
the City's biannual traffic volume survey. Accident
history will also be reviewed biannually. No -other.
related data *.gathering 'will be performed unless• the
initial findings indicate. the need for further study.
c) Removal of speed•humps will not be considered until the
completion of the initial twelve-month review. After*the
twelve-month review, requests .for -removal. must be
supported by a petition as identified in.Item l.m.; or he
recommended by staff based- upon unusual or adverse .
traffic conditions; or . upon - the - completion of •
improvements to the City',s arterial street system that
would, reduce the usage o. the subject. street, to levels
below that -required f�to qualify by these guidelines.
d) If removal is requested by petition -of the residents of
the street segment., and a subsequent' request for --
reinstallation is received, it shall be.processed in
accordance with - these guidelines. The cost of
..reinstallation 'shall be borne by the petitioners if said-
-request` is made • -within five years from the date of
removal.
4. Administrative Procedures
a) Upon receipt of a'request-in writing from a resident of
the street for *'a petition for speed humps, the
Transportation Services . Manager shall identify the
qualifying street ..segment for which the installation of
speed humps will be considered and for. which the -petition
must be circulated.
CIO
Speed Hump Guidelines
Page Four'
b) The petition for installation or removal shall
specifically. describe the qualifying .street segment
required to be included and.shall contain the following
statement' at the top of each page: By signing this
petition, I hereby accept speed humps and associated
advance warning devices, accept possible increases in
noise and air pollution emissions associated with speed
humpsdue to additional vehicle braking and accelerating
at each speed hump, and accept restricted on -street -
.parking in the vicinity of speed humps if a high rate of
traffic accidents involving parked vehicles is
documented. The petition circular's name(s), address
and phone number shall be provided on each page. -.of the
petition.
c) A separate petition shall be used for each street or -
street segment.
d) Upon receipt of *a qualifying petition staff will then
undertake the appropriate traffic studies to.determine
whether the street meets the minimum requirements. I.f
the minimum requirements are met, the petition and the
resultant traffic studies will then be presented to the
Transportation Commission 'for their consideration at a
public hearing.
e.) Should the petitioners' request for speed humps be denied
for any reason, no reconsideration of any subsequent
petition shall be accepted for the same street for a
minimum of twelve months.
Approved 10/15/30
Z
w 0•
z 6
.
W CODi
c 01) :z- a)
W
'o
co
0
w
co ci
1. P ±E
fV
Cli
0 0— 0— 6
U- C5 0 T
C5:- cj Z
12" EXIST. PAVEMENT
'T ,
12'1 7. T T_(T-P7:k
Typ T AT
12
SECTION A-A
N.T.S.
LollU, x
ui_ w
ADVANCE
wl
WARNING SIGN
0
47
u VARIESI MAX
B EX. C aG
tACK
—_WE-
_EC IVE
ITE
L_ I PAVkMENTS*NCIbCONCRETE -COAT THERMOPLAS71C OR
o
GUTTER
SECTION- 8- B
N.T.S.
A
DOUBLE YELLOW
CENTERLINE WITH
RAISED PAVEMENT —I
MARKERS PER v o 12" REFLECTIVE WHITE
CALTRANS I STRIPES AT 6 O.C.
-STANDARD PLA ' NS THERMOPLASTIC OR EQ.
DETAIL NO. 22
8 100 TYR W 3T
(MODIFIED)
BUMP
ADVANCE�_� AHEAD -
WARNING _14�x. _a:G
sm PLAN VIEW •
N.T.S.
15. W 6 (16)
NOTESs MPH
1. SPEED HUMPS SHALL BE. LOCATED BY THE ENGINEER, AND/OR AS SHOWN
ON PLAN.
2. SPEED HUMP• SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO A HEIGHT OF 0.292' (3.5")
PLUS OR MINUS 0.031' (0375") AT THE MIDPOINT. THE CORRESPONDING UNISTRUT
. t�l
SHAPE SHALL: FOLLOW* A CIRCULAR ARC (SEE SECTION A-A). POST WITH
3. PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 1 5/4
I FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION, LATEST .EDITION INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTS. BASE
4. ASPHALT SHALL. BE TYPE = -C3 -AR4000 (1/2'l OR AS - DIRECTED BY THE ADVANCE
ENGINEER WITH 6% ASPHALT BINDER. WARNING
SIGN
DRAWN
CITY* OF COSTA. MESA'j SPEED HUMP DETAILS SCALE NONE
z CALIFORNIA STD. DRWG. NO.
Z' PUBLIC SERVICES * DEPARTMENT APPROVEDDATE,
April 16, 2015
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O. Box 1200
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER
Mr. Jay Litvak
2895 Velasco Lane
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
SUBJECT: * SAINT CLAIR STREET — REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS
Dear Mr. Litvak:
The Transportation. Services Division has completed a review of traffic conditions on Saint Clair
Street between Velasco Lane and Drake Avenue. This review.has been conducted in response to,
your concern of excessive speeding and request for speed humps on Saint Clair Street. The decision
to install speed humps on public streets is based on guidelines adopted by the City Council
(attached). As primary criteria, streets 'considered for speed hump installation must be in a
"residential district" having a speed limit no greater than 25 miles per. hour (mph) with a minimum
threshold of at least 3,500 vehicles per day.
As a residential street, the posted speed limit on Saint Clair Street between Velasco Lane and Drake
Avenue is 25 mph. As part of our investigation, a radar speed survey was conducted to determine
the prevailing speed of vehicles -on Saint Clair Street: The result of this surrey indicates that the 85th
percentile speed of traffic is 33 miles per hour, and the median (average) speed is 30 miles per hour.
The 85ti' percentile speed is the speed at which 85. percent of the drivers drive safely and comfortably
and is the basis to determine speed limits in accordance with the State of California laws. As a result
of many residential neighborhood traffic studies, we have found the 25 miles per hour posted speed
limit to be frequently exceeded by 5 to 10 miles per hour. Speeds in this.range,,while not desirable,
are not uncommon, and represent typical conditions in many residential neighborhoods in Costa
Mesa.
In addition to the speed survey, the volume of traffic has also been surveyed. The result of this.
survey indicates that the traffic volume on Saint Clair Street is approximately 1,600 vehicles per day
in the. vicinity. Vehicular volume levels within this range are below the threshold where additional'
traffic controls may be considered necessary and are regarded as quite ordinary for streets within a
residential neighborhood.
Traffic accident. records for the past five (5) years were reviewed to determine* if any unsafe_
conditions may exist. Traffic accident .records revealed thaftwo (2) accidents have occurred in the
section between Velasco Lane and Drake Avenue and one (1) accident. has occurred along Velasco
Lane between Saint Clair Street and Santiago Road during this time period: Both the accidents on
Saint Clair Street involved a collision with a parked vehicle due to improper turning from Drake
Avenue to westbound Saint Clair Street. The accident on Velasco Lane involved a collision with a
fixed object as a result of loss of control of the vehicle while driving under the influence. The accident
on your property caused by the driver under the influence is not yet included in the database. In all
these accidents, speeding is not determined to be the primary cause necessitating the installation of
speed humps.
77 FAIR DRIVE
PHONE: (714) 754-5343 TDD: (714) 754-5244 .- www.00stamesaca.gov
Mr. Litvak
.April 16, 2015
Page Two
As a result of the above analysis, the City has determined that the present traffic conditions ofvehicle
volume, speed, and accident frequency do not meet City guidelines. Therefore, the installation of
speed bumps is not recommended at this. time.
To provide emphasis on slowing westbound vehicles at the cure where Saint Clair Street tums into
Velasco Lane, -staff recommends the following signage and pavement legend installations.
• Install transverse thermoplastic striping (across the westbound travel lanes) just west of the
existing "15 MPH" warning sign before the cure.
• Relocate existing parking signage at the west end of Saint Clair Street, five (5) feet south,
and install a chevron sign on that post.
A work order for the signage and thermoplastic striping installation has been prepared and the work
should be completed by City crews in a few weeks.
Police presence and enforcement action is the most effective deterrent to excessive speeds. Your
observations of certain times or days of the week when violations most likely occur may assist the
Police Department in providing the most effective presence in the neighborhood. For further
information and assistance regarding enforcement, please contact Lt. Greg Scott of the Police
Department Special Services Bureau at (714) 754-5265.
The City appreciates your taking the time to inform us of your concerns for safety in your
neighborhood and hopes the above information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please
contact Elizabeth Palacio, Engineering Technician Il, at (714) 754-5634.
Sincerely,
RAJA SETHURAMAN, Manager
Transportation Services
Attachment
c Ernesto Munoz, Public Services Director
Lt. Greg Scott, Costa Mesa Police Department
Pritam Deshmukh, Associate Engineer
Elizabeth Palacio, Engineering Technician II