AGENDA TITLE:
title
Provide Information to Council on the Typical Resident Request Process (For Example: All-Way Stop Sign Requests) (PW)
end
MEETING DATE:
December 16, 2025
PREPARED BY:
Interim Public Works Director
recommendation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide information to Council on the typical resident request process, with a main focus on all-way stop signs.
body
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Public Works Department receives an average of 150 traffic requests each year. The types of complaints or requests include sight visibility, stop signs, speeding, parking, traffic signal request, crosswalks, etc. Staff logs in every request in the order it is received and staff typically contacts the resident (via phone call or email) within 2-3 business days as an acknowledgement of the request received, and provides an approximate timeframe on the study period. The timeframe required (typically 3-5 weeks) is dependent on the current number of pending requests on the list combined with the specific studies necessary to review that type of complaint or request. Typical studies for the requests include field observations, average daily traffic volumes, peak hour vehicle/pedestrian intersection counts, reviewing collision data, and/or peak-hour intersection operation / delay observations. Most studies cannot be completed while school is on break given the change from normal traffic patterns.
Example Complaint / Request Evaluation Process (Oak and Crescent)
1. Complaint and/or Request Received
a. The resident (for Oak and Crescent) submitted an email requesting an all-way stop due to heavy traffic, speeding and safety concern. They believe the all-way stop would slow down traffic, improve visibility, reduce risk of collisions, increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety and provide greater peace of mind to nearby residents.
2. Applicable Standards and Background
a. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)
i. Code of Federal Regulations MUTCD is required as the national standard for all travel (on public streets, highways and bicycle trails)
ii. California Vehicle Code: Requires Caltrans to adopt State rules/regulations standards for traffic control devices (stop signs, yield signs, speed restrictions, etc). CA MUTCD is a slight modification to the MUTCD and meets this (and the Federal) requirement.
b. California Highway Design Manual
i. Sight Distance Standards
c. Disadvantage of Unwarranted Modifications
i. All-Way Stops
1. Decreased Compliance at Unwarranted Locations
a. Pedestrians at risk from poor compliance
b. Cross-traffic at risk from poor compliance
2. Increased traffic on nearby streets (to avoid all-way stop)
3. Increased noise and air pollution from additional vehicle stops and starts.
ii. Speed Limits
1. Not enforceable if State standards and laws are not followed
3. Warrant Analysis
a. Collisions
i. Requires 5 correctable Collisions within a 12-month period
ii. Oak and Crescent: 3 Total Reported Between 2018 and September 2025
1. 2 (2025) were DUI, hitting a parked vehicle
2. 1 (2023) non-injury (minimal data collected)
3. Warrant Not Met
b. Minimum Traffic Volume Requirements
i. Requirement:
1. The Major Street: 300 vehicles / hour for any 8-hour period of an average day
2. The Minor Street: 200 vehicles / hour for the same 8-hour period
a. Minor Street must also average delay of 30 seconds / vehicle (during highest hour)
3. If 85th percentile speed exceeds 40 mph, numbers listed above are reduced to 70%
ii. Oak and Crescent Counts
1. Oak: 121 vehicles / hour for highest 8-hour period
2. Crescent: 104 vehicles / hour for same period
3. Neither street’s speed limit exceeds 40 mph (they are 25 mph)
4. Warrant Not Met
c. Combined Collisions and Volumes (if Neither meet Warrants Individually)
i. 80% of Collision Requirement
1. 4 Correctable Collisions
ii. 80% of Traffic Volume Requirements
1. Major: 240 vehicles / hour
2. Minor: 160 vehicles / hour
iii. Oak and Crescent
1. None of the 3 components meet the 80%
2. Warrant Not Met
d. Other Potential Considerations
i. Left turn conflicts
1. Oak and Crescent: Not Applicable (low volumes)
ii. Vehicle / pedestrian conflicts at high pedestrian location (i.e. schools, downtown)
1. Oak and Crescent: Not Applicable (low volumes)
iii. Two residential Collector streets with similar design and operational characteristics
1. Oak and Crescent: Not Applicable (Oak is classified as a Local street)
iv. Sight visibility restrictions (if non-correctable)
1. Oak and Crescent: The resident at the southeast corner recently planted trees/shrubs within the “sight triangle” causing a slight reduction in visibility. The “sight triangle” is based on the California Highway Design Manual, Lodi Standard Plan 154, and Lodi Public Improvement Design Standards (Section 1.303).
a. This is a correctable measure and therefore is not applicable
e. Next Steps
i. Inform the resident of the findings
ii. If Warranted
1. Signage and/or Striping Improvements / Modifications
a. Take to Council (depending on extent)
b. Streets Division crews install the signs and street markings
i. Typically 3-5 weeks after Council Approval
2. All-Way Stop
a. Take to Council to amend the Traffic Resolutions to include that location
b. Streets Division crews install the signs and street markings
3. Traffic Signal
a. Added to the Signal Priority List for future funding
iii. If Warrant is Not Met
1. Intersection are added to the Intersection Study List (ISL), if not already on it. The ISL is an ongoing list that the Traffic Division maintains of all signalized and non-signalized intersections that have previously requested improvements.
a. ISL Data is reviewed annually to see if conditions have changed in a way that the warrants may now be met.
Oak and Crescent Intersection History
• Added to the ISL in 1987
• June 2002 a larger stop sign was installed
• December 2002 “Cross Traffic Does Not Stop” signs were added
• Currently ranks 111 out of the 314 intersections on the ISL with 2-way stop controls
o Based on traffic volumes and collisions within a 3-year period
o A ranking of #1 would be the “worst” intersection on the list.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends to continue to follow the local, State and Federal guidelines related to the analysis and implementation of various traffic control devices, and to only install these devices when warranted.
STRATEGIC VISION:
7H. Public Safety: Address strategic safety problem areas in the community.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Not Applicable.
FUNDING AVAILABLE:
Not Applicable.