Loading...
TC - 04-06-00AGENDA ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION 8838 East Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Regular Meeting April 6, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Roll Call: Pledge of Allegiance: Invocation: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7:00 p.m. Chairperson Quintanilla, Vice-Chair Ruiz Commissioners Baffo, Herrera, Knapp Commissioner Baffo Commissioner Herrera 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - This is the time reserved for members of the audience to address the Commission on items not listed on the agenda. (Maximum time per speaker is three (3) minutes; total time allocated is fifteen (15) minutes) 3. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT THE INTERSECTION OF EDMOND DRIVE AND MUSCATEL AVENUE 4. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON VALLEY BOULEVARD AT MISSION DRIVE 5. STAFF REPORTS A. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN ON TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000 6. COMMISSIONER REPORTS 7. ADJOURNMENT - Thursday, May 4, 2000, 7:00 p.m., Rosemead City Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770 ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3. 1000 A regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairman Quintanilla at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Blvd, Rosemead. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Quintanilla Commissioners: Ruiz, Knapp, Baffo, Herrera Absent: None Ex Officio: Administrative Aide: Jessica Wilkinson Deputy Traffic Engineer: Joanne Itagaki CALL TO ORDER The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Quintanilla The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Ruiz There was a moment of silence for the departing victims of Flight #261. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Herrera and carried unanimously to approve the minutes for January 6, 2000. It. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Speaking before the Commission was: Helen Gunthrie 1754 Dubonnet Rosemead, CA 91770 Ms. Gunthrie stated that the residents need more patrolling on Marshall Street. III. OLD BUSINESS - None IV. A. REQUEST FOR SPEED BUMPS ON MUSCATEL AVENUE IN THE VICINITY OF SCOTT STREET Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that staff received a letter from Mr. William Boyd of 8712 Scott Street. Mr. Boyd is requesting speed bumps or "white button road caps" on Muscatel Avenue to slow down traffic in the vicinity of Scott Street. He indicates that vehicles are speeding through the crosswalk. Muscatel Avenue is a 40-foot wide north/south secondary arterial. There is one lane of traffic in each direction separated by single yellow skip striping. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street except during street sweeping times. The posted speed limit on Muscatel Avenue is 30 mph. There is a 25 mph school speed limit sign for northbound Muscatel Avenue north of Valley Boulevard. Scott Street is a 36-foot wide east/west local street. There is no striping on the street. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street except during street sweeping times. Scott Street is stop controlled at its T-intersection with Muscatel Avenue. The prima facie speed limit on Scott Street is 25 mph. At the intersection of Muscatel Avenue and Scott Street, a yellow crosswalk exists on the south leg. School crossing signs and markings exist on Muscatel Avenue in advance of this crosswalk. The reported accident history in the vicinity of Muscatel Avenue and Scott Street was reviewed for the period from January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999. Field review of Muscatel Avenue in the vicinity of Scott Street revealed a yellow crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection. This crosswalk was identified with warning signs and pavement markings. The field observations were made during school hours but not during the beginning of release periods. However, approximately 10 pedestrians, during the field observation, used the crosswalk. Mr. Boyd has requested the installation of speed humps or rumble strips to slow down traffic in the vicinity of the crosswalk. Since the City's policy is not to install speed humps, the installation of rumble strips was considered. As we have found on Encinita Avenue, the installation of rumble strips has been helpful in alerting motorists in advance of the crosswalk. A similar rumble strip installation is recommended for the crosswalk on Muscatel Avenue at Scott Street. After review of the Caltrans guidelines, the warning signs for the crosswalk need to be relocated. RECOMMENDATION: The installation of rumble strips north and south of Scott Street on Muscatel Avenue is recommended. It was further recommended that the school signing on Muscatel Avenue be revised. All these school signs shall be the new "chartreuse" color. Commissioner Ruiz stated that on the north/west corner of Edmond Drive there are some brush that are up to the curb and are restricting the view of people making a right hand turn. It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Baffo, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. B. REQUEST FOR SPEED CONTROL ON STEELE STREET BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND ELLIS LANE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that during last months Traffic Commission meeting, Ms. Suzanna Costa requested some sort of speed control on Steele Street. Commissioner Ruiz requested staff to review Steele Street for additional traffic controls. Ms. Costa did not specify her concerns. She expressed an interest in installing speed humps on Steele Street to slow vehicles. Staff indicated to Ms. Costa that the City's current policy is not to install speed humps due to exposure to additional liability. Steele Street is a 36-foot wide residential roadway from Rosemead Boulevard to Rio Hondo Avenue. Between Rio Hondo Avenue and Ellis Lane, Steele Street is 40 feet wide. There is no striping on the street. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street except during street sweeping times. Steele Street is stop controlled at its intersection with Rosemead Boulevard. Hart Avenue, Rio Hondo Avenue and Ellis Lane. The prima facie speed limit on Steele Street is 25 mph. The reported accident history on Steele Street between Rosemead Boulevard and Ellis Lane was reviewed for the period from January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999. The estimated 24-hour traffic volume on Steele Street is approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. This is generally considered the average volume of a residential roadway. Field review identified no parking street sweeping signs and stop signs along Steele Street. A few vehicles were observed traveling on Steele Street. It is estimated their speed was approximately 25-30 mph. These observations were made during off-peak hours. As you are aware, the City's current policy is to deny the installation of speed humps on public streets. This is primarily due to the lack of approved standard designs for the speed humps. Other cities have installed speed humps on a "trial or study" basis and have determined, under their own legal advice, whether their city is taking on additional liability. The installation of rumble strips was considered for Steele Street. However, the installation of rumble strips in the City has been primarily to advise motorists in advance of a specific situation. For example, on Encinitas Avenue the rumble strips were installed to warn motorists of the yellow school crosswalk at Pitkin Street. The installation of rumble strips on Steele Street would be inappropriate, at this time. In addition, the noise from the rumble strips would be a concern on this residential street. There were no speed limit signs posted on Steele Street. Such a posting may serve as a reminder to motorists of the prima facie speed limit of 25 mph on a residential street. It is recommended that 25 mph speed limit signs be installed on Steele Street. Due to the similar roadway characteristics, it is further recommended that 25 mph speed limit signs be installed on Guess Street and Ralph Street. De Adalena Street is not included in this recommendation. De Adelena Street is currently being surveyed as an addendum to the City's Engineering and Traffic Speed Survey. RECOMMENDATION: The installation of 25 mph signs on Steele Street, Guess Street and Ralph Street was recommended. It was further recommended that the speed trailer be placed on Steele Street followed by selective enforcement. It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. V. STAFF REPORTS Administrative Aide Wilkinson stated that at the last City Council meeting of January 25, 2000, the traffic request for parking restrictions on 3319 San Gabriel Boulevard and Hidden Pine and Valley Boulevard were approved by the City Council and have already been installed. VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Knapp inquired as to the school bus on Graves Avenue. Administrative Aide Wilkinson stated that she placed a parking control officer at this location, but didn't see anything. Chairman Quintanilla inquired about the school signage behind Savannah School. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned. ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMMSION MARCH 2. 2000 A regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairman Quintanilla at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Quintanilla Commissioners: Knapp, Baffo, Ruiz Absent: Commissioner Herrera Ex Officio: Administrative Aide: Jessica Wilkinson Deputy Traffic Engineer: Joanne Itagaki CALL TO ORDER The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ruiz The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Baffo I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Deferred to the next Meeting H. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Speaking before the Commission was: Helen Gunthrie Ms. Gunthrie thanked the Commission for the increase in patrol on Marshall Street. III. OLD BUSINESS - None IV. NEW BUSINESS A. ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ARICA AVENUE AND RIO DELL Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that staff was requested to review the intersection of Arica Avenue and Rio Dell. There was a recent complaint that the curve at this intersection needed additional signs to slow down traffic. Specifically, vehicles traveling eastbound on Rio Dell are "speeding" around the curve. The intersection of Arica Avenue and Rio Dell forms a "90-degree" curve. There are no stripes on the roadways. There is an existing curve warning sign for northbound Arica Avenue (north of Rose Street) south of the curve. The prima facie speed limit on both streets is 25 mph. The reported accident history at the intersection of Arica Avenue and Rio Dell was reviewed for the period beginning January 1, 1996 through September 30, 1999. This review indicated one reported accident at the intersection. This accident involved a southbound vehicle making U-turn sideswiping three parked cars. The primary collision factor was reported as "unsafe speed/improper turn". Field observation of the intersection of Arica Avenue and Rio Dell revealed no physical evidence (such as tire marks on the street, run over objects), of vehicles having difficulty executing the turn. However, there does appear to be a need for additional traffic signs identifying the curve. RECOMMENDATION: The installation of the following warning signs on Arica Avenue and Rio Dell was recommended: Eastbound Rio Dell approximately 150 feet west of Arica Avenue, advanced curve warning sign. Eastbound Rio Dell in "head-on" position at Arica Avenue, single head arrow sign pointing right. 3. Northbound Arica Avenue in "head-on" position at Rio Dell - single head arrow sign pointing left. It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation, with the addition of double yellow striping and bott dots be installed at this location, approximately 100' ft. from the curve. V. STAFF REPORTS Administrative Aide Wilkinson stated that the signage at Marshall and Vane will be installed soon. Traffic Operations has been backed up with the recent rains. Administrative Aide Wilkinson stated that the budgeting for Crossing Guards, Bill Crowe is currently handling the Crossing Guard Program and he will be looking at available Grant funding. VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Ruiz stated that at Loftus and Temple City Boulevard, the large trucks are blocking the intersection as the light turns red, and would like to see a "Do Not Block Intersection" sign installed. In addition, when entering the freeway, they are merging from the right turn lane into the left turn lane. Commissioner Ruiz also stated that at Guess and Rio Hondo at the northwest corner, there is green/beige mailbox that is obstructing the view of traffic, and should be moved to the southwest corner. Commissioner Knapp stated that People for People is having a birthday luncheon on Monday, 20a', at 11:30 a.m. at Charley Browns. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular scheduled meeting is set for April 6, 2000. STAFF REPORT Rosemead Traffic Commission TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD-TRAFFIC COMMISSION n(~~ FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY tN DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RE: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT THE INTERSECTION OF EDMOND DRIVE AND MUSCATEL AVENUE REQUEST During the December 1999 Traffic Commission meeting, Edmond Drive was discussed. The staff report and meeting minutes of this previous item are attached. The primary concern was the traffic speeds on Edmond Drive between Muscatel Avenue and Walnut Grove Avenue. Residents of the area identified another concern was the intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue. The residents indicated that vehicles travel around the corner - eastbound to northbound and southbound to westbound - at a high rate of speed. The residents also stated that several accidents and near accidents have occurred in the vicinity of the intersection. The Traffic Commission directed staff to review the intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue to determine if additional traffic control measures are necessary. CONDITIONS Edmond Drive is a 36-f6ot wide east/west residential roadway with no striping in the vicinity of Muscatel Avenue. Edmond Drive is stop controlled at its "T" intersection with Muscatel Avenue. There are no sidewalks on either side of Edmond Drive. Curbside parking is minimal to moderate throughout the day. The prima facie speed limit is 25 mph. Note: The previous report recommended the installation of 25-mph speed limit signs. However, due to the Commission's request to further investigate the traffic in the area, this recommendation has not yet been brought before the Council: - - Muscatel Avenue is a 40-foot wide north/south secondary arterial roadway with centerline striping. North of Edmond Drive, the striping is a double yellow centerline. South of Edmond Drive, the striping is a single yellow skip striping. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street except during street sweeping times. The posted speed limit on Muscatel Avenue is 30-mph. Request forAdditional Traffic Controls at the Intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue Page 2 Exhibit 1 will be available at the Traffic Commission meeting and will depict conditions at the intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue. DATA The reported accident history at and within 100 feet of the intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue was reviewed for the period from January 1, 1996 through September 30, 1999. There was one reported accident during this period and is summarized below: Location: 18 feet north of the intersection Date & Time: 11/22/98 at 3:30 PM Description: Northbound vehicle proceeding straight sideswiped a northbound parked vehicle. PCF: Improper pass. Twenty-four hour directional traffic volume counts and peak hour turning movement counts were taken in the vicinity of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue. The 24-hour volume is summarized below: Edmond Drive Muscatel Avenue Eastbound: 629 Northbound: 2,781 Westbound: 649 Southbound: 3,039 Total: 1,278 Total: 5,820 Peak hour turning movement counts were taken at the Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue during hours when school was beginning and ending. This included the 7:00 to 9:00 AM peak and the 2:00 to 6:00 PM peak. Exhibit 2 summarizes the peak hour of each of the two periods counted. DISCUSSION Field observation of the intersection did not identify and tire marks in the intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue. Such identifying marks might indicate vehicles traveling around the corner at a high rate of speed. During the field observation, no vehicles were identified as executing the turn at an unsafe speed. -The-Traffic Commission requested staff to investigate if the installation of rumble strips on either Edmond Drive or Muscatel Avenue would be appropriate. Rumble strips are generally used to alert drivers of a change in roadway conditions ahead. Most recently, the City has been installing rumble strips to warn drivers of school crosswalks. This appears to be a very effective use of this traffic control tool. Request for Additional Traffic Controls at the Intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue Page 3 Rumble strips will increase the noise level in their immediate vicinity. For a residential street such as Edmond Drive, the installation of a rumble strip would definitely affect the residential nature of the street. Even though Muscatel Avenue is a secondary arterial, the roadway is fronted by residential uses giving the street a residential feel. The primary difference between a residential and an arterial roadway is the volume of traffic each roadway carries. The installation of a rumble strip on Edmond Drive or Muscatel Avenue is not recommended at this time. If there were some unusual conditions, such as a school crosswalk or a change in roadway alignment, a rumble strip would be appropriate. A multi-way stop sign analysis was conducted for Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue using the traffic count data gathered. Exhibit 3 identifies the guidelines developed by Caltrans to determine the need for a multi-way stop. The guidelines are based on the most recent reported accident history, traffic volumes entering the intersection, delay and the number of pedestrians crossing the major street. Based on the Caltrans guidelines, the intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue does not justify the installation of a multi-way stop at this time. A closer review of the Exhibit 2 reveals the eastbound to northbound (E to N) and the southbound to westbound (S to W) turning movements are not the highest peak hour turning movements. As expected, the northbound and southbound through movements are the heaviest. The northbound to westbound and the eastbound to southbound turning movements are higher than the E to N and S to W movements. The overall distribution of traffic volumes at the intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue favors the major street (Muscatel Avenue). This is expected since Muscatel Avenue is a secondary arterial. There are instances when the installation of a multi-way stop at the intersection might be recommended if the traffic volume distribution is almost equal between the major and minor street even if the volumes do not meet Caltrans' guidelines. However, this is not the case at Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue. In observing traffic through the intersection, many southbound to westbound vehicles were observed crossing over the "imaginary" centerline of Edmond Drive. This movement, if a vehicle were stopped on Edmond Drive, could be a potential accident. To minimize this crossing over and serve as a reminder to drivers, the installation of a 100-foot double yellow centerline on Edmond Drive from Muscatel Avenue westerly is recommended. Request forAdditional Traffic Controls at the Intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue Page 4 RECOMMENDATION The following summarizes the recommendations presented in this report: 1. The installation of a rumble strip on Edmond Drive or Muscatel Avenue is not recommended at this time. 2. Based on the Caltrans guidelines, the intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue does not justify the installation of a multi-way stop at this time. 3. The installation of a 100-foot double yellow centerline on Edmond Drive from Muscatel Avenue westerly is recommended. Attachments JIARsclNuscatel & Edmond insert Exhibit 1 ]]c~a Bmttm(w Ad& ® ,q &37AM Peak Hour/PM Peak Hour LO c0 0 No Scale I~- 0) O N r- N Edmond Drive 24-hour Volume= 1,278 19/20 5/1 - 105/39 - o~ o N cc~ 01 ~ I I Q N \ E O °v -o N (D I LO (Y) rt N d' LC (Y) 0 -00- N N 3/2 1/5 1 /2 cxhibl't o,M CITY OF ROSEMEAD MULTI-WAY STOP SIGN WARRANTS (FROM CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANUAL) LOCATION: Mu!barit l Ary"ue 4L+ edmn d Dr'%ve DATE: S 1 The installation of multi-way STOP signs are based on the following: 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multi-way STOP may be an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installation. Satisfied: Yes No 2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12 month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multi-way STOP installation. Such accidents include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. Satisfied: Yes No 3. Minimum traffic volumes: (a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and Satisfied: Yes No (b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but Satisfied: Yes No (c) When the 85-percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. Satisfied: Yes No -VOLUME-WORKSHEET Guideline ~GUQ 0~Q~ A ^ Q7 ~a ti nJ V (a) Total Volume 500 (350) 1 53-L P%-5 12'16 13Z6 1 567-14br. 1516 1562 1 ANg= 480 (b) Combined Volume 200 (140) 1 '17- 1 71 1 30 1 30 1 So 14A 146 1 55 1 (90e~b A6+ lnclade pede-~krlaNs~ TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1999 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROLS ON EDMOND DRIVE BETWEEN WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND MUSCATEL AVENUE REQUEST A request (letter attached) has been received from Mr. Otto A. Peters, 8738 Edmond Drive, requesting the Traffic Commission install additional traffic controls on Edmond Drive to reduce the speeds on the street. Mr. Peters is specifically requesting the installation of speed bumps on Edmonds Drive. Mr. Peters was furnished with the City's policy on speed bumps. As Mr. Peters indicated in his letter, this matter was brought before the Traffic Commission previously. According to our records, this issue was brought before the Commission on March 3, 1994. The staff report and minutes of that meeting are attached for the Commission's reference. CONDITIONS Edmond Drive is a 36-foot wide east/west residential roadway stretching from Walnut Grove Avenue to Muscatel Avenue. This is a distance of approximately 1,200 feet. Edmond Drive at Walnut Grove Avenue is controlled by a traffic signal. Edmond Drive is stop controlled at its "T" intersection with Muscatel Avenue. There are no sidewalks on either side of Edmond Drive. Curbside parking is minimal to moderate throughout the day. The prima facie speed limit is 25 mph. Figure 1 depicts conditions at the subject location (to be available at the Traffic Commission meeting). DATA The reported accident history at the intersection of Fendyke Avenue and Barrette Street was reviewed for the period beginning January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999. This review indicated no reported accidents at the intersection. Request for Traffic Controls on Edmond Drive Between Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue Page 2 Staff will attempt to gather data regarding speeds and traffic volumes on Edmond Drive. This information will be presented at the Traffic Commission meeting. DISCUSSION Due to the lack of data at this time, discussion will be expanded and presented to the Traffic Commission at the meeting. As you are aware, the City's current policy is to deny the installation of speed humps on public streets. This is primarily due to the lack of approved standard designs for the speed humps. Other cities have installed speed humps on a "trial or study" basis and have determined, under their own legal advice, whether their city is taking on additional liability. The installation of rumble strips in the City has been primarily to advise motorists in advance of a specific situation. For example, on Encinitas Avenue the rumble strips were installed to warn motorists of the yellow school crosswalk at Pitkin Street. The installation of rumble strips on Edmond Drive would be inappropriate, at this time. Upon field review of Edmond Drive, there were no speed limit signs posted on the street. The 1994 staff report recommended the installation of 25-mph speed limit signs at both ends of Edmond Drive. It is unknown why these signs were not installed. RECOMMENDATION The installation of 25 mph signs (36" x 45") on Edmond Drive at Walnut Grove Avenue and at Muscatel Avenue as shown on Figure 1. It is further recommended that the speed trailer be placed on Edmond Drive followed by selective enforcement. Attachments JRRsd\Edmond Traffic Controls Sept 16, 1999 To: Traffic Commissio City of Rosemead Rosemead City H 8838 Valley Blvd. Rosemead,CA. 91-f To whom it Iam in this City. the residents Drive but was SEP 2 a 1999 concem; this format to again approach the matter of traffic on Edmond Drive years ago I requested, along with a petition signed by approx. 80% of Drive requesting that some sortof traffic Bumps be installed on Edmond that time that this was not feasible according to existing laws but have since found out that this is not true and traffic bums such as those existing behind City Hall or even the type that now licist on Encinitas near Rosemead Park and the school can lawfully be installed. Pan of this inip"rmation comes from the Temple City Sheriffs Office. Ever since the i we have experienced a being the only Thru St] necessary due to childr be subjected to speedir There have bee monitored the traffic fc with informed me that light was installed at the comer of Edmond Drive and Walnut Grove increase in traffic of a HIGH SPEED Variety. Edmond Drive between Walnut Grove and Muscatel. I realize that this traffic light is crossing to go to school but this being a residential street we should not and reckless driving . three times in the past two years that the Temple City Sheriffs have a few hours in the morning and the afternoon and the last officer I spoke he had written thirty seven (37) tickets. We have allowed this condition to worsen by not following thru with our city and it has now come to a point thlt something MUST BE DONE to correct this- I could relate numerous instances of accidents and near accidents that have occurred 2) including two wherein turned into Edmond D up onto the lawn and c sacking 2 cars upon an heading East on Edmo location. There:havcbi oriental older ladies we NTH. It is our belieft fatality or fatalities in tl I have lived in t particular location was a car and another time a pickup truck traveling south on Muscatel and ended up hitting cars parked in front of 8744 Edmond Dr. and on to cars parked in 8738 Edmond Driveway and back onto the Street in front of this address. Another hit and run from a speeding car and sideswiping cars on both sides of the street at approx. the same many ;many near'pedestrian-hirs and in fact this very mornins. two almost run down by a young girl driving in excess of (estimated ) 60 traffic Bumps would slow some of this speeding and perhaps stop a future. home for 42 years, my reason for choosing Rosemead . and this quietness and safety for bringing up 7 children'. Although the children are now raised there any many more children on this block plus the fact that a hundred or so children walk this bloc} to and from school. I am not exaggerating the seriousness of this situation and should so bething happen it is my opinion that our city would and should be held accountable if nothing it done. You for your time and consideration, Sincerely, Orto A. Peter 8738 Edmond Dr. (626) 286-6541 1,1/29/99 12:42 FAX 69s21".0 WILLDAN ASSOC ROSE3fEAD 003 Muscatel Ave. Ex. Neighhorhood Watch sign. Ex. Stop sign. [Ex. Street Sweeping sign. Install R2(25) sign (36" x 45") on new post. r` C O W Install R2(25) sign (36" x 45") on new / post. min. 5' I / / / / / i Not to Scale Pro a Line r------I 8616 ; Pro=%life........ 'a r-------- 8612 ; a w Property Line Walnut Grove Ave. Figure 1 JI\RsdtExh\Edmond- Edmond Drive between Walnut Grove WG&Mus Avenue and Muscatel Avenue rtiuucu rww ,~ucu vu . uu.,~ aluua.r u.u u~ .w "KEEP CLEAR" markings was NOT recommended. Speaking before the Commission was: Chris Orozco President ojHidden Pines Association Mt.-Orozco stated that he has read the recommendatio he Traffic Engineer, and would like to know why the "KEEP CLEAR" gs are not going to be installed. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki state/tnmumnend no reported accidents at this intersection, and staff does not li"KEEP CLEAR" markings unless it is absolutely necessary. Chairperson Knapp stated that t EP CLEAR!" markings on Hellman Avenue at the exit on Walnut e, it appears the motorist disregard the "KEEP CLEAR" markings at this 1 on. Commissioner RuizAPPIIr. Orozco, at what time does the back-up occur? Mr. Orozco sta at it starts to back up between 2:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m., and all day long on eekends. ComZur uiz recommended that signs stating "NO PARKING ANYTIME" be in ad of t he red curb. s moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Quintanilla, d carried unanimously to install "NO PARKING ANYTIME" signs, instead of the red curb. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROLS ON EDMOND DRIVE BETWEEN WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND MUSCATEL AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that a request has been received from Mr. Otto A. Peters, 8738 Edmond Drive, requesting the Traffic Commission install additional traffic controls on Edmond Drive to reduce the speeds on the street. Mr. Peters is specifically requesting the installation of speed bumps on Edmond Drive. Mr. Peters was furnished with the City's policy on speed bumps.. . As Mr. Peters indicated in his letter, this matter was brought before the Commission previously. According to ourrecords ; this issue was brought before the Commission on March 3, 1994. The staff report and minutes of that meeting are attached for the Commission's reference. Edmond Drive is a 36-foot wide east/west residential roadway stretching from Walnut Grove Avenue to Muscatel Avenue. This is a distance of approximately 1,200 feet. Edmond Drive at Walnut Grove Avenue is controlled by a traffic signal. Edmond Drive is stop controlled at its "T" intersection with Muscatel Avenue. There are no sidewalks on either side of Edmond Drive. Curbside parking is minimal to moderate throughout the day. The prima facie speed limit is 25 mph. The reported accident history at the intersection of Fendyke Avenue and Barrette Street was reviewed for the period beginning January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999. This review indicated no reported accidents at the intersection. Staff will attempt to gather data regarding speeds and traffic volumes on Edmond Drive. This information will be presented at the Traffic Commission meeting. Due to lack of data at this time, discussion will be expanded and presented to the Traffic Commission at the meeting. As you aware, the City's current policy is to deny the installation of speed humps on public streets. This is primarily due to the lack of approved standard designs for the speed humps. Other cities have installed speed humps on a "trial or study" basis and have determined, under their own legal advice, whether their City is taking an additional liability. The installation of rumble strips in the City has been primarily to advise motorists in advance of a specific situation. For example, on Encinitas Avenue, the rumble strips were installed to wam motorists of the yellow school crosswalk at Pitkin Street. The installation of rumble strips on Edmond Drive would be inappropriate, at this time. Upon field review of Edmond Drive, there were no speed limit signs posted on the street. The 1994 staff report recommended the installation of 25-mph speed limit signs at both ends of Edmond Drive. It is unknown why these signs were not installed. RECOMMENDATION: The installation of 25 mph signs (36' x 45") on Edmond Drive at Walnut Grove Avenue and at Muscatel Avenue. It was further recommended that the speed trailer be placed on Edmond Drive followed by selective enforcement. Speaking before the Commission was: . Helen Peter 8738 Edmond Drive Rosemead, California 91770 Mrs. Peters stated that the speeding situation at this location is very bad, and she is afraid someone will be killed if something is not done. Speaking before the Commission was: Mr. Geller Retired Transportation Specialist Mr. Geller stated that in 1992, he had a car parked, and at approximately 3:00 a.m., it was hit by a drunk driver. He would like the Commission to look at speed controlled bumps, he feels they help reduce the speed. Chairperson Knapp asked why the rumble strips would not be appropriate at this location. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that rumble strips are generally installed to advise the motorists of a particular situation. Chairperson Knapp asked Mrs. Peters if the residents have ever considered asking the City to install sidewalks. Mrs. Peters stated that she does not feel sidewalks would help the situation. Chairperson Knapp stated that whatever the Commission recommends tonight goes to the City Council for their approval. . Commissioner Ruiz recommended that a study be done at this location to install rumble strips and come back with their findings. It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation, in addition to having a study being made at this location to install rumble strips and a stop sign and bring it back at a later date. B. REOUEST FOR SIGNAGE AT 4655 FENDYKE AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that this request was receiv (o Ms. Dorothy Y. Chu of 4655 Fendyke Avenue. Ms. Chu is request a installation of "reflectors" in front -of her residence to "deter drivers fro OK' ng up" the driveway. Ms. Chu indicates she has experienced two inc' s where vehicles have run on to her.property causing damage. Ms. Chu's residence, 4655 Fendyke Avenue, is d' across from Barrette Street. Barrette Street is a 30-foot wide east/ oadway also with no existing striping on the street. The prima facie spee t is 25 mph. The reporte/iblFendyke history at the i ction of Fendyke Avenue and Barrette Street was rr the period ning January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999. This icated no ed accidents at the intersection. Field review erse ofFendyke AvenueBartette Street revealed some tire marks in t ' ting some high-speed travel through the intersection. There wereks on the curb. Fendyke Avenue north of Barrette Street is a cherefore, the majority of traffic is likely turning westbound tund and northbound to eastbound. This is supported by the tire marks o section. There' existing street light located in front of 4655 Fendyke Avenue. The loc of this street light would be appropriate for the installation of signs wAffg of the "T" condition of the intersection. The installation of a W56 sign with a yellow Type N-l marker was recommended on Fendyke Avenue directly across the Barrette Street. Speaking before the Commission runs: STAFF REPORT Rosemead Traffic Commission TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: MARCH 29, 2000 RE: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALWESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON VALLEY BOULEVARD AT MISSION DRIVE REQUEST Commissioner Ruiz requested staff to review the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive. Commissioner Ruiz indicated the westbound to northbound right turn volume is very heavy and that an additional right turn lane might be necessary. The intersection of Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive is controlled by a traffic signal. This signal is coordinated together with the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Rio Hondo Avenue. Exhibit 1 depicts the lane configuration of Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive. DATA Peak hour turning movement counts were taken at Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive. This included the 7:00 to 9:00 AM peak and the 4:00 to 6:00 PM peak. Exhibit 2 summarizes the peak hour of each of the two periods counted. The reported accident history at and within 100 feet of the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive was reviewed for the period from January 1, 1996 through September 30, 1999. This analysis will be presented at the Traffic Commission meeting. DISCUSSION The addition of a turn lane at an intersection is based on the volume of turning traffic. The general rule of thumb is a turning volume of 300 or more indicates a need for an additional lane. Request for Additional Westbound Right Tum Lane on Valley Boulevard at Mission Drive Page 2 As Exhibit 2 identifies, the westbound to northbound right turn volume in the AM peak is 478. During the PM peak this volume drops to 290 vehicles. Based on the existing traffic volumes, there is a need for an additional right turn lane. RECOMMENDATION The addition of a westbound right turn lane on Valley Boulevard is recommended. This lane will be a shared right-through lane. The proposed lane configuration is shown on Exhibit 1. Should the Traffic Commission support this recommendation, staff would like to review the traffic signal operation of Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive/Rio Hondo Avenue before the item goes before the City Council. This will insure there will be no problems with the addition of this shared lane. Also, staff will prepare a plan to identify striping and signing changes necessary to implement this recommendation. Attachments JIV2sd\Valley 8 Mission Right Turn Lane YOGY D ® `ea UN7 4646+346oe@@ Q ~ I4Y 4Y'~ 22MG 0 ©'ahd4B \eioO O 0 No cafe L L Valley Boulevard Exhibit I Proposed Recommendation AM Peak Hour/PM Peak Hour No tale 21/17 Q N co O O (0 y~ N o co L 367/758 Valley Boulevard 478/290 . 811/482 Exhibit