Loading...
CC - Item 4F - Traffic Control Signs At Edmond & Muscatel Intersectionstaf epor TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF EDMOND DRIVE AND MUSCATEL AVENUE 1('~ FRANK f DATE: MAY 23, 2000 FROM: SUBJECT: GREQUEST. FOR TRIPEPI, CITY ADDITIONAL MANAGE DISCUSSION This is a request from Otto Peters, 8738 Edmond Drive, for additional traffic controls at the intersection of Edmond Drive and Muscatel Avenue due to concerns with high-speed traffic. This item was first presented at the December 2, 1999 Traffic Commission meeting. Based on a review of the existing conditions, the reported accident history, and field observations, staff recommended the - - installation of-25 MPH signs on-Edmond Drive and the use ofthe-speed trailer followed by selective enforcement. At the meeting, the Commission amended this recommendation to include a study of - the feasibility to install rumble strips and a stop sign on Edmond Drive. The Commission voted unanimously to have this item brought back upon the completion of the study. At the April 6, 2000 Traffic Commission meeting, staff presented the findings of the study._ It was_ found that the installation of rumble strips would not be appropriate on Edmond Drive since such installations are used to wam drivers of approaching school crosswalks or unusual conditions. - . Currently, there are nimble strips on Muscatel Avenue [at Edmond Drive] to warn north and southbound traffic of an approaching school crosswalk. A multi-way stop sign-analysis was completed as part of the study and includes warrants based ion a recent reported accident history, traffic volumes entering the intersection, delay and the number of pedestrian crossing the major street. Because the findings did not meet the Caltrans guidelines for the installation of a multi-way stop sign, such an installation is not recommended. MAY ~ 3 2000 - I ITEM Pdo.1 ✓ - ~'6 Rosemead City Council May 13, 2000 Page 2 of 2 At the April 6 meeting, the Traffic Commission voted 5-0 to approve the staff recommendation of the installation of 25 MPH signs on Edmond Drive, the use of the speed trailer followed by selective - enforcement, and the installation of a 100-foot double yellow centerline on Edmond Drive from Muscatel Avenue westerly. The staff recommendation was amended to include the installation of reflective pavement markers along the centerline and the removal of bushes at the northwest comer of the subject intersection. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Rosemead City Council approve the installation of 25 MPH signs along Edmond Drive, the use of a speed trailer followed by selective enforcement, the installation of a 100- foot double yellow centerline on Edmond Drive from Muscatel Avenue westerly, the installation of reflective pavement markers along the centerline, and the removal of bushes on the public right-of- way at the northwest comer of Edmond Drive, and Muscatel Avenue. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A_ Staff -report.-dated-March 28,.2000___ Exhibit B -Figure 1 Exhibit C - Minutes, dated April 6, 2000 Exhibit D - Staff report, dated November 23, 1999 Exhibit E - Figure 1 Exhibit F - Minutes, dated December 2, 1999 STAFF REPORT Rosemead Traffic Commission TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD-TRAFFIC COMMISSION n~ FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY lY 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-foot 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. EXHIBIT "A" 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.___ South bound:-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 forAdditional 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 installatjon 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 MRsdVAusWel & Edmond - q 20' II 201 Proposed 100-foot clOUble je[1Ow CLOhfer(ine. Wi f-h re IeC-HVe P,~i VeM6t+- marr_ra ~ NewN. 3r 1 ~ WgTC~ /00, EDMOND DR. O ti T$ OP Q w IQ 20 20' i i Is I 30' EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT "B" AM Peak Hour/PM Peak Hour 0 No Scale I` 0) O N t` N - Edmond Drive 24-hour Volume = 1,278 19/20 3/2 5/1 ® 1/5 105/39 ~ 1 /2 co - LO CO ~ N d' LO C'7 O .00 - N N CITY OF ROSEMEAD MULTI-WAY STOP SIGN WARRANTS (FROM CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANUAL) LOCATION: MuhCcdeI /Wtnuc o,+ 6Jnnor1C1 P60- DATE: 8&1/00 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 fight-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-dayFand 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 ~ u, , ~ •rJ ix ~j ~ _ (a) Total Volume 500 (350) 1 53-L 15C-5 1296 1326 1 56114N6 1516 1567- 1 ,4ug= `r- c (b) Combined Volume 200 (140) 1 _777- 1 71 1 30 1 30 1 So I 4-q 146 1 65 1 ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION APRIL 6. 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 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Quintanilla Commissioners: Ruiz, Knapp, Baffa & Herrera Absent None Ex Officio: Administrative Aide: Jessica Wilkinson Deputy Traffic Engineer: Joanne Itagaki CALL TO ORDER The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Baffo The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Herrera 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Herrera, seconded by Commissioner Baffo, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes for the months of February, 2000 and March, 2000. H. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FRO\I THE AUDIENCE Speaking before the Commission was: Helen Gunthrie - 1754-Dubonnet-._._---_----------- .Rosemead, CA 91770 Ms. Gunthrie inquired as to why schools are no longer teaching bicycle laws. Deputy Robles stated that the City of South BI %Ionic has a company come out and teaches the kids about bicycle safety and pedestrian safety. lie stated that he will recommend this to Sgt. Wallace and Lt. Heller. Speaking before the Commission was: Barbara Larson 3815 Ellis Lane Rosemead, California 91770 Dos. Larson asked about the Von's Trick Issue. She stated that the trucks are still parking behind. her home for hours and they still continue to use theirjake-brakes. Ms. Larson also stated that while taking a walk on Valley Boulevard, she noticed how dirty Valley Boulevard's sidewalks are. She feels that something needs to be done as it relates to the businesses on Valley to clean up the street/sidewalks. Administrative Aide Wilkinson stated that she will have the Code Enforcement Officer to go out there and talk to the businesses. Commissioner Ruiz requested that the Sheriff's go back out there and continue citing the truck drivers. - Commissioner Knapp stated that there is a group of kids from Muscatel School that do clean-up, and felt perhaps by talking with Carol Mahoney, they can help out by cleaning up Valley Bouelvard. Ms. Larson stated that when visiting the Savannah Cemetary one day, she noticed that there were dead chickens in plastic bags in the Cemetary. H1. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT THE INTERSECTION OF EDMOND DRIVE AND MUSCATEL AVENUE During the December, 1999, Traffic Commission meeting, Edmond Drive was discussed. 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. Edmond Drive is a 36-foot 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. The reported accident history at and within 100 feet of the intersection of Edmond Drive an 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: 11/12/98 at 330 p.m. Description: Northbound vehicle proceeding straight sidcsw_iped 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. - 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 700 to 9:00 a.m. peak and the 2:00 to 6:00 p.m., peak. _ 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 turf 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. 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. The guidelines are based on the most recent reported accident history, traffic volumes entering the intersection, delay and the number of pedestrian 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 our 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 %V movements. ' ----The overall ~distiibutidn-df 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 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 "i maoi nary" 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. 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 notjustify the installation of a multi-way stop at this limo. 3. - The installation of a 100-foot double yellow centerline on Edmond Drive from Muscatel Avenue westerly is recommended. - - - Commissioner Knapp inquired about the reflection in the center of the double centerline grid possibly installing R.P.1\4. - Deputy Traf tc Engineer ItaPki stated that installing R.P.,M.'s would not be a problem. Commissioner Ruiz asked that bushes on the north/west corner be removed It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation with the addition of installing reflective R.P.M.'s on the inside and removing the bushes on the north/west corner. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON - - " VALLEY BOULEVARD AT MISSION DRIVE " Deputy Traffic Engineer stated that 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. The signal is coordinated together with the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Rio Hondo Drive. Peak hour turning movement counts were taken at Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive. This included the 700 to 900 a.m., peak and the 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak. 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. 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. - During the p.m. peak this volume drops to 290 vehicles. Based on the existing traffic_ volumes, there is a need for an additional right turn lane. REC01A1 IENDATION: - The addition of a westbound right turn lane on Valley Boulevard was recommended. This lane will be a shared right-through lane. Should the Traffic Commission support this recommendation, staff would like to review the traffic signal operation of Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive/Rio I4ondo 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. - It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Baffic, and. carried - . unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. ' V. STAFF REPORTS Administrative Aide Wilkinson stated that at the City Council meeting of March 29'", the following items were approved: - a. The installation of reflectors and red curb on Fendyke Avenue. b. The 25 mph speed limit sign was installed at Rockhold and Marshall. VI.. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Ruiz would like to have staff write a letter to Cal-Trans at the Encinita Yard, regarding an incident that took place on March I8' . Commissioner Ruiz stated that on that date, at approximately 8:30 a.m., he requested that they block off Temple City and Loftus so that the traffic would be detoured back to Valley, but that didn't happen, traffic was still going into Olney Street while doing maintenance on the on/off ramp. Commissioner Ruiz also stated that regarding installing a "Temporary No Truck Parking" sign up. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that she would she Temple City Boulevard to see what the standard sign is. _ Deputy Robles stated that the residents can call the station regarding the trucks parking for extended period of times and have the vehicles impounded and towed away. Deputy Robles stated that he will pull up all the sections/ordinances that pertain to this and distribute it to everyone that works the Rosemead streets including the desk personnel. Mrs. Barbaralarson stated that she called the Sheriffs Department to report a neighbor that was playing his music very loud from about 8:00 p.m. - 2:00 a.m. The Sheriffs came out asked them to lower the music, left, and the music continued after the Sheriffs left. Deputy Robles stated that this kind of call if very difficult, because there is a search and seizure, and you can't go in without a search warrant.' Speaking before the Commission was: Dexter Chung Mr. Chung stated that him and his friends were pulled over by the Sheriffs Department, - they were searched, their cars were searched, nothing was found, and they did nothing wrong. He felt as though they were being harassed by the Sheriffs Department and that their rights were violated. Commissioner Herrera asked staff to look at the signal on Walnut Grove and Marshall (north bound); she feels the light is too short. - Commissioner Herrera commented on the water fountain in front of City Hall working and looking very nice. Commissioner Knapp stated that People for People was honored by the City of Monterey Park. At this function, Brightwood School in Monterey Park Nvas awarded for Valet Parking Service. They had students block off a section and had the parents drive up and they opened the doors and let people out. They are going to take it to the rest of the schools because it's working so well. She would like staff look into this idea. Commisssioner Knapp invited everyone to attend the Easter Egg Hunt on April 22nd, from 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m., at the Neitahborhood Community Church. Commissioner Knapp invited everyone to attend the Prayer Breakfast on Saturday, May 6", at 8:30 a.m., at the Rosemead CommMmity Recreation Center. Chairman Quintanilla stated that the signage is missing at Savannah School. Vf[. AD.f0 UR NU 'I ENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned. The next regularly scheduled meeting is set for May 4, 2000. 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. EA ~ IT fy 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 Hr .8838 Valley Blvd. Rosemead CA. 91 .To whom it ma} I am usir in this City. Twc the residents concern; g 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 sort of tragic Bumps be installed on Edmond Drive but was informedlat that time that this was not feasible according to existing laws but have since found out that even the type that now installed. Pan of this i Ever since the we have experienced a be-in.- the only Thru. necessary due to be subjected to is not true and traffic bums such as those existing behind City Hall or eist'on Encinitas near Rosemead Park and the school can lawfUy be rmation comes from the Temple City Sheriffs Office. Hwht_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. There have been three times in. the past two years that the Temple City Sheriffs have monitored the traffic fo I a few hours in the morning and the afternoon and the last officer I spoke with informed me that day he had written thirty seven (37) tickets. We have allo now come to a-point I could relate this condition to worsen by not following thru with our city and it has t something MUST BE DONE to correct this. serous instances of accidents and near accidents that have occurred 2) including two wherein turned into Edmond up onto the Iau-n and sacking 2 cars upon z heading East On Edm location. There.havc b oriental older ladies w MPH. It is our beliefs fatzEry or fatalities in t -1 have livcd.in i 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. Mother 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 morxuna. 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 ar 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 teething happen it is my opinion that our city would and should be held accountable if nothing ii done. - You fof your time and consideration, Sincerely, I~ Oro A. Peter 8738 Edmond Dr (626) 256-6541- 1.1/29/99 12:42 FAX 6952120 Muscatel Ave. Ex. Neighborhood Watch sign. o' WILLDAN ASSOC - ROSDIEAD Not to scale Ex. Stop sign. 00C Ex. Street / Sweeping sign. / Q / C D / Property Line Install a Install R2(25) sign W R2(25) sign r------- (36" x 45") -(36" x 45") 8616 ; on new on new post. / post. Q 8612 / w / Property Line - . / / Walnut Grove Ave. Figure 1 J11Rsd\ExhlEdmond- EXHIBIT "E" Edmond Drive between Walnut Grove - WG3Mus Avenue and Muscatel Avenue 1"Uuuji I lliuJ 0", vu . u. Lv w~..w ....emu uu..uu~u. u........•vu v. w . "KEEP CLEAR" markings was NOT recommended. Speaking before the Commission was: Chris Orozco President ojHidden Pines Associatio/he Mr:-Oro zco, stated that he has read the recommendatEngineer, and would like to know why the "KEEP CLEAR' oing to be installed. Deputy Traffic Engineer IXliket were no reported accidents at . this intersection, and staff end "KEEP CLEAR" markings unless it is absolutely neceChair person Knapp stated R" markings on Hellman Avenue at the exit on Wale motorist disregard the "KEEP CLEAR" markings at this 1 Commissioner Ruiz a . Orozco, at what time does the back-up occur? ldmw Mr. rozco sta at it starts to back up between 2:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m., and all day Zll~cmnggoneekends. Comrecommended that signs stating "NO PARKING ANYTIME" be iof the 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 EDNIOND 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 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. EXHIBIT "F" ' 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 accidenthistory 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 polity 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 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. 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 F_dmond 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: Alr. Geller Rc;ired 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. REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE AT 4655 FEN-DYKE AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that this request was receiv oin 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 '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 reported accident history at the i ction of Fendyke Avenue and Barrette Street was reviewed for the period ping January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999. This review indicated no ed accidents at the intersection. Field review of the interse of Fendyke Avenue/Barrette Street revealed some tire marks in the street ting some high-speed travel through the intersection. There were no visibl ks on the curb. Fendyke Avenue north of Barrette Street is a cul-de- herefore, the majority of traffic is likely turning westbound to ound and northbound to eastbound. This is supported by the tire marks qX4 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 g of the "T" condition of the intersection. vpol The in of a W56 sign with a yellow Type N-1 marker was recommended on Fendyke Avenue directly across the Barrette Street.