Loading...
TC - Agenda - 12-05-02AGENDA ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Regular Meeting DECEMBER 5, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Chairman Baffo, Vice - Chairman Quintainilla Commissioners Matsdorf, Knapp, Ruiz Pledge of Allegiance: Vice - Chairman Quintanilla Invocation: Commissioner Ruiz 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 3, 2002 & November 7, 2002 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 4. NEW BUSINESS A. ROSEMEAD PLACE SHOPPING CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY - REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS 5. STAFF REPORTS A. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL. ACTION TAKEN ON NOVEMBER 26, 2002 6. COMMISSIONER REPORTS 7. ADJOURNMENT - To the next regular meeting of the Traffic Commission on Thursday, January 2, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., Rosemead City Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA, 91770. Posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at: Rosemead City Hall, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead; the L.A. County Library, Rosemead Branch, 8800 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead; and at other locations pursuant to RMC Section 1.08. ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2002 A regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Baffo, at 7:05 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Baffo, Quintanilla, Ruiz & Knapp Absent: Commissioner Matsdorf Ex- Officio: Associate Planner: Traffic Engineering Deputy: Sheriff's Department: CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Knapp Invocation: Vice- Chairman Quintanilla I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jessica Wilkinson Joanne Itagaki Sgt. Izell The minutes were deferred to the December 5, 2002 meeting, due to a lack of a quorum. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None III. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR REFLECTIVE DISH ON IVAR AVENUE AT MARSHALL STREET - FOLLOW -UP ON PROPOSED RED CURB Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki presented the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: The Traffic Commission recommended the installation of two sections of 20 feet of red curb on Marshall Street east and west of Ivar Avenue. No vote was taken on this item as it was unanimously approved at the October 3, 2002 Traffic Commission meeting. The intent of this hearing was to invite residents in the vicinity of the proposed red curb installation to comment on this matter. B. REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROLS ON MARSHALL STREET BETWEEN SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD AND WALNUT GROVE AVENUE - FOLLOW -UP Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki presented the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that continued selective enforcement be conducted on Marshall Street. Speaking before the Commission was: Mrs. Ivy Teng 3669 Earle Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Mrs. Teng stated that she is requesting the City to lower the speed limit on Marshall Street to 30 mph because of the high volume of pedestrians in that area. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that statistics have shown that there are more accidents at unmarked crosswalks than there are at marked crosswalks. It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Quintanilla and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation, but to have the enforcement specified at a certain time. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF PARKING ON SOUTH SIDE OF VALLEY BOULEVARD BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND HART AVENUE Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki presented the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: Based on field observations and the location of the existing fire hydrant, no additional parking was recommended at 9126 Valley Boulevard. It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Quintanilla, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. V. STAFF REPORTS Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki updated the Commission on the relocation of the bus pad. One of the things they looked at was how often the buses come to this location, and at this time, the buses only come once an hour, so the buses are not there a lot. VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Knapp stated that the timing at Mission and Rosemead Boulevard there isn't enough time to go east and west. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated that she will check with Caltrans to see if they timed it for peak hours. Commissioner Knapp asked if the Traffic Commission is going to look at the plans for the Wal -Mart and have any input. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated that if and when plans are submitted, perhaps the Traffic Commission could have a special study session. Commissioner Knapp asked if there is a crossing guard at Rush Street and Delta to go to Rice School. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated that the crosswalk is actually on Angelus. Commissioner Knapp also stated that resident who live on Delta are very concerned with all the employees that work at the Life Insurance building that parking on Delta Street, making it difficult for the residents. Commissioner Knapp recommended that a letter be sent from the City, asking the business to have their employees park in their parking lot.. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated that staff is aware of the situation. The problem seems to be that Chicago Title is allowing some of Countrywide employees to park on Delta, and may be a future Traffic Commission item. Commissioner Knapp also brought up a need for a "Keep Clear' painted at Hellman Avenue at Kelburn and at Rockhold. Commissioner Knapp also stated that on Walnut Grove where the cars are coming out of the driveway from the Condominiums have a difficult time seeing vehicles that are approaching, because of the cars parked that close to the driveway, and possibly paint some red curb by the driveway, between Valley and Mission. Commissioner Knapp also stated that on the corner of San Gabriel and Hellman Avenue, she would like to see bot dots installed, because of all the left turns coming out of the driveway at 7 -11. Commissioner Knapp announced the Annual Pancake Breakfast for "People for People" on November 16 at the Methodist Church in San Gabriel. Speaking before the Commission was: Henry Tran 8461 Mission Drive Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. Tran stated that there is a trailer parked in front of their house, blocking their visibility, they usually park there overnight and into the morning hours. Chairman Baffo thanked everyone for attending the meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is set for Thursday, December 5, 2002. Staff Report Rosemead Traffic Commission TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: November 25, 2002 RE: Rosemead Place Shopping Center Traffic Impact Study — Review of Recommendations BACKGROUND With the recent tenant improvements of the Rosemead Place Shopping Center, the City requested an outside traffic consultant-to complete a traffic impact study. The traffic consultant, Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LL &G) analyzed the impacts of a "fully leased" Shopping Center. Exhibit 2, from the LL &G study, depicts the site plan of the Shopping Center. The study has been presented and reviewed by City staff and the Shopping Center's property management company. The traffic study analyzed the on -site parking of the Shopping Center (Exhibit 3). The City specifically requested analysis of parking per City Code requirements throughout the Center. Overall, Table 2 from the study, indicates the parking for the entire Center was found to be sufficient. However, there were some areas that experienced a deficit in available parking. For example, the shops and parking area in the northwest corner of the Center (Project Area A) where Starbucks is located was found to have a deficiency of 4 parking spaces. However, with spaces available in adjacent areas, this is not considered significant. The traffic study also analyzed the operating conditions of five intersections including: 1. Rosemead BoulevardNalley Boulevard 2. Rosemead Boulevard /Marshall Street 3. Rosemead Boulevard /Glendon Way & 1 -10 Freeway Westbound Off -ramp 4. Hart Avenue /Marshall Street 5. Hart Avenue /Ramona Boulevard & Driveway H From Table 7 of the LL &G study, under existing conditions, before the opening of the tenant improvements (Target), the intersections of Rosemead BI.Nalley BI. and Rosemead BI. /Marshall St. were operating at Level of Service (LOS) "E ". LOS "D" is considered acceptable in the City of Rosemead. December 5, 2002 Traffic Commission Meeting Rosemead Place Shopping Center Traffic Impact Study Review of Recommendations Page 2 of 2 With the addition of the "fully leased" Shopping Center (Year 2002 with Project), Rosemead BI.Nalley BI. and Rosemead BI. /Marshall St. continue to operate at LOS "E ". The intersection of Rosemead Boulevard /Glendon Way & 1 -10 Freeway Westbound Off -ramp also operates at LOS "E" with the "fully leased" Shopping Center. Another aspect of the traffic study was the impact of closure of the egress (exiting traffic) from the Center onto Glendon Way & 1 -10 Freeway Westbound Off -ramp. This was identified as Driveway A in the Site Plan. From Table 8, with this closure, the intersections of Rosemead BI.Nalley BI. and Rosemead BI. /Marshall St. continue to operate at Level of Service (LOS) "E" under existing conditions. However, with the "fully leased" Shopping Center, the PM peak period of Rosemead BI. /Marshall St. lowers to a LOS "F ". RECOMMENDATIONS To mitigate the traffic impacts of the "fully leased" Shopping Center, LL &G made six recommendations. These recommendations are provided in the Executive Summary attached for the Traffic Commission's review. The primary objective for the Traffic Commission is to review the conclusions of this report and make recommendations to the City Council. Therefore, we will review and discuss the recommendations of the study point -by- point. The following are the LL &G recommendations and staffs recommendation. 1. A significant impact at one of the five study intersections (Rosemead Boulevard and Marshall Street) is expected to occur with the addition of traffic due to the project. This impact is expected to occur under the existing driveway configuration as well as under the closure of the driveway A egress alternative. Incremental, but not significant impacts are forecast at the remaining four study intersections." Staff Recommendation: Staff agrees with this assessment of the traffic impacts associated with the `fully leased" Shopping Center. This is based on the traffic analysis presented by LL &G. 2. The westbound approach of Marshall Street at Rosemead Boulevard should be restriped to provide one exclusive left -turn lane, one shared left - turn /through lane and one shared through /right -turn lane. This mitigation measure can be accommodated in the existing roadway width. Further, a signal modification is required to provide for split phasing on Marshall Street at Rosemead Boulevard. The recommended mitigation measure is expected to reduce the project - related impact to less than significant levels." December 5, 2002 Traffic Commission Meeting Rosemead Place Shopping Center Traffic Impact Study Review of Recommendations Page 3 of 3 Staff Recommendation: Based on the projected traffic volumes for westbound left -turns on Marshall Street at Rosemead Boulevard (184 AM Peak/251 PM Peak), staff agrees additional left -turn capacity will be needed with the fully leased" Shopping Center. With the shared left -turn lane configuration, a split phasing operation on Marshall Street will be required and is also recommended by staff. 3. Based on a comparison of the project alternatives, closure of the Driveway A egress is recommended. Driveway A should be closed in conjunction with full occupancy of the project." Staff Recommendation: Based on conversations with the property management company of the Rosemead Place Shopping Center, the closure of Driveway A would not be agreeable with the property management company. The property management company has indicated to City staff that several lease agreements have options to be released from their agreements should any changes be made to the access points of the Center. Therefore, staff recommends this conclusion not be considered feasible at this time. 4. The project is expected to provide 1,681 parking spaces which is in excess of the City Code parking requirements (1,461 spaces). However, certain areas within the shopping center may be deficient in parking. If a four space deficit is deemed to be unacceptable then area A should be reconfigured. Internal site design adjustments to promote pedestrian connectivity between area A and areas B and D should be considered. Areas F and G are also deficient in parking by three spaces and 40 spaces respectively. The southern -most aisle as well as 40 spaces in the adjoining aisles of the parking structure should be marked for medical and general office use only. This would be consistent with the current area F signs and would satisfy the City Code parking requirements for the shopping center." Staff Recommendation: This is an on -site improvement. The City agrees that connectivity or reconfiguration of areas A, B and D should be considered. Staff also agrees with the recommendation to mark the parking spaces in areas F and G. 5. For Marshall Street between Rosemead Boulevard and Hart Avenue, the reported traffic accident rate of 2.39 accidents per million vehicle -miles of travel is greater than the average accident rate of 1.55 accidents per million vehicle -miles of travel. Recommended measures to reduce the traffic accident rate on Marshall Street include installing all -way stop control at the Marshall Street/Hart Avenue intersection, improving the sight December 5, 2002 Traffic Commission Meeting Rosemead Place Shopping Center Traffic Impact Study Review of Recommendations Page 4 of 4 distance on Marshall Street by pruning and /or removing a portion of the trees on the existing raised median, and considering the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Marshall Street and Driveway C." Staff Recommendation: Staff agrees that an all -way stop should be installed at the intersection of Marshall Street and Hart Avenue. This may better control traffic flow of westbound Marshall Street traffic for vehicles exiting the Shopping Center. Staff also agrees that pruning of the median trees and bushes will help improve the sight distance on Marshall Street. With regards to the recommendation of installing a traffic signal at Marshall Street and Driveway C, staff recommends that when the Shopping Center is `fully leased" a traffic signal warrant study be conducted to determine if a signal is needed at that time. Staff considers the installation of a traffic signal at this time to be premature. When the Center is `fully leased" traffic flow patterns of the project site as well as on City streets will be more stable and may result in fewer trips using Driveway C at Marshall Street and thus not satisfying the traffic signal warrants. 6. Signalization of the Marshall Street and Driveway C intersection is recommended. The intersection should be studied again after the project is fully occupied. If any of the traffic signal warrants are met, the intersection should be signalized." Staff Recommendation: As stated previously, staff recommends that when the Shopping Center is "fully leased" a traffic signal warrant study be conducted to determine if a signal is needed at that time. Attachments from the LL &G Study • Exhibit 2 — Site Plan • Exhibit 3 — Location of Parking Areas • Table 2 — Parking Analysis by Area • Table 7 — Summary of Volume to Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service • Table 8 — Summary of Volume to Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service with Closure of the Driveway A Egress • Executive Summary P: \06- 160 \JI1 \RSD\2002 Agendas & Documents \Dec - Rosemead Place Study Review.doc � A �i I i If I Q I r_. I I I i `� I �I I II �i u 'f I �.I al UNI J I ire -. -• �: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD i /� _ zF�w,a =, zoaz /90 /CD 9 {� {C:90 dOl 6 Q ,¢ N Q ,¢ � D U W z ~ o C17 w U e a- Q w w x 1� 0 a Z Z LIJ u W - z x h ., i� I I j i ILA I/ J �� _i .- � , `lam_ �� � --- -•'.�� ' . � (7 r.l i W Q z d O Q U Q J D- LL w O m W I z O O U I J ILA I/ J �� _i .- � , `lam_ �� � --- -•'.�� ' . � (7 r.l i a 0 0 w a / Z p F Q w O�z z 1 w I z coot /cc /ss cs:lo :a eai s.v c = \e ^f \s =ci aoi\:o 9 W Q z d O Q U Q J D- LL w O m W z O O U O J a 0 0 w a / Z p F Q w O�z z 1 w I z coot /cc /ss cs:lo :a eai s.v c = \e ^f \s =ci aoi\:o 9 E N C I N E E R 5 Table 2 PARKING ANALYSIS BY AREA Rosemead Place Shopping Center PROJECT. AREA [2) BUILDING FLOOR AREA [ PARKING CODE REQUIREMENT I REQUIRED PARKING [ 151 AVAILABLE PARKING [6) SURPLUS OR DEFICIENCY A 29,247 SF 1 space per 300 SF 97 spaces 93 spaces (4)spaces B 21,904 SF 1 space per 300 SF 73 spaces 99 spaces 26 spaces V C 63,197 SF 1 space per 300 SF 211 spaces 242 spaces 31 spaces D 143,560 SF 1 space per 300 SF. 4 spaces 680 spaces 201 spaces E 46,872 SF 1•space per 300 SF 156 spaces .165 spaces '9 spaces F SF 1 space per 300 5F 112 spaces 109 spaces (3)spaces G _33,463 100,000 SF 1 space per 300 SF 333 spaces 293 spaces (40) spaces TOTAL 438,243 SF 1 space per 300 SF 1,461 spaces 1,681 spaces 220 spaces [1] The parking areas were defined by their proximity to speck °Buildings and are depicted in Exhibit 3. [2] The building floor areas were provided by City of Rosemead staff. [3] The parking code requirements are per City of Rosemead Mdnicipai Code. [4] The required parking was calculated by dividing column [2] by column [3). [5] The available parking was verified through a field review by LLG Engineers. [6] The surplus or deficiency in parking per area was determinedlby subtracting column (4) from column [5). Rosemead Place Shopping Center 10 City of Rosemead, California U) 0 LIJ (n 0 L) = U < 5: M CD Lu U) 0 ' 0 W Lo W 'n :D LL, -i > 0 IL 0 W 'a > 0z E < 45 O z L < ' LU Z M < - - > 9 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 C? c? CS 6 Q C; O 6 Z 1 W W 0 W w 0 < a a< L) uj n < C) 0 MF-u �-: 0m Nw w a- 0 � C� Q� F- L) < w , � 00 00 00 00 (n a- zz Z�— zz zz zz yg Lil Z Z U N <->* 0c O0� l 0 0 0c 7 C; C; 66 0 0 0 cn 0 V 0 w w Lu w 0 < a < <- 0 mo mo: > LLJ 0 t1i w LLI LL) w c < a << L) -i w < �o LU W C� M M 77 >- CL C� 001 00 0 0 on 0 W Lll Uj Lu • 00 ¢¢ < < I < Lu 0 en cm T< L) C9 M mrn- m < :3 uj 0 < a <a; <d < a < a CL mm w my > > 75 m 0 0 fn M 'a Cf) C cc > I > E > < < Ln E 0 0 45 O z L I I G En LO w' Of CD w o¢ z O w 0;� fn v w w U x Z) m UF c d LL x d Q O a m U � u L a N LU o c m m U d J = Z O Q E 0 W ; , o U_ LO n O N W w J .n C w � Z U Z w Q w ii ii w N ° 0 0 b M O m a Z U C c > _ 6 0 O O O O O O U N°o voo ww ow o❑ ¢¢ ¢¢ = w r J N ~ 0 ¢ 3 �r�? w a > mrn mm mm c< > 00 0 0 -o o 0 0 o c LL ~ za 00 oW o0 00 00 OIL zz z zz zz zz m_ w N O n m z z U O- N M O C 00 � o0 0�oo 00 o V O w W w O O Q.¢ GQ J <§o C M f n O O N N m m { W a > m °� rn o� to v v > co O r 0 0 0 0 O G o Oti0 uww ww 00 ¢ ¢ C¢ N Z f w J N of n .. Q w O W M r O M O w �C U rn rn rn °: mco vc r > a> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ww w oU ¢¢ QG W N W Z OXU w w; O O 0 0 0 0 O O D O wo ¢a ¢w ¢a ¢a ¢LL CL 9 a P 2 > @ m ° > O > C.) o c 0 3 c m m m o w CO in c w° E o m 6 d > m > z > d� �� ¢ N ¢ ° _ N N W @ r E @ @ 46 N m v N � N U � @ 3 ° ¢ N b @ � r 3 O C N d ¢ m p o m � O ° c r E ° @ u O N � U d L � U N 01 @ c L ° � U N N C O o ° E C N b @ N � N C Y � @ C O � C wC7 m N y N U O ° axim C� N 9 d O C) E as N E m o Q1 0 N M ti c o � G C C O � O 5 U E N C I N E E R 5 TRAFFIC IMPAC ROSEMEAD PLACE SHC CITY OF ROSEMEAD, EXECUTIVE The Rosemead Place Shopping Center is located on the and Marshall Street intersection in the City of Rosem STUDY CENTER comer of the Rosemead Boulevard 1, California. The project contains a total pied uses include a tofal'of 162 SF of of building floor area. A mix of land uses d medical office are a part of the project. of 438,243 square feet (SF) of building floor area. Oc building floor area while vacant space totals 275,316 including retail, restaurant, health club, general office I When fully- leased, the project is expected to generate 246 net new vehicle trips (194 inbound trips and 52 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the project is expected to generate 503 net new vehicle trips (207 inbound trips and 296 outbound trips). Over a 24 -hour period the project is forecast to generate 5,212 net new trip ends (2,606 inbound trips and 2 outbound trips) during a typical weekday. In order to evaluate the potential impacts to the local st under two alternatives to determine changes in operatioi Place Shopping Center. The first almmative was a driveway configuration and the second alternative was driveway egress at the Rosemead Boulevard and intersection. A parking analysis, traffic safety review, et system, five intersections were analyzed following full- occupancy of the Rosemead analysis of the project with the existing i analysis of the project with closure of the. to I -10 Freeway Westbound Off -Ramp id.traffic signal warrant analysis were also prepared to identify any project- related transportation Rosemead Place Shopping Cenicr v City of Rosemead, Cnlrfornia I I N E E R s Based on the analyses mentioned above, the following 's concluded: I . A significant impact at one of the five st Marshall Street) is expected to occur w This impact is expected to occur under as under the closure of the driveway, significant impacts are forecast at the rt y intersections (Rosemead Boulevard and i the addition of traffic due to the project. e existing driveway configuration as well egress alternative. Incremental, but not four study intersections. 2. The westbound approach of Marshall restriped toprovide one exclusive left -tun one shared through/right -turn lane. This eet at Rosemead Boulevard should be tue, one shared Ieft -tum /through lane and itigation measure can be accommodated in the existing roadway width. Further, a signal modification is required to provide I for split phasing on Marshall Street at l osemead Boulevard. The recommended mitigation measure is expected to redu e the impact to less than significant levels. 3. Based on a comparison of the project alternatives, closure the Driveway A egress is recommended. Driveway A should be closed in conjunction with full occupancy of the project. 4. The project is expected to provide 1,631 x Code parking requirements (1,461 spa, shopping center may be deficient in park unacceptable then area A should be rece to promote pedestrian connectivity betv considered. Areas F and G are also de spaces, respectively. The southern -most aisles of the parking stricture should be only. This would be consistent with the City Code parking requirements for the sg spaces which is in excess of the City However, certaut areas within the If a four space deficit is deemed to be fired. Internal site design adjustments area A and areas B and D should be t in parking by three spaces and 40 as well as 40 spaces in the adjoining ;d for medical and general office use nt area F sibs and would satisfy the np center. Roseulead Place Shopping Center vi I Cio ofRosewcad, California J LINSCOTT LAW & .' GREENSPAN 5. For Marshall Street between Roseme traffic accident rate of 2.39 accidents than the average accident rate of 1.55 Recommended measures to reduce the t installing all -way stop control at the improving the sight distance on Marsha of the trees on the existing raised media signal at the intersection of Marshall S Sign alization of the Marshall Street and The intersection should be studied again the traffic signal warrants are met, the ii O. V o9_R LE%S i 4g%mporl%3 t 49 EXS. W PO Boulevard and Hart .Avenue, the reported r million velucle -miies of travel is greater -idents per million vehicle -miles of travel. ffic accident rate on Marshall Street include larshall Street/Hari Avenue intersection, treet by pruning and/or removing a portion and considering the installation of a traffic et and Driveway C. eway C intersection is recommended. the project is fully occupied. If any of ction should be signalized. Rosemead Place Shopping Ccnler vii Chy gfRosemead, California