Loading...
TC - Agenda - 04-07-05AGENDA ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Regular Meeting APRIL 7, 2005 "k, Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Chairperson Quintanilla, V' Knapp, and Commissioner Matsdorf Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Quintanilla Invocation: Commissioner Knapp I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 3, 2005 II. 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). III. OLD BUSINESS - NONE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON NEVADA STREET BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND IVAR AVENUE B. REQUEST FOR ALL -WAY STOP AT MARSHALL STREET AND BROOKLINE AVENUE V. STAFF REPORTS VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT -To the next regular meeting of the Traffic Commission on Thursday, May 4, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., Rosemead City Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California 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; and at other locations pursuant to RMC Section 1.08. ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 3, 2005 A regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairperson Knapp at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Knapp, Quintanilla and Matsdorf Absent: Commissioner Benjamin , Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Matsdorf Invocation: Commissioner Knapp I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 3, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Matsdorf, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes for February 3, 2005. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Speaking before the Commission was: Daryl Kelty 4443 Earle Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. Kelty stated that at ShueySchool, cones are being put up for cars turning left, going west on Wells turning into the school, and people are going into the eastbound traffic lanes. Commissioner Matsdorf stated that she works at the school and the school has sent out letters to the parents reminding them not to' d6 that Mr. Kelty also stated that the "No Parking' signs on Garvey Avenue (both sides), are very faded and need to be replaced. Mr. Kelty went onto say that going south on Del Mar, making a left turn onto Garvey, the left turn lane takes approximately 4 cycles to get through the green light. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - Con't Speaking before the Commission was: An audience member Address: Unknown This gentleman stated that eastbound on Rush Street there are 2 breaks in the median, one that does not have a left turn provision, and people are making a u- turn at this location, blocking traffic. III. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR AUDIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS AT WALNUT GROVE AND LANDISVIEW LANE - VIBROTACTILE DEVICE OPTION Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. Recommendation: Due to the concerns of the noise level of an audible pedestrian signal by the Traffic Commission and nearby property owners, it was recommended that vibrotactile.devices be installed at the intersection of Walnut Grove Avenue at Landisview Lane for pedestrians crossing Walnut Grove Avenue. Commissioner Matsdorf asked Mr. Jhon Rodriguez if he would be able to use the vibrotactile device. Mr. Rodriguez stated that it should be okay, however, he has never used a vibrotactile device. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that they wily find a location where a vibrotactile device is located and drive Mr. Rodriguez to the location to try it out In addition, once installed, staff will give Mr. Rodriguez an in- service on how the device works. Commissioner Knapp stated that there are locations in Monterey Park where vibrotactile devices are installed. ; Speaking before the Commission was: Jean DeCocker Landis View Lane Rosemead, California 91770 Ms. DeCocker stated that she feels that vibrotactile devices should be installed at several other locations in this area. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that research has shown that people that are visually impaired are trained to listen to traffic, so they know when ifs their time to cross. It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Matsdorf and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. IV. NEW BUSINESS - None V. STAFF REPORTS A. CONSIDERATION OF BLUE CURB INSTALLATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. Recommendation: It was recommended that the Traffic Commission receive comment from Mr. Martinez and determine what parking restrictions might assist his dilemma or direct staff to proceed with additional analysis. It was further recommended that the Traffic Commission not develop a blue curb policy at this time. Staff will continue to bring such requests to the Commission when they occur and evaluate the requests on an individual basis. Speaking before the Commission was: Eddie A. Martinez 3229 Isabel Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Mr. Martinez stated that he has a lot of medical problems and cant walk very far. He has arthritis, chronic pain, diabetes, needs surgery: on his knee, etc. Assistant City Manager Wagner stated that he has spoken to Mr. Martinez several times. Mr. Martinez rents a house on a flag lot, towards the end of the lot, and has nowhere to park, and has to park 4 houses down. Mr. Wagner stated that the City of Norwalk has a Blue Curb Policy that might work for our City. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that the City of Norwalk has approximately 50 -75 blue curbs throughout the City, which have to be renewed every year. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that perhaps the blue curb could be installed and see how it goes, and not make it a formal policy, and bring it up as we receive a request and handle it on an individual basis. It was moved by Commissioner Matsdorf, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, and carried unanimously to install the blue curb at this location, as a pilot program and look at it again in 6 months and put up 1 sign. The Sheriffs representative stated that there will be a DUI checkpoint on Friday on Valley by the Car Wash at Easy Street. VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Matsdorf thanked staff for all their hard work. Commissioner Knapp invited everyone to attend an Easter Egg Hunt on the Saturday before Easter from 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m., at the Neighborhood Covenant Church. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m., with 6 people in the audience. Staff Report Rosemead Traffic Commission TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: March 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Request for Parking Restrictions on Nevada Street Between Rosemead Boulevard and Ivar Avenue REQUEST A request was received from residents of Nevada Street between Rosemead. Boulevard and Ivar Avenue. The residents submitted a petition (attached) to the City Engineer indicating that on- street parking is occupied especially between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. The vehicles of the employees and patrons of Sea Harbour Seafood Restaurant overflow onto Nevada Street. CONDITIONS Nevada Street is a 30 -foot wide east/west residential roadway. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street with street sweeping parking restrictions. There is also red curb on the north side of Nevada Street immediately west of Rosemead Boulevard. An exhibit will be provided at the regular meeting of the Traffic Commission depicting the existing conditions on Nevada Street. DISCUSSION City staff, including the City Engineer, reviewed Nevada Street between Rosemead Boulevard and Ivar Avenue. These field observations identified that on- street parking, especially on the east end of the street, is heavily used during the early afternoon hours. The City Engineer and Planning Director then met with resident's representatives and the management of Sea Harbour Seafood Restaurant. Several items were discussed at this meeting including, encouraging employees to park in the restaurant's parking lot and working with adjacent businesses to obtain additional off - street parking. In addition, the City Engineer requested the Traffic Commission review the existing red curb to determine if some of this red curb could be reduced to provide additional parking. April 7, 2005 Traffic Commission Meeting Request for Parking Restrictions on Nevada Street Between Rosemead Boulevard and Ivar Avenue In reviewing the location at this time, the existing length of red curb appears extensive. A reduction in the amount of red curb could provide additional on- street parking and not affect the traffic flow on Nevada Street. RECOMMENDATION Based on field review of the location and discussion with the residents of Nevada Street and Sea Harbour Seafood Restaurant management, the following is recommended: • On the north side of Nevada Street starting from Rosemead Boulevard 1. Retain 40 feet of red curb 2. Provide 45 feet of on- street parking (remove red curb) 3. Retain 5 feet of red curb (prior to Sea Harbour Seafood Restaurant driveway) 4. Retain 9 feet of red curb (past Sea Harbour Seafood Restaurant driveway) 5. Provide 20 feet of on- street parking (remove red curb) 6. Retain 9 feet of red curb (prior to residential driveway) • On the south side of Nevada Street starting from Rosemead Boulevard 1. Install 40 feet of red curb 2. No additional red curb beyond this point These recommendations are shown on Exhibit 1 (to be provided at the Traffic Commission meeting). Attachment { FILENAME \p) , i, MAA.23 17:16 Mayor Clark and City Councilmen Rosemead City Hall 8900 E. valley Blvd. Rosemead CA 91770 #3041 P.006 We, the undersigned, are residents of the 8900 block of Nevada Avenue in Rosemead, and would like to call your attention to the fact that we have major parking problems on our street between 10:00am and 2:00pm, every day. Patrons of Sea Harbour Seafood Restaurant, 3939 Rosemead Blvd., fill the restaurant's parking lot and then overflow onto ow street. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that restaurant employees park in front of our homes for long periods of time. If we have visitors, they seldom get to park in front of our homes, but have to park on Ivar Street or the Recreation Center parking lot. "7SH V �1c- sf�z9e� I ...A \N a"�a •.� P_.92 t D SUA..l711 AUG__ <. La S- cs Sros•o 643 yz 6z6 -?g$- 4L'Zn� 9. Ian ► V� c 32 NAmbA 19T V02 2G -x,203 NAME ADDRESS PHONE MAR.23 17:16 r 2IdldL JW 3/ F ' #304.1 P.007 b-?4 2NlC4Zr �s A /4t. 7" f� 7 � or-A i 1 X17. vo Nevo3Ast(626)5733984 .Necvaaa St. E �°` `�Q'`+ Nevada St. 19. �u a � a� c02cn . 3o7 —SIco V 20. $qr`- NeVO40 SF k Alta- i O - w% Neva aci ��• 21. Wto - � dbWMCMAw-A F• - iwe - 3 Dip -.Qc�� 27. 28. 29. M Staff Report Rosemead Traffic Commission TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: March 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Request for All -way Stop at Marshall Street and Brookline Avenue REQUEST A letter request, attached, was received from Mr. Thuan Bui, 3647 Brookline Avenue. Mr. Bui indicates that there have been a lot of collisions at the corner of Marshall Street and Brookline Avenue. Mr. Bui is requesting an all -way stop at this intersection to reduce the speeds and number of accidents at the intersection. Brookline Avenue is a 36 -foot north/south local residential roadway. There are no centerline stripes on the roadway. On street parking on Brookline Avenue is low to moderate during the mid -day. The prima facie speed limit on Brookline Avenue is 25 mph. Marshall Street is a 40 -foot east/west roadway that is stop controlled at its intersection with Brookline Avenue. There are no centerline stripes on the roadway. The prima facie speed limit on Marshall Street is 25 mph. An exhibit will be provided at the regular meeting of the Traffic Commission depicting the existing conditions at the intersection of Marshall Street and Brookline Avenue. DATA The reported accident history at the intersection of Marshall Street and Brookline Avenue was reviewed for the period from January 1, 1999 through. December 31, 2004. A summary of the reported accidents is provided below: Location and Description Date/Time 1. Brookline @ Marshall 2/2/2000, 8:09 AM. Eastbound vehicle proceeding ` straight broadsided a southbound vehicle proceeding straight (PCF = Auto R/W violation) April 7, 2005 Traffic Commission Meeting Request for All -way Stop at Marshall Street and Brookline Avenue 2. Brookline @ Marshall 9/22/2002,1:45 PM. Eastbound vehicle proceeding straight hit a fixed object and a southbound vehicle proceeding straight (PCF = Traffic signals /signs violated) 3. Brookline @ Marshall 8/25/2003, 10:00 AM Eastbound vehicle proceeding straight Broadsided a southbound vehicle Proceeding straight (PCF = Traffic signals /signs violated) (PCF = Primary Collision Factor) Twenty -four hour traffic volume counts were also conducted on Marshall Street and Brookline Avenue. Here is a summary of the traffic count information obtained: Street Total 24 -hour Volume Directional Volume Peak Hour Brookline Avenue 875 NB =394; SB =481 SB= 42(7AM) Marshall Street 645 EB =506, WB =139 EB= 50(BAM) DISCUSSION Field observation of the intersection of Marshall Street and Brookline Avenue was made during non -peak hours. Observations indicated some vehicles traveling faster than the prima facie speed limit. Staff will provide a survey of speeds collected on Brookline Avenue at the Traffic Commission meeting. Marshall Street is stop controlled at Brookline Avenue. Traffic on Brookline Avenue was adequately visible from Marshall Street. The purpose of stop controls is to assign right -of -way. The stop control is usually established on the street with the least volume of traffic. Multi -way stop control is usually reserved for those locations where the volume of traffic exceeds 300 vehicles per hour. Exhibit 2 identifies the guidelines used to determine if a multi - way stop control is justified at Brookline Avenue /Marshall Street. Exhibit 2 indicates the intersection of Marshall Street and Brookline Avenue does not satisfy the general guidelines for the installation of multi -way stop controls. The traffic volumes and reported accident history fall well below the guidelines established. It is important to realize stop controls need to be installed at locations where they are clearly warranted. When the traffic volumes exceed the 300 vehicles per hour threshold and where both streets have about the same amount of traffic, a multi -way stop controlled intersection is a realistic level of traffic control. Often when stop controls are installed at locations not meeting the guidelines, motorists April 7, 2005 Traffic Commission Meeting Request for All -way Stop at Marshall Street and Brookline Avenue determine the stop control is not necessary and voluntary compliance is poor. Without voluntary compliance, traffic safety is severely compromised. As a speed deterrent, studies have found that stop controls are not necessarily effective. These studies have found that speeds resume within a few hundred feet of the actual stop location. Those .motorists who slow for the controls at unjustified locations often reach higher speeds between controls to make up the "lost time" at the stop control. The most effective deterrent to speeding is enforcement. And though enforcement cannot be a 24 -hour operation, it is a tangible reminder to motorists. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the existing level of traffic control remain with vehicles stopping on Marshall Street at Brookline Avenue. It is further recommended that the radar speed trailer be placed on Brookline Avenue between Valley Boulevard and Loftus Drive when it is next available. It is further recommended that selective enforcement occur soon after the radar speed trailer is placed on Brookline Avenue. Attachments ( FILENAME �p ) s MAA.23'2005 17:17 #3U41 P.U12 MULTI -WAY STOP SIGN WARRANTS (FROM MUTCD 2003 EDITION) DATE: 3 Zt 05 The installation of multi -way STOP signs are based on the following: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. Satisfied: Yes No B. A crash problem, as indicated by five or more reported crashes in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to correction by a mulltway stop Installation. Such crashes include right- and left -tum collisions as well as right -angle collisions. eePwAeA aCCtdan4� y�nte OS1L5 /0er Satisfied: Yes No C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and Satisfied: Yes No 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages 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 highest hour, but Satisfied: Yes No 3. If the 85- percentile approach speed of the major - street traffic exceeds 65 km/h or exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values. Satisfied: Yes No D, Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria 8, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. (80% 8 = 4, 80% C.1= 210, 80% C.2 = 140) 1. Vehicular Volumc 2. Combined Votum Z Doer r� in61� pedc�Ftaovr� or btcyaleb. Satisfied: Yes a Guiderme ? -SA" 4 -10Ah 1 -tPM 2 -3Prt }4Pt1 'Sfh �-GPh 6 - 7PM : 300 (210) 63 46 49 4 4Z 66 l? 14- zoo(1ao) 5D Zt 30 54 56 55 hl to' Ad6 59 44 MAA.23 17:17 - 03041 P.011 ;MAR: ;70' 05(TRU) 18.02 CITY OF ROSEMEAD 7EL :626 -307 -9218 P. 002 44)' C l QA �� 1`7 7 lq . �•'�,c�� -eve ,in . � �„� . �tiar•c : � - (.c,'� ; �L ccc,' cr�e.+�.�' : .���.- o�, �; 'WU .V\J4 Jok. ti 4 . C'AP.^` Goo lop