Loading...
TC - Agenda - 07-17-08Public Comment from the Audience: • If you wish to address the Rosemead Traffic Commission, please complete a Speaker Request Card and hand it to the Secretary before the start of the meeting. • The Rosemead Traffic Commission will hear public comments on matters not listed on the agenda during the Public Comments from the Audience period. • Opportunity to address the Traffic Commission (on non - agenda items) is limited to 3 minutes per speaker. • The Traffic Commission will hear public comments on items listed on the agenda during discussion of the matter and prior to a vote. Brown Act: Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The Traffic Commission may direct staff to investigate and /or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Traffic Commission meeting. Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to allow the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting or service. Persons attending the meeting shall observe rules of propriety, decorum, good conduct, and refrain from impertinent or slanderous remarks. Violation of this rule shall result in such persons being barred from further audience before the governing body. This agenda was posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead; the L.A. County Library, Rosemead Branch, 8800 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead; and other locations pursuant to RMC Sec. 1.08.020 Rosemead Traffic Commission AGENDA JULY 17 7:00 PM Rosemead Community Recreation Center 3936 N. Muscatel Avenue, Rosemead, CA. 91770 Holly Knapp, Chairperson Howard Masuda, Vice - Chairman Ron Gay, Commissioner Joan Hunter, Commissioner Brian Lewin, Commissioner ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION 17, 2008 • CALL TO ORDER — 7:00 PM • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Vice Chairman Masuda • INVOCATION — Commissioner Gay • ROLL CALL — Chairperson Knapp, Vice Chairman Masuda, Commissioners Gay, Hunter and Lewin 1. PRESENTATION A. Recognition of Service —Joan Hunter B. Oath of Office — Keno Deary 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 26, 2008 - Regular Meeting (Deferred to Next Meeting) 3. PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE Please refer to public comment guidelines on the first page of this document. 4. OLD BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS A. MISSION DRIVEIIVAR AVENUE— Southbound Visibility Concerns and Crosswalk Concerns 6. STAFF REPORTS 7. COMMISSIONER. REPORTS 8. ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting scheduled for August 7, 2008 is cancelled due to a lack of a quorum. The next regular meeting is scheduled for September 4, 2008 at the Rosemead Community Recreation Center, 3936 N. Muscatel Avenue, Rosemead. CA. 91770. Q:\ M6774 -Rsd Retainer 07 -08 7raffic Commission Agendas \7 July \July Agenda.doc ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: JULY 17, 2006 SUBJECT: MISSION DRIVE /IVAR AVENUE — SOUTHBOUND VISIBILITY CONCERNS AND CROSSWALK CON CERNS SUMMARY A request was received at a recent Traffic Commission meeting from Mr. Peter Woo, 4644 Ivar Avenue, regarding the intersection of Mission Drive and Ivar Avenue. Mr. Woo indicated that southbound vehicles on Ivar Avenue have a difficult time seeing westbound vehicles when trying to access Mission Drive. He has suggested the addition of red curb to improve visibility. An additional letter request (attached) was received from Ms. Chalice Willis, 4423 Rosemead Boulevard. Ms. Willis indicates that pedestrians are not given the right -of- way when crossing this intersection. She has suggested the installation of a crossing guard, or flashing yellow beacon or a pedestrian signal at the intersection of Mission Drive /Ivar Avenue. Staff Recommendation It is staffs recommendation that the Traffic Commission recommends the City Council approve the installation of 30 feet of red curb on the north side of Mission Drive from Ivar Avenue to 30 feet westerly. Staff further recommends the Traffic Commission recommend to the City Council to approve the installation of an additional 48 feet (21 feet + 6 feet + 21 feet) of red curb on the north side of Mission Drive from Ivar Avenue easterly. This will provide for a total of approximately 85 feet of red curb from Ivar Avenue easterly. Exhibit A depicts this recommendation. It is staffs recommendation that the pedestrian crossing issue at Mission Drive /Ivar Avenue be reanalyzed in late September /early October after school resumes. This will allow staff to gather school pedestrian crossing data and observe the location during school crossing times. This request will be brought back to the Traffic Commission no later than December 2008. Traffic Commission Meeting July 17, 2008 Page 2 of 6 ANALYSIS Mission Drive is a 64 -foot wide roadway with two lanes of traffic in each direction. Opposing lanes of traffic are separated by a double yellow centerline. There are no dedicated left turn lanes on Mission Drive at Ivar Avenue. The fronting uses on Mission Drive are a mix of commercial and residential. Parking on the north side of Mission Drive is restricted by "2 Hour Parking 9 AM to 6 PM, Except Sunday" in the vicinity of Ivar Avenue. Mission Drive has a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Ivar Avenue is an off -set roadway at its intersection with Mission Drive. The north leg of Ivar Avenue is 40 feet wide and is approximately 240 feet east of the south leg. The south leg of the intersection is 36 feet wide. Ivar Avenue is stop controlled at both its 'intersection with Mission Drive. The fronting uses on Ivar Avenue north and south of Mission Drive are primarily residential. The prima facie speed limit on Ivar Avenue is 25 mph. At the intersection of Mission Drive and the west most leg of Ivar Avenue (south leg, northbound approach) there is a yellow crosswalk for north /south pedestrians. This yellow crosswalk is identified with "SLOW SCHOOL XING" pavement markings, advance signs and signs at the crosswalk. The signs are fluorescent yellow green (FYG) and identify the crosswalk as a school related crosswalk. Exhibit "A" depicts existing conditions at the intersection of Mission Drive and Ivar Avenue. Discussion The reported accident history for the intersection of Mission Drive and Ivar Avenue was reviewed for the period from January 1, 2006 through April 21, 2008. The accident history revealed one reported accident occurring on the west leg (where the yellow crosswalk exists) on Saturday, March 11, 2006. This accident involved a westbound vehicle rearending another westbound vehicle at 2:14 pm. Based on the location, the accident may have occurred as a result of pedestrians crossing Mission Drive in the yellow crosswalk. Typically, a rearend accident at a location without a stop sign or traffic signal and at a crosswalk is a result of one vehicle yielding the right -of way to a pedestrian. A following vehicle may not have noticed the stopped car and caused a rearend accident. Southbound Visibility Concern Mr. Woo indicated that parked vehicles on Mission Drive often obstructed the visibility of eastbound and westbound vehicles traveling on Mission Drive for southbound vehicles stopped on Ivar Avenue. His primary concern was the vehicles parked east of Ivar Avenue on Mission Drive. Traffic Commission Meeting July 17, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Field observations were made of the visibility situation for southbound Ivar Avenue traffic. Currently, there is a commercial establishment on the northeast corner of the intersection. There is on -site parking provided. The on- street parking on the Mission Drive portion of this development allows for approximately 2 vehicles to park. On the Ivar Avenue portion of this development approximately 4 vehicles could park on the street. During our observations, the on- street parking on Mission Drive east of Ivar Avenue was fully occupied (2 vehicles parked). West of Ivar Avenue, Mission Drive was approximately 50% occupied (3 vehicles parked in a curb length that could accommodate approximately 6 vehicles). The on- street parking on Ivar Avenue, adjacent to the commercial development, was usually occupied by 50% (2 vehicles parked). The on- street parking on Ivar Avenue immediately north of Mission Drive was 75% parked during our observations. The parked cars on Mission Drive did hinder visibility of southbound vehicles exiting Ivar Avenue onto Mission Drive. The parked cars reduced the visibility of oncoming both eastbound and westbound vehicles. Observations indicated that many southbound vehicles would "sneak out" of Ivar Avenue to get a better view of oncoming traffic. Staff Recommendation It is staffs recommendation that the Traffic Commission recommends the City Council approve the installation of 30 feet of red curb on the north side of Mission Drive from Ivar Avenue to 30 feet westerly. Staff further recommends the Traffic Commission recommend to the City Council to approve the installation of an additional 48 feet (21 feet + 6 feet + 21 feet) of red curb on the north side of Mission Drive from Ivar Avenue easterly. This will provide for a total of approximately 85 feet of red curb from Ivar Avenue easterly. Exhibit A depicts this recommendation. Crosswalk Concern Ms. Willis indicated that vehicles do not stop for pedestrians crossing Mission Drive at the crosswalk at Ivar Avenue. There are 3 options that should be considered to address the need to provide additional warning to motorists regarding pedestrians in this yellow crosswalk. These options, in no particular order, include the placement of a crossing guard during school crossing times, flashing yellow beacon, an in- roadway warning lights. Each of these options could provide motorists warning of the yellow crosswalk when pedestrians are using the crossing. The guidelines for the installation of the 3 options discussed require pedestrian data be gathered. Ms. Willis' letter was received late the in school year. Staff was unable to collect the necessary data with regards to the number of pedestrians using the yellow crosswalk. This data is important information necessary to best address this concern. Traffic Commission Meeting July 17, 2008 Page 4 of 6 However, staff has provided a short description of in- roadway warning lights (IRWL) for the Traffic Commission's edification. This is provided as an introduction to this relatively new technology and the guidelines of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The CA MUTCD provides the following description of in- roadway warning lights (IRWL): "In- roadway lights are special types of highway traffic signals installed in the roadway surface to warn road users that they are approaching a condition on or adjacent to the roadway that might not be readily apparent and might require the road users to slow down and /or come to a stop." These flashing lights are activated by a pedestrian in an "active' or "passive" manner. An active manner would be a pedestrian push button that must be pushed by the pedestrian. The passive manner would be an electronic device (camera, infrared or other similar form of detection) the senses when a pedestrian is present and wants to cross the street. Most IRWL installations in the southern California area are using "active' activation. After a pedestrian activates the IRWL's, the IRWL's will begin to flash. The lights are directed towards the vehicles and away from the crosswalk area. The IRWL's continue to flash for a sufficient number of seconds to allow a pedestrian to leave the curb or shoulder and travel at a normal walking speed to at least the far side of the street. Generally, there are no pedestrian indications (Hand /Man signal head) at an IRWL location. This is done to reinforce the need for pedestrians to look both ways before crossing the location. As we have discussed previously, it is as much of the responsibility of the pedestrian, as it is the motorist, to cross the street in a safe manner. Pedestrians and motorist, as stated in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21950, are responsible when it comes to pedestrians crossing a roadway: "21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right -of -way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the Traffic Commission Meeting July 17, 2008 Page 5 of 6 vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. (d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. The CA MUTCD has provided 8 items to consider when evaluating the need for IRWL's: 1. Whether the crossing is controlled or uncontrolled. 2. An engineering traffic study to determine if In- roadway warning lights are compatible with the safety and operation of nearby intersections, which may or may not be controlled by traffic signals or STOPNIELD signs. 3. Standard traffic signs for crossings and crosswalk pavement markings are provided. 4. At least 40 pedestrians regularly use the crossing during each of any two hours (not necessarily consecutive) during a 24 -hour period. 5. The vehicular volume through the crossing exceeds 200 vehicles per hour in urban areas or 140 vehicles per hour in rural during peak -hour pedestrian usage. 6. The critical approach speed (85 percentile) is 70 km /h (45 mph) or less. 7. In- roadway warning lights are visible to drivers at the minimum stopping sight distance for posted speed limit. 8. Public education on IRWL is conducted for new installations. Depending on the number of lanes at the marked crosswalk, the IRWL's are placed in the middle of each travel lane. Again the CA MUTCD describes where the IRWL's shall be placed depending on the number of travel lanes. For an intersection such as Mission Drive and Ivar Avenue, a minimum of 8 IRWL would be installed. However, based on the width of the roadway, an addition 10 IRWL would be recommended. The estimated construction cost for such an installation of IRWL is $60,000. Staff Recommendation It is staffs recommendation that the pedestrian crossing issue at Mission Drive /lvar Avenue be reanalyzed in late September /early October after school resumes. This will allow staff to gather school pedestrian crossing data and observe the location during school crossing times. This request will be brought back to the Traffic Commission no later than December 2008. Traffic Commission Meeting July 17, 2008 Page 6 of 6 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Submitted by: 6 9 1 " ILP Joanne Itagaki Traffic Engineering Deputy Exhibit A: Existing and proposed improvements at Mission Drive and Ivar Avenue Ms. Willis Letter Chalice A Willis 4423 Rind Blvd Tdt4 U - VV UV Raea� .d, CA 91770.1497 kcw nud -O a(( &� E tlo-ueq zI Ac'UP Od , C4 `7/770 iUQlrs @ Cloy+ Lvar �2ctr % ra �'l � Corn n + I SS ion f=o( Several VVlcviflls nne F�� G �I G�a� -e observed seven_;,/ Persons; Par+ e�ra.ri Cj,,ldreh, cnflciv+P1 �r +� Fc� ero MiSS;cn [�rlve� Nln� ; °Qrel2 nt csF +lu ti nt2 V2l�,cL�S Cl6 hl(:) �f 2agutar,-1 4-he- oaFor� l�lenFlcy�d eY' Idk PedY�S�Y��i�tS l,�`ai�in� �o ��'05.5. �S�F�ic;llll and kli4 r heAu "P�Lyslecd(v on be6+al -F c4' ldrei , by (/,0// ;' k j ftirowino our arms In +kL a) r 4-o o - r D 6 1[e rS So 4 t Lj uU t I I .+fl 5a� I S ro I SS Ion S OP luL wctf" OR�� 1 �frer n r� Caner puase) on mare has b z d one fo w� � VeI it -Les toIU'2 �i�i,t of Pcd 4?4tY'iavi s �[ +ItcL+ Pa 1^�'eLL ((L r Gro . F— I4YK r /e!(a ul e�F Yhoe�� or owe oUer��ncc� Imo+ �riVe IGt1�� �l.er� I c mss walKl o, �veV) 5�.� s Hurl- or ?i I LLE1� G E1� PyLm0 o � n 0 0 / / m _ _ / O \ [VAR AVENUE -I / a tY 4 / D n n m o— s / [VAR AVENUE m / N B• Z lDCTI 0 D � � n oL ¢U�mo-we ¢M1 Wn m- q��VpJrsVeJ S.wisa a1 �4 [� -i14n PUBLIC NOTICE City of Rosemead NOTICE OF CANCELLED TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission, to be held on August 7, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. is cancelled due to lack of quorum. The next regular Traffic Commission meeting will be held on September 7, 2008 at 7:00 p.m., at Rosemead City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770. Office of the City Clerk 8838 E. Valley Boulevard City of Rosemead, California Gloria Molleda City Clerk Date: July 24, 2008 Expire: August 8, 2008