CC - Item 4E - Rush Street and Angelus AvenueROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL'
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER
DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2008
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY AT RUSH STREET AND ANGELUS AVENUE AND
CONSIDERATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING ENHANCEMENTS
SUMMARY
In December 2007, the City received a petition from local residents to evaluate traffic
conditions at Rush Street and Angelus Avenue, adjacent to Rice Elementary School.
This issue was reviewed by the Traffic Commission and then forwarded to the City
Council for review and further direction. On February 12, 2008, the City Council
directed staff to improve traffic markings in the area and have an independent
engineering company conduct a new traffic study at the location.
Since that time, staff has made traffic marking improvements and worked with Kimley-
Horn and Associates (KHA) to conduct a new traffic study for this area. Traffic and
pedestrian counts were taken in May 2008 and an overview of the data is included for
review (Attachment 1). After traffic counts were taken, KHA worked with City staff and
the Traffic Commission to review existing conditions and evaluate potential l' traffic
calming enhancements for the area. After evaluating options at its October 2008
meeting, the Commission developed a recommendation to forward to the City Council'
for consideration.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review the Traffic Commission's
recommendation and direct staff to implement traffic calming enhancements.
DISCUSSION
Background
At its February 12, 2008 meeting the City Council reviewed a report related to traffic
safety concerns at Rush Street and Angelus Avenue, adjacent to Rice Elementary
School. Since the most recent study of the area had been conducted in May 2007, the
Council asked that staff hire an independent engineering firm to conduct a new study for
the area. In May 2008, Kimley -Horn and Associates (KHA) took new traffic and
ITEM 1®1 ®0
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA:
City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Page 2 of 4
pedestrian counts for the area. These new counts do not meet California Manual for
Uniform Traffic Control Devices warrants for the installation of a traffic signal. However,
KHA worked with City staff to develop traffic calming options at the location for the
Traffic Commission's consideration.
On June 26, 2008, the Traffic Commission reviewed a presentation related to the
conditions along Rush Street. The presentation (Attachment 2) included the following:
• An overview of the background related to the concerns in the area
• An explanation of traffic signal warrants a_ nd an explanation of criteria used to
evaluate them
• Traffic and pedestrian counts taken in May 2008
• Potential traffic calming measures that could be used at the location
,After reviewing this presentation, the Traffic Commission provided staff with comments
and further direction related to traffic calming options. Some options included installing
bulb -outs near the intersection of Rush Street and Angelus Avenue, trimming existing
landscaping on medians, in- pavement lighting, and adding red curbing.
Recommendations
Using comments and ideas from the Traffic Commission, KHA and staff worked to
develop 3 conceptual plans (Attachment 3) for further consideration. These 3 concept
plans, ranging from $10,000 to $100,000, were presented to the Traffic Commission on
October 2, 2008. A brief summary is included below for review:
Concept Plan 1 — Estimated Cost: $10,000
• Extend red curb along southern side of Rush, just west of Delta Avenue
• Paint a high visibility crosswalk at Rush Street and Angelus Avenue
• Replace existing landscaping with low- growth plant material
• Add speed feedback signs heading westbound and eastbound on Rush Street
Concept Plan 2 — Estimated Cost: $20,000
• All Level 1 Improvements
• Add painted bulb -outs along Rush Street
• Add drop- off /pick -up zones along north side of Rush Street
Concept Plan 3— Estimated Cost: $100,000
• All Level 1 and 2 Improvements
• Construct raised concrete bulb -outs along Rush Street
• Add flashing yellow pedestrian crossing signals at Rush Street and Angelus
Avenue
• Add turning restrictions at Rush Street and Delta Avenue
• Add left -turn lane at existing Wal -Mart signal
City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Page 3 of 4
After reviewing the presentation on October 2nd, the Traffic Commission voted
unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the proposed Level 2 improvements
be made along -Rush Street; that staff continue monitoring traffic conditions; that staff
work with Garvey School District officials regarding the installation of a drop- off /pick -up
zone; and that plant materials be trimmed to improve visibility along the entire stretch of
Rush Street.
The implementation of the level 2 concept plan will allow staff to evaluate the
effectiveness of improvements and "ramp up" the improvements to higher levels if
necessary. After installation, staff will continue to monitor this location and provide the
Traffic Commission and City Council with updates on traffic concerns at this location.
Public Outreach
Staff sent notification card mailers regarding this issue to households within a 500 foot
radius of the location, individuals that signed the initial petition in December 2007, the
Garvey Unified School District, and other affected ,parties. These notification cards
were sent prior to the June 26th and October 2nd Traffic Commission meetings.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
Funding for this project is not provided in the engineering division's fiscal year 2007 -08
budget. Should the City Council decide to move forward with traffic calming measures,
additional funds will need to be appropriated to complete this project. Additional funding
sources may be available through state grant funds or funds held by the City through
Wal -Mart condition of approval #41.
LEGAL REVIEW
This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The City
Attorney has also included a letter informing referencing issues related to "design
immunity" standards and potential liability related to installing unnecessary traffic control
devices.
Prepared by:
Chris Marcarello
Deputy Public Works Director
Su
t City Manager
City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Page 4 of 4
Attachments:
(1) Traffic and Pedestrian Counts — May 2008
(2) June 26 Traffic Commission Staff Report and Presentation
(3) Rush Street/Angelus Avenue Conceptual Plans 1 -3
(4) October 2 Traffic Commission Staff Report and Presentation
(5) June 26, 2008 Traffic Commission Minutes
(6) October 2, 2008 Traffic Commission Minutes
ATTACHMENT 1
California MUTCD Pave 4C- 11
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in Cafitbmia)
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet I of 4)
COUNT DATE
—FIST 0 r TE PM
CALC DATE
CHK DATE
Major St' ..... R, SL Critical Approach Speed rnph
Minor St: M. 6�111Q_Ezz 'Kve Critical Approach Speed mph
Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic > 64 km)h (40 mph);__". 0 1
In built up area of imlated wmmunqy of < 10,000 popu;ation_ . ........ _ ......... or RURAL (R)
C3
URBAN (U)
WARRANT I -Eight Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES 0 NO
(Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and 8 must be satisfied)
Condition A - Minimum Vehicle Volume
MINI'MU410 REQUIREMENT$
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U R ti R
APPROACH i 2 or More
LANES
200 WO
9603 1 0 12
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(810% SHOWN IN 13RACKE TS)
100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO
80% SATISFIED YES Cl NO
100% SATISFIED YES C1 NO 0,
80% SATISFIED YES C1 NO tk
44-
APPROACH
LANES
Both o*yproacrtes 750 525
Ma or street (600 , )
1 (420)
.00 630
- I
(720) (504)
v
FULFILLED
CONDITIONS
A. MiNliklU,MVEf4,'ICULAPVOLUtilE
16,* 1
Highe5t Approach 75 53 Chi 70
,kkl (6f))
mor stre*t (42) (80) 1 (56)
AND,
SATISFIED $0%
Yes El No
Combination of Conditions A & B
SATISFIED Y;':$ 0 NO
?ql
REQUIREMENT
CONDITION
v
FULFILLED
CONDITIONS
A. MiNliklU,MVEf4,'ICULAPVOLUtilE
AND,
SATISFIED $0%
Yes El No
D. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
M ADEQUATE TRIAL OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD
CAt9 ESS DELAY AND INCONVENIENCE TO TRAFFIC HAS FAILED
Yes ❑ No CJ
TO SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
The Satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself rec (Are the inStallaticri Of a traffic control signal',
ChapicritC Scp1cmbt:r 26, 2006
Nir14 lligliway'rr
jftic.Si,mull
California MUTCD Page alt:'. -12.
(FIIWA Is MUTCD.2003 Revision I, as amended for use in California)
Figu 4C404 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet, (Sheet 2 of 4)
WARRANT 2 -,Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED6 YES El NO
Record hourly vehicular volurlies f6r.any four hoursof an aver 4
d
2 r
APPROACH LANES Onp Mor op
Both Approaches,� Major Street
YES 03 NO
(pa,rt.A or Part,B miust'be.sati0fled)
PART A SATISFIED
tAll 1-,z
YES El NO
Higher A00Toach, • hlinor,Str&et
one h9urioe'; nVfoui cons , e , cufly'' minute periods) '11
an- 1.5 mi
)4*
1. The totaJ,delayexPeriP0;ed:lbr traffic on one minov.streetapproacho(one direction only
.,
'ill plo'ft66 polntsfjll abo,,je
(URBAN AREAS) Yes 0 N o
-W, All plotted pohms fall a la�;ve the curves in, Figur bra -Z. ( I RURALAREAS)
e 4C Yes 0 No 0
........... .... ..
WARRANT :3 - Peak Hour SATISFIED
YES 03 NO
(pa,rt.A or Part,B miust'be.sati0fled)
PART A SATISFIED
tAll 1-,z
YES El NO
parts and 3'below must'be satisfied for the same
one h9urioe'; nVfoui cons , e , cufly'' minute periods) '11
an- 1.5 mi
1. The totaJ,delayexPeriP0;ed:lbr traffic on one minov.streetapproacho(one direction only
.,
c6rarblia0y" STOP.iai�6`ec;uals or exceiedi'fet6f vehae'�hdurs for a 0�
a,, ne-lans
approueh or five vehi6l'e-hOdrs, for a hvo-lane a p proach, 6ND
Yes 171 No
------------ I - ---------
2, The volurne on the same rnihar street approach (one direction only) equals of exceeds
100 V-ft' '�' g lanes
P h6�iTJ6 in lane of traffic"6r, 15b v'h tot hko rnioving
P "AND
- --
I Yes No 0
1 The' " to ' t i a ' I ' entering volume si Tyiced clu,ring.th e, hour eqQ81S of exceeds 800vph
for intersections with,f6je 61 rnore approa6his'br'�650 4ph for interisections with
Yes No 0
trey apprbiaches,
. . . .......... .................. ....
PART B SATISFIED YES IJ NO
APPROACH LANES One More Hour
proa& - Minor Sire
The plofted point fatil-s 6bqle,lhe curve in Figur 3.
e-4C -
Yes No
,94. The plotterg 0'oinvialfs above the curve in Figure 4C-4. Yes El No
The satisfactionof at ' I
raffi c §Qnal Warrot or %'vj§erantt IQ
shall not in itself rec�fjit Me ins—nation of a -,taffic control 6io a
4C Trafric ('ojjjr0 S" igjj�jl beads, SwcUs
1'ar1 I I i 21iw TOT 1 26, 2006
Cali f6mili'M U, I'C"D ['age 4C' -13
s M(jr(;D 20w Revision 1, as amended lbr use in California)
Jl�igurr 4C4`01'(CA). Traffit Si Rpt��,M
Vorklshq
SATISFIED YES ❑ N O�<
Parts A tfd B. or, -art usi.
it M B fi)
Satis ed
gn,4�Wqq. -�el eShpwt
3 of 4)
SATISFIED YES Ej No
WARRANT' me Volu
u
SATISFIED
(6
YES 0
NO
JAWPartt, Must $0 Satisfied),
SOCe x — r. v
Patt A,
SATISFIED
YES [I
NO
Children > 2O./hr YES ( NO C3
1. Pedestrian �Vqlume
Any.%houe > 190
Yes El
N o
gfR',jny 4 hours � 100
Yes El
No
Ad6q(.;,k Crbssing' Gips
L
AND < 60 gapfhr
Yes E3
No
2_
Peai6siej;an,V6WlVme
,
Yes O
N
Q3 Ah 4 h6brs
Ye S 0
6M'Oe7d crossi.rig� 11,2rn/s (4 ft/sec)
_Yes 0
No..Q_
Dart :l B
SATISFIED
YES '4"
,
N O 0
AND,Th he t to
-6�dils ancelo the near tiAc'signal'a rg The major street4s greater
ffia--n 90, rii 000,A)
. .........
Yes
No 0
6sed.."tire will nOl fesVicOrd mi '44affic (low atonq�the iajor st
QR:pie prop n Met
....................
Ye s
No
VARRANT 5 - Schodl,Critis_slng
'e
SATISFIED YES ❑ N O�<
Parts A tfd B. or, -art usi.
it M B fi)
Satis ed
Pant
GO�pilf,lh6tes'and,# of thildi,
SATISFIED YES Ej No
en
q
Hour e,,I > 'A
,ANQ
Gaps
14S
I'M 'es Ct4dren:Uvrig Tossing
- I � 1.1 G
SOCe x — r. v
'Minutes
Gaps YES 0 NO 0
street,, hr
Children > 2O./hr YES ( NO C3
AND Conisiideraiion�� 6 , a . s 61e, e4 n given tbless, restrictive remedial,measOres, Yes 0 No
021MEMOMIR
e
distance tojhp,nearest traffic;s� I along the major,street is:greater
than Wdi p0b,ft) Yes;9 No 0
2R, The
roposed signal vill not restrict the progressives
mov err eni of traftic, o
Ye �s N o
,
Part C%jAll. Parts 1, 2, and 3,befow must be satisfied) SATISFIED
YES 0 NO
1 ,
2.
3.
v as ;:,`;:'r.
Soo 350 Yes 0 No D
�A ND, Schbol, A e, P&dewrians Ced sih9 Street i he
100 70 Yes 0 No EJ
2R_:��fjool Age f?adeatf inns Toss ing:street 1 -clay 5i7Q a Yes C3 No 0
When the rriticat'M`th Pet`c�" Vnfile aPPfOarh speed eXPPe0s,55 km1h (36 mph) or the sight distance to the
is 16Ss4fihn'the," require d sto)plin d'
g. is;anc6, rtsra l drjt ria showd be used,
Thesatismi-, Of 3 tray IC signal warram or warranis sfjalj?' elf rcquirt 1he ins!allation of a traffic contiol swg,, a!,
!,I its
Ch apler 4C - Traiffic Control Signal Nced.s Studies
part 4 -- I fit hA ay'Fraffic Sjgnql,'� SLpternbcr 26. 2006
California MUTCD Page 4C` -14
(FHWA*s MU')*(.D 2003 Revision 1, as amended Ibr use in Calil'briiia)
Fig,UM 4C-101 (CA)., rraffic Signai Warrants WOrkshoet {Sheet 4 of 4)
WARRANT 6 - (,'bordinite'd'Signal System SATISFIED YES 0 NO
{Ail Darts Mustc13q;S,.a,t,i,s,fi,ed)
Ml NIMUM ROCiUIREM&T, DISTANCE TO NEARS SIGNAL
S—ft. E �w _a&L ft YesKNocl
on "a 066-wav'street or a street that has. tr a ffi c predominantly in oneditedion,'the adjacent
so I TO FA P� , Pr t fi-at they
Olatbbni ' I I It_ y do not provkide.th6 necessary de.gree of
-- — — — — ----- — — — — — — — — Yes C] No&KI
WARRANTI -:Crash Ex' I
periencewarrant
(A,4Pa.rtl§, Must 'Be. Sat !§fied) SATISFIED YES 0 NO�<
i�ue aware ,iriai,oralt,arnaii,ye,s.with saiislactory olnervance and. enforcement has failed to
Leduc the crash.r tatty,
Yes No
REQUIREMENT8, Npmberof ciisfias,vAl thin a 12-month,period susceptible
to!',corre coon 6y-atia "'
ffic'signal,and inv�014ihg injury or
yeso NOE]
I d4magp- exceeding the requirernenti for a'reportable crash,
-----------------------
Yes [:) No
, YVArranl 4, Pedestrian. Volume Condition
Nd Vol Zi52 for 6q, h6ur
QE. Red ,VO'5M fdiaiiy, 4 hours
,WARRANT 8 -.Roadw13y,NetWork SATISFIED YES C3 NO 0
REOUIREMCNTS ENITERIN(� VOLUMES— ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED
Veh/Hr
Arid has, 5-year 1-11rojected traffic vOlui —lie - EM
i; thaTmeet a or w"* OL
of'Narrahts'l, 2� and ddrinj iFin averilgeeve e�kday,
1000 Veftft- � _� % ��, 11 ,
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Peso Noo
OR
Duflng,Each Of Any'5 Hrs, of a S�atand/or Sun Veh/Hr
ElyJERI'11.1 "OLUro'
Typical We k(jay P"I'
r
I j"Jected m
OLNa ran s I, an
clu, ing
1jun VehH'
CHA MAJOR
RAM ERIS TICS M;A�10A
f
PF MAJOR ROUTES: U_r
ROUT E A ROUTE 8
.H%vy. Systern Network,forThrough Traffic
— — — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — — - — — — — — — — —
Rural,or
ghwLy-Outside Of, Entering. or Trove ;sing a City
Appears_aS:rM
F ajor Rqule.on%�an Otricial Plan
Met, Both Streets Yes 0 No 0
The satisfaction of a tie -i; - is signal or warrants shall not in itself require the invallation of a traffic control sional,
Ch*&.4(', TrallicCmitrol Signal i,'qce&Stu(jieS
r I ScpteinbeT 26, 2006 Parl Ili hwa. l- rafflic �ia nls
California M UTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision L as attended tbr use in ealiffimia)
�Condffi qn�:A,—Mihimurrt Veftieu far Volume
Page 4C- 17
Condit.ioh-E8 —JfAqrr'uptiOh ot'ConfinuoW;Traffib -7
Vehicles per hour on
Vehicles per hour on
higher-volurne
Nurhber oflanes� tot
Vehicles per hour On rnAlor:street
higher - VOIU
to r,
Vehicles
per hour
on major street
minor�slreet ap, x
p, pach
moving -tralfi.c pI:eaCh:apprOaoh
(total,of
both appr,oaohos)
(one direction only)
Ma or street-, fy irtor.'Street
100V
,80%"
Mlo" 56V
700- 5611,
10GIX6, 80% �Q M
.....
,2 ,,,,or morb... t....
I
500
400
350 280
420 33�
15 & 105 84
,135 84
12 "be mere — .2 or rndre
60&
480
42O 336
200 160 140 112
• Of more.,..
500
400
3.50 290
200 160 140 112
Condit.ioh-E8 —JfAqrr'uptiOh ot'ConfinuoW;Traffib -7
Vehicles per hour on
higher-volurne
Nurhber oflanes� tot
Vehicles per hour On rnAlor:street
minor-street �jpproach
tttaving Afjffic -- h approach
on each
(Iotal 6 i:bbth.a h
(one.dire0on only)
N3i-60r,streial
nov z6%d
10mv,80%3}•. 569,;"
6010 525 420
53 42
?or hII&O.... .l .....
.1
X750
S,
630 04
53 42
?,pr;.niore,,., ZQr,rnqra, -
720 630 504
100 80 70
2
600 525 420,
100 80 70 56
Basic Minihl6m hourly
Used 4(Nn Adt�Wtle
mp'A'swes,
rvtay no, Useaw wan t��00120 roqI,,,pepd oxcoeds�Z-D- . ko,04,;. 4 itha
y
POPW-Mixi dlleis than lubb,
L"my 00,,6r"I kv 61 Conditjonr, A andt aftet sdeq4,ajiz ?ia! of o1her mensures when the nv�jor-
'k
(This space 4�fil inleallonvIll, blank)
Chapia4C - Triaffic Control Signal Needs Studics September 26, 2006
dart -4 Highway Trat fie Signals
California MUTC D
(I-HWA's- MUTCrI 2003 Revi.Mon I, as- atnendcd fvr,use in California)
500"
M
. 400
LJ
E.
c
cc
T
0
T
Figure #C -1. Warr nt '2, Fbur -Haut Vehi.culzir Volume
•11
t J n[i t atJ i f 3' N %_ 0 -000 1OW 1100 1200 130D 1400
A QR:ST ET-- J,0TAL C F BOTH APPRC H —
y j r °g
1414 W 1 i;5 VPh'APPli s the lower, itare� bld slu ne te�r ,a min r- streel
ap i�3 rh vitll 4140 cr"rnore lanes and 80 vpli Plies es the i W r
thrdMplc Ventre for a miriiar- siresi eppr'oiich witWone ion e,
Page 4C -9
e our-Hour
i
tsP stt t
A*in1_h0RA80vE40m0 ON MAJOR STREET) IF
4,60
Lj [
t.t�'
t
MW
MAJOR STREET —TQTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES. PER HOUR (VPH)
l tile: ao +plt Ala €€ t ".il<L; lower threshold volute f
or s ftl €€Ur t3 ,t
1')Pt600 Watt" t =r r O'C"fu ienes af1d 660 vph applies as th €
tlt'estiQW volump for a ih tylE�d tz'.i2
t;ltaptc 4C `traffic Control Signal Nu4As 5tudi<e: Septcniber 26, 20(W>
Part 4 114 h% uv `l mfft sj,,nits
`California MUTCD Patre 4(- 10
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3. Peak Hour
>
................ .
.................... .... ..........
32.4.1
kwt
. . .
. . ...........
�2 6 OBE LAID �s a: 2 OP, m, RE LANES
�w 0
WIL
. �2 R MORE LANES & I LANE
E. I LANE &1 LA NE
21M
r!: 0
w
S2
.
. ...... ..
4 06, f; "600 760 '86D OW 100 1200 13 14DO 1500 '1600 1700 1800
MAJORSTREET—TOTAL OFBQTH APPROA CIF E S-
VEHICLItS PER HQU4(VPH),
*Nole�-, , 1'50,vpljapp0as as minor-'stroel
wfluawd"1W vph'appliesastheJower
a fvlin K-;slreewppfoach with ohe"afle,
Figure;4C4., Wa�nint 3�, Feak: Hour (70% Factor)
MIM 01 If A`rii
—T
loo
w .
T- - 70
MAJOR, STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR WPH)
I
*Note,' I:Qqyph appfies as the, bvier
!,,�-. h'' - I minor-street
res aria r tl, vp : �1_n fies, as the lower
I P
threshold volume for a minor-stroet avpmcft with onc- iane,
I '10
75
(I
Owpter 4C,- Traftic ('or trol -%,gnil Needs.Studici
SeptcmNr 26. 2000
ATTACHMENT 2
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
TO: - TRAFFIC COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
FROM: CHRIS MARCARELLO, DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: JUNE 26, 2008
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY AT RUSH STREET AND ANGELUS AVENUE
SUMMARY
In late 2007, the City received a petition from local residents to evaluate traffic conditions at
Rush Street and Angelus Avenue, adjacent. to Rice Elementary School. This issue was
reviewed by the Traffic Commission and then forwarded to the City Council for review and
further direction. On February 12, 2008, the City Council directed staff to improve traffic
markings in the area and have an independent engineering company conduct a new traffic
study for the location.
Since that meeting, staff has made traffic marking improvements and has contracted with
Kimley -Horn and Associates to conduct a new traffic study for this area. This traffic study
was conducted in May and an overview of the data collected including traffic and
pedestrian counts is included for your review (Attachment 1). Additionally, a presentation
will ' be made highlighting these counts, reviewing traffic signal warrants,, and reviewing
potential traffic calming enhancements that can be made at the location.
Staff has sent notification card mailers regarding this issue to households within a 500 foot
radius of the location, individuals that signed the initial petition, the Garvey Unified School
District, and other affected parties.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Traffic Commission review and provide recommendations on
the information presented, take resident input, and forward to the City Council for further
review.
Submitted by:
Chris Marcarello
Deputy Public Works Director
Attachment 1: May 2008 Warrant Calculation Sheets
Attachment 2: February 12, 2008 City Council Agenda Report
Attachment 3: February 12, 2008 City Council Minutes
In
cyiicm
aM ASSU�a!e5, lie.
Angelus Avenue / Rush Street Inlcrscction Stu&
e'
• P esentation�,�
Background, A al s s n I sues }
What Are Traf c ig a rr ts? - - -'�
2008 to s
• n
Tra I a edsures
/
• Questions a d Wers
• Future Direct 'o
aM A—:.i .. tc:
Angelus Avenue / Rush Street Intersection Study
S S
a art conditio o p r 4 I to fund, t o
in a�lation of a tr'af c i L
• W rrant analysis ,co p et d, t et; So__signa s
It stalled...
• e ents a I ve e 7 e-
ev ate con itio and
s otme.
• Traffic Commis i n tes to install t a I aiming
measures, staff It e ine what' o f ctive.
• There is a crossin g
Angelus A%enue, / Rush Street Intersection Studv
C n
do criteria io-provl to a st ld di d efinition of the in um
on tiods for making decisions n h t i tall a traffic signal.
• Si ply, meeting the wa`an ng t r es not mean that alsi nal is
'us[ red at a given. local io . he a factors thatLim ct the
Me veness of a signal, a d al sh Id cc lua before eci ' n
in all igrfal -is-i n a'de.
owe failure to me y tin 'te ' ind' s t a
tra signa not tat
• nnun m o m I Control -Del\i r TCD defines
the stan d a gers nationwide i st II nd maintain
traffic control device II treets and highw ys e MUTCD is
published by the Fed rat H h ay. Administrat' n F W ) under 23
Code of Federal Regula 'o ( R , art 65S p rt .
®� P.aej k -. -;f. .....,,
Avenue / Rush Street Intersection
Vehicular
-None were met, G
Angelus Avenue / Rush Street Intersection Studv
1
raffic and pedest 'an Il cted before sc o I
I tout - 7:30 -8:310 m, 2. M_
rants_condu ed
T is a min t, S m e Ii e
be ana yze
dvance sign d ashers \
• Intersection " u b- u s
R.
• Speed feedba g s
• Enforcement '
• Crossing guards
^
A% enue/ Rush Street Intersection
| |
| �w°m= bew",==|
1��M
Avenue / Rush Street Intersection
Angelus Avenue / Rush Street Intersection Stud,
1
:(What is the',p o I a we're tryin t
s 1've —what is e o
at tra e e i can
M ent r o
.. »�cf Acska!es, Inc:
Angelus Avenue / Rush Street Intersection Study
I a ut
T ic.calmngmeas es nb se ar< ed' totwogrodps
Volume control measo s a e sed to address cut=
hrough traffic proble b c i c ain movertiettts,
t ereby.&erting t,rafTi to ree be le aridle it.
•ed control me es a rim it d a
eedm In c gi verti al a e c angin <
It I ali n o g [h .roa ay.
The distinction be w en th two types of me a ur t as
clear as their nam s u es since speed,t;o tr ea ures
frequently divert a c ehtate' ?o s, n v lume
control measures usu Ily to a tc.
:n K:ny:PYHOn
Angelus Avenue/ Rush Street Intersection
Angelus Avenue / Rush Street Intersection
Speed
/ Rush Street Intersection
Angelus A %enue / Rush Street Intersection Stud%
r i
• I nt' an al e a p riate,
ff ctive interim o t ay be:
• Advance flashers, si or lighted cro al
• ulb- out interse io cos i \`
C nue use C n G '
St mo ' t' s
En , —
• Modi y C edition #4
• To use fu o iersectiori r v ments"
• Monitor with t 'c a ua c t a d warrants
• Design signal for e
Avenue / Rush Strcct Intcrscction Studv
sn-I]ONV.
7
3nN3AV ViI30
HMENT 3
Z
C/11 w
Z
W
U)
M
Z
0 d
0
Z 0 <
—
LL — w
U) w
W U) 0
W U) LL
0
F-
m C.)
E
g
52 cci
I
®p=
Z
w R
J.VM3AN0 laVN --lVM
inN3AV V1130
4
MINN.!
J
w
w
J
z
a
az
�W
wO
Uw
z Cl)
OQa
U�U
<Q
a
wow
_ w
�wCO
O
N F- rr
W Cn LL
=O
CE U
a
o--
m
57cc
I FA 0
Z
3�
x;
O wF2 vi
I
I
S
G UG
- - i
I
88 \ I�
I
�f� I
w
� I
U),
o% N� \
I
,3AV Sf1339NV
0�3
AVM3A180 iaNA —IM
1
JN
�w
�a
_�i
wo
3
4 .
311N3AV V1T3a
o3
x 3
WIN
0
E
0
7
n
Y Y
fV
J
W
W
J
Z
Q
a Z
F- W
d2
Z U)
OQ¢
U�U
<0
Q
Wow
=mow
W 0
O
Cl)
W C/) W
cr = O
OZ
IiIU
c
u
KI1 3 ,
V
E 20,
/ rl, V M31 A I
WI 12iVW -1VM
�- Xz
Zl
i
1 _
a�
6
I
o�
3f1N3AV V1130
' zN,6 �1 i ooz
w
N 1 a
m ; =y -
0
O l'a"al
- z loa�
o�
se
�k
00
G) LIV � � [ H; -�z
J.o
3 _
1
i I
i i fl10 i o W -
�I I
Y
21
M
J
W
W
J
Z
J �
a Z
w
0-2
W (j
Uw
ZC/)
00Qa
U3:U
Q °a0
wow
2 w
LU (n W 0
W U)
Cc O
(3--) `y
r
IL Cc U
�m
9
S2 cc
ATTACHMENT 4
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
TO: TRAFFIC COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
FROM: CHRIS MARCARELLO, DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2008
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY AT RUSH STREET AND ANGELUS AVENUE
SUMMARY
On June 26, 2008, the Traffic Commission reviewed a presentation related to resident
traffic concerns at Rush Street and Angelus Avenue, adjacent to Rice Elementary School.
Prior to this meeting, staff was directed by the City Council to conduct a traffic study at this
location to determine if additional traffic calming alternatives are needed. The results of the
study show that a new traffic signal is not currently warranted. However, the Commission
did express interest in adding traffic calming enhancements at the location, including:
• Consider extending red curbing on the south side of Rush Street adjacent to Delta
Avenue.
• Consider.providing temporary options for bulb outs at the location.
• Consider trimming median landscaping to enhance visibility.
• Consider reducing on- street parking along Rush Street.
Based on these comments, City staff and its traffic engineering consultant, Kimley -Horn
and Associates, have prepared several concept plans for the Commission's review. The
concept plans (Attachment 1) are categorized into three levels that include a summary of
the improvements, associated costs, and potential advantages /disadvantages for each
improvement.
After analyzing the traffic information and traffic calming alternatives, it is recommended
that the Traffic Commission approve the Level 1 Concept Plan. This concept plan
addresses several of the issues raised by local residents, incorporates comments made by
the Traffic Commission, and is available at a reasonable cost. Further, this Concept Plan
will allow staff to evaluate the effectiveness of improvements and "ramp up" the
improvements to higher levels if necessary. After installation, staff will continue to monitor
this location and provide the Commission, with updates on traffic issues.
Staff has sent notification card mailers regarding this issue to households within a 500 foot
radius of the location, individuals that signed the initial petition, the Garvey Unified School
District, and other affected parties.
Traffic Commission Meeting
October 2, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Traffic Commission:
1.) Review the presentatiori made by staff and Kimley -Horn and Associates;
2.) Recommend to the City Council that Level 1 improvements be made along Rush
Street;
3.) Direct staff to continue monitoring traffic conditions and provide updates regarding
the effectiveness of the Level 1 improvements.
Submitted by:
Chris Marcarello
Deputy Public Works Director
Attachment 1: Concept Plans and Summaries
Attachment 2: June 26, 2008 Traffic Commission Agenda Report
Attachment 3: June 26, 2008 Traffic Commission Minutes
Attachment 4: February 12, 2008 City Council Agenda Report
Attachment 5: February 12, 2008 City Council Minutes
n tion
• a gro.un - - -_
Initial Issues I
June 2008 Me ti u dry
n us
us ree g
• ative o errtents:.
• Questions n swers
1 F Hrlr
Rush Strcet Analysis ® rA scc a'xs rc'.
a ro
•
nit. Is es_and as —
• W Mart condition f d s e , crossing guard
arrant analysis comp) ted n t
R silent petition 11/'00 , a t on ucted again,still t at
• Tr fficCommission.vot s t in II a c I meas as
J e 8 Meetin
Si I warrant expl n d s
ermine at is e a ay segment, o u t i tersection
• Descrip !o n us tr ffi calming techniq as
i
• Action to prepare c pt al,levels of imp r v m n
Rush Strcet Analysis 'CMV K n'.ev Hm.
t O
Rose a
s
O tober 2, 2008'.
Rush
et Ana
s
And the An I
sh" '
s ion
vi-Y. H"
n tion
• a gro.un - - -_
Initial Issues I
June 2008 Me ti u dry
n us
us ree g
• ative o errtents:.
• Questions n swers
1 F Hrlr
Rush Strcet Analysis ® rA scc a'xs rc'.
a ro
•
nit. Is es_and as —
• W Mart condition f d s e , crossing guard
arrant analysis comp) ted n t
R silent petition 11/'00 , a t on ucted again,still t at
• Tr fficCommission.vot s t in II a c I meas as
J e 8 Meetin
Si I warrant expl n d s
ermine at is e a ay segment, o u t i tersection
• Descrip !o n us tr ffi calming techniq as
i
• Action to prepare c pt al,levels of imp r v m n
Rush Strcet Analysis 'CMV K n'.ev Hm.
ruour�eo�xwtervR,�:ee.o L
............................. ............................... _...................
An average of 60 more veh cle tri sl
hour on Angelus Avenue to or a
warrant would be met.
Rush Street Anahsis
for 4 contiriu�(usihorsor, 190 in one
hour befor a r nl ould be met.
ng
Volume control measures
Used to address cut- through traffic problems by blocking certain
movements, diverting traffic to streets better able to handle it.
Speed control measures
Used to address speeding problems by changing vertical
alignment, changing horizontal alignment, or narrowing the
roadway.
I
Rush Street Anahsis
YnierHerr
ax. A <cvia'�s.ec
nal r
unto and Title
riteria.
W man 1:8 owVehlcular Volume
ana t 2: -Hour Vehicular Volume
Hi h
i s
ling traffic volumes on all a to ch
na 3: eak.Hour
mor Ve
we ex dances er del
We ant Pe lriariVolum'e
ran :se Crossing
a to c nts c sin
Warra : CI., tad Si nal aW
Warrant 7: Acci
h n there are 5 +,se re ac ide t/ ear at location
Warrant 8: Roadway Network
i emonall divert owto volume roadway
-None wee
et, a pp a e
Rush Slrccl Anahsis
.lim @ Nmny +hir. _ -__-
ruour�eo�xwtervR,�:ee.o L
............................. ............................... _...................
An average of 60 more veh cle tri sl
hour on Angelus Avenue to or a
warrant would be met.
Rush Street Anahsis
for 4 contiriu�(usihorsor, 190 in one
hour befor a r nl ould be met.
ng
Volume control measures
Used to address cut- through traffic problems by blocking certain
movements, diverting traffic to streets better able to handle it.
Speed control measures
Used to address speeding problems by changing vertical
alignment, changing horizontal alignment, or narrowing the
roadway.
I
Rush Street Anahsis
YnierHerr
ax. A <cvia'�s.ec
Rush Str t Analysis
le
Rush Street Analysis
ied based
mission M
de traffic c
cost
Rush Strut Analysis
1
Rush Strut Analysis
I ,
Rush Slrccl Annlysis
0
MEN = i
V
Rush Strcct Analysis /®
en I
I n n p
valuate effectiv e s u it ive) with traffic d a.
• Obtain school and es d i p (qualitative) on
ffectiveness. I
_
a ed-upon c s ,
o i on
• n se t Is
• Asse 6nditio6l t rmine if
funding can d.for impl n ation.
Rush Strcet Analysis � t Pr FCrn ...1.
ax �ucexs rr
Rush Strccl Analysis
WN
I
M
IIA m
d
en I
I n n p
valuate effectiv e s u it ive) with traffic d a.
• Obtain school and es d i p (qualitative) on
ffectiveness. I
_
a ed-upon c s ,
o i on
• n se t Is
• Asse 6nditio6l t rmine if
funding can d.for impl n ation.
Rush Strcet Analysis � t Pr FCrn ...1.
ax �ucexs rr
Rush Strccl Analysis
• e t a
•c
do criteria-to -provi to a s nd r ed efinition of-the ni u
on ions for making decis ns n in al, -a traffic signaL,
• Si ply,i meeting the warrant ng ri e i as not mean that a jsi nal is
'ustfed at a given location T e r a y' factors that imp ct he
ffe iveness of a signal; a all sho Id a al ted - before a d isi n t
i sal signal is_ made:
Ho ver, eat f cri sates at
fFc ' al should no st d.
• he ual on Unifo ra ro is defines
th tender s y o an gers'nationwi to in all and maintain
traffic de ' I treets and high y . h MUTCD is
published by the Fede at ig w y'Administration ( H A u der 23 Code
of Federal Regulations (C R) P rl655, Subpart'F
® kintirrHem —:
®� 3X': ti'CG'd'kS.lft:
ATTACHMENT 5
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
JUNE 26, 2008
The meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairperson Knapp
at 7:00 p.m., in the Community Recreation Center, 3936 North Muscatel, Rosemead.
PLEDGE OF ALLIGIANCE - Chairperson Knapp
INVOCATION' - Vice Chairperson Masuda
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Knapp, Vice Chairperson Masuda, Commissioners
Gay, Hunter, and Lewin
Absent: None
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of May 1, 2008:
Commissioner Lewin requested that the third line on page 5 be corrected to read
"Commissioner Lewin visited the location on two occasions....."
It was moved by Commissioner Lewin, seconded by Commissioner Gay to accept and
approve the amended minutes of the May 1, 2008, meeting.
Vote Results:
Yes: Chairperson Knapp, Vice Chairperson Masuda, Commissioners
Gay, Hunter, and Lewin
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: Hunter
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Speaking before the Commission:
Mr. Manual F. Cox
4527 No. Earle Ave.
626- 627 -1511
Crosswalk at Earle and Mission used for the park and school needs signage review.
There is speeding on Mission and Earle. Sidewalks are incomplete and something
needs to be done to stop the speeding and racing.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 Page 1
Jlnec (06160)17470/1002/Min01
DRAFT
Speaking before the Commission:
Mr. Sal DeLaCruz
4533 No. Earle Ave.
626- 291 -5535
Mr. DeLaCruz commented that two years ago he asked for speed bumps and he was
told that the City of Rosemead does not, allow speed bumps. He pointed out that there
are speed bumps in the City. Something has to be done to stop the speeding on Earle
before something tragic happens.
Commissioner Gay asked if most of the speeding is on Mission.
Mr. Cox replied that speeding occurs on both Mission and Earle, coming off Mission
heading southbound Earle towards Shuey (towards Wells). He wondered if the stop
sign at Wells /Earle should be larger.
Commissioner Lewin made inquiry about the location of the speeding and racing, and
the time of day. Mr. DeLaCruz stated it was on Earle in the afternoon, mostly school
hours. Kids racing. Mr. Cox stated it is a long block, no breaks, great for racing. He
believes a camera would be a deterrent to the speeding. There are no posted speed
limit signs.
Chairperson Knapp suggested that there should be more police enforcement in this
area during the appropriate times. She also suggested the installation of larger stop
signs.
Speaking before the Commission:
Mr. Todd Kunioka
8400 Wells Street
626- 309 -9924
Mr. Tunioka stated the same problems occur on Delta as described on Earle and
Mission. Drag racing occurs. He asked about possibility of speed humps or bumps
along Wells.
Speaking before the Commission:
Jim Flournoy
8655 Landis View
Sunday at 2:00,in the morning a delivery truck arrived at Wal -Mart. There was a lot of
noise. The truck routes need to be regulated. A friendly letter to Panda to discourage
deliveries on Delta might be all that is needed.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 Page 2
Jlnec (06160)17470/1002/Min01
DRAFT
3. OLD BUSINESS
A. REVIEW ON TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ALONG RUSH /ANGELUS
Chris Marcarello, Deputy Public Works Director, presented the Staff Report.
Staff recommends that the Traffic Commission review and provide recommendations on
the information presented, take resident input, and forward to the City Council for further
review.
Mr. Marcarello introduced Bill Dvorak and Diana Turlik of Kimley -Horn for the
presentation of the traffic study.
(Kimley -Horn presentation followed.)
Chairpersor, , Knapp asked about cost of in- pavement lights of wide streets such as
Earle /Mission compared to Rush. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated that the
cost of in- pavement lights are based on the width of the street and the number of travel
lanes.
Vice Chairperson Masuda asked about bulb -outs at crosswalks. Mr. Dvorak referred to
the drawing of the bulb -outs.
Commissioner Gay asked if there is any special funding for lighted crosswalks. Mr.
Dvorak responded there is state funding for some lighted crosswalks. Commissioner
Gay asked if there could be funding for both bulb -out and lighted crosswalk. Mr. Dvorak
responded that it could be done but wondered if both would be of benefit:
Issues
Commissioner Gay cited the Edison traffic and that people are afraid to cross because
of traffic. The median landscaping blocks visibility southbound Angelus. The median
landscaping needs to be lowered for better visibility.
Commissioner Lewin stated there is speeding on Rush. Delta is part of the equation yet
has not been studied. Sight distance is severely limited for left turn from Delta. If study
had been completed for Delta as well, he wondered if warrant would be satisfied if
Angelus /Delta /Rush volumes were combined.
Mr. Flournoy indicated speed is the number one problem and number two is the left turn
issues. He would also like to see if the signal at Wal -Mart is justified.
Commissioner Gay stated the issues are to slow down the traffic, make it a safe
crossing for students and clean up the median landscaping for visibility.
Larry Bevington indicated that he believes the signal warrants indicate that if there is a
complicated intersection that a signal or yellow flashing light should be installed.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 Page 3
Jl:mec (06160)17470/1002/Min01 +
DRAFT
Mr. Peter Wu, from the audience, was recognized by the Chair. Mr. Wu explained his
lateness at the meeting and stated that he was present at a Traffic Commission meeting
a couple of months ago and spoke about Mission /lvar and the new construction on
southeast side of Mission. Traffic will be heavier when construction is completed and
something will need to be done. He was informed that that item will be agendized and
he will be notified.
Mr. Kunioka also believes that Delta needs to be considered as' well as bulb -outs
combined with flashing lights.
Chairperson Knapp called for recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council.
Commissioner Lewin: Install bulb -out and flashing light with solar power; extend red
curb from Delta.
Commissioner Gay: Remove vegetation in median on west side. Provide information
for funding sources.
Vice Chairperson.Masuda: Can bulb -outs be placed on a temporary basis to see if they
are a calming effect to slow down cars? In- pavement lights will be a continuing cost
and maintenance to the City.
Commissioner Hunter: No signal needed; need some safety feature for children; more
done on Delta.
Chairperson Knapp: Delta visibility (left turns); does not want a cul -de -sac; likes in-
pavement lights.
4. NEW BUSINESS - NONE
5. STAFF REPORTS - NONE
A. WALNUT GROVE AVENUE /HALKETT AVENUE — Letter Request
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki asked Commissioners for any special items that they
would like included in this analysis.
Commissioner Lewin would like distance between Grand and Halkett, and Halkett and
Mission. Also adult pedestrians versus kid pedestrians; separate the two.
Chairperson Knapp questioned the request for a marked crosswalk in order to gain
access to a mailbox when residents can place mail in their own mailbox and it will be
picked up by the postman.
Vice Chairperson Masuda stated that every time he crosses Walnut Grove, he runs
across. Even with the four -way stop at Grand and Walnut Grove he doesn't think it is
safe. Edge line dots or some warning device at the curve might cut down on the
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 Page 4
Jlnec (06160)17470/1002/Min01
DRAFT
number of sideswipe (of parked cars) accidents. Stop marking at southbound Walnut
Grove at Grand cannot be read, it is very , faded. Chris will take care of it.
6. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Vice Chairperson Masuda, all issues have been covered.
Commissioner Lewin: Valley Vision Plan meetings. On a couple of occasions he has
heard that Caltrans can supersede work along Valley because of the 10 Freeway.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki has no specific information regarding that issue.
For Chris, is the loading zone on Muscatel at library coming soon? Chris responded it
is.
Westbound Ramona at Walnut Grove (agenda item for next meeting). Needs lane
directions /signs of existing movements, perhaps create two lanes.
Chairperson Knapp, coming off the off ramp at Walnut Grove and Hellman, there are
two large `potholes. Chris will look at it. Also, extend the left turn for the southbound
Walnut Grove at Hellman /Ramona. This work has been approved and has not been
completed. Referred to Chris.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned until July 17, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. (July 3rd meeting cancelled due to the
Holiday.)
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 Page 5
Jlnec (06160)17470/1002/Min01
ATTACHMENT 6
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
OCTOBER 2, 2008
The meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairperson Knapp at
7:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead.
The pledge to the flag was led by Commissioner Lewin. The invocation was delivered by Vice
Chairman Masuda.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Chairperson Knapp, Vice Chairman Masuda, Commissioners Deary, Lewin
.and Russell
Absent: None
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of September 4, 2008, Regular Meeting were amended as follows:
On page 3, second paragraph. under Mr. DelaCruz speaking before the Commission,
Commissioner Lewin believes it would be appropriate to mention that Traffic Engineering
Deputy Itagaki explained speed humps historically have not been used by the City. The
paragraph is amended to read: "Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki explained history of speed
humps in the City. That historically speed humps have not been used by the City and that staff
has not been given any other direction from the City."
On page 5, next to last paragraph, Commissioner Lewin stated he. believes the location of the 7
foot hedge is the northwest corner. (Southwest corner is correct; no change in minutes.)
Commissioner Lewin requested that on page 6, 2nd paragraph, "stops sign" be changed to "stop
signs." 3`d paragraph: Change spelling of "Garvailia and Jcakson" to "Garvalia and Jackson."
Under the Vote Results change Hunter to Russell.
Vice Chairman Masuda motioned and seconded by Commissioner Russell to accept and
approve the amended minutes of September 4, 2008.
Vote Results:
Yes: Chairperson Knapp, Vice Chairperson Masuda, Commissioners Deary,
Lewin and Russell
Noes: None
Abstain: None
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Mr. Roland Rodriguez, 8267 Artson Street, stated he is concerned about the crosswalk on
Mission Drive that is directly in front of the Rosemead swimming pool. It needs to be repainted.
Two children were hit by cars last year at that intersection. Other citizens are also concerned
about the crosswalk. He asked that perhaps the City could conduct a study, possibly put in a
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Page 1 of 10
FINAL
reflector system where the reflectors light up, and signs. He stated that while waiting to pick up
his children he has noticed that people drive pretty fast in that area.
Chairperson Knapp asked Mr. Rodriguez if he could be more specific about the location of the
crosswalk.
Mr. Rodriguez answered that it is on Mission, directly in front of the Rosemead swimming pool.
Near Newby.
Mr. Larry Callaham, Principal of Rosemead High School, verified that two children were struck
after school last year while in that crosswalk. He stated it is a very dangerous crosswalk
because people traveling westbound have a speed limit of 45 and then 25 mph at the school,
but when there is little traffic the crosswalk is ignored by the drivers He arrives at the school
between 6:45 and 7:00 a.m., not a heavy traffic time, but there are students using the crosswalk
crossing north to the pool and on down the street. During peak hours the traffic is congested
and much slower. It is after school hours when' traffic moves freely that the crosswalk is the
most dangerous. Mr. Callaham confirmed that the crosswalk is at Newby. He also requested a
study be conducted.
Commissioner Lewin stated that Mission Drive is one of the things that he was thinking of as a
possible study topic. In particular, that stretch between Rosemead Boulevard and Valley
Boulevard. In general, he believes the Commission needs to take a look at Mission Drive and
see if it could be made a safer street. He believes 40 miles per hour is too high for that street,
especially that section. He agreed with Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Callaham that something needs
to be done with that crosswalk, and that Mission needs to be looked at.
Chairperson Knapp asked if painting the crosswalk isn't something that should have been done
earlier. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki responded that Deputy Public Works Director Chris
Marcarello will make sure the crosswalk at Mission and Newby will get painted. Mr. Marcarello
stated he will take care of it.
4. OLD BUSINESS
A. TRAFFIC STUDY AT RUSH STREET AND ANGELUS AVENUE
Deputy Public Works Director Chris Marcarello presented the staff report.
Notification cards were sent out to people within the immediate vicinity of Rush Street
and Angelus Avenue. Mr. Marcarello stated that unfortunately it did not appear that
many people were able to attend the meeting.
Recommendation
It is staff's recommendation that the Traffic Commission:
1) Review the presentation made by staff and Kimley -Horn and Associates,
2) Recommend to City Council that Level 1 improvements be made along
Rush Street, and
3) Direct staff to continue monitoring traffic conditions and provide updates
regarding the effectiveness of the Level 1 improvements.
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Page 2 of 10
FINAL
An unidentified person from the audience stated he just received the postcard
not The card is postmarked September 30th and he received it October 2 "d. He
is not at the Traffic Commission meeting because of Rush Street but for the Delta
Avenue agenda item. His neighbor received his card October 1St and that is what made
him aware of the Delta Avenue agenda item.
There was some discussion about the notification process; many cards were sent out to
tenants and property owners a week earlier notifying them of the agenda items. The
lateness of delivery will be addressed by the Commission at a later time.
Mr. Bill Dvorak of Kimley -Horn and Associates made the presentation of traffic calming
alternatives for Rush Street and Angelus Avenue. Kimley- Horn's recommendation is
Level 1 improvements and staff to determine if Wal -Mart can be conditioned to pay for
these or any improvements.
Discussion
Commissioner Deary inquired about Wal -Mart's stake in the improvements and
wondered if they had been invited to the meeting.
Mr. Marcarello responded their stake is nothing. Chairperson Knapp explained that Wal-
Mart comes up because of the condition of approval, number 41. Mr. Marcarello
explained Wal -Mart agreed to provide a certain amount of money for a crossing guard at
that location and if warranted, they would fund installation of a flashing yellow beacon.
Vice Chairman Masuda likes implementing Level 1 and part of Level 2. He asked if
higher visibility on bulb -outs can be installed. Delineators, large Botts' dots, short berm
were suggested by Chairperson Knapp and Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki.
Chairperson Knapp asked if the installation of Botts' dots could cause any problems
such as when the children are walking on them. Mr. Dvorak stated he was not sure if
that has ever been an issue and he would need to discuss it with the engineers. He
would hope there would be no issues. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki agreed with
Mr. Dvorak, stating the children would be in an area where they should not be crossing
because the dots would be on the outside of the crosswalk; it all depends on what is
suggested and how designed.
Commissioner Russell asked about the time frame if the improvements are approved, if
Level 1 is not successful and Level 2 is approved for implementation, and also if Level 3
is implemented. Mr. Dvorak stated. generally one year review period is used. There
needs to be objective opinions as well as data. Maybe six months to review while school
is in session and then make a decision whether to proceed.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki explained that the Commissioners will have an
opportunity to pick and choose parts of each level.
Commissioner Lewin asked about crosswalk markings. More reflective paint? What
about retro - reflective? He also suggested extending the median for a "safe" area, a stop
point in the intersection if the pedestrian needs to stop.
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Page 3 of 10
J1► /_1I
Vice Chairman Masuda asked if the intent of having a pick up / drop -off zone as shown
in Level 2 is for convenience and to slow the traffic. Mr. Dvorak indicated yes.
Maria Perea, 2434 Charlotte, did not sign the petition. She drives Angelus and Rush
every day. She stated one improvement would be lower shrubbery and trim trees
higher. Trees and shrubbery limit visibility. Concerning the drop off, she asked if that
would actually be on Rush. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated the intent is for
some of the cars westbound on Rush to drop -off there and not have them turn right on to
Angelus. Ms. Perea indicated Rush is a very dangerous street; speed is the issue.
Virginia Peterson, Superintendent of Garvey School District, expressed interest in the
drop -off area. This is something the District is looking at for all their schools. She stated
the drop -off might be helpful to the school; it will remove traffic from Angelus. She
suggested it might be appropriate for some City staff to talk to school staff and provide
training for them and the drop -off volunteers, and even drivers.
Chairperson Knapp asked Ms. Peterson how the crossing guard is working out at that
location. Ms. Peterson responded there are no problems specifically identified. It
appears the crossing guard is taking great care in his position.
Mr.-Richard Vasquez, 8105 E. Whitmore, does not live in this particular area but he does
drive it every afternoon while returning home from work, east to west_ on Rush. He has
heard the focus of the Commissioners' discussion to be on the crosswalk, but he
believes installation of speed signs is just important. When he sees one of the flashing
signs it immediately makes him aware of his speed. With the idea of prevention, he
believes it is important to slow the drivers before they get to the crosswalk. He also
suggests lowering the speed limit.
Commissioner Lewin stated he is leaning towards Level 1 with a few modifications. He
would like to look at changing the vegetation on all three median areas. Have low
growth and possibly trim trees higher along the whole stretch.
Chairperson Knapp asked if all Commissioners agree. They responded yes.
Commissioner Lewin would also like to add an extension of median nose into the
crosswalk with ADA ramp on either side; basically have that as a stop area for
pedestrians if needed.
After discussion by Mr. Dvorak, Commissioner Lewin revised his request to have staff
study the feasibility of adding the median nose ramp.
If the drop off /pick up zone is implemented, Commissioner Lewin would like for staff to
work with Rice Elementary staff to establish a time frame for installation so that Rice
Elementary can get everything they need into place before installation.
Commissioner Deary asked with regard to the drop off if there would be a painted line.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki responded yes, it is shown on the Level 2, Figure 3
diagram.
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Page 4 of 10
FINAL
Chairperson Knapp wondered if the Botts' dots should be added to Level 1. Traffic
Engineering Deputy Itagaki suggested to keep this in Phase 2. After Level 1 is looked at
the City can ask the residents what can be done to improve it.
Vice Chairman Masuda asked if there is a need for dots or delineators at the south side
bulb -out. He believes there needs to be something to slow the traffic; even the traffic
cone the crossing guard puts out slows the traffic.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki asked a question of Commissioner Lewin for
clarification. His motion is to look at Level 1 and do the drop off, because Level 2
includes the bulb -out on the north side. Commissioner Lewin stated he is asking for the
bulb -out on the south side also. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki explained that what
she sees is that with Level 2 the drop off could be done without the south side bulb -out.
For this reason she was asking for Commissioner Lewin's intent.
Commissioner. Lewin stated at this point he had made no motion or intent for the bulb -
out.
Vice Chairman Masuda is in favor of adding the bulb -outs on the south side too, with
some kind of delineator.
Commissioner Russell wondered how paint will slow someone down. '
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki explained it has been shown that when a street has
been visually narrowed with lines, there is an effect of a corridor feeling. So even though
it is only paint, it does affect how you feel when driving.
Commissioner Lewin added that if a bulb -out is added on the south side at the
crosswalk, there would also be a need to put, the painted 13 foot bulb -out on the west
side of the driveway. He ` is concerned that since basically everything east of the
crosswalk on the south side of Rush is being red curbed, many parking spaces will be
eliminated.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki asked Mr. Dvorak if cars can still park west of the
driveway.. Mr. Dvorak indicated that parking would be allowed.
Commissioner Russell wondered, when the Commission is talking about Figure 3 Level
2, why the Commission doesn't go to that Level instead of going to Level 1 and changing
it.
The Commissioners looked at the Figures and agreed on Level 2.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki clarified that the recommendation is to go to Level 2
with the addition of a study of the feasibility of adding an extension to the median nose,
and to work with the Rice Elementary and the District with regard to drop -off and pick -up
zone to make sure that they are able to accommodate the drop- off /pick -up zone.
Motion
Commissioner Russell motioned and Commissioner Lewin seconded that the Traffic
Commission recommends to the City Council that Level 2 improvements be made along
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Page 5 of 10
J I J-11
Rush Street; that staff continue monitoring traffic conditions; that staff be directed to
work with staff of Rice Elementary and the school District with regard to the drop -off and
pick -up zone; that shrubs be lower and trees trimmed higher to increase visibility from
the Wal -Mart entrance to San Gabriel Boulevard.
Vote Results:
Yes: Chairperson Knapp, Vice Chairman Masuda, Commissioners Deary,
Lewin and Russell
Noes: None
Abstain: None
B. TRAFFIC STUDY PRIORITIES
Deputy Public Works Director Chris Marcarello presented the Traffic Study Priorities
report.
Recommendation
It is staff's recommendation that the Traffic Commission review its list of priority traffic
studies and provide direction regarding a study to review.
Discussion
In response to a question by Commissioner Russell about the Priorities list, Traffic
Engineering Deputy Itagaki explained that the Traffic Study Priorities are more city -wide
traffic issues, such as having a neighborhood traffic management program. Speeding is
an issue throughout the City and the Commission is very limited in the number of ways it
can be handled. What is being done with Rush /Angelus is a start at looking at the bigger
picture. It is a specific location with specific problems, but it gives the Commissioners an
idea of other tools that can be used to help address some traffic issues. Past issues
with specific crosswalks for example, what can be done with uncontrolled crosswalks?
When the Commission talks about traffic studies it should be looked at as an opportunity
for the Commission to have a voice in how things throughout the city can be addressed
in a more "global" manner. Another example is the recent "blue curb" policy.
Commissioner Russell asked about Rosemead Boulevard. Mr. Marcarello responded
that Rosemead Boulevard is under Caltrans' jurisdiction; possible relinquishment is
down the road.
Commissioner Russell cited possible studies of signals /flashing red lights for both fire
stations. She also suggested Walgreens driveway and northbound San Gabriel at about
Hellman as you enter the freeway. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki suggested these
two items should come before the Traffic Commission as a regular item.
Vice Chairman Masuda suggested looking at tour bus traffic and truck routes, along
Walnut Grove Avenue and other residential streets in the area especially. Traffic
Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated truck routes is one item that has been addressed in
the General Plan by the Planning Commission.
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Page 6 of 10
FINAL
Commissioner Lewin asked Mr. Marcarello if the intent is for the Commission to choose
several things, make a motion and approve them, and that will be the study list.
Mr. Marcarello responded it is staff's recommendation that the Commission pick out a
few studies to start with to get the process going. It would go to City Council and advise
that the Commission has recommended that the issues be looked at.
Commissioner Lewin stated that because the truck route study is included in the General
Plan Update he will drop that from his list. He recommends a neighborhood traffic
management improvement option; residential speeding is a big issue for the City. Speed
humps should be included. City Council previously indicated, about two decades ago,
that they did not want speed bumps in the City, Commissioner Lewin believes it
important to learn the attitude of the new council concerning speed bumps.
Commissioner Lewin also suggested guidelines for protected /permissive left -turn
signals.
Chairperson Knapp cited her desire to get the pocket at southbound Walnut Grove and
Ramona. Also the potholes at the ramp and throughout the City.
Motion
Commissioner Lewin motioned and Commissioner Masuda seconded that the
Commission recommends to the City Council that staff be directed to study the
development of a Neighborhood Traffic Management improvement program which would
include speed bumps, bulb -outs, and various tools. The Commission also recommends
to the City Council that staff be directed to develop guidelines for protected /permissive
signals within the City.
Commissioner Russell submitted a substitute motion. She believes the southbound
Walnut Grove /Ramona left turn lane is a vital issue to the community. Chairperson
Knapp indicated that the work has been approved but it just hasn't been done.
Commissioner Russell asked if it has been approved or not approved; what is the
status? In response to a question from Mr. Marcarello, Traffic Engineering Deputy
Itagaki stated that the work was to have been completed by the previous City Engineer
but was not. It is a matter of getting it added to a project list. Mr. Marcarello will make
sure that it gets back into the pipeline.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki suggested the Commission send this back to the
Council and let them know it was already approved and there needs to be a way to fund
the work.
Commissioner Russell would like to have a study for the fire station lights and the speed
bumps. Commissioner Lewin pointed out that the speed bumps are included in the
Neighborhood Traffic Management study. Concerning the fire station lights, Mr.
Marcarello stated staff could work with the Fire Department. This will be added to the list
for the Traffic Commission.
The original motion by Commissioner Lewin and seconded by Vice Chairman Masuda
was amended to include a reminder to Council regarding the left -turn at southbound
Walnut Grove at Ramona.
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Page 7 of 10
FINAL
Vote Results:
Yes: Chairperson Knapp, Vice Chairman Masuda, Commissioners Deary,
Lewin and Russell
Noes: None
Abstain: None
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. EARLE AVENUE AND DELTA AVENUE: BETWEEN MISSION DRIVE AND
WELLS STREET — Concern Regarding Speeding and Lack of Sidewalk
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki presented the staff report.
Recommendation
It is staff's recommendation that selective speed enforcement be conducted on Earle
Avenue and Delta Avenue between Mission Drive and Wells Street especially during
school start and release times to address the current speeding issue.
It is staff's recommendation that the Traffic Commission recommends the City Council
consider the .implementation of a speed hump policy or a neighborhood traffic calming
program that could be applied city -wide.
Discussion
Mr. Manuel Cox, 4527 Earle, likes staff's recommendation. He noticed a deputy at the
corner and there was a difference. Mr. Cox has observed residences that have
vegetation growing on City right -of -way which forces the children into the street. He
stated there is not much foot traffic because parents drive their children to school, only a
short distance away.
Mr. Sal De La Cruz, 4533 Earle, stated enforcement officer parked on the street has
helped this week. The crossing guard at Walnut Grove and Wells is very slow. Mr.
Marcarello will follow up.
Chairperson Knapp asked Mr. Marcarello about the sidewalks. She wondered if there is
a code requirement that would mandate installation of a sidewalk. Mr. Marcarello
responded there was a code requiring a sidewalk when valuation of a remodel is over
$10,000. However, Council approved an ordinance contrary to that; right now there is
no legal course to require a sidewalk. The City is being proactive and will work with the
residents. There are CDBG grant funds that can be used.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki asked if the City can require a resident who has
vegetation within the City right -of -way to cut it back. Mr. Marcarello said "absolutely."
Residents are supposed to apply for an encroachment permit for any vegetation or if
there are accessibility issues. With a specific address the issue can be addressed to the
property owner.
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Page 8 of 10
FINAL
Mr. Cox was asked for the addresses of the homes with the vegetation. He could
provide no addresses but the residences are on the west side of Earle, two houses north
of Wells.
Mr. Roberto Salazar, 4504 Delta, stated speeds are faster during commute times on
Delta. There is some cut through traffic. He believes speed humps will help. In 2001
when he added a bedroom to his house he did not have to add a sidewalk.
Commissioner Lewin suggested speed limit signs be posted at either end of both streets
to serve as a friendly reminder. It may not affect the worst speeders but it may act as a
reminder in some kind of positive fashion.
Commissioner Lewin stated that eastbound Wells Street, almost no one stops at that
stop sign. When he was with Mr. Cox they watched two or three cars basically go
through the stop sign. He recommends a larger sized stop sign and more enforcement.
Motion
Commissioner Lewin motioned and Vice Chairman Masuda seconded that the Traffic
Commission recommends to the City Council to install 25 mph speed signs in both
directions of Delta and Earle at Mission and Wells; and increase the size of stop sign on
eastbound Wells at Earle, and refresh paint at that intersection.
Mr. Marcarello indicated the City is going to bid to inventory all traffic devices throughout
the City. This inventory will record all traffic signs. The inventory will then be used as a
maintenance tool.
Vote Results:
Yes: Chairperson Knapp,
Lewin and Russell
Noes: None
Abstain: None
5. STAFF REPORTS - NONE
6. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Vice Chairman Masuda, Commissioners Deary,
Commissioner. Deary asked about the form for "problems." Traffic Engineering Deputy has it
ready and will email to each of.them. The form will be prepared as a pad for their use.
Commissioner Russell wants to make sure that someone talks with the crossing guard at
Walnut Grove and Wells.
Vice Chairman Masuda stated that notifications of agenda items need to get out earlier.
Chairperson Knapp suggested making courtesy phone calls to the key people. A speaker from
the audience stated that one reason some residents from Delta and Earle did not attend the
meeting was because of the Vice Presidential debate scheduled earlier in the evening.
Commissioner Lewin added perhaps the calls could be made specifically to those who spoke
previously. Those are the people who are the ones most likely to come and talk again.
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Page 9 of 10 .
FINAL
Vice Chairman Masuda suggested a recorded message about the meeting. Mr. Marcarello
responded that might be happening eventually. Some cities are going to CRM (Customer
Relationship Management) that could handle this type of thing. But for now, the website,
mailers, or calls to the critical people would be good.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
until November 6, 2008, at 7:00 p.m.
Jlnec (06160)17470/1002/Min04
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Page 10 of 10