CC - Item 4D - Approval of Traffic Commission Recommendations for Traffic Calming Measurs Along Newby Avenue Between Rosemead Blvd and Mission DriveROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BEN KIM, ACTING CITY MANAGER<42/'--
DATE: MARCH 8, 2022
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ALONG NEWBY AVENUE
BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
SUMMARY
At the October 7, 2021, Traffic Commission Meeting, staff presented recommendations for traffic
calming measures along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive, south
of Rosemead High School. After discussion and presentation of the item, the Traffic Commission
approved the staff recommendations for the area. Public Works Field Services staff will complete
all recommended items. If necessary, additional materials and supplies may be purchased at a
minimal expense to complete the recommended work, and staff would utilize approved Fiscal Year
2021-2022 Traffic Signs & Markers available funds.
BACKGROUND
Staff completed a traffic review and recommended appropriate traffic calming measures along
Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive.
The City received a resident request to conduct a traffic review in this area reporting speeding
vehicles along Newby Avenue. The resident requested that speed humps be placed along Newby
Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive as a potential solution. The City of
Rosemead currently does not have a speed hump policy; therefore, other traffic calming measures
were evaluated as part of the traffic engineering recommendations.
After a thorough review of existing field and traffic conditions and per the California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), California Vehicle Code (CVC), based on the
traffic review and engineering judgment, it was determined that the segment would benefit from a
combination of various traffic calming measures along the segment of Newby Avenue from
AGENDA ITEM 4.1)
City Council Meeting
March 8, 2022
Page 2 of 4
Rosemead Boulevard to Mission Drive. These measures will increase driver awareness of the
speed limit along this segment.
DISCUSSION
During the October 7, 2021, Traffic Commission Meeting, staff provided a presentation regarding
the existing roadway conditions along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission
Drive, south of Rosemead High School. The traffic review included an analysis of the existing
roadway conditions, review of approximately 5.5 years of available collision data, an average daily
traffic count (ADT), a 24-hour speed survey, and an examination of the field conditions.
Staff obtained collision data from the computerized collision records system maintained by the
State of California called the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records Systems (SWITRS). A review
of all collisions that occurred at the segment of Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and
Mission Drive was conducted over a 5.5 years period between January 2016 through May 2021.
There was a total of three (3) reported collisions during the 5.5 years period.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data was obtained from counts taken on September 9th, 2021, for
Newby Avenue between Rosemead Blvd and Mission Road while schools are back to in-person
learning. The data determined that there were 768 vehicles per day (VPD).
To assess the speed at which vehicles are traveling along Newby Avenue, speed samples were
taken. A 24-hour speed sample was taken on September 9th, 2021. The 85th percentile speed of
vehicles along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Blvd and Mission Road is at 34 mph. This
translates to mean that 85 percent of the vehicles sampled are traveling at 34 mph or below, which
is above the speed limit of 25 mph.
A detailed traffic report and proposed figure diagram is attached as the Technical Report within
Attachment A to this staff report; please refer to the proposed diagram (Figure 10) in the
attachment.
Please note that the City of Rosemead does not have a speed hump policy. In October of 2010, a
Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) was brought before the Traffic
Commission for discussion and review. Upon analysis by the City, Speed Humps were not a
recommended measure for the City to consider at that time. It was determined that Newby Avenue
is not eligible for installation of speed humps between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive
since the City does not have a speed hump policy in place. The installation of speed humps is
intended to reduce speeding vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Speed humps and other
pavement undulations are not approved traffic -control devices defined in the California Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). The installation of speed humps is based on
volume, speed, collision data and supported by an engineering study. Due to the noise as vehicles
go over the speed humps, drainage issues, and delay to emergency response times, cities usually
have Council approved adopted policies on the placement of speed humps.
City Council Meeting
March 8, 2022
Page 3 of 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Traffic Commission voted 5-0 to approve the staff recommended measures along Newby
Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive, south of Rosemead High School.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize approval for the following measures along
Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive, south of Rosemead High
School:
1. Install 30"x36" SPEED LIMIT signs (R2-1) at each end of this segment, for eastbound
and westbound direction vehicles, 25MPH. CAMUTCD Section 2B.13
a. The addition of these signs will provide advanced speed limit reminders for
vehicles entering the segment of Newby Avenue from Rosemead Boulevard to
Mission Drive.
b. The speed limit signs shall be installed approximately 150 -feet east from the
intersection of Newby Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard for eastbound direction,
and approximately 150 -feet west from the intersection of Newby Avenue and
Mission Drive for westbound direction.
2. Install "25" PAVEMENT LEGENDS next to proposed speed limit signs, for eastbound
and westbound direction vehicles. CAMUTCD Section 313.20
a. The addition of these pavement legends will provide additional emphasis to the
regulatory signage, speed limit, without requiring diversion of the road user's
attention from the roadway surface.
b. Pavement legend shall be installed adjacent to proposed eastbound speed limit sign,
approximately 150 -feet east and west from the major intersections Rosemead
Boulevard and Mission Drive.
3. Replace the existing STOP SIGN (R1-1) with 36"06" Stop sign and add "CROSS
TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP" (W44P) plaque underneath new STOP SIGN located at
Newby Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard for eastbound traffic. CAMUTCD Section
2C.59
a. Replace existing STOP SIGN (Rl-1) with 36"x36" Stop sign and add "CROSS
TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP" (W4 -4P) plaque underneath new STOP SIGN
located at Newby Avenue and Mission Drive for westbound traffic. CAMUTCD
Section 2C.59
4. Refresh/repaint stop bar and legend to increase visibility on both roadways for
eastbound traffic at the intersection of Newby Avenue and Mission Drive and for
City Council Meeting
March 8, 2022
Page 4 of 4
westbound traffic at the intersection of Newby Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard.
CAMUTCD Section 313.16
5. Refresh/repaint the dashed yellow center line and Repaint 50' of Double yellow at
the beginning of each segment from Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive.
CAMUTCD Section 313.01
6. Install red reflective posts on all stop signs (all directions). Per CAMUTCD Section
2A.21
a. Install a red reflective strip on existing Stop signposts located on Newby Avenue.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City of Rosemead Public Works Field Services Division can complete the recommended items
utilizing the approved Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Traffic Signs and Markers available funds in account
202-3010-5660. All recommended items will be carried out by in-house staff. If necessary,
additional materials and supplies may be purchased at a minimal expense to complete the tasks.
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
The project is consistent with the City of Rosemead's Strategic Plan Goal C - Infrastructure and
Facilities, which is to enhance streets, sidewalks, and public infrastructure; coordinate with
relevant utility agencies regarding safety and enhancements; and modernize facilities by expanding
the use of wireless network technology and renewable energy.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
Michael Chung, P. .
Director of Public Works
Attachment A: October 7, 2021 Traffic Commission Staff Report
Attachment B: October 7, 2021 Traffic Commission Minutes
Attachment A
October 7, 2021 Traffic Commission Staff Report
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
TO: TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER
DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2021
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
SUMMARY
On behalf of the City of Rosemead, engineering staff completed a traffic review and recommended
appropriate traffic calming measures along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and
Mission Drive.
The City received a resident request to conduct a traffic review along Newby Avenue between
Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive, south of Rosemead High School. The resident reported
speeding vehicles traveling along Newby Avenue. The resident also reported that both residents
in the community and students from Rosemead High School walk the Newby Avenue corridor.
ANALYSIS
The traffic review included an analysis of the existing roadway conditions, review of
approximately 5.5 years of available collision data, an average daily traffic count (ADT), a 24-
hour speed survey as well as an examination of the field conditions.
As a potential solution, the resident requested that speed humps be placed along Newby Avenue
between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive. The City of Rosemead currently does not have
a speed hump policy in place, therefore other traffic calming measures were evaluated as part of
the traffic engineering recommendations.
Newby Avenue: Within the City of Rosemead, Newby Avenue runs east -west and is considered a
local road with a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Newby Avenue is approximately 1,000 feet
in length between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive. Newby Avenue is approximately 32
feet wide with one lane in each direction with a faded dashed yellow center line through the
segment with a double yellow center line the first 25' on the west side and 75' on the east side.
Parking is available on the north and south side of Newby Avenue except for Tuesdays from 10:00
AM to 2:00 PM during street sweeping. Parking along Newby Avenue is restricted to 2 -hour
parking everyday between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM. This segment of Newby Avenue travels through
City Traffic Commission Meeting
October 7, 2021
Page 2 of 4
light medium residential zoning with central business zoning on the west end of the segment, per
the Rosemead General Plan.
Rosemead Boulevard: Within the City of Rosemead, Rosemead Boulevard runs north -south and
is considered an Other Principal Arterial road with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Rosemead
Boulevard is approximately 75 feet wide with two lanes of travel in each direction with a raised
median and protected left turns near this location. Parking along the east and west side of
Rosemead Boulevard is limited to 2 -hour parking between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM and where the
curbs are not marked red. This segment of Rosemead Boulevard runs through a mix use of medium
commercial, neighborhood commercial, and central business zoning, per the Rosemead General
Plan.
Mission Drive: Within the City of Rosemead, Mission Drive is classified as a minor arterial road,
by the California Department of Travel, California Road Functional Classification, with a speed
limit of 35 mph and with a 25 -mph school zone between Rosemead Boulevard and Encinita
Avenue. Mission Drive is approximately 58 feet wide with two lanes of travel in each direction
separated by a double yellow line. Parking is available on the east and west side of Mission Drive
except during weekdays from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, due to Rosemead High School. This segment
of Mission Drive travels through single family residential and open space zoning, per the
Rosemead General Plan.
Collision data was obtained from the computerized collision records system maintained by the
State of California called the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records Systems (SWITRS). A review
of all collisions that occurred at the segment of Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and
Mission Drive was conducted over a 5.5 -year period between January 2016 through May 2021.
There was a total of 3 reported collisions during the 5.5 year period.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data was obtained from counts taken on September 9th, 2021, for
Newby Avenue between Rosemead Blvd and Mission Road while schools are back to in-person
learning. The data determined that there were 768 vehicles per day (VPD).
To assess the speed at which vehicles are traveling along Newby Avenue, speed samples were
taken. A 24-hour speed sample was taken on September 9th, 2021. The 85th percentile speed of
vehicles along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Blvd and Mission Road is at 34 mph. This
translates to mean that 85 percent of the vehicles sampled are traveling at 34 mph or below which
is above the speed limit of 25 mph.
Please note that the City of Rosemead does not have a speed hump policy. In October of 2010, a
Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) was brought before the Traffic
Commission for discussion and review. Upon analysis by the City, Speed Humps were not a
recommended measure for the City to consider at that time. It was determined that Newby Avenue
is not eligible for installation of speed humps between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive
since the City does not have a speed hump policy in place. The installation of speed humps is
intended to reduce speeding vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Speed humps and other
pavement undulations are not approved traffic -control devices as defined in the California Manual
City Traffic Commission Meeting
October 7, 2021
Page 3 of 4
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). The installation of speed humps is based on
volume, speed, collision data and supported by an engineering study. Due to the noise as vehicles
go over the speed humps, drainage issues and delay to emergency response times cities usually
have Council approved adopted policies on the placement of speed humps.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
After a thorough review of existing field and traffic conditions and per the California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), California Vehicle Code (CVC), based on the
traffic review and engineering judgement, it was determined that the segment would benefit from
a combination of various traffic calming measures along the segment of Newby Avenue from
Rosemead Boulevard to Mission Drive. These measures will increase driver awareness of the
speed limit along this segment.
A detailed traffic report and proposed figure diagram is attached as Attachment A to this staff
report, please refer to the proposed diagram (Figure 10) in the attachment.
Below is a detailed list of the recommendations, these improvements are also shown on Figure 10
of Attachment A:
1. Install 30"x36" SPEED LIMIT signs (R2-1) at each end of this segment, for eastbound
and westbound direction vehicles, 25MPH. CAMUTCD Section 2B.13
• The addition of these signs will provide advanced speed limit reminders for vehicles
entering the segment of Newby Avenue from Rosemead Boulevard to Mission Drive.
• The speed limit signs shall be installed approximately 150 -feet east from the
intersection of Newby Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard for eastbound direction, and
approximately 150 -feet west from the intersection of Newby Avenue and Mission
Drive for westbound direction.
2. Install of "25" PAVEMENT LEGENDS next to proposed speed limit signs, for
eastbound and westbound direction vehicles. CAMUTCD Section 3B.20
• The addition of these pavement legends will provide additional emphasis to the
regulatory signage, speed limit, without requiring diversion of the road user's attention
from the roadway surface.
• Pavement legend shall be installed adjacent to proposed eastbound speed limit sign,
approximately 150 -feet east and west from the major intersections Rosemead
Boulevard and Mission Drive.
3. Replace the existing STOP SIGN (RI -1) with 36"x36" Stop sign and add "CROSS
TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP" (W44P) plaque underneath new STOP SIGN located at
City Traffic Commission Meeting
October 7, 2021
Page 4 of 4
Newby Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard for eastbound traffic. CAMUTCD Section
2C.59
• Replace existing STOP SIGN (R1-1) with 36"x36" Stop sign and add "CROSS
TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP" (W4 -4P) plaque underneath new STOP SIGN located
at Newby Avenue and Mission Drive for westbound traffic. CAMUTCD Section
2C.59
4. Refresh/repaint stop bar and legend to increase visibility on both roadways for
eastbound traffic at the intersection of Newby Avenue and Mission Drive and for
westbound traffic at the intersection of Newby Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard.
CAMUTCD Section 313.16
5. Refresh/repaint the dashed yellow center line and Repaint 50' of Double yellow at the
beginning of each segment from Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive. CAMUTCD
Section 3B.01
6. Install red reflective posts on all stop signs (all directions). Per CAMUTCD Section
2A.21
• Install a red reflective strip on existing Stop signposts located on Newby Avenue.
Prepared by:
Jana Robbins, Contract Traffic Engineering Division
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - Technical Engineering Report
B. Attachment B — Courtesy Notification
i
TRANSTECh
TO: City of Rosemead, Department of Public Works
FROM: Traffic Engineering, Transtech Engineers, Inc.
DATE: September 29, 2021
SUBJECT: Traffic Review along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
On behalf of the City of Rosemead, engineering staff completed a traffic review and recommended
appropriate traffic calming measures along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission
Drive. The City received a resident request to conduct a traffic review along Newby Avenue between
Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive, south of Rosemead High School. The resident reported speeding
vehicles traveling along Newby Avenue. The resident also reported that both residents in the community
and students from Rosemead High School walk the Newby Avenue corridor. As a potential solution, the
resident requested that speed humps be placed along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and
Mission Drive. The City of Rosemead currently does not have a speed hump policy in place, therefore
other traffic calming measures were evaluated as part of the traffic engineering recommendations. The
traffic review included an analysis of the existing roadway conditions, review of approximately 5.5 years
of available collision data, an average daily traffic count (ADT), a 24-hour speed survey as well as an
examination of the field conditions.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 1 of 11
TECHNICAL REPORT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Newby Avenue: Within the City of Rosemead, Newby Avenue runs east -west and is considered a local
road with a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Newby Avenue is approximately 1,000 feet in length
between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive. Newby Avenue is approximately 32 feet wide with one
lane in each direction with a faded dashed yellow center line through the segment with a double yellow
center line the first 25' on the west side and 75' on the east side. Parking is available on the north and
south side of Newby Avenue except for Tuesdays from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM during street sweeping.
Parking along Newby Avenue is restricted to 2 -hour parking everyday between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM. This
segment of Newby Avenue travels through light medium residential zoning with central business zoning
on the west end of the segment, per the Rosemead General Plan. See Figures 2 through Figure 8 for photo
exhibits of existing conditions.
Rosemead Boulevard: Within the City of Rosemead, Rosemead Boulevard runs north -south and is
considered an other principal arterial road with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Rosemead Boulevard is
approximately 75 feet wide with two lanes of travel in each direction with a raised median and protected
left turns near this location. Parking along the east and west side of Rosemead Boulevard is limited to 2 -
hour parking between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM and where the curbs are not marked red. This segment of
Rosemead Boulevard runs through a mix use of medium commercial, neighborhood commercial, and
central business zoning, per the Rosemead General Plan.
Mission Drive: Within the City of Rosemead, Mission Drive is classified as a minor arterial road, by the
California Department of Travel, California Road Functional Classification, with a speed limit of 35 mph
and with a 25 -mph school zone between Rosemead Boulevard and Encinita Avenue. Mission Drive is
approximately 58 feet wide with two lanes of travel in each direction separated by a double yellow line.
Parking is available on the east and west side of Mission Drive except during weekdays from 7:00 AM to
4:00 PM, due to Rosemead High School. This segment of Mission Drive travels through single family
residential and open space zoning, per the Rosemead General Plan.
Figure 2: Existing Conditions
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 2 of 11
TECHNICAL REPORT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
PICTURES OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
J/
Figure 3: Newby Avenue looking east to
Mission Drive
5
i
n
Figure 5: Looking west along Newby Avenue
COLLISION INVESTIGATION
z ))
�\0
Figure 4: Mission Drive looking west on Newby
Avenue
t
l
Figure 6: Looking west on Newby Avenue in
the middle of seement
Collision data was obtained from the computerized collision records system maintained by the State of
California called the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records Systems (SWITRS). A review of all collisions that
occurred at the segment of Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive was
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 3 of ll
TECHNICAL REPORT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
conducted over a 5.5 -year period between January 2016 through May 2021. Based on the information
provided, a summary breakdown of the number of collisions within the studied segment are shown below,
in Table 1.
Table 1:
2021— 0 collisions
2020-0 collisions
2019 —1 collision
2018 — 0 collisions
2017 —1 collision
2016 —1 collision
Table 1: Newby Avenue Collision History (make sure columns fit info
See Figure 9 for a visual representation of the collisions along Newby Avenue between Rosemead
Boulevard and Mission Drive during the selected period.
Figure 9: Collision Diagram for Newby Avenue
•u
+i , %I
NEWBY AVE
LEGEND
ALL COLLISIONS - Crash Type
(Non -Ped & Bike Collisions/Crashes)
N of
Crashes
Fatality (Death) 0
0
Severe Injury O
0
Injury - Other Visible 0
0
Injury- Complaint of Pain®
Severity
Property Damage Only
3
Total
3
PED & BIKE - Crash Type
ff Of
Crashes
Fatality (Death)
0
Severe Injury
Injury - Other Visible '
0
0
Injury -Complaint ofP;;f
0
1- Fatal
0
Total
0
TOTALCRASHES
3
2 -Severe Injury
Motor
collision
3 -Other Visible
Vehicle,
Collison Factor
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Day of the
ID R
Date
Road
Road
Dist.
Time
Week
Lighting
Type
Injury
Pedestrian,
and Detail
Collision
p Inj
Other Info
4 -Complaint of
Bicycle
Descriptions
Factor
Pain
Involved
5 - Prop Dam Only
(PDO)
NE#ROSEMEAD
EBT RUVEH HIT
IMPROP
1
6/9/2019
400-E
21:45
SUN
DARK -ST
REAR END
5
OTHER MV
0
N/A
EB BACKING VEH
STRTNG/B
2
8/7/2017�NEWBY
357'E
17:30
MON
DAY
OTHER
5
PKD MV
HIT WQ PARKED
0
N/A
BROADSID
WB U-TURN VEH
IMPROP
3
7/8/2016
18ST
8:45
FRI
DAY
5
OTHER MV
RU VEH
0
N/A
See Figure 9 for a visual representation of the collisions along Newby Avenue between Rosemead
Boulevard and Mission Drive during the selected period.
Figure 9: Collision Diagram for Newby Avenue
•u
+i , %I
NEWBY AVE
LEGEND
ALL COLLISIONS - Crash Type
(Non -Ped & Bike Collisions/Crashes)
N of
Crashes
Fatality (Death) 0
0
Severe Injury O
0
Injury - Other Visible 0
0
Injury- Complaint of Pain®
0
Property Damage Only
3
Total
3
PED & BIKE - Crash Type
ff Of
Crashes
Fatality (Death)
0
Severe Injury
Injury - Other Visible '
0
0
Injury -Complaint ofP;;f
0
Property Damage Only
0
Total
0
TOTALCRASHES
3
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 4 of 11
TECHNICAL REPORT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data was obtained from counts taken on September 9th, 2021 for Newby
Avenue between Rosemead Blvd and Mission Road while schools are back to in-person learning. A
summary of ADT data is shown in Table 2: Average Daily Traffic (ADT).
Table 2: 2021 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Location Vehicles per Day (vpd)
Newby Avenue between Rosemead Blvd and Mission Road 769
RADAR SPEED SURVEY
To assess the speed at which vehicles are traveling along Newby Avenue, speed samples were taken. A
24-hour speed sample was taken on September 9th, 2021. The 85th percentile speed of vehicles along
Newby Avenue between Rosemead Blvd and Mission Road is at 34 mph. This translates to mean that 85
percent of the vehicles sampled are traveling at 34 mph or below which is above the speed limit of 25
mph. Table 3 below shows the September 9th, 2021 speed survey results. The speed summary is attached
(Attachment 2) at the end of the report.
Table 3: Radar Speed Survey along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Blvd and Mission Road
Dir. of
Date/Time of
Location
85%ile Speed
Posted Limit MPH
Travel
Survey
Newby Avenue between
09/09/21
Rosemead Blvd and Mission
EB/WB
34
25
24-hour
Road
TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES AND STRATEGIES
Traffic calming is the process of reducing vehicle speeds using both passive devices, such as signs and
striping, and physical devices such as changes in road elevation or path. As part of this study, traffic
speeds, collisions, and traffic volumes were used to assess existing conditions along this segment. The
type, design, and placement of traffic calming devices depend upon the road classification, desired traffic
speed and types of traffic issues along Newby Avenue between Mission Drive and Rosemead Boulevard.
The following is a list of common traffic calming measures usually deployed.
A single traffic calming device placed along a long stretch of road will be marginally effective at slowing
down speed at that isolated location. Implementation of a series of traffic calming devices that work
together will effectively slow down traffic speeds along the length of the corridor. There are various traffic
calming measures that can reduce the flow and speed of traffic on a street. Some of these are:
1) Traffic Education Campaign: This consists of flyers, neighborhood meetings, banners and other
notices to assist is making the public aware of the traffic conditions in a certain area
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 5 of 11
TECHNICAL REPORT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
2) Signage and Pavement Legends: Modifying the signage along the road or change the striping to
narrow travel lanes to effectively slows speeds by changing the travel environment. Signs alert the
Driver to their speed, such as larger speed limit signs or a speed feedback sign. Too many signs can
have an opposite effect on traffic. Therefore, usage of signs should be subject to careful consideration
and compliance with local and regional standards.
3) Larger Dimension Signs: Installation of larger dimensioned signage are recommended as treatments
to increase the motorist's awareness and other Driver conditions by highlighting various areas of the
roadway. All sign dimensions should comply with the dimensions specified in the California Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) Table 213-1 Regulatory Sign and Plaque Sizes. The larger
sizes are shown in the multi -lane column as 36"x36" for stop signs and 30"x36" for speed limits.
Table 213-1. Regulatory Sign and Plaque Sizes (Sheet 1 of 4)
Sign or Plaque
Des glnation
Section
Conven onal Road
I
expressway
I
Freeway
Minimum
Oversized
Single I
Lane I
Multi-
Lane
Stop
R1-1
26.05 30 x 30'! 36 x 36
I 36 x 36 — 30 x 30' 48 x 48
Speed Limit
R2.1
2B.13 24 x 30' I 3D x 3G
I 36 x 48 48 x 60 I 18X24' 1 30 x 36
4) Traffic Striping: Roadway striping can be implemented as an option that is a low-cost alternative to
Vertical/horizontal traffic calming measures. This includes a white stripe painted along both sides of
the travel way to give the driver a perception of a narrower road.
5) Radar Feedback Signs: Radar feedback signs are an effective way to alert Drivers of their speed. The
speed of each passing vehicle is taken and displayed next to the posted speed limit.
6) Targeted Police Enforcement: The police department deploys officers to perform enforcement on
residential streets for at least an hour a day.
SPEED HUMP POLICY:
The City of Rosemead does not have a speed hump policy. In October of 2010, a Draft Neighborhood
Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) was brought before the Traffic Commission for discussion and review.
Upon analysis by the City, Speed Humps were not a recommended measure for the City to consider at
that time. It was determined that Newby Avenue is not eligible for installation of speed humps between
Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive since the City does not have a speed hump policy in place. The
installation of speed humps is intended to reduce speeding vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Speed
humps and other pavement undulations are not approved traffic -control devices as defined in the
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). The installation of speed humps is
based on volume, speed, collision data and supported by an engineering study. Due to the noise as
vehicles go over the speed humps, drainage issues and delay to emergency response times Cities usually
have Council approved adopted policies on the placement of speed humps.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 6 of 11
TECHNICAL REPORT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
RECOMMENDATIO
After a thorough review of existing field and traffic conditions and per the California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), California Vehicle Code (CVC), based on the traffic review and
engineering judgement, it was determined that the segment would benefit from a combination of various
traffic calming measures along the segment of Newby Avenue from Rosemead Boulevard to Mission Drive.
These measures will increase driver awareness of the speed limit along this segment. The improvements
are listed below and shown on Figure 10:
1. Install 30"x36" SPEED LIMIT signs (R2-1) at each end of this segment, for eastbound
and westbound direction vehicles, 25MPH. CAMUTCD Section 28.13 SPEED
• The addition of these signs will provide advanced speed limit reminders for LIMIT
vehicles entering the segment of Newby Avenue from Rosemead Boulevard to 251
Mission Drive.
• The speed limit signs shall be installed approximately 150 -feet east from the (R2-1)
intersection of Newby Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard for eastbound
direction, and approximately 150 -feet west from the intersection of Newby Avenue and
Mission Drive forwestbound direction.
2.
3.
4.
Install of "25" PAVEMENT LEGENDS next to proposed speed limit signs, for eastbound and
westbound direction vehicles. CAMUTCD Section 36.20
• The addition of these pavement legends will provide additional
emphasis to the regulatory signage, speed limit, without requiring p
diversion of the road user's attention from the roadway surface.
• Pavement legend shall be installed adjacent to proposed eastbound
speed limit sign, approximately 150 -feet east and west from the major
intersections Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive. Pavement Legend
Replace the existing STOP SIGN (R1-1) with 36"x36" Stop sign and add "CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT
STOP" (W4 -4P) plaque underneath new STOP SIGN located at Newby Avenue and Rosemead
Boulevard for eastbound traffic. CAMUTCD Section 2C.59
• Replace existing STOP SIGN (111-1) with 36"x36" Stop sign and add "CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT
STOP" (W4 -4P) plaque underneath new STOP SIGN located at Newby Avenue and Mission
Drive for westbound traffic. CAMUTCD Section 2C.59
Refresh/repaint stop bar and legend to increase visibility on both roadways for eastbound traffic
at the intersection of Newby Avenue and Mission Drive and for westbound traffic at the
intersection of Newby Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard. CAMUTCD Section 36.16
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 7 of 11
TECHNICAL REPORT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
5. Refresh/repaint the dashed yellow center line and Repaint 50' of Double yellow at the
beginning of each segment from Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive. CAMUTCD Section
313.01
6. Install red reflective posts on all stop signs (all directions). Per CAMUTCD Section 2A.21
• Install a red reflective strip on existing Stop signposts located on Newby Avenue, as shown in
Figure 10.
Figure 10: Proposed Recommendations for Newby Avenue
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 8 of 11
TECHNICAL REPORT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
ATTACHMENTS
1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts
a. Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive
2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Speed Survey
a. Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 9 of 11
TECHNICAL REPORT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
Attachment 1: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts
Prepared by NDSjATD
Prepared by Natlonal Data 8 Surveying Servlces
VOLUME
Newby Ave Bet. Rosemead Blvd & Mission Dr
Day: Thursday
Date: 9/9/2021
City: Rosemead
Project N: CA21_020237_001
AM Peak Hour
DAILY
TOTALS
07:30
PM Peak Hour
15:00
15:30
15:15
AM Pk Volume
84
23
105
PM Pk Volume
63
30
87
Pk Hr Factor
0.750
0.479
0.709
Pk Hr Factor
0.716
0.750
t
7-9 Volume
t
34
461
4-6 Volume
309
33
86
7-9 Peak Hour
07:30
07:45
769
4-6 Peak Hour
17:00
16:00
16:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume
84
AM Period
NB
SB
EB
24
Will
Pk Hr Factor
TOTAL
0,479
0.709
Pk Hr Factor
0.682
0.750
0.783
00:00
0
0
0
0
12:00
0
0
3
5
8
00:15
0
0
0
0
12:15
0
0
6
5
11
00:30
0
0
0
0
12:30
0
0
6
6
12
WAS
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
12:45
0
0
3
18
3
19
6
37
01:00
0
0
0
0
13:00
0
0
3
3
6
01:15
0
0
0
0
13:15
0
0
5
6
11
01:30
0
0
2
0
2
13:30
0
0
11
1
12
01:45
0
0
0
2
0
2
13:45
0
0
5
24
4
14
9
38
02:00
0
0
0
0
14:00
0
0
10
6
16
02:15
0
0
0
0
14:15
0
0
7
7
14
02:30
0
0
0
0
14:30
0
0
17
4
21
02:45
1 0
0
1
1
0
1
1
14:45
0
0
6
40
7
24
13
64
03:00
0
0
0
1
1
15:00
0
0
8
6
14
03:15
0
0
0
1
1
15:15
0
0
16
3
19
03:30
0
0
0
0
15:30
0
0
22
10
32
03:45
0
0
0
1
3
1
3
15:45
0
0
17
63
4
23
21
86
04:00
0
0
0
0
16:00
0
0
7
8
15
04:15
0
0
1
2
3
16:15
0
0
4
8
12
04:30
0
0
1
3
4
16:30
0
0
6
3
9
04:45
0
0
0
2
1
6
1
8
16:45
0
0
6
23
5
24
11
47
05:00
0
0
0
1
1
17:00
0
0
4
1
5
05:15
0
0
0
2
2
17:15
0
0
10
4
14
05:30
0
0
1
2
3
17:30
0
0
5
2
7
05:45
1 0
0
1
2
0
5
1
7
17:45
0
0
11
30
2
13
39
06:00
0
0
1
0
1
18:00
0
0
9
5
14
06:15
0
0
1
1
2
18:15
0
0
11
6
17
06:30
0
0
1
0
1
18:30
0
0
9
1120
06:45
0
0
2
5
4
5
6
10
18:45
0
0
6
35
7
d29
13
64
07:00
0
0
5
4
9
19:00
0
0
4
6
10
07:15
0
0
7
2
9
19:15
0
0
9
3
12
07:30
0
0
10
3
13
19:30
0
0
6
4
10
07:45
0
0
21
43
2
11
23
54
19:45
0
0
7
26
8
15
47
08:00
0
0
28
4
32
20:00
0
0
3
3
6
WAS
0
0
25
12
37
20:15
0
0
3
3
6
08:30
0
0
3
5
8
20:30
0
0
4
4
8
08:45
0
0
3
59
2
23
5
82
20:45
0
0
2
12
5
15
7
27
09:00
0
0
3
4
7
21:00
0
0
2
1
3
09:15
0
0
4
1
5
21:15
0
0
5
3
8
09:30
0
0
5
5
10
21:30
0
0
0
4
4
09:45 1
0
0
4
16
3
13
7
29
21:45
0
0
2
9
5
13
7
22
10:00
0
0
6
2
8
22:00
0
0
1
4
5
10:15
0
0
6
1
7
22:15
0
0
1
4
5
10:30
0
0
6
3
9
22:30
0
0
1
4
5
10:45
0
0
3
21
4
10
7
31
22:45
0
0
3
6
2
14
5
20
11:00
0
0
6
4
10
23:00
0
0
2
2
4
11:15
0
0
4
4
8
23:15
0
0
1
1
2
11:30
0
0
3
2
5
23:30
0
0
1
5
6
11:45
0
0
4
17
4
14
8
31
23:45
0
0
2
6
3
11
5
17
TOTALS
169
92
261
TOTALS
292
216
508
SPLIT%
64.8%
35.2%
33,9%
SPLIT%
57.5%
42.5%
66.1%
DAILY
TOTALS
NB
SB
EB
W8
Total
1
r
461
308
769
AM Peak Hour
07:30
07:45
07:30
PM Peak Hour
15:00
15:30
15:15
AM Pk Volume
84
23
105
PM Pk Volume
63
30
87
Pk Hr Factor
0.750
0.479
0.709
Pk Hr Factor
0.716
0.750
01680
7-9 Volume
102
34
136
4-6 Volume
53
33
86
7-9 Peak Hour
07:30
07:45
07:30
4-6 Peak Hour
17:00
16:00
16:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume
84
23
105
4- 6 Pk Volume
30
24
47
Pk Hr Factor
0,750
0,479
0.709
Pk Hr Factor
0.682
0.750
0.783
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 10 of 11
TECHNICAL REPORT: TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE
Attachment 2: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Speed Survey
Prapere4 Or Ne�onel Dnln 8 SurvoylnB 9ervicee
SPEED
Newby Ave Bet. Rosemead Blvd & Mission Dr
Day: Thursday City: Rosemead
Date: 9/9/2021 Project N: CA21_020237_001
Summary
AM Volumes
14
27
52
90
52
19
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
261
00:00 AM
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
01:00
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
02:00
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
03:00
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
04:00
0
1
1
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
05:00
0
1
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
06:00
0
5
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
07:00
4
5
17
21
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
08:00
1
6
21
28
21
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
82
09:00
4
5
2
9
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
10:00
4
2
4
12
6
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
11:00
0
2
3
10
9
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
12:00 PM
3
2
4
18
6
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
37
13:00
3
4
8
4
9
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
14:00
3
4
8
21
18
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
64
15:00
2
4
16
39
16
6
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
86
16:00
2
5
9
16
9
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
17:00
0
2
11
10
12
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
39
18:00
4
4
18
23
9
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
64
19:00
7
2
10
19
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
20:00
2
4
1
11
5
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
27
21:00
1
0
4
10
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
22:00
1
2
4
S
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
23:00
1 21
0
4
4
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
%of Totals
6%
8%
19'.'
3592
21-.
99G
2%
1%
1009:,
AM Volumes
14
27
52
90
52
19
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
261
%AM
2%
4%
7%
12%
7%
2%
1%
0%
34%
AM Peak Hour
07:00
08:00
08:00
08:00
08:00
08:00
11:00
06:00
08:00
Volume
4
6
21
28
21
5
3
1
82
PM Volumes
30
33
97
180
106
48
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
508
% PM
4%
4%
133e
23%
14%
6%
1%
1%
669
PM Peak Hour
19100
16:00
18:00
1500
14:00
14:00
13.00
15:00
15:00
Volume
7
5
18
39
18
9
2
3
86
Directional Peak Periods
AM 7-9
NOON 12-2
PM 4-6
Off Peak Volumes
All Speeds
Volume %
Volume %
Volume %
Volume %
136 18%
75 '—' 10%
86 — 11%
472 — 61%
15th 50th Average 85th 95th ADT
Newby Ave Summary 1 20 27 27 34 39 769
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. I Page 11 of 11
KO. S E AEA�D
Traffic Commission Courtesy Notification
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Thursday, October 7, 2021, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,
the Rosemead Traffic Commission will hold a public meeting for the purpose of reviewing the Traffic Conditions along Newby Avenue
between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive.
In an effort to protect the health and safety of the public and employees while conducting business matters, the following precautions will
be enforced at all public meetings, a protective face covering must be worn and social distancing will be observed.
You are being notified of this meeting because your property is within proximity to the location. We encourage your comments regarding
traffic safety in this area. Citizens' wishing to comment may do so by calling (626) 569-2100 or via email at
publiccomment@cityofrosemead.org by 5:00 p.m. Please identify the topic you wish to comment in your email's subject line. All comments
are public record and will be recorded in the official record of the City. Written comments must be addressed to:
City of Rosemead
Public Works Department
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
Attention: Director of Public Works
Again, only comments received by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 7, 2021, will be accepted. We appreciate your concern for traffic safety
in the City of Rosemead. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the Public Works Department at 626-569-2150.
For information please call:
Para obtener mas informaci6n, favor de Ilamar al:
De biet them chi tiet, xin g9i:
626-569-2150
Location Map
Attachment B
October 7, 2021 Traffic Commission Minutes
Minutes of the Regular
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING
October 7, 2021
The regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chair Masuda at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
FLAG SALUTE: Chair Masuda
INVOCATION: Vice Chair Quintanilla
PRESENT: Commissioner Drange, Commissioner Escobar, Commissioner Nguyen, Vice Chair
Quintanilla and Chair Masuda
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins, Director of Public Works Michael Chung,
Administrative Assistant Daniel Nguyen and Deputy City Clerk Natalie Haworth
INTRODUCTION OF NEW DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS:
Michael Chung, Director of Public Works gave a brief introduction about himself.
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Masuda made a clarification that one of the public comment letters for Agenda Item 3A deals
with a portion of the street to be discussed in the meeting, however, addresses the west side of
Rosemead Boulevard. Therefore, the item is not specific to the agenda item.
The City received the following Public Comment via email:
Contact information is filed with the Public Works Department. There are two signs on the north
side of Newby Avenue that clearly say, NO STOPPING OR PARKING - ANY TIME. When
Muscatel Middle School is in session, people park on the north side of Newby Avenue in the
morning while dropping their children off at school and again in the afternoon when picking their
children up. When there is an event at the school both sides of the street will be filled with cars.
This makes it difficult to get in or out of the driveway.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Masuda asked Traffic Commissioners if anyone would like to make revisions or additions to
the minutes of June 3, 2021, or September 9, 2021.
Commissioner Drange made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Quintanilla, to accept
consent calendar. Vote resulted in:
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 1 of 9
Yes: Drange, Escobar, Nguyen, Quintanilla, Masuda
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
3. NEW BUSINESS
A. TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG NEWBY AVENUE BETWEEN ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
AND MISSION DRIVE
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins provided a brief description of the item and presented a PowerPoint
presentation of the studies that were conducted.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins stated the resident reported speeding vehicles traveling along
Newby Avenue. The resident also reported that both residents in the community and students from
Rosemead High School walk the Newby Avenue corridor. As a potential solution, the resident
requested that speed humps be placed along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and
Mission Drive.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins explained that the City of Rosemead currently does not have a
speed hump policy in place, therefore other traffic calming measures were evaluated as part of the
traffic engineering recommendations.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins explained as part of the traffic review, engineering staff looked at
the existing roadway conditions, collision data, an average daily traffic count (ADT), and a 24-hour
speed survey
On behalf of the City of Rosemead, Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins provided recommendations for
traffic calming measures along Newby Avenue between Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive.
Commissioner Nguyen asked for clarification on the 24-hour speed survey on whether it was
conducted on a weekday or weekend.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins answered the 24-hour speed survey was conducted on a weekday
when school was in session, more specifically, it took place on Thursday, September 9, 2021.
Chair Masuda asked if Commissioner Escobar had any questions.
Commissioner Escobar responded she had no further questions and agreed with staff
recommendations.
Vice Chair Quintanilla also agreed with staff recommendations, mentioning it would mostly be a
refresh and repainting of existing pavement legends and markings.
Chair Masuda commented the yellow markings on the pavement were barely visible and need a
refresh and repaint.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 2 of 9
Commissioner Escobar made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nguyen, to accept Staff
recommendations. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Drange, Escobar, Nguyen, Quintanilla, Masuda
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
B. TRAFFIC REVIEW ALONG DRIGGS AVENUE AND HEGLIS AVENUE SOUTH OF
WHITMORE STREET
Staff received three public comments on this item.
Chair Masuda read aloud the public comment received from Rosemead Resident via phone,
expressing concerns for her homebound mother who resides on Heglis Avenue. Resident
explained that due to her mother's declining vision and hearing, it is difficult for her mother to detect
oncoming vehicles and mentioned it would be nice to have a sidewalk built along Heglis Avenue.
Chair Masuda read aloud the public comment received from Sherry Quarnstrom via email,
expressing her disapproval for the installation of red curb and if approved, to paint the south side
instead.
Chair Masuda read aloud the public comment received from the Valdes' via email, expressing their
disapproval to the installation of red curb. Resident suggested installation of a speed bump, traffic
mirror, and improving street lighting.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins introduced Staff recommendations by providing a brief description
of the item and presented a PowerPoint presentation of the studies that were conducted.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins stated the resident request was for the City to review the curve and
requested a speed hump be installed.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins explained that the City of Rosemead currently does not have a
speed hump policy in place, therefore other traffic calming measures were evaluated as part of the
traffic engineering recommendations.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins explained as part of the traffic review, engineering staff looked at
the existing roadway conditions, collision data, an average daily traffic count (ADT), and a 24-hour
speed survey. There were no reported collisions in the 5 % year collision data. There was 53
vehicles recorded from the average daily traffic count (ADT) during the 24-hour period, which was
taken on Thursday, September 9, 2021, when school was in session. The 24-hour speed survey on
Driggs Avenue showed 85% of drivers were driving 24 mph or less.
On behalf of the City of Rosemead, Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins provided recommendations for
traffic measures along the curve where Driggs Avenue meets Heglis Avenue south of Whitmore
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 3 of 9
Street. It was proposed to install red curb and a solid double yellow line along the curve with raised
pavement markers (RPMs) along the yellow center lines. Also, to install Chevron Alignment signs
along the curve to provide additional emphasis and guidance.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins explained that if the double yellow line was added, there would not
be enough parking on both sides since the street is too narrow. It was staff recommendation to
paint the red curb on the north side to avoid taking away parking spaces.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins explained that if the City would like to consider installing the red
curb on the opposite side, the City should poll the five houses along the curb on the south side for
their opinion.
In response to Commissioner Drange's question regarding a Chevron Alignment sign, Traffic
Engineer Jana Robbins explained and identified the Chevron Alignment sign as the yellow sign
with a sideways "V' shape as indicated on the presentation.
In response to Commissioner Drange's question about RPMs or raised pavement markers, Traffic
Engineer Jana Robbins responded that RPMs are the little buttons on either side of the yellow
stripes that become reflective at night.
Commissioner Nguyen asked about the five houses we would be polling that could be affected by
the installation of a red curb and if we would just be asking for their preference.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins responded that if the City wanted to move the red curb to the south
side, the City should ask all the residents along the curb since it would essentially be taking away
all their parking in front of their house.
Commissioner Nguyen asked if that is common practice or would it be exhaustive in terms of
resources.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins responded that the only way for the recommendation to add the
yellow center stripe is to remove the north side or south side since the street is not wide enough.
When coming down from Driggs Avenue, the curve is significant to where it could make it difficult to
see a person walking on the street. There are also trees on the north side as well, which was why
the north side was recommended.
Vice Chair Quintanilla commented that we should notify the residents along the curve if we are
considering switching sides for the red curb and allow them the opportunity to speak on the
decision.
Vice Chair Quintanilla asked if the City could look into sidewalks for this area and tree trimming.
Director of Public Works Chung responded staff could look into the sidewalks. As for the tree
trimming, the impact to that would be taking out the green space north of the red curb, but that
would be the impasse of the property owner.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 4 of 9
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins responded if recommended to the City, staff could look into
sidewalks, however, it would be an extensive and expensive project. The City would usually have it
included in a CIP program as part of a whole overall city. As there is an impasse to the residents,
the residents would have to give up a portion of their lawn to make a sidewalk.
Vice Chair Quintanilla asked what about just tree trimming to help reduce the visual constraints.
Director of Public Works Chung asked Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins if the trees were identified as
a constraint.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins responded yes, especially as you come from Driggs Avenue to the
curve, there is a big tree there that could have the limbs removed and trimmed to help with the
vision constraint. The City will need to check if it belongs to Public Works, if it's in the City's right of
way, or if it belongs to the resident.
In response to Vice Chair Quintanilla's question about the double yellow center line, Traffic
Engineer Jana Robbins responded that the double yellow line still allows you to turn across it, but
you are not allowed to pass. Since the street is so narrow, the double yellow line could not be
painted unless one side is removed for parking. If parking on the north side is removed, that would
leave the lane 12 foot wide and the one on the south side would be 18 feet. You need 8 feet for
parking.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins explained the option would be to either pick it or hold off and ask the
residents if that is a consideration. Or you keep the red curb on the north side to have that yellow
stripe.
Commissioner Nguyen commented she is in favor of taking time to poll the residents.
Commissioner Drange commented if it is the assumption that people will walk on the south side of
the street. Reason being that if you add a double yellow line at the curve people would likely drive
closer to the center due to the parking on the south side.
Chair Masuda commented that it is a narrow street. He recalled his experience driving on that
street approaching the curve and how he ended up driving closer to the center due to the parked
cars along the curb. For safety and visibility, adding a red curb would seem like it would help.
Chair Masuda agreed that the resident's concern regarding the placement of the red curb and to
move it to the other side something to consider and to poll the residents to see if they agree.
In response to Chair Masuda's question if she knew how many parking spaces are on the south
side, Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins responded there is probably three spaces.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins recommended that if there is concern, to bring back the agenda
item and have the City send out a letter to each of the residents along the curve. The resident who
sent in the request did not identify which side of the street he walks on, so maybe that is something
we need to find out as well.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 5 of 9
Chair Masuda commented there was only one person when he was going south on Heglis Street
and that person was walking in the middle of the street.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins commented there is not a lot of traffic on this street and no reported
collisions, but maybe something to ask these residents and if it turns out nothing is done, it will go
as usual. A Chevron Alignment sign can still be installed, but no center yellow lines.
In response to Chair Masuda's question if there was consideration to put up a slow curve sign,
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins responded they could look into adding it, however, since there were
only 53 vehicles, they did not want to add too much signage.
Chair Masuda recommended that this item be referred to the residents to get feedback on the red
curb and proceed from there as that would determine on the installation of the yellow double line
on the curve.
Chair Masuda asked if it could be recommended that the City send out notices to the residents on
the south side, but to agree on the installation of the Chevron Alignment sign and wait on the
painting of the red curb and yellow line based on the responses.
Chair Masuda asked if that suggestion could be an option rather than voting down the
recommendation or accepting it, and to hold off until we hear back from the residents.
Vice Chair Quintanilla asked to confirm if that meant to renotify the residents about having the red
curb on the south side of the curve rather than on the north side.
Chair Masuda confirmed that statement as the recommendation.
Chair Masuda asked if a motion is needed to make the recommendation to reissue a notice to the
residents about having the red curb on the south side of the curve rather than on the north side,
and to be addressed in a future agenda.
Chair Masuda responded to Director of Public Works Chung to make it clear to not to approve the
staff recommendation for the red curb.
Director of Public Works Chung responded the whole item would have to be pulled if Commission
would like to poll the residents and modify the recommendations.
Commissioner Nguyen suggested to motion to table the agenda item to the next meeting pending
further clarification from the residents.
Commissioner Drange asked if we need to state in the motion for the City to poll the residents.
Vice Chair Quintanilla responded to table the item and send it back to staff for further review.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 6 of 9
Chair Masuda commented it seems the red curb issue is holding the decision and if the tree
trimming is an issue as well, we can add that recommendation to the modifications depending on
the preferences of the residents.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins responded the Public Works staff can trim the trees if it is in the
City's right of way. If the trees are on private property, a notice would have to be sent out.
Chair Masuda asked in terms of the process are we looking at redoing the same recommendations
except for moving the red curb to the south side and sending out notification letters to the
residents.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins responded the recommendations should be left as is and to poll the
six houses on the south side and the two on the north side. Notice letters with a response date can
be sent out to these residents and we can update the commissioners on the results. Based on the
votes, we can proceed on whether we need to review the red curb or if we can approve it.
Chair Masuda asked for a motion to poll the residents affected by the red curb between Heglis
Street and Driggs Avenue to see what their preference is in terms of painting the red curb on the
south side of the curve.
Administrative Assistant Nguyen confirmed with Commission regarding the motion to table the
agenda item.
Commissioner Drange made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nguyen, to direct Staff
to take a poll of the residents affected and bring back for discussion at a future meeting.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Drange, Escobar, Nguyen, Quintanilla, Masuda
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
C. TRAFFIC REVIEW AT THE INTERSECTION OLNEY STREET AND VANE AVENUE
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins provided a brief description of the item and presented a PowerPoint
presentation of the studies that were conducted.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins stated the resident requested the City to review the intersection and
requested flashing stop signs be installed.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins explained as part of the traffic review, engineering staff looked at
the existing roadway conditions, collision data, and a peak hour intersection count taken on
Thursday, September 2, 2021,
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 7 of 9
On behalf of the City of Rosemead, Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins provided recommendations for
traffic measures at the intersection of Olney Street and Vane Avenue to encourage drivers to come
to a complete stop at the existing three way stop intersection.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins proposed to install new 36x36 Stop Signs with ALL WAY stop
plaque and retroreflective strips, repaint the yellow painted crosswalk, refresh STOP legend and
bar at STOP locations, and add red curb between crosswalk striping and driveway to the west on
the south side of Olney Street,
Commissioner Escobar agreed with staff recommendations.
Vice Chair Quintanilla asked if it was considered to add the painted crosswalk with yellow ladder
along Vane Street, perpendicular to the proposed yellow painted crosswalk for more visibility.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins responded it was looked into, however, since the crosswalk has no
sidewalk, it does not have ramps. Adding a new crosswalk would require adding ADA compliant
ramps, which is expensive especially when there is no sidewalk to connect it to. Since the
recommendation is to repaint the existing yellow crosswalk, we do not fall under the ADA ramp
restriction.
Traffic Engineer Jana Robbins responded to Chair Masuda's question and confirmed that the
vehicles making the California stop were from the east and west direction.
Commissioner Escobar made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nguyen, to accept Staff
recommendations. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Drange, Escobar, Nguyen, Quintanilla, Masuda
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
4. STAFF REPORTS
None
5. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Drange asked who to send a traffic concern he received via email regarding Del
Mar Avenue.
Director of Public Works Chung responded the email can be forwarded to him.
Chair Masuda commented generally traffic concerns are forwarded to Public Works for review and
determined if it will be added onto the agenda.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 8 of 9
Commissioner Drange commented that in the last meeting he asked for a copy of the City's Bicycle
Plan for Traffic Commission to review and if he needs to formalize that request.
Director of Public Works Chung responded he will have Public Works staff look into and bring it up
in a future staff report once the information is gathered.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. The next Traffic Commission meeting is scheduled for
November 4, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. and will take place at the Rosemead City Hall, City Council
Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard.
Howard Masuda
Chair
ATTEST:
Michael Chung,
Director of Public Works
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 9 of 9