CC - Item 3H - Request for Parking Restrictions•
E
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER a~
DATE: APRIL 22, 2008
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON MUSCATEL AVENUE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF VALLEY BOULEVARD
SUMMARY
On March 6, 2008, the Traffic Commission reviewed a request to add parking
restrictions on Muscatel Avenue north and south of Valley Boulevard. After visiting the
site on several occasions, staff found that current parking and signal conditions on
Muscatel leads to vehicles "going around" other left turning vehicles. Based on the
traffic engineer's observations, the Traffic Commission approved staff's
recommendation to take the necessary steps to create dedicated left turn lanes at this
location.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Traffic Commission's
recommendation and authorize staff to take necessary steps to create a dedicated left
turn lane on Muscatel north and south of Valley Boulevard.
DISCUSSION
After conducting field observations related to parking along Muscatel, staff found that
current turning conditions along Muscatel Avenue warrant a dedicated left turn lane in
both the northbound and southbound directions at Valley Boulevard. Currently, when a
group of vehicles are traveling on Muscatel and one vehicle wants to turn left, this
vehicle blocks the pathway of through traffic. Most following vehicles bypass the left
turning,vehicle in order to continue heading either north or south on Muscatel.
Adding a dedicated left turn lane will require the installation of red curb along portions of
Muscatel (Attachment 1), changes to the existing street striping at the location, and the
installation of new signal detectors. This work will not require a full signal modification
plan. In addition, the Traffic Commission has requested that the current double yellow
line be brought more to the center of Muscatel and that the white curb "loading" zone
adjacent to the library be repainted and marked with new "No Parking" signage.
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA:
I• '
City Council Meeting
April 22, 2008
Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL REVIEW
Funding for this project is included in the Fiscal Year 2007-08 budget.
Prepared by:
C~V
Chris Marcarello
Administrative Services Officer
Sub i
Bria aeki
Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1- MuscateINalley Street Striping Plan
2- March 6, 2008 Traffic Commission Staff Report
3- March 6, 2008 Traffic Commission Minutes
t
C
A n
O A
r,
Z
~
Y
u
00
0
~
V
9
N
m
M
-
IM
.
3 `3
z
8
A
~I~ 1n_D
Na=
;
R
op
A
9
418
'1 r
;¢.f
R
4~.
Eel
~
I I
z
~
y 20' 20'
4
2p
t
4
zA'
~
~
~
p
O
~
~~Y
q~
F
Y
s
mi
~
°~'o
~
m
a
u 50'= m
< o
~
f
~
F3
15~ 15'
❑
:
VALLEY
BOULEVARD
,
I-
a
L !g
I
A _
aka
u
IS
I o
8
NFJFI >
o
E _
<
y
m
o
o
-
4
O
R ga`ri
1 O
= 11 z
-
O
N N
n
zo' zo' , 1 G A
°
I I fil
H o?
A
ti
vl I o
~
(7 O
y `7 I
g
A
o
ul
y
3,
G
m
m
5 I -
~
N
n
n
n
C)
i
m np
o
O
o
A
l
m
a
m
o
-
v
p
y
~
m a:;
o
r~
i
s
A ~11 i o`
,
n
A
F
~ NZ
~C
O
C
m
C
A
m
O
m
'9
O i
^
p
m [x] Zy
I
1 e
d Z
1 .0
0 5 F q ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
Ce STAFF REPORT
e
'M
OpnRronniEV ',`1"'
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS
FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY
DATE: MARCH 6, 2008
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON MUSCATEL AVENUE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF VALLEY BOULEVARD
SUMMARY
Commissioner Hunter requested staff review the need for parking restrictions on
Muscatel Avenue south of Valley Boulevard. Commissioner Hunter indicated that
exiting from the Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) driveway was often inhibited due to
vehicles parked on the west side of Muscatel Avenue north of the Chamber. After this
issue was brought out by Commissioner Hunter, the Commissioners identified the
possibility of creating dedicated northbound and southbound left turn lanes on Muscatel
Avenue at Valley Boulevard.
Staff Recommendation
It is staffs recommendation that the Traffic Commission recommends the City Council
approve the following:
• Install 50 foot northbound and southbound left turn lanes on Muscatel Avenue at
Valley Boulevard.
• Install red curb on Muscatel Avenue north and south of Valley Boulevard as
shown on Exhibit B.
Direct staff to obtain a modified traffic signal design plan of Muscatel Avenue at
Valley Boulevard to include new traffic striping, traffic loop detector work and red
curb parking restrictions.
ANALYSIS
Muscatel Avenue is a 40 foot wide north/south roadway with one lane of traffic in each
direction. Opposing lanes of traffic are generally separated by a double yellow
centerline north of Valley Boulevard and a skip yellow I!ne south of Valley Boulevard.
Parking is restricted in this area of Muscatel Avenue by street sweeping restrictions and
curb markings. The posted speed limit is 30 mph on Muscatel Avenue.
,
Traffic Commission Meeting
March 6, 2008
Page 2 of 4
Valley Boulevard is 76 feet wide with two lanes of traffic in each direction. A two-way
left turn lane separates opposing lanes of traffic. There is a 2 hour parking limit
restriction on both sides of Valley Boulevard. The posted speed limit on Valley
Boulevard is 35 mph.
The intersection of Muscatel Avenue and Valley Boulevard is signalized. There are
marked white crosswalks on all legs of the intersection. The traffic signal is a 2 phase
signal operation (north/south and east/west).
Exhibit "A" depicts existing conditions on Muscatel Avenue at Valley Boulevard.
Discussion
Field observations were made of the intersection during the morning and afternoon
peak periods. The observations included identification of parked vehicles, turning
movements and vehicles "going around" left turning vehicles.
The number of vehicles parking on Muscatel Avenue north and south of Valley
Boulevard varied with the time of day as well as the duration of parking. In general, 2 to
3 cars parked on either side of Muscatel Avenue both north and south of Valley
Boulevard. The vehicles parking south of Valley Boulevard appeared to be parked for
shorter periods of time (10-15 minute) while those parked north of Valley Boulevard
appeared to park for longer periods (over 30 minutes). During the afternoon
observation, there were more vehicles parked south of Valley Boulevard. These
vehicles did affect the travel movements of northbound vehicles on Muscatel Avenue
and increased the delay for these vehicles.
During our observations, there were vehicles that parked north of the Chamber
driveway. These vehicles did inhibit visibility of vehicles exiting the Chamber driveway.
Pictures of the driveway exit will be available at the Traffic Commission meeting.
Turning movement count data was also collected for Muscatel Avenue at Valley
Boulevard during morning and evening peak hours. The turning movement counts
included a count of the number of vehicles traveling around northbound or southbound
left turning vehicles. This count was taken to address the concern about the lack of
dedicated left turn lanes on Muscatel Avenue. The turning movement counts are
summarized in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, several vehicles are "forced" to go around left turning vehicles in
both the northbound and southbound directions of Muscatel Avenue. In general, if there
is a group of vehicles traveling on Muscatel Avenue and 1 vehicle wants to turn left, this
vehicle "blocks" the pathway of through traffic. Most vehicles will go around the left
turning vehicle but some will wait until the left turn is executed.
• 0
Traffic Commission Meeting
March 6, 2008
Page 3 of 4
Table 1
Turning Movement Counts
On Muscatel Avenue at Vallev Boulevard
7:30 - 8:30
AM
5:00 - 6:00
PM
NB Left Turn
95
98
NS Thru
248
221
NB Right Turn
33
56
NB "B y- pass"
98
68
Left Turn
54
38
SB Thru
7
238
142
Si htTurn
BR
94
70
SB "By-pass"
44
26
The number of "by-pass" vehicles indicates more vehicles go around left turning
vehicles in the northbound direction. The northbound by-pass vehicles equal 66% of all
vehicles traveling through the intersection in the AM and 31% in the PM. The
southbound by-pass vehicles equal 18% of all vehicles traveling through in the AM and
PM periods.
The installation of northbound and southbound left turn lanes on Muscatel Avenue at
Valley Boulevard would require the removal of on-street parking. As shown in Exhibit B,
red curb would remove:
-2 spaces on the east side of Muscatel Avenue north of Valley Boulevard,
-6 spaces on the east side of Muscatel Avenue south of Valley Boulevard, and
• --3 spaces on the west side of Muscatel Avenue south of Valley Boulevard.
This leaves available on-street parking on Muscatel Avenue:
• -5 spaces on the east side of Muscatel Avenue north of Valley Boulevard, and
• -3 spaces on the west side of Muscatel Avenue south of Valley Boulevard.
The installation of the dedicated left turn lanes would also require the relocation of traffic
signal detection on Muscatel Avenue. Therefore, a recommendation to install the left
turn lanes will require a signal modification plan. The modification plan will include the
left turn lane striping, red curb and signal detection.
Based on field observations of parking and turning movements, the installation of
dedicated left turn lanes on Muscatel Avenue at Valley Boulevard is recommended.
Traffic Commission Meeting
March 6, 2008
Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Submitted by: pq
J anne Itagaki
Traffic Engineering Deputy
Exhibit A: Existing Conditions on Muscatel Avenue at Valley Boulevard
Exhibit B: Proposed Left Turn Lanes on Muscatel Avenue at Valley Boulevard
Q:yn76774-Rsd Retainer 07-08\Trafric Commission Agendas\2008 MarcMMuscatel 8 Valley-Pkg restdct.doc
F 20 I
m
;
I
~ I
a
I
I
I
~a=1 I
I ~
Ip
q
~
~
I
I' z
I F'
I
VALLEY
-
-
BOULEVARD
I
I
o e
o
sr
a
s @.. As
I
~
W Bg
~
i
agl
~
Z
I
1
~
IC
-A C
2w
m A
2tl
I
i
G
m ~ p~
~
o v
z
m
3
m y o
C
m
Z
0 0
^1 20' 20' n'
p
p =
OD
M m
Mm
q
^ ti
mm
AA
O
~ 11I i;
m
11
r
0
Y 1
m
A
I
D
{
~~el I
I I I
I I'~
I ~ I
VALLEY
a
F
BOULEVARD
I
I
0
tl
tl 15, 15
'2 ~5
z
I D
t
Y
n
1
4 I I
I ~ C
te'
~Q
m
TyC m
~I ' I
20 20
u
y ~ 1
W
tltl £
o o
°z p
Z
~
.
q
gee
~C O
m
~
C y
~ m
C ,y
m
Al
^
8
3
9
C
t
1
• •
i
DRAFT
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
MARCH 6, 2008
The meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairperson Knapp
at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead.
PLEDGE OF ALLIGIANCE Commissioner Masuda
INVOCATION Commissioner Hunter
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Knapp, Commissioner Masuda, Commissioner Gay,
Commissioner Hunter, Commissioner Lewin
Absent: None
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of January 3. 2008:
Commissioner Lewin requested that under Approval of Minutes, page 1, "People to
People" be corrected to read "People for People." On page 3, second paragraph under
Lawrence Bevington, remove the extra period at the end of the sentence. On page 5,
2nd complete paragraph, 2nd sentence, change "an" to "on." On page 6, first paragraph ;
under Robert Castillo, change "Applewood" to "Amberwood."
Minutes of February 7, 2008:
Commissioner Gay requested that "ROA" be changed to "RYA" on page 6, last
paragraph. On page 7, 5`h paragraph, 2nd sentence, the word "making" be replaced with
"using."
It was moved by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Hunter to accept and
approve the amended minutes of the January 3, 2008, and February 7, 2008 meetings.
Vote Results:
Yes: Chairperson Knapp, Commissioners Masuda, Gay, Hunter and
Lewin.
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting March 6, 2008
Arrec (06160)1677411002M1in03
• •
DRAFT
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE .
Speaking before the Commission:
Jim Flournoy
8655 Landis View
Rosemead, CA 91770
Mr. Flournoy spoke with the City Attorney this afternoon regarding the public comments
for the Panda addition. Comments have to be considered and responded to prior to the
action by City Council. Mr. Flournoy believes traffic issues need to be considered by
the Traffic Commission before it comes before the City Council and there is time to do it.
Subsequent to the EIR, an addendum requires either new information that could not
reasonably have been thought about ahead of time or substantial changes in
information that wasn't thought about when the original EIR was completed. Mr.
Flournoy has requested that the City Manager assign to the Traffic Commission the
responsibility of considering the traffic issues reported in the EIR. He would like to set a
precedent here with other future projects that the traffic part come before the Traffic
Commission. Right now the EIR traffic issues are not brought to the Traffic
Commission.
Chairperson Knapp suggested that the Traffic Commission probably should not sign the
petition presented by Mr. Flournoy but that Mr. Flournoy has every right to present the
petition to the City Manager and to give his ideas to the City Manager, who in time will
decide if he wants to do this.
Mr. Flournoy stated that after the meeting the Commissioners could individually sign the
petition if so inclined. He'll send it to the City Manager and let him sort it out, and put it
on the agenda for next time.
Chairperson Knapp stated that he should present the letter to the City Manager and let
him decide if it would be on our agenda the next time.
Mr. Flournoy stated the Commission can decide to put it on the agenda. Any of the
Commissioners can ask that something be put on the agenda and then discuss it. He
believes a shot across the bow needs to be fired saying we've got a very able Traffic
Commission and we need to utilize them because we do have people very upset about
parking and traffic impact in the City.
Commissioner Lewin stated he would support putting this on the agenda next time for
discussion.
Chairperson Knapp stated she's not sure how the Commission can do that.
Commissioner Lewin stated he will make a request during the items from
Commissioners portion of the meeting.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting March 6, 2008 Page 2
Jl:mec (06160)16774110021Min03
i .
1 i l
j
F I',
I
I,f
i
I
l~
t
i
i
i
•
Speaking before the Commission:
Orawan Huttayasomboom
8513 Turpin St.
Rosemead, CA
(626) 286-3549
Ms. Huttayasomboom has a building at 9102 Valley Boulevard. Requested that the red
paint be removed and replaced with regular parking in front of the store. The store has
been closed for at least ten years. It is a working store but no one wants to rent it
because there is no parking. Every time she finds a renter and they learn there is no
parking they do not want the store. There is parking in the back but there is no access
because of the adjacent apartment. The driveway next to her store belongs to the
apartment. She described the area around the store and how there is no access to the
back.
Traffic' Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated one of the things that will be looked at is
access rights. She will try to place this item on the next agenda and Ms.
Huttayasomboom will be notified.
3. OLD BUSINESS - NONE
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON MUSCATEL AVENUE NORTH
AND SOUTH OF VALLEY BOULEVARD
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki presented the staff report and study findings.
Recommendation
it is staffs recommendation that the Traffic Commission recommends the City Council
approve the following:
• Install 50-foot northbound and southbound left turn lanes on Muscatel Avenue at
Valley Boulevard.
• Install red curb on Muscatel Avenue north and south of Valley Boulevard as shown
on Exhibit B.
• Direct staff to obtain a modified traffic signal design plan of Muscatel Avenue at
Valley Boulevard to include new traffic striping, traffic loop detector work and red
curb parking restrictions.
Chairperson Knapp asked for comments from the audience.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting March 6, 2008
Jl:m c(06160)16774/1002/M1n03
Page 3
i
•
Speaking before the Commission:
Hari Alipuria
3949 Muscatel Ave.
Rosemead, CA
(626) 378-9033
DRAFT
Mr. Alipuria reported that sometimes the Library parking lot is completely full and
parking is a problem. Restricting the parking on. Muscatel will cause more problems
than it would solve. He believes the parking should be left as it is. On Wednesday
morning with street sweeping it is difficult to find parking. The City should consider
building a parking structure.
Chairperson Knapp asked Mr. Alipuria the exact location of his residence, the south
side next to the Chamber? He responded yes. That puts his residence across from the
driveway into the library.
Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Alipuria if he has a driveway access for his vehicle and if
that's enough for parking. Mr. Alipuria stated he does but that sometimes he doesn't
like to park in the driveway because it is a narrow driveway. He doesn't want to scratch
his car so he doesn't use the driveway all the time.
Commissioner Gay stated one reason for taking the parking is to have room for a
devoted left-turn lane. If the spaces are not taken, it would not be possible to free up
the traffic traveling north or south.
Commissioner Lewin asked about the occasional difficulty Mr. Alipuria has getting out of
his driveway. Mr. Alipuria stated the restrictions would affect parking and where
residents have to park. Commissioner Lewin stated part of the restricted parking will
improve the visibility for the residents and make it safer when exiting their driveways.
Commissioner Hunter stated the whole reason for the changes on Muscatel is for safety
purposes. Drivers can't see with cars traveling around the corner.
Bill Ornelas, Field Services Manager, asked about protected left turn signals on
Muscatel.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki, stated that even with a protected left turn signals
she would recommend a left turn lane.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated that a good estimate for the cost of a left-turn
phasing would be more than a detector installation. Split-phasing is a possibility, but
that adds delay.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki explained the signal is not on an automatic cycle. It
has detectors now that change the signal to green on Muscatel
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting March 6, 2008
Rl c(06160)16774/1002NIn03
Page 4
j i, •
.i!
r
i. .
I
i
,
„
~I
i'
i
E
DRAFT
Commissioner Masuda asked if moving the line and curving it would cause a
bottleneck?
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki responded there are different ways to stripe Muscatel
to allow more cars to be there. To lengthen the left turn lane means more red curb and
it might run into the residential area. There might be a way to adjust the transition to
allow more cars through.
Commissioner Lewin recommends straightening out the line to allow more transition
space.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated that could be done on both sides of the street.
On the south side, Commissioner Lewin asked about the loading zone. He wondered
why it wasn't made red.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated that white is traditionally loading, this one
could be for dropping off books or children.
Commissioner Lewin asked if it could be repainted and a loading zone, no parking sign .
be added.
Chairperson Knapp asked for further comments from the Commissioners. There being "
none, she requested a motion.
Commissioner Masuda moved to accept staff recommendation with changes are
recommended by the Commission. ,
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki summarized the motion and changes to be voted on:
1. Create the left turn lane for both directions of Muscatel at Valley.
2. Modify the double yellow line to bring it more to the center.
3. Repaint the white curb and add a No Parking Loading Zone (R7-6) sign. j
Commissioner Lewin seconded the motion.
Vote results:
Yes: Chairperson Knapp, Commissioner Gay, Commissioner Masuda,
Commissioner Hunter, Commissioner Lewin
Noes: None
Abstain: None
B. CITYWIDE BLUE CURB POLICY
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki presented the staff report.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting March 6, 2008 Page 5
Amee(06160)16774/1002/MinD3
i
i;
' I,
0 •
Recommendation
DRAFT
Staff is requesting direction from the Traffic Commission regarding a citywide policy on
the installation of blue curbs.
Chairperson Knapp asked for comments.
Bill Ornelas, Field Services Manager, discussed the policies of the blue curb in the City
of Norwalk.
Chris Marcarello, Administrative Services Officer, also discussed the policy and
problems. The direction to develop a blue curb policy comes from the City Manager.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated that what she likes about the two policies is
that there is an appeals process. It provides the residents the opportunity to present the
request for further review if the request is denied.
There was discussion about how to go about reviewing this item. Traffic Engineering
Deputy Itagaki stated staff is asking for direction from the Commission; do they want
such a program, and if so staff will work on it.
Chairperson Knapp asked if all Commissioners were in agreement.
Commissioner Lewin stated he is generally in favor of such a program, especially in
residential areas, and there is likely to become a greater need for this over the years.
He leans toward the Monterey Park model except for the annual review process; he
prefers a case-by-case. If there is a short-term need for blue curb, there could be a
review. It is his belief that having an annual review would be extra work.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated it is her understanding that in Norwalk a letter
is sent to the resident for the purpose of re-gathering the required information and if that
information is not provided then the blue curb goes away.
Responding to a question asked by Mr. Flournoy regarding ADA, Traffic Engineering
Deputy Itagaki stated that the City of Monterey Park has a statement on their website
that the City is not required to provide the program by ADA; it is provided as a special
program by the City as it does improve the quality of life. Cities are not required by ADA
to make improvements to public roadways, even the ramps.
Commissioner Hunter does not favor the blue curb
Chairperson Knapp requested a motion.
Commissioner Gay motioned and Commissioner Lewin seconded to direct staff to look
into the blue curb proposal utilizing the best of what will work for the City and come back
with a proposal.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting March 6, 2008
Page 6
i
;i
i'
Jl:m (06160)16774110021W03
i
i
I
DRAFT
Vote Results:
Yes: Chairperson Knapp, Commissioner Gay, Commissioner Lewin,
Commissioner Masuda
Noes: None
Abstain: Commissioner Hunter
C. UPDATE ON FIELD SERVICES ACTIVITIES. - Oral Report
Mr. Ornelas also discussed the process and follow-up used in Field Services.
Chairperson Knapp thanked everyone for the discussion.
D. PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING TRAFFIC STUDIES
Chris Marcarello stated he wanted to address the Commission about the process of
traffic studies as it relates to the City's budget process. He is requesting that the
Commission start the process of prioritizing special studies for next year's budget and
share that list so it can be presented to Council during the budget process.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki stated that Mr. Marcarello is referring to the more
extensive studies that require more staff time, not the more simple requests such as a
red or green curb.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting March 6, 2008 Page 7
Annec(06160)16774110021MIn03
Chris Marcarello introduced himself and stated the City is looking to work with the
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki and the City Engineer, as well as the Commission for
improvements in the City. Mr. Marcarello also introduced Silvia Llamas who is
responsible for the Commissioner's agenda packet. There is an emphasis on public
safety and the City Manager has made a big effort to direct more money into the
program. Mr. Marcarello requested Bill Ornelas, Field Services Manager, to attend the
meeting and outline the programs being implemented in the City.
Mr. Ornelas reported on the graffiti program and that 4 years ago his department
received 30-40 calls per day concerning graffiti. Now the calls average 2 to 3 a day,
which doesn't mean there is less graffiti because there is more. Graffiti removal is a 7-
day-a-week operation and the reported graffiti is removed within 24 hours. Field
Services has a staff of four. Field Services also handles regulatory sign
installation/repair, pot holes and utility cuts; traffic signal maintenance (Republic is
called). There is also a bulky item pickup program 3 days a week. They work with
Edison for.street light repair.
Commissioner Lewin asked about water issues and told Mr. Ornelas of a location where
a valve has been leaking. Mr. Ornelas stated they do handle water issues and that
there are about 8 water districts in the City.
is
3
.ill
i
lj
i
i
' i
i
i
~i I
DRAFT
Recommendation !
Staff recommends that the Traffic Commission receive and file this report and prepare a
list of studies at the next Traffic Commission meeting.
' II
5. STAFF REPORTS - NONE
Chris Marcarello stated Garvey Bridge will be opening soon with a ribbon cutting on
April 11th.
Regarding Rush/Angelus Delta, Council directed staff to go back out and do another
traffic study at the location. That study was given to another traffic engineering firm and
will be going on in the next month or so. That study will go back to City Council. ?
The City is going out to bid for Engineering Services. RFP is on the website.
Concerning Rush/Angelus Delta study, Commissioner Hunter stated she has spent a lot
of time there watching traffic and people, and she is of the opinion there is no need for a
traffic signal. It does need a stop sign.
Commissioner Gay asked about the pedestrian flashing crossing. Chris Marcarello
indicated that all the previous recommendations are being studied. The study will be
going back to Council for action and the Traffic Commission will be kept informed.
Commissioner Lewin asked if the study will include off hours? He also suggested a
survey of residents with school children about walking to school. Chairperson Knapp ; j
suggested this be handled through the school.
Jim Flournoy stated parents are not crossing the street because it is not safe.
6. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Masuda thanked staff.
Commissioner Hunter stated traffic is getting busy. Asked that more handicapped stalls
be installed at City Hall.
Commissioner Lewin had submitted an item regarding Temple City Boulevard and no !
trucks to be agendiied for this meeting but it was not. He would like this to be on the
next agenda. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki suggested this be an item on the
priority special study list. Chairperson Knapp agreed; it is a big item. On the technical ;
side, Commissioner Lewin asked what type of study would be done for possibility of
introducing protected/permissive signaling.
Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki responded that the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices does not have any specific guidelines for protected/permissive left turn
phasing, meaning there is a left-turn arrow (protected) as well as the ball (permissive,
which means you have to watch for oncoming traffic). Willdan has developed guidelines i
that have.been used in other cities. In general, going from fully protected left turn to
i
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting March 6, 2008 Page 8
Jl:mec (06160)1677411002/Min03
t'
,ti
DRAFT
protected-permissive is not encouraged but it can be looked at. This might be
something to put on the study list.
Commissioner Gay thanked staff. We're going through growing pains but the
Commission is trying to do the best it can and staff input is always appreciated.
Commissioner Masuda reminded Commission Lewin that he wanted to agendize the
Panda project traffic study. Traffic Engineering Deputy Itagaki will talk with Mr.
Marcarello on how best to do that.
Chairperson Knapp had no report.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting is
adjourned until April 3, 2008, at 7:00 p.m.
Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting March 6, 2008 Page 9
Jl:mec (06160)16774/1002/MinD3
t r'
I,