CC - Item 6A - Wal-Mart Construction Update•
LI
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI
FROM: ANDREW C. LAZZARETTO, CITY MANAG
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
SUBJECT: WAL-MART CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
SUMMARY
This report is in response to a request by Mayor Taylor for a status update of the
outstanding construction related items which are to be completed by the contractor for
the new Wal-Mart store building located at 1827 Walnut Grove Avenue. Attached as
Exhibit "A" is a list of items which are to be completed prior to the issuance of the final
certificate of occupancy for the garden center building and release of Wal-Mart's letter
of credit. Also, provided is an update on the installation of a flashing pedestrian beacon
along Rush Street as requested.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report.
ANALYSIS
At the September 12, 2006 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to issue a
certificate of occupancy to allow the Wal-Mart store to open for business with several
minor on-site improvements remaining. These included items required by the Planning
and Building Departments such as: portions of the landscape planters not completed;
installation of finish wall details on the garden center; graffiti clear coat on the rear of the
building; labeling of electrical components and a minor repair to a low voltage j-box.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department had only one minor floor condition for the
main building, which was completed prior to the store opening the following day.
The outstanding City Public Works (off-site) conditions were bonded for through a letter
of credit. However, prior to the store opening, staff required that the new traffic signals
be operational. One of the conditions of approval required Wal-Mart to deposit with the
City, funds for the construction of a pedestrian flashing beacon system ($125,000) to
warn drivers traveling along Rush that a school crosswalk is approaching. Also required
by the conditions of approval was the funding of a crossing guard for twenty years
($133,000). Although the traffic warrant analysis done in the technical studies of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not warrant a crossing guard or flashing
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA:
• •
City Council Meeting
October 10, 2006
Page 2 of 2
beacons, the City felt it was important and required these items of Wal-Mart. At the
September 7, 2004 City Council hearing on the entitlements for the project, City
Councilmember Bill Alarcon suggested that staff conduct a follow-up traffic analysis at
the project site to determine if the traffic mitigation measures and the assumptions in the
traffic study were accurate. Staff will comply with this request and produce a report six
months after the site is fully developed. In the meantime, the City has placed a crossing
guard at the pedestrian crosswalk on Rush Street to assist school children crossing
Rush Street to and from Rice Elementary School.
The City Engineering staff recommends waiting for the traffic analysis discussed above
to occur, rather than installing a pedestrian beacon at this time. The study may
determine other traffic calming or pedestrian safety devices would be superior to a
flashing beacon.
The activities of the City's punchlist exhibit are being addressed on a daily basis. A
strikethrough line has been put through each one completed. Staff will give a verbal
status update of the remaining items at the Council meeting of October 10th. Staff has
continued to inspect the project each week to monitor the conditions of approval and the
mitigation measures. There have been some issues that have not been resolved but
the contractor is working vigorously to complete the final items.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Submitted by:
Brad Johnson
Planning Director
Attachment A. Correction List, dated September 21, 2006
B. Minutes from September 7, 2004 City Council Meeting
C. Traffic Study analysis exerpts from EIR
• • ,
WAL-MART PUNCH LIST EDIT
CASE N0.
As of September 21, 2006
Planning
2. Repair cart-lock system.
3. Graffiti coat remainder of rear building/screen walls.
4. Complete all landscaping.
5. Install green screen material along south property line. install bike Farks,
1-_a_11 {I__ 1_L" _1 __..LI-_-1.. _..:1 _I---,AI-1....♦ a.
8. Complete finish wall details on Garden Center structure
Buildin
,
2. Complete 1abeliRg of all e!eGtFbGal GempeneRt6.
Public Works (Off-site)
1. Replace all existing sidewalk on Rush and Walnut Grove.
2. Lower manhole and fill in sidewalk on Delta at southerly end of building.
e Rt i r~rrr.re-site.
Qrove to faGe the inside of pole (tewal:d the steFe)
5. Install 6 R96, R96A and R96B regulatory signs (4 @ Walnut Grove and Wal-Mart and 2
@ Rush and Wal-Mart).
6. Install pedestrian signal heads and cross walk on the west leg of Rush and Wal-Mart.
7. Install pedestrian handicap ramp on south side and north side @ west leg of Rush and
Wal-Mart.
a. 111stail Gat VaGkiRg fOF the left tUFR lanes fel: both n9Fthb9WRd Walnut GFOVe @ Wal M&I
9. Restake any leaning city parkway street tree on Rush and Walnut Grove, or if damaged
please replace with a new Magnolia tree.
10. Plant new Magnolia parkway street trees in the existing empty tree wells
11. Replace/install porous tree well covers on Rush and on Walnut Grove.
12. Properly double stake the newly planted parkway street trees on Delta.
13. Replace all plants and shrubs in the center median of Rush that were affected by the
irrigation line shut off.
Note: Punch list is preliminary and subject to change; additional items will be added if required.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
7
8
19
20
21
22
23
4
5
7 '15 1
o~y EXHIBIT
U ENO.
is going to be created. We design mitigation measures
to account for that and accommodate it. If necessary,
we build appropriate traffic signals or do the necessary
street widening, if we find that that is necessary. And
we implement those.
We do not go back after the fact, say, five,
ten years down the line, and reanalyze whether or not
the mitigation measures worked. But because we
assume, based on all the studies, that they're accurate
and that they're going to do their job.
MAYOR CLARK: Does that answer your question?
COUNCILMAN ALARCON: Yes, it answers my
question.
I'm just making a recommendation or a
comment that possibly just not to go with a full
study again, but just use our traffic engineer after
maybe six months of operation assuming it passes
this passes this evening, they just do an analysis. So
that if we realize we were incorrect, we could take
appropriate action.
MR. KEN RUKAVINA: We can do that. However,
the site might not be fully built out in six months. So
we might
COUNCILMAN ALARCON: No. No. I mean six
months from when it opens the door.
04927 52
(Audience interruption.)
MR. KEN RUKAVINA: Six months from when the
site is fully developed?
r
r
r
COUNCILMAN ALARCON: That's correct.
MAYOR CLARK: All right. Are there any other
6 questions from the Council?
7 Seeing none, we will move onto the public
8 hearing for the general plan I guess General Plan
9 Amendment GPA-03-02; Tentative Parcel Map 26827;
10 Conditional Use Permit 02-882, 02-883, 03-939; and
11 Development Agreement 04-01; and Environmental Impact
12 Report for Rosemead Commercial Retail Center, including
13 CEQA findings, mitigation measures, statement of
14 overwriting considerations, and adoption of mitigation
15 monitoring program.
16 And I will open the public hearing. And I am
17 going to move up to the front. The elected officials
18 that have been requested to speak when I went down
19 to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to
20 protest the millions of dollars they're going to spend
21 taking the minuscule cross off of the seal because the
22 ACLU threatened to sue them, I was afforded the courtesy
23 of being moved up to I think I was Speaker Number 3.
24 And I really appreciated that, because it was a very
25 long hearing.
04928
53
•
School Crosswalk on Rush at Angelus
ed PI Inc.l
CASE NO.
Potential pedestrian safety impacts at this location are dependent on the relationship of vehicle
traffic volumes and the amount of pedestrian crossing traffic. If both vehicular and pedestrian
traffic volumes at this location are relatively high, then the potential for pedestrian/ vehicular
conflicts would warrant signalization or some other control mechanism to ensure pedestrian
safety at the Rush Street school crossing. In conjunction with general identification of existing
pedestrian access facilities and crossing locations, the Traffic Impact Study also specifically
addressed concerns related to school crossings in the project vicinity, as discussed below.
The intersection of Rush Street and Angelus Avenue was evaluated utilizing the criteria from
Chapter 10 "School Area Pedestrian Safety" of the Caltrans Traffic Manual.' In urban areas,
where the 85th percentile approach speed is less than 35 mph, school crossing traffic signal
warrants are met when 500 vehicles and 100 school pedestrians are present for each of any two
hours (not necessarily consecutive) daily while students are crossing to or from school. In rural
areas, where the 85th percentile approach speed is less than 35 mph, school crossing traffic
signal warrants are met when 350 vehicles and 70 school pedestrians are present for each of any
two hours (not necessarily consecutive) daily while students are crossing to or from school.
Although a radar speed survey was not available for Rush Street at the school crossing during
periods of heavy use, the posted speed limit is 40 mph except when children are present and the
posted speed limit is 25 mph in the school zone.
Traffic counts at this location identified 946 vehicles per hour (VPH) on Rush Street east of
Angelus Avenue in the morning peak hour, and 547 VPH after school. On this basis, the
vehicular portion of both the rural and urban signal warrant is clearly met. However, the
number of school pedestrians (38 per hour before school and 28 per hour after school) does not
appear to be sufficient to meet either the rural or urban minimum school pedestrian volume
warrant (70 students for rural or 100 students for urban areas) during any of the three hours
when the count data was collected.
At established school zone crossings, standard traffic control signals can be used to create
adequate gaps in the stream of passing cars to allow school children to cross safely. The signal
can be coordinated with neighboring signals to minimize traffic disruption. However, the use
of adult crossing guards may still be required for safe operation.
5 Traffic Manual, Caltrans, August, 1996.
Rosemead Commercial Retail Center Trafc, Circulation and Parking
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2004 Applied Planning, Inc.) Page 4.3-45
Applied Planning, Inc
The Caltrans Traffic Manual identifies criteria for the use of adult crossing guards. Where at
least 40 elementary school pedestrians cross per, hour for at least two hours, adult crossing
guards are desirable. The current number of school pedestrians (38 per hour before school and
28 after school) is insufficient to meet the minimum school pedestrian volume warrant of 40
students crossing per hour.
Based on the preceding discussion, existing vehicular volumes would warrant signalization of
this pedestrian crossing; however, there is not currently enough pedestrian traffic to warrant
signalization at this location. The proposed project will not affect the pedestrian crossing
volume. Therefore, the warrants for signalization of the pedestrian crossing are not projected
to be met upon completion of the proposed development.
It is also recognized however, that although the Caltrans Traffic Manual minimum criteria is
not explicitly met at the school crossing on Rush Street, the existing traffic volumes exceed the
threshold by a large margin and the pedestrian volumes are close to being met. Given the age
of the school pedestrians, the City should give serious consideration to providing an adult
crossing guard at this location.
Traffic Intrusion in Residential Areas
An established residential community currently exists along Delta Street, between Rush Street
and San Gabriel Boulevard. Delta Street is currently a two-lane roadway functioning as a
north/south residential collector street that connects various intersecting east/west local streets
to the larger master planned east/west roadways of Rush Street and San Gabriel Boulevard to
the north and south.
One goal of the Rosemead General Plan is to ensure that through traffic in residential areas is
kept to a minimum. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to maintain adequate capacity along
adjacent parallel north/south master planned roadways. Walnut Grove Avenue and San
Gabriel Boulevard are parallel to Delta Street to the east and west. They provide four through
lanes each, rather than two and have higher posted speed limits and average travel speeds. The
intersection capacity analysis indicates that there is available capacity along both of these
parallel streets to accommodate project-related traffic at acceptable levels of service in the
highest volume hours of the day. The proposed project has been designed to focus
project-related traffic away from Delta Street and onto Walnut Grove Avenue. Although the
project has 800 feet of frontage along Delta Street, there is no direct project access proposed
onto Delta Street.
Traffic, Circulation and Parking Rosemead Commercial Retail Center
Page 4.3-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2004 Applied Planning, Inc.)