Loading...
TC - Minutes - 10-03-24Minutes of the Regular ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING October 3, 2024 The special meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chair Drange at 7:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Chair Drange INVOCATION: Commissioner Tran PRESENT: Commissioner Tran, Commissioner Trieu, Vice -Chair Lang and Chair Drange ABSENT: Commissioner Nguyen STAFF PRESENT: Public Works Project Manager Garcia and Commission Liaison Nguyen REORGANIZATION: Chair Drange reelected as Chair and Commissioner Lang reelected as Vice -Chair. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS The City received a public comment via email from Barbara Murphy congratulating the newly appointed commissioner John Tran. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Drange asked Traffic Commissioners if anyone would like to make revisions or additions to the minutes of July 11, 2024 and August 1, 2024. Vice Chair Lang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tran, to accept consent calendar. Vote resulted in: Yes: Drange, Lang, Tran, Trieu No: None Abstain: None Absent: Nguyen 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Traffic Calming Review along Bartlett Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Ramona Boulevard Chair Drange opened the public comment period. The City received a public comment from Mary Louise Arellano stating she resides on Bartlett Avenue and asked if the fenced off area at the end of Lincove Lane belongs to the City or property owner. She also expressed traffic safety concerns due to speeding along Bartlett Avenue. The City received a public comment via email from Alfredo Berumen requesting road improvements on Bartlett Avenue. He suggests adding asphalt, traffic lane markers, and speed bumps to enhance safety. Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2024 Page 1 of 9 Chair Drange closed the public comment period. Associate Engineer Richter provided a brief description of the item and presented a PowerPoint presentation of the studies that were conducted. Associate Engineer Richter explained that the City received a resident request to review the segment of Bartlett Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Ramona Boulevard. The city is requesting to evaluate this segment for the installation of traffic calming measures. In response to this request and on behalf of the City, engineering staff has completed a traffic review of this segment of Bartlett Avenue to determine if the street segment qualifies for the installation of traffic calming measures. After a thorough review of existing 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, the segment of Bartlett Avenue between Ramona Boulevard and Garvey Avenue, was found to qualify for the installation of traffic calming measures. Vice Chair Lang asked if there was a lot of street parking available. Associate Engineer Richter replied there was a fair amount of parking during their mid-day field review. Vice Chair Lang asked if there is a reason for not proposing a solar -powered LED speed limit or feedback sign. Associate Engineer Richter replied a speed feedback sign is typically considered if there is ample signage in the area and has shown to not be effective. In this case, the signs will serve as an initial measure, and if speeding reports continue after installation, the City can conduct another review to assess the effectiveness of speed feedback signs. Commissioner Tran asked how much a speed feedback sign cost. Associate Engineer Richter replied about $5,000 to $10,000 per sign. In this case, to install two speed feedback signs, one for northbound and one for southbound, it would cost between $10,000 to $20,000 for both signs to be installed. Commissioner Tran asked if there are other alternatives or solutions to reduce speeding. Associate Engineer Richter replied the proposed recommendation for installing a double yellow center line should help reduce speeding as it has been shown that when the road is visually narrower, drivers tend to drive slower. Commissioner Tran asked if approved and the recommendations show to not be effective, what is the timeline for bringing back this item for consideration of a speed feedback sign. Associate Engineer Richter replied about six months after installation. Vice Chair Lang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tran, to approve staff recommendations. Vote resulted in: Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Yes: Drange, Lang, Tran, Trieu No: None Abstain: None Absent: Nguyen B. Traffic Calming Review along Ivar Avenue between Ramona Boulevard and Garvey Avenue Chair Drange opened the public comment period The City received a public comment from Tony E. Olen III expressing safety concerns with the proposed recommendation of the double yellow centerline. He noted that most cars are parked during evening hours and worried that the centerline could make the roadway too narrow for people exiting their cars and for passing vehicles. He recommended installing only the speed signs for now. The City received a public comment from Loreta Perez expressing traffic safety concerns along Ivar Avenue due to speeding. She asked if a stop sign could be installed at the comer of Earlswood Avenue and Ivar Avenue. She also reported illegal dumping along the section of Ramona Boulevard adjacent to the 10 freeway offramp as it exits onto Rosemead Boulevard. The City received a public comment via Zoom from Connie Tan expressing traffic safety concerns at the intersection of Ivar Avenue and Garvey Avenue. She stated that turning onto Garvey Avenue from Ivar Avenue is challenging due to parked cars along Garvey. Additionally, she noted a dip near the end of the street by Ivar Avenue and Ramona Boulevard, where water tends to pool after rain. The City received a public comment via email from Justin T. stating the lack of enforcement of the 25 MPH speed limit is resulting in drivers treating the residential street like a freeway. They suggest measures such as citations, street beautification, more speed limit signs, regular enforcement, and possibly adding stop signs and speed bumps to improve safety. Chair Orange closed the public comment period. Associate Engineer Richter provided a brief description of the item and presented a PowerPoint presentation of the studies that were conducted. Associate Engineer Richter explained that the City received a resident request to review the segment of Ivar Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Ramona Boulevard. The city is requesting to evaluate this segment for the installation of traffic calming measures. In response to this request and on behalf of the City, engineering staff has completed a traffic review of this segment of War Avenue to determine if the street segment qualifies for the installation of traffic calming measures. After a thorough review of existing 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, the segment of Ivar Avenue between Ramona Boulevard and Garvey Avenue, was found to qualify for the installation of traffic calming measures. Commissioner Tran asked if the commission could amend the proposed staff recommendations to not include the installation of double yellow centerline. He also asked if there is anywhere along this street segment where a stop sign could be installed. Associate Engineer Richter replied the commission has the option to recommend or amend. In response to Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2024 Page 3 of 9 the stop sign, she explained that per the municipal code, stop signs are not a traffic calming device and are specifically intended to designate right-of-way. The placement of a stop sign must also meet warrants for the location, which includes collecting counts to determine if there are enough vehicles. Commissioner Tran asked if there has been counts collected on the street to determine the feasibility of a stop sign. Associate Engineer Richter replied average daily traffic was collected, as well as the 24 hour speed survey. This data is used when collecting information for a stop warrant, however, stop signs are not a traffic calming device, and cannot be placed in the middle of a street segment. Commissioner Trieu asked if a sign indicating to slow down could be considered. Associate Engineer Richter replied those signs are not within the municipal code. Commissioner Trieu asked how wide the double yellow centedines are. Associate Engineer Richter replied the lines are only between four to six inches wide when you paint them onto the road. There would still be 10 foot travel lane for each side of the street and 7.5 foot parking lane. Commissioner Theu asked if raised pavement markers could be installed. Associate Engineer Richter replied it could be considered if that is the request. Vice Chair Lang asked if there is anything that can be considered to slow down the speed along Ramona Boulevard. Chair Drange noted that a similar item had previously been addressed regarding traffic calming measures along Ramona Boulevard and inquired about the outcome. He also agreed with the resident's public comment about the difficulty of turning onto Garvey Avenue from Ivar Avenue due to parked cars and requested that staff conduct a line -of -sight study at the intersection of Ivar Avenue and Garvey Avenue. Additionally, he mentioned Burton Avenue has a centedine and asked whether Ivar Avenue and Burton Avenue have the same road width. Associate Engineer Richter replied Burton Avenue is 36 feet wide, which is 1 feet wider than Ivar Avenue. Vice Chair Lang agreed with performing a line of sight study at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Ivar Avenue and follow up with staff regarding the traffic calming item along Ramona Boulevard. Commissioner Tran asked if he could motion to accept staff recommendations 1-3 and defer recommendation 4 for a later time. Vice Chair Lang asked what the reasoning was behind not approving all the staff recommendations. Commissioner Tran replied that he knows a resident who resides in the area that has observed people exiting their cars unsafely in the path of passing vehicles. He added he does not see any issue if we approve all other recommendations and decide later to determine whether the double centedine is needed. Chair Drange suggested the idea of implementation of a double yellow centerline on one street but not the other to assess whether speeds decrease after six months. He also noted that he believes the centedine is Rosemead Trak Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2024 Page 4 of 9 effective in reducing speeding. Vice Chair Lang replied that he remains in favor of adding the double yellow centerline to maintain uniformity. Vice Chair Lang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Trieu, to approve staff recommendations. Vote resulted in: Yes: Drange, Lang, Tran, Trieu No: None Abstain: None Absent: Nguyen C. Traffic Calming Review along Ivar Avenue between Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive Associate Engineer Richter provided a brief description of the item and presented a PowerPoint presentation of the studies that were conducted. Associate Engineer Richter explained that the City received a resident request to review the segment of Ivar Avenue between Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive. The city is requesting to evaluate this segment for the installation of traffic calming measures. In response to this request and on behalf of the City, engineering staff has completed a traffic review of this segment of Ivar Avenue to determine if the street segment qualifies for the installation of traffic calming measures. After a thorough review of existing traffic conditions and per the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), California Vehicle Code (CVC), based on the traffic review and engineering I udgement, the segment of Ivar Avenue between Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive, was found to qualify for the installation of traffic calming measures. Vice Chair Lang asked how wide Ivar Avenue is. Associate Engineer Richter replied Ivar Avenue is 40 feet wide. Chair Drange asked if field observations included drop off and pick up times at Muscatel Middle School. Associate Engineer Richter explained that as part of a separate traffic study conducted for the City, data was collected on pedestrian and vehicle movements during afternoon school pickups in front of the school. This data was used to inform the recommendations proposed for this item. Chair Drange asked if speed feedback signs would be effective. He commented that when he sees a school ahead sign and then a speed feedback sign, it often implies that the 25 mile per hour speed limit is only during school hours. Associate Engineer Richter explained that the issue with the school speed limit sign is that it suggests a higher speed limit applies when children are not present, leading drivers to drive faster outside of school hours. The speed limit on the street is always 25 miles per hour. In this case, the proposed recommendation is to install the speed limit sign beneath the existing speed feedback signs, which are already in place. Commissioner Trieu asked for recommendations 3A and 3B if the existing speed feedback signs can be changed to a flashing 25 mile speed limit. Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2024 Page 5 of 9 Associate Engineer Richter replied it would depend on the model of the speed feedback signs if they are able to be reprogramed. Vice Chair Lang commented he does not recall there being any existing flashing speed limit signs in the city. Commissioner Tran made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Lang, to approve staff recommendations. Vote resulted in: Yes: Drange, Lang, Tran, Trieu No: None Abstain: None Absent: Nguyen D. Traffic Calming Review along Muscatel Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Ramona Boulevard Chair Drange opened the public comment period The City received a public comment from Dina Uy, who agreed with the earlier comment opposing the double yellow centerline, noting the presence of many delivery trucks on Muscatel Avenue. However, she understands the other perspective on vehicles overtaking if it was not a double yellow line. She also expressed dislike for the white parking lines, explaining that vehicles tend to park closer to the lines and further from the curb, which increases safety concerns as people exit their cars unsafely. However, she supports the centerline, believing it could help slow down traffic. Dina inquired about the cost-effectiveness of speed bumps compared to speed feedback signs, which can cost up to $10,000. She also asked if speed bumps have been proposed and how long such requests typically take to process. Chair Drange closed the public comment period. Associate Engineer Richter provided a brief description of the item and presented a PowerPoint presentation of the studies that were conducted. Associate Engineer Richter explained that the City received a resident request to review the segment of Muscatel Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Ramona Boulevard. The city is requesting to evaluate this segment for the installation of traffic calming measures. In response to this request and on behalf of the City, engineering staff has completed a traffic review of this segment of Muscatel Avenue to determine if the street segment qualifies for the installation of traffic calming measures. After a thorough review of existing 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, the segment of Muscatel Avenue between Ramona Boulevard and Garvey Avenue, was found to qualify for the installation of traffic calming measures. Commissioner Trieu made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Lang, to approve staff recommendations. Vote resulted in: Yes: Drange, Lang, Tran, Trieu No: None Abstain: None Absent: Nguyen Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2024 Page 6 of 9 E. Traffic Calming Review along Muscatel Avenue between Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive Associate Engineer Richter provided a brief description of the item and presented a PowerPoint presentation of the studies that were conducted. Associate Engineer Richter explained that the City received a resident request to review the segment of Muscatel Avenue between Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive. The city is requesting to evaluate this segment for the installation of traffic calming measures. In response to this request and on behalf of the City, engineering staff has completed a traffic review of this segment of Muscatel Avenue to determine if the street segment qualifies for the installation of traffic calming measures. After a thorough review of existing 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, the segment of Muscatel Avenue between Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive, was found to qualify for the installation of traffic calming measures. Vice Chair Lang mentioned the front of the school is facing Ivar Avenue and asked if during the field study it was observed when students were crossing the street. Associate Engineer Richter noted that most students were observed crossing at the front of the school, with some crossing at the back. Chair Drange asked if the proposed speed feedback signs beneath the existing speed limit signs will only be active during school hours and the reason for it not being recommended to install it on the existing 30 mile per hour speed limit sign instead. Associate Engineer Richter replied she believes it would be confusing if the 25 mile per hour school speed limit sign was posted before the 30 speed limit sign. Chair Drange responded that the signage gives the impression that the speed limit is 25 miles per hour only when students are present, implying that the speed limit is higher when students are not present. Associate Engineer Richter replied the intention was to highlight the lower speed limit. Chair Drange asked if there is a flashing pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of Scott Street and Muscatel Avenue. Associate Engineer Richter confirmed that there is. Vice Chair Lang asked how long in seconds is it for a vehicle driving at 25 miles per hour to go from 5B to 1 B on the exhibit. Associate Engineer Richter would have to look into that. Commissioner Trieu noted that both Muscatel Avenue and Ivar Avenue are 40 feet wide, with Muscatel experiencing nearly three times the vehicle traffic and double the speeds of Ivar Avenue. Despite this, there seem to be fewer reported collisions on Muscatel. He asked if this was considered during the assessment. Rosemead Trak Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2024 Page 7 of 9 Associate Engineer Richter responded that Ivar Avenue is located in front of the school, which may increase the likelihood of incidents due to student drop-offs and pickups. Chair Drange noted that the two streets differ, as Muscatel Avenue continues straight onto Glendon Way toward the freeway, while Ivar Avenue ends at Marshall Street. Vice Chair Lang asked what the school sign detailed in recommendation 3 represented. Associate Engineer Richter explained that the sign is intended to alert drivers that they are approaching a school zone, typically within 500 feet of a school, and to remain vigilant for student -aged pedestrians. Commissioner Tran made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Lang, to approve staff recommendations. Vote resulted in: Yes: Drange, Lang, Tran, Trieu No: None Abstain: None Absent: Nguyen 4. MATTERS FROM STAFF Public Works Project Manager Garcia addressed public comments on item 3A regarding the pavement condition on Bartlett Avenue, stating that this street segment is scheduled to be included in the pavement resurfacing project planned for summer 2025. For the comment about a road depression, she noted that it will be addressed through a separate project focused on sinkholes. In response to the resident opposing the double yellow centerline, she mentioned there will be an opportunity to voice concerns at the upcoming City Council meeting. She also stated that the request to evaluate the line of sight at Garvey Avenue and Ivar Avenue can be reviewed. Vice Chair Lang requested that staff investigate all the perpendicular residential streets along Garvey Avenue, as they appear to have similar line -of -sight issues. Chair Drange commented on intersections without traffic lights, such as Sullivan Avenue and Garvey Avenue. Public Works Project Manager Garcia responded staff can look into compiling a list of locations. Public Works Project Manager Garcia followed up on the status of the bulky items left along Ramona Boulevard as you head towards Rosemead Boulevard. The City is aware of the issue and working with Caltrans as a portion of the roadway belongs to Caltrans. Public Works Project Manager Garcia commented that the City is in the process of developing a speed hump policy with plans of bringing the item to a future City Council meeting. Commissioner Tran inquired whether the list of streets included in the resurfacing project could be posted online to keep residents informed. Public Works Project Manager Garcia responded that a moratorium list is available on the city website under public works section, detailing streets that were recently resurfaced and those scheduled for future resurfacing. Rosemead Trak Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2024 Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Tran asked if there is also a list for sidewalks to be replaced Public Works Project Manager Garcia explained that about a year ago, the City conducted a study for a sidewalk ADA master plan. This study evaluated all sidewalks in the City, identifying segments that were lifted or depressed, which were compiled into a list to help the City address these issues through a pavement resurfacing program or a concrete repair program. Newly identified segments can also be added to the list. While the Public Services Division can address some lifted or depressed sidewalks, locations that cannot be handled in-house are added to the project list. Commissioner Tran asked if residents could request sidewalk to be replaced Public Works Project Manager Garcia replied as it is identified to be either lifted or depressed, residents may submit a request online through the city website using the report a problem feature. 5. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Chair Drange recounted a Caltrans meeting last month about a repaving project on Rosemead Boulevard, from the Temple City border to Rush Street. During the discussion, the possibility of adding bicycle lanes or modifying the road configuration was mentioned. Chair Drange noted that he shared the City's bicycle plan as part of the conversation. Chair Drange highlighted several traffic concerns. One issue involving unsafe left turns at the intersection of Garvey and Jackson. The left -tum arrow for westbound Garvey to southbound Jackson activates before the regular green light, forcing students crossing Garvey to wait for turning cars. Some vehicles continue turning after the arrow turns red, creating a hazardous situation when the walk signal is active. The crossing guard suggested shifting the arrow to follow the regular green light. Another concern is traffic congestion caused by parents dropping off students in the middle of traffic after turning onto Jackson Avenue, which backs up the intersection. It was suggested to prohibit student drop-offs on the west side of Jackson Avenue. Lastly, there are frequent illegal U-tums on Garvey Avenue by westbound traffic attempting to drop off students on the south side. These U-tums conflict with vehicles merging back into traffic, leading to accidents. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. The next Traffic Commission meeting is scheduled for November 7, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. and will take place at the Rosemead City Hall, City Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard. 4hicha D n ATTEST: anielle Garcia Public Works Fiscal & Project Manager Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2024 Page 9 of 9