Loading...
CC - Minutes - 01-28-2025 - SpecialMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 The special meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 6:05 p.m., in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber, located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Council Members Dang and Low ABSENT: Council Member Ly STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager Chua, Director of Public Works Gutierrez, Director of Community Development Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking, and City Clerk Hernandez 1. STUDY SESSION A. Comprehensive Traffic Calming Policy The purpose of this Study Session is to provide an overview of the comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to the City Council to receive and file. This policy was prepared to address a breadth of traffic management issues affecting the City of Rosemead. Specifically, the policy will focus on speeding concerns and cut -through traffic in residential neighborhoods. Recommendation: That the City Council review the Proposed Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Speed Hump Policy and provide staff direction. Director of Public Works Gutierrez shared that a presentation was prepared to give an overview of the comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, with the goal of receiving feedback and direction from the City Council. The program will address issues like speeding and cut -through traffic, offering traffic calming solutions. It also aims to structure how traffic incidents are managed. Michael Lloyd, a traffic management professional from Transtech Engineers, was introduced to provide expertise on the subject. Michael Lloyd, Transtech Engineers, explained that the presentation focuses on the draft neighborhood traffic management program, which aims to address concerns like speeding and cut -through traffic in neighborhoods, while also enhancing neighborhood livability. The program's potential benefits include fostering a sense of community, encouraging neighbor interactions, improving security and safety, and giving residents a chance to better enjoy their homes and surroundings. The program was specifically designed for Rosemead and can be compared to a toolbox, where different tasks require different tools. Level 1 measures, the simplest and least costly, are typically non -controversial and can be approved at the Rosemead City Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2025 Page 1 of 8 departmental level. Levels 2 and 3, which are more complex and expensive, would require review by the Traffic Commission and approval from the City Council. The program aims to streamline the review and approval process, particularly for Level 1 measures, to allow for quicker implementation. However, additional measures can be considered on a case-by-case basis if necessary. Examples of Level I tools include education enforcement, improvements to crosswalks, and additional signing and striping on residential streets. Level 2 improvements might involve traffic signal adjustments, turn restriction signage, signal timing changes to deter cut- through traffic, and physical changes like raised medians, chokers, or bulb-outs at intersections, as well as mid-block narrowing on residential streets. Lastly, Level 3 improvements are more complex and involve significant construction, such as raised crosswalks or intersections, traffic circles, barriers to restrict turning movements, and speed humps. A speed hump policy has been developed with the following recommended criteria: • The street should be local and residential in nature. • There should be at least 1,200 feet between traffic controls (e.g., stop signs, traffic signals). • There will be recommended maximum and minimum traffic volumes. • The maximum speed limit should be 25 mph. • The minimum critical speed should be 8 mph above the posted speed limit. • Streets should not have grades exceeding 8%. • The policy should not divert traffic to adjacent streets. • The road should not be a priority route for emergency services or a bus route. These criteria are based on recommendations from the Institute of Transportation Engineers and successful practices from other jurisdictions. The recommended process for speed humps involves residents submitting an application and petition to the City, which staff will review the submission based on established criteria. If the criteria is met and 67% of residents along the street sign in favor, studies will be conducted. If speed humps are warranted, the proposal will go to the Traffic Commission and then City Council for review and approval. Application forms will be available in multiple languages, and a standardized design layout will help expedite the process. Mr. Lloyd continued explaining costs, City staff is open to feedback from the City Council on potential fees. A review of other jurisdictions, such as San Gabriel, showed they charge an application fee, a design deposit (with additional fees if costs exceed $4,000), a $7,500 construction deposit per speed hump, and a construction administration fee. Based on research and current costs in other jurisdictions, the recommended cost for installing a speed hump is approximately $25,000 each. However, when multiple speed humps are installed along a segment, the cost per unit can decrease, potentially lowering the cost to around $20,000 per speed hump. The review covered eleven street segments to determine if they met the proposed speed hump criteria. Traffic volumes and speed data were collected for each segment, and a table was created with the results. Out of the 11 streets, four met the criteria for Rosemead City Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2025 Page 2 of 8 speed humps. The other seven streets did not meet the criteria due to factors like speeds not being high enough, streets not being classified as local, posted speed limits exceeding 25 mph, and traffic volumes not meeting the required threshold. Mr. Lloyd concluded his presentation with explaining the pros and cons of speed humps. Disadvantages include noise from vehicles, potential delays for emergency vehicles, increased signs and pavement markings, and possible diversion of traffic to adjacent streets. Additionally, drivers may speed up after clearing multiple humps, reducing their effectiveness. Costs are also a factor. On the positive side, speed humps can reduce speeds by 20-25%, discourage cut -through traffic, are largely self -enforcing, provide visible cues for slower speeds, and may reduce complaints about speeding. Council Member Low asked about the number of signatures needed to be collected and if the signature has to be from the people living on that street or property owners. Mr. Lloyd replied that the recommendation, based on other jurisdictions, is that the approval percentage should be between 67% and 75%. The suggested number is 67%, which is two-thirds, but ultimately, it's up to the City Council's discretion. Council Member Low inquired since the City of San Gabriel makes the applicant pay for the speed hump, is it common to charge an applicant. Mr. Lloyd stated that he did not contact San Gabriel city staff to assess the effectiveness of the policy, whether it's being consistently implemented, or if there are cases where fees aren't being collected. City of San Gabriel was the only city that collects fees. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta shared her long-standing concern since joining the City Council in 2009 about the need for speed humps, pointing out that other cities have implemented them. She emphasized the importance of being proactive before a tragedy happens, recalling past incidents on Pine and near Jay Imperial Park. She acknowledged the thorough public input process and highlighted the dangerous traffic conditions in areas like Graves Avenue. Mrs. Armenta reiterated that if the cons were truly detrimental, no other city would use speed humps. She stressed that the cost of $25,000 per hump is minimal compared to the value of a life and urged the City Council to consider residents' calls for safety improvements. Council Member Dang asked if the petition had to have 67% of homeowners' signatures or of the entire block. Mr. Lloyd responded it's 67% of the residents on the specific segment directly impacted by the speed hump to be in favor. Council Member Dang shared two points: First, regarding petition signers, he believed both renters and homeowners should be able to sign, as renters may move out, but the homeowner will be impacted long-term, and future renters might not appreciate having a speed hump. Second, he suggested that if someone requests a speed hump, it should be placed in front of their house. This ensures they are Rosemead City Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2025 Page 3 of 8 responsible for any future complaints and that they understand the impact of the decision, preventing future issues with removal requests. In addition, Council Member Dang explained his thoughts on the toolbox approach, referring to shelves one, two, and three. He noted that shelf three was meant for more complex issues. If someone brings a speed issue to the City, the process would involve reviewing it through shelves one and two first. If those options don't fully resolve the issue, then the final step would be to consider the more complicated solutions from shelf three. Director of Public Works Gutierrez stated that speed humps are just one tool in the toolbox. For locations that don't meet the criteria for speed humps, City staff would explore other solutions from the top or middle shelves. The bottom shelf represents a more expensive, involved approach for addressing the issue. Council Member Dang emphasized that submitting a petition doesn't automatically lead to the installation of a speed hump. The request will go through a vetting process using the available options from levels one and two, and only if those solutions don't work, will the speed hump be considered. Mayor Clark asked for clarification on the difference between a hump and a bump. Mr. Lloyd explained that the recommended design is a "hump" which is wider and more gradual, making it less severe for vehicles. In contrast, "bumps" are narrower, steeper, and typically used in parking lots to slow vehicles down more drastically, usually by 5 miles per hour. Street humps are designed to allow vehicles to pass safely at speeds of 20-25 miles per hour, meeting specific design criteria for public streets. Council Member Dang asked about the yellow domes used as traffic calming measures that look like M&M's. Mr. Lloyd explained that certain traffic control measures, like small yellow dots have been tried in the past but are rarely used anymore. The dots were originally meant to prevent vehicles from straying off the street or from making certain turns. However, they have been linked to lawsuits and were found to be ineffective for controlling traffic. Director of Public Works Gutierrez stated that you typically don't see the domes in residential areas and definitely wouldn't want them there. They come in various sizes, some large, some small, but in a residential setting, they would be very noisy and cause issues with noise pollution. Mr. Lloyd addressed the suggestion about placing the speed humps in front of the requesting resident's home. He mentioned that while this could be included in the policy, it shouldn't be a requirement for every case. There are spacing requirements to consider, such as distance from intersections and other speed humps. These standards must be met for consistency, and the placement would depend on whether the spacing requirements are satisfied. Rosemead City Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2025 Page 4 of 8 Director of Public Works Gutierrez noted that efforts could be made but depending on the street layout, it may not be possible. Mayor Clark mentioned that she liked the idea of placing speed humps but pointed out the concern that people often think the issue is worse for others, suggesting that it might be easier to put the hump in front of the requesting resident's house to avoid complaints about noise. She also raised a concern about how speed humps could affect the future rentability of a property. Her main concern, however, was the potential impact on emergency vehicles, especially in situations like heart attacks, where every second matters. She asked if other cities had been surveyed on the pros and cons of speed humps, as she didn't see any comparison in the Staff Report. Mr. Lloyd addressed the concern about emergency vehicles, explaining that emergency services (Fire Department) would be involved in the review process before the proposal even reaches the Traffic Commission. Their feedback would be incorporated into the decision-making process. He also mentioned that they have modeled their process after other jurisdictions that include emergency services in their review. If necessary, they can work with the fire department to revise the design to minimize concerns, potentially creating a design standard specifically for locations with emergency response issues. However, an alternative design might encourage large vehicles to zigzag or avoid the speed hump, though they are open to working with the Council on a solution. Mayor Clark mentioned that during her time on the Traffic Commission, she recalls hearing about the downsides, with some people getting sued due to the effects speed humps had on vehicles. Director of Public Works Gutierrez clarified that the issues with lawsuits were more common with speed bumps, not speed humps. He explained that speed humps are more gradual and wider, allowing for a smoother transition compared to the sudden stop required by bumps. As a result, speed bumps are no longer used, only speed humps are installed now. Mayor Clark asked if there was a list of cities that use speed humps. Mr. Lloyd shared that in the Inland Empire, the use of speed humps is quite common. He mentioned that cities around Rosemead, like San Gabriel, have a policy in place, while Alhambra is currently exploring it. He noted that Temple City has shown no interest, and West Covina has reviewed it but has not approved it. Overall, there is interest in the San Gabriel Valley, though each city is at a different stage in the process. Director of Public Works Gutierrez shared his experience from working in West Covina and Baldwin Park, where he installed speed humps. He mentioned that Baldwin Park doesn't have a formal policy, unlike Rosemead, which is ahead by developing a toolbox to address traffic concerns more efficiently. He also referenced a design used in Baldwin Park called "speed cushions," which are speed humps with gaps to allow emergency vehicles to pass without slowing down. Rosemead City Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2025 Page 5 of 8 Mayor Pro Tem Armenta thanked City staff for addressing the issue of speed hump placement, especially when multiple residents on the same street request them. She pointed out the challenge of deciding where to place speed humps in such cases. Mrs. Armenta emphasized the need to be mindful of the restrictions on placement but highlighted that this process provides a tool for residents to check if their street qualifies and meets the necessary requirements. She stressed the importance of providing residents with a voice, as many have urged the City Council to explore this issue. She mentioned that other cities, like El Monte, have successfully implemented speed humps, and questioned how detrimental this approach can really be if other cities are doing it. Lastly, she highlighted that the process allows residents to gather signatures, ensuring they've done their due diligence. Council Member Dang clarified that he supports the idea of speed humps, and any impression of resistance was not his intent. He emphasized that speed humps should be placed in front of the requesting resident's house when possible, acknowledging factors like traffic intersections. He also asked about the vetting process, specifically whether the proposal would go through the Traffic Commission first or bypass it. Director of Public Works Gutierrez clarified that the Traffic Commission will review and approve the proposal first, and then it will be brought to the City Council. Mayor Clark asked if there had been a study on the effectiveness of speed humps versus stop signs. Mr. Lloyd stated that he doesn't recall seeing a study on this topic but can investigate and report back to the City Council. He explained that the purpose of a stop sign, according to the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, is to control the right of way at intersections, not to slow traffic down. While placing stop signs along a street could theoretically slow traffic, it's not their intended purpose. Mayor Clark asked about the streets listed in the presentation for speed humps. Have these been requested by residents, and where did this list come from. City Manager Kim responded that at a previous discussion about speed humps, Council Member Amenta mentioned there was a list of locations for staff to review. Director of Public Works Gutierrez stated staff welcomed the City Council's feedback. Staff will incorporate the feedback into the final draft of the policy, which will then be presented to the City Council at a regular meeting for approval. Council Member Dang mentioned that while the toolbox was discussed, he had difficulty picturing certain items like raised center medians and residential street chokers. He requested visual representations of these options in future presentations. He also noted that the focus seemed to be more on speed humps and suggested that the entire toolbox of solutions should be emphasized in the presentation, not just the speed humps. Rosemead City Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 28, 1025 Page 6 of 8 City Manager Kim mentioned that, as discussed previously, there were different options considered, such as striping the street to make it appear narrower. He suggested bringing back those alternative designs for further consideration. Council Member Dang mentioned that he understands parking restrictions but is unclear on how they would be implemented or visually represented. He requested a presentation to clarify this aspect. Mr. Lloyd responded that the program document is a comprehensive 50 -page document that was included as an attachment to the staff report but not the PowerPoint presentation due to its length. The 50 -page document includes detailed photographs and diagrams for each recommended tool in the toolbox. City Manager Kim asked if the City Council would like a cost analysis and outline the resources needed when applying for the speed hump. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated to the City Council that we need to be mindful when considering charging residents for a safety feature in the City. Residents already pay taxes, and it's not good practice to charge them for something related to safety. Council Member Low stated that the workshop was meant to focus on speed humps, and she didn't expect staff to provide additional information on other items in the toolbox. She asked for clarification on whether the cost analysis should cover all tools or just the speed humps, as the staff report already listed approximate costs for each tool. She acknowledged that the report provided a clear breakdown of the costs. Director of Public Works Gutierrez explained that the intent is to provide a general cost estimate, as the actual dollar amount will depend on the specific solution. For example, a center median could vary in length, impacting the cost. A detailed cost study will be presented to the Traffic Commission and City Council once a precise solution is proposed. Council Member Low mentioned that pages two and three of the staff report were helpful, with page two listing Level 1 tools and their associated costs in the third column. Page three includes Level 2 tools at the top and Level 3 tools at the bottom, with cost information also provided in the third column. City Manager Kim clarified that he was referring to the construction costs listed in the table but also emphasized that there are additional soft costs associated with each application. Mr. Kim explained that he was thinking about the general process of implementing a speed hump. While there will be soft costs associated with that, installing a stop sign or striping will have minimal costs. Each measure will have different associated soft costs, and staff can provide a rough estimate for those. Rosemead City Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2025 Page 7 of 8 2. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Clark adjourned the special meeting at 6:57 p.m. The next City Council meeting will take place on January 28, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk APPROVED: Margaret lark, Mayor Rosemead City Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2025 Page 8 of 8