CC - Item 5A - Time Based Traffic Synchronization Along Valley - Internal Files box 069i C
F ~
2' P:6 f1
1
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY
MANAGE /t-
DATE: JUNE 21, 1990
RE: TIME BASED TRAFFIC SYNCHRONIZATION ALONG VALLEY BOULEVARD
In February 1989, the Rosemead City Council considered a
demonstration by the County of Los Angeles to install a time based
signal synchronization project along Valley Boulevard. At that time,
the County of Los Angeles was notified of Rosemead's desire to retain
final control of signal phasing within City boundaries and the
Council's hesitance in approving the project without Caltrans
cooperation at the intersection of Valley and Rosemead Boulevards.
In turn, staff forwarded a draft jurisdiction agreement to the County
incorporating the Council's wishes on the matter. The County
rejected the City's alternative and forwarded a draft agreement which
does not specify City control of the signal phasing along Valley
Boulevard. In addition, staff was notified that the County was not
successful in reaching an agreement with Caltrans with respect to the
intersection at Rosemead Boulevard.
Basically, the County's proposal on this item mirrors the concepts
rejected by the City Council in February 1989. At the request of the
County, this item has been brought back to the Council for a final
determination on the synchronization project. Should the Council
wish to proceed with this matter, it is clear that it would do so
within the terms outlined previously. If the Council wishes to
refuse the project, it would be appropriate to authorize the Mayor to
forward correspondence to that effect.
Attached for the Council's review is a copy of the draft agreement
developed by staff, a copy of the County's proposed jurisdiction
agreement and copies of the correspondence received on this matter.
RECOMMENDATION
Because this is a policy decision of the City Council, staff has no
recommendation on this matter.
FGT:ru
Attachments
(25)
COUNCIL AGENDA
JN Y 6 1990
ITEM No. TL-A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING
TO ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PORTION OF
VALLEY BOULEVARD FROM DELTA AVENUE TO
TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD WITHIN SAID CITY
AS PART OF THE SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS OF
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors did on duly
adopt a Resolution declaring the portion of Valley Boulevard from
Delta Avenue to Temple City Boulevard, within the City of Rosemead,
to be a part of the System of Highways of the County of Los Angeles,
as provided in Sections 1700 to 1704 inclusive of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, said Board of Supervisors by said Resolution requested
this Council to give its consent to allow the County to synchronize
traffic signals under the Federal-aid Urban (FAU) program and perform
appurtenant work within said portion of Valley Boulevard in the City
of Rosemead described above; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (c), of the State
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, the Secretary of Resources designated this type of
project as categorically exempt.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rosemead does
resolve as follows:
r r
SECTION 1. Consent to Inclusion in County Highway System. This
City Council does hereby consent to the establishment of that portion
of Valley Boulevard from Delta Avenue to Temple City Boulevard,
within the City of Rosemead, as a part of the System of Highways of
the County of Los Angeles as provided in Sections 1700 to 1704
inclusive of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California. Said consent is for the purpose of synchronizing traffic
signals and performing appurtenant work as may be necessary by the
County of Los Angeles.
SECTION 2. Cooperation with Neighboring Jurisdictions. This
City Council does hereby consent to cooperate with neighboring
jurisdictions to implement, maintain and operate coordinated traffic
signal control across jurisdictional boundaries for this project and
ay future traffic signal projects funded with FAU funds.
SECTION 3. Maintenance and Operation. This City Council does
hereby consent to maintain and operate and to finance its
jurisdictional share of the maintenance and operation costs of the
improvements installed with this project. In order to maintain full
effectiveness of these improvements, should the City determine that a
change in signal operation for any of the intersections within the
project limits within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of
Rosemead is necessary, the city will coordinate with the County of
Los Angeles to ensure that the overall effectiveness of the system is
maintained. The City of Rosemead, however, shall retain the right to
modify traffic signal operations within its cooperate boundaries as
it deems necessary.
SECTION 4. Indemnification. This City Council does hereby
consent to fully defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County of
Los Angeles, its officers, and employees from any liability imposed
for injury occurring by reason of any acts or omissions on the part
of the city of Rosemead under or in connection with any work
performed with this project.
SECTION 5. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Study and
Implementation. This City Council does hereby consent to a study by
the County of low cost TSM improvements, including, but not limited
to, peak hour parking and turn restrictions that can be implemented
in conjunction with the project, and also consents to implement all
findings from the study found to be feasible and warranted based on
engineering criteria and fiscal capacity contingent on Council
approval, prior to installation of the improvements.
SECTION 6. Findings of Categorical Exemption. This City
Council does hereby find that the project is categorically exempt
from the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to
Section 15301, Class 1 (c), of the State Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
SECTION 7. Finding of a Minor Nature. This City Council does
hereby find that pursuant to Government Code, Section 65402 (b), the
aforesaid improvements are for street improvements of a minor nature
and that, therefore, the provisions of said Section requiring the
submission to and report upon said project by the City Planning
Agency do not apply.
Sample Only
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
_0
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
,9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 j
28 it
I~
li
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PORTION OF
VALLEY BOULEVARD FRCM DELTA AVENUE TO TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD
WITHIN SAID CITY AS A PART OF M SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS
OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
VHr-REAS, the Board of Supervisors did on
duly adopt a Resolution declaring the portion of Valley Boulevard
from Delta Avenue to Temple City Boulevard, within the City of
Rosemead, to be a part of the System of Highways of the County of
Los Angeles, as provided in Sections 1700 to 1704 inclusive of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, said Board of Supervisors by said Resolution
requested this Council to give its consent to allow the County to
synchronize traffic signals under the Federal-aid Urban (FAU)
program and perform appurtenant work within said portion of Valley
Boulevard in the City of Rosemead described above; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (c), of the State
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, the Secretary of Resources designated this
type of project as categorically exempt.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rosemead does
resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Consent to inclusion in County Highway System.
This City Cou--^.cil does hereby consent to the establishment of that
i portion of Valley Boulevard from Delta Avenue to Temple City
2 Boulevard, within the City of Rosemead, as a part of the System of
I
3 Highways of the County of Los Angeles as provided in Sections 1700
4 to 1704 inclusive of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
I~
5 California. Said consent is for the purpose of synchronizing traf-
6 •i fic signals and performing appurtenant work as may be necessary by
I7 the County of Los Angeles.
8 SECTION 2. Cooperation with Neighboring Jurisdictions. This
9 City Council does hereby consent to cooperate with neighboring ,r
;p i; jurisdictions to implement, maintain and operate coordinated e
11 traffic signal control across jurisdictional boundaries for this pe'
12 project and any future traffic signal projects funded with FAU funds.
13 j, SECTION 3. Maintenance and Operation. This City Council does
14 ;1 hereby consent to maintain and operate and to finance its jurisdic-
I
15 tional share of the maintenance and operation costs of the improve-
16 ments installed with this project. In order to maintain full
I
17 effectiveness of these improvements, should the City determine that
1g a change in signal operation for any of the intersections within
19 the project limits within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City
20 ;I of Rosemead is necessary, the City will coordinate with the County
21 .i of Los Angeles to ensure that the overall effectiveness of the
22 system is maintained.
II
23 SECTION a. indemnification. This City Council does hereby
24 'I consent to fully de_'end, indemnify and hold harmless the County
25 IiI of Los Angeles, its officers, and employees from any liability
26 ;I imposed for injury occurring by reason of any acts or omissions on
t';e part of the City of Rosemead under or in connection with any
27
28 I~ work performed with this project.
;I
" I
2I
a
4
5
6
I
7S
9i
i0
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
SECTION 5. Transportation Systems Managament (TSM) Study and
Implementation. This city council does hereby consent to a study
by the County of low cost TSM improvements, including, but not
limited to, peak hour parking and turn' restrictions that can be
implemented in conjunction with the project, and also consents to
implement all findings from the study found to be feasible and
warranted based on engineering criteria and fiscal capacity
contingent on Council approval, prior to installation of the
improvements.
SECTION 6. Findina of Categorical Exemption. This City
Council does hereby find that the project is categorically exempt
from the requirement for'an Environmental Impact Report pursuant
to Section 15301, Class 1 (c), of the state Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
SECTION 7. Finding of a Minor Nature. [Should the City
Ccur,cil find that pursuant to Government Code, Section 65402 (b),
the aforesaid improvements are for street improvements of a minor
nature, include the following: This City Council does hereby find
that pursuant to Government Code, Section 65402 (b), the aforesaid
improvements are for street improvements of a minor nature and that,
therefore, the provisions of said Section requiring the submission
to and report upon said project by the City Planning Agency do not
apply.
TScP5.13
FaS 6 9 5 ;i:_LD.k.N ASSOC ROSLSE.A.D ~uu:
. c ~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OFLOSANGEwLEoS
M N I LOS GANG~LES. CALIFOIA 912
456 HALL OF (213) 27"111
PETCR F. SCnnB~wUM .
a... cnr.s0<. nq, ais,a <r
July 21. 1989
Honorable Dennis McDonald, Mayor
city of Rosemead
8338 cast Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Dear Mayor McDonald:
FIVE YEAR TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROGRAM
As you know, the County is moving ahead with a five-year Countywide program for
thehighways . to meet the
cosignals ngestionnthour roughoutarterial
cr.alle cerof )reducing `traffic traffic
I previously corresponded with former Mayor G. H. "Pat" Cleveland about the
County paying one-half the City's cost of Synchronizing the Valley Boulevard
signals. I also understand that the Director's staff has met with your City
hyour
Council and City staff, and that you are aware. that all the signals within
ave
City on Valley Boulevard and those on Garvey Avenue, a third year project,
thescost
received an allocation of Regional FAU funds
thata the for a of
of these projects. On this basis, I propose install
improvements at no cost to your City. This will then allow your City to use
the money earmarked for the'Valley Boulevard and Garvey Avenue projects on other
high priority City projects.
Assuming your City's concurrence with this proposal, I have asked the County
Director of Public Works to have his staff work with City staff on the details
of moving ahead.
As always, it is a pleasure to work with you and your City on projects that
provide improvements for our citizens.
Sincerely,
WT' S v
PETE SCHABAR'JM
Supervisor, First District
PS :cm/B
Department of ouolic Works
^1LLiI;C ASSOC riOSc 11 ~.jD UUa
„ C
BOARD OF-SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
MALL OF ADMINI57llA110N 1 LOS ANGELES. CAUPO"NIA gOO12 • =151
121]191"111
PETER F. ACMADARUM
r. .1 ..A.P
February 9, 1990
Honorable Dennis McDonald, Mayor
City of Rosemead
--is East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Cear Mayor McDonald:
VALLEY BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT
I have discussed the concerns expressed in your recent letter'regarding our
Valley Boulevard Traffic Signal Synchronization project with Mr. T. A.
Tidemanson, the Director of Public Works.
As you may know, the County is using a considerable amount of Federal-aid Urban
funds and gasoline tax revenues to improve the synchronization oeportsals in
order to reduce traffic congestion Countywide. that,
should left-turn phasing be needed at one of the intersections we are proposing
to improve as a part of our program, we would certainly include it as a part of
our program. Because of our large financial commitment to this program and the
sked
need to keep our signal work synchronized,
Cities to mutually y
once the new system is installed. Therefore, upon completion of a project a
City could, working with County staff, install new left-turn phasing or revise
the system timing in order to improve the flow of traffic.
The Director informs me that his staff has been working closely with Caltrans to
see if signal system timing can be developed so traffic on Valley Boulevard can
to progressed through the Valley Boulevard/Rosemead Boulevard intersection.
Currently, the State has a synchronized signal system on Rosemead Boulevard
which stretches from Foothill Boulevard in Pasadena to the Pomona Freeway in
I includes over
Whittier Narrows. Their
7.5 miles long.
intersections and the need to provide time for left-turn phasing and pedestrian
crossings, their system timing cannot be changed. Additionally, Mr. Ti demanson
informs me that, because of similar constraints along Valley Boulevard, he
optimum system timing for our proposed system must be longer than the States,
resulting in a "break" at Rosemead Boulevard. Even with the "break" at
Rosemead, our proposed Valley Boulevard system will include 26 signalized
intersections and will progress traffic for over 4.5 miles, which will be quite
ceneficial to the motoring public. The Director reports that he investigated
.';f c952 ^:LDAS ASSOC ROSEXE{p iOUI
Honorable Dennis McDonald -2- February 9, 1990
the option of maintaining the progression on Valley Boulevard through the
Rosemead intersection with the "break" occurring on Rosemead Boulevard.
However, this would not appear to be beneficial on a regional basis, since
Rosemead Boulevard carries in excess of 50,000 vehicles per day, or nearly
double the volume currently carried by valley Boulevard.
While it does not appear feasible to progress Valley Boulevard traffic through
the Rosemead intersection in light of the State's system, Mr. Tidemanson reports
that it may be possible to improve the flow of traffic by adding additional
lanes, possibly an eastbound right-turn lane. I have asked him to have his
staff work closely with your City staff on some improvement of this type.
Additionally, as you may know, based on a Board of Supervisors request, the
Traffic Reduction and Free Flow Interagency Committee is currently preparing a
report on the feasibility of utilizing reverse flow traffic lanes on Valley
Boulevard as a pilot program. The Director reports that this route appears to
have the proper traffic flow and roadway characteristics for such an
installation and this may possibly be a solution to moving more traffic on
Valley Boulevard through the Rosemead Boulevard intersection. The feasibility
report is expected to be available late this spring, and I will furnish you with
a copy as soon as it is available for your review and comments.
? look forward to hearing from you so that we can cooperatively move ahead with
the Valley Boulevard Traffic Signal Synchronization project.
Sincerely yours,
PETE SCHABARUM
Supervisor, First District
PS:cs/M
cc: Department of Public Works