Loading...
TC - 12-02-99- - _,. AGENDA ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION 8838 East Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Regular Meeting December 2, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Chairperson Knapp, Vice -Chair Quintanilla Commissioners Ruiz, Baffo, & Herrera Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Herrera Invocation: Commissioner Knapp 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Minutes for October & November 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE — This is the time reserved for members of the audience to address the Commission on items not listed on the agenda. (Maximum time per speaker is three (3) minutes; total time allocated is fifteen (15) minutes) 3. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR RED CURB AND KEEP CLEAR AT THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY BOULEVARD AND HIDDEN PINES STREET 4. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROLS ON EDMOND DRIVE BETWEEN WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND MUSCATEL AVENUE B. REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE AT 4655 FENDYKE AVENUE 5. STAFF REPORTS 6. COMMISSIONER REPORTS 8. ADJOURNMENT — Thursday, January 6, 2000, 7:00 p.m., Rosemead City Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770 ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1999 A regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Vice - Chairman Quintanilla at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. ROLL CALL Present: Vice - Chairman Quintanilla Commissioners: Ruiz & Herrera Absent: Chairperson Knapp & Commissioner Baffo Ex Officio: Administrative Aide: Jessica Wilkinson Deputy Traffic Engineer: Joanne Itagaki CALL TO ORDER The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ruiz The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Herrera I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Herrera, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes for September 2, 1999. H. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE — None III. OLD BUSINESS — NONE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. VALLEY BOULEVARD AT LOMA AVENUE — REQUEST FOR WESTBOUND LEFT TURN ACCESS Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that staff received a letter from Mr. J. Frank Quintanilla of the Golden Rose Florist, 9228 Valley Boulevard. Mr. Quintanilla indicates that his customers are making illegal westbound left turns in to his parking lot. Mr. Quintanilla is requesting a left turn lane be installed to provide a legal lane for his customers to turn left in to his parking lot. This item was tabled to the November meeting due to a conflict of interest with one of the Traffic Commissioners. B. REQUEST FOR STOP CONTROLS ON OLNEY STREET Mr. Gilbert Pedregon, 9546 Olney Street, has contacted the City regarding the installation of STOP controls on Olney Street due to concerns regarding speeds along the street. This the second request from Mr. Pedregon for STOP controls on Olney Street. Mr. Pedregon made this same request in 1996. During the July 11, 1996 Traffic Commission meeting, staff presented a report, analyzing the need for STOP controls at the intersections of Olney Street/Vane Avenue and Olney Street/Marybeth Avenue. This report concluded the installation of STOP controls at these two intersections did not meet Caltrans guidelines. Therefore, STOP controls were not recommended. The conditions described in the 1996 report have not changed. To summarize: ➢ Olney Street is a 36 -foot wide residential street with a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. ➢ Vane Avenue and Marybeth Avenue are 30 -foot wide residential streets with a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. ➢ Vane Avenue and Marybeth Avenue form "T" intersections with Olney Street. ➢ Vane Avenue is STOP controlled at its intersection with Olney Street. ➢ A yellow crosswalk exists on the west leg of Olney Street at Vane Avenue. ➢ "SLOW SCHOOL XING' markings exist in advance of this crossing on Olney Street in both directions. The reported accident history of the intersections of Olney Street/Vane Avenue and Olney Street/Marybeth Avenue were reviewed for the period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1998. There were no reported accidents at the intersection of Olney Street/Vane Avenue. However, one accident was reported at the intersection of Olney Street/Marybeth Avenue and is summarized below: Location and Description 4' west of Marybeth Avenue on Olney Street. A northbound vehicle making a U -turn broad sided an eastbound vehicle proceeding straight (Improper Turn). Day/Date Time Friday /I1 -29 -96 8:40 a.m. Twenty -four hour traffic volume counts were taken for each of the approaches to the intersections. These counts are summarized below: • Southbound Vane Ave. north of Olney Street 500 • Southbound Marybeth Ave north of Olney Street 224 • Westbound Olney Street east of Marybeth Ave. 853 • Eastbound Olney Street, west of Vane Avenue 805 • Westbound Olney Street, between Vane Avenue and Marybeth Avenue 921 • Eastbound Olney St. between Vane Avenue and Marybeth Avenue 694 Multi -way STOP Sign Warrants worksheets, attached, were completed for the intersections of Olney Street/Vane Avenue and Olney Street/Marybeth Avenue. The worksheet has been developed from guidelines established from the Caltrans Traffic Manual. The worksheets for the intersections being analyzed indicated that both locations do not meet the minimum guidelines for the installation of multi -way STOP signs. As identified in the traffic volume data, the total traffic volume entering the intersections is as follows: Olney Street/Vane Avenue = (500 + 805 + 921) _ 2226 vehicles per day: Olney Street/Marybeth Avenue = (224 + 853 + 694) _ 1771 vehicles per day. This data indicates there has been an increase in traffic volume at the intersection of Olney Street/Vane Avenue since 1996. The traffic volume at the intersection of Olney Street/Marybeth Avenue is roughly the same as 1996. 2 The Caltrans guidelines indicate a multi -way STOP control may be justified if all the approaches to the intersection average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of the day. In addition, the traffic and pedestrian volume from the minor street must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours. The worksheets indicate that both intersections fall below 500 vehicles per hour and the 200 units per hour average. The reported accident history of the two intersections has been favorable over the three year period reviewed. This would suggest that vehicles area traveling through the intersections with sufficient care for the conditions present. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the conditions, data and STOP sign analysis of the intersections, the installation of STOP signs at the intersections of Olney Street/Vane Avenue and Olney Street/Marybeth Avenue is not recommended. It is recommended Olney Street be placed on the City's list for the use of the radar trailer as a reminder to motorists of the speed limit on Olney Street. In addition, selective sheriff enforcement in the area is recommended. Commissioner Ruiz stated that on Marybeth there is no stop sign, and perhaps there could be one installed (going south). Speaking before the Commission was: Mr. Gilbert Pedregon 9546 Olney Street Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. Pedregon stated that this is his second request. His main concern is with the east and west traffic, people exiting the freeway get diverted down their street. The east and west traffic on Olney Street is a long stretch. He does not feel that by having police enforcement there 8 hours a day will solve their problem, it's only a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that the stop sign on Vane Street was installed primarily for safety and not volume. Mr. Pedregon stated that they are very concerned with the safety of the children on that block. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that one of the reason staff is hesitant to install a stop sign on Olney is because they feel the vehicles will just run right through the stop signs and become another just another sign that people don't pay attention to, if there's not enough cross traffic. She would like to put Olney Street on the list for the radar trailer. Sgt. Robles stated that the Assistant City Manager Don Wagner spoke to the motorcycle officers and requested that they patrol this area and has already written seven (7) citations for speeding. Speaking before the Commission was: Tom Dominia 9524 Olney Street Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. Dominia stated that statistics can be deceiving because there have been other minor accidents at this location that have gone unreported. Mr. Dominia stated that he is not in favor of a stop sign, but feels in this case it would help the situation. He stated that Olney Street has a direct feed into the westbound 10 freeway, and feels it justifies a stop sign, as oppose to Marybeth. Mr. Dominia's concern is for the safety of his children and the children in the neighborhood. Mr. Dominia thanked his neighbors for their support and for coming out to the Traffic Commission meeting this evening. Commissioner Ruiz stated that on Encinita there was a similar situation, and the Traffic Commission requested rumble strips to be installed at this location to slow traffic down, and have been found to be very effective. However, he stated that rumble strips are very noisy. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that the rumble strips have been found to be very effective in not only slowing traffic down, but also to remind motorists that there is a crossing there and get their attention. Speaking before the Commission was: Marie Dominia 9524 Olney Street Rosemead, California 91770 Mrs. Dominia stated that she does not feel that by placing a stop sign on Olney would cause more accidents. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the problem is that a stop sign would be placed in the middle of a long stretch of road. Mrs. Dominia stated that she feels that a stop sign would be deterrent for commuters getting on the freeway as an alternate route. Mr. Pedregon asked why a stop sign could not be installed on a temporary basis for a year, and if it does not work have it removed. Vice- Chairman Quintanilla stated that the Commission tries to go incrementally to attack a problem. Sgt. Robles stated that if a stop sign is installed, after a period of time, it gives the motorist a false sense of security, and the City becomes liable, because the traffic does not warrant a stop sign there. Mrs. Dominia asked about speed bumps vs rumble strips. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that speed bumps are not approved traffic control geometric devices. Mr. Dominia stated that he's willing to give the rumble strips a try, but would like to keep this issue open for a possible stop sign in the future, should this not work. It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Herrera and carried unanimously to accept the recommendation by the Traffic Engineer, with the addition to install the rumble strips. In addition, to having a survey done of the traffic and traffic citations in the next 6 -9 months and bring it back to the Commission. Commissioner Ruiz invited the audience to attend the City Council meeting when this item comes before them, and address their issues again at that time. He also urged them to take down the license plate numbers and call the Sheriff's Department with that information, so they may be cited. V. STAFF REPORTS — NONE VI. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 Administrative Aide Wilkinson stated that the City Council voted to approve the installation of flexible delineators on the island area of Temple City Boulevard and Olney Street. N VII. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Ruiz stated that on Temple City Boulevard and Marshall there is a fire hydrant on the south/west corner, and there seems to be a van that parks too close to the hydrant, and feels a red curb advisable. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that she would put through a work order to have that done. Administrative Aide Wilkinson advised the Commission of a workshop that will take place on the 20. Sgt. Robles stated that there were 2 arrest made at the last sobriety check point conducted in Rosemead, 12 cars were impounded and wrote a total of 25 traffic citations. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There were 19 people in the audience. The next regularly scheduled meeting is set for November 4, 1999. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1999 A regular 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. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Knapp Commissioners: Ruiz, Quintanilla and Baffo Absent: Commissioner Herrera Ex Officio: Administrative Aide: Jessica Wilkinson Deputy Traffic Engineer: Joanne Itagaki CALL TO ORDER The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Baffo The Invocation was delivered by Chairperson Knapp I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for October were deferred to the December meeting II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Speaking before the Commission was: Mr.Lynn Sapp 3844 Ellis Lane Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. Sapp stated that the Von's trucks continue to use their Jack - Brakes at 2:00 a.m., at Temple City Boulevard. Speaking before the Commission was: Barbara Larson 3850 Ellis Lane Rosemead, California 91770 Ms. Larson stated that trucks go by and lay on the brakes at 5:00 a.m., and she's here to get the Commission's help. She feels the Vons trucks drive too fast. Chairperson Knapp stated that staff has written several letters to Vons regarding this problem. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that staff is aware of the problem, and they are looking into other options to rectify the situation. Commissioner Baffo thanked the audience for coming to the meeting and addressing the various issues throughout the City. M. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR BLUE HANDICAPPED CURB MARKINGS ON RAMONA BOULEVARD Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that Mr. Frank Gonzales, 9255 Ramona Boulevard, has requested the City of Rosemead consider the installation of a blue handicapped curb marking in front of his residence. Mr. Gonzales indicates there is no parking available on or near his home. Mr. Gonzales is currently renting a room at 9255 Ramona Boulevard. Ramona Boulevard is an east /west roadway immediately north of the 1 -10 freeway. In the vicinity of 9255 Ramona Boulevard, parking is allowed on the north side of the street. No parking is allowed on the south side of Ramona Boulevard. There is double yellow centerline striping on Ramona Boulevard. The speed limit on Ramona Boulevard is prima facie 25 mph. The fronting uses on Ramona Boulevard are residential. There are single - family duplex and apartment complexes on the north side of the street. The 9255 Ramona Boulevard is a duplex type development. Another duplex exists on the east side of 9255 Ramona Boulevard. To the east of this duplex, an apartment complex exists. Another apartment complex exists on the west side of 9255 Ramona Boulevard. Field review and staff discussions with Mr. Gonzales indicate that parking, especially during the evening hours, is significantly occupied on Ramona Boulevard. It is likely that the majority of this parking is from the apartment complexes along Ramona Boulevard. Staff is unaware of any blue handicapped parking spaces marked in front of residential developments within the City. In the past, concern for installing such spaces has centered on the removal of such parking spaces when tenants or owners move. The City has no mechanism to track changes in tenants or owners. In addition, past requests have been addressed by finding additional parking on -site or extending driveways to accommodate an additional vehicle. Based on field review and our discussions with Mr. Gonzales, there are approximately 5 parking spaces on —site. He is a tenant of one room of the duplex. Staff has no objection to the installation of blue handicapped curb markings. The City Attorney indicated that Mr. Gonzales should be aware that the installation of the blue handicapped curb does not guarantee its use by Mr. Gonzales. Any vehicle with the proper identification — handicap license plate or placard — can legally use the proposed space. The Commission may also want to discuss this request as a policy issue. When another such request is received, how shall it be handled? Is there any requirement to verify if the request is justifiable — handicap license plate or placard? Does the request need to be brought before the Commission? What should be done when a request is received to remove the blue curb? RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no objection to the installation of blue handicapped curb markings. Staff also recommends the Commission consider discussing the issue of blue curb markings in residential areas with respect to developing a policy to be used in the future. Chairperson Knapp asked if there was any discussion regarding putting the parking space within the property. Administrative Aide Wilkinson stated currently there is nothing that indicates handicap parking, it is usually upon availability. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that this is not an apartment building, it is a duplex, so the regulations governing handicap parking spaces in an apartment building do not apply. Commissioner Quintanilla stated that he feels that the property owner should be responsible for providing a parking space to his /her tenants. If the blue curb is installed, it is only setting a precedence. Commissioner Ruiz stated that he feels the property owner should take the burden of providing a handicap parking space. It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Baffo, and carried unanimously to deny the installation of blue handicap curb markings, and to continue to deny blue handicap parking spaces, unless there are unusual circumstances that warrants the item to come before the Commission. Chairperson Knapp requested staff to write a letter to Mr. Gonzales and to his landlord asking them to try to settle this amongst themselves. B. REQUEST FOR WESTBOUND LEFT TURN ACCESS — VALLEY BOULEVARD AT LOMA AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that a letter was received from Mr. J. Frank Quintanilla of the Golden Rose Florist, 9228 Valley Bouelvard. Mr. Quintanilla indicates that his customers are making illegal westbound left turns in to his parking lot. Mr. Quintanilla is requesting a left turn lane be installed to provide a legal lane for his customers to turn left in to his parking lot. The driveway access to the Golden Rose Florist is almost directly across from Loma Avenue at Valley Boulevard. The existing traffic striping at the intersection provides a dedicated left turn lane on Valley Boulevard for eastbound traffic at Loma Avenue. In the westbound direction, a painted median nose exists which does provide access to the Golden Rose Florist. Beyond the painted median nose, a two way left turn lane exists. The reported traffic accident history for the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Loma Avenue was reviewed for the period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1998. The reported accident history revealed one accident occurring at this intersection during the period reviewed. This accident involved an eastbound vehicle turning left and broadsiding a westbound vehicle proceeding straight. The primary collision factor was identified as a violation of the right -of -way of the westbound vehicle by the eastbound vehicle turning left. Staff reviewed the entire stretch of Valley Boulevard including the intersection at Loma Avenue. Based on this review, two "T" intersections, including Loma Avenue, have a driveway opposite the street that intersects Valley Boulevard. The "T" intersections are at Gernert Avenue and Loma Avenue. Each of these intersections has a painted median nose that denies access to the driveway. Field observation of the intersections of Gernert Avenue/Valley Boulevard and Loma Avenue/Valley Boulevard indicated vehicles were turning left through the painted median nose. This movement was generally within the painted median nose area and the vehicles did not block through traffic. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the field observations and the limited number of occurrences in the City, the removal of the painted median nose and continuation of the two way left turn lane is recommended for the following locations: 1. Westbound Valley Boulevard at Loma Avenue, and 2. Eastbound Valley Boulevard at Gernert Avenue Speaking before the Commission was: Frank Quintanilla Golden Rose Florist 9228 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. Quintanilla stated that he feels the recommendation is a good idea and will help business. It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commission Ruiz, to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. Vote Results: Ayes: Chairperson Knapp, Commissioner Baffo, Commissioner Ruiz Noes: Noes Abstain: Commissioner Quintanilla Absent: Commissioner Herrera Commissioner Quintanilla abstained his vote, due to the fact that the resident is his relative. Mr. Frank Quintanilla stated that on October 4, 1999, his wife had their I' baby girl. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR RED CURB AT 3319 -3333 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD SOUTH OF HELLMAN AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that a request was received from Ms. Connie Ta, property owner of 3319 -3333 San Gabriel Boulevard. Ms. Ta is requesting the installation of "NO PARKING" signs and paint in front of this property. She indicates there is poor visibility when vehicles park along the curb in front of the property. The property at 3319 -3333 San Gabriel Boulevard has three access points from San Gabriel Boulevard. The property has on -site parking for tenants and customers. On- street parking is allowed on San Gabriel Boulevard in front of the property. However, there is a 2 -hour parking restriction on San Gabriel Boulevard. San Gabriel Boulevard is a north/south arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. There are two lanes in each direction separated by a double yellow centerline. The reported accident history in the vicinity of 3319 -3333 San Gabriel Boulevard was reviewed for the period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1998. This review identified one reported accident summarized below: 653 feet south of Hellman Avenue — Southbound vehicle proceeding straight rearended a southbound stopped vehicle (unsafe speed). The average daily traffic volume on San Gabriel Boulevard is 31,900 vehicles per day. Field observation of the location identified very few vehicles parking on the street in front of the subject property. The parking on -site was approximately 60% occupied. With few vehicles parking on the street, visibility was not significantly impacted. However, there may be occasions when on- street parking is heavy. During these times, visibility would be inhibited for vehicles exiting the property. RECOMMENDATION: The installation of "No Parking Any Time" signs is recommended in front of 3319 -3333 San Gabriel Boulevard. It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Quintanilla, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. V. STAFF REPORTS Sgt. Robles stated that they have been working Olney Street and have also had the radar trailer up and running. VI. Commissioner Baffo stated that at San Gabriel Boulevard in front of Don Bosco Tech, there's a left turn lane that goes into Don Bosco Tech, and sign that says "No U- Turn". People are disobeying the sign, and would like to see enforcement at this location. Commissioner Ruiz agrees with the comments made earlier regarding the Jack - Brakes on Temple City Boulevard, and would like to see something done at this location. Commissioner Ruiz stated that he noticed the radar trailer was not working properly last week. Commissioner Ruiz stated that he spoke to Mr. Gil Pedregon of Olney Street and wanted to let the Commission know that he will be writing a letter to the City Council regarding Olney Street, and the possibility of closing Olney Street and making it a cul -de -sac. Chairperson Knapp stated that she enjoyed going to the Commissioner Workshop on Saturday in Pomona and looks forward to some new ideas for Temple City Boulevard and the possibility of closing it as a truck route. Commissioner Quintanilla congratulated the owner of Golden Rose Florist on the new addition to his family. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned. The next regularly scheduled meeting is set for December 2, 1999. TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION ^� FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1999 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RED CURB AND KEEP CLEAR AT THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY BOULEVARD AND HIDDEN PINES STREET REQUEST This item was brought before the Traffic Commission on September 2, 1999 (report attached). The request was from the Hidden Pines Homeowners Association (HOA). During the September Commission meeting, the Commission had questions to the HOA and wanted, at least one representative present to comment on the issue. In addition, the Commission requested staff to further study the location and recommendation. The data and conditions of the intersection have not changed since the September 2, 1999 "report was prepared. DISCUSSION Staff reviewed the intersection of Hidden Pines Street and Valley Boulevard on several occasions. There continues to be some blockage of the intersection from eastbound Valley Boulevard vehicles stopped at the intersection of Walnut Grove Avenue. However, few vehicles were observed trying to access Hidden Pines Street from the westbound Valley Boulevard direction. The HOA has requested the installation of red curb on both sides of Hidden Pines Street. Such an installation will provide some additional visibility for vehicles exiting Hidden Pines Street. As stated by the Sheriffs Department, this red curb will not provide extensive visibility, however, is does provide motorists some additional space to "nose -out' into traffic. The request for "KEEP CLEAR" markings was also made by the HOA. Staff has re- evaluated the installation of "KEEP CLEAR" markings. Based on the minimal number of homes (less than 12) and no reported accidents at the intersection, the installation of "KEEP CLEAR" is not recommended. Request for Red Curb and KEEP CLEAR at the Intersection of Valley Boulevard and Hidden Pines Street Page 2 RECOMMENDATION The installation of 50 feet of red curb west of and 20 feet of red curb east of Hidden Pines Street on Valley Boulevard is recommended. The installation of "KEEP CLEAR" markings is not recommended. Figure 1 (Revised) depicts the recommended installation of red curb. Attachments JI1Rsd\Hidden Pines 2 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSSION npp� FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY �W DATE: AUGUST 23, 1999 RE: REQUEST FOR RED CURB AND KEEP CLEAR AT THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY BOULEVARD AND HIDDEN PINES STREET REQUEST The Hidden Pines Homeowners Association (HOA) has requested (letter attached) the installation of red curb and "Keep Clear" markings on Valley Boulevard at Hidden Pines Street. The HOA indicates visibility when exiting Hidden Pines Street is difficult when vehicles are parked on Valley Boulevard west of Hidden Pines. They also indicate that eastbound vehicles stopped at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue often block the access into and out of Hidden Pines Street. DATA The reported accident history at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Hidden Pines Street was reviewed for the period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1998. This review indicated no reported accidents occurring at the intersection during this three -year period. Traffic counts taken in 1999 indicate approximately 22,900 vehicles travel daily on Valley Boulevard between the west City limit and Rosemead Boulevard. Based on engineering judgement, the daily traffic volume on Hidden Pines Street is less than 2,000 vehicles per day. CONDITIONS Valley Boulevard is a 76 -foot wide east/west arterial roadway with two -lanes of traffic in each direction separated by a two -way left turn lane. In the vicinity of Hidden Pines Street, a "2 -hour Parking 9 AM — 6 PM, except Sundays and Holidays" restriction exists on Valley Boulevard. The posted speed limit on Valley Boulevard is 35 mph. Hidden Pines Street is a 25 -foot wide private street that "T "s into Valley Boulevard from the south. It is located approximately 400 feet west of Walnut irnersecuuu v1 vauey oowevaro ano Hlooen tines �icreer Page 2 Grove Avenue directly adjacent to the Rubio Wash. There is no striping on Hidden Pines Street. Hidden Pines Street provides access to several residential homes south of Valley Boulevard. Figure 1 depicts conditions at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Hidden Pines Street. DISCUSSION Field observation of the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Hidden Pines Street did identify some blockage of the intersection during the PM peak period. Some delay is experienced for vehicles on Hidden Pines Street. There were gaps in the traffic flow that allowed vehicles to exit Hidden Pines Street on to Valley Boulevard. Staff did not observe vehicles parked on Valley Boulevard at Hidden Pines Street during our field review. The HOA has requested the installation of red curb and "Keep Clear" markings. The red curb would provide visibility of vehicles on Valley Boulevard from Hidden Pines Street. This may also assist motorists in determining adequate gaps to enter into the traffic flow. The "Keep Clear" markings would direct vehicles on Valley Boulevard to leave a space clear for vehicles accessing Hidden Pines Street. However, this would only be of benefit during the periods when traffic is stopped on Valley Boulevard from the Walnut Grove Avenue traffic signal. RECOMMENDATIONS The installation of 30 feet of red curb west of and 20 feet of red curb east of Hidden Pines Street on Valley Boulevard is recommended. It is further recommended that "Keep Clear' markings with limit lines be installed for eastbound Valley Boulevard traffic at Hidden Pines Street. Figure 1 depicts these recommendations. Attachments JI\Rsd \Hidden Pines HIDDEN PINES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 6585, Rosemead, CA 91770 July 15, 1999 Traffic Commissioner City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead; CA 91770 Dear Sir. It is respectfully requested that a "NO PARKING" and "CLEAR" zones be set up at Valley Blvd and Hidden Pines Street As shown in the attached map, our request is two -fold: 1) NO PARKING or red zone on Valley Blvd for at least 30 ft west of Hidden Pines St. Very often this area is full of parked can and combined with heavy traffic eastbound of Valley Blvd, it becomes very difficult and dangerous for drivers from Hidden Pines to turn right on Valley Blvd, and almost impossible to turn left on Valley Blvd from Hidden Pines St This NO PARKING zone request will provide a clear view of oncoming cars for drivers leaving Hidden Pines and promote traffic safety for everyone concerned such as drivers, bikers and pedestrians in this area 2) CLEAR ZONE east bound side of Valley Blvd comer Hidden Pines SL It is a feat, frruttating, and very dangerous to enter Hidden Pines St when you have to cross eastbound traffic dining rush hours or anytime there is a lot of traffic eastbound. There are so many cars rushing/speeding to catch the green traffic light at Walnut Grove which is unfortunately very close to Hidden Pines St Or the entire entrance to Hidden Pines St is covered by stopped cars waiting for the green light on Walnut Grove. This CLEAR ZONE request will provide safety and convenience for residents and visitors entering Hidden Pines St This request was prompted by various complaints and stories of near misses accidents by residents and visitors alike. There's also a constant angry resident disgruntled by the traffic congestion right where we leave and enter our community. There is an accident waiting to happen — so please help and grant our requests. Thank you. _ Respectfully yours, (HIDDEN PINES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION JESUS RUESGA, President js/7 -15 -99 A o �/ D 1 11 r.i i V; 6 z end 2A0219 InN w J Q V Q a WN r a N w4- "3 N � I I I � � I ,I I i l zI -a M �° `` _j \ 7 � I KIK s � I I I 0 -4Q S U tj ,OZ Z1 ZI ZI OZ t ' 0 _ =F Q1 FIGURE 1 ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 A regular 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" ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Knapp Commissioners: Quintanilla, Ruiz, Baffo & Herrera Absent: None Ex Officio: Administrative Aide: Jessica Wilkinson Deputy Traffic Engineer: Joanne Itagaki CALL TO ORDER The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Herrera The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Ruiz I. APPROVAL OF MTNUTES The minutes for August, 1999 were deferred to the October meeting. H. NWRAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - M. OLI$USTNESS — IV. NEW A. Deputy Traffic Engineer It that Traffic Commissioner Ruiz requested staff to review the intersection of Tem ity Boulevard at Olney Street. Commissioner Ruiz indicated that vehicles traveling s ound on Temple City Boulevard travel through the right turn only lane at Olney StreetNdold appear to be unaware of the right turn only restriction or they may be a t teead" of the traffic queue. Commissioner Ruiz inquired if larg be installed on the island a rea to discourage this movement. The reported accident history at the intersection of City Boulevard and Olney Street was reviewed for the period from January 1, 199 �h December 31, 1998. This review indicated no reported accidents occurring at the t tion during this three -year period. . Temple City Boulevard is a 64 -foot wide north/south secondary arterial roadway with two lanes in each direction. Opposing lanes of traffic are generally separated by a double wu, uw v uucu is III IU VdI IUUJ U IVCXVdys. I ne msian at ion or large ooii oois on the island area would reduce southbound through movements on Temple City Boulevard at Olney %Leet. However, staff has concern regarding the use of the bott dots in this instance. Prevt large bott dots have been installed parallel to the flow of traffic with minimal chance o h -speed traffic traveling over the dots. The large bott dots have been placed on double y centerlines separating opposing lanes of traffic. Installing large bott dots on the is arm ea, perpendicular to traffic flow, would discourage vehicles from traveling through t ht turn only lane. However, motorists that choose to travel over or do not see the bott ay loose control of their vehicles increasing the accident potential. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the increased potential for tra i cidents, the installation of large bott dots is not recommended. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that perhapT#4Lflexible delineators would be more effective at this location (similar to the ones on on by In -N -Out Burgers). It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissil%L.Baffio, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation stall flexible delineators at this location. B. REQUEST FOR RED CURB AND KEEP CLEAR AT THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY BOULEVARD AND HIDDEN PINES STREET Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that the Hidden Pines Homeowners Association (HOA) has requested the installation of red curb and "Keep Clear" markings on Valley Boulevard at Hidden Pines Street. The HOA indicates visibility when exiting Hidden Pines Street is difficult when vehicles area parked on Valley Boulevard west of Hidden Pines. They also indicate that eastbound vehicles stopped at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue often block the access into and out of Hidden Pines Street. The reported accident history at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Hidden Pines Street was reviewed for the period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1998. This review indicated no reported accidents occurring at the intersection during this three -year period. Traffic counts taken in 1999 indicate approximately 22,900 vehicles travel daily on Valley Boulevard between the west City limit and Rosemead Boulevard. Based on engineering judgment, the daily traffic volume on Hidden Pines Street is less than 2,000 vehicles per day. Valley Boulevard is a 76 -food wide east /west arterial roadway with two -lanes of traffic in each direction separated by a two -way left turn lane. In the vicinity of Hidden Pines Street, a °2 -hour Parking 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m., except Sundays and Holidays" restriction exists on Valley Boulevard. The posted speed limit on Valley Boulevard is 35 mph. Hidden Pines Street is a 25 -foot wide private street that "T's" into Valley Boulevard from the south. It is located approximately 400 feet west of Walnut Grove Avenue directly adjacent to the Rubio Wash. There is no striping on Hidden Pines Street. Hidden Pines Street provides access to several residential homes south of Valley Boulevard. Field observation of the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Hidden Pines Street did identify some blockage of the Intersection during the PM peak period. Some delay is experienced for vehicles on Hidden Pines Street onto Valley Boulevard. Staff did not observe vehicles parked on Valley Boulevard at Hidden Pines Street during our field review. The HOA has requested the installation of red curb and "Keep Clear" markings. The red curb would provide visibility of vehicles on Valley Boulevard from Hidden Pines Street. This may also assist motorists in determining adequate gaps to enter into the traffic flow. The "Keep Clear" markings would direct vehicles on Valley Boulevard to leave a space clear for vehicles accessing Hidden Pines Street. However, this would only be benefit during the periods when traffic is stopped on Valley Boulevard from the Walnut Grove Avenue traffic signal. RECOMMENDATION: The installation of 30' feet of red curb west of and 20 feet of red curb east of Hidden Pines Street on Valley Boulevard is recommended. It is further recommended that "Keep Clear" markings with limit lines be installed for eastbound Valley Boulevard traffic at Hidden Pines Street. Chairperson Knapp stated that she is in favor of the red curb, however is not sure about the "Keep Clear" markings. Sgt. Robles stated that the painting of the red curb, west of Hidden Pines does no good to vehicles exiting Hidden Pines because of the angle. It would be more appropriate to extend it further down. He suggest that a right turn only sign be installed. This item was deferred to the November meeting, for further study and to invite the residents of those homes to the meeting that would be affected. V. Admini - Aide Wilkinson stated that at the City Council meeting of August 24` the Council appro ems of red curb at 2730 Stingle Avenue. VI. COMMISSIONER RE Commissioner Herrera stated that resi e told her that they are happy with the quick responses to the graffiti removal. Commissioner Quintanilla stated that Valley Boulevard is I Chairperson Knapp asked if statFcould look at the crosswalk situation at San Gabriel and 11/29/99 12:43 PAX 6952120 WILLDAN ASSOC ... ROSEMEAD 2004 3Md2 3no '89 1nN` VM w a a u m 0 h Q I S Z I ac 'ii I I ,Qz ,zl ;21 I 1 I I V I S II I ac 'ii a ,Qz ,zl ;21 2i pz I I Q Q , a i TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1999 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROLS ON EDMOND DRIVE BETWEEN WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND MUSCATEL AVENUE REQUEST A request (letter attached) has been received from Mr. Otto A. Peters, 8738 Edmond Drive, requesting the Traffic Commission install additional traffic controls on Edmond Drive to reduce the speeds on the street. Mr. Peters is specifically requesting the installation of speed bumps on Edmonds Drive. Mr. Peters was furnished with the City's policy on speed bumps. As Mr. Peters indicated in his letter, this matter was brought before the Traffic Commission previously. According to our records, this issue was brought before the Commission on March 3, 1994. The staff report and minutes of that meeting are attached for the Commission's reference. CONDITIONS Edmond Drive is a 36 -foot wide east/west residential roadway stretching from Walnut Grove Avenue to Muscatel Avenue. This is a distance of approximately 1,200 feet. Edmond Drive at Walnut Grove Avenue is controlled by a traffic signal. Edmond Drive is stop controlled at its "T" intersection with Muscatel Avenue. There are no sidewalks on either side of Edmond Drive. Curbside parking is minimal to moderate throughout the day. The prima facie speed limit is 25 mph. Figure 1 depicts conditions at the subject location (to be available at the Traffic - Commission meeting). DATA The reported accident history at the intersection of Fendyke Avenue and Barrette Street was reviewed for the period beginning January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999. This review indicated no reported accidents at the intersection. Request for Traffic Controls on Edmond Drive Between Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue Page 2 Staff will attempt to gather data regarding speeds and traffic volumes on Edmond Drive. This information will be presented at the Traffic Commission meeting. DISCUSSION Due to the lack of data at this time, discussion will be expanded and presented to the Traffic Commission at the meeting. As you are aware, the City's current policy is to deny the installation of speed humps on public streets. This is primarily due to the lack of approved standard designs for the speed humps. Other cities have installed speed humps on a "trial or study" basis and have determined, under their own legal advice, whether their city is taking on additional liability. The installation of rumble strips in the City has been primarily to advise motorists in advance of a specific situation. For example, on Encinitas Avenue the rumble strips were installed to warn motorists of the yellow school crosswalk at Pitkin Street. The installation of rumble strips on Edmond Drive would be inappropriate, at this time. Upon field review of Edmond Drive, there were no speed limit signs posted on the street. The 1994 staff report recommended the installation of 25 -mph speed limit signs at both ends of Edmond Drive. It is unknown why these signs were not installed. RECOMMENDATION The installation of 25 mph signs (36" x 45 ") on Edmond Drive at Walnut Grove Avenue and at Muscatel Avenue as shown on Figure 1. It is further recommended that the speed trailer be placed on Edmond Drive followed by selective enforcement. Attachments JI \Rsd \Edmond Traffic Controls Sept 16, 1999 To: Traffic Comrnissiot City of Rosemead Rosemead City Ha 8838 Valley Blvd. Rosemead ,CA. 91' To whom it mays concern; I am usil in this City. Twc the residents of Edmon( Drive but was informed since found out that thi! even the type that now installed. Pan of this in1 Ever since the ti we have experienced a being the only Thru Stri necessary due to childre be subjected to speedin] There have beer monitored the traffic fo: with informed me that c We have allowe now come to a point th; I could relate nt SEp 2 01999 ------ --- --- this format to again approach the matter of traffic on Edmond Drive years ago I requested, along with a petition signed by approx. 80% of Drive requesting that some sort of traffic Bumps be installed on Edmond that time that this was not feasible according to existing laws but have is not true and traffic bums such as those existing behind City Hall or on Encinitas near Rosemead Park and the school can lawfiilly be comes from the Temple City Sheriffs Office. light was installed at the comer of Edmond Drive and Walnut Grove stantial increase in traffic of a HIGH SPEED variety. Edmond Drive between Walnut Grove and Muscatel. I realize that this traffic light is crossing to go to school but this being a residential street we should not and reckless driving. three times in the past two years that the Temple City Sheriffs have a few hours in the morning and the afternoon and the last officer I spoke he had written thirty seven (3 7) tickets. this condition to worsen by not following thru with our city and it has something MUST BE DONE to correct this. instances of accidents and near accidents that have occurred 2) including two wherein c nce a car and another time a pickup truck traveling south on Muscatel turned into Edmond Drive and ended up hitting cars parked in front of 8744 Edmond Dr. and on up onto the lawn and o4 to cars parked in 8738 Edmond Driveway and back onto the Street sacking 2 cars upon another in front of this address. Another hit and run from a speeding car heading East on Edmond and sideswiping cars on both sides of the street at approx. the same location. There.have bebn many ; mariy near. pedestrian -hits and in fact this very morning two oriental older ladies we I e almost run down by a young girl driving in excess of (estimated) 60 MPH. It is our belief ti at traffic Bumps would slow some of this speeding and perhaps stop a fatality or fatalities in d* future. 1 have lived in t$s home for 42 years , my reason for choosing Rosemead , and this particular location was the quietness and safety for bringing up 7 children. Although the children are now raised there ar4 many more children on this block plus the fact that a hundred or so children walls this block] to and from school. I am not exaggerating the seriousness of this situation and should something happen it is my opinion that our city would and should be held accountable if nothing it done. You for your time and consideration, Sincerely, Otto A. Peer 8738 Edmond Dr. (626) 2866541 �1 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1994 RE: EDMOND DRIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS REQUEST Mr. Cal Mather requested a review of the traffic conditions on Edmond Drive between Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue. I also received a request from Mr. Peters regarding this same concern. Mr. Mather and Mr. Peters - indicated that since the installation of the traffic signal at Walnut Grove Avenue and Edmond Drive /Wells Street, there has been an increase in traffic volumes and speeds. They remarked that this increase appears most noticeable before and after Shuey School hours. CONDITIONS Edmond Drive is a 36 -foot wide east /wide residential roadway. The block is approximately 1,200 feet (0.23 miles) in length between Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue. The street is fronted by residential uses and has a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Curb side parking is moderate throughout the day. DATA The accident history from January 1, 1990 to September 30, 1993 was reviewed for Edmond Drive between Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue. One accident was reported during this time period and is summarized below: 12/29/92 Saturday 9:50 p.m Eastbound vehicle proceeding straight rearended an eastbound parked vehicle (improper turn) A 24 -hour traffic count was taken and the following volumes were recorded: Total 24 -hour volume 1 025 vehicles Z = 511 WB = 514 7:45 - 8:45 AM Peak Hour 2:15 - 3:15 PM Peak Hour 221 vehicles (22 %) = 81 WB = 140 ` EB EB = 65 (es I WB= 56 Page 2. A radar speed survey was taken on Edmond Drive. This survey revealed the following: 7:30 - 9:30 AM 2:30 - 3:30 PM Combined AM /PM DISCUSSION 106 total vehicles 85 %ile speed = 37 mph 56 total vehicles 85 %ile speed = 37 mph 162 total vehicles 85 %ile speed = 37 mph The traffic signal at the intersection of Walnut Grove Avenue and Edmond Drive /Wells Street was installed in late 1991 /early 1992. A crossing guard is present to assist students across Walnut Grove Avenue. The traffic volumes, 1,025 vehicles, on Edmond Drive are relatively low. Generally, 2,000 vehicles per day on a residential street is considered average. During the peak hours, however, a higher than expected percentage of vehicles was recorded. During the peak hours, 6 -7% of the total daily traffic is anticipated. Edmond Drive revealed peak percentages of 22% (AM) and 120 (PM) of the total daily traffic. This is apparently a result of Edmond Drive's close proximity to Shuey School, as suggested by Mr. Mather and Mr. Peters. Overall, the traffic volumes on Edmond Drive are similar to those found on other residential roadways such as Rosemead Place and Ellis Lane. And though the percentage of peak period volumes are high, this could be found on other streets in the vicinity of schools and is not considered unusual. The speed measurements on Edmond Drive are slightly higher than anticipated on a residential roadway. The 37 mph 85 %ile speed is higher than the 30 mph speed generally anticipated on a residential street. The prima facie speed limit on Edmond Drive is 25 mph. The installation of speed limit signs on Edmond Drive at Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue may act as a reminder to motorists of the speed limit on this residential street. Sgt. Hart has issued a bulletin to her officers for selective speed enforcement of Edmond Drive. In addition, the speed trailer, shared with Temple City, will be placed on Edmond Drive when it is available. These measurements are anticipated to reduce the number of speeding vehicles on Edmond Drive. Page 3. The installation of speed bumps on possible solution. Currently, the liability. This is due to the fact been adopted by authorities such as installations would expose the City Edmond Drive is not considered a City considers speed bumps a that design standards have not Caltrans. Therefore, any to possible liability. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that 25 mph speed limit signs be installed on Edmond Drive at Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue. It is further recommended that the speed trailer be placed on Edmond Drive when available. JI:nv Ti i rre I $ -D A:MARCH94:1 Bccz.c j 0 I ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 3. 1994 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairman Knapp, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California 91770. I. CALL TO ORDER The Pledge to the Flag was delivered by Commissioner Larson The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Tirre IZ: ROLL CALL Chairman Knapp Commissioners: Beezley, Larson, Tirre and Pinon III. APPROV OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Tirre, seconded by Commissioner Pinon, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes for February 3, 1994, with a correction on Page 4 (VI), should read 7:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None V. A. TRAFFIC CONTROLS ON DEL MAR AVENUE AT WASOLA STREET uty Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that a request was received Mayor Bruesch for an investigation of additional traffic con s at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Wasola Street. Mayor esch indicated that a pedestrian signal may be appropriate at this tion. Due to the proximity of Van Dorf Street and Garvalia Avenue to Wasola Stre an investigation was made of these three streets at their interse n with Del Mar Avenue. This investigation will address the traffi ntrol needs at these intersections. Del Mar Avenue is a 64 t wide north /south secondary arterial. It is striped for four 1 of traffic, two in each direction, separated by double yellow ping. Del Mar Avenue narrows to a 48 -foot width with two lanes each direction in the vicinity of Wasola Street. The posted spee mit on Del Mar Avenue is 35 mph. However, in the vicinity o valia Avenue, a school zone exists creating a 25 mph speed lima hen children are present. Wasola Street, GarvalialAvenue and Van f Street are all "STOP" controlled at its intersection with Del MULAvenue. All three prima facie speed limits are posted at 25 The accident history on Del Mar Avenue in the inity of Wasola Street, Garvalia Avenue and Van Dorf Street was iewed from January 1, 1990 to September 30, 1993. The installation of traffic signals is generally Nex guidelines developed by Caltrans. These guidelin the traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, and accident e. % right angle, leiv Lurn, eLG.) iiavc v� a� -•• iod. Based on the accident history identified, this guideline is t satisfied. Well ned and properly operating traffic signals can enhance traffic ety and promote traffic flow when installed at locations where stu S ve shown such control to be justified. This justificati made through the use of Caltrans guidelines, as stated abov When signals are alled at locations where they are not justified, safet ten compromised and congestion is increased. When this urs, the community as a whole is poorly served by the traffic c ol. RECOMMENDATION Based on the traffic conditions Garvalia Avenue and Van Dorf St signal was not recommended. el Mar Avenue at Wasola Street, ,the installation of a traffic Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki also s d that staff has received a request from the Garvey School Distric investigate the possibility of a traffic signal at Del Mar nue and Highcliff and Del Mar Avenue and Dorothy Street, for simil easons. It was moved by Commissioner Pinon, seconded by ssioner Larson, and carried unanimously approve the Traffi W ngineer's recommendation. B. EDMOND DRIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that Mr. Cal Mather requested a review of the traffic conditions on Edmond Drive between Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue. Another request was received from Mr. Peters regarding this same concern. Mr. Mather and Mr. Peters indicated that since the installation of the traffic signal at Walnut Grove Avenue and Edmond Drive /Wells Street, there has been an increase in traffic volumes and speeds. They remarked that this increase appears most noticeable before and after Shuey School hours. Edmond Drive is a 36 -foot wide east /wide residential roadway. The block is approximately 1,200 feet (0.23 miles) in length between Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue. The street is fronted by residential uses and has a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Curb side parking is moderate throughout the day. The accident history from January 1, 1990 to September 30, 1993 was reviewed for Edmond Drive between Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue, with only one accident reported, and involved an eastbound vehicle straight rearended an eastbound parked vehicle (improper turn). Page 2 11/29/99 12:42 FAX 6952120 Ex. Neighborhood Watch sign. WILLDAN ASSOC Ex. Stop sign. ROSEMEAD Z003 Not to Scale FA / Ex. Street / Sweeping sign. Q Install R2(25) sign (36" x 45 ") on new post. b / Install 4J R2(25) sign (36" x 45 ") on new post. / t+ Q min. 5' / / w / / / / / / / Walnut Grove Ave. JI\Rsd\Exh\Edmond- WG &Mus -. -. Property Line , -, 8616 ------ P10pan 11ne - -. -. _. _ r - ' ----- - 8612 Property Line Figure 1 Edmond Drive between Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY �{ DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1999 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE AT 4655 FENDYKE AVENUE REQUEST A request (letter attached) has been received from Ms. Dorothy Y. Chu of 4655 Fendyke Avenue. Ms. Chu is requesting the installation of "reflectors" in front of her residence to "deter drivers from running up" the driveway. Ms. Chu indicates she has experienced two incidents where vehicles have run on to her property causing damage. CONDITIONS Fendyke Avenue is a north /south residential roadway with no existing striping on the street. The roadway is 30 feet wide with parking allowed on both sides of the street except during street sweeping days. The prima facie speed limit on the roadway is 25 mph. Ms. Chu's residence, 4655 Fendyke Avenue, is directly across from Barrette Street. Barrette Street is a 30 -foot wide east/west roadway also with no. existing striping on the street. The prima facie speed limit is 25 mph. Figure 1 depicts conditions at the subject location (to_ be available at the Traffic Commission meeting). DATA The reported accident history at the intersection of Fendyke Avenue and Barrette Street was reviewed for the period beginning January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999. This review indicated no reported accidents at the intersection. DISCUSSION Field review of the intersection of Fendyke Avenue /Barrette Street revealed some tire marks in the street indicating some high -speed travel through the intersection. There were no visible marks on the curb. Fendyke Avenue north of Barrette Street is a cul -de -sac. Therefore, the majority of traffic is likely turning Request for Signage at 4655 Fendyke Avenue Page 2 westbound to southbound and northbound to eastbound. This is supported by the tire marks of the intersection. As depicted in Figure 1, there is an existing street light located in front of 4655 Fendyke Avenue. The location of this street light would be appropriate for the installation of signs warning of the 'T condition of the intersection. RECOMMENDATION The installation of a W56 sign with a yellow Type N -1 marker is recommended on Fendyke Avenue directly across from Barrette Street. This recommendation is depicted in Figure 1. Attachments Jl Rsd41655 Fendyke September 16, 1999 City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley B1 Rosemead, CA 91 SEP i s Attention: Traffic Gentlemen I have been a resideni of the City of Rosemead since 1987. I am very happy to be in this city. I live on 4655 Fendyke Avenue, where Barrette Street ends. A few years ago, I had someone ran their car into my planter and destroyed the bricks and I repaired it myself. On Sunday August 22 1999, upon our return from a short trip to San Diego at 10:30 pm we found that our gar�ge door had a hole and a crack (from top to boitom) on the left side. According to ou r neighbor (who called the police), someone had driven their Toyota van up my dri eway and hit my garage door. To replace a planter was easy for us, however, we had to replace the garage door, and it was costly. I am requesting that a city perhaps can put up reflectors on the light pole in front of my house or other means o deter drivers from runnin up my driveway or into my property again. Thank you in advance for your considerations. Sincerely, ^J Dorothy Y. hu 4655 Fendyke Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 � r f j S €P 2 1 M9 U >! Va !l ti 11/29/99 12:42 FAX 6952120 WILLDAN ASSOC Install W56 sign and yellow Type N -1 marker. 4655 - ROSEMEAD Z002 Fi ure 1 4655 Fendyke Avenue Ji\Rsd\Exh\4655 Fendyke