Loading...
TC- Minutes- 09-01-2022Minutes of the Regular ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING September 1, 2022 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Vice Chair Quintanilla at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Drange INVOCATION: Vice Chair Quintanilla PRESENT: Commissioner Drange, Commissioner Hermosillo, Commissioner Lang, Commissioner Nguyen and Vice Chair Quintanilla ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Public Works Chung, City Engineer Chan and Commission Liaison Nguyen ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE: Jesus Hermosillo and Alexander Lang REORGANIZATION: Chair Drange and Vice Chair Nguyen 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 2. PRESENTATIONS None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Masuda asked Traffic Commissioners if anyone would like to make revisions or additions to the minutes of June 2, 2022. Commissioner Hermosillo made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nguyen, to accept consent calendar. Vote resulted in: Yes: Drange, Lang, Nguyen No: None Abstain: Quintanilla, Hermosillo Absent: None 4. NEW BUSINESS Director of Public Works Chung introduced Eddie Chan as City Engineer. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes of September 1, 2022 Page 1 of 4 A. DISCUSSION ON SPEED HUMP POLICY Director of Public Works Chung provided a brief description of the item and explained the presentation is in response to resident request on the implementation of speed humps as a traffic calming measure. This item was previously discussed in the June 2, 2022, Traffic Commission meeting and was requested by the commission to bring the item back for discussion and have staff present an overview of a speed hump policy and criteria. Traffic Engineer Robbins presented a PowerPoint presentation explaining about speed humps and speed cushions, the advantages and disadvantages of speed humps, speed hump criteria, typical cost of speed humps, and an overview of traffic calming measures and a speed hump flow chart process. Commissioner Hermosillo asked why the requirement for the petition process was set at 75% for Rosemead when it was mentioned that in other Los Angeles County Cities, the requirement was set at two thirds support, which is 66%. Traffic Engineer Robbins explained that the percentage requirement can be set at the city's discretion, but typically the requirement is within 75% and will also depend on the number of houses or units on the road or segment being requested. Traffic Engineer Robbins mentioned the reason for the petition requirement is to take into consideration the residents who will be impacted by the speed hump installed in front of their home and the noise level it will cause for them from passing vehicles. Vice Chair Nguyen agreed with Commissioner Hermosillo that the percentage seems high and asked if it could be revised. Director of Public Works Chung responded that the information and data presented are only examples and not an item to approve on. If approved to move forward with developing a speed hump policy, each of the items presented would be discussed in further detail to determine the specific requirements. Commissioner Lang asked what the difference between a speed hump and a speed dip is. Traffic Engineer Robbins explained the dips being referred to are actually cross gutters and serve to move water to prevent water from pooling in a certain area. Director of Public Works Chung commented the cross gutters also help with drainage and sometimes result from the grades and configurations of intersections. Director of Public Works Chung commented the dips are not a speed mitigation measure and are typically just used for drainage. Commissioner Hermosillo suggested proceeding with the phased approach to ensure the majority of the residents on the street requesting a speed hump are in favor. Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes of September 1, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Chair Drange asked if there are any instances for a speed hump to be used first instead of the other speed mitigation measures such as striping, signage, or traffic enforcement Traffic Engineer Robbins responded there have been some cases where they moved forward with the speed hump and not follow the process, but explained that from her experience, there was some negative feedback from residents impacted by the speed hump. Traffic Engineer Robbins commented speed humps are not an official traffic control device and needs to be approved or adopted by City Council. Director of Public Works Chung explained since speed humps are a significant impact to the infrastructure, traffic operations, and costly, it makes more sense to take a phased approach. Chair Drange asked what the formalized procedure is for residents who would like to report speeding on a street aside from only submitting their request to Traffic Commission for review Director of Public Works Chung explained the process and traffic calming measures currently used, which includes notifying the Sheriff's department of speeding concerns and modifying signage and striping. Chair Drange commented on whether there should be a formalized procedure specifically for reports of speeding similar to the application and petition form being presented for speed hump request. Chair Drange asked if there is a legal reason as to why signatures of the property owners are required instead of the tenants. Traffic Engineer Robbins responded it is at the city's discretion. In response to Chair Drange's prior comment, she explained that many cities are moving toward a community buy in on traffic calming measures to ensure the majority of the community agrees with the traffic calming measure being implemented. Commissioner Lang followed up on Chair Drange's comment on how the forms feel very formalized and that many residents may not feel like they are being helped by requiring them submit a form. Vice Chair Nguyen agreed with Commissioner Lang and acknowledged the purpose of having forms, however, commented that the forms feel like a deterrent. Director of Public Works Chung asked if the Traffic Commission would like to have staff evaluate and formalize our current traffic mitigation measures or recommend moving forward with developing a speed hump policy. Chair Drange responded formalizing the current traffic mitigation measures would be something he would like to consider looking into in the future, but at the present time is in favor of moving forward with developing a speed hump policy. Rosemead Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes of September 1, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Lang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hermosillo, to recommend the development of the speed hump policy. Vote resulted in: Yes: Drange, Nguyen, Hermosillo, Quintanilla No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 6. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Vice Chair Nguyen commented driving up on Mission Drive and noticed the two lights that flash your speed if you are going too fast on Loma Ave & Mission Dr, right by Rosemead park, is not working. Commissioner Lang commented that he found it difficult to see oncoming traffic while leaving Golden Heart Medical parking lot trying to make a left or right turn onto Valley Boulevard. Suggested to install red curb. Vice Chair Quintanilla asked for a status update on the City Council agenda item that was postponed due to COVID-19. The item was regarding Olney Street between Rio Hondo Avenue and Temple City Boulevard. It was recommended for partial street closure of Olney Street, closing eastbound Olney Street to the 1-10 Freeway WB on-ramp. Director of Public Works Chung responded the item is planned to be taken for consideration to the City Council meeting on October 11, 2022. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. The next Traffic Commission meeting is scheduled for October 6, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. and will take place at the Rosemead City Hall, City Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard. J// / Mi h Chair ATTEST: Nrl;'� c4al4 Michael Chung, P.E. l/ Director of Public Works Rosemead Trak Commission Meeting Minutes of September 1, 2022 Page 4 of 4