CC - Item 4A - Rosemead Blvd RelinquishmentS E M f •
O i~ S
2' .\~ISA4r 4r[.~0
~Y AV
~i Y
9
~~pORATC➢ ••~5
AM NO. ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF DEPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER VWC- o
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
SUBJECT: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD RELINQUESHMENT
SUMMARY
On December 11, 2007, the City Council directed staff to look further into the possible
relinquishment of State Route 19 (Rosemead Boulevard) within city limits. In addition,
the City Council approved a capital project in the City's Fiscal Year 2009 budget to help
with the process, including updating a roadway condition assessment prepared in 2005
and possibly engaging an outside consultant to help assist in negotiations with the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). As part of the City Council's
direction, staff has prepared a resolution that will authorize the City Manager to proceed
with the relinquishment process and engage Caltrans in negotiations related to the
process.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve Resolution No. 2008-63, authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to
ask our State Legislators to introduce legislation that proposes the
relinquishment of State Route 19 (Rosemead Boulevard) in the City of
Rosemead city limits.
2. Designate the City Manager, or designee, as the authorized representative to act
as the City's representative in all negotiations related to the relinquishment of
Rosemead Boulevard.
3. Authorize staff to solicit proposals to update the Rosemead Boulevard condition
assessment study prepared in 2005.
Background
State Route 19, also known as Rosemead Boulevard was originally built as part of the
network of highways prior to the construction of the federal interstate system. Along
with all State highways, Rosemead Boulevard has been under the control of the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) which is responsible for all
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: V
• •
City Council Meeting
September 9, 2008
Pace 2 of 3
maintenance, repairs, improvements and liability associated with the roadway. As costs
to maintain these roadways have increased, Caltrans began the process of
relinquishing control over the state highways to cities and counties. As such, this has
given local agencies the opportunity to take control over the development, improvement
work, and maintenance of these roads.
Process
In order to proceed with the relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard, the City Council
must initiate the process by legislative action. This includes the City Council's approval
of a resolution expressing an interest in pursuing the relinquishment process and
authorizing the City to engage Caltranslin discussions related to the relinquishment.
The resolution does not bind the City to anything - rather, it allows the City to continue
keep its options open related to the relinquishment. Upon approval of this resolution
(Attachment 1) staff will engage its state )representative to help draft state legislation to
begin the process.
Along with legislative action, staff will also need to begin discussions with Caltrans over
the roadway condition. State law requires that prior to relinquishment a road must by in
a "state of good repair" prior to the effective transfer date. Staff will work with an outside
consultant to update the Rosemead Boulevard project report (Attachment 2) prepared in
2005. This report will include an updated pavement deflection study that identifies all
needed rehabilitation for the roadway) and recommendations to bring Rosemead
Boulevard to a "state of good repair". Staff will use this report in negotiations with
Caltrans to develop a cooperative agreement between the City and the State. Once a
settlement is reached, Caltrans will provide a check to the City to compensate for
agreed upon improvements to the roadway.
Current Maintenance Issues
Although Rosemead Boulevard is a ste
maintenance work to areas adjacent to
efforts. This work includes street swee
maintenance. Since Rosemead Boule%
City, it is necessary to continue these su
Next Steps
Altogether, staff estimates that the relir
year to complete. Staff has discussed
City of West Covina and the County of
process can be somewhat lengthy. H
agreement with Caltrans for their sectior
owned highway, the City currently performs
he road to supplement Caltrans maintenance
ing, litter and debris removal, and landscape
rd serves as such a visible entry point to the
elemental maintenance duties.
uishment process will take a minimum of one
he process with other agencies, including the
os Angeles and they have confirmed that the
wever, both agencies were able to reach an
of state highway.
With the City Council's authorization t
our state representatives and Caltrans.
proceed, staff will begin discussions with both
after reaching an agreement with Caltrans for a
•
•
City Council Meeting
September 9, 2008
Page 3 of 3
settlement amount for roadway, staff will present a cooperative agreement for the City
Council's consideration.
Prepared by:
J,,
Chris Marcarello
Deputy Public Works Director
Subm
Brian
Manager
Attachments:
(1) Resolution No. 2008-63
(2) 2005 Condition Assessment Report
(3) City Council Minutes, December 11, 2007
0 !
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA,
REQUESTING THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELINQUISH THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY FOR STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 19, ALSO KNOWN AS ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD, WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for
the construction and maintenance of certain highways deemed of major importance
throughout the State; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State law, the California Transportation Commission (CTC),
upon request from Caltrans, may relinquish any portion of State highways; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans for many years has owned and operated all of State Highway
Route 19 known as Rosemead Boulevard within the City of Rosemead; and
WHEREAS, there may be benefit for the City to obtain that portion of Rosemead
Boulevard within the City of Rosemead from Caltrans in order to improve accessibility,
conduct improvements, and implement and manage a more efficient traffic flow through
the City; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the City Council directed staff to look further into
the possible relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard within City limits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the City's Fiscal Year 2009 Capital Improvement
Program budget which includes funding to prepare a condition assessment report of
Rosemead Boulevard within City limits.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY ROSEMEAD DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the City Manager, or designee, begin discussions with State legislators to
introduce legislation that proposes the relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard
within City limits from the State of California.
2. That the City Manager, or designee, begin negotiations with Caltrans to
determine the feasibility of relinquishment based on the parameters of the
relinquishment process, the assumption of liability for the City, future City costs,
determining future community benefits and any other issues involved in
assessing whether the City should assume control over Rosemead Boulevard
within City limits.
3. That City staff solicit proposals to determine the existing condition of roadway
and adjacent public areas for Rosemead Boulevard within City limits.
4. That the City Manager bring back a Cooperative Agreement for the City Council's
approval prior to finalizing the relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard within City
limits from the State of California.
ADOPTED this gm day of September, 2008.
For the City of Rosemead:
John Tran
Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda
City Clerk
• •
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
December 11. 2007
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Tran at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
The pledge to the flag was led by Mayor Pro Tern John Nunez and the invocation was delivered by Mayor
John Tran.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilmembers Clark, Low, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tern Nunez and
Mayor Tran
Absent: None
1. PRESENTATION
A. Almont League Football Champions - San Gabriel High School
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez introduced the San Gabriel High School Matadors football team. He reminded
everyone that a lot of kids that live in the City of Rosemead go to San Gabriel High School and that it is
important that we pay attention to both Rosemead High School, as well as, San Gabriel High School. He
announced that the football team has had a great season this year and he introduced San Gabriel's
Principal Jim Schofield to the podium.
Mr. Schofield thanked the Council for recognizing San Gabriel High School and the number of students that
come from the Rosemead community. He stated that he and his faculty felt honored that Mr. Nunez had
invited these young men and young woman to be recognized by the city. Mr. Schofield introduced Mr.
Jones as the Almont League Coach of the year and stated that Mr. Jones not only is an outstanding coach
but that he also teaches these young people to be quality individuals and to advance and be better people
in life.
Coach Jones thanked Mayor Tran for his support; he thanked the parents and supporters of the team. He
also thanked the High School seniors for giving their heart and soul through out the season. He mentionec
that one thing the team had strived for this season was to change a banner in their gym that hadn't been
changed since 1975, which was when the last championship had been won. He announced a new banner
will be put up and he thanked the council once again for their support.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez also recognized Steve Perry and his staff for their support and mentioned that these
individuals have not missed a football game in 9 % years. He also urged the community to lend their
support by volunteering during the football games.
Rosemead City Council Meeting of
December 11, 2007
Page 1 of 38
•
•
Mayor Tran congratulated Coach Jones for having a successful year and thanked him, as well as, Mr.
Schofield for being role models to the kids and making them successful. Mayor Tran thanked them for
doing a great job and with that he introduced a certificate of recognition to the San Gabriel High School
Football Team.
Councilmember Clark congratulated Coach Jones and his team for making the city proud and putting
Rosemead on the map.
Coach Jones also wanted to recognize Captain Javier Miranda and Captain Matthew Mensura for winning
the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) award.
Matthew Mensura stated that he had been working with Coach Jones since his freshmen year and that
because of the coach they had a great season.
Councilmember Low congratulated the players and the coach and asked the team to remember all their
hard work and how great it feels to be champions.
Councilmember Taylor addressed the team and the coach and told the team to enjoy it while they can
given that the next step for most of them will be going to college. He said that being in sports gives them
opportunity to work with, play with and get along with each other. He congratulated the team for a fantastic
season.
City Manager Chi asked the council to take a picture with the whole San Gabriel High School football team.
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development Review
07.01, Conditional Use Permit 07.1090 and Tentative Tract Map 70044 Located at
7419-7459 Garvey Avenue
Mr. Patrick Yang has submitted entitlement applications requesting approval to develop a
new four-story mixed use development consisting of 127 residential condominium units
above 59,180 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space. The subject site is
located north of Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Prospect Avenue on the City's
west side. The project site consists of seven contiguous parcels totaling approximately
5.35 acres. The project will be developed in two phases; Phase 1 will consist of the
Garvey Avenue frontage totaling approximately 3.68 acres, which will be developed with
commercial and residentially mixed land uses along with 2 levels of subterranean parking
and a significant outdoor courtyard/food court pedestrian amenity. The remaining 1.67
acres to the north, which consists of an existing mobile home park, could be developed as
part of a subsequent phase.
The existing General Plan designation for all affected parcels is Commercial. The existing
zoning designations consist of C-3 (Medium Commercial) and P (Automobile Parking).
However, at this time, only the parcels located within Phase 1 are proposed to be rezoned
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 2 of 38
•
to (PD) Planned Development and have the General Plan land use designation changed
from Commercial to Mixed Use Residential/Commercial. Any future development
proposals for the 1.67 acre site will require the review and approval of separate entitlement
applications together with a separate environmental analysis, a mobile home park
relocation plan, and separate public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Recommendation: That the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 860, thereby
APPROVING General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned
Development Review 07-01, Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, and Tentative Tract Map
70044, subject to the attached conditions. Staff also recommends that the City Council
adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as
recommended by the Planning Commission on November 05, 2007.
Councilmember Clark removed herself and sat in the audience because she lived to close to the project.
City Manager Chi reviewed staff report for Public Hearing regarding project located at 7419-7459 Garvey
Avenue.
Mayor Tran opened public hearing at 7:24 p.m
James Flournoy, 8655 Landis View, expressed his concerns to council regarding the Negative Declaration
that was included in the report submitted by city staff. Also expressed concern with earthquake faults that
are over in the area of this project.
Howard Mattern, 3114 Jackson Avenue, expressed that he was very opposed to the changes that are
occurring in the city. He said that the changes are inconsistent with the City of Rosemead's neighborhood.
Mr. Mattern also expressed that he felt Valley Boulevard was a parking lot and that the same would be
done with Garvey Avenue if this project was approved.
James Carlson, Monterey Park Mobile Home Park, addressed council with his concerns about the
livelihood and safety of the people who live at the mobile homes. He asked council if they would protect
the mobile homes if Phase 1 of this project passed and how they would be protected.
Councilmember Taylor asked Mr. Carlson if anyone had informed them on how residents will get back in to
Mobile Park after excavation began.
Mr. Carlson responded no and stated that they had only been informed about a wall being built to protect
their privacy.
Councilmember Taylor asked if they would still have to drive out over the construction site.
Mr. Carlson responded yes.
Councilmember Taylor stated that there was nothing in the report.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 3 of 38
• •
Mr. Carlson said that the entrance was adjacent to the park but that he was concerned about the change in
the zoning and what would happen after Phase 1.
Mayor Tran explained to Mr. Carlson that the project is broken up in two phases and that Phase 2 will not
move forward unless Phase 1 is complete.
Councilmember Taylor stated that Phase 2 is across the entire back of Phase 1 and asked how residents
were going to have access to exit the mobile park during construction.
Mayor Tran asked staff to answer that question.
Assistant City Manager Saeki asked council to refer to the 2nd basement floor plan A20.06 and explained
that twenty nine feet would remain on the easterly side of the property while the rest of the excavation was
taking place.
Mayor Tran explained that safety was obviously an issue
Mr. Carlson asked what impact the families of the park would have because once the excavation was
finished the owner would begin to building up.
Mr. Saeki explained that the city and the building department will ensure that the safest access route will be
provided to the residents of the mobile park and anyone else who has access to such route. Mr. Saeki
explained that if the project moves forward and any safety issues arise that these issues should be brought
to the council's attention and that staff will go out to the site and work with the developers so that the issues
are resolved.
Mr. Carlson asked if the change to the zoning would be for Phase 1
Mr. Saeki answered that it was and that Phase 2 is a complete separate project.
Alyssa Carlson, 7431 Garvey Avenue, asked what the difference between this meeting and the last
meeting was and what changes would be affecting the residence of the mobile park.
Councilmember Taylor asked if she was referring to the Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Chi explained that in order for the project to move forward it was necessary for certain steps to be
taken. He explained that the Planning Commission needed to review and approve the project before
bringing it to council for consideration.
Ms. Carlson asked if the project would be a go if it was approved in tonight's meeting.
Mr. Chi explained that tonight was the official public hearing and that it would be back for a second reading
on the next council meeting and that if the project was approved then 30 days after that it would be a go.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 4 of 38
1
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez questioned whether Councilmember Clark could speak although she had stepped.
out of her dieses.
City Attorney Bonny Garcia explained that she had a right to address the issue as a member of the public
because she is within the zone that is being affected by the project.
Margaret Clark objected to the staff report where it says "the building would be substantially set away from
any R-2 zoned properties and explained that in reality the zone is p for parking but residential homes have
been there for years. Ms. Clark explained that the residential property homes are single stories homes and
that they are not going to know what hit them when they look out and see a 4 story building right behind
them. She also expressed her concern with the impact on the privacy of the neighbors and she asked that
this project be sent back for review so that it is not such a large scale project. She explained that this
project will impact the neighborhood and that the safety of the kids from the 3 surrounding elementary
schools, Garvey, Bitely, and Emerson is in jeopardy. She stated that she had read the draft of the general
plan and even it states that we don't want to impact neighborhoods or change the residential character of
the city. She stated it even talks about if the parking is impacted we might have to go to fees which she
opposes and is opposed to the potential that people on her street might have to pay to park on their own
street.
Mayor Tran asked where that was stated.
Ms. Clark explained that it was in the general plan.
Mayor Tran asked if council had taken action on this issue.
Ms. Clark responded no.
Mayor Tran stated that she was speculating.
Ms. Clark explained that it was on the draft general plan and that the plan acknowledges these problems
and tries to resolve them. She explained that the fact the problem might require such resolution proves that
these projects do have an impact on traffic and that it will get worse. She spoke about these mixed use
developments sometimes called the "San Diego Plan" or transit oriented development that fits in Glendora
and Claremont which have projects adjacent to the proposed site of the Metro Gold line but not in
Rosemead because we do not have a transit station. Ms. Clark explained that there is another trailer park
site that is empty across from McDonalds with a for sale sign and that the accumulative impact of all this
development will be huge. She also expressed her concerns with the 2 levels of subterranean parking that
people might not want to use and how that traffic might spill over to our streets.
Marcelina Hernandez, Guess Street, asked if there was going to be 84 parking spaces underground, if this
was going to be dug under her house.
Mayor Tran asked where she lived.
Ms. Hernandez stated that she lived in 9020 Guess Street.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 5 of 38
•
•
Councilmember Taylor asked Ms. Hernandez if she had said Guess Street.
Ms. Hernandez responded yes.
Councilmember Taylor explained to her that the Guess Street project was the next item on the agenda and
she would have to wait to speak on that item.
Gilbert, 7433 Garvey Avenue, expressed his concerns and stated that there will be many people affected
by this project such as senior citizens and children with special needs. He explained that in the past they
have complained about the mobile park and that in return they have been approached with intimidation
tactics by the owners of the property.
Mayor Tran asked if he had said intimidation.
Gilbert answered yes and explained that in the past when they have complained they have been
intimidated by the owners. Gilbert reported an incident when an elderly woman in the mobile park had a
stroke and was forced to sell her home, he also addressed an incident where a gentleman in the mobile
home park had also had a stroke and is now unable to speak or walk. He stated that there was no way to
recover from these damages and that he was asking council to help. He explained that these events had
been reported to Councilmember Nunez but that he felt he didn't care and that Mr. Nunez stated he would
call him back and after 9 weeks he hadn't called.
Councilmember Nunez stated that he had directed Gilbert to another person and that he had asked Gilbert
if that person had resolved his problems.
Gilbert responded that they had not.
Councilmember Nunez stated that he had asked Gilbert if they had cut off the power to those electrical
wires and that he had responded that he didn't know.
Gilbert stated that those wires are still there and Mr. Nunez had said he would stop by his house and give
the pictures back and that he hadn't.
Councilmember Nunez told Gilbert that he had talked to him about his issues and he had referred him to
the appropriate person and that is the procedure he needed to take.
Gilbert stated that those were his concerns and that he was very worried about them.
James Carlson returned to the podium and explained to council that what Gilbert was trying to explain was
that the owners have been approaching the residents and intimidating them by telling them that they need
to sell their property now or else they won't get much for them later. He explained that Gilbert had brought
this and other issues to Councilmember Nunez 's attention and asked Mr. Nunez if he had brought this up to
the other council members.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 6 of 38
•
•
City Manager Chi stated that Councilmember Nunez had brought the potential violations to his attention
and that he had staff refer to it.
Assistant City Manager Saeki stated that he did receive those pictures and stated that he spoke to Gilbert
during the scoping meeting. He explained that he had spoken to the owner about those issues and that the
owner had promised to rectify those problems. Mr. Saeki stated that it was important to the city that those
problems were taken care of.
Mr. Carlson stated that he just wanted to make sure that council was aware of what was going on and that
they, as residence of Rosemead, would be protected.
Kenneth Pike, 8400 Grand Avenue, stated that he had been looking at the proposed changes to the zoning
codes and that he wanted to specifically speak on the parking situation. He expressed that the city did not
specify what property would be commercial and that he objected to any parking downgrade.
Maria, Park Monterey Mobile Home Park, stated that she and other residences from the mobile park had
received letters stating that their laundry room would be closed. She handed the letter to Mr. Saeki for
record.
Alyssa Carlson returned to the podium and asked council why they are not being relocated instead of
having them sit through construction of this project. She asked who governs the owners of the property
and how it is possible for the owners to build while they are still on the property. She asked if there were
any laws that protected them.
City Manager Chi answered that as a city we do not govern the mobile park.
Ms. Carlson stated that she had been misunderstood.
City Manager Chi stated that the State of California is who governs the owners of the mobile parks.
Ms. Carlson asked if they would have to go straight to the ombudsmen to get properly relocated.
City Manager Chi explained that if the property owner would like to change the number of units being
relocated, very specific state guide lines would have to be followed.
Ms. Carlson asked why they were not considered prior to Phase 1 and asked Council to please speak to
the property owners regarding relocating them prior to having Phase 1 go through.
City Manager Chi stated that the City has been working with the property owners to encourage them to
relocate the mobile home residents but that ultimately the city does not have the ability to force them to do
so. Mr. Chi also stated that the city has been working on a mobile home relocation ordinance to clarify
what those steps should be.
Jay Imperial stated that these issues are all run by the state and that on a prior separate issue nothing had
been done to get anything resolved. He stated that he had given the city 30 years of service and that if it
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 7 of 38
• •
were up to him this project would not be going through. He asked the city find another way to do this
project.
James Carlson addressed the council and asked if they were aware of the pamphlet that was put out and
given to them regarding the relocation process. He also asked if they knew how long the waiting list was
for the State of California.
City Manager Chi responded that the city was aware of the waiting list, which was the reason why the city
had taken the initiative to adopt an ordinance and that this should eliminate Rosemead from having to go
through the state's process in the future.
Anna Torres, 7433 Garvey Avenue, stated that all the residence of the mobile homes are very upset that
they have to go through all the construction of this project during Phase 1 and through the intimidation that
they are being put through.
There being no other speakers, public hearing for item 2A closed at 8:04 p.m.
Councilmember Taylor stated that no one had mentioned that 650 parking stalls were required for Phase 1
of this project and he felt that a lot of traffic will be coming out of that area. He stated that our current code
requires 2 parking spaces per condominium and for every 2 condos they have to have a visitor parking
space and that this project doesn't have to meet that requirement. He asked for a brief explanation on why
the developer did not have to meet that requirement.
City Manager Chi explained that under state density the developer can receive an additional density of 35%
of what is allowed in the site in exchange for providing affordable housing. In the entitlement process if the
developers request the bonus the city is mandated to work with that developer to up the concessions to
three, which was the case that was presented with this developer.
Councilmember Taylor added that the item regarding the adjoining residents to the east of the project was
not clear if they were one story residence or two story residence.
City Planner Everling responded that one single family home on the northeast corner that is approximately
75 feet from building to building and the other home to the north is approximately 45 feet from building to
building.
Councilmember Taylor asked if they were legal non-conforming units.
Mr. Everling responded that that was correct because it is not residential zoned property.
Councilmember Taylor asked if the 20 degree rule did not apply in this.
Mr. Everling stated that was correct.
Councilmember Taylor expressed his concerns with the condominiums being too high and the liability the
city might be responsible for due to invasion of privacy issues. Some condos have balconies 45 feet up.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 8 of 38
He was very reluctant to have these balconies 45 feet up above these houses. He referred to a lawsuit the
city went through with condos on Wells street. He asked what rights the residents had regarding this
matter.
Assistant City Manager Saeki stated that if there were problems that the residents can bring that up to the
council's attention.
Councilmember Taylor stated that he didn't think the residents were aware of what was being built around
them. Mr. Taylor added that this was only part of a slippery slope because the general plan read that there
will be a new project that is 5 stories, called a block long.
City Planner Everling stated that some portions of the building were four and others were five.
Councilmember Taylor stated that there will be another project coming in that is 7 stories.
Assistant City Manager Saeki stated that was correct.
Mayor Tran said that project was from 10 years ago.
Councilmember Taylor stated that it was not 10 years ago. The developer bought up that mobile home park
and is still working on that project. Mr. Taylor said that once these projects get started there is no return
and that once the zones are changed council will not be able to pick and choose the developers that come
into the city. He added that once the changes are made they would have to give everyone the concessions
that the state allows. He concluded by saying that if this project was approved this would wipe out our local
city control.
Councilmember Low asked if this had the required parking.
Assistant City Manager Saeki stated that the required parking had succeeded as it relates to the
commercial and restaurant parking but that for the residential units, one of there concessions were to utilize
the parking concessions in SB1818.
Councilmember Low asked if parking was okay.
Assistant City Manager Saeki stated we were okay under SB1818 for the residential and under our code for
the regular parking.
Councilmember Low said she wanted to be clear and that based on the report there would be no major
impact in traffic.
Assistant City Manager Saeki explained that was what the report concluded.
Councilmember Low stated that if they approved the project it would not result in opening the door to all
projects. She stated that when they received a report that showed traffic impact the project would not be
approved. Ms. Low asked Mr. Saeki to clarify what is on that lot. She stated that if another 2 projects are
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 9 of 38
•
on this street there will definitely be traffic impacts. If we get to the point where there are traffic impacts,
those are the projects that we are not going to approve.
Assistant City Manager Saeki explained that currently the majority is vacant, with the exception of a travel
agency and a couple of miscellaneous shops.
Councilmember Low expressed her concerns about the mobile homes. And asked if for Phase 2 staff could
work closely with the owners about creating a relocation plan.
City Manager Chi agreed with Ms. Low.
Councilmember Low asked the audience that if there is any type of intimidation to please let council know.
Councilmember Nunez stated he wanted to make a motion to approve the project with the revision of
having 12 moderate income residents rather than 12 low income residents. He stated that if you keep it to
low income you might exclude moderate income people, such as, first year teachers and firemen that can
apply and qualify. Low income people can also apply.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to approve Ordinance No. 860 on
first reading. Vote resulted in: (Councilmember Clark did not vote)
Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
General Plan Amendment 07.06, Zone Change 05.222, Planned Development Review
06.04, Conditional Use Permit 06.1064, and Tentative Tract Map 069079 for Property
Located at 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street
Long Bach Trinh has submitted applications for a new four-story mixed-use project
consisting of 32 residential condominium units (totaling 38,065 square feet) above 10,845
square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space on 1.04 acres located at the southeast
corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. The site consists of three parcels with
one and two-story multifamily residential buildings. All existing structures will be
demolished to accommodate the proposed development, which includes approximately
4,160 square feet of restaurant uses and approximately 6,685 square feet of retail space.
All commercial tenant spaces will have storefronts facing Rosemead Boulevard and Guess
Street. Primary access to the commercial suites will be provided via the parking lot in the
rear of the site. The condominiums located on the second, third, and fourth floors will be
oriented towards the Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street frontages. The site will
include 59 parking spaces at grade, along with a subterranean parking garage with 84
parking spaces, for a total of 143 off-street parking spaces.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 10 of 38
• 0
This project was considered by the Planning Commission at its public hearing on October
15, 2007. After hearing all testimonies from the applicant's representative and the public,
the Commission continued the item to the November 5th hearing and directed staff to work
with the applicant regarding solutions to vehicular access onto Guess Street and the
issues of privacy with the adjacent neighbors. In an effort to restrict traffic on Guess
Street, the applicant has altered the entry drive, added "no right turn" signs adjacent to the
Guess Street driveway, and will construct an 8-foot tall decorative CMU block wall along
the south and east property lines for added neighbor privacy. The revised project was
presented to the Planning Commission on November 5th and was unanimously
recommended for approval.
Recommendation: That the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 861, thereby
APPROVING General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned
Development Review 06-04, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, and Tentative Tract Map
069079, subject to the attached conditions. Staff also recommends that the City Council
adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as
recommended by the Planning Commission on November 5, 2007.
City Manager Chi reviewed staff report for Public Hearing regarding project located at Rosemead
Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street.
Mayor Tran opened public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Howard Mattern, 3114 Jackson Avenue, stated that he objected to the project for the same reasons as the
previous project and believes that there should be something in place that developers need to pay into so
that the next time the city needs to expand or update the sewers those funds can be withdrawn rather than
putting the burden on city's tax payers. He concluded by saying that if this project was approved then it will
become easier for high story project to be approved in the future.
James Flournoy, 8655 Landis View, stated he felt this project is a little different from the previous project
because it does not have an earthquake fault near by but that however it did have a fault underneath the
site. He referred to a Bank of the West report and asked that the city's reports be more like that.
Councilmember Taylor asked Mr. Flournoy if he was aware that this project did have subterranean parking.
Mr. Flournoy responded he was aware and that he felt this project was a go with proper mitigation on the
site.
Roberto Tsai, 9271 Steele Street, his first concern to council was the fact that he saw a posting of the
public hearing on Guess Street rather than on Rosemead Boulevard where it would have been more
visible. His second concern with this project was the "no right turn" sign and how it was going to affect
traffic negatively because Guess Street is one of the narrowest streets in Rosemead. He said he travels on
Rosemead Boulevard everyday and from Garvey to Valley it is already a parking lot. He stated that the city
should find other ways to try and achieve more revenue.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 11 of 38
• 9
Steve Cantrell, 9109 Guess Street, stated he has lived in the city for over 30 years and asked council why
there is a need for more restaurants and condominiums. He stated that the city did not need more people
and that during the weekends there already wasn't enough parking for the residents. He stated that he
thought Wal-Mart was brought into the city to bring in more revenue and he felt this project was not needed.
He cited the old Nissan project on Mission with more restaurants. Also the people down the street from the
former Farrels can't park on their own street. He affirmed the stop go traffic on Rosemead and the narrow
Guess street.
There being no other speakers, public hearing for item 2B closed at 8:31 p.m
Councilmember Clark, asked staff why the signs for these projects had the names of all council members
and she objected to that because she said she was not in favor of these projects and stated these projects
had not been approved. She stated that the signs should not say the City of Rosemead is bringing these
projects to the city because the developers are who are bringing it not council. She said she felt that this
was an implication to the people that live around the project that these projects were a done deal and
wondered how many people did not attend the public hearing in results of this. She stated that she was
tempted to take this matter to the district attorney if these projects were approved. She asked staff to take
the signs down and stated that she was very offended by all of this.
Councilmember Taylor told Mayor Tran that he agreed with Councilmember Clark because it implies that
the city council approved this before any meeting, but that however, he did not feel that signs needed to be
brought down; he asked that their names just be painted over.
Councilmember Clark stated the signs should not even say "City Council
Councilmember Taylor agreed but said that the signs should not be brought down to get them redone.
Councilmember Clark stated she did not think they should be redone but that they should be brought down.
Councilmember Taylor stated the signs could be put back by the developers.
Councilmember Clark responded that was fine as long as their names and "City Council" were not on the
signs. She then proceeded to ask staff to clarify the parking requirements under the current code for this
project
City Planner Everling responded that the parking requirement under the current code is one parking space
per 200 square feet. Mr. Everting asked if Ms. Clark was referring to the 143 parking spaces for the project
Councilmember Clark said no that she was referring to the 157 spaces that are required and that she was
referring to the chart in the staff report.
Councilmember Low asked if there are enough parking spaces for this project.
Councilmember Clark responded no.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 12 of 38
• •
City Planner Everling stated this project is also subject to the state law and that even without the affordable
housing component the applicant can still request for a parking reduction. Whereas, the table in the staff
report calls out 196 parking spaces, they're actually proposing 143.
Assistant City Manager Saeki stated that the project did have enough parking spaces.
Councilmember Clark said she wanted to speak about the state law and stated this is not slice bread. She
stated that she had been to Sacramento and had seen how the laws are made. She added that if the
developer was asking for a zone change that council did not have to grant it or the project.
Councilmember Low stated to Ms. Clark that she did not understand what she was saying about state law
and if she was implying that council did not have to follow it.
Councilmember Clark stated that was not what she meant and that she was trying to explain the way
Sacramento passes these laws and that they are not always thought out. She stated this is not good law
and that we have to obey it only if we grant the 2 actions of zone change and general plan amendment.
Those 2 actions were in the Council's court and that she felt that in result of granting this developer less
parking spaces there will be spill over traffic.
Councilmember Low asked staff to repeat the parking space numbers.
City Planner Everting stated the parking requirements under current code are 196 parking spaces and
under state taw it is only 143 parking spaces.
Councilmember Taylor stated he wanted to make it really clear that when Ms. Low asked if this project met
the parking requirements, staff responded "yes it does but only under the state mandated laws". He
continued by saying that the developer met the parking requirements only if Council granted them the zone
change and that there were other options to this project.
City Manager Oliver Chi responded that Council was absolutely correct and that there are options for this
project under SB1818 and as this project was processed it required concessions but those did not include
the general plan or zone change and that authority for those two items lied with this City Council. Mr. Chi
added that the project met the specs and code in terms of number of parking spaces allowed under
SB1818; however, the council ultimately retains authority for the zone change and general plan amendment
and that in order for the project to move forward Council would need to approver those two items.
Councilmember Low asked if there was two different issues that Council was looking to approve; first, the
approval of the zone change and general plan amendment and second, the number of parking spots for
this project that is required.
City Manager Chi stated if this particular project was located in an area in which the city's general code
allowed for that zone requirement then the project would fall into code and could move forward but because
it does not then the general plan and zone change need to come before Council for approval.
Councilmember Clark asked if this project would not fit at this time in any of our mix used terms
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 13 of 38
•
City Manager Chi stated that was correct.
Councilmember Clark stated if they wanted to require the amount of parking that would normally be
required under the city's code that they could deny the general plan amendment and zone change and that
if the developer wanted to continue with this project that he would have to come back to council with the
amount of parking spaces that Council wants.
City Manager Chi stated that was correct.
Councilmember Clark stated she had a real problem with the parking ratios because it allows for example a
two bedroom home two spaces were required and that it was possible to easily have four drivers or more in
each home. She added that she did not think it was realistic to allow the developer to request for less
amounts of parking spaces. The state may think it's a great law, but they are not living in Rosemead.
City Manager Chi responded that the intent of that law was to increase densities and that is why this law
exists but that with these particular projects other issues come into play and those issues ultimately
belongs to City Council to approve. Mr. Chi asked Mr. Saeki what the parking requirements for condo units
were.
Assistant City Manager Saeki stated it was four spaces per unit; two spaces for residence and two for their
guests.
Councilmember Clark asked if that was currently in our code.
City Manager Chi answered yes and stated that is the law and we need to follow it. He added that for many
communities the number of parking spaces per condominium was high but that was the policy decision for
every council and every community to make. He concluded by saying that was the policy decision for this
council to make.
Councilmember Clark addressed her concerns with the way the state addresses their housing issues and
stated that she thought they were very unfair by requiring cities such as Rosemead with higher density
codes to build more housing, and allowing cities that mandate 2 acres per house to not have to build any
more housing. She stated that is why she wanted Mr. Nunez on the SCAG Housing Committee.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez agreed with Ms. Clark on the formula that the state uses but stated that the fact is
we have a housing problem in the State of California. He said the state is going to continue growing and
we need to find housing for these people instead of having 4 to 5 families living in one house. He said that
during his campaigning the public approached him with this issue and that this was the way to resolve that
issue. He said the state wants us to give people housing.
Councilmember Clark stated they need to put them in those communities that don't have the densities.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez stated people are going to continue coming into the city and that this project was
intended to find housing for teachers so that they don't have to drive so far and to add housing so our
children did not have to move to other counties and unfortunately this is the way to do it. Mr. Nunez stated
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 14 of 38
• 0
that if they didn't do it this way it would be like hurting our own people.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion to accept the recommendation and second by Councilmember Low.
Councilmember Low agreed with Mr. Nunez and stated that after seeing all the high school students earlier
it concerned her not to know where they would go after they finished high school and college; and if they
would be able to afford a house in San Gabriel Valley. She agreed that traffic is a problem on Rosemead
Boulevard and stated council will be working on how to alleviate the problem.
Councilmember Clark stated she also did not agree with the roof garden issue and that she had gathered
from other cities that roof gardens did not work. She stated her main problem with this was that a normal
requirement to provide space for children to play was taken out and changed to have children play on the
roof so that the developer doesn't have to take space on the ground level. She said she found it unlikely
that the parents would take their children four stories up to play on the roof.
Councilmember Low responded that it is the parents' decision to take the kids up to the roof and that if it
were her in that situation she would take them to the park. She stated that just because the roof garden is
there she was not obligated to take the children to play there.
Councilmember Clark said the parents shouldn't have to take the children to the park that the children
should be able to run out and play. Ms. Clark objected to the project and made a substitute motion to deny
it and have it come back with a solution to the parking issue and privacy issues because the project didn't
have to meet the line of site at 20 degree angle.
Councilmember Taylor seconds the motion and asked what the traffic rating for Rosemead Boulevard is
Mr. Saeki stated that he did not have the answer to that question.
Councilmember Taylor stated that there are approximately sixty thousand cars passing this building and
that while this project is in progress traffic will increase. Mr. Taylor objected to other comments that were
made by staff, such as, the requirements of concessions and the comment made "when the law demands
we have to do this". He stated Council did have to do what the State asked them to but that they had
options with the general plans and zoning changes to try and moderate not stop. He addressed the
comment about Wal-Mart and stated that the sale tax for that is gone.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to approve Ordinance No. 861 on
first reading. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Clark, Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
C. Adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 862 Related to the Adoption of the California
Building Standards Code (Title 26 Los Angeles County Building Code), The
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 15 of 38
California Electrical Code (Title 27 Los Angeles County Electrical Code), The
California Plumbing Code (Title 28 Los Angeles County Plumbing Code), The
California Mechanical Code (Title 29 Los Angeles County Mechanical Code)
The new 2007 California Building, Electrical, Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes become
effective statewide on January 1, 2008. The City of Rosemead has traditionally adopted
the Los Angeles County amendments to the State Building Laws as its own amendments
to these State Laws. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the new
California Building Law as amended by the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works at its November 27, 2007 meeting.
The State Building Laws are based on the 2006 International Building Code, the 2006
Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes and 2005 National Electrical Code. The Building
Standards Commission has amended the model codes to apply to specific California
needs such as seismic, energy and disabled access requirements. The Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works further amends the code to account for the unique
requirements of the County of Los Angeles. The County amendments would also apply to
similar conditions in the City of Rosemead.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve Urgency Ordinance 862 on first reading.
City Manager Chi reviewed staff report for Public Hearing regarding project Urgency Ordinance 862.
Mayor Tran opened public hearing at 8:55 p.m.
James Flournoy, 8655 Landis View, asked if L.A. County had adopted these amendments and if the city
was adopting the same.
City Manager Chi responded yes.
There being no other speakers, public hearing for item 2C closed at 9:56 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to approve Ordinance No. 862 on
first reading. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
3. PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE
Marisa Castro-Salvati, Southern California Edison, addressed Council to review some of the things Edison
is doing in the State of their system. She encouraged the City to do a lot of things that pertains to energy
efficiency. She wanted to ensure the city was in partnership with San Gabriel Valley Energy Wise
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 16 of 38
• •
Project/Partnership and that the City is getting all rebates allowed. She stated Southern California Edison
is making sure that they are making improvements to their distribution system.
Councilmember Taylor asked if all that information was in her presentation packet.
Ms. Castro-Salvati responded yes.
Jean Hall, 3655 Muscatel Avenue, addressed council on various issues, such as, the first project public
hearing. She stated she thought the whole situation that is changing the zone and changing everything is
being done backwards and that it all starts with the outside developers. She stated the developers are
getting away with everything and are getting their way with Rosemead with the newly elected majority. She
stated that she has a problem with the signs the developers post on projects as Mrs. Clark spoke about.
She stated that it is horrifying to see some of the new construction appearing in the City and that she can't
believe that the new leaders have a clear conscience as to how they are going to put these projects in their
bedroom single home neighborhood. She said if she had wanted a high rise metropolis she wouldn't have
left Los Angeles. She stated she is not opposed to progress but that she has a problem with being exposed
to a different environment from what she moved into 50 years ago. She stated it is not good business for
Council to accept payment from the developers so that they can have easy access to the permits in our
city, which in turn is dividing the Council rather than having them work together. She stated the developers
leave town happy and richer and the City is stuck with the traffic and housing problems. She added that
the City should not be involved in producing housing for everyone in California and in closing she stated
that she and other Rosemead residents are seeing to it to monitor these meetings to bring to the attention
of the public. She stated that the Rosemead Partners are a none profit city group and that they publish a
mailer called "The Guardian" that is mailed out to everyone especially those close to these projects and
they do not do this to scare anyone but rather to help people know what is going on during Council's
changes. She concluded by stating she would like to see a more detail summary on the agendas and
urged Council to see what mess the City is in now.
Barbara Murphy, 9125 Bentel Street, wanted to thank City Council for approving the OKTOBERFEST and
staff for doing a tremendous job during this event. She stated that if it wasn't for the Mayor, the City
Manager, and Assistant City Manager, funds would have not been raised. She also spoke regarding the
increase in fees for Consolidated Disposal and stated she was not in agreement with that because they are
not doing a great job. She addressed Councilmember Taylor and asked if he remembered back in 1991
when he voted for Consolidated Disposal and the Council at the time ruled out BFI because they wanted a
company that was small to mid size. She stated Consolidated was no longer a small company. She asked
how Consolidated justified the rate increase and suggested to Council to stop bringing in Consolidated
Disposal and that the City bid out for new contract and company. Barbara Murphy said Taylor voted for it
and Bob Breusch and Joe Vazquez voted against it.
Councilman Taylor stated he voted against it and asked that the minutes be produced for that meeting.
James Flournoy, 8655 Landis View, addressed Council regarding various projects and the seismic reports
and asked Council to stop these projects and have staff change some of their reports to make them
accurate.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 17 of 38
Councilmember Clark asked what was being done regarding these issues.
City Manager Chi stated that staff has been working with James regarding these issues.
6. MATTERS FROM MAYOR t£ CITY COUNCIL
A. Rosemead Youth Association Funding Discussion
Recently, Mayor John Tran was contacted by members of the Rosemead Youth
Association (RYA) regarding their financial situation. It appears that the RYA was recently
hit with the IRS tax levy that has left their organization with a severe monetary hardship.
Based on that initial contact, Mayor Tran has requested that the Council discuss the
potential for the City to assist the RYA during this period of time.
Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction regarding assistance for the
RYA.
Mayor Tran moved item 6B up from agenda for discussion.
Sergio Nava, Rosemead Youth Association (RYA), thanked Council for their support last year and informed
them that an additional 100 kids were registered in the program since. He stated last year he had informed
Council that $50,000.00 was needed for the program but rather $89,000.00 had been used and the
program is expected to continue growing and reach a budget of $126,000.00. Mr. Nava asked Council for
a donation of $5,000.00 to get the program started for the new season and informed them these funds were
needed because the last board of the program had not filed taxes for five years and the IRS cleaned out
their funds. He stated they are doing all they can by filing there late taxes and that they had ordered copies
of checks from the bank that had not been given to the program.
Mayor Tran asked what the charges were for the copies of the checks.
Mr. Nava stated that it was $2 per check.
Councilmember Taylor stated he was not opposed to the donation but asked if any of those previous board
members were still active in the program.
Mr. Nava responded no.
Councilmember Taylor asked what the IRS was doing if the RYA was a non profit organization.
Mr. Nava responded that he wasn't sure if taxes needed to be paid but that paperwork should have been
filed.
Councilmember asked how they had gotten to $8,000.00.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 18 of 38
•
Mr. Nava said he did not know and informed Council they could not have a firework stand this year
because the previous board had not paid them for last year. He stated that when they are able to have a
firework stand the program takes 50% of that revenue.
Councilmember Low asked if it was known who the old members were.
Mr. Nava stated that they did know.
Councilmember Low asked if it was known who had taken the money
Mr. Nava stated that without the copies of the checks it was unknown
Ron Gay, 4106 Encenita Avenue, addressed Council and stated how upset he was with this whole
situation. He told Council that Mr. Nava and his crew are hard working people that are working to resolve
these problems and they cannot say anything until they get hard proof.
Councilmember Low stated she was concerned about how a group of people could take from kids.
Mr. Gay stated that they knew who the parties were but that they would like hard proof. He stated this is
the only program the city has, that the program needed some help, and that any assistance from Council
would be greatly appreciated.
Councilmember Nunez stated he would like to look at what Council can do to help them with this problem
and how they can be helped legally.
City Attorney Bonny Garcia stated the City is an affected donor to the organization and has a relationship .
with the organization. He stated the organization clearly needs to conduct an investigation and that it was
appropriate for city to have an oversight on the investigation. Mr. Garcia asked Mr. Nava to go to his office
to attain forensic account of what was going to be done.
Mr. Nava stated that the board used to have an accountant and that at this time they are looking for a new
accountant to hire.
Councilmember Nunez stated it was important to fix this problem if council will continue to support this
program and put money in it. Mr. Nunez asked Council to allow for a review of this matter and have it come
back with a solution.
Councilmember Taylor stated he would like to check RYA records before the City starts paying for
expensive accountants and attorney fees. Mr. Taylor motion to donate $15,000.00 instead of the $5,000.00
to get the organization started.
Mayor Tran stated his concern was that the organization had failed to produce any tax returns for years and
that a lot of the money that had been donated had not been given to the program. He asked if the
organization was strapped for money how they would be able to attain legal representation.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 19 of 38
•
•
Councilmember Taylor responded that it sounded to him that they had already started to research this.
Mayor Tran stated they had only paid for the copies of the checks.
Mr. Nava stated yes and that they could not afford legal representation.
Councilmember Taylor stated that something had to be done with 450 kids who are registered in the
program.
Mayor Tran stated that a motion had been made to donate $15,000.00 but that he would like council to also
make a motion to have our legal council help the organization figure out how to recuperate some of the
money that they have lost.
Mr. Garcia stated he would meet with the organization pro bono.
Councilmember Taylor made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to approve the donation of
$15,000.00 to the Rosemead Youth Association and have the City's Legal Council assist the organization
during investigation. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
.A. Minutes
September 25, 2007 - Regular Meeting
October 9, 2007 - Regular Meeting
B. Resolution No. 2007- 46 Claims and Demands
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2007- 46, for payment of City expenditures in
the amount of $544,079.68 numbered 58793 through 58839 and 60995 through 61056.
C. Resolution No. 2007.47 Claims and Demands
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2007- 47, for payment of City expenditures in
the amount of $751,733.57 numbered 58840 through 58877 and 61057 through 61179.
D. League of California Cities - 2008 Mayors and Council Members Academy
January 16-18, 2007, Sacramento
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 20 of 38
• •
Conference sessions at the League of California Cities 2008 New Mayors and Council
Members in Training will include: Policy Role in Land Use Planning; Relationship between
City Council and City Manager/Staff; Practical Ethics and the Law; Dealing and
Succeeding with the Media; and Financial Responsibilities.
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the attendance of any Council
Member, the City Manager, and staff designee.
E. League of California Cities - 2008 City Managers Department Meeting
February 6-8, 2008, La Jolla
Conference sessions at the League of California Cities 2008 City Managers Department
Meeting will include: Sexual Harassment and Ethics Issues; Innovative in Managing Public
Safety Costs; Federal Cap on Retirement Benefits; Media Relations; CalPers; and Impact
of Technology.
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the attendance of the City Manager
and staff designee.
California Contract Cities Association - 41st Annual Sacramento Legislative
Orientation Tour- January 14-16, 2008, Sacramento
The program of events will include sessions with Senate and Assembly, legislative and
executive branch leadership. Issues that will be address will include: Home owner
Protection Act, Water, Universal Health Care, Transportation and the Digital Infrastructure
and Video Competition Act of 2007 (AB 2987-Levin).
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the attendance of any Council
Member, the City Manager, and staff designee.
G. Property Maintenance Ordinance No. 854 - Second Reading
On November 20, 2008 City Council meeting, the City Council introduced Property
Maintenance Ordinance No 854 for the first reading.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 854 on second reading.
Residency Restrictions for Registered Sex Offenders - Second Reading
On November 20, 2007, the City Council approved Ordinance 859 on first reading to
amend Chapter 9 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to include Residency Restrictions for
registered sex offenders.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 859 on second reading.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 21 of 38
K. Utilized City Facility Until Midnight
An applicant has requested the use of the Garvey Center for a private function until
midnight on December 22, 2007.
The rules and regulations for the facility usage indicates that all activities must cease by
11:00 p.m. and amplified music or sound that can be heard by the general public must
cease by 10:00 p.m.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the extended usage until midnight with
all music ceased by 11:00 p.m.
L. Release of Bonds - Tract Map 60158
8470 Mission Drive
A Faithful Performance Bond of $192,000 and a Labor and Material Bond of $96,000 were
required to guarantee construction of a new drive approach, a private driveway, a storm
drain, an 8-inch water and monuments for Tract Map 60158.
Recommendation: That the City Council accept the public improvements and release the
bonds.
M. Asphalt Concrete Overlay FY 2007.08
The reference project has been constructed in conformance with the approved plans and
specifications and is ready for acceptance of work.
Recommendation: That the City Council accept the above referenced project, authorize
the recordation of the Notice of Completion by the City Clerk; and authorize the release of
the 10 percent retention payment 35 days after the recorded date of the Notice of
Completion.
0. Los Angeles County Public Library Requesting Letters of Support
The City received a letter from the County of Los Angeles Public Library asking the City to
support their letter writing campaign asking Governor Schwarzenegger to restore the $14
million in public library funding in the 2008-2009 State budget that he cut from the final FY
2007-2008 budget.
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize staff to issue a letter of support for the
County Library's efforts to restore funding for library services in 2008 - 2009 State budget.
Tom Bradley Commemorative Stamp
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 22 of 38
•
The City received a letter from the League of California Cities asking the City Council to
consider supporting of the issuance of a commemorative postal stamp for Tom Bradley.
The late Tom Bradley contributed to the cities of California as he served as Mayor of Los
Angeles for 20 years from 1973 to 1993 and as he served as the President of the League
of California Cities in 1979 to 1980. The effort to urge the United States Postal Service to
issue this commemorative stamp is supported by the Board of Directors for the League.
Recommendation: That the City Council support the issuance of a commemorative
stamp of Tom Bradley.
Q. Red Curb at 8533 Grand Avenue
Staff received a request from Marissa Castro-Salvati, Local Public Affairs Region Manager
of Southern California Edison, to consider installing red curbs at 8533 Grand Avenue. Ms.
Castro-Salvati has received concerns from employees accessing the SCE site on Grand
Avenue indicating that vehicles park on either side of their driveway at 8533 Grand Avenue
obstruct visibility for vehicles exiting the site. Ms. Castro-Salvati has asked for red curbs to
be installed on both sides of this driveway.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve Traffic Commission's recommendation
to install 40 feet of red curb on the east side of the driveway of 8533 Grand Avenue
easterly and 20 feet of red curb on the west side of the driveway westerly.
R. Removal of Parking Restriction on Walnut Grove Avenue in the Vicinity of
3342 Walnut Grove Avenue
Mr. Pat Chiechi, 3342 Walnut Grove Avenue, is requesting the removal of parking
restrictions in the vicinity of his property. Mr. Chiechi indicates that there is no parking in
the vicinity of his property and the travel lane is wide enough to provide on-street parking.
He also believes that additional parking should be accommodated across the street (west
side of Walnut Grove Avenue).
Recommendation: That the City Council approve Traffic Commission's recommendation
to modify the parking restrictions on Walnut Grove Avenue by relocating the existing R30
(CA) sign approximately 30 feet to the north of 3342 Walnut Grove Avenue and removing
55 feet of red curb in front of 3343 Walnut Grove Avenue.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to approve consent calendar items
A (with exemption of November 20, 2007 minutes), B, C, D, E, F, G, J, K, L, M, 0, P, Q, and R. Vote
resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 23 of 38
0
A. Minutes - November 20, 2007 - Special Meeting
Councilmember Taylor asked City Attorney for a legal definition of what personal space is defined as for an
employee.
City Attorney Bonny Garcia stated that he had checked case law and that there was not "quote on quote"
personal space definition. What really is used is the discussion of company space and what company is in
title to. Basically there are very few areas of privacy for employees provided there is a policy.
Councilmember Taylor responded that Mr. Garcia had made a comment very specifically that an
individual's personal space is 12 inches in the front and 6 inches in the back.
City Attorney Garcia stated that he did not recall what they were talking about.
Councilmember Taylor stated that was discussed in close session.
City Attorney Garcia responded that he was disclosing close session matters.
Councilmember Taylor asked if Mr. Garcia had filed his papers with the grand jury.
City Attorney Garcia responded that he had.
H. General Plan Amendment 07.04 General Plan Amendment 07.04, Zone Change 07-
227, Design Review 07-146 and Conditional Use Permit 07.1101 Located at 9800-
9804 Valley Boulevard - Second Reading
On November 20, 2007, the City Council reviewed the proposed retail/office project at the
first required public hearing, which resulted in a motion for approval. The project is now
before the Council at the required second reading.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 857, thereby approving
General Plan Amendment 07-04, Zone Change 07-227, Conditional Use Permit 07-1101,
and Design Review 07-146, subject to the attached conditions.
James Flournoy, 8655 Landis View, addressed his concerns with staffs report and asked that staff take it
back and consult with attorney for corrections.
Councilmember Taylor made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to approve Ordinance No. 857 on
second reading. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 24 of 38
w •
Absent: None
General Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05.221, Conditional Use Permit 05-
960, Zone Variance 04.325, Planned Development Review 05.02, and Tentative Tract
Map 061336 Located at 3212.3232 Del Mar Avenue - Second Reading
On November 20, 2007, the City Council reviewed the proposed mixed use project at the
first required public hearing, which resulted in a motion for approval. The project is now
before the Council at the required second reading.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 858, thereby approving
General Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221, Conditional Use Permit 05-960,
Zone Variance 04-325, Planned Development Review 05-02, and Tentative Tract Map
061336, subject to the attached conditions.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to accept the recommendation.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Clark, Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
N. Removal of Stop Sign on Jackson Avenue at Whitmore Street
Mr. Andy Loi, who resides at 3120 Jackson Avenue, expressed his concerns that the new
stop sign installed immediately north of his driveway had created an unsafe condition for
his family. At the November 20, 2007 City Council meeting staff was directed to remove
the stop sign and re-designlhe intersection for City Council approval.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the removal of the stop sign on
Jackson Avenue at Whitmore Street and the installation of advanced warning signs,
rumble strips, "Slow School Xing" markings, and a wheel chair ramp and ladder striping to
the crosswalk per the engineering plan.
Howard Mattern, 3114 Jackson Avenue, addressed his concerns on having the wheel chair ramp and not
having anyone use it. He also stated that the rumble strips that had been place will make a lot of noise.
Mr. Saeki stated the rumble strips are there to basically warn the drivers that they are coming to a
crosswalk since the stop sign was removed and that it is a safety measure. He stated the wheel chair ramp
was also placed there as a safety measure.
Councilmember Clark also expressed her concerns regarding the rumble strips being very noisy and
maybe taking other safety measures, such as, placing a flash light.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 25 of 38
0 0
City Manager Chi stated that placing flash lights would be cost prohibitive and that it would be a very
intensive project.
Councilmember Nunez stated that if light bulbs were not working that would make the City more liable.
Mayor Tran asked if there was a real need for such strips.
Assistant City Manager Saeki stated that in staffs opinion there was a need for the strips for safety
reasons.
Councilmember Taylor asked why the stop sign was not moved from the north side driveway to the south
side of the driveway.
City Manager Chi responded that if the sign was moved further south it would be creating a greater hazard.
Councilmember Clark asked if there is any kind of flashing sign that could be placed on the sidewalk.
City Manager Chi stated that there is a possibility but that he did not know how much that would cost.
Councilmember Nunez stated if that was done that residents would come to Council meetings to
complaining about the flashing and stated that staff's has recommendation on the rumble strips should be
approved.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to accept the recommendation.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Clark, Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Council Taylor clarified his no vote is because he believes the stop sign should be there, but moved
south of the drive way.
Councilmember Clark clarified that her no vote was because she believes that the stop sign should
be there for the safety of the children.
S. Approval of Master Agreement and Project/Construction Management Services
Agreement with the Del Terra Group for the Garvey Bridge Reconstruction
On August 9, 2007, the City Council approved the Del Terra Group as the City's
construction manager for general capital projects and the Garvey Bridge Reconstruction
Project. In doing so, the Council directed the City Attorney to negotiate terms and
conditions for performing project management services. The attached contract
agreements were negotiated by Garcia, Calderon, and Ruiz (GCR) and will authorize the
Del Terra Group ("Del Terra") as the City's primary construction project manager for capital
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 26 of 38
projects and the reconstruction of Garvey Bridge.
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt the attached resolution approving the Master Agreement for Program and
Construction Management Services with Del Terra Group.
2. Approve the attached Mater Agreement for Program Management Services with Del
Terra ("Master Agreement")
3. Approve the attached Project and Construction Management Services Agreement for
Garvey Bridge at a not to exceed cost of $149,820 ("Bridge Project Agreement") from
unappropriated General Fund reserves.
4. Authorize the City Manager to take the necessary steps to execute the aforementioned
agreements.
Councilmember Clark said she read an article just two weeks ago about a bridge that Del Terra is working
on, where the bridge that the subcontractor is building does not meet in the middle and that it was three
feet off, and even though it is a subcontractor, the responsibility still falls on the contractor.
She made motion, second by Taylor to deny the recommendation.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a substituted motion, second by Councilmember Low to accept the
recommendation. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Clark, Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Councilmember Clark said she wanted to point out that this was a very heavily traveled bridge.
5. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF
A. Consolidated Disposal Application for Rate Increase
On Tuesday, December 4, 2007, Consolidated Disposal Services (Consolidated)
submitted a letter requesting a rate increase for 2007-2008. The proposed rate increase of
5.62% for residential customers and 5.79% for commercial customers are scheduled to
take effect on January 1, 2008.
In addition to details regarding the proposed rate increase, Consolidated also forwarded a
copy of the Rosemead City Council Agenda from November 14, 2006. The agenda
indicates that the City Council granted the City Manger the authority to implement any
annual rate increase without holding a,public hearing provided that the rate increase does
not exceed the formula in the Consolidated contract agreement.
For reference, staff went back and pulled the minutes for the meeting where the action was
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 27 of 38
0
taken, and it does appear that the City Council granted"the City Manager such authority.
This means that unless there is any objection from the City Council, the staff will move
forward and authorize the rate increase proposed by Consolidation.
Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file this report.
City Manager Chi reviewed staff report and stated that staff wanted to notify council and the public for any
potential discussion.
Brian Lewin, 9501 Ralph Street, stated he seconded Barbara Murphy's comments on this issue and added
that very often employees from Consolidated do not do a good job recovering residential waste that has '
spilled.
Councilmember Low asked if this contract was the Evergreen contract.
City Manager Chi stated that was correct and that the agreement renews itself every year until the end of
its perpetual 5 year agreement.
Councilmember Low asked if as a resident there was anything she could do about the rate increase.
City Manager Chi explained that under the contract they were allowed a CPI increase without having it
brought to Council for approval. Mr. Chi stated Council could deny increase and have staff discuss with
Consolidation but that however the contract did allow for said increase.
Councilmember Clark stated the only reason why she plans to vote in favor was simply because there are
increases in the Sanitation District landfill fees and usually there needs to be increase on a sliding scale.
She added that the increase was under contract but recommended staff to go back and speak to
Consolidated regarding the quality of their services.
Councilmember Nunez stated staff should come back to Council and informed them of the particular date
when this contract can go out to bid again.
Councilmember Low stated she did not agree with Evergreen contract.
Councilmember Taylor asked if the total increase was contracted. He stated that the 5.62 increase is not
all contracted but that it is mandatory by the County.
Councilmember Low stated she did not want to justify the increase for this contract.
Councilman Taylor responded he was simply trying to explain some of the percentage increase.
Mayor Tran stated he agreed with his colleagues and that this contract should be reviewed to end the
Evergreen contract and go out to bid for better services.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 28 of 38
LJ
Councilmember Clark made a motion that council allow the percentage increase, second by
Councilmember Taylor to accept the recommendation. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Nunez, Taylor
No: Low, Tran
Abstain: None
Absent: None
6. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
A. Traffic Commissioner Appointment
On November 20, 2007, the City Council directed staff to initiate discussions with Brian
Lewin regarding his interest in serving as a member of the Rosemead Traffic Commission.
A vacancy currently exists on the Traffic Commission due to the resignation of
Commissioner Janet Chin, who was recently elected as a member of the Garvey School
District Board of Trustees.
Based on City Council direction, staff contacted Mr. Lewin to discuss the possibility of his
serving as a member of the Traffic Commission. Those conversations were positive and
Mr. Lewin expressed enthusiasm and interest as it relates to his being appointed to the
Traffic Commission.
Recommendation: That the City Council appoint Brian Lewin to the Rosemead Traffic
Commission.
Councilmember Low made a motion, second by Mayor Pro Tern Nunez to accept the recommendation.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Councilmember Taylor stated his vote was not against Mr. Lewin but that he believed the open occupancy
should have been open for others to apply.
C. City Hall Holiday Schedule
Currently, City Hall is scheduled to be closed on Tuesday, December 251h, and Tuesday,
January 1st, in recognition of Christmas and the New Year. In addition, City Hall is
currently scheduled to close at 12:00 p.m. on Monday, December 24th and Monday,
December 31St, in recognition of Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.
Recently, members of the City Council have asked staff about the possibility of closing City
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 29 of 38
Hall between Monday, December 241h and Tuesday, January 1st. Under such scenario,
City Hall would reopen on Wednesday, January 2nd.
Historically, the week between Christmas and the New Year is a slow period of time for the
City and it would be possible to close City Hall and non-essential City services during the
holiday week. If employees would like to take that week off, they would be required to use
personal leave hours (i.e., vacation, floating holiday, etc.) during that time. For those
employees who would prefer to come to work during that time, they would be able to come
into the office despite City Hall being closed.
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions:
Approve the closure of City Hall between December 24, 2007 and January
2008, excluding essential City services.
Those employees choosing to take time off will be required to use their own
accumulated leave time.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to accept the recommendation.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Councilmember Taylor stated he had voted no because he believed it was a precursor to close down City
Hall for future years.
D.. Discussion Regarding Bids for Engineering Services
Recently, members of the City Council discussed with staff the possibility of re-bidding our
existing contract for engineering services. Currently, the City of Rosemead contracts with
the Willdan Group, Inc., for our engineering related needs. The contract, which was
approved on July 14, 1981, provides the City with part-time staffing for our engineering
operation and also allows Willdan the opportunity to provide design and engineering
services for City capital improvement projects.
For the operations portion of the engineering function, Willdan provides three different
positions, including a part-time City Engineer, a part-time support engineer, and a part-time
public works inspector. In addition, the City has a traffic engineer on retainer from the
Willdan Group, Inc., who is used on an as needed basis. In total, the operations portion of
the engineering contract will cost the City around $500,000 during the 2007-2008 fiscal
year. Furthermore, the 2007-2008 CIP budget includes funds allocated to pay Willdan for
design and engineering services in the amount of approximately $425,000. This results in
a total cost of around $925,000 for our engineering services.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 30 of 38
•
More recently, the City has experienced the departure of two long-time members from our
engineering team. With this loss of institutional knowledge, it would be prudent for the City
Council to consider issuing a request-for-proposal (RFP) to re-bid the entire engineering
contract to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of this vital City function.
Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction regarding the issuance of an
RFP for Engineering Services.
Mr. Chi reviewed staff report regarding issuance of an RFP for Engineering Services.
Councilmember Nunez agreed with concept of recommendation however requested that RFQ be requested
instead of RFP and that the City submit an RFQ as well.
Councilmember Low asked what he meant.
Mr. Chi explained that Mr. Nunez had requested that the City also submit a bid.
Councilmember Taylor asked that staff also check back with the County and have a comparison between
the two of them.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to issue a RFQ for Engineering
Services. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Mr. Chi stated that on the matter of the RFQ the City was not qualified to submit one because they did not
have the qualifications; however they could submit a RFP on the engineering operations.
Councilmember Nunez stated the difference of an RFQ was that you submit a bid with your qualifications
on whether you can do the job or not and if you submit a RFP that means you can consolidate the proposal
and submit what you can do and at that point even though you might not have the assistance you can go
out and acquire them.
Mr. Chi stated that was correct and at this point the City did not have any engineering qualifications.
Councilmember Nunez asked if it was possible for staff to bring something back that stated that these
services would be acquired by someone that is qualified. He stated he did not like the idea of an RFP
because decisions were made on the lowest commend denominator and that he was not looking the
cheapest but for the best.
Councilmember Low asked if it was mandated to choose the lowest bidder.
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 31 of 38
Mr. Chi responded no and that other factors could be taken into consideration.
City Attorney Bonny Garcia stated that RFQ provides more flexibility and that with the RFP process you
receive the proposal and the price and then you lock in the price. He continued to explain that with the
RFQ's you receive the qualifications and then negotiate the price and that what Mr. Chi was trying to
explain was that since they don't have qualification they can't summit them.
Councilmember Nunez said he did not like to go with the cheapest.
Assistant City Manager Matt Hawkesworth addressed Council and explained that the City could request for
an RFP and specifically list the qualifications the companies will be rated upon and that Council can ask for
a separate sealed bid with the price quotes so that the amount won't be the determining issue.
Councilmember Nunez asked if that could be done with an RFP.
Mr. Hawkesworth stated that could be done for an RFP.
City Attorney Garcia explained Council would consider the qualifications as part one and the pricing as part
two.
Councilmember Taylor asked when those reports are brought back if they could include if these companies
had law suits outstanding and what other jobs they have.
Mayor Tran asked if this should be brought back for a formal motion or if Council should vote on it now.
Mr. Chi asked that Council vote on a motion to prepare RFP.
James Flournoy, 8655 Landis View, stated that San Gabriel had in house engineers and that for what they
couldn't do they would contract out and stated that the City should consider something like this.
Mayor Tran asked that Council revote on the recommendation given by staff.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to issue a RFP for Engineering
Services. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
E. Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment
Recently, members from the City Council have asked staff to research the possibility of
relinquishing Rosemead Boulevard from the State of California. A similar request was
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 32 of 38
0 •
approached the City to discuss the possible
made of staff in February ad after Caltr ans As art of that request, Willdan and 2002 I relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard to the City . P y it acceptance of current
cond Associates prepared a relinquishment measures that must be reconc led prior to the C ty s ac of the road
including any corrective
relinquishment of the roadway. of the
The June 22, 2005 staff report to the City Council provides a brief summary
e overall relinquishmentprocess.
relinquishment study and a detailed analysis of th
If it is the City Council's desire to proceed with the relinquishment process, a formal
the City's interest must be brought back for City council
resolution acknowledging
approval at a future meeting.
Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction regarding the relinquishment of
Rosemead Boulevard.
Brian Lewin, 9501 Ralph Street, thankedsuouncil for giving him the honor to serve as future traffic
ort on this matter. He stated that getting Rosemead
commissioner and expressed his strong PP
Boulevard from Caltrans will help alleviate traffic flow. ears ago and during that time south El Monte
Mayor Tran stated he had requested this be done about 2 y council
and voted are it now down fully Since then relinquished. This
and Temple City joined in to the relinquishment; f n however, our cess shed the coun. South E
Monte has began the process and Temple City he pro ize our lights, and we will have better
synchron
relinquishment will provide more local control, we can
understanding of the traffic; therefore, he asked that the Council support this project.
disagreed on this matter read over then linq the city totu y
Councilmember Clark stated that she strongly
report. Among the items she read are: the cost is 12.5 million. In 2002 Caltrans apprched is would want to
reason Caltra and they don't want to downsize itforfthemat they know the cost that pay are coming down on stormwater issues a give them
relinquish. She said the only
Councilmember Low stated she wanted to clarify that at this time Council is just directing staff to g
information about the relinq a e 3 and 21 of the
Caltrans over may not be willing to provide
Councilmember Clark stated she was just giving input on th een told matter that and read
report. Which said, "staff has also be,
NPDES (storm water)". Inagree the same paragraph
funding for relinquishment study upgrades such as ADA (wheelchair ramps) on." Ms. Clark
the agencies the settlement amounts that were up
stated she would like to know how much Caltrans paid South El Monte and Temple City, especially with the
it states"the state may not deficit. She referenced pictures of the storm drain catch basins s that we have to
state coming into a budget pay deficit. S that someone dumps in the storm drain. She stated that she has ie out of
monitor and are liable for pollutants the storm drains not require died storm water permits for years and that the She stated heroconcems regarding t millions r dollars ~ments stu Caltrans wanted to get rid it
and that was why we would be taking this project on.
meeting the County standards and why
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 33 of 38
Mayor Tran stated he agreed and that he stated the same two years ago and his report at that time
reflected that we would get State to fund this otherwise the relinquishment would not make sense. Mr. Tran
stated he has had discussion with the Senator in the past and Assembly member and they are willing to
help us fund this project. He stated this is to begin the process to see what Caltrans can provide us and
how we can improve traffic flow.
Councilmember Clark stated that even if we get Caltrans to pay a certain amount that we are taken on
liabilities that they do not want.
Councilmember Taylor stated that we were all going to be in for a surprise because the County threatens to
withhold money from the City of Rosemead if we do not synchronize all our light signals with the County
program and the satellite program. He asked if we still had that program in effect.
City Manager Chi stated that he did not know.
Councilmember Taylor reiterated about the County holding funds until we synchronized our lights. He
stated that it will be the same with the storm drains. If we take them over, the county can withhold our funds
until we upgrade them.
Councilmember Nunez stated Caltrans does very little to nothing with highways and they don't take care of
their off ramps. Mr. Nunez stated it did not matter whether we did it or County did it but that we were not
going to make Caltrans fix those drain storms and that we need to be proactive and do something about
our water. He stated it would be nice for someone else to take care of these problems but we should be
able to have some say that we care enough about our water resources and not wait for the county to fix
those problems.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, second by Councilmember Low to approve recommendation. Vote
resulted in:
Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Clark, Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None.
Councilmember Taylor stated everyone knows that the State and County are not doing it because its cost
prohibitive and in fact there are about thirty chemicals that they want filtered out of the storm drain system
and they are pushing that back to us as a City to do.
Councilmember Clark confirmed there are 92 pollutants that have to be taken out.
F. SGV Mosquito and Vector Control District Board Appointment
On September 12, 2006 the City Council voted unanimously to appoint Council Member
Margaret Clark as the Rosemead delegate to the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector
Control District (SGVMVCD) Board of Trustees. The appointment was for a four-year term
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 34 of 38
beginning in January 2008.
Recently, Mayor Pro Ten) Nunez requested that the City Council reconsider the
appointment of the City representative to the SGVMVCD Board of Trustees. ointment
Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction as it relates to the appointment
Of Rosemead City delegate to the SGVMVCD Board of Trustees.
Councilman Nunez stated that he motioned to rescind the appointment of Margaret Clark to the SGVMVCD
appoint Bob Bruesch as Rosemead's representative to SGVMVCD. He stated that there are two
and app ob in this board but no one had given proof that Mr. Bruesch had not
I Low was not able to vote on allowing that
people who are doing a very good j
Ms. done a good job himself. Hard also state ed that the old Council should not have the vote on who should
did not think Mr. B,uesch had done a job and he was not
continue serving on that bo
do a good job as Mr. Bruesch but that the factdwas thatlMat B uesch has
not that he
serve on this board. He stated
implying that Ms. Clark would
been a representative for a long time. ointment of Ms. Clark.
Councilmember Taylor made a motion that Council do not rescind the app
006 and stated it was not required to have
Councilmember Clark meadrd the but that minutes of Council at that September time felt 2 eone from the Council on
was una
the board nimous to appoint her to
. She stated no one from j felt there should be Sol
elected official to this b Councl wanted the ob and the vote
this board. he can rescind that motion. n and that is why Councilmember Nunez stated it was a unanimous d c i io know what had taken place then.
audience
Councilmember Clark stated she wanted the
Councilmember Nunez stated that basically what they needed to look at was that the new Council should
be able to vote on this matter.
to take her off the board. s Ass She added that when he
that Mr . someone Nunez jshouldust wants
be on Southern California icisides of the Wal-Mart issue
Councilmember first got on m council Clark she sta fd and that although they were both on opposite which elects
(SCAG) committee on Housing
a landslide. She stated that it
she was willing to Put tha t behind her mittees and still and went to lobbied for the him Council of Governments (CO
representatives to the SCAG com and he won by
took her off the COG, the very body that she got to vote for Mr. Nunez and that in
was ludicrous that they
turn took her off the Rivers and M alns Conserv ncy on which she could have lobbied for funds fort the
parks that Ms. Low supported earlier in the meeting.
ointment.
Councilmember Taylor made motion, second by Councilmember Clark not to rescind original app
Vote resulted:
Yes: Clark, Taylor
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 35 of 38
No: Low, Nunez, Tran
Abstain: None ointment of Bob
Absent: None econd Councilmember Low to approve app
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, s by
Bruesch to the SGVMVCD. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Clark, Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Mayor Tran asked if there were any items from the Council.
Councilmember Taylor stated that he had spoken to Mr. Saeki about Temple City Boulevard and Valley
regarding the trash and debris and that he asked for an update.
Assistant City Manager Saeki stated that had been
had hanged hands last time.
Councilmember Taylor stated he had been told that it
Assistant City Manager Saeki stated that was correct.
Councilmember Taylor asked who the new owner was.
at Don Andersonwho dealt with those issues o
er Saeki stated he was not sure bu department re but th was working on comprising a list of sequences for
Assistant City Manag
a daily basis and was from the Public Safety
him. one out and cut that brush
Councilmember Taylor asked why he couldn't get that list because they had g was
~ sttd thy had spoken about the city 0(
ped and asked lhyk~ng bad and that there owner
out and had piled it in the boo den doaoeand ecapet dum ,
oin on with the p p rtY
trash still in the peeks. Y. a
down for h read asked oMr. r.this ytwo weeks ago uld like to find out what is g 9
and thManager Saeki responded that part of the reason why the list was not ready was because
.
Assistant City ing roblems resolve
to get a hold of the owner to get part of these p
they are still try
Councilmember Taylor asked Mr. Chi to took into this.
Mayor Tran asked when he had spoken to Mr. Saeki
Councilmember Taylor stated it was in the Council minutes. was handling it.
Mayor Tran stated it had changed hands and that now public Safety
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 36 of 38
0
additional
tion was included a couple months ago in the newsletter had and to have
Mr. Chi responded that the information
information would be given o so that someone
Councilmember Taylor stated the brush was cut down three months ag
found an owner. o they had.
City Manager Chi responded that three months ag again since then.
asked if the property had changed hands r0 erty was for sale.
Councilmember Taylor
o they got a hold of the owner and the Citpy has had a hard
City Manager Chi responded three had teha ged hands, which is the reason why
erty
He stated he believed the prop e sore and we
time getting a hold of the new owner.
Councilmember se that site was an ey
Taylor asked that someone please look into it becau
would not be cleaning it up.
of the contract for the City
City Manager Chi responded that they would.
e th he had he addendums 1 and 2 andosr t ed
Councilmember Taylor added t' Wever, he was m ss ng requesre ectedP Mr. Tay
Hall remodel and had receiv ed it , why asked if any d better tl~at in theaast
bids were one had gotten them yet.
0 rt and
Ive them so tht he'd like tohe had asked foaa shopping cart repo
meeting reports for him.
City Manager Chi responded he would get those Councilmember Nunez asked if he had included a four year term when he motioned on the San Gabriel
District designee. Mosquito and Vector Control Interim City Clerk Gloria Molleda stated th at he had not.
a motion, second by Councilmember Taylor to reconsider. Vote resulted
made in:
Mayor Tran
Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Clark, Taylor
Abstain: None of dint
Absent. None nee and app
second by Councilmember Low to rescind the appointment
Mayor pro Tern Nunez made a motion, Mosquito and Vector years. Control Distltedan:the designee
Margaret Clark to the Sa obthe same for a term of four Bob Breusch as a delegate
Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran
No: Clark, Taylor
Abstain: None
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Absent: None discuss regarding various articles, flyer. , and post cards.
Mayor Tran stated that he had one of item th to e post cards stated that they had been paid by the political
He stated that the flyer and a couple
committee Rosemead partners. Mr. Tran read a few flyers and post cards and stated that Ms.
0 out, he asked legal counsel to take fact on two occasions
action
Hall had Clark stated stated a that few stimes he hadainitiated these post cardsgo gzation and that in
General and the Grand FPPC .
those articles and post cards to the district attorney, the the Attorney
tothese misleading mailings inform; tion. He stated that the City had
Jury for their legal opinion on he false
spent a lot of money on retractions Councilmember Taylor asked that the Mayor comments in the minutes be verbatim.
Mayor Tran stated that his comments only be verbatim. with his
and Jury District Attorney and the Grand jury
Councilmember Taylor stated he had requested to the to
'ncident And asked why it had only g
i
.
Mayor Tran and Attorney Bonnie Garcia stated that it had gone to both
Councilmember Taylor responded that it was not on the minutes.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:53 p.m.
January S, 2007 at 7:00 pm.
The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on
APPROVED:
Respectfully submitted:
CITY CLERK
Rosemead City Council Minutes of
December 11, 2007
Page 38 of 38
n Tran
0
SS.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROSEMEAD do hereby certify that the
City clerk for the City of Rosemead, roved and adopted by
I, Gloria Molleda, 2007, were duly and regularly app vote to wit:
2008, by the following
minutes from December 11,
Rosemead City Council on the 8th of January
Yes-LOW, NUNEZ, TRAN
No: CLACK; TAYLOR
Absent: NONE
Abstain: NONE
Gloria Molleda
City Clerk
C
Rosemead Boulevard
RELINQUISHMENT STUDY
Prepared for the
City of Rosemead, California
June 2005
Willdan
15191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405
Industry, CA 91746
(562) 908-6200
•
•
RELINQUISHMENT STUDY
K05EMEAD BOULEVARD
CITY OF K05EMEAD, CALIFORNIA
Table Of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
1
II. EXECUTIVE 5UMMARY
2
III. BACKGROUND
4
IV. A55E55MENT OF EXI5TING CONDITION5
5
A. Pavement
5
6. Concrete in Perimeter Areas
13
C. 5torm Drain Elements
17
D. Traffic Circulation Elements
22
E. Parkway Trees
26
F. Utilities
27
G. Administrative/Engineering
27
V. 5UMMAKY OF KEHABILITATION PLAN
29
A. Pavement
30
6. Perimeter Concrete
30
C. 5torm Drain Elements
30
0. Traffic Circulation Elements
30
E. Parkway Trees
31
F. Utilities
32
G. Administrative/Engineering
32
VI. C05T E5TIMATE
33
APPENDICE5
A. Aerial Photos of Existing Curb, Gutter and 5idewalk
B. Deflection Analysis Report
C. Parkway Tree and 51dewalk Conditions
13512/3000/06-155 R01
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
1. INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted for the City of Rosemead in preparation for discussions with
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) regarding the 5tate's proposed
relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard to the City.
This study was prepared in accordance with Section 73 of the California 5treets and
Highways Code which outlines the 5tate's highway relinquishment procedures. 5ection
73 states, in part, that "the (California Transportation) Commission shall not relinquish
to any county or city any portion of any state highway until the Department (Caltrans)
has placed the highway in a state of good repair." The intent of this study is to conform
to this criteria and provide a cost-effective rehabilitation plan that will bring about a
reasonable condition state.
This study documents the current conditions on Rosemead Boulevard. The extent of the
damages or deficiencies is delineated on aerial photos (Appendix A) and located by
address or other site-specific description. In addition, a summary discussion of the
existing conditions is provided. A thorough field investigation was performed to identify
the damages and/or deficiencies in the roadway, including recurring maintenance
problems, general substandard conditions, and other corrective measures, that must be
reconciled prior to the City's acceptance of the relinquishment. Some pavement testing
was performed to investigate the underlying structure, including coring of the pavement
section and sampling of base and soil. Non-destructive deflection testing was
performed in all travel lanes. All of this data was compiled and analyzed to determine
the need for rehabilitation.
This study provides recommendations for needed rehabilitation, accompanied with a
detailed cost estimate.
As-built street and storm drain plans obtained from Caltrans and the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works were thoroughly reviewed. The City also reviewed the
adequacy of the existing drainage system based on historical performance and street
drainage capacity calculations.
1
LJ
•
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
11. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In preparation for relinquishment discussions with Caltrano, the City of Rosemead
conducted this study to assess the existing condition of Rosemead Boulevard within the
City's territorial limite. There io a need to determine what improvements are required to
bring Rosemead Boulevard to a "state of good repair," the minimum standard
established by 5tate Code. This study identifies the damages and deficiencies in the
roadway, and recommends needed rehabilitation. This study establishes a plan to
complete rehabilitation in an efficient and cost-effective manner that corresponds to
the anticipated construction phasing, These costs may be lesser or greater depending
on the integration of all the roadway elements into the overall project.
Available record drawings were reviewed. The existing pavement, curb & gutter,
driveways, curb ramps, parkway trees, sidewalks, storm drains, utilities, traffic signals,
and street lighting were inspected, and detailed data recorded. The deficiencies were
documented on aerial photographs for ease of locating and to quantify the extent of the
repairs. 5oil investigations and pavement deflection tests were performed to analyze
pavement needs.
This study determined that the pavement will require full reconstruction. The existing
base pavement, which was constructed 50 to 70 years ago, io severely deteriorated.
The existing pavement has clearly outlived its usefulness and constructing new pavement
over this old pavement io highly impractical with traffic loading about 50 times that in
1950.
New bus lanes in both directions are needed to address the severely damaged pavement
and corresponding traffic loading in the slow lanes. The bus lanes should be constructed
of Portland cement concrete (PCC) to provide the durability required to sustain the bus
axle loads, which are now legally exceeding 20,000 pounds. Further, the heavy and
increasing traffic io forcing the need for an additional lane in each direction. The new
lane adjacent to the curb will also need to be replaced with concrete pavement. This will
avoid accelerated deterioration arising from both bus traffic in the new lane and also a
pavement joint of dissimilar materials, which will be driven across frequently by bus and
truck traffic. To avoid the same problems at the pavement joint with the fast lane, it io
reasonable to construct the remaining 11-foot fast lane pavement with PCC as well, for a
roadway of uniform material.
In order to provide sufficient width for the additional lanes, the existing median islands
will need to be narrowed and the existing 5-foot-wide gutters north of Valley Boulevard
2
• 0
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
will need to be replaced with 2-foot gutters. To provide the proper grade to match the
existing frontages in the segment with 3-foot gutters and concurrently repair damaged
sidewalk sections, rehabilitation work must include full sidewalk replacement in that area.
Also, at the major pedestrian crossings, the median island noses provide essential
pedestrian refuge. Therefore, additional width will be needed along left-turn pockets at
such locations.
Driveways have the same grade matching and repair problems, but must also meet ADA
accessibility standards. Most driveways will need to be reconstructed for these
reasons. Likewise, the majority of the existing curb ramps do not meet current
standards and need replacing.
Traffic, signals need considerable improvement to meet acceptable standards for
relinquishment, and the existing streetlights are entirely outdated and insufficient.
Replacing the old lights with modern energy efficient units is the appropriate measure.
Finally, a survey for street trees indicated there were none within the parkway. However,
there is adeoluate space for approximately 60 trees to be planted north of the 10
Freeway. South of the 10 Freeway, the parkway can accommodate uniform spacing of an
additional 56 trees.
The rehabilitation project will significantly impact traffic flow and commercial site access
during the construction. However, some of the rehabilitation items may actually
facilitate and decrease the costs of other items. For example, underground conduits for
traffic Signals, streetlighting, and landscape irrigation can be installed when surface
improvements are being replaced. The coordinated construction was factored into the
overall rehabilitation plan and resultant cost estimates.
The total coot of the improvements is estimated to be $12,500,000.
The rehabilitation work will provide the following benefits:
• Improved pedestrian and traffic safety,
• Reduced liability exposure,
• Extended street life,
• Optimal traffic circulation,
• Reduced need for future repairs and long-term maintenance costs, and
• Enhanced use and efficiency of public transportation.
3
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
111. BACKGROUND
Rosemead Boulevard from the south City limit just north of Garvey Avenue to the 10
Freeway (approximately 0.6 miles) is a 3-lane arterial on each Bide, with a 6-foot-wide
median island, that serves as a link between the 60 and 10 Freeways and the
neighboring cities to the north. Only the western half of this roadway (the southbound
lanes) is within the City of Rosemead's boundaries. The other side of the roadway, or
northbound lanes, is within the City of El Monte. This study applies only to the
relinquishment of the portion of Rosemead Boulevard within the City of Rosemead. From
the 10 Freeway to the northern City limit (approximately 1.2 miles), Rosemead Boulevard
is a heavily traveled 4-lane arterial with two striped lanes in each direction, a 16-foot-
wide median island, and curbside parking in most areas. The peak rush-hour commute is
constantly congested as the average daily traffic generally exceeds 50,000 vehicles,
with growth expected to continue. Traffic south of the 10 Freeway tends to be less
congested due to the 3-lanes in each direction. The posted maximum speed limit is 35
miles per hour north of the 10 Freeway and 45 MPH south of the 10 Freeway. The
properties adjacent to Rosemead Boulevard are a mixture of residential apartments,
industrial and commercial developments, with storefronts adjacent to the sidewalk
between Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive.
The following general areas of deficiency on Rosemead Boulevard have been noted in the
past:
• Most of the existing roadway surface is in extremely poor condition.
• The existing street lighting is very old and outdated.
• Curb ramps are frequently either missing or do not meet current Americans with
Disabilities'Act (ADA) standards.
• The Sidewalks are aged and broken at numerous locations.
• Curb and gutter is essentially missing on the segment from the south City limit
to the 10 Freeway.
• The gutter north of Valley Boulevard is not monolithic with the curb and,
therefore, is failing in many locations.
• The traffic Signal system does not meet current City standards or other
commonly applied national standards, and in some aspects is very old and
deteriorated.
4
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND
MITIGATIONS
A visual inspection of Rosemead Boulevard was conducted and documented on aerial
photographs which are included in Appendix A. The aerial photographs show the damage
to perimeter concrete (i.e., curb and gutter, driveways, curb ramps, and sidewalk, etc.).
Missing sidewalk and curb and gutter is also indicated, along with locations where curb
ramps do not conform to current ADA requirements. Other appendices include the
Deflection Analysis Report (Appendix B), and Parkway Tree and 5idewalk Conditions
(Appendix Q. The extent of the deficiencies on Rosemead Boulevard is discussed in this
section, with rehabilitation measures described as applicable to complete the overall
rehabilitation plan.
A. PAVEMENT
Existing Conditions
The existing pavement conditions are described in detail in Appendix B. To summarize, it
is necessary to divide the length of the roadway into four segments. Each of these
segments has a different construction history. With the exception of the short segment
of FCC pavement at the very north end of Rosemead Boulevard, the conditions are
similar.
1. From the south City limit to the 10 Freeway, the pavement in the No. 2 and No. 3
lanes is failing rapidly despite a two-inch overlay that was installed about nine
years ago. The wheel paths of these lanes are alligator cracked, and in the No. 3
lane the wheel paths are developing base failure in many areas.
Based on this progression, it is estimated that all lanes will be alligator cracked
within a few years, with the No. 2 and 3 lanes having high levels of base failure. In
Figure 1 we see clear evidence that the underlying pavement structure is weak and
badly deteriorated. Core samples revealed three inches of asphalt concrete (AC)
on native soil under the overlay. Deflection test results show a six-inch overlay is
needed in the No. 3 lane, and with the rapid deterioration, similar demands will
develop in the No. 2 lane.
5
U
0
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
2. From the 10 Freeway to Valley Boulevard, a relatively thin maintenance blanket
overlay was installed about 25 years ago based on a records search. The original
pavement, constructed in 1950, was three to four inches thick. The pavement
received an asphalt rubber chip seal in 1988, which is the primary factor holding
the roadway surface together. Widespread alligator cracking can. be seen
reflecting through the chip seal, and potholes and patches are evident in many
areas along the pavement as shown in Figures 2 and 5.
It is clear that the original pavement was highly deteriorated at the time the
maintenance blanket was installed. Again, the underlying base pavement is weak
and highly deteriorated. The maintenance overlay and chip seal only extended the
service life without improving the structure significantly. Deflection analysis in
some lanes shows requirements for a five-inch overlay.
6
Figure 1- Typical Failing Overlay South of 10 Freeway
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Figure 2 - Typical Pavement South of Valley Blvd.
Figure 5 - Typical Pavement South of Valley Blvd.
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
3. From Valley Boulevard to 500 feet north of Lower Azusa Road, the conditions are
similar to that South of Valley Boulevard, though considerably worse on the
northbound Side. On the Southbound Side, an additional 1-%z-inch overlay of
asphalt rubber hot mix was installed to protect the asphalt rubber chip Seal,
which was being torn apart by hot temperatures and high truck traffic back in
1989. Although this asphalt rubber overlay iS not cracking, it is rutting Severely,
basically becoming too fluid to crack and instead, iS flowing out of the wheel
paths.
The pavement underlying the asphalt rubber chip seal in both lanes in both
directions is in essentially the same condition with widespread alligator cracking,
and numerous potholes developing along the northbound Side. The alligator
cracking can be Seen in the asphalt rubber chip Seal on the northbound side.
These conditions are hidden by the fluid asphalt rubber overlay on the Southbound
Side, but construction recordg and pavement cores revealed the Same Section
and conditions on both sides of the Street. The rutting asphalt rubber pavement
will need to be removed due to its unstable behavior. Evaluating the Stability of
the base pavement found on the northbound Side (actually the Side with lesser
traffic), the highly deteriorated Section of 2 to 2'/z-inches of AC overlaid on 21/2-
inch AC with no base material, yields deflections demanding an overlay
approaching Six inches thick.
8
Figure 4-Typical Failing Pavement North of Valley blvd.
~J
C
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Once again, the underlying pavement i5 clearly not a viable base for the pavement
Structure of a major highway route.
4. From 500 feet north of Lower Azusa to the north City limit is a Short Segment
con5i5ting of four lanes of FCC pavement with asphalt concrete Shoulders as
Shown in Figures 4 and 5. Unfortunately, the travel lanes are only 11 feet wide and
truck wheel paths generally drift onto or across the joint with the AC ohoulder5,
causing pavement failure along that joint. The concrete pavement wag
constructed in 1937, and the olabo are breaking down into smaller sections after
years of increasing traffic.
North of Lower Azusa Road, Rosemead Boulevard begins to descend down under
the Union Facific Railroad Bridge. The bridge does not lie within the City of
Rosemead. Concrete embankments line the roadway along the approach to the
bridge. The Slopes in this area appear Stable, with the concrete appearing to be
Sound. A pipe railing exists at the top of the western embankment adjacent to
Rosemead Boulevard Frontage Road. The rail needs to be replaced with standard
guardrail.
9
Figure 5 - Typical Failing Pavement North of Valley Blvd.
• •
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Structural Evaluation
Deflection Studies and pavement corer, indicate the need for excessive overlay
thickneooeo, generally four to Six inches on all Segments with existing AC Pavement. All
of the medians have reduced curb heights from past overlays. Cold milling to maintain
the median height will only weaken the Structure back to the original highly deteriorated
2'/z to 5-inch AC Section and increase the overlay requiremento Substantially.
10
Figure 6 - Typical Pavement South of North City Limit
•
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
It is simply not viable to consider using an overlay to provide restructuring on pavement
constructed in an era of light traffic between 1957 and 1950, and thereafter left to
deteriorate to a severe condition. Therefore, another overlay is not an option, except
maybe on the FCC segment at the north City limit. Even there, the construction
required to force the pavement structure into grade conformance with the existing
median, and provide reasonable resistance to crack reflection on this small area of
pavement, will likely yield a cost approaching the cost of full reconstruction. The
reconstruction would be part of the economy of scale achieved with the remainder of the
roadway, whereas using specialized asphalt rubber products for crack reflection in this
small area would increase costs dramatically.
The decision, therefore, is between reconstruction with PCC pavement or AC pavement.
It is widely accepted that a FCC pavement can be designed to provide an excellent
service life under the severe traffic conditions on Rosemead Boulevard. This roadway 15 a
major truck and bus highway route, and the concept of a truck/bus lane definitely
appears to be warranted. Based on traffic counts and growth rates, the roadway will
need to be expanded to six lanes, at least during peak hours, in the not too distant
future. It is likely that the 6-1ane configuration would only be. effective during peak hours,
11
Figure 7 - 51ab 5ystem Breakup South of North City Limit
•
C
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
so both the No. 2 and No. 3 lanes will need the same basic structural section. During
off-peak hours, trucks will use the No. 2 lanes. The uniformity of materials in these lanes
will alleviate the inherent instability that would exist at the joint of dissimilar materials
(between the No. 2 and No. 3 lanes). However, the same stability concerns exist if a
joint were created between the No. 1 and No. 2 lanes: Furthermore, the maintenance
issues involved in sustaining a joint between the AC No. 1 lane and FCC truck and bus
lane are also difficult.
Basically, the No. 2 and No. 3 lanes will constitute the truck/bus lanes, as buses will
drive across the joint between lanes frequently, as well as trucks to some extent. Heavy
bus and truckload deformations along the joint would occur on the AC side in general.
Discontinuities of deflection and support at a joint of dissimilar materials will inevitably
lead to nonconforming grades along the joint, structural failure of the AC at the
unsupported joint edge, added maintenance costs and inconvenience of sealing and
maintaining the joint, and ride duality issues. All of these concerns apply to the No. 1
lanejoint as well; therefore, a FCC design should include the No. 1 lane and extend to the
full width of roadway.
The roadway width for travel will need to be increased to six lanes, since traffic already is
extremely congested during some periods. The roadway is already six lanes south of 10
Freeway, extending to the 60 Freeway and beyond. To provide continuity through the
segment north of the Freeway, which actually carries higher levels of traffic, additional
roadway width will be required. The least expensive alternative is to reduce the width of
the median to 12 feet. This will provide an additional 4 feet to allow 11-foot-wide No. 1 and
No. 2 lanes, and 12-foot-wide No. 3 lane. It should be noted that the existing 3-foot
gutters in the No. 3 lanes north of Valley Boulevard takes away 2 feet of usable roadway
width that would be available with 2-foot gutters.
Reducing the median width to less than 12 feet essentially eliminates the median along
left-turn pockets, which to a large extent eliminates ' the effectiveness of the median as
a traffic control device, and certainly as a pedestrian refuge. Basically at intersections,
there would only be a 2-foot-wide strip of raised concrete along the left-turn pockets.
Therefore, north of Valley Boulevard, it will be necessary to remove and replace the curb
and non-monolithic 3-foot gutter with a 2-foot curb and gutter in order to provide the
same lane configuration as south of Valley DWI.
The resulting 2-foot median along left-turn pockets is not really adequate for a
pedestrian refuge at most intersections, and is not ideal for motor vehicle safety.
12
• •
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Experience has shown that ouch a narrow median can be deceptive to the motoring
public and counterproductive to traffic safety. To provide a 3-foot median at key
pedestrian crossings, the outside curb will need to be widened by 1 foot along left-turn
pockets at such locations (on the side of the street with the pocket).
A special situation exists at Mission Drive, which is adjacent to Rosemead High 5chool.
(see discussion under Medians, below.) The large number of young pedestrians at that
location makes a 4-foot median essential. The street will need widening by 1 foot on both
sides along the length of the left-turn pockets at this intersection to accommodate
pedestrian capacity.
Proposed Rehabilitation
The proposed FCC section for the roadway as detailed in the pavement report in
Appendix B is 9 inches of FCC on 5 inches of Lean Treated Base (LTD).
A detailed cost estimate is provided in Section VI.
B. CONCRETE IN PERIMETER AREAS
Curbs
The existing FCC curbs along Rosemead Boulevard appear to be in fair condition, except
for the non-monolithic curb north of Valley boulevard constructed in 1938. Cracked curb
damage was not significant between Valley boulevard and the 10 Freeway. The curb
damage north of Valley Boulevard was generally related to failure of the 3-foot non-
monolithic gutter that was severely damaged in many areas.
Replacement of the existing 3-foot curb and gutter with a 2-foot curb and gutter to
provide the extra 2-foot roadway width and 6-lane configuration, will be necessary north
of Valley Boulevard regardless, and will solve both the width and damage problems at
once.
13
•
J
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Figures 5 and 9 - Failing non-monolithic 3-foot gutter
South of the 10 Freeway, curb and gutter is miooing on moot of the length. There lo
existing AC berm in moot areao, with Some rolled gutter 95 well. 5ome curb and gutter
was conotructed with the interoection improvements at Whitmore Street, and ohould be
connected with the termination of curb and gutter near the eaotbound on-ramp just
oouth of the freeway. A continuous curb and gutter would provide effective uniform
drainage and traffic control along the edge of the outoide lane.
Crooo gutter repairs will be needed at 5ome locationo due to oettlement and cracking,
a5 indicated in Appendix A.
Sidewalk
The oidewalk has numerouo areao of breakage and oettlement. The amount of
dioplacement ranged from '/2-inch up to 2 inches. 5ome locations were temporarily
patched with asphalt. In general, a dioplacement greater than '/2-inch in a high-volume
pedeotrian way io conoidered a tripping hazard. These dioplacement5 tend to increaoe
over time.
The areas of damaged Sidewalk are ohown in Appendix A.
Experience hao ohown that inotalling curb and gutter without replacing the contiguous
oidewalk leado to the problem of matching the top of curb with the exioting oidewalk.
f eroiotent minor grade changes in Sidewalk occur over long periodo of time due to
14
• •
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
settlement and expansive soil. This factor by itself makes installing curb against
existing sidewalk impractical. In addition, all of the cutting and patching required to
repair damaged sidewalk amplifies the need for full replacement as the most effective
and efficient option north of Valley Boulevard. One other factor supporting the efficiency
of full sidewalk replacement is the cost savings from avoiding the cutting and patching
of large slab areas that are required for reasonable stability of the sidewalk patches and
to match construction joints or scorelines. Installation of.otreetlight and street tree
irrigation conduit and other repairs would require extensive work at much higher costs if
the sidewalk was not removed. Removal of the sidewalk will allow for unobstructed
installation of streetlight and interconnect conduit in the sidewalk area. The new
sidewalks would also replace mismatched, stained, and otherwise old deteriorated
sidewalk sections required for a reasonable level of uniformity. Obviously, new sidewalk
patches on top of the existing patches as part of relinquishment rehabilitation work
would be a severe impact on uniformity.
5outh of the 10 Freeway, there jr, very little sidewalk. In fact, at one point pedestrians
must enter on to the AC shoulder to continue between the freeway and Whitmore
5treet. It is necessary to construct at least a 5-foot sidewalk to fill in the length, and
provide minimum pedestrian access along a transportation corridor, and also satisfy
ADA requirements.
The most northerly segment, just south of the north City limit, has only a 2%2-foot
sidewalk on each side of the street. This clearly must be rectified for pedestrian safety,
.ADA and general viability concerns. The roadway is wide enough for the 6-lane
configuration, even if 2/2 feet is taken to widen the sidewalk on each side. Therefore, the
existing 5-foot curb and gutter needs to be replaced with 2-foot curb and gutter with
curb face on an alignment 2'/2 feet closer to the median. New 5-foot sidewalk should then
be installed. The existing median could remain as is at 6-foot width to provide a 6-lane
configuration, the same as to the south.
Driveways
5ome of the driveway 'Wo" and portions of adjacent curb were damaged due to vehicles
repeatedly running over them, especially heavy delivery vehicles. Many of the 'Wo" also
are substandard in width, especially for commercial entries. In addition, most of the
driveways do not provide adequate ADA-compliant pedestrian passage, as shown in
Figure 10.
15
0
•
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Driveways pose all of the Same problems presented for Sidewalks, i.e. damage and grade
matching, but moot important for driveways io the need to establish ADA compliance
across the backs of those driveways. With the importance of the roadway for both
pedestrian and vehicle traffic, ADA compliance is clearly a matter of necessity at
driveways. There to really no viable patching fix that Solves the ADA problem, while full
replacement of the driveway solves all of the problems at once. Basically, all driveways
north of Valley Boulevard will need to be replaced,-as will any non-conforming driveways
South of Valley Boulevard.
Damaged and ADA substandard driveways are shown in Appendix A.
ADA Curb Ramps
Naturally, ADA compliant ramps at intersections must be established.
Curb ramps at many locations were either missing or did not meet ADA minimum slope
requirements, as shown in Figure 11.
The Substandard curb ramps are shown in Appendix A
16
Figure 10 - ADA noncompliant driveway apron.
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
C. STORM DRAIN ELEMENTS
Storm Drain Pipes
In general, Rosemead Boulevard drains in a Southerly direction towards the Rubio Wash
and Rio Hondo Channel. The Storm drain System in Rosemead Boulevard consists of the
following:
Caltrans Drains. AS part of the 5tate Highway improvements for Rosemead
Boulevard between Garvey Avenue and Valley Boulevard constructed in the early
1950'S, CaltranS installed two Storm drains to Serve this reach. One of the
drains extends from the Rio Hondo Channel, just north of Garvey Avenue, to the I-
10 Freeway underpass, serving both the City of Rosemead on the west half of
Rosemead Boulevard and the City of El Monte on the east half (see Figure 12).
The other drain extends from the Rubio Wash, just south of the 1-10 Freeway, to
Ralph 5treet. The two drains combined create a network of 38 catch basins
linked in series by 15- to 36-inch RCP. However, excluding the catch basins in the
City of El Monte and on the freeway ramps (and those intercepted by Glenmead
Drain described below), only 14 catch basins are actually located within Rosemead
Boulevard in the City of Rosemead.
17
Figure 11 - Substandard curb ramp.
• •
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
2. Glenmead Drain, Line "A". The Loo Angeles County Department of Public Works
(LACDPW) constructed this Storm drain in 1995. The drain was designed to
capture storm runoff along Rosemead Boulevard and from Several Side streetr,
between Marshall Street and Valley Boulevard. The drain outlets to Rubio Wash a
few blocke west of Rosemead Boulevard via Marshall Street, intercepting a
portion of Caltrans' storm drain (7 catch basins between Marshall Street and
Ralph Street) along the way. A total of 17 catch basins within Rosemead
Boulevard and the immediate side streets are connected to the mainline.
3. Project No. 6801, Unit 1, Line "A". The Loo Angeles County Flood Control District
(LACFCD) constructed this drain aS part of the 1964 Storm Drain Bond Issue.
The drain runs from west to east in Valley Boulevard, crosses Rosemead
Boulevard, and outlets to LACFCD Project No. 524 approximately a half-mile
east. Four catch basins located at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and
Rosemead Boulevard capture storm runoff generated bet",-!en Valley Boulevard
and Mission Drive.
4. Project No. 524, Line "A". The LACFCD constructed this drain ac, part of the
1958 Storm Drain Bond Issue. The drain runs from west to east in Mission Drive,
crosser, Rosemead Boulevard, and outlets to the Eaton Wash approximately one
mile southeast. Six catch basins located at the intersection of Mission Drive and
Rosemead Boulevard capture storm runoff generated between Mission Road and
Lower Azusa Road.
5. Rudell Pump Station. Ar, part of the State Highway improvements for Rosemead
Boulevard in the vicinity of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crooeing
constructed in the late 1930'5, Caltrans built the Rudell Pump Station. The pump
station iS designed to drain the sump area below the UPRR crossing, also known
aS the Rudell Underpaoo (See Figure 13). Storm runoff is generated from the
areas immediately north (City of Temple City) and south (City of Rosemead) of
the underpass. The pump Station conr,ists of two catch basins at the underpaoo
and a pump house located atop the roadway embankment in the City of Temple
City (See Figure 14).
18
E
0
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Figure 12. Typical Caltrans catch basin along southbound Rosemead Boulevard adjacent to
Rubio Wash.
19
• •
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
20
Figure 13. . Rudell Underpass (northbound Rosemead boulevard at Uf KP crossing)
Figure 14. Rudell Pump 5tation (in the City of Temple City)
•
•
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Historically, the Storm drain System in Rosemead Boulevard has performed adectuately.
The City of Rosemead has experienced few incidents of Street flooding during the life of
the System. Caltran5 and LACDPW have provided routine maintenance of their
respective Storm drains. With the exception of one damaged catch basin north of
Mission Drive (see Figure 15), all the catch basins are in relatively good condition.
Upon the 5tate'S relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard to the City of Rosemead, the
City intends to transfer all former Caltrans drains to LACDPW for maintenance.
However, the Caltran5-built Storm drains do not meet LAGDPW's current design
Standards, a5 required for acceptance of maintenance. Specifically, all 15-inch KCP
connector pipes would need to be upgraded to 18-inch KGP, and each catch basin Should
be connected to a Storm drain "mainline" (minimum 24-inch KCP) that includes Several
manholes for maintenance acccoo. Furthermore, in compliance with NPDE5 Permit
requirements, each catch basin along Rosemead boulevard (43 counted) Should be
outfitted with a filter insert (or Similar BMP) to capture and reduce the amount of
debris and pollutants entering the Storm drain system. These are Significant
considerations for the City in accepting relinquishment.
21
Figure 15. Damaged catch basin just north of Mission Drive
•
•
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Given the fact that the drainage system in Rosemead Boulevard has performed
satisfactorily and . the catch basins and street slopes on the side streets are
functioning, an extensive investigation of the overall hydraulics and hydrology.was not
performed. An evaluation of the depth of design storm flow in Rosemead Boulevard
upstream of both Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive found that storm drain laterals
branching off of Project Nos. 6801 and 524 would not be required.
Catch Basins
The drainage on Rosemead Boulevard historically has been satisfactory. Evidently the
catch basins and slopes are such that drainage including from side streets is managed .
quite well. As a result, an extensive investigation of hydraulics and hydrology was not
performed.
D. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
Traffic Signals
The traffic signals were evaluated from field observations and the following deficiencies
were identified.
The existing 170 controllers installed in 1978 should be replaced with 2070 controllers.
The current City standard for new installations is the 2070 controller or equivalent.
When the City takes over maintenance it expects a controller with IT5 and major
communications capabilities that will serve the City's future citywide traffic signal
system until the year 2020. The controllers should continue to run on the coordinated
system for Rosemead Boulevard until incorporated into the citywide system. There are a
total of 7 locations.
The intersection of Rosemead at Lower Azusa Road should be upgraded with 2 new Type
26 standards with 55 to 40' mast arms to accommodate protected left-turn signals
and through-movement signals. The median-mounted signals can then be removed along
with the Type 1-A and Type 17 poles. It is accepted practice on new intersections to place
all left-turn signals on the overhead mast arm. This has become the standard due to
median-mounted signals being damaged or destroyed by traffic accidents and for better
visibility. Therefore the City would like to bring the intersection up to current design
standards. Further, all existing 8" signals should be replaced by 12" signals as all
modifications in recent years in the City have provided. All of the combination 8" and 12"
signals are presently being replaced by all 12" sections under separate contract leaving
22
0
•
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
three 8" 5ignalo to be replaced. The Street name Signs and luminaires Should be replaced
due to age.
Both the internally illuminated Street name 5igne and luminaires are at least 38 years
old and have faded sign panels and degraded refractors in the luminaires which would
require immediate maintenance or replacement.
The interoection.of Rosemead Boulevard at Glendon Way should be upgraded with 2 new
Type 26 standards with 4-0' mast arms to accommodate protected left-turn signals
and through-movement signals. The median-mounted signals and 1-A poles would be
removed along with the current Type 17 standards. Further, any existing 8" signals
should be replaced by 12" signals. The combination 8" and 12" signals are presently being
reconfigured to all 12" sections under separate contract leaving five 8" signals to be
replaced by 12" signals. The Street name signs and luminaires should be replaced due to
age. Both the internally illuminated street name signs and luminaires are at least 38
years old and have faded sign panels and degraded refractors in the luminaires.
All pedestrian pushbuttons Should be removed from median locations for safety reaoon5.
They Should match the existing conditions at Rosemead Boulevard and Valley Boulevard
There are approximately 9 pedestrian pushbuttons at 5 locations, which should be
removed.
All of the pedestrian pushbuttons on traffic signal Standards at all locations will have to
be upgraded to ADA mushroom-type pushbuttons and pedestrian ramps installed where
required.
Generally the rest of the traffic 516nal5, poles and Signs on Rosemead Boulevard look
good and are acceptable.
The Street light 5yotem on Rosemead Boulevard needs to be replaced with a more
adequate System using marbelite poles with underground feed and 150 W HP5 street
lights installed on both sides of the etreet at regular intervals. The present lights with
the exception of 3 locations are all on one side of the arterial mounted on wood power
poles. This creates deficient lighting due to the width of the street and the center
median divider. The present lighting will not extend beyond the median.
There are numerous Sign poles that need to be changed from Uniotrut to round Steel
poles to meet the City of Rosemead round pole Standard. Approximately 42 Sign poles
have to be changed to round steel poles.
23
•
E
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
The striping and loops will have to be replaced after the street is resurfaced. The
striping will match the existing striping at Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard.
Everything is thermoplastic except for the Detail 9 skip lines, the Detail 25 left edge
lines and the 50' stripes at each intersection at the end of the skip line.
Medians
The high level of traffic, much of it non-local and pass-through towards the 10 and 60
Freeways, which is anticipated for this roadway, demands attention to any means
available to mitigate the potential for accidents caused by confused or reckless drivers
in these crowded conditions. The traffic calming effect, separation of opposing traffic
and solidly defined traffic flow patterns are extremely beneficial attributes provided by
the raised medians. Fully functional medians should be a part of the establishment of
an acceptable roadway for relino~uishment due to the extreme demands to be made on
the roadway and on those responsible for providing safety for the traveling public.
There is also much to be gained in terms of pedestrian safety at crossings, where
median noses provide important refuge for wayward pedestrians in a busy wide street
such as Rosemead Boulevard. This is one. reason why providing medians including a
minimum width along left-turn pockets is crucial. The other reason is to maintain
through circulation near crowded intersections and avoid crossover into on-coming
traffic.
Two-foot wide median widths along left-turn pockets that will occur without street
widening are very narrow for pedestrian refuge and actually dangerous if a pedestrian
lost footing or balance along the edge. A fall into traffic could be disastrous. However,
considering the generally low volume of pedestrian traffic, this Should suffice, except at
the intersection of Mission Avenue adjacent to Rosemead High School. The high volume
of young pedestrians makes a wider 4-foot pedestrian refuge important at that
location.
The median widths south of the 10 Freeway and at the most northerly segment at the
north City limit are 6 feet. This does not provide a reasonable space for typical
landscape. These medians are considered deficient in this regard. A width of 8 feet is
considered the absolute minimum for landscaping to be viable. Widening the median in
both segments is possible, while maintaining the Nane configuration and the perimeter
concrete improvements. The northern segment would be widened one foot on each side
symmetrically. The segment south of the 10 Freeway should be widened on the west side
by 2 feet. The City of El Monte may eventually widen the other half of the median when
24
• • Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
north of Valley and south of the 10 Freeway. Luminaires and ballasts will also need to be
replaced as part of this work because of non.-conforming voltages, the general concern
for energy efficiency, and basic compatibility between the old and new hardware. The City
has a standard that includes a photocell on each light.
E. PARKWAY TREES
Street Trees
Over the length of Rosemead Boulevard, there are no street trees. There is easily room
for 60 trees as noted on the field survey by our arborist. This would certainly be
considered a deficiency in an urban environment, as Rosemead Boulevard 15 today. It
appears that since 1950, when construction was completed, lack of street trees was
not recognized as an oversight. It is common to see street trees along similar highway
settings throughout Southern California. The City of Rosemead has trees on all of its
streets and arterials, and considers it to be an important element in the overall street
infrastructure. City standards mandate that street trees be added in any event, when
the roadway becomes City right-of-way.
A complete listing of available locations, including any relevant interferences is included
in Appendix C.
In the ongoing battle to forestall upheaval of sidewalks and curbs by tree roots, the City
has learned the hard way that only a comprehensive strategy can mitigate the problem
to an acceptable level. Otherwise, tree roots inevitably seek the surface where moisture
can be found, causing displacement of surface improvements. Even the best root control
barriers have proven incapable of resisting. this action, though they delay it
substantially. The additional element needed, beyond common root control devices and
deep watering, is keeping the predominant soil moisture below, ground. This can be
accomplished by a technique commonly referred to as structural soil. This is a design
soil mix, that is good for roots and tree support, and also quickly percolates water to
the bottom strata. -It needs to be protected from infiltration of fine particles by using a
geotextile fabric. This complete strategy comes as close to eliminating concrete surface
upheaval by roots as is presently possible. The ultimate responsibility to repair damaged
sidewalk, which will inevitably occur regardless, will be borne by the City after
relinquishment. Such responsibility will be acceptable if all reasonable measures are
applied to neutralize the problem.
26
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Finally, to ensure the Short- and long-term 5ucce5s for the Street tree planting, an
irrigation System will be needed; Something that will not be very costly when installed
when the Sidewalk or pavement i5 removed.
F. UTILITIES
The electric utilities in Rosemead Boulevard are Still overhead on wooden poles. A major
administrative effort will be required to achieve underground utilities prior to
construction of roadway pavement or sidewalk. There will also be considerable utility
coordination and construction management involved in implementing the proposed utility
undergrounding and other utility work, in conjunction with the rehabilitation work. Some
utilities will likely desire to upgrade their facilities before surface rehabilitation is
completed, so the need for careful coordination is clear. The impacts of utility work in
terms of contractor scheduling will likely be significant. Reasonable contingencies for
such interference are built into the cost estimates for relevant items.
G. ADMINISTRATIVE/ENGINEERING
Traffic Control Plans
Work area traffic control. plans will have to be developed and work area control devices
installed before work can commence. The work will involve numerous phases and will be a
major design effort; proper advance planning will Save major coots a5 part of an overall
rehabilitation plan. Scheduling work in phases while maintaining good traffic circulation
is extremely important and must be balanced with the needs of the contractor to
expeditiously perform construction. Quality work by a team of traffic and construction
engineering specialists will be necessary to optimize the approach.
Utility Coordination
A5 discussed in the Utilities section, the utility situation is complicated. There are
issues related to the relocation of interfering facilities, Scheduling of utility upgrades in
coordination with rehabilitation construction work, gathering utility information and
disseminating notifications to utilities, and field coordination during construction. As
ouch, utility coordination will be a Significant cost.
As-Built Drawing Establishment
A Substantial amount of research will be needed to establish a reasonable set of record
drawings for the infrastructure in Rosemead Boulevard. Fortunately, moot of this will be
addre55ed during the course of preparing plans for the rehabilitation work. Still,
27
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
elements ouch as traffic Signal piano or plans for other facilities not fully rehabilitated
will need to be researched and acquired or drafted. Estimates of these costs need to be
included to provide for relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard as a facility, just as
elements of a commercial building are documented to provide effective maintenance.
Reconciliation of On-Going Permits
it is expected that there will be existing permits either in process or with work underway,
which need to be adopted by the City of Rosemead, both administratively and
procedurally. The administrative work will be quite significant and the costs of
inspection to catch up with current circumstances will be duplicative of the work already
performed by Caltrans.
Design Engineering/Surveying
The coot of design survey and engineering will be approximately 12 percent of the
construction coot. Quality construction plans and specifications are crucial to
obtaining solid low bids and avoiding change orders during construction.
Construction Engineering
Construction surveying, construction management, testing and inspection will also be
costs incurred in the rehabilitation construction. These costs will tend to be at least 15
percent of the construction costs. The quality and durability of the rehabilitation work
will depend on good construction engineering.
28
• 0
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
V. SUMMARY OF REHABILITATION PLAN
Based on the thorough evaluation of conditions and necessary remediations described
earlier, a rehabilitation plan evolved that is expeditious and cost-effective in bringing
about an acceptable roadway for relinquishment. This plan integrates all aspects into a
series of construction procedures that avoids conflicts between elements, and leads to
major cost savings by performing each element in a particular strategy and sequence.
Overall Rehabilitation Plan
Excavate perimeter concrete north of Valley boulevard.
2. Install conduits under excavated sidewalk area and other areas with no sidewalk
at present - Street light, interconnect (by others), irrigation and traffic signal.
3. Install curb and gutter north of Valley boulevard and where not existing at
present (south of the 10 Freeway).
4. Install structural soil, root control devices, traffic signs, and streetlights.
5. Install driveways, sidewalk and ADA ramps.
6. Excavate slow lanes and install pavement section and conduit crossings.
7. Install remainder of conduit under reconstructed roadway pavement along where
sidewalk is to remain.
8. Install reconfigured median and street trees.
9. Excavate fast.Ianes and install pavement section and conduit crossings.
10. Install finish central pavement and striping.
11. Establish record drawings for all facilities.
There are many advantages to this plan where full sidewalk removal occurs, as opposed
to a cut and patch strategy for sidewalk deficiencies. The costs are dramatically
reduced for removal and construction by allowing the continuous, uniform operation by a
contractor's workforce. Items such as conduits and root control devices can be easily
29
t~
C
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
installed when sidewalks or pavement are removed, avoiding expensive and extensive
patching. Selective sawcutting and over-cutting to score lines; localized excavations
with small, less effective equipment; and isolated construction zones with inefficient
access for hauling and delivery are eliminated.
A brief summary of the elements to be constructed is provided below as a quick
reference in understanding the plan and cost estimate.
A. PAVEMENT
Reconstruct with 9 inches of F 'GC on 5 inches of Lean Treated Base (LTB) on 7 inches of
aggregate base over full width.
B. PERIMETER CONCRETE
Reconstruct failed sidewalk, cross gutter and driveways, and construct new curb ramps
and driveways to conform to ADA standards between Glendon Way and Rosemead
Boulevard Frontage.
Install new sidewalk and curb and gutter north of Rosemead Boulevard Frontage and
south of Glendon Way, including costs for maintaining safe pedestrian and vehicle
access to shops and businesses.
C. STORM DRAIN ELEMENTS
Construct new catch basins in accordance with American Public Works and Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works standards, including 18-inch RCP laterals.
Construct approximately 1,200 linear feet of 24-inch RGP mainline storm drain.
Install automatic retractable catch basin screens and.filters in all catch basins.
0. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
Traffic Signals
Install new Econolite A5C-2-2200 Type 2 controllers in type P cabinets with lJPS's,
wired for Opticom and fiber optics multi-circuit interconnect, including modules to
communicate the City's ICONS signal coordination master system software.
30
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Retrofit traffic 5ignal5 at Lower Azusa Road and Glendon Way with new poles, mast
arms and Signal heady.
Install ADA-compliant pedestrian puohbuttono at traffic-controlled interocotion5.
Change 8-inch traffic 5ignalo to 12-inch with red, yellow, and green LEV5, with yellow LED
modules added to all 12-inch traffic 5ignal5, and retrofit with hand/man LED pedestrian
modules.
Medians
Narrow the medians between the 10 Freeway and north of Lower Azusa Road.
Striping and Marking
Install thermoplastic 5tripeS and pavement markings and paint lane lines.
Install raised pavement markers on all 5tripe5.
Traffic Signage
Install new 5ign5 where mi55ing or different from acceptable 5tandard5.
Install all new 5ignpoot5.
Replace damaged Siena.
Reface all 5ign5 with diminished reflectivity (approximately 70 percent of current
Signage).
Streetlights
Install underground Streetlight System with new poles and 150 W HF5 luminaires.
E. PARKWAY TREES
Install all new parkway trees on optimal pattern, including root control meaoure5 and
irrigation.
31
•
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
F. UTILITIES
Provide contingencies for construction interference with utility work connected with
construction (included in item contingencies).
G. ADMINISTRATIVE/ENGINEERING
Provide the following work necessary to complete the overall rehabilitation plan:
• Prepare Traffic Control Plans
• Provide Utility Coordination
• Establish Record Drawings
• Reconcile On-Going Permits
• Provide Design Engineering and Surveying
• Provide Construction Engineering, including testing and surveying.
32
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
VI. COST ESTIMATE
The total coot of all the recommended improvements is estimated at $12,500,000,
including engineering and other related costs. An itemized coot estimate to provided on
the following pages.
33
0 •
City of Rosemead
Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment
North City Limit to South City Limit
Estimate of Cost
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost
KX~+t?4.'::^.!]fSVS~k!?4t.i^~~P.ISt9i.'.;lA~,.:1kfkCF>c'Y3`isnW"e4fia~B[uS:PA_`S!~vmfFEC~P.9F&Y4FiYZ'+:Y!!.'rt't."?vA-0[2!iftuN.lYY6[n`~YCN.'dXf4~5YipT!6.'".~615e14kz~Y~nE:?h?S.esl-..:karY"~'.. "~Rv~.4~Fy
GENERAL
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$85,000.00
$85,000.00
2
Traffic control
1
LS
$135,282.00
$135,282.00
3
Clearing and grubbing
1
LS
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
4
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
1
LS
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Subtotal:
$320,282.00
PAVEMENT
5
Unclassified excavation
23,238
CY
$35.00
$813,330.00
6
Base material, crushed aggregate base
598
TON
$30.00
$17,940.00
7
Lean treated base
471,425
SF
$4.00
$1,885,700.00
F
8
PCC pavement
471,425
SF
$6.50
$3,064,262.50
9
Adjust manhole to grade
41
EA
$450.00
$18,450.00
10
Adjust value to grade
97
EA
$150.00
$14,550.00
1.1
Guardrail
750
LF
$100.00
$75,000.00
Subtotal:
$5,889,232.50
PERIMETER CONCRETE
Excavation
1,721
Cy
$45.00
$77,445.00
Curb and gutter
10,278
$20.00
$205,560.00
14
4" thick PCC sidewalk
60,102
$4.50
$270,459.00
r
ADA ramps
34
EA
$1,500.00
$51,000.00
Curb drain
37
$300.00
$11,100.00
6" commercial drivewa
16,940
j
$6.00
$101,640.00
Repair cross-gutter
180
$15.00
$2,700.00
19
AC patch behind cross-gutter
270
$6.00
$1,620.00
20
Repair sidewalk
1,996
$6.00
$11,976.00
21
Repair curb and gutter
$30.00
$7,500.00
Subtotal:
$741,000.00
STORM DRAIN
22
Catch basin with lateral (W > 10')
4
EA
$10,000.00
$40,000.00
23
Catch basin with lateral (W < 10'
10
EA
$800.00
$8,000.00
24
24-inch RCP
1,200
LF
$120.00
$144,000.00
25
Catch basin screens
43
EA
$2,400.00
$103,200.00
26
Catch basin filters
43
EA
$1,200.00
$51,600.00
Subtotal:
$346,800.00
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
Traffic Signal Upgrades
27
Traffic signal upgrades - Glendon
1
LS
$70,000.00
$70,000.00
28
Traffic signal upgrades - Lower Azusa
1
LS
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
29
Install 2070 Marshall
1
LS
$12,000.00
$12,000.00
30
Install 2070 Mission Drive
1
LS
$12,000.00
$12,000.00
31
Install 2070 Valley Boulevard
1
LS
$12,000.00
$12,000.00
32
Install 2070 Telstar
1
LS
$12,000.00
$12,000.00
33
Install 2070 Whitmore
1
LS
$12,000.00
$12,000.00
34
Install ADA PPB Marshall
8
EA
$210.00
$1,680.00
35
Install ADA PPB Mission Boulevard
6
EA
$210.00
$1,260.00
36
Install ADA PPB Valley Boulevard
4
EA
$210.00
$840.00
37
Traffic signal loop detectors
135
EA
$400.00
$54,000.00
Subtotal:
$287,780.00
1 of 3
0 •
Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment
North City Limit to South City Limit
Estimate of Cost
No.
wSasaao-
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost
za~c.tirT.s:~s..me«;np.++aW .,;w:auadF»~;invcaYrrz,.s,!~:3x.ee Yx..z u:.a,~.V~.xswuacarm+nas6s:mmurrxes~.=a3:r:~.axttbeme~~tr,.tiaeAtw,wavn.:t.a.Nnw #e v~uant±w-•ue.sc~e3.:.K'~ro- :zse5
Medians
38
Unclassified excavation
1,723
CY
$35.00
$60,305.00
39
Median curb
9,130
LF
$15.00
$136,950.00
40
Reestablish irrigation heads
1,660
LF
$3.00
$4,980.00
41
Reestablish hardscape
14,895
SF
$6.00
$89,370.00
42
Curb and gutter (widen strips)
960
LF
$20.00
$19,200.00
43
Sidewalk match (widen strips)
8,160
SF
$5.50
$44,880.00
Subtotal:
$355,685.00
Striping and Marking
44
4" striping (THERMO) (two-coat paint)
1,510
LF
$0.10
$151.00
45
Detail 38 (THERMO)
2,740
LF
$1.70
$4,658.00
46
Pavement Markings (THERMO
1,465
SF
$4.60
$6,739.00
47
Detail 25 (THERMO)
14,614
LF
$0.35
$5,114.90
48
12" Striping (THERMO)
3,172
LF
$7.75
$24,583.00
49
Detail 09 (THERMO)
34,040
LF
$0.20
$6,808.00
50
Red curb painting
990
LF
$1.50
$1,485.00
Subtotal:
$49,538.90
Traffic Signage
51
Si n replacing
119
EA
$200.00
$23,800.00
52
Si n and post (install)
42
EA
$150.00
$6,300.00
Subtotal:
$30,100.00
Street Lighting
53
Conduittwire installation
13,501
LF
$12.00
$162,012.00
54
150 HPS Luminaire
63
EA
$575.00
$36,225.00
55
Marbelite Poles
63
EA
$3,500.00
$220,500.00
56
Pull boxes
63
EA
$300.00
$18,900.00
57
Conduit
12,000
LF
$20.00
$240,000.00
58
14 Gauge wire
25,000
LF
$0:35
$8,750.00
Subtotal:
$686,387.00
PARKWAY TREES
59
Structural soil
624
$65.00
$40,560.00
60
Filter fabic
3,165
$12.00
$37,980.00
61
Root control barrier
66
EA
$225.00
$14,850.00
62
Install street tree (not including S/Fwy)
66
M
$400.00
$26,400.00
63
Tree rates
66
$600.00
$39,600.00
64
Parkwa tree irrigations stem
1
$64,769.51
$64,769.51
65
Landscape maintenance
1
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
Subtotal:
$229,159.51
UTILITY CONTINGENCY
66 Utility contingency 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00
Subtotal: $200,000.00
ti:xa:zv.;rrosm.4
Subtotal Construction Contract: $9,135,964.91
Inflation over 2 years: 4% $365,438.601
10% contingency: $913,596.49
Subtotal: $10,415,000.00
2 of 3
• •
Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment
North City Limit to South City Limit
Estimate of Cost
No Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost
aa~r~,a:.y.:m.~:~,r¢wwa?~m:e-wrari,•mt°~'+.~re:.~.:r.°.s~rstie~a.-.a:+~ua',. -.~uxrrmm-:~.avx.::rw~-~e.*~ea~o~.rrmsssea-r..+ti;~xvmsfs;.'M.~^•..v~.-r.~sspr
ADMINISTRATIVE/ENGINEERING
67
Traffic control plan
1
LS
$90,000.00
$90,000.00
68
Utility coordination
1
LS
$65,000.00
$65,000.00
69
Research/establish record drawings
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
70
Reconcile on-going permits
1
LS
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
71
Design surveying
1
LS
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
72
Design engineering
1
LS
$850,000.00
$850,000.00
73
Construction engineering
1
LS
$850,000.00
$850,000.00
74
Construction surveying
1
LS
$130,000.00
$130,000.00
Subtotal:
$2,085,000.00
GRAND TOTAL:
$12,500,000.00
3 of 3
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
AFFENPIX A
Aerial Photos of Existing Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk
0
y. ,
f
p
~
ra
~
a
}
d C
sj
i r fi 1 Pvt. j_
F~
:•Y
X
i
~n
fn:
r
a..
i... i
J
•
r LL
O
'a
,c
•
s?
4
r
LL
OS
to ,
• 0
wi
„:uiro;.<.= a :ataiu4.~} 'riactizaa.~:;7§.:.+rna~x
G3 ~ t
FF ~ k
0
`-eg kt m
^r
AYM, r
.i: rtX ss9
. :f
w
• 0
t.
I
3.
c
WOMAN
i Q
D t, N
O
M
`1:V tf
y+'i
Q I
W,
IL
a~
O ~ F
~V S
h
n
^+i 4.
!
r
-
"
~ J
y
Q
`W
s
i
a
F
E
t;
F
y..
0 0
• 0
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
APPENDIX B
Deflection Analyoio Report
0 •
PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION REPORT
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
WILLDAN
Industry, California
prepared by:
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc.
May 29, 2003
MACTEC Project 70]3770359-6
0 0
May 29, 2003
Mr. Ken Rukavina
Willdan
13191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405
Industry, CA 91746
Subject: Pavement Investigation Report
Rosemead Boulevard
Rosemead, California
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6
Dear Mr. Rukavina:
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc. (MACTEC) has completed an investigation
of the conditions on the Rosemead Boulevard within the City of Rosemead, California. This survey
was performed in general accordance with MACTEC Proposal 70199-0-0000.2919, dated September
26, 2002. This report presents our findings, and provides strategies and recommendations for
pavement structural upgrades.
Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable construction materials consultants practicing in
this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional
advice included in this report.
It has been a pleasure to work with you on this project and we look forward to being of continued
service to provide bid documents and assistance during construction. If you have any questions
concerning this report, or if we can be of further service, please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
MjA~CTTEEC Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc.
Thomas Kirk, P.E.
Senior Engineer- Pavements and Construction
luosongele -91GroupslProjectsl70/31 Geo1ecW001-projU0359 WilldonlRosemd Relinq Pmt-170eliwrobleslRosemead
El Pmt Report. doe
l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1
I.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK 7
3.0 GENERAL FINDINGS .................................................2
3
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
8
5.0 REHABILITATION METHODS
6.0 DEFLECTION TEST RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9
13
7.0 STRUCTURAL SECTIONS-
8.0 CONCLUSIONS 13
14
9.0 BASIS OF REPORT
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 7. 1 - Structural Section Recommendations - Reconstruction 13
Table 7. 2 Structural Section Recommendations - Overlay North of Lower Azusa 13
APPENDIX A - DEFLECTION RESULTS
• TABLE ONE-OVERLAY TB1CIOESS PROJECTIONS
• DEFLECTION DATA
• STATION MAP
APPENDIX B - CORES AND SOIL TESTS
• CORE TABLE
• R-VALUES
,1
2003
Ntildon - Pavement lnvesligution Report M°y29,
Page
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page I
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Rosemead Boulevard extends from the railroad bridge grade separation at the northern city boundary
to the Rio Hondo channel bridge located south of the 10 Freeway at the southern city boundary.
South of the freeway, the portion of Rosemead Boulevard within the city limits includes only the
southbound side of the median. Three lanes exist on this side of the median with a shoulder and no
parking. North of the 10 Freeway there are two lanes in each direction with parking in most areas,
with the full roadway within the City. The full-length is approximately 1.5 miles, with the portion
south of the 10 Freeway approximately 0.6 mile.
The purpose of this report is to address the pavement conditions based on coring investigations, soils
testing, and deflection testing. A thorough visual assessment of conditions, in conjunction with the
data gathered through testing procedures, were very important to this study. The potential for
rehabilitation through structural overlay or other structural improvements for an extended service life
will be analyzed, with recommendations provided. Traffic data was provided by the City that
extended a traffic index (TI) of 10.5 based on about 50,000 vehicles per day, relatively high truck
traffic and moderate growth rates. It seems clear that the roadway will need to be increased to three
lanes in each direction in the near future. Once these additional lanes are provided, the growth rates
are likely to increase quite dramatically. Therefore a TI of 11.0 was also applied as a point of
reference.
2.0 SCOPE OF'AVORK
The work described below is sequential in nature. Work performed in each task may have dictated
the steps, which were necessary in subsequent tasks. In some cases, additional tasks, not specifically
described in this scope of work, may have become required as a result of preceding work. The
following is a detailed description of the originally proposed services:
1) Mark core locations appropriate to determine existing structural sections and provide a log of
locations for caring crew and exhibit for Caltrans permit.
2) Provide coring and 3 R-value tests.
3) Prepare a detailed log of core results.
4) Coordinate deflection testine for selected wheel paths in various lanes, based on core
information and evaluation of field conditions.
•
Wildun - Pavement Investigation Report May29, 2003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 2
5) Perform deflection testing at 50-foot intervals in lanes with evident weakness and 100-foot
intervals in other lanes.
6) Provide graphical representations of deflections in the various lanes.
7) Provide typical photographs of conditions on various segments in similar condition, and
describe the conditions on the roadway pavement in the various segments. i
8) Calculate overlay requirements for AC and ARHM strategies, based on Caltrans Method 356.
9) Prepare tables showing . development of overlay requirements and a summary of
recommended strategies for structural upgrade.
10) Provide structural sections for concrete and AC reconstruction sections.
11) Provide descriptions of overlay or reconstruction strategies appropriate to the pavement
conditions, including general information (not precise locations; only example locations)
about areas requiring reconstruction.
12) Prepare recommendations for miscellaneous preparation measures, such as crackfilling,
leveling course, etc.
13) Compile the report into appropriate sections, including appendices of all data used in the
analysis.
] 4) Provide two copies of a preliminary draft, and four copies of the final report after requested
revisions, plus a reproducible unbound original.
3.0 GENERAL FINDINGS
Rosemead Boulevard in the City of Rosemead has provided an arterial route for the region since at
least the early 1920s. Some of that original roadway section still exists as the base layer of pavement
in the northern area of the City. In 1937, the portion North of Valley Boulevard was widened, with
one lane in each direction constructed of concrete, with the original AC pavement in the middle of the
roadway, and wide AC shoulders were added on each side of the street. Medians were added in this
segment probably around 1950. The segment south of Valley Boulevard was fully reconstructed in
1950. The portion of this segment south of the 10 Freeway had shoulders constructed sometime
thereafter to allow for three lanes in each direction.
In all of these cases, the original pavements, whether constructed in 1920s, 1937 or 1950, still exist as
the base layer of pavement. The thicknesses of those original AC base pavements are generally 3
May 2003
Wildon - Po vent ent In vesiiga ion Report P
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 3
inches or less, predominantly on local native soil without any base material. in some areas an overlay
was placed, but these reached a state of high fatigue long ago. An asphalt rubber chip seal was
provided to protect the deteriorating pavement north of the freeway in 1988, but now potholes are
developing in many locations on that segment. The first overlay was placed on the portion south of
the freeway fairly recently, most likely within the past five years, but appears to be failing quite
rapidly at this time.
The most important general finding is that the asphalt pavement structure is so thin and deteriorating
that it cannot support the demands placed on this roadway under the present traffic loading. The one
obvious exception of course is the portland cement concrete (PCQ intersection at the Valley
Boulevard, which is a recent addition and is in excellent condition. There is also a segment of
concrete pavement at the north end of the project, which was constructed in 1950. It is quite narrow
for 2-lane traffic in each direction, and the outer truck wheel paths tend to encroach into the AC
shoulder. The concrete slab system is well along into a gradual breakup into smaller pieces.
In summary, the asphalt pavement is in poor condition with two exceptions. The number one lane of
the three lanes south of the freeway is not cracked, however it was overlaid only about five years ago.
All the other lanes in this segment are failing rapidly. The other segment is the southbound lanes
north of Valley to just north of Lower Azusa Road, which has an asphalt rubber hot mix overlay on
the asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane. However, the overlay is severely rutted and will continue
to worsen in this regard as a time passes. Rutting pavement is so fluid that the cracks underneath do
not reflect up, however, the underlying deterioration still exists, and the rutted areas will need to be
removed, since it is unstable pavement.
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing conditions of the pavements were based on close visual assessment and core sampling at
locations selected based on the appearance typical of the overall pavement in the area. R-values for
soils are relatively constant at approximately 70 over the length of the street.
May29, 2003
I41ildan - Pavemenl lnvestinalian Report Pane 4
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6
4.1 RIO RONDO BRIDGE TO 10 FREEWAY
Existino Structural Section
Aside from a segment of transitioning in the vicinity of the on/off ramps at the 10 Freeway, the street
consists of a narrow 6-foot median and three lanes of pavement on either side. The median appears to
be part of the original construction with a 2-percent cross slope indicated on the original as-built
drawings. An AC shoulder of variable width exists along the edge of the travel way with no parking.
On the southbound side, a V-gutter exists at the edge of the shoulder from the bridge north to about
halfway between the two cross streets, Telstar Avenue and Whitmore Street. North of the. V-gutter is
an asphalt berm. The roadway was widened to the present 3-lane configuration from the original two
lanes sometime in the past. All wheel paths are encompassed by the original pavement section of 3 to
3 V.-inches of AC on native material, shown on the original as-built plans, dated 1950. These original
plans indicate cement treated base, but evidently the soil was of such good quality at this location
near the Rio Hondo River alluvial zone, that the cement treated base was not used along this length of
the roadway. This structural section extends 36 feet out from the median curb.on both sides of the
median. The additional width was added at a later time to create a shoulder. The shoulder is in good
condition.
Core Results
Based on cores, overlays have been installed on the original section as follows:
A single overlay of 2'/.- to 21/2-inch thickness was placed on the 3 to 3'/,-inch original AC
pavement. The same section was encountered in both No. 2 and No. 3 lanes. The overlay
appears to have been placed fairly recently, most likely within the past 5 years.
Unfortunately, the overlay seems to not be well bonded to the existing original surface, since
the core in the No. 2 lane was completely disbonded and very wet at the interface between the
layers.
The median curb face was reduced in the last overlay.
Visual Structural Condition
The existing condition has severe alligator cracking developing in the No. 3 right wheel paths. The
left wheel path is in slightly better condition but very similar.
The same situation exists on the No. 2 lane, where conditions are somewhat better, but alligator
• •
N'ildan - Pavement lnvesrigarion Report May19, 1003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 5
cracking still exists in both wheel paths.
The No. 1 lane is essentially free of cracks at present.
All of the cracking is reflecting through the relatively recent overlay, placed within the past 5 or 6
years.
4.2 10 FREEWAY TO VALLEY BOULEVARD
_ Section
Existing Structural
This segmerit`of roadway has two lanes in each direction with parking on both sides. Originally a 16-
foot median was constructed with 32 feet from median curb to a 2-foot curb and gutter on both sides.
The original median configuration and curb and gutter are still in place.
Basically, the same original structural section appears on the as-built drawings, dated 1950, as for the
pavement south of the 10 Freeway, i.e., 4-inches AC on 8-inches cement treated base. However, in
this case, some cement treated base was actually installed, but only on the southbound side based on
the cores. The addition of cement treated base corresponds with what appears to be a slightly lesser
quality of soil north of the freeway.
Core Results
There is a difference in pavement section on the roadway based on core sampling as follows:
Both sides of the street have an asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane on the surface that
was installed in 1988.
The southbound side had a pavement thickness of 5 to 5'/, inches, most likely with an overlay
that was difficult to discern. It is possible that the overlay was so well bonded and of the
same mix type, so that the interface was not detectable. Based on as-built plans, the general
pavement section in other areas, and the reduction in curb face, it seems clear that an overlay
was actually performed. This pavement was placed on 6 inches of cement treated base.
The northbound side had a '/<-inch wear course on 11h-inch overlay that was on a wet,
disbonded and badly decomposed layer 1 '/z-inch thick in the No. 1 lane. The core in the No.
2 lane was a 3-inch overlay on a 2-inch layer of AC. Both of these pavements were placed on
12-inch decomposed granite sub base.
• 0
Wildai - Pavement Arvestigaliou Report May19, 2003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 6
Visual Structural Condition
All wheel paths in all lanes have relatively severe alligator cracking. The cracking tends to be more
extensive and more severe in the No. 2 lanes. Potholes are developing and have been patched in
numerous locations. The severity of cracking is at least as bad if not worse in the northbound No. 1
lane as in the northbound No. 2 lane, possibly due to median irrigation water intrusion. The
southbound lanes are in better condition than the northbound side. The severity of existing cracking
is to a great extent masked by the asphalt rubber chip seal membrane that was installed in 1988. In
most areas except near potholes, the cracks are visible, but have healed over due to the high
percentage of asphalt rubber binder in the membrane.
4.3 VALLEY BOULEVARD TO 500 FEET NORTH OF LOWER AZUSA ROAD
Existing Structural Section
North of Valley Boulevard, medians did not exist in the first overlay section constructed in 1937.
Medians were added about 1950. The central 28 feet of pavement was originally constructed, prior to
the structural upgrade performed in 1937. In 1937, the plans called for the central 28 feet to be
overlaid with 2 inches of AC along with construction of the outer 23 feet of pavement on either side
of this central strip. These outer areas consist of an I1-foot width of 6%:-inch concrete with edges
thickened to 9 inches over the outer 2 feet of the slab on both sides. Dowels were installed on joints.
The concrete strips were installed adjacent to and on both sides of the central 28-foot strip, which are
shown on the original plans to be placed at matching grades to the top of the 2-inch AC overlay over
the central strip of AC. Cores revealed a change that was made as discussed under Core Results
below. The outer strips of pavement on both sides of the street consist of an approximately 12-foot
width of 3-inch AC on native subgrade, originally constructed with the concrete pavement in 1937.
A 144oot median was later installed on this segment. This created the present lane configuration of
number one lanes with left wheel paths on AC next to the median and right wheel paths comfortably
within the concrete pavement strip. The No. 2 lanes have left wheel paths well within the concrete
area with the right wheel paths fully on the AC strip between the gutter and the concrete strip.
Core Results
Cores indicate that the street was constructed generally corresponding with original plans with some
significant changes. An asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane was installed on both sides full-
2003
Wildon- Pavement Investigation Report May19,
MA CTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 7
7
length and an overlay of asphalt rubber hot mix was added on the membrane on the southbound side
in 1988. The ARHM overlay was terminated at the north and of the left turn pocket north of Lower
Azusa Road. The cores revealed the following underlying pavement structure:
A core in the area between the concrete strip and the median northbound revealed a 2'/2-inch'
layer on another 2%-inch layer, which were disbonded from each other and wet at the
interface. This corresponds with the as-built plans of the original pavement overlaid at the
time of the placement of the concrete strip.
A core in the No. 2 northbound lane outside of the concrete strip revealed 2-3/8-inch
pavement, again corresponding with the as-built plans for widening adjacent to the concrete
strip.
A third core in the concrete strip in the No. 1 lane southbound revealed that a 2 3/8-inch
overlay had been placed on the PCC indicating that the entire width received a 2 3/8- to 2'h-
inch lift at the time of completion of the PCC strip. The PCC was evidently constructed on
grade with the previously existing central roadway, rather than on grade with the top of the
overlay elevation.
A core in the southbound No. 2 lane north of the left turn pocket at Lower Azusa Road had
the asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane on a 1'/2-inch AC overlay on 7-inch thick PCC,
corresponding with the original as-built plans, with the addition of the AC overlay and
membrane. The asphalt rubber hot mix overlay was evidently terminated north of Lower
Azusa Road. This short segment also had one other difference, because it was constructed
with the top of the PCC strips on grade with the top of the AC constructed in the same
project, corresponding to the plans for the project in 3950. The AC overlay was installed
sometime later apparently for uniformity with the southerly segment, which had a'full asphalt
surface. This condition exists in a short segment beginning about 500 feet North of Lower
Azusa to the beginning of this segment of PCC pavement described in the next segment
below. This 120 feet of transition segment was actually constructed with the PCC segment,
but is included here to minimize confusion by keeping it with adjoining pavement of the same
basic type.
Another core, in the No. 2 lane (right wheel path) northbound north of Lower Azusa, was a
disbonded 2'/.-inch overlay on 3'/.-inch original pavement over 12-inch decomposed granite
sub base, a similar section to the northbound near Valley Boulevard. This original pavement
appears to have been constructed with the project described in the previous core.
Visual Structural Condition
Northbound, with the exception of the 1I-foot strip of concrete partially in both lanes, the asphalt
appears to be seriously cracked. Again, the asphalt rubber chip seal generally masks the cracks, but
they are still visible.' There are very severely cracked areas in the wheel paths adjacent to the median
• •
Ma
Wildan - Pavement hyvestigarien RLTOn y19, 2003
MACTEC Prajeci 7013110359-6 Page 8
where irrigation water has saturated the subgrade. Potholes are developing in these areas.
On the southbound side, the asphalt rubber overlay on the asphalt rubber interlayer has largely
resisted cracked reflection. There is severe rutting developing, however. Some PCC joints are
beginning to reflect through the surface layers.
Median curb height has been reduced by previous overlays.
4.4 500 FEET NORTH OF LOWER AZUSA ROAD TO CITY LIMIT
Existing Structural Section
The pavement in this area was constructed as a quite different structural section overall than south of
this length, and is PCC pavement in all travel lanes (except for the 120-foot transition segment
described with the previous two cores). The travel lanes total less than 21 feet in width on either side
of the median. This has pushed the right wheel paths in the No. 2 lanes over onto the shoulder for
much of the truck traffic. There is a variable width shoulder of AC pavement 3-inches thick
constructed on native material, based on the as-built plans. There is a 6-foot median with 1-foot drain
away gutter in the center of the roadway. There is a 3-foot gutter on each side of the roadway.
Visual Structural Condition
The travel lanes are slabs average I I feet in width and length. The shoulder is block cracked with
alligator cracking along the joint with the PCC central pavement. This alligator cracking is failing, as
truck wheel loads are drifting onto the shoulder. The PCC slab system clearly is approaching the end
of its lifespan, since approximately one-third of the slabs have broken into smaller pieces.
5.0 REHABILITATION METHODS
It should be noted that a wide range of possible methods were considered to provide an overlay for
the purposes of structural rehabilitation:
• Pavement fabric was considered, but has potential flushing under heavy traffic with resultant
rutting and skid resistance problems. If not enough binder is used, on the other hand, the
pavement has a tendency to delaminate in the latter part of its lifespan. Basically, the
advantages did not outweigh the uncertainties for this product. Also, to be effective, a
May29, 2003
Hlildan - Pavement lnvesligaion Report Page 9
MACTECProjeci 7013110339-6
leveling course is necessary, which creates increased cost and difficulties with grade
constraints.
• Glassgrid is a fairly stiff network of fiberglass plastic netting used between an overlay and a
leveling course. There was some potential for use of this treatment, but the cost of the
Glasgrid plus a leveling course was prohibitive. Properly applied, C3]asgrid is effective in
preventing reflection of alligator and block cracks.
• Asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) was considered, and is recommended as a potential
strategy in selected areas.
• Asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane (ARAM) interlayer was considered, and is
recommended as a potential strategy in selected areas
• Paveprep, a thick rubberized mastic with woven fabric on both sides is highly effective on
singular joints and cracks. It was considered as an option in lieu of an asphalt rubber and
aggregate membrane, but was cost prohibitive.
• Special asphalt mixes were considered, and a special asphalt rubber mix was also considered
as the base layer for reconstructed pavement. This mix would have an increased binder
content to make the bottom layer more flexible to extend the lifespan before cracking. It is
recommended that if the roadway is reconstructed with AC pavement, the bottom lift be such
a material.
6.0 DEFLECTION TEST RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 - SOUTH OF 10 FREEWAY
Southbound
This segment has 3 inches of AC in the original section on native soil. The original pavement was
evidently highly deteriorated when the roadway was overlaid with 2'/: inches about 4 or 5 years ago.
This is indicated by the wet interface between the generally disbonded original pavement and the
overlay in the No. 3 lane. Deflections are very high on the No. 3 lane requiring an overlay
approaching 6 inches. On the No. 2 lane, conditions are a little better, but the overlay requirement
still is approaching 5 inches.
Recommendations
Alligator cracking is rapidly returning to the No. 2 lane, and is well progressed in the No. 3 lane with
indications that base failure is beginning to occur in many areas of this lane. This is a clear indication
that overlay of this pavement is not really practical. The underlying original pavement of a highly
deteriorated 3 inches on native soil is just not an adequate base for pavement on this major arterial.
The No. I lane was overlaid in the last project and the median curb face height was dramatically
Wildan- Pavement Investigation Report May19, 2003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 10
reduced in the process. Additional overlay in this lane would not be possible, if curb height and cross
fall drainage were to be sustained. The entire roadway would need to be profiled and this would take
the pavement back to the original highly deteriorated 3-inch AC constructed in 1950. Again, this is
not viable for an arterial roadway of modern traffic volume. Therefore, we recommend reconstructing
this segment of the roadway in all lanes.
6.2 VALLEY BOULEVARD TO 10 FREEWAY
Northbound
The northbound No. 2 lane requires a 4'/2- to 5'/2-inch overlay.
Northbound No. 1 lane has a similar pavement structure with lesser deflections and lesser overlay
requirement.
Southbound
Southbound No. I lane has a much larger requirement for overlay than the No. 2 lane. This is likely
caused by the need to limit overlay thickness along medians to sustain cross fall. As a result, the
outer lane has a thinner section recommended for overlay and lesser deflections. The overlay
requirements register at 1'/2 inches in the No. 1 lane and about 1/2 inch the No. 2 lane.
Recommendations
On the northbound side, the pavement consists of two layers or more with a total thickness of 4 to 5-
inches placed on decomposed granite. Based on cores, some of the original or bottom layer is
actually decomposing, since its construction in 1950. As indicated by as-built plans and cores, an
overlay was installed, which has reduced the median curb height. Basically, to install a sufficient
overlay would not be possible under these conditions.
On the southbound side, due to a cement treated base layer, the deflections are substantially less than
on the northbound side. Still, the need for an overlay is quite significant, and the concept of cold
milling enough depth to provide relief from reflective cracking and also make up for the thickness
removed by milling is not really viable. Potholes developing in many areas where the cement treated
base is evidently breaking down are scattered along the length of various wheel paths. As a result,
reconstruction repairs of such areas are not practical. The deflection readings did not generally
id~i/dan - Pavement /n vestigulinn Report May29,2003
Page 11
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6
coincide with these locations, but the structural weakness is quite evident. The extra thickness that is
supporting the No. 2 lane would be removed in a uniform profiling and the median provides a rigid
constraint, since curb height is already diminished. Due to the frequency of alligator cracking and
potholes in the No. 2 lane and the very significant overlay requirement in the No. 1 lane, such an
approach is unlikely to be successful on this roadway with its heavy traffic loading. Naturally,
matching grades with the reconstructed northbound side is also a complication, and therefore we
recommend reconstruction of the southbound side.
6.3 VALLE), BOULEVARD TO PCC NORTH OFLOWER AZUSA AVENUE
Northbound
The northbound No. 2 lane deflection results indicate need for an overlay of 4% inches or more. This
would be entirely impractical to implement, because previous overlays have already decreased the
median curb height and have left thick edges above the edge of gutter.
The northbound No. 1 lane generally requires a 1%- to 2-inch overlay based on the deflection
analysis. There is severe deterioration and some potholes that indicate a very weak condition.
Southbound
Deflections in the southbound No. I and No. 2 lanes both show the need of an overlay, even though
both of these lanes received an extra 11/2-inch overlay of asphalt rubber hot mix, which is uncracked at
present. Indications are that the underlying support for the ARM overlay is.the same as on the
northbound side, as confirmed by core information. The excessive rutting in these lanes means the
AMM overlay and interlayer will need to be removed, which will result in the pavement section and
condition being similar to the northbound lanes.
Recommendations
Overall, adding overlay thickness is not possible on this segment without deep cold milling, which
would leave the pavement section at approximately the thickness that existed for the original nominal
2 '/z-inch pavement placed in 1950 without any aggregate base. Based on reflective cracking in both
northbound lanes, the potholes, which are occurring in the northbound No. 2 lane, and the high
deflections on the northbound side, the original pavement is in highly deteriorated condition. Since it
is clearly inadequate to support the demands of this major arterial, which has evolved as the
Wildan- Pavemem Invesiigarion Report May29, 2003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 12
Rosemead Boulevard of today, it will be necessary to reconstruct this roadway segment.
6.4 PCC NORTH OF LOWER AZUSA TO NORTH CITY LIP11T
As discussed in Section 4.0, Existing Conditions, a central PC concrete slab system exists, which is
narrow with the outside wheel paths of the truck lanes on the AC shoulder joint. The slab system is
53 years old and is gradually breaking up. There exist two methods to upgrade the pavement
structural system, either by overlay or by reconstruction. In any case, the shoulders will need
reconstruction to support the left truck wheel paths and to also provided for the future third lanes,
which as previously indicated will be needed for the heavy and increasing traffic volumes.
Recommendations
With the joint between shoulder and the central slab system in the No. 2 lane wheel paths, any
overlay would need to provide special measures to avoid the effects of differential support across the
joint, and prevent joint reflection tendencies in general. Reconstruction of this shoulder with dowels
along the joints would be the most dependable way to eliminate differential support difficulties. This
would leave the full roadway as a slab system, with the general need to provide for elimination of
joint reflection through the overlay provided to strengthen the central area. Unfortunately, an overlay
structure with enough stability to resist joint reflection would be a little over 4 inches thick. This
would reduce the curb height on the median to about 2 inches. Reconstruction of the median is a
viable option to raise the curb height to accommodate the overlay. In any case, the time for joint
reflection to occur cannot be accurately estimated. The 41/2-inch overlay system as discussed above
would consist of joint filling, a %x-inch leveling course, an ARAM interlayer, and a 31h-inch asphalt
rubber hot mix overlay. This system could provide many years of service (possibly up to 20) without
reflective cracking based on past experience with similar circumstances, but this is difficult to
determine with any degree of certainty. There exist no direct quantification methods to evaluate the
tendency for PCC joint reflection through an overlay.
The other option is reconstruction as recommended for the remainder of Rosemead Boulevard in this
study. This may actually prove to be the most cost effective approach, considering the small
quantities of ARHM and ARAM interlayer and the need to reconstruct the median. Economy of scale
will apply if the same approach of reconstruction is applied as for the remainder of the roadway, but
the inverse will impact the costs of asphalt rubber materials and mobilizations. In other words, the
0
Wildan - Pavement Invesrigadvii Report
MACTEC Project 7013110339-6
A4ay29, 2003
Page 13
small quantity of asphalt rubber materials could increase their unit costs, such that the cost of overlay
is close to the cost of reconstruction.
7.0 STRUCTURAL SECTIONS
Project site subgrade R-value of minimum 70 was determined and Traffic Index of 10.5 and l1
extended the following structural sections using the Caltrans design procedure outlined in the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual.
Table 7. 1 - Structural Section Recommendations - Reconstruction
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
RECOMMENDED STRUCTURAL SECTIONS
FCC PAVEMENT
AC PAVEMENT
Tl = 10.5
PCC = 9"
LCB = 5"
AC = 8"
AB = 6"
Tl = 11
FCC = 9"
LCB = 5"
AC = 8.5"
AB = 6"
As discussed in Section 6.0 Deflection Test Results and Recommendations, overlay of pavements is
generally not feasible except for the segment of PCC pavement north of Lower Azusa, which could
be overlaid as outlined below, assuming the shoulder was reconstructed in PCC pavement as
described in Section 6.0.
Table 7. 2 Structural Section Recommendations - Overlay North of Lower Azusa
TI = 10.5 or 11
STRUCTURAL SECTION
ARHM OVERLAY
ROSE) 1EAD BOULEVARD -
ARHM = 3.5"
FCC SEGMENT NORTH
ARAM INTERLAYER
OF LOWER AZUSA ROAD
LEVELING COURSE AC = 0.5"
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
The age and condition of the roadway in conjunction with the high traffic loads that must be sustained
by the pavement in the modem time frame, lends itself strongly to full pavement reconstruction. The
original underlying pavement and limited base layers are simply insufficient to provide support for an
upgrade of the structure by overlay. The recommendations for full structural section replacement
outlined in Table 7.1 should by used in designing the roadway structural improvement.
`J
0
Wildat- Pavement lnvestigatioa Report Alay29, 1003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 14
The importance of providing quality asphalt concrete mix and good compaction for overlays cannot
be overstated. This is a matter of some basic materials approvals and testing. It is, therefore, highly
recommended that basic compaction testing and plant inspection be performed. Nonconformance
with specifications in either of these crucial areas can dramatically shorten the time before cracking
occurs in the pavement and could possibly lead to other deleterious performance. Likewise, basic PC
concrete testing is necessary to verify a quality product for concrete pavement. Cylinder breaks for
compression, and verification of mix and slump are minimal requirements for these purposes.
9.0 BASIS OF REPORT
The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the described project
information and on our interpretation of the data collected during our site visit. We have made our
recommendations based on experience with similar conditions, Caltrans Highway Design Manual,
and Flexible Pavement Construction Section Design Guide and information provided by:Willdan.
The recommendations apply to the specific project at the time of preparation of the report. All work
performed was consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our
profession currently practicing under similar conditions and similar localities. No other warranty is
expressed or implied.
J
APPENDIX A
E
DEFLECTION RESULTS
•
.,-.eet: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
Limits: SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: NORTHBOUND
Lane: 1
r eet X 100
RRI
RR2
RR3
Ratio
0+00
_0+01
2+00
33
31
26
0.94
2+40
4+00
39
38
26
0.91
.5+10
6+00
47
40
31
0.85
6+35
7+30
8+00
117
79
45
0.68
10+00
41
31
20
0.76
11+00
12+00
43
29
18
0.67
.12+85
14+00
43
30
18
0.7
16+00
81
59
37
0.73
16+80
• 18+00
^°+10
62
49
33
0.79
5
20+00
68
48
30
0.71
.20+30
20+85
22+00
77
63
39
0.82
.22+75
-23+30
. 24+00
81
57
33
0.7
-24+65
925+60
?6+00
109
74 -
43
0.68
26+70
-27+55
.28+00
12
11
10
0.92
28+50
30+00
12
11
10
0.92
.31+40
.32+50
14
13
12
0.93
32+95
33+80
34+00
75
52
30
0.69
.34+65
15+15
16+00
96
60
35
0.62
o36+95
e37+90
;8+00
124
89
42
0.72
,0+80
10
49
35
23
0.71
20
1+10
. Not Included in Summary
1 '04/2003
I
Project No. 29666
Proj RRI
TD on I
Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 1 NORTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
-
SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT I
ON PCC Median RAISED
37
4.25
Median RAISED/PLANTED
56
5.7
BEGIN LTP
52
7.63
Lateral Cracks
End PCC BEGIN AC
CL of GLENDON WAY
139
24.5
Alligator Cracks
48
6.18
Longitudinal Cracks in LWT
BEGIN LTP
47
6.66
Near Traffic Sensors
CL of MARSHALL STREET
50
6.66
Lateral Cracks
94
15.82
Lateral Cracks
CL of DE ADALENA STREET
Lateral Trench
73
11.24
Lateral Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of EDDA VILLA DRIVE
BEGIN LTP
77
12.69
Lateral Cracks Slight Raveling
CL of RALPH STREET LEFT
CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT
102
14.86
Lateral Cracks
BEGIN LTP
CL of GUESS STREET LEFT
98
15.82
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes
CL of GUESS STREET RIGHT
BEGIN LTP
127
22.57
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes
CL of NEVADA STREET
Begin PCC
12
-0.81
BEGIN LTP CL of STEELE STREET
12
-0.81
CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD
14
-0.33
Test Taken in LWT
End PCC
BEGIN LTP
90
14.38
Lateral Cracks Test Taken in LWT
CL of BENTEL STREET LEFT
CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT
103
19.44
Alligator Cracks in LWT Test Taken in LWT
BEGIN LTP
CL of NEWBY STREET
189
26.18
Test Taken in LWT Lateral Cracks Slight Raveling
CL of NEWBY AVENUE
53
8.11
Test Taken in LWT
BEGIN LTP
CL of LAWRENCE STREET
DATASHEET
•
eet: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
Limits: SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: NORTHBOUND
Lane: 1
n
u
Project No. 29666
Feet X 100
RRI
RR2
RR3
Ratio
Proj RRI
TD on I
Comments
,41+45
BEGIN LTP
42+00
46
36
23
0.78
56
7.39
Test Taken in LWT
CL of MISSION DRIVE
•43+60
44+50
59
42
27
0.71
65
10.52
Test Taken iri LWT
78
45
0
7
135
23.05
Test Taken in LWT Alligator Cracks in LWi
46+00
111
15
.
0
38
45
12
69
Test Taken in LWT Slight Alligator Cracks LWT
48+00
68
26
.
.
50+00
35
32
26
0.91
39
4.74
Slight Lateral Cracks
52+00
38
35
29
0.92
42
5.46
Slight Alligator Cracks LWT
X52+35
BEGIN LTP
CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD
X53+95
26
69
0
37 -
7
14
Slight Alligator Cracks Slight Lateral Cracks
54+50
45
31
23
.
74
0
34
.
46
5
Slight Alligator rra&s. Lateral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks in
56+00
38
28
.
, .
.
.
.
.
LWT
57+45
BEGIN LTP
58+00
31
28
23
0.9
34
3.77
Alligator Cracks Lateral Cracks
60+00
77
60
34
0.78
106
14.86
61+25
-
Begin PCC
X62+00
50
43
34
0.86
54
8.35
964+00
51
48
38
0.94
61
8.59
CL of NORTH CITY LIMIT
-°s+75
• Not Included in Summary
4/0412003 DATA S H E E T
•
-.reet: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
Limits: SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: NORTHBOUND
Lane: 2
Feet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio
r0+00
• 0+01
1+00
44
40
34
0.91
3+00
41
39
33
0.95
5+00
40
38
32
0.95
• 6+30
6+75
108
78
46
0.72
17+25
9+00
38
38
23
1
11+00
42
33
20
0.79
a12+85
13+50
103
67
38
0.65
r14+25
15+00
73
52
36
0.71
,16+75
17+00
94
71
46
0.76
,18+00
•16+10
'q+00
66
57
41
0.86
30
.-J+75
21+00
55
40
25
0.73
23+00
58
38
25
0.66
@3+30
.24+65
25+00
94
68
38
0.72
X26+70
27+00
204
115
35
0.56
•27+50
•28+60
X28+90
129+00
- 18
16
14
0.89
•31+40
• 32+90
33+05
109
80
43
0.73
34+60
35+00
170
80
44
0.47
• 35+10
37+00
129
69
35
0.53
37+85
• 38+75
39+00
100
53
26
0.53
41+00
61
38
23
0.62
43+50
45+00
116
61
33
0.53
47+00
83
42
24
0.51
49+00
48
37
28
0.77
" +00
55.
38
28
0.69
45
..0+00
50
30
22
0.6
.53+90
• Not Included in Summary
1/04/2003
•
Project No. 29666
Proj RRI
TD on 1
Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 2 NORTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT I
ON PCC
47
6.9
Lateral Cracks
46
6.18
45
5.94
Lateral Cracks
End PCC
132
22.33
CL of GLENDON WAY
63
5.46
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes
54
6.42
Rutting RLWT Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of MARSHALL STREET '
118
. 21.12
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes
Curb and Gutter
75
13.89
Alligator Cracks Potholes Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of DE ADALENA STREET
110
18.95
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
Lateral Trench
EDDA VILLA STREET
79
12.21
Slight Alligator Cracks
CL of RALPH STREET LEFT
CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT
64
9.55
Slight Lateral Cracks Potholes
58
10.28
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of GUESS STREET LEFT
CL of GUESS STREET RIGHT
122
18.95
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of NEVADA STREET
378
45.46
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
Begin PCC
CL of STEELE STREET
BEGIN RTP
18
0.64
CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD
End PCC
149
22.57
Alligator Cracks
CL of BENTEL STREET LEFT
145
37.27
Slight Alligator Cracks
CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT
136
27.39
Alligator Cracks Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of NEWBY STREET
CL of NEWBY AVENUE
108
20.4
Alligator Cracks ,
63
11
CL of LAWRENCE STREET Rutting
CL of MISSION DRIVE
113
24.26
Alligator Cracks Rutting
74
16.3
Alligator Cracks Rutting
49
7.87
Alligator Cracks Rutting
52
9.55
Alligator Cracks Rutting Slight Lateral Cracks
BEGIN RTP
41
8.35
CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD
DATA SHEET
Srreet: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Project No. 29666
Limits: SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: NORTHBOUND
Larre: 2
xWt X 100
RRl
RR2
RR3
Ratio .
Proj RRI
TD on 1
Continents
55+00
116
74
46
0.54
119
24.26
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
.
68
39
0
75
119
18.23
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
57+00
59+00
91
98
62
35
.
0.63
110
19.92
Alligator Cracks
61+00
23 .
19
15
0.83
24
1.84
Slight Lateral Cracks
-61+20
Begin PCC
63+00
50
44
38
0.88
51
8.35
65+00
40
32
27
0.8
38
5.94
CL of NORTH CITY LIMIT
e65+75
• Not Included in Summary
/04/2003 DATA S H E E T
•
Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
Limits: NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: SOUTHBOUND
Lane: 1
Feet X 100
RRI
RR2
RR3
Ratio
.0+00
~0+01
.1+00
67
65
59
0.99
,3+00
47
43
35
0.91
.5+00
47
41
28
0.87
.5+10
7+00
55
39
26
0.71
9+00
32
30
23
0.94
9+60
11+00 -
31
29
24
0.94
.12+35
13+00
60
38
23
0.63
15+00
32
28
22
0.88
17+00
29
28
24
0.97
19+00
95
61
36
0.64
20+00
21+00
77
49
29
0.64
*22+70
`50
66
44
26
0.67
00
70
46
27
0.66
25+25
*26+75
27+00
54
40
25
0.74
27+55
28+45
29+00
B6
58
33
0.67
-30+25
31+00
78
50
29
0.64
_31+15
.31+35
31+65
33+00
14
11
10
0.79
-33+10
o34+90
35+60
12
12
10
1
36+85
37+00
102
72
43
0.71
*37+75
39'+00
60
44
27
0.73
39+60
41+00
55
38
22
0.69
*41+65
43+00
48
35
22
0.73
.44+35
45+00
37
27
17
0.73
45+50
+00
X00
67
47
31
0.7
-48+00
48+30
. Not Included in Summary
1/04/2003
•
Project No. 29666
Proj RRI
TD on I
Continents
BEGIN TESTING LANE 1 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
ON PCC Median RAISED/PLANTED
74
12.45
53
7.63
60
7.63
End PCC
58
9.55
39
4.01
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes -
BEGIN LTP
35
3.77
CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD
63
10.76
36
4.01
33
3.29
103
19.2
Test Taken in LWT
BEGIN LTP
83
14.86
Test Taken in LWT
CL of MISSION DRIVE
74
12.21
Test Taken in LWT
78
13.17
Test Taken in LWT
CL of LAWRENCE STREET
BEGIN LTP
64
9.31
Test Taken in LWT
CL of NEWBY AVENUE
CL of NEWBY STREET
102
17.03
Test Taken in LWT
BEGIN LTP
86
15.1
Test Taken in LWT
CL of BENTERL STREET LEFT
Begin PCC
CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT
12
-0.33
Test Taken in LWT
BEGIN LTP
CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD
14
-0.81
End PCC
121
20.88
Lateral Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of STEELE STREET
72
10.76
Slight Alligator Cracks
CL of NEVADA STREET
66
9.55
Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of GUESS STREET LEFT
-
56
7.87
CL of GUESS STREET RIGHT Slight Lateral Cracks Longitudinal C
racks in LWT
BEGIN LTP
43
5.22
Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of RALPH STREET LEFT
CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT -
71
12.45
Slight Lateral Cracks
Change in Pavement
Lateral Trench BEGIN LTP
DATA SHEET
,greet: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD ProjecilVo.29666
:imits: NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
,)irection: SOUTHBOUND
Lane: 1
r'eet X 100
RRI
RR2
RR3
Ratio
Proj RRI
TD on 1
Comments
49+00
40
31
22
0.77
44
5.94
DE ADALENA STREET
49+50
BEGIN LTP
50+75
51+00
38
31
23
0.82
42
5.46
CL of MARSHALL STREET
-53+45
80
45
12
Slight Alligator Cracks. Slight Lateral Cracks
55+00
67
49
30
0.73
.
57+00
93
69
41
0.74
116
18.71
-
CL of GLENDON WAY
059+00
4
teral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks Longitudinal Cracks in LWr
L
59+50
57
48
35
0.84
66
10.0
a
Begin FCC
.60+45
6i+u0
70
68
58
0.97
80
13.17
63+00
41
39
34
0.95
45
6.18
65+00
37
36
33
0.97
39
5.22
CL of 10 FREEWAY
.66+30
End PCC
.71+25
BEGIN LTP
79+60
CL of WHITMORE STREET
94+75
CL of SOUTH CITY LIMIT
.102+90
. Not Included in Summary
1/04/2003 DATA S H E E T
-eet: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Project No. 29666
Limits: NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: SOUTHBOUND
Lane: 2
.'eetl'100
RR1
RR2
RR3
Ratio
Proj RRI
TD on 1
Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 2 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
4
-
NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
0+00
0+01
ON PCC Curb and Gutter
•2+00
49
45
36
0.92
56
8.11
.4+00
45
40
31
0.89
52
7.14
5+10
End PCC
6+00
42
39
32
0.93
48
6.42
8+00
82
60
35
0.73
103
16.06
Slight Alligator Cracks Longitudinal Cracks
10+00
56
45
27
0.8
75
9.8
Slight Lateral Cracks
11+70
74
51
29
0.69
90
14.13
Rutting
12+40
CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD "
14+00
51
38
25
0.75
58
8.59
16+00
66
41
25
0.62
67
12.21
Longitudinal Cracks
18+00
48
29
19
0.6
44
7.87
Rutting
20+00
73
45
26
0.62
78
13.89
Rutting Longitudinal Cracks
•22+60
CL of MISSION DRIVE
24+00
64
41
24
0.64
70
11.72
25+25
CL of LAWRENCE STREET
26+00
61
36
21
0.59
62
11
n'+50
CL of NEWBY AVENUE
,
30
52
34
21
0.65
55
8.83
-40
CL of NEWBY STREET
30+00
98
55
28
0.56
108
19.92
Rutting
CL of BENTEL STREET LEFT
• 31+15
31+35
Begin PCC
CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT
31+65
• 32+00
16
15
13
0.94
17
0.16
Lateral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks
.32+20
BEGIN RTP
34+00
14
12
11
0.86
13
-0.33
"
34+90
CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD
• 36+00
13
13
11
1
15
-0.57
.36+80
End PCC
37+65
CL of STEELE STREET
00
75
52
31
0
69
87
14.38
Alligator Cracks Lateral Cracks Alligator Cracks in LV%ii
38+
.
CL of NEVADA STREET
• 39+55
40+00
38
29
20
0.76
42
5.46
Lateral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks
$1+65
CL of GUESS STREET
29
19
0
81
44
4
98
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Lateral Cracks
32+00
•42+90
36
.
.
CL of GUESS STREET
14+00
50
37
22
034
62
8.35
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of RALPH STREET LEFT
15+50
CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT
.45+95
46+00
76
59
42
0.78
83
14.62
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
18+00
40
32
24
0.8
43
5.94
Lateral Cracks
CL of EDDA VILLA DRIVE
38+15
.48+30
Lateral Trench
CL of DE ADALENA STREET
• 49+55
i0+00
35
29
22
0.83
38
4.74
:,+00
33
31
22
0.94
44
4.25
Rutting
40
CL of MARSHALL STREET -
-,+30
40
37
26
0.92
53
5.94
i5+80
BEGIN RTP
• Not Included in Summary
/0412003 DATA S H E E T
•
otreet: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
Limits: NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: SOUTHBOUND
Late: 2
Feet X I00 M RR2 RR3 Ratio
56+00
38
32
22
0.84
58+00
33
26
18
0.79
• 59+00
60+00
74
49
33
0.66
• 60+45
• 62+00
52
40
35
0.77
• 64+00
42
33
30
0.79
• 66+00
43
39
32
0.91
• 68+00
40
38
32
0.95
970+00
41
38
30
0.93
•71+25
72+00
44
37
26
0.84
74+00
45
36
25
0.8
76+00
48
32
20
0.67
78+00
48
34
21
0.71
80+00
56
41
27
0.73
82+00
52
44
27
0.85
•82+25
84+00
45
31
21
0.69
'6+00
94
68
36
0.72
3+30
88+00
51
35
.21
0.69
90+00
74
58
37
0.78
92+00
66
44
28
0.67
94+00
46
38
27
0.53
• 94+65
• 95+00
96+00
101
71
45
0.7
98+00
79
61
38
0.77
• 98+95
•103+90
Proj RR1 TD on 1 Comments
Project No. 29666
47
5.46
Slight Lateral Cracks
38
4.25
Rutting RLWT
CL of GLENDON WAY
73
14.13
Lateral Cracks Tranverse Crack
Begin PCC
46
8.83
36
5.42
48
6.66
45
5.94
48
6.18
End PCC
53
6.9
52
7.14
51
7.87
55
7.87
Slight Alligator Cracks
62
72
9.8
8.83
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of TELSTAR AVENUE
46
7.14
128
18.95
Change in Pavement
58
8.59
91
14.13
Alligator Cracks in LWT
69
12.21
Slight Alligator Cracks RLWT
53
7.39
Change in Pavement
CL of WHITMORE STREET
112
20.64
Slight Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
98
15.34
Alligator Cracks in LWT Slight Alligator 'Cracks
Begin Bridge Change in Pavement
End Bridge Change in Pavement
• Not Included in Summary
04/04/2003 DATA S H E E T
greet: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Project No. 29666
Limits: 10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: SOUTHBOUND
Lane: 3
Feet X 100
RRI
RR2
RR3
Ratio
Pro' RRI
TD on I
Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 3 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
,
10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT I
0+00
Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter ON PCC
.0+01
♦1+00
40
34
27
0.85
43
5.94
BEGIN RT ONRAMP
2+30
3+00
115
34
28
0.3
41
24.02
.5+00.
End PCC
5+10
42
34
24
0.81
48
6.42
7+00
51
40
27
23
0.78
74
0
59
53
8.59
7.63
Slight Alligator Cracks -
9+00
47
35
.
End Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter
99+60
129
89
49
69
0
162
27.39
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
11+00
.
END Curt and Gutter FLOOD CHANNEL WALL
11+70
1
Begin AC Berm
2+50
52
61
0
246
41.13
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
13+00
186
113
.
208
40
88
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
15+00
185
105
53
0.57
.
'CL of TELSTAR AVENUE
16+05
53
34
77
0
83
12.93
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
17+00
69
122
65
.
61
0
229
44.74
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
19+00
201
.
Change in Pavement
10
)0
137
94
55
0.69
161
29.32
Slight Alligator Cracks RLWT
End AC Be" Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter
22+45
106
78
47
0
74
129
21.85
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
23+00
25+00
52
44
28
.
0.85
69
8.83
Slight Alligator Cracks
26+60
Begin Patch
End Patch BEGIN BUS PAD
26+90
END BUS PAD
.27+90
Change in Pavement
_28+45
CL of WHITMORE STREET
28+70
29+00
60
50
33
0.83
76
10.76
31+00
68
50
29
0.74
86
12.69
End Rolled FCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter
32+50
-
Begin Bridge Change in Pavement
32+75
End Bridge Change In Pavement
.36+80
. Not Included in Summary
1/04/2003
DATA SHEET
• 0
J. .et: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Project No. 29666
,units: 10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: SOUTHBOUND
Lane: 3
eet X 100
RRI
RR2
RR3
Ratio
Proj RRI
TD on I
Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 3 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
1+00
Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter ON PCC
+01
01+00
40
34
27
0.85
43
5.94
BEGIN RT ONRAMP
.~+30
1+00
115
34
28
0.3
41
24.02
i+00
End FCC
5+10
42
34
24
0.81
48
6.42
1+00
51
40
27
0.78
59
8.59
t+00
47
35
23
0.74
53
7.63
Slight Alligator Cracks
End Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter
1+60
11+00 -
129
89
49
0.69
162
27.39
Alligator Cracks. Alligator Cracks in LV✓T
END Curb and Gutter FLOOD CHANNEL WALL
';1+70 _
Begin AC Berm
2+50
52
61
0
246
41.13
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
13+00
186
113
0
53
.
0
57
208
40.88
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
15+00
185
1
5
.
CL of TELSTAR AVENUE
16+05
17+00
69
53
34
0.77
83
12.93
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
19+00
201
122
65
0.61
229
44.74
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
Change in Pavement
.2n+10
0
137
94
55
0.69
161
29.32
Slight Alligator Cracks RLWT -
4
End AC Berm Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter
5
23+00
106
78
47
0.74
129
21.85
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
25+00
52
44
28
0.85
69
8.83
Slight Alligator Cracks
16+50
Begin Patch
End Patch BEGIN BUS PAD
,6+90
END BUS PAD
.27+90
Change in Pavement
.28+45
CL of WHITMORE STREET
'8+70
19+00
60
50
33
0.83
76
10.76
31+00
68
50
29
0.74
86
12.69
End Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter
.32+50
-
Begin Bridge Change in Pavement
12+75
End Bridge Change in Pavement _
16+80
. Not Included in Summary
( '04/2003
DATA SHEET
0 •
TABLE ONE
' -
Measured
Allorvabie
Reduction
Required
Def)eaiw"
IT,
Deflection
Required
C.E.
A.C
NSL
Street & Liutits
I
R.R. T.D. T.I.
(/t)
R.R.
T.D.
(h)
yjt)
(years)
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD:
South City Limit to North City Li
mit
NORTHBOUND-2
1+00 to 27+00
113 235 10.5
0.48
62
11.3
52
.69
.36
0
11.0
0.48
59
10.6
55
.75
.39
0
1 33+05 to 53+00
126 26.7 10.5
0.48
62
11.3
57
.79
.42
0
11.0
0.48
59 -
10.6
60
.86
.45
0
55+00 to 61+00
116 24.3 10.5
0.48
62
11.3
53
.71
.37
0
11.0.
0.48
_ 59
10.6
56
.77
.41
I 0
- ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD:
South City Limit to North City Li
mit
NORTHBOUND-1
2+00 to 26+00
88 17.5 10.5
0.36
70
13.2
24
.16
.08
2
11.0
0.36
67
12.4
29
21
.11
1
! 34+00 to 52+00
96 19.4 10.5
0.36
70
13.2
32
.23
.12
1
11.0
0.36
67
12.4
36
.33
.17
1
54+50 to 60+00
65 12.0 10.5
0.36
70
13.2
0
.00
.00
10+
11.0
0.36
67
12.4
0
.00
.00
30+
i
' - ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD:
North City limit to South City Li
mit
SOUTHBOUND-1
0
00
00
10+
7+00 to 11+00
51 8.6 10.5
0.5
62
11.3
.
.
11.0
0.5
59
10.6
0
.00
.00
10+
13+00 to 31+00
83 163 10.5
0.42
66
12.3
25
.17
.09
2
11.0
0.42
63
11.5
29
.21
.11
1
37+00 to 65+00
75 14.4 10.5
0.42
66
9.9
31
23
.12
1
11.0
0.42
63
9.2
36
.33
.17
1
- ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD;
North City Limit to South City Limit
SOUTHBOUND-2
,+00 to 30+00
77 14.9 10.5
0.42
66
12.3
17
.08
.04
3
11.0
0.42
63
11.5
22
.13
.07
2
38+00 to 60+00
62 11.2 10.5
0.42
66
9.9
12
.04
.02
1
11.0
0.42
63
9.2
18
.09
.05
1
72+00 to 98+00
77 14.9 10.5
0.42
66
12.3
17
- .08
.04
3
11.0
0.42
63
11.5
22
.13
.07
2
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD:
10 Freeway to South City Limit.
SOUTHBOUND-3
5+10 to 31+00
152 32.9 10.5
0.42
66
12.3
63
.92
.48
0
11.0
0.42
63
11.5
65
.97
S1
0
10 Year Design Period
No Growth Factor
Project No. 29666
LaBelle Marvin, Inc.
•
APPENDIX C
CORES AND SOIL TESTS
R
d
d
N
O
O
C
O
R
U
J
lak
r-I
a
d
A
C
N
d
~
7
U
a
d
N
N
d
n
d
Iv
~
d
A
y
+
1a
~
d
n
d
N
CL
E
d
.J
m
.o
d
N
E
d
A
v
d
~
CL
E
.d.
U
v
d
O
M.
t
X1/1
,N
d
i
d
Z
y
~
m
a
d
Z
pj
ip
m
a
C.
d
U
is
d
A
m
D
a
C
d
V
is
d
tp
m
D
a
0
U
❑
fV
d
IE
'm
O
a
0
U
Q
iV
d
10
m
m
a
°
d
Q
d
N
m
m t
a
d
O
Z
d
N
m
O)
a
d
O
Z
d
N
m
CI
a
O
❑
(V
d
N
m
`
01
a
C
O
Z
d
N
m
`
tm
a
`
tV
U
~
r
I
U
a
`D
Q
f'~I
~
° C
~
m
Q
~ m
C
O
Q Q
Q ~
~
C
O
Q _
Q i0
m
<V
~ ~
C
` O)
m O
Q poi
iV
C
O
~
p
~
C a
~ ~
~ C
r I~il
. ~
a ~
_
~
r N
C C
N y
N
d _
U m
~
= ~
Q Q
~ a
d
m CO
N N
~ ~
a ~
_
~
~
rG
a
v
•
d
C
J
#
LO
L
(n
=
a
L
O
d
C
J
#
L0
L
(n
•C
a
L
O
d
C
J
N
#
L°
L
(n
L
a
.J
J
d
C
J
N
#
00
(n
m
C
s
N
Z
d
C
J
#
.O
'C
Z
=
N
a
m
4:
d
C
J
N
d
t
Z
L
N
n
m
~
d
C
J
N
#
•°O
~
Z
L
t0
a
Orn
~
d
C
J
r
#
L
Z
L
IO
a
N
J
d
J
N
st
L
~
y
L
t0
a
X61
J
d
J
N
at
L
~
O
Z
~
d
m
~
d
C
J
st
L
~
O
U)
N
a
d
J
N
N
d
a
a
_
Fn
R
d
N
?
c+J
E
O
N
O
Q
m
PO
d
N
m
c7
E
O
N
O
Q
O
d
~
LL
m
"O
d
E
N
m
~O
~
o
'O
d
E
N
Q1
~O
m
a
d
E
N
m
m
m
d
E
N
0
m
M
T
C
j
m
=O
co
=
j
m
d
E
d
N
O
m
v
m
~
p
N
'Q
E
y
O
U
a
m
N
d
O
O
N
V
v
b
O
c
R
h
O
N
Q
~
3
O
m
d
N
O
m
tD
V
E
o
N
O
U
a
R
d
U
N
UJ
O
L
O
Z
C
O
u]
~
J
`
d
co
a
I0.
E
N
O
m
b
I9
E
w
O
m
v
R
E
N
O
co
v
m
E
N
O
m
v
R
E
N
O
m
v
R
E
N
O
m
v
E
d
O
m
m
aEi
O
co
m
aEi
O
Q'
0]
m
m
O
co
m
aEi
O
~~I
~
~
N
cn
V
~'i
m
r
m
.m
O
May 28 03 02:OBp
St* Marvin
R -VALUE DATA
t-/0 ~4b-5a41
SHEET
p - c
Core #11
PROJECT NUMBER 29697 BORING NUMBER: Rosemead Blvd.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown Slightly Silty Sand
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -rn n At . . . . , . . . . . . . . i
Item
orL liv,uv
a
b
c
Mold Number
4
5
6
31
Water added, grams
44
24
8
8
Initial Test Water;
10.0
8.2
.
350
Compact Gape Pressure,psi
130
350
9
Exudation Pressure, psi
109
422
2
k
Height Sample, Inches
2.58
2.50
92
32
Gross Weight Mold, rams
3298
3271
2117
2122
Tare Weight Mold, rams
2120
1154
1170
Sample Wet Wei ht, grams
1178
]
0
Expansion, Inches x 10exp-4
0
3
/ 26
16 / 32
Stability 2,000 Ibs (160psi)
22 / 47
13
41
4
Turns Displacement
5.32
4.10
.
R-Value Uncorrected
53
76
69
R-Value Corrected
55
76
69
pcf
Dr Density
125.8
129.2
129.3
,
DESIG
N CALCULATION
DATA
Traffic Index Assumed:
4.0
4.0
~
4.0
32
0
G.E. b Stability
0.46
0.25
.
00
0
G. E. by Expansion
0.00 0.10
mined & Checked: 3
E
.
/26/ 03
72
xa
Equilibrium R-Value by
EXUDATION
`
Gf = 1.25
r CO
2.5% Retained on
the
REMARKS: 3/4" Sieve.
,•RGE 30559
iie Mer
l
The data above is based upon processing
7eceived fro
and testing samples as
m the
Test procedures in accordance with
(field
latest revisi
ons to Department of
.
_r ,._i:r:_ nn .
-ice R. Poccar
rh Test Method No. 30
-
1.
I ran5pQrtdLILA i,
LaBelle 0 MaeII- gill
May 28 03 02:08p Ste Marvin 17146-ba41 P.
R-VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTA71ON
PROJECT NO.
~«rL
BORING NO.~} y ~^~v~ fCi
DATE Zen - O
TRAFFIC INDEX
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION -/7Z
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
94
w
i
G
r
r
b
v2
("1
H
p~'1
U
400
n 350
J 300
w
200
w
1D0
0
U O
4
a
0
U
100
90
2
80 °
c
0
70
W
60 H
50
W
40
30
H
20
10 0
U
0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION, Fr.
,
• , •
- -
L
_ • _
_
t
•L-~::
. is a_
r_r:
-
~
E_'I':-
>S= J
_i~yi
r:- L
`i-i:;r.
:c,-:i
~_:Ii'.•
J
_[`1•
- _
S
r•l-.
.il•
' ~
amity
-
R-VALUE vs. EXU`D. PRES.
EXUD. T vs. EXPAN. T
REFARKS
1.:ilk,gk,, • Aminin
P OPES Poo PAv ME ENGINEERING
77-
7-ti Irr.:
ifi. ai
_:^t~[ii
:••1 :!r:
tai
i:a
:iii':F.
i^: ,
i:-::
S-0 q_e L~
MOISTURE AT FABRICATION
-
- - -
r
'
0
3
.
:
2.0
1
0
::I::
.
0
g_~ I 4_O lo•O
X MOISTURE
T by EXUDATION
T by EXPANSION
- - .r ran. P6GF R-R
May 28 03 02:08p
PROJECT NUMBER
Ste0 Marvin
R - VALUE
2969
p.4
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown Sand
Item
SHLGIMtw
a
b c
Mold Number
7
8
9
Water added, rams
38
30
24
Initial Test Water, %
9.2
8•g. •
7.9
Compact Gage Pressure,psi
350
350
350
Exudation Pressure, psi
156
255
356
Height Sample, Inches
2.48
2.52
2.52
Gross Weight Mold, rams
3284
3283
3279
Tare Weight Mold, rams
2120
2117
2122
Sample Wet Weight, rams
1164
1166
1157
Expansion, Inches x 10exp-4
0
0
0
Stability 2,000 Ibs (160psi)
17 /
34
14 / 28
11 / 22
Turns Displacement
4.47
4.06
4.00
{R-Value Uncorrected
67
74
80
R-Value Corrected
67
74
80
Dr Density, pcf
130.3
129.3
128.9
D
ESIGN CALCULATION DATA
Traffic Index Assumed:
4.0
4.0
4.0
G.E. b Stability
0.34
0.27
0.20
G. E. b Expansion
0.00
0.00 0.00
76
Examined & Checked: 3 /26/ 03
Equilibrium R-Value by
rp o
EXUDATION
k. ~c:. ~
Z. Jh
i
y.
±
Gf = 1.25
0.0 o Retained on the
; s
REMARKS: 3/4" Sieve.
S 1!anv!F 30659
The data above is based upon processing
and tes
ting samples as received from the
field. Test procedures in accordance wim iaresi revisiuiia w veNoi I U L
ITransportation, State of California. Materials & Research Test Method No. 301.
(71 •546-5841
DATA SHEET
. Core #2 Lane#3
BORING NUMBER: Rosemead Blvd.
LaBelle • Marvin
May 28 03 02:09p Stev0 Marvin t V 19.46-5a4 i
R-VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION
PROJECT NO. /COQ 7
400
r -3 BORING NO.~.OSewar~~V~' re L
n
_
350
300
W
I
DATE 3 Z~o' 03
200
W
TRAFFIC INDEX
100
0
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION
¢
0
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION
0
L'
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
E-; 4
W
0
Y
m
i
R
100
90 w
z
80 °
H
G
A
70 x
frl
z
60 0
H
50
40 a
30
U
20
cti
10 0
U
0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION, FT.
-g
og
IRE
=
Y
aLr
sue:
Hal
P.z
ii
f
FiiiiFiii
ii;il
ii ii::: r.
:'::I:r.:
Ez ar.
;~I,-,..
.
.
.:1
.
.
::1:::..
Ell=
S.;o SA S- o
p MOISTURE AT FABRICATION
R-VALUE vs. EXUD. PRES. T by EXUDATION
EXUD. T vs. EXPAN. 7 A A_ T by EXPANSION
n
REMARKS
C i •ZS
ftanin
PRDFESIDNAL PAYEMEM ENGINEFAING
+.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
_ . _ rnr_c ac
&m 8.4
2 MOISTURE
0 •
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Af pENDIX C
f arkway Tree and Sidewalk Conditions
0
•
r.c rner An ❑ni n FvA Vn rnNrRFTF REPAIR QUANTITIES (foot units)
i
ml O
C&G
GJvl IV -
Sidewalk
Sidewalk SM
Sid
ewalk ST
Driveway
S
pandrel
on
Jdress/Locat
Igth
Igth wdth area
Igth wdth area ~
Igth
wdth area
Igth
wdth area
Igth
wdth area
40. ITY LIMIT RR
36
10
00
00
16
5
80
;500
10
6
60
-)WER AZUSA
inthes Field
8
Danthes Field
8
30
10
300
'-hoof
.hoof
7
10
70
School
6
6
36
3rhool
6
6
36
SSION
,42
10
6
60
46
10
460
;242
24
8
3
24
13
10
130
24
31
10
310
;226
-16
15
7
105
:WBY
;134
13
3
39
27
10
270
1'34
16
9
7
63
116
3
10
30
3T"TEL
r
16
10
160
16
18
6
108
27
10
270
;016
kLLEY
nk at Sw Corner
15
7
105
3ank at Sw Corner
15
3
45
'-nk at Sw Corner
9
3
27
nk at Sw Corner
12
7
84
:sank at Sw Corner
5
3
15
3ank at Sw Corner
15
7
105
EELE
,.,40
10
4
40
3940
30
10
300
40
10
400
30
30
6
10
60
20
10
200
3930
'"30
9
5
45
10
6
60
JESS STREET
3848
12
5
60
RALPH
12
3
36
16
10
160
08
jE ADELENA
16
8
128
3714
8
5
40
1RSHALL
15
4
60
10
12
120
6
67
6
402
0
)6
16
8
128
;LENDON
13512/3000/06-155/Misc01
0 0
111 11 CAI non rnMr-PrTr RrPGIR OUANTITIES (foot units)
i
KUS
C&G
CIVICnv UU
S, a
V,.-
lk
Sid
ewalk
-
SM
Sid
-
ewalk ST
Driveway
S
pandrel
on
dresslLocat
Igth
area
Igth
wdth
area
Igth
wdth area
Igth wdth area
Igth
wdth area
:nrner of Glendon
196
20
12
240
03
M
)„33
20
33
12
396
3633
33
63
-.43
20
36
12
432-
3643
30
12
360
75
%RSHALL
27
12
324
3715
51
12
612
"27
16
12
192
03
18
6
108
39
12
468
3803
16
12
192
3811
19
12
228
17
24
12
288
,.,21
RALPH
F
59
13
12
156
JESS STREET
24
12
288
3907
-19
12
12
144
28
12
336
,19
NEVADA
16
6
96
30
12
360
od39
.8
6
48
19
12
228
3955
55
9
12
108
12
648
60
J
VALLEY
17
697
l17
R
12
192
17
36
12
432
4017
nr117
45
=NTEL
4.105
12
12
144
NEWBY
h Da Adventist
16
6
96
-,h Da Adventist
16
4213
69
3g
9
351
'13
4WRANCE
-
-
UHAUL
42
42
g
378
''HAUL
ISSION
4315
18
6
108
33
12
396
A 315
336
l25
1
408
6
6
36
t
372
S25
!OS
21
3
63
4423
-
-
i 3 57
q~i gnnnnmR-1 SS/MisrD1
•
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD CONCRETE REPAIR QUANTITIES (foot units)
C8G
Sidewalk
Sidewalk SM Sidewalk ST
Driveway Spandrel
cl-ss/Location
Igth
wdth area
Igth wdth area Igth wdth area
Igth
wdth area Igth wdth area
_
34
408
12
423
39
12 468
>3
F
„>3'
7 70
40
12 480
441
11
33
12 396
40
12 480
11
OWER AZUSA
15
6 90
43
12 516
,-WER AZUSA
)9
15
6 90
42
12 504
509
39
12 468
IG19
11 12 132
119
37
12 444
1019
34
12 408
1619
(CITY LIMIT)
_ ten,
15 990 180
. nc. nnnmmng_I rr/UmrM 3
0
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD - POSSIBLE TREE PLANTING SITES
South of Glendon Way - 1-10 - no planting
ons ram s
East Side
OH Lines
Spaces
Glendon Way north to Shopping Center Drive
5' s/w @ curb
0
Shopping Center Drive to Marshall
2
Marshall North to De Adelana
5' s/w and 3' parkway - @ 3712 @ 3714 - gas meters
1
9' s/w
1
De Adelana north to Ralph
3' pkwy, 5' s/w in front of 3812 and south
1
8' S/w
4
Ralph north to Guess
3' pkwy, 5' s/w
3
Guess to Steele
4
3' pkwy, 5' s/w
Steele to Valley Boulevard
8' s/w
0
Valley Boulevard to Bentel
9' s/w
0
Bentel to Newby
3
9' s/w (3' Pkwy @ 4124)
Newby to Mission
2
Mission to Lower Azusa Road
9' s/w
9
Lower Azusa Road to RR
wa ends at
5
35
Overhead lines over entire walk/parkway. Some utilities noted in
parkway.
ons raints
West Side
OH Lines.
Spaces
Glendon Way to Marshall
2
OH @ 3788
Marshall to Edda Villa
north
0
Edda Villa to Ralph
1
Ralph to Guess
3
3
Guess to Nevada
U.G. utilities
Nevada to Valley Boulevard
2
Valley Boulevard to Bentel
0
Bentel to Newby
0
Newby to Lawrence - 3' pkwy. to 100' north of Newby
3
Lawrence to Mission
0
Mission to Lower Azusa Road
10
Lower Azusa oad to Frontage cad - heavy planting in setback
1
25
TOTAL
60