HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/12/1991CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 121 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ortiz called the meeting to order at 6:30
p.m. at the Diamond Bar Library, 1061 South Grand
Avenue, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: C/Chavers.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Beke, Chavers, Vice Chairman
Gravdahl, and Chairman Ortiz. Commissioner Fritz
arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Also present were City Engineer Sid Mousavi,
Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Associate
Engineer David Liu, Engineering Technician Ann
Garvey, Sergeant Rawlings, and Contract Secretary
Liz Myers.
MINUTES:
Aug. 28, 1991 Motion was made by C/Chavers, seconded by C/Beke
and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of August 28,
1991. VC/Gravdahl abstained.
COMMISSION VC/Gravdahl apologized for missing last months
COMMENTS: meeting. He also commended C/Chavers for his
comments made at the Planning Commission Public
Hearing meeting regarding the General Plan.
STAFF COMMENTS: CE/Mousavi distributed copies of the "Guidelines
for Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis Report"
to the Commission. He introduced two new members
of the Engineering Department, David Liu, the
Associate Engineer, and Ann Garvey, the Engineering
Technician.
NEW BUSINESS:
Proposal: CE/Mousavi reported that the success of the
Community Christmas shuttle, made us consider a community
Circulator circulator for the City. The City received one
response, Mayflower, to the RFP for a community
circulator. Staff has reviewed and discussed the
proposal with Mayflower. From the time the RFP has
been sent out until now, there has been some
changes with respect to how we want to handle the
community circulator within the City. The City is
now considering using CNG type engines for the bus
system. It is anticipated that the development of
that system will take about two years, therefore,
staff has considered using conventional system for
two years for two years, and then changing to
alternate fuel system buses by the third year. To
have a two year system in place, it was considered
to either purchase used buses for the program, or
have the company provide used buses, or perhaps
lease the buses. Also, it was discussed removing
September 12, 1991 Page 2
the route establishment clause from the contract,
and have a consultant develop the route system for
the City. At the same time, we could develop a new
RFP to get more operators bidding on the program.
After reviewing the proposal submitted by
Mayflower, and considering the various alternatives
available to the City, staff has determined that
entering into an agreement with one company for
three years, at this time, is premature. However,
the City will pursue the Christmas shuttle program
independent of the community circulator. It is
recommended that the Commission direct staff as
necessary.
C/Beke stated that RTD is doing the testing for
alternate fuels. Experimenting can be very costly
because technology is changing rapidly. He
suggested that the City remain with standard fuels.
VC/Gravdahl suggested that a letter be sent out to
the community circulators to inquire why they did
not submit a proposal.
Chair/Ortiz suggested that staff research if
Mayflower participates in a bus security system.
C/Chavers inquired if the RFP had indicated that
reimbursement of prospective service is contingent
upon the amount of ridership.
CE/Mousavi responded that the RFP stipulated that
they would get paid based upon their proposal and
bid. Whatever monies are collected from fares
would go back to the City.
C/Chavers indicated that the RFP may be more
attractive to bidders if the City entered into a
privatization technique.
Chair/Ortiz inquired if there were any comments
made regarding advertisement.
CE/Mousavi stated that Mayflower would administer
the advertisement, and the City would govern it.
Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by
C/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff
to contact prior bidders and find the reason why
they did not submit proposals, with a caveat that
Mayflowers bid is not rejected at this point;
September 12, 1991 Page 3
modify the RFP; and bring back the information to
the Commission for further discussion.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Chavers, Gravdahl
and Chair/Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz.
Request for AA/Aberra addressed the Commission regarding the
Crossing guard request from the Director of Transportation from
Services the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD)
for crossing guard services at the intersections of
North Hampton/Glenwick, and Lemon/Colima. A
warrant study must be conducted to determine if
these intersections warrant a crossing guard. It
is recommended that the Commission direct staff to
conduct a warrant study.
CE/Mousavi stated that the warrant study would be
conducted in house.
Motion was made by C/Chavers, seconded by C/Beke
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adopt staff's
recommendation as written.
' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Chavers, Gravdahl,
and Chair/Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz.
Traffic Report CE/Mousavi reported that the owners, Fred and Norma
Janz, of the property located at 23475 Sunset
Crossing, submitted a plan earlier this year to
develop an office building on the undeveloped
portion of their property. Currently, the 2.76
acre site is developed with a three story building,
with 120 parking spaces. In April of 1991, the
Planning Commission directed the applicant to
submit a traffic impact report to the City, to be
reviewed by the Traffic and Transportation
Commission. It is recommended that the Commission
concur with the recommendations made by DKS and
Associates.
Fred Janz, the developer, described the site to be
developed. He explained that, because his existing
building and the Racquetball Club would be able to
share the parking areas, customers would not have
to park on Golden Springs.
' Sgt. Rawlings, in response to Chair/Ortiz's
inquiry, stated that the "right turn only", as
recommended by DKS and Associates, would be
enforceable.
September 12, 1991
Request Removal
of the No
Parking Sign
f;
�j
,'OLD BUSINESS:
i' Priority List
4
i
t
Page 4
Motion was made by C/Chavers, seconded by C/Beke
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's
recommendation, and pass it back to the Planning
Commission with the Traffic and Transportation
Commission's_ approval.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavers, Beke, Gravdahl,
and Chair/Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz.
AA/Aberra addressed the Commission regarding the
request made to the Department of Public Works from
Mr. Michaels, of Valley Professional Center,
requesting the removal of the "No Parking" sign on
Colima Road. It is recommended that the Commission
deny the request to remove the "No Parking" sign on
Colima Road.
CE/Mousavi stated that Mr. Michaels had indicated
that he would be attending the meeting to make a
presentation. However, Mr. Michaels was not
present.
Sgt. Rawlings recalled that prior to the posting of
the "No Parking" sign, people were parking cars for
sale in that area.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's
recommendation to deny the request.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Chavers, Gravdahl,
and Chair/Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz.
Commissioner Fritz arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Chair/Ortiz requested of the Sheriff's Department
to enforce the parking on Golden Springs by the In
and Out Burger restaurant.
CE/Mousavi addressed the Commission regarding the
evaluation of unsignalized intersections and the
potential need for signalization. Staff
recommended that the Commission concur with the
sub -committee's recommendation, evaluate the
attached proposal, and direct staff to work with
DKS in establishing a "Priority List".
A
September 12, 1991 Page 5
C/Beke indicated that there are two different
issues at hand: Deciding where warrant studies
will be done; and prioritizing which signals are
the most needed once they are warranted.
C/Chavers stated that DKS' proposal is lacking an
establishment of criteria, or a subsequent ranking
of the signals already warranted. He suggested
that DKS be asked to include another step which
establishes priority after the signal is warranted.
C/Fritz suggested grouping intersections that are
candidates for signals, those that are not
candidates, as well as an intermediate category,
based on the available data generated from the
circulation element data. Also, DKS could be asked
to develop a mechanism for prioritizing signals
once they are warranted.
C/Beke suggested that DKS be asked to give us a
grouping of intersections that will probably
require a signal in the next five years, a grouping
that may need signals within the next five to ten
years, and a grouping that will probably never need
signals.
Motion was made by C/Fritz, seconded by C/Beke and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to ask DKS to develop a
grouping, as suggested by C/Beke, for the purpose
of determining whether to do a warrant study; and
ask DKS to develop a mechanism for prioritizing
signals once they are warranted.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Chavers, Fritz,
VC/Gravdahl, and
Chair/Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Signal Warrant CE/Mousavi addressed the Commission regarding the
Study signal warrant study for Silver Hawk and Diamond
Bar Boulevard. A copy of the warrant study was
presented to the Commission on July 11, 1gg1. At
that time, the decision was to postpone this matter
until the other matter was decided. It is back to
the Commission one more time for the decision on
this matter.
' C/Beke noted that the request had come before the
Commission at the time that the time that a signal
was put in at Kiowa Crest. The applicants were
told that we would take a look at Silver Hawk,
after the signal was in at Kiowa Crest, because
more traffic gaps would have been created.
September 12, 1991
Page 6
Chair/Ortiz requested that the applicants be
notified that their request has not been forgotten.
Motion was made by C/Chavers, seconded by C/Beke
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to postpone the matter
until the next meeting; to ask staff to review the
commitment to study Silver Hawk and Diamond Bar
Blvd., and bring back the information to the next
meeting.
Signal Warrant
CE/Mousavi addressed the Commission regarding the
Study
signal warrant study on Golden Springs at Golden
Prados Drive and at Prospectors Drive.
Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by
C/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept the
warrants on Golden Springs at Golden Prados and
Prospectors Drive, and direct staff to include it
into DKS' priority list.
Speed Survey:
CE/Mousavi addressed the Commission regarding the
Palomino Dr. &
request to monitor and control Palomino Dr. and
Armitos Place
Armitos Place for speeding. The streets have been
studied as a part of the Circulation Element Study.
DKS has submitted their report, and recommendation
on their findings, with respect to the indicated
streets. It is recommended that the Commission
direct staff as necessary.
C/Beke stated that a stop sign should not be used
as speed control, as is suggested on Armitos Place,
in the recommendations made by DKS. He also stated
his concern for the use of speed bumps.
Sgt. Rawlings stated that there have been 95
tickets written for speed on. Palomino from the last
day of April to July 8, 1991.
C/Beke indicated that there are specific
recommendations made for Palomino Drive that the
Commission can act on, but not with the
recommendations made for Armitos Place.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Chavers
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept the
recommendations made on Palomino Drive for
additional advanced school zone warning signs, and
the posting of 25 mph school zone sign.
Request to AA/Aberra addressed the Commission regarding the
Improve the request made by the occupants of the complex,
Egress located on the NE quadrant of Grand Avenue and
Diamond Bar Boulevard, to improve the egress and
ingress. They have suggested a stop light, or
September 12, 1991 Page 7
painting a red marking on the access lane, as a
solution. Staff recommended that the Commission
deny the request and the proposed solutions.
C/Fritz stated that it does not appear that their
proposed solutions would solve the problem.
Motion was made by C/Chavers, seconded by
VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept
staff's recommendation to deny the request and the
proposed solutions.
Reorganization CE/Mousavi stated that the term would end June of
1992.
Chair/Ortiz requested nominations for chairperson.
VC/Gravdahl nominated C/Chavers for chairperson.
Chair/Ortiz seconded the nomination. C/Chavers
accepted the nomination.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz, Beke, Chavers,
Gravdahl, and Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
The nomination carried.
Chair/Ortiz requested nominations for vice
chairperson.
C/Beke nominated VC/Gravdahl for vice chairperson.
C/Ortiz seconded the nomination. VC/Gravdahl
accepted the nomination.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Fritz, Chavers,
Gravdahl, and Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
The nomination carried.
ITEMS FROM THE C/Fritz suggested that a stop sign be considered on
COMMISSION: Pathfinder at Brea Canyon Road to slow the traffic
coming down Pathfinder, and to give relief to
traffic trying to turn left from Brea Canyon Road.
C/Beke stated that on the August 10th meeting, he
requested staff to review a possible lead for a
signal at Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Road, upon the
opening of Pathfinder Road to Fullerton.
CE/Mousavi stated that staff is currently reviewing
the situation.
September 12, 1991 Page 8
C/Beke, referring to Sunset Crossing and Golden
springs, indicated that normally the need for a
crossing guard is evaluated after the signal is in
operation for six months. He inquired if this will
be done.
i CE/Mousavi responded that it will be done. It will
be brought to the Commission, along with other
requests made, at the next meeting.
C/Beke inquired what the schedule is for the
restriping of the bike lane on Golden Springs and
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
CE/Mousavi stated that the City authorized a
stripping plan today.
C/Chavers suggested that the Commission attend the
Planning Commission Public Hearing meeting, on the
General Plan, and present their comments. He
indicated his concern of a comment made, at the
September 9th Public Hearing, indicating that the
Traffic and Transportation Commission had formally --
disapproved of the idea of Tonner Canyon, and then
later reversed it's recommendation. He stated that
he did not recall the Commission making any kind of
formal statement.
CE/Mousavi confirmed that the Commission had not
made any such formal recommendation regarding the
Tonner Canyon project. CE/Mousavi stated that when
the study was done, the consultant requested three
counties to submit position letters. The County of
Los Angeles has drafted a position letter
supporting the idea of Tonner Canyon. It was
requested that the City of Diamond Bar and Pomona
respond. Staff is not prepared to make a
recommendation because the study did not address
the environmental aspects of the project. However,
if the Commission has any comments or
recommendations, it will be conveyed to the City
Council, and then from there a position letter may
be developed.
C/Chavers requested that the matter be placed as an
agenda item.
C/Fritz stated that he is interested in seeing the
position letters that exist in our request.
September 12, 1991 Page 9
STAFF COMMENTS: AA/Aberra stated that the Commissioners will be
contacted regarding the training session scheduled
for this Saturday.
CE/Mousavi informed the Commission that the
sidewalk at Brea Canyon Road under the 60 freeway
will start in a couple of weeks.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectively,
vi, Secretary