Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/9/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JANUARY 9,. 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Ortiz, Beke, Fritz, Vice Chairman Gravdahl, and Chairman Chavers. Also present were City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Associate Engineer David Liu, Sergeant Rawlings, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MINUTES: Motion was made by C/Ortiz, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of December 12, 1991. COMMISSION C/Ortiz requested an updated list of the Traffic COMMENTS: and Transportation Commission members, and a copy of Ordinance 28a, the 1989 revision of the duties and responsibilities of the Traffic and Transportation Commission. C/Beke suggested that the Commission packets be distributed a week prior to the meeting to allow the Commission adequate time to review it. VC/Gravdahl recommended that the Commission read the article, printed in the Windmill in December, suggesting to the Regional Postmaster, in the City of Industry, to combine zip codes 91765 and 91789 to help speed up mail delivery in Diamond Bar. In reference to the request made by Councilwoman Papen, asking the City Council to support her in writing a letter to the LACTC regarding the green line train, he suggested that Chair/Chavers, in behalf of the Commission, also write a letter supporting her efforts. Chair/Chavers indicated that he would contact Councilwoman Papen to see if she prefers the Commission to either add a single signature, on behalf of the Commission, to the Council's position letter, or draft a separate letter of support that would be similarly worded. In response to C/Beke's concern, Chair/Chavers clarified that, as a body, the Commission's intent is to encourage that money be spent wisely. If the Council's position is anything but this, then he will forego any further action. The Commission concurred to follow this action. January 9, 1992 Page 2 PUBLIC Bruce Flamenbaum, a resident, noting that numerous COMMENTS: speeding tickets are cited at the base of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Gold Rush, inquired why the speed limit is lowered at the base of that hill. Sgt. Rawlings explained that the reason the speed limit is 40 mph is because it is within a school area. The motorists that have been cited at the base of the hill have been traveling in excess of the 45 mph speed limit posted previously. Edward Beach, residing at 20752 E. Rim Lane, stated the following concerns: motorists speeding on Peaceful Hills between Pathfinder and Canyon Ridge, particularly at Rim Lane; and motorists speeding on Pathfinder between Brea Canyon Cut-off and Brea Canyon. CE/Mousavi, in response to Chair/Chavers' inquiry, confirmed that there was a request for a four way stop sign at Peaceful Hills and Pathfinder, but it was determined not to be warranted. Chair/Chavers requested staff to forward the Pathfinder information to Mr. Beach. With respect to the Peaceful Hills subdivision, Chair/Chavers requested staff to conduct a windshield type survey and to place it on the next meeting's agenda as an informational item. CONSENT CALENDAR:Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ortiz and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve item A of the Consent Calendar, and to pull items B and C. Paint Red Curb CE/Mousavi reported that the request to restrict & a Centerline recreational parking and paint a centerline divider Divider at on Montefino is an attempt to minimize the Montefino Ave. visibility restriction which exists on Montefino. Staff recommended to paint the curb red, and paint a center line divider 450 feet from Diamond Bar Blvd. to Paseo de Terrado on Montefino Avenue. CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Beke, confirmed that, if parking is restricted, there is sufficient other parking on Montefino Avenue. C/Bebe suggested the skip centerline stripe divider be painted from Grand Avenue to Diamond Bar Blvd. on Montefino Avenue. C/Ortiz requested that the staff report be amended to indicate that the request is to "restrict" parking and not "remove" recreational parking. January 9, 1992 Page 3 C/Fritz stated that he would prefer that the residents in the area be notified that parking will be restricted. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Fritz and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve staff's recommendation, with the addition of extending the centerline stripe through the entire section of Montefino from Grand to Diamond Bar Boulevard. Staff is to delay activity until notice has been provided to the Condo Association, and they have had 30 days to respond. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz, Beke, Ortiz, VC/Gravdahl and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Traffic Study CE/Mousavi reported that, as requested by the for the Commission at the December 12, 1991 meeting, staff Summitridge/ has compiled some information regarding the traffic Brookwood Comm. operations and traffic circulation within in the Summitridge/Brookwood community. However, staff ' has not had an opportunity to do a full analysis of the compiled data. AE/Liu stated that it is staff's recommendation that the Commission review and discuss the informational items, and direct staff accordingly. C/Beke expressed his concern that the staff report does not address any of the items specifically requested by Chair/Chavers at the December 12th meeting. He also noted that, after reviewing the accident reports, each of the accidents in that area involved a Diamond Bar resident, not by-pass traffic as was first presumed. C/Ortiz volunteered to be one of the members of a sub -committee, of the Commission, to work on an education program with the residents in the area. The following are the items that Chair/Chavers would like staff to address: the kind of circulation study best suited for a residential neighborhood; the general nature of the scope of that study; the goals and objectives that could be ' addressed at a reasonable cost; and a method of invoking input from the citizens. He volunteered to assist C/Ortiz on the sub committee. January 9, 1992 Page 4 CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Ortiz's inquiry, stated that there is $7,885 in the budget for the rest of the fiscal year, for use of consultant services. Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Ortiz and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to have staff bring back the requested information for the next meeting, and to have the sub -committee meet with staff within the next two weeks for the purpose of developing a format for the education program. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Fritz, Ortiz, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. C/Ortiz requested to be excused from the meeting at 7:18 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: Traffic Oper. AE/Liu reported that the Commission had directed on Pathfinder staff on November 14, 1991 to proceed with the at Brea Canyon traffic signal design, and to determine if a three west of State way stop sign is feasible at the Pathfinder and Route 57 Brea Canyon Road intersection as an interim measure. It is recommended that the Commission review the attached analysis and recommend the installation of the three was stop sign as an interim mitigation measure to the City Council. Motion was made by C/Fritz to accept staff's recommendation. Motion failed for lack of a second. C/Beke, concerned if the 57 southbound off ramp would function properly, noted that there is about a half car to a car short of clearing the cue every cycle. Chair/Chavers inquired how staff proposes to monitor the three way stop sign, for what period of time, and under what circumstances will the stop signs be placed interimwise. CE/Mousavi explained that the intent was to observe, and record, the a.m. and p.m. operations, at different days of the week, and to verify the limits anticipated. Staff would then prepare a repoat of the findings, back to the Council, a month or so after installation, with staff's recommendation. The installation of the stop sign January 9, 1992 Page 5 comes with the understanding that it is a temporary measure. C/Beke, concerned with the potential liability upon removal of the stop sign, cautioned that an incident may arise where someone is not aware that the stop sign has been removed, and expects that traffic to continue to stop, but it does not. Chair/Chavers recommended that the interim mitigation measure suggested, be interim until installation 'of the signal. The City Manger also requested this item be postponed. Motion was made by C/Fritz, seconded by Chair/Chavers and FAILED for lack of a majority to accept staff's recommendation. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke and VC/Gravdahl. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ortiz. CE/Mousavi reported that, as a result of the Commission's request that a policy for funding of traffic signals on private/public street intersections be developed, two proposals have been developed with a formula determining the fair share contributions for proposed development, and existing development. C/Beke, referring to the proposed development formula, questioned who would pay for the signal if "the other projects" don't materialize for decades. CE/Mousavi explained that if it is determined that a signal may be warranted, upon development of ' various projects in the future, the developer will be asked to pay for their fair share of the costs based on this formula. The amount would then be held until it is required. Motion was made by C/Fritz, seconded by Chair/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the matter to the next meeting. Policy for CE/Mousavi stated that the City Manager and staff Funding Traffic request that the item be postponed to the next Signals on meeting to allow staff time to provide requested Pub./Priv. St. additional information to management. Intersections Chair/Chavers noted that the Commissioners may have some comments that should be included in staff's information to management. CE/Mousavi reported that, as a result of the Commission's request that a policy for funding of traffic signals on private/public street intersections be developed, two proposals have been developed with a formula determining the fair share contributions for proposed development, and existing development. C/Beke, referring to the proposed development formula, questioned who would pay for the signal if "the other projects" don't materialize for decades. CE/Mousavi explained that if it is determined that a signal may be warranted, upon development of ' various projects in the future, the developer will be asked to pay for their fair share of the costs based on this formula. The amount would then be held until it is required. January 9, 1992 Page 6 Chair/Chavers indicated that, under AB1600, the City may be obligated to expend those funds within a certain time frame. C/Beke, referencing the existing development formula, stated that since private streets are not open to the general public, and is a disruption to the general motoring public, the private development community should pay for a signal, if they so desire one. Chair/Chavers, not satisfied with DKS Associates' analysis, recommended that staff do a specific sketch of the whole intersection. Motion was made by Chair/Chavers, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the item and requested staff to do a schematic plan. VC/Gravdahl noted that the City benefits from the taxes and revenues received from residents of these private communities. These residents should expect to have a safe ingress and egress from their properties. Chair/Chavers stated that if the City does see fit to fund a certain portion, then the best approach may be to fund it from the impact fee program that the City is currently embarking upon. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the February meeting with the Commission's concerns relayed to CM/Van Nort. operational CE/Mousavi reported that the Commission directed Analysis for the staff, on the November 14, 1991 meeting, to proceed Intersection of with an operational analysis of the intersection of Grand/Golden Grand Ave. and Golden Springs, and propose other Springs improvements to that intersection. Upon staff's request, DKS Associates has completed the analysis for the subject location and has proposed several alternatives for the intersection improvements. After review of their report, and staff's analysis, a short term and long term solution has been provided. It is recommended that the Commission consider the solutions indicated in the staff report, and recommend to the City Council that the short term solution be implemented within this fiscal year. It is further recommended that the left turn lane be extended on northbound Grand Ave., to west bound Golden Springs, to provide additional storage area for cars attempting to turn left. Chair/Chavers, not satisfied with DKS Associates' analysis, recommended that staff do a specific sketch of the whole intersection. Motion was made by Chair/Chavers, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the item and requested staff to do a schematic plan. January 9, 1992 Page 7 Application of` CE/Mousavi reported that, upon research of the Speed Humps/Bumps usage of speed bumps/humps in cities surrounding Diamond Bar, it is staff's recommendation that the Commission deny requests associated with the installation of speed bumps/humps as traffic control devices on residential streets. However, the City Attorney has requested that the item be continued to the next meeting to allow time to provide their opinion on this matter. Chair/Chavers requested staff to convey to the City Attorney that it would be appreciated if input would be given before the item becomes an agenda item. C/Fritz indicated that, if the City Attorney determines speed bumps/humps to be a liability problem, he would like to see actual cases that have had decisions on this issue, if possible. Motion was made by C/Fritz, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the matter as requested by staff and the attorney. ' TTC Attending CE/Mousavi reported that this item was placed on PC Meetings the agenda, per Commission's request, for discussion. It is recommended that the Commission direct staff as necessary. Chair/Chavers explained that the Commission is not looking for a formal procedural policy forcing issues to come through the TTC, then to the Planning Commission, but rather a way for the TTC to be kept abreast of what the Planning Commission is doing. VC/Gravdahl suggested that the Commission attend the Planning Commission meetings, on a rotating basis, merely for informational purposes, and report back to the Traffic Commission. He also suggested that the TTC receive a copy of the Planning Commission's agendas. Bruce Flamenbaum, a member of the Planning Commission, suggested that the Commission take a more proactive stance, rather than just attending the meetings. He concurred that the commissions need to be more coordinated in their activities. C/Fritz indicated that if there is a body with knowledge on traffic matters, then they ought to be allowed an opportunity to comment, even in an advisory capacity. January 9, 1992 Page s CE/Mousavi explained that there would need to be a formulated process determining when traffic studies would come first to the Traffic Commission before it is presented to the Planning Commission. C/Fritz stated that there should be a policy indicating that traffic reports must come to the Traffic Commission for their recommendation. Chair/Chavers directed staff to provide the TTC with the Planning Commission's agendas, and a copy of any traffic studies received, along with staff's recommendation. Staff should form a letter from the TTC to the Planning Department and the Planning Commission formally indicating our interest in participation, suggesting how we are going to participate, and specifically requesting their response to that. C/Fritz stated that, additionally, this should be embodied in a formal policy statement. Motion was made by C/Fritz, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to formulate a policy which provides that the Commission receives a copy of the Planning Commission's agendas, and a copy of any items that have a traffic study, in a timely way to allow an opportunity for comment. That policy is to be brought back to the Commission for a recommendation. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Fritz, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ortiz. White Paper CE/Mousavi reported that the item was placed on the agenda, per Commission's request, for discussion. It is recommended that the Commission direct staff as necessary. Chair/Chavers submitted a copy of a draft "White Paper" to staff and the Commission. He requested staff to find out when the final "White Paper" must be submitted. Motion was made by C/Fritz, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the item to the next meeting. -- January 9, 1992 Page 9 NEW BUSINESS: Curb Marking AE/Liu addressed the Commission regarding the Diamond Bar Blvd. request from Mr. Corkrum, of Diamond Bar High School, to install white curb markings along the north side of Pathfinder Road, east of Evergreen Springs Dr. and along east side of Brea Canyon Road, south of Pathfinder, as shown on the attached aerial map. Currently, the intersection of Pathfinder Rd. and Evergreen Springs Dr. receives crossing guard service. Staff has conducted site visits and concludes that the installation of white curb markings will improve the high school's onsite traffic circulation. It is recommended that the Commission concur with staff's recommendation to install white curb markings at the above mentioned locations. Traffic Impact AE/Liu reported that staff has been working with Report Guidelines DKS and Associates to develop the guidelines for the preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports. It is recommended that the Commission review and recommend the adoption of the Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis Report to the City Council. 1 C/Beke stated that, since this is solely for the benefit of the school, the school should pay for it. He then suggested the use of passenger loading zone signs, instead of painting the curb white, since it is difficult to remove paint from the curb. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by Chair/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation to remove parking on these locations on Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Rd., with the exception that, in lieu of putting white curbs, "No Parking Passenger Loading Only" signs are posted, as well as recommend that all work be done at the school's expense. It is further recommended that the high school have some awareness program informing the parents that this is to be done. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Fritz, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ortiz. Traffic Impact AE/Liu reported that staff has been working with Report Guidelines DKS and Associates to develop the guidelines for the preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports. It is recommended that the Commission review and recommend the adoption of the Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis Report to the City Council. 1 January 9, 1992 Page 10 Chair/Chavers requested the following changes: Study Area, page 2, needs to specify a time frame for discussion; such discussion should be during a scoping meeting; General Information, item 1, should specify the period for the growth factor, or just require that the City Engineer provide that; omit 8 Lanes Divided in the table of Recommended Daily Roadway Capacity values; make the standards more rigid; Project Impact, page 6, item 1, needs specific direction as to when the City must approve estimated rates prior to acceptance; Mitigation, page y7, omit 5.a; Mitigation, page 7, 5.c, is ambiguous;. suggested including, in Mitigation, signalization, changes to signalization, as well as an analysis of the correction of signals; Mitigation, page 7, delete 5.e. and strongly urged staff to include an "or else" in the Impact Fee program; page 8, item 6, omit "particularly heavy"; page 8, item 7, omit "with the" and add "through"; page 8, delete items 9, 10, and 11; page 8, item 14, needs a policy; page 9, reword items 16 and 17 to indicate that it is an interim statement and subject to change; and page 9, final paragraph, _. omit first sentence. CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Fritz, suggested that the paragraph at the end of the document indicate that this report is subject to review by the Traffic and Transportation Commission, and that adequate time must be allotted in order to schedule an item for the Commission agenda. Chair/Chavers recommended that it should also be addressed in the last paragraph on page one. Motion was made by Chair/Chavers, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adopt the Guidelines, as amended, and send it to the Council with the caveat that a copy be sent to the Commission first for review. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Fritz, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ortiz. ITEMS FROM THE C/Beke recommended that the Commission have a COMMISSION: second meeting to complete discussion of Old Business items. Following discussion, the Commission concurred to have a second meeting on February 23, 1992. C/Fritz requested staff to provide the Commission, on a monthly basis, with a balance sheet indicating the cost estimates of requested traffic studies. January 9, 1992 Page 11 ITEMS FROM CE/Mousavi reported that the CalTrans study on the STAFF: 57/60 interchange well not be completed until June of 1992. The City has also been working with CalTrans LACTC to get the HOV lanes going. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Fritz, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:33 p.m. Respectively, Sid Mousavi Secretary/Traffic Commission Chairman 1 1