Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/13/19921 1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Ury, Cheng, Beke, and Chairman Chavers. Vice Chairman Gravdahl was absent. Also present were Associate Engineer David Liu, Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Sergeant Rawlings, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MINUTES: July 9, 1992 C/Beke requested that the minutes be amended on page 5, fifth paragraph, to indicate "marking the crosswalk would not necessarily improve the safety reasons. and page 8, seventh paragraph, to indicate "two-way left hand turn lanes". Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY approve the Minutes of July 9, 1992, as amended. COMMISSION C/Ury stated that he had been under the impression COMMENTS: that the issue of improving medians was in a preliminary stage, and not a final action. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chair/Chavers requested item C be pulled from the Consent Calendar to allow for public comment. C/Ury requested item B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. He will be abstaining from voting on the matter because he lives on the indicated street. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve items A, D, and E of the Consent Calendar. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Motion was made by Chair/Chavers and CARRIED Consent Calendar. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, and Chair/Chavers. None. None. VC/Gravdahl. C/Beke , seconded by to approve item B of the Beke, Cheng, Chair/Chavers. None. Ury. VC/Gravdahl. and August 13, 1992 Page 2 Installation AE/Liu presented the staff report regarding the "No U -Turn" request, by a resident, that "No U -Turn" signs be signs on Grand/ installed on Grand Ave. and Cleghorn Drive. Cleghorn Following investigation, staff has determined that the Grand Ave./Cleghorn Dr. intersection is the safest and most perceptible location in providing U-turn and left -turn maneuvers for the travelling motorists. It is recommended that the Commission deny the request to install "No U -Turns" signs on Grand Ave. and Cleghorn Drive. Stan Granger, residing at 2300 Gold Nugget Ave., stated that because of the traffic, it is very difficult for the residents to get on Grand Ave. from Cleghorn Drive. Most motorists getting on the left turn lane on Grand Ave. are making U-turns rather than making a left turn onto Cleghorn Drive. He presented the Commission and staff with a map indicating the pattern being travelled by motorists. He noted that motorists are even coming off of Diamond Bar Blvd. onto Grand Ave. and making a U-turn at Cleghorn Drive. AE/Liu, in response to C/Ury, stated that staff did not observe the pattern as indicated by Mr. Granger. Most traffic is coming out of the shopping center versus Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Beke noted that if the U-turns are prohibited at the Grand Ave./Cleghorn Dr., then motorists will be forced to travel further on Grand Ave. to make their U-turn. Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation to deny the request for "No U -Turn" signs on Grand Ave./Cleghorn Drive. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: vC/Gravdahl. NEW BUSINESS: AA/Aberra reported that Mr. Steve Keen and Mr. Gerald Smith, of UMA Engineering, Inc., will Fixed Route present a summarization of the Phase I report, of Deviation the Fixed Route Deviation Transit Program, and Transit Prog. introduce what Phase II of the study will entail. This matter was presented to the Commission prior to Old Business items at the request of UMA Engineering, Inc. can have a higher fare; the shopping/service trips can be a more flexible, but reliable service, that should have a lower fare; of the route options considered, he recommended two different systems - one for the peak periods (7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00- 7:00 p.m.) and one for the off peak periods (9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.); he reviewed the various loop route options, and stated that he prefers option 1 for the off peak period, and option 1 for the peak periods: the average cost for both options added together is $797,500; there is a Proposition A reserve of $400,000 for 1991/92, and $485,000 for 1992/93; if Diamond Bar were to join the Pomona Valley Transit authority in running this system, Diamond Bar would then qualify for Proposition A discretionary funds of between $30,000 to $90,000 a year; the fare box is in the range of $10,000 to $50,000; the estimate funds available, on a three year average, is $658,000 to $758,000, with Proposition A and the fare box; the estimated funds available, on a three year average, using Proposition A funds, Proposition C funds (1992/93) and the fare box is 1 million dollars; modifying option 1, of the peak period, by using only two dial -a -ride vans, and option 1, of the off peak period, by using only one van on the dial -a -ride, would reduce the total cost of the system to $635,000, which would be affordable using Proposition A funds; another alternative, if Bial- a -ride proves unsuccessful in the peak periods, would be to eliminate the van during the peak periods and use four buses, thus costing $725,000; August 13, 1992 Page 3 Steve Keen stated that UMA Engineering, Inc. has studied an array of options before coming up with the recommendation for a Fixed Route Deviation Transit Program. The study scope of Phase I was looking to gage support for transit in Diamond Bar, identify the potential markets that transit could serve, evaluate the various route lay out options, and the financing for the preferred route lay out. Phase II would be more of a detail design of the transit system. He then made the following summarization of the study scope: there is a strong support for a transit service in Diamond Bar; 48% of the ridership market is for school/work trips, and 52% is for shopping/service trips; with any system developed, most of the ridership will be generated from the main roads in Diamond Bar; it is recommended that the transit system not be considered outside of Diamond Bar because the work locations, of those residents working outside of the City, are scattered, thus having no transit market; the school/work trips require very reliable, on time, direct and fast service, that can have a higher fare; the shopping/service trips can be a more flexible, but reliable service, that should have a lower fare; of the route options considered, he recommended two different systems - one for the peak periods (7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00- 7:00 p.m.) and one for the off peak periods (9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.); he reviewed the various loop route options, and stated that he prefers option 1 for the off peak period, and option 1 for the peak periods: the average cost for both options added together is $797,500; there is a Proposition A reserve of $400,000 for 1991/92, and $485,000 for 1992/93; if Diamond Bar were to join the Pomona Valley Transit authority in running this system, Diamond Bar would then qualify for Proposition A discretionary funds of between $30,000 to $90,000 a year; the fare box is in the range of $10,000 to $50,000; the estimate funds available, on a three year average, is $658,000 to $758,000, with Proposition A and the fare box; the estimated funds available, on a three year average, using Proposition A funds, Proposition C funds (1992/93) and the fare box is 1 million dollars; modifying option 1, of the peak period, by using only two dial -a -ride vans, and option 1, of the off peak period, by using only one van on the dial -a -ride, would reduce the total cost of the system to $635,000, which would be affordable using Proposition A funds; another alternative, if Bial- a -ride proves unsuccessful in the peak periods, would be to eliminate the van during the peak periods and use four buses, thus costing $725,000; August 13, 1992 Page 4 in regards to utilizing the Commuter Rail and a future commuter rail station on Grand Ave.(1994/95), he suggested that Diamond Bar first determine the demand, and then determine if Diamond Bar has a role in taking people to the commuter rail station; and he suggested that, if this system does get going, Diamond Bar join the Pomona Valley Transit. Chair/Chavers noted that just because transit is supported, it does not necessarily mean that it will be used. Furthermore, the main issue at hand is not ridership and routes, but rather if it makes financial sense to go forward. C/Beke stated that the study shows that two thirds of the people feel transit is needed, but only one third of the people will use it, sometimes. The fare box revenues will not even be 5% of the operational costs. It appears that Proposition A funds are about to be used to run empty buses to connect to empty trains. Gerald Smith stated that one of the aspects of phase two will be a recommendation of a set of service standards. If the scenario depicted by C/Beke is accurate, then it will be recommended that Diamond Bar take the service off. A member of the audience, a resident, stated that she is in support of a transit system. She pointed out that the park -n -ride users would also support such a system, and that children could use the bus to go to movies and other activities, if the system runs into residential areas. The Commission approved the recommendation to receive and file this report. ®LD BUSINESS: Diamond Bar AE/Liu presented the staff report regarding the Boulevard/ request to investigate the intersection of Diamond Fountain Springs Bar Blvd. and Fountain Springs Road. Based upon investigation, staff believes that the sight distance can be improved significantly by modifying the existing wall and trimming the cedars presently in place. Furthermore, it is believed that the no parking on the northside to be more important than the restriction on the south side of Fountain Springs. Staff recommended that, based on the cost and impact on Diamond Bar Blvd. traffic, additional design modifications should be made only if the proposed modifications do not prove adequate. It AE/Liu explained that ICE/Wentz is currently working with the property owner, with the intentions of modifying the existing wall. If the recommendations made by staff do not fulfill the concern expressed by the residents, then the modifications on Diamond Blvd., as suggested by the Commission at the last meeting, will be investigated. C/Beke stated that the existing problem is that motorists need to get further out into the intersection to see oncoming traffic. If this can be accomplished by other means, why go through the expense of lowering the wall. AE/Liu stated that staff intends only to do the red curbing at this time, as an interim solution. Fred Scalzo, President of the Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce, stated that they oppose the extent that the red curb is to be painted. Red curbing, passed 40 feet on the north side of Fountain Springs, from the stop line on Diamond Bar Blvd., or passed the driveway on the south side of Fountain Springs, removes a substantial number of parking spaces. He indicated that the most effective solution to the safety problem may be a traffic light, if it is so warranted. C/Beke noted that staff's original recommendation had been to paint only 50 feet of the curb red. The property owner of the business complex, Dr. Cho opposed the extent of the proposed red curbing. Sgt. Rawlings noted that the Fountain Springs intersection has had 9 traffic collisions in a 28 month period of time, or an average of 1 every three months, but that Grand Ave., between Cleghorn and Gold Nugget has had 14 traffic collisions in a slightly longer period of time. The problem may August 13, 1992 `'Page 5 is recommended that staff complete a detailed cost estimate to improve the sight distance on the Long property, that the curb on the north side of Fountain Springs Road from Diamond Bar Blvd. to Rising Star be authorized to be red, and that the south side of Fountain Springs Road between the two drives be red curbed. C/Beke stated that the Commission had requested staff to also investigate a right turn lane in, narrowing the bike lane, and pulling the stop line out as much as ten feet. AE/Liu explained that ICE/Wentz is currently working with the property owner, with the intentions of modifying the existing wall. If the recommendations made by staff do not fulfill the concern expressed by the residents, then the modifications on Diamond Blvd., as suggested by the Commission at the last meeting, will be investigated. C/Beke stated that the existing problem is that motorists need to get further out into the intersection to see oncoming traffic. If this can be accomplished by other means, why go through the expense of lowering the wall. AE/Liu stated that staff intends only to do the red curbing at this time, as an interim solution. Fred Scalzo, President of the Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce, stated that they oppose the extent that the red curb is to be painted. Red curbing, passed 40 feet on the north side of Fountain Springs, from the stop line on Diamond Bar Blvd., or passed the driveway on the south side of Fountain Springs, removes a substantial number of parking spaces. He indicated that the most effective solution to the safety problem may be a traffic light, if it is so warranted. C/Beke noted that staff's original recommendation had been to paint only 50 feet of the curb red. The property owner of the business complex, Dr. Cho opposed the extent of the proposed red curbing. Sgt. Rawlings noted that the Fountain Springs intersection has had 9 traffic collisions in a 28 month period of time, or an average of 1 every three months, but that Grand Ave., between Cleghorn and Gold Nugget has had 14 traffic collisions in a slightly longer period of time. The problem may August 13, 1992 Page 6 not be as serious as originally stated. Furthermore, red curbing passed a few feet would probably not relieve any traffic collisions that may occur at this intersection. Ken Anderson pointed out that 7 of those 9 traffic collisions on Fountain Springs have occurred in the last year. He noted that the original request was for 50 feet of red curbing. Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to deny staff's recommendation made this meeting, and to request staff to adhere to the motion made previously at the July 9, 1992 meeting. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Norte. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Gravdahl. Soundwall on AE/Liu presented the staff report for the request Grand Ave./Gold to construct a soundwall on Grand Ave. at Gold Nugget Nugget Avenue. Following investigation, staff does not recommend the construction of a soundwall or guardrails on Grand Ave. at this time, for reason outlined in the staff report. It is recommended that the residents increase their slope area landscaping via planting of trees, such as Italian Cypress on Grand Avenue. Nina Goncharov, residing at 23631 Gold Nugget, stated that she feels that the City has a duty to protect the citizens from traffic hazards. She requested (and received) a copy of the results of the study conducted by staff. She then made the following comments: the noise levels, trash, fire hazards and safety concerns make the area unlivable; home values have decreased $100,000 since Grand Ave. opened; the estimated cost for the construction of the soundwall seems inflated; and the City may be liable if someone gets hurt. Chair/Chavers requested AE/Liu to have the City Attorney provide staff with a written statement as to the City's actual liability in this situation. C/Ury informed Ms. Goncharov that the residents along Grand Avenue own the slope that back ups to Grand Ave., and that they could plant trees, and fire retardant bushes to mitigate some of their concerns. August 13, 1992 Page 7 Stan Granger, who up to Grand Ave., much problem with he is concerned suggested that a the speed limit killed. owns a lot with a slope backing stated that he does not have as noise as Ms. Goncharov, however, with the traffic safety. He guardrail be considered, or that be reduced, before someone is Chair/Chavers, in response to Ms. Goncharov's concern that the Commission does not understand the extent of the resident's problems, explained that the Commission is only an advisory body to the City Council. Staff has indicated that the City currently does not have the financial capability to construct a soundwall and/or a guardrail. The Commission is trying to deal with this issue technically, with the hopes of coming up with an interim solution to alleviate the concerns expressed. C/Ury noted that a soundwall creates a corridor which is likely to increase the speed traveled down Grand Avenue. He stated that he may be willing to consider a guardrail as an alternative. C/Cheng concurred that a soundwall may encourage motorist to increase speed, and that she is willing to consider a guardrail. She pointed out that property values may have decreased not so much because of the opening of Grand Ave. but because of the overall market. C/Beke stated that an $80,000 guardrail is not warranted for one or two accidents. The solution to the problems mentioned could be handled by the property owners. He suggested that the neighborhood band together for some sort of an assessment district to build a wall. Nina Goncharov inquired if the Commission would be willing to put, in writing, that it is the residents problem, and that the City does not have funds at this time. Chair/Chavers stated that discussion of this meeting will be in the minutes, which is made available to the public. He then stated that soundwalls, constructed on hills, notoriously do not work well because sound travels laterally. He is not opposed to a guardrail, and landscaping, if the community is willing to band together to finance it. A garden type wall may solve the problems mentioned. August 13, 1998 Page 8 Motion was made by C/Beke to accept staff's recommendation denying construction of a soundwall or guardrail, and to suggest to the property owners to investigate planting or landscaping on the slope. The Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation to not build a soundwall at this time. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: vC/Gravdahl. Chair/Chavers suggested that, since the City has had a lot of discussion about maintaining hillsides, perhaps the City should be encouraged to explore this as an avenue of a joint effort. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to work with the property owners to encourage them to increase landscaping on the slope. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: vC/Gravdahl. Motion was made by C/Beke to accept staff's recommendation to deny the installation of a guardrail. The Motion failed for lack of a second. Sgt. Rawlings stated that it has been suggested that a guardrail may be beneficial for the slope areas between Rolling Knoll and Cleghorn. Chair/Chavers noted that a guardrail, installed behind a curve, is dangerous because it can ricochet a car right back into traffic. Motion was made by C/Ury, and seconded by C/Cheng and CARRIED to deny staff's recommendation that construction of a guardrail is not appropriate at this time, and to direct staff to get with the property owners to discuss developing some sort of 1 n 1� August 13, 1992 Page 9 participation program, and discuss technical options of what can be done. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Cheng, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Gravdahl. Funding traffic AA/Aberra reported that the matter, regarding the signals on policy for funding traffic signals on private and public & private public street intersections, is brought before the intersections Commission to clarify the intent of item #3, Existing Residential Subdivision, as presented in the staff report, prior to presentation to the City Council. Based on the criteria as presently stated, a signal such as the one proposed for Diamond Bar Blvd. and Shadow Canyon Drive would be funded by the City. This differs from staff's understanding of the intent. It is recommended that signals at private street intersections either be based on a pro -rated basis or be funded 100% by the applicant. Chair/Chavers confirmed the Commission's intentions on the issue, as it is stated in the Minutes of the April 9, 1992 meeting. He inquired if the policy developed by the Commission would create a funding conflict. AE/Liu stated that, as of this date, the City has not collected any money from the JCC development, which is a development that will be contributing their fair share towards the traffic signal at Shadow Canyon and Diamond Bar Boulevard, nor from "The Country". Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to deny staff's recommendation and to affirm the Commission's previously stated position, as indicated in the Minutes of April 9, 1992, that a residential subdivision street, whether they be public or private, intersects a public highway, a traffic signal will be paid for 100% by the City. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, and Chair/Chavers. None. None. VC/Gravdahl. August 13, 1992 Page 10 NEW BUSINESS: Warrant Analysis AA/Aberra reported that, at the May 21, 1992 for crossing Commission meeting, staff was requested to guard services establish a standard which will be utilized to determine the public street that are warranted for crossing guard services. It is recommended that the Commission continue to utilize the CalTrans' criteria to warrant crossing guards. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Commission concur with staff's recommendation to review and evaluate, annually, the locations where crossing guards currently serve in the City of Diamond Bar. Chair/Chavers stated that the Commission had requested that a new criteria be developed, that would satisfy the community, to determine when crossing guard services should be authorized. C/Cheng, concurring with the need to develop a new criteria, suggested that parents could be asked to participate in the costs for crossing guards. Motion was made by Chair/Chavers, seconded by C/Cheng and CARRIED to deny staff's recommendation to continue to utilize CalTrans' criteria, and to direct staff to revisit the issue of crossing guard warrant criteria, developing a new criteria that will tighten our standards, then begin to evaluate annually the locations where crossing guards currently serve in the City of Diamond Bar. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Cheng, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Gravdahl. Install 25 MPH AE/Liu presented the staff report regarding the signs on request, by Mr. Hsieh, to install 25 MPH signs on Summitridge Dr. Summitridge Drive at Leyland Drive to remind at Leyland Dr. traffic of the speed limit in the area. It is recommended that a 25 MPH ,speed limit sign be installed on Summitridge at Leyland Drive to warn traffic of the speed limit in the residential area. Chair/Chavers stated that he does not recall discussing Pantera Drive, as indicated in Mr. Hsieh's letter, nor does he understand what is being referred to as a "(downhill slope with bus stop)". Staff's recommendation may not be answering Mr. Hsieh's question. '�J C August 13, 1992 Page 11 Motion was made by Chair/Chavers, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation, as presented, with the added caveat that staff investigate Mr. Hsieh's letter, and that Mr. Hsieh be contacted to assure that his concern is being properly addressed. Staff is to get back to the Commission with the results of the discussion. STATUS OF AA/Aberra reported that item E, Golden Springs PREVIOUS ACTION Drive Name Change, went before the City Council ITEMS: August 4, 1992. Staff was directed to contact the property and business owners again by the Council and inform them that the item will come before the Council on the first meeting in September of 1992. AE/Liu reported that the "No right Turn On Red" sign, item C, was recently installed. COMMISSION AA/Aberra, in response COMMENTS: Condominium Association on Silver Hawk Drive removed, as indicated Items. to C/Beke, stated that the requested that the red curb at Diamond Bar Blvd. be in item 2, of Future Agenda Chair/Chavers commented if any cities have used textured concrete to create crosswalks as a means to slow down motorists. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Cheng, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn at 9:26 p.m. to September 10, 1992. �Respectively, David G. Liu Secretary