Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/11/19941 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ortiz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Chavers. ROLL CALL Chair/Ortiz stated that VC/Istik would be absent and excused from tonight's meeting. Commissioners: Esposito, Chavers, Gravdahl, and Chairman Ortiz. Staff: Senior Engineer, David Liu; Consultant Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke; Administrative Assistant, Tseday Aberra; Sergeant Rawlings, and Engineering Secretary, Linda Smith. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Meetings of June 9, 1994, July 14, 1994 and July 18, 1994. C/Chavers asked for a change in the Minutes of July 18, 1994, page 6, last paragraph, the sentence starting with, "He acted negatively..." to read, "Mr. Chavers reacted negatively... 11 C/Esposito would abstain from voting on the July 14, 1994 Minutes. Moved by C/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Chavers and carried to approve the Minutes of the June 9, 1994, July 14, 1994, and July 18, 1994 as discussed. II. COMMISSION COMMENTS C/Gravdahl inquired about the accident rate at the intersection of Pathfinder Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard with relation to the northbound Diamond Bar Boulevard traffic turning west onto Pathfinder Road. SE/Liu responded that a left -turn signal warrant study was conducted at the intersection of Pathfinder Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard last year and at the July 19, 1994, City Council meeting a budget of $30,000 for left -turn phasing was approved. August 11, 1994 Page 2 T&T Commission Sgt. Rawlings asked for clarification regarding the time frame for the accident count needed. It was decided a one-year report would be given to staff to forward to Commissioner Gravdahl. C/Gravdahl commented that the northbound traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard, at the left -turn arrows onto SR -60 eastbound near Palomino Drive, backs up with cars and blocks Palomino Drive. C/Gravdahl stated that he had been contacted by a resident of Palomino Drive asking for "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION" pavement marking on Diamond Bar Boulevard. He further commented that at 3:30 p.m. the right -turn pocket between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Palomino Drive and the eastbound SR -60 allows for six cars. He asked about the adequacy of length between the intersection of Palomino/ Diamond Bar Boulevard and the SR -60 on-ramp and if the spacing for another signal would be a problem. Consultant Siecke, responded that these items are taken into consideration during a traffic signal warrant study. SE/Liu responded that the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Palomino Drive is scheduled for a traffic signal warrant study in this Fiscal Year along with eight other areas. The findings of these studies will be brought to the Commission for review. C/Chavers requested that the geometric options of the intersection be considered at the time of the traffic signal warrant ctud.1 because of the tight spacing and co-ordination with CalTrans. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dr. Lawrence Rhodes, 594-8178, requested the Commission to look into the following items: 1. Parking on the west side of Brea Canyon Road north of SR -60: 30 -minute parking for commercial vehicles is constantly violated. He recommends that the area be posted "No Parking". 2. Brea Canyon Road south of Lycoming Street and south of the Preschool, he requested a right -turn only lane for the southbound Brea Canyon Road traffic onto the westbound SR -60. 3. On Lycoming Street east of Brea Canyon Road, he requested "No Commercial Parking." 4. On Washington Street between Brea Canyon Road and Lincoln Avenue, he requested "No Overnight Parking". There is no need for the residents' parking since there is no access to the homes in the area and because of the number of abandoned vehicles he has called into the Sheriff's Department. 5. The green -time for the eastbound SR -60 Off -ramp at Golden Springs Drive (Brea Canyon Road off -ramp) is 15 seconds too long than it needs to be for the Golden Springs Drive traffic. He requested a time study to increase the green- time for the freeway traffic. 6. The same off -ramp has numerous pot -holes and is need of repair. He requested the City notify CalTrans to see if they would fix it. SE/Liu responded that regarding the violation of 30 -minute parking on the westerly side of Brea Canyon Road north of the SR -60 as well as the right -turn only lane on Brea Canyon Road onto SR -60 westbound, staff will conduct investigative study and bring back to August 11, 1994 Page 3 T&T Commission the Commission for review.Regarding the parking on Lycoming Street east of Brea Canyon Road, the request for "No Commercial Parking" has been included in .the item forwarded to the City Council. However, the addition of Lycoming Street east of Brea Canyon Road is to have "No Stopping" between Brea Canyon Road and Silver Fir Road during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The Public Works Department will convey Dr. Rhodes' concerns regarding the Brea Canyon Road off -ramp at eastbound SR -60 to CalTrans. Dr. Rhodes commented that these restrictions force the residents to move their cars, but "No Commercial Vehicles" would not. SE/Liu responded that the State Attorney General's Office issued an opinion stating that a City has no authority to prohibit the parking of particular categories of vehicles on its residential streets. Sgt. Rawlings commented that the enforcement of time limits is difficult. C/Chaver asked for clarification regarding the State law on parking enforcement and private vendors. Sgt. Rawlings responded that the passing of AB 408 a year ago makes parking citations a civil, not a criminal matter. The City of Diamond Bar is currently using the Sheriff's Department as the enforcement agency for parking citations, but handles its own processing of these citations via City Hall. Some cities in the Los Angeles area have private vendors who process both the citing and the collecting. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS - None A. City Wide speed Zone survey SE/Liu reported that the City of Diamond Bar conducted a City Wide Speed Zone Survey in June of 1989 and the City Council, on September 19, 1989, adopted Ordinance No. 22(1989) to approve said survey. In order to enforce speed limits by radar or other electronic devices, a speed study must be conducted every five years. Section 40802 of the California limit enforced by radar and "...which Vehicle Code defines a speed speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation..." constitutes a speed trap. Since speed traps are illegal, the lack of an adequate study effectively precludes the Sheriff Department from using radar enforcement. August 11, 1994 Page.4 T&T commission Through adoption of this study, the Sheriff Department will be able to enforce posted speed limit with radar equipment. The report being presented reflects the result of an engineering and traffic survey for the establishment of speed limits on City streets as required by Sections 22357 and 22358 of the California Vehicle Code. In this update five streets have been added: Chino Avenue, Kiowa Crest Drive, Palomino Drive, Walnut Drive and Washington Street. This report is given to the Commissions for review and comments. The same report will be presented to the City Council on August 16, 1994, and staff is recommending the adoption of a resolution to continue radar enforcement on these City streets. Chair/Ortiz asked for clarification on Chino Hills Parkway as presented in the study. Consultant Siecke responded that the recommendation is to maintain the existing speed limit of 45 mph based upon critical speeds, condition of the roadway, consistency with the connecting speed limits in neighboring cities of Pomona and Chino Hills, and the accident rate comparison of actual to expected. Chair/Ortiz asked if 55 mph or 50 mph were considered since the limit had once been 55 mph on Chino Hills Parkway, and the day, and time the speed Zone Survey was conducted. He asked if there would be a safety issue involved if the speed limit was raised to 50 mph or 55 mph from 45 mph. SE/Liu responded that the speed zone study for Chino Hills Parkway was conducted in 1991 after the completion of the road, and that the study also recommended 45 mph and was posted as such. Consultant Siecke responded that maintaining the 45 mph existing speed is appropriate for the roadway, re -iterating continuity as a major factor. He further stated that the length of the segment is slightly over one-half mile, and planners try to avoid fluctuation of speed limits over a roadway that is consistent in character. Regarding the day of the week, Consultant Siecke, responded the study was done on Friday, April 29, 1994, from 13:15 to 13:45, one -hundred samples. He commented that speed zone studies are typically done in off-peak hours when traffic flows freely and speeds do not tend to vary day to day. Regarding 50 mph and 55 mph, he said that enforcement might be difficult for the other cities, but that he did not think a safety issue would be involved. Chair/Ortiz asked about the speeds on Kiowa Crest Drive. August 11, 1994 Page 5 T&T Commission Consultant Siecke responded that Kiowa Crest Drive is a residential street, but due to its uninterrupted length over a mile, it requires a traffic and engineering survey to establish the speed limit. In accordance with the CalTrans Traffic Manual, the recommendation justifies a greater than 25 mph speed limit for this residential street. The study concluded the traffic at the 85 percentile was traveling at 39 mph, so the recommendation is for 30 mph. This is an increase of 5 mph, but is enforceable by radar. Radar cannot be used for enforcement if the street is posted 25 mph. He commented that the research data indicates that the speed of a driver is typical with the driver,'s comfort level regardless of the posting. Therefore, with a 30 mph posting and radar enforcement there is a potential to lower the speed from the 85 percentile traveling at 39 mph. Sgt. Rawlings commented that with enforcement the average speed could possibly be reduced rather than increased. Chair/Ortiz asked staff about the concerns of Craig Clute, 21217 Fountain Springs Road, brought to the Traffic and Transportation Commission on July 14, 1994. AA/Aberra responded that she had made contact with Mr. Clute and staff was handling the matters administratively while maintaining contact with him. Chair/Ortiz asked staff to comment on the recommendation for 30 -mph, including comments regarding the accidents, citizen concerns and letters to City Hall. Consultant Siecke, responded that the recommendation for Prospectors Road is 30 mph. He further indicated that the 85 percentile is at 38 mph and is therefore similar to the Kiowa Crest situation. In order to enforce the speed limit with radar, not constituting a speed trap, the posting cannot be"25 mph. Within the school .zone, 25 mph would still be applicable. The traffic accident count is very low and is not considered a safety hazard. SE/Liu responded that he was unaware of any citizen concerns. C/Chavers commented that prima-facie speed limit is 25 mph in residential areas. By raising the speed limit on Kiowa Crest Drive, Palomino Drive, and Prospectors Road, it - would be setting a precedent. Since the City of Diamond Bar has no adopted General Plan, including a Circulation Element with certain street classifications, a policy has not been established. Such a policy may yet be established. Therefore, the Commission should recommend to the City Council that a closer look be taken with regard to these residential streets. SE/Liu commented that Ordinance 22 will need to be amended and that the additional streets would be discussed at that time. August 11, 1994 Page 6 T&T Commission The Resolution which will be brought before the City Council on August 16, 1994, if adopted, will approve the study and allow the Sheriff's Department to continue radar enforcement on City streets based on the current Speed Zone Study only. C/Gravdahl asked about the Palomino Drive enforcement. Sgt. Rawlings responded that radar enforcement is easier and that pacing a vehicle on a residential street is very difficult. - C/Chavers moved, seconded C/ Gravdahl, to recommend to City Council the adoption of Speed Zone Survey as presented with exception of Kiowa Crest Drive and Palomino Drive, and recommend that a policy discussion be considered with regard to the raising of speed limits in residential streets from the prima-facie speed limit of 25 mph. The Motion was passed unanimously with the following ROLL CALL vote: AYES: Chavers, Gravdahl, Esposito, Chair/Ortiz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chair/Ortiz turned the meeting over to C/Ghavers and was excused at 8:00 P.M. VII. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS SE/Liu commented that the recommendation for parking restrictions on Brea Canyon Road is being forwarded to the August 16, 1994 City Council meeting. VIII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS C/Chavers requested information or an overview on the Regional Studies of the Four Corners Study lead by SLAG, the San Gabriel Valley Bikeway Master Plan conducted by LACMTA which is in progress, and the Pomona Valley's Traffic Signal Synchronization Program for inter -jurisdictional arterial co-ordination. Consultant Siecke responded that he had attended a meeting this afternoon of the Four Corners Group. The issues of Soquel Canyon and Tonner Canyon are being discussed and there is a difference of opinion. The north Orange County cities are opposed to a road coming through Tonner Canyon, and the cities of Chino Hills and Diamond Bar have the position that the road is necessary. The Counties involved are Orange, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles. The road is on the San Bernardino Master Plan, but not on the Orange County or Los Angeles County Master Plans. A sub -committee will be 1 1 August 11, 1994 Page 7 T&T Commission formed to look into ways of solving the disagreement and a September meeting is scheduled. SE/Liu commented that he will keep the Commission abreast of the updates/ developments of these subject matters and would convey the request for information to the City Manager who is a member of the Four Corners Committee. Regarding the San Gabriel Valley Bikeway Master Plan, he has been in touch with the MTA and they are still gathering data. AA/Aberra commented that the draft San Gabriel Valley Bikeway Master Plan Study is scheduled for discussion by LACMTA on September 13, 1994. IX. ITEMS FROM STAFF CalTrans' standards of Bike Lanes and sound walls were forwarded to the Commissioners for their information. With regard to the bike lanes, staff is reviewing Diamond Bar's bicycle lane system, as well as, working with the San Gabriel Valley Bikeway Mater Plan for compliance with state requirements. This will be brought back to the Commission at a later date. C/Chavers asked Sgt. Rawlings to comment on the vehicle code with respect to a motorist and adjacent bike lane at the intersection or e7 solid white line. In his readings he has read,."when making a right turn, pull as far right as possible." Does this mean to the curb or the solid white line? Sgt. Rawlings commented that this section of the California Vehicle Code is used most often when evaluating accidents to determine causes more than for enforcement. Consultant Siecke commented by saying that he thought there was a section of the Code that states no motorized vehicle will drive in a bicycle lane except within 200' of the intersection. C/Chavers commented 200' is the distance between Palomino Drive and the freeway ramps and asked staff to provide a copy of the state standards to Mr. Van Winkle who has expressed concerns on this matter. X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Chaver, seconded by C/Esposito and carried unanimously I to adjourn the meeting at 8:14 p.m. August 11, 1994 Page 8 T&T commission Respectfully, '.-� Z-24:� avid G. Liu Secretary Attest: 101-� r To Ortiz Chairman C:\WP6-,'-.,.'AKPV\<-94\TT-AUG11.94