Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/11/2004CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Pincher led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Morris, Vice Chair Pincher and Commissioners Shah, Torng and Virginkar. Also Present: David Liu, Public Works Director, Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst; Debbie Gonzales, Administrative Assistant and Sgt. Chris Blasnek. I. ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS OF OFFICE FOR TRAFFIC AND TRANSPROTATION COMMISSIONERS — Administered by Lynda Burgess, City Clerk REORGANIZATION OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CNirginkar nominated Commissioner Pincher to serve as Chair of the Traffic and Transportation Commission. There were no other nominations offered. Without objection, Commissioner Pincher was elected to serve as Chair of the Traffic and Transportation Commission. CNirginkar nominated Commissioner Torng to serve as Vice Chair of the Traffic and Transportation Commissioner. There were no other nominations offered. Without objection, Commissioner Torng was elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Traffic and Transportation Commission. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. Minutes of February 12, 2004. CNirginkar moved, C/Morris seconded to approve the February 12, 2004 minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Virginkar, VC/Torng, Chair/Pincher None Shah None March 11, 2004 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION IV. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chair/Pincher thanked outgoing Chair Morris for his leadership. She suggested that "Commission Comments" and "Items From Commissioners" be combined under a single agenda item. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR: None VII. ITEMS FROM STAFF A. Traffic Enforcement Update — Report by Sgt. Chris Blasnek - Received and filed on the following items: 1. Citations: February and March 2004 2. Collisions: February and March 2004 3. Radar Trailer Development 4. Results of Traffic Operations 5. Future Deployment of the Radar Trailer Vlll. OLD BUSINESS: None IX. NEW BUSINESS: A. Proposed Speed Hump Request for Great Bend Drive SMA/Gomez reported that since the City Council adopted a speed hump policy on July 16, 2002 staff has received 15 requests for installation throughout the City. Staff conducted a prioritization study based on physical criteria requirements contained in the Speed Hump Policy. Six streets met the criteria: Looking Glass Drive, Castle Rock Road, Clorinda Drive, Great Bend Drive/Gold Rush Drive, Leyland Drive and Longview Drive. At this time, ninety percent of Great Bend Drive residents living between Stirrup Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard have signed the petition. Staff extended invitation to residents from Diamond Bar Boulevard to Tin Drive to attend tonight's meeting. The residents on Great Bend Drive from Stirrup Drive to Tin Drive would likely be affected by the speed humps and are entitled to notification in accordance with the Speed Hump Policy. She presented an aerial view of the four locations determined to be appropriate by Traffic Engineer Warren Sieke. The locations for up to four (4) speed humps will be along Great Bend Drive/Gold Rush Drive between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Stirrup Drive at approximately 400 to 600 foot intervals. The approximate locations are between the addresses of 23409 and 23415 Gold March 11, 2004 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION Rush Drive, 23315 and 23321 Gold Rush Drive, 547 and 553 Great Bend Drive, and 636 and 644 Great Bend Drive. Discussion ensued. SMA/Gomez responded to VC/Torng that placement of the speed humps is contingent upon majority approval of residents living in the immediate area. PWD/Liu explained that due to the physical characteristics (steep grade) on Great Bend Drive staff determined that the area between Stirrup Drive and Tin Drive would not be eligible. However, staff intends to solicit input from all residents along the two streets. SMA/Gomez explained to C/Morris that it is very difficult to determine what is considered to be "cut -through" traffic and staff has no statistics. SMA/Gomez further explained that the installation of speed humps would be funded by the proceeds of the sale of Prop A funds to the City of Claremont. Battalion Chief Peter Sylchak said he understood the concerns about speeding traffic. The fire department is very concerned about response time during emergencies. Speed humps create a problem for the department due to the weight of the equipment and the suspension on the apparatus forces drivers to slow down considerably, down to one mile per hour. The only way to cut down response time is to locate additional stations throughout the City, a proposition that is very costly. As traffic conditions increase throughout the City, so too does the department's response times. The department is particularly concerned about timely intervention to extreme medical situations such as heart attacks, strokes, etc. Timely intervention offers the victim a greater opportunity for survival. Speed humps interfere with these procedures and damage department equipment. Alternatively, the City could consider using radar -activated photo devices for improved traffic control. Battalion Chief Sylchak said that his personal experience and opinion is that speed humps only slow down the law-abiding citizens. Battalion Chief Sylchak responded to C/Morris that the department vehicles are diesel -fueled and they do emit considerably more polluting fumes when accelerating. CNirginkar noted that the City's pilot program indicated that after the speed hump was in place for six months speeds tended to increase once again. What is the department's experience? Battalion Chief Sylchak reiterated that the department is opposed to speed humps because they increase response time. In his experience, speed humps initially control the speed but after time, drivers tend to increase their speed between the speed humps. Additionally, some vehicles are able to maneuver the speed humps without slowing down. Such is not the case March 11, 2004 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION with the fire department apparatus. Again, the department's primary concern is for timely response. C/Shah asked if the department had actual statistics regarding response time prior to and after installation. Battalion Chief Sylchak said he would ask Chief Nieto to respond. C/Morris asked CNirginkar to share information he garnered from an article previously presented to the Commission. CNirginkar said the Los Angeles Times article talked about speed humps and their adverse impacts to fire and life safety services. Ultimately, the residents concluded that speed humps were not the best solution to speeding concerns. Battalion Chief Sylchak pointed out that there might not be emergency situations on a given street for many years. On the other hand, an emergency could occur the day the speed hump was installed. It would be difficult to accumulate statistics given those factors. In short, the department is opposed to all impediments that prevent it from saving lives. Sgt. Blasnek said he sympathizes with the residents. He felt that in some ways the department had failed the residents by not strictly enforcing the speed limit. However, the Sheriff's Department shares the same views as the fire department. Speed humps slow response time for life-saving units. Diamond Bar is already a tough City to traverse. Even though he understands the concerns he feels that one speed hump would lead to others and eventually make it even more difficult for safety equipment to reach certain locations. He has to traverse six speed humps to get to his house. When he leaves for work on his motorcycle he avoids the speed humps by using the gutter. He would like to pledge increased enforcement in the area in place of the City installing speed humps. SMA/Gomez referred to a letter opposing installation of speed humps from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Johnson, 800 South Great Bend Drive. Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation Commission receive public testimony and forward its recommendation for installation of speed humps on Great Bend Drive to the City Council. Sybil Delahoussaye-Carnes, 23337 Goldrush Drive spoke in favor of the installation and asked for confirmation of the proposed location of speed humps to which SMA/Gomez responded. Mike Whatley, 826 Great Bend Drive was pleased to see the City was considering installation of speed humps but was disappointed that it did not extend down to his area that is between Tin Drive and Stirrup Drive. He favors speed humps and encouraged the City to perform further analysis of March 11, 2004 PAGE 5 T&T COMMISSION his area for possible consideration. He also encouraged the Commission to consider the "big picture" of safety of the residents. He failed to understand the inconsistency of safety vehicles having to slow down for speed humps when other vehicles speed up. Mr. Whatley said he previously spoke in favor of the proposed stop sign installation at the intersection of Ritter and Great Bend. However, the installation has not helped deter the problem because people run the stop sign. Therefore, he would encourage the City to take the next step and install speed humps on Great Bend Drive in the area of Tin Drive. There was no one else present who wished to speak on this item. CNirginkar felt that the location under consideration was ideally suited for speed humps. Navajo Springs Road and Decorah Road are long stretches of roadway that feed into Sunset Crossing Road. In addition, there are numerous side streets that feed onto Navajo Springs Road and Decorah Road and there is considerable cut -through traffic. On the other hand, the location under consideration has very little cut -through traffic. The problem seems to be that the residents are anxious to leave and eager to return to the area and speed as a result. He felt it would be a better first approach for the City to increase enforcement as recommended by Sgt. Blasnek. C/Shah generally concurred with CNirginkar. Too many speed humps create an adverse effect. Since streets are used by residents and not by cut -through traffic, some consideration should be given to the residents' request. A compromise solution could be to reduce the number of speed humps and increase enforcement during peak hours. Depending on the outcome of the compromise, the City could review the possibility of additional speed humps or elimination of the fewer speed humps. VC/Torng agreed with C/Shah. He felt that the City was responding to residents who believed the current mitigation efforts (stop signs and enforcement) were ineffective. Speed humps are a last -resort effort to mitigate speeding vehicles. He believed the City must respond to the needs of the residents. Since this installation has received a 90 percent approval there is strong sentiment for installation of speed humps. He agreed, however, that four speed humps was excessive. He suggested that staff be directed to re-evaluate the situation and bring the matter back to the Commission for further consideration at the April meeting. C/Morris acknowledged that under Sgt. Blasnek's watch, enforcement has increased. There is a program in effect in other parts of Los Angeles County that Diamond Bar is considering. For instance, if you saw a vehicle speeding past your residence and called in the information to the Sheriff's Department, the follow up system would go into effect. He felt the City should place this program on the top of its priority list. With respect to speed March 11, 2004 PAGE 6 T&T COMMISSION humps, he was concerned about pollution and response time. As mentioned, good drivers treat speed humps with respect. Other drivers use the speed hump as a launching ramp. If a vehicle takes the speed hump at a high rate of speed, it is more likely to go out of control. At this point he found it difficult to support installation of four speed humps. However, at a later time the Commission could consider installing portable speed humps and monitor the situation. VC/Torng suggested the Commission invite Chery Cooper to give her views regarding the Navajo Springs Road speed humps. Chair/Pincher believed it was a small number of drivers who made it difficult for everyone else. Speed humps are the City's last resort. And yet, 90 percent of the residents want speed humps. This is a difficult decision. She felt the follow up program could work in this City. PWD/Liu stated the following: 1) The City has a speed hump policy. 2) Speed humps are designed to slow down traffic. 3) Neighborhood Speeding traffic is the number one concern of most cities. The Commission voted 3-2 to forward the speed hump policy to the City Council for approval. Pilot project surveys indicate speeds were reduced. At the end of the one-year moratorium staff conducted a survey of the residents. After one year the majority of the residents strongly favored keeping the speed humps. This request came to the City last August with a petition signed by 90 percent of the residents as required. Numerous surveys have been conducted and all input from all parties was considered including input from emergency service entities. Bottom line is that the residents want action. If the Commission does not concur with staff's recommendation, staff could forward two recommendations to the City Council — that of the Commission as well as, staff's recommendation for approval. Resident Sybil Delahoussaye-Carnes stated that in addition to residents, Lorbeer Middle School parents use the streets as a cut -through. Residents are concerned about the commuters. C/Shah motioned to direct staff to develop a pilot program with a compromise solution with the portable speed humps for a period of six months and bring back the results to the Commission for further consideration. Motion died for lack of a second. C/Morris felt that the City had failed to take proper steps in enforcement, education and follow up plan. This is the first opportunity the Commission has had to consider this matter and he was not ready to concur with staff. VC/Torng said he favored speed humps and sympathized with the residents. However, this is the first time the matter has been presented to March 11, 2004 PAGE 7 T&T COMMISSION the Commission. He commended staff for their due diligence but felt that the City should at the very least try the follow up program. VC/Torng motioned to approve staff's recommendation. The motion died for lack of a second. ; ,' C/Morris moved, CNirginkar seconded, to request increased enforcement on Great Bend Drive and Gold Rush Drive for a specific time period and submit the "S.T.O.P. Program" to City Council for consideration as proposed by Sgt Blasnek for immediate implementation. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Shah, Virginkar, Chair/Pincher NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None X. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS: None XI. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS: C/Morris stated that in February the installation of signals commenced on Ballena Drive and Golden Springs Drive. Prior to the installation, the area was torn up and remained in that condition up until one week ago when they poured concrete. He had not noticed prior installations as much as he noticed this installation. He believes there has been a significant negative impact on the surrounding area and community as a result. He questioned the manner in which the area was torn up and left for a long period of time by the contractor. He said he has never seen traffic back up on Golden Springs Drive like he has witnessed since the installation. He felt that the on -demand signalization might improve the situation. VC/Torng thanks CNirginkar and C/Morris for their support. He asked if it was true that the school district planned to build an additional 78 units in the Diamond Crest Road area. He felt the traffic was already too congested. C/Shah thanked MPT/Herrera for appointing him to the Traffic and Transportation Commission. He looks forward to working with the Commissioners. CNirginkar thanked C/O'Connor for reappointing him. He appreciated staff's input and looks forward to continuing. Parents of Diamond Bar High School students asked him if it was possible to stripe the parking spaces on Pathfinder Road between Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. PWD/Liu stated staff would look into the matter. March 11, 2004 PAGE 8 T&T COMMISSION Chair/Pincher thanked M/Zirbes for her appointment to the Commission. She reminded the Commission that the City Birthday Party would be held on April 18. She helps with the car show and wanted everyone to participate in the event. XI. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: PWD/Liu updated the Commission on the SR57/60 Caltrans HOV project, and provided information on the upcoming SCE's Grand Avenue Underground Re - Cable Project. C/Virginkar asked if staff could provide new maps to the Commissioners. PWD/Liu congratulated the Commissioners on their appointments and reappointments. Staff looks forward to working with the Commission. PWD/Liu stated that with respect to tonight's speed hump item, staff has worked with the residents; it is somewhat frustrating to see the lack of turnout when residents have time and again stated the City was not addressing their concerns. XII. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS — as agendized. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Traffic and Transportation Commission, Chair Pincher adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully, David G(-Ciu, S cretary Attest: Chair Liana Pincher