Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/14/20071 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 14, 2007 CALL 1'0 ORDER: Chairman Shay called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Shah led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kenneth Mok and Chairman Michael Shay Absent: Commissioner Liana Pincher was excused. Also Present: David Liu, Public Works Director; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer, Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer, and Marcy Hilario, Senior Administrative Assistant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 10, 2007 meeting C/Shah moved, Chair/Shay seconded to approve the minutes of the May 10, 2007 meeting as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Shah, VC/Mok, Chair/Shay NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pincher PUBLIC COMMENTS: CONSENT CALENDAR: IV. ITEMS FROM STAFF None Offered. None A. Traffic Enforcement Update - Received and filed on the following items: 1 . Citations: March, April & May 2007 2. Collisions: March, April & May 2007 3. Street Sweeping: March, April & May 2007 June 14, 2007 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION C/Lin questioned the increase in citations for May and wondered if the Sheriff's Deputies were given a quota. PWD/Liu responded that to his knowledge there are no quotas. Our deputies are very pro -active and when the City and residents provide input regarding a need for increased enforcement, the officers respond. Forexample, last month the Commission requested the enforcement for the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard at Mountain Laurel Way. Based on the request, there was an increase in enforcement. In addition, there was an increase in citations due to "click it or ticket" activities. V. OLD BUSINESS: None VI. NEW BUSINESS: A. Diamond Bar Boulevard and Mountain Laurel Way Crossing Guard Request. SE/Yee presented staff's report. At the last meeting, several concerned residents spoke on this matter. Subsequent to the Commission meeting, staff asked the City's traffic consultant to prepare a Crossing Guard Warrant Study that took consideration of accident history and current traffic data. Ultimately, specific criteria would have to be met in order to warrant a crossing guard. The first criteria: the pedestrian count for each of any two hours during the day must exceed 40 pedestrians. The second criteria: the number of vehicular turning movements through the crosswalk must exceed 300 vehicles per hour. As a result of the study, the data indicates that the primary criteria are not met for the crosswalk under consideration. The data indicates 21 pedestrians during the two-hour morning period and 63 pedestrians during the two-hour afternoon period for the north crosswalk (the leg running across Diamond Bar Boulevard). The west crosswalk (the leg running across Mountain Laurel) also did not satisfy the warrant. The data indicated 5 pedestrian crossings during the two-hour morning period and 35 pedestrians during the two-hour afternoon period. PWD/Liu reported on the recent accidents at the Diamond Bar Boulevard and Mountain Laurel Way intersection. At the May 10th Commission meeting, a speaker referred to an accident that occurred on May 7, 2007. A second individual indicated her son was involved in an accident that occurred in April 2007. During the same discussion, another speaker mentioned an accident that occurred in August 2006. These accidents are unique and involve the eastbound Mountain Laurel leg and the southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard leg. According to the accident reports that were filed, the accidents can be attributed to driver behavior and their unique circumstances. The accident that occurred on May 7, 2007 took place at 7:00 a.m. The earlier accident took place at 3:15 p.m. on April 5, 2007. PWD/Liu read statements collected by Sheriff's deputies at the scene and the conclusion of the officers. The accident that occurred on August 5, 2006 took place at 10:39 a.m. and did not involve a school student. Staff wants to be very clear that each accident is unfortunate and has its own unique set of circumstances and variables. June 14, 2007 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION Clearly, the warrant study and the accident history did not indicate that a crossing guard is warranted. In addition, a speaker indicated that since the implementation of the protected/permissive left turn phase, the condition has worsened. In fact, staff cannot confirm that because the Mountain Laurel Way protected/permissive left turn phase was implemented only in March 2007 and there has not been sufficient time to determine the effectiveness. Staff does not believe it is prudent to convert the protected/permissive phase to a protected phase only at this point but rather to keep the matter under observation longer to determine the effectiveness. Also, the citation history clearly shows that the Sheriff's Department has been very active at this intersection. Staff understands this is a very emotional issue for some of the parents. However, the facts indicate that the students as well as the drivers played a role in what occurred. For the City to move forward with a crossing guard, staff needs to make a prudent and informed decision. Once a precedent is set it could mushroom throughout the City. SE/Yee referred the Commissioners to the last page of staff's report. Over 300 citations were issued during the five year period and the top three violations that occurred at this intersection were 1) driving in a bike lane, 2) unsafe speed and 3) failure to wear a seat belt. In fact, these three types of violations accounted for more than half of all citations issued. Chair/Shay recommended that staff and the Commission continue dialoguing with the residents and communicate what the study shows. If the City knows that the intersection does not merit a crossing guard and increased enforcement, he would like to see the residents become more involved to help their own cause via volunteerism. If residents believe they have a problem, and the statistics do not merit their requests, perhaps someone could volunteer to help remedy the situation. C/Lin asked if Tables 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the Crossing Guard Warrant Study included both protected and permissive turn count and if Tables 4.2 and 4.3 contained only those movements that took place when the permissive phase was allowed. SE/Yee responded that the tabulations for Tables on Page 3 offer a collective total regardless of whether it was protected or unprotected. The Tables on Page 4 represent a fraction of the number presented on Page 3 because the fraction on Page 4 represents the conflicting movement meaning that the pedestrian phase is occurring at the same time as the vehicular turn movement. C/Lin asked for confirmation that the warrant study was based on the results on Page 4 and SE/Yee responded that C/Lin was correct. C/Lin said that volunteerism sounded good but the City does not give authority ' to parents so it would be illegal for them to monitor the situation. The City would not want to encourage citizens to direct traffic. Chair/Shay said that he was not insinuating that the City do that. He was suggesting that the City should not react by hiring more enforcement, installing more street signals, etc. C/Lin believed that traffic signals were considered the most effective method of traffic control. People need to be educated to stop at a red light and yield June 14, 2007 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION when making a left turn. However, it would not be prudent to make changes now. Human nature is for people to want change when they experience an accident. Since the City has the backup of the scientific findings it would not be prudent to make any recommendation other than to continue observing the situation before re-evaluating the intersection. Obviously, taking away the permissive phase would definitely reduce the conflict but would not necessarily reduce the number of accidents because accidents are often caused by reckless drivers and by reckless pedestrian movements. Chair/Shay said he agreed. The bad news is there were three accidents over the past six months at this intersection. There are other places in the City where accidents occurred. The City cannot just throw a quick solution at a problem every time there is an accident. It behooves the City to attempt preventive education, however. C/Shah stated that two of the three accidents involved drivers who claimed they did not see the pedestrian in the crosswalk. With permissive turns drivers have to be aware of pedestrians as well as traffic and sometimes, permissive actions tend to create accidents. In this case it appears to him that the City may want to consider implementing a protected left and no -right -turn on red because it might offer a better result. Secondly, he noticed that one of the three drivers was temporarily blinded by light or light reflection. He did not believe the City should invest money in a lighted crosswalk. However, as an example in another city, the crosswalk flashes red when a car crosses it so that it brings to the attention of a driver that they are approaching a crosswalk. Instead of waiting, he highly recommended the City should return to a protected left turn and a no right -turn on red. Chair/Shay asked what affect a crossing guard would have had on the three reported accidents and DPW/Liu responded that it would be a speculation. C/Shah said Chair/Shay's question was hypothetical and could not be adequately answered because anything could happen whether or not there was a crossing guard present. Based on staff's report he does not believe a crossing guard is warranted and a crossing guard would not necessarily make a difference in preventing these types of accidents. PWD/Liu agreed that there needed to be ongoing open communication with the residents and staff would incorporate that in working toward a resolution. The protected/permissive has been in place since March 2007 and staff believes it is too soon to make a decision about changing the intersection with so little time invested in the most recent improvements. Some cities have experimented with lighted crosswalks and, according to information staff has received this type of mitigation is being used only at non -signalized intersections. During the Citywide Traffic Signalization upgrade, the City will replace the software and controllers currently in use allowing all signalized intersections to implement split phasing, it warranted. Essentially, instead of permitting potential conflicts between pedestrians and left -turn movements, the June 14, 2007 PAGE 5 T&T COMMISSION timing can be set to disallow pedestrian crossing during vehicular left -turns. Public safety is the overriding factor for all parties involved and the City is looking at all possibilities. One possibility is that as a part of the traffic signal upgrade system, the City will be looking at the ability to create timing scenarios that would essentially eliminate this kind of pedestrian/vehicular conflict. Chair/Shay felt staff had gone to great lengths to keep the Commission informed. He proposed that communication was key and felt that the first point of communication would be to let the neighbors know that the City has a game plan and will continue to monitor the situation and may propose further remedies. Extend an invitation to the residents to come to the City for a meeting and present the cold facts of the survey and let the people have a chance to speak. Based on the response, the Commission could base its decision on the community response. At least the City would follow a process of communication to the people to let them know that something is being done to address their concerns. C/Lin agreed. He again referred to the Tables. SE/Yee responded that the time allocations on the left hand column overlap and a cumulative total would not be an accurate representation of what occurs between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., for example. The reason for the overlap is staff's attempt to find a 60 -minute period for the highest use. C/Lin commented that on Page 4 the number of drivers making right -turns under the permissive phase is higher than drivers that make right turns southbound on green. He said that did not sound correct to him because Diamond Bar Boulevard should be given more green time. C/Lin said his point was that if the City tried to implement a no right -turn on red it would create a major traffic jam on Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Lin said he agreed with PWD/Liu that the in -pavement lighting was installed only at non -signalized intersections and usually it is done mid - block. He strongly urged the City to not consider in -pavement lighting in D.B. because it was, in his opinion, one of the most hazardous traffic advisory tools that could be used because it offers false protection to the pedestrians. Split phasing would eliminate the conflict but it would substantially reduce the level of service on Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Lin recommended that the City should lay all of its cards on the table and let the residents know that the City has followed the law by conducting a warrant study and the result indicates a crossing guard is not warranted. However, the City will continue to explore other possibilities. C/Shah said the residents are looking for some kind of action ratherthan just a study. He agreed with C/Lin that a no right -turn on red would stack up the cars and perhaps the Commission should not do that but he still believed a protected left -turn would definitely reduce the conflict and the residents would see that the Commission had taken action that had the potential to prevent conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. VC/Mok agreed with Chair/Shay about communicating with neighbors, but with that communication the City needs to emphasize what actually happened June 14, 2007 PAGE 6 T&T COMMISSION during those three accidents. The residents that attended the last meeting appeared to have a mindset that the pedestrians were innocent and it is important to know that pedestrians have a responsibility as well. The City has to be especially sensitive to the residents who attended the meeting because their children are involved. He agreed that a no right -turn from Diamond Bar Boulevard onto Mountain Laurel Way would create a traffic jam. Chair/Shay pointed out that it would be prudent to take a second look at how the accidents occurred before deciding to implement mitigation measures. C/Lin moved to accept the findings of the crossing guard warrant study that concluded a crossing guard is not warranted at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Mountain Laurel Way and urge staff to continue exploring alternative traffic control devices that would reinforce the public safety at the intersection. C/Shah recommended that the Commission agree on taking some action that could be related to the residents at the same time they are told they must take responsibility for their actions. PWD/Liu offered that staff could sit down with the parents who spoke at the last meeting. Hopefully, the parents would realize that the City wants to respond to them and that this is a process that must be thoroughly investigated. Following the meeting, staff could come back to the Commission with residents input. Unfortunately, the concerned residents are not present this evening to witness this proceeding. VC/Mok said the sooner the City communicated with the residents the better. Assuming the Commission moves forward with PWD/Liu's recommendation, he wanted clarification about whether staff had met with school officials at Chaparral. In addition, as reported by staff tonight, there is on-going dialogue between staff and all school principals. VC/Mok felt it would be good if staff had all of the facts available for the meeting with the residents including whether the dialogue with school officials had to do with educating students about this particular intersection. SE/Yee responded to VC/Mok's question about whether staff had entered into discussions with Chaparral school officials regarding this specific matter. He stated that staff was in the process of beginning discussions with the school, Staff's intention is to sit down with them to discuss the issue of crosswalk safety and how that could be conveyed to the students. C/Lin said that if the Commission wants staff to meet with residents, the Commission should offer options for what could be accomplished in lieu of implementing a crossing guard. This Commission is an advisory body to the City Council and he believed the Commission's recommendation should be a professional recommendation rather than moving forward on an emotional basis. It is important, it is significant and the City needs to be concerned about accidents but it is the responsibility of the City to look at why the 1 1 1 June 14, 2007 PAGE 7 T&T COMMISSION accidents happened and whether what the City offers as a solution will prevent accidents from happening or induce other factors that tend to increase the possibility of accidents. The Commission's approach should be more scientific than emotional and the ultimate decision should be left to the City Council. C/Shah said he concurred with C/Lin that when the City meets with the residents it should have a plan to convey. C/Shah seconded C/tin's motion with the addition that staff should revisit the protected/permissive phase one year from installation. C/Lin restated his motion to accept the findings of the crossing guard warrant study that concluded a crossing guard is not warranted at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Mountain Laurel Way; request staff to continue exploring alternative traffic control devices that would reinforce the public safety at the intersection; recommend that staff revisit the potential of eliminating the permissive phase of the turning movement one year from installation; and request staff to meet with concerned residents and report to the Commission at its July 12th meeting. C/Shah seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Shah, VC/Mok, Chair/Shay NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pincher VII. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS PWD/Liu stated that at the last Commission meeting C/Pincher indicated that she lives at the bottom of a hill and has had to clean up debris from grass clippings. She wanted to know what the City could do to educate the residents residing up the hill from her and others. As a result, the City's Environmental Services Coordinator is developing a brochure to educate the residents and landscape contractors on how to handle landscaping debris. The brochure should be ready in August and will be available to residents at City Hall. Additionally, the coordinator will author an article for the monthly newsletter. PWD/Liu stated that at the request of C/Lin the five-year citation history for Diamond Bar Boulevard and Mountain Laurel Way was included in tonight's presentation. PWD/Liu referred the Commission to four emails from Sgt. Chris Blasnek regarding communication between the Sheriff's Department and Diamond Bar schools. VIII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS C/Shah thanked SAA/Hilario for following up with his previously mentioned Diamond Ride concern. He also commended staff on a well-written article about slurry seal. VC/Mok said he appreciated staff's due diligence regarding traffic issues. He wondered if it would be a good idea to have Sgt. Blasnek available for the meeting with Chaparral Middle School parents. June 14, 2007 PAGE 8 T&T COMMISSION C/Lin said he too benefited from tonight's discussion and was pleased that since the HOV construction was completed, the traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard had decreased substantially. However, the traffic signalization coordination seems to now be out of synch on Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Lin reiterated that this Commission is a professional body and must make decisions based on facts when rendering decisions and responses. IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Staff updated the Commission on the following items: A. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program — Sunset Crossing/Prospectors B. Grand Avenue Improvements Project — Phase III C. Industry's Grand Avenue Bridge Widening/Interchange Project D. Lemon Avenue On/Off Ramps Project E. %Afashington Street Cul -de -Sac F. ACE Grade Separation on Brea Canyon Road G. SR57/60 Feasibility Study H. CDBG Curb Ramps at Various School Locations. I. Annual Slurry Seal Program X. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Traffic and Transportation Commission, Chair/Shay adjourned the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Respectfull Da d G. Liu, Secretary