Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/13/2009CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 13, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Lin called the meeting to order at 7:03 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 Mok led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Kenneth Mok, Liana Pincher, Michael Shay, Vice -Chair Kevin House and Chair Jimmy Lin Also Present: David Liu, Public Works Director; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Christian Malpica-Perez, Associate Engineer, and Marcy Hilario, Senior Administrative Assistant. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. Minutes of the July 9, 2009 regular meeting. C/Shay moved, VC/House seconded, to approve the July 9, 2009 minutes as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mok, Shay, VC/House Chair/Lin NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Pincher ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. ITEMS FROM STAFF: A. Received and Filed Traffic Enforcement Updates for: 1. Citations: 2. Collisions: 3. Street Sweeping May, June and July 2009 May, June and July 2009 May, June and July 2009 C/Shay reiterated his concern about the increase in the number of citations being issued in 2009 versus 2008. PWD/Liu responded that the City views the Sheriff's Department as professionals who know their business and how to provide a public safety program. City Hall oversees and coordinates public safety needs with the Sheriff's Department on behalf of the community. AUGUST 13, 2009 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION VC/House again referenced the decline in street sweeping tickets and wanted the City to get back to him about the lack of enforcement on his street. He was concerned not just about his street but about the whole area. If someone works his street, they are avoiding other streets and that is the issue. PWD/Liu said he understood VC/House's concern. As previously reported to the Commission, there is only one CSO who works full time and cannot be on every street every street sweeping day, but on alternate weeks. VC/House wanted to know why the City did not have two CSO's according to the City's contract. C/Pincher asked about the street sweeping citations and the comparisons. Chair/Lin said he believed the citation numbers are for all parking violations and the street sweeping is part of the total citations. If there is only one CSO, it appears he is doing an excellent job. PWD/Liu stated that when the City decided to enforce no parking on street sweeping days, it was made clear that the City needed one full time CSO for the program. At that point, the Sheriff's Department already had one CSO on different assignments and the City brought a second CSO on board to do nothing but street sweeping enforcement. Shortly thereafter, the original CSO left, which left one CSO. Secondly, the contractor that provides the street sweeping services brought in a second sweeper on an occasional basis. Since then, depending on the day or time of the year, it is customary to see two street sweepers in the City. From an enforcement side there is only one CSO. Contractually, the Sheriff's Department is fulfilling its obligation to provide the City street sweeping enforcement. However, the original CSO was not part of the street sweeping assignment, but rather to supplement this and other programs. If the Sheriff's Department had a second CSO, they would not be assigned strictly to D.B.'s street sweeping citation program. The second CSO would fill in as needed apart from other duties. C/Pincher said it was good to see that the City had reminded residents through the newsletter that it was the homeowner's responsibility to keep their parkways clean and not throw leaves and other debris into the gutter. It is not the job of the street sweeper to clean up after residents. She felt there had been some improvement on her street. Maybe it is good to remind people on a regular basis that they need to take responsibility as well. Chair/Lin suggested that PWD/Liu speak with CM/DeStefano about the Sheriff's Department. Another way is for the Commission to send a representative to the City Council to speak on this matter at one of their study sessions. PWD/Liu stated that from time to time, the City Council invites the three Commissions in for joint meetings or study sessions on matters of mutual interest. C/Shay said he wanted to know how much the City's portion of remuneration was from traffic citation fees. PWD/Liu said he would convey the Commission's requests to the City Manager's office. AUGUST 13, 2009 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION IV. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS: PWD/Liu reported that at its August 4th meeting the City Council approved the Commission's recommendation for installation of "no parking of vehicles over six foot high" in the Winterwood neighborhood. VC/House asked if the owner of the vehicles contacted the City or spoke to the Council during a meeting. PWD/Liu said he did not believe so. AE/Molina said that other than the initial contact the Sheriff's Department had with the owner before this process of installing signs, there has been no contact from him. He received notices along with all of the other residents. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS: VC/House stated he had been raising questions about street sweeping since the day he became part of this Commission. He brings it up at every other meeting and in two years he has not gotten a straight answer back. He is not going to bring it up anymore because it is a dead issue. A simple question: Is there a second CSO because we should have one. If there is only one he should alternate between the streets that he is serving and it has not happened. He even tried contacting the Sheriff's Department in the past and got no response. He said he was just disappointed. C/Mok said he apologized for not being at Thursday's Cleghorn NTMP meeting. He spoke about the Sunset Crossing Road and Prospectors Road calming devices and how proud he was of the work that has been done on the streets. C/Mok inquired about the recent work he noticed being done on Sunset Crossing Road near the YMCA and he wondered if this was part of the same project. SE/Yee said that on Tuesday there was some miscellaneous work being done that was not part of the original project. This was follow-up work by staff to take care of an issue with the roadway. VI. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A. Diamond Bar TMS/Traffic Signal Interconnect Links — Phase 11— AE/Malpica- Perez reported that the system testing for the TMS was completed and staff is working to resolve some minor issues. Completion of the Traffic Signal Interconnect Links — Phase II Project is expected for November 2009. B. Diamond Bar Boulevard/Mountain Laurel Way Crosswalk Removal — AE/Malpica-Perez stated that staff received design plans this week and accepted the work. Crosswalk removal is scheduled for next week. C. Lycoming Street Rehabilitation Project — SE/Yee reported that sidewalk and curb and gutter are being installed this week. The bulk of the project will be in progress next week with the westbound lanes closed between Brea Canyon and Lemon Avenue for reconstruction of the roadway. After completion of the westbound lanes the contractor will begin reconstruction work on the closed eastbound lanes. Businesses and residents have been notified and the message board is flashing notification of the closures at the site. D. Sunset Crossing Road and Prospectors Road Traffic Calming Project — SE/Yee reported that the project is complete and has now entered the landscape maintenance phase which will extend through September 13th AUGUST 13, 2009 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION E. Industry's Grand Avenue Bridge Widening/Interchange Project — PWD/Liu reported that a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR has been publicized for this two and one-half mile project that includes the addition of auxiliary lanes and on/off ramp modifications in the vicinity of Grand Avenue. Caltrans will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, September 2nd from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Diamond Bar Center to provide an overview of the project and to receive input regarding the environmental issues and suggest scope and content for the EIR. F. SR57/60 Feasibility Study — PWD/Liu stated that the City's consultant concluded its analysis for the simulation exercise. On Monday, the City will meet with the consultant to finalize the status and present the new findings to the MTA's consultant for auxiliary lanes, bypass connectors, etc. This project presents a lot of challenges with Concept A presenting a more feasible solution. G. Lemon Avenue On/Off Ramps Project — PWD/Liu reported that he and AE/Molina met with two Caltrans deputy district directors about two weeks ago. They illustrated to Caltrans that, based on the current projected costs for this project and available funding sources, there is a shortfall of between $2 and $5 million. Based on the City's economic impact study, if the on/off ramps were to be closed, there would be a $200,000 loss in the City's sales tax revenue; a sizeable amount of money in today's climate. Caltrans appeared to be very open to the City's concerns. D.B. will follow up with a letter to Caltrans to formalize the City's desire to do the project in two phases. H. Residential — Area 5 Slurry Seal Project — AE/Molina stated that the project is well under way. Today was the first day of chip seal that should be finished on Monday, with slurry seal commencing on Wednesday of next week. Completion is expected by mid-September. I. Arterial — Zone 3/Zone 4 Slurry Seal Project (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) - AE/Molina reported that staff received 12 bids for the project. The apparent low bidder was Hardy & Harper, Inc. with a bid of $1,476,000. The engineer's estimate was $1,835,000. The highest bid received was $1,774,774. Staff will take a contact to City Council for consideration on August 18t". On July 13t", staff received three proposals for the construction administration portion of the project. Chair/Lin asked about the remaining balance of federal stimulus money. AE/Molina responded to Chair/Lin that the entire $1.77 million in federal stimulus funding will be reserved for the project. If the contingency is not used, staff will look into what can be done with the balance. C/Shay asked how long this project would last and AE/Molina responded approximately 60 working days, through December 2009. C/Shay asked how many people this project would employ and AE/Molina estimated upward of 20 people over time with the various crafts. J. Chino Hills Parkway Street Rehab Project — AE/Molina said that this project is still in design phase and staff is expecting plans by mid-September. Once plans are received, staff will conduct its review in preparation to go out to bid for the project. K. NTMP — Cleghorn Drive and Maple Hill Neighborhood —AE/Molina explained that staff scheduled a meeting on Thursday, August 6t" for the Cleghorn neighborhood. Approximately 240 notifications were mailed out and AUGUST 13, 2009 PAGE 5 T&T COMMISSION unfortunately, no one showed for the meeting. One resident showed up just after staff had cleaned up and prepared to leave. At the first meeting in February, 10 to 15 residents attended, yet not one resident showed up for the second meeting. Staff will reschedule the presentation forthe September 10th Commission meeting. Staff is still working on solutions for the Maple Hill neighborhood from collected data and plans to schedule a second neighborhood meeting sometime in September. C/Pincher said there is nothing in the NTMP manual to address lack of interest. She is surprised at the lack of attendance because so many showed up for the first meeting. She felt that by inviting residents to a regular Commission meeting, there may be more participation and that it would relieve staff of the burden of planning and attempting to execute a separate meeting. C/Pincher asked what the time limit is for staff's response to neighborhood concerns. There are a lot of resources called into play when residents ask for help and then fail to participate in potential solutions. When residents claim that City Hall does not care about their concerns, that just is not true and she believes that the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) was developed for the benefit of the residents of D. B. Therefore, when they ask the City for help, residents need to step up and follow through. She hoped residents would respond by showing up for the Commission meeting. D.B. residents are very lucky that they have staff members who are willing to respond to their concerns outside of business hours for the benefit of the residents. The City has a program that is absolutely phenomenal with respect to responding to neighborhood concerns. After years of putting this kind of program together residents have something they can treasure and from which they can directly benefit. It is very difficult to understand their non - participation. PWD/Liu stated that because of past experience, the City, in order to initiate the NTMP, requires 51 percent of the neighborhood in support of the project in order to move forward. It is true that considerable resources are spent properly gathering data and putting together proposals to meet the needs of the neighborhood. If this lack of participation continues, staff will shelve the project until the residents again show an interest. During the past four to five years, the City has consistently included budget resources for this program. Since this program was initiated, other cities have contacted D.B. for information on how to come up with this type of program in their communities. PWD/Liu said that the City continues to support the NTMP because many neighborhoods have been helped. C/Pincher pointed out that the City used to require that 67 percent of the residents of a neighborhood would have to request help through a petition and it was dropped to 51 percent. AE/Molina responded that the City still requires 67 percent participation in order for mitigation measures to be constructed and installed. The 51 percent is a requirement to begin the program. C/Pincher felt it was an excellent way for staff to handle the matter—to invite the residents to a regular meeting and find out whether there was continued interest. AUGUST 13, 2009 PAGE 6 T&T COMMISSION VIII. 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/Lin adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this N -W day of S6rW& , 2009. Respectfully, avid G. Liu, Secretary Attest: Chair"n Jimmy in