The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/13/2011 AGENDA Regular MeetingTRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA January 13, 2011 7:00 P.M., Regular Meeting South Coast Air Quality Management District Hearing Board Room 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Chair Vice -Chair Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Devin House Liana Pincher Ted Carrera Jimmy Lin Kenneth Mok Written materials distributed to the Trif and Transportation Commission within 72 hours ofthe Traffic and Transportation Commission nnelingare availablefor public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 21825 Copley Drive, Diamona'Bar, California, during normal business horn's. Copies ofstaff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Public Works Department located at 21825 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. Ifyou have questions regarding cm agenda item, please call (909) 839- 7040 dining regidr business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bur requires that any person in need o(any type ofspecial equipment, assistance, or accommodation(s) in order to communicate of a City public meeting must inform the Public Yorks Depu•tunew at (909) 839-7040 a mininnnn of 72 hors prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain fi-onr smoking, eating or drinking The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA JANUARY 13, 2011 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HEARING BOARD ROOM 21865 COPLEY DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice -Chair Pincher ROLL CALL: Commissioner Carrara, Lin, Mok, Vice -Chair Pincher, Chair House I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of December 9, 2010 IL PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. III. ITEMS FROM STAFF A. Traffic Enforcement Update 1. Citations: 2. Collisions: 3. Street Sweeping: IV. OLD BUSINESS — None October, November and December 2010 October, November and December 2010 October. November and December 2010 V. NEW BUSINESS A. Citywide Speed Zone Survey Update 1. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Traffic and Transportation Commission concur with staff to forward the attached speed zone survey update to the City Council for adoption and amendment of the City's municipal code. VI. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS VII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Traffic Signal Battery Back -Up System Project B. Industry's Grand Avenue Bridge Widening/Interchange Project C. SR -57/60 Interchange "Big Fix" D. Environmental Enhancement Mitigation (EEM) Improvement Project E. NTMP — Briar Creek Road/Decorah Road Neighborhood/Willow Creek Neighborhood F. Lemon Avenue On/Off-Ramps Project G. Residential —Area 7/Zone 5 Road Maintenance Project H. Brea Canyon Road Drainage Improvement Project I. 2010-2011 CDBG Curb Ramp Project IX. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS A. WINTER SNOWFEST— Saturday, January 15, 2011 —10 a.m. —4:00 p.m., Pantera Park, 738 Pantera Drive CITY COUNCIL MEETING — Tuesday, January 18, 2011 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center, Main Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — Tuesday, January, 25, 2011 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center, Main Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. D. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING —Thursday, January 27, 2011 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center, Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive X. ADJOURNMENT * THIS INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE JANUARY 13, 2011 MEETING CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman House called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Ted Carrera, Jimmy Lin, Kenneth Mok, Vice Chairman Liana Pincher and Chairman Kevin House Also Present: David Liu, Public Works Director; Rick Yee, Senior Civil Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Christian Malpica-Perez, Associate Engineer (Traffic), and Marcy Hilario, Senior Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. Minutes of the September 9, 2010 regular meeting. C/Lin moved, VC/Pincher seconded, to approve the September 9, 2010 minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: II. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None III. ITEMS FROM STAFF: Carrera, Lin, Mok, VC/Pincher, Chair/House None None A. Received and Filed Traffic Enforcement Updates for: 1. Citations: September, October and November 2010 2. Collisions: September, October and November 2010 3. Street Sweeping: September, October and November 2010 PWD/Liu, in response to C/Carrera, stated that he believes the November citations were a reflection of a typical number of citations issued on a monthly basis. Sheriff's CSOs are instructed to not cite residents in those neighborhoods that are undergoing construction projects and those numbers are reflected in the prior month's reports. DECEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION IV. OLD BUSINESS: None V. NEW BUSINESS: A. Diamond Bar Traffic Management System Update — SE/Yee — Received and Filed. SE/Yee updated the Traffic and Transportation Commission on the City's Traffic Management System (TMS), current traffic challenges and proposed future responses. He spoke about lack of freeway connectors, a limited number of cross-town arterials and a limited number of connector roads. He highlighted accomplishments including the City-wide traffic signal synchronization project; traffic signal interconnect; installation of eleven traffic signal battery backup systems (eight additional planned for this fiscal year; closed circuit TV cameras (CCTV) at eight locations providing "real time" video to City Hall, three additional proposed locations for the next fiscal year, and, video detection integration. SE/Yee outlined challenges staff dealt with priorto implementation of the TMS, the primary purpose of which is to provide remote communication between the traffic signals along the City's major arterials and City Hall. Upon full implementation, the TMS will provide a valuable tool for monitoring the City's traffic signals enabling immediate detection of signal malfunctions and allowing for signal timing changes to be performed remotely from City Hall. He explained the capabilities and the two-pronged approach to maintaining the system. Staff plans to continue implementing the existing maintenance program to address signal equipment failures as the system ages; staff will develop and refine additional traffic response timing plans; continue to coordinate with LA County Department of Public Works to complete the Traffic Signal Controller Program upgrades; staff continues working with Caltrans to provide real time operating data for the on/off ramp signals to help coordinate signals. AE/Malpica-Perez presented a video that showed the TMS in action. VC/Pincher asked about SE/Yee's comment about the ability to implement traffic response coordination programs based on traffic flow and more specifically, what he meant by "flushing." SE/Yee responded that his intent was to demonstrate the fact that the pre -determined traffic response plans ultimately add more green time to the heaviest direction of travel. As a result, there is more delay on the side streets; however, because of the urgency to move traffic through the City, the cycle length of intersections will be lengthened in order to give as much additional green time to the main leg of traffic. Chair/House asked if that would result in promoting more cars to travel through D.B. and hurt residents by blocking side streets. SE/Yee stated that as staff moves forward with refining and testing, we will need to find a calibration point that works to address the real issue of getting residents to and from their destinations. PWD/Liu explained that, on a positive note, staff has 100 DECEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION percent control of the system and will not be swayed by outside agencies because staff's primary concern is the residents and our local businesses. The scenario staff can predict is when freeways are shut down and typically staff does not get advance notice of those incidents from CHP. Once staff sees an influx of traffic, it can adjust accordingly which is a common sense approach. Anything beyond usual circumstances would require further discussion and evaluation to determine what is in the best interest of the community. C/Lin asked what the maximum length of the incremental cycles is and AE/Malpica-Perez responded 150 seconds. The average cycle set at the signals in Diamond Bar is 110 seconds. C/Lin asked if there were more video detectors in the City than were depicted in the video and SENee responded that there were actually a total of 28 intersections currently using video detection. C/Carrera asked if the proposed projects on Grand Avenue and Shotgun Lane had any unique location concerns. Generally, there is a great deal of speeding from Chino Hills into D.B. and he asked if there is any concern about the speed of vehicles as they travel through the City limits. AE/Malpica-Perez responded that the location had experienced several power outages which have resulted in heavy congestion back to the boundary between Chino Hills ( and D.B. Therefore, it is important to have the backup system running for another couple of hours to allow the City to get the power back up and running. This site was also chosen to house a CCTV to monitor the situation and keep the traffic flowing through the City. C/Carrera asked if he understood correctly that there were actually 16 video detection locations in operation and 28 that have been installed. SENee explained that there are 16 that are linked to City Hall and there are 28 that are in full operation for detection purposes. SENee further responded that the program was allocated a portion of the $500,000 Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant. Other than the energy cost to run the equipment, there is no other funding issue exceptthat the grant funds were only able to pay for the 16 video detection installations. Chair/House asked how often the system is checked and AE/Malpica-Perez responded that he is at his work station next to the system workstation throughout the day and from time to time he moves back and forth to check the system and make sure that all concerns are addressed. PWD/Liu explained that when City Hall moves to its new location, there will be a dedicated traffic management center and AE/Malpica-Perez will continue to be located in that center. Chair/House stated that, unfortunately, it seems to him that more problems occur on the weekends. He asked how the user would benefit from the system during those weekend hours. SENee explained that there is a paging system and the system is monitored on a 24/7 basis. That is how red flashes are immediately addressed. The system includes a dedicated mobile device that he and AE/Malpica-Perez trade-off monitoring on a monthly basis. PWD/Liu stated that he is called when there is a major occurrence and he responds depending on the specific concern which may necessitate DECEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION contacting the on-call maintenance contractor and/or traffic engineers as well as, the Sheriff's Department to make sure all parties are in -sync depending on the severity of the problem. C/Lin suggested that upon relocating to the new facility, the City anticipates installing a flat panel screen in the waiting area and DPW/Liu added that he has made that recommendation as part of the City's public relations/information. VI. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS: SENee responded to previous matters brought before the Commission. Resident Lynn Liu expressed concerns about vehicles traveling southbound on Brea Canyon Road attempting to make right turns onto Diamond Crest Lane at South Point Middle School. Ms. Liu requested that the City consider restricting "right -turn on red" movements from Southbound Brea Canyon into Diamond Crest Lane. Staff field checked the location and observed traffic on two different days during morning peak hours; however, did not observe any traffic blockage in the area during several cycles of signal operation. Staff does agree that there is a lot of activity in a short amount of time at this one intersection, but the on-site circulation is following the recommended circulation pattern implemented as a result of the school study. Therefore, staff believes it would be appropriate to allow "right -turn on red" turn movements. Chair/House had inquired as to why there was a left -turn restriction exiting "Brahma Blvd." from DBHS. Staff looked at' the city-wide school circulation study and determined that there is significant congestion that occurs with on-site circulation at the high school and one of the resolutions to alleviate the number of movements was to restrict left turn movements out of the Brahma Drive exit to force on-site vehicles to instead use Brea Canyon Road. Chair/House expressed that, unfortunately, drivers are turning right out of Brahma Drive and making a U-turn rather than using the suggested circulation pattern of exiting onto Brea Canyon Road. SENee explained that the Sheriff's Department oversees circulation patterns in and around schools and staff will support the Commission's concerns to help enforce the circulation pattern. SENee, in response to VC/Pincher's concern about why there is a 45 mph speed limit on Brea Canyon Road adjacent to DBHS, thanked VC/Pincher for bringing this matter to staff's attention. The City discovered that the speed limit should be posted 40 mph in compliance with the City's 2004 Speed Zone Study. This oversight has been corrected and is currently posted at 40 mph. VC/Pincher felt that the speed limit should be reduced even further since it is in such close proximity to the school and SENee responded that a Speed Zone Study update was recently completed and he does not yet know if the area is recommended for further speed decrease. PWD/Liu stated that staff plans to present the updated Speed Zone Study to the Commission in January and will ask the City's Traffic Engineer to further evaluate that segment of the roadway. SENee stated that C/Lin raised a concern with the SR -60 on-ramp signal timing being out of sync with Golden Springs and Grand Avenue intersection. In the past, staff DECEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 5 T&T COMMISSION ( was able to conduct partial synchronization for the afternoon/evening peak hour; however, because there were issues with the CPU controller chip for the signals at this location, staff intentionally changed the cycle length of the intersection on a temporary basis. At the end of September, staff updated the controller chip and has since re -implemented the 150 second cycle on Grand Avenue/Golden Springs in the p.m. peak hours. C/Lin stated he did not believe there had been any improvement, especially during the a.m. peak hours. SENee said the improvement may be imperceptible because the a.m. cycle is not synchronized and the p.m. cycle is synchronized only on alternate cycles. VII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS: C/Carrera felt tremendous work had been done to relieve some of the problems at Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard with respect to northbound Grand Avenue traffic turning southbound onto Diamond Bar Boulevard in the two left -turn lanes. However, when he was at that intersection between 7:15 and 7:30 a.m. in the northbound Diamond Bar Boulevard lane waiting to turn left onto northbound Grand Avenue, the southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard traffic continued to have a green light while he was waiting for the arrow. In his opinion, it is a second to three seconds too long on the green because drivers continue on through the intersection (two cars .deep into the intersection) which prohibits any left hand turns from the northbound Diamond Bar Lanes. AE/Malpica-Perez said he had observed the same scenario and has been working with our traffic engineer consultant to alleviate the situation. Chair/House stated that he looked into the problem of school traffic, at Castle Rock Elementary, and parents dropping off and picking up students and calculated that if students were not dropped off and picked up by their parents, it would eliminate 350 vehicle trips per student, per year. He wondered if there was grant money available to fund or subsidize students to promote the use of school buses. PWD/Liu responded that the City has no such grant opportunities and believed the schools had an opportunity to use state funds for busing. Based on past discussions with the school districts the City supports bus usage over parent pickup and drop off; however, school administrators admit this is a "hard sell". Parents prefer to drive their children to and from school. In addition, there are cost issues because busing is a very costly program and parents do not believe it is cost-effective. Chair/House responded that he did not believe the school district had to be involved because the City has many programs to reduce traffic for which it gets funding. Chair/House further stated that he was not suggesting the City take money from other programs but wanted to know if there were any other grants the City could apply for and obtain because it seems that most of the City's traffic issues have to do with school traffic circulation. He wanted to know if there was any other kind of funding to eliminate these issues. C/Lin explained that funds for transit agencies are typically for handicapped and senior citizens. Having been in the business for many years, he does not recall that there is any grant monies available for cities to apply for or obtain for school busing. This is because the school district is a separate tax entity, separate from the cities, and the schools look after their own funding and budget issues. He learned that students are charged for riding the bus according to how far they live from school and DECEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 6 T&T COMMISSION he understood that if students lived within a mile of their school, they would not be considered eligible to ride the bus. Chair/House shared that the rule is that if students have to walk more than one and one-half mile to school, there must be a bus stop within that mile and a half. Students can still walk a mile and one-quarter, but there has to be a bus stop at that point and students still have to pay for the bus. Students pay $275 per year to ride the bus. C/Lin said it would be interesting to conduct a poll to see how many students would ride if parents were offered the service for free. Chair/House said he did the math and if 40,000 vehicle trips were eliminated, the cost would not be that significant; however, the issue is that, as he has been informed, if the schools do not get more ridership, they will cancel the bus program altogether and the problem will expand because there will be even more traffic on the streets. VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A. Traffic Signal Battery Backup System Project — AE/Malpica-Perez reported that the City's traffic consultant completed the configuration of the existing 11 battery backup locations which gives staff the ability to gain full access via the web browser during power outages. Staff continues to work with the unit manufacturer to set up a paging/alarm system to advise staff when the unit kicks in. B. Industry's Grand Avenue Bridge Widening/Interchange Project — SE/Yee stated that the first phase (westbound on-ramp to the SR -60 at Grand Avenue) environmental document was circulated on November 151 and the comment period closed December 5t". The City submitted a comment letter which was the only letter received for the project. The letter addressed concerns about closures of driveways for properties along Grand Avenue (Burger King and former Diamond Bar Honda sites). Direct access to Burger King will be closed and the other driveway will be reinstated after the project is completed. C. SR57/60 Feasibility Study - SE/Yee reiterated that the study is complete and what remains is a focus on creating a funding strategy. In a recent correspondence, Metro responded that there will be no leap -frogging of projects regardless of circumstances. Metro offered that the City of Industry should look into all available funding options and determine the feasibility of issuing bonds for the project and have Metro pay back those funds on a reimbursable basis. Because the overall project is listed in Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan, there is a placeholder for the project which would establish precedence for the bond reimbursement scenario. SE/Yee responded to C/Lin that the confluence portion of the project is estimated at $273 million and currently, there is a total of $35 million committed to the project. PWD/Liu further explained that the estimate for all phases of the "big fix" is close to $640 million. D. Environmental Enhancement Mitigation (EEM) Improvement Project—SE/Yee explained that this project is in process and landscape improvements are located on the east side of Brea Canyon Road at Via Sorella and along Golden Springs Drive across from the CalTrans yard. Due to various issues, the plantings have not yet been introduced. DECEMBER 9. 2010 PAGE 7 T&T COMMISSION E. DBHS Circulation Plan — (previously discussed) F. Lemon Avenue On/Off-Ramps Project — AE/Molina stated that last Tuesday the City Council approved the freeway agreement with the State of California, an agreement which superseded the 1968 agreement between L.A. County and the State of California. The new agreement authorizes the state to build the partial diamond interchange at Lemon Avenue and close the hook ramps at Brea Canyon Road once the new interchange is completed. The project design should be completed in January 2011 and thereafter the right-of-way phase of the project will move forward including partial takes from seven residential and two commercial properties. Caltrans is the lead agency on the ROW takes and the City will have to execute another agreement for acquisition and negotiations. The right-of-way phase is anticipated to begin late January/early February 2011. G. Residential Area 7/Zone 5 Road Maintenance Project - AE/Molina reported that Area 7, which is the area north of Grand Avenue, east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and south of Armitos (Summitridge/Pantera areas), will complete the seven year cycle plan. Zone 5 is Golden Springs Drive between Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard; Brea Canyon Road south of Pathfinder Road; and Diamond Bar Boulevard north of Sunset Crossing Road. On Tuesday, December 7th, Council awarded the design and construction management contract to Onward Engineering in the amount of $85,560. The design phase should begin early in 2011. H. Brea Canyon Road Drainage Improvement Project—AE/Molina explained that this is a project that will increase the capacity of three catch basins on the east side of Brea Canyon Road north of Pathfinder Road. This contract was awarded to CP Construction in the amount of $85,250. At the City's request, the contractor agreed to postpone construction until the first of the year. This was decided because during construction, the number 2 lane will be closed 24/7 until the catch basins are completed which is expected to take about three days. I. NTMP — Briar Creek Road/Decorah Road Neighborhood/Willow Creek Road Neighborhood — SENee reported that staff has temporarily put this project on hold because additional speed and volume data uncovered the fact that Willow Creek was showing evidence of speeding concerns. Staff set up a meeting with the neighborhood to discuss and receive comments about the NTMP process during which staff received additional comments about speeding, line of sight and pedestrian safety concerns, all of which will be taken into account. During the next month and a half, staff will continue to work with the consultants on these issues and return to the neighborhood with the results. Additional reports: AE/Molina stated that in 2005, a landslide occurred and affected five (5) houses along Sunset Crossing Road and Minnequa Drive. Four of these five houses were red -tagged. Two weeks ago, the City was finally able to issue a DECEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 8 T&T COMMISSION permit for the private property owners to repair the landslide. Work consisting of the installation of two waler walls with tie backs to stabilize the hillside began last week. After installation and testing, if accepted, the entire hillside will be re -graded and the mechanical stabilization (waler wall and tie -backs) will be buried underground, out of view as a result of the re -grade. Work is anticipated to be completed by mid to late February 2011 and once repaired, the Building and Safety Division will determine what work will need to be done to lift the red tags from the four homes so that residents can move back in. PWD/Liu stated that on Tuesday, December 7th, the City Council approved the grant application for the Highway Safety Improvement Program, a federal program administered by Caltrans. The funding opportunity for 2011 is $70 million and the funds will be reviewed on a competitive basis. D.B. submitted an application for the continuation of construction of landscape medians on Pathfinder Road between Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Results of the application are expected early spring 2011. PWD/Liu reported that the CDBG Curb Ramp Project grant application is for three neighborhoods with 60 ramps proposed to be constructed. C/Carrera asked if the property that is currently occupied by the hook ramps was in the Caltrans right-of-way. PWD/Liu responded affirmative and that it would become excess property for which the City would have first right -of - refusal. Temporarily, the land will be fenced off with limited landscaping on Golden Springs Drive. IX. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS: As stated in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Traffic and Transportation Commission, Chair/House adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of Respectfully, David G. Liu, Secretary Attest: Chairman Kevin House 2011 ( CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM DATE: January 5, 2011 MEETING DATE: January13, 2011 TO: Chair and Members of the Traffic and Transportation Commission VIA: David G. Liu, Director of Public Works (01 FROM: Rick Yee, Senior Civil Engineer '�" SUBJECT: SPEED ZONE STUDY UPDATE BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In order to legally establish and enforce speed limits, the California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires that speed limits be developed on the basis of a traffic and engineering speed zone study. A variety of criteria are considered in this process, including: prevailing vehicle speeds, number of accidents, traffic volumes, roadway design, safe stopping distance, pedestrian traffic, and other conditions not readily apparent to motorists. The CVC also requires that the speed zone study be updated at least every seven (7) years if radar is used for speed limit enforcement. If local agencies do not conform to these provisions, any citations written on the affected roadways would not be enforceable in court. The current speed zone study must be updated on or before August 2011 to reflect any roadway segments that have experienced significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions. Our traffic engineering consultant, Warren C. Siecke, has evaluated the City's entire roadway network and completed an update of the speed zone study. The study's recommended speed limits are summarized in the attached exhibit titled "Proposed Speed Limits 2010". The roadway segments that were identified as being subject to significant roadway or traffic conditions are identified in the attached Table 1. Additional roadway segments that were not originally part of the speed zone study are also identified in the attached Table 2. Upon concurrence from the Traffic and Transportation Commission, this speed zone study update will be forwarded to the City Council for adoption along with an ordinance that amends the municipal code accordingly at their January 18, 2011 meeting. Based on the results of the speed zone study update, the existing citywide speed limits shall remain unchanged with the exception of the following: Street Limits Existing Speed Proposed speed Brea Canyon Road North City Limit to Washington St. 45 mph 40 mph Decrease Bride ate Drive Copley Drive to Valley Vista Drive Not Posted 35 mph N/A Golden Springs Dr West City Limits to Lemon Avenue 50 mph 45 mph Decrease Valley Vista or Gateway Center Dr. to Bride ate Dr. Not Posted 35 mph N/A Washington Street Brea Canyon Road to Northeast City Limit 40 mph 35 mph Decrease The Brea Canyon Road segment between the north City limit and Washington Street has been recommended to be decreased due to recordation of lower 85th percentile speeds and the changed condition of the roadway due to the completion of the grade separation project just north of Washington Street. The segments of Bridgegate Drive and Valley Vista were established at 35 mph because of the recorded 85th percentile speeds. Golden Springs Drive between the west City limit and Lemon Avenue has been recommended for a decrease to achieve consistency with the 45 mph speed limit in the adjacent jurisdiction. The 85th percentile speeds also warrant this change. The Washington Street segment 85th percentile speeds warrant a reduced speed limit of 35 mph between Brea Canyon Road and the City limit. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Traffic and Transportation Commission concur with staff to forward the attached speed zone survey update to the City Council for adoption and amendment of the City's municipal code. City of Diamond Bar PROPOSED SPEED LIMITS 2010 SCALE: NONE N G` We I nut 6 ' a 40 E J Brea I Canyon Cutoff �Stry_ S { o ycomi ng treet P_ SVr �n95 x Y aGQ 'J Washington Street Freewoy Highland Valley Road/ ase,_ Cr O � poj QL,eov e Avenido e - --�A--Del Sol Road 45 Lone v O K Freeway 45 �— —Plating Drive Sabana Y Gold Rush 7 Drive I Drive �O c:e35--Copley Drive uMontefino Gateway Avenue45 Center Drive e Drive 0 Valley Vista Drive 40 Roo° 0 45 3 0 m L 40 LL Ok 0/ 45 0 C QCT O V 2 m� 45 ,,.—Copper Canyon Drive D E 0 Summitriage f c Drive /0 --; a ;D �O 45 I P°�nC7ty of Pomona 1 � m 3 \Y � Fountain � a � \,s o Springs50 \, COX 1 RoadPeen \ 50 ;moo 50 V TABLE 1 LOCATIONS WITH SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN ROADWAY OR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS SINCE 2004 STREET LIMITS Brea Canyon Road Washington Street to L coming Street Brea Canyon Road Lycoming Street to Golden Springs Drive Brea Canyon Road Golden Springs Drive to Via Sorella Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar Boulevard to Copper Canyon Drive Brea Canyon Road Copper Canyon Drive to South City Limit Brea Canyon Cut -Off West City Limit to Fallowfield Drive Brea Canyon Cut -Off Fallowfield Drive to Brea Canyon Road Chino Avenue Chino Hills Parkway to East City Limit Chino Hills Parkway Chino Avenue to South CRy Limit Diamond Bar Boulevard Cold Springs Lane to Fountain Springs Road Diamond Bar Boulevard Mountain Laurel Way to Grand Avenue Diamond Bar Boulevard Highland Valley Road to Temple Avenue Golden Springs Drive West City Limit to Lemon Avenue Golden Springs Drive Lemon Avenue to 900' west of Gona Ct. Golden Springs Drive 900' west of Gone Ct. to Brea Canyon Road Golden Springs Drive Copley Drive to Grand Avenue Golden Springs Drive Grand Avenue to Sabana Drive Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar Boulevard to Platina Drive Golden Springs Drive Sylvan Glen Road to Sunset Crossing Road Golden Springs Drive Sunset Crossing Road to Avenida Rancheros/Temple Avenue Grand Avenue West City Limit to Golden Springs Drive Grand Avenue Golden Springs Drive to Montefino Drive Grand Avenue Montefino Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard Grand Avenue Diamond Bar Boulevard to Rolling Knoll Road Grand Avenue Rolling Knoll Road to Summitrid a Drive Grand Avenue Summitrid a Drive to East City Limit Lemon Avenue North City Limit to Golden Springs Drive Lycoming Street I Lemon Avenue to Brea Canyon Road Sunset Crossing Road West City Limit to Diamond Bar Boulevard Washington Street Brea Canyon Road to Northeast City Limit Engineering and traffic surveys were also conducted on the highway segments listed in Table 2 as no speed limit had been previously established. TABLE 2 LOCATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED STREET I LIMITS Bride ate Drive Copley Drive to Valley Vista Drive Valley Vista Drive Gateway Center Drive to Bridge ate Drive The results of the study are summarized on the following page, showing the existing and proposed speed limits. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SPEED ZONE STUDY Adopted by Diamond Bar City Council Resolution No. 2004-47 Date: August 3, 2004 Amended by Diamond Bar City Council Resolution No. 2010 — 00 Date: ---------, 2010 I, Warren C. Siecke, am a Registered Traffic Engineer, Number 823, in the State of California. I certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey, prepared for the City of Diamond Bar, has been conducted in compliance with guidelines contained in the California Vehicle Code, the California Department of Transportation Traffic Manual and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Data presented in the report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions existing on Diamond Bar city streets. 4;Amn c4=l'e- Warren C. Siecke, RE Consultant Traffic Engineer R.T. E.823 TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I EXISTING AND PROPOSED SPEED LIMITS IV DEFINITIONS v INTRODUCTION 1 CERTIFICATION 1 REGULATIONS GOVERNING SPEED LIMITS 3 APPLICABLE VEHICLE CODE SECTIONS 4. STUDY METHOD 12 TRAFFIC DATA SUMMARY 14 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22 REFERENCES 29 APPENDIX A - CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION A-1 APPENDIX B - ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY FORMS B-1 TABLES 1. AVERAGE MIDBLOCK ACCIDENT RATES 12 2. TRAFFIC DATA SUMMARY 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of a traffic and engineering study for establishment of speed limits on city streets as required by Sections 22357 and 22358 of the California Vehicle Code. The review included radar surveys of prevailing vehicle speeds at various locations along the length of each street, recent traffic counts and an analysis of reported traffic accidents. The report amends the Speed Zone Study report adopted by the City of Diamond Bar City Council on August 3, 2004. It also supersedes certain sections of that report. The purpose of this amendment is to revise those certain sections as necessary to certify the validity of the study for a ten year period in conformance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Sections 40801 and 40802. In addition, it includes the required engineering and traffic survey required to establish speed limits on Bridgegate Drive and Valley Vista Drive. California Vehicle Code (CVC) Sections 22357 and 22358 give cities the authority to determine speed limits on streets within their jurisdiction on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. CVC Section 627 defines the engineering and traffic survey as a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the Department of Transportation for use by state and local authorities. The survey requires consideration of prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements, accident records highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver, residential density and pedestrian and bicyclist safety. CVC Section 40801 prohibits peace officers from using speed traps to enforce speed limits. Section 40802 defines speed traps as either: (A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance. (B) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that has not been established on the basis of a traffic and engineering survey within seven years or within ten years if a registered engineer evaluates the section of highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred including but not limited to changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width or traffic volume. CERTIFICATION This study was conducted in accordance with the appropriate sections of the California Vehicle Code and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Each of the highway segments included in the 2004 Speed Zone Study were reviewed to determine if significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred including but not limited to changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width or traffic volume. It was determined that no significant changes had occurred except on the highway segments listed in Table 1. Each of the highway segments included in the 2004 Speed Zone Study were reviewed to determine if significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred including but not limited to changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width or traffic volume. It was determined that no significant changes had occurred except on the following highway segments: TABLE 1 LOCATIONS WITH SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN ROADWAY OR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS SINCE 2004 NO. STREET LIMITS 1 Brea Canyon Road Washington Street to L coming Street 2 Brea Canyon Road Lycoming Street to Golden Springs Drive 3 Brea Canyon Road Golden Springs Drive to Via Sorella 4 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar Boulevard to Copper Canyon Drive 5 Brea Canyon Road Copper Canyon Drive to South City Limit 6 Brea Canyon Cut -Off West City Limit to Fallowfield Drive 7 Brea Canyon Cut -Off Fallowfield Drive to Brea Canyon Road 8 Chino Avenue Chino Hills Parkway to East City Limit 9 Chino Hills Parkway Chino Avenue to South City Limit 10 Diamond Bar Boulevard Cold Springs Lane to Fountain Springs Road 11 Diamond Bar Boulevard Mountain Laurel Way to Grand Avenue 12 Diamond Bar Boulevard Highland Valley Road to Temple Avenue 13 Golden Springs Drive West City Limit to Lemon Avenue 14 Golden Springs Drive Lemon Avenue to 900' west of Gona Ct. 15 Golden Springs Drive 900' west of Gona Ct. to Brea Canyon Road 16 Golden Springs Drive Copley Drive to Grand Avenue 17 Golden Springs Drive Grand Avenue to Sabana Drive 18 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar Boulevard to Platina Drive 19 Golden Springs Drive Sylvan Glen Road to Sunset Crossing Road 20 Golden Springs Drive Sunset Crossing Road to Avenida Rancheros/Temple Avenue 21 Grand Avenue West City Limit to Golden Springs Drive 2 2 Grand Avenue Golden Springs Drive to Montefino Drive 23 Grand Avenue Montefino Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard 24 Grand Avenue Diamond Bar Boulevard to Rolling Knoll Road 25 Grand Avenue Rolling Knoll Road to Summitrid a Drive 26 Grand AvenueSummitrid a Drive to East City Limit 27 Lemon Avenue North City Limit to Golden Springs Drive 28 L cumin Street Lemon Avenue to Brea Canyon Road 29 Sunset Crossin Road West City Limit to Diamond Bar Boulevard 30 1 Washington Street Brea Canyon Road to Northeast City Limit f►: Business and Residence District: Determination - Section 240 In determining whether a highway is within a business or residence district, the following limitations shall apply and shall qualify the definitions in Sections 235 and 515: (a) No building shall be regarded unless its entrance faces the highway and the front of the building is within 75 feet of the roadway. (b) Where a highway is physically divided into two or more roadways only those buildings facing each roadway separately shall be regarded for the purpose of determining whether the roadway is within a district. (c) All churches, apartments, hotels, multiple dwelling houses, clubs, and public buildings, other than schools, shall be deemed to be business structures. (d) A highway or portion of a highway shall not be deemed to be within a district regardless of the number of buildings upon the contiguous property if there is no right of access to the highway by vehicles from the contiguous property. In determining whether a highway is within a business or residence district, the following limitations shall apply and shall qualify the definitions in Section 235 and 515: Residence District - Section 515 A "residence district' is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district where, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists. Engineering and Traffic Survey - Section 627 (a) "Engineering and traffic survey," as used in this code, means a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the Department of Transportation for use by state and local authorities. (b) An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consideration of all of the following: (1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements. (2) Accident records. (3) Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. 0 the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. Speed Law Violations - Section 22351 (a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law. (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing. Prima Facie Speed Limits - Section 22352 The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof: (1) Fifteen miles per hour: (A) When traversing a railway grade crossing, if during the last 100 feet of the approach to the crossing the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the crossing and of any traffic on the railway for a distance of 400 feet in both directions along the railway. This subdivision does not apply in the case of any railway grade crossing where a human flagman is on duty or a clearly visible electrical or mechanical railway crossing signal device is installed but does not then indicate the immediate approach of a railway train or car. (B) When traversing any intersection of highways if during the last 100 feet of the driver's approach to the intersection the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the intersection and of any traffic upon all of the highways entering the intersection for a distance of 100 feet along all those highways, except at an intersection protected by stop signs or yield right-of-way signs or controlled by official traffic control signals. (C) On any alley. (2) Twenty-five miles per hour: (A) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or residence district unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code. 0 intersection for a distance of 100 feet along all those highways, except at an intersection protected by stop signs or yield right-of-way signs or controlled by official traffic control signals. (C) On any alley. (2) Twenty-five miles per hour: (A) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or residence district unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code. (B) When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard "SCHOOL" warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds. (C) When passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard "SENIOR" warning sign. A local authority is not required to erect any sign pursuant to this paragraph until donations from private sources covering those costs are received and the local agency makes a determination that the proposed signing should be implemented. A local authority may, however, utilize any other funds available to it to pay for the erection of those signs. (b) This section shall become operative on March 1, 2001. Increase of Local Limits - Section 22357 (a) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe. The declared prima facie or maximum speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street and shall not thereafter be revised except upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. This section does not apply to any 25 -mile -per -hour prima facie limit which is ( applicable when passing a school building or the grounds thereof or when passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens. M Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone. (b) (1) For purposes of this section, local streets and roads shall be defined by the latest functional usage and federal -aid system maps as submitted to the federal Highway Administration, except that when these maps have not been submitted, or when the street or road is not shown on the maps, a 'local street or road" means a street or road primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions: (A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet. (B) Not more than one-half mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445. (C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction. (2) For purposes of this section "school zone" means that area of road contiguous to a school building or the grounds thereof, and on which is posted a standard "SCHOOL" warningsign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. (c) (1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable: (A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic surrey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of subparagraph (D). (ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406. 10 ( subdivision (a) of Section 40802 shall constitute a prima facie case that the evidence or testimony is not based upon a speedtrap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802. STUDY METHOD Speed zones are established to inform drivers of the safe speed limit and to protect the general public from unreasonable and reckless drivers. Research has shown that most drivers travel at speeds that are safe and reasonable, therefore, speed limits are established primarily on the consensus of the majority of those who use the roads. Speed limits are not based on the actions of a few. The California Vehicle Code requires the limits to be established on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey rather than by arbitrary methods. This study was conducted in accordance with the appropriate sections of the California Vehicle Code and the Caltrans Traffic Manual Surveys were conducted on arterial streets and selected local streets. Each of the selected streets was analyzed individually. The accident analysis was based on a review of traffic accident records from the State Wide integrated Records System (SWITRS) for years 2001 and 2002 and from the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department records for the years 2008 and 2009. Only non - intersection accidents are included since intersection accidents are considered to be ( correctable using conventional intersection traffic controls such as stop signs or traffic signals. Accident rates were computed using a formula which takes into account the number of accidents in the two-year period, the length of roadway being studied, and the average daily traffic volume. The rate is expressed in accidents per million vehicle miles (Acc/MVM). The formula is: Acc/MVM = Number of Accidents x 1,000,000 Distance x ADT x No. of Days In order to evaluate the accident rates for each street segment, the average rate for all surveyed arterial street segments was calculated. Average rates were calculated for two-lane and four -or -more -lane arterial streets, two-lane collector and two-lane local streets-. The accident rates for each segment were compared to the citywide average rates for streets with similar characteristics. The average rates are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 AVERAGE MIDBLOCK ACCIDENT RATES STREET TYPE AVERAGE ACCIDENT RATE 4 — Lane or more arterial 0.90 accidents per million vehicle miles 2 —Lane arterial 1.17 accidents per million vehicle miles Collector 1.98 accidents per million vehicle miles Local 1.97 accidents per million vehicle miles 12 1.1. CQ C M U) Q F- C) E U_ E LL. W MJ W a c Y w W K a W M I -O O o l0 O LO (O �a 0 J K ❑a W Ur W Z a_ nN LO LO v LO v v v v v X W J 7 O O r co _ CO V LO O O NC) O o Z W W 0 0¢ O o 0 0 o r r r o U m m m m m m Q> 0 0 0 0 0 .- o O (O r N M- LO p Q OC6 LO 00 Ti 47 l0 N Z (O O r LO r r O 00 m m It V r 00 co (O (O (O O (O CO (O V (O O (O (O (D m N m (O W o ¢ !n 4' W V M �L? M N q V r v MM 00 CO V M M LON CO LO C? 00 0 V (n 4'i 0 r m W (O V V M00 (fl m r V V I� (D m (0 co m CL M V' M M N N M Cl) V V N M M V Cl) V Cl) It N o W LOO V LO Mm V M LO M M W LO V"Q NN LO (O r'V M V OO LO r0 rm 00 Cr mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm W>j ZUn ZU) Z(n Z(n ZUn ZUn Z(n ZUn ~�r (n v Cl) v o 0 0 0" o CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ c C i O m C U) a o O U NO v O O a L: .a o m LL n C( .a O O i C._ (y. m m0 Co m mo m (n m m J 0 (n J O :'=0 O O (n 00- O" OCY) c O c O m ' L E m w w� ' L J J _ 'C U c J (n _ c c 'C O c" c c (1 N C p) c p7 N n O O O o_ O O a 0 U) O OW m T A O) > 'c TW 'cO O m e C U' c ,c N c c c a (/) c .E Q c (2 (n c (1 c m N m m m m m O m m (a,6 Un m U) m Un O (n .a i.% O U O V -O (U c.i Cn C.% (.i 'p V a �-! E a U .L m m m m ._- .L O ,` 5 O m d O 0 y 0 O O d m �dU) M O ti. LL C) d a, C)CO d a_Ci� �(7Z a >.ZJ m �J(n m �C�(n m i%� m m m m m 14 U) Z U Oc H Q� W 11 Q� �-: m m ao v m m CO Y Q LU W p W N F- O �a 't JIIx 00 - LU (D W z a_ U)�- U) v v v v v v v v w J Fw- D O r (D (D M m (D M V o 0 0 0 0 o o H¢ z W w p m m O9 m m 00i m m m m Q w O O o O C; O O O O Q f- N O MC) m O t0 (O (D Q0 Cl) N M Cl) V V N N N N N N M Z W e m r m (D((0 Mm Mr co (D (D h M mO m MM V'R wao d" cr co co mm (D (O a.a ¢" (0 (0 O M m W N M V N 0O m0 00 Cl) i i (n (n (f! V q' L? lD In lD (n I' L? I' L9 M M w I- It N O mM [{ LO M N m�-- mc- m V m MM It V V -It Mme' M V NN 07 W W (O 10 m m M O NIT MN I-00 X00 Or m V V V 'd' tD 7 (O (O (O LO m (O V V d" 11 d' M - (n mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm o zcn zm zcn zcn zcn zco zcn zm zcn O O O O O O O U) M U) (O (D (D M d' M O O O O O O O O O v o v m v v o v v 0 D a (/j m m co3 m m m" a Fes-" > -a > -a > .0 > > > > (`o > 0 (`0 0 > � a) 0d' m W a)Y a) O� m> m dQ m(D m L; J O C a M —j O 0) Co O *' O p N O Q) O .c p 0 O O i .` ca CO 7 m 7 Co ca i m L 7 Cc L L }+ (a L (6 L (] QL U)CO M LU (75L LLQ ma) m m m C m C m Y _m to m N m COC aa"maocvcp`aUma'c�QaQ�aVaaaua O 4 C C. C (a C C C a C a C � C C Q) m cn o a c o cL as 0 0 3 a o a c o cU 00-0 o-a.c o -0w EooEamEm"E"ooEo2E2 EcoEo Eoo m0 U- LLn �aU.�Y�'22i(7 �U' 0'��(D M-0(n.-MCDm 16 11 w J m Q H IN 2 OR Z O c N ¢o w II 0� F-: m mU) ¢o Y ¢ LU W K LU W HO v v v v v � a- v v v v 0 J p a w� LL, D.z — U) CO 0 V V V V V V V V X W J W¢ (O M 1� N aD N m 0) K U o O N o o O O r O �¢ Z W W U m m m m U� m m m m m v¢j o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 N V N 1 M O m I— O O M 61 (D � � � � M ¢ N z (D I� m M d' uOM Om m I— W O V (Om W W co (o m (D 1l- m n co co to LO m I— co r co ¢ y tLw m 1� m m co (D M (D V (6 (o (D V (o I- W d) N O O Ol f N d' f U) rr r� rd M M d' V MM MM MM MM MM MM fn W W I- (D r r m (6 m M (D M m m to V' (O 1— m M W V d' V V V' V' co V' V' V' V' d' V d' V IT V V (n mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm o w� w� w� w2 w� w� z(n z(f) w� ~ .-. OM OM OM N U) r m M (OO d; _. O O O O O O O O O @ c " N C W @ o a @ C7 o U) d C9 d@ d 0 d a d@ d o N U) d O > >c 'L %� •L > •L >c •L >@ •L > 'L > U) 'L (� 'L O @ O N > O O J N N� N� Nm U) N� 0 N,cL ' c co 01 O ZM C) C) O ZM Q1 N O d C 0 C C @ C C C c 'O C (n 7 J . W 'C U •C C C CO C C 'C @ C. C > C W C. �, C. > C C, CL G. o C. Cl C - Q C) Q Cl)F- > c3 ca ccm co cc cc c�"N c��_QV CF m U) c o(7Q o(D ocnm 000 o - oma 000 oU)QF- L�cn 0 C9 0 0 0 C9 0 0 (7 IN 2 OR Z O c N ¢o w II 0� F-: m mU) ¢o IT LU MJ W Q (n Y w w W N F- O m m m LO In O to N LO (L JO K 0 IL W p W Z a_ (n � (n it m u) In u) o LO It V V V V M N V X w J r co 00 FW- 7 Omi •It r N t` I` N c (-i o F- Q zw w(D C)0 rn rn m rn m rn m rn rn Q j o 0 0 ci Q �o o m M06 (o Q co M N N N Z U�(3) N M N d' (() m u) M O 0) O O N O LU o mm 1�m rm Int` mr m00 Q)m mm mm C) QL CL r LO m m m N 1, N I- m m LO O I M It m M W m V V dt IT IT m q' D 17 ' 7 V V M M 9 V wN a.a. W (O CA O 0) m m M m m m CO 00 V' "D (A d'M M M V M V m q M M M N M N N V M W m V CD (D m I- 'R m O U) -� 't LL) m V CD m V m CL V 7 V V V V It V d' M M M M00 CO V (n mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm w3: W W3: w w Z (n W W w F^ 0 0 0 CD o 0 o m (D (n (D N M (D V CO (D Cl) V' 0 O O O O C) o 0 C5 O O _ N a m 2 0 O O p p N E 0-0 J N o m 'a � H d C> 7 N> 7 d L 3 m O� 7 0 4) 7 0 3. J 4) O ,F., +� d� > O O .E N W C a. C C D7 C O C C O (n -0 Q" -j _ W dCn C N C N -O dYa d.0 ;•= >._,� �Q� O > i �T,_ > a >._ a N > Ca a �' > .J a >..-. a Q(� to c C C Q �- N -a 'o m p -a J c L C O p -'�= 'p c V N fn a C c o a— v O .0 .c c« ;,= m N iU' 0] SOY i�(n HCl) >,JU O( yZ(n •�Om m a. C) 0 c9 0 0 J —j� a 20 2i ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS When the 2004 engineering and traffic surrey was conducted, the guidelines for establishment of speed limits were contained in the Caltrans Traffic Manual The Manual stated that the speed limit should normally be set at the first five -mile increment below the 85th percentile speed. With the subsequent adoption of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the guidelines were changed to state that the speed limit should normally be set at the first five -mile increment nearest the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is generally accepted as the safe and reasonable speed that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists. A five -mile per hour decrease is allowed to reflect safety considerations for pedestrians and bicyclists and conditions that may not be readily apparent to the driver and is based on engineering judgment. The California Vehicle Code states it is the intent of the legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning. The basic speed law which requires drivers to operate their vehicles at a speed that is safe for conditions is sufficient regulation as to such conditions. Each of the segments was reviewed to determine if conditions justified setting the speed limit at more than five miles per hour below the 85th percentile speed. The review was, based on consideration of the following factors: 1. Reported accident experience. 2. Roadway design speed. 3. Safe stopping sight distance. 4. Super elevation on curves. 5. Shoulder conditions. 6. Profile conditions. 7. Intersection spacing and, offsets. 8. Driveway conditions. 9. Pedestrian traffic in the roadway without sidewalks. 10. Unusual or unique traffic conditions not readily apparent to the driver. The recommended speed limits in the 2004 study were consistent with the principle of establishing them at the first five miles per hour increment below the 85th percentile speed except at locations where an additional decrease was justified. The street segments that were subject to re-evaluation are consistent with current practice of establishing speed limits at the five miles per hour increment nearest the 85th percentile speed except where a decrease is justified. The rationale for establishment of the speed limits on each street is contained in the following paragraphs. 22 Fountain Springs Road to Cool Springs Drive The 85" percentile speeds range from 47 to 50 miles per hour, however, the accident rate between Fountain Springs Road and Cold Springs Lane is 1.52 accidents per million vehicle miles exceeds the average rate of 1.17 for similar streets. Since the roadway features are similar throughout this reach, it is desirable to establish a consistent speed limit. Therefore, it is recommended the existing 45 miles per hour speed limit be retained. Cool Springs Drive to Copper Canyon Drive Between Cool Springs Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard, the 85th percentile speeds are 44 and 45 miles per hour in the northbound and southbound directions, respectively. Therefore, it is recommended the existing 45 miles per hour speed limit be retained. Between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Copper Canyon Drive, the 85th percentile speeds are 45 miles per hour in the northbound and southbound directions. Therefore, it is recommended the existing 45 miles per hour speed limit be retained. Copper Canyon Drive to South City Limit The 85th percentile speeds are 52 and 57 miles per hour in the northbound and southbound directions, respectively. Therefore, it is recommended the existing 50 miles per hour speed limit be retained. BREA CANYON CUT-OFF ROAD - WEST CITY LIMIT TO BREA CANYON ROAD West City Limit to Fallowfield Drive The 85th percentile speeds are 47 and 43 miles per hour in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively. The accident rate of 1.34 accidents per million vehicle miles is higher than the average of 0.90 for similar streets. Therefore, it is recommended the existing 40 miles per hour speed limit be retained. Fallowfield Drive to Brea Canyon Road The 85th percentile speeds are 44 and 42 miles per hour in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively. Therefore, it is recommended the existing 40 miles per hour speed limit be retained. BRIDGEGATE DRIVE — COPLEY DRIVE TO VALLEY VISTA DRIVE It is recommended that the speed limit be established at 35 miles per hour because the 85th percentile speeds are 33 miles per hour and 35 miles per hour for northbound and southbound traffic, respectively. There is no recorded accident history. CHINO AVENUE - CHINO HILLS PARKWAY TO EAST CITY LIMIT The 85th percentile speeds are 46 and 52 miles per hour in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively. However, it is recommended the existing 50 miles per hour speed limit be retained in order to maintain continuity with the existing 50 miles per hour speed limit on the adjacent section of roadway in the City of Chino Hills. 24 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE - WEST CITY LIMIT TO AVENIDA RANCHEROS /TEMPLE AVENUE West City Limit to Lemon Avenue The 85th percentile speeds of 46 and 48 miles per hour for eastbound and westbound traffic, respectively. Therefore, it is recommended the existing 50 miles per hour speed limit be decreased to 45 miles per hour. This limit will match the existing 45 miles per hour speed limit in the highway segment westerly of the city limits. Lemon Avenue to 900 feet West of Gona Court The 85th percentile speeds of 41 and 47 miles per hour for eastbound and westbound traffic, respectively. No change in the existing 40 miles per hour speed limit is recommended. 900 feet West of Gona Court to 1300 feet East of Adel Avenue No change in the existing 40 miles per hour speed limit is recommended. The 85th percentile speeds range from 41 to 49 miles per hour. Roadway and roadside development conditions are similar throughout the entire segment. Accident rates are higher than the average for other similar streets 1300 feet East of Adel Avenue to Copley Drive No change in the existing 45 miles per hour speed limit is recommended. Copley Drive to Grand Avenue The 85" percentile speeds are 47 and 46 miles per hour for eastbound and westbound traffic, respectively. No change in the existing 45 miles per hour speed limit is recommended. Grand Avenue to Sabana Drive The 85" percentile speeds are 47 miles per hour for eastbound and westbound traffic, respectively. The accident rate at 0.93 accidents per million vehicle miles is higher than the average of 0.90 for similar streets. No change in the existing 45 miles per hour speed limit is recommended. Sabana Drive to Platina Drive No change in the existing 40 miles per hour speed limit is recommended. Platina Drive to Avenida Rancheros/Temple Avenue No change in the existing 45 miles per hour speed limit is recommended. 85th percentile speeds are in the 43 to 49 miles per hour range. School zones for Lorbeer Middle School at Diamond Bar Boulevard, Golden Springs Elementary School at Ballena Drive and Diamond Point Elementary School at Sunset Crossing Road are identified with standard school signs. 26 The 85" percentile speeds are 39 and 40 miles per hour for eastbound and westbound traffic, respectively. Raised medians are located in the center of this segment and the single family homes along the south side of the street meet the residential density requirements to justify establishment of the speed limit at the five -miles per hour increment below the 85th percentile speed. Therefore, it is recommended the existing 35 miles per hour speed limit be retained. Diamond Bar Boulevard to Golden Springs Drive The 85th percentile speeds range from 21 to 34 miles per hour. The accident rate for the segment between Bower Cascade Place and Del Sol Lane exceeds the rate for similar streets. Therefore, it is recommended the speed limit be reduced from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. TEMPLE AVENUE — DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD TO GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE No change in the existing 45 miles per hour speed limit is recommended. Critical speeds are in the 34 to 39 miles per hour range and there is no recorded accident history. Temple Avenue is a boundary line street shared with the City of Pomona. VALLEY VISTA DRIVE — GATEWAY CENTER DRIVE TO BRIDGEGATE DRIVE There is no posted speed limit on this street. The 85th percentile speeds are 37 and 36 miles per hour for northbound and southbound, respectively. Therefore, it is recommended the speed limit be established at 35 miles per hour. WALNUT DRIVE - WEST CITY LIMIT TO LEMON AVENUE The 85" percentile speeds are 44 and 42 miles per hour in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively. The recommended safe speed for Walnut Drive is 40 miles per hour. Walnut Drive is established as a 48 foot wide multi -lane arterial roadway providing access to commercial and industrial development along the north side of the Pomona Freeway, S R. 60. A high percentage of the daily traffic is large semi -trucks. These vehicles, frequently parked in the roadway while waiting to enter commercial/industrial concerns block curb lanes to through traffic, causing motorists to make abrupt and oftentimes high speed lane changes. A 45 miles per hour speed limit is posted on Walnut Drive in the City of Industry where there is less abutting development and where Walnut Drive serves as the Pomona Freeway, S.R. 60, north frontage road. WASHINGTON STREET - BREA CANYON ROAD TO NORTHEAST CITY LIMIT The 85th percentile speeds are 36 and 32 miles per hour for eastbound and westbound traffic, respectively. Therefore, it is recommended the existing 40 miles per hour speed limit be decreased to 35 miles per hour. 1% CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM BATE: December 31, 2009 MEETING DATE: January 14, 2010 TO: Chair and Members of the Traffic and Tran portation Commission VIA: David G. Liu, Director of Public Works FROM: Rick Yee, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: PROHIBITION OF PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS IN THE CRESTLINE ANNEXATION AREA FOR THE PURPOSES OF STREET SWEEPING BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In 2002, the City Council adopted a Street Sweeping Parking Restriction Program that limited parking during a street sweeping day (weekday) along residential streets in Diamond Bar. The purpose of the parking restriction was to facilitate clearing of the roadways for street sweeping activities. Regulatory signage that indicate the restrictions against parking are posted at tract entrances to the residential neighborhoods. The City is separated into five (5) different zones and street sweeping occurs on a rotating basis from Monday through Friday whereupon one zone is swept per day. The recent annexation of the unincorporated Los Angeles County area known as the Crestline Annexation Area added four (4) additional residential streets to the City's maintenance responsibility. These include: Oak Crest Drive, Ridge Point Drive, Diamond Canyon Road, and a portion of Crestline Drive (See attached exhibit). It should be noted that the easterly side of Diamond Canyon Road is currently posted as a no parking zone and will continue to be enforced as such. In order to successfully implement the street sweeping program along these streets, it is necessary to restrict parking on Mondays between the hours of 11:30 AM and 5:00 PM. Courtesy notices have already been mailed to the residents informing them of the upcoming parking restriction. Signage has been posted but will not be enforced until February 2010 to facilitate a smooth transition for the residents. Upon concurrence from the Traffic and Transportation Commission, the proposed parking restrictions will be presented to the City Council as an amendment to Resolution 2002-20 that established the original citywide parking restrictions. ( Recommendation: It is recommended that the Traffic and Transportation Commission concur with staff to prohibit parking on Mondays between the hours of 11:30 AM and 5:00 PM along Oak Crest Drive, Ridge Point Drive, the westerly side of Diamond Canyon Road, and a portion of Crestline Drive. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM DATE: January 4, 2010 MEETING DATE: January 14, 2010 TO: Chair and Members of the Traffic and Transportation Commission VIA: David G. Liu, Director of Public Works �I FROM: Christian Malpica-Perez, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: STOP SIGN AND PAVEMENT LEGEND INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF GOLD RUSH DRIVE AND CHARMINGDALE ROAD The Public Works Department was notified of a traffic concern by a resident on Charmingdale Road regarding a sight distance issue for vehicles traveling southbound on Charmingdale Road while attempting a right turn onto Gold Rush Drive. Our traffic engineer conducted a preliminary evaluation of the intersection and determined that an all -way stop intersection would not be warranted at this location. However, our traffic engineer recommended that sight distance could be enhanced for vehicles traveling southbound on Charmingdale Road through the installation of a stop sign and pavement legend on Charmingdale Road at Gold Rush Drive (see attached exhibit). All affected residents living within a 500 feet radius of the proposed improvement were notified of the improvement and the January 14th Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting via mail during the week of January 4th. Pending approval of the Traffic and Transportation Commission, this item will be taken subsequently to the City Council. If approved by the City Council, the stop sign and pavement legend will be installed in February 2010. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Traffic and Transportation Commission.concur with staff regarding the installation of the stop sign and pavement legend at the referenced intersection. City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 839-7000 • Fax (909) 861-3117 www.CityofDiamondBar.com January7, 2010 SUBJECT: STOP SIGN AND PAVEMENT LEGEND INSTALLATION INTERSECTION OF CHARMINGDALE ROAD AND GOLD RUSH DRIVE Dear Diamond Bar Resident: In response to traffic concerns at the intersection of Charmingdale Road and Gold Rush Drive, the Public Works Department has conducted a traffic study at this intersection. Based on our study, to enhance the sight distance for vehicles traveling southbound on Charmingdale Road, staff will be recommending a stop sign and pavement legend on Charmingdale Road at Gold Rush Drive (see attached aerial). This recommendation will be presented to the Traffic and Transportation Carol Herrera Commission at their January 14th meeting. The meeting will be held at 7:00 Mayor p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Hearing Board Room, Steve rye 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. Upon receiving concurrence from the Mayor Pro Tem Commission, the recommendation will be taken to the City Council for final approval. Upon approval, the stop sign/pavement legend is expected to be Ling -Ling Chang installed in February. 2010. Council Member The City of Diamond Bar continues to strive to maintain a safe and aesthetic Ron Everett environment for our residents as well as for visitors to the City. Should you Council Member have any questions, please contact Mr. Christian Malpica, Associate Engineer, Jack Tanaka at (909) 839-7076. Council Member Since David G. Liu, P.E. Director of Public Works Attachment cc: Sgt. Marc Saunders, Diamond BarMlalnut Sheriffs Department Re hdpapu City of Diamond Bar Over 80 tons of real snow! F'eatufln,q "Flurry" the sledding penguin January 16 x 10am to 4pm Pantera Park - 738 Pantera ®rive Snow Sleddinq) �(�t now Play Aronr K'Vh Crafts - good Booths > vAl"o-dai -dent ® Games tree admission to snow play area Free shuttle pickup from Pantera Park and surrounding neighborhood. Event Information: Community Services Department @ 909.039.7070 www.ciiyofdiamondbar.com '<,C111r, 114 rnClgnDornvva A ifa1I1C IwIdI1CiCJ. Cil1Cn6 ri-U 1 CI111 CEEGHORN DRIVE/ GeFLD NUGGET AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD! Traffic Calming Improvements are coming to your Neighborhood The City of Diamond Bar invites you to attend a meeting to review the proposed improvements for your neighborhood. Traffic calming improvements to be installed in your neighborhood include speed cushions and red curbing and traffic control devices to be installed include stop signs. We value your input and will discuss the exact locations of these improvements at this meeting so you don't want to miss it. Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:00 p.m. Room. CC -6 SCAQMD/Government Center 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Your participation is important as the City continues to address residents concerns regarding neighborhood traffic. For further information, please contact the City of Diamond Bar Public Works Department at 909.839.7040 or email us at public.works@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us. . aa9 k VOLUNTEER REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SECRETARY DATE: I / 1 LY ho HISSl (' I FROM: �e�Cl�ticrvi f� Us no Cn td�e ft'FTnu/ ADDRESS: QUO 13LLAJ-6 f- o F C 6bEL, n,1 I 'AA dA4- K �"— PHONE: 3 I(:;> -9 2` �1-- �� U � AGENDA#/SUBJECT: i% u �•rF �i9Y1 t n�Dft�� £ s IN FAVOR OF/AGAINST? �J /A I expect to address the Commission on the subject agenda item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature JAs-F 1& 14TH JANUARY, 2010 TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR WE THE RESIDENTS OF CHARMINGDALE ROAD, HEREBY REQUEST A NEW STUDY DONE REGARDING PLACEMENT OF A POTENTIAL STOP SIGN ON THE CORNER OF CHARMINGDALE AND GOLDRUSH. THE STOP SIGN SHOULD BE PLACED ON GOLDRUSH. TRAFFIC THAT GOES UP AND DOWN THE HILL IS VERY DISCONCERTING. MOST DRIVERS DO NOT SLOW DOWN OR STOP. THE CORNER HOUSE HAS HAD DRIVERS CRASH INTO THEIR RETAINER WALL, AS A RESULT OF SPEEDING DOWN GOLDRUSH TOWARDS THE CHARMINGDALE INTERSECTION; IN ROUTE TO DIAMOND BAR BLVD. gt"NATTIRFC•