Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/2011 AGENDA Regular MeetingTRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA November 10, 2011 7:00 P.M., Regular Meeting South Coast Air Quality Management District Hearing Board Room 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Cham Vice -Chair Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Liana Pincher Ted Carrera Kevin House Jen "Fred" Mahlke Kenneth Mok Written materials distributed io the Tru ffic and Transportation Connnission ivithin 72 hours ofthe Traffic and 7'ransportatioh Commission meeting are available for public inspection innnediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office cit 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. Copies ofstaf,/ repots 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 an agenda item, please call (909) 839- 7040 during regular business hound. 1n an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that wry person in need orany type ofspecial equipment, assistance, or accon nodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public neeting mnsi inform the Public Woks Department at (909) 839-7040 a mi ninmm of 72 hours prior to the schechded meeting. Please refrain from smoking eating or drinking The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the sane CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 2011 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Carrera 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 House led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Kevin House, Jen "Fred" Mahlke Kenneth Mok, and Vice -Chair Ted Carrera Absent: Chair Liana Pincher was excused. Also Present: David Liu, Public Works Director; Rick Yee, Senior Civil Engineer; Christian Malpica-Perez, Associate Engineer (Traffic), and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. Minutes of the August 11, 2011 regular meeting. C/House moved, C/Mok seconded, to approve the minutes of August 11, 2011 as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: House, Mok, VC/Carrera, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Pincher II. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered III. ITEMS FROM STAFF: A. Received and Filed Traffic Enforcement Updates for: 1. Citations: July, August and September 2011 2. Collisions: July, August and September 2011 3. Street Sweeping: July, August and September 2011 IV. OLD BUSINESS: None OCTOBER 13, 2011 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION V. NEW BUSINESS: A. Right Turn on Red and U -Turn Restriction at Pathfinder Road and Peaceful Hills Road. SENee presented staff's report and recommended that the Traffic and Transportation Commission concur with staff to approve the right turn on red and U-turn restrictions. C/Mok asked if the sign would be placed on a pole. SENee responded that there would be a post and the sign would be posted in conformance with the industry standards for advanced notification. C/Mok asked if the sign across the street had to be installed and whether it would be on the signal up high. SENee stated the sign was designed to be visible so that, as a driver approaches the intersection, he would see the near -side sign on the southeast corner. Once at the intersection, the driver may be out of the line -of -sight to view the near -side; therefore, it will be designed so the driver can see in plain view that there is restriction from the opposite side of the street. PWD/Liu stated that there is a similar installation on southbound Longview Drive at Grand Avenue. This is only the second intersection in the City for which staff has recommended this kind of installation due to potential line -of - sight concerns. C/House said he concurred with no -right -turn -on -red; however, he had an issue with the no -U-turn. He asked what the options are if a driver has to make a U -Turn. Would one have to go all of the way to the next intersection or go and make a U -Turn in the residential street? C/House stated that this is a pretty wide street and if it is not considered wide enough for a U -Turn, he asked what street would be wide enough. AE/Malpica-Perez responded that according to the City's traffic consultant, it would have to be more than 40 feet wide from the left -turn pocket to the curb in order to allow for U-turns. C/House stated that people would probably continue to make U-turns or turn on the residential street and run the U -Turn there. In his opinion, it is too farto the next intersection.. C/Mahlke asked how wide the street is and AE/Malpica-Perez said he believed it is 40 -feet wide at the turn lane and will need to be field checked. C/Mahlke asked if the City had documentation regarding accidents that have occurred as a result of vehicles turning right on red. AE/Malpica-Perez responded yes, the report was obtained from the L.A. County Sheriff's Department and provided to the City's Traffic Consultant. Based on the accident, engineering judgment, and field assessments, the consultant reached its conclusion and recommendation. AE/Malpica-Perez believed there had been two or three accidents and was not sure that any were related to U -Turn activities. OCTOBER 13, 2011 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION ( C/House asked if staff is saying that any time there is less than 40 feet in width of a turn lane, there should be no U -Turn signs. He also asked how many intersections and streets in D.B. do not have a U -Turn sign. Is this a requirement or is staff just doing this because there is a problem? It was his understanding that if the street is not 40 feet wide, you cannot allow a U -Turn and the City has to put a sign up. C/House asked if there is compliance throughout the City. PWD/Liu stated that in this case, the matter was initiated by the neighborhood residents and, as any due process goes, when conditions are brought to staff's attention, staff looks at the entire intersection comprehensively. In this case, staff sent the City's Traffic Engineer to the location to review the situation. Initially, the engineer looked at only the no -right -turn -on -red issue; however, when this matter was investigated by the traffic engineers, they came back to staff recommending that while looking at the possibility of disallowing a right - turn -on -red, the City should also consider the No U -Turn restriction. Therefore, it is very specific in this case and staff has to be sure it takes all potential issues under advisement. In response to C/House's question, PWD/Liu said he did not believe that staff had to study and analyze every single intersection. C/House explained that his question was if this is the standard that the City has — and he is not disputing that this is the case in this instance. If an ( accident occurs on a street where the City does not have a No U -Turn sign, would the City be liable for not having a No U -Turn sign if that is the standard? SE/Yee clarified that the City wants to ensure that it has consistent standards throughout the City. This intersection is unique because the line -of -sight issue also impacts the U -Turn movement. If a driver was making a U -Turn and got stuck doing a three-point turn, that type of curvature in the roadway creates a unique situation that may be exempted from a "standard." With regard to forcing vehicles into the neighborhood to make 3 -point turns; from a traffic engineering standpoint, that would be the preferred route because there is not the speed and volume of vehicles in the residential area. Therefore, making that three point turn would not be as much of a concern as it would be on Pathfinder Road. VC/Carrera stated he had no problem with a U -Turn because if traffic is backed up on Golden Springs Drive, there is a tendency for people to turn right, go up Pathfinder and make a U -Turn there and try to get back on the southbound SR -57. He believed the curvature was an issue. He would therefore agree with what staff is recommending. He added that the first tree from the intersection on the frontage of Pathfinder median looks small and innocuous, but with the curvature, it is strategically placed to block the traffic signal on the southbound side of Pathfinder Road. He suggested staff look into pruning the tree. ( C/Mok asked if there were a specific number of weeks or months after the community had been notified about these types of installations before the City could cite someone for an infraction. PWD/Liu responded that typically, staff closely coordinates these types of restrictions with the Sheriff's Department so OCTOBER 13, 2011 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION that prior to actual enforcement, a learning curve is allowed. That being said, staff makes sure that the Sheriff's Department knows this is a new installation for the neighborhood and they, in turn, work this into their educational outreach efforts. They advise residents to pay attention to the new restrictions. There are instances in which the City installs new stop signs and staff will put up flags and other types of warning signs to bring awareness of these installations to the traveling public. In this case, this involves a signalized intersection; therefore, staff will work closely with the Sheriff's Department to make sure the first approach is an educational approach. Subsequently, if there is an infraction, the professionals will make sure the individuals know what they need to do to comply. C/Mahlke asked how staff determines which 500 residents receive the notification letter. SE/Yee explained that staff took the entire neighborhood bounded by Peaceful Hills Road, Canyon Ridge Road and the SR -57. Every resident living in that quadrant received a letter. C/Mahlke moved, C/Mok seconded, to concur with staff to approve the right turn on red and U-turn restrictions. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke, Mok, VC/Carrera, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: House ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Pincher VI. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS: None VII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS: C/House asked if the new signal on Brea Canyon Cutoff and the SR -57 had been timed out or was sitting on free mode. AE/Malpica-Perez responded that he believed it had been timed out. C/House shared that he sat for a period of time in the left turn lane with no traffic in the area. He asked if there was a video -detection camera on the signal and AE/Malpica-Perez said there is no camera. He said he would convey C/House's concerns to Caltrans, who maintains the traffic signal. There was one other complaint similar to what C/House experienced. The next day, Caltrans had their crew on-site to look at the situation. C/House said he would contact AE/Malpica- Perez if the problem persists. C/Mok shared that a resident expressed a concern to him about a situation on Evergreen Springs Drive between Pathfinder Road and Birch Hill Drive. When traveling east on Pathfinder Road and making a right turn on Evergreen Springs Drive, just past the high school, there seems to be a bottleneck of cars from 2:15 to 3:15 p.m. Parents are parking and double-parking and blocking traffic. Drivers are also making U -Turns at Evergreen Springs Drive and Birch Hill Drive. The resident was very angry that parents continue to ignore the signs. C/Mok said he drove to the location to view the signs. The signs on the campus state "No Stopping 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. School Days" and immediately across the street the sign reads "No Parking 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. School Days. He asked if there was a reason for the two OCTOBER 13, 2011 PAGE 5 T&T COMMISSION different signs. There is also a No -U -Turn sign, but parents make U -Turns anyway and the people who live on Birch Hill Drive and Lost River Drive are having difficulty negotiating the area. PWD/Liu responded that he does not recall the history; however, he explained the difference between no stopping and no parking is that no stopping means absolutely no stopping, not even on a temporary basis. No parking means that parents can stop as long as the driver remains in the vehicle and stays on a brief timeline. It is up to the Sheriff's Department about how they enforce that signage. C/Mok asked if the school could send out a flyer to the parents to remind them not to stop in the area. He felt that some of the parents would look at the sign and see that the curb was not painted red so they assume they can pull over and stop. C/House stated that there is a problem of cars parking and then making U -Turns. He felt the Sheriff's Department should enforce the No U -Turn and sign the other side of the street "No Stopping" as well. VC/Carrera asked if the Sheriff's Department and staff discuss these types of issues and whether they are having difficulty with enforcement. PWD/Liu reiterated that the Sheriff's Department regularly communicates with staff via the Traffic Sergeant who comes into City Hall every day. If there are traffic concerns, staff has to look at each matter very carefully and coordinate with the Sheriff's Department. In addition, staff meets with the school district on a quarterly basis and these issues are discussed between the school district, staff and the Sheriffs Department. Staff will talk with the Sheriffs Department and the school district specifically about this issue to determine whether they are willing to work with the City to further educate the students and parents. Likewise, staff will seek input from the residents in the area. C/Mahlke suggested staff speak with the school about sending out e-mails and posting something on the school website to make the information more readily available for the students and parents. VC/Carrera encouraged everyone to exercise their right and privilege to vote on November 8th. VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A. Traffic Signal Battery Backup System Project —AE/Malpica-Perez stated that as of today, the contractor has completed installation of the battery backup system, has swapped the units at three locations and has completed upgrades of all incandescent traffic signal indicator lamps to LED lamps. Staff will be testing the units to determine how the units will behave during power outages, as well as how long they will keep the intersection in full service before it triggers the intersection to a red flash. The punch list is scheduled to be completed by the end of next week and staff plans to take the project to the City Council in November for Notice of Completion. B. Brea Canyon Cut -Off @ SB SR57 Off Ramp — Traffic Signal Project — AE/Malpica-Perez reported that the contractor completed all of the underground work, concrete work, electrical and programming last week. The full turn -on this Monday was successful with the exception of a couple of OCTOBER 13, 2011 PAGE 6 T&T COMMISSION concerns about timing modifications voiced by C/House and a resident. The intersection will be operated and maintained by Caltrans and will greatly benefit the residents of D.B. by providing improved traffic control along Brea Canyon Cutoff. With completion of the punch list, a Notice of Completion will be taken to the City Council in November. C. Diamond Bar Boulevard Raised Median Project — AE/Malpica-Perez stated that this project was generated from a D.B. Median Retrofit Prioritization List prepared by the City's Traffic Consultant in 2008. As of today, this project is being advertised for plans and specs with a bid opening date scheduled for Monday, November 7th. This project will consist of reconstructing portions or the north raised median by narrowing the median by about two feet which will improve the line of sight for southbound vehicles making left turn movements from Diamond Bar Boulevard into Clear Creek Canyon Drive. The project will be taken to the City Council next month with construction slated to commence in early December and conclude within 30 days. D. Multi -Year CIP — Comprehensive Infrastructure Management Plan — SE/Yee reported that staff met with Los Angeles County to discuss a number of storm drains that D.B. believes should have been transferred to the County at the time of the City's incorporation. The County indicated that they would work with the City to the standards of the time rather than today's standards. The next steps are to go through the older files to find paperwork that will prove to the County that the City is providing the County with legitimate documentation for transferring the storm drains to the County for future maintenance. E. Industry's Grand Avenue Bridge Widening/Interchange Project — SE/Yee stated that technical studies are being conducted to prepare for the release of an environmental document by Spring of 2012. F. Golden Springs Elementary Parking Lot Improvements—SE/Yee indicated that a public meeting hosted by the school district and their consultant was held on September 27t . Those invited included the surrounding neighborhood of affected homes with students who attend the school. Approximately 15-20 parents attended the meeting. The basic concept for improvements was presented and several residents spoke with two being strongly opposed to the concept. Other residents spoke strongly in favor of the project, stating they felt it would be a good opportunity to balance some of the traffic impacts and get more traffic actually circulating on-site. The district and consultants will assess the concerns and plan to have a follow-up meeting to discuss the assessment of the information. C/Mok asked if the Traffic and Transportation Commission was invited to the meeting. SE/Yee responded he did not believe so because it was a district initiated meeting and project. C/Mok stated that he felt the Commission should have been informed by PUSD and invited to attend the scheduled meeting. C/Mahlke shared that as a parent of a current Golden Springs Elementary School student, she was not invited to participate either. She did not receive any notification of the meeting. SE/Yee thanked C/Mahlke and said he would report that information to the district. OCTOBER 13, 2011 PAGE 7 T&T COMMISSION G. Lemon Avenue On/Off-Ramp Project — SE/Yee reported that there has been progress. The original estimated cost of the property acquisitions was $900,000; however, after Caltrans reviewed the matter of additional access rights that would be needed during construction, the new estimate for acquisitions has increased to $1.6 million. This increase includes a contingency since the right-of-way has been experiencing more condemnation proceedings for other projects. A supplement to the agreement will be presented to the City Council at a later date to update the cost estimate. The right-of-way activities are scheduled to begin in March, 2012. Because the City has federal funding for this project, it will need to go through an authorization process which is another reason the start date for acquisitions will not occur until early next year. PWD/Liu stated that based on that schedule for a full 18 month process, the construction could begin in Summer, 2014. H. Residential Area - 7/Zone 5 Road Maintenance Project — SE/Yee stated that the project is near completion with respect to striping and adjustments to manhole and valve covers. There have been issues related to the quality of the striping work; therefore, the contractor has been re -slurry sealing certain portions of the project and re -striping areas to meet the City's quality standards. C/Mok asked why the contractor had to go in and demo and redo the area around the manhole covers after the slurry seal. SE/Yee explained that is part of the manhole and valve adjustment process. They pave and then dig outthe area to place collars in the ground to raise the height of the manhole to be flush with the surface. C/Mok stated that he has recently observed they are painting a white circle around manhole covers and he wanted to know what that meant. PWD/Liu said he believed those were staff's recommendations for additional manholes to be raised and staff made those marks. C/House stated that he believed there was a marked difference in the quality of work in the sharpness between contractors. It seemed to him that this company did not do as good a job and was not the quality of other contractors. SE/Yee said he appreciated the comment. He shared that staff had issues as well with the quality of work. Depending on the nature of the work, staff has the contractor address structural and functional issues. If the issues are more aesthetic, depending on the degree, those are dealt with on a case by case basis. VC/Carrera asked for confirmation that staff had not deviated from its standard specifications and SE/Yee confirmed that it had not. NTMP/Decorah Road, Briar Creek Road and Willow Creek Road Neighborhoods — SE/Yee stated that this project is complete. Traffic calming measures included a series of speed cushions on all three streets, centerline striping and parking lane striping, and signage on the curve where Decorah Road turns into Briar Creek Road. I OCTOBER 13, 2011 PAGE 8 T&T COMMISSION J. CDBG Curb Ramp Project (FY 2011-2012) — Staff recently requested proposals for this project to design 70 curb ramps in the area of Maple Hill Road and Chaparral Middle School. The City received four design proposals for the project. After review, the City selected Infrastructure Engineers and will recommend award of contract at the Tuesday night City Council meeting. This project will be fast forwarded to meet the tight timeline to expend these funds. Staff hopes to have construction underway at the beginning of 2012. K. SCAG East-West Freight Corridor Proposal — PWD/Liu reported that SCAG intends to release the 2012 RTP on December 1st. Meetings are scheduled for October 20th (Joint Meeting of Regional Council with all Policy Committees including the Transportation Committee). Last Thursday, the Joint Group met. The discussions on the draft document was presided over by the Executive Director of SLAG. He said a couple of things that are of concern to D.B. and residents. He stated that council members needed to consider projects in the RTP that are important to "goods movement" in Southern California and that even though some of these projects will impact some of these jurisdictions negatively, he advised the council members to stand their ground. PWD/Liu said he felt the director was making it clear that this could be a divisive issue for the region. He wanted the council members and decision -makers to be bold and visionary and think of the reasons for the proposal and not just consider local issues. Having said that, the director added that the SR -60 adjacent corridor is the preferred corridor. After that the group talked about the different financing options. No conclusions were reached and the committee agreed to continue the discussion to October 20th. However, in an advisory capacity, the RTP sub -committee concurred with staff's recommendation to move forward with the preferred alignment which was troublesome. D.B. and four other cities have adopted resolutions in opposition to the proposal including West Covina, Walnut, EI Monte and Chino Hills. Montebello and Pico Rivera are still studying the issue and representatives of those jurisdictions were also present to convey their concerns. D.B. will continue to spearhead the opposition effort. VC/Carrera said he has great concerns about this proposal and it seems to him that they are pushing a path of least resistance in an effort to add to the SR57160 situation that was never resolved. He feels this will only exacerbate the situation and negatively impact D.B. IX. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS: As stated in the agenda with corrections. SE/Yee previously came to this Commission to present a parking request in the Gateway Corporation Center along Valley Vista Drive and Bridge Gate Drive. Since that time, staff was considering the feasibility and had identified potential parking areas that staff felt was acceptable from a technical standpoint. Staff ultimately determined about 90 spaces can be provided for on -street parking. Staff, on advisement of Counsel, asked the Gateway Corporate Center Association to provide the City with a formal amendment to their design guidelines because the current OCTOBER 13, 2011 PAGE 9 T&T COMMISSION guidelines specifically prohibit on -street parking. At their June meeting, the Board officially amended their guidelines and provided staff with the required paperwork. Based on that action, staff will ask the City Council next week to approve the Resolution to permit on -street parking. Upon approval, staff will remove and add appropriate signage as well as signage to restrict street parking on Thursdays, the street sweeping day for the area. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Traffic and Transportation Commission, VC/Carrera adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of 12011. Respectfully, David G. Liu, Secretary Attest: Vice Chairman Ted Carrera