Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1993CITY COUNCIL AGENDA m f MOM_�_pow COU rrf tory H 11M Courioirnrt— Dwr D. MEETM DATE June 9, 1993 General Plan Public Hearing AfldW V. A CWAIWW. MEETING TIME: 7:00 p•=. Lwxk C1�silrk Capin. of hili tepoffE orOrlir SOA 1 M M W ars on fib fag* OMM4* 4= anisaEels 1w roowdftm Usk. 9~1110. � it, The city a D&WW ear uaw RECICLED P*w arld t>Ift agenda i w questions oMs hours. i you bdotoson. THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY JONES INTERCABLE FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 12, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Miller ROLL CALL: Councilmen MacBride, Forbing, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Miller 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN: The General Plan is a statement of goals, policies and implementing programs to guide the long-range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State Law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next twenty years. It is the most significant tool utilized by the community to ensure a balanced, comfortable environment in which to live and work. It represents the community's view of its future and serves as the "blueprint" to define the long term character of the City. In March of 1993 the City Council authorized the retention of a consultant team to further develop the Draft General Plan. Five community workshops have been conducted with residents to identify key planning issues and discuss potential General Plan policy options. The results have been summarized and forwarded to the Council for consideration. On May 19, 1993, the Council began the public hearing process to adopt the General Plan. The public discussion was continued to May 26 and June 2, 1993, in order to study suggested revisions and receive additional public input on the entire draft General Plan (dated July 14, 1992). Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony, and forward comments to City staff and continue the Public Hearing.to June 16, 199lt'. 3. ANNOUMCENOIN S : 4. ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager _.MEETING DATE: June 9, 1993 REPORT DATE: June 4, 1993 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Adoption of the General Plan SUMMARY: The General Plan is a statement of goals, policies and implementing programs to guide the long range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State Law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next twenty years. It is the most significant tool utilized by the community to ensure a balanced, comfortable environment in which to live and work. It represents the community's view of its future and serves as the "blueprint" to define the long term character of the City. In March of 1993 the City Council authorized the retention of a consultant team to further develop the Draft General Plan. Five community workshops have been conducted with residents to identify key planning issues and discuss potential General Plan policy options. The results have been summarized and forwarded to the Council for consideration. Three public hearings have been conducted to consider specific revisions to the Draft General Plan (dated July 14, 1992) and to receive additional public input on the entire Draft General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive a presentation from the General Plan consultant team, receive public testimony, forward comments to City Staff, and continue the public hearing to June 16, 1993. 1TACHMENTS: Staff Report EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Library SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: �I Terrence L. Bel .,y Manager I'affies DeStefano Community Develo ment Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: June 9, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of the General Plan ISSUE STATEMENT: The General Plan is a statement of goals, policies and' implementing programs to guide the long range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State Law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next twenty years. It is the most significant tool utilized by the community to ensure a balanced, comfortable environment in which to live and work. It represents the community's view of its future and serves as the "blueprint" to define the long term character of the City. In March of 1993 the City Council authorized the retention of a consultant team to further develop the Draft General Plan. Five community workshops have been conducted with residents to identify key planning issues and discuss potential General Plan policy options. The results have been summarized and forwarded to the Council for consideration. Three public hearings have been conducted to consider specific revisions to the Draft General Plan (dated July 14, 1992) and to receive additional public input on the entire Draft General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive a presentation from the General Plan consultant team, receive public testimony, forward comments to City Staff, and continue the public hearing to June 16, 1993. BACKGROUND: On May 19, 1993, City Council began the public hearing adoption process for the General Plan. The Council received testimony on proposed revisions related to land use and open space policy. The public hearing was continued to May 26th in order to further discuss the Land Use Element, Open Space related policy and present the Circulation Element. The May 26, 1993, continued public hearing accommodated further public testimony and Council discussion. The hearing was continued to June 2, 1993, for a review of the Circulation Element. The purpose of the June 9, 1993, public hearing is to continue public review of the entire Draft General Plan. The Council has utilized the extensively noticed public workshops and public --hearing process to develop General Plan issues, options, and review specific ?olicy recommendations. The Draft General Plan document, dated July 14, 1992, has served as the basis for discussion. The Council has reviewed workshop summary comments, individual submittals and received public hearing participation in the revision of the Draft Plan. Throughout the course of the public hearings the council has received, recorded and directed the City Staff to consider a variety of comments related to landuse, housing, open space, conservation, circulation, noise and safety policy. Suggested text and mapping revisions will be presented, as a result of the public comments, for consideration at the June 16, 1993, council public hearing. PUBLIC BEARING NOTIFICATION: Public hearing notices were previously published within the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in accordance with State Law. In addition, public notices were published within the Diamond Bar and Walnut Highlander, and The Windmill. Notice of the public hearings have been mailed to several hundred names on our General Plan mailing list. Posters announcing the General Plan workshop and public hearing process have been circulated within the community. All General Plan documents have been available for.review at City Hall and the County Library. PREPARED BY: James DeStefano Community Development Director E CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development D SUBJECT: Comments on Diamond Bar General Plan from Wil r Smith DATE: June 4, 1993 Attached for your review is a copy of the comments presented by Mr. Wilbur Smith at the June 2, 1993, public hearing. Ingeborg Allen 1234 D - S. Diamond Bar Blvd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 May 23, 1993 City of Diamond Bar City Hail Community Development Dept. 21660 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: _ W -. I will not be able to attend the upcoming hearing regarding the General Plan, specifically, the session regarding the traffic circulation but wanted to give you my suggestions. Since moving to Diamond Bar in 1990, just before Grand Avenue was opened to Chino Hills, I have noticed a marked increase in rush-hour traffic on Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Avenue, mostly for vehicles going to Chino Hills and Chino. Recently, I had the need to drive to Chino in the evening and of all the vehicles ( approx. 20) that I followed on Grand Avenue, I only saw 3 vehicles actually turning off into the residential areas of Diamond Bar. The rest of them went on to Chino Hills and Chino. Every evening we have traffic backing up on Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Avenue for the people living in these communities, because they avoid the freeway and try to save time by driving through Diamond Bar. So far I have seen the right -turn lane on Grand Avenue, and the bicycle lane on Diamond Bar Blvd. taken away to make way for this traffic. This severely impacts Diamond Bar residents and has added as much as 5 minutes to just get from Montefino Avenue using Grand Avenue to my house at the corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. & Grand Avenue. Many residents are looking for short-cuts through city streets to avoid the areas congested by traffic going through this area to other nearby cities. What other inconveniences and added pollution do Diamond Bar residents have to endure to accommodate this through -traffic? Your previous General Plan noted that the traffic flow through the Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave. intersection is 60,000 vehicles. Diamond Bar has only approx. 54,000 residents. Even if all these residents \+,,ere licensed drivers and had a car (which is impossible, since many of them are children), there Would only be 54,000 vehicles in town, and it is even more impossible to think that all these vehicles would be crossing this particular intersection on a daily basis. The added traffic therefore has to come from somewhere else. I think the cars are for residents from Pomona and Chino Hills and Chino. Traffic on Diamond Bar Blvd, with people turning onto Grand Avenue is so bad that cars coming from Quail Summit cannot turn onto Diamond Bar Blvd. It can take upwards of an additional 2 - 5 minutes every evening to get from Quail Summit to my Condominium complex. The local access, right turn only, on Diamond Bar Blvd. to turn onto Quail Summit is frequently ignored by drivers, making the intersection very hazardous. The "Keep Clear" areas at the COMMENTS ON DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN 2 JUNE 1993 WILBUR G. SMITH CIRCULATION DEFICIENCIES 1. CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (PAGE V-10) • VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO OF 0.71 to 0.81 • OCCASIONAL 60 SECOND WAITS • SHOULD BE JUSTIFIED BASED ON COMPARISON WITH AVERAGE VALUES THROUGHOUT OUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 2. THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ROAD CONDITIONS IS THE TIME TO GO FROM POINT A TO B (AVERAGE SPEED), - TIME TO WAIT AT STOP SIGN OR TO ENTER ONTO A MAJOR/ MINOR ARTERIAL FROM COLLECTOR OR LOCAL ROAD. VOLUME IS FOR LESS IMPORTANT 3. THE GENERAL PLAN DOES NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC WAYS TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS SUCH AS: • ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT PROBLEM INTERSECTIONS • TIMING OF STOP LIGHTS TO CONTROL CARS ENTERING DIAMOND BAR • REGULATING SPEED LIMITS TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW - ATA BASED ON THE EVALUATION CRITERIA THE FOLLOWING CONDITION EXISTED IN 1990 • ONLY 17 OF 51 ARTERIOLES EXCEEDED THIS CRITERIA CRITERIA (D) EXCEEDED ON 9 OF 66 OCCURRENCES AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DURING PEAK HOURS BOTTOM LINE THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN DIAMOND BAR DO NOT JUSTIFY THE DESTRUCTION OF TONNER CANYON. 4. THE ONLY SUGGESTED SOLUTION TO PROJECTED (YEAR 2010) TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IS A ROAD THROUGH TONNER CANYON WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF OTHER POSSIBILITIES • CARBON CANYON ROAD • EXPANSION OF HIGHWAY 57 / 60 INTERCHANGE (NOTE: NEARLY ALL OTHER INTERCHANGES IN SO. CAL. ARE FOUR LEVEL) 5. STRATEGY 1.1.4 CALLS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR THROUGH TONNER CANYON WITH MINIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE FOR FOLLOWING REASONS: • THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CANNOT IMPLEMENT IT • IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MINIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS WILL DESTROY THE CANYON BEFORE IT IS COMPLETE • A ROAD WAY THROUGH TONNER CANYON IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH S.E.A. 15 6. THE PLAN DOES NOT PROJECT FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS BASED UPON EASILY OBTAINABLE IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS: • PATHFINDER BRIDGE • IMPROVEMENTS IN 57 / 60 INTERCHANGE • IMPROVEMENTS IN TRAFFIC CONTROL USING SPEED LIMITS, ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AND LIGHTS BOTTOM LINE THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN DIAMOND BAR DO NOT JUSTIFY THE DESTRUCTION OF TONNER CANYON. DONALD E. URY 1615 Boars Den Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Phone A Phone Fu: 714) $61-4344 May 24, 1993 COUNCIL MEMBERS City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RE: DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION Dear COUNCIL MEMBERS: Past experience has shown that Southern California cannot expect a decrease in traffic in the coming years, therefore measures should be taken to reduce the impact of traffic on Diamond Bar. Such measures should be directed toward permitting traffic to flow as quickly as possible through Diamond Bar, thereby reducing its effect on Diamond Bar and its residents. One measure is to provide attractive alternate routes for commuters to use in lieu of the streets of Diamond Bar. THEREFORE, I recommend that the Council Members seriously consider the following in the Circulation element of the Diamond Bar General Plan: A. Encourage and pursue the planning and construction of a road through Tonner Canyon from the Orange Freeway (Route 57), in Orange County, northerly to a connection with the Pomona Freeway (Route 60); and B. Pursuit of the development and construction of the Orange Freeway and the Pomona Freeway interchange in Diamond Bar; and C. Pursue the development and construction of HOU Lanes from the Orange County to and through Diamond Bar. Also pursue the development and construction of HOV lanes on the Pomona Freeway; and COUNCIL MEMBERS City of Diamond Bar May 24, 1993 Page 2 D. Pursuit of the development and construction of an additional lane(s) on the Pomona Freeway going east from Diamond Bar; and E. Pursuit of the synchronization of signals on Grand Avenue through Diamond Bar and through its adjacent communities; and F. Complete the design and construction of improvements at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue; and G. Pursuit of other traffic measures that enhance the circulation and movement of transient traffic on, over and across the MAJOR STREETS of Diamond Bar. Very truly yours, Donald E. Ury t/ Resident and Traffic and Transportation Commissioner DO101.CDR COMMENTS ON DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN 9 JUNE 1993 WILBUR G. SMITH COMMENTS ON DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN 9 JUNE 1993 WILBUR G. SMITH PROCEDURES 1. ALLOW SIX WEEKS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW OF ALL ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN (E.I.R., MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT) AFTER THE FINAL VERSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AND BEFORE A COUNCIL VOTE ON ADOPTION. 2. STATE HOW THIS PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE GENERAL PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SUPERIOR COURTS DECISION REGARDING THE REFERENDUM. 3. IDENTIFY THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS GENERAL PLAN AND ONE ADOPTED BEFORE THE REFERENDUM. 4. IDENTIFY AND STATE A REASON FOR ALL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS GENERAL PLAN AND GPAC(A CITIZEN COMMITTEE) RECOMMENDATIONS. 5. CLEARLY STATE DIAMOND BARS INTENTION TO BE CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY LAW REGARDING S.E.A. 15. 6. IDENTIFY AND STATE A REASON FOR ALL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS GENERAL PLAN AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. CIRCULATION 7. DEVELOP A STRATEGY TO OBTAIN COUNTY, STATE, AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE 57/60 INTERCHANGE BY COORDINATION WITH SURROUNDING CITIES ALONG THESE ROADS. 8. BASE PREDICTIONS (YEAR 2010) OF DIAMOND BAR TRAFFIC ON THESE IMPROVEMENTS RATHER THAN TONNER CANYON ROADS. 9. COMPARE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN DIAMOND BAR WITH SURROUNDING CITIES. 10. REVISE THIS ELEMENT TO INCLUDE: a) SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC BY MEANS DEFINED IN ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAGES II -T-35). b) DELETE ALL REFERENCE TO A TONNER CANYON ROADWAY. C) USE TIME (TO GO FROM POINT A TO B, STOP AT INTERSECTIONS) AS A CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. PEOPLES LIVES ARE AFFECTED BY TIME NOT VOLUME OF TRAFFIC. d) DEFINE PROBABILITIES FOR THE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS IN YEAR 2010. ALL PLANNING SHOULD BE BASED ON BOTH THE PROJECTIONS AND CORRESPONDING PROBABILITIES. HOUSING 11. THE REPORT SHOULD GIVE SOME GUIDELINES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO MAINTAIN LOW DENSITY SUCH AS: a) MINIMUM PAD/LOT SIZES OF 5,000 / 8,000 SO. FT. b) MINIMUM SET BACKS FROM PROPERTY LINES: 25 FEET IN FRONT 10 FEET ON SIDES c) MINIMUM HOUSE SIZES: SINGLE FAMILY 2,300 SO- FT. COND01TOWNHOUSE 1,800 SO. FT. APARTMENTS 1,300 SO. FT. d) RATIO OF APARTMENTS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NO GREATER THAN 0.10. e) RATIO OF CONDO/TOWNHOUSES TO SINGLE FAMILY NO GREATER THAN 0.15. fl RURAL RESIDENTIAL (HILLSIDE) DENSITIES SHOULD BE ONE UNIT PER 2.5 ACRES. g) ALL NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS GREATER THAN 25 UNITS SHALL HAVE A COMMON PLAY GROUND AREA OF A SPECIFIED SIZE. h) ALL NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS LESS THAN 25 UNITS SHALL DONATE FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NEAREST CITY PARK. 1) ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SHOULD HAVE THREE OR MORE GARAGES. j) ALL COND01TOWNHOUSES/APARTMENTS SHOULD HAVE TWO OR MORE OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS. OPEN SPACES 12. RECOMMEND NO TONNER CANYON ROAD FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: a) NOT CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY / STATE LAWS REGARDING S.E.A. 15. b) CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED BY DIAMOND BAR. C) THE ROAD IDEA WAS BASED UPON A REPORT (PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF) FUNDED BY ORANGE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES. THIS REPORT SOUGHT A SOLUTION TO THEIR TRAFFIC PROBLEMS RATHER THAN DIAMOND BARS IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE MAJOR PROBLEM WHICH IS THE 57/60 INTERCHANGE. d) THIS REPORT SHOWS THAT THE TONER CANYON OPTION WAS NOT EFFECTIVE IN SOLVING THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND ALSO COULD NOT GENERATE REVENUE TO PAY FOR ITSELF. DIAMOND BAR CITIZENS MAY HAVE TO MAKE UP THE SHORT FALL.