HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/31/1995Cit
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 31, 1995
6:00 P.M.
General Plan Public Hearing
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Phyllis E. Papen
Gary H. Werner
Eileen R. Ansari
Clair W. Harmony
Gary G. Miller
City Manager Terrence L. Belanger
Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery
City Clerk Lynda Burgess
Copies of staff reports, or other written documentation relating to agenda items, are on file in the Office of the
City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item,
please contact the City Clerk at (909) 864-2489 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or
accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk
a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
11[.1!111111 11.11 �
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking
in the Council Chambers.
The City of Diamond Bar uses mgycled Paper
and encourages you to do the same.
PUBLIC INPUT
The meetings of the Diamond Bar City Council are open to the public. A member of the public may address the
Council on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar City Council. A request to address the Council should be submitted in person to
the City Clerk.
As a general rule the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in
order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their
presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit the public input on any item or the
total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the
business of the Council.
Individuals are requested to refrain from personal attacks toward Council Members or other citizens. Comments
which are not conducive to a positive business meeting environment are viewed as attacks against the entire City
Council and will not be tolerated. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.3(a) the Chair may from time to time dispense with public
comment on items previously considered by the Council. (Does not apply to Committee meetings.)
In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the City Council must be posted at least
72 hours prior to the Council meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the
posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Council may act on an item that is not on the posted
agenda.
CONDUCT IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Chair shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person who commits the following acts in respect
to a regular or special meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council.
A. Disorderly behavior toward the Council or any member of the thereof, tending to interrupt the due and
orderly course of said meeting.
B. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly
course of said meeting.
C. Disobedience of any lawful order ofthe Chair, which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from
addressing the Board; and
D. Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly conduct of said meeting.
INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL
Agendas for the regular Diamond Bar City Council meetings are prepared by the City Clerk and are available 72
hours prior to the meeting. Agendas are available electronically and may be accessed by a personal computer
through a phone modem.
Every meeting of the City Council is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal
charge.
ADA REQUIREMENTS
A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public
speaking area. Sign language interpreter services are also available by giving notice at least three business days
in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 860-2489 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS
Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Council, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 860-2489
Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE
General Information (909) 860-2489
NOTE: ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM IDENTIFIED ON THE AGENDA.
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:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
2. PUBLIC SEARING:
3.
Next Resolution No. 95-05
Next Ordinance No. 02(1995)
6:00 p.m. January 31, 1995
Mayor Papen
Council Members Ansari, Harmony,
Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and
Mayor Papen
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN: The General Plan is a
statement of goals, objectives and strategies 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 20 years.
The City Council previously reviewed the Introduction,
Vision Statement, Resource Management Element (RME),
Public Services and Facilities (PSFE) and Public Health
and Safety Element (PHSE). The primary purpose of this
continued public hearing is to review the Circulation
Element (CE).
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council review proposed changes to the PSFE and the PHSE,
receive a presentation from City staff on the Circulation
Element (CE), reopen the public hearing, receive
testimony, review the CE, and continue the public
hearing.
Requested by: Community Development Director
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
4. ADJOURNMENT:
C
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
C:'VE N /7iL Ff'
DATE: I'3i -("!S-
AGENDA
(;5
PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agen,"a item. lease have the Council Minutes reflect m,
name and address as written above.
Signature
F'A
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
DATE: 3/
PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect m)
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
u
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:
ADDRESS: //h' �//G�l /�i•
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: e ji,,,�,��
DATE: 13�,7j-
PHONE:
e;W-d9at7
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect m,
name and address as written above.
Signa'�ure
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: /�%,�,2i�Q �/C�C-rte DATE: A -31 -7.5 -
ADDRESS:
3/- S -ADDRESS: 7 - PHONE:,Z %g 6FY
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect m)
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
TAKt
L4 �w 7
DATE:
PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect m,
name and address as written above.
'signature
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:�.�.%�/
I expect to address the Council on the subject a"ndaPleaseha
}I� 7�uncil Minutes reflect mi
name and address as written above. /
S' nat /
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
City of Diamond Bar
GENERAL PLAN Public Comments
Topics
Date 01/24/95
0
z
H
O
M
w
H
Z
v
H
x
0
P4 Na
w �
tl� H
H
Q
�O 0
H U
a
u w
H [1a
a
F,
W
w
L>'
SPEAKERS
z
w
w (Z
U
1 Smith, Wilbur
x(1/9)
x(1/9)
x(1/16)
x1/24)
,131
2 Maxwell, Max
x(119)
x(1'9)
x(1/16)
x(1/24
>C,
3 Birrell, Terry
x(1/9)
11-31
4 Neely,Gary Ga
x(1/9)
x(1/9)(1/16)
x(1/16)
5 Beach Courchesne, Barbara
x(1/9)
x(1/9)
1)31
6 Brucke, Martha
(U9)
x
X
7 Anderson, Ken
x
8 Dursa, Frank
x
x` 131
9 Van Winkle, Tom
10 Schad, Don
x(124)
��91
11 Schey, David
x(1/9)
12 6:.K ,&b
k t/3t
I Int
13 2Gr�
X
14
(j3!
15 43-r H4, L5 e
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date 01/24/95
0
z
H
O
M
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 2_1
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: January 31, 1995 REPORT DATE: January 26, 1995
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
TITLE: Adoption of the General Plan
SUMMARY: The General Plan is a statement of goals, objectives and strategies 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 20 years. The City Council has previously reviewed the Introduction,
Vision Statement, Resource Management Element (RME), Public Services and Facilities Element (PSFE), and
the Public Health and Safety Element (PHSE). The primary purpose of this continued public hearing is to
review the Circulation Element (CE) .
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review proposed changes to the PSFE and
the PHSE, receive a presentation from City staff on the (CE), reopen the public hearing, receive testimony,
review the Circulation Element (CE) and continue the public hearing.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
Other
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Library
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
_ Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
N/A
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
MAJORITY
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
X Yes 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:
Public Works
REV B
T ence L. Belan Frank U er es DeStefano
City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Development Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: January 31, 1995
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of the General Plan
ISSUE STATEMENT: State law requires the preparation and adoption of a comprehensive, long
term General Plan for the physical development of all property within the
City and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its
planning. Upon adoption, the General Plan, through its numerous goals,
objectives and strategies, will define development strategy for the next
twenty years.
BACKGROUND:
On October 17, 1994 the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of the Draft General
Plan. The City Council began its review of the documents on January 9, 1995. The Council has
examined the Introduction, Vision Statement, Resource Management Element (RME), Public Services
and Facilities Element (PSFE), and the Public Health and Safety Element (PHSE). The primary purpose
of the January 31, 1995 continued public hearing is to review the Circulation Element.
DISCUSSION:
Revisions to the Public Services and Facilities Element and the Public Health and Safety Element
Circulation Element
The City Council requested revisions to page VI -3 of the PSFE regarding the wastewater and flood
control systems and Table IV -1 found on page IV -12 of the PHSE which establishes noise standards. Staff
and our consultants have prepared the attached revision pages for Council consideration.
1
Review of the Circulation Element
The purpose of the Circulation Element is to define the transportation needs of the City and present a
comprehensive plan to accommodate those needs. The focus of this Element is to identify and evaluate
Diamond Bar's needs with regional demands and mandates.
The State requirement for a Circulation Element dates back to the 1950's. Section 65302(b) of the
Government Code requires a Circulation Element to incorporate the general location and extent of
existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals and other local public utilities
and facilities. The Circulation Element is closely linked and must correlate with the Land Use Element.
As stated within the text of the Circulation Element, the City's transportation network was established
by County and State transportation agencies. The City of Diamond Bar's traffic circulation system has
been significantly impacted by regional traffic. An incomplete freeway system combined with the
continuing growth and development of our surrounding cities has created additional transient traffic upon
our streets and, as a result, demands for increased roadway capacity. As a result, the City needs to
establish policies to address existing deficiencies, projected growth within the region, and future
development in the City.
Several options have been expressed in order to respond to the challenges facing the City. These include
increasing the effectiveness of local freeways, enhancing Grand Avenue, and consideration of a travel
corridor around the City or Sphere -of -Influence. There is general agreement that the volume of through
traffic on our local streets is a problem, but no agreement on how it should be solved.
The Circulation Element begins on page V-1 of the General Plan. The Element sets forth the circulation
system and identifies streets and highways, transit services, rail lines, bike and trail systems, aviation,
and movement of goods. Circulation issues are identified as:
- Future Diamond Bar development
- Projected regional growth
- Future Diamond Bar roadways
- Alternative roadways
- Grand Avenue capacity
- Freeway effectiveness
- Surrounding roadways
- Neighborhood integrity
Goals, objectives and strategies have been developed responding to the problem of regional traffic on City
streets, yeilding a balanced transportation system, maintaining adequate levels of service on City streets,
and providing appropriate levels of'parking for businesses and residents.
The City Engineer will provide the City Council with a presentation on the Circulation Element
components, public review process, and technical documentation. Please reference the previously
distributed Master Environmental Assessment, the Final Environmental Impact Report, and the OPR
Guidelines contained within the Reference Material Handbook.
2
RECOADUNDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council review proposed changes to the PSFE and the PHSE, receive
a presentation from City staff on the Circulation Element (CE), reopen the public hearing, receive
testimony, review the CE and continue the public hearing.
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano
Community Development Director
attachments: - Letter from Mayor Gary G. Larson, Chino Hills, dated November 28, 1994
- Memo from Cotton/Beland/Associates dated January 18, 1995 regarding Chino
Hills comments
- Letters from Mr. Andrew Van Husten dated November 16, December 9 and
December 21, 1994 regarding traffic issues.
- Memorandum from CBA dated January 26, 1995 regarding the Noise Element
- Revisions to Page VI -3 of the PSFE and page IV -12 of the PHSE
3
W,9►o
iii
CITY OF CHINO HILLS
INCORPORATED 1991
November 28,1994
CITY OF CHINO HILLS
2001 GRAND AVENUE
CHINO HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91709S4 �I� Z (`�� 4, 40
(909) 590-1511 4 (909) 590-564�1fa-
CITY COUNCIL.
ED M. GRAHAM
GARY G. LARSON
GWENN E. NORTON -PERRY
JAMES S. THALMAN
MICHAEL G. WICKMAN
C13A-0x
Cm `
Honorable Mayor Gary H. Werner - 7
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765 —_ -
t�
Subject: Comments on the Draft Circulation Element for the City of Diamond Bar's
General Plan
Dear Honorable Mayor Werner:
Since 1980, various regional and local agencies have prepared traffic models and studies
regarding traffic impacts in the Diamond Bar, Brea and Chino Hills area. One recent
study, dated July 1, 1993, lists in its bibliography 47 previous studies which have been
done regarding traffic in this area. Several committees have been formed to address this
issue, including both elected officials and government employees, and yet, there is still no
consensus as to what should be done. All of the reports and studies do agree on some
issues. The issues on which there is agreement are as follows:
There are three potential canyon corridors. They are Carbon Canyon,
Soquel Canyon and Tonner Canyon.
All three canyon corridors are environmentally sensitive.
Traffic is heavy now, and unless something is done, traffic congestion is
going to continue to get worse and worse.
The failure of the cities of Diamond Bar, Brea and Chino Hills to reach an
agreement regarding what to do about regional traffic could result in a
default to the null alternative, which means that nothing will be done.
The Draft Circulation Element for the City of Diamond Bar's General Plan recognizes
the growing traffic problem, however, we are disappointed that the City of Diamond Bar
has taken the position that the Cities of Brea and Chino Hills should solve this problem
without any, participation by the City of Diamond Bar. In addition, we have the
following specific comments regarding the Draft Circulation Element:
Honorable Mayor Gary H. Werner
November 28, 1994
Page Two
Subject: Comments on the Drab Circulation Element for the City of Diamond Bar's
General Plan
1. Carbon Canyon Road:
Per section 1.1.7 (e) of the City of Diamond Bar Circulation Element, the City of
Diamond Bar proposes that other agencies "Improve the capacity of State Route
142, Carbon Canyon Road".
Environmental Impact:
State Route 142 (Carbon Canyon Road) is shown on the Master Plan/General
Plans for the County of Orange, the City of Brea and the City of Chino Hills as a
two lane scenic highway. The widening of Carbon Canyon Road would result in
significant environmental damage and disruption of the residential communities
which live in Carbon Canyon.
For over 12 years various agencies have been studying canyon corridor
alternatives, and no report has ever recommended widening Carbon Canon Road
east of the San Bernardino County line.
2. Soquel Canyon Parkway:
Per section 1.1.7 (c) of the City of Diamond Bar Circulation Element, the City of
Diamond Bar recommends that other agencies' be encouraged to complete "The
construction of Soquel Canyon Parkway extension to the SR -57 Freeway".
Environmental Impact:
The proposed alignment of the extension of Soquel Canyon Parkway would
encroach into the environmentally sensitive Chino Hills State Park. The Master
Plan policy adopted by the State Department of Parks and Recreation is opposed
to the construction of a highway in Soquel Canyon.
There are two possible alignments through Soquel Canyon. One is along the
environmentally sensitive canyon bottom, and the other is along the ridgeline.
Due to the ruggedness of the terrain, the ridgeline alternative is significantly more
expensive than the canyon bottom route.
The proposed extension of Soquel canyon parkway west of Carbon Canyon Road
to the 57 Freeway at Tonner Canyon Road would impact the proposed expansion
of the Olinda Landfill and may impact the capacity of the existing landfill.
Honorable Mayor Gary H. Werner
November 28, 1994
Page Three
Subject: Comments on the Draft Circulation Element for the City of Diamond Bar's
General Plan
Funding:
There is no local demand for this roadway. Except to serve the regional traffic
which desires to travel between Orange County and San Bernardino County, there
is no reason to build this roadway. Both sides of Soquel Canyon Parkway will be
bordered by State Park, therefore, there is no possibility of an adjacent local
development contributing to the funding of this roadway. With out adjacent
development, funding will have to come from some Regional agency. However,
as yet, no regional agency has volunteered to commit the $245 million needed to
build this roadway.
KIM
The distance from the intersection of Soquel Canyon Parkway at Peyton Drive to
the 57 Freeway at Tonner Canyon Road is approximately 10.4 miles in length.
Per the July, 1992 study prepared by Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas,
Inc. (PBQ&D) the cost per mile for a 6 lane roadway on the ridgeline alignment
was $23.6 million per mile for a total project cost of $245 million in 1990 dollars.
Alternatively, the cost per mile for a 4 lane roadway on the ridgeline alignment
was $19.4 million per mile for a total project cost of $201 million in 1990 dollars.
Traffic Impact:
Per the study prepared by PBQ&D, the construction of the Soquel Canyon
extension is expected to reduce traffic on Carbon Canyon Road. However, it will
not significantly reduce traffic on Grand Avenue or Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Feasibility as a Toll Road:
If the proposed Soquel Canyon ridgeline option was built and operated as a toll
road, the toll revenues would cover 46.3% of the debt service in the first year and
would remain less than the operating and debt service costs through the year
2010. This route will not be attractive as a toll route because of high cost and
moderate traffic volume.
3. Tonner Canyon
Per section 1.1.4 of the City of Diamond Bar Circulation Element, the City of
Diamond Bar "will incorporate no major road through Tonner Canyon".
Honorable Mayor Gary H. Werner
November 28, 1994
Page Four
Subject: Comments' -on the Draft Circulation Element for the City of Diamond Bar's
General Plan
Environmental Impact:
The canyon bottom of Tonner Canyon is recognized as being an environmentally
sensitive area.
Due to the recognized environmental sensitivity of the Tonner Canyon canyon
bottom, only the cost estimates for the proposed ridgeline alignment is presented
hereafter.
The connection of a Tonner Canyon alignment at Brea Canyon Road and the 57
Freeway would have less impact on the Boy Scout Reservation than other
proposed alignments.
Funding:
Approximately 3.5 miles or 40 percent of the land adjacent to Tonner Canyon is
developable land which could contribute a significant portion of the cost of
constructing a major arterial through Tonner Canyon.
,x:
The distance from the proposed intersection of Chino Hills Parkway and Tonner
Canyon Road to the 57 Freeway at Tonner Canyon Road is approximately 8.6
miles in length. Per the July, 1992 study prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade
and Douglas, Inc. (PBQ&D) the cost per mile for a 6 lane roadway on the
ridgeline alignment was $21.8 million per mile for a total project cost of $187
million in 1990 dollars. Alternatively, the cost per mile for a 4 lane roadway on
the ridgeline alignment was $17.6 million per mile for a total project cost of $151
million in 1990 dollars.
Traffic Impact:
The construction of Tonner Canyon Road as a major arterial street is expected to
reduce traffic volumes on Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard in the City
of Diamond Bar. Carbon Canyon Road is also expected to experience some
traffic reduction.
Honorable Mayor Gary H. Werner
November 28, 1994
Page Five
Subject: Comments on the Drag Circulation Element for the City of Diamond Bar's
General Plan
Feasibility as a Toll Road:
The Tonner Canyon alignment along the canyon bottom has most feasibility as a
toll road with 75.6 percent of the debt service recovered in the first year with
expected annual toll revenues exceeding operation and debt service costs by the
fourth year. However, this is not an environmentally sensitive option. If the
proposed Tonner Canyon ridgeline option was built and operated as a toll road,
the toll revenues would cover 58.3% of the debt service in the first year and
would remain less than the operating and debt service costs through the year
2010.
4. Tres Hermanos Ranch
Per section 2.2.2 of the City of Diamond Bar Circulation Element, -"Through the
roadway system, ensure that new development within the Tres Hermanos Ranch
Property is integrated into the community of Diamond Bar."
The Tres Hermans Ranch property is located in Tonner Canyon. The City of
Diamond Bar recognizes that someday the Tres Hermanos Ranch property will be
developed and roads will need to be built. The question is, how will this property
be integrated into the Community of Diamond Bar without connecting the
proposed road system to an existing residential street or by putting more traffic on
Grand Avenue?
A possibility that exists is that when Tonner Canyon develops, that a major
arterial be constructed and connected to the 57 Freeway, thereby relieving the
traffic congestion on Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Conclusion:
1. Tonner Canyon and Soquel Canyon are equally environmentally sensitive,
especially the canyon bottom alignments.
2. Soquel Canyon Parkway extension will cost $50 to $60 million more to construct
than a roadway through Tonner Canyon.
3. The City of Diamond Bar recognizes that someday a road will be built in order to
accommodate the future development of Tonner Canyon. Because of this future
Honorable Mayor Gary H. Werner
November 28, 1994
Page Six
Subject: Comments on the Draft Circulation Element for the City of Diamond Bar's
General Plan
development, a significant portion of the cost of this roadway can be paid for by
the adjacent development.
4. Completion of Tonner Canyon Road as a major arterial with a direct connection
to the 57 Freeway will significantly reduce traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard and
Grand Avenue in the City of Diamond Bar.
5. Per the study prepared by PBQ&D, the completion of Soquel Canyon Parkway
extension will not significantly reduce traffic congestion on Grand Avenue or
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
6. Since the Tonner Canyon alternate was determined to be the most cost effective
and beneficial route by the City of Chino Hills, the extension of Soquel Canyon
Road into the City of Brea was deleted from the City of Chino Hills Master Plan.
7. The failure of the Cities of Diamond Bar, Brea and Chino Hills to reach an
agreement regarding regional traffic could result in a default to the null
alternative, which means that nothing will be done.
In summary, we believe that these issues should be considered prior to acceptance of the
General Plan's Draft Circulation Element, and we remain prepared to meet with you or
your staff to resolve the issues expeditiously.
Sincerely,
Honorable Mayor Gary G. Larson
JAG:GGL:rb
cc: City Manger/City Council
Chris A. Vogt, P. E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Jon A. Gillespie, P. E., Traffic Engineer
WPWbW-.D1AWM1KJAG
�
�cr�
VAN HUSTEN INTERNATIONAL CO. J
MANUFACTURERS i EXPORTERS
TEL: (M) 441 -5920 ,H7 ACACU WLL ORIVE 01A"4110 BAR. CAL/ORM 017WIM2 UAJL FAX: (80 M/JIM
November 16, 1994 C
Robert Zirbes
President v - P_-
DBIA (Diamond Bar Improvement Association) —
Box 4085
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Mr. Zirbes: Diamond Bar Blvd. Traffic
C7
rn
Throughout your publications I don't remember anyone addressing
the serious and worsening problem of San Rernardino commuters
abusing our main arteries, saddling us with impossible bottle-
neck situations during rush hours, virtually from 5 to 8 in
the morning and 4 to 7 at night.
I thought it was only Chino Hills traffic but then I found out
that they come from well beyond, using the main parallel street
to the 60 freeway, Riverside Drive, in order to avoid the 60-
57 intersection.
I also determined myself that at least 80% of that traffic on
Diamond Bar Blvd. (going south from Grand) joins the 57 free-
way direction Orange County. Clearly we have THE shortcut, if
they think so, for San Bernardino commuters working in Orange
County.
This is depressing real estate values (some corner homes on
the boulevard can't be sold), greatly affecting our quality of
life, producing smog and it's just infuriating that we have
become the dumping ground for their traffic. Whoever made that
deal to open up Grand really sold us down the tube!
Ori a practical level, however, what is being done about it? More
and more homes are being built in the Inland Empire and we are
going to become even worse off. While traffic lights should
help and my street (Acacia Hill Dr. is slated for lights in the
spring), it doesn't seem to deter the Ski County commuters.
If there is any improvement to be made in diamond Aar, this is
it! What are the local leaders doing about it, City Hall and
what about Federal (Jay Kim) and County (Dean Dana) and State
(Horcher and Mountjoy)?
Sincerely
Andrew Van Husten
cc Mayor of Diamond
Jay Kim
Paur- Horcher
Dick MountJoy
AVHIrp
Bar - Gary Werner
SA Cty Supervisor
Dean Dana Larry Walker
VAN HUSTEN INTERNATIONAL CO.
MANUPMM119M i OMMMM
m4 po Nt#!O Wr #404= NU Dom
December 9, 1994
Clair W. Harmony
Mayor Pro -Tem
City Hall
Diamond Aar, CA 91765
Dear C1Air:
OMMOW BAR, QM JKW, "917" 111! rA MLA_
cc Mayor Gary Larson
Chino Hills City Hall
2001 Grand
Chino Hills, CA 91704
Out -of -Town Traffic
If you want to earn your spurs and ingratiate yourself with
Diamond Bar citizens, do something about our ever -worsening
traffic congestion on our main arteries (Grand and Diamond Bar
alvd.), mainly caused by Chino Hills commuters seeking to bypass
the 57-60 intersection on their way to Mork in Orange County.
The onslaught of ears$ a veritable locust, starts at 5.00 am
as it comes down Grand from Chino Hills. I queen those going
west"or east on the 60 (or north on the 57) continue on on
Grand but I am mostly_eoncerned about the orange County -bound
commuters.
They make a left on Diamond Bar Blvd. to join the 57 south and
they are making our lives miserable. They clog up Diamond Bar
Blvd. for hours in the morning and virtually from 4.00 to 7.00
pm when they come back. They ruin our streets, cause pollution,
gridlock intersections and they are threatening our quality of
life and property values.
It's got to be stopped with extraordinary measures. There is no
other way. HOV lanes are quite far off and will only have a
marginal effect.
* The Council should look into simply barring left turns during
rush hours for traffic coming from Chino Hills that now goes
south on Diamond Bar Blvd. It is strangling our city and
we already have NO LEFT TURN provisions for two streets further
east on Grand.
The authorities in San Bernardino County continuing to
grant permits for development in the Chino Hills area should
be held to account for dumping their traffic on our streets
but apparentlk they don't give a damn,*so why should we?
I have repeatedly written to Larry Talker, the fellow
responsible for negotiating that-terrible•deal to open up Grand
but I get no response. I also wrote to the mayor of Chino Hills
but he ignores me, too.
If you have another solution, let me know, but I can assure you
that the situation will only got worse. They don't stop
buildtf►g down there.
3 -
Cars coming from Chino Hills are repeatedly gridloekinq our
intersections. I own property in "The Country" and sometimes
can't get out AGAINST A GREEN LIGHT on Shadow Canyon because
the intersection is blocked. That obviously isn't cin to
help our selling homes in"The Countr7 '1! That crzAxIs Tust
messing up everything and you -should siert the Sheriff to
monitor the situation and start issuing tickets.
Clair, I think I am speaking for a lot of Diamond Aar residents
when I may that the continuing bickering on the -Council has to
stop. All these feuds that are seemingly festering are very un-
productive and childish to boot.
Our traffic situation is our number one priority and yet I don't
see anyone tackling it, much to the delight of the folks in Chino
Hills I am sure.
Leadership and toughness are required. We will make sure that it
will be rewarding for those on the Council who accept the
challenge and take bold action. WE MILb BE WATCHING!
Sincerelyr
Andrew Van Husten AVH/rp
P.S. The only thing, as far as the city is concerned, that I
am pleased about is that it apparentiy'didn't get sucked
into that OC investment pool. There is a horrible cover-up
going on In my opdnion, batch for more dirt to be uncovered
and for some cities,and districts to go bankrupt as well.
DFS—21-94 THU 07:44 A -
VAN HUSTEN INTERNATIONAL CO.
MANUFACTURERS A EXPORTERS
TEL: (9061) $61.5929 id47 ACACIA HI_L UAIVE DIAWND 19AR, CAUFORMA 91765-2"2 U.S.A. FAXi pW lei -4m
December 21, 1994
Phyllis E. Papen
Council Member
Diamond Bax City Council _
21660 E. Copley Dr, Suite 100 _ -
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Phyllis: Out -of -Town Traffic
I'd like to know, as one who is mostly concerned about transpor-
tation, whether anything has been done to restrict commuter
traffic from San Bernardino County that is using Diamond Aar Blvd
to bypass the 57-60 intersection.
As I have written before, what in my opinion needs to be done
is to forbid left turns from 6.00 to 8.00 am from Grand to
D.B. Blvd, thus directing commuters to drive straight to the 60,
the way they are supposed to go.
Several left turn restrictions off of Grand are already in place,
so we are not breaking any new ground. The Grand to the 57
stretch of D.B. Blvd is simply becoming a giant parking lot
during rush hours and the situation is intolerable.
One cannot make any safe left turns (going north) onto the
boulevard from Diamond Bar streets intersecting with that main
artery, such as my street which has no traffic lights, and it's
only a matter of time before accidents will occur.
I have been trying to solicit responses and possible constructive
suggestions from a.o. Larry Walker, a S.R. Cty supervisor and
ttie mayor of Chino Hills but all I draw is silence.
I't is perhaps no wonder since they have other things on their
minds than being concerned about our welfare. Reportedly the City
of Chi4o Hills is up to its eyebrows in substantial investments
in the S.B. County investment pool, similar to the O.C. situation.
However, if'they act irresponsibly with taxpayers' money, that's
their business. I want to know what you intend to do about
our traffic mess, I mean you the Council collectively, before we
get strangled by it.
Sincerely,
Andrew Van Husten v /X
2 -
When the onslaught comes back from work, it gets off at
Diamond -Bar Blvd, or pathfinder and then proteids bumper•to
bumper to Grand from whence most of them make a right turn tp
Chino Kills or beyond. I'll never understand why people buy
homes in cities with poor outlets to get them to work but
that's their problem. 19 it weren't so tragically
cons*gVontial for us, it's actually pitiful to ■oo them fight
traffic like that or take half an hour just to get from the 57
to Grand.
Again, that's their problem. Our problem is that we haye to
schedule our local trips around these commuters or get stuck
in the mess they are causing ourselves. We had better get to
the grocery store before 3.00 pm or after 8.30 in the morning.
Our window of opportunity is only 6 hours: Wouldn't you say
thtt's losing control of one's C,ty7
* When they come back from OC, they are backing up onto the 57
right lane by as many as 50 cars, at Diamond Bar,Blvd. and
Pathfinder. While I am guessing the number, it behooves the
Council to conduct a traffic study of that situation. I would
suggest you go down to the 57 and Diamond Bar Blvd. and take
pictures between 5-.00 and 6.00 pm and then report back to us.
If there is indeed serious retardation in traffic flow at the
above exits, it means that through traffic on the 57 north
must be affected and that in turn amdhts to a hazardous
state of affairs that CALTRAN6 should be•confronted with. SHOW
THEM THE PHOTOGRONSl I saw you displaying photographs on TV,
during the last council meeting, but what you were concerned
with, although valid in itself, pales in comparison with
our out-of-town traffic mess.
Let's find out what CALTRANS proposesl In my opinion the only
solution that would make a dent is to simply restrict access
to Diamond Bar Blvd., during certain hours, for non-residents.
Same for Pathfinder of course. I have no idea how that would
work but the situation, as it is, cannot continue.
* Ever intersection between the 57 and Grand must z6¢eive
ra is lights as soon as possible, especially my street,
Acacia Hill Dr. It is simply..unsafe, during most of the day,
to make left turn• (north) onto the boulevard. Accidents are
waiting to happen and that might mean vary expensive lawsuits.
* Local government has to.do more to promote public transport
to get people out of their oars. We have an excellent .
Metrolink connection between Riverside and L.A. but San
Bernardino County commuters have no way to get to OC. Perhaps
a bus line from the Diamond Bar station to OC (on the 57 HOV
lane) should bi proposed. Also a bus connection from Ontario
station (via Euclid) to the 91 should be studied.
JAN 26 '95 03 -'I? -PM CBR-gSADENA
�-G
Fax Message and Transmittal
Date:
January 26, 1995 Fax Phone: (909) 861-3117.
To:
James DeStefano
City of Diamond Bar
From:
P. Patrick Mann, AICP, Principal
Copies to:
Project
779.01 Diamond Bar General Plan
Subject
Noise Table
Transmitting:
Revised Table IV -1.
Remarks:
Revised per discussion at City Council January 24.
In general, the "Exterior CNEL Objective" category from the previous table is
used to define the lower limit of the "Conditionally Acceptable" category. For
outdoor uses, there is no "Conditionally Acceptable" category since this
category assumes a structure provides protection. For outdoor uses, the
"Exterior CNEL Objective" category is used to define the lower limit of the
"Normally Unacceptable" category.
The "Maximum Exterior CNEL" category is used to define the lower limit of
the "Normally Unacceptable" category on the new chart.
Because the previous table did not include clear direction for the noise level
above which the use is considered "Clearly Unacceptable", I have provided
my recommendation for this category based on state and federal guidelines.
The Maximum Interior CNEL category reflects the previous table as approved
by the Planning Commission.
I have eliminated the category "Freeway Adjacent" from the commercial and
industrial land uses, since the new chart provides flexibility to consider these
uses up to 80 dB CNEL by the addition of the new "Normally Unacceptable"
i
category.
Coffa%Veland/AssocWeA Urban and Environmental i'l mOg
747 Fast Green Sheet, Suite 400, Pasadena, CA 91101-2119
(818) 304-0102
Fax (818) 904-0402
JAN 26 '95 03:13PM CHR 1114SRDENA
Land Use Category
Rural, Single -Family, Multiple -
Family Residential
School Classrooms
School Playgrounds
Libraries
Hospitals, Convalescent Facilities
Living Areas
Hospitals, Convalescent Facilities
Sleeping Areas
Recreation: Quiet, Passive Areas
Recreation: Noisy, Active Areas
Commercial and Industrial
Office Areas
Table 1:V-1
Noise Standards
Maximum Exterior Community
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
or Day -Night Level (Ldn), d8 •I _w
55 iU
5/
f /ti
EDNormally Conditionally Normally
Acceptable MIAcceptable Unacceptable
Specified land use Is
New construction or
New construction or
satisfactory, based on
development should be
development should
the assumption that any
undertaken only after a
generally be discour-
buildings are of normal
detailed analysis of
aged. If new construe -
conventional construc-
noise reduction require-
tion or development
tion, without any special
merits is made and
does proceed, a de -
noise insulation require-
needed noise insulation
tailed analysis of noise
ments. Outdoor areas
features included in
reduction requirements
are suitable for normal
design. Conventional
must be made and
outdoor activities for
construction, but with
needed noise Insulation
this land use.
closed windows and
features Included in
fresh air supply sys-
design.
tem or air condition-
ing, will normally suffice.
40
40
P.2/2
Nature of the nolae
environment where the
CNEL of Ldn levet Is:
Below 55 dB
Relatively quiet suburban or
urban areas, no arterial
streets within 1 block, no
freeways within 1/4 mile.
75+ dB
Extremely noisy urban
areas adjacent to freeways
or under airport traffic
patterns. Hearing damage
5 with constant exposure
outdoors.
Clearly
Unacceptable
New construction or
development should
generally not oe
undertaken.
The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and Day -Night Noise Level (Ldn) are measures of the 24-hour
noise environment. They represent the constant A -weighted noise level that would be measured if all the sound
energy received over the day were averaged. In order to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise at
night, the CNEL weighting includes a 5 -decibel penalty on noise between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 D.M. and a
10 -decibel penalty on noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the next day. The Ldn includes only the
10 -decibel weighting for late-night noise events. For practical purposes, the two measures are equivalent for
typical urban noise environments.
Diamond Bar General Plan Public Health and Safety Element
Draft January 26,19% for Council Consideration IV -12
55-65 dB
Most somewhat noisy
40
urban areas, near but not
directly adjacent to high
—
volumes of traffic.
45
—
65.75 dB
35
Very noisy urban areas near
arterials, freeways or
40
airports,
75+ dB
Extremely noisy urban
areas adjacent to freeways
or under airport traffic
patterns. Hearing damage
5 with constant exposure
outdoors.
Clearly
Unacceptable
New construction or
development should
generally not oe
undertaken.
The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and Day -Night Noise Level (Ldn) are measures of the 24-hour
noise environment. They represent the constant A -weighted noise level that would be measured if all the sound
energy received over the day were averaged. In order to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise at
night, the CNEL weighting includes a 5 -decibel penalty on noise between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 D.M. and a
10 -decibel penalty on noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the next day. The Ldn includes only the
10 -decibel weighting for late-night noise events. For practical purposes, the two measures are equivalent for
typical urban noise environments.
Diamond Bar General Plan Public Health and Safety Element
Draft January 26,19% for Council Consideration IV -12
JAN 18 195 10:40AM CBA 1SADENA
COTTON/B ELAND/ASSOCIATES, INC.
URBAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS
FACSYMME TRANSMIT'T'AL
DATE: January 18, 1995 FAX #
TO: Jim DeStefano
City of Diamond Bar
FROM: Don Cotton
Com TQ
Piton= NO. 779.01
surfer: Open Space Element
T1ANSMrr rWG:
1 papm inducing b7tR91W tai
P. 1/i
rdba
(909) 861-3117
COMMEM; I have reviewed the State law and the General Plan guidelines with
regard to the requirements for the Open Space dement. None appear
to require the inclusion in the element of an inventory of adsting open
space. Some of the confusion may result from the fact that the
guidelines for the open space land analysis refer numerous times to
completing an inventory of various types of open space. However, these
inventories are to be used in preparation of the element and there is no
requirement to include the inventories in the element itself.
As I indicated to you on Monday night, I cannot attend the Council
hearing next Tuesday since I am teaching a class that evening, Pat
Mans plans to attend; however, he has a meeting which he must attend
in Santa Monica at 4:30 p.m. That meeting should be over in an hour
and he should be able to be at the Council meeting by 7:00 p.m.
747 EAST GREEN STREET SLATE 400 • PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-.2119
(818) 304-0102 FAX (818) 304-0402
6310 GREENWICH DRIVE SUITE 220 • SMI DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122-591a
(619) 625-0056 FAX(619)625-0545
COTTON/BELAN D/ASSOCIATES, INC.
URBAN ANIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS
January 16, 1995
Mr. James DeStefano
Community Development Director
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Subject: City of Chino Hills comments on Circulation Element
Dear Jim:
We have reviewed the comments contained in the letter from Mayor Gary G.
Larson to Mayor Werner dated November 28, 1994. The letter appears to have
been prepared by the Chino Hills City Traffic Engineer.
Comments contained in the letter express two concerns. The first is that the
cities of Brea, Chino Hills, and Diamond Bar need to cooperatively deal with the
regional traffic affecting all three cities and work together to improve the
regional circulation system. The second is a suggestion that a joint meeting be
held between the cities (Brea is not mentioned, however) to work on resolution
of the circulation issues and possible funding sources. Mayor Larson's comments
appear to be an overture to open a dialogue between the cities and work toward
cooperative solutions.
The letter suggests the Circulation Element does not address regional traffic
issues. Our review indicates the proposed Element does contain references to
regional traffic issues (see strategies 11.5 and 11.8 of the element). However, the
City of Diamond Bar may wish to work cooperatively with the other two cities
through some form of task force or council committee. Since Diamond Bar had
a traffic engineering consultant in the preparation of a circulation element and
since the other two cities have had traffic engineers prepare studies affecting
traffic issues, the Council may wish to suggest that technical personnel be
involved in any task force which is established.
We recommend the City's traffic consultant prepare a response to the specific
issues raised in Mayor Larson's letter and that this response be made a part of
747 EAST GREEN STREEE SUITE 400 • PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2119
(818) 304-0102 FAX (8181 304-0402
6310 GREENWICH DRIVE SUITE 220 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122-5918
(b]9)625-0056 FA\ 161 )i 6 5-0�4,
Mr. James DeStefano
January 16, 1995
Page 2
the record at the public hearing on the circulation element. At that time the
Council may also wish to address the public issue of whether to meet with the
Chino Hills Council or direct City staff to do so.
Very truly yours,
Donald A. Cotton, AICP
Senior Principal
DAC:pg
M779.01