HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/1995Cit
'Vincl/
co AGENDA
Monday, February 13, 1995
6:00 P.M.
General Plan Public Hearing
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
Mayor Phyllis E. Papen
Mayor Pro Tem Gary H. Werner
Council Member Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member Clair W. Harmony
Council Member 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) 860-2489 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.
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking -0% AMT7 The City of Diamond Bar uses recucled paper
in the Council Chambers. �`� _ ,�'� and encourages you to do the same.
D" [OND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ' `LES
PUBLIC INPUT
The meetings of the Diamond Bar City Council are open to the public. A umber 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 writing 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 persons. 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. If not complied with, you will forfeit your remaining time as ordered by the
Chair. 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: 6:00 p.m. February 13, 1995
PLEDGE OP ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Papen
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari,
Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem
Werner and Mayor Papen
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
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. On
February 6, 1995, Council completed their review of the
Circulation Element (CE).
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council review proposed revisions to the Circulation
Element, receive a staff presentation on the Housing
Element (HE), open the public hearing, receive testimony
and continue the matter to February 16, 1995.
Requested by: Community Development Director
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
4. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 13, 1995 REPORT DATE: February 9, 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. On February 6, 1995, Council completed their review of the
Circulation Element (CE) .
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review proposed revisions to the Circulation
Element, receive a staff presentation on the Housing Element (HE), open the public hearing, receive testimony
and continue the matter to February 16, 1995.
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:
ALL
RE IEWED BY:
T ence L. Be ger
City Manager
Frank Usher
Assistant City Manager
Imes DeStefLno
Community Dbvelopment Director
CITY COUNCIL. REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: February 13, 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:
The City Council has continued its review of the General Plan Circulation Element from February 6,
1995. The purpose of this public hearing is to review staff suggested revisions to the Circulation Element
and begin review of the Housing Element.
DISCUSSION:
Review of the Circulation Element
On February 6, 1995, the City Council requested additional revisions to the Circulation Element. Staff
has prepared the attached revision pages for Council consideration.
Review of the Housing Element
The Housing Element required by State Law since 1967, represents a comprehensive assessment of
current and projected housing needs for all segments of the City and all economic groups. The Element
embodies policy for the provision of adequate housing. The Housing Element has been prepared in
accordance with the requirements of State Law. Housing is a matter of Statewide policy and, therefore,
specific provisions for compliance with State housing goals must be addressed.
The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify local housing needs and to identify measures to
mitigate or alleviate the problems and needs for all economic segments of the community. This is the
only element of the General Plan required by State Law to contain specific, measurable objectives. The
Housing Element contains an extensive assessment of issues, opportunities, housing conditions, needs,
resources and constraints.
State goals are an integral part of the Housing Element. The State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) reviews local housing elements for compliance with state law. HCD
has reviewed our element and offered comments. HCD is charged with reviewing the General Plan
Housing Element and preparing written findings indicating whether an Element - in their "opinion" - is
in substantial compliance with Housing Element law. Approximately 40 percent of all cities in the State
have achieved State HCD approval of their Housing Element.
The City of Diamond Bar's July 1993 Housing Element has not been approved by HCD. While most of
the State's concerns with the previous Element have now been addressed, the Element still fails to
identify adequate sites zoned at "appropriate densities" to fulfill the City's share of regional housing
needs. This lack of adequate sites is the primary reason most cities are unable to achieve HCD approval
of their elements.
HCD has identified a regional housing need of 781 units for Diamond Bar for the 7/89 - 6/96 period to
be distributed among the following income categories:
Very Low Income 117 units
(up to $24,150)
Low Income 182 units
($24,150 to $38,650)
Moderate Income 144 units
($38,650 to $57,950)
Upper Income 338 units
TOTAL 781 units
Absent significant government subsidies (such as that available through Redevelopment Agencies), the
State uses the following density criteria in evaluating the adequacy of sites identified in the Housing
Element in fulfilling a City's share of regional housing needs:
Very Low Income - Min. 25 du/acre (rental only)
Low Income - Min. 18 du/acre (rental only)
Moderate Income - Min. 8 du/acre
2
The Diamond Bar Land Use Element currently provides for a total of 1,073 additional dwelling units at
densities up to a maximum of 16 du/acre. While density bonuses could provide for 20 du/acre in the
City's High Density Residential category, there is presently a limited number of sites, identified for such
housing. Therefore, while the City's Land Use and Housing Elements do provide for adequate sites to
fulfill the City's total residential growth needs, land use densities, absent governmental subsidies may
not provide affordability for very low and low income households.
The General Plan Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have reviewed the correspondence
from HCD. They have recommended a Housing Element that supports affordable housing, where
possible, recognizing the limitations and constraints of further housing construction in the City. The
presence of such constraints, including, but not limited to, physical (identified biological resources, steep
slopes, geotechnical hazards, and inadequate infrastructure), land and construction costs, and private
contracts, limit the City's ability to meet our housing obligations.
The General Plan text provides an excellent resource for understanding our current housing conditions
and Planning Commission recommendations for the future. The Housing Element assesses existing and
projected housing needs, housing characteristics, conditions, and special needs. Housing availability is
addressed through an inventory of land suitable for residential development and a review of government
actions and non-government constraints which may impede the development or maintenance of affordable
housing. Please review the Planning Commission recommended Housing Element beginning on Page 11-1
of the General Plan. Please, also review the relevant sections of the Master Environmental Assessment
and the Final Environmental Impact Report.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council review proposed revisions to the Circulation Element, receive
a staff presentation on the Housing Element (HE), open the public hearing, receive testimony and
continue the matter to February 16, 1995.
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano
Community Development Director
attachments:
Revised Circulation Element
Planning Commission Housing Element meeting minutes
V. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Circulation Element is to define the transportation needs of the City and present a
comprehensive transportation plan to accommodate those needs. The focus of this plan element is the
identification and evaluation of local circulation needs of the City of Diamond Bar, balancing those needs with
regional demands and mandates. It has been developed to guide the orderly improvement of the circulation
system within the City in a manner which will protect the quality of life which is Diamond Bar and in direct
response to the City's Land Use Element.
The overall intent of the Circulation Element is to provide safe and efficient movement between homes and
jobs, stores, schools or parks within the City. Under State planning law, each city must develop and adopt
a comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of that city. The following is a
mandatory requirement relating to city transportation planning:
Government Code Section 65302(b): A circulation element consisting of the general location and
extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local
public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan.
This is the first circulation element prepared for the City of Diamond Bar. Although it is a new city, it is not
a newly developing city, but rather one that is largely built out. Many strategic decisions related to
transportation facilities (e.g., locations of roadways) were made at the County level prior to City
incorporation. This circulation element provides the first opportunity to evaluate how best to utilize these
facilities, from the perspective of the City of Diamond Bar, its residents, businesses, and other users of City
services.
Five basic steps were involved in developing the Circulation Element. 71ie first step consisted of documenting
existing conditions and assembing a factual data base. The second step involved the development and
validation of a transportation model used to forecast future travel demand and travel patterns withinthe City
and the surrounding area. Step three entailed identification ofproblems, opportunities and issues. 77iefourth
step was the evaluation of alternative improvement scenarios. The fifth and final step comprised the definition
and refinement of the Circulation Element.
The resulting document is organized into the following sections with each of the above components of the
circulation system being discussed, where appropriate, therein.
• Circulation System
• Major Circulation Issues
• Goals, Objectives and Strategies
Technical Appendices to the Master Environmental Assessment document support this section and contain
additional details and analysis of existing andfuture conditions, travel forecast model documentation, and the
Congestion Management Plan.
The Circulation Element also has direct relationship with the Housing, Resource Management, Public Health
and Safety and Public Services and Facilities Elements.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February Z 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisiom V-1
} } 774c Circulation Elemsent addresses the follolving isoues:
• Streets and IK&vays
• Transit and Paratranxt Services
• Railroad Lincs
• Bicycle, Hiking and Equestrian Trails
• Aviation
• Goods Movewnt
Public services and facilities, mWe no --ally included as part of the Circulation Elewnt, arc separately
addressed in the Public Services and Facilities Element.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
Febnary 2, 1995 - Staff ReWsions } February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V_2
B. CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The components of the circulation system in the City of Diamond Bar include the following:
• Streets and Highways
• Transit and Paratransit Services
• Railroads
• Bicycle} Hikin and Equestrian Facilities
• Aviation
• Goods Movement
} Each of these arc described below: This section describes each of the components, discusses operating
conditions and evalutates the adequacy of the component.
1. Streets and Highways
a. Functional Classification, definitions tt terms
The two major considerations in classifying the City's street network functionally are access to adjacent
properties and movement of persons and goods into and through the City. City streets are classified by the
relative importance of these two functions assigned to them. The classification of streets is essentially a
determination of the degree to which access functions are to be emphasized at the cost of the efficiency of
movement or discouraged to improve the movement function. The design and operation of each street,
therefore, depends upon the importance placed on each of these functions. For example, streets designed to
carry large volumes of vehicles into and through the City have more lanes, higher speed limits, and fewer
driveways, while residential streets have fewer lanes, lower speed limits, and more driveways to provide
access to fronting properties.
The functional classification system allows the residents and elected officials to identify preferred
characteristics of each street. If observed characteristics of any street change from the functional
classification, then actions can be taken to return the street to its originally intended use or to change the
designated classification. For example, if traffic volumes and speeds on a residential street exceed expected
levels, then measures can be implemented which are designed to lower traffic volumes and reduce speeds.
Under the Circulation Element of the County of Los Angeles, roadways within Diamond Bar were categorized
} into four'functional classification types ac 2a af Diamand Bard nes our functional oWsiffeation
2Croadi►wys g1ollo►►s:
• Freeways
} • Arterial Streets (Major and Secondary)
} • Collector Streets (Business and Residential)
• Local Residential Streets
} The City has adopted these functional classificationsfor its roadway network Future V-1 depicts dw regional
roadway system as it presently exists in the City.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - Febnory 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-3
DIAMOND BAR
GENERAL PLAN
NOT l d,
TO SCALE y �`
sex STM)1W" JJ4
► 21:. Z7.3 dew 114 440
jr
Ciealwi� l�wrw► '
a t
p�
or z
J
{ J
3
�.s .... 1
x
DIAMOND
BAR
LEGEND
FREEWAY
a
J 11MAJOR ARTERLIL
SECONDARYARTERUL
Vrr..TTR,irKrIF..S 1.41 Or TRF.
44AD USE Fr l M%TA•ND l.l.4 OF
rw.. (1xrr.1-1TIOV Fr. F..L/jr%T 4
dPpiR_r. Uy1VFIl•_F 0L -- ---_-- - -
rgure V -
Circulation Elemep �
Roadway System
Fieure Added by Plannin¢ Commission
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-4
The follo►vixg scotion describes the geometric and operational characteristics defixod for the various functional
classifications dftw►aya, arterial streets, collector streets and local residential streets in the City. The
descriptions are generally grouped by faoility type and include the nivnber of laxer, ourb to curb pava-tcxt
width, presence of on street parking, median, bike lance or truck restrictions, and doses average daily traffic
vakinw.
Freeways generally provide inter -regional access. Their primary function is to move vehicles through or
around the City, thus, there is not access to adjacent land, and limited access to arterial streets. Freeways
contain anywhere from 4 to 12 lanes with recommended design volumes from 80,000 to 210,000 vehicles per
day.
Arterial streets carry the majority of traffic entering or traveling through the City. A "major" arterial has
either four or six lanes for through t= and mea X contain additional Lanes tg accommodate tu'g
movements , R&king a= bid traffic. all within a right-of-way of 100-120 feet. A "secondary" arterial
serves the same function as a major arterial, but has four lanes for thigh tra caid n a cow additional
la= to accommodate tum movements,a San=d bid t= a within a right-of-way of -60-100
feet. R000mmendod d� voles` T1�e des maximum roadway capacity on arterial raamverages from
30.00022.500 30,000 to 6Q.QW 5.000 velmer depending on number of lanesi t til width off
directional separation, presence of on -street narking, configuration an c{� freauencv Sf = 12 aaddiacent l
uses . and intersection configurations.
Arterials serve two primary functions: to move vehicles into and through the City, and to serve adjacent
commercial land uses. Driveways and other curb cuts along arterial are generally kM4W designed to
minimize disruption to traffic flow.
Collector Streets are intended to carry traffic between the arterial street network and local streets or directly
from the access drives of higher intensity land uses. Collector streets are not intended to carry significant
amounts of through traffic. The category of collector street is further subdivided into 4nevxess collector streets
and residential collector streets.
} Busin000 cGollector streets serve business or higher density attached residential land newt. Tkey and are
generally two and or four lane roadways. mWch sent' a t.dxturc of residential and more intense land outs and
may carry traffic from residential collectors to the arterial street nmtvrk as ►acll. The ave dailv tra c
voles desk roadway &iLaciU on a buses collector street can be ave�ra +e+e up to 20,000 vehicles per day
while providing Level of Service (LOS) C.
A rosidentialloolloctor s `t generally oa..:os tragi bow rooidontial ncighberkoods and tho n
nohvork. T{{///n+++
i Is generally two lane roadways I ioh hitvo rosidontial mixture 2f residential and
oom-oroial land � aI�.S . Average ; Etraf�fic vo u o d 9 roadwayagaoity gA ainor
residential collector gone. -ally I= ihanave P00 M2 t= 10.000 vo i day w 'lo a eviding
LAOS C I i or do i rosidortial land u� 2€ s� y:L of air '1 a o— o as k2 low 'noont
70oollootor strools. II &% tva o voles bo mooptablo on eomia collector streas such ca the %ith
froom oo oroial devoloo cont or QLtra wide = sections.
Local residential streets are designed to serve adjacent residential land uses only. They allow access to
residential driveways and often provide parking for the neighborhood. They are not intended to serve through
traffic traveling from one street to another, but solely local traffic. The desired roadway capacity Tra fie
��
_.
volumes on a on a 410 t : <ahould not exceed should not exceed :*i WIVV'��h�i�EC�� Nbout 2,500
vehicles per day and 200-300 vehicles per hour. The maximum residential traffic volume which is acceptable
to persons living along a street may vary from one street to another depending upon roadway width, type of
dwelling units (i.e., high density apartments versus single-family homes), presence of schools and other
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-5
Table V-2 V-1
City of Diamond Bar Roadway Classification
Roadway
Brea Canyon Rd. (n/o
Golden Springs Dr.)
Chino Hills Pkwy.
Diamond Bar Blvd.
Golden Springs Dr.
(w/o Brea Canyon Rd.)
Grand Ave.
Pathfinder Rd. (c/o Brea Canyon Rd. -west
leg)
Pathfinder Rd. (w/o Brea Canyon Rd. -west
leg)
Brea Canyon Cut -Off Rd.
Brea Canyon Rd. (s/o
Golden Springs Dr.
Chino Avenue
Golden Springs Dr.
(c/o Brea Canyon Rd.)
Lemon Ave.
(n. of Golden Springs Dr.)
Lemon Ave.
(s/of Golden Springs Dr.)
Sunset Crossing Rd.
(e/of SR57)
BeaverheadDr.
Lycoming St.
Sunset Crossing Rd.
(e/of SR57)
Washington St.
Roadway Classification Right -of -Way Widths
Major ........................... 100 -120 feet
Secondary ......................... 60 -100 feet
Collector ......................... 60 - 80 fed
Residential ......................... 44 - 60 feet
(Reftr to Cityof W and W- r -%4 --do for mon=-ovifis info%.r-•ion on raedhvay soosione.)
Diamond Bar General Plan
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions
Circulation Element
V-6
Right -of -
Diamond
Way
Roadway
Bar
Width
Dedication
Jmnrovement
Classification
(ft.)
Stds (ft.)
Stdo. M.)
Major
100
100
4000
Major
100
100
400
Major
100
100
400
Major
100
100
400
Major
100
100
400
Major
100
100
400
M
i
SYNedaly
p�
80
y�
so
_N
M1
Secondary
64-80
64-80
64
Secondary
80
8o
So
Second
so
80
Secondary
80
80
80
Secondary
8o
so
40
RocideNtio/
60
64
64
Collector
Recidextial
60
80
64
Collector
Cu! do car
64
80
64
Residential
Qd do ser
64
80
64
Residential
Residential
80
Cul dr rno
Cid do aar
80
80
-64
Residential
Major ........................... 100 -120 feet
Secondary ......................... 60 -100 feet
Collector ......................... 60 - 80 fed
Residential ......................... 44 - 60 feet
(Reftr to Cityof W and W- r -%4 --do for mon=-ovifis info%.r-•ion on raedhvay soosione.)
Diamond Bar General Plan
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions
Circulation Element
V-6
factors. The maximum volume of 2,500 is, therefore, to be used as a guide only, &1al�t A.t�i
neigbborhood and its impact steeds to be carefully considered.
Local residential streets include those streets predominantly residential in terms of adjacent property use, and
are intended to retain a residential character. They are typically not designated in the General Plan Circulation
Element.
Table V-1 identifies roadway classifications for key roadways in the City along with right-of-way guidelines.
Typical street sections are maintained as pan of the City's design guidelines. Current typical street sections
are included in the technical appendices.
b. Level of Service Standards
Level of service standards define the desirable traffic volumes on City streets in relation to the capacity of
those streets. The City has utilized level of service standards in the traffic analysis work for the General Plan,
and these are summarized in the EIR. The City should continue to use such standards, maintaining and
updating them when necessary to be consistent with current prevailing standards in the
}� region and requirements such as the. statewide Congestion [Management Program. Table 44 V-2 presents
the .. a k--ir-: capac y dock. -able IX "rare daily volumes of vado.us roadway nonfiiguratioits for int levels
of service.
C. Roadway Systems
The efficiency of a roadways operation is generally evaluated in the industry by volume -to -capacity ratios.
this ratio compares the Average Daily Traffic volume to the roadways capacity. Levels of Service (LOS) are
identified based on the calculated ratio. Table V-3 provides a description of the various levels of service to
be used as the City's guidelines for analyzing the efficiency of street operation.
Specific information regarding:
• Current levels of service
• Estimated existing and future average daily volumes by street segment
• AM/PM peak hour traffic levels of service be street segment
• Map of signalized intersections
• A description of the methodology and data used to establish baseline information and current
conditions
is contained in the Master Environmental Assessment and technical attachments.
A major concern of the City of Diamond Bar is the operating efficiency of its streets. Based upon an analysis
performed in 1991, traffic projections for the future (year 2010) indicate that up to 26 local street segments
may experience a level of service of E or F. This undesirable condition is the result of the intrusion of
regional traffic through Diamond Bar.
The City proposes to proactively pursue activities which will enhance the use of it's infrastructure forDiamond
Bar residents. In addition, the City will work wiht neighboring jurisdictions to mitigate their effects on the
loca steet system due to the intrusion of regional traffic.
d. Transportation Corridors
A key issue related to traffic circulation is how current street infrastructures will be used and what future
improvements may be considered to mitigate traffic congestion.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V'7
To this end, the City of Dt. ind Bar intends to:
• Monitor, coordinate, idents, and advocate improvements or moderations to the existing
infrastructure which will provide for the best use of our roadway system for the movement of
traffic
• Encourage and initiate ongoing efforts to work with neighboring cities to analyze, assess and
evaluate alternate by-pass corridors through such areas as Carbon, Soquel and Tonner
Canyon.
The City also believes that if a by-pass corridor is identified for a roadway, it should be considered using
environmentally sensitive methods of evaluation.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions v-8
Table V4 V-2
Daily Roadway Capacity 44due9Standar-_
Maximum Average Daily Volumes by Level of Service
Functional
Type of Roadway
Classification
6 Lanes Divided
Major Arterial
4 Lanes Divided
Secondary
D
Arterial
4 Lanes (Undivided)
BuAncss Collector
2 Lanes (Undivided)
BuasinemCollector
56,300
Rdvidemial Collector
2 Lanes (Undivided)
Local
33,800
ReadResidential
Maximum Average Daily Volumes by Level of Service
*Source: Based on latest revised 13a:ion-' Army of 8oianoao, Highway Capacity Manual. 1965 --d 1936
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-9
(LOS)
A
B
C
D
E
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56,300
22,500
26,300
30,000
33,800
37,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
25,000
7,500
8,800
10,000
11,300
12,500
1,875
2,190
2,500
2,810
3;125
*Source: Based on latest revised 13a:ion-' Army of 8oianoao, Highway Capacity Manual. 1965 --d 1936
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-9
Table V-3
Level of Service (LOS) Interpretation
F Forced Flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from Over 1.00
locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or
prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach
lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential
for stop and to type traffic flow.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 190 - Staff ReWsions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-10
Volume -to
LOS
Description'
Capacity Ratio
A
Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear
0-.60
quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all
drivers find freedom of operation
B
Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat
.61 - .70
restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable
flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully
utilized and traffic queues start to form.
C
Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more
.71 -.80
than 60 seconds, and back-ups may develop behind turning
vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.
D
Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than
.81 -.90
60 seconds during short peaks. there are no long-standing
traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design
practice for peak period.
E
Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues develop
.91 -1.00
on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to
several minutes.
F Forced Flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from Over 1.00
locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or
prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach
lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential
for stop and to type traffic flow.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 190 - Staff ReWsions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-10
, V,'I I GIV!.L. I rarLNporiai;on wrruiur LN a trarupun.wion ja(,, ,q aejLnea ,)N c,rulracteriwu.�. „u.
cause the facility to have n al impact to the environment and adjacent ystem. It also meets the general
prerequisites of being able to allow for movements of people and goods in a safe and efficient manner. These
characteristics should include but not be limited to the following:
topographic -- the corridor should blend with the natural terrain as much as possible to reduce
grading and movement of earth. Curves and contours of the natural terrain should be reflected in
design of the corridor. This goal must necessarily be balanced with providing safe corridor geometry
for the modes of travel that will use it.
hydrology -- positive drainage control will be developed as part of the corridor design to provide for
capture and transmission of runoff from the facility to an appropriate storm drainage facility. This
goal is to control foreign and potentially incompatible fluids and particles from entering the adjacent
ecosystem.
air quality -- street sweeping/cleaning shall be programmed into maintenance operations to prevent
buildup of dirt and dust on the corridor travel surface. This goal will serve to reduce the amount of
airborne particulates which could otherwise enter the adjacent ecosystem. Alternative fuel vehicles
and small vehicles should be encouraged rather than trucks to further improve air quality along the
corridor.
noise -- to the extent possible, modes of travel should be encouraged which have reduced sound
characteristics. In addition, natural barriers to sound created by the corridor should be developed
and implemented to reduce sound intrusion into the adjacent ecosystem. Consider controlled speed
limits to reduce noise impacts.
corridor -- a corridor should be defined as a route that encourages movement of people in a manner
that encourages multimodal uses such as buses, trolleys and shuttles; discourages single occupant
vehicle trips. Movement of goods within this corridor should be evaluated in terms of not detracting
from the basic goal of maximizing movement of people in high occupancy vehicles. Restriction on
vehicle type and weight may be considered as part of the corridor. Creative traffic management
techniques should be encouraged (such as reversible lane operation) to take best advantage of
roadway cross-section and minimize impacts to the corridor area.
biological habitat -- replant and maintain natural plant species to the extent possible along the
corridor where grading has altered the natural landscape. Similarly, providefrequent game crossings
to permit natural migratory paths to be maintained. Consider designation of the corridor for daylight
use only.
aesthetic -- views from the corridor should reinforce the feeling in the traveler that they are in an
environmentally sensitive area. Similarly, views of the corridor from adjacent properties should
reinforce the feeling that the corridor is a natural part of the landscape. Corridor structures, as
necessary, should be a natural part of the terrain.
By nature of the location of the by-pass corridor in-am"round the SEA 15, the corridor should be
for regional traffic and should not encourage local access for adjacent development except as required
by safety and emergency access requirements. Construction activity should be limited to the right-of-
way envelope. End points of the corridor would incorporate value criteria.
An environmentally sensitive transportation corridor does not presume to sped the type of vehicles that will
utilize the facility. Rather, it should encourage and foster high occupancy, clean operation, modes that are
integrated with the corridor. Planning efforts should look to the future and anticipate technologies that will
emerge and contribute to development of a corridor that meets the growing travel demands of the region and
maintains precious natural resources.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff ReWsions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revi ;ions V-11
Road►►av, Classification in tho 2a 2CDiavwnd Bar is 111►►stratod in Fikure V and mmmarkel in Table V 1
For comparison purposes. the table ai shows the previous County roadi►ay desienations. The sQ^s� is
defined aceordine Loo the olassifications described earlier in this Elemeent.
Inclr:dad in T�hc roadwcryss.�sert t diaera:. are Zprc (Fkwre V 11 rcfcrcraav potential oorridonv. s�cv
reference addreosos futurc aecasa nec►ris� the school site in the Tray IIc..►tanoa Ranch proverty (Str swim
� , �l pis �%�����
1. 3.4 and No. Li Old. the other � j
g i peripheral corridor providirt�e g_s b Keen ino Ili
Park►►av gra & Sz frm*,ay. (Strateev 1.1144 an=d S� _ g�'� i Y.Bj Ele►nent)
Roadwav A►vmxe Lk& TM& as shown in Table V 3 lists the e�c�m-9 desiped A►� Pat& Capacity.
Existme in duture (cstunated) ►rra a ai Tra c Voluiows gild the Volui,x to Capacity Ratios forvarious
se�entents gr j& g id Diiwoond=Mw
.�.&Pov{ ►� s s.A ►►.. M (i sc da S=mnn in a da �s
gr. ►�emt c M aoftlti 1 d�il W .] & LaM eenemliv acvepted to be Tkadm rox h Thursdav,
with traffic unatfcctod 12 holidays. incleasent smwher. or other inwedintents L ..►u: traft conditions.
Avvrajec Dailv Tmfflc Volunus obtsinod prior Lo 1990 havc been ntodificid i X g: annual ero►vth factor gf'
AltnnhouRh there am additional roaduviv sevotents n rin g volume to capacity rat' ot'� iv Table V 3
rindieatcs tM g_ Cil.. cntly ji_x a, tcrial road►►av serntents when Existing A►�% -ec Daily Trafflc
Volumes actually mooed 1 0 Oninbwan acceptable volumes, Lor levo! g(scr►4ce (LOS L !tc arc.
Diamond Bar Boulc►rard south gr= A► Ll�..031
Diamond jai, Boulevard no. Ih gr Golden Springs rive (1-09)
Dia►nond Lap Boulevard sou h gfSLg_ Crossins &oad a--0.41
Brea� Can o gad n�� gr Pathfinder Road aigu
BB Canyon
Canyon Road n� &Pt c mona (60)Fromw
L.-caCa on Coto Road south g f Pathfinder Road d
Intersection Opefe dag CoadNew id & Qkj a Diwiiend fig haw been considered aj L3 kja siennalked
intm,cctions and three unsienalkod ink.. scotions. Tr= vo , Lor gVed intersection ►►= collectod gsn g
tivical weekdav dam& d gad &L, &Atr r periods. Aforninpe � cod ►' coy 7. s00
Ami and 9.00 i' ► & ad jji. games ► c=`► , t n bem� f gn�d 6.,00 M l c nwasurei
MM*w ►► hen conivared (g I& &M (Caltmns) standard & 4Wc, ,,.ine tg Volan►e to Capacity Rati& each
intersection bog i dwor&ad U g,c wd dLff Yke ZaL
Thi.: v three Sirnalit ed Interrcaons have been considered utt'l� the Intersection Capacitv Utilization
nwhodolory to d+Ltt—iinc opem dne Lnvb gLf Service Lt sienalire d' inter mctdons.Lcvvk g' SeMyc
►ate are defined ge y9 ;m1 ZJL TVA w4an g� ,OSP t/v�a�i/c�a�lty assu►►u►d t� he the ntaxu►uan
acceptable � du�� of d fflc. & LG56Y. til conrestwn bcfms to g ur in auandues g2j&P durations
beyond acccptablc jjLjjIL Altheiueh u gv thcoretdctslly inlposaiblc to o si.
jM LOIS L i& &,.= L indictite that
the travel demandVor the imm metien exoceds the capacity. Inter sections with LOIS 9 and LOS F ►rill
i i•S
expCYicnec siYrtificant conee9Eton didU lit1� �� Zh duration q�'t tis conrestion is dependent ilpi
n operational considerations ►di � be evaluated durin the g= operation g( the intersection.
Ilour l� eapaeitica gf � whiclesg: Me ger hour ►= assu►. ed with 0. 10 additional increment,Lor
Yel=low gr l tib This k consistent ►i the Ms �t reconu►tcndations included in the Los Anzeks
Coun Conrestion Manaxentent Plan.
Table V 4 and Firuurre V 2 show the entire rci 2f the Level gf Service analysis & the 33 skenalicexd
intersections. in adder to dAj and E Peak LOS for those intersection svith deficient Lcvcb g[S
Dui the Ami peak �� three sienalitcid interscctdons i� the ODG9'Q!C cu Lc� g� S E gr F
csc intersections a=
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Sta, ff Revisions } February 10, 1995 - Sta, ff Revisions V-12
Diam� Bar Boulevara
D_ nd Bar Boulevard & .bloumtain Laurel W
Patniinder Road & the southbound 57Frc"vav -../,a. ;
The remaining 30 shmahzed ixterseetions are currently operatin,t at Levels g[Senice A through D dKda the
AMS gyrio& v►� indicate acceptable opemtime conditions.
Du. &the PM j2eak period, s$ sienalizad intersections experience Levels 2f Sffvke & pr L Those
imteraectioms arc.
Diamond Bar Bouletard & AwhFimder Road
Diamond Bar Boulevard & Alountain Laurel 11
Dian+ond Bar Boulc►ard & Grand Avenue
Diamond Bar Boulevaenrd & lc Av xue
Golden SDTIngs R= & Grand Avenue
Brea CaMn Road & the wcvtbound 60 Free►vay on/o rates
Acceptable Lccvvlss gf Servicc gist at the rcrnainime 27 si,enalizod intersections dung �f goak periods.
77tive Un sixaaliad Interreedons hobeen censidcred. Uxsienalited inferjmdona tc=awhrod diffmntiv
the sixnaliced intoscored todifferemt operating characteristics. 1i��4i� gj siemalital imterseetions
approaches l�rC b to Mg. $t un sienatitcdoto sin controlled) dclav Zv dependent the approach its
reauirenient tg a go. an=d t e distribution gftra c bcnvccm approaches. ai three un sifnaIko intersections
studied all showed AM and/or PH Peak hc,,: ur Lc� 2rScrWvc E oar F 7 Loose inter sections enema.
Sunset CAossinx Road & the southbound_ 57 Frcim►wv o1waffM=s
Dianw d Bar Blvd. /arca Can 'on Cut o Road d the southbound SL7 Frcoswy onloff
Dianwnd Bear Blyd. fBrcaCam ut o R & L& no. tF.bound 57 Freavay Otgff
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Stuff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-13
DIAMOND BAR
GENERAL PLAN
nt�.
NOT
'0 SCALE
S.U""ZW" JJV.4
23.:.:13 art 11* 4*,t
� J
l
GEND
M•i■ F TRAY
+ MA ARTERIAL
SECO YARTERIAL
/•c
.yy �F.E-SIR-ITF.C(F:St.R3OFTAF. �
' TNF- [fRP(:l.�TIU'1'F.l.F..NF.'1T
-- --- 'PIT UF(VF(1 Y_L7f ------------------------------ ------- - -
-Figure V-1
Circulation Element
Roadway System
Fi¢ure Added by Plannine Commission
Diamond Bar General Plan
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions }
Circulation Element
February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-14
Table v-.
Ity of Diamond Bar Freeways and Arte
A
Exasting
and Estimated Future Average Daily Lraffic
T.:::8 added Mn ms Comminion
Existing
Future
Existing
Average
Auer a
Location
Capacity (a)
Daily
V/C
Da' , (c)
V/C
(Future)
Volume(b)
` Mame
Diamond Bar Boulevard:
e/o Canyon Road
30,000
17,400
0.5'
48,000
1.60
s/o Fou n Springs Road
30,000
20,700
'.69
48,600
1.62
s/o Pathfinder ad
30,000
27,000
0.90
52,300
1.74
n/o Pathfinder Ro
30,00
28,200
0.94
54,200
1.81
s/o Grand Avenue
30,000
31,' j
1.03
60,000
2.00
n/o Grand Avenue
30,000
2•,400
0.81
36,500
1.22
n/o Steep Canyon Road
30,000
15,000
0.83
38,000
1.27
s/o Golden Springs Drive
000
29,300
0.98
44,000
1.47
n/o Golden Springs Drive
30,
32,800
1.09
49,900
1.66
s/o Sunset Crossing Road
30,00r
31,300
1.04
47,000
1.57
n/o Highland Valley Road
30 ,10
8,60
0.62
28,300
0.94
s/o Temple Avenue
x,000
1
0.56
25,800
0.86
Golden Springs Drive:
w/o Calbourne Drive
30,000
17,700
0.59
26,900
0.90
w/o Lemon Avenue
30,000
19,800
30,000
1.00
e/o Lemon Avenue
30,000
19,900
0.6
30,300
1.01
w/o Pomona Freeway
30,000
22,100
0.74
33.600
1.12
w/o Brea Canyon Road
30,000
29,200
0.97
400
1.48
e/o Brea Canyon Roo
30,000
19,300
0.64
29,
0.98
w/o Copley Drive
30,000
18,000
0.60
27,
0.91
w/o Grand Avew :
30,000
19,700
0.66
29,300
0.98
e/o Grand Ave• ae
30,000
20,700
0.69
31,400
1.05
Wo Prospect _s
20,000
16,500
0.83
25,100
1.26
w/o Diamom. Bar Boulevard
20,000
16,600
0.83
25,200
1.26
Table V-3 (continued)
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-15
City o
oiamv
E• " 'ng and Estimated Future Average Daily � •affic
Table added by PUnniniz Commission
Existing
Future
Existing
Average
Average
Location
Capacity (a)
Daily
V/C
Daily
V/C
(Future)
Volume(b)
Volume(c)
e/o Diamond Bar Boulevard
20,000
16,400
0.82
24,900
1.25
s/o Temple Avenue
20,000
10,600
0.53
16,100
0.81
Grand Avenue:
w/o Golden Springs Drive
30,000
27,400
0.91
,100
1.64
e/o Golden .ngs Drive
30,000
24,700
0.82
42,000
1.40
e/o Diamond Bar evard
30,000
19,700
0.
55,000
1.83
Pathfinder Road:
w/o Peaceful Hills Road
30,000
4,300
0.14
6,600
0.22
w/o Orange Freeway (SB)
25,000
14,
0.58
22,200
0.89
e/o Orange Freeway (NB)
000
20
0.67
30,700
1.02
w/o Diamond Bar Boulevard
30,
9000
0.43
19,800
0.66
Brea Canyon Road:
s/o Silver Bullet Drive
10,000
,000
0.80
12,200
G-4
0.61
20
n/o Diamond Bar Boulevard
10,
4,400
0.44
6,700
042
s/o Pathfinder Road
,000
7,600
0.76
11,600
0.49
430.000)
0.58
(20,000)
n/o Pathfinder Road
10,000
10,100
1.01
15,
0.51
(30,000)
s/o Golden Springs Drive
30,000
15,500
0.52
23,600
0.79
n/o Golden Springs Drive
30,000
28,300
0.94
42,200
1.41
n/o Pomona Freeway
30,000
32,700
1.09
48,700
1.62
n/o Washington Street
30,000
20,500
0.68
30,600
1.02
Brea Canyon Cut -Off Road:
s/o Pathfinder Road
10,000
10,500
1.05
16,000
1.60
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2. 1995 - Staff Revisiom } - February 10, 19Z - Staff Revisions V-16
as e o ,-- . - - .
City of Diamond Bar Freeways and Arte. --.,s
Existing and Estimated Future Average Daily Traffic
Table added U ElpninA Commission
Existing
Future
Existing
Average
Average
Location
Capacity (a)
Daily Vic
Daily
VJC
(Future)
Volume(b)
Volume(c)
Lemon Avenue:
n/o Go en Springs Drive
30,000
12,100 0.40
8,400
0.61
Walnut D
20,000
5,200 0.26
7
0.46
n/o Golden rings Drive
Chino Hills Par
n/o Chino Avenue
30,000
8,100 0
35,000
1.17
Chino Avenue:
e/o Chino Hills Parkway
10,000
4,500 0.45
17,200
0.86
20,000)
Pomona Freeway (SR -60) -
w/o Brea Canyon Road
3,000
255,000
w/o Grand Avenue
3,000
361,000
e/o Diamond Bar Boulevard
201,000
w/o Phillips Ranch Road
147,
179,000
Orange Freeway (SR -57)
n/o Diamond Bar Boulevard
182,000
308,000
n/o Pathfinder Road
184,000
280,000
n/o Sunset Crossing Road
135,000
000
SOURCE: DKS Associates, �01
a) Capaoity roprocor / lovol of wrvioo C (traffio flow oonditioao an ohown on Tablo V 1). Futuro ootimatod
oapaoity is ohov in parouthooio bolow if difforont than oxioting.
b) Existing Vola- represents 1999 count adjusted by 2% ann=—1 to 1991
e) Futuro volu, roproeonto a 1991 projootion of yoar 2010 traffio conditions made by applioation of a Traffio
Foroant M- J developed by DKS A0000iatoo and awumoo no bypow oorridor through tho oouthorn portion of
the City _ Diamond Bar or its aphoro of influonoo.
Intrusion d --mlt r� all. i e sem; dDiantond JaZconsistsgrmotorists 11lime,11� h aced MOV
the C o.� 1: ....7 �r 1 ; "•^_Ay= thpoil tke 99 bi &. ad ��-L�:a��t�.�i rte:
T1�tc aali�en a^nt ask he Ci 's t= rim s�irnificamt a Diai+t�vnd Boulcyiard. WN/lli rix
Road and Gmand A=ue Muksin lar vol�g 1f throe Mqd1.0.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, I995 - Staff Revisions V-17
Currently. dhdU peak amnwti vcriods, coneestion is
thromA the one rrile lgnn: ;s et cell within Dimveond Bar why d " Freewav eorrespox sus ►%th the
60 Frccvvav, anted in the scjmww 2rthe 60 Freewav immediately cast2Cthc / Freewav where the capacity 2f
the 60 Frocv►av is reduced to three travel lanes in each direction. Cox:ecstiox is particularly hear du,�ring d
and PM Doak traffw homes Diamond Bar Boulevard is an attractive alternative row tc� primarily d=ue —to
interchanom with the 1rmvav ,art both the southern and northern sections qf the Cts Diamond Bar Boulevard
intersects with the L7Frcclvav south grthc Mere , and at the northern divereence tithe57Frec►vav and the
60 Frecgvay. Lx addition. at serves as $ shortcut to trafflc traveling Lo r..from San Bernardino County Wa
Grand Avenue. The acvors regult in a la= intrusion Uf cownuter Zoe gdx& Diamond Bar Boulevard
Lo travel between areas to the south of the City anndd iurisdictions north and eastof Diamond Bar.
Golden S rix s Dtlig: � alternative route or aloina he cn�std c ct =s-�e Lcombined
free»ay. During AM peak traffic- the route k un�iby
travelirw wect from the 60 Fre twv amend
southbound of the 57 Freeway tonwrds the westbound 60 Frenvav corridor wastgCthc C The Diwnwnd
Bar Boulevard exit io used to ;= Gold' &rines Drive, with tea c eoKttnutKx 1st 0 Golden &ELPta
Drive✓Coli.:.a Ro4d eventually reenterinje the 1vestbound 60 Frcnswv LcLond the et g(comRestion. Acs nic
Mute is also wad dung ZAf peak tra o with tra a gUin"in the eastbound 60 Frmtav g{ either the Azusa
A 1a�t Fullerton Road. N.2&glav Street avitsin Rowland jkI is gar the I= Peon Road gg� i�x. Diamond
Bauer and rt enterin,e either tkc eastbound 60 Freeway gr the northbound 57 Fr ewe gt Dia,:.ond Bar
Boulevard.
Grand Avenue ; currently the only cast west route which dirvaU serves the dcvelopin a gentral Chis hills
ate. Althoueh the 60 Freavav is accessible to the north. heavy cwnzastion alb this frve4swy =&a Grand
Av, gn attractive route for vehicular U& travclinA between the ai Hills area afSLLna Bernard1no
un amend arms
som grDiw..ond Bar along the 60 Fre *wv corridor towards Limos Ax es i 1IL4.1 gj south
Of Lhcit along the S7 Frec iwv corridor towards northern au=.
L February ,o( 1994. The CU of Chino Hillss documented that 50 IK gf the 1vo�g adults in their CIM ogf
481000 reoidents (16,286 households) ootnnvntc to lverk in Lou A&Mw Cour 3= conupwc to 1ih in
Orgma unanted o� a= co. t►Qatte to workSin Bernardino orRiverside Counties.ce amity ac aim
hills General a currently ally Lors additional 10.529 housekokle �a 65%increaoc to ti neariv
;80 000 residents in 26 815 housvholdls) ;:x that ei 's build out.
To uanti , the maznitudc 2riaMj,%jh tea c in the C2 g license atc Z= isgs conducted! . A diYsmmion
tj st 's methodolaRv and the complete results iC the anal ins contained in the Master Environmental
Assessr-.ent document.
LCLKLUfrom this ant sis confirmed the three principal arterial routes 1 'thyi��nth it is si�eniftcant
percentakes their total tm volrtmas conwrised gfv"Weles lWan tlerou trips. ,11� g'thc th u
du. dU j�E ,1f peak low ri♦♦, d oceterrod on Diamond Bar Boulevard, Golden rim Roadgad_ ���%
A�ouc ; nd were observed L9t� the City 1= San Bernardino Count alon Cs. Avg Ln h_. G and
Avenue s o Diwwnd Bar Boulevard is the arterial Igpment axperieneine the lam v ol�� ef through
Ziptea c within the C
I DKS Associates, March, 1991
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-18
. a 3 e 0 --
AM and PM Pe.tk Hour Level of Servi
at Signalized Intersections
Table added kX Pla�L&n& Commission AM Peak Hour PM Peak How
Volume -to- Level of Volume -to- Level of
Intersection Capacity Service (a) Capacity Service (a)
Diamond Bar Blvd./Brea Canyon Rd.
1.32
F
.088 D
Diamond Bar Blvd./Cold Springs Ln.
0.66
B
0.74 C
Diamon ar Blvd./Sugar Pine Place
0.61
B
0.69 B
Diamondlvd./Pathfinder Rd.
0.78
C
0.95 E
Diamond Bar d./Mountain Lurel Way
0.94
E
0.94 E
Diamond Bar Blv rand Ave.
0.80
C
1.26 F
Diamond Bar Blvd./ den Springs Dr.
0.46
A
0.73 C
Diamond Bar Blvd./Vo -Mart Entrance
0.49
A
0.86 D
Diamond Bar Blvd/EB 60
0.73
C
0.75 C
Diamond Bar Blvd./WB 60 R
0.80
C
0.64 B
Diamond Bar Blvd./Sunset Cro Rd.
0.76
C
0.82 D
Diamond Bar Blvd./Highland Valley
0.43
A
0.54 A
Diamond Bar Blvd./Temple Ave.
0.90
D
0.97 E
Golden Springs Dr./Lemon Ave.
0.59
A
2 C
Golden Springs Dr./EB 60 Ramp
0.66
B
0.73 C
Golden Springs Dr./Brea Canyon Road
0.42
A
0.88 D
Golden Springs Dr. /Gateway Center Dr.
.36
A
0.78 C
Golden Springs Dr./Copley Dr.
0.64 B
Golden Springs Dr./Grand Ave.
0.7
C
0.93 E
Golden Springs Dr./Ballena Dr.
0.43
A
0.82 D
Golden Springs Dr./Temple Ave.
0.63
B
0.63 B
Grand Ave./EB 60 Ramp
.58
0.75 C
Grand Ave./Montefino Ave.
0.64
0.82 D
Grand Ave./Summitridge Dr.
0.80
C
0.73 C
Grand Ave./Longview Dr.
0.56
A
0.60 A
Pathfinder Rd. /SB 57 Ramp
1.24
F
0.76 C
Pathfinder Rd. /NB 57 Ramp
0.84
D
.73 C
Pathfinder Rd./Brea Canyon Rd. em Hollow Dr.
0.52
A
D
Pathfinder Rd./Evergreen Sp ' Dr.
0.50
A
0. A
Brea Canyon Rd./WB 60
0.86
D
1.02 F
Brea Canyon Rd./Lyco g St.
0.49
A
0.59 A
Brea Canyon Rd./W gton St.
0.50
A
0.60 A
Chino Hills Pkwy Chino Ave.
0.33
A
0.28 A
SOURCE: DKS Associates, 1991
a. Based on Volume to Capacity Ratio from Table V-1 for Level of Service (LOS) Interpretation
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-19
DIAMOND BAR "sA
.SOURCE. D&V AS:SOCIATES, 1991
Figure added by Planning Commission
Diamond Bar General Plan
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions �
LEGEND
! SIGNALIZED
O UN;SIGNALIZED
AM LOS
f �V
' Figure V-2
Intersection
Level of Service
Circulation Element
V -2o
d
c !
r-- - — J
LEGEND
! SIGNALIZED
O UN;SIGNALIZED
AM LOS
f �V
' Figure V-2
Intersection
Level of Service
Circulation Element
V -2o
A9idGYi heavv oo�niwlCr ar�Fd siQmifioant through tla a +ems alb yr grteridl =Ws 1! the aLtj Problem
conu►rutcr troffic intrusion haw LcM identified b,Y residents i'= other LUas in t c
uc Lo I!g extremely =o oneratinr conditions a►�td siimiftcant delays c epenenced is Lhcy�iintersection :f
Diamond #_ar $ogle wi gad_ Grand v n du= P.f s7i a d collector
stress ►vc k� residential � adiaeent to this intersection arc Often utilsd bft cmuuruiter traffle Lo bygass the
heavitv conrated ink., vection.
Residents sem intrusion gCcut throurh trafflc gt Atontcfino Avenue, Quail Sununu 2da, RaLL d Knoll
Alowntain Laurel ii'lver aim rive Af ado►v ,1 n river to Drive,A i *land
Dry Surr►rtitr re r'► Lonsvimv pZL%�+gg&► Drivc ggi Palo►,dno ri► . Intnw on 2rthr� tri
t� rwidential neishberhoods s eau sewpal Problen►s, ineludin�e cveadine. Particularly the vioixi
7"k.
d. Rnvinannucrrtally Sessilim TranspoJ*w!On Co,".idor
(Proved to page 11)
An cm►tisonmiontally sensitive rmwportadon corridor is a transponation facility defined by charaatcvistus that
cauac the facility to have ndninad impact to the environment and adjacent ecosystem. It arta racers the general
prerequisites of being able to allowfor moventents of people and goods in a safe and efficient n►anner. 7hcsc
characteristics should include but not be lindted to the following:
topographic the corridor should blend u*h the natural terrain as nuwh as possible to reduce
grading and nwve..wnt of earth. Curves and contours of the natural terrain should be reflected in
design of the corridor. Ibis goal numt necessarily be balanced with providing safe corridor geamcu y
for the modes of travel that will use it.
hydrology positive drainage control will be dcveloped as past of the corridor design to provide for
capture and tsansndssion of runofffront the facility to an appropriate stoma drainage facility. TA&
goal is to control foreign and potentially incompatible fluids and pa, teles front entering the adjacent
ecosyster►►.
air quality street sweeping/cleaning shall be programmed into m►aintenanoc operations to prevent
buildup of di, t and dust on the corridor travel su,;ace. Ais goal vvill serve to readuec the amount of
airborne pa. t:eulatcs which could othe, .vise enter the adjacent ecosystem. Alternative fuel vehicles
and s;, -.all vehicles should be encouraged rather than trueks`to further improve air quality along the
corridor,
noise to the extent possible, modes of travel should be encouraged which ha►re reducod sound
aWwctemwics. In addition, natural barriers to sound created by the cor-ldor should be davloped
and unplenwnted to rade.-e sound intrusion into the adjacent ecosystem. Consider controlled speed
li»dts to reduee noise impacts.
corridor a corridor should be defined as a route that encourages noventent of people in a manner
that encourages nueltir►eodal uses such as buses, trolleys and shuttles; discourages single occupant
vehicle trips. Movement of goods within this corridor should be evaluated in talars of not detracting
from the basic goal of mrsuMileing nrovenient of people in high occupancy vehicles. Restriction on
vehicle type and weight may be considered as pas: of the corridor. Creative traffic m anagewnt
techniques should be encowragad (such as reversible lane operation) to take best advantage of
roadway cross section and ndnindze impacts to the corridor arca.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-21
biological habitat replant and maintain natural plant species to the agent possible along the
corridor where gA"ing has altered the natural landscape. Sunilarly, provide frequent game erossings
to ptmdt natural ndgrato, f paths to be maintained. Consider designation of the co, idor for daylight
use only.
acstlsetic viers front the corridor should reinforce the feeling in the trawler that they arc in an
environmentally sensidw arca. Similarly, vicsw of the corridor frant adjacent properties should
reinforce the feeling that the corridor is a natural pa.i of the landscape. CO. itidor structures, as
necessary, should be a natural pan of the terrain.
By nature of the location of the by pass corridor dna around the SEA 15, the corridor should be
for regional traffic and should not encourage local access for adjacent deselop cent c w cpt as required
by safety and eniergenry access requirentenis. Construction activity should be linated to the right of
stay envelope. End points of the corridor would incorporate value criteria.
An environmentally sensitive tmnspo, Nation corridor docs not pranu►te to specify the type of vehicle that still
udlirc the facility. Rather, it should encourage and foster high occupancy, clam opertstion, nodes dw art:
integrated ►►pith the corridor. Planning offm is should look to the f tare and anticipate technologies that still
emerge and contribute to devviopment of a co. s Jor that mcw.:s the grossing tnsvcl demands of the region and
maintains precious natural resources.
2. Transit and Paratransit Services
Both fixed route transit and Paratransit service operate within the City of Diamond Bar. Fixed route transit
services are typically bus lines which operate on regular schedules along a set route, stopping at predefined
bus stops. Fixed route service can be either local (intracity) or regional (intercity). Paratransit services, more
commonly referred to as Dial -a -Ride, are demand responsive services which provide rides to passengers upon
an individual request basis. Although they operate within a defined service area, they do not operate on fixed
routes or schedules. Paratransit service typically serve transit dependent persons such as the elderly and
handicapped. They often serve major destinations such as hospitals and medical facilities but may also take
passengers to local destinations such as neighborhood shopping centers.
a. Transit Services:
} Public bus transit service is provided to the City of Diamond Bar by the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority and Foothill Transit and Orange County Transportation Authority..
}� Thfee Two Four fixed route transit lines serve the City of Diamond Bar. MTA Foothill Transit
Route 482 and MTA Route 490 and Foothill Tranoit Routs 495. All thaw Both of them trancit
routoo aro intercity routoo. WA Foothill Routog 482 and MA 4-90 originate and terminate outside
of the Diamond Bar city limits. Two express routes originating at the Park and Ride lot at Diamond
Bar Bli d.160 Feeway interchange operate during peak hours Monday thru Friday. Foothill Transit
Express Route 495 picks up passengers on Golden Springs/Colima to the Puente Hilts Mall, then
travels the freeways to downtown Los Angeles. OCTA operates an express route from the same Park
and Ride via Cat State Fullerton, City Drive and the Orange Court House in Santa Ana.9
Additionally three Foothill Transit lines provide intermodal connections at the Industry Metrolonk
Station just north of the city's boundary on Brea Canyon Road. They are Route 482 (Colima Road),
Route 276 (Gale Avenue) and Route 179 (Amar Road).
Paratransit Services:
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 -Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 -Staff Revisions V-22
Demand responsive transit service is provided to the City of Diamond Bar by the jointly
sponsored Los Angeles County and City of Diamond Bar Paratransit Service. This Dial -a -
Ride service provides transportation to handicapped persons and senior citizens within not
only the City of Diamond Bar but portions of the surrounding area. Transportation is limited
to Los Angeles County, and generally operates south of Valley Boulevard and east of 7th
Avenue, with service to medical facilities within the cities of Pomona, Walnut, Industry and
West Covina.
3. Railroad Lines
There are currently no passenger rail facilities in operation within the City of Diamond Bar. The nearest
Amtrak facilities are located in Pomona and Fullerton. The Pomona Amtrak sWiee stop, which serves the
Southwest Chief lint Sunset Limited Route, is located at 2701 North Gary Avonue 156 W. Commercial St.
and is approximately nine miles northeast of Diamond Bar. The Fullerton Amtrak station, which serves the
Southwest Chief and San Diegans lines. with intermodal (bus) connections to other Amtrak lines, is located
at the corner of Santa Fe and Harbor Boulevard and is approximately 13 miles to the southwest.
A Diamond Bar is served by a Metrolink commuter rail station has boon recently implemented along the Union
Pacific Railroad at Brea Canyon Road, just north of State Route 60.
The Union Pacific Railroad is the only freight rail line which serves the City of Diamond Bar. The line lies
along the City's northwestern boundary with the City of Industry, and serves the industrial areas north of
Walnut Drive and Lycoming Street.
4. Bicycle, Hiking and Equestrian Trails
There are three different classes of bikeways which are commonly recognized. A definition
of each bikeway class is presented below:
Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) - A completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of
bicycles (and sometimes pedestrians). Cross-flow is minimized by limiting access to
designated points.
Class H Bikeway (Bike Lane) - Routes designated by separately striped lanes and signs
along streets or highways. They provide restricted one-way travel for bicycles, although
motor vehicles are sometimes permitted to use the bike lane to make turns and to park.
Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) - Roadways in which the travel lanes are shared by motor
vehicles and bicycles whose route is designated by signs only. This type of bikeway does
not provide cyclists with increased privileges, but rather, informs motorists of the cycling
route.
EiQ r V:3 shows Existing Deshmated Bic cle Routes I,,n the City 2[ Diamond &L
The City currently has two wed- desienated bikeways along ,bolt ui� gf the actors length of Diamond
Bar Boulevard and alb IU i iiiJ of Golden Springs Drive [M AM Canyon, a2Jdt2 & northerly SU
limit. Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Drive west of Diamond Bar Boulevard contain Class H
bike lanes. The width of the bike lanes vary from 12 feet throughout most of the roadway to three feet at a
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Scoff Revisions V-23
few locations with narrower curb-to-curb widths. Most signalized intersection bike lane approaches are striped
to permit right turns by motor vehicles. Parking is not permitted within the bike lanes except on Golden
Springs near Brea Canyon Road, and on the northbound lane of Diamond Bar Boulevard between Montefino
Avenue and Grand Avenue. Golden Springs Drive north of Diamond Bar Boulevard is designated a Class III
bike route on both sides of the roadway. An additional bikeway is nrov000d f= mage though RO_t
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-24
DIAMON-o BAR
GENERAL PLAN
NOT
TO SCALE
DIAMOND
r
A
C
M
vr•"'s's�
Ab
r
LEGEND_LA.ssrr
CLASS Ill
Figure V-3
Existing Designated
Bicycle Routes
Fiaum Added by Plannine Commission
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
Febniary 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } Febnary 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-25
desienated !a C� Resolution, 1"n s sides Lf Brea Canyon Road between Pathfinder Road and Golden
Springs Drive.
There are currently no Class I bikeways within the City of Diamond Bar.
The County plans to have bicycle routes serving the region that will connect with local bicycle trails. The
county system proposes bicycle trails to enter Diamond Bar at the eastern end of Grand Avenue, and north
into the Tres Hermanos property along Tonner Canyon. Surrounding cities have also planned bicycle routes
to connect from Diamond Bar north along Mission Boulevard (City of Pomona), west along Grand Avenue
and Brea Canyon Road (the Cities of Walnut and Industry), and west along Golden Springs Drive (into
Rowland Heights), east along Grand Avenue (City of Chino Hills), and south along Chino Hills Parkway (City
of Chino Hills).
L. Eauestrian Nd Hiking IL&
Tiles is am currently i "n 2W2f&W equestrian aqdhe WUU i available !2 L iib i g t i L— Cwt &fDiamond Bir, althouch ; oe�s &f trailo Lro. noov000d by t o County &f Uo Aneeloo. Ono@ oomalotod, t
hoge
trails will bo This tom, through jU ci�yt i Ls part If ll<o a extensive owned and maintained by
the County.
The Skyline Tamils Extension, unofficially cam tie Schabarum Tail L&ISWX parallels jhg CQ14:1 southern
and easter boundaries with unincomorato sections 12f JA Anil s AW §g Bernardino countiegg it Winds
through the hQ LM &e Cauvon LW 12 Grand Avenue. Ug jjW orizinates 11 Schabarum Park 12 &
were it interconnects with &Ski Trail Tdei LkXaa U}l LU IQ interconnects with j Last
s stem 2f questrian ! 'Ls to th a2a W woes smeading throu¢hout SW 2f La Angeles County, Lo the
�t 2f Schabarum Par the trail traverses Rowland Heights. gLeg gjUu a o tRa= the
2rann e� Freeway where, ; Ltavoroaches t&' southern jkX jjMjj lit Diamond ku > reg Cain
Road jm__j then !MXSh geg t& epi g 9. tag Firestone Toy Scout Reservation l jig northern s o
of TTonner Canyon. As the trail ll turns northeast, it roily fol= ga &�a boundary 'u t in 'd / sftdie ci
limits. The trail turns east and follows tgM &U boundary j list ung the &U't �turning
� tri i i i
northerly. ljis If the ttai a w t io Wre u�s gLee ci . De til terminates St Cha d�
Avenue, where tl�e Sum a Park Connector Trail 4 ► l allow Mos.12 §Wmit ' e &A !2 the no
of Gid &enue &1&i.& Diamond DAL &M as Also 1 sem 21 three 1Uu ail wis the Q= hKas
lamed is t W:j tdM Skyla IM& Extension JWL Mese�#=it �ilL collectively known ;s the
ILyliLe T= Connections, 11 ldi outside =fthe Ci + 2f Diamond Br.
Fi ire VV -4 shows WLU Ed eouestian trails in the Cly 2f Diamond Bauer.
5. Aviation
There are no aviation facilities located within the City of Diamond Bar. Passenger air carrier and air cargo
facilities are located at Ontario International Airport located 15 miles to the east. The closest general aviation
airports are Brackett Field in La Verne, approximately nine miles to the north; and Chino Airport in the City
of Chino, approximately 11 miles to the east.
y Because Dionond Bar it w derflIgM paght from both Ontarlp and los Angeles fns# np*tW Al"Ns, and
rRoxttatrY to M*br flee wrrdrs desda t*in0rra *the Arurrl►rr of he&V#9r ovocdNgA ts, t1Fa G�ljt Ttot:ld Lwin
vigilant to air trrt, k Increases and seek agukdons to relieve noise and air pollution. (Moved from Page IV -33)
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-26
DIAMOND BAR
GENERAL PLAN
(I
NOT
TO SCALF.
Fieure Added by Plannin& Commission
DIAMOND
BAR e
rF
't
§.1
SUMMIT f
IDG
LEGEND
•••••••••••• SKYLINE TRAILS EXT SION
(Shabarum Trail)
• - — CITYBOLWDARY
Figure Y-4
Hiking and Equestrian Trails
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-27
6. Goods Movement
Goods movement within the City of Diamond Bar occurs primarily through the use of trucks. The City has
established a designated truck route plan. Truck routes direct heavy truck traffic onto arterial and collector
facilities and away from local (residential) streets. This plan helps control noise and air pollution in residential
areas of the City and protects local streets from significant surface damage that might result from heavy truck
traffic.
North of the combined section of the Orange/Pomona (60) Freeway it is necessary for freeway traffic to
exit onto Diamond Bar Boulevard when traveling southbound on the Orange Freeway en route to the
eastbound Pomona Freeway; and westbound Pomona Freeway traffic bound for the northbound Orange
Freeway. The section of Diamond Bar Boulevard between the eastbound Pomona Freeway ramps and the
northbound Orange Freeway ramps to the north, and Sunset Crossing Road between Diamond Bar Boulevard
and the southbound Orange Freeway ramps are designated truck routes.
To enable access to the heavy industrial areas of the City of Industry and the City of Diamond Bar north of
Lycoming Street, truck routes are designated in western Diamond Bar along Golden Springs Drive between
Lemon Avenue and Brea Canyon Road, along both Brea Canyon Road and Lemon Avenue north of Golden
Springs Drive, and along Walnut Drive.
Entrances into the City notify drivers of a five -ton weight restriction for trucks within the City (except for
designated truck routes), in addition to parking restrictions which limit commercial vehicles over five tons to
30 minutes.
The General Plan Designated Truck Routes are illustrated in Figure V-5.
C. CIRCULATION ISSUES
The following significant issues concerning circulation are not necessarily listed in order of priority.
1. Future Development in Diamond Bar
The Diamond Bar General Plan provides for an additional 1.220 4W 1073 dwelling units, as well as additional
commercial office and business park uses. Tho levola of development which would bo pormiooiblo under -the
propooed Gonoral Plan would rcault in approximatoly 1,900 additional dwolling units, 918,000 oquaru foot of
oommoroial ucoo and 887,387 oquare foot of offioe and buoinooc park ucw.
ISSUE ANALYSIS: The City needs policies to address impacts to all streets in Diamond Bar and
to maintain or inwrove roadway level -of -service standards.
2. Projected Growth in the Region
In addition to increases in traffic attributable to growth and development within the City of Diamond Bar
itself, the City will be impacted by future growth and development in surrounding communities and the region.
Increased traffic in the region will impact Diamond Bar through increased traffic volumes along the regional
transportation facilities including Routes 57 and 60 and Grand Avenue.
ISSUE ANALYSIS: The City needs policies to address impacts to all streets in Diamond Bar and
to maintain or improve roadway level -of -service standards.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-28
DIAMOND BAR
GENERA, PLAN
(I
NOT
TO SCALE
DIAMOND
BAR
rf�
Ay
LEGEND
TRUCK ROUTE
Figure V-5
Designated Truck Routes
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-29
3. Future Roadway System Within Diamond Bar
Many of the roadway facilities within Diamond Bar are projected to carry volumes of traffic at or in excess
of recommended daily capacity by the year 2010. At present, a significant amount of the traffi is regional
traffic with neither origin nor destination within the City. Examples are as follows:
Diamond Bar Boulevard - Average daily traffic volumes along Diamond Bar Boulevard immediately south of
Grand Avenue are projected to be double the desirable volumes for a four -lane roadway. South of Grand
Avenue to Brea Canyon Road, forecast daily volume along Diamond Bar Boulevard exceed recommended
carrying capacity. North of Sunset Crossing, traffic volumes along Diamond Bar Boulevard are projected to
be within the carrying capacity of a four -lane roadway.
Golden Springs Drive - Year 2010 traffic volumes along Golden Springs Drive west of Brea Canyon Road
are projected to exceed the desirable maximum volumes for this four -lane roadway. From east of Lemon
Avenue to the City of Diamond Bar boundary, Golden Springs Drive is forecast to carry traffic at or slightly
below the recommended carrying capacity for a four -lane roadway.
The portion of Golden Springs Drive east of Grand Avenue is not a divided roadway and forecast traffic
volumes along this segment would exceed capacity.
Grand Avenue - Year 2010 traffic volume forecasts along the entire length of Grand Avenue within the City
of Diamond Bar are estimated to be in excess of the desirable maximum volumes for a four -lane divided
roadway. As prescntly 000um, a significant aaiaunt of this traffic is estimated to be through traffic with neither
origin nor dostinction within the City.
Brea Canyon Road - The section of Brea Canyon Road from Golden Springs Drive to Washington Street is
projected to carry traffic volumes requiring the capacity of a six ktnc divided arterial capacity.
Routes 57 and 60 - Both the Pomona Freeway (SR -60) and the Orange Freeway (SR -57) are forecast to carry
traffic volumes significantly in excess of their capacity. This will result in continued congestion along these
facilities with spillover onto City streets as motorists seek less congested alternatives.
ISSUE ANALYSIS: The City needs to establish roadway classifications and standards for
dedication and roadway improvement for the principal streets in the City.
4. The Development of an Alternative Travel Corridor Around the City of
Diamond Bar
With significant development planned for the Chino Hills area, both Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand
Avenue are expected to carry larger through traffic volumes from SR -57 than at present into San Bernardino
County. Alternative routes to the south would help relieve future congestion along these and other arterials
within the City of Diamond Bar. However, the location of an alternative travel corridor must consider its
potential environmental and growth -inducing impacts. Under these circumstances, it will be prudent for the
City to consider the option of a by-pass corridor. Studies of such a facility indicate that should forecasted
development and freeway improvements occur, a by-pass corridor will provide substantial relief to the key
streets in Diamond Bar. Therefore, it will be the policy of the City to:
• not wait until need for the by-pass corridor is demonstrated, but proactively monitor signs
for the need so that timely planning and environmental steps can be taken;
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Ss ff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Siaff Revisions V-30
explore regional options for transportation improvements prior to initiating development of
a regional by-pass corridor;
seek cooperation of adjoining jurisdictions in managing growth and assigning responsibility
for infrastructure improvements to support that growth; and
establish criteria under which a by-pass corridor would be considered, designed, constructed,
and utilized.
} ISSUE ANALYSIS: 77tiw- & a myvl to cwitwdiT an ahernar iv Paewl ea, .:dor ar+vwd Ar ,y of
1 i►a �t : r This matter is a regional issue and involves multiple
juris}dicdons t►lsiatt should be included. There moods to be a proper
J=fiewion of regional bencfu for a road.
There is a need to consider a by-pass roadway around the City of Diamond
Bar to discourage
regional traffic from using the eWes City's local streets for cut -through
purposes only. This is of regional concern and involves multiple
jurisdictions. It is important for the City to take the lead in assuring that
any proposed project directly benefits Diamond Bar residents and achieves
the goals of this General Plan.
5. Maintaining Grand Avenue's Current Traffic Carrying Capacity
With the completion of the extension of Grand Avenue is a major arterial and in the City of Industry, Crvtnd
rfvemue provides an convenient alternative even marc significant role as a regional arterial, carrying traffic
to/from Routes 57/60.
ISSUE ANALYSIS: The City will continue to monitor the effectiveness of Grand Avenue in
serving its local needs afeasures to cnhanoe Crand Avenue while
maintaining its current traffic -carrying capacity within the existing right-of-
way. could include: Ongoing efforts include:
a Optimizeing signal 000rdination synchronization;
a Reconstruction Encouraging projects to improve interchange at Route 57/60, and
a Provideing bes turnouts out of travel lanes, where hewficial.
a Ppovwk atyx4cwltion and dcrrlcnttion lanes inipowtd cirewl .kil at Crand Awyque and
Diumwnod Bar &ulc►ard and Gnamad A►xwc:.- atui GBitian gprksge Dr'ivm
6. Increase the Attractiveness Effectiveness of State Routes 57 and 60 forto"
discourage through Regional Traffic Use through- of Diamond Bar
streets.
It is desirable to reduce the use of Diamond Bar Boulevard Streets by through regional traffic.
ISSUE ANALYSIS: One of the most feasible approaches the City can take to reduce threugk
regional traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard is to work with Caltrans to
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-31
improve conditions on State Route 57 and 60. Possible improvements
include:
Upgrade the SR 57/60 interchange to eliminate undue at -grade conflicts and weaving
maneuvers and adding lanes or frontage roads between key interchanges;
Provide HOV and connectors lanes on both SR -57 and SR -60; and
Provide truck climbing lanes where appropriate.
Constrwot auxiliary lanes between key interchanges.
7. Surrounding Roadway Systems Impacting. the City
It is also recognized that varkms roadway and street improvements anti proposed or presently under
construction in ntighbmW communities or by other agencies which may impact the City of Diamond
Bar's trabspoMdoo obl a.
ISSUE ANALYSIS: Ceruan projects either planned or under constt=on have beers identtpW
which may impact trait circulation in the Oty.
These projexts include but are not limited to;
• Completion of Route 30
• Upgrade of SR 71 to freeway standards
Improve the capacity ;f Interstate 10 (San Bernardino Freeway), State Route 60 (Pomona
Freeway) and State Route 1A Cis !9on Road.�
} • Completion of the high occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System on Interstate 10, Route 60, and
State Route 57 from the San Bernardino and Orange County lines to Highway 101.
8.7r. Cul de Saving of Suncct Crossing Road at the City's Western Limits and
Maintaining Washington Street Cul de -Sac Maintain the Cul -de -Sacs of
Sunset Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming
Street at the City's Boundaries.
Sunset Crossing is presently a four -lane roadway providing access to/from a residential area of northwest
Diamond Bar. Sunset Crossing west of Route 57 has an interchange with southbound Route 57, extends
westerly and terminates east of the City limits adjacent to a park and Little League field. The County of Los
Angeles Highway Plan assumes Sunset Crossing is to be extended southwesterly, through the City of Industry
to a connection with Washington Street or in the vicinity. The Qy of Indtrrtry is considering de4wlopmcm
of the arca ►wth industrial teas and a »erste to rail nwserials raeotwry facility to n akv nwxinuva ed+rantage
of its proximity to freight rail lines. Ilowmvr, the area through miich Sunset Crossing is to emend is presently
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-32
substantially unlevekoped. The extension of Sunset Crossing and the proposal development of induevrial usm
adjacent to this ajqerial would signiflwantly increase the voluinc of traffic along Sunset
-> Crooning and introduce a signifreant number of trucks into this re&idential arca. The City of Industry is
considering the development of the area beyond the terminous of Sunset Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive,
Washington Street and Lycoming Street with industrial uses and a waste -to -rail materials recovery facility to
make maximum advantage of its proximity to freight rail lines. The area through which these streets would be
extended is presently undeveloped. The extension of these streets and the proposed development of industrial
uses would significantly increase the volume of traffic along these residential streets and introduce a significant
number of trucks into these residential neighborhoods.
ISSUE ANALYSIS: The City should implement strong measures to maintain the integrity of
residential neighborhoods.
D. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
"IT IS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THE PLAN TO PROVIDE A SAFE, ADEQUATE
AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE TRANSPORTA77ON SYSTEM TO MEET THE
CIRCULATION NEEDS OF THE CI77ZENS OF DIAMOND BAR."
GOAL 1 "Consistent with the Vision Statement, enhance the environment of the City's street
network. Work toward improving the problems presented by the intrusion of
regionally oriented commuter traffic through the City and into residential
neighborhoods. Consider programs to reinforce the regional transportation and
circulation system to adequately accommodate regional needs."
Objective 1.1 Participate in local and regional transportation related planning and decision-making.
8a"mw Dia.io.W ear k urt►447f%&hipakafsartr int *'A►Wib'w4 MAmistei6lk. nay OMI
Airps. C, mrd AWMR07 V i:Wtnr. f 4riM V SWAto iai gra ilc:. t�: dF ef. 1tc.�iooptar
svaj;ighot�, Ito CRY s rt vwv s vigi&* to air 1: tato 1W Ka5'�IM'aa? ate;�+�trlr.•ioa: to
wmL%w wise axe air pouuttonh moved to S. Aviation. pg. V-27
Strategies:
1.1.1 Preclude the connection of roadways from adjacent jurisdictions into the City unless
demonstrable benefits to Diamond Bar residents and businesses are indicated.
1.1.2 In reviewing transportation improvements, maintain a clear distinction between local and
regional objectives.
1.1.3 Ensure the opportunity for public comment on major changes in operational
characteristics of the circulation system.
1.1.4 Proactivoly work with adjaoont juri9dictioxw in tho ovaluation of onvironmastally soarlitivo
rogional tranci,ortation linkago option through tho ooatorly po: ion of the Sphoro of
Influonoo arca whiok r000g-..izo, priedtieo onvironmantal sensitivity and avoid disruption
of SEA 15 (gym aloo Laed lluo Stratogy 1.6.3). to I_ !�R r,1i16 !t 11 :.�;�t_.. i►;. #�;
ao..;,ticwt a.,, u>I I - City of Ui -Aad Btu W S&a fw a iAepd ;; ° : 7fe1.t, i»o
v6ill inoo..,orate no rouY` T�� Canvonk,xcesla:. .+ ►� 'oaa..e-tr i
�; road tlr
,mLlilivity- d avoiL ditimplieaof SK% I& Inmate regional traffic mitigation efforts with
,he t uses oJ Brei and Chino I N&
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-33
by forming a task force, assisted by technical personnel to evaluate alternative travel
corridors war through the easterly portion of the sphere of infouence. Efforns will
generally include:
(a) Recognition of environmentally sensitive areas;
(b) Identification of the types of environmentally sensitive roadways which will be
considered;
(c) Avoiding disruption of SEA 15;
(d) Land use constraints and development limitations which may be in place or
imposed,-
(e)
mposed,
(e) Contribution to congestion based on development and anticipated growth
projections;
(� Prioritization of alternatives based on available documentation, studies, reports,
etc.;
(g) Identification of alternative funding sources for studies, design, construction and
maintenance such as, but not limited to:
(1) Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties;
(2) State of California;
(3) Federal Government
(4) Local funding;
(5) Development; and
(6) Private.
(h) Mediation through agencies such as SCAG, if an agreement cannot be reached;
and
(i) Identification and formulation of a short and long range plan of action to
address the by-pass issue.
1.1.5 Work with neighboring communities to encourage the ongoing efforts to complete esisting
projects and possible improvements to existing infrastructures such as:
(a) Completion of SR -30;
(b) Upgrade of SR -71 to freeway standards;
(c) Additional lanes on SR -60,• and
(d) Increasing the roadway capacity of SR 142 -Carbon Canyon Road
1.1.6 X1-3 Continue to seek support for Regional State Transportation Improvement Program
(RSTIP) projects as proposed by the City of Diamond Bar such as:
(a) Encourage modification of the SR57/SR60 interchange;
(b) Suppod Pursue construction of HOV lanes on SR60, from SR57 north to San
Bernardino County;
(c) Purees construction of HOV lanes bn SR60, from Brea Canyon Road
to SR57 north;
(d) Support lie construction of HOV lanes on SR57, from Orange County to
SR60; and
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-34
(e) Pursue park and ride expansion adiaoont to the SR57 and SR60 interchange.
1.1.6 Encourage Oraxgc and San Bernardino Counties, tofu+wd and construct an cm-4ronxmmtally
sensitive transportation corridor roadway through Soquel Canyon and or Carbon Canyon.
1.1.7 7�he C shyother encoura ee the efforts ofot iurisdictions andd as e Ig complete
work o: circulationrp oiects ou= Uf Diamonds � positively effect
Diamond Bar's tra tc conditions. 7heserD o® inch
jLiZI completion 1(S
bJ Upgrade oC LR -_71 to freeway standards
l'J The construction So uel Canyon Road extension to SSR -57
Ld Pursue Development of additional lanes on SR60 easterly of the City.
Lei Improve the capacity S R .." C..°: C�att�n Road
1 1.1.8 Coordinate the use of land use policies from neighboring communities and
incorporate all existing traffic data including improvements and proposal for the
regional circulation system.
1.1.4 Encourage improKenwnts to regional rautes and: ft4W strew to k setieitive to
ensirorlmentalty, aeatheNr and noise concerns andprat+ctvide adegt+al*.bo era ui aNdcattt
land uae,F
Objective 1.2 Balance the need for optimum traffic flow on City arterials within economic realities,
environmental, and aesthetic considerations.
Strategies:
1.2.1 Prepare programs for traffic control measures including, but not limited to,
additional stop signs at problem intersections, timing of stop lights, signals and
regulation of speed limits.
1.2.2 Maintain _ flexibility in the cross sections and configuration of streets within
topographically rugged or environmentally sensitive areas.
1.2.3 Pursue other traffic measures to enhance circulation and transient traffic movements.
Objective 1.3 Maintain the integrity of residential neighborhoods. Discourage through traffic.
Strategies:
1.3.1 Prevent the creation of new roadway connections which adversely impact existing
neighborhoods.
1.3.2 Implement neighborhood traffic control programs in 1,2.1 to reduce and dived
through traffic.
1.3.3 Design new developments and their access points in such a way that the capacity of
local residential streets is not exceeded.
Diamond Bar General Plan
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions
Circulation Element
V-35
1.3.4 Minimize impacts of roadways serving the proposed future Diamond Ranch high
school site on surrounding residential neighborhoods.
1.3.5 The Z Ut should implement strong measures to maintain the integrity &f the Sum
Crossing Road and
other residential areas at the western cj li= cul -de -sating u t Crossing
--�
Road and retaining the cul -de -sating If Lycoming Washington and Beaverhead
Streets.
GOAL 2 "Consistent with the Vision Statement, provide a balanced transportation system
for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services through the
City."
Objective 2.1 Maximize the use of alternative transportation modes within and through the City to decrease
reliance on single passenger automobiles.
Strategies:
2.1.1
Maximize the availability and use of public transit service.
2.1.2
Investigate the feasibility of establishing a local transit system. Support privately
funded local transit systems for seniors and youths.
2.1.3
Support mixed-use developments to maximize transportation efficiency.
2.1.4
Pursue a cooperative effort with Caltrans and regional transit providers to develop
a major intermodal transportation facility at the propooed Metrolink Station near Brea
Canyon Road and State Route 60.
2.1.5
Encourage participation in carpools through the use of City publications and public
displays.
2.1.6
Coordinate to the extent possible with neighboring cities in the development of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan.
2.1.7
Work with Caltrans to build new park-and-ride sites and expand existing park-and-
ride facilities.
}= 2.1.8 Expand and maintain bWntain, expand and upgj cfi& the system of bicycle routes
connecting residential areas to major community attractions utilizing current City
design guidelines.. Upgrades of the current syitem will inciudb investigative means
to improve signing and marring of bikeways. -lie' C� sW dem g ma�ster.'L
of bikeways.
2.1.9 Pursue a cooperative joint agencies program to provide access for Diamond Bar
residents to a regional light rail system.
2.1.10 Lobby Caltrans to provide HOV lanes on local freeways.
2.1.11 Explore the feasibility of interconnected public equestrian trails.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-36
2.1.12 Exl2lore the feasibility o=f interconnected Rgblic him trails.
Objective 2.2 Maximize connection of all areas within the City through the circulation system.
Strategy:
2.2.1 Work to ensure that any new development is provided with adequate access from
within the City of Diamond Bar.
2.2.2 Through the roadway system, ensure that new development within the Tres
Hermanos Ranch property is integrated into the community of Diamond Bar.
2.2.3 Work with Pomona Unified School District to Droves secondary a_e. s tig the future
Diamond &nch aWh Sc
1.4 Coordinate wit omo Ji nW Sco Disj d Ci + fIndustry & Urbean
Develovment to insure timel d� a� construction o secondary access to the
fug Diamonda c fah School,
GOAL 3 "Consistent with the Vision Statement Maintain an Adequate Level of Service on
Area Roadways."
Objective 3.1 Improve the safety and efficiency of existing transportation facilities.
Strategies:
3.1.1 Maintain level of service C or better at arterial mid -block segments (average daily)
and D or better during peak hours at signalized intersections to the extent possible.
(See level of service descriptions in Table V-1)
3.1.2 Improve arterial mid -block segments to provide average daily service levels of "C"
or better to prevent use of local and collector streets as alternate routes
3.1.3 Improve intersections in the City which have peak hour traffic service levels worse
than "D". Where feasible, these improvements should be made within existing
right-of-way.
3.1.4 Develeg Maintain a pavement management system and maintenance program for all
public roadways throughout the City.
3.1.5 Develop a signal system management system and maintenance program for all traffic
signals throughout the City.
3.1.6 Consider all opportunities to expand and maintain pedestrian access routes
throughout the City.
3.1.7 Synchronize signals on Grund Avenuo through all ms jor ruads tl=usitout the City
of Diamond Bur (see Circulation Elemrl TrIpm V4) V-2) and adjacent
communities.
Objective 3.2 Explore all available opportunities and mechanisms forfunding transportation improvements.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-37
Strategy:
3.2.1 All new development shall be required to provide mitigation measures. Such
measures could include improvements or traffic impact fees.
3.2.2 Solicit State and Federal funds to improve area freeways to eliminate use of local
streets as part of the freeway system.
3.2.3 Consider implementing a traffic impact fee system.
3.2.4 Develop a regional financing mechanism(s) to assess new development for the cost
of mitigating traffic impacts.
3.2.5 Consider the use of a "toll road" to finance and maintain the environmentally
sensitive transportation corridor.
3.2. ti Continue to solicit State, Fedend and other funds to improve IoW streets. -
> GOAL 4 "Consistent with the Vision Statement, provide or Regulate the Provision of the
Supply of Parking to Meet the Needs for Both Residents and Commercial
Businesses."
Objective 4.1 Ensure compliance with the Southern California Air Quality Management District Regulation
15 trip reduction requirements.
Strategies:
4.1.1 Regulate the provision of preferential parking for high occupancy vehicles wherever
possible.
4.1.2 Consider reductions in parking in exchange for transportation demand management
programs.
Objective 4.2 Provide adequate parking for all types of land use within the City of Diamond Bar.
Strategy:
4.2.1 Use existing parking demand data sources to update City Code requirements
pertaining to parking, particularly the provision of sufficient parking for land uses
generating a high demand for parking.
4.2.2 Encourage school districts to improve parking and loading facilities for public
schools to minimize the impact on the circulation system.
4.2.3 Ebtablish parking requirements for housing to a level consistent with the ocouprwts'
transportation needs.
4.2.4 Strenoea off streat parking codes for new residential development la vr(Ift' to
increase the bomber of off-street parking spaces.
Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element
February 2, 1995 - Staff Revisions } - February 10, 1995 - Staff Revisions V-38
City of Diamond Bar
Planning Commission
Minutes
Housing Element
1994 General Plan
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 1, 1994
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the
SCAQMD Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner
Schad.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk;
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad
Also present: Community Development Director James
Destefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy;
Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City
Attorney Michael Montgomery; Administrative
Secretary Marilyn Ortiz and Patrick Mann of
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc.
Absent: None
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. ADOPTION OF THE 1994 GENERAL PLAN
James DeStefano reported that Patrick Mann, consultant from
Cotton/Beland/Associates, provided the Planning Commission
with additional information as requested during the last
discussion of the Noise Table found in the Public Health and
Safety Element of the 1992 General Plan.
Chair/Meyer announced that the public hearing portion of the
Public Health & Safety Element has been completed and
directed staff to provide additional input regarding the
units of measurement for the noise level.
Chair/Meyer referred to the memo from Mr. Mann recommending
the use of the CNEL standard although it lacks uniformity
throughout the state. Chair/Meyer asked C/Flamenbaum and
C/Fong if their questions regarding the CNEL standard were
answered satisfactorily. C/Flamenbaum responded
affirmatively.
August 1, 1994 Page 2 Planning commission
C/Fong asked for an explanation of the
allowable for Hospitals compared to the
for libraries and residential areas. He
hospitals should have a lower level or
comparable to libraries or residential
higher CNEL level
lower CNEL levels
believes that
at least levels
level.
Patrick Mann explained that the interior CNEL levels for
these uses were set by the GPAC in their deliberations. The
hospital provides higher noise levels in living areas and
lower levels of noise in sleeping areas than the library
use. The noise levels are quite low as set in the table and
it is believed they would provide adequate protection for
those land uses.
C/Fong responded he has no other questions or objections.
Chair/Meyer questioned whether the CNEL standards
recommendations are achievable or do they prohibit
development.
Patrick Mann stated that the maximum exterior CNEL standards
that are not to be exceeded are achievable in most cases.
The exterior CNEL objective for quiet areas may not be
achievable in many areas exposed to freeway noise. GPAC
added this type of standard to the element that originally
contained only the maximum exterior CNEL Level.
Chair/Meyer questioned the outcome of an environmental
review studying the noise generally associated with a
project, if the project did not achieve the standards in the
General Plan. Would it require an environmental impact
report because of inability to mitigate it to this level of
considered non -significance?
Patrick Mann responded that a judgment determination would
have to be made about whether the magnitude of the variation
was sufficient to require an environmental impact. In the
residential areas the maximum exterior CNEL is probably
achievable. There may be places in commercial, industrial
and offices areas where the 70 dBA CNEL standard could not
be achieved because of an existing freeway noise condition.
Chair/Meyer asked if this would give rise to an argument to
prohibit development in those areas. Patrick Mann responded
that it could.
Chair/Meyer addressed the conflict between the CNEL standard
(70 dBA) of the General Plan for industrial areas and terms
of the General Plan encouraging a balanced growth. He
stated it appears that if the current levels are not
attainable, then a proposed development that added noise to
August 1, 1994
Page 3 Planning Commission
the area would provide the basic argument against issuing
any development permits.
Chair/Meyer suggested that as a major source of noise, we
need to recognize that freeways have higher noise levels
than other parts of the city and treat them as unique
situations, possibly requiring differential treatment.
Patrick Mann extended further Chair/Meyer's comments that
the 71 Freeway will eventually become a full-fledged
freeway. In his opinion the noise from it will carry over
into Tres Hermanos combining with the Pomona noise. Using
the chart in the EIR as a basis of measurement, it must be
decided what levels are adequate to attain our goals.
C/Schad pointed out that noise levels vary according to the
time and peak of traffic. Tire planing creates the most
significant noise on the surface of the road; the faster
cars go, the nosier it gets. Peterson Park is a good
example of the inverse funnel affect. Due to its geology
and location near the freeway, the sound in this area is
actually amplified to levels of 85-90 decibels. C/Schad
stated that he had recommended a chart at the last meeting
which reduces most of these levels by approximately 5 dBA.
Patrick Mann reminded the Planning Commission that the chart
C/Schad spoke of dealt with interior noises. The problem
Chair/Meyer brought up is exterior noises.
Chair/Meyer asked Mr. Mann if, for example, we wanted to
expand the use of Peterson Park, would the standard be used
which implies that the park uses adds additional exterior
noise? If the goal is 70 dBA and the park already exceeds
that, would there then be case basis to deny development of
the park?
Patrick Mann replied that development could be denied. For
instance, if an application from the Parks and Recreation
Department was received to put in three new bathrooms, it
would have to be denied.
Chair/Meyer reiterated the need to recognize that when
considering exterior standards, freeways and their immediate
adjoining areas should be treated differently. Primarily
due to the unique situations freeways present as a major
source of noise that run throughout the city.
Patrick Mann suggested a freeway adjacent criteria.
Chair/Meyer continued, saying that if a development will add
to the exterior noise and the goal is 70 dBA in commercial
August 1, 1994 Page 4 Planning Commission
and industrial areas, then the City is limited from adding
any more commercial industrial, because it would increase
the present dBA which already exceeds the goal.
Discussion ensued regarding the effects of reducing noise
levels on future development. James DeStefano stated that
the General Plan can always be amended. He stated that a
more valid point is why send it through with wrong
recommendations.
ICA/Montgomery recommended an upper and lower limit be
provided on the chart, as a guideline and judge each case on
specific merits through the public hearing process.
Patrick Mann stated that in the preparation of the GPAC
noise element, a table with different categories of
significance for noise for varying land uses was presented
to the committee. What might now be provided is to add
another column, separating what is clearly unacceptable for
these land uses and what would normally be unacceptable.
Levels could be exceeded if there were unique circumstances
or efforts made to provide additional sound insulation,
appropriate to the land use. To some extent the commercial
and industrial areas where the land is exposed to noise
between 70 and 75 dBA can be utilized for those types of
uses instead of other uses. For office and commercial
buildings, above 75 dBA would normally be unacceptable for
those uses. However if adequate or special sound insulation
is included in the design, and those uses do not depend on
outdoors space substantially, the noise level could be
acceptable.
C/Schad stated that the table presented by Cotton/Beland
sets time frames which allows for accumulation of sound.
Although he prefers Table IV -I on page IV -12, dBA's should
be slightly reduced, it would be acceptable to him if the
figures shown were used as maximum allowable CNEL.
Motion was made by C/Schad, seconded by C/Flamenbaum to add
an additional row to Table IV -1 called "Freeway Adjacent
Commercial/Industrial/Office Areas" using 65 dBA for the
exterior CNEL objective and 70 to 80 dBA for the maximum
exterior CNEL and the interior at 45 dBA.
CDD/DeStefano suggested as a strategy that additional
verbiage be added to 1.10.12 to read: "New development
should not exceed the standards outlined within Table IV -1.
If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of
noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise
insulation features included in design."
August 11 1994 Page 5 Planning Commission
Motion was amended by C/Schad and seconded by C/Flamenbaum
to include CDD/DeStefano's suggested strategy 1.10.12 and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that a maximum interior CNEL level of
40 dBA be added to the chart for recreation and quiet,
passive areas.
Motion was made by C/Schad, seconded by C/Fong to amend
Table IV -1, Recreation: Quite, Passive Areas: add 40 dBA to
the maximum interior CNEL .
The motion carried 4-1 with the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Schad, Fong, Chairman Meyer,
Flamenbaum
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
V/Chair Plunk
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
Motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Flamenbaum, to
change Strategy 1.10.3 on page IV -10 to read "New
construction, excluding additions and remodels that do not
expand the existing floor area of the dwelling by 25% shall
not be permitted to cause exterior CNEL level of surrounding
residential neighborhoods to exceed those limits stated in
Table IV -1...
CDD/DeStefano suggested Strategy 1.10.3 be changed to read
"New construction, including additions and remodels
exceeding 25% of original floor area, shall not be permitted
to cause the exterior CNEL level of surrounding residential
neighborhoods to exceed those limits stated in Table IV -1,
or to significantly, adversely effect the existing CNEL of
those neighborhoods."
The motion carried 4-1 as follows:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Schad, Fong, Flamenbaum,
Chair/Meyer
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
V/Chair Plunk
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
Chair/Meyer inquired whether there were any additional
changes or questions. None were expressed and Meyer
declared the Public Health and Safety Element completed.
RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
August 1, 1994 Page 6 Planning Commission
RECONVENED:
Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
CDD/DeStefano introduced Karen Warner,
Cotton/Beland/Associates, stating she had participated in
the GPAC workshop process and would be presenting the
Housing element, GPAC issues and the issues before the
community.
Karen Warner stated that the Housing Element is the most
complicated element. It is the only General Plan element
required to undergo State review. The Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) is required to prepare
written findings as to whether in their opinion "A housing
element is in substantial legal compliance". The courts tend
to side with the State. The goal is to achieve the State's
approval of the Housing Element. Only 40% of cities state-
wide have a State approved Housing Element.
If a housing element is not in state compliance and someone
chooses to challenge the City on the basis of an inadequate
General Plan and the courts find on the side of HCD that you
have an inadequate housing element, courts can shut down the
City. Essentially the State can take away all discretionary
actions of the City until the element is brought under
compliance. This happens fairly infrequently, but it does
happen and tends to happen to cities that have redevelopment
agencies and have some money involved.
Ms. Warner went on to explain Diamond Bar's situation. The
last housing element was prepared in 1993. Significant
revisions were made to the element at that time in response
to the State's comments. The State had one outstanding
concern which was'the lack of adequate sites. The state
defines adequate sites according to density categories.
All cities are given their regional share of housing needs
divided among income categories. Diamond Bar's regional
needs figure is 781 dwelling units. This is divided up into
117 units for low income, 182 units for low income, 144 for
moderate income and 338 units for upper income. The Housing
Element needs to demonstrate enough land zoned at densities
that the state considers high enough to provide
affordability to that number of units in those income
categories.
In response to C/Flamenbaum, Ms. Warner stated that the
income categories are based on the County median. A very
low income household is defined by HUD by 1993 standards for
a family of four in Los Angeles County as earning 50% or
below the County median of $24,150. A low income household
August 1, 1994 Page 7 Planning Commission
earns between 50% and 80% of the county median which is
essentially between $24,000 and $38,650. Moderate income is
between $38,650 to $57,950 and that's essentially up to 120%
of the County median.
The rule of thumb that the State uses in urban areas to
achieve affordability to these income levels is a minimum of
25 units/acre for the very low income category. Diamond Bar
has a need of 117 units. For the low income category, a
density criteria of 18 units/acre is used. Both of those
categories need to be available for rental. For the
moderate income, a density criteria of 8 units/acre is used
and can be ownership or rental. Diamond Bar has a need of
144 units.
Part of the process when cities are initially assigned these
numbers is that cities have 90 days in which to review the
numbers and make an appeal to Southern California
Association of Government (SCAG) if they feel the numbers
are inaccurate. Diamond Bar was just incorporating at the
time and wasn't able to take advantage of that opportunity.
After the 90 day appeal period is up, there's no adjustment
to the figures. In working with these numbers and these
density criterias from the state, GPAC realized there was an
issue regarding the land use policies in Diamond Bar for
lower density housing and limited multi -family housing.
GPAC considered the following options to achieve State
approval:
OPTION ONE: to leave the site inventory as it stands in the
Land Use Element and for the City Council to adopt findings
showing why the document is in substantial compliance with
the law based on a variety of physical and infrastructure
constraints to multi -family development.
OPTION TWO: to show greater commitment in the Tres Hermanos
specific plan area for the multifamily units that would be
required under your regional housing needs.
OPTION THREE: to increase the densities under the medium and
high density land use categories to the 18 and 25 unit/acre
minimum.
OPTION FOUR: (in combination with some other programs) to
adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which says that in
all projects of a certain size that the developer will be
required to set aside a certain portion, commonly 15%, of
the units as affordable to lower income households.
August 1, 1994 Page 8
OPTION FIVE: try to adopt more
affordable housing is achieved
significant increase in density
Density Bonus Ordinance)
Planning commission
proactive programs so that
without providing a
city wide. (Proactive
Ms. Warner reported, GPAC agreed by a majority on Option 11.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open.
Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Dr., praised Karen
Warner for her presentation. He stated that we have an
opportunity to meet HCD's requirements. He expressed his
concern to protect the canyons. He recommended adding a
mixed use density at 25 units/acre and to identify this on
the land use map. He also recommended the remainder of the
land use in Tres Hermanos be designated as University
Specific Plan identifying the mixed use around the reclaimed
water lake.
Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane; pointed out a
change on page II -14, Table II -4 Potential Development, and
asked for clarification.
CDD/DeStefano stated that Mr. Maxwell is referring to the
original Page II -14 and the changes that occurred on the
July 13th ERRATA SHEET. The reason the rural/residential
vacant acres changed and the dwelling units changed is 1)
the number of rural residential acres were lowered as a
result of turning some of those properties into GPAC's
recommended Open Space Category; 2) The dwelling unit
numbers were lowered because the previous table reflected a
higher density. The number 136 is referring to an estimated
1 unit for every 2.5 acres, which is an assumption based
upon the known fact that the majority of these vacant
remaining hillside acres are at about 30% slope or greater
and the relationship to the GPAC strategy of a ratio of 1 to
2.5 acres to 1 to 2.75 acres when rural residential
properties exceeded a slope of 30%.
Barbara Beach Courchesne, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills
Rd., referred to Page II -16, Paragraph 1, Line 5 where it
states that Tres Hermanos could be built at densities higher
than 16 units/acre. She stated GPAC wished it to remain that
way. She suggested Diamond Bar work with the State to
convince them that because of Diamond Bar's topography 25
units/acre may not be feasible. If it is the Planning
Commission or the City Council's desire to build at that
density, they should first take a more careful look at
available facilities and services.
August 1, 1994 Page 9 Planning Commission
She wants it on record that the GPAC never intimated that
they wanted to make it difficult for development to occur in
Diamond Bar. GPAC wants country living atmosphere and high
quality types of developments and growth. That does
sometimes create difficulty and certainly creates expense,
but it is not an anti -development.
Gary Neely stated he wanted to make clear that his comments
do not relate to very low income, low income or moderate
income housing, but upper income housing. He pointed out
some inconsistencies in the document. On Page II -22, in
order to be consistent with the Circulation Element there is
a star on the section of Diamond Bar Blvd. located between
Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Cutoff that indicates it is
operating at level of service E or F. That intersection is
not currently identified as operating at that level of
service.
Mr. Neely also pointed out inconsistencies regarding the
Housing Opportunity Map on Page II -15 and the Vacant Land
Subject to Development Restrictions Map on Page II -24.
Chair/Meyer thanked Mr. Neely for his presentation and
commented that it was thoroughly investigated and very well
presented.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 9:20pm.
RECONVENED: The meeting was reconvened at 9:32 p.m.
C/Flamenbaum inquired whether, in terms of the HCD housing
requirements, there is a density requirement or just number
of units.
Karen Warner replied that there is a number of units
required and there is a density criteria. As long as the
criteria for the income is met, any density achievable is
OK.
Chair/Meyer requested everyone take a few minutes and focus
on what the philosophy of the Planning Commissioner should
be in terms of review of the Housing Element. He stated
that only 40% of the cities in the state of California have
been able to meet the State's criteria. He also noted that
the Planning Commission has been presented with the GPAC
presentation of the Housing Element which is a constraints
type of approach indicating that it's impossible for the
City of Diamond Bar to comply with the numbers given by SLAG
August 1, 1994 Page 10 Planning commission
because of a number of unique elements that are particular
to Diamond Bar.
Chair/Meyer continued, there may be a third approach which
would be a combination of both, indicating a willingness to
comply with the State goals but also outlining and
elaborating on the constraints of the City. This may make
it unrealistic to try and obtain the 781 units that have
been allocated to the City. Chair/Meyer asked the
Commissioners to think about their philosophy and take a few
minutes to share it.
C/Flamenbaum responded that it's a shame that our children
can't live in the city in which they were raised. We should
try to do what we can to comply with State requirements to
aid low income families.
C/Schad agreed with C/Flamenbaum.
V Chair/Plunk stated she thinks Diamond Bar should try to
comply.
Chair/Meyer stated if the Commission is going to comply, the
densities will need to increase. There should really be an
investigation in terms of the constraints as hillside
properties, circulation, etc. We should also do what's
possible to make a valiant effort to comply with our RHNA
(Regional Housing Allocation) goals. He further stated his
approach would be to take combination of the both -to take a
compliance approach and certainly identify the constraints
of this community so when the round of new RHNA numbers come
up we can actually present some viable input at that time.
C/Fong stated he doesn't think it's possible to comply 100%.
He continued on with questions on Table II -4 , Page II -14.
CDD/DeStefano brought up another alternative equally fraught
with public policy issues and issues of balance and possible
political turmoil. That is the issue of changing some of
the currently designated commercial or industrial properties
that are now vacant, to residential, using Gateway Corporate
Center as an example. There is a need to provide more jobs
in Diamond Bar . There is a great imbalance in terms of jobs
and housing. Diamond Bar is an export city, exporting
labor, sales tax, etc.; we would be reducing our inventory
of commercially developable properties and the economical
development return that the City gets on that, in terms of
taxation, jobs and etc. It is an opportunity that presents
itself.
August 1, 1994 Page 11 Planning Commission
Chair/Meyer suggested going through the Housing Element page
by page.
Chair/Meyer commented on citizen participation on Page II -2
stating it should be 38 members not 36.
C/Plunk requested that staff check for validity of the
sentence on Page II -4, Paragraph 2; "Both the City's Code
Enforcement Officer and the Building Official indicate that
Diamond Bar has very few units that are considered
substandard, and all are suitable for rehabilitation."
Chair/Meyer suggested that additional documentation be added
to the Table on Page II -5 showing the income level reflects
1994 figures.
C/Fong, Page II -14 footnote (1) under Vacant Land Acres for
Specific Plan should be footnote (2).
V Chair/Plunk commented this chart should be revisited.
There is also a need to talk about the slope densities
before discussing rural/residential.
C/Flamenbaum expressed concerns about Table II -4 making an
assumption of 2.5 acres per unit as reflected in footnote
(1) .
CDD/DeStefano stated that the 2.5 acre per dwelling unit was
an assumption based upon the known facts regarding many of
the remaining vacant rural/residential properties that are
at or may even exceed 30% slopes. Based upon the chart in
the Land Use Elements, 1 - 2.5 acres was picked as a medium
point to come up with a number.
Chair/Meyer noted II -14 was an important section and would
have to be revisited
C/Flamenbaum, noted on page II -15 Housing Opportunity Areas
doesn't reflect the land use categories that are called out.
Rural/Residential has an average of 2.5 acres per unit.
Then we say 0 - 1 dwelling unit per acre and that isn't
shown anywhere. On the map it says 1 unit per acre.
Karen Warner responded that the map should either say
maximum units/acre to clarify that's the upper end of the
density range or be modified to use the actual density that
was used for the basis of calculating dwelling units. In
the Rural it would be the 2.5 acres/unit average. That's
why it says 1 unit/acre for Rural, because that is the
maximum. Either of those two could be used.
August 1, 1994 Page 12 Planning Commission
CDD/DeStefano suggested a 3rd alternative would be to list
the actual Slope Density Table, under Rural/Residential or
the 1 unit/acre category. Take Table II -4 as base and change
the map to reflect the table.
V Chair/Plunk had questions regarding an apparent conflict
between the maps on II -22 and II -24.
CDD/DeStefano responded that the maps represent a graphic
portrayal of what the text is saying. The surgical
precision with which one speaker has examined these maps is
not necessary for a map in the General Plan at this scale.
CDD/DeStefano suggested, it would be useful to the staff for
the Commission to determine which maps they desire and then
direct staff which inconsistences to reconcile.
V Chair/Plunk suggested the Commission go through the
document and revisit the maps. The other Commissioners
concurred.
C/Fong, stated on page II -16, 2nd Paragraph, that 676 units
does not include Tres Hermanos which is currently designated
Agricultural.
CDD/DeStefano stated C/Fong is correct. Tres Hermanos is not
included because there are 110" dwelling units allocated for
Tres Hermanos. The area is supposed to remain agricultural
for the foreseeable future based upon this General Plan with
the intent that a specific plan be prepared in the future.
CDD/DeStefano responding to an inquiry by C/Flamenbaum
stated that the Hillside Ordinance does not contain a slope
density formula. It would require modification to the
Hillside Management Ordinance to insert such a slope density
formula. It would dramatically alter the number of dwelling
units that would be permitted on the steeper slope
properties.
C/Flamenbaum questioned what would be the existing units per
acre that would be permitted under the existing Hillside
Management Ordinance.
CDD/DeStefano stated that it would be the underlying zoning
plus whatever environmental constraints the site has instead
of considerations as a result of the Hillside Management
Ordinance that cause a lessening of the density.
CDD/DeStefano continued that the previous General Plan's
Rural/Residential classification had a density of 1
unit/acre and there were several hundred more acres
August 1, 1994 Page 13 Planning Commission
classified Rural Residential. Those two factors created the
majority of the 1,900 additional dwelling units that were
anticipated within that plan. By lowering the density and
reducing the number of rural residential acres, the figure
drops dramatically down to 676.
C/Flamenbaum stated that previously 1,220 dwelling units
could have been built on the existing land that was
classified Rural Residential. Today, the net result is 136
dwelling units can be built based upon what we think the
existing slope is, resulting in an apparent 90% reduction.
He asked ICA/Montgomery what the landowners could do to the
City.
ICA/Montgomery answered, that ratio would be considered a
reasonable down zoning with no cause of action as long as
there is a reasonable use of the property. One would have to
be denied all reasonable use of their property and those
definitions have been skirted back and forth.
V Chair/Plunk questioned what happens if the court decides
that the City is denying the reasonable use of property.
ICA/Montgomery replied that the test on that is what is
reasonable and down zoning to 1 unit per 20 acres has been
approved. The benefit of the doubt goes to legislative
body.
V Chair/Plunk, asked whether the slope classification, was
taken from another city.
CDD/DeStefano replied that it was brought forward by GPAC
members.
C/Schad responded that this was heavily debated for several
days by GPAC. This was their final conclusion on it. He
stated he thinks it is a good ratio and should remain as is.
Motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong that the
slope density formula should only apply to rural
residential. The motion failed 3-2 as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad & Fong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, V /Chair Plunk,
Chair/Meyer
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Chair/Meyer questioned whether there should be a Slope
Density Formula at all.
August 11 1994 Page 14 Planning Commission
C/Schad, expressed his belief that Diamond Bar should have a
Slope Density Formula because of the geology of the city in
general, and to maintain the rural appearance.
Chair/Meyer asked the commissioners if the slope density
formula should apply to all property. The response was no.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out there is another alternative that
has yet to be expressed and which is to permit density
transfers. Concentrate the density on the areas that you
deem to be suitable for development while maintaining in
perpetuity the balance of the development site. This would
apply to the remaining vacant land and how to deal with that
in terms of preservation, element and in this case housing
issues, etc.
Chair/Meyer asked the if the Commissioners want a Slope
Density Formula?
C/Fong replied since it is what the people want, it should
be left in.
Chair/Meyer stated, "The question is - Should there be a
Slope Density Formula?"
C/Flamenbaum said NO; C/Fong, C/Schad, and Chair/Meyer said
YES; and V/Chair Plunk -ABSTAINED
Chair/Meyer directed the Commissioners to think about the
Slope Density Formula, what the percentages ought to be and
the impact on housing before the next meeting.
V Chair/Plunk directed Staff to advise the Commission of
Slope Density Formulas in different cities and what they
are.
Chair/Meyer advised that the next regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meetings are the 8th and 22nd of August.
He asked that the Commission consider having an additional
General Plan meeting on Monday, August 15, 1994.
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by V/Chair Plunk to continue
the General Plan deliberations to Aug. 8th and reopen the
General Plan public hearing on Aug. 8th, V/Chair Plunk
seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
August 1, 1994 Page 15 Planning Commission
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried
unanimously to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:15
p.m. to Monday, August 8, 1994, at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
eDees�Stefan
ecreary
Attest:
Chairman
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865
East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by VC/Plunk.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk,
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and
Fong
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu;
Associate Planner Rob Searcy; Interim
City Attorney Michael Montgomery;
Engineer Consultant Mike Myers;
Consultant Karen Warner; Administrative
Secretary Marilyn Ortiz
C/Flamenbaum arrived at 7:35 p.m.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, feels the slope density
issue should again be opened to public comment. He stated
the Hillside Management Ordinance should have been included
in the Land Use Element and not the Housing Element.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, asked if the Planning
Commission feels any obligation to consider the General Plan
prepared by GPAC or is the Planning Commission working
independent of the GPAC document.
Chair/Meyer responded the document being reviewed is the
General Plan presented by the General Plan Advisory
Committee. The Planning Commission is acting in an advisory
capacity, reviewing the document, and making recommendations
to the City Council based upon the State law.
Chair/Meyer declared the public comment portion of the
meeting closed.
August 8, 1994 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of July 11, 1994
VC/Plunk referring to Page 7
unanimously" be corrected to
vote. Correct the spelling
Page 12 to read: "Make the
Planning Commission
asked that "carried
reflect the actual split
in the first sentence on
fact known..."
C/Fong requested Page 4, line four from the bottom, "to
applicant's property" be correct "to appellant's
property". On Page 6, third paragraph from the bottom,
second line, he questioned the term "knitted" soil.
CDD/DeStefano suggested the sentence be changed to
read: "C/Schad indicated his concerns with the
retaining wall, the footings, and the soil." C/Fong
continued, on Page 14, third paragraph, correct
spelling of Christopher Lee to "Li".
C/Schad requested corrected spelling of his name.
Chair/Meyer suggested the minutes could be shortened.
A motion was made by VC/Plunk and seconded by C/Schad
to adopt the minutes as amended. The motion was
carried 4-1 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk, Schad, Fong,
Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum
CDD/DeStefano explained the city is currently taking
bids for a new transcriptionist.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 93-3, Variance No. 93-1, Oak
Tree Permit No. 93-1, Negative Declaration No. 93-5.
AP/Lungu reported that on May 24, 1993 the Planning
Commission approved Variance No. 93-1, Conditional Use
Permit No. 93-3, and Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1 with
conditions as stated in Resolution 93-13. Condition
(X) of this resolution stated that the grant shall be
valid for one year and must be exercised (i.e.
August 8, 1994 Page 3 Planning commission
substantial construction including but not limited to
grading, footings, foundations etc.) within that period
or the grant would expire. A one year extension may be
requested in writing and submitted to the city 30 days
prior to the expiration date of this grant.
In addition, a grading and drainage easement was to be
obtained prior to the recordation, and recorded prior
to the issuance of a grading permit. As a result of
these conditions, on June 6, 1994, the engineer for the
subject property submitted a letter dated May 23, 1994
requesting an extension of time. The letter indicates
there were difficulties regarding the slope and
drainage easements and the proper legal terminology for
the recorded document. Resolving these difficulties to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer took longer than
anticipated. The signature of the property owner of
Lot 158 could not be obtained until after June 1, 1994.
Therefore, an extension of time was needed.
The only change from the previously approved resolution
is the deletion of a retaining wall between lot 156 and
lot 158.
Since the Planning Commission's approval, the applicant
has worked with the City to meet all of the conditions
of approval. There are a few outstanding conditions,
which will be met prior to the issuance of the grading
permit. After conferring with the City Engineer and
reviewing the conditions of approval, it appears the
applicant will be ready to obtain a grading permit in
the near future. Although the Code permits a one year
extension, staff believes a six month extension of time
is adequate.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission grant a six
month extension.
Carl Cobbins, Engineer for the project, stated all of
the conditions have been met and easements have been
recorded.
Chair/Meyer asked why it has taken a year to obtain the
signatures and the easements.
Mr. Cobbins responded part of the reason was getting
the final approvals from the City's Engineering
Department. The problem was the wording of the
August 8, 1994 Page 4 Planning commission
easements and changing City Attorney during the
process.
CE/Myers stated the applicant needs to start the work
immediately because of the rainy season. If there is
not substantial work done, damage could be caused to
this project and adjacent properties.
Chair/Meyer asked if the request for an extension might
be a delay tactic.
CE/Myers responded he could not speak to the motivation
of the client.
Jake Williams, owner of the property, stated the
biggest conflict was the confrontation with the prior
City Attorney. The two attorneys seemed to have
different views of how the easements should be worded
and it took months to resolve. He indicated he had
been trying to get the project completed for three or
four years. Finally, he put the matter in the hands of
the professionals. It is still not resolved. He
further stated he is very motivated and has only
stopped work because of the City.
In response to Chair/Meyer, Mr. Williams stated he
could complete the work within 20 days.
VC/Plunk asked if the work could be completed by
October 15.
CE/Myers responded there is considerable shortage of
fill material which could seriously impact any progress
of the work. He continued that if the work is not
completed by October 1, he would like to see a
submittal of an erosion control plan. It is feasible
to complete the project by October 15.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed.
A motion was made by VC/Plunk and seconded by C/Schad
to grant the six month extension with the understanding
that substantial grading will be completed by October
1, 1994. If not, an erosion control plan will be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
motion was carried 4-1 with the following roll call
vote:
August 8, 1994 Page 5 Planning Commission
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk, Schad, Fong,
Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
OLD BUSINESS - None
Chair Meyer directed staff to respond to a letter received
from the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association regarding
the development of Tract No. 47850.
NEW BUSINESS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. ADOPTION OF THE 1994 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
A. HOUSING ELEMENT
CDD/DeStefano reported the Planning Commission
concluded the last meeting with a discussion regarding
Page II -14, Table II -4. The numbers, in terms of
potential residential development, have been modified
and will again be modified pending further review. The
numbers also change on Page II -16. The issue is
insuring that proper sites have been identified where
vacant land exists.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, stated the Planning
Commission should follow the guidelines of the Hillside
Management Ordinance in the development of a slope
density formula.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, indicated he agrees
with Mr. Maxwell. He further stated he believes the
emphasis should be on the number of units rather than
on the buildable land. The Hillside Management
Ordinance should be written after the policy statement
is made in the General Plan.
Bob Huff, 1641 Firehollow Drive, commented the
completed revisions are well done. The GPAC slope
August 8, 1994 Page 6 Planning Commission
density formula together with the Hillside Management
Ordinance results in a no -growth situation. He further
observed natural hillsides are nice, but landscaped
open space is not a sin. He encourages the Planning
Commission to support clustering houses to maximize
open space.
Steve Nice, 2621 Rising Star Drive, stated in his
opinion the Planning Commission should review the plan
submitted by GPAC to determine any technical and/or
legal difficulties. This is a citizens' based
committee and a citizens' prepared General Plan. It
should be edited and passed along to the City Council.
Gary Neely, 344 Canoecove Drive, referred to the chart
on Page II -14. He indicated the chart is not accurate
according to the information he has. He offered a
revised chart to the Planning Commission.
Wilbur Smith stated he did not understand how the
Planning Commission can take information from a private
citizen.
CDD/DeStefano indicated the table is a result of the
GPAC Land Use Map. When the Planning Commission
concludes its recommendations for the Land Use Map, the
table will be refined.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
C/Fong suggested the Planning Commission defer the
housing density portion of the Housing Element to a
later date and continue with the Housing Element
beginning on Page II -17, Government Restraint, finish
the Housing Element and go into the Circulation
Element.
VC/Plunk indicated she has sufficient information to
proceed with the Housing Element. However, there is an
alternative document on the Circulation Element
recommended by the Traffic and Transportation
Commission. The Planning Commission needs concurrence
as to which document will be utilized.
August 8, 1994 Page 7 Planning Commission
Chair/Meyer announced the Planning Commission would
continue with the Housing Element and defer the
Circulation Element to a later meeting. As a result,
CE/Myers was excused from the meeting.
C/Flamenbaum requested that Page II -21, paragraph four,
the last sentence be changed to read: "The 800 acre
Tres Hermanos parcel will also require installation of
infrastructure."
Staff was directed to update b. Land and Construction
Costs, on Page II -21.
Responding to C/Flamenbaum, Karen Warner recommended
the first sentence of the last paragraph on Page II -21
be omitted. The Commission concurred.
C/Fong indicated "the" should be stricken from the
fifth paragraph, Page II -21 so the sentence reads: "In
addition, Diamond Bar is a "housing rich/jobs poor
community", and needs the limited amount of commercial
land designated in the General Plan to maintain its tax
base to serve the residential population."
VC/Plunk suggested the second sentence of paragraph two
on Page II -21 be changed to read: "Development on such
severely sloped parcels may require modification to the
natural terrain which significantly adds to the cost of
development. She further stated "moderate to high"
should be stricken from the first sentence of the third
paragraph, Page II -21 so the sentence reads: In
addition to slope constraints, many of the hillsides in
Diamond Bar have a potential for landslides."
C/Flamenbaum recommended the second paragraph, e.
Contractual Constraints, be removed.
Chair/Meyer requested that paragraph three under d.
Speculation, Page II -23, be stricken.
VC/Plunk suggested "open space" in the third paragraph,
e. Contractual Constraints, Page II -23 be changed to
"vacant land" so the sentence reads: "Major vacant
land areas in Diamond Bar subject to development
restrictions are mapped in Figure II -3."
C/Fong recommended titling the Figure II -3 map on Page
II -24 "General Locations of Vacant Lands Subject to
August 8, 1994 Page 8 Planning commission
Development Restrictions".
The commission directed staff to reword Goal 1. Page
II -26.
C/Flamenbaum recommended changing Strategy 1.1.1, Page
II -26 to read: "Where feasible, consider
commercial/office developments which propose a
residential component as part of an overall mixed use
concept."
C/Flamenbaum recommended changing the first sentence of
Strategy 1.1.2 to read: "Ensure the City's development
standards do not unduly constrain the creation of
affordable housing."
VC/Plunk questioned the legality of Strategy 1.1.10 on
Page II -27. Karen Warner responded that whenever the
City is offering some form of concession, additional
restrictions may be placed on those units.
C/Fong recommended the last bullet under Strategy
1.1.6, Page II -27 be changed to read: "Maintain timely
review of EIRs as required by law."
VC/Plunk recommended with respect to Goal 2., Page II -
27, the prior statement be reinstated to read:
"Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all
economic segments of the community, regardless of age,
race, ethnic background, national origin, religion,
family size, sex, marital status, physical conditions,
or any other arbitrary factors."
Chair/Meyer pointed out Objective 2.1 should indicate
1130 Low Income (Seasons Apartment)".
CDD/DeStefano suggested under Strategy 2.2.1, Page II -
28, delete "counter" and add in its place "places
throughout the City" so that the strategy reads:
"Continue to distribute information regarding the
activities of the City to assist in the resolution of
housing discrimination cases through placement of fair
housing brochures at public places throughout the City
and provide referrals to the Long Beach Fair Housing
Council."
VC/Plunk recommended adding "presently" to the last
sentence, third bullet under California Housing Finance
August 8, 1994 Page 9 Planning Commission
Agency on Page II -30 so that it reads: "Loans are due
on sale and presently carry 3 percent simple interest."
VC/Plunk suggested add "As appropriate" and strike
"housing" under Strategy 2.3.8, Page II -31, so that it
now reads: "As appropriate, encourage the development
of child care facilities in conjunction with new
development."
A motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by
Chair/Meyer to add back strategy 3.1.3 on Page II -32.
The motion was carried 4-1 with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Chair/Meyer,
C/Fong, VC/Plunk
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
VC/Plunk recommended adding Strategy 3.1.5, Page II -32
to read: "Enforce City's Property Maintenance
Ordinance to maintain the quality of existing
neighborhoods."
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
The Planning Commission consensus is to include slope
density in the General Plan and adopt the definition as
it exists in the Hillside Management Ordinance.
A motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by
Chair/Meyer, that the slope density factor would
initially kick in at 25 percent. The motion was
carried 3-2 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk,
Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Chair/Meyer suggested that members of the Commission
review neighboring hillsides and come back to address
August 8, 1994 Page 10 Planning commission
the slope density factor.
C/Flamenbaum suggested his motion could be revisited
following the review.
A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by
C/Flamenbaum to adjourn the meeting. The motion was
carried unanimously.
Chair/Meyer declared the meeting adjourned at 11:20
p.m.
Attest:
Davi r /
Chairman
Respectfully,
j
JaSn�IDeStefatno
Secretary
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 15, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management District Office, 21865 East
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner
Flamenbaum.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk,
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and
Fong
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy;
Interim City Attorney Michael
Montgomery; Engineer Consultant Mike
Myers; Administrative Secretary Marilyn
Ortiz
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, feels the public is not
being given enough opportunity to speak.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, believes the Planning
Commission should start with the document furnished by GPAC
and delivered to the Commission by CDD/DeStefano.
Barbara Bruske, Diamond Bar, appreciates being contacted by
VC/Plunk. She feels GPAC submitted a "citizens plan" and
the Planning Commission is taking too long in its
deliberation.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, Diamond Bar, feels the opinion of
the GPAC members is not being respected by the Planning
Commission.
Bob Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow Drive, thanked the Planning
Commission for doing a good job.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Comment portion of the
meeting closed.
August 15, 1994 Page 2 Planning Commission
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. ADOPTION OF THE 1994 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
A. HOUSING ELEMENT
CDD/DeStefano reported the Planning Commission
concluded the last meeting with a discussion regarding
slope density and what it means in terms of the
remaining vacant properties in Diamond Bar which are
suitable for development. In response to a request by
the Planning Commission, staff provided the Commission
a handout indicating the slope percentages on these
vacant properties.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission conclude the
review of the Housing Element and move on to the
Circulation Element.
GPAC has presented the Circulation Element document for
the Planning Commission review. In February, 1994,
Gary Neely presented an alternative viewpoint of the
Circulation Element. His document was not reviewed by
GPAC. On June 30, 1994, GPAC indicated the material
presented by Mr. Neely warranted further study by the
Planning Commission and the City Council. Included in
the Planning Commission packet is the Traffic and
Transportation Commission/Neely version of the
Circulation Element in addition to the GPAC recommended
Circulation Element. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission review the GPAC document as the basis for
analysis and recommendation to the City Council.
CDD/DeStefano stated a zone change request has been
received from Abel Howe regarding property at 1035 1/2
Banning Way. Mr. Howe desires a change from
agricultural zoning to a commercial class which would
permit a proposed motel and restaurant project and
other commercial uses. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission receive and file the letter and direct staff
to communicate to the property owner the process for
filing a zone change.
August 15, 1994 Page 3 Planning Commission
CDD/DeStefano further stated a copy of an August 12,
1994 City On -Line communication from Gary Neely
regarding the Housing Element is included in the
Commission packet.
Chair/Meyer reiterated the Planning Commission
consensus is that a slope density formula is a
reasonable approach for setting a control measure on
hillside development and requested the Commission to
continue the discussion for setting policy framework
for a slope density formula.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing portion of the
meeting reopened with regard to the Housing Element.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. 1994 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
A. HOUSING ELEMENT
Gary Neely, 344 Canoecove Drive, stated the figures on
table II -1 on Page II -15 are incorrect; Table II -4 on
Page II -14 is incorrect and there is no itemization and
no definition of mixed use ranges. He further stated a
compromise for slope density would be the GPAC formula
for rural residential and the Planning Commission
formula for the other four residential areas.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, explained the slope
density formula was arrived at because of the
geotechnical problems of the back area of "The
Country".
Responding to C/Fong, Mr. Smith stated the GPAC slope
density applies to rural residential.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, feels the slope
density should apply to all designations and not just
rural residential.
CDD/DeStefano commented the tables referenced by Mr.
Neely are the tables presented to the Planning
Commission based upon GPAC's recommendations for land
use designations. The number of acres that appear to
be available for development and the amount of feasible
dwelling units based upon the average slopes of the
properties, is a summation provided by the consultant.
August 15, 1994 Page 4 Planning Commission
In addition, the maps are a compilation of GPAC's
recommendations. With respect to the percentages of
slope and the identified properties, a GPAC member
raised the issue of applying a slope density formula
specifically to the rural residential land use
classification at the May 24, 1994 GPAC meeting. From
the discussion by the GPAC members, a decision was made
to apply the slope density formula to rural residential
properties only.
With respect to the Housing Element, GPAC's direction
to staff and recommendation to the Planning Commission
was to consider a more "constraints oriented" Housing
Element response to the State of California. The
reason the slope density formula is repeated in the
Housing Element is to show there is not a great deal of
vacant property remaining in Diamond Bar, and what is
left may not be leveled without due consideration.
Therefore, Diamond Bar may not be able to meet the
mandate to provide all of the low and moderate income
housing referred to in the State of California
communications.
A motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by
C/Schad to apply the slope density to the City of
Diamond Bar and its sphere of influence. The motion
was carried 4-1 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong
Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
RECESSED:
RECONVENED:
Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:24 p.m.
Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting.at 8:40 p.m.
A motion was made by C/Fong and seconded by C/Schad to
table the slope density formula question and go on to
the Circulation Element. The motion was carried 3-2
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad, VC/Plunk
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: C/Flamenbaum, Chair Meyer
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
August 15, 1994 Page 5 Planning Commission
C/Fong suggested on Page II -14, third paragraph, the
last sentence be corrected to show 14.2 acres. Table
II -4 should be corrected by staff. CDD/DeStefano
indicated there will be additional changes/corrections
to Table II -4.
On Page II -22, Figure II -2, legend "Historic Landslide"
add to the footnote a second sentence to read:
"Location and existence of landslides must be confirmed
by site specific investigations."
B. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
CDD/DeStefano stated the Circulation Element is a major
component in the vision statements which incorporated a
reduction of regional traffic impact on local streets.
The issue is whether Diamond Bar will continue to
accommodate the traffic or incorporate measures which
will discourage traffic from using Diamond Bar as a
bypass.
This element is one of the seven required elements of
the General Plan and is most closely related to the
Land Use Element. Therefore, consistency is a most
important component of the application of the goals,
objectives, and strategies within the element. In
addition to streets, highways, and the movement of
automobiles through the community, railroad, aviation,
bicycle, horse trail and transit services, etc. and the
movement of goods and services, must be considered.
Because Diamond Bar is substantially developed and is
immediately adjacent to, and part of, the regional
network of transportation routes, the opportunities are
somewhat limited. Consideration must be given to the
placement of some new future roads within the community
and its sphere of influence and expanding the existing
capacity of the current major intersections.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission utilize
the GPAC document in its review process together with
the background guidelines provided by the State of
California Office of Planning and Research.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing portion of the
meeting open with respect to the Circulation Element.
August 15, 1994 Page 6 Planning Commission
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, again stated the
Planning Commission is not giving the public time to
present their input.
Gary Neely, 344 Canoecove Drive, stated he did not
write the submitted document. The document was edited
from OPR, MEA and DKS documents except for the portion
regarding Tres Hermanos, which he did write. He
indicated the Traffic and Transportation Commission
asked him to participate in the process. He questioned
the reason staff did not present the Traffic and
Transportation Commission document along with the GPAC
document. He supports the document which the Traffic
and Transportation Commission has presented to the
Planning Commission.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, stated he has not
received the requested information regarding
projections and comparisons of traffic flow with
neighboring communities. He is also concerned that
there have been no definitive suggestions formulated to
improve future projected traffic flow in Diamond Bar.
Responding to VC/Plunk, Mr. Smith indicated the traffic
problems in Southern California are characteristic of
the area, and it is unreasonable to expect that Diamond
Bar will have no traffic problems when the surrounding
communities have significant traffic problems. Land
use intensity can be controlled by the city, whereas,
traffic cannot be controlled to an unreasonable degree
since Diamond Bar is part of a traffic corridor
connecting other communities.
Bob Huff, 1640 Fire Hollow Drive, stated he believes
GPAC is against a road through Tonner Canyon. He feels
the Traffic and Transportation Commission document
presented to GPAC by Commissioner Chavers merits
consideration by the Planning Commission.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, Diamond Bar, indicated GPAC
made a concerted effort to incorporate the public's
wishes and if Mr. Neely felt the GPAC document was so
flawed, he had ample opportunity to present it to the
Planning Commission. The Circulation Element is one of
the most sensitive elements of the General Plan and can
be very divisive.
August 15, 1994 Page 7 Planning Commission
Martha Bruske, Diamond Bar, asked the Planning
Commission to consider the Traffic and Transportation
Commission document. She stated she is against a road
through Tonner Canyon. Mrs. Bruske again asked for a
traffic light at Gold Rush Drive and Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
Responding to VC/Plunk, CE/Myers indicated there is a
traffic signal proposed for Gold Rush Drive and Diamond
Bar Boulevard. In response to Chair/Meyer, CE/Myers
indicated the cost for a traffic signal is
approximately $150,000 and the signals will be
synchronized. The cost is funded by gas tax, general
fund and developers fees. CDD/De5tefano indicated
traffic signals are also funded by other grants from
the State of California.
Ken Anderson, Diamond Bar, asked if there would be a
final version of the Circulation Element from the
Traffic and Transportation Commission, or is the
document which was distributed one which the Planning
Commission is considering to approve or replace the
existing GPAC document.
Chair/Meyer responded the Planning Commission does not
approve or replace any part of the document. The
Commission merely makes recommendations to the City
Council. The document received for consideration was
created by the GPAC and during the public hearing
process the commission attempts to obtain input from
every source.
Mr. Anderson continued he believes the DKS document is
a flawed document. Building a Tonner Canyon road will
not help the traffic situation in Diamond Bar. He
would like to see vision in the Circulation Element
with inclusion of alternate traffic methods such as
bike paths and consideration of related noise levels.
VC/Plunk stated the MTA is planning a regional
coordination meeting on September 6, 1994.
Max Maxwell, Diamond Bar, would like to see a
correction of the SR57 and SR60 merger as a solution to
Diamond Bar's traffic problems. He suggested the
Tonner Canyon road could connect to the SR55 instead of
the SR57.
August 15, 1994 Page 8 Planning Commission
Gary Neely, Diamond Bar, stated there are only four
suggested changes in the Traffic and Transportation
Commission document. There is no Tonner Canyon Road
proposed in either document. There is a road called
"Tonner Canyon Scenic Highway" which does not go
through the canyon.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Regarding Page V-5, Table V-1, last sentence,
C/Flamenbaum suggested striking the word "desirable".
The commission concurred.
A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by
C/Flamenbaum to accept the Circulation Element as
recommended by GPAC with the correction recommended by
C/Flamenbaum.
VC/Plunk stated that to offhandedly and for purposes of
expediency adopt the Circulation Element without
entertaining the Traffic and Transportation Commission
input, is foolish. Chair/Meyer stated he agrees.
VC/Plunk asked staff if the Traffic and Transportation
Commission document could be merged with the GPAC
document.
CE/Myers indicated that since there has not been a
review of the Traffic and Transportation Commission
document it could be a very difficult task of
wordsmithing.
The motion was defeated 3-2 with the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Schad, Flamenbaum
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Fong, VC/Plunk,
Chair/Meyer
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
CDD/DeStefano suggested consideration of portions of
the Traffic and Transportation Commission document. He
cautioned that too much detail would necessitate a
General Plan Amendment if changes became necessary.
August 15, 1994 Page 9 Planning commission
C/Flamenbaum asked if a Tonner Canyon road is
warranted. He is against the road and believes it will
merely move the traffic flow from one area of Diamond
Bar to another and not cure the problem.
C/Fong stated he is also against the road and that
solutions should be considered outside the City of
Diamond Bar and its sphere of influence.
C/Schad indicated he and the City of Brea, are against
a road through Tonner Canyon.
VC/Plunk stated, as an alternative, she would consider
a road around Tonner Canyon.
C/Fong suggested the Planning Commission include the
encouragement of additional mass transit within the
Circulation Element. The emphasis should be on moving
people and goods, not automobiles.
A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by
C/Flamenbaum that there be no road built through the
area referred to as Tonner Canyon.
Chair/Meyer asked how this recommendation fits in with
the regional scheme.
C/Schad responded he is working with a Whittier group
on the Chino Hills/Puente Hills wildlife corridor
studies which involves 11 cities. The purpose is to
preserve and improve wildlife corridor movements which
were existing prior to the influx of man. A road in
Tonner Canyon will sever that possibility.
C/Flamenbaum stated according to the July 18, 1994
Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting minutes,
council member Ansari is a member of the Four -Corners
Committee. Thus, there appears to be contact with
neighboring communities regarding Tonner Canyon.
C/Flamenbaum called for the question.
The motion was passed 4-1 with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, Flamenbaum,
Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk
August 15, 1994
Page 10 Planning Commission
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
A motion was made by C/Fong and seconded by C/Schad to
modify Page V-14, Strategy 1.1.4, last sentence, to
read: "In recognition of the environmental sensitivity
of SEA15, no major transportation corridor is to be
constructed through Tonner Canyon." The motion failed
3-2 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk,
Chair/Meyer
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
A motion was made by VC/Plunk and seconded by
Chair/Meyer to accept GPAC's recommendation. The
motion was carried 3-2 with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk, Chair/Meyer,
Flamenbaum
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Chair/Meyer asked the Planning Commission to complete
the Housing Element slope density issue and the
Circulation Element at the next meeting.
C/Flamenbaum addressed the four suggested Neely
changes. The first strategy, 1.1.14, has been dealt
with by the Planning Commission. The second strategy,
1.1.6, appears to offer no significant change.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that Mr. Neely's suggested
language for strategy 1.1.6 could be incorporated as a
new strategy 1.1.7.
C/Flamenbaum suggested strategy 1.1.7 is already
covered throughout the document with the exception of
the proposed six lanes on Diamond Bar Boulevard. The
Commission unanimously rejected Mr. Neely's suggestion.
CDD/DeStefano suggested the inclusion of Mr. Neely's
strategy 1.3.5. The commission concurred.
August 15, 1994 Page 11 Planning Commission
C/Flamenbaum stated Mr. Neely's strategy 1.3.2 warrants
more discussion and debate at the next meeting.
A motion was made by C/Fong and seconded by
C/Flamenbaum to adjourn the meeting. The motion was
carried unanimously.
Chair/Meyer declared the meeting adjourned at 11:32
p.m. to be continued August 23, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at
the South Coast Air Quality Management District office.
Respectfully,
James DeStefan
Secretary
Attes