Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/23/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APRIL 23, 1992 CALL TO ORDER:Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. at the. Diamond Bar Library, 1061 South Grand Ave., Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: VC/Gravdahl. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Beke, Vice Chairman Gravdahl, and Chairman Chavers. Commissioner Cheng arrived at 6:45 p.m. Commissioner Ury was absent (excused). Also present were Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Associate Engineer David Liu, and Sgt. Rawlings. MINUTES: Apr. 9, 1992 C/Beke requested the Minutes of April 9, 1992 be amended on page 2, fifth line, to read "appear"; page 3, fifth paragraph, to read "...objecting to..."; page 5, second paragraph, to replace "with" with "giving"; to properly spell the name Ed Rugel, page 8, third bullet, to properly spell "borne"; page 8, second paragraph, to properly spell "past", and page 9, second paragraph, to change "signal" to "signs". Chair/Chavers requested the minutes to be amended on page 1, to properly spell the name Rhonda Aihara, and Chinook; page 1, last paragraph, to indicate 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., and to properly spell "rumble" strip; and page three, to properly spell Carlos Kilburg and to indicate that he is head of the crossing guard service for Diamond Bar. Chair/Chavers questioned the accuracy of the motions, as reflected on page 4 ,and page 5. He stated that he will accept the motions as is but requested staff to be more cautious and accurate in the future. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by Chair/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept the Minutes of April 9., 1992, as amended. COMMISSION C/Beke informed the Commission that he will be able COMMENTS: to attend the Planning Commission public hearing meeting on May 4, 1992, the Traffic and Transportation meetings on May 14th, but not the June 11, 1992 meeting. AE/Liu reported that the Planning Commission has welcomed the TTC to attend the public hearing on May 4th to individually present comments regarding the Plan for Physical Mobility. April 23, 1992 Page 2 Chair/Chavers, noting that two of the Commissioners will be absent at the May 14th meeting, suggested that the Commission consider changing the meeting to May 21, 1992. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Clem Ziroli, with First Mortgage Corporation, located at 3230 Fallowfield, referring to the "No Parking from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m." sign recently posted, across the street from their office to stop car poolers from parking in the residential neighborhood, stated that,as a result, their employees now have to park further up the street, impacting more of the neighborhood. As residents of the community, they should have the right to park in front of their own building. He suggested that the Commission consider issuing permits to those who have a right to park there. C/Beke noted that, at the March 12th meeting, he had indicated that there should be substantial expression of support, from the people fronting further up the street, if they want the time limit extended in their area. The intention of the action was to get carpoolers out of the area. If the time is changed, it might solve the problem. Kathy Bandak, residing at 3210 Fallowfield, suggested that the time be changed to 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. to discourage the carpoolers, yet allow the First Mortgage Corporation employees to park in front of their building. Terry Robinson, residing at 3184 Fallowfield, complained that people have moved further into the neighborhood to park, and her neighborhood now looks like a parking lot. Chair/Chavers explained to Mr. Ziroli that businesses are expected to park itself within it's boundaries. Also, there are costs associated with a permit parking program. However, a permit wouldn't be needed with a "No Parking 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m." sign. He requested AE/Liu to meet with the residents, and bring back specific recommendations to the Commission, at the next agenda. Dale Farid, residing at 513 Rockridge, complained that because the left turn arrows on southbound Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs is placed over the through lane, and is not aligned with the left turn lanes, his wife went through the red light and received a ticket. He inquired if he could obtain a letter that indicates that the City acknowledges April 23, 1992 Page 3 that there is a problem with the intersection, and that they are in the process of correcting it. VC/Gravdahl suggested that Mr. Farid take a picture of the intersection. •Chair/Chavers requested staff to give Mr. Farid a copy of the March 12th minutes, which indicates that the Commission is aware of the problem with the left turn signals southbound Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs. NEW BUSINESS: Circulation AE/Liu reported that the Commission requested to Element Study meet tonight to specifically discuss the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Chair/Chavers explained that the Commission intended this to be a working discussion session to formally receive comments. This is the first, and only time, that the Commission has discussed the Circulation Element in a formal setting. He invited the members of the GPAC to give a brief summary on how the Circulation Element got to this point. Mr. Schad, a member of GPAC, stated that one of the prime issues that GPAC is against is the development of Tonner Canyon as a freeway to alleviate traffic. The City of Diamond Bar, per se, won't benefit from the road, but it will serve other communities better if we sacrifice some of the beautiful ways of life in Diamond Bar. Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Dr., an advocate for the construction of the Tonner Canyon Road, noted that the General Plan written by the residents of this community in 1979, indicated that the construction of a Tonner Canyon Road is the only viable solution to the traffic problem in the community. It is also documented, in the traffic study in the Plan for Physical Mobility, that the road should be built. Furthermore, the City of Diamond Bar has a contractual obligation with the tax pa ers from San Bernardino County to develop a Tonner Canyon Road. He noted that there are alternative routes for a road that will have a minimal amount of disturbance to the Canyon. He indicated the routes to the Commission on the displayed map. He further pointed out that the philosophy to constrict the traffic on Diamond Bar Blvd., and turn Grand Ave. into a toll road, as the solution of the traffic problem in the City of Diamond Bar, is a misplaced philosophy. April 23, 1992 Page 4 Don Schad, noting that Tonner Canyon is a significant waterway in itself, stated that the prime objection to having a major freeway, is that it will impact the ecology of the area permanently. The following are the key issues that the Commission would like to address: reference of Grand Ave. as a super highway; the street extensions of Sunset Crossing, Washington, and Lycoming, and Beaverhead; Tonner Canyon; the street classification of the other side of Sunset Crossing; Diamond Bar High School Parking; park -n - ride issue; constricting Diamond Bar Blvd.; the lack of street classification definitions; and the overall general wording of the Element. Chair/Chavers, referring to page B-2, inquired if the consultant and GPAC discussed how to designate, or classify some of these streets. He explained that if streets are classified as collectors because they function as such (Mountain Laurel, Kiowa Crest, and Maple Hill), then it sets a precedent for what other streets are called that are very similar. He suggested that there be a designation called residential collector. Greg Hummel explained that the classifications, which came from DKS and Associates, are more of a classification relative to street width and the potential to capacity. Chair/Chavers stated that because there is a lack of one of these maps, on page B-3, in the Goals and Policy section in the back of the document, people will rely on the existing conditions, which may not be the direction we want to go. He suggested that we participate in getting the classifications that we want. C/Beke, in response to Mr. Neely's suggestion to review the document line by line, explained that the Commission feels that the concepts are more important. Chair/Chavers explained that the Commission was not encouraged by any part of the City to have this meeting. The Commission was not requested to provide any formal input to the document. This is the first and only time that the Commission has acted upon this Element as a group. C/Beke stated that it is obvious that the Circulation Element is done by planners and environmentalists that have no desire to help April 23, 1992 Page 5 circulation in the City. We are deliberately trying to keep traffic out of this City. We are not trying to help regional circulation, even though we use other peoples roads. In referencing page D-3, Strategy 1.3.1, he stated that to not open up Sunset Crossing is wrong. It is needed for circulation, and should tie into Washington or Lycoming. If you don't want trucks on the road, then it should be posted. C/Cheng indicated that she is in favor of opening Sunset Crossing to help alleviate traffic. VC/Gravdahl stated that if Sunset Crossing is opened at the other end, over to Grand Ave., it will help alleviate the City of Industries traffic, but it will impact our residential neighborhoods to the east. Even though the document says to cul-de- sac Sunset Crossing, it goes on to describe the benefits to the City of Industry if it is opened up. He suggested eliminating any suggestion of Sunset Crossing. Chair/Chavers stated that, from a Circulation Element perspective, we need to have more specificity in terms of the goals and objectives. Rather than lumping examples together, it should state the specific action that we would like to see pursued. If an extension of Sunset Crossing is necessary to the west of the City boundary, a positive means to prevent intrusion into the neighborhood to the east should be developed. If they can't come up with a positive means to doing that, then the extension doesn't happen. Chair/Chavers suggested that the Commission advise the City Council that the Commission concurs that the opening of Sunset Crossing is ill advised, but in a regional sense it must be done. The Commission discussed the traffic impacts to the community if Sunset Crossing is opened. Chair/Chavers pointed out that the Commission does not have to resolve the mitigation here, but to require it. The General Plan must be defendable. In response to VC/Gravdahl's suggestion to delete mention of cul-de-sacing and the benefits to the City of Industry, Chair/Chavers stated that, as a community, we need to recognize that there is an overall need for that extension, and then protect our community. He pointed out that, in the future conditions, the extension of Sunset Crossing April 23, 1992 Page 6 describes all the benefits, and then further on it states that we don't want it. The document needs to be internally consistent. Following discussion, the Commission concurred that the Future Conditions should be limited to indicate that Sunset Crossing was planned in 1940 to be an extension, and currently it is not built. All other references to what it would do if it were built should be deleted. Chair/Chavers explained that it is appropriate to consider street restrictions on residential street, but you can't reference arterial functions with restrictions. The references to the traffic restrictions should be deleted. The reference of making Grand Ave. a super arterial should be deleted. The definition of super arterial, currently accepted in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside County, is an arterial with no driveways, signalized access only, with spacing of one quarter mile between the signalized access. He further suggested that the statement on page C-14, last sentence of last paragraph, which reads, "At the same time, if Grand Ave. cannot be accessed from Diamond Bar Blvd., the benefit of the Pathfinder improvement to through traffic is significantly reduced.", should be deleted. C/Beke pointed out that if you make it difficult to travel through the regional highways, then people will travel through the residential neighborhoods. Gary Neely stated that the suggestion for toll roads should be taken out. Chair/Chavers noted that toll roads cannot be developed for roadway improvements. He stated that using Grand Ave. as an example of where we would place toll roads is functionally illegal. C/Cheng suggested that the development of a Tonner Canyon road, that would have minimal impacts to the environment, should be considered. Gary Neely noted that the table on page C-13, indicates that the buildout of Tonner Canyon is a solution to the traffic problem, however, the document states that it shouldn't be done. The road can and should be built in an environmentally safe manner. April 23, 1992 Page 7 r-- C/Beke, concurring with Mr. Neely, stated that the document proves that Tonner Canyon is needed. A road can be built in such a way as to blend into the environment. Chair/Chavers stated that transportation corridor is important to the welfare of the remainder of Diamond Bar. From the environmental perspective, we must ask how much environmental damage we are doing, on Grand Ave. to east of Diamond Bar Blvd., by saving Tonner Canyon. We want to balance our needs. It is of no use to us as a community to deny that Tonner Canyon exists. Denying it will costs us. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting to May 21, 1992. 1 Attest: Todd avers Chairman 1 Respectively, avid Liu Associate Engineer