Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/18/1994CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JULY 18, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ortiz called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Conference Room 3 & 5, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners: Chavers, Gravdahl, Vice Chairman Istik, and Chairman Ortiz. Commissioner Esposito arrived at 7:35 p.m. staff: Senior Engineer, David Liu; Consultant Engineer, Mike Myers; Administrative Assistant, Tseday Aberra; and Engineering Secretary, Linda Smith. I. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Chair/Ortiz referred to and read excerpts from the City of Diamond Bar's, Traffic and Transportation Commission Handbook, revised March 12, 1992. Page 4, last paragraph, that the Chairperson is responsible for the maintenance of order and decorum at all times. No person should be allowed to speak who has not first been recognized by the Chair. All questions and remarks should be addressed to the Chair. Page 8, item #5, (The purpose of the Commission will be) to hear complaints and receive comments from citizens pertaining to traffic issues throughout the community and to make recommendations thereon to the City Council. Page 10, paragraph 5, Commission Members shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, to City employees, and to the public appearing before the Commission. A. Review/ discussion of Circulation Element .(Continued from July 14, 1994) SE/Liu stated that for tonight's meeting, Mr. Gary Neely has prepared an alternative Circulation Element for the Commission's review/discussion. Gary L. Neely, 344 Canoecove Drive, reported that the document being presented tonight is a completed version of a suggested alternative to the GPAC recommended Circulation Element. This alternative Circulation Element is a combination of documents taken from the Master Environmental Assessment document, the existing Circulation Element, the State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines document, and the Plan for Physical Mobility report by DKS. He read a carried motion from the draft June 30, 1994 Minutes of GPAC, "To issue a statement to the City Council and the July 18, 1994 Page 2 T&T Commission Planning Commission that, although the GPAC did not have time to fully review and comment on his document, the proposed changes to the Circulation Element submitted earlier by Gary Neely should be presented and discussed during the public hearings that both the City Council and the Planning Commission will hold on the review and eventual adoption of the General Plan." Mr. Neely further explained that the GPAC did not see the entire document as being presented to the Traffic and Transportation commission. GPAC was presented with only the Introduction and the Existing Conditions sections, and an outline for the remaining sections of the draft Circulation Element. Mr. Neely stated that this rewrite makes the Circulation Element more coherent. There are some suggested changes to Goals, Objectives and Strategies section which have been put in to correspond to the issue analysis discussions that are in the body of the work. Referring to a topo map, Mr. Neely commented that the Planning Commission has approved the concept of a lake and bought out in the Resource Management Element, as well as a reclaimed lake that is higher up. If a reclaimed lake is constructed in the Upper Tonner Canyon/Tres Hermanos Ranch then that precludes the possibility of running a road down the middle of the Tonner, Canyon. In the. Chino Hills Specific Plan (for the Circulation System) the road starts at the mouth of the Canyon and dead ends at Tres Hermanos in Diamond Bar. The Committee that discussed the alternatives before, said there were three alternatives: 1) northern alignment, 2) an alignment down the middle of the Tonner Canyon and 3) alignment east of the Canyon. The. Committee did not want a road down the middle of the Canyon. The northern alternative was eliminated when the DBA Project was approved, leaving only alternative 3. He further stated that in the alternative Circulation Element there is a discussion of a potential extension of Soquel Canyon Road intersecting with Tonner Canyon Road. The alignment of a Tonner Canyon Road in this alternative Circulation Element is upon the mesa where the road cannot be seen from the bottom of the canyon noncan the bottom of the canyon be seen from the road. This is the same alignment that was a derivative from the committee chaired by Mr. Werner. He commented that the Chino Hills General Plan discusses Carbon Canyon Road and in essence preserves the historic value of Sleepy Hollow. The Chino Hills General Plan does not allow us to use this as a solution to our traffic problem. However, the City of Chino Hills is working with San Bernardino County and orange County to make Soquel Canyon Road a reality even though the City of Brea opposes it. Further, without the construction of Tonner Canyon Road, the number of road segments in the City where volumes exceed capacity are expected to grow from the current five (5) to twenty-eight (28). With Tonner Canyon Road, the number drops to three (3) July 18, 1994 Page 3 T&T Commission by the year 2010. However, two of the road segments on Grand Avenue will still be impacted. If the road isn't built the condition will be worse. As a last result with the widening of Grand Avenue to six lanes and the building of Tonner Canyon Road, the number of road segments will reduce to one (on Chino Hills Parkway) by the year 2010. To solve this problem the north end of the connection through Tonner Canyon Road to Chino Hills Parkway needs to be re -engineered. We will then have zero (0) road segment where volume exceeds capacity by the year 2010. This is the only professionally generated solution to the traffic problem in Diamond Bar. Mr. Neely asked that the Traffic and Transportation Commission hold a public hearing so that the public could comment on this alternative Circulation Element, and if the Traffic and Transportation Commission finds the report acceptable to send a note to the Planning Commission stating the merits. Or, transmit the document with the Commission's comments and changes to the Planning Commission. This document, in his opinion, is a solution to the traffic problem in Diamond Bar. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, requested clarification of proposed Tonner Canyon Road in the Chino Hills General Plan. Mr. Neely responded that the Chino Hills General Plan shows the alignment of this road as extending down the middle of Tres Hermanos Ranch and entering the City of Diamond Bar's Sphere of influence in such a way that it would extend west down the middle of Tonner Canyon. The City should define a road in the Circulation Element the way it would help the City of Diamond Bar. Mr. Maxwell commented that Chino Hills has Highway 71 and Chino Hills Parkway, and there will be HOV lanes on the SR -60, and inquired if Chino Hills residents are using Chino Hills Parkway or Diamond Bar Blvd. to get to the freeway. Mr. Neely commented that 50% of the work force that lives in Chino Hills works in Los Angeles County. 30% of the work force that lives in Chino Hills works in Orange County. VC/Istik noted that the white area is described by Mr. Neely as a mesa above 1100 feet and there are canyons in the area. The mesa should be defined as the top of the hill through the southeast portion of the County where it is defined as Significant Ecological Area (SEA) 15. It is important to acknowledge the significance of Sleepy Hollow, but so too is SEA 15. C/Gravdahl asked if the topo map reflects a road that was used in the 1930's between Brea and Pomona. VC/Istik commented that there is a dashed line which follows approximately the ridge. He further commented that if the July 18, 1994 Page 4 TAT Commission road were on the south side of the ridge line then it would I very nearly go around SEA 15. As reflected on page 42, Strategy 1.1.4. reads, "Pro -actively work with adjacent jurisdictions to determine acceptable alternate travel corridors around the City of Diamond Bar and Sphere of Influence. Such consideration will recognize environmental sensitivity and avoid disruption of SEA 15." Mr. Neely is suggesting a change in the wording yet it appears that is not needed. Mr. Neely commented that the Diamond Bar's Sphere of Influence ends at the corner of both County lines and would therefore have the road go right through Sleepy Hollow.' This alternative Circulation Element has verbiage to limit the number of accesses to this road from side roads to discourage development. C/Chavers stated that this was in the original Goals, Objectives and Strategies and is maintained in the rewrite. VC/Istik commented that the report was very good. C/Gravdahl commented that this report is a 100% improvement over what it was two weeks ago. It is better because of the charts and the fact that it has an idea of where it is going and a background of where it came from. He -would like to see two areas added. One, bus routes, for busing Chino Hills residents from the east side of the City instead of passenger cars, and the bus routes that are currently in existence. Two, add in a goal for a ride -share program for the Diamond Bar citizens. He asked SE/Liu for the traffic count on Grand Avenue east of Diamond Bar Blvd near the shopping center. SE/Liu responded that -the count was close to 30,000, but he would need to check the records for accuracy. The count was made in April of this year. C/Gravdahl commented that based on this information Diamond Bar's four -lane divided highways are at their maximum capacity. He asked about the daily capacities as reflected in the report. C/Chavers responded that the figures were from manuals, but were specifically tailored to Diamond Bar's level of service. C/Gravdahl commented that gridlock is apparent and his suggested measures could help. C/Chavers commented that he had put in about six hours of time on this document to make it a professionally appearing document as well as to try and reflect the sentiments of the GPAC over the last six months. He further stated that some may take exception'to the way the document is written when read, but he is more satisfied with this type of document in July 18, 1994 Page 5 TAT commission which it states here we are today, here is where we will be tomorrow, and here is what we are going to need to do tomorrow to handle the demands we will have tomorrow. This document lays it out and substantiates the kinds of solutions that are presented. He further stated his support of pursuing additional Park -n -Ride facilities east of the City as reflected in the GPAC recommended Circulation Element, Strategy 1.1.5, part (e). With bus routes to service these facilities fewer vehicles would be going through the City. C/Chavers suggested that perhaps the item might be modified to include bus routes. C/Gravdahl concurred. C/Chavers commented regarding a technical point substantiated by the DKS modelling. The different alternatives of Tonner Canyon, Soquel Canyon, Carbon Canyon Roads and the mix of these roads and their effect on Diamond Bar. If only Soquel Canyon Road was built, there will be no traffic relief to Grand Avenue in Diamond Bar. It skirts too far south of Diamond Bar. Diamond Bar needs a road that intercepts the traffic enroute to Chino Hills before it gets to Diamond Bar. The bottom line is that a southerly road needs to be built to help ourselves in meeting our needs. Council Member/Ansari reported that she is a member of the Four Corners Committee, consisting of representatives from Riverside, orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties. Chino Hills is pushing for a Tonner Canyon roadway and is asking to bring it to the August 11, 1994 meeting. C/Chavers commented that it is his understanding that the City of Chino Hills models indicate the Tonner Canyon Road is a viable solution because they have too much traffic funneling onto Grand Avenue. Council Member/Ansari commented that the*Chino Hills General Plan reflects that area as one house per five acres. She inquired where the City is going to get the transportation funds to build that roadway. C/Chavers commented that he would expect the City of Chino Hills to make it a City-wide Assessment District because the entire City would benefit. VC/Istik stated that it is important to go around SEA 15. He does not agree to the proposed change on page 42 that would eliminate that verbiage. He stated he did not want to minimize disruption to SEA 15 as proposed. He is in favor of the verbiage to go around SEA 15. C/Gravdahl asked if a sketch of the roadway to accompany the document would be advisable. July 18, 1994 Page 6 T&T Commission Chair/Ortiz requested clarification from the Commissioners whether to hold another public meeting or to transmit the information gathered at tonight's meeting to ,the Planning Commission. C/Chavers stated he would prefer to pass this item to the Planning Commission and City Council.with the comments of the Commission and those present tonight. VC/Istik asked if the GPAC Committee Members were specifically invited to tonight's meeting. SE/Liu responded that they were not specifically invited to this meeting. VC/Istik commented that taking this alternative Circulation Element to the Planning Commission without their input, could give the appearance that this was done with out the knowledge of the GPAC. Therefore, he asked to have staff give copies of the report and the minutes to every GPAC Committee Member as well. Tom Van Winkle, 21103 Gerndal Street, asked if this document is to be considered as an alternate document to the GPAC's recommended Circulation Element. Chair/Ortiz responded that the document is to be used as an alternative, or in addition to the GPAC Circulation Element. Mr. Van Winkle concurred with Mr. Istik that GPAC Members should have this information. A poll was taken by the Traffic and Transportation Commission which indicated that all members were in favor of building a road around SEA 15. VC/Istik moved, seconded by C/Chavers, to send this Alternative Circulation Element to the Planning Commission along with a copy of the minutes and to have staff send this material to all members of the GPAC. The Motion passed unanimously with the following ROLL CALL vote: AYES: Esposito, Chavers, Gravdahl, VC/Istik, Chair/Ortiz NOES: None ABSTAIN•• None ABSENT:None r* i C/Chavers asked the minutes to reflect that during the meeting of July 14, 1994, Mr. Van Winkle had made some suggestions to the Commission. Mr. Chavers reacted negatively and would July 18, 1994 Page 7 T&T Commission therefore like to offer an apology. He re-iterated his offer to assist the Chair and staff to help resolve any questions or issues Mr. Van Winkle brought to the Commission. II. .ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Istik, seconded by C/Chavers and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully, `- avid G. Liu Secretary Attest: CTAOrt Chairman C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\TT-94\TT-JUL18.94 1