HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/11/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE JOINT SESSION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
�- MAY 11, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:14 p.m at the
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Building, Room CC/2 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar.
ROLL CALL: Planning Commissioners: Meyer, Li, Vice Chairman
MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner
Grothe was absent.
Traffic and Transportation Commissioners: Beke,
Cheng, and Chairman Chavers. Commissioner Ury and
vice Chairman Gravdahl were absent.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Associate Engineer
David Liu, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, Paul
Taylor, of DKS, Lloyd Zola, of the Planning
Network, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the Chairman of the
Planning Commission and the Traffic and
General Pian Transportation Commission (TTC) developed an agenda
CCirculation addressing the issues of concern regarding the Plan
Element for Physical Mobility. The Commission then jointly
began a discussion of the agenda items.
Ia. Road classifications
Chair/Chavers noted that the classification of a
number of the streets need to be further reviewed,
such as Mountain Laurel and Valley Vista Drive.
Since these definitions will be used by staff in
improving, maintaining, and implementing different
strategies and plans for managing traffic in the
future, the classification process should have a
set of standards that we are all comfortable with.
Paul Taylor, the traffic consultant representing
DKS, explained that because DKS concurred that the
definitions and classifications were unclear, they
revisited the section and clarified the
definitions. He distributed the revised section,
pages B-2 through B-11, to the Commissioners.
Chair/Chavers, referring to page B-3, of the
revised section, pointed out that a minor collector
is identified has having a daily traffic volume of
generally less than 10,000 vehicles per day, yet
the a local residential is identified as having up
to 2,500 vehicle per day. He suggested that there
needs to be a residential collector category
identified as having a daily traffic volume with a
May 11, 1992 Page 2
range of 2,500 to 10,000 vehicles per day. The
residential collectors will have single family
homes located fronting, with driveways, that
collects residential traffic and accesses directly
to an arterial.
C/Meyer inquired why residential collectors are
being mapped.
Chair/Chavers explained that the benefit to mapping
a residential collector is to avoid having that
design used again, and to assure that it is built
properly in the future.
C/Li, noting that the data collected in the
existing conditions was collected before the
opening of Grand Ave., questioned if the ranges of
10,000 to 25,000 is appropriate as the functional
definition.
A DKS representative explained that the numbers
used to define the different functional
classifications are not based on the volume on the
roadway, but based on roadway capacity and the
cross sections of roadways. These numbers are
valid today, and/or for forecasting in the future.
The two Commissions concurred that a new definition
category, Residential Collector, should be added on
page B-3, of the revised section; and to adjust the
definitions on B-9, B-10 and B-11, of the revised
section, to reflect the new definition.
Paul Taylor explained that table 2-1, on page B-11,
is not intended _to correspond to the functional
classifications because it is strictly the
geometrics of the physical cross section.
Chair/Chavers suggested that, for future
interpretation, the table needs to be fairly
specific. He suggested that it define the kind of
capacity according to the type of function we want
on the road.
Paul Taylor stated that the table will be made to
relate in terms of capacity by functional
classification only, which would then tie into what
is reflected in the next table 2-2.
C/Meyer, again questioning the purpose of mapping
residential collectors, suggested that since it
doesn't mean anything, and it doesn't have any
impact in terms of maintenance priorities, then it
should not be mapped. Those specific streets can
May 11, 1992 Page 3
be listed in the goal section to avoid such streets
from ever being built again.
C/Beke pointed out that a residential collector
must be mapped, if it is in the goal section, so
that you know what street is being referred to.
VC/MacBride stated that the data would be more
appropriately placed in an ancillary document, and
not in the General Plan. The data makes the
document awkward, unwieldy, and bulky.
Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that the concern
regarding the format of the Circulation Element
will be discussed later in the session.
Following further discussion regarding the mapping
of residential collectors, the two Commissions
concurred with Lloyd Zola's suggestion that the
residential collectors not be mapped, but that we
classify them as local streets, and identify that
these local streets function as collectors, and
that as policy, we are not going to allow new local
streets to function -as collectors.
lb. Definition of build out
Kathy Higley explained that build out, within the
City, is the estimated translation, of the proposed
General Plan, into land use quantity, if everything
were developed as representative in the proposed
General Plan Land Use Element. It is the current
existing roadway network located within the City,
to the extent that most of the roadways are built
already to their ultimate standards. She reviewed
the some of the existing roadway networks, as
proposed in the Land Use Element.
CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry if
this definition of build out will have any impact
on the land use designation, explained that if
changes are made to the Land Use Element, then the
Circulation Element would be revised.
Lloyd Zola explained that build out should be
defined, in the Circulation Element, that the land
use build out is the current land use map.
The two Commissions concurred that a specific
definition of build out should be put into the
document.
1.c. Affect of build out
May 11, 1992 Page 4
Chair/Chaverspointed out that, since SCAG only
projected build out of land use to the year 2010,
based upon some market absorption rate, there may
in fact be some more regionally generated traffic
on the system.
Kathy Higley stated that Diamond Bar is
tremendously affected by the surrounding region,
and since forecasting land use changes in the
surrounding area is impossible, there is no way for
us to say that traffic in the community is done.
However, SCAG gets it's information from the local
jurisdictions, and their build out projection is
reflected in Diamond Bar's forecast.
2. Establish Level of Service Standards
Kathy Higley stated that the document presently
identifies level of service "C" when evaluating
average daily traffic conditions on roadway
segments, and level of service "D" at intersections
during peak hours. Level of service "D" is a
fairly uniform and common standard in the Southern
California urbanized area. It is futile- to 5
establish a standard that can't be achieved. In
general, levels of service "D" seems to be a
reasonable expectation, and also provide a
reasonable level of service for the residents of
the community.
C/Meyer inquired if these levels of service are
realistic, given the significant "impact of
development in the surrounding area.
Kathy Higley explained that the future forecast
indicate that the levels of service along Grand
Ave. and probably Diamond Bar Blvd. will continue
to deteriorate in the future without significantly
improved alternatives.
C/Meyer pointed out that if the contributory impact
from development outside of our boundaries is not
actively pursued, then the designated levels of
service may not be appropriate. A developer in our
community may be hindered because he may not be
able to maintain a level of service "D", on an
intersection impacted by his development, when in
actuality, it may also be controlled or impacted by :X
development outside of our boundaries.
Chair/Chavers explained that a developer is only
legally required to bring it back to a level of
service that he found it at, provided that it is
T W il. 1 _.'., f '�i. �"
J C' h _
May 11, 1992 Page 5
physically, economically, and environmentally
possible.
The two Commissions concurred that the designated
levels of service "C" and "D" are acceptable,
recognizing that there will have to be exceptions.
3. Circulation Issues
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the TTC be allowed
to make their comments without the Planning
Commission passing comments at this time.
Chair/Chavers read a letter written by VC/Gravdahl.
The following are his comments to regional traffic
concerns: regional roadway projects should be
measured by the amount of benefits the City
receives compared to what it gives up in impacts to
the neighborhood; he supports the building of
Tonner Canyon as one means of relieving the future
traffic burden on Grand and Diamond Bar Blvd.; if
open ended streets are put through, the
neighborhood should have it's environment left as
close as possible to the previous-' cul-de-sac
condition; explore the possible use of six lanes of
traffic on some of the present facilities; explore
the use of traffic acceleration and deceleration
lanes at shopping centers and commercial access
points; and the Golden Springs and Grand Ave.
intersection should be reworked to maximize it's
full potential.
C/Beke stated the following: Beaverhead is a local
residential street which should remain so; it is
the consensus of the Commission that the document
should not preclude the extension of Sunset
Crossing, but that it should be tied' into a
condition that would benefit the City; and the
Commission agrees that something in a way of a
highway facility must be developed through Tonner
Canyon to give relief for Grand Ave. and Diamond
Bar Blvd..
Chair/Chavers stated that the TTC has always stated
that the highway facility should be done in an
environmentally sensitive manner.
�-A Kathy Higley, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum Is
j inquiry, confirmed that Tonner Canyon would
definitely provide relief for Grand Ave. and
e Diamond Bar Boulevard. This document states that
some type of additional facility like Tonner Canyon
should be explored. Whether or not it is Tonner
Canyon is not a traffic issue, but more a quality
of life issue.
May 11, 1992
Page 6
J�'Is H
Chair/Chavers inquired if a Tres Hermanos access
road connecting with the rest of Diamond Bar can be
addressed in the specific plan.
CD/DeStefano suggested that goals or policies be
incorporated into the Plan to address the linkage,
but leave the specific street to the actual plan
that is forthcoming.
Chair/Chavers stated that the intimation of down
grading Diamond Bar Blvd. is foolish, and should be
deleted.
C/Beke stated that the suggestion of Grand Ave. as
a toll road is also foolish.
4. Format of Circulation Element
Lloyd Zola inquired if there is a consensus of the
Commission to put the technical data into the MEA,
and leave this, with the same level of detail in
all the goals, objectives and strategies, the same
way as the rest of the element. Some of the tables
can and will be incorporated as part of the policy.
The Commissions concurred. ,!a,
ADJOURNMENT-: Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the joint study session
at 7:45 p.m in order to reconvene the Planning
Commission in the AQMD Auditorium.
Chair/Chavers adjourned the Traffic Commission at
7:45 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., May 21st in the AQMD
Hearing Room.
Respectively,
Janes DeStefano, 'Secretary
Attest:
z�
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman/Planning Commission
David Liu, Secretary ;Xt
,Siodd Chavers
Chairman/Traffic & Transportation Commission
i
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 11, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum convened the meeting at 8:01
p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California, following a joint study session
with the Traffic and Transportation Commission.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Lloyd Zola.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Li, vice Chairman MacBride,
and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Grothe was
absent.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney
Bili Curley, Lloyd Zola, from the Planning Network,
Kathy Higley, from PPQ and D, Paul Taylor, from
DKS, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MATTERS FROM Clair Harmony, residing at 24139 Afamado Lane,
THE AUDIENCE: suggested that the Planning Commission request, to
the City Council, that their meetings be televised,
via Jones Intercable.
Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood Rd.,
f requested that the Planning Commission seriously
to consider the impacts to the natural ecological area
of Tonner Canyon, if a roadway is developed.
Fred Janz, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge, concerned
that the zoning, of his commercial property on the
southeast corner of Diamond Bar and Brea Canyon,
was changed to low density residential, requested
that it be reconsidered and changed back to general
commercial.
Chair/ Flamenbaum explained to Mr. Janz that his
letter was received, however, the public hearing
for the Land Use Element is scheduled for next
week.
Tom Tise, residing at 17611 Yorba Linda Blvd.,
representing the owners of four parcels adjacent to
The Country, requested that the Commission consider
the land use for those parcels and designate them
rural residential.
Chair/ Flamenbaum informed Mr. Tice that staff has
not received his letter, as of yet. The Land Use
P Element will be discussed next week, however, he
should check with staff later in the week to assure
that his letter has been received.
Gary Neely, residing at 244 Canoe Dr., requested
that the Commission reconsider the wording to
May 11, 1992
Page 2
K
Strategy 2.3.1, page 22, of the Plan for Resource
Management. Upon the recommendation by
Chair/Flamenbaum, he concurred that he will submit
some suggested wording to staff at a later date.
CONSENT CALENDAR:VC/MacBride requested that the Minutes of April 20,
1992 be amended on page 13 to properly spell
Minutes: "analyzes", and the Minutes of April 27, 1992 be
amended on page 12 to properly spell "concerned".
Apr. 20, 1992 &
Apr. 27, 1992 Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
April 20th and 27th, as amended.
CONTINUED PT/Lungu reported that this application includes a
PUBLIC HEARING: request for CUP 91-13, to amend CUP No. 495 for
property improvements located at 249 S. Diamond Bar
CUP 91-13 Boulevard, Development Review No. 91-4, to ensure
that the development projects comply with all
applicable local design guidelines, standards, and
ordinances, and Sign Review No. 92-6, for new
signage. She reviewed all areas of'the application
analysis, as indicated in the staff report. Staff
recommended that the Commission approve Resolution
92 -XX with the Findings of Fact, Categorical
Exemption and listed conditions.
VC/MacBride inquired if K -Mart's proposed 426.37
square foot sign conforms to the Sign Ordinance.
PT/Lungu stated that, since the maximum size
permitted in the Sign Ordinance is 125 square feet,
the signage will be exceeding the expressed
guideline in the Sign ordinance, if approved.
CD/DeStefano noted that it does not exceed the
guidelines because they provide the Commission with
the ability to grant a user additional signage
above and beyond the identified maximums. It's in
the Ordinance for situations, such as K -Mart, where
there is a very large "box" that has a need for
identification, and a user that is substantially
removed from the street and needs a larger identity
on it's building in order to be seen.
Chair/Flamenbaum noted that the K -Mart sign,
itself, is 105.75 square feet. The Commission is
not being asked to approve a single sign that is :
426.37, but a series of smaller signs. He inquired
if the surrounding businesses, and/or residents,
have been given proper notification of the proposed
pharmacy.
;?s A
., ! " �. ...MiI'i!�, e'�IhW,1. w'.'aa,,WiR�.,,Kru�Y."�."1�..m?Sit$
r
May 11, 1992 Page 3
CD/DeStefano stated that, in accordance to the
County Code, all properties within 500 feet of this
site have received notice of this public hearing.
However, a tenant within those properties may not
have received such notice because we are not
obligated to notify tenants, only property owners.
PT/Lungu, in response to VC/MacBride's concern,
stated that the statement in the Resolution will be
made clearer to properly reflect that the driveway
will be replaced, not merely repaired.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Mike Tiseman, with the K -Mart Corporation of
Covina, confirmed that they had intended to replace
the driveway. The driveway will be restripped and
handicap stalls will be added.
C/Meyer suggested that since the parking lot is to
be reconstructed, it may be appropriate to include,
as part of the review process, a redesign of the
entry, to include an alley approach, and a redesign
- of the main entrance so that it functions better..
He also suggested that there be an additional
address put on the property to assist emergency
personnel.
CD/DeStefano stated that the Fire Department
requires an S" minimum letter number size on the
property. He suggested that 90 degree parking
spaces also be explored in the hopes of generating
more parking spaces for future use.
Chair/Flamenbaum, concerned that there is a
reduction of the number of doors yet no increase in
the number of emergency doors, inquired if the plan
has been approved by the Fire Department. He also
inquired if the doors will accommodate the
handicap.
Steve Namon, with Clemens and Clemens Architects,
stated that the results of the exit analysis done
for the building indicates that the plans do meet
the current requirements in regards to the number
of exits, and the width of the exits. Automatic
entry and exit doors have been added to facilitate
an easier ingress and egress into the building that
will also accommodate the handicap.
Martha Brusque, residing at 600 S. Great Bend Dr.,
stated the following: the City should consider the
problem of the high number of commuter parking
occurring in the parking lot; the entrance to the
May 11, 1992 Page 4
parking lot needs to be redesigned to facilitate
traffic; and the applicant should be required to
supply more attractive litter containers.
Gary Neely made the following comments: the
concerns of the residents facing the back of the
building should be considered; this exception to
signage will have a ripple effect on other shopping
centers; and a cafeteria for Senior Citizens would
be more appropriate than having another pizza
establishment.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Meyer suggested that the following be added to
the conditions of approval: trash containers;
fully exploring the redesigning of the parking lot;
ensure that the loading area is properly designated
so that it functions; and reiterate that minimum 811
address numbers must be put on the face of the
building. In response to the suggestion of
requiring a cafeteria over a pizza establishment,
he stated that it is beyond the Planning
Commission's expertise and the City's land use
controls to be selective on businesses that can be
located in commercial zones.
VC/MacBride concurred with C/Meyer's statements.
He also stated that, though he recognizes the
notion for extra signage, he is concerned that
allowing the extra signage may establish a concept
that every large parcel ought to have additional
signage than was thought generically reasonable for
the total business community.
Chair/Flamenbaum pointed out that K -Mart is a
unique situation because it is not the land owner
but the tenant, and the tenant has various tenants
that need signage as well.
Chair/Flamenbaum, concurring with the suggestion
that a redesign of the parking lot be explored,
suggested that the traffic staff work towards
coordinating or improving our own traffic
signalization at the entrance of K -Mart. He
concurred with the statements made by C/Meyer, but
noted that he is unsure there is a problem with the
loading zone.
DCA/Curley stated that, in regards to the issue of
the cafeteria versus Little Ceasars Pizza, it is
not within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction
to dictate what be placed in K -Mart or any other
center.
Q
r
-...�,+a-ntl.nmrmeYlu.NHmwAluwYxNMnull-
May 11, 1992 Page 5
Mike Tiseman stated that they are willing to work
with staff to develop a scheme of parking that
would address the concerns as to the movement of
traffic in and out of the parking lot.
Chair/Flamenbaum directed staff to address all the
areas surrounding the parking lot, including
McDonalds, when making the evaluation regarding the
redesign of the parking lot, and to look at and
investigate that traffic signal at that
intersection to alleviate the traffic.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve Resolution 92 -XX
as amended to include trash containers, the
redesign of the parking lot to get the maximum use
to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development, the addition of building numbers, and
adding a new condition 6 to the Resolution, as
stated by DCA/Curley, that any of those conditions
on CUP Resolution 495 not amended or modified by
this Resolution shall remain in full force and
effect as set forth in Resolution 495.
VC/MacBride, in reference to the statement, in the
Introduction which reads, "balancing those needs
with regional demands and mandates", stated that
our local needs should be so emphasized that they
become a counterbalance to all the conduits going
on. At present, it appears that our quality of
life is the transition from one place to another,
and we are the conduits. This philosophy should be
fully identified in the goals and strategies.
C/Li requested that there also be a statement that
indicates that the Diamond Bars existing condition
is generated by external forces which we have
minimal control over.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Li, VC/MacBride,
and Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:24 p.m.
Draft General
The Commission concurred to direct staff to redraft
Plan:
the Introduction, the Existing Conditions, and the
The Plan for
Future Conditions, of the Plan for Physical
Physical
Mobility, in conformance with the various
Mobility
directions indicated by the Commission during the
joint study session, and to bring the amended
document back to the Commission for ratification
and ultimate recommendation to the City Council.
VC/MacBride, in reference to the statement, in the
Introduction which reads, "balancing those needs
with regional demands and mandates", stated that
our local needs should be so emphasized that they
become a counterbalance to all the conduits going
on. At present, it appears that our quality of
life is the transition from one place to another,
and we are the conduits. This philosophy should be
fully identified in the goals and strategies.
C/Li requested that there also be a statement that
indicates that the Diamond Bars existing condition
is generated by external forces which we have
minimal control over.
May 11, 1992 Page 6
I
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Gary Neely, in reference to the statement in the
Introduction which indicates that Diamond Bar is
dominated by regional traffic needs, concluded that
if you help solve the regional traffic needs, then
you help solve the local traffic needs as well.
Richard Deel, residing at 615 S. Hoss, in regards
to the suggested improvements of Grand Ave., as
indicated on page C-12, recommended that the
suggestion to maintain Grand Ave. as four lanes be
omitted because limiting the roadway capacity would
only enhance the traffic problem. The City should
maintain the option to widen it to six lanes if
needed at a later date.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
The Commission began their review with the Goal,
Objectives, and Strategies of the Plan for Physical
Mobility.
Goal 1
J
C/Meyer suggested that the goal be expanded to talk
about a comprehensive type program to deal with
congestion management, and to include alternative
transportation routes.
VC/MacBride suggested that the goal be reworded to
state, "Enhance the environment of the City's
street network. Study the problems presented by
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." There is
nothing wrong with having several different
perspectives on the goal.
C/Meyer stated that the goal should have a more
proactive basis by supporting congestion management
types of programs. He suggested that the second
sentence read, "Work towards improving the problems
presented by the intrusion...".
The Commission concurred with VC/MacBride's and
C/Meyer's suggested changes. �+
- Objective 1.1
C/Meyer suggested that the objective be reworded to
state, "Participate in local and regional
May 11, 1992 Page 7
u, transportation related planning and decision
making." The Commission concurred.
Lloyd Zola suggested that the deleted sentence,
"maintaining a clear distinction between regional
and, local objectives", be put into the strategy
section.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that it might be better
added in Strategy 1.1.2.
Strategy 1.1.1
Chair/Flamenbaum requested that a statement be
added which indicates that, prior to any changes to
the major use characteristics of any road in the
City of Diamond Bar, a public hearing will be held.
Lloyd Zola suggested the wording, "ensure the
opportunity for public comment on major
improvements/revisions to the City's circulation
system".
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the use -of the word,
"modification", would be more appropriate.
The Commission concurred to allow staff an
opportunity to come up with the appropriate
wording, to be reviewed when the revised Plan comes
back to the Commission.
Strategy 1.1.2
Lloyd Zola suggested the following changes: the
road would be shown on the circulation route as a
regional transportation corridor; and the strategy
be reworded to state, "The purpose of identifying
the extension of Tonner Canyon Road as a regional
transportation corridor is to recognize the
regional desire for this route, but is not intended
as an endorsement of this route by the City of
Diamond Bar. Significant further environmental
analysis of potential impacts of the transportation
corridor will be necessary before the City could
endorse the route. This analysis, which must be
prepared by the agencies proposing the
transportation corridor should explore the balance
between the need for the route and the resulting
biological and growth inducing impacts. For the
City of Diamond Bar to endorse the Tonner Canyon
+ transportation corridor, a clear and long term
benefit within the City of Diamond Bar needs to be
demonstrated by: outweighs the environmental
impacts which would be caused by the roadway; and
May 11, 1992 Page 8
the environmental impacts of other development that
might be induced to locate within the canyon due
improve access. Specifically, if the regional
roadway is to be constructed through Tonner, Canyon,
there should be no net loss of repairing another
biological habitat values including wildlife
migration corridors. In addition, the existing
ecological area needs to be protected, and
potential growth inducing impacts of the corridor
must be mitigated." He explained that this
wording recognizes the environmental protection of
Tonner Canyon, recognizes the regional need for a
roadway, and requests the long term benefits inside
the City of Diamond Bar. A policy, in the General
Plan, that establishes a specific level of
environmental protection, would preclude the
ability for other cities to use overriding
considerations to accept certain impacts.
Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that roads built for local
use can end up as a regional road three lanes wide,
question if the strategy should even have the word
"regional use" or even indicate any road. He
suggested -that it be- reworded to state, "any
significant improvements to the existing road".
C/Meyer suggested that the strategy be worded to
read, "Continue active participation in the tri
county planning for alternate access routes from
Diamond Bar. Encourage the preservation of Tonner
Canyon. Prior to any development, encourage master
Planned Development in the adopted Sphere of
Influence area of Tonner Canyon that will protect
its unique biological resources and open space
characteristics." The remaining verbiage should be
deleted, and, perhaps, some of the verbiage,
suggested by Mr. Zola, can be added. He stated
that he is not willing to believe that a road can't
be put through there that can be sensitive to the
area.
The Commission concurred to request Mr. Zola to
rewrite Strategy 1.1.2 to include the following
items: a transportation corridor through Tonner
Canyon is acceptable; minimize adverse impacts to
the environment through the addition of this
transportation corridor; a demonstration that the
transportation corridor would benefit Diamond Bar;
and a demonstration that the transportation
corridor would be acceptable to us.
Strategy 1.1.3
111
,..
,. i ;1 11 PT I 1�..
May 11, 1992 Page 9
VC/MacBride stated that he would like the strategy
to include the statement, "Complete the
construction of raised medians along Diamond Bar
Blvd. northerly from Sunset Crossing to the freeway
57 on ramp".
Chair/Flamenbaum pointed out that completing an
interchange system between the freeways implies
that we are supporting a grade divide construction.
He suggested that the strategy state, "Solicit
federal and state funds to improve area freeways."
Lloyd Zola suggested the wording "to eliminate the
use of local use as part of the freeway system".
C/Meyer, in regards to VC/MacBride's comment
regarding raised medians, pointed out that such a
request should first have a cost benefit analysis,
and does not belong in the General Plan.
CD/DeStefano suggested that VC/MacBride's concern
may be more appropriately located under Goal 3,
whereas staff would craft a strategy that would
_ more generally deal with the issue of raised
medians.
Lloyd Zola suggested that the statement, "Encourage
consolidation of driveway access and restrictions
of left turn movements where necessary to improve
traffic safety.", could be added under Objective
3.2.
Gary Neely suggested that the merchants in the area
be talked to before putting in raised medians. He
suggested that the Planning Commission should more
actively pursue solutions to the Tonner Canyon
Road, otherwise the City is losing developer fees.
Oblective 1.2
VC/MacBride suggested that the end of the sentence,
"...such that streets...peak hours.", be deleted.
The Commission concurred.
Strategy 1.2.1
VC/MacBride suggested that the statement, "of the
_ use of through", be replaced with the word "for",
and that the remaining statement, following the
word "measures", be deleted. The Commission
concurred.
Strategy 1.2.2
May 11, 1992
Page 10
I
C/Meyer suggested that the second sentence, "Where
appropriate, require ... City Engineer.", be deleted,
and that the statement, "...as perceived by
residents of these... Sycamore Canyon." be deleted.
The Commission concurred.
Obiective 1.3
C/Meyer suggested that the statement, "within
residential areas", be deleted.
Strategy 1.3.1
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the strategy be
reworded to state, "Prevent the creation of new
roadway connections which adversely impact the
character of existing neighborhoods." The
Commission concurred.
Strategy 1.3.2
C Me er suggested that everything be deleted
following the first sentence. The Commission
concurred.
Strategy 1.3.3
C Me er noting Y
that tot lots have a history of
/ Y
being more trouble than they're worth, suggested
that the strategy be deleted. The Commission
concurred.
Strategy 1.3.4
VC/MacBride suggested that the two examples be
deleted from the strategy.
Lloyd Zola noted that the encouraging the
organization of neighborhoods into smaller units is
more of a land use issue than a traffic issue.
The Commission concurred to delete Strategy 1.3.4.
Strategy 1.3.5
C/Meyer suggested that the statement following the
word "street" be deleted.
Lloyd Zola explained that the intent of the
strategy is to indicate that the access points
should be located so that traffic will not exceed
the design capacity of local residential streets.
He suggested that the word "Locate" be replaced by
"Design". The Commission concurred.
May 11, 1992
Page 11
Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if this is the
appropriate area to mention that Tres Hermanos, as
well as our spheres of influence, should be made
part of the City of Diamond Bar through its roadway
system.
Lloyd Zola suggested that a statement, "minimize
the effects of the local transportation system
dividing the City", would be better placed in Goal
2, under Objective 2.2.
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested the wording, "maximize
contact between all areas of the City by
integration of roadways.". The Commission
concurred to add a statement under Objective 2.2.
Goal 2
C/Meyer suggested that the sentence be changed to
state, "...protect and maintain the quality of
life." The Commission concurred.
Objective 2.1
Lloyd Zola suggested that the statement, "multi -
passenger vehicle for transportation" be deleted.
The Commission concurred.
Strategy 2.1.1
C/Meyer suggested that the sentence read, "Maximize
the use and availability of public transit
service.". The Commission concurred.
Strategy 2.1.2
C/Meyer suggested that the sentence read,
"Investigate the feasibility of establishing a
local transit system.". The Commission concurred.
Strateqy 2.1.3
C/Meyer suggested that the sentence read, "Support
privately funded local transit systems for seniors
and youths.". He suggested that staff be requested
to include another strategy relating to the mixed-
use urban village development. The Commission
concurred.
Strategy 2.1.4
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the sentence read,
"Pursue a cooperative effort with Caltrans and
May 11, 1992 Page 12
regional transit providers." The Commission
concurred.
Strateqy 2.1.5
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the sentence read,
"Encourage participation in carpools.11. The
Commission concurred.
Strateqy 2.1.6
Kathy Higley stated that this statement must be in
the Circulation Element to comply with the
requirements of the Congestion Management Plan.
Strateqy 2.1.7
C/Meyer suggested that the sentence read,
"Investigate the potential of using vacant land
areas as park-and-ride sites.". The Commission
concurred.
Strateqy 2.1.8
ChairJFlamenbaum suggested that the strategy be;;�+�
amended to read, "Seek to expand existing park-and-
ride facilities.". The Commission concurred.
Strateqy 2.1.9
The Commission concurred to delete the statement,
"...such as the City's junior ... near Sunset
Crossing Road.". The Commission concurred.
Strategy 2.1.10
CD/DeStefano suggested that the strategy be amended
to read, "Pursue a cooperative program to provide
access to Diamond Bar residents to a regional light
rail system.". The Commission concurred.
Strategy 2.1.11
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested the wording, "Pursue a
program to improve local carpool lanes on local
freeways.". The Commission concurred.
Strategy 2.1.12
The Commission concurred to delete the statement
"similar to that in the City of Walnut".
Goal 3
x_ -
May 11, 1992 Page 13
Lloyd Zola, per Chair/Flamenbaum's request,
suggested that the Goal be reworded to state,
"Maintain an adequate level of service on area
roadways." The Commission concurred.
Objective 3.1
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the objective be
reworded to state, "Establish a functional
classification for roadways within the City.". The
Commission concurred.
Strategies 3.1.1
Chair/Flamenbaum questioned if a developer will
feel that they do not have to mitigate an
intersection that went from a level of service A to
B because it states in the strategy that a level of
service (LOS) D or better must be maintained. He
suggested that it be deleted.
Kathy Higley pointed out that if the strategy is
deleted, then there will not be a provision to
state that a level of service E is not acceptable.
She suggested that the first part of the sentence
be deleted so that the strategy reads, "Maintain
level of service ... to the extent possible.".
Lloyd Zola stated that there needs to be a policy
establishing a service level, even though you can't
control the generation of all the traffic, in order
to have a basis to comment on projects occurring in
surrounding cities. He suggested that strategy
3.1.1 be made to specify the minimum standard of C
for the average day on the roadway segment, and D
for the peak hours at the intersection.
The Commission concurred to combine this strategy
with strategy 3.1.3.
Strategy 3.1.2
C/Meyer suggested deleting the remaining statement
following "...impact would result.". The
Commission concurred.
Strateqy 3.1.3
Lloyd Zola stated that the Commission had talked
about combining this strategy with strategy 3.1.1.
Strategy 3.1.1 would -state, "Maintain the level of
service C or better on the average daily traffic
level D at the intersection.". Strategy 3.1.2,
which talks about improving intersection, could
May 11, 1992 Page 14
also improve roadway lengths that fall below a C on
the link.
VC/MacBride pointed out that the second and third
sentence, in Strategy 3.1.2, can stand as separate
ideas. They are quite different than the
intersection concept, and seem worthy to consider
as a new strategy.
Lloyd Zola stated that if it is made as a strategy,
then the individual streets would have to be
listed. There are general policies that accomplish
the same concept without having to indicate the
particular street.
VC/MacBride concurred that those two sentences
should be deleted.
Strategy 3.1.4
Chair/Flamenbaum requested staff to reword the
strategy to reference, "Develop a repaving program
to minimize overall costs of road maintenance.", as
a policy. The Commission concurred.
Strategy 3.1.5
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the strategy be
reworded to read, "Develop a program to expand and
maintain pedestrian access throughout the City.".
Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if there should be a
statement addressing improvements to existing
streets and the criteria established for those
improvements. (i.e. making Grand Ave. and Diamond
Bar Blvd. into six lanes)
i
Lloyd Zola suggested that Strategy 1.1.1 could be
rewritten to state, "...prior to permitting the
roadway connections, or prior to expanding Diamond
i Bar roadways,...". There could be a subsection
that states the criteria to widening Diamond Bar
Blvd..
VC/MacBride stated that it is already implicit as
to what we are trying to achieve. The Commission
p concurred to leave the strategy as is.
Objective 3.2
C/Meyer suggested that the statement, "more
efficient", be deleted.
Strategv 3.2.1
I
May 11, 1992 Page 15
C/Meyer suggested that the strategy be rewritten to
state, "Correct identified street and intersection
operational problems in a timely manner.". The
Commission concurred.
Strateqy 3.2.2
C/Meyer suggested that the strategy be reworded to
state, "Improve off street parking and loading
facilities for public schools so as to minimize the
impact on the circulation system.". The Commission
concurred.
Strateqy 3.2.3
C/Meyer suggested that the strategy be rewritten to
state, "Consider the addition of lanes only as last
resort to correct traffic hazards or traffic
conditions." The Commission concurred.
Objective 3.3
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the statement,
"...including public and -private sources.",- be
deleted.
Strateqy 3.3.1
The Commission concurred to delete the statement,
"...for traffic impacts identified by the City,
and/or traffic impact study reports."
Strategy 3.3.2
The Commission concurred to delete the Strategy.
Goal 4
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the statement,
"both on -street and off-street", be deleted.
VC/MacBride suggested that the word, "adequate" be
replaced by "and regulate". The Commission
concurred.
Strategy 4.1
Chair/Falmenbaum suggested that the word,
"Encourage" be replaced by "Regulate". The
Commission concurred.
Strategy 4.2
May 11, 1992 Page 16
:Ilu�llp
Lloyd Zola stated that the strategy is a code
requirement. He suggested that it can be reworded
to state, "Allow a reduction in parking in exchange
for transportation demand management programs.".
The Commission concurred.
Chair/Flamenbaum directed staff to make the
appropriate changes to the Plan for Physical
Mobility. He suggested that the Commission meet an
hour earlier, at 6:00 p.m., on May 18th meeting.
The Commission concurred.
CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that there is
a special Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
May.26th, and a Tres Hermanos Specific Plan meeting
scheduled for June 8, 1992.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by
Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn
i
the meeting at 12:00 a.m.
Jam �eStefano
Secretary
Attest:
.-
Z-1—
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman