HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/4/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 4, 1992
r'ALL TO ORDER: Chair/Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at
7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Board Meeting Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: CD/DeStefano.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Meyer, Vice Chairman
MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Li
arrived at 7:08 p.m.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Associate Engineer
David Liu, District City Attorney Bill Curley,
Lloyd Zola of the Planning Network, Paul Taylor, a
principal of DKS, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MATTERS FROM Marc Perrin, with Bramalea California Inc., 1 Park
THE AUDIENCE: Plaza Ste. 1100, Irvine, stated that Bramalea, the
owner of the property referred to in the General
Plan as either the upper Sycamore property, or the
Bramalea property, upon review of the draft General
Plan as it has been presented, object to the
designation of a substantial portion of the
property as open space and park space. We consider
it a taking of that property without just
compensation. He submitted a letter, from Bramalea
California, Inc., to the Commission.
CONTINUED CD/DeStefano reported that this is the third in a
PUBLIC HEARING: series of public hearings regarding the new General
Plan of Diamond Bar. The Commission has reviewed
The Plan the Plan for Public Services and Facilities, the
for Resource Plan for Resource Management, and the Plan for
Management Public Health and Safety. The Plan for Public
Services and Facilities has been finalized by the
Commission. The Commission will look towards
finalization of the Plan for Resource Management
tonight.
The Commission concurred to review the Plan for
Resource Management, as was amended, per
Commission's direction, on April 20, 1992.
The Public Hearing was declared opened for any
comments regarding the Plan for Resource
Management.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Grothe made the following comments: page 3, last
paragraph, should have been amended to read,
"...are in a historic area that may contain...";
and page 6, last paragraph, second to the last
May 4, 1992 Page 2
Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to page 13, Strategy
1.2.2.b, stated that he recalled that the
Commission had concurred that it was to be reworded
to indicate that there should be some mitigation
plan for any tree, deleting the specific trees.
CD/DeStefano, referring to his notes, stated that
the Commission wished to eliminate many of the
specifics, and deal with the general issues of tree
preservation. Staff tried to eliminate most of the
subsections and combine it all into a mitigation
plan, for removal of trees of 61' or greater in
diameter, under Strategy 1.2.2.b.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that his concern was
calling out the requirement for an ordinance, then
specifically mentioning trees that were clearly
deleted from the ordinance, by the City Council.
C/Meyer stated that the Commission had wanted
reference to an ordinance deleted, to be replaced
with reference to plans and programs.
Chair/Flamenbaum requested staff to rewrite the
strategy to delete the specific tree and to delete
reference to the ordinance.
.r ._.. iV
Ulmn
�sG.l"ani'
line, the word "anyway" should be deleted. The
Commission concurred.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:18 p.mi
to allow staff time to make additional copies of
the Plan for Resource Management for the members of
the audience. The meeting was reconvened at 7:30
p.m.
CD/DeStefano, while waiting for further copies to
be made, explained the components of the Plan for
Resource Management to the audience.
C/Grothe made the following comments: page 10,
Strategy 1.1.1, the statement "State Route 57
Scenic Highway corridor" was to be relocated to
follow the revision of the statement ""...the south
end of The Country, Tonner Canyon, and State Route
57 Scenic Highway corridor."; and page 11, Strategy
1.1.8, second line, was to delete the comma
following the words "adjacent to". The Commission
concurred.
VC/MacBride stated that the "'m" from the world
"feasible" on page 12, Objective 1.2, should be
deleted.
Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to page 13, Strategy
1.2.2.b, stated that he recalled that the
Commission had concurred that it was to be reworded
to indicate that there should be some mitigation
plan for any tree, deleting the specific trees.
CD/DeStefano, referring to his notes, stated that
the Commission wished to eliminate many of the
specifics, and deal with the general issues of tree
preservation. Staff tried to eliminate most of the
subsections and combine it all into a mitigation
plan, for removal of trees of 61' or greater in
diameter, under Strategy 1.2.2.b.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that his concern was
calling out the requirement for an ordinance, then
specifically mentioning trees that were clearly
deleted from the ordinance, by the City Council.
C/Meyer stated that the Commission had wanted
reference to an ordinance deleted, to be replaced
with reference to plans and programs.
Chair/Flamenbaum requested staff to rewrite the
strategy to delete the specific tree and to delete
reference to the ordinance.
.r ._.. iV
Ulmn
May 4, 1992 Page 3
f
C/Meyer suggested that the word "ordinance" be
deleted, and the word "plan" be inserted. He also
stated that the Commission was referring to a
mitigation plan, not just a "replacement"
mitigation plan. The Commission concurred.
C/Grothe noted that Strategy 1.2.5, on page 14,
should actually be numbered 1.2.4.
VC/MacBride made the following corrections: the
"m" in Objective 1.3 should be deleted; the word
"of" in Strategy 1.3.9, first bullet, should be
deleted; delete the word "a" from Strategy 2.1.5.a;
and delete the words "an aggressive" from Objective
2.5.
Chair/Flamenbaum noted that references to Assembly
Bills, such as AB939 and AB2707, were to be
footnoted to the appropriate code section.
VC/MacBride requested that the statement "conduct
an aggressive" be deleted from Strategy 2.5.9.
r -a
Chair/Flamenbaum noted that the meaning to the
abbreviation HHW, in Strategy 2.5.11, is not
referenced in the document.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the revised Plan
for Resource Management, as further amended.
The Plan
The Commission concurred to review the Plan for
for Physical
Physical Mobility.
Mobility
Chair/Flamenbaum informed the audience that changes
made, to this document, this evening, will be
presented back to the Commission in two weeks.
CD/DeStefano reported that the purpose of the Plan
for Physical Mobility is to examine Diamond Bar's
overall circulation for the needs of the community.
The plan is designed to provide basic goals,
objectives, and programs to manage existing
transportation facilities and future growth.
Diamond Bar's system is significantly affected by
forces outside it's jurisdiction. The Circulation
Element is designed to account for those external
rr
forces and develop a strategy to implement the
choices that are before the City, and the decisions
that the City makes. The circulation system needs
involve a balancing of the demand for increased
roadway capacity with a vision for our community
image and our overall quality of life. He
introduced Lloyd Zola, from the Planning Network,
May 4, 1992 Page 4
and Paul Taylor, a principal of DKS. The Planning
Network has been the principal consultant for
preparation of the General Plan, advising the GPAC;
Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff.
DKS is the consultant, that the City engaged in
December of 1990, for preparation of the Plan for
Physical Mobility.
Lloyd Zola explained that with the opening of Grand
Ave., it became apparent that the City would have
to take it's own route on preparing a circulation
element. The City did a separate request for
proposals, and retained DKS & Associates to prepare
the Circulation Element. Therefore, there is the
original preparation of the General Plan, occurring
through the Planning Network, and the Circulation
Element, occurring through DKS. The important
factors to consider when looking at the Circulatioln
Element is the basic requirement, under State law''„
that the Circulation Element must be related to,
and support, the Land Use Element. One of the
important land use factors discussed by GPAC, that
start affecting traffic, is the need to protect the
integrity of residential neighborhoods within the
community. The Commission will be asked to balance
the importance of protecting the integrity of
neighborhoods compared with the traffic benefits.
Another factor discussed was that, though Tonner
Canyon is to ultimately be a master plan
development, the unique biological resources and
open space characteristics of Tonner Canyon is to
be preserved. The GPAC determined that, as part of
protecting those resources, putting a roadway
through the Canyon would not be appropriate. The
Commission will be asked to balance the biological
preservation, and the importance of the
environmental aspects of Tonner Canyon, with the
traffic needs or criteria to build that roadway.
The Planning Commission's role is to define the
internal consistencies of the Plan, to improve the
traffic flow through the City, balancing it with
the other Elements, plus the land use thrust of
maintaining the quality of life we have in the
community in the future.
Paul Taylor explained that they are the experts who
address the traffic impacts, of the land use
desired by the City. As was indicated, DKS was
engaged over a year ago to develop this element of
the General Plan. At that point we began
developing an early working dialogue with the TTC,
and, eventually, with the GPAC. He then reviewed
the figures and tables from the Plan for Physical
Mobility:
:' F I-
W- P_�s,: rrc� - rs�,'u.°u e
May 4, 1992 Page 5
Figure 2-1 - The existing roadway system.
Figure 2-3 - Major intersection locations
deficient peak hour levels
service.
Figure 2-4 - PM peak percentage of through
traffic.
and
of
trip
The surveys taken indicate that, on Diamond Bar
Blvd., south of Grand Ave, 20 % or more of the
traffic during the peak rush hour is through
traffic, on Grand Ave., west of Diamond Bar Blvd.,
the through traffic is in excess of 20 %, and east
of Diamond Bar Blvd., the through traffic is 40
or more.
Figure 2-5 - Existing transit service routes.
One of the ways to relieve and mitigate some of the
traffic congestion is with public transit.
Figure 2-6 - Existing designated bicycle route.
The two bicycle routes, along Golden springs and
Diamond Bar Blvd., provide an alternate means of
transportation.
Figure 2-7 - Proposed equestrian trail.
Figure 2-8 - Designated truck routes.
This is an important aspect of the City's
transportation system that deal with the movement
of heavy trucks, and where they must be.
Table 3-3 - Roadway classification.
The GPAC recommended that Diamond Bar Blvd. and
Lemon Ave., south of Colima, be reclassified from a
major arterial to a secondary arterial, and that
Sunset Crossing/Washington/Beaverhead be
reclassified from a secondary arterial to a cul-de-
sac. Mr. Taylor corrected that the roadway
improvement standard for Lemon Ave. should indicate
80 feet, which is consistent to the
reclassification to a secondary street.
Table 3-4 - Freeway arterials - Existing and
estimated future average daily
traffic (without Tonner Canyon
j Road) .
This table is representative of the result of the
Travel Forecasting that was done with the regional
and City model that was prepared for Diamond Bar.
He explained that a street with a V/C ratio under
May 4, 1992 Page 6
1.00, such as .94, can be viewed as 94% saturated.
A number over 1.00 is an indication of a
theoretical over capacity, but factually a physical
impossibility. The future forecast, for a number
of the streets, are shown with a theoretical over
capacity in 20 years from now, under the
recommended future land use scenario.
Table 3-5 - Future average daily traffic and
volume -to -capacity ratios for
selected arterials with and without
Soquel Canyon Road/Tonner Canyon
Road extensions.
He noted that the addition of Soquel Canyon
Road/Tonner Canyon Road has the effect of returning
and retaining the traffic congestion on Grand Ave'.
and Diamond Bar Blvd. to the levels experienced
today.
Mr. Taylor pointed out the following key issuels
that resulted from the analysis, and are reflected
in the goal, strategies, and objectives: regional
through traffic is a significant problem in
planning for physical mobility within the City;
the addition of Tonner Canyon Road is not a
solution for the traffic problem; and the extension
of Sunset Crossing/Washington/Beaverhead would add
additional traffic.
Lloyd Zola, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry
regarding the traffic numbers used in the open
space areas, stated that the canyon area was done
projecting future volumes forward, realizing that
there is some traffic generated in and out of the
boy scout area, and Tres Hermanos was estimated at
a buildout of similar density to the balance of the
City.
Paul Taylor, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum's
inquiries, stated that, because of the canyon's
relative inaccessibility from the rest of Diamond
Bar, the traffic on Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand
Ave. would be little affected by the extent of
buildout in Tonner Canyon. If it were accessible,
hypothetically, it could dump even more traffic
into the area. He does not subscribe to the theory
that at some point you can build enough capacity
that you won't have any more problems, because
traffic will fill what ever space is provided to
it.
Paul Taylor, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry as to
what mitigation measures are used to reduce traffic
May 4, 1992 Page 7
volumes, stated that the single most effective
measure that can be done is to encourage more
people in fewer cars. Another approach is
staggering work hours, which reduce traffic volumes
because there a less people trying to use the same
roads at the same time. One way streets can be an
effective way of improving the traffic flow but it
doesn't do anything to reduce the traffic. Traffic
signals are very effective in improving the
capacity of an intersection, if there is an
unbalanced flow of traffic. If the traffic flow is
balanced, a four way stop sign is most effective.
If the traffic signals are very close together, and
they are not coordinated, that route could turn out
to be less desirable or attractive than they would
under other circumstances.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Jelie Bordena, a resident, in opposition to the
opening Sunset Crossing, stated that the City has a
responsibility to meet the needs of the citizens.
If more roads are built, there will be an increase
in traffic that will have a negative impact on the
children of the community.
John Beke, residing at 1248 S. Hern Dr., a member
of the TTC, and a traffic engineer for 35 years,
made the following comments: the Circulation
Element is designed to thwart all traffic,
therefore, according to the data, this would mean
that 20% of the regional traffic will be
inconvenienced, but 80% of our residents will also
be inconvenienced; Sunset Crossing has been
designated to be opened for 52 years; if there is
opposition to having trucks on Sunset Crossing,
then all the City needs to do is post "No Truck"
signs; according to table 3-5, the traffic on our
roads will double if a Tonner Canyon Road is not
built; and a road can be built in Tanner Canyon
that is blends in naturally with it's environment.
Kim Chapman, residing at 22713 Happy Hallow Rd., in
opposition to the opening of Sunset
Crossing/ Beaverhead, noted that, if the road were
to be opened, the railroad could cause terrible
back up congestion, especially with the three ball
fields, a YMCA, and 300 homes that surround that
area of Sunset Crossing.
Red Calkins, residing at 240 Eagle Nest Dr., made
the following comments: the increase in traffic
from opening Sunset Crossing would be chaos to the
existing neighborhood; speaking from experience,
May 4, 1992 Page 8
rM1l
posting "No Trucks" would have little or no effect;
and since there are plans to build a MRF on the
other side of Sunset Crossing, there would be a lot.
of garbage trucks using the road.
Todd Chavers, residing at 23816 Chinook Pl., a
member of the TTC, made the following comments,:
buildout refers to alternative land use and has
nothing to do with homes; since four of the members
picked with DKS are no longer with that firm, there
is a lack of consistency in developing this
element; the intent is to try to achieve a balance,
yet Tonner Canyon is being ignored; to say that the
City will not do something, sets us up for
liability; there are so many inconsistencies within
the element; and the TTC should be requested to be
involved on a more formal bases.
Clyde Hennesy, residing on Sunset Crossing, stated
that opening Sunset Crossing is a temporary fix
that will affect 3,000 people in the area.
Don Gravdahl, residing at 2398 Minnequa, a member
of the TTC, made the following comments: local
streets are being referred to as collector streets;
opening Sunset Crossing would create a traffic
mess; if the roads are opened to regional traffic,
how would we protect existing neighborhoods; any
reference to Sunset Crossing should be omitted; and
the document should indicate that a public hearing
will be held if these roads (Sunset Crossing,
Beaverhead, and Washington) are ever considered to
be opened.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
and reconvened the meeting at 9:23 p.m.
Deborah Carter, a resident, opposing the opening of
Beaverhead, stated that the school in the area, and
the safety of the children, should be a major
consideration.
i Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane,
3 stated that the issue of environment was not fully
i addressed in Tonner Canyon. The Planning
Commission seems to have a "pro development"
attitude. He would like the Commission to stand up
's and protect the environment in the General Plan.
Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Dr., stated
that Strategy 2.3.1, in the Plan for Resource
Management, should refer to not only the vehicle
{ miles traveled, but the amount of people in the
J cars, and the length of time it takes to travel.
_. ..-_ - " ' �. .4. .� - ,..r ,�a+, ry„�u �sr,r•'��;�b'�rm��pik�9;1�i',. ��'Nt�;&'�laG��a",�"�'°-.. ..
F -
May 4, 1992 Page 9
He made the following comments in regards to the
Plan for Physical Mobility: the document already
indicates that Sunset Crossing, Washington, and
Beaverhead are to be cul -de -sated; the document
should be kicked back to the TTC to allow them an
opportunity to review and amend the document
accordingly; an access road to the new High School
in Tres Hermanos needs to be addressed; the Plan
is, at best a sophomoric effort, with the facts and
conclusions inconsistent with each other; Tonner
Canyon Road can be built in a biologically safe
way; and he is in opposition to a toll booth for
Grand Ave.
Sylton Hurdle, residing at 105 N. Palo Cedro Drive,
stated his opposition to the opening of Beaverhead.
Don Robertson, residing at 309 N. Pantado Dr., a
member of GPAC, stated the GPAC's feeling on
traffic, in general, is that there are two ways to
solve a traffic problem: open the roads and let the
traffic through; or restrict the roads and let the
traffic go around Diamond Bar. The GPAC would like
to make it difficult for the outsiders to travel
through Diamond Bar, and make it easier for the
local residents. The GPAC is not against a road in
Tonner Canyon, but against a regional parkway put
through Tonner Canyon. He stated that opening
Beaverhead would impact the schools in a terrible
way.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that he would like the
members of the Traffic and Transportation
Commission to come forward, as individuals, to
answer any questions that the Planning Commission
may have regarding the Circulation Element. The
Commission concurred.
Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that sooner or later
Tonner Canyon will be part of Diamond Bar, inquired
how, philosophically, one could say that opening
Tonner Canyon is appropriate, yet Sunset Crossing
is to be left closed.
Don Gravdahl stated that the two situations are
�. completely different. Sunset Crossing is a
residential area that has been built up for about
30 years. According to the consultants figures,
Sunset Crossing, east of Diamond Bar Blvd., should
be well over capacity today, and yet you're asking
why it shouldn't be further impacted. On the other
hand, there are no persons living in the Tanner
May 4, 1992 Page 10
Canyon area today. Tonner Canyon Road is a traffic
reliever for Diamond Bar, and should, at least, be
explored. He stated that he is in agreement, with
the other individuals, that are members of TTC,
that spoke regarding the development of a Tonner
Canyon Road. The opinions on Sunset Crossing are
not so different, and could probably be worked outl.
His concern is that there be adequate protection
should one of those streets ever want to be open.
There should be some safeguards in place assuring
that there are hearings, by the City Council, t
allow citizens to express their opinions to make it
work.
Chair/Flamenbaum inquired how the over pass for the
57/60 interchange, and the need to accommodate is
High School in north Diamond Bar, should be
addressed.
Todd Chavers stated that, philosophically, one
should question if the improvement will benefit
Diamond Bar. Opening Sunset Crossing will probably
not benefit the City. In regard to Tonner Canyon,
two situations have been projected: the traffic
conditions with a Tonner Canyon Road; and the
traffic conditions without a Tanner Canyon Road.
The question to ask is which one of these
conditions are we willing to accept, and if it is
an either/or situation, or some balance of a
combination. According to Caltrans, when the 71/60
interchange is resolved, the east bound 60 to
northbound 57 movement is supposed to use that new
interchange. Therefore, our need for the overpass
is minuscule, and is not an acceptable solution.
The question, regarding the road to the High
School, is determining how we provide good access
for Diamond Bar, without providing good access to
the rest of the world. That is a different
question than Tonner Canyon, and Sunset Crossing.
John Beke concurred that the issue of Tonner Canyon
and Sunset Crossing is different. The benefits, to
the City, by opening Sunset Crossing, may be nil,
but, it would improve regional circulation. Tonner
Canyon, on the other hand, is going to benefit
Diamond Bar. The data, in Table 3-5, indicates
that without Tonner Canyon, the City will have
traffic conditions that are unbearable. With +^
Tonner Canyon Road, the traffic conditions will
improve for the residents on Diamond Bar Blvd. and
Grand Avenue.
Todd Chavers pointed out that, as the document
stands now, we have precluded ever opening up
ROM
May 4, 1992 Page 11
I;
I Tonner Canyon. We have to be cautious how we frame
this, philosophically, with what we really mean,
and what we will accept.
C/Meyer inquired why the TTC was never charged with
holding a public hearing process to review the
original proposal prepared by the GPAC. The Parks
and Recreation Commission held hearings on the Plan
for Resource Management. Since this is an
important element that has to ducktail very closely
with the Land Use Element, he stated that he would
feel more comfortable if there was a recommendation
from the TTC regarding the Circulation Element. He
is also uncomfortable with reviewing the
Circulation Element without having the Land Use
Element with it.
CD/DeStefano explained that, to his understanding,
the TTC has had an opportunity to participate in
shaping the direction of this particular element.
The TTC, around the end of 1990, began some
discussion regarding the upcoming contract with a
consultant for preparation of this element, which
ultimately led to a conclusion of hiring DKS &
Associates. The TTC commented on the document,
following a presentation given by Kathy Higley, of
DKS. The documents were changed in order to
reflect the philosophies of the TTC, and then
forwarded to the GPAC. The GPAC, in it's present
state, has a different philosophical bent on the
quality of life in Diamond Bar. The GPAC is not
interested in improving the circulation network
because they feel there is a greater benefit
restricting traffic. The TTC feels we should try
to provide a balance of transportation improvements
that service not only Diamond Bar, in the most
positive way, but service the regional needs of the
circulation networks. He stated that he does not
know why the TTC did not hold public hearings.
However, based upon the minutes of their meetings,
it seems clear that they have had an opportunity to
participate and to promote their specific beliefs.
City management requested that the GPAC be allowed
to make their recommendations to the Planning
Commission and the City Council. It is the GPAC's
recommendations that are being promoted. Staff has
tried to indicate where the TTC and the Parks and
( Recreation Commission has had differences of
I opinions. It is before the Planning Commission to
decide how to proceed with the document before
them.
C/Grothe, noting that the Commission has received
the opinions of the GPAC and the TTC, proposed that
May 4, 1992
Page 12
it would be appropriate for the Commission to first
come up with a consensus of the major goals, and
then develop a sub -committee, made up of 2
representatives for the Planning Commission and the
TTC, and City staff, to edit the document line by
line, to be brought back to the Commission for
final review.
Chair/Flamenbaum, unsure if he understands the data
in the existing conditions as presented, questioned
if the Commission is in the position to make
philosophical decisions.
John Beke explained that the TTC never intended to
review the document line by line. The TTC has
taken a very positive position on Tonner Canyon, as
is indicated in their "White Paper", and has stated
that Tonner Canyon should be preserved in some
manner, shape, or form, in the General Plan. The
TTC can also come up with an agreed upon position
regarding Sunset Crossing.
Todd Chavers stated that, as an individual, he
would support the suggestion to form a. sub-
committee. There is the technical expertise, in
the TTC, that would be beneficial in the Planning
Commission's review.
C/Li indicated that he concurs with C/Grothe''s
suggestion.
VC/MacBride stated that he is disturbed that the
thoughts of the TTC were not formulated on paper.
He suggested that the Planning Commission and the
TTC write down what goals, objectives, and
strategies should be in the document, and that
anything in the document that is unconstitutional
and generic in nature be deleted. The Planning
Commission can then review it in this simple
format.
C/Meyer, noting that there are two totally
divergent views before the Commission, stated that
after two and half years of gathering public input
to create a draft document that is to go before the
Planning Commission, there should have been some
sort of consensus from the commissions and
committees working for the City.
Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that it has been
suggested, by staff, that the TTC and the Planning
Commission individually write down their comments
during the week for a joint study session next
Monday.
May 4, 1992
Page 13
C/Grothe, pointing out that Commission is charged
with getting the points of view and making a
decision, stated that he feels that the GPAC and
the TTC's points of views have been adequately
presented. He concurred that somebody from the TTC
should analyze the facts and figures of the
document, but that the Planning Commission is
charged with the general philosophy, and the goals
and objectives.
C/Meyer stated that there are three documents
before the Commission: the General Plan, the MEI,
and the EIR. The document contains facts and
figures, and data that is critical.
Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Meyer and CARRIED to hold a joint study session
6:00 p.m., Monday, May 11, 1992, with the TTC, to
analyze the data.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: M e y e r, L i a n d
Chair/Flamenbaum:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and VC/MacBride.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Lloyd Zola stated that the following are the issues
raised tonight: Tonner Canyon; the issue of Sunset
Crossing and Beaverhead; a concern of showing
collector roadways which may function as local
streets; identifying an access to the High School;
mention to the 60/57 interchange; and,a comment
that there are a series of inconsistencies in the
document. He noted that to have a successful
workshop, the TTC should identify those elements
that are believed to be inconsistent.
CD/Destefano suggested that the chairmans, of each
Commission, communicate with each other and decide
on the appropriate agenda for Monday's meeting.
The Commission concurred.
VC/MacBride, referring to the Plan For Physical
Mobility, page A-1, first sentence of the second
paragraph, stated that the sentence could be
written the following three different ways to
correspond with the varying opinions stated: in
it's original form, "The focus of this plan is the
identification and evaluation of local circulation
needs of the City of Diamond Bar, balancing those
needs with regional demands and mandates."; or as,
"The focus of this plan is the identification and
evaluation of local circulation needs of the City
of Diamond Bar.", or "The focus of this plan...,as
a counterbalance to regional demands and
mandates.". It is this philosophical issue that
May 4, 1992 Page 14
needs to be resolved. furthermore, the document
contains statistical data that is difficult to
analyze. It should not be a statistical document:
The document ought to be so broad in vision, that
others can come and apply data to it.
C/Meyer stated that the data should not be ignored.
The traffic generation numbers don't necessarily
change, but can be interpreted differently in terms
of it's acceptability.
VC/MacBride, in regards to safety and traffic
facility considerations, pointed out that Sunset
Crossing, which is part of the truck route up to
the entry lane of the 57 freeway, with 12 driveway$
within 600 feet, does not have a raised median;
like the rest of Diamond Bar.
C/Meyer suggested that if the Commission gets to a
better comfort level with the Circulation Element;
it can be folded in with the Land Use Element, and
the Commission could still conclude within the time
schedule.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Meyer
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to close this portion of
the plan until Monday, May 11, 1992 at 6:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:52
{ p.m. to Monday, May 11, 1992 at 6:00 p.m.
Attest:
�v -
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman
Respectively,
Ja es DeStefano
Secretary
0
