Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/22/2012MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 22, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Lin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Frank Farago, Jack Shah, Tony Torng, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson, and Chairman Jimmy Lin. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 8, 2012. C/Shah moved, VC/Nelson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 8, 2012, as revised per C/Torng. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Shah, Torng, VC/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Lin ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 _Review of Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Finding Conformity with the General Plan. SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning i Commission adopt a Resolution finding the proposed Fiscal Year 2012- 2013 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with. the City's General Plan. MAY, 22, 2012 PAGE 2 . PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nelson asked how much of the budget for traffic involves cut -through traffic and CDD/Gubman responded that it is largely pass-through traffic that burdens the local street system. VC/Nelson asked if Diamond Bar was responsible for paying for that and CDD/Gubman responded that Diamond Bar is scheduled for ongoing traffic enhancement and if there are projects that are occurring outside of the City where through studies there is a demonstrated impact on intersections to the City, Diamond Bar. has some standing in requesting mitigation from those projects outside of the City. Otherwise, there are funding sources that the Public Works Department continually seeks to help offset the local burden of paying for those improvements. VC/Nelson said that for example, if the Industry stadium is built, what percentage of monies that would have to go toward safety, transportation and traffic management would come from the City of Industry to which CDD/Gubman reiterated that the negotiated settlement with the City of Industry is going to include a lump sum of $20 million for the purpose of addressing traffic impacts to the City. There will also be an annual payment to the City thereafter of a minimum of $700,000 up to over $1 million which would be adjusted for inflation and based on the actual number of events that occur at the stadium. The fundamental intent of those payments is to offset traffic impacts as well as, other currently unforeseen quality of life impacts that are directly correlated with the stadium operations. VC/Nelson said that if a 3,000 unit project were to be approved in the City of Chino Hills near Grand Avenue, what percentage of the mitigation costs would come from that project. CDD/Gubman responded that there would be a traffic impact analysis that would accompany the environmental review of such a project and there would be intersections that would be studied for existing and future conditions and the improvements required to be made to those intersections to improve levels of service either previously identified or identified as a result of the analysis, would prompt a calculation of the percentage of additional traffic that would flow through a particular intersection as a result of the project. VC/Nelson asked if CDD/Gubman felt the City received a fair value from this type of project and CDD/Gubman responded that for this type of project it is somewhat fair. What is not fair is all of the projects that have cumulatively occurred that have created a burden at a particular intersection because those developers are long gone and the impact remains. Although Diamond Bar uses Chino Hills' intersections as well, Diamond . Bar uses their intersections a lot less than they use ours. VC/Nelson said his point was that he would not want the citizens of. Diamond Bar losing money to Parks and Recreation so that it can deal with the effects of Chino Hills' growth. MAY 22, 2012 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Torng said he was interested in the transportation infrastructure projects and asked for verification that it was not paid for with Diamond Bar money. CDD/Gubman responded that based on the information on the chart $450,000 is from the City's General Fund and the remainder comes from regional, state and federal funding sources. C/Torng asked which ramps would be closed for the Lemon Avenue Interchange project. CDD/Gubman responded that for Brea Canyon Road, the entrance and I exit at Golden Springs Drive will be closed. Brea Canyon Road will remain open and the Lemon Avenue on/off ramps would be in addition to those. C/Shah said that the City is spending a lot of money on a traffic signal at Shotgun which serves only The Country Estates when there is a traffic signal a short distance away and what justifies the City spending that kind of money on that traffic signal when there is a traffic signal for the Diamond Bar Center only a few feet away: CDD/Gubman responded that the intersection in question is the "offset" intersection that serves the Diamond Bar Center as well as, The Country Estates.SP/Lee said she . j was told that it serves to realign so that "The Country Estates" has direct ingress/egress. _C/Torng stated that the report refers to ongoing negotiations with The Country Estates to decide what the shared expense will be. SP/Lee referred C/Shah to Page 4 of staff's report which states that "The City will be presenting to the HOA to see if there is any buy -in. and willingness to participate in the cost of the improvements." C/Farago asked who benefits from the signal and C/Shah said "just the Country." C/Farago said if that is the case, would not The Country Estates burden the entire .cast? C/Shah said there is a right turn movement only E with a significantly large queuing lane (on their property to prevent traffic backup on Grand Avenue) at Shotgun. When residents exit the E community they have a traffic signal light and he believes that if they want I ! a traffic signal light they should pay for it. CDD/Gubman responded that L this is a ,good example of traffic improvements in terms of .its. intrinsic benefit to the circulation system being consistent with the General Plan because it does improve the overall circulation system within the City. The City Council requires the finding that the Planning Commission makes - that this improvement, along with all of the others further the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The City Council has to make the decision on the actual expenditures of funds for specific project so the i appropriateness or whether these monies should be spent elsewhere is a fiscal decision for the City Council to consider. So that debate is one that ' the City Council will need to take into account along with all of the other I f line items in the Capital Improvement Plan for the upcoming Fiscal Year MAY 22, 2012 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION and certainly through the minutes that are going to be presented to the City Council with this Resolution, depending on what the Planning - Commission adopts today. Therefore, the Commissioner's input will be provided on that matter. Chair/Lin asked if the Commission could include an addendum or attach a comment about this particular item with the motion. CDD/Gubman said that the Commission could craft a finding or recital in the Resolution for the General Plan consistency which puts this particular budget item of interest into the Resolution with some reservations. Chair/Lin stated that typically, when a development occurs in one city the neighboring city can act as a proponent or opponent of the proposed project. Unfortunately, traffic does not have .a boundary. Chair/Lin asked why the Grand Avenue widening project was not in the CIP report. CDD/Gubman responded that that project is not being funded by the City but by the City of Industry. CDD/Gubman recommended that under Section 8 of the Resolution a sixth recital be added to wit: Whereas, during the deliberations at its May 22, 2012, meeting, the Planning Commission expressed reservations regarding the extent of the City's contribution toward the Shotgun Lane intersection improvements and that an appropriate fair -share from "The Country Estates Association" should be considered as ' a significant funding source. C/Shah moved, VC/Nelson seconded the motion with the provision that the addendum language be strengthened by eliminating the term "reservations" and indicating the Commissions belief that "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association should pay for all improvements to Shotgun Lane, to adopt a Resolution finding the proposed Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with the City's General Plan with the addition of the amendment regarding Shotgun Lane. Chair/Lin said he would be abstaining from the roll call vote on this item because he believed his company was involved in the Shotgun intersection design. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: MAY 22, 2012 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/Gubman confirmed that the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on June 12, 2012. There are currently two public hearing items scheduled for the agenda, one for an expansion of the emergency veterinary hospital on Diamond Bar Boulevard in the Oak Tree Lanes Shopping Center and the second item is for anew custom home in The Country Estates. CDD/Gubman stated that regarding the Ralphs space, as of today, negotiations are still moving forward with some deal points yet to be resolved between the grocery tenant and the shopping center owner. CDD/Gubman asked the Commissioners to consider comments he heard about _ the roll call vote custom. The custom is that it is alphabetical for the three commissioners that are not VC or Chair and the last two names in the roll call are the VC and Chair, in that order. That has been the custom in Diamond Bar but it is not etched in stone. One of the consequences of that is that the same person is always casting the first vote and the same person is always casting the deciding vote in any given year. There are other ways roll call can be conducted whether it be rotational or a hybrid of that where the VC and Chair are casting the final two votes but the other three votes being cast are on a rotating basis. If the Commission wishes to change the way the roll is called during the voting procedure this can be discussed now or at a future meeting. Chair/Lin said he was comfortable with the current roll call method unless there was a controversial matter. VC/Nelson said that historically, the roll call format had always been to call on the maker of the motion first, the seconder of the motion next, and then finish in the succession with the remaining commissioner(s). Chair/Lin agreed that roll call vote would go forward with this method. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda.