HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/22/1991YTWDDF iDY:l
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD MEETING ROOM
880 SOUTH LEMON STREET
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91789
April 22, 1991
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS
6:30 pm
Grothe, MacBride, Lin, Vice Chair-
man Harmony, Chairman Schey
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place for the general public to address the
members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within
their jurisdiction. Generally, items to be discussed are those
which do not appear on this agenda.
MINUTES:
1. Minutes of Meetings of March 11 and April 8, 1991
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-0127
A request to complete in two phases, the addition of 29 pads
for the placement of mobile homes. The 19.5 acre site is
currently developed with 118 pads and is known commonly as
Diamond Bar Estates. The site is surrounded by industrial
uses and multiple family residences.
Applicant: McDermott Engineering
Location: 21217 East Washington
(Continued from April 8, 1991)
3. Conditional Use Permit 90-0125
A request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two
floor office building, approximately 6,400 square feet in
size, with 15 subterranean parking stalls. The subject site
is located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and westerly of
Sunset Crossing Road at Navajo Spring Road, The subject
site is in a Commercial Manufacturing (CM) zone and is sur-
rounded by commercial/office and residential development.
Applicant: Ed and Shirley Jaworsky
Location: 23475 Sunset Crossing
(Continued from March 11, 1991)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Page Two
April 22, 1991
OLD BUSINESS: (No Items)
NEW BUSINESS:
4. Review of Draft Development Code:
Chapter 1.4 - Residential Districts
Chapter 1.1 - Design Review
5. Review of Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
(LACTC) Material.
6. Staff
7. Planning Commissioners
ADJOURNMENT: May 13, 1991
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 11, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:07
p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board
Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner MacBride, Vice
Chairman Harmony, and Chairman Schey. Commissioner
Lin was absent (excused).
Also present were City Planner Irwin Kaplan, Assoc.
Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy City Attorney Bill
Curley, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Planning
Technician Ann Lungu, Intern Steven Koffroth, and
Contract Secretary Liz Myers. Planning Director
James DeStefano arrived at 10:30 p.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Harmony requested the Minutes of February 25,
1991 be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 25,
1991.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, and
Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Harmony.
NEW BUSINESS:
Review of Draft Irwin Kaplan, City Planner, reviewed the
Development Code Development Code proposal to establish a Design
Chapters 1.1 & Review Board, which had been submitted to the
1.11 Commission.
I
Chair/Schey inquired how narrow the scope of review
should be in regards to single homes.
CP/Kaplan suggested that the scope be limited to
height, bulk, basic materials, and landscaping to
maintain the established or prevailing community or
neighborhood character.
Chair/Schey indicated that the level of detail of
design review needs to be defined for the overall
architectural theme of a master plan development.
He questioned how the design review will be dealt
with in regards to custom homes in the Country, or
March 11, 1991
Page 2
other subdivisions, that have their own design
review process. The concept of maintaining
consistency within given neighborhoods is important
beyond the scope of size, bulk, etc.
C/Grothe stated guidelines should be tough and
complete to assure development is of top quality.
Dan Dunham, a principal with the Planning Network,
stated the policy issues for Design Review are:
1. The level the design review appropriate for
Diamond Bar.
2. The kind of committee that will handle design
review.
VC/Harmony suggested that the committee be a
standing committee that serves at the will of the
Commission. Instead of delaying every project for
architectural review, those cases that need more
work can be assigned to the committee and then be
referred back to the Commission.
Mr. Dunham stated that the decision of determining
which projects will be reviewed is a policy issue
that will have to addressed by the Commission.
VC/Harmony stipulated that a neighborhood with
CC&R's, that want to regulate their own
architectural processes, should be allowed to
prevail. The Commission should not get involved
with individual house construction, other than to
ensure good standards. He suggested, with the
consensus of the Commission, that commercial and
tract developments should be subjected to
architectural review.
I
C/Grothe asserted that he is against another whole
body coming up with another whole set of
guidelines. There should be a set of strict
guidelines regulating standards.
Mr. Dunham explained that every attempt has been
made to ensure that the code gives some very
definite standards to give a clear picture. What
is being referred to here is the aesthetics and
some of the other issues that relate to commercial
buildings, to neighborhood character, and to tract
homes. Those are the issues of the development
code that, because of the very nature of euclidian
zoning, is not covered and cannot be regulated.
Chair/Schey is not opposed to putting houses under
the design review because the Commission will
eventually have to deal with the pit falls. He is
March 11, 1991 Page 3
concerned with the possibility that a series of
tract homes could be bought up and be replaced by
larger homes.
VC/Harmony inquired if the code addressed the
concept of mansionization, not necessarily on the
big lots but on some of the tract lots and private
smaller lots. He inquired if the issue is an
architectural review concept.
CP/Kaplan replied that the issue would become an
aspect of review if it is a stated objective.
Someone would have to say, as a matter of policy,
there is a concern with the relationship of the
size of the house, to the size of the lot.
Chair/Schey inquired if the purpose of design
review is for architectural design or to encompass
the broader functions of a development review
committee.
CP/Kaplan stated that design review could encompass
all types of residential and commercial uses or
could be limited to certain uses. A fundamental
policy choice would be a determination of the types
of uses and kinds of structures and projects to be
subject to design review. He asked for discussion
of the scope of review appropriate for commercial
structures.
C/Grothe stated the design review procedure could
require the Commission to do a design review on
single family residences. There is not a need for
another organization, or a level of bureaucracy, to
do so.
CP/Kaplkn inquired if the Commission wants
architectural review where there is an
architectural review board on the premises, such as
a situation like the "Country".
C/Grothe stated that in that situation, it should
be determined that it would become an architectural
review body that is advisory to the Commission.
Regardless of their approval, it is still to be
reviewed at the Commission's level.
CP/Kaplan inquired if for larger projects the
Commission prefers a freestanding review board or a
function of staff level review.
VC/Harmony suggested that it should be a standing
review, consisting of professionals, meeting
occasionally, at the request of the Planning
Commission when additional help is needed.
March 11, 1991 Page 4
Chair/Schey stated that a particular case will
either meet a set of criteria that triggers the use
of the board, or the case will go directly to the
Commission. His concern was the potential delay of
projects while being reviewed by staff.
CP/Kaplan, recapping the Commissions statements,
stated the desire appears to be that all projects
going to the Commission be accompanied by a staff
level design review. If the Commission requires
further design review advice, it can request the
assistance of the professional design review board.
C/MacBride questioned if there is sufficient budget
constraints for staff to perform the design review
function without ongoing reliance upon the design
review board.
CP/Kaplan stated staff will develop a proposal to
reflect the Planning Commissions desire for the use
of a committee, when needed, to review projects.
Otherwise it will be part of the normal staff
review process.
C/MacBride added to underscore the Commission's
concern that the Commission is not enthusiastic
about creating an additional level of bureaucratic
supervision.
Chair/Schey announced the next discussion of the
development code will be at 6:30 p.m., March 25,
1991. A recess was called at 8:06 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 8:16 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Intern Steven Koffroth presented a report on the
request for an extension of five (5) years to
CUP 1634-(1)
finish the third !phase building of the sanctuary
Evangelical Free
for the Evangelical Free Church. The request will
Church
require modification of condition #18 of CUP 1634 -
(1). Staff recommended that the Commission adopt
the attached resolution granting a five year time
extension to the original CUP and require that any
changes on the project come back before the
Commission for a new CUP approval.
Chair/Schey inquired if there are plans to change
the scope of the original phase three plan.
I/Koffroth stated that no plans to change phase III
have been submitted as of yet.
C/Grothe inquired if upon granting the extension,
would there be a design review process to ensure
that the project stays in conformity to the code.
March 11, 1991 Page 5
I/Koffroth replied that at this time the applicant
has not completed the development of the plans.
However, the applicant has indicated a desire to
change the scope of the third phase, at a later
date, by eliminating one of the classrooms,
relocating one of the classrooms to the rear,
increasing the size of the sanctuary to be moved
back towards the center, increasing the parking
area, and gaining an additional access on to
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
VC/Harmony inquired if there were any objections in
the original approval, or currently, to the
project.
I/Koffroth responded that he did receive telephone
calls from surrounding residents who were concerned
about the expansion.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Bob Huff, representative of the Diamond- Bar
Evangelical Free Church, requested extra time for
the project. He stated that nothing changed in
regards to the original purpose.
Christine Pry, residing at 3155 Cherrydale,
inquired if the present trees will be destroyed
because more grading will occur on the hill in
order to increase the size of the sanctuary.
I/Koffroth, stated that it is anticipated that the
knoll will be graded to provide for additional
parking. The trees will be eliminated, but will be
replaced on the site.
VC/Harmdny noted that the trees are not scheduled
to be taken out on the current plan. The
applicant, therefore, would be required to submit
another plan to be returned to the Planning
Commission as part of another Public Hearing
process.
Chair/Schey inquired if there are any requirements
under the County approval that would not meet the
current codes.
I/Koffroth responded that the parking to be
provided under the CUP is less than would be
required under current codes.
C/Grothe stated he would prefer letting the CUP
expire with the intent of making any returning
project conform to the current codes and
regulations of the community.
March 11, 1991
Page 6
C/MacBride indicated that he is comfortable with
permitting the extension, but acknowledges the
importance that the project meet current codes.
His concern is with what would be advantageous to
the community and the church.
VC/Harmony inquired if there are any other
significant changes from the original approval, and
some of the new ordinances and concepts currently
being considered.
CP/Kaplan replied that, as previously indicated,
parking is more restrictive, and though not a code
issue, there is a change in the philosophy of the
day care center. However, the request was
evaluated as an extension of a CUP and was not
analyzed in terms of the applicant's verbal request
for a new project. Staff cannot give an
appropriate recommendation.
C/Grothe stated the only reason for needing an
extension is to build the existing project to
whatever was approved ten years ago. He reiterated
his desire to review these projects.
Chair/Schey concurred with C/Grothe, and noted that
the sanctuary is the single largest facility on the
site. He is concerned with the parking
capabilities after the extension. It should be
looked at more definitively as a developmental
project.
Mark Harper, pastor, residing at 1125 Grubstake,
asserted that the reason for the extension is to
maintain a permit to develop the property. He
acknowledged that parking is a valid concern but it
can be mitigated. I He explained that the landmarked
trees will be preserved during grading. He would
like the plan to remain until it can be refined to
the Commissions satisfaction.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Grothe stated regardless if there is a change
made on the site or not, the project needs to come
back to the Commission for review.
C/MacBride inquired when the CUP would lapse.
I/Koffroth responded that it would have lapsed in
November of 1990, had they not requested an
extension.
March 11, 1991 Page 7
Chair/Schey stated that when there is an
opportunity to do so, the Commission should have
all developments conform to our current codes.
VC/Harmony stated his appreciation for what the
church is trying to do. He concurred that the
standards are going to change, however, looking at
the situation and looking at the church as a one
day use, he is inclined to approve staff's
recommendation. Staff has reviewed the project and
there has been sufficient discussion of the
tentative changes.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by
Chair/Schey to deny the extension.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride and Harmony.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
The motion fails.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride to continue the matter until the next
regular meeting and direct staff to review reports
of the existing plans and diagrams.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony and MacBride.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Chair/Schey.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
The motion fails.
DA/Curley explained that as a function, the request
for extension is denied.
CUP 90-0127 Associate Planner Robert Searcy presented the
report for a request to complete in two phases the
addition of twenty nine pads for the placement of
mobile homes. Staff recommended the Commission
approve the Resolution of Approval as submitted or
amended.
VC/Harmony inquired if the hydrology report was
received and studied.
City Engineer Sid Mousavi replied that the report
was just recently received and there has not been
adequate opportunity to review it.
VC/Harmony requested a characterization of the
issues involved in the study.
March 11, 1991 Page 8
CE/Mousavi stated that it basically refers to the
mitigation of the drainage situation. The area to
be subdivided is presently the sump for the balance
of the site. The backside is to work as a
retention basin.
Chair/Schey asked if there is any standard for
guest parking at the mobile home property.
AP/Searcy stated that the standard for a multiple
family dwelling type development is used for guest
parking, which is currently a 1:4 ratio.
Chair/Schey inquired if, when the original CUP was
approved, these areas were contemplated as being
part of a future phase.
AP/Searcy stated the CUP originally approved 147
units to be completed within three phases over a
ten year period. This was not done and the
applicant is now applying for a CUP to complete
phase one and two.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Richard Simonian, general partner of the mobile
home park, stated that the retention basin will be
in a smaller area, to hold the same amount of
water, so that the additional spaces could be used
to bring in additional revenue. The back of the
park is presently a nuisance area. The sound wall
will be moved back to incorporate the retention
basin to the interior of the park and will be
maintained by the park.
VC/Harmony questioned if phase three proposes that
the water will !naturally go elsewhere because
cities or counties may have developed some
additional storm drains in the future.
Mr. Simonian stated that the City of Industry has
plans to develop major storm drains. However, the
City of Industry has not presently granted
permission to drain on the property.
Tom Pepper, residing at 21217 E. Washington,
president of the homeowners association, stated 92
of the 118 residents responded to the site survey.
All issues have been resolved. The majority
indicated that a designated play area was not
imperative.
Mr. Simonian stated the existing recreational area
is large enough to accommodate the residents.
March 11, 1991 Page 9
Chair/Schey inquired if there is an on going flow
of water in the area presently acting as a
retention basin.
Mr. Simonian asserted that there is a very
negligible flow of water. The water that does
drain in the area is percolated through the ground.
Chair/Schey inquired what the approximate size of
the proposed revised sump area is.
Mr. Simonian stated that it is approximately an
acre and a half, and that the depth is geared for a
50 year "Q".
CE/Mousavi indicated that if the area designated
for a sump is reduced and the depth increased, as
stated by the applicant, the time for the water to
leave would be longer.
Mr. Simonian stated that he will comply to whatever
the requirements are stated by the engineer.
C/Grothe requested evidence be given to staff, at a
later date, indicating that the conditions of
agreement have been addressed and resolved.
Kathleen Rose, 21259 Cottonwood Lane, inquired if
there will be provisions to maintain the property
on a regular basis.
Chair/Schey explained that this issue would need to
be part of an abatement procedure to be dealt with
through the staff.
VC/Harmony stated he visited the site. The sump
area needs to be cleaned up and presently the area
is not in proper living condition. He requested
the project be return to the Commission, to include
proof there is adequate abatement of the water
going into the City of Industry.
C/Grothe indicated his desire for the project to go
forward, with the condition that all problems
regarding the homeowners association are resolved.
The area must also be maintained.
Mr. Simonian, to alleviate the concerns of
VC/Harmony, explained that the entire retention
basin would be on the inside of the park and will
be landscaped and maintained. He indicated that
the conditions resolved with the homeowners
association will be met.
March 11, 1991 Page 10
Chair/Schey stated that retention basins are
frequently used as recreational areas. He is
satisfied that, if the retention basin is included
as part of the park, and the requirement to keep it
maintained is followed, the project should go
forward.
CE/Mousavi stated that the idea of retention basins
as recreational areas have been used in numerous
projects in the past. However, the type of soil
needs to be considered. Some soils do not absorb
quickly, creating a pool of water, and a nuisance.
C/Grothe emphasized that the approval would be
subject to the engineers approval that the area
will be safe. He recommended a four or five foot
easement between two properties, to include
sidewalks, with landscaping, in order to facilitate
pedestrian movement, thereby making the
recreational facilities more accessible.
CP/Kaplan suggested staff prepare a list of
proposed conditions for the Commission.
Chair/Schey requested staff to check if permits,
such as the EPA, DFG, or corps of engineers, are
necessary since the existing sump has been
receiving water and will no longer be serving in
the current capacity.
C/MacBride requested that the sound barrier meets
with the code requirements of the City, and that
there is a reference that it meets the satisfaction
requested by the homeowners.
Mr. Simonian stated the sound barrier was designed
to eliminate the !sound'by bouncing it back to the
other direction. He indicated that he has the
acoustical reports.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to
the meeting of April 8, 1991 to include a staff
report on the engineering requirements, an easement
walkway, the sound barrier, and the recommendation
of the necessity of a recreational area and guest
parking.
Chair/Schey called a recess at 10:06 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 10:12 p.m.
March 11, 1991 Page 11
CUP 90-0130 AP/Searcy presented the request to construct a two
story structure totaling 8,352 square feet to
Mt. Calvary provide additional classrooms for a parochial
Lutheran Church school (grades K-8). Staff recommended approval of
the project.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Dennis Stueve, pastor at Mt. Calvary, reiterated
the need for the expansion of the building.
William McNeal, residing at 23315 E. Gold Rush,
objected to the project because the neighbors below
him will be looking into the project. He suggested
that the parking plans be reversed.
AP/Searcy read a letter, submitted by C. Baldwin
Lowe of 23309 Gold Rush, objecting to the project
if it does not comply to the County code. AP/Searcy
noted that the ridgeline would not exceed the
existing grade of most of the residential
surrounding properties. It meets the standards of
the Conditional Use Permit conditions.
C/Grothe inquired if there is a way to eliminate a
couple of feet off the top of the structure.
Jerry Busse, architect, residing at 704 S.
Primrose, indicated that it would not be feasible.
Chair/Schey stated that he does not believe that
the building will have undue impact on the
neighbors. He suggested a condition that would
mandate a submittal of a landscape plan for the
street frontages of the property, that would be
approved by the City, to be included in the overall
development plan, and maintained as such. The
drainage area should be maintained as well.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by Chair/Schey, seconded by
C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Resolution of
Approval as submitted with the inclusion of an
additional condition mandating submittal of
landscape plan on the frontage and it's
maintenance, modification of item #9 whereas the
shrub does not exceed 20 feet, and amendment of
item #12 to include the categorical exemption
number 15314.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, and
Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Harmony.
March 11, 1991 Page 12
CUP 90-0125 C/MacBride requested to be removed from the
proceeding because of his proximity to the project.
Upon the advice by the City attorney, he
disqualified himself from the hearing.
AP/Searcy stated that the public notice was mailed
February 13, 1991. He presented the request for a
CUP to construct a two floor office building
located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and westerly
of Sunset Crossing Road at Navajo Spring Road.
Staff recommended the adoption of the Resolution of
approval and the attached conditions.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Fred Janz, applicant, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge,
requested the CUP to build the other building, and
specified that it would not affect the existing
building.
VC/Harmony noted that the area is very congested.
Mr. Janz explained that the County mandated the two
parcels be used as one to provide and ensure
maintaining adequate parking. He would like a CUP
to build an office building on the remaining
portion site.
C/Grothe requested drawings of the building to be
set into photographs to get a better idea of the
proposed project. He stated he is concerned with
the increase of traffic and the availability of
parking, He would like the traffic issue addressed
by the Traffic Commission, a traffic study, if
necessary, and assurance that there is adequate
parking.
I
VC/Harmony stated his concerns that parking and
traffic are a problem, and sees no reason to
approve further construction. He asserted that the
building itself is in violation of the goals and
intent of the Hillside Ordinance.
David Ayala, designer, stated that the reason for
the siting was to preserve the forest like setting.
He stated upgrading parking would widen the
building,.more trees will be planted in the rear,
it does not block the view of existing homes, and
there are plans for further landscaping.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
March 11, 1991
Page 13
Chair/Schey requested further review by staff in
regards to the traffic increase. He inquired if
the applicant would concur if the Commission is
inclined to continue the project.
Mr. Janz gave his concurrence.
VC/Harmony asked the City Attorney to advise the
Commission, when the project is returned, as to
whether there is a mandate to allow further
development of the property, or if the denial of
development constitutes some sort of a taking.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by
Chair/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the second meeting in April pending
submittal by the applicant of a traffic analysis
specifically oriented towards the traffic safety
issues relating to the project as prepared under
the scope of the direction of the Traffic
Commission.
ZCA 91-1 CP/Kaplan reported that all amendments were
included in the sign code ordinance. He brought to
Sign Code the attention of the Commission that the
Ordinance requirements for menu boards and attraction boards
seems excessive.
The Commission decided to limit attraction board to
theaters only.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Jake Williamson, residing at 259 Gentle Springs
Lane, offered his approval of the draft sign
ordinance.
I
VC/Harmony inquired why the abatement of signs is
after 15 years.
Bill Curley, City Attorney, explained that it is
better to implement discretionary actions as
opposed to mandatory action, from an ordinance
structure standpoint. The abatement can therefore
be structured in whatever manner is suitable to the
City in the future.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend to
the Council to approve the ordinance with the
revision restricting menu boards to theaters only.
March 11, 1991 Page 14
ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride shared a story found in the Harmony
Report of a store owner who, upon feeling badly
Commissioners because of a sign ordinance, painted a mural in the
cafe.
VC/Harmony discussed the issue of parking
standards. He would like to eventually vote on the
issue to create a policy confirming the Commissions
request.
James DeStefano, Planning Director, stated staff
utilizes a running list of Commission policies.
The list would be brought back to the Planning
Commission for the purpose of adopting a code
amendment. This is also done for policy pertaining
to the development code.
VC/Harmony requested that standardized parking be
brought to the Commission for discussion and
consideration of a vote at the next regular
meeting.
Chair/Schey directed staff to come up with a
recommendation on how best to deal with the issue,
with the intent to eliminate compact spaces, to be
brought back at the next regular meeting.
C/MacBride requested staff to pursue data regarding
oak tree preservation and replacement, with the
purpose of looking at and embracing a generic tree
ordinance.
Chair/Schey noted the follow up letter from
"Illumination" wanting to be rescheduled for
presentation before the Commission. He directed
staff to indicate the Commission is not interested
in rescheduling. I
Staff PD/DeStefano stated staff has not received the
traffic report requested by the Commission in
regards to the car wash issue.
Chair/Schey directed staff to put in a
recommendation for continuance if data is not
received within the appropriate timeline.
PD/DeStefano stated that earlier this evening he
spoke before a subcommittee of the board of
trustees to determine the use of surplus school
property known as site "D". Staff presented a
recommendation for a community park. The Walnut
School District proposed a housing development.
There was substantial support for the community
park. PD/DeStefano presented the Commission with a
copy of the park schematic plan.
March 11, 1991 Page 15
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
12:18 a.m.
David Schey
Chairman
Attest:
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
Chair/Schey stated that an action, taken by the
Commission, routinely comes back in the form of a
resolution. In this case, the action was an
inaction, and is so indicated in the resolution.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 8, 1991
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairman Harmony called the meeting to order
at 6:35 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District
Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner MacBride,
Commissioner Lin, and Vice Chairman Harmony.
Chairman Schey arrived at 6:38 p.m.
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, City Planner Emeritus Irwin Kaplan,
Associate Planner Robert Searcy, City Engineer Sid
Mousavi, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES:
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY that the Minutes of March
March 11, 1991
11, 1991 be held over until the next meeting.
C/MacBride requested the Minutes of March 25, 1991
be amended to delete the second to the last
paragraph on page 13.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Harmony
March 25, 1991
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
March 25, 1991 as amended.
OLD BUSINESS:
Planning Director James DeStefano explained that
the Resolution of Denial regarding a request for an
CUP 1634- (1)
extension of time for the Evangelical Free Church
responds to the action taken by the Commission
during the meeting of March 11, 1991. Staff
recommended the Commission approve the resolution
which denies the extension of time. He informed
the Commission that the applicant has filed for an
appeal.) The issue is'scheduled for a City Council
meeting in May.
VC/Harmony indicated that, as a point of order,
placing the issue on the agenda in the form of a
resolution constitutes a reconsideration of the
decision made.
Chair/Schey stated that an action, taken by the
Commission, routinely comes back in the form of a
resolution. In this case, the action was an
inaction, and is so indicated in the resolution.
April 8, 1991 Page 2
PD/DeStefano explained that the resolution was
crafted to neither approve nor deny the project.
The City Attorney felt it appropriate to record the
Commission's action in a resolution.
Chair/Schey contended that, given the City
Attorney's advice, the resolution is an appropriate
vehicle to record the Commission's activities.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED to approve the Resolution of Denial.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Lin,
and Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Harmony.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Development PD/DeStefano reported that the Resolution of Denial
Agreement 91-2 regarding a request for a Development Agreement to
construct a self-service gasoline station,
automated car wash, automotive detail facility,
offices and a restaurant, was prepared outlining
the findings of fact from the meeting of March 25,
1991. The applicant is requesting time to speak
prior to the Commission taking action on this
matter in order to discuss the results of a recent
meeting with City staff.
Chair/Schey stated that it would not be acceptable
to allow the applicant to make further comments
without also receiving input from the entities that
objected to the project.
VC/Harmony asserted that a decision was made during
the Public Hearing process. That decision should
remain without further input.
C/Grothe agreed. I The resolution is a ministerial
act of the decision made at the public hearing.
However, he would not object if the applicant would
like to present an update on the progress of the
project, after the final vote.
Chair/Schey noted the consensus of the Commission
to act on the Resolution, and then allow the
applicant to give an update on the project.
C/MacBride requested the Resolution be amended on
page 4, to read as "complement".
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Resolution of Denial as amended.
Chair/Schey permitted the applicant to address the
Commission.
April 8, 1991
Page 3
Mr. Gary Clapp and Mr. Piero of Toran development,
the proponents of the project, stated that a new
redesign of the project has been made incorporating
the input from the Commission and staff. It had
been their hope to'present the changes to the
Commission in hopes of a reconsideration. Mr.
Clapp illustrated, to the Commission, some of the
various changes made.
PD/DeStefano, upon conclusion of Mr. Clapps'
remarks, informed the applicant of the available
options to either move forward with the project to
the City Council, or withdraw the current project,
immediately reapply and submit the new project to
the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING: Assoc. Planner Robert Searcy reported that staff
has not had sufficient time to review the latest
CUP 90-0127 information submitted by the applicant late last
week. Staff recommended that the Public Hearing be
continued to the meeting of April 22, 1991, with
the applicant's acquiescence.
City Engineer Sid Mousavi specified that the
hydrology report has been submitted and reviewed by
staff. The report on the wall system and sound
system has not been reviewed.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Mr. Simonian, general partner of the mobile home
park, stated the acoustic study was submitted to
staff, as well as the conditions of the agreement
made with the homeowner's association. He would
like to conclude this issue as soon as possible.
Chair/Sdhey inquired if staff has received all
necessary information responding to all of the
Commission's concerns.
AP/Searcy confirmed that it has been received. He
stated that staff would be able to give a report,
with conditions, and a recommendation, for the
meeting of April 22, 1991.
Mr. Simonian gave his concurrence to continue the
matter to the next meeting.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the meeting of April 22, 1991, with the
applicants concurrence.
April 8, 1991 Page 4
NEW BUSINESS:
Review of Draft
Development Code
Chapters 1.1,
1.11, & 1.4
PD/DeStefano stated that three sections of the
Draft Development Code are scheduled for review.
They are:
1.
Chapter
1.1
- Administration.
2.
Chapter
1.11
- Definitions.
3.
Chapter
1.4
- Residential Districts.
Dan Dunham, principal with the Planning Network,
began the review of the Administration section.
Many issues that occur in the administration
section deal with:
1. Policy Questions - These issues necessitate
the Commission's input.
2. Mandatory Sections - These issues deal with
authority and state law.
Chapter 1.1•
Purpose
and Intent - There are 5 reasons for this
zoning
code:
a.
To
implement the General Plan.
b.
To
assure orderly development.
C.
To
attempt to control, mitigate,
or prevent
hazards.
d..
To
protect the natural features
within the
community.
e.
To
gain the advantages of orderly
planning.
The authority for the zoning code comes from
California State Planning Law, and the Subdivision
Map Act of the State of California.
Applicability and Enforcement - There is a
provision requiring all other agencies
(federal,state, county, and special districts)
concur and follow the guidelines set forth in this
document. It also states that the City will follow
it's own rules.
Discussion of the Diamond Bar General Plan - The
zoning code is an implementing device of the
General Plan. State law requires that the zoning
code be consistent with the general plan.
Development Districts - There are three general
types of districts that are being created in the
community:
a. The residential districts.
b. The commercial/business districts.
c The special districts.
Planning/or Agency - The City Council, the Planning
Commission, the Development Review Board, a Project
Review Commission, and the Planning Director are
included in the components of the planning agency.
April 8, 1991
Page 5
The Planning Director - The Planning Director's
responsibilities are: implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); act as the
secretary to the Planning Commission; and
coordinate all Planning functions within the City
departments, and with other agencies that might
require coordination. His capacity is a technical
and administrative role within the Planning
authority, leaving the Planning Commission with a
larger policy role. The Planning Director's
functions may be carried out by an authorized
subordinate employee.
The Design Review
C/MacBride instructed staff that he prefers the
"Statement of Intent", from the previous draft
code, be placed back into the Design Review
section.
The Filing of Applications/The Public Hearing and
Notification Procedures - State standards have been
followed such as the ten (10) calendar days for
noticing periods; and the three hundred foot (300)
notification radius around the project.
VC/Harmony stated that there should be some
emphasizes on broadening the notification radius to
more than three hundred feet.
C/MacBride indicated that he has no objections to
the 10 day notice. However, there are examples
when the 300 foot application is completely
inadequate due to the nature of the location.
There should be a capacity to permit staff to
extend the radius when there is knowledge that very
few property owners would be reached following the
minimum standards.
PD/DeStefano cautioned that staff could be
criticized for being selective in the manner in
which notification is issued.
VC/Harmony suggested that the standard be raised to
a radius of 400 to 500 feet for notification. The
Commission concurred.
Chair/Schey requested that a caveat be included
indicating that where a notice radius overlaps a
property owners association, the property owners or
homeowners association be noticed as an entity. It
would have to be an entity that could be reasonably
identified.
April 8, 1991 Page 6
Mr. Dunham, and PD/DeStefano, stated there are
other options for posting requirements for
notification. one community placed a notice of the
action on every property within the 300 foot
radius. Other communities require that a large
painted sign be placed stating the action, the
owners, the representatives, and the date of the
public hearing.
Chair/Schey inquired if the signs are placed for
notice on all projects, or just developments
proposed on vacant land.
PD/DeStefano explained that where such a device is
used it is commonly placed on projects that require
a discretionary action.
C/MacBride stated that the use of the sign sounded
like an excellent idea.
C/Grothe noted that placing signs, as an example,
for every CUP received, from tenants within a
little retail center does not seem appropriate.
Chair/Schey stated that the Commissions,
inclination is to place signs only where there is
new construction on vacant property. The
Commission concurred.
Approval to Extend With the Land - The decisions
made regarding zoning issues run with the land and
are not just for a particular individual.
Lapse of Approval and Extension of Time
PD/DeStefano suggested the Commission consider the
length of time appropriate for particular projects.
The Planning Commission has the ability to
determine the appropriate life span of a project
permit, as well as restrict the amount of times the
permit may be extended, and for what time period.
Chair/Schey inquired if the three year timeline is
suggested in the draft code, a state requirement.
A one year life for CUPS and other development
permits seems acceptable.
PD/DeStefano stated that a one year time limit is
common, but developers are now having a difficult
time meeting that timeline. He explained that
substantial compliance, according to the city
attorney, does not just refer to pulling permits,
but includes construction above the ground.
Specific time frames for subdivisions are set by
State law.
April 8, 1991 Page 7
VC/Harmony stated that there is a timeliness that a
public agency would want to have to ensure
expeditious handling of a project. He suggested
limiting the timeline to two years. The Commission
concurred.
C/Grothe suggested that any extensions allowed
should be limited as well.
Chair/Schey stated that it should be limited to a
single one year extension, with the caveat unless
overridden by terms of a development agreement, or
overridden by community concern.
Appeals - Any decision of the Planning Director can
be appealed to the Planning Commission. Any
decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed
to the City Council. The reason for the appeal
must be stated up front. To overturn the denial of
the Planning Commission, there needs to be a
straight majority of the City Council.
Chapter 1.11°
Mr. Dunham explained that the definition section is
important because it provides the bases for
understanding, and interpretation for terms found
throughout the code. It is best to work out the
definition in context of the various development
sections.
Chair/Schey suggested that the term "effective
persons", found in the Appeal section, be defined
within the Definition section.
PD/DeStefano explained that the Definition section
allows i the creation of the Commission's own
interpretation, understanding, and philosophy
behind a particular term.
Chapter 1.4°
Mr. Dunham stated that the residential areas of the
community have been divided into four districts to
reflect the geographical qualities or features of
Diamond Bar:
1. Rural Residential - intended for low density,
large lot, single family, detached dwelling
units.
2. Single Family Residential - intended for
common size suburban type lots.
3. Multiple Family District - intended for single
family detached, multi -family detached
residential dwelling units at a density of
about 9 dwelling units to the acre.
April 8, 1991 Page 8
4. Multiple Family Attached District - intended
for a density of 11 dwelling units per acre.
PD/DeStefano pointed out that the Commission has a
wide variety of choices well beyond what is stated
in the code.
Chair/Schey called a recess at 8:35 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 8:52 p.m.
Mr. Dunham pointed out that the 11 units per acre
assessment in the attached multi -family district
may effectively prohibit additional apartments in
the community.
C/Grothe asserted that 5 units per acre, in the
single family district, is generous, and 11 units
per acre, in the multi -family district, is
stringent.
Chair/Schey summarized that the policy question
before the Commission is determining how much
density should be allowed, and if more apartments
should be allowed within the community.
C/Grothe, after Commission discussion concerning
lot sizes in conjunction with the number of
dwelling units per acre, suggested that 4 units per
acre in the single family residential district is
more appropriate. The Commission concurred.
CPE/Kaplan pointed out that this is more a General
Plan issue than a Development Code issue. The
policy question for the Commission is to determine
if this assessment is appropriate for the
community. It can later be considered and
reanalyzed five or ten years down the line.
Chair/Schey indicated that it is not appropriate to
forbid apartments through a density limitation.
CPE/Kaplan suggested that the discussion would be
more appropriate in terms of housing policy through
the General Plan.
Permitted Uses Within Residential Districts:
Chair/Schey inquired if the minor development
permit refers to single family attached, duplex,
triplex, and fourplex, regardless of the amount of
units going in.
Mr. Dunham confirmed that it would be as it is
written. This would be another policy question to
consider.
April 8s 1991 Page 9
CP/Kaplan explained that a major development design
review and a minor development permit, basically
permits uses with certain restrictive criteria.
When a CUP is stated, the Commission reserves the
right to make a judgment if the use can be made
compatible with the character of the surrounding
area, or not. He suggested the Commission go
through the list and determine if a use should be
allowed in the area with restrictions, or if it
needs to be reviewed closely before deciding if it
should be permitted.
Chair/Schey inquired why a "Bed and Breakfast Inn"
is considered a residential use as opposed to hotel
use.
CP/Kaplan stated that the theory assumes that the
"Bed and Breakfast Inn" is a house that has been
converted, yet keeps the character of the house,
and within the character of the neighborhood. The
Commission may choose not to accept that theory.
Chair/Schey stated his inclination to keep the bed
and breakfast aspect categorized as a commercial
use.
CP/Kaplan noted that there may be certain streets
in the community where a conversion to a bed and
breakfast would be acceptable.
C/Grothe stated that the issue should requires a
CUP to allow review by the Commission. The
Commission concurred.
The Public and Quasi -Public Uses:
o I Child Care
o Post Office Branch
o Churches
o Clubs, Lodges, Fraternity, and Sorority
o Educational Institutions
Chair/Schey indicated that a post office should not
be in a residential area.
VC/Harmony inquired if there was a means for the
City to regulate the acceptibility of a fraternity
renting a house in residential neighborhoods.
CP/Kaplan stated that it can only be restricted if
it is out of conformance with the neighborhood.
C/Grothe indicated that a police station should not
be in a residential area.
8, 1991 Page 10
Chair/Schey stated that a residential zone is not
appropriate for educational institutions. They are
primarily located on streets where there is
property. This indicates that residential may not
be the appropriate zone for that site. He further
indicated, as with churches, if the street is wide
enough to handle heavy traffic, then maybe it
shouldn't be a residential zone any longer.
C/Grothe stated that it may be appropriate to
require a CUP for churches.
Chair/Schey indicated that all public and quasi -
public uses should be taken out of the residential
zoning except for the parks, utility sub -stations,
the pumping plants, the recreational facilities,
and the equestrian centers.
VC/Harmony questioned what the outcome of churches
would be, since they are all R-1 zoning.
Chair/Schey responded that there may no longer be
any residential zones when the zoning ordinance is
made to conform to the General Plan. They may be
placed in a commercial zone.
VC/Harmony stated that he is not comfortable with
rezoning churches to commercial. He concurred that
something should be done with the churches as far
as zoning, but not just create them with commercial
zones.
C/Grothe stated that churches do not belong in all
residential areas and therefore, should not be a R-
1 zone. He concurred that items 1 though 7 should
not be included in the residential districts.
I
CP/Kaplan requested deferring discussion to allow
staff time to develop a new proposal addressing the
issues discussed.
VC/Harmony questioned why fire stations would not
be allowed in residential areas. There are
situations where a residential area is the only
strategic area to locate a station.
Chair/Schey noted the Commission's concern about
the inclusion of items 1 through 7 in the
residential district. The Commission directed staff
to come back with some suggestions.
VC/Harmony questioned the outcome of RV storage
yards in residential districts within the code.
April 8, 1991 Page 11
Mr. Dunham explained that the code proposes that in
a multi -family area, there can be one storage area
with the development, with a CUP. He stated that
it becomes a policy question if the Commission
wants to permit storage facilities in single family
residential areas.
Home Occupations:
Mr. Dunham stated that a number of communities have
requirements for a home occupation permit, in their
zoning ordinances, for the purpose of assuring the
number of employees, restrictions of parking and
storage of materials, etc.
PD/DeStefano explained that most cities have a set
of criteria for the home occupation permit, and
only have inspections on a complaint basis.
CP/Kaplan stated that the purpose of the permit is
to regulate nuisances, provide a revenue source for
the City, and regulate health and safety issues.
VC/Harmony stated that all home occupations should
not be subjected to permit enforcement. He
suggested that home occupation permits may be
better enforced through safety codes.
C/Grothe stated there should be a permit process in
the code to assure that there is a realistic way to
regulate home occupations. If it does not meet
with the specifications of the criteria, then they
are forced to either stop or to comply to the
rules. The Commission concurred.
Accessory Uses:
I
The Commission decided to continue the discussion
to the next meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: PD/DeStefano inquired if the Commission would like
to continue the process of discussing the
Staff development code after the public hearings.
Chair/Schey stated that the Commission prefers to
continue with the format set tonight. The meeting
of April 22, 1991 will begin at 6:30 p.m.
8, 1991 Page 12
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
10:05 p.m.
David Schey
Chairman
Attest:
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
13Zue)--1V wn C914RINlb to)ZA
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER:
BACKGROUND:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
2
April 19, 1991
April 22, 1991
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-127
This request is to develop, in two
phases, the build -out of an existing
mobile home park. Currently, 118
lots exist on the 19.5 acre site and
the application seeks to add 29 addi-
tional lots for a total of 147 lots.
21217 East Washington Drive
Diamond Bar
Diamond Bar Estates
303 North Placentia, Suite F
Fullerton, CA 92631
This is a continued public hearing from the April 11, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting. The Planning Commission continued the public hear-
ing in order that the staff would have adequate time to review all the
submitted data and to make an analysis and to generate the necessary
conditions if applicable.
The Planning Commission directed staff to analyze the development stan-
dards in effect today and to describe the current project's compatibil-
ity. Additionally, staff was directed to identify the impacts of the
proposed project, in particular the standards relating to parking and
open space requirements. The City Engineer was directed to review the
sound and drainage related issues for the two phase development.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
The 118 unit mobile home park is currently served by a clubhouse and
swimming pool which are situated in the northern portion of the devel-
oped section of the mobile home park. This open space/recreation area
(5,000 sq. ft.) composes approximately one half percent (.13 acres) of
the mobile home park's gross area (19.5 acres).
As a result of the proposed two phase expansion, additional acreage
will be temporarily utilized as a recreation/open space area. The area
designated as Phase II will serve the dual role of a retention basin
and recreation area during the interim period prior to the start of its
conversion into developed lots. The duration of this open space/recrea-
tion land use can not be determined at the present time.
AGENDA ITEM
April 22, 1991
Page Two
When the construction of the Phase II portion begins the mobile home
park will experience a reduction of the open space areas to a level
less than comparable to the present situation on an overall basis.
Currently the park provides about 42 sq. ft. of centrally located rec-
reation area for each lot, after total build -out the ratio dips to ap-
proximately 34 sq. ft. per lot.
Under the provisions set forth in the development code, local park
space obligation requirements are mandated for mobile home land divi-
sions. Although this project is not a request to subdivide, the pro-
ject will have fundamentally the same impacts as a subdivision and thus
should be conditioned in a similar manner.
The obligation requirements can be satisfied by two methods. Resi-
dential projects, including mobile home parks, can either provide pub-
lic or private park space or pay in lieu fees to the City. Diamond Bar
Estates is thereby required to provide .88 acres of park space or in
lieu fees totalling $151,105.68. As the mobile home park continues to
evolve in its residential composition, and if current patterns persist,
the mobile home park will be the home for more families with children.
This aforementioned obligation will attempt to provide an adequate area
for current and future residents to recreate in.
The development of the Diamond Bar Estates is proposed to meet and ex-
ceed the parking standards. The applicant has designed the park to
exceed both the residential and guest parking requirements. Guest park-
ing in both phases has been located so as to complement the existing
guest parking and to maximize accessibility. Recreational vehicle park-
ing is proposed for inclusion during the Phase II construction and will
be located on the eastern portion of the site.
The applicant has responded to the concerns of the residents and the
Planning Commission concerning safety issues related to lighting. Nine
street lights are proposed for the Phase I and II site. This is
approximately 25 percent of the total number of street lights that cur-
rently serve the entire developed portion of the site. Staff is satis-
fied with the lighting within the Phase I and II area but points to the
need for additional lighting within the existing development.
The applicant is proposing to place one 15 gallon tree in each of the
proposed nineteen lots with the maintenance to be the responsibility of
the tenant.
AGENDA ITEM
April 22, 1991
Page Three
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT;
Sound Walla
Based on the calculations provided for the sound wall it is recommended
that the wall be placed at least 35 feet from the rail road tracks.
There should be no building pads constructed within 25 feet of the
sound wall. The wall has to be constructed per specifications of the
acoustical engineer and the City Engineer.
The height of the wall is recommended not to be less than 14 feet. The
height is measured from the elevation of the rail road tracks. The
wall must be constructed along the property line on the north side and
needs to extend from the east to west property lines. The exterior
noise level can not exceed 65 dBA at anytime. Mobile home construction
must provide at least 17 dBA of noise reduction and interior noise lev-
els can not exceed 45 dBA. It is also recommended that the site be
tested upon completion by an acoustical engineer approved by the City
prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
Hydrology:
The proposed site for the additional lots is currently serving the mo-
bile home park as the retention basin. The basin was required as part
of the mobile home park development because the existing rail road cul-
vert is not sized to handle the storm water run off from the park.
The calculation submitted to the City has certain assumptions that have
resulted in net reduced storm run off amounts. For example; 10 minutes
minimum time of concentration versus 5 minutes minimum time of concen-
tration as it is required by Los Angeles County and travel times of 2
or 2.5 feet per second. There are no calculations to substantiate
these assumptions.
In addition, it needs to be noted that during a 50 year storm, percola-
tion is minimal or zero in clay soil. Unlike Riverside County, Los
Angeles County does not allow for percolation in their hydrology manu-
al. Also calculations for reservoir routing and peak reduction as well
as the original calculations which were approved by the County of Los
Angeles need to be submitted for the City's review.
The revised calculation must treat the retention basin as its function
rather than "possible ponding area" because the ponding.will occur dur-
ing the design storm and the estimate of the ponding area is mis-
leading. As a result of deficiencies in the preparation of the hydro-
logy report, it is recommended that the report be recalculated.
AGENDA ITEM
April 22, 1991
Page Four
In the absence of revised calculations it is recommended that the de-
veloper design a storm drain system to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The design must utilize a 50 year Capital Storm/Rational
Method Hydrology in accordance with the hydrology program designed for
the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Dependant upon design,
the drain system may include a pump station. In that case, the pump
station must have an automatic back up pump with automatic back up gen-
erator. Upon approval of the design and prior to issuance of a grading
permit the developer must provide a faithful performance bond in the
amount of 100 percent of the estimated construction cost and a labor
and materials bond in the amount of 50 percent of the estimated con-
struction cost. In addition, the system must be approved by the County
of Los Angeles Dept. of Public Works for possible transfer as a "Mis-
cellaneous Transfer Drain". The system may also include a drain pipe
which may utilize other properties in order to connect to the existing
storm drain system. It is required that the developer provide copies
to the City of all easement documents and permits which may include
City of Industry and the Southern Pacific Railroad.
conclusion:
Staff has conducted the review and analysis of this project for approx-
imately eight months. According to the testimony taken at the public
hearings and after analysis of the current development, the current
land use has been deemed to not be objectionable although there are
areas of concern. Under the development standards currently in use by
the City of Diamond Bar, the mobile home park is deficient only in the
open space/recreation provisions. Staff has made the effort to ensure
that if the project is approved, that the mobile home park will contin-
ue to offer present and future residents at least the same standard of
living. Additionally, an effort to improve the existing conditions to
meet the City's expectations of an appropriate standard of living has
been sought. The draft conditions of approval are staff recommenda-
tions to ensure continued quality living. There is one area however,
that can not conditioned for the Planning Commission's review at this
time, and that is the drainage issue.
Issues related to sound impacts and internal development have been ad-
dressed and the drainage issues have been addressed in a preliminary
fashion by the hydrology report. Further study and an amended hydrology
report must be completed and submitted to the City Engineer for addi-
tional analysis. At the conclusion of that review, specific conditions
could then be implemented to mitigate the impacts of the drainage on
and off site.
Issues concerning open space can be addressed, as outlined, either by
converting proposed lots into open space/recreation area, by paying in
lieu fees to the City, or by deleting or reducing the requirement.
AGENDA ITEM
April 22, 1991
Page Five
Location of the sound wall and also the materials most effective in
reducing the sound impacts have been identified. The dBA levels for
interior and exterior thresholds have been set.
Planning commission Alternatives:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following
alternatives:
1. Approve the project, subject to conditions of approval as sub-
mitted and subject to conditions applied at a latter date as the
result of findings of the amended hydrology report;
2. Deny the project based on the applicant's inability to ade-
quately identify and meet the requirements for mitigation of nega-
tive environmental impacts.
3. Continue the project until the applicant supplies the staff with
all the data necessary to accurately and clearly identify impacts,
mitigation measures, and the effects of the project on the community
and can be presented at the public hearing.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-127 DRAFT CONDITIONS
1. This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a
duly authorized representative of the owner of the property
involved has filed at the office of Diamond Bar Planning
Commission his affidavit stating that he/she is aware of, and
accepts all the conditions of this permit;
2. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the
underlying zoning of the subject property must be complied
with, unless set forth in the permit or shown on the approved
plan;
3. That three copies of the revised plot plan, similar to that
presented at the public hearing and conforming to such of the
following conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be
submitted for approval of the Director of Planning. The
property shall thereafter be developed and maintained in
substantial conformance with approved plans.
4. That a maximum of 144 mobile home spaces are permitted.
5; That the average size of each mobile home lot shall not be
less than 1,750 feet and no mobile home lot shall have an area
of less than 1200 feet.
6. That a minimum of one (1) parking space at least nine (9) feet
by twenty (20) feet in size, having clear and unobstructed
access to a public thoroughfare, be provided for each mobile
home site. In addition thereto, not less than one (1) such
parking space for each four (4) mobile home sites for guest
parking. All guest parking shall be dispersed throughout the
park as shown on approved site plan. Additionally, there will
be Recreational Vehicle (RV) parking along the eastern portion
of the site as shown on the approved site plan.
7. That the interior streets shall be a minimum of 30 feet in
clear width and " No Parking" signs shall be posted on all
driveways.
8. That all areas used by automobiles be surfaced with concrete
or asphalt. Storage areas can be other surfacing subject to
Planning approval.
9. The storage areas shall be enclosed by 6 foot solid masonry
walls.
10. That all exterior lights above wall height be shielded and be
directed away from adjacent residential development;
11. That utilities of this park be placed underground;
12. that minimum distance of ten (10) feet be maintained between
mobile homes;
13. That only one single-family mobile home unit may occupy each
site.
14. That the northeast and west boundaries of the park shall be
enclosed by a 6 foot block wall; that the northerly property
line abutting the railroad right-of-way shall be enclosed with
a 15 foot high "sound wall". The block wall shall be located
at least 35 feet from the railroad tracks. No structures are
to be located closer than 25 feet to the "sound wall" or
closer than 60 feet to the railroad tracks.
15. A landscape plan for the entire mobile home park, showing
existing landscaping, tree selection pallet identifying the
one tree per lot requirement, and also showing installation
and location of the required underground irrigation system.
That a minimum of ten (10) percent of the total area of the
Phase I and II development shall be landscaped.
16. That rental agreements between prospective tenants and the
management, the prospective tenants shall be informed of the
fact that the property abuts a railroad right-of-way, which is
used daily by a number of trains. The interior side of the 15
foot "sound wall" shall also be posted in readily visible
locations indicating the fact that the railroad right-of-way
abuts the northerly property line of the park.
17. That the mobile home park will be developed with a total of
eight (8) trash bins prior to the completion of Phase II.
18. The mobile home park shall provide at least 10,500 square feet
of additional open space/recreation area on site for a total
of approximately 15,500 square feet. This provision will be
subtracted from the .88 acres or $151,105.68 in open
space/recreation area or in lieu fees required by the City to
meet open space standards. All open space/recreation areas
must be provided proportionally with the completion of each
phase developed. Provision of documentation of prior in lieu
fees may reduce this obligation.
I
19. Street lights for the project shall comply with locations
illustrated on the approved site plans and with the
recommendations of the electrical engineer conducting the
lighting study for the whole mobile home park.
20. That the emergency fire exits and access to the alley shall
continue to be in compliance with the City. Additionally, the
Los Angeles County Fire Department must approve facilities
such as water mains, fire hydrants and flow which, prior to
occupancy of any trailer, shall be provided as may be required
by said department in order to protect the property from fire
hazards;
21. That adequate water and sanitary facilities be provided in
accordance with the Los Angeles County Health Department.
This condition does not permit a sewage treatment plant;
22. This grant is valid for one year and must be used (i.e.
construction started), or this grant will expire. A one year
extension may be requested prior to the expiration date of
this first year. That the applicant shall have a period of
five years from the date of City of Diamond Bar approval to
complete all construction indicated on the approved plans;
23. That all drainage plans shall conform to all City Engineer
conditions and that such plans be submitted to and be approved
by the City Engineer prior to construction.
24. All conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 1367-(1) remain
in effect unless superseded by Conditional Use Permit 90-127.
1.
2.
3
.21
1� ppIt_. 0> 19%
AGREEMENT BETWEEN DIAMOND BAR ESTATES
AND DIAMOND BAR ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Park improvements requested by the Homeowners Association are
to be submitted in writing to Management. The highest priority
and consideration will be given to each such request. Each
request that is approved will be done as soon as funds become
available. If an improvement.is denied a written explanation
for the denial will be given to the Directors of the Homeowners
Association.
SECURE KITCHEN
A pass through covering on the.kitchen and a deadbolt on the
kitchen door will be installed at Park expense to secure the
kitchen for Residents.
PAINTING
The interior of the clubhouse will be painted by 04-30-91.
TRASH BINS
At the completion of phase one and phase two there will be a.
total of eight (8) trash bins in the Park. Presently there are
five (5) bins. Two (2) bins will be added at the completion of
phase one, a bin required for the additional spaces and an extra
bin will be installed. Upon completion of phase two another bin.
FIRE EXIT GATES
i
The fire department is aware the fire exit gates are locked..
They carry with them bolt cutters for entry. Management will
provide the Homeowners Association a set of keys for the fire
exit gates. The Association will give a Homeowner, that lives
close to the gates the key so the Homeowner can unlock the gates
in case of a fire or an emergency.
SOUND WALL
The sound wall that is currently in place will be moved to the'.'
north perimeter of the Park property. This is the sound wall.
that will be used permanently.
Page 1 of 3
7.
RM
10.
PARK AND
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING
When phase two has
constructed. This
where minor vehicle
SECURITY GATES
been completed an'RV storage area will be
area will include a car wash and an area
maintenance can be performed.
At the completion of phase two security gates will be installed
at the Park entrance. This will be done at Park expense.
PARK LIGHTING
A Homeowner committee has been appointed to study the lighting
in the Park. Their recommendations will be given to Management.
Management will forward these recommendations to an electrical
engineer for study. Any additional lights installed in the Park
will be of the same type of lighting that is presently in place
throughout the Park, using the underground electrical cable that
is presently in place.
OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
a. The saunas will be painted when the clubhouse is painted, this
will include that the doors also will be painted. The sauna
floors have already been retiled.
b. For the use and enjoymbnt of Park Residents two (2) commercial
picnic tables and two (2) commercial barbeques will be perman-
ently installed on the east side of the swimming pool area.
c
11.
The billiard tables will be recovered and the stools reupholst-
ered prior to 06-30-91.
GUEST PARKING
The number of guest parking spaces in the Park will meet .the
requirements of the City of Diamond Bar.
Page 2 of 3
PARK AND HOMEOWNERS
CONTINUED
12. SECURE CLUBHOUSE AND SWIMMING POOL AREA
a. The clubhouse and swimming pool area gates will be kept lock
ed with a secondary lock system. This lock system will be in-
stalled prior to 06-30-91.
b. The front door, the restroom door (access from the pool area)
and the gates to the pool area will be keyed to one (1) key.
C. Each space may have one (1) key that will open the above list-
ed doors and gates. The cost of the key will be five dollars
($5.00). If a Resident shall lose a key and request another
key that second key will cost twenty-five dollars ($25.00).
Keys will be of a type that are difficult to duplicate, and
will be stamped "DO NOT DUPLICATE".
d. Use of the recreational facilities will be restricted to the
same hours that are currently in effect.,
e. Management will open the facilities at 9:00 AM and close the
facilities at 10:00 PM daily using a master lock system.
13. TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT
Each of the items listed above and on pages one through three
inclusive in this Agreement shall cease to be a part of this
agreement when that item has been addressed and completed.
When items 2 through 12 have been addressed amd completed item
1 will be the only part of this Agreement left operating.
DIA BA ESTATES
DATED:
RICHA MONIAN, GENERAL PARTNER
DIAMOND BAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
TOM -PEPPER;' RESIDENT
Page 3 of 3
,V,- t�� V,
DATED:
Diamond Bar Estates Homeowners Association
21217E. Washington Street, Space 113
Walnut, CA 91789
ADDENDUM TO PARK AND HOMEOWNERS AGREEMENT
On April 7, 1991 the Homeowners Association convened to
discuss the attached agreement which was prepared by Management.
The following observations were made and this addendum addresses
the body of this agreement.
Item
1 -
Accepted
Item
2 -
Accepted
and now completed.
Item
3 -
Accepted
and now completed.
Item
4 -
Accepted
(See footnotes**),
Item
5 -
Accepted,
Association in progress on new locks.
Item
6 -
Accepted
if study. by Planning Commission determines
the Barrier
is adequate for the purpose intended.
Item
7 -
Accepted
(See footnotes**)
Item
8 -
Accepted
(See footnotes**)
Item
9 -
Accepted
Item
10
- Accepted,
some items completed now.
Item
11
- Accepted
Item
12
- Accepted
Item
13
- (See footnotes**)
** Footnotes: Actual timeframes or even length of completion
for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are excluded. These items are
contingent upon actual completion of that Phase. It is
understood by signature of Association President on this
agreement that these Phases will be completed within
reasonable timeframes. The understanding is that the
timeframes will be determined by the Planning Commission
of the City of Diamond Bar and that actual construction
will be completed within those parameters.
-1-
ADDENDUM TO PARR AND HOMEOWNERS AGREEMENT
ESTATES
Richa?a Simonian, General Partner Date
DIAMOND BAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Tom Pepper, esident Date
-2-
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
BACKGROUND:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
3
April 18, 1991
April 22, 1991
Conditional Use Permit 90-125
A request to construct a two (2)
story office building (approximately
6,400 sq. ft.) with underground park-
ing and office space on the top
floor.
23475 Sunset Crossing
Diamond Bar, CA
Lots 8 & 9
Ed and Shirley Jaworsky
3349 Paloma
LaVerne, CA
Fred and Norma Janz
2683 Shady Ridge
Diamond Bar, CA
This project is continued from the March 11, 1991 public hearing at
which time the Planning Commission directed the applicant to provide
staff with a traffic report. The staff was directed to forward the
finished report to the Transportation Commission for their review and
comments also.
As of the date of this meeting, these directives have not been carried
out, as the traffic report is in preparation. The date of submission
to the City is not known and therefore the traffic report can not be
placed on the agenda for the Transportation Commission's monthly meet-
ing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends removing this item from the calendar and to allow
staff to agendize this application after the traffic report has been
reviewed by the City Engineer and the Transportation Commission.
Item 4:
Reminder: Please bring your Development Code.
A presentation will be made by the Planning Director and City Engineer
Item 5:
Staff will make a presentation on this item at the meeting.
1
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
F,G
Jim DeStefano Director of Plann
Sid Jalal Mou avi, City Engineer/Pub.
Robert L.\ Nort, City Manager
-�N
Works Dir.
LOS ANGEL E COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
March 18, 1991
The attached material is for your review. It is requested that
you coordinate a response, for the Mayor's signature, of your
findings. It is also requested that the material be reviewed by
your respective Commissions at their next meeting.
nbw
attachment
LACM
Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission
818 West Seventh Street
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel 213 623-1194
March 7, 1991 Fax 213236-4805
Dear Mayor and City Manager:
COMMISSIONERS
ANDALTERNATESIn the past month, the Los Angeles County Transpor- RAY ORABINSXI
tation Commission (LACTC) sent your jurisdiction CHAIR
copies of our draft Congested Corridors Action Plan. councilman
Citof Long
This document outlines the LACTC's development of an HON• CLARENCEBeach SMITH, Alt.
action strategy to relieve traffic in highly congested MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH
travel corridors. We strongly encourage you to take a VICE CHAIR
look at this draft, since it begins to outline a plan Supervisor
for focusingour future efforts. County of Los Angeles
NICX PATSAOURAS, Alt.
The action plan identifies general count PETER F. SCHAHARUM
p g countywide strate- supervisor
gies, then lists specific projects by corridor. You county of Los Angeles
may wish to concentrate your review on those corridors MICHAEL W. LEWIS, Alt.
which relate to your particular jurisdiction. Some KENNETH HAHN
Supervisor
projects are already in the Planning, design or im le-
county of Los Angeles
mentation stage, while others are new ideas that the HAS FUKAI, Alt.
Commission, cities or other agencies have identified. EDMUND D. EDELMAN
Supervisor
We are extremelyinterested in hearing our ideas. County of Los Angeles
g Y MARVIN L. HOLEN, Alt.
While we've heard from a few cities, we'd like every— DEANE DANA
one to have input so that the plan represents a team- supervisor
work approach. Please take some time over the next county of Los Angeles
month to consider the Congested Corridor Action Plan. DON KNABE, Alt.
Feel free to submit written comments to Judith Weiss, TOM BRADLEY
LACTC Deputy Executive Director, or contact her at Mayor
city of Los Angeles
(213) 236-9576. We appreciate your participation. RAY REMY, Alt.
Sincerely,RICHARD ALATORRE
councilman
City of Los Angeles
2CLki
HON. MICHAEL WOO, Alt.
CouncilmemberJUDY HATHAWAY -FRANCIS
Bacharach Judy Hathaway -Francis City of La Habra Hts.
commissioner Commissioner HON. ROBERT WHITE, Alt.
JACKI BACHARACH
Mayor Pro -Tem
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Enclosure HON. HAROLD CROYTS, Alt.
JAMES TOLBERT
Citizen Representative
City of Las Angeles
JERRY B. BAXTER
SIR—E Ex -Officio Member
State of California
NEIL PETERSON
Executive Director
Leading the Way to Greater Mobility
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CONGESTED CORRIDORS ACTION PLAN
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
JANUARY, 1991
AC
FOREWORD
This is a preliminary draft. This document captures the ideas of
LACTC staff, community leaders, and other transportation planners.
Some of these projects are already well defined and have strong
community consensus, identifiable funding commitments, and clearly
documented feasibility. On the other hand, many of these projects
and programs still require review and feasibility analysis. our
objective is to prepare a truly multimodal plan and to initiate
important and necessary public dialogue. Ultimately, the ideas
which do indeed prove feasible, will be translated into action.
The next step in this process is to actively promote review and
discussion of the proposed remedies for our most congested
corridors and to determine the mobility improvements which will
most efficiently use our public and private revenue in terms of
mobility per dollars expended.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
i
County -wide Strategies for Congested Corridors
iv
lA
Santa Monica Freeway
1
1B
San Bernardino/Pomona Freeway Corridor
6
2
San Fernando Valley/Cross Valley to Downtown
9
Los Angeles
3
Downtown Los Angeles - San Pedro
14
4
San Fernando Valley/Orange County Corridor
18
5A
134/210 Corridor
25
5B
West San Gabriel Valley Corridor
27
6
Downtown Los Angeles/Orange County Line
29
7
605 Freeway Corridor
32
8
Manhattan Beach/Artesia Corridor
34
9
North County Access (Routes 126, 14 and 138)
38
INTRODUCTION
In June, 1990, the LACTC staff identified areas of major
congestion throughout the County. To qualify for this unique
designation, traffic is not merely heavy and slow. The Congested
Corridors addressed in this action plan have freeways which are
experiencing operations of 30 miles per hour or less, for a
minimum of five hours a day. Arterial intersections are
experiencing at least one hour of congestion during daily peak
periods at Level of Service E or F. Transit routes have boardings
of 20,000 or more passengers a day. Indeed, for the SCRTD routes
under review, 26 lines carried 61% of SCRTD's patronage.
The Congested Corridors falling within this definition are
identified as follows:
lA Santa Monica Freeway (Route 10)
1B San Bernardino/Pomona Freeway Corridor
2 San Fernando Valley - Cross Valley to Downtown Los
Angeles
3 Downtown Los Angeles - San Pedro
4 San Fernando Valley/Orange County Corridor
5A 134/210 Corridor
5B West San Gabriel Valley Corridor
6 Downtown Los Angeles - Orange County Line (including
Route =)
7 605 Freeway Corridor
8 Manhattan Beach/Artesia Corridor
9 North County Access (Routes 126, 14 and 138)
This listing varies slightly from the June, 1990 report. For ease
of discussion and analysis, Corridor #1 Santa Monica - Pomona has
been addressed as lA Santa Monica Freeway and 1B San
Bernardino/Pomona Freeway Corridor. For the same reasons,
Corridor #5, San Gabriel Valley is analyzed as 5A, 134/210
Corridor and 5B, the West San Gabriel Valley Corrdor. Finally,
one additional corridor has been added - North County Access.
Based upon the field work of the Area Teams and more current data,
this corridor is also, unfortunately, appropriately categorized as
congested.
- i -
In July, 1990, the Area Teams were established to identify multi-
modal solutions to improve mobility for the County's six
geographically -based "mobility areas". Needless to say, once the
most congested corridors were identified, the obvious challenge is
to relieve this congestion and improve mobility for our traveling
public. To begin to develop solutions, our first step was
conducting environmental scans of all six areas. This work
provided the teams with the opportunity -to become familiar with
the demographics, travel patterns and mobility problems of their
assigned areas. The next step was to integrate this information
into an Action Plan for our most congested corridors.
In the following pages, each of these corridors is addressed. The
reasons for the congestion are explained and steps for corrective
action are identified. Action steps fall into three catpgories:
Immediate (ability to implement during 1991);
Short-term (ability to implement within 1992 through 1995);
Long-term (beyond 1995).
The staff has looked at a variety of solutions which include all
modes of transportation. With the passage of Propositions 108,
111 and 116 in June, 1990, and the approval of Proposition C in
November, 1990, significant new resources can be directed at our
most pressing transportation problems. The Congested Corridors
Action Plan is particularly timely, as we begin the development of
the Proposition C guidelines and our effort to prepare Los Angeles
County's first Congestion Management Program. Given the severity
of the congestion experienced in these nine corridors, our
transportation dollars should be focused on our most dire
problems.
To accomplish the work outlined in this report, strong
partnerships must be established. Although LACTC functions as a
primary programming agency for the public transportation dollars
in this County, it is not the primary operator of our
transportation systems. Caltrans' recently released Urban Freeway
Congestion Relief Program (November, 1990) provides us with
another look at many of the highway problems described in this
report. The Caltrans report offers many excellent solutions for
improving the management of our freeway system. Many of the
projects and programs outlined in the Congested Corridor Action
Plan are also recommended in the Caltrans report. Clearly, the
opportunity presents itself for a combined effort directed at
managing our highway systems, rather than simply building more
capacity.
With the notable exception of the rail programs, to accomplish our
work and "Lead the Way to Greater Mobility", LACTC must be a
catalyst. Caltrans, SCRTD, the municipal transit operators, the
Commuter Rail Joint Powers Authority and our 86 cities will
ultimately be responsible for delivering those programs. Further,
we must look to the commuters of Los Angeles County and our
neighboring counties to use our transportation systems in a
prudent and efficient fashion, to modify their commuting patterns
and to continue to financially support our programs so that we can
work together to solve our transportation problems.
COUNTY -WIDE STRATEGIES FOR CONGESTED CORRIDORS
Although we have identified specific action plans for each of the
nine corridors, there are a number of strategies which the Area
Teams felt were appropriate for all of them. These County -wide
programs and policies should be vigorously pursued as they will
provide relief not only to the most congested corridors of the
County, but will also improve mobility in areas which are not yet
in extremis.
As the County Transportation Commission, LACTC needs to take a
leadership role in County -wide issues where major long-term
programs and projects will have a significant mobility pay-off for
the traveling public. These County -wide policies and strategies
are intended to be a "Big Picture" approach to solving some very
difficult transportation problems.
The County -wide programs, projects and strategies have been placed
in two categories. The Phase One program can be implemented in
the near-term and will result in improved mobility County -wide.
Phase Two recommendations are intended as the next level of effort
required in the event that the Phase One programs fail to generate
the desired results. These County -wide projects, together with
the more specific activities outlined for each corridor, will
result in improved mobility for the commuters who must use these
corridors on a daily basis.
Phase One
0 Implement
the Caltrans Urban Freeway Congestion Relief
Program;
o Implement
HOV Master Plan as expeditiously as possible;
o Require HOV lanes on all new highways;
o Implement
theITRIP program on all congested corridors;
o Expedite
the implementation of Freeway Tow Service
Patrols;
o Prepare a
Park -and -Ride Master Plan focused on the
congested
corridors and rail lines;
o Complete
the conversion of freeway call boxes to
cellular
technology;
o Encourage
parking restrictions during peak hours on
major surface
streets;
- iv -
o Create a County -wide coordinated signalization program;
o Implement the Commuter Rail, Metro Rail and Light Rail
Programs as rapidly as possible;
o Continue to improve working relationships with SCRTD,
Caltrans and other transportation agencies;
o Identify new funding partners, such as the ports, the
airport and the private sector;
o Encourage the effective programming of trip reduction
and development fees by local jurisdictions;
o Prepare the Proposition C Guidelines to ensure that
these new revenues are directed at our most serious
mobility problems;
o Implement the Congestion Management Program (CMP) to
assure land use decisions are balanced with the
transportation system;
o Work with the Air Quality Management District to ensure
that the Deficiency Plans generated through the
Congestion Management Program encourage programs, plans,
and strategies that improve both air quality and
mobility;
o Proceed on the restructuring and redeployment of transit
service to address overcrowding and to ensure that the
service is focused on the transportation corridors with
the greatest needs;
o Conti -nue to emphasize transit efficiency and performance
guidelines;
o Review existing taxi -cab regulations to identify
opportunitieslfor improved efficiency.
Phase Two
o Provide preferential bus lanes and carpool lanes on
surface streets where feasible;
o Tie receipt of new funding for coordinated signal
systems to a commitment to implement peak -hour parking
restrictions at congested locations. Funding for off-
street parking areas may need to be identified.
o Provide a County -wide coordinated signalization
program;
o Establish neighborhood work centers for telecommuting;
- v -
o Assist cities in developing off-street truck delivery
zones;
o Implement market -pricing mechanisms to discourage peak
hour travel by single occupant vehicles;
o Establish staggered work hours for heavy industrial
areas;
o Regulate truck traffic to minimize truck accidents on
freeways during peak periods;
JW3:CCSTRAT
- vi -
CORRIDOR 1A
SANTA MONICA FREEWAY
CONGESTED CORRIDOR ACTION PLAN
SANTA MONICA FREEWAY (ROUTE 10)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Santa Monica Freeway (Route I-10) Congested Corridor
encompasses a broad band of congested streets and overcrowded
transit lines from the Pacific Ocean to the Santa Ana (Route
I-5) Freeway and from Sunset Boulevard/Hollywood Boulevard to
Exposition Boulevard/Jefferson Boulevard.
The corridor is the most congested in the county. On the
I-10 freeway itself, more than 337,000 vehicles are caught in
congestion more than six -and -one-half hours per day; they
travel at speeds ranging from 15 to 44 mph. The inter-
change of the I-405 and I-10 is travelled by more than
533,000 vehicles per day making it the busiest in the county.
Off of the freeway, there are more than 200 congested
intersections that operate at levels of service E or F.
Twenty of the top 24 regional bus lines travel through the
corridor; they carry between 20,000 and 67,000 daily riders
per line.
The causes of congestion in the Santa Monica corridor provide
a microcosm of the Los Angeles region as whole. Although the
jobs/housing balance is about even on the Westside, it is
adjacent to the job rich Central Business District. And even
though more than 70% of trips are intra -city in Santa Monica,
they are inter -city through Hollywood. Though development
has occurred along planned high-density corridors on Wilshire
and Santa Monica Boulevard, the transportation infrastructure
to support the densification during the past twenty years has
not been built, i.e. the Route 2 freeway and Metro Rail west
of Western. Despite the highest transit volumes and highest
rates of ridesharing in the county, more than 70% of Westside
commuters and 60% of CBD commuters drive alone.
Off of the freeway, the street networks, paratransit and
bikeway systems are fragmented and inadequately managed to
accommodate the demand. Other than the Spring Street bus
lane in downtown and HOV by-pass lanes on freeway on -ramps,
no preference is given to transit or HOV on Westside freeways
and streets. Compounding the east/west congestion is severe
north/south congestion caused by commuters attempting to
avoid the congested San Diego and Hollywood freeways. Con-
gestion occurs in all four directions at most intersections
making it more complex to balance the flow of traffic.
- 1 -
Addressing the congestion problems on the Santa Monica corri-
dor will require every tool available in the congestion
management kit, from creation of new capacity, to improved
operation of the existing systems, aggressive growth manage-
ment and innovative demand management. In part, due to the
congestion, this corridor provides an ideal laboratory in
which to develop and test congestion management strategies
for urban areas throughout the country.
RECOMMENDATIONS
IMMEDIATE TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1991
Implement HOV Lanes on Surface Streets. Expand HOV lane
network beyond current Spring Street lane throughout Westside
and the Central Business District.
STATUS: Developing options and studying feasibility,
projects in planning phase for specific streets.
Introduce 25 -cent Central Business District fare. Introduce
a 25 -cent fare for public transit within the Central Business
District to encourage use of transit for short trips within
the Downtown.
STATUS: Project was implemented on a test basis in December,
1989. Currently developing options and studying feasibility
of permanent program.
Convert Taxis to a CBD Zone Fare Structure.. Create a single
zone fare for taxi service in Central Business District.
STATUS: Developing options and studying feasibility as part
of CRA's Downtown strategic plan.
Begin Alternatives Analysis for Exposition Right -of -Way.
Evaluate short and long term transportation uses for the
Exposition right-of-way.
I
STATUS: Developing options; expect to start initial
alternatives evaluation in February, 1991 and EIR in July,
1991.
Expand Westside Community Transit Services. Coordinate new
and existing community transit services.
STATUS: LADOT has planned five new intra -community bus lines
and will request LACTC partial funding by March 1991.
Identifying needs for additional lines.
- 2 -
Increase Transit Capacity from Green Line Crenshaw Station to Red
Line Western Station. Evaluate options to increase transit
capacity of the Crenshaw/Western corridor between the rail lines.
STATUS: Developing options, initial evaluations to begin in
February, 1991.
Purchase Santa Monica Boulevard Right-of-way. Acquire Southern
Pacific right-of-way between San Diego Freeway and Beverly Hills
western boundary.
STATUS: Right-of-way partially in municipal ownership,
negotiations for remainder to begin in January 1991.
Assist Malibu to Evaluate Transportation Needs. Provide technical
assistance to the new city as it determines its local
transportation priorities for expenditure of Proposition A and C.
STATUS: Initial assistance being provided, citihood anticipated
in March, 1991.
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1992 THROUGH 1995)
Implement ATSAC in Hollywood. Construct Phase I and II of
Hollywood ATSAC system.
STATUS: Project planned, funding partially allocated, Phase I
construction scheduled to begin in mid-1991.
Construct Blue Line.Extension to USC/Coliseum. Extend Blue Line
down Flower/Figueroa to Exposition/Vermont.
STATUS: Route refinement and environmental impact report to begin
in January, 1991.
Develop Metro Rail Bus Feeder Network. Reroute and provide
preferential treatment of transit service to feed Metro Rail
stations.
STATUS: Feeder network implemented for Blue Line, feeder network
being planned for Metro Red Line.
Implement Smart Corridor Demonstration Project. Construct,
operate and evaluate project.
STATUS: Project 90 percent funded. Construction completed on
portions of project, final design being completed by July, 1991.
Implementation expected in early 1993.
- 3 -
Pilot the Countywide Debit Card. Assist Culver City and
other transit operators to test debit card fare collection
systems.
STATUS: Funds have been allocated for demonstration project
in Culver City and implementation is underway.
Establish Westside electrified roadway testbed. Identify a
location for and implement a demonstration project for an
electrified roadway on the Westside.
STATUS: Developing options and studying feasibility. A
demonstration project in the proposed Playa Vista development
is currently under development.
Construct 4th Street Santa Monica Freeway on-ramp. Build an
eastbound on-ramp. Widen 4th street overpass to add two
left -turn lanes.
STATUS: Overpass project was not funded. Funding has been
allocated in the STIP for the on-ramp, and construction is
scheduled for FY 90-91.
Expand One -Way Street Network Beyond Central Business
District. Identify and implement one-way couplets to extend
the Central Business District network west.
STATUS: Study underway by City of Los Angeles to identify
appropriate one-way streets. Study completion expected in
summer, 1991.
Increase Bus Service Frequency on Overcrowded Lines. Re-
allocate current service and add new buses to relieve
overcrowding on the most heavily used routes.
STATUS: Study underway to define the extent of overcrowding
and to develop options for increased service. Study to be
completed in March, 1991.
Install improved Bus Shelters/Transit Information Centers.
Expand the current network of bus stop shelters and transit
information centers.
STATUS: Study proposed to start by mid-1991 to identify
needs.
Increase Capacity of Santa Monica Blvd. (1) Widen Santa
Monica Blvd. to add one lane in each direction between the
405 Freeway and Beverly Hills, and (2) electrify bus lines
and provide preferential treatment on Santa Monica Blvd.
between San Diego and Hollywood freeways.
STATUS: Partial funding allocated in STIP for a Santa Monica
Boulevard improvement; project being planned. Study underway
to identify bus lines to be electrified; Phase 1 to be
completed mid-February, 1991.
- 4 -
LANG TERM SOLUTIONS (BEYOND 1995
Build Rail Transit on Exposition Right-of-way. Continue
light rail line from Coliseum/USC to City of Santa Monica.
STATUS: Developing options, expect to short term previously
discussed to not preclude eventual construction of a light-
rail line.
Develop HOV Lanes on (or above) Santa Monica Freeway.
provide an additional lane in each direction for buses and
other high occupancy vehicles.
STATUS: Need has been identified. Implementation schedule
contingent upon HOV lane Master Plan prioritization. Master
Plan adoption expected in Spring, 1991. Short-term
Exposition project would not preclude long-term development
of an HOV lane within the Route 10 right-of-way.
Build Metro Rail to San Fernando Valley and Westwood. Extend
Red Line from Hollywood to North Hollywood and from
Wilshire/Western to the 405 Freeway.
STATUS: Project planned and funding requested for segment
from Hollywood to North Hollywood. For western extension,
alternatives analysis and draft EIS underway to be completed
by late 1992.
Complete Westside Commuter Bikeway Network. Construct
bikeway network and amenities defined in earlier study.
STATUS: Construction is unscheduled.
Improve and Construct New Transit Centers - provide increased
level of amenities such as day care, restaurants and
convenience stores, as well as coordinated center for various
transit modes.
STATUS: Need identified for three specific improvements/
relocations of transit centers and currently developing
options. Identifying need for additional facilities.
Construction is unscheduled.
- 5 -
CORMOR
SAN BERNARDINO/POMONAFREEWAY
SAN BERNARDINO/POMONA FREEWAY CORRIDOR
EXISTING CONDMONS
A major congested corridor encompassing the San Bernardino (Route
10) and Pomona (Route 60) Freeways extends throughout the entire
San Gabriel Valley. The main contributors to the congestion are
the area's natural topographic features, an incomplete system of
freeways, and the tremendous growth of the Inland Empire.
The San Gabriel Valley is bounded by mountains and hills to the
north and south, which channels traffic in an east -west direction
and limits access points for north -south travel beyond the valley.
While three major east -west freeways cross the valley, only a
limited number of local arterials, usually poorly signalized,
extend the length of the valley.
Congestion is further complicated because of gaps in the freeway
system. The incompletion of the Foothill Freeway puts extra
strain onto the parallel arterials and freeways. While the Long
Beach Freeway gap (Route 710) and the Corona Expressway (Route 71)
are not east -west travelfares, their impacts are felt along the
10/60 corridor as commuters filter onto these freeways to find
alternate routes, or cause freeway back-ups as traffic siphons
onto constrained roads.
Other factors also contribute to congestion. Route 10, and espec-
ially Route 60, carry significant truck traffic. The industrial
uses along the Route 60 corridor encourage peaked congestion
because of fixed work hours. Accidents cause significant delays,
and two high -accident locations occur along Route 10.
Transit services currently are not designed to best address con-
gestion along this corridor. While the success of express buses
along the El Monte Busway is well known, it is still inadequate:
the E1 Monte Busway facility extends into only the western third
of the valley; express lines focus solely on Route 10; minimal
convenient inter -county transit services exist; and express ser-
vice focuses on downtown Los Angeles destinations without recog-
nizing other suburb -to -suburb patterns. No rail service currently
exists but is sorely needed.
The future is likely to escalate congestion to unworkable levels.
Major population growth due to affordable housing in the Inland
Empire virtually guarantees that congestion along this corridor
will continue. For its Regional Mobility Plan, the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) modelled the trans-
portation network based on future growth. Even with the most
generous assumptions for completing the highway infrastructure,
extending the E1 Monte Busway to the county line, and adding
commuter rail and light rail service, congestion along Route 60
still remains. This exercise has led to the understanding that
eventually a high-quality, high-capacity service such as Metro
Rail will be needed.
- 6 -
RECOMMENDATIONS
IMMEDIATE TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1991)
o Develop commuter rail project along right-of-way purchased
from Southern Pacific. Efforts include working with cities
to identify station locations and their funding, and ensuring
that environmental clearance is performed in time for station
construction and subsequent implementation of commuter rail
service.
STATUS: Staff is working with cities to ensure that
decisions regarding stations are made by spring of 1991.
This timing ensures stations are in line when commuter rail
is expected to operate in October 1992.
o Facilitate express bus service projects along unserved east -
west corridors and between adjacent counties. Cross -county
coordination may require LACTC policy revisions and
reciprocal agreements on shared funding and operations
issues.
STATUS: Staff will initiate identification of other
potential routes for express service in these corridors.
o Explore alternate funds for High occupancy vehicle projects
along Routes 10 and 60 that were unfunded in the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The Route 10
project extends the E1 Monte Busway from its current terminus
in E1 Monte to the San Bernardino county line in several
phases. The Route 60 project adds HOV lanes from Route 57 to
the San Bernardino county line.
STATUS: The first two phases of the Route 10 extension were
among the top 20 new projects nominated by LACTC, but did not
receive funding. While formerly considered a high priority,
the Route 60 project suffered from a design issue which will
be studied by Caltrans over the next several months.
I
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1992 THROUGH 1995)
o Complete construction of commuter rail stations and begin
operation of service from San Bernardino to Union Station.
STATUS: Project underway.
o In coordination with cities, develop a "Smart Street" corri-
dor. A statewide study ranked a potential project along
- 7 -
Route 60 as fourth statewide in terms of cost-effectiveness;
projects along Route 10 and Route 210 also fared well.
STATUS: Feasibility study complete; no further action
taken.
o Develop additional park-and-ride lots in underserved areas
along Pomona Freeway.
STATUS: Staff will conduct an inventory to establish areas
of need and will pursue accordingly.
LANG TERM STRATEGIES (BEYOND 1995)
o Complete Route 30, Foothill Freeway, gap from Foothill Boule-
vard to the San Bernardino County line. This project not
only will relieve congestion on main arterials such as
Foothill Boulevard, Baseline Road, and Arrow Highway, but
will redistribute traffic now using the 10 and 60 Freeways.
STATUS: Funding for right-of-way acquisition programmed.
Coordination with San Bernardino County may allow
acceleration of delivery schedule.
o Upgrade Route 71, the Corona Expressway, to a full freeway
facility, including interchange connections to Route 60.
STATUS: Funding for the Route 60/71 interchange has been
programmed. Funding for widening the expressway is
secured in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties,
highlighting the need to program remaining funding in Los
Angeles County.
o Complete the extension of the E1 Monte Busway facility
eastward from its current terminus in E1 Monte to the San
Bernardino County line.
STATUS: Project not yet programmed.
o Complete an HOV lame along the full length of Route 60 in the
San Gabriel Valley, with HOV connectors to intersecting
routes. This would involve 57/60 Interchange configuration.
STATUS: In LACTC HOV Master Plan; no funding programmed,
however, Caltrans is currently analyzing the 57/60
interchange to resolve the problem.
o Upgrade commuter rail service to a higher -capacity facility.
Ultimately, demand will require that a high-capacity transit
system such as Metro Rail be implemented along the 10/60
corridor. Expected future trips justify the eventual need
for such a facility.
- 8 -
CORRIDOR 2
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY/
CROSS VALLEY TO DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY:
CROSS VALLEY TO DOWNTOWN
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This congested corridor includes the Route 101 (Ventura and Holly-
wood) Freeways and the Route 5 (Golden State) Freeway, as well as
the surface streets parallel to and crossing these freeways.
Congestion is also a problem on the Route 118 (Simi Valley) Free-
way, but in this case is more focused on the freeway itself, less
on surface streets. Average daily freeway volumes are 150,000 on
Route 101 in the Agoura Hills/Westlake Village area; 240,000 in
the Central San Fernando Valley; 250,000 over Cahuenga Pass;
250,000 on Route 5 near Griffith Park; and 170,000 on the rela-
tively narrow Route 118. If no further action is taken, by the
year 2000 rush-hour speeds are predicted to drop to 10 MPH in the
Central San Fernando Valley; 20 MPH through Cahuenga Pass; and 25
MPH on Route 118 and Route 5.
This corridor is the major access route connecting the Conejo,
Simi and western San Fernando Valleys with activity centers along
the Ventura Boulevard corridor, Hollywood, and downtown Los An-
geles. In the reverse direction, it provides access to employment
centers in the Conejo and San Fernando Valleys. Because of the
mountainous terrain, there is a lack of acceptable alternative
routes within the Conejo Valley, between the Conejo, Simi, and San
Fernando Valleys, and over the mountains to downtown Los Angeles.
The alternative routes within the San Fernando Valley are at
capacity. In addition, major problems are created by traffic
backing up on the Ventura Freeway due to inadequate capacity
across the Santa Monica Mountains.
This corridor also serves as a major link between Los Angeles and
coastal areas to the north. As a result, congestion caused by
recreational users and others often occurs on weekends, especially
Friday and Sunday evenings.
A major success in this corridor has been the ridesharing market-
ing effort launched in conjunction with the current Route 101
widening project. For a relatively small investment, congestion
has been prevented from worsening in spite of lane closures and
other congestion -related impacts. The San Fernando Valley's
street grid is reasonably efficient, with relatively well -coordi-
nated signals along major streets. Unfortunately, this system is
not always adequate to handle the increasing demand caused by
traffic overflowing from the freeways to the surface streets.
More technologically -advanced programs, such as ATSAC (Automated
Traffic Signalization and Control) and Smart Corridors are there-
fore needed to improve surface street traffic flow and provide
better motorist information.
— 9 —
RECOMMENDATIONS
IMMEDIATE TERM STRATEGIES MURING 1991
Start running "DASH" shuttle service on Ventura Boulevard. This
project should reduce the number of short -distance auto trips on
Ventura Boulevard, and increase the usage of peripheral parking.
STATUS: Project being planned.
Improve targeted marketing efforts including distribution of the
new Express Bus Map, encouraging employees to utilize ridesharing
as well as express buses, and educating the public on
transportation issues. This project will increase the use of
existing commuter alternatives, and improve commuter awareness of
transportation issues.
STATUS: Map in printing; project currently in planning stage.
Implement market management pilot project. By using private
sector techniques to match our "products" (including bus, rail,
ridesharing) to consumer preferences, we will be able to increase
the effectiveness of the overall system.
STATUS: Project funded; study to begin March, 1991.
Provide security guards at existing park-and-ride lots where
vandalism has been a problem. It is expected that this program
would be discontinued once joint development projects bring
around-the-clock activity to these locations.
STATUS: Security guard posted at Encino park-and-ride lot. Other
sites in planning.
Reinstate signal preemption on Ventura Boulevard for SCRTD buses.
This project will reestablish the system whereby traffic signals
give priority to SCRTD buses, thus increasing average bus speed
and encouraging greater transit ridership.
STATUS: Project being planned.
Provide express bus service between Sylmar and downtown Los
Angeles.
STATUS: Project funded and being prepared for implementation.
- 10 -
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1992 THROUGI 1995
Redesign the existing "grid" bus system in the San Fernando Valley
to provide more direct service to major activity centers, rail
lines, and express bus lines. This should reduce the need for
transfers, thus making the system more attractive to potential
riders. The new bus system should include expanded suburb -to -
suburb express buses to connect the Conejo Valley, San Fernando
Valley, Central L.A., and the Westside.
STATUS: Market survey to begin shortly. Planning study to begin
in mid-1991.
Implement on -street HOV lanes on major east -west routes such as
Sherman Way and Victory Boulevard. Exclusive on -street bus lanes,
coupled with bus system redesign, should improve the flow of
buses, thus reducing travel time, and increasing transit ridership
and productivity.
STATUS: Feasibility studies underway.
Complete the Ventura Freeway Improvement Project to widen the
freeway to five lanes and restore the pavement.
STATUS: Under construction; completion scheduled for Spring
1992.
Widen Route 5 (Golden State) Freeway southbound to six lanes
between Route 118 and Route 170. This project will remove a
bottleneck which occurs where the Route 5 and Route 118 Freeways
join.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet under construction.
Provide improved ramps for the Valley Circle Boulevard interchange
on the Ventura Freeway.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet under
construction.
I
Construct new park-and-ride lots and transit centers. Implement
joint development projects at both new and existing lots to
provide needed revenues. This should, include public/private
arrangements to provide security at no cost to taxpayers. Park-
and-ride lots will increase the attractiveness of commute options
to non-traditional rideshare markets. The proposed joint
development will decrease public costs and improve security.
STATUS: Pilot projects at Chatsworth and Hubbard Commuter Rail
Stations and Van Nuys Transit Center currently under study.
Begin operation of LA/Moorpark commuter rail line, linked up with
an effective feeder network of buses and bike facilities. The
commuter trains should begin with moderate ridership, gradually
building as service continues.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet under construction.
Construct one HOV lane and one regular lane on Route 118 (Simi
Valley) Freeway from Ventura County line to Route 5. This project
will increase capacity between the Simi and San Fernando Valleys,
and will provide the San Fernando Valley's first HOV lane. The
HOV lane should be coordinated with strategies to increase the
availability of ridesharing options.
STATUS: Feasibility has been determined; project has been
partially funded.
LANG TERM STRATEGIES (BEYOND 1995)
Set up Smart Corridor system to improve traffic flow along the
Ventura Freeway corridor from Woodland Hills to Burbank. The
Smart Corridor system would improve traffic flow on surface
streets, and would reduce congestion caused by accidents.
STATUS: Feasibility has been determined; ATSAC project partially
funded, remainder has not yet been programmed.
Extend the Metro Red Line rail system from Downtown Los Angeles
and Hollywood to Universal City and North Hollywood. The Metro
Red Line is expected to carry 300,000 passengers per day, thus
becoming a high-quality alternative for reaching Hollywood,
downtown Los Angeles, and points south from the San Fernando
Valley.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet under con-
struction.
Construct rail transit system from Universal City/North Hollywood
area to Warner Center. This project will provide a needed
alternative to the Route 101 Freeway, and will enhance access to
the Metro Red Line stations in North Hollywood and Universal City.
STATUS: Feasibility study complete for Burbank Branch alignment;
other alternatives still under review. Project has been funded.
Construct light-rail line from downtown L.A. to Glendale. This
project will increase options for commuters in the Route 5
corridor, providing an important transit connection between the
Glendale area and downtown Los Angeles.
STATUS: Feasibility studies underway.
- 12 -
Implement HOV lane on Route 101 (Hollywood) Freeway from Route 134
to downtown Los Angeles. A Hollywood Freeway HOV lane would
provide an attractive carpool route to downtown L.A., thus
encouraging formation of carpools.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Consider reversible HOV lane on Glendale Boulevard. This will
improve operation of Glendale Boulevard, thus providing additional
capacity at a major bottleneck between the San Fernando Valley and
downtown L.A.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Widen connector road between southbound Route 5 (Golden State)
Freeway with southbound Route 110 (Pasadena) Freeway, and widen
Route 110 south to Academy Road. This project will remove a major
bottleneck effecting commuters between the eastern San Fernando
Valley and downtown Los Angeles.
STATUS: Project programmed; not yet designed or constructed.
- 13 -
CORRIDOR 3
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - SAN PEDRO
DOWNTOWN/SAN PEDRO CORRIDOR
EXISTING CONDPITONS
The Downtown/San Pedro Corridor stretches from the Los Angeles
Central Business District (CBD) through South Central Los Angeles
to the Pacific Ocean at San Pedro.
Congestion within this corridor is caused by a combination of
factors. Residential patterns have developed along the outer
portions of this corridor and the Region's largest job concentra-
tion has developed at the the Los Angeles Central Business Dis-
trict. The extensive network of Pacific Electric and Los Angeles
Railway rail transit lines linking the various points along this
corridor were removed between 1940 and 1960 and replaced with a
network of freeways. The freeways, when combined with a wide-
spread practice of employer subsidized parking, led to unparal-
leled initial convenience for automobile users. But these same
developments discouraged transit use and coupled with freeway gaps
and concentrated work hours have led to widespread congestion.
In the absence of either rail transit or an HOV network, most
commuters have only had bus service or car/van pools in mixed
traffic as an alternative to driving alone. Attempts to resolve
these problems by the construction of additional mixed traffic
freeways have not led to lasting decreases in congestion and have
heightened the smog problem while negatively impacting existing
neighborhoods.
Virtually the entire Harbor Freeway is congested (i.e. experi-
encing speeds below 30 miles per hour) more than six hours daily.
The Pasadena Freeway is similarly congested as far east as the
junction with the 1-5 Freeway. The 110 Freeway in and near the
CBD is amongst the twenty locations with the highest occurrence
of reportable accidents throughout the County.
In the face of severe overcrowding some trips are displaced onto
arterials for shorter trip. But use of arterials would impose an
unacceptable delay on longer trips to the CBD. Many bus routes
are severely overcrowded.
Techniques which have worked include HOV lanes as seen elsewhere
on the San Bernardino Freeway (the E1 Monte Busway). This suc-
cessful projects is scheduled to be repeated in this corridor in
the Harbor transitway corridor.
- 14 -
RECOMMENDATIONS
IMMEDIATE TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1991)
Initiate the Pasadena/Harbor Freeway Service Patrol. This Project
will extend along the 110 Freeway between Dodger Stadium and the
Coliseum.
STATUS: Project funded and designed, initial operation is proj-
ected for March -April 1991.
Extension of the Blue Line to the 7th and Flower Metro Center
Station. This Project extends the Blue Line north from its in-
terim terminus at Pico Station to the Metro Center Subway Station
which will serve as the transfer point for the future Red Line.
Status: Project under construction; completion scheduled for
February 1991.
Initial work on the Golden State to Pasadena Freeway Connector (I-
5 to I-110). Ramp metering.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet under construction.
The Project will be completed by early 1992. For completion of
all the programmed work on this connector see SHORT TERM STRATE-
GIES BELOW.
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1992 THROUGH 1995)
Traffic Signalization. The development of the Harbor Freeway as
a SMART Corridor has been evaluated as part of a SMART CORRIDOR
STATEWIDE STUDY prepared for Caltrans by JHK and Associates. When
ranked statewide by benefit/cost ratio statewide, the Harbor
Corridor ranked thirteenth overall. When the same projects were
ranked by a numeric score which included more factors than the
benefit/cost ratio, the Harbor Freeway ranked fifth statewide. It
is amongst the Category 1 projects of this type which show the
highest benefit/cost ratio (above 3 to 1). The benefit/cost ratio
of a SMART Corridor was computed to be 3.93 in the Harbor corri-
dor. The parallel arterials which would be directly utilized
include Figueroa Street, Broadway, and Vermont Ave, with other
arterials utilized if adjacent SMART Corridors are developed.
STATUS: Feasibility studies underway:
- 15 -
Complete The Harbor Transitway. The Harbor Transitway Project is
fully funded, primarily with Federal Highway Funds. In early
January 1991 contracts worth approximately 40 per cent of the
total cost of the Project have been awarded and are underway.
STATUS: Project under construction; completion scheduled for
September 1994.
Develop bus services for the Harbor Transitway to coordinate
with the Blue Line. The net added annual cost of Harbor Transit -
way service is currently projected to be less than 3 million
dollars in FY 1995 dollars for added RTD service.
STATUS: Feasibility studies completed; project not yet completed.
Complete the Golden State to Pasadena Freeway Connector (I-5 to I-
110). This project will add a lane to the southbound transition
ramp from the I-5 (Golden State) Freeway to the westbound I-110
(Pasadena Freeway) and a single mixed traffic lane on the north
side of the I-110 Freeway from the transition road as far west as
the Hill street exit.
STATUS: Project funded and in design;not yet under construction.
LONG TERM STRATEGIES (BEYOND 1995)
Complete the L.A. River/Golden State arterial capacity im-
provements (The Alameda Bypass).
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Complete the Downtown Rail Connector (Long Beach to Pasadena
Lines). The expected result would be increased operational flexi-
bility on the combined Blue Line and an increase in transit modal
split in the CBD.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Extend The Harbor Freeway Transitway to San Pedro. This Project
would extend the Harbor Transitway, now under construction, from
its present southern terminus at the 91 Freeway to southward to
San Pedro.
- 16 -
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Implement the Alameda Consolidated Transportation Corridor.
This Project, when completed, will consolidate through freight
trains for the Union Pacific, AT&SF, and Southern Pacific Rail-
roads within an upgraded Southern Pacific Alameda Corridor.
STATUS: Project partially funded and in conceptual design; not
yet under construction.
Expand Blue Line Park -and -Ride capacity. This Project might be
developed as part of a program of private sector joint development
for the Blue Line.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
- 17 -
CORRIDOR 4
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY - ORANGE COUNTY
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY/ORANGE COUNTY CORRIDOR
(ROUTE 405)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The San Fernando Valley/Orange County Corridor is primarily
associated with the San Diego Freeway (Route 405) from Route 5
(Golden State Freeway) to the Orange County line. Neighboring
streets are also affected by the spill-over from the congested
freeway.
This is the longest of the congested corridors, extending 46
miles through the San Fernando Valley, the Westside and the South
Bay areas of the county. Another distinctive characteristic of
the San Fernando Valley/Orange County corridor is that it is
among the few corridors with non-linear alignments. In,the San
Fernando Valley and the Westside it is a North-South Corridor
aligned with the street grid network, while in the South Bay the
Corridor changes gradually through the South Bay curve to a
North-West/ South -East alignment.
Since the San Fernando Valley/Orange County Congested Corridor is
so long, there are multiple reasons for its congestion problems.
The primary cause of congestion is the work related commute as
the corridor connects residential areas in the Simi, Santa
Clarita and San Fernando Valleys, Orange County and Coastal
residential areas with employment and activity centers in the Los
Angeles Basin and the San Fernando Valley. These activity cen-
ters include: Van Nuys, Sepulveda and Ventura Boulevard areas in
the San Fernando Valley; Westwood Village; UCLA and the Wilshire
Corridor in the Westside; the E1 Segundo employment center and
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX); and the Long Beach and
Ports areas.
A secondary, but not insignificant, factor contributing to con-
gestion is recreational travel. The San Diego Freeway provides
freeway access paralleling many of Los Angeles' coastal recre-
ational activities including beaches, Marina del Rey, San Pedro,
and Long Beach Ports. A� the 405 freeway also serves the Los
Angeles International Airport and Orange and San Diego Counties,
out of county recreational travelers also favor this route cre-
ating bad weekend and holiday congestion.
Geography and urban form also contribute to congestion. Sep-
ulveda pass forms a natural bottleneck because of the lack of
fast alternate routes crossing the Santa Monica Mountains. Since
the San Diego freeway parallels the coast south of the Santa
Monica mountains, instead of paralleling the street network, the
San Diego freeway creates a diagonal short-cut to the north-
south/east-west street network.
Another factor contributing to corridor congestion is the lack of
an alternative to the automobile. Transit service is relatively
lacking, with the only fixed -route services serving Westwood and
LAX from the San Fernando Valley. Only circuitous transit ser-
vice exists from Long Beach to the Los Angeles International
Airport/E1 Segundo Employment area. In addition, along the South
Bay curve, travelers may hesitate to leave the freeway to use
less congested local arterials due to the fear of getting lost.
Over 100 congested intersections are located along the San Fer-
nando Valley/Orange County Corridor. Average rush hour travel
speeds on the San Diego Freeway are frequently less than 20 miles
per hour. The congestion is worst from 6:00 to 10:00 in the
morning and 3:00 to 7:00 in the evening on weekdays. The San
Diego freeway also experiences weekend "rush hours" due to recre-
ational and shopping travel. Congestion frequently exists in
both directions during both peaks along the South Bay curve. The
future travel speed is projected to be 15 miles an hour crossing
the Sepulveda Pass without proposed commuter lane improvements.
Two of the the top 26 most frequently used transit lines serve
this corridor. SCRTD line 40 (Hawthorne Boulevard) serves 36,016
passengers daily. Vernon Avenue, SCRTD line number 22 serves
22,818 passengers daily.
According to a recent Caltrans count, the San Diego Freeway's
vehicle occupancy ratio varies from 1.13 people per vehicle to
1.30 people per vehicle depending upon time of day.
Previous efforts to reduce congestion along this corridor in-
clude:
o Spot widening projects, most recently near UCLA for the 1984
Olympics. Although providing temporary relief, adding
another mixed flow lane does not increase capacity as much
as a carpool lane.
o Signal improvements, both past and present. Basic signal
coordination has been in place along the San Fernando
Valley "grid" for many years. Similarly, about twenty years
ago cities near the South Bay curve joined together to
operate a coordinated signal system. Unfortunately, in this
multi -jurisdictional environment, the system deteriorated
over time due to lack of adequate maintenance funding and
battles over authority to control timing.
o Even when only a few jurisdictions are involved (such as in
the San Ferrando Valley or LAX area), more complex traffic
interaction has required increasingly sophisticated equip-
ment and systems. Recent notable efforts to improve con-
gested intersections include the City of Los Angeles' ATSAC
program (Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control), cur
rently being installed in the southern portion of the San
- 19 -
Fernando Valley and near the Los Angeles International
Airport.
o The South Bay MAX system has been highly successful. How-
ever, except for service between San Pedro and E1 Segundo,
efforts to increase bus transit service in the Long Beach -E1
Segundo Corridor have been lacking. As a result, car-
pooling rates in the E1 Segundo area are higher than aver-
age.
o In the late 19701s, an effort to add a carpool lane to the
San Diego Freeway over Sepulveda Pass was abandoned due in
part to the controversy over the Santa Monica Freeway "Dia-
mond Lanes" and in part due to inability of 1970's era buses
to maintain top speed over the grade.
RECOMMENDATIONS
IMMEDIATE TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1991
Gardena Computer Controlled Traffic Signal Improvements - City-
wide.
STATUS: Project under construction; completion scheduled for
1991.
Sepulveda Boulevard Reversible Lane Demonstration South of the
tunnel.
STATUS: Project will be operating by December, 1991.
Complete an inventory of needed transit service improvements to
be used during re-routing of transit service when the Route 405
commuter lane opens. The inventory will examine re-routing
options, and the need for amenities such as bus shelters, transit
information, installing bus shelters, and increased frequency on
overcrowded lines.
STATUS: Inventory scheduled to start in March. Work should be
complete in December, 19§1.
Implement suburb -to -suburb bus service plans for Granada Hills-
Encino-Westwood-Century.City and Granada Hills -Encino -Westchester -
E1 Segundo corridors.
STATUS: Lines schedules to begin operation in mid-1991.
- 20 -
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1992 THROUGH 1995
Construct a commuter lane (High Occupancy Vehicle or HOV) from
Culver City (Marina Freeway) to the Harbor Freeway.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet under construc-
tion.
Construct the Arbor Vitae Interchange. The City of Inglewood
strongly supports this Interchange. The Interchange will be
needed to accommodate increased travel to the Los Angeles Inter-
national Airport and will improve service to major special event
destinations such as the Forum and Hollywood Park.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet under construc-
tion.
Expand South Bay MAX service to cover additional destinations.,
STATUS: Feasibility being studied.
Transit Service Rescoping including Express Bus, transit feeder
service to Green and Red line, realignment in the San Fernando
Valley and transit service redesign. The scope of the improve-
ments may be based on the inventory to be conducted in 1991.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Expand Sepulveda Boulevard Reversible Lane Demonstration across
Sepulveda Pass to West Los Angeles.
STATUS: In design; implementation dependent upon success of
immediate term demonstration project.
San Diego Freeway/Ventura Freeway Interchange Improvements. The
inadequate capacity of the current interchange causes traffic
slow -downs on the main line freeway, creating a safety hazard on
the northbound (downhill) San Diego Freeway.
STATUS: Feasibility notlyet determined.
Co -develop Park -and -Ride Lots in Transit Centers which include
joint development activities. Such development will not only
provide project funding, but will also enhance security by gener-
ating all -day activity in the area.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Sepulveda Tunnel Under the Los Angeles International Airport
capacity enhancement.
STATUS: Feasibility study complete; project under design.
Construction funding has not yet been programmed.
Rosecrans/Aviation Intersection Widening and Railroad Bridge
Relocation.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet under construc-
tion.
Construct the 2.8 mile extension of the Green Line/Coastal Corri-
dor Northern Segment from the Aviation station to Westchester.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet under construc-
tion.
Expand cross -mountain access. Explore opportunities for DASH -
type shuttle bus service through the Santa Monica Mountains on
canyon roads such as Benedict, Coldwater, Topanga, Laurel Canyon
Boulevards and Malibu Canyon Road to provide feeder service for
canyon residents and provide more direct access for trips between
Westwood/Beverly Hills/Hollywood and Woodland
Hills/Encino/Sherman Oaks/Studio City areas.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
LONG TERM STRATEGIES (BEYOND 1995)
Implement a Smart Corridor of coordinated Traffic Signals and
Freeway Operations along the San Diego Freeway's South Bay Curve
between the Santa Monica Freeway and the Harbor Freeway.
Assuming the first demonstration of the Smart Concept proves
successful, the South Bay Curve Smart Corridor would be extremely
popular due to the projected benefits. Assuming a $6 per hour
vehicle operating cost, the first year of operation of the South
Bay Curve Smart Corridor will reduce congestion equivalent to its
entire ten year construction, operating and maintenance cost.
Accidents will also be reduced.
STATUS: Feasibility studies complete; project not yet pro-
grammed.
Construct high speed rail or magnetic levitation (maglev) train
from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to Santa Clarita
through the Sepulveda Pass. High speed rail could provide a
faster trip than the automobile between Northern Los Angeles
County and the LAX area. By attracting trips from the freeway,
congestion on the San Diego Freeway is expected to decrease.
Feasibility of a second International Airport in Northern Los
Angeles County would be enhanced. Commercial property values
near the rail hub of the Metro Green Line and the High Speed or
Maglev project are likely to increase.
STATUS: Feasibility studies underway.
- 22 -
Construct a commuter lane between the Harbor Freeway and the Long
Beach Freeway.
STATUS: Feasibility studies complete; project not yet pro-
grammed.
Construct a commuter lane between the Marina Freeway and the
Santa Monica Freeway.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Construct a commuter lane between the Santa Monica Freeway and
the Ventura Freeway.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Extend the Metro Green Line 8.3 miles to the south from TRW Space
Park station south to Torrance (Hawthorne Boulevard/Pacific Coast
Highway). Overall, there appears to be support from the cities
and the private and public entities aware of the project. The
unresolved issue at his time involves the siting of the terminal
station. The southerly extension of the Green Line would allow
direct trips to the LAX area by rail, thereby reducing automobile
traffic on the 405 freeway. In addition, it provides an alterna-
tive mode of travel to the E1 Segundo employment center, reducing
much of the trips occurring on Hawthorne Boulevard for the pur-
pose. Finally, it provides the southeasterly link to the Blue
Line, completing this part of the loop on the countywide rail
system.
STATUS: Feasibility studies underway.
Extend the Metro Green Line from Westchester (Westchester Parkway
and Sepulveda Boulevard) to Culver Boulevard. The Green Line
Northern Extension enjoys broad public and private support. This
was indicated during the series of public hearings the LACTC
conducted as part of the environmental clearance process. This
portion of the Green Line Northern Extension, although currently
unfunded, has been environmentally cleared and approved by the
LACTC.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Connect the Green Line Terminus in Torrance to the Blue Line in
Long Beach. This project is still in the conceptual stages. The
LACTC has not initiated studies or discussions on the alternate
routes of this extension with affected cities and agencies. As
the certainty of the Green Line's Southern Extension's implemen-
tation becomes established, discussions of this loop could start
to determine its feasibility. Expected Results: Completion of
the countywide rail system loop. Trip reduction on Pacific Coast
Highway and the San Diego Freeway.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
- 23 -
Private Sector Metro Blue Line Connection to Orange County.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Study feasibility of a toll road facility through the Santa
Monica Mountains at an undetermined location.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
DP: me
sfvoc/congested corridors-sbay
- 24 -
CORRIDOR 5A
134/210 FREEWAY
ROUTE 134/210 CORRIDOR
EXISTING CONDMONS
The Route 134 and 210 Freeways have now surpassed their capacity
during rush hour, and traffic is therefore diverting to the paral-
lel east/west streets, which are relatively narrow. Congestion is
particularly extreme in downtown Pasadena, where average rush hour
speed is 35 MPH, and is expected to drop to 27 MPH within 10
years.
This corridor provides access between the "Tri -Cities" (Burbank,
Glendale, and Pasadena), as well as to the Burbank/Glendale/
Pasadena Airport. It is also the major connection between the San
Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, and is thus becoming increas-
ingly important due to the growth in suburb -to -suburb commuting.
The freeway is also critical to the rapidly -growing Burbank,
Glendale, and Pasadena business districts. Rush hour congestion
is currently westbound in the morning and eastbound in the
evening; but it is expected that congestion will soon occur in
both directions during the morning and evening. There is
currently no express bus service in the corridor, and there have
been virtually no improvements made since the freeway was built.
However, this corridor has now become a major issue for the "Tri -
Cities."
RECOMMENDATIONS
IMMEDIATE TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 19911
Implement express "suburb to suburb" bus service between Encino,
Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena. This service will fill a major
gap for commuters in the Route 101/134/210 Freeway corridor. It
should increase transit usage, attracting commuters who currently
travel by auto.
STATUS: Project funded and scheduled for implementation in Spring
1991.
Work with Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena Airport shuttle operators, as
well as the operators of the San Fernando Valley taxicab system,
to explore their potential involvement in ridesharing programs
such as the "guaranteed ride home," improved access for the
elderly and disabled, and transit feeders.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1992 THROUGH 1995)
Provide improved ground access to Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena
Airport once the location for the new terminal is determined.
STATUS: Project programmed; not yet designed or constructed.
- 25 -
Implement HOV lane on Route 134/210 Freeway from Route 2 in Eagle
Rock to Azusa Avenue, in coordination with improved bus service
and strategies to facilitate carpooling and vanpooling. This HOV
lane will form an important link in the overall county HOV lane
network, thus increasing carpooling and transit usage.
STATUS: Route 210 portion funded and in design; Route 134
feasibility not yet determined.
WNG TERM_ STRATEGIES (BEYOND 1995
Build an east/west rail line connecting Pasadena, Glendale,
Burbank, and the North Hollywood/Universal City area. This
transit corridor will increase capacity in the Tri -Cities
corridor, and provide an important suburb -to -suburb link in the
regional rail system.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Build additional local access systems from major transit
facilities (commuter and other rail stations, transit centers) to
business districts in the tri -cities area. This may include
short-term options such as shuttle buses, and longer-term options
such as light-rail extensions, electric trolleys, and personalized
rapid transit (PRT) systems.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
- 26 -
CORRIDOR 5B
WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CORRIDOR
EXISTING CONDITIONS
one of the congested corridors in the San Gabriel Valley follows a
north -south band along the Long Beach Freeway (Route 710) corridor
from the Foothill Freeway (Route 210) corridor to the Route 10/60
corridor. In this portion, the Long Beach Freeway has not been
completed within the cities of Alhambra, South Pasadena and
Pasadena. As a result, traffic in the western segment of the
Foothill Freeway is accentuated as vehicles must enter the street
system in order to head southward. Many arterials experience
congestion (primarily north -south, but also several east -west
streets) from absorbing these tremendous amounts of traffic.
In the City of Pasadena, there is no freeway link between the
Foothill Freeway and the Pasadena Freeway (Route 110), causing
peak hour congestion on north -south streets such as Orange Grove
Boulevard, Fair Oaks Avenue, Arroyo Parkway and Los Robles Avenue.
In the City of Alhambra, where the Long Beach Freeway terminates
at Valley Boulevard, severe congestion occurs at Valley Boulevard,
Fremont Avenue, Atlantic Boulevard and Garfield Avenue.
While it is obvious that the freeway gap causes circulation
problems for the street system, the land uses in this corridor
contribute to this congestion. The City of Pasadena has the
largest employment of all cities in the San Gabriel Valley, with
major commercial development along Lake Avenue, the Foothill
Freeway corridor, Old Town and the Civic Center. Alhambra also
has significant office development along Fremont Avenue, and Cal
State Los Angeles is located at the juncture of the Long Beach
Freeway and the San Bernardino Freeway. The population along this
corridor is fairly large: Pasadena, Alhambra and Monterey Park
rank first, fifth and seventh respectively in city size for the
San Gabriel Valley. In addition, South Pasadena and Alhambra have
the greatest housing density in the San Gabriel Valley. This mix
of residential and commercial development causes suburb -to -suburb
travel patterns as well as the more conventional suburb -to -
downtown travel.
While an obvious challenge is to resolve how to add sufficient
capacity in the north -south corridor of the West San Gabriel
Valley, an equally important challenge involves how to handle
congestion for cities on the west end of the Foothill Freeway
corridor such as Pasadena and Arcadia. As Pasadena continues to
develop as a destination in its own right, management. of traffic
generated eastward is an increasingly important element in solving
congestion in this area.
27 -
RECOMMENDATIONS
IMMEDIATE TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 19911
o Finalize scope and budget of Pasadena -Los Angeles Light Rail
Project, and complete acquisition efforts of Atchison, Topeka
& Santa Fe railroad right-of-way. Once resolved, this
project is ready for design and construction.
STATUS: Environmental clearance essentially complete;
project not yet programmed.
o Determine use of remaining AT&SF right-of-way east of
Pasadena for transit service. Extending transit service
beyond Pasadena allows an opportunity to divert trips conges-
ting Pasadena and Arcadia which are generated from the east.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
o Finalize express bus service on the Foothill 210 Corridor.
STATUS: Programmed is the Transit Service Expansion
programmed for year 1990-91.
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1992 THROUGH 1995)
o Develop signalization projects on key arterials which carry
the burden of traffic diverting from freeways. Key congested
streets which are potential candidates are Fremont Avenue,
Atlantic Boulevard, Garfield Avenue, Fair Oaks Avenue, Orange
Grove, Los Robles Avenue, and Arroyo Parkway.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
o Complete High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on Foothill Freeway
from Pasadena to Glendora.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; scheduled to finish
construction in 1992.
LONG TERM STRATEGIES (BEYOND 1995)
o Begin operation of the Pasadena -Los Angeles Light Rail
project.
STATUS: Project expected to complete construction in 1996.
o Extend transit service along AT&SF right-of-way beyond
Pasadena eastward.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
o Resolve and complete the Route 710 gap.
STATUS: Partial funding for right-of-way acquisition
programmed. Draft Environmental Impact Statement with
alternatives analysis expected to be released shortly.
CORRIDOR 6
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - ORANGE COUNTY LINE
DOWNTOWN/ORANGE COUNTY CORRIDOR (ROUTE 1-5)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Santa Ana Freeway begins in Downtown Los Angeles at the
Pasadena Freeway (Route 110) and continues southeast along I-5 to
the Orange County Line. Peak period speeds of under 35 miles per
hour characterize the whole corridor, with severe congestion
lasting six hours daily.
Several design problems exist on Route 5 which explain some of the
severe congestion. In East Los Angeles, eastbound vehicles on
Route 10 merge onto I-5 on the left and then must change lanes to
exit on the right to continue eastbound on Route 10. The numerous
lane changes, complicated by the fact that trucks constitute 13
percent of the vehicles on the Santa Ana Freeway, slow speeds to
16 miles per hour during the peak period in this section.
In addition, many of the on -ramps and off -ramps along Route I-5
are unusually short. This means vehicles merging into traffic
disrupt the flow and vehicles exiting the freeway may be backed -up
into freeway lanes due to a traffic signal or street congestion.
Lastly, slowing consistently occurs from the northbound Santa Ana
to the northbound Long Beach Freeway because the transition is
only one lane wide.
Interestingly, the Santa Ana Freeway gradually grows narrower as
you go south towards the Orange County Line. Between the Pasadena
Freeway and the Long Beach Freeway, Route 5 is ten lanes wide.
Between the Long Beach Freeway and the 605 Freeway, Route 5
becomes eight lanes wide. Then, between the 605 Freeway and the
Orange County Line, the Santa Ana Freeway slims down to six lanes.
A bottleneck is anticipated at the Orange County Line because an
expansion to 12 lanes is under construction in Orange County.
Meanwhile, the cities algng the freeway in Los Angeles County
explicitly object to any widening that would require any
significant additional right-of-way.
Related to this corridor is the east/west surface street corridor
(Slauson Ave/Firestone Blvd Corridor). This broad surface street
corridor experiences heavy congestion due to the heavy employment
concentration in the area (Vernon, Commerce) and diversion from
local freeways to avoid congestion in the vicinity of downtown Los
Angeles for trips destined to the west of downtown.
- 29 -
RECOMMENDATIONS
IMMEDIATE TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1991)
Participate in and monitor the Caltrans planning effort involving
an alternative analysis including HOV options between Downtown and
Orange County to be completed in 1992. Ensure that the
comments/concerns of the cities are recorded and responsibly
addressed and that the Metro Orange Lane (Norwalk to Downtown Los
Angeles) is included in the scope of the study.
STATUS: Feasibility study underway.
Include studies of I-5/Local Street Interchanges identified by
cities in Caltrans Alternative Analysis to address traffic
problems with both merging and exiting vehicles.
STATUS: Feasibility study underway.
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1992 THROUGH 1995
Negotiate additional Commuter Rail in LOSSAN Corridor connecting
both Orange and Riverside Counties to offer north/south commuters
additional alternative to driving. STATUS: Feasibility study
underway.
Implement SMART Corridor traffic and freeway operation concepts to
reduce delay time using real time information and traffic
signalization phasing in the Firestone/Slauson Avenue Corridor.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Include a review of the Metro Orange Line as part of the Santa Ana
Corridors Study/Environmental Impact Report. STATUS: Feasibility
study underway.
Work with the City of Norwalk to develop a major Transit Center at
Imperial Highway and AT S SF right-of-way (LOSSAN Corridor) to
provide future connectivity between Commuter Rail (Orange County
and Riverside County), Los Angeles County Metro Green Line
(extension from present terminus at Route 605) and Orange County
Metro Rail (Rail Backbone Alternative). STATUS: Feasibility
studies underway.
LONG-TERM STRATEGIES (BEYOND 1995)
Extend the Metro Orange Line toward Orange County (Norwalk) to
provide a nort,i/south alternative to the Santa Ana Freeway.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
- 30-
Extend Metro Green Line into Orange County. Utilize the West
Santa Ana Branch right-of-way for a Green Line extension into
Orange County (consistent with Orange County's "Rail Intermediate"
Alternative), or extend the Green Line two miles along Imperial
Highway to LOSSAN Corridor and extend into Orange County
(consistent with Orange County's "Rail Back Bone" Alternative).
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Expand the capacity of Route 5, including the construction of H0%1
lanes and freeway interchange improvements. STATUS: Feasibility
not yet determined.
- 31 -
CORRIDOR 7
605 FREEWAY
ROUTE 605 FREEWAY CORRIDOR
EMST qG CONDITIONS
The 605 Freeway Corridor stretches 26 miles from the San Gabriel
Valley in the north to the City of Long Beach in the south.
Portions of the eight lane freeway experience severe concestion
daily.
Sections of the 605 Freeway have directional peak period traffic
patterns. For instance, in the freeway's northern reach between
the Foothill Freeway and the Pomona Freeway, southbound congestion
is heaviest. Conversely, between the 605 Freeway's southern
terminus at the San Diego Freeway and Route 5, northbound
congestion is heaviest. The "middle" portion of the 605 Freeway
between the Pomona Freeway and Route 5 has about an even
directional peak period traffic pattern and the heaviest
congestion of any points along the corridor. Key constraints
include the absence of parallel surface arterials immediately
adjacent to the "middle" portion of Route 605 and very limited
north -south access through San Jose Hills to the San Gabriel
Valley.
When the Century Freeway is completed, traffic congestion is
expected to increase in both directions. on Route 605 south of t:,e
Pomona Freeway. Indeed, the 605 Freeway will serve as a
connector to the Century Freeway from Route 60, Route 5, and
Route 91 for vehicles traveling east/west.
RECON2YIENDATIONS
I?C4EDIATE TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1991
Construct auxilliary lanes in each direction at the intersection
with Route 91 in Cerritos. STATUS: Programmed for construction
in FY 1990-91.
I
Study ways to increase use of park-and-ride facilities at the
northern and southern ends of the 605 Freeway. STATUS: Feasibility
not yet determined.
Work with CTS and SCAQMD to implement an aggressive TDM program by
fully operationalizing the existing TMA's and/or forming new ones
in all industrial and manufacturing parks and major office com-
plexes. STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Initiate marketing program to inform "through" commuters of public
transportation alternatives with CTS. STATUS: Feasibility study
to assess potential demand to be conducted.
- 32 -
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1992 THROUGH 19951
Redesign bus routes and explore the option of a Transit Zone to
enhance north/south transit service in the congested "middle"
section of the 605 Freeway. STATUS: Feasibility study underway.
Assess feasibility of Route 39 extension through San Jose Hills
with the County of Los Angeles, the Cities of La Habra Heights
and Whittier and other affected jurisdictions. STATUS: Feasibility
discussions will be started.
LONG TERM STRATEGIES (BEYOND 1995)
Expand park-and-ride facilities at the northern and southern ends
of the 605 Freeway. STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Build HOV lanes on the 605 Freeway to induce greater ridesharing.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Institute parking management controls and optimize signalization
on major arterials to offer alternatives to vehicles.traveling
north/south. STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
JW3:CCAC.DB
- 33 -
I
...VtMM
- •°Ir I
111
T,
.�v��°'Y...� i '�-it..'i' y
z/ Np>+f": .+1
K
��I ■irT � i i
� rstY fi' dWtM*
'Ail •t �
rN-
1u.
.J�1
L
Kum
—
CORRIDOR 8
MANHATTAN
BEACH
- ARTESIA
MANHATTAN BEACH/ARTESIA CORRIDOR
(ROUTES 91 AND 165 AND EAST/WEST ARTERIALS)
The Manhattan Beach/Artesia Corridor appears as a 3.5 mile wide
east -west belt across the center of the Los Angeles Basin.
Extending from the beach cities of E1 Segundo and Manhattan
Beach through the communities of Hawthorne, Inglewood, Gardena,
Compton, Carson, Lynwood, South Gate, Paramount, Lakewood,
Bellflower, Norwalk, Cerritos, Downey, and the City of Los
Angeles Communities of Lennox, Watts and Willowbrook the corri-
dor terminates in the Southeast Area city of Artesia.
The primary reason for congestion in this corridor is the need
for the long awaited Century Freeway (Route 105 or Glenn M.
Anderson freeway) and the Metro Green rail line. Commuters from
residential areas in Orange and San Bernardino Counties access
the heart of the Los Angeles Basin manufacturing belt, and the
E1 Segundo/Los Angeles International Airport employment center
using the Artesia freeway. Trucks constitute 18 percent of the
vehicles on the Artesia freeway due to its proximity to the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the nearby manufacturing
areas. There are approximately 70 congested intersections
_ocated along this corridor which experience an hour or more of
cars waiting more than one -cycle to pass during each peak
period.
The Southern California Rapid Transit District's Route Number
115 (Manchester -Firestone) caries 21,127 passengers daily. The
Manchester -Firestone Route is one of the most heavily patronized
transit routes in the county.
Average rush hour travel speeds on the Artesia Freeway are
frequently less than 20 miles per hour. Rush hour lasts from
5:30 to 9:15 in the morning and from 2:45 to 6:30 in the
evening. congestion is primarily westbound in the morning and
eastbound in the evenin4.
Since June 1985, Caltrans has successfully tested an eastbound
bus and carpool lane on the Artesia Freeway between Central
Avenue and the 605 freeway. According to a recent Caltrans
count, forty percent more people traveled in the carpool lane
than on the other four mixed -flow freeway lanes during rush
hour. The Artesia Freeway carpool lane is currently serving 50
percent more carpools than the E1 Monte Busway, partly because
the Artesia Freeway carpool lane is open to 2 person carpools
instead of being limited to 3 or more person carpools.
- 34 -
RECOMMENDATIONS
_IMMEDIATE TERM STRATEGIES (1991
Complete an inventory of latent transit demand along this corri-
dor to be used during re-routing transit service to better
accommodate the planned Metro Green line and the Route 105 and
91 carpool lanes and potential self -paying commuter service.
The inventory will also examine improvements which could in-
crease demand such as increased security; increased frequency on
overcrowded lines; improving transit information availability;
and installing bus shelters.
STATUS: Inventory scheduled to begin in March and be complete
by December, 1991.
Los Angeles International Airport/Westchester Signal Improve-
ments using the City of Los Angeles' Automated Traffic Surveil-
lance and Control (ATSAC) technology. This project will use
computer technology to provide real-time control for 87 traffic
signals located between the Pacific Ocean on the west, La
Cienega Boulevard to the east, Imperial Highway to the south and
Centinela Avenue and Manchester Avenue to the North.
STATUS: Project under construction; completion scheduled for
February, 1991.
SHORT PERM STRATEGIES (1992 THROUGH 1995
Stripe the westbound carpool lane on the Artesia Freeway (Route
91 between Central Avenue and the Route 605 freeway by modifying
the median and restriping where feasible.
STATUS: Project programmed; not yet designed or constructed.
LACTC may wish to advance programmed delivery date to 1992.
Complete Construction ofIthe Century Freeway (Route 105 or Glenn
M. Anderson Freeway)
STATUS: Project under construction; completion scheduled for
October, 1994.
Complete Construction of the 20 mile long automated light rail
Metro Green Line in the median of the Century Freeway from Route
605 to FrEeman Avenue.
STATUS: Project under construction; completion scheduled for
October, 1994.
- 35 -
Improve Signal System on Rey Arterials. Likely candidate arte-
rials include Imperial, E1 Segundo, 135th, Rosecrans, Compton,
Manhattan Beach and Artesia Boulevards.
STATUS: Feasibility study completed; project not yet
programmed.
Reroute existing Transit Service to better utilize the new rail
and carpool lane facilities.
STATUS: Feasibility studies have not yet begun.
Improve Commuter Bus Service, based on a demand based survey
from the Employee Transportation Coordinators at major employ-
ment sites. The scope of the project is undetermined, however,
this project has the possibility of being self-supporting
through commuter contributions and through incentive contribu-
tions from major employers complying with Regulation XV. Many
of these employers are already paying for extensive vanpool
subsidies. The employer's cost to provide alternative transpor-
tation for their employees may be decreased through a
cooperatively sponsored transit program.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Improve bikeway network, particularly access to high employment
areas such as E1 Segundo.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Work with Commuter Transportation Services (CTS) and Employee
Transportation Coordinators (ETC) at major employment sites to
improve carpooling and vanpooling. The SCAQMD's Regulation XV
requires that each worksite with over 100 employees have an ETC.
This ETC network provides a ready-made distribution network for
our marketing efforts for new transit service, park-and-ride lot
information and carpool lane network.
STATUS: Feasibility discussions underway with CTS staff.
LANG TERM STRATEGIES (BEYOND 1995)
Extend Green Line Eastward from Route 605 to the Norwalk
Commuter Rail Station.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Extend the Route 91 carpool lane in both directions from the
Route 605 freeway to the Orange County line.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
- 36-
Improve the Artesia/Route 605 Freeway to Freeway Interchange.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
if the Smart Corridor technology proves successful, implement a
Smart Corridor between the Harbor Freeway and Beach Boulevard.
(The portion of this corridor west of the Harbor Freeway would
be included in the planned San Diego Freeway smart corridor
improvements.) A technical study projects that this project
will pay for its initial construction cost and ten years of
operations and maintenance within the first two years of opera-
tion if a $6 vehicle -hour congestion savings is assumed.
STATUS: Feasibility studies completed; project not yet pro-
grammed.
Complete missing sections of Del Amo Boulevard.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
DP: me
Mba Congested corridor sb
- 37-
CORRIDOR 9
NORTH COUNTY ACCESS (ROUTES 126, 14, AND 138)
NORTH COUNTY ACCESS
EXISTING CONDMONS
There are three particular areas of concern in the North County:
Routes 126 and 14 in the central Santa Clarita Valley area, Route
138 and Sierra Highway in downtown Lancaster and Palmdale, and the
Route 14 Freeway crossing over Escondido Summit towards Palmdale.
Route 14 has the distinction of having the slowest rush-hour
operating speed of any freeway in the San Fernando Valley/North
County area. Traffic volumes are growing on this freeway at 5%
per year. Congestion is also a problem along Route 126 (San
Fernando Road) and nearby streets in central Santa Clarita.
Particular trouble areas in the Antelope Valley are along Sierra
Highway, Avenue J, and Palmdale Boulevard.
The rapidly -growing Route 14 corridor is the major route con-
necting the Antelope and Santa Clarita Valleys with the San Fer-
nando Valley. Many commuters continue though the SFV to worksites
in downtown Los Angeles, West LA, the LAX/E1 Segundo area, and the
San Gabriel Valley. The corridor receives heavy use not only from
commuters but also from North County residents traveling to ser-
vice providers in the San Fernando Valley (since some North County
areas lack sufficient service facilities such as hospitals). The
freeway's width varies from 8 to 6 to 4 lanes, creating bottle-
necks at various locations. Due to the mountainous terrain, there
is a lack of fast alternate routes. There is a particular problem
caused by inadequate ramps at the Sand Canyon Road interchange.
The local street systems in the Antelope and Santa Clarita Valleys
have not been expanded to keep pace with development. In the
Santa Clarita Valley, Route 126 still has several two-lane sec-
tions which are inadequate for the traffic generated by recent
growth. There is heavy cross -valley traffic caused by Antelope
Valley residents exiting Route 14 and cutting across Santa Cla-
rita's relatively inadequate street network to reach jobs in the
Valencia industrial area. In the Antelope Valley, there are a
number of gaps in the street grid, and an insufficient number of
railroad crossings. Both valleys have relatively new transit
systems which are gradually expanding, but still provide a rela-
tively low level of service.
Ridesharing has been very effective in this area, with the average
vehicle occupancy being 1.58. The existing park-and-ride lots are
overflowing their capacity. Express bus service has also been a
success, with service from the Antelope and Santa Clarita Valleys
to downtown Los Angeles running at capacity and covering 100% of
operating costs. Thus far, the limited freeway widenings have
done little to ease congestion, since there are still a number of
bottleneck areas with only two lanes in each direction.
r�e�
IN01031MIN211". rc.7`►6y
IMMEDIATE TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1991)
Work with Caltrans and cities to include the area north of Shadow
Pines Boulevard as part of the Route 14 widening project. The
goal of the Route 14 widening project should be to remove the
existing bottlenecks caused where the freeway narrows to two lanes
in each direction.
STATUS: Project programmed; not yet designed or constructed.
Help coordinate TDM efforts of Santa Clarita and Antelope Valley,
including demonstration vanpool program along the Route 14
corridor.
STATUS: Project currently in planning stage.
Add additional express bus routes connecting North County with
major employment centers to the south.
STATUS: Project funded and prepared for implementation.
Improve targeted marketing efforts including distribution of the
new Express Bus Map, encouraging employees to utilize ridesharing
as well as express buses, and educating the public on
transportation issues. This project will increase the use of
existing commuter alternatives, and improve commuter awareness of
transportation issues.
STATUS: Map in printing; project currently in planning stage.
Locate additional small-scale park-and-ride lots to provide for
the current overflow from existing lots. This project will
provide a temporary increase in park-and-ride lot capacity,
pending construction of permanent lots.
STATUS: Project in planning stage.
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES (DURING 1992 THROUGH 1995)
Begin operation of LA/Santa Clarita commuter rail line, linked
with an effective feeder network of buses and bike facilities.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet under con-
struction.
- 39 -
Expand express bus service from the Antelope and Santa Clarita
Valley to serve more employment centers in the south, including a
special bus connecting Antelope Valley with the Santa Clarita
commuter line terminal. This project is needed to provide access
from the Antelope Valley to the LA/Santa Clarita commuter line.
STATUS: Feasibility currently being studied.
Complete widening of Route 126 to four lanes between the Route 14
(Antelope Valley) and Route 5 (Golden State) Freeways. This
project will remove the remaining two-lane sections along Route
126, thus providing sufficient capacity for the recent growth in
the Santa Clarita Valley.
STATUS: Project partially funded; certain phases under design
and/or construction.
Construct passing lanes on Route 138 between Pearblossom and the
Route 18 junction. These passing lanes will reduce congestion
caused by slow-moving vehicles on this important bypass route.
STATUS: Project funded and in design; not yet constructed.
Locate and build additional park-and-ride lots in conjunction with
new developments and emerging North County population centers.
STATUS: Project planning not yet underway.
Work with developers and North County cities to expand shuttle and
regular bus service feeders to park-and-ride lots and commuter
rail stations.
STATUS: Project planning not yet underway.
Increase vanpooling and carpooling on Route 14 Freeway by
expanding existing park-and-ride lots, constructing new lots, and
expanding the demonstration vanpool program. This project will
require working with Commuter Transportation Services (CTS) and
AQMD to locate high -potential areas and provide guaranteed ride
home service, park-and-ride lots, and other support services.
STATUS: Project planning not yet underway.
LANG TERM STRATEGIES (BEYOND 19951
Widen Route 138 to four lanes between Palmdale and the San
Bernardino County line.
STATUS: Feasibility studies completed; project not yet
programmed.
- 40 -
Widen Route 14 to eight lanes along its entire length.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Construct a light-rail line from Downtown Los Angeles to Sylmar,
eventually extended via tunnel to Santa Clarita. This light rail
line would serve as an extension of the Los Angeles/Glendale line
currently under study.
STATUS: Feasibility studies completed for Glendale/Sylmar
segment; project not yet programmed.
Extend LAX/Santa Clarita private -sector high-speed rail or maglev
train to Palmdale. This project would greatly improve access to
the Antelope Valley and could potentially link with a high-speed
network connecting Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and northern
California.
STATUS: Feasibility studies underway.
Build Route 126 Expressway connecting Route 14 and Route 5
Freeways. This expressway would bring major improvements to local
traffic flow, enhance Ventura/L.A. County access, and reduce
traffic at the Route 5/14 interchange.
STATUS: Feasibility studies underway.
Construct Route 138 Bypass Highway along a route to be determined.
This project would divert truck traffic around the L.A. basin,
allow airport and additional business & residential development.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
Explore feasibility of private -sector initiative for facility
along present route of Angeles Forest Highway. This facility
would relieve pressure on the Route 14 Freeway by providing an
alternative route.
STATUS: Feasibility not yet determined.
- 41 -