HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/31/1995 Minutes - Special MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JANUARY 31,1995
CALL TO ORDER: M/Papen called the meeting to order at 6:06
p.m. at the South Coast AQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by C/Ansari.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller,
Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager, Michael Montgomery,
Interim City Attorney; George Wentz, City Engineer, Michael Myers, Consultant
Engineer; James DeStefano, Community Development Director, Don Cotton,
Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc. and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERA. PLAN:
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT - M/Papen asked staff
-- for the revised language for the second and third paragraphs on Page VI -3.
CFIMyers recommended the following to replace current language under the
second paragraph: "Although the City's existing system of wastewater
treatment and conveyance is presently adequate, it considers only service to
be provided by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's release facilities
located to the west. The City should evaluate its own long-range program of
wastewater treatment and conveyance separate and apart from the current
City/County services. Alternatives should be identified for any remaining
developable area of the City and its sphere of influences. At the appropriate
time, a study for an alternative service plan should be prepare4 to address the
feasibility of servicing flows in the direction of Orange and San Bernardino
Counties." With respect to paragraph 3, Page VI -3, be recommended it be
deleted in its entirety, substituting the following verbiage: "Although the
existing flood control system is presently adequate and largely complete, there
are no regional flood control facilities planned by the County of Los Angeles
with the City. The City should prepare its own master plan to identify any
local deficiencies, prioritize their need and identify fimcling sources. The City
has mandated responsibility under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). To the maximum extent possible and
reasonable, the City should consider measures to minimize the impacts of
urban storm water pollution as it is collected, conveyed and discharged
through the City's flood control system." He further recommended adding to
Objective 1. 1, Page VI -4 "flood protection" to read: "Maintain adequate
systems for flood protection, water supply and distribution;
wastewater/sewage collection, treatment and disposal; solid waste collection
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 2
and disposal; and energy distribution which are capable of meeting the needs
of the residents of Diamond Bar." Regarding Strategy 1.1.5, Page VI -4, he
recommended adding "flood protection and" to read: "Coordinate the
long-term provisions of flood protection and utility services, mdkx ing water,
wastewater, sewage, electricity, natural gas, solid waste, etc. to assure
adequate future levels of services for City residents." He further suggested
adding Strategy 1.1.5 c. to read: "Prepare a master plan for storm drains to
identify any local deficiencies, prioritize their need and identify funding
sources." He rwmnended adding Strategy 1. 1.7 on Page VI -5 to read: "The
City shall fulfill its responsibilities under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and, to the maximum extent possible and
reasonable, implement measures to minimize the impacts of stormwater
pollution."
MPT/Werner suggested that Strategy 1.1.5 c. be changed from "Prepare" to
"Update" so that it reads: "Update the master plan for storm drains to identify
any local deficiencies, prioritize their need and identify funding sources."
C/Miller amended his January 24, 1995 motion to direct staff to incorporate
the amended proposals by staff with Mr. Wemees suggested change into the
Public Services & Facilities Element and prepare a copy for public review as
soon as possible, bringing it back to Council in three weeks. Council
concurred.
M/Papen asked staff to respond to Council's previous request to update Table
IV -1, Public Health & Safety Element, Page IV -12.
Patrick Mann, Cotton/Beland & Assoc., stated that he converted the Noise
Standards Table IV -1 to a format similar to that presented at the January 24,
1995 meeting. The numbers reflect those in the previous Table. An
additional category specifically identifies an area where sound insulation
would be permitted to deal with noise problems above the level termed
"Maximum Exterior CNEL" in the previous table. The interior CNEL
standards reflected in the previous table remain unchanged.
C/Werner asked, if eadsting uses are out of conformance with noise standards,
is there a burden placed on the City to rectify the matter.
ICA/Montgomery responded that the City has an obligation to enforce the
noise standards.
Responding to C/Harmony, Mr. Mann stated that Table IV -1 sets guidelines
for interior noise levels within the maximum interior CNEL. In the areas
identified as normally unacceptable, the intent is that additional sound
insulation be provided to achieve the maximum interior CNEL. The Table
does not imply an exterior noise standard.
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 3
Responding to M/Papen, Mr. Mann stated that the prior Table IV -1 was
based on State and Federal guidelines. The current Table include numbers
adopted by the Geral Plan Advisory Committee and the Planning
Commission.
M/Papen requested additional study with respect to the figures on the new
Table IV -1.
Responding to C/Mller, Mr. Mann stated that noise levels of 75 decibels
CNEL and above are extremely high. These levels are found very close to
freeways, airport approach and departure patterns, etc. With regard to
standards for exterior areas, people who are exposed to 75 decibels 24 hours
a day are subject to hearing damage.
With regard to Strategy 1.10.7, Page IV -11, C/Werner suggested the
following be added: "The City shall demand that the State of California install
noise attenuation facilities in all noise sensitive areas impacted by County,
State or Federal highways."
M/Papen suggested the second and third sentences under Strategy 1.10.12 be
amended to read: "Where new development exceeds the standards outlined
within Table IV 1, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be
made and needed noise insulation features included in design." Council
concurred.
Council directed staff to present the reworded second paragraph 8 Noise,
Page IV4, at the next meeting. Council will continue discussion of Table
IV -1 at that time.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT - CDD/DeStefano reported that the primary
purpose of the Circulation Element is to define and accommodate
transportation needs of the City. The focus is to identify and evaluate those
needs with regional demands and mandates. The State requirement for a
Circulation Element dates back to the early 1950's and was one of the first to
come before the City with respect to statewide general planning issues. This
Element must correlate with the Land Use Element. The Element
incorporates the general location and extent of existing and proposed major
thoroughfares, major mon routes, terminals and other public utilities
and facilities. The existing City network was established by County and State
transportation agencies. The City has been impacted significantly regional
traffic. Combined with an incomplete freeway system, the continuing growth
and development of the surrounding cities has created additional transient
traffic upon the City streets and, as a result, increased demands for roadway
capacity. The Element seeks to establish policies to address existing
deficiencies and the projected growth within the region as it impacts the future
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 4
development of the City.
CE/Wentz stated that the intent of the Circulation Element is to accurately
identify the City's current situation, to accurately and adequately forecast
longer term needs, to allow the flexibility of addressing specific needs at
firture dates as they arise, and to provide the mechanism by which this can be
accomplished.
CE/Myers reported the intent of the Circulation Element is also to provide
safe and efficient movement of people and goods between homes, work,
businesses and places of play. It is important that the Element provide a
linkage to the Land Use Element. It is a linkage, a vision, a balance between
local and regional needs. The Draft Element considers the circulation system
from six perspectives and provides an overview of the existing system: streets
and highways, including a classification of roadways, a definition of service
levels and the characteristics of an environment -ally -sensitive transportation
corridor; transit and paratransit services; railroad; bicycle, hiking and
equestrian trails including the definition of three classes of bikeways and
recognition of a public hiking and equestrian trail. The draft further identifies
five key issues: future development within the City; regional —
growth --particularly to the east and particularly its effect on City streets;
roadway system; alternative corridors --particularly around the City; traffic
capacity --particularly on City streets and including surrounding freeways and
streets. The draft also contains four stated goals and objectives: mitigate
regional traffic --primarily by a strategy of inducement to work forcefully to
enhance the attractiveness of the surrounding freeways and streets to attract
regional traffic to these facilities and use them for their design purpose and
improve intrusion of regional traffic in City neighborhoods; provide a balanced
transportation system --primarily by encouraging and facilitating car pooling,
alternate modes of travel and interconnected equestrian and hiking trails;
maintain adequate service levels on City streets and its intersections by
optimization of existing facilities seeking all available funding; and provide and
regulate parking.
M/Papen opened the Public Hearing.
Gary Neely, 344 Canoecove Dr., felt that the Circulation Element, as
currently written, does not solve the City's traffic problems. He recommended
that the Council obtain a copy of the Traffic & Transr artation Commission's
approved Circulation Element and compare it with the current draft prior to
reaching a conclusion. He further commented that the Planning Commission
removed the solution (bypass corridor) from the Traffic & Transportation
Commission's alignment which did not go through Tonner Canyon, did not
disturb SEA 15. However, it did go through the City's sphere of influence and
it did solve the City's traffic problem.
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 5
Martha Bruske stated there is great concern to get regional traffic around the
City or, if through streets are used, to get the pressure removed as soon as
possible. Before a road is put through Tonner Canyon, consideration should
be given to extending Sunset Crossing to Valley Blvd.
Robert Huf, 1641 Fire Hollow Dr., expressed disappointment that the Traffic
& Transportation Commission did not have an official voice in helping to draft
the Circulation Element. He felt the Council should consider and adopt the
Commission's version. He fully endorsed some regional road around the City
to mitigate traffic and recommended that Strategy 1.1.4, Page V-26 be
changed to read: "Initiate a joint regional traffic mitigation effort with the
communities of Brea and Chino Hills by forming a task force assisted by
technical personnel to determine acceptable alternative travel corridors around
the City and sphere of influence. Such considerations will incorporate no
major road through Tonner Canyon, recognize environmental sensitivity and
avoid disruption of SEA 15."
Mark Hopper, 1125 Grubstake Dr., explained that when he bought his home,
he understood there would be an alternate traffic route. With the serious
traffic problems on Grand Ave., he suggested adherence to the 1987
commitment for an alternate route.
Ron Clark, 20940 Ambushers St., expressed concern with the language
dealing with alternate routes. He supported designing roadways that do not
destroy vast amounts of enmronmentally-sensitive areas; however, he did not
feel that the language of the Circulation Element would allow the Council to
aggressively seek solutions with neighboring cities. He supported Mr. Huffs
language.
Wilbur Smith supported having a bypass corridor through Carbon Canyon and
believed the City should take other means to control traffic on D.B. Blvd.
before considering a road through Tonner Canyon.
Steven Britt opposed to opening Sunset Crossing Rd. because it would open
the door to City of Industry's argument that it is an ideal location for their
MRF. In addition, the location has a park and day care center which presents
traffic and public health and safety problems for children.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., commented that a road through Tonner
Canyon would double the noise level for perimeter homesites. Such a road
would also severely damage the wildlife corridor presently under
consideration. He agreed with Mr. Smith that Carbon Canyon Rd. could be
improved to accommodate more traffic.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., asked why the public had not received
copies of the General Plan minutes. He approved of the way the General Plan
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 6
is written with respect to Tonner Canyon.
Responding to M/Papen, Mr. Maxwell stated his preference for City traffic
relief would be Carbon Canyon and a road on the easterly ridgeline through
the Sphere of Influence.
Frank Dursa commented that Chino Hills should be concerned with their
traffic and he agreed with Mr. Smith that the road should be brought through
Carbon Canyon.
Clay Chaput stated that there are significant residences along Sleepy Hollow
and believed that the owners may not want a four -lane road through their
community. He felt it would not offer a solution to the spill off traffic from
SR 60 and that the City will have the same problem at Grand Ave. and D.B.
Blvd.
With no further testimony offered,lVUPapen closed the Public Hearing.
MPT/Werner agreed with MMUer that the Element is difficult to read, not
only because it is technical, but because it is disjointed in many respects. He —
supported continuing deliberation after Council has given direction to staff on
how to create a better flowing document. He referred to Strategy 1.1.6, Page
V-26, as a supporting statement for no road through Tonner Canyon. He
agreed with Strategy 1. 1.7 and the concept that other options should be
considered. He asked the Council to consider Mr. Huffs statement that the
City take a more active role. He would like to see the Element redrafted.
With respect to Page V-2, 1 Streets and Highways a. Functional
Classification, definitions and terms, third paragraph, he suggested that the
second sentence be changed to read: "The City of Diamond Bar
acknowledges the classification system established by the County of Los
Angeles and affirms the.four functional types of roadways as follows..." He
believed it still needed further clarification. This portion of the Element is not
consistent with Table V-1, Page V-5.
With respect to M/Papen's question regarding the reduction of numbers by the
Planning Commission on Page V-3, second paragraph, CE/Wentz responded
that the Commission lowered the desired range of levels to be achieved.
M/Papen suggested that with respect to the second sentence, third paragraph,
Page V-3, the word "limited" be changed to "designed" so that it reads:
"Driveways and other curb cuts along arterials are generally designed to --
minimize disruption to traffic flow." Council concurred.
C/Ansari asked to see a copy of the Traffic & Transportation Commission
report for the Circulation Element. She suggested that Table V-3, Page V-9
be eliminated from the Element since it is found in the EIR and is redundant.
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 7
She further requested a copy of the findings from the 1994 Tonner Canyon
subcommittee for each Council Member.
C/Miller indicated he would also like to have the Traffic & Transportation
document for review before deliberating the text of the Element. He stated
that Page V-23 refers to the "need for a corridor", yet Page V-15 talks about
"Environmentally Sensitive Transportation Corridor" and Page V-26 states to
"proactively work with adjacent jurisdictions to determine acceptable alternate
travel corridors around the City of Diamond Bar and Sphere of Influence.
Such considerations will incorporate no major road through Tonner Canyon,
recognize environmental sensitivity and avoid disruption of SEA 15." The
c,�nflict with the General Plan is that it suggests the City should proactively
work with adjacent jurisdictions to minimize the impact of traffic on D.B.;
lwmwer, tlir, City should not consider running a corridor through D.B. He
felt that this would raise red flags at the inception of any possible dialogue.
RVf=mg to Page V-4, M/Papen indicated the six arterial roadway segments
listed are not related to specific Functional Classifications and asked that staff
address this item.
Responding to M/Papen, CE/Wentz presented an update on the items listed
for capital improvement under Items 5 and 6, Page V-26.
C/Harmony agreed that much of the information contained within the Element
belongs in the Environmental Impact Report. He suggested that the Element
need not be so detailed. With respect to Tonner Canyon, he stated that the
City will have to deal with a bypass corridor in some way and that he would
like to have more information regarding the assumptions set forth in the letter
from Chino Hills.
M/Papen indicated she had met with the MTA Executive Director of SCAG
and discussed the Four Comers issue and conflicts with the objectives of the
three cities involved. He suggested that the MTA role should be one of
mediation. She further stated that if the General Plans of the three cities
involved dolt allow for a regional solution, D.B. will not be given any
funding. In 1997, there will be Iced Tea legislation to allow the region to
request funding for a regional bypass. In order to meet the 1997 legislative
deadline, the City needs to have a study completed that meets all seven
Federal Standards for new start submissions. One of these standards states
that any possibility may not be eliminated. All options must be studied and
-- considered.
C/Ansari reinforced the need for mediation since the interested parties are
unable to reach agreement.
Council agreed to the following February General Plan meeting dates:
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 8
Monday, February 6, 1995 from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Tuesday, February,
14; 1995 from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and Thursday, February 16, 1995
from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss,
M/Papen declared the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. to February 6, 1995 at 6:00
p.m. for Public Hearing and deliberation of the Circulation Element.
AL �:R3T� �tG1✓SS„ Cit�Cler
ATTEST:
Mayor