HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/1995ti
19
cit,
C 0'an C
AGENDA
Monday, March 6, 1995
6:00 P.M.
General Plan Public Hearing
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Phyllis E. Papen
Gary H. Werner
Council Member Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member Clair W. Harmony
Council Member Gary G. Miller
City Manager Terrence L. Belanger
Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery
City Clerk Lynda Burgess
Copies of staff reports, or other written documentation relating to agenda items, are on file in the Office of the
City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item,
please contact the City Clerk at (909) 860-2489 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title Il of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or
accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk
a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
111.1lIII�11 i�.11► �
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking
in the Council Chambers.
The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
and encourages you to do the same.
DT-LMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TLES
PUBLIC INPUT
The meetings of the Diamond Bar City Council are open to the public. A member of the public may address the
Council on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar City Council. A request to address the Council should be submitted in writing to
the City Clerk.
As a general rule the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in
order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their
presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit the public input on any item or the
total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the
business of the Council.
Individuals are requested to refrain from personal attacks toward Council Members or other persona. Comments
which are not conducive to a positive business meeting environment are viewed as attacks against the entire City
Council and will not be tolerated. If not complied with, you will forfeit your remaining time as ordered by the
Chair. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.3(a) the Chair may from time to time dispense with public
comment on items previously considered by the Council. (Does not apply to Committee meetings.)
In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the City Council must be posted at least
72 hours prior to the Council meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the
posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Council may act on an item that is not on the posted
agenda.
CONDUCT IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Chair shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person who commits the following acts in respect
to a regular or special meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council.
A. Disorderly behavior toward the Council or any member of the thereof, tending to interrupt the due and
orderly course of said meeting.
B. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly
course of said meeting.
C. Disobedience of any lawful order ofthe Chair, which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from
addressing the Board; and
D. Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly conduct of said meeting.
INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL
Agendas for the regular Diamond Bar City Council meetings are prepared by the City Clerk and are available 72
hours prior to the meeting. Agendas are available electronically and may be accessed by a personal computer
through a phone modem.
Every meeting of the City Council is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal
charge.
ADA REQUIREMENTS
A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public
speaking area. Sign language interpreter services are also available by giving notice at least three business days
in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 860-2489 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS
Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Council, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 860-2489
Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE
General Information (909) 860-2489
NOTE: ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM IDENTIFIED ON THE AGENDA.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6:00 p.m.
Mayor Papen
March 6, 1995
Council Members Ansari,
Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem
Werner, Mayor Papen
2.1.1 Special Meeting
of January
31, 1995 -
Approve
as submitted.
2.1.2 Special Meeting
of February
6, 1995 -
Approve
as submitted.
2.1.3 Special Meeting
of February
13, 1995
- Approve
as submitted.
2.1.4 Special Meeting
of February
16, 1995
- Approve
as submitted.
Requested by: City Clerk
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
3.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - The General Plan is a
statement of goals, objectives and strategies to guide
the long-range physical development of the City. The
plan is required by State law and determines the size,
form and character of the City over the next 20 years. On
February 28, 1995 Council reviewed the Land Use Element
(LUE) and continued the matter to Monday, March 6, 1995.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council continue review of the Land Use Element and
direct staff as necessary.
Requested by: Community Development Director
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
5. ADJOURNMENT:
City
of Diamond Bar
Z
Public Comments
H
(iL(NEHAL FLAN
Ui
Q
o
Nx
C*]
(2/1
x
r7n�
17011
Z
O
�
H
x
H
a H
W
aw �a
xH
SPEAKERS
A
a
84 ) a
1-4 9
U
H
a PQ
MU)
Ha
L6
14 La
1
Smith, Wilbur
x(1/9)
x(1/g) x(1116)
x1/24)
2
Maxwell, Max
x(1f9)
3
Birrell, Terry
xam N
_
4
Neely, Gary
®®®
5
Beach Courchesne, Barbara
x(1/9)
x(1/9)
6
Bruske, Martha
x(1/9)
7
Anderson, Ken
x
8
Dursa, Frank
x
9
Van Winkle, Tom
10
Schad, Don
x(lu)
11
Schey, David
x(1/9)
12
Huff, Bob
13
Clark, Ron
14
Hopper, Mark
15
Britt, Steven
16
Chaput, Clay
17
Healy, Jack
18
Johnson, Dorian
19
Rogers, Mark
20
Hockwalt, Ron
21
Nunez, Manuel
22
Anis, Nick
23
Shu, Joseph
24
Dabney, Jan
25
Jacobs, Edward
24
Araujo, David
O
Hj
H
c�
E-
944
H
U
x(1/31)
xam)
X>.d- 02/28/95
X(1131)
x(1!31)
X(2116) x(2/16)
x(1!31)
X(1/31)
x(2/16)
Z
`7
H
Ui
Q
o
Nx
(2/1 6)
x
(2/1
x
r7n�
17011
x(2/16)
x(2116)23)
x(2/16)
X(1131)
x(1!31)
X(2116) x(2/16)
x(1!31)
X(1/31)
x(2/16)
25
Capestro, Karen
26
Guber, Teressa
27
Stone, Eric
28
Williams, Frank (BIA)
29
McPeak, Christine
30
Elfelt, Caroline
31
Capestro, Dave
X(2128)
X(2/28)
X(2128)
X(2/29)
X(2/28)
X(2129)
X(2128)
;E{VED COh1MUNOTY the undersigned residents of Diamond Bar, vigorously oppose the increased
n,(7`rp (,p&JFPjjdevelopment and traffic which will result from designating building restricte&-r
land as Open Space/Specific Plan. r,
-6 PM 2= 13
dr
The people of Diamond Bar have twice expressed, through referenda, their opsi— `
tion to planned development of these areas. We vigorously denounce the Planning
Commission's cynicism and arrogance in changing the General Plan Advisory Com-
mittee's designation of these areas from Open Space to Open Space/Specific Plan.
We view this designation to be a tactic to permit development while hiding the
real intent from the voters. =�
At any future city council elections we will not support those members who oppose
returning these areas back to a pare Open Space designation.
( / "o. co
- lt,6
Signature Address
IA
j
off
J -
g
We, the undersigned residents of Diamond Bar, vigorously oppose the increased
RECEjVC060WftWI4nd traffic which will result from designating building restricted
n74%dpw_,(Tpen Space/Specific Plan.
T' pENq a }8 Diamond Bar have twice expressed, through referenda, their opposi-
tion to planned development of these areas. We vigorously denounce the Planning
Commission's cynicism and arrogance in changing the General Plan Advisory Com-
mittee's designation of these areas from Open Space to Open Space/Specific Plan.
We view this designation to be a tactic to permit development while hiding the
real intent from the voters.
At any future city council elections we will not support those members who oppose
returning these areas back to a pure Open Space designation.
Signature
kCj
Address
nAGl J A.' A (�A(?, (A f0 7
0)I'l a
ra
�A
••
W
j
N
-4
-+
0
O
to
O
V
O
O
P
W
N
-A
0o -1
W
; W
r
r r
Cl) 'v
•o
W
-I
Z
y
T
-i
Z
W 7D
n�
COj
a =
° =
Z' �
3
d r0+
0
D
o
a0i
o
oo w
P.
3
.,
(a
m
m
o .4
0
.*
m
3
y
N
o
»
w
co
N y
m
a
c CD
m.
CD
N
ro
CCD
h
co
OW
0
w
d
p
•* :E
$
m
-o
d
"
G.
c
j
N
(A
J 0
p
3
-
m
m
a
H
Gf
o
N Ch
Co
w
r
o
r
D 0
O
ch
D
W3
O
n
o
rcD
o
m
0
r o
aai
-,
..
,.
a 0 w >
V
�
�o
vvgq
o
q
v
q
v
o
..a
O O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
0 0 0 0
O O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
-A
-*
p
O
O
O
O
O
O O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
O
O
O
N N N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
C C C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
m
p m
m
m
o
to
-n
m
D
m
O
Ch
Ch
W
P w m .Vi o m G V W
m o v► tj
rn
o o D N o o 0 7D
CD O O O O
0 0 m 3 0 0 co
3 c
v
m Ro two m m coo c m
N (A N [A
y y
CD �• 0
'► N
5 7 Of O 7 3 : 7
m n
Ll n
y RO
O � �
m y
3
CD
N
CD hi
N CD
,n a.
O O
O .a
CL
X
m
N 'f
0
C1
EAR
c
3 m
tT
CD
*,
M ()
1
A�
W
. cv
C.
0
m•
cc
�0
cr
C 0
t37 y
N O
VI O
o q
o• Q°
n q
n
CA
o W
o
Q
(Do
CDo
O CCD ch
O N
O (On
0 CA
..i � = 1
•Z 1
1 /�
Z
7 CD `n .Or
N 0
d 0
d r0+
0
O O
o
0
i 0
c
CL °
°
°.
o
not
n=i
n3i
y CD CCD
n CSD
0 00
co
N y
N N
O y
O N
M
�• M CD
CD
N
CDS
d D
h
CDmw
m
w
m'
03 m
co
to
co
� y G.
G.
`r � ci
a
a
d tGi
O
to
m
CD N
H
Gf
N
N Ch
r
r
r
D 0
D
D
D
W3
o o D N o o 0 7D
CD O O O O
0 0 m 3 0 0 co
3 c
v
m Ro two m m coo c m
N (A N [A
y y
CD �• 0
'► N
5 7 Of O 7 3 : 7
m n
Ll n
y RO
O � �
m y
3
CD
N
CD hi
N CD
,n a.
O O
O .a
CL
X
m
N 'f
0
C1
EAR
c
3 m
tT
CD
*,
M ()
1
A�
W
. cv
C.
0
m•
cc
�0
cr
C 0
t37 y
LNI
w
w
w
w
w
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-A
-►
-+
-1
-A
A
W
N
O
O
(O
00
V
m
m
?
w
N
"
O
CO
00
V
O
cn
D
7C
X
x
A�
A
X
1*
x
X
D
'`
0
O
0
Z
m
Y
n
7
O
'+
D)
Qi
''
d
d
f1 0) .►
m
O
O
w
;�
m
m
O
D
}� 7J
O
ca
d
7J
O Z
o 0o
v
P
to
N
p
4
w
�
A!
m N
�'�
02
G
c
C
C
c
—
OD
W
m
c
3
7
con
n
O
O O
77
m
77
o
crnC)
�7
77
y
,�
O
7]
C
?
-•
m
00
V
00
<D
CD
O
�m
m
CD
N
tD
N
Q'
p
cD
tD
cn
Nry+
M
ey-n
ry+
ryM
h
G7
�.
w
L
n
r
.y+
'c
C
r
o
n
r
.':
@
r
o
D
c
cD
m
d
o
a a c
0
c
w
co
O
D
O
o
w
O
O
"
O
O
O
t
,,
O
O
w
tos
y
H
o
a0i
N
y
a
y
w
c
n d
O
<
-0
CD
fl-
co
0
o
c
CD
fl)
70
70
m
;o
�o
?o
r+ 0ct
c �
m
w
w
m
z
m
~
O
v
•O
O
n
'SNO
0
CD
CD
,ny.
O
O
N
N
O
a
O
O
3
a
v p
00 p
00
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
T
C
O
O
O
e0
m
OD
m
O
v
w 0
Op
0 0
Op
O
O
0
O
O
c^D,
o
Q-
o.
c
o
O
0
O
o
O
O p
O p
o
O
O
N
O
w
p
0
O
0
O
0
O
p
O
m
O
N
O
C
C
C
C
70
Q
n
m
0
70
70
?J
m
m
'G
37
m
O
O
O
70
.p
r
'n
m
m
r
r
70
7J
70
cni
7J
(A
to
7J
(A
a
y
y
v
N
O
v
N
0
a
N
V
N
N
N
N
O
V
o
w
w
-A
-+
W
A
N
�!
W
O
Vin
O
to
N
V
p
N
i
O
On
On
w 0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
x
Z
Z
2
w
M
'p
Z
p 'U
w-0
C 0
O
O
O
O
O
p o
O
O
H
O
O
O
p
O
O
o
z O
7C
7C
X
x
A�
A
X
1*
x
X
D
'`
0
O
3
_'y
O
coi ?
a
7
O
7
O
Cl)y 7
7
O
O
7
, w
G1
O
Cr
Q
v N
tO
D1
CD
W ri
A!
G
C
C
CL
7
O
Q�,
N
fU
m
7
'n
O
n
O
O O
77
7J
77
X7
7J
�7
77
70
,�
O
7]
?
-•
7
7
<D
CD
cD
fD
m
CD
N
tD
N
Q'
p
cD
tD
cn
Nry+
M
ey-n
ry+
ryM
h
.�'-�
O
n
O
.y+
ti C
C
C_
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
"
O
O
O
t
O
O
O
y
H
N
N
N
y
N
y
n d
O
<
-0
fl-
0
o
c
CD
fl)
70
70
r+ 0ct
c �
7
O
~
O
2
•O
O
73
CD
CD
,ny.
w
a
Im
?
O
3
a
CDa)
a
Q.
T
G
a.
O
o
d
d
-o
c^D,
o
Q-
o.
c
0
0
O
0
CL
O
°
n
3'
cni
ca
to
t0
=
a
y
y
N
O
o
m
35
Gateway (Copley
C -M -BE
OP
14
CC&R's; Storm Drain Easement
Center) Lots 22,23
36
Bridge Gate Lots
C -M -BE
OP
8
CC&R's; Storm Drain Easement
15 & 16
Kaiser Lots 17&18
9
37
Ranch Festival Site
C -M-133
OP
13
Storm Drain Easement
Lot 4
38
Michaels/Warren
C -3 -B3 -DP
C
5
No Known Restrictions
39
Patel
RPD 10,000-6U
OS
6.7
Flood Hazard Area; 3 Lots- Limited to 1 House per Lot
40
Walnut Valley
RPD 10,000-6U
OS
78
Flood Hazard Area; 2 Lots -Limited to 1 House per Lot;
Unified School
Prohibit Construction of Residential Buildings
District
41
Pathfinder HOA'
RPD 10,000-61.1
PR
37
HOA' -Prohibit Construction of Residential Buildings;
Storm Drain Easement
42
City of Diamond
RPD 10,000-6U
OS
4
No Known Restrictions
Bar - former Cal
Trans Right of Way
43
NJA2
RPD 10,000-6U
PR
165
Storm Drain Easement/ Flood Hazard Area/ HOA'
Construction Prohibited of Residential Building
44
1200 Brea Canyon
CPD
CO
2
No Known Restrictions
45
JCC
R -3-8,000-25U
C
5
No Known Restrictions
46
Gateway Lot 11
C -M -BE
OP
2
No Known Restrictions
Valley Vista
47
Gateway Lot 12
C -M -BE
OP
2
No Known Restrictions
Valley Vista
48
Trans America
A-2-1
AG
13
No Known Restrictions
49
Shell
A-2-2 & A-2-1
AG
350
No Known Restrictions; Partially wlin Sphere of
Influence and Significant Ecological Area
50
Boy Scouts
A-2-2
AG/SP
3,000
No Known Restrictions; Within Sphere of Influence and
Significant Ecological Area
Page 3
51
Mueller Trust
A-2-2
AG/SP
35
No Known Restrictions; Within Sphere of Influence and
Significant Ecological Area
52
St. Joseph Hill of
A-2-2
AG
185
No Known Restrictions
Hope
53
Metropolitan Water
A-2-2
AG/SP
1
No Known Restrictions; Within Sphere of Influence and
District
Significant Ecological Area
Comments: Based on Open Land Survey prepared by The Planning Network (1990) and available information
1 Information Not Available
3 Home Owners Association
Prepared by: City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department
Page 4
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
111.1}1111U HAHI
�72
VACANT LAND/
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
AREA MAP
February 16, 1995
2.
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 6, 1995
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.
at the South Coast AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. 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: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City
Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, City
Engineer; Michael Myers, Consultant Engineer and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
APPROVED MINUTES:
2.1 General Plan Meeting of January 9, 1995 - as submitted
2.2 General Plan Meeting of January 16, 1995 - as submitted
2.3 General Plan Meeting of January 24, 1995 - as submitted
PUBLIC HEARING:
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano
suggested the following to replace Paragraph 2, Section 8 -Noise, Page IV -4: "In
addition to noise produced by the freeways, there are several local roadways
generating 65 CNEL levels beyond the right-of-way. These include sections of Brea
Canyon Rd. north of the 60 freeway, Golden Springs Dr. east of Lemon Ave. and
west of Prospectors Rd., Diamond Bar Blvd. north of Golden Springs Dr., Grand
Ave. west of Golden Springs Dr., Pathfinder Rd. east of the 57 freeway and Sunset
Crossing west of the 57 freeway. He added a second paragraph: "Finally, the Union
Pacific Railroad line along the westerly boundary of the City is a major contributor
of local noise, as are infrequent urban sources such as dogs barking and aircraft
overflights." He pointed out that Figure IV -1 depicts existing sensitive noise
receptors located adjacent to major noise sources. The figure is taken from the
Master Environmental Assessment (Figure II -G-6) and he recommended that it be
added to the text.
Responding to MPT/Werner, Patrick Mann, Cotton/Beland & Assoc. stated that the
intent of the map is to identify specific schools and facilities (other than residential)
that might be particularly noise sensitive.
In response to NTT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that the Projected Noise
Contours map on Page IV -13 was based upon projected increases in traffic volume
on all of the City's major roadways, local streets and freeways. Future noise
conditions do not take into account the mitigation measures outlined within the
General Plan.
FEBRUARY 6, 1995 PAGE 2
MPT/Werner asked that the date and source of information be referenced on Figure
IV -1, Projected Noise Contours Map on Page IV -23.
Responding to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will, at the direction
of Council, using the Existing Noise Contours Table contained within the Master
Environmental Assessment, design an Existing Noise contours Map similar to the
Projected Noise Contours Map.
MPT/Werner suggested that the map be one page with two colors (i.e., red for
existing and black for projected noise contours) and identify the key five assumptions
which support the projected noise contours.
M/Papen recommended that MPT/Werner's suggestion to have staff complete an
Existing Noise Contours Table be adopted and that Council postpone redoing a major
study on the existing conditions until there is time to complete an update with an
amendment to the General Plan in the future, and that modifications to the second
paragraph and addition of the third paragraph on Page IV -8 be adopted. Council
concurred.
M/Papen recommended adoption of the State standard for Maximum Interior CNEL.
Mr. Mann recommended that the General Plan indicate that "the State has established
a standard that interiors shall be provided sound insulation sufficient to keep the
interior noise level from exterior sources at 45 decibel CNEL or below" which would
apply to all residential housing, hotels and hospitals in the City. Council concurred.
CE/Wentz reported that staff utilized the Traffic & Transportation Commission's draft
of the Circulation Element as the basis document for revision. Addressing the
concerns of the Council for content and continuity, staff referenced the document to
the General Plan and to the MEA. He stated that, on Page V-1 of the Circulation
Element, the only change was to clarify organization of the Element and indicate key
items considered for inclusion. Regarding Page V-2, he indicated that staff is
conducting a search for a better defined regional map which will be included. With
respect to Page V-3, he clarified discussion relating to the types of routes contained
in the element. Four roadway classifications are included: 1) Freeways; 2) Arterial
Streets (Major and Secondary); 3) Collector Streets (Business and Residential); and
4) Local Residential Streets. Regarding V-5, staff eliminated discussion relating to
the difference between business and residential collector streets. In addition, the
numbers contained in paragraph 3, Page V-5 are now consistent with the tables on the
following pages.
M/Papen recommended deleting "business" from the sixth paragraph, second
sentence, so the sentence now reads: "The desired roadway capacity on a collector
street can average up to 20,000 vehicles per day while providing Level of Service
(LOS) C." Council concurred.
FEBRUARY 6, 1995 PAGE 3
CE/Wentz stated that, with respect to Page V-6, he recommended that the column
headed "Los Angeles County Classification" be deleted from Table V-1. Council
concurred.
M/Papen asked that staff make certain the correct Classifications are reflected in the
final chart.
CE/Wentz further reported that on Page V-7, narrative was added to assist in
discussion of Tables V-2, Page V-8, and V-2, Page V-9. The tables were modified
to coincide with the Classifications of Arterials and Collectors.
MPT/Werner pointed out a typographical error in Paragraph 3 on Page V-7. The
second sentence should read: "Typical street sections are maintained as part of the
City's design guidelines."
C/Miller suggested "capacity" be deleted from the last sentence, first paragraph under
b. Level of Service Standards so that it reads: "Table V-2 presents the average daily
volumes of various roadway configurations for different levels of service."
In response to M/Papen, CE/Wentz read Page V-10 and V-11 which contain the
definition of an environmentally sensitive transportation corridor and all
characteristics to be included in consideration of a transportation corridor. He
recommended deletion of Pages V-11 and V-12 because the information is contained
in the MEA. Further, Page V-21 and the first half of Page V-22 were moved to Page
V-10.
M/Papen asked staff to review Page V-17 regarding intrusion of through traffic which
might be appropriately expanded upon on Page V-7. She then recommended the
following language to replace 2. Transit and Paratransit Services, a. Transit Services:
"Public bus transit service is provided to the City of Diamond Bar by the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, Foothill Transit and Orange County Transportation
Authority. Four fixed route lines serve the City of Diamond Bar. Foothill Transit
Route 482 and MTA Route 490 originate and terminate outside of the City limits.
Two express routes originating at the Park -n -Ride lot at Diamond Bar Boulevard/60
freeway interchange operate during peak hours Monday through Friday. Foothill
Transit Express Route 495 picks up passengers on Golden Springs Dr./Colima Rd.
to the Puente Hills Mall then travels the freeways to downtown Los Angeles. OCTA
operates an express route from the same Park and Ride via Cal State Fullerton, City
Drive and the Orange Court House in Santa Ana. Additionally, three Foothill Transit
lines provide intermodal connections at the Industry Metrolink Station just north of
the City's boundary on Brea Canyon Rd. They are Rt. 482 (Colima Rd), Rt. 276
(Gale Ave.) and Rt. 179 (Amar Rd.)."
CE/Wentz stated that under paragraph 1, 1. Future Development in Diamond Bar on
Page V-28, the figure was corrected to coincide with the Housing Element.
FEBRUARY 6, 1995 PAGE 4
X1PT/Werner asked staff to add a footnote to Page V-29 indicating truck routes on
the freeway.
CE/Wentz reported that, regarding page V-30, the second sentence under the fifth
paragraph was moved to the first paragraph, second sentence.
With respect to Page V-31, CE/Wentz stated that the Issue Analysis under Item
4 -The Development of an Alternative Travel Corridor Around the City of Diamond
Bar was changed to reflect the wishes of Council and concerned citizens and now
reads: "There is a need to consider a by-pass corridor around the City of Diamond
Bar to discourage regional traffic from using the City's local streets for cut -through
purposes only. This is of regional concern and involves multiple jurisdictions. It is
important for the City to take the lead in assuring that any proposed project directly
benefits Diamond Bar residents and achieves the goals of this General Plan."
Responding to an inquiry from a concerned citizen, CE/Wentz stated that concern
related to restricting left turn traffic from Grand Ave. onto D.B. Blvd. at peak hours
is that both Grand and D.B. Blvd. are congestion management -planned streets and
such a restriction may affect future funding.
MPT/Werner suggested that the Issue Analysis under Item 6 on Page 31, contain
language to reflect that State Rt. 57/60 corridor has the effect of impacting local
intersections.
M/Papen recommended that a fourth bullet be added to Item 7, Page V-32 to read:
"Completion of the HOV System on Rt. 10 and Rt. 60 from the San Bernardino
County line to Highway 101."
C/Ansari suggested under Item 8 that Beaverhead Dr. and Lycoming St. be included
and that the hearing be reworded accordingly.
M/Papen suggested that the highlighted area of Objective 1. 1, page V-33 be moved
to the Health & Safety Element so that the Objective reads: "Participate in local and
regional transportation -related planning and decision-making."
CE/Wentz suggested that some of the deleted language could be moved to Page V-26
under Item 5. Aviation. Council concurred.
CE/Wentz indicated that Strategy 1.1.4, Page V-33 was changed to reflect the wishes
of Council and concerned citizens and now reads: "Initiate regional traffic mitigation
efforts with the cities of Brea and Chino Hills by forming a task force, assisted by
technical personnel, to evaluate alternate travel corridors through the easterly portion
of the sphere of influence. Efforts will generally include..."
MPT/Werner suggested that Goal 1, Page V-33 begin with "Consistent with the
Vision Statement..."
FEBRUARY 6, 1995 PAGE 5
M/Papen stated that this verbiage will be applied to all four goals in the Circulation
Element.
C/Harmony favored the original language for Strategy 1.1.4, Page V-33 and was
opposed to mediation of the City's jurisdictional boundaries and does not want to give
control to SCAG. He wanted the definitive statement of "no major road through
Tonner Canyon" kept in the document.
Responding to C/Harmony, M/Papen stated that the City has two local sales taxes
that are only in Los Angeles County, Prop A and C --one-half cent sales tax for
transportation. The Blue -Line from Long Beach to Union Station was built
exclusively with local funding from Proposition C revenues. This does not refer to
a new tax.
C/Harmony was still concerned about the words "local funding" and wanted to make
certain there is language in the General Plan to indicate local funding will not include
local tax efforts.
C/Ansari suggested that what was Strategy 1. 1.6 on Page V-34 be added back in as
Strategy 1.1.7 and renumber Strategy 1.1.7 to Strategy 1.1.8 and Strategy 1.1.8
becomes Strategy 1.1.9.
CE/Wentz indicated Strategy 1.1.4(g) (1) on Page V-34 should include Los Angeles
so that it reads: "Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties..." Regarding
Strategy 1.1.4 (b) on Page V-33, add "environmentally -sensitive" to read:
"Identification of the types of environmentally -sensitive roadways which will be
considered;."
CE/Wentz stated that on Page V-35, Strategy 1.2.1, "stop lights" was corrected to
"signals."
M/Papen recommended adding Lycoming Street to Strategy 1.3.5 so that the Strategy
reads: "The City should implement strong measures to maintain the integrity of the
Sunset Crossing Rd. residential area at the western city limits by cul-de-sacing Sunset
Crossing Rd. and retaining the cul-de-sacing of Washington, Beaverhead and
Lycoming Streets."
Regarding Page V-36, CE/Wentz referred to MPT/Werner's suggestion to add
language regarding bicycle ways to the first sentence of Strategy 2.1.8 as follows:
"Maintain, expand and upgrade the system of bicycle routes connecting residential
areas to major community attractions using current City guidelines."
M/Papen referred to a list of the capital improvement projects MTA is considering for
their 20 -year plan. She pointed out that the Rt. 60 HOV from Highway 101 to 605
improvement is missing from the list.
FEBRUARY 6, 1995
3
4.
PAGE 6
M/Papen summarized that, for the next meeting, staff will direct its attention to Page
V -7C. Roadway Systems where two statements will be added and on Page V-31,
comments regarding "blight." Further, that because of the holiday, the next meeting
regarding the General Plan would be held Monday, February 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m.
for concluding Council deliberation on the Circulation Element and beginning the
Public Hearing on the Housing Element. In addition, meetings for the General Plan
will be held Thursday, February 16 and Thursday, February 23, 1995 beginning at
6:00 p.m. If needed, the meeting times will be expanded to 10:00 p.m.
Responding to M/Papen, ICA/Montgomery stated there is no requirement to reopen
the Public Hearing with respect to the Circulation Element.
MPT/Wemer moved, C/Ansari seconded to remove (h) under Strategy 1.1.4, Page
V-34. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, M/Papen
adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
TOMMYE CRIBBINS, Deputy City Clerk
2.
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL DRArr
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.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN:
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT - M/Papen asked staff for the
revised language for the second and third paragraphs on Page VI -3.
CE/Myers 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 areas of the City and its sphere of influences.
At the appropriate time, a study for an alternative service plan should be prepared to
address the feasibility of servicing flows in the direction of Orange and San
Bernardino Counties." With respect to paragraph 3, Page VI -3, he 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 funding 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 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, including water,
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 2
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 planfor storm drains to identify any local
deficiencies, prioritize their need and identify funding sources." He recommended
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. Werner's 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, CottonBeland & 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 existing 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.
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
General Plan Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission.
M/Papen requested additional study with respect to the figures on the new Table
IV -1.
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 3
Responding to C/Mi11er, 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 transportation 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 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 future 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-
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 4
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 & Transportation 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.
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 Huff, 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
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 5
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 environmentally -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 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, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing.
MPT/Werner agreed with M/Miller 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
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 6
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/Papeds 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 ruts 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. 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 conflict 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.; however, the 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.
Referring 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.
JANUARY 31, 1995 PAGE 7
M/Papen indicated she had met with the MTA Executive Director of SCAG and
discussed the Four Corners 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 don't 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: 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.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
2
..zQrvz-mss vr. rn� ctry CALTN[`tL
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 ��♦
CALL TO ORDER: M/Papen called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. at the
AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
M/Papen.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansan, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro
Tem Werner and Mayor Papen.
Also present Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City
Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, City
Engineer; Michael Myers, Consultant Engineer and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - M/Papen announced that the Council
would review staffs revisions dated February 10, 1995 to the Circulation Element.
CDD/DeStefano stated that revisions to the Circulation Element were indicated with
a footnote on each page indicating a February 10, 1995 publication date and an arrow
indicating each revision. Some of the graphics required to complete the Element were
being produced. He indicated that the first change was reference to V-1 as the
Regional Location Map on Page V-3, last paragraph. On Page V-4, the map was
renumbered V-2. On Page V-5, Paragraph 6, "Business" was eliminated from the
paragraph to read: "Collector streets serve businesses or residential land and are
generally two or four lane roadways. The desired roadway capacity on a collector
street can average up to 20,000 vehicles per day while providing Level of Service
(LOS) C." The Table on Page B-6 was reoriented to an alphabetical and classification
listing and hierarchy. Regarding Page V-7, b, Level of Service Standards, last
sentence of the paragraph, the table number was corrected and "capacity" eliminated
so the sentence reads: "Table V-2 presents the average daily volumes of various
roadway configurations for different levels of service." Also on Page V-7, two
paragraphs were added at the bottom of the page. The first paragraph is: "A major
concern of the City of Diamond Bar is the operating efficiency of its streets. Based
upon an analysis performed in 1991, traffic projections for the future (year 2010)
indicate that up to 26 local street segments may experience a level of service of E or
F. This undesirable condition is the result of the intrusion of regional traffic through
Diamond Bar." The second paragraph reads: "The City proposes to proactively
pursue activities which will enhance the use of its infrastructure for Diamond Bar
residents. In addition, the City will work with neighboring jurisdictions to mitigate
their effects on local street systems due to the intrusion of regional traffic." On Page
V-9, a modification was made to the source of the Daily Roadway Capacity
Standards. The source now reads: "Source: Based on latest revised Highway
Capacity Manual."
MPT/Werner asked that the date of the manual be indicated in parenthesis.
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 2
CDD/DeStefano continued by stating that on Page V-10, Level of Service (LOS)
Interpretation Table V-3, under the description of LOS E, Volume -to -Capacity Ratio
should read: ".91 - 1.00." On Page V-22, 2 a. Transit Services, second paragraph
was corrected to read: "Four fixed route transit lines serve the City of Diamond Bar:
Foothill Transit Route 482 and MTA Route 490 originate and terminate outside the
City limits. Two express routes originating at the Park -N -Ride lot at Diamond Bar
Boulevard/60 Freeway interchange operate during peak hours Monday through
Friday. Foothill Transit Express Route 495 picks up passengers on Golden Springs
Drive/Colima Road to the Puente Hills Mall, then travels the freeways to downtown
Los Angeles. OCTA operates an express route from the same Park -N -Ride via Cal
State Fullerton, City Drive and the Orange County Court House in Santa Ana." With
respect to Page V-26, 5, Aviation, the following was moved from the former Page
V-33: "Because Diamond Bar is under flight paths from both Ontario and Los
Angeles International Airports, and proximity to major freeways tends to increase the
number of helicopter overflights, the City should remain vigilant to or traffic increases
and seek regulations to relieve noise and air pollution." On Page V-31, Issue Analysis
under 4, The Development of an Alternative Travel Corridor Around the City of
Diamond Bar was rewritten to read: "There is a need to consider a bypass roadway
around the City of Diamond Bar to discourage regional traffic from using the City's
local streets for art -through purposes only. This is of regional concern and involves
multiple jurisdictions. It is important for the City to take the lead in assuring that any
proposed project directly benefits Diamond Bar residents and achieves the goals of
this General Plan." Regarding Page V-32, 7, Surrounding Roadway Systems
Impacting the City, the third bullet was modified and a fourth bullet added. The third
bullet now reads: "Improve the capacity of Interstate 10 (San Bernardino Freeway),
State Route 60 (Pomona Freeway) and State Route 142 (Carbon Canyon Road)."
The fourth bullet reads: "Completion of the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) system
on Interstate 10, Route 60 and State Route 57 from the San Bernardino and Orange
County lines to Highway 101." Also on page V-32, the heading for 8 was modified
to read: "Maintain the cul-de-sacs of Sunset Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive,
Washington Street and Lycoming Street at the City's boundaries." Regarding Page
V-33, first paragraph under 8, the discussion regarding development in the adjacent
City of Industry was changed to read: "The City of Industry is considering
development of the area beyond the terminus of Sunset Crossing Road, Beaverhead
Drive, Washington and Lycoming Street with industrial areas and a waste -to -rail
materials recovery facility to make maximum advantage of its proximity to freight rail
lines. The area through which these streets would be extended is presently
undeveloped. The extension of these streets and the proposed development of
industrial uses would significantly increase the volume of traffic along these residential
streets and introduce a significant number of trucks into these residential
neighborhoods."
MPT/Werner stated it would be more definitive to say "west of in place of "beyond"
in the first sentence.
M/Papen suggested striking the second sentence "The area through which these
streets would be extended is presently undeveloped."
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 3
C/Ansari suggested eliminating "to make maximum advantage of its proximity to
freight rail lines" and ending the sentence after "facility."
CM/Belanger suggested the following wording: "With the City of Industry
considering development of the area beyond the westerly terminus of Sunset Crossing
Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street with industrial uses
and a waste -to -rail recovery facility, the area through these streets would be extended
as presently undeveloped. If these streets are extended and the proposed
development of industrial uses occur, they would significantly increase the volume of
traffic along these residential streets and introduce a significant number of trucks into
these residential neighborhoods."
M/Papen suggested the following wording: "The City of Industry is considering the
development of the area westerly of the terminus of Sunset Crossing Road,
Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street with industrial uses and
a waste -to -rail recovery facility. The extension of these streets and the proposed
development of industrial uses would significantly increase the volume of traffic along
its residential streets and introduce a significant number of trucks within these
residential neighborhoods."
C/Miller suggested the paragraph read as follows: "The City of Industry is
considering the development of an area beyond the terminus of Sunset Crossing Road,
Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street with industrial uses and
a waste -to -rail recovery facility. If this development occurs, impact upon the City of
Diamond Bar would be significant."
MPT/Werner stated there should be a tie-in to the traffic issue and the cul -de -lacing.
M/Papen suggested deletion of "The extension of these streets and" from the second
sentence so the paragraph reads: "The City of Industry is considering the
development of the area westerly of the terminus of Sunset Crossing Road,
Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street with industrial uses and
.a waste -to -rail recovery facility. The proposed development of industrial uses would
significantly increase the volume of traffic along its residential streets and introduce
a significant number of trucks within these residential neighborhoods."
NIPT/Werner suggested the last sentence of the paragraph be changed to read: "If this
development occurs, the introduction of industrial traffic on these residential
collector streets would result in significant neighborhood disruption" so the paragraph
now reads: "The City of Industry is considering the development of the area westerly
of the terminus of Sunset Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and
Lycoming Street with industrial uses and a waste -to -rail recovery facility. If this
development occurs, the introduction of industrial traffic on these residential collector
streets would result in significant neighborhood disruption."
CDD/DeStefano stated the next change was on Page V-33, Goal 1, with the addition
of "Consistent with the Vision Statement" at the beginning of the sentence. Objective
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 4
1. 1, the second sentence, Page V-33, was relocated to Page V-27 as previously
indicated. With respect to Page V-34, Strategy 1.1.4, add "through the easterly
portion" so the Strategy now reads: "Initiate regional traffic mitigation efforts with
the Cities of Brea and Chino Hills by forming a task force, assisted by technical
personnel, to evaluate alternative travel corridors through the easterly portion of the
sphere of influence." Subsection (h), Strategy 1.1.4, Page V-34, was stricken.
M/Papen pointed out that "environmentally -sensitive" was previously added by
Council to Strategy 1. 1.4 (b) so that it now reads: "Identification of the types of
environmentally -sensitive roadways which will be considered." On Strategy 1.1.4 (g)
(4) add: "...such as Proposition C or Redevelopment Funds."
CDD/DeStefano continued that on Page V-35, Strategy 1.1.7 was previously stricken
and reinstituted as a Strategy within the General Plan and the following Strategies
were renumbered appropriately. Strategy 1.1.7 becomes 1.1.8 and Strategy 1.1.8
becomes 1.1.9.
M/Papen stated the Council shows different changes. Strategy 1. 1.6 "Encourage
Orange and San Bernardino Counties to fund and construct an environment-
ally -sensitive mon corridor roadway through Soquel Canyon and or Carbon
Canyon." She indicated that in the February 2, 1995 document, this Strategy was
1.1.6 and it was stricken. Then it was added back as Strategy 1.1.7. Council
removed Strategy 1.1.7. In the current version, the old Strategy 1. 1.7 is now shown
as Strategy 1.1.5.
CDD/DeStefano stated the next change occurs on Page V-36, Strategy 1.3.5 which
was amended to read: "The City should implement strong measures to maintain the
integrity of Sunset Crossing Road and other residential areas at the western City
limits by cul-de-sacing Sunset Crossing Road and retaining the cul-de-sacing of
Lycoming, Washington and Beaverhead Streets." The next change was the addition
of "Consistent with the Vision Statement" to Goal 2, Page V-36. Strategy 2.1.8,
Page V-36 was changed to read: "Maintain, expand and upgrade the system of
bicycle routes connecting residential areas to major community attractions utilizing
current City design guidelines. Upgrades of the current system will include
investigative means to improve signing and marking of bikeways. The City shall
develop a master plan of bikeways." On Page V-37, Goal 3, the words "Consistent
with the Vision Statement" were added to the beginning of the sentence in accordance
with Council direction. Regarding Page V-37, Strategy 3.1.7, Figure V-1 is corrected
to Figure V-2. The words "Consistent with the Vision Statement" were added to the
beginning of Goal 4, Page V-37.
MPT/Werner suggested adding a paragraph under Item 6., Page V-31 to read:
"Intrusion of through traffic on the streets of Diamond Bar consists of motorists who
are passing through the City. The alignment of the City's three most significant
arterial streets (Diamond Bar Boulevard, Golden Springs Road and Grand Avenue)
results in significantly large volumes of through traffic which is fed from the SR 57
(Orange Freeway) and the SR 60 (Pomona) Freeway. During peak commute periods,
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 5
congestion is heavily concentrated along the SR 57 (eight lanes of traffic) and SR 60
Freeways, particularly where the SR 57 and SR 60 Freeways join together for a
one -mile long reduced corridor of no more than six lanes of traffic (three travel lanes
in each direction). Congestion is particularly heavy during a.m. and p.m. peak traffic
hours and has resulted in tremendous volumes of traffic utilizing Diamond Bar
Boulevard, Golden Springs Road, and Grand Avenue as a freeway bypass."
CDD/DeStefano responded that this language appears on Page V-17 and V-18 and
was part of the information that had been stricken.
M/Papen suggested the paragraph could be added to Page V-7, C. Roadway Systems.
MPT/Werner suggested adding Strategy 1.1.10 on Page V-35: "Through the use of
the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 24, Parts 1, 1.5 and
1.7, pursue a comprehensive and, if possible, a coordinated effort with the City of
Industry and the State of California to upgrade the one mile stretch of freeway
carrying the SR 57 and SR 60 Freeways; and upgrade the interchanges of Brea
Canyon Road and the SR 60 Freeway, Grand Avenue and the SR 60/57 Freeways and
Diamond Bar Boulevard at the SR 57 Freeway north and south of the widening of
Golden Springs Drive." Council concurred.
C/Harmony felt there needs to be a positive statement within the Circulation Element
that there will be no road through Tanner Canyon, such as the statement in the
October 17, 1994 version, Page V-26, Strategy 1.1.4.
At the request of M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano read the current version of Strategy
1. 1.4 on Page V-33 and V-34: "Initiate regional traffic mitigation efforts with the
Cities of Brea and Chino Hills by forming a task force assisted by technical personnel
to evaluate alternative travel corridors through the easterly portion of the sphere of
influence. Efforts will generally include: a) Recognition of environmentally sensitive
areas; b) Identification of the types of environmentally sensitive roadways which will
be considered; c) Avoiding disruption of SEA 15; d) Land Use constraints and
development limitations which may be in place or imposed; e) Contribution to
congestion based on development and anticipated growth projections; f) Prioritization
of alternatives based on available documentation, studies, reports, etc.; g)
Identification of alternative funding sources for studies, design, construction and
maintenance such as, but not limited to: 1) Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino
Counties; 2) State of California; 3) Federal Government; 4) Local funding, such as
Proposition C or Redevelopment Funds; 5) Development and; 6) Private; h)
Identification and formulation of a short and long range plan of action to address the
bypass issue."
Responding to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger explained if the term "no major roadway in
Tonner Canyon" is used, it means there can be a roadway in Tonner Canyon. As a
matter of fact, there is a roadway in Tonner Canyon. By removing that, the General
Plan objective states "no roadway in Tonner Canyon" and that the only possible
transportation corridor would be outside the SEA 15 in the easterly portion of the
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 6
sphere of influence area. The SEA does not include Tonner Canyon.
It was moved by C/Harmony to add "such alternatives will incorporate no major road
through Tonner Canyon."
C/Ansari felt that not naming Tonner Canyon as a road and staying out of the SEA
15 and on the easterly portion of the sphere of influence seemed to be a better
alternative to mentioning Tonner Canyon specifically in the General Plan. In addition,
current wording deals with Soquel Canyon Rd. and Carbon Canyon Rd. issues by
stating the City should encourage other jurisdictions to build through those areas.
C/Harmony's motion died for lack of a second.
A motion was made by C/Harmony to delete Item (4) (g) under Strategy 1.1.4, Page
V-34. Motion died for lack of a second.
Responding to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger stated that utilization of such funding as
referred to in Item (4)(g) of Strategy 1. 1.4 might be the use of redevelopment money
if the City can demonstrate a benefit to the redevelopment agency or the
redevelopment plan area. For the most part, if the property is not annexed to the
City, the money will not be utilized.
HOUSING ELEMENT:
CDD/DeStefano reported that the Housing Element is a component of statutory
requirements of State law with respect to composition of the General Plan. The
Element represents a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing
needs for all segments and all economic groups of the City. Housing is a matter of
statewide policy and a number of specific provisions for compliance within state
housing goals must be addressed within this Element. It is the only Element that is
critically reviewed at the State level through the Housing and Community
Development Department. Of the 500 cities in California, only 40 percent have
received approval of their Housing Element from HCD. The current document was
reviewed several times by the State Housing and Community Development
Department and each time, in their opinion, the document fails on two issues: 1) An
insufficient number of adequate sites; and 2) those sites zoned at appropriate densities
to fulfill D.B.'s share of housing needs. These are generally the two items which
prevent most cities from receiving a HCD approval of the Element. D.B. receives an
allocation of its percentage of the regional goal once every five years or so since the
City did not exist when the most recent allocation was completed for the region in
1989, the City created its own number with calculations approved by HCD during the
early stages of the General Plan in late 1989 and early 1990. The City determined the
housing need to be 781 units for the reporting period of July, 1989 to July, 1996.
These units are comprised of the following income categories: 1) 117 units - income
to $25,000 (15%); 2) 182 units - income from $25,000 to $40,000 (23%); 3) 144
units - income from $40,000 to $60,000 (19%); 4) 338 units - income over $60,000
(43%).
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 7
In Response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that HCD requires at least 25 units
per acre for the very low income category and at least 18 units per acre for low
income. These numbers are generally set aside for both rental and purchase. The
highest number of units within the City's zoning is about 30 plus units per acre. In the
currently drafted General Plan, absent a density bonus, the highest is 16 units per acre.
Currently, there is no land available with the 30 unit zoning. However, there are a
couple of sites that are at a zoning category of about 25 units per acre. The State
feels that very low income requires a minimum of 25 units per acre; low income a
minimum of 18 units; and moderate income a minimum of 8 units. The State's
primary concern is with respect to providing adequate sites and/or higher densities.
Many cities use subsidies for redevelopment of multiple family projects which either
drive down the price of the unit or incentives to the home buyer reduce the cost of
acquisition. D.B. currently projects approximately 1,073 additional dwelling units at
the highest density of 16 per acre over the next 17 to 20 years. Therefore, while the
General Plan provides sufficient housing the issue is whether or not the City is
providing affordability for very low and low income households. During review of
the Housing Element at the Planning Commission and General Plan Advisory levels,
there was discussion involving two alternatives. One is a compliance -based response
to HCD's mandate and the second is a constraints -based response. Both the GPAC
and Planning Commission agreed that a response to HCD following a
constraints -based analysis was appropriate. Absent substantial subsidies or substantial
increases in density, the response to HCD would recognize limitations and constraints
of further housing construction in the City. These constraints are physical (biological
resources, steep slopes, geotechnical hazards and inadequate infrastructure in some
areas), land and construction cost and private contracts that restrict development.
Such constraints limit the City's ability to meet the housing obligations. Contained
within the General Plan is the specific analysis that State law requires within a
Housing Element. This deals with housing need, issues with respect to the social and
economic structure, etc. However, the primary issue within the Housing Element is
sites and density. HCD would be satisfied if the City would replace its commercial
land use categories with housing use categories. The question is balance the City
needs to determine in terms of its overall financial plan for the City's future and
whether or not it is willing to give up some of the commercial sites. HCD would be
pleased for the City to provide densities in the range of 18 units or above on some of
the hillside properties. The City has indicated some of those are sensitive areas and
may not be appropriate. Opportunities in D.B. appear to be limited. Before the
Council is generally a consensus with the Planning Commission and GPAC's version
of the element. There were a couple of differences, primarily dealing with "quality of
life" issues. GPAC wanted to establish more specific standards dealing with the size
of dwelling units and wanted to add language in the Land Use Element which refers
to slope density formulas. The Planning Commission felt those were worthwhile but
were more appropriate to implementation of the Zoning Ordinance and Development
Code. He recommended that Council open the Public Hearing receive testimony and
direct staff with respect to changes.
M/Papen stated that on Page II -14, the number 973 in the second sentence of the third
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 8
paragraph should be "1,073." In the fourth sentence of the third paragraph, 793
should be "893." She asked for clarification of Figure II -1, Housing Opportunity
Areas Map on Page 11-15B with respect to the sphere of influence. It appears that the
map improperly reflects the Shell Oil Company property.
Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano indicated that he would check the location.
M/Papen asked why the church property and the Shell Oil Company property are
zoned Agricultural, while the remainder of the Sphere of Influence is zoned Specific
Plan.
CDD/DeStefano responded that they are not shown as potential areas for housing as
a result of the current Land Use Element that indicates an Agricultural designation for
these properties. The Land Use Element further states that at some point in the
future, the creation of a specific plan for these two areas will be encouraged. The
Element lists a specific palate of land uses for consideration.
M/Papen asked why these properties are being designated differently from Tres
Hermans and the Boy Scout property.
CDD/DeStefano stated that he would bring the information to the next meeting.
MPT/Werner asked if the housing opportunities shown on Figure II -1, Page II -15B
are for the next five-year period.
CDD/DeStefano responded that it is referring to the period from July, 1989 to June,
1996. If the schedule for a new Housing Element is maintained, about this time next
year, the City will be looking at a necessary revision to the Housing Element as a
result of newly established Regional Housing Needs numbers.
Responding to C/Miller, CDD/DeStefano stated the Opportunity Areas Map
corresponds to the Land Use Element Map. This is what the City sees as
opportunities as the Planning Commission recommended based upon the Land Use
Element.
In response to C/Ansari, CDD/DeStefano stated HCD will review the General Plan
submitted based upon the Housing Element which mandates policy and will respond
with a letter indicating where they feel the City is not in compliance with policies.
The State could eliminate subventions if the City does not have a certified, approved
Housing Element. In some instances, private interest groups will sue a city to attempt
to force compliance with HCD and statewide policies. He further stated he is not
aware of any city being sued by the Attorney General with respect to not having a
Housing Element; however, he is aware of private law suits against cities. In theory,
if the City does not have a state certified or approved Housing element, the General
Plan is not in compliance with State law.
ICA/Montgomery concurred. He cited a South Pasadena case where an extension of
FEBRUARY 13, 1995
4.
PAGE 9
the redevelopment plan was defeated based upon the assertion that there was no
Housing Element in the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano stated that HCD is more concerned with insuring that the Housing
Element is in compliance with statewide housing policy. There are less concerns with
meeting the actual targeted goal of units.
MPT/Werner suggested that the Housing Opportunity Areas Map show all of the
available vacant properties in the City with each area having an identification marker
(number and text) that describes the areas. In addition, on properties where there are
contractual, topographical, political or other constraints, identify the constraints. He
felt that there are some commercially designated properties that could serve as
housing opportunity areas such as parcels located in the Gateway Corporate Center.
M/Papen asked that staff provide an overhead and handout map for the February 16,
1995 meeting at which time the Council will open the Public Hearing for the Land
Use Element and continue the Hearing for the Housing Element.
MPT/Werner moved, C/Miller seconded to have staff finalize this draft of the
Circulation Element, make it available for the public for 30 days advance review and
bring it back to the City Council for final adoption. With the following Roll Call vote,
motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
None
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting
TOMMYE CRIBBINS, Deputy City Clerk
2.
IMUN U 1JL3 yr ins %_11 i c vutrc �+
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 16, 1995
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
M/Papen.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansan, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro
Tem Werner and Mayor Papen.
Also present Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City
Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City
Clerk.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN -
LAND USE ELEMENT:
CDD/DeStefano reported that the Land Use Element contains broad policy statements
designed to deal with distribution, general location and extent of uses of land for
housing, business, industry, open space, recreation, education, public buildings and
all other categories of public and private land uses. It provides the overall framework
for future use of the City's land located within the 15 sq. mile incorporated City and
the 5 112 sq. mile sphere of influence. This insures that the community achieves and
maintains a use of land consistent with overall goals and objectives. Although all
Elements are presumed equal, the Land Use Element is often perceived as most
representative of the General Plan and is most often used by Planning staff once the
General Plan is adopted. The Element Map is representative of policies within the
text and identifies proposed land uses for City planning areas. In addition, tables and
text indicate intensity and density of development for planning areas. Over the past
35 years, development in the City has been residential land uses. Generally, densities
are higher for residential in the flat areas of the City. As grades increase, lot sizes
increase and density decreases. Currently, D.B. has approximately 17,800 dwelling
units with about 54,500 people. Non-residential land uses comprise about 20% of the
total land area. Approximately 28% of the City is presently vacant. Issues within the
Land Use Element include the need to establish an appropriate land use mix for the
community while responding to concerns of the disposition of remaining lands, a
desire to retain open spaces, the need to increase the City's revenue base and desire
to define and promote a positive City image. The Element presented by the Planning
Commission proposes an additional 1,073 dwelling units be constructed over the next
15 to 20 years. Overall, the Element is proposing land use densities and intensities
which reflective of existing conditions and development characteristics. There are
four residential land use classifications which allow floor area ratios up to 1.0. In
addition to the approximate 5.7 million sq. ft. of commercial industrial land currently
situated in the City, the Element incorporates a planned 1.3 million additional sq. ft.
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 2
of space over the next 15 to 20 years. The Element includes a proposal for creation
of a Slope Density Ordinance for properties exceeding 25% slope. The Element
encourages density transfers as one means to preserve and acquire open space
resources. There is a desire to further detail land use planning of the three major
areas designated as Specific Plan since the designations applied to the properties in
the General Plan do not extend to a Master Plan for those properties. These three
properties are: Bramalea (400 acres) currently classified Residential/Open Space;
Tres Hermanos (800 acres) classified Agriculture/Specific Plan, and Boy Scout
property (3200 acres) located within the sphere of influence area and classified
Agriculture. In addition to the three areas where Specific Plans are recommended,
there are a few areas where a Planned Development is being proposed. Planned
Developments tend to be in areas completely surrounded by existing development.
The scale of the development review process is somewhat less than that of a specific
plan. These areas are: the "Stone" property (10 acres) located at the SR 60 and
Golden Springs Dr.; Calvary Chapel site and hospital property at Grand Ave. and
Golden Springs Dr. With respect to the Element, both GPAC and the Planning
Commission spent an extensive amount of time reviewing the details contained within
the document. GPAC spent three of the six months reviewing the Element and
recommended an Element that furthers a desire to create and preserve open spaces.
GPAC's document specifically details slope density ratio, housing characteristics and
elimination of map and deed restrictions by a vote of the people. The Planning
Commission agreed with the majority of GPAC's recommendations. The differences
he in the area of detail. The Planning Commission felt that removal of map or deed
restrictions may be appropriate; however, it should be done by the Planning
Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission recommended that slope
density formulas, details regarding density transfers and specifics regarding lot sizes
and housing unit characteristics be contained within a Development Code and not be
a component of the General Plan. The Planning Commission received public
testimony for development requests from the School District, the Boy Scouts, Sasak
Corp. and Bramalea. Development interests appear to have been satisfied with
designations presented by GPAC and the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission proposed that the Boy Scout property incorporate a Specific Plan. The
Commission felt that the 78 acre RnP property adjacent to Brea Canyon Rd. and
South Pointe Middle School and the adjacent Sasak 7 acre site should be designated
Open Space which is more representative of the restrictions placed upon the
properties. The General Plan's definition for Open Space includes those underlying
restrictions and allows for development opportunity as permitted. Although the
School District was interested in a development opportunity beyond the Public
Facility classification proposed by GPAC, the Planning Commission felt that the
property located at D.B. Blvd. near Brea Canyon Rd., known as Site D, was better
suited for a community facility. The outstanding issue facing the community is
whether the City reports to the State of California with a compliance -based document
or with a constraints -based document outlining whether or not the City can fulfill its
responsibilities under the regional share of housing allocation.
M/Papen thanked staff for the Vacant Land Housing Opportunities Area Map which
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 3
includes about 53 different locations in the City where there is potential for
development.
Responding to MPT/Werner, M/Papen indicated there would be a Public Hearing on
the Land Use Element and the Council would return on February 23, 1995 for a final
decision on the issues involved.
M/Papen opened the Public Hearing.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., presented another copy of his 32 -page document
regarding the Land Use Element. He felt there were restrictions on the Bramalea
property and that it should be designated Open Space. In addition, the School
District purchased property knowing that it was restricted and they indicated they
would preserve the property as open space --now the District is asking for a Planned
Development designation. He felt the General Plan should designate the school
property as Open Space. He further believed that upper Sycamore Canyon should be
preserved as an environmental habitat and Tonner Canyon should be designated as
Agricultural. The Slope Density Factor should start at 15%.
M/Papen referred Mr. Maxwell to Page 21 of his document which states "prior to
approving new development or the intensification of existing development within the
City of Diamond Bar, a FULL complete EIR must be submitted on all development
larger than one single family dwelling unit, multi -complex or commercial buildings of
over 10,000 sq. ft." and asked if he still supported this statement.
Mr. Maxwell stated that he did.
On Page 17, M/Papen indicated that one of the strategies in obtaining open space as
recommended by the Planning Commission is that, if an individual owns two
properties, the City allows the transfer of development rights to one property so that
the other property can be preserved as open space. She referred Mr. Maxwell to the
last sentence on Page 17 of his document which states: "Transfer of development
rights will not be permitted under any condition" and asked if he still held with this
tenet.
Mr. Maxwell stated that he did.
M/Papen referred Mr. Maxwell to Page 13 of his document, second paragraph under
I-II Strategies 1.1.9 which reads: "No development will be permitted in Tonner
Canyon, including a roadway or other forms of transportation." She stated that in the
sphere of influence there is presently a road in Tonner Canyon which is not open to
the public. She asked if Mr. Maxwell still supported the statement.
Mr. Maxwell indicated that the property should be designated Agricultural. A major
corridor should not be in the canyon.
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 4
M/Papen referred Mr. Maxwell to Pages 7 and 9 of the document which states: "A
MORATORIUM will be placed on all future development of single family dwellings
and commercial development in the City ofDiamond Bar for five (5) years or until the
traffic is reduced to a level "C", whichever takes the longer time." She asked if this
is a position which Mr. Maxwell's group is still supporting.
Mr. Maxwell responded that it is.
C/Miller asked Mr. Maxwell whether he is concerned that a commercial building meet
the required parking and landscape area ratios or is it a specific number that needs to
be included in the General Plan.
Mr. Maxwell stated he is concerned that the ratio is misleading.
C/Miller responded that the City requires more parking spaces than the County
required.
Mr. Maxwell stated he felt the ratio should be even more restrictive.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., stated that citizens are very concerned about the
use of the few remaining precious open areas left in the City. Children now and in the
future deserve the right to view, hike and enjoy these last remaining wilderness areas.
GC Sec. 53602 (d) outlines the conservation elements the Council must consider.
Cities and Counties have been required to have conservation elements in their General
Plans since December 31, 1993. He asked the Council to review GC Secs. 65302 (E)
and 56560 (a) before Council changes the citizen's General Plan.
Jack Healy, 23041 Aspen Knoll Dr., stated he and other concerned citizens donated
many hours to GPAC. He felt that there had been an emasculation of all of their
efforts by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that Bramalea
bought their property based upon deed and map restrictions and now they indicate
that to have an Open Space or Rural designation is a "taking" in violation of the
Constitution. Under the circumstances, this is not a taking. He asked that when the
Council considers the Land Use Element, will it consider the effect upon the citizens
and asked the Council to deny the request by the School District to change the
designation of part of Sandstone Canyon from Open Space to Future Development.
Wilbur Smith, 21640 Fairwind Ln., felt that the Introduction should be written as
GPAC suggested. He stated that on Page I-8, the Council should make a definitive
statement as to the most effective revenue generating method. Regarding Page I-10,
Strategy 1.1.1, GPAC wanted to restrict development. He felt one domestic unit per
area is too large for the area. On Page I-11, there is conflict between a and f and
there should be a formula in f to indicate the density as a functional slope. Referring
to Page I-22 3.2. 10 through 3.2.12, he stated that GPAC was attempting to indicate
the quality of homes built in D.B. and felt these statements should be in the General
Plan. He requested, referring to Page I-22, Strategy 3.2.5, that washrooms, air and
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 5
water be provided for the motoring public at automobile service facilities and felt this
should be included in the statement. Regarding the Land Use Map, he felt that the
easterly portion of the sphere of influence should be defined as outside the SEA 15.
C/Miller asked if Mr. Smith liked the three revenue generating options.
Mr. Smith stated that he preferred the first statement
C/Miller asked if the citizens want D.B. to be an elitist community because if the
Council approved some of Mr. Smith's recommendations, very few could afford to
live in the City. He pointed out that zoning in D.B. is low density compared to most
other cities and asked how the City can insure that the average citizen can afford to
live here.
Mr. Smith responded that the lay of the land does not lend itself to a high density
community.
C/Miller stated that if such measures are implemented, they would severely restrict
opportunity, equality and fairness.
Mr. Smith responded that he is primarily concerned with the citizens who are already
in the City and with the Rural Residential area in SEA 15 which he felt should remain
Open Space.
Terry Birrell supported comments made by previous speakers and felt that there was
inconsistency in changes made by the Council and asked that the Council listen to the
wishes of the people. She stated that non-resident real estate speculators acquired
major tracts of land with the objective of redesignating, rezoning and building on
them. Upper Sycamore and Sandstone Canyons have no building map restrictions and
were designated in the previous General Plans as Planned Development, yet the
present Plan designates them Open Space/Specific Plan. This means that at a future
date a specific plan can be introduced and the canyons can be developed. The Land
Use Map does not distinguish Open Space from Open Space/Specific Plan. She felt
this was a way of deceiving the public who see open space and believe the canyons
cannot be developed. If the Open Space/Specific Plan designation is allowed to
become part of the General Plan, what is to prevent the School District from using
Sandstone Canyon for three school developments. She strongly opposed the Open
Space/ Specific Plan designation and supported Open Space as the only designation.
Dorian Johnson, Vice -President of Planning, Bramalea, 100 Bayview Circle, Newport
Beach, stated that Bramalea has approximately 400 acres in D.B. and has been
involved in the community for over a decade. He indicated Bramalea would like to
see the remaining property fulfill its development potential. This does not mean 400
acres of 1500 units paved over. A limited portion of the property is dedicated for
restriction of residential property and he believed an Open Space designation would
be a taking. Bramalea requested a designation akin to Residential Planned
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 6
Development. Through provisions of the General Plan for Residential Planned
Development to take place on the Bramalea property, as part of the development
portion of the entitlement process, Bramalea will be required to dedicate a minimum
of 75% of the land to open space. The request for development involves only 25%
of the land with 110 to 130 homes. Bramalea believed this is a balance of its
development rights with the best interest of the City and benefit to the citizens of the
community.
MPT/Werner asked if Mr. Johnson would be agreeable to any designation of Specific
Plan incorporating language that 75% of the property would remain as Open Space
dedicated to the City. In addition, he asked if the portion set aside for development
is restricted land.
Mr. Johnson responded that Bramalea would accept language in the General Plan
requiring a designation and dedication to the City in fee of a minimum of 75% open
space as a function of entitlements in the future. With regard to where the
development would occur, based on the information available today minus an
Environmental Impact Report, the development would occur in the area
unencumbered by restrictions.
Responding to C/Miller, Mr. Johnson stated that Bramalea's intent is to build in a
cluster fashion in a small area while dedicating an uninterrupted 75% of land to the
City.
Responding to C/Harmony and C/Miller, Mr. Johnson stated there is no designation
of Open Space on the subject property. If Bramalea agrees to an Open Space
designation, it has given without getting anything in return. Bramalea is and always
has been the only owner of the property. The property has never been deed restricted
or subject to CC&R's. The designation of Planned Development does not remove
map restrictions and does not affect maps. It does give Bramalea opportunity to
present a plan for development that would use a small portion of the land and offer
the City a deed to the greater portion. Based upon the findings of an Environmental
Impact Report, Bramalea would be willing to move the development to an area that
is less environmentally -sensitive and be of greater benefit to the community which is
why Council should retain flexibility with respect to the location of the development.
Mark Rogers, Land Planning Consultant representing WVUSD, stated that the
District has a number of properties in the City and which are in transition and have an
impact on the City's future. Site D, 28 acres on Brea Canyon Rd. and the 78 acres
adjacent to South Pointe Middle School are addressed by the General Plan. Site D
is currently zoned Residential and was the subject of an entitlement effort in recent
years. The Planning Commission recommended a Public Facilities Land Use over the
entire property. There is no intent on the part of the District to utilize the property
as a site for school facilities. The 78 acre South Pointe property was recently
purchased by the District which was necessitated by the prospect of losing $8 million
in matching funds from the State for construction of South Pointe Middle School.
FEBRUARY 16, 1995
PAGE 7
The property is currently zoned R-1. The Planning Commission recommended an
Open Space designation over the entire property. The District feels it was excluded
from the decision making portion of the General Plan process and is committed to the
future of D.B. The District cannot obtain the Planned Development with Mixed Use
designation for both properties with a Mixed Use designator. If the District cannot
obtain the Planned Development with Mixed Use designation, it would rather have
the existing Residential zone left in place. This strategy would allow the District to
work with the City and community on plans for development of the site and specific
uses to be determined at a later time.
Dr. Ron Hockwalt, Superintendent, WVUSD, asked Council to provide the District
with greater flexibility in its land use decisions than is allowed by the proposed
General Plan. The District felt that the designation of Open Space for the South
Pointe property would greatly reduce its value and is a denial of all reasonable use.
The District requested that the City consider a Planned Development/Mixed-Use
designation for both properties. By so designating these properties, the District is
afforded the opportunity to cooperatively provide adequate access to South Pointe
Middle School, provide the mechanism for retention of the canyon area as open space
for at least 300/9 of the 78 acres to provide potential tax revenues benefits to the City,
to provide the mechanism for the district to manage its own assets with the goal of
long-term revenue generation, and to provide opportunities for the City to meet its
open space and recreation goals. The District has no intention of building homes in
the canyon or relocating the bus yard to the 78 acres at South Pointe. It is the intent
of the District to live in a harmonious relationship in the community and to improve
the quality of life for everyone in the City.
Responding to MPT/Werner, Dr. Hockwalt stated the School property was purchased
30 years ago. It was not offered as a dedication to the School District.
In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that he does not know the
history of the property zoning. The neighborhood adjacent to the site is zoned R-1
7500 and R-1 10,000.
C/Harmony asked Dr. Hockwalt to expand on his statements of long-term revenue
and adequate access to South Pointe.
Dr. Hockwalt stated that from the beginning, the District requested a secondary road
access from Brea Canyon Rd. into the South Pointe Middle School property. Asset
management is a goal of the School District.
Manual Nunez, 9731 Royal Palm Blvd., Garden Grove, Planning and Architecture
Consultant, AI.C.P. Associates, representing the owners of Tract 46485 situated off
Rocky Trail Dr. and Blaze Trail in the Country Estates stated the Planning
Commission designated this area Rural Residential with 1 to 2.75 acres per lot. He
indicated the owners are concerned that restrictive blankets will affect all properties
regardless of locations and situations. He asked that the Council adopt the Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 8
Commission's recommendation for the area and not apply any more stringent
standards which may confuse the issue and deny them the same privileges as
surrounding property owners.
Responding to MPT/Werner, Mr. Nunez stated the slope of the subject property is
in the range of 25 to 30% and it is not a Vesting Tentative Map.
In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated the property represented by Mr.
Nunez is identified as property No. 23 on Page 2 identified as the Tice property. The
correct Tract No. is 46485. Changes have occurred over the four years this map has
been processing because it is not a Vesting Map and because the City is restricted
from accepting a Vesting Map for application. Each time the General Plan changes
or any other development standards change, this project must also change. Additional
changes will be needed as a result of the General Plan's current outline. What may
impact the project are the Resource Management and Land Use Elements dealing with
preservation of biological resources, concerns with respect to canyon bottom
development, ridgeline development, etc. They are currently processing their map
under the Hillside Management Ordinance.
Nick Anis stated that while he agreed that the City should not use development as a
source of revenue, perhaps D.B. should consider unfunded mandates and the cost of
action versus inaction. Recently, the Council voted on building the South Pointe
Middle School. The result ofthat vote cost the School District (citizens) $1,500,000
to purchase the land. This action did not preserve the land, it caused additional land
to be bulldozed. He believed there were alternatives that would have preserved more
land. He stated this is an example of not looking at the net cost and the consequences
of a vote and position on development. On the other hand, such an action may result
in a development that might benefit the community, for example, a hospital. He stated
that would be a community benefit and could not understand why anyone would
argue against it. In addition, he indicated he cannot understand how forcing homes
to be on a three acre lot instead of a one and one-half acre lot would benefit the
community. At that rate, only multi -millionaires could afford to purchase in the City.
He urged the Council to use discretion in treating all of the property owners and
taxpayers including the School District the same. The School District has building
rights on the land they were forced to buy. The question is whether the City is going
to give them the flexibility to do what is best for them and for the community. He
stated that he was publicly opposed to development and has publicly endorsed only
one proposed development, the building of South Pointe Middle School.
Joseph Shu, 1820 Derringer Ln., stated that there are no building map restrictions on
open space areas. He asked that these areas be designated Open Space, not Open
Space/Specific Plan. Open Space,/Specific Plan leaves the door open for a specified
plan to be introduced and development of open space to take place. He suggested
that the General Plan not be written so that building restrictions can be eliminated at
the discretion of the Council.
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 ' PAGE 9
Jan Dabney, Development Consultant, representing two private ownerships in the
South Pointe Master Plan area and himself as a previous member of GPAC, indicated
he was on the last GPAC Committee prior to City incorporation. He was on the first
GPAC subsequent to incorporation and he was on the last GPAC committee. Many
of the things that stated here and over the past several months with respect to the
General Plan do not necessarily represent the entire view of GPAC. However, the
Committee did represent a consensus. The consultant to all three committees
adamantly pointed out, as did MPT/Werner and C/Ansari, that each member was an
advisory member and that the material was to be taken as advisory information.
Consultants stated that it was outside the boundaries of the GPAC to entertain the
legal ramifications and aspects associated with land use issues. In his opinion, when
GPAC members stated they are adamant that the General Plan should be as
represented by them, this is not the opinion of all of the members. He indicated that
Mr. Patel is opposed to an Open Space zoning on his property and has underlying
building rights on his property which he wishes to maintain. At Mr. Patel's last
Council appearance, he was conditionally approved under the following conditions:
1) That he meet the new General Plan because it is not a Vesting Map and 2) that he
be able to obtain specific consideration on conditions on his map through the School
District. These conditions were reasonable to Mr. Patel since this had originally been
a Master Plan. Mr. Patel requested that the community continue to allow him to
move in that direction and not zone his property Open Space which would cause him
to suffer a substantial loss. He indicated that he also represents the owners of Lots
1 and 61 who have protested the proposed Open Space designation. Some of the
opinions put forth in establishing an Open Space classification on this property were
blatantly erroneous. He agreed with considerations expressed by Mr. Johnson of
Bramalea. However, the ironic circumstance with Lots 1 and 61 is the fact that the
property was owned by Bramalea at one time. Lot 1 is not part of any homeowner
association and has never been. There is a recorded open space easement which
affects 7.62 acres of the property. The owners ask that the Council leave open the
option for future discussion. The owners do not feel that an Open Space zoning
allows for such discussion.
Responding to MPT/Wemer, Mr. Dabney stated that in the eyes of the law, the
zoning has not been changed in D.B. 2U is a zoning designation which refers to a
maximum density of two units per acre. The owners are seeking relief on the Land
Use Designation which would not remove construction restrictions. In May, there
was a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Council to consider a Parcel
Map that was a reversion to acreage and the owners asked that the building restriction
be removed which would grant them the right to construct one home only. Staff
indicated that the owners were seeking removal of the Open Space Easement, which
was not the case. There was also discussion regarding mass density development that
the public thought was being granted as part of that Parcel map, which was not the
case. The owners are seeking to have the property not be zoned Open Space so that
the rights provided by State law and the Map Act are made available in order to
petition the City for consideration. The ultimate determination for use of the property
is predicated on a satisfactory determination from the Council. There is nothing that
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 10
can be included in a General Plan to guarantee even one home.
Responding to M/Papen, ICA/Montgomery stated that he was not prepared to
respond to Mr. Dabney's letter regarding Lots 1 and 61 since the letter was received
by him at 4:30 p.m. on this date.
M/Papen indicated that she would grant ICA/Montgomery an additional two days to
respond and asked him to respond to "the frontage of Summit Ridge Drive
(approximately 175 feet) is not restricted and provides access to the property in
question."
In response to M/Papen, Mr. Dabney stated that the owners would be pleased if the
designation was Rural Residential.
MPT/Wemer, referring to Mr. Dabney's letter which states: "At the underlying
zoning density of two units per acre, 122 acres allows 244 units. While it is obvious
that clustering took place sometime in the past under the County, only 165 units were
built. Clearly, some density still remains."
Mr. Dabney responded that the owners have employed his firm to do extensive
analysis on the maximum development potential of the property which does not
approach 79 units. It is much closer to 60% of that number. With the current format
in the General Plan, the one unit per acre under Rural Residential is not feasible from
a physical standpoint.
Responding to MPT/Wemer, CDD/DeStefano stated that Strategies 1.5.1 and 1. 5.2
on Page I-16 deals with removal of map restrictions.
Responding to MPT/Werner, Mr. Dabney stated that he supported the approach that
there is substantial community benefit derived in exchange for removal of a map
restriction if the ultimate density of the property exceeds one home. The Subdivision
Map Act was established to protect both landowners and adjacent owners. Currently
in the State, the Subdivision Map Act allows landowners the right, with restricted
property, to petition at their discretion, the legislative body that controls planning,
zoning and development rights. To take that right and say you can put it to the voters
appears to be invalid.
Responding to MPT/Wemer, ICA/Montgomery stated that regarding Open Space
restrictions, the procedure was set by the Legislation. Property owners appear before
City Council upon 30 days notice and petition to have the restrictions removed. Since
this is subject to referendum, it would go to a vote of the people. If the developer is
not happy with the direction of Council, he may take it to a vote of the people and ask
that the General Plan be amended.
RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 11
RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:36 p.m.
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN (CONTD) -
Ken Anderson explained that he would like a more definitive plan from Bramalea. He
felt that development of the School District property is not of benefit to the entire
community. He felt that the General Plan should produce an agreeable environment
for citizens. He asked the Council to incorporate the CalTech seismicity map in the
General Plan.
MPT/Werner stated that the City has embraced establishment of and participation in
the joint powers authority of the wildlife corridor and open space acquisition.
Wilbur Smith stated that there had been a significant reduction in the value of homes
and that the data in the General Plan should be reflective of these changes. He felt
that slope density calculations should be included on Page II -16. Since the quality of
housing is not included in the Land Use Element, it should be stricken from Page
II -19. He asked that Council consider stronger language for Strategies 2.2.1 and
2.2.2 on Page II -28.
M/Papen asked Mr. Smith if he was aware of any "redlining" in the City.
Mr. Smith responded that there is redlining in his tract because there were very few
non-Anglos there when he moved in 10 years ago and six years ago, when values
began to decline, homes were sold to predominately non -Anglo.
M/Papen stated she did not agree with him and did not believe that having more
minorities in an area means the neighborhood is deteriorating.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., asked Council to include designated areas on the
maps to show the proposed sites for low income housing.
M/Papen asked Mr. Maxwell to indicate on the map which parcels he believed should
be zoned 18 units per acre.
Mr. Maxwell indicated the Tres Hermanos property.
Responding to MPT/Werner, Don Cotton, Cotton/Beland & Assoc., stated that
approximately 60% of cities have Elements in compliance with State requirements.
MPT/Werner indicated it has been a slow and tedious process for the State to get
cities in line with the housing policy. D.B. is attempting to do two battles
simultaneously—one to satisfy State requirements for housing and another to complete
the General Plan. He felt that what Mr. Maxwell is currently advocating, he will
argue against at a future date since he has argued in favor of both sides of the
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 12
question in the past. He stated that staff provided a comprehensive list of potential
properties. Using this list, Council is charged with determining, on a priority basis,
which restrictions or constraints can be resolved in the next five years in order to
accommodate low and moderate income housing --which Mr. Maxwell is so strongly
advocating. He believed that low to moderate income housing should be dispersed
equally throughout the City rather than all in one location as Mr. Maxwell
recommended.
There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing on the
Land Use Element and continued the Public Hearing on the Housing Element to
February 23, 1995.
C/Ansari asked why the higher density formula is not mentioned on Table II -4, Page
II -15 and on Page II -16, the first paragraph indicates that it is intended that housing
developed within Tres Hermanos could be built at densities higher than 16 units per
acre providing affordability for the City's identified share of lower income housing
needs.
CDD/DeStefano responded that it is mentioned as part of the palate of uses
contemplated for the Tres Hermans Specific Plan, the details of which would occur
at a later date. The Council has not reached any conclusions regarding locations
densities of developments. Higher densities should not be attached to properties that
have no development opportunity.
Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that there are many locations that
could be considered for higher density developments.
M/Papen directed staff to provide Council with recommendations and options for five
acre parcels of high density and 10 to 11 acres of medium-high density in order that
the Council might develop a new category with those mixes for the Land Use
Element.
MPT/Werner requested ICA/Montgomery to provide a written legal response to the
issue of Open Space restrictions previously discussed with Mr. Dabney.
MPT/Werner moved, Ciller seconded to close the public hearing on the Land Use
Element and continue the public hearing on the Housing Element. With the following
Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 13
4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, the met g
was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. The next General Plan meeting will be held February 23, 1995
at 6:00 p.m. at the South Coast AQMD Auditorium.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
FTg7
#$1�I'RA$LE
FOR.�... T;X x C EL ANa 83 REN�A�N 1�iG N TME EOt7M,
Csti PS S O 3 .....
1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. March 6, 1995
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Papen
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari,
Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem
Werner, Mayor Papen
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
2.1.1 Special Meeting
of January
31, 1995
- Approve
as submitted.
2.1.2 Special Meeting
of February
6, 1995
- Approve
as submitted.
2.1.3 Special Meeting
of February
13, 1995
- Approve
as submitted.
2.1.4 Special Meeting
of February
16, 1995
- Approve
as submitted.
Requested by: City Clerk
3• PUBLIC BEARINGS:
3.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - The General Plan is a
statement of goals, objectives and strategies to guide
the long-range physical development of the City. The
plan is required by State law and determines the size,
form and character of the City over the next 20 years. On
February 28, 1995 Council reviewed the Land Use Element
(LUE) and continued the matter to Monday, March 6, 1995.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council continue review of the Land Use Element and
direct staff as necessary.
Requested by: Community Development Director
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
5. ADJOURNMENT:
F
City of Diamond Bar Wednesday: March 1, 1995
Meeting Agenda For 1
PRIVATE March 6, 1995 Page:
1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. MARCH 6, 1995
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MAYOR PAPEN
ROLL CALL: COUNCIL MEMBERS ANSARI, HARMONY, MILLER,
Mayor Pro Tem Werner, Mayor Papen
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
2.1.1 SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 31, 1995 - APPROVE AS SUBMITTE
2.1.2 SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1995 - APPROVE AS SUBMITTE
2.1.3 SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1995 - APPROVE AS SUBMITT
2.1.4 SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 1995 - APPROVE AS SUBMITT
Requested by: City Clerk
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
3.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - THE GENER.4AN IS A
statement of goals, objectives and strategies to guide the
long-range physical development of the City. The plan is
required by State law and determines the size, form and
character of the City over the next 20 years. On February 28,
1995 Council reviewed the Land Use Element (LUE) and
continued the matter to Monday, March 6, 1995.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council
continue review of the Land Use Element and direct staff as
necessary.
Requested by: Community Development Director
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
5. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO. 3.1
MEETING DATE: March 6, 1995
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager It
SUBJECT: Adoption of the General Plan
ISSUE STATEMENT: State law requires the preparation and adoption of a comprehensive, long
term General Plan for the physical development of all property within the
City and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its
planning. Upon adoption, the General Plan, through its numerous goals,
objectives and strategies, will define development strategy for the next
twenty years.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the March 6, 1995, City Council meeting is to continue review of the Land Use
Element. Attached is a copy of the previously prepared, February 28, 1995, staff report, outlining
the issue areas for your use and information.
DISCUSSION
On February 28, 1995, the City Council concluded the meeting with a discussion of appropriate land
uses for several larger vacant properties in the planning area. Attached for your consideration and
discussion, please find a rough draft of new text proposed to amend strategies related to Planned
Development and Specific Plan areas.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue review of the Land Use
Element and direct staff as necessary.
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano
Community Development Director
Attachment: • Staff draft revisions
• Letter and petition received February 28, 1995, from Teressa J. and Gordon M.
Guber.
• Letter received February 28, 1995, from Arco Products Company.
1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
FROM: James De Stefano, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: March 6, 1995 City Council Meeting.
DATE: March 3, 1995
Staff proposed draft revisions to the Land Use Element of the GENERAL PLAN
Land Use Element
Page I-17
Objective 1.6
Strategies 1.6.1 through 1.6.7
Strategy 1.6.1
Replace existing text with the following:
A master plan shall be developed for each area of the City designated as Planned
Development (PD). The location of each Planned Development area is shown on Figure I-2.
Descriptions of each area and the contemplated land use designations are defined as follows:
a. Planned Development Area 1 -
PD -1 is consists of 10 vacant acres located at the northeast comer of Golden
Springs Drive and Carpio Drive. A planned development of this area should address the
adjacent freeway noise impacts. A maximum of 30 single family detached residential
dwelling units may be permitted within this area. Clustering of development away from the
freeway is encouraged
b. Planned Development Area 2 -
PD -2 is comprised of approximately 400 vacant acres located in two non-contiguous
areas. Sub -Area A consists of approximately 325 acres located east of Diamond Bar
Boulevard, north of Grand Avenue, south of Gold Rush Drive, at the terminus of Highcrest
Drive. Sub -Area B consists of approximately 75 acres located west of Pantera Park.
Appropriate land uses for this 400 +- acre non-contiguous area include a maximum of 130
single family detached residential dwelling units concentrated along the anticipated extension
of Highcrest Drive, a minimum of 75 percent of the total 400 acre area set aside as dedicated
open space. A two acre area located at the southwest corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
Gold Rush Drive should be developed for public facility or commercial uses. In order to
minimize environmental impacts and maximize clustering, residential lots shall range in size
from 6,000 to 10,000 feet.
C. Planned Development Area 3 -
PD -3 located south of Grand Avenue and east of Golden Springs Drive incorporates
approximately 75 acres of developed and undeveloped land. Appropriate land uses for this
multiple ownership area include mixed use commercial retail and office professional uses.
The maximum intensity of development for this planned development area is a FAR of 1.00.
d. Planned Development Area 4 -
PD -4 consists of 78 vacant acres and is located west of Brea Canyon Road, north
of Peaceful Hills Road and south of South Pointe Middle School. Land uses appropriate for
this planned development area include single family detached residential, public facilities and
open space. A maximum of XXX dwelling units may be permitted incorporating a minimum
of 30 percent of the 78 acre site set aside as open space.
e. Planned Development Area 5 -
PD -5 is comprised of a vacant 28 acre parcel of land located near the intersection of
Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Land uses appropriate for this site include a
maximum of 5 single family detached residential dwelling units per acre. Clustering of
development is encouraged.
Strategy 1.6.2
no changes
Strategy 1.6.3
Designate the following larger properties as future Specific Plan (SP) areas. This designation
is an overlay to the base land use category providing for a mixed use projects in the future
subject to approval of a Specific Plan consistent with Government Code Section 65450. The
issues to be addressed and the type and maximum intensity of development within each future
Specific Plan area is defined below:
a. Specific Plan Area 1 -
SP -1 is located within the incorporated City, south of the Pomona Freeway (State Route 60)
and west of Chino Hills Parkway. This 800+- acre vacant area is part of the larger Tres
Hermanos Ranch property spanning Grand Avenue within the City of Chino Hills.
-tom Cil
4 r -7-' olo
TO: DIAMOND BAR ITY COUNCIL RECEIVED COMMI NITY
In: 110
I AM SO TIRED OF FIGHTING THE DEVELOPERS TO PRESERVE WHATS
LEFT OF THE OPEN SPACES OF DIAMOND BAR.
FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS ONCE. THE PLANNING,
COMMISSION VOTED TO KEEP ALL OPEN SPACES WITHOUT ANY ADDED
CONDITIONS. NEXT YOU, OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHO
REPRESENT US, ALSO UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO KEEP THE OPEN SPACE,
WITHOUT ANY ADDED CONDITIONS.
NOW, WE'RE BACK HEARING THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS
SUBMITTED THE. GENERAL PLAN, AND YOU AS ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE
TAKING TI IAT I,ENERAL PLAN AND CHANGING THE WORDING IN REGARDS
TO OPEN SPACES AND ADDING A CONDITION WHICH CONTRADICTS THE
MEANING OF OPEN PACES.
YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY THIS LITTLE CHANGE YOU ARE MAKING
WON'T CAUSE ANY HARM. MAYBE NOT TO YOU. BUT IN REALITY IT
CHANGES THE MEANING AND GIVES THE DEVELOPERS OPEN RANGE TO
DESTROY OUR OPEN SPACES. SO LETS STOP THE CONS.
I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE LEAVE WHATS ALREADY VOTED ON -ALONE
AND LEAVE IT I_IP TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC NOT A CHOSEN FEW FOR
ANY RESTRICTIONS TO BE REMOVED
YOU REPRESEN'- THE PEOPLE OF DIAMOND BAR. WHY DO YOU KEEP
LOOKING FOR YOUR OWN SPECIAL INTERESTS"?
WE KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY TO BE MAOE IF THE
RE'l-3TRICTION13. ARE REMOVED.
I':, THIS WHY THE CITY COUNCIL IO SELLING OUT DIAMOND BAR?
IT'S ABOUT TIME YOU START REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY OF
DIAMOND BAR AND WHAT THEY WANT.
I'T '!AKEF, ME SICK TO THINK THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL CAN'T STAND
THEIR ORIGINAL DECISIONS AND THE DECISIONS OF THE
GENIL PAL PUBL I C .
TERESSA J. GUBE AND GORDON M. GUBER
24303 RIMFORD PLACE
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
'7n ;Ova( h;cdld__
tvr� rch, C�a . %/%S
We, the undersigned residents of Diamond Bar, vigorously oppose the increased
development and traffic whichw ill result from designating building restricted
land as Open Space/Specific Plan.
The people of Diamond Bar have twice expressed, through referenda, their"opposi-
tion to planned development of these areas. We vigorously denounce the Planning
Commission's cynicism and arrogance in changing the General Plan Advisory Com-
mittee's designation of these areas from Open Space to Open Space/Specific Plan.
We view this deli nation to be a tactic to ermit develo went while hidin
Leal intent from the voters. the
At any future city council elections we will not support those members who oppose
returning these areas back to a Pure Open Space designation.
4gn*aur-eo�-—�
ddress
4L
Jane* C�ackso:I
y35y 1 f� D06.
Joy(E (r,
NLtsa,�
VW, .
d d 60•do
ti
fi.
c
v� ti Z)P - -
FEB . 28 '95 10: 46AM E C-44
714 7 33OG P.1
ARCO Products Company RECEIVED COM
4 Centogminte DeN# Muhl► TY
n�
La Palma, Cslitomin 90623.1066 l [� ^0A,4C';T
Mailing Address: Box 5077
TtkPho a 71 a4 a Use °z2�o�7 �3 28 tq 1108
Real Estate Department
suits 300
W. James DeStephano
Community Development Director
21660 E. Copley Dr., Suits 190
Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765-4177
February 28, 1995
Re: Gcrieral 'Plan and Freeway Signs
ARCO am/prn at SWC Diamond Bar/Brea Canyon Rd.
Dear Mr. DeStephano.-
I will not be able to attend the Public Ht a6ig tonight, but want to provide public input to the
land use portion of the General Plan .
Businesses located near freeway exits serve the needs of the motorists traveling those freeways.
Not only are the businesses dependent on this freeway traffic, but the motorists are also
dependent on these businesses for essential services such as gas and food sales. The city also
benefits from these sales.
When these businesses are not visible from the freeway and there are no visible signs, passing
mutorists will not stop. They have no opportunity to learn about Diamond Bar from the
freeway. In general, this meaus that the freeway locations must charge highm prices to make up
for the loss of volume. This is not in the best interest of the city, the local residetts, or the
passing motorists.
Representing ARCO, l urge Diamond Bar to implement a freeway sign policy that allows
businesses located within a minimal distance from a freeway exit to serve the passing motorists.
A minimal number of signs would nut detract from the beauty of the smundings. Other cities
are also reconsidering freeway signage that they find acceptable.
U the city would like to work with some of the businesses to develop standards that would be
both appealing and fair to the businesscz, l would like to volunteer to be involved. Thank you
for your review of this request.
Sincerely,
L�
Eric Cahn
Sr. Real Estate Pi.Trescntative
ARCO Products Cu.
714 760-5305
A"Co ft"— C«.,.,,.. «.,�.,..,,..►