HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/8/1991Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of
June 24, 1991, as amended. C/Grothe abstained.
Annual Chair/Schey requested nominations for Chairman.
Reorganization
of the Planning C/MacBride nominated C/Grothe for Chairman.
Commission Chair/Schey seconded the nomination.
C/Lin nominated VC/Harmony for Chairman.
VC/Harmony seconded the nomination.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to close the nominations.
Upon VC/Harmony's request, candidates C/Grothe and
VC/Harmony expressed their goals and objectives for
seeking the appointment.
Chair/Schey called for the vote on the nomination
for C/Grothe as Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride, Schey and
Grothe.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 8, 1991
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:00
P.M. in the Walnut Valley School District Board
Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner MacBride, Commissioner Lin,
Commissioner Grothe, Vice Chairman Harmony, and
Chairman Schey.
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City Planner
Emeritus Irwin Kaplan, District Attorney Bill
Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES:
VC/Harmony requested that the Minutes of June 24,
1991 be amended on page 4, third paragraph, to read
June 24, 1991
"...property without filling in an ecologically
sensitive canyon.', with the remaining sentence
deleted; and page 6, first paragraph, to read
"...the Enforcement Officer should have code
enforcement authority.".
jC/Lin
requested that the Minutes be corrected on
page 5 to indicate the correct spelling of Dr. Lam.
C/MacBride requested that the Minutes be amended on
page 6, last paragraph, sixth line to read "...Code
which are...".
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of
June 24, 1991, as amended. C/Grothe abstained.
Annual Chair/Schey requested nominations for Chairman.
Reorganization
of the Planning C/MacBride nominated C/Grothe for Chairman.
Commission Chair/Schey seconded the nomination.
C/Lin nominated VC/Harmony for Chairman.
VC/Harmony seconded the nomination.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to close the nominations.
Upon VC/Harmony's request, candidates C/Grothe and
VC/Harmony expressed their goals and objectives for
seeking the appointment.
Chair/Schey called for the vote on the nomination
for C/Grothe as Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride, Schey and
Grothe.
July 8, 1991
f r
mz:.d
Page 2
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Lin.
Chair/Schey called for the vote on the nomination
for VC/Harmony as Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin and Harmony.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride, Schey, and
Grothe.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
C/Grothe was appointed Chairman of the Commission.
Chair/Grothe requested nominations for Vice
Chairman.
VC/Harmony nominated C/Lin for Vice Chairman.
C/Lin declined the nomination.
C/Lin nominated C/MacBride for Vice Chairman.
VC/Harmony seconded the nomination.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to close the nominations
for Vice Chairman.
Chair/Grothe called for the vote on the nomination
for C/MacBride as Vice Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schey, Harmony, Lin, and
Chair/Grothe.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride.
C/MacBride was appointed Vice Chairman of the
Commission.
Honorary Chair/Grothe presented a plaque to C/Schey, on
Plaque behalf of the Commission and staff, honoring him
for holding the position as first Planning
Commission Chairman.
VC/MacBride extended his appreciation to C/Schey
for his dedicated service. He also extended his
appreciation to C/Harmony for his dedication as
Vice Chairman.
NEW BUSINESS: PD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the
direction from the City Council that the Sign
rsigns Ordinance and its proposed changes be returned to
the Planning Commission. The City Council
recommended that the Commission review the attached
staff corrections and proposed amendments as
outlined by the Chamber of Commerce. PD/DeStefano
explained that the matter need not be a noticed
public hearing due to the direction received by the
July 8, 1991 Page 3
City Council. It is recommended that the
Commission open this matter for public testimony
and direct staff accordingly.
VC/MacBride requested an explanation as to why Real
Estate signs are restricted by day and time, as
indicated on pages 26 & 27 of the Sign Ordinance.
DA/Curley explained that the restrictions are not
based on any legal requirement, but rather are
based on similar structures utilized in other
cities.
PD/DeStefano explained that the indicated
restrictions correspond with real estate caravans.
Staff will verify that the days and times listed
correspond to local real estate caravans.
Chair/Grothe stated that 6 sq. ft. for an open
house sign seems excessive. He directed staff to
check the sizes of local open house signs currently
being utilized. The intent is not to outlaw the
size, but to insure that the size does not
increase.
C/Schey stated that open house signs need not be
restricted by particular days, and that liberal
time slots are adequate. He also indicated that
one off-site sign on an intersection should
suffice.
Bill Curley explained that the ordinance is
referring to the number of signs allowed at any
given intersection, rather than the aggregate
allocated to an open house.
C/Schey questioned, if more than two real estate
agents feel a need to utilize the intersection for
directional signs, which sign is removed by the
Code Enforcement Officer.
Chair/Grothe suggested that no more than one from
each real estate company be allowed on the arterial
streets.
C/Schey suggested limiting open house signs to be
on-site.
C/Lin noted that if the open house signs are
limited to on-site only, it would create difficulty
in selling the property.
PD/DeStefano suggested that staff will confer with
the local Board of Realtors for their recommended
July 8, 1991
Page 4
guidelines for on-site and off-site signs, and
bring the information back to the Commission.
Chair/Grothe noted, on page 26E, the configuration
allows one window sign per ground level lease
space. He requested that it be amended to include
second story owners.
Chair/Grothe opened the discussion to the public.
Fred Scalzo, representing the Chamber of Commerce
Municipal Advisory Committee, addressed the
Commission regarding the prepared letter, submitted
to the Commission, concerning the signage issue.
He noted that the majority of signs existing in
Diamond Bar would be illegal following the
ordinance as proposed. He reviewed each area of
concern indicated in the prepared letter. In
summary, he stated that there is a need to restrict
signage, however, he suggested that it is
impossible to legislate good taste.
C/Harmony, referring to the summary of the letter
I presented by the Chamber of Commerce, questioned
if, as they said in Mission Viejo, signage could be
e., pegged as the cause of failure in Mission Viejo. A
check with the City revealed that sales tax
revenues were up and their Chamber had virtually no
complaints with their sign ordinance. He
emphasized that signage tends to create an
ambiance in the community that helps produce the
kind of customer one wants to attract. He then
inquired of staff what kind of signage projects
would be included under the $1,000.00 fee type
structure.
PD/DeStefano explained that under the present fee
structure, any sign requiring review by the
Commission, not incorporating a public hearing,
would presently run $1,000.00. Under the recently
adopted fee structure, effective September of 1991,
fees for public hearing projects are a direct
result of the number of hours it would take to
process the application.
C/Schey inquired if a typical store front sign,
which is part of an approved sign program, would
come to the Commission for review.
PD/DeStefano responded th,
it could be handled by
involves 2 or 3 tenants
sign contractor, then it
the Commission.
Lt if it is a single sign,
staff. However, if it
simultaneously, with one
would require review by
July 8, 1991 Page 5
C/Schey noted that the Chamber of Commerce made a
lot of good points, some of which will need some
reconsideration by the Commission. He indicated
that he would like to give some thought to the
sizes of signs, and the complexity of the approval
process for simple signs.
VC/MacBride inquired, of Mr. Scalzo, how many
people were involved in the compilation of the data
indicating that the community does not perceive
current signage to detract from its character.
Mr. Scalzo described the origin of the project, the
method used to survey the type of signage programs
used by center managements, and the opinions of the
individual business owner.
Bob Falker, residing at 22060 East Cedardale,
representing the Chamber of Commerce, explained
that the questions used in the survey were designed
to draw out the policies currently used, and
determine the effects when compared with the
proposed sign ordinance.
VC/MacBride, referring to the survey taken by the
Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA), noted
that the survey indicated that residents approved a
more strict signage ordinance. It is a matter of
judgement of what is good for the community.
Mr. Scalzo stated that the intent of the business
community and the residential community should not
be separated. Everyone desires Diamond Bar to
remain a beautiful City. He stated that they think
the proposals given are reasonable, and request
that the Commission consider them very thoroughly.
Iom Kiei, residing at 3301 Parking Ridge, owner of
the shopping center on Fountain Springs and Diamond
Bar Blvd., expressed his concern for the
relationship between the survival of his tenant's
businesses, and the visibility of the signage to be
permitted.
Robert Zirbes, residing at 2141 Tierra Loma Dr.,
representing the DBIA, reemphasized the survey
previously mentioned by VC/MacBride.
Bob Falker stated that it is necessary to assure
that business thrive to insure the survival of the
community. Sixty percent of the business community
would not meet the present requirements of the sign
ordinance. He suggested that, in regards to
freeway signs, the signage should be assertive to
July 8, 1991 Page 6
i
encourage outside customers to spend money in
Diamond Bar.
The Commission reviewed the proposals presented by
the Chamber of Commerce. The Commission concluded
that:
Wall Siqns for Individual Use
Section 106 A2 and 108 D3 - It is to remain as
originally proposed, with the inclusion that it
should not exceed 80% of the frontage of the
establishment. Exceptions for centers should be
looked at as a variance.
Freestanding Monument Signs
Section 108 D1 - It is to remain as originally
proposed.
Freestanding Monument Sians for Commercial Centers
Section 108 D4 - It is to remain as originally
proposed with the exception of allowing for a
special circumstance variance.
' Chair/Grothe called for a recess at 9:43 p.m. The
meeting was called to order'at 9:49 p.m.
Freeway Signs
Section 102 D5 and 108 D3 - The Commission
concurred with the Chamber of Commerce' suggestion
that freeways and freeway visibility should not be
considered differently than surface streets.
Review and Permit Approval - The Commission
requested that staff develop a program in which
encourages centers to develop their sign program to
meet the City's criteria. Staff will review the
following items: Window Signs, Wall Signs for
multi -use buildings or commercial centers;
Government Flags; and Building I. D. Signs. The
Commission prefers to review the following items:
Freestanding Monument Signs; Civic Organizations
Signs/ Institutional Signs/Church Signs; Subdivision
or Rental Community Signs; and Attraction Boards.
µ Section 106 Al - Staff indicated that they will ask
the Chamber of Commerce to be more specific as to
what interpretation they are concerned with.
Section 108 B1 - The item was previously addressed.
July 8, 1991 Page 7
71
- Section 108 B2 - The Commission requested that
staff determine the need for the change. If the
need is valid, then the Commission is in consensus
to allow the item to be changed.
Section 108 D2 - The Commission concurred that 250
was adequate for permanent signs. Staff was
requested to develop an appropriate restriction for
holiday window sign coverage.
Section 108 D10 - The Commission concurred that the
item should remain as originally proposed.
Review of Draft CPE/Kaplan addressed the Commission regarding the
Land Use Element Draft Land Use Element of the 1991 General Plan.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to familiarize
the Commission with the General Plan process and,
specifically, the Land Use Element. The
Commissions comments will be forwarded to the City
Council for their review, and their comments will
be incorporated into final documents returned to
the Planning Commission for adoption in September.
He suggested that the Commission review the
document indicated by asterisks, and request the
GPAC to review those items and advise the
Commission appropriately. He explained that the
GPAC concentrate mostly on the relationship between
land use and circulation. Lloyd Zola and Kent
Norton, from the Planning Network, and Kathy
Higley, Transportation Consultant from DKS, will
introduce how land use and circulation come
together, and what the key components are.
Lloyd Zola, from the Planning Network, explained
that the objective of the plan is to maintain the
quality of residential neighborhoods.
Kathy Higley, from DKS, presented a copy of the
Draft Circulation Element to the Commission. She
explained that it is designed to begin to frame and
define the transportation issues within Diamond
Bar. It begins to focus on local circulation needs
and balancing those needs with regional demands and
mandates. An extensive existing inventory was done
on the circulation system in Diamond Bar. She
explained that a travel forecast model was also
developed which took into consideration the
potential land use alternatives; land use
implications surrounding Diamond Bar; and
circulation system alternatives that is being
considered by outlined jurisdictions, and its
implications to Diamond Bar.
uHi uu i i i r i - --- in m nM1Tr1`1_ �n_M..
July 8, 1991 Page 8
CPE/Kaplan stated that Diamond Bar's road network
was developed to service the region. We are
attempting, in the General Plan, to restore those
roads to service local needs to the extent that it
is possible. This will present some implications
and ramifications.
Kathy Higley stated that chapters 5 and 7, of the
Draft, referring to the future conditions, are
designed to present the issue, present both sides
of the implications, including the benefits and the
disadvantages, as well as the impacts. They are
intended to be guiding decisions to the quality of
life issues.
Lloyd Zola explained that the GPAC focused on how
to preserve the existing community, as well as
determine the effects and impacts we have on other
communities' decision making. He stated that open
space was also a major issue, and that three types
of open space policies relating to land use was
dealt with: dedicated open space; lands identified
as committed to open space; and vacant lands with
developable inventory. He reviewed some of the
themes of the General Plan: to protect and preserve
the environment; to assure that a major regional
road not go through Tonner Canyon; to develop basic
policy direction on new development to make Diamond
Bar a city to look at, not just from; and to
provide a mix of land uses within the City.
CPE/Kaplan explained that the major areas where
most change can take place is Tonner Canyon and
Tres Hermanos. Most of the development of the
community will be an extension of that trend, or
existing trends. Also, a general philosophy of the
plan is to focus and define the commercial areas of
Diamond Bar, and determine the use of the open
space.
The following is the verbatim dialogue during the
July 8, 1991 meeting regarding the GPAC:
C/Harmony - "In the GPAC process, how many public
hearings did they hold?"
CPE/Kaplan - "They didn't hold hearings as such.
They held meetings. And those meetings, of course,
were opened to the public."
C/Harmony - "How were they advertized?"
CPE/Kaplan - "They were not advertized, other than,
I think they were only by, only through the GPAC
YAH bill noirm�NYWJMWnFN---^m..*yl'CJfb.P��Lr3'•"•••.^.• «•rr».. ..—. a�+JI1Lv fC rnrvmmMwigwMuwvnmuu.wrrzv u_..__- __.___,__ _ __ __ __ _ __
July 8, 1991 Page 9
C
i
themselves. It was a working group, it was
designed and intended as a working group."
C/Harmony - "Was there public notice put on the
front hall, front door of the City Hall type of
notice?"
CPE/Kaplan - "I don't recall if there was any
noticing other than the mail outs that the GPAC had
their meetings, and their meetings were being
held."
Chair/Grothe - "I think I've seen it in the press a
few times. But..."
PD/DeStefano - "Yeah, it's been in the press a few
times and...
C/Harmony - "What kind of notices were in the
press? I remember one with you (DeStefano) in
front of City Hall talking about that there was
going to be a full public participation, and full
— reports. Did we advertize meeting dates and
schedules? Either through the press or through
=rz
advertising?"
PD/DeStefano - "Not that I can recall, other than
we had a feature story on the GPAC and the General
Plan in one of the community newsletters. And it
has been discussed from time to time. The
community newsletter is the only one I can focus on
right now."
C/Harmony - "That's the one with your picture on
it."
PD/DeStefano - "No."
C/Schey - "Didn't the GPAC have a series of
meetings in various areas of the City with the idea
of having like input from different areas of the
City?"
PD/DeStefano - "Not that I am aware of."
C/Harmony - "That's precisely what they started off
to do. They never did."
C/Schey - "They never actually got implemented."
C/Harmony - "So this comes to us basically produced
by 30 wise and committed gentleman with
professional staff and very little public support."
_-.Y-..wl7.. .Ili rifl'. '.ll kI
IV7
July 8, 1991 Page 10
CPE/Kaplan - "I would say that, yeah, it was not
intended as a document to derive public support.
It was intended to give you a document for which
you will derive..."
C/Harmony - "But now we have a very complicated
document, and I would hope at some point in time
we'd be able to summarize it and start to get it
out, not just announcing public hearings that we're
going to have to face the, the results on. But
that there is an education process going out prior
to that."
PD/DeStefano - "Well there in fact is, there."
C/Harmony - "Public hearings are not enough for the
total life of the community. And that's what this
document is."
PD/DeStefano - "No, that's not what I am referring
to. The September edition of the Community Wide
newsletter is going to be devoted substantially to
the General Plan. Which will be published the end
of August, well in advance of the public hearing
process. We're also are planning on articles and
stories that we can get from the local news media
regarding it, as well as the public hearing
notification and so forth."
C/Harmony - "Now I agree with that whole heartedly.
I think that the newsletter is a little shallow, as
one professional to another, and that I'd hope that
you would take a pen to it, you and Irwin, to get
some details into it and those real meat, and I
would have liked to see more of this earlier on.
But I think that we should be aware of what we're
facing here."
C/Schey - "Well I think the practicality though is
that the typical John Q. Public can't get to
excited about a document that is being done. They
get a little bit more excited about seeing a
document, being told what it is, and saying oh I
have some interest in that."
C/Harmony - "Yeah but they are not going to John Q.
Public. Thi's is bureaucratese now. It used to,
started off where they could walk in, and say, you
know, this is my neighborhood that you're meeting
! in and this is what went wrong and this is what is
wrong in my neighborhood. And that's what we'd
hope for we'd be getting."
July 8, 1991 Page 11
F—,
mx, CPE/Kaplan - "I think that what we'd like to do is
boil it down to a few simple concepts that people
will relate to. That then they could go to the
plan and see how their neighborhood is affected.
But I think that is the point of taking the
document that is not really designed to tell a
story and turn it into a story that people can
understand, is something we would like to do, we
want to do. Any other questions before I ask the
consultant to stand up."
VC/MacBride noted that there is a reference in the
document, page 8, that states, "There is a need to
foster a City image that reflects and defines the
community's high quality of life." He indicated
that the term, "high quality of life" in Diamond
Bar, is an assumption, and should be recognized as
such. When Diamond Bar was developed, it was not
represented by a civic center, a theater, a museum,
a senior citizen center, or a major library. Those
who came here, settled for less, and was attracted
to the quiet, simple community living, with minimum
disruption. He emphasized that the planping
problem will be to persuade the quiet, near
majority, of residents, that the change to a new
�.2 "high quality of life", can be beneficial.
The following is the verbatim speech delivered by
VC/MacBride during the July 8, 1991 meeting.
"Well I found this report extremely interesting,
very helpful, somewhat challenging and I found
myself wrestling with a quite different problem
than I thought I would wrestle with. I thought
that I would be wrestling with the problem of
where's the money going to come from, which freely
translated into my mind ... What are going to do with
Tres Hermanos? That's where money is going to come
from. Then I said to myself, the second source is
going to be the golf course area with the village
concept. And after reading this report, I found
myself changing my point of view. Not about where
the money is coming from. I think that at some
point we have to get money from somewhere. And I
found the economic meetings that we had very
persuasive, the little chart, simplistic though it
is, the five year doomsday, when revenue and costs
hit one another. And then I've been, I've been,
worrying about this all week. I found that there
f was an assumption. I feel there is an assumption
that I hadn't noticed before. I'm just becoming
aware of it. As a result of the econ meetings, as
a result of partial participation in GPAC, as part
result of reading this report, there is one thing
III II1i1U11 ".1 11
July 8, 1991 Page 12
that is beginning to stick out with me, and I don't
know whether I'm on the edge of idiocy, or whether
I really have a problem with all of this. And...
if you don't mind my free wheeling for about 2 or 3
minutes, I'd like to express this so that I could
get some feedback. You know ... someone could say go
and retire in a sanitarium, or whatever...
My concern has to do with an assumption that I
heard at virtually all of these meetings, that I
have been hearing from all of these leading people
that we have been meeting with. Not the public.
We have not been meeting with the public. This
little bi play was very instructive, that you
(Harmony) generated. And it is not in criticism.
this was the only way we could generate paper,
generate ideas, get them down so the public could
begin to approach it. That was not criticism, that
was just pointing out where we are. But I find
myself wrestling with a quite different problem
that I think is basic to what we've got to face if
we are going to face the public issue at some
point. And the public we have to face at some
point. If the public doesn't want what we think is
good for them, the public will go their own way and
- water will seek it's level.
on page 1 or I8, of this document, there is an
issue analysis at the bottom that sums up where my
concern starts. It says, "there is a need to
foster a City image that reflects and defines",
reflects and defines, "the communities High Quality
of Life." And the theme "High Quality of Life" has
been so bruted about... someone even took a poke at
the idea that we were a planned community.
Somewhere there is a reference to, that almost
implies this is a joke. That the planned community
thing is, is... didn't really happen that way at
all. And I began thinking about the quality of
life, and I'm now at the point where I don't agree
with that statement at all. Not from the view
point of our leadership, but from the viewpoint of
the citizens who live here. Even today, I think a
near majority. So I began to scribble down some
thoughts that I had about this.
I think Diamond Bar's High Quality of Life, quote
High Quality of Life assumption, is a myth. It is
not a fact. and I think we have to understand this
myth if we're going to be successful in doing what
we properly should be doing as leaders... trying to
get somewhere for a better quality of life. I
think that's our goal. Better quality of life. I
think we want to get there. But I think we don't
__..._._
July 8, 1991 Page 13
understand the mythology on which some of this is
based, we're going to lose. None of our plans are
going to materialize successfully because our
public won't accept it. So I began saying what was
the quality of life. For years, this was nothing
but a satrapy, it was an insolate possession of an
indifferent County government. The areas image was
projected by a windmill, and a public water
fountain, which was symbols of early California
life, and for all practical purposes, they don't
exist any more. They're about as inept as a
buffalo on a nickel. The buffalo however were not
extinct. Now within that era of California's early
ranch days, and"with that mind set, I believe that
the essence of Diamond Bar's life, life quality,
was dominated by four factors...One, minimal
regulatory interference. Two, minimal political
responsibility. Three, minimal tax and assessment
problems. And four, minimal public facilities and
services. And I think that constitutes a way of
life for approximately half of Diamond Bar
residents. Who may still wish to preserve it that
way. And that's where our problem lies if we're
really going to plan. Not only about plans, but
how we get to our plans. This group, this 50% that
I think is there, does not perceive that if the
area were still unincorporated the county taxes and
assessments would rise to meet the broad general
costs. They don't even understand that if they
just sat there, taxes would be going up. From that
era, Diamond Bar has inherited a vintage ranch Post
Office, now serving some 60,000 residents, with
administrative oversight in another City. A little
miserable problem all by itself. This, quote, High
Quality of Life, was not represented by a civic
center, a theatre, a museum, a senior citizen
center, or a major library. The youth center is a
"Y" embracing Diamond Bar and Walnut, owned and
administered by another City. The major
thoroughfare, Diamond Bar Boulevard, was and is
merely in one part a connector device for two
regional transportation corridors, 57 and 60. The
northerly half of the device is without a protected
central dividing strip or a median. It's
incredible when you think about it, talk about
circulation. Small wonder that incorporation, city
hood effort failed twice. Basically, those who
first settled here did not choose to select a
Pasadena civic center, they didn't choose to select
an Ontario, or Pomona library, a San Dimas post
office, a Montclair shopping mall, a Fullerton
light opera, an E1 Monte museum, or similar city
social and cultural services. they did listen to
July 8, 1991 Page 14
promises of a high school in north Diamond Bar,
promises which were unhappily not realized.
It is my contention, and I have been worrying about
this, and this is the point of sanity that I was
discussing. It is my contention that those who
came here settled for less. A great deal less.
What was the attraction? Because you have to say
to them "why?".......
...because revenue will not keep up with the
costs ... and assuming a status quo on revenues.
That such a charge is the sign, for them, that
changes is in the works. And that revenue sources,
e.g. taxes, are being studied and considered and
that the older County minimum quality of life
levels will be erased step by step to their
unhappiness. As I see it the former quality of
life is still represented in part by old cars we
see parked on residential front lawns, by overnight
parking of trucks, RV's and autos on residential
streets, by flags and banners and floating aerial
devices decorating various commercial enterprises,
or by overall painting of commercial windows for
business advertisement. That is the old way of
-r life. For those of us are trying to create
something new, a really high quality of life, I
don't believe the task is going to be easy. Not
the task of devising what it should be like, the
task of getting our 50% to understand that it could
be of great benefit and a wonderful creation for
them. That's where I think our planning problem
really lies. I don't want to call it a PR problem
because I think that's denigrating the problem. It
requires citizen's understanding and desire, it
requires creative planning that respects
conflicting demands of residential, commercial,
business, social, cultural pressures. It requires
a responsible expertise to find appropriate revenue
sources to finance the life style that we really,
really want to achieve, a small group of us now.
And at the broadest political, social context, we
must accomplish these new goals with a minimum
disruptive impact on those who yearn for the old
quality of life, and who yearn to merely be left
alone.
Now in going through this, I had to search my own
soul, I realized that I'm responsible therefore by
providing an appropriate wish of action list. But
I don't want to go into that now. That's not part
of what I'm attacking. I have a 5 page action list
that all of you, you all know all of the details.
My action list may be a little warped or a little
11 iii 11�1711 1 11
__-
July 8, 1991 Page 15-
K-
�� different. For example, I would like to see a
creative approach to ... this community has been
terrified of being ramrodded by a regional
corridor, and you've just had Grand Ave. ramrodded
through this community till hell wouldn't have it.
Now that same fear is going to accept the
ramrodding of some kind of an extension of Sunset
Crossing in the City of Industry. If it happened
once, it will happen again. I think planning would
decide if you are going to extend the "Y"
playground over to the baseball field in sufficient
dimensions that you can't ramrod the street
through. And that we are politically astute enough
to take the baseball field and extend it—it is a
much needed facility and it ought to be
extended ... to connect with the State owned vacant
land which is virtually land locked next to it.
And by wise politicking in Sacramento, I think we
could do something there, make a massive park at
that end... I guess what I am saying to you all,
I've labored through this, and I am not trying to
play the phony picture. What I really feel is that
there is a quiet, undigested, near majority, darn
�r close, I don't care about that last vote, I think
there's 50% still out there, that just want to be
rleft alone, who don't want to answer the mail, who
don't want to talk about taxes, who don't want to
hear about a new assessment district, who aren't
going to sit and talk about the rising cost, the
needed revenue and so on, that we have to deal
with. it is a political problem. But it runs
deeper. It is a social problem. And a social
problem runs into the basic psychology of that
group and that group, I think, came here for lesser
reasons than we have ascribed to them.' And I may
be one of them. I am not sure as I look back upon
my purchase, that I had such...I did not check out
the school system, why not?, I did not have a
youngster to put through the school system. I
didn't therefore get angry at a non High School in
northern Diamond Bar, I had no reason to. I didn't
check out the lack of museums, or the lack or
cultural amenities. I didn't question why there
was not a public fountain now, or no public
sculptures or civic center. I didn't need them
because I thought of driving to Pasadena, to
wherever to achieve these things. I go to the
Ontario library, or the Pomona library, for my
librarial needs, generally. I do not mean to be
denigrating the community. The 50o who want to be
left alone, that's a deep psychological privilege
that they have. And we're not going to leave them
alone. And events aren't going to leave them
alone. And somehow if we can understand this, and
July 8, 1991 Page 16
sympathize with this, and know how to handle, to
plan to handle so that the plans can be placed in
their hands. As I see it this is our great big
problem and'that is what I wanted to say."
C/Schey concurred that the vast majority of
residents want to keep things simple and not become
a major city such as Pasadena, and Irvine.
However, there is a requirement that the community
have parks and facilities for children.
Chair/Grothe, concurring with VC/MacBride, stated
that an increase in level of service traffic
amenities is not the reason why he moved to Diamond
Bar. He prefers to travel to facilities, such as
malls.
C/Harmony indicated that the development of freeway
type over passes at Grand Avenue and diamond Bar
Blvd. will hurt local businesses and will actually
encourage more traffic because of its added
accessibility.
Lloyd Zola summarized that the "high quality of
life" seems to be largely a factor of convenience,
a whereas, facilities are close but not located in
Diamond Bar. Because of the location of the
community, residents have been able to enjoy a lot
of amenities and facilities without paying the
price for them. There is a high quality of life,
even though it is not right in town.
ADJOURNMENT:
r
L
CPE/Kaplan stated that one of the things that will
be done in the General Plan is defining what is the
"high quality of life".
chair/Grothe stated that deciding the "quality of
life", and the development of the City, based upon
how much more sales tax revenue can be generated,
is ludicrous. He suggested that the residents be
asked to determine what facilities are important,
and place it as a ballot measure.
C/Harmony complimented GPAC on the solutions stated
in the document.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
11:40 p.m.
Respectively,
1.7`1 -11 'A 11M-777- . - _.__._._.._.. '"Mil �-
A
July 8, 1991 Page 17
Attest:
'ack Grothe
Chairman
j
1
,Tai s DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
j