Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/2018 AgendaPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA April 24, 2018 7:00 P.M. City Hall, Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Naila Barlas Frank Farago Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke Ken Mok Raymond Wolfe Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at 21810 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 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 Community Development Department at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. I►LL110�11 IiAIII refrain from smokina. eating or drinking in the Windmill Community Room of Diamond Bar uses paper ana encourages you io ao me same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission MEETING RULES PUBLIC INPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission 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 Planning Commission. A request to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission. 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 individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the contact information below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded and duplicate recordings 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. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Friday. HELPFUL CONTACT INFORMATION Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, CDs of Meetings (909) 839-7030 Email: info(cDdiamondbarca.ctov Website: www.diamondbarca.gov CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 24, 2018 AGENDA Next Resolution No. 2018-04 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS - ADMINISTERED BY TOMMYE CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK 2. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Naila Barlas, Frank Farago, Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Ken Mok, Raymond Wolfe 3. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Selection of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. 4. This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's 5. M 7. 8. 9. 10 11 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairperson The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 6.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: February 13, 2018 6.2 January 30, 2018 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARING(S): None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 11.1 Prosect Status Report APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 12. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY: 13. ADJOURNMENT: Thursday, April 26, 2018, 7:00 pm Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Tuesday, May 1, 2018 — 6:30 pm South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21825 Copley Drive Tuesday, May 8, 2018, Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Thursday, May 10, 2018, 7:00 pm Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Tuesday, May 15, 2018 — 6:30 pm South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21825 Copley Drive Tuesday, May 22, 2018, Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Monday, May 28, 2018 In observance of the holiday, City Offices will be closed. City offices will re -open on Tuesday, May 29, 2017 1., C M >• 0 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 2018 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Wolfe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice-Chair/Mok led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Naila Barlas, Frank Farago, Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Vice -Chairman Kevin Mok, and Chairman Raymond Wolfe Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Mayuko (May) Nakajima, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting: January 23, 2018: VC/Mok moved, C/Barlas seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 23, 2018, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None Barlas, Farago, Mahlke, VC/Mok, Chair/Wolfe None None FEBRUARY 13, 2018 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. PL2017-187 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.38, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a 4,985 square foot single family residence with 480 square feet of garage area and 540 square feet of patio/balcony area, on a 1.09 gross acre (47,480 gross square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2031 Rusty Spur Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Yin -Chu Chang 2031 Rusty Spur Road Diamond Bar, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Raymond Pan 1142 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard #460 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AP/Nakajima presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2017-187, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Wolfe opened the public hearing. Raymond Pan, Project Architect, said he was pleased to see this project through, which he felt would be a great addition to the community. Chair/Wolfe closed the public hearing. VC/Mok said that when he looked at the plans it appeared to him it would look like an office building. When he visited the site he found it would fit in with most of the contemporary looking elements on the back side, whereas, the front matched with the homes in the nearby neighborhood, which caused him to go back and review the renderings and attachments with a different perspective. As such, he felt the Architect had done a good job on his design and offered Kudos to Mr. Pan. f FEBRUARY 13, 2018 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Farago moved, C/Mahlke seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2017-187, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Farago, Mahlke, VC/Mok, Chair/Wolfe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Wolfe complimented AP/Nakajima on her report. 7.2 Development Review No. PL2017-133 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a 7,093 square foot single family residence with 2,218 square feet of garage area and 1,452 square feet of deck/patio/balcony area, on a 0.92 gross acre (40,269 gross square foot) undeveloped lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. No protected trees are being removed as part of this project. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2740 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Jeff Tsui and Wendy Hsu 22121 Saleroso Drive Rowland Heights, CA 91748 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 180 N. Benson Avenue, Suite D Upland, CA 91786 AP/Nakajima presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2017-133, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval listed within the resolution. Chair/Wolfe said that when these reports come to the Commission from The Country, The Country Estates Architectural Committee has already approved the proposed project and in this case they have not yet done so. AP/Nakajima explained that in this case, the applicant is working to get approval from The Country. Chair/Wolfe asked if in the event the committee FEBRUARY 13, 2018 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION made a substantial change, if this project would come back before the Planning Commission and AP/Nakajima responded "yes." VC/Mok said he remembered that the neighboring project previously came before the Commission about a year ago and the Commission approved that project. He also remembered that at that time, he, VC/Mok, asked the owner if since the road was in disrepair, would he be repairing it so that the asphalt was smooth and brought back to a good condition and the applicant's response was yes, so he is glad that issue was brought up again and if someone is concerned about the road, staff should be able to contact the original owner to get him to respond if it was not done. AP/Nakajima said that VC/Mok was correct and that staff did reach out to the owner who had no specific timeline as to when they would repair the street but again agreed he would do the repair. Chair/Wolfe believed that since the roadway in question is a private roadway, it is not under the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. He believed the question was asked, but that it was not a condition of the project approval at the time. AP/Nakajima said that Chair/Wolfe's recollection of the situation was correct. Chair/Wolfe opened the public hearing. Pete Volbeda, Project Architect, said this project was a little different for him because it is a different style on an uphill lot. The client hopes to have the Commission approve this project. Curt Chen, said he is the owner of the 2690 Steeplechase house. He shared his concern that the middle house (between his property and the project site) was constructed six years ago and it was half done when the new applicant came forward last year. When Mr. Chen got the notice of that project, it was too late for him to comment. Six years ago when the middle house was started it took a year and a half or so just to lay the foundation and that experience was, for him, horrific. The roadway was in good order prior to that time. Yes, it is a private road, but the owner was very non-responsive. When the road was torn up it was during the rainy season and it created a hazardous drive and he had difficulty stopping his vehicle when he drove down the slope which for him was extremely concerning when his kids were in the car. When driving up the slope, all the slurry would just go by. He tried for a very long time to get in touch with the property owner by calling, writing and leaving voice mails. However, the property owner was non-responsive and it seems that his thought is that he will fix it when his house is complete. That is a three year job and in the FEBRUARY 13, 2018 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION meantime, that is what Mr. Chen has to live with. Mr. Chen said he has had to go to The Country and find attorneys to get the young man to own up to his mistake and fix the road. As a result, the property owner spent $80,000 fixing Mr. Chen's side of the road, but he left the other side as -is. And the owner of the last house on the street had to spend his own money to fix that part of the roadway. Mr. Chen has been told it is a private matter and no one will help him but he is nevertheless seeking help to alleviate his nightmare Chair/Wolfe closed the public hearing. Chair/Wolfe said the Commission appreciates the speakers concerns and cannot directly attribute the experience he will have if the Commission approves this project this evening to what he experienced with the middle property. Unfortunately, as Chair/Wolfe mentioned a few moments ago, it is not a matter this Commission can control. The roadway is a private drive which means that it is a civil matter. C/Mahlke moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2017-133, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Farago, Mahlke, VC/Mok, Chair/Wolfe None None Chair/Wolfe said he understood Mr. Chen's concerns, especially with regard to the grading plan and the number of trucks that will be required to construct this project. He hoped that the applicant's representative would relay those concerns to the property owners and that they can be congenial neighbors as they go through the process of constructing the project. VC/Mok echoed Chair/Wolfe's statements. He drove to the site today and the condition of the road was exactly the same as it was last year. It is torn up, it is in disrepair and when one drives up the street the vehicle is swaying side to side and up and down. The roadway is drivable but it is very uncomfortable. He hoped the owner of the house between Mr. Chen's house and the project site would live up to his promise when he works on his house. FEBRUARY 13, 2018 r PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Mok said it was nice to see the Sprouts Center flourishing and active along with Chipotle and Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf. And, everyone is anxiously awaiting the completion of the McDonald's rehab. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Project Status Report. CDD/Gubman said that everyone should expect to see McDonald's open within 45 days. The Habit project is still in plan check. They resubmitted plans today and hopefully, building permits will be issued in the near future with business opening early mid -summer. CDD/Gubman said that the next scheduled Commission meeting is February 27th. There are no agenda items for that date at this time and that meeting will be canceled. It is also possible that there will not be a meeting on March 13th since there are no items currently queued up for that agenda. The first meeting in March is typically the reorganization date for the Planning Commission during which a new Chair and Vice -Chair are chosen, and if that meeting is canceled, reorganization will be rescheduled for the second March meeting on March 27tH C/Mahlke said that she has been asked if The Habit has pulled out of the deal and she has been told by several people there will not be a Habit. She will spread the word that the rumor is not true. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As posted in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Wolfe adjourned the regular meeting at 7:28 p.m. FEBRUARY 13, 2018 e"! n,, n. PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this April 24, 2018. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN UPDATE JANUARY 30, 2018 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Low called the Special Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members: Jimmy Lin, Nancy Lyons, Steve Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Herrera, and Mayor Ruth Low. Commissioners: Naila Barlas, Frank Farago, Jennifer Mahlke, Vice Chair Ken Mok and Chair Raymond Wolfe Also present: Dan Fox, City Manager; Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager; David DeBerry, City Attorney; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David Liu, Public Works Director; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator; Natalie Espinoza, Assistant Planner; Mayuko (May) Nakajima, Associate Planner, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. Consultants present: Rajeev Bhatia, AICP, ASLA, Partner, President and Project Manager, Dyett & Bhatia; Katharine Pan, Associate Planner, Dyett & Bhatia; Julia Malmo -Laycock, Planner, Dyett & Bhatia; Paul Herrmann, Senior Engineer, Fehr & Peers; Lance Harris, Partner, Pro Forma Advisors; Jane Lin, Founding Partner, Urban Field Studio 2. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (Phase II: Options and Strategies) - SELECTION OF A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN: CM/Fox turned the meeting over to CDD/Gubman who stated that the General Plan Update is currently in Phase II: Options and Strategies. This joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission marks the completion of Task 4 (Alternatives) with the selection of a Preferred Alternative Land Use Plan. CDD/Gubman summarized the meeting topics and provided a brief chronology of the prior GPAC meetings that led to the formulation of the three land use alternatives, distinguished primarily by their potential locations for a town center: JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 2 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG Alternative 1 places the town center within the Sprouts/Smart & Final corridor, which is the segment of Diamond Bar Boulevard between Golden Springs and the SR60 consisting of approximately 33 acres. In this alternative the golf course would remain as is. Alternatives 2 and 3 are on different portions of the golf course, with Alternative 2 south of Grand and Alternative 3 north of Grand. Through the process, there was a preference for Alternative 1 as voiced by the public and the GPAC in a 9-1 vote on November 30, 2017. However, the research compels staff to ask that a meaningful dialogue take place in which the merits of Alternative 2 are carefully considered before making this very important policy decision. Alternative 2 is unique among the three alternatives in that unlike the other locations where development would be adjacent to residential uses, Alternative 2 is presently far removed from residential development. Dedicating the remaining 125 acres of golf course property to the north side of Grand Avenue for future open space and recreational purposes would preserve the greenbelt adjacent to the Golden Prados and Racquet Club neighborhoods and retain Diamond Bar's area that has been referred to as its "front lawn." Another key factor to consider is ownership of the property. The quest to relocate the golf course will certainly be challenging and complex which is one of the reasons that General Plans look into a time horizon of usually 20 years into the future for implementation. The golf course, however, has the benefit of having only one owner which is the County of Los Angeles. In contrast, the buildout of Alternative 1 would require the cooperation of what is currently at least 15 different properties. Alternative 1 shows the town center within the already established Commercial District along Diamond Bar Boulevard north of Golden Springs. This area encompasses about 33 acres. A new town center in this location would likely focus on neighborhood serving retail and dining uses. Opportunities for regional retail and entertainment uses, as well as new public spaces and parks would be limited due to space constraints and the challenge of introducing such uses into that built environment. In contrast, there would be more flexibility and opportunities to accommodate a range of regional serving commercial uses under both Alternatives 2 and 3, as well as public spaces, recreational and community facilities. And the proximity and visibility to the SR57/60 freeway confluence may also support the regional competitiveness of businesses located within either of these town center alternative sites (2 and 3). JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE4 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG With respect to financial feasibility, based on conceptual studies prepared by Urban Field Studio, Alternatives 1 and 3 would require structured parking to accommodate the diversity of spaces desired for a town center, rendering the two sites financially infeasible without subsidies. However, the Alternative 2 site would not initially require structured parking due to its size and shape so developing that site is financially feasible to a developer at the outset. Next, it would be prudent to think about the future of the golf course with respect to what the County's future plans might be. Golf courses have been closing nationwide including within the San Gabriel Valley and Inland Empire and some plans to develop new golf courses have been canceled. Given that reality, it may be prudent for Diamond Bar to be proactive in expressing the City's expectations to the County should they ever consider repurposing the golf course site — so, regardless of which town center is selected, the City may wish to proactively consider long range planning policies for the eventual repurposing of the golf course, whether entirely for other recreational uses or for a more diverse palette of uses. Also, regardless of which alternative is selected as the preferred alternative, the General Plan Update should incorporate economic development policies to promote and incentivize the rehabilitation, revitalization, preservation and long term viability of all of the City's commercial properties. CDD/Gubman introduced Rajeev Bhatia for a detailed overview of the land use alternatives analysis. Rajeev Bhatia explained one of the principle changes is looking at introducing new, mixed-use land use designations to allow more options for flexibility on specific sites. There are three categories of mixed uses shown in all three alternatives. One is a neighborhood mixed use which is essentially a medium density housing with limited supporting commercial uses. In all three alternatives this is located at the very northern end of Diamond Bar Boulevard. The town center mixed use is a destination mixed-use which would be a community -wide draw with community serving retail, entertainment, hotel, dining types of uses. There may be housing allowed in these areas and if so, it would likely be of medium density because the primary use would be commercial use — dining and entertainment. This category would also encompass theaters and other public gathering spaces, plazas and so on. While each alternative has a town center the difference is where the town center is located. The third category is Transit -Oriented Mixed Use which would primarily be a high density housing designation. Office and commercial uses would be allowed as a JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 4 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG supporting use and all alternative uses shown in the area near the Metrolink station. A vast majority of the City, will not undergo or is not expected to undergo a change. This conversation is about changes specifically on a few sites in the City. Alternative 1 has a town center at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Drive which is where Sprouts is located along with other new development taking place. Given the size of the site and existing uses, many of the commercial uses are likely to have more of a neighborhood orientation as opposed to having larger regional scale attractions. In those alternatives there would be a mixed-use neighborhood along the northern portion of Diamond Bar Boulevard and transit - oriented housing near the Metrolink station. The golf course would not be impacted by the location of the town center in that area. Alternative 2 has the town center located in the southern half of the golf course. The northern portion of the golf course can either remain as a smaller golf course, a public park or some other recreational amenity which is why it is shown as a green color. Mr. Bhatia noted that the site shown as the town center in Alternative 1 can remain and continue to function as a commercial center. This town center would be an addition to that commercial center that incorporates Sprouts and Smart & Final. This town center would obviously have visibility from the freeway, direct access from the freeway and would lead to lesser impacts than the town center had it been located farther inward. In Alternative 3, the town center would be located in the northern portion of the golf course and the actual town center would occupy only a small area of the overall area. The water feature at the golf course would remain as -is and the northern half of the site would remain as open space. Again, in this alternative, the shopping center along Diamond Bar Boulevard would continue to function as it currently functions. Urban Design Concepts: Jane Lin, Urban Field Studio, said she was responsible for the designs presented this evening which make a lot of assumptions and are only one option out of many possible options. Alternative 1: The concept for Alternative 1 would be to create something new that would connect a quarter mile which is about a five minute walk from one end to the other. The development that is occurring is beginning to support ideas of pushing some of the new retail closer to the big street and forming a stronger street edge which for an urban designer is a really good start. But to make it really wonderful JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 5 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG for walking there needs to be more thought given to what is occurring. As additional retail space is added, there would likely be a need for parking structures. As these types of factors are weighed, it will impact the financial feasibility of this project. This is an infill site so a lot of buildings may not change. This design assumes that Sprouts would not change but the other stores might. What will happen naturally over time may not follow what this design shows, but the idea that things change over time and start to respect a new street and show circulation in a slightly different way and reinforce the retail that exists may create something a bit stronger than what is currently there. This scenario creates exciting thoughts about what could happen in the General Plan over a couple of decades. Alternative 2: With only one property owner, the concept of Alternate 2 includes a new street grid with new roads that come off of Golden Springs which includes a fairly substantial grade drop. One could envision coming down a slope to the main street which would be more or less in the center of the site. This is more of a destination where there could be a town square with hotels, one-story retail and surface only parking being completed in Phase I of a project. There is room for growth. For example, the surface parking could actually accommodate more structured parking with residential or office on top of the retail if it were developed. In this case, there are many variables to this alternative. With this alternative, the other half of the golf course can be left to be what it wants to be. Alternative 3: This alternative would have the opposite effect to Alternative 2 where a slightly reconfigured golf course could be retained on the south side or it could become a park. The town center concept involves only a small portion of the north side with room for landscaping and retention of existing trees. In order to deal with the parking in this option, if there was less surface parking, more of the natural landscape could be retained. This Alternative is more destination - oriented with a multi-plex theater and there is a town square which is much like the Victoria Gardens square which is surrounded with retail and is a great gathering place with a nice walk from an existing lake where there is a hotel and parking. This Alternative could be done without a parking structure. However, in that case there could be less retail or, there could be more surface parking. There are many things to consider in all three alternatives and she encouraged the group to try and draw out what they liked about them during the discussion period. Ms. Lin included other local examples of what a town center could look like including The Shoppes at Chino Hills which is a great example of what the scale could be. Another example of concepts is a nice mix of things at Victoria Gardens, Rancho Cucamonga, and a really nice main street feel like Village "West' in Claremont. She also looked at housing in the TOD area but it could also be included in the town center area as well which could incorporate commercial uses JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 6 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG at the ground floor. Many of these examples, however, are mixed-use on a horizontal level. Mr. Bhatia said that what Ms. Lin has shown are some ways of accomplishing development on these sites. The reason these sites were tested was to understand development possibilities and feasibility for these sites only. The General Plan will not dictate a specific design, a specific layout or mandate that the parking be structured or not structured. When the City provides direction they are not asking for City officials to decide whether the parking should be structured or not, that is a level of detail that would be considered at the project level when the development comes forward. The General Plan lays out a 20 -year long vision for the area and stating that if there were to be a town center, where would it be located, what would the general nature be and what would be the range of uses. Transportation/Circulation/Mobility Impacts Mr. Bhatia said that in all three land use alternatives there would be an increased demand for travel throughout Diamond Bar and the surrounding area, as well as an increase in vehicular travel volumes. Fehr & Peers ran numbers on traffic forecasting and on the existing general plan into 2040 to compare five conditions of daily trip generation, daily trip generation percent change, daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population (residents and workers) and daily VMT per service population (residents and workers). With respect to Daily Trip Generation, the three alternatives have almost the same number of trips being generated. Compared to the existing conditions, these numbers are fairly modest with a 7 to 8 percent trip generation increase over the next 20 years. The VMT per Service Population (number of jobs plus residential) per capita there is a slight decline in that number. Even though the overall VMT increases slightly and the population increases slightly, the jobs would increase 40-50 percent. Because of that, the VMT per capita is projected to decrease under each of these alternatives compared to the existing conditions, as well as the current General Plan. In short, because of the increased services in one location the number of daily trips and distances decreases. Fiscal Impacts Lance Harris, Pro Forma Advisors, said that in conducting their analysis, all three alternatives yielded a positive fiscal impact ranging from $5.6 million to $6.6 million. The proposed land uses helped diversify the fiscal revenue streams of the City, particularly from a retail perspective and also increased the amount of job - generating land uses. Financial Analysis refers specifically to an evaluation of the JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 7 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG theoretical financial performance of the six development concepts — the three town centers and the three TOD projects. From a financial perspective, all of the TOD sites were feasible. The major finding in terms of the town center sites was that the structured parking created a negative land value due to structured parking being very expensive. This is by no means absolute but more theoretical in attempting to understand the key differences in terms of the different planning programs. The analysis looked at hotel uses and retail uses, particularly with respect to Alternatives 2 and 3 that had the freeway adjacency and more of a regional, service and retail orientation where the fiscal impacts were much more significant. This analysis covers the theoretical residual land value which is another way of saying how much a developer would pay for the land in order to obtain the required profit. The sizes are different so the numbers are absolute but relatively similar in terms of the negative yield on Alternatives 1 and 3 and positively on Alternative 2. Community Outreach Katharine Pan, Dyett & Bhatia, explained the public outreach efforts to date which began on June 14, 2017, and continued through November 17, 2017. A number of communications and advertising methods were used. In addition, there were smaller events such as popups and information booths to reach a larger portion of the community. During this phase various tools were used including newspaper ads, lobby monitors and electric signage at City Hall and fire stations, postcards, City banners, project business cards, social media, and stakeholder engagement (educational institutions; HOAs, developers, etc). In addition, a social media tool kit was developed to provide key stakeholders with copy -ready text for incorporation into social media sites. Two direct mailings were used: a newsletter that gave information and introduction to all three Alternatives; and postcards about the survey which were mailed to all Diamond Bar addresses. News releases were also made through local media outlets. A community workshop was held on October 19, 2017, with about 130 people participating. Most participants were in favor of Alternative 1 for the following reasons: They wanted to retain the golf course as is; and wanted to focus on revitalizing an existing commercial area. There were several people that preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 because these particular sites would offer more flexibility due to their size and locations in the City that might provide more opportunity for civic uses like community centers, etc. Among those participants, more individuals preferred Alternative 2 to Alternative 3 due to its location across the street from existing commercial uses such as Target and because it was farther away from existing residential neighborhoods which would offer less likelihood of negatively impacting them. Other items that came up at the workshop included JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 8 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG concerns about traffic congestion and interest in uses like teen, senior, sports, recreation centers and community gathering spots, regional retail competition oversaturation and housing needs and whether there is a need for more housing types for renters (younger generation and lower income individuals) versus those who were interested in having no additional housing. An online survey was conducted using MetroQuest's template during the period October 12 through November 12 which was available in English, Korean and Chinese. There were 600 responses. Key themes were traffic, reluctance to develop the golf course out of environmental concerns and a desire to keep it as open space, as well as the contribution the golf course makes to the City's character. People also noted that the larger sites in Alternatives 2 and 3 would offer more flexibility. Housing was a divisive issue as well with some saying "no more housing and others saying there needed to be a broader range of options. There was also interest in more Transit Oriented Development and alternative transit projects to make it easier to get around. People were asked to rank 1-5 what they felt for each Alternative with 5 being the highest ranking. For Alternative 1 there were 197 "5" ratings and for the other two combined approximately 125 were evenly split between the two with a "5" rating. Reports on the community outreach and online survey are available online and have been for the past couple of months. The GPAC met at the end of November 2017 to receive a longer version of tonight's presentation, question staff and receive public comments. At the conclusion of that meeting the GPAC recommended Alternative 1 to be the preferred Alternative. Other feedback from GPAC members included wanting to make sure that even though there is a focus on the town center that there should be support for other local retail for their continued success in the long term. Members also wanted to consider other options for the golf course in the event that sometime in the future the County would decide to discontinue use at that site. Relative to parking structures and service parking, there should be consideration of potential changes for the parking ratio and improving transit opportunities for the town center for easier access and in general, consider traffic impacts that the new town center would have for the community. NEXT STEPS: Mr. Bhatia said that following the Council and Commission's selection of the Preferred Alternative, the project team will proceed with the fifth and final task in Phase II: The formulation of the preferred land use plan and the framework for policy development encompassing land use, urban design, open space, and transportation/connectivity components. Task 5 is anticipated to take JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 9 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG approximately five months. The preferred plan and policy framework, following acceptance by the GPAC, Planning Commission and City Council, will serve as the template for the preparation of the Comprehensive General Plan. Mayor Low asked for questions from the City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners. C/Lin thanked staff and consultants for their presentation. He asked why the numbers in the packet and the presentation were different with respect to trip generations. Paul Herrmann responded that the numbers presented this evening are the more accurate numbers. Over time the numbers have been adjusted and revised which means the numbers in the packet may be outdated. C/Tye asked how there could be such a large discrepancy when the numbers are different by half. Mr. Herrmann said that he uses the SCAG model (transportation demand model) that estimates trip throughout the entire SCAG region. What they noticed after the numbers had been presented in the packet was that the trip generation numbers coming out of "transportation analysis zones" were corrected when the analyst discovered that only the trips coming out of the zones and not into the zones were missed (half) which caused the record to be corrected. The numbers presented this evening in the PowerPoint are the more accurate numbers. C/Lin said that on the Alternative Land Uses there are 2,500 new dwelling units and on the TOD there are 540 new units. Where are the other 2,000 units coming from and where does Tres Hermanos play in this entire picture? Katharine Pan responded that those are testing numbers that were conducted by Jane Lin to show what this type of density would look like on typical sites in those areas. What the consultant is looking at in terms of the 2,500 housing units there were likely a thousand overall that were calculated in the spreadsheet and those housing units would be spread throughout the colored area. C/Lin asked if all 2,500 housing units were assumed to be built surrounding the Metrolink Station. Ms. Pan said she did not know if they would all be in that area. The housing units that are shown in the tables and Alternatives evaluation are citywide which means that some would take place in the new town center, mixed-use areas and others JANUARY 30, 2018 1 PAGE 10 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG would be in areas currently designated for residential use throughout the City that have not yet been developed. C/Lin asked how the estimates of trip generations could result in a difference of 8,600 trips when 2,500 units would typically generate 25,000 additional trips. He wondered if the traffic calculations were very, very conservative with respect to the level of service or perhaps there is an error in the calculations. Mr. Herrmann reiterated that the numbers are directly out of the transportation analysis and typically with ITE trip generation a single family resident would generate about 10 trips per day so 2,500 units would generate about 25,000 trips; however, multi -family trips will generate fewer trips than a single family home. Also, some of the internalization between the traffic analysis zones might not be representative of these numbers. These numbers are not meant to be used for the EIR, they are for comparative purposes between the Alternatives. He would not focus too much on the raw numbers because it is more of a comparison. The purpose of this was to do a high-level analysis. When this process gets into the EIR and more detail they will focus on these numbers so that the trips are represented in the most accurate way possible. C/Lin suggested that before the final report is produced it might be good to refine some of the numbers to bring them closer to reality. C/Lin said he agreed with the fiscal impact, but it would be good to know the public investment costs in each of the three alternatives. For example, one alternative might be very good but it would cost three times more for the public investment to carry it out and may not be as feasible as the City might believe it to be. Is part of the consultant's job to come up with infrastructure investment numbers and other public investment numbers? Mr. Harris responded that for the purposes of this analysis, since this is a long- term plan and a very high-level plan, they did not get into that minutia of detail. What they did was look at the land use changes over the long term and those were supported by a market analysis. In terms of infrastructure costs and the like, capital investment was not considered in the fiscal analysis. For looking at the site- specific scenarios which gets into more of how do these typologies bear out from a financial perspective in terms of development, some of that was included at a high level but not engineered specifically for the various conceptual alternatives. M/Low asked what the assumptions were with respect to expenditures in creating the Fiscal Impact Analysis (Page 42, Attachment #2, table #4-12) with certain JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 11 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG expenditures, as well as changes to revenue. Does this include the cost of financing that is required to build the infrastructure? Mr. Harris said again, the answer is "no" specifically to that question. The fiscal model is built on revenues and expenditures of the City so in creating the analysis, they took an historic look at what the City's costs and revenues were and created factors for some things and modeled other things specifically. The base year for the model was fiscal year actuals for 2015 so they were built in real numbers and then took the land use changes and their associated impacts on the General Fund to quantify the impact on the General Fund specifically. The main reason for that is as previously stated, this is a long term plan and what the analysis attempts to achieve ishow do these alternative land uses compare apples to apples against each other! If we were to get into some of the specifics which are important in terms of the overall planning, it is more important in terms of the charges to say if all land uses are to be changed to Public Parks, for example, that would not be financially sustainable and would not work for the City from a General Fund perspective which is the focal point of the Fiscal Impact Analysis. M/Low said that under that example, the big expenditure would be maintenance. In these assumptions, what are the big categories that were built in to arrive at this number? Mr. Harris stated that typically, the larger costs are associated with safety and fire which is essentially built into property tax. Parks and Recreation is a significant expense which showed up in some of the differences between the land uses because in some of those assumptions the golf course was being changed or transformed into an active park space. Again, the overall land uses in a lot of these cases are much different in terms of the analysis so it is easier to point out in Alternative 1 versus 2 versus 3 because there was more multi -family housing so this or that would happen. The planning in this instance was relatively consistent among the alternatives with the big exception being potential transformation of the golf course. Ms. Lin stated that in order to make some of the site work, roads and parks and other things have to be constructed. In this instance, they were working at a really high level but one would expect that the new streets, new squares, etc. will have an impact as well and in looking amongst the three they are somewhat comparable, but Alternative 1 there would be less street to build because it is already built up. And there would probably be some utility impacts as well. C/Lyons heard Mr. Harris say all alternatives have a positive financial impact" and she is having a hard time reconciling that statement with the chart that was shown JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 12 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG on the Residual Land Value. In looking at that chart, it says "because Alternatives 1 and 3 require structured parking, rendering the two sites financially infeasible without subsidy and yield negative residual land values between $5 million and $6 million, respectively" so to her, the word "subsidy" is troubling. Mr. Bhatia responded that in taking a step back, these are two entirely different things. The first chart where everything was positive looks at the impacts of development on the City's General Fund. It assumes that if the City were to be able to construct the town center by whatever method, if that were to be built as an operation that produces tax revenue to the City and the City has to make some efforts to maintain the roads, the parks, the streets, the fire calls, police calls and so on, those look at the difference and the impacts on the City's General Fund. The second chart Residual Land Value looks at the financial feasibility from a private developer's standpoint of building that development. It is not looking at the City augmenting on an ongoing basis of a positive contribution to whether it is adding to the City's General Fund, it is a one-time cost. A developer will be $5 million in the hole if you asked him to build parking structures and build the development — he cannot do it. So that is a one-time cost and that means that if the City were to, at a later date, want to build a development and work with a developer or other financial tools and say well, maybe not everything needs to be structured and perhaps the City can decrease the parking ratios, the City may get to the point where it can have a development that is most feasible. C/Lyons said that what this is saying is that if a development fell from the sky and it was there they would all have positive impacts, but to get there, Alternatives 1 and 3 have a one-time "subsidy" of either $5 or $6 million. Mr. Bhatia said that C/Lyons was absolutely correct. C/Tye indicated that the responses received in the surveys do not represent the diversity of the City? It troubles him that if this method of survey was chosen and the City gets the wrong survey, perhaps it chose the wrong method. Is there a different survey that would be more effective? At the end of the day the City could choose a different survey method and come up with the same results. Mr. Bhatia responded that with all of these tools, whether it is a workshop or an online survey there is a self-selection bias. In other words, people choose to participate or not and usually it is people more active, more alert, have more time or pay more attention or whatever and this misses the young couple that is pressed for time or the youth that is not looking to be as engaged in civic activities. This is by default. His firm sees this time and again and that is why Dyett & Bhatia tries to reach out in many different ways and not in just one way which is why they did JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 13 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG a workshop, online survey and multiple other forms of outreach with booths set up in various places to catch people wherever they are. While they have tried to reach out in many different ways there is a more scientific way of going about it such as doing a phone survey where the same person is called over and over again until they answer the question. But what this process is doing is giving the City feedback on what they received through a variety of sources and he believes that as decision makers, this body needs to decide whether that is active feedback or not or understand that it is more weighted coming from a smaller segment of the population. Ms. Pan said there is always a concern with public outreach. If someone was missed in the survey, they had a chance to attend the workshop or if they were unable to do either of those, they were reached at a popup, maybe outside of HMart, for example, so they could write into the City if they were concerned. In addition, those who are present this evening will be able to give their input and background about what they and their neighbors have an opinion on. C/Lin said that he would not call 638 individuals a "random" survey because only people who were interested responded. The result is not profoundly different at 3.4 versus 2.5. If it is 5 versus 1 he could understand that. To him, the better way would be to do a random telephone survey. Pick a thousand that includes Chinese and Spanish speaking people which may provide a better result. His opinion is that 638 surveys gives a false impression that the people in Diamond Bar prefer the Smart & Final area to be the preferred alternative. The survey is done and it is too late to go back and do it again, but that result may not be a reflection of the true sentiment of the residents of Diamond Bar. Mr. Bhatia explained that some people are not able to get into the depths of understanding the fiscal implication and transportation implication as much. It cannot be done in a 10 minute survey. People generally go by their gut reaction. In order for his firm to do a really good job they would have to gather a representative sample group in a room and make them sit for two hours to get them to understand everything and have a response. It can be done, but what they are finding is that the reasons people are advancing to a certain decision are reasonably consistent — "I like this because of ....(this reason)" so he believes it is his job to present to this decision making body the rationale in addition to what people are saying. Julia Malmo -Laycock spoke about the survey demographics. The demographic tended to be a bit older than what is represented in Diamond Bar. In looking at the actual per -age group what is really happening in this instance is that there were very few participants that were 19 and under which is pretty typical of surveys done JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 14 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG for this type of work. In terms of ethnicity, the major variation is that in this case there was a slight over -representation of the white demographics and under- representation of the Asian and Asian -American segments. Those who identified as Latino and Hispanic was pretty consistent as well as, mixed. Chair/Wolfe said this was an issue of discussion at the last meeting. He is a little surprised that there so few, if any, respondents from the 19 and under category because there was outreach at the high school and perhaps there was a better way to approach that. He wondered if this is what the group experienced in other of communities. In a high school environment, in a Civics class he would believe there is a pretty simple way to engage that class. Mr. Bhatia said that Chair/Wolfe is absolutely correct. If one were to engage a class activity there would be more of a response but they would have to proactively go out and seek to do. A lot still remains to be done on the General Plan and the document has not yet been written so there is still room to do that. Chair/Wolfe suggested that the demographics of the two high schools in this community are fairly representative of the demographics of the community as a whole and perhaps there is an opportunity through a Civics Class type exercise not only would the high school students be engaged, but perhaps their parents. C/Mahlke agreed with Chair/Wolfe and remembered that this was a concern this body had previously. The idea of using City social media is perhaps not as active as it could have been for the benefit of this exercise, but she was also concerned that most of their questions took place before the Diamond Bar Ranch Center opened. So the idea of talking about Alternative 1 before Alternative 1 had actually opened and been feasible is a concern to her. She has been fortunate to spend a lot of time at Chipotle and Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf and Sprouts and the center is very active and busy. In the consultants' experience, had that area already been developed when the surveys went out, might that have changed the way they viewed these Alternatives. When talking about a place that has been fairly inactive and vacant as a potential for a town center before it becomes more active, does that change the perception of that particular alternative? C/Farago asked if the County decided to do something else with the golf course or close it, what kind of oversight or influence would the City have as to what ends up happening on that site. CDD/Gubman said the short answer is that the City has a General Plan and a General Plan designation on the golf course site so whatever the current or future JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 15 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG General Plan designation prescribes for that site it would have to be what the future use of the site would have to be in conformance with. C/Farago asked'if with respect to Alternative 2 any consideration had been given to the following: If the City went down the road for Alternative 1 and then the County decides to do something with the golf course that both areas could be developed at the same time. What he is thinking is that with 13 different owners in Alternative 1, what is the incentive to get them together to develop this as a town center over the next 20 years other than possible marketplace competition by having a plan that also included Alternative 2 so that both would be created at or close to the same time. What is the incentive for Alternative 1 to move forward with that many owners? CDD Gubman responded that with the multiple ownership on the site, it is a challenge that can be addressed through incentives. Since there is no redevelopment, wherein financing incentives can be offered, incentives through development flexibility is one way to go about it. Mr. Bhatia said that the center that currently supports Sprouts and Smart & Final, as it is being refurbished and more and more is built out at that location, the more difficult it is to turn it into a "town center" as a walkable destination. He is not saying it won't be a vibrant commercial center, but to the extent that the City is looking for a walkable destination that has a range of amenities including entertainment and so on, is not what that site may ultimately emerge to be. Also, it may not have been entirely clear, but the market segments that we are dealing with for a new town center could cater to different economic markets. Mr. Harris said "exactly, yes." If there is anchor that is grocery store based the market area shrinks because the multiple visitation of going to get groceries is usually within a couple of miles. The town center is a fundament concept, sometimes called RDE (Retail, Dining and Entertainment) that has more of a regional focus and a wider market. They can certainly co -exist and not necessarily compete with one another. All retail competes to a certain extent, but it is a completely different orientation wherein the driver is to create multiple uses and experiences that extends someone's length of stay — it is walkable and it is a place where people go to linger and hang out. It is a social experience and it is not a specific purpose of going to buy groceries per se so yes, they can totally co -exist. C/Farago said that makes complete sense and his thinking is that if the City went down the path to Alternative 1, since this area already has a couple of anchors, it will likely be very difficult to get them to change over the course of 20 years into a town center. And while this may go in the updated General Plan and the City JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 16 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG pursues it, it may never materialize. So, this body may want to think of an alternative where the City has more control or leverage. CDD/Gubman responded to a question about whether the City has a tool or way in which it could put a placeholder on the golf course site should the County's future plans for its disposition come into play. If the decision was to proceed with Alternative 1 and wanted to keep from foreclosing on an option to pursue another opportunity that may arise, this body may wish to consider placing some overlay type of designation on the golf course. So, it could prescribe in the General Plan that should the County decide to do something else with the golf course site, there could be included policies that say that any repurposing or redevelopment of the site would be subject to a Specific Plan that would have to meet certain planning principles that the City of Diamond Bar would demand for that site since it is within the City's borders and it needs to have the land use control that oversees how that unfolds. That's not necessarily designating the golf course site as a town center on the day of General Plan adoption, but should circumstances that are currently unforeseen reveal themselves in the future the City has, in this instance, been proactive and defensive in saying that there would need to be a comprehensive planning process before the County could unilaterally make a land use decision on its own. C/Farago agreed and said that what he was referring to was for the City to have a Plan B. By having a Plan B, it may leverage the owners in Alternative 1 to perhaps come together before the City says too much time has passed and the City is now pursuing something else that the County decides for that property. He felt the City should not throw all of its eggs in one basket and believed it there needed to be an alternative moving forward. M/Low said that CDD/Gubman mentioned a Specific Plan as opposed to a General Plan designation. Between the two, which has more power with respect to a third party that wishes to do something specific with a parcel of property. CDD/Gubman explained that the General Plan trumps any other policy and the General Plan would therefore be the prevailing document. The General Plan would say that if a developer or owner of any major amount of acreage were to contemplate something, that development site is so large or could potentially have a ripple effect on how it is developed that instead of placing a static zoning designation, the City may instead require a very deliberative public process (i.e., a Specific Plan) be engaged to carefully plan that site, given its opportunities and constraints. JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 17 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG M/Low said so for example, the supervisors have a bunch of money and they are very concerned about homelessness and they reach out to Diamond Bar to say they have that nice golf course and we should build lots of multi -unit housing for people who need homes. If it remained designated as a town center, would the County then apply for a Specific Plan to turn that into residences without a General Plan designation? CDD/Gubman said that in such a case, the County would have to comply with the General Plan. Because it is a County property, if they intended to establish some other public use that is a County Agency governed use, they would have similar autonomy to what they have now. But if they wanted to sell the property to an Affordable Housing developer or another developer then the General Plan designation and policies would guide how that would play out. M/Low said that they have heard over and over that what we are doing here is a land use designation. She wants to clarify that a land use designation does not mean that whatever is being designated will be built there, it is simply a designation or label. CDD/Gubman said that the designation is more of a high-level governing palette or menu of uses that are allowed within that designation. From that point it goes to the Zoning designations to be more precise about what uses are permitted or prohibited. Mr. Bhatia said that a General Plan communicates to everyone including L.A. County what the City's intent behind a site is. The General Plan telegraphs the City's intent to everyone else. If the General Plan is left the way it is, it says that we anticipate the golf course continuing and if it doesn't continue we do not have our minds made up as to what should be out there or not. If you put a town center out there it lets people know that if the golf course were to go away, that is what the City has resolved about what will happen as a result. Diamond Bar can go as far as it is comfortable going with that. You can say "consider placement of a town center somewhere in this big area and come back to the City with a specific proposal" or, "we are perfectly happy locating in this place or not". A developer that comes to a site will be looking for certainty. If there is nothing out there and they know they will have to go through a multi-year process whether it is housing or it is a town center development, it adds to uncertainty, cost, time and so on which they have to factor into their calculations. If the City is willing to telegraph the intent to say "this is what we would like" they can choose to come back or not — at least it telegraphs to them the overall intent and idea and desire where the community stands. And he believes this body needs to make an informed decision about what it wants to do and how far it wants to go with that which is what the General Plan JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 18 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG is all about, again bearing in mind that it is a long range document, a 20 -year document. Chair/Wolfe commented that a developer recently invested a significant amount of money at Alternative 1 site. He wondered the message that this body's decision might send to that developer and whether there had been conversations at the staff level with the developer, but what is the message we would be sending that as that project is just now being completed that we want something significantly different than they brought to the table. RECESS: M/Low recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Low reconvened the meeting at 8:21 p.m. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: M/Low announced that there is a three (3) minute time limit for speakers this evening. For speakers who have heard others speak on their issues, please note that fact. Also, before speaking, please indicate whether or not you have responded in any previous surveys, either online or in person. Diego Tamayo said the golf course is a very treasured piece of land and is a designated wildlife station which is important for migrating birds which are on decline with some species threatened. There are four blue line streams onsite which require mitigation. He is a student at Diamond Bar High School and was not personally informed about a survey and is very involved with such issues. He and others who are interested would like to see better outreach. Mr. Tamayo responded to M/Low that he responded to the October Community Workshop and online survey. Douglas Barcon said he responded to the survey and attended previous GPAC meetings and outreach events. Regarding 600 plus responses to the online survey, those could be families and not just individuals and could possibly represent more than 600 people. He has previously commented on the record regarding the plan and has heard what has been said this evening. At the GPAC meeting, Craig Ranch Regional Park in North Las Vegas was cited as an example of a possible vision for the golf course site. The County requires a replacement golf course and one of the areas that has been considered is Tres Hermanos Ranch at the northeastern end which is of the SR60 at Phillips Ranch Road and Chino Hills Parkway which is next to the San Bernardino County line and would better serve those areas than it would Diamond Bar at the expense of Los Angeles County. Moreover, the City of Industry owns that property and could use it as part JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 19 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG of a solar farm and not sell it to Diamond Bar, for example. Also, on the GPAC report page 10, #4 — Financial Feasibility, Alternative 2 shows a $12 million positive residual land value and wondered if that included the cost of the replacement golf course land which means it could be a negative value. He suggested that the golf course be excluded from consideration in any of the General Plan alternatives but could be considered for alternative uses in the future should the demand for golf courses continue to decline without rebound. The wild card in all of this is the City of Industry and whatever they do on both sides of Grand Avenue. Amy Harbin is a member of the GPAC and a 40 plus year resident who has been employed as a City Planner for Baldwin Park for over 25 years. She wanted to explain her Ione "no" vote at the GPAC meeting recommending Alternative 1 and to advocate for consideration of Alternative 2 by the Planning Commission and City Council. As a member of the GPAC she is tasked with reading mounds of information, attending meetings, listening to public comments and comments from her fellow GPAC members, and ultimately evaluating all of that into a well -thought position of what she feels is good for all segments of the population of the City of Diamond Bar in the long term. She believes that Diamond Bar needs to think long term and maintain what she considers greater flexibility for future financial sustainability and she believes that Alternative 2 accomplishes that for several reasons: 1) the lower portion of the golf course can accommodate a regional serving center with freeway visibility that can entice national credit retail and restaurant tenants; 2) the upper portion of the golf course would still be utilized as open space for either active or passive recreational opportunities and an open space area is actually more sensitive to the adjacent single family residences as opposed to a commercial or office development; 3) there is only one property owner to negotiate with, with the golf course, the County of LA as opposed to multiple property owners in Alternative 1; and 4) she realizes no one wants additional traffic with any type of new development but a lot of people seem to forget that with any type of new development, be it residential, commercial, and industrial or office, there is new traffic associated. She said she probably responded to the survey. Jim Hayes said he did not respond to any of the outreach. He urged the Council and Commission to vote for Alternative 1 and heed the recommendations of the GPAC and the voice of the people. Tonight's consideration of Alternative 2 has significant issues and needs to be better analyzed and should not be approved until this analysis is completed. To have a truly viable future, the General Plan should address the crisis of global warming and ongoing decline of air quality. SB 375 known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 set regional emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Alternative 1; JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 20 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG and will produce the fewest emissions. Do we know if Alternative 2 will meet SB 375 requirements to meet regional goals for reducing greenhouse gases? What data supports that it does? Has it accounted for the effect of the loss of the golf course on the air quality and climate? Will the City be assessing increased City heat from the added parking lot? Alternative 1 already has a parking lot. Alternative 2 will require tearing out green knocking down trees. Recent research from Caltrans prepared by Ronald T. Milan, Executive Director, Fehr & Peers, found that widening roads created an induced travel effect of more, not less, traffic. So how can the traffic analysis of Alternative 2 which was also prepared by Fehr & Peers claim that the freeway expansion by the future town center in Alternative 2 would effectively mitigate concerns about congestion? We would like to know C/Lin's view of induced travel and of staff's report calculations as owner of a successful transportation planning company, KOA. Has the analysis of Alternative 2 factored this into the report and if not, should this be adjusted for that. Grace Lim -Hayes said she was a respondent. She has attended several meetings and took the online survey. She is flabbergasted at staff's recommendation for Alternative 2 based on the biased analysis she has heard tonight and the glaringly incomplete information. At the November 30 meeting several speakers asked about the cost of acquiring land for the golf course and what it would cost to rebuild it. In tonight's Feasibility Section the report is still not accurate. How can Alternative 2 be the most financially feasible plan? The Residual Land Value chart on Page 10 appears misleading as well. How is it a valid comparison of the three plans without factoring the cost of the land and rebuilding the golf course? One can argue that structured parking might actually cost less in the long run. Pro Forma Advisor's describes its Financial Analysis as projections, existing beliefs, inaccurate assumptions potentially and unanticipated events. The land assembly section assumes acquisition of parcels in Diamond Bar would be more complex than relocating the golf course, but how has this been proven to be true? Industry owns that land. In 2016, the City of Industry purchased 400 acres of the Boy Scout land to mitigate development in Tres Hermanos. Is Diamond Bar aware of this project which is subject to CEQA? The land compatibility section is piecemealing considering residential only proximity on Golden Prados. What about the potential impacts of the Industry/Grand Avenue project to Diamond Bar's proposed Alternative 2 or 3? Have there been calculations about the impact of Alternative 2's town center drawing away from businesses in Diamond Bar? Public records indicate the City of Industry has been cited for mitigation and hydrology violations. Has the Alternative 2 site been environmentally analyzed? Have there been greenhouse gas emission studies and estimates to comply with SB 375? Are there staff, Commissioners and Councilmembers residing in the neighborhoods bordering Tres Hermanos that could benefit from the golf course being built there? If so, will they recuse themselves from voting for Alternative 2? Omissions in the JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 21 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG staff report caused her to ask if the information provided to the Council was not disclosed to the public and would the Planning Department and City Council seek to collude and to achieve plans not disclosed to the public. Robert Velazquez said he had been a respondent in this process. Scientific data is unclear about whether major highway projects actually produce an economic boost. Congestion is a dubious claim when it comes to road expansion. Transportation experts have repeatedly found that building new roads inevitably encourages more people to drive which in turn, negates any congestion savings, a phenomenon known as "induced demand" or "induced travel." More roads mean more difficult traffic in both short and long term. Much of the traffic is brand new which means that some cars on the highway are actually taking that route as a new route because the roads had opened up. The significant point is that Caltrans acknowledges induced traffic travel demands create something of a mission crisis for transportation agencies that spend most of their money on building new roads and peaking driving. In 2014, Caltrans assessment conducted by Smart Transportation Initiative specifically cited demand as research finding that yet to filter down to the department's thinking and decision making. Ronald Milan, Fehr & Peers has said that Caltrans has recognized the shortcomings of traditional traffic models. Namely SB 375 and SB 743 is updating and broadening that effort and new guidelines are in the works. Has Fehr & Peers applied the new guidelines in the January 30th staff recommendations reports? Are the traffic forecasts cited in Alternatives 2 and 3? Christine Johnson, a Diamond Bar taxpayer for 44 years said she is proud of "Country Living." She had questions for Pro Forma Financial Report, Cost Calculations and Land Use Alternatives. Why are the financial projections stated in the January 30th staff report for land use alternatives considered useful in planning if Pro Forma Advisors issues a full disclaimer for their report — November 14th, 2017, that no warranty or representation by Pro Forma Advisor that any of our projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved." Missing from the staff and financial report, the projected cost of replacing the converted golf course via using other Diamond Bar open space like Tres Hermanos Ranch or Royal Vista golf club. Where are these calculations and why are they missing? Presently, Diamond Bar is suing the City of Industry. Would Diamond Bar negotiate with City of Industry to receive a settlement of a portion of Tres Hermanos to serve as a new golf course site? Additionally, what are the financial computations for the golf course land exchange, acquisitions, designs, building costs, bad risk retail decline considering online shopping impacts, bad risk retail decline considering big box retail, bad risk consideration of City of Industry Business Center impacts bordering Alternative 2 and 3, economic impacts on the Sprouts Center from another alternative town location. Bad risk City hotel vacancy JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 22 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG blight. Why does the City continue to build hotels when there are vacant hotels on sight and control of vacation rentals in housing neighborhoods? What are the existing City hotel performance reports? Ms. Johnson said she had been a respondent and attended all of the meetings. Victor Ramirez, a member of GPAC, thanked Council for appointing him to that important committee. He believes the committee's recommendation speaks for itself. As a concerned citizen of 30 years said that one of the reasons he agrees with Alternative 1 is because of the many, many citizens who came forward and gave public testimony as they have tonight and shared with the GPAC their experiences and desires for the future. What GPAC heard constantly was that they wanted to retain the character of this beautiful town. They want us to invest in existing commercial resources, not develop new resources to the detriment of what exists. One of the most important elements of Diamond Bar and the golf course is what that golf course does to create a natural buffer and calming influence over that freeway. He takes issue with the consultant and staff findings about the residual land value. There have been speakers who described the shortcoming of not including the replacement cost of a golf course but also the negative costs of developing Alternative 1 assumes that there would have to be a large parking structure which is just not the case. The assumption is based on zoning rules probably developed in the 1960s and 1970s which define the ratios of parking to commerce. Those are wrong. The future is changing. There are disrupter companies like Uber and Lyft and new technology where people will transport in a different way and will not necessarily have to park so Diamond Bar should be looking to change the parking ratios for zoning. Yuwen Wang said she attended the October workshop and completed the online survey. She is a Diamond Bar High School Junior. She stated that if the Alternative 2 is adopted by the City Council it is likely that development of the historic Diamond Bar Golf Course will happen in which case, Tres Hermanos Ranch will be used to replace the golf course land. Depending on the location of the 720 acres of Tres Hermanos, what happens if there are Planning Commissioners or City Councilmembers presently living next to the Tres Hermanos Ranch who could push for Alternative 2 and vote to bypass the GPAC preference of Alternate 1? Real Estate companies in Diamond Bar assert that if a park or especially a golf course were to be built within 1000 feet of certain streets it would raise the property values significantly. What is this situation called and how does the City handle such cases. Additionally, she took the survey with high school students and views it as a manipulative and leading survey. For example, one of the questions was "how much new housing do you want" as opposed to "do you want to see new housing in Diamond Bar?" This leading question virtually forces the students to respond with a certain amount of new housing units they JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 23 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG would like to see in the future and basically this is putting words into their mouth even if they believe new housing is absolutely unnecessary. Although this might seem insignificant, leading questions are prohibited during the direct examination of a witness in every US Court of Law. Although this was only a survey, the fact that manipulative questions which would be illegal in Court, were used in the survey distributed to high school students, it makes her question the objectivity and ethics of the surveyors. And she believes this biased question reflects the lack of credibility of surveys distributed among residents. M/Low stated that leading questions are not prohibited in a Court of Law. Gregg Fritchle said he is not eligible to complete the surveys because he is a resident of Walnut. He is present to speak about this discussion having a broader impact on the surrounding communities. The biggest example is traffic. The traffic figures shown on the Table on Page 6 seems to him to be misleading because it does not tell him very much. There are three Alternatives being considered that essentially do the same thing and it stands to reason that the effect on traffic in each of those areas (numbers of vehicles) is going to be approximately the same. What won't be the same is the speed of traffic flow. This is just one of the things about this study he believes is lacking, misleading and flawed. He would personally recommend that the results of the study be rejected and a new study be done. Allen Wilson said he did not respond to the online survey because for him it was too confusing and he gave up. He has been attending every GPAC meeting and he is honored to be part of this process as a member of the public. He has listened to a lot of people in this community. He does not fear a lot of things, but he believes the feel of the community is to keep the golf course as it is. It is of historical significance for this community. He believes Alternative 1 should be considered for future build out. He understands that the City is very prudent and conservative when it comes to finances. Alternative 1 has a projected annual revenue of $2.7 million. Alternative 2 is $4.1 million and Alternative 3 is $4.2 million. The City Council has expenditures for ride share for seniors, but the City needs to be a little more practical about what it wants to do with the community. People do not want more housing, they want more businesses and the concentration should be on Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs and cleanup of this community. He has a vested interest in the golf course because he lives across the street from the golf course and this will impact him. The golf course is his only environmental buffer. What is really sad about what will happen in the City of Industry going into Grand Avenue they have cut that hill in half which has decimated wildlife, and he fears the same will happen to the golf course. He wants the City Council to listen to the community and understand the residents want Alternative 1 as a basis for JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 24 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG economic growth and development of this community. The community needs to support these businesses and if another business is built on the golf course, what will happen to the businesses on Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue. Please be very serious, listen to the community and support Alternative 1. Bobby Lee said he has attended all of the GPAC meetings and looked at the online survey but did not respond because of the way the questions were written and there was no alternative to do nothing. He thought the outreach methods were one of the better parts of this process even though he disagreed with the content of the outreach itself. He believed there was plenty of opportunity for everyone to respond. It seems to him that people are looking for answers from the consultants and while he appreciates that they are experts in their respective fields, there is a means to an end and residents need to make sure that they are not just gathering data to drive the decision because he feels they are looking for a definitive answer, which should not be the case. However, there should be somebody working with them to look at how those models are developed and the input. For example, at one of the meetings he attended he wondered if the revenue projection for the retail centers with 90 percent occupancy at a certain square footage was reasonable, is that an assumption over a number of years and does it account for downturns in the economy, all of which needs to be evaluated for the Council to have accurate numbers to consider that are relevant to Diamond Bar. He believes it is 100 percent clear that people want to keep the golf course and the feedback is overwhelmingly in favor of Alternative 1. In reading the feedback it is evident that it is not just about Alternative 1, people do not want to mess with the golf course. When three alternatives are presented with two that affect the golf course and one that does not, naturally, with only those three choices people will choose Alternative 1. Secondly, he does not understand the focus on a town center and he is at a loss to understand this focus. Jim Gallagher, Chino Hills, said he participated in the online survey and participated in the workshop at the Community Center. He was very impressed and he felt this was the most residential input he has ever seen for any General Plan. He was part of the GPAC in Chino Hills in 1993 and participated in the amended plan. The residents of Diamond Bar are doing a great job because they are addressing this and speaking on it. The reason he is here this evening is because his city (Chino Hills) as well as Walnut share neighboring properties with Diamond Bar. Nobody is really addressing Tres Hermanos and there needs to be recognition that there are 2,450 acres, 1,750 of which is in Chino Hills and 700 acres is in the City of Diamond Bar. So Chino Hills has the brunt of the responsibility, he believes, in trying to keep that space open which is what most of the residents have indicated should happen. Both cities have encouraged their residents to get involved and get informed. Diamond Bar residents are doing that, JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 25 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG Chino Hills residents have been all along but are starting to wake up. The key thing both cities want residents to look at is Industry's solar panels and to be concerned about it. But he is concerned about something else which is the zoning from both cities. Diamond Bar's General Plan allows for 630 units to be located on Tres Hermanos. He is not hearing anyone speak about that tonight. Chino Hills' General Plan calls for a maximum of 675 units. That is a total of 1,305 units plus commercial that Chino Hills is also recommending. And there is talk now of possibly moving the golf course over. Most of the workshops he has attended he has seen the residents speak out loudly including the GPAC for Alternative 1 which keeps the town center down on Diamond Bar Boulevard and it does not advocate for the relocation of the golf course which is a possibility under the other alternatives. He does not believe these people are NIMBYs but instead believes that everyone is concerned about the quality' of life, fresh air, and preservation of a natural habitat (wetlands with threatened species) and, he believes the reason people live in Diamond Bar and Chino Hills is because they appreciate their open space and it needs to remain as such. The lawsuits are critical and what does the City of Diamond Bar and Chino Hills believe will be the outcome if they actually win these lawsuits and where do the cities go from there? Mario Salas said he has participated in all of the General Plan events but did not respond to any surveys. He is a proponent of Alternative 1 but he will also reiterate that he encourages a traffic -neutral General Plan. Regarding Alternative 1, he wanted to know if the current Sprouts, McDonald's Chipotle development can be integrated to help ease that transition and is the City willing to exercise any type of domain to ensure completion of the project. Funds are not and should not be a driving force for this community. This is a community that is giving, that participates through payment of taxes and residents wants to make sure that what the population wants, the population gets because ultimately, that's the reason for people being here. He encouraged preventing development of the golf course, regardless of the county's decision and no development whatsoever of Tres Hermanos. John Harbaugh said that the last conversation was about Shell-Aera and the football stadium, and Supervisor Knabe not being included in some of the discussions they had. He asked if Shell Aera was still in play - perhaps. He was going to title his discussion tonight "reparations for Diamond Bar" because we are 5t" in the nation in traffic congestion. Some people were concerned about Tres Hermanos and actually, the City of Industry owns more than just Tres Hermanos — they own the Boy Scout Reservation and Lower Canyon LLP. So in that event, we have that to be forward thinking. Regarding the future of Tres Hermanos, look for a Tonner Canyon Expressway coming through because Carbon Canyon is the only way to get from Chino Hills to Brea without going through the SR congestion. JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 26 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG He thinks regardless of what the consensus is tonight, there will be more development over which the City has not much control. He had conversations with Kenneth Hahn and Pete Schabarum when they were alive, both of whom told him that the 710 freeway extension would be built and that did not happen. Bob Huff said he would like to see it for the public good and he didn't win. He was in China for the last meeting Mr. Harbaugh attended to see who was going to be the next Congress person to replace Ed Royce. The earth scar in the City of Industry called massive grading Phase I and Phase 11, at the time he (Bob Huff) was on Council was supposed to be another buffer zone and it did not happen. Tonight he is concerned about the City of Industry and what they are going to do as it will affect the City of Diamond Bar. Mr. Harbaugh said he did not respond to any of the surveys. Paul Sherwood is a member of GPAC and said that tonight's participation is great. He witnessed some excellent participation over the GPAC meetings as well. The survey and workshops were also created and designed to encourage community involvement in the General Plan process. The GPAC relied heavily on the information that was gleaned from these surveys and workshops and he is concerned that now we are questioning the validity of those results. People committed a lot of their time to give the GPAC their information and he believes this body needs to rely on the information received. He has and will continue to rely on that information. The 1995 General Plan called for 5 -acres of park and recreation land per thousand residents. Currently, Diamond Bar is far behind that target at 1.2 acres of parks and recreation land per thousand. So, he would like to submit the concept that if the golf course becomes available, perhaps a land use alternative for it would be parks and a sports complex which would go a long way to serving Diamond Bar residents and it would meet the desire to not get rid of the golf course as green space and would help meet the City's goals of park and recreation land that the City so sorely needs to serve families and kids in this community. Obviously, he is one of nine in favor of Alternative 1 and he is in favor of keeping the golf course or at least developing it as parks and recreation land if it were ever to become available. Sadie Meyer, architecture and urban design student and practitioner, said she was particularly interested in "People First" architecture and placemaking. She supports Alternative 1 as the best approach presented when considering the best practices of placemaking. There has been a people -centered approach with community outreach that resulted in a clear preference for Alternative 1 and addresses the key factors of placemaking in people first design. First and foremost it reflects public opinion; and second, it would preserve physical amenities such as the historic Diamond Bar Golf Course, which has been a center for community connection, identity and even a wildlife habitat waystation. In turn, this also JANUARY 30, 2018 27 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG preserves the Tres Hermanos Ranch that sets Diamond Bar apart as a bio- diversity hotspot unique to this region which is increasingly rare nationally and internationally. Alternative 1 also features a creek/water element which could be a natural place of gathering and is a unique feature that could be taken advantage of. These natural places make Diamond Bar unique and would ultimately protect the natural spaces allowing placemaking to reach beyond the town center. The town center proposed is already an established commercial district and would focus on neighborhood serving retail and dining uses and allow opportunities for a series of small plazas and public spaces interspersed with existing and new businesses. Alternative 1 provides the opportunity for "a walking network with alternate street spaces and small squares" and Alternative 1 seems to be a no- brainer when considering best practices; however, the report prepared by CDD/Gubman and Senior Planner strongly favors Alternative 2 which would basically remove the historic golf course, require development in the Tres Hermanos Ranch and provide visibility to the SR57/60, which would be in the middle of a retail island centered over vast and permeable pavement directly over two blue line streams. Robin Smith said she has participated in all of the surveys and has attended all meetings. She thought the survey was really inadequate. After reading staff's report and realizing that the recommendation is Alternative 2, she had mixed feelings because she feels like the community is getting railroaded into something. One of the big glaring things was that last time she was here she asked Fehr & Peers representative if they had heard anything about induced travel, which is a big deal and the consultants we have here knew nothing. And then she finds out their principal has written a serious scholarly paper about it which says "current travel forecasting models, both four -step and activity based may not fully account for induced travel affects. Model testing is required to measure and verify the level of sensitivity and accuracy. Ms. Smith continued stating that his bottom line is that this is a science that we would embrace because we are facing probably the toughest thing in our history which is the boa constrictor of traffic that is strangling our community. She believes we all want the right thing and unless we are so blinded by our own special interests we cannot see what the long term affect is going to be. The traffic will filter through up to where Alternative 1 exists — she gets that, but it is going to be concentrated down by the golf course, especially in view of whatever City of Industry is going to do. And we all know, it is probably not going to be a good thing. It will be warehouses. And by the way, this location is one of the epicenters, the 5th most congested goods transit corridor in the US. This is something people are not talking about. It's the truck traffic, it is not just the cars, and road widening certainly causes more traffic. So we're all in this together and she want sober thought. Regarding the budget, she would like to find out when the project will turn a profit, whether it would be self-sustaining in five years JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 28 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG and how will that comport with the City's budget? She believes if that was done the City would be a lot more sustainable and the City would look at projects that would pay for themselves in a very short period of time. Mary Power said she did not complete the surrey because she felt it was very biased. She is a commercial landowner and has a degree in marketing. The fact that there was no alternative for "no development" was why she did not complete the survey. As a commercial landowner, it's hard to get two landowners to agree, let alone 13. She would like to see "no alternatives" because she does not believe Diamond Bar needs a town center. This is country living and she would like to keep it that way. Paul Deibel, a Diamond Bar resident for over 20 years, said he participated in the survey and the October 2017 meeting and in both he expressed a preference for Alternative 1 because he felt it was feasible and built on existing infrastructure of uses that would lend itself more toward an intensive downtown plus, from a design standpoint it allowed for placemaking opportunities and possibly a town square and so forth. However, in light of the discussion he has heard tonight, he is no longer of that opinion. In particular, he is impressed by the additional analysis in looking at the Residual Land Value Analysis. He did not necessarily believe it would be Diamond Bar's decision as to whether or not the golf course stays or does not stay. Therefore, he believes because this is a long term plan, 20 or 30 years of looking out into the future, he believes this plan should take that into consideration and not lower the City's sights to focusing on Alternative 1 as the ultimate town center. He believes Diamond Bar needs a town center. He is tired of taking visitors, relatives, his kids, nieces and nephews to Brea or to Chino Hills to have a pedestrian -oriented experience with restaurants, a place to congregate, see a movie and have family interaction. He believes the City should go for the best town center possible from a regional standpoint rather than neighborhood standpoint so that the City could have regional -oriented uses there and he believes the market will continue to increase for that given population expansion, etc. So he thinks Alternative 2 would actually be more feasible, particularly when looking at the land value and the urban design and placemaking opportunities that exist there, starting with a clean state. Also, that residual land value might enable the possibility of some affordable housing and diversity of housing to go into a town center because for it to be a town center it would have mixed-use, so it would have residential uses as well. In that regard, he would like to focus on the need for affordable housing in Diamond Bar so that members of his family and particularly younger members of his family could continue to live in this community. He believes Diamond Bar has commitments to the region in that regard which need to be taken into account and adhered to. JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 29 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG John Martin, a Diamond Bar resident for 45 years, said that if Alternative 2 and 3 is chosen, what will happen to Alternative 1? Will it be like the Alpha Beta center was? So we have to use all of the incentives and do the best job possible. He knows that working with 15 property owners is very difficult, but he believes the City has to go that route. If the golf course closes, the City would have a great opportunity to use that land for recreation, which is a goal for everyone in the City, and he believes it has been said many, many times that the actual golf course as a green recreational center is a necessity against the City of Industry. He believes that even though it will be a battle, it has to go to Alternative 1. Mr. Martin said he did not complete the survey but he attended all of the meetings. With no further speakers, M/Low closed the public comments. Council and Planning Commission Discussion and Deliberation: Chair/Wolfe said that C/Farago brought up the point that regardless of what this body ultimately chooses, should we, because with Alternative 2 or 3, there is still an element of the golf course that could continue to exist, contemplate in the General Plan what the community might want to do if at some point the County of Los Angeles chooses to close the golf course. He believes this body should really think about that because there has been a lot of testimony this evening that proposes the City should continue to leave the golf course as 'open recreational space." He agrees with that premise and the comments that the City needs the buffer that the golf course provides, but he would caution that until the State of California gets away from carbon fuels, that is not a great place for children to be playing (up against the SR57/60 confluence) and health studies have been done to support that. However, he thinks that in a 40-50 year horizon, because California is doing a great job in starting to convert its fleet over which is ultimately a national issue, he would argue that if the County were to close the golf course and if Diamond Bar were to propose that land to be park space or recreational space, the City should look carefully at health impacts to those who would be using those recreational facilities. If the City has moved away from carbon fuel modes of transportation, this then becomes a moot point. MPT/Herrera said she appreciates all of the comments made this evening and as people were talking about how long they have lived in Diamond Bar, she reminded the group that she has live in Diamond Bar for 52 years. In that time, the City has changed a lot. When she moved to Diamond Bar, 7,000 people lived in the town and then all of those present moved into Diamond Bar. While people prefer Alternative 1, she would say that is already happening and she does not know that it matters if this body designates that as a preferred alternative because there is a developer that is spending millions of dollars to make it happen now. Alternative 1 JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 30 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG is not a town center, and while some said they do not want a town center, she is sorry about that because for years, she has heard from 60,000 other residents that they want a town center - a place where they can walk among beautiful trees and pathways and maybe have an ice cream, sit on a park bench and enjoy their surroundings and, where in the City could that be located? The County of Los Angeles owns the golf course and should they decide to do away with the golf course for whatever reason, if Diamond Bar does not have a plan in place then it falls victim to whatever LA County wants to do. And right now, the County Supervisors are talking about providing "homeless encampments". The golf course consists of 170 acres and what would happen if one of the Supervisors decided "hey, that's a good spot for a homeless encampment and Diamond Bar had no plan for the land. The City of Diamond Bar does not have a plan for that land because there is no land use plan stated in their General Plan, so let's go ahead and do it because the City of Diamond Bar doesn't care." Considering that possible outcome, MPT/Herrera said she would propose to move forward with Alternative 1 — pushing for and encouraging it because it is actually happening at this time. It is not going to die. The stores are there and they will be there for years to come. But at the same time she would recommend and encourage that the City have a designation or call for a Specific Plan or Overlay for the golf course, in case the County decided they no longer wanted the land. And, that designation could go as far as designating the south end where there could be a walkable community town center, and on the north side it could be park space and perhaps some ball fields. She believes the General Plan should designate the entirety of the golf course area so that the Board of Supervisors cannot say, well, they only want to build in one area, so let's do a homeless encampment in the remaining area. She thinks it behooves Diamond Bar to take care of itself by being proactive and designating such in the General Plan update, which was her motion. C/Lyons said she was concerned that the folks who voted for the town center as Alternative 1 would not get what they think they are going to get. She has heard for many years many, many people say they want a restaurant where they can sit down and be waited on, preferably with tablecloths - they want a theater and higher end amenities, etc. In reading the documentation, it states that Alternative 1 would have Neighborhood Retail and Restaurants. Not knowing what that meant, she asked CDD/Gubman to explain it to her and was told this is what it means: Neighborhood Retail and Restaurants are the types of businesses currently populating the area. In other words, exactly what is in place at this point in time and theaters tend to require wider markets so they would not be considered "neighborhood oriented." So for those who thought that Alternative 1 would give them something more upscale, she believes that is not correct and everyone needs to understand that. JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 31 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG C/Tye said he believed C/Lyons was on the right track. What he hears people saying is "let's not do that — let's not designate (Alternative 2) for a development of a town center." In fact, no one is considering or suggesting that for development right now. The City is not saying it is pleased that The Charles Company made that investment in Diamond Bar but now is looking to change the land use so that it can now be a "town center". People are looking for something that is a focal point and designating where layout of the roadway and site can be changed to make it more walkable and bike friendly. MPT/Herrera is the only person who was on the Council when he was elected, and there was a day at the Diamond Bar Center where the Council talked about what it would like to see in a town center. It did not have anything to do with redoing the General Plan, but only what residents would like to see. In short, what was our vision for Diamond Bar? At that time he said he would love to see from Golden Springs to the SR57 and from the back side of Mandarin Taste to Diamond Bar Boulevard flattened so Diamond Bar could start over because that area consists of 20 or 30 acres that someone could work with to make it function as a town center. He believes that is what The Charles Company has in mind as it attempts to cobble together the different pieces and different ownerships at that site. And, to him, having something as large as the golf course site and something where the City could start anew would be terrific because it could be a destination. He believes he heard Mr. Diebel say he was tired of taking his family to other cities. And that is what the City may have available and all that is left for such a project, were it to happen, so the City is going to have to be proactive or lose that opportunity. It isn't as if Diamond Bar is saying okay, we're going to commit this much in resources and we want you to build a theater and we want you to build a high-end restaurant. All we are doing is saying "this is a designation and we think this would make the most sense at Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 and he does not think they are mutually exclusive. He doesn't believe it has to be either-or. He thinks what the City needs to protect itself against, and it could be too late because Diamond Bar is surrounded by too much retail whether it is Chino Hills, City of Industry, or Brea Birch Street, it would be a great plan if Diamond Bar could create something and have a vision that says this is where we would like to do something like that. He asked staff and the consultants how hard it would be, on the south end (of the golf course) to move holes 3 through 8 to the north side campus, which would give the City enough property to achieve what it wanted to achieve in that place, and give Diamond Bar the best of both worlds. He came here tonight thinking one thing and after looking at this, considering it, and seeing what folks want as their community, he believes it does not have to be mutually exclusive between Alternative 1 and 2. C/Lin said this is one of the best public meetings he has attended and he appreciates everyone's opinions. He is a golfer and he plays the Diamond Bar Golf Course quite a bit and it is one of the worst golf courses he has ever played. JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 32 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG It is so noisy and flat. The golf course as an open space is only for the person who can pay $59 to enjoy. If you don't have any money you can't enjoy it now. So, if the City were to turn that into an open space it would be free for people to use and wouldn't that be better and still provide a nice barrier to the houses. He thinks that this body and the attendees should not lose sight of the fact that they are being asked to define one of two alternatives to move forward to an environmental assessment. In other words, there is one hurdle before this body reaches a final conclusion. However, it does not mean that the City has to move forward with only one alternative. It can move both forward for further study before anything happens. CDD/Gubman explained that the current General Plan designations include "placeholder" designations. As an example, the Target property had a Planned Development designation that essentially prescribed that the area had to be master planned. At the same time, it did not specify a specific use. There are already a few sites that are designated as Planning Areas that do not specify what the particular menu of uses are, but at least highlights them as planning priority areas should a development opportunity occur in the future. So, it is a way to not go so far as to prescribe what designation it would fall under, but should that opportunity arise in the future, there are then policies that mandate that a "process" be undertaken to define what that future development profile would be. Mr. Bhatia said that they could look at the worst condition. In other words, the EIR would say that if that were to be a town center this is the worst environmental transportation condition there might be which, as CDD/Gubman said, does not mean that it is an automatic approval to anyone who comes forward to develop the property. There would still be requirements for a Master Plan or Specific Plan with discretionary approval by the City Council to be in place subject to further review. As a placeholder, the General Plan would state that this environmental document looks at the cumulative traffic conditions and results from that so nobody would say that we were understating the worst environmental impacts that could potentially happen which, in his mind, would be the best approach to take. But this would still leave a discretionary approval from the City Council for somebody to come back five or 10 years or so from now with a more Specific Plan before giving it a thumbs up. C/Lin said that the EIR is for the entire General Plan. In fact, town center is not even a land use designation but a commonly used term. So, what can the City do? Can it simply say it has a commercial center and in addition have a general plan designation for the south section of the golf course as MPT/Herrera mentioned, as open space, etc. and use that as a combined proposal to move forward to the EIR. JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 33 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG Mr. Bhatia said that C/Lin was perfectly correct. That can be done. M/Low said she heard C/Lin say that Alternative 2 and 3 should be combined to make a big Alternative 2. C/Lin said he was not saying that. What he is saying is that like it or not, the Smart & Final area is already a commercial center. Diamond Bar is planning for 20 years from now and wants to have a buildout in that area. There is already in place a buildout plan for that commercial center. At the same time, we would like to see some kind of a commercial center or town center considered on the south part of the golf course with the north part of the golf course being considered for open space public use. Mr. Bhatia said that C/Lin was correct and that when Fehr & Peers does their transportation analysis they report 2040 conditions (long term) what the traffic impacts of that scenario might be. C/Lin said that if the economy drives that scenario and 20 years from now if there is no environment for the golf course to be developed, so be it. Mr. Bhatia said that there can also be policies in place for the community's support of the existing golf course use. He does not believe that the City is looking for the golf course to move out. He believes the community should continue supporting it and let it remain vibrant, but at such time that use is no longer economically viable or should the County want to move it or do something else with it, at that time, what C/Lin said comes into play. C/Mahlke said that in listening to comments tonight - and she is a public speaking teacher so she gets really excited when people come to meetings and talk, she believes what they saw tonight was reflective of the miniscule amount of survey respondents (1.2% of the population) and more so what she believes it shows is opposing forces of what people want and what that comes with it, which is not actually what they want. We want school of choice but we don't want traffic. We want to be able to shop in our City but we don't want to have to deal with too many people on the streets — this is the nature of who we are which is not exclusive to Diamond Bar. She keeps coming back to what Mr. Bhatia wisely said, which is that the General Plan is the idea of how we protect our goals long range which shows our intent to reduce uncertainty. She hears people who are fervently passionate about these alternatives except that it might not ever happen. And these numbers the consultants are sort of being dragged through the mud on, are projections of things that cannot be account for. It is to the best of their ability knowing that these items might not ever be built and there may never be JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 34 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG developers or companies wanting to come in and do it due to economics, emissions and so many other things. These are very important things but these are difficult things to look at. So when we are looking at this she wants to go with what is recommended with the idea of protecting the city, not based on moving forward, but putting safety measures place for this General Plan that ensure that however the City decides these opposing forces need to be resolved within our City, that can be done which will be leveled out what as to what that actually means through more talk, more input, or more people coming to meetings and speaking out about what they want and how we protect what it is that folks may think they want moving forward. She knows this has been a conversation about a town center but perhaps the conversation could be more about protecting everything that offers possibilities. A General Plan does not mean the City intends to move forward with specific things, it merely sets forth a vision and protects future opportunities. Even if Alternative 1 is selected and the idea of a golf course is protected, if something happens to change what is currently in place it does not mean that the City would necessarily do anything but continue to protect its future opportunities. M/Low asked staff for help with a motion that encompassed what this body wanted to do. CM/Fox said it sounds like there may be consensus for selection of Alternative 1 as the preferred land use alternative with the addition of placing an Overlay on the entire golf course with potential development on the south part and potential Open Space/Recreational uses on the north part which was a motion made by MPT/Herrera. C/Lin seconded the motion and stated that to him, that motion addresses both the City's desire as well as, the concerns of the residents. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: City Council: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: Planning Commission: Lin, Lyons, Tye, MPT/Herrera, M/Low None. None. None. AYES: Commissioners: Barlas, Farago, Mahlke, VC/Mok, ChairNVolfe NOES: Commissioners: None. ABSENT: Commissioners: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None. JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 35 GENERAL PLAN SPECIAL JT MTG M/Low thanked everyone for their participation in tonight's meeting. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the joint session, M/Low adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of Ruth M. Low, Mayor Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman, Community Development Director \ 8( \ \ f 042 7 = .0\ \ / ) E �� \ \ } \ \ \ a \ � �CL \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Q) ] o/ - ~ \ i C) \ \ \ ! - - - - - - `� \ \ / \ \ f 0 CL \ { / LL [to� ] ] \ \ < : » } - _ A N e « / « 7 # \ G § @ $ ¥ > / ( G ( ! [ z § §G G \ k \ ) a m 2 < \ \ m \; \ : / § ) / & B% ) ] ) j EL c§ ) \ \ W E ) \ j \ 3 \ )j ) \ < ! 6 \ \ } ] ) \ j / \ \ _ [/ \ j/ ] § )_ B \ ` / 2 # : / 2 ; &) §f 8 » : q : : , {r ;a [{ _ > {/ r {2 ) r f 2 2� 004 ` o Jam\ 2] \§� `! °� J `` ` E �� § % :- £2 3# / I• -® \2 L) - §; §» ®- ° � i =e>et � \ o §2 ,; =o m � §; ;, 5 = a 5= §q\ °\§° %\ �\ § \ \\ %§ ®0 ®� �/ \)§ e\- LO )« 2 a !\ k / )- z @ 7 §- a z & J az / - § 5z w \ 71 U) il : = E12 a E \ f -Fu 75 15 co cu } ) 2 \ / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \ \ \ \ 75 / \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ ) ( k \ \ ) \) k ))) ) \\\ U) A ) � _ E g £ <) y 0 § ® \ ; { \ \ ; / / ` / \ \j \ ) \ _ 0 / ) / of 3 � ;¥ ; £ af k { / / \ I \ [ z z z L L z § ; § ( $ U [ ; ! \ F;c�L co 8 } \j)[O ` 2 = § § § K \ § 2 § / ) ) o o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ j * - - t ` > « y > {\ { ! 32 ! a ca .7 o a ,7 r2 , �! 5 ® - .§ %Kf�j\jRf| y( $ ! 7 f 'a. ! {3k ƒ y \ (k\LU ! * 2 ( ®2 o )r)) \_r$) | { § — 2/ 3\ !. 7® J\ i ) ® )) )\° ® _ k )« « a c ®k §« (« ;f S| @ q 2 0 , e !® .2 \) i ) \ \ / § 2 § §7 § z § 7 m 2 0 z %7 0 k§ \ « )9 z &7 ;; CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: On April 24, 2018, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On April 20, 2018, a copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Library 21800 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Heritage Park 2900 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 20, 2018, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez ) Community Develop est Dept. CDAzstel I a\affidavitposting. doe