Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092519 - Minutes - Joint Special MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN 2040 UPDATE SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the Special Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members: Andrew Chou, Ruth Low, Nancy Lyons, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Tye, and Mayor Carol Herrera Commissioners: Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Ken Mok, William Rawlings, Vice Chair Frank Farago and Chair Naila Barlas Consultants: Rajeev Bhatia, AICP, ASLA, Partner, President & Project Manager, Dyett & Bhatia; and, Paul Hermann, Senior Engineer, Fehr & Peers 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; and, Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager. 2. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — REVIEW OF THE GENERAL PLAN 2040 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 4: CM/Fox congratulated everyone on reaching the final stage of the General Plan Update process that began more than three years ago. There has been a very extensive public outreach effort and intense participation throughout the process, and the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has put together countless hours in reviewing and developing very detailed goals and policies that are contained within the draft document, which reflects the feedback and comments from the public who have participated in the process to date. The public draft of the General Plan, the Climate Action Plan and the Environmental Impact Report are now available for public review and the purpose of these joint study sessions is for the City Council, the Planning Commission and the public to become familiar with the contents of these documents, and to provide additional SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 2 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG comments and feedback prior to the formal public hearings that will come before the Planning Commission in November, and ultimately before the City Council in December. CM/Fox expressed his thanks and gratitude to all who have participated in this exciting process — especially, the City Council, Planning Commission, the General Plan Advisory Committee, staff, the consultant team and the public. This is a monumental undertaking which is now approaching the finish line. CM/Fox introduced Rajeev Bhatia and Paul Herrmann and stated that tonight's agenda will consist of the following: A brief staff presentation on Chapters 1 through 4 of the General Plan document; public comments; and a chapter by chapter review and discussion with the City Council and Planning Commission, for which staff will provide answers to questions and concerns and ask for the Council and Commission to provide feedback and/or direction. CDD/Gubman provided staff's presentation stating that the Draft General Plan is the culmination of a process that kicked off on August 10, 2016 when the City Council and the Planning Commission held their first joint meeting. Following that was a 32 - month effort that included 23 stakeholder interviews, 10 GPAC meetings, 2 online surveys, 2 community workshops, pop up booths at five (5) special events throughout the City, two more joint Planning Commission/City Council meetings, informational booths at every 2017 Concerts in the Park, as well as at Albertsons, Smart & Final, Market World, Starbucks at Diamond Hills Plaza, and at Diamond Bar High School and Diamond Ranch High School. In addition, there was a public scoping meeting and 30 -day comment period when staff solicited input on what should be studied in the EIR that would be analyzing the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update. The City also had an extensive social media and direct mail outreach effort to engage the community and encourage their participation. Throughout this undertaking, the community played a significant role in constructing the framework upon which the Draft General Plan was built. Key components of that framework include: A Community Vision Statement, Seven Guiding Principles, an updated Land Use Map, and 118 Goals and 413 Policies. These 531 Goals and Policies were painstakingly reviewed by several members of the community and their feedback was taken to heart and reflected in the Goals and Policies language of that work which the GPAC ultimately endorsed. The General Plan Public Review Draft document provides the underlying context for the Community Vision and Guiding Principles that were crafted through the public process, and includes an updated Land Use Plan, as well as goals and policies. SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 3 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG The General Plan is ultimately built upon that framework to provide the text, diagrams and photos to help provide context to the core ideas and aspirations that were crafted throughout this effort. Tonight's meeting provides the opportunity to present the document to the Council and Commission, provide an overview of how the document is organized and to focus the discussion this evening on the first four chapters of the Draft General Plan. The Scope of Work for the General Plan was divided into three phases. Phases 1 and 2 - Product Initiation, Visioning and Issue Identification — led to the composition of the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles that provided guidance to move forward with the study areas that ultimately became some new land use districts and provided the basis for the Goals and Policies. We are currently in Phase 3, which is the draft and final documents, and we are in the closing tasks of the final phase. These public workshops are being provided as an opportunity to explain the intent, framework, organization and the steps that will need to transpire in order for the Planning Commission and City Council to ultimately hold the public hearings and adopt the document in its final form as it takes shape through this public review period. The General Plan documents are comprised of two policy documents and the EIR. The General Plan Update is a comprehensive update of the City's first ever General Plan that was adopted in 1995. There is also a Climate Action Plan which will be the City's greenhouse reduction strategy that demonstrates how Diamond Bar will comply with State mandates. The project also includes the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which studies the potential impacts of the project in accordance with the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The study sessions that are planned for tonight and October 8'" are intended to focus on pieces of this overall project. Tonight, the focus will be on Chapters 1 through 4: 1) Introduction; 2) Land Use and Economic Development; 3) Community Character & Placemaking; and, 4) the updated Circulation Element. CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION The introduction for the General Plan provides a roadmap to help navigate through the document in its entirety. The General Plan is a long-range policy document. The typical horizon for a General Plan is 20 years, thus the title of this document is Diamond Bar General Plan 2040. General Plans are often referred to as the "constitution" for local governments. It expresses the vision of the community's future, its goals, objectives and policies to achieve that vision, and includes State - required and optional elements. The distinction between goals and policies is that SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 4 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG goals are more overarching and more aspirational guiding statements that communicate or convey what the City would like to accomplish during the lifetime of this General Plan and policies are more specific explanations or directives to convey how the City should best implement those goals. A goal may say that "the City wishes to have a walkable downtown within its boundaries" and the policies would then say "we will do so by designating this specific area as the downtown and we will require a certain character in the street design, in the architecture and public spaces" and be more specific on how the City wants that vision to be realized when development is proposed to follow those General Plan criteria. The Introduction also includes the Community Vision to guide Land Use decisions to ensure a balance of different land uses that provide the ingredients for a complete community — a more livable place, and because a Town Center concept was consistently brought up as something the community wanted, it has been given prominence in the Vision Statement. Part of what a Town Center is, is its walkability and atmosphere that make it a destination and this too, plays an important role in the Vision Statement. Throughout the public workshops, a celebration of the community's diversity was identified as an important value. Words used to describe Diamond Bar during these workshops included safe, quiet and family friendly, which were the most frequently used. These identities also have a special prominence in the Community Vision. There is more interest in sustainability and being able to make responsible well-informed decisions so that this community and its quality of life that residents enjoy can be passed on to future generations. Part of Diamond Bar's unique character is its environmental resources and its country living character which are also embedded in the Vision Statement. CHAPTER 2 — LAND USE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT This element has the broadest scope of all of the chapters and provides the overall framework for the physical development of the community and the distribution and intensity of different land uses. The land use plan is built upon the goals and policies that were formulated throughout the process with the updating of the Land Use Map. Of importance to note in the Land Use diagram is that it is obviously more detailed than the 1995 Land Use diagram. Technology enabled staff and the consultant team to do a more precise and granular mapping of the different land use districts down to the parcel level, and reflect the current "built" environment as well as, previously approved development that has taken place since its original adoption in 1995. What the General Plan does not do, is propose any changes to existing residential neighborhoods and all of the density development criteria that has been established and developed into residential communities are cemented in this SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 5 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG updated document. What the General Plan does alongside of that, is create four (4) new focus areas in areas that are currently not residentially developed. Town Center—This focus area is identified along Diamond Bar Boulevard between the SR60 and Golden Springs Drive that could accommodate a more traditional "downtown" type development with entertainment, retail restaurant, community gathering spaces and ancillary residential uses to create a walkable environment. Neighborhood Mixed -Use — This focus area is envisioned as a combination of residential and neighborhood -serving retail to promote revitalization of North Diamond Bar Boulevard. Community Core Overlay — This focus area covers the County owned and operated golf course. The City Council and Planning Commission directed the team to establish this as a proactive measure in the event that LA County chooses to discontinue use of the golf course or downsize it, establish policies and goals to prescribe how that land should be repurposed to protect the interest of the City and not ultimately become subservient to whatever the County might ultimately determine is the best fate for the property. Transit Oriented Mixed Use — This focus area is on the west side of Brea Canyon Road between Lycoming and the City limits, delineated by the railroad tracks and a small parcel at the northeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Washington Street. The intent is to find ways to make it a more transit -friendly area, taking into account the transit center across the City limits in the City of Industry with the Metrolink station and the Foothill Transit Park & Ride facility. All of these focus areas express a desire to provide walkable, mixed-use activity and each focus area includes a residential component to keep the areas populated 24 hours and provide walkability and active lifestyles that does not rely heavily on the automobile and blend with the current layout of the City limits. Since the City is essentially built -out, these are also identified as opportunities for infill development to meet future needs and future aspirations for Diamond Bar. CDD/Gubman concluded that as part of the EIR traffic and air quality analysis, all of these newly established districts and policies led to some build -out estimates. With the proposed General Plan as drafted, if all of the policies were implemented and all of the focus areas were built out as they are envisioned underthe proposed General Plan, there would be approximately 3,750 new housing units, 7,000 new jobs and approximately 8,800 residents. So by 2040, the population estimate for the City could reach 66,700 and that growth would essentially be concentrated in the focus SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 6 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG areas and the goals and policies that take into account those build out numbers try to provide the direction and guidance to adapt to that future growth in a manner that is organized and compatible with the existing environment which creates the Community Character & Placemaking the community has expressed is an important characteristic that already exists within the country living, topographic and scenic features, and to continue to express that vision in the future built environment. CHAPTER 3 — COMMUNITY CHARACTER & PLACEMAKING Rajeev Bhatia stated that while the Land Use Element deals with where the uses will be located and how intense they will be, the Community Character & Placemaking deals with what it will look like and how human beings will interact with this environment. This chapter deals with the physical form and character of Diamond Bar and seeks strategies to strengthen the City's identity through new development and public improvements and as a reminder, new development will be limited to very specific areas, which means that much of the City will remain largely as it is now. This plan also looks through these connections and streets and open spaces that filter through the areas and how those could also be improved in terms of the City's identity. Obviously, the goals and policies are focused on those four mixed-use areas to encourage walkable and pedestrian -scale environments and districts, but also to preserve what people value most about Diamond Bar - the quality of the setting and residential neighborhoods that exist. The document seeks to do this through multiple strategies through an overall city-wide strategy that speaks to what the character is, how it should be preserved and enhanced, and it also drills down into the overall structure of the City as shown on the map and how those areas would be used to reflect the City's heritage and history as an early original ranch, for example. It also deals with Placemaking and how we create a memorable and unified character. So, for a variety of reasons, there are certain streets designated as "boulevards" which include integrating transportation improvements while also thinking about what the different uses alongside those would be and what they would feel like in terms of unified streetscapes as one moves through the City. This provides a way to look at a City on a "bigger picture" scale, how one enters the City and how one moves through it. As such, a lot of policies are centered on those specific focus areas. And, this document also talks about pedestrian and bicycle paths that will connect these neighborhoods to the focus areas and other destinations within in the City and how there will be development that is sensitive to hillsides and adjacent residential uses in order to provide good transition between densities and uses. In addition to the overarching policies for each of the four focus areas, there are more detailed goals and policies. For the Neighborhood Mixed Use focus area SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 7 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG along the north Diamond Bar Boulevard area where there are existing strip commercial uses that make transitions to other uses, we look to create well designed walkable neighborhoods, provide a visual gateway into the City when entering from the north side, and ways and opportunities to provide more open space for the new and adjacent residential uses. As a result, there are specific policies related to each of the specific areas such as, providing a small park if a development exceeds four acres. The Town Center Mixed Use area (downtown area with Sprouts, etc.) speaks to the need for a town center residents are seeking that needs to include parking, a pedestrian -oriented main street and greater mixed-use development. The Transient -Oriented Mixed Use focus area around the Metrolink station in the City of Industry offers Diamond Bar only a portion of that area and there are some industrial uses and opportunities for new residential use opportunities and how the City could develop better connectivity to the station as well as, a diversity of housing types, spaces for recreation, community gathering amenities and sensitivity to reducing uses. The Community Core Overlay focus area covers the County owned and operated golf course in the event that in the future, some of that land becomes available to the City for other kinds of uses and possibilities. This is a place where greater planning would be required before development could proceed, but the General Plan speaks to the desire to provide parks, walking areas and a destination place of vibrant pedestrian -scale uses for the community and the region. The Land Use Element includes details about the kinds of uses that would support active ground level activity and include some housing and perhaps hotels and offices that would be complimentary to the other uses that currently exist. Paul Herrmann spoke about the Circulation Element in conjunction with the Land Use Element taking into account the proposed growth. Overall, the Circulation Element seeks to improve mobility for a mostly vehicle -driven community. There are many policies with regard to limiting speeds and safety as well as, limiting congestion as much as possible. It also takes into account all other modes of travel available from an equity standpoint making more and safer connections for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. For the most part, the roadway network does not change in terms of capacity. There are a few key locations where improvements are recommended, but there are no new roadways recommended and no current roadways that are recommended to be expanded so that it will maintain the current capacity of the roadway system in order to maintain the community, the desires of the community and the community character. We don't want Diamond Bar to be a "parallel freeway" to the SR57 and SR60. Again, it can SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 8 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG expand and make safer bicycle and pedestrian connections to make a more walkable environment. In response to the latest legislation and policies from the State government including the Greenhouse Gas Reduction targets and the latest SB 743 for focusing on reducing VMT (vehicle miles traveled), there are several policies that focus on TDM strategies and active transportation. While we do transition away from Level of Service and EIR CEQA context, the General Plan still maintains Level of Service goals and policies that strive to maintain limited congestion on the streets as best as can be done given Diamond Bar's unique situation and location. Referring to the circulation diagrams for the proposed bike network and the circulation network, Mr. Herrmann said that most of this has not changed in design or function except for a couple of designation changes. There is a new designation called the "Boulevard" intended to support a certain type of character along those routes. The proposed bike network is quite aspirational. There are proposed bicycle routes throughout the City, especially connections inside and outside of town that provide more connectivity to all users and the goal is to create a safe network for all users no matter their age or ability. NEXT STEPS: CDD/Gubman confirmed that the nextjoint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session is scheduled for October 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Windmill Room to cover Chapters 5 through 8 of the Draft General Plan, introduce the Climate Action Plan and its purposes in the overall context of this effort, as well as the Draft Environmental Report that analyzes the potential impacts of implementing both the General Plan and any potential ancillary consequences of the Climate Action Plan. Following that, the 45 -day Public Review period forthe EIR will conclude on October 31 st. Once the Public Review period concludes, staff will receive all comments and respond to those comments, make any necessary adjustments to the EIR and produce the final EIR. With public comments and any feedback provided by the Council and Commission, staff will be working on the public hearing draft of the General Plan going forward. Looking through the Draft General Plan document there are a lot of placeholders where photographs need to be inserted and a number of photographs that are outdated and do not exemplify the character of the community or track with the adjoining text and those, too will be addressed and corrected. However, the substance and basic aesthetic of the General Plan document is defined. Once this effort is completed, the Planning Commission Public Hearing is slated for November 12th during which staff hopes to receive a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the General Plan. In accordance with direction provided by the City Council last February to have this SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 9 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG document adopted by the end of 2019, a Public Hearing to adopt the General Plan, Climate Action Plan and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report has been tentatively scheduled for the City Council's December V meeting. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: R. Lee Paulson, 21919 Santaquin Drive, thanked the City and the GPAC for their time and effort toward this process. There was a lot of discussion about bicycle paths and whether Diamond Bar topography was compatible with that goal. After visiting Canada and looking at their hills, he became aware of bicycles that are electrically assisted which he believes is the answer to dealing with the City's topography. In 2040, we know that certain things are going to be true — that our natural open spaces will be even more precious than they are today and that roadways will be even more congested and, the demand for housing will be even more intense. So, if Diamond Bar's open spaces are to be saved, additional houses will need to come from infill. And the Draft General Plan reflects this in its language by specifically highlighting those areas discussed this evening and Responsible Land Use members applaud this inclusion. Responsible Land Use was privileged to spend a term working with a Cal Poly professor who used Diamond Bar as a city planning agenda for the entire term. Very interesting points were made during these sessions, one of which is that if the bold vision that was presented tonight with the mixed-use and the neighborhood mixed-use in some of the commercial areas is adopted, Diamond Bar should make all of its commercial areas Neighborhood Mixed -Use to accommodate housing infill. In addition, instead of having just one Town Center, there would be a number of these throughout the City. Responsible Land Use respectfully requests that the following areas be designated as Neighborhood Mixed Use: The Target Center, the Super HMart Center and the Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue Center. If this General Plan focuses on all of these areas, it will be able to step in front of the vision the City has for its future, which will help when the State comes in and tries to tell Diamond Bar what to do. Douglas Barcon said he is diametrically opposed to what the previous speaker said. With respect to the bicycle paths, one of his issues is they go up Sunset Crossing and up Gold Rush and those hills are quite steep. From the SR60 north on Diamond Bar Boulevard, there is a Neighborhood Mixed -Use area and LU -P-21 addresses in a loose manner, that the issue is along from south of Sunset Crossing to the freeway (the pink area on the map), the hill by Wienerschnitzel is not going to be stable and that may not be a buildable area. He suggested those areas be taken off of the map as Neighborhood Mixed -Use. Unless the commercial property owners decide to revamp their properties, he does not believe people will tear out current businesses to put in mixed-use. The planning area off of Chino Hills SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 10 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG Parkway is interesting because it is not really part of Diamond Bar and most if not all of the shopping there will be done by people from Phillips Ranch and Chino Hills leaving no tax revenue for Diamond Bar and a small amount of property tax only. It is also possible that the support for the area may cost the City more than what it would be getting in tax revenue from it. LU -P-8 addresses residential development but what about the inclusion of redevelopment or replacement of current properties such as mansionization which should not be permitted in town. LU -P-15 mentions reducing parking requirements and/or shared parking which would likely result in street parking with more vehicles. With respect to LU -P-17, there are a bunch of mixed-use apartment buildings and condos that have popped up in the past couple of years that look like a giant wall against the street. Traffic calming measures on Diamond Bar Boulevard such as curve bump outs are not a wise idea because cars will be hitting them and there will be traffic accidents and damage to vehicles. And in his opinion, decreasing speeds will only encourage people to drive faster. Alan Kwan said he is very excited about what he is hearing and excited about the vision and goals being considered in the General Plan Update. He works at Storm Properties, a joint venture/partnership with the Gough family that owns a 5.4 acre parcel on Diamond Bar Boulevard at the SR60 off ramp which is designated as Neighborhood Mixed -Use. Most of the site is hillside and has geotechnical constraints that make it difficult for development. His firm is in final negotiations with a national retailer that has a neighborhood serving use and will submit its plan in the very near future for entitlement. While the proposed project will strive to meet the goals outlined in the update, his firm is concerned that some of the ideas and policies related to their policy will restrict their proposed development, as well as future development potential. The Neighborhood Mixed -Use is a great concept for this area; however, currently, only smaller -scale commercial developments are economically feasible and the requirements for the proposed land use would restrict their potential development which is the only thing that is economically feasible for the foreseeable future. Storm Properties and the Gough family respectfully request that the City consider an overlay for their parcel with Neighborhood Mixed -Use due to the topographical and geotechnical constraints of the property. In addition, LU- P- 23 requires that parcels greater than two acres construction of housing and some inclusionary housing. However, due to the slope and geotechnical constraints, less than 20 percent of their property is developable and the land use policy would create a hurdle they would not be able to achieve. Figure 3.2 shows the focus area with their property on the southern side and a bubble that notes that there is limited potential for development due to slopes and geotechnical constraints and while some of that is true, they would like it to be depicted that on the southwest corner to be hashed as commercial development as there is a portion there that is developable. Storm Properties and the Goff family want to ensure that existing uses SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 11 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG permitted under the commercial land use and C-2 zoning will be allowed going forward. 4. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Chapter 1: C/Mahlke thought it was an incredible document and she enjoyed looking through it. She asked that formatting and typographical errors be corrected. C/Low thanked staff and the consultants for their diligent work on this document and thanked the GPAC members and the public for their participation. C/Low asked how the three aspects of the General Plan document relate to existing documents such as the Zoning Ordinances, Municipal Ordinances and Design Ordinances. CM/Fox responded to C/Low that the General Plan is the top of the pyramid and that everything the City reviews from a land development standpoint, capital improvement standpoint and from a policy that the Council and the Planning Commission may wish to initiate, starts with the General Plan. Everything under that top tier becomes implementation of that General Plan, which means that the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are all tools that the City uses that involve the Planning Commission which is ultimately adopted by the City Council and Specific Plans, in the case of certain developments including a Master Plan for a particular piece of property. C/Low said that if there were inconsistencies between policies that are in the General Plan with the Zoning or Design plan, which document would control the process. CM/Fox responded to C/Low that State law requires that both Zoning and General Plans be consistent, so at some point the City would need to, as a follow-up step to the General Plan, look at updating the 30 -year old Zoning Code by creating different zoning districts to reflect what is being approved and memorialized in the General Plan. Again, the General Plan takes precedent and everything underneath would need to be consistent with that General Plan. If the City received a development project tomorrow, once the General Plan is adopted, that project would need to be scrutinized for compliance in the interim to make that development consistent with the General Plan. C/Low asked if it was correct that the speaker who spoke about his property and an SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 12 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG upcoming proposal for development would no longer be able to proceed with that particular development. CM/Fox responded to C/Low that it may or may not be possible because he is not sure what type of development they are looking to propose. Staff is aware of a couple of different points regarding that property. It is very topography challenged and some or all of the property may not be feasible for development bit there may be some pieces that are. The City can work with the property owner to determine their expectations or interest to see how that fits in with this General Plan and perhaps fine-tune some of the recommendations that are included in the General Plan document at this reading. C/Low said that throughout the four Chapters there are some 413 policies. To what extent is the City open to lawsuits from various special interest groups if any of the policies are not carried out? For example, policies such as collaborate with this organization, follow this mandate, develop this plan, ensure this, and ensure that. CA/DeBerry responded to C/Low that when development comes to the City, if it is a discretionary development that goes before the Planning Commission or City Council, one of the findings these bodies will typically make is whether or not it is consistent with the General Plan. The exposure would be if someone on the outside would way "well, it's not consistent with the General Plan and we challenge that finding" but the City Council's findings are given deference. If there is substantial evidence that supports the City Council's findings, the Court is expected to uphold those findings. Every now and then a City gets challenges. In a lot of these lawsuits about General Plan consistency, even though the General Plan itself has to be internally consistent, obviously some of the policies are competing. Not every development will fulfill every single policy or goal in the plan and sometimes they may be adverse to some, but that is just the nature of a General Plan. The question is, are they consistent with the General Plan policy in that particular location, not whether they are consistent with all General Plan policies. Obviously, if you want open space and high density residential, you will not get both. Most of the litigation against land use approvals is under CEQA and not based upon General Plan inconsistencies although both can occur. As far as the City's exposure, the City is always the defendant in that particular kind of action, but the person whose interest is most affected is the developer. As a result, the City has a normal condition that is put into the City's Conditional Use Permits and other resolutions approving development where the developer has to defend and indemnify the City which means they end up paying the City's attorney's fees should any such action occur. C/Low asked the standing of a community group, an out-of-state organization, or community activist group to challenge the City for failure to adopt another plan or SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 13 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG community activist group to challenge the City for failure to adopt another plan or failure to update a plan — what about these specific policies that are in the General Plan? CA/DeBerry said that if he said it is usually a developer that sues the City, he did not mean to say that. It is usually these outside groups that sue a City for approving a development plan which was the case with Millennium. The scenario of developers suing the City for not approving a project, given that if the City has discretionary authority over a project, changes or a developer prevailing in a case are very minimal. Typically, the lawsuits he sees from a developer is where the argument is that the City's function is ministerial versus discretionary. Where the City has discretion, for example, where the project needs a Variance, or Conditional Use Permit or a Zone change or relief from certain Zoning standards, it is totally with the discretion of the Planning Commission and the City. And, it is a very high standard they have to show that the City Council or Planning Commission abused their discretion. Developer lawsuits to not prevail very often. When they do, they get a lot of notoriety because they are so rare. Typically, what has happened in those instances is that there has been some sort of bias against the developer or their property is being taken without just compensation (unable to develop anything on their property). CA/DeBerry said he did not believe the exposure was very high as far as from developers — it is typically the third parties/citizens groups are suing the City. C/Low asked if lawsuits were generally based on specific properties as opposed to not following the General Plan. CA/DeBerry said that would be typical. When the City approves a particular project, the argument will be that "it is not consistent with the General Plan". If people are going to challenge a General Plan in general, that will come after this General Plan is approved. However, that is a really high hurdle to overcome the City Council's final determination on a General Plan. Typically, what you will see instead is that these groups will sue the City under CEQA saying that the EIR is insufficient in addressing all of the potential significant impacts of the General Plan, Chapter 2: C/Low referred to Page 2.3, standards for residential and non-residential density. She asked if this was a State standard and if so, what is the State's standard. CM/Fox responded to C/Low that it is not a State standard. The density ranges are subject to the Council's approval and can be found in the Summary Table on Page 2.16 with a breakdown of each of the Land Use designations, both residential and SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 14 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG commercial and given it some type of density, one unit to the acre up to 30 -units to the acre for the different Mixed -Use Land Use categories. For commercial development it is typically referred to as FAR (Floor Area Ratio) where the amount of square footage is a ratio to the size of the lot which helps define a density. State law requires cities to have some type of form of density which then helps to determine what those build out numbers are. This was worked on through the GPAC as well as, discussion of the preferred land use plan and some of those densities of 20-30 dwelling units per acre within those focus areas. C/Low referred to Page 2-19 under LU -P-2, words like "significant sensitive water features" have been used which to her, are very vague. In the end, who defines these words? CM/Fox said that ultimately, it is a combination of the developer application and staff and ultimately the Planning Commission and/or City Council. The idea of this is clustering development which brings to mind the property just begin discussed at the SR60 and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Some of that property, because of topography, cannot withstand that kind of density over the entire piece of property. So, that density is allowed (10 units per acre or something) to be in one corner of the property thereby preserving some features such as open space, steep canyon, stream or some other habitat. In this instance, you are taking what would be allowed if it were spread over the entire property and moving it to one portion of the property. C/Low referred to Page 2-19, LU -P-3 and the word "collaborate" and this requirement is that the City collaborate with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions on this land use. Similar language is repeated throughout Chapters 2, 3 and 4 and the various agencies could involve transportation, the bus system, or the two train stations and it is not possible to collaborate with the Union Pacific. This is written as a directive which does not leave the City with much discretion. CM/Fox said he believes the word "collaborate" means that Diamond Bar is willing to come to the table to talk. One example of that is the SR57/60 Confluence Project. Diamond Bar is working with a number of agencies to try to make a project happen that is in the City's best interest and there is support for that. There may be a situation where we do not agree, but we can still collaborate even if there is ultimately no agreement. The Council ultimately has that policy decision on whether it wants to support something or not support something at a regional level. All this means is that we want to be at the table for those things that affect Diamond Bar. C/Low referred to LU -P-6 in terms of discretion where it says "require new SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 15 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG development to pay its fair share for public facilities, etc." Where is discretion given in the event this Planning Commission and City Council would like to incentivize a particular development when you include the word "require" and where is the discretion to offer an incentive? CM/Fox said that in this case, the Council still has discretion because it may be requiring it, but it may be in a different form. It is still a fair -share of something. While all of these might say "require" or "shall" they are all followed by something that is policy -driven and the Council ultimately retains the ability to waive fees, impose fees, and to look at other community benefits might offset those fees. This is not necessarily mandating anything other than in this case, telling the development community they need to contribute and pay their fair portion of the freight. C/Low said she heard CM/Fox say that require does not mean require. CM/Fox responded that from a policy standpoint the City has flexibility. If it was in the Zoning Code, that is the implementation. Where we have the Subdivision Map Act and it says developers have to dedicate parkland at a certain rate based on a certain number of units, that is a Code requirement and the City will make sure that not only are they paying their fair share but that they are making their dedications. CM/Fox said that as CDD/Gubman earlier alluded to that with the General Plan Advisory Committee and comments from the public, a lot of these policies throughout this document are very specific and very detailed and it was in response to that public inquiry that those changes were made. Normally, the other way to look at it would be to say could this "encourage" or "suggest" or include some other softer language. He does not believe that the word "require" takes away the discretion because the Council and Planning Commission ultimately have that discretion. It is a policy and it is a General Plan. The requirement comes in at the Code level and Entitlement level depending on the situation. There are different ways to say the same thing. Other General Plans might be a little bit loftier or include other qualifiers as opposed to "require" or "shall". Mr. Bhatia explained that this is a long-range plan and the first time this has been done in 30 years. A lot of this will require subsequent and more detailed studies, codes, etc. In the case of the "fee" that is being discussed, before you can assess a fee on someone the City will be doing a complete study of a development including a fee study and those will then be established. As those more detailed plans, actions, and programs are developed, some of those rules will be defined as to what constitutes a fair share or not. So, while we may say hypothetically, "provide bike SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 16 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG lanes along all boulevards" the City cannot start putting bike lanes in right away because it would require a detailed bike plan and require that it be include as part of an improvements program and in this case, the plan would be looking at each specific roadway to determine whether it is or is not feasible. The General Plan gives the City a bigger "roadmap" —this is the City's desire and policy to provide that and in all cases, "where feasible, where practical, etc." and there will be much more that will need to be done before any such plan can be implemented. A lot of the rules, variances, exceptions, etc. is what Zoning does. This document is saying that if you are a developer coming to the City expect to pay for traffic impacts and so on, but the Council may decide, as part of that assessment, that somebody contributing affordable housing and open space is part of contributing their fair share. There is a lot that will need to be done and very little that can be taken from this General Plan document and literally apply. C/Low said she would feel better about this plan if the language was softer from "shall" to "may" or "if feasible" or "if possible" or "to the extent" practical. None of this can become a reality of it is unaffordable and it is unaffordable if it is a prohibitive type of plan. Mr. Bhatia said that C/Low's point is well taken and believes there is a proper place to add language that provides flexibility at specific locations. C/Low said she means it to be throughout the document and she is being told a "policy" is not aspirational and she has a problem with that. However, if it is made plain that the City "wants" to do this and the City will "try" to do that, but we cannot be required to do that, she believes it makes a better plan for Diamond Bar. M/Herrera agreed with C/Low that all of the sections that read "shall" should be removed and replaced with "may" or "could". CA/DeBerry explained that this type of change could have significant ramifications. For instance, if you include statements that are defined as "we'll try and make people pay if they can afford to pay their fair share of traffic impacts" for example, that may not be consistent with the Traffic Element. In other words, if the City is allowing housing development to come in that are not paying the Traffic Impact Fee which the City Council sets, the City may not be getting enough money for the traffic improvements that are in the General Plan. The fees the City Council sets for the ministerial projects as being fair share fees for traffic impacts, etc. will be the fees those projects will have to pay. The scenario he hopes C/Low is talking about is where there is a particular development that is coming into the City and there is the realization that it has specific benefits to the City that other projects may not provide SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 17 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG and typically, the way the City handles that might be that the Council might wave fees for those items that are of benefit—this would be done through a Development Agreement which the City has done with a couple of residential projects of late. Or, if the project is seeking a discretionary approval from the City Council, there is some flexibility there as well. He believes a lot of these "shall" statements are for projects that are coming in and do not need approval from the Planning Commission or City Council because they fit within the Zoning ramifications. If a developer through his plan is producing 3,000 traffic trips a day, the traffic impact fee says that development will pay this much and that fee is based upon what the City decides is their impact to the traffic infrastructure. While staff can review the suggestion, CA/DeBerry wants to be sure of potential ramifications of doing that and how it might impact all of the other elements that need to be considered. M/Herrera said her concern was that this was a "policy" and now it is being very restrictive and becoming a code. CM/Fox said there are times when it needs to be very specific to the City Attorney's point and there are times when it is more lofty and encouraging so it may vary throughout the document and staff will take another look at the language. C/Lyons said that while she respects the City Attorney's input, she also agrees with C/Low in wanting to make sure the City does not back itself into a corner and would be in favor of a compromise. C/Mahlke said she is very concerned about language as well, and when she read through some of the document she felt the pressure would come with the first time these policy changes came before the Commission or Council. Some of the requirements such as LU -P-8, a requirement for new residential development, it is probably fine that it remain as written because it would align with Zoning and other policies that would likely carry over. CM/Fox said he would appreciate Commissioners and Council Members providing specific reference to specific items. Mr. Bhatia said there are some policies that say "require" but they say "require" adequate transition and are very liberal because they will always be subject to interpretation. The fee may be a different issue, but there are a lot of design policies that "require" development to be of a good quality, adequate transition to the neighbors, etc. and he would not want the Commission or Council to box itself in. MPT/Tye said this process has taken three years because the City has worried about whether it should say "ensure", "guarantee" or "require" and he recalls that a SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 18 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG developer (Suncal) wanted to change something that went outside of the map and the City was not going to do that. In his opinion, if it said "require" new development to do something, the City would not have been able to gain the 350 acres it got from that developer and he believes the document has to have that kind of flexibility. C/Chou asked if there was a way to put an overarching statement at the front of the General Plan that all of this is based on "to the extent possible". CM/Fox said staff could look at including something in the Introduction when discussing how the document is constructed with respect to the policies and goals in order to enhance and clarify their meaning. C/Lyons referred to the diagram on Page 2-10 and wanted to know if the Transient - Oriented Mixed Use map is saying the current tenants have x number of years to move out. CM/Fox said absolutely not. This is something that provides guidance to the property owner that they may do something different with their property. And this is a document that will tell everybody where the City wants to go with the built environment. Nothing in this document prescribes or requires somebody to change their land use or their development or forces anyone to develop their property a certain way. CDD/Gubman stated that there is policy language that specifically addresses C/Lyons question because those industrial uses and office uses are thriving and viable at this time and have not become obsolete. The policy language states that those existing uses are to be considered "conforming" uses going forward. If they wanted to add on to those industrial buildings they may do so, but should they choose to implement the policies that actually expand the range of future ways they can use their property, this provides the means for them to do so and articulates the City's expectations so that it is clear to them what they can do. The City is communicating through its policy language what the its expectations are which gives them confidence and assurance going forward that they have that option should they find that those uses are no longer in keeping with the times. In short, current uses are protected. C/Lyons referred to Page 2-17 and asked about what appeared to be inconsistencies between the number of households and buildings called out in the Table at the bottom of the page. Mr. Bhatia responded to C/Lyons that some housing units remain vacant for this purpose a vacancy factor of 5 percent is applied. SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 19 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG C/Lyons referred to Page 2-21, LU -P-10 "provide opportunities and incentivize development of different housing types including senior housing, independent living facilities, residential care facilities..." and asked if these were designated to be in a separate place. Someone responded "no" off -mike. C/Lyons referred to Page 2-27, LU -P-33, "amend parking regulations in Title 22, Development Code of the Municipal Code to require lower parking minimums for developments with a mix of uses with different peak parking as well as, developments that implement enforceable residential parking demand." She said this is a concern to her and she needs to know from what it is today to what is being suggested. Mr. Bhatia said this does not indicate specific numbers. These numbers will be worked out through the Zoning Code amendment and what this is saying is that if you have a retail development and an office development and with the office you have so many vehicles parking during the week and the retail peaks on the weekends and evenings when there is no office parking, it would result in some combined parking reduction. What that number is remains to be worked out through the Zoning Code. CM/Fox further explained to C/Lyons that the section this policy is related to is the Transient -Oriented Mixed -Use development neighborhood. So in the case around the transit station, for example, the idea is to get people out of their cars and traditional parking standards may not be appropriate for a higher density type of housing development and the City would want to look at determining the right demand for parking is based upon whatever product is being proposed. C/Low referred to Page 2-27, LU -P-28 "maintain a healthy jobs -household balance" and "maintain equal or greater than the non-residential building inventory existing at the time of the December 2019 GP update adoption" and asked what this meant. Mr. Bhatia responded that if a developer is taking out a commercial use and putting in mixed-use development then the developer should keep the amount of commercial development that existed on December 2019 and include it in the mixed-use development at the same site. During the GPAC discussions, there were concerns about possibly losing all of the non-residential uses that were present with people taking out the warehouses and replacing that with all residential uses, for example. And the idea was that a developer would be allowed to put in more mix of uses but not at the expense of removing the non-residential uses. C/Low recommended the team take another look at this because in other portions of SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 20 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG the document there are issues about considering noise and air pollution, etc. While it is aspirational, she is not sure that it would be practical and if it is so aspirational that it is not practical, let's put it where it should be — aspirational as opposed to keeping something in place. Mr. Bhatia said that knowing Diamond Bar has a jobs deficit — more people than jobs, this is one way of ensuring that the places where job -oriented land uses exist, should not just simply be taken out and be replaced by residential. It is a policy choice if the Council wishes to remove it, but there was considerable discussion at the GPAC level which is why it is in the document. C/Low said she believes it is very, very complicated. She agrees with the idea that we don't want somebody to take warehouses out and put houses there. But there needs to be a better way to express that in the document. Likewise, on Pages 2-28 LU -P-35 talks about maximum range and other locations and she suggested that be looked at to see if that is better in the Development Standard Code. On Page 29 LU -P-40 "study the implementation of safe pedestrian connectivity, etc." and in italics there are comments. Is this an action item for staff or a direction or a policy that comes into being when we actually have a proposed development? Mr. Bhatia responded to C/Low that the wording not in italics is a policy and the one in italics is simply an explanation. It is not policy, but merely points out different ways in which this can be done. CM/Fox further explained that this could be as simple as building a crosswalk or as complicated as building a pedestrian bridge. The idea to provide connectivity to this "town center" area is where there are a lot of pedestrians and a lot of kids that cross that street. And whether it could be made safer and help make that center/corner more viable. It could be a combination of things that would have to be studied which will happen when that portion of the property is master -planned. C/Low said there are a number of places where this kind of language appears throughout the next four chapters — study this, do this, develop this, develop that and it sounds to her like the City is creating a new job. Mr. Bhatia said that someone came up with a grant for a Safe Routes to School study and there is money available for such things and Paul Herrmann may get hired to do that study. And what would they do? As a very first step they will go to the General Plan to see what the General Plan directs them to study as the hotspot locations. So, that will be picked up at that time when that study is done. The City will not proactively go do the studies immediately. This is something that may SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 21 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG happen at some point if it becomes a nuisance, the City would study that particular location. C/Low said that "as necessary" should be put in the text. M/Herrera and C/Mahlke agreed. C/Low referred to Page 2-31, LU -G-27 "designate adequate and equitably distributed land for educational, cultural, recreational and public service activities to meet the needs of Diamond Bar residents" and said that while she agrees with this goal she does not know what it means. Mr. Bhatia responded to C/Low that it simply is saying to make sure that land uses are balanced within the community. "Equitably distributed" means that through different parts of the City there are open spaces, etc. and don't just put them in one location in the City. C/Low asked that the language be simplified to "within the City boundaries" rather than equitably distributed. Chapter 3: C/Rawlings referred to CC -P-3 on Page 3-15 "native tolerant plants" and ask if that is referring to California native plants endemic to the area. C/Low referred to Page 3-19 CC -P-28 under building massing and design. She asked if this was new criteria that new development could not cast a significant shadow on existing development. Mr. Bhatia responded to C/Low that there is no State law about this. He remembers being at a GPAC meeting where concerns were voiced about the City putting in higher density development and the GPAC wanted to make sure that it would not vitiating the neighbors next to it. CDD/Gubman indicated to C/Low that there are also requirements for solar access for rooftops. C/Low said that if a housing development comes before the Planning Commission and a neighbor says this house is next door to me and it is casting a shadow on me, how would the Planning Commission resolve this issue with this wording in the General Plan? Mr. Bhatia said this would provide the rules for that to happen so there would not be SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 22 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG a case-by-case discussion. It is simply saying, develop the rules and put them into the Zoning Code. Someone responded to C/Low that yes, the City is developing rules in its Development Standards regarding shadows. C/Mahlke asked if it was true that if there was conflict with the State that the State would obviously override the General Plan and the City would have to adjust its General Plan to reflect what the City is allowed to do as things change. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Mahlke that in the hierarchy of things, if the State preempts a local policy or regulation, Diamond Bar needs to conform to that. C/Low referred to Page 3-29, CC -PP -49, that talks about reducing surface parking and encouraging people to develop consolidated parking structures, provided these structures are screened from view. What if it is not possible — does that preclude development of the structure? Mr. Bhatia said this policy actually says "encourage as opposed to require". C/Low said this language is repeated elsewhere within these next four chapters and asked if staff would ensure that this it is plan it is not required. Mr. Bhatia offered that it could be clarified in the first chapter where it explains what "shall" means, what "encourage" means, and what "require" means. C/Low referred to Page 30, CC -P-52 "to work with the City of Industry to highlight, etc." where she thinks "if possible" should be added. CM/Fox responded to C/Low that it doesn't seem necessary to reference the City of Industry. The policy is "highlight gateways and access to transit facilities through landscape and signage" and the transit station is technically in the City of Industry, but the Diamond Bar City limits ends at the tracks. C/Low said that in that case, those words should be deleted. Chapter 4: C/Chou said that Mr. Herrmann stated he did not anticipate any changes to the current roadway circulation. And yet, we are anticipating an additional 8,800 people which translates to about 6,000 vehicles and how does the City plan to SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 23 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG accommodate the additional flow of vehicles without widening the streets or making further changes. Mr. Herrmann said there are many policies throughout the document that reflect this. The City is currently going through programs such as the signal coordination program that will help move more cars through the City with the same capacity. There are several TDM reduction strategies that encourage people to use alternative modes — carpool, alternative work schedules, etc. There are several policies throughout the document that are trying to encourage people to not drive during those peak hours. There was a traffic study done in support of the Circulation Element with LOS analysis at roughly 30 intersections and 30 roadway segments and through that process, identified several intersections and several roadway segments that may not meet the Level of Service D standard. Where possible, the study recommended some lane improvements at some of the intersections that would bring those intersections up to standard LOS D. And other locations on specific roadway segments were specified as not in the best interest of the City to widen those, one of which was Brea Canyon Road at the southern end of the City where it parallels the freeway as well as, taking into the consideration the multiple comments with regard to induced travel (widening the roadway encourages more driving). C/Lyons referred to Page 4-26 CR -P -39c "implement traffic calming measures such as reduced vehicle speeds and road diets along Diamond Bar Boulevard" and asked for an explanation of "road diets" because she couldn't imagine the residents would favor that. Mr. Herrmann responded to C/Lyons that the idea behind these policies are that during the peak hours, Diamond Bar Boulevard can be congested and should be improved by the adapted signal timing programs taking place through the City. Comments were also received about high speeding during off-peak or non -peak direction that was considered unsafe, especially for bicyclists riding in the Class II lanes (painted lanes) and one of the traffic calming measures that was recommended was to upgrade those facilities to Class IV facilities which are essentially the same bike lanes but they would have some type of physical barrier such as a pylon ..... C/Lyons said a lane would be taken out in order to do that and Mr. Herrmann said "no, we would not" — in that case the traffic calming is within the bike lane and as the street lanes are wide (13 feet) it allows for faster travel whereas, if the lane can be width of the lane is minimized, it requires drivers to drive slower in order to feel comfortable. This would be considered a traffic calming measure. Where appropriate and where capacity allows, the City could consider road diets but nowhere in this plan does it specify that any lanes would be taken away or reduce capacity. SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 24 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG C/Lyons said she does not believe residents want a road diet on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Mr. Bhatia said that Diamond Bar Boulevard was specifically discussed for a bike lane and how a bikeway could be squeezed in without taking out a roadway lane. Mr. Herrmann asked C/Lyons if her concern was specifically with the reference to Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Lyons said that was correct and when adding a bike lane for complete streets that affected a small portion of Diamond Bar Boulevard from Gentle Springs Lane to Golden Springs Drive and she opposed to that term being applied to the entirety of Diamond Bar Boulevard. Mr. Herrmann said that when the policy was written it was a general overarching possibility that could improve the roadway to be studied and implemented at a later time. He has no personal vested interest in keeping that language if the Council wants it eliminated. C/Low and M/Herrera agreed that it should be eliminated. C/Low said that this is what she has been talking about. We need some flexibility. CDD/Gubman stated that Subsection C is under policy CR -P-39 and that pertains specifically to the Neighborhood Mixed -Use Neighborhood which is the very northernmost segment of Diamond Bar Boulevard where the intent to create the Neighborhood Mixed -Use area is to encourage a safer roadway that is more of a complete street that can accommodate pedestrians on the sidewalk and bicyclists and slow down the off-peak traffic. This was not intended to apply to any segment of Diamond Bar Boulevard south of the SR60 on and off ramps at Sunset Crossing Road, and staff believes that there are appropriate traffic calming measures that can be installed along that roadway segment so that if that area does become a viable Mixed -Use Neighborhood, addressing the traffic speeds, especially with the incline of the roadway, would be a prudent measure. Mr. Herrmann said that anytime a project comes through to the City it would have to be supported by some type of traffic study that showed what the proposed traffic volumes were going to be on this roadway and this is what the Level of Service would be. Ultimately, that discretion would fall to the City Council to say "we don't care, that's too much, or yes, we are in support of that". C/Low referred to Page 4-20 CR -P-26 and CR -P-28, as two instances where the directive is to coordinate with other jurisdictions and she requested that "if feasible" be added to the end of the statement. Also on Page 4-25 CR -P-34, "coordinate, collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions; and P-33 we are asking developers to SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 25 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG provide sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure on local streets, please add "if feasible" because it is all part of a plan and with the prior question from C/Lyons, C/Low understood that the discussion was about the Mixed -Use area on that portion of Diamond Bar Boulevard; however, if it is not limited, the next thing that she foresees is that people will surmise that if we can do it there let's do it someplace else and this road diet might possibly migrate down to the south end which would likely spell trouble, in her opinion. She does not want to alarm folks. Likewise, on Page 4-26 on CR -G-36, CR -P-35, CR -P-37 and CR -P38 — again, a lot of directives. She loves bicycles and trees but there needs to be flexible — and again, she would like to have "if feasible" inserted. C/Low referred to Page 4-28 DR -P-43, "strengthen the protection of bicyclists in lanes by implementing improvements" — again, she believes in that but is this a to- do list or is this aspirational. This should be clarified so we are not creating a bunch of new mandates for ourselves. C/Low referred to Page 4-35 CR -P-55 which directs us to "coordinate with Metrolink and Union Pacific" — she does not believe that is possible but would like to have "if feasible" added. Likewise on P-48 and P-47 directing us to "coordinate with Foothill Transit and Metrolink" so that we can morph trains that would be great but it is not likely so please insert "if possible/if feasible". C/Chou said he appreciates C/Low's input but is concerned that the GPAC spent considerable time crafting the language and he is concerned that if this body unilaterally adds words and changes words, that could change the spirit of what this document is attempting to accomplish. Perhaps there was specific reason for the language they put in the document and he thinks that as this body proceeds through the document, it should be a little more mindful of there being a reason that specific language was chosen. He is concerned that now the Council is unilaterally changing language that has been crafted over the past three years. M/Herrera said in her opinion, the Council was attempting to be realistic. As has been stated, this is a policy document and not a code document and when language mandates certain things it changes policy. It is no longer policy, it is a code. And she believes it is realistic to implement the changes suggested. C/Rawlings said that throughout the document it talks about transportation management, the intelligent transportation systems, etc. and studies have been done on that. He wanted to be sure that the document captured the scope of the study and he wanted to know if any of the study was done taking into consideration the possibility of the SR57/60 Confluence project (Big Fix) and impacts that may SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 26 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG have on the City's service street transportation issues and knowing that as the City has the level of service in the document, as more regional solutions take root, it may actually improve the level of service and what the City might expect with regard to vehicles miles traveled, etc. Mr. Herrmann said that for the Traffic Study, the City's future conditions for the year 2040 were included. The SCAG model is referenced which is consistent with the SCAG 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. In that plan there are hundreds of pages of transportation projects that are funded, partially funded or planned to be funded that it is consistent with general practice to assume that those will be in place by 2040. In the Diamond Bar analysis, the entire 60 freeway widening improvement project was assumed to be completed and the analysis showed higher traffic volumes on the freeway. In general, there was some increase shown through Diamond Bar, as well as through the freeways, but given that the City is mostly built out, accounted for the growth assuming that everything would be built out by 2040, the trips generated through the modeling process showed that the City was able to maintain the Level of Service standard at most study locations throughout the City. MPT/Tye said he agreed with C/Chou that hours and hours were spent trying to get this right and he believes this group is being too literal with it. Really, it is not a good idea to use the words "road diet" — we all know what it means and it won't improve traffic in Diamond Bar, but as PWD/Liu said ages ago, whether it is a traffic circle, yellow dots, bump outs or speed bumps, those are just tools we have in the box. So, while the term "road diet" may not be so popular today, it is just a tool and no one is saying we have to do it. He is also not opposed to saying it should come out of the document. But, where we get into working with terms such as establish requirements, encourage public schools, etc., we had this conversation last Council meeting. We encourage public schools to come up with the Safe Routes to School. Great. They will take the phone call and they are going to say "no" because they don't have the money. So, we have to be realistic about some of this. If we encourage public schools, great — we tried to do that. Work with Caltrans — we made a phone call and they hung up on us. Well, we tried to work with them. He does not believe the whole document needs to be wordsmithed because this group is so worried about it coming back to haunt us that well, what we really meant was - if feasible. I think we are working about stuff we don't need to worry about. He thinks they are all good efforts and hours and hours and hours went into this document and he is personally not real interested in reworking the whole thing. CM/Fox said that he appreciates everyone's comments and staff gets it with respect to some of the language and terminology used in these chapters. Staff will take another visit at some of these items. CA/DeBerry just mentioned another phrase that might be more appropriate "as opportunities arise" rather than "if feasible". Staff SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 27 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG will attempt to be a little more creative as well as, provide flexibility. To C/Chou's point CM/Fox does not believe any of these things that are being discussed and proposed to be changed have no effect with respect to diluting or taking away the intent of these policies. The efforts of the GPAC and residents are still there and it is the same document. It is, as MPT/Tye mentioned, a matter of dealing with semantics and it will not change anything. However, if it gives everyone a greater comfort level and the document can be a little bit clearer in its meanings as to how someone will read and interpret the document, whether today or 20 years from now, hopefully, staff can try and do that for the Council. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the joint session, M/Herrera adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:25 p.m. to October 8th, 2019. Respectfully submitted, Kristina Santana City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 15th day of October, 2019. ak�w Carol Herrera Mayor Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Naila Barlas Planning Commission Chair