Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100819 - Minutes - Joint Special MeetingCITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN 2040 UPDATE OCTOBER 8, 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: Steven Nelson, ESA Project Consultant and Gina Kotos, Project Consultant, Dyett & Bhatia. Also present: City Manager Dan Fox; Assistant City Manager Ryan McLean; Assistant City Attorney James H. Eggart; Community Development Director Greg Gubman; Senior Planner Grace Lee; and City Clerk Kristina Santana. 2. REVISED DRAFT GOAL AND POLICY LANGUAGE FOR THE GENERAL PLAN 2040 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CHAPTERS 2 THROUGH 4: CM/Fox provided a summary of some revised policies based upon comments made at the September 25, 2019 workshop. Staff provided a redlined version of some of the policies that were more policy -oriented as opposed to regulatory in nature. Staff is seeking feedback and/or any additional revisions as this process moved forward. CM/Fox referenced the packet of information from Lee Paulson, Responsible Land Use, who is recommending that the original draft of the policies be adopted. Staff recommends that the Council and Commission receive Public Comments on this item and provide direction to staff. Public Comments on Item 2 only: Paul Sherwood stated that he served on the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The 1995 General Plan Circulation Element, Section 4, addresses the OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 2 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG need for an alternative travel corridor around the City of Diamond Bar to discourage roadway traffic from using the city's streets for cut through purposes. This section references a traffic corridor through Tonner Canyon which could run from the SR57 to Chino Hills Parkway and perhaps beyond. The roadway along this route would do a great deal to alleviate the congestion. The vision of an alternative traffic corridor to relieve traffic congestion was part of the 1995 plan and it is disappointing to him that this vision and hope has not been made a part of the General Plan Update. A roadway through Tonner Canyon would be a major help in relieving the City's traffic congestion and while it would be a long-term project that would involve multiple agencies and county authorities, the General Plan is designed to help the City meet its long-term goals and needs. He encouraged the Council to continue the effort and ultimately create the alternative corridor and include it in the General Plan Update. Melony Paulson stated that under the Brown Act, the Council is allowed to call any speaker up to the podium after public comments have closed to answer any questions the Council or Planning Commission might have that pertain to the specific agenda topics and she respectfully requested that the Council consider doing so during this and future General Plan meetings. Lee Paulson said he understands there is concern that many of the policies were regulatory in tone and written as directives. The General Plan language presented to the Council and Commission was very carefully crafted and that the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research is very clear about how General Plan language should be written. While he respects concerns raised by the City Council, mitigation of those concerns creates more problems than it solves because by making all policy changes vague, non-measurable and unenforceable, several things occur: 1) It gives City staff and especially the Planning Commission no clear direction about how to guide the City during the coming 20 years; 2) it will destroy the Draft General Plan's internal consistency; and 3) the language proposed will make the General Plan inconsistent with the Draft Environment Impact Report (DEIR). By taking away the mandatory measurable enforceable language of important General Plan policies, important mitigations in the DEIR are also destroyed. Chapter 10 of the OPR is clear on this topic. Responsible Land Use has no political aspirations and the only desire of this group is to assist the creation of the new General Plan and create the best possible future for the City. It is possible to find common ground with the Council's concerns and do so without compromising the integrity of what has been created. While it is impossible to give the City's proposed language changes the thorough analysis it deserves in only two days, members of Responsible Land Use offered their public comments to the proposed language changes yesterday as a place to begin working toward common OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 3 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ground. We understand that time is of the essence in getting this plan concluded and to that end, offer the following. The Brown Act allows the Council to call speakers back up to the podium to answer questions any Council Member or Commissioner may have about the documents that were provided this evening. Another option is to perhaps look the other way and allow the staff to hire Responsible Land Use as consultants to help provide revised language. Lastly, this group heard the words "extremist environmental group" used from the dais last meeting which suggests suspicion by some. And if this group had any malevolent intentions, he guarantees there would not have been any documents from this group presented to the Council yesterday. Robin Smith, Chair, Diamond Bar Sierra Club, said that in December 2017 her group received an urgent call for help from residents in The Country Estates near the Millennium project. Bulldozers were in their back yard tearing out old-growth oak trees and the residents were very distressed about it. She was instructed on advice from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to visit the site with her team to determine if there was a permit for the grading and upon so doing, discovered that the field boss did not have a permit and was not part of the Millennium group. She wrote a letter to the CDFW official informing him of her findings and copied the City. Shortly thereafter, the City issued a Cease and Desist to halt the grading. Much later the CDFW sent out a team to inspect the site. She was told that the grading could be done and oak woodland removal could be done without permits because unfortunately, the language in the EIR for the Millennium project was so vague and poorly written that it allowed loopholes for this type of behavior. She referred to an environmental report a homeowner on Kicking Horse Drive had done on their property. She said she has no political agenda and wants to make sure Diamond Bar enjoys the best environmental protections and practices possible. The trees that were taken out by the Millennium project created loss of 82,500,000 pounds of carbon sequestration per year for the community and that the mitigation plan for Millennium was a complete failure. While these loses cannot be "seen", they are true losses and she believes the City needs to do everything possible to avoid such events in the future by including appropriate language. Allen Wilson said that the GPAC put a lot of work into this document to make sure the guidelines protect the community. The declining enrollment of the local school districts needs to be addressed in the General Plan. He wants to be sure GPAC's work and the public's input is not being diminished. M/Herrera closed Public Comment on Agenda Item 2. M/Herrera complimented staff on compiling the revised language for Chapters 2 OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 4 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG through 4 which she felt captured everything said and expressed by Council Members and Commissioners. C/Low asked if the redlined version in any way alters the intent of the General Plan as initially presented. CM/Fox said that staff does not believe that any of the policy intent is changed with the changing of "require" to "ensure" or "encourage" because these are set up to read as policy documents and not code requirements. Everything that comes out of the General Plan has to go through an entitlement process. It has to come before the Planning Commission and sometimes the City Council. There is an environmental review that occurs, there are zoning codes that have to be looked at for compliance, and there are Specific Plans that have to be crafted for some of the new mixed-use areas which have been identified. In staff's opinion, those are the places to put things like "to require", "to mandate" and so forth. Following the update process, staff will begin the process of updating the City's Zoning Code and other important documents and things that come out of the Zoning Code will be reflective of the policies that are included in the General Plan document. Again, staff does not believe that any of the intent of any of the policies have been watered down to where staff does not understand the priorities of this community. C/Low asked if the revised language lessened any of the protections to the City's environment or open spaces.CM/Fox said he did not believe so. He reiterated that the General Plan will now designate the City's open space as "green" on the map which did not occur previously. Development in the canyons north of the Diamond Bar Center that are currently open space will not happen. For the most part, what is being designated development is infill development within the opportunity areas discussed in the document — the Town Center, the Transit -Oriented Mixed -Use area, potentially the golf course should the county decide to no longer operate a golf course on that property, as well as small miscellaneous properties that were already dedicated for development. No residential designations have been changed and all of the open space has been incorporated reflective of past development patterns. C/Low asked if the redlining had created any "internal inconsistency" within the plan and CM/Fox said that staff does not believe it has. He said some of the language has been changed to reflect policy language as opposed to mandate language. He concluded that nothing is being changed and nothing is being added. In staff's opinion, the document remains internally consistent and the Environmental Impact Report mitigation measures continue to be self -mitigating. C/Chou asked CM/Fox if he is saying that the proposed language does not change OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 5 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG the spirit of what was originally intended by the General Plan and CM/Fox responded "that's correct". C/Chou wanted to know why the language was being changed. He said he was involved in the GPAC process and three years of wordsmithing resulted in language that now is proposed to be revised. If the proposed revisions do not change the intent of what was originally brought forward by the GPAC, he does not see the revisions as necessary. He believes that this runs the risk of unintentionally changing the spirit of what was decided by GPAC's 15 members' three years of work and because the Council and Commission have been presented with a revision from Responsible Land Use we are obligated to look through their revision to and compare it with this revision which ultimately goes back to the version that was brought forward by GPAC and which to him, was intended to be a finished product. CM/Fox said the process is that the GPAC makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, the body that ultimately has the responsibility to adopt the plan and the City Council, and at any point in that process, changes, revisions, additions or subtractions can be made. At each of those steps, the public has the ability to comment and participate in the process. The GPAC spent a tremendous amount of time crafting the 400 plus policies and the 111 plus goals. It involved a tremendous amount of effort that few anticipated going into the process would be that detailed and involved. Obviously, the public has provided a lot of input into that process as well. The product that was presented to the City Council and Planning Commission had a lot of "requirements" and he is of the belief that the General Plan cannot require the City Council or Planning Commission to change the City's Zoning Code. We can consider changing the Zoning Code and that, in and of itself, goes through an entirely separate process. There will be give and take in that process, whether it is related to parking standards, building heights or any other consideration. We want to provide compatibility with neighborhoods in transition, particularly in the mixed-use areas. We want to provide walkable neighborhoods. All of these policies "suggest" that and we encourage that. Staff works very hard with whatever developer comes in on private property to make sure the City gets the best quality project possible and those projects go through the public process so there will be some give and take. And there may be a situation where the City cannot come up with one of these things and somebody will hold that against the City. And the Planning Commission and/or Council will be asked to deny a project because it is not consistent with the General Plan even though it may be a great project. That is the concern that is out there. And the General Plan is a policy that everything falls below. The plan includes strong language to "ensure", "to cooperate", "to work with", and "to update" which will guide the direction of the next steps as the City implements projects, Codes and Specific Plans for all of these areas. Again, in OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 6 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG staff's opinion, it is not a "watering down" of any of the policies where it changes the intent of what the GPAC and/or public have suggested. Everyone wants to make sure that the wording throughout the policies is consistent. The other half of the policies that were not changed already had these words in them and whether they should be consistent throughout is a question for the Council and Planning Commission to decide. M/Herrera said that the GPAC does not create policy, the City Council creates policy. The GPAC is an advisory committee to the Council and does not write policy for the City. The GPAC has submitted what they are recommending and then the City Council Members, who create policy, are making comments on what the GPAC has submitted. And she believes that what staff has revised gets the document where it needs to be while maintaining the original intent. C/Lyons asked ACA/Eggart if anything that he has heard tonight or anything he has seen in the revised language concerns him. ACA/Eggart said that he had no legal concerns with the revised language and its merits. This is a policy question. C/Mok said that as he went through the revisions for Chapters 2 through 4, he focused on the verbs that were used such as, "require, collaborate, ensure, etc." and if the purpose was to soften up the language, he believes the revisions were successful in many areas. In some areas the same verbs were repeated including "require and encourage" and in his view, when it says "require" it is saying that has to be done and when "encouraging" is used, it is offered as a suggestion which softens the language. Some were changed from "require" to "ensure" and "ensure" seems to him to translate "to make sure" it happens and "require" seems to suggest almost the same thing. One slight difference could be that "ensure" seems to suggest enforcement whereas, "require" legislates. He asked for an explanation of the difference between "ensure" and "require". CM/Fox responded to C/Mok that "require" is a Code requirement — you shall do this. There is no if, and, or but about it. You must comply with it. It is black and white. "Ensure" that you do something, particularly if you want to ensure that buildings face the street on a development site it can be designed a hundred different ways and still get to the point of "ensuring" that it faces the street as opposed to "requiring" that it face the street. You may not be able to get 100 percent of the project to face the street because it needs a driveway or it has a courtyard and somebody might then say "no, you have to have 100 percent facing the street" and that is what require means. So, this is an attempt to provide a little bit of flexibility because we do not know what these projects will look like at this point. But as one gets into the specifics when a development gets proposed, it is at OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 7 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG that time that the City gets into areas where there are requirements when creating that Specific Plan. We cannot always require a parking lot to be shielded from the street. In a Town Center that would likely take away all of the angled parking and the downtown character that you wanted to create in the first place. So, we want to "encourage" them to screen the large parking fields. There may not be areas where that is feasible based upon the logistics of how one develops a site. Again, it is purely a policy decision based on the comfort level of the Planning Commission and the City Council. ACA/Eggart said that he has an appreciation for both sides of the discussion. The General Plan needs to provide direction to those future leaders of the City. He understands that the City wants to give guidance and direction without necessarily legislating through this document. What he wants to make certain of though, is that as we look at this language it is not inadvertently tying the hands of City officials and particularly of the City Council. What he is referring to is that there is very strong language, possibly language that is too strong that more closely resembles code than policy language. By softening the language and by softening some of these verbs, does it make it more difficult for the City, through its codes to actually "require" something to be done? What he would like is for the City Council to have some latitude in requiring certain standards to be met where now in the General Plan the language is a little softer and whether that would create a problem for the City Council in the future or could the codes be written as needed to be stronger or weaker. CDD/Gubman said that the language changes do not take away the ability to write effective, tightly written, robust codes. The City has General Plan policies to stand behind, and can be in a defensible position of authority to provide the basis for those requirements. When the codes are updated they will then establish quantitative criteria for development and staff will be able to make the finding that those code regulations are consistent with the General Plan because we have a policy that encourages that type of feature, or that type of character or mix of land uses, or whatever that policy speaks to. C/Mahlke said she loves really strong language and that one of the concerns she had when they were going through the process of changing language during the last meeting, was her feeling that Diamond Bar is not a City with open expanses. We are not starting fresh here and if we look at the fact that we are largely built -out and that we are doing infill, she is afraid that if the stronger language were adopted, which she feels is enforceable by other means such as Zoning Codes and requiring that new residential development be compatible with prevailing character, that would happen at the Planning Commission level. Saying that we want to "ensure" that OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 8 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG happens, allows the City to make some case-by-case decisions where pieces of property that currently exist or layouts that currently exist where the City is working with developers to fit mixed use developments, for example, might not meet what would be "required" but would be allowed, with flexibility, to procced to fill in a particular area with the most suitable and best possible project. She believes that if this was a new City with a new General Plan and new buildout possibilities, that plan should require everything the City wants long term. In this instance, she does not believe that is realistic language for Diamond Bar to enforce, when the idea is to fill in areas that have been vacant. Saying that we "promote" or "ensure" gives the opportunity for other systems to be put in place a case-by-case basis and for the City to look at what exists, and with that spirit in mind and the goals the GPAC envisioned, say the City is going to do the best it can based on the best benefit of what the City envisions with those seven ideas in mind of what the General Plan is supposed to do. She believes there is some middle ground and believes it is a mistake to leave that stronger language in the document because it immediately ties the City's hands. She sees the revised language as a smart move to ensure that the City can do what is best for the City. Chair/Barlas said she agreed with her colleagues. She appreciates what the GPAC accomplished with this document but eventually, it comes to the Planning Commission and to the City Council whose members are more mature and aware of what has happened and what is happening in the City. Her understanding of being in real estate is that Zoning Codes and Development Codes take precedence and the General Plan is an umbrella that defines what will be done in those areas. She is hoping that once the General Plan process is completed that the City will move forward to update its Zoning Code and Development Code. CM/Fox said that these items are scheduled as part of Council's Strategic Plan and as such, the City will begin updating the Zoning Code immediately following this process, as well as entering into the next Housing Element cycle. Chair/Barlas said that the Planning Commission will still be dealing with the current Zoning Code in its decision-making process and asked if the process was correct and whether ACA/Eggart felt there was a conflict between completing the General Plan Update and getting the Zoning Code updated. ACA/Eggart responded that the process the City has undertaken is a common process that cities go through when they update their General Plans. They do the General Plan first and after that, they update their Zoning Code consistent with that General Plan. Generally, they are not done simultaneously. OCTOBER 8, 2019 3. PAGE 9 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG Chair/Barlas asked how the Planning Commission would render decisions once the General Plan is completed and prior to updating the Zoning Code. CM/Fox responded to Chair/Barlas that he did not believe there would be a large conflict, particularly on the existing development community because nothing is being changed. There will still be the same consideration for room additions, single family residences, etc. There may be some modest additions to some of the commercial buildings and the current Zoning Code will apply. Where the Planning Commission may see something is in the Town Center if someone wanted to create something which would trigger preparation of a Specific Plan. This is a zoning process that establishes the unique set of development standards for whatever that process becomes - incorporating mixed-use opportunities, pedestrian -oriented development, and all of the good things that have been discussed that the community desires. There is nothing currently on the drawing board and he does not anticipate there will be much change or conflict, but as things come in staff will deal with those issues. MPT/Tye read from Merriam -Webster that "ensure" is to make sure, certain or safe and "require" is to claim or ask for by right and authority, to call for a suitable or appropriate, to demand as necessary or essential, have a compelling need for and he believes it is critical that the language does box the City in. He reiterated that he does not believe this document needed to be gone through. He thanked staff for all of the effort, but he does believe it brings to mind what is meant with the word "ensure" - encourage rather than require, promote rather than require, to promote rather than to maintain — one can make an argument either way and he does not believe this exercise was necessary but is now at this point and the City is not worse for the effort. At the same time, it protects the Planning Commission and City Council down the road. Council Members and Planning Commissioners with C/Chou dissenting, concurred that the language as revised was acceptable. C/Chou reiterated his belief that the language drafted by GPAC after three years should be adopted. He appreciates the comments made by his colleagues. REVIEW OF THE GENERAL PLAN 2040 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CHAPTERS 5 THROUGH 8, DRAFT CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND DRAFT EIR CCD/Gubman provided a brief overview of Chapters 5 through 7: Chapter 5 — Resource Conservation OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 10 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG This chapter sets forth the City's objectives to preserve its inventory of the public and private natural open spaces. A primary means to achieve that objective is the emphases on infill development, particularly through the new Mixed -Use Districts to better ensure that the open space inventory is protected from future encroachment. In addition, the Existing Conditions Report and other analysis verified and validated that there are many rich ecological resources and the Resource Conservation policies seek to promote these sources and protection of those linkages within the City's natural open space areas and wherever else that objective can be achieved. Other aspects of Resource Conservation include the City's water supply, water quality, and air quality policies to comply with state and local expectations, as well as cultural and archeological resources. Chapter 6 — Public Facilities & Services This chapter sets forth three objectives: 1) to maintain, expand and improve the City's Parks and Recreation facilities; 2) continue to foster, nurture and perpetuate the City's reputation and education facilities, and to do whatever possible to enhance the learning opportunities in the City to the extent possible; and, 3) with respect to infrastructure, public services and utilities, policies are included to ensure that those basic needs are maintained, improved and adequate to meet current and future needs for the City. Chapter 7 — Public Safety This chapter contains four (4) key objectives - Continue efforts to protect the community from loss of life, physical injury, property damage and other consequences of natural events such as earthquakes, floods, fires and any other types of hazardous events that could put the City and its residents in peril were the City to not prepare for such occasions. This chapter acknowledges the City's successful collaboration with the Public Safety Agencies including the Fire Department and the Sheriff's Department. The Contract Cities business model for Diamond Bar has proven itself and the policies are to continue to operate under this model. Related to the disaster planning is the City's Emergency Preparedness, and the policies and goals in this chapter call for ongoing training and preparation for any potential events that are likely to occur overtime; and, to limit the City's exposure to excessive noise levels for which the policies reference that, when there is new development, to ensure that the quality of life in those new developments is protected by considering, among other things, existing noise sources and how that development can be designated to mitigate those effects. OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 11 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG Chapter 8 — Community Health and Sustainability Gina Kotos, Project Consultant, Dyett & Bhatia, stated that this chapter is focused on promoting the welfare of all residents in Diamond Bar by improving the public health and building resiliency to climate change, and addresses environmental justice and provides policies to reduce existing and future health risks that may disproportionately affect vulnerable communities within Diamond Bar. The policies and goals within this element are tied to many of the other policies found throughout the General Plan. For example, policies found within the Circulation Element that promote active transportation, walking and bicycle opportunities can facilitate an active and healthy lifestyle. Increasing availability and access to public parks can create a strong community and social connectivity. Policies found in the Resource Conservation Element can improve environmental conditions, reduce greenhouse gases and ensure that the community is able to adapt to climate change and coming risks. Major objectives include a community health section supporting active and healthy lifestyles, facilitating social connectivity, and promoting health equity and environmental justice. Another part of this element focuses on sustainability and anticipating how Diamond Bar might adapt to climate change through reducing greenhouse gases which ties in to the Circulation Element that focuses on vehicle miles traveled and different types of transportation. Other strategies include reducing waste and focusing on recycling, energy efficiency and conservation in public and private sectors. Climate Action Plan This plan is related to the goals found in the Community Health and Sustainability Element, as well as the Resource Conservation Element. The Climate Action Plan is created to address state mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for 2030 and 2050. The plan is broken up by establishing an existing regulatory framework and using existing climate science methodology to estimate an inventory of greenhouse gases for existing conditions for multiple sectors within Diamond Bar and anticipating emissions under the General Plan. This plan finds that with implementation of existing state regulations and new General Plan policies, Diamond Bar will be capable of meeting the greenhouse gas reduction target without requiring any additional reduction measures. The Climate Action Plan provides additional recommended strategies should Diamond Bar choose to implement them in the future, and serves as Diamond Bar's qualified greenhouse gas reduction strategy. Because of the methodology and conclusions found in the Climate Action Plan, this will streamline the process for approval of projects that are OCTOBER 8, 2019 tied to the General Plan. PAGE 12 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG Environmental Impact Report CDD/Gubman provided an overview of the EIR process during which there was no discussion of specific findings or merits of the EIR because this document is currently proceeding through the Public Comment period. When the Final EIR is presented to the Council for Certification, the analysis and addressing of any comments regarding the merits or adequacy of the EIR will be discussed during the Public Hearing phase. Organization of the DEIR The EIR and CEQA in general was adopted as a means to inform the public of potential environmental impacts of any contemplated action that a public agency may take to approve or implement a project or program. It is primarily an informational document that is intended to transparently disclose what those potential impacts can be. Once the EIR identifies those potential impacts, the next step is to identify ways to mitigate those impacts, to reduce them and if possible, to reduce them below thresholds that are considered significant. If those measures cannot entirely mitigate impacts to levels of non -significance, the EIR must plainly disclose that and if the City Council is going to Certify the EIR and adopt the General Plan and there are, at the end of this analysis, significant and unavoidable impacts, the City Council must provide the reasons why there are overriding benefits that warrant approval of the plan, even though not all of the impacts can be entirely avoided. For a General Plan, because it is a long-term policy document with a 20 -year horizon, the City must look at this document at a high level. Still, with this in mind, the EIR looks at potential build -out and what the overall effects that implementing the General Plan to build -out may create. As long as projects are consistent with the General Plan, they will be subject to their own individual project -by -project environmental review processes so that those more granular and more specific impacts can be identified and disclosed and mitigation measures can be articulated so that by the end of this process, if there are any significant unavoidable impacts, the decision is made accordingly - such as, does the project give the City such a benefit that the impacts that accompany the project are outweighed by those benefits. EIR Certification OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 13 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG Public Review - A 45 -day public review period began on September 16th and runs through October 31St where the public can submit comments as to the adequacy of the General Plan. After close of the public review period, staff will provide written responses to all comments provided in the Draft EIR. Final EIR — Comments and responses thereto are placed on top of the Draft EIR and those volumes collectively become the Final EIR. Along with the Final EIR (FEIR), for the decision to be rendered, the City is required to prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and with all of the mitigation measures that are identified, triggers will be set forth to ensure that those impacts are being mitigated in accordance with the requirements set forth in the EIR. Should this conclude with a document that has significant unavoidable impacts, Findings of Fact will be prepared to disclose that and weigh the costs and benefits of accepting those impacts. And if the decision is that the benefits of a project outweigh those unavoidable impacts, before approving the General Plan, a Statement of Overriding Considerations needs to be adopted. Planning Commission Hearing — when the Final EIR is completed, it must be advertised made available for public review 10 days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing with recommendations to the City Council whether to certify the FEIR and adopt the General Plan and Climate Action Plan. Then it must be advertised and made available for public review 10 days prior to the City Council Public Hearing. City Council Hearing — The culmination of this process is a Public Hearing where the City Council will determine whether to certify the Final EIR and whether to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and, the City Council may adopt the General Plan and Climate Action Plan. Public Comments on Chapters 5 through 8: Diego Tamayo has been working as a field surveyor for the Diamond Bar Sierra Club Conservation Team. He is encouraged to see the City of Diamond Bar implement stronger conservation policies that would greatly impact the community. During the past three years he has uncovered very special findings and is realizing that these different ecosystems and different species have more value than merely visual value and provide an extremely important ecosystem service, including clean water, clean air and places that allow all residents to thrive in a healthy environment. These are known as natural climate solutions which are naturally developed by nature at no cost and are provided without implementation. One oak tree can sequester 55,000 pounds of carbon per year. Collectively, the hundreds (of oak OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 14 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG trees) throughout the City provide a strong service. The Sierra Club teaches the value of nature at the local level to encourage protection of natural resources. Biodiversity is threatened because of climate change and other local threats. In 2018 the State of California adopted the California State Biodiversity Initiative, a unique document which allowed the state to fully recognize that biodiversity is a crucial resource that must be recognized, protected. At the local level, communities need to make sure that the biodiversity initiative is acted on and recognized. He looks forward to the City having a better sense of improving the policy to protect nature and is encouraged by the progress made to date. Douglas Barcon asked where Diamond Bar intends to potentially build 3122 multi- family residential units and 142 single family residential units and how traffic would be mitigated. Table ES -4 provides a summary of impacts and mitigation measures in biological resources 3.3-1 on Page ES -1 and BI -O -1A and describes relocating special status plant species to suitable habitats within surrounding public open space or collecting seeds from the plants to allow a project to be developed. What is considered an acceptable "surrounding public open space?" Is it miles away from the proposed development site? Table ES -4, Section 3.3-2, Page ES -27, BIO -2, states that a development applicant shall acquire mitigation land of similar habitat off-site. Such a loose description would allow mitigation to be almost anywhere in the state or country. BI -0-4 in regard to oak woodlands specifies that such restoration should be located nearby to the impacted property. It does not state "shall" or "must" be located nearby to the impacted property. Mitigation specifies the same oak species, it does not specify the size or age of those replacement trees. The same is true for walnut woodlands discussed in BI -0-5. With respect to the Climate Action Plan, there is no information included regarding reflected or generated heat from the placement of solar panels compared to the reflected and generated heat from the same location as the solar panels before placement of the panels and its effect on micro -climate. The color or roofing material has a large impact on this. A lighter colored roof does not get as hot as a darker colored roof or dark solar panels. And, a solar farm would create a heat island for many acres. On Community Health and Sustainability, CHS -P-29 states "require noise mitigation measures which could include buffers, noise barriers or open space and vegetation between new sensitive uses such as residential units and schools and major noise polluters such as SR57 and SR60, the Metrolink rail line and heavy industry". As such, Mr. Barcon submitted a separate document with information for Chapter 3, Environmental Settings and Impacts Noise 3. 10, a publication cited in the Draft EIR. This information is based on his personal sound measurements and was presented to the City Council a couple of meetings ago, of the Union Pacific freight trains for several days from near the intersection of North Rock River Drive and Red Cloud Drive in Diamond Bar. Additional information is from the 2018 Metrics Transit Noise OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 15 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG and Vibration Impact Assessment manual provided by the Federal Transit Administration. The EIR also addresses PS -P-51 railroad and the General Plan Chapter 7.0 Public Safety Section 7.8 Noise. Grace Lim -Hayes said the many changes to the General Plan about the well- meaning words such as "ensure, encourage, promote, consider, when appropriate, when feasible, etc." led her, as an educator, to wonder how motivated her students would be if they were told to just "consider" doing their assignments "when feasible" or that they are "encouraged" to attend class "as opportunities arise." For example, many of the vague and unenforceable policies would cause potential paralysis and confusion for Planning Commissioners. "Promoting" and "encouraging" cannot be measured or evaluated. All of the policy guidelines have said that. If something is to be done as "necessary" or "where feasible" who would decide what is necessary and feasible? Ensure is not the same as require. It places responsibility on the City to check and verify, but it is not clear the developer must comply. These vague and unenforceable words will invite excuses and conflicts of interest that will be left out of the picture if the City is to take its General Plan seriously. As such, Responsible Land Use worked very hard with the GPAC these past three years to instill quality in the language to weed out poor phrases and support language that provides support to the City's future. Responsible Land Use collaborated with many experts, partnered with Cal Poly Pomona for a Placemaking project which was presented to staff and provided policy language from every highly recommended City and have seen examples of what is successful and what is not. The changes currently being entertained that have been accepted put Diamond Bar more in the category of what not to do. Therefore, RLU is deeply concerned with these significant changes being promoting or accepted with a very short window of time to evaluate those changes and submit written comments. Her group believes they could have provided even more in-depth analysis had time permitted. The 40 pages of comments scratch the surface of the problems that will result from these changes. The brevity of the City's deliberation this evening is concerning considering that these plans took three years to mature. With respect to Resource Conservation C -P-11 for example, one of the Council Members asked if the spirit of the General Plan still the same and subtle changes mean a lot. In the group's C -P-11 it requires all development including roads and trails proposed adjacent to riparian and biologically sensitive habitats to avoid, to the greatest extent feasible, significant impacts that would undermine healthy natural functioning of those areas. It requires new development proposed in such areas to be designed to — it originally said protect wildlife movement, linkages to water, food, shelter and nesting sites. The change is now "provide" wildlife movement with linkages to water, food, shelter and nesting sites which to her is a different spirit. The soul is gone because to protect as a Resource Conservation Element is to maintain the natural healthy functioning of that system. But "provide" OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 16 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG clearly suggests it could be removed, replaced and not protected. So, imagine how that change, if done in multiple places, could change the spirit of the language which is just one example of the significant changes her group detected. Responsible Land Use feels it would have been better to be slow during deliberation because the spirit of the General Plan process had been to include the people's language in it. And at this point it feels to her that has been washed away. Allen Wilson felt the GPAC's work should not be diminished. Public Safety is an important issue to him because during the past two months he has seen rampant crime coming into town. He hopes the City gets back to the plan of planting 100 to 200 trees in the City during the next five years. Robin Smith, local Sierra Club Chair, said she is very frustrated. In Chapter 5 of the Resource Conservation Element there is a map that is grossly inaccurate. In 2016, Sierra Club sent a letter regarding this map pointing out more than 16 mistakes. One glaring mistake is that all of the yellow should be pink because Diamond Bar does not have a large expanse of Walnut woodland in Diamond Bar. She wanted to know why the City is building its information off of inaccurate information. Her property has oaks and coastal scrub that is not mapped. However, her oak trees are mapped by the State of California. Further, the habitat maps are inaccurate and to be fair, it takes about a year for the form one fills out to register their findings with the CNDDB (California Native Diversity Data Base). The Sierra Club has filled out the forms for the gnatcatchers they found distributed throughout the City. She has gnatcatchers in her back yard. There are gnatcatchers in the south and over at Pantera Park, Steep Canyon, and other places. She does not understand why that paperwork hasn't gone through and why they are not shown on the map. She has spoken to the City about it and delivered to CM/Fox the Hamilton Bio Resources Report that corrects all of this. These are Findings of Facts that should be dealt with. She also has copies of the mapping standards that Bio Survey Professionals should follow — Survey of California Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project Deliverables and the Survey of California Vegetation Classification of Mapping Standards and she would like to know if the consultants have followed these very clear outlines. Lee Paulson addressed the suggested language changes and said that CM/Fox commented that the documents Responsible Land Use provided to the Council essentially ask that the Council keep the language the same which is not true. His group understands the need for flexibility and respect its importance. RLU knows that the City should not tie its hands and RLU also knows that there must be care taken when making rapid decisions that those decisions do not create unintended consequences. His only point is that the reason the Council and Commission OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 17 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG received 40 pages of specific recommendations from RLU is because they believe it is possible to provide both the flexibility the City needs and respect for the language that the City and citizens spent three years putting together, which they believe is possible and would like the opportunity to take the time now to get it right the first time because the City and its future deserves that much consideration. Paul Sherwood reiterated that he served on the General Plan Advisory Committee and one of the concerns he had as a committee member was the word "require" as it kept popping up. And for him, a plan is just that — a plan. It is not cast in stone. He believes the plan needs to give the City flexibility. Plans are guidelines, they are not necessarily absolutes and he thinks that the more flexible language is appropriate because as Planning Commissioners have stated, to address policies hard and fast at the Municipal Code/Ordinance level. A previous speaker drew an analogy with children. When he was a child he needed to be told what to do. But the City is run, guided and governed by adults who are clear-headed thinking adults who do not need to be told what to do and who can figure it out themselves. He believes everyone needs to trust leadership to take this plan and implement it in the spirit it was intended. To that end, flexibility is important because we do not know what will be on the table before us 20 years from now. There is one area that could be added in the conservation portion of the plan with respect to tree mitigation. He researched the Millennium project and found it interesting that the Tree Mitigation Agreement for Millennium was that they had to mitigate trees at Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park and he would encourage that the mitigation policy attempt to mitigate trees within Diamond Bar first "where feasible" before sending them to another City. Response to Public Comments: Steve Nelson, ESA responded to comments regarding the mapping and other resources in the Resource Conservation Element, regarding ecosystem services and biodiversity. In 1976 his then partner and he were part of the LA County General Plan Update study and completed the 1976 SEA Study which Diamond Bar adopted. In 2000 he was the principle investigator for the update of that study in which they expanded the Tonner Canyon SEA to include basically all of the vacant land in the Puente Hills. The whole objective of that study was to conserve biological diversity and he believes by the City's acceptance of that SEA they have adopted a policy of conserving biological diversity in and of themselves. There was discussion about relocating plants and seeds to acceptable public space. Those are typically things that are handled when dealing with state and federal resource agencies. They typically demand a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring program. The ideas that are typically considered are public areas within the City or the local jurisdiction. Nearby Chino Hills State Park has the same basic environment which OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 18 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG could be looked at, but at this point in history, it is very difficult to nail down exactly where cities will do these things. The wording that it be a "subject of future study" is perfectly consistent with the General Plan as opposed to a site-specific plan. Discussions about riparian and wildlife movement is thoroughly covered in the EIR, particularly in the discussion of the City's Sphere of Influence in Tonner Canyon and it respects the people that are involved in establishing the Puente -Chino Hills Wildlife Movement Corridor, which would ideally bring wildlife from the Santa Ana Mountains under Coal Canyon through Chino Hills and across via Tonner Canyon into the Puente Hills and west of there. As for the mapping, Mr. Nelson said that the commenter is focused on the site specific versus the General Plan approach to these things. Site-specific surveys plant surveys are performed at the project level, not at the General Plan level. And the same holds true for endangered species. In 2016, to the best of his knowledge, a gnatcatcher was not seen or recorded in Diamond Bar. We knew they occurred at Bonelli Regional Park and we knew that they occurred in the Puente Hills in the Brea area and Aera energy property. As a resident of Diamond Bar between 1977 and 2013, he would go out and do his own surveys. He never found one gnatcatcher. In 2018, he was notified that Dan Cooper, a very good ornithologist, found one near Pantera Park and when Rob Hamilton, who is also an excellent biologist, went out and did his work for the Sierra Club found a number of them. The point is that if we try to nail down the specific location of species at this point in history and that this update is to last over 20 years, it will be out of date in two years. And that is why the site-specific studies are required. And that's why the EIR Analysis said that whenever you are in this type of habitat, you need to do these surveys for these species. It doesn't nail it down, it doesn't give anybody the opportunity to say well, it wasn't found there in five years and therefore, it can't be there. It doesn't happen that way. Biology moves around. So, the documentation and mitigation was set forth as a guideline to be able to advance the conditions of a particular site into the future as opposed to merely saying we're going to base all of our decisions on what we know now. Because what we know now will not be the same as what we will find out in five years. Mr. Nelson said he agrees 100 percent that mitigation should take place within the City before it goes outside. But again, back to his experience as a Planning Commissioner, that may not be possible. And, if that is the case, then it should go to someplace nearby and should contribute to what we are trying to do from a conservation standpoint. One thing he learned in conservation ecology were the words of Aldo Leopold. "Think globally, act locally." That does not mean that we have to do it in Diamond Bar, but if we cannot, we should do it someplace nearby so OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 19 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG that we can contribute to the global issue. CM/Fox said that with respect to Mr. Barcon's comments that were related to the EIR we are not taking comments on the EIR because we are in the middle of the Public Review period. CM/Fox encouraged Mr. Barcon to submit his comments in writing to the City for proper response as part of the EIR process. M/Herrera asked for Council and Commission comments. Chapter 5: C/Lyons referred to Chapter 5-41 under policy RC -P -28C and said she was surprised about the inclusion of information about clean air technology beyond what is required by the SCAQMD. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Lyons that simply because we are trying to convey the importance the City places on quality of life and if there are ways to go above and beyond what the minimum legal requirements are, we do not see any harm in encouraging that. C/Lyons referred to Chapter 5-44. The community talks about air quality and encouraging public transportation to improve air quality. She believes that another way to improve quality of air is to clear up the mess on the SR57/60 so that traffic does not sit so long and throw out extra exhaust and why wouldn't the City encourage and advocate for that because if the traffic flowed better it would certainly reduce the amount of emission coming into the City. CDD/Gubman said that within the Circulation Element is a policy that states that the City would cooperate at an interagency level to address those issues. It may not be in the Resource Conservation Element in those words, but it is addressed in the document. C/Lyons asked if CDD/Gubman believed it would relate to air quality if vehicles were not stuck in that area. CDD/Gubman said the policy can be stated within the Resource Conservation Element if that is the desire of the Council and Commission. C/Lyons said it was her desire to have it included. M/Herrera commented on Chapter 5-31 that she would like to see the following policies eliminated on P-11: Items c, d, e, and f. M/Herrera does not know why we OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 20 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG would want the City of Diamond Bar to be a Wildlife Corridor when it has a huge problem with Coyotes roaming City streets and making a lot of residents very, very nervous. Why would we want to facilitate movement for wildlife? Mr. Nelson said that if Diamond Bar is going to commit to preserving biological diversity and ecological stability, it has to recognize the various levels at which those occur and interactions with which those occur. It was common to see coyotes running up and down the street he lived on off of Summitridge. To his knowledge, mountain lions have not made it into this area yet. It is not the wildlife that are finding themselves so compressed in their natural habitats that they have to expand out of them and he can guarantee that the first mountain lions they see in the neighborhoods of Diamond Bar will be juveniles trying to get out of their natal territories because their parents do not want them around. Coyotes are a problem, but he does not believe that taking them out of being able to interact with the systems throughout the Puente Hills is the answer. The answer might simply be to reduce their numbers and while everyone says you cannot kill coyotes, they are pests and they are getting more aggressive. He has no problem with that kind of management, but to completely shut them off seems to be a way to paint the City into a corner if, in fact, what you are trying to do is stabilize, to the best of your ability, the trophic systems and ecosystem and biological diversity. M/Herrera said she did not believe Diamond Bar needed to facilitate wildlife by creating tunnels where they can cross into the City limits. Diamond Bar is surrounded by 8,000 acres of undeveloped land, and all of these creatures live in all of that land, but she does not believe the City needs to be doing things to invite them into the neighborhoods. Mr. Nelson said he was simply saying that this is the way that an objective professional would approach the situation. If the policy were to prevent wildlife from having any interactions with humans and therefore reducing any conflicts, the impact of that might be that the City were to cut off those important ecological systems. And then, what is the mitigation for it — well, there is not much a city can do. He understands M/Herrera's point and is not here to debate with her. However, from his professional viewpoint, he has to analyze it the way it is — according to what is out there - what it means and what it should mean going into the future. And, he completely understands the conflict situation. Again, he has no problem with reducing their numbers because they are pests. Coyotes have been trapped crossing the 101 freeway in downtown Los Angeles. The National Park Service has the data. MPT/Tye said the document says "require that all development, including roads and OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 21 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG trails proposed adjacent to riparian and other biologically sensitive habitats" and asked where would that be. He does not think that when it says we want to provide wildlife movement linkages, that we have to build it, it says movement linkages to water, food, shelter and nesting sites. So, if we were to build something that was adjacent to a riparian or other biologically sensitive habitat, by the very nature of building that it would cut them off from it and that does not make sense either because then they will be in back yards looking for food and water. And "allow wildlife and migration access by use of tunnels". In Puente Hills the county built the tunnel under Harbor and without being able to back it up with statistics, he bets there are fewer dead animals on Harbor because that tunnel was built. He would not necessarily be in favor of striking that simply because of what it says above it. C/Chou agreed with MPT/Tye because he believed the language was specific to "new" development. One of the issues with coyotes is that the City has developments that cut into their habitat which drives them off of the hills into residential areas. And if that is not mitigated through a policy going forward, the problem is likely to get worse. Therefore, he believes that by saying this is for new development, the City can be careful about not cutting off their natural habitat and driving them into existing neighborhoods going forward. He votes to keep the language in place. C/Mahlke felt it was important to remember this applied to all wildlife and although coyotes may be pests, there are certainly many other animals that would require or need this access and making a policy change to mitigate that one particular animal could end up being a mistake. She agreed that the idea is that it is for "new" development at very specific locations and because Diamond Bar is mostly built out, there are not a lot of opportunity for this to be a "thing" that is currently put in place and she too, would vote to keep the language in place. C/Rawlings said he agreed with MPT/Tye and C/Chou that the language should be kept in place. C/Rawlings referred to the update on Chapter 5, RC -P-8 and said he was concerned about the modified language and the intent of changing "work with other jurisdictions and conservation organizations to protect prominent ridges, slopes and hilltops in and adjacent to the City and its Sphere of Influence" and adding "to the extent feasible" which he felt belonged at the beginning of the sentence rather than at the end because if it is at the end of the sentence, it modifies the statement on "protect" whereas, if it is added to the beginning of the sentence it would modify the "support and cooperate" portion. OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 22 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG C/Rawlings referred to RC -P-19 and said he noticed that the document occasionally refers to drought tolerant vegetation and in other places to native and drought tolerant vegetation and he wanted to see consistency throughout the document to say "drought tolerant native vegetation". C/Rawlings referred to RC -G-6 on Page 5-30. He asked that if when the document says "native and drought tolerant" does it mean drought tolerant native or does it mean drought tolerant or native because he wanted to make sure it was meant to indicate "native plants that are drought tolerant rather than "or". CDD/Gubman responded that the intent is to allow native as well as drought tolerant. Ina shopping center, for example, why restrict the plant palate and design opportunities to natives if there are California friendly plants that are not invasive. C/Mok referred to Page RC -P-6 on Page 5-9 and asked if that was suggesting the City does not have standards for these and that it will be a little more specific and intentional about how the planning, designing and management for maintenance of trails is going to happen? C/Mok said he is visual and appreciates the inclusion of charts and tables. On Page 5-21, Table 5-2 indicates the categories of creatures which he appreciated and he especially appreciated the last column where it stressed Tres Hermanos and that these animals could possibly exist there which tells him that any future discussions at the table with the City of Industry and Chino Hills need to include this document. M/Herrera asked for feedback on language for Chapter 5 proposed by staff on following the directions for Chapters 2 through 4. C/Low asked if it was possible to add a date and source to Table 5-2 on Page 5-21. CM/Fox responded to C/Low that the table she referenced is a 5 -page table and on Page 5-24 the date and source can be found at the bottom of the page. C/Mok said that on Page 5-23 there is a potential for an American Badger to occur in this study area. Have they been seen, what is the potential and where will they come from? Mr. Nelson said that in all likelihood, they could be in Tonner Canyon and possibly in the north Tres Hermanos area. It is an animal that one does not often see, but they are there. They like open space areas. OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 23 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG MPT/Tye asked Mr. Nelson if he could cite an example of people introducing species into an area such as the gnatcatcher. Mr. Nelson said the only animals that he is familiar with that have been introduced is the California red -legged frog up north that can be pulled out of a wet habitat and be moved to another wet habitat and there have been cases where that has happened. Typically, with birds it does not work and attempts at endangered small mammals have been poor in terms of survivorship. It is a bit of a stretch to say that is a real possibility or something to consider as plausible. CM/Fox asked if there was a decision to leave the wildlife corridor language as proposed and M/Herrera said there was consensus to leave it as is. CM/Fox asked if C/Lyons' request to include reference to the SR57/60 was appropriate. C/Lyons said she requested that it be included on RC -P-41 about supporting public transport providers, increasing funding, supplement other means of travel to reduce pollution and her comment was that she believed if the SR57/60 Confluence area was fixed there would be less air pollution in Diamond Bar because cars would not be sitting in the area producing pollutants. C/Chou asked why something the City has no control over would be added to the General Plan. C/Lyons responded by saying that the City does not have control over a lot of what is proposed. She believes it should be included to encourage the Big Fix and that the City should continue to look for funding. In many ways it is a "wish list" for other transportation. CM/Fox said staff would add C/Lyons requested language. CM/Fox responded to C/Mok's comments on P-6 that yes, there are standards for trails and right-of-way maintenance. Perhaps a more appropriate approach would be to update "as appropriate" development standards if the City is going into a new area of conservation. Council and Commission concurred. Council and Commission concurred with the suggested changes with the inclusion of C/Rawlings suggestion for RC -P-8. Chapter 6: Council and Commission concurred to accept the modified language (redlined version) for Chapter 6. OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 24 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG Chapter 7: C/Mahlke said that some of her comments on Chapter 7 have to do with consistency. The document frequently references the LA County Fire Department as "The Los Angeles County Fire Department" or "The County of Los Angeles Fire Department", both of which are correct but does not know why one document would have the same entity named two different ways. In addition, there are frequent references to "The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department" with an abbreviation as well. Also, with respect to the EIR, when speaking about Public Safety the term "police" is used very liberally and we do not have police in our City and Diamond Bar does not have "police stations" or "police officers" or police in general because the City contracts with the Sheriff's Department. Either go broader with "law enforcement" or actually use the correct term "Sheriff's Department". Council and Commission concurred. C/Mahlke said there is a figure 7-10 on Page 7-39 which is the City's typical noise level in the environment. This is also repeated in the EIR. This is common knowledge but she would like to know where this figure came from so source work information would be helpful to her. C/Rawlings referred to Page 7-21, PS -P-17 "protect and promote native oak woodlands that border residential areas as fire buffers". Some of that area is City - owned and non-native habitat and he wondered if from a biology perspective and previous work in the City, what the likelihood would be for having a successful reintroduction of an oak woodland in those areas. His concern is that some of those areas are canyon areas with steep slopes and anything that can be done to slow the movement of wildfires in those areas to give fire personnel a chance to put down any non-native brush fire would, in his opinion, be helpful in protecting the homes. Mr. Nelson said he believes the key would be that as the oaks mature and grow which they do rather slowly, to go through the process of "limbing" them up because typically, in an oak woodland shrubs cannot make it as a ground cover because they get out -competed for the sunlight. And even if there is grass it can catch fire and get into the canopy of the trees. So, if the trees are limbed up four feet or so, typically, that helps. The City of Chino Hills actually has this as part of their City Ordinance about how to deal with oaks within fuel modification zones. There are ways to do it naturally. C/Rawlings commented that this is something he would love to see. C/Mahlke referred to Page 7-4 under Expansive Soils — about halfway through the paragraph there is a sentence that ends with "potential" and the way that soils are used. And randomly, it says "copper re -piping is a common home repair in Diamond OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 25 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG Bar" and then it goes back to talking about soil. C/Mok responded to C/Mahlke that because of the expansive soils (clay) and the chemicals that are in the clay, it does a number on copper, which is why this sentence was inserted. CM/Fox said that staff will clarify or expand on that. Council and Commission concurred with the language in the redlined version of Chapter 7. Chapter 8: C/Rawlings referred to Page 8-13, CHS -P-12 which gets into public art installation and improving social interactions and creating space where folks would have more social interactions, as well as leading to retail areas being more of a destination location and he felt there were other places that could be referenced as an important aspect of the community health and welfare. CM/Fox explained that this is cross referenced in the Chapter 3, Community Placemaking which would be the intent. C/Mok referred to the revised version CHS -P-6. Being in public education for 35 years, he does not believe he has ever heard of the "Safe Routes to School" program. He noticed it was deleted in the revised version. M/Herrera said that this program was killed at a recent City Council meeting. C/Low commented that she was talking about public art 15 years ago when she served on the Planning Commission. It only took 15 years and now the City has it and she is very excited about it. Council and Commission concurred with the proposed language (redlined version) of Chapter 8. Climate Action Plan: C/Low asked if Diamond Bar was in compliance with the state mandates and can this be changed if there are changes to the state mandates? Ms. Kotos responded that two inventories were done when completing the Climate OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 26 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG Action Plan. The first was to calculate the baseline 1990 emissions inventory and the calculated based on the state percentages of 40 percent reduction and 80 percent reduction. The mass emissions were actually a lot higher than the established target for metric tons of carbon dioxide. By using CARB's standard we are issuing a stronger baseline of compliance and the City is on -track to meet the 2050 goal as well. Because the horizon year for the General Plan and Climate Action Plan was 2040, the analysis took that into consideration. However, the City can implement additional measures to become more aggressive should it choose to do so. C/Low said that on Tab 4 there are various options and she does not understand how the options are set up and who chooses the options. CDD/Gubman explained to C/Low that those are optional measures that have been crafted or applied in other Climate Action Plans and as staff has found, they are not really needed. In this instance, this plan provides a menu of policies should the City seek to enact additional measures. For example, there will be grant opportunities coming up in the future and a stipulation would be that the City would have to go beyond what the minimum greenhouse gas emissions cap is. In addition, with the rate at which legislation and executive orders come out of Sacramento it tends to move the target over time and the City may need to activate some of these in order to keep its compliance. These are included for those types of eventualities or should the City choose to take a more activist role. C/Mahlke wanted to know the process for updating the Climate Action Plan to ensure the City is in compliance when and if the state standards change. CDD/Gubman explained to C/Mahlke that the City should revisit the Climate Action Plan every five years whether or not there is legislation or executive orders dealing with this issue. Obviously, if a new bill is passed or another executive order is signed, that would be a trigger a re-evaluation of the advocacy of the current Climate Action Plan. C/Rawlings referred to Page 3-11 where there is a list of methodology and alternative options. He did not find anything listed about habitat restoration and in light of some of the earlier comments about individual oak trees being able to take 55,000 pounds (of carbon per year) out of the atmosphere, he wondered if doing habitat restorations would be a significant assistance to the City, especially with oak woodlands. Ms. Kotos explained that the document discusses the potential impacts on biological OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 27 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG resources within the City and the benefits that the existing open space and biological resources serve (Page 1-6). The difficulty is that the inventory is based off of the CAPCOA quantifications and CAPCOA does not assign specific numbers to calculate the potential impacts of certain biological resources but list it as an option and while performing the calculations, her firm wanted to remain conservative about the potential reduction and impacts of the proposed policies, but the inventory does include the land uses assuming those are not going to contribute additional greenhouse gas emission. C/Rawlings said he likes to explore solutions that have multiple impacts so if the risk of fire in some areas could be reduced and at the same time help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also increasing water replenishment and groundwater filtration, those are to him, great ideas. He said that if the City could able to explore some of these alternative solutions and if the City took a slightly more aggressive approach overtime and got belowthe 2050 requirement, would the City be able to participate in the carbon offset exchange which might be a source of revenue for the City. Ms. Kotos agreed that what C/Rawlings proposed seemed like a great idea. To that end, the appendices also includes a list of additional measures that can be taken at project specific levels including tree planting programs, installation of energy- efficient appliances, etc. She agrees that having a completely maintained and thriving ecosystem where all of the different measures benefit each other is a great idea. C/Mahlke said she finds the lower case "I" really difficult to read in the headings and she would like to have the font changed to create better accessibility for those who wish to read the document. Ms. Kotos said she agreed. Online it looks a lot cleaner but in the final version it can be fixed. Council and Commission concurred to move forward with the proposed language in the Climate Action Plan. Next Steps: Council and Commission concurred to move the document to the Planning Commission Hearing phase. CDD/Gubman stated that should anyone wish to make comments or have questions on the EIR, they should submit them in writing and responses will be included in Response to Comments in the Final EIR. OCTOBER 8, 2019 PAGE 28 GP2040 UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG CDD/Gubman responded to Chair/Barlas that after the end of the 45 -day review period for the EIR staff will compile the comments and prepare responses that will become a part of the document. When that work is complete, the City is required to advertise the availability of the Final EIR. No decision on the EIR can be made unless and until that Final EIR is made available for a 10 -day notification period. Planning Commission Hearing on the General Plan is tentatively scheduled for November 12tH ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the joint session, M/Herrera adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:42 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kristina Santana City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 5t" day of November, 2019. Carol Herrera Mayor Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director q�Q r� Q �- Naila Barlas Planning Commission Chair