HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1993 Minutes -Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MAY 19, 1993
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to order
at 7:06 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.,
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by M/Miller.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen,
Councilmen Forbing and MacBride. Councilmen Werner arrived at
7:30 p.m.
Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; James
DeStefano, Community Development Director; and Lynda Burgess,
City Clerk.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: M/Miller explained that the purpose
of the Hearing was to take testimony on the Land Use section
of the General Plan. Following presentations by the General
Plan consultant team on nine specific issues as well as
receipt of public testimony, the Hearing will be continued to
May 26, 1993.
M/Miller opened the Public Hearing.
CDD/DeStefano reported that this was the first in a series of
hearings to review and consider adoption of a General Plan,
which is a statement of goals, policies and implementing
programs to guide long-range physical development of the City
as required by State Law. It represents the community's view
of its future and serves as the "blueprint" to define the long
term character of the City. He introduced the following
members of the consultant team, retained by the City in March
1993 to further develop the draft General Plan: Michael
Jenkins, special legal counsel from Richards, Watson and
Gershon; Dale Beland, Cotton/Beland Associates to develop
General Plan policy issues; Daniel Iacofano, of Moore,
Iacofano and Goltsman, to facilitate the public workshop
process; and Terry Austin, of Austin Faust, to assist in the
Circulation Element.
CDD/DeStefano further stated that five community workshops
were conducted with residents to identify key planning issues
and discuss potential General Plan policy options. The
document presently before the City Council represents
suggested changes resulting from the workshops to the draft
General Plan dated July 14, 1992, which has a previously
certified and recorded EIR, and incorporates all of the
mandatory elements of the General Plan required by State Law.
Discussion will focus specifically on the Land Use Element,
which designates the general distribution and intensity of
land uses, and discusses issues of housing, business,
industry, open space, education, public buildings, and any
other category of public or private uses envisioned 20 years
from now.
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 2
Michael Jenkins explained that Elections Code Section 4055
provides that when any enactment, including the adoption of a
General Plan, has been repealed as a result of a referendum,
the same enactment cannot be adopted for a period of one year.
As interpreted by the California Supreme Court, the Council
may not enact an identical measure from the rejected provision
and must give consideration to the concerns raised in the
referendum petition. Staff appropriately commenced a process
of review and reconsideration of the entire General Plan
adopted by the Council last year, to be responsive to the
issues raised during the referendum process, and to adopt,
ultimately, a document that contains substantive differences
from the originally adopted plan.
Daniel Iacofano stated that a total of five community
workshops were held; the first two of which identified the
issues. The second two workshops addressed policy options
with an attempt to build on the issues identified in the first
workshops and the fifth workshop considered possible policy
and language changes that could be considered by the Council
at some later point in the Public Hearings. A summary of
comments received during the workshops were attached to the
staff report for the Council's review.
CDD/DeStefano explained that staff, in order to facilitate the i^
most productive workshop possible, conducted an extensive
outreach program by placing full-size display ads in all local
newspapers, including the Walnut Highlander, placed several
hundred display posters throughout a variety of businesses
within the community, provided notices to every interested
member of the community on the General plan mailing list,
published 40,000 copies of the public service announcements,
and created a public service announcement for cable
television.
Dale Beland reported that the initial direction identified by
the Council, in terms of the focus of the revision process,
was as follows: the amount and type of future residential
development; open space preservation; reduction of traffic
congestion on local roadways and the Tonner Canyon
Transportation Corridor. However, discussion during the
workshop process was not limited to those four areas. He then
generally described the reasons for the current suggested
revision to the draft General Plan, which are organized in a
series of nine statements indicated in the staff report.
M/Miller reiterated that public testimony will be received on
each individual item, followed by Council comment, until all
nine issues have been discussed. Testimony will then be
received on any concern regarding overall land use issues,
followed by testimony on any issue of the General Plan for
those unable to attend future Public Hearings.
Dale Beland then read each statement:
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 3
1. Add the following statement to the Introduction, page 3:
"Utilizing the GPAC process, public hearings before the
Planning Commission and the City Council and following
adoption of the initial version of the General Plan, the
City Council added a community workshop process to
encourage participation in further plan revision prior to
public hearings."
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, pointed
out that the concerns that eventually lead to the referendum
process were the result of deletions, omissions and revisions
to the original GPAC draft. Though the workshops were
helpful, they only dealt in general kinds of concepts, and
more specificity was needed.
James Roberts, 829 Silver Fir, suggested that the public be
given the original GPAC document for review.
Max Maxwell suggested that the introduction specifically
indicate that there was a referendum process and include the
procedure followed. He expressed concern that there were only
nine issues summarized after 14 hours of community workshop
discussion. The issues are general and do not address the
concerns specifically. Perhaps it would be beneficial to
review the document line by line so specific language can be
changed.
Dale Beland explained that the nine items are stated in a
general way as an attempt to portray the big picture, to be
gradually worked to a fine-tuned state of parallelism and
consistency so that open space policy is supportive and not
contradictory with development policy, and in turn supportive
and not contradictory to the transportation policy. It would
be a much more effective process to do a general systems
approach, and then, if needed, follow a linear approach.
Nick Anis, 1125 Bramford Court, referring to the concern
expressed that the General Plan, as recommended by GPAC, was
revised, pointed out that the normal procedure for preparing
any final document involves deletions, revisions and omissions
to the draft document. Perhaps it would be beneficial if
individuals would submit their suggested language to the City
for their consideration.
Todd Chavers, 23816 Chinook, pointed out that workshop
participants were not really shown how to develop their
thoughts into the appropriate language. If this hearing
process is the way to create language changes, then it should
revert to a smaller setting to create those language changes,
or provide a vehicle for people to provide those language
changes.
C/Werner suggested that the document reflect what happened in
terms of the referendum and the recision. He offered the
following language: "Utilizing the GPAC process, public
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 4
hearings for the Planning Commission and the City Council and
following adoption of the initial version of the General Plan,
members of the community filed a referendum resulting in the
recision of the initial version of the General Plan.
Subsequently, City Council added a community workshop process
to encourage additional community participation in furthering
plan revisions for adoption."
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, suggested that the opening
remarks clearly state the legal interpretation of the process.
In response to M/Miller's inquiry, a majority of the audience
raised their hands indicating their support for incorporating
C/Werner's suggested language to the document. The Council
concurred as well.
2. Delete the statement on page 4 which reads, "The middle
portion of Tonner Canyon, representing the City's sphere
of influence, contains significant open space and
biological resources, but has also been proposed for a
regional bypass roadway." and replace it with the
following statement: "Diamond Bar's sphere of influence
(3,591 acres), a portion of Tonner Canyon, contains
significant open space and biological resources. It is
part of a three -County regional open space system. The
Firestone Boy Scout camp and cattle grazing have been the
only intrusive usage; however, regional circulation
studies by professional traffic engineers (Parsons,
Brinkerhoff) have proposed a transportation corridor."
It is also suggested that the statement, "Tonner Canyon
(the City's Sphere of Influence) has been proposed as the
location for a regional bypass roadway which would
connect State Route 71 through route 57." on the bottom
of page 4, be deleted as well.
Wilbur Smith expressed concern that the document does not
identify that there is an area within Tonner Canyon designated
as SEA 15 by the State and the County. Furthermore,
indicating that a transportation corridor has been proposed
contradicts the County's SEA designation and is not relevant
to the City's authority. Such language may create a problem
for the City in the future.
Dale Beland stated that he has just been informed that he has
misstated the status of the Parsons, Brinkerhoff study in that
it was not a proposal but a general feasibility and
alternatives analysis. The results of the analysis were
placed in the document for reporting purposes indicating that .---
there is' an inherent potential conflict between the SEA and
other concerns regarding regional transportation. He
suggested that the last statement proposed for addition be
modified to read, ..however, regional circulation studies by
professional traffic engineers (Parsons, Brinkerhoff) have
included a general feasibility and alternatives analysis of a
proposed transportation corridor."
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 5
M/Miller stated that the first part of the statement should
also be amended to read, "Diamond Bar's Sphere of Influence
(3,591 acres), a portion of which is in Tonner Canyon..."
Dale Beland explained that State Law and General Plan
guidelines mandate that a community include within its General
Plan consideration of its logical planning area, which
typically includes its sphere of influences. This wording is
attempting to respond to that mandate.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded wood Road, stated that the designation
of SEA 15 was established by competent people who recognized
the merits of the environment. The area should be preserved
forever and considered as a State park. The Tonner Canyon
roadway should be deleted from the General Plan until
consideration is giving to utilizing the 60 freeway to its
maximum potential.
Don Gravdahl, referring to the statement, " The Firestone Boy
Scout camp and cattle grazing have been the only intrusive
usage..." pointed out that, at one time, there was a
transportation corridor in that area that was used from Brea,
through Brea Canyon, cutting across Tonner Canyon to the Boys
Republic and into Pomona for use of the swimming pool.
Nick Anis stated that it may be appropriate to mention in the_
document where the road begins and ends, and include the
condition and size of the road.
Norman Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills, pointed out that
Section C of the Physical Mobility issues indicates that a
Tonner Canyon Road would only relieve traffic for five years
before Grand Ave. returns to its present condition. The
outlying communities need to be told to route their traffic
elsewhere.
Max Maxwell suggested that the document not just mention the
Parsons, Brinkerhoff report but the other reports, such as the
Soquel Canyon study, and they should all be seriously studied
before inclusion in the General Plan. The document, as
written now, is too general and slanted toward the issue of
constructing a road. All facts should be presented and
included in the document, or mention of the road should be
omitted.
Nick Anis pointed out that if the Tonner Canyon road is not
built, then an estimated 35,000 more cars over the next five
years will travel on Grand Avenue. He expressed support of
including language for an environmentally -sensitive road for
Tonner Canyon.
Audrey Hamilton, 1429 Copper Mountain Drive, concurred that
without the Tonner Canyon road, traffic within the City will
be at a total standstill. She pointed out that the State
built an offramp on the 57 freeway obviously expecting a road
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 6
to continue through Tonner Canyon.
Todd Chavers suggested including the statement "sponsored by
the three Counties" after the word "study" to avoid the
appearance that the City is either pro or con for the road.
He also suggested that the wording "regional circulation
studies remain and that the firm of Parsons, Brinkerhoff's
name be omitted since it may not be appropriate to list their
firm in our General Plan. Furthermore, the last sentence
should be amended to add "...transportation corridor(s) to
resolve existing and projected future traffic congestion." He
then pointed out that the introduction will be treated as an
executive summary and should probably be dealt with last since
it is most likely the only part of the General Plan that 90%
of the people will ever read.
James Roberts suggested that the statement be amended to read,
"...of Tonner Canyon, contains significant open space,
biological resources and natural resources.... The Firestone
Boy Scout camp and cattle grazing have been the only
environmentally intrusive usage..." He then stated that any
transportation corridor will and does alter the ecosystem
negatively.
Bill Noyes, 23107 Bent Oak Road, expressed support of a road
through Tonner Canyon in an environmentally safe nature, which
will help immensely in relieving traffic congestion in Diamond
Bar.
MPT/Papen, referring to the sentence "part of a three -County
regional open space system", indicated that the use of the
word "open space" is inappropriate because the City's
definition of open space refers to land that is deed -
restricted, and this area is not deed -restricted, but vacant
land zoned agricultural. Also, it is not clear whether "the
three -County regional open space" refers to our sphere of
influence or Tonner Canyon. Furthermore, for consistency, the
number of acres in Tonner Canyon in all three counties and the
number of acres in the SEA should be indicated as well. She
concurred that since there is already a road in Tonner Canyon,
then the Boy Scout camp and cattle grazing are not the only
intrusions. The major issue seems to be how to compatibly
develop the vacant land in our sphere of influence.
C/Werner stated that the paragraph does not really identify
issues, but rather creates issues. It is important to
identify the significance of a sphere of influence, and
identify the kinds of influences and control the City might
have while it is not in the City, versus the influence and
control we might have when it is in the City. He requested
clarification of whether the entire 3,591 acres within our
sphere of influence is within a portion of the Tonner Canyon
area, and if Tonner Canyon extends beyond that area into other
Counties. Upon hearing that Mr. Beland intends to provide a
map at the next meeting that graphically identifies the SEA,
MAY 19, 1993
PAGE 7
Tonner Canyon, sphere of influence, etc., C/Werner suggested
that all those relationships be clarified in this paragraph as
well. There should be an additional reference that the City
is not just dealing with three counties, but with multiple
jurisdictions, and if the General Plan identifies a particular
direction as to how we intend to handle the traffic issues,
then it should also indicate that we plan to influence those
other jurisdictions to do likewise. He agreed that the firm
of Parsons, Brinkerhoff should be deleted from the document,
but that it be footnoted with reference as to the availability
of the documents, and clarification if there was more than one
firm who conducted the studies referenced. Also, the
introduction should contain a list of identified issues that
will be dealt with in more detail later in the General Plan,
or provide for a future study for those issues.
C/MacBride indicated that he concurred with Mr. Chavers'
suggestions to insert the statement "sponsored by the three
Counties" after the word "study", eliminate the Parsons,
Brinkerhoff reference, and add the statement
"...transportation corridor(s) to resolve existing and
projected future traffic congestion" to the end of the
paragraph.
C/Forbing suggested that the discussion move on to thee;
remaining issues because, at this point, the first three z,
issues are too general and it is very difficult to separate ;
the ideas to determine if the revisions go into Land Use or
Circulation since it applies to both. He requested the
consultants to redo the first three sections, adding more
specificity based upon the comments brought out by the public
on the next 7 sections.
C/Werner stated that the term "significant" is also very vague
and needs to be more specific as to its meaning and reference.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne requested that the issue of
restriping Grand Ave. to six lanes be revisited because it
will invite more traffic, not discourage it. San Bernardino
needs to manage their own traffic problems. Referring to the
terms "open space" versus "vacant land", she suggested that
other possible definitions should be considered as to what
open space means for our City.
Max Maxwell pointed out that there has not been any discussion
regarding the City's intent to attempt to annex the sphere of
influence in Tonner Canyon for future development. He
concurred that discussion of the General Plan in detail should
occur first and then come back and review the Introduction.
Don Schad stated that the existing transportation corridor in
Tonner Canyon was primarily a wagon trail to haul feed for
cattle. The Scouts have paved some of the road to make it
more accessible to bring in supplies for the children. The
offramp mentioned was caused by the influence of Shell Oil
4t
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 8
Company so that they could get their rigs and apparatus in and
out of the area. He then inquired if the consultant can
provide a map of SEA 15 indicating the area that it
encompasses.
Martha Bruske suggested that the City investigate how Chino
Hills plans to handle their traffic problems in their General
Plan to see if it will be detrimental to Diamond Bar.
Wilbur Smith stated that traffic conditions in the City need
to be addressed before ever contemplating a Tonner Canyon
road. The issue is not really Tonner Canyon but how to
mitigate traffic.
CM/Belanger pointed out that this particular issue, as
presented, probably belongs in #2 on page 4, as a circulation
issue and not in #1 on page 4, as a land issue. There are
changes in the Circulation Element that relate to this issue
of a roadway in the sphere of influence area, and if those
comments had been included with this statement, then there
would have been a little more relationship between policy and
an overall issue statement.
C/Werner suggested that there needs to be discussion at some —
point addressing the fact that SEA 15 has been identified
historically, and how the City will deal with it.
3. Delete the subtitle Disposition of Remaining Open Lands"
and replace with Determination of Deed Restriction
Status." Also delete the existing Issue Analysis
statement and replace with There is a need for clar-
ification and confirmation of existing deed restrictions
which affect vacant land proposed for development. Past
confusion resulting from Los Angeles County transmittal
of development entitlement must be resolved." Add a new
subtitle Open Space Definition and Preservation" and
have the General Plan define and stipulate what is meant
by the term open space. At this point, in terms of
land use development issue, the suggested language is
first to describe as follows'There are many different
types of open space. Natural types include undisturbed
hillsides, ridges and canyon bottoms. Man-made open
space can range from graded hillsides that appear
'natural' to active recreational areas such as parks and
golf courses. The City must determine which lands will
be defined as 'open space' which would preclude devel-
opment and thereby require acquisition of private
property rights. Techniques and tools used for open
space acquisition range from out right purchase to
transfer of development rights, or exchange of
entitlement to shift allowable development to non -open
space areas. Other options involve use of benefit
assessment districts, grants from other agencies, and
conservation groups, etc. The succeeding Issue Analysis
would read "There is a need to define and map selected
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 9
,open space, within the City and to implement a feasible
open space acquisition program."
Barbara Beach-Courchesne suggested that the Issue Analysis be
amended to read "There is a need for clarification and
confirmation of original map restrictions which affect vacant
land proposed for development." and following the word
"resolve", add "Open Space considerations need to be on a site
by site basis." The original GPAC specific recommendations
need to be reinstated in our General Plan, specifically but
not limited to Sandstone, Tonner and Sycamore Canyons.
Max Maxwell suggested that the terms "the need to" be replaced
by a more definitive term such as "are".
Dale Beland stated that the action statements ithat have been
requested appear in item 81 based on the definition of "need"
and "intent" in item 3.
Max Maxwell stated that the General Plan should specifically
indicate that the aforementioned canyons will be preserved.
RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 9:18 p.m..
RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 9:29 p.m.. k
Audrey Hamilton requested clarification as to what is meant by
"benefit assessment districts".
Dale Beland explained that the purpose of the wording is to
illustrate some of the tools available to the City should an
open space acquisition program be chosen. A benefit
assessment district specifically refers to the idea of
establishing the objective of acquiring either open space or
a new lighting or road improvement, and identifying how that
benefit or improvement is shared by abutting properties, and
using that determination of cost and benefit to establish a
means of funding that cost by spreading the cost among those
who benefit. The inclusion of such wording does not commit
the City as a policy.
Larry Aguilar, 2611 Sutters Mill Dr., suggested that the
development of a sports complex be considered, perhaps on the
open land located on the corner of Golden Springs and Grand
Ave., to address the need for adequate practice and playing
fields.
MPT/Papen suggested that the words "selected open space" in
— the Issue Analysis be amended to read "deed -restricted open
space".
C/Werner stated that the Issue Analysis needs to be more
explicit indicating that it is more directed to future park
sites, density restrictions, etc. rather than just indicating
"There is a need for clarification and confirmation of
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 10
existing deed restrictions..." It is already known what the
map restrictions are in terms of densities as a result of
transfer of density or park dedications.
Mike Jenkins, in response to MPT/Papen's inquiry, explained
that if there was an irrevocable dedication in a map, then
that dedication would remain valid today and could be looked
to as open space. The statements in the subject Issue
Analysis are broad and could be made more affirmative.
M/Miller pointed out that many restrictions that are map
restrictions are not deed restrictions. The law states that
map restrictions can be eliminated by submitting a new map.
The language in the Issue Analysis simply allows the issue to
be raised.
Dale Beland suggested that the words "clarification and
confirmation" be amended to "identification and inventorying".
C/MacBride expressed concern that the more specific the
General Plan document becomes, the less flexible and the less
ability one has to meet changes in the future.
Don Schad concurred that there should be established land uses —
since there is very little land left for development, but
perhaps not cast in stone so that they become inflexible. The
remaining areas left for development are rugged and wild, such
as Sandstone, Upper Sycamore and Tonner Canyons. The original
GPAC recommended these areas to be left as open space.
Max Maxwell requested that the General Plan indicate that the
City Council cannot remove a deed restriction without a vote
of the public at a primary election. All deed restrictions
should also be indicated on the map in the General Plan.
M/Miller explained that a deed restriction is usually
restricted through CC&R's and the Council cannot override a
CC&R restriction without a general vote of the homeowners'
association that has control over it. A map restriction
requires a subdivision hearing to assure that an issue or
issues of concern have been mitigated.
Dale Beland, in response to C/Werner, explained that,
regardless of the restriction placed, a cloud is put into the
title of the property so that a title search will indicate the
different types of restrictions placed on the property. The
General Plan document cannot be used as a means of eliminating
restrictions on subdivision maps for open space purposes, but
can only state an intent to designate it as open space. In �—
order to actually eliminate the restriction, there would have
to be a public process in which the Council would have to take
a formal action to return the property to the property owner.
Max Maxwell stated that he feels that all restrictions on open
space, undeveloped property should be spelled out specifically
MAY 19, 1993
in the General Plan.
PAGE 11
Dale Beland, in response to C/Forbing's inquiry as to the
difference between a deed restriction and a map restriction,
explained that his use of the term deed restriction refers to
any restriction that would appear on a title report of a
parcel of property which discloses that there is some type of
a cloud placed on that property from some source. That deed
restriction could have resulted from a subdivision map, from
a private conveyance, or some other restriction.
C/Forbing inquired if there is a legal restriction on the
development of a property in which a map restriction, for some
reason, never got translated into the deed.
Dale Beland stated that there would need to be further
investigation as to why the restriction on the map did not
make its way on to the title.
C/Forbing pointed out that it is important that the Issue
Analysis state that there is a need for "clarification and
confirmation" to be done before any development process of the
open space.
Max Maxwell expressed concern that many restrictions.
established over many years are being removed by the City :W
Council. The General Plan should specifically state the map:
and deed restrictions on remaining open space.
C/MacBride suggested the following amendment to paragraph 3:
"There is a need to identify, clarify and create an inventory
of existing maps and deed restrictions which affect..."
Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Drive, stated that he is aware of
an individual, very active in developing undeveloped land in
this community, that has a complete itemization of every
vacant land in Diamond Bar. Aside from Tres Hermanos and the
Boy Scout property, there is not a lot of vacant land in the
City, and, to his recollection, the City has already paid for
an itemization of deed restrictions on all the vacant land.
He further stated that he does not concur with permanent deed
restrictions because it is too difficult to predict future
needs for the benefit of the community. The decision would
have to be made on a case by case basis. He suggested that
specific comment on this matter be postponed until strategy
1.5.1, page 8, is discussed.
4. Revise the language to land use development on page I-8
to read, "Diamond Bar should proactively and aggressively
work with, and lobby adjacent and regional agencies, to
develop regional circulation solutions that directly
benefit Diamond Bar local access needs. Local community
residents should be involved in the discussion of such
needs."
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 12
Wilbur Smith agreed that the statement, "The City may choose
to continue to absorb through traffic..." should be deleted,
but that the rest of the statement should be amended to read,
"The City depends on other agencies, such as the State, to
take appropriate measures to relieve regional congestion which
would ultimately free local roads for a predominately local
use," and be made a part of the document.
Audrey Hamilton expressed support for the suggested amended
language as indicated in paragraph 4.
MPT/Papen, referring to the last sentence in paragraph 4,
inquired how the participants of the workshop intended for the
local community residents to be involved in the discussion of
local traffic needs. She expressed concern with having local
residents participating at the interregional agency level.
Dale Beland explained that discussion had focused on the need
to identify local concerns about local access by tapping local
resident expertise and willingness to address those issues.
There was no discussion about the process that might be most
appropriate.
C/Werner, appreciating the comments made by Mr. Smith,
suggested that the two points be merged somehow.
MPT/Papen stated that she prefers the statement as written in
paragraph 4, except for the last sentence, because the City
does not have the resources to make appropriate measures to
relieve regional congestion which would ultimately free local
roads for a predominately local use.
C/Forbing, concurring with MPT/Papen that the last sentence is
inappropriately placed, suggested that the Introduction
include a comment that Diamond Bar is the local community, and
that local residents are involved in the discussion of local
needs. The verbiage presented in paragraph 4 was written by
a traffic engineer serving on the Traffic Commission. It best
states what the Traffic Commission is involved with in working
on regional circulation needs. The community provides input
to the Commissions on things that are needed.
C/Werner suggested that the statement, "The City's vision is
to reserve its streets for local traffic" be placed back into
the document. The Council concurred.
Don Schad expressed his opinion that the statement, "Local
community residents should be involved in the discussion of
such needs" should remain in the paragraph for emphasis.
Gary Neely pointed out that if regional problems aren't
resolved, then local traffic will never be reserved for local
people. He then stated that he felt the last sentence should
remain if for no other reason than for public relations.
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 13
MPT/Papen suggested that staff be directed to come back with
new verbiage, taking into consideration the concerns mentioned
regarding conflict issues.
Dale Beland displayed two graphic land use maps, one dated
July 14, 1992, which was part of the General Plan, and the
other dated May 12, 1993, which attempts to incorporate
suggested changes to that land use policy definition. The
intent is to respond to a very strong direction from workshop
participants to reexamine the permitted buildout intensity of
existing single family detached residential areas, and adjust
it on the policy map so that it accommodates what is built
now, but does not provide the potential for tear down and
rebuilding to a higher density.
S. Revise strategy 1.1.8 to read "Designate existing
developed single family detached residential parcels in
areas of greater topography as low density residential
(RL) on the land use map. The maximum density and such
low density residential areas will be 3.0 DU/gross acre
or existing density, which ever is greatest."j redefine
strategy 1.1.1.c to read "Designate existing single
family detached subdivisions in flatter areas as low
medium residential or RLM on the land use map. Maximum
density and low medium density residential areas will be -
s.0 DU/gross acre."
Wilbur Smith stated that he did not recall discussing 5.0 DU/
acre at the workshops. He inquired if it would be appropriate
to define the minimum lot sizes permitted in the City, the pad
sizes, the setback requirements etc., somewhere in this
section.
Dale Beland explained that the level of detail and the
definition of standards for setbacks, etc. is almost
universally not addressed in the General Plan, but more
properly belongs in the development code or zoning code.
CDD/DeStefano explained that, upon Incorporation, the City
decided to adopt the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning
Code as its development tool. With the adoption of a General
Plan, the City will need to reexamine that code and craft one
specifically for ourselves, implementing the policies
contained within the General Plan.
Max Maxwell suggested that the original GPAC recommendation
for an RH density designation of 2.5 in hillside areas, with
a slope density relationship, be reinstated in the General
Plan in those areas previously spelled out on maps that are
part of City record. He then requested clarification if the
Diamond Ridge area is now zoned to fit the existing zoning or
the existing level of development.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the Diamond Ridge area has zoning
classifications of R-1 8,000 square foot lot designation and
MAY 19, 1993
PAGE 14
R-1 10,000 square foot lot designation. However, the majority
of that area has been developed at about 3 DU/acre, which is
indicative of development in most of Diamond Bar in what was
once our hillside areas. The existing zoning reflects about
6 DU/acre and the existing land use reflects about 3 DU/acre.
The General Plan of July, 1992 indicated a 6 DU/acre designa-
tion, but the proposal presented today reflects a 3 DU/acre
designation.
Max Maxwell then inquired why the 2.5 DU/acre on hillsides,
which was designated by GPAC, which was eliminated by the
Planning Commission last year, is no longer on the map.
C/Forbing, upon hearing from CDD/DeStefano that GPAC
originated with approximately 30 members in 1989 and ended
with seven members in March of 1992, suggested that since
there have been five workshops recently held and 18 previous
public hearings, it may be time to get rid of any discussion
of an original GPAC plan since it is representative of only
seven individuals.
Max Maxwell requested that hillside areas in the City be
designated low density housing with a 2.5 DU/acre on hillside
areas with a 15% slope.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne suggested that today's standards
reflect the original 1 DU/acre Master Plan designation for the
City. The reason why there is sometimes a 2.5 and 3.0 DU/acre
is because developers were allowed to cluster.
C/Forbing pointed out the estimated population in the year
2,000 for the City of Diamond Bar, as indicated on the front
page of the real estate section in the LA Times in 1962, was
102,000 people, which did not include Area A. Today, Diamond
Bar has a population of 56,000, including Area A, which is
half the estimated population. The City is so far down -zoned
from what was originally Master Planned by TransAmerica.
Don Schad expressed indignation at C/Forbing's statement
regarding GPAC. He then stated that the original GPAC's
recommendation, that anything under 15 degrees would be 1 DU/2
1/2 acres, and anything up to 2 degrees would be 1 DU/5 acres,
be included in the document. He concurred that 3 DU/acre is
in line with the rest of the community in general, and that
section l.l.l.c should be deleted.
M/Miller stated that deleting section l.l.l.c is not possible
because it applies to existing buildout of existing
neighborhoods.
Gary Neely, referring to the 1982 General Plan developed by
members of the community, pointed out some of the land use
designations indicated on the displayed land use map. He
stated that he concurred with the consultant's recommendation
on strategy l.l.l.b and l.l.l.c, but that he does not recall
MAY 19, 1993 PAGE 15
discussing 5.0 DU/acre in the workshops, only 3.0 DU/acre. He
then suggested that strategy l.l.l.d, which refers to high
density residential, be changed from 16 DU/acre to 12 DU/acre
since density bonuses are given.
M/Miller, noting the late hour, stated that discussion for
tonight will be concluded, following Council comments, and
will be continued May 26, 1993.
C/MacBride suggested that the phrase "areas of greater
topography" in l.b, the second line, be amended to a phrase
that better describes the intent.
C/Werner requested the consultant to explore the possibility
of having a maximum 16 DU/acre density designation with those
density bonuses, thereby leaving flexibility under zoning to
determine under what circumstances we would want to establish
lower or maximum densities of 16 DU/acre.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None offered.
4. ADJOURNMENT: At 10:55 p.m., M/Miller declared the
Public Hearing continued to May 26, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Auditorium of the AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California.
I -
LY DA BURGESS, f,.:ty Clerk
Atte