HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/1993 Minutes - Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MAY 26, 1993
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to order
at 7:07 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
Werner and MacBride. Councilman Forbing was excused.
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
this Public Hearing was to continue to receive public
testimony on the Land Use Section of the General Plan. The
testimony received will be forwarded to City staff to continue
the Public Hearing to June 2, 1993.
CDD/DeStefano 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 the law firm of Richards, Watson and
Gershon; Daniel Iacofano, of the firm Moore, Iacofano and
^� Goltsman, utilized to facilitate the public workshop process;
Terry Austin, of the firm Austin Faust, to assist in the
Circulation Element; and Dale Beland, Cotton/Beland
Associates, for development of General Plan policy issues, is
not present tonight because of an emergency family medical
situation. The document before the City Council, as a result
of the workshop process, represented suggested changes to the
draft General Plan dated July 14, 1992, which has a previously
certified and recorded EIR, and incorporated all of the
mandatory elements of the General Plan required by State Law.
Discussion will focus specifically on the Land Use Element,
which designates 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. The first public hearing was held on May 19, 1993 and
continued to this evening to further discuss the Land Use
Element, open space related policy, and to present the
Circulation Element. The Circulation Element is a document
that correlates closely with the Land Use Element and
identifies the general location and extent of existing and
proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and other
local public utilities and facilities within the City. The
focus of the plan is to identify and evaluate circulation
needs of the City with regional demands and mandates. As a
result of the workshop process and consultant staff team
review, suggested revisions in the form of specific text
changes have been provided to the City Council as well as
members of the public. Notices for this series of public
hearings were published in the Tribune and the Bulletin in
accordance with State law, and published notices were provided
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 2
within the Diamond Bar/Walnut Highlander and the Windmill.
Also, Public Hearing notices were mailed to about 300 people
on the General Plan mailing list, and posters were provided
announcing both the workshop process and the Public Hearing
process. All documents have been available at City Hall and
the County Library for review.
Daniel Iacofano stated that the Council opened the Public
Hearing last week dealing with the proposed revisions of the
General Plan document, dated July 14, 1992. The revisions
discussed were based on comments and responses made at the
proceeding community workshops, held April 21, 24, 28 and May
1, 12, 1993. He suggested consideration of land use items
remaining from the last Public Hearing be continued and, in
regard to item #8, that time be set aside to allow staff to
introduce additional maps and graphics regarding some of the
critical issues on the Sphere of Influence, Tonner Canyon,
Soquel Canyon, and the SEA 15 area. After comments from the
community and the Council have been addressed, Terry Austin
will give a presentation in an effort to clarify and focus
some of the discussion related to circulation. Discussion at
the last Hearing left off with the strategy l.l.l.c, under
item #5, Revision to Land Use, referring to page I-9 in the
draft General Plan. He stated that he will read all the items
to be deleted, and then read the suggested additions or
revisions to the text. The following summarization will only
include the suggested additions or revisions to the text,
followed by the discussion that ensued:
5. 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 and
the maximum density of low medium density residential
areas will be 5.0 DU/gross acre."
CDD/DeStefano reviewed the revised land use map to clarify
exactly which areas are affected (changes from the RLM
category of 6DU/AC to the RL category of 3DU/AC) by this
proposed revision. He made the following comments: the
densities that exist within - the major single family
neighborhoods on the northside were reexamined, and the areas
highlighted with a darker black line show where the changes
would occur; two other significant areas that changed in
designation are the areas north and south of the Pomona
freeway and east of Diamond Bar Blvd.; the area on either side
of Golden Springs, basically adjacent and across the street
from the golf course area also changed in designation; the
single family residential neighborhoods at the intersection of
Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd. would be changed; generally
the area between Mountain Laurel and Pathfinder on the west
side of Diamond Bar Blvd. is another significant area of
change; another change occurs in the area south of Colima
generally west of Brea; and the remaining large area which
this occurs in is in the southern -most portion of the City,
generally known as the Diamond Ridge area, generally east of
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 3
Brea Canyon Road or southeast of Diamond Bar Blvd. The second
area of change that is part of this same category is the
remaining single family neighborhoods previously designated as
allowing up to 6DU/AC. It was suggested that those
neighborhoods, which exceed approximately 3.5DU/AC
(highlighted in light orange) to about 5DU/AC (highlighted in
a darker orange), be capped to a 5DU/AC maximum, which include
the following areas: area generally west of the 57 freeway,
north and south of Sunset Crossing; the westerly portion of
the City, south of Colima; north of the Pomona freeway, east
and west of Brea Canyon Road; and the area in the southern
portion of the City generally surrounding the Country Hills
Shopping Center.
M/Miller opened the Public Hearing.
Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Dr., inquired if the changes
already made will be reflected in a later report.
M/Miller explained that staff is receiving the input and those
changes and input will all be reflected in a more finalized
document for review at a later date.
C/Werner requested staff to include in the staff report a
brief summary of those items discussed the previous week.
I
MPT/Papen stated that, to her recollection, several
Councilmembers had requested that Mr. Neely's comments be
brought forward as an item for discussion. It was Council's
consensus to agendize those comments at some time during our
public meetings, however, discussion at this point is on item
#5, l.l.l.c.
Max Maxwell stated that he feels that the whole page should be
discussed rather than one item. Upon the request of M/Miller
to remain focused on the topic at hand, he explained that,
because of personal projects, he is not prepared to focus on
one issue, but he will submit a document addressing his
concerns.
Greg Hummel, 23239 Iron Horse Canyon Rd., inquired if changing
the zoning designation affects property values.
C/Werner requested a legal response to the inquiry because
there is a question of whether there is a perceived valuation
deprivation.
Michael Jenkins explained that the determination whether a
specific designation results in a devaluation of property is
not a legal issue but rather a speculation, and the answer to
that question would depend entirely upon the circumstances.
Where the zoning designation or the General Plan land use
designation corresponds with the existing pattern of
development, it is fair to assume that it would have a neutral
effect on value because it is simply reflective of existing
MAY 26, 1993
PAGE 4
circumstances. The purpose of the General Plan Land Use
designation is to establish the designation for the long term
that is most suitable for the property and the neighborhood in
question based on the City's long-term planning goals. There-
fore, there is nothing illegal if it results in the devalua-
tion of property. The only problem, in terms of the law,
would be a situation where the City gives a piece of property
a designation that allows for no development or no economic
use whatsoever.
Greg Hummel, disappointment by the small public turnout,
stated that it is not a reflection of the inadequacy of the
Council because he has seen the extensive announcements and
advertising of this meeting throughout the City.
C/Werner, noting that there is no wording to provide for
grandfathering, suggested that the phrase .the maximum
density of such low density residential areas shall be 3DU/AC
or existing density, whichever is greatest." be included in
item 1.1.1.c, as well as for item l.l.l.d, which reduces it
from 16DU/AC to 12DU/AC. He then expressed concern for the
use of the phrase "flatter areas" and suggested that another
definition be used in regard to the geographic characteristics
to distinguish one land use designation from another.
C/MacBride recalled that staff had indicated at the last
meeting that they would assist in either eliminating those
terms, in item 1.1.1.b, or better defining them, to
distinguish those categories. Staff can carry that through
into this item as well.
C/Werner suggested that, since existing neighborhoods are
being dealt with, it would also be helpful to refer to the
infrastructure which may be very well designed to accommodate
a certain density.
Daniel Iacofano stated that it is staff's suggestion that
items #6 & #7 be dealt with together as a package of
discussion since they are closely related to each other.
6. Delete strategy 1.3.4, on page I-12, and add, "In
preference to the approval of new commercial development,
encourage the retention, rehabilitation, refurbishment
and/or expansion of existing business establishments
which generate sales tax revenues to the City where
consistent with other provisions of the General Plan and
Development Code."
7. Add a new strategy 1.3.7, on page I-13, to read, "The
City would undertake an economic development action plan
to target revitalization of existing commercial uses and
selected new retail uses needed to expand the range of
goods and services available to local residents and to
generate needed sales tax revenue. The economic
development action plan should address goals, set
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 5
priorities and identify strategies to achieve effective
revitalization."
Daniel Iacofano explained that both suggested revisions were
built around the comments and concerns received from the
community workshops about strengthening this economic
development concept within the General Plan.
Greg Hummel suggested that the last sentence be deleted from
item #7 because it is redundant to state what they need to do.
James Roberts, 189 Silver Fir, suggested that the term "in
preference to the approval" in item #6 be replaced by the term
"before preference of the approval", so in context,
alternatives would be used before a new site is put in.
Gary Neely, referring to the suggestion made to delete the
last sentence in item #7, stated that it seems important to
lay out the parameters of what the economic action plan would
do, other than just to have a plan. He also suggested that
since half the businesses in Diamond Bar are being run out of
town, it may be appropriate to insert some kind of verbiage
that encourages some kinds of in-home businesses. There are
creative ways to make in-home businessesmore profitable which
in turn creates more disposable income that benefits our local
strip centers.
C/MacBride concurred that it may be appropriate to recognize,
facilitate and encourage the extensive craft industry, and
other such in-home businesses, that exist in Diamond Bar
without impinging upon the remainder of the community's
activities, being careful about zoning infractions. He then
reported that the Council Sub -committee on Economic Strategy
and Resources had scheduled a meeting for June 10, 1993 at
7:00 a.m. to focus on the revitalization, the retention and
the substance of existing businesses in Diamond Bar, and to
solicit comments and suggestions from the overall business
community in the City.
MPT/Papen suggested that those types of in-home businesses,
which can be described as telecommuting, would be better
described under the Transportation Management Plan and the
Circulation section of the General Plan since it is not a land
use designation. She then expressed concern that the
statement "in preference to the approval of new commercial
development" in item #6, suggests that the City turn down the
vacant land property owner in preference to revitalization of
existing projects. As a City, we should not distinguish and
differentiate between those two, nor do we have that authority
and right to do so. The original statement of "encouraging
the revitalization and keeping our business sections alive and
healthy", should be one of our primary targets.
C/MacBride concurred.
MAY 26, 1993
�r, mitis+»F
PAGE 6
C/Werner pointed out that the City's Zoning Ordinance pro-
hibits home occupation as a land use in a residential zone.
It would seem appropriate to put the issue into the Land Use
Element and the Circulation Element so that there is internal
consistency. He inquired into what concerns were expressed at
the workshops that created a need to reevaluate the existing
wording.
Daniel Iacofano explained that there was a lot of concern at
the workshops regarding the flight of businesses from Diamond
Bar and/or the failure of businesses to meet the rents being
charged in existing commercial establishments. Community
participants wanted to emphasize the retention aspect, as well
as the City's opportunity to offer support to those local
businesses and/or investigate the reasons they are having
difficulty. There was also a desire to see the existing
commercial centers thrive before new commercial development
was approved.
M/Miller suggested that the language be modified to read
"encourage the retention or rehabilitation," replacing the "in
preference".
CDD/DeStefano, in response to a comment made by MPT/Papen,
stated that there was no suggestion made at the workshops to
create a Redevelopment Agency or any other type of new public
entity. The discussion acknowledged that there is a lot of
sales tax leakage occurring in surrounding communities and
there is a desire to retain that to help pay for additional
services and programs that the community desired. There were
also contrary opinions which questioned the development of
more land when there are vacancies in the City that need to be
filled.
C/Werner requested additional technical background data than
has already been provided to assist in making a reasonable
decision. He requested information regarding the City's
commercial base, in terms of the acreage relative to the
residential capacity of the community, that would provide a
proper balance between commercial and residential land use.
He inquired if reducing the density would be a detriment to
the commercial land use in the future. Some existing
commercial locations die because they are improperly located,
i.e. the old Post Office site, and if the City were to
implement the policy suggested in item #6, it would suggest
that the City should have provided assistance to a dying
commercial site because of its poor location. The suggested
policy does not include guidance to zoning decisions to
determine where good commercial land uses should occur. Not
all of the commercial sites designated by the County to be a
good location, will remain a good location forever. The
wording is too restrictive.
The Council concurred to direct staff to remove the clause, in
item #6, "In preference to...", taking into consideration the
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 7
comments made.
Martha Bruske requested that in-home businesses not be
included in this area because, though she does not have a
concern with telecommunication type businesses, there are some
in-home businesses that create a lot of concern.
C/Werner requested staff to develop a policy or a set of
policies dealing with home occupations.
MPT/Papen suggested that such a policy would be more
appropriately placed under the Zoning Ordinances rather than
the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Werner's concern, stated that,
from a planning perspective, there would not be an
inconsistency problem between what is indicated in the General
Plan and our current codes because State Law allows a period
of time in terms of changing zones and creating a development
code in order to implement the General Plan document once it
is adopted.
Greg Hummel, objecting to the use of the old Post Office site
as an example of a commercial piece of property_ in transition,
pointed out that it should never have been designated as a
commercial site due to its location adjacent to high density
residential and its poor location to circulation in the City.
It is not a good example to use for the purposes of watering
down the specific wording of the General Plan simply to
maintain flexibility in the future. The specific language of
the General Plan should be retained to send a clear message of
the City's intent.
The Council concurred to retain the last sentence in item #7,
"The economic development action plan should address goals,
set priorities and identify strategies to achieve effective
revitalization."
8. Replace the language in strategy 1.5.1, page I-14, with
"Establish and maintain a public record of best available
information concerning development restrictions on
existing vacant land. Require potential developers to
provide a title report or other acceptable documentation
of deed and/or map restrictions as part of the
development application process." Add strategy 1.5.3 to
read, "To define "open space" lands as vacant undeveloped
properties to be retained for purposes of visual amenity,
environmental resource protection and fire slope
stability hazard abatement. Such open space land will
require public acquisition or private owner dedication
for public ownership. Recreational facilities, both
active and passive, which incorporate undeveloped land,
are not included in this definition." Add strategy 1. 5.4
to read, "Requiring the City to develop an open space
program which will identify and acquire preserve open
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 8
space land consistent with community needs and financial
capability and include a full range of feasible
techniques." Add strategy 1.5.5 to read, "Recognizing
the significance of Tonner Canyon environmental
resources, support further definition of the extent and
the intensity of such resources to provide needed
additional information."
CDD/DeStefano explained that strategy 1.5.1 deals with the
issue regarding deed restrictions and map restrictions. An
open land survey was conducted for the General Plan dated July
14, 1992 of all remaining vacant lands within the City and it
was determined whether the properties had deed restrictions,
or map restrictions, or other restrictions prohibiting devel-
opment in some form. A list was provided, contained within
the document, that identified each parcel by specific number.
The language suggested for strategy 1.5.1 tends to reinforce
the statements that are within the existing document as well
as existing policy. Referring to the graphic prepared by
Cotton/Beland, he illustrated the following areas that were
questioned at the last meetings the area represented as our
Sphere of Influence; the property owned by the Boy Scouts,
identified in blue; the area identified in yellow is the area
identified in documents as the SEA #15; and the location of
the 57 freeway. He then referred to a map, presented to the
City a couple of years ago, which was part of the Parsons
Brinkerhoff feasibility study regarding Soquel Canyon/Tonner
Canyon, that also identifies the recent addition to Chino
Hills State Park, as well as the Boy Scout area.
In response to CM/Belanger, CDD/DeStefano stated that the SEA
graphic representation, indicated in the graphic prepared by
Cotton/Beland, was received in 1989. The original proposal of
the SEA was based on a study conducted in 1986, commissioned
by the County of Los Angeles, which determined that 62 areas
within the Los Angeles County confines would be subject to
this SEA strategy. The Diamond Ridge area and the area at
Brea Canyon Cut-off and the 57 freeway, where there are now
some industrial/office type buildings, was also once part of
the SEA. The Diamond Ridge portion was removed from the SEA
in 1979, and the office portion was removed in about 1978.
James Roberts suggested that some ecological integrity be
defined in the open space areas, along with the environmental
acknowledgements.
Gary Neely stated that the citizens, when developing the
citizens General Plan in 1983, decided that clustered
development was preferred in exchange for open space. He --
pointed out those areas negotiated for clustering and the open
space dedicated in exchange. He suggested that the statement,
found in strategy 1.5.1 of the GPAC version of the General
Plan, which reads "...It is the City's policy not to
renegotiate these prior commitments unless, after a separate
Public Hearing, it is so deemed that doing so would benefit
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 9
the community." be included as part of the paragraph in item
#8.
Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Rd., representing Arciero & Sons
and RnP Development, Inc., who own approximately 300 acres in
the City, stated that he has a copy of the original citizen's
General Plan of 1983, the EIR, and the real zoning map
approved by the County after 1983. He reviewed those areas
indicated by Mr. Neely as open space and demonstrated, by
referring to the zoning map of Los Angeles County adopted by
the City upon Incorporation, the. actual zoning designation at
that time. Though there was a community supported plan
adopted by the County in 1983 there was not a zone change to
bring this ownership into compliance with the General Plan.
Had the County entered into a zone change, there most probably
would have been litigation because of the absolute rendering
useless of these properties. He read the last page,
implementation of the General Plan dated 1983, 4th paragraph,
which reads, ..Effectuation of many plan proposals such as
acquisition and development of local parks and establishment
of a trail system will require action programs to be
undertaken by various. public agencies or formation of a
special district. Such programs will depend heavily upon
enthusiastic community support. This support demands that the
plan be readily available to and understood by the residents
and property owners of Diamond Bar." He then pointed out that
these major landowners have spent tens of millions of dollars
to help this community.
C/Werner questioned if, during the development process, it is
inherently considered an agreement when the landowners, as a
quid pro quo for a density transfer, grant a restriction back
to the County and if that agreement would remain valid when
jurisdiction changes from County to City.
Jan Dabney explained that there are all sorts of deed
restrictions and map restrictions. For example, there was a
density transfer for the 178 lots developed at Pathfinder, in
which the Pathfinder Homeowners Association acquired control
of 31 acres. There are four other underlying maps that have
exactly the same type of restrictions (involving Bramalea,
Brock, Pathfinder Homeowners Association, etc.). However,
these set aside areas or deed restrictions aren't entirely
predicated on density transfers. To determine if it is a
density transfer, simply count the units and look at the map.
Some specific restrictions on additional maps have nothing to
do with the density of that specific site, but the access and
the probable developability of the site. Property, in the
early development in Diamond Bar, was not worth much, and if
a developer had to spend a lot of money developing it, it was
set aside until some future consideration. In the late 1970's
and early 19801s, the statutes indicated that developers would
be paid for excessive donation of land. Therefore, every
developer who had a piece of land who couldn't afford to
develop it, was willing to try to set it aside for a park or
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 10
some use to excbssive donation. Many of the restrictive usage
and languages put on properties within the City resulted from
that statute. Each time there was one of those future park
site dedications, there would be language included that read,
"We reserve unto ourselves the right to utilize the property."
The law indicates that if the property is actually dedicated,
then it has to be accepted by the City or agency. On each one
of these contested restrictions, there was no exception. The
limitations on acceptance are as follows: dedicating street
right-of-way or public access or transit facilities, is open
indefinitely, unless there is a vacation of those specific
driveways on the property; there is three or five years to
accept dedication of navigable waters, specifically the ocean
coast line and bay line, and if it is not accepted, then it
returns back to the owner; and if asked to reserve a specific
use within a General Plan that is outside your normal
dedication, whether it be a school site, a park, some future
community center, etc. the City or agency must buy the land
within two years in some cases, with a maximum of five years
or it returns back to the owner. In the case of the
Pathfinder development, there was a density transfer on their
property; however, the County did not implement all the
aspects of the law because there were financial
responsibilities associated with that. The secondary aspect
on these properties zoned open space indicate that money
should be set aside to acquire it. He stated that a
reasonable offer was made, around November of 1992, by both
owners of the Sandstone Canyon, to the conservatory to acquire
the property; however, no response was made to that offer.
Greg Hummel suggested that the City hire a high-powered
consultant to determine exactly what is, and is not, the truth
and the law, and to determine the City's rights and the
details of transition from the County to the City. He stated
that he supports Mr. Neely's suggestion to add the wording
from the original GPAC General Plan. He then requested some
representation of these tens of millions of dollars that the
developers claim to have poured into the City in benefit of
the general community of Diamond Bar.
Audrey Hamilton, Copper Mountain Dr., expressed concern that
the language in strategy 1.3 defines any open and undeveloped
land as open space, which will require public acquisition or
private owner dedication. Such a policy would require a lot
of money from the City, or cost the City a lot of money in
court battles. In regard to the phrase, "supporting further
definition of the extent and intensity of such resources to
provide needed additional information," she requested
clarification as to how the significance of Tonner Canyon
environmental resources was to be determined.
C/Werner, referring to strategy 1.5.1, made the following
suggestions: there needs to be a better definition of the
phrase "best available information;" and replace the phrase
"require potential developers to provide" with "On all
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 11
applications for subdivision and development, require the
submission of a title report or other acceptable documentation
of deed and/or map restriction."
MPT/Papen, referring to strategy 1.5.1, stated that the term
"public record" should be modified because it seems to require
Diamond Bar to have a registrar -recorder to keep documents for
public record.
C/Werner noted that it would only become pertinent when
someone is proposing development, unless the City were to have
an active acquisition campaign.
Daniel Iacofano explained that the intent behind this language
revision was to try to bring some added clarity that the City
would at least require the potential applicant, on the event
of their application to the City, to make sure that
information was forthcoming, and in so doing, begin to compile
that on-going record in the course of those applications.
C/Werner recalled that another point of view offered at the
workshop was to get this information so that the City can be
in a position of acting on deed restrictions in the form of
open space, dedications or other land use restrictions, rather
than making a reference into this General Plan. If there wase;
an application before the City, it would become -obvious it,
there was a restriction. In response to the language:
suggested by Mr. Neely, "...It is the City's policy not to
renegotiate these prior commitments unless, after a separate
public hearing, it is so deemed that doing so would benefit
the community" C/Werner stated that, in his opinion, he sees
nothing wrong with such a process.
MPT/Papen pointed out that such a policy is already the policy
and the law. Currently, a new map must be filed if there are
restrictions on properties that are not developed, and there
must be public hearings. She then expressed concern regarding
the language indicating that it is the City's policy to not
renegotiate. It is not a matter of public policy but a matter
of law.
Michael Jenkins explained that, if the property has been
dedicated to the public, the map would indicate, "Development
Rights have been dedicated to the County of Los Angeles for a
specified parcel, whether for open space or whether the
development rights have been dedicated to the public. In
regard to the development of other portions of the
subdivision, the City Council must take an action at a public
-- meeting, not necessarily a public hearing, in order for that
restriction to be lifted. If, however, it was in connection
with a new map application, clearly it would be done in the
context of a public hearing. It is up to the City what
procedure to follow. The City could decide that subdivision
requests on map applications, with map restrictions on
property dedicated as open space, must come before the City
MAY 26, 1993
PAGE 12
Council, and then require the City Council to publicly take a
formal action to remove that restriction. Alternatively, the
City could accept the map application with the contingency
that the City Council, in the course of public hearings,
cannot legally approve that map without simultaneously lifting
that restriction. Either way, it will be in front of this
Council at a public hearing. It is entirely a policy matter
whether the City wants to put, into the General Plan, the
criteria that will be imposed. There are properties in the
City that have been subjected to restrictions on development
on subdivision maps and those restrictions are enforceable by
the City. Those properties cannot be developed unless the
City Council lifts those restrictions. Those properties can
properly be designated as open space in the General Plan.
However, before giving a particular property that designation,
one would want to examine the map restriction itself, the
exact language of the restriction, to be certain that it was
in fact dedicated, and dedicated for that purpose. Essen-
tially, as indicated by MPT/Papen, it is a general statement
to what is already required by the law.
C/Werner pointed out that if there is a consensus with the
wording, "On all applications for subdivision and development,
require the submission of a title report or other acceptable
documentation then there should be no problem with clearly
stating what we are already required to do.
MPT/Papen inquired if there is a map restriction, and the
property was offered for dedication but it was not accepted,
then is the restriction on the map invalid, as indicated by
Mr. Dabney.
Michael Jenkins stated that, ordinarily, those dedications
would be irrevocable offers of dedication whether they have
been accepted or not.
MPT/Papen expressed concern with having language that would
apply only to maybe five parcels in the whole community.
There are other map restrictions, but this language
specifically calls out a remnant parcel that is restricted to
1DU/AC. The language should not be so site-specific and
limiting.
C/Werner requested staff to provide further information
regarding time limits on offers of dedication.
RECESS:
M/Miller
recessed the meeting at
9:25 p.m.
RECONVENE:
M/Miller
reconvened the meeting
at 9:37 p.m.
C/Werner stated that if a restriction is lifted, then there
should be commensurate public benefit exchange.
MPT/Papen suggested that the first sentence in strategy 1.5.1
be deleted, replacing it with C/Werner's suggested language,
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 13
which reads, "On all applications for subdivision and
development, require the submission of a title report or other
acceptable documentation" because it seems to be covered in
strategy 1.5.4. The Council concurred.
MPT/Papen suggested that the words, "deed restricted" be added
to the first sentence in strategy 1.5.3, to read, "Define open
space lands as vacant, deed restricted..." and removing the
second sentence since, if it is deed restricted, the public
does not have to acquire it. The Council concurred.
Michael Jenkins suggested that staff give further consider-
ation to a broader definition of what is meant by open space.
It may be that there are economically beneficial uses of land
which constitute open space, which we may want to define as
open space, which are not deed restricted land, such as a golf
course or a cemetery.
C/Werner also requested staff to provide wording regarding the
issue of going through the public hearing process to lift a
restriction and the issue of commensurate public benefit. He
then inquired how the terms "open space" and "vacant" are
defined. Vacant land may be misconstrued as a potential open
space land.
MPT/Papen pointed out that the distinction has been made for
a year and a half that open space is deed restricted vacant
land and parks, etc. are public properties. The reason the
words "deed restricted" have been suggested is so that it is
consistent with the other discussions in the first chapter.
She theA stated that she concurs with strategy 1.5.4.as is.
However, in strategy 1.5.5, she expressed concern that only
one resource, "environmental," is being acknowledged and there
are other resources, such as ecological, natural, municipal,
public, recreation, etc. The word should be deleted so it is
open to all the resources within that land.
C/Werner, referring to the comment made by Mr. Roberts,
stated that, in order to alter the designation in Tonner
Canyon SEA, a conscious effort must be made to identify
whether or not there are special environmental resources
there. It is worth more analysis from staff's standpoint.
C/MacBride suggested that the entire strategy be deleted.
MPT/Papen stated that Tonner Canyon is not in the City of
Diamond Bar and currently, our Tonner Canyon Sphere of
Influence is zoned Agricultural. A Specific Plan, or another
document of the Sphere of Influence, should and could be
developed, but not incorporated into this document at this
time.
C/Werner stated that there needs to be reference in the
General Plan to the portion of Tonner Canyon that spills into
the City.
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 14
MPT/Papen suggested that the language be modified to read,
"recognizing the significance of the SEA," deleting "Tonner
Canyon."
C/Werner suggested "Recognize the environmental character-
istics of Tonner Canyon to the extent that they have been
identified as a significant ecological area and prior to any
development..."
M/Miller stated that there should not be any mention of
"development" in the statement.
The Council concurred with MPT/Papen's suggested wording,
"recognizing the significance of the SEA," deleting the words
"Tonner Canyon."
Gary Neely stated that he felt it important to include the
statement "It is the City's policy not to renegotiate these
map restrictions, deed restrictions, development restrictions,
unless, after public hearing, there is some kind of consensus
by the elected officials in our community that there is a
benefit to the community," in the strategy if for no other
reason than to make a point to the community.
Barbara Beach Courchesne requested that the word "map
restricted" be used instead of "deed restricted" because there
is so much vacant land as opposed to open space because of the
words "deed restricted."
Don Schad stated that he concurred with the language in
strategy 1.5.5. He requested to show some slides of the area;
however, the Council decided that it was important to stay
with the agenda at hand.
9. Revise the adopted Land Use Map as follows: add
designation to Tres Hermanos Ranch area to reflect the
new High School site being considered for that area; and
revise the map to reflect the proposed reduction in land
use intensity for the existing single family
subdivisions.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the 880 acre site of the Tres
Hermanos Ranch area needs to be reflective of the decision to
place a high school within the property, as well as the City
of Industry's desire to place a reclaimed water lake there.
The entirety of the site should be changed from its Specific
Plan designation to one of Agricultural, which reflects the
existing use and the existing zoning. In response to C/
Werner, he stated that the following roadways are illustrated:
the existing Chino Hills Parkway and Chino Ave. with an
additional linkage between the Diamond Ranch High School and
Deep Springs Rd., with a future road, to be part of the
Circulation Element discussion.
MAY 26, 1993 PAGE 15
C/Werner, concerned with only illustrating the one alterna-
tive, pointed out that there may be another alternative route
which would serve as a secondary local access to Diamond Bar.
He then requested that the connection between Chino Hills
Parkway and Grand Ave. be shown on the map.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/MacBride's inquiry if the map
shows a secondary road just below the freeway right-of-way,
stated that there is no intention to indicate a secondary
access point for a future road linking the high school in that
general area down to Golden Springs, which has been discussed
previously by individuals. The line seen by C/MacBride is to
identify the land use designation.
Gary Neely stated that it is the position of the Diamond Ranch
High School Booster Club to see a secondary road on the map,
coming from Golden Springs, paralleling the 60 freeway,
straight back to the school, because it seems that such a road
is just as viable in present planning as the shorter road. It
may be that both roads are needed. He requested that the
possible road be added, along with some verbiage, in the
Circulation Element, clarifying where the road is to be
aligned on the map and describing the road as being built in
an environmentally -sensitive matter, defining
"environmentally" in the document. The map should also,;'
include the 1,200 acre potable water lake proposed by the City
of Industry, which does reach up into an area in our City. A.
Don Schad suggested that the City, in conjunction with the
colleges, cover specific programs in scientific water
reclamation management and utilization for humanity. The
water could eventually be purified so that it can be utilized.
He inquired when he could show his slides because it depicts
the areas discussed.
The Council agreed to follow the agenda.
C/MacBride inquired if the lake area shown on the map is a
definitive sketch of the proposed reclaimed water area, or if
there is a more exceptional description of the lake available.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the City has known for some time
that the City of Industry was interested in developing such a
facility when they agreed to cooperatively develop a Specific
Plan concept for the area. The specific location of that
reclaimed water lake is conceptual, schematic at best, and the
school district site does not indicate a very specific
location for the high school boundaries.
C/Werner suggested that the lake be removed from the map since
it is not there, nor has it been discussed.
Gary Neely stated that he would prefer that the lake remain on
the map and be more accurately described as was in the
Conceptual Specific Plan that the City paid $250,000 for. He
MAY 26, 1993
PAGE 16
then displayed a map from the Boyle Engineering Report done
for the City of Industry's Urban Development Agency,
descriptive of what a 120,000 -acre-foot lake would look like,
which he feels should be included in the land use map. If
there is a discussion of a Tonner Canyon Scenic Highway, it
should be understood that the road cannot be run through the
dam, and that the alignment is limited. We have to pursue a
vision of a future of our community that includes evaluation
of all the projects in a concise manner.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to M/Miller, stated that the Tres
Hermanos Concept Plan cost the City $75,000.
Daniel Iacofano reported that agenda item #10 leads into the
Circulation Element for the draft General Plan. Terry Austin,
the Traffic Engineer and Consultant, has prepared an
introductory comment or overview to help focus and clarify
some of the discussion on these points.
Terry Austin reported that it was evident from the workshops
that there was no consensus on certain aspects on circulation.
The first two draft changes recommended, items #10 and #11,
contain minor formatting. The third recommended change, item
#12, addresses the key circulation issues on how to deal with
traffic from outside the community using the roadway system.
Because there was no consensus on the issue, we felt it appro-
priate to make specific recommendations on ways to get more
specific on this very important aspect of the Circulation
Element.
The City Council concurred to continue discussion on the
Circulation Element to the next meeting.
Greg Hummel, referring to strategy 1.5.5, suggested the
following wording, Recognizing the significance of the Tonner
Canyon SEA environmental resources, support further definition
of the extent and the intensity of such resources to aid in
the preservation of these vital resources."
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Werner to place
a Closed Session on the agenda to discuss pending litigation.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: MacBride, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Miller
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Forbing
Motion was made by MPT/Papen, seconded by C/Werner to adjourn
to Closed Session. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: MacBride, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Miller
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Forbing
MAY 26, 1993
PAGE 17
' 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None offered.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: M/Miller adjourned the
meeting at 10:25 p.m. to Closed Session for discussion of
Litigation, Government Code Section 54956.9.
RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at
10:45 p.m. and announced that no reportable action had taken
place during Closed Session.
4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to
conduct, M/Miller adjourned the meeting to June 2, 1993 at
7:00 p.m.
Lynda Burgess, City clerk
Attest:
Mayor