Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/1993 Minutes - Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 2, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Mayor Miller. ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing and MacBride. Councilmen Werner arrived at 7:40 p.m. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. - 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CDD/DeStefano reported that the Public Hearing process began on May 19, 1993 for adoption of the draft General Plan. The Council received testimony on proposed revisions related to land use and open space policy, and then continued the Public Hearing to May 26, 1993 to further discuss the Land Use Element, open space related policy, and to begin discussion of the Circulation Element. That Public Hearing was continued in order to accommodate further public testimony on the Circulation Element. The issues related to Diamond Bar's traffic circulation are significantly impacted by regional traffic. One of the major issues within the Circulation Element is the need to deal with traffic from outside the community using our roadway systems. He then introduced the following members of the consultant team, retained by the City in March of 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, to facilitate the public workshop process; Terry Austin, Austin Faust, to assist in the Circulation Element; and Dale Beland, of the firm Cotton/Beland Associates, for development of the General Plan policy issues. Terry Austin stated that one of the key issues from the workshops was that the City has a significant problem with respect to through traffic. There was a lot of discussion at the workshops on a Tonner Canyon Road and how the issue of the Road should be handled in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Tonner Canyon Road is not a facility that is on any arterial highway plan of the three counties, and there is concern as to what extent that roadway can be featured in our General Plan. The City of Brea has a policy adamantly opposing that roadway. Ideally, we should have a General Plan that does not rely on the roadway, nor does it preclude it. Staff has attempted to focus on the issue of -- through traffic, looking at specific policy that will aid in dealing with that through traffic problem, without necessarily having a lot of testimony for or against a Tonner Canyon Road. In the suggested revisions, items #10 and #11 deal with formatting changes, and item #13 addresses the issue of through traffic. Staff has laid out some policy directions in an attempt to be more specific with this issue, taking the JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 2 information received from the discussion in the workshops, from staff's evaluations of the testimony, and staff's evaluation of the current General Plan. He reviewed the following three policy options in item #13: 1. A Local Regional Program - Encourage the County and the State to make regional improvements to solve the additional through traffic problem. Implement strategies to minimize neighborhood traffic intrusions. 2. The Peripheral Corridor - A proactive stance indicating a desire to have a conceptual corridor included as part of the General Plan, recognizing that the conceptual corridor shown is not totally within the City or the Sphere. The corridor would be a conceptual alignment that could be a very scenic roadway, probably no more than 4 lanes, with limited access that could carry a lot of traffic for its size. There may need to be a memorandum of understanding with Chino Hills and the County so that it is included in their plan. There would be some joint fee program to study such an alignment, finding, and to include some strict environmental guidelines with respect to how those particular studies viewed this alignment. 3. A programmatic approach indicating a land use circulation - phasing to try to establish a joint powers authority with the neighboring City of Chino Hills that will monitor land use and circulation such that we do not overload our system with external traffic. Develop a milestone program to obtain agreement as to how much development occurs in each City in conjunction with certain actions regarding transportation capacity. There are State legislative guidelines that dictate how development is to occur in relation to overloading Grand Ave., since Grand is part of the Congestion Management Program Street System; therefore, there are some reasons for Chino Hills to work with Diamond Bar to look at some such program suggested. Terry Austin stated that staff felt that these three options were the type of policy directions that could lead to a more specific wording of this important part of the Circulation Element. At the risk of being inconsistent, staff further recommends that item #13, with respect to the high school site, be general. More information is needed before a line is drawn on a map, because once drawn, it is often very difficult to remove it. In response to MPT/Papen's inquiry regarding the inconsistent recommendations with respect to Tonner Canyon and the high school, he explained that if option #2 were desired, the City could evaluate the possibility of putting a line on a map that assures a greater say on how things proceed with respect to some kind of roadway. However, with respect to the High School, it is felt that it would be more appro- JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 3 priate to include the objective in the Circulation Element, to be implemented when a specific project comes to the City for evaluation. MPT/Papen, in regard to the statement that Brea adamantly opposes a roadway through Tonner Canyon, stated that as a member of the Council Subcommittee on Transportation, she had the opportunity to meet with Brea's City officials and staff, and though they are very concerned about the construction of another 4 or 6 lane highway dumping traffic on the 57 freeway at Brea's city limits, they have indicated that they are not opposed to an alternative transportation method. There has been discussion about seeking Orange County to bring up a light rail line from the John Wayne Airport Irvine Center into the Anaheim transportation corridor up the 57 freeway and out Tonner Canyon as an alternative. Terry Austin, concurring with MPT/Papen, stated that Brea is also looking at Soquel transit corridor and other possi- bilities, which could be included in either option #1, or option #4 indicating that there are some transit corridor studies made that would benefit the City of Diamond Bar. M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. Don Schad presented nine slides pertaining to the Tonner Canyon Corridor illustrating the type of terrain that will be disturbed in its natural ecological area. It may be possible for an arrangement to be made with the Boy Scouts to manage this canyon as a natural park rather than to destroy it for a scenic roadway. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, expressed support for option #1 and opposition to option #2. There will not be a solution to the traffic problem until the City, the County and the State address the problems associated with having two freeways merging into one at our City limits. He made the following comments regarding the Circulation Element: the criteria used, based upon the capacity ratio indicated on page V-10 item C, should be uniformly met throughout the Southern California area; the most important criteria for the evaluation of roads is not the volume but how long it takes to get from point A to B; the General Plan does not address specific ways to improve the local conditions; the only suggested solution, projected to the year 2000, was to put a roadway through Tonner Canyon, and other possible alternatives were not even considered such as Carbon Canyon, expansion of the 60/57 freeway interchange; strategy 1.1.4, which calls for the identification of this transportation corridor through Tonner Canyon implies that it is something that the City can unilaterally implement, which the City cannot do; it is impossible to minimize the environmental impacts because the mere construction process in Tonner Canyon will destroy it; a roadway through Tonner Canyon is not consistent with SEA #15; JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 4 there is no projection of future traffic conditions based upon things that could be easily accomplished such as the Pathfinder Bridge; and the current and projected traffic conditions in Diamond Bar do not justify destruction of Tonner Canyon. In response to MPT/Papen's statement that the Pathfinder Bridge project is indicated in Chapter 5, page 20, item 7, Mr. Smith explained that the projections made, which tend to sub- stantiate the need for an alternate roadway, did not take into account changes which are currently in existence, which may result in the projections to be totally different where the need for a road through Tonner Canyon may be diminished. Norman Beach Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills, suggested that CalTrans be requested to eliminate the on/off ramps at Grand Ave. which will change the traffic patterns coming on Grand. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove, disagreed with the statement related to Brea's opposition to the Tonner Canyon Rd. being built. After talking with some of Brea's Council members, it appeared that they were in more opposition to a particular alignment which would basically take all the traffic off the surface streets from Diamond Bar and Chino Hills and dump it into Brea. The Parsons/Brinkerhoff Report indicated 8 different alignments for the potential construction of this road, and concluded that the best alignment would utilize the southern terminus where the existing Tonner Canyon connector is to the 57 freeway in Orange County. This connection at the 57 freeway, where Brea Canyon Road goes under the 57 freeway, would not take all the traffic off of the surface streets of Diamond Bar and Chino Hills and dump it on Lambert and their surface streets. He expressed support of option #2 and the need to place a line on the map. The City has 5 roadways that currently have a traffic volume that exceed the capacity of the road segment. The Parsons/Brinkerhoff Report took into account proposed projects and concluded that if a Tonner Canyon Road is not built, the number of volume to capacity jumps from 5 to 28 road segments. If the road is built, it drops from 5 to 3 road segments, and if Grand Avenue is striped to 6 lanes, it drops to zero. If Tonner Canyon Rd. is built, it would take 35,000 cars a day off of the surface streets in Diamond Bar. The question is not if the road should be built, but rather how to build it so the Canyon is built in an environmentally -sensitive manner, defining the term "environmentally sensitive". In regard to the high school road, he suggested that a dotted blue line be drawn to represent the road, realigning the road in such a manner that it would correspond and not preclude the development of the proposed lake. Todd Chavers, 600 Box Cove P1., pointed out that all the options presented eventually lead to the same place in that at some point, the pressures to develop will force us into JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 5 building a road to support traffic demands. options #1 & #3 postpones the inevitable discussion of a road; however, when the pressure of the traffic becomes intolerable, the County or State will look at the situation without accepting input from Diamond Bar. It is better to attempt to control our destiny, rather than to ignore the situation along with the environ- mental and ecological system issues. He offered to have a traffic engineering workshop to explain the fundamentals and terms indicated in the Circulation Element. Don Gravdahl, 23988 Minnequa, expressed support for both options #2 and #3 to work with the regional communities to provide fees for expansion of their growth, and to look at the possibility of a light fixed rail or mono rail as a peripheral corridor. Barbara Beach Courchesne expressed support for option #1 because it addresses specific problems in the City and looks beyond Diamond Bar for solutions. The City needs to become assertive, or perhaps aggressive, in making surrounding communities assume some of the responsibility for the problems being created. If they won't build a road, then the City should demand money to allow us to build it. C/Forbing stated that he feels strategy 1.1.4 covers all three of the options, and allows for the community, in the future,:; to make changes and evaluations as changes occur. As changes are made to the freeway by CalTrans, there is no way of knowing what is actually going to be needed through Tonner Canyon. MPT/Papen, knowing how long it takes to implement the trans- portation plan, and that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, stated that it is important that we participate actively in local, regional, and state-wide discussions. How money is spent and what area of the five County region it gets spent on, depends on need and political preference, which is one of the reasons for Incorporation. She expressed concern that options #2 & #3 mention specifically doing things with other jurisdictions who are not present in participating in these discussions. If a decision is made on how a program is to be implemented, it will be hard to get agencies to buy into them. She stated that she would support option #2 only as a conceptual alignment corridor, without the specific line on the map, because there is no accountability for the slope, terrain, cost, etc. There is a need to look into alternative means of transportation. C/Werner stated that it is important that the City recognize the existing problem, as well as the need to plan for solutions tomorrow, recognizing that this is not a single jurisdictional issue or a single jurisdictional solution. The long range options should be as flexible as possible, so that the feasibility of building the road is not diminished. There JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 6 could perhaps be technologies available to us in the future that we cannot foresee at this time. It is important to address this issue by identifying the issue, and committing to a set of policies that direct our City in the future to take some specific actions leading toward a solution, without being committed to a particular line of the map. M/Miller, understanding the necessity of the road and the necessity of being environmentally sensitive to Tonner Canyon, stated that it is important to have further information analyzing the location of the road before indicating a line on the map. C/MacBride, referring to the comments made by Mr. Neely regarding his reference to the Parsons/Brinkerhoff study and the comments made by Mr. Chavers that we should attempt to control the City's destiny as indicated by option #2, stated that he believes that strategy 1.1.4, at this juncture of discussion, meets adequately all the concerns expressed. Wilbur Smith suggested that the City approach the State about improving the 57/60 freeway interchange which will improve the traffic flow throughout the whole San Gabriel basin. The -- State is more apt to spend money to solve traffic problems over a wide area rather than to build a road in which Diamond Bar is the primary beneficiary. When deciding which option is the most appropriate, one must consider if the option can be implemented. MPT/Papen, at the request of M/Miller for an update on our local current freeway system, explained that the Council has been working to achieve the things he has talked about. The discussion regarding Tonner Canyon and these traffic studies focuses on the City's current condition as well as its condition in the year 2010. Currently, in the Los Angeles County, there is a Call for Projects that will be funded and built in the next four years in which there are 8 or 9 projects, in that list, that would benefit this City directly. Three of those projects relate to HOV lanes and if HOV lanes are built, probably around 1996, with the design we think will be approved, there will be no exit from the HOV lane at Grand Ave. Furthermore, the City has requested $95 million to make improvements in the interchange, but even if it is approved this year, the soonest funds could be received would be the year 2000. Aggressive action does need to be taken; however, so far we have only received around 50 letters of support from the citizens supporting $95 million of funding from the State. The City is working hard toward resolving the issue, but there is a need to go beyond these measures and look toward some alternative corridor between Diamond Bar and Chino Hills to handle the growth. C/Forbing pointed out that Chino Hills is still expecting to construct an additional 10,000 homes and even with the JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 7 expansion of Rte. 71, they will still need to go through Diamond Bar to get to the 57 freeway. The only way to benefit Diamond Bar is to keep those people off our streets and do some long range planning with Chino Hills and Brea. Gary Neely suggested that the developers of the Tres Hermanos area be asked to help fund the construction of particular segments of the road, as well as fund the reconstruction of Grand Ave. 3/4 of a mile to bridge this lake as part of their project. He then pointed out that strategy 1.1.4 indicates that the road only goes through the Sphere of Influence, that it does not have the northern terminus, and that it will go through the easterly portion of the Sphere of Influence; thus, verbally drawing the line on the map, at least through this Sphere of Influence. Dale Beland stated that the proposed revision in item #10 is to delete the paragraph on page V-16 because of its high level of detail. The proposed revision in item #11 suggests that Exhibit V-4 be added on page V-19 of the Circulation Element, to illustrate a Master Plan of Circulation to amplify and clarify policy which is implicit now in Table V-6. Both items #10 and #11 are basically housekeeping matters, based upon consultant recommendation, which do not involve major policy': decisions. Staff is prepared to move forward on item #12, the discussion of the revision of strategy 1.1.4 and submit a draft based upon the testimony received tonight. Item #13 suggests a revision of strategy 2.2.2 on page V-23, pertaining to integrating the development of Tres Hermanos to Diamond Bar through the roadway system, to read, "Ensure that the proposed high school site within the Tres Hermanos Ranch property is physically integrated into the community for Diamond Bar by appropriate roadway alignment and design." MPT/Papen, referring to the suggested revision in item #10, suggested that there still should be some discussion addressing future development in Diamond Bar under Physical Mobility because there is an Issue Analysis and a Conclusion. Dale Beland explained that it was suggested to delete those statements because they implied a level of detail and absoluteness which is inappropriate. Staff could modify the language to achieve a more general statement, sending the message but avoiding unreal detail. The Council concurred. Todd Chavers suggested that the section be revised, not deleted, because it is important to show the order of magnitude of the problem being addressed in the General Plan. In response to C/Werner, he explained that there are two set of numbers and discussions occurring in the section, which anticipates the traffic on our system without addressing what is happening in a regional sense. It is important that we put in a threshold that would impact our ability to develop because someone else is putting trips on the system and JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 8 bumping this perceived ceiling. In response to C/MacBride, he explained that the Circulation Element adequately addresses the need for the land use plan we have for the City, and the additional capacity is there but only because we are somewhat willing to share with the region at large. The analysis done for the General Plan in the Circulation Element and the Traffic Model takes a 2010 SLAG population and employment figures, converts it into travel demand and traffic numbers, and places it on the street in a pattern similar to the travel demands we have today. This is the method used to achieve the growth projections in the environmental analysis indicating that there is a need from a regional perspective. The statement needs to be subjective because it has already been thoroughly analyzed in the MEA, and we know it to be true for us and the entire region. Gary Neely, representing the Diamond Point Booster Club and referring to item #13, encouraged the Council to not lose the concept of putting a line on the map for access to the high school. He illustrated a possible westerly access to the school and emphasized the desire by many residents to have a long term commitment in the General Plan that verbally includes both a short road access from Deep Springs, as well _ as westerly access that comes directly off of Golden Springs, south of the 60 freeway, paralleling the 60 freeway to the high school, coming out of the development and back toward the City. Don Schad concurred that there is a need for two roads accessing the high school to avoid a situation such as the one occurring at South Pointe Middle School. Todd Chavers concurred with the need to put a line on the map, avoiding the residential streets, to set the tone for the specific plan effort. There is most likely a way to create the connection to the high school through the property along the 60 freeway so that it provides local benefit to access not just the high school but to serve as a commercial or collector type function that could be paid for by development in Tres Hermanos Ranch. Eric Stone, 22401 Darrin Dr., though not opposed to the suggested access that would cross his property to benefit all of Diamond Bar, expressed concern that a widespread down - zoning of the property in that area would be unfair and would constitute a possible taking on the part of the City. C/Werner, referring to item #10, concurred with the appropri- ateness of putting in some subjective wording that would refer to the issue of future development in Diamond Bar. He further noted that his comment to item #11 relates to item #13 and suggested that if there is more than one alternative route for access to the high school, then it would be appropriate to have a supplemental exhibit(s) in addition to Exhibit V-4 JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 9 identifying alternative options for access to the high school. MPT/Papen, concurring that two road accesses are needed, stated that since there was no formal action taken on the Specific Plan and the three alternatives presented, it may not be appropriate to put lines on the map without having input from the property owner and without development of the entire parcel and the land use designation. C/Werner pointed out that there is value for identifying, for residents of the neighborhood, the potentiality of a collector road or access road to the high school for planning purposes. With nothing indicated on the map, it could be misconstrued, from property owners in the area, that nothing was ever planned. Perhaps the potential access can be identified with a circle or an arrow. MPT/Papen pointed out that there is also a possibility of a road from Tin Dr. up to Pantera through the undeveloped land to the Tres Hermanos property. M/Miller stated that he concurred with the statements made by C/Forbing and C/MacBride that the language in strategy 1.1.4 - adequately meets all the concerns expressed. CM/Belanger, in response to MPT/Papen's suggestion to delete the wording "easterly portion," explained that the easterly portion of the Sphere of Influence was suggested because it was felt to be a more appropriate area for the location of a possible regional transportation corridor in the =future, taking into consideration the surrounding communities. It is staff's recommendation that ambiguity as relates to the Sphere of Influence not be left in the General Plan. M/Miller suggested that strategy 1.1.4 be modified to read, "...Sphere of Influence are which recognize and prioritized environmental sensitivity." C/Werner suggested that strategy 1.1.4 be amended to indicate, "...proactively work with adjacent jurisdictions." CM/Belanger, in response to C/Werner, stated that there will not be a designation placed on the map because the purpose of the language is to have each of the agencies proactively involved in looking at this type of regional transportation corridor alternative and at some future time make a determination where it will be. He then reported that Mr. Chavers has provided an outline for a definition determining "environmentally sensitive" as it relates to a transportation corridor, which will be provided to the consultant team to look for a way to incorporate it into the document. Dale Beland, in response to C/Werner's inquiry regarding the meaning of the word "insure" indicated on page V-23, item #13, JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 10 explained that the intent of the term "insure" is a policy commitment that, in any future consideration of development of the high school or Tres Hermanos Ranch Property, etc. the appropriate roadway alignment and design would be implemented. RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting 9:15 p.m.. RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 9:24 p.m.. MPT/Papen, referring to page V-14, suggested that, with the impending start of the Metrolink in 12 days, the document should indicate that it has already occurred, instead of planned, and it should read, "The Riverside to Los Angeles Metrolink Commuter Rail System operates along the Union Pacific Line and the closest station serving the City of Diamond Bar is at Brea Canyon Road just north of the City boundary." The Council concurred. Don Schad stated that it is important that the General Plan address the wilderness areas that are still in its natural state. Each one of these canyons have individual botanical or wildlife characteristics that are unique to each area. Wilbur Smith made the following comments: the General Plan seems to be responding to special interests who could profit by development of Tonner Canyon; the traffic problems are being over -stated in order to find general support for a road; the data does not substantiate a catastrophic traffic situation; though criteria is established, there is no basis for judging that criteria relative to other communities; the General Plan does not address the fact that the reason it is pleasant to reside in Diamond Bar is because of the low density housing pattern and sense of open space caused by the hills and canyons, which is what we should be trying to retain; the General Plan does not specifically indicate that Tonner Canyon is within SEA #15 and that there are legalities associated with SEA #15 by both the County and the State; it does not say that the City will act in accordance with the letter and the spirit of those legalities; the failure to recognize these legalities is the direct result of lawsuits against the City; and this General Plan is nothing more than a regurgitation of the EIR written for the JCC properties, with the same wording, thought processes, insensitivities to the environmental and the geological aspects. MPT/Papen pointed out that the Council did address the issue of the SEA at the last two meetings and added a map that delineates the SEA, changing strategy 1.5.5 to specifically reference the SEA as well as other areas. Discussion ensued between M/Miller and Mr. Smith regarding the fundamental due process of an application. M/Miller explained that the Council had, from the onset, expressed concerns regarding the JCC project; however, the applicant must be JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 11 allowed to present his project and an opportunity to prove that the City's concerns have no basis in fact. Discussion further ensued regarding the lawsuit filed by the Citizens to Protect Country Living vs. the City Clerk. Concerned with Mr. Smith's statement that he did not believe that the City Clerk was not influenced by the Council, C/Forbing, C/Werner, MPT/Papen and M/Miller each informed Mr. Wilbur that, for the record, no communication took place with the City Clerk during the submission of the Referendum petition nor during her review or final decision. MPT/Papen, referring to strategy l.l.l.d., medium density residential housing land use, page I-9, stated that it has been suggested that the Council consider a RM zone with a maximum density of 16DU/AC for already developed land in those categories indicated, and add strategy 1.1.1.e for undeveloped lands in this same category with a maximum density of 12DU/AC. She inquired into the legality of putting different housing densities on the same land use designation. Michael Jenkins stated that he sees no legal problem with establishing different density designations, or two separate categories of high density residential with two separate density designations, recognizing current densities so as not: to render those currently developed properties nonconforming,: while at the same time declaring a lower and different density, designation for properties to be developed in the future. It is a policy matter that a lower density is more appropriate for that type of development. MPT/Papen requested further information regarding the require- ment to allow density bonuses, through low and moderate type housing and such, that can bring the 12DU/AC up to 16DU/AC. Michael Jenkins stated that he will need to evaluate it further and will bring back a response to the Council later. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/WernerIs concern, stated that, in staff's opinion, Mr. Smith's comments regarding the City's failure to recognize certain issues does not represent a liability in terms of the General Plan presently being contemplated for adoption. He requested further time to review the statements made in further detail. The City Council concurred. C/MacBride inquired if it would be more appropriate if the -- General Plan included a vision statement. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the General Plan itself is a vision statement. Some General Plans may have a summary of that vision and it may be appropriate to begin this policy document with such a statement. JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 12 Dale Beland, concurring with CDD/DeStefano, stated that, based upon what has been discussed at this hearing and at the workshops, there seems to be a need to consider that type of addition to the document. Staff will draft such a statement, to be included in the draft Plan, if so desired. The Council concurred. C/MacBride, noting that the final General Plan document must produce four major changes, suggested that a map also be included that would show the regional impacts of deep concern to this community that will impact the City in the future. We have a responsibility to show major impacts beyond our specific borders. Gary Neely inquired when it would be appropriate to discuss his specific written requested revisions to the General Plan that he previously submitted. MPT/Papen stated that one of the issues, regarding multifamily housing and the change of zoning, was just discussed. The other issues raised seem to fall into three categories: a University of California; the MWD lake; and the development of Tres Hermanos Ranch. However, since the land use is desig- nated as Specific Plan, the request to add verbiage to the General Plan on decisions that have not been formally made would not be appropriate at this time. Gary Neely state that since this is to be a 20 -year plan, the growing needs of the community and the region must be addressed, regardless of current funding situations. He then stated that not all of the changes submitted to the Council dealt solely with the three topics summarized by MPT/Papen and he would like an opportunity to discuss them at an appropriate time. Dale Beland, in response to C/Werner's request for the consul- tant's review on the points submitted by Mr. Neely, stated that they would appreciate further time to evaluate Mr. Neely's recent submittal, which is quite extensive. Given the burden of the workshop process, there has not been an opportunity to deal with the previous submittals in a level of detail now requested. C/Forbing, noting that the designation of the Tres Hermanos Ranch was changed from Specific Plan to Agricultural, stated that any discussion of a University or any other use would seem to be inappropriate in an Agricultural zone. Likewise, a potential lake in an adjoining County does not have much to --: do with our General Plan. C/MacBride explained that the Council is indicating that provisions have been made in the General Plan so that if this dream becomes reality, the zoning ascribed to this area will allow the Council to consider it. Until such time as it is JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 13 much more nearly in fruition, it is not appropriate to predicate it now in this document. Gary Neely stated that he feels the citizens of this community are being short-changed by not taking advantage of opportun- ities that are available. The document, though well written, does not go far enough and does not paint this community in the best light possible. Don Schad emphasized the importance of the Tree Ordinance. He then stated that the University and lakes recommended by Mr. Neely is a good vision because the college developed could be a College of Science, particularly to water reclamation, purification, and distribution. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: M/Miller stated that he will be attending a meeting with the Mayor of Walnut and the Director of Lanterman dealing with the MRF. C/MacBride suggested that the General Plan include an intro- ductory sentence to get the message across that, "Virtually every government program, every government service, must be paid for by taxpayer dollars." C/Werner inquired when staff will present the Council with the revised material, and how the process will proceed from this point. CM/Belanger stated that staff is, and will continue to, make changes to the text of the General Plan as it exists today, based on the comments made at these Public Hearings and the workshops as well as the comments submitted. Staff will incorporate all these revisions into a complete draft document that will come before the Council's review within the next two weeks. An adoption proposal for a General Plan for the City will then be presented at the meeting of July 6, 1993 for the Council's review. The Planning Commission will not need to review the document if the differences that might be incor- porated into this new General Plan document cover items and topics that were discussed previously by the Planning Commission when reviewing the previous iteration of a General Plan. In response to C/Werner, he stated that a memorandum has been prepared by the City Attorney for the City Council which will be provided. Michael Jenkins, in response to a comment made by MPT/Papen, stated that various portions of both the land use and housing elements contemplate that a density bonus could be granted which would thereby exceed the 12DU/Ac that was referred to in the new high density areas. MPT/Papen requested that the issue be placed for discussion as to whether or not the Council would take that kind of action. JUNE 2, 1993 PAGE 14 C/Forbing reported that there is an Economic Development breakfast scheduled for June 10, 1993 at 7:00 a.m. at the Diamond Bar Country Club. ADJOURNMENT: M/Miller adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. to June 9, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. 1��7ka G�2% Ly da Burgess, Cit0 y Clerk Attest: ayor