The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/09/1993 Minutes - Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 9, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 28165 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, Councilmen Forbing, and MacBride. Mayor Pro Tem Papen arrived at 7:15 p.m. Councilman Werner was absent. 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 this is the fourth Public Hearing to consider the adoption of the 1993 General Plan. The five workshops and four public hearings were extensively noticed in order to develop various issues and options, and to review the specific policy recommendations framed. The General Plan document, containing the specific revisions discussed, is due to be distributed to the public within the next week, and will undergo a general presentation of major issues to the City Council at the next Public Hearing scheduled June 16, 1993. Issues raised will be given further consideration at the next Public Hearing, and the matter will then be bought back to the Council at the regularly scheduled Council meeting of July 6, 1993, allowing a couple of weeks for the general public to review the document. He then 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, to facilitate the public workshop process; Terry Austin of Austin, Faust, to assist in the Circulation Element; and Dale Beland, of the firm Cotton Beland Associates, for development of General Plan policy issues. Dale Beland reviewed the following proposed substantial areas of change which reflect a significant difference to the 1992 General Plan: 1. A proposed substantial reduction in buildout intensity throughout much of the developed single family area by reflecting the land use policy map to allow only development that currently exists in most of the single family area; 2. the need to increase and amplify policy definition, with respect to retention of existing deed restricted open space throughout the community, and to address how the City deals with the regional circulation system; and 3. a goal to try to retain, revitalize and promote viable commercial activity in the community. It is anticipated that more testimony and direction will be received for these changes as Public Hearings move forward. JUNE 9, 1993 PAGE 2 M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. Eric Stone, 24401 Darrin Dr., stated that he feels his potential for a return on property he purchased a few years back is threatened by this policy of blanket down -zoning, which does not take into regard individuality or uniqueness of the property. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., made the following comments in regard to procedure: open space, housing, and circulation: the City Council should allow a period of time, after the document has been put into final form, for public review, including the General Plan, the EIR and the environmental assessment; the General Plan should state how this process is consistent with the judge's ruling regarding the referendum; the changes made to the 1992 General Plan should be identified in the new Plan; the General Plan should also identify differences to with recommendations presented by GPAC; the inconsistencies in the General Plan to SEA #15 should be identified, as well as the differences with the EIR; there should be a strategy in the General Plan that attempts to coordinate County, State and Federal funding for major improvements in the 57/60 corridor, coordinating that with _ surrounding cities affected by that corridor; predictions made to the year 2010 should include foreseeable improvements in the 57/60 corridor, not just the Tonner Canyon Road situation; Diamond Bar's traffic condition should be compared with surrounding cities; the Circulation Element should be revised to include specific recommendations in the environmental assessment report; all reference to the Tonner Canyon roadway should be deleted; time should be used as a criteria in our predictions and analysis of traffic rather than simply freeway volume; probability for traffic projections in the year 2010 should be defined; the Housing Element should establish standards to maintain the current low density housing, limiting the sizes of residences; and a Tonner Canyon Road should be deleted because is not consistent to what is stated in SEA #15, and Diamond Bar cannot implement it by itself. Don Gravdahl, referring to an editorial written in the Highlander expressing an opinion that the City should buy Sandstone Canyon using $8 million dollars offered by the L.A. County Transportation or by establishing a bond to be paid for by residents at a cost of $2.00 a year, pointed out that it is doubtful that L.A. County Transportation would give cities money to buy open space where there is no opportunity of constructing a road, and that a bond measure would cost residents more than $2.00 yearly, taking into consideration the loan amount and the interest that must be paid. Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend Dr., stated that the Housing Element should indicate that if a developer uses a cluster approach to housing, then the City should obtain, in writing, that any leftover land, obtained by the City as a result of the clustering, will never be developed and will be left for JUNE 9, 1993 PAGE 3 recreational use for the entire City. Red Calkins stated that it is doubtful that there are monies available to improve the 57/60 interchange. He then stated that a Federal mediator should be called in to settle the issue of the General Plan because the current process is not working and is too expensive to continue. Nick Anis stated that it would seem that in order to improve the overall traffic condition of the City, the freeway needs to be improved, and another road needs to be built to divert the traffic out of Diamond Bar. However, if the majority of the community desires to see no development whatsoever in open space areas such as Tonner Canyon and Sandstone Canyon, regardless of the consequences, then it would seem that it should be the responsibility of the Council to adhere to that desire. MPT/Papen requested that the written comments made by Donald Ury regarding the Circulation Plan be made part of the record. Its his letter dated May 24, 1993, Mr. Ury, a member of the Traffic & Transportation Commission, stated that the following should -be considered in the Circulation Element: 1. Encourage and pursue planning and construction of a road through Tonner Canyon from the 57 freeway northerly to a connection with the 60 freeway. 2. Pu --sue development and construction of the 57 and 60 freeway interchange in Diamond Bar. 3. Pursue development and construction of HOV lanes from Orange County through Diamond Bar and construction of HOV lanes on the 60 freeway. 4. Pursue development and construction of additional lane(s) on the 60 freeway easterly from Diamond Bar. 5. Synchronize signals on Grand Ave. through the City and adjacent communities. 6. Complete design and construction of improvements to the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave. 7. Pursue other traffic measures to enhance circulation and movement of transient traffic on, over and across major streets in Diamond Bar. In response to comments made by Wilbur Smith, MPT/Papen explained that minimum lot and pad sizes are in zoning codes and are separate from the Housing Element. She explained that she has been a member of the L.A. Metropolitan Transit Authority Board since January of 1993, and that the Council has discussed putting her name forward to represent Diamond Bar in order to meet with Federal and State legislators to discuss transportation, therefore, the City is doing the things suggested by Mr. Smith. Furthermore, L.A. County plans on spending over $150 billion dollars on transportation in the next 30 years, and the Council has been working on trying to get $50 million of that money for improvements on the 57/60 freeway. She also pointed out that alternate routes of JUNE 9, 1993 PAGE 4 transportation is very much desired by those heavily impacted by the traffic conditions in the City. Referring to a graphic for 1993 illustrating improvements to the 57/60 freeway, MPT/Papen reiterated that the City is seeking funding from L.A. County. The carpool lanes on the 57/60 freeway, from Diamond Bar to both County lines, total about $50 million dollars and the City will know by the end of this month if construction will begin in 1994 or 1995. Referring to a graphic illustrating projects to be done by the year 1998, MPT/Papen pointed out that even if all the construction is done, there will still be congestion unless transit options, such as the commuter rail and rideshare, are utilized. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride announced that there will be a meeting on June 10, 1993 at 7:00 a.m. at the Diamond Bar Golf Club to discuss the business climate and economic health of the community. 4. ADJOURNMENT: M/Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to June 16, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. to continue the Public Hearing on the General Plan. ,GLS Ly a Burgess, City Clerk Attest: Mayor