HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/29/1993 Minutes - Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 29, 1993
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Hearing Room, 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 Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing and
Werner. Mayor Miller and Councilman MacBride were excused.
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 City
Council, at the conclusion of June 16, 1993 General Plan
Public Hearing, directed that the draft General Plan dated
June 16, 1993 be referred to the Planning Commission, in
accordance with the Government Code, to review substantial
modifications made to the 1992 General Plan. The Planning
Commission conducted such Public Hearing on June 28, 1993 and
staff will summarize their report. Additionally, staff has
included a variety of addendum pages which incorporate all
changes presented to date. He introduced the following
members of the consultant team: Michael Jenkins, special
legal counsel from the Richards, Watson, & Gershon; Daniel
Iacofano, from Moore, Iacofano, and Goltsman; Terry Austin, of
Austin Faust and Dale Beland, of Cotton/Beland Assoc.
Dale Beland reviewed the Planning Commission's actions and
summarized the content of their discussion as follows:
- Reduction in potential development buildout which results in
a change to the Land Use Map reflecting reclassification of
substantial existing single family neighborhoods, adjustment
and density classifications and change of maximum intensity of
the RLM category.
- Move toward more explicit policy with respect to
preservation of open space, as indicated in strategy 1.5.4.,
and support strategy 1.5.5. which specifically recognizes SEA
#15 and calls for strategy language to support further
definition of the extent and the intensity of resources in SEA
#15. He reported that, as a result of the great deal of
interest and concern over SEA #15, they have reviewed the
County's studies which lead to the designation of this area.
The 1991 report prepared as a phase one study stipulates that
it is not the intent of the designation of SEA #15 to preclude
development, but to attain the goal of protecting and
enhancing significant environmental resources by requiring a
very rigorous process of review of the resources within the
area to assure that any approved development would address the
issue of preservation and enhancement of resources. The
Planning Commission recommended that the City Council consider
modifying the current text of strategy 1.5.3 by deleting the
definition portion, thereby having strategy 1.5.3 contain the
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 2
portion that establishes policy for requiring a Public Hearing
for any changes of deed restriction, recognizing the statement
in strategy 1.5.4 to define open space.
- Mitigation of current and projected traffic impacts,
concurring with strategy 1.1.4 to proactively work with
adjacent jurisdictions in the evaluation of regional
transportation linking options through the easterly portion of
the sphere of influence area which recognize and prioritize
environmental sensitivity.
Mr. Beland reported that, in addition to the summary of the
three significant change areas, the Planning Commission
included a list of more specific items for the City Council's
consideration as follows: change the Tres Hermanos property to
Agriculture/ Specific Plan; graphically represent SEA #15 on
the Land Use Map; modify the language in the vision statement
to expand concern about SEA #15; to add the term "adjacent
area;" change language to read "at least 25% density bonus,"
replacing "up to 25%;" add the words "residentially
compatible" to Land Use strategy 1.3.4 in the context of Home
Occupations; review the road classification listing for
accuracy; delete the word "natural" from "natural hillsides"
as indicated on page I-1, Retention of Existing Residential
Land Use Patterns; delete the fourth sentence "in addition,
many residents moved to Diamond Bar because of the
historically low rate of taxation..." on page I-6, section 3;
show Chino Hills Parkway and Grand Ave. on the Land Use Map;
add "possibly the California gnatcatcher" to the wording
concerning the "diverse population of native animals..." on
page III -2, section 2; revise page III -6, section 4 to reflect
water conditions; revise page III -11, strategy 1.2.3 to insert
the words "civic organizations;" add "as practical" to the
sentence "Pursue preservation of canyon areas in their natural
state" on page III -11, strategy 1.2.4; indicate that there are
inadequate medical facilities on page IV -5, section 5;
indicate that the City should implement their Disaster
Preparedness Plan on IV -9, strategy 1.7.1; revise the sentence
on page V-2, section 1, Issue Analysis to read "...to address
impacts to all streets in Diamond Bar and to maintain or
improve roadway level of service;" add a Goal in the
Circulation Element to "Encourage the State to construct the
necessary offramps on State Routes 57 and 60 and to improve
the interchange of State Routes 57 and 60 at Sunset Crossing;
add strategy 1.1.5, page V-5 to state "Encourage Orange and
San Bernardino Counties to fund and construct an environ-
mentally sensitive roadway through Soquel Canyon;" revise
strategy 2.2.2, page V-7, to state that the impacts for the
roadway serving the high school site on surrounding
residential neighborhoods should be minimized; and add a
strategy in the General Plan to encourage coordination with
adjacent cities and other agencies to lobby the State and
Federal government on a variety of issues.
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 3
In response to C/Werner, Mr. Beland explained that the
Planning Commission's recommendation to revise strategy 1.5.3
was to address their concern that a better definition of the
terms "deed restricted" and "undeveloped" is needed, as well
as a concern as to whether or not recreational facilities were
appropriately not open space.
MPT/Papen expressed concern that such a revision to strategy
1.5.3 would not be consistent with the Land Use Map because in
the Land Use Map open space has been designated as vacant,
deed restricted, undeveloped portions of property. There are
further definitions for parks, golf courses, open space,
private recreation and public facilities.
Mr. Beland confirmed that the Land Use Map would need to be
modified if the City Council concurs with the recommendation
made by the Planning Commission. In response to C/Werner, he
explained that the intent of the draft language in strategy
1.5.3 was to describe "open space" as land that is vacant,
undeveloped and subject to constituent restrictions on its
use, such as deed restriction, map restrictions, etc. that
preclude physical construction and therefore make the property
assumable as being open for the foreseeable future. There
is a distinction between this and more typical- :`active
recreational facilities, such as a golf course.
CDD/DeStefano explained that if a property is vacant, and has
no deed restrictions or other restrictions, it would be
considered "undeveloped land." For the land to be considered
"open space" in this definition, it would also have to include
visual amenity and environmental resource factors. The policy
originated from some questions at the workshop process that
became a policy option of how "open space" was to be defined
and how its land use application was to be clarified on the
Land Use Map.
MPT/Papen inquired if there is a documented study to justify
adding the "gnatcatcher".
Mr. Beland stated that the comment was in reaction to recent
news reports of the status issue on listing of the California
gnatcatcher, an action from the State and Federal level.
However, knowledge of whether this particular species exist in
the area was not discussed. The City is obligated, regardless
of what is stated in the General Plan, to obey Federal and
State laws; therefore, the issue is, in some degree, moot.
The intent was to add information in the Prologue to the Issue
section of the element.
MPT/Papen concurred that the text should be changed on page
III -6 to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation to
reflect current water conditions.
C/Forbing stated that he felt it is unnecessary to add "as
JUNE 29, 1993
PAGE 4
practical" as suggested in item #13.
C/Werner, ambivalent to the necessity of adding "as
practical," pointed out that the City must act in a
responsible fashion at all times regardless.
C/Forbing stated that he felt that medical facilities in the
City are adequate, particularly with the addition of the
proposed medical facility.
Mr. Beland stated that the Planning Commission was dealing
more with the concerns of recent budget limitations since that
may impact the provisions of medical facilities.
CDD/DeStefano stated that there was also a comment made, on
the application for the medical facility before the City, that
medical emergency services and facilities were inadequate
because there was a lack of a community or regionally -oriented
medical facility, leading to strategy 1.6.2 which addresses
the need and feasibility of locating a major medical facility
within the City.
C/Forbing pointed out that since the Issue Analysis indicates
that the City should decide if any additional medical
facilities are needed, then item #14 should be deleted.
MPT/Papen concurred.
MPT/Papen stated that she would prefer that items #17 and #18
dealing with Circulation be discussed later in the meeting.
C/Werner expressed apprehension about doing changes without
the benefit of any public input and without the benefit of a
full Council.
MPT/Papen stated that public input will be allowed following
Council input, and the document will be going before the full
Council for discussion at another meeting date, if so desired.
Mr. Beland stated that the Planning Commission concurred with
all of the proposed changes dealing with the three significant
issues identified earlier. The listing labeled exhibit A
includes items that the Planning Commission would like the
Council to give further consideration.
C/Forbing suggested that item #15 be deleted because the
General Plan already indicates that there is a Disaster
Preparedness plan, and that the City will coordinate with the
State Office of Emergency Management.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Werner, stated that the
Planning Commission received a letter from the City of
Industry dated June 28, 1993 and following discussion, the
Commission concluded with a recommendation supporting
Industry's request that the property be designated
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 5
Agricultural/Specific Plan.
C/Werner asked if a General Plan amendment would be needed if
the Tres Hermanos property is designated as Agricultural/
Specific Plan when the City of Industry is prepared to develop
a specific plan for that area.
CDD/DeStefano stated that it was his understanding that a
General Plan amendment would be needed for a detailed specific
plan, requiring a planning analysis and an environmental
analysis.
CM/Belanger stated that the designation Agricultural/Specific
Plan determines that the area is appropriate for specific
planning activities. Once those activities take place, it is
recommended that the categories of land use, identified
through the specific plan process, go through a series of
other processes, including General Plan and/or development
agreements.
Michael Jenkins stated that the change is proposed to
eliminate an incompatibility between the designation and the
text. Since the text contemplates a specific plan, then the
designation should also contemplate a specific plan._ If the
specific plan contains uses or activities which:_. are
inconsistent with the text, then a General Plan amendment will
be required in addition to the approval of a specific plan.
Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Dr. suggested: rewrite the
Economic section; change strategy 1.5.3; change strategy 1.5.1
a & b; create a Specific Plan designation for Tres Hermanos;
justify Three Valleys in their connection with MWD in item
#11; delete "goal" in item #17 since it requires objectives
and strategies; further clarify item #19 a; and support item
#20.
MPT/Papen requested staff to bring back, at the next meeting,
a revised current water condition for the Council's and public
review.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Ln., asked about the variety of
issues referred to in item #20.
MPT/Papen suggested that perhaps "variety of issues" should be
changed to "regional issues that impact the City of Diamond
Bar" so it can include such issues as solid waste, waste by
rail, water, revenue, circulation, etc.
Max Maxwell stated that he was under the impression that the
City has a committee that already evaluated the location of
the undeveloped land in Diamond Bar and its future potential
use. The citizens have expected many of these items to have
already been accomplished in the last 4 years. He then stated
that he submitted a 33 page document, prepared by the Citizens
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 6
of Diamond Bar to Protect Country Living, to the City.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., expressed
concern that the public is expected to respond to the Planning
Commission's comments without an adequate review period. She
then made the following comments: referring to item #5, she
stated that a study should be done on existing vacant
commercial property in the City before the City begins to look
at expansion; how is "practical" determined as indicated in
item #13; she disagrees with the deletion of strategy 1.5.3,
definition of open space, and wants the term "map
restrictions" included.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., made the following requests:
the words "and possibly the California gnatcatcher" deleted
since the gnatcatcher does exist there, add "cactus wren,
arboreal salamander and palm turtle" to item #10; revise item
#12 to read "In conjunction with civic organizations, local
schools and volunteers plus wilderness conservancies..." and
delete "as practical" from item #13.
Don Gravdahl, 23988 Minnequa, concurred with Mr. Neely that
there needs to be justification with Three Valleys Water, as
indicated in item #11.
Following discussion, the Council concurred to agendize the
issue regarding the rate increase by Three Valleys Water for
a future meeting.
MPT/Papen summarized the Council's positions on the Planning
Commission's recommendations: "no" on items #6, #14, and #15;
a split decision on item #13; a request that item #11 be
brought back to Council for discussion of issues; no
discussion on items #17 and #18; and the remaining items would
be deemed acceptable.
C/Werner stated that he had not taken any position on any of
the items, nor had he had the benefit to review all the items.
The public only provided input on items #3, #5, #6, #7, #11,
#12 and #13, and staff should be directed to come back with
the suggestions offered. All the items should be discussed
when there is a full Council. He stated that he was under the
impression that the purpose of this Public Hearing was to
continue discussion of the last Public Hearing, allowing the
public additional time to review the General Plan dated June
16, 1993. He requested additional time to review the
suggested items offered by the Planning Commission.
MPT/Papen requested staff to reverify the number of multiple
family and single family units in the community as indicated
on page II -4 in the Housing Element because it seems that the
number should be 27% to 30%. Furthermore, staff should
investigate why the medium density, that was reduced to 12
DU/AC for vacant undeveloped land, is no longer in the Housing
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 7
Element on page II -12.
Max Maxwell stated that it had been requested that hillside
areas be designated RH 1DU/2.5 AC. He then read a letter,
representing the Citizens of Diamond Bar for Country Living,
to be submitted to the City, that made the following points to
the draft 1993 General Plan (strikeout version): the strikeout
version is very confusing to read, and difficult to review the
changes made; more time is needed to review the document; upon
reviewing the first few pages, it was discovered that the
draft does not reflect the public's request as it had
attempted to do; the language in the document is not strong
enough to reflect the concerns made; the issues discussed need
to be more specific and emphatic toward preservation of open
spaces, especially Sandstone Canyon, upper Sycamore Canyon,
Tonner Canyon and controlling development parameters; the
process of redoing the General Plan has been a "show"; they
are prepared to take legal action to force the City to produce
a General Plan that meets the needs of those who have
participated; they are prepared to do a second referendum and
a recall; they request time to thoroughly discuss the issues
and reach a satisfactory agreement, and allow 90 days to
review the final draft; and it is difficult for the public to
keep up with this accelerated period of review with weekly
Council meetings, along with the Planning Commission meeting.
Gary Neely made the following comments: the acknowledgments
need a page number; add Lavinia Rowland's name to workshop #2;
the original name of Diamond Bar was "Rancho Las Nogales" not
"Rancho De Las Nogales" as indicated on page 14; revise page
16, Circulation, to read "Tonner Canyon scenic highway has
been proposed as a regional bypass roadway. This proposed
roadway would connect the 60 freeway north at or about Chino
Hills Parkway/Phillips Ranch Rd. to the 57 freeway south at or
about Brea Canyon Road underpass. Although professionally
generated traffic studies have shown this road to have a major
impact on helping to solve the City's surface street traffic
congestion problems, local environmentalists and other private
citizens have expressed a considerable amount of concern as to
whether the construction of this roadway to SEA #15 can be
accomplished in an environmentally sensitive manner;" change
goal on page 16 to read Over the objections of many private
citizens, pressure from developers to develop the City's
supply of vacant land continue to mount, especially on vacant
land that may have been designed or restricted as open space
by previous development approvals through the County."
MPT/Papen suggested to Mr. Neely that he cover those points
that have not been covered before by him, either by writing or
orally.
Gary Neely pointed out that during the workshop process, he
was often dismissed and told that many of his points would be
reviewed and considered at a later date. However, such
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 8
consideration was never given.
C/Miller stated that he has requested Mr. Beland to make a
list of all items discussed during the workshops, along with
items submitted in writing by Mr. Neely and Mr. Van Winkle,
and identify how the issues were resolved by incorporation
into the revised document, along with remaining issues still
outstanding.
Don Schad made the following comments: revise page I-lla,
Land Use Element, to indicate that any areas that are 25% or
more can only have 10% graded for utilization, and 25% grading
for slopes 0% to 15%; add Sandstone Canyon and Upper Sycamore
Canyon to page III -10, strategy 1.2.1; add the term "tunnels
or means of egress and ingress under the roadways" to wildlife
linkages indicated on page III -11, and remove the word "where
practical;" insert the Tree Ordinance on page III -11, strategy
1.2.2; add the list of recreational activities he submitted,
above and beyond sporting events on page III -11, strategy
1.3.1; review the proper use of the word "attenuation"
indicated on page IV -11, strategy 1.10.5; specify that decibel
levels will remain constant within the neighborhood even if
less than the recommended maximum decibel level indicated on —
page IV -11, strategy 1.10.1; and add the statement "there will
be no roadway in Tonner Canyon" to page V-3, item 4.
Mr. Beland stated that the suggestion being made by Mr. Schad
is a policy issue because he is asking the City to monitor
existing noise environment to determine the current noise
ambient, and then, by policy, adopt that as a standard not to
be exceeded by any new change in development. Such a policy
is quite difficult to implement because, first off, it would
be difficult to identify how the ambient will be measured and
how it is to be monitored.
MPT/Papen, in response to Mr. Schad's comments regarding the
tree ordinance and his suggested list of recreational
activities, explained that ordinances are not included in the
General Plan, nor is a list of recreational classes. Staff
indicated that they had explained that there is a process by
which new recreational programs are added, and they now await
further feedback from you.
Wilbur Smith submitted material to the Council for the record.
He requested evidence that any governmental agency of Los
Angeles, Orange, and/or San Bernardino counties have taken
action to support a Tonner Canyon roadway. If there is no
evidence, then how can the General Plan continually indicate
that such a road is a viable solution. He then suggested that
the document include specific action to be taken by the
Council to bring about improvements to the 57/60 interchange.
The City should also consider multi-level interchanges as a
solution, before a Tonner Canyon road. Furthermore, the
General Plan does not address the potential geological
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 9
problems associated with Tonner Canyon and "The Country
Estates" area. The General Plan should also include a
statement on how the City and its staff operates.
CM/Belanger, referring to the Public Health & Safety Element,
page VI -7, pointed out that Objective 1 and its strategies,
does consider potential problems from seismic ground shaking
and other geologic events, and its prescribed method for
dealing with, evaluating and remediating those conditions.
Furthermore, the City Council directed staff to remove
reference to Tonner Canyon roadway in the Circulation Element.
The only reference to any kind of by-pass transportation
corridor will not reference Tonner Canyon.
Don Gravdahl questioned the width of some of the roads
indicated on the Roadway Classifications chart V-6, on page V-
13, as well as the collector classifications given to some of
the roads.
Mr. Beland stated that the map being referred to by Mr.
Gravdahl is proposed for deletion from the plan. The
definition of roadway classification would reside in Table V-
1. Staff will investigate the widths defining the roadways on
Table V-1. In response to C/Forbing, he stated thatr-all
references to Colima will be changed to Golden Springs.
Don Gravdahl pointed that page V-14 needs to include reference
that Orange County Transportation is also sending buses into
our area. He then stated that there needs to be a compromise
made by everyone, realizing that the General Plan can be
amended every 90 days.
Gary Neely inquired when the decision to delete a Tonner
Canyon road from the General Plan was made. If a Tonner
Canyon scenic highway is not built, the number of road
segments where volume exceeds capacity will jump to 28.
C/Werner stated that he recalls that the discussion of Tonner
Canyon was to remain in the text, but the graphics was not to
show a line going through for Tonner Canyon. The traffic
consultants had indicated that they would review Figure V-1
because of its problem with its designation of collectors.
CM/Belanger stated that the General Plan must have internal
consistency to define the by-pass in strategy 1.1.4, page V-5.
The development of Tonner Canyon as an alternative travel
corridor around the City will say something other than the
— development of Tonner Canyon is it is going to be consistent
with the policy in 1.1.4. He then reviewed the items that
staff understood were to be changed to make the document
consistent: the specific reference on V-5, item 4,
development of Tonner Canyon, was to be amended to reflect the
policy objective set forth in the General Plan document; and
the arrows, which do not reflect the policy statement in the
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 10
document, were to be removed.
Wilbur Smith stated that he feels that if there is to be the
inclusion of a Tonner Canyon road in the General Plan, then
the document should state specifically how it is to be built,
financed and who will support it.
MPT/Papen stated that the Council has been working for over
four years to get State and County funding for improvements to
the freeway system that will keep traffic on the freeway. The
City's streets would function properly if used only by local
City traffic. The Metrolink system from Riverside to L.A.
County can reduce the traffic on our interchange if used.
However, the Metrolink system from Riverside directly to
Orange County won't occur until 1994/95. There is to be a
vote, scheduled June 30, 1993, on four-year funding for a
highway program in L.A. County. The Council has worked for
two years to get the three Caltrans districts to mesh their
long-range plans for carpool lanes and to direct their
attention to the intercounty system. The three Caltrans have
agreed to prioritize their intercounty connections. The San
Gabriel Valley Association of Cities put forth a resolution 1
1/2 years ago advocating that the HOV system in the San .—
Gabriel Valley be pushed forward and be built in the next
eight years. Perhaps the General Plan should have a listing
of some of the projects supported and those scheduled to be
funded. However, even if those projects are done, we will
continue to face LOS levels of F on streets in Diamond Bar
because of the continued growth in San Bernardino and
Riverside County. Perhaps there should be a strategy included
in the document that the City participate in SCAG's Regional
Mobility Plan, which currently the City is doing.
Wilbur Smith pointed out that the problem is that the comments
expressed by MPT/Papen are not in the document.
MPT/Papen stated that the strategies repeatedly indicate that
the City is to proactively work with adjacent jurisdictions
and other agencies in the evaluation of regional transpor-
tation linkage. The City does not have jurisdiction to make
a decision on what was just outlined; therefore, those
comments cannot be put in the document. However, the document
can and does include general statements on policies that can
be taken, as is indicated on page V-4 as follows: increase
the attractiveness of State Routes 57 & 60 for through traffic
use; work with Caltrans to reduce the use of through traffic
on Diamond Bar Blvd.; provide HOV lanes on State Routes 57 and
60; provide truck lanes where appropriate; construct auxiliary --
lanes within key intersections; page V-7, lobby Caltrans to
provide HOV lanes on local freeways; as well as other
references.
Max Maxwell stated that the Council had an opportunity to
place the General Plan on the ballot. The type of bickering
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 11
occurring is the reason that the document is not being
completed. No one is discussing the real issues and no
results are being made.
C/Forbing pointed out that the dilemma is trying to please all
individuals, particularly those have opposing view points with
each other.
MPT/Papen stated that ultimately it is the Council's decision
which viewpoint will be incorporated into the document, which
undoubtedly will create dissatisfaction amongst a variety of
individuals.
Don Schad, referring to page III -10, requested to have the
statement "To develop a tree preservation policy pertaining to
our five major species, which are the Black Walnut, the Oak,
the Sycamore, the Pepper and the Arroyo Willow" inserted in
strategy 1.1.4.
MPT/Papen requested staff to include a statement to develop a
policy or program of preservation, without being specific on
the types of trees because a study was never conducted
regarding those trees.
-_4 _
C/Werner suggested that the term "indigenous" be used my -the
statement. Mr. Schad expressed concurrence.
James Roberts, 829 Silver Fir Rd., suggested that there be a
general analysis that water, land, air, trees and light all
have a concentric matrix that can't really be separated. The
Resource Element separates these elements into biological
resources, open space, parks, recreations, etc.
Mr. Beland stated that a supplemental statement can be added
on page III -2, an elaboration of existing conditions, to
provide a background description of the interrelationship in
the context of ecology.
Gary Neely stated that some of those that have a disagreement
with a Tonner Canyon Rd. would be willing to talk to a
subcommittee of the Council, staff and the consultant to
develop verbiage for the Circulation Element that would be
acceptable to all parties.
James Roberts suggested that a third party review the document
to verify if there are significant changes to the 1992 General
Plan before the Council votes on this revised 1993 General
Plan, and then allow the public a long period of time to
review it for their approval. The process should not be
rushed.
Jack Bartowski asked if the Council felt that they entered
this review process in a spirit of negotiation, or if their
minds had been made up since the time of the adoption of the
JUNE 29, 1993
PAGE 12
1992 General Plan. The City Council should expect resistance
from the citizens because they are equally concerned about
their community. He asked whether the Council felt that there
have been substantial changes made to the document.
Michael Jenkins explained that the determination of whether
there are significant changes to the document will be a joint
determination that will be made initially by the consultant
staff and ultimately by the City Council.
MPT/Papen, referring to the sphere of influence area, inquired
how much a General Plan should be based on a policy outside of
the City's jurisdiction and is not the City's ultimate
decision.
Michael Jenkins indicated that it is appropriate within the
Plan to comment on what the City would like to see happen in
that area. Discussion in the Plan is proportionate to its
importance relative to the discussion of that which is
contained within the boundaries of the City.
C/Werner stated that he had hoped to enter into a compromise
between the parties that had initiated the referendum and the
City Council in the adoption of the July version of the
General Plan. He stated that he has expressed concern to
staff that all the materials get reconciled in a form and time
element that allows for a reasonable amount of digestion to
understand the document, and that the City Council not hastily
approve a document, giving the wrong impression that there was
not a good faith effort on the part of the City Council to
reconcile these differences. It is disconcerting for a
representative of the Citizens Group to state, before the
process is even done, that it is going back to the referendum.
C/Forbing pointed out that every strikeout in the revised
document is a change that the Council has participated in
since the original document. Tonner Canyon has been listed
Agricultural since the original document, and is still listed
as Agricultural, as indicated in strategy 1.1.9 on page I-12.
The Council has attempted to solve the circulation problems in
this community and to be environmentally sensitive and to
leave the private property in Tonner Canyon listed
Agricultural. Many things discussed throughout the process
have been philosophical rather than specific. Many issues
brought up cannot legally be placed into the document. The
City has hired consultants to put together a document that is
legal, specific and major to pass all the requirements of the
law so that the Council could get on with the business of
running the community.
Jack Bartowski stated that he opposes a roadway through Tonner
Canyon and that the traffic problems of the eastern portion of
L.A. County should not be mitigated to the detriment of those
living in Diamond Bar. In response to C/Werner, he confirmed
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 13
that any mitigation to Diamond Bar's traffic problems by way
of a coordinated effort to build a Tonner Canyon road with
other jurisdictions, without exploring other avenues such as
Carbon Canyon or the widening of the freeway, is an issue that
would propel him, and probably 4,000 other residents, to sign
a referendum.
C/Werner suggested that the committee organized to discuss the
Tonner Canyon issue consider the use of an advisory measure to
allow the entire community to voice their input on the matter.
Since it is not an issue on the immediate horizon for our
General Plan, it would be to unfortunate to see that long term
issue hold up this General Plan document and prevent this City
from conducting business.
Gary Neely stated that the Parsons -Brinkerhoff report had
eight alignments going through Tres Hermanos in Diamond Bar,
traversing an area presently being discussed to house a
reclaimed water lake. It is important to consider the
alignment of the road when constructing the reclaimed water
lake, and secure easements and developer fees associated with
the lake to help pay for construction of the road. The
y General Plan needs to address the Tonner Canyon road because
segments of the road will be built before..: --20 years.
C/Forbing pointed out that Mr. Bartowski: stated that 4= 000
residents signed a petition stating that they do not want a
road any place in the City's sphere of influence, and now Mr.
Neely is stating that the Councilmembers are poor leaders if
a road is not put in the sphere of influence. He suggested
that both individuals discuss the issue and return with an
agreement, or allow the Council to vote their consciences,
keeping it out of the courts.
Gary Neely stated that everyone participating in this system
for the last 15 to 20 meetings is willing to sit down and
discuss the issue with at least one member of the Council
present. Part of the problem is that the Circulation Element
is not well-written or organized, creating a lot of confusion.
MPT/Papen stated that, personally, she would not include any
road because it has taken such intense effort getting what we
can get from the County and the State. It is unfair to expect
the Council to be able to accomplish a road. Identifying the
funding and the how it is to be done is not what the General
Plan is all about, nor is it a City decision. We are making
a general policy decision now, not selecting roadway
alignments.
C/Forbing indicated that there are 4,000 people who signed the
referendum who do not want a road through Tonner Canyon and do
not want a line drawn on the map.
Gary Neely stated that the Councilmembers were elected on the
JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 14
premise that they would solve the traffic problems of the
City. A road through Tonner Canyon is the only viable
solution.
Max Maxwell stated that he is willing to participate in the
committee with Mr. Neely to discuss the issue. The Tonner
Canyon road is one of major four issues that spurred the
referendum. There are many other issues in the General Plan,
such as the public benefits tax assessments and so forth. In
response to C/Forbing's question as to whether he would be
willing to draw a line on the map for an environmentally
sensitive road, if it meets the proper definition of
environmentally sensitive, Mr. Maxwell stated that that would
be a fair evaluation but, at this point, he wants to sit down
and discuss the issue.
MPT/Papen requested that C/Werner meet with the citizens
committee and staff to discuss the Tonner Canyon road issue
and bring a report back to the Council at the next meeting.
Staff is also bringing back the issue on item #11 regarding
water resources to the next meeting. The Councilmembers on
the Economic Development Subcommittee will review the Economic
Section and review Mr. Neely's comments on the Vision
statement. She then requested that "Foothill Transit" be
added to Services from other Agencies on page VI -2.
3. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss,
MPT/Papen adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. and continued
the Public Hearing to J%La
1993 at 7:00 p.m.
Burgess, ity Clerk__
ATTEST:
Mayor