HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/1993 Minutes - Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JULY 27, 1993
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Hearing Room of the AQMD, 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, Councilmen Forbing, Werner, and
MacBride. Mayor Pro Tem Papen arrived at 7:10 p.m.
Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; James
DeStefano, Community Development Director; Deborah Hackman,
Consulting Attorney; and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CDD/DeStefano reported that this is the
eleventh public hearing held in order to consider adoption of
the 1993 General Plan. He gave a brief overview of the
process and substance of significant changes occurring in the
document. Following are major areas of significant change
incorporated within the 1993 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 that development that currently
exists in most of the single family area; 2) specific
language responding to environmental concerns, specifically
identifying SEA #15; 3) proactive statements regarding
regional traffic mitigation, and the need to work with other
agencies and jurisdictions toward common solutions and traffic
mitigation overall; 4) discussion of the need to consider an
environmentally -sensitive regional traffic by-pass corridor
outside of Tonner Canyon and the SEA on the easterly side of
the sphere of influence; and 5) the vision statement discusses
retention of the rural country characteristics of the
community, preservation of open space resources, need for
reduction of regional traffic impacts, promotion of commercial
activity, and overall, provide a well-maintained, attractive
community environment. Staff provided the City Council the
final draft General Plan dated July 27, 1993 containing the
comments and specific directions received. The professional
recommendation from the consulting team is that the MEA
document be utilized as baseline data and not included in the
General Plan. The FEIR certified for the previous General
Plan on July 14, 1992 identified all the significant
environmental effects of the 1992 General Plan. The changes
considered within the 1993 General Plan, while significant and
substantial, do not result in any new or more adverse impacts
not already considered within the previously certified FEIR.
Therefore, a draft addendum allowing minor modifications of
non -substantive issues to the EIR and the MEA was prepared in
accordance with CEQA for consideration in the adoption of the
1993 General Plan.
Dale Beland stated that there has been strong citizen partici-
pation providing input in the revision of the draft General
Plan. The consulting team felt that the issues brought for-
ward by those who participated were substantially responded to
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 2
in the General Plan in a very significant way. He then
reviewed the following new material incorporated into the July
27, 1993 version of the General Plan: an attempt to add
additional wording, under item 4, page I-3, attempting to
maintain the thrust of the second paragraph while avoiding
some of the undue specificity; revision to the Land Use Map,
specifically the area in the extreme northwest of the City,
north of the freeway which has been revised to show a RLM
designation; the Housing Element responds to the advisory
numbers and statement of need of the Regional Housing Need
adopted by SCAG, which is 781 units, and has successfully
responded to the State mandate to show the ability to deal
with that definition of need by providing policies and
programs to work towards it achievement; the City's next
required Housing submittal will be delayed because there may
not be the numbers available through SCAG for some time due to
the funding shortfall, and because there is legislation
pending in Sacramento to shift the deadlines for the next
housing cycle to some time in July of 1995 or later; the Table
on page II -7 shows that 62% of the total 781 units are in the
moderate to upper income levels; table II -4 on page II -18
shows total vacant land acreage of 1,959 acres with a
theoretical buildout of 1900 units; the units developed, since
July of 1989, is 140, making the total of the theoretical
available for development of vacant land plus those developed
equal to 2,040 units; the Housing Opportunities Areas Map
figure II -1 on page II -19 shows where those areas are by unit
classification; the blanks on the top of page II -20 will be
filled with the numbers from table II -4 if and when the plan
is adopted; the reference on page II -28 shows that Diamond
Bar, with a population over 50,000, is now eligible for
entitlement status under Federal Department of Housing Urban
Development laws for direct funding under CDBG monies; page
II -30, Objective 2.1, makes explicit the objective to conserve
existing stock of assisted housing; page II -34, Objective 3.2,
addresses rehabilitation goals; in the Resource Management,
the wording for strategy 1.1.10 and 1.2.2 on page III -10 and
III -11 has been properly placed; there has not been any change
to the Public Health and Safety Element; the Circulation
Element, page V-5, responds to the need to include a statement
of intent on level of service standards; a reference to LOS
standards on the table have been eliminated on page V-14,
strategy 1.2.1; there have not been any changes made to the
Public Services and Facilities Element; and page V-14, of the
Circulation Element, strategy 1.1.9 has been deleted.
At C/Werner's request, Mr. Beland read strategy 1.1.9 and
explained that it was deleted per consensus of the Council at
the last meeting.
C/Werner suggested that Objective 3.2, page II -4, Housing
Element, be better worded to clarify that the City still
retains responsibility.
JULY 27, 1993
PAGE 3
Mr. Beland responded that the intent is to work within the
range of what are reasonable and feasible options, which staff
felt had been accomplished in Objective 3.2.
C/MacBride, referring to page V-5, requested a definition of
the meaning of the sentence, "End points of the corridor would
incorporate value criteria..."
Mr. Beland stated that the sentence means that the end points
of the corridor would be defined based on environmental
sensitivity criteria.
C/Werner pointed out that the location in which these end
points are directed toward are of a regional characteristic as
well as environmental. If it is going to detour the regional
traffic away from D.B., it is going to be of benefit to the
local street system, thus the benefit is derived by the City.
Perhaps the sentence can be expanded to read, "End points of
the corridor would incorporate value criteria including
environmental sensitivity and regional benefit."
Mr. Beland stated that staff would develop the appropriate
language for the Council's consideration.
M/Miller opened the Public Hearing.
Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Dr., requested that the word
"continuation" on page VI -3, Public Services and Facilities
Element, be changed to "a resumption of the State-wide drought
could put severe restrictions on available water... for itself,
keep current on potential new sources or limitations and
reducing the cost of water," because there was some discussion
that the drought may be over.
The City Council, noting that this item was discussed at the
last meeting, concurred to accept this change.
Mr. Neely requested that staff insert language that would
allow the document to explain what the MEA is and where it is
located.
C/Werner, referring to the sentence "The City may wish to take
a proactive stance on securing additional water supplies for
itself and keeping current on potential new sources and
reducing the cost of water" on page VI -3, as referred to by
Mr. Neely, inquired what the City is doing to create
additional water supply since we are not a water purveyor.
The intent of this statement may be misconstrued by members of
the community.
Deborah Hackman stated that there are things that the City can
do that are within its powers, such as water conservation
ordinances, etc.
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 4
Mr. Neely stated that his intent for the suggested language
was to encourage the City to voice its opinion in a proactive
manner to the Metropolitan Water District regarding the need
and usefulness of paying the Three Valleys Municipal Water
District $300,000 a year to read three meters, and to perhaps
change the system of water distribution.
M/Miller noted that there is a consensus of the Council that
the language is appropriate.
Mr. Neely requested that the statement "Alternative
potentially" possibly includes a) no vote, b) a location east
of the Canyon outside of the SEA, and c) west of the Canyon
within the SEA next to existing residential uses" be
reinstated into strategy 1.1.4, on page V-13, Circulation
Element, and change the sentence before it to read,
"...linkage options through the sphere of influence area which
recognize prioritized environmental sensitivity and minimize
disruption SEA #15." This verbiage was a compromise made at
the subcommittee meeting, chaired by C/Werner, that was
acceptable to the majority. The intent of the three
alternatives was to frame the discussion for a future EIR.
CM/Belanger explained that the recommendation of attorney
Jenkins was to remove that statement and leave it as it is
currently worded. First of all, the statement is redundant
because it is a requirement of environmental law, at the
present time, to evaluate a variety of alternatives. It is
staff's recommendation and the attorney's recommendation, that
any alternatives that even suggest a roadway in Tonner Canyon
should not be a part of this document.
M/Miller noted that the statement, as written, indicates that
the City will work with adjacent jurisdictions in evaluating
an environmentally -sensitive regional transportation linkage.
This language recognizes and acknowledges the need to mitigate
the impact of traffic on this community, as well as acknowl-
edges the concerns of those dedicated to preserving SEA #15
and the environmental condition currently existing.
Mr. Neely expressed concern that the statement was omitted
after the subcommittee suggested the language following
discussion at great lengths at many meetings to come up with
a compromise. Whether the statement is redundant or not
should be of no concern.
CM/Belanger reiterated that, on the advice of counsel, any
encompassing language that could be interpreted to mean Tonner --
Canyon should not be placed in the General Plan.
C/MacBride indicated that, based on the representation of
legal counsel, he would prefer to see the language remain as
it is currently worded.
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 5
C/Werner stated that he would prefer that the language be
changed to go back to what was recommended by the
subcommittee.
M/Miller noted that it is the consensus of the Council to
leave the language as it is currently written.
M/Miller, in response to Mr. Neely's inquiry if it is the
intent of the Council to take out all references to Tonner
Canyon road, explained that it is the Council's intent to use
specific language that would not create the thought that the
City is planning a road that would go right through the most
sensitive environmental area of Tonner Canyon, as had been
expressed in the 1992 General Plan.
C/Werner indicated that, as chairman of the subcommittee, it
would have been appropriate for staff to inform him of these
legal issues.
Mr. Neely stated that he also wanted the statement on page V-
10 to be consistent with the suggested statement on page V-13
not approved by the Council.
Council agreed to not approve this proposed change.
Mr. Neely requested that the sentence, "In addition to
considering construction of an environmentally -sensitive
transportation corridor, encourage other improvements in the
regional roadway system such as ... [includes a list]", be
placed on page V-14 as strategy 1.1.9.
M/Miller pointed out that the strategy was deleted prior to
any public input.
MPT/Papen stated that there was a 4-1 consensus of the Council
to delete the statement.
C/Forbing pointing out that there is no reason to have
strategy 1.1.9 because the items on the list are either
already specified, presently under construction, or not within
Diamond Bar.
Mr. Neely stated that just because a projects are underway, or
do not immediately impact the City's boundaries, does not mean
the Council should not be encouraging their completion,
particularly since our traffic problems are regional in
nature, thus the solutions have to be regional.
C/Werner stated that he would prefer to put that item back
into the document.
M/Miller noted that it is the consensus of the Council to
leave it as is, with the deletion of strategy 1.1.9.
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 6
Mr. Neely suggested that the words "where practical" be
removed from page III -10.
MPT/Papen, reading from the 3 page letter submitted by the
Diamond Bar Citizens to Protect Country Living that requested
that the road through an environmentally sensitive area not be
built at the expense of destroying any trees larger than 8
inches in diameter, designing the roadway around them, stated
that because of this type of request, the term "where
practical" is important and should remain.
M/Miller suggested that the sentence "Develop a tree
preservation ordinance to preserve, where practical,
indigenous trees" be amended to read "Develop an indigenous
tree preservation ordinance." retaining the second sentence.
Council agreed to direct staff to change the sentence as
indicated by M/Miller.
Mr. Neely suggested that the second line in the second
paragraph on page I-3, Potential Regional Impacts, be amended
to read "A proposal to locate potable and/or non -potable water
facilities...
The Council concurred to make that suggested change.
Mr. Neely then suggested that page I-3, second paragraph, be
further amended to delete the word "and" following "...the
smallest ranch in Chino Hills and Diamond Bar", and amend the
following sentence to read "adjacent to the westerly border of
Diamond Bar, and a discussion regarding a regional bypass
roadway affecting the counties of Los Angles, Orange and San
Bernardino to be located in Tonner Canyon possibly connecting
the 60 freeway in the north to the 57 freeway in the south
along the easterly boundary of the City of Diamond Bar."
C/Forbing noted that the corridor is fully discussed in the
Circulation Element and need not be as specifically discussed
in the Land Use Element.
Dale Beland stated that the issue of the regional bypass
transportation corridor is primarily focused on circulation,
and the regional effects are amply discussed and well defined
in the Circulation Element. The language on page I-3 is a
focus on the land use aspect of regional impact, and the
context is appropriate as stated. However, the degree to
which issues are separated and placed in one Element or
another is a matter of judgement. --
C/Werner pointed out that the suggested language is merely a
caution that if a road is put in that area, it would have the
potential to significantly impact land use in Diamond Bar.
C/MacBride stated that the reason he had originally suggested
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 7
the language currently used was to address his concern that,
because the City does not live in a vacuum, it is important to
illustrate as many potential regional impacts as possible.
However, if such a statement is not advisable by the attorney,
he is willing to withdraw it.
CM/Belanger explained that a general statement of a regional
roadway bypass in terms of identifying regional issues is
acceptable. However, specific language as suggested by Mr.
Neely is not recommended.
C/Forbing suggested that the last line of the second paragraph
on page V-4, which reads "Regional peripheral corridor
providing access between Chino Hills Parkway and the SR57
freeway" be put into the paragraph on page I-3, which would
make the document internally agreeable.
CM/Belanger, in response to M/Miller, stated that the term
"Regional bypass corridor" would be acceptable.
The City Council concurred with the suggested language.
M/Miller suggested a nonbinding general map be placed
immediately following "potential impacts" on page I-3
generally locating these topics in relationship to our
community. It is for no other reason but for reference.
C/Werner expressed concern that generally indicating a
location may become binding.
Deborah Hackman stated that future development needs to be
consistent with everything in the document. If there was a
map that specifically stated that something was to be in a
particular location and it doesn't go there, an amendment to
the General Plan would be needed.
CDD/DeStefano stated that, from a staff and consultant
perspective, the map is not needed. The potential regional
impacts discussion on page I-3 clearly states potential
projects and their locations, and there are a dozen maps in
the document with easy reference to utilize those maps to
determine the location of possible projects.
Mr. Neely requested that "map and/or deed restrictions or
dedications" be inserted in strategy 1.5.3, page I-16, after
the word "covenants" in the first sentence and add the
sentence "Require a public hearing prior to any City action
which would change existing covenants, map and/or deed
restrictions, or dedications on open space lands" to the end
of the strategy.
C/Miller suggested that the strategy include verbiage that
specifically states that there should not only be a public
hearing but also an obvious community benefit to those
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 8
changes. Since it is unlikely that the Council would approve
a change to the General Plan designation if there were not a
benefit, then there is nothing wrong with making it clear that
community benefit is the target.
MPT/Papen stated that since the land is already dedicated open
space either by a covenant, a deed restriction or a
dedication, there would have to be community benefit to remove
the dedication, thus she would concur that any changes to
those dedications would require a public hearing and must show
public benefit. However, she indicated that she would not
support adding the word "map" in either sentence.
C/Werner recalled that Michael Jenkins had indicated that
"map" and "deed" restriction is one and the same.
MPT/Papen expressed concern that, oftentimes, the public
considers the drawing and wording on blue prints as "map
restrictions." Restrictions should not be taken off of the
blueprints because it may be inconsistent with the deeds and
the titles to the property and the covenants and the
restrictions placed when the plan was approved. The word
"map" should not be used because it implies the drawing. �.
M/Miller noted that the Council has concurred to add the
sentence, "Require a public hearing prior to any City action
that would change existing covenants, restrictions or
dedication to an open space land. Any change to an open space
restriction would require a public hearing to demonstrate a
public benefit" to the end of strategy 1.5.3.
C/Werner stated that he felt that the Council does not have
all of the information on this decision at this point.
Mr. Neely stated that his last request, which was directly
related to whether or not the Council would agree to a map
restriction as defining open space, is moot at this time.
Don Schad requested that "Sandstone Canyon, upper Sycamore
Canyon and Tonner Canyon" be inserted to the bottom of page 15
following "vacant parcels."
MPT/Papen pointed out that there is a listing of vacant
properties in other sections of the General Plan. They do not
need to be spelled out.
There was a consensus of the Council to leave the document as
written.
Don Schad stated that "map restrictions" should be added to
page I-16, strategy 1.5.3.
M/Miller explained to Mr. Schad -that the Council would like to
deal with issues that have not been discussed.
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 9
Mr. Schad indicated that he had submitted his requests in
plenty of time to be considered by the Council.
MPT/Papen explained that there was not a consensus of the
Council regarding his suggestions, therefore, those
suggestions were not inserted into the document.
Mr. Schad requested that the words "...include in this
definition, i.e. Sandstone Canyon" to the bottom of strategy
1.5.3 page I-16.
M/Miller stated that the Council has already concurred that
the language in strategy 1.5.3 is to remain as written.
Mr. Schad requested that the words "where appropriate" be
removed from strategy 3.2.1, page I-20.
M/Miller noted that it is the consensus of the Council to
remove "where appropriate" from strategy 3.2.1.
Mr. Schad stated that the densities indicated on page II -21
should be lower as was recommended by GPAC.
MPT/Papen pointed out that medium density has been reduced
from 6-16 units to 5-12 units. V.
Mr. Schad stated that, because there have been many changes
made to the document, he is requesting additional time of at
least a week to allow the public sufficient time for
evaluation. He then requested that the sentence "Sandstone
Canyon, west of Brea Canyon Road between Pathfinder and Colima
starting to the south terminus of Rapid View" be added to
strategy 1.1.8, page III -10.
MPT/Papen pointed out that the City has not had any studies
that would identify where the prominent ridge is as indicated
in strategy 1.1.8. Not every ridge is considered a prominent
ridge and it would be inappropriate to name locations in the
community that has not had some kind of study.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the reason the strategy does not
refer to canyons specific to the interior of D.B. is because
it is referring to those hillside areas that are on the City's
periphery and to insure that the City works with adjacent
cities, county agencies and so forth on what occurs on those
hillsides.
Mr. Schad requested that strategy 1.1.10, page III -10 include
the implementation of Tree Ordinance 91-5 of March 2, 1992 to
further preserve our few remaining natural resources, to
include a time frame on its implementation.
M/Miller stated that the General Plan now includes a statement
to develop an indigenous Tree Preservation Ordinance. A time
JULY 27, 1993
PAGE 10
frame is not appropriate in the General Plan.
Mr. Schad requested that strategy 1.2.3 on page III -11 be
modified to read "May participate in an environmental
educational program in conjunction with our wilderness areas
and our local conservancies." One of the problems with the
schools is the difficulty with funding for special programs to
utilize these services.
C/MacBride suggested that it be pluralized to "programs" which
will open the door to all types of programs including
conservancies or another particular institutional effort.
MPT/Papen stated that she sees no problem with including
"environmental groups" to the strategy to read, "In
conjunction with environmental groups, the City may
participate in educational programs," so that it is not just
limited to schools.
The Council concurred to insert "environmental groups" to
strategy 1.2.3.
Mr. Schad suggested that a strategy 1.2.5 be added to page
III -2 to state "Preserve all natural creeks and springs."
M/Miller explained that blueline streams are handled through
the public process of the EIR.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that strategy 1.1.6, on page III -1,
addresses Mr. Schad's concern by indicating "...the
preservation of mature trees, natural hydrology, native plant
material..."
Mr. Schad suggested that a nonbinding map be included
following strategy 1.3.3, page III -12, to identify the various
areas.
The Council concurred not to include such a map because it may
require a General Plan amendment if it is changed for whatever
reason.
M/Miller, in response to Don Schad's suggestion to add fire
sprinklers in wilderness areas on page III -13, explained that
it is a code requirement.
Mr. Schad stated that the color pull out map should designate
the RNP property as open space. He stated that the sound
levels shown in conjunction to Peterson Park and east of the
57 freeway between the 60 and Pathfinder is incorrect as
indicated on page V-15.
M/Miller requested staff to verify the sound levels.
Mr. Schad requested that strategy 1.1.4, on page V-13 not be
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 11
deleted. He requested a 90 -day review period of the document.
He inquired exactly what constitutes the complete final
General Plan, and if it includes the MEA and EIR and other
attachments or exhibits. He also inquired when the complete
final copies of this General Plan will be made available to
the public, and if there will be an opportunity to proofread
the final document or to have public input for correctness.
He inquired if the City is going to resubmit all land use
approvals since August 10, 1992, the date of the referendum,
or if they will stand. It is not believed that the 1992
General Plan has been substantially changed in response to
public input and more public consideration is requested to
allow more time to read and study this document for a period
of 90 days. He then submitted his questions per CM/Belanger's
request.
CDD/DeStefano, noting that Mr. Schad commented that he did not
receive his copy of the General Plan until yesterday,
explained that staff, who usually hand -delivers Mr. Schad's
packet on Fridays, gave Mr. Maxwell Mr. Schad's copy when Mr.
Maxwell came in on Friday to pick up his copy of the packet.
Staff was appreciative of Mr. Maxwell's offer to deliver Mr.
Schad's packet because it saved staff a trip.
Nick Anis, 1125 Bramford Court, commented that the document
appears pro -environment more so than pro -development, as
indicated by some. He stated that he is disturbed by comments
of a lawsuit.
M/Miller requested that only specific items regarding language
within the General Plan be addressed at this time.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne made the following inquiries: how is
this General Plan substantially differs from the 1992 General
Plan; what specific documents constitute the General Plan; and
will this be a final proposed draft General Plan. She then
requested a 90 -day review period for the document. She stated
that the document should clearly state the City's plan to
develop or not to develop, on page 1, Introduction,
Preservation of Open Space Resources.
RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Tom Van Winkle pointed out that the Noise Element is not
complete because it lacks existing noise contours. Many parts
of D.B. exceed the maximum 65 decibel level. The General Plan
does not include language that, if a development impacts noise
levels in an area, the noise level must be mitigated to a
level of comfort.
C/Forbing pointed out that strategy 1.10.4, on page IV -11,
states that, as part of the development code, adopt noise
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 12
related development standards, and strategy 1.10.5 states to
encourage the reduction of existing noise problems within
existing development where adopted noise standards are being
reached or exceeded.
C/Werner inquired if the exclusion of an existing noise
contour map satisfies the requirement for a General Plan.
Dale Beland pointed out that page IV -4 has a description of
existing community noise levels. There is no doubt that the
significant noise source in this community is obviously trans-
portation corridors, existing freeway systems and arterial
highways. The description is a reasonable definition of
existing noise and is expressed in contours with measurement
from across the right-of-way, which conforms under the
requirements for that definition.
Todd Chavers, 600 Boxcove, referring to the deletion of
strategy 1.1.9, explained that the reason the verbiage was
suggested by the subcommittee was to provide a level of
comfort to people who were concerned about building new roads
until the possibilities of the old roads are exhausted. He
then stated that he concurred with the decision to relegate
LOS standards to EIR status because LOS in California have
changed in the past years and will continue to change over the
next couple of years. It is important that the City is able
to move along with regional and local authorities, making our
LOS criteria mesh with what's occurring around us. In order
to implement our ideas and move forward, a General Plan must
be adopted.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, noted that, though the
subcommittee tried to phrase statements in a way that was most
comfortable to everyone, there was a clear cut difference of
opinion regarding a road through Tonner Canyon. He stated
that he would prefer that no road goes through Tonner Canyon,
and therefore, he would not support trying to be more specific
about the location of a particular roadway. He then requested
some time to review the EIR.
James Roberts requested that the Resource Management Element
be amended to indicate that a portion of the City's sphere of
influence is considered a significant biological area due to
its wealth in biological and "environmental" resources,
including water and land. There should also be a definition
of an ecosystem. He then inquired what is meant by "passive
park" as indicated on page III -7.
CM/Belanger explained that a passive park is a developed park
that does not have any active recreational allowances as part
of its design.
Don Gravdahl, 23958 Minnequa, expressed support for the
General Plan as revised.
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 13
Max Maxwell stated that he has not had time to review the
amendments to the General Plan and would like an extension of
time to review it and to provide further input.
MPT/Papen stated that she would like to give Mr. Maxwell an
opportunity to address, for the record, some of the issues
stated in the 33 page letter submitted to the City by the
Citizens of Diamond Bar to Protect Country Living,
particularly the following: new commercial or retail center
would not be approved until existing businesses are 95%
occupied; a moratorium would be placed on all future
development of single family dwellings and commercial
development in the City for 5 years or until the traffic is
reduced to a level C, whichever takes longer; and a moratorium
of 5 years will be placed in all residential commercial
development until traffic is reduced to level C or better on
major arterial roads such as Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd..
She asked Mr. Maxwell to discuss how these proposals will be
beneficial to the community and why the Citizens group is
supporting them.
Max Maxwell explained that a moratorium will draw a guarantee
to the citizens of D.B. that there will be a reduction in
traffic. There has been a lot of conflict in the oCity
regarding development, and it was felt that development should
be put on hold to first properly address issues of conflict
such as noise, what projects are approved, discretionary
issues, consideration for public and City revenue, etc. There
is a concern that if the General Plan is approved, the South
Pointe Master Plan will go through as did nine other
developments before the City. Because many issues are
unresolved, we feel asking for a moratorium is justified. We
would appreciate a response from the City Council regarding
the idea, and a discussion regarding the actual number of
years for the moratorium. Since the City Council disapproved
90% of the suggestions made by the subcommittee addressing
traffic issues, a moratorium is the citizens, only guarantee.
MPT/Papen pointed out that if a moratorium was in place, there
would be no permits issued of any kind in the City, which
would include grading for the new Diamond Ranch High School.
A moratorium is no construction.
Max Maxwell, responding to the suggestion that new commercial
or retail centers would not be approved until existing
businesses are 95% occupied, explained that it is felt that
the 45% occupancy rate in commercial buildings in Southern
— California for the last three to five years is acceptable.
The City should unite together to help these independent,
starving, businessmen to survive. A limit should be set on
these major corporations, which are drawing the traffic, and
drawing the people. New commercial development should be
encouraged in places such as the Gateway Corporate Center,
which is ideal for a restaurant row development because it is
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 14
adjacent to the freeway, to keep the traffic out of our
streets.
C/Werner stated that he had thought that the request made by
the Citizens Group was not to allow any new development until
existing buildings are occupied 95%.
Max Maxwell stated that both the moratorium and the suggestion
to keep development at the Gateway Corporate Center are points
made in the 33 page letter submitted for the Council to
evaluate. None of these points have been discussed.
MPT/Papen requested Mr. Maxwell to comment on the following
suggestions made by the Citizen's Group regarding an
environmentally sensitive roadway: vehicles larger than a
small minivan would not be permitted to travel on this road;
a maximum speed limit of 35 m.p.h. would be maintained and
ticketed if traveled over 40 m.p.h.; no headlights would be
used at any time, and no lights would be installed along the
roadway; no smoking would be permitted on the roadway; time of
travel would be limited from 6:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
southbound, closed from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and
northbound will be opened from 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; a new �--
developer surcharge of $5,000 to $10,000 would be installed in
all residential buildings and proportionately larger on
commercial sites; and if there was an environmentally
sensitive roadway, that a payment of $50,000 would be made to
each home in "The Country" and Diamond Ridge that are in site
of the roadway for retribution for the depreciation in value
to the homes.
Max Maxwell explained that the Citizens Group felt that those
were the elements that were directed toward an environmentally
sensitive roadway, such as controlling travel during the day
time. All that is being asked is that the Council discuss the
suggestions made.
C/Werner explained that there were a lot of diverse opinions
stated during the subcommittee meetings, many of them radical
opinions. The Citizens Group's suggestions brought forth by
MPT/Papen are Mr. Maxwell's initial points of view that he
felt he had to express in those terms to get his point across.
Following dialogue at the group level, there was enough
balance from those attending the meeting to obtain a com-
promise from both points of views, the end result was pre-
sented to the Council. In regard to the moratorium and
occupancy issue, which was also discussed at subcommittee
meetings, he stated that, in his opinion, a moratorium does
not equate to preserving traffic levels but rather putting off
to a future date the inevitable development. Instead of a
moratorium, it would be better to put some effort into the
planning process so that the City can direct where development
is to occur, the density, and the kind of traffic components
needed to accommodate that future development.
JULY 27, 1993
PAGE 15
Tom Van Winkle stated that, in his opinion, not allowing new
development until there is a 95% occupancy rate is a healthy
way to begin to think. Many businesses are suffering
economically and more competition will only hurt them. He
then thanked the City for beginning to work with the
community.
Jack Kowtowski concurred with the concept of not letting the
development in the City help strip our ability to pay for the
services needed to sustain the type of living we have become
accustomed to.
With no further testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public
Hearing.
M/Miller asked CDD/DeStefano to respond to a comment made by
Mr. Maxwell that he kept receiving copies of completely new
General Plans.
CDD/DeStefano explained that Mr. Maxwell and other citizens
and interested parties have received a complete packet, as
received also by the City Council, for every workshop and
public hearing since the process began in April of 1992. Mr.
Maxwell may be referring to the highlighted changes and the
specific addendum pages that have been discussed at public
meetings and referenced as upcoming and discussed at
subsequent meetings.
M/Miller requested staff to review the changes, item by item,
that have been proposed by Council based on input from the
audience.
Dale Beland stated that the document now explicitly eliminates
the MEA from the General Plan, per se, as indicated in page
20, Introduction.
C/Forbing stated that there was a request to include a
statement explaining where the MEA will be made available.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that there was not specific direction
from the City Council to move toward such a statement. Staff
can craft such language if the Council so chooses.
C/MacBride suggested the following sentence, "The MEA, subject
to revisions which assure occurrence and relevance, is a
public record available for public reference, review, and
study." The reason for putting the MEA to the side is because
that database has to be reviewed and changed constantly. If
it is in the General Plan, such changes and review would
require formal hearings. If it is on the side, the data base
remains of public record.
C/Werner suggested that it also be incorporated into a policy
that basically says that the City will comply with the
JULY 27, 1993
requirements of CEQA.
PAGE 16
CDD/DeStefano reviewed the recent changes to the proposed
General Plan as follows: the final paragraph, second line on
page I-3 would read "Recovery facility near the northwest
boundary of Diamond Bar, a proposal to locate a potable and/or
nonpotable water facilities and an institute of higher
education on the Tres Hermanos Ranch in Chino Hills and
Diamond Bar and potential development surrounding the new City
of Industry Metrolink station, rail facility adjacent to the
westerly border of Diamond Bar and a regional bypass
corridor"; add "any change in open space restriction will
require a public hearing and demonstrate public benefit" to
the final sentence of strategy 1.5.3 on page I-16; eliminate
the last two words "where appropriate" in strategy 3.2.1 on
page I-20; add "Develop an indigenous Tree Preservation
Ordinance." Natural vegetation is to be removed only as is
necessary to locate approved development and the construction
of needed infrastructure" to strategy 1.1.10 on page III -10;
amend strategy 1.2.2 on page III -11 to read "in conjunction
with local schools, environmental groups, and volunteers, the
City may participate in environmental education programs";
amend the last sentence of the third paragraph from the top,
on page V-5, to read, "End points of the corridor would be
defined in response to environmental sensitivity criteria and
regional benefit to the City of Diamond Bar"; and amend the
third paragraph from the bottom on page VI -3 to read,
"Although local water purveyors can adequately serve the area
in terms of facilities, a resumption of the State wide drought
could put severe restrictions on the availability of water.
The City may wish to take a proactive stance on securing
additional water supplies for itself, keep current on
potential new sources or limitations and reduce the costs of
water."
RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting to allow staff time
to draft the appropriate MEA language at 10:15 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 10:28 p.m.
CDD/DeStefano reported that the City Council had also
requested staff to use new math to correct the Housing Element
table II -4, on page II -18: the total for Vacant Land is
1,959; the total for dwelling units is 1,905; the total for
units developed since July of 1989 is 140, and the unit total
is 2045.
Mr. Beland suggested the following language regarding the MEA
statement to appear in the line in the middle of page 20:
"The MEA, subject to revisions which assure currency and
adequacy, is a public record available as an environmental
database."
Deborah Hackman, responding to the question as to what
JULY 27, 1993 PAGE 17
constitutes the complete final General Plan, stated that the
General Plan includes the FEIR and addendum, as required by
the CEQA. An addendum is required because technical changes
and additions were required to the FEIR, which was certified
last year.
Mr. Beland stated that the Implementation of Mitigation
Monitoring Program document had also been introduced this
evening. The document had not had review because it is
basically a restatement of the strategies and policies from
the General Plan. Should the Council choose to adopt the
draft General Plan, the document called Implementation of
Mitigation Monitoring Program is available and ready, with
some obvious minor word changes as a result of any action
taken tonight.
CM/Belanger, in response to questions as to when final copies
of this General Plan document will be available to the public,
stated that with an ultimate adoption of a resolution that
adopts the General Plan, which consists of the policy document
itself attached to the Resolution, the FEIR and the addendum,
and the Implementation of Mitigation Monitoring Program, it
will be complete and available at the opening of business the
day after adoption. AL
Mr. Beland stated that, by law, a marked up copy of what was
acted upon by the Council must be available within 24 hours
following Council's adoption of a resolution adopting the
General Plan. The actual reproduction of a finished document
typically takes several days for obvious mechanical reasons.
CM/Belanger suggested that the City Council respond to the
question if there will be another chance to proofread the
final document and have public input for corrections that have
been discussed.
C/Werner, pointing out that there could invariably be errors
by staff given the nature of the work involved, suggested that
staff be given a reasonable time to put these items in final
form, bringing the final document back at the next Council
meeting for approval.
MPT/Papen expressed her opinion that the Council move forward
with the adoption. Staff is fully capable of taking the
listing of those pages that were changed and having the
document marked up and ready for public review tomorrow.
— CM/Belanger, in response to the question of whether the City
will resubmit all land use approvals since August 10, 1992 or
if the City will let them stand, stated that there is evidence
by the fact that the City has successfully defended itself
three times on this specific issue, that the City is not going
to resubmit all land use approvals since August 10, 1992. In
response to the statement that it is not believed that the
JULY 27, 1993
PAGE 18
1992 General Plan has been substantially changed, he stated
that staff will indicate to the City Council, as a part of the
Council's possible consideration of adopting the General Plan,
that it is in fact essentially a different document than that
which was repealed by the City Council in March of 1993, and
that there has been an extensive good faith effort to include
and involve the public in the preparation of the document.
CM/Belanger, in response to z
version dated July 27, 1993 is
Plan, stated that, with
modifications made this evenii
27, 1993 would be the compl
environmental documentation.
question if the grey covered
the complete and final General
the incorporation of those
ig, the General Plan dated July
ete document, along with the
CM/Belanger, in response to the question on when the
completely retyped final version of the General Plan will be
made available to the public, stated that the Attorney will
respond when the retyped final version versus the marked up
version, will be available. He then read the statement
submitted: "If the General Plan is adopted tonight, we will
submit to the City a request for a certified copy of the
resolution tomorrow, which is a document that we have to have
complete for referendum #2 and we will be on the street
Saturday and Sunday."
Deborah Hackman indicated that it will be ensured that the
typed version is completed in compliance with all laws.
Motion was made by C/Werner to hold the resolution over to the
next meeting and direct staff to assemble the documents for
final action.
Motion died for lack of a second.
C/Werner indicated that there is no question that the process
taken for the revision of the General Plan had been
substantive. However, the question is whether or not there
had been a substantial change to the General Plan document.
He suggested that the matter be held over for one more week so
that staff can quantify, perhaps in another column on a
matrix, those substantial changes made, other than the format
indicating strikeouts and additions made. Though the document
had been fined tuned considerably, there still remains items
that have not been included such as existing noise contours.
The General Plan process is an effort to build trust and
confidence. However, deleting the suggestions made by the
subcommittee, a diverse body of opinion, diminishes the
credibility, trust and confidence that the community has in
the Council. The community seems to feel that there has been
a lack of dialogue and debate at the City Council level to let
the community know that the issues raised have been considered
and debated, not just read.
JULY 27, 1993
PAGE 19
C/MacBride inquired if the database in the MEA would provide
the City with many of the answers to current noise levels.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that the information is contained
within the MEA and the EIR in terms of what is existing today
and what the projected impacts are for the three alternatives
considered in that document.
C/Werner suggested that an existing map be formulated from the
available data and put into the General Plan, showing the
existing contours.
C/MacBride stated that he is satisfied that the database has
the information for the City's reference. The City Council
concurred.
Deborah Hackman corrected the fifth line, page 2, of
Resolution 93-57, to delete the word "Agriculture" to be
replaced with "Specific Plan".
With no further testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public
Hearing.
Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by C/Forbing to
adopt Resolution No. 93-57 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INCORPORATING RESOLUTION
NO. 92-43 BY REFERENCE AND CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE
ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AS AMENDED. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: MacBride, Forbing, MPT/Papen, M/
Miller
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Werner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
Deborah Hackman corrected subsection 9, seventh line from the
bottom, page 2, of Resolution 93-58, to delete the word
"Agriculture" to be replaced with "Specific Plan."
Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by C/Forbing to
adopt Resolution No. 93-58 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
CQUNCIsr OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN FOR
THE .CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AS AMENDED. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: MacBride, Forbing, MPT/Papen, M/
Miller
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Werner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
C/MacBride explained that he voted to adopt the General Plan
because he felt the document meets the requirements of law,
JULY 27, 1993
PAGE 20
that the "contenders" have successfully managed to encourage
map and text changes, that it is a unique document because it
acknowledges all active participants in the General Plan
process and has a vision statement, and that it addresses
economics in a fundamental fashion. The General Plan can be
amended appropriately.
C/Werner stated that he does not have any major disagreements
with the General Plan, and feels that the efforts made have
been significant. However, the City Council could have been
more prudent in holding the document over for one more week,
allowing staff to assemble the documents and address the noise
issue, thus not creating another issue for people in the
community to find fault with this document. He stated -that he
had desired to approve the document, but found it impossible
to do so given that the Council could not be reasonable and
allow one more week. Hopefully, the Council will be receptive
to amendments to the General Plan.
MPT/Papen, addressing the issue of the moratorium brought up
by the Citizens of Diamond Bar to Protect Country Living,
stated that there is already a moratorium, called a
"recession" and it would not seem that the City needs to
impose an added burden on the economy for our community to
legislate a moratorium. The General Plan reflects the
attitude of this community, diverse as they may be.
M/Miller stated that there seems to be a part of all who
participated included in the document. There was a lot of
give and take in developing this General Plan.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride announced that Three Valleys Water
District would hold their final meeting on August 5, 1993 at 7:30
p.m. in Claremont regarding a possible $10.00 per parcel tax.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Miller
adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
LY A BURGESS, CityJCierk
ATTEST:
A77—,�
Mayor