HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/1995 Minutes - Adj. Regular Meeting2
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JANUARY 9,1995
CALL TO ORDER: MPT/Papen called the meeting to order at 6:10
p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by C/Harmony.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Harmony, Miller, Werner and
Mayor Pro Tem Papen. Interim Mayor Ansari was excused.
Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager, Michael Montgomery,
Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director, and
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - CM/Belanger stated that this was
a first in a series of public hearings to receive testimony on the draft General
Plan and introduced Don Cotton, CottonBeland Assoc., Inc. who served as
a consultant to the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano reported that review of the General Plan would begin with
the Introduction, which contains the overall Vision Statement, and the
Resource Management Element, which contains the open space and
conservation elements. He explained that the Introduction generally discusses
the purpose of the General Plan, State requirements, history of the City and
the community participation process from the beginning of the General Plan
development to the present. It outlines the organization of the General Plan
and describes the documents in detail. The most important issue within the
Introduction is the overall Vision Statement which is a statement combining
the hopes and aspirations of the community with the practicality of preparing
for the social, economical and physical needs of the citizens. The Vision
Statement is the beginning point of the General Plan and serves as a means of
defining the overall scope and emphasis of the General Plan. The Resource
Management Element is comprised of the State- mandated Open Space and
Conservation Elements. The Open Space Element is required pursuant to
Government Code and details plans and measures for preserving open space
for natural resources, the managed production of resources, and active and
passive recreational areas. The Conservation Element, pursuant to
Government Code, addresses conservation, develop-ment and use of natural
resources, including trees, water, soil , visual features and mineral deposits.
Resource Management issues include open space, visual resources, biological
resources and parks and recreation. D.B. is known as a master planned
community developed upon, within and adjacent to hillside slopes and ridges
providing a distinctive visual identity for the City. A portion of the City's
sphere of influence contains a "Significant Ecological Area" due to the
extensive stands of riparian, oak and walnut woodland. The City and its
JANUARY 9, 1995 PAGE 2
sphere of influence contain several areas with identified biological resources.
Pressure for development of the remaining vacant land combined with the
desire to maintain the existing environment necessitates a careful balance of
development and preservation policy. The City needs to determine which
areas of open space (including those with biological or visual resources)
should be preserved and what means to use to assure their protection. There
exists a number of recreational opportunities within the region available to
residents. Over 470 acres of identified public and private recreational facilities
have been developed within the City. However, of the 135 acres owned by
the City, only 59 acres is developed for the community's 54,500 residents.
Although school sites are utilized for a portion of the residents' recreational
needs, City-wide, there is a significant deficiency in active parkland to support
the existing and future population of the City. The National Park &
Recreation Assn. standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents means
that the City should currently have approximately 272 acres of developed
parkland and ultimately require 285 acres to support a buildout population of
57,000 residents. Policy issues incorporate the need to plan for the growing
demands of local residents through the utilization of existing facilities and the
necessity to plan for additional recreational facilities. The General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the Planning Commission reviewed the
Introduction and Resource Management Element. Changes to the former
General Plan are identified within the text of the Plan. GPAC's recommended
changes were reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission made one major change to the Vision Statement. GPAC
indicated its primary goal was that the community retain its "Country Living"
character. The Planning Commission indicated they felt it was not the primary
point of reference for the community's Vision Statement, but a part of the six
points of the overall Vision Statement. The Commission recommended
adoption of the Introduction and Resource Management Element as
presented. He further recommended that Council review the material, receive
public testimony, review the Introduction and Vision Statement and then the
Resource Element. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Council should
continue the Public Hearing to Monday, January 16, 1995.
C/Werner asked for identification of the second undeveloped park referred to
in the Introductory Comments, Section 11I-2, Parks and Recreation.
CDD/DeStefano stated that in addition to Pantera Park, the second
undeveloped park is Larkstone Park, a 2.8 acre site at Larkstone and South
Pointe Middle School.
C/Werner indicated he would later suggest an update to reflect the current
conditions.
MPT/Papen confirmed that GPAC and Planning Commission requested
Council to acknowledge, as it has since 1992, the State's park
JANUARY 9, 1995 PAGE 3
recommendation of 5 acres per 1,000 people, or 272 acres. She reiterated
CDD/DeStefano's comment that the City has a deficiency, and the
introduction statement indicates the City is inadequately served by active and
passive park facilities. However, on Table HI. 1, 261.8 acres of developed
recreational facilities are indicated. If the City's goal is 5 acres per thousand
or 272 acres and if buildout is 285 acres, subtracting 261.8 current acres, this
leaves 23.2 remaining to be developed. Pantera Park is 23 acres, and with this
development, it appears the City is .2 acres short of meeting the standard. In
addition, the City has 200 acres of passive undeveloped land according to the
table. She asked staff to respond.
CDD/DeStefi;no stated that Table M.1 identifies existing recreational facilities
and incorporates the golf course, the Little League field and "The Country"
Park. The issue is that those facilities are not available to the general public.
The issue within the General Plan is one of providing active recreational
facilities to meet today's needs and the needs of future residents. The concern
is that while these private facilities may fulfill some of the needs, there is no
ownership or ability to program activities by the City. Private facilities may
fulfill some of the needs, there is no ownership or ability to program activities
— by the City. Therefore, the General Plan looks to provide sufficient acreage
for the active recreational needs of the residents.
MPT/Papen suggested separating publicly -owned recreational facilities. It
appears that privately -owned and publicly -owned facilities are combined in
one paragraph, and in the next, they are separate.
C/Werner agreed with MPT/Papen. He expressed concern with the statement
added by the Planning Commission indicating "any measure." He asked that
the statement "by any measure the City is inadequately served" be stricken and
in its place add "there are X acres of private and X acres of public" and let the
policy section deal with any of the inadequacies.
MPT/Papen declared the Public Hearing open.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., stated that the Vision Statement that
GPAC suggested was stricken by the Planning Commission. He indicated that
the most fundamental part of the process is the citizen's vision of the City
which has always been a rural and country living environment. To see it
stricken by the Planning Commission was very discouraging and it tended to
diminish the entire effort of GPAC. In his opinion, the Planning Commission
was not a direct representation of the community. He referred to Page 9
indicating there should be clarification that Tonner Canyon is only one of
several solutions to the traffic problem through the City. He then requested
that document 2 and 3 be included in the review process.
MPT/Papen asked Mr. Smith to define "rural."
JANUARY 9, 1995 PAGE 4
Mr. Smith defined "rural" by open space, hills, vegetation and
contour. Clearly in the south end and eastern part of the City, there
is a rural atmosphere.
Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Dr., indicated on Page 10 of the
Introduction, under Public Services and Facilities Element, it might be
better to state "at a later date, as a General Plan amendment, a
separate Economic Development Element will be submitted." Under
Circulation, Page 10, "Physical Mobility" should be deleted and the
list under Issues should include "Automobile Transportation; Transit
and Paratransit Services; Truck Routes; Railroad Lines; Bicycle
Routes; Equestrian Trails; and Aviation." With respect to the
Resource Management Element: Page III -11, Strategy 1.3.2, delete
"use suitable." Page III -12, Strategy 1.3.9, delete "or agricultural."
Page III -18, Objective 2.6, Strategies 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, "will be
prepared" and "will be developed" are redundant since this is what the
General Plan accomplishes.
Responding to C/Werner, Mr. Neely stated the specificity with respect
to "untreated potable water" was because GPAC was concerned about —
a "blank check" approach in the absence of a professional definition
of "reclaimed water." The City of Industry hired Boyle Engineering
to compile the report which contains the verbiage "untreated potable
water."
In response to MPT/Papen, Mr. Neely confirmed he believed one of
the strategies should be "the City will work with the property owners
of neighboring jurisdictions to complete a fresh water (not
chlorinated) reservoir that could be used for recreational purposes."
This is the recommendation of GPAC and Planning Commission for
the upper Tres Hermanos property. In addition, "agricultural uses"
should be eliminated because they don't work together.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig, asked if and when the meeting would
be rebroadcast. Referring to the July 9, 1992 Implementation
Mitigation Monitoring Program, he stated it had never been discussed
publicly. He asked if this is a legal part of the General Plan and who
authored the document. With respect to the Introduction, he
supported the statement "It is the primary goal of the City to maintain
a rural and country living environment."
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., believed the
Introduction captures the hopes of the majority of citizens. She
requested the Council to seriously consider the concepts set forth in
the Introduction and review the remainder of the document for both
real and perceived compliance with the ideals set forth.
JANUARY 9, 1995 PAGE 5
Martha Bruske asked the Council to consider distinguishing parks not
available for public use and excluding them from the list of parks.
Wilbur Smith stated that during GPAC meetings, he made several attempts to
have a statement included in the General Plan which would cause developers
to include a park or play area within developments. Referring to Page 111-2,
1. and Page 5 of the Introduction, one statement indicates D.B. is a
master -planned community and another statement indicates it really is not. He
suggested on Page III -2 under 2. Biological Resources, second paragraph,
fifth line, the sentence beginning "Tonner Canyon supports a diverse
population of native animals" should include "deer." On page III -12, he
requested the Council to define the source of the water.
Terry Birrell believed that the following areas of the Resource Management
Element must be revised in order to be in compliance with California Codes,
and for the General Plan to have the integrity which comes from internal
consistency. The existing inventory of local recreational facilities on Page
III -3 and III -4 excludes all areas designated as "open space" in the Land Use
Element. Table III -1 should be amended to include an inventory, name and
open space acreage for the following areas: Sandstone Canyon,
approximately 100 acres; the open space south of Grand Avenue; and the
former water district, approximately 4 acres. Larkstone Park (Facility 10)
should be asterisked. She indicated it is somewhat misleading to have it
scheduled since it is not being maintained as a City park and has been allowed
to be taken over by the school district. The County has a right to take the
acreage away from the City because it is not being maintained for the use for
which it was deeded over. Second, the prior Council very clearly
redesignated large tracts of open space as planned development in prior
General Plans. In her opinion, this plan is much less straight forward. The
Planning Commission applied approximately 300 acres of open space between
Grand Ave. and D.B. Blvd. Regarding agricultural land in the
Agricultural/Specific Plan, she questioned what guidance the General Plan
gives future owners, developers, planning staff and citizens. She indicated her
preference for the Grand Ave./Diamond Bar Blvd. area would be "open
space." Third, she suggested adding Strategy 1.2.6 to Page III -11 as follows:
"Join with neighboring cities to incorporate open space land within the City
of D.B. into a wildlife corridor." Finally, with respect to Strategy 1. 11,
development of a Tree Ordinance should stipulate at least the following five
species of trees: Oak, Black Walnut, Riparian/ Royal Willow, Sycamore and
Pepper Tree. GPAC's provision that a natural vegetation preservation
ordinance be developed and adopted is crucial to maintenance of hillsides and
wildlife.
Max Maxwell supported the statements made by Terry Birrell and indicated
that he wanted "open space" to include Tonner Canyon without the specific
JANUARY 9, 1995 PAGE 6
plan designation. With respect to Resource Management, he asked for a
statement to read: "Preserve Tonner Canyon, upper Sycamore Canyon,
Sandstone Canyon and all those areas that have restrictions." GPAC
requested separation of parks from open space. On Page III -7, 3. Parks and
Recreation, Issue Analysis was totally misinterpreted. The statement should
read: "There is a need to protect influence..." Regarding the Tree Ordinance,
Mr. Maxwell asked the Council to direct the Planning Commission to move
quickly to provide a Tree Ordinance. With respect to the Hillside
Management Ordinance, slope density should be included.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that Government Code 65560 requires an
Open Space Element in the General Plan. She would like to see more
specificity in the General Plan as to how the City will implement the concepts.
Regarding III -10, 1.1.11, Tree Ordinance, the chapter refers to preserving
and the Planning Commission deleted all reference to "how" and "what." She
felt it was crucial the "how" and "what" be stated within the document. Also
on Page II -10, 1.2.2 and Page III -11, 1.2.4 and 1.2.5, the strategies listed are
incompatible with the development permits the City continue to approve to
date. Regarding Page III -14, 2.2.1 she questioned whether the City has
resources to meet this goal and strategy.
David Schey, Parks & Recreation Commission, referred to notes forwarded
to the Council stating the intent of the Resource Management Element was
to create a greater emphasis within the Element of the need to expand and
utilize parks and recreational facilities the City has and to develop new parks
and recreational facilities. Under the existing conditions, the City's facilities
are interim use, and it would be a fallacy to view these facilities as a
permanent recreational asset. With respect to the other items in the Resource
Management Element, he stated that there is an emphasis to expand existing
facilities and integrate the open space preservation function into the needs
assessment and parks master plan. He suggested a definitive analysis of the
available open space resources be completed in order to determine how best
to deal with them.
With no further testimony being offered, MPT/Papen closed the Public
Hearing.
RECESS: MPT/Papen recessed the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
RECONVENE: MPT/Papen reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN (CONT'D.) - C/Harmony moved,
C/Werner seconded to reinsert the first sentence of the Vision Statement,
which read: "It is the primary goal of the City of Diamond Bar to maintain a
rural and country living environment."
JANUARY 9, 1995 PAGE 7
C/Werner stated that he does not view rural and country living as a primary
goal.
C/Miller agreed with C/Werner.
MPT/Papen stated that in her opinion "rural" means a minimum of five acre
lots, gravel roads, horses and cows and bicycles travelling on the same roads,
hikers avoiding cow pies, no electricity, no plumbing. The Chamber of
Commerce deleted "country living" from its logo about eight years ago and
added in its place "dynamic." The City is, with an average of three to six units
per acre, at least in her opinion, D.B. has not been rural since the first
developments.
C/Harmony stated the debate over rural living is a point of controversy.
Country living conveys a sense that the open spaces are going to remain open.
GPAC said the first statement should reflect what the community symbolizes.
C/Werner withdrew his second his second to the motion
MPT/Papen indicated that Page 1, A. Vision Statement, second bullet,
preservation of open space resources, second sentence of the second
paragraph, should be changed to read: "SEA 15 is considered to be a major
significant ecological asset to the community."
C/Harmony requested ICA/Montgomery to respond to the concept of
"taking."
ICA/Montgomery answered if the use is not changed from that currently
devoted, it is not a "taking."
MPT/Papen noted C/Harmony's objection to the change.
C/Werner indicated that on Page 10, Public Services and Facilities Element,
a separate Economic Plan should be stated. Under Circulation, strike
"Physical Mobility" and include the other transit options covered.
In response to MPT/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that staff could add a
one -or -two word description of the issues in the element.
Responding to C/Werner, CDD/DeStefano indicated that the Mitigation
Monitoring Program was incorporated as part of the 1992 draft General Plan's
Environmental Impact Report. The second draft General Plan incorporated
an addendum to the EIR and an amendment to Mitigation Monitoring
Program and this General Plan would do likewise.
MPT/Papen asked if there is further reason for Public Hearing with respect to
JANUARY 9, 1995 PAGE 8
the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the Mitigation Monitoring Program was amended
as a result of the amendment to the EIR which does not require a Public
Hearing. Council reviewed the documents in 1992 and 1993 which were
included in the resolutions which the Council ultimately adopted.
Responding to C/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that the environmental
documents were not challenged, but the General Plan was. There are two
components to the document being referenced, the first component is
implementation and the second is the Mitigation Monitoring Program where
the strategies, goals and objectives are listed and responsible parties are stated
and time frames for completing given tasks are indicated. That can be
referenced as a document contained within the Environmental Impact Report
technical appendices. It could be added to the list of General Plan format and
documents on page 11.
MPT/Papen suggested that on Page III -2, first sentence under 1. Open Space
and Visual Resources, delete "master planned."
C/Miller suggested that page III -2, Item 2, Biological Resources, include
"deer" and "several species of mice" so that the sentence reads: "Tonner
Canyon supports a diverse population of native animals, including the
California ground squirrel, cottontail rabbit, coyote, deer and several species
of mice." The next sentence should read: "The canyon habitat may also
support other animals such as the endangered Stephen's kangaroo rat, and
possibly the California Gnatcatcher."
With respect to Page 111-2, 3 Parks & Recreation, C/Miller stated he agrees
with C/Werner that "By any measure" should be deleted from the second
sentence so that it reads: "The City is inadequately served by active and
passive facilities" and adopt Mr. Schey's proposed language for the balance
of the paragraph. On Page 111-7, C, Resource Management Issues, 1. Open
Space and Visual Resources, the Parks & Recreation Commission requested
the Council redefine the issue analysis so that the statement reads: "There is
a need to preserve open space within the City and the sphere of influence and
to utilize portions of these preserved open spaces for parks and recreational
uses."
C/Werner suggested adding "...where feasible and safe."
C/Miller suggested striking "inadequately" on Page III -7, C. Resource
Management Issues, 3, Parks & Recreation.
Council agreed to strike the second sentence, Page III -2, 3, Parks &
Recreation.
JANUARY 9, 1995
PAGE 9
Returning to Page III -7, C, Resource Management Issues, 3. Parks and
Recreation, Council agreed to strike the first sentence under Issue Analysis
and change the balance of the statement to read: "There is a need to plan for
additional parks and recreational facilities to serve the growing needs of local
residents through full utilization of existing facilities within City boundaries
and with the surrounding area; additional recreation parklands are necessary
to meet the community needs."
On Page III -9, Goal 1, C/Werner suggested changing the sentence to read:
"Ccnsistent with the Vision Statement, create and maintain an open space
system which will preserve scenic beauty, protect important biological
resources, provide open space for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment of
nature, conserve natural resources, and protect public health and safety." On
Page III -10, adopt the Parks & Recreation Commission's recommended
change so the strategy reads: "Expeditiously develop and adopt a tree
ordinance designed to retain and/or replace native trees within the City."
In response to C/Werner, Mr. Schey responded that native trees includes the
trees previously listed in the General Plan.
C/Mller suggested, under Strategy 1.1.5, Page III -9, "significant vegetation"
be changed to "natural vegetation" so the strategy reads: "When deemed
necessary by the City, require that natural vegetation be preserved or
transplanted, as determined by a qualified biota report approved by the City."
C/Werner suggested that Page III -10, Strategy 1.1.11 be changed to read:
"Expeditiously develop and adopt a tree ordinance designed to retain and/or
replace native trees within the City."
C/Miller recommended on Page III -9, Strategy 1. 1.4 be changed to read:
"Preserve to the maximum extent feasible existing vegetation within
undeveloped hillside areas."
C/Werner suggested Page III -9, Strategy 1.1.5 be changed to read: "When
deemed necessary by the City, require that significant vegetation be preserved
or transplanted as determined by a qualified biota report approved by the
City."
C/Werner moved, C/Miller seconded to approve the Introduction as revised
and directed staffto make it available for public review by Thursday, January
12, 1995, so that it can be completed in final form ready for adoption as an
agenda item 30 days after it is available to the public. Motion carried
unanimously.
MPT/Papen announced that the Council would conclude with Page III -10 of
the Resource Management Element and continue deliberation of the Element
JANUARY 9, 1995 PAGE 10
to January 16, 1995 at 6:00 p.m.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct,
M/Papen adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. to January 16, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the
AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. Q
L ABUIRGESS, CiClerk
ATTEST:
Mayor Pro Tem