HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/1995 Minutes - Special MeetingMIKUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 13, 1995
CALL TO ORDER M/Papen called the meeting to order at 6:10
p.m. at the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by M/Papen.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller,
Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen.
Also present Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City
Attorney, James DeSteiarw, Community Development Director, George Wentz, City
Engineer, Michael Myers, Consultant Engineer and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City
Clerk.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - M/Papen announced that the
Council would review staffs revisions dated February 10, 1995 to the
Circulation Element.
CDD/DeStefano stated that revisions to the Circulation Element were
indicated with a footnote on each page indicating a February 10, 1995
publication date and an arrow indicating each revision. Some of the graphics
required to complete the Element were being produced. He indicated that the
first change was reference to V-1 as the Regional Location Map on Page V-3,
last paragraph. On Page V-4, the map was renumbered V-2. On Page V-5,
Paragraph 6, "Business" was eliminated from the paragraph to read:
"Collector streets serve businesses or residential land and are generally two
or four lane roadways. The desired roadway capacity on a collector street can
average up to 20,000 vehicles per day while providing Level of Service (LOS)
C." The Table on Page B-6 was reoriented to an alphabetical and
classification listing and hierarchy. Regarding Page V-7, b, Level of Service
Standards, last sentence of the paragraph, the table number was corrected and
"capacity" eliminated so the sentence reads: "Table V-2 presents the average
daily volumes of various roadway configurations for different levels of
service." Also on Page V-7, two paragraphs were added at the bottom of the
page. The first paragraph is: "A major concern of the City of Diamond Bar
is the operating efficiency of its streets. Based upon an analysis performed in
1991, traffic projections for the future (year 20 10) indicate that up to 26 local
street segments may experience a level of service of E or F. This undesirable
condition is the result of the intrusion of regional traffic through Diamond
--- Bar." The second paragraph reads: "The City proposes to proactively pursue
activities which will enhance the use of its infrastructure for Diamond Bar
residents. In addition, the City will work with neighboring jurisdictions to
mitigate their effects on local street systems due to the intrusion of regional
traffic." On Page V-9, a modification was made to the source of the Daily
Roadway Capacity Standards. The source now reads: "Source: Based on
latest revised Highway Capacity Manual."
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 2
MPT/Werner asked that the date of the manual be indicated in parenthesis.
CDD/DeStefano continued by stating that on Page V-10, Level of Service
(LOS) Interpretation Table V-3, under the description of LOS E,
Volume -to -Capacity Ratio should read: ".91 - 1.00." On Page V-22, 2 a.
Transit Services, second paragraph was corrected to read: "Four fixed route
transit lines serve the City of Diamond Bar: Foothill Transit Route 482 and
MTA Route 490 originate and terminate outside the City limits. Two express
routes originating at the Park -N -Ride lot at Diamond Bar Boulevard/60
Freeway interchange operate during peak hours Monday through Friday.
Foothill Transit Express Route 495 picks up passengers on Golden Springs
Drive/Colima Road to the Puente Hills Mall, then travels tbt freeways to
downtown Los Angeles. OCTA operates an express route from the same
Park -N -Ride via Cal State Fullerton, City Drive and the Orange County Court
House in Santa Ana." With respect to Page V-26, 5, Aviation, the following
was moved from the former Page V-33: "Because Diamond Bar is under
flight paths from both Ontario and Los Angeles International Airports, and
proximity to major freeways tends to increase the number of helicopter
overflights, the City should remain vigilant to air traffic increases and seek
regulations to relieve noise and air pollution." On Page V-31, Issue Analysis
under 4, The Development of an Alternative Travel Corridor Around the City —
of Diamond Bar was rewritten to read: "There is a need to consider a bypass
roadway around the City of Diamond Bar to 'discourage regional traffic from
using the City's local streets for cut -through purposes only. This is of regional
concern and involves multiple jurisdictions. It is important for the City to take
the lead in assuring that any proposed project directly benefits Diamond Bar
residents and achieves the goals of this General Plan." Regarding Page V-32,
7, Surrounding Roadway Systems Impacting the City, the third bullet was
modified and a fourth bullet added. The third bullet now reads: "Improve the
capacity of Interstate 10 (San Bernardino Freeway), State Route 60 (Pomona
Freeway) and State Route 142 (Carbon Canyon Road)." The fourth bullet
reads: "Completion of the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) system on
Interstate 10, Route 60 and State Route 57 from the San Bernardino and
Orange County lines to Highway 101." Also on page V-32, the heading for
8 was modified to read: "Maintain the cul-de-sacs of Sunset Crossing Road,
Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street at the City's
boundaries." Regarding Page V-33, first paragraph under 8, the discussion
regarding development in the adjacent City of Industry was changed to read:
"The City of Industry is considering development of the area beyond the
terminus of Sunset Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington and
Lycoming Street with industrial areas and a waste -to -rail materials recovery
facility to make maximum advantage of its proximity to freight rail lines. The
area through which these streets would be extended is presently undeveloped.
The extension of these streets and the proposed development of industrial
uses would significantly increase the volume of traffic along these residential
streets and introduce a significant number of trucks into these residential
neighborhoods."
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 3
MPT/Werner stated it would be more definitive to say "west of in place of
"beyond" in the first sentence.
M/Papen suggested striking the second sentence "The area through which
these streets would be extended is presently undeveloped."
C/Ansari suggested dirainating "to make maximum advantage of its proximity
to freight rail lines" and ending the sentence after "facility."
CM/Belanger suggested the following wording: "With the City of Industry
considering development of the area beyond the westerly terminus of Sunset
Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street
with industrial uses and a waste -to -rail recovery facility, the area through
these streets would be extended as presently undeveloped. If these streets are
extended and the proposed development of industrial uses occur, they would
significantly increase the volume of traffic along these residential streets and
introduce a significant number of tricks into these residential neighborhoods."
M/Papen suggested the following wording: "The City of Industry is
considering the development of the area westerly of the terminus of Sunset
Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street
with industrial uses and a waste -to -rail recovery facility. The extension of
these streets and the proposed development of industrial uses would
significantly increase the volume of traffic along its residential streets and
introduce a significant number of trucks within these residential
neighborhoods."
C/Miller suggested the paragraph read as follows: "The City of Industry is
considering the development of an area beyond the terminus of Sunset
Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street
with industrial uses and a waste -to -rail recovery facility. If this development
occurs, impact upon the City of Diamond Bar would be significant."
MPT/Werner stated there should be a tie-in to the traffic issue and the
cul-de-sacing.
M/Papen suggested deletion of "The extension of these streets and" from the
second sentence so the paragraph reads: "The City of Industry is considering
the development of the area westerly of the terminus of Sunset Crossing
Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street with
_ industrial uses and a waste -to -rail recovery facility. The proposed
development of industrial uses would significantly increase the volume of
traffic along its residential streets and introduce a significant number of trucks
within these residential neighborhoods."
MPT/Werner suggested the last sentence of the paragraph be changed to read:
"If this development occurs, the introduction of industrial traffic on these
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 4
residential collector streets would result in significant neighborhood
disruption" so the paragraph now reads: "The City of Industry is considering
the development of the area westerly of the terminus of Sunset Crossing
Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street with
industrial uses and a waste -to -rail recovery facility. If this development
occurs, the introduction of industrial traffic on these residential collector
streets would result in significant neighborhood disruption."
CDD/DeStefano stated the next change was on Page V-33, Goal 1, with the
addition of "Consistent with the Vision Statement" at the beginning of the
sentence. Objective 1. 1, the second sentence, Page V-33, was relocated to
Page V-27 as previously indicated. With respect to Page V-34, Strategy
1.1.4, add "through the easterly portion" so the Strategy now reads: "Initiate
regional traffic mitigation efforts with the Cities of Brea and Chino las by
forming a task force, assisted by technical personnel, to eva'.uate alternative
travel corridors through the easterly portion of the sphere of influence."
Subsection (h), Strategy 1.1.4, Page V-34, was stricken.
MlPapen pointed out that "environmentally -sensitive" was previously added
by Council to Strategy 1.1.4 (b) so that it now reads: "Identification of the --
types of environmentally -sensitive roadways which will be considered." On
Strategy 1.1.4 (g) (4) add: "...such as Proposition C or Redevelopment
Funds."
CDD/DeStefano continued that on Page V-35, Strategy 1. 1.7 was previously,,
stricken and reinstituted as a Strategy within the General Plan and the
following Strategies were renumbered appropriately. Strategy 1.1.7 becomes
1.1.8 and Strategy 1.1.8 becomes 1.1.9.
M/Papen stated the Council shows different changes. Strategy 1.1.6
"Encourage Orange and San Bernardino Counties to fund zrd construct an
environment -ally -sensitive transportation corridor roadway through Soquel
Canyon and or Carbon Canyon." She indicated that in the February 2, 1995
document, this Strategy was 1. 1.6 and it was stricken. Then it was added
back as Strategy 1.1.7. Council removed Strategy 1.1.7. In the current
version, the old Strategy 1. 1.7 is now shown as Strategy 1.1.5.
CDD/DeStefano stated the next change occurs on Page V-36, Strategy 1.3.5
which was amended to read: "The City should implement strong measures to
maintain the integrity of Sunset Crossing Road and other residential areas at
the western City limits by cul-de-sacing Sunset Crossing Road and retaining
the cul-de-sacing of Lycoming, Washington and Beaverhead Streets." The
next change was the addition of "Consistent with the Vision Statement" to
Goal 2, Page V-36. Strategy 2.1.8, Page V-36 was changed to read:
"Maintain, expand and upgrade the system of bicycle routes connecting
residential areas to major community attractions utilizing current City design
guidelines. Upgrades of the current system will include investigative means
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 5
to improve signing and marking of bikeways. The City shall develop a master
plan of bikeways." On Page V-37, Goal 3, the words "Consistent with the
Vision Statement" were added to the beginning of the sentence in accordance
with Council direction. Regarding Page V-37, Strategy 3.1.7, Figure V-1 is
corrected to Figure V-2. The words "Consistent with the Vision Statement"
were added to the beginning of Goal 4, Page V-37.
MPT/Werner suggested adding a paragraph under Item 6., Page V-31 to read:
"Intrusion of through traffic on the streets of Diamond Bar consists of
motorists who are passing through the City. The alignment of the City's three
most significant arterial streets (Diamond Bar Boulevard, Golden Springs
Road and Grand Avenue) results in significantly large volumes of through
traffic which is fed from the SR 57 (Orange Freeway) and the SR 60
(Pomona) Freeway. During peak commute periods, congestion is heavily
concentrated along the SR 57 (eight lams of traffic) and SR 60 Freeways,
particularly where the SR 57 and SR 60 Freeways join together for a one -mile
long reduced corridor of no more than six lanes of traffic (three travel lanes
in each direction). Congestion is particularly heavy during a.m. and p.m. peak
traffic hours and has resulted in tremendous volumes of traffic utilizing
_ Diamond Bar Boulevard, Golden Springs Road, and Grand Avenue as a
freeway bypass."
CDD/DeStefano responded that this language appears on Page V-17 and
V-18 and was part of the information that had been stricken.
M/Papen suggested the paragraph could be added to Page V-7, C. Roadway
Systems.
MPT/Werner suggested adding Strategy 1.1.10 on Page V-35: "Through the
use of the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 24,
Parts 1, 1.5 and 1.7, pursue a comprehensive and, if possible, a coordinated
effortwith the City of Industry and the State cf California to upgrade the one
mile stretch of freeway cart -y* the SR 57 and SR 60 Freeways; and upgrade
the interchanges of Brea Canyon Road and the SR 60 Freeway, Grand
Avenue and the SR 60/57 Freeways and Diamond Bar Boulevard at the SR
57 Freeway north and south of the widening of Golden Springs Drive."
Council concurred.
C Urmony felt there needs to be a positive statement within the Circulation
Element that there will be no road through Tonner Canyon, such as the
statement in the October 17, 1994 version, Page V-26, Strategy 1.1.4.
At the request of M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano read the current version of
Strategy 1. 1.4 on Page V-33 and V-34: "Initiate regional traffic mitigation
efforts with the Cities of Brea and Chino Hills by forming a task force assisted
by technical personnel to evaluate alternative travel corridors through the
easterly portion of the sphere of influence. Efforts will generally include: a)
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 6
Recognition of environmentally sensitive areas; b) Identification of the types
of environmentally sensitive roadways which will be considered; c) Avoiding
disruption of SEA 15; d) Land Use constraints and development limitations
which may be in place or imposed; e) Contribution to congestion based on
development and anticipated growth projections; f) Prioritization of
alternatives based on available documentation, studies, reports, etc.; g)
Identification of alternative funding sources for studies, design, construction
and maintenance such as, but not limited to: 1) Los Angeles, Orange and San
Bemardino Counties; 2) State of California; 3) Federal Government; 4) Local
funding, such as Proposition C or Redevelopment Funds; 5) Development
and; 6) Private; h) Identification and formulation of a short and long range
plan of action to address the bypass issue."
Responding to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger explained if the term "no major
roadway in Tonner Canyon" is used, it means there can be a roadway in
Tonner Canyon. As a matter of fact, there is a roadway in Tonner Canyon.
By removing that, the General Plan objective states "no roadway in Tonner
Canyon" and that the only possible transportation corridor would be outside
the SEA 15 in the easterly portion of the sphere of influence area. The SEA
does not include Tonner Canyon. —
It was moved by C/Harmony to add "such alternatives will incorporate no
major road through Tonner Canyon."
C/Ansari felt that not naming Tonner Canyon as a road and staying out of the
SEA 15 and on the easterly portion of the sphere of influence seemed to be
a better alternative to mentioning Tonner Canyon specifically in the General
Plan In addition, current wording deals with Soquel Canyon Rd. and Carbon
Canyon Rd. issues by stating the City should encourage other jurisdictions to
build through those areas.
C/Harmony's motion died for lack of a second.
A motion was made by C/Harmony to delete Item (4) (g) under Strategy
1.1.4, Page V-34. Motion died for lack of a second.
Responding to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger stated that utilization of such funding
as referred to in Item (4)(g) of Strategy 1. 1.4 might be the use of
redevelopment money if the City can demonstrate a benefit to the
redevelopment agency or the redevelopment plan area. For the most part, if
the property is not annexed to'the City, the money will not be utilized.
HOUSING ELEMENT:
CDD/DeStefano reported that the Housing Element is a component of
statutory requirements of State law with respect to composition of the
General Plan The Element represents a comprehensive assessment of current
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 7
and projected housing needs for all segments and all economic groups of the
City. Housing is a matter of statewide policy and a number of specific
provisions for compliance within state housing goals must be addressed within
this Element. It is the only Element that is critically reviewed at the State
level through the Housing and Community Development Department. Of the
500 cities in California, only 40 percent have received approval of their
Housing Element from HCD. The current document was reviewed several
times by the State Housing and Community Development Department and
each time, in their opinion, the document fails ce two issues: 1) An
insufficient number of adequate sites, and 2) those sites zoned at appropriate
densities to fiM D.B.'s share of housing needs. These are generally the two
items which prevent most cities from receiving a HCD approval of the
Element. D.B. receives an allocation of its percentage of the regional goal
once every five years or so since the City did not exist when the most recent
allocation was completed for the region in 1989, the City created its own
number with calculations approved by HCD during the early stages of the
General Plan in late 1989 and early 1990. The City determined the housing
need to be 781 units for the reporting period of July, 1989 to July, 1996.
These units are comprised of the following income categories: 1)117 units
- income to $25,000 (150/6); 2) 182 units - income from $25,000 to 540,000
(230/6); 3) 144 units - income from $40,000 to $60,000 (1911/6); 4) 338 units
- income over $60,000 (43%).
In Response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that HCD requires at least
25 units per acre for the very low income category s:.d at least 18 units per
acre for low income. These numbers are generally set aside for both rental
and purchase. The highest number of units within the City's zoning is about
30 plus units per acre. In the currently drafted General Plan, absent a density
bonus, the highest is 16 units per acre. Currently, there is no land available
with the 30 unit zoning. However, there are a couple of sites that are at a
zoning category of about 25 units per acre. The State feels that very low
income requires a minimum of 25 units per acre; low income a minimum of 18
units; and moderate income a minimum of 8 units. The State's primary
concern is with respect to providing adequate sites and/or higher densities.
Many cities use subsidies for redevelopment of multiple family projects which
either drive down the price of the unit or incentives to the home buyer reduce
the cost of acquisition. D.B. currently projects approximately 1,073
additional dwelling units at the highest density of 16 per acre over the next 17
to 20 years. Therefore, while the General Plan provides sufficient housing,
the issue is whether or not the City is providing affordability for very low and
low income households. During review of the Housing Element at the
Planning Commission and General Plan Advisory levels, there was discussion
involving two alternatives. One is a compliance -based response to HCD's
mandate and the second is a constraints -based response. Both the GPAC and
Planning Commission agreed that a response to HCD following a
constraints -based analysis was appropriate. Absent substantial subsidies or
substantial increases in density, the response to HCD would recognize
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 8
limitations and constraints of further housing construction in the City. These
constraints are physical (biological resources, steep slopes, geotechnical
hazards and inadequate infrastructure in some areas), land and construction
cost and private contracts that restrict development. Such constraints limit
the City's ability to meet the housing obligations. Contained within the
General Plan is the specific analysis that State law requires within a Housing
Elm. This deals with housing need, issues with respect to the social and
economic structure, etc. However, the primary issue within the Housing
Element is sites and density. HCD -would be satisfied if the City would
replace its commercial land use categories with housing use categories. The
question is balance the City needs to determine in terms of its overall financial
plan for the City's future and whether or not it is willing to give up some of
the commercial sites. HCD would be pleased for the City to provide densities
in the range of 18 units or above on some of the hillside properties. The City
has indicated some of those are sensitive area and may not be appropriate.
Opportunities in D.B. appear to be limited, Before the Council is generally
a consensus with the Planning Commission and GPAC's version of the
element. There were a couple of differences, primarily dealing with "quality
of life" issues. GPAC wanted to establish more specific standards dealing
with the size of dwelling units and wanted to add language in the Land Use --
Element which refers to slope density formulas. The Planning Commission
felt those were worthwhile but were more appropriate to implementation of
the Zoning Ordinance and Development Code. He recommended that Council
open the Public Hearing, receive testimony and direct staff with respect to
changes.
M/Papen stated that on Page II -14, the number 973 in the second sentence of
the third paragraph should be "1x073." In the fourth sentence of the third
paragraph, 793 should be "893." She asked for clarification of Figure II -1,
Housing Opportunity Areas Map on Page Il -15B with respect to the sphere
of influence. It appears that the map improperly reflects the Shell Oil
Company property. .
Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano indicated that he would check the
location.
M/Papen asked why the church property and the Shell Oil Company property
are zoned Agricultural, while the remainder of the Sphere of Influence is
zoned Specific Plan.
CDD/DeStefano responded that they are not shown as potential areas for
housing as a result of the current Land Use Element that indicates an
Agricultural designation for these properties. The Land Use Element further
states that at some point in the future, the creation of a specific plan for these
two areas will be encouraged. The Element lists a specific palate of land uses
for consideration.
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PAGE 9
M/Papen asked why these properties are being designated differently from
Tres Hermans and the Boy Scout property.
CDD/DeStefano stated that he would bring the information to the next
meeting.
MPT/www asked if the housing opportunities shown on Figure II -1, Page
115B are for the next five-year period.
CDD/DeStefano responded that it is referring to the period from July, 1989
to June, 1996. If the schedule for a new Housing Element is maintained,
about this time next year, the City will be looking at a necessary revision to
the Housing Element as a result of newly established Regional Housing Needs
numbers.
Responding to C/Miller, CDD/DeStefano stated the Opportunity Areas Map
corresponds to the Land Use Element Map. This is what the City sees as
opportunities as the Planx ing Commission recommended based upon the Land
Use Element.
In response to C/Ansari, CDD1DeStefano stated HCD will review the General
Plan submitted based upon the Housing Element which mandates policy and
*,Jr respond with a letter indicating where they feel the City is not in
ccmpance with policies. The State could eliminate subventions if the City
d:)es not have a certified, approved Housing Element. In some instances,
private interest groups will sue a city to attempt to force compliance with
HCD and statewide policies. He further stated he is not aware of any city
being sued by the Attorney General with respect to not having a Housing
Element; however, he is aware of private law suits against cities. In theory,
if the City does not have a state certified or approved Housing element, the
General Plan is not in compliance with State law.
ICA/Montgomery concurred. He cited a South Pasadena case where an
extension of the redevelopment plan was defeated based upon the assertion
that there was no Housing Element in the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano stated that HCD is more concerned with insuring that the
Housing Element is in compliance with statewide housing policy. There are
less concerns with meeting the actual targeted goal of units.
MPT/Werner suggested that the Housing Opportunity Areas Map show all of
the available vacant properties in the City with each area having an
identification marker (number and text) that describes the areas. In addition,
on properties where there are contractual, topographical, political or other
constraints, identify the constraints. He felt that there are some commercially
designated properties that could serve as housing opportunity areas such as
parcels located in the Gateway Corporate Center.
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 1PAGE 10
3.
4
M/Papen asked that staff provide an overhead and handout map for the
February 16, 1995 meeting at which time the Council will open the Public
Hearing for the Land Use Element and continue the Hearing for the Housing
Element.
MPT/Werner moved, 0Miller seconded to have staff finalize this draft of the
Circulation Element, make it available for the public for 30 days advance
review and bring it back to the City Council for final adoption. With the
following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, MPT/Werner,
M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
ADJOURNMENT: There being no fiuther business to discuss, the
meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
TOMMYE CRIBBINS, Depute City Clerk
ATTEST:
-on
Mayor