Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/18/1997 Minutes - Regular Meeting2 3. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 18, 1997 CLOSED SESSION: None CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Huff called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. in the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C/Harmony. INVOCATION: Reverend Dennis Stuve, Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Huff. Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; Amanda Susskind, Assistant City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 3.1 Proclaimed March, 1997 as "Red Cross Month." 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Don Gravdahl spoke about flyers he found posted at several local businesses. The flyer alleged negotiations by MIHuff and MPT/Herrera with the Wildlife Corridor organization and indicated that these negotiations would result in a $300,000,000 assessment to be placed on the residents of D.B. He pointed out that the message in the flyer was completely misleading and erroneous. He asked the City to set up an agency to handle the $10,000,000 in Prop A funds. Glen Thomas asked Council to approve the Traffic & Transportation Commission's recommendation for installation of stop signs at Fern Hollow and Los Cerros Drs. He suggested a bicycle lane be installed on Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Rd. west of SR 57. Red Calkins concurred with Don Gravdahl regarding the posted flyers. He stated that he felt insulted by the February 9, 1997 Daily Bulletin article entitled "Residents Feel Safer Behind Bars." Martha Bruske agreed that stop signs should be installed at the intersections of Maple Hill Rd. at Mt. Laurel Way, and Los Cerros at Fern Hollow Drs, but expressed concern that the intersection of Goldrush Dr. at D.B. Blvd. may also need some sort of mitigation measure. Clyde Hennessee thanked Council for their representation and good FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL 5. manners. Although not everyone can be satisfied all of the time, he noted that the current leadership is making a concerted effort to respond to public concerns. Kevin House felt there was a lack of citizen representation by Council and stated that he was embarrassed that D.B. is the only City that does not want to save Tonner Canyon. He demanded that C/Harmony be given representation on Council subcommittees. He asked the City to pursue contracting with a different television cable company. Don Schad spoke about the loss of Oscar Law and how he had worked tirelessly as an advocate for the City's Seniors. He recommended the City present a Plaque to Mrs. Law in recognition of Mr. Law's dedicated efforts. Mr. Schad thanked DPWD/Liu for posting deer crossing signs on Pathfinder Rd. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - February 25, 1997 - 7:00 p.m. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - February 27, 1997 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 4, 1997 - 6:30 p.m. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr, 5.4 TOWN HALL MEETING DEVELOPMENT CODE DISCUSSION HELD JOINTLY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION - March 22 or 29, 1997, 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon, Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. 5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - March 13, 1997 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: M PTIH errera moved, C/H armony seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 6.1.1. Motion carried by the following Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Herrera, M/Huff NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Werner 6.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER dated February 18, 1997, in the amount of $645,980.95. 6.3 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - filed by George and Peggy Boyle January 31, 1997 and referred the matter to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 6.4 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 92-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INSTALLING MULTI -WAY STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF MAPLE HILL ROAD AT MOUNTAIN LAUREL WAY, AND LOS CERROS DRIVE AT FERN HOLLOW DRIVE. MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 6.1 .1 City Council Work Session and Regular Meeting of February 4, 1997. C/Ansari asked for verbatim minutes because the transcript did not accurately reflect her statements. She agreed to meet with the City Clerk to address her concerns. Council consensus to continue the matter to March 4, 1997. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 7:30 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Huff reconvened the City Council Meeting at 7:33 p.m. RECESS: M/Huff recessed the City Council meeting at 7:33 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Huff reconvened the City Council meeting at 7:45 p.m. ClWerner arrived at 7:45 p.m. 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.1 GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION - Continued from February 4, 1997. M/Huff stated that flyers posted at local businesses referring to a $300,000,000 assessment were a misrepresentation of the matter under current discussion. He cautioned the public to be aware of the deception. The issue before Council was whether it will support the General Plan's discussion of a road outside the SEA, outside of Tonner Canyon bottom and does not connect to D.B. The Chairman of the Wildlife Corridor Conservancy Authority was quoted in that day's Daily Bulletin as saying the Authority had no position on the road and any road that went through the area would have to be environmentally sensitive. Mr. Edmiston, Exec. Dir. of the Wildlife Corridor, has said that a road, as called out in the City's General Plan, does not cause a problem with the Authority's efforts to save the FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL wildlife in Tanner Canyon. M/Huff indicated that he was confused about the issue. Many people spoke at the fast meeting as if there is a road being built in Tonner Canyon and there is not a road being built in Tonner Canyon. C/Harmony stated that CA/Jenkins assured him that there was no basis in fact to the recent representation regarding a Brown Act violation. C/Ansari stated she was not a party to the flyer alleging a $300,000,000 assessment. Beverly D'Errico said she would like to see Tonner Canyon preserved. She felt that passage of Proposition A would assure the preservation of Tonner Canyon. She said she is disappointed and confused about the issue if D.B. is interfering with the bond. Mike Goldenberg and Joe Ruzicka suggested that, in addition to the group that wishes to preserve Tonner Canyon as it currently exists and the group that wishes to consider building a road in or around the canyon, other issues exist which need to be addressed. They suggested that Council consider what is in the best interest of D.B. There is no definitive answer to this issue since D.B. does not own the property, nor is the property within the City's boundaries. It is within the City's Sphere of Influence which gives the Council options to consider the City's best interest. Ontario is presently reviewing and modifying its General Plan and proposing to develop approximately 8,000 acres in the southwest corner of its City limits. Most of the newly developed area is to be designated residential and the City anticipates about 100,000 new residents. Ontario is planning to designate, as one of its major east/west arterials, Edison St. Edison St., at its westerly exit, becomes Grand Ave. If D. B. ignores the plans of Ontario. Chino, Chino Hills and other surrounding communities, it will certainly spell disaster for any traffic mitigation that the City and its residents may be able to employ. Martha Bruske stated that, in the absence of trust and forthrightness, the Council has "phantom" issues and it appeared that the participants are not viewing the same map. She asked for clarification of whether a road can actually connect at both ends. She expressed concern that a Grand Ave. entrance/exit to Tonner Canyon Rd. would cross ecologically protected wetlands. She stated that D.B. Blvd, traffic appears to be lighter between Brea Canyon Rd. and Grand Ave. In her opinion, the City needs current traffic study data with respect to D.B. Blvd. and Golden Springs Rd. She suggested that development be curtailed to mitigate the traffic problems. She asked who owns the property that could be developed if a road is built. She asked Council to confirm that a road would begin and end outside of D.B.'s City FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL limits. If so, why would D.B. be expected to pay for a road. Don Schad asked for the definition of an "environmentally sensitive roadway." Lydia Plunk stated that the reason the Board of Supervisors held up the automatic transfer of monies to the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority was because a group of individuals have been playing with the rules. The sale of the Boy Scout Reservation cannot be held up when there is no agreement to sell. She indicated that a publicity campaign was used to force the sale of the property. The Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority is not to receive the property or the $10,000,000. People with a vested interest and hidden agenda lobbied successfully to have the funds meant for the preservation of Tonner Canyon given to a group from Simi Valley, Conejo, and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The District Attorney is currently conducting an investigation into this matter. The options of a Soquel/Carbon Canyon Rd. no longer exist. She asked why D. B. is involved in a study of the Orange County eastern corridor. Although D.B. is a member of the Joint Powers Authority, there does not seem to be a consensus of which map is authentic to the current situation. Joyce Leonard Colby, Traffic & Transportation Commissioner, stated that residents frequently express concern regarding cut -through traffic on City streets. As a citizen and local business person, it is difficult to get around in the City to conduct business at certain hours of the day. Until there is a well planned and environmentally sensitive alternative to the traffic problems in the City, traffic problems will continue to increase. She asked Council to remain open to the fact that the City needs traffic relief. Mike Morriss asked Council to keep in mind that the transportation, environment and development issues have created undue stress and election discord in the City and stated that Council should keep all issues and discussions within the public's view. Clare Schlotterbeck, Hills for Everyone, displayed General Plan Circulation Element maps from Chino Hills showing a Tonner Canyon Rd., County of San Bernardino showing a Tonner Canyon Rd., L.A. County showing no road, City of Brea showing no road and the County of Orange showing no road. There is no beginning and no ending to this road. For any funding to be set aside for a road, three elements must exist: A private toll road, a Bond assessment, or State or Federal funds. All of these elements must have a plan position which indicates a beginning and ending. The six involved jurisdictions would need to pursue a road, fund a plan, send out Requests for Proposal, conduct an EIR and Public Hearings. With the current stance, she saw no possibility of a bypass road being constructed. In FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL_ addition, current statistics indicate that for every mile of road, three miles of development are opened. Therefore, a bypass road will not help mitigate traffic. Don Gravdahl asked if the City has looked into whether or not a "grandfather" clause exists with respect to a road through Tonner Canyon between the cities of Brea and Pomona since the road was regularly traveled in the 1920's. Jack Gutowski asked why a "floating easement" is being discussed if there is no road proposed to go through Tonner Canyon. He wanted to know how the interests of D.B. citizens who do not support a regional bypass are being conveyed to Supervisor Knabe. He asked that not to hold up the sale of the property. Gary Neely, Exec. Dir., D.B. Caucus, stated that members of the Wildlife Corridor Conservancy Authority have been quoted as stating the organization does not oppose a roadway. He emphasized that there should be no question that Council would continue to pursue activities and opportunities which further the implementation of the City's General Plan related to the creation of a regional bypass corridor. Implications that members of Council are acting out some kind of sinister closed -door plan which undermines the will of the citizens is far-fetched. Robert Goodman, Wildlife Biologist, stated that when habitats are fragmented, extinctions occur. If a road is built, Tonner Canyon will be isolated from the corridor to Chino Hills State Park. Gary Hund, Calif. Dept. of Parks & Recreation, stated that Chino Hills recently acquired 960 acres for Chino Hills State Park in recognition of the importance of maintaining a biological corridor to the Whittier Hills. Development of a road through Tonner Canyon or on the ridge top would fragment the corridor and would create some impediment to wildlife movement. John Forbing stated that majority rule is the basis of democratic govemment. He indicated that Carbon Canyon Rd., Grand Ave., the 57 fwy., Nogales, Hacienda Blvd., Fullerton Rd. and 7th Ave. currently cut across the wildlife corridor. Evidently, roadways are not interfering with the passage of wildlife when the City is posting deer crossing signs. Therefore, the argument that D.B. has no right to have a voice in discussing options to mitigate City traffic is a specious argument. In his opinion, pursuit of the City's General Plan is a long term situation and options should be pursued. Steve Feld, Hacienda Heights resident and governing board member of the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority, stated that his group FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL does not conduct meetings behind closed doors, has always had an attorney present during meetings and always receives public input. Kevin House asked Council to display the proposed road alignment. Wilbur Smith asked Council to identify funding sources for a proposed road, identify the road alignment and whether Council intends to change stated General Plan goals. Clyde Hennessee believed Council should continue to pursue the City's best interests. MPT/Herrera stated that with respect to the flyer being distributed, she and MIHuff were appointed by Council to serve on the Chino Hills adhoc City -to -City Committee. There have been several meetings; however, no deals or commitments have been made for a $300,000,000 road. The flyer contains bogus statements and vicious people are spreading lies. Wildlife Corridor Board Members and Advisory Board Members are saying that she is out to destroy a wildlife corridor. That is not true. She has never voted against the wildlife corridor increasing its present borders. Her only concern was voiced in August during a closed session discussion when she learned that the Wildlife Corridor was attempting to purchase the Boy Scout property. There had been no prior discussion about the negotiations and D.B. was being left in the dark. It is a fact that several other board members knew what was happening but D.B. board members did not and she received a letter of apology from Bob Henderson, Chairman of the Board, for leaving D.B. in the dark. She indicated that she wants to uphold the General Plan which discusses preserving Tanner Canyon. When voting to approve Prop A, the "Safe Parks Bond Act, " many citizens thought they were voting to make parks safer. The language never indicate that Tonner Canyon land would be purchased with Prop A funds. Prop A literature contained statements regarding the purchase of $10,000,000 worth of wildlife corridor property east of Colima Rd. D. B. does not have control of the $10,000,000 in question and D.B. does not have control of negotiations or of a purchase agreement. Negotiations for purchase are between the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority and the Boy Scouts of America. L.A. County has control of the area and they are the only entity that can impose the rights for a roadway. D.B. does not have the power or authority to impose a roadway. Regarding the discussion of this Agenda Item, she stated that there are goals and objectives spelled out in the City's General Plan and the matter is before Council to determine if this body wishes to move forward. Several residents have expressed concerns regarding traffic related issues. Many of this evening's participants are not D.B. residents. D.B. taxpayers will be paying about $4,000,000 as a result of Prop A which may be used toward the purchase of the Tonner Canyon FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL property. She believed the City's taxpayers have a right to representation and have expectations that their concerns will be addressed. When she campaigned last year, the number one concern of residents was traffic. This discussion is the first step. For those who asked where the road is going to go, there is no definitive plan at this point in time. Who will pay for a road is another step. In response to the comment that an attorney is present at every Wildlife Corridor Conservancy Authority meeting, during a September, 1996 meeting, she asked if an attorney was supposed to be present. In fact, an attorney was not present but a board member who happens to be an attorney was present. With respect to a bypass roadway cutting off wildlife flow through the corridor, she spoke about a five hour tour during which she was shown that mountain lions will proceed out of Cold Canyon, pass under the 91 fwy., jog down sidewalks and proceed across to pickup the balance of the corridor. In Powder Canyon, the corridor entrance and exit are not aligned. The expectation is that the animals will proceed from the exit, down sidewalk areas to the next entry. She did not believe a bypass roadway that provides an underpass will impede animal movement. C/Harmony stated that policy setting requires three Council votes and the choice better be right. The reason D.B. cannot delay on this item is because the City could lose $10,000,000 to purchase Tonner Canyon. There appears to be agreement with the General Plan to preserve the 3500 acre SEA. If Council and staff are instructed to work with Supervisor Knabe to continue to hold up the $10,000,000, the money may be lost to other cities. Before the Prop A election, everyone was aware that Tonner Canyon was up for grabs and was going to be purchased. He cited a BBS memo between a Council Member and a PAC representative in which the issue was discussed. The Council Member referred to this item as "buying animal playgrounds." In addition, the matter was discussed at Council level. Council and the voters knew that Tonner Canyon was up for consideration and acquisition with passage of Prop A. This campaign has been characterized by accusation. He said he was charged with violation of the Brown Act because he passed a business card to another member at a public meeting that said Council has not been able to review the agreements that the City Attorney has now faxed to the Board Member. He felt that being accused of violating the Brown Act and having his microphone shut off during the last Council Meeting was wrong. He proposed that Council work together toward a solution. Council is sensitive to the City's traffic needs, A stub of an easement — a road that goes nowhere with nobody knowing who will pay for it -- is not the beginning of a solution. He spoke about the inadequacy of the outdated Brinkerhoff report as it relates to the Orange County infrastructure and its ability to handle the influx of traffic through a Tonner Canyon corridor. He said SR 57 restricts traffic flow. In his opinion, there is a need for a regional plan that FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL improves the 57 fwy., the flow of traffic in and out of Chino Hills and D.B. He was concerned that the expansion of Phillips Ranch Rd. will create additional D.B. cut -through traffic. During the General Plan review, the City's traffic consultant determined that a regional bypass road would give some short term relief. He believed that D.B. should work with San Bernardino County through Supervisor Knabe to create a master plan for SR 57 and SR 60 expansion. The General Plan calls for funding from D.B. resources, specifically, Prop A monies. During the General Plan hearings, a Council Member suggested that the City could use redevelopment money. When he previously voted to support the City's General Plan, he did not imagine that Council would privately negotiate with Supervisor Knabe to withhold funds for acquisition of Tanner Canyon. C/Wemer stated that he did not advocate or oppose a regional bypass corridor in his last campaign statement. At issue was the development of the City's General Plan. Many citizens who participated in General Plan discussions attempted to create a consensus with respect to the regional traffic issue. As a result of this consensus, both the adopted General Plan and the Measure D General Plan contained the same statement with respect to the regional bypass traffic. Citizens have stated that they wish to have Tonner Canyon preserved and he agreed that the canyon should be preserved. The City's General Plan is quite clear with respect to this intent. In fact, four years ago he led Council in its approach to the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Committee. The Council unanimously agreed that it was in the City's best interest to participate in that organization and to be a part of future discussions. He reiterated that he wants to see Tonner Canyon preserved and believed the City's General Plan has properly presented policy to achieve that objective. General Plan implementation takes place in steps and over time. It is currently appropriate for the City to take some action with respect to a roadway option, not a roadway development. In his opinion, it is in the City's best interest to consider all options. The City has no authority over the use of $10,000,000 Prop A funds or over whether or not the Boy Scouts will sell its property. He stated that Clare Schlotterbeck's statement that if you think it is going to happen (a bypass road), it won't happen is an interesting statement. However, even if citizens believe no roadway will be built, the City has an obligation to consider that a road might be built and to consider all other options as well. He believed the City's best interests are characterized in the General Plan. On one hand, the General Plan discusses preserving open space. On the other hand, there is discussion regarding the need for a regional traffic bypass. Therefore, because of a lack of influence with respect to use of Prop A funds and/or sale of the Boy Scout property, D.B. can only explain to the public outside of the community that these General Plan policies exist and that the City intends to move forward with its stated goals and FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL objectives. Agenda Item 8.1, requested by C/Ansari, asks if Council and staff should continue to pursue activities and opportunities which further the implementation of the City's General Plan related to the creation of a regional bypass corridor. C/Ansari is recommending support of the continuation of Council and staff efforts to pursue implementation of the numerous goals, objectives and strategies. Why wouldn't the City and City Council want to be doing that. He agreed that staff and Council should be supporting the General Plan without a vote. C/Ansari stated that everyone agrees that there is a traffic problem in D.B.; however, Council Members each have a different perception of how the General Plan should be implemented. The General Plan talks about the possibility of a regional bypass corridor and that the City should be proactive. However, that comes after other traffic mitigation that the City is in the process of discussing and implementing. One mitigation measure is HOV lanes and the SR 57 fwy. widening. Another is the SR57/SR60 interchange, which will not occur for another two to three years. The third is the widening of the 71191 fwy. corridor. How these mitigation measures will affect traffic flow through D.B. is unknown at this time. Most of D.B.'s traffic problems are created because of other city's traffic. We can put up a wall that says do not enter D.B. or make Grand Ave. a toll road, which will not happen. The reality is that traffic is increasing. However, past studies were based upon inflated population figures for Chino Hills and D.B. She asked to have the item placed on the agenda but the terminology was not hers. Council reaffirmed the General Plan in December, 1996. However, Council did not tell the Mayor that he had permission to go to a County Supervisor and ask for a regional roadway. When she found out that the Mayor went to the Supervisor and asked for the option of a regional bypass corridor, she felt that it was such an important issue for the City that it should be put on the agenda and if the Council agrees with implementation and pursuit of a roadway, let it be out in the open for the public. Council is not going to agree on everything. A regional bypass corridor is not on any plans for funding for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. The General Plan says that the roadway cannot be in the SEA. That is the area that is going to be purchased by the Wildlife Conservation Authority once they get the funding. Our issue is with the Boy Scouts and the possibility of having a roadway. If we are going to have a roadway in D.B.'s Sphere of Influence, the issue is whether it will go over the Boy Scout property or if it will go into Orange County and the City of Brea and onto the SR57. Brea does not wish to have any road go through its City so where is it going to end? If we are going to discuss it, we need to discuss it with the Boy Scouts. The Scouts are not sure where the property boundaries are exactly right now. Are we asking for us to preserve our option to have a regional bypass corridor? If, in the future the Boy Scouts do not plan to camp there anymore, what action FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL are we asking for? Are we asking for us to have a right -of -dedication, an easement of the Boy Scout property? If the sale of the Boy Scout property goes through, will that include a contingency that D.B. will be allowed the option of a regional corridor or an easement over that property. Would that hold up the sale of this property? Or is it going to be D.B. dealing with the Boy Scouts on having a road go over their piece of property? These are the areas that we need to discuss and if we are going to discuss this outwardly and say we are going to implement our General Plan as each of us perceives it in a slightly different way on a course of action for traffic mitigation, and there is mitigation going on, then maybe we need to have that out in black and white. She is not against a transportation corridor; however, the has had five years of tumultuous General Plan problems and concerns about open space issues, concerns about the Tonner Canyon roadway, if it ever occurred. I served on this canyon road committee and the committee had many heated debates on this issue. The committee discussed that if the corridor were to be built, it would be environmentally sensitive. The primary concern was for traffic mitigation and not a roadway. Who would pay for construction of the road? Would it be a toll road? It's not going to be tomorrow, it's not going to be in five years and it may not be for 20 years if it is to go through. The City may also need another traffic study. When do we do another traffic study? Do we do a traffic study knowing that the populations of these cities are not quite what they had been when the studies were done before or do we wait until after the traffic mitigation implementation? What is in the best interest for us to do a another traffic study that has more up-to-date information? Do we want to have the roadway going over the Boy Scout property? CANerner believed that the responsibility lies with L.A. County. For years the County has poorly dealt with the creation of D.B.'s traffic design. The City does what it can within its boundaries. The property in question is outside of the City's boundaries. The best the City can do is to influence jurisdictions outside the City's boundaries as to how they can make decisions. One of the best things D.B. can do to protect the interest of the City is to influence the County to take it upon themselves to resolve a traffic issue that they, for the most part, have overlooked for many years. MIHuff stated that, with respect to who would pay for a bypass roadway, the City does not know. He understood the frustration about a roadway that has no beginning or ending. What the General Plan states is where a roadway will not be located. To abandoned the compromise plan that became the City's General Plan puts the City back at the beginning of the arguments. It seems that the City has to look at every option in balance -- traffic mitigation and preservation of open space. How are we paying for it? Don't know. Because there is no road identified, engineering costs and methodology cannot be FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL determined. The matter is not at that point. He said he wishes it could be said that there is a road scheduled from point A to point B and that it could be built in five years and here is how we are going to do it. We're not there. Does that mean we give up our ability to implement such a roadway in the future? That would be going against our charge as Council Members to look after the best interests of the City. We have the ability to accomplish two things -- preserve Tonner Canyon and obtain an environmentally sensitive roadway. One speaker asked for the definition of an environmentally sensitive roadway. The definition is spelled out on Page V-8 in the General Plan. Mr. Edmiston, Wildlife Corridor and Santa Monica's Mountains Conservancy Executive Director said that this roadway, as described in D.B.'s General Plan, would not cause a problem with the wildlife corridor. Because transportation and development issues create the most stress, the City needs to deal with them sensitively. Ignoring or cutting off one of the options for a transportation corridor does not mean the problem goes away -- it causes more stress. Council agrees there is a transportation problem. How do you solve the problem? My answer is that you .do not solve them by cutting off options. You solve them by keeping options open. Then, as the City completes studies, as we see the HOV relieves a certain amount of traffic, Chino Hills does not buildout as much as they anticipated, and perhaps Ontario does something for its traffic that doesn't relay it through Edison, then there is no need for a roadway. If these measures don't mitigate the problem, we haven't cut ourselves off by building a block wall and therefore become the ones paying the price for the expansion of others. I don't think the residents of D. B. deserve that option. I know I don't want to live in that kind of community. I want the open space and I want the traffic mitigation. With respect to how citizens know their interests are being conveyed to Supervisor Knabe, he read Council Standards Section III, Paragraph A. The position of Council is spelled out by the General Plan. What is all of this discussion about? He represented the policy of the General Plan to Supervisor Knabe. Throughout the Plan, it talks about the City's traffic problem, the need for regional solutions and balances those statements with protection of our sensitive ecological area, protection of Tonner Canyon and of preserving our open spaces. No Council Member is arguing these policies. Virtually everyone who has spoken against a roadway has identified that issue. When he speaks of "phantom" issue, he is referring to that issue. We have identified a road through Tonner Canyon. That is not what any of us are advocating and yet, that is what some are speaking against. Regarding statements that Chino Hills creates D.B.'s traffic problems, he agreed. So, what does the City do about it now that it is D.B.'s problem? The solution is that another roadway is built to handle the Chino Hills traffic. Why would D.B. want to have 40,000 additional vehicles on its City streets if we can bypass them directly from Chino Hills down to Orange County. ClWerner is accurate when he states FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL that this is the County's problem. One of the main reasons D.B. became a City was because it was left in the lurch most of the time when it came to planning issues. As Ms. Schlotterbeck stated, a roadway is not even on L.A. County's General Plan. There is currently a private roadway through the middle of Tonner Canyon. This is a L.A. County problem. D.B. doesn't own the Canyon and D.B. cannot control what happens with the property -- we can only suggest that the County may have overlooked the fact that D.B. is being choked by cut -through traffic and if the County had done its job properly, a roadway would exist and incidentally, if a roadway is built, D.B. would like for the roadway to be environmentally sensitive so that we can have critters that have the ability to transverse the roadway. For those who advocate eliminating the possibility of a roadway, you abdicate your responsibility. A General Plan option contained in the Master Environmental Assessment, Page II -T-55, states that "this roadway (Soquel Canyon) would result in negligible reductions to future traffic volumes within D.B." That is a non -solution. It may be wonderful to build a roadway there for someone, but besides it being blocked by Chino Hills State Park, it would not help D.B. Carbon Canyon has been designated a scenic highway by Chino Hills and Brea and is not likely to be widened. The only area left that is described in the City's General Plan that can be used for a regional bypass is the Tonner Canyon area. If the 71 fwy. expansion, the HOV lanes, the SR57/SR60 interchange mitigate the problem, then we don't need the road. He felt that Ms. Schlotterbeck had the most informed presentation; however, there is a very detailed public process that needs to take place and nobody can force such a roadway without due process. If the people don't want it, regardless of how choked the City is by traffic, a roadway won't happen. But to close the door now because we can't determine how advanced the problem might be 20 years hence, would not be in the best interest of D. B. C/Harmony stated that the Boy Scouts plan to move their camp (new buildings and infrastructure) to the southeast portion of Tonner Canyon. Two members of Council are asking for a floating easement on any part of the Boy Scout property during the sale of the other 3500 acres which is environmentally sensitive. That means that the Boy Scouts, who may invest as much as $20,000,000 for their camp, would stand to lose their investment. Nobody is willing to pay for that. The $10,000,000 is not sufficient to pay for this additional expense. Mr. Edmiston stated that the Conservancy is purchasing the property for $5,000 per acre. The Boy Scouts have to put up money for future risk. If the Scouts attempt to obtain a loan five years from now, it must be collateralized. How would a bank appraise collateral property which contains a floating easement? D.B. does not have the money to pay for such an easement. What D.B. is saying is that it does not want the sale to proceed -- it wants Supervisor Knabe to sit on the FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL $10,000,000, keep D.B.'s options open, and give the City a floating easement we aren't going to pay for even though there will be nothing left over by the time we get through working you over. This is a deal killer because the Boy Scouts would not proceed because they would lose their equity. The intent of participating on the Wildlife Conservancy Authority Board was to insure that all of the involved cities could preserve the wildlife corridor that runs from Whittier to the Cleveland National Forest. WCCA was created to help create grant situations, contributions, donations, etc. To protect the cities, we said we don't want to have eminent domain and we don't want a new taxing authority. Now they're coming in here complaining because we don't have control on the fact that the organization that we established has decided that this is a worthy purchase at a reasonable price. Something is wrong. I would suggest that Ms. Schlotterbeck is here to protect the acquisition of the 3500 acres even if she realizes that the roadway will most likely never happen. He agreed with C/Ansari in that the Agenda had not been designated to write it off as simply as an aggressive support of the General Plan and of keeping our options - it's a real twist of the words. Let's set policy and let Council vote on policy. C/Ansari stated that she never said she was against a transportation corridor if it is needed in the future. However, she asked why this is a "do or die" situation that we have to have our options open? How do we know our options will be closed if we don't step in now? This is something that may occur in 10, 15 or 20 years. How do we know our options are closed? Is there something here that is covering up some hidden agenda? When Joe Edmiston was here, he discussed the fact that they were paying $5,000 per acre for the property for the Wildlife Conservation which was an unheard of fee for an acre of property in this area. Because of the price, she did not feel that the Boy Scouts would make a deal to have an easement for a transportation corridor as part of the deal. They may walk away from the sale totally if this is going to be thrown in. Where is this easement going to be? The bottom line is , the City' s options have a price. Who's going to pay that price? If the City is asking for its options to be preserved, spell out what they are. C/Werner asked for clarification as to why the item was on the agenda and what C/Ansari would like to have done with respect to this matter. This is a community issue, a General Plan issue and a traffic and open space issue. The issue is not whether this is a deal killer for the Boy Scouts, the issue is whether it is a community killer for D.B. Council is not looking out for the best interests of the Boy Scouts. Let the County make the decision of how to spend, when to spend and who to spend $10,000,000 dollars with. That is not D.B.'s charge. Council has an obligation to uphold the General Plan. C/Ansari stated that the reason she asked for this item to be included FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL in the agenda was that the reaffirmation of the General Plan did not give a clear signal to our Mayor to meet with Supervisor Knabe to ask for a regional transportation corridor. If Council is going to discuss how the General Plan will be implemented, let it be out in the open and vote on it. If Council is going to allow the Mayor to ask for a transportation corridor or the option for a transportation corridor, let it be on the agenda, let it be out in the open and let Council discuss it because this is a sensitive issue. She stated that Council had not given the Mayor direction to discuss the City's options with the Supervisor. Council already has a whole list of mitigation measures for traffic control and how it will be accomplished. She also expressed concern about unclear "options" with no plan for funding. M/Huff stated that he felt the implication was that he talked with Supervisor Knabe without clear direction but that the General Plan is a policy document containing very specific directions. In his opinion, it is not consistent with the General Plan when the door is closed to options. The Plan contains wording that Soquel Canyon is not a viable option. MPT/Herrera disagreed with M/Ansari in that a Council Member should be able to support and enforce the General Plan without first going to Council for a vote. She felt it was not an accurate understanding of what the policy document means. The Mayor is the chief representative of the City and it is his duty and obligation to uphold the General Pian as it is the obligation of all Council Members to enforce the General Plan. She stated that she would not apologize to the Wildlife Corridor for trying to doing something to improve the quality of life in D.B. She did not feel that anything deviating from the General Plan had been discussed or negotiated. Every discussion has tracked with policies outlined in the General Plan. As for why the City should leave its options open now, she felt it would be grossly irresponsible. Council has an obligation to do what they can to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. C/Harmony stated that the Grand Ave. agreement with San Bernardino County set the date for 1994 for implementation of the assessment district. He did not feel ail Council Members were kept fully informed. Until the night the agenda item to support the General Plan with respect to a bypass corridor requested by MPT/Herrera was discussed, Council was unaware that she was asking for an easement. Mr. Edmiston told Council that C/Herrera was asking for a floating easement. The Mayor indicated that he kept Council up to date with copies of letters to Supervisor Knabe. He read the following from a letter written by M/Huff: "Just a short note to let you know how much I appreciate your taking out time of your busy schedule to meet with Terry Belanger and me at the change in status of the Boy Scout Reservation property and its impacts to Diamond Bar. As you know, FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL $10,000,000, keep D. B: s options open, and gine Na City a floating BIIW�aIB�1g0i�g�p�Y�a�dluuugn�o��iii ���n��g Izflme�6ytl1�tnm ;�ttl�roughwo��gyouou2� ihisisatl�l w1�� b��e V� Boy S�Is could �I p�� becau� d�ey wou� A ill] Ltill 11 111 Nil I r T 11 1 TP' I lose them �quiry the ime�t � ��apatl� on tl�z Wiltlll� CO�ua�C Phi �atdW�clOulS�e�1811��e1OV01V� ioze JusIL edmlk Sys iwsw a hsanbs�iva au Ns Mpgp�c MII� P62?6P F� 2P? X19 g O�s�, pM% �pA AN I j64 0MP1N611U16 M6 G( 40n P ARIA 6 OA6l' ju1212 nuagil FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL C/Harmony stated this is not a development but a sale of property negotiation. The Boy Scouts will have a great deal of up -front investment money. The City does not have the money to pay for the easement. It's not like cutting a road and keeping an option open on a tract that is being developed. Mr. Edmiston indicated that these are very sensitive negotiations and adding this requirement could kill the deal. If a bypass corridor (Chino Hills Expressway) is so important and the needs assessment determines a bypass corridor is needed, it will be a logical and scientific conclusion, which is what the motion is asking for and not the interference that will kill a deal and leave it open to developers. In response to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger responded that the City has had no communication with Supervisor Knabe regarding his meeting with the Boy Scouts. Following discussion, the City Clerk restated the motion: "To direct the Mayor to tell Supervisor Knabe to release the funds for acquisition of Tonner Canyon and request that he put.together a regional traffic needs assessment." Motion failed by the following Roil Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Werner, MPT/Herrera, MIHuff ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None C/Werner explained that he voted no because D.B. does not control the funds and it makes no sense for the City to assume the position of telling the Supervisor to release funds. In response to ClWerner, CM/Belanger stated that the General Plan is the policy of D.B. As such, staff has a responsibility to implement the goals, objectives and strategies that are embodied in the General Plan. With regard to this particular matter, the issue of the regional bypass corridor became ripe because there is a proposed change in status of the property - a proposed change in ownership and possible land use status. Any citizen may express his or her views to the Supervisor. D.B. has not entered into any negotiations related to this issue. If there were to be any kind of tacit agreement on the part of either party involved in the negotiation to consider some kind of future option with the City, that matter would have to be brought before Council with specific directions to the City's potential negotiator. D.B. is not there yet. With respect to the area in question, two issues exist: The preservation of open space within the SEA and an attempt to create options relating to the regional bypass corridor. Staffs intent, as well as the intent of other Council Members, has been to satisfy both General Plan goals and objectives. CJWerner moved, MPT/Herrera seconded, to approve staff s FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL retention of the City of Diamond Bar's ability to implement a General Plan in the Sphere of Influence area is essential both in preserving open space and in mitigating regional traffic impacts. One cannot occur without the other. We thank you for your willingness to assist and look forward to working with you as we move forward to a final solution to the regional bypass corridor issue." ClHarmony stated that the letter does not mention the floating easement nor does it indicate that he requested the Supervisor to hold up the funding. That information was obtained from a letter from Supervisor Knabe's office. The information was confirmed by Mr. Edmiston during a prior Council meeting. Supervisor Knabe also indicated in writing to Council that the negotiations are sensitive and that they can be stalled. He explained that what he and C/Ansari were requesting is to ensure preservation of the SEA which will not happen unless somebody buys it. ClHarmony moved, C/Ansari seconded, to direct the Mayor to ask Supervisor Knabe to release the funds for the Tonner Canyon 3500 acre acquisition and put together a regional traffic needs assessment. C/Werner asked how Council could release funds that do not belong to them. In response to C[Werner, MIHuff reported that he did not ask that funds not be released. He further indicated that, for clarification, he did not ask Supervisor Knabe to hold up funds. C/Werner stated that the voters approved Prop A and D.B. has no say in the disbursement of these funds. There is no mention in the motion that respects the needs of D.B. with regard to a regional bypass corridor. When the General Plan policy to establish an open space program and to preserve Tonner Canyon was incorporated, he wondered where the funds would come from. Prop A changed all that and a major open space purchase can be accomplished. Even at the time of Wildlife Corridor Conservation Committee Charter, it was anticipated that no such funding would be available. Many people thought at the time that if someone could provide the funding, let them buy the property. Providing for an easement option in L.A. County is not so far fetched when you consider that in order for the land transaction between the Boy Scouts and WCCA to proceed, a parcel map must be created and adopted to split the parcels that are being transferred. If this is an option that the City can preserve by means of its General Plan policy and put the impetus on the County to place that kind of a condition on the transaction, who is the City to say no. He felt that if the City said no and did not include such an option in the motion, then Council would be closing their eyes and the door. He would be willing to support the basic concept of the motion, but would like to see an amendment. FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL recommendation that the City Council support the continuation of Council and staff efforts to pursue the implementation of the numerous goals, objectives and strategies of the General Plan related to the creation of a regional bypass corridor which would route traffic around D.B. C/Harmony asked C/Werner if his motion means that the Mayor and staff will continue their policy of asking Supervisor Knabe for a floating easement as part of the Boy Scout property purchase negotiations. CM/Belanger reiterated that the City of D.B. did not request that the monies be withheld by the Supervisor. That was the Supervisor's decision. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Werner, MPT/Herrera, M/Huff NOES: COUNCIL_ MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None C/Harmony stated that he voted no because the motion was not clear. C/Ansari stated that she voted no because she did not believe that it is the major implementation. The other traffic mitigation is just as important and her concerns were options which were not spelled out. C/Wemer stated that, for the record, the motion as clarified prior to the motion, incorporates the preservation of open space and an amendment to the motion was never offered by any other Council Member. M/Huff reiterated that the motion would have to be consistent with the General Plan, 9. NEW BUSINESS: None 10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS: C/Ansari stated that she is planning a fall, 1997 San Gabriel Conservancies Consortium seminar. She invited Council Members and the City Manager to attend a legislative summit on Friday, April 11, 1997 at the USC Davidson Center. C/Harmony stated that some of MPT/Herrera's confusion regarding the Tonner Canyon purchase may be attributed to the fact that she did not attend the early meetings. M/Huff announced that COG received its final report on February 6, 1997. The impact to the San Gabriel Valley is significant. Traffic delays will double and volumes will triple in the next 20 years. The cost to grade separate the FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL key interchanges will be approximately $950,000,000. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the San Gabriel Valley to lobby various sources of funding. He invited Council Members to attend the February 20, 1997 report presentation. He also reported that three Council Members, the City Manager and about 40 others traveled to Sanhsia, Taiwan, for the Sister City festivities. MPT/Herrera stated that she will meet with members of the public to present a brief overview of the Sanhsia trip on Wednesday, March 5, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. in the conference room at City Hall. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS: All Council Members expressed their condolences to the family of Oscar Law. 12. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 13. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, MIHuff adjourned the meeting in memory of Oscar Law at 11:00 p.m. ATTEST: May LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk