HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/1993 Minutes - Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 16, 1993
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by Mayor Miller.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen
Forbing, Werner, and MacBride.
Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; James
DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess,
City Clerk.
2. CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING: CM/Belanger stated that the
.intent of this Public Hearing is to receive testimony on any
issue associated with the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano introduced the members of the consultant team,
retained by the City in March 1993 to further develop the
draft General Plan: Michael Jenkins, special legal counsel
from the law firm of Richards, Watson. and Gershon, not
present; Daniel Iacofano, of Moore, Iacofano and Goltsman, to
facilitate the public workshop process; Terry Austin, of
Austin/Faust, to assist in the Circulation Element, not
present; and Dale Beland, of Cotton/Beland Associates, for
development of General Plan policy issues. This is the fifth
Public Hearing in a series to introduce and consider the
adoption of the 1993 General Plan. Staff reviewed a variety
of workshop and Public Hearing, comments to develop the
specific policy recommendations framed in the 1993 draft
General Plan, which has been distributed to a wide variety of
people and available for public review at City Hall and the
library, which can be either purchased or borrowed.
Dale Beland stated that the 1993 General Plan is still in
draft form and subject to revisions. The revisions to the
Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), which is part of the
General Plan, containing descriptive data, has not yet been
submitted because most of the data remain current and any time
dependent changes can be made easily. He then reviewed the
following proposed substantial areas of change which reflect
a significant difference from the 1992 General Plan:
1. The need to increase and amplify policy definition with
respect to retention of existing deed -restricted open
space throughout the community;
2. To address how the City deals with the regional circu-
lation system and reduce circulation impacts on local
streets;
3. A goal to try to retain, revitalize, and promote viable
commercial activity in the community;
4. Provision for well-maintained, attractive housing;
5. Creation of a community environment which nurtures
social, cultural and recreational opportunities;
JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE 2
6. Describes the partnership implied between members of the
community and their elected representatives in working
together to attain the vision in the future;
7. A description of the community participation program in
revising the 1992 General Plan;
S. A proposed substantial reduction in buildout intensity
throughout much of the developed single family area by
reflecting the land use policy map to allow only that
development that currently exists in most of the single
family area;
9. Change of the land use designation for the Tres Hermanos
Ranch Property from Specific Plan to Agricultural;
10. A graphic illustrating the corporate boundaries of the
City, the Sphere of Influence, and the Firestone Boy
Scout reservation to help provide the basis for
understanding of the significant regional factors that
affect the City's future, its circulation system and its
land use options;
11. The location and extent of SEA #15;
12. The intent of the City to use proactive and creative
tools to acquire any land for open space;
13. Changing the Land Use Map reflecting the reclassification
of substantial existing single family neighborhoods, the
adjustment and density classifications, the change of the
maximum intensity of -the RLM category, and the physical
changes in terms of the Tres Hermanos property; and
14. A draft addendum allowing -minor modifications of non -
substantive issues to the EIR and MEA.
He recommended that the Council review the changes made
beginning with the Land Use Element.
MPT/Papen, referring to I-11 in the Land Use Element, item
1.1.1.d, in which Medium Density Residential is designated as
16DU/AC, stated that it was agreed upon that vacant land, in
that category, would have a density of 12 DU/AC thereby
distinguishing between vacant land and developed land. Also,
the Tres Hermanos property should also be listed on page I-12,
item 1.1.9, Agricultural Designation. She then noted the
discrepancies between the tables, in the Land Use and Housing
Element, determining the number of units in the City.
Dale Beland stated that the consultant team will adjust those
changes accordingly. Staff will also go through and confirm
the existing land use data, then factor in the changes
discussed to date, enabling us to modify the Housing Element
and the Land Use Element, appropriately. Those changes will be
shown to the Council before the final document is published.
Dale Beland, in response to C/MacBride, explained that the
proposed language on page 1-7, to determine which land must be
defined as open space, and page I-16, strategy 1.5.3, which
incorporates the significant operative legal statement based'
upon the testimony received, are policy issues that will have
to be defined by the Council because it involves precluding',
,�-.. v...
"R, _AIR M,..R ... �
JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE 3
development which implies necessity to purchase so as not to
deprive property owners of their rights.
M/Miller opened the Continued Public Hearing.
Oscar Law indicated that he will need further time to digest
the document presented.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, referring to page I-6,
inquired what regional circulation studies were sponsored by
the County of L.A. that included a proposed transportation
corridor. Upon hearing that Terry Austin, who is not present,
would need to respond, he suggested that the public should be
given an opportunity to review those documents before any
final decision is made.
Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch, referring to page I-11,
suggested that the slope density be changed from 25% to 15%
because of slope slippage occurring throughout the City.
There should also be a strict Hillside Ordinance in place.
Referring to page I-12, she inquired if parcels can be
subdivided and then further subdivided. .She also suggested
that property restrictions should include a map restriction
besides the deed and the CCR's.
ME
MPT/Papen pointed out that page I-16 refers to deed and/or map
- restrictions, and page I-13, strategy 1.2.8, refers to..bonus
densities.
Don Schad stated that the document needs to address
preservation of the City's natural resources by including a
provision that no development will occur until a tree
ordinance, other than that of the County's, is in place, as
well as mention the preservation of Sandstone Canyon, Sycamore
Canyon or Tonner Canyon. Any mention of a roadway or
development of Tonner Canyon should be removed from the
document.
Bill Tinsman, 1014 Capen Ave., noting that there are two page
I-12 in his copy of the document, requested that everyone be
given the same copy of the document so all errors and
revisions are exactly the same.
Dale Beland stated that, for the record, the correct page I-
12, is the one which contains redline and strikeout.
Greg Hummel, 23239 Iron Horse Canyon Rd., referring to page I-
17, strategy 1.5.6, suggested that the language be changed by
striking the word "and", replacing it with a comma, replacing
the period with a comma, and adding "bond issue, donation,
will bequeath, conservancy purchase, and subsequent donation
to the City, etc." thereby expanding the scope of that
strategy. He also stated that he concurs with Mr. Schad's
request for wording in the General Plan regarding tree
preservation in the City.
JUNE 16, 1993
PAGE A
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., referring
to page I-7 and page I-16, expressed_ concern that since it has
been stated that map restrictions can be lifted, the document
should be amended to indicate,both deed and map restriction.
Max Maxwell requested a more defined statement of the maximum
number of homes that can be built in the City, other than just
indicating "3,000 homes less." He expressed concern that the
General Plan does not adequately address the issues discussed
during the workshops. There also needs to be more definitive
language on preservation and on SEA #15.
Eric Stone, 24401 Darrin Drive, concerned with down zoning,
indicated that the General Plan'is_being changed because of a
select few that may or may not have the best interests of the
City in mind.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that she does not appreciate
people questioning her motives.
William Gross, 21637 High Bluff, stated that the General Plan
is not reflective of the interest that supported the
referendum. Though the Council has indicated that an
Agricultural designation for Tonner Canyon will protect it, it
is- actually merely a flexible designation for some future
ideas, which is evident in the Tres Hermanos Ranch property,
which is also designated Agricultural, yet planned to be
developed commercial and residential. Furthermore, the exact
homes planned to be developed need to be identified so that it
can be debated in the Land Use Element. The General Plan
referendum process was to put the thrust of the General Plan
toward preservation of open space and the quality of life.
Yet the documentation and provisions in this General Plan
provide for easy development of- any of the City's open
resources. The changes made to the 1992 General Plan have
been minimal to create the appearance of change, and those
changes cannot be considered to be substantial, and the end
result of the General Plan will remain the same. Furthermore,
though the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the potential
results, the City's consultants have indicated that there is
no substantive difference between this 1993 General Plan
document and the 1992 document; the one the EIR was based on.
Therefore, by definition, the 1993 General Plan is
substantially the same.
Clair Harmony, referring to page I-16, strategy 1.5.6,
inquired what is meant by the concept of "density transfer" in
relationship to open space.
Dale,,.,Beland explained that the purpose of strategy 1.5.6 is to
indicate policy intent by the City to explore "creative ways"
of acquiring land other than through direct purchase.
"Density transfer" refers to the process of taking a total
area, using the planned permitted''total buildout for that
total area, and then by deliberate effort, identify portions
to., K " ARM ..F_ ,., M,� �,. � ,
JUNE 16, 1993 E 5
r -
which are best suited for nondevelopment, and then, by
negotiation, transfer the allowable units for the total area
to those portions of the site most suited for development and
least suited for open space.
Bill Tinsman, referring to I-11, requesting clarification
between the strikeout (c), allowing 6DU/AC, and highlighted
(c), allowing 5DU/AC, stated that he was under the impression
that there is not an actual downzoning of the property rights,
but more of a recognition of the differences within our
community.
Dale Beland stated that the intent of the strategy is to
establish policy that shows designation based upon existing
use.
Max Maxwell inquired if the parcels with an Open Space
designation, such as the area generally south of Pathfinder,
have a 1DU/AC designation and if it can be subdivided in the
future. Perhaps those areas should be acquired by the City so
that they remain as open space, which is the desire of the
community.
_ MPT/Papen stated that the land use map does designate the land
- use description described in the Land Use Element. Those
parcels designated Open Space equal the definition of open
�- space, which is vacant land, deed restricted.
Eric Stone stated that his property is unique because its
frontages include residential and commercial, a freeway, is
being considered for use as an access to the new high school,
and was purchased for its future use. The downzoning verbiage
should take into consideration unique properties, perhaps
based on size and taxes paid.
C/Werner pointed out that the intent in the City's initial
General Plan was to establish a basic foundation that is
reasonable and practical given the level of resources
available today. The General Plan is a policy document that
is supposed to be dynamic and reflective of the community as
time proceeds. Since some properties have been zoned without
looking at all opportunities for future development, such as
the Tres Hermanos Ranch property and perhaps Mr. Stone's
property, then there is a need to do an analysis of every
vacant piece of land to identify the financial resources and
other financial opportunities in order to make commitments to
acquire them for open space, or to be considered for
commercial use, low density residential, and higher intensity
commercial use. Furthermore, a lot of good thoughts expressed
at the workshops have not yet been explored or analyzed at
this forum, and it is important to review those issues so that
�s the Council becomes a part of the workshop process and gives
it due consideration.
MPT/Papen stated that such a suggestion is more appropriate as
JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE 6
a followup strategy after the adoption of the General Plan.;+.;ryd
M/Miller directed the discussion to the Circulation Element.
Terry Austin reviewed the following revisions to the
Circulation Element: change in semantics involving maximum
volume; a need to define TDM; change in basic formatting; a
clean up in functional - classifications; define an
"environmentally -sensitive transportation corridor" in order
to address the Tonner Canyon' roadway, without a line on the
map, the roadway figure map B-1 notes a potential corridor
connection up in the northern part of the City and in the
south area in the Sphere of Influence, pointing out that these
points would need connection whatever might happen in this
corridor; the same approach taken for Tonner Canyon is taken
for the high school site, recognizing that there are several
ways to provide access to the site; and page V-5, strategy
1.1.4, has an explicit statement of policy by the City to
proactively work with adjacent jurisdictions.
MPT/Papen, referring to page V-14, stated that her requested
word change regarding the Metrolink station still needs to be
inserted.
CM/:Belanger stated that the language "regional transportation
linkage", on page V-5, strategy item 1.1.4, is inconsistent
with the Issue Analysis #4 on page V-3. If strategy 1.1.4 was
adopted, then Issue Analysis #4 would have to be amended to
reflect that change and emphasis because Tonner Canyon is not
expressly designated as a regionally sensitive corridor.
Tom Van Winkle, in support of the definition section on page
V-11, suggested that perhaps this should be done in the other
Elements as well.
Don Gravdahl expressed concern that the entire length of
Sunset Crossing has been designated as a collector street and
is described to be 80 feet wide, even though a portion of it
services 660 homes, a condominium project and some commercial
and is probably more like 45 feet long. Furthermore, though,
page V-4; item 7, does add language describing Sunset Crossing
in length, if the suggestion made to cul-de-sac the street
does not happen, then there will need to be further provisions
because the traffic created will be horrendous.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that table V-1, on page V-13, should
be clarified to illustrate Sunset Crossing, both east and west
of the freeway, because there are -significant differences in
the width and the intended use'of those streets. Figure V-1,
on page V-14, should also be adjusted to clarify the specific
line weights.
C/Werner asked if collectors are shown in this document
because they are to be treated in a different manner than non -
collector streets.
AIR M_
IUM,
JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE 7
Terry Austin explained that collectors or local streets are
shown because there are often some funding capabilities
available for a roadway that is in a Circulation Element
versus one that is not. Another reason for putting it in the
General Plan Circulation Element is if there is an interest in
doing something, such as closing of a street that
significantly changes travel patterns, then it would require
a General Plan amendment to make such a change. Consulting
staff will take a critical look at this section, in light of
the environmental documentation, and clarify the map and the
language for all roadways.
Greg Hummel stated that GPAC had recommended cul-de-sacing
Sunset Crossing to avoid traffic problems from the City of
Industry and Cal Poly. He then expressed concern that there
is an implied weight of importance given by the order of the
seven primary issues listed, relative to the Circulation
Element. He suggested that the first priority should be to
increase the attractiveness of State routes 57 and 60 for
through traffic use, and the last priority should be the
development of Tonner Canyon as an alternative travel
corridor. Referring to the definition of an environmentally -
sensitive transportation corridor indicated on page V-11, he
k-,
suggested that the number one issue should read, "A corridor
;i should be designed to non -adversely impact the ecological
diversity, population and overall ecologic balance of.-. -the
area." He then suggested that there be one more Public
Hearing for additional input because many people of .the
community did not have adequate time to review the draft.
M/Miller stated that another Public Hearing is scheduled for
July 6, 1993 for an opportunity for the community to provide
input; however, since there have been some people requesting
more time, another meeting will be scheduled for June 23,
1993.
Norman Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., stated that
the specifications from L.A. County, as indicated on the chart
on page V-13, is outdated, particularly Pathfinder Rd. He
then stated that Chino Hills Parkway should be the road keep-
ing traffic out of Diamond Bar. Also, if a Tonner Canyon Rd.
must go in, then the developers should have to pay for it.
Max Maxwell suggested that there be further discussion on the
appropriateness of having another meeting on June 23, 1993,
without giving sufficient notice to the public. He further
suggested that the graphic, on page V-13, be more detailed to
include the San Bernardino border and the Orange County line.
He then concurred with the suggestion made by Greg Hummel.
Wilbur Smith also concurred with Greg Hummel that the 57/60
I nterchange should be the primary emphasis in solving the
City's traffic problem. If there are solid, technical reasons
why improvements cannot be made at that interchange, then it
should be so indicated in the document. Referring to page V-
JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE S
11, Mr. Smith suggested that there be more consideration madeil��''a
to the process of building a Tanner Canyon corridor because
that is how damage to the canyon will occur.
Don Schad inquired when C/Werner's suggestion, to convert the
issues discussed at the workshops into a punch list, will be
done. He recommended that a committee be formed to plan a
trails configuration that will be: compatible to the City's
existing wilderness areas, yet be reasonably safe for hiking.
He then stated that impact to wildlife and ecological damage,
just from association of a road through Tanner Canyon, no
matter how environmentally perfectly designed, will
nonetheless occur.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, referring to the statement "an
environmentally safe road" on page V-11, inquired what is
meant by having a "positive drainage control" since oil from
vehicles does build up and seep into the ground. There is a
need to seriously consider the ramifications of a road through
Tanner Canyon.
Max Maxwell suggested that the City confer with So. Calif.
Edison to discuss possible limitations when doing something
"environmentally sensitive." He then inquired what happen to
the funds to pay for a study in Tanner Canyon, from the JCC
developers, for the project the City approved in SEA #15.
There should also be some recognition of the study done by Dr.
Paul Beiers regarding cougars.
Bill Tinsman, referring to figure V-1 on page V-13, stated
that there seems to be inconsistencies in the definitions of
the terms "major," "minor," and "secondary" roadways.
Furthermore, Brea Canyon is shown to have four lanes; however,
the bulk of the road only has -two lanes and it shouldn't be
considered to be a "secondary" or a "minor" road, especially
if there is a proposal for a future development in that area.
CDD/DeStefano conveyed the following comments made by Audrey
Hamiltons the term "corridor" in the phrase It
environmentally sensitive corridor°° should be replaced by the
word "roadway;" the definition for the "corridor" could be too
environmentally sensitively written by discouraging single
occupant vehicles; and the roadway should be on the east side
of the Sphere of Influence thus taking it out of Tanner Canyon
and out of the Significant Ecological Area.
C/MacBride, referring to the suggestion made by Greg Hummel to
put the improvement of the 57/60 interchange first on the list
of issues on page V-4, inquired of staff if the goals,
strategies and objectives are all prioritized in order of .;
immediacy and urgency. If not, would a caveat stating that
f
the structure is not prioritized be appropriate.
CM/Belanger stated that there is not, nor is it intended, that
any priority, as it relates to these issue statements, be
F-
JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE 9
taken from the order by which they are listed. There are a
variety of means available to the Council for stating policy
in terms of priority. There is no implicit or implied
prioritization in any element of the General Plan.
Dale Beland stated that there was never any intention to
establish directly or indirectly any prioritization of issue
statements. By doing so, it would defeat one of the major
functional aspects of the General Plan and restrict
flexibility in future decisions unnecessarily. The concern
can be responded to by a caveat that explicitly says that
there is no prioriity.
MPT/Papen suggested that the word "proposed" be deleted from
strategy 2.1.4, on page V-6. Another issue that needs
resolving is the inconsistency between Issue Analysis #4 on
page V-3, and strategy 1.1.5 on page V-5, as pointed out by
CM/Belanger.
CM/Belanger explained that, since it is the intent to remove
reference to Tonner Canyon for the purpose of constructing an
alternative environmentally sensitive regional transportation
corridor around the City of Diamond Bar, in accordance with
the statement now on strategy 1.1.4 on page V-5, then there
will be internal inconsistency through the balance of,.,,;: -the
General Plan and the Circulation Element as it relates: to
specific references to Tonner Canyon.
C/Werner requested that figure V-1 extend Grand Ave. and Chino
Hills Parkway to their intersection.
RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
M/Miller directed the discussion to the Resource Management
Element.
Dale Beland, in response to a comment made by Mr. Gross,
clarified that because the certified EIR describes a series of
impacts or worst case analyses, which is a much larger impact
than what this particular draft would involve, then that EIR
document can suffice with the addition of the addendum
document.
Dale Beland stated that the issues in the 1992 General Plan
Resource Management Element are still relevant, with the
exception of one added on page III -12, which is now identified
as strategy 1.3.9 and is consistent with what was added to the
Land Use Element regarding discussion with neighboring
jurisdictions regarding the location of the recreational water
facility.
Don Schad stated that there are still blueline streams, ridge -
lines, hills, slopes and other such natural features in the
JUNE 16, 1993
PAGE 10
City that need to be preserved.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that if the City complies with
the statement on page III -1, bullet one, referring to the
creation and retention of open space system which will
conserve natural resources, the majority of the residents will
be appreciative.
CM/Belanger stated that the goals and strategies in the
Resource Management Element deal with a significant number of
concerns expressed related to open space, preservation and
conservation. It is important to remember that it is
essential that all the Elements are read together, not as
separate elements that do not relate to each other.
C/MacBride pointed out that Objective 1.2, on page III -10,
also encourages the maintenance, protection and preservation
of biologically significant areas, including SEA #15., riparian
areas, oak and walnut woodlands and other areas of natural
significance.
MPT/Papen, referring to page III -3, last paragraph, requested
staff to check with Caltrans to verify that route 57 is
actually a State scenic highway. If the legislation was not
passed, then_the.City should consider implementing, as one of
our goals, to achieve the freeway section from the County line
up to the interchange as a scenic corridor.
M/Miller directed the discussion to the Public Health & Safety
Element.
Dale Beland stated that the Public health & Safety Element
addresses geology, seismicity, flooding, fire protection
service, crime protection, emergency services, hazardous
materials, air quality and noise. The MEA is an integral part
of this Element because it contains substantive background
material which identifies resources relevant to this portion
of the Plan. There are not substantial changes to the
document.
Dale Beland, in response to C/Werner, stated that the noise
contour map was adopted as part of the General Plan last year,
and staff will make sure that it is included as part of this
document. He pointed out that on page IV - 4, under Noise,
there is also a description of noise impact area as measured
from the freeway centerlines, etc., which is a textural way of
achieving the same objective.
M/Miller directed the discussion to the Public Services &
Facilities Element.
Dale Beland stated that the Public Services and Facilities'
Element deals with issues of planning construction. There is
no change necessary to achieve internal consistency with the
rest of the draft status.
R
JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE 11
At the request of CM/Belanger, Mr. Beland explained that there
is an overlap of issues and strategies between the Elements to
assure coverage of those issues that receive public scrutiny,
and to facilitate consistency, even to the point of risking
redundancy. This document, with the adjustments made,
responds adequately to the legal mandate of the code, in terms
of format and substance.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne stressed the need for more time to
read and study the document, even though it is the same
document in the 1992 General Plan.
MPT/Papen suggested that there be another Public Hearing held
on June 29, 1993 rather than June 23, 1993, as indicated
earlier in the meetinc. The Council concurred.
Norman Beach-Courchesne, referring to item C, Public Services
& Facilities, on page IV -3, inquired if the City is intending
to construct a new City Hall at a future date.
CM/Belanger stated that in all likelihood, there would be
other uses in a civic center besides a City Hall.
C/MacBride, referring to page VI=4, strategy 1.1.5.a.,
inquired if there has been any change in status in the plans
to locate a reservoir in upper Tonner Canyon.
MPT/Papen pointed out =hat the RTD bus system, as referred on
page VI -2, last paragraph, is now the Metropolitan
Transportation Author_ty (MTA), and that Foothill Transit
serves the San Gabriel Valley and D.B.
C/Werner requested that strategy 1.3.1, on page VI -5, be
updated regarding the Pomona Unified School District High
School.
CM/Belanger requested that subparagraph (b) be added to
strategy 1.1.5, on pace VI -4, to deal with working with the
City of Industry on locating a reclaimed water reservoir in
the Tres Hermanos area.
C/MacBride suggested subparagraph (c) also be added to
strategy 1.1.5, on page VI -4, regarding the City of Industry°s
proposed MRF, b?cause it impacts D.B. tremendously. There
should,, at. least )pe a map included that alerts us to the
factors impacting -the City.
C/Forbing pointed out that the Introduction on page I-2, last
paragraph,. indicates that the General Plan must be a
comprehensive planning document covering not only the
geographic area within the City boundaries, but also the areas
adjacent to the City that bear a reasonable relationship to
City planning.
MPT/Papen suggested that a more general statement monitoring
JUNE 16, 1993
PAGE 12
applications regarding waste facilities about be added to
strategy 1.1.5, on page VI -4. The Council concurred.
M/Miller directed the discussion to the Housing Element.
Dale Beland stated that the changes proposed are dependent on
the resolution of land use detail, to be determined. However,
page II -4 was revised to give a summary of housing stock as it
exists today. An update on the numbers will be submitted for
the Council's review by the next meeting. There is no need
for any basic policy change in the document as a result of the
discussion to date. Staff is currently working on the
concerns expressed by ECD regarding the status of the draft.
C/Forbing questioned that there are 9 million people living in
the unincorporated areas of L.A. County, as indicated in the
document.
MPT/Papen, referring to page II -12, stated that low medium
density residential should be 3.1 to 5.0 to be consistent with
the Land Use Element.
C/Forbing noted that the land use designation for Tres
Hermanos, as indicated on page II -12, needs to be changed to
Agricultural.
MPT/Papen stated that table II -5, cost estimate for a new
single housing unit in Diamond Bar, on page II -17, is obsolete
.and should be updated.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: M/Miller directed staff to
contact those individuals whose names and addresses are on the
sheet passed around at an earlier meeting to notify them of
the meeting scheduled for June 29, 1993. He then reported
that the draft General Plan is being referred to the Planning
Commission for its review and recommendation to the City
Council no later than June 29, 1993.
4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to
discuss, M/Miller adjourned the meetinq,,at 7:45 p.m. to June
29, 1993 at 7:00 p.m.
4La Bu);gPi�s , .C)..tv- Clerk
ATTEST:
Mayor i
n f.. � ,. .. t� ;, d re_Gu P. r T•i r., "� " 7-fi ^&dG. `.�.... I:�;I