The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/28/1995cit^ / e0w cou�nc'l/ AGENDA Tuesday, February 28, 1995 6:00 P.M. General Plan Public Hearing South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Phyllis E. Papen Gary H. Werner Council Member Eileen R. Ansari Council Member Clair W. Harmony Council Member Gary G. Miller City Manager Terrence L. Belanger Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery City Clerk Lynda Burgess Copies of staff reports, or other written documentation relating to agenda items, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 860-2489 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking " The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper in the Council Chambers. �'\ _„ and encourages you to do the same. DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES PUBLIC INPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar City Council are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Council on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar City Council. A request to address the Council should be submitted in writing to the City Clerk. As a general rule the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit the public input on any item or the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Council. Individuals are requested to refrain from personal attacks toward Council Members or other persons. Comments which are not conducive to a positive business meeting environment are viewed as attacks against the entire City Council and will not be tolerated. If not complied with, you will forfeit your remaining time as ordered by the Chair. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.3(a) the Chair may from time to time dispense with public comment on items previously considered by the Council. (Does not apply to Committee meetings.) In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the City Council must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Council meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Council may act on an item that is not on the posted agenda. CONDUCT IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Chair shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person who commits the following acts in respect to a regular or special meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council. A. Disorderly behavior toward the Council or any member of the thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. B. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. C. Disobedience of any lawful order ofthe Chair, which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Board; and D. Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly conduct of said meeting. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL Agendas for the regular Diamond Bar City Council meetings are prepared by the City Clerk and are available 72 hours prior to the meeting. Agendas are available electronically and may be accessed by a personal computer through a phone modem. Every meeting of the City Council is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. Sign language interpreter services are also available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 860-2489 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Council, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 860-2489 Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE General Information (909) 860-2489 NOTE: ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM IDENTIFIED ON THE AGENDA. 1. CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:00 P.M. Mayor Papen Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Werner, Mayor Papen 2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - The General Plan is a statement of goals, objectives and strategies to guide the long-range physical development of the City. The plan is required by State law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next 20 years. On February 23, 1995 Council reviewed the Housing Element (HE) and Land Use Element (LUE) and continued the public hearing to Tuesday, February 28, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council continue review of the Land Use Element and direct Staff as necessary. Requested by: Community Development Director 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 4. ADJOURNMENT: C TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT CITY CLERK DATE: 1��J < Lin U't I,v . li PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Sig azure VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL u TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: C �� `� { c �'" DATE:' ADDRESS: l\1 c1 '' vc�C �. ``<<�,.,` V� PHONE: S ! oq ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: Lsk- �r�S E � F Vu,ec.`�' (A <s c� — I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Sign re VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: ,. �rlsfio>cJi /�% ��ll /c:, DATE: ADDRESS: -��✓% / Ci�'ll t Zl�le 1U,Z r PHONE. ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK } Amok- W,t1t ��`x,.' �169G'' Cid-�-�•� � DATE: Z PHONE: PIA I expect to address the Council on, the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM. _(�� y��. DATE: 1J ADDRESS: PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT:; I expect to address the Council on the subject ager name and address as written above. . Please have the Council Minutes reflect my �' SZnature /40 VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK ,4A -) Z /- --7 7th=3 DATE:��/�� PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK .�J -PROM: l�C% 5S , ,�G�Z DATE: ADDRESS:L—PHONE: /�2 G� i ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect for address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. natufe VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS Trie eiTy covncn. TO: CITY CLERK FROM: ,i�il�� S DATE: ADDRESS: PHONE: ?(a f ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT; I expect to address the Council on -the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. J S ' nature CITY OF DIAMOND QAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: February 28, 1995 REPORT DATE: February 24, 1995 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Adoption of the General Plan SUMMARY: The General Plan is a statement of goals, objectives and strategies to guide the long-range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next 20 years. On February 23, 1995, Council completed its review of the Housing Element (HE) and continued its discussion of the Land Use Element. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue the review of the Land Use Element (LUE), reopen the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the matter. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:) Staff Report _ Resolution(s) Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) Other .EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Library SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed' by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager _ Yes _ No N/A MAJORITY _X Yes _ No _ Yes No _X Yes _ No ALL teseStefano nity Dev opment Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: February 28, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of the General Plan ISSUE STATEMENT: State law requires the preparation and adoption of a comprehensive, long term General Plan for the physical development of all property within the City and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning. Upon adoption, the General Plan, through its numerous goals, objectives and strategies, will define development strategy for the next twenty years. BACKGROUND On February 13, 1995 the City Council began its review of the Housing Element. Discussion continued on February 16 incorporating a review of housing opportunity areas and a presentation of the Land Use Element. On February 16 and 23, 1995 the City Council reviewed both Elements. DISCUSSION Review of the Housing Element On February 16 and 23, 1995 the Council reviewed housing opportunity areas as presented by the City staff. Upon conclusion of their review of the Element the Council took action to direct preparation of additional revisions. Copies of the revised Housing Element will be distributed at the forthcoming meeting. Review of the Land Use Element The City Council has continued its review of the Land Use Element in order to address several items related to land owner requests for redesignation of their property and staff recommended revisions. As described within the attached letters, several landowners have proposed changes to the Planning Commission recommended land use designations for their property: 1. Walnut Valley Unified School District has requested a designation of PD, Planned Development for the 78 acre South Pointe Middle School area property and the 28 acre Site "D" 1 CITY OF DIAMOND $AR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: February 28, 1995 REPORT DATE: February 24, 1995 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Adoption of the General Plan SUMMARY: The General Plan is a statement of goals, objectives and strategies to guide the long-range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next 20 years. On February 23, 1995, Council completed its review of the Housing Element (HE) and continued its discussion of the Land Use Element. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue the review of the Land Use Element (LUE), reopen the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the matter. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:& Staff Report _ Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) Other .EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Library SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed' _ Yes _ No by the City Attorney? N/A 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _X Yes No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: ALL REVIEWED BY: R'_P Terrence L. Belanger kes tefano City Manager Community Development Director property located near the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. The Planning Commission recommends a designation of OS, Open Space. 2. Bramelea has requested language within the Land Use Element which would permit implementation of their future development plans for 50 to 70 acres of their 400 acre Diamond Bar Boulevard area property. The Planning Commission recommended a designation of RLJSP and OS/SP permitting a mixed residential and open space product. 3. Shell Oil owns approximately 350 acres located within the Sphere of Influence, requests a reclassification of the property from AG to AG/SP. The request for the addition of a Specific Plan to the Agricultural designation would create consistency with the adjacent Boy Scout property. In addition Shell has requested modifications to the text of the Element. 4. RNP Development has requested a designation for their 68 acre Grand Avenue site consistent with the current zoning classification of RPD -20,000-2U which would permit a two unit per acre residential development. The Planning Commission recommends a designation of OS. 5. The Boy Scouts of America are the owner of approximately 3200 acres within the Sphere of Influence area. An issue for the City Council is to consider an appropriate level of development density for the AG/ SP designated property. 6. Sasak Corporation is requesting a designation of RL for their 6.7 acre site located along Morning Sun Avenue. The three units per acre classification is requested for consistency with the recent City Council conceptual approval of a 21 unit residential subdivision. The Planning commission recommends a designation of OS. In addition Staff has recommended that the City Council consider the creation of a 20 unit per acre multi -family residential land use classification. Establishment of such a density classification will assist the City in meeting its allocated share of regional housing needs. This new classification is proposed for the following developed and undeveloped properties. 1. Daisy Apartments on Grand Avenue. 2. Hampton Court Condominiums on Washington Street and Windwood Condominiums abutting Brea Canyon Road. 3. The Village Condominiums on Golden Springs Drive. 4. Fall Creek Condominiums on Gentle Springs and Prospectors Drive. 5. Vacant land within the north Tres Hermanos Ranch area encompassing 5 to 10 acres of land. 6. A vacant 10 to 12 acre site along the east side of Diamond Bar Boulevard across from Maple Hill Road. 7. A 2.5 acre Property located behind the LDS Church along Diamond Bar Boulevard. 8. A 2 acre site located behind the Diamond Bar Congregational Church at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Morning Canyon Road. 2 RECOIINEVIENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue the review of the Land Use Element (LUE), reopen the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the matter. PREPARED BY: James DeStefano Community Development Director attachments: • Letter from Walnut Valley School District dated September 16, 1994 • Letter from Clayton Parker; Parker, Covert & Chidester dated Sept. 26, 1994 • Letters from Dorian Johnson; Bramalea, dated February 6, 1995 and July 15, 1994 • Letter from Shell Western dated February 20, 1995 • Letter from J.C. Dabney dated February 16, 1995 • Letter to City Council from John Cardis; Boy Scouts of America dated February 22, 1995 • Letter to Terrence Belanger from John Cardis; Boy Scouts of America dated February 22, 1995. 3 RECEIVED COMMUNITY CITY OF DIAMOND BAR r'=3 24 Pr? 3. 4h INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable City Counci FROM: Phyllis Papen, Mayr�%— SUBJECT: Land Use Element - Continued Issues for Discussion at the City Council Meeting February 28, 1995 DATE: Feb. 24, 1995 This memo is to recap issues yet to be decided on the Land Use Element of the Diamond Bar General Plan. Please be prepared to discuss and vote on each of the following issues on Tuesday, Feb. 28th. I welcome each Council member's additions to the list and apologize if my notes are not complete. Issue - Page 1-7 Issue Analysis: Does this refer to remaining vacant land within the City Limits of Diamond Bar and not to properties within the Sphere of Influence? (Shell) Issue - Page 1-11 1.1.1.e Should the Council rename the current High Density (RH-16) residential land use classification to Medium High Density (RMH-16)? Should the Council add a High Density (RH-20) residential land use classification? Should the Council direct staff to reclassify existing projects built to RH-20 standards to that classification; i.e., Daisy Apts. Hampton, Village Apts. and Fall Creek Condos? Issue - Page 1-12 1.1.6 Council requested a review of the language. See Shell letter. Issue - Page 1-161.5.1 Council requested further discussion. Issue - Page 1-18 1.6.5 Council requested further discussion. See Bramalea letter. Issue - Page 1-24 4.2.2 Council requested further discussion. See Shell letter. Issue - Page 1-26 Table 1-3 Staff to provide recommendation on underlying density for Agriculture and Agriculture/Specific Plan. County zoning standard is one unit per two acres. Council Memo - Land Use Element/Continued Issues Page 2 Phyllis Papen February 24, 1995 Issue - Request by Walnut Valley Unified School District to reclassify Brea Canyon Road property from OS to PD. Issue - Request by Walnut Valley Unified School District to reclassify Site from PF to PD. Issue - Shell Oil property: request for AG/SP on all Shell Oil property in Sphere of Influence Issue - Sasak Property: request for consistency with prior tentative map approval by Council Issue - RNP request for reclassification on Lot 1/Lot 61 property from OS to current zoning. Owner believes only 7.57 acres is currently zoned open space and requests no change on this 7.57 acres. The owner believes the other 60.5 acres was not designated open space and protests OS designation. Requests current underlying zoning of RPD -20,000 (2 dwelling units per acre) remain on this land and acknowledges property was encumbered with a building restriction. Issue - Firestone Boy Scouts: Council agreed to four requests for language modification in Housing and Land Use Elements. Issue of underlying density of AG/SP zone remains. Issue - Bramalea: Request for PD classification; transfer of densities from separate parcels with agreement to dedicate a minimum of 75% as open space with development approval. Issue - Which, if any, parcels should be zoned for RMH-16 or RH-20 units in order to meet state housing requirements? Suggestions for consideration included Area #4, 6, 20, 25 and 54 on the Vacant Land/Housing Opportunity Areas map/matrix list dated Feb. 16, 1995. Issue - Should any parcels be rezoned commercial or light industrial? Suggestions are Area #45 and the Walnut Unified School District property on Lemon Avenue. Issue - Are there other changes on the Vacant Land Housing Opportunity Areas list that the Council wishes to discuss? Please review this list area by area. PP:dbm CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: February 28, 1995 REPORT DATE: February 24, 1995 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Adoption of the General Plan SUMMARY: The General Plan is a statement of goals, objectives and strategies to guide the long-range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next 20 years. On February 23, 1995, Council completed its review of the Housing Element (HE) and continued its discussion of the Land Use Element. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue the review of the Land Use Element (LUE), reopen the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the matter. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) _ Other EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Library SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes _ No by the City Attorney? N/A 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: ALL REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager eDeStefano opment Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: February 28, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of the General Plan ISSUE STATEMENT: State law requires the preparation and adoption of a comprehensive, long term General Plan for the physical development of all property within the City and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning. Upon adoption, the General Plan, through its numerous goals, objectives and strategies, will define development strategy for the next twenty years. BACKGROUND On February 13, 1995 the City Council began its review of the Housing Element. Discussion continued on February 16 incorporating a review of housing opportunity areas and a presentation of the Land Use Element. On February 16 and 23, 1995 the City Council reviewed both Elements. DISCUSSION Review of the Housing Element On February 16 and 23, 1995 the Council reviewed housing opportunity areas as presented by the City staff. Upon conclusion of their review of the Element the Council took action to direct preparation of additional revisions. Copies of the revised Housing Element will be distributed at the forthcoming meeting. Review of the Land Use Element The City Council has continued its review of the Land Use Element in order to address several items related to land owner requests for redesignation of their property and staff recommended revisions. As described within the attached letters, several landowners have proposed changes to the Planning Commission recommended land use designations for their property: 1. Walnut Valley Unified School District has requested a designation of PD, Planned Development for the 78 acre South Pointe Middle School area property and the 28 acre Site "D" property located near the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. The Planning Commission recommends a designation of OS, Open Space. 2. Bramelea has requested language within the Land Use Element which would permit implementation of their future development plans for 50 to 70 acres of their 400 acre Diamond Bar Boulevard area property. The Planning Commission recommended a designation of RL/SP and OS/SP permitting a mixed residential and open space product. 3. Shell Oil owns approximately 350 acres located within the Sphere of Influence, requests a reclassification of the property from AG to AG/SP. The request for the addition of a Specific Plan to the Agricultural designation would create consistency with the adjacent Boy Scout property. In addition Shell has requested modifications to the text of the Element. 4. RNP Development has requested a designation for their 68 acre Grand Avenue site consistent with the current zoning classification of RPD -20,000-2U which would permit a two unit per acre residential development. The Planning Commission recommends a designation of OS. 5. The Boy Scouts of America are the owner of approximately 3200 acres within the Sphere of Influence area. An issue for the City Council is to consider an appropriate level of development density for the AG/ SP designated property. 6. Sasak Corporation is requesting a designation of RL for their 6.7 acre site located along Morning Sun Avenue. The three units per acre classification is requested for consistency with the recent City Council conceptual approval of a 21 unit residential subdivision. The Planning commission recommends a designation of OS. In addition Staff has recommended that the City Council consider the creation of a 20 unit per acre multi -family residential land use classification. Establishment of such a density classification will assist the City in meeting its allocated share of regional housing needs. This new classification is proposed- for the following developed and undeveloped properties. 1. Daisy Apartments on Grand Avenue. 2. Hampton Court Condominiums on Washington Street and Windwood Condominiums abutting Brea Canyon Road. 3. The Village Condominiums on Golden Springs Drive. 4. Fall Creek Condominiums on Gentle Springs and Prospectors Drive. 5. Vacant land within the north Tres Hermanos Ranch area encompassing 5 to 10 acres of land. 6. A vacant 10 to 12 acre site along the east side of Diamond Bar Boulevard across from Maple Hill Road. 7. A 2.5 acre Property located behind the LDS Church along Diamond Bar Boulevard. 8. A 2 acre site located behind the Diamond Bar Congregational Church at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Morning Canyon Road. K RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue the review of the Land Use Element (LUE), reopen the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the matter. PREPARED BY: James DeStefano Community Development Director attachments: • Letter from Walnut Valley School District dated September 16, 1994 • Letter from Clayton Parker; Parker, Covert & Chidester dated Sept. 26, 1994 • Letters from Dorian Johnson; Bramalea, dated February 6, 1995 and July 15, 1994 • Letter from Shell Western dated February 20, 1995 • Letter from J.C. Dabney dated February 16, 1995 • Letter to City Council from John Cardis; Boy Scouts of America dated February 22, 1995 • Letter to Terrence Belanger from John Cardis; Boy Scouts of America dated February 22, 1995. cl LeA G,fl, Walnut Valley Unified School District k' 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut, California 91789 • (909) 595-1261 • Fax (909) 595-9626 • Ronald W. Hockwalt, Ed. D., Supenntenden September 16, 1994 z M n Mr. James DeStefano Office of City Planning City of Diamond Bar G 21660 E. Copley, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91789 , c �z Dear Jim: - { c The Board of Trustees and administration for the Walnut Valley Unified School District request your assistance in making two changes to the Diamond Bar Master Plan. First, we would like to change the designation of the 78 acres of land surrounding South Pointe Middle School (Lot 49, Tract 32576 and Lot 53, Tract 35742) from the designation "Open Space" to the designation "Planned Development." We are the current property owner of this property. We believe that the PD designation is more consistent with what we believe could be school related development adjacent to South Pointe Middle School. While we surely have no definitive plans at this time, we hope to keep our future options as flexible as possible. Since we only recently acquired the property (August 8, 1994), we will need additional planning time under the "Planned Development" designation. Our second request is to change our Site D property (Lot 76, Tract 27577) designation from "Public Facility" to "Planned Development." Again, we are looking for the flexibility and the need to keep our options open. In summary, when the Planning Commission addresses the land use issues, we are requesting that they consider our request to change the land use designation on parcels (Lot 49, Tract 32576 and Lot 53, Traci 35742) to Planned Deveiopment. We are requesting the same change in designation for Lot 76. Thank you for your consideration of our request. �I�V o.S�-5i�tc I , Ronald . Hockwalt, Superintendent rwh/rwh cc: City Manager City Council Board of Trustees Board of Trustees Carol A Herrera • Helen M. Hall • Christine McPeak • Larry L. Redinger • Marsha Sykes MONTGOMERY _RLQ CF-...,_ LAW OFFICES MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY Of COUNSEL A LAW CORPORATION ALAN R. BURNS' JOHN ROBERT HARPER' 10501 VALLEY BOULEVARD, SUITE 121 EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA Oini QUA14GE COMITY OFFICE TELEPHONE (8181452-1222 463 S. GLASML STREET FACSIMILE (818) 452-8324 ORANGE, CA 02000 (714) 771-77M ALSO ADMITTED TO FLOMOA •Plolenk d Carporoora AND HAWAII STATE BARS MEMORANDUM WENN D. DAWER TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ASSOCIATE ATTOR LY DATE: MARCH 1 1995 RF.: DEED AND SUBDIVISION MAP RESTRICTIONS AS OPEN SPACE DESIGNATIONS Following the meeting of February 28, 1995, Councilman Miller asked me to focus on the distinction between building restrictions, imposed by deed or subdivision map, and true open space designations, whether by easement or otherwise. I had not previously been con- cerned with the distinction,. because the remedy for the property owner who wanted to develop was the same, i.e., a public hearing for removal of the restrictions, whether in conjunction with a new sub- division, or whether only in furtherance of the underlying zoning. However, Councilman Miller focuses on a political distinction, which is worth noting, i.e., a person who owns a dedicated park or dediesited open space land which has been permanently bargained away for development, has not even the "right" to apply for a modification, while a person who has granted deed restrictions or map restrictions, in furtherance of one development, with the zoning authority requir- ing that person to come back for further development, on a controlled biods, does have a "right" to make that request, even though that "right" need not be granted, i.e., a not so subtle distinction in the real world. My written opinions heretofore, to the effect that deed or mnp re- strictions are, "in the nature of an open spare easement", are basod upon an interpretation of Government Code 051075, which reads: ". . , unless otherwise apparent form the context: (a) "open -space land" means any parcel . . . which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open -space use as defined in Section 95560 of the Government Code. (d) "Open -space easement" means any right or interest in perpetuity . in open -space land acquired by a . . . city . . . where the deed or other instrument granting such right or interest imposes restrictions which, through limitation of future use, will effectively preserve MONTGOMERY LAW OFFICE TEL:1.818-452-8323 Mar 03 95 15:48 No.011 P.04 taw OMM MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY Diamond liar City Council Land Use Restrictions March 3, 1995 Page 2 for public use or enjoyment the natural or scenic character of such open -space land. An open -space easement shall contain a covenant with the . . . cit . . . runnine with the land . . . in perpetuity . . . , that the landowner shall not construct or permit the construction of improvements . . .it (Emphasis added.) That having been said, I would agree that the General Plan should contain the following distinctions, in descending stature: 1. Public parks. 2. Deeded open space fees and easements. 3. Deeded or map recorded prohibitions against construction over the total parcel. 4. Deeded or map restricted limitations on xtructureii or development over the entire parcel. S. Deeded or map restricted density limitations. My further research of the matter * still leads to the conclusion that building restrictions by map recordation, can result in the type of Interest contemplated by the Open Space Easement Act of 1974.' If we look at the nature of the act, "The 1974 Act reiterates the legislature's determination to conserve land in California, and reaffirms its belief that acquisition of open -space easements is an essential element in local government land use and planning practices."a As to whether the grant is truly an "easement", open -space dedica- tions have been referred to as "equitable servitudes", or a "real covenant", which is a promise respecting the use of land." The effect is, "that the landowner may not construct or permit the con- struction of improvements, except as such right is exprea0y reserved and is not inconsistent with the purposes of the act."' That this interpretation, i.e., that a landowner can convey away a right to build, and keep title, and that this is in the nature of a "conservation easement", is shared by writers on the subject (there being no court opinions so interpreting) : ' Gov. Code 051070, et seq. 25 Santa Clara Law Review, p. 359, emphasis added. 26 Cal, Jur.3d, Dedication, 02, p. 155 LAW OWCE" MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY Diamond Bar City Council Land Use Restrictions March 3, 1995 Page 3 "Several states, including California, have recognized the importance of preserving open space. To that end the California legislature has enacted many statutes fostering open space preservation at the local level. Those statutory provisions can be coordinated with local zoning ordinances to enhance the effective control a city can exercise over residential growth. I" The confusion may arise from the consideration of traditional easements, versus 'conservation easements.' "A 'traditional' easement allows the holder to make some use of the servient owner's land, while a restrictive covenant restricts the servient owner's use of his land. Under this simplified view, most conservation easements are indeed similar to covenants. The same article, in a footnote,', suggests that a prohibition against development is in the nature of a, "traditional real covenant." How does the Subdivision Map Act tie into the Open Space Easement - Act? Initially, we know that, "A property owner may grant, and the city . . . may accept, a conveyance of. an open -space easement over private land to preserve the open -space character of the land for public purposes. "" and, "Statutory dedications, in California, may be made pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. with the consent of the city, . . . an irrevocable offer of dedication of real property for any public purpose may be made pursuant to si statute which requires that the offer be executed, neknowledged, and recorded in the same manner as a conveyance of real property. When recorded, the offer is Irrevocable and may be accepted at any time by the appropriate public agency. The offer may be terminated and the and the right to accept the abandoned in the same manner as is prescribed for the abandonment or vacation of streets or highways. This procedure is alternative to any other procedure authorized by law. The Open -Space Easement Act provides for the acquisition of open -space easements by municipalities. An a 15 San Diego Law Journal, p. 1212. " 40 Hastings Law Journal, p. 1199. Id., p. 1198, n. $7 " 6 Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 2d, M, p. 543. MONTGOMERY LAIN CF=IC= "=_ :.-c:.6-C52-8-�)25 °ar � �J �• uw oirCEa MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY Diamond Bar City Council Land Use Restrictions March 3, 1995 Page 4 open -space easement is any right or interest in perpetuity or for a term of years in open -space land acquired by a county or city pursuant to the act, where the deed or other instrument granting such right or interest imposom restrictions which,_ through limitation of future use, will effectively preserve for public use or enjoyment the natural or scenic character of such open -space land. The easement must contain a covenant running with the land, either in perpetuity or for a term of years, providing that the landowner may not construct or permit the construction of improvements, except as such right is expressly reserved and is not inconsistent with the purposes of. the act."" "Express statutory dedications may be made by compliance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act."'O Conclusion Therefore, the restrictions against building on certain lots, bargained for in the overall development process, Constitute "conservation easements", or "equitable servitudes", at the very least. Notwith- standing, the political process involves one or more public hearings for the modification of any of the foregoing encumbrances:, but the burden on the applicant and the findings required, do diminish, in the foregoing descending order. According to Councilman Miller, earlier opinions created misunderstandings by not differentiating between common-law easements, and statutory restrictions; l hope that this memorandum clarifies. 0 26 Cal. Jur.3d, Dedicationa, 12, pp. 155, 158. 10 Id., p. 179. ,ar =,D ..J.-- u. -. r LAW MCES MICTIAI;L B,, MONTGOME-we A LAW MAPORATION 10501 VALLEY 30LLEYAHD. 90at 121 EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 01131 TIMEPHONE (ala) 452.1221! FAGSIMP.E 181N) 452.0323 Alco ADMMTEO TO FLORICA ANO HAWAII STATE BARS MEMORANDUM 1170: HON. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE TY COUNCIL FROM: ASSUCIA rE CITY ATTORNEYA DATE: MARCH 3, 1995 OF CMWSEL ALAN FL 5~ JOHN ROVERT HARPER' ORANGE COUN(Y OFFicE 453 S. 8LASSELL STREET ORANGE, CA 02ow (714) m-nza "FmIccsional COfpOaonc WENDY D. DAwER RF.: COUNCILMAN HARMONYIS REQUEST FOR RESVOMSR TO B LA LETTER Councilman Harmony has asked me to respond to the BIA'a letter of February 28, 1995, which claims that the City will suffer monetary damages by zoning deed -restrictive parcels as 'open -space", and the Mayor's conclusion at the last meeting that this might be a correct analysis. Without attempting to respond to the political motivations, or character assassinations of the letter, the following rebuttals are appropriate, and are legally correct: 1. Mere designation of "open -space" in a proposed aeneral Plan does not give rise to a claim in inverse condemnation. Rancho La Costa v. San DieKo County (1980) 111 Cal. App.3d 54, cert. den., 101 S.Ct. 2020, i.e., the United States Supreme Court declined 'to overturn this conclusion. Z. Any claim for inverse condemnation damages of parcels burdened with "conservation easements" (see accompanying memorand- um), would have to have been filed within 90 days of the initial cortification thereof. Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Ca1.4th 1, 32 Cal. Rptr.2d 244. 3. Agins v. City_ _of_ Tiburon (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 266, 157 Coil. Rptr. 372, 100 S.Ct. 2138, is still in full force and effect. While First English Evenplical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los. Angeles (1987107 S.Ct. 2378, did hold that damages may be awarded, in additional to a mandamus remedy for a regulatory taking, an action to invalidate the allegedly excessive regulation must still be first filed before damages can be awarded, and damages may not be awarded unless the challenged regulation Is determined to be a taking. ` Finally, "If some economically viable use remains", domages MONTGOMERY LAW CFF -L::. __ „--L.:)--r.JLJ °dr' ') :) „>--) LAW C"10" MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY Diamond Bar City Council Response to BIA Letter March 3, 1995 Page 2 for regulatory taking will not be found. Moore v. City of Costa Mesa (1989) 886 Ped.2d 260 (9th Circuit Federal Court of Appoalss). 4. With respect to the map -restricted parcels, no "taking" occurs if the exaction is the result of an agreement which includes adoquate consideration, i.e., here the original 'cluster' building permits. Leroy Land Development Corporation v._ Tahoe (9th Ro conal. -t Planning Alrency (1991) 939 Fed.2d 696 Circuit Federal Cour- of Appeals) . If we can agree that a property owner has no right to have conserva- tion easements removed, whether they -be by way of deed or map restriction, then a party who taker title to the lots with those restrictions in place, does not even have standing to claim a taking-' Conclusion The Council may consider designation of "open -space" on map or deed restricted lots, without consideration of economic consequences to tho City; those considerations are irrelevant. i Rosseo Holdings, Inc. v. State of California (1989) 212 Cal. App -3d 642, 260 Cal. Rptr. 736. Z 1hrlich v, City of Culver City (1993) 15 Cal. App.4 737, 19 Cal. Rptr.2d 4.68. LAW OFFICES PARKER. COVERT d; CHIDESTER City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Re: Adoption of General Plan Dear Members of the Commission: TELE (PM4) 5130900 TELECO(7u) 573 -MM RE= OUR FU W7-7 6 The Walnut Valley Unified School District hereby objects to the proposed designation of two properties owned by the District. One proposal is to designate a 78 -acre parcel recently acquired by the District as "open space". The District recognizes that at present, the proposed General Plan does not have text defining what uses would be permitted in an open space designation. We do understand that one proposal is that there will be no development or structures on property designated open space. The 78 -plus -acre parcel oi+ land is a large piece of property. We particularly object to the entire property being designated open space. The property is immediately adjacent to the existing South Pointe Middle School, upon which the permanent school will be constructed. The property extends All the way to Brea Canyon Road. It certainly can be argued that where the grading is taking place, those slopes could probably be designated open space. This does not, however, call for an open space designation over the entire 78 -plus -acre property. The City has recently authorized residential development on the properties fronting on Brea Canyon to the north. It is inappropriate that because the 79 -acres are entirely in the ownership of the District that an open space designation be placed on all the property. It is recognized, particularly as to the easterly parcel of land which was acquired by the District, that there must be an additional access to the South Pointe Middle School, the exact location of which has not been determined. 5chp/p9/wv:Plamin9.Y94 V= EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET CLAYTON I -L PARKER SUITE 206 • EAST SLItDM SPENCER E. COVERT MARGARET A CHIDESTER TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA 9268x7164 JONATHAN J. MOTT DOL GL43 N. YEOMAN CYNTHIA A. YOUNT September 26, 199 4 MCHAEL Y.M. TOY JOHN E HAYAgFIDA MARK S. WLIJAMS ALE A. MCCLOSKEY ALFRED REAL City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Re: Adoption of General Plan Dear Members of the Commission: TELE (PM4) 5130900 TELECO(7u) 573 -MM RE= OUR FU W7-7 6 The Walnut Valley Unified School District hereby objects to the proposed designation of two properties owned by the District. One proposal is to designate a 78 -acre parcel recently acquired by the District as "open space". The District recognizes that at present, the proposed General Plan does not have text defining what uses would be permitted in an open space designation. We do understand that one proposal is that there will be no development or structures on property designated open space. The 78 -plus -acre parcel oi+ land is a large piece of property. We particularly object to the entire property being designated open space. The property is immediately adjacent to the existing South Pointe Middle School, upon which the permanent school will be constructed. The property extends All the way to Brea Canyon Road. It certainly can be argued that where the grading is taking place, those slopes could probably be designated open space. This does not, however, call for an open space designation over the entire 78 -plus -acre property. The City has recently authorized residential development on the properties fronting on Brea Canyon to the north. It is inappropriate that because the 79 -acres are entirely in the ownership of the District that an open space designation be placed on all the property. It is recognized, particularly as to the easterly parcel of land which was acquired by the District, that there must be an additional access to the South Pointe Middle School, the exact location of which has not been determined. 5chp/p9/wv:Plamin9.Y94 LAW OFFlCES PARKER. COVERT & CMDESTER City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page 2 The state Legislature has Government Code section 65852.9 the same land use controls as if Y- aclopted a policy contained in that school sites should be given it were privately owned. Placing property in an open space designation under wnicn no development is permitted would be a taping of. property of the District without compensation.,, Article.'I•, Section 19 of the California Constitution prohibits taking 'property without the payment of just compensation. Such a taking is also prohibited by the U. S. Constitution. Rendering all the 78 -acres as open space is, in the opinion of counsel, a taking for which the City would be liable for damages. Also, the proposed subject of the General Plan is the present vacant 28 -acre parcel of land which this District has entitled "Site D".. There *has been no determination by the District as to the future use of that site. Again, we believe that the property should have zoning and planning as if it were privately owned. Although the District may utilize the property for school purposes, a decision has not yet been made. It is inappropriate to designate that property as limiting it to public facilities when there has been no determination to use it as public facilities. We believe at present there should be no change in the existing use as it was planned and zoned before the City of Diamond Bar was incorporated. Upon this basis,,.we believe that property should continue to be listed" in the General Plan as residential use. Assets of the "school district are assets of the community. Downzoning property because it is owned by the District results in the diminution of the value of such property. For this reason alone, school district properties should be planned and zoned as to comparable adjacent properties and not consist of an effort to limit the discretion of the Bpard of Education of the Walnut Valley Unified School District. ' Very truly yours, C1/a/ on H. Parker CHP/pg Schp/pg/w: P tam i ng.Y9$ I CC 3aYti' e S—. e 2000 Ne,,%por. Basic', Cd.::o(.`.,d 7266-- 714)5C9-4600 February 6, 1995 Phyllis E. Papen, Mayor Gary H. Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Eileen R. Ansari, City Councilmember Clair W. Harmony, City Councilmember Gary E. Miller, City Councilmember City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, #100 Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177 RE: Diamond Bar General Land Use Plan Element Honorable Councilmembers: RECEIVE) C0Y..... ':ITY 10 PI 5: 29 My previous correspondence dated July 15, 1994 reported my strong opposition to the open space land use designation proposed under the Draft General Plan as presented by the Citizens Advisory Committee to the City Planning Commission. I believe that the Planning Commission has made a considerable effort in an attempt to reach a land use designation for our property which is more appropriate and in keeping with good planning policy as well as constitutional law; however, I believe their recommendation falls short of our ultimate goal. Therefore, -Bramalea still objects to the land use designation of open space on any portion of the Bramalea property. The reasons for this continuing objection can be found in a copy of that July 15, 1994 letter (copy attached). Regarding the Bramalea property, the Planning Commission has suggested a combined land use designation of open space and residential development, with the entire property subject to a Specific Plan overlay. This recommendation by the Planning Commission appears to move in the direction as recommended in our July 28, 1994 letter (copy attached); however, it falls short. Specifically, Bramalea does not agree that any specific areas of the property should be designated open space; rather, a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) open space should be required for the entire property. Secondly, in lieu of a Specific Plan designation, the entire property should have a Planned Development ("P.D.") Zone allowing cluster development with appropriate lot sizes as detailed in our previous correspondence. February 6, 1995 City Council of Diamond Bar Page 2 In conclusion, the Planning Commission proposal gives Bramalea far less than it is entitled to under the constitutional principles set forth in my previous letters. However, once again in the spirit of compromise, Bramalea would be willing to accept the alternative lana use designation described above which would allow the City to secure fee title to the open space which it desires (a goal unfulfilled by the Planning Commission recommendation). Once again, this proposal is made solely for the purpose of avoiding dispute of the context of the City's General Planning effort. It should not be construed as an admission that the City could lawfully obtain the benefits of alternative land use designations through its regulatory powers as a waiver of Bramalea's rights to a reasonable economic use of our land. sincerely, ca Dorian A. Johnson, )XA. Vice President, Planning Enclosure cc: J� LW@m*W, with enclosure Deborah Rosenthal, Esq., with enclosure DAJ:mam k\MW\a,\0r/W-.MT B:ar^.alea California Inc 100 Bayview Circle S _ L e 2000 Nev.-por. Beach California 92660 714 509-4600 July 28, 1994 David Meyer, Chairman Lydia Plunk, Vice -Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum, Commissioner Franklin Fong, Commissioner Don Schad, Commissioner City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive Suite 190 Diamond Bar, California 91763 RE: Diamond Bar General Plan Land Use Element Dear Honorable Commissioner: My,previous correspondence reported my strong opposition to the "Open Space" land use designation proposed under the Draft General Plan to be .placed upon the Bramalea property. The intent of this letter is not to repeat my objections; rather, it is to propose an alternative land use designation. We hope to find a land use designation which will meet the City's desires and our needs as memorialized in the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the City of Diamond Bar and Bramalea California, Inc. on October 20,1992. We propose that the Bramalea property (Tract 31479, Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 and Tract 42576, Lots 50 and 51) instead of being designated as a combination of open space, rural residential and planned development, all be designated as Planned Development I ("PD 1"). This PD I designation would include the following development provisions for the Bramalea property. Each of these items is consistent with or expressly stated in the Memorandum of Understanding: 1. Require a minimum of 75% open space. Such open space would be required to be dedicated to the City for open space and/or park purposes, with the dedication to occur at the time the property is subdivided. 2. A maximum of 1 unit per 23 acres would be allowed. The total gross acreage, including the open spaces, would be used in calculating the maximum number of units for the property. 3. Clustering would be required within a contiguous development area. 4. Clustering from non-contiguous parcels within the property would be allowed. July 28, 1994 Planning Commission Page 2 5. In order to minimize impact and maximize clustering, buildable lots shall be no greater than 10,000 and no less than 6,000 square feet. This proposal gives Bramalea far less than it is entitled to under the constitutional principles set forth in my previous letter. However, in the spirit of compromise, we believe that this alternative land use designation'would allow the City to secure lawful fee title to the open space which it desires and retain for the Planning Commission and the City Council the flexibility needed to secure superior design solutions. We hope the Planning Commission gives full consideration to the open space and residential aspects of our package proposal. This proposal is made solely for the purpose of avoiding dispute in the context of the City's General Planning effort. It should not be construed as an admission that the City could lawfully obtain the benefits of alternative land use designation through its regulatory powers or a waiver of Bramalea's rights to the reasonable economic use of our land. r Sincerely, Dorian A. John Vice President, cc: City Council Members Gary H. Werner, Mayor Clair W. Harmoy, Mayor Pro Tem Phyllis E. Papen, Councilmember Gary E. Miller, Councilmember Eileen R. Ansari, Councilmember James DeStefano Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. DAJ:mam k:\huW\dj\d*=*W-� 100 saYvwr Code Sj•:e 2000 Ne.••p= beach CaWwrua 62660 n:4 sob -46M July 15, 1994 148.233 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Diamond Bar Re: 1994 Draft General Plan Dear Chairman Meyer and Members of the Planning Commission: This letter states our strong objections to the proposed "open space" and "rural residential" designation of our property located along Diamond Bar Boulevard. The proposed designations are factually insupportable because the property is suitable for development, as recognized by the City of Diamond Bar less than two years ago when it entered into a memorandum of understanding for residential use. The designations are also legally insupportable as a taking of our property in violation of the California and United States Constitutions. Bramalea California, Inc., and I personally, also have serious concerns about the fundamental fairness of the planning process which generated.the 1994 draft General Plan. I, along with other landowners, participated in the General Plan Advisory Committee ("GPAC'r) from its inception. Before the draft General Plan was completed, all of the landowners were stripped of our voting rights so that we could not participate at all in the proposed land use designations. A land use planning process which deliberately excludes participation from all owners of undeveloped land violates fundamental due process and equal protection. Unfortunately, it also appeared that the procedure was designed to reach a predetermined conclusion, the denial of development rights to all currently undeveloped land. The Bramalea Property consists of approximately 400 acres of undeveloped land, divided into five parcels, largely surrounded by completed subdivisions. when the final map was recorded, Bramalea agreed to relinquish its residential development rights for four of the five parcels to the County of Los Angeles. These four parcels retained all other development rights when the final map was recorded. The fifth parcel retained all development rights, including residential rights, in the final map. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission July 15, 1994 Page 2 The 1994 draft General Plan proposes to designate three of the non-residential parcels and a portion of the fifth parcel as "open space." It proposes to designate the remaining portion of fifth parcel as "rural residential." The final or fourth parcel is proposed as "planned development." No private use is authorized in the "open space" area, while the rural residential and planned development designations drastically licit the development potential of the Property. The proposed General Plan is inconsistent with the City's own expectations for use of the Property. Less than two years ago, the City entered into a memorandum of understanding with Bramalea which called for clustered residential use in and around the fifth parcel, and dedication of the remaining parcels for public use as determined by the City. The .1994 draft General Plan effectively mandates the proposed dedication, without the residential use which made it financially feasible for Bramalea to pursue. The remainder of this letter expands and explains the above comments on the 1994 draft General Plan and its impact on the Bramalea Property. The vroposed desicnations are not factually supportable. Approximately three-quarters of the undeveloped Brasalea Property is designated as "open space." The proposed' Land Use Element identifies several different types of "open space," including "open space areas which have been or may in the future be subject to deed or subdivision map restrictions which preclude development." Draft General Plan, Land Use Element at 1-7. As set forth above, the Bramalea Property was never "deed or map restricted," even though residential development rights were relinquished for certain parcels. It is therefore 'susceptible of future development," and future preservation must include strategies which address the landowners economic interests, such as development rights transfer or clustering Ii. Since the landowners were ousted from the GPAC, we note that language addressing the need for acquisition of privately owned open space has been removed from the draft Plan. We also question the suitability of the Property as open space, without public acquisition. The majority of the interior of the Property is not visible from any public access point, and provides a view to only a limited number of private homeowners. As private open space, there will be no public access to the Property. The designated open space will be a financial burden Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission July 15, 1994 Page 3 on Bramalea without any corresponding recreational or visual benefits to the public.' We are also unaware of any environmental characteristics which make the Property necessary or desirable for preservation. In fact, its only special characteristic seems to be its undeveloped condition. The proposed "rural residential" zoning of a portion of the fifth parcel is even less supportable. The draft Plan identifies "rural residential" as areas which are."appropriate for rural residential development with a modest amount of open space." In this case, the designated portion is located immediately adjacent to Diamond Bar Boulevard, a major arterial, and across the street from developed single family residential at the "RL" density. It consists of land which retained all development rights, including residential, under the final map. Nonetheless, it is one of only four, very small "rural residential" sites in the entire City, with no justification for such severely reduced density in just a few scattered areas. Once again, the parcel's only special characteristic seems to be its undeveloped condition. The Droposed designations are legplly insypportsble. The proposed "open space" designation will leave Bramalea with no ability to use the Property for any private beneficial purpose. Although the City does not propose to require public access, it nonetheless requires Bramalea to leave the Property completely undeveloped because of the City's purported interest in preserving environmental features on undeveloped land. Although the "rural residential" area nominally allows some use, it is practically infeasible to construct low-density structures on such a small parcel located adjacent to a major arterial. For all practical purposes, therefore, Bramalea will have no beneficial use of the Property if the 1994 General Plan is adopted as proposed.' ' As discussed below, the City would not be entitled to deprive Bramalea of all use of the Property even if it served a public purpose. i•»c"s V. South C-rolin- coastal Commission (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2886. However, factually, the proposed designation does not even serve a valid public purpose. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 107 S.Ct. 3141. We have not addressed the proposed designation of a portion of the Property as "planned development" because we are not sure of the impact of the proposed regulations at the time. However, it is unlikely that development of such a small area will support preparation of a planned unit development, with all Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission July 15, 1994 Page 4 The proposed "open space" and "rural residential" designations will violate the state and federal prohibitions against taking without just compensation. According to the Supreme Court, one of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is to 'bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.' Armstrong v. Un1teA RtAtes (1960) 364 U.S. 40, 49." nol"n v. Tic"rA, slip Onion at 9. "[R:egulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use -- t)pically, as here, by requiring land to be left substantially in its natural state -- carry with them a heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service under the guise of =itigating serious public harm." T•ucas v. South Cxrolln" goastal Council (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2695. In this case, the Cit} will be forcing Bramalea to bear the entire burden of preserving the Property, when the General Plan makes clear that the benefits of the undeveloped land are enjoyed by the public as a whole. The proposed zoning of Bramalea's Property falls squarely within the constitutional rule announced in 1-cas v. So-th Carolina Coastal Council: "when the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice LU economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking." 112 S.Ct. at 2895. In *-utas, the landowner was prevented from constructing any per -anent structures on his oceanfront lots, on the grounds that they were unsafe to develop. In this case,, as in Lucas, the reg,zlation requires that the Property be left vacant for the enjoyment of the general public. The damages which Bramalea will suffer as a result of this taking are difficult to calculate at this time, but will total many millions of dollars. We hope that the City will reconsider the proposed designations before it exposes its citizenry to damages of this magnitude. of its attendant costs. The General Plan also provides no basis for requiring that this small area, largely surrounded by existing residential uses, "provide a greater level of community amenities and cohesiveness, achieve superior design, and create a more desirable living environment than could be achieved through conventional subdivision design and requiremento.' Once again, the regulation appears to be designed to prevent development by increasing the cost of the approval process beyond that which can be feasibly supported by such parcels. harman and Members of the Planning Commission 11F 15, 1994 ago 5 The planning process has been procedurally defective. As a andowner, Bramalea is entitled to reasonable notice and a fair ppertunity to be heard before the City changes the uses to which he Property can be put. Bramalea is also entitled to the same remtment as other similarly situated property owners, now or in he past. Finally, Bramalea is entitled to participate in an pe= and fair political process where each matter is heard and ecsded on the merits. In this case, the planning process has been deeply and rreversibly flawed. As discussed above, landowners within the -itz were deliberately and abruptly excluded from the GPAC, ;es; ite our evident interest in the outcome of the planning rocess. Although we were able to comment as non-members, our nput was clearly devalued and the "give and take" of the normal la=ening process was prevented. As a result of this unwise xclusion, the 1994 draft General Plan does not reflect the :houghts and recommendations of the entire community, but only a er-y limited group. The appearance of pre -judgment was ve_—whelming, especially in light of the most recent changes to he proposed Plan, some of which result in internal .nc=nsistencies in the Plan itself. In reviewing the draft Plan, »e .hope that the Planning Commission will consider the concerns end constitutional rights of landowners who will be most directly &ffected by the proposed Plan, and who have so far been excluded 'frem full participation in the process. The desiqnation should reflect the past understanding of the As set forth above, the memorandum of understanding between the City and Bramalea called for clustering of apF_ oximately 120 residential lots in and' immediately around the six `h parcel, with the remaining property dedicated to the City for public uses. Bramalea remains willing to pursue a cl"tering/dedication option with the City which provides reasonable economic use of the Property and substantial public ber.,efits. However, the first step must be the City's recognition that Bramalea is entitled to the reasonable beneficial use of its larA and that any designation under the General Plan must protect Bra-malea's fundamental property rights. cai=man and Members of the Planning Commission ily 15, 1994 kge 6 we would be happy to meet with you or any City :presentatives to discuss this letter or any related issues. ruly you urian A. John on AIA --R:1-- .Q ira :.8227 con ..._. Deborah M. Rosenthal, Esq. RECEIVED COMMUNITY cEN!p-CPMENT 15775 FLS 22 M 8: 52 February 20, 1995 Ms. Phyllis E. Papen Mayor City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Dr. Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Dear Mayor Papen: Subject: City of Diamond Bar Draft General Plan Shell Western E&P Inc. M tlMira of SheN OI Company 1800 E. Lambert Rd., Ste 225 Brea CA 92621 C,MvL , 1-0 CiG•.41 T. a tN M- d'pr� oif- L 'iv-�+4 Please be advised that we have vigilantly observed the City of Diamond Bar's General Plan update. We have attended the vast majority of General Plan update meetings held by the General Plan Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. Through our attendence of these many meetings we believe we have gained an appreciation of concerns expressed by the community. We believe balanced and cooperative planning can yield successful products wherein many of the desires of the community can be met while respecting the established legal rights of private property ownership. In the spirit of cooperation, we offer the following specific comments regarding the Draft General Plan: 1. The Land Use Mix section on page I-7 refers to the status of remaining vacant lands. While it is not clear, it is our understanding and belief that this section refers only to vacant lands within the city limits of Diamond Bar, and not to properties in the Sphere of Influence. 2. Strategy 1.1.6. on page I-12 states, in part, that "Areas designated Open Space ... carries with it a maximum development potential of one single family unit per existing parcel." This condition appears inequitable in that it limits the use of the parcel to one single family unit regardless of the size of the parcel and without consideration for the fact a better and more compatible use may indeed be something other than a single family unit. We suggest this provision be amended to allow for more creative land use planning. 3. Strategy 1.5. 4. on page I-17 addresses acquisition of Open Space. We suggest adding a fourth method of aquisition. This method would seek to acquire Open Space through an entitlement process wherein the land owner/developer would agree to sell at less than market value, or perhaps even dedicate certain property, in exchange for certain development rights. 4. Strategy 4.2.2. on page I-24 states that consideration be given to annexation of areas west of the City boundaries, including expansion of the adopted Sphere of Influence. Please be advised that as a property owner west of your Sphere of Influence we would respectfully oppose such an expansion at this time. 5. The Land Use Map (Figure I-2) on page I-25 currently reflects that our property in Diamond Bar's Sphere of Infuence has both Agriculture (AG) and Agriculture/Specific Plan (AG/SP) land use designations. In order to not preclude comprehensive planning and potential "win-win" opportunities as referenced hereinbelow, we request that the entirety of our property be designated Agriculture/Specific Plan (AG/SP). Moreover, such designation would be consistent with the designation for the larger contiguous Firestone Boy Scout Camp property. Shell Western E&P Inc. (SWEPI) has a long history of being a good corporate citizen and neighbor in the Los Angeles basin. Our ownership of properties in the Los Angeles basin dates back more than 70 years. Presently we are concluding a 3 1/2 year cooperative planning process for a master planned community in the City of Yorba Linda. Implementation of this master planned community will provide many public benefits, including the addition of more than 1,000 acres to Chino Hills State Park. This project exemplifies SWEPI's "win-win" approach to business dealings. We believe that someday a similar opportunity could exist with the City of Diamond Bar. Thank you for your consideration. Yours very truly, �rgevBasye Project Manager cc: Mr. James DeStefano Community Development Director City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Dr. Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Cub Scout. Scout, and ExPWW programs Los Angeles- Area Council Boy Scouts of America 2333 Scout Way Box 28910 SCOUiiN$/t1SA las Angeles. CA 94026 Telephony: (213) 413-4400 • FAX (213) 483-8472 MYI d Cawrtr� tAaw1 K A� � OVW Rt RMI r February 22, 1995 ar1»rir Rkh"1 OWWWO ► ; ar.w aw.. Mr. Tectenc a L. Belem "t citymanorr' = ams. City of Diamond Bar ion" A. &409wwn 21660 FAA Copley Daly, Suite 100 *+ Diamond Bac, Ca. 91765 Subj: Dmft Genad PI= Issues Added to tis ^' 7 Bvy Seen&* Tanner Canyon Adpst�jArMWaSm cn N w. RL OW& JWM r- ° oAMIGM • Dow Mr. Bdngec: �OL ' ~ Trak you for mating with Lary Kosaro:rt and Hayden Euros, igx4' i -Ring the Loa Aaigeies Area Council, Bop Scouts of America, ;A " mgu&ng the City of Divinond Bar' a Draft 04mal Plan a= it rdates to the Boy SooUft' Toner CUM property in the City of Diuoncard Bar's ., Sphm of influence. As diuu.av3 with you, the Boy Scout we jM*sw. requesting saved cla i5cutions is the General Pin is otdat to achieve imterad cow -*,my and somew with respect tp.tba land use yr�a d loo for the Tonne r Canyon ppopf..ty. A,""." AR.vw ww prom P. W40t TOWWW Those iAuwU ace as follows: �.r JWJILA"` Wim+ +• 1. In Table I-3, ptlge I-26 of *e Laud Use , the Bop "" a,,. Scouts request that the City restore the AWP dw*Vdoa for C. in*@ LO AN ,y.,, a/w awe the 3,200 acres that feprc=ts Tonner Canyon by removing the 02 � " line attikbog out the number 3,200. 'live will redder this table `""" consistent with the Land Use Map A&SP Artily- ion for this mow:. wr..as Mn �: W V 2. In Housing Element Figure II -1, page 11 -ISD, Tomtar C=WM is idled as "SPECIFIC PLAN (I du per paewl).7 In order to OPLAMN" A ' 'M achieve consistency with the AGISP desipalim it is rptrested that the text "(I du per parcel)" be deleted. KrdOLMWaKaU ZKJ. "'f►» A gift to the 16 LL INWW4% Jr. 14 7 Lm Angeles Area C xml lho Fuld AM P. *~-n supoft sow" beyond ands Nsttitts, Oft"V rr W. Terrence L. Belanger Febnsary 22. 1995 page 2 of 3 3. band Use Element, Section 1.1.7, page I-12 provides for the future designation of "Firestone Boy Scouts Camp" as "Private Recreation" (PR). During your discussion with Messrs. Kosmont and Eaves, you indicated that the Parka/Rec desipation on Table I-2, I -S, was an eaistiag we and accordingly would = be applied to the Tonna Canyon site. The inclusion of language contee prating a fiture Private Recrexdon designation of the site in Section 1.1.7 would contradict fts conclusion. In addition. the incdu cion of Section 1.1.7 in the Land Use Element of the General Pian app ems to be in conflict with the Specific Plan concept that these is no predetermined use of tier site until an application for a Specific Plan is submitted. Therefore, the Boy Scouts rosF ..Ifiolly requests the elimination of "Firestone Boy Smuts Camp" from Land Use Element Section 1.1.7, page I-12. 4. In Housing Element, Figure II -2, page 11-22, change the Ian~ r+eh rrmg to the M slope on fire Tomer Caarm site to "contains slopes greater d= 25%." Once a topognpiriwl map has been produced for Tonnes Canyon, it will be darer as to which portions of the site the hillside slope -ordinance may apply. In conclusion, we are encouraged by your discussion with Messrs. Kosmont aad Eaves that the language changes requested above will likely be approved We appa+oc m your coopuation in t#tds repaL However, the Boy Scouts remains concerned about the laagmp dust was left in the most recent draft General Plan. Thascfore, on behalf of the Boy Scouts, I want to clearly express our seriousoess with re',specrt In dw above concerns about the land use designation and other refes+enaes in the Genual Plan that affect the Tower Canyon property. The Boy Seoul would view a rejection of the above requests as contradictory to the intended SP designation and A- "to*q to its interest in this property. I& Taormm L. Belanger February 22, 1995 page 3 of 3 Please keep us informed regarding other General Plan developnorents. We may, from time to time, have other m&Um Haat concern us which we will need to boring to your attention. Mage direct all coocsespondam regarding the Tonna Canyon property to John Cardia at Deloitte dt Toucbe LLP,1000 WHahim Boulevard, Los Angles, Califmma 90017-2472 with copies to Tom Kolin at the Boy ScouM Larry Kosmo % 14724 Ventura Boukvatd, Paatboase Suite 2, Oaks. California 91403, and Hayden Eaves, TrvnfwU Crow CzvV-ny, 5801 South Eastern Avenaq Suite 100, Los Avgeles, CaHfm& 90040. Once again, thank you very much for your attention to these issues. Yours truly, i--� Join T. Cardia cc: Hayden Eaves Tom Kohn Larry L Kosmont Jinn DeStefmo, Planning Director, City of Diamood Bar TOTAL P.04 K I (pr A., cern a ro 60" ►n�waw. Pow chs" wr. �'eU7re �. C,eOewrYf 1t :enW c wage 1• arm 0. 1 a.10" ^Ai^ A Do@%" w aunt E r y"N M ^..or" • Meter in -W K (Y" 12 a C,�y r+wti MQ 10 a~ w O•eerr T! Pow A^ M. %I~" E 6.Shnnen .k W." AM p OUR= 71 The resolution also committed our arpaindom to pursue all annals nrptss•. i to protect our intomts in this vital asset, both in shat tam and loft tam so A gift to the Los Ang"I Arse counell im Fund wpports sooutiiq eua+� ei Li"t wtt�n., u�...w.0 Cub Scout, Seoul. and Ex0orer programs Lias Angeles Area Councl Boy Scouts of America :.:i , 2333 Scout Way k fox 26910 l Los Angeles. CA 90029 Telephone: (213) 413.4400 • FAX (213) 453.0472 &woo h 4 Febrwy 22,1995 Members of the City Council ti of Dianoad Bar, WOO. Mayor Phyllis E. Pspen Mayor Pro Tam Gary IL Wam °"" Council Member Ellan R Amari u» �. Cotmeil Member Clair W. Ha uxmy Council Member Gary G. MWa 21660 Fast Copley DlrW% Seita 100 Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765-4177 Dear M•mbes of the City Council: u Of February 16,1995 the Executive CoavmiUm of the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Area Council, Bey Scout of Anl emm approved a mohrdon to specifically name John T. Cats, Chairman of the Board, or his ,i...,. w as official .vn For all matinees "` _`i"`� spolcEaP�e� Ana Ka involving the Firestone Scow Reservatim with my loeal.cow9y, and state gov►an•.4nlA. ,�••, The Bond has not authorized nary other irdividntls at; orpnizatsoos to iephwat the Council in any matters whataomw relMd to the Fkc-torr Farr - property (pr A., cern a ro 60" ►n�waw. Pow chs" wr. �'eU7re �. C,eOewrYf 1t :enW c wage 1• arm 0. 1 a.10" ^Ai^ A Do@%" w aunt E r y"N M ^..or" • Meter in -W K (Y" 12 a C,�y r+wti MQ 10 a~ w O•eerr T! Pow A^ M. %I~" E 6.Shnnen .k W." AM p OUR= 71 The resolution also committed our arpaindom to pursue all annals nrptss•. i to protect our intomts in this vital asset, both in shat tam and loft tam so A gift to the Los Ang"I Arse counell im Fund wpports sooutiiq eua+� ei Li"t wtt�n., u�...w.0 Members of City Council of Diamond Bar, Ca. February 22, 1995 pap 2 If the City Council or administrators have any questions or concerns regarding our current or future un of the property, please feel free to contact me directly. Siactr+ely, Johns T. Cardis Chairman CC: Tewin= L. Belanger, City Manager James De3tAno, Community Development Director Hayden C. Eaves III Larry J. Kosmont Edward C. Jacobs Thomas A. Kohn MTFL P.03 J.C.D. J. C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS 671 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SUITE 5 WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789, m n 909 594-7568 r -D m FAX - 909-594-5090 " < m -2 o, D n r� February 16, 1995 City Council N City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Reference: General Plan, Land Use Element Lot 1 Tract 31479 & Lot 61 Tract 42577 Dear Council Member, This letter is in objection to the proposed OSonin on the above referenced parcels as shown within the Land Use Map, Figure 1-2, of the proposed 994 General Plan. The subject property as shown within the Land Use Map is immediately South of Grand Avenue and extends easterly to the County Line. The owners of the property have previously acknowledged that portions of the property have been set aside as Open Space and are referenced as Open Spacg _Casements in the Recorded Official Records of the County of Los Angles. Document No. 87-796863, recorded May 20th, 1987, sets aside Lot 61, Tract42557 as an Open Space Easement to be maintained by LLD #39. Document No. 87-796864, recorded May 20th, 1987, sets aside a 100 foot wide Open Space Easement along the northerly boundary line of Lot 1, Tract 31479 to be maintained by LLD #39. The total area of these dedicated Open Space Easements, accepted by Los Angles County, and recorded is 7.57 acres. In the Staff Report prepared May 17, 1994 for the Planning Commission meeting of May 23, 1994, during which the owners were requesting approval of Parcel Map No. 24031 which would have merged the parcels and removed the Building Restriction from the property, several erroneous opinions where issued. The Staff Report indicated that the owners wished to have the recorded Open Space Easements abandoned. The owners had indicated that any dedicated Open Space Easement would remain. In the Staff Report under Application Analysis, it was indicated that the entire ownership, approximately 68 acres, was in fact a non -possessory Open Space Easement as defined under Government Code Section 65560(b. 3 & 4) as a result of dedicated Building Restrictions and Access Restrictions. Let's assume that the code section addresses non -possessory Open Space, which it doesn't. then the assumption would be that since the property had no means of vehicular access and a building restriction, that any prudent man would have to assume that the intent was to create a Open Space use, a reasonable argument. However. the vehicular access restriction applies only to abutting property along Grand Avenue for every lot within Tract 42557 to control access to a secondary highway. All the lots within this tract that have this restriction also front on a residential street, including Lot 61, which fronts on Summitridge Drive. The frontage on Summitridge Drive, approximately 175 feet, is not restricted and provides access to the property in question. Clearly the issue of non -possessory Open Space does not apply. What does Government Code Section 65560 really say? GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65560: Definitions b. "Open space land" is any parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use as defined in this section, AhQ WHICH IS DESIGNATED ON A LOCAL. REGIONAL OR STATE OPEN SPACE PLAN as any of the following. 1. Addresses preservation of natural resources. 2. Addresses managed production of resources. 3. Addresses recreation, scenic, historical and cultural. 4. Addresses public health and safety, soils, earthquake, flood, etc. At the time of application and/or Incorporation the remaining approximately 61 acres was not designed on any adopted local, regional or state open space plan. At the time of incorporation, the adopted os An les County Open Space Plan did not designate the remaining 60.5 acres Qen Wac�The owners agree that the Recorded Open Space Easements that have been accepted and recorded fall under Government Code Section 65560 (b), since they have been designated. The Staff Report further states that the underlying zoning was RPD -20,000-2U with a minimum of 2 units per acre, this is correct. The report further substantiates that clustering and lot averaging took place, which is evident. The report goes on to state that there is 28 acres of residential development and 73 acres of open space, there is actually 48.9 acres of residential development (161 residential lots), 4 designated open space lots totaling 6.95 acres, 2 open space easement parcels totaling 6.10 acres, and 60.5 acres of Lot 1, Tract 31479 not encumbered by open space easements, but having a building restriction. The total area in question is approximately 122.3 acres. At the underlying zoning density of 2 units per acre, 122 acres allows 244 units. While it is obvious that clustering took place, only 165 units were built. Cleanly,_ Some density still remains. When the owners purchased this property they realized that the property was encumbered with a building restriction and 7.6 acres of dedicated open space easements, however they strongly object to rezoning the entire property as open space. R7ec(" tfull Jan C. Dabney, RC President Attachment: City of Diamond liar Staff Report, dated May 17, 1994 City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 3 REPORT DATE: May 17, 1994 MEETING DATE: May 23, 1994 CASEJFILE NUMBER: Parcel map No. 24M 1 APPLICATION REQUEST: The proposed project is a request for approval to merge. two (2) existing parols, Lot i of Tract. NO. 31479 and Lot 61. of Tract NO. 42537. to one (1) parcel totaling 68.10 acro. - . Approval of the application would require . tha Cit*ls abandonment of currently held OpenSpan: and Building Rights Restrictions on the newly created parcel. PROPERTY LOCATION: • The project is locatod south of ©rand Avenue, west of Shotgun Lane and east of Suminitrldge Drive and extends east to the San Bernardino County line. APPLICANT: J.C. Dabney and Associates 671 S. Brea Canyon RO. Ste. S Diamond Bart California 91789 PROPERTY OWNER: R -n -P Development, Inc. 4439 Rhodelia Ave. Claremont, California 91711 BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted the parcel map project to the City in conjunction with the development of alternative scenarios of an off-site project (South Point Master Plan, R -N -P Development, Inc. property). The applicant is requesting that the City approve: 1) the merger of two distinct lots to form one new parcel totalling approximately 68 acres; 2) a reversion to acreage, thus removing all access and building rights restrictions as well as the open -space easements. The applicant is requesting that these approvals be granted as a quid pro quo compensation for non- PM24031 development of a portion of the South Pointe site by the developer as stipulated in Alternative 1 of the South Pointe project. Pu.suant to Section 66499.20 1/4 and Section 66499.20 3/4 of the Subdivision Map Act in concert with Section'51093 and 65874 (b) of the California Government Code (CGC), provisions for petitioning the governing body for removal of restrictions and easements have been provided. The governing body is required to make the required findings in order to remove the legislative constraints placed on the site. Staff recommends however, that the Planning Commission, proceed in its review in one of the following manners. The Planning Commission can review this project as requested by the applicant, that is, as a quid pro quo compensation in conjunction with the approval of Alternative No. 1. If the Planning Commission wishes to proceed in that context, staff feels that an extensive. Development Agreement would be required to protect the interests of the applicant and the - City and an additional re -circulation of the South Pointe Master Plan EIR would be required to address the new project. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition of a project, ootnsideration of this project as a part of Alternative No, 1 would bring this project under the envelope of the South Pointe EIR. The Planning Commission can however review this project on the its merits irrespective of the South Pointe project. Under this evaluation criteria the Commission can taloa action immediately based on the project information and the environmental information prepued for review. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: The two independent lots were created from the subdivision of separate tract maps. Lot l of Tract No. 31479 was recorded in 1981. The tract map was a subdivision of a large area encompassing the land bounded by Lot 1, north to Carpio Drive which is located south of the SR 60 fmMy and west to Golden Springs Drive. Subsequent to the recordation of this tract, Tract No. 42557 was initiated. Tract No. 31479 indicates that the lot serves as a natural drainage course and is restricted for pubic health and safety concerns related to the management of the arca. Tract No. 42557, recorded in 1982, encompasses the area south of Grand Avenue, west of the County line, east of the entrance to The Country Estates and north of Rimford Lane. The area inclusive of Lot 61, once again has the building restrictions maintained from the previous tract map restrictions, as well as access restrictions to Grand Avenue. PH24031 2 The restrictions on Lot 61 of Tract No. 42557 consist of building restrictions which prohibit the construction of residential buildings or other structures and also includes prohibitions concerning access to Grand Avenue. Lot No. 1 of Tract No. 31749 has similar reatriedons which prohibit the construction of residential structures. The result of the access and building restrictions create non - possessory open space easements as defined in Government Code Section 65360 (b. 3 & 4). The zoning for the area is RPD -20,000-2U (Residential Planned Development, 20,000 square foot minimum lot size, with a maximum of 2 units per net acre). Review of the tract maps and the existing lot configurations indicates that many of the lots are non -conforming in the gross square footage that they were developed with. The RPD zone was created by the County to provide for flexibility in the design of hillside -areas and to require large expanses of open space (not less than 30 percent of the net ares) and for large separations between structures. Often, developers in the hillside areas were granted approval to use clustering and lot averaging when designing their projects. The develdpment surrounding the application site exhibit all the elements consistent with lot averaging. The RPD.zone requires that the development provide one or more of the following.' a) Common open space for recreational purposes; b) Areas of scenic or natural beauty forming a portion of the development; C) Present or future recreational areas of a noncommercial nature; d)present or future hiking, riding, or bicycle trails; e) Iandscaped areas adjacent to streets in excess of minimum required rights-of-way; f) Other similar areas determined appropriate by the Commission. The consolidation of the two lots and the lifting of development restrictions and the derived ability to construct one residential unit will not in and of itself create an immediate conflict with the intent and action of the County's approval. Analysis of the existing development reveals that currently there are approximately 28 acres of residential development and 73 acres of open space .including passive and active uses. The existing development possesses two pocket parks, a three acre open space parcel and the assessor's information indicates that Lot 1 and Lot 61 aro traversed by trail easements. With no development plans to accompany the application there is no base of information to determine future impacts of relinquishing the restrictions and easements.. The Commission may however approve the lot merger and mmalain the restrictions or revise the restrictions to allow the construction of one unit. The property owner reserves the right under state law to bring additional projects or subdivisions back to the City for additional entitlements. The parcel map application as requested by the applicant will involve extensive aedon on the part of the City including the recirculation of the South Pointe Master Plan BIR because of. the inclusion of this project as part of the South Pointe project. Additionally, staff feels that the Development Agreement approved by the Planning Commission as part of the South Pointe project would have to be revised and would be subject to review by the Commission prior to approval of this project. PX24031 Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Cr-nmission review this project on its merits, separates from the South Pointe proja,t. Review of the existing development surrounding the project site, as it relates tO the RPD Zone development standards, indicates that lot averaging has been implemented in the design of the residential project. There are large parcels of open space (exceeding zone requbvaMts) that include the subject site and that were incorporated as required amenities for the development and to maintain the average lot size conformity. Approval of this project win not immediately place this balance at risk. All future development proposals must be approved by the City via the public hearing process. The Commission may consider removal of the restrictions on this property, amending the restrictions to allow one residential unit, or to maintain the current restrictions although approving the lot mwger and address the issue when a definitive development project is submitted. E gMON11E1TAL ASSESSMENT: Staff concluded the review the initial study and determined, pursuant to CBQA, that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate and has prepared the document and made it available for public review, FINDINGS OF FACT: (1) That No public purpose described in Section 51084 will be served by beeping the land as open -space; and (2) That the abandonment is not inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter; end (3) That the abandonment is consistent t i void athe local s l General Fin; and al hardship to the landowner (4) That the abandonment os necessary due to involuntary. factors unique to him. (b) Upon determination that the restriction of the property is no longer necessary to achieve the land use goals of the. City or county, a release shall be recorded by the City or county in the county where the restricted property is located. RECODATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony, and direct staff as appropriate. PH24o31 4 PUBLIC NOTICE: This application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the Sen Gabriel Valley Tribune on May 1, 1994. Two hundred three (203) property owners within a 1000 foot radius of the site were mailed notices of the public hearing on April 29, 1994. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner ATTACEMUI 's: Application Negative Declaration Parcel Map Letters from the Applicant Public Worm Memorandum /1%WP91%L9TT[Rt\PN24031.2TT PX24oa1 5 F-EB.28 "35 :JJ: ebH' = CH -4% ARCO Products Company 4 Centerpointe Drive La Palma, calif0mia 90623.1066 Mailing Address: Box 5077 Buena Park, California 90622.5077 Telephone 714 670 5368 Real Estate Department Suite 300 Mr. James DeStephano Community Development Dircu-tor 21660 E. Copley Dr., Suite 190 Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765-4177 February 28, 1995 r :..6, (b�G -�bdb RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEA" i DMFrIr 1 5 f EB 28 08 Re: General Plan and Freeway Signs ARCO am/prn at SWC Diamond Bar/Brea Canyon Rd. Dear Mr. DeStephano: I will not be able to attend the Public Hearing tonight, but want to provide public input to the land use portion of the General flan . Businesses located near freeway exits serve the needs of the motorists traveling those freeways. Not only are the businesses dependent on this freeway traffic, but the motorists are also dependent on these businesses for essential services such as gas and food sales. The city also benefits from these sales. When these businesses are not visible from the freeway and there are no visible signs, passing motorists will not stop. They have no opportunity to learn about Diamond Bar from the freeway. In general, this meats that the fivcway locations must charge highea prices to make up for the loss of volume. This is not in the best interest of the city, the local res-idellts, or the passing motorists. Representing ARCO, l urge Diamond Bar to implement a freeway sign policy that allows businesses located within a minimal distance from a freeway exit to serve the passing motorists. A minimal number of signs would not detract from the beauty of the surroundings. Other cities are also reconsidering freeway signage that they find acceptable. If the city would like to work with some of the businesses to develop standards that would be both appealing and fair to the businesses 1 would like to volunteer to be involved. Thank you for your review of this request. Sincerely, l4�- Z� Eric Cahn Sr. Real Estate Representative ARCO Produuts Co. 714 760-5305 MCO •.,a.,,. ca„ P..., • . ce+,w, a A[wKcn4wnaeG ,q.., Tuesday, February 28, 1995 12:26:51Community Development Consulting Service 1� Memorandum DATE: February 28, 1995 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Gary H. Werner, Mayor Pro Tem RE: General Plan - Land Use Element My apologies to the City Council for my absence from this evening's General Plan review. However, in my absence I offer the following comments for your consideration: GENERAL PLAN TEXT 1. Amend section 3 - Sphere of Influence (p. I-3) to read as follows: 3. Sphere Of Influence Page 1 of 2 C;: rn a The City of Diamond Bar's Sphere of Influence was first approved by the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on Auggst 8. 1990 and: encompasses 3,591 acres immediately south of the City limits to the Los Angeles County/Orange County border. This sphere area i clr cludesvepreserlts the middle portion of Tonner Canyon — an undeveloped northeast/southwest trending wooded carryon which extends beyond the Ci' s Spore of Influence into Orange County to the south and San Bernardino CountLr to the east. Pursuant to the provisions of the Cortese/Knox Local AQgl a ReorQu&A ion Act, the sphere of influence serves as an area designated as future area to be mmexed to the City. However. until such time as the property is annexed to the City of Diamond Bar the area remains under the jurisdiction of Los An geks Count+ Tlds is pfimwily-ewned-by4he Iteseriratim . an-unimpwvlerl sea, a w-ster lower- an the seudwm ridge; and e,o mnereialrsilio-tower-ewdw northern nkhr. 2. Amend policy 1.1(f) on page I-11 to read as follows: lime) 1,711 =41 1 1 " 11i•f1 •, •," • ' t 11 1 . =,• •;" 1 . 1 11 • •." •� •la" t • 1 I6 • • ' - • : • • C-.: -. - 1 try • 1 • 1= �.. • •.- •; li- - 1.• t • _:= • 1 - �. • -i:.� - :.-u �..°.: - •." h" 11 Si- C- • ' • •: • =111 =�• _� • •��r Slope = 0.002296 I L I = Contour interval in feet L = Summation of length of all contours in feet A = Area in acres ofap reel being 3. Amend policy 1. 1.9 on page I-13 to read as follows: 1.1. 9 Encourage the innovative use of land resources and development of a variety of housing and other development types, provide a means to coordinate the public and private provision of CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable City Counci _\ FROM: Phyllis Papen, Mayr� RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEG'E! OPMFNT 1425 F2*3 211 P?q 3. 46 SUBJECT: Land Use Element - Continued Issues for Discussion at the City Council Meeting February 28, 1995 DATE: Feb. 24, 1995 This memo is to recap issues yet 1. -� e Diamond Bar General Plan. Please be prepare �_ ; issues on Tuesday, Feb. 28th. I welcome t ' ad apologize if my notes are not complete. Issue - Page 1-7 Issue Anal, I within the City Limits of Diamond Bar and no ? (Shell) Issue -Page 1-11 1.1.1.e Sb nsity (RH-16) residential land use classificaf juld the Council add a High Density (RH-20) resid, incil direct staff to reclassify existing projects built to !M22U_ e., Daisy Apts. Hampton, Village Apts. and Fall Creek Condos? Issue - Page 1-12 1.1.6 Council requested a review of the language. See Shell letter. Issue - Page 1-161.5.1 Council requested further discussion. Issue - Page 1-18 1.6.5 Council requested further discussion. See Bramalea letter. Issue - Page 1-24 4.2.2 Council requested further discussion. See Shell letter. Issue - Page 1-26 Table 1-3 Staff to provide recommendation on underlying density for Agriculture and Agriculture/Specific Plan. County zoning standard is one unit per two acres. Council Memo - Land Use Element/Continued Issues Page 2 Phyllis Papen February 24, 1995 Issue - Request by Walnut Valley Unified School District to reclassify Brea Canyon Road property from OS to PD. Issue - Request by Walnut Valley Unified School District to reclassify Site from PF to PD. Issue - Shell Oil property: request for AG/SP on all Shell Oil property in Sphere of Influence Issue - Sasak Property: request for consistency with prior tentative map approval by Council Issue - RNP request for reclassification on Lot 1/Lot 61 property from OS to current zoning. Owner believes only 7.57 acres is currently zoned open space and requests no change on this 7.57 acres. The owner believes the other 60.5 acres was not designated open space and protests OS designation. Requests current underlying zoning of RPD -20,000 (2 dwelling units per acre) remain on this land and acknowledges property was encumbered with a building restriction. Issue - Firestone Boy Scouts: Council agreed to four requests for language modification in Housing and Land Use Elements. Issue of underlying density of AG/SP zone remains. Issue - Bramalea: Request for PD classification; transfer of densities from separate parcels with agreement to dedicate a minimum of 75% as open space with development approval. Issue - Which, if any, parcels should be zoned for RMH-16 or RH-20 units in order to meet state housing requirements? Suggestions for consideration included Area 44, 6, 20, 25 and 54 on the Vacant Land/Housing Opportunity Areas map/matrix list dated Feb. 16, 1995. Issue - Should any parcels be rezoned commercial or light industrial? Suggestions are Area #45 and the Walnut Unified School District property on Lemon Avenue. Issue - Are there other changes on the Vacant Land Housing Opportunity Areas list that the Council wishes to discuss? Please review this list area by area. PP:dbm TO: DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL I 010 ,-,[I 'i l i , if � '4 ! ' [ '�j t a l 1 1! 1! i,` I � ' I f !,!', !_ I J 1-_'R. I `:,I- [.,'V r 1 (,[, L E 1F -1 1 'r i -Ii I Jvl r•.i f!- j:; irdl � 11". i, 1F P!- 0I W 1 1 HOH I ()P, ly SOND I r I UN., NI 1 r I'd 1 1 r no j to: I rV MHE I WH(_) REPI N T I , N - A I I ip]p4q r 111 1 - U[ ! I I , WfTHOur NJ Y maj, "p, I, jq,,� F 1 1 NIJW, Iji kf:'l '.,F-[-] 1311 1.1,[f)i j - I A!", llko-i L N I ;1:. !:.A, JIH IJI it f11 0 k] I l"I I � iii r [q I I' I i I j 11� f 1! 1. I I .11 I ; I L 1 , (fli-) m0h,,![,,WA I)V 1. -:, I t) " ] . I i Id i!, "'! 1 II IF I IFI I Nr, 11 I J!•![,Ally' I - I, 'JI_ '1:1:1 ;! IJII 1_1 II [o IJ 1 11 ", 10 V f-0 f 1-1 [Al F J I I I f"J I ii:)k t, -J! � I I () 1, i `) [l I , , 1 "T 131 1-1, 'Ji! TERESSA J. eus4GORD ON M. GUBER S 24303 3 RIMFORD PLACE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 34� x_/ 414 y 4 We, the undersigned residents of Diamond Bar, vigorously oppose the increased deve, gat and traffic which ill result from designating building restricted land as Open Space/Specific Plan. The people of Diamond Bar have twice expressed, through referenda, their opposi- tion to planned development of these areas. We vigorously denounce the Planning Commission's cynicism and arrogance in changing the General Plan Advisory Com- mittee's designation of these areas from Open Space to Open Space/Specific Plan. We view this designation to be a tactic to permit development while hidinthe real intent from the voters. At any future city council elections we will not support those members who oppose returning these areas back to a pure Open Space designation. a e rj c�-►+;� Address ��►�IM11- \4-\I 12,4 DPS YVC�i � SSRI 45;N<7 '-z4343 1ZIMF-0K ?L- 1 r4 1 C � We, the undersigned residents of Diamond Bar, vigorously oppose the increased development and traffic which will result from designating building restricted land as Open Space/Specific Plan. The people of Diamond Bar have twice expressed, through referenda, their,.opposi- tion to planned development of these areas. We vigorously denounce the Planning Commission's cynicism and arrogance in changing the General Plan Advisory Com- mittee's designation of these areas from Open Space to Open Space/Specific Plan. We view this desi nation to be a tactic to permit development while hiding the real intent from the voters. At any future city council elections we will not support those members who oppose returning these areas back to a Pure Open Space designation. gna ure ddress joy( E ( 'd , Y.?Y2_,)EL7t) e " &A ILI ` L441 We, the undersigned residents of Diamond Bar, vigorously oppose the increased development and traffic which will result from designating building restricted land as Open Space/Specific Plan. The people of Diamond Bar have twice expressed, through referenda, their opposi- tion to planned development of these areas. We vigorously denounce the Planning Commission's cynicism and arrogance in changing the General Plan Advisory Com- mittee's designation of these areas from Open Space to Open Space/Specific Plan. We view this designation to be a tactic to permit development while hiding the real intent from the voters. At any future city council elections we will not support those members who oppose returnin ese areas back to a pure Open Space designation. ihwa Signature, Address l ✓ /lee,k of LL� ,, e t 6 ..... Yt- Z0937 h1iSSlowARj f IvALM U7 IN ,4 �, i cam►. J V� SNI � � :�. L�ti . G?• �� r . building industry 4swistion of southern adeno nla, Inc, February 28, 1995 City Council City of Diamond 1i ! 21660 B. Copley Drl ve, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 765 Re: QQW�S�asement Honorable Mayor sod Members of the City Council: This letter is being sent to express our concerns over the interpretation of certain language which has been construed as an implied open space easement or creation of open space. Thr, language states "Wt. hereby dedicate to the County of Los Angeles the right to prohibit the construction of resi¢entlal buildings." To Interpret this statement as creating an implied open space easement is not permissible under current law, not do we think this City Council would desire it upon consideration of the associated liabilities. An easement may be created by express language, by implication from necessity, by implication from cit+cumstances, or by prescription. with regard to explicit creation, this must be accomplished by a deed which is formally accepted by a city or county through resolutions and accpmpaniod by findings. Open Space Act of 1974. The deed must be granted from the owner of the property burdened by the easement. Furthermore, the deed must contain words of grant and a description of the property interest granted. California Civil Code 1092.: See also 5 Restatement of Property Chapter 38, Topic B and Chapter 39. Courts have also ho)d that an easement may be created by implication from lidg or itbsolute necessity. An cxan?ple of this creation would be where the qjy means of access to a landlocked parcel it through another's property, Courts have implied an easement by necessity in this sitz jation. Courts have also implied an easement based on other circumstances. For example, where two houses are con$tructed on one parcel of property and share a common driveway, and later that parcel is liplit such that the driveway is located on both parcels. In such a case, courts have acknowlodged that, if the landowners arc AwALp and consent to the use of the driveway, an easwuent by implication exists. No easement by implication is available by the above -referenced language. There is no strict or absolute necessity that has boon shown, nor would it be fair to say that the property 1330 S. Valley Vista Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91706 (909) 390-9993 Fax (909) 398.9840 An Affiliate or NAHB and COIA til BIA building industry association of southern caiifornia, Inc. VIAr COMMS. February 28, 1995 Frank Williams BIA Baldy view Chapter 9227 Haven Avc., #280 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Frank: 12C'C�'a --4-Dr/9s The following are my comments in response to a memorandum of today's date written by Michacl Montgomery regarding the City of Diamond Bar's novel, creative, imaginary, and delusional interpretation of language purporting to create an open space. The memorandum states that a developer conveyed to the County, by way of subdivision map restriction, the right to construct residential units on these lots. To the contrary, the language delegates the pgwer to restrict asWential development on a certain parcel, to the County of Los Angeles. This does not mean that no residential construction was permitted on the progeny. Los Angeles County had first to exercise its right to restrict residential development on that parcel. Suppose, for the sake of argument that Los Angeles County had restricted residential development on that property. The language of Government Code 51075, which Mr. Montgomery is so quick to quote, requires that the landowner agree not to construct improvements on a given parcel, In order to create an open space easement. There was no covenant restricting jU improvements regarding this parcel. Such a broad restriction is required in order to create an open space easement. Without this restriction, the landowner may apply for a rezone. The more fact that a rezone would be required for a nonresidential use does not make the property automatically an open space parcel. If that were the case, all nonresidential parcels which are vacant should now be declared open space. Indeed, that would require compensation pursuant to the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, On this point, there can be no question that no open space easement was created. This new interpretation is merely a land grab by an overzealous local government. Moreover, the language of Government Code 5107.5 requires that a covenant restricting construction of all improvements be compatible with maintaining and preserving 1330 S. Valley vista Drivo Diamond bar. CA 91765 (909) 396.9993 Fax JIM) 396.9846 An Affiliate of NAHB and CBIA the natural and scenic character of the land. 1 trust that the parcel in question and the adjacent parcels arc all in their cultural and scenic state. Mr. Montgomery reads all nonresidential zoning as open space. If this is correct, all buildings built on nonresidential land should be demolished in order to bring these parcels into conformity with the general plan. We might begin with City Hall. i am particularly delighted to see Mr. Montgomery quoting the 8lrttli case in his final paragraph of his conclusion. This language was specifically overruled in an apparently little known United States Supreme Court case known as First Fn¢lis� h Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendaly I. COUW of Los Ani;. I believe this shoddy research is indicative of the thought that went into the City's action is this case. No doubt someone will accept Mr. Montgomery's invitation to "test the Council's judgment." However, it will not be by way of writ of mandate. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, Nick Cainmarota General Counsel