The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/25/1995Cit Co u,R Ci; AGENDA Tuesday, July 25, 1995 6:30 P.M. Adjourned Regular Meeting South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Mayor Phyllis E. Papen Mayor Pro Tem Gary H. Werner Council Member Eileen R. Ansari Council Member Clair W. Harmony City Manager Terrence L. Belanger City Attorney Michael Jenkins 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. .A. ,1=' UAW Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking ' in the Council Chambers. The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper 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 Cleric. 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(x) 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 fundings, 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 duce business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 860-2489 between 8 a.m. and S 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) 860-1INE General Information (909) 860-2489 NOTE: ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM IDENTIFIED ON THE AGENDA. ull";,vii'a �o•' !lua � �r� ,1•••„ u','I' i, Next Resolution No. 95-42 Next Ordinance No. 06(1995) CLOSED SESSION: 5:30 p.m., July 25, 1995, SCAQMD, Room CC -8 a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9) Name of Case: Oak Tree Lanes vs. City of Diamond Bar b. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiation: REGULAR SESSION: 1. CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: 1320 Valley Vista, Diamond Bar Mr. Simon Chu City of Diamond Bar Price 6:30 p.m. July 25, 1995 Flag Ceremony led by Eagle Scout Rohan Arun Virginkar and Troop No. 777 Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen 8. OLD BUSINESS (Continued from July 11, 1995): 8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - On May 9, 1995, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft 1995 General Plan and adopted Resolution No. 95-21 certifying the adequacy of the Addendum to the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. In addition, Council discussed the possibility of placing the General Plan on the ballot. The meeting was continued to May 23, 1995 in order to provide options to Council regarding adoption of the General Plan. The May 23, 1995 discussion was continued to June 20, 1995, July 11, 1995 and again to July 25, 1995. JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 2 Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from City staff, review the General Plan materials and adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX adopting the 1995 General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar. Requested by: Community Development Director 8.1 LEASE OF OFFICE SPACE FOR CITY HALL - Shall the City lease office space, if so for what term of years; or continue to pursue the possibility of purchasing a building to serve as City Hall? Continued from July 11, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve a one year lease for Suites 100 and 190 in the amount of $158,106; further, direct staff to pursue the purchase of a building for City Hall offices; and hold a closed session on July 25, 1995 to give staff negotiation direction and authority. Requested by: City Manager 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES: None 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council - members are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July 26, 1995 - Joe Palumbo Jazz Combo (40's jazz/swing) - 6:30 - 8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - July 27, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - August 1, 1995 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 3 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 6.1.1 Regular Meeting of June 6, 1995 - Approve as submitted. 6.1.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 12, 1995 - Approve as submitted. Requested by: City Clerk 6.2 VOUCHER REGISTER: Approve Voucher Register dated July 25, 1995 in the amount of $171,764.40. Requested by: City Manager 6.3 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES: 6.3.1 Filed by the Walnut Valley Water District July 10, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council reject the request and refer the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 6.3.2 Filed by Tracy Thanh Le July 10, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council reject the request and refer the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. Requested by: City Clerk 6.4 RELEASE OF BONDS: 6.4.1 MONUMENTATION BOND FOR HIDDEN SPRINGS CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX AT 300-366 TORITO LANE - The Principal desires release of Bond No. 3SM 801 212 00 posted in the amount of $3,000 for setting survey monuments for Tract No. 50519. The City Engineer finds that all work has been performed as shown on the recorded Tract Map. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council declare the obligations under the bond null and void and release Bond No. 3SM 801 212 00 posted in the amount of $3,000 and direct the City Clerk to notify the prin- cipals. JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 4 6.4.2 OFF-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BONDS FOR HIDDEN SPRINGS CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX AT 300-366 TORITO LANE - The Principal desires release of the Faithful Performance and Labor & Materials Bond No. 3SM 801 211 00 in the amount of $8,478 posted for construction of off-site public improvements located on Tract No. 50519. The City Engineer finds all work performed as shown on the approved "as -built" precise grading and street overlay plans. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council declare the obligations under this bond No.. 3SM 801 211 00 in the amount of $8,478 null and void and release the surety bond posted and direct the City Clerk to notify the principals. Requested by: City Engineer 6.5 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 - On February 21, 1995, Council adopted Resolution No. 95-09 authorizing advertisement for bids for maintenance of L.L.M.D. No. 39. Bids were received from five qualified contractors, opened and publicly read on March 23, 1995, with bids ranging from $73,080 to $104,136. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council award a contract for maintenance of L.L.M.D. No. 39 to Accurate Landscape & Maintenance Corp., the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of $73,080. Requested by: Community Services Director 6.6 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A 401(A) DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN - Continued from July 11, 1995. Staff is proposing the addition of a 401(A) Deferred Compensation Plan which provides, to eligible employees, the opportunity to defer portions of their salary. Currently the City provides employees a Section 457 Deferred Compensation an which allows employees to defer compensation up t %�.,,their salary, with not - to -exceed annual amount of �3a;" However, the City's proposal of the 401(A) Plan would only allow up to $10,000 in deferred compensation. ICMA Retirement Corp. is proposed trustee for Section 401(A) Deferred Compensation Plan. The ICMA/RC is currently the trustee for the 457 Plan. JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 5 Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX which establishes a Section 401(A) Deferred Compensation Plan. Requested by: City Manager 6.7 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO CERTAIN TAX DEFAULTED REAL PROPERTY, KNOWN AS TRACT No. 42560, LOT 51, ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 8701-013- 047 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY FORMS, AGREEMENTS, CERTIFICATES, AND DOCUMENTS AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW - On January 31, 1995, the City received notification from the L.A. County Treasurer & Tax Collector of a pending sale/auction of a certain parcel of real property for nonpayment of taxes pursuant to provision of law. The 1.27 acre parcel, which functions as a neighborhood pocket park, is located adjacent to Summit Ridge Park. On February 7, 1995, the City, pursuant to Division 1, Part 6, Chapter 8 of the Revenue & Taxation Code, exercised its legal prerogative to acquire subject property for the minimum bid amount of $8,040 plus related costs. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX approving acquisition of the subject property; and authorize the Mayor to execute and file with the L.A. County Board of Supervisors all forms, agreements, certificates, and documents necessary to complete the sale. Requested by: City Manager 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 ORDINANCE NO. 05(1995): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ENACTING AND ADOPTING THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, WHICH CODE CONSISTS OF REGULATORY, PENAL AND CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CITY AND PROVIDES FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION AND ADOPTION BY REFERENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 5022.1, ET. SEQ., OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1990 EDITION, THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1988 EDITION, AND CHAPTER 99 OF TITLE 26 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE, 1988 EDITION, AS JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 6 EACH OF THEM ARE AMENDED AND IN EFFECT SAVE AND EXCEPT SUCH PORTIONS THEREOF AS ARE DELETED, MODIFIED OR AMENDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS THEREOF AND REPEALING CERTAIN ORDINANCES AS SPECIFIED THEREIN - In 1992, the City Council authorized an agreement with Municipal Code Corporation of Tallahassee, Florida to codify its ordinances into a document commonly referred to as a "Municipal Code." Said publication is a compilation of all ordinances adopted by the City beginning with incorporation up to July 5, 1994. Only those ordinances pertaining to zoning or development remain to be codified in a separate document. Upon adoption, the entire Code document will be available for public read-only purposes through City -On -Line. Persons wishing to purchase copies of the Code will be able to do so at a cost of $30. Supplements will also be available at a nominal fee. Continued from July 18, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing, take testimony, close the Public Hearing, waive further reading, approve second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance No. 05(1995) adopting a new Code for the City of Diamond Bar. Requested by: City Clerk 9. NEW BUSINESS: 9.1 25 MPH PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS - The Traffic & Transportation Commission requested that speed limits on Cold Spg. Ln., Highland Valley Rd., Fountain Spgs. Rd., Sunset Crossing Rd., Prospectors Rd., Palomino Dr. and Kiowa Crest Dr. be reviewed. The question was whether prima facia speed limits should be established for these residential streets. The Commission recommended that these residential/local streets all have a 25 mph speed limit. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council establish a Speed Limit Determination Policy on local residential streets. Requested by: City Engineer 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: In memory of Michael Ortiz. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC KEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) The Diamond Bar City Council will hold an Adjourned Regular Meeting at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, located at 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 25, 1995. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, LYNDA BURGESS, declare as follows: I am the City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy of the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council, to be held on July 25, 1995 was posted at their proper locations. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Notice and Affidavit was executed this 21st day of July, 1995, at Diamond Bar, California. /s/ Lynda Burgess Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: C-P� (?-k-u Tk, DATE: ADDRESS: PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: -7-25-09 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 FA TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT CITY CLERK Sok -u 6o-7 !!F-, 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: W 1.11 ur- ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: 4�; .1�5' 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. AVS, 4� Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK -7)-)-,S i DATE: 7 PHONE: f,! ' d7,51Zr 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 v VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: 7/0 / q - 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 7� TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE: d -21 0 0 I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. 7�e-act. Signature FA TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK i DATE: 7 - Z,' Z> 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. ti,�t Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY GOUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLER .3d�c� u2��4t I i 4/4�% �i�ed 1'�� J ` -f lr' mei DATE: PHON CU- I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY-7 DATE: PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the sub' ctl agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. L 'Lx �' Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: ` )iJ r ) } 111 !% DATE: / ADDRESS: 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 VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO CITY CLERK FROM: ADDRE=SS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: Coves i GL -7 DATE: 7 ^ 2—/�f�' 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. i �Signat C TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT CITY C ERK /\ ' /ZT DATE: J 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. 6� Signature ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ENACTING AND ADOPTING THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, WHICH CODE CONSISTS OF REGULATORY, PENAL AND CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CITY AND PROVIDES FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION AND ADOPTION BY REFERENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 50022.1, ET SEQ., OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1990 EDITION, THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1988 EDITION, AND CHAPTER 99 OF TITLE 26 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE, 1988 EDITION, AS EACH OF THEM ARE AMENDED AND IN EFFECT SAVE AND EXCEPT SUCH PORTIONS THEREOF AS ARE DELETED, MODIFIED OR AMENDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS THEREOF AND REPEALING CERTAIN ORDINANCES AS SPECIFIED THEREIN. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of the Diamond Bar City Code. That certain document entitled "Diamond Bar City Code," a copy of which has been filed and is on file in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection, together with the secondary Codes therein adopted by reference, is hereby adopted by reference as a comprehensive Code for the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, and each and all of the provisions, terms, and penalties of said Code on file in the office of the City Clerk are hereby referred to, 950605 10572-00001 Ij 5231529 1 adopted, incorporated herein and made a part of this ordinance as if fully set forth in this ordinance. Section 2. Certain Ordinances to Remain in Effect. Those certain ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar which are listed on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference shall not be repealed but shall remain in full force and effect. In addition to the foregoing, Ordinance Nos. 03(1994) and 01(1995) through 04(1995) shall remain in full force and effect pending their codification and incorporation into the Diamond Bar City Code following its adoption as modifications thereto, the incorporation and codification of said ordinances into said Code being hereby authorized and approved. Section 3. Savinqs Provisions. The repealing provisions of the Diamond Bar City Code shall not affect or impair any act done, or right vested or approved, or any proceeding, suit or prosecution had or commenced in any cause before such repeal shall take effect; but every such act done, or right vested or accrued, or proceeding, suit, or prosecution had or commenced shall remain in full force and effect to all intents and purposes as if the applicable provisions of the ordinance, or part thereof, so repealed had remained in force and effect. No offense committed and no liability, penalty, or forfeiture, either civilly or criminally incurred prior to the time when any such ordinance, or part thereof, shall be repealed or altered by said Code, shall be discharged or affected by such repeal or 950605 10572-00001 Ij 5231529 1 - 2 - alteration; but prosecutions and suits for such offenses, liabilities, penalties, or forfeitures shall be instituted and proceeded with in all respects as if such prior ordinance, or part thereof, had not been repealed or altered. Section 4. References to Specific Ordinances. The provisions of the Diamond Bar City Code shall not in any manner affect deposits or other matters of record which refer to, or are otherwise connected with, ordinances which are specifically designated by number or otherwise and which are included within the Diamond Bar City Code, but such references shall apply to the corresponding provisions set forth in the Diamond Bar City Code. Section 5. Violations of Code Provisions; Penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of the Diamond Bar City Code or the provisions of any Code adopted by reference by said Code. Any person violating any such provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of the Diamond Bar City Code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor unless otherwise provided in the Diamond Bar City Code or Article 1, Chapter 1, Division 17, of the Vehicle Code of the State, in which case such violation shall be an infraction. Each such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of the Diamond Bar City Code, or the provisions of any Code adopted by reference 950605 10572-00001 1i 5231529 1 - 3 - by said Code, is committed, continued, or permitted by such person and shall be punishable accordingly. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of the Diamond Bar City Code or the provisions of any Code or Ordinance adopted by reference by such Code shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand (1,000.00) dollars, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any person convicted of an infraction under the pro- visions of the Diamond Bar City Code or the provisions of any Code or Ordinance adopted by reference by such Code shall be punishable for a first conviction by a fine of not more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars, for a second conviction within a period of one year by a fine of not more than two hundred ($200.00) dollars, and for a third or any subsequent conviction within a period of one year by fine of not more than five hundred ($500.00) dollars. In addition to the penalties provided by this section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of the Diamond Bar City Code, or the provisions of any Code adopted by reference by said Code, or any subdivision, building, wiring, plumbing, or other similar activity in violation of the provisions of said Code shall be deemed a public 950605 10572-00001 Ij 5231529 1 - 4 - nuisance and may be summarily abated by the City in a civil action. Section 6. No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure, or cause the same to be done, contrary to, or in violation of the Uniform Administrative Code and the Technical Code, the Uniform Building Codes, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Housing Code or the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of such Codes shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of such Codes is committed, continued or permitted, and upon conviction of any such violation such person shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Section 7. Violations. A. Every person violating any condition or provision either of Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code, or of any permit, nonconforming use and structure review, zoning 950605 10572-00001 lj 5231529 1 - 5 - exception case, variance or amendment thereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless such violation is otherwise declared to be an infraction as in Subsection D. Each violation is a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which the violation is committed. B. Each violation determined to be an infraction by this title shall be punishable by a fine of $100.00 for the first violation. Subsequent violations of the same provision of this title shall be punishable by a fine of $200.00 for the second violation and $500.00 for the third violation in a 12 -month period as provided by applicable law. The fourth and any further violations of the same provision of this title which are committed at any time within a 12 -month period from the date of the commission of the first violation shall be deemed misdemeanors, regardless of the dates of conviction of the first three violations. The three infraction violations which are the basis for the fourth and any further violations being misdemeanors may be brought and tried together. The increased penalties set forth in this section for subsequent violations shall be applicable whether said subsequent violations are brought and tried together with the underlying previous violations or separately therefrom. C. Public Nuisance. Any use of property contrary to the provisions of Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be unlawful and 950605 10572-00001 Ij 5231529 1 - 6 - a public nuisance, and the authorized legal representative of the City may commence actions and proceedings for the abatement thereof, in the manner provided by law, and may take such other steps and may apply to any court having jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate or remove such use and restrain and enjoin any person from using any property contrary to the provisions of Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code. D. Infractions. Violations of the provisions contained in the following list are deemed infractions: • Automobile, truck or other motor vehicle repair conducted outside of an enclosed building. • Commercial vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds unladen where parked or stored in violation of Section 22.16.020 of Title 22. • Inoperative vehicle parking or storage. • Keeping or parking of vehicles in violation of Section 22.20.025 or Section 22.24.035 of Title 22. • Outside display and/or sales. 950605 10572-00001 Ij 5231529 1 - 7 - • Signs prohibited by Sections 22.52.850 and 22.52.990 of Title 22. Section 8. Validity of Code. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of the Diamond Bar City Code is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Diamond Bar City Code. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Diamond Bar City Code and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, and if for any reason the Diamond Bar City Code should be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then the original ordinance or ordinances shall be in full force and effect. Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and approval. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1995. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 950605 10572-00001 ]j 5231529 1 - 8 - I, , City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: 950605 10572-00001 Ij 5231529 1 City Clerk EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE # TITLE 12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 6/20/89 DIAMOND BAR GRANTING TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USE POLES, WIRES, CONDUITS, AND APPURTENANCES, INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS CIRCUITS NECESSARY OR PROPER THEREFOR, FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING ELECTRICITY FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES IN, ALONG, ACROSS, UPON, OVER AND UNDER THE PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS, ROADS, ALLEYS AND PLACES, AS THE SAME NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER EXIST, WITHIN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 6/20/89 DIAMOND BAR, GRANTING TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USE PIPES AND APPURTENANCES FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING GAS FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES ALONG, ACROSS, UPON, UNDER AND IN THE PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS, ROADS, ALLEYS AND PLACES, AS THE SAME NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER EXIST, WITHIN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 26 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10/17/89 DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM 32 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 1/2/90 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING SECTION 22.20.120 OF CHAPTER 22.20 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 4/3/90 DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.72 TO TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND REPEALING ORDINANCES NOS. 11(1989), 11A(1989), 15(1989) AND 15A(1989) AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED 6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 6/19/90 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, HEREIN DESCRIBED, FROM THE R-1- 6000 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 6,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE) ZONE TO THE C1 -DP -BE 950605 10572-00001 ]j 5231529 1 A-1 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL -DEVELOPMENT -PROGRAM) ZONE. (ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-0028) 10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 9/18/90 DIAMOND BAR AMgNDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY BY RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, HEREIN DESCRIBED, FROM THE M1-/DP/BE (LIGHT MANUFACTURING, DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, BILLBOARD EXCLUSION ZONE) TO THE C-1/DP/BE (RESTRICTED BUSINESS, DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, BILLBOARD EXCLUSION) ZONE. (ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 90-0036) 11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 9/18/90 DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THAT DOCUMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1 (1990) CONCERNING PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND THE ROUTE 60 (POMONA) FREEWAY, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA" AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SAME ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11/2/990 DIAMOND BAR DIRECTING THAT GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BE HELD ON THE DAY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTIONS 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 7/2/91 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING SECTION 22.60.100 OF TITLE 22 AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 82-7 TO TITLE 27 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED 4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 8/20/91 DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THAT DOCUMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-2 (1991) CONCERNING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT AND IDENTIFIED AS 22000 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA: AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SAME ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 5A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 6/7/94 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING CHAPTER 22.66 OF TITLE 22, AS AMENDED, AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 8/20/91 DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.66 TO DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 AND REPEALING BOTH ORDINANCE 9-1990, AS AMENDED, AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS 950605 10572-00001 Ij 5231529 1 A-2 HERETOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 28/92 DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.76 TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO ADMISSION CHARGE PARTIES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES 4(1992) AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 9/15/92 OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS REGULATING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES INCLUDING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 6(1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11/3/94 DIAMOND BAR REPEALING SECTION 22.28.230 OF PART 6 OF CHAPTER 22.28 OF TITLE 22 AND ADOPTING AMENDED SECTION 22.28.230, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 7(1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 1/15/93 DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT (GRADING) ORDINANCE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 3(1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 4/20/93 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, HEREIN DESCRIBED, FROM THE C-1 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO THE R -3-(15)U (LIMITED MULTIPLE RESIDENCE, 15 UNITS MAXIMUM PER GROSS ACRE) ZONE. (ZONE CHANGE NO. 91-1) 2(1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 5/9/94 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER 22.54 AND ESTABLISHING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS 950605 10572-000011] 5231529 1 A-3 JIM-" bra raOxiv nrux AGENDA REPORT TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 FROM: George A. Wentz, City Engineer AGENDA NO.: REPORT DATE: JULY 13, 1995 TITLE: Release of "Monumentation" Bond for Tract 50519 ("Hidden Springs" Condominium Complex) at 300-366 Torito Lane. SUMMARY: The Principal, Diamond Development Company, desires release of a monumentation bond posted for the setting of survey monuments for Tract No. 50519 (300-366 Torito Lane). The City Engineer finds that Principal has set all monumemts as shown on the recorded Tract Map and Certificate of Correction, on file with the City. This bond was a condition precedent to the approval and recordation of Tract Map 50519. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council 1)declare the obligations under this bond null and void and release the surety bond which was posted with the City of Diamond Bar in January, 1994 and 2)instruct the City Clerk to notify Diamond Development Company and the American Motorists Insurance Company of the City Council's action. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) _ Ordinances(s) X Other: Monumentation Bond and Cerificate of Correction X Agreement: Subdivision EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 415 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. BelanFrank M. sher George VVWVen'tzf;4� City Manager Assistant City Manager ''XCity Engineer CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Release of "Monumentation" Bond for Tract 50519 ("Hidden Springs" Condominium Complex) at 300-366 Torito Lane. ISSUE STATEMENT The Principal, Diamond Development Company, desires release of a monumentation bond for the setting of survey monuments for Tract No. 50519 (300-366 Torito Lane). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council 1)declare the obligations under this bond null and void and release the surety bond which was posted with the City of Diamond Bar in January, 1994 and 2)instruct the City Clerk to notify Diamond Development Company and the American Motorists Insurance Company of the City Council's action. FINANCIAL SUMMARY This recommendation will have no financial impact on the City's Fiscal Year 1995-96 budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On February 1, 1994, Mr. Ronald J. Crowley for Diamond Development Company signed a subdivision agreement with the City of Diamond Bar for development of Tract 50519. This agreement required Dr. Crowley to give a bond in the amount of $3, 000 with a corporate bonding company, securing the setting of survey monuments on the subject Tract. On June 15, 1995, the City of Diamond Bar received a letter from Dr. Crowley's Engineer, Charles Hartman, stating that all of the monuments required to be set per Tract No. 50519 have been set. The City's Consultant Inspector Mike Myers has inspected and approved the setting of all of the survey monuments. The City continues to retain a $3,000 bond guaranteeing all improvements for a period of one year. The following listed surety bond needs to be released: Tract No.: 50519 Bond Number: 3SM 801 212 00 Principal: Diamond Development Company Surety: American Motorists Insurance Company Amount: $3,000 Prepared By: Anne M. Garvey MEMORANDUM City of Diamond Bar To: Anne Garvey From: Mike Myers Date: July 12, 1995 Subject Subdivision Bonds, Tract 50519 (Crowley) Condominiums, 300 Torito Lane GRADING Grading Improvements are complete for Phase 1 (19 Units), inspected and verified to be substantially in accordance with approved plans. Recommend that the subdivision grading work be declared complete and the bonds be exonerated. It should be noted that, while additional work for the 15 units in Phase 2 has yet to be completed, grading required for the subdivision is complete. The area of Phase 2 drains as shown on the grading plans and all slopes within the site are planted and established. Also, as specifically required in the Subdivision Agreement, all slope banks over 3' in height and along arterial streets have been planted and irrigated. The grading plans show stairs from Golden Springs Drive to the site. These stairs are not constructed and the necessity to construct these stairs is determined by the Planning Department in conjunction with the Fire Department. Though shown on the grading plans, the construction of these stairs is not considered a grading requirement and not cause for continued holding of the grading bond. SANITARY SEWERS Sanitary Sewer Improvements are complete, inspected and verified to be in accordance with approved plans. Recommend that the improvements be accepted and the bonds be exonerated. Subdivision Bonds, Tract 50519 (Crowley) Condominiums, 300 Torito Lane July 12, 1995 Page 2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS Improvements in the public right-of-way are complete, inspected and verified to be in accordance with approved plans and City standards. Recommend that the improvements be accepted and the bonds be exonerated. SUBDIVISION MONUMENTS Subdivision monumentation is complete; monuments shown on the final map "to be set" have been set, inspected and verified to have been set as shown on the final map and/or Certificate of Correction (approved). Centerline monument tie notes have been submitted. Correspondence has been received from the Subdivider's Engineer stating that the subdivision monuments have been set and he has been paid for his work. Recommend that the monumentation bond be exonerated. WARRANTY OF WORK It should be noted that the Subdivision Agreement specifically requires a bond (or similar security) for one year after acceptance of public improvements to guarantee against defects. a •� Bond No. 3SM 801 212 00 ( Premium: $100.00/2 yrs. MONUMENTATION BOND WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ORANGE, political livision of the State of California, and Diamond Development Company hereinafter designated as 'Principal," e entered into an Agreement whereby Principal agrees to install and complete tain monumentation, which said Agreement, dated identified as project: Off-site public improvements for Tract #50519 , is hereby referred to and made as part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Principal is required under the terms of said Agreement to nish security guaranteeing the payment of the cost of setting such monuments. 'NOW, THEREFORE, WE the Principal and American Motorists Insurance Company , as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the ,-IM OF ORANGE and the Engineer or Surveyor, in the penal sum of Three Thousand & NO/100ths ($ 3,000.00 ) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Should the condition of this bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, Alteration or addition to the terms of said Agreement or the specifications accompanying and same shall in any manner affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any change, extension, alteration or addition. o IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the principal and Surety above named, -on January 21st , 1994 . Diamond Development Company By: (1t �1r—r--'Z,•� �ti^wz -I"?'r.CLCC-$FORMS u. IICCTTS FORM 63240— ALL PURPOSE AC1CID'NLEDGMENi WITH SIG1.E0. C:.PACIiY'REPRESENhTIONlFWGE0.PRCIT—Fev 12-92 i RIGHT THUMBPRINT (OP)IONAL) State of California County of Orange z � On Jan. 21, 1994 before me, Susan E. Morales, Notary Public 0 a (DATE) (NAME. TITLE OF OFFICER - LE_ :JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC-) personally appeared Ronald J. Crowley CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER(S) (NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S)) ❑ INDIVIDUAL(S) ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER(S) J PARTNER(S) (TITLE(S)) ❑ personally known to me -OR- t proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ❑ ATTORNEY IN FACT to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are sub- ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ----I _-___-_�---,----------,-�---scribedtothewithininstrumentandacknowledged ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OFFICIAL SEAL to me that helshe/they executed the same in ❑ OTHER: CKQTSUSA) I- MORA oRNIA �his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by ' COMMISSION X980063 ..his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the i ORANGE COUNTY person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: •�• "F' My Comm. Exp. Dammber6.1996 person(s) acted, executed the instrument (NAME OFPERseNs)oRENTITYnEsn _- ------ I- ----"_"- Witness myhand and official seal. Diamond Development Co. %j ISEALI (SIGNATURE OF NOTARY) ATTENTION NOTARY: The Information requested below Is OPTIONAL It could, however, prevent fraudulent attachment of this cernticate to any unau"lized document. THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Pages Date of Document DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above -I"?'r.CLCC-$FORMS u. IICCTTS FORM 63240— ALL PURPOSE AC1CID'NLEDGMENi WITH SIG1.E0. C:.PACIiY'REPRESENhTIONlFWGE0.PRCIT—Fev 12-92 i MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY r---� Long Grove, IL 60049 naionaL RLsuRance /the ATTO Y amranes en By These Presents: can Motorists Insurance Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of having its principal office in Long Grove, Illinois, does hereby appoint Doug Lane of Orange, CaliforniaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Its true and lawful agent(s) and atiorney(s)-in-fact, to make, execute, seal, and deliver during the period beginning with the date of issuance of this power and ending December 31, 1994, unless sooner revoked for and on its behalf as surety, and as its act and deed: Any and all bonds and undertakings pprovided the amount of no one bond or undertakingexNeds ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00)AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA EXCEPTION: NO AUTHORITY is granted to make, execute, seal and deliver any bond or undertaking which guarantees the payment or collection of any promissory note, check, draft or letter of credit. This authority does not permit the same obligation to be split into two or more bonds in order to bring each such bond within the dollar limit of authority as set forth herein. This appointment may be revoked at any time by the American Motorists Insurance Company. The execution of such bonds and undertakings in pursuance of these presents shall be as binding upon the said American Motorists Insurance Company as fully and amply to all intents and purposes, as if the sane had been duly executed and acknowledged by its regularly elected officers at its principal office in Long Grove, Illinois. THIS APPOINTMENT SHALL CEASE AND TERMINATE WITHOUT NOTICE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1994. This Power of Attorney is executed by authority of a resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of said American Motorists Insurance Company on February 23, 1988 at Long Grove, Illinois, a true and accurate copy of which is hereinafter set forth and is hereby certified to by the undersigned Secretary as being in full force and effect: -VOTED, That the Chairman of the Board, the President, or any .Vice President, or their appointees designated in writing and filed with the Secretary, or the Secretary shall have the power and authority to appoint agents and attorneys -in -fact, and to authorize then to execute on behalf of the Company, 'and attach the seal of the Company thereto, bonds and undertakings, recognizances, contracts of indemnity and other writings, obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such officers of the Company may appoint agents for acceptance of process." This Power of Attorney is signed, sealed and certified by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company at a meeting duly called and held on the 23rd day of February, 1988: "VOTED, That the signature of the Chairman of the Board, the President, any Vice President, or their appointees designated in writing and filed with the Secretary, and the signature of the Secretary, the*seal of the Company, and certifications by the Secretary, may be affixed by facsimile on any power of attorney or bond executed pursuant to resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors on February 23, 1988 and any such power so executed, sealed and certified with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached, shall continue to be valid and binding upon the Company." In Testimony Whereof, the American Motorists Insurance Company has caused this instrument to be signed and its corporate seal to be affixed by its authorized officers, this 01 day of July , 1992 . Attested and Certified: F.C.McCullough, Secretary--' (OVER) AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY J.ar+� hiTT-' by J.S.Kemper,III,Sanior Vice President CHARCHOL / HARTMAN & ASSOC. :. PLANNING • ENGINEERING • SURVEYING June 15, 1995 ENG. DEPT. JUN 19 1995 CR OFD City of Diamond Bar 21660 E_ Copley Drive j Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA. 91765 Attn: Mike Myers - Engineering Department Re- Tract 50519 Dear Mike, 0" de, -77C Please be advised that the Final Monumentation has been set on Tr 50519 per the Recorded Map with the following deviations: (1) Lead and tag stamped RCE 29243 were set at the BC and EC of the curve with a delta of 240 16' 18", a radius of 48.75' and an are length of 20.65' in the Northerly right of way of Torito Lane (in the driveway) in lieu of the 2" iron pipe with tag specified on the map. (2) A concrete nail and tag stamped RCE 29243 was set on top of the block wall at the angle point in the northerly tract boundary a bearing of north 640 53' 00" west a distance of 76.46' from the westerly right of way line on Golden Springs Drive in lieu of the 2" iron pipe with tag specified on the map. Please contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, �OQROFESS/O,y� 0. n- RCE. 29243 Exp. 3/31/99 � Charles Hartman RCE 29243 C101 It Exp. 03131/99 qTF OF CAO2 LETTER=D86.15 DOC 27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 (714) 661-6695 FAX (714) 661-6674 SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Tentative Tract No. 50519 /Final Tract No. 50519 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of this day of , 19 94 , by and between DIAMOND DEVELOFHM COMPANY (hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider") and the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"). A. Recitals. (i) There has been previously approved a Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 50519 in the City of Diamond Bar. (ii) Subdivider seeks approval of a Final Map covering a portion of the area of Tentative Tract No. 50519 and bearing Final Tract No. 50519 B. Agreement. It is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. In consideration of City's approval of and filing Tentative Subdivision Tract Map No. 50519 and Final Tract No. 50519 Subdivider undertakes and agrees that it will, at Subdivider's sole cost and expense, make all the improvements upon and in connection with said Tract in accordance with plans and specifications therefor on file with City, incorporated DISCIDSONDSIDB 2.2112-89 1 herein and made a part hereof, and including all matters required by the Planning Commission and City Council of City in connection with the various steps leading to approval of said Tentative Tract No. 50519 Subdivider also undertakes and agrees upon the same consideration to comply with all ordinances and regulations of City,, and to do all other and further acts required of it pursuant to this Agreement. Subdivider agrees in connection therewith to pay or cause to be paid all amounts becoming due to contractors, subcontractors, and persons renting equipment or furnishing labor or materials to the foregoing Final Tract with respect to such improvements, or to Subdivider with respect thereto. Subdivider agrees that all such improvements shall be constructed and completed in accordance with City standards as determined by the City Engineer and in accordance with any applicable conditions as hereinabove referred to, and in accordance with the remaining provisions of this Agreement. In case of any dispute, the good faith judgment of the City Engineer shall be final and binding upon the parties. 2. Subdivider undertakes and agrees that all the work of improvement shall be completed within 365 days from the date -00-MM of this Agreement. 3. Should Subdivider fail to comply with any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, Subdivider shall be liable to City for the reasonable value of any work or improvements not completed or improperly done or performed. In the event of any DISC M-SONDSIDB 2.2\12-89 2 such failure, City shall give to Subdivider written notice thereof. Unless the work or improvements covered by said notice, including defective work and improvements, are commenced by Subdivider within fifteen (15) days of the date of said notice and diligently prosecuted to completion, City may at its option: (a) Collect from Subdivider the reasonable value of the work and improvements not so done and performed by Subdivider, to be measured by the anticipated costs and expenses of completing the same; or (b) City may complete said work and improvements not so completed by Subdivider and collect its costs and expenses in completing the same; or (c) City may as to some of such work and improvements proceed under remedy (a) above, and as to the remainder under remedy (b) above. City may change any election prior to trial of any lawsuit, and prior thereto no election of remedies shall be binding upon City. In either event there shall be included in said "costs and expenses", the reasonable overhead expenses of the City. In addition to the foregoing, Subdivider shall be liable to City for reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by City in enforcing the obligations of Subdivider under this Agreement. 4. All slope banks over three (3) feet in vertical height within said Tract shall be landscaped with plantings DISCITMBONDS\DB 2.2112-89 3 approved by the City Engineer. Sprinklers shall be installed on all -slopes over three (3) feet in vertical height along arterial streets and shall be of a type and according to a sprinkler plan approved by the City Engineer, with sprinkler turn -ons at the tops of the slopes, and connected with the remainder of the water systems of the lots of which such slopes are a part. 5. Subdivider shall give bonds with a corporate bonding company, or similar instrument, satisfactory to City in the following amounts and for the following purposes: a. A bond in the amount of $ 8,478.00 guaranteeing full performance of all the terms of this Agreement; b. A bond in the amount of $ 8,478.00 securing payment to the contractor, his subcontractor and to persons renting equipment or furnishing labor or materials to them with respect to said public improvements; C. A bond in the amount of $ 3,000.00 securing the setting of monuments. 6. Acceptance of any work or improvements by City shall not constitute an acknowledgment by City that the same are properly done or performed, except as to any items or matters readily apparent from an inspection thereof. Except as to such matters so readily apparent, Subdivider shall repair any defects which occur in the work of improvements within a one (1) year period thereof following acceptance by City. DISCXnSONDSIDB 2.2112-89 4 As a condition precedent to the acceptance of the improvements hereunder as being complete and prior to the release of any bonds required under paragraph 5, hereof, securing the faithful performance of Builder's obligations hereunder, Subdivider shall give a bond with a corporate bonding company, or similar instrument, satisfactory to City in the amount of $ 3,000.00 as guarantee and warranty of the work for a one (1) year period following the completion and acceptance thereof against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished. 7. All notices to Subdivider may be sent to 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton , California 92635 , or at such other address of which City shall actually receive notice in writing specifically calling attention to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF Orange On January 17, 1994 1 SS. before me, Barbara LUisi (Notary Name and Title) c ersonall a eared RONALD J. CROWLEY CD P y PP c� E personally known to me (or p ved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within i strument and acknowledged ;o rjre that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their v 3 ,authorized capacity(ies), and t at by his/her/their signaturPds) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon Ybehalf of which the persons) cted, executed the instrument` ¢ WITNESS my hand and ficial seal. i// ; ��• .''� o"a InL sEn* LUISI �� C.? • cu 'Tr Signature I/.�1,-'lam=VY C4,mxv,•,_o uses O crd=c v J v (Notarial Seal) icipal CCTV or ni�Mokqla raiz AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.: �- /, �, TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 REPORT DATE: JULY 13, 1995 FROM: George A. Wentz, City Engineer TITLE: Release of "Off -Site Public Improvements" Bonds for "Hidden Springs" Condominium Complex at 300-366 Torito Lane. SUMMARY: The Principal, Diamond Development Company, desires release of 1)a faithful performance bond and 2) a labor and materials bond posted for construction of off-site public improvements located at 300- 366 Torito Lane, in Tract 50519. The City Engineer finds that Principal has performed all work as shown on the approved "As -Built" precise grading (which include off-site public improvements) and street overlay plans, on file with the City. These bonds were a condition precedent to the approval and recordation of Tract Map 50519. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council 1)declare the obligations under these bonds null and void and release the surety bonds which were posted with the City of Diamond Bar in January, 1994 and accept the off-site public improvements and 2)instruct the City Clerk to notify Diamond Development Company and the American Motorists Insurance Company of the City Council's action. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) —Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) Ordinances(s) X Other: Bonds for Faithful Performance & Labor and Materials _2L Agreement: Subdivision EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Be er 'Frank M. Usher dor a A. Z g g City Manager Assistant City Manager City Engineer CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Release of "Off -Site Public Improvements" Bonds for "Hidden Springs" Condominium Complex at 300- 366 Torito Lane, Tract No. 50519. ISSUE STATEMENT The Principal, Diamond Development Company, desires release of 1) a faithful performance bond and 2) a labor and materials bond posted for the construction of off-site public improvements located on Tract No. 50519 (300-366 Torito Lane). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council 1)declare the obligations under these bonds null and void and release the surety bonds which were posted with the City of Diamond Bar in January, 1994 and accept the off-site public improvements and 2)instruct the City Clerk to notify Diamond Development Company and the American Motorists Insurance Company and Diamond Development Company of the City Council's action. FINANCIAL SUMMARY This action has no impact on the City's 1995-1996 budget. DISCUSSION All of the off-site public improvements for the "Hidden Springs" condominium complex at 300-366 Torito Lane have now been completed. The City's Consultant Inspector Mike Myers has inspected and approved (a) the installation of the curb, gutter and sidewalk on Torito Lane (b) the installation of the new driveway for the complex (c) the installation of a new handicap access ramp to current ADA standards on the south corner of Torito Lane and (d) the overlay of Torito Lane and the related signing and striping. The City continues to retain a a $3,000 bond guaranteeing all improvements for a period of one year. The following listed surety bond needs to be released: Tract No.: 50519 Bond Number: 3SM 801 211 00 Principal: Diamond Development Company Surety: American Motorists Insurance Company Amount: $8,478 Prepared By; Anne Garvey MEMORANDUM City of Diamond Bar To: Anne Garvey From: Mike Myers Date: July 12, 1995 Subject: Subdivision Bonds, Tract 50519 (Crowley) Condominiums, 300 Torito Lane GRADING Grading Improvements are complete for Phase 1 (19 Units), inspected and verified to be substantially in accordance with approved plans. Recommend that the subdivision grading work be declared complete and the bonds be exonerated. It should be noted that, while additional work for the 15 units in Phase 2 has yet to be completed, grading required for the subdivision is complete. The area of Phase 2 drains as shown on the grading plans and all slopes within the site are planted and established. Also, as specifically required in the Subdivision Agreement, all slope banks over 3' in height and along arterial streets have been planted and irrigated. The grading plans show stairs from Golden Springs Drive to the site. These stairs are not constructed and the necessity to construct these stairs is determined by the Planning Department in conjunction with the Fire Department. Though shown on the grading plans, the construction of these stairs is not considered a grading requirement and not cause for continued holding of the grading bond. SANITARY SEWERS Sanitary Sewer Improvements are complete, inspected and verified to be in accordance with approved plans. Recommend that the improvements be accepted and the bonds be exonerated. Subdivision Bonds, Tract 50519 (Crowley) Condominiums, 300 Torito Lane July 12, 1995 Page 2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS Improvements in the public right-of-way are complete, inspected and verified to be in accordance with approved plans and City standards. Recommend that the improvements be accepted and the bonds be exonerated. SUBDIVISION MONUMENTS Subdivision monumentation is complete; monuments shown on the final map "to be set" have been set, inspected and verified to have been set as shown on the final map and/or Certificate of Correction (approved). Centerline monument tie notes have been submitted. Correspondence has been received from the Subdivider's Engineer stating that the subdivision monuments have been set and he has been paid for his work. Recommend that the monumentation bond be exonerated. WARRANTY OF WORK It should be noted that the Subdivision Agreement specifically requires a bond (or similar security) for one year after acceptance of public improvements to guarantee against defects. BOND FOR FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE (10091) Whereas, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, State of California, and Diamond Development Company (hereinafter designated as "principal") have entered into an agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements,which said agreement, dated , 19 ,-and identified as project Off-site public improvement Tract #50519 , is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and Whereas, Said principal is required under the terms of said agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said agreement. Now, therefore, we, the principal and American Motorists Insurance as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Diamond Compan_ Bar, hereinafter called "City" in the penal sum of Eight Thousand dollars, ($ 8,478.00 ) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, and our heirs, successors, executors and adminis- trators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. {Four Hundred Seventy -Eight S NO/100ths The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, adninistrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perforn the covenants, ccnditions and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration thereof Bade as therein provided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the title and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this -obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable -expenses and fees, including reasonable - attorney's fees,' incurred by City in successfully -enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or-additicn.to the terns of the agreement or to the work to be performed to or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the teras of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications. ,.""Z t In witness whereof, this instrument has been duly executed by the principal and surety above named, on January 21st 19 94 Principal Diamond Development Company Principal (Seal) surety American Motorists Insurance Company 7470 N. Figueroa Blvd. Address Los Aneeles, Ca 90041 BY: 1 1 Doug f e/At orney-in-fact RIGHT THUMBPRINT (OPTIONAL) W State of California w Orange County of = 0 On Jan. 21, 1994 before me, Susan E. Morales, Notary Public o (DATE) (NAME. TITLE OF OFFICER - LE.. JANE DOE. NOTARY PlBUC7 Ronald J. Crowley CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER(S) R personally appeared w OFSiGNER(5)) ❑ INDIVIDUAL(S) (NA(� ❑ CORPORATE OFFICERS) (TITLE(S)) 3 PARTNER(S) AT O personally known to me - OR ] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence [IN FACT ❑ ATTORNEY 1 I to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are sub scribed to the within instrument and acknowledged ❑ GUARDIANICONSERVATOR -_,_w_.,----------- -'-----" to me that helshelthey executed the same in ❑ OTHER: OFFICIALSEAL his/her/their authorized capacityres), and that by SUSANE-MORALES Zhis/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the NOTARYPUBLSCK6.1995 RNtA () entity p SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: S3 erson s , or the enti upon behalf of which the ORANGE erson(s) acted, executed the instrument. (NAME OF PERSONS)OR ENTITY(IES)) R' M't°"'r"'Ex�'o°Itness my hand and official seal. Diamond Development Co. (SEAU (SIGNATURE OF NOTARY) ATTENTION NOTARY: The information requested below is OPTIONAL it could. however, prevent fraudulent arachment of this certificate to any unauthorized document THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document MUST BE ATTACHED Number of Pages Date of Document TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above LCOTTS FORM 63240—ALL PURPOSE AOWOWLEDGMENT WITH SIGNER CAPiMIP.EPRESENTATIMFINGERPRtNT—Rev. 12.92 ULb(;RIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above t199Z'HOLCOTTS FORMS. WC- l LCOnS FORM 63210—ALL PURPOSE K.*QwLEOGMEM WITH SIGNER CA.PXMIREPRESENTATMFINGWRWT—Rev. 12-92 C1992 WOLCOTT$ FORMS. CIC BOND FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL the Performance Bond. Whereas, The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, State of California, and Diamond Development Company (hereinafter designated as "principal") have entered into an agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements,"which said agreement,. dated , -19 , and identified as project _Off-site public improvement Tract #50519 , is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and Whereas, Under the terms of said agreement, principal is required before entering upon the performance of the work, to file a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of Diamond Bar to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4.of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Now, therefore, said principal and the undersigned as corporate surety, are held firmly bound unto the City of Diamond Bar and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, materialmen and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid agreement and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure in the sum of Eight Thousand Four Hundred Seventy -Eight dollars ($ 8,478.00 ), for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor, that said surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this bond, will pay, in addition to the face amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. Should condition of this bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void, otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terns of said agreement or the specifications -accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension, alteration or �i addition. MOTORISTS INSURANCE COY-' ikN x nancnaL Long Grove' IL 60049 - , msulance *r—h.t OF ATTORNEYwMen By These Presents: he American Motorists Insurance Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of to of Illinois, and having its principal office in Long Grove, Illinois, does hereby appoint _Doug Lane of Orange, CaliforniahAAAAAAhAAhAAAAAAAAAAAA its true and lawful agent(s) and attorneys) -in -fact, to make, execute, seal, and deliver during the H - beginning with the date of issuance of this power and ending December 31, 1994, unless sooner revoked '. 1 on its behalf as surety, and as its act and deed: Any and all bonds and undertakings provided the amount of no one bond or undertaking exceeds ONE MILLION ]DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00)AAAAAAAAAAAAAAnAAAAAAANAAAAAAAA EXCEPTION: NO AUTHORITY is granted to make, execute, seal and deliver any bond or undertaking which guar ar?ass the payment or collection of any promissory note, check, draft or letter of credit. This authority does not permit the same obligation to be split into two or more bonds in order to bring ea:h such bond within the dollar limit of authority as set forth herein. This appointment may be revoked at any time by the American Motorists Insurance Company. The execution of such bonds and undertakings in pursuance of these presents shall be as binding upon the said American Motorists Insurance Company as fully and amply to all intents and purposes, as if the same had been duly executed and acknowledged by its regularly elected officers at its principal office in Long Grove, Illinois. THIS APPOINTMENT SHALL CEASE AND TERMINATE.WITHOUT NOTICE AS OF DECEMBER 311 1994. This Power of Attorney is executed by authority of a resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Eoard of Directors of said American Motorists Insurance Company on February 23, 1988 at Long Grove, Illinois, a true and accurate copy of which is hereinafter set forth and is hereby certified to by the undersigned Secretary as being in full force and effect: "VOTED, That the Chairman of the Board, the President, or any Vice President, or their appointees designated in writing and filed with the Secretary, or the Secretary shall have the power and authority to appoint agents and attorneys -in -fact, and to authorize then to execute on behalf of the Company, and attach the seal of the Company thereto, bonds and undertakings, recognizances, contracts of indemnity and other writings, obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such officers of the Company may appoint agents for acceptance of process." This Power of Attorney is signed, sealed and certified by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company at a meeting duly called and held on the 23rd day of February, 1988: "VOTED, That the signature of the Chairman of the Board, the President, any Vice President, or their appointees designated in writing and filed with the Secretary, and the signature of the Secretary, the seal of the Company, and certifications by the Secretary, may be affixed by facsimile on any power of attorney or bond executed pursuant to resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors on February 23, 1988 and any such power so executed, sealed and certified with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached, shall continue to be valid and binding upon the Company." In Testimony Whereof, the American Motorists Insurance Company has caused this instrument to be signed and its corporate seal to be affixed by its authorized officers, this 01 day of July , 1992 . Attested and Certified: F.C.McCullough, Secretary r` AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY J by J.S.Kenper,III,Sanior Vice President (OVER.) In witness hereof, this instrument has been duly executed by the principal and surety above named, on January 21st 19 94 Principal Diamond Development Company Principal (Seal) Surety American Motorists Insurance Company 7470 N. Figueroa Blvd. Address Los An eles, Ca 90041 BY: f Doug Lane Attorney-in-fact ate of California aunty of Orange 1 Jan. 21, 1994 before me, Susan E. Morales, Notary Public (DATE) (NAME. Trrt -- OF OFFICER • LE.. JANE DOF— NOTARY F-J5UCj :rsonally appeared Ronald J. Crowley (NAMEM OF SIGNER(S)) I personally known to me -OR- 6 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are sub- is/heritheir 'bed to the within instrument and acknowledged ----- - me that he/she/they executed the same in OFF)CIAL SEAL authorized ca aci les and that bSUSAN E. MORALESP tY( ). Y NOTARY pUBUO.CALIFORNIA 1-`Es/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the COM3 =rson(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the corrwn Dec�nrber� �g98 rson(s) acted, executed the instrument. fitness my hand and official seal. vux-�""'n 4 roolc-� RIGHT THUMBPRINT (OPTIONAL) s m 0 0 CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER(S) ❑ INDIVIDUAL(S) ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER(S) 1�1 PARTNER(S) (TITLE(S)) ❑ ATTORNEY IN FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: - SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IESI) Diamond Development Co. ISEAU [SIGNATURE OF NOTARY) -ENTION NOTARY: The Information requested below is OPTIONAL It could, however, prevent fraudulent a-ac=ent of this certificate to any unauthorized document. THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Pages Dve of Document DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above TS FORM 63240—ALL PURPOSE:W.G`nLCOGMCNI%V1THSiGNERCt..j1tIrY.REPRESENTA�*i:rlifriGERPRCIT—Rev 12-92 c IS92',.OLCOTTS FORM$. INr ITS FORM 63240—ALL PURPOSE 1C1Qi w992 WOLCOTTS FORMS, IN OriIFOGMENT WITH SIGNER CAPACrfYIREPRESEN1ATi0r11FINGEAPRDiT—Ptv. T2.92 4rE OF ILLINOIS SS JNTY OF LAKE Marilyn L. Riley, a Notary Public, do hereby certify that J. S. Kenper, III and F. C. McCullough personally known ne to be the sane persons whose names are respectively as Senior Vice President and Secretary of the American torisis Insurance Company, a Corporation of the State of Illinois, subscribed to the foregoing instrument, Seared before no this day in person and severally acknowledged that they being thereunto duly authorized signed, algid with the corporate seal and delivered the said instrument as the free and voluntary act of said corporation d as their own free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes therein sat forth. emission expires: 4-9-96 3RTIFICATION .►��.► A J A 1.A-.& l "OFFICIAL SEAL" ► ( Marilyn L Riley 1 ( Notary Public. Slate of Illinois 1 ( !;y Commission Expires 419195 I� TY7T7TYT 7TTT T' Mar y L. Riley, Notary Pub o , N. J. Zarada, Secretary of the American Motorists Insurance Company, do hereby certify that the attached Power f Attorney dated July 1, 1992 on behalf of the person(s) as listed on the reverse side is a -us and correct copy and that the sane has been in full force and effect since the date thereof and is in full -re* and effect on the date of this certificate; and I do further certify that the said J. S. Kemper, III and F. C. :Cullough who executed the Power of Attorney as Senior Vice President and Secretary respectively were on the data f the execution of the attached Power of Attorney the duly elected Senior Vies President and Secretary of the isrican Motorists Insurance Company. i TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seal of the American 1'. _` 1�] �torists Insurance Company on this day of , 19 N.J:Zarada, Secretary "his Power of Attorney limits the acts of those named therein to the bonds and undertakings specifically named :herein, and they have no authority to bind the Company except in the manner and to the extent herein stated. FM 836-5 6-92 lh Power of Attorney - Term PRINTED IN U.S.A. SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Tentative Tract No. 50519 /Final Tract No. 50519 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of this day of , 19 94 , by and between DIAMOND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider") and the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"). A. Recitals. (i) There has been previously approved a Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 50519 in the City of Diamond Bar. (ii) Subdivider seeks approval of a Final Map covering a portion of the area of Tentative Tract No. 50519 and bearing Final Tract No. 50519 B. Agreement. It is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. In consideration of City's approval of and filing Tentative Subdivision Tract Map No. 50519 and Final Tract No. 50519 Subdivider undertakes and agrees that it will, at Subdivider's sole cost and expense, make all the improvements upon and in connection with said Tract in accordance with plans and specifications therefor on file with City, incorporated DISC1TMONDSID3 2.2%12-89 1 herein and made a part hereof, and including all matters required by the Planning Commission and City Council of City in connection with the various steps leading to approval of said Tentative Tract No. 50519 . Subdivider also undertakes and agrees upon the same consideration to comply with all ordinances and regulations of City,, and to do all other and further acts required of it pursuant to this Agreement. Subdivider agrees in connection therewith to pay or cause to be paid all amounts becoming due to contractors, subcontractors, and persons renting equipment or furnishing labor or materials to the foregoing Final Tract with respect to such improvements, or to Subdivider with respect thereto. Subdivider agrees that all such improvements shall be constructed and completed in accordance with City standards as determined by the City Engineer and in accordance with any applicable conditions as hereinabove referred to, and in accordance with the remaining provisions of this Agreement. In case of any dispute, the good faith judgment of the City Engineer shall be final and binding upon the parties. 2. Subdivider undertakes and agrees that all the work of improvement shall be completed within 365 days from the date of this Agreement. 3. Should Subdivider fail to comply with any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, Subdivider shall be liable to City for the reasonable value of any work or improvements not completed or improperly done or performed. In the event of any DISCMIZONDSM 2.2112-89 2 such failure, City shall give to Subdivider written notice thereof. Unless the work or improvements covered by said notice, including defective work and improvements, are commenced by Subdivider within fifteen (15) days of the date -of said notice and diligently prosecuted to completion, City may at its option: (a) Collect from Subdivider the reasonable value of the work and improvements not so done and performed by Subdivider, to be measured by the anticipated costs and expenses of completing the same; or (b) City may complete said work and improvements not so completed by Subdivider and collect its costs and expenses in completing the same; or (c) City may as to some of such work and improvements proceed under remedy (a) above, and as to the remainder under remedy (b) above. city may change any election prior to trial of any lawsuit, and prior thereto no election of remedies shall be binding upon City. In either event there shall be included in said "costs and expenses", the reasonable overhead expenses of the City. In addition to the foregoing, Subdivider shall be liable to City for reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by City in enforcing the obligations of Subdivider under this Agreement. 4. All slope banks over three (3) feet in vertical height within said Tract shall be landscaped with plantings DISCXTMBONDS\DB 2.2\12-89 3 approved by the City Engineer. Sprinklers shall be installed on all -'slopes over three (3) feet in vertical height along arterial streets and shall be of a type and according to a sprinkler plan approved by the City Engineer, with sprinkler turn -ons at the tops of the slopes, and connected with the remainder of the water systems of the lots of which such slopes are a part. 5. Subdivider shall give bonds with a corporate bonding company, or similar instrument, satisfactory to City in the following amounts and for the following purposes: a. A bond in the amount of $ 8,478.00 guaranteeing full performance of all the terms of this Agreement; b. A bond in the amount of $ 8,478.00 securing payment to the contractor, his subcontractor and to persons renting equipment or furnishing labor or materials to them with respect to said public improvements; r C. A bond in the amount of $ 3,000.00 securing the setting of monuments. 6. Acceptance of any work or improvements by City shall not constitute an acknowledgment by City that the same are properly done or performed, except as to any items or matters readily apparent from an inspection thereof. Except as to such matters so readily apparent, Subdivider shall repair any defects which occur in the work of improvements within a one (1) year period thereof following acceptance by City. DISC\MBO"S\DS 2.2\12-89 4 As a condition precedent to the acceptance of the improvements hereunder as being complete and prior to the release of any bonds required under paragraph 5, hereof, securing the faithful performance of Builder's obligations hereunder, Subdivider shall give a bond with a corporate bonding company, or similar instrument, satisfactory to City in the amount of $ 3,000.00 as guarantee and warranty of the work for a one (1) year period following the completion and acceptance thereof against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished. 7. All notices to Subdivider may be sent to 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton , California 92635 , or at such other address of which City shall actually receive notice in writing specifically calling attention to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF Orange rn on January 17, 1994 U CD personally appeared 0 E personally known to me (or p Islare subscribed to the within m 3 uthorized capacity(ies), and r-behalfof which the person(s WITNESS my hand andf. i Signa re -- yr I SS. before me, Barbara LUisi (Notary Name and Title) RONALD J. CROWLEY ed to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) i strument and acknowledged b� fhat helshe/they executed the same in histher/their t at by hislher/their signatury(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon .ted, executed the instrurrient. ial-seal.o, nL s� ?2.4 PA L DISI ��Cl�• 'V[ ��..tdy.am.n E:�: .�•a?D iS55• (Notarial Seat) icipal VF'rV "V "YAM"TVn MAX AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.� TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 REPORT DATE: July 20, 1995 FROM: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services TITLE: Award of Contract for the maintenance of L. L. M. D. #39 SUMMARY: On February 21, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95-09 authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids for the maintenance of L. L. M. D. #39. Bids were received from five qualified contractors. Bids were opened and publicly read on March 23, 1995, with bids ranging from a low of $73,080 to a high of $104,136. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award the contract for the Maintenance of L.L.M.D. #39 to Accurate Landscape & Maintenance Corporation, the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of $73,080. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's office) _ Ordinances(s) _ Other: Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 415 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: RE D BY: Terrence L. Belang ra�nlc ob Rose City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Services Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Award of contract for the maintenance of L.L.M.D. #39 ISSUE STATEMENT: On February 21, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95-09 authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids for the maintenance of L.L.M.D. #39. Bids were received from five qualified contractors. The bids were opened and publicly read on March 23, 1995, with bids ranging from a low of $73,080 to a high of $104,136. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award the contract for maintenance of L.L.M.D. #39 to Accurate Landscape and Maintenance Corporation, the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of $73.080. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Maintenance of L.L.M.D. #39 is funded by the district, which collects approximately $165,360 in assessment payments per year. The proposed $73,080 maintenance contract for L.L.M.D. #39 is well within the funding level available for this service. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: L.L.M.D. #39 includes roughly the area of Diamond Bar bounded by Summit Ridge and Longview to the west and east, respectively and Rimford Place to the south and the Pantera Park area to the north. The contract provides for the maintenance of five mini -parks, the landscaped slopes, cul-de-sacs and parkways and the appurtenant irrigation systems, plus weed control per fire code and cleaning of V - ditches in the natural areas. The awarding of this contract was delayed until the new assessment of $130 per parcel was approved at the July 11,1995 City Council meeting, to ensure adequate funding for this contract. PREPARED BY: Bob Rose, Director Community Services Department CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SPECIFICATIONS FOR ANNUAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FOR LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 39 TOTAL ANNUAL PRICE 1-Um,710C490&40 s 73, DR . (in word s'7� j Air % �L�LS a-.%—(in'figures) �y BID SUBMITTED BY DATE 3 `� ... COMPANY NAME 14�-GlAO-472=- ZANZS=o�b&A'/Iiy�'JTE�I� ADDRESS 1816N- �� d l • CITY ZIP %KGs PHONE 9cv) c�-J�.� FAX*b 714Z ?vim /4i d. 71q ZDL73 SIGNATURE 12 DESCRIPTION MONTHLY ITEM WITH UNIT MONTHLY PRICE ANNUAL NO. QUANTITY PRICE IN WORDS IN FIGURES AMOUNT 1 Lump Miscellaneous landscaping in Sum Maintenance District No. 39 except Parks (See attached Map) Itu•��aQct� 11�rr �J6g6•4 -1 2. Lump Landscaping of Parks in Sum District No. 39 TOTAL ANNUAL PRICE 1-Um,710C490&40 s 73, DR . (in word s'7� j Air % �L�LS a-.%—(in'figures) �y BID SUBMITTED BY DATE 3 `� ... COMPANY NAME 14�-GlAO-472=- ZANZS=o�b&A'/Iiy�'JTE�I� ADDRESS 1816N- �� d l • CITY ZIP %KGs PHONE 9cv) c�-J�.� FAX*b 714Z ?vim /4i d. 71q ZDL73 SIGNATURE 12 �MN�T1211�4E� SP19 14,7 NcaKs Tu aF .10 ACRES -;Loi (A w )C .'.) C i�i S V%///A -ro ¢G YA1*1TA ,we -,m Fa►ks Ure.; �.6S„,Tur� I.ZOax pr CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BID OPENING LOG SHEET f - BID OPENING DATE: Parch 23, 1995 10:00 a.m. PROJECT NO.: Lighting & Landscape District No. 39 (Maintenance) BIDDER NAME BIP BOND BID AMOUNT La v �r cc e i n,� n P60_u oc-, Lcc a sc c,l,�,e . '% goy X361-00 th`Y�MSL�a ��ln r�V►�S�� % ,2GD. 7�� y0d. Qd wdsca , �,}p�i l O �v �8� 5-3 y•W CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. ., TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 REPORT DATE: July 18, 1995 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager TITLE: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar approving the acquisition of Title to certain tax defaulted real property, known as TR = 42560, Lot 51, Assessors Parcel No. 8701-013-047 and authorizing the Mayor to execute all necessary forms, agreements, certificates, and documents as prescribed by law. SUMMARY: On January 31, 1995, the City received notification from the Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector of a pending sale/auction of a certain parcel of real property for the nonpayment of taxes pursuant to the provision of law. The subject property, which functions as a neighborhood pocket park and is located adjacent to Summit Ridge Park, is a 1.27 acre parcel described as TR = 42560, Lot 51, Assessors Parcel No. 8701-013-047. On February 7, 1995, the City, pursuant to Division I, Part 6, Chapter 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, exercised its legal prerogative to acquire the subject property for the minimum bid amount of $8,040.00 plus related costs. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution 95 -XX approving the public acquisition of the subject property. It is further recommended that the Mayor be authorized to execute and file with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors all forms, agreements, certificates, and documents necessary to complete the sale of the subject property. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:Staff Report 2/2/95 _ Public Hearing Notification X Resolutions) _ Bid Specification —Ordinances(s) X Other Minutes of 2/7/95 City Council Meeting SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes —No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A _ 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 X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Bel ger ran . Ushe Troy L. laff City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant t the City M ag RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO CERTAIN TAX DEFAULTED REAL PROPERTY, KNOWN AS TR=42560, LOT 51, ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 8701-013-047 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY FORMS, AGREEMENTS, CERTIFICATES, AND DOCUMENTS AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. A. RECITALS (i) On January 31, 1995, the City received notification from the Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector of a pending sale/auction of a certain parcel of real property for the nonpayment of taxes pursuant to the provision of law; and (ii) The subject property, which functions as a neighborhood pocket park, is a 1.27 acre parcel described as TR=42560, Lot 51, Assessors Parcel No. 8701-013-047; and (iii) The City, pursuant to Division I, Part 6, Chapter 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, has the first right -of - refusal to acquire the subject property; and (iv) On February 7, 1995, the City Council approved and ratified the City's prerogative to acquire the subject property through first right -of -refusal; and (v) The City must submit written certification to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors authorizing the acquisition of the subject property and identifying the title of the individual authorized, empowered, and instructed to file necessary and proper forms, certifications, and documents as prescribed by law; and (vi) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find that the public acquisition of the subject property is in the public's best interest in that it will assure the continued utilization of the property as a park. SECTION 2. The Mayor of the City of Diamond Bar is hereby authorized, empowered, and instructed to file all necessary forms, agreements, certifications, and documents with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to carry out the purposes specified in the agreement attached hereto, marked EXHIBIT "A", and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25 day of July, 1995. MAYOR I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on 25 day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS ATTEST: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE TAX-OEFAUILTED PROPERTY This Agrae_,,e_d Is made this day of . 19_, by and between the Board of Supervisor! of LOS ANGRr.RS County. State of Calibmia. and THR CITY OF nlAmmmn RAR ("PURCHASER-). pursuant to the provisions of Olvision 1. Part 6, Chapter 8, of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The red property situettd within said county, hereinafter set forth and described in Exhibit OK attached hereto and made a pan hereof. is tax -defaulted arta is subject to the power of sail by the tax coaector of said county for the nonpayment of tars. Pursuant to provraions of law. It Is mutually agreed as follows: 1. that as provided by Section 3800 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the cost of giving notice of this agreement shall be pard by the PURCHASER, and 2 that the PURCHASER agrees to pay the sum of S 8040.00 for the real property described in Exhibit "A" within lie _ days after the date this agreement becomes, effective. Upon payment of said sum to the tax collector, the tax collector shah execute and deliver a deed conveying tide to said property to PURCHASER. 3.that said purchaser Will not share in the distribution of payment requited by this agreement. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DE WITT CLINTON County Counsel By Deputy If all or any portion of any individual parcel listed in Exhibit "A" is redeemed prior to the effective date of this agreement. this agreement shall be null and void as to that inaivioual parcel. This agreement snail aiso become nu l and void and the right of redemption restored upon the PURCHASER'S failure to comply wittt the terms ano conditions of this agreement. Time is of the essence. 453791. 3791.3. 3793 RST Code TDL 8-13 0-90) The undersgned hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this agreement and are duty authonzed to sign for said agencies. ATTEST: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR By (Purchaser) (seal) ATTEST: By Cleric of the Board of Supervisors DepLay (seal) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS By LOS ANGELES By Chairman COUNTY Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3775 of the Revenue and Taxation Code the governing body of the City of N/A hereby agrees to the sailing price as provided in this agreement. ATTEST: CRY OF n i wm rn `1 r? R A r `r CLerk By/ / Mayor ' By cjapury (seal) This agreement was submitted to me before execution by the board of supervisors and I have compared the same with the recoros of LOA AN(:P.T.RS County relating to the real property described therein. LOS ANGRT.RS County Tax Collector Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3775 and 3795 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the Controller agrees to the selling pnce hereinbefore set forth and approves the foregoing agreetnertt this day of 19 By NOTE.=XHIS!T "A- MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS FORM STATE CONTROLLER TOL 8-13 (back) Description EXHIBIT "A" First Year Delinquent Default Purchase Number Price TR=42560 LOT 51 1988 8701 013 047 $8040.00 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager I SUBJECT: Purchase of Property DATE: February 2, 1994 ISSUE: City staff became aware of the sale/auction of property by the County of Los Angeles Tax Collector for the purpose of selling property to collect monies to pay for delinquent taxes and penalties. The subject property is privately owned, but is utilized as a neighborhood "pocket" park and is maintained by Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 39 (LLMD 39). RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve and ratify the City of Diamond Bar's prerogative to acquire the subject property through first right -of -refusal, pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code. Further, it is recommended that the City Council approve the expenditure of $8,040, plus related costs. DISCUSSION: In the late afternoon of Wednesday, January'31, 1995, City staff became aware of a Los Angeles County Tax Collector's sale of tax -default property located.within the City of Diamond Bar. The subject property (AP #87001-013-047) is a 1.27± acre parcel, which functions as a neighborhood pocket park. According to the latest assessor's roll, this pocket park is owned by California Communities, Inc. The City maintains the property through LLMD 39. The property is immediately adjacent (northerly) to Summit Ridge Park. The Los Angeles Tax Collector is selling the property to cover delinquent taxes and penalties. The minimum bid amount is $8,040. The City has the prerogative to exercise a first -right -of - refusal as a public agency, which operates to "cut-off" the sale/auction of the property to private persons. In order to effect its right to "cut-off" the sale/auction of the subject property, the City must indicate its intent to purchase property at the stated minimum bid amount. Since the property functions as a City park, albeit privately owned, its appropriate and desirable to purchase property as a public agency and incorporate this 1.27± acre parcel into Summit Ridge Park. The City Manager has transmitted a letter to the County of Los Angeles (attached) expressing the City's intent to exercise its right to acquire the property at the minimum bid amount of $8,040. This matter is included on your February 7 agenda for approval and ratification. nbw attachment ITY DI.1!IOND 11,111 February 1, 1995 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177 909-860-2489 • FAX 909-861-3117 Ms. Gerrie Dobmeier Senior Tax Deeded Property Agent Los Angeles Tax Collector 225 North Hill Street, Room 126 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Notice of Intent to Purchase Property Dear Ms. Dobmeier: Pursuant to Division I, Part 6, Chapter 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the City of Diamond Bar hereby gives notice of intent to acquire title to tax defaulted property NSB# 159, known as Lot 51, TR=42560, Assessors Parcel No. 8701-013-047. The City currently maintains the property, which functions as a neighborhood 'pocket park", through a Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. The purpose of the public acquisition is to assure the continued utilization of the property in conjunction with the adjacent City-owned'Summit Ridge Park. The City hereby exercises its legal prerogative to acquire the property for the minimum bid amount of $8,040.00 For further information and proceedings, please call me at (909) 396-5666. Sin erely, l2 �4 VXt errence L. Belanger City Manager TLB\JDS\mco 176 176 386 MB PG PCL NSBI ITEM LEGAL LATEST LATEST PARCEL NSBf NO DESC ASSFSSEE LOCATION MIN BID. IMPS EART-IEST PARCEL 97 11889 TRACT 0 6550 THAT PART $1,864 8678 023 010 159 OUTSIDE LA VERNE CITY OF LOT COM 88/8678 023 010 AT NW COR OF LOT A TH N 88042130 "' E 1338.1 FT TH S 0040 -*30"' W TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DIST N AT R/A 1054.43 FT FROM S LINE OF SD LOT TH S 88005' W TO A LINE P ARALLEL WITH AND DIST W AT R/A 2 00 FT FROM E LINE OF SD LOT TH S 0040130" W TO SD S LINE TH W ON SD S LINE TO A PT W THEREON 215. 1E 02 FT FROM SE COR OF SD LOT TH N 0040130" E 702.63 FT TH S 88005' W TO NE LINE OF TR 0 25493 TH NW AND FOLLOWING BDRY LINE OF SD TR 159 TO NE COR OF LOT 8 R S 72-14 TH N 220381400 E 24.62 FT TH S 6702 1120M E 140 FT TH N 35021120" E 200 FT TH N 540 38140"' W 87.55 F 159 T TH NW ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO SW RADIUS EQUALS 130 FT TO SE COR O F LAND DESC IN DOC # 4350 6-10-5 7 TO SHARDER GROUP # 3 INC TH N 159 260.26 FT TH W 285 FT TH S 170 F T TH.S 50027115" E 213.49 FT TH EW ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO SE RADI US EQUALS 130 FT TO NE LINE QF S D TR 0 25493 TH NW AND FOLLOWING BDRY LINE OF SD TR # 25493 TO W 95 LINE OF SD LOT A TH N THEREON TO BEG PART OF LOT A ASSESSED TO MI STRETTA,FRANK J SR AND MARGARET AND ROACH,RALPH T AND DEBORAH LO CATION CITY OF CLAREMONT 176 159 11906 TR-42560 LOT 51 ASSESSE $8,040 8701 013 047 D TO CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES INC 88/8701 013 047 LOCATION fTTV nF TTs`rWD nnR 176 176 386 • 011 •pi a w 7/ o 1 jjjsN rr w eo ra� Cf<r N• ry10lyar 4*p t PT I 1•► j I�p�ly /IIRV1i i!` j w %ON T v1 o W" •mC0 o20 .. ■• hAN xt3c c .. ■ < ��ez e� v N M ca O O<N 1C N AA ri ON A � mfr"• �"1°-_low vr r 1 e� O 4 ,� r pari 4 • E tilt m ra� Cf<r N• C e k ' Zi O 'a � hAN a" T e� 1 PIZ' 1C N 1 y 's CA) O.s A A T M O 70 a tF` _ 0 •er• F _• e or 7 . O` N• "�C: a I�_ e. iok ■o ■ • E tilt m ra� Cf<r N• C NN /T• D 40 O 'a � hAN ryI vF py�y. .lr • - I Oer _ OZ 1 • rZOT 1 02 wMi�11p i Cp V\T<O / 01'1<On10 1 On<O v~IIATr z�•O i VINrnf•e Wait b4201-OSTz0 = 1 C0fO0 z 1 C1r 1 moo ro0 floA I rIgoi�A mOA2yOr \\I ROTI \m>vvm Nino_�NIIOOy�1rr>.. ... ValC� 1~•iZ C P�ZCn • a 1 • J 1 /.M•. • r!I 'K X; x: INw r i fte" :: ;.. M ' O pYu•O O I 01 O Olt Iw _ /n ► I ■r p In9 4n �A I r, •= Tis 84%T e �+ ► zz r 1 wzz. Coll A I II _ TN �,i I• N 1 Aw M •O C. 1 •+N_ SON I■r _a NIW OI N wl Nr r M/ w..1• N W W I .p1 1 V N ��•r Ppm 1 w.+1ypO�NrO wrrA010.O VONr @%^I •w h r41+ 1 • plyr y� alll O •O •00■ � 100 101 N$1 INI ��1■ppp ` O• "•p� /■p • t•«��Ip l O • � Nt�f i O • P •• r� i � 1 1 I =' r i �• •t ■ r • • M/VrW 1 - �W��N 00■O.O ■ ICi1p/1rp 1 a •• W 2 NwOIW rV�OP • v0001 >••••NN4rMl/ W • _ arVN�Pp �. •�• •' \1 1 1 1 \1 1 1 rrry .Orry 1 •O •pr/••y • p I N I y WSNr 1 i op wetO i r-1 2NSr I OA rnW-yW I SIN p 1 mN VfT)h)w i •ONTr jp i I OawOr p10o I � 7ctA I I•'- r I � � oaOen I v al" i a< Hr I ONr � O 0¢9�ZZ0 A pa > 1 _ r r OOr � 1 IOOr j h7WON 1 •• 1 rN I •+zA7T 1 I OZ ant I OOacN 1 N 1 Ox N I On<Orn0 1 O IOM<T O I V\Tr z 0 1 rz0 1 MN= r 1 r 1 H1iI1s� I OST �'Iz01 ZOI m2Ty 201 Z 1 1 %%AI ZiVI�IO oor1A 1 • r< 1 C Q rN l !nr / Wn> 1 rZri•+r1r I ��Az 1 an l z V1az l 1141 1 Nay 1 \ w�T moA Or 1 1 OZ 1 m 1 Or 1 \\ j TOT 1 , �O~ 1 \\ AOT O a0�1 1 qoa 1 moo," VIS < h0> 1 NOT 1�INNOt N1r9 Nr 1 Ol<r NNr I PA 7 C CT PaZ C < I • 1 1 =1 � I WO N 1 r 1 N n1 I Oti 01 �1y+Oi �I I W 1 1Ol~ Oj 1 1 I s • r • j' 1 I _ � 1 44 1 t I 1 1 I O 4 T 1 1 I i rIs A 2 n �1 11 I +► OO 1 N 1 -+ M V 1 -=iN� 4 NI VW1 WI M W 0. NI 1141~ Irl P ON w I N wTN W I nPr rappyq � OANOw 1 NOwa Nr.p 1 Nr w 1 rr0i.0• 1 Oa rrr. 1 Ow 1 /ollp 101 loo 101 v0•C`•• �1a`A InO; �u0X 401 I O 40 t ql lis �- 4'N'/ g f WM NI O It WN M� NMWI CCMNN1: NN1 _. V/V•pr 1 n�01Nv1 /. 00)10 1 410 +v 1 • •z•/Ap•O / fO0•p ; ss WaN 001 wVrl 4N•O•+ 1 , KN10101 NOww 1 =NOrr1: aPVVI pAWVI \ 1 1 1 1!' 1\ 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 v ON �pp lC-.p I rNNI"'r rye A.IT O == 2==c O < N<rC 1 Trr•NN = rTTT 4r. rr n9 jaz T a /� > \< W n O> Z j• "Lm c 4 • > O T r"� c C. =4I ra� Cf<r N• C NN /T• D � O 'a � a" T e� �n A^1 1C N v ON �pp lC-.p I rNNI"'r rye A.IT O == 2==c O < N<rC 1 Trr•NN = rTTT 4r. rr n9 jaz T a /� > \< W n O> Z j• "Lm c 4 •\ ,,��' .moi `� _ �� . y CZ V �+► r y a� h n � T co co Z-\ MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4& REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 6, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: M/Papen called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Papen. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; George Wentz, City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director, James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk. 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, ETC.: 2.1 OUTSTANDING CROSSING GUARD OF THE YEAR - M/Papen presented Mrs. Snedeker, All City Management, with a Certificate of Recognition. 2.2 CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION TO WINNERS OF THE 20TH ANNUAL DIAMOND BAR JR. WOMEN'S CLUB SPELLING BEE - M/Papen presented Annie Nguyen, Third Grade, Golden Springs Elementary School; Victor Yu, Fourth Grade, Quail Elementary School; and Maryanne Ramirez, Third Grade, Neil Armstrong Elementary School with Certificates of Recognition. Christine Miller, President of Diamond Bar Jr. Women's Club, reported on the history and the events of the Women's Club. She thanked Mr. Fred Scalzo for his support and participation in the Spelling Bee. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Don Gravdahl asked that if the General Plan is placed on the ballet, how do voters get the General Plan, what is the cost of getting the General Plan out to voters and how are the voters educated on the variation of the two plans. He also asked what kind of business development is planned for the City. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., stated that the Council and residents should work together. He expressed opposition to City -On -Line. Fred Scalzo, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Council, City Management, the Chamber and local businesses have worked well together for a long time. Before new business developments occur, the City needs to concentrate on filling the current vacancies and enhancing business in D.B. Oscar Law, 2150 Pathfinder, commented how wonderful it was to work on the GPAC committee with other citizens and expressed frustration on how the GPAC JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 2 committee's suggestions for the General Plan were either changed, unused or ignored. He asked the Council to reconsider what the GPAC put together and to go along with what the citizens want. Martha Bruske, 600 So. Great Bend, asked the Council to work together with the citizens. She updated the Council on the fire damaged home on So. Great Bend Dr. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., asked what kind of geotechnical tests are being completed by the City in regard to the Morning Sun incident. He suggested that the time allotted for public comment on agenda items be changed to 10 minutes. Nick Anis commented on the publicity of the landslide on Morning Sun Dr. and the money being spent by D.B. for Rowland Height residents. He asked if the City can spend additional money to clarify the truths about the General Plan. In response to Public Comments, CM/Belanger advised that the cost of placing a General Plan on the ballot will be very expensive. Further, the General Plan does not propose any new or additional commercial space; however, existing commercial space still exists. With regard to Morning Sun, he explained that a lot of geotechnical analyses are being taken on Morning Sun by Woodward Clyde, geologist. The Mine and Geology Geologist of the State and the U.S.G.S. Geologist of the Federal Government have both indicated that the cause of the landslide is related to the storms of the past winter. In regard to the fire damaged residence on Great Bend, ACM/Usher advised that a supplement memorandum had been provided updating conditions of the fire. As of this date, the property was closed and secured with a temporary construction fence and the chimney is secure. The debris has also been removed from the property and the parked car remains on the property behind the fence. The vehicle has not been removed because of litigation between the former resident and the property owner. Staff has stayed in touch with the resident regarding removal of the vehicle and advised that if the vehicle is not removed from the premises by June 15, 1995, then the City will begin a formal abatement procedure. Partial demolition and reconstruction of the building are still be considered by the property owner and their insurance carrier. Regarding the wire issue, he reported that the property did have aluminum wiring and the contributory cause of the fire was unique to the property. Staff will provide advisory information regarding inspection and maintenance of such wiring in local publications and in the City newsletter. With regard to the response from "911 ", he opined that, at the time of day of the fire, the response time was good. 1:40 seconds from receipt of the first call to "911" to the simultaneous fire dispatch was necessary for transmission and resource identification. 6 1/2 minutes from fire dispatch to the arrival of the first fire unit was very good. JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 3 Further, setting of the "911" clock was an error which has been corrected; however, with the correction, the total response time was 8 minutes. A copy of the "911" or fire dispatch tapes can be obtained at City Hall. In response to C/Harmony, CWBelanger reported that $8,500 had been thus far on the landslide at Morning Sun. He advised that staff will be coming back to Council with a request for more funds. In response to the residential fire on Great Bend, MPT/Werner asked ACM/Usher what his bases of measurements were in regard to his opinion of the response time being good. ACM/Usher clarified that this fire occurred in the early morning and the first call to "911" was received at a few seconds before 5:12 a.m., the fire personnel who were called out that morning were asleep. He stated that, from the time their bell rang until the arrival of the first unit on the scene, was 6 1/2 minutes. He explained the sequence of events in the 6 1/2 minute time frame was that personnel had to wake up, get dressed, check the hydrant maps before leaving the station, get special equipment, get to the units and drive to the scene of the fire. M/Papen announced that she was advised this afternoon that the residents of Morning Sun were allowed to return to their residences and that FEMA represen- tatives will be out next week to complete inspections to assess the damage and to process claims. With the consensus of Council, the agenda was suspended at 7:30 p.m. for Public Hearing. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: 7.1 CERTIFICATION OF MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 91-2 AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850, LOCATED EASTERLY OF STEEPLECHASE LANE AND SOUTH OF WINDMILL DR. ADJACENT TO THE PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY WINDMILL DR. ADJACENT TO THE PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS "THE COUNTRY'- CM/Belanger reported that this matter returns to the Council from a Public Hearing held on April 6, 1995 at which time the City Council referred this project to the Planning Commission and asked the Commission to provide a review and comment on the project. The Planning Commission completed its review and made recommendations to the Council for further discussion. CDD/DeStefano reported that this is a 57 -unit project on 73 acres in JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 4 which all of the lots start off a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. to 2 acres in lot size. The average lot size for the project is 1.1 acres per dwelling unit with a 10,000 sq. ft. flat pad area. The Planning Commission outlined several concerns regarding environmental impact and sheer keys supporting some of the lots proposed. The Commission forwarded all of its comments and recommended to Council that all of the conditions be adopted as outlined by staff. In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano advised that issues with "The Country" regarding annexation and fees are still open and that there have been ongoing discussions as late as today's date between representa- tives of JCC and Mr. Gardner, General Manager of 'The Country". In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano displayed the map that indicated three zones on the property at present as an R-18,000 zone, R- 1-20,000 and an A-22 zone. While focusing on the graphic, he reported that the property adjacent to Steeplechase is zoned R-1-8,000 and consists of approximately 1/4 of this site; the bulk of this site is zoned R- 1-20,000 and there is a small portion of the site that is designated A-2-2 indicating agriculture, which also allows for residential uses. The graphic being displayed is a general depiction of the boundaries of the zones across the project. The blue line indicates the zone boundary and the yellow line indicates the boundaries of the proposed project. Properties surrounding the proposed project have zoning on the north of R-1-8,000, west R-1-9,000 (9,000 sq. ft. lots) and R-1-20,000, south is the Boy Scout property zoned A-2-2, east is zoned R-1-20,000. The proposal is to construct 57 units on 73 acres which provides for an overall density of 1 unit for every 1.19 acres. In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that, since 1992, the General Plan has designated this property as 1 unit per acre and is consistent with the early General Plan as well as the most recent version. The project is also consistent with the majority of the strategies, goals and objectives outlined in the General Plan. The Vesting Tentative Map was received and deemed complete for processing back in 1989 which reserves some rights if the project were to be processed today. MPT/Werner stated that several years prior, geology issues caused this project from going forth. He asked if the City Engineer and city geologist are satisfied that the project can be safely developed. CCE/Myers stated that given the recommendations contained in the reports which have been reviewed and approved, the City Engineer is satisfied with the safety issues for this development as well as for adjacent and future property owners. JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 5 MPT/Werner asked if staff will be completing a run through on the significant environmental impacts and the overriding considerations that Council needs to consider. CDD/DeStefano explained that the EIR was first prepared in the early 1990's, 2 of the 3 tracts of that master EIR were approved and that portion of the EIR was certified in the middle of 1992. With the resumption of the project in the middle of 1994, the City went through and reprocessed the EIR, updated the data contained within the reports specifically focusing on changes that have been made to State or Federal statute with respect to things like air quality but also dealing with changes that have occurred in the biological conditions on-site. The review resulting in some changes to the mitigation measures proposed for the project and an abatement of overriding considerations necessary for 1 environmental issue that cannot be mitigated through actions, conditions and measures. The 1 area that cannot be brought down to a level of insignificance is air quality. This project exceeded the threshold when it came to emissions as a result of construction activities and those could not be brought down to a level of insignificance meeting the statutes and requirements of the AQMD and; therefore, the statement of overriding considerations is proposed again only for air quality. With respect to very specific issues dealing with the Bioda Study, Significant Ecological Area issues or Findings of Fact or mitigation measures, he recommended that reports be heard from the City's environmental consultant, Tom Smith from Michael Brandman & Assoc. MPT/Werner asked about a letter received by the City Manager from the developer advising that they would help in developing community centers. CM/Belanger advised that the representatives from this project communicated with the City their willingness to explore the possibility of participating in the construction of a community building. The dollar amount would be approximately $100,000 per Quimby requirements. M/Papen declared the Public Hearing open. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., stated that the EIR still contains a contradictory statement regarding ground water. He asked that an independent party research the ground water to determine if this water table will cause problems as in Morning Sun. Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend, stated that she did not oppose the project but expressed concern for funds being traded with the City. She asked how developers trade with the City "Quimby Funds." She also asked if the community center would be built on the developers' property JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 6 or another City property. In response to Martha Bruske, CM/Belanger advised that proposed location for the community center had been identified as Summit Ridge Park. He advised that Summit Ridge is approximately 26 acres, some of which is undeveloped. He stated that the site of the community center would not effect any existing housing. In regard to "Quimby Funds", CM/Belanger explained that "Quimby" is the name of the individual who sponsored the legislation that required developers to provide either park land acreage and/or if the acreage was not going to result in any meaningful dedication of land, then in lieu of acreage an amount of money based on a formula that would be utilized for acquisition and/or development of recreational facilities. MPT/Werner stated that there has been no decision on a community center in a certain park. However, it is required that when the developer donate "Quimby Funds" for a community center, it needs to be in a reasonable radius to benefit the developer's residents. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., did not oppose the project or the "Quimby" donation of the community center but expressed concern regarding Grand Ave. and traffic affecting existing residents. With no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. C/Harmony asked staff to address the ground water issue, water pressure, the cohesion and the internal friction elements. C/Ansari asked staff to also answer if the ground water would effect the land slide area in the central canyon area. In response to C/Harmony and C/Ansari regarding ground water, CCE/Myers advised that, in the reporting, there were some localized perched ground waters identified and some ground water in the canyon bottoms; however, there was no ground water encountered in Harrington's investigations that would affect or in any way degrade the suitability of the site as it's being proposed to be developed. Regarding Wilbur Smith's concerns, he stated that Leighton's summary review specifically states that ground water would not have any negative effect on the development of this site. There are some technical aspects of water --pore pressure, ground water and somatic differences that could be addressed by a geologist. Wilbur Smith stated that he specifically questioned reference 1 on Page 11 which states, "Ground water was not encountered in any of the JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 7 exploratory drilling sites drilled on this site" and on Plate C11, C45, C47, and C48, reference 5, volume 2, it shows the presence of ground water. David Smith, Leighton Assoc., explained that there was ground water encountered in the excavations; however in 3 of the cases, they were described as perched ground water emanating from a small fracture of perched ground water, which is significantly different than a static ground water table. The effect of ground water on slopes can have two effects: 1) lubricating effect on the plane in question whereby weakening the material and causing the plane to weaken; 2) causing a buoyant effect and weakening the overall strength of material. In no case, was static ground water encountered during the review of this project. He explained the differences between the Morning Sun landslide and what would cause a landslide at TTM 47850. MPT/Werner reconfirmed that in paragraph I, there was no static ground water encountered but there was perched ground water observed. David Smith explained that static water is a continuous level of ground water that is there all of the time as opposed to seepage that may come from the surface and get perched in a fracture. MPT/Werner asked staff for a written clarification by the project engineer. C/Ansari asked what dates the core drillings were completed. CCE/Myers advised that core drillings were completed in 1992 with additional work completed in 1994 subsequent to Leighton's review of previous geotechnical work. C/Ansari asked if the rains in the last two years would have an immediate change on the perched water level report completed in 1992. Further, would the rains have an effect on the central canyon landslide. CCE/Myers reported that the landslide will be removed during this development. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. RECONVENED: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:29 p.m. Kurt Nelson, representing Diamond Bar Assoc., Applicant, indicated that they have not found any static water. JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 8 In response to MPT/Werner, Mr. Nelson advised that per the Association, since the grading drainage patterns and the vegetation of the slopes with native genetically -driven material is crucial to this project, the declaration requires that if someone is going to alter the grading or the vegetation in any meaningful way, he has to get both the approval of the homeowners association board of directors or their designated committee and the City. MPTNVerner also asked if all of the lots being established here capable of supporting swimming pools and tennis courts and are there any restrictive lots. Mr. Nelson stated that many of the lots will support tennis courts and all of the lots will support a swimming pool. These amenities depend upon a number of variables of the particular size and configuration of the lots. Further, all of the lighting has to be environmentally responsible and directed away from environmentally -sensitive areas where it is thought that native animals would be living. He stated that per The Country's CC&R's, they preclude and prohibit anything that is a nuisance. In response to C/Ansari, Mr. Nelson reported that, regarding the annexation, a meeting has been set with the entire Board of Directors of The Country and that the developer is willing to annex this phase as well as Phase I lots. M/Papen stated that, per the April 1995 Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission and the Council, two Commissioners and M/Papen requested that there be modifications to the design of the project as to retain some kind of country effect within the project itself. She stated that she has seen no report or discussion of this and asked where the information is. CDD/DeStefano advised that, during that meeting, the developer responded to that question by indicating their understanding of the ground rules for purposes of reviewing the project and indicated their displeasure with reducing the number of dwelling units on the sites significantly beyond that which was proposed. Further, there has not been any proposal to significantly reduce the number of dwelling units proposed on this site. CM/Belanger recalled that the developer stated that essentially they were going to continue with their proposal of 57 units and, for a variety of reasons, they were not interested in providing alternatives. It was not a specific direction by the Council that the developer provide alternatives. M/Papen stated that, as she looks at the previous project in The Country, JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 9 it shows that all of the vegetation and trees were removed for the development and that Ridgeline Rd. does not look like The Country. She asked for Council consensus in directing staff to make a determination that the impact on the canyons would be reduced if there were fewer homes built. C/Ansari asked if the conditions and requirements can be changed from one tract to another. MPTfWerner indicated that the conditions should be revised to state that the applicant has previously offered information about the amount of grading necessary for remediation before the project can be approved. He asked the Council to think about this project after the fact when all of the vegetation is grown and the trees are large and not to look at it immediately after it is graded, because it won't look like The Country. He asked to see better supporting findings for the overriding considerations. C/Ansari advised that she has problems with filling in canyons and blueline streams; however this project is owned by a private citizen who does not have map restrictions, deed restrictions or other restrictions on it. South Pointe was map and deed restricted and there is no comparison. In response to M/Papen regarding public benefit, MPT/Werner stated that first, it needs to,be identified if there is a significant environmental impact and that there are some overriding considerations and maybe in that, a public benefit will be arrived. M/Papen asked how building in SEA15, filling two canyons and affecting a blueline stream is justified when the entire issue of the General Plan referendums called for no development and to "save Tonner Canyon." C/Ansari advised that she never said to preclude development of all private land; however, she will protect land that is restricted. M/Papen asked staff if the standard footage of 60 ft. for the cul-de-sac homes was being complied with. MPTA/Verner asked about the amount of grading necessary to enter the site for development. Mr. Nelson clarified that project alternatives are within the EIR identifying what impacts would be significantly lessened if you had 100 lots versus 50, 40 or 14. The original EIR only states that if you had the least amount of homes considered, there would not be a significant reduction in the amount of remedial grading necessary to stabilize the site. He reminded Council that the developer redesigned the tract to be compatible with the JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 10 Hillside Ordinance, that they did not have to legally accept it. They re- engineered the tract and they are at less than half of what the entitled zoning would give them. The fill slopes will look tremendous after it is all planted. Even though 500 trees will be taken out, 2,000 ( 4 to 1) will go back in from native seed stock at an incredible expense. In regard to Page 2, No. 6, at the end of the paragraph, M/Papen asked to add the words "in terms of lot size use and other factors." This wording is verbatim out of the letter from The Country Estates. In regard to the June 6, 1995 interim memo regarding the Draft Conditions for VTM, Item 20, MPT/Werner asked about the pro rata share of what and to whom. CDD/DeStefano explained that when this project was first contemplated along with several other in the backside of The Country, a study was established for an assessment of the bioda community in the greater significant ecological area and there were 2 or 3 projects proposed in the same area. Each of these projects were to be assigned their pro rata share of the study, which cost a little less than $10,000. The City has been reimbursed for those funds as projects have been approved. MPT/Werner asked that this item be more specific in who is getting paid for these pro rata shares. In regard to Item 31, M/Papen identified 4 to 5 lots in the cul-de-sac area which do not have a 60' frontage and asked if staff has determined the number of lots that would be eliminated to meet this requirement. CDD/DeStefano advised that the condition does not presume that any lots would be eliminated as a result of the condition. The condition presumes that several of those lots identified would have lot line adjustments or would have corrections prior to final map recordation that would insure that a 60' front property line frontage be established. M/Papen asked that staff explain Page 3, Resolution of Approval, C, and the 53 homes to be developed. CDD/DeStefano responded that the number 53 was a typographical error and that the application was for 57 lots. In regard to condition No. 34, MPT/Werner asked if this was a condition requested by the fire department for a contribution of $10,000 to the County Fire Department in lieu of providing an alternative location for the helicopter pad on site. JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 11 CDD/DeStefano stated that the developer agreed to make a $10,000 contribution to assist the County Fire Department in 1992 in establishing a more permanent helicopter pad site east of Pantera Park. The condition still remains. MPT/Werner suggested that a contribution of $10,000 be made to the County Fire Department or the City for fire protection and if the Fire Department does not need funds for the helicopter pad, then the City would have the option to use those funds for fire protection enhancement to the property and the area. In regard to Exhibit C-1, Page 6, condition No. 29, M/Papen asked that this be modified by adding before the word "pavement", "rubberized asphalt concrete..." C/Ansari stated that she did not agree with the effectiveness of rubberized asphalt concrete. M/Papen pointed out that 2 other rubberized asphalt concrete projects were approved by Council and that it is a way for the community to recycle. C/Harmony stated that rubberized asphalt has a tendency to creep and that he would not approve of its use until it has proven itself over time. MPT/Werner suggested that the rubberized option be left at the engineer's discretion. In regard to a memo from CCE/Myers dated March 27, 1992, M/Papen asked if the 12 subdivision conditions were incorporated into Exhibits C and C-1. CDD/DeStefano advised that the March 27, 1992 memo was provided for information only and was an attachment to Planning Commission recom- mended conditions stemming from their 1992 discussion. The City Engineer provided Council with a March 28, 1995 memorandum restating those conditions and indicating corrections and modifications that current engineering review would currently require for those conditions. M/Papen reiterated that Exhibit C-1 is a new document that replaces the March 27, 1992 conditions. She stated that 5 conditions in a memo dated March 29 need to be added to Exhibit C-1. In regard to Condition 2, MPT/Werner asked that a land use reversion clause be added to the end of the "pump station" clause to include, "if the JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 12 use of Lot A is no longer deemed to be necessary or utilized for pump station purposes, it shall remain open space. Special Legal Counsel Robert Owen advised that this reversion can be done. C/Harmony asked if this lot was big enough for another pad if the pump station was not going to be developed. MPT/Werner advised that this lot does not have a configuration that a residence would fit on. In regard to Condition 3, MPT/Werner commented that Lots 13 and 16 could consume the remainder parcel, but not Lot 15 unless the lines were adjusted. CCE/Myers advised that this was being left open to allow the adjustment of lines proportionately to any of those three parcels. In regard to Condition 4, M/Papen asked that a condition be added stating, "that no construction equipment or related construction traffic shall be permitted to enter the site from Hawkwood Drive." In regard to Condition 5, M/Papen read the following recommended condition "As reclaimed water supply is not currently available, subdivider shall agree to design and construct to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Walnut Valley Water District, main and service lines capable of delivering reclaimed water to all portions of the subdivision and the system shall be designed to permit switch over of non-domestic services on each lot at such time a reclaimed water supply is available to the subdivision. Security shall be posted to guarantee the performance of this agreement. Subdividers shall install, prior to approval of final grading, a portion of the system consisting of main and service lines capable of delivering reclaimed water to those portions of the subdivision for which the homeowners association is responsible for irrigation and/or landscape maintenance. This portion installed shall provide for switch over from domestic service to reclaimed service at such time as is available." She advised that the applicant agreed to this condition. MPT/Werner asked if this condition is consistent with previous approvals. CCE/Myers advised that it is consistent regarding reclaimed water where reclaimed water is not presently available. JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 13 In regard to staffs memo dated March 31, 1995, M/Papen asked that this condition be added Exhibit C-1. With no objection from the applicant and with consensus of Council, the above six items will be added to Exhibit C-1 Conditions. With regard to the Statement of Overriding Considerations, MPT/Werner asked that the discussion that Mr. Nelson offered in terms of the grading be included in the appropriate location. CM/Belanger advised that the "Quimby Act" ordinance can be changed by attempting to create language that reflects the overture made by the property owner or come back with a mutual agreement regarding creating a different kind of recreational contribution to the City. In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano advised that the annexation issue is on page 4, condition number 22 of the June 6, 1995 memorandum. M/Papen stated that she was not satisfied with Tract 47851 because the developer and The Country Estates cannot come to an agreement on annexation fees. She would like to see, before final map, that an annexation agreement is reached either through negotiation for the whole tract with the applicant or a mandatory buy in as each lot is sold, before approving the Final Map. C/Harmony commented that the City has no place in interjecting its will on a private enterprise legal negotiation. C/Ansari asked that the statement of going into arbitration according to the TadCo agreement be included in the annexation agreement. MPT/Werner commented on the statement in the last tentative tract map and asked for this to be consistent with those conditions. In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano reported that Condition No. 22 on page 4 is consistent with Mr. Yeh's. M/Papen stated that the language indicates: 'The owner shall be required to annex if all fees assessed by The Country Estates do not exceed Tract 47722." She asked when the requirement of annexation is due. CDD/DeStefano advised that the condition does not have a due date. JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 14 MPT/Werner stated that the condition has to be satisfied at the time of recordation. CDD/DeStefano advised that the above statement should be added to the condition and that this application must be filed prior recordation of the map. As a public entity, the City does not have control of the actual annexation. MPT/Werner suggested that wording be placed in the Resolution body as one of the findings stating "that it is represented to be the owner's/ applicant's intent to be annexed into "The Country Association." M/Papen advised that she would like to see a confirmation that the Council expects the annexation to occur. CDD/DeStefano recommended adding, at the beginning of the condition, "prior to final map recordation, the owner shall make a bonafide application to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association to annex the subdivision to that association." MPT/Werner asked what happens if, at the time of recordation, the developers have not actually annexed. CDD/DeStefano advised that the reworded condition would only ensure that the bonafide application was submitted to The Country Estates and does not ensure that annexation will take place because that is left to resolution between the private parties. MPT1Werner asked for an assessment on whether or not the fees are such that they would satisfy the second sentence of that condition and who would enforce that condition. M/Papen asked what if the City collected the annexation of fees equal to the amount assessed to Tract 47722 per lot. Kurt Nelson explained that applications can be made for any amount; however, it is not guaranteed that the requisite 2/3 of The Country residents will agree with the application. He did not feel that the City should be involved in the annexation issue. M/Papen asked staff if they would go along with MPT/Werner by changing the conditions to enforce the annexation. Mr. Owen advised that there is no way to enforce the annexation once the City has approved the final map. He introduced a revised proposal for JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 15 Item 22 to state as follows, "Prior to approval of the final map, the owner shall make a bonafide application to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Associates to annex the subdivision to that association. The owner shall be required to agree to annex upon recordation of the final map if all fees assessed by the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association do not exceed the fees assessed per lot for annexation to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association for Tract Number 47722." If the association does not agree, the developer has fulfilled that condition. Council agreed to amend item 22 as stated by Mr. Owen. In response to M/Papen, CM/Belanger advised that the City must first identify if, in fact, the developer's heavy equipment caused street damage and if so, staff would contact the developer. CCE/Meyers stated that there are no conditions related to repairing City streets unless staff knows who caused the damage. With respect to private streets, there are no conditions proposed and whether or not such conditions can be created, there needs to be some thought for it. CM/Belanger advised that the damage to the streets are unrelated to this map and the issue had already been raised relating to the previous map. The streets are private and the matter needs to be discussed between the two property owners. M/Papen requested staff to write a letter to The Country Estates stating the above in response to the letter Council received. C/Ansari asked if adjustments could be made on the frontage for the cul- de-sac homes. CM/Belanger advised that the condition is worded in such a way that if they cannot make the 60', the developer either comes back and asks for relief of the condition or they lose the lot. Kurt Nelson agreed with the above and indicated that the developer will adhere to those conditions. In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano reported that there is a 17 - page document within the materials that were provided to Council describing in detail the Findings of Fact and support for the findings for the significant environmental effects of the tract. He stated that it also incorporates the Statement of Overriding Considerations, specifically dealing with the air quality issue that Council discussed. It also describes the impact of PM10 emissions, illustrates the facts in support of the JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 16 findings for the Overriding Considerations and lists the specific Overriding Consideration findings. The only environmental impact that cannot be brought down to appropriate levels is the air quality impact, all other concerns are felt to be brought to acceptable environmental standards through the conditions and the mitigation measures as outlined in all of the documents. MPT/Werner reiterated that the significant environmental impact caused by grading will be mitigated to acceptable levels by preventing erosion, posting a security bond, posting an improvement bond, limiting the time of grading activity, providing a staging area for the equipment as well as gopher suppression. He felt that these measures were not significant enough to justify approval causing significant impacts on grading. Tom Smith, Michael Brandman & Assoc., explained that, under CEQA, the only time there has to be a Statement of Overriding Considerations is if there are residual impacts that remain significant after mitigation has been attached. Further, the project complies with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance and through the Conditions of Approvals. In response to MPT/Werner, Tom Smith advised that 715,000 cubic yards are being moved and balanced on-site. MPT/Werner stated that he was told on numerous occasions that in order to gain access to the site, there needs to be significant remediation which will cause a significant amount of grading to occur and this needs to be stated in the record. Tom Smith advised that this kind of statement is in the Draft EIR and he will incorporate it. MPT/Werner stated that he wants to make sure that the record states clearly that in approving this project, the City will have a significant impact on grading and one of the reasons for that is, as soon as it enters the site for the purpose of development, there is need for a significant amount of grading for remediation purposes. The Council is remediating this project to help make an ancient landslide safe. With consensus of Council, approval was given for additional language regarding movement of the dirt for grading on the ancient landslide, ancient landslide remediation and include this in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. In response to MPT/Papen, Tom Smith advised that there have been no penalties ever assessed to a jurisdiction for exceeding the PM 10 JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 17 threshold. M/Papen asked how does the City meet clean air act requirements if the City is contributing to the pollution and we are out of compliance right now. Tom Smith explained that the region spends a lot of money on air quality management planning. The conditions in this region are such that naturally there is dust here that make it very difficult for standards to be met and the interpretation that's been placed on Southern California is if you make your best attempts and you go the extra mile to making sure that the measures get into projects, that's the best that can be done. In response to MPT/Werner, Tom Smith explained that for significant impacts, which are PM10, NOX and ROG, every mitigation measure that is in the Conditions is taken from the Air Quality Management handbook. CM/Belanger reported that the only item requiring revision would be creating language suggested to the mitigation monitoring report --what are the significant findings within the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Others would include modification of Condition 4, Page 2 to include language for an in -lieu condition related to the Quimby Act. He proposed the following language "in the alternative, the applicant and the City, by mutual agreement, may engage in inkind development or funding of recreational facilities in lieu of Section 21.24.340. If such proposed agreement fails, Section 21.243.40 shall control." MPT/Werner moved, C/Harmony seconded to adopt Resolution No. 95-25 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO A FINAL MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 90010861) AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850, TO DEVELOP A 57 UNIT SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN NORTHERN TONNER CANYON, WITHIN SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA NO. 15, SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF STEEPLECHASE LANE AND WAGON TRAIN LANE, IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF as amended by Council in the Conditions of Approval, incorporating those changes that have been stated in the record and addition to the Statement of Overriding Considerations including the statement made by Mr. Nelson. M/Papen offered a substitute motion that the number of homes be reduced to 34. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 18 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - M/Papen ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 6.5 VOUCHER REGISTER - C/Harmony stated that the bill in the amount of $12.11 to First Interstate Bank had already been paid and asked that it be removed from the Warrant Register. CA/Jenkins advised that the Richards, Watson & Gershon invoice reflects review of contract forms and revision of the taxicab ordinance. CM/Belanger advised that the bill to First Interstate needs to be paid; however, it will be reimbursed to the City. M/Papen moved, MPT/Werner second to approve the Voucher Register dated June 6, 1995 in the amount of $748,295.02. C/Harmony amended the motion to deduct payment of the Richards, Watson & Gershon bill until further analysis and a report back to Council. Amended motion failed due to lack of a second. C/Ansari amended the motion to approve the Richards, Watson, & Gershon bill less $3,500 until further explanation is received. With the following Roll Call vote, motion failed: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner, M/Papen ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None M/Papen moved, MPT/Werner seconded to approve the Voucher Register dated June 6, 1995 in the amount of $748,295.02. With the following Roll Call vote, motion failed: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner, M/Papen ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None MPT/Werner moved to adjourn the meeting due to the lateness of the hour. The remaining Agenda Items were continued to the June 12, 1995 Special City Council meeting. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 19 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS 5.1 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - June 8, 1995 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - June 12, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - June 20, 1995 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 6.1.1 Regular Meeting of May 23, 1995 6.1.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 9, 1995 6.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of March 23, 1995. 6.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.3.1 Regular Meeting of March 9, 1995 6.3.2 Special Meeting of March 30, 1995 6.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.4.1 Regular Meeting of March 27, 1995 6.4.2 Regular Meeting of April 10, 1995 6.4.3 Regular Meeting of April 24, 1995 6.5 VOUCHER REGISTER - dated June 6, 1995 in the amount of $748,295.02. 6.6 TREASURER'S REPORT - April, 1995. 6.7 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Phil Rini May 12, 1995. 6.8 NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALKS ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD 6.9 (A) GRAND AVENUE STREET REHABILITATION, TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION AND INTERSECTION MODIFICATION PROJECT BETWEEN GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE. (B) CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION/INSPECTION SERVICES JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 20 FOR GRAND AVENUE REHABILITATION. (C) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING A GRANT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT DIRECT VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS THERETO FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY. 6.10 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PARK SITE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS (A) SYCAMORE CANYON PARK; (B) STARSHINE PARK; (C) HERITAGE PARK IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS. 6.11 (A) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON. (B) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON. (C) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 21 DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON. 6.12 EXTENSION OF BUS SHELTERS CONTRACT 6.13 AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES. 8. OLD BUSINESS 8.1 APPOINTMENT OF DELEGATES AND/OR ALTERNATES -Wildlife Corridor Conservancy Joint Powers and Southern California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (SCJPIA). 8.2 REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO RENEWAL OF THE CITY'S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE. 9. NEW BUSINESS: 9.1 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO UNEXPIRED TERM OF FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER. 9.2 ORDINANCE NO. XX (1995) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND ENACTING A NEW CODE FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES NOT INCLUDED THEREIN; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF AMENDING SUCH CODE; AND PROVIDING WHEN SUCH CODE AND THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Deputy Luter, Walnut Valley Sheriff, announced the Walnut Station Open House on June 10, 1995, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. M/Papen requested a Closed Session with the Sheriffs Department regarding contract negotiations and other matters pertaining to the Council. 11. ADJOURNMENT: With Council consensus, at 10:50 p.m., the meeting was continued to June 12, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. at a location to be determined. JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 22 ATTEST: Mayor TOMMYE NICE, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES of THE CITY GQUncnL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 12, 1995 100 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Pro Tem Werner. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager, Michael Estrada, Assistant City Attorney; George Wentz, City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., stated that she would like to see the land left open in TTM 47850. She also stated that as much as she wanted to save Sandstone Canyon, Mr. Arciero had the right to build. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items 6.1.1, 6.5, 6.9 (A) & (B), 6.11 and 6.13. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 6.1 APPROVED MINUTES: 6.1.1 Regular Meeting of May 2, 1995 -As submitted. 6.1.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 9, 1995 - As submitted. 6.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of March 23, 1995 - Received & filed. 6.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.3.1 Regular Meeting of March 9, 1995 - Received & filed. 6.3.2 Special Meeting of March 30, 1995 - Received & filed. 6.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.4.1 Regular Meeting of March 27, 1995 - Received & filed. 6.4.2 Regular Meeting of April 10, 1995 - Received & filed. 6.4.3 Regular Meeting of April 24, 1995 -Received & filed. 6.6 TREASURER'S REPORT - Received and filed Treasurer's Report dated April, 1995. 6.7 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Phil Rini May 12, 1995. Rejected request JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 2 and referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Company, the City's Risk Manager. 6.8 NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALKS ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD - Accepted work performed by JDC, Inc. and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion and release any retention amounts after 35 days of filing. 6.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 95-25 ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PARK SITE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS (A) SYCAMORE CANYON PARK; (B) STARSHINE PARK; (C) HERITAGE PARK IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS. 6.12 APPROVED AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES - Approved the amendment and authorized the City Manager to allocate an additional $8,000 for environmental management services related to the used motor oil grant program. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/Harmony announced his wife's and daughter's birthdays. Further, he stated that on May 5, 1995, there was a Cinco de Mayo party to celebrate the failure of the "Harmony Recall" campaign. He presented aerial photos of the landslide on Morning Sun Dr. and pointed out cracks in the bedrock He thanked the Sheriffs Department for the opportunity to see the slide from the air. He then displayed a flyer announcing an essay contest with a prize of $25. In regard to the last Sales Tax Report indicating that sales tax had dropped in the City because the Board of Equalization had assigned D.B.'s revenue to some other agency, he asked staff to investigate the allocation of the business sales tax and determine if it's legally feasible to negotiate the tax back or to encourage them to bring it back. He advised that under the Bradley Burns Law, some business owners have a say so as to where that tax is allocated. He discussed the two different General Plans that are being promoted and urged citizens to sign the petition for the GPAC version to be placed on the ballot. C/Ansari announced that she had been appointed to the Policy Committee of SCAG for Energy and Environment and to the Board of the Contract Cities Assn. In the annual report by the San Gabriel Valley Consortium of Cities, it is indicated that they were able to save 3,093 jobs by giving San Gabriel Valley businesses alternatives regarding location. She announced that AAA will be opening an office in the space formerly occupied by Alta Ski & Sport on D. B. Blvd. She reported that she recently drove around the City and noticed several areas of blight and concern and will provide information to staff for followup. She suggested consideration of a program whereby staff' and Council tour the City one day/month to look for areas of concern. She then congratulated Alba Mosier on her election as President of the Soroptomists Club and extended good wishes to Richard Tramios who recently JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 3 graduated from the Air Force Academy. MPT/Werner announced that over 4,000 residents attended the Walnut Sheriffs Open House during the weekend of June 10-11, 1995. He also stated that he participated in a Sheriffs ride -along and reported that the community is very well covered by Sheriff patrol vehicles. In regard to a residential fire on Aspen Knoll, he asked staff for a report on response time by the Fire Department, "911" and the Sheriffs Department in comparison to the Great Bend fire response time. M/Papen stated that she is working with MTA, Cal Trans and staff to secure funding for another park -n -ride expansion in the City. The project is in excess of $600,000 and the City is seeking 1/3 of that as a grant through the Call for Projects. Funding announcements will be made at the end of June. She also advised that she attended a third grade history class at Maple Hill School and observed the class in building a mini -city. She stated that it was an interesting experience to visit their city and see the similarities. She congratulated Rojan Verjinkarr on reaching Eagle Scout which was awarded in a ceremony at Quail Summit Elementary School. She expressed concern that the citizen's version of the General Plan is being misrepresented in that the GPAC volunteers did not take a vote on that version; therefore, it was too late to place on the ballot several years ago. She reviewed some of the issues in the General Plan that were being misrepresented and reported that if D.B. has no General Plan by October 31, 1995, the Council will not be able to approve any commercial tenant improvements by permit. 6. MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.5 VOUCHER REGISTER - C/Harmony explained that he was concerned with the City Attorney's bill of over $10,000 and that he had requested copies of all of the new Attorney's bills and he has received none. He felt the bills needed to be clarified and requested that an independent audit be performed. Further, he suggested continuing this matter to Closed Session on June 20, 1995 for further discussion. ACA/Estrada explained that this matter does not need to be discussed under executive session but that a subcommittee can be formed to discuss the bills with the City Attorney directly. C/Ansari also expressed concern regarding the attorney's bill and wondered if these bills are a monthly occurrence. She suggested that a subcommittee meet with Mr. Jenkins for further discussion. She also requested that the attorney firm promptly submit their bills for payment. MPT/Werner concurred with C/Ansari's comments in that a subcommittee be formed to review the City Attorney's bills. He asked what staff member is in charge of reviewing and monitoring the City Attorney and why wasn't the taxi cab ordinance monitored properly. JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 4 C/Ansari advised that it was Council who directed the City Attorney to review the taxicab ordinance with no direction or expectations. CM/Belanger reported that the City Manager has the responsibility of reviewing the City Attorney's charges. He stated that it will take several billings in order to get a basis for normal billings from the new attorney. Steve Nice, Rising Star Dr., expressed concern over the Voucher Register not being paid because of the attorney bill. He also expressed concern of the new attorney not having a "cap" for his charges. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., stated that not only does the City need to stay within the budget but the City also needs to review each and every bill for payment. City Attorney bills need a "cap." M/Papen stated that the Finance Committee meets either Thursday afternoon or Friday morning to review the Warrant Register. She also advised that any citizen can review City bills at that time. MPT/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve the Voucher Register dated June 6, 1995 in the amount of $748,295.02. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: C/Harmony stated that he would vote in favor of the Warrant Register and not in favor of the attorney bill for lack of information. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/ Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 6.9 (A) GRAND AVENUE STREET REHABILITATION, TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION AND INTERSECTION MODIFICATION PROJECT BETWEEN GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE - In response to C/Harmony, SE/Liu reported that rubberized asphalt contains 20% or more of recycled scrap tire mixed with paving grade asphalt and manufactured into a thick liquid. From the various projects that staff has observed, rubberized asphalt is flexible and will resist cracking by wheel loading pressure, provides some waterproofing and keeps moisture from penetrating through the surface. There has been distress in the form of rotting, pushing and shoving with the rubberized asphalt documented at 22 locations within the City. Before this type of asphalt is used, it will be analyzed by an independent lab. C/Harmony asked if there had been any studies as to dusting material that can come off due to wear and are there any carcinogen effects of rubberized asphalt. JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 5 SE/Liu stated that research is still being conducted for utilization of rubberized asphalt. It is unknown if there is any negative impact to the environment or the general public. CA/Jenkins advised that he reviewed and commented on the contract. In regard to the reconstruction project on D. B. Blvd. and the progress of the wear and tear, MPT/Werner asked if staff could review the videos taken during construction and any videos thereafter. In response to MPT/Werner's request, CM/Belanger advised that staff intends to bring a recommendation to Council for creation of a synopsis video log of all City projects. C/Harmony felt that the $140,000 contingency, equal to 15°x6, was too high. CM/Belanger advised that on public works projects, it is not unusual that a contingency amount be established which is a function of the recommend- ation of the professional staff as to what they believe is appropriate given the magnitude and overall complexity of the project and to give flexibility to professional staff in their management of the project. The amount that is ultimately determined to be the contingent amount is a matter for Council; however, staffs recommendation was the contingency be set at 15°x6 based on experience with previous projects. SE/Liu reviewed the three major components of the project: 1) resurfacing the street; 2) modify two major intersections (Grand/D.B. Blvd. and Grand/ Golden Springs) and 3) synchronize 9 traffic signals on Grand Ave. In reviewing the project, staff felt that 15% is a reasonable amount and it is anticipated that this project will be managed properly and the 15% will suffice. MPT/Werner commented that there is no change order provision in the agreement and that the 15% contingency on the total exceeds the $10,000 limit of the City Manager. He recommended adoption of the agreement as is with any necessary changes to be approved by Council. CM/Belanger advised that the change order process is contained in the specifications and the Green Book and that the contingent amount is 25°x6 in the Green Book. By this action, Council reduces that authority to 15°x6. MPT/Werner asked at what point does the contractor have authorization to exceed the amount and scope that he has proposed to contract for. CM/Belanger advised that the contractor has the ability to exceed that amount based on the judgment of the design engineer, the construction inspector and engineering staff related to that firm as well as City staff. In JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 6 conjunction with the contractor, these parties must agree that the extra monies requested are in fact allowable under the contract. MPTNVerner asked if the contingency will cover items that are unanticipated or will they also cover items that the contractor may have under bid. CM/Belanger advised that underbidding a project is the contractor's responsibility; however, there are circumstances where quantities that are set forth in the contract require changes and that cannot be the contractor's responsibility. MPT/Werner read from the Incorporated Documents to be Considered Complimentary, paragraph 2 and questioned the fact that the Green Book or 15% contingency was not mentioned in this paragraph and commented that the agreement is non -committal. CA/Jenkins advised that he had not yet reviewed the specifications even though the contract had been. CM/Belanger stated that the Interim City Attorney reviewed the Plans and Specifications and determined them to be sufficient. MPT/Werner asked if the specifications have language dealing with contingencies, change orders and a percentage over and above what has been contracted. In terms of specific language, SE/Liu advised that it is addressed both in the Specifications under Technical Provisions and in the Green Book. Also in the Green Book, there are specific provisions that discuss the contingency percentage set at 25% maximum allowable. MPT/Werner stated that, because the contingency percentage is worded "25% maximum allowance," Council has the discretion of approving a percentage from 0 to 25% contingency. He asked if the contractor would withdraw his proposal if the Council decided on a 0% contingency and whether that was reasonable. CM/Belanger advised that the contractor would not withdraw his proposal; however, a 0 percentage contingent amount is very unreasonable. He stated that a percentage figure between 0 and 25°x6 is reasonable and there needs to be some flexibility for professional staff so that every single item is not brought back to Council for approval. MPT/Werner moved, C/Harmony seconded to award a contract to Gentry Brothers, Inc. in an amount not -to -exceed $914,395.30, and provide a contingency amount of $91,500 (10°x6) for project change orders to be approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization amount of JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 7 $1,005,895.30. With the Following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/ Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None (B) CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION/INSPECTION SERVICES FOR GRAND AVENUE REHABILITATION - C/Harmony expressed concern that half of the proposals received were less than the one being proposed and asked what was wrong with the lowest proposal at $23,000. ACM/Usher stated that the lowest rated firm had a good proposal; however, after reviewing 10 firms, Hams & Assoc. had far and away the best proposal in terms of quality and experience of both project manager and inspector. The most important services attractive to staff were claims avoidance and mitigation and the public information program. The contractor is within 4 1/2% of the projected construction amount and this fee is appropriate. MPT/Werner reconfirmed that the order in which the contractors are listed is the order in which the subcommittee rated them. He asked what the difference was in the top three firms. ACM/Usher advised that the main difference from the top three firms and Harris is the much higher level of service and public information programming that they do as a matter of course than any of the other contractors. MPT//Werner asked that if staff were to compare the quality of inspection services, would the top three contractors be of equal level. ACM/Usher advised that inspection service is about the same. SE/Liu stated that in comparing Harris & Assoc. with the other contractors, it was noted that Harris specializes in construction management versus the other firms being general civil engineering firms. ACM/Usher stated that staffs goal in evaluating these firms was to pick a firm that they believed would provide the best service and enable staff to reduce the inconveniences of a street reconstruction project. MPT/Werner asked when the contract would begin. SE/Liu advised that the contract will begin as soon as bonds and insurance papers are received from the contractor and 10 days after the Mayor signs the contract. JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 8 MPT/Werner was not convinced that paying more to include public relations was justified. He asked that the matter be continued for more thorough Council review. With consensus of Council, the matter was continued to June 20, 1995. (C) RESOLUTION NO. 95-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING A GRANT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT DIRECT VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS THERETO FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY. M/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to adopt Resolution No. 95-26 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING A GRANT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT DIRECT VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS THERETO FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/ Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 6.11 (A) RESOLUTION NO. 95-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON - CM/Belanger reported that this resolution would set a public hearing for collecting assessments for District 38 which covers all the City and maintains and constructs improvements in the roadway in the form of medians. He recommended that the current levy of $15.00 per year per parcel remain the same. (B) RESOLUTION NO. 95-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OF JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 9 OBJECTIONS THEREON - CM/Belanger reported that this resolution would set a public hearing and coiled assessments for the landscape district along the easterly border of the City, starting at the homes south of Grand Ave. and continuing' north into the Bramalea tract up past Pantera Park. He recommended raising the levy from $73.50 to $130 per year per parcel. The district had a levy of $130 during the first two years of the City's incorporation and was changed in 1991-92. Prior to Incorporation, the levy on this district was $236. M/Papen reported that this district has a negative balance of $11,000 and it is necessary that the levy be raised. CM/Belanger advised that this situation was anticipated in the current fiscal year and a more appropriate levy was assessed because of maintenance needed for this district. (C) RESOLUTION NO. 95-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON - CM/Belanger reported that this resolution which would set a public hearing for collecting a levy for District 41 which is a landscape area of Pathfinder Rd. from the 57 freeway past Ronald Reagan Park. He proposed that the assessment remain at $220.50. MPT/Werner moved that only items 6.11 (A), (B), and (C) be continued to July 11, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Motion failed for lack of second. M/Papen moved, C/Harmony seconded to continue item 6.11 (A), (B), and (C) to July 11, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. with the fees publicly noticed as recommended by staff. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/ Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 6.13 AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO RENEWAL OF THE CITY'S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE - Dr. Lawrence Rhodes, Fiber Ct., recommended that a citizens committee be created to review the agreement and services. He had reviewed the financial reports for Jones Intercable and reported that they have been losing money for the past two years. JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 10 Martha Bruske, 600 So. Great Bend, agreed with Dr. Rhodes' proposal. She expressed concern on the cable system's follow up on public interest and suggested that the City look at the public access channel and nighttime programming. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., asked why $10,000 for attorney fees is necessary. CM/Belanger stated that the City had a cable television system for 15 years and provision of that service expired on May 23, 1995 with the Council extending that through the end of 1995 to consider renewal of the franchise. The community was given a survey regarding programming, etc. and when the data is compiled, staff will bring the survey back for a public hearing. He recommended that the cable firm be audited by Conrad & Assoc. for financial and customer service complaints which will include companies that hold Jones Intercable in some financial way. He further recommended that Communications Support Corporation complete a technical support audit. Technical and customer service audit expenses will be shared with the County. He also recommended that the law firm of Richards, Watson and Gershon perform any legal services needed to review contracts, etc. Legal services will require at least a fee of $5,000 and the $10,000 only reflects flexibility. C/Harmony expressed concern regarding level of services provided by Jones Intercable and wondered whether the $10,000 limit for attorney fees would be adequate. He asked that staff address the idea of how to compare the technical standards of the industry with expectations *of Jones Intercable and how an RCA satellite system will compete with cable. CM/Belanger explained that the process being recommended provides information that the City is going to need to enter into negotiations with Jones Intercable. The public needs assessment will divulge to staff and Council the kinds of needs and desires that the community would like to have. Technical and financial audits would be performed by companies that are qualified and they understand what they must do in order to provide the kind of data that is needed by negotiators in order to proceed with negotiations. The legal audit would be performed by an attomey firm with experience in legal services of this kind previously and they would not be negotiating the contract. The firm will only be required to draft the contract document that is the result of the negotiation process. The ultimate decision will be in the hands of the negotiators for getting the best possible service for the future. In response to MPT/Werner, CM/Belanger reported that revenue paid by Jones Intercable last year was approximately $215,000. MPT/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to allocate $16,500 in FY 1994-95 JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 11 budget for professional services related to renewal of the City's cable television franchise. Further, authorize the City Manager to enter into separate professional services agreements with: (1) Conrad & Associates for financial and customer complaint auditing services in an amount not -to - exceed $2,800; (2) Communications Support Corporation for technical inspection services in an amount not -to -exceed $3,700 and (3) Richards, Watson & Gershon for special legal services in an amount not -to -exceed $10,000. In response to C/Harmony, M/Papen advised that the negotiating team included MPT/Werner and herself. CM/Belanger advised that the City Manager's office will provide negotiation services for technical aspects or concern and consultation by Communications Support Corporation. C/Harmony stated that the contract will not be negotiated on a staff administrative level or in conjunction with the County and will be negotiated by two Council members. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 1995-96 BUDGET - CM/Belanger presented a "pie chart" as Exhibit 1 which described the expected General Fund resources that would be available during FY 1995-96. He explained the colors on the pie chart as follows: dark blue category - Indicates $695,600 transferred from other funds. A major fund transferred into this category comes from the Gas Tax Fund that will provide maintenance services for City streets, curbs, gutters and partially fund activities that staff has related to those activities; bluish/mauve category - indicates $2.7 million motor in lieu revenue. This revenue is derived from registration of vehicles and subvented back to the community on a per capita basis, $1 million in current service charges including fees for development services, recreation programming, use of monies in property and finds and forfeitures; mauve category - $3.9 million General Fund Expenditures -Public Safety Budget; $3.7 million reflects the contract with the L.A. Sheriff Department, Community Volunteer Patrol and other activities, Emergency Preparedness and Animal Control; red category - $1.2 million Community Services - which includes the single most largest cost of the recreation contract with the City of Brea, it also includes maintenance of all City parks; Community Development which includes planning, building and safety is projected to be a $690,000 expenditure; Public Works which JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 12 includes outside maintenance contracts as well as engineering is projected,, to be a $1.3 million expenditure; General Government which includes expenditures that capture cost items that relate to the management of government generally that are not attributed to any department but rather the general cost of government; Legisladve which includes City Council, City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk is projected to be $840,000. CM/Belanger commented on the changes from FY 1994-95 to FY 1995-96 resulting in the repayment schedule from the County that will not be reflected in the next budget. Proposed General Fund expenditures are $9.3 million compared to expenditure amount in FY 199495 of $9.15 million. The budget proposes 24 full-time staff positions, 17 part-time staff positions, reclassification of the Senior Engineer to Assistant Public Works Director and the Associate Planner to Senior Planner, an overall 3.5°% increase in salary and the benefit package be increased $50 per month. In reviewing Page VII entitled Proposed Capital Outlay Items, he stated that in the past, these items were included in the budget package; however, there was a tendency for these items to get lost in the narrative. In review of Pages 80 and 81 entitled Capital Improvement Program, he explained the improvements categorized in four major topics; 1) street improvements; 2) traffic control improvements; 3) parks & recreation improvements and 4) miscellaneous improvements. He recommended that the Council consider the budget document and continue it to the next City Council meeting for final consideration. In response to M/Papen, CM/Belanger advised that the City Council requested staff to pursue the possibility of acquiring a building on a short- term basis to be utilized as City Hall. The AQMD has approximately 12,000 sq. ft. available at a cost of $1.50/sq. ft. and an estimated $1,000 per month for common area maintenance and security costs which would result in an annual cost of $230,000. All tenant improvements, replication of public areas, etc. are not included. In discussion with the City's current landlord, there is additional space available at 21660 Copley Dr. that would provide expansion of space which would provide an estimated 9,100 sq. ft. at $1.55/ sq. ft. for the first two years and $1.65/sq. ft. for the second two years which would result in an estimated annual cost of $170,000. For the next meeting, M/Papen requested staff to include the 4 -year cost figure for option "C" in regard to office space and asked if the AQMD were unwilling to lease out less space that would better accommodate City staff. CM/Belanger stated that the AQMD was notified that the City does not need 12,000 sq. ft. and asked if the space could be split up. The AQMD advised they could not separate the space due to separate access and security reasons. M/Papen stated that the City's present office space lease is up this month. JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 13 C/Ansari stated that last year, AQMD would not talk to businesses regarding subleasing their space. She asked if AQMD and our present landlord are aware of our bargaining. CM/Belanger stated that both parties know that the City is considering more than one option. C/Ansari asked if an appeal could be made through the office of Supervisor Antonovich to assist with this negotiation and asked M/Papen to follow up with this issue. M/Papen advised that she will be seeing Supervisor Antonovich at the next MTA meeting and will ask him to help with persuasion or negotiations. She asked if Council agreed to leasing the AQMD if the City could get the right amount of sq. ft. MPT/VVerner recommended that the City sublease the remaining square footage in the AQMD to other City entities. M/Papen stated that because she had not seen the suite at the AQMD building, she was hesitant to support that alternative. She asked about the costs for tenant improvements. CM/Belanger advised that tenant improvements would include creating an open office environment for staff that would not be housed in closed offices. In regard to the AQMD office space, C/Ansari asked what kind of space is not usable. CM/Belanger responded that the AQMD has enough open space to house all City staff. He also advised that part of staffs recommendation is the cost factor between the AQMD office space and the present office space. M/Papen asked staff to advise the community on how the City plans to finance or build another recreation center for Pantera Park. CM/Belanger reported that staff is limited as to where to place the recreation building on Pantera Park and that, depending on the size and cost of the recreation center, the City can pay for it out of reserves, or it can be financed over a period of time through either short or long term financing mechanisms. The Council can consider the construction of such a building through contributions from developers of certain property, or the building could be financed to the General Public through a GO Bond. M/Papen expressed concern that if a plan is not laid out for this park, then it will never happen. She advised that Pantera Park has been on the Council's agenda for three years. She also advised that there is excess JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 14 Gas Tax money and reserves that could cover the park's expenses. M/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Dr. Lawrence Rhodes, Fiber Ct., expressed concern with the Pomona Humane Society and requested Council to reconsider using the L.A. County Animal Shelter and not the use of the Pomona Humane Society. C/Ansari asked staff if there were any complaints regarding the Pomona Humane Society. She also asked if the State monitors the Humane Society. CM/Belanger stated that he was not aware of any complaints of how animals are being treated at the Pomona Humane Society. Staff will obtain reports of how the animals are being treated and if there are any complaints. M/Papen also asked staff to investigate the renting of cages at an extreme amount from the Humane Society. Martha Bruske, 600 So. Great Bend, requested Council and staff to consider the following in the new office space: conference room, offices for each City Council member, set hours for each City Council member. She also requested that staff solicit citizens' responses to the current services for which the City contracts. She also stated that the Walnut Unified School District owes the City a park. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Road, requested that a conservancy for wildlife be included in the budget. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., requested staff to consider a larger space for the new City Hall office leased space. She also stated that she had volunteered with the Pomona Humane Society and she never saw any mistreatment of animals and asked for a fair investigation. With no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. With consensus of Council, M/Papen continued the matter to June 20, 1995. 8. OLD BUSINESS 8.1 APPOINTMENT OF DELEGATES AND/OR ALTERNATES - M/Papen advised that the appointment would replace Mr. Miller on two of the interagency groups. C/Harmony serves as the delegate for the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (SCJPIA) and the Mayor is the delegate to the Wildlife Corridor Conservancy Joint Powers and an alternates are needed for both. C/Ansari nominated C/Harmony as alternate to the Wildlife Corridor JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 15 Conservancy Joint Powers. M/Papen appointed MPT/Werner as alternate to the Southern California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (SCJPIA). With consensus of Council, C/Harmony and MPT/Werner were appointed as alternates. 9. NEW BUSINESS: 9.1 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO UNEXPIRED TERM OF FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER GARY G. MILLER - CM/Belanger advised that Mr. Miller was elected to the State Assembly on May 16, 1995 and was sworn into office May 18, 1995. As an operation of law, his seat became vacant when he was sworn in. The 30 -day period within which a Council can appoint to fill the unexpired term of a vacating member began on May 18, 1995 and expires on June 17, 1995. If the Council fails to select a replacement to fill the unexpired term, then the election must be set at a regular general election not less than 114 days from the 30th day of that appointment period. M/Papen asked if the term expires in December since that is the month new members are installed. CM/Belanger advised that that date is the result of the County being unable to canvas the results of the election any sooner than that. He stated that under the law, the term expires seven days after the election. Dr. Rhodes advised that several people in the community would like to see a fifth person appointed to the Council until the election. MPT/Werner moved, M/Papen seconded to appoint a Council Member from the defeated candidates from the 1993 election beginning with the highest vote getter. C/Harmony provided a substitute motion, C/Ansari seconded to appoint no one and hold the position open until the November ballot. MPT/Werner suggested that each Council provide one name to be drawn lottery style. In response to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger advised that the Council has 30 days to appoint someone and if no one is appointed within that 30 days, the seat will remain vacant until the November election. M/Papen moved to amend C/Harmony's substitute motion, MPT/Werner seconded to adopt a Council policy that until the November election, it would JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 16 be required that all four Council Members be present at every meeting. With the follow Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/ Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None C/Harmony moved to substitute MPT/Werner's motion, C/Ansari seconded to appoint no one and hold the position open until the November ballot. With the following Roll Call vote, motion failed: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner, M/Papen ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None MPT/Wemer moved, M/Papen seconded to go back to the last election and take from last election list, starting from the top and working down until someone accepts the position. With the following roll Call vote, motion failed: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None MPT/Werner moved that each Council Member provide one name to be drawn lottery style. Motion failed for lack of a second. M/Papen asked the City Attorney if it is mandated that if the Council cannot agree on a person than the lottery selection process will be taken. CA/Jenkins advised that he would have to check that law out. M/Papen stated that with all motions failing, the seat will remain vacant until the November election, as a matter of course. 9.2 ORDINANCE NO. 05 (1995) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ENACTING AND ADOPTING THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, WHICH CODE CONSISTS OF REGULATORY, PENAL AND CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CITY AND PROVIDES FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION AND ADOPTION BY REFERENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 50022.1, ET SEQ., OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE JUNE 12, 1995 PAGE 17 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1990 EDITION, THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1988 EDITION, AND CHAPTER 99 OF TITLE 26 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE, 1988 EDITION, AS EACH OF THEM ARE AMENDED AND IN EFFECT SAVE AND EXCEPT SUCH PORTIONS THEREOF AS ARE DELETED, MODIFIED OR AMENDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS THEREOF AND REPEALING CERTAIN ORDINANCES AS SPECIFIED THEREIN - CM/Belanger explained that the ordinance would introduce, by reference, the City's Municipal Code and then would set a public hearing for July 18, 1995. He stated that the zoning had been left in its current form and will be reviewed in the future when a new zoning ordinance is completed. MPT/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve for first reading by title only, waive full reading of Ordinance No. 05(1995) and set a Public Hearing for July 18, 1995. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/ Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CM/Belanger announced that on Saturday, June 17, 1995 the City will have its first used oil round up at the Shell Station at D.B. Blvd. and Palomino. 11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, M/Papen adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to June 20, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. at the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley, Diamond Bar, California in memory of Police Officer Louis Pompeii of Glendora. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk � L I N T E R O F F I C E M E N 0 R A N D U X TO: Mayor Papen and Mayor Pro Tem Berner 1 FROM: Linda Q. Magnuson; Accounting Manager SUBJECT: voucher Registers, July 25, 1995 DATE: July 19, 1995 Attached are the Voucher Registers dated July 19, 1995. You will notice there are two voucher registers. This is due to the Fiscal Year ending June 30. There is a register for expenditures allocated to FY94-95 and one for FY95-96. As requested, the Finance Department is submitting the voucher registers for the Finance Committee's review and approval prior to their entry on the Consent Calender. The checks will be produced after any recommendations and the final approval is received. Please review and sign the attached. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL The attached listings of vouchers dated July 25, 1995 have been reviewed, approved, and recommended for payment. Payments are hereby allowed from the following funds in these amounts: FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 001 General Fund 112 Prop A Fund 115 Int. Waste Mgt. Fund 118 Air Quality Improvement Fund 125 CDBG Fund 139 LLAD 139 Fund 141 LLAD 041 Fund 227 Traffic Mitigation Fund 250 CIP Fund TOTAL ALL FUNDS APPROVED BY: t� Linda G . Ma�niu son Accounting Manager AMOUNT $145,976.01 1,066.43 4,923.32 218.96 2,865.21 3,291.00 5,759.02 25.00 7,639.45 $171,764.40 Phyl is E. Papen Mayor errence L. Belanger Ga erne: City Manager Ma r Pr Tem - _ ",=c -j 2,j 1 iF't yr7i .0 lEVC'CT _______ pl ne ;Ew1,01P --------- 71_.. :_.-i1 )-QIv 4_' `_,Q.?�.ii 'Jij �YJ4 ., :'� r•.,:. :' -_ .. _--'yf ,CS ='-- -- L.!i(; 14 50725A 011:474 50725A 01/245+ i;,.. _. :' -_ —..- _. -�Fa,-. ;e '- ,'._• _ :`o 507254 01/2456 0' i? __, U _- =t__ ,Z6=_ -g 1 s eC*:_^5 74=== 5072M 01/2461 21"! 507215A 07j". - _ ",=c -j 2,j 1 iF't yr7i --------------------------------------------------------- ---- _.- Te ..-4_C't-a-.. ._ _.. __. _- ._. _.7 _1 .- _ _ __ _. _. ___ -� �L�L•1��L�r _�vC_ _Q...�� 4�".. .l -C.e:� _. .-.fir---J ._� � -•- r _-_ -S--`L -4--c 4_ _ 41' c - __ -_ -__- -_ - i�Jt- ___ ___. _- .. �__ . _ __ __. ,. -. _ten O('• �� _. 1''� ...�� :64 ',,',725B 01/2373 0711' i:l1-5B 03/237 F` O -q- ; "AME _�+i-f.l-'1' ice. _. _._ - '- -'� -- `- _ -__' ..](�2 ;,.CS-_2� .�£'i:- - - ]yC5-t ie"J�,�+ ra.. d1i-Y"4"-�. .�);,-w. _-.�. •:-.c r c,`.�Lcr .. -- ---- - _ -=.. �'it _JCS a4t-�C'L-55.-'v _v J�_-'r__ .�, _-�_ .. � _ J. _ - _ _._ __ _ tea_- ♦� S___a }_� Er- _3 .boe - 160 =.owerCv _ 01/3125 ;;7 _ - - _ -- _ -- -------- ------- --- _ vE,UuF, .,.. rrENrrFF. -_-_.-___r 7-71 :�.-- .-.- _.]_._ - -zza! y. vlalaiet a- 07, :Mp_ _ ,1t le - -c - - ,- -,-, -------------------------------------------- ---- -- - ---------------------------- -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------- ---- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ v 451`.'-.__�_.46 07l�r`'` T— Er!' Jriom 'Ded'_ _ :ions d, 77 r,- vENPIOF- ------- 4,4"- 17 ia4tl, ,D7, �5,_.�Ii) _ •a_,- - -- - -.......... _- i-- ---------------------------- I -------------------- ------ -- ------- ----- ---------------------------------------------------- — S&Way '072 01/3' 8 I 25B 45 ----- -------- 1: "21 ------ -- -------- -------- 4c, Lf' DUE 'VENDOr" 7 7,, 1 ---- ------ 'ENE, r --------- _ 75BURSE Vi A- V2- l.7it'11Y1VP(i7 Dllii AGENDA REPORT / AGENDA NO. TO: Mayor and City Council MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 REPORT DATE: July 20, 1995 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager ISSUE. Consideration of Resolution No. 95 -XX, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, Establishing a 401(A) Deferred Compensation Plan. DISCUSSION: Staff is proposing the addition of a 401(A) Deferred Compensation Plan which provides, to eligible employees, the opportunity to defer portions of their salary. Currently the City provides employees a Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan which allows employees to defer up to $7,500 per year. The 401(A) would allow employees to defer compensation up to 25% of their salary, with a not -to -exceed annual amount of $30,000. However, the City's proposal of the 40 I (A) Plan would only allow up to $10,000 in deferred compensation. ICMA Retirement Corporation is proposed trustee for Section 401(A) Deferred Compensation Plan. The ICMA/RC is currently the trustee for the 457 Plan. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 95 -XX which establishes a Section 401(A) Deferred Compensation Plan. ------------------------------------ SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2 Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3 Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A _ Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A _ Yes ^ No Which Commission? S Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Bela e City Manager RESOLUTION 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A 401(A) DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar has employees rendering valuable services; and WHEREAS, the establishment of a money purchase retirement plan benefits the employees by providing funds for retirement and funds for their beneficiaries in the event of death; and WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar desires that its money purchase retirement plan be administered by the ICMA Retirement Corporation and that the funds held under such plan be invested in the ICMA Retirement Trust, a trust established by public employers for the collective investment of funds held under their retirement and deferred compensation plans: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City of Diamond Bar hereby establishes a money purchase retirement plan (the "Plan") in the form of the ICMA Retirement Corporation Prototype Money Purchase Plan and Trust, pursuant to the specific provisions of the Adoption Agreement (copy attached hereto). The Plan shall be maintained for the exclusive benefit of eligible employees and their beneficiaries; and SECTION 2. That the Employer hereby executes the Declaration of Trust of the ICMA Retirement Trust, attached hereto, intending this execution to be operative with respect to any retirement or deferred compensation plan subsequently established by the City of Diamond Bar, if the assets of the plan are to be invested in the ICMA Retirement Trust. SECTION 3. That the City of Diamond Bar hereby agrees to serve as trustee under the Plan and to invest funds held under the Plan in the ICMA Retirement Trust; and SECTION 4. That the City Manager shall be the coordinator of the Plan; shall receive necessary reports, notices, etc., from the ICMA Retirement Corporation or the ICMA Retirement Trust; shall cast, on behalf of the City of Diamond Bar any required votes under the ICMA Retirement Trust; may delegate any administrative duties relating to the Plan to appropriate departments; and SECTION 5. That the City of Diamond Bar hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary agreements with the ICMA Retirement Corporation incidental to the administration of the plan; and SECTION 6. That the Mayor of the City of Diamond Bar shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution No. 95 -XX. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1995. Mayor I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, and approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1995, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. :']_ TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 REPORT DATE: July 20, 1995 FROM: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 05(1995) entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 05 (1995) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ENACTING AND ADOPTING THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, WHICH CODE CONSISTS OF REGULATORY, PENAL AND CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CITY AND PROVIDES FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION AND ADOPTION BY REFERENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 50022.1, ET SEQ., OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1990 EDITION, THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1988 EDITION, AND CHAPTER 99 OF TITLE 26 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE, 1988 EDITION, AS EACH OF THEM ARE AMENDED AND IN EFFECT SAVE AND EXCEPT SUCH PORTIONS THEREOF AS ARE DELETED, MODIFIED OR AMENDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS THEREOF AND REPEALING CERTAIN ORDINANCES AS SPECIFIED THEREIN. SUMMARY: In 1992, the City Council authorized an agreement with Municipal Code Corporation of Tallahassee, Florida to codify its ordinances into a document commonly referred to as a "Municipal Code." Said publication is a compilation of all ordinances adopted by the City beginning with incorporation up to July 5, 1994. Only those ordinances pertaining to zoning or development remain to be codified in a separate document. Upon adoption, the entire Code document will be available for public read-only purposes through City -On -Line. Persons wishing to purchase copies of the Code will be able to do so at a cost of $30. Supplements will also be available at a nominal fee. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing, take testimony, close the Public Hearing, waive further reading, approve second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance No. 05(1995) adopting a new Code for the City of Diamond Bar. EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? ?. Does the report require a majority vote? X Yes _ No 1. Has environmental impact been assessed? — Yes No Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes No Which Commission? Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: D BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: rrence L. Vlanger Frank M. Ushe Ly Burgess y Manager Assistant City Manager City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ENACTING AND ADOPTING THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, WHICH CODS CONSISTS OF REGULATORY, PENAL AND CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CITY AND PROVIDES FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION AND ADOPTION BY REFERENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 50022.1, 8T sig., OF Tax GOVERNMENT CODE, THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE NATIONAL MLECTRICAL CODE, 1990 EDITION, THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND AOT TUB CODs, 1991 2DITION, THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1988 EDITION, AND CHAPTER 99 OF TITLE 26 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE, 1988 EDITION, AS EACH OF THEM ARE ANENDED AND IN EFFECT SAVE AND EXCEPT SUCM PORTIONS THEREOF AS ARM DELETED, MODIFIED OR AMENDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS THEREOF AND REPEALING CERTAIN ORDINANCES AS SPECIFIED THEREIN. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DONS ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: lection 1. Adontion of the niamonA Apr Citv_Cods. That certain document entitled "Diamond Bar City Coda," a copy of which has been filed and is on file in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection, togather with the secondary Codes therein adopted by reference, is hereby adopted by reference as a comprehensive Coda for the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Coda of the State of California, and each and all of the provisions, terms, and penalties of said Code on file in the office of the City Clerk are hereby referred to, adopted, incorporated herein and mads a part of this ordinance as if fully sat forth in this ordinance. 9soeae iasn-0omt � �u� t section 2. Cartpin Ordinnnces_to Remain in effect. Those certain ordinances of the City of Diamond Sar which aro listed on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference shall not be repealed but shall remain in full force and effect. In addition to the foregoing, ordinance Nos. 01(1994) and 01(1995) through 04(1995) shall remain in full force and effect pending their codification and incorporation into the Diamond Bar City Code following its adoption as modifications thereto, the incorporation and codification of said ordinances into said Code being hereby authorized and approved. section g. Savinas Provisions. The repealing provisions of the Diamond Sar City Code shall not affect or impair any act done, or right vested or approved, or any proceedinq, suit or prosecution had or commenced in any cause before such repeal shall take effect; but every such act done, or right vested or accrued, or proceeding, suit, or prosecution had or commenced shall remain in full force and effect to all intents and purposes as if the applicable provisions of the ordinance, or part thereof, so repealed had remained in force and effect. No offense committed and no liability, penalty., or forfeiture, either civilly or criminally incurred prior to the time when any such ordinance, or part thereof, shall be repealed or altered by said code, shall be discharged or affected by such repeal or alteration; but prosecutions and suits for such offenses, liabilities, penalties, or forfeitures shall ba instituted and 95M 1Qrn4 ool 1 31115H 1 — 2 — proceeded with in all respects as if such prior ordinance, or part thereof, had not been repealed or altered. Section 4. $Sferences to 8neeiflm orAimnnu. The provisions of the Diamond Bar City Code shall not in any manner affect deposits or other matters of record which refer to, or ars otherwise connected with, ordinances which ars specifically designated by number or otherwise and which are included within the Diamond Baur City Code, but such references shall apply to the corresponding provisions set forth in the Diamond Bar City Code. 8ectiAn s. violations of CoA•_Provisionp; Pan-lties. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of the Diamond Bar City Code or the provisions of any Cods adopted by reference by said Code. Any person violating any such provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of the Diamond Bar City Coda shall be guilty of a misdemeanor unless otherwise provided in the Diamond Bar City Coda or Article 1, Chapter 1, Division 17, of the Vehicle Code of the Stats, in which case such violation shall be an infraction. Each such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of the Diamond Bar City Code, or the provisions of any Code adopted by reference by said Code, is committed, continued, or permitted by such person and shall be punishable accordingly. 9506M 105736 o 1 lnIM 1 - 3 — 3Y::;:C'rARCS.WA':CN&GERS , 9- z�-y5 , i:34rM Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of the Diamond Bar City Code or the provisions of any Code or Ordinance adopted by reference by such Code shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand (1,000.00) dollars, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any person convicted of an infraction under the pro- visions of the Diamond Bar City Coda or the provisions of any Coda or Ordinance adopted by reference by such Code shall be punishable for a first conviction by a fine of not more than one hundred (;100.00) dollars, for a second conviction within a period of one year by a fine of not more than tvo hundred ($200.00) dollars, and for a third or any subsequent conviction within a period of one year by fine of not more than five hundred ($500.00) dollars. In addition to the penalties provided by this section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of the Diamond Bar City Code, or the provisions of any Code adopted by reference by said Code, or any subdivision, building, virinq, plumbing, or other similar activity in violation of the provisions of said Code shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be summarily abated by the City in a civil action. 93M 1mrAAM 4 MIM I - 4 - Section 4. No parson shall erect, construct, enlarge, altar, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure, or cause the same to be done, contrary to, or in violation of the Uniform Administrative Code and the Technical Code, the Uniform Building Codes, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the uniform Housing Coda or the Uniform Code for the abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of such Codes shall be dammed guilty of a misdemeanor, and each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of such Codes is committed, continued or permitted, and upon conviction of any such violation such person shall be punishable by a fins of not more than $1,000.00, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Section 7. Violations. A. Every person violating any condition or provision either of Title 92 of the Los Angeles County Code, or of any permit, nonconforming use and structure review, zoning exception case, variance or amendment thereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless such violation is otherwise declared to be an infraction as in Subsection D. Each violation is a separate "OW WPM= I SOM i - 5 - _ _ , 1/ , .:`IT 3Y:�:rHARDS,WA'SCN&GFRs offense for each and every day during any portion of which the violation is committed. H. Each violation determined to be an infraction by this title shall be punishable by a fine of $100.00 for the first violation. Subsequent violations of the same provision of this title shall be punishable by a fine of $200.00 for the second violation and $300.00 for the third violation in a 12 -month period as provided by applicable law. The fourth and any further violations of the same provision of this title which are committed at any time within a 12 -month period from the date of the commission at the first violation shall be deemed misdemeanors, ragardless of the dates of conviction at the first three violations. The three infraction violations which are the basis for the fourth and any further violations being misdemeanors may be brought and triad together. The increased penalties set forth in this section for subsequent violations shall be applicable whether said subsequent violations are brought and tried together with the underlying previous violations or separately therefrom. C. Pu*%IiA 1011aaags. Any use of property contrary to the provisions of Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Coda shall be, and the same is hereby daclared to be unlawful and a public nuisance, and the authorized legal representative of the City may commance actions and proceedings for the abatement thereof, in the manner provided by law, and may take such other 9saeos iasna000t Y mub � - 6 - steps and may apply to any court having jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate or remove such use and restrain and enjoin any parson from using any property contrary to the provisions of Title 21 of the Los Angeles county coda. D. jnfrantions. Violations of the provisions contained in the following list are deemed infractions: • Automobile, truck or other motor vehicle repair conducted outside of an enclosed building. • Commercial vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds unladen where parked or stored in violation, Of section 22.16.020 of Title 27. • Inoperative vehicle parking or storage. • Ksepinq or parking of vehicles in violation of Section 22.20.025 or Section -22.24.035 of Title 22. • Outside display and/or sales. • Signs prohibited by Sections 22.52.sSO and 22.52.990 of Title 22. Section 8. validity of Code. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of the Diamond Bar City Code is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall. not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Diamond Bar City Cods. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Diamond bar City Code and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, and if for any reason the Diamond Bar City Code should be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then the original ordinance or ordinances shall be in full force and effect. jection 9. Vffective D^ts. This ordinance shall qo into affect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and approval. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1993. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 9309 1097240M Y !271391 - a - I, , City Clark of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a reqular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond bar hold on the day of and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond bar held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: NOES ABSENTS ABSTAINED: 050W lffn 0000: I =I= l COUNCIL MIMERS8 COUNCIL MMZR83 COUNCIL 1lMM t COUNCIL MMMIRS: ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT A ORnIN?NCw S TTTTM 12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 6/20/69 DIAMOND BAR GRANTING TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USX POLES, BARES, CONDUITS, AND APPURTENANCX$0 INCLUDING COKMUNICATIONS CIRCO TO NECESSARY OR PROPER THEREFOR, FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING ELECTRICITY FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES IN, ALONG, ACROSS, UPON, OVER AND UNDER TSE PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHNAY8, ROADS, ALLEYS AND PLACES, AS THE SAME NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER EXIST, WITHIN TBE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 5/20/89 DIAMOND BAR, GRANTING TO 80UTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIOflT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USE PIPES AND APPUk-xmAANCES FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING, OAS FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES ALONG, ACROSS, UPON, UNDER AND IN TME PUBLIC STRnTB, HIGHWAYS, ROADS, ALLEYS AND PLACES, AS TBE SAME NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER EXIST, WITHIN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 26 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10/17/89 DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AND THE BOARD 'OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEESP RETIREMENT SYSTEM 32 AN ORDINANCE of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 1/2/90 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING SECTION 22.20.120 OF CHAPTER 22.20 OF THE LOS ANGELES, COUNTY CODS, AS HERZTOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 4/3/90 DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.72 TO TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND RNPEALING ORDINANCES NOS. 11(1989), 11A(1989), 13(1989) AND 1SA(1989) AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED 6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Tn CITY OF 6/19/90 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY F*CT-l48IFYING CHAIN REAL PROPERTY, HEREIN DESCRIBED, FR= TSE R-1- 6000 (SINQLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 60000 SQUARE FOOT 3+MINIMUR PARCEL SIZE) ZONE TO THE Cl -DP -BE 9306W lWn4=l Y mub 1 A-1 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL-DIVILOPXXXT-PROGRAM) ZONE. (ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-0028) 10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 9/16/90 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY BY RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, HEREIN DESCRIBED, FROM THE Xl-/DP/sE (LIGHT MANUFACTURING, DEVEI.OPXZNT PROGRAM, BILLBOARD EXCLUssoN ZONE) TO THE C-1/Dp/DE (RESTRICTED BUSINNDSS, DSVlLOPIUM PROGRAM, BILLIOARD EXCLUSION) ZONE. (ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 90-0036) 11 AN ORDINANCN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 9/18/90 D'tP7—_l.D BAR APPROVING THAT DOCtW3W ib ftlAia3D "DSVSLOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1 •(1980) CONCNRNING PROPUTI LOCATED AT THN NORTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON -ROAD AND THE ROUTE 60 (POMONA) FRENWAY, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA" AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SAME ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 16 AN ORDINANCE OF TRE CITY COUNCIL OF TRE CITY OF 11/3/990 DIAMOND EAR DIRECTING THAT GZNZRAL MUNICIPAL ZraCTIONS OF THE CITY OF DSA1lm EAR BE HELD ON THE DAY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ELNCTIONS 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 7/2/91 DIAN OND BAR AMENDING SECTION 22.60.100 OF TITLE 22 AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 82-7 TO TITLE 27 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED 4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 8/20/91 DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THAT DOCtl=T ENTITLED "DEVELOFNQNT A/:"■*1®lT NO. 91-2 (1991) CONCZF IAG PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATID AT AND IDENTIlIED AS 22000 GOLDIM SPRINQi DRIVI, DIAMW BAR, CALIFORNIAt AND AVZORIZING THE MAYOR TO ma"wLZ THE SAME ON BEHALF OF THE•CITY OF DINIOND BAR 5A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 6/7/94 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING CHAPTER 22.66 OF TITLE 22, AS AMENDED, AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HHERETTOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO TRE REGULATION OF SI.t"NAG! IN THE CITY OF DZAIIOND BAR S AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T8E CITY OF 8/20/91 DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEM CHAPTER 22.94 TO DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 AND REPEALING SM ORDINANCE 9-19901 AS AMENDED, AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE L03 AN4ELZS CCGua•rY CODE, AS "06m 106734am 1 =UV t A -Z HERETOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 38/92 DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEN CHAPT� 22.76 TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO ADMISSION CHARGE PARTIES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES 4(1992) AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 9/15/92 OF DIAMOND EAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISNYNG STANDARDS REGULATING LAND USE AND DEVELop1 T ACTIVITIES INCLUDING FINDINGS IN aTJMRT THEREOF 6(1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THU CITY OF 11/3/94 DIAMOND BAR REPEALING SECTION 22.2$.230 of PART 5 OF CHAPTER 22.28 OF TITLE 22 AND ADOPTING AMENDED SECTION 32.28.230, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 7(1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP 1/15/93 DIAMOND EAR ADOPTING A HILLSIDE NANAGEMENT (GRADING) ORDINANCE AND MAILING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 3(1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 4/20/93 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING NAP OF TIDE CITY OF DSAMOND BAR BY PIR^r-'$$VYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, HEREIN DESCRIBED, I'Am THE C-1 (RESMCTED COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO THE R -3-(15)U (LIMITED MULTIPLE RESIDENCE, 15 UNITS MAXIMUM PER GROSS ACRE) ZONN. (ZONE CHANCE NO. 91-1) 1(1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 5/9/94 DIAMOND BAR AMENDING TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODS BY ADDING NEN CHAPTER. 22.54 AND ESTABLISHING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS ma 1DS124=1 0 JUIS291 A-3 MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 3 indicating that there is an oil exploratory area either within or adjacent to the City, known as the Tonner Canyon Shell Oil area, and that if any development were to take place at any future date in that area, there is a set of guidelines and procedures that must be followed with regard to capping wells, etc; 4) Boy Scouts of America dated May 5, 1995 indicating that Edward Jacobs and Tom Kolin of that organization may speak on behalf of the Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, L.A. Area Council. With respect to revisions and errata, CDD/DeStefano presented the following: On Page 1-17 of the Land Use Element, there is a discussion of Planned Development Areas 2, 3 and 4. In a letter included in the packet, Bramalea suggested minor changes to the description for Planned Development Area 2. Bramalea correctly pointed out that within Planned Development Area 2, the description of the site requires amendment; that the 75 acres of Sub Area B is located east of Pantera Park; that the 2 acre area discussed in this Planned Development located at D.B. Blvd. and Gold Rush Dr. should be noted as being at the southeast comer of those two streets; the last sentence should conclude by stating that lot sizes would range from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. Regarding Planned Development Area 5, he pointed out that while the text indicates that the land uses appropriate for the site include five units per acre residential land use, Council asked that land uses incorporating Public Facilities, Open Space and Park be incorporated into that Planned Development Area. On Page 1-18, Specific Plan Area 1, under Strategy 1.6.3, second paragraph, subsection (a) beginning with the words "Facilities appropriate for this site..." should be deleted. Regarding Table 1-3, Page 1-25, the top third of the table refers to Land Use Designations, Residential Designations and follows with a Subtotal. Reading from left to right, the Subtotal Gross Acres in the City is 5,884 and the Total Gross Acres should read 5.884. The bottom quarter of Table 1-3 indicates "Other Designation" under Water, the Total Gross Acres total 21 instead of 19. On Table 1-3, Other Designations "Open Space" Gross Acres in the City should be 518 and therefore, Total Gross Acres should also read 518. Private Recreation is listed as 58 acres and should be changed to read: 15 with the Total Gross Acres also indicating 15. Total Gross Acres under Other Designations, "Agriculture" should read 3.589 and not zero (0). The final totals on the page are correct. Regarding Table 1-4, Page 1-26, a revised table was provided. The dwelling unit discussion in the Residential Land Use classification was split. Therefore, the table under the "Land Use" heading currently reads: "Residential." Lines were added to read "City" and "Sphere." Reading from left to right, corrections are as follows: Existing Units/Sq. Ft. for Residential is 17,813 Dwelling Units; Potential Additional is 1,205; Expected Total MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 4 Development is 19,018; and Population at General Plan Buildout is 58,000. The next line for the Sphere of Influence would read: Existing Units 0; Potential Additional Units 1,800; Expected Total Development 1,800; Population at General Plan Buildout 5,500. Totals remain unchanged. With respect to Page 1-27, Land Use Map, at the western most boundary of the City west of Brea Canyon Rd., west of the 57 Fwy. at the terminus of Pathfinder Rd., there is a public park below Pathfinder. Above Pathfinder, in a small notation, is Private Recreational. This designation is incorrect. It is a graphic error and should be restated as Open Space. This designation is consistent with Council's previous direction for the two open space areas that exist on either side of the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. property. Referring to Page 11-9 and II -10 of the Housing Element, changes to Table II -3 were provided to Council. Council's requested update of these tables includes statistics through March, 1995. The Church of Christ in Pomona, the Pomona Women's Fellowship Home Site, Pomona and the Elsie Manning Friend in Need Service Center, Pomona no longer provide area homeless facilities and services. The Catholic Charities Brother Miguel Center of Pomona was added to the list (includes Target Groups Low income families and Facility/ Service Provide shelter. vouchers, food and referrals). On Table II -3, Page II -9, Pomona Valley Shelter, the number of beds was changed from 22 per night to i. Families can be serviced. Under Pomona Neighborhood Center, # Beds should read: 170+. Under Dept. of Social Services, Pomona, Facility/Service should read: "Homeless assistance is provided at $30/night. 16 days maximum." The Beta Center ! should be corrected to state under Facility/Service: 7 day emergency food supply for each family member is added. On Page II -10, Table II -3, the Women's & Family Crisis Center Social Services, Pomona # Beds should be changed to: 32 each in two shelters and Facility/Service is corrected by adding the following: "SHELTERS ARE IN LOS ANGELES." Bienvenidos Children Center, Inc., West Covina, # Beds should indicate 46 and the EMERGENCY SHELTER is actually located in Altadena. At the end of Table II -3, "Source:" should be shown as Cotton/ Beland/Assoc., March 1995. The text of the first paragraph on Page II -10 was changed to reflect the table just discussed. Regarding Table 11-4, Page II -14, the following changes were noted: under Low Density Residential classification the Acres under Vacant Land should be changed to 72 and the DU's to 216 for a Unit Total of 266 instead of 140. The TOTALS for the table are changed to read as follows: Acres 1.827.7; DU's 1.331; and Unit Total 1,471. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 5 In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano responded that the document currently states 1,205 DUs under Vacant Land and the total should be corrected to 1,331 as provided by Cotton/Beland based upon the latest mathematical calculations of development opportunity and application of density and; therefore, the number of dwelling units that may be created on those vacant areas. The number may change as the discussion of Land Use and Housing Element concludes. Referring -to Page III -5, Resource Management Element, the second paragraph regarding the number of recreational areas should be corrected as a result of proper clarification contained within Table III -1 on Page III -4. The new first sentence follows: "Currently, within the City there is a total of 478.3 acres of recreational facilities, including 445,4 acres of developed parkland and 97 acres of undeveloped parkland for a total of 142.4 acres of City owned park land." With respect to Page V-22, Circulation Element, he recommended that the fourth line of the first paragraph be changed to read: 'The City of Industry is considering the development of the area beyond the terminus of Sunset Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street with industrial uses and a waste -to -rail materials recovery facility" and the rest of the sentence should be eliminated. In addition, the next sentence should be eliminated. It now reads: 'The area through which these streets would be extended is presently undeveloped." M/Papen stated that, in addition to the changes recommended by staff, the following words should be eliminated from the next sentence: 'The extension of these streets and..." so that the sentence now reads: 'The proposed development of industrial uses would significantly increase the volume of traffic along these residential streets and introduce a significant number of trucks into these residential neighborhoods." On Page V-23, sub -strategy (g) (4) Local funding; should be corrected to read: "(g) (4) Local funding such as, Prop C or Redevelopment funds;" Council concurred to adopt staffs recommended changes/corrections. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff believed, through the course of development of this General Plan, that the Council has a document containing all of the mandatory elements and all of the legal contents required for adoption pursuant to the California Government Code. M/Papen suggested the following changes/additions/corrections: Introduction, Page 1, third paragraph, second sentence, capitalize Diamond; Housing Element Page II -2, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 4, change 1994 to 1995; Housing Element, Page II -4; Resource Management Element, Page MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 6 III -4, Table III -1, insert the number of parking spaces for the D.B. Golf Course, the Little League Park and The Country Estates Park; Table III -1, Page III -4, itemize local school recreational facilities i.e., tennis courts, etc.; Circulation Element, Page V-12, b. Paratransit Services, correct the paragraph to reflect the current "Diamond Bar Dial a Cab" service in place of Dial -a -Ride and change the last sentence to read: 'Transportation is provided within 10 miles. of the City limits at a reduced rate; Paragraph V-24, Strategy 1.1.7 was previously deleted by the Council because it was redundant with the previous Strategy 1.1.5. In error, Strategy 1.1.6 was deleted. Therefore, Strategy 1.1.7 should read as follows: "Encourage Orange and San Bernardino Counties to fund and construct an environmentally sensitive transportation corridor through Soquel Canyon and/or Carbon Canyon;" Public Services and Facilities, Page VI -2, Paragraph 1, change the third sentence to read 'The City has established a system for collection of solid waste;" Page VI -2, Paragraph 8, delete the last phrase "although the statewide drought makes the long-term supply of water to this area questionable-" Page VI -2, Paragraph 11, change to read: "Other services within Diamond Bar include branch office postal services administered in Pomona, MTA, Foothill Transit and OCTA bus systems, Walnut -Diamond Bar YMCA, and Seniors organization;" Page VI -3, Paragraph 7, first sentence, delete "continuation of the" so the sentence reads: "Although local water purveyors can adequately serve the area in i terms of facilities, a Statewide drought could put severe restrictions on the availability of water;" Page VI -3, Paragraph 8, second sentence change to read: 'The City should take a more active role in -energy conservation and the implementation of new energy technologies;" Page VI -4, GOAL 1, change to read: "Consistent with the Vision Statement, provide adequate infrastructure facilities and public services to support development and planned growth." Responding to MPT/Werner regarding Existing Noise Contours Map, Figure IV -3 on Page IV -16, Public Health & Safety Element, CDD/DeStefano stated that the graphics are based upon an analysis performed over the course of development of this Plan and reflect the conditions at the time of the analysis. With traffic increases and other noise sources that may impact D.B., those numbers may change. Objective 1.10 and subsequent Strategies refer to reviewing and revising standards with respect to noise generators that would have impacts upon the City, as well as improving development standards so that the receptors of noise would be protected. The material contained within the graphic is accurate as of the time the information was obtained. M/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., stated tho t regarding Page II -3, numbers should reflect the current situation. In the Cis culation Element, Page V-22, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 7 he indicated that Strategy 1.1.4 should reflect that the easterly portion of the Sphere of Influence is outside SEA 15. Responding to Mr. Smith, M/Papen referred him to Sub -strategy (c). Mr. Smith requested that the map reflect this statement. C/Miller arrived at 7:40 p.m. Responding to C/Harmony, Mr. Smith stated the basic problem was not to have a road through Tonner Canyon and SEA 15 in particular. He indicated the language in the General Plan could be more specific if the easterly portion referred to in Strategy 1.1.4 is defined as being outside SEA 15. In response to M/Papen, Don Cotton stated that under b. Housing Stock Characteristics, Page II -3, the average resale value of $312,324 for 1991 being up 2.7 percent from 1990 was for a four bedroom home. M/Papen requested that sentence 5 be changed to include "four bedroom home" so that the sentence reads: "A review of resale house price date from the California Market Data Cooperative (CMDC) in Diamond Bar indicates an average resale value of a four bedroom home of $312,324 for 1991 which was up 2.7 percent from a value of $304,000 for 1990." Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., agreed with Mr. Smith regarding Page V- 22 of the Circulation Element. He indicated the Resolution number is blank on the EIR form and asked what the number would be. M/Papen responded that the Resolution Number will be assigned by the Clerk at the time it is adopted. Mr. Maxwell further stated that the Council will be costing the City another $50,000 to $100,000 if the Council does not put this General Plan, along with GPAC's initiative on the ballot. The initiative has been filed and, therefore, according to law 65360 regarding general plans, referring to a statement that says "any plan that is under consideration that any land development or any approval by the Council of an issue that is not in accordance with any plan...", the Council will be breaking the law because the GPAC intended to put their initiative on the ballot and it is under consideration even though the Council might pass the General Plan tonight. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. M/Papen stated she is not a traffic engineer or a geologist and that she hesitated to put a line on a map with respect to the question of Strategy 1.1.4 and SEA 15 as raised by Mr. Smith. Technical studies regarding the area have not been completed. She believed it is the intent of both the Planning MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 8 Commission and the Council unanimously to, as much as possible, avoid disturbance of Tonner Canyon and SEA15 to preserve the wildlife corridor and also allow for the possibility of a regional bypass that would relieve the City's streets from outside traffic. CDD/DeStefano displayed Figure 1-1 describing existing land uses in the City's planning area. He pointed out the demarcation for SEA 15 and where it is located within the City's area. Also contained within the Land Use Element is the proposed land use plan indicating a demarcation for SEA 15. According to the text of the Circulation Element, Strategy 1.1.5, Page V-23, which is very specific, there are a series of requirements for any future road consideration, one of which is avoiding the disruption of SEA 15. If there is going to be a roadway, it is going to be within the eastern most portion of the Sphere of Influence avoiding disruption of SEA 15. MPT/Werner stated that this is the same drawing that was brought before the Council months ago and in his opinion, what Mr. Smith is suggesting is not that difficult_ He suggested that Strategy 1.1.4 (c) be changed to read: "Avoiding SEA 15." CM/Belanger responded that the City could avoid SEA 15 and still disrupt SEA 15. M/Papen asked if any Council Member objected to deleting "disruption of from Strategy 1.1.4 (c) so that it reads: "Avoiding SEA 15". Seeing no objection, staff was directed to make the change. M/Papen suggested the following changes/additions/corrections: Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.6, correct the second sentence to read: "I his designation also includes lands which may have been restricted to open space by map restriction, deed (dedication, condition, covenant and/or restriction), or by an Open Space Easement pursuant to California Government Code (CGC), Section 51070 et seq. and Section 64499 et seq;" Page 1-15, Strategy 1.5.3, correct the first sentence to read: "Land designated as Open Space by deed (dedication. condition. covenant, and/or restriction) by open space easement (CGC Section 51070 et seq) or by map restriction (explicit or previous subdivision) must comply with an established review and decision making i process prior to the recision, termination, abandonment and/or removal of an open space dedication easement and/or restriction;" Page 1-23, F. LAND USE PLAN, 1. Land Use Designations, second paragraph, correct the number of land use designations from 16 to 18;" Page 1-23, F. LAND USE PLAN, 2. Land Use Intensity/Density, correct the third sentence to read: "Density is described in terms of dwelling units perrg oss acre of land (du/ac). M/Papen opened the Public Hearing with respect t,) the Land Use Element. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 9 Edward C. Jacobs, President, L.A. Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, stated the Boy Scouts seek the same density designation as always under L.A. County and an unbiased perspective so that the property's use is not predetermined prior to formulation of a specific plan. The Scouts are concerned with language in the current version of the General Plan requiring that any future development in the Specific Plan area will have to "create fiscal benefits for the City".. Further, the Scouts were concerned that the language encouraged a predetermined use for the property, a use which must create fiscal benefits. Eliminating this phrase will maintain consistency with other portions of the Land Use Element and will reinforce unbiased perspective toward the Specific Plan designation. He presented Council with the Scout's specific wording for the General Plan. M/Papen acknowledged the following WVUSD Board members: Christine McPeak, President; Carol Herrera, Larry Redinger and Marsha Sykes. Ronald Hockwalt, Superintendent, WVUSD, asked to expand upon the letter dated April 26, 1995 to the Council which addressed concerns regarding the Land Use Element, Page 1-17, (d) Planned Development Area 4, formerly the RNP property. The current language is too restrictive. The Board requested that the Council drop reference to dwelling units since the school district has no interest in residential development in this area. Second, the Board would like the Council to expand the language to include commercial to public facilities and open space. Third, the language from the Planning Commission seems very restrictive to the Board. The school district is on record supporting a minimum of 30 percent of the 78 acres as open space and preserving the canyon. The district stands by these positions but finds the Planning Commission recommendation still too restrictive. With respect to Page 1-17 (e) Planned Development Area 5, also known as Site D, the Board felt that current language did not provide enough flexibility. The Board requested that the Council expand the language to include public facilities, recreational and commercial land uses. As in the past and throughout discussion over the last several years, the district is requesting greater flexibility including a mixed land use pallet under the umbrella of Planned Development. The district requested that the Council incorporate these changes into the General Plan prior to adoption. Don Schad stated that, in his opinion, had the first General Plan been put into effect, this would be a much more peaceful City and a lot nicer to live in. If the present General Plan goes through, instead of the citizens' plan, then the City's natural resources will be gone with no chance to replace what most of the citizens moved here for in the first place. Sandstone Canyon and Tonner Canyon will be gone forever. Map and deed restrictions were placed on some tracts for a variety of reasons. The GPAC recommended that any land designations be modified or changed only by a vote of the people, especially those citizens who would be impacted the most by lifting MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 10 those restrictions. Many real estate transactions were done with the promise that adjoining open space areas will never be developed. The housing 1 density factor will impact open areas. GPAC approved between 600 and 700 new homes to be allowed before the City is built out. This will also reflect a certain amount of traffic, increase as a result cf over building. The City's traffic problems are severe now. Why compound the problem with greater density. As all of the easy areas are now developed, the trend seems to go after the wooded stream fed canyons and hills. Once again, the GPAC committee and citizens have been ignored. The rezoning of key environmentally sensitive areas for more commercial was also a "no" by GPAC and citizens but the power of three changed all of that again and with 35 to 40% vacancy in D.B., it doesn't dictate destroying hills, canyons and existing neighborhoods just to create more vacancies. The "no vote" regarding Tonner Canyon was an adamant effort and if a roadway was ever built in Tonner Canyon, the net result would impact.D.B. very severely through increased traffic, smog and noise - noise factors exceeding the standards in the General Plan and opening the way for massive development plus the total destruction of the last major wilderness area in L.A. County. The Council of three promised the General Plan would be placed on the ballot. Based on past performance, this is the last chance for the Council to keep at least one promise to all citizens. Carolyn Elfelt, 21119 Silver Cloud Dr., indicated that she was present to support the school district's request for use of its D.B. properties. In April, she attended an EdSource Conference during which the goals for national education by the year 2000 were discussed. WVUSD has achieved the goals or has the processes in place to attain them. According to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Calif. funding will be spent to improve areas in which the district is already strong. During the conference, business leaders emphatically stressed that in order to be ready for the next century, students will have to know as much technology as possible. Technology costs money. Therefore, the value of the school district's property, as determined by the General Plan, will affect the district's ability to provide technology in its schools. She asked the Council to please allow the district the flexibility it needs to have as many options as possible in the use of its property in order to better meet the needs of the students. Wilbur Smith requested that Page 1-10, Strategy 1. 1.1 (f) contain language indicating all of the units within this category are to be used for the purpose of satisfying the State requirements of 20.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Regarding (g) under Strategy 1.1.1, Page 1-11, he asked that the Council define the number of domestic units per acre as a function of the average slope calculation. Regarding Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.6, he did not understand why residences are allowed in an open space area. In his opinion, if its open space, there should be no residences. With respect to Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.10, residences are allowed under the Agricultural MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 11 (AG) designation. In his opinion, these statements are allowing development of Tonner Canyon and this is contrary to the Vision Statement of the General Plan. He stated that Table 114, Page 1-26, indicates that Tonner Canyon and the SEA 15 are targeted for development. He further stated that, in modifications to the EIR, there is no indication that the Council is really preparing to allow for development of the Sphere of Influence and SEA 15; however, the words in the document state that is exactly what will occur and this is a contradiction. He indicated that potential development of Tonner Canyon and the SEA 15 is the reason there will be an effort to referend the General Plan and to have an initiative which puts forth the citizens version of the General Plan. Max Maxwell stated that GPAC requested that parks and open space be separated. He indicated that the City requires that five acres per 1000 residents be set aside for parks. The school district purchased property with a promise to the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. that they would preserve in its entirety. The school district bought property with restrictions on it. He stated that GPAC does not support the taxpayers paying $1.4 million to have commercial development on the school district property. GPAC wants the General Plan to go to a vote of the people. SEA protection has been overruled. Hundreds of homes are being built now, some of which are in the back side of "The Country Estates." Jan Dabney, representing D&L Properties, Inc. and SASAK, Inc., asked that both properties remain in the current zoning as set forth by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Council at the last meeting. The D&L Property is proposed to be Rural Residential (RR) and SASAK Corp. is presently processing a map for the May 6, 1995 Council agenda. He stated that he has heard "The citizen's General Plan" for six years. These issues were widely discussed at GPAC and very few of the controversial land use issues were a landslide vote in either direction. Much of the language and much of the consideration given in the Mission Statement was widely discussed and not everyone was in agreement. The majority ruled, as it should be. There has been a representation that each GPAC committee was 100% in agreement with everything that came out of GPAC. Over the last three General Plans, the public has heard, on each occasion, that that General Plan is the best General Plan and that it is the "citizen's General Plan." On two of the occasions, the General Plan has come out with theoretically the same citizens group, substantially modified. He stated that when he, as a professional engineer, hears terms put forth such as "a road through Tonner Canyon is going to increase the traffic impact in the City of D.B." which has currently ground to a stop and business people cannot get their cars into sites because of the pass-through traffic, he finds such statements a travesty. He further stated he is not advocating a highway through Tonner Canyon, but it needs to be reviewed. If a highway can be kept out of the SEA area, obviously it should be. He indicated that lack of MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 12 a traffic corridor is what is killing this community. He stated that, in his opinion, the reason the corridor has not been approved to this date is that this City has taken six years to approve a General Plan while every surrounding community has built out their community and dropped traffic onto Grand Ave. Without having some instrument allowing the City to work in concert with other communities, the City is currently suffering the consequences. Terry Birrell stated that the GPAC General Plan respected map restrictions on the 400 acres off of Grand Ave. and Summitridge Dr. and map restrictions on the school district property. She further stated that map restrictions were placed on the property through the developer's negotiations with L.A. County because of density transfers which occurred years ago. For the City to incorporate and then lift those restrictions seemed immensely unfair. She continued that Mrs. Elfelt indicated that the school district needs money to educate children. She agreed with that statement but wondered why the district speculated with $1.5 million of taxpayers dollars. The district bought property with restrictions on it which had been purchased only three years earlier for less than $100,000. The district speculated that it could force a change. She deplored the waste of taxpayers dollars. She encouraged the Council to respect the designations placed on the land by GPAC and L.A. County. The Council indicated that its changes to the GPAC plan are in the i interest of economic development for the City. She rointed to an article from the Wall Street Journal which concludes that in Europe, helped by greenbelt regulations, Europe's town centers prosper. She suggested that if the City is truly looking for economic development in an appropriate manner, that the City consider what is being created and that the City not be used merely as a pass through. She requested the Council to be more respectful of the GPAC version of the General Plan and put both versions on the ballot and let the citizens voices be heard. Ken Anderson stated he would like to see an open forum so that all sides could be considered prior to closing the Public Hearing. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. M/Papen referred the Council to the Boy Scouts' request regarding Page I- 12, Strategy 1.1.9, last paragraph stat'ng the Boy Scouts have requested the language be changed to: "At such time as development might be proposed, require formulation of a specific plan pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 for the Sphere of Influence. The formation MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 13 of a future specific plan should incorporate provisions to protect existing resources while minimizing future adverse impacts to both the human and natural environment of the City. as well as the region (see Strategy 1.1.4 of the Circulation Element)." MPT/Werner stated that Mr. Smith raised the issue of SEA 15 and the question of contradiction between what the General Plan is stating in terms of preservation of the SEA and suggesting that the property is developable. He further stated that his comments addressed the Boy Scout property, as well as all of the properties in the Sphere of Influence area. He asked the City Attorney what purpose is served by designating anything for properties outside of the City which are currently subject to L.A. County zoning and could be subjected to a zoning initiative through the County. He continued that, in his opinion, the residents who are asking for the City's absolute control of the open space should be directing their concerns to the Board of Supervisors. Specifically, where does the City's control come from in designating these properties outside of the City and what does the City accomplish. SC/Montgomery stated that the original purpose of the Sphere of Influence was to ask the communities that were incorporated to work with the surrounding areas to plan them in a harmonious concept so that if and when annexation occurred, those areas would readily be assimilated into the surrounding city to which they adjoin or to which they have been assigned by the County. Long term planning by the County envisions that they will not be able to provide public services to isolated pockets. The duty of the Council, under the planning act and through the Land Use Element, has a duty to address the unincorporated areas that abut the City and that are in the Sphere of Influence and give the residents in the unincorporated areas an idea of what would be acceptable to the City should they choose to pass the annexation petition. MPTfWerner continued that the City has no authority to zone the property unless the property was annexed to the City. SC/Montgomery responded that while this is true, the City's designation is persuasive to the regional planner. L.A. County created the SEA 15 designation and it overlays the Agricultural (AG) zoning of the property. He further stated that the Boy Scouts would have a difficult time changing the zoning if the City endorses the Agricultural (AG) zoning on the Sphere of Influence. MPT/Werner suggested that if, under County zoning, the Boy Scouts were to sell the property under AG zoning to a developer and the developer proposes to build 2 acre ranchettes. Under current zoning, if the City were to designate the property anything other than 2 acre ranchettes, would L.A. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 14 County be in a position to approve 2 acre ranchettes. SC/Montgomery responded affirmatively by stating that the regional planner is going to look at how the Sphere of Influence has been treated by the City for zoning in the General Plan. The County cannot arbitrarily and politically bypass zoning. Whatever is done by the City regarding the Sphere of Influence will have a great deal of impact at the County level. MPT/Werner stated that the Boy Scout property was targeted for acquisition by the Joint Powers of Authority. Would the City's designation of land use on that property have any influence on the fair market value of the property. SC/Montgomery responded that obviously, it would and if the Boy Scouts can show that their property was depressed simply because the Conservancy planned to acquire it, the Boy Scouts would be able to secure other zoning. If the Boy Scouts cannot show that it should have been changed and all of the reasonable planners say that is what the zoning should have been, then that is what the fair market value would be even though the Agricultural (AG) zoning under the County prevails. MPT/Werner stated that a contradiction was alleged to exist and, in his opinion, he did not see a contradiction. The property has some very complex natural features, environmental conditions and political conditions in terms of jurisdictions and perhaps other conditions influencing what, if anything, will happen with the property in the future. The current General Plan addresses a base line land use designation which identifies, as required by State law, the appropriate land use density for the property (1 du/2ac). Other sections of the General Plan show this property to be a significant ecological area under natural resources and rather than melding this together with the land use designation, the General Plan overlays the significant ecological area designation onto the land use designation and the plan suggests that in some future development plan, the preservation objectives stated under the SEA should be worked out compatibly with land use objectives. He asked if this is a contradiction to which SC/Montgomery responded that it is not because the City cannot anticipate what the changing situation is going to be and the two designations can work together to an end result deemed acceptable to the City and the developer in terms of preservation of the SEA. C/Harmony asked if there would be any adverse impact on the Boy Scout property if it was designated Open Space Recreational rather than Agricultural. Responding to C/Harmony, SC/Montgomery stated that, as a matter of law, a landowner is never entitled to more than the existing use. The trend is toward reduction of entitlement. There is no right to gain a more MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 15 economically developable use. Therefore, the General Plan could indicate a current use zoning. MPT/Werner reiterated Ms. Birrell's reminder that the City's incorporation application stated there would be no change to land use designations. Responding to MPT/Werner, C/Harmony stated the Council, without his vote, created new designations for properties. He further stated that the promise to the people is to keep the zoning on properties the same as it was through the County. Specific Plans and Planned Developments pull protection out of the General Plan. The school district is asking for commercial and those aspects pre -suggest the idea of lifting map restrictions. M/Papen restated the request by the Boy Scouts for the proposed change of language as previously outlined. It was moved by C/Ansari, seconded by MPT/Wemer to retain the current language for Strategy 1.1.9, Page 1-12. MPT/Werner, responding to C/Harmony, stated that he sensed that C/Harmony felt that a Specific Plan overlay had a negative connotation because it leaves to the future some land use decisions. He offered that the Specific Plan overlay as a well accepted planning tool, not only holds off land use decisions to the future, it provides a better opportunity to bring together all of the issues, objectives and goals of the entire General Plan document and the environmental impacts associated with projects and bring them together in a complete design for the property. By eliminating the Specific Plan overlay, a project is reduced to the Conditional Use Permit process and the same level of control is not evident. The Specific Plan is a legislative action which goes to Council and becomes ordinance. C/Harmony indicated he thought that is what a development plan would accomplish which is a better technique for future development of a project so that the citizens have specific notice and can deal with a project. Specific Plans allow for special agreement arrangements which gets very close to the concept of spot zoning. He indicated he has problems with the technique of Specific Plan and properties should be zoned as they currently are zoned and when a land developer wants to develop a property the developer comes forward, asks for amendments to the General Plan, if necessary, and puts the plans on the table and everyone is notified. Until then, the developer knows what the rules are and what obstacles need to be overcome instead of upgrading the zoning now and not having anything to show for it. C/Ansari's motion carried 4-1 by the following Roll Call vote: MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 16 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS -Ansari, Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Regarding Planned Development Area 4, Page 1-17 (d), M/Papen stated that there is a mixed ownership on this property with the City owning four acres of freeway frontage property in the same PD -4 zone. Total acres should be 82 vacant acres with the City owning four acres and the school district owning 78 acres. The Planning Commission asked that the General Plan specify that the 30% set aside for open space not include Larkstone Park. She suggested that the residential language be deleted and designate PD -4 to consist of public facilities, commercial offices, general commercial and open space and add the word park. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that with respect to the school district property 78 acres, 231/2 acres would be set aside for open space; two and one-half acres for Larkstone Park; 19 1/2 acres for commercial, and 32 acres for public facilities. Addressing Dr. Hockwalt, C/Harmony restated the school district's desire to "protect their investment" and the property has been currently appraised at $1.2 million. He asked Dr. Hockwalt how it would protect the district's investment to upgrade the property to commercial. Responding to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt stated the property was appraised at $3.5 million. C/Harmony stated that his understanding of previous discussions was that one-half of the property would remain as open space. Dr. Hockwalt responded that discussions he has been involved in allowed for 30% of the property being set aside as open space. In response to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt responded that the school district has always wanted to preserve the entirety of Sandstone Canyon. In addition, he indicated he did not view it as profit taking, he viewed it as maintaining and managing the assets that the school district has. C/Ansari, addressing Dr. Hockwalt, stated that she is appalled by the master plan and the five Planned Development areas that are listed specifically. She was not against the school district's general building. The General Plan is specific as to what is allowed in the Planned Development areas. There have been two referendums because of Planned Development and she felt that the General Plan process should proceed. In her opinion, there is no need to develop a master plan for each of these areas. She believed both MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 17 the GPAC version of the General Plan and the version of the General Plan now before the Council should go on the ballot and let the community decide what it wants. She is not in favor of another referendum. She further stated that this designation grants entitlements. M/Papen stated these designations do not grant entitlements C/Ansari continued that the perception of the community is that these designations give entitlements. The language of the General Plan states that a master plan shall be developed for each area of the City designated as a Planned Development. MPT/Werner, addressing C/Ansari, stated that there are no entitlements. An entitlement is equal to a permit and once a permit is obtained, building can begin. That does not happen from any aspect of the General Plan. Entitlement is a very specific term. Perhaps some of the citizens need to understand that this is not an entitlement, it is a General Plan. He indicated he would like to see the General Plan less specific as was originally intended, however, the people who are now opposed to the verbiage said the General Plan was not specific enough. So now the City is at the point where the General Plan is more specific; however, it is not an entitlement. He stated he would not have a problem calling the Planned Development areas "Planned Preservation areas." It was his understanding that the restrictions on the school district property are for residential dwelling units. The school district is asking that the residential dwelling units be deleted from the land use designation so they are acquiescing to the restriction on the property indicating they do not want the restriction. The City is now asked to put in place "commercial." He was not aware of any commercial restriction on the property. The school district is also saying they are going to preserve 113 of the property in natural open space and the remaining 1/3 of the property in public facility. Those sound positive and consistent with the planned preservation area. He believed that what the school district requested is consistent with what has transpired over the past one and one- half years with regard to this property. SC/Montgomery stated that C/Werner was correct. The Land Use designation is a threshold to the application of the permit. Application for permit cannot be made if the Land Use designation does not permit the use intended. MPT/Werner continued that the General Plan is a foundation. The City is not saying, through this General Plan, that something can or cannot be built. It is a straightforward foundation toward the next step in the process and he believed that it was what the State had in mind when it said that cities are obligated to establish the land use principals that will allow a property owner to come forward and ask for a reasonable use of their property. With that, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 18 he indicated he would support the school district's request that is consistent with everything being said by members of the community. He did not suggest removing any restrictions from the property. If there is a restriction on the property, the restriction remains. MlPapen suggested the following wording for Page 1-17, (d) Planned Development Area 4: "PD -4 consists of 82 vacant acres and is located west of Brea Canyon Road, north of Peaceful Hills Road and south of South Pointe Middle School. Land uses appropriate for this planned development area would include commercial, park, public facilities and open space. A minimum of 30% of the site will be set aside as open space, not including parkland. The most sensitive portion of the site shall be retained in permanent open space. The site plan shall incorporate the planning and site preparation to accommodate the development of Larkstone Park of a suitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as approved by the City." Motion by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to adopt M/Papen's language. C/Harmony stated that he is in favor of the GPAC Ienguage which indicated no development in Sandstone Canyon - 78 acres, no development - and to allow 113, 1/3 and 113 is a real corruption of that body's deliberation; that is open space, it had reservations on it, the land was only worth $150,000 when Miller bought it. The school district bought it for $1,200,000. This is profit taking all of the way and it should be open space and the school district has to stick with their investment. MlPapen responded that one of the school board members mentioned to her during the recess that one of the reasons they had to spend in excess of $1 million to acquire the property, which was worth $3 million, was because they were going to lose $8 million in State funding because of the Council's delays in 1993 in approving any kind of development on this property. In her opinion, there is quality education in the VWUSD and the citizens want to encourage that. It is unfortunate that school districts have to go into land use planning in order to provide monies for education. However, if that is what it takes to provide the quality of education long-term in this community, she supports the school district 100%. Following discussion, regarding Parlimentary Procedure and with concensus of Council, the meeting continued. C/Ansari questioned M/Papen's statement that the school district's project was held up in 1993. At that time, it was part of the South Pointe Master Plan. This item did not come before the Council again until the end of March, 1994, when the school district requested a re -hearing. The district was told at that time that they would have to begin grading in a couple of MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 19 weeks and she was surprised because during a meeting with Dr. Hockwalt and Marsha Sykes on December 1, 1993, she was not told that they would need grading in the second or third week of April, 1994. It was brought before the Council the end of April, 1994, so it was rushed through on a time line that she did not feel was explored enough. It was held up because of the will of the people concemed about the South Pointe Master Plan. She was not against builders building on their land. She felt the Council should specify a master plan and if the Council wants to call a master plan Open Space Area 1, Area 2, Area 3, Area 4 and Area 5. C/Ansari moved to rename Planned Development Area 4 to Open Space Area 4 and replace current wording with the following language for Strategy 1.6.1, (d) Page 1-17: "OS -4 consists of 78 vacant acres and is located west of Brea Canyon Road, north of Peaceful Hills Road and south of South Pointe Middle School." No other language should be incorporated and the people have so stated. The City should pass the General Plan and then come back and amend the Plan for each developer and each plot of land as it is presented. C/Ansari's motion died for lack of a second. C/Miller stated that C/Harmony's statement that he sold the property to the school district is not true and he wants this issue cleared. He indicated he does not have a problem calling this area "Planned Preservation" and leaving the text as written. C/Miller amended MPT/Werner's motion to rename area 4 "Planned Preservation Area" leaving all of the text as requested by the school district. MPT/Werner agreed to the amendment. MPT/Werner did not see any difficulty in doing what C/Ansari suggested for Planned Development Area 4. The current language is more restrictive whereas what C/Ansari suggested opens the door and makes it less compatible and more contradictory to what the rest of the General Plan states. M/Papen stated that if the descriptive language is removed and the Plan only identifies the number of acres and location, then the property owner is allowed to come in with all 20 land uses from which to pick and choose and the application could be for any land use. Responding to M/Papen and MPT[Werner, CM/Belanger stated there would be no restriction on what kind of application could be made. The school district asked for a land use designation presuming the district would be the applicant. However, some future landowner could submit an MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 20 application and ask that the land use mix be changed to something else. Any property owner has a right to ask for anything and this particular property owner has stated they would like it to be a certain way. But if a future property owner comes in and says they want it to be 30 acres of commercial and 50 acres of residential, they can ask for it no matter what the General Plan states. The applicant can request a General Plan amendment. In response to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger stated that a General Plan designation of Planned Development does not zone the property. If the property owner came back to the City with a plan that is outlined here, at the very least, they would have to subject themselves to a zone change which means they would have to go through public hearing and it is all subject to referendum - it is a legislative act. Anything that is done to any property in a planning designation requires, at a minimum, a change in zoning because you don't zone the property. The Plan is simply stating these are categories. The property owner has to come back and say what they want to do. The property is not being given an entitlement. The only way the property can get an entitlement is to get zoning and specific legislative approval by the Council to do something. The General Plan does not do that. MPT/Werner's motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPTM/erner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Staff was directed to change all Planned Development (PD) Area headings to Planned Preservation Area (PP)". M/Papen stated that regarding Strategy 1.6.1 (e), Page 1-17, the request by the school district is to add the following language: "Land uses appropriate for this site include public facilities, commercial offices and general commercial." which includes deletion of the reference to single family land use. Motion made by MPT/Werner, seconded by M/Papen to amend the second sentence of Strategy 1.6.1 (e) Planned Preservation Area 5 to read as follows: "Land uses appropriate for this site include a maximum of five (5) single family detached residential dwelling units per acre and public facilities." In response to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt stated that the 28 acre parcel had not been declared surplus property and if the school district wished to declare it surplus, it would have to go through the necessary legal MAY 9, 1995 - PAGE 21 procedures. In addition, if the property was declared surplus, it would have to be offered for sale to other public agencies. Since the district is not declaring the property surplus, it will not be offered for sale and the school district can develop the property in order to follow through with the principles of asset management. Motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Motion made by MPT/Wemer, seconded by C/Miller to adopt Resolution No. 95-20, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar incorporating Resolution No. 92-43 by reference and certifying the adequacy of the addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and making findings thereon pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as amended. Motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Responding to M/Papen, SC/Montgomery stated that the General Plan can be adopted for a limited period of time and put on the ballot as to whether it should be continued or allowed to terminate at that time. Motion by MPT/Werner to adopt Resolution No. 95-21 adopting the 1995 General Plan, with the Plan to remain in effect during the remainder of 1995. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by M/Papen, seconded by C/Miller to adopt Resolution No. 95-21: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopting the 1995 General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar as amended. MPT/Werner asked what was the intent with regard to the ballot measure and if the ballot measure were to fail, what would be the status of the General Plan. M/Papen suggested adopting the General Plan and directing the City Attorney to bring back options to the Council for discussion at the first meeting in June. SC/Montgomery explained that the way a ballot measure would be phrased in the analysis is that it either terminates that day on a vote of the people or it continues. It's called an "interim ordinance" and then it's put on the ballot MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 22 ' for the issue of "should it continue or not?" and you can phrase it either way. You can say "should ordinance so and so of the General Plan be continued?" or you can say "should ordinance so and so, General Plan, be terminated?" In response to MPTMerner, M/Papen suggested that the Council wait for a report from the City Attorney on the options available and the impacts of doing it different ways. MPT/Wemer moved to amend MlPapen's motion with a supplemental provision that adoption of the General Plan would extend for a period of 13 months from tonight unless it is voted upon to continue. M/Papen indicated that she would not accept a substitute motion because the proposal is not a friendly amendment. MPT/Werner offered to amend his motion to extend the General Plan for 18 months if the ballot measure is approved. SC/Montgomery reminded Council that when they indicate 18 months and put the measure on the ballot and the voters vote against adoption, that's the end of it. MPT/Werner explained that he meant that between the time it's voted down in November and the expiration of that 18 month period is the period of time that the Council would then have to make the corrections. SC/Montgomery suggested it would be more reasonable to indicate that you're either adopting this for the next election or not. M/Papen's motion failed by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None It was moved by MPTMerner, seconded by C/Miller to continue the Public Hearing for two weeks. Following discussion, MPT/Werner and C1Miller amended their motion to continue to the Public Hearing until the next regular Council meeting on May 16, 1995. MPT/Werner requested staff to provide more background on some of the topics currently being discussed so that Council would be in a better position next time. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 23 5. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. to Tuesday, May 16, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. �7 Tommye Nike, C::pu-:y Ci!U Clerk ATTEST: /Mayor ` UW CFFCES MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY A LAW CORPORATION 10501 VALLEY BOULEVARD. SUITE 121 EL MONTE. CALIFORNIA 01731 TELEPHONE (318) 452-1222 FACSIMILE (ets) 452-9323 ALSO ADMITTED TO FLORIDA AND HAWAII STATE BARS MWORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL PV 1. r FROM: Associate City Attorneyro DATE: May 16, 1995 RE: Options re Adoption of General Plan OF COUNSEL ALAN R. BURNS JOHN ROBERT WASPER' ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 453 S. GLASSELL STREc1 GRANGE. CA 92664 (714) 771-7723 •Pm?tsr W Corporators WENDY0. DAWER The case causing procedural concern, DaVida v. Napa' had been decided by the Court of Appeal and was pending before the Supreme Court, when the Legislature enacted the revised Elections Code. The DaVida decision, which allowed the voters to amend an existing General Plan' at .-the ballot box, was of statewide concern, hotly debated, and it is inconceivable to think that the Legislature was not aware of its import. New Elections Code 39200 says that, "Ordinances may be enacted by and for any incorporated city pursuant to this article." The single -subject rule does not apply to initiatives.' If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the same election conflict, the ordinance receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall control (Elections Code §9221) . A city may hold at its discretion, an advisory election on any subject for which it otherwise has jurisdiction, to indicate to the council, approval or disapproval of the proposal. The measure shall be headed with the title, "Advisory Vote Only'. The results of the advisory vote are not controlling (Election Code 19603). A city council may submit to the voters, without a petition therefore, env proposition for the repeal, amendment or enactment of any ordinance to be voted upon in any succeeding regular or special election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes, it shall be enacted accordingly.:' On this point, it has already been `geld that CEQA compliance is not 9 Cal.4th 763 People v. Norton (1930) 108 Ca. App. 767, 775 Elections Code 59221, 9222 LAW OFFICES MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY Mayor and City Council City of Diamond Bar May 16, 1995 Page 3 The following scenarios result, depending upon your decision. If you refuse to adopt the General Plan at this time, without -placing the issue on the ballot for the next election, no further discretionary land use permits may be granted. If you fail to adopt, but agree to place the matter on the ballot, it can be argued that land use decisions can be granted, if they are in conformity with the "proposed General Plan", which, of course, is the one that would be on the ballot. Any land use decision granted after adoption of the General Plan at your next meeting, but before a referendum petition is filed, would vest, regardless of whether the General Plan was thrown out by the voters at the next election, or whether it suffers a defeat under an advisory vote. Adoption of the old, expired General Plan would probably not need an Environmental Impact Report, since .. it adopts the existing situation for the most part, and could be done . with a negative declaration. If the Council's proposed General Plan were placed on the same ballot with the initiative proponents' GPAC General Plan, then they would be listed as separate measures with a "Yes/No" vote as to each. If one passes and the other is defeated, the issue is resolved. If both are defeated, the process starts anew. If both are adopted, the - General Plan receiving the most votes would prevail (while there is a rule that two or more initiatives may go into effect at the same election, with the one getting the highest votes prevailing only as to conflicting provisions, .under the rule requiring internal consistency of a General Plan, presumably internal consistency; would not be present if the two plans were thrown together, leaving the prevailing Plan to have effect) . If the Council adopts the General Plan, without limitation, and if the initiative proponents place theirs on the ballot, and it passes, it will repeal the Council's General plan; if it loses, the Council's General Plan continues. If the initiative proponents General Plan goes on the ballot and is passed, it can be amended only by a subsequent vote of the people, subject, of course, to any provisions in the initiative proponents' General Plan that would allow the Council to act, or certain areas that may be pre-empted, such as the Housing Element. Staff has raised the issue that having the Council place on the ballot, a measure that has not yet gone through the entire planning process, such as the initiative proponents' measure (although they apparently dispute this assertion) might subject the matter to challenge. You can pretty well figure that there is going to be a challenge from any LAW OFFICES MICHAEL B. MONTGOtitERY ;Mayor and City Council City of Diamond Bar May 16, 1995 Page 4 direction. I have resolved the issue in favor of validity if adopted by ballot, on three grounds: 1. Case law solidly gives the benefit of the doubt to initiative proponents. 2. The new Elections Code states that any -ordinance may be submitted to the voters. . 3. CEQA once considered sacrosanct in the normal development process, and the procedure through which millions of dollars may be lost on an unsuccessful effort", is not -required in an initiative measure (Lee, supra), or in any initiative amendment to a General Plan (DaVida, supra). If any of . the Council have questions on the foregoing prior to the meeting, do not hesitate to contact me. n AVCO Community Developers v. sout Coast Reaional Com (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785 1995 GENERAL, PLAN SUGGESTED REVISIONS 6-20-95 1. Revise vision statement by adding the following sentence to the first Paragraph: It is the primary goal of the City of Diamond Bar to maintain a rural and country living environment. 2. Revise Strategy 1.1.8 (page I-12) of the Land Use Element to read as follows: 1.1.8 Areas designated Planned Preservation (PP) are designed to conserve open space resources and are to be applied to properties where creative approaches are needed to integrate future development with existing natural resources. All -proposed development within these designated areas shall require the formation of a Specific Plan pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450. Land uses which may be appropriate within PP areas, subject -to public hearings and approval'of the City Council, include a minimum of 75 percent of the site retained as open space, park, or public facilities. A maximum of 25 percent of the. site may be developed as residential at a density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. Each Specific Plan must incorporate.innovation and superior.design addressing the uniqueness of each area and create a more desirable living environment than could be achieved through conventional development. 3. Eliminate -the following Strategies of the Land Use Element: Strategy 1.1.10 (page I-12) Strategy 1.6.1(a) through 1.6.1(e) (pages I-16 and I- 17) 4. Renumber 1.6.2 as 1.6.1 Renumber 1.6.4 as 1.6.3 Renumber 1.6.5 as 1.6.4 5. Revise and renumber 1.6.3 as follows: 1.6.2 The formation of any future Planned Preservation project should incorporate provisions to protect existing resources while minimizing future adverse impacts to both the human and natural environment of the City, as well as the region. 1995 GENERAL PLAN SUGGESTED REVISIONS page 2 6. Revise Strategy 1.5.3 (page I-15) to read as follows: 1.5.3 Add after last sentence in first paragraph: Any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify a deed must be supported by findings that the decision is of significant benefit to the City. 7. Revise Strategy 1.5.4(x) (page I-16) to read as follows: 1.5.4(a) Vacant land burdened by non open space restictions shall be required to be subjected to public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council before any action can be taken to remove any such restrictions. Any decision to remove said map restrictions must be supported by findings that such removal is of significant benefit to the City. 8.' Revise the Land Use Hap as follows: 1. Change PP -1, PP -2, PP -4, and PP -5 to "PP" 2. Change"PP-3 to "C" at corner with balance designated uQPn. 3. Change D&L Property (lots 1 and 61) from RR and OS to "PP". 4. Change Sphere of Influence from AG/SP to "PP" 9. Strike Agricultural Category from page II -16. 10. Revise Planned Preservation category on Page II -17 as follows: Within the Planned Preservation classification, residential land uses may be appropriate subject to applicable General Plan policies and ordinances. Development within areas designated Planned Preservation are processed through use of a master plan or specific plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, a planned unit development, or similar mechanism. Development intensities within Planned Development areas must be consistent with the provisions of the Diamond Bar General plan. Planned Preservation projects must provide a greater level of community amenities and cohesiveness, achieve superior 1995 GENERAL PLAN SUGGESTED REVISIONS page 3 design, and create a more desirable living environment than could be achieved through conventional subdivision design and requirements. 11. Revise Strategy 1.1.11 (page III -11) of the Resource Management Element to read as follows: 1.1.11 Prepare a tree preservation ordinance that requires preservation of native trees, such as the oak and walnut. In addition the ordinance should emphasize retention of mature sycamore, pepper, arroyo willow and significant trees of cultural or historical value. The ordinance should provide a replacement and relocation mechanism for trees when their removal is necessary. 12. Revise strategy 1.1.4(c) to read as follows: Avoid any roadway within the Significant Ecological Area (SEA 15). Lad Use DesIgnations Residential Designations RR Rural Residential RL Low Density Residential RLM Law -Medium Residential RM Medium Density Residential RMH Medium High Residential RH High Density Residential Noe-Resldenttal Designations C General Commercial CO Commercial/ F Office OP Professional Office I Light Industrial Subtotal i+^ d Use Dwtr2tteas PP Planned Preservation —PILI— pp-2 Subtotal Other Designations(s) PF Public Facilities W Water F Fire S School PK Paris GC Golf Course OS Open Spun PR Private Recreation AC A&;eultu. c - 15 Pwy/Major Roads Total Permitted Density/ Intensity (1 acldu) (up to 3 du/ac) (up to 5 du/ac) (up to 12 du/ac) (up to 16 du/ac) (up to 20 dulac) (25 - 1 FAR) (25 - 1 FAR) (25 -1 FAR) (25 -1 FAR) (see text) 1du R se Gross Aces In the City Gross Total Gross Acres In Awns Sphere t392 -1,452- !3`j2 -1,452 3,089 3,089 805 805 275 275 197 197 66 66 5824.44" G52¢4,$s4- 187 - is -7 trt 63 63 2Og4b8- 20$ -16- 93 93 '551 496- 551 -496- 1}i7& 358a 41(07 --yea— ---yea-- -404--- 1137e - -� 4107 '3 1 19 2 21 1 1 265 265 158 158 178 178 5l0 ms 10 15 15 --e - 3,599 3,589 684 684 1831 tg33 9,583 3,591 13,174 (a) No F.A.R. or potential square footage has been lde rifled for these quasi -public and recresdoaal land we atugorks due to the wide range of uses permitted (e.g., ri.ic anter, scbo* etc) and because buildf W are ogee part of huge open space areas such as golf courses. Diamond Bar General Plan Land Use Element Revised May 9, 1995 Table H4 Residential Development Potential During Housing Element Cycle Diamond Bar General Plan Housing Element Revised May 9, 1995 II -14 ima 20 1995 Units Land Use Category Vacant Land Developed Unit Totals Since 7/89 Acres DUs Rural Residential 379- -379- 30 -469 - (0.0 -1.0 du/ac) ?41 34q Low Density Residential 72 216 50 266 (1.1 - 3.0 du/ac) Low -Medium Density Residential 0 0 0 0 (3.1 - 5.0 du/ac) Medium Density Residential 0 0 0 0 (5.1 -12.0 du/ac) Medium High Density Residential 2.2 36 60 96 (12.1 -16.0 du/ac) High Density Residential 13.5 270 0 270 (16.1-20.0 du/ac) Planned Preservation t377 34+ 54+ PP 1 - 8W ---6-- 0 - 0 PP -2 —446e 130- PI1-3 --35-- 0 _ PP -4 - —78 -- 0 - PP 5 - --2-7-- 135 265 TOTALS 1,827.7 1,166 140 -1,X6 1753+7 Ill 85 1,3 25 Diamond Bar General Plan Housing Element Revised May 9, 1995 II -14 ima 20 1995 TABLE I-4 POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL GROWTP ng Potential Land Use Units/Sq. t. Additional Units/Sq. Ft. Residential 1185 City 17,813 DUS(') 1,166 DUS(3) Sphere 0--1;6DUS() Commercial/5,865,000 Sq. F02)1,550,000 Sq.Ft. (4) Industrial Expected =eraloPla Total Development Buildout 18,918 - 18,979 58 0000) 1,80 : 508M 7,415,000 2 X700 r° . 1993 Dept. of Finance co The Pluming Network, 1990 O) Fe -V—"' Densities on Vacant baud are aaumed at 100% of tbo maxrmtm permdensity. ln� projects a mmdy 40 under construction (1/94) Be avenge �t hicas ties cone t= with a yet devokpmeot patterns on vaead had. Inchww project, consibuctim IM Population based on 3.19 pusooa per household at a 4.5% vacancy rata. Diamond Bar General Pian Land Use Element Revised May 9, 1495 I-26 •)ONi :,o. ter`f COY OF W AN CI o!T� =:7 NORM 0 2000 4000 low FEET RURAL RESM NiIAL (max Wwu Aggr p fte W du potand-1 LC W DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (a= 3 &'34 Aggfcgm 216 & potential MEDRIM DENM RESIDENTIAL (past 16 6d&4 Agpegae 36dapaentW HIM DENSITY Y RFSMIAL (o= 20 &h4 AWcVft X70dopaentis SEwX'mC F &.N 6r•,K W'�—) Ags—zae. 1800 Ju Fc ,,dw - • • CITY LUAM • Mi PLANNED PRESERVATION AU.St.Xd. GENERAL PLAN Figure II -1 Housing Opportunity Areas Diamond Bar General Plan Housing Element Revised 3+in' 9, 1995 H-15 ,,i VNFs 2W l [CV. IG J.C.D. J. C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS 671 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SUITE 5 WALNrn, CAUFORNIA 91789 909 594-7568 FAX - 909-594-5090 June 29, 1995 City Council City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Dr. Ste. 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Reference: D & L Properties Inc., Lot 1/Lot 61 Use, Zoning, General Plan Council Members, I have reviewed Councilwoman Ansari's proposed changes to the land use element of the Proposed 1995 General Plan and -have the following comments and concerns on how these changes would effect the above mentioned property and the on going controversy surrounding this property.' In February, 1995, on behalf of the owners of the above mentioned property, I submitted a lot line adjustment request to the City of Diamond Bar. The intent of this request was to reallocate the acreage of these properties into one clearly defined open space parcel, a portion for rear yard of an -adjacent land owner and the remaining property to an adjacent parcel held by D & L Properties Inc., creating one tax parcel. In conjunction with the lot line adjustment, we asked that the Council consider modifying the restrictive language on Parcel "C', the combination of a portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 31479 and Lot 7, Tract No. 30093, allowing the owner to construct one single family residence on the new Parcel "CO. Recall, that Lot 7, Tract 30093 already has the right to construct a single family residence on it. The request before the Council was to allow the construction of one home on the combined acreage, leaving what ever restricted language the Council deemed necessary on the property to insure that not more than one home could be built on the property. We would have agreed to a 200 foot minimum setback requirement suggested, a restriction that stated one home only, a zoning classification of one unit per 60 acres, access restrictions allowing one single family driveway only, what ever reasonable requirement the Council wished to allow for the one home use. Our request, if granted, would have put to rest the ultimate use of this property, limited the density to one unit per 60 acres and removed one controversy surrounding the General Plan. It has become apparent that several members on the Council really do not choose to eliminate land use problems within the proposed General Plan when the opportunity presents itself, but only wish to propitiate controversy to serve their own political agenda. The Ansari proposal, to the unpracticed eye, would seem to provide a reasonable planning alternate for the ultimate use of this property. However, the insertion of the requirement for a specific plan on a property and property owner that has no desire for multiple use, increased density or a residential use higher or unlike that use currently surrounding this property is perceived as just another attempt to deny use of the property. We assume that the reason for the specific plan use would be to cluster the 15 units she would allow on the property into some sort of low end housing configuration that wouO be a detriment to the community and the neighboring home owners in an effort to protect open space issues. Why not just the one home that we requested? This clearly provides the opportunity to insure that the feeling of large undeveloped areas is accomplished. When I was asked by staff what the owners intent was as far as use of the restricted area on the proposed Parcel "C" if the Council didn't grant the use request, I replied personal recreational use such as equestrian facilities, swimming pools, etc. The staff member then told me that the City didn't have to allow that use! This owner has never threatened litigation on this property in any proposal he has presented to the City because he fully understands his legal rights, the process provided for his requests for use and those uses that do not require Council action. The restriction -is against residential" buildings 'only!' If the City requires that he litigate this issue, he is fully prepared to do so. On the question of land use zoning within the proposed General Plan, either RR or PP as defined by Councilwoman Ansari are acceptable. However, the specific plan process for 15 units is not acceptable and is clearly inappropriate in this application. On the question of the lot line adjustment as it pertains to the boundaries of "The Country", we have not suggested that this lot adjustment grants modification of these boundaries, nor have we suggested that the Council has the authority to modify these boundaries. The issue of annexation of the additional property to the association needs to be addressed by the owner and the board. The board has already indicated that they do not wish to annex this property if that annexation means increased density. The owner understands the board's concerns and intends to respect those concerns. We felt that we had made a good faith effort to address the Council's concerns on development of this property, a compromise that would have allowed only one home. Our good faith effort was meet by accusations that we were filing a application for 70 single family lots? We are ready to honor our offer of just one home, if you are ready to honestly address the truth surrounding this opportunity. Respectfully, Jan C. Dabney cc: Mr. Jim Gardner, The Country Estates Homeowner's Association Mr. Dwight Forrister, President, D & L Properties Inc. J 80a,d of J Fret A J Ya r7 . (r�ld r_ Do" F• VIM C4 • r9 en Thum. t r'1,,9 M LL •. tAhMe cs-V.•.3."a.-c L cors., ,,-- -j "� J�mr^; Slwart Jots+ c. -r* n4 '92P— .j J SL q.rt,a.er 2, Flxr IA Y'Un 90 89 B8 Jac. I ll—d 87 Wu: Yn a Oaag J red D, M. Pa4se.'85 Pot.- E W7" -^R ea Gexge FV o" '83 PFJ M. D," U P FaJ 5c i.-rwd M D W C.x A W 7D Lee k S�ge,'78 Peer J Pnc+aaa 77 .Ytn M F� 76 Cub Scout, Scc:,t. anc=xplorer progra:Is Los Angeles Area Council Boy Scouts of America 2333 Scout Way Box 26910 Los Angeles, CA 90026 June 30, 1995 Telephone: (213) 413.4400 • FAX (213) 483.6472 DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL Phyllis Papen, Mayor Gary Werner, Mayor Pro Tem r, Clair Harmony, CcunciL7ttber 'l Eileen Ansari, Councilmenber City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, suite 100 Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 Re: Boy Scouts of America T rmrer canym property i (Firestone Reservatirn) located in Diamond Barrs Sphere of Influence Honorable Councilmanbers: We understand that the Diamond Bar City Council may rx;w consider certain proposed changes to the Draft General Plan which will impact the Boy Scouts' property. These proposed changes include: The Scouts' -property would lose its Agriculture designation, with one dwelling unit per two acre density allowance (which designation and density it has under the County of Los Angeles). Density would. be reduced by half , 'to one diel ling- unit per four acres. The Scouts' property would be designated "Planned Preservation". Development on the property would require a greater level of cairn ity amenities and superior design, as canpared to conventional subdivisions. 75% of Scouts' property would remain open space, park or public facilities. The Boy Scouts of America hereby informs the City and Council that we will strongly protest these proposed changes which impact our property, for the following reasons: The change in land use designation to "Planned Preservation", development density reduction, and. restriction on 75% of our property amount to a "taking" without canpensation. A gift to the Los Angeles Area Council Trust Fund supports Scouting beyond one's Gtetime. unm" Wey - 2 - An arbitrary and discriminatory standard is being applied to the Scouts' property, requiring hicher development standards for any proposed develogrent. If the City Council adopts the General Plan with these proposed changes, be aware that the Boy Scouts may be forced to challenge the General Plan, and will challenge any application for annexation of the Scouts' property by the City of Diamond Bar. In this regard, we object to the proposed General Plan, if changed, on the grounds set forth herein and as previously communicated to the Council both in writing and in presentations to Council. The Boy Scouts of America have participated in this General Plan adoption process, cc m z cating to the City of Diamond Bar that we expect to be treated fairly, and maintain our existing development rights. We have attended public hearings, and have made public comment, as well as corresponded in writing to the City on several occasions. We have been frustrated with the length of time it has taken the City, which incorporated in 1989, to adopt a General Plan. Now it seems that you have finally arrived at a "solution" to keep a small, dissident group of anti -property rights activists in the canTu-dty satisfied so that a General Plan can be adopted, at the Hoy Scouts expense. These proposed changes to the Draft General Plan which impact our property are siirply not acceptable and will not be tolerated. We already feel that the current density allowance (per the May 9, 1995 Draft General Plati) is a significant caapranise, and it mist be remeThered that before any development Could occur in Tbnr.er Canyon, it would be subject to environmental review and scrutiny by both the City and the community. unity. Sincerely, John T. Cardis Chairman c: DIAM20 BAR CITY STAFF Terrence Belanger, City Manager James DeStefano, Planning Director Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney Walnut Valley Unified School District 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut, California 91789 • (909) 595-1261 • Fax (909) 595-9626 • Ronald W. Hockwalt, Ed. D., Superintendent July 3, 1995 Diamond Bar City Council 21660 Copley Place, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear Mayor Papen & City Council Members: The Governing Board of the Walnut Valley Unified School District and administration would like to respond to the 1995 General Plan suggested revisions to the land use element of the revised May 9, 1995 Diamond Bar General Plan. The Walnut Valley Unified School District owns two of the five properties on which the revisions are suggested - PP4, the 78 acres surrounding South Pointe Middle School, and PP5, the 27 acres known as Site D on Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. The 1995 General Plan suggested revisions are not in the best interests of students in Walnut and Diamond Bar, and certainly are not in the best interests of the school district. Such suggested revisions would have dire financial impact on the property owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District. We object strongly to the taking of district land by the City without regard to financial compensation or financial impact to the students in this community. Mrs. Ansari suggested at an earlier meeting that the language in the draft General Pian was too restricted, and we would concur. The language found in 1.18 of the suggested revisions is also too restrictive. The numbers, percentages and residential density numbers, are prescriptive and detrimental to the school district. Mrs. Ansari suggested that "planned development" sent the wrong message, and so does "planned preservation" in our minds. We believe that an alternative language that would better describe the land use is the term "mixed use." Then, as per Mrs. Ansari's earlier suggestion. we suggest deleting all percentages and specific numbers from these sections. We ask that our objections be heard, that our alternative language be considered, and that this letter become a part of our formal legal protest to the land use element of the Diamond Bar General Plan as revised on June 20, 1995. RWH:mar Most sincerely, o Christine McPeak Board President J<-�J j��&Ot- Ronald W. Hockwalt, Ed. D. Superintendent Board of Trustees Carol A. Herrera • Helen M Hall • Christine MC Peak • Larry L. Redinger • Marsha Sykes A M CDUws EL LEC O PAUL R06 CRT P HASTINGS JA L[ONAgO SNNOS F" CHARLES WALKER ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 4595 TOWN CENTER DRIVE COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626-1924 TELEPHONE (71x1 868-6200 WEST LOS ANGELES OFFICE 1299 OCEAN AVENUE SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90401-1078 TELEPHONE (3101 319-3300 TOKYO OFFICE TORANOMON ONTORI BUILDING 4-3, TORANOMON I-CHOME M INATO-KU. TOKYO IOS TELEPHONE (03) 3807-0730 WRITER 5 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (213) 683-6142 DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL Phyllis Papen, Mayor Gary Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Clair Harmony, Councilmember Eileen Ansari, Councilmember City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Re: City Council Hearing on July 11, 1995 for Consideration of General Plan -- Boy Scouts of America Tonner Canyon Property (Firestone Reservation) Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: OUR FILE NO 06325.55384 We represent the Boy Scouts of America ("Boy Scouts"). By this letter, the Boy Scouts object to and protest certain proposed changes to the current draft of the proposed General Plan for City of Diamond Bar In particular, the current draft of the General Plan assigns a land use designation of "AG/SP" and an associated density allowance of one unit per two acres to the Boy Scouts' property located in Tonner Canyon (Firestone Reservation) in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Property"). However, it is our understanding that the City Council may consider: (1) redesignating the Property from Agricultural to "Planned Preservation"; (2) reducing the density allowance permitted thereunder by one half to one dwelling unit per four acres; (3) requiring a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of community amenities and "superior design" before development will be 1-1 Ty 0�� DIA LAW OFFICES r� OF 19gS�, PAUL HASTINGS, A OFSKY & W.XLKE P n' C �ly}��i A eAe+wE g4HIF iwO LUOIN6 FeOFE441OwAL CO w.OgATIOws �arFlcr ,S. CFIC ENTERI-ITREL TWENTY-THIRD FLOOR ST ET, N E TV.r.rA EO RG O 3-1840 555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET ow0 i� 8-9900 OIyyE CT T OFFICE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071-2371 1035 &n _NGTON BOULEVARD STANFORD. CONNECTICUT 06901-2217 TELEPHONE 1213) 683-6000 TELEPHONE 12031 961.7400 NEW YORK OFFICE rwx 910-321-a065 FACSIMILE (2131 627-0705 399 PARK AVENUE NEw YC RK. NEw ;ORA 10022597 TELEPHONE (2 -x121 318-6000 W A5MINGTON. D C OFFICE 1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N W July 10, 1995 WASMINGTON CC 2000-2400 TELEPHONE (2021 508-9500 DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL Phyllis Papen, Mayor Gary Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Clair Harmony, Councilmember Eileen Ansari, Councilmember City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Re: City Council Hearing on July 11, 1995 for Consideration of General Plan -- Boy Scouts of America Tonner Canyon Property (Firestone Reservation) Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: OUR FILE NO 06325.55384 We represent the Boy Scouts of America ("Boy Scouts"). By this letter, the Boy Scouts object to and protest certain proposed changes to the current draft of the proposed General Plan for City of Diamond Bar In particular, the current draft of the General Plan assigns a land use designation of "AG/SP" and an associated density allowance of one unit per two acres to the Boy Scouts' property located in Tonner Canyon (Firestone Reservation) in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Property"). However, it is our understanding that the City Council may consider: (1) redesignating the Property from Agricultural to "Planned Preservation"; (2) reducing the density allowance permitted thereunder by one half to one dwelling unit per four acres; (3) requiring a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of community amenities and "superior design" before development will be P1t L, HASTINGS, J aNOFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 2 permitted; and (4) requiring that 75% of the Property remain open space, park or public facilities. The purpose of this letter is to address the City Council's consideration of these possible changes to the General Plan and to object to any adoption thereof. Adoption of these changes would be confiscatory, which would result in a "taking" without just compensation in violation of the United States and California Constitutions, violate Due Process and Equal Protection, violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violate substantive Due Process, violate the California Environmental Quality Act and violate California housing laws. I. Introduction and Background Facts. The Boy Scouts have owned the Property for many years. The Property has been used principally as a recreational facility for the Boy Scouts. The Property is presently under the jurisdictional control of the County of Los Angeles and is zoned by the County as an agricultural resource, which permits a density of one dwelling unit per two acres. In March 1995, the City Council, after protracted consideration and discussions with the Boy Scouts, with affected landowners and with other interested members of the public, voted to designate the Property under the proposed General Plan as "AG/SP," with an associated density allowance of one dwelling unit per two acres. At the time of the Property's proposed redesignation, no serious opposition surfaced to the land use density allowance and it was supported by substantially all interested parties. Recently, a small but vocal group of citizens (hereinafter, "Citizens Group") has come forth and opposed adoption of the General Plan with its current land use designation and density allowance for the City's Sphere of Influence, including the Property, in an effort to stop any future development on the Property --all of this in spite of PAUL. H aST[NGS. JANOFSKy & i1' LKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 3 the fact that members of this Citizens Group previously supported it in March.!/ II. Opposition of the Boy Scouts of America to Redesianation of the Property. Reduction of the Existing Density Allowance and Imposition of Additional Development Restrictions. A. The Proposed Changes to the General Plan Would Result in a Taking Without Just Compensation in Violation of the United States and California State Constitutions. 1. The Proposed Changes to the General Plan Constitute a Regulatory Taking Without Just Compensation under both the Nollan and Dolan Supreme Court Decisions. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const. amend. V.9 A taking can arise from government regulation of property use (a "regulatory taking"). Yee v. City of Escondido. Cal., 112 S. Ct. 1522, 1526 (1992).y _LJ In March 1995, during the hearings regarding density, the only parties suggesting that the City Council may want to consider a lesser density than 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres were Jim DeStefano of City Staff and Don Cotton, the City's General Plan consultant. Members of the public which now oppose this designation were silent, or gave public testimony in support of the Boy Scouts. J The Fifth Amendment is made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Chicago Burlington & Ouincv R.R. Co. v. Chicaao, 166 U.S. 226, 239 (1897). J The City Council's proposed changes would also result in a taking without just compensation under the California Constitution. The California Constitution provides: (continued...) PAUL, HASTINGS, J ANOFSKY & W� UKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 4 The Supreme Court has declared that a land -use regulation is a taking unless the regulation substantially advances legitimate state interests and the regulation does not deny an owner of an economically viable use of his or her land. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 834 (1987). The Supreme Court has recently expanded upon its Nollan decision holding that while a city may condition the granting of a permit on certain dedication requirements, it may do so without paying compensation only if: (1) the permit condition promotes a legitimate state interest; (2) there is an essential nexus between the state interest and the requirements attached to the permit; and (3) there is a "rough proportionality" in connection between the exactions and the projected impacts of the development. Dolan v. City of Tiaard, No. 93-518, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994). The proposed changes to the proposed General Plan are discriminatory (no factual basis or justification) and appear to have as their primary purpose the appeasement of a small anti -development sector of the community. Such a rationale for the proposed changes to the General Plan do not "substantially advance a legitimate state interest" as required under federal law. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 127 (1978), reh'g denied, 439 U.S. 883 (1978) ("a (land) use restriction on real property may constitute a 'taking' if not reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a substantial public purpose"]. Second, with respect to the proposed General Plan revisions which would require a significant portion of the Property to be maintained as open space and permit the City to require a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of conditions, exactions and standards before development can proceed, the City Council could not establish or document a "sufficient nexus between the effect of the ordinance and the objectives it is supposed to advance," as required under Dolan. (...continued) "Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner." Cal. Const. art. I, § 19. PAUL. HASTINGS. JANOFSKY & U LKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 5 In Dolan, the Supreme Court applied a higher degree of scrutiny of local agency land use decisions and has placed the burden of proving a "rough proportionality" between the condition imposed and impacts of the developments directly on the government. The Court held that since the relationship between the exaction and the impacts was = documented, the dedication was not justified in the record before the city (i.e. the Court now requires more than just conclusory statements and requires substantial documentation). In the present situation, the City Council has not provided adequate reasoning or any sort of documentation or evidence for the need to: (1) redesignate the Property from Agricultural to "Planned Preservation"; (2) reduce the density allowance permitted thereunder; (3) require a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of community amenities and "superior design" before development will be permitted; or (4) require that 75% of the Property remain open space, park or public facilities. In fact, the City Council could not provide the needed reasoning or support for the proposed changes. If the City Council were to adopt the proposed changes, it would be requiring a dedication (by designating the Property open space) and exactions without bearing its burden of justification (as required under Dolan), which would clearly result in a regulatory taking without just compensation. , 2. The Proposed Chanqes to the General Plan Deny the Bov Scouts Viable Use of Their Property. In addition to the City Council's failure to establish that its proposed action substantially advances legitimate state interests, the proposed changes to the General Plan do not meet the second condition of Nollan-- that the regulation not deny an owner an economically viable use of his land. In determining whether an owner has been denied economically viable use of his land, the Court has looked to the extent to which the regulation has interfered with investment -backed expectations. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York Citv, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978), reh'c denied, 439 U.S. 883 (1978). The Court recently emphasized that if "a regulation that declares 'off-limits' all economically productive or beneficial uses of land goes beyond what the relevant background principles [of law) PALL. HASTINGS, JA\OFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 6 would dictate, compensation must be paid to sustain it." Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 2901 (1992). The Boy Scouts view the Property as an important asset and source of future funding. The Boy Scouts must be able to keep "options available" for the future. Although the Boy Scouts do not have any immediate development plans for the Property, the Boy Scouts need to maintain the current density allowance for future planning of contemplated improvements. To declare the greatest portion of it open space and further reduce its current limited density will deny the Boy Scouts economically viable use of its land and interfere with the Boy Scouts' investment - backed expectations. The Boy Scouts acquired and have managed the Property "in reliance on a state of affairs that did not include the challenged regulatory scheme." Loveladies Harbor. Inc. v. U.S., 28 F.3d 1171, 1177 (Fed.Cir. 1994). If any of the proposed changes were adopted, the City would be acting "arbitrarily and capriciously" and "disappoint [these] reasonable investment - backed expectations." Florida Rock Industries. Inc. v. U.S., 18 F.3d 1560, 1571 (Fed.Cir. 1994). Even if the proposed changes to the General Plan do not deny the Boy Scouts viable use of all of its Property, the courts now require compensation for landowners that suffer a "partial taking" when the government burdens "all" of a portion of the owner's holdings. Loveladies Harbor. Inc. v. U.S., 28 F.3d 1171 (Fed.Cir. 1994) [court found a "denial of economically viable use" and, thus, a taking when the Army Corps of Engineers denied a landowner a permit to fill the remaining 12.5 acres of its former 250 acres]; Florida Rock Industries. Inc. v. U.S., 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed.Cir. 1994) [the court redefined a loss in value as a "partial taking" and opened the door to compensation for landowners even when there is concededly no denial of all economic use for the property]. Thus, at the very least, a partial taking would occur by 75% of the Property being designated open space. PAUL. HASTINGS, JaNOFSKY & 1 \LKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 7 B. The Proposed General Plan Changes Deny the Boy Scouts of America Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws. A city regulation or action may not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or deprive a person of equal protection of the laws. Violations of these two principles arise under certain circumstances when a city makes an unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory classification not sufficiently justified by public necessity, or too drastic in its methods. James Longtin, Longtin's California Land Use, 2d ed., § 1.30[2], p. 52. Land use regulations, and especially zoning ordinances, by their very nature make many distinctions which classify property and treat property differently for different purposes. Equal protection does not require uniform treatment, but it does require a reasonable basis for the legislative classification. It is the duty of the agency to determine whether the facts justify such a classification. Id., p. 53. However, a city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance. Arnel Development Co. v. Citv of Costa Mesa (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 330 [An initiative downzoning of parcels previously zoned for multiple family dwellings by a city council sixteen months earlier, without any significant change in circumstances and without considering appropriate planning criteria and for the purpose of defeating eventual development was held discriminatory and invalid]; = Associates v. City of Torrance, (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 830 (building moratorium invalid where the ordinance was discriminatorily enacted to block plaintiff's proposed apartment project after plaintiff obtained financing and sought a building permit.]. Under the current facts, there is no rational classification or reason for the proposed limitations on the Boys Scouts' Property. The proposed changes to the General Plan unfairly apply restrictions to the Property in relation to adjacent development in the City. If adopted, they would not be based upon appropriate planning criteria; but rather PAUL. H aST[NGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 8 apparently done to appease the Citizens Groups desire to limit development, all at the expense of the Boy Scouts. Given the foregoing, the proposed changes to the General Plan would deny the Boy Scouts of its rights of Due Process and Equal Protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. C. The Proposed Chanaes to the General Plan Violate 42 U.S.C. 41983. The proposed changes to the General Plan would also violate the United States Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Supreme Court has recognized an action under the United States Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to obtain a remedy for overregulation of land use.y Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 399-400 (1979). The plaintiffs in Lake Country Estates alleged that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency had adopted a land -use ordinance that destroyed the economic value of their property. Id. at 394. In reviewing the alleged facts, the Court declared: "these facts adequately characterize the alleged actions of the [Tahoe Regional Planning Agency] as 'under color of state law' within the meaning of [the United States Civil Rights Act]." Id. at 400. Like the land -use regulations in Lake Country Estates, the proposed changes to the General Plan destroy or severely impair the economic value of the Property. The land value destruction arises from the substantial reduction of the land available to the Boy Scouts and the reduction of density allowance for the land which remains available. J The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding or redress." PAUL, K AST[\GS, J a\OFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 9 Therefore, the Boy Scouts could also bring an action under United States Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to remedy this overregulation of land use that violates the Act if the proposed changes are adopted. D. The Proposed Changes to the General Plan Violate Substantive -Due Process. The proposed changes to the General Plan would also violate substantive due process as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has declared that the United States Constitution's guarantee of substantive due process is violated if a law or regulation is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Pruneyard Shoppinq Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85 (1980) (quoting Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 525 (1934)). See also Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Minina Co., 428 U.S. 1, 15 (1976) (due process violation if the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way). In addition, a law or regulation must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 488 (1955), reh'g denied, 349 U.S. 925 (1955). See also Nelson v. City of Selma, 881 F.2d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1989); Burlincrton Northern R.R. Co. v. Dent. of Public Serv., 763 F.2d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 1985). As mentioned above, the proposed changes to the General Plan are unreasonable and arbitrary in that they benefit others at the sacrifice of the Boy Scouts in violation of State and Federal Law. The proposed changes to the General Plan also fail the rational relationship test because they do not rationally relate to any legitimate state interest, as discussed above. E. The Proposed General Plan Changes Constitute Sicnificantly New and Chancred Circumstances which Require Renewed Environmental Review and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact Report. The adoption or amendment of general plans or elements thereof requires compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Given the substantial nature of the proposed change in density and other development PATH. H ASTI\GS. J a\OFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 10 restrictions for the Property, the environmental analysis in the environmental impact report ("EIR") is insufficient and further environmental analysis and review, including recirculation of the EIR, will be required. See Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21092.1. The extent and nature of the proposed changes to the General Plan contemplated by the City are such that many significant adverse environmental impacts can be anticipated. A wholesale reduction in the density allowance within the Sphere of Influence area --which area comprises approximately one third of the entire potential land surface area of the City --would significantly reduce the available land area which can be devoted to uses other than open space uses and which may be necessary and an integral part of the buildout of the community as a whole under the General Plan. For example, the land available for housing will be significantly reduced by adoption of the proposed changes to the General Plan. By changing the amount of land available for housing (and therefore affordable housing) the character of the community has the potential to change dramatically. Also, increasing substantially the acreage devoted to open space would significantly alter the assumptions made regarding the City's future infrastructure, crime prevention, fire, health, educational, and energy needs and requirements. The existing EIR assumes adoption of the present land use designation, a density allowance of two units per acre and conventional subdivision requirements; and thus, inadequately evaluates the significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the General Plan. None of the environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the General Plan have been evaluated and submitted for public review and comment as required by CEQA. As illustrated above, the reduction in the land available for housing alone has the potential to significantly alter the assumptions made about the future of the community. Therefore, the City's reliance upon the existing EIR would be inadequate. As a matter of law, the City cannot rely upon the EIR or upon any other environmental documents which do not evidence thorough evaluation of the possible environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the General Plan. Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco. Inc. v. Regents of PALL, HASTINGS. J A\OFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 11 the University of California ("Laurel Heights II") (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112. F. The Public Has Not Been Given Sufficient Opportunitv to Comment Upon the Proposed Changes to the General Plan. The primary purpose of CEQA is to ensure that significant environmental impacts of a proposed action are fully evaluated and made available to the public. CEQA requires that environmental review be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b); Stand Tall on Principles v. Shasta Union Hiah School District (3d Dist. 1991) 235 Cal.App.3 772, 779-81; Uhler v. City of Encinitas (4th Dist. 1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 795, 803-04; Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of the University of California (1st Dist. 1978) 77 Cal.App. 3d 20. In this regard, the City must evaluate environmental effects well in advance of the target date for approving the project, which cannot occur until all the public and every responsible agency has had an opportunity to examine and comment on the document. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(a); Public Resources Code Section 21061; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 247, 266. The City Council proposes to: (1) redesignate the Property from Agricultural Designation to "Planned Preservation"; (2) reduce the density allowance permitted thereunder by one half to one dwelling unit per four acres; (3) require a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of community amenities and superior design, as compared to conventional subdivisions in order for development to occur; and (4) require that 75% of the Property remain open space, park or public facilities --all without environmental review and all without giving members of the public a chance to review the City's proposed changes. CEQA does not permit the City's contemplated action under these circumstances without notice, recirculation of the EIR and an opportunity for the public to comment. See Pub. Resources Code Section 21092.1. PACL. H AST[NGS. JaNOFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 12 G. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the Property is Consistent with the General Policies of the General Plan and Amendment Thereto Requires Resubmission to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission must hold at least one public hearing prior to the City Council's approval of an adoption of or an amendment to the General Plan. Cal. Govt. Code § 65354. Given the substantial proposed changes to the proposed General Plan, it would have to return to the Planning Commission for public hearing. H. The Proposed Changes to the General Plan May Violate the State of California's Housing Reauirements A city must zone land appropriately to meet the identified regional housing needs (Cal. Govt. Code § 65913.1) and to refrain from imposing subdivision criteria for the purpose of rendering affordable housing infeasible (§ 65913.2). Virtually all of the proposed changes to the General Plan would have the effect of rendering affordable housing infeasible. For example, a reduction in the available land area within the City's Sphere of Influence area, an area which comprises almost one third of the entire land area of the City, would have the effect of reducing dramatically the aggregate number of homes which could be built, as well as unreasonably restricting the possible locations for homes to be provided for people seeking to live within the community. In addition, requiring a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of community amenities and "superior design" before development would be permitted could have the effect of making it much more difficult for the City to provide affordable housing. For these reasons, and others, the proposed changes to the General plan would violate state laws requiring affordable housing. PUL, HASTINGS, JaNOFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 13 III. Conclusion. For all the reasons set forth above, the Boy Scouts of America oppose proposed revisions to the General Plan which would impact the Tonner Canyon Property, and strongly encourage each of you to not make any such changes. incerely, / , l f' Jon than C. Curtis for AUL, INGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER JCC/dm cc: r rence Belanger - City Manager rames DeStefano - Planning Director Michael Montgomery - Interim City Attorney City of Diamond Bar - City Clerk Hayden C. Eaves, III Craig Boucher John C. Cushman, III Thomas Kolin Larry J. Kosmont Paul R. Walker, Esq. O'Malley Miller, Esq. Jack Rodman Jack Schram Rick Mork John T. Cardis Edward C. Jacobs John P. Pollack Paul V. Colony Paul R. Walker, Esq. Susan E. Perry, Esq. c8 tF-> ID -r•E�, JDyl oy%at(v July 11, 1995 KA" Diamond Bar City Council 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 To: Mayor Phyllis E. Papen, Mayor Pro -Tem Gary Werner, Ms. Eileen Ansari and Mr.Clair Harmony. Dear City Council, I come to you this evening as a concerned citizen and representative of several property owners in the south Diamond Bar community of Diamond Ridge. This is not my first appearance before this body relative to the Walnut Valley Unified School District Site "D". I have presented you this evening with historical information based on public _ hearings - held concerning Site "D" on March 4, 1991 and March 11, 1991. It was discovered that the Walnut Unified School District had proposed the development of 87 lots on 28.7 acres. They were to go into this co -development with Lowe Development Corporation at 145 South State College Blvd., Suite # 145, in Brea, California. This proposed land use was for the last undeveloped land left in Diamond Bar. Mr. Werner, you provided our community with information about two public hearings took place at the Multi-purpose room at Castle Rock Elementary School. I have provided you with a copy of that letter. On both evenings the room was completely full of concerned citizens with a microphone available to those who wanted to comment. You also have before you the results of the Property- Advisory Committee. It is clearly evident from this report that was submitted to the School Board, that the community had spoken its deep concerns for the use of this property. I quote, " It was found, based on the statements of 40 community members that the community preference was for having a park developed. There were also indications that leaving Site "D" in its natural state would be tolerated. Extremely minimal tolerance was shown for housing." Bob Zirbes of the Diamond Bar Improvement Association has a resolution included in this packet of information before you this evening. This resolution was sent to this body some time ago. I understand that the Walnut Unified School District is before you again this evening. I have a copy of their letter to you. For your information the previous plan was to put 3 houses per acre. They have ignored what the community has requested be done with their tax dollars and are now considering putting 5 houses per acre in the same site. The brazenness of this is amazing. My specific question to you this evening is exactly to be done with this parcel of land and what exactly is "public facilities". The answer I received before was a "trust me it will be OK" -answer. Unfortunately that will not do in answering this burning question, that I and many, many of my neighbors have. We feel we have been sold a bill of goods and that you are not honorable to your word. It is critical that we have an answer this evening as to what is to be done with this parcel of land. I have submitted this letter and the historical data to be entered into the record of tonight's meeting. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerel , Mary McCormick -Busse SITE 44D" CRITICAL HISTORICAL INFORMATION CITY 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100 DIAMOND BA � DIAMOND AMO A R. C 794- 65 317 7 L a& i__I February 26, 1991 RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 4 AND 11 REGARDING THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF SITE "D" Dear Concerned Citizen: The City of Diamond Bar is continuing its dialogue with the Walnut Valley Unified School District relative to the future land use and development of Site "D." Site "D" is the District -owned 27 acre site located along Diamond Bar Boulevard at Brea Canyon Road. The district proposes the development of 87 homes on the site. The City is seeking_input toward the development of a community_ park providing__ballfields and other recrea- _tionT-uses utilizing the entire site.—Tfie proposed residential project has not received environmental clearance or construction approval from the City. Attached is a copy of the site plan for the proposed project. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of two public hearings scheduled, by the District, for March 4 and March 11 at 7:00 p.m., Castle Rock Elementary School, Multi- purpose Room, 2975 Castle Rock Road. These meetings will include a presentation of the District's development plans. On March 11, the City will present a concept plan for the community park. The meetings will also provide a forum for the receipt of public testimony. I As we have expressed previously, the City Council and I urge your participation at these meetings in order to express your views. We are looking forward to your input and continued interest in the future use of the property. DIAMOND BARICITY COUNCIL Gary W rner Mayor i Attachment GARY H. WERNER JOHN A. FORBING PHYLLIS E. PAPEN DONALD C. NARDELLA JAY C. KIM ROBERT L.VAN NORT Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Counalmember Councilmember Councilmember City Manager CITY OF DIAMOND BAR USES RECYCLED PAPER o:.. ,..A F r' � WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT REFERENCE INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM: General Business B-9 TITLE: Property Advisory Committee's (7-11 Committee) Report BACKGROUND INFORMATION This committee was .appointed by the Board of Trustees to conduct public hearings regarding Site "D" . They met several times prior to the public hearings that were held on March 4, 1991 and March 11, 1991. Subsequently, the committee met on March 26, and April 2, to write the report. RATIONALE FOR REQUEST Education Code requires that prior to the disposal of school property, a committee must be formed, public hearings must be held and a report must be submitted to the Board of Trustees. ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends that the Board of Trustees accept the report from the Property Advisory Committee (7-11 Committee). FINANCIAL IMPLICATION There are no financial implications to the District for accepting this report. Ref: B-9 June 26, 1991 Page 1 of 3 The following statistics are representative of the opinions expressed at the public hearings and of the testimonies received in the mail. Park - Active 62.5% Park - Combination Recreation/Wilderness 5.0% Wilderness - 17.5% No Preference* - 12.5% Housing - 2.5% Based on the public hearings the committee recommends that Site "D" be used for a public.use or retained in its natural state. * Expressed concern about proposed housing development, but made no stated preference. Ref: B-9 June 26, 1991 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 REPORT DATE: July 20, 1995 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: RESOLUTION NO.95-XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SUMMARY: On May 9, 1995, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft 1995 General Plan. The Council adopted Resolution No. 95-21 certifying the adequacy of the Addendum to the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. In addition, the Council, discussed the possibility of placing the General Plan on the ballot. The meeting was continued to May 23, 1995 in order to provide options to the City Council regarding adoption of the General Plan. The May 23, 1995 discusson was continued to June 20, 1995, July 11, 1995 and again to July 25, 1995. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from City staff, review the General Plan materials, and adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX. 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 X 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? X Yes _ No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belanger Frank Usher PesDeStefano City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Deve-lopment Director MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: CITY COUNCIL, REPORT AGENDA NO. July 25, 1995 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO.95-XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 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. The 1995 General Plan is presented for adoption. BACKGROUND: On May 9, 1995, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft 1995 General Plan. The public hearing was opened, testimony received, and, corrections and • changes were made by the Council. Resolution No. 95-21 incorporating Resolution 9243 by reference and certifying the adequacy of the Addendum to the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report was adopted. The Council, on May 9, 1995, discussed the possibility of placing the General Plan on the ballot. The meeting was continued to May 23, 1995 in order to provide options to the City Council regarding adoption of the 1995 General Plan. The Associate City Attorney has provided the attached memorandum regarding options available to the City Council. In response to City Council direction the General Plan has been modified incorporating revisions as discussed on May 9, 1995. The latest draft of the General Plan, dated May 9, 1995 is presented for adoption. 1 RECONEWENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, receive a presentation from City staff and adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX. PREPARED BY: James DeStefano Community Development Director attachments: • Draft Resolution No. 95 -XX • Draft General Plan dated May 9, 1995 (previously transmitted) • City Council staff report dated May 9, 1995 (without attachments) • May 9, 1995 City Council Minutes • Memorandum from Michael Montgomery dated May 16, 1995 • Suggested revisions to 1995 General Plan from Councilmember Ansari, dated June 20, 1995. • Letter from Jan C. Dabney dated June 29, 1995 • Leter from Boy Scouts of America dated June 30, 1995 • Letter from Walnut Valley Unified School District dated July 3, 1995 • Letter from Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker dated July 10, 1995 2 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PU-N FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR A. Recitals. (i) The City of Diamond Bar previously initiated proceedings to adopt a general plan (111992 General Plan") pursuant to Title 7, Division 1 of the California Government Code Sections 65360 and 65361. (ii) In 1990 a General Plan Advisory Committee was formed to provide the community with an opportunity to participate in the creation of the City of Diamond Bar's 1992 General Plan and to make recommendations with respect to the specific components of the 1992 General Plan. Numerous study sessions and duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar from July 1991 through July 1992. (iii) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as a -mended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder ("CEQA"), a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared and considered to address the environmental effects of the 1992 General Plan, the mitigation neasures related -to each significant environmental effect of the 1992 General Plan, the project alternatives and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan. (iv) On July 30, 1991, copies of the draft 1992 General Plan were mailed to affected agencies pursuant to Government Code Section 65352. (v) On July 14, 1992 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-44 adopting the 1992 General Plan and adopted Resolution 92-43 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1992 General Plan. (vi) On or about August 10, 1992, a referendum petition ,seeking the repeal of Resolution No. 92-44 was submitted to the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar. The city Clerk certified the sufficiency of the signatures on the referendum petition pursuant to a court order and prescnted such certification to the City Council. (vii) - On March 16, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-15 repealing Resolution No. 92-44, the resolution which adopted the 1992 General Plan. (viii) In March of 1993 the City Council directed the retention of a consultant team to -develop a new general plan (111993 General Plan"). opportunities for public participation were provided throughout the program of creating the 1993 General Plan. Five community workshops were held with City residents to identify key planning issues and to discuss potential general plan policy options. the results of those workshops were summarized and forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. (ix) On May 19, 1993, the City Council began the public hearing process to adopt a general plan. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings on May 19, 1993, May 26, 1993, June 2, 1993, June 9, 1993, and June 16, 1993, whereby public testimony was received with respect to all elements of the draft 1993 General Plan. (x) Because substantial modifications to the draft 1993 General Plan were being considered, the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 65356, referred the review of the draft 1993 General Plan to the Diamond Bar Planning Commission for its recommendations. on June 23, 1993 the Planning Commission held a study session to consider the draft 1993 General Plan. On June 28, 1993 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public 'hearing to consider and receive public testimony on the draft 1993 General Plan. The Planning Commission considered all the evidence presented and submitted a written recommendation to the. City Council to adopt the draft 1993 General Plan, with various. modifications. (xi) On June 29, July 6., July 13, July 20 and July 27, 1993 the City Council conducted additional duly noticed public hearings. In the course of these public hearings, the City Council received and deliberated upon written and oral testimony. (xii) On July -27, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-57 and 93-58 certifying the adequacy of the Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and adopting the 1993 General Plan. (xiii) On August 24, 1993 a referendum petition seeking the repeal of Resolution No. 93-58 was submitted to the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar. The City Clerk certified the sufficiency of the signatures on the referendum petition pursuant to a court order and presented such certification to the City Council. (xiv) On December 14, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-80 repealing Resolution No. 93-58, the resolution which adopted the 1993 General Plan. (xv) In January of 1994 a new General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was formed to develop a new General Plan (111995 General Plan"). The GPAC held fifteen noticed public meetings between January 11, 1994 and June 30, 1994 in order to develop the 1995 2 General Plan. The results of the GPAC efforts and its recommendations were forwarded to the' Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council. (xvi) The Planning Commission conducted thirteen public hearings between July 11, 1994 and October 17, 1994 to review the GPAC recommended General Plan. The Planning Commission considered the GPAC recommendations, received public testimony and initiated additional changes through the course of their review. On October 17, 1994 the Planning Commission forwarded its recommendations' to *he City Council. (xvii) On November 22, 1994 the City Council began the public hearing process to adopt the 1995 General Plan. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings on November 22, 1994, November 29, 1994, January 9, 1995, January 16, 1995, January 24, 1995, January 31, 1995, February 6, 1995, February 13, 1995, February 16, 1995, February 23, 1995, February 28, 1995, and March 6, 1995 whereby public testimony was received with respect to all elements of the draft 1995 General Plan. The City Council considered the GPAC and planning Commission recommendations, received public testimony and initiated changes through the course of its review. (xviii) On April 4, 1995 the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 65356, referred the 1995 General Plan to the Planning Commission for its recommendations. On April 10, 1995 the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public meeting, received public testimony, considered and commented upon City Council modifications to the 1995 General Plan. The Planning Commission submitted a written report and recommendation to the City Council to adopt the 1995 General Plan, with modifications. (xix) On May 9, 1995 the City Council conducted an additional duly noticed public hearing. In the course of this public hearing the City Council received and deliberated upon written and oral testimony. (xx) The Final Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for the 1992 General Plan adequately addresses all of the significant environmental impacts associated with the 1995' General Plan. Therefore, an Addendum was prepared and considered in accordance with CEQA. The City Council considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum thereto ("Final EIR") prior to approval of the 1995 General Plan. (xxi) The City Council considered, individually and collectively, the six elements comprising the 1995 General Plan, the related appendices and the Final EIR.- The 1995 General Plan incorporates the seven mandatory elements established in Government Code Section 65302 into six components, specifically: 3 a. The Land Use Element; b. The Housing Element; C. The Resource Management Element (Open Space and Conservation Elements); d. The Public Health and Safety Element (Noise and Safety Elements); e. The Circulation Element;. and f. The Public Services and Facilities Element (xxii) In its review of the 1995 General Plan and the Final EIR, the City Council fully considered the impacts upon landforms and topography, earth resources and seismicity, drainage and flood control, biological resources, crime and prevention services, fire hazards and protective services, health and emergency services, hazardous materials, recreation and open space, land use, air quality, noise, cultural resources, socioeconomics (housing), energy systems, circulation/ transportation, educational services, water, wastewater, and solid waste associated with the further development of the City in accordance with the goals, policies and programs as more fully detailed in the 1995 General Plan. (xxiii) The 1995 General Plan and all of its constituent parts are properly integrated, internally consistent And compatible. (xxiv) The City Council has considered all the information presented to it, and found and determined that the public convenience, welfare and good' planning practice require the adoption and implementation of the goals, policies and programs contained in the 1995 General Plan. (xxv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, as follows: I. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into the body of this Resolution by reference. 2. Documentation has :)cen prepared in compliance with CEQA and this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the environmental documentation, including the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan with respect to the 1993 General Plan, and has determined that such documentation is complete .and adequate. 3. The City Council hereby determines that: (a) The six components of the 1995 Diamond Bar General Plan, _including all appendices, completely address the mandatory elements, and the mandatory legal contents required therein, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302 and all other applicable statutes. The 1995 General Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. (b) The 1995 General -Plan is informational, readable, and available to the public pursuant to California Government Code Section 65357. (c) The six components of the 1993 General Plan, including appendices, are internally consistent as required by California Government Code Section 65300.5. (d) The 1995 General Plan is consistent with State of California policies, rules, regulations and guidelines. (e) The 1995 General Plan covers all territory within the corporate boundaries of the City of Diamond Bar and further, incorporates all lands outside the corporate boundaries of the City of Diamond Bar which the City Council has judged to bear a reasonable relationship to Diamond Bars planning activities pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300. (f) The 1995 General.•Plan is long term in perspective pursuant.to California Government Code Section 65300. (g) The 1995 General Plan reasonably addresses all relevant local issues and concerns currently identified. 4. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds that adoption of the 1995 General Plan will generate social, economic and other benefits which clearly outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, as specified in the Statement of overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 95 -XX. 5. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds that the 1995 General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar was prepared in accordance with California State Planning and Zoning Law, particularly Title 7, Chapter 3 of the California Government Code and the General Plan Guidelines promulgated by the Governor' s office of Planning and Research. 6 . The City Council hereby approves and adopts the 1995 General Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A, as the General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this of 1995. I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify y that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1995, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar 6 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: May 9, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of the 1995 General Plan ISSUE STATEN ENT: 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 Iand 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. The Draft 1995 General Plan has been developed since January 1994 and is presented for adoption. BACKGROUND: In January 1994 the City Council established a General Plan Advisory Committee to develop the General Plan. GPAC recommendations crafted over a six month period were forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and consideration in July 1994. The Planning Commission conducted numerous public hearings between July and October 1994. On October 17, 1994 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the Draft General Plan. The City Council began its detailed review of the documents on January 9, 1995. The Council has examined the Introduction, Vision Statement, Resource Management Element (RME), Public Services and Facilities Element (PSFE), Public Health and Safety Element (PHSE), Circulation Element (CE), Housing Element (HE), and the Land Use Element (LUE). The purpose of the May 9, 1995 public hearing is to consider adoption of the 1995 General Plan. On March 6, 1995 the City Council concluded its initial review of the General Plan and directed the preparation of final documents. The Council subsequently established a May 9, 1995 public hearing to consider adoption of the documents. The latest draft of the G -(neral Plan, dated March 31, 1995, was distributed on April 7, 1995 providing a 30 day publicly noticed review period as previously established 1 by the Council. The March 31, 1995 draft General Plan was referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation in accordance with California Government Code Section 65356. The Commission conducted a noticed public meeting on April 10, 1995, reviewed the General Plan as directed by the Council and has provided its report and recommendations in the form of the attached meeting minutes. The General Plan document before the City Council has been developed over the last 16 months and 40 public meetings incorporating extensive community interest and involvement. The 20 year plan sets forth numerous strategies responding to local and regional issues facing the City. This General Plan responds to ongoing development pressures by limiting new residential growth to a maximum of approximately 1200 additional housing units to the 18,000 existing homes. The General Plan requires the creation of a slope density ordinance and tree preservation ordinance both designed to preserve and protect existing resources. New development proposals on larger sites will be required to dedicate open space areas for permanent preservation. The General Plan does not permit the development of a roadway through environmentally sensitive Tonner Canyon. The Plan does incorporate a strong Vision Statement which seeks; retention of the rural/ country living community character, preservation of open space resources, reducing regional traffic impacts on local streets, promotion of viable commercial activity, well maintained housing, and a nurturing, community environment for all citizens. The environmental impacts of the 1995 General Plan have been examined and compared with the originally adopted General Plan. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) previously prepared and certified (Resolution No. 92-43) adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the 1995 General Plan. The 1995 General Plan will not result in any new or more adverse environmental impacts not already considered within the scope of the analysis contained the previously certified FEIR. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an "Addendum" to the FEIR has been prepared and is attached. The 1995 General Plan contains all mandatory elements and legal contents required for adoption pursuant to the California Government Code. The General Plan has been presented in the form of numerous "draft" documents reflecting the input of the citizen based General Plan Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. The Plan has been a work in progress reflecting the layers of public review. Attached to this report is a "clean" version of the last draft plan with the layers of revisions removed. A clean copy of the General Plan will be used as an attachment to the adopting resolution. 6 RECOMi MNDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, receive a presentation from City staff, open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, review the General Plan materials, approve the documents and adopt Resolution Nos. 95-xx and 95-xx. 12:4:4ON3t1Q:;•A James DeStefano Community Development Director attachments: - Planning Commission minutes from the April 10, 1995 meeting. - Letter from Mr. Konrad Bartlam, City of Brea, dated November 28, 1994 - Letter from Mr. Dorian Johnson,- Bramalea California, dated November 16, regarding traffic issues. - Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring Program - Draft Resolutions - Draft General Plan dated May 5, 1995 3 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY 9,1995 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. at the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by C/Ansari. ROLL CALL: Mayor Papen, Mayor Pro Tem Werner, Council Members Harmony and Ansari. C/Miller was excused. Also Present: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Special Legal Counsel; George Wentz, City Engineer; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor Papen announced that Council Member Miller was attending another meeting and would be arriving in approximately one hour. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (A) Resolution No. 95 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INCORPORATING RESOLUTION NO. 92-43 BY REFERENCE AND CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. (B) Resolution No. 95 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. CDD/DeStefano reported that development of the 1995 General Plan had taken place over the past 1 1/2 years beginning with review by the Council - appointed General Plan Advisory Committee. The Planning Commission then held approximately 12 public hearings and the Council began detailed deliberation of the document in January, 1995. The latest draft of the General Plan, dated March 31, 1995, was distributed on April 7, 1995 for a 30 -day review by the public at the direction of the Council. The 30 -day publicly -noticed review period incorporated documents available for inspection, purchase or loan at City Hall and inspection at the Library. Approximately 80 "clean copies" of the General Plan were provided to the Council and the public using the City's mailing list. The "clean copy" eliminated all overlays and included all current changes and corrections directed by Council. The Planning Commission then reviewed four specific items on April 10, 1995, as directed by Council and concurred with Council's MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 2 draft recommendations on all but one item. Regarding the South Pointe Master Plan property, the Commission agreed with Council's verbiage for the Planned Development proposed for the area with two exceptions. The first was that the most sensitive property discussed within the Planned Development area should be the eastern -most portion of the canyon. The second difference was the Commission's suggestion that development of Larkstone Park be in addition to the 30% set aside in Planned Development as Open Space, meaning that of the 78 acre site, instead of about 23 acres set aside for open space, incorporation of Larkstone Park (approximately 2 1/2 acres) would increase open space to approximately 26 acres. Regarding PD 5, the 27 -acre Site D area located at Brea Canyon Rd. and D.B. Blvd., the General Plan allows for residential uses and, through a correction, staff will indicate Council's desire for a designation of Public Facilities, Open Space and Park for the property. The Planning Commission reviewed the change and, by a split vote, recommended that Council incorporate a Public Facilities designation for the entire property which is consistent with the previous Commission recommendation for use of the property. In addition to an errata, staffs presentation included Council's decision-making. involvement with respect to adoption of an addendum to the Environmental_ Impact Report, as well as an Implementation & Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Environmental Impact Report and General Plan. Regarding the addendum, the Environmental Impacts of the 1995 General Pian were examined and compared with the originally -adopted 1992 General Plan. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the 1992 General Plan which addressed environmental impacts associated with the range of alternatives considered within that document. An analysis was performed by the City's consultant, Cotton\ Beland Assoc., Inc. regarding the environmental impacts of the 1995 General Plan. The conclusion was that the 1995 General Plan would not result in any new or more adverse environmental impacts that were not already considered within the scope of analysis contained in the previously certified EIR. In accordance with the State Environmental Quality Act, an addendum to the previously certified EIR was prepared and attached. The addendum does not require public review. The Implementation & Mitigation Monitoring Program is a combined document. Upon adoption of the General Plan, implementation begins. In addition, as a result of discussions contained in the General Plan, the next step for the City would be to create improved Hillside Management Ordinances, Tree Preservation Ordinances, Subdivisions, etc. The Mitigation Monitoring Program sets forth all strategies contained within the General Plan and timing and responsibility for oversight to insure implementation of all strategies. Staff received four letters since publication of the packet on. Friday, May 5, 1995: 1) WN.U.S.D., dated April 26, 1995 and received on May 1, 1995, provided suggestions for Planned Development Areas 4 and 5; 2) Calif. Dept. of Transportation dated May 1, 1995 suggesting that, in future development projects, the City look into development impact fees for public facilities such as the freeway system; 3) Dept. of Conservation dated May 8, 1995, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 3 indicating that there is an oil exploratory area either within or adjacent to the City, known as the Tonner Canyon Shell Oil area, and that if any development were to take place at any future date in that area, there is a set of guidelines and procedures that must be followed with regard to capping wells, etc; 4) Boy Scouts of America dated May 5, 1995 indicating that Edward Jacobs and Tom Kolin of that organization may speak on behalf of the Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, L.A. Area Council. With respect to revisions and errata, CDD/DeStefano presented the following: On Page 1-17 of the Land Use Element, there is a discussion of Planned Development Areas 2, 3 and 4. In a letter included in the packet, Bramalea suggested minor changes to the description for Planned Development Area 2. Bramalea correctly pointed out that within Planned Development Area 2, the description of the site requires amendment; that the 75 acres of Sub Area B is located east of Pantera Park; that the 2 acre area discussed in this Planned Development located at D.B. Blvd. and Gold Rush Dr. should be noted as being at the southeast comer of those two streets; the last sentence should conclude by stating that lot sizes would range from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. Regarding Planned Development Area 5, he pointed out that while the text indicates that the land uses appropriate for the site include five units per acre residential land use, Council asked that land uses incorporating Public Facilities, Open Space and Park be incorporated into that Planned Development Area. On Page 1-18, Specific Plan Area 1, under Strategy 1.6.3, second paragraph, subsection (a) beginning with the words "Facilities appropriate for this site..." should be deleted. Regarding Table 1-3, Page 1-25, the top third of the table refers to Land Use Designations, Residential Designations and follows with a Subtotal. Reading from left to right, the Subtotal Gross Acres in the City is 5,884 and the Total Gross Acres should read 5.884. The bottom quarter of Table 1-3 indicates "Other Designation" under Water, the Total Gross Acres total 21 instead of 19. On Table 1-3, Other Designations "Open Space" Gross Acres in the City should be 518 and therefore, Total Gross Acres should also read 518. Private Recreation is listed as 58 acres and should be changed to read: 15 with the Total Gross Acres also indicating 15. Total Gross Acres under Other Designations, "Agriculture" should read 3,589 and not zero (0). The final totals on the page are correct. Regarding Table 1-4, Page 1-26, a revised table was provided. The dwelling unit discussion in the Residential Land Use classification was split. Therefore, the table under the "Land Use" heading currently reads: "Residential." Lines were added to read "City" and "Sphere." Reading from left to right, corrections are as follows: Existing Units/Sq. Ft. for Residential is 17,813 Dwelling Units; Potential Additional is 1,205; Expected Total MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 4 Development is 19,018; and Population at General Plan Buildout is 58,000. The next line for the Sphere of Influence would read: Existing Units 0; Potential Additional Units 1,800; Expected Total Development 1,800; Population at General Plan Buildout 5,500. Totals remain unchanged. With respect to Page 1-27, Land Use Map, at the western most boundary of the City west of Brea Canyon Rd., west of the 57 Fwy. at the terminus of Pathfinder Rd., there is a public park below Pathfinder. Above Pathfinder, in a small notation, is Private Recreational. This des?gnation is incorrect. It is a graphic error and should be restated as Open Space. This designation is consistent with Council's previous direction for the two open space areas that exist on either side of the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. property. Referring to Page II -9 and II -10 of the Housing Element, changes to Table II -3 were provided to Council. Council's requested update of these tables includes statistics through March, 1995. The Church of Christ in Pomona, _ the Pomona Women's Fellowship Home Site, Pomona and the. Elsie. Manning Friend in Need Service Center, Pomona no longer provide area_ homeless facilities and services. The Catholic Charities Brother Miguel Center of Pomona was added to the list (includes Target Groups Low income families and Facility/ Service Provide shelter. vouchers. food and referrals). On Table II -3, Page II -9, Pomona Valley Shelter, the number of Meds was changed from 22 per night to i. Families can be serviced. Under Pomona Neighborhood Center, # Beds should read: 170+. Under Dept. of Social Services, Pomona, Facility/Service should read: "Homeless assistance is provided at,$30/night: 16 days maximum." The Beta Center should be corrected to state under Facility/Service: 7 day emergency food supply for each family member is added. On Page II -10, Table II -3, the Women's & Family Crisis Center Social Services, Pomona # Beds should be changed to: 32 each in two shelters and Facility/Service is corrected by adding the following: "SHFLTFRS ARE IN LOS ANGELES." Bienvenidos Children Center, Inc., West Covina, # Beds should indicate 46 and the EMERGENCY SHELTER is actually located in Altadena. At the end of Table II -3, "Source:" should be shown as Cotton/ Beland/Assoc.. March 1995. The text of the first paragraph on Page II -10 was changed to reflect the table just discussed. Regarding Table II -4, Page II -14, the following changes were noted: under Low Density Residential classification the Acres under Vacant Land should be changed to Z2 and the DU's to116 for a Unit Total of 266 instead of 140. The TOTALS for the table are changed to read as follows: Acres 1.827.7; DU's 1.331; and Unit Total 1 471. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 5 In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano responded that the document currently states 1,205 DUs under Vacant Land and the total should be corrected to 1,331 as provided by Cotton/Beland based upon the latest mathematical calculations of development opportunity and application of density and; therefore, the number of dwelling units that may be created on those vacant areas. The number may change as the discussion of Land Use and Housing Element concludes. Referring - to Page I11-5, Resource Management Element, the second paragraph regarding the number of recreational areas should be corrected as a result of proper clarification contained within Table III -1 on Page III -4. The new first sentence follows: "Currently, within the City there is a total of 478.3 acres of recreational facilities, including 45.4 acres of developed parkland and 977 acres of undeveloped parkland for a total of 142.4 acres of City owned park land." With respect to Page V-22, Circulation Element, he recommended that the fourth line of the first paragraph be changed to read: 'The City of Industry is considering the development of the area beyond the terminus of Sunset Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street with industrial uses and .a waste -to -rail materials recovery facility" and the rest of the sentence should be eliminated. In addition, the next sentence should be eliminated. It now reads: 'The area through which these streets would be extended is presently undeveloped." M/Papen stated that, in addition to the changes recommended by staff, the following words should be eliminated from the next sentence: 'The extension of these streets and..." so that the sentence now reads: 'The proposed development of industrial uses would significantly increase the volume of traffic along these residential streets and introduce a significant number of trucks into these residential neighborhoods." On Page V-23, sub -strategy (g) (4) Local funding; should be corrected to read: "(g) (4) Local funding such as, Prop C or Redevelopment funds;" Council concurred to adopt staffs recommended changes/corrections. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff believed, through the course of development of this General Plan, that the Council has a document containing all of the mandatory elements and all of the legal contents required for adoption pursuant to the California Government Code. M/Papen suggested the following changes/additions/corrections: Introduction, Page 1, third paragraph, second sentence, capitalize Diamond; Housing Element Page II -2, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 4, change 1994 to 1995; Housing Element, Page II -4; Resource Management Element, Page MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 6 III -4, Table 111-1, insert the number of parking spaces for the D.B. Golf Course, the Little League Park and The Country Estates Park; Table III -1, Page III -4, itemize local school recreational facilities i.e., tennis courts, etc.; Circulation Element, Page V-12, b. Paratransit Services, correct the paragraph to reflect the current "Diamond Bar Dial a Cab" service in place of Dial -a -Ride and change the last sentence to read: 'Transportation is provided within 10 miles of the City limits at a reduced rate; Paragraph V-24, Strategy 1.1.7 was previously deleted by the Council because it was redundant with the previous Strategy 1.1.5. In error, Strategy 1.1.6 was deleted. Therefore, Strategy 1.1.7 should read as follows: "Encourage Orange and San Bernardino Counties to fund and construct an environmentally sensitive transportation corridor through Soquel Canyon and/or Carbon Canyon;" Public Services and Facilities, Page VI -2, Paragraph 1, change the third sentence to read 'The City has established a system for collection of solid waste;" Page VI -2, Paragraph 8, delete the last phrase "although the statewide drought makes the long-term supply of water to this area questionable;" Page VI -2, Paragraph 11, change to read: "Other services within Diamond Bar include branch office postal services administered in Pomona, MTA, Foothill Transit and OCTA bus systems, Walnut -Diamond- Bar YMCA, and Seniors organization;" Page VI -3, Paragraph 7, first sentence, delete "continuation of the" so the sentence reads: "Although local water purveyors can adequately serve the area in i terms of facilities, a Statewide drought could put severe restrictions on the availability of water;" Page VI -3, Paragraph 8, second sentence change to read: 'The City should take a more active role in.energy conservation and the implementation of new energy technologies;" Page VI4, GOAL 1, change to read: "Consistent with the Vision Statement, provide adequate infrastructure facilities and public services to support development and planned growth." Responding to MPT/Werner regarding Existing Noise Contours Map, Figure IV -3 on Page IV -16, Public Health & Safety Element, CDD/DeStefano stated that the graphics are based upon an enalysis performed over the course of development of this Plan and reflect the conditions at the time of the analysis. With traffic increases and other noise sources that may impact D.B., those numbers may change. Objective 1.10 and subsequent Strategies refer to reviewing and revising standards xvith respect to noise generators that would have impacts upon the City, as well as improving development standards so that the receptors of noise would be protected. The material contained within the graphic is accurate as of the time the information was obtained. M/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., stated the t regarding Page II -3, numbers should reflect the current situation. In the Cit culation Element, Page V-22, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 7 he indicated that Strategy 1.1.4 should reflect that the easterly portion of the Sphere of Influence is outside SEA 15. Responding to Mr. Smith, M/Papen referred him to Sub -strategy (c). Mr. Smith requested that the map reflect this statement. C/Miller arrived at 7:40 p.m. Responding to C/Harmony, Mr. Smith stated the basic problem was not to have a road through Tonner Canyon and SEA 15 in particular. He indicated the language in the General Plan could be more specific if the easterly portion referred to in Strategy 1.1.4 is defined as being outside SEA 15. In response to M/Papen, Don Cotton stated that under b. Housing Stock Characteristics, Page II -3, the average resale value of $312,324 for 1991 being up 2.7 percent from 1990 was for a four bedroom home. M/Papen requested that sentence 5 be changed to include "four bedroom home" so that the sentence reads: "A review of resale house price date from the California Market Data Cooperative (CMDC) in Diamond Bar indicates an average resale value of a four bedroom home of $312,324 for 1991 which was up 2.7 percent from a value of $304,000 for 1990." Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., agreed with Mr. Smith regarding Page V- 22 of the Circulation Element. He indicated the Resolution number is blank on the EIR form and asked what the number would be. M/Papen responded that the Resolution Number will be assigned by -the Clerk at the time it is adopted. Mr. Maxwell further stated that the Council will be costing the City another $50,000 to $100,000 if the Council does not put this General Plan, along with GPAC's initiative on the ballot. The initiative has been filed and, therefore, according to law 65360 regarding general plans, referring to a statement that says "any plan that is under consideration that any land development or any approval by the Council of an issue that is not in accordance with any plan...", the Council will be breaking the law because the GPAC intended to put their initiative on the ballot and it is under consideration even though the Council might pass the General Plan tonight. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. M/Papen stated she is not a traffic engineer or a geologist and that she hesitated to put a line on a map with respect to the question of Strategy 1.1.4 and SEA 15 as raised by Mr. Smith. Technical studies regarding the area have not been completed. She believed it is the intent of both the Planning MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 8 Commission and the Council unanimously to, as much as possible, avoid disturbance of Tonner Canyon and SEA15 to preserve the wildlife corridor and also allow for the possibility of a regional bypass that would relieve the City's streets from outside traffic. CDD/DeStefano displayed Figure 1-1 describing existing land uses in the City's planning area. He pointed out the demarcation for SEA 15 and where it is located within the City's area. Also contained within the Land Use Element is the proposed land use plan indicating a demarcation for SEA 15. According to the text of the Circulation Element, Strategy 1.1.5, Page V-23, which is very specific, there are a series of requirements for any future road consideration, one of which is avoiding the disruption of SEA 15. If there is going to be a roadway, it is going to be within the eastern most portion of the Sphere of Influence avoiding disruption of SEA 15. MPT/Werner stated that this is the same drawing that was brought before the Council months ago and in his opinion, what Mr. Smith is suggesting is not that difficult. He suggested that Strategy 1.1.4 (c) be changed to read: "Avoiding SEA 15." CM/Belanger responded that the City could avoid SEA 15 and still disrupt SEA 15. M/Papen asked if any Council Member objected to deleting "disruption of from Strategy 1.1.4 (c) so that it reads: "Avoiding SEA 15". Seeing no objection, staff was directed to make the change. M/Papen suggested the following changes/additions/corrections: Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.6, correct the second sentence to read: "1 his designation also includes lands which may have been restricted to open space by map restriction, deed (dedication, condition, covenant and/or restriction), or by an Open Space Easement pursuant to California Government Code (CGC), Section 51070 et seq. and Section 64499 et seq;" Page 1-15, Strategy 1.5.3, correct the first sentence to read: "Land designated as Open Space by deed (dedication. condition. covenant. and/or restriction) by open space easement (CGC Section 51070 et seq) or by map restriction (explicit or previous subdivision) must comply with an established review and decision making process prior to the recision, termination, abandonment and/or removal of an open space dedication easement and/or restriction;" Page 1-23, F. LAND USE PLAN, 1. Land Use Designations, second paragraph, correct the number of land use designations from 16 to 18;" Page 1-23, F. LAND USE PLAN, 2. Land Use Intensity/Density, correct the third sentence to read: "Density is described in terms of dwelling units per aLqss acre of land (du/ac). M/Papen opened the Public Hearing with respect to the Land Use Element. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 9 Edward C. Jacobs, President, L.A. Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, stated the Boy Scouts seek the same density designation as always under L.A. County and an unbiased perspective so that the property's use is not predetermined prior to formulation of a specific plan. The Scouts are concerned with language in the current version of the General Plan requiring that any future development in the Specific Plan area will have to "create fiscal benefits for the City".- Further, the Scouts were concerned that the language encouraged a predetermined use for the property, a use which must create fiscal benefits. Eliminating this phrase will maintain consistency with other portions of the Land Use Element and will reinforce unbiased perspective toward the Specific Plan designation. He presented Council with the Scout's specific wording for the General Plan. M/Papen acknowledged the following WVUSD Board members: Christine McPeak, President; Carol Herrera, Larry Redinger and Marsha Sykes. Ronald Hockwalt, Superintendent, WVUSD, asked to expand upon the letter dated April 26, 1995 to the Council which addressed concerns regarding the . Land Use Element, Page 1-17, (d) Planned Development Area 4, formerly the RNP property. The current language is too restrictive. The Board requested that the Council drop reference to dwelling units since the school district has no interest in residential development in this area. Second, the Board would like the Council to expand the language. to include commercial to public facilities and open space. Third, the language from the Planning Commission seems very restrictive to the Board. The school district is on record supporting -a minimum of 30 percent of the 78 acres as open space and preserving the canyon. The district stands by these positions but finds the Planning Commission recommendation still too restrictive. With respect to Page 1-17 (e) Planned Development Area 5, also known as Site D, the Board felt that current language did not provide enough flexibility. The Board requested that the Council expand the language to include public facilities, recreational and commercial land uses. As in the past and throughout discussion over the last several years, the district is requesting greater flexibility including a mixed land use pallet under the umbrella of Planned Development. The district requested that the Council incorporate these changes into the General Plan prior to adoption. Don Schad stated that, in his opinion, had the first General Plan been put into effect, this would be a much more peaceful City and a lot nicer to live in. If the present General Plan goes through, instead of the citizens' plan, then the City's natural resources will be gone with no chance to replace what most of the citizens moved here for in the first place. Sandstone Canyon and Tonner Canyon will be gone forever. Map and deed restrictions were placed on some tracts for a variety of reasons. The GPAC recommended that any land designations be modified or changed only by a vote of the people, especially those citizens who would be impacted the most by lifting MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 10 those restrictions. Many real estate transactions were done with the promise that adjoining open space areas will never be developed. The housing density factor will impact open areas. GPAC approved between 600 and 700 new homes to be allowed before the City is built out. This will also reflect a certain amount of traffic increase as a result of over building. The City's traffic problems are severe now. Why compound the problem with greater density. As all of the easy areas are now developed, the trend seems to go after the wooded stream -fed canyons and hills. Once again, the GPAC committee and citizens have been ignored. The rezoning of key environmentally sensitive areas for more commercial was also a "no" by GPAC and citizens but the power of three changed all of that again and with 35 to 40% vacancy in D.B., it doesn't dictate destroying hills, canyons and existing neighborhoods just to create more vacancies. The "no vote" regarding Tonner Canyon was an adamant effort and if a roadway was ever built in Tonner Canyon, the net result would impact,D.B. very severely through increased traffic, smog and noise - noise factors exceeding the standards in the General Plan and opening the way for massive development plus the total destruction of the last major wilderness area in L.A. County. The Council of three promised the General Plan would be _ placed on the ballot. Based on past performance, this is the last chance for the Council to keep at least one promise to all citizens. Carolyn Elfelt, 21119 Silver Cloud Dr., indicated that she was present to support the school district's request for use of its D.B. properties. In April, she attended an EdSource Conference during which the goals for national education by the year 2000 were discussed. WVUSD has achieved the goals or has the processes in place to attain them. According to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Calif. funding will be spent to improve areas in which the district is already strong. During the conference, business leaders emphatically stressed that in order to be ready for the next century, students will have to know as much technology as possible. Technology costs money. Therefore, the value of the school district's property, as determined by the General Plan, will affect the district's ability to provide technology in its schools. She asked the Council to please allow the district the flexibility it needs to have as many options as possible in the use of its property in order to better meet the needs of the students. Wilbur Smith requested that Page 1-10, Strategy 1.1.1 (f) contain language indicating all of the units within this category are to be used for the purpose of satisfying the State requirements of 20.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Regarding (g) under Strategy 1.1.1, Page 1-11, he asked that the Council define the number of domestic units per acre as a function of the average slope calculation. Regarding Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.6, he did not understand why residences are allowed in an open space area. In his opinion, if its open space, there should be no residences. With respect to Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.10, residences are allowed under the Agricultural MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 11 (AG) designation. In his opinion, these statements are allowing development of Tonner Canyon and this is contrary to the Vision Statement of the General Plan. He stated that Table 1-4, Page 1-26, indicates that Tonner Canyon and the SEA 15 are targeted for development. He further stated that, in modifications to the EIR, there is no indication that the Council is really preparing to allow for development of the Sphere of Influence and SEA 15; however, the words in the document state that is exactly what will occur and this is a contradiction. He indicated that potential development of Tonner Canyon and the SEA 15 is the reason there will be an effort to referend the General Plan and to have an initiative which puts forth the citizens version of the General Plan. Max Maxwell stated that GPAC requested that parks and open space be separated. He indicated that the City requires that five acres per 1000 residents be set aside for parks. The school district purchased property with a promise to the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. that they would preserve in its entirety. The school district bought property with restrictions on it. He stated that GPAC does not support the taxpayers paying $1.4 million to have commercial development on the school district property. GPAC wants the General Plan to go to a vote of the people. SEA protection has been overruled. Hundreds of homes are being built now, some of which are in the back side of "The Country Estates." Jan Dabney, representing D&L Properties, Inc. and SASAK, Inc., asked that both properties remain in the current zoning as set forth by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Council at -the last meeting. The D&L Property is proposed to be Rural Residential (RR) and SASAK Corp. is presently processing a map for the May 6, 1995 Council agenda. He stated that he has heard "The citizen's General Plan" for six years. These issues were widely discussed at GPAC and very few of the controversial land use issues were a landslide vote in either direction. Much of the language and much of the consideration given in the Mission Statement was widely discussed and not everyone was in agreement. The majority ruled, as it should be. There has been a representation that each GPAC committee was 100% in agreement with everything that came out of GPAC. Over the last three General Plans, the public has heard, on each occasion, that that General Plan is the best General Plan and that it is the "citizen's General Plan." On two of the occasions, the General Plan has come out with theoretically the same citizens group, substantially modified. He stated that when he, as a professional engineer, hears terms put forth such as "a road through Tonner Canyon is going to increase the traffic impact in the City of D.B." which has currently ground to a stop and business people cannot get their cars into sites because of the pass-through traffic, he finds such statements a travesty. He further stated he is not advocating a highway through Tonner Canyon, but it needs to be reviewed. If a highway can be kept out of the SEA area, obviously it should be. He indicated that lack of MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 12 a traffic corridor is what is killing this community. He stated that, in his opinion, the reason the corridor has not been approved to this date is that this City has taken six years to approve a General Plan while every surrounding community has built out their community and dropped traffic onto Grand Ave. Without having some instrument allowing the City to work in concert with other communities, the City is currently suffering the consequences. Terry Birrell stated that the GPAC General Plan respected map restrictions on the 400 acres off of Grand Ave. and Summitridge Dr. and map restrictions on the school district property. She further stated that map restrictions were placed on the property through the developer's negotiations with L.A. County because of density transfers which occurred years ago. For the City to incorporate and then lift those restrictions seemed immensely unfair. She I continued that Mrs. Elfelt indicated that the school district needs money to educate children. She agreed with that statement but wondered why the district speculated with $1.5 million of taxpayers dollars. The district bought I property with restrictions on it which had been purchased only three years earlier for less than $100,000. The district speculated that it could force a - change. She deplored the waste of taxpayers dollars. She encouraged the Council to respect the designations placed on the land by GPAC and L.A. County. The Council indicated that its changes to the GPAC plan are in the interest of economic development fcr the City. She pointed to an article from the Wall Street Journal which concludes th,2t in Europe, helped by greenbelt regulations, Europe's town centers prosper. She suggested that if the City is truly looking for economic development in an appropriate manner, that the City consider what is being created and that the City not be used merely as a pass through. She requested the Council to be more respectful of the GPAC version of the General Plan and put both versions on the ballot and let the citizens voices be heard. Ken Anderson stated he would like to see an open forum so that all sides could be considered prior to closing the Public Hearing. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. i RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. M/Papen referred the Council to the Boy Scouts' request regarding Page I- 12, Strategy 1.1.9, last paragraph stat'ng the Boy Scouts have requested the language be changed to: "At such time as development might be proposed, require formulation of a specific plan pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 for the Sphere of Influence. The formation MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 13 of a future specific plan should incorporate provisions to protect existing resources while minimizing future adverse impacts to both the human and natural environment of the City. as well as the region (see Strategy 1.1.4 of the Circulation Element)." MPT/Werner stated that Mr. Smith raised the issue of SEA 15 and the question of contradiction between what the General Plan is stating in terms of preservation of the SEA and suggesting that the property is developable. He further stated that his comments addressed the Boy Scout property, as well as all of the properties in the Sphere of Influence area. He asked the City Attorney what purpose is served by designating anything for properties outside of the City which are currently subject to L.A. County zoning and could be subjected to a zoning initiative through the County. He continued that, in his opinion, the residents who are asking for the Citys absolute control of the open space should be directing their concerns to the Board of Supervisors. Specifically, where does the Citys control come from in designating these properties outside of the City and what does the City accomplish. SC/Montgomery stated that the original purpose of the Sphere of Influence was to ask the communities that were incorporated to work with the surrounding areas to plan them in a harmonious concept so that if and when annexation occurred, those areas would readily be assimilated into the surrounding city to which they adjoin or to which they have been assigned by the County. Long term planning by the County envisions that they will not be able to provide public services to isolated pockets. The duty of the Council, under the planning act and through the Land Use Element, has a duty to address the unincorporated areas that abut the City and that are in the Sphere of Influence and give the residents in the unincorporated areas an idea of what would be acceptable to the City should they choose to pass the annexation petition. MPT/Werner continued that the City has no authority to zone the property unless the property was annexed to the City. SC/Montgomery responded that while this is true, the City's designation is persuasive to the regional planner. L.A. County created the SEA 15 designation and it overlays the Agricultural (AG) zoning of the property. He further stated that the Boy Scouts would have a difficult time changing the zoning if the City endorses the Agricultural (AG) zoning on the Sphere of Influence. MPT/Werner suggested that if, under County zoning, the Boy Scouts were to sell the property under AG zoning to a developer and the developer proposes to build 2 acre ranchettes. Under current zoning, if the City were to designate the property anything other than 2 acre ranchettes, would L.A. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 14 County be in a position to approve 2 acre ranchettes. SC/Montgomery responded affirmatively by stating that the regional planner is going to look at how the Sphere of Influence has been treated by the City for zoning in the General Plan. The County cannot arbitrarily and politically bypass zoning. Whatever is done by the City regarding the Sphere of Influence will have a great deal of impact at the County level. MPT/Werner stated that the Boy Scout property was targeted for acquisition by the Joint Powers of Authority. Would the City's designation of land use on that property have any influence on the fair market value of the property. SC/Montgomery responded that obviously, it would and if the Boy Scouts can show that their property was depressed simply because the Conservancy planned to acquire it, the Boy Scouts would be able to secure other zoning. If the Boy Scouts cannot show that it should have been changed and all of the reasonable planners say that is what the zoning should have been, then that is what the.fair market value would be even though the Agricultural (AG) zoning under the County prevails. - MPT/Werner stated that a contradiction was alleged to exist and, in his opinion, he did not see a contradiction. The property has some very complex natural features, environmental conditions and political conditions in terms of jurisdictions and perhaps other conditions influencing what, if anything, will happen with the property in the future. The current General Plan addresses a base line land use designation which identifies, as required by State law, the appropriate land use density for the property (1 du/2ac). Other sections of the General Plan show this property to be a significant ecological area under natural resources and rather than melding this together with the land use designation, the General Plan overlays the significant ecological area designation onto the land use designation and the plan suggests that in some future development plan, the preservation objectives stated under the SEA should be worked out compatibly with land use objectives. He asked if this is a contradiction to which SC/Montgomery responded that it is not because the City cannot anticipate what the changing situation is going to be and the two designations can work together to an end result deemed acceptable to the City and the developer in terms of preservation of the SEA. C/Harmony asked if there would be any adverse impact on the Boy Scout property if it was designated Open Space Recreational rather than Agricultural. Responding to C/Harmony, SC/Montgomery stated that, as a matter of law, a landowner is never entitled to more than the existing use. The trend is toward reduction of entitlement. There is no right to gain a more MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 15 economically developable use. Therefore, the General Plan could indicate a current use zoning. MPT/Werner reiterated Ms. Birrell's reminder that the City's incorporation application stated there would be no change to land use designations. Responding to MPT/Werner, C/Harmony stated the Council, without his vote, created new designations for properties. He further stated that the promise to the people is to keep the zoning on properties the same as it was through the County. Specific Plans and Planned Developments pull protection out of the General Plan. The school district is asking for commercial and those aspects pre -suggest the idea of lifting map restrictions. M/Papen restated the request by the Boy Scouts for the proposed change of language as previously outlined. It was moved by C/Ansari, seconded by MPT/Werner to retain the current language for Strategy 1.1.9, Page 1-12. MPT/Werner, responding to C/Harmony, stated that he sensed that C/Harmony felt that a .Specific Plan overlay had a negative connotation because it leaves to the future some land use decisions. He offered that the Specific Plan overlay as a well accepted planning tool, not only holds off land use decisions to the future, it provides a better opportunity to bring together all of the issues, objectives and goals of the entire General Plan document and the environmental impacts associated with projects and bring them together in a complete design for the property. By eliminating the Specific Plan overlay, a project is reduced to the Conditional Use Permit process and the same level of control is not evident. The Specific Plan is a legislative action which goes to Council and becomes ordinance. C/Harmony indicated he thought that is what a development plan would accomplish which is a better technique for future development of a project so that the citizens have speck notice and can deal with a project. Specific Plans allow for special agreement arrangements which gets very close to the concept of spot zoning. He indicated he has problems with the technique of Specific Plan and properties should be zoned as they currently are zoned and when a land developer wants to develop a property the developer comes forward, asks for amendments to the General Plan, if necessary, and puts the plans on the table and everyone is notified. Until then, the developer knows what the rules are and what obstacles need to be overcome instead of upgrading the zoning now and not having anything to show for it. C/Ansari's motion carried 4-1 by the following Roll Call vote: MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 16 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, MPT/Wemer,- M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Regarding Planned Development Area 4, Page 1-17 (d), M/Papen stated that there is a mixed ownership on this property with the City owning four acres of freeway frontage property in the same PD -4 zone. Total acres should be 82 vacant acres with the City owning four acres and the school district owning 78 acres. The Planning Commission asked that the General Plan specify that the 30% set aside for open space not include Larkstone Park. She suggested that the residential language be deleted and designate PD -4 to consist of public facilities, commercial offices, general commercial and open space and add the word park. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that with respect to the school district property 78 acres, 231 /2 acres would be set aside for open space; two and one-half acres for Larkstone Park; 19 112 acres for - commercial, and 32 acres for public facilities. Addressing Dr. Hockwalt, C/Harmony restated the school district's desire to "protect their investment" and the property has been currently appraised at $1.2 million. He asked Dr. Hockwalt how it would protect the district's investment to upgrade the property to commercial. Responding to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt stated the property was appraised at $3.5 million. C/Harmony stated that his understanding of previous discussions was that one-half of the property would remain as open space. Dr. Hockwalt responded that discussions he has been involved in allowed for 30% of the property being set aside as open space. In response to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt responded that the school district has always wanted to preserve the entirety of Sandstone Canyon. In addition, he indicated he did not view it as profit taking, he viewed it as maintaining and managing the assets that the school district has. C/Ansari, addressing Dr. Hockwalt, stated that she is appalled by the master plan and the five Planned Development areas that are listed specifically. She was not against the school district's general building. The General Plan is specific as to what is allowed in the Planned Development areas. There have been two referendums because of Planned Development and she felt that the General Plan process should proceed. In her opinion, there is no need to develop a master plan for each of these areas. She believed both MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 17 the GPAC version of the General Plan and the version of the General Plan now before the Council should go on the ballot and let the community decide what it wants. She is not in favor of another referendum. She further stated that this designation grants entitlements. M/Papen stated these designations do not grant entitlements. C/Ansari continued that the perception of the community is that these designations give entitlements. The language of the General Plan states that a master plan shall be developed for each area of the City designated as a Planned Development. MPT/Werner, addressing C/Ansari, stated that there are no entitlements. An entitlement is equal to a permit and once a permit is obtained, building can begin. That does not happen from any aspect of the General Plan. Entitlement is a very specific term. Perhaps some of the citizens need to understand that this is not an entitlement, it is a General Plan. He indicated he would like to see the General Plan less specific as was originally intended, however, the people who are now opposed to the verbiage said the General Plan was not specific enough. So now the City is at the point where the General Plan is more specific; however, it is not an entitlement. He stated he would not have a problem calling the Planned Development areas "Planned Preservation areas." It was his understanding that the restrictions on the school district property are for residential dwelling units. The school district is asking that the residential dwelling units be deleted from the land use designation so they are acquiescing to the restriction on the property indicating they do not want the restriction. The City is now asked to put in place "commercial." He was not aware of any commercial restriction on the property. The school district is also saying they are going to preserve 113 of the property in natural open space and the remaining 1/3 of the property in public facility. Those sound positive and consistent with the planned preservation area. He believed that what the school district requested is consistent with what has transpired over the past one and one- half years with regard to this property. SC/Montgomery stated that C/Werner was correct. The Land Use designation is a threshold to the application of the permit. Application for permit cannot be made if the Land Use designation does not permit the use intended. MPT/Werner continued that the General Plan is a foundation. The City is not saying, through this General Plan, that something can or cannot be built. It is a straightforward foundation toward the next step in the process and he believed that it was what the State had in mind when it said that cities are obligated to establish the land use principals that will allow a property owner to come forward and ask for a reasonable use of their property. With that, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 18 he indicated he would support the school district's request that is consistent with everything being said by members of the community. He did not suggest removing any restrictions from the property. If there is a restriction on the property, the restriction remains. M/Papen suggested the following wording for Page 1-17, (d) Planned Development Area 4: "PD -4 consists of 82 vacant acres and is located west of Brea Canyon Road, north of Peaceful Hills Road and south of South Pointe Middle School. Land uses appropriate for this planned development area would include commercial, park, public facilities and open space. A minimum of 30% of the site will be set aside as open space, not including parkland. The most sensitive portion of the site shall be retained in permanent open space. The site plan shall incorporate the planning and site preparation to accommodate the development of Larkstone Park of a suitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as approved by the City." Motion by MPT/VVerner, seconded by C/Miller to adopt M/Papen's language_ C/Harmony stated that he is in favor of the GPAC Ienguage which indicated no development in Sandstone Canyon - 78 acres, no development - and to allow 113, 1/3 and 1/3 is a real corruption of that body's deliberation; that is open space, it had reservations on it, the land was only worth $150,000 when Miller bought it. The school district bought it for $1,200,000. This is profit_ taking all of the way and it should be open space and the school district has to stick with their investment. M/Papen responded that one of the school board members mentioned to her during the recess that one of the reasons they had to spend in excess of $1 million to acquire the property, which was worth $3 million, was because they were going to lose $8 million in State funding because of the Council's delays in 1993 in approving any kind of development on this property. In her opinion, there is quality education in the VWUSD and the citizens want to encourage that. It is unfortunate that school districts have to go into land use planning in order to provide monies for education. However, if that is what it takes to provide the quality of education long-term in this community, she supports the school district 100%. Following discussion, regarding Parlimentary Procedure and with concensus of Council, the meeting continued. C/Ansari questioned M/Papen's statement that the school district's project was held up in 1993. At that time, it was part of the South Pointe Master Plan. This item did not come before the Council again until the end of March, 1994, when the school district requested a re -hearing. The district was told at that time that they would have to begin grading in a couple of MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 19 weeks and she was surprised because during a meeting with Dr. Hockwalt and Marsha Sykes on December 1, 1993, she was not told that they would need grading in the second or third week of April, 1994. It was brought before the Council the end of April, 1994, so it was rushed through on a time line that she did not feel was explored enough. It was held up because of the will of the people concerned about the South Pointe Master Plan. She was not against builders building on their land. She felt the Council should specify a master plan and if the Council wants to call a master plan Open Space Area 1, Area 2, Area 3, Area 4 and Area 5. C/Ansari moved to rename Planned Development Area 4 to Open Space Area 4 and replace current wording with the following language for Strategy 1.6.1, (d) Page 1-17: "OS -4 consists of 78 vacant acres and is located west of Brea Canyon Road, north of Peaceful Hills Road and south of South Pointe Middle School." No other language should be incorporated and the people have so stated. The City should pass the General Plan and then come back and amend the Plan for each developer and each plot of land as it is presented. C/Ansari's motion died for lack of a second. C/Miller stated that C/Harmony's statement that he sold the property to the school district is not true and he wants this issue cleared. He indicated he does not have a problem calling this area "Planned Preservation" and leaving the text as written. C/Miller amended MPT/Werner's motion to rename area 4 "Planned Preservation Area" leaving all of the text as requested by the school district. MPT/Werner agreed to the amendment. MPT/Werner did not see any difficulty in doing what C/Ansari suggested for Planned Development Area 4. The current language is more restrictive whereas what C/Ansari suggested opens the door and makes it less compatible and more contradictory to what the rest of the General Plan states. M/Papen stated that if the descriptive language is removed and the Plan only identifies the number of acres and location, then the property owner is allowed to come in with all 20 land uses from which to pick and choose and the application could be for any land use. Responding to M/Papen and MPT/Werner, CM/Belanger stated there would be no restriction on what kind of application could be made. The school district asked for a land use designation presuming the district would be the applicant. However, some future landowner could submit an MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 20 application and ask that the land use mix be changed to something else. Any property owner has a right to ask for anything and this particular property owner has stated they would like it to be a certain way. But if a future property owner comes in and says they want it to be 30 acres of commercial and 50 acres of residential, they can ask for it no matter what the General Plan states. The applicant can request a General Plan amendment. In response to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger stated that a General Plan designation of Planned Development does not zone the property. If the property owner came back to the City with a plan that is outlined here, at the very least, they would have to subject themselves to a zone change which means they would have to go through public hearing and it is all subject to referendum - it is a legislative act. Anything that is done to any property in a planning designation requires, at a minimum, a change in zoning because you don't zone the property. The Plan is simply stating these are categories. The property owner has to come back and say what they want to do. The property is not being given an entitlement. The only way the property can get an entitlement is to get zoning and specific legislative approval by the Council to do something. The General Plan does not do that. MPT/Werner's motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPTIWerner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Staff was directed to change all Planned Development (PD) Area headings to Planned Preservation Area (PP)". M/Papen stated that regarding Strategy 1.6.1 (e), Page 1-17, the request by the school district is to add the following language: "Land uses appropriate for this site include public facilities, commercial offices and general commercial." which includes deletion of the reference to single family land use. Motion made by MPT/Werner, seconded by M/Papen to amend the second sentence of Strategy 1.6.1 (e) Planned Preservation Area 5 to read as follows: "Land uses appropriate for this site include a maximum of five (5) single family detached residential dwelling units per acre and public facilities." In response to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt stated that the 28 acre parcel had not been declared surplus property and if the school district wished to declare it surplus, it would have to go through the necessary legal MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 21 procedures. In addition, if the property was declared surplus, it would have to be offered for sale to other public agencies. Since the district is not declaring the property surplus, it will not be offered for sale and the school district can develop the property in order to follow through with the principles of asset management. Motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Motion made by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to adopt Resolution No. 95-20, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar incorporating Resolution No. 92-43 by reference and certifying the adequacy of the addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and making findings thereon pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as amended. Motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Responding to M/Papen, SC/Montgomery stated that the General Plan can be adopted for a limited period of time and put on the ballot as to whether it should be continued or allowed to terminate at that time. Motion by MPT/Werner to adopt Resolution No. 95-21 adopting the 1995 General Plan, with the Plan to remain in effect during the remainder of 1995. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by M/Papen, seconded by C/Miller to adopt Resolution No. 95-21: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopting the 1995 General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar as amended. MPTN1/erner asked what was the intent with regard to the ballot measure and if the ballot measure were to fail, what would be the status of the General Plan. M/Papen suggested adopting the General Plan and directing the City Attorney to bring back options to the Council for discussion at the first meeting in June. SC/Montgomery explained that the way a ballot measure would be phrased in the analysis is that it either terminates that day on a vote of the people or it continues. It's called an "interim ordinance" and then it's put on the ballot MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 22 ' for the issue of "should it continue or not?" and you can phrase it either way. You can say "should ordinance so and so of the General Plan be continued?" or you can say "should ordinance so and so, General Plan, be terminated?" In response to MPT/Werner, M/Papen suggested that the Council wait for a report from the City Attorney on the options available and the impacts of doing it different ways. MPT/Werner moved to amend M/Papen's motion with a supplemental provision that adoption of the General Plan would extend for a period of 13 months from tonight unless it is voted upon to continue. M/Papen indicated that she would not accept a substitute motion because the proposal is not a friendly amendment. MPT/Werner offered to amend his motion to extend the General Plan for 18 months if the ballot measure is approved. SC/Montgomery reminded Council that when they indicate 18 months and put the measure on the ballot and the voters vote against adoption, that's the end of it. MPT/Werner explained that he meant that between the time it's voted down in November and the expiration of that 18 month period is the period of time that the Council would then have to make the corrections. SC/Montgomery suggested it would be more reasonable to indicate that you're either adopting this for the next election or not. M/Papen's motion failed by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None It was moved by MPTMerner, seconded by C/Miller to continue the Public Hearing for two weeks. Following discussion, MPT/Werner and C/Miller amended their motion to continue to the Public Hearing until the next regular Council meeting on May 16, 1995. MPT/Werner requested staff to provide more background on some of the topics currently being discussed so that Council would be in a better position next time. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 23 5. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. to Tuesday, May 16, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. Tommye Nir.e, C;;pu-.y Ci!u Clark ATTEST: /Mayor MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY A LAN CORPORATION 10501 VALLEY BOULEVARD. SUITE 121 EL MONTE. CALIFORNIA 01731 TELEPHONE (818) 452-1222 FACSIMILE (818) 452-8323 ALSO ADMITTED TO FLORIDA AND HAWAII STATE BARS MLNORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL rrtA��l FROM: Associate City AttorneyrP DATE: play 16, 1995 RE: Options re Adoption of General Plan CF COUNSEL ALAN R. BURNS JOHN ROBERT HARPER' ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 453 S_ GLASSELL STREET ORANGE. CA 02466 (714) 771-7728 •Prd.tsror,mi Corporalms VYV40Y D. DAWER The case causing procedural concern, DaVida v. Napa' had been decided by the Court of Appeal and was pending before the Supreme Court, when the Legislature enacted the revised Elections Code. The DaVida decision, which allowed the voters to amend an existing General Plan' at .-the ballot box, was of statewide concern, hotly debated, and it is inconceivable to think that the Legislature was not aware of its import. New Elections Code 19200 says that, "Ordinances may be enacted by and for any incorporated city pursuant to this article." The single -subject rule does not apply to initiatives.' If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the same election conflict, the ordinance receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall control (Elections Code 19221). A city may hold at its discretion, an advisory election on any subject for which it otherwise has jurisdiction, to indicate to the council, approval or disapproval of the proposal. The measure shall be headed with the title, "Advisory Vote Only". The results of the advisory vote are not controlling (Election Code 19603). A city council may submit to the voters, without a petition therefore, any proposition for the repeal, amendment or enactment of any ordinance to be voted upon in any succeeding regular or special election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes, it shall be enacted accordingly.:' On this point, it has already been 'geld that CEQA compliance is not 9 Cal.4th 763 People v. Norton (1930) 108 Ca. App. 767, 775 Elections Code 59221, 9222 UW OFFICES MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY Mayor -and City Council City of Diamond Bar May 16, 1995 Page 2 required in order for the council to put the matter on the ballot, because the electorate is not a, "public agency" within the meaning of that act." If the council adopts the general plan, then -the question of whether = or not it shall be repealed is put to the voters as a, "proposition", rather than submitted as a repealing ordinance.' Da Vida v. County of Napa,' holds that the planning process_ need not be followed before a vote by the electorate. It would seem that the same concept as in Lee would apply, i.e., the electorate is not a public agency, and only public agencies are subject to the Planning and Zoning Law (see Government Code 965300). The adopted Plan could still be challenged as to mandatory element.' Therefore, the Council, has the following options: 1. Adopt the General Plan by resolution, by majority _vote of the council. Government Code 965356.' 2. Refuse to adopt the General Plan. 3. Declare the original, -now expired General Plan, to be the current and existing General Plan. 4. Adopt the pending General Plan, but only for a limited time period. 0 5. Place the General Plan in the ballot at the next election, and submit the question of whether or not it should be adopted to the electorate. 6. Adopt the pending General Plan, but to remain in effect, only until the next election, and submit to the voters the proposition of whether or not this General Plan should be continued as such. 7. Adopt this General Plan and put an advisory question on the next ballot, which is not binding on the Council, on whether or not this General Plan should be continued. Lee d. City of Lompoc (1993) 14 Cal. App.4th 1515, to Cal. Rptr.2d. 359 Schildwachter v. City of Compton (1939) 14 Cal.2d 342 AG Opn No. 83-310, 66 AG opus 258 Subject to a procedural limitation (see concurrent memorandum LAW OFFICES MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY Mayor and City Coundil City of Diamond Bar blav 16, 1995 Page 3 The following scenarios result, depending upon your decision. If you refuse to adopt the General Plan at this time, without -placing the issue on the ballot for the next election, no further discretionary land use permits may be granted. If you fail to adopt, but agree to place the matter on the ballot, it can be argued that land use decisions can be granted, i_f they are in conformity with the "proposed General Plan", which, of course, is the one that would be on the ballot. Any land use decision granted after adoption of the General Plan at your next meeting, but before a referendum petition is filed, would vest, regardless of whether the General Plan was thrown out by the voters at the next election, or whether it suffers a defeat under an advisory vote. Adoption of the old, expired General Plan would probably not need an Environmental Impact Report, since it adopts the existing situation for the most part, and could be done with a negative declaration. If the Council's proposed General Plan were placed on the same ballot with the initiative proponents' GPAC General Plan, then they would be listed as separate measures with a "Yes/No" vote as to each. If one passes and the other is defeated, the issue is resolved. If both are defeated, the process starts anew. If both are adopted, the General Plan receiving the most votes would prevail (while there is a rule that two or more initiatives may go into effect at the same election, with the one getting the highest votes prevailing only as to conflicting provisions, .under the rule requiring internal consistency of a General Plan, presumably internal consistency; would not be present if the two plans were thrown together, leaving the prevailing Plan to have effect) . If the Council adopts the General Plan, without limitation, and if the initiative proponents place theirs on the ballot, and it passes, it will repeal the Council's General plan; if it loses, the Council's General Plan continues. If the initiative proponents General Plan goes on the ballot and is passed, it can be amended only by a subsequent vote of the people, subject, of course, to any provisions in the initiative proponents' General Plan that would allow the Council to act, or certain areas that may be pre-empted, such as the Housing Element. Staff has raised the issue that having the Council place on the ballot, a measure that has not yet gone through the entire planning process, such as the initiative proponents' measure (although they apparently dispute this assertion) might subject the matter to challenge. You can pretty well figure that there is going to be a challenge from any Uw OFFICES MICHAEL B. MONTGO'NIERY Mayor and City Council Citv of Diamond Bar May 16, 1995 Page 4 direction. I have resolved the issue in favor of validity if adopted by ballot, on three grounds: 1. Case law solidly gives the benefit of the doubt to initiative proponents. 2. The new Elections Code states that any -ordinance may be submitted to the voters. 3. CEQA once considered sacrosanct in the normal development process, and the procedure through which millions of dollars may be lost on an unsuccessful effort", is not -required -in an initiative measure (Lee, supra), or in any initiative amendment to a General Plan (DaVida, supra) . If any of -the Council have questions on the foregoing prior to the meeting, do not hesitate to contact me. " AVCO Community Developers v. 5out Coast Regional Com (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785 1995 GENERAL PLAN SUGGESTED REVISIONS 6-20-95 1. Revise vision statement by adding the following sentence to the first Paragraph: It is the primary goal of the City of Diamond Bar to maintain a rural and country living environment. 2. Revise Strategy 1.1.8 (page I-12) of the Land Use Element to read as follows: 1.1.8 Areas designated Planned Preservation (PP) are designed to conserve open space resources and are to be applied to properties where creative approaches are needed to integrate future development with existing natural resources. All proposed development within these designated areas shall require the formation of a Specific Plan pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450. Land uses which may be appropriate within PP areas, subject -to public hearings and approval'of the city Council, include a minimum of 75 percent of the site retained as open space, park, or public facilities. A maximum of 25.percent of the site may be developed as residential at a density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. Each Specific Plan must incorporate.innovation and superior.design addressing the uniqueness of each area and create a more desirable living environment than could be achieved through conventional development. 3. Eliminate the followipg Strategies of the Land Use Element: Strategy 1.1.10 (page I-12) Strategy 1.6.1(a) through 1.6.1(e) (pages I-16 and I- 17) 4. Renumber 1.6.2 as 1.6.1 Renumber 1.6.4 as 1.6.3 Renumber 1.6.5 as 1.6.4 5. Revise and renumber 1.6.3 as follows: 1.6.2 The formation of any future Planned Preservation project should incorporate provisions to protect existing resources while minimizing future adverse impacts to both the human and natural environment of the City, as well as the region. 1995 GENERAL PLAN SUGGESTED REVISIONS page 2 6. Revise Strategy. 1.5.3 (page I-15) to read as follows: 1.5.3 Add after last sentence in first paragraph: Any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify a deed must be supported by findings that the decision is of significant benefit to the City. 7. Revise Strategy 1.5.4(a) (page I-16) to read as follows: 1.5.4(a) Vacant land burdened by non open space restictions shall be required to be subjected to public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council before any action can be taken to remove any such restrictions. Any decision to remove said map restrictions must be supported by findings that such removal is of significant benefit to the City. 8.- Rovise'the Land Use Map as follows: 1. Change PP -1, PP -2, PP -4, and PP -5 to "PP". 2. Change"PP-3 to "C" at corner with balance designated uople 3. Change D&L Property (lots 1 and 61) from RR and OS to supple. 4. Change Sphere of Influence from AG/SP to "PP". . 9. Strike Agricultural Category from page II -16. 10. Revise Planned Preservation category on Page II -17 as follows: Within the Planned Preservation classification, residential land uses may be appropriate subject to applicable General Plan policies and ordinances. Development within areas designated Planned Preservation are processed through use of a master plan or specific plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, a planned unit development, or similar mechanism. Development intensities within Planned Development areas must be consistent with the provisions of the Diamond Bar General plan. Planned Preservation projects must provide a greater level of community amenities and cohesiveness, achieve superior 1995 GENERAL PLAN SUGGESTED REVISIONS page 3 design, and create a more desirable living environment than could be achieved through conventional subdivision design and requirements. 11. Revise Strategy 1.1.11 (page III -11) of the Resource Management Element to read as follows: 1.1.11 Prepare a tree preservation ordinance that requires preservation of native trees, such as the oak and walnut. In addition the ordinance should emphasize retention of mature sycamore, pepper, arroyo willow and significant trees of cultural or historical value. The ordinance should provide a replacement and relocation mechanism for trees when their removal is necessary. 12. Revise Strategy 1.1.4(c) to read as follows: Avoid any roadway within the Significant Ecological Atea" (SEA 15) . Irnd Use Desipadons Residential Desipadons RR Rural Residential RL Low Density Residential RLM Low -Medium Residential RM Medium Density Rexidential RMH Medium Ifigh Residential RH Hieb Density Residential subtotal Non -Residential Designations C General Commerdsl CO Commercial/ Office OP Professional Office I Ilgbt Industrial Subtotal 11^ i Use D--*stleas PP Planned Preservation -- P4 - -p-a-- -IV Subtotal ' Other Desipationsan PF Public Facilities Permitted Density/ Intensity (1 ae/du) (up to 3 du/ac) (up to 5 du/ac) (up to 12 du/ac) (up to 16 du/sc) (up to 20 du/ac) (.25 -1 PAR) (25 -1 FAR) (25 -1 PAR) (.25 -1 FAR) (no te:d) Gross Aces in the City t 39 2 -}�- 3,089 Bas 275 197 66 5624- 4,9x4. 197 -it - 63 20B4* - 93 Gross Total Gross Ames In Acres Sphere 1382 -1;45; 3.089 _ 8ns 275 197 66 5824+ 197 J?r 63 105 -168- 93 137 pj -4--- ,H07 1365 W Water 19 2 21 F Fire 1 1 S School 265 265 PK Park 158 139 GC Golf Course 178 179 Os Opw space 5l0 - 398- 51O --&W- PR Private Recreation 15 15 AC A&. culmm I,d r /2.;.; —6— 3,S6tJ - 5,389. Fsvy/Major Roads 684 684 ►83{ � i83'� Total I 1 l 9,583 1 I 3,591 I 13,174 (a) No F.A.R. or poteadal square footap has been Identified for Were quasi-pubtic and rt=wk eel land use mte;orks due to the wide nuige of tees permitted (e.8., cirfc tester, schools, etc) and bemuse WMIngs are often part of larYe open spate areas such as =oK courses. Land Use Element Diamond Bar General Plan Revised 1.tay 9, 1995 - I -2S .i; N t% ✓D . R9 5 Table 11-4 Residential Development Potential During Housing Element Cycle Diamond Bar General Plan Housing Element Revised May 9, 1995 II -14 J" 201 1995 Units Land Use Category Vacant Land Developed Unit Totals Since 7/89 Acres DUs Rural Residential -379 - -379- 30 - 409 (0.0 -1.0 du/ac) 3!q 31`j 3+1 Low Density Residential 72 216 50 266 (1.1 - 3.0 du/ac) Low -Medium Density Residential 0 0 0 0 (3.1 - 5.0 du/ac) Medium Density Residential 0 0 0 0 (5.1 -12.0 du/ac) Medium High Density Residential 2.2 36 60 96 (12.1 -16.0 dulac) High Density Residential 13.5 270 0 270 (16.1-20.0 du/ac) Planned Preservation 13rn 34+ 3y PP 1 1;00 - 6 - 0 _ 0 PP -2 —e- 130. - Pit3 0 - _ PP -4 0 - - PP 5 - --- 135 265 TOTALS 1,827.7 1,166 140 -1,30G 175A7 11185 1,3 25 Diamond Bar General Plan Housing Element Revised May 9, 1995 II -14 J" 201 1995 TABLE I4 POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL GROWTF Land Use Units/Sq.-FL tial F oded gasaa1°= Adm on 1 Total Units/Sq. FL Development Buildout Residential i 185 ! 8 tq `t8 City 17,813 DUS(') 1,166 DUSO - 18,979 S8 0000) Sphere 0—},� D 1,� :K,-5 �� 5,865,000 Sq. Ft.M 1,550,000 Sq.Ft. 7USK 7,415,000 21-700 Commercial/ Industrial to 1993 Dept. of Finance The planning Nerwoti, 1990 °) RR-M—W Densities on Vaead LAM are maimed at 100% of the awrimtam permitted density. belkwW projects currently under oonsauction (7/94) M Bued an eveme deveiopmed utwomes consistent with cared develop = pace= on vacant land. Iachdcs p:Qjecn currently under oonabuction (1/94) Population based on 3.19; -- n s per household at a 4.S% vaeanry nes. Diamond Bar General Plan Land Use Oement Revised May 9, 1995 I-26 •)�Nk ;!a. (q% CITY OF W t+p 1pu the M • • AN Ci n % �Ml NMTH 0 2000 u000 5000 FEET - � RURAL RI�I'1AL hoax MAW . 13 Afpe�da Patmdal LOW DENSMY RESMEN71AL fm" 3 &%4 ASVMPW 216 du Pot WSI bMDIU rt DE NSa Y RZS DEMA L (Mx 16 6MA4 ASVqpte 36dop"atial EUGH DE MTV REFI.6n" 20 dah4 ASpqpft 270 do vatectill I 1.010.11)1.11. Z--�,t+ GENERAL PLAN 31-c-Wrel Figure II -1 A"...sss. 1500 J. ,,,,.t„6., • • - aff LII*M • W ANNM PESMAMN AU-gaexdE Housing � OF DO Opportunity Areas Diamond Bar General Plan Housing Element Reviscd ivl..Y 9, 1995 II -15 JVN6 W, biro J. -C J.C.D. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS 671 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SUITE 5 WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789 909 594-7568 FAX - 909-594-5090 June 29, 1995 City Council City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Dr. Ste. 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Reference: D & L Properties Inc., Lot 1/Lot 61 Use, Zoning, General Plan Council- Members, I have reviewed Councilwoman Ansari's proposed changes to the land use element of the Proposed 1995 General Plan and -have the following comments and concerns on how these changes would effect the above mentioned property and the on going controversy surrounding this property.' In February, 1995, on behalf of the owners of the above mentioned property, I submitted a lot line adjustment request to the City of Diamond Bar. The intent of this request was to reallocate the acreage of these properties into one clearly defined open space parcel, a portion for rear yard of awadjacent land owner and the remaining property to an adjacent parcel held by D & L Properties Inc., creating one tax parcel. In conjunction with the lot line adjustment, we asked that the Council consider modifying the restrictive language on Parcel "C", the combination of a portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 31479 and Lot 7, Tract No. 30093, allowing the owner to construct one single family residence on the new Parcel CO."Recall, that Lot 7, Tract 30093 already has the right to construct a single family residence on it. The request before the Council was to allow the construction of one home on the combined acreage, leaving what ever restricted language the Council deemed necessary on the property to insure that not more than one home could be built on the property. We would have agreed to a 200 foot minimum setback requirement suggested, a restriction that stated one home only, a zoning classification of one unit per 60 acres, access restrictions allowing one single family driveway only, what ever reasonable requirement the Council wished to allow for the one home use. Our request, if granted, would have put to rest the ultimate use of this property, limited the density to one unit per 60 acres and removed one controversy surrounding the General Plan. It has become apparent that several members on the Council really do not choose to eliminate land use problems within the proposed General Plan when the opportunity presents itself, but only wish to propitiate controversy to serve their own political agenda. The Ansari proposal, to the unpracticed eye, would seem to provide a reasonable planning alternate for the ultimate use of this property. However, the insertion of the requirement for a specific plan on a property and property owner that has no desire for multiple use, increased density or a residential use higher or unlike that use currently surrounding this property is perceived as just another attempt to deny use of the property. We assume that the reason for the specific plan use would be to cluster the 15 units she would allow on the property into some sort of low end housing configuration that woulA be a detriment to the community and the neighboring home owners in an effort to protect open space issues. Why not just the one home that we requested? This clearly provides the opportunity to insure that the feeling of large undeveloped areas is accomplished. When I was asked by staff what the owners intent was as far as use of the restricted area on the proposed Parcel "C' if the Council didn't grant the use request, I replied personal recreational use such as equestrian facilities, swimming pools, etc. The staff member then told me that the City didn't have to allow that use! This owner has never threatened litigation on this property in any proposal he has presented to the City because he fully understands his legal rights, the process provided for his requests for use and those uses that do not require Council action. The restriction -is against residential* buildings 'only!" If the City requires that he litigate this issue, he is fully prepared to do so. On the question. of land use zoning within the proposed General Plan, either RR or PP as defined by Councilwoman Ansari are acceptable. However, the specific plan process for 15 units is not acceptable and is clearly inappropriate in this application. On the question of the lot line adjustment as it pertains to the boundaries of `The Country', we have not suggested that this lot adjustment grants modification of these boundaries, nor have we suggested that the Council has the authority to modify these boundaries. The issue of annexation of the additional property to the association needs to be addressed, by the owner and the board. The board has already indicated that they do not wish to annex this property if that annexation means increased density. The owner understands the board's concerns and intends to respect those concerns. We felt that we had made a good faith effort to address the Council's concerns on development of this property, a compromise that would have allowed only one home. Our good faith effort was meet .by accusations that we were filing a application for 70 single family lots? We are ready to honor our offer of just one home, if you are ready to honestly address the truth surrounding this opportunity. Respectfully, fan C. Dabney cc: Mr. Jim Gardner, The Country Estates Homeowner's Association Mr. Dwight Forrister, President, D & L Properties Inc. Scald ci J Fret Ys J� Vk*Ch,• ca.,a c a PxA 7 Lr .w . Lk o, w ?u: l*w J $ 1— C _ sng 4.a+et ,}rtr^y Sth.rt o s F u....ey� ea a+ wy var- 90 W"A, 5•" 89 Co ,AA F 'N"'N 88 -- r Ar..W 87 W"a A Daaq6g'88 P- ob ^ E Wycoff 8A Goxve F Mo" 87 PaJ M_ CNcy 82 P Py,f Si AcnarW. M 0.'00 0—d W Coaer 72 L" F, SoaW10-w9, 78 PVV J. PrtCyea 77 Jrfv M Fl,aaon 78 1. Snan,wr� ,r 74 70 GUO jCW. SCCA!, arc _xp GrC-r ;�rogra -'S Los Angeles Area Council Boy Scouts of America 2333 Scout Way Box 26910 Los Angeles, CA 90026 June 30, 1995 Telephone: (213) 413-4400 • FAX (213) 483-6472 DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL Phyllis Papen, Mayor Gary Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Clair Harms ny, CounciL*nember Eileen Ansari, Counc lmiarber - City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 Re: Boy Scouts of America Tcnmner canym priope-rty ., (Firestone Reservaticn) located 3n Diamond Bar's .ire of influence Honorable Councilmembers: We understand that the Diamond Bar City Council may rcw ccrsider certain proposed changes to the Draft General Plan which will impact the Bay Scouts' property. These proposed changes irclude: The Scouts" property would lose its Agriculture designation, with one t1ael l ing unit per two acre density allowance (which designation and density it has under the County of Los Angeles). Density would be reduced by half 'to one &elling.unit per four acres. The Scouts' property would be designated "Planned Preservation". Development on the property would require a greater level of ccm mitt' amenities and superior design, as compared to conventional subdivisions. 7% of Scouts' property would retrain open space, park or public facilities. The Boy Scouts of America hereby informs the City and Council that we will strongly protest these proposed changes which impact our property, for the following reasons: The change in land use designation to "Planned Preservation", developrent density reduction, and. restriction on 75% of our property amount to a "taking" without ccupensation. A gift to the Los Angeles Area Council Trust Fund supports Scouting beyond one's rdetime utis.e wry 6 �, F W• iii • t. Scald ci J Fret Ys J� Vk*Ch,• ca.,a c a PxA 7 Lr .w . Lk o, w ?u: l*w J $ 1— C _ sng 4.a+et ,}rtr^y Sth.rt o s F u....ey� ea a+ wy var- 90 W"A, 5•" 89 Co ,AA F 'N"'N 88 -- r Ar..W 87 W"a A Daaq6g'88 P- ob ^ E Wycoff 8A Goxve F Mo" 87 PaJ M_ CNcy 82 P Py,f Si AcnarW. M 0.'00 0—d W Coaer 72 L" F, SoaW10-w9, 78 PVV J. PrtCyea 77 Jrfv M Fl,aaon 78 1. Snan,wr� ,r 74 70 GUO jCW. SCCA!, arc _xp GrC-r ;�rogra -'S Los Angeles Area Council Boy Scouts of America 2333 Scout Way Box 26910 Los Angeles, CA 90026 June 30, 1995 Telephone: (213) 413-4400 • FAX (213) 483-6472 DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL Phyllis Papen, Mayor Gary Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Clair Harms ny, CounciL*nember Eileen Ansari, Counc lmiarber - City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 Re: Boy Scouts of America Tcnmner canym priope-rty ., (Firestone Reservaticn) located 3n Diamond Bar's .ire of influence Honorable Councilmembers: We understand that the Diamond Bar City Council may rcw ccrsider certain proposed changes to the Draft General Plan which will impact the Bay Scouts' property. These proposed changes irclude: The Scouts" property would lose its Agriculture designation, with one t1ael l ing unit per two acre density allowance (which designation and density it has under the County of Los Angeles). Density would be reduced by half 'to one &elling.unit per four acres. The Scouts' property would be designated "Planned Preservation". Development on the property would require a greater level of ccm mitt' amenities and superior design, as compared to conventional subdivisions. 7% of Scouts' property would retrain open space, park or public facilities. The Boy Scouts of America hereby informs the City and Council that we will strongly protest these proposed changes which impact our property, for the following reasons: The change in land use designation to "Planned Preservation", developrent density reduction, and. restriction on 75% of our property amount to a "taking" without ccupensation. A gift to the Los Angeles Area Council Trust Fund supports Scouting beyond one's rdetime utis.e wry - 2 - An arbitrary and discriminatory standard is being applied to the Scouts' property, requiring higher development standards for any proposed development. If the City Council adopts the General Plan with these proposed changes, be aware that the Boy Scouts may be forced to challenge the General Plan, and will challenge any application for annexation of the Scouts' property by the City of Diamond Bar. In this regard. we object to the proposed General Plan. if changed, on the grounds set forth herein and as previously came iicated to the Council both in writing and in presentations to Council. The Boy Scouts of America have participated in this General Plan adoption process, cartnwnicating to the City of Diamond Bar that we expect to be treated fairly, and maintain our existing development riots. we have attended public hearings, and have made public comment, as well as corresponded in writing to the City on several occasions. We have been frustrated with the length of time it has taken the City, which incorporated in 1989, to adopt a General Plan. Now it seem that you have finally arrived at a "solution" to keep a small, dissident group of anti -property rights activists in the camunity satisfied so that a General Plan can be adapted, at the Boy Scouts cAp:E Se. These proposed changes to the Draft General Plan which impact our property are siuply not acceptable arra will not be tolerated. We already feel that the current density allot-ance (per the May 9, 1995 Draft General Plan) is a significant ca�ramise, and it.mist be ranambered that before any development Could occur in Tonner Canyon, it would be subject to metal review and scrutiny - by both the City and the camunity. Sincerely, YJohn Cardis Chairman c: DIAM :[SID BAR CITY STAFF Terrence Belanger, City Manager Janes DeStefano, Planning Director Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney Walnut Valley Unified School District 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut, California 91789 • (909) 595-1261 • Fax (909) 595-9626 • Ronald W. Hockwaft, Ed. D., Superintendent July 3, 1995 Diamond Bar City Council 21660 Copley Place, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear Mayor Papen & City Council Members: The Governing Board of the Walnut Valley Unified School District and administration would like to respond to the 1995 General Plan suggested revisions to the land use element of the revised May 9, 1995 Diamond Bar General Plan. The Walnut Valley Unified School District owns two of the five properties on which the revisions are suggested - PP4, the 78 acres surrounding South Pointe Middle School, and PP5, the 27 acres known as Site D on Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. The 1995 General Plan suggested revisions are not in the best interests of students in Walnut and Diamond Bar, and certainly are not in the best interests of the school district. Such suggested revisions would have dire financial impact on the property owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District. We object strongly to the taking of district land by the City without regard to financial compensation or financial impact to the students in this community. Mrs. Ansari suggested at an earlier meeting that the language in the draft General Plan was too restricted, and we would concur. The language found in 1.18 of the suggested revisions is also too restrictive. The numbers, percentages and residential density numbers, are prescriptive and detrimental to the school district. Mrs. Ansari suggested that "planned development" sent the wrong message, and so does "planned preservation" in our minds. We believe that an alternative language that would better describe the land use is the term "mixed use." Then, as per Mrs. Ansari's earlier suggestion. we suggest deleting all percentages and specific numbers from these sections. We ask that our objections be heard, that our alternative language be considered, and that this letter become a part of our formal legal protest to the land use element of the Diamond Bar General Plan as revised on June 20, 1995. RWH:mar Most sincerely, o , MWX. Christine McPeak Board President )<- i XC?06 &' Ronald W. Hockwalt, Ed. D. Superintendent Board of Trustees Carol A. Herrera • Helen M. Hall • Christine McPeak • Larry L. Redinger • Marsha Sykes 1 coWNsu LCC a PAUL ROf CRT P HASTINGS LEONARD S J.NOFs— C.A.LES M WALKER ORANGC COUNTY OFFICE 693 TO— CCNrEW ORIVE COSTO MESA. CALIFORNIA 92e26-192. TCLCPHONC !7141 666-6200 / WCST LOS ANGELS OFFICE 1299 OCEAN AVENUE SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90.01-1016 TELEPHONE (3101 319-3.300 TOKYO OFFICE TORAN O MON OHTORI BUILDING .-3, TORANOMON I -C HOMC NINATO-KU. TOKYO 105 r _LE■HONE 1031 3SO7-0130 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUN§CR (213) 683-6142 LAW OFFICES OF P�LZ.. H-kSTI\GS, JA\OFSKY & Tat AP-NERS..1F +c�Wo1Nn /ROFESSIO—L co.—T—S TWENTY-THIRD FLOOR 555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 20071-2371 TCLEPHONC 12131 663-6000 TWX filo-321-A065 FACSIMILC (2131 627-0705 July 10, 1995 DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL Phyllis Papen, Mayor Gary Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Clair Harmony, Councilmember Eileen Ansari, Councilmember City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765 v _♦ SIJ ojiN r z z z �s5y 1q r 1 � - e TLA NTA, �GEO PG� V0�03-�BAO CO1yyEC�DiOT OF/ICC 10357'7aSHINGTpN �OWLEVARD STAB 000. CONNECTICUT 0690,2217 TELEPHONE 12031 961-7.00 NCW YORK OFFICE 399 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, NCW -OAK 10022-697 TELEPHONE 12121 316-6000 WASHINGTON OC OFFICE 1299 PE..SYLV.N.A .vewuE. wA3 H1NGTON OC 2000.-2.00 -9500 7ELEP1.aONC (2021 SO6 Re: City Council Hearing on July 11, 1995 for Consideration of General Plan -- Boy Scouts of America Tonner Canyon Property (Firestone Reservation) Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: OUR FILE NO 06325.55384 We represent the Boy Scouts of America (11= Scouts"). By this letter, the Boy Scouts object to and protest certain proposed changes to the current draft of the proposed General Plan for City of Diamond Bar ("City"). In particular, the current draft of the General Plan assigns a land use designation of "AG/SP" and an associated density allowance of one unit per two acres to the Boy Scouts' property located in Tonner Canyon (Firestone Reservation) in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Property"). However, it is our understanding that the City Council may consider: (1) redesignating the Property from Agricultural to "Planned Preservation"; (2) reducing the density allowance permitted thereunder by one half to one dwelling unit per four acres; (3) requiring a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of community amenities and "superior design" before development will be PAUL. HASTINGS, JA OFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 2 permitted; and (4) requiring that 75% of the Property remain open space, park or public facilities. The purpose of this letter is to address the City Council's consideration of these possible changes to the General Plan and to object to any -adoption thereof. Adoption of these changes would be confiscatory, which would result in a "taking" without just compensation in violation of the United States and California Constitutions, violate Due Process and Equal Protection, violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violate substantive Due Process, violate the California Environmental Quality Act and violate California housing laws. I. Introduction and Background Facts. The Boy Scouts have owned the Property for many years. The Property has been used principally as a recreational facility for the Boy Scouts. The Property is presently under the jurisdictional control of the County of Los Angeles and is zoned by the County as an agricultural resource, which permits a density of one dwelling unit per two acres. In March 1995, the City Council, after protracted consideration and discussions with the Boy Scouts, with affected landowners and with other interested members of the public, voted to designate the Property under the proposed General Plan as "AG/SP," with an associated density allowance of one dwelling unit per two acres. At the time of the Property's proposed redesignation, no serious opposition surfaced to the land use density allowance and it was supported by substantially all interested parties. Recently, a small but vocal group of citizens (hereinafter, "Citizens Grow") has come forth and opposed adoption of the General Plan with its current land use designation and density allowance for the City's Sphere of Influence, including the Property, in an effort to stop any future development on the Property --all of this in spite of PAUL. H aSTINGS. JaNOFSKY & U1 LKER DIAMOND_BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 3 the fact that members of this Citizens Group previously supported it in March.J II. Opposition of the Boy Scouts of America to Redesignation of the Propertv. Reduction of the Existina Density Allowance and Imposition of Additional Development Restrictions. A. The Proposed Chances to the General Plan Would Result in a Taking Without Just Compensation in Violation of the United States and California State Constitutions. 1. The Proposed Chances to the General Plan Constitute a Regulatory Taking Without Just Compensation under both the Nollan and Dolan Supreme Court Decisions. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const. amend. V.W A taking can arise from government regulation of property use (a "regulatory taking"). Yeev. City of Escondido. Cal., 112 S. Ct. 1522, 1526 (1992).N I/ In March 1995, during the hearings regarding density, the only parties suggesting that the City Council may want to consider a lesser density than 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres were Jim DeStefano of City Staff and Don Cotton, the City's General Plan consultant. Members of the public which now oppose this designation were silent, or gave public testimony in support of the Boy Scouts. Z/ The Fifth Amendment is made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Chicago Burlington & ouincv R.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 239 (1897). J The City Council's proposed changes would also result in a taking without just compensation under the California Constitution. The California Constitution provides: (continued...) PAUL. H aSTI\GS. Ja\OFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND_BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 4 The Supreme Court has declared that a land -use regulation is a taking unless the regulation substantially advances legitimate state interests and the regulation does not deny an owner of an economically viable use of his or her land. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 834 (1987). The Supreme Court has recently expanded upon its Nollan decision holding that while a city may condition the granting of a permit on certain dedication requirements, it may do so without paying compensation only if: (1) the permit condition promotes a legitimate state interest; (2) there is an essential nexus between the state interest and the requirements attached to the permit; and (3) there is a "rough proportionality" in connection between the exactions and the projected impacts of the development. Dolan v. City of Tigard, No. 93-518, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994). The proposed changes to the proposed General Plan are discriminatory (no factual basis or justification) and appear to have as their primary purpose the appeasement of a small anti -development sector of the community. Such a rationale for the proposed changes to the General Plan do not "substantially advance a legitimate state interest" as required under federal law. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 127 (1978), reh'a denied, 439 U.S. 883 (1978) ["a. [land] use restriction on real property may constitute a 'taking' if not reasonably necegsary to the effectuation of a substantial public purpose"]. Second, with respect to the proposed General Plan revisions which would require a significant portion of the Property to be maintained as open space and permit the City to require a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of conditions, exactions and standards before development can proceed, the City Council could not establish or document a "sufficient nexus between the effect of the ordinance and the objectives it is supposed to advance," as required under Dolan. 1/( ... continued) "Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner." Cal. Const. art. I, § 19. PAUL. HASTINGS, J NOFSKY & UI LKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 5 In Dolan, the Supreme Court applied a higher degree of scrutiny of local agency land use decisions and has placed the burden of proving a "rough proportionality" between the condition imposed and impacts of the developments directly on the government. The Court held that since the relationship between the exaction and the impacts was M& documented, the dedication was not justified in the record before the city (i.e. the Court now requires more than just conclusory statements and requires substantial documentation). In the present situation, the City Council has not provided adequate reasoning or any sort of documentation or evidence for the need to: (1) redesignate the Property from Agricultural to "Planned Preservation"; (2) reduce the density allowance permitted thereunder; (3) require a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of community amenities and "superior design" before development will be permitted; or (4) require that 75% of the Property remain open space, park or public facilities. In fact, the City Council could not provide the needed reasoning or support for -the proposed changes. If the City Council were to adopt the proposed changes, it would be requiring a dedication (by designating the Property open space) and exactions without bearing its burden of justification (as required under Dolan), which would clearly result in a regulatory taking without just compensation. , 2. The Proposed Chanes to the General Plan Deny the Boy Scouts Viable Use of Their Propertv. In addition to the City Council's failure to establish that its proposed action substantially advances legitimate state interests, the proposed changes to the General Plan do not meet the second condition of Nollan-- that the regulation not deny an owner an economically viable use of his land. In determining whether an owner has been denied economically viable use of his land, the Court has looked to the extent to which the regulation has interfered with investment -backed expectations. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978), reh'g denied, 439"U.S. 883 (1978). The Court recently emphasized that if "a regulation that declares 'off-limits' all economically productive or beneficial uses of land goes beyond what the relevant background principles [of law] FAIL. HASTINGS. JA OFSKY & IIALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 6 would dictate, compensation must be paid to sustain it." Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 2901 (1992). The Boy Scouts view the Property as an important asset and source of future funding. The Boy Scouts must be able to keep "options available" for the future. Although the Boy Scouts do not have any immediate development plans for the Property, the Boy Scouts need to maintain the current density allowance for future planning of contemplated improvements. To declare the greatest portion of it open space and further reduce its current limited density will deny the Boy Scouts economically viable use of its land and interfere with the Boy Scouts' investment - backed expectations. The Boy Scouts acquired and have managed the Property "in reliance on a state of affairs that did not include the challenged regulatory scheme." T.oveladies Harbor. Inc. v. U.S., 28 F.3d 1171, 1177 (Fed.Cir. 1994). If any of the proposed changes were adopted, the City would be acting "arbitrarily and capriciously" and "disappoint [these] reasonable investment - backed expectations." Florida Rock Industries. Inc. v. U.S., 18 F.3d 1560, 1571 (Fed.Cir. 1994). Even if the proposed changes to the General Plan do not deny the Boy Scouts viable use of all of its Property, the courts now require compensation for landowners that suffer a "partial taking" when the government burdens "all" of a portion of the owner's holdings. Toveladies Harbor. Inc. v. U.S., 28 F.3d 1171 (Fed.Cir. 1994) [court found a "denial of economically viable use" and, thus, a taking when the Army Corps of Engineers denied a landowner a permit to fill the remaining 12.5 acres of its former 250 acres]; Florida Rock Industries. Inc. v. U.S., 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed.Cir. 1994) [the court redefined a loss in value as a "partial taking" and opened the door to compensation for landowners even when there is concededly no denial of all economic use for the property]. Thus, at the very least, a partial taking would occur by 75% of the Property being designated open space. PALL. H aSTI\GS. JA\OFSKY & KUHR DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 7 B. The Proposed General Plan Chanaes Deny the Boy Scouts of America Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws. A city regulation or action may not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or deprive a person of equal protection of the laws. Violations of these two principles arise under certain circumstances when a city makes an unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory classification not sufficiently justified by public necessity, or too drastic in its methods. James Longtin, T.onatin's California Land Use, 2d ed., 4 1.30[2], p. 52. Land use regulations, and especially zoning ordinances, by their very nature make many distinctions which classify property and treat property differently for different purposes. Equal protection does not require uniform treatment, but it does require a reasonable basis for the legislative classification. It is the duty of the agency to determine -whether -the facts justify such a classification. Id., p. 53. However, a city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance. Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa'Mesa (1981) 126 Ca1.App.3d 330 [An initiative downzoning of parcels previously zoned for multiple family dwellings by a city council sixteen months earlier, without any significant change in circumstances and without considering appropriate planning criteria and for the purpose of defeating eventual development was held discriminatory and invalid]; = Associates v. Citv of Torrance, (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 830 [building moratorium invalid where the ordinance was discriminatorily enacted to block plaintiff's proposed apartment project after plaintiff obtained financing and sought a building permit.]. Under the current facts, there is no rational classification or reason for the proposed limitations on the Boys Scouts' Property. The proposed changes to the General Plan unfairly apply restrictions to the Property in relation to adjacent development in the City. If adopted, they would not be based upon appropriate planning criteria; but rather PAUL. HASTINGS. JANOFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND -BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 8 apparently done to appease the Citizens Groups desire to limit development, all at the expense of the Boy Scouts. Given the foregoing, the proposed changes to the General Plan would deny the Boy Scouts of its rights of Due Process and Equal Protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. C. The Proposed Chancres to the General Plan violate 42 U.S.C. 41983. The proposed changes to the General Plan would also violate the United States Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. g 1983. The Supreme Court has recognized an action under the United States Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. S 1983, to obtain a remedy for overregulation of land use.9 Take Country Estates. Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Aaency, 440 U.S. 391, 399-400 (1979). The plaintiffs in Take Country Estates alleged that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency had adopted a land -use ordinance that destroyed the economic value of their property. Id. at 394. In reviewing the alleged facts, the Court declared: "these facts adequately characterize the alleged actions of the [Tahoe Regional Planning Agency] as 'under color of state law' within the meaning of [the United States Civil Rights Act]." Id. at 400. Like the land -use regulations in Take Country Estates, the proposed changes to the General Plan destroy or severely impair the economic value of the Property. The land value destruction arises from the substantial reduction of the land available to the Boy Scouts and the reduction of density allowance for the land which remains available. A/ The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. S 1983, provides: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding or redress." PAUL. H aST[NGS. J ANOFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 9 Therefore, the Boy Scouts could United States Civil Rights Act, this overregulation of land use proposed changes are adopted. also bring an action under 42 U.S.C. g 1983, to remedy that violates the Act if the D. The Proposed Changes to the General Plan Violate Substantive -Due Process. The proposed changes to the General Plan would also violate substantive due process as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has declared that the United States Constitution's guarantee of substantive due process is violated if a law or regulation is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85 (1980) (quoting Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 525 (1934)). Sgg also Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 15 (1976) (due process violation if the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way). In addition, a law or regulation must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. Williamson V. Tee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 488 (1955), reh'q denied, 349 U.S. 925 (1955). ,See, also Nelson v. -City of Selma, 881 F.2d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1989); Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v.. Dept. 'of Public- Serv., 763 F.2d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 1985). As mentioned above, the proposed changes to the General Plan are unreasonable and arbitrary in that they benefit others at the sacrifice of the Boy Scouts in violation of State and Federal Law. The proposed changes to the General Plan also fail the rational relationship test because they do not rationally relate to any legitimate state interest, as discussed above. E. The Proposed General Plan Changes Constitute Significantly New and Changed Circumstances which Reauire Renewed Environmental Review and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact Report. The adoption or amendment of general plans or elements thereof requires compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Given the substantial nature of the proposed change in density and other development PAUL, HASTINGS, JaNOFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 10 restrictions for the Property, the environmental analysis in the environmental impact report ("EIR") is insufficient and further environmental analysis and review, including recirculation of the EIR, will be required. See Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21092.1. The extent and nature of the proposed changes to the General Plan contemplated by the City are such that many significant adverse environmental impacts can be anticipated. A wholesale reduction in the density allowance within the Sphere of Influence area --which area comprises approximately one third of the entire potential land surface area of the City --would significantly reduce the available land area which can be devoted to uses other than open space uses and which may be necessary and an integral part of the buildout of the community as a whole under the General Plan. For example, the land available for housing will be significantly reduced by adoption of the proposed changes to the General Plan. By changing the amount of land available for housing (and therefore affordable housing) the character of the community has the potential to change dramatically. Also, increasing substantially the acreage devoted to open space would significantly alter the assumptions made regarding the City's future infrastructure, crime prevention, fire, health, educational, and energy needs and requirements. The existing EIR assumes adoption of the present land use designation, a density allowance of two units per acre and conventional subdivision requirements; and thus, inadequately evaluates the significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the General Plan. None of the environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the General Plan have been evaluated and submitted for public review and comment as required by CEQA. As illustrated above, the reduction in the land available for housing alone has the potential to significantly alter the assumptions made about the future of the community. Therefore, the City's reliance upon the existing EIR would be inadequate. As a matter of law, the City cannot rely upon the EIR or upon any other environmental documents which do not evidence thorough evaluation of the possible environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the General Plan. TAurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco. Inc. v. Regents of PAIL. H ASTI\GS. Ja`OFSKY & W-kLKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 11 the University of California ("Taurel Heights II") (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112. F. The Public Has Not Been Given Sufficient Opportunity to Comment Upon the Proposed Changes to the General Plan. The primary purpose of CEQA is to ensure that significant environmental impacts of a proposed action are fully evaluated and made available to the public. CEQA requires that environmental review be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b); Stand Tall on Principles v. Shasta Union Hirth School District (3d.Dist. 1991) 235 Cal.App.3 772, 779-81; Uhler v. Citv of Encinitas (4th Dist. 1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 795, 803-04; Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of the Universitv of California (1st Dist. 1978) 77 Cal.App. 3d 20. In this regard, the City must evaluate environmental effects well in advance of the target date for approving the project, which cannot occur until all the public and every responsible agency has had an opportunity_ to examine and comment on the document. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(a); Public Resources Code Section 21061; Friends of Mammoth Y. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 247, 266. The City Council proposes to: (1)'redesignate the Property from Agricultural Designation to "Planned Preservation"; (2) reduce the density allowance permitted thereunder by one half to one dwelling unit per four acres; (3) require a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of community amenities and superior design, as compared to conventional subdivisions in order for development to occur; and (4) require that 75% of the Property remain open space, park or public facilities --all without environmental review and all without giving members of the public a chance to review the City's proposed changes. CEQA does not permit the City's contemplated action under these circumstances without notice, recirculation of the EIR and an opportunity for the public to comment. See Pub. Resources Code Section 21092.1. PAUL H aST[\GS. Ja\OFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND -BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 12 G. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the Property is Consistent with the General Policies of the General Plan and Amendment Thereto Requires Resubmission to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission must hold at least one public hearing prior to the City Council's approval of an adoption of or an amendment to the General Plan. Cal. Govt. Code 4 65354. Given the substantial proposed changes to the proposed General Plan, it would have to return to the Planning Commission for public hearing. H. The Proposed Changes to the General Plan Mav Violate the State of California's Housing Requirements A city must zone land appropriately to meet the identified regional housing needs (Cal. Govt. Code 4 65913.1) and to refrain from imposing subdivision criteria for the purpose of rendering affordable housing infeasible (g 65913.2). Virtually all of the proposed changes to the General Plan would have the effect of rendering affordable housing infeasible. For example, a reduction in the available land area within the City's Sphere of Influence area, an area which comprises almost one third of the entire land area of the City, would have the effect of reducing dramatically the aggregate number of homes which could be built, as well as unreasonably restricting the possible locations for homes to be provided for people seeking to live within the community. In addition, requiring a "significant benefit to the City" and a "greater level" of community amenities and "superior design" before development would be permitted could have the effect of making it much more difficult for the City to provide affordable housing. For these reasons, and others, the proposed'changes to the General plan would violate state laws requiring affordable housing. PAUL, H ASTD GS, JaNOFSKY & WALKER DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL July 10, 1995 Page 13 III. Conclusion. For all the reasons set forth above, the Boy Scouts of America oppose proposed revisions to the General Plan which would impact the Tonner Canyon Property, and strongly encourage each of you to = make any such changes. incerely, / Jon than C. Curtis for IAUL, INGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER JCC/Fames cc:rrence Belanger - City Manager DeStefano - Planning Director Michael Montgomery - Interim City Attorney City of Diamond Bar - City Clerk Hayden C. Eaves, III Craig Boucher John C. Cushman, III Thomas Kolin Larry J. Kosmont -Paul R. Walker, Esq. O'Malley Miller, Esq. Jack Rodman Jack Schram Rick Mork John T. Cardis Edward C. Jacobs John P. Pollack Paul V. Colony Paul R. Walker, Esq. Susan E. Perry, Esq. MONTGOMERY LAW OFFICE TEL:1-818-452-8323 Jul 21 95 10:29 No.004 P.02 FROM: SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL DATE: JULY 21, 1995 RE: POTENTIAL LAWSUIT'S OVER GENERAL PLAN Councilman Harmony has asked me to again comment on the question of whether or not the City Council risks lawsuits and judgments for damages, by adopting a General Plan that may have more restrictive zoning as to certain land areas. The following rules apply: 1. More adoption of a general plan does not give rise to inverse condemnation. Selby Realty_ Co. v. City of San Buena Ventura, 10 Cal.3d 110. 2. Land owners have no vested right in existing or anticipated zoning ordinances. HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 508; Morse v. County of San Luis Obispo, 247 -Cal. App. 2d 600. 3. Mere dosignation of land for an, "open space" purpose in a General Plan doffs not give rise to a claim of inverse condemnation. Rancho La Costa v. San Diego County (1980) 111 Cal. App -3d 54, 101 S. C. 2020. 4. There is no taking with respect to map-rostricted parcels, where the restriction was given as part of the original building permit. Leroy Land Development Corp. v. Tahoe Re¢ional_ Planning Agency, 99 F.2d 696. 5. When restrictions on the use of real party are the basis for a taking claim, the owner must pursue any available administrative permit processes before seeking compensation or challenging the statute or regulation. Hensler_v. City of Glendale (1995) 8 Cal.4th 1. G. A party who takes title to real property with restrictions in place, does not havo standing . to claim a taking. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1993) 15 Cal. App.4th 737. ;.i LAW OFFX= t MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY of COUNSEL A LAW OORPORATION ��? ALAN R, BURNS' J JOHN ROBERT HARPER' 14501 VALLEY BOULEVARD, SUITE 121 ^ �, EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 01751 - \ t` ORANGE COUNTY Of" TELEPHONE (81a) 452.1222 153 5. GLASSELL STREET FACSIMILE (81 a) 452 -ears ORANGE, CA 02M (114) "1.772! ALSO ADMITTED TO FLORIDA "Prds"Im l Oorpontim" AND HAWAY STATE SARS MEMORANDUM WENW D, DAMMER TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL DATE: JULY 21, 1995 RE: POTENTIAL LAWSUIT'S OVER GENERAL PLAN Councilman Harmony has asked me to again comment on the question of whether or not the City Council risks lawsuits and judgments for damages, by adopting a General Plan that may have more restrictive zoning as to certain land areas. The following rules apply: 1. More adoption of a general plan does not give rise to inverse condemnation. Selby Realty_ Co. v. City of San Buena Ventura, 10 Cal.3d 110. 2. Land owners have no vested right in existing or anticipated zoning ordinances. HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 508; Morse v. County of San Luis Obispo, 247 -Cal. App. 2d 600. 3. Mere dosignation of land for an, "open space" purpose in a General Plan doffs not give rise to a claim of inverse condemnation. Rancho La Costa v. San Diego County (1980) 111 Cal. App -3d 54, 101 S. C. 2020. 4. There is no taking with respect to map-rostricted parcels, where the restriction was given as part of the original building permit. Leroy Land Development Corp. v. Tahoe Re¢ional_ Planning Agency, 99 F.2d 696. 5. When restrictions on the use of real party are the basis for a taking claim, the owner must pursue any available administrative permit processes before seeking compensation or challenging the statute or regulation. Hensler_v. City of Glendale (1995) 8 Cal.4th 1. G. A party who takes title to real property with restrictions in place, does not havo standing . to claim a taking. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1993) 15 Cal. App.4th 737. ;.i _-=aCE TEL:1-818-452-8323 Jul 21 95 10:30 No.004 P.03 LAW OFFICE3 MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY Mayor and City Council City Diamond Bar July 21, 1995 Page 2 7. Property owners who aro not deprived of the existing use of their land have no claim against the City. Burchett v. City of Newport Beach (1995) 95 Daily Journals D.A.R. 4511. This opinion follows, and is consistent with, opinions on the fiubject previously rondered on January 18, 1995, and March 3, 1995. N -ED PAGE 4) 1 LHW OFFICE TEL:1-818-452-8323 Jul 21 95 LAW CrACES MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY A LAW CORPORATION 10601 VALLEY BOULEVARD. WTE 121 R. MONTE, CALIFORNIA aim TELEPHONE (5181452-1222 FACSIMLE 014) 452.5323 ALSO ADMITTED TO FLOF40A AND HAWAII STATE BARS MEMORANDUM 10:30 No.004 P.04 OF COUNSEL ALAN R. BURN8' JOHN ROBERT HARPER' QRANGE 00�*TM OFFICE 4553 S. QLASMILL STREET ORANGE. CA a" (714) 771.7726 'Prdn:larrd Corp ons WENDY D. DAWER TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL DATE: JULY 20, 1999 RE: ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN BY INITIATIVE PROCESS You have inquired as to the possibility of placing one or more General Plans on the ballot for adoption by the electorate. The following rules apply: 1. The City Council may submit to the voters, without a petition therefore, a proposition for the enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special City election. Elections Code 19222. 2. The planning process need not be followed before a vote token by the electorate on a General Plan, Da Vida v. Countv of Napa, 9 Cal.4th 783 (a recent California State Supreme Court decision) . Based on the foregoing, the Council may place one or more measures on the next general election for submission to the electorate. The ordinance obtaining the highost number of votes shall prevail. Election Code 19221. I previously reportod on this on May 16, 1998, which was attached to the agenda report for the July 11, 1995 meeting. I reattach that opinion. PACE 2 (PRINTED PAGE 2� ; MCNTG 'MFRY LAW CF=ICE TEL:1-818-452-8323 Jul 21 95 10:29 NO.004 Z.02 LAWOF MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY A LAW 00000MI10N 10001 VALLEY BOaAIWAD. SURE 1 Y1 EL MONTE. CALIFONiIA 01731 TELEPHONE IIIA 4WIM FACBRAI_E P1 IN 4624K s ALso Amw7Y0 TO PLoRoA AND MLI%" STATE BARS r - MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL ALAN R eLA4Ns' JOHN ROBERT HAMW OMM MW �LLSTREET MANOR. CA OW WEWY 0. OAWBR TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL DATE: JULY 21, 1998 RE: POTENTIAL LAWSUITS OVER GENERAL PLAN Councilman Harmony has asked me to again comment on the question of whether or not the City Council risks lawsuits and judgments: for damages, by adopting a General Plan that may have more restrictive zoning as to certain land arms. The following rules apply: 1. More adoption of a general plan does not give rise to inverso condemnation. Selby Realty . Co. v. City of San Buena Ventura, 10 Caf.3d 110. 2. Land owners have- no vested right in existing or anticipated zoning ordinanoes. HFH. Ltd. v. Su riot Court, 13 Cal -3d 508; Morse v. County of San Luisi ONeoo, M7 Cal.' App.2d 600. 3. More dosignation of lead for an, "open span" purpose in a General Plan does not give rite to a claim of inverse condemmdon. Rancho to Costa v. San Dforo County (1980) 111 Cal. App -3d 549 101 S. C. 2040. 4. There Is no taking with respect to map-rostricted parcels, where the restriction was given as part of the original building permit. Leroy Land Development Corp. v. Tahoe Revinnal Plsnnine Agency, 16 F.2d 696. 5. When restrictions on the use of real party are the basis for a taking claim, the owner must pursue any available administrative permit processes before seeking compensation or challenrinP the statute or regulation. Hensler v. City of Glondale (1995) 8 Cal -Ah 1. S. A party who takes title to real property with restrictions in place, does not have standing . to -claim a taking. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1993) 15 Cal. App.4th 737. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Managete/,� RE: City Hall Office Space DATE: July 3, 1995 ISSUE: Shall the City lease office space, if so for what term of years; or, continue to pursue the possibility of purchasing a building to serve as City Hall? RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a one year lease for Suites 100 and 190, at 21660 E. Copley Drive, in the amount of $158,106. It is further recommended that the City Council direct staff to pursue the purchase of a building, for City Hall offices; and, hold a closed session on July 11, 1995 to give staff negotiation direction and authority. DISCUSSION.- On ISCUSSION: On June 20, 1995, staff provided the Council with a memorandum (attached), which discussed proposed four year leases with Seeley (current lessor) and SCAQMD. The staff recommended that the City Council approve a four year lease with Seeley, for Suites 150 and 190 (9098 sq.ft.). The staff was asked to bring back to the Council a lease proposal with a shorter term of years. Also, the Council expressed continuing interest in purchasing a building for use as City Hall. As regards a shorter term of years for an office space lease the following are the Seeley and SCAQMD alternatives: Seeley: Year One: Suites 100/190 (3 mos@1.66/ft) $ 34,984.50 Ops expenses Suites 100/190 4,542.00 Suites 150/190 (9 mos@1.65/ft) $135,105.30 $174,632.00 Year Two: Suites 150/190 (12 mos@1.75/ft) $191,058.00 $191,058.00 $365,690.00 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. Gr TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 REPORT DATE: July 20, 1995 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: RESOLUTION NO.95-XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SUMMARY: On May 9, 1995, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft 1995 General Plan. The Council adopted Resolution No. 95-21 certifying the adequacy of the Addendum to the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. In addition, the Council, discussed the possibility of placing the General Plan on the ballot. The meeting was continued to May 23, 1995 in order to provide options to the City Council regarding adoption of the General Plan. The May 23, 1995 discusson was continued to June 20, 1995, July 11, 1995 and again to July 25, 1995. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from City staff, review the General Plan materials, and adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX. LIST OF ATTACHMENTSA 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 X 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? X Yes _ No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belan er Frank U h r es DeStefan City Manager Assistant City Manager Community De, CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO.95-XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 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. The 1995 General Plan is presented for adoption. BACKGROUND: On May 9, 1995, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft 1995 General Plan. The public hearing was opened, testimony received, and corrections and changes were made by the Council. Resolution No. 95-21 incorporating Resolution 92-43 by reference and certifying the adequacy of the Addendum to the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report was adopted. The Council, on May 9, 1995, discussed the possibility of placing the General Plan on the ballot. The meeting was continued to May 23, 1995 in order to provide options to the City Council regarding adoption of the 1995 General Plan. The Associate City Attorney has provided the attached memorandum regarding options available to the City Council. In response to City Council direction the General Plan has been modified incorporating revisions as discussed on May 9, 1995. The latest draft of the General Plan, dated May 9, 1995 is presented for adoption. 1 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, receive a presentation from City staff and adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX. PREPARED BY: James DeStefano Community Development Director attachments: • Draft Resolution No. 95 -XX • Draft General Plan dated May 9, 1995 (previously transmitted) • City Council staff report dated May 9, 1995 (without attachments) • May 9, 1995 City Council Minutes • Memorandum from Michael Montgomery dated May 16, 1995 • Suggested revisions to 1995 General Plan from Councilmember Ansari, dated June 20, 1995. • Letter from Jan C. Dabney dated June 29, 1995 • Leter from Boy Scouts of America dated June 30, 1995 • Letter from Walnut Valley Unified School District dated July 3, 1995 • Letter from Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker dated July 10, 1995 N RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PU.N FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR A. Recitals. (i) The City of Diamond Bar previously initiated proceedings to adopt a general plan (111992 General Plan") pursuant to Title 7, Division 1 of the California Government Code Sections 65360 and 65361. (ii) In 1990 a General Plan Advisory Committee was formed to provide the community with an opportunity to participate in the creation of the City of Diamond Bar's 1992 General Plan and to make recommendations with respect to the specific components of the 1992 General Plan. Numerous study sessions and duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Coamission and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar from July 1991 through July 1992. (iii) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder ("CEQA"), a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared and considered to address the environmental effects of the 1992 General Plan, the mitigation measures related to each significant environmental effect of the 1992 General Plan, the project alternatives and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan. (iv) On July 30, 1991, copies of the draft 1992 General Plan were mailed to affected agencies pursuant to Government Code Section 65352. (v) On July 14, 1992 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-44 adopting the 1992 General Plan and adopted Resolution 92-43 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1992 General Plan: (vi) On or about August 10, 1992, a referendum petition ,seeking the repeal of Resolution No. 92-4 was submitted to the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar. The city Clerk certified the sufficiency of the signatures on the referendum petition pursuant to a court order and prescnted such certification to the City Council. (vii) - On March 16, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-15 repealing Resolution No. 92-44, the resolution which adopted the 1992 General Plan. (viii) In March of 1993 the City Council directed the retention of a consultant team to -develop a new general plan (111993 General Plan") Opportunities for public participation were provided throughout the program of creating the 1993 General Plan. Five community workshops were held with City residents to identify key planning issues and to discuss potential general plan policy options. the results of those workshops were summarized and forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. (ix) On May 19, 1993, the City Council began the public hearing process to adopt a general plan. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings on May 19, 1993, May 26, 1993, June 2, 1993, June 9, 1993, and June 16, 1993, whereby public testimony was received with respect to all elements of the draft 1993 General Plan. (x) Because substantial modifications to the draft 1993 General Plan were' being considered, the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 65356, referred the review of the draft 1993 General Plan to the Diamond Bar Planning Commission for its recommendations. On June 23, 1993 the Planning Commission held a study session to consider the draft 1993 General Plan. On June 28, 1993 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public 'hearing to consider and receive public testimony on the draft 1993 General Plan. The Planning Commission considered all the evidence presented and submitted a written recommendation to the_ City Council to adopt the draft 1993 General Plan, with various. modifications. (xi) On June 29, July 6, July 13, July 20 and July 27, 1993 the City Council conducted additional duly noticed public hearings. In the course of these public hearings, the City Council received and deliberated upon written and oral testimony. (xii) On July -27, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-57 and 93-58 certifying the adequacy of the Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and adopting the 1993 General Plan. (xiii) On August 24, 1993 a referendum petition seeking the repeal of Resolution No. 93-58 was submitted to the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar. The City Clerk certified the sufficiency of the signatures on the referendum petition pursuant to a court order and presented such certification to the City Council. (xiv) On December 14, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-80 repealing Resolution No. 93-58, the resolution which adopted the 1993 General Plan. (xv) In January of 1994 a new General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was formed to develop a new General Plan (111995 General Plan"). The GPAC held fifteen noticed public meetings between January 11, 1994 and June 30, 1994 in order to develop the 1995 0 General Plan. The results of the GPAC efforts and its recommendations were forwarded to the' Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council. (xvi) The Planning Commission conducted thirteen public hearings between July 11, 1994. and October 17, 1994 to review the GPAC recommended General Plan. The Planning Commission considered the.GPAC recommendations, received public testimony and initiated additional changes through the course of their review. On October 17, 1994 the Planning Commission forwarded its recommendations' to the City Council. (xvii) On November 22, 1994 the City Council began the public hearing process to adopt the 1995 General Plan. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings on November 22, 1994, November 29, 1994, January 9, 1995, January 16, 1995, January 24, 1995, January 31, 1995, February 6, 1995, February 13, 1995, February 16, 1995, February 23, 1995, February 28, 1995, and March 6, 1995 whereby public testimony was received with respect to all elements of the draft 1995 General Plan. The City Council considered the GPAC and planning Commission recommendations, received public testimony and initiated changes through the course of its review. (xviii) on April 4, 1995 the City Council, pursuant to . Government Code Section 65356, referred the 1995 General Plan to the Planning Commission for its recommendations. on April 10, 1995 the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public meeting, received public testimony, considered and commented upon City Council modifications to the 1995 General Plan. The Planning Commission submitted a written report and recommendation to the City Council to adopt the 1995 General Plan, with modifications. (xix) On May 9, 1995 the City Council conducted an additional duly noticed public hearing. In the course of this public hearing the City Council received and deliberated upon written and oral testimony. (xx) The Final Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for the 1992 General Plan adequately addresses all of the significant environmental impacts associated with the 1995 General Plan. Therefore, an Addendum was prepared and considered in accordance with CEQA. The City Council considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum thereto ("Final EIR") prior to approval of the 1995 General Plan. (xxi) The City Council considered, individually and collectively, the six elements comprising the 1995 General Plan, the related appendices and the Final EIR. The 1995 General Plan incorporates the seven mandatory elements established in Government Code Section 65302 into six components, specifically: 3 a. The Land Use Element; b. The Housing Element; C. The Resource Management Element (Open Space and Conservation Elements); d. The Public Health and Safety Element (Noise and Safety Elements); e. The Circulation Element;. and f. The Public Services and Facilities Element (xxii) In its review of the 1995 General Plan and the Final EIR, the City Council fully considered the impacts upon landforms and topography, earth resources and seismicity, drainage and flood control, biological resources, crime and prevention services, fire hazards and protective services, health and emergency services, hazardous materials, recreation and open space, land use, air quality, noise, cultural resources, socioeconomics (housing), energy systems, circulation/ transportation, educational services, water, wastewater, and solid waste associated with the further development of the City in accordance with the goals, policies and programs as more fully detailed in the 1995 General Plan. (xxiii) The 1995 General Plan and all of its constituent parts are properly integrated, internally consistent And compatible. (xxiv) -The City Council has considered all the information presented to it, and found and determined that the public convenience, welfare and good" planning practice require the adoption and implementation of the goals, policies and programs contained in the 1995 General Plan. (xxv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. - NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into the body of this Resolution by reference. 2. Documentation has icen prepared in compliance with CEQA and this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the environmental documentation, including the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan with respect to the 1993 General Plan, and has determined that such documentation is complete .and adequate. 3. The City Council hereby determines that: (a) The six components of the 1995 Diamond Bar General Plan, including all appendices, completely address the mandatory elements, and the mandatory legal contents required therein, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302 and all other applicable statutes. The 1995 General Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. (b) The 1995 General Plan is informational, readable, and available to the public pursuant to California Government Code Section 65357. (c) The six components of the 1993 General Plan, including appendices, are internally consistent as required by California Government Code Section 65300.5. (d) The 1995 General Plan is consistent with State of California policies, rules, regulations and guidelines. (e) The 1995 General Plan covers all territory within the corporate boundaries of the City of Diamond Bar and further, incorporates all lands outside the corporate boundaries of the City of Diamond Bar which the City Council has judged to bear a reasonable relationship to Diamond Bar's planning activities pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300. (f) The 1995 General,Plan is long term in perspective pursuant.to California Government Code Section 65300. (g) The 1995 General Plan reasonably addresses all relevant local issues and concerns currently identified. 4. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds that adoption of the 1995 General Plan will generate social, economic and other benefits which clearly outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, as specified in the Statement of overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 95 -XX. 5. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds that the 1995 General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar was prepared in accordance with California State Planning and Zoning Law, particularly Title 7, Chapter 3 of the California Government Code and the General Plan Guidelines promulgated by the Governor' s Office of Planning and Research. 6 . The City Council hereby approves and adopts the 1995 General Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A, as the General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this of , 1995. I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify y that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1995, by the following vote: - AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar 6 MY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: May 9, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of the 1995 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. The Draft 1995 General Plan has been developed since January 1.994 and is presented for adoption. BACKGROUND: In January 1994 the City Council established a General Plan Advisory Committee to develop the General Plan. GPAC recommendations crafted over a six month period were forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and consideration in July 1994. The Planning Commission conducted numerous public hearings between July and October 1994. On October 17, 1994 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the Draft General Plan. The City Council began its detailed review of the documents on January 9, 1995. The Council has examined the Introduction, Vision Statement, Resource Management Element (RME), Public Services and Facilities Element (PSFE), Public Health and Safety Element (PHSE), Circulation Element (CE), Housing Element (HE), and the Land Use Element (1 U ). The purpose of the May 9, 1995 public hearing is to consider adoption of the 1995 General Plan. On March 6, 1995 the City Council concluded its initial revielw of the General Plan and directed the preparation of final documents. The Council subsequently established a May 9, 1995 public hearing to consider adoption of the documents. The latest draft of the General Plan, dated Nfarch 31, 1995, was distributed on April 7, 1995 providing a 30 day publicly noticed review period as previously established by the Council. The March 31, 1995 draft General Plan was referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation in accordance with California Government Code Section 65356. The Commission conducted a noticed public meeting on April 10, 1995, reviewed the General Plan as directed by the Council and has provided its report and recommendations in the form of the attached meeting minutes. The General Plan document before the City Council has been developed over the last 16 months and 40 public meetings incorporating extensive community interest and involvement. The 20 year plan sets forth numerous strategies responding to local and regional issues facing the City. This General Plan responds to ongoing development pressures by limiting new residential growth to a maximum of approximately 1200 additional housing units to the 18,000 existing homes. The General Plan requires the creation of a slope density ordinance and tree preservation ordinance both designed to preserve and protect existing resources. New development proposals on larger sites will be required to dedicate open space areas for permanent preservation. The General Plan does not permit the development of a roadway through environmentally sensitive Tonner Canyon. The Plan does incorporate a strong Vision Statement which seeks; retention of the rural/ country living community character, preservation of open space resources, reducing regional traffic impacts on local streets, promotion of viable commercial activity, well maintained housing, and a nurturing community environment for all citizens. The environmental impacts of the 1995 General Plan have been examined and compared with the originally adopted General Plan. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) previously prepared and certified (Resolution No. 9243) adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the 1995 General Plan. The 1995 General Plan will not result in any new or more adverse environmental impacts not already considered within the scope of the analysis contained the previously certified FEIR. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an "Addendum" to the FEIR has been prepared and is attached. The 1995 General Plan contains all mandatory elements and legal contents required for adoption pursuant to the California Government Code. The General Plan has be --n presented in the form of numerous "draft" documents reflecting the input of the citizen based General Plan Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. The Plan has been a work in progress reflecting "clean" ft plan with the layers of public review. Attached to this report is a clean version of the last draft the layers of revisions removed. A clean copy of the General Plan will be used as an attachment to the adopting resolution. 2 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, receive a presentation from City staff, open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, review the General Plan materials, approve the documents and adopt Resolution Nos. 95-xx and 95-xx. PREPARED BY: James DeStefano Community Development Director attachments: - Planning Commission minutes from the April 10, 1995 meeting. - Letter from Mr. Konrad Bartlam, City of Brea, dated November 28, 1994 - Letter from Mr. Dorian Johnson, Bramalea California, dated November lb, regarding traffic issues. - Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring Program - Draft Resolutions - Draft General Plan dated May 5, 1995 3 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY 9, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. at the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by C/Ansari. ROLL CALL: Mayor Papen, Mayor Pro Tem Werner, Council Members Harmony and Ansari. C/Miller was excused. Also Present: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Special Legal Counsel; George Wentz, City Engineer; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor Papen announced that Council Member Miller was attending another meeting and would be arriving in approximately one hour. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (A) Resolution No. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INCORPORATING RESOLUTION NO. 92-43 BY REFERENCE AND CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. (B) Resolution No. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF. DIAMOND BAR. CDD/DeStefano reported that development of the 1995 General Plan had taken place over the past 1 1/2 years beginning with review by the Council - appointed General Plan Advisory Committee. The Planning Commission then held approximately 12 public hearings and the Council began detailed deliberation of the document in January, 1995. The latest draft of the General Plan, dated March 31, 1995, was distributed on April 7, 1995 for a 30 -day review by the public at the direction of the Council. The 30 -day publicly -noticed review period incorporated documents available for inspection, purchase or loan at City Hall and inspection at the Library. Approximately 80 "clean copies" of the General Plan were provided to the Council and the public using the City's mailing list. The "clean copy" eliminated all overlays and included all current changes and corrections directed by Council. The Planning Commission then reviewed four specific items on April 10, 1995, as directed by Council and concurred with Council's MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 2 draft recommendations on all but one item. Regarding the South Pointe Master Plan property, the Commission agreed with Council's verbiage for the Planned Development proposed for the area with two exceptions. The first was that the most sensitive property discussed within the Planned Development area should be the eastem-most portion of the canyon. The second difference was the Commission's suggestion that development of Larkstone Park be in addition to the 30% set aside in Planned Development as Open Space, meaning that of the 78 acre site, instead of about 23 acres set aside for open space, incorporation of Larkstone Park (approximately 2 1/2 acres) would increase open space to approximately 26 acres. Regarding PD 5, the 27 -acre Site D area located at Brea Canyon Rd. and D.B. Blvd., the General Plan allows for residential uses and, through a correction, staff will indicate Council's desire for a designation of Public Facilities, Open Space and Park for the property. The Planning Commission reviewed the change and, by a split vote, recommended that Council incorporate a Public Facilities designation for the entire property which is consistent with the previous Commission recommendation for use of the property. In addition to an errata, staffs presentation included Council's decision-making involvement with respect to adoption of an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report, as well as an Implementation & Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Environmental Impact Report and General Plan. Regarding the addendum, the Environmental Impacts of the 1995 General Plan were examined and compared with the originally -adopted 1992 General Plan. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the 1992 General Plan which addressed environmental impacts associated with the range of alternatives considered within that document. An analysis was performed by the City's consultant, Cotton\ Beland Assoc., Inc. regarding the environmental impacts of the 1995 General Plan. The conclusion was that the 1995 General Plan would not result in any new or more adverse environmental impacts that were not already considered within the scope of analysis contained in the previously certified EIR. In accordance with the State Environmental Quality Act, an addendum to the previously certified EIR was prepared and attached. The addendum does not require public review. The Implementation & Mitigation Monitoring Program is a combined document. Upon adoption of the General Plan, implementation begins. In addition, as a result of discussions contained in the General Plan, the next step for the City would be to create improved Hillside Management Ordinances, Tree Preservation Ordinances, Subdivisions, etc. The Mitigation Monitoring Program sets forth all strategies contained within the General Plan and timing and responsibility for oversight to insure implementation of all strategies. Staff received four letters since publication of the packet on, Friday, May 5, 1995: 1) WN.U.S.D., dated April 26, 1995 and received on May 1, 1995, provided suggestions for Planned Development Areas 4 and 5; 2) Calif. Dept. of Transportation dated May 1, 1995 suggesting that, in future development projects, the City look into development impact fees for public facilities such as the freeway system; 3) Dept. of Conservation dated May 8, 1995, CITY OF MA M"FV" nAK At3I: NUft rf,-OI'On'r AGENDA NO. I 1 TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 REPORT DATE: July 11, 1995 FROM: George A. Wentz, City Engineer TITLE: 25 MPH Prima Facie Speed Limit on Residential Streets. SUMMARY: The Traffic And Transportation Commission requested that the speed limits on Cold Spring Lane, Highland Valley Road, Fountain Springs Road, Sunset Crossing Road, Prospectors Road, Palomino Drive and Kiowa Crest Drive be reviewed. The question was whether prima facia speed limits should be established for these residential streets. The Commission recommends that these residential/local streets all have a 25 mph speed limit. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council establish a policy related to speed limit determination on local residential streets. The policy recommended by staff is attached. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: X Staff Report Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) Public Hearing Notification Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: 12/8/94 T/T Minutes Sheriff's Memo dated 02/28/95 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City reviewed by the City Attorney? N/A _ Yes _ No 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Yes _ No Which Commission? Traffic & Transportation Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes No Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A REVIEWED BY: Terfence L. I City Manager C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\AGEN95\25MPH.711 Frank M. Usher" Assistant City Manager 1 & xorge A. W City Engineer CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 25, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: 25 MPH Prima Facie Speed Limit on Residential Streets ISSUE STATEMENT: Should speed limits on Cold Spring Lane, Highland Valley Road, Fountain Springs Road, Sunset Crossing Road (between Del Sol Lane and Golden Springs Drive), Prospectors Road, Palomino Drive, and Kiowa Crest Drive be based on speed studies or prima facia speed limits? RECOMMENDATION: That City Council establish a policy related to speed limit determination on local residential streets. The policy recommended by staff is attached. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: If a policy is established requiring the removal of the 30 mph speed limit signs on Cold Spring Lane, Highland Valley Road, Fountain Springs Road, Sunset Crossing Road, and Prospectors Road, the cost would be approximately $1,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Under California Law, the maximum speed limit for any passenger vehicle is 55 miles per hour (mph). All other speed limits are called prima facie limits, meaning "on the face of it", which are safe and prudent under normal conditions. Certain prima facie limits are established by law and include the 25 mph limit in business and residential districts; the 15 mph limit in alleys, at blind intersections and railroad grade crossings; and'a part-time 25 mph in school zones when children are going to and from school. Intermediate speed limits between 25 mph and 55 mph may be established by local authorities on the basis of traffic engineering surveys. Such surveys include the analysis of roadway conditions, accident records, and the prevailing speed of drivers using the roadway under study. In 1994, the City of Diamond Bar updated the City Wide Speed Zone Study. To enforce speed limits by radar or other electronic devices, a speed study must be conducted every five (5) years. The streets previously included as part of the study were not changed and presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission and City Council for consideration. The study was approved in August 1994. Radar enforcement of speed limits which are not justified by the study is defined as a speed trap under CVC Section 40802. CVC Section 40803 prohibits use of evidence obtained from a speed trap and CVC Section 1 Page Twu Prima Facie: Residential Streets July 18, 1995 40804 declares that an officer is incompetent as a court witness if his/her testimony is obtained from a speed trap. Therefore, radar enforcement for speeding cannot be used for citations by the Sheriff's Department unless a documented speed study is maintained and then updated at least every five years. A residential street is excluded from the speed survey requirements only if it is a "local street or road" as defined by California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 40802(b). That section defines a local street or road as one that primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following conditions: (1) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet; (2) Not more than one-half mile (2640 feet) of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control devices as defined in Section 445 [of the CVC]; and (3) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction. This definition is also current with the City's proposed General Plan. An ambiguity arises from the definition of "interruption" set forth in CVC Section 40802. By including "official traffic control devices as defined in Section 445," it is unclear whether the Legislature intended to include official traffic control devices, which are defined in Section 440, or only official traffic control signals, which are defined in Section4455. It is possible that the reference to Section 445 means that only official traffic control signals (which are a form of traffic control device) qualify as "interruptions" for the purpose of determining whether a street is a "local street or road" (and therefore exempt from the speed trap prohibition), and that other traffic control devices (such as stop signs) will not. Attachment I (Existing and Recommended Speed limits), Exhibits I and II, identify the surveyed streets in both 1989 and 1994 studies. The Traffic and Transportation Commission asked staff to identify the residential streets which did not have the prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. The following table was prepared and presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission regarding the three exclusions for each street. (all traffic control devices were considered "interruptions" under the CVC - the results would be even less supportive if only signals had been considered "interruptions"): STREET/LIMITS PAVEMENT UNINTERRUPTED # OF TRAFFIC LANE WIDTH LENGTH IN EACH DIRECTION 1. Cold Spring Lane/ 36' 1550' 1 Brea Canyon Rd. to Diamond Bar Blvd. 2 Page Three Prima Facie: Residential Streets July 18, 1995 STREET/LIMITS PAVEMENT UNINTERRUPTED # OF TRAFFIC LANE WIDTH LENGTH IN EACH DIRECTION 2. Fountain Sprgs. Rd./ 36' 1990' 1 2187' 3710' 3650' 1420' WWWA 1681' c. Prospectors Road/ 36'-321* 1248' Eaglespur Road to Sunset Crossing Road 8. Sunset Crossing Rd./ Diamond Bar Blvd. to Golden Springs Drive a. Sunset Crossing Rd./ 40' Diamond Bar Blvd. to Del Sol Lane b. Sunset Crossing Rd./ 40' Del Sol Lane to Golden Sp. Drive 3 4156' 583' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Brea Canyon Rd. to Diamond Bar Blvd. 3. Highland Valley Rd./ 36' Diamond Bar Blvd. to Del Sol Lane 4. Kiowa Crest Dr./Elder- 36' tree Dr. to Diamond Bar Boulevard 5. Palomino Drive/Diamond 32' Bar Blvd. to Ballena Drive 6. Prospectors Road/Golden 36' Springs Drive to SR -60 Overcrossing 7. Prospectors Road/SR-60 Overcrossing to Sunset Crossing Road a. Prospectors Road/ 36' SR -60 Overcrossing to Beaverhead Drive b. Prospectors Road/ 36' Beaverhead Drive to Eaglespur Road 2187' 3710' 3650' 1420' WWWA 1681' c. Prospectors Road/ 36'-321* 1248' Eaglespur Road to Sunset Crossing Road 8. Sunset Crossing Rd./ Diamond Bar Blvd. to Golden Springs Drive a. Sunset Crossing Rd./ 40' Diamond Bar Blvd. to Del Sol Lane b. Sunset Crossing Rd./ 40' Del Sol Lane to Golden Sp. Drive 3 4156' 583' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page Four Prima Facie: Residential Streets July 18, 1995 * SR -60 Overcrossing to 85' south of Drycreek Road = 36' 85' south of Drycreek Road to Sunset Crossing Road = 32' Based on this information, each street may be a prima facie 25 mph zone and enforced by radar, except for Kiowa Crest, Palomino Drive, and Sunset Crossing Road. Upon review and discussion, the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a policy that residential streets in Diamond Bar be maintained at the prima speed limit of 25 mph. Under this policy, Cold Spring Lane, Fountain Springs Road, Highland Valley Road, Prospectors Road, and Sunset Crossing Road (between Del Sol Lane and Golden Springs Drive) will be reverted to 25 mph from the existing speed limit of 30 mph. On Kiowa Crest Drive, Palomino Drive, and Sunset Crossing Road (between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Del Sol Lane) the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommended that a stop sign warrant analysis be conducted. Staff believes that the policy outlined should be the basis speed limits on local residential streets. Should stop sign other traffic control devices be considered, that should be independent analysis and its own merits. PREPARED BY: David G. Liu C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\CCR-95\25MPH.711 51 for establishing warrants, or done so as an SPEED LIMIT DETERMINATION POLICY ON LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS 1. All local residential streets, as defined by CVC Section 40802(b), in the City of Diamond Bar shall have a Prima Facie Speed Limit of 25 mph. 2.. Should a local residential street not qualify for a 25 mph speed limit under CVC Section 40802(b), a traffic and engineering study as defined by CVC Section 627 shall be conducted considering the following factors: a. The prevailing speed, as represented by the 85th percentile, or critical speed, and the 10 mile pace speed. b. Road surface characteristics, shoulder conditions, grade, alignment and sight distance. C. Roadside development, culture and roadside friction. d. Safe speeds for curves within the zones. e. Parking practices, pedestrian activity and related peripheral conflict. f. Reported accident experience for a recent 24 month period. g. Unusual traffic conditions or unique traffic conditions not readily apparent to the driver. h. Continuity between zones of short distance with inordinate differences of prevailing speeds between the separated zones. EXISTING AND RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMITS EXIST RECOM SPEED SPEED STREET LIMITS LIMIT LIMIT Brea Canyon Rd. North City Limits to Washington St. 50 50 NC Brea Canyon Rd. Washington St. to Diamond Bar BL 45 45 NC Brea Canyon Rd. Diamond Bar 8L to S.C.L. 50 50 NC Brea Canyon Cut -Off West City Limits to Brea Canyon Rd. 40 40 NC Chino Ave. Chino Hills Pkwy to East City Limits NP 45 D Chino Hills Pkwy. N.C.L. to S.C.L. 45 45 NC Cold Spring Ln. Brea Canyon Rd. to Diamond Bar BL 30 30 NC Copley Dr. Golden Springs Dr. to Bridge Gate Dr. 40 40 NC Diamond Bar Bl. Brea Canyon Rd. to Goldrush Dr. 45 45 NC Diamond Bar Bl. Goldrush Dr. to Highland Valley Rd. 40 40 NC Diamond Bar Bl. Highland Valley Rd. to Temple Ave. 50 50 NC E Avenida Rancheros/ Diamond Bar BL to Northeast City Limits 45 45 NC Temple Avenue 30 30 ITC Sunset Crossing Rd. Fountain Springs Rd. Brea Canyon Rd. to Diamond Bar BL 30 30 NC Gateway Center Dr. Bridge Gate Dr.to Golden Springs Dr. 40 40 NC Golden Springs Dr. West City Limits to 900' w/o Gona Ct. 50 50 NC Golden Springs Dr. 900'w/o Gona Ct_to 1300' e/o Adel Ave. 40 40 NC Golden Springs Dr. 1300' e/o Adel Ave. to Sabana Dr. 45 45 NC Golden Springs Dr. Sabana Dr. to Plating Dr. . 40 40 NC Golden Springs Dr. Platin Dr. to E Avenida Rancheros/ 45 45 NC ni �1TT�u�iyfrc/T � I Temple Avenue Grand Ave. West City Limits to East City Limits 45 45 NC Highland Valley Rd. Diamond Bar BL to Del Sol Ln. 30 30 NC Kiowa Crest Dr. Eldertree Dr. to Diamond Bar BL 25 301 Lemon Ave. North City Limits. to Golden Springs Dr. 45 45 NC Lycoming St. Lemon Ave. to Brea Canyon Rd. 35 35 NC Palomino Dr. Diamond Bar BL to Ballena Dr. NP 301 Pathfinder Rd. West City Limits to Brea Canyon Rd. -North 45 45 NC Pathfinder Rd. Brea Canyon Rd. -North to Brea 40 40 NC Canyon Rd.-SoutbJFern Hollow Dr. Pathfinder Rd. Brea Canyon Rd_-South/Fern Hollow Dr. 45 45 NC to Diamond Bar B1. Prospectors Rd. Golden Springs Dr.to Sunset Crossing Rd. 30 30 ITC Sunset Crossing Rd. West City Limits to Diamond Bar B1. 40 40 NC Sunset Crossing Rd. Diamond Bar BLto Golden Springs Dr. 30 30 NC Walnut Dr. West City Limits to Lemon Ave. NP 40D Washington St. Brea Canyon Rd. to N.East City Limits NP 40 D ABBREVIATIONS NP = No Posted Limit NC = No Change Recommended D = Decrease Recommended I = Increase Recommended ni �1TT�u�iyfrc/T � I Cr40si�3 M \1 JV ucAYlr�tO� t J(i Sb C, 4� �( A /"" w ro //"7 30 45 Q/ 30 I p11 11-01 18-11 I," S�M� E -J 0 CI T)l O/' D/.4/-j'OAO 8A -e L 1V ,6-t'iriaiT �" o LL- e'' "Clty of Diamond Bar" Highland �y�' Pe e Road Valley -� 50 �ye4�e e Avenida PROPOSED SPEED LIMITS0 Rancheros 30 —Del Sol �ac4 y fold 45 Lane 1994 30 40 ,�pg c o s sunsetGro 9 y 40 o� ons Freeway '90Pa,o�ino 3045 30 a . Beaverhead `'�- a DDrriVe SCALE: NONE Drive 40 - 40 • Prospectors Road ` Platina �-� ` 30 Drive 40 InauytPy J9� a of `� 40 50 SabenaJ� ��° Drive 40 Gam, v N-Washington 45 45 a Street 45 0° o Walnut? 35 Dr. t gay 4 o 40 a Lycoming Street 45 4ree �d . 40 45 Ppe'ona, 40 Dr 45 45 54rt�,,g 40 c 40 —Copley 00 r Drive ��en 0� 50 A 40 " Eldertree a 45Drive Ue 45 tia0c Gateway °A Center Dr. — Bridge ,,—Birds Eye �° Drive o Bate or. c 4 C_ Kim 30 45 mm o m Crest Dr. -� a c 'i �0c 45 40 RDac—Santaquin 45 Drive13 " _ C a way Frae HQ.r m City o{ Ponone CULL �W 30 �— Fountain Z 45 Springs Road 45 r.hi�`o W oc °ca �c . �� J Wy/ y o LU IL e°Ae 30 40 o� ��Cold Springscn c� m Lane v 0 45 45 J 50 L` iv _Z EPG. DEp�. 00 COUNTYCM Of OF LOS ANGELES C� SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT II �� DATE. FILE. OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE FROM: S CURRAN, A/CAPTAIN TO: W T REGIONAL STATION ATTN: February 28,�j995< 'sem TERRY BELANGER, CITY XIXA(;ER -C �3 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR_ DAVID LII SUBJECT: SPEED SURVEYS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS The purpose of this correspondence is to advise you of the ramifications of not doing speed surveys on some residential streets in the City of Diamond Bar. If the City adopts a policy of not doing speed surveys on residential streets, or not approving any speed limit of more than 25 miles per hour on residential streets, the Sheriff's Department will be effectively precluded from legally enforcing speed violations on any residential street which is greater than one-half mile in length without a stop sign. By definition in part, a speed trap is a street that has not had a speed survey within the past five years, and which radar is used for speed enforcement.. Residential streets are excluded from the speed survey requirement only if they meet three requirements which are:. must be only one lane in each direction; must be 40 feet or less in width; and must be less than one-half mile in length without a traffic control device (stop sign). Speed traps are illegal, and therefore the use of radar for speed enforcement on the residential streets greater than one -hall mile in length is illegal.if the street has not been surveyed. If Sheriff's. deputies cannot use radar for enforcement the alternative is pacing. Pacing is not an acceptable means of enforcement on residential streets because it is hazardous. The deputy must accelerate to a speed greater than the violator in order to catch and pace the vehicle for a period of time. The hazards of this type of enforcement on residential streets outweigh the benefits. The Sheriff's Department is committed to giving the City of Diamond Bar and its residents the best traffic enforcement possible regardless of what action it takes on this issue.- The City should be a h ware, owever, that we may not be abe to respond to requests for speed enforcement on some residential streets if the City adopts a policy of not surveying any residential streets. DC:MR mber_8, 1994 Page 4 T&T Commission City has adequate signage and traffic control devices for the construction activities. There has been a 10 calendar day delay as a result of unanticipated subsurface condition, which moves the completion date to January 14, 1995. C/Chavers stated he has observed the contractor closing lanes with little regard for peak hour traffic. He asked if.there is a time limit within the contract specifying when lanes may be closed. SE/Liu responded that because of the wet subsurface condition encountered, the traffic control plan originally developed for the project had to be set aside. As a result, it became necessary to divert both the northbound and southbound traffic to the southbound lanes during the construction hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. resulting in one lane of traffic in each direction. Responding to Mr. Smith, C/Chavers stated Los Angeles County is in charge of the traffic signal controllers. Although they can adjust the time there could be a negative effect of increasing the .queue__ back onto the _freeway - ramps. .-If-this should occur, CalTrans can override any decisions made by the City to change the setting of the controllers. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None V. OLD BUSINES AC 25 MPH prima facie speed limit on residential streets. SE/Liu reported that at the November 10, 1994 Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting, staff identified residential streets which did not have the prima facie speed limit of 25 MPH. The Commission requested that staff provide, in tabular format, the CVC criteria with regard to the definition of local streets and roads. According to the California Vehicle Code, a local street or road is defined as follows: A local street or road primarily provides access- to abutting residential property and shall meet the following three conditions: (1) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet. December 8, 1994 Page 5 T&T commission (2) Not more than one-half mile (2640 feet) .of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control devices as defined in Section 445. (3) Not more than one traffic lane in'each direction. Incorporating the surveyed residential streets information with the aforementioned CVC's definition for local streets and roads, staff prepared a table for the Commission's review and discussion. The streets mentioned in the report are those the Commission requested be reviewed. It is recommended that the Traffic and Transportation Commission discuss the information provided and direct staff as necessary. A motion was made by VC/Istik and seconded by C/Chavers to recommend that the City Council adopt a policy statement that "Residential streets in Diamond Bar should be posted at 25 mph." In recognition of this policy,_ the speed limit on Prospectors Road, Highland Valley Road, -Fountain Springs Road, and Cold Spring Lane, shall revert to that posting. The motion passed with the following ROLL CALL vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Istik, Chavers, Gravdahl, Chair/Ortiz NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Esposito A motion was made by C/Chavers and seconded by Chair/Ortiz to leave Kiowa Crest Drive and Palomino Drive posted as is (Kiowa Crest Drive is currently posted 25 mph and Palomino Drive has no posted speed limit) and allow staff time to conduct data research to see if the implementation of stop signs is warranted which would allow for the "interrupted length" criteria such that these streets maintain residential or local category. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavers, Chair/Ortiz, Gravdahl, VC/Istik NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Esposito �Q. December 8, 1994 Page 6 T&T Commission A motion was made by VC/Istik and seconded by Chair/Ortiz to request City Council delete the term "Residential Collector" from the Circulation Element of the -Draft General Plan and replace it with the term "Residential Streets". AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Istik, Chair/Ortiz, Chavers, Gravdahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Esposito VI. NEW BUSINESS A. TDA Article 3 (SB 821) Regional Funds SE/Liu reported the City of Diamond Bar was granted $98,000 in Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 (SB 821) regional funds in Fiscal Year 1991-92. SB 821 monies are to be used for various bicycle and pedestrian facilities improvement projects. The City was awarded SB 821 funding as a result of its proposal to improve/ construct bicycle lanes located on Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar Boulevard, Golden Springs Drive, and Brea Canyon Road. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) notified the City regarding its $98,000 regional funding. The City was informed that this money will lapse if said amount is not utilized by the.end of Fiscal Year 1994-95 or by June, 1995. As part of the Diamond Bar Boulevard Rehabilitation/ Reconstruction Project, the City will utilize $50,000 of its SB 821 monies to restripe/modify the existing bicycle lanes on north and southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard between Brea Canyon Road and Grand Avenue. Furthermore; the City has allocated $20,000 of this fund to establish bike routes along Grand Avenue. This improvement will be part of the Grand Avenue Rehabilitation Project. It is also the intention of the City to utilize SB 821 monies to modify the existing bicycle route on Golden Springs Drive between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Temple Avenue from Class III Bike Route to Class II Bike Lanes. Staff reco=ended that the Traffic and Transportation Commission provide input regarding the proposed uses of LEASE SPACE JULY 3, 1995 PAGE TWO SCAQMD: Year One: 9,100 sq.ft. @ 1.55/ft $169,260.00 $169,260.00 Year Two: 9,100 sq.ft. @ 1.60/ft $174,720.00 $174,720,00 $343,980.00 Over the two year term of the lease, the difference in cost between the Seeley proposal and the SCAQMD proposal is $21,710, with the Seeley lease being the higher of the two. Suite 100/190 & Building Purchase Alternative: Another office space alternative is the pursuit of the purchase of a building for City Hall offices. There is a 10,505 sq. ft. office building available, located at 1320 S. Valley Vista. The building owners' agent is Simon Chu Associates. It is recommended that the Council and staff meet in closed session to discuss the negotiating parameters for possible building purchase. If the Council decides to pursue the purchase of a building, staff suggests that the current office lease agreement, between the City and Diamond Bar Business Associates, for Suites 100/190, at 21660 E. Copley Drive, be extended for FY 1995-96. The total lease cost would be $166,433.64. Holding Over Cost Impact: The existing lease between Diamond Bar Business Associates and the City contains a holding over clause (Section 26). The holding over clause provides that the Lessee (City), with the Lessor's (DBBA) consent, may remain in possession of the premises, after the expiration of the lease term, here June 30, 1995. Such occupancy shall be a tenancy from month to month, except the rent payable shall be two hundred percent (200%) of the rent payable immediately preceding the termination date of the lease. The monthly hold over amount would be $24,748,94, plus $1,495 for ops expenses ($26,243.94). This hold over clause would not be effected if the City were to ultimately enter into a lease agreement. This hold over cost provides a compelling reason to give serious consideration to continuing the leasing of office space at 21660 E. Copley Drive, at least for a one year term.