Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/10/19951 :1 7:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality 'Management District. 2186 East y `Copley` Drive Diamond Bar, California Vice Cbairman GonuniWoner Gommissioner CI•MM&ioner Bruce Hamcnbauin .Bob Huff D. d meycr Pon Schad Fra nkIM Fong Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community Development Office, located at 21660.1~ Copley Drive, Sul 190, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call:(909) 396-5676 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 accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676 a minimum .of 72.hours prior, to the scheduled meeting. Pf east refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMIVIISSION AGENDA Monday, April 10, 1995 Next Resolution No. 95-5 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Bob Huff; David Meyer, Don Schad, and Franklin Fong 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission, 3. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 3.1 Minutes of March 27, 1995 4. OLD BUSINESS: none 5. NEW BUSINESS: 5.1 1995 General Plan - City Council referral of specific proposed modifications pursuant to Government Code Section 65356 for review and recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 1995 General Plan 5.2 Replacement Identification Signs for City Parks RECOMMENDATION: staff recommends that the planning commission review the proposed monument signs for all City Parks and prepare comments which will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. 5.3 Precise Alignment Feasibility Study for Citrus Valley Medical Center RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file the report. 5.4 Amendment to Planned Sign Program No. 92-1 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the amendment to Planned Sign Program No. 92-1(1), Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: None 7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT: April 24, 1995 I MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DRA*F1 MARCH 27, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: * Chairman Flamenbaum, vice Chairman Huff, Meyer,.Schad, Fong. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Recording Secretary Carol Dennis PRESENTATION: Chair/ Flamenbaum presented a plaque to C/Meyer commending him for his services as Planning Commission Chairman for the period June 14, 1993 to February 27, 1995. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. minutes of March 13, 1995. C/Fong asked that the first sentence, last paragraph on Page I be changed to read: 11C/Fong stated that he felt adequate deliberation was not made at the last meeting for the commission to delete the water element from the Draft Resolution, Page 41 Condition #1.11 A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was carried 5-0. March 27® 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Chair/ Flamenbaum reminded the Commission that he continues to excuse himself from this agenda item and turned the meeting over to VC/Huff. 1. Conditional Use Permit No. unmanned public utility telecommunication facility located at 3333 Brea Canyon I Diamond Bar Boulevard and Bre of the facility requires the monopole with three antenna e construction of an enclosure emergency generator. 94-7: A request to locate an substation for a cellular Lt an existing office building oad, west of the intersection of a Canyon Road. The installation )lacement of a 90 foot high steel rrays, a microwave dish, and the to house the equipment room and Applicant: L.A. Cellular, -Box 6028, Cerritos, CA 90702-6028. Property Owner: Metro Diamond Bar Properties, Inc., 2030 Main #1020, Irvine, CA 92714. AstP/Searcy reported that the applicant requests that the item be tabled. This project was originally presented to the Planning Commission on January 9, 1995, continued to January 13, 1995 and subsequently continued to this meeting. As a result of the recommendation by the Planning Commission, the applicant has been investigating alternative sites. Therefore, the applicant may submit a revised application to the commission. Staff supports the applicant's request to table the item with an indication that the public hearing will be renoticed when the item is brought back to the Planning commission. VC/Huff declared the public hearing reopened. Dan Hare, L.A. Cellular, stated that he was available to answer questions from the Planning Commission. C/Schad stated that several citizens have indicated they are concerned about the site of the proposed tower. Mr. Hare responded that'the applicant created a computer model of the radio signal based on the topography which supports the school site. A live radio test was concluded last week at that site and the applicant is currently in the process of .reviewing the data. If the conclusion is positive, the applicant will request use of the school site. March 27, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission Responding to C/Fong, Mr. Hare stated that although the primary consideration is the school site, they wish to leave all options open until the testing is completed. He. indicated that it would be approximately two months before the item would again come.before the Commission. Seeing no one else who wished to speak, VC/Huff declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to table the item. The motion was carried with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, VC/Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING - None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1) Planning Commissioners Institute. CDD/DeStefano reported that several members of the Planning Commission and staff attended the meeting last week and staff has provided the Commission with copies of presentation papers provided at that meeting. He asked if the Commissioners have requests to purchase cassette tapes of any of the presentations. 2) Update on Vesting Tentative Tract No. 47850. CDD/DeStefano reported that this is a 57 unit 73 acre site located off of Steeplechase Lane in "The Country Estates". This project. was previously before the Planning Commission in November, '1991. It was last before the City Council in November, 1992. As a result of a settlement agreement between the City and the applicant, a task within the implementation measures is a joint session between the Planning Commission and the City Council for review' of the project. Staff has March 27® 1995 U23M. Planning commission scheduled Thursday, April 6 at 6:30 p.m. at --the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium for this meeting. The Planning Commission is joining the City Council for the specific purpose of receiving a presentation regarding the applicant's compliance with 24 points that were raised in November, 1992 pertaining to the geotechnical report. In addition, the City Council has requested the Planning Commissioner's comments regarding the project in their capacity as land use advisers to the City Council. Since the public hearing is with the City Council, the Council will review the project in the public hearing setting and move to take action on the item. Responding to Chair/ Flamenbaum, CDD/DeStef ano stated that the specific purpose of the joint session is to review the applicant's compliance with the 24 points raised in the geotechnical review sheet from the City. The City Council will have the ability to exercise any degree of discretion permitted by the Council through state statute and local ordinances pertaining to approval of the subdivision. The Planning commission is being asked to provide any comments on the project. CDD/DeStefano asked the Planning Commissioners what they would like their role to be. C/Schad responded that the item has been reviewed by the Planning Commission several times. He indicated he does not feel the Planning commission can add anything further and sees to reason for the Commissioners to be in attendance. VC/Huff stated he agrees with C/Schad that he sees no useful purpose in the Planning Commission attending. If it is mandated, the Commission needs to attend. If the Planning commission is to review the project it should be done in an official capacity with the ability to take action. C/Meyer indicated that it is his understanding that the City Council denied the tract because of perceived discrepancies between the geotechnical report and the engineering review. If the Planning Commission'through the normal process makes a recommendation on a subdivision, the matter would go to the City Council. If the Council wanted to deviate substantially from the March 27# 1995 Page S Planning Commission recommendation of the Planning Commission the Council would send the item back to the Planning Commission for deliberation. The Planning Commission would rehear the item with direction from the City Council and would have a specified, amount of time to return a revised recommendation to the City Council. In his opinion, this process is being condensed into a joint session. He stated he does not understand why the Planning commission is involved in the joint session. C/Fong stated his comments are similar to those of C/Meyer. Chair/Flam6nbaum asked CDD/DeStefano to convey the Commission's concerns to the City Manager and the City Council prior to the joint session and advise what is expected of the Planning Commission. CDD/DeStefano responded that he would relay the concerns of the Commissioners to the appropriate 'Parties and attempt to clarify the purpose for attendance by the Planning Commission. 3) Status Report on Draft General Plan CDD/DeStefano reported that .the City Council last discussed this project on March 6, 1995. The Council deliberated on the Land Use Element and directed.staff and the consultants to make the changes necessary to compile a final draft for distributiori for public review. Staff intends to have the document ready for publication by the end of the week of March 27. He stated there may be a need for Planning commission review of some items that may have changed. Monday, April 10, 1995 is scheduled for Planning commission review. City Council has stated that once the document is published and 30 days has elapsed f or public review, the Council will review the document the week of May 8. Staff anticipates the document will be adopted sometime during the month of May, 1995. Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the commissioners advise him of the plans to attend the April 6, 1995 joint session meeting regarding vesting Tentative Tract No. 47850. He suggested that any Commissioner not attending the meeting could forward his comments to Chair/Fla,menbaum or to CDD/DeStefano. March 27® 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION-ITEXS: U23=_ Planning Commission The Commissioners thanked the staff for coordinating their attendance at the Planners,Institute. Responding to C/Fong, CDD/DeStefano stated that the City is attempting to schedule a meeting with Chino Hills and Brea to discuss transportation related issues that effect the three cities. The City Council discussed the Chino Hills letter in January. As a result of the Council's review of the letter and the Circulation Element, there were a number of changes made to the Circulation Element. A copy of the revised Circulation Element is being forwarded back to Chino Hills with reference to their letter of November. There is a significant disagreement among the three cities with respect to the use of road through Tonner Canyon. Chino Hills is seeking a Scenic Highway designation for Carbon Canyon Road in an attempt to limit the possibility of being widened to increase capacity. As a result of Chino Hill's General Plan, Soquel Canyon is now a loop street, rather than- connecting with the City of Brea. Chino Hill's General Plan indicates a Tonner Canyon Road through the center of the valley floor. Chair/Flamenbaum asked staff for a schedule of events for the next few months. CDD/Destefano stated that the items scheduled for April 10 are the General Plan, the Intercommunity hospital secondary road study and a review of the proposed monument signs for all City parks. The only item currently schedulea,for April 24 is a four lot subdivision, Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, on two and one-half acres, across from the JCC Development project on Steeplechase Lane terminating at Hawkwood Road. Chair/ Flamenbaum requested that the Diamond Ranch High School road alignment be agendized fora future Planning commission meeting. C/Schad thanked Steven Nice for assisting him in a tree planting program on Sunday, March 26, 1995, at Petersen Park. He stated that with the participation of approximately 40 students from Maple Hill School 60 oak trees and 11 wild cherry plants were planted. DRAB=i March 271 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission ANNOUNCEMENTS - None Chair/Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Community Development Director Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 5.1 April 5, 1995 April 10, 1995 1995 General Plan City Council referral of specific modifications to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation pursuant to Government Code Section 65356. On March 6, 1995, the City Council concluded its initial review of the Planning Commission recommended draft General Plan. Staff and our consultants have incorporated changes to- the text, figures, tables, and maps in response to City Council direction. The revised document dated March 31, 1995, has been distributed, as directed by Council, commencing a 30 day public review period as previously established by the Council. In accordance with the Government Code a noticed public hearing is necessary to adopt the General Plan. The Government Code (§ 65356) also requires that before the City Council makes any "substantial modifications" to the Planning Commission recommended General Plan, it must first refer the changes to the Commission for its recommendation. On April 4, 1995, The City Council referred the Draft General Plan to the Planning Commission to consider and provide a recommendation regarding the following proposed modifications not previously considered by the Commission: The establishment of a RH, High Density Residential (20 du/acre) Land Use classification; 2. The addition of Residential uses at a density of 1 unit to 2 acres within the Agricultural (AG) designation; 3. Revisions to the Land Use Element text regarding the Planned Development classification and areas so designated; and 4. Modifications to the Land Use Map reflecting the above. In addition, the City Council established a May 9, 1995, public hearing to consider adoption of the 1995 General Plan in order to accommodate the public review period, mailing of documents, public hearing notice and Planning Commission review. The City Council recommends that the Planning Commission review the revised Draft General Plan, and report its recommendations to the City Council by April 27, 1995. As provided by the Government Code, the failure of the Commission to report its recommendations by April 27, 1995, shall be deemed a recommendation for approval. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive a presentation from the City staff and consultants, review the proposed modifications and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Prepared by: James DeStefano Community Development Director attachments: General Plan City Council Minutes Housing Opportunities Area Map Letters from Boy Scouts of America dated February 22, 1995 Letter from Shell Western dated February 20, 1995 Letter from the LDS Church dated July 22, 1995 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 16, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 2.1865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Papen. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen. Also present Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager, Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney, James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT: CDD/DeStefano reported that the Land Use Element contains broad policy statements designed to deal with distribution, general location and extent of uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, recreation, education, public buildings and all other categories of public and private land uses. It provides the overall framework for future use of the City's land located within the 15 sq. mile incorporated City and the 5 1/2 sq. mile sphere of influence. This insures that the community achieves and maintains a use of land consistent with overall goals and objectives. Although all Elements are presumed equal, the Land Use Element is often perceived as most representative of the General Plan and is most often used by Planning staff once the General Plan is adopted. The Element Map is representative of policies within the text and identifies proposed land uses for City planning areas. In addition, tables and text indicate intensity and density of development for planning areas. Over the past 35 years, development in the City has been residential land* uses. Generally, densities are higher for residential in the flat areas of the City. As grades increase, lot sizes increase and density decreases. Currently, D.B. has approximately 17,800 dwelling units with about 54,500 people. Non-residential land uses comprise about 20% of the total land area. Approximately 28% of the City is presently vacant. Issues within the Land Use Element include the need to establish an appropriate land use mix for the community while responding to concerns of the disposition of remaining lands, a desire to retain open spaces, the need to increase the City's revenue base and desire to define and promote a positive City image. The Element presented by the Planning Commission proposes an additional 1,073 dwelling units be constructed over the next 15 to 20 years. Overall, the Element is proposing land use densities and intensities which FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 2 reflective of existing conditions and development characteristics. There are four residential land use classifications which allow floor area ratios up to 1.0. In addition to the approximate 5.7 million sq. ft. of commercial industrial land currently situated in the City, the Element incorporates a planned 1.3 million additional sq. ft of space over the next 15 to 20 years. The Element includes a proposal for creation of a Slope Density Ordinance for properties exceeding 25% slope. The Element encourages density transfers as one means to preserve and acquire open space resources. There is a desire to further detail land use planning of the three major areas designated as Specific Plan since the designations applied to the properties in the General Plan do not extend to a Master Plan for those properties. These three properties are: Bramalea (400 acres) currently classified Residential/Open Space; Tres Hermanos (800 acres) classified Agriculture/Specific Plan, and Boy Scout property (3200 acres) located within the sphere of influence area and classified Agriculture. In addition to the three areas where Specific Plans are recommended, there are a few areas where a Planned Development is being proposed. Planned Developments tend to be in areas completely surrounded by existing development. The scale of the development review process is somewhat less than that of a specific plan. These areas are: the "Stone" property (10 acres) located at the SR 60 and Golden Springs Dr.; Calvary Chapel site and hospital property at Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Dr. With respect to the Element, both GPAC and the Planning Commission spent an extensive amount of time reviewing the details contained within the document. GPAC spent three of the six months reviewing the Element and recommended an Element that furthers a desire to create and preserve open spaces. GPAC's document specifically details slope density ratio, housing characteristics and elimination of map and deed restrictions by a vote of the people. The Planning Commission agreed with the majority of GPAC's recommendations. The differences he in the area of detail. The Planning Commission felt that removal of map or deed restrictions may be appropriate;- however, it should be done by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission recommended that slope density formulas, details regarding density transfers and specifics regarding lot sizes and housing unit characteristics be contained within a Development Code and not be a component of the General Plan. The Planning Commission received public testimony for development requests from the School District, the Boy Scouts, Sasak Corp. and Bramalea. Development interests appear to have been satisfied with designations presented by GPAC and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission proposed that the Boy Scout property incorporate a Specific Plan. The Commission felt that the 78 acre RnP property adjacent to Brea Canyon Rd. and South Pointe Middle Schooland the adjacent Sasak 7 acre site should be designated Open Space which is more representative of the restrictions placed upon the properties. The General Plan's definition for Open Space includes those underlying restrictions and allows for development opportunity as permitted. Although the School District was interested in a development opportunity beyond the Public Facility classification proposed FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 3 by GPAC, the Planning Commission felt that the property located at D.B. Blvd. near Brea Canyon Rd., known as Site D, was better suited for a community facility. The outstanding issue facing the community is whether the City reports to the State of California with a compliance -based document or with a constraints -based document outlining whether or not the City can fulfill its responsibilities under the regional share of housing allocation. M/Papen thanked staff for the Vacant Land Housing Opportunities Area Map which includes about 53 different locations in the City where there is potential for development. Responding to MPT/Werner, MIPapen indicated there would be a Public Hearing on the Land Use Element and the Council would return on February 23, 1995 for a final decision on the issues involved. M/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., presented another copy of his 32 -page document regarding the Land Use Element. He felt there were restrictions on the Bramalea property and that it should be designated Open Space. In addition, the School District purchased property knowing that it was restricted and they indicated they would preserve the property as open space—now the District is asking for a Planned Development designation. He felt the General Plan should designate the school property as Open Space. He further believed that upper Sycamore Canyon should be preserved as an environmental habitat and Tonner Canyon should be designated as Agricultural. The Slope Density Factor should start at 15%. M/Papen referred Mr. Maxwell to Page 21 of his document which states "prior to approving new development or the intensification of existing development within the City of Diamond Bar, a FULL complete EIR must be submitted on all development larger than one single family dwelling unit, multi -complex or commercial buildings of over 10,000 sq. ft." and asked if he still supported this statement. Mr. Maxwell stated that he did. On Page 17, M/Papen indicated that one of.the strategies in obtaining open space as recommended by the Planning Commission is that, if an individual owns two properties, the City allows the transfer of development rights to one property so that the other property can be preserved as open space. She referred Mr. Maxwell to the last sentence on Page 17 of his document which states: "Transfer of development rights will not be permitted under any condition" and asked if he still held with this tenet. Mr. Maxwell stated that he did. FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 4 M/Papen referred 1W. Maxwell to Page 13 of his document, second paragraph under I -B Strategies 1.1.9 which reads: "No development will be permitted in Tonner Canyon, including a roadway or other forms of transportation." She stated that in the sphere of influence there -is presently a road in Tonner Canyon which is not open to the public. She asked if Mr. Maxwell still supported the statement. Mr. Maxwell indicated that the property should be designated Agricultural. A major corridor should not be in the canyon. M/Papen referred Mr. Maxwell to Pages 7 and 9 of'the document which states: "A MORATORIUM will be placed on all future development of single family dwellings and commercial development in the City of Diamond Bar for five (5) years or until the traffic is reduced to a level "C", whichever takes the longer time." She asked if this is a position which Mr. Maxwell's group is still supporting. Mr. Maxwell responded that it is. C/Miller asked Mr. Maxwell whether he is concerned that a commercial building meet the required parking and landscape area ratios or is it a specific number that needs to be included in the General Plan. Mr. Maxwell stated he is concerned that the ratio is misleading. C/Miller responded that the City requires more parking spaces than the County required. Mr. Maxwell stated he felt the ratio should be even more restrictive. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., stated that citizens are very concerned about the use of the few remaining precious open areas left in the City. Children now and in the future deserve the right to view, hike and enjoy these last remaining wilderness areas. GC Sec. 53602 (d) outlines the conservation elements the Council must consider. Cities and Counties have been required to have conservation elements in their General Plans since December 31, 1993. He asked the Council to review GC Secs. 65302 (E) and 56560 (a) before Council changes the citizen's General Plan. Jack Healy, 23041 Aspen Knoll Dr., stated he and other concerned citizens donated many hours to GPAC. He felt that there had been an emasculation of all of their efforts by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that Bramalea bought their property based upon deed and map restrictions and now they indicate that to have an Open Space or Rural designation is a "taking" in violation of the Constitution. Under the circumstances, this is not FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 5 a taking. He asked that when the Council considers the Lard Use Element, will it consider the effect upon the citizens and asked the Council to deny the request by the School District to change the designation of part of Sandstone Canyon from Open Space to Future Development. Wilbur Smith, 21640 Fairwind Ln., felt that the Introduction should be written as GPAC suggested. He stated that on Page I-8, the Council should make a definitive statement as to the most effective revenue generating method. Regarding Page I-10, Strategy 1.1.1, GPAC wanted to restrict development. He felt one domestic unit per area is too large for the area. On Page I-11, there is conflict between a and f and there should be a formula in f to indicate the density as a functional slope. Referring to Page I-22 3.2. 10 through 3.2.12, he stated that GPAC was attempting to indicate the quality of homes built in D.B. and felt these statements should be in the General Plan. He requested, referring to Page I-22, Strategy 3.2.5, that washrooms, air and water be provided for the motoring public at automobile service facilities and felt this should be included in the statement. Regarding the ,Land Use Map, he felt that the easterly portion of the sphere of influence should be defined as outside the SEA 15. C/Miller asked if Mr. Smith liked the three revenue generating options. Mr. Smith stated that he preferred the first statement. C/Miller asked if the citizens want D.B. to be an elitist community because if the Council approved some of Mr. Smith's recommendations, very few could afford to live in the City., He pointed out that zoning in D.B. is low density compared to most other cities and asked how the City can insure that the average citizen can afford to live here. Mr. ' Smith responded that the lay of the land does not lend itself to a high density community. C/Miller stated that if such measures are implemented, they would severely restrict opportunity, equality and fairness. Mr. Smith responded that he is primarily concerned with the citizens who are already in the City and with the Rural Residential area in SEA 15 which he felt should remain Open Space. Terry Birrell supported comments made by previous speakers and felt that there was inconsistency in changes made by the Council and asked that the Council listen to the wishes of the people. She stated that non-resident real estate speculators acquired major tracts of land with the objective of redesignating, rezoning and building on them. Upper Sycamore and Sandstone Canyons have no building map restrictions and were designated in FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 6 the previous General Plans as Planned Development, yet the present Plan designates them Open Space/Specific Plan. This means that at a future date a specific plan can be introduced and the canyons can be developed. The Land Use Map does not distinguish Open Space from Open Space/Specific Plan. She felt this was a way of deceiving the public who see open space and believe the canyons cannot be developed. If the Open Space/Specific Plan designation is allowed to become part of the General Plan, what is to prevent the School District from using Sandstone Canyon for three school developments. She strongly opposed the Open Space/ Specific Plan designation and supported Open Space as the only designation. Dorian Johnson, Vice -President of Planning, Bramalea, 100 Bayview Circle, Newport Beach, stated that Bramalea has approximately 400 acres in D.B. and has been involved in the community for over a decade. He indicated Bramalea would like to see the remaining property fulfill its development potential. This does not mean 400 acres of 1500 units paved over. A limited portion of the property is dedicated for restriction of residential property and he believed an Open Space designation would be a taking. Bramalea requested a designation akin to Residential Planned Development. Through provisions of the General Plan for Residential Planned Development to take place on the Bramalea property, as part of the development portion of the entitlement process, Bramalea will be required to dedicate a minimum of 75% of the land to open space. The request for development involves only 25% of the land with 110 to 130 homes. Bramalea believed this is a balance of its development rights with the best interest of the City and benefit to the citizens of the community. MPT/Werner asked if Mr. Johnson would be agreeable to any designation of Specific Plan incorporating language that 75% of the property would remain as Open Space dedicated to the City. In addition, he asked if the portion set aside for development is restricted land. Mr. Johnson responded that Bramalea would accept language in the General Plan requiring a designation and dedication to the City in fee of a minimum of 75% open space as a function of entitlements in the future. With regard to where the development would occur, based on the information available today minus an Environmental Impact Report, the development would occur in the area unencumbered by restrictions. Responding to C/hMer, Mr. Johnson stated that Bramalea's intent is to build in a cluster fashion in a small area while dedicating an uninterrupted 75% of land to the City. Responding to C/Harmony and C/Miller, Mr. Johnson stated there is no designation of Open Space on the subject property. If Bramalea agrees to an Open Space designation, it has given without getting anything in return. FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 7 Bramalea is and always has been the only owner. of the property. The property has never been deed restricted or subject to CC&R's. The designation of Planned Development does not remove map restrictions and does not affect maps. It does give Bramalea opportunity to present a plan for 'development that would use a small portion of the land and offer the City a deed to the greater portion. Based upon the findings of an Environmental Impact, Report, Bramalea would be willing to move the development to an area that is less environmentally -sensitive and be of greater benefit to the community which is why Council should retain flexibility with respect to the location of the development. Mark Rogers, Land Planning Consultant representing. WVUSD, stated that the District has a number of properties in the City and which are in transition and have an impact on the City's future. Site D, 28 acres on Brea Canyon Rd. and the 78 acres adjacent to South Pointe Middle School are addressed by the General Plan Site D is currently zoned Residential and was the subject of an entitlement effort in recent years. The Planning Commission recommended. a Public Facilities Land Use over the entire property. There is no intent on the part of the District to utilize the property as a site for school facilities. The 78 acre South Pointe property was recently purchased by the District which was necessitated by the prospect of losing $8 million in matching funds from the State for construction of South Pointe Middle School. The property is currently zoned R-1. The Planning Commission recommended an Open Space designation over the entire property. The District feels it was excluded from the decision making portion of the General Plan process and is committed to the future of D.B. The District cannot obtain the Planned Development with Mixed Use designation for both properties with a Mixed Use designator. If the District cannot obtain the Planned Development with Mixed Use designation, it would rather have the existing Residential zone left in place. This strategy would allow the District to work with the City and community on plans for development of the site and specific uses to be determined at a later time. Dr. Ron Hockwalt, Superintendent, WVUSD, asked Council to provide the District with greater flexibility in its land use decisions than is allowed by the proposed General Plan. The District felt that the designation of Open Space for the South Pointe property would greatly reduce its value and is a denial of all reasonable use. The District requested that the City consider a Planned Development/Mixed-Use designation for both properties. By so designating these properties, the District is afforded the opportunity to cooperatively provide adequate access to South Pointe Middle School, provide the mechanism for retention of the canyon area as open space for at least 30% of the 78 acres to provide potential tax revenues benefits to the City, to provide the mechanism for the district to manage its own assets with the goal of long-term revenue generation, and to provide opportunities for the City to meet its open space and recreation goals. The District has no intention of FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 8 building homes in the canyon or relocating the bus yard to the 78 acres at South Pointe. It is the intent of the District' to live in a harmonious relationship in the community and to improve the quality of life for everyone in the City. Responding to MPT/Werner, Dr. Hockwalt stated the School property was purchased 30 years ago. It was not offered as a dedication to the School District. In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that he does not know the history of the property zoning. The neighborhood adjacent to the site is zoned R 1 7500 and R-1 10,000. C/Harmony asked Dr. Hockwalt to expand on his statements of long-term revenue and adequate access to South Pointe. Dr. Hockwalt stated that from the beginning, the District requested a secondary road access from Brea Canyon Rd. into the South Pointe Middle School property. Asset management is a goal of the School. District. Manual Nunez, 9731 Royal Palm Blvd., Garden Grove, Planning and Architecture Consultant, A.I.C.P. Associates, representing the owners of Tract 46485 situated off Rocky Trail Dr. and Blaze Trail in the Country Estates stated the Planning Commission designated this area Rural Residential with 1 to 2.75 acres per lot. He indicated the owners are concerned that restrictive blankets will affect all properties regardless of locations and situations. He asked that the Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for the area and not apply any more stringent standards which may confuse the issue and deny them the same privileges as surrounding property owners. Responding to MPT/Werner, Mr. Nunez stated the slope of the subject property is in the range of 25 to 30% and it is not a Vesting Tentative Map. In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated the property represented by Mr. Nunez is identified as property. No. 23 on Page 2 identified as the Tice property. The correct Tract No. is 46485. Changes have occurred over the four years this map has been processing because it is not a Vesting Map and because the City is restricted from accepting a Vesting Map for application. Each ' time the General Plan changes or any other development standards change, this project must also change. Additional changes will be needed as a result of the General Plan's current outline. What may impact the project are the Resource Management and Land Use Elements dealing with preservation of biological resources, concerns with respect to canyon bottom development, ridgeline development, etc. They are currently processing their map under the ement Ordinance. FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 9 Nick Anis stated that while he agreed that the City should not use development as a source of revenue, perhaps D.B. should consider unfunded mandates and the cost of action versus inaction. Recently, the Council voted on building the South Pointe Middle School. The result of that vote cost the School District (citizens) $1,500,000 to purchase the land. This action did not preserve the land, it caused additional land to be bulldozed. He believed there were alternatives that would have preserved more land. He stated this is an example of not looking at the net cost and the consequences of a vote and position on development. On the other hand, such an action may result in a development that might benefit the community, for example, a hospital. He stated that would be a community benefit and could not understand why anyone would argue against it. In addition, he indicated he cannot understand how forcing homes to be on a three acre lot instead of a one and one-half acre lot would benefit the community. At that rate, only multi -millionaires could afford to purchase in the City. He urged the Council to use discretion in treating all of the property owners and taxpayers including the School District the same. The School District has building rights on the land they were forced to buy. The question is whether the City is going to give them the flexibility to do what is best for them and for the community. He stated that he was publicly opposed to development and has publicly endorsed only one proposed development, the building of South Pointe Middle School. Joseph Shu, 1820 Derringer Ln., stated that there are no building map restrictions on open space areas. He asked that these areas be designated Open Space, not -Open Space/Specific Plan. Open Space/Specific Plan leaves the door open for a specified plan to be introduced and development of open space to take place. He suggested that the General Plan not be written so that building restrictions can be eliminated at the discretion of the Council. Jan Dabney, Development Consultant, representing two private ownerships in the South Pointe Master Plan area and himself as a previous member of GPAC, indicated he was on the last GPAC Committee prior to City incorporation. He was on the first GPAC subsequent to incorporation and he was on the last GPAC committee. Many of the things that stated here and over the past several months with respect to the General Plan do not necessarily represent the entire view of GPAC. However, the Committee did represent a consensus. The consultant to all three committees adamantly pointed out, as did MPT/Werner and C/Ansari, that each member was an advisory member and that the material was to be taken as advisory information. Consultants stated that it was outside the boundaries of the GPAC to entertain the legal ramifications and aspects associated with land use issues. In his opinion, when GPAC members stated they are adamant that the General Plan should be as represented by them, this is not the opinion of all of the members. He indicated that Mr. Patel is opposed to an Open Space zoning on his property and has underlying building rights on his property which he wishes to maintain. At Mr. Patel's last Council appearance, he was FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 10 conditionally approved under the following conditions: 1) That he meet the new General Plan because it is not a Vesting Map and 2) that he be able to obtain specific consideration on conditions on his map through the School District. These conditions were reasonable to -Mr. Patel since this had -- originally been a Master Plan. - Mr. Patel: requested that the community continue to allow him to move in that direction and not zone his property Open Space which would cause him to suffer a substantial loss. He indicated that he also represents the owners of Lots 1 and 61 who have protested the proposed Open Space designation. Some of the opinions put forth in establishing an Open Space classification on this property were blatantly erroneous. He agreed with considerations expressed by Mr. Johnson of Bramalea. However, the ironic circumstance with Lots 1 and 61 is the fact that the property was owned by Bramalea at one time. Lot 1 is not part of any homeowner association and has never been. There is a recorded open space easement which affects 7.62 acres of the property. The owners ask that the Council leave open the option for future discussion. The owners do not feel that an Open Space zoning allows for such discussion. Responding to MPT/Werner, Mr. Dabney stated that in the eyes of the law, the zoning has not been changed in D.B. 2U is a zoning designation which refers to a maximum density of two units per acre. The owners are seeking relief on the Land Use Designation which would not remove construction restrictions. In May, there was a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Council to consider a Parcel Map that was a 'eversion to acreage and the owners asked that the building restriction be removed which would grant them the right to construct one home only. Staff indicated that the owners were seeking removal of the Open Space Easement, which was not the case. There was also discussion regarding mass density development that the public thought was being granted as part of that'Parcel map, which was not the case. The owners are seeking to have the property not be zoned Open Space so that the rights provided by State law and the Map Act are made available in order to petition the City for consideration. The ultimate determination for use of the property is predicated on a satisfactory determination from the Council. There is nothing that can be included in a General Plan to guarantee even one home. Responding to M/Papen, ICA/Montgomery stated that he was not prepared to respond to Mr. Dabney's letter regarding Lots 1 and 61 since the letter was received by him at 4:30 p.m. on this date. M/Papen indicated that she would grant ICA/Montgomery an additional two days to respond and asked him to respond to "the frontage of Summit Ridge Drive (approximately 175 feet) is not restricted and provides access to the property in question." In response to M/Papen, Mr. Dabney stated that the owners would be pleased FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 11 if the designation was Rural Residential. MPT/Werner, referring to Mr. Dabney's letter which states: "At the underlying zoning density of two units per acre, 122 acres allows 244 units. While it is obvious that clustering took place sometime in the past under the County, only 165 units were built. Clearly, some density still .remains." Mr. Dabney responded that the owners have employed his firm to do extensive analysis on the maximum development potential of the property which does not approach 79 units. It is much closer to 60% of that number. With the current format in the General Plan, the one unit per acre under Rural Residential is not feasible from a physical standpoint. Responding to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that Strategies 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 on Page I-16 deals with removal of map restrictions. Responding to MPT/Werner, Mr. Dabney stated that he supported the approach that there is substantial community benefit derived in exchange for removal of a map restriction if the ultimate density of the property exceeds one home. The Subdivision Map Act was established to protect both landowners and adjacent owners. Currently in the State, the Subdivision Map Act allows landowners the right, with restricted property, to petition at their discretion, the legislative body that controls planning, zoning and development rights. To take that right and say you can put it to the voters appears to be invalid. Responding to MPT/Werner, ICA/Montgomery stated that regarding Open Space restrictions, the procedure was set by the Legislation. Property owners appear before City Council upon 30 days notice and petition to have the restrictions removed. Since this is subject to referendum, it would go to a vote of the people. If the developer is not happy with the direction of Council, he may take it to a vote of the people and ask that the General Plan be amended. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:23 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:36 p.m. 2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN (CONTD.) - Ken Anderson explained that he would like a more definitive plan from Bramalea. He felt that development of the School District property is not of benefit to the entire community. He felt that the General Plan should produce an agreeable environment for citizens. He asked the Council to incorporate the CalTech seismicity map in the General Plan. FEBRUARY 16, 1995 'PAGE 12 MPT/Werner stated that the City has. embraced establishment of and participation in the joint powers authority of the wildlife corridor and open space acquisition. Wilbur Smith stated that there -had been a significant reduction in the value of homes and that the data in the General Plan should be reflective of these changes. He felt that slope'density calculations should be included on Page 11-16. Since the quality of housing is not included in the Land Use Element, it should be stricken from Page H-19. He asked that Council consider stronger language for Strategies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 on Page H-28. M/Papen asked Mr. Smith if he was aware of any "redlining" in the City. Mr. Smith responded that there is redlining in his tract because there were very few non-Anglos there when he moved in 10 years ago and six years ago, when values began to decline, homes were sold'to predominately non -Anglo. M/Papen stated she did not agree with him and did not believe that having more minorities in an area means the neighborhood is deteriorating. Max Maxwell, 321.1 Bent Twig Ln., asked Council to include designated areas on the maps to show the proposed sites for low income housing. M/Papen asked Mr. Maxwell to indicate on the map which parcels he believed should be zoned 18 units per acre. Mr. Maxwell indicated the Tres Hermans property. Responding to MPT/Werner, Don Cotton, Cotton/Beland & Assoc., stated that approximately 60% of cities have Elements in compliance with State requirements. MPT/Werner indicated it has been a slow and tedious process for the State to get cities in line with the housing policy. D.B. is attempting to do two battles simultaneously -one to satisfy State requirements for housing and another to complete the General Plan. He felt .that what Mr. Maxwell is currently advocating, he will argue against at a future date since he has argued in favor of both sides of the question in the past. He stated that staff provided a comprehensive list of potential properties. Using this list, Council is charged with determining, on a priority basis, which restrictions or constraints can be resolved in the next five years in order to accommodate low and moderate income housing --which Mr. Maxwell is so strongly advocating. He believed that low to moderate income housing should be dispersed equally throughout the City rather than all in one location as Mr. Maxwell recommended. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 13 on the Land Use Element and continued the Public Hearing on the Housing Element to February 23, 1995. C/Ansari asked why the higher density formula is not mentioned on Table II4, Page II=15 and on Page H-16, the first paragraph indicates that it is intended that housing developed within Tres Hermanos could be built at densities higher than 16 units per acre providing affordability for the City's identified share of lower income housing needs. CDD/DeStefano responded that it is mentioned as part of the palate of uses contemplated for the Tres Hermanos Specific Plan, the details of which would occur at a later date. The Council has not reached any conclusions regarding locations densities of developments. Higher densities should not be attached to properties that have no development opportunity. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that there are many locations that could be considered for higher density developments. M/Papen directed staff to provide Council with recommendations and options for five acre parcels of high density and 10 to 11 acres of medium-high density in order that the Council might develop a new category with those -mixes for the Land Use Element. MPT/Werner requested ICA/Montgomery to provide a written legal response to the issue of Open Space restrictions previously discussed with Mr. Dabney. MPT/Werner moved, C/Miller seconded to close the public hearing on the Land Use Element and continue the public hearing on the Housing Element. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. The next General Plan meeting will be held February 23, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. at the South Coast AQMD Auditorium. L 40A BURGESS, C►ty Clerk FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 14 ATTEST: Mayor 1. 0 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 23, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: M/Papen called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m., at the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by MPT/Werner. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen. Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - M/Papen stated that with respect to the Housing Element, public testimony was received by the Council on February 16, 1995 and continued to this meeting. Regarding Mr. Smith's recommendation on Page II -3, M/Papen directed staff to update residential property values. She further directed staff to update Table II -3 on Page II -10 as well as change the data on Page H-14, II -15A and II -1513 to be consistent with the Land Use Element. MPT/Werner requested, on Page II -15, that the following words be added to the last sentence, under Rural Residential: "...or less, depending upon the establishment of a Slope Density Ordinance." On Page II -17 and 11-18, 2 a Absence of Governmental Funding, M/Papen asked that the following language be added: "The City of Industry, under SB 1718 is required to contribute approximately $8 or 9 million annually to the County Housing Authority for the construction of low and moderate housing within a five mile radius of the City of Industry." She stated that the City would be qualified to apply for this funding. Further, any changes made in the Land Use Element would need to be reflected on Page II -17, under the categories "Medium Density, High Density Residential and Specific Plan and Planned Development." MPT/Werner suggested that on Page II -19, details for parking, height and open space standards be deleted. Mr. Cotton responded that the Dept. of Housing & Community Development requires that the General Plan indicate the ordinances that are in place with regard to these standards because they act as constraints on affordable housing. If standards are changed, a General Plan amendment would be required. FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 2 Regarding Page II -20, second paragraph, under e, Processing Time, C/Miller suggested the first sentence be changed to reflect current conditions as follows: "Development processing time in Diamond Bar should be shorter than processing through the County of Los Angeles." M/Papen recommended the paragraph be left as written. Council concurred. Regarding Mr. Smith's comments that Page U-21 does not reflect actual conditions, Council directed staff to reword the first sentence of paragraph four which discusses the sewer lines in "The Country Estates" and that it be modified to reference that "there are 140 lots on (blank) number of acres within 'The Country Estates' not on sewer." With respect to Page 11-25, M/Papen suggested that the fourth paragraph be amended to read: "The Council and the Diamond Bar Mediation Center also handle local landlord -tenant disputes within Diamond Bar, and indicates that there are approximately 1-2 discrimination complaints per month from residents in Diamond Bar." Regarding H-27, Goal 2, she directed staff to correct the spelling of "regardless." Regarding the second sentence on Page II -31 under L.A. County Housing Authority, "annually" should be included so the sentence reads: "An estimated $9 million annually to be made available through the County for affordable housing, new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation." Further, the three Goals in the Housing Element should begin with "Consistent with the Vision Statement" per MPT/Wernees request. Edward C. Jacobs, Pres. and CEO, L.A. Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, read two letters addressed to the Council. MPT/Werner believed that the Boy Scouts are in support of a Land Use designation on the Firestone property of"Specific Plan." He indicated he was told by the Wildlife Corridor JPA that the Boy Scouts approached them indicating they wish to sell to JPA their interest in the property. He asked Mr. Jacobs to reconcile the request for Specific Plan designation and a sale of the property to a wildlife conservation group. Mr. Jacobs explained that the fiduciary responsibility of the Boy Scout Board is to explore all opportunities. Toby Liebermann, Project Manager, Kosmont & Associates, land use consultants to the Boy Scouts, stated that the request was to clarify that there may be portions of the property that are not at 25% or more slope. The Scouts are conducting a topographical study to indicate which portions would come under a slope ordinance and which portions would not. FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 3 M/Papen asked staffif there are topographical maps on file that would reflect that the entire property has a slope 25% or greater. CDD/DeStefano answered that staff has no topographical map for the Boy Scout property. Based on a survey of all of vacant properties in the City, staff concluded that the Boy Scout property contains slopes greater than 25%. C/Miller indicated that the General Plan is inaccurate because there are slopes contained within the Boy Scout property that are less than 25%. MPT/Werner concurred with the request of the Boy Scouts. " Responding to Mr. Smith, CDD/DeStefano stated that the Housing Opportunities Area Map on Page H -15B needs to be clarified. The intent of the map was to show where the housing opportunity areas exist. The Specific Plan designated areas on the map reflect the Land Use Element's desire for a future Specific Plan. With respect to the Specific Plan designation, the underlying zoning of Agricultural designates one dwelling unit per parcel. C/Miller stated that since there is currently more than one dwelling unit on the property, the designation is inaccurate. MPT/Werner agreed with the request to delete reference to one dwelling unit per parcel since Figure H-1 on Page II -15B has four land use designations ranging from Rural Residential through High Density Residential. The Specific Plan is an overlay and adds to the underlying land use designation and can allow all of the other uses otherwise permitted in the land use designation. He suggested that Specific Plan is not a designation in the context of the other designations indicated, it is more of an overlay. : In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that an application package for Specific Plan would incorporate a General Plan amendment. The Specific Plan would serve as an overlay to the zoning which would. likely change. The sphere of influence would probably come to the City in the form of a pre -annexation agreement. C/Miller stated that the language grants entitlements. In the event that the property contains more than one parcel, the City could be granting entitlements where the intent is for Specific Plan. He felt it was appropriate to remove the 1 du per parcel. M/Papen stated the Council supports both requests from the Boy Scouts with respect to the Housing Element. With no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 4 LAND USE ELEMENT: M/Papen suggested that on Page I-10, Strategy 1.1.1, the Council adopt MPT/Werner's suggestion to add "or less, depending upon the establishment of a slope density ordinance" so that the sentence reads: "The maximum gross density of Rural Residential will be 1.0 dwelling unit per gross acre or less, depending upon the establishment of a slope density ordinance." She reiterated Council's desire to review Land Use categories to allow the City to comply with the REND numbers for low and moderate housing. She asked that the following two classifications be added to Page I-11: 1) change Strategy 1.1.1 e. High Density Residential from 16.0 dwelling units per acre to 20.0 dwelling units per acre; and 2) add a classification between Medium Density and High Density to read: Medium -High Density with 16.0 units per acre. MPT/Werner requested that staff present a statement regarding State regulations dealing with density bonuses for low and moderate income housing. Don Cotton, CottonBeland & Assoc., stated that a State mandate allows for a maximum 25% density bonus for affordable units when they are added as part of a new project. According to the mandate, a developer must be permitted an increased number of units not to exceed 25%. MPT/Werner suggested that the Land Use designations remain as written and add a statement which acknowledges the State mandate, in language that makes it clear to all property owners, that it is a possibility under State law that a developer may invoke this provision. Mr. Cotton indicated such a provision will not aid in obtaining the finding of compliance from HCD because this is part of the law. The policy of HCD in the recent past has been to require that the maximum allowable number of units be at least 25 per acre in order to be considered affordable. Through conversations with HCD, the City has had an indication that 20 units may be an acceptable minimum because of the constraints that exist in D.B. Responding to MPT/Werner, ICA/Montgomery stated that HCD has paramount authority. If they elect to do so, they may suspend the General Plan or attempt to impose regulations by notification or court order. The greatest threat is from activists filing to enjoin development or issuance of building permits based upon an allegation that the General Plan is lacking because the Housing Element does not meet State standards. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff is supportive of a 20 unit per acre maximum density position. He understood that the 20 unit per acre maximum that the City of Walnut proposed has been acceptable to by HCD as their Housing FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 5 Element is being reviewed. Walnut and D.B. have very similar characteristics with respect to the availability of sites, topography and environmental issues. Applying 20 unit per acre classifications to flat land properties in the City plus a 25% bonus meets the HCD number of 25 dwelling units per acre. In the stated opinion of HCD, 25 unit per acre densities are required for affordable housing in L.A County absent any other subsidies that the local agency might provide to drive down the cost of ownership or rental housing. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano identified the following properties which were built 20 or 22 units per acre that would be reclassified should the Council approve the 20 unit per acre maximum: the Daisey Apartments on Grand Ave. with a density of almost 17 units per acre. The Hampton Ct. " condominiums on Washington St. at Brea Canyon Rd., with dansity of about 17 units per acre. The Village condominiums on Golden Spgs. has a density of slightly more than 20 units per acre. The highest density project is the Fall Creek condominium project behind the K -Mart shopping center at approximately 21.8 units per acre. Also in response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that there are 53 areas identified as Vacant Land Housing Opportunity. Areas. Referring to the schematic and map, the following areas are available for- housing opportunities: #3, #4, #6, #7, #13, #14, #20, #21, #25, #29, #31 and #34, #39, #40, #41, #48, #49, #50, #51 and #52. The final site not shown on the map is identified as parcel #54, two acres behind the D.B. Congregational Church. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that parcel - #24 is approximately 2 acres and zoned at 30 units per acre. This site has a building restriction, it is a flood hazard area and has significant slope. M/Papen asked if there are available properties in the City that are not currently zoned Commercial or Industrial but could be. CDD/DeStefano stated that parcel #45 (approx. 5 acres) owned by JCC could qualify for this designation and is presently designated at about 25 units per acre. The General Plan recommended by the Planning Commission and supported by staff recommends a Commercial designation for this site. The second area is the School District property. It is approximately 15 to 20 acres and is more suitable for an industrial site and continuation of a public facility. MPT/Werner asked if stafffeels there is any opportunity for a 20 unit per acre project in the Gateway Corporate Center area. CDD/DeStefano responded that the Gateway Corporate Center area is approximately 200 acres of a Master Planned Development. 'File areas which might be considered are #33 through #47 on the map. He felt that, at present, FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 6 those sites would be better suited for Commercial Office Space, Headquarters Office Space, etc and continuing the theme established within the Gateway Center. He would not recommend a mixed-use product. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated the Tres Hermanos area within the jurisdiction of the City is approximately 800 acres and identified as parcel #6. It is owned by the City of Industry's Redevelopment Agency and is part of the larger 2,700 acre total Tres Hermanos Ranch property that flows over into Chino Hulls. It is a candidate site for a number of different land uses including multi -family. Some cities have established concentrated areas for providing low and moderate income housing. Over the years, that has been determined to be an unacceptable practice for a number of reasons. Most recently, HCD has frowned upon the cities that tend to lump all of their responsibilities into one single location. This site is appropriate for some of the low and moderate income housing.. Staff would riot recommend that the entirety of the City's responsibility be placed in that site. The City has not yet to develop specifics for the site. CDD/DeStefano stated there is one additional site which might be a suitable candidate for commercial zoning. This site is Lorbeer Junior Haigh and the adjacent church. Although the site currently has other uses, it affords the opportunity for reclassification and relocation of the existing land uses. M/Papen reiterated that staff recommended four sites for high density housing opportunities which are parcels #4, #6, #20, #25 #54. CDD/DeStefano indicated that these sites should be considered candidates for a 20 unit per acre density and that the four existing products be designated with a 20 unit designation. The two considerations for Commercial property are site #45 and the WVUSD property on Lemon Ave. The Council has letters from the Boy Scouts, the School District, Bramalea, Shell Oil, SASAK and RnP objecting to a Land Use designation on their properties. All of these items are to be considered by the Council. Responding to C/Ansari, ICA/Montgomery stated that if the letters from property owners are read into the record, public hearing can be held at this meeting. Responding to C/Harmony, ICA/Montgomery stated that the opinion regarding the owners' objection to the Open Space designation on Lots 1 and 61 has not been completed; however, it will be available for the February 28 meeting. M/Papen stated that the owners of the school district property on Brea Canyon Rd. object to an Open Space designation and have asked for a Planned Development designation. Regarding Site D, the School District is FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE.7 seeking a designation of Planned Development. Bramalea would like to be zoned Planned Development with the stipulation that approximately 70% of the property would not be developed and that the entire density would be in one parcel. MPT/Werner reminded staff that Council requested the City Attorney to clarify some land use issues. Responding to M/Papen, Kevin Hughes, Shell Western Exploration and Production, 1800 E. Lambert Rd., Suite 225, Brea read a letter from his firm. In response to MPT/Werner, Mr. Hughes stated he is not familiar with the Williamson Act. He will determine if this has any bearing on the property. MPT/Werner stated that the Williamson Act is an Agricultural designation for tax purposes. MPT/Werner asked if Shell would oppose any efforts on the part of the City to expand the sphere of influence westerly, and with respect to the properties currently within the sphere of influence and what was Shell's attitude regarding annexation. Mr. Hughes indicated that a constructive dialogue regarding both properties would be very important. Shell would be opposed to annexation with regard to the property west of the SOI. Regarding the property east of SR 57, there are no current plans. MPT/Werner favored retaining the existing zoning of those properties outside of the City limits and negotiating terms for possible annexation to the City. He asked Mr. Hughes if this would be adverse to Shell's position. Mr. Hughes stated that while it would not necessarily be adverse, it would not give Shell the flexibility it seeks. MPT/Werner stated that the designation of the property east of the SR 57 as SP would not impact Shell's zoning as long as the property remains in L.A. County. He asked Mr. Hughes if Shell would have an adverse reaction to leave the designation AG rather than SP. Mr. Hughes responded that they would not view it as an adverse policy; however, it would create more work for them. Responding to M/Papen, MPT/Werner stated he would prefer to have the existing zoning remain in place for all of the sphere of influence properties. However, he is open to debate the issue with Council. FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 8 C/Miller asked Mr. Hughes if it is Shell's perception that the City is unwilling to work with Shell in the future and by applying the Agricultural designation, the City is not granting flexibility. Conversely, by applying an SP designation it gives. Shell the feeling that the City is open to Shell's recommendations. Mr. Hughes responded that this is Shell's perception. M/Papen announced that the Public Hearing for Lots 1 and 61 will be continued to Tuesday, February 28, 1995. CDD/DeStefano reported that Boy Scout issues outlined in their letters related to the Land Use Element begin on Page I-26, Table I-3, fourth line. The bottom portion of the table shows the 3,200 acre property in the sphere of influence is stricken. The information was restored because it was removed due to a typographical error. The next item has been dealt with in the Housing Element. The third item in the letter refers to I-12, Strategy 1. 1.7 stating there is an inconsistency between this description and identification of park designations. The description of the Park designation was a refinement by the Planning Commission when the Commission was considering designating the Boy Scout property as Private Recreation (PR). Upon further review by the Commission, they agreed to change the designation of the. Boy. Scout property to Agricultural/Specific Plan. Therefore, the statement regarding the Firestone Boy Scout Camp should be stricken from this strategy. The final item deals with the Housing Element and slopes greater than 25% and that issue was covered. The concluding paragraph of the letter suggests that rejection of their requests would be contradictory .to the intended SP designation and damaging to the interests of the Boy Scouts and that point is deserving of more Council discussion and conclusion regarding the appropriate designation for their site. Seeing no objection from Council, M/Papen stated that staff corrections to the General Plan will include the Boy Scout's requested changes and corrections. Mr. Cotton stated that in the course of all of the changes to the General Plan and the Boy Scout's requested changes to Table H-1, all of the language that is designated either Agriculture or Specific Plan has no underlying density designation. He recommended that the Council assign a density designation of either 1 du per 5 acres or as high as 1 du per 40 acres as a permitted use. He further stated that under State law, the City is required to indicate the allowable intensity or density of use of any properties covered by the General Plan. Responding to M/Papen, Mr. Cotton stated that Strategy 1.1.8, Page I-12 and Strategy 1.1.9, Page I-13 should contain a density designation. He further stated that there are additional Agricultural designations in other areas of the General Plan. FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 9 M/Papen asked if this requirement would include the PD designation. CDD/DeStefano responded that it would not be included. In response to M/Papen, Mr. Cotton referred the Council to Table I-3 on Page I-26. Under Permitted Density/Intensity, other Designations, no intensity is given, only reference to a footnote. The AG/SP and the AG designations do not presently have any underlying intensity or density standard and he believed that this is desirable. Under case law, the density standard could be as high as 1 du per 5 acres. It is unlikely that that land would develop under those standards, but. it does establish a density standard for the area. MPT/Werner recommended that the City follow the current zoning of AG and indicate the residential density prescribed under current L.A. County zoning of l du per 2 acres for purposes of consistency. CDD/DeStefano recommended that this issue be explored further and to present a recommendation to Council regarding an appropriate intensity/density classification for the AG and AG/SP Land Use designations. Mr. Hughes indicated that Shell would like the opportunity to review alternatives with staff. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated the matter would be brought before the Council at the February 28 General Plan meeting. David Araujo suggested that with respect to the Open Space designation, the Council include wording to allow for a property owner of a single property dwelling to expand his home or build a structure on the property without affecting other Open Space designations throughout the City. Responding to Mr. Araujo, C/Miller stated that he does not propose that the City should change the designation of deeded open space or recorded open space property. He was concerned with the rights of property owners and did not want to use police or government power abuse to take properties. For the record, M/Papen noted that the Council had voted 5-0 in support of the conservancy. Wilbur Smith stated that referring to slope density on Page I-10, Strategy 1,1.1 is confusing. He further stated that 20 units per acre would be appropriate if the rent is affordable to low income families. Max Maxwell asked that copies of the letters be available for pickup at City FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 10 Hall. M/Papen reiterated previous General Plan changes and asked for Council consensus: On Page I-3, 3 Sphere of Influence, include Shell and other property owners to reflect a better description. Regarding Shell's request to include the Sphere of Influence property under 1. Land Use Mix Issue Analysis, Page I-7, .this item will be held over for discussion by the Council. On Page I-10, Goal 1, add "Consistent with the Vision Statement" to the beginning of the sentence. Regarding Page I-10, Strategy 1.1.1 a., add the language "or less density depending upon the establishment of a Slope Density Ordinance." On Page I-11, regarding the issue of adding medium -.high density with 16 dwelling units per acre and high density at 20 dwelling units -per acre, Council agreed to hold the item for discussion. Regarding Item f under Strategy 1.1. l., Page I-11, remove the word "scale" from the first and second lines. Item g., Strategy 1.1.1, Page I-11 is moved to Strategy 1.5.3, Page I-17. Council requested alternative language on Open,Space under Strategy 1.1.6, Page I-12. This item is held for future discussion. On Page I-12, Strategy 1.1.7, the Firestone Boy Scout Camp requested their name be deleted since they are in a different classification. Council concurred. With respect to Page I-17, Strategy 1.5.4 a., change the strategy to read: "Acquisition of land for parks and natural area conservation through a process of entitlement review and density transfers." Council concurred. Add Strategy 1.5.4 d. on Page I-17 to read: "Through the entitlement process where the landowner/developer would agree to sell at less than market value or dedicate property in exchange for development rights." Council concurred. C/Ansari requested a discussion on Objective 1.5 and attached Strategies. Because she will be absent for some period of time, she requested that the final decision for changes and approval be held until she returns and that she be given adequate time to review any proposed changes with staff and one Council Member to comply with the Brown Act. . FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 11 Regarding Strategy 1.5.5, Page I-17, delete "smaller" from the second to last sentence. With respect to Strategy 1.6.5, Page I-18, Bramalea requested that Open Space in -the last line be changed to "Planned Development." This item is held for further Corn -A consideration. On Page I-19, Goll 2, Page I-20, Goal 3 and Page I-23, Goal 4 add "Corsistert with the Vision Statement" to the beginning of the sentence. Regarding Strategy 4.2.2, Page I-24 Council will hold discussion on Shell's objection. , C/Ansari stated that she would like to see more areas designated on the map for medium and high density development. She was concerned about some of the designations that some of the property owners requested such as the change requested by WVUSD on Site D to Planned Development. She stated she preferred that the South Pointe property remain Open Space or Open Space/Specific Plan. Regarding Bramalea, there needs to be clearer wording developed with respect to the designation of the 30% and 70% issue. She understood the concerns of Shell and she agreed with AG/SP. She indicated the proposed Boy Scout request for changes need fiuther discussion. She was also concerned with areas of the General Plan which refer to Planned Development. The Plan needs very clear language so that citizens understand what is meant by this designation. Responding to M/Papen, C/Ansari agreed with the Commercial designation for the school district property on Lemon Ave. and ,the JCC site at the off -ramp of the SR 60 and D.B. Blvd. In addition, she felt that any of the four sites previously mentioned for high density development would be appropriate. CfMiller moved, C/Ansari seconded to incorporate changes requested in the previous discussion by Council and the requests in writing by the Boy Scouts of America and that these changes be implemented to the Housing Element. The revised Housing Element should be expeditiously prepared by staff with four days and,brought back to Council for final approval within 30 days. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 12 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. TOMMYE CRM91INS, Deputy City Clerk ATTEST: Mayor a 1 . MINUTES.OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 28, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at. 6:162 p.m. at the South Coast AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by.C/Miller. ROLL CALL: Mayor Papen, Council Members Harmony, and Miller. Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Council Member Ansari were excused. Also present were: Terrence L. Michael Montgomery, Interim City community Development Director Deputy City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Belanger, City Manager; Attorney; Jim DeStefano, and Tommye Cribbins, 2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN: . CDD/DeStefano reported that the Council received proposals from the following for changes to the Land Use designation for their properties: WVUSD for reconsideration of the Open Space designation on the South Pointe Middle School property and the Public Facilities designation proposed for the Site D property; Bramaleals request for expansion of existing language to permit implementation of the MOU, a project incorporating 50 to 70 acres of their 400 acre holding off of D.B. Blvd. They requested a designation to al ' low the product to be constructed. This involves changes to the recommendation proposed by the Planning Commission of RL/OS with SP; Shell Oil owns about 350 acres in the sphere of influence and requested a designation change from AG to AG/SP which is consistent with the Boy Scouts' 3,200 acre holding within*the sphere of influence area. The issue over the Boy Scout property is the appropriate level of development density for that area; RNP Development requested a designation on their 68 acre Grand Ave. site that would be consistent with the current zoning classification which permits about two units per acre of residential development. Planning Commission recommended OS for the site; SASAK Corp., in correspondence to the Planning Commission, recommended a designation of RL for their'6.7 acre site on Morning Sun Ave. This would be consistent with the recently -approved conceptual plan' for their 21 -unit residential project. The Planning Commission recommended OS for that property. There are staff -related issues responding to a discussion FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 2 by Council on February 23 regarding a 20 unit per acre multi -family land use classification. He suggested that four to five areas within the existing developed areas be ..designated at 20 units per acre and -that an -additional three or four areas be considered for a 20 unit per acre designation. Those projects are the Daisy Apartments, Windwood Condominiums, Village Condominiums, Fallcreek Condominiums, the vacant property of five to ten acres in Tres Hermanos, 10 to 12 acres across the street from Maple Hill Rd. on D.B. Blvd., about two and one-half acres behind the LDS Church and about a two -acre site behind the Congregational Church on D.B. Blvd. at Morning Canyon Rd. He presented a response to the questions regarding the Open Space issues and a letter received from RNP through their agent, Jan Dabney, regarding Lots 1 and 61. M/Papen referred to Page 1-7 for discussion of Deed and Map Restrictions under 1. Land Use Mix. C/Harmony felt that map restrictions should not be removed on a development; especially specially Qpen space.. map restrictions as GPAC identified them, without a vote of the people. C/Miller proposed that the last sentence on Page 1-7, 1. Land Use Mix a. first paragraph be changed to read: "In some cases, deed restrictions were imposed to ensure that development would not occur without further legislative review.." C/Miller suggested that under b. Open Space Definition and Preservation, Page 1-7, the first sentence be changed to read: "There are different types of undeveloped lands within the City. He further proposed that under Strategy. 1.1.6, Page 1-12, the second sentence be changed to read: "This designation also includes lands which may have been restricted to Open Space by map restriction, deed/designation, condition, covenant and/or restriction, or by an Open Space Easement pursuant to California Government Code (CGC), Sec. 51070, et seq. and Section 64499, et seq." Regarding Page- 1-16 and 1-17, he suggested that Strategy 1.5.3 be changed to Strategy 1.5.1 and make the current 1.5.1 Strategy 1.5.2. Add Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Land designated as Open Space by deed dedication, condition and a restriction by open space easement GC - Sec. 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 FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 3 removal of an open space dedication easement and/or restriction." Add a. under new Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Vacant land which deed is burdened by an open space dedication, condition, covenant and/or restriction shall be required to be subject to the abandonment process substantially similar to,that which is set forth in GC Sec. 51090, et seq." Add b. under Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Vacant land which is burdened by an open space easement pursuant to GC Sec. 510701 et seq. shall be required to be subject to the abandonment process set forth in GC 51090, et seq." Add c. under Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Vacant land which is burdened by an explicit open space designation delineated upon a map which was the result of a previous subdivision approval shall be required to be subjected to a ' t least one public hearing before the City Council prior to any action to remove said restriction." Change Strategy 1.5.4 to read: "Vacant land and/or existing residential lots burdened by map restrictions which delineates limitations or prohibitions related to building construction, allowable residential units or other such non -open space restrictions shall be required to be subject to a process established by the City Council prior to removal of such restrictions." Subsection a. would read': "Vacant land burdened by non -open space map restrictions shall be required to be subjected to at least one public hearing before the City Council before any action can be taken to remove any such restrictions." Subsection b. would read: "Existing residential lots that are burden by non -open space map restrictions shall be required to be subject to a process established by the City Council prior to removal of any such restrictions." He recommended that what was previously Strategy 1.5.4, now be Strategy 1.5.5 to read: "Obtain open space land through feasible acquisition and management techniques such as: a) acquisition of land for parks and natural 'area conservation through a process of title review or density transfers among land uses of like designation and title review" and leave b., c., and d. as written. , He explained that by adding this language it is clear that if a property is deed restricted, the owner must comply with Government Codes and Government process to change those restrictions. C/Harmony understood that the former provision, removed by the Planning Commission, of requiring a public vote for relief of map restrictions, would be added back in and that the requirement of relieving these types of restrictions would be one public hearing. Opinions from the City Attorney indicated that the City requires a FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 4 declaration that there be justification for relief from the restrictions by public h ' earinig anyway. It appeared as though C/Miller's corrections did not materially change anything. C/Miller responded that he is attempting to eliminate any confusion on the part of the community who might think the City is trying to circumvent State law by including the specific language in the General Plan. Regarding the increase of density question, C/Harmony stated that he received many calls from concerned citizens and that he had a problem with lack of public notice. He would rather handle low income housing another way than increasing densities to the highest they have ever been in the City. M/Papen responded that the Vacant Land Housing Opportunity under Land Use dated February 16, stated that the property on D.B. Blvd. is currently zoned 30 units per acre. It was suggested that zoning be 16 or 20 units per acre. This would be a 30% to 50 % decrease, not an increase. Property behind the LDS Church is zoned 25 units per acre, so 16 to 20 units per acre would be a 20% to 40% reduction. It is misleading to indicate to the community that there will be an increase when it -is already zoned higher. C/Miller believed that there was confusion on the part of the citizens if they called C/Harmony. The Council is not enacting any zone changes on any property in the City. Designating a land use designation in the General Plan does not allow a zone change. In order to change. thezoning of any existing property, there must be a l . pubic hearing for which people would have to be noticed. M/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Karen Capestro, 1652 S. Longview, expressed concern regarding changes to the Open Space designation. , She requested that the designation remain Open Space and not Open Space/Specific Plan. Responding to M/Papen, Ms. Capestro stated that she was primarily concerned with Lots 1 and 61 with respect to. the change of designation. M/Papen asked Ms. Capestro to tell the Council what was represented to her in a phone call she received regarding the change of designation. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 5 Ms. Capestro responded that it was represented to her that there would be a change from Open Space designation with no building. She was told that the designation was going to be changed to Open Space/Specific Plan designation which would mean that a developer could build one parcel in the area. M/Papen believed that what was represented to Ms. Capestro is not entirely accurate. The current designation allows for one dwelling unit per parcel with all of the map restrictions that are currently on the property. Council received a letter from the property owner objecting to the Open Space designation because they feel that about eight of the 64 acres has an Open Space dedicated easement. They are not asking to have that removed. There is an obligation that, if the City declares the property Open Space, it could.be termed a "taking" and the Council would be required to pay just compensation to the property owner for the land. The property owner is asking that current land use be consistent with the zoning and 'for it to remain as is. The recommendation was that the entire parcel be declared Open Space. It is currently zoned Residential, which is consistent with zoning of adjacent properties. C/Miller stated that previous recommendations are applicable to Lots 1 and 61 and any properties which have map restrictions, whether they are designated PD or RR conforming with existing zoning, do not remove map restrictions, deed restrictions and open space easements. Responding to Ms. Capestro, CM/Belanger stated that in order for the owner of Lots 1 and 61 to build an access road to the property, an application for development proposal would be. made to the City and one of' the requirements would be to indicate ingress/egress for the project. The project would go through a complete development review by both the Planning Commission and Council with full public notice for all property within 300 feet of the development. , Before it could be constructed, Council would have to remove restrictions that currently exist on that property. C/Harmony asked ICA/Montgomery to clarify Mr. Dabney's request that part of the property had a map restriction on it -and the rest did not. ICA/Montgomery referred C/Harmony to the memo packet presented to the Council. The map and deed restricted parcels are another form of open space and on�Lots 1 and W_ - -.*- FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 4A 61, no building permit may be issued without going through the.process to remove map restrictions. Teressa Guber,.24-303 Rimford Pl., asked why the owners believe the other 60.5 acres were not designated Open Space. She asked if Lot 1 and 61 were still designated Open Space because that is what she was told when she bo ught her home. M/Papen responded that the property owner felt that there are about 8 acres designated Open Space with the rest of the property being map restricted, which is contrary to what ICA/.Montgomery indicated and the matter may have to be resolved in court. She stated that the person who sold Ms. Guber the property misinformed her. It was her opinion that the entire property is not designated Open Space. M/Papen stated that as a public entity, the rights of the property must be recognized and dealt with in a legal manner. Ms. Guber stated that citizens have rights, not just one. or two people that own some property.. M/Papen responded that this is not so under the law.. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that Planned Development does not belong in D.B. and it will not be in the General Plan. He further stated that WVUSD bought their property because they had an emergency, which was probably concocted. The issue is-, that the School District told the public that they were not going to' develop the property and within weeks or months later, Dr. Hockwalt asked for Planned Development. With respect to Site D, that battle was fought years ago. Regarding Bramalea, Shell oil and Boy Scouts wanting Planned Development, it will not be in the General Plan. C/Miller implied that if the designation remains open Space, it falls into the map restricted issue. It is very detailed, it is too complex. GPAC sated it simply. Map and deed restrictions require a vote of the people for removal. Regarding the 800 acres of Tres Hermanos, every HCD unit could go there. C/Miller -bought the property and he is shooting for getting the restrictions removed. He indicated that there are all kinds of interpretations and the Citizens to Protect Country Living designated' him to appear before the Council, videotape the proceedings and keep them informed. He stated there will be another referendum. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 7 Eric Stone, 24401 Darrin Dr., stated that on the surface, the idea of having open space is very attractive to all and that it is a way of encouraging others to get involved that someone has a master plan to undermine the open spaces in D.B. People own the property and when they purchased it, they had certain rights to it and if the City cannot buy the property, -then the City needs to be fair. If the City was able to take the properties and designate them open Space, there are lost tax revenues needed for services. Not only does the property owner lose,, the citizens lose. Regarding another possible referendum, he stated that it will cost the taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money to satisfy people who seem, on the surface, to mean well for the City but if their.ideas were carried out, they would be grossly prohibitive for taxpayers. He stated that downzoning would deny citizens the highest and best use of the property. He felt that many citizens would object to this approach and that the City has a good grasp on what liabilities are involved in takings and downzonings or open space designations. Frank Williams, 9227 Haven Ave., . Ste. 280, Rancho Cucamonga, Executive officer for the Building Industry 'Assn. of So. Calif., Baldy View Chapter, referred to the memo addressed to the Council by ICA/Montgomery. He indicated that he spoke with the building industry's general counsel and read.the counsel's response letters. (See attachments). Christine McPeak, President, WVUSD *Board, of Trustees, stated that the Board did not want to purchase the South Pointe property. The Board felt that it was imperative that the school ool be built and because it now owns the property, it is the job of the owners to maximize the use and benefit to the entire district and the community. In addition, the Board felt that the rights of the property that existed at the -time of their purchase were transferred to the District. The PD designation requested would grant the District more options than currently existed under the proposed designation. The Board felt that the proposed designation would devalue the property, diminish the assets and ultimately harm the District and the community at large. The Board is committed to preserving the major portions of the canyon. M/Papen asked Ms. McPeak if, at some time in the future, the Board returned to the Council with a proposal for the property, would a minimum of 30 percent of the property remain in its natural state. Ms. McPeak responded that 30 percent would be a minimum. M/Papen.asked if the Council were to approve a Planned Development designation that it would be a condition of the plan approval that 30 percent of the land would be undisturbed. Ms. McPeak responded that it would. C/Harmony asked Ms. McPeak if the District would guarantee that all of the land would remain the property of the District and never sold to a developer. Ms. McPeak responded that it could be a condition of the 30 percent but not all of the land. M/Papen expressed concern about the Council labeling property as Open Space before there is a written agreement in a deed or development agreement. C/Harmony stated that he wanted all of the 78 acres to remain under the ownership and control of the School District. Ms. McPeak indicated she could not guarantee that for the entire 78 acres, only for the designated Open Space. C/Miller asked if Ms. McPeak would agree with the following verbiage: "That the property owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District be zoned PD and., that the surplusproperties owned by the School District consisting of the 75 acres known as Sandstone Canyon will be required to incorporate into a Planned Development proposal the following minimum standards: That the most sensitive portion of the site shall be retained as permanent open space; and the plan shall incorporate the planning of a site preparation to accommodate develop- ment of Larkstone Park to a suitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as approved by the City." Ms. McPeak stated she co ' uld not make a commitment as one member of a Board; however she agreed that the wording was appropriate. M/Papen stated she is hesitant to grant the request on site D because the issue of Larkstone Park had not been resolved over a period of five years. For anything to be considered on site D, it would be necessary for the FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE • School District to present an acceptable plan for resolving this issue. She asked Ms. McPeak to convey the message to the Board members that, as a community, the City needs to get recreational facilities developed in that area of D.B. There was land set aside which has been used for other purposes for the past five years. This site will not be a part of the 30 percent of the property set aside. Ms. McPeak indicated the District is amenable to working out the details. M/Papen asked Dr. Hockwalt to state the benefits to the community of allowing uses other than school facilities on the property and natural open space with respect to the property on Brea Canyon Rd. Dr. Hockwalt answered that the District is currently conducting a study to ascertain what the possibilities might be. There are developable areas along the perimeters of the property and, more especially, the area adjacent to South Pointe. Those are the areas that would be considered for public facility development or some other means• yet to be determined. The architect indicated that completion of South Pointe is slated for December, 1995. Carolyn Elfelt, 21119 Silver Cloud Dr., stated that she volunteers at both South Pointe Middle School and D.B. High School. Many parents who support the schools and raise funding were present in support of the District's request that their property be deemed Planned Development. She indicated that the group would like the school to have all of the options possible when it comes time to use their property. Wilbur Smith stated that he observed that C/Miller and ICA/Montgomery seemed to be in agreement with regard to both map and deed restrictions, what they mean and how they are implemented. He supported C/Miller's language for the General Plan. With respect to the School .District, he felt that their only job was to teach children and their assets belong to the citizens and not to the Board. When the District decides that property they hold for the general public is not going to be used by the District, that property should be relinquished to some other element of government for determining its use. He believed the School Board was not in, a position to make a decision about open space or land use. . Regarding Bramalea, he would like to see the areas for building FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 10 and open space shown on a map contained in the General Plan. With respect to Lots 1 and 61, he supported no building on the property and he asked how this would be shown on the map. He approved of the Boy Scout request as long as it does not involve a large development. C/Miller stated that the School Board is elected and has a fiduciary obligation to represent the District. One of their obligations is to safeguard assets of the District and maximize.the utility of those assets. He asked Mr.. Smith how he would suggest they accomplish these things understanding the obligation they have to the people they represent. Mr. Smith responded that whoever provides the funding for the School Board is the individual, association or group that purchased the property. They should turn it back to the State and let the State decide what happens to the property. Dave Capestro, 1652 S. Longview Dr., referring to Lots 1 and 61, indicated that the land designation within the General Plan states that a land use of those properties is proposed Open Space and he agreed with this designation. Responding to Mr. Capestro, M/Papen stated that Lots 1 and 61 are*not unique. These same issues apply to at least six properties in the City and the applications must be consistent. If the City designates Lots 1 and 61 Open Space, then the property owners have no development rights and they deserve compensation. In the General Plan, it calls. for an Open Space Inventory and a: prioritization of lands that should be acquired by the City and establishes three or four differ-ent opportunities and means of acquiring the land. one is by allowing development on part of the property in order to have a portion. donated. Another is to have the-' City purchase the property. By applying a specific ruling to this one property, the City would be accused of discrimination. These are major issues and until that property has been dedicated to an agency that is going to preserve the property, or until it is purchased by the City for Open Space, the Council will have to deal with the issues. The same can be said for the School District property, the Bramalea property, etc. and the City must deal with all property owners fairly and in a consistent manner. She further stated that she would be. willing to place an item on the ballot to inquire iftaxpayers would be willing to pay an additional fee in order to purchase FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 11 these types of properties. preserve natural terrain condemnation. There are other ways to in the community beside C/Harmony stated that ICA/Montgomery indicated it would not be a "taking" to classify these properties as open space, if a property owner sold his/her mineral rights. These developers sold off their development rights on these portions of property so that they could get higher density in the tracts that the citizens live in. They don't own it anymore. There is no taking and the City does not have to buy the property. C/Miller stated that there are hundreds of privately -held properties that are restricted and if the General Plan incorporates language that these properties are going to become Open Space even though it is not legal, those properties are precluded from the use of those areas. The School District property has restrictions,* but it is not Open Space. He felt it is great for the City to own open space but it is wrong to use police power to take anybody's private property regardless of whether it is a small or large piece. It must be done according to law. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing regarding the Land Use Element closed. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that the County zoning standard for that area is one unit for every two acres. The General Plan `is designating the property Agricultural which has a similar title but a vastly different listing of permitted land uses. Agriculture in the General Plan refers to the maintenance of property -generally in the State as it is today with respect to the sphere of influence, recreational uses., Tres Hermanos, plus the General Plan discussion about additional public facilities, etc. Prior Council discussion. regarded. the need to apply a land use density/intensity to those areas. He recommended that the land use density for that area be one unit to 40 acres. That would permit about 90 units between the sphere of influence area and a few additional units for the Tres Hermanos area. That would apply to the properties to provide some reasonable use of the acreage consistent with what other cities have been doing. It.is consistent with the recently adopted Chino Hills General Plan, specifically with respect to the Butterfield Ranch property. This recommendation applies to both the Tres Hermanos and sphere of influence area. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 12 M/Papen Announced that C/Harmony had left the room and there was no longer a quorum. RECESS:. M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Don Cotton, Cotton/Beland Assoc., stated that one unit per 5 acres and one to 40 is what the courts have reviewed in the past and would accept as to not represent any kind of "taking" of the property. There are alternative ways of dealing with this issue. This is the simplest and easiest to understand. There is a provision that any proposed development in this category would have to come before the Council with a specific plan approval request. If the request were for the allowable number of units, the specific plan approval would be all that would be required. If it were for more, there would need to be a General Plan amendment, as well as a specific plan approval. M/Papen asked what the difference in process would be between the Tres Hermanos property within the City limits and the other properties located outside the City limits and in the sphere of influence. CDD/DeStefano responded that the process for a specific plan would be similar. Sphere of influence properties would probably wrap a specific plan together with a pre- annexation agreement. The agreement would not require a General Plan amendment; however, approval of a specific plan presumed to be different from current uses would require a General Plan change. If the property owners wanted to incorporate today, it would not require a General Plan change. If they want to incorporate today and tomorrow develop a specific plan, those uses and that plan would incorporate a General Plan change. M/Papen asked the property owners to come forward and respond to staff's recommendation bf the underlying density of one unit per 40 acres. George Basye, Shell Western, stated the designation seemed harsh. Although they have no specific plans for the property, they would like to see a designation of Specific Plan in order to see a future beyond the current agricultural use while recognizing and respecting issues expressed by the community. M/Papen expressed concern that the Council give some kind kY 28, 1995 PAGE 13 E value to the Shell property at this time. She asked 7. Basye if Shell objects to one unit per 40 acres or if iere is s a designation they would prefer. c. Basye responded that Shell would have to compare what ae competing underlying designation might or might not a to remain unincorporated and to pursue alternatives rom that perspective. At this time, with a cooperative Efort by. the landowners to meet the needs of . the Dmmunity and with one unit per 40 acres on 350 acres -in ae sphere of influence, it is questionable whether that s a legitimate economic value to be placed on the roperty. Dm Kolin, Vice Pres. and Chief Financial Officer, Boy ::outs of America, stated that he was satisfied with the arrent designation of SP/AG which allows a two -acre Lnimum, lot size per dwelling on the total 3,7.00 acres. ae Boy Scouts have no plan for the property other than D keep it whole and marketable. Lth respect to the WVUSD property, a motion was made by /Miller to designate the property PD and that the anguage be incorporatedinthe General Plan that "the Dst sensitive portion of the site shall be retained in armanent open space and that the site' plan shall acorporate the planning and site preparation to zcommodate the development of Larkstone Park of a aitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as ?proved by the City." Motion seconded by M/Papen. By ae following Roll Call vote, motioncarried: fES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen DES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony 3SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner agarding Site D, WVUSD -property, C/Miller moved to asignate the Land Use as PD. Motion seconded by /Papen. /Harmony stated his views on these special designations re on the record. If that is an area the School istrict is going to turn into housing, they are Dligated under law to sell it to another public arisdicti6n or return it back to the State. /Miller responded that the Council is not removing the oligatidn from the School District to first offer that roperty to the City or other government agencies for ale. That, by law, is their first obligation if they FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 141 decide to dispose of the property and the Council is not,, in any way, changing that obligation. The property is currently zoned residential, 7,500 sq. ft. lots to 10,000 sq. ft. lots and the Council is doing nothing to change that -zoning, but merely guaranteeing the School District the same rights with the property as when they originally purchased the property. C/Harmony stated that GPAC's recommendation for the property was Public Facility. M/Papen stated that the School District purchased the property but it was not dedicated for a school site. They have held the property for more than 20 years and their plans do not include the use of it for a public facility. She believed it is in the best interest of the taxpayers that their dollar be maximized through the use of this property. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen- NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner A motion was made by C/Miller and seconded by M/Papen to designate the Walnut Valley Unified School District's Lemon Avenue property as Light Industrial which is consistent with the property on three sides. C/Harmony stated that one of the concerns at the last Council meeting was that this property act as a buffer to the adjacent fourth area which is a residential-' neigl}borhood. He was concerned about the impacts this designation would have on the residential properties to the east. M/Papen indicated such a discussion would be appropriate at the time any proposal for use of the Property is made to the Council or Planning Commission. At this time, the Council is considering a 20 year plan for the community and how the land should be designated in 20 years. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner Responding to Don Cotton, the Council recommended a PD, FEBRUARY �8, 1945 PAGE 15 PF, RL and, Park land use designations for the Walnut Valley Unified School District South Point property. With respect to Site D, the same underlying land use designations will apply: PF, RL and Park. Clay Chapet, WVUSD, stated that the current underlying des* Io4, es* t' on Site D is Rl 7,500 and Rl 10,000 and the District Auld not like to relinquish any entitlement currently With the land. He indicated they would not like the RL designation. Council concurred that the underlying designation for Site D will be RIM, PF and Park. A motion was made by C/Miller. that the Bramalea properties, Sites 7 and.13, be designated PD and that the following language be incorporated: 1170 percent of the property shall be retained as permanent open space with the PD zoning to include RL." Motion seconded by M/Papen. -i I M/Papen stated that Bramalea has four different parcels and they are not all contiguous. Therefore, the Council could leave the RL designation on 611 four properties and transfer the densities to one property and keep the other three properties as undisturbed land. CDD/DeStefano stated this is correct and consistent with strategies recommended by the Planning Commission in both the Resource Management and Open Space Elements. C/Har . mony asked if the densities were previously transferred to the designated tracts that are open space tracts and isn't this discussion about using the open spaces as some sort of density transfers ag:?in on the unused tracts. CDD/DeStefano responded that he was not aware of how those projects were initiated but that they were designated IZes--dential Planned Development and that there was a concentration of development in areas that were plateaus.- C/Harmony...irid-Icated the GPAC recommended an Open Space desianation on these properties and the Planning Commission designated them Open Space/Specific Plan. M/Papen referred C/Harmony to the list on *7, the recommended designation is Planned Development RL. and W. On the other three properties, there were two other recommendations, both Specific Plan, some Open Space and PW 4 -4 - FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 16 some RL which is 3 units per acre. The current recommendation is that it be PD with 70 percent of the land being preserved in its natural state and RL. '. . Responding to C/Harmony, CDD/DeStefano stated that GPAC wanted to keep the Bramalea property off of D.B. Blvd. as Rural Residential or a portion extending from Tin Dr. with the balance of the acteage being Open Space. With respect to the property adjacent to Pantera Park (area 7), GPAC recommended RL Planned Development at 3 units per acre plus the water. M/Papen stated that designating Site 13 off of D.B. Blvd. as Planned Development and restricting development to 30 percent of the land is preserving the major 70 percent without zoning the property Open Space and "taking" the property. Council recommended preservation of more natural terrain than GPAC and the Planning Commission recommended. She indicated the property owner supported the motion. Motion was carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner M/Papen announced that the changes would be available for a 30 day public review and brought back to the Council for final adoption. Public comments will be allowed at the final hearing. ADJOUPWMNT: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. The next General Plan meeting will be March 6, 1995, 6:00 p.m., in the South Coast AQMD Auditorium. ATTEST: a, Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MARCH 61 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. at the South Coast AQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Papen.. ROLL CALL: . I Mayor Papen, Mayor Pro Tem Werner, Council Members Harmony and Miller. Council Member Ansari was excused. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: 3.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Council consider appropriate designations for the 3,600 acre Sphere of Influence. The Boy Scouts own about 3,200 acres of that property and are looking for a designation of Specific Plan that would allow for uses compatible with their existing uses of the property and the zoning of the property which is Agriculture. Zoning of the property permits one unit per two acres of land. Shell oil owns about 350 acres and they are seeking -a designation simil- ar to the Boy Scouts for similar purposes. Other property owners in the Sphere have not been in communication with the City for many years. They have similarly situated property adjacent to or surrounded by the other large landowners and would presumably utilize a similar designation to whatever is decided upon for the Boy Scouts and for Shell Oil. Tom Kolin, Chief Financial Officer, Boy Scouts of America, challenged the recommendation of one dwelling unit per 40 acres. The Boy Scouts have always been a good neighbor to D.B. and have requested very little from the City. He felt they were ambushed by the City at the last meeting because they believed staff would recommend a density consistent with the County's Agricultural Zoning and density of one unit per two acres. The County zoning has applied for many years. At the present time, the Boy Scouts have no plans for the property other than as a scout facility. There is no rational. basis for jumping from one unit per two acres to one unit per 40 MARCH 6, 1995 acres. This kind of downzoning strikes the Boy Scouts as arbitrary and unjustified and damaging to the Boy Scout's assets. He asked that to be fair to the Boy Scouts, the Council should maintain the County standard for density of one unit per two acres. Anything more restrictive has no logical or legal justification. This is especially true. in light of the fact that any future development on the property would require a Specific Plan which would, in turn, require public hearings, County input, community input and environmental safeguards before adaptation. M/Papen asked Mr. Kolin if it would be the intent of the Boy Scouts to cluster ' any development in the least sensitive area of their property. Mr.. Kolin responded that in 1988, the So. Calif. Golf Assoc., another non-profit organization, requested to lease a portion of the Boy Scout property in order to build the SCGA headquarters building and two golf courses. The Scouts approved this project on the basis of retention of the land and because the SCGA is a non- profit organization which would clear the Boy Scouts of any unrelated business income. In addition, it seemed a perfect use of the property to allow the Scouts to collect rent and still own the land. This is the type of arrangement the Scouts would like one day to enter into. There has never been discussion of residential building or development of this property. The only assets held by the Scouts is cash in the bank and the land owned and Firestone is the Scout's third largest single land holding in the U.S. In order to continue to hold the land, the Scouts must consider all options. C/Harmony asked staff how they arrived at the -one unit per 40 acres. CDD/DeStefano responded that the General Plan consultant: identified to the Council an issue within the Land Use Element that certain Land Use classifications needed an intensity of development or density of development attached to the classification title. An indication was made that such a classification was needed for the Sphere of Influence properties and the Agricultural Land Use specifically. Staff recommended a density of one unit per 40 acres based upon case law and actions of other cities with similar issues of large expanses of vacant land that may be suitable for development in the future and where there are currently no development plans contemplated. As previously stated, this is used by the City of Chino MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 3 Hills as a classification for their Butterfield Ranch property as well as their portion of Tres Hermanos. The number was suggested to the Council as part of a range of 5 to 40 acres by the General Plan consultant and it was recommended to the Council in terms of one unit to 40 acres for the Boy Scout property and the rest of the Sphere of Influence because there are no current plans under consideration for these properties. For several years, staff recommended a Specific Plan classification for the same property which is a designation that would lead to a more formalized master plan of land use allowing for a, much broader range of uses as may •be deemed feasible and appropriate at some future date. Responding to M/Papen, ICA/Montgomery stated that in the Terminals Equipment Co. case, San Francisco, 1990, where the court stated that "in every case where a landowner seeks compensation for burdensome regulation of his/her property, the standard remains whether the regulations in issue have, deprived the landowner of all use of the property. When the claim is made that the regulation has significantly diminished the property value, the focus of the inquiries on the uses of the property which remain, plaintiff cannot contend he was denied all use of the property. He was neither deprived of his right to exclude others from his -land nor denied the right to sell the property." A General Plan designation is not to be confused with a downzoning. They are separate and distinct. The Supreme Court already held that the designation by General Plan does not. lead to a compensatory claim. The California Supreme Court recently held that, in order for a party to claim that he/she must, within the time allowed, have the ordinance described as confiscatory and unreasonable and then and only then, may they file an action for damages. The procedure has been perceived as of such a disparity in favor of the public agency that a bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives that would provide compensation for landowners in the event that their property is downsized or effectively taken (one unit per 40, one unit per 60) . He believed the Boy Scout's concerns may be premature because, in any event, they will need to submit a planned development. In that type of terrain there is going to be concentration, planned unit, shifting of entitlements, etc. He indicated the only case he is aware of where damages were awarded is the North Carolina case where the City took the lots and left no use of the property. At the current time, there is not a taking case that protects the landowner MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 4 from the discretion of the public agency in zoning the property so long as a reasonable use remains. When the Boy Scouts decide that they need to makeanenterprise use of their property and come'before the City with the permit they desire there will be something to test. He felt the Boy Scouts perceive damages that are not.there and a designation of Planned Development might satisfy their needs and have the same legal effect. M/Papen asked if the Council designate's the Boy Scout property Specific Plan in the General Plan and did not designate the property Agricultural/Specific Plan, would a density designation be needed. Mr. Cotton stated that the Specific Plan is an overlay designation and Agricultural is a Land Use designation. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that the County's designation for the Boy Scout's property is A2-2 which allows for one unit of every two acres of property. MPT/Wexner stated that the Specific Plan overlay is not an overlay designation so much as it is a planning and zoning tool. He recommended that the Council insert a Specific Plan requirement under the Agricultural Land Use designation that upon a proposal to annex to the City, that the property be Specific Plan with a presentation of a complete package at the time of an annexation application which would go through the public hearing process. Responding to M/Papen, Mr. Hughes, Shell Oil, stated that current zoning under the County is subject to broad interpretation. Part of the property has two designations, AG and AG/SP and it would follow that the property would carry an A2-2 designation. Shell proposed that the Council assign a Specific Plan designation over the entire property to be consistent with the Boy Scouts designation. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., favored an Agricultural designation for the Boy Scout property. Responding to Mr. Maxwell, MPT/Werner stated his use of the term annexing the Boy Scout property to the City is technically incorrect. In 1992, subsequent to incorporation, the City petitioned the Local Agency Formation Commission to establish a Sphere of Influence. It is not an annexation area, it is called a pre- MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 5 annexation area. It is important to understand that it is not an annexation because that means it is in the City. If it is in the Sphere of *Influence, it is simply a preliminary step to the property perhaps someday becoming a part of D.B. It may never happen. He clarified that the City has not annexed this property. The significance of that fact is that the Land Use plan has very minimal, if any, effect on the land use jurisdiction of that property. It is under County zoning jurisdiction"today and the property is zoned A-2 and that is how it will remain until an application is made to the County to change that zoning or to develop under the A-2 zoning, or if the owner makes application to the City to incorporate that property (annex) to. the City. Until that happens, the City's land use policy as it applies to that property is almost meaningless. Wilbur Smith stated that in all of the discussion regarding the Sphere of Influence, no attention has been given to the fact that this property is in the SEA area which indicates there should be no development. -In his opinion, the posturing about the number of unit's per acre is an attempt to give this area a classification which will increase the chances for future development. He asked if the City recognized the SEA.15 designation and agrees with the preservation of the area within the context of SEA 15. Eric Stone, Darrin Dr., suggested that the property designation for the Boy Scouts remain Agricultural. Changes could then be dealt with at the time they occur. Don Schad supported the Boy Scout's request to leave the property as currently zoned. In response to MPT/Werner, Mr. Schad stated that the matter came before the Planning Commission and that his position was to support the Boy Scouts and leave the zoning as is. M/Papen asked Mr. Schad if the discussion and vote was limited to the Boy Scout property or the entire Sphere of Influence. Mr. Schad responded it *was with respect to the entire Sphere of.Influence including the Boy Scouts., MPT/Werner suggested that, in lieu of a General Plan Map Designation of AG/SP, that with respect to the properties MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 6 outside the City's jurisdiction and within the Sphere of Influence, the City designate the area AG and include text to reflect a Land Use policy and -Land ' ' Use designation incorporating the County's Agricultural zoning. In addition, include the following: "At such time as these properties are proposed for annexation to the City of Diamond Bar, that they carry with it an application for a Specific Plan." He felt that any decision regarding the Sphere of Influence properties would be premature without full disclosure. In terms of strategy within the General Plan, if the City wanted to have the property in the City and wanted to advocate any use, in order for the City to exercise that authority, it would have to entice the owner to come into the City limits. otherwise, the property owner can simply develop or otherwise use their properties under County jurisdiction as they are now doing., RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 7:05 p.m. RECONVENE: M/.Papen reconvened the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Regarding Page 1-3, 3. Sphere of Influence, MPT/Werner suggested the following with respect to the definition of the Sphere of Influence: "The City of Diamond Bar's Sphere of Influence was first approved by the Los Angeles Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on August 8, 1990 and encompasses 3,591 acres immediately south of the City limits to the Los Angeles/Orange County border. The sphere area includes the middle portion of Tonner Canyon, an -undeveloped northeast/ southwest trending wooded canyon, which extends beyond the City's Sphere of Influence into Orange County to . the south and San Bernardino County to the east. Pursuant to the provision P of the Cortese/Knox Local Agency Reorganization Act, the sphere of influence serves as an area designated as future area to be annexed to the City. However, until such time as the property' is annexed to the City of Diamond Bar the area remains under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County." Council concurred. Referring to Page 1-13 under Strategy 1.1.9, MPT/Werner suggested: "Encourage the innovative use of land resourc.es and development of a variety of housing and other development types, provide a means to coordinate the public and private provision of services and facilities and address the unique needs of certain lands by recognizing Agriculture (AG) designation: a. for large scale development areas in which MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 7 residential, commercial, recreational, public facilities and other land uses may be permitted; and, b. large acreage property (ies) in excess. of ten (10) acres that are proposed to be annexed into the City." M/Papen indicated she would like to see a Specific Plan overlay for the Sphere of Influence properties. MPT/Werner asked ICA/Montgomery to determine if under the - Subdivision Map Act a property owner can split off a 40 acre parcel without going.through the review process. ICA/Montgomery stated that if the Council's intent is for one specific plan on the entire acreage, this should be stated under the policies. If there is more than one lot or if the.owner can split off a segment of the property and pursue a specific plan for only that portion, it could be consistent with*the General Plan. M/Papen suggested Strategy 1.1.9 on Page 1-13 be changed to Specific Plan, incorporate two 'separate categories, give the AG category to the Sphere of Influence and give the Specific Plan category as an overlay so that on the .map, it would show AG/SP but in the Land Use designation it is an overlay and a Land Use classification. How could the Council guarantee that the Hillside Ordinance and the SEA 15 conditions in the Resource Management Element would be part of any Specific,Plan,. CM/Belanger referred Council to Page 1-18, Strategy 1.6.3. He suggested that the first sentence read: "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 area that will protect its unique biological and open space 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). M/Papen requested that this language be incorporated on Page 1-12 and 1-13 under Specific Plan. She then asked for consensus that Strategy 1.1.10 will be Agricultural desig-nation with the changes that MPT/Werner articulated. Strategy 1.1.9 will be Specific Plan overlay that would incorporate the strategies in 1.6.3 on Page 1-18 regarding the hillside and preserving open, MARCH 6,1995 space in the SEA. The Agricultural designa-tion in Strategy 1.1.10 would be consistent with the County's designation. C/Harmony expressed concern about the Agricultural desig- nation and asked if staff's recommendation of density is being applied or whether the County's designation is. MPT/Werner responded that the intent of the suggestion/motion is take on a consistency with county zoning. C/Harmony agreed with Mr. Smith that the suggestion only encourages development and doesn't respect the concepts of the SEA. C/Miller stated that Mr. Kolin was nodding affirmatively from the audience that it was, in fact, true. Public comment indicated a support for the Boy Scout's request. M/Papen moved, MPT/Werner seconded to adopt MPT/Werner's suggested language and designation changes as previously set forth. Motion carried 3-1 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller,.MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari Regarding the February 16, 1995 listing of Vacant Land Housing Opportunity Areas, M/Papen recommended that Item #20 be changed to RH 20 units per acre; Item #25 be changed to RH 20 units per acre and Item #24 be changed to RL designation (maximum three units per acre). Responding to C/Harmony, CDD/DeStefano stated that about five years ago a project came before the City for approximately 10 units on the #24 property. . The project was denied by the Council. He indicated that it is a very difficult piece to develop and perhaps three to four units would be the maximum potential development. M/Papen referred to her prior suggestion that two Land Use classifications be added: Medium High Density RMH 16 and change RH from 16 to 20. Further, she recommended reclassifying Existing Housing to be consistent with the RMH 16 and RH 20 designat * ion which are the Daisy Apartments, the Windwood Condos, the Village Apartments and the Fallcreek Condos so that the City has more than MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 9 one parcel in this designation. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano indicated the Land Use classification on the property behind the Congregation Church (Item *54) is Medium Density Residential up to 12 units per acre. M/Papen suggested that Item *54 remain as is. MPT/Werner stated that the changes to properties that are developed out at, a density that would exceed the zoning on a property would have difficulty obtaining financing upon sale of the project because of the legal non- conforming status. Reclassification of land uses to the existing density makes practical sense. M/Papen stated that the Planning Commission recommended that Item #45 be changed to Commercial. The property is located on D.B. Blvd. between Sunset Crossing and the SR 60 off -ramp and is currently zoned 25 units per acre. Council concurred. CDD/DeStefano stated that the Planning Commission supported GPAC's recommendation which supported staff's recommendation that this irregular shaped property might be better suited for some form of limited commercial uses. It is a difficult site to develop. Based upon its access to the freeway, it would 'have very limited service as a *residential site. The commercial designation has been consistent for a couple of General Plan versions. M/Papen referred to Lots 1 and 61 (Item *15) which are currently zoned two units per acre. She suggested that these properties be reclassified Rural Residential (one unit per acre) and put the property under the Hillside Ordinance. All current restriction would remain with the property.. C/Harmony stated he did not see any point in increasing the density when it is understood there will be no building on the property. M/Papen responded that her suggestion decreases the density by 50 percent. In response to C/Harmony,.she answered that she recommended that the existing Land *Use classification of RPD 20,000, two units per acre be changed to Rural Residential which would be a maximum of one unit per acre under which category the Hillside Management Ordinance would apply. She indicated legal ry RENT, a VM 0 F Ww Foxe -on concerns with the Open Space designation as described by GPAC, as -indicated by the Building Industry Assn. and others, that zoning the property Open Space would constitute a '"taking" on the part of the City. While there is a difference of opinion in thisregard, she indicated she would like to conserve as much property as possible without declaring it Open Space which might be construed as a taking and she does not want to put the City in the position of being faced with lawsuits and having to purchase the property. The City has been very successful in consolidating densities and acquiring permanent lands to remain in natural terrain in the City. She was in favor of acquiringsuch properties through transfer of density rights and through development agreements. An Open Space category places the City at high risk of lawsuits and deep bills. MPT/Werner asked M/Papen if her motion includes the retention of all map restrictions that now exist on the property. M/Papen responded "absolutely". Responding to MPT/Werner,'ICA/Montgomery stated that Lots 1 and 61 h * ave map restrictions in favor of the public ,agency and were extracted by the public agency in return for a consolidation of density. He stated that he is convinced after researching the law that those are called Statutory Conservation Easements as distinguished from Easements in Fee Easements in Grant. The difference is that it restricts the property owner from making any use, varying from the restriction without later getting relief from that restriction by the public agency and there is no 'right to relief from that restriction. It is not deeded to a public agency but it is in favor of the public agency in return for the map that was given at t ' he time the restrictions were made. They are recorded on the same map by which the subdivision is granted. M/Papen asked ICA/Montgomery if her motion would remove any of the restrictions. He stated that it would not. C/Harmony asked if this keeps the designation of Open Space. The Planning Commission and GPAC recommended open Space. He asked M/Papen if by her motion the. City would keep the designation. MPT/Werner seconded the motion. He stated that M/Papen's motion minimizes the risk of -taking or a threat of lawsuit on the basis of a taking. MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 11 C/Harmony. requested .staff to discuss the OS/RL designation as envisioned by GPAC versus the Open Space designation envisioned by the Planning Commission and how that relates to the Mayor's recommendation of RR. CDD/DeStefano stated that GPAC recommended that the property be designated Open Space. A very small piece located at the corner of Summitridge Dr. and Grand Ave. was designated by GPAC a's RL. Clearly GPAC's recommendation to the Planning Commission was for the site to be designated OS. That was based upon GPAC's recommendation that properties that have the types of language that restricts development (such as this property) be designated with an Open Space classification. The Planning Commission reviewed the matter, clarified what they believed to have been an error by GPAC and designated that RL piece as OS with the balance of the property. The Planning Commission forwarded GPAC's thought process that properties with these types of map noted restrictions should be designated as Open Space, consistent with GPAC and Planning Commission's verbiage for Open Space. The recommendation currently before the Council would allow for a density of one dwelling unit per acre maximum for this site which is about 66 to 68 acres. If the site were to be submitted for future development consideration, it would have to respond to the General Plan and all of its development standards dealing with hillside preservation, as well as responding to. the City's Hillside Management Ordinance and other ordinances that dictate what types , of development can occur on properties with the types of slopes that this property has. C/Harmony stated the City is encouraging she future development of this property. In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano responded that the zoning for the site is RPD 20,000 2U which allows for two units per acre. This is the zoning designation which is different from the General Plan discussion. Regardless of what the designation is, the property owner can always come back for a recommended change in that designation and always be entitled to such a request. C/Harmony stated that making the property comply with the Hillside Management, Ordinance also encourages development. MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 12 CDD/DeStefano responded that some would argue that it is very discouraging because it is restrictive in the sense that it is designed to protect. the environment from development or to mimic* the environment where the development is taking place. it is designed to enhance the environment or to replace it in a manner in. which it looked like initially. M/Papen withdrew her motion. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano reported that Site D, 28 acres off of Brea Canyon Rd. and-D.B. Blvd., and the 78 acre Brea Canyon Rd. and Pathfinder Rd. area South Pointe property were subjects of previous discussion by the Council with the conclusion that these two properties should be designated Planned Development with an underlying development intensity/ density of 3 units per acre. The current General Plan recommended the Stone property as Planned Development (Area *1) permitting up to 30 dwelling units in reflecting some of the issues related to its proximity to the freeway. Area #2, the Bramalea properties, are the non-contiguous areas consisting of approximately. 400 vacant acres and the palate of . land uses would reflect that. which has been discussed such as a maximum of 130 dwelling units, a minimum of 75 percent of the site -being set aside as Open Space and a two acre area located at the corner of D.B. Blvd. and Goldrush Dr. would be developed for Public Facility or Commercial use and encourage a clustering concept with lot sizes that range from 6,000 to 10,000 feet. . Staff felt that this responds to some of the issues raised by Council and property owner. Planned' Development Area '#3 located at Grand Ave. and. Golden Springs Dr. where Calvary Chapel is currently located and across the street from the golf course wh�re the proposed hospital has been approved, is approximately 75 acres. The mixture of uses for that location would include those proposed by the GPAC and Planning Commission for Commercial Retail and Office Professional uses. Planned Development Area K is the WVUSDIs 78 acres located west of Brea Canyon Rd. in the South Pointe Middle School area. Land uses would be, as outlined by the Council, Public Facilities, a minimum of 30 percent Open Space with a residential density of 3 units per acre. Planned Development Area *5 would be proposed to identify the 25 acre property at Brea Canyon Road and D.B.Blvd ' . Land uses appropriate for the site, as outlined by the Council, would 'be to designate it five single family units per acre. These are five areas that have been MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 13 under consideration for more detailed land use planning through the tools that the Government Code and City Ordinances provide. In concert with other goals, objectives and strategies of this General Plan, an overall master plan would be developed for these areas which would be brought to the Planning Commission and Council for public hearing review and consideration at a future date. MPT/Werner asked that the Council consider the "SASAK property. The City has an approved Tentative Tract Map on the property and recommended that the Land Use designation should be consistent with what has been approved on the property. In addition/ he asked that Lots 1 and 61 continue to be discussed since the issue had not been resolved. M/Papen stated that Area #1 was -designated RL. Responding to M/Papen, 'CDD/DeStefano stated that the designation is recommended by GPAC and the Planning Commission. It is a ten acre site and is -highly encumbered by easements, slope issues, flood hazard issues, etc. It is likely to be developed with a single additional land use classification of single family. homes. The nature of the constraints on the -site will tend to push the development closer to the existing fire station. It is not necessarily a strong candidate for a planned development. If development does occur there, it is likely to be in the form of a cluster of homes and it is likely to be processed with a Subdivision or Tentative Tract Map and may also include a development agreement. The planned development does not create any significant constraints nor any real benefit. Regarding Area. #2, she indicated that she would like to be certain that the water tower is included in the Land Use classification. With respect to the school district property on Brea Canyon Rd., she wanted to be certain that Recreation use was included. The same is true for Area *5 (Site D). Item #8, Pantera Park, currently zoned two units per acre, is changed to "Park". Item #9, Pantera Elementary School site, currently zoned two units per acre, is changed to Public Facilities (School). Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that the intent of Items 10,, 11 and 12 was that these were additional development opportunities within the RPD area. Further information indicates that they are part of Landscape District *39 and may no longer be suitable for development and that is why staff did not recommend their MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 14 consideration. M/Papen recommended that. Items 10, 11 and 12 be designated Open Space. , CM/Belanger stated that the land is currently. in the assessment district and is privately held. The question is whether there are any easements or any other restrictions in favor of the City relating to designating the 33 acres as Open Space. The City is not certain whether there are any restrictions on these properties. Upon further consideration, Council recommended that Items #1, *10, #11, *12, *16, be changed to RR designation. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano understood that Items #18 and #33 are. Deed Restricted Open Space properties. MPT/Werner asked why this application would not be consistent for the other properties. M/Papen responded that the other properties are map restricted and not deed restricted. In response to MPT/Werner, ICA/Montgomery responded that it is a significant delineation in one respect. There is an argument that deed restricted or General -Plan restricted Open Space requires a public hearing in order for the restrictions to be lifted. There is another argument that map restrictions (equitable servitudes or' conservation easements) may not require a public hearing to be lifted. CM/Belanger stated that the deed is a document that is unambiguous. On its face it delineates what burdens are going to run with the land and the property owner is aware of those and records those burdens by deed. Map restrictions can'be expressed and they can be implied, whereas deed restricted property is burdened and the property owner has notice of the burden which is recorded on the face of the deed. To be consistent with previous approvals, the recommendation for Item #39 is a designation of RL which would allow for three units per acre. M/Papen stated that Item #42, the four acres of City property along Brea Canyon Road should be zoned MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 15 Commercial. Wilbur Smith was concerned that the City ignored the issue of Open Space based on the fact that such a designation may be deemed a taking. There is a letter from ICA/Montgomery contradicting this theory. The Council should state their position with regard to the attorney's opinion. M/Papen'responded that Area #1, 1/4 acre will.remain in its natural condition. 75% of the 400 acres of Area *7 and Area #13 will remain in open condition. The 24 acre parcel, Area #8 is designated for a park. Area #10, a 5 1/2 acre site, Area #11, a 13 acre site and #12, a 14 acre site will not be developed. Area #15 will have 7 1/2 acres dedicated Open Space. Area #18 is 16 1/2 ' acres ' that will not be developed. Area #33 is 54 acres that will not be developed. Nearly 600 acres of land that has previously not had restrictions from development that the Council is now preserving in its natural terrain. The alternative would be that the City would have to pay approximately 10 million dollars to purchase these properties. If the City can preserve the property without having to face a challenge of "taking," having a challenge of condemnation and without costing the taxpayers anything., that is the charge of the Council on behalf of the citizens. Max Maxwell felt the issue of Open Space should be tested. The premise of deed and map restrictions were to keep open space. Lots 1 and 61 now propose 50 or 60 homes, yet he would like it to remain Open Space. Regarding the Hillside Management Ordinance, if it starts at 25%, it is worthless. If it starts at 15 & as GPAC recommended, it will be valuable *He stated that the people of D.B. don't want 800 acres in Tres Hermanos and another 2,000 acres developed and leave 500 acres open space. He felt that the City had gone beyond the point of�having a valid EIR. C/Harmony responded that the City Attorney addre ' ssed the issue of the 7 acres versus the 60 acres of map restrictions on Lots 1 and 61. He asked ICA/Montgomery if he sees map restrictions applying only to the 7 acres or to all '.6O acres. He asked staff to comment on Mr. Maxwell's question of whether or not the City need a new EIR. MPT/Werner stated that while the granting of these MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 16 proposed designations may not go to the extent of reducing the land use zone to the extent Mr. Maxwell -.. - would like -and to -the extent that he is willing -.to risk the testingprocedure which means litigation, he indicated he was taking a more conservative point of view. He felt that what 'the Council proposed is to take the current zoning on properties that in no way could ever accomplish or achieve those densities and bring them to a lower density and not touch the land use restrictions that exist on thos6 properties. It remains to be seen sometime in the future whether the owner could ever present a proposal that would accomplish both the owner's objectives and the City's objectives. What Mr. Maxwell asked for is for the City to stick its neck out so far that it is inviting litigation through the General Plan document. He was not interested in looking at a test but was interested in attempting to preserve what the City has and protecting its interest for the future. He believed that that is being accomplished with the Land Use Element. Terry Birrell stated that, with respect to Lots 1 and 61, the City Attorney cited case law going back 15 years indicating that there would be no inverse condemnation and yet the majority of the 'Council 'listened to a biased opinion of'BIA. The County placed those conservation easements on the properties known as Lots 1 and 61 and Lots 49 and 53 because of density transfers. With respect to density transfers, the City Attorney stated that with respect to the map restricted parcels no "taking" occurs if each action is the result of an agreement which includes adequate consideration, i.e. the original cluster building permits. That seems to be pretty clear. She saw no reason why the GPAC's designation of map restricted properties as Open Space could not stand and suggested that the City not be concerned about takings because the Council has legal opinions that there are no takings. The Council should be concerned about what is being given to developers for no consideration and what the City is taking from the residents of D.B. around those areas.. MPT/Werner did not agree with Ms. Birrell's representation. Nothing is being given to developers and no restrictions are being removed. They remain with the property and the Council is not deliberating on any development proposals for any of the properties in question. This is only a General Plan Land Use policy. With- respect to all of the identified properties, the MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 17 current zoning will be downzoned according to the land use policy being discussed. The current zone on properties will be degraded, diminished, downzoned, reduced, less than what now exists and restrictions will remain. C/Harmony asked MPT/Werner'if the City were to avoid a test lawsuit on a taking of land zoned open space with the proposed designations, would he be willing to bring back what the GPAC put into the General Plan wherein it allows the public to vote on any lifting of map restrictions when it comes to development projects. MPT/Werner responded that he did not recall that issue being discussed and he would be happy to deliberate the subject. M/Papen asked why 'the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. property *41 is deed restricted but it not zoned open Space. It is zoned Private Recreation. In addition, why is the deed restricted open space around the- Lyons project on Pathfinder Rd. not zoned Open Space and why is the Country Estates Park not zoned Open Space when they are all deed restricted properties. She also asked why the Planning Commission said that privately held properties with a map restriction should be declared Open Space, but privately held deed restricted property is not zoned Open Space. She stated that private citizen's deed restricted properties are not zoned Open Space under this General Plan. MPT/Werner stated that his interpretation of ICA/Montgomery's legal opinion regarding Open Space seems to differ from that of the speakers. He asked for clarification with respect to taking the rights that are prescribed under the Subdivision Map Act given to those property owners by right and in the General Plan stating that they will become subject to an election. However, the City has the right, on an individual basis and in response to a request from the property owner, to require that one of the stipulations in granting that request go to a vote of the people. ICA/Montgomery responded that if the subdivider/developer had a right to get an administrative ruling such as removal of restriction without a vote, if it is determined that map restrictions are not of a strength of the Open Space Easement Act, then the City can impose a higher requirement on that developer than the State when MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 18 it passed the statute. If the Council wanted to put map restrictions and open space to a vote of the people, the Council must first adopt that portion of the.General-Plan by a vote of the people because a higher restriction cannot be imposed. MPT/Werner understood that, through the General Plan, the City could not impose a requirement for anelectionbut the City could impose a vote of the people on a project by project basis. ICA/Montgomery stated that this cannot be done unless the people adopt a General Plan and provide for that in the General Plan. MPT/Werner asked if the City would adopt the policy in the form of a General Plan policy or.in the form of an ordinance. ICA/Montgomery responded that the City cannot adopt the General Plan and require that one or more changes in that General Plan be required to be a vote of the people. Before a vote of the people can impose a requirement on any provision, that portion of the General Plan will have to be adopted by the people. M/Papen recommended that the following properties be designated Open Space: The 5 1/2 acres of Area #10; the 13 acres of Area #11; the 14 acres of Area #12; the 150 acres of Area #21, the 54 acres of Area #53; the 37 acres of Area #41; and the 165 acres of Area #43. She stated she would add the 7 1/2 acres of Lots 1 and 61 but she did not know which 7 1/2 acres it is. C/Harmony stated that GPAC's recommendation on Pathfinder Homeowners Association is Open Space for Area #41. MPT/Werner stated those would be the test areas. A motion was made by M/Papen, seconded by MPT/Werner to designate the following areas Open Space: #10, #11, #12, #18, #21, #33,, #41 and #43 for a total of 462 acres. Motion carried 4-0 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari A motion was made by M/Papen, seconded by C/Miller that Area #6 be designated Planned Development Area; #1, the Stone prop-erty remain as is; the Bramalea property would MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 19 be Planned Development Area #2; the hospital site would, be Planned Development Area #3; the School District property on Brea Canyon, south- of the South Pointe Middle School on Peaceful Hills Ln. would be Planned Development Area #4; Site b would be Planned Development Area #5. MPT/Werner referred to his February 28, 1995 memo in which he stated that under the PD designation, he recommended parameters to assist in defining Planned Development as a sub -section under Strategy 1.1.8, Page 1-12. He suggested similar language for the. Sycamore Canyon Bramalea property. M/Papen stated that 75% is preserved. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that the Tres Hermanos property should be designated "PD Area #11 located within the incorporated City south of the Pomona Freeway west of Chino Hills Parkway. This 800 plus/minus acre vacant area is part of the larger Tres Hermanos Ranch property spanning Grand Avenue including property within the City of Chino Hills. Facilities appropriate for this site should be designed based upon a vision for the future and not merely extend the patterns of the past. Such facilities may include a high school and other educational institutions, reservoir for practical and esthetic purposes, commercial developments which are not typical of those found in the area and a variety of residential, churches, institutional and other uses which are complimentary to the overall objective of having a Master Planned area. Development within the Tres Hermanos area should be designed so as to be a part of the Diamond Bar community as well as compatible with adjacent lands." Motion carried 3-1 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari A motion was made by M/Papen and seconded by C/Miller that the following sites be designated Commercial: *42 (4 acres on Brea Canyon Rd.) and #45 (5 acres on D.B. Blvd.). Motion carried 3-1 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werher, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, I MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 20 A motion was made by M/Papen, seconded by MPT/Wernex that property #39, to be consistent with the previous approvals, be designated RL. Motion carried 3-1 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari A motion was made by MPT/Werner, seconded by M/Papen that property #15 be designated Open Space for the 7 1/2 acre parcel and RR for the larger parcel with all map and deed restrictions remaining. Motion carried 3-1 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari A motion was made by MPT/Werner, seconded by 'C/Miller to approve the Land Use Element as amended and direct staff to reconstruct the Element and make it available for public review. In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano,responded that staff will look at the cumulative total of the changes the Council has directed and return with an appropriate environmental recommendation. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: memo"., 2.1.1 Special Meeting of January 31, 1995 2.1.2 Special Meeting of February 6, 1995 2.1.3 Special Meeting of February 13, 1995 2.1.4 Special Meeting of February 16, 1995 Motion by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 61 1995 PAGE 21 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony, Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 5. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. TOMMYE CRIBBINS, Deputy City Clerk ATTEST: Mayor nLuLt � JII c. c. tO. 3. 1.J 7J n. J-, ..+U. -♦., 1 r— - .. i'.. 1— � i— -1 FES -22-1995 18'-21 FROM DELOITTE & TOUCIE L.A. TO 919038613117 P.02 SCOUTINIG/USA Oa.� d Cwr+r�r. lear�r d/K fkM�+t Owed R Rt+b. Eob Meo� .ieenry St.'.wt A#^WY IerQ =1 W"o Cwr+d Oft" Cfth m.VMc F>K! vc. Ca.kn>N a�� s W. cFwWO a M" Noomn "J v coa+r WWWnA a�a 9wroft DWpp K L~ LOY V I)OM F. L►1�•�1� VdNXn a LOO+00 0K J. Mut LY7` Wary C %NWe � O" K.Nf W. AL1 Vries Apr'- Jdt L se+•n+ pogAt E "� RknwO J. s+.pwr+•lw sun J.'a+or� oawoF� t~Nod AIWW P.ul o n prolow+ E4.rwa C. d•W" Lh N.meai of dw &04 L "mvO K Fd"WA DEQ� Cub scout, Scout and Explorer Programs Los Angeles Area Council Bay Scouts of America 2333 Scout Way Box 28910 LAs Angeles. CA 90026 FAX 213 483-e472 Telephone: (213) 413-4400 February 22, 1995 Members of the City Council of Diamond Bar, Ca. Mayor Phyllis E. Papen Werner Mayor Piro Tem Gary Council Member Eileen R. Amari Council Member Clair W. III11er nY Council Member Crazy G 21660 East COP1ey Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765-4177 Dear Members, of the City Council: pn, February 16, 1995 the Executive Committee f the Board of Couacil, Boy Scouts f America, Directors of the Los Angeles Area Sohn T. Cardia, Chaff approved a resolution to specifically name s of the Board, or his designee as official spokesperson for all matters involving the Firestone Scout Reservation with any local.coumty, and state. governmWts. The Board has not authorized stay other individuals or organizations to represent the Council in any matters whatsoever related to the Firestone property. The resolution also committed our Organization to PAW all means necessary to protect our interests in this vital asset, both is short term and long term. .VM C. cuohl M 0 W N"O J. G*W—W V, ppqqy� MiWe VO y9 Ow4W F. WA" W Who" & OaVAV 10 Of. jw"" A Ro � 7E c'" Afteds moo*/ 10 r„A rt O'key 72 p, axl OL Ammid. ktD. 80 DOMa W. OWW 79 Log FL abrArbww 7S Jon M. *u..er 79 E. L shv.-An k. 7A. n done P. P05W 7'L A gut to the it 11 st Fund , Los Angeles Area CWnc •, supports Scou" beYoAO'One'S weti ew•u RECEIVED 02/ZZ 18:47 1995 AT 909-861-3117 PAGE 3 (PRINTED PAGE 3) 1 FEB -22-1995 18:21 FROM DELOITTE S. TOUCH -E L. A. TO Members of City COunoil of Diamond Bar, Ca. February 22, 1995 page 2 919098613117 P.03 If the City Council or administrators have any quostions or concerns regarding our current or future use of the propertY, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, John T. Cardis Chairman CC: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager James DeStefano, Community Development Director Hayem C. Eaves IIS[ Larry J. Kosmont Edward C. Jacobs Thomas A. Kolin C RECEIVED 02/22 17:44 1995 AT 909-861-3117 PAGE 2 (PRINTED PAGE 2) F©-22-1995 17:18 FROM DE-CITTE & TOLCiE L.A. TO 9190 61311? Cub Scout. Scout, and Explorer programs SCOUi1NG/USA 86" o►CaftVa" hkeawY rb•Cri�kraw ci«iIO�R Foe 0 11f0ior A"*= ftowLWyow, C&AWMWO zCoo* arx � wed c++ommana. Da%W L T&T"+ 00&P=W. �"'� Woe C Man Mkaran k�drso� Mike 11. eriaft PSA V. CQWY WNUMA 09096V Hr�"ee^ G En'w.1M OM;vw R M61n1M+01 0w nK L~Uof i4 . yff F. =K"oma« J"Oft �� P4W IL W4 01PL P&A st ATWA a A, F. WMf00tiR7R pp+ab F WripFl uh M«r'b" a eN sore cd*W Milt A"" j Str'NVt PMdwdJ.0$Vffwi«v1 ":T'A'B,. J** K Att*ood �7 WONnA. Ltieg V* OF..Irn" M lbaM Ed fel OooVF �� IM N R Psi M. kre.4 M.a W Died W Crodwr 79 NR Ji.11=M7r Jan M. P1uNan'74 L L shwa . Jr. 74.76 Jon F. ftloc t 71 Los Angeles- Area Council Soy Scouts of America 2$33 Scout Way Box 26910 Ins Ahgelea CA 90026 Telephone: (213) 413-4400 • FAX (213) 483-8472 February 22,1995 Mr. Terrence L. Belanger City Mawgcr City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765 Subj. Draft General Plan issues ,Rotated to the Boy Scouts' Tanner Canyon Property Dear Mr. Belanger: Thank you For meeting with tarry xosmorit and Hayden Eaves, representing the Los Angeles Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, regarding the City of Diamond Bar's Draft General Plan as it relates to the Boy Scouts' Tonner Canyon property in the City of Diamond Bar's Sphere. of influence: As discussed with you, the Hoy Scouts are requesting several clarifications in the General Plan in orderto achieve mternal consistency and accuracy with respect to;the land use - designation for the Tomer Canyon property. Those requests are as follows: 1. In Table I-3, page I-26 of the Land Use Element, the Boy Scouts request Haat the City restore the AG/SP designation for the 3,200 acres that represents Tonner Canyon by removing the line striking out the number 3,200. This will render this table consistent with the Land Use Map AG/SP designation for this site. 2. In Housing Element Figure U-1, page 11-15B, Tonnes Canyon is identified as "SPECIFIC PLAN (I du per parcel}:' In order to achieve consistency with the AG/SP designation, it is requested that the text "0 du per parcel)" be deleted. t�tw ra.y A gift to the Las Angeles Area Council Trust Fund supports Soouting beyond onus Bfet'M rm t.- --n 75 M FEB -22-199 17-19 FROM DELGITTE & TCLfJ--F- L.A. TO 915a 01311? Mir. Terrence Lr Belanger February 22,1995 pale 2 of 3 3, Land Use Element, Section 1.1.7, page I-12 provides for the future designation of "Firestone Boy Scouts Camp" as "Private Recreation" (PR). During your discussion with Messrs. Kosmont and Eaves, you indicated that the ParkstR:ee designation on Table 1-2, I-5, was an existing use and accordingly would W be applied to the Tonner Canyon site. The inclusion of language contemplating a future Private Recreation designation of the site in Section 1.1.7 would contradict this conclusion. tri addition, the inclusion of Section 1. 1.7 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan appears to be in conflict with the Specific Plan concept that there is no predetermined use of the site uncal an application for a Specific Plan is submitted. Therefore, the Boy Scouts respee fullY requests the elimhmijon of "Firestone Boy Scouts Camp" from Land Use Element Section 1.1.7, page I-12. 4. In Housing Element, Figure 11-2, page 1I-22. change the language referring to the 25% slope on the Tonner C Von site to "contains slopes greater than 25%." Once a topographical map has been produced for Tomter Canyon, it will be clearer' as to which portions of the site the hillside slope ordinance may . apply. In conclusion, we are encouraged by your discussion with Messrs- Kosmont and Eaves that the language changes requested above will likely be approved. We appreciate your cooperation in this regard. However, the Boy Scouts remains concerned about the language that was left in the most recent draft General Plan. 'Therefore, on behalf of the Boy Scouts, I want to clearly express our seriousness with respect to the above concerns about the land use designation and other references in the General Plan that affect the Tomer Canyon property - The Boy Scouts would view a rejection of the above requests as contradictory to the intended SP designation and damaging to its interest in this property. P. 03 FEB --22-1995 17:19 FROM DELOITTE & TOUCFF- L.A. TO 9190% 613117 P.04 W. Terrence L. Belanger February 22, 095 page 3 of 3 Please keep us informed regarding other General Plan developmeVW. We may, from time to time, have other matters that concern us which we will need to bring to your attention. Please direct all correspondence regarding the Ton= Canyon property to John Cardis at Deloitte & Toucbe LLP, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California goo 17-2472 with copies to Tom Kolin at the Boy Scouts, Larry Kosmont,14724 Ventura Boulevard, Penthouse Suite 2, Shesan Oaks, California 91403, and Hayden Eaves, Trammell Crow Company, $801 South Eastern Avaaue, Suite loo, Los Angeles, California 90040. once again, thank you very much for your attention to these issues. Yours truly, cc: Hayden Eaves Tom Kolin Larry J. Kosmont Jim DeStefano, Planning Director, City of Diamond Bar RECEIVED 0Z/Z1 13:39 1995 AT 909-861-3117 PAGE 2 (PRINTED PAGE Z) 1 22/21/' 00:24 SPI FEE LW 19098613117 PO.042 P002 Shell Western E&P Inc. INC F, LVWM ice., ft zo Bm CA SM ]February 20, 1995 Ms. Phyllis E. Papen Mayor City of -Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Dr. Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Dear Mayor Papen: Subject: City of Diamond Bar Draft General Pian Please be advised that we have vigilantly observed the City of Diamond Bar's Genas] Plan update. We have attended the vast majority of General Plan update meetings held by the General Plan Advisory Committee. Planning Commission and City Council. Through our attendence of these many meetings we believe we have gained an appreciation of -concerns expressed by the community. We believe balanced and cooperative planning can yield successful products wherein many of the desires of the community can be met .while respecting the established legal rights of private property ownership. In the spirit of cooperation, we offer the following specific comments regarding the Draft General Plan: 1. The Laird Use Mix section on page I-7 refers to the status, of remaining vacant lands. While it is not clear, it is our understanding and belief that this section: refers only to vacant lands within the city limits of Diamond Bar, and not to properties in the Sphere of Influence. 2. Strategy 1.1.6. on page I-12.states; in part, that "Areas designated Open Span® ... carries with it a maximum development potential of one single family unit per existing parcel." This condition appears inequitable in that it limits the use of the -Parcel to one single family unit regardless of the size of the parcel and without consideration for the fact a better and more compatible use may indeed be something other than a single family unit. We suggest this provision be amended to allow for more creative land use planning. 3. Strategy 1.5.4. on page I-17 addresses acquisition of Open Space. We suggest adding a fourth method of aquisition. This method would seek to acquire Open Space through an entitlement process wherein the land owner/developer would agree to sell at less than market value, or perhaps even dedicate certain property, in exchange for certain development rights. RECEIVED 82/21 13:39 1995 AT 989-861-3117 PAGE 3 (PRINTED PAGE 3) 02/21/95 00:24 SWEP I FEE LANOS 4 19098613117 N0. e42 P003 4. Strategy 4.2.2. on page I-24 states that consideration be given to annexation of areas west of the City boundaries, including expansion of the adopted Sphere of In luene& Please be advised that as a property owner west of your Sphere of Influence we would respectfully oppose such an expansion at this time. 5. The Land Use Map (Figure I-2) on page I-25 currently reflects that our property in Diamond Bar's Sphere of Infuence has both Agriculture (AG) and Agriculture/Specific Plan (AG/SP) land use designations. In order to not preclude comprehensive planning and potential "win-win" opportunities as referenced hereinbelow, we request that the entirety of our property be designated Agriculture/Specific Plan (AG/SP). Moreover, such designation would be consistent with the designation for the larger contiguous Firestone Boy Scout Camp msma Shell western E&P Inc. (SWEPT) has a long history of being a good corporate citizen and neighbor in the Los Angeles basin Our ownership of properties in the Los Angeles basin dates back more than 70 years. Presently we are concludingyear cooperative n off this ba Linda. process for a master planned community 1n the City of . Implementation master planned community will provide many public benefits, including the addition of more than 1,000 acres to Chino Bills State Park 'Ibis project exemplifies SWEPrs "win-win" approach to business dealings. We believe that someday a similar opportunity could exist with the City of Diamond Bar. Thank you for your consideration. Yours very truly, George Barye Project Manager cc: Mr. James DeStefano Community Development Director City of. Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Dr. Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765.4177 THICHURCHOF JESUS CHRIST of LATTER DAY SAINTS PHYSICAL FACILITIES North America West Area 61 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah .84150 Mr. Robert Searcy Associate Planner City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Dear Mr. Searcy: July 22, 1993 Re: Our Property #514-3004 APN #8717-022-031 Following discussions with the representative of Western Security Realty, Inc. of Riverside, California, who is our listing agent for the LDS Church's undeveloped portion at the site on Clear Creek Canyon Road, we would request that the property be reclassified from RLM (Low -Medium Density Residential) to RM (Medium Density Residential) . We know that this reclassification will not only enhance the utilization of the property, but also enhance the tax base for the City of Diamond Bar. Thank you for your expeditious handling of this matter in order to meet the deadlines which are currently facing you regarding the new Master Plan for the City. ECM/lcs cc: Western Security Realty, Inc. S Werely, Real Estate Reptesent 16715 Skycrest Drive Riverside, CA 92504 (909) 780-9358 9661 19T r --q. H dV Yv. V aQV SEI.I,INl1 Iaocld0-DNIS110i-I /QN.V'IIN OVA a; 11KQ:aS01►'t'1Q nrW,T,T—n-m�qtjao J-qv"acI ro fu kQ m H 4-19 w2 0 0 0 C)0 d W- Z 0 Z P4 CD mo m 00 M_ N r+ r D 3 r+ N y M cD w -+ O. ria cD �p < tG CCD CD 1 0) = 0 O (D 0 � %A Q. 0 CD— CMO CD S 0) 0) �D a C o. . 0 0 cD ry 0 m 0 0 @ 0 C/) r„ o 'nQo c 0 A� C cD Y' in w�? D �m 01 � c N - 0. 0CD r m r O O w cD O O O O O N _, Oz r � R 7 O O m O O O 0 1_ 0^! 0 0 O =r > G) o r4 r+ .O r+ 0 f-+ O W V) N d d. > N N P+N o Z m z 'S O 'o S O 'G ZZ 0 o m N H Z 0 Z 0 m N 0 Z O mo w+ 0 3 y cD o 3 cr ria 0 0 = 0 0 :C CD 0 0 M 0 0 0N0 0 A�A r+ M v 0 0 a C o. . 0 0 cD ry 0 m 0 0 @ 0 C/) r„ o 'nQo c 0 A� n� cD C) -n m m �m 01 m N N O C r r z O O O O O O O O O O O O :, _, Oz O 0 O O O 0 C� O O O O O O 0 1_ 0^! 0 _ > G) o r4 r+ .O r+ 0 f-+ O W V) N d d. > N N P+N C C C C C C '% m n ca �t c� �o cfl 0. n O Uf O to O N 0 R° m N 0) N CD N -1 z 10 Cl) N Co v r o cn -v ®m Z jp n N r > co O v tit 0) 0 m O cn X o Z m z 'S O 'o S O 'G ZZ 0 o m N H Z 0 Z 0 m N 0 Z O mo w+ 0 3 y cD o 3 cr ria 0 0 = 0 0 :C CD 0 0 M 0 0 0N0 0 0M 0 a 0 0 0 a C o. . 0 0 cD ry 0 m 0 0 @ 0 r„ o 'nQo c 0 A� n� cD m m m �m 01 m m v C Cj C C r r O Cl) C C1 n C. OCD A n 0 M. O 0 1_ 0^! _ o r4 r+ .O r+ 0 f-+ O W V) N d d. > N N P+N '' '% m n ca �t c� �o cfl 0. n O Uf O to O N 0 R° m N 0) N CD o Z m z z N N V NN O til N W N -A O t0 00 V O til W 00 0 v 0 O"- Z to --I 70 S 0 d --i., S r ?.7 Z ao -i W m w d 7� to ;' W. C DN O N N ,p G W 'Oy � 00 W 3 W d — O d_ � CA C P 0�1 — K C) to .a 01 N'_ tD (i7 0 -' - . '� 'a CD .. � .. .0. _ _OVO._ -_ 00 N (D 01 -C' N -., -� 0 CDm c ro 0 y r- 0 0 n cD r*•+ m 0 r+ 03 m 0 wco N 0 m CDD CD vnw> ro wv M �' 70 70 W W 70 7� 70 W w 0 70 v 70 v p v p ' �► ,,, 00 00 �' -' '� 60 -A S -' , 0000 N O •0 S O O 000 O O O O 0 O O 0 p 0 p 0000 O p 00 C O 0 O O W CO 0 0 O 0 O O W 0 O ' m C O O O C O 0000 O O O O 00 O 0 0 N tip O O O O O 0 0 N N N hl N C C C C CCCC 'C 0 v O 0 m 0 0 Op m r r r 70 70 70 S 0 0 m (A r- to Cl) in to to v w m r r M M m M Z m m O N `O p wCl) O Cm m 07000 Cl) w to w V N N N 00 V -' W -� :P CA p N it � t j --A W O V 0 Cii O N tVit tit N tit b CA) (7) N ,ia Z -I Z Z Z nm Z Z cn S to 'o 'Pl ch 'o Z w w -�v 70 0 a 'n Ca "a cD 0 '0 0 0 -� cD o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o �. 0 5. o EL -2,Er N .• o C-. o = 01 = 0 O = _ _ cr CD -� 01 O O t:! C1 O = - =toCD O O n O O O O 'n ri S C) O O to.;;!, y to �' y .+ '-► ct O N 7 = C = 0 O< d fl. Cl) p = O O C O C1 O �! S S S o S CD tZ C. O tD 0 "0 S N O 'O t=l1 O _ d 0 t=Jf N N (D 'N -� cCoo v CD W (D tD = -� > 3 = 1 1 1 1 0 �_ �' t7 ti tD tD tai n n n n C9 n tD O = 00-1 to C)_�v c .0 = y d p C O O OUl Oy Oy Oy o = n= b o tD y cn mC 7 0 t CD -ti. rr m "M y< 'O n p M -n O. d y CD 0)O C y CD y cm O: tD 01 Q' CD y tD M cr > N CL w (D W a w W N O to v (w)i wp W N -� O tD n d CC S* 2 -o F r m n O D C) 0 ami C ni VA Z D d ,., G w d O d r* o d t)1 = o: fD G1 o r+ 0 C� ,.. Ol •, 01 o o- cc o `� N o' = =: m �- P n S R° co -4 f9 r+ CD CD * -. CD g N m m o iD °, v O ( C. to< CODD �► -' o and 4 �y r•t O i y p) =r y G o — C� = 3 o- ro d '� �. d S N m 0 Cl)o5i �= w r' A 0,, = O o � o -c n� < d — r � O N 2t c o m d o . co P+ °- a w 0 b m w P+ CD O o dCL w CCD 00 CA) 03 0 0 0 0 0 wm 0° w m m o m m m a p 0 0 0 0 o O O O 0 00 C C C C C -� 70 O f/) 70 O to Oo U) o "fl O '0 O O O O On O O_ O O n 77 c7 m N N N0 CA 'o 'v '0 m CO) r -� M p w V v 00 V w O 00 -� Q N w tr p -' N N v _ o aGn z mm= 0r+ -n O .+"n O z Cn n n o0 0 0 0 0 0 %,-M CD rf O d o 0 O O O O r Ci o O O t7 Q= v O '� o O .0 ' G O= G d o= C 07 O > o> = O .� •a 0 C 1 _.0m od �" o °' to Cn CL0)> > m w m on a� a •c a V a m m r+ o '+ o m° r+ m m CD Wo a,�. � y `•; y y 3 3 y 0��. S. 5 CD0 ate 70 r o '- m CDcl v v tO v n n n n C o 14,C. 'V N W > > O O O 3 c n. CD O O O o P+W d 0 N to N Vs O -n o o ch -• o r;2: r+ d q y r+ N CD to p cn N -p 0CD N m 3 CD Qs d- C1 G; CD (D r ; Q CL y 9 9 (.np A ".- 1 m. _ a) 0 O -h O O 0000 O 0) 7 Obi C r+ d d C7 :r N z P+ @ z W � n c D c -A ..a, y y D C. (0n (n g 0) _ °c CL o "� m co uo d_o_ 00) G d o n C. O cn 3 � cm O m 1 m Qa CD 4 M w w C. O 'O cr `G 0 w (mD C N C• c0 � O M (D d "0 C 0) m m M. _ c 3 N CD m ,m cm o C (n O M 0 O w C)Oo Q. -o o� C) � m M -Ov n 00 w C) C C a m tV 00 w Ln (s1 w N N O N Ln Ln O. (U z mtnz m(nz � z z C z z z cm(nz -c O 9 9 (.np A V a) M W N to O 0000 c� O d d d d d n N z P+ @ y � n c D c c cn g °c 3 C `� "� co d_o_ d o Oo, O m 1 �o > w w 0 0 w N D m m _ N N cm C O M n O C)Oo -o C) � M -Ov n 00 C) C C tV 00 w Ln (s1 w N N (n N Ln Ln O. z mtnz m(nz � z z z z z z cm(nz -c O O o 0m 0m o f O o O O p 0 0 =rO > O" O-4 p R> to t9 p p O �. (D p O �. (D p - in > F-0 O > O O O O O O O C O m cD 70 70 3J 70 70 (D '(D U) (D U) �' (D �D = (D 0 O (D O �' (D (D (D (D (D CA d rt d .1 ,yy .y+ N o tD c m co A C O O O O> O > O d O O 0) O 00 O p O O O O O O O O > O y a y y Q y Q y D n CC tD CD 'p m Q _ _r 01 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Assistant Planner SUBJECT:. Proposed Monument Signs For All City Parks DATE: April 5, 1995 The City intends to install new monument signs for all its parks. These signs will replace the existing Los Angeles County approved park monument signs. Pursuant to the City's Sign Ordinance, monument signs on City park grounds or at City facilities shall be submitted for an advisory architectural review by the Planning Commission prior to sign installation. According to the attached memorandum, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the plans for the proposed park monument signs on March 23, 1995. After the Commission's review, at the April 10, 1995 meeting, the plans for the proposed park monument signs will be presented to the City Council at their April 18, 1995 meeting. Bob Rose, Community Development Director, and Larry Ryan of R. J. M. Design Group will attend the April 10, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting to answer questions. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning commission review the proposed monument signs for all City Parks and prepare comments which will be forwarded to City Council for consideration., Attachment: Interoffice Memorandum dated March 23, 1995 to the City Manager from the Community Services Director ,7CEI,� rn � G`•'Y'!. lITY City of Diamond Bar INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM" '' � � `�: � 2 TO: Terrance L. Belanger, City Manager FROM: Bob Rose, Community Services Director DATE: March 23, 1995 RE: MONUMENT SIGNS AT CITY PARIS Please find attached the design information for the proposed monument signs for the City' parks. These signs will replace the existing "L.A. County" signs, if approved. The following steps must be completed before the plans and specifications will go to the City Council. March 23 - Input from Parks and Recreation Commission April 10 - Input (advisory) from Planning Commission. With your approval, I plan to have the plans and specifications ready for City Council action at the April 18 meeting. I will not be in attendance at this meeting, however, Larry Ryan of R.J.M. Design Group will attend if requested. The estimated cost for each sign is $5,000 ($50,000 total project cost). At this time, $30,000 in Quimby Fees are budgeted. The bid process will provide a separate price for each sign. I plan. to complete as many of the sign retro -fits by the end of this fiscal year as 'possible. Request for funding necessary, if any, to complete the sign retro -fit project by the end of Summer will be made during the 1995/96 Fiscal Year budget process. If you have an questions on the proposed signs or approval process, please let me know. cc: Frank M. Usher, Assistant City Manager Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director V� • i N: . I Ila � y � � � ♦ rt -_'t p y i ���� Li ,;' ,;•* T (\� jai (� � I '�`� �.`�v �'�.8 •' ..• ... J, kin LIN t1� xtT11 "utmtl pier 1O % / �� . �� °� •_-i ��'" ,;'•• . ,, `t �/ � .�' TSsr;.'.:• .tom•. t we. loQQo &Rm 9 - - �—S"':_ E t urrir■ � � °' Kx'1 OEN � t • • lop �t y. � l7 tmn•etnw 'ta .� �...••QL • SQ0. pt„� 6tM �• _Y' 3 ftm lk DIAMO .�i °'i,� �,�^�•�tt� ��_. �` i 16 y �,, aw6 ��4 O• � i �h o � i, tT�� w # „trwrr'• 1• a a d a to r 4 •. !D BAR ` `� '' '• : -�• .:, . � •• jail a 1. MAPLE HILL PARK ` "aetm■ t. s �d . �. �. • -02. SYCAMORE CANYON PARK _ a .fist " 70 ' e face a� r $ ''�:. jaiPA�Nf 1 . , e,at h eM pp •t 3. PETERSON PARK yn,e + r•p ot.wam ' . t 3 ' �`�4Ae SUMMIT RIDGE PARK tlell4•, r:uj 413. SUMMIT RIDGE PARK _ ° -� ' �ra t• 5. PAUL C. GROW PARK r A '40''" 6. HERITAGE PARK " a.... 6 �, c 7A: REAGAN PARK 4 x, - 713. REAGAN PARK 29`"�Ilki. 8. STARSHINE PARK G LOCATION PARK MON UMENTATION/SIGNAG MAP CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA N.T.S. % I 1� i CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA CQN,jI-HUQTIQN LjkGIjNJL) 4 1. PROVIDE 45 DEGREE CORNER AS DIMENSIONED. 2. BRONZE CASTING OF DIAMOND BAR CITY LOGO. PROVIDE 1- RECESS IN CONCRETE SIGNAGE TO RECIEVE PLAQUE. EPDXY IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWING OF LOGO CASTING FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CITY STA* 21 DAYS PRIOR TO SCHEDULED INSTALLATION. 3. DEBOSSED CONCRETE LETTERS FOR EACH OF THE INDICATED CITY PARKS: • SYCAMORE CANYON PARK • PETERSON PARK • SUMMIT RIDGE PARK (2 SIGNS REQUIRED) • PAUL C. GROW PARK • SUNSHINE PARK • MAPLE HILL PARK • HERITAGE PARK • RONALD REAGAN PARK (2 RETROFITS REQUIRED) TYPE STYLE: PER CITY TYPE SIZE: AS DIMENSIONED. 4. DEBOSSED CONCRETE LITTERS READING 'CITY OF DIAMOND BAR' TYPE STYLE: PER CITY TYPE SIZE: AS DIMENSIONED. 5. 4-8" SALT AND PEPPER RIVER ROCK. PROVIDE 1* RAKED GROUT JOINT, MAXIMUM. 6. POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE MOW CURB. PROVIDE DEEPENED FOOTING AT MOW CURB TO ACCOMMODATE SLOPING GRADE AT SIGNAGE BASE.. SEE SECTION. 7. POURED IN PLACE CONFIETE SIGNAGE TO RECIEVE LIGHT SANDBLAST FINISH. PROVIDE 1" CHAMFER AT ALL EXPOSED EDGES. S. FINISH GRADE. 9. PROVIDE 1/2" CHAMFER ALONG PERIMETER OF CONCRETE RECESS AT CITY LPGO. 10. SCORE JOINT AS INDICATED. 11. # 4 REBAR, 24"O.C., ALTERNATE BEND. 12. POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE FOOTING AS DIMENSIONED. 13. # 4 REBAR, CONTINUOUS. LOCATE AS INDICATED. 14, PROVIDE 2 COATS OF ELASTO-DECK B.T. ELAST6MERIC WATERPROOFING. APPLY PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. AVAILABLE FROM PAciRc POLYMERS:(714) 898- 0025. 16. FILTER FABRIC. 16. 12* X 12" CONTINUOUS CRUSHED GRAVEL AT BACK OF WALL 17. CONTINUOUS 4" DRAIN LINE. DAYLIGHT THROUGH ADJACENT CURB PENDING REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CITY INSPECTOR. 18. 95% COMPACTED SUBGRADE. NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF CAST BRONZE CITY LOGO FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CITY PRIOR TO FABRICATION. LEGEND FOR PARK MONUMENTATION/SIGNAGE DETAILS 12,13.4 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA I-'fHHN IVIVIVVIVIC:14 i n I I i1411v%I -. N.T.S. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, IA 1/2° 1,.O. f'AKK MUIVUIVICIv I n i �V1` %'o1N v .. .�._ 1/2" = V-0,• CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA PARK MONUMENTATION/SIGNAGE DETAIL 5 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 1/2" = 1'-0" C12NSTRUCTIQN LEGEND FOR DETAILS. 1. POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE SIGNAGE TO RECEIVE LIGHT SANDBLAST FINISH. 2. # 4 REBAR, CONTINUOUS, 12- O.C. 3. # 4 REBAR, 18" O.C. PROVIDE CORE DRILLED SLEEVE, 24" MINIMUM DEPTH IT TO EXISTING BLOCK WALL AND EPDXY SET VERTICAL REBAR AS SPECIFIED. 4. 6.8" SALT AND PEPPER RIVER ROCK. MORTAR TO BACK OF WALL TO MATCH EXISTING COBBLE. 5. EXISTING RIVER ROCK WALL BLOCK FOUNDATION. (VERIFY DURING, CONSTRUCTION). 6. FINISH GRADE. 7. EXISTING COBBLE WALL. PROTECT IN PLACE BEYOND AREA TO RECEIVE NEW CAST ON PLACE SIGNAGE. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE WHOLE COBBLE PIECES AS REQUIRED AT SIGNAGE PERIMETER DUE TO REMOVAL OF STONES AS NECESSARY DURING CONSTRUCTION. 8. PARK AND CITY SIGNAGE AS INDICATED AND TO MATCH DETAILS A, B,C. 9. CAST BRONZE CITY LOGO PER DETAILS A,B,C. 10. TOP OF EXISTING WALL. CONTRACTOR TO DEMOLISH EXISTING WALL SECTION AS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE NEW POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE SIGNAGE AS INDICATED. PARK MONUMENTATION CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, .CALIFORNIA LEGEND FOR -MC:TAII R ITEMS DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL 1. DEMOLISH EXISTING SIGNAGE AND DISPOSE OF 2 PER LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES 3. ® PROVIDE SMOOTH, EVENLY CONTOURED, POSITIVELY DRAINED GRADE AROUND NEW SIGNAGE. RETROFIT EXISTING IRRIGATION TO PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE AROUND SIGNAGE. ® PLANT NEW GROUND COVER TO MATCH 900S.F. EXISTING, (FROM SEED) 4. EXISTING WALKWAY. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A 5. EXISTING TREES. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A LUMP SUM LUMP SUM N/A N/A N/A N/A �L'fj A. W. ■ ITEMS DESCRIPQUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL TION 1. DEMOLISH EXISTING SIGNAGE AND DISPOSE OF PER LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES 2. CONSTRUCT NEW SIGNAGE PER DETAILS 1,2,3,4 3. - PROVIDE SMOOTH, EVENLY CONTOURED, LUMP SUM POSITIVELY DRAINED GRADE AROUND NEW SIGNAGE. - RETROFIT EXISTING IRRIGATION TO PROVIDE LUMP SUM HEAD TO HEAD. COVERAGE AROUND SIGNAGE. - PLANT NEW GROUND COVER TO MATCH 450 S.F. EXISTING, (FROM SEED) 4. EXISTING WALKWAY. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A N/A N/A 5. EXISTING TREES. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE NYON PARK N.T.S. qw) IOU., ex I e. A 4 1::r= m A J%uz� I _J A 4 t 2. 9 PROVIDE SMOOTH, EVENLY CONTOURED, Mar. 20 1 '95 15:53 SAWP00520 9 a r i o 9 Sylvan Glen r1m P. 2 1. CONSTRUCT NEW SGaNAGE PER DETAILS 12.3.4 1 2. 9 PROVIDE SMOOTH, EVENLY CONTOURED, LUMP Sum POSITIVELY DRAINED GRADE AROUND NEWSIGNAGE 9 RETROFIT EXISTING IRRIGATION TO PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE AROUND SIGNAGE. * PLANT NEW GROUND COVER TO MATCH 450 S.F. EXISTING, (FROM SEED) 3. EXISTING WALXWAY. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A NIA WA .4. EXISTING TREES. PROTECT IN PLACE. WA W N/A WA PETERSON RARK-M-0-M-WEV, T&T1AWS1Qt-NA-G-E-- P, CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA m ITEMS 1. DESC IPTI DEMOLISH EXISTING SIGNAGE AND DISPOSE OF OUANTITY UNIT COST -TOTAL 2 PER LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES 2. E T CONSTRUCT NEW SIGNAGEPER DETAILS 1,2,3.4 2 3. - PROVIDE SMOOTH, EVENLY CONTOURED, LUMP SUM POSITIVELY DRAINED GRADE AROUND NEW SIGNAGE. - RETROFIT EXISTING IRRIGATION TO PROVIDE LUMP SUM HEAD -TO HEAD COVERAGE AROUND SIGNAGE. - PLANT NEW GROUND COVER TO MATCH 900S.. F. EXISTING, (FROM SEED) 4. EXISTING WALKWAY. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A N/A N/A 5. EXISTING TREES. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA SUMMIT :iE PARK N.T.S. ITEMS DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL 1. DEMOLISH EXISTING SIGNAGE AND DISPOSE 1 OF PER LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES 2. CONSTRUCT NEW SIGNAGE PER DETAILS 1,2,3,4 1 3. • PROVIDE SMOOTH, EVENLY CONTOURED, LUMP SUM POSITIVELY DRAINED GRADE_ AROUND NEW SIGNAGE • RETROFIT EXISTING IRRIGATION TO PROVIDE LUMP SUM 'MEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE IRRIGATION AROUND SIGNAGE. • PLANT NEW GROUND COVER TO MATCH 450 S.F. EXISTING (FROM RATS, 9° O.C.) 4. EXISTING WALKWAY PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A N/A N/A 5. EXISTING TREES. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A NIA N. A 6. EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A N/A N'A TOTAL Fg.Mmorat,11M 01 [91 kvi I :N I FAILON • • 5 1 •' PAUL C. GROW N.T.S. -- F7_T it A I 1�.--i 1, -1 1, All: I� I ITEMS DESCRIPTION_ QUANTITY- UNIT COST TOTAL 1. DEMOLISH EXISTING SIGNAGE AND DISPOSE OF PER LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES 2. CONSTRUCT NEW SIGNAGE PER DETAILS 1,2,3.4 3. - PROVIDE SMOOTH, EVENLY CONTOURED, POSITIVELY DRAINED GRADE AROUND NEW SIGNAGE. - RETROFIT EXISTING IRRIGATION TO PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE AROUND SIGNAGE. - PLANT NEW -GROUND COVER TO MATCH EXISTING, (FROM SEED) .4. EXISTING WALKWAY. PROTECT IN PLACE. 5. EXISTING TREES. PROTECT IN PLACE. TOTAL CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORN.A - LUMP SUM LUMP SUM 450 S.F. NIA N/A N/A N/A N.T.S. N/A N.'A �"1 ITEMS DESCRIPTION 1., EXISTING PARK SIGNAGE. RETROFIT PER DE TiAi L 5. 2. EXISTING WALKWAY. PROTECT IN PLACE. 3 PLANT NEW GROUND COVER TO MATCH EXISTING, (FROM SEED) TOTAL A QUANtITY UNIT COST TOTAL 450 S.F. RONALD PARK MONUMENTATION/SIG-NAQE REAGAN PARK CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,. CALIFORNIA ITEMS hERCRIPTION 1. EXISTING PARK SIGNAGE. RETROFIT PER DETAIL 5. 2. EXISTING WALKWAY. PROTECT IN PLACE. 3 PLANT NEW GROUND COVER TO MATCH. EXISTING, (FROM SEED) TOTAL CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA QUANTITY UNIT COST TQIAL 450 S.F. -- RONALD REAGAN PARK N.T.S V ITEMS DE5C:RIPTIQN QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL 1. DEMOLISH EXISTING SIGNAGE AND DISPOSE OF 1 PER LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES 2. CONSTRUCT NEW SIGNAGE PER DETAILS 1,2,3,4 1 3. - PROVIDE SMOOTH, EVENLY CONTOURED, UJ MP SUM POSITIVELY DRAINED GRADE AROUND NEW SIGNAGE - RETROFIT EXISTING IRRIGATION TO PROVIDE LUMP SUM HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE AROUND SIGNAGE. - PLANT NEW GROUND COVER TO MATCH 450 S.F. EXISTING, (FROM FLATS, 9.O.C.) 4. EXISTING WALKWAY. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A N/A N/A 5. EXISTING TREES. PROTECT IN PLACE. N/A N/A N/A 6. EXISTING PARK SIGNAGE.CONTRACTOR TO f RELOCATE WITHIN PARK PER CITY INSPECTOR DIRECTION. PROVIDE 12" X 1E' DEEP POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE FOOTING. TOTAL STARSHINE CITY OF DIAMOND:•- CALIFORNIA n nct:b'[ C4,. 9 'add AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.3 DATE: April 6, 1995 TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner RE: Precise Alignment Feasibility Study for Citrus Valley Medical Center The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review applications for the Citrus Valley Medical Center on October 24, 1994. As a condition of approval, the Commission required the applicant to prepare a precise alignment feasibility study and to transmit the study to the Traffic and Transportation Commission. The study has been completed and transmitted to the Traffic and Transportation Commission for review. An ad hoc committee was created to analyze the study and to provide comments to the Planning Commission. The conclusion of the report recommends that the Planning Commission discontinue further consideration of.a third or alternative access point. The costs would be prohibitive and the benefits are projected to be minimal. Attached, you will find.the report for your review and comments. Pursuant to the Planning Commission approval, the Commission is required to review and approve the plans. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file the report. CITRUS VALLEY PRECISE AIGNMENT STUDY trip assignment tables from original 1992 traffic study Conformity Report prepared by David Evans and Associates preliminary cost estimates and alignment sketches prepared by LL&G BACKGROUND As I understand the situation, the Planning Commission apparently has expressed some interest in the issues associated with access to the proposed Medical Center. The site plan presented by the developer shows two access points off of Grand Avenue, the first directly opposite the condominium access and the second to the east. The first access point will be full movement as part of the existing traffic signal; the second access point will be limited to right-in/right-out movements. The apparent question from the Planning Commission is the need and appropriate configuration of a third access connection through the adjacent Calvary Chapel property. Traffic projections for a completed site plan (Phase 3) show a left turn demand of 328 vehicles in the PM peak hour at the primary access point. This is not an insignificant number yet it is an amount that should be comfortably handled by the intersection with a double left turn lane design. By comparison, the left turn demand at Montefino is projected to be 277 vehicles per hour. The City has no plans to upgrade this intersection of which I am aware. The Conformity Report indicates that the traffic characteristics of the present proposal are consistent with those studied in 1992. The three alternative connector road alignments are drawn to accomplish a third access point for the Medical Center. Each alternative would apparently require a joint access agreement with the adjacent property owner. Each of the alternatives would have 10 to 12% grades. Two of the alternatives effectively bisect the undeveloped parcel west of the proposed Medical Center site while the third skirts south and west of the existing Calvary Chapel building. FT T To: Rob Searcy J From: Todd Chavers ; ; --,) Date: March 25, 1995 17) Subj: Diamond Bar Medical Plaza. Per your request, I have reviewed the following information as part of my personal o• -` evaluation of the access opportunities and constraints for the above -referenced project: trip assignment tables from original 1992 traffic study Conformity Report prepared by David Evans and Associates preliminary cost estimates and alignment sketches prepared by LL&G BACKGROUND As I understand the situation, the Planning Commission apparently has expressed some interest in the issues associated with access to the proposed Medical Center. The site plan presented by the developer shows two access points off of Grand Avenue, the first directly opposite the condominium access and the second to the east. The first access point will be full movement as part of the existing traffic signal; the second access point will be limited to right-in/right-out movements. The apparent question from the Planning Commission is the need and appropriate configuration of a third access connection through the adjacent Calvary Chapel property. Traffic projections for a completed site plan (Phase 3) show a left turn demand of 328 vehicles in the PM peak hour at the primary access point. This is not an insignificant number yet it is an amount that should be comfortably handled by the intersection with a double left turn lane design. By comparison, the left turn demand at Montefino is projected to be 277 vehicles per hour. The City has no plans to upgrade this intersection of which I am aware. The Conformity Report indicates that the traffic characteristics of the present proposal are consistent with those studied in 1992. The three alternative connector road alignments are drawn to accomplish a third access point for the Medical Center. Each alternative would apparently require a joint access agreement with the adjacent property owner. Each of the alternatives would have 10 to 12% grades. Two of the alternatives effectively bisect the undeveloped parcel west of the proposed Medical Center site while the third skirts south and west of the existing Calvary Chapel building. FINDINGS It is common practice to create interparcel access to achieve certain advantages of cohesive development and traffic circulation. In this instance, it is doubtful that any advantages are achieved because of the dissimilarities of the two land uses that will exist in this quadrant of the Golden Springs/Grand intersection. The traffic numbers created by the Medical Center do not suggest an overwhelming need for a third access point.. Further, the distribution pattern for the Medical Center traffic would seem to derive little benefit from the third access point. In fact, the vehicles which would normally turn left at the primary access would in all likelihood end up turning left at the Golden Springs intersection. The street network is far better served by nal having additional traffic turning left from Golden Springs onto Grand to move towards the 57 freeway. Diamond Bar benefits from having the Medical Center traffic "metered" onto Grand by the primary driveway. Additionally, any connection of the Medical Center driveway to the driveways which access Golden Springs could encourage cut -through traffic by those attempting to avoid the Golden Springs/Grand intersection. This is particularly true of Alternative #3 which provides a looping route from Golden Springs to Grand Avenue. Increased traffic within the Medical Center/Calvary Chapel properties is inconsistent with land use patterns, especially if the church implements weekday functions such as daycare or private school activities. CONCLUSIONS I strongly recommend that the Planning Commission be advised to discontinue further consideration of a third access connection for the Medical Center. It is not cost-effective, has few if any traffic benefits, and creates the potential for increased cut -through traffic patterns which will negatively impact both the Medical Center and the adjacent properties. Agenda Item 5 — Citrus Valley Medical Ctr Alignment Feasibility Study Plans found in project file. City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 5.41 REPORT DATE: April 4, 1995 MEETING DATE: April 6, 1995 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Planned Sign Program No. 92-1 (1) APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to amend existing Plan Sign Program No. 92-1 PROPERTY LOCATION: 1241 S. Grand Avenue 'Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: D.W.A. Smith & Co. Inc. 1600 Quail Street # 106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROPERTY OWNER: A and J Airport Properties 1600 Quail Street #106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 BACKGROUND: The property owner, A and J Airport Properties, and the applicant, D.W.A. Smith & Co. Inc., are requesting approval to amend existing Planned Sign Program No. 92-1 which was approved for an existing shopping center identified as "Sunset Village". The Planned Sign Program was approved'by the Planning commission on October 12, 1992. The project site I is located at 1241 S. Grand Avenue. It is within the Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE) Zone. The draft General Plan land use designation for this site is General Commercial (C) . Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north and west is the C -3 -BE Zone; to the south is the R -3* -8,000 Zone; and to the east is the R-1-8,000 Zone. 1 ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the City's Sign Ordinance N0.5 (1991)i Sections 108.A.1. and 110., 'Planned Sign Programs require review and approval by the Planning commission. As such, amendments to approved Planned Sign Programs must also be reviewed by the Planning commission. The applicant is requesting to amend page four (E.l.a.) of the approved Planned Sign Program. This section of the Planned Sign Program states: "Letter height and length shall not exceed the specific maximum area which is 1.25 square feet per use as indicated in this program and the Diamond Bar city code. Maximum Letter height shall not exceed 24". Sign shall not exceed 80% of the unit frontage. Letters shall be Helvetica regular in white with trimcaps and returns painted dark bronze. Corporate logos, a maximum height of 2411, in corporate colors, may be permitted on case by case basis and shall count toward maximum sign area otherwise permitted. The sign band area of the individual letters shall be located on the facia, centered vertically and horizontally." The proposed amendment states: "Letter height and length shall not exceed the specific maximum area which is 1.25 square feet per lineal foot of frontage, as indicated in this program and the Diamond.BAr City Code. Sign length shall not exceed 80% of the unit frontage. Letter style shall be Helvetica Medium or Helvetica Bold. Face color shall be White, Red, Green or Yellow acrylic plastic. Trimcap and return color shall be Dark Bronze. Corporate logos in corporate colors, with a maximum height of 24 it, may be permitted on a case by case basis and shall count toward maximum sign area otherwise permitted. The sign area shall be located on building facia, centered vertically and horizontally on frontage." In summary, the request is to expand the color palette and the letter style. Since the approval of the existing Planned Sign Program, tenants have been requesting a, variety in colors and letter styles for sign copy. In order to accommodate these requests, an amendment to the existing Planned Sign Program is required. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed monument sign will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301. Class 1 (g) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). IN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: A Planned Sign Program review by the Planning commission does not require a public hearing. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning commission approve. the amendment to Planned Sign Program No. 92-1(1), Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Prepared by: -- Ann'J..Lunqu, Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval the exiting Planned Sign 2. Exhibit "All - amendment to page 4 of Program dated April 10, 1995 3. Application October 12. 1992 4. Planned Sign Program No. 92-1 approved 03 A. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 92-1(1) AMENDING THE COLOR AND LETTER STYLE UTILIZED FOR SIGN COPY IN THE EXISTING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 92-1 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (SECTION 15301. CLASS 1 (g) FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER IDENTIFIED AS SUNSET VILLAGE LOCATED AT 1241 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE. _Recitals The property owner, A and J Airport Properties, and the applicant, D.W.A. Smith and Company have filed an application for Planned Sign Program No. 92-1(1) amending existing. Planned Sign Program No. 92-1 for a property located at 1241 South Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolu- tion, the subject Variance application is referred to as the "Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the State of California. on said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the city Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including * the subject Application, within the city of Diamond Bar. 3. The city of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the future adopted General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Office of Planning and Research extension granted pursuant to California Government Code section 65361. 1 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond B on L April 10, 1995 conducted meeting on said Applicatiik 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resol tion have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that having considered the record as a whole, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project as proposed by the Applicationt and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before this Planning Commission, the Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. The environmental consequences of this Application were identified in Negative Declaration No. 92-7 utilized for Variance No. 92-3 which is the same project not implemented before the expiration date of the grant approved on April 12 1993 by the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 93-09. Pursuant to Section 15162 (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the same negative declaration may, be utilized for this Application. 3. The Planning , Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the .record as a whole, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project as proposed by the Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the, habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before this Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 a 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set h herein, this Planning commission, hereby find, 4�a follows: '0 (a) The project request is to amend the existing Planned Sign Program to incorporate the following. modifications for sign copy: color palette - White, Red, Green, and Yellow; and letter style - Helvetica Bold and Helvetica Medium. (b) The project relates to a site of approximately 2.65 acres developed with a retail shopping center identified as Sunset Village -located at 1241 South Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, California, 91765. The project site is within the Unlimited Commercial - Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE) Zone. It has a draft General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C). (c) Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north and west is the C -3 -BE Zone; to the east is the R-1-8,000 Zone; and to the south is the R-3-8,000 Zone. (d) Substantial evidence exists, considering the record as a whole, to determine that the project, as proposed and conditioned herein, will not be detrimental to or interfere with the, General Plan adopted or under consideration by the City. (e) The nature, condition and size of the site has• been considered. The site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed project. (f) The project site is adequately served by Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. (g)- The proposed Planned Sign Program amendment complies with the City's Sign. ordinance No.5 (1991). (h) Substantial evidence exists, considering the record as a whole, to determine that the amendment, as proposed and conditioned herein, will not be detrimental to or interfere with the draft General Plan. (i) The. proposed, Planned Sign Program amendment will not have signs that obscure from view or. detract from existing signs, based on the location, shape, color, and other similar considerations. (j) The proposed Planned Sign Program amendmeni 1 have signs that are legible to the int audience under- normal viewing 'conditions based the location and the design of the visual element (k) The proposed Planned Sign Program amendment will be in harmony with adjacent properties and surroundings -based on.. the size,_ shape, height, color, placement, and the proximity of such signs to adjacent properties and surroundings. (1) The proposed Planned Sign Program amendment will be designed, constructed and located so that it will not constitute a hazard to the public. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission, hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The Planned Sign Program amendment shall substantially conform to the Exhibit "All dated April 10, 1995. (b) The subsequent site shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implemen- tation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall.be done only by the property, owner, applicant -or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits, from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) The Applicant shall comply with the Planning and Zoning and Building and Safety Divisions' requirements. (d) Not withstanding any previous subsection of this resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment therefore shall be made by the Applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. 4 (e) This grant shall not be effective for any pu until the permittee and owner of the prop involved (if other than the permittee) have fil within fifteen (15) days of approval of prop grant, at the City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (f) The subject property shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to any development or activity of the subject properties. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to: D.W.A. Smith and Company, Inc., 1600 Quail Street, # 106, Newport Beach, CA 92660 and A and J Airport Properties, 1600 Quail Street, J 106, Newport Beach, CA 92660; APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 1995, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed., and adopted, at a regular .meeting of the Planning commission held on the loth day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary 5 AMENDMENT TO SIGN CRITERIA PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 92-1 SUNSET VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER 1241 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA Page 4 of existing Criteria, Section E, Paragraph 1.a. shall be amended to read; a. Letter height and length shall not exceed the specific maximum area which is 1.25 square feet per lineal foot of frontage, as indicated in this program and the Diamond Bar City Code. Sign length shall not exceed 80% of the unit frontage. Letter style shall be Helvetica Medium or Helvetica Bold. Face color shall be White, Red, Green or Yellow acrylic plastic. Trimcap and return color shall be Dark Bronze. Corporate logos in corporate colors, with a maximum height of 2411, may be permitted on a case by case basis and shall count toward maximum sign area otherwise permitted. The sign area shall be located on building facia, centered Vertically and horizontally on frontage. Remaining provisions of Criteria shall be as originally proposed. City Of DIAMU"ND 33;%lPt Planning Department it exhlb9ft c,'.ne/,'i'11e nurn-ber: e date: applicant/owner: ---------- 5Ki Submitted by Electo-Lite Signs 9333 Ninth St Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Acting as Agent for Owner Record Owner CME,,OF DIAMOND BAR �- CIUN[TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTi1iEi� y 21.660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM APPLICATION Applicant Case# Date Rec'd Fee • o e Receipt#JgS W By Applicant's Agent Name (C 3 AireprT Qrop�r�-; eS �U) , c C (Last ' name first) rte` (Last name first) (Last name first) � O Af, gm Address, to 0 b Q as Q. i i =ft l o 9.3.3.3\ N: ►to...ea� City. (moi P i0�ac�' QecaCi� 'C.� �� �i�i� Q a rtic lo Cu e a.+h o nci a• zip Q► ?J la 4 a fi tt N 3 ; o b1�,� �, �t t, e- At -t -YO = Ll r- e_!5 a Phone( ) YH g S 1 ' V)i Phones ) j•`4 ~ S �' o� ti Phone() Gib 9 R 4 5 9Q-05 NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. (Attach separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) Consent: I certify that I am the owner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to file this request. Q Sign -Date (All rq4ord owners) 67 Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the in herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name .91•0tDhah �O give, 01T � Do qe r . (Applicant or Agent) Sign Date obi �� -�� (Applicant r Agent) Location (Street address or tract and lot number) zoning `C — �3 HNM_..► 1 t f4 •3 L!5 List number, size and type of sign(s) requested. (Example: 2 - 8' x 9' Freestanding, double faced signs - 6 ft. high 1 - 3' x 24' Wall sign) y rte- a v� �E City of DIAMOND BAR Planning Department case/fife nurnb,3r: P5 p C/ - �2-- 1 date: appilcant/owner: SUNSET VILLAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION ...........................................I .B. GENERAL LANDLORD/TENANT REQUIREMENTS ...................l C. GENERAL SIGN SPECIFICATIONS ..............................2 D. UNDERCANOPY SIGNS ...................................... 3 E. TENANT SIGNAGE .......................................... 3 F. FREESTANDING MONUMENT FOR COMMERCIAL CENTER ............4 G. PROHIBITED SIGNS ........................................ 5 H. ABANDONMENT OF SIGNS ...................................6 I. INSPECTION ..............................................6 SIGN PROGRAM: SUNSET VILLAGE 1241 So. Grand Diamond Bar, CA c/o D.W.A. SMITH & COMPANY, INC. 1300 Quail Street, Suite 106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (714) 851-1244 Fax: (714) 851-1804 SIGN CONTRACTOR: Brilliant Signs, Inc. 1648 North O'Donnell Way Orange, CA 92667. Attention: Barbara Cohen Tel: (714) 998-2622 Fax: (714) 998-6843 ii A. INTRODUCTION This sign program has been established for the purpose of assuring an outstanding shopping center: The intent of the following sign criteria is to offer the tenant maximum exposure and achieve a visually coordinated, balanced and appealing sign environment, yet at the same time allow individual graphic expression that will be harmonious with the architecture of the project. Performance of this Sign Program shall be rigorously enforced and any non- conforming signs shall be removed by the tenant or his sign contractor at their expense, upon demand by Landlord. _ Exception to these standards shall be reviewed by the Landlord and his sign contractor. However, based upon our field experience, deviations will.generally P result in serious inequities between tenants. Accordingly, the Landlord, through his Sign Contractor will retain full rights of approval of any sign used in the center. No sign shall be installed until such approvals have been granted in writing by Landlord and necessary City building permits. B. GENERAL LANDLORD /TENANT REQUIREMENTS: 1. The tenant shall submit for approval by D.W.A. Smith & Company, Inc., three [3] copies of the detailed shop drawings of proposed sign/s (one in full color) indicating conformance with the criteria herein outlined in this Sign Program and sent to: D.W.A. SMITH & COMPANY, INC. 1300 Quail Street, Suite 106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 2. Tenant shall submit a signed drawing approved by the Landlord and/or Sign Contractor to the Planning Department of the City of Diamond Bar for approval/permits prior to the start of any sign construction or fabrication. 1 C. 3. The Tenant shall pay for all signs, their installation . (including final inspection) and maintenance. 4. The Tenant shall obtain all necessary permits. 5. The Tenant shall be responsible for fulfillment of all requirements of this Sign Program. 6. The Landlord shall provide primary electrical service. terminations at the center of the allowed area. 7. It is the responsibility of the Tenant's sign company to verify all conduit and transformer locations and service prior to fabrication. 8. The location of all signs shall be per the accompanying design program. 9. All signs shall be of materials compatible with exterior color, materials and finishes and be of high quality fabrication. 10. Should a sign be removed, it is the Tenant's responsibility to patch all holes and paint walls to match existing color of center. GENERAL SIGN SPECIFICATIONS: 1. All signs and their installation shall comply with all local building and electrical codes. 2. All electrical signs will be fabricated by a U.L. approved sign company, according to U.L. approved label affixed to side in a clearly visible location. 3. Sign company to be fully licensed with city and state and shall have full workman's compensation insurance. 4. All penetrations of exterior facia are to be sealed airtight in color and finish to match existing exterior. 2 5. Internal illumination to be 30 milliamp neon installation labelled in accordance with the National Board of Fire Underwriters Specifications. 6. The Tenant shall take the responsibility of providing primary electrical service (110 volt, unless otherwise specified). Junction boxes are to be located behind the wall and centered within the allowed signage area. Z7 D. - UNDERCANOPY SIGNS: 1. Purpose - To identify tenants by name for pedestrian traffic within Merchants Centre as allowed by Landlord. 2., Undercanopy signs shall be 5' x 1.5' equaling 7.5 square feet in area. A maximum of one per use. Copy is limited to letters and. numbers no greater than 6" in height designating name of the business. Lettering shall be white background painted teal with trim in light rust brown -matching the existing monument sign. Corners shall be painted ember glow (refer to attached exhibit, page 9). 3. Construction Materials: 3/4" fiberboard painted project colors, with vinyl graphics onto sintra and installed on 1/8" airline cable. E. TENANT SIGNAGE: 1. Wall Signs: Individually internally illuminated channel letters only. Sign cabinets, boxes or cans shall not be permitted. Only one set of channel letters per Tenant shall be permitted. Corner stores may be permitted to have signs on the East and West elevations. K Vie oqtQ�' 0 a. Letter height length shall not exceed the specific maximum area which is 1.25 square feet per use as indicated in this program and the Diamond Bar city code. Maximum letter height shall not exceed 24". Sign .shall not exceed 80% of the unit frontage. Letters shall be Helvetica regular in white with trimcaps'and returns painted dark bronze. Corporate logos, a maximum height of 24", in corporate colors, may be permitted on case by case basis and shall count toward maximum sign area otherwise permitted. The sign band area of the individual letters shall be located on the facia, centered vertically and horizontally. b. Special Conditions: This signage area shall be shared with theallowable sign area and not exceed 80% of the angled facia length. Units A and M may have a wall sign on the side facia of their unit. This signage area shall be shared with the allowable sign area calculated on the basis, of 1.25 square feet per lineal foot of frontage not to exceed 125 square feet of sign face area. 2. Window Signs: a. Only one window sign per outside wall shall be permitted. b. Sign not to exceed 25% of contingent window area or 100 square feet, whichever is less. C. Colors - to be at the discretion of Landlord. F. FREESTANDING MONUMENT FOR COMMERCIAL CENTER: Maximum Area: 72 square feet Maximum Number: 1 sign per frontage along public streets Maximum Height: 6 feet Address numerals: Must be added to monument sign. 11 G. PROHIBITED SIGNS: 1. Suns Constituting a Traffic Hazards: No person shall install or maintain, or cause to be installed or maintained, any sign which simulates or imitates in size, color, lettering or design any traffic sign or signal, or which makes use of the words "STOP," "LOOK," "DANGER" or any words, phrases, symbols, or characters in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic. 2. Suns in Proximity to Utility Lines: Signs which have less horizontal .or vertical clearance from authorized communication or energized electrical power lines than are prescribed by the laws of the State of California are prohibited. 3. Painted letters will not be permitted. 4. There shall be no rooftop signs which are flashing, moving or audible, and signs must be architecturally compatible with the entire ' center and receive approval of Landlord and City's Zoning, Planning, and Building Departments. 5. No sign shall project above or below the signable area. 6. Vehicle Signs: Signs on or affixed to trucks, automobiles, trailers, or other vehicles which advertise, identify, or provide direction to a use or activity not related to its lawful activity are prohibited. 7. Light Bulb Strings: External displays,. other than temporary decorative holiday lighting which consists of unshielded light bulbs are prohibited. An exception hereto may be granted by the Landlord when the display is an integral part of the design character of the activity to which it relates. 5 8. Banners, Pennants & Balloons Used for Advertising Purposes: Flags, banners, or pennants, or a combination of same constituting an architectural feature which is an integral part of the design character of a project may be permitted subject to Landlord's and City approval. 9. Billboard Signs are not permitted. 10. The use of permanent sale sign is prohibited. The temporary use of these signs are limited to a thirty -day period and is restricted to signs affixed to the interior of windows which -do not occupy more than 20% of the window area. Each business is permitted a total of not more than ninety (90) days of temporary signs per calendar year. H. ABANDONMENT OF SIGNS: .Any Tenant sign left after thirty (30) days from vacating premises shall become the property of Landlord unless previous arrangements have been agreed upon by Landlord and Tenant. I. INSPECTION: Landlord reserves the right to hire an independent electrical engineer at the Tenant's sole 'expense to inspect the installation of all Tenant's signs and to require the Tenant to have any discrepancies and/or code 'Violations corrected at the Tenant's expense. ILLUMINATED SIGN CRITERIA TO BE INDIVIDUAL METAL CHANNEL LETTERS, INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY MEANS OF 30 MILLI -AMP NEON AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL U.I.. SPECIFICATIONS. FACE OF LETTERS SHALL. BE CONSTRUCTED OUT OF PLEXIGLASS 1/8" THICK AND FASTENED TO LETTERS BY MEANS OF 3/4" TRIMCAP I 1, CTO WIRE 12. TRANSFORMER 00X- INSTALLED IN A CONVENIENT LOCA -ICN 13. 110 V LEAD-IN 14, 30 M.A. TRANSFORMER 15. GROUNDING SCREW 16. SND FRAMING 17: SIGN FASCIA IE. MOUNTING FASTENER 36" HIGH MAX. ON LOGO'S 19. 1/4' DIA. DRAIN HOLES- 2 PER LETTEFIrr 20. CUT-OFF SWITCH- 20 AMPS24" HIGH MAX. ON LETTERS 80%O MAX. STRETCHOUT OF LEASEFRONT it ��11�1 rF'VPf ' A lI_ CTnlPFFR 0NT SCALE 1 /S" = 11.0" THE RETURNS AND TRINICAP MUST BE PAINTED DARK 'y T BRONZE. ALL DESIGNS AND LAYOUTS MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY: D.W.A SMITH & CO, INC PRIOR TO MANUFACTURE AND INSTALLATION. CHANNEL LETTER DETAIL SIGNBAND AREA OF INDIVIDUAL LETTERS TO 1. PLEXIGLAS FACE: 1/8- BE CENTERED ON FASCIA VERTICALLY & HORIZONTALLY 2. I/4- TRIMCAP I. METAL LEITER: 24 GA., SPOT. WELD CONSTR. TENANT SIGN SHODVN IS fMAXIMUlNI 125 SQUARE FEET 4. FACE RETAINING SCREW S. NEON TUBE MAX. AREA 1.25 SQ FEET PER I LINEAL FOOT FRONTAGE 6, NEON TUBE SUPPORT NOT TO EXCEED 80% 7. TRANSFORMER BOX PLATFORM S. P.X ELECTRODE HOUSING- UL APPROVED TENANT TO OBTAIN & BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL 9. CONDUIT COUPLING 10 FLEXIBLE CONDUIT W/ CONNECTOR NECESSARY PERMITS I 1, CTO WIRE 12. TRANSFORMER 00X- INSTALLED IN A CONVENIENT LOCA -ICN 13. 110 V LEAD-IN 14, 30 M.A. TRANSFORMER 15. GROUNDING SCREW 16. SND FRAMING 17: SIGN FASCIA IE. MOUNTING FASTENER 36" HIGH MAX. ON LOGO'S 19. 1/4' DIA. DRAIN HOLES- 2 PER LETTEFIrr 20. CUT-OFF SWITCH- 20 AMPS24" HIGH MAX. ON LETTERS 80%O MAX. STRETCHOUT OF LEASEFRONT it ��11�1 rF'VPf ' A lI_ CTnlPFFR 0NT SCALE 1 /S" = 11.0" ME 1p - -( 16'-0" 80% MAX EQ. SYLAN LEARNING CENTER THE ESCROW CORNER HAIR TEAM & CO. 10 NEW FACIA BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR FRONT ELEVATION SCALE 1/811 11.011 SIGN CRITERIA TO B J INDIVIDUAL METAL CHANNEL LETTERS, INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY MEANS OF 30 MILLI -AMP NEON AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL U.L. SPECIFICATIONS. FACE OF LETTERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OUT 1/8' THICK AND FASTENED TO OF PLEXIGLASS LETTERS BY MEANS OF 3/4* TRIMCAP I -TURNS AND TRIMCAP MUST BE PAINTED DARK !HE RF All, DESIGNS AND LAYOUTS MUST BE I I i--- BRONZE. APPROVED IN WRITING BY: D.W-A SMITH & CO, INC PRIOR To MANUFACTURE AND INSTALLATION. a LOCATION: ONN SIGNS ia)/. SIGNBAND AREA OF INDIVIDUAL LETTERS TO BE CENTERED ON FASCIA VERTICALLY & HORIZONTALLY i I C -j UNIT E TENANT SIGN SHOWN IS MAXIMUM 125 SQUARE FEET MAX. AREA 1.25 SQ FEET PER I LINEAL FOOT FRONTAGE NOT To EXCEED 8090 TENANT TO OBTAIN & BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL L __i l PERMITS SITE ME 1p - -( 16'-0" 80% MAX EQ. SYLAN LEARNING CENTER THE ESCROW CORNER HAIR TEAM & CO. 10 NEW FACIA BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR FRONT ELEVATION SCALE 1/811 11.011 WHITE VINYL COPY 3.%4 # 36.50 B/G PAINTED TO MATCI-i TEAL 3M # VT -667 51-01* )3„ 3 314 3" -6 J 614 'TENANT COPY 1 3-1- j 3 # 3630-109 LT RUST BROWN VINYL OVERLAY ON 1/8" SINTRA PAINTED FRAZEE # 4383 corners EMBER GLOW WOOD 51*RUCI'URAL NOTE: PAINT RETURNS MATCHING COLORS B17AM ANCHOR BOUT'S I r irn--1 do� ;I STEEL t.USTr5?A SusDended Panel OPTIONAL UNDERCANOPY SHOP SIGN CDqI= ON SHOP ENTRANCE DOOR TYPICAL. 3 Elevation - St. Steel Bracket Page 9 STOP SLEEVE (NICOPRESS NO 971 16 J) 1/8' THICK STEEL AIRLINE CABLE W7 WRITE PLASTIC SLEEVE COVER VPTD C-:1,11 N;,1.--,- W+. COLOR TO MATCH # .1630-109 LT RUST ATTACHMENTS AS REQ'0, ALL COPY / GRAPHICS VINYL - COLOR TO MATCH: WHITE 3M 43650 314- FLP --e' 50-0d% ALL SIDES FILLED AND SANDED SMOOTH PRIOR TO PAINTING- SusDended Panel OPTIONAL UNDERCANOPY SHOP SIGN CDqI= ON SHOP ENTRANCE DOOR TYPICAL. 3 Elevation - St. Steel Bracket Page 9 i Ln INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED DOUBLE-FACED MONUMENT SIGN BACKGROUND PAINTED # 4383 EMBER GLOW W/A HEAVY TEXTURED FINISH ROUTED BACKGROUND WITH # 7328 WHITE ACRYLIC PLASTIC W/VINYL OVERLAYS 1. # 3630-109 LT RUST BROWN VINYL OVERLAY 2. # VT -667, TEAL, 3M VINYL OVERLAY "SUNSET' TO SHOW THRU # 7328 WHITE ACRYLIC PLASTIC WITH # 3630-69 LT RUST BROWN VINYL OVERLAY TENANT PANELS TO BE ROUTED AND BACK WITH # 7328 WHITE ACRYLIC PLEXIGLASS ALL TENANT COPY TO BE # 3630-33 RED VINYL OVERLAY 3,, 5" 3 TYP • 2 1 _ - N N a, d� Gp i � H co N _ .r [H MONUMENT ELEVATION SCALE 1/2" = 1'0" Pace la i SUNSET VILLAGE DIAMOND BAR, CALIF. Npi't;: n+Zj�U, 3N.G W ;M1&V'JND o chi 't9 aorljxr��t ! 0�G _,� �• •X��E arcrn GFano nvE. ,� trc �FCpNO A`/E -- r.vE¢ ¢zac r.•.+rJo�¢•r 5Cf1tH -�— ,..PraoK wc.+fw �z¢'a�t.o-: w.r.. i � www rro'-�b' "a:� ,, pf'fa-or Loc.•.{N Ca•tnTc w.... „Pl estv�t'G- Flee �+•rAF.nNT // `-Xreoa �.aC.�t'N hUTo �frcNu.Ga p....•O•+V PIC IJ.JU' I : 7� �E�trrY•G. �yII'J6l'JN.� rworir r� QQ t Ti' X14: 1lc l pp3 1 �aUNIT let IL VNI o! �w3Jy'yL RIV�.tC —.._—I M-� h�0.ne• pine MYV er.rr I t o'.fyW ^fit: •1 a n�.a UNtt" ' 9 \UNt(L44I I'LVic 1 t Ii .I � 1 � VNIjJ' WOW 0014: VNti'F• � / Ado vale' i •� —'�rj �' Sti+ wea �� nrs e.✓aa i SITE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 92-1 EXHIBIT "A-1" DEFINITIONS: For definitions refer to the Sign ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar. (Ordinance No -5, 1991) TENANT SIGNAGE: 1. Wall Signs for individual uses shall have a maximum area of 1.25 square feet of sign face i area for each lineal foot of frontage not to exceed 125 square feet of sign face area ' per use. I Signs shall not exceed 80% of unit frontage. Individually internally illuminated channel letters shall be utilized. Lettering style shall be Helvetica Regular in white with returns and trimcaps painted dark bronze and a maximum size of 24 inches.' Corporate logos, a maximum height of 24 inches, in corporate colors, may be permitted on case by case basis and shall count toward maximum sign area otherwise permitted. The sign band area of the individual letters shall be located on the facia, centered vertically and horizontally. Special Condition: Wall signs for units E and G shall share the angled facia, centered vertically and horizontally, and not exceed 80% of the angled facia length. Units A and M may have a wall sign on the side f acia of their unit. This signage area shall be shared with the allowable sign area calculated on the basis of 1.25 square feet per lineal foot of frontage not to exceed 125 square feet of sign face area. 2. CANOPY AND AWNING SIGNS shall be 5 feet by'1-5 feet equaling to 7.5 square feet in area. A maximum of one per use. Copy, is limited to letters and numbers no greater than 6 inches in height designating name of the business. Lettering shall be white background shall be painted teal with trim in light rust brown matching the existing monument sign. Corners shall be painted ember glow (refer to attach exhibit, page 9). 3. MONUMENT SIGN shall not exceed 6 feet in height and 72 square feet in area and'a maximum of one monument sign per frontage along public streets as per the City's sign ordinance. The existing monument sign is 6 feet in height with a sign face area of 48 square feet. Colors are as follows:- background - ember glow with a heavy texture finish with overlays in light rust brown and teal vinyl; "Sunset" in white acrylic plastic to show through the overlays; and "Village" to be light rust brown vinyl overlay. The sign face area has 12 compartments s for identification of each tenant. These compartments shall be white acrylic plexiglass with copy in red vinyl over lay. (refer to attached exhibit, page 10) and lettering style shall be Helvetica Regular. Address number shall be added to the monument sign. 4. TEMPORARY SIGN requirements shall comply with the City's sign ordinance. 5. FACIA EXTENSION: The angled facia area shall be extended in height to accommodate three (3) wall signs for units E, F, and G. The extension shall be approximately 30 inches in height. It shall be compatible with the existing mansard roof line location at each end of the shopping center and designed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 0