Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021.04.06 - Minutes - Regular MeetingCALL TO ORDER: to order at 6:30 p.m. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 6, 2021i Mayor Lyons called the Regular City Council meeting Mayor Lyons announced that consistent with COVID-19 regulations, all Council Members and staff participated via tel for public attendance. The Public was the numbers printed on the agenda. conference and there was no physical location in to join the meeting online or by phone at pf��i�GE OF ALLEGIANCE: M/Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLE BALL: Council Members Andrew Chou, Stan Liu, Steve Tye, Mayor Pro Tern Ruth Low, Mayor Nancy Lyons Staff participating telephonically: Dan Fox, City Manager; Dave DeBerry, City Attorney; Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager; Anthony Santos, Assistant to the City Manager; Amy Haug, Human Resources and Risk Manager; Ryan Wright, Parks and Recreation Director; David Liu, Public Works Directors Hal Ghafari, Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer; Anthony Jordan, Parks and Maintenance Superintendent; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brent Mason, Interim Director of Finance; Marsha Roa, Public Information Managers Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator; Kristina Santana, City Clerk Also Present: Deputy APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 1. Lieutenant Steven As submitted. Tousey, LA County Sheriff's SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1 Council Members Discrimination, Hate and reaA their Proclamation Bigotry in All Forms. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Condemning None CC/Santana read the following public comments submitted via email: Pui-Ching Ho announced that the Diamond Bar Library will reopen for select in - person services on Monday, April 19t", 2021 for a maximum of one -hour per customer. All customers are asked to maintain six feet of physical distance from other customers and library staff when in line and inside the library, wear a face covering over the mouth and nose at all times and adhere to the posted library capacity limits. No food or drink is allowed inside the library. Beginning April 19t", sidewalk pickup service will be available. For more information, please visit APRIL 612021 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL os://lacountvlibrarv.orq/reopenin Public comments offered telephonically: Katherine MadaI zo asked what was being done to mitigate wildlife disruption and restoration of the 29 impacted trees during construction of the road widening project at Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive. Michael Ramirez, announced the Diamond Bar Community Foundation's Golfing "Fore" the Kids on May 10t" at the Western Hills Country Club in Chino Hills, with proceeds providing financial support for sports, recreation, art, music and cultural programs through the Foundation. The Foundation is seeking sponsors and raffle and silent auction prizes. For further information and participation, contact him at info Dthedbcf.org or 951-212-5644. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Low moved, C/Liu seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Liu, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lyons NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 4.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 4.1 a MARCH 16, 2021 STUDY SESSION 4.1 b MARCH 16, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 4.2 CITY COUNCIL RECEIPT OF COMMISSION MINUTES: 4.2a PARKS AND RECREATION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2020. 4.2b PARKS AND RECREATION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2021. 4.2c PLANNING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 2021. 4.3 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER DATED MARCH 11, 2021 THROUGH MARCH 24, 2021 TOTALING $3121703.29. 4.4 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2020. 4.5 RECEIVED AND FILED THE GENERAL PLAN STATUS REPORT FOR 2020. 4.6 APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN, THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LANCE, SOLL & LUNGHARD LLP CPA'S FOR AUDITING SERVICES. 4.7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO, 2021-11 ESTABLISHING THE DIAMOND BAR DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY AS REQUIRED BY AND IN APRIL 67 2021 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL COMPLIANCE WITH, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 8855(i). 4.8 APPROVED AGREEMENTS FOR FINANCIAL ADV COUNSEL AND THE DIAMOND AS FOLLOWS: ISORY, AND BOND DISCLOSURE SERVICES, RELATED TO REFUNDING BAR CENTER FIXED RATE LEASE REVENUE BONDS A. APPROVED, AND AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT WITH FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ASSOCIATES; AND, B. APPROVED, AND AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH. RECESS: M/Lyons recessed the Regular City Council Meeting to the Special Public Financing Authority Meeting at 6:48. RECONVENE: M/Lyons reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:52 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. 6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 6.1 FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41-2021 TO REPLACE EXISTING DISTRICT NO. 41. C/Liu recused himself from consideration of Item 5.1 because he lives in District 41, and did not participate in the discussion. PWM/Ghafari presented the staff report. CC/Santana read the following emails into the record: John Catanzaro, President, Ridgeline HOA, stated that the four HOA's in District No. 41 have met a number of times, have contacted homeowners„ put up signage to let them know about Council's intent, and have met with City staff, arborists and landscapers seeking bids while awaiting the engineer's report. He asked the City to continue to extend all possible mutual support to the residents so that they can be fully and responsibly informed and so that the HOA's canimpress upon the members the importance of voting YES on the change for the Prop 218 Property Tax Fee Increase for District 41. David Takeda hoped the Dissolution could be delayed until residents were APRIL 61 2021 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL Garret Rukes felt that dissolving LAD No. 39 hoping that property owners would maintain the landscape was not a workable solution and asked if anything was being done to come up with a better solution. Comments offered telephonically during the meeting: Pamela Delgado asked when ballots would be sent out and when they would need to be returned and PWM/Ghafari responded that ballots would be mailed on May 27t" and would need to be returned by July 6tn C/Chou asked staff to explain how residents can hook into the current irrigation system and PWM/Ghafari responded that the current systems will remain in place and residents have the option to take over maintenance of the system or cut the lines that run through their property to use their household water system. M/Lyons said she understood that the City was willing to have staff meet with residents to determine the location of the irrigation system and how it can be modified. PWM/Ghafari said that M/Lyons was correct and in fact, PM/Jordan has been visiting properties to explain the areas for which the owners will be responsible to maintain as well as, inform them of the location of the irrigation system. For residents who wish to have staff visit their properties, they can go on the City's website and complete the form requesting a site visit appointment. C/Tye said it feels to him that this process is being done quickly to accommodate the calendar in order to get something in front of the County in a timely fashion. He asked what options are available for taking a step back to get it right even if it means not getting it done by the July date. MPT/Low appreciated comments from Mr. Catanzaro that he wants to work cooperatively to move forward and appreciates staff for their recommendations and their work with the HOA's to put together another vote. She asked CM/Fox if he felt the HOA Board Members were comfortable with understanding what is required as a result of their vote and how to explain to their property owners what their choices are and what the consequences of their vote will mean, whether staff feels comfortable they can get this done and whether the City of Diamond Bar will pick up the cost of the second election rather than having the HOA front the cost. M/Lyons said the City would pay the cost of the election from its General Fund ($13,600). While she understands the concerns, she feels this situation has gone on too long and is a burden to all residents. CM/Fox said that HOA's are encouraged by their efforts to get the word out to the residents and property owners He cannot guarantee the vote will pass, but the consequences and options are very clear. The district is APRIL 61 2021 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL being proposed to be dissolved, which means that all of the areas of responsibilities would be returned to the underlying property owner to maintain, all of which is scheduled for consideration by the Council at the final Public Hearing on May 4t". The City is going through this process to consider a new Prop 218 ballot measure that comes to a final vote on July 6t". If that fails, there is no time to go through a new assessment process to restore the existing assessments and if the district is not dissolved, the City would be 100 percent responsible for the entire maintenance of private property and the City is out of time for considering a third parallel option to meet the existing assessments if these efforts fail. MPT/Low asked if the City could advocate with respect to this measure and CM/Fox explained that like most elections, the City staff cannot conduct any advocacy. However, the City has educational and information materials available on its website from when this matter was previously considered. This material makes clear the responsibilities of the property owners and Council Members and HOA's can advocate for a position one way or another. In addition, the HOA's are putting together yard signs to help get the message out. CM/Fox responded that there are no printed materials available. M/Lyons asked if staff had spoken to HOA Presidents and CM/Fox said he, PWD/Liu and PWM/Ghafari have spoken with HOA Presidents who have been having weekly meetings and they are doing all they can to educate property owners to get to a positive vote on Proposition 218. C/Chou moved, MPT/Low seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2021-12 initiating proceedings for the formation of a new Landscape Assessment District No. 41-2021 and designating SCI Consulting Group as the Engineer of Record. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lyons None Liu MPT/Low moved, C/Chou seconded, to approve the First Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with SCI Consulting Group to provide the Special Assessment Engineering and Balloting Services in the amount of $1376005 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: C/Liu returned to the meeting. Chou, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lyons None Liu APRIL 6, 2021 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL 6.2 REVIEW OF DRAFT 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT (PLANNING CASE NO. PL 2021-004). CDD/Gubman introduced Item 6.2 and stated the Council is not being asked to take a formal action on this draft because there are likely to be further revisions after HCD reviews the document. Staff plans to bring a final draft back to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council in the next three to four months for the adoption hearing. John Douglas, Housing Element Consultant, JHD Planning, LLC provided background information and discussed the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element (Chapter 9 of the General Plan) and timeline for adoption and implementation. The staff recommendation is to receive public comments, discuss the document and direct questions to staff, and authorize and direct staff to submit the draft to state HCD for review. Public Comments Offered Telephonically: Grace Lim -Hayes referred Council to a Responsible Land Use report to the Planning Commission about innovations and public involvement for the Mixed -Use and infill developments that need to be addressed during the difficult task of meeting the City Is housing needs and said she hoped residents would be encouraged to collaborate and communicate with the City about future developments effects on existing neighborhoods. Paul Deibel urged the City Council to provide direction that an inclusionary housing program be included in the Housing Element to provide inclusion of or in -lieu fees for affordable housing production beyond the state required density bonus in the focus areas. Council discussion: C/Chou thanked staff and the consultant for the very detailed report. He felt infill housing and public input was essential to this planning document. Mr. Douglas confirmed that the Housing Element is a planning document and is comparable to the General Plan wherein it sets the broad strokes of policy and other documents including the Development Code or Specific Plans would paint in the details. C/Chou asked for a timeline of when this process would get to the point of updating codes and zoning regulations. Mr. Douglas responded that under state law, the City is allowed up to three years to make adjustments and refinements to the Development Code and Zoning Regulations. CDD/Gubman further explained that staff is currently updating codes for compliance with state code. Specific Plans for the Town Center, the Neighborhood Mixed -Use area and the TOD area which require significant APRIL 6, 2021 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL public input, extensive environmental review, and participation of planning consultants to assist staff in the technical aspects, would likely start with the Town Center and proceed with the others subsequently, with the goal to complete all three within the three-year obligation period. C/Liu asked how this document affects planning compared to SCAG which appears to indicate different trends and statistics. He asked how can the public participate? Mr. Douglas explained that in general, it is common to have apparent inconsistencies between different sources of data because they may be collected at different times using different methods of collection. Staff is happy to receive any and all public input throughout the process, and comments can be submitted through the website, via email, and during future Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. C/Tye said he appreciates Diamond Bar's input of data over that of SCAG and agrees with Mr. Douglas that it is a moving target. He trusts staff and the consultant and expressed his feeling that Mr. Douglas has done a masterful job in putting the document together and presenting it to the Council and public. MPT/Low thanked staff and the consultant for the very comprehensive report. On Page 195 of the packet, the report talks about Program H-10, the Accessory Dwelling Units, Program H-11, the Emergency Shelters, etc. and H-12, Affordable Housing Incentives and she wanted to know if percentages have to be assigned to each of the programs as part of the goal or plan. Mr. Douglas explained that for some there are specific percentages specified in state law. For example, on the topic of Density Bonus, there is an actual chart in state law that says if a project includes X percentage of affordable units, the City must give Y percentage of density increase. Others are not so specific and are more policy oriented. MPT/Low said that the RHNA numbers do not consider Diamond Bar's slow growth mode. Mr. Douglas agreed and explained that SCAG's numbers are for the more urbanized areas of Southern California (LA and Orange County) and are based on existing conditions rather than projected growth. MPT/Low stated that under those circumstances, this planning document with number imposed by the state have a long term vision of turning this slow -growth City into a more urbanized City and Mr. Douglas said that in his opinion, MPT/Low's conjecture was a fair statement. MPT/Low further stated that the TOD's and other multi -use areas will be the urbanized areas within the City, and Mr. Douglas agreed that he believed this too, was a reasonable conjecture. Mr. Douglas said that he and staff believe the City's new General Plan is compatible with the RHNA numbers in the sense that the vision described in those focus areas, depending on market conditions over the next 20 or 30 years, can, hypothetically, accommodate the amount of housing that has been assigned to this RHNA process in a more compressed timeframe whereas, the General Plan looks out 20-30 years and the Housing APRIL 612021 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL Element looks out only eight years and reflects a faster rate of growth in the RHNA than is reflected in the General Plan. MPT/Low said that in 20 years the City's growth rate is .1 percent and wanted to know what the growth rate was estimated to be in the next few years. Mr. Douglas explained that the RHNA is not a mandate to issue building permits for the City or to achieve this amount of growth, it is creating "opportunity" through the General Plan and Zoning where growth could occur and it will depend on the housing market, the economy, and desires and objectives of individual property owners whether they wish to hold or invest in their properties. Most economists believe there is little chance that the amount of development reflected in the RHNA will actually come to fruition over the next eight years. MPT/Low asked if the suggestion that density bonuses and various development conditions can be or must be waived and development standards that can be relaxed or eliminated is applicable only to high density areas which means that the City is looking at a Development Code that will include different requirements for houses than those compared to lesser requirements in the higher density areas. Mr. Douglas said that the General Plan identifies focus areas as those areas in the City where "change" is expected. The General Plan does not expect much change within established communities of single family residences and condo's. One theme of the General Plan is to establish where growth is most likely to happen and most desired in Diamond Bar. The theme in state law over the past couple of years has been to try to relax the regulations and standards to make housing development more feasible with more property owners and developers able to move forward with housing development projects. MPT/Low asked for explanation of "Inclusionary Housing Program" and Mr. Douglas explained it is when a city adopts a requirement that a certain percentage of new housing units be offered at specific income or price levels typically applied to multi -family project including projects of at least 10 units or more, it could be that if the city has a 50-unit apartment project, 10 percent of those apartments must be offered at certain rent levels for a certain number of years. MPT/Low asked what is meant by "low barrier navigation" and Mr. Douglas explained that "low barrier navigation center" is a new creation in state law and is similar to an emergency/homeless shelter, but it may be paired with some services and facilities that go beyond the bare bones emergency shelter. MPT/Low asked if Table B-4, Page 267 "Underutilized Site Inventory" was required to be part of the Housing Element plan submitted to the state and Mr. Douglas responded that yes, and that it is absolutely an essential part that is mandated in state law. These tables describe, at a parcel -specific APRIL 612021 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL level, where additional housing can be built in the City based on the General Plan and current Development Code regulations. MPT/Low asked who makes the judgement call that the two church properties are underutilized and Mr. Douglas responded that this is an objective view of what is on the property today compared to what could be built on the property under the current Zoning regulations. In other words, if the property is not fully built-out/developed to the maximum allowed under the Development Code, it is considered to be an "underutilized" property. MPT/Low said she was offended by the inclusion of churches within this category. CDD/Gubman responded to MPT/Low that half of the two church properties are completely undeveloped vacant land/bare dirt. In terms of being underutilized, the church campuses are built and paved on half of the acreage and the remaining completely vacant portions are located within multi -family residentially zoned areas without encroaching into the church campuses and there is enough land on which to build housing that is consistent with the underlying multi -family zone. M/Lyons felt it was completely unacceptable for the City to tell churches that some land they have that is currently vacant needs to be developed into housing. CDD/Gubman reiterated that this does not mandate that those sites be developed for residential, it is part of an inventory of sites that currently have capacity for additional development should the property owner wish to produce such a development. C/Tye said that saying it is "underutilized" does not mean to him that it has to be utilized. By the same token, the eastern most portion of the CVS parking lot could have been identified as underutilized as well as, the Caltrans parking locations on the east and west side of Diamond Bar Boulevard. It does not mean they are going to be developed, it means they are underutilized. MPT/Low asked why Site D and the portion next to Willow Heights on Diamond Bar Boulevard which are entirely dirt were not included. CM/Fox stated that the City has had inquiries from the United Church of Christ to come in with some kind of housing project that would be in line with some of the goals of the Housing Element. He is not sure whether the LDS Church has made similar inquiries and it is likely that HCD will be most critical of these sites moving forward. M/Lyons felt the church locations should be deleted. C/Tye disagreed. CM/Fox further stated that both church properties are currently zoned for multiple family residential development and there is nothing in the Housing Element that says the churches have to do anything different from what APRIL 6, 2021 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL they are currently doing. C/Tye observed that the churches could use development to replenish their resources just like the Walnut Valley Unified School District did with Site D. From an institutional point of knowledge, EVFree was land that was donated by a builder for future use as a church. C/Chou said that these are zoning decisions and no one will be telling churches they have to build housing. The zoning is in the General Plan which gives the churches the option to build multi -family housing should they choose to do so, it does not force them to do so and actually provides the church with more options for use of their land. CA/DeBerry said that the zoning does not preclude the churches from expanding the church use, it actually results in the church property becoming more valuable. CDD/Gubman agreed that it is merely an objective in inventory as currently zoned, and the churches currently have the opportunity to develop them for residential purposes should they elect to do so. MPT/Low asked staff to identify additional areas that are underutilized rather than focus on the church properties because she does not trust the legislative process and fears it could lead to a taking of the properties. M/Lyons agreed. CM/Fox offered that staff could look at other areas to help expand the list before sending the document to HCD if the Council so desired. Mr. Douglas directed the City Council to packet page 265, Table B-1, is the summary of all of the sites that have been included in the inventory and the two church sites are on the third row of the table headed "underutilized sites" and the City has identified a potential of 60 additional housing units that could be built on those properties based on the current zoning regulations. The three focus areas — Town Center, Neighborhood Mixed Use and Transit Oriented Mixed Use add up to almost 4,000 potential housing units based on the General Plan. To keep it in context, the key points is that this is not a prediction of what is going to happen and it is not a mandate of what must happen, it is simply recording what the existing zoning conditions and physical conditions are for all of these properties. C/Tye said that as Regional Counsel Representative 37 on SCAG, he pushed hard for SCAG to push back on HCD and on Sacramento and was told that if they pushed back the number would likely be higher which happened. He believes it is appropriate to have a healthy disregard for Sacramento and how decisions are made in northern California in communities unlike Diamond Bar. He understands the angst and asked staff to share with the Council and public what the action would be if Diamond Bar does not meet the RHNA requirements. APRIL 61 2021 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL Mr. Douglas explained that RHNA numbers are used for two separate purposes, the first being for this inventory of site being discussed where state law very clearly requires that cities plan and zone enough land such that the RHNA numbers could potentially be achieved, all things being equal and everyone wanted to develop which is the planning requirement. The second requirement is a softer requirement which has to do with the actual production of housing. We can be thankful that our legislature understands that cities do not build housing and that it is the private and non-profit sector and so cities have limited influence over what actually happens. If the City's actual production of housing falls short of those RHNA numbers, there are some fairly soft consequences that under some circumstances, the City would have to fast track the current review of a housing development, but those circumstances are fairly narrow. In other words, it would have to be a project that included Affordable Housing, a project that uses prevailing wage (union scale labor) which most market rate projects in southern California do not. MPT/Low asked if staff could discuss this with the church and include their commentary in the report to the state. M/Lyons agreed. C/Tye asked if MPT/Low would be comfortable if Table 10 B-4 read 1101 Diamond Bar Boulevard and 2335 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard and what is in parenthesis was eliminated. MPT/low said absolutely not because she can see Sacramento directing cities to meet their RHNA numbers by redirecting them to do a condemnation and take those sites for the greater good and now the City is subjecting these properties to Eminent Domain. C/Tye asked if MPT/Low was comfortable with Table 10 B-3 with the site address as being "end of Fern H011ow (21 plus acres) and not comfortable with it simply saying "the church". MPT/Low said no because B-3 is vacant site inventory and B-4 specifically says they are underutilized. C/Tye said he feels the concern is the fact that it says it is a church site because from the beginning, he has heard MPT/Low say it is insulting to these churches. M/Lyons asked if the City was mandated to provide Table B-4 and Mr. Douglas explained that the City is only required to provide a list of parcels that has a grand total/sufficient capacity that could accommodate its RHNA numbers. If these two tables were to be eliminated from the Housing Element, it would not prevent the City from being able to accommodate the RHNA number. MPT/Low said she wanted to eliminate the churches and C/Tye said he disagreed with that because the City will not reach the RHNA numbers with or without B-3 and B-4. C/Tye said he does not have the same angst about the churches as MPT/Low and M/Lyons and absent the verbiage, this dialogue would not be taking place. C/Chou understands the concern but the City is not forcing housing on these two churches. The churches may want to build housing and they APRIL 6, 2021 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL are currently zoned for housing so nothing is being changed. If the term "underutilized" is found to be offensive, the term could be eliminated, but nothing changes the zoning and if the United Church of Christ wants to explore building low-income housing on their lot they are entitled to do so. He believes that if this option were taking off the table, it would be a disservice to the church and he is skeptical about the slippery slope argument. He does not see how the state could demand the city take church land. CM/Fox said that according to Mr. Douglas, Tables B-3 and B-4 could be eliminated and the other tables that indicate the balance of the site inventory would be sufficient to demonstrate to HCD that Diamond Bar has the capacity to reach its RHNA and Mr. Douglas agreed. CM/Fox said that absent comments from HCD and recognizing the few number of units included in the two tables, he would suggest deleting them for now. The zoning will not change and the City would get credit for any new housing that eventually would be developed should the church wish to proceed in that manner. C/Chou asked if the tables are removed would it in any way prevent the church from applying for a low income housing grant. CM/Fox said he did not believe it would and rather, that it would be incumbent upon them to include some affordable component in their development proposal that would make them eligible to receive grant funds. CA/Berry said that he is General Counsel for the San Gabriel Valley Housing Trust and never within the grant application have applicants been asked about whether the site is underutilized. The grant is based upon the degree to which the development would provide affordable housing in the cost of the project. C/Liu asked if Table B-1 should also be removed and Mr. Douglas responded that Table B-1 would be updated to remove the items from that chart. MPT/Low moved, M/Lyons to eliminate Tables B-3 and B-4 as they are not necessary to include in order to reach RHNA numbers, and update Table B-1 accordingly. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Liu, MPT/LowM/Lyons M/Lyons felt the intent to regenerate the Town Center with housing and other amenities will prove to be a plus for the community. C/Tye moved, C/Liu seconded, to direct staff to submit the Draft Housing Element with changes, to HCD for review. Motion carried by the following APRIL 61 2021 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Liu, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lyons NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 70 COUNG L SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEET�VAGG ATTENDANCE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Chou thanked staff for a great meeting and excellent reports, the City Council members for participating in the reading of the anti -hate proclamation and community participation in the March 21 St Rally. Governor Newsome announced full opening would take place on June 15t" and as exciting as that is, he cautioned everyone to continue practicing safety guidelines while supporting local businesses. He congratulated Diamond Bar on being named 37t" of the top 50 safest cities in California. C/Liu thanked staff and the consultant for the detailed presentations and discussions and staff for coming up with the best solutions to dissolve the challenges the City is facing. He thanked his colleagues and staff for condemning discrimination, hate and bigotry in all forms, and Dr. Ronda Hampton, PhD and her daughter for organizing the solidarity rally against hate and discrimination, thanked the community volunteers for hosting Easter events for community and families, and thanked staff, businesses and the community for working diligently to facilitate safe environments for in -person activities. C/Tye thanked Supervisor Janice Hahn for helping schools deal with the County's quarantine guidelines, talked about the Caltrans project for conversion of HOV lanes to general purpose lanes in both directions on the SR57 at Grand Avenue, commented on Pantera Park improvements commencing on Wednesday and concluding on Friday, April 16t", and thanked M/Lyons for her leadership in proclaiming that this community condemns discrimination in any and all forms. MPT/Low thanked staff and Mr. Douglas for their hard work on tonight's agenda items, especially the work with homeowners in LAD No.41 and the thoroughness of the housing report. She referred residents to Agenda Item 4.5, a recap of the City's accomplishments toward meeting the General Plan update goals and thanked M/Lyons for her leadership in putting together the anti -hate proclamation and encouraging City Council members to participate. April 2021 is sexual assault awareness month and she encouraged everyone to stand against this devastating crime. On March 22n6, she and M/Lyons attended the Neighborhood Improvement subcommittee meeting with staff and is grateful for all who work so hard to make the community look better. She encouraged everyone to download the City's app and report situations where a neighbor needs help with their property or they see a residence is lacking proper maintenance. APRIL 6, 2021 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL M/Lyons said that at the end of last week she spoke with Bob Taylor, Superintendent of WVUSD and Bob Pacheco, the Mayor of Walnut who indicated they would be having a day of drive -through recognition for the graduating high school seniors who reside in Walnut and she would like her colleagues concurrence to place consideration of such an event for Diamond Bar seniors on the next agenda.. C/Liu and MPT/Low were in favor, C/Tye felt such an event should be sponsored by the school districts but would welcome a report from staff, and C/Chou supported placing the item on the agenda to receive staff's report as well. M/Lyons said that last week she spent the afternoon volunteering at the Foothill Transit Center vaccine clinic, congratulated C/Tye on being re-elected as the SCAG Regional Counsel District 37 representative, and reported that her campaign to improve the Diamond Bar Post Office is underway with thanks Congresswoman Kim for her assistance. She thanked her colleagues for a spirited discussion this evening and thanked staff for their hard work. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Lyons adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Kristina Santana, City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 20t" day of April, 2021.