Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/1995 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JULY 11, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Council Member Ansari. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; Michael Estrada, Assistant City Attorney; George Wentz, City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, ETC.: 2.1 Presented a City Tile to Sam Ito, representing the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, for 6 years of service to the City. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., thanked the Council and staff for the traffic light at Prospectors and Golden Springs. He asked if two General Plans can be on the ballot when only one was approved by the Planning Commission. Oscar Law, 21511 Pathfinder, in regard to the Warrant Register, FY 94195, page 3, asked why an outside service was contracted for a turn signal analysis in the amount of $565. He also commented that sidewalks need to be completed throughout the City. He thanked C/Ansari for placing an item on the Agenda. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., thanked those citizens who signed the General Plan initiative petitions. He objected to reconstruction of Grand Ave. in that local business were not given enough notice. Further, he asked that the speed limit on Grand be reduced to avoid any more destruction of deer and other animals and for the safety of drivers. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., commented on GPAC's version of the General Plan versus the Council's version. C/Harmony asked Mr. Maxwell the differences between the people's General Plan initiative versus the proposed City Council General Plan. JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 2 MPT/Werner asked if the City has the authority to place a General Plan on the ballot if it has not gone through a public hearing process. ACA/Estrada advised that he had not reviewed initiative procedures prior to the meeting. Joann Valencia, Windfall Boudoir, 12205 Diamond Bar Blvd., stated that the City had not given local business owners adequate notice of the road rehabilitation on Grand Ave. Joe McManus, 1155 Diamond Bar Blvd., stated that local business owners had not been properly notified for construction of Grand Ave. and that the City should not widen or improve streets in D.B. for Chino Hills traffic. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., asked the Council to pull items 6.6, 6.7(b) and 6.8 from the Consent Calendar for discussion. In response to Mr. Smith's questions, CDD/DeStefano advised that the lotline adjustment is proceeding and the application for modification to the building restrictions within lot 1 & 61 was withdrawn in the "Country Estates." Lino Zolada, President, D.B. Country Estates Assn., 24002 Lodgepole Rd., stated that the Assn. would defend their CC&R's and that the members are opposed to the lotline adjustment for lots 7, 1 & 61. Further, that the Assn. had no intention of annexing lots 1 & 61 and the JCC development. In regard to Mr. Zolada's comments, MPT/Werner clarified that the Assn. opposes development of the JCC property and they have denied annexation of the property. Mr. Zolada advised that the Assn. denied the annexation twice before. C/Harmony asked if there was an application before the Council from D&L Properties requesting a relief of map restrictions on lot 1 & 61 and a petition for a lotline adjustment. CDD/DeStefano advised that staff reviewed a memorandum from the Engineering Department dated June 19, 1995 in which 2 issues were discussed: 1) whether Mr. Dabney would proceed with the Public Hearing proposed several months ago regarding his request to modify building restrictions on lot 1 & 61 and 2) the lotline adjustment. During the two discussions, 1) it was determined that Mr. Dabney would not proceed with modification of the building restrictions for the 2 lots; therefore, there would be no Public Hearing and 2) the lotline adjustment had been approved by Engineering with respect to the technical aspects of a lotline adjustment application but was still proceeding through the process and would require the signature of himself and the City Engineer. JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 3 C/Harmony expressed concerns that the publics' comments were in opposition to the project; however, staff is going forward with the project. CDD/DeStefano advised that the iodine adjustment is an action taken by staff subject to the applicant meeting the standards of that process. The applicant had met those standards and unless there are other reasons, staff would proceed to approve that application. C/Harmony opposed the lotline adjustment and requested that this item be brought back on the Agenda for Council action. Vartkes Serofien, 23714 Falcons View, stated that the community of the "Country Estates" needs to be given the opportunity to discuss the incorporation of the 60 acres. He advised that he is against the lotline adjustment. Grace Lin, 2901 Steeplechase Ln., reminded the Council that during Incorporation, Council promised development control. She opposed the lotline adjustment and asked Council to deny it. She asked M/Papen to discuss her interest in the project. M/Papen reported that she had no interest in this project. She also advised that during the General Plan hearings, no map or deed restrictions were removed from any property. The property referred to by Ms. Lin was zoned R-1-20,000, allowing 2 units per acre. The Draft General Plan down zoned the property to 1 unit per acre and a portion of that property was zoned "no building" for any potential development. Further, she had approached the "Country Estates" Assn. to meet and discuss this matter and they refused. C/Ansari asked what the appeal procedure is from citizens or members of the Council if the lotline adjustment is granted by the City Engineer. ACA/Estrada advised that the procedure is set forth in the County Code adopted by the City. He stated that he would review the Code and advise if the lot line adjustment can be appealed. Jack Healy, 23041 Aspen Knoll Dr., remarked that he was appalled at the amount of detail and conditions given to the property owners concerning the DBA JCC application. Frank Dursa complained that the new sidewalk on D.B. Blvd. was not installed correctly and that weeds are growing between the sidewalk and the block wall. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., asked Council to place the General Plan on the ballot. She also asked the Council to honor the request of the Council Members when they request that an item be placed on the Agenda for discussion. She stated that she did not understand what JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 4 Consent Calendar item 6.9 pertained to and asked for an explanation. She further asked that a report from the Finance Committee be forwarded to her since she cannot attend. She requested an explanation of whether or not other Council Members are allowed at those meetings. Terry Birrell asked that the General Plan be placed on the ballot. She suggested that 1-2 copies of the entire agenda packets be placed in the Council meeting chamber for public review and response. M/Papen asked staff to give a report on the rehabilitation of Grand Ave. SE/Liu reported that the summary report highlights major activities from June 23 - July 7, 1995. Staff worked with various business owners regarding signs posting the work, access into local businesses and the schedule of the work. In regard to the current schedule, he stated that the project would begin on Monday, July 17, 1995. CE/Wentz reported that resurfacing work will be completed to include temporary closures on a periodic basis at shopping center driveways. The contractor had been instructed that no permanent closures into the business areas would be allowed. The reason for widening Grand Ave. is to facilitate turning movements at the intersections and to access business areas easily. It will also help facilitate deceleration and acceleration of traffic lanes going in and out of shopping centers. In response to C/Harmony, CE/Wentz advised that steel plates will be used on driveways to insure access into business areas and that both entrances will not be closed at the same time. However, if that should happen, traffic will be detoured to another entrance. Two trees had been identified for removal on a Grand Ave. median for left turn lane extensions. MPT/Werner hoped that all County and private agencies were notified for coordination of their work along with the City's work. He also expressed concern that because of the delay in starting, the project should not be delayed any further because of the holiday season and business needs during this time. SE/Liu advised that the street light issue with Edison had been resolved and their work will be completed by July 17, 1995. MPT/Werner asked staff and the local business owners their opinion on how much time is needed for proper notification. CM/Belanger stated that staff felt that the business owners were properly notified of the street rehabilitation. C/Ansari requested staff to place signs on Grand Ave. and D.B. Blvd. at each of the entrances of the shopping centers indicating "open entrances to JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 5 shopping areas during construction." 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/Harmony stated that he supported the citizen's General Plan and would like to see it on the ballot. He asked M/Papen to report on her trip to China. He further stated that he had requested an executive session and he received his memo back - torn up. He referred to a claim for tire damage denied by the City and suggested that any other persons with tire damage during construction at Pathfinder and Grand Ave. call in and file a claim. C/Ansari advised that Yetta Rosenberg, 94 -year old D.B. citizen, died during the July 4 holiday. She urged people to vote during election time. She announced that the Concerts in the Park had been very successful thus far. In regard to the China trip, she stated that she was not against M/Papen's trip; however, a report should be given in a timely manner. She asked the Council to get along during discussion of the General Plan. In response to C/Harmony and C/Ansari's continents, M/Papen reported that the entire Council was invited to attend the China trip and that her trip was not financed by the City. She shared an article in the L.A. Business Journal regarding her trip. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:55 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 9:09 p.m. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 CONCERT IN THE PARK - July 12, 1995 - "SHOUT' (60's Classics) - 6:30 - 8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5.2 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - July 13, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - July 18, 1995 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.4 CONCERT IN THE PARK - July 19, 1995 - "BILLY LEMON AND THE WARNING" (rock & roll) - 6:30 - 8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5.5 GRAND AVENUE REHAB MEETING - July 13 - 6:30 p.m. - D.B. Library, Grand Ave. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items 6.3 and 6.7. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 6 6.1 APPROVED MINUTES: 6.1.1 Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 17, 1995 - Approved as submitted. 6.1.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 23, 1994 - Approved as submitted. 6.1.3 Budget Study Session of May 30, 1995 - Approved as submitted. 6.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES 6.2.1 Regular Meeting of April 27, 1995 -Received & filed. 6.2.2 Regular Meeting of May 25, 1995 - Received & filed. 6.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Received and filed Report for May, 1995. 6.5 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES: 6.5.1 Filed by Denise A. Kilz on June 20, 1995 - Rejected request and referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Company, the City's Risk Manager. 6.5.2 Filed by Randi Tracy on June 5, 1995 - Rejected request and referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Company, the City's Risk Manager. 6.6 RELEASED GRADING CASH BOND POSTED FOR 2866 WAGON TRAIN IN'THE COUNTRY"- Declared the obligations under the bond null and void and released the cash bond posted in the amount of $2,880. 6.8 AMENDED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ENVICOM REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR TM 46485 - CM/Belanger advised that this amendment of $41,751.90 includes an extension for professional contract services for VT Map 47851. 6.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 95-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY. MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.3 VOUCHER REGISTER - dated July 11, 1995 in the amount of $892,410.33. C/Ansari moved, C/Harmony seconded to approve the Warrant Register, with the exception of the City Attorney's billing in the amount of $13,784.58. JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 7 C/Ansari stated that she had received an explanation for the billing; however, she had not discussed this with the City Attorney himself. C/Harmony asked for an explanation on the City Attorney bill in the amount of $3,600 for cable audit. In response to Oscar Law's question on Austin Foust & Associate's bill, MPT/Werner asked for clarification on the service provided. CE/Wentz advised that the Traffic & Transportation Commission requested that the City use one of their approved consultants on the panel to conduct the tests and reporting. CM/Belanger reported that the City Attorney provided to the Council a response to questions raised related to the March, 1995 billing. C/Harmony withdrew his second. C/Ansari moved, M/Papen seconded to approve the Warrant Register with the exception of the City Attorney's billing in the amount of $13,784.58. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None MPT/Werner explained that he voted no in support of the City Attorney's bill that was withdrawn. MPT/Werner moved to approve the City Attorney's bill. For lack of a second, the motion failed. 6.7 (A) RESOLUTION NO. 90-45J: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SETTING FORTH PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES, SICK LEAVE, VACATIONS, LEAVES OF ABSENCE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS. (B) RESOLUTION NO. 95-xx; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A 401(A) DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN - CM/Belanger advised that this would establish a 401(A) deferred compensation plan for City employees. The City is a member of the ICMA RC which provides deferred compensation under IRS Section 457 and the amount that can be deferred is limited to $7,500. In order to provide the opportunity for employees to defer additional monies, a 401(A) compensation plan was proposed. This plan would allow for eligible employees to contribute up to 25% of their salary. Employees JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 8 provide the entire contribution to this plan and employers do not contribute on behalf of the employee to the plan. C/Harmony moved to amend Resolution No. 9045J to reflect the City Manager's authority to hire the first three steps of Section 3, (A) -(C) and that the Council authorize all other hiring. For lack of a second, the motion died. In response to MPT/Werner, CM/Belanger advised that C/Harmony's proposal would be a change in policy in that the Council does not have direct or indirect influence over the hiring, firing or discipline of any employee, with the exception of the City Manager. C/Harmony explained that placing responsibility with the Council to hire and fire personnel would provide accountability and some oversight. He wanted the Council to have some control over how people are hired and the salary ranges. M/Papen stated that the Council sets the budget and the amount of money expended on salaries during the budget process. It is up to the City Manager to use that amount of money to provide personnel. M/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 90- 45J: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SETTING FORTH PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES, SICK LEAVE, VACATIONS, LEAVES OF ABSENCE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS and to continue RESOLUTION NO.95-mq A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A 401 (A) DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN to the City Council meeting of July 18, 1995. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None MPT/Werner explained that he voted no because he did not want to vote for both Resolutions at the same time. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 RESOLUTION NO. 95-39: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96: 7.2 RESOLUTION NO. 95-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 9 OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96: 7.3 RESOLUTION NO. 95-41: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96: M/Papen declared the Public Hearing open. In response to Frank Dursa, MPT/Werner advised that there is no proposed rate increase for District 38. Don Gravdahl stated that he reviewed the Engineer's Report for District 38 and found that there was a surplus. He asked if there was also a surplus in Districts 39 and 41. He suggested that any surplus funds be placed into the General Fund for other uses. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln. asked for an explanation of the differences in the amount for the City-wide assessment and District 41 assessment. CMBelanger advised that District 38 is comprised of 17,341 parcels with an assessment of $15 per parcel and District 39 is comprised of 1,272 with an assessment of $130 per parcel. The assessment for District 39 includes a proposed increase from the current $73.50. In regard to District 41, he advised that there are 544 parcels in the District with a budget of $122,157 and a proposed assessment of $220.50 per parcel which is reflective of the current assessment. CE/Wentz reported that each parcel owner was given notice of the Public Hearing and that no telephone calls or letters were received by any citizen of this District. He also advised that staff received approximately 29 returned mailings. Janice Gill, Deerfield PI., advised that there are many hillsides in her District and some of those hillsides are not maintained with District allocated monies. She asked that the resources be divided equally amongst the hillsides. In response to Ms. Gill's comments, CM/Belanger explained that there are three slopes that are unlandscaped; however, the District does weed abatement once a year which should be completed by the end of August. Further, all District property is privately owned. Ms. Gill asked staff to maintain these slopes twice a year with the extra assessment the District will receive. JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 10 MPT/Werner asked staff if there is another agency that can complete the work in a more expedient time. CM/Belanger advised that the contractor for this District has the responsibility for maintenance of these particular slopes. Jack Gutowsky, Kiowa Crest Dr., stated that the assessment charges are unfair and everyone should pay the same. M/Papen explained that these Districts were formed prior to the homes being sold and prospective homeowners were advised that they would be a member of that landscape District and given a description of the area to be maintained and the fee involved. MPT/Werner stated that the slope maintenance assessment was created by the original developer; therefore, services received in the newer Districts such as 39 and 40 versus District 38 are not comparable. With no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. C/Harmony asked who currently performs the fire abatement work and —, if the charges are comparable. CSD/Rose stated that staff took the lowest bids for the fire abatement contract. He advised that with the new contract, the cost will be significantly lower than what is currently being paid to L.A. County Agriculture. C/Ansari moved, MPT/Werner seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 95-39: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND' BAR LEVYING A $15.00 ASSESSMENT PER PARCEL ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AND TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO CHANGE THE PERSONNEL SERVICES TO $8,750. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None MPT/Werner moved, C/Ansae seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. -- 95-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING A $130.00 PER PARCEL ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AND TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO CHANGE THE PERSONNEL SERVICES JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 11 TO $8,750. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Nona MPT/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 95.41: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING A $220.50 PER PARCEL ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.41 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AND TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO CHANGE THE PERSONNEL SERVICES TO $8,750. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - C/Ansari expressed concern regarding the Land Use Element and areas of planned preservation. She stated that the planned preservations were too specific and that the Council and citizens need to compromise so that the General Plan can get approved. CDD/DeStefano reviewed C/Ansad's suggested revisions as: 1) Page 1 - Vision Statement, an addition to the first line "that it is the primary goal of the City of Diamond Bar to maintain a rural and country living environment'; 2) Page 12 - Land Use Element, Strategy 1.1.8, be modified to state "plan preservation areas designed to conserve open space resources; however, allowing for creative approaches for the integration of future development, would be permitted development that would incorporate a minimum of 75% of the site to remain as an open space area, park or public facility, with a maximum of 25% of the site that may be developed as residential at a density of one dwelling unit per acre." As a result of the Strategy 1.1.8 language change, Strategy 1.1.10 (agricultural designation) is eliminated; 3) Page 16 and 17 Strategy 1.6.2; 4) Page 18 revised to state that "all future planned preservation projects incorporate provisions to protect the existing resources and minimizing future adverse impacts to both the human and natural environment of the City as well as the region"; 5) Strategy 1.5.3 - Page 1-15 and Strategy 1.5.4 - Page 1-16, add a sentence "any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 12 modify a deed must be supported by findings that the decision is of benefit to the City." In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano read Strategies 1.5.3 and 1.5.4. As a result of some the changes, the Land Use Map would change. There are currently five planned preservation areas listed within the Land Use Map and identified as areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Areas identified as PPI, PP2, PP4, and PP5 would change to the designation of PP. The area currently designated PP3 would be designated as COP - Commercial Office Professional. He advised that the D&L property, lots 1 and 61, would change from RR/OS to PP with a change of the entire sphere of influence area from AG/SP to PP. As a result of those changes, the Agricultural discussion would not be included in the General Plan and the Planned Preservation category discussion on page 217 would be revised to incorporate the language as outlined in the handout; 6) An additional revision is suggested within Strategy 1.1.11 - Resource Management Element, H Page 3-11 which states a change of "prepare a tree preservation ordinance that requires preservation of native trees such as the oak and walnut. In addition, the Ordinance should emphasize retention of mature sycamore, pepper, arroyo willow and significant trees of cultural or historical value. The Ordinance should provide a replacement and relocation mechanism for trees when their removal is necessary'; 7) Strategy 1.1.4 C - Circulation Element - Page 522, the proposed suggested revision would be to strengthen 1.1.4 C to state, "avoid any roadway with an emphasis by underlying any roadway within the significant ecological area (SEA -15)." As a result of all of the changes, there needs to be changes to tables outlining Land Use categories, acreage and dwelling units that would occur as a result of these referenced changes. The Housing Opportunity Area Map would also need to be modified. The net result of all of the proposed changes is that the total number of dwelling unit potential within the City would change from 1,066 in the May 9, 1995 Plan to 1,185; the number of dwelling unit potential for the sphere of influence would change from 1,800 dwelling units in the May 9, 1995 Plan to 897. In regard to the May 9, 1995 meeting, M/Papen asked if more revisions are completed, by law, does the Council have to re -circulate the revised Draft General Plan. CDD/DeStefano advised that the Council directed staff to provide a 30 -day review of the final document and that is not required by any statute. M/Papen asked if any written comments were received during that 30 - day review period. JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 13 CDD/DeStefano advised that he is unaware of any letters received; however, he suspected that letters were received by certain parties that have an interest in the Draft General Plan. Edward Jacobs, President, L.A. Council, Boy Scouts of America, stated that with the Council's changes in the General Plan, the Boy Scouts' land will lose its agricultural designation and the density allo�e will be reduced by half. If the Council goes through with the changes that will affect the Scouts' property, the Scouts will have no alternative but to take the City's General Plan to a court of law. John Pringle, Attorney, D.B. Country Estates Assn., stated that the Assn. did not have a specific objection to the General Plan, but the main concern is with the lotline adjustment and its effect on the parcels that will be located next to'The Country." Dorian Johnson, representing Bramalea, 3901 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 201, Newport Beach, commented that the changes now being proposed are consistent with what Bramalea had proposed in terms of the open space designation. He advised that the Bramalea property is a single land use and that the revised designation is not an appropriate use of this specific plan. In regard to the yield on the property, he stated that the revisions penalize the developer if they should decide to donate additional acreage as open space. He asked the Council to adjust the revisions to allow for a higher yield. Mary McCormick -Busse, 21455 Ambushers St., provided historical in;ormation on Site D and expressed concern of the development on that site. She asked for the definition of public property designation and asked that it be designated park property. With consensus of the Council, this matter was continued to July 25, 1995. In response to C/Ansari, ICAIMontgomery advised that adoption of the General Plan does not give rise to a "taking." Once an Ordinance has been adopted, if it is determined to be restrictive, the party has to file an action in Superior Court if the local agency cannot give relief. He stated that he would provide a written response to the Boy Scouts and "taking" issues. In response to C/Harmony, ICA/Montgomery explained that the Council can place any initiative on the ballot at any time per Election Code 9222 and the matter does not have to go through the Public + Hearing process. 8.1 LEASE OF OFFICE SPACE FOR CIN HALL - With consensus of the Council, this item was continued to July 25, 1995. JULY 11, 1995 PAGE 14 9. NEW BUSINESS: None 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 11. CLOSED SESSION: Conference with Real Property Negotiator - Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: Negotiating Party: Under Negotiation: 1320 Valley Vista, Diamond Bar Mr. Simon Chu City of Diamond Bar Price With consensus of the Council, this item was continued to July 25, 1995. 12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, M/Papen adjourned the meeting in memory of Yetta Rosenberg at 11:12 p.m. to July 25, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. at the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley, Diamond Bar, California, to continue discussion of the General Plan. 4zdk��� LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk: ATTEST: