HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/1995 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JULY 25, 1995
CLOSED SESSION: 5:30 p.m., July 25, 1995, SCAQMD, Room CC -8.
a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9)
Name of Case: Oak Tree Lanes vs. City of Diamond Bar
b. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -
Government Code Section 54956.8.
Property:
Negotiating Parties:
Under Negotiation
1320 Valley Vista, Diamond Bar
Mr. Simon Chu
City of Diamond Bar
Price
ACA/Susskind advised that no reportable action was taken during Closed Session.
REGULAR SESSION:
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Papen called the meeting to order at
6:42 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by Eagle Scout Rohan Arun Virginkar and Troop No. 777.
Eagle Scout Virginkar introduced himself and shared with the Council his
Eagle Scout project.
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, Amanda Susskind, Assistant City Attorney; George
Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director;
James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess,
City Clerk.
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS,
ETC.: None.
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 2
8. OLD BUSINESS (Continued from July 11, 1995):
8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 95-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - M/Papen announced that
this item will be next on the agenda due to its continuation from the
July 11, 1995 City Council Meeting. She invited speakers that were
unable to speak at the July 11 meeting to come up first.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln. requested the Council to place both
the General Plan and the GPAC's General Plan on the ballot.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., asked the
Council to unanimously vote to place the original General Plan on the
ballot and let the people decide.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., asked Council to either publicly
accept or reject the public's request to place the initiatives on the
ballot. He shared letters received from the Boy Scouts and Walnut
Unified School District.
Kevin Hughes, Shell Western Exploration and Production, 3030 _
Saturn, Ste. 101, Brea, shared a letter that he submitted to M/Papen
which refers to the impact of the redesignation/reclassification from
AG/SP to Planned Preservation on Shell Western's property. This
redesignation would cut their density up to 50%, require additional
public facilities and higher design standards. Shell Western strongly
objected to the redesignation/ reclassification and requested the
Council leave the land use classification as proposed in the May 9,
1995 version of the General Plan.
MPT/Werner stated that the property designation does not affect Shell
Western's property because the property is in the zoning of the
County and is outside the city limits. He asked what impact the
designation has on the Shell property.
Mr. Hughes responded that by redesignating the property, an adverse
impact on the property will result and require additional work, time and
money on their part if and when they wish to come before the Council
to try and get anything proposed within the City.
MPT/Werner asked if it was Shell Western's intent to bring the
property into the City of Diamond Bar.
Mr. Hughes advised that that issue is unknown at this time.
C/Ansari asked staff if the redesignation took place could Shell
Western ask for an amendment to the General Plan.
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 3
CDD/DeStefano advised that as a builder and developer, if they were
riot happy with the General Plan, they could ask for an amendment to
the General Plan.
MPT/Werner explained that under annexation procedures, the Shell
Western property would need a pre -zoning, not a pre -General Plan
designation. Further, if the General Plan were to be designated
"whatever," their pre -zoning would have to be consistent with the
General Plan. If Shell is unhappy with the General Plan, they would
need to get a General Plan amendment before they filed for an
annexation.
In response to MPT/Wennees comments, CDD/DeStefano stated that,
from a planning prospective, the developer needs to present to the
City pre -annexation documents when proposing a General Plan
change, zone change, Specific Plan and a form of development
agreement.
M/Papen asked what impact would a zone designation have on the
City's General Plan if the property owner goes to the County and
makes an application for development.
Tom Kolin, Vice President/CFO, Boy Scouts of America, L.A. Area
Council, owner of the 3700 acre Firestone Scout Reservation,
commented that he expects no less than the same density allowance
as they have always had under the County and an unbiased set of
guidelines in the General Plan so that the property's use is not
predetermined by a Specific Plan.
In response to Mr. Kolin, MPT/Wemer stated that the General Plan
designation does not impact the zoning of this property. Under
County zoning, the Boy Scouts would have every right to develop the
land as they see fit.
C/Harmony stated that the "sphere of influence" is a new law. If the
Boy Scout's wanted to develop, the land owner would need to go to
the County, who would ask the City if the development conformed to
the City's General Plan.
Mr. Kolin stated that if there was no challenge in the beginning, then
the "sphere of influence" law would severely restrict the potential of
the property in the future. He also stated that there are definite flaws
in the General Plan that will affect the property.
MPT/Werner explained that the
xp "sphere of influence" law was enacted
in 1974 as part of the Municipal Organization Act called MORGA. The
law came into effect when cities were required to identify "spheres of
influence."
JULY 25, 1995
PAGE 4
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., shared a newspaper clipping
from the Times Magazine that referred to the ramification of national
parks being sold to private investors. He asked the Council to
consider the future of the people and preservation of these areas.
Lino Zelada, The Country Estates Assn., reported that'The Country"
had taken legal steps to protect the borders of 'The Country" and the
CC&R's.
Art O'Daly, 24075 Falcons View Dr., opposed placing the General
Plan on the November ballot.
Albert Perez, 703 Pantera Dr., a former member of GPAC, stated that
the committee's whole purpose was for residents to put forth their
ideas as to what the General Plan should be. Residents should be
allowed to vote for the Plan and suggested that both Plans be placed
on the November ballot.
MPT/Werner asked Mr. Perez if he thought the GPAC document
would be the document adopted without any changes or Public
Hearings.
Mr. Perez stated that it was his understanding that the GPAC
document would not be modified to the extent that it has. Public
Hearings were held during GPAC meetings.
Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., shared a letter to the editor he had
written opposing City incorporation.
Terry Birrell commented that the City Council's General Plan is
unacceptable due to being purposely deceptive. She pointed out
several indicated "planned preservation" items in the Plan, which are
actually described as "planned development." She supported placing
the General Plan on the ballot.
M/Papen explained that, at the advice of ICA/Montgomery, declaring
land open space is not a "taking." She asked ICA/Montgomery to
explain at what point and time does the land become a "taking" and
what has to transpire before a General Plan can be adopted.
ICA/Montgomery advised that land declared open space or reduced
density is not a "taking" in and of itself. In order for a property owner
to sustain a claim for a "taking," the owner would have to either set —
aside the land use designation that is restricted and/or have submitted
an application for a viable use that has been turned down.
In response to ICA/Montgomery's comments, M/Papen reiterated that
the mere designation of "open space" in the General Plan is, in his
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 5
opinion based on case law, not a "taking." If a landowner applied for
a Land Use Permit which was denied, then it would be a "taking."
ICA/Montgomery explained that it would become a "taking" only if they
were turned down for a reasonable use of the property. A property
owner does not have a right to continued zoning per the Hensler
Case, 1995. Further, "inverse" is the last possible relief that the land
owner has after all other reliefs have been denied.
M/Papen moved, MPT/Werner seconded to adopt Resolution No. 95-
42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR with the following Amendments: 1) Land
Use, page 1-12, strategy item 1.1.8: revised name to "Planning Area';
2)1.1.10, change Agricultural to 'one unit per five acres'; 3) page 1-
16, strategy item 1.6.1, planning area 1 (Tres Hermanos) be changed
to 80 acres public facility and 720 acres specific planned agricultural
one unit per five acres.", planning area 2 (South Pointe), item b, leave
as is and it would be renumbered as planning area 1 (Bramalea site),
planned preservation area would become planning area 1 and stay as
is, planned preservation 3 (Calvary Chapel site) will become
"commercial/office professional', planning area 4 would become
planning area 2 and would leave as is, planning area 5 (Site D) would
be zoned "Public Facility". She also indicated that on the D&L, lots
1 and 61, would be changed to 'open space" and Planned
Preservation Area 5, Site D, revised to "Public Facility". Sphere of
Influence would be zoned SP/AG with a housing density of 1 unit per
5 acres. In the Circulation Element, strategy 1.1.4(c), page 5-22,
would be amended to "avoid any roadway within the significant
ecological area (SEA -15)11, page 1-15, Land Use, strategy 1.5.3, would
amend an addition of "any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon,
remove or modify a deed, must be supported by findings that the
decision is of significant benefit to the City."
MPT/Werner questioned the 1 unit per 5 acre density wording.
M/Papen advised that Chino Hills zoned Tres Hermanos Ranch in San
Bernardino County where the specifics were similar to the connection
between Tres Hermanos, Los Angeles County and Diamond Bar. In
regard to page 1-12, she explained that amendment to strategy 1.1.8
would be called "Planning Area" not "Planned Development" or
Planned Preservation."
C/Ansari indicated that she would go along with the amendment of
"Planning Area," however, her statement would include "areas
designated planning areas are designed to conserve open space
resources and are to be applied to properties where creative
approaches are needed to integrate future development with existing
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 6
natural resources. All proposed development within these designated
areas shall require the formation of a specific plan pursuant to the
provisions of Government Code Section 65450. Land uses, which
may be appropriate within the planning areas..." She asked M/Papen
if the comment in regard to the 75% and 25% to specific plan areas
would be taken out.
M/Papen replied that this issue only applies to two parcels, South
Pointe and Bramalea.
C/Ansari explained that she had a problem with the designation not
being there with the South Pointe parcel.
M/Papen referred back to 1.1.8, wherein this land use designation
would be titled "planning area." She did not want any parcels to have
a specific plan number since a spec plan is done for a large parcel
to include 8 or 10 land uses. A "planning area" would have two or
three uses and a specific plan is a different legal definition.
CDD/DeStefano explained that it is pure policy whether or not the
Council wanted to establish a requirement for a specific plan on a
piece of property. The term "specific plan" is defined in the
Government Code calling for a detailed master planning effort through
initiation of studies and planning documents that outline specific land
uses for a given site. This can be done on a small amount of land. A
"specific plan" requires a greater level of detail. Tres Hermanos
should be "Master Planned" in order to ensure that it meets a number
of needs of the community and is appropriately scaled for that
property.
M/Papen advised that she included Tres Hermanos in the sphere of
influence as a specific plan and the Bramalea and the South Pointe
properties would be Master Plan. She indicated that she would be
willing to amend her motion to state that "specific plan" area number
1 is Tres Hermanos, specific plan area number 2 is Bramalea,
"specific plan" area number 3 is South Pointe and "specific plan" area
number 4 is the sphere of influence.
C/Ansari explained that she worked with CDD/DeStefano to make the
suggested revisions as general as possible. All "planned
preservation" or "planned planning" areas had been removed with the
exception of Site D and the commercial area at Grand Ave./Golden
Springs. She indicated that she would be willing to change these sites
to read "Public Facility." She stated that she wanted to keep her
general statement of 75%/25% to specific plan areas.
MPTMerner offered a compromise with 1.1.8, 2nd paragraph, the
specifics of 750/o/25% --rename in the General Plan, lift the open space
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 7
Paragraph and include a similar paragraph into each of the speck
planning areas.
In reiteration of MPT/Wemer's compromise, M/Papen stated that
C/Ansari's first paragraph would be in its entirety except the
designation would be "planning area" and the 2nd paragraph would
include "open space park or public facilities and each specific plan
must incorporate innovative and superior design addressing the
uniqueness of each area and create a more desirable living
environment and could be achieved through conventional
development." She also added that C/Ansari's 75%/25% figure should
be addressed in each of the specifics on page 16 & 17 and not in the
general category.
C/Ansari asked CDD/DeStefano of the appropriateness of the
described time in the strategy of the percentage of the property that
will be left as open space.
CDD/DeStefano advised that it would not be appropriate and the
appropriate area for those percentages should be in the planning
areas.
C/Ansari asked M/Papen if she wanted each of these five areas left
in the General Plan as "specific plans" but changing the designation.
In response to M/Ansari's comments, M/Papen explained that the
General Plan would end up with two "planning area" designations and
two "specific plan" designations and the other area would become
"public facilities, 100%" and the sixth property would become "50%
commercial and 50°% open space with the church's Conditional Use
Permit."
MPT/Werner asked the difference between "speck plan area" and
"planning area."
WPapen asked MPT/Werner if he wanted to eliminate "planning area"
and have four "specific plans."
MPT/Werner stated that he understood M/Papen's proposal as
removing the term "planned development area."
In regard to page 16, 1.1.6, area A (Tres Hermanos Ranch), M/Papen
.� explained her proposal as being 80 acres designated "public facilities"
for the Diamond Ranch High School and 720 acres would be zoned
"Specific plarVAG" 1 unit per 5 acres. The 80 acres is consistent with
the current land use.
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 8
C/Ansari pointed out that, currently, the General Plan contained 2
units per 5 acres.
MPT/Werner asked if this proposal' allows other land use
considerations.
M/Papen advised that a "specific plan" designation on page 12 says
"it encourages the innovative use of land resources and development
of a variety of housing and other development types to provide a
means to coordinate the public and private provisions of services and
facilities and address the unique needs of certain lands by recognizing
specific plan overlay designation."
In response to C/Harmony, CDD/DeStefano read the GPAC'S version
which designates Tres Hermans Ranch (school site) as the school
and the balance of the property as AG/SP. He also read the definition
as "agricultural and compatible open space, public facility, and
recreation uses."
M/Papen advised that during the Council's public hearings, the City's
consultant advised of the underlying housing density required.
MPT/Werner asked ICA/Montgomery if a land use density is needed
in the designation of an agricultural specific plan.
CA/Montgomery advised that the parameters must be specified in the
specific planned designation; otherwise, it has been left as undefined
use.
M/Papen asked ICA/Montgomery if a number for housing is required
in the assigned agricultural classification.
ICA/Montgomery advised that there must be a minimum assigned;
otherwise, a specific plan must be added.
C/Harmony supported the agricultural designation rather than the
underlying housing assigned to that land.
MPT/Wemer advised that this needs to be made legal; thereby, a
number of houses need to be assigned.
C/Ansari asked if the Council could define this land as being and
including the one unit per 5 acres/open space.
CDD/DeStefano advised that a definition can be created for the
classification in any way the Council directs.
C/Ansari asked Mr. Cotton if the Plan could indicate one unit per 5
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 9
acres and have an open space designation. She also asked if there
needs to be an "open space" percentage with that designation.
Mr. Cotton advised that General Plan law requires that the Council
designate the density or intensity of use.
CDD/DeStefano stated that there is a desire for the Tres Hermanos
Ranch property to be retained as "open space." In order to do this,
the character needs to be defined for that area. A percentage can be
thrown in the "open space" category for the vision.
M/Papen directed Council to look at the Agricultural definition on page
1-12, strategy 1.1.10. She advised that the "open space" definition is
under the agricultural definition.
C/Ansari asked CDD/DeStefano to include his "clustering" verbiage
into this agricultural definition.
M/Papen suggested that in the description of Tres Hermanos Ranch,
page 16, add "open space designation" into the verbiage.
In regard to page 16, 1.1.6, area B, M/Papen advised that this would
be left as is. The property belongs to Bramalea which has 75% of 400
acres dedicated as "open space."
In regard to page 16, 1.1.6, area C, M/Papen stated that C/Ansari
suggested that this be split commercial and office facilities.
MPT/Werner suggested that this area need not be a "specific plan"
category.
M/Papen advised that she would go along with calling this land a
"planning area" and not require a "specific plan."
In response to C/Ansari, MPT/Werner explained this could happen
without subdividing the land. He asked how many lots are on this
Property
CDD/DeStefano advised that there are five lots.
C/Ansari questioned if this could be changed to "planned commercial/
office complex" because of the amount of lots.
r' M/Papen suggested that this land be designated as "commercial/office
professional."
CDD/DeStefano advised that since the early days, the General Plan
had always identified the property as being a site for "commercial
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 10
uses" on the corner of the vacant acreage at Grand and Golden
Springs with "office professional uses" behind it going up Grand Ave.;
including the hospital development proposal, as well as going toward
City Hall on Golden Springs; including existing offices and sanctuary
of the church and the vacant space held by Zelman Development,
which has been thought to be a future office development and a part
of the Gateway Corporate Center. This has broken down over the
years in that 12-15 acres on the comer would be zoned "commercial"
and the balance zoned as "office professional."
Because of multiplicity of ownership, MPT/Werner advised that this
land would make sense for a "specific plan;" however, he expressed
concern of a master planning approach so that the structure is
planned for the most efficient and optimum use of the property.
C/Ansari expressed concern regarding several developments that
were completed without any regard to the City's decor. She did not
want to see a piece -meal look with the development.
M/Papen asked if the hospital's office building is already in the EIR
process and if the Council chose to make this a "specific plan" area,
how will that affect the hospital's process.
CDD/DeStefano advised that the first phase of the hospital's project
had been approved and is nearing development within its approval.
Conditions required the development of a master plan with Calvary
Chapel. The Council's decision at this point would not delay
development of projects already approved which would be
incorporated into future development proposals.
M/Papen asked that, since there is no plan on the table for the
property on the comer owned by the church, if it would not have to be
developed at this time to have a "specific plan" for these projects to go
forward.
CDD/DeStefano explained that existing approvals require master
planning with adjacent property owners. When development occurs
on the comer, that application will need to address the "specific plan"
or "master planning" aspects of the General Plan and the applicant
would be advised to coordinate the "master planning" efforts and deal
with the issues of circulation.
MPT/Werner advised that this land would be designated as "special
plan" properties.
In regard to page 16, 1.1.6, area D (South Pointe), M/Papen stated
that the property consists of 82 vacant acres located west of Brea
Canyon Rd., north of Peaceful Hills Rd. and south of South Point
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 11
Middle School. Land use for this'planning area' includes commercial,
park, public facilities and open space, a minimum of 30% of the site
will be set aside as open space, not including park land, and the most
sensitive portion of this site shall be retained as permanent open
space...
C/Ansari requested that the following be removed, "land uses
appropriate for this planned preservation include commercial, park,
public facilities and open space."
MPT/Werner agreed that these details should be pulled out and
include the provision for Larkstone Park.
C/Harmony asked why any of this Land would be used as commercial
land.
C/Ansari also recommended that the following be removed, "a
minimum of 309 of this site will be set aside as open space and not
including..." She felt that this could be used as a negotiation tool at a
later date.
CM/Belanger advised that because this land was originally designated
as commercial property, there was a density placed on it.
MPT/Werner asked about the current zoning on this land
CDD/DeStefano asked if it was the intent of Council to eliminate the
commercial, public facilities and residential.
M/Papen explained that there was never any intention to approve
residential on the property due to map restrictions that the Council has
chosen not to remove; however, the restrictions do not prohibit other
land uses such as commercial or industrial. ,
CDD/DeStefano reported that use of the property needs to be
established. He advised that there is open space in Larkstone Park.
C/Ansari asked if a public facility should be placed on this land.
M/Papen suggested that if public facility is left, then so should the
commercial property.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that if the Council wishes to retain the
existing map and deed restrictions through a Land Use classification,
it could be designated as open space, which is described in 1.1.6.
In response to C/Ansari's question regarding whether this could be
declared as "public facility/park plan," CDD/DeStefano advised yes.
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 12
C/Ansari asked that if Council chose "public facility/park plan," would
the City need the consent of any property owner for anything that is
decided for the General Plan.
ICA/Montgomery advised that consent of the property owner is
necessary.
M/Papen stated that the City has the consent of the property owner on
site D who requested a designation of "parks, public facility, open
space or commercial." It is the Council's strategy to zone any freeway
frontage property as commercial to enhance economic development.
MPT/Wemer agreed with C/Ansari's comment that she did not want
Site D designated commercial and that he would agree with the school
district's request, less the commercial.
In regard to C/Ansari's proposal, M/Papen reiterated that the proposal
would be 82 acres zoned as parks, public facilities and open space
and that this property will be called "specific plan." She directed
Council to page 1-12, section 1.1.8, regarding the language being
revised to reflect C/Ansari's language as "Areas designated as
planning areas are designated to conserve open space resources and
are to be applied to properties where creative approaches are needed
to integrate future development with existing natural resources. All
proposed development within these designated areas shall require the
formation of a specific plan pursuant to the provisions of Government
Code Section 65450. Land uses which may be appropriate within
planning areas shall be subject to public hearings and the approval of
the City Council. Each specific plan must incorporate innovative and
superior design addressing the uniqueness of each area and create
a more desirable living environment than could be achieved through
conventional development" in the first paragraph and delete the
750/6/30%. Language for 1.1.10 would remain as 1 unit per 5 acres.
Regarding page 1-15, section 1.5.3, end of the first paragraph,
language was added to reflect "Any decision to rescind, terminate,
abandon, or remove or modify the deed must be supported by findings
that the decision is of significant benefit to the City." On Page 1-16,
Tres Hermans Ranch, Bramalea, Grand Ave., South Pointe and Site
D were discussed. She further recommended that lot 1 and 61,
Summit Ridge, be revised to "open space" and the sphere of influence
also be revised to "spec plan/AG." In regard to Chapter 5, page 12,
section 1.1.4(c) the language strategy was revised 'To avoid, if
possible, any roadway within the significant ecological areas (SEA
15)." She repeated her motion to adopt the General Plan with the
above amendments.
C/Ansari asked that the Vision Statement be amended to'The primary
goal of the City of Diamond Bar is to maintain a rural and country
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 13
living environment." She reported that the community would like to
see the word "primary" be added back into the Vision statement.
M/Papen and MPT/Werner disagreed with C/Ansari's suggested
changes to the Vision Statement in that the City is not a rural
community.
C/Ansari amended M/Papen's motion, seconded by MPT/Werner to
reflect wording change on page 3-11, section 1.1.11, Resource
Management to reflect "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 the removal is necessary."
C/Ansari also amended the wording for page 1-16, section 1. 5.4(a) to
reflect"Vacant land burdened by non -open space restrictions shall be
required to be subjected to public hearings before the Planning
Commission and the City Council before any action can be taken to
remove any such restrictions. Any decision to remove said map
restrictions must be supported by findings that such removal is of
significant benefit to the City."
M/Papen stated that this statement had already been added to section
1.5.3, first paragraph.
C/Harmony amended M/Papen's motion, C/Ansari seconded to adopt
the General Plan as M/Papen outlined with the above-mentioned
amendments upon the condition that both the City Council General
Plan and the GPAC's General Plan be placed on the November ballot
in order to receive a final public hearing and a final public test as to
which General Plan the people want. Motion failed by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ansari, Harmony
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: MPT/Werner, M/Papen
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
C/Ansari agreed to accept the General Plan as amended tonight;
however, she asked that when the amendments come back to Council
for final reading, that the public be allowed to comment on the
amendments.
M/Papen advised that the public was allowed to make comments
when C/Ansari made the original proposal at the July 11 Council
meeting.
RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 14
RECONVENED: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 9:48 p.m.
In response to C/Ansari, ICA/Montgomery stated that the
amendments can be brought back for public comments; however,
there cannot be any changes.
In response to C/Harmony, CDD/DeStefano read the definition of
public facilities as "Public and institutional activities such as public
schools, parks, and water facilities, including but not necessarily
limited to local state and federal agencies, special districts and both
public and private utilities." Development standards would not be
allowed to exceed that of the most restrictive adjacent designation.
ICA/Montgomery reported that this land is unrestricted. If the land
should be restricted, then the wording "not including" needs to be
added.
C/Ansari asked if public facilities include a motor yard to repair buses,
etc.
CDD/DeStefano advised this land would be a school district issue and
would not come before the Council.
C/Harmony commented the City should discourage any kind of
development in a restricted open space area which was dedicated to
the people of Diamond Bar. He reported that this land is at a "zero"
assessment tax figure.
MPT/Werner stated that the City should go back and reassess all of
the other properties based on the assessed value.
In response to C/Ansari, ICA/Montgomery stated that he will
investigate if the school district is subject to the deed restrictions. In
most cases, if the land use is for classroom use, the School District is
not subject to any restrictions.
ACA/Susskind explained that if the land is for school use, they are not
subject to any restrictions.
M/Papen advised that the map restricts the development for homes
on this lot.
ICA/Montgomery stated that the motion would also have to include an —
instruction to the planner to redraft the Housing Element in
compliance with the Land Use Element modified.
CDD/DeStefano reported that the Planned Preservation name needs
to be revised on several other pages of the General Plan. The Land
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 15
Use Element affects Table No. 3, page 4; Table No. 4, page 25; the
Description of Specific Plan on page 18, Land Use Element; and the
Land Use Element Map. The changes also affect the Housing
Element Text, page 13, Table No. 4, page 14; text page 17 and Map,
page 15.
M/Papen moved, MPT/Wemer seconded to adopt Resolution No. 95-
42, entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 95-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE
1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR as
amended, adjusting the Charts and Tables as specified to reflect the
changes made in the Land Use Element. With the following Roll Call
vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner,
M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ICA/Montgomery explained the last motion was a "tie" so nobody
prevailed and this motion was allowed. Further, all revisions will have
to be completed and the Resolution in final form within 24 hours or by
10:00 p.m. for the Mayor and City Clerk's signatures to comply with
the Referendum law.
8.1 LEASE OF THE CITY OFFICE SPACE (continued from July 11,
1995): CM/Belanger recommended that Council approve a one year
lease for Suites 100 and 190 in the amount of $158,106 and further
direct staff to pursue the purchase of a building for City Hall offices.
He reported that during Closed Session, the purchase of City Hall
offices was discussed.
MPT/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve a one-year lease
agreement for Suites 100 and 190 in the amount of $158,106; further,
direct staff to pursue the purchase of a building for City Hall offices.
With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony,
MPT/Werner, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: It was moved by C/Harmony, seconded by
C/Ansari to approve the consent calendar with the exception of Items 6.2,
6.3.1, 6.6 and 6.7. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call
vote:
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 16
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner,
M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6.1.1 Regular Meeting of June 6, 1995 -Approved as submitted.
6.1.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 12, 1995 - Approved as
submitted.
6.3 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Tracy Thanh Le on
July 10, 1995 - Rejected request and referred matter for further action
to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager.
6.4 RELEASED BONDS:
6.4.1 Monumentation Bond No. 3SM 801 212 00 in the amount of
$3,000 for the Hidden Springs Condominium complex at 300-
366 Torito Ln.
6.4.2 Off-site Public Improvements Bond No. 3SM 801 21 00 in the
amount of $8,478 for the Hidden Springs Condominium
complex at 300-366 Torito Lane.
6.5 AWARDED CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 - to Accurate Landscape &
Maintenance Corp. in the amount of $73,080.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.6 RESOLUTION NO. 95-43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A
401(A) DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN -Wilbur Smith, 21630
Fairwind Ln., objected to the 25% deferred compensation and asked
that this percentage be changed to follow the government law of up
to 8% deferred compensation.
In response to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger explained that this is a 401(A)
deferred compensation plan under Internal Revenue Service Code,
Section 401(A) which allows the limits of a maximum amount of 25%
for deferment. He advised that 10% in deferred compensation is
before the Council and that the amount of money that is being
deferred is the compensation that the employee receives as his or her
compensation. He explained that this is not extra money, this is
deferring the amount of money the employees are paid on a monthly
basis and the City is not paying anything into this plan.
C/Ansari moved, MPT/Werner seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO.
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 17
95.43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A 401(A)
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN. With the following Roll Call
vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony,
MPT/Werner, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - C/Ansari stated that she had spoken to the
City Attorney and adjustments will be made on the invoice to reflect
a rebate for their services.
In response to C/Harmony, CM/Belanger advised that the bill is within
the budget and that the City is within the fiscal period budget;
however, the amount depends on the fiscal year cut-off.
C/Ansari moved, MPT/Werner seconded to approve the Voucher
Register dated July 25, 1995 in the amount of $171,764.40. 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
C/Harmony advised that he voted "yes" for the Voucher Register;
however, he asked that the record reflect that he voted against
approval of the City Attorney's bill.
6.3 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by the Walnut Valley
Water District on July 10, 1995.
C/Harmony commented that this claim relates to water line breakages
on D.B. Blvd. The contractor paid for the repairs and admitted
responsibility. Further, the overrun in the contractor's bill was due in
part to the water line breakage. He asked who was responsible for
the claim and if the City is responsible for the overrun bill with the
contractor.
M/Papen advised that this claim has been rejected and referred to the
City's Risk Manager.
CM/Belanger explained that the Water District was unsuccessful in
negotiating this damage with the contractor; therefore, they filed a
claim against the City. As a matter of routine, these claims are
rejected and referred to the City's Risk Manager. Unless there is a
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 18
payment made on behalf of the City to the Water District, a
subrogation claim will be enforced.
C/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to reject the claim and refer
the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Company, the City's
Risk Manager. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony,
MPT/Werner, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.7 RESOLUTION NO. 95-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ACQUISITION
OF TITLE TO CERTAIN TAX DEFAULTED REAL PROPERTY,
KNOWN AS TRACT NO. 42560, LOT 51, ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.
8701-013-047 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ALL
NECESSARY FORMS, AGREEMENTS, CERTIFICATES, AND
DOCUMENTS AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW - In response to
C/Harmony, CM/Belanger explained that Tract No. 42560, lot 51 was
purchased by the County for collecting delinquent taxes. The parcel,
located adjacent to Summit Ridge Park, was approved for purchase
by the Council as a community asset. The property was previously
owned by California Communities Corp. Further, he stated that the
addition of this pocket park has no bearing on the Assessment District
as the property is already being maintained by the district.
C/Harmony moved, MPT/Werner seconded to adopt Resolution No.
95-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO
CERTAIN TAX DEFAULTED REAL PROPERTY, KNOWN AS TRACT
NO. 42560, LOT 51, ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 8701-013-047 AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY
FORMS, AGREEMENTS, CERTIFICATES, AND DOCUMENTS AS
PRESCRIBED BY LAW. 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
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: —
j
7.1 ORDINANCE NO. 05 (1995): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND ENACTING AND ADOPTING
THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, WHICH CODE CONSISTS OF
REGULATORY, PENAL AND CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 19
REGULATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CITY AND PROVIDES
FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION AND ADOPTION BY
REFERENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 5022. 1, ET. SEQ., OF THE
GOVERNMENT CODE, THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE,
1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1991 EDITION,
THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM
MECHANICAL CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING
CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1990
EDITION, THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB
CODE, 1991 EDITION, THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1988 EDITION,
AND CHAPTER 99 OF TITLE 26 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
BUILDING CODE, 1988 EDITION, AS EACH OF THEM ARE
AMENDED AND IN EFFECT SAVE AND EXCEPT SUCH PORTIONS
THEREOF AS ARE DELETED, MODIFIED OR AMENDED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, PRESCRIBING
PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF AND REPEALING CERTAIN ORDINANCES AS
SPECIFIED THEREIN - CM/Belanger advised that this matter was
considered by the City Council during the first reading on June 6,
1995.
M/Papen declared the Public Hearing open.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., expressed concern that the
Ordinance would remove land use restrictions.
With no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing.
MPT/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to waive full reading and
approve second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance No. 05
(1995) adopting a new Code of Ordinances for the City of Diamond
Bar.
MPT/Werner asked if the above Ordinance pertains to administrative
codes, building codes, etc. and asked if any other ordinances are
being deleted or repealed that will place the City in a position where
there is no regulations on any particular issues.
CM/Belanger indicated that the Municipal Code repeals Ordinances
that have been codified within the document. Regarding the
subdivision map that the City currently operates under, the map is
within County Codes and will not be changed until the General Plan
j is in operation.
In response to MPT/Werner about whether Chapter 99 is the L.A.
Building Code, the Substandard Property and Housing code,
CM/Belanger advised yes. Further, he stated that all of the
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 20
Ordinances were reviewed for conflicts. and asked the City Attorney
if there were two Ordinances, which one of the two would prevail.
ACA/Susskind reported that staff had reviewed existing Ordinances
and made sure that in any place where they would be inconsistent, it
would be reflected in an amendment to the County code. Once the
Code is adopted, the codified version would control.
CM/Belanger further explained that the entirety of Chapter 99 is not
included; this adoption is a portion of Chapter 99 to supplement the
City's Property Maintenance Ordinance and are not in conflict.
C/Ansari expressed concerns that the code book had provisions that
would lift map and deed restrictions.
In response to C/Ansari regarding removal of map and deed
restrictions, CM/Belanger explained that process for consideration of
deed and map restrictions would come as a result of the General
Plan, the Subdivision Map Act and the Zoning Ordinance.
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
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 25 MPH PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS -
CMBelanger reported that the Traffic & Transportation Commission
had requested speed limits on Cold Springs Ln., Highland Valley Rd.,
Fountain Springs Rd., Sunset Crossing Rd., Prospectors Rd.,
Palomino Dr. and Kiowa Crest Dr. be reviewed.
SE/Liu,pxplained that the following issues were raised and discussed
with the Sheriffs Department, Pomona Traffic Court and the City
Attorney's office: 1) speed trap/radar enforcement because Vehicle
Code Sec. 40803 prohibits the use of evidence obtained from a speed
trap unless a documented speed study had been maintained and
updated every five years; 2) definition of a local street/road as defined
by Vehicle Code Section 40802 (b) which states that a local street is
when all the following three conditions are met: a) roadway width is
not more than 40 ft; b) not more than 1/2 mile of uninterrupted lanes;^I
c) not more than 1 lane of traffic in each direction; 3) ambiguity from
the definition of interruptions as set forth in Vehicle Code Section
40802. After much discussion and investigation, the Traffic &
Transportation Commission recommended that Council adopt a policy
JULY 25, 1995 PAGE 21
to require all residential streets to be maintained at a prima facie
speed limit of 25 MPH. If any street does not fall under the definition
of a street/road, then a stop sign warrant analysis study should be
conducted in order to revert those speed limits back to 25 MPH.
Craig Clute, 21217 Fountain Springs, asked that the 25 MPH signs be
posted and enforced. He supported staffs recommendation for the
prima facie speed limit; however, he did not want to see the street
MPH limit to increase because of the traffic study.
Jack Istik, Traffic & Transportation Commission, 22607 E. Dry Creek
Rd., advised that Mr. Clute attended the 16 meetings that pertained
to this issue and his comments included safety on residential streets.
After discussing the issue of enforcing the speed limit on residential
streets with the Sheriffs Department, the Sheriffs Department
indicated that they can enforce with a radar gun.
In response to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger reported the issue of
enforcement on Decorah Rd. will be discussed at the August Traffic
& Transportation meeting.
C/Ansari moved, MPT/Werner seconded to approve the
recommendation that the Council establish a Speed Limit
Determination Policy on local residential streets.
M/Papen asked staff what their plans are for notifying the community,
enforcement and if there would be a warning period before tickets are
issued.
CM/Belanger explained that notification was not planned for a parcel
by parcel or postal address notification but a news release will be
publisred through the Windmill, Highlander, Bulletin and Tribune.
Once the speed limit signs go up, that is notice to anyone driving
those streets that that is the street's speed limit. There will be no
enforcement until those signs are posted.
M/Papen asked that temporary signs be posted advising of the new
speed limit in addition to a press release.
MPT/Werner asked if there had been any speed limit changes in the
City limits.
Warren Siecke, Consulting Traffic Engineer, advised that the most
recent speed zone survey and changes were increases on Kiowa
Crest and Palomino. He offered a technique of placing some type of
alerting device to the new speed limit signs.
M/Papen amended her motion to include and provide $2,000 for
JULY 25, 1995
PAGE 22
changed signs and use of the mobile speed trailer as a warning
technique. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony,
MPT/Werner, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Ansari announced that the final round of
strategic plan workshops for the San Gabriel Valley will be held on August 8,
1995 at 6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. at the West Covina Senior Center, 2501 East
Cortez Street, West Covina.
MPT/Werner announced that Mr. Todd Chavers had resigned from the Traffic
& Transportation Commission and announced that he is looking for a
replacement. He suggested that a City Tile be presented to Mr. Chavers at
the August 15, 1995 Council meeting.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Continued to August 15, 1995.
4. COUNCIL COMMENTS Continued to August 15, 1995
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS Continued to August 15, 1995
11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to
discuss, M/Papen adjourned the meeting in memory of Michael Ortiz at 11:10
p.m. to August 1, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. for approval of the Warrant Register.
a*x� 6&'b�
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
ATTEST:
A".
Mayor