HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/1995 Minutes - Special MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 23, 1995
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Papen called the meeting to order at 6:12
-, p.m., at the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by MPT/Werner.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller,
Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery,
Interim City Attorney, James DeStefano, Community Development Director and
Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL, PLAN - M/Papen stated that with respect
to the Housing Element, public testimony was received by the Council on
February 16, 1995 and continued to this meeting.
Regarding Mr. Smith's recommendation on Page II -3, M/Papen directed staff
to update residential property values. She further directed staff to update
Table II -3 on Page U-10 as well as change the data on Page II -14,11-15A. and
II -15B to be consistent with the Land Use Element.
MPT/Werner requested, on Page II -15, that the following words be added to
the last sentence, under Rural Residential: "...or less, depending upon the
establishment of a Slope Density Ordinance,"
On Page II -17 and 11-18, 2 a Absence of Governmental Funding, M/Papen
asked that the following language be added: "The City of Industry, under
SB 1718 is required to contribute approximately $8 or 9 million annually to
the County Housing Authority for the construction of low and moderate
housing within a five mile radius of the City of Industry." She stated that the
City would be qualified to apply for this funding. Further, any changes made
in the Land Use Element would need to be reflected on Page II -17, under the
categories "Medium Density, High Density Residential and Specific Plan and
Planned Development."
MPT/Werner suggested that on Page II -19, details for parking, height and
open space standards be deleted.
- Mr. Cotton responded that the Dept. of Housing & Community Development
requires that the General Plan indicate the ordinances that a e in place with
regard to these standards because they act as constraints on affordable
housing. If standards are changed, a General Plan amendment would be
required.
FEBRUARY 23, 1995
PAGE 2
I
Regarding Page H-20, second paragraph under e, Processing Time, C/Miller
suggested the first sentence be changed to reflect current conditions as
follows: "Development processing time in Diamond Bar should be shorter
than processing through the County of Los Angeles."
M/Papen recommended the paragraph be left as written. Council concurred.
Regarding Mr. Smith's comments that Page U-21 does not reflect actual
conditions, Council directed staff to reword the first sentence of paragraph
four which discusses the sewer lines in "The Country Estates" and that it be
modified to reference that "there are 140 lots on (blank) number of acres
within'The Country Estates' not on sewer."
With respect to Page II -25, M/Papen suggested that the fourth paragraph be
amended to read: "The Council and the Diamond Bar Mediation Center�also
handle local landlord -tenant disputes within Diamond Bar, and indicates, that
there are approximately 1-2 discrimination complaints per month from
residents in Diamond Bar." Regarding 11-27, Goal 2, she directed staff to
correct the spelling of "regardless." Regarding the second sentence on Page
II -31 under L.A. County Housing Authority, "annually" should be included
so the sentence reads: "An estimated $9 million annually to be made available
through the County for affordable housing, new construction, acquisition,
rehabilitation and preservation." Further, the three Goals in the Housing
Element should begin with "Consistent with the Vision Statement" per
MPT/Werner's request.
Edward C. Jacobs, Pres. and CEO, L.A. Area C^until, Boy Scouts of
America, read two letters addressed to the Council.
MPT/Werner believed that the Boy Scouts are in support of a Land Use
designation on the Firestone property of," Specific Plan." He indicated he was
told by the Wildlife Corridor JPA that the Boy Scouts approached'them
indicating they wish to sell to JPA their interest in the property. He asked Mr.
Jacobs to reconcile the request for Specific Plan designation and a sale of the
property to a wildlife conservation group.
Mr. Jacobs explained that the fiduciary responsibility of the Boy Scout Board
is to explore all opportunities.
Toby Liebermann, Project Manager, Kosmont & Associates, land use
consultants to the Boy Scouts, stated that the request was to clarify that there
may be portions of the property that are not at 25% or more slope. The
Scouts are conducting a topographical study to indicat,. which portions would
come under a slope ordinance and which portions would not.
FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 3
M/Papen asked staff if there are topographical maps on file that would reflect
that the entire property has a slope 25% or greater.
CDD/DeStefano answered that staff has no topographical map for the Boy
Scout property. Based on a survey of all of vacant properties in the City, staff
concluded that the Boy Scout property contains slopes greater than 25%.
C/Miller indicated that the General Plan is inaccurate because there are slopes
contained within the Boy Scout property that are less than 25%.
MPT/Werner concurred with the request of the Boy Scouts.
Responding to Mr. Smith, CDD/DeStefano stated that the Housing
Opportunities Area Map on Page 1I -15B needs to be clarified. The intent of
the map was to show where the housing opportunity areas exist. The Specific
Plan designated areas on the map reflect the Land Use Element's desire for a
future Specific Plan. With respect to the Specific Plan designation, the
underlying zoning of Agricultural designates one dwelling unit per parcel.
C/Mller stated that since there is currently more than one dwelling unit on the
property, the designation is inaccurate.
MPT/Werner agreed with the request to delete reference to one dwelling unit
per parcel since Figure H-1 on Page II -15B has four land use designations
ranging from Rural Residential through High Density Residential. The
Specific Plan is an overlay and adds to the underlying land use designation and
can allow all of the other uses otherwise permitted in the land use designation.
He suggested that Specific Plan is not a designation in the context of the other
designations indicated, it is more of an overlay.
In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that an application
package for Specific Plan would incorporate a General Plan amendment. The
Specific Plan would serve as an overlay to the zoning which would likely
change. The sphere of influence would probably come to the City in the form
of a pre -annexation agreement.
C/Miller stated that the language grants entitlements. In the event that the
property contains more than one parcel, the City could be granting
entitlements where the intent is for Specific Plan. He felt it was appropriate
to remove the 1 du per parcel.
M/Papen stated the Council supports both requests from the Boy Scouts with
b! respect to the Housing Element.
With no further testimony, offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing.
FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 4
�ipl
LAND USE ELEMENT:;'; R,
M/Papen suggested that on Page I-10, Strategy 1.1.1, the Council adopt
MPT/Wernees suggestion to add "or less, depending upon the establishment
of a siope density ordinance` so that the sentence reads: "The maximum gross
density of Rural Residential will be 1.0 dwelling unit per gross acre or less,
depending upon the establishment of a slope density ordinance." She
reiterated Council's desire to review Land Use categories to allow the City to
comply with the REND numbers for low and moderate housing. She asked
that the following two classifications be added to Page I-11: 1) change
Strategy 1.1.1 e. High Density Residential from 16.0 dwelling units per acre
to 20.0 dwelling units per acre; and 2) add a classification between Medium
Density and High Density to read: Medium -High Density with 16.0 units per
acre.
MPT/Werner requested that , staff present a statement regarding State
regulations dealing with density bonuses for low and moderate income
housing.
Don Cotton, Cotton/Beland & Assoc., stated that a State mandate allows for
f a maximum 25% density bonus for affordable units when they are added as
part of a new project. According to the mandate, a developer must be
permitted an increased number of units not to exceed 25%.
s
MPT/Werner suggested that the band Use designations remain as written and
add a statement which acknowledges the State mandate, in language, that
makes it clear to all property owners, that it is a possibility under State law
that a developer may invoke this provision.
Mr. Cotton indicated such a provision will not aid in obtaining the finding of
compliance from HCD because this is part of the law. The policy of HCD in
the recent past has been to require that the maximum allowable number of
units be at least 25 per acre in order to be considered affordable. Through
conversations with HCD, the City has had an indication that 20 units may be
an acceptable minimum because of the constraints that exist in D.B.
Responding to MPT/Wemer, ICA/Montgomery stated that HCD has
paramount authority. Tf they elect to do so, they may suspend the General
Plan or attempt to impose regulations by notification or court order. The
greatest threat is from activists filing to enjoin development or issuance of
building permits'based upon an allegation that the General Plan is lacking
because the Housing Element does not meet State standards.
CDD/DeStefano stated that staff is supportive of a 20 unit per acre maximum
density position. He understood that the 20 unit per acre maximum that the
City of Walnut proposed has been acceptable to by HCD as their Housing
FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 5
m Element is being reviewed. Walnut and D.B. have very similar characteristics
with respect to the availability of sites, topography and environmental issues.
Applying 20 unit per acre classifications to flat land properties in the City plus
a 25% bonus meets the HCD number of 25 dwelling units per acre. In the
stated opinion of HCD, 25 unit per acre densities are required for affordable
housing in L.A County absent any other subsidies that the local agency might
provide to drive down the cost of ownership or rental housing.
Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano identified the following properties
which were built 20 or 22 units per acre that would be reclassified should the
Council approve the 20 unit per acre maximum: the Daisey Apartments on
Grand Ave. with a density of almost 17 units per acre. The Hampton Ct.
condominiums on Washington St. at Brea Canyon Rd., with dznsity of about
17 units per acre. The Village condominiums on Golden Spgs. has a density
of slightly more than 20 units per acre. The highest density project is the Fall
Creek condominium project behind the K -Mart shopping center at
approximately 21.8 units per acre.
Also in response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that there are 53 areas
- identified as Vacant Land Housing Opportunity Areas. Referring to the
schematic and map, the following areas are available for housing
opportunities: #3, #4, #6, #7, #13, #14, #20, #21, #25, #29, #31 and #34,
#39, #40, #41, #48, #49, #50, #51 and #52. The final site not shown on the
map is identified as parcel #54, two acres behind the D.B. Congregational
Church.
Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that parcel #24 is
approximately 2 acres and zoned at 30 units per acre. This site has a building
restriction, it is a flood hazard area and has significant slope.
M/Papen asked if there are available properties in the City that are not
currently zoned Commercial or Industrial but could be.
CDD/DeStefano stated that parcel #45 (approx. 5 acres) owned by JCC could
qualify for this designation and is presently designated at about 25 units per
acre. The General Plan recommended by the Planning Commission and
supported by staff recommends a Commercial designation for this site. The
second area is the School District property. It is approximately 15 to 20 acres
and is more suitable for an industrial site and continuation of a public facility.
MPT/Werner asked if staff feels there is any opportunity for a 20 unit per acre
project in the Gateway Corporate Center area.
I
CDD/DeStefano responded that the Gateway Corporate Center area is
approximately 200 acres of a Master Planned Development. The areas which
might be considered are #33 through #47 on the map. He felt that, at present,
FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 6
those sites would be better suited for Commercial Office Space, Headquarters
Office Space, etc and continuing the theme established within the Gateway
Center. He would not recommend a mixed-use product.
Responding to M/Papen, CDDIDeStefano stated the Tres Hermanos area
within the jurisdiction of the City is approximately 80'0 acres and identified as
parcel #6. It is owned by the City of Industry's Redevelopment Agency and
is part of the larger 2,700 acre total Tres Hermans Ranch property that flows
over into Chino Hills. It is a candidate site for a number of different land uses
including multi -family. Some cities have established concentrated areas for
providing low and moderate income housing. Over the years, that has been
determined to be an unacceptable practice for a number of reasons. Most
recently, HCD has frowned upon the cities that tend to lump all of their
responsibilities into one single location. This site is appropriate for some of
,he low and moderate income housing., Staff would r,t recommend that the
entirety of the City's responsibility be placed in that site. The City has not yet
to develop specifics for the site. _`
i
CDD/DeStefano stated there is one additional site which might be a suitable
candidate for commercial zoning. This site is Lorbeer Junior High and the
adjacent church. Although the site currently has other uses, it affords the
opportunity for reclassification and relocation of the existing land uses, '' W
M/Papen reiterated that staff recommended four sites for high density housing
opportunities which are parcels #4, #6, 420, #25 #54.
l CDD/DeStefano indicated that these sites should be considered candidates for
a 20 unit per acre density and that the four existing products be designated
with a 20 unit designation. The two considerations for Commercial property
are site #45 and the WVUSD property on Lemon Ave. The Council has
7.etters from the Boy Scouts, -'the, -School District, Bramwea, Shell Oil, SA'SAK
and RnP objecting to a Land Use designation on their properties. All of 'these
items are to be considered by the Council.
Responding to C/Ansari, ICA/Montgomcry stated that if the letters from
property owners are read into the record, public hearing can be held at this
meeting.
Responding to QlHarmony, ICA/Montgomery stated that the opinion
regarding the owners° objection to the Open Space designation on Lots 1 and
61 has not been completed; however, it will be available for the February 28
meeting.
M/Papen stated that the owners of the school district property on Brea
Canyon Rd. object to" an Open Space designation and have asked for a
Planned Development designation. Regarding Site D, the School District is
FEBRUARY 23, 1995 - PAGE 7
seeking a designation of Planned Development. Bramalea would like to be
zoned Planned Development with the stipulation that approximately 70% of
the property would not be developed and that the entire density would be in .
one parcel.
MPT/Werner reminded staff that Council requested the City Attorney to
clarify some land use issues.
Responding to NI/Papen, Kevin Hughes, Shell Western Exploration and
Production, 1800 E. Lambert Rd., Suite 225, Brea read a letter from his firm.
In response to MPT/Werner, Mr. Hughes stated he is not familiar with the
Williamson Act. He will determine if this has any bearing on the property.
MPT/Werner stated that the Williamson Act is an Agricultural designation for
tax purposes.
MPT/Werner asked if Shell would oppose any efforts on the part of the City
to expand the sphere of influence westerly, and with respect to the properties
F currently within the sphere of influence and what was Shell's attitude
regarding annexation.
Mr. Hughes indicated that a constructive dialogue regarding both properties
would be very important. Shell would be opposed to annexation with regard
to the property west of the SOI. Regarding the property east of SR 57, there
are no current plans.
MPT/Werner favored retaining the existing zoning of those properties outside
of the City limits and negotiating terms for possible annexation to the City.
He asked Mr. Hughes if this would be adverse to Shell's position.
Mr. Hughes stated that while it would not necessarily be adverse, it would not
give Shell the flexibility it seeks.
MPT/Werner stated that the designation of the property east of the SR 57 as
SP would not impact Shell's zoning as long as the property remains in L.A.
County. He asked Mr. Hughes if Shell would have an adverse reaction to
leave the designation AG rather than SP.
Mr. Hughes responded that they would not view it as an adverse policy,
however, it would create more work for them.
y Responding to M/Papen, MPT/Werner stated he would prefer to have the
existing zoning remain in place for all of the sphere of influence properties.
However, he is open to debate the issue with Council,
FEBRUARY 23, 19
95 PAGE 8
C&Oer asked Mr. Hughes of it is Shell's perception that the City is unwilling
to work with Shell in the future and by applying the Agricultural designation,
the City is not granting flexibility. Conversely, by applying an SP designation
it gives Shell the feeling that the City is open to ShelPs recommendations.
Mr. Hughes responded that this is Shell's perception.
M/Papen announced that the Public Hearing for Lots 1 and 61 will be
continued to Tuesday, February 28, 1995.
CDD/DeStefano reported that Boy Scout issues outlined in their letters
related to the Land Use Element begin on Page I-26, Table I-3, fourth line.
The bottom portion of the table shows the 3,200 acre property in the sphere
of influence is stricken. The information was restored because it was removed
due to a typographical error. The next item has been dealt with in' the
Housing Element. The third item in the letter refers to I-12, Strategy 1,.1.7
stating there is an inconsistency between this description and identification of
park designations. The description of the Park designation was a refinement
by the Planning Commission when the Commission was considering
designating the Boy Scout property as Private Recreation (PR). Upon further
review by the Commission, they agreed to change the designation of the -,Boy
Scout property to Agricultural/Specific Plan. Therefore, the statement
regarding the Firestone Boy Scout Camp should be stricken from, this
strategy. The final item deals with the Housing Element and slopes greater
than 25% and that issue was covered. The concluding paragraph of the letter
suggests that rejection of their requests would be contradictory to the
intended SP designation and damaging to the interests of the Boy Scouts and
that point is deserving of more Council discussion and conclusion regarding
the appropriate designation for their site.
Seeing no objection from Council, MJ Papen stated that staff corrections to the
General Plan will include the Boy Scout's requested changes and corrections.
Mr. Cotton stated that in the course of all of the changes to the Generali Plan
and the Boy Scout's requested changes to Table II -1, all of the language that
is designated either Agriculture or, Specific Plan has no underlying density
designation. He recommended that the Council assign a density designation
of either 1 du per 5 acres or as high as 1 du per 40 acres as a permitted use.
He further stated that under State law, the City is -required to indicate the
allowable intensity or density of use of any properties overed by the General
Plan.
Responding to M/Papen, Mr. Cotton stated that Strategy 1.1.8, Page I-12 and
Strategy 1.1.9, Page I-13 should contain a density designation. He further
stated that there are additional Agricultural designations in other areas iof the
General Plan.
J1
_.__... ..-... -, ......11 i ..,., , ..,i:. Li_uue,; Vin.. ,4�%�-�]^l�
FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 9
M/Papen asked if this requirement would include the PD designation.
CDVDeStefano responded that it would not be included.
In response to M/Papen, Mr. Cotton referred the Council to Table I-3 on
Page I-26. Under Permitted Density/Intensity, other Designations, no
intensity is given, only reference to a footnote. The AG/SP and the AG
designations do not presently have any underlying intensity or density standard
and he believed that this is desirable. Under case law, the density standard
could be as high as 1 du per 5 acres. It is unlikely that that land would
develop under those standards, but it does establish a density standard for the
area.
MPT/Werner recommended that the City follow the current zoning of AG and
indicate the residential density prescribed under current L.A. County zoning
of 1 du per 2 acres for purposes of consistency.
CDD/DeStefano recommended that this issue be explored further and to
present a recommendation to Council regarding an appropriate
intensity/density classification for the AG and AG/SP Land Use designations.
Mr. Hughes indicated that Shell would like the opportunity to review
alternatives with staff.
Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated the matter would be brought
before the Council at the February 28 General Plan meeting.
David Araujo suggested that with respect to the Open Space designation, the
Council include wording to allow for a property owner of a single property
dwelling to expand his home or build a structure on the property without
affecting other Open Space designations throughout the City.
Responding to Mr. Araujo, C/Miller stated that he does not propose that the
City should change the designation of deeded open space or recorded open
space property. He was concerned with the rights of property owners and did
not want to use police or government power abuse to take properties.
For the record, M/Papen noted that the Council had voted 5-0 in support of
the conservancy.
Wilbur Smith stated that referring to slope density on Page I-10, Strategy
1.1.1 is confusing. He further stated that 20 units per acre would be
appropriate if the rent is affordable to low income families. -
Max Maxwell asked that copies of the letters be available for pickup at City
FEBRUARY 23, 1995
PAGE 10
Hall.
M/Papen reiterated previous General Plan changes and asked for Council
consensus:
On Page I-3, 3 Sphere of Influence, include Shell and other property owners
to reflect a better description.
Regarding Shell's request to include the Sphere of Influence property under
1. Land Use Mix Issue Analysis, Page I-7, this item will be held over for
discussion by the Council.
On Page I-10, Goal 1, add "Consistent with the Vision Statement" to', the
beginning of the sentence.
Regarding Page I-10, Strategy 1.1.1 a., add the language ".or less density
depending upon the establishment of a Slope Density Ordinance."
On Page I-11, regarding the issue of adding medium-high density with 16
dwelling units per acre and high density at 20 dwelling units per acre, Council
agreed to hold the item for discussion...
Regarding Item f under Strategy 1.1.1., Page I- 11, remove the word "scale"
from the first and second lines.
Item g., Strategy 1.1.1, Page I-11 is moved to Strategy 1.5.3, Page I-17.
Council requested alternative language on Open Space under Strategy 1,.1.6,
Page I-12. This item is held nor future discussion.
On Page I-12, Strategy 1.1.7, the Firestone Boy Scout Camp requested their
name be deleted since they are in a different classification. Council concurred.
With respect to Page 1-17, Strategy 1.5.4 a., change the strategy to read:
"Acquisition of land for parks and natural area conservation through a process
of entitlement review and density transfers." Council concurred.
Add Strategy 1. 5.4 d. on Page I -17 -to read: "Through the entitlement process
where the landowner/developer would agree to sell at less than market value
or dedicate property in exchange for development rights." Council concurred.
C/Ansari requested a discussion on Objective 1.5 and attached Strategies.
Because she will be absent for some period of time, she requested that the
final decision for changes and approval be held until she returns and that she
be given adequate time to review any proposed changes with staff and one
Council Member to comply with'the Brown Act.
._. .R..._ _.., R.L ._ ..-.4 - 1 . . ,. R.
r � -
.i , o-" 41,,n�e. :
FEBRUARY 23, 1995
PAGE 11
=L_L- -- --- - - _ �__ __-._ _ -
Regarding Strategy 1.5.5, Page I-17, delete "smaller" from the second to last
sentence.
With respect to Strategy 1.6.5, Page I-18, Bramalea requested that Open
Space in :he last line be changed to "Planned Development." This item is held
for further Coun A consideration.
Oen page I-19, Goal 2, Page I-20, Goal 3 and Page I-23, Goal 4 add
"Consistint wiib the Vision Statement" to the beginning of the sentence.
Regarding Strategy 4.2.2, Page I-24 Council will hold discussion on Shell's
objectors. ,
C/Ansari stated that she would like to see more areas designated on the map
for medium and high density development. She was concerned about some
of the designations that some of the property owners requested such as the
change requested by WVUSD on Site D to Planned Development. She stated
she preferred that the South Pointe property remain Open Space or Open
Space/Specific Plan. Regarding Bramalea, there needs to be clearer wording
developed with respect to the designation of the 30% and 70% issue. She
understood the concerns of Shell and she agreed with AG/SP. She indicated
the proposed Boy Scout request for changes need further discussion. She was
also concerned with areas of the General Plan which refer to Planned
Development. The Plan needs very clear language so that citizens understand
what is meant by this designation.
Responding to M/Papen, C/Ansari agreed with the Commercial designation
for the school district property on Lemon Ave. and the JCC site at the
off -ramp ofthe SR 60 and D.B. Blvd. In addition, she felt that any of the four
sites previously mentioned for high density development would be
appropriate.
C/Miller moved, C/Ansari seconded to incorporate changes requested in the
previous discussion by Council and the requests in writing by the Boy Scouts
of America and that these changes be implemented to the Housing Element.
The revised Housing Element should be expeditiously prepared by staff with
four days and brought back to Council for final approval within 30 days. With
the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, Miller,
MPT/Werner,
M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
4
FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 12
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:08 P-m-
TOMMYE CRIIBBIN . S, Deputy City- Cle�k
ATTEST:
Mayor
N
1
1�