Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/17 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MARCH 21, 2017 CLOSED SESSION: Public Comments: 5:15 P.M., Room CC -8 None Public Employee Appointment Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 Recessed at 5:47 p.m. to Study Session STUDY SESSION: 5:49 p.m., Room CC -8 10FY- 2017-18 Strategic Plan — Discussion and Action. Public Comments: None Recessed at 6:35 p.m. to Regular Meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lin called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. in the South Coast Air. Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA. CM/DeStefano stated there were no reportable actions taken during the Closed Session with respect to the City Manager appointment process. During tonight's Study Session, staff presented the draft 2017-18 Strategic Plan. Council received the presentation and provided comments and thoughts for a future Council discussion. The Strategic Plan will be brought back for Council Consideration at an upcoming City Council Meeting. The Study Session began at 5:49 p.m. and concluded at 6:35 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Pastor Thad Lanthripe, Church of the Valley, gave the invocation ROLL CALL: Council Members Herrera, Lyons, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Low and Mayor Lin Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David DeBerry, City Attorney; Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Ken Desforges, IS Director; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Anthony Santos, Assistant to the City Manager; Alfa Lopez, Senior Management Analyst; Mayuko (May) Nakajima, Associate Planner; Fabian Aoun, Assistant Engineer; Amy Haug, Human Resources/Risk Manager; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: None. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — March 23, 2017 — 7:00 p.m. —Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.2 Planning Commission Meeting — March 28, 2017 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.3 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting — March 29, 2017 — 6:30 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.4 State of the City — March 30, 2017 — 6:00 p.m., Grand View Ballroom, 1600 S. Grand Avenue. 5.5 City Council Meeting — April 4, 2017 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Tye moved, MPT/Low seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 6.6 pulled by C/Herrera for separate consideration. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lyons, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lin NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None, 6.1 WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AND ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 6.2 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 6.2.1 Study Session Minutes of March 7, 2017 — as submitted. 6.2.2 Regular Meeting of March 7, 2017 — as submitted. 6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AND GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES: 6.3.1 General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of October 12, 2016. 6.3.2 Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2017. 6.3.3 Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2017. MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL 6.4 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER DATED March 2, 2017 through March 15, 2017 totaling $795,222.68. 6.5 APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH THE TAIT GROUP (TTG) - IN THE NOT -TO -EXCEED AMOUNT OF $33,600 FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING/ADVOCACY SERVICES RELATED TO THE STATE ROUTE 57/60 FREEWAY CONGESTION RELIEF STRATEGY AND STATE/FEDERAL FREIGHT PLANS. 6.7 APPROPRIATED $30,000 OF QUIMBY FUND RESERVES TO THE FY 2016-17 CIP BUDGET; ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2017-07 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT PAYMENT ACCOUNT; AWARDED THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE LONGVIEW PARK SOUTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO DD SYSTEM, INC. DBA ACE CD IN THE AMOUNT OF $282,589.83 AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $28,259 (10% OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT) FOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $310,848.83. 6.6 AWARD A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT FOR STREET SWEEPING SERVICES TO R.F. DICKSON CO., INC. IN THE NOT -TO -EXCEED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $176,489. C/Herrera said she was concerned that the City was again awarding a contract to a company that has received a lot of complaints from residents who said their streets were not adequately swept clean and have observed the brushes being up instead of down on the street. She recognizes the desire to go with the lowest bidder but the second bidder was not that far off and she has a problem granting a three-year contract to a company that staff found to be unsatisfactorily doing their job. She has seen a huge accumulation of leaves that have been at the same location for a period of time on streets where they are almost stuck to the ground. She is wondering what the street sweeper does when encountering these types of situations in failing to adequately sweep up the leaves. As such, she cannot support staffs recommendation. C/Tye said that when one drives the length of Diamond Bar Boulevard it is medians and there are certain areas of the City that have painted medians (a double yellow line) and it has debris in it. He asked staff if it was the responsibility of the street sweeper to go into that area and clear it of the debris or are they only curb street sweeping? MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL CM/DeStefano stated that the recommendation within the detailed report from City staff is to reauthorize/extend the contract with RF Dickson Co. The City has had a contract with that company since incorporation and they have consistently been the low bidder. Overall, they have performed very well. There have been advancements in technology over the years that allow staff to track equipment which allows staff to know exactly where they are and how fast they are traveling the streets. The City has a program in place that discusses when the streets are swept, how often they are swept, what times of the year they may be swept more than other times of the year and to further explain what the City expects PWD/Liu will provide detail. If the City Council wishes to direct staff with additional information, there is time to make this decision which does not have to be made this evening. PWD/Liu stated that the City's street sweeping scheduled for 10 months of the year is bi-weekly and weekly service for the months of December and January. With respect to the number of complaints of the quality of service, they are few and far between. The City typically gets calls once a week that are generally questions about the schedule and parking requirements. When there are concerns about the arterials or residential streets staff always follows up with the contractor to make sure they understand what needs to be done. In fact, this RFP contains that item which was added because previous practice had been that if the street sweeper came upon those specific areas they were to make sure they came back at a later time to clean up those areas. For the past six to eight months staff has been paying attention to the painted median areas along the boulevards as well as, coordination of residential streets between the City's maintenance staff and the street sweeping operator. There is constant communication between staff and the street sweeper and if for some reason the street sweeper comes upon certain conditions that prohibits him from picking up a large pile of debris, for example, he communicates that back to staff and maintenance picks up the debris and vice versa. Indeed, the City tracks the whereabouts of the street sweepers and communicates regularly with the dispatcher when there is an issue or conditions reported to City Hall. In terms of the quality of service, staff has not reached the point where it feels this is a contractor the city should bypass. When reviewing the end result through the RFP process, it was not only clear to staff that the company had been serving the City satisfactorily over the years but in surrounding communities as well. With respect to other prospective vendors, Diamond Bar has no experience with them and has not made an effort to reach out to clients of the other two companies to get a better understanding about how they have been performing. With almost 20 years of service by Dickson, PWD/Liu personally feels satisfied with their services. Again, staff serves at the direction of the City Council. MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL MPT/Low pointed out that the contract permits the City to terminate it upon 30 -days written notice to the contractor and regardless how long the contract goes the City has that option. She suggested a six-month or one year option with staff to follow up might be workable. C/Lyons concurred with MPT/Low that it might be in Council's best interest to approve a short term contract and ask staff to report back in terms of how many problems and what types of problems there are. C/Tye asked if there were more than the three bidders who responded. PWD/Liu responded that there were only three responses to the RFP proposals. C/Herrera moved, C/Lyons seconded, to award a one-year contract for street sweeping services to RF Dickson Co. and for staff to take a closer look at their performance during the next year. CM/DeStefano stated that based upon C/Herrera's motion, the process would be an evaluation about nine months from now so that if the work appears to be satisfactory, staff would begin the process of negotiating a multi-year contract at that time. If the work does not appear to be satisfactory, that gives five or six months to solicit new proposals from different vendors possibly including this vendor so that it would be done by June/July 2018 matching the one-year extension if approved this evening. Another idea would be to make the same motion with the added provision for a specific amount of additional years to be at the option of the City or City Manager after an evaluation, but not one that would necessarily warrant going back out with an RFP with the flat one-year proposal that allows extension of the contract after the one-year period. C/Herrera said she did not want an automatic extension. She wants staff to seriously look at the job performance so that Council can make its decision after the one-year term. If it requires going out to bid again, so be it. C/Lyons restated her second. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lyons, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lin NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL 7. PUBLIC HEARING: 7.1 ORDINANCE 02 (2017) OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING TITLE 10 BY ADDING SECTION 10.16.215 TO THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE OVERNIGHT PARKING OF VEHICLES IN CITY -OWNED PARKING LOTS. AtoCM/Santos reported that the primary purpose for parking at City facilities is to provide a place where persons (residents, patrons, visitors) can temporarily park their vehicles in order to access programs and services. In the past, the City Council has amended parking restrictions over time as well as, instituted preferential parking districts. In an effort to enhance the City's building security and facilities security, staff looked at the Code and determined that there was a need to bring forward to the City Council an Ordinance for consideration specific to the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. As such, the Ordinance before the City Council would amend Title 10, Vehicles and Traffic of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code to add Section 10.16.215 to read: "No person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle on any City -owned parking lot between the hours of 2:00 am and 5:00 am. The City Engineer shall erect and maintain adequate signs on City -owned parking lots specifying the limitation on the time of parking. Nothing in this section shall apply to government owned vehicles operated by the City, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department or any other emergency responders. Those in violation of this section may be issued a parking citation". This Ordinance means to assist the City's Public Safety partners, the Sheriff's Department, to have a better idea of vehicles that should and should not be at City facilities which is for their safety and security so they know what is going on at City facilities. This would not impact City -owned vehicles and approved Public Safety Agencies but would be focused only on vehicles that are parked overnight between 2:00 and 5:00 am for identification purposes. C/Herrera asked if this ordinance covers vehicles who park in park parking lots to carpool like many do at Summitridge Park. AtoCM/Santos responded that in 2015 the City Council took action specific to those concerns which focused on people using parking lots as intended for park purposes only which was Ordinance No. 01 (2015). This Ordinance proposes to make sure that the City's parks, facilities and parking lots associated with those facilities are used for those intended purposes to insure that between the hours of 2:00 and 5:00 am to make certain no vehicles are parked overnight. MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL MPT/Low asked if there were several incidents of people parking in City - owned parking lots overnight which is what this Ordinance is addressing. AtoCM/Santos responded that MPT/Low was correct MPT/Low asked if there were additional remedies to citations such as towing of the vehicle or simply an accumulation of citations. AtoCM/Santos said at this point it would be citations, but from a safety standpoint a couple of things could happen: failure to pay the citations could result in towing of a vehicle, it could prevent the owner from registering their vehicle and if the vehicle has expired tags or was stolen and deposited in a City -owned parking lot it would allow for identification. MPT/Low asked if the City could merely change signs to indicate "no parking between 2:00 and 5:00 am. Vehicle subject to being towed." CM/DeStefano responded that the City has the ability to tow now but the Public Safety personnel have been extraordinarily effective in citing vehicles that have been improperly parked. Those vehicles are usually gone by the end of the day and do not reappear. He does not recall an instance where there has been a need to tow because the vehicles are generally removed by the owners or users. MPT/Low asked if vehicles that are parked in facilities are empty or if they have people inside. CM/DeStefano said they are not being used as housing. Vehicles are typically parked by those engaged in carpooling. The City is particularly concerned with facilities such as the Diamond Bar Center, Summitridge Park, and Diamond Canyon Park, more so than other parks. Park parking lots are frequently used as convenient parking for nearby employment centers. Summitridge has been particularly problematic because some who use it as a parking lot happen to work inside The Country Estates which takes away parking for those who wish to use the lot to be able to recreate at the City's facility. C/Lyons asked for confirmation that people who work graveyard shifts could park in carpool lots. AtoCM/Santos responded "yes." M/Lin opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, M/Lin closed the Public Hearing at 7:16 p.m. MARCH 21. 2017 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL C/Herrera moved, MPT/Low seconded, to adopt for First Reading, by title only Ordinance No. 02 (2017) and scheduled Second Reading for the City Council's April 4, 2017 meeting. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lyons Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lin None None 7.2 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2017-08: APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72035 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING 4.2 ACRE LOT INTO THREE LOTS FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THE TWO NEWLY CREATED LOTS LOCATED AT 22702 TIMBERTOP LANE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN 8713- 028-012). CM/DeStefano stated that this item comes to the City Council with the recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission after conducting a public hearing on the matter. Staff is asking that the City Council receive a report from CDD/Gubman, open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, debate the merits and take action. CDD/Gubman reported that the matter before the City Council involves a proposed subdivision of property in the Diamond Bar Country Estates which is a private gated community that is subject to the CC&R's of a private homeowners association. The circumstances under which the Council is being asked to decide this matter are somewhat awkward in that the project fully complies with state and city subdivision regulations but is purportedly inconsistent with The Country's CC&Rs. I say purportedly because the City is not a party to those CC&R's and is not in a position to weigh in on what is fundamentally a contract between private entities and not withstanding this potential conflict, the City Council needs to base its decision to approve or deny this Tentative Parcel Map on whether the requested subdivision is consistent with the Diamond Bar Subdivision Code and the California Subdivision Map Act, which staff and the Planning Commission find it to be. That said, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff's recommendation to approve this project now includes a proposed Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to provide evidence that they received the required approvals from the Diamond Bar Country Estates Homeowners Association before the City approves the Final Map. Incorporating this condition would make it crystal clear to all parties involved that the City's decision to grant the requested entitlement does not unbind the subject property from any other encumbrances that could restrict further development upon it. MARCH 21. 2017 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL M/Limn said it seemed to him that the applicant's time was being wasted and asked why the City did not reject his application. CDD/Gubman said staff's recommendation is that the City Council approve the matter because the project complies with all of the regulations that are within the City Council's purview. The applicant knows perfectly well that they are obligated to comply with the CC&R's to which the project is subject which is not a basis for staff to change its recommendation from approval. The difference is that the recommendation of approval is subject to a list of requirements the application must satisfy before they can ultimately record that subdivision. C/Tye said the other point is that the City Attorney has advised that the City is not a party to the CC&Rs and that state law limits the City Council's scope of review. So the Council would have to weigh in on the matter one way or the other. CA/DeBerry explained that there are two different standards that apply to approval of a Tentative Map versus the standard for conditioning the Final Map approval. The Tentative Map says the City looks at its Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act (State Law) in deciding whether or not the Tentative Map can be approved and those are very set objective regulations. However, the City's Ordinance also allows for imposing more subjective conditions on the approval of the Final Map which is where the condition comes in. However, once the Council gets to the Final Map, those subjective criteria get check marked which means at that point it is a ministerial review. What staff is saying with this condition is that the applicant either needs to provide evidence that the subdivision has been approved by the HOA or, in the alternative, evidence that the CC&R's do not apply to the subdivision. And what staff is attempting to avoid at this stage is getting in between the two parties and opining what the CC&R's do or do not require. C/Lyons asked if the proposed condition is in Council's document. CM/DeStefano responded that is Condition 10 on Page 7 of the Resolution. AP/Nakajima presented staff's report along with a powerpoint presentation explaining that tonight's request is for the approval to subdivide an existing 4.2 acre property into three residential lots. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence also known as the California Bicentennial Home built in 1969 and an accessory structure, both of which are proposed to be preserved. The subdivision would create two additional parcels to accommodate the future construction of homes on these lots. The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) as is the General Plan Land Use designation. On February 14, the Planning Commission, MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL by a 3-2 vote recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA and approve the project. The site is located within The Country Estates on Timbertop Lane on the south side of Lary Meadow Drive between Alamo Heights and Blaze Trail. The view of the property from the west shows that it is surrounded by existing single-family homes. A view of the property looking south shows that the property slopes upward from Lazy Meadow. The site has four protected trees toward the rear of the property; however, none are proposed for removal. The view from Timbertop Lane shows the California Bicentennial Home that currently exists on the lot. The aerial view shows the adjacent homes on Lazy Meadow Drive. The site is surrounded by single-family homes and will therefore be compatible with surrounding uses. The detailed site planning, building footprints, floorplan, landscaping and grading will be submitted for review during the development review process. The lot will be divided into three separate lots. Each lot will be just over one -acre. The California Bicentennial Home will remain on parcel 1. The frontage of the existing property at the end of the Timbertop cul-de-sac measures about 73 feet. The proposed project conforms to all of the City's Subdivision and Development Code standards such as the minimum width, depth and square footage. The project is required to pay park improvement fees pursuant to the Quimby Act. Staff used the most recent land the City acquired which was Washington Park to calculate the fair -market value to acquire the land for park space. Based on this formula and the valuation of the land for the park the in -lieu fee turns out to be $48,228. This fee has been included as a Condition of Approval. On July 1, 2016 as well as, at the Planning Commission meeting, the City received letters from the Diamond Bar Country Estates Homeowners Association stating they have denied the subdivision request. It was stated that the project is in conflict with the HOA's CC&Rs and according to the Association, Parcel 1 does not meet the minimum 100 foot frontage requirement and the existing lots cannot be split into two lots. The City Attorney has advised that because the City is not a party to the CC&R's, state law limits the City Council's scope of review to whether the project is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the State's Subdivision Map Act. The restrictions stated to be in The Country's CC&R's are not in either of these laws. The project fully conforms to the City's Subdivision Ordinance; however, there is a Code Section that authorizes the Council to impose other conditions deemed necessary to achieve compatibility between the proposed subdivision and its surroundings in the community to achieve MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL consistency with the City's Ordinances and State Laws. Therefore, in addition to the Conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the project with the addition of Condition No. 10 to provide the City with evidence that the subdivision complies with the CC&R's or provide proof that no such approval is required. Ultimately, it will be between the property owner and the HOA to resolve their dispute. Staff prepared an Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Two mitigation measures were included under Cultural Resources. As mentioned earlier, the property is developed with a home known as The California Bicentennial Home and the applicant intends to preserve the home onsite. The home was constructed around 1969 and has quite an interesting story in that it was one of the three showcase homes designed and constructed for the sole purpose of promoting custom home development in The Country which was originally developed by the Transamerica Development Company. The historic assessment shows that the home appears eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources due to its association with a famous architect. Additionally, the home appears eligible for local listing as it is important to the City of Diamond Bar; however, Diamond Bar does not have a local historic register. Due to the home's eligibility to the State's Register, it is considered a historic resource under CEQA and thus, in the future, if demolition of the house is desired, then a mitigation measure is designed to reduce the impact to less than significant, and that mitigation would require a "Comprehensive Recordation Program" also known as "The HABS/HAER Heritage Documentation Programs which is recommended by the Historic Consultant. With this recommended mitigation, the project impacts on historic resources will be reduced to a level less than significant. AB52 requires a quest for tribal consultation for projects subject to CEQA. On December 1 the City received a letter the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians tribe, indicating that the project area lies within their jurisdictions and requesting that a Native American monitor be onsite during all grading disturbances (grading and boring) to protect potential cultural resources that might be onsite which is included as a mitigation measure in the Mitigation Program. The Planning Commission and City staff with the additional condition noted earlier, recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the project to allow subdivision of an existing lot into three separate lots, based on the Findings, subject to the Conditions of Approval as listed within the Resolution. MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL MPT/Low asked the period of time the applicant can take to present a Final Map to the City Council for final approval. AP/Nakajima responded that it is three (3) years. MPT/Low asked if the applicant is approved today and the HOA agreed to divide into two lots instead of three, would the applicant be required to come back to the City for approval. AP/Nakajima responded that if the applicant were proposing fewer lots it could be deemed to be in substantial conformance to the approved Tentative Tract Map. MPT/Low then asked if the CEQA aspect of the Bicentennial Home included the acreage that surrounds the home or just simply the structure itself. AP/Nakajima responded that it would apply to the entire site. MPT/Low asked if it would impact the ability to subdivide the property CDD/Gubman explained that the historic resource is the house. If the applicant or any future property owner proposed to demolish the house, the primary component of the historic documentation would be detailed photographs of the interior and exterior of the home along with forensic plans for the house and photographs of the context. Even though the subdivision of the properly could already have occurred and the development of those parcels could already have occurred, the original site would be included as part of that historic documentation, that record of the site's history. MPT/Low asked if it was necessary to have conditions to run with the two subdivisions after it is subdivided so that this condition is preserved. CDD/Gubman said there would need to be a covenant placed on Lot 1 that identifies its historic association, its potential eligibility, so that, that mitigation measure runs with the land so it would provide that additional safeguard, not only upon a demolition application being submitted to the City would trigger a lookup of the property records and the identification of that requirement, but it would also be on the property title so that any successor interest on the property running a title report and through disclosure requirements would become aware of that obligation. MPT/Low asked if this needed to be spelled out in the Conditions of Approval if this project is approved. MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL CDD/Gubman said it could be required as part of the Final Map that the disclosure be recorded against Lot 1 of the subdivision. MPT/Low said, but not Lots 2 and 3 if it is subdivided into three lots? CDD/Gubman said no, those lots would not be encumbered. The requirement is specific to the resource that would become Lot 1 of this proposed subdivision. MPT/Low said then it applies only to the structure and not to the entire 2.4 acre parcel. CDD/Gubman said yes, it is the structure that is the historically significant feature on the site but when one does historic documentation, one needs to go back in time and identify the setting on which the site was originally developed and that could potentially include what would be in the future, three parcels that were once part of this original development site. M/Lin opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. Theresa Lee, speaking on behalf of The Country Estates Homeowners Association, requested that the City Council deny Agenda Item 7.2 for the following reasons: The public hearing was not properly noticed; on February 14 Planning staff failed to address in detail writing that the property is an HOA development and the property title is restricted by the CC&R's; and, The Country's standards are much higher than the City's Municipal Code Section 22.62.090 and Section 22.32 standards. Also, Item 10 of the environmental checklist fails to address that the other agency's approval is required which could be The Diamond Bar Country Estates. HOA letters were submitted to both the Planning Commission and the City Manager which were overlooked at the Planning Commission meeting. James Harkins, legal counsel for the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association said that in addition to the procedural points, he agreed with staff's recommendation of applying a condition if the Council is inclined to disapprove the item outright. Paul Sherwood, agreed with prior speakers. If this lot split is approved by the City with foreknowledge that the Homeowners Association has denied approval and with no conditions, what stops the property owner from going straight to the County and completing the lot split in process and bypassing the Association altogether. He believes the City Council and Commissions should ask property owners to fulfill their obligation to first get approval, when required, from the HOA before the City considers approval. MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL Milan Garrison, Maxsum Development, speaking on behalf of the property owner, said that they have complied with all of the City's Code provisions including the Subdivision Map Act and under its purview that is what the Council is to base its decision on as indicated by the City's staff and attorney. However, the applicant accepts the condition that the property owner deal with the Homeowner's Association regarding the CC&R issue. Although the applicant adamantly disagrees with the HOA's free interpretation of the CC&R's, the applicant is willing to work that out with them through that Condition of Approval. The applicant respectfully asks that the Council approve the subdivision in accordance that the applicant is meeting all of the City's Subdivision Map Act requirements including state law and that the map be moved forward with the acceptance of that condition. Robin Smith asked Council to consider the "big picture" while the City is going through its General Plan update. CEQA says it looks at the whole of an act. In this situation, she feels certain that if there was what she referred to as a "proper CEQA situation" it would encompass the house and the whole lot that the house is on, especially with regard to its historic nature. How can one parcel consider the Native American examination and the other parcels not be considered? This is called "piecemealing" and when things are chopped up in the community and not taken as a whole, the community is damaged. She asked why the City of Diamond Bar is not preserving these very special places. She asked the Councilmembers to consider terms like "spot -zoning" and "up -zoning" which this situation appears to be — a tiny property being changed within a larger community that has a character she believes should be preserved. Frank LeRoy, said he was encouraged about the conditions placed on the proposal and theory of potential cooperation. He asked if the tentative approval had a time limit and if so, he suggested that a decision be delayed until such time the conditions of the CC&R's are met because the big hang up seems to be three to one versus a two to one lot split. If there is one lot in The Country Estates that could be divided per the CC&R's, lot 131 would be it. Mae Liu, said that The Country is known as an open space, private community where C/Lyons is a member. On behalf of the Architectural Committee, we must comply with the HOA architectural rules and regulations. A lot subdivision cannot be more than two lots. A year ago the committee disapproved the applicants for three lots but approved for two lots with a maximum of two properties. They are welcome to build a tennis court on the so-called third lot. She attended the February 14 Planning Commission meeting and recalled there was hardly any discussion prior to voting 3-2 for approval. On behalf of The Country neighbors she demanded the City Council have a thorough discussion if the Council chooses to vote against the HOA rules. In the past the City MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL equired the approval of the local architectural committee prior to submitting an application to the City and she hopes that the City will continue to respect The Country's architectural committee before making its decision. M/Lin closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m C/Lyons referred to Ms. Lee's statement that only two homeowners received notification of tonight's meeting. She asked staff to reiterate the public hearing process. CDD/Gubman said that notices were mailed to all property owners within a 1000 foot radius of the subject property. In the project file there is an affidavit of mailing that has been signed by the Planning Division secretary confirming that the mailing had been performed. C/Lyons asked if the City would normally mail to The Country Estates office. CDD/Gubman said that they should be on the mailing list since the office on Lazy Meadow would be within the 1000 foot radius. MPT/Low asked if there was sufficient notice for the February 14 Planning Commission meeting and tonight's City Council meeting. CDD/Gubman reiterated that notice is provided at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date and notification is published in The Tribune and The Daily Bulletin, via mail to the property owners within 1000 foot radius, via posting of the Public Hearing Notice Board (4x6 ft.) on the subject property and within at least 72 hours prior to the hearing, the agenda is posted in the three conspicuous standard notification bulletin board areas throughout the City and on the City's website. MPT/Low said that a speaker stated that the applicant could go straight to the County and bypass City ordinances to get approval and asked if that was correct. CDD/Gubman said that is not correct. The applicant has to comply with the Conditions of Approval before they can file a Final Map and the City Council has to approve the Final Map upon satisfaction of the Conditions of Approval which include preparation of all of the subdivision improvement plans to demonstrate the constructability of the site including the infrastructure plan, wet and dry utility service to each of proposed parcels which must be technically reviewed by the City's Public Works Engineering Department and the consultants that perform specialized tasks. Mreover, with the added condition staff has proposed, the City would require evidence of HOA approval of the subdivision before staff MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL would bring the Final Map to the Council for ministerial approval. MPT/Low referred to a slide shown during staff's report that indicated that Counsel for The Country Estates Homeowners Association had initially requested a denial, but this evening he stated on the record that he was agreeable to accepting the conditions and based on his statement, he is not requesting a denial. CDD/Gubman said that his understanding of the comment was that their first choice would be that the Council disapprove this request. If the Council elected to approve the subdivision, they endorse adoption of a resolution that includes the added Condition 10. C/Lyons said that another speaker said that in the past, DBCEA Architectural Committee approval had to take place prior to approval of a Tentative Map. CDD/Gubman said that may be a requirement under the CC&Rs and Bylaws of The Country but it is not something that the City requires. In fact, under the City's Development Code for other development projects there is a Code Section that specifically forbids the City from requiring any HOA approvals as a pre -requisite for a city to make a decision on an entitlement request. C/Lyons asked if she understood correctly that if the owner were able to satisfy Condition 10 it would come back to the City Council at a future meeting. CDD/Gubman said the matter would come back to the City Council as a Consent Calendar item with staff report and supporting documentation to provide evidence that all Conditions of Approval had been satisfied. C/Tye said he is conflicted because as he read earlier, the City Attorney has advised that because the City is not a party to CC&Rs. When he thinks of the number of homeowner associations in this City, whether it is the new Willow Heights or Montefino, Vantage Point and others, the City does not get involved in those. But having said that, where does a resident go if they feel they are being railroaded. The City has conditions that trash cans will be taken off the street within a certain amount of time and they will be kept out of view. Diamond Bar has been a City for nearly 28 years and if someone moved here in the last few years they would not know that it is a regulation of the City of Diamond Bar. Is it possible that this homeowner does know that the CC&Rs allow him to break up the lot into two lots and not three lots? The owner is a company. The value of three lots is a lot more than it is for two lots and if he is that developer and he is most interested in maximizing his investment, he would go to the homeowners association to see what he can get done and if he cannot get MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL it done he would go to the Planning Commission. Here is his fear; he goes to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Homeowners Association and gets approval or not. He goes to the Planning Commission and gets approval or not. It is now recommended that the City Council approve it from the Planning Commission. Does this go from here to the County? If the City Council approves this tonight, does it then go to the County for recording? It is unfortunate that this property is contemplated to be broken up into three lots. When this property was purchased it was with the knowledge that if the owner wanted to divide it, it could be divided once into one additional property, not twice and not three times and not what is dictated by the investment. It is frustrating for those property owners to say they have had this CC&R condition since the 60's but that we're now going to look the other way in 2017. It is a very unique neighborhood in that is made up of a minimum of one -acre lots and the restriction is, a property owner will not divide into more than one other lot. So given that the City is not bound by the CC&Rs and given that there should be some kind of protection for these Diamond Bar residents, how does the City accomplish that? With that additional condition? Is that the only opportunity to do so? CDD/Gubman said he is not in a position to verify that there is anything in the CC&Rs that restricts the subdivision to two lots. That's what we hear but the City is not a party to those CC&Rs and cannot address that issue. Without the safeguards that staff proposes to include in the Conditions of Approval, namely to provide the evidence of HOA approval of the subdivision prior to Final Map, theoretically, yes, without that condition they could satisfy all of the other conditions, have the Final Map approved and record the Final Map. In doing so, they would be exposing themselves to any civil liability for breaching any CC&R's, any deed restrictions and any other encumbrances upon that property. The applicants do not unbind themselves from any civil liability although they may be in conformance with the conditions of approval for a Tentative Tract Map. CA/DeBerry explained that the Ordinance can have only certain requirements in it and there is a very formal process through which the City Council must move in adopting an ordinance. The Council has to provide notice, hearing, first reading and second reading. What the Council cannot do is have some outside document that is not incorporated into the ordinance now become part of the ordinance and be a criteria of approval. There are any number of HOA's that may or may not have limitations on development within these residential developments that are different from the City's. Some may be more lenient. There may be other agreements between parties for reciprocal access, restrictions on what somebody might use for their property and unless the City wants to get drawn into deciphering and coming to a judgment on what these agreements say, it can be a real Catch 22. For example, sometimes cities MARCH 21. 2017 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL are parties to CC&Rs and they often regret that decision because every time there is a violation of the CC&R's what happens is that the HOA goes to the City to enforce it rather than enforcing it within their own association. What agreements are made amongst private property owners, cities typically stay out of those and they cannot be added to the ordinance unless the City gives notice, public hearing, first and second reading and put it into the ordinance which is why it cannot be considered to be a requirement. Having said all of that, approval of a Tentative Map does not in any way, shape or form, amend the CC&Rs. So, whatever the CC&R's are when a property owner buys a property, those CC&R's are typically recorded which puts the property owner on notice. If the buyer chooses not to read them, the consequence of that falls on them. What staff is saying is that the City does not want to get into deciding at this point in time whether or not 'the HOA approval is needed for this subdivision. It is not part of the "City's Ordinance and the City does not have the ability or flexibility to put that in as part of the criteria. But where the City does have the flexibility is with the conditions. There were a couple of comments on the CEQA document that he responded to. CEQA considers the impacts of the project. He knows there is a mitigation measure in the event demolition of this significant house occurs, but this project is not proposing to demolish the house. So it is really not a project impact. As far as cultural resources, there is a requirement that the City notify certain Native Indians, but based upon the staff report, there has been no finding that there are any cultural resources on the site at all — not in any of the lots. The request from the Indian Tribe was to merely have a monitor on the site in case some cultural resources are found. C/Tye said that what he heard at the beginning of this presentation is that the City wants to see, if it makes an additional condition, evidence of The Diamond Bar Country Estates Homeowners Association approval as a condition. CA/DeBerry said that in the alternative, evidence that their approval is not required. C/Tye said he heard Mr. Garrison say the applicant would be happy to go back to the association and nothing he heard when this deliberation began had to do with the requirement that they have their (HOA) approval or evidence that the approval is not required. MPT/Low stated that during the Planning Commission's review of projects, do they consider the health, welfare and aesthetics of a property and is that applicable in this case and is that applicable to the City Council's decision? CDD/Gubman said that when the Planning Commission is reviewing a development proposal, yes, the compatibility, the aesthetics, the landscape design, etc. are considered as part of the project. In reviewing MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 19 1 CITY COUNCIL a subdivision there are some basic criteria that address certain aspects. For example, in the zoning district there are minimum lot size requirements, minimum lot dimensional requirements and if the property has certain topographic characteristics, even though the underlying density is permitted as one dwelling per acre, if there are some steeper slopes there is a formula that is applied to reduce that density. So even though the site is 4 acres, for example, because of the hillside condition, the actual number of lots allowed would be 3. So within the criteria that is within the Subdivision Code, those are the factors used to define appropriateness of the subdivision design. The CEQA requirement was a requirement as well because CEQA specifically states that if an average slope of a property to be subdivided is more than 20 percent, the project is no longer exempt from CEQA. If this was a flatland project, it would be exempt from CEQA. The CEQA requirement triggers the Native American consultation which gives them the option to consult with the City and ask to monitor the site so that if during grading any artifacts are encountered, they are documented, curated, protected and treated with the respect those Native American tribes would value under those circumstances. The realm of those qualitative issues are somewhat more quantitatively defined in the Subdivision Code versus the Development Code. Ultimately, there is that overriding guidance that the project is subdivided in a manner that is consistent with the lot pattern and with the context in which that subdivision is proposed. MPT/Low said that this subdivision, from a practical standpoint, if it is approved with the condition to get approval from the homeowners association, the fact is there would be no development/no subdivision if the homeowners association could not come to an agreement with the property owner. What is the legal difference between Council approving it with the condition compared to Council denying the project until the approval is obtained? CA/DeBerry explained that the difference is in the standards. So in reviewing the Tentative Map, there is a very specific criteria for the City Council's review and that is, does it comply with the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. However, there is more flexibility in attaching conditions to the Final Map approval. There is no provision in the Ordinance that says "compliance with applicable CC&R's" will be a condition of approval of Tentative Map. However, that does not necessarily flow into the conditions that the City can have for Final Map approval. The reason is that the City wants property owners to know what they have to do in order to get compliance with the Tentative Map and if the City starts adding things that are not in the ordinance, the property owner does not really have any idea and it becomes a much more subjective process. Again, this is more of a subjective approval i.e. the Conditions of Approval are more subjective and this is the time when the Council can place those conditions on the Final Map approval. MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL MPT/Low said that basically, if the Council ,denies approval until the condition is met (agreement of the homeowners) then the Homeowners Association can add another condition and another condition and there would be uncertainty on the part of the sub dividers of that contract. CA/DeBerry said it goes beyond that in that the Council is abdicating its role/legislative function, to a private entity. The Council's role as a legislative body is to look at the City's Ordinances and the State Law to see if the Tentative Map complies. The Council's discretion is in imposing conditions on the Tentative Map and Final Map approval. MPT/Low asked if there was a difference in the standard of the amount of discretion the Council has at this point compared to no discretion at the end when it comes to approval of the Final Map which is a ministerial act. CA/DeBerry said there is more discretion at this stage because the Council can impose conditions. Once it comes to the Final Map it is more of a ministerial process which goes through the list of conditions and the Engineer's Report will tell you whether or not those conditions have been satisfied. There is some leeway for the City Council to waive certain conditions based upon certain findings, but the Council typically cannot add conditions at that time. M/Lin asked what would happen in the Final Map approval process if Condition 10 was not added. CA/DeBerry said that from a practical standpoint, if the Tentative Map comes forward and this condition is not included, staff would go through its checklist to see if all conditions had been satisfied and if they were the Council would have the ministerial obligation to approve the Final Map. Having said that, the HOA could still try and enjoin development of the property based upon the CC&Rs, and the HOA is in the business of enforcing the CC&R's at all times and not just in this particular instance. There are likely other situations in which the HOA has had to enforce the CC&R's and as indicated by Mr. Harkins tonight, the CC&Rs are a contractual obligation that the property owner enters into with the other members of the HOA and the HOA itself and they will be applicable to the property. M/Lin said that by adding Condition 10 as recommended by staff, the City is siding with the HOA in a sense. CA/DeBerry said he would not say the City was siding with the HOA because the condition is either to show the City the applicant has the necessary approval or provide evidence that approval is not required which in part, is what the Council heard this evening. There is a disagreement about what the CC&R's require as evidenced by tonight's MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL speakers and whether or not HOA approval is required. M/Lin asked if a similar condition had ever been imposed upon another developer or applicant. CA/DeBerry said that the City had done so. C/Lyons moved, C/Herrera seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2017-08: Approving Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Parcel Map No. 72035 for the subdivision of an existing 4.2 acre lot into three lots for the future development of new single-family residences on the two newly created lots located at 22702 Timbertop Lane, Diamond Bar, California (APN 8713-028-012) with the addition of Condition 10 as recommended by staff. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lyons Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lin None None COUNCIL8. • • COUNCIL9. • REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTSICOUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Lyons thanked staff for their work on the Draft Strategic Plan and Goals. She likes the new format. She asked that tonight's meeting be adjourned in memory of Deputy Wright. Many school children know him as the D.A.R.E. Officer who visited many of the local schools to talk about the dangers of drug abuse and made a huge impact on the children. C/Herrera reported that she, M/Lin, PWD/Liu and ACM/McLean recently returned from Washington D.C. after meeting with numerous offices and Legislators. She thanked PWD/Liu for preparing notebooks and updates of information that were handed out to the people they visited reminding them again about the SR57/60 Confluence project and that the City is hoping to receive $35 million in a new application to get started on the right-of-way acquisition and more architectural and engineering items. The first meeting of the day was with the Department of Transportation policy staff members and then they met with Congresswoman Judy Chu, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, Drew Spence, Office of US Senator Kamala Harris, Trevor Higgins from the Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Congressman Ed Royce. The best meeting was probably with Congressman Royce because he is very enthusiastic about getting approval of the Fast Lane Grant and bringing new Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao to the area to see the SR57/60. The group also met with Matt Sturges from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Everyone was very encouraging MARCH 21. 2017 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL and acknowledged the worthiness of this project and getting funding for it and getting the project done. The previous day the group attended meetings with Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority as they visited different legislators. Should the funding become available Caltrans is agreeable to Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority managing the project. ACE is working on the Lemon Avenue Interchange and may bring it in under the projected cost. It was an important trip and important to keep local projects in front of the decision makers so they do not forget. PWD/Liu got updated letters of recommendation from everybody including Assembly Member Chen, Senator Newman and Supervisor Hahn. Thank you to PWD/Liu and ACM/McLean for their superb efforts and to M/Lin for making the trip. It was a good and productive trip in spite of the snow. As the City's representative to the Southern California Association of Governments she is on the Regional Counsel for District 37 and her term was up so she filed to run again for her district seat and she is happy to report that no one filed against her and absent the need for an election, she will again represent the City of Diamond Bar for the next two years. C/Tye said it was a privilege to join his colleagues last weekend to see Councilwoman Herrera honored with a Pastor's Award by her church, St. Denis, for her work over many, many years. She has spent half of her life in public service starting as a member of the PTA, followed by 16 years on the school board and 20 plus years on the City Council. Her report was an excellent recap with what she did with staff and the Mayor which has been 20 plus years in the making. It is one thing to see it all the way through and keep after it and the City appreciates her efforts and it was great to see the recognition from St. Denis. Deputy Wright will be missed. C/Tye's kids enjoyed his visits to the school and he was an ever-present effervescent personality and Diamond Bar appreciates everything he did and he will be missed. Thoughts and prayers go out to his family. MPT/Low joined in C/Tye's eloquent statements regarding C/Herrera and her honor, congratulations for all of her work at St. Denis. She thanked C/Herrera, M/Lin and staff for making the trip to Washington D.C. She thanked them for keeping Diamond Bars projects front and center. She encouraged staff to look at signage on the SR57 that may help alleviate some of the traffic congestion and possibly prevent collisions. As one travels north from Brea on the SR57 before getting to the SR60, it is a four lane road and if one is in lane 3 or 4 can turn right to proceed onto the SR60 and east toward Pomona. If one is in lane 1 or 2 and approaching the SR60 one believes they will travel westbound on the SR60 toward Los Angeles. However, the reality is the exact opposite so if someone is in lane 1 or 2 they will actually go eastbound on the Pomona freeway and lanes 3 and 4 will go westbound toward Los Angeles. Many people who do not regularly travel that interchange will not realize this reality. And if one steps on the brakes to think about it will create congestion that backs up for miles or to change lanes quickly might result in a collision. So she is asking staff to talk with Caltrans for a fix with signage along or over the roadway to alert drivers to proper lane usage. MARCH 21, 2017 PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL Last Wednesday the Sheriff's Department announced a reward of $30,000 in response to a double homicide in Diamond Bar. Anyone who has information about the event should contact the Sheriff's Department so they can follow up and hopefully solve this very sad and horrible crime. Yesterday was the first day of Spring. Just a reminder that bees are busy in neighborhoods and if anyone is allergic to bees and be prepared with the antidote. There was a lot of rain this year and everyone should be on the lookout for mosquito breeding grounds in standing water. Be safe and enjoy wonderful and beautiful Diamond Bar. M/Lin showed a photo from the Washington, D.C. trip. If Diamond Bar can get the $35 million it will mean the SR57/60 Confluence project could probably be accelerated by as much as five years. Even 10 years is a long time but the plan is to get the project completed before the system completely breaks down. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Lin adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:46 p.m. in memory of Deputy Wright. n TOMMYE tRI138INS, CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 4th day of April , 2017. JIMMY , MAY