Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/1997 Minutes - Adj. Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 10, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Pro Tem Herrera called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. in the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Werner. ROLL CALL. Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Werner and Mayor Pro Tem Herrera. Mayor Huff was excused. Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; Amanda Susskind, Assistant City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. RECESS TO JOINT MEETING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: 7:41 p. M. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Werner ROLL CALL: Agency Members Ansari, Harmony, Herrera, and Chairman Werner. Vice Chairman Huff was excused. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Wilbur Smith, referring to CM/Belanger's opening budget statement on June 3, 1997, asked why the City would pursue full commercial occupancy if it is not going to take care of the City's shortfall. He believed that if filling the vacancies will not cover the $1,000,000 shortfall, the City should be pursuing something that will achieve that goal. Clyde Hennessee indicated that his few objections to redevelopment include creative financing, taking of property, and the lack of people's right to vote on taxes. He expressed faith in the current Council but he was concerned about who might be sitting in the Council seats in future years. Don Schad read a portion of a publication entitled Garden Cities 21 regarding loss of suitable wildlife habitats. He suggested Council obtain a copy of the booklet for their use. He believes it is a tragedy that California has lost more of its natural resources than any other state in the Union. 3. CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - Agency Chair/Werner declared the Joint Public Hearing open and turned the gavel over to MPT/Herrera. MPTIHerrera declared the Joint Public Hearing open and turned the gavel over to Chair[Werner to preside. 3.1 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR JUNE 10, 1997 PAGE 2 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OF THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA - Continued to June 17, 1997. 3.2 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA - Continued to June 17, 1997. 3.3 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO ORAL AND WRITTEN OBJECTIONS, COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA OF THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - Continued to June 17, 1997. 3.4 RESOLUTION NO. R -97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - Continued to June 17, 1997. 3.5 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH - Continued to June 17, 1997. 3.6 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. XX (1997): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA - Continued to June 17, 1997. ACA/Susskind stated that at the May 20, 1997 Regular Meeting, Council voted on a motion to continue the public hearing for the JUNE 10, 1997 PAGE 3 limited purpose of considering exclusion of territory. It is clear from the comments made during the motion that it was the Council's intent to limit the remainder of the hearing to the exclusion of the six parcels. Having listened to the tape recently, she indicated it was Council Member Harmony who objected to the continuance for the limited purpose specifically on the grounds that it would limit the hearing only to the discussion of the six parcels. If public speakers wish to speak on other exclusions it is not worth having a debate about whether that exclusion relates to the six parcels and whether their objections to the exclusion of any other territory is distinguishable from their objection to the six parcels under consideration as long as the testimony is limited to exclusions in general to the 5 minutes allowed. A full and complete staff presentation was conducted with respect to the Redevelopment Plan, EIR and exclusion of the six parcels. Staff and consultants are present to answer questions with respect to the six parcel exclusions. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Redevelopment Plan with the exclusion of the six parcels, the subject of the current public hearing. In response to C/Werner, ACA/Susskind stated that all action items are included in the public hearing and there is no requirement to have a separate five minute comment session for each action item. AM/Harmony moved, AMIAnsari seconded to limit debate to 5 minutes. Motion failed by the following vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS - Herrera, Chair/Werner NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS - Huff ACA/Susskind stated that the only items listed under Agenda Item No. 3 are action items for which there has been a public hearing open since May 20, 1997. At the end of the discussion on May 20, 1997, that hearing was closed with the exception of the exclusion of certain territories. Each of the items under Agenda Item No. 3 are combined. There is no need or right of the public to speak to each of the sub items individually as a separate matter. The public had an opportunity to speak on May 20, 1997. Richard Toombs recommended the Agency revise the exclusion Resolution to include Summitridge Park in the project area. He disagreed with Planning Commission Resolution No. _97-5 dated May 27, 1997. Modifications are necessary. He believed the lower grassy portion of the Park should be developed into a model leash -free dog area. He presented a 2 -minute video tape of his proposal. Martha Bruske indicated that she had talked to many local merchants over the years about why so many vacancies exist Citywide. She JUNE 10, 1997 PAGE 4 asked why property owners should receive monies to renovate so that they can evict tenants from their buildings. Further, she complained that Council had not addressed the Alameda Corridor matter. She recommended voters decide whether the City will undertake a redevelopment program. Don Schad asked what happens if the Redevelopment Agency process fails and the City has to write off the $400,000,000 spent over a 45 -year time frame. Who pays this money and where does the bond money come from. Further, he wanted to know why there are not more citizens representing D.B. in this process. Barbara Beach-Courchesne complained that Council changed the rules for public comments to not allow speakers the time to address each item on the agenda. She protested the manner in which the hearing was conducted because she felt her civil rights were violated. With respect to exclusion of Property No. 1, she indicated that the information was not included in the public hearing and believed the hearing must be renoticed and reopened. She asked for clarification whether Property No. 1 to be excluded from the plan belongs to the Pathfinder Homeowners Association. She requested the exclusion of all open spaces and specifically, Sandstone Canyon, specifically the 139 acres that is private property. She asked how bringing more traffic into D.B. addresses bullet #3 of the Vision Statement of unmitigated congestion in this City. She indicated that responses given to the public's stated objections are general and vague. They do not appropriately respond to the detailed information that was presented to Council. She requested that the entire City be excluded from any Redevelopment Agency until the Council can adequately address what blight means and what urbanization means. Mary McCormick -Busse expressed concern about Site D and referred to a letter dated February 26, 1991 which advised of the initial public hearing scheduled for March 4 and March 11, 1991 regarding Site D. Hearing results indicated at that time that 85% of respondents wanted a park on Site D. Her concern was that Site D had not been excluded from the Redevelopment Project Area and is not designated as park facilities. The General Plan indicates that Site D's land use designation is Public Facilities. She requested that Site D, along with other City parks, be excluded from the Revitalization Project Area. She asked if the citizens have any recourse to pursue having a park placed on Site D. Murray Kane, speaking on behalf of affected property owners and other interested persons, said he filed with the City Clerk tonight, written objections on behalf of those affected property owners to the exclusion and to the Redevelopment Plan. He protested the 5 -minute limit and the narrowness of the hearing. He indicated that JUNE 1 1997 PAGE 5 MPT/Herrera was told that 6% of the property is vacant and urbanized. He pointed to the urbanization map and pointed out certain areas that were not included in the 6%that are vacant and designated as urbanized. He showed a picture of the 139 acre wilderness area which is included in the Redevelopment Area that staff did not include when they made the statement that 6% was vacant. He showed a picture of Site D that was not included as part of the vacant land which is designated as urbanized land. He showed a picture of vacant land in the Gateway Corporate Center which is in the project area and is designated as urbanized. He said that this is a blatant attempt to avoid the legal limit on how much vacant land a city can get away with putting in a Redevelopment Project. These parcels have been declared part of a blighted area. In his opinion, there is no economic or physical blight. This is urbanized vacant land that does not belong in the project area. It renders the project area illegal. He said he asked during the May 20, 1997 hearing to be shown one unsafe, unhealthy building. He said he received a response wherein staff said the City has unsafe, unhealthy buildings which includes things like sagging roofs and exposed wiring. Staff has not identified what building they are talking about. Only 8.8% of buildings within the project area require anything but a coat of paint or nothing and yet, staff says it is predominately blighted. For $300,000, the citizens have been given a bunch of lies and Council is being asked to make findings based upon these lies. He cited staffs statistics. He introduced into evidence a 24 minute videotape excluding the six properties to be excluded, the June 10, 1997 memorandum of written objects in opposition to, the City Manager's Information Regarding Redevelopment. Wilbur Smith stated that with respect to Item 3.1., he requested that Site D be designated as a park or recreational area. He understood that Site D belongs to the school district. He believed that Mr. Kane was not adequately responded to with respect to items 3 and 7 of his objections. Terry Birrell believed the City should exclude all undeveloped parcels from the Redevelopment Area and that the properties in the developed portions of the Redevelopment Area, with one exception, are not blighted and all of those areas should also be excluded. She asked that her 24 minute video be shown to demonstrate her points. She indicated that the study is a year out of date and that many of the so-called faults which clearly do not rise to the level of blight have already been corrected. She referred to the parcel at the corner of Lemon Ave. and Golden Springs Rd, The City has spent $300,000 for consultant's reports which she has heard no response from the City Attorney or the City Manager denying or showing any reasoned response to the points made that this Redevelopment Agency is absolutely against the law. In her opinion, there has been no reason JUNE 10, 1997 PAGE 6 for the Council's/Agency's actions in trying to quash everybody except for a complete disregard of the truth, for complete disregard of the Community Redevelopment Act, for a complete disregard of the wishes of the residents and the businesses of D.B. Jack Gutowski stated that although he is not a foe of redevelopment, he is in this particular instance. He believed that the appearance of. fairness is very important in a discussion of this magnitude. He reminded Council that it has an obligation to the future residents of D.B. He again recommended that in the event redevelopment is invoked, legislation be initiated to prohibit any Council Members from having a relationship with organizations or the City for 5 years after ending their term of office. The citizens need to vote on this issue. Frank Dursa read from an article pertaining to another city's Redevelopment Agency. He said the article points out that one Council Member can change what is happening in a city. Why should D.B. incur bond debt for 30 or 35 years. There is nothing in this City that requires redevelopment. Wilbur Smith felt that Mr. Kane's video should be shown to the public because it might contain helpful information. Mr. Hennessee supported showing Mr. Kane's video. There being no further testimony offered, Chair/Werner closed the public hearing for the Redevelopment Agency. There being no further testimony offered, MPT/Herrera closed the public hearing for the City Council. Council concurred to direct staff to place the Redevelopment Agency agenda toward the beginning of the June 17, 1997 meeting agenda and allow 12 minutes for opponents and proponents each to speak on the general top of redevelopment. ACA/Susskind reminded the Agency and Council that the public hearing has been closed. She reiterated the Agency and Council intent to have the Redevelopment Agency action items be continued to June 17, 1997, that the items be placed at the beginning of the calendar, and that the Agency and Council invited Mr. Kane to make a 12 minute presentation after which there may be a question and answer period with the Agency and Council, and that the Agency and Council are inviting one member of the public to rebut Mr. Kane's presentation. She suggested the rebuttal be made by a staff member or consultant. JUNE 10, 1997 PAGE 7 4. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS; AM/Harmony stated ACA! Susskind earlier indicated that the public could speak on other properties they might wish to have excluded from redevelopment. He suggested that the City has a reserve account of $11,000,000 and can buy its own bonds. He had been told by other redevelopment professionals that the question is open as to who has to pay in the event a redevelopment agency goes bankrupt. He said he would have the entire article Mr. Dursa read on the BBS tomorrow. AMIAnsari said that she would like questions asked during public comments tonight to be answered at the beginning of the next meeting. She would have preferred more Town Hall meetings for the purpose of discussing redevelopment. She suggested another Town Hall meeting be held and if there is negativity voiced, she felt the matter should go to public vote. Public perception is important. AM/Herrera indicated that several residents of D.B. served on the redevelopment committee and believed the City and consultants have defined blight during the numerous meetings regarding redevelopment. She believed it is important for everyone to remember that Side D property belongs to WVUSD. The City cannot make any plans for the use of the property excluding the consent of the School District. She believed there had been a lot of confusing statements made about how redevelopment is funded. Property taxes will not be raised. She asked that the public be aware that 9 individuals spoke tonight in opposition of redevelopment. There are 56,000 residents of this community. A number of local businesses are looking forward to participating in redevelopment. The Redevelopment Agency can greatly benefit this City. She urged individuals to obtain the facts regarding redevelopment. Chair/Werner agreed with staffs recommendation that the City proceed on a pay-as-you-go approach and not issue bonds. He believed the "taking of property issue needed to be further deliberated by Council and the Agency. With respect to voting on taxes, he stated he would be concerned if the City did not pursue a redevelopment program so that it could benefit the City and its taxpayers rather than continuing to allow property tax revenues to leave the City. He, commended Mr. Toombs presentation and felt it may benefit the City to have a selected area within a park. He said it is not significant whether such a facility is located inside or outside of a redevelopment area. He responded to Mrs. Bruske that he does not believe redevelopment was a hidden agenda at time of City incorporation. As a matter of fact, redevelopment was included in all of the General Plan proposals presented and considered. He relies on staffs comments that in the event the Redevelopment Agency fails, the debt of the Agency would not be paid by D.B. taxpayers. With regard to Mrs. Beach-Courchesne's comments, he felt that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan. He does not envision nor has he ever pursued the subject of big box shopping centers in D.B. JUNE 10, 1997 PAGE 8 ACA/Susskind indicated that staff understands that responses will be made to oral comments received during this meeting. 5. AGENCY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: None ADJOURNMENT: AM/Ansari moved, AM/Herrera seconded, to adjourn the meeting to June 17, 1997 and continue the action items on the agenda as previously directed. ChairA/Verner adjourned the Joint Meeting with the Redevelopment Agency at 10:00 p.m. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 10:00 P.M. 6. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: C/Ansari reported on the recent Economic Redevelopment meeting she attended and announced that two new business have recently located in Diamond Bar. The City supported AB323 which would give more local control to residences housing 6 and under unrelated persons which did not make it through the committees. The issue had been turned into a pilot project in 4 counties. SCAG will hold a meeting for Congressmen on Friday, August 22, 1997 at USC. This -Friday's meeting on Integrated Waste in the Year 2000 will be held in the City of Industry. 7. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/Harmony said he will put Mr. Kane's 10 page letter on City -On -Line. C/Ansari announced that she is the new chairperson for the Contract Cities Association and she will also be CLOUT's new chairperson. She said she Dopes her participation will Delp encourage more businesses to locate in the San Gabriel Valley. On June 25, 1997, the first of 10 "Concerts in the Park" will be held at Sycamore Canyon Park from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. She thanked the Parks & Recreation Commission for putting together a good concert series. She wished all fathers a Happy Father's Day. MPT/Herrera explained that she was late in arriving at this meeting because she was representing the City at the East San Gabriel Valley Consortium (LA Works) in Irwindale. She suggested that citizens unite to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag at 7:00 p.m. standard time (4:00 p.m. locally) on Flag Day, June 14, 1997. She read the "Pause for the Pledge of Allegiance" proclamation. 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, CNllerner moved, C/Ansari seconded, to adjourn the meeting to 5:30 p.m., June 17, 1997, to the Darrin Drive cell site, to be followed by the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the SCAQMD Auditorium. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. JUNE 10, 1997 PAGE 9 LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk ATTEST: &J dmz-2� Mayor Pro Tem