Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/1991 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF STUDY SESSION CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 CLOSED SESSION: 5:30 - 6:30 P.M. Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9 Personnel - Government Code Section 54957.6 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Forbing called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, W.V.U.S.D., 880 S. Lemon Avenue, Diamond Bar, California. M/Forbing announced that during Closed Session, C/Werner and C/ Nardella were appointed to a Council Committee on Undeveloped Land Entitlements. CA/Arczynski announced that dis- cussion of the Los Angeles County property tax litigation had also taken place during Closed Session. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Forbing. ROLL CALL: Mayor Forbing, Mayor Pro Tem Kim, Councilmen Papen, Nardella and Werner. Also present were Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager; Terrence L. Belanger, Assistant City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Director of Community Development; Sid Mousavi, Public Works Director/City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2.1 STUDY SESSION: 2.1.1 GENERAL PLAN - CDD/DeStefano indicated that notices had been published for the Hearing on the General Plan conducted by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1991. In addition, letters were sent to 39 organizations either directly or indirectly affected by the Plan and to 25 owners of undev- eloped properties that may be impacted by General Plan and zoning changes. Press releases were published in the S.G. Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and a substantial portion of the City's Newsletter was dedicated to the General Plan process. He recommended that the list of organi- zations, press members and individuals who pre- viously received information should be reviewed to ensure that they receive additional information on SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE 2 the status of the Plan. Further, he suggested sending press releases to the Windmill, Chamber of Commerce and other organizations with internal publications and request that Jones Intercable create a video summary of the Plan and components and use it for either a normal broadcast or pre- sentation to various groups in the community. He proposed a "road show" concept to address local organizations about the General Plan, the issues, how the public may be affected and the City's desire for public input. A summary document for creation of an education program to present to organizations, schools, etc. to provide an aware- ness of the future of the City was also recommended. During discussion, further suggestions included: placing notices of meeting dates in the Windmill and the City Newsletter, contacting school districts to arrange for flyers to be distributed to the students, advertising over cable TV and contacting the Walnut Valley Water District to arrange for notices to be sent with water bills. C/Werner suggested publishing the General Plan's goals and objectives including background information and maps as well as a schedule for review. C/Papen stated that the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission was not the document proposed for adoption by the General Plan Advisory Committee. She requested that the GPAC be reconvened to review the current version. CDD/DeStefano suggested that a flyer be prepared outlining what the General Plan is all about (including general goals), why it is important to the community, why public input is important, etc., and invite public participation. Once the Plan is approved, send a general summary of the Plan including adopted goals and objectives so that everyone will know what directions the City will be taking for the next 20 years. He also commented that approximately two GPAC meetings would be required for review of the revised Plan. Following discussion, staff was directed to provide Council with copies of the revised Plan along with staff reports and minutes. Bruce Flamenbaum, General Plan Advisory Committee Member, stated that, in his opinion, the draft Plan did not reflect what was approved by GPAC and that GPAC would like to sign off on the final document. SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE 3 Al Rumpilla stated that members of GPAC were upset over changes in the proposed Plan. Lavinia Rowland suggested that once the document is ready for public input, advertise those things that will shock the public into coming out and speaking. Staff was directed to meet with GPAC for review of the draft Plan to determine if it was the document they approved; conduct Planning Commission Public Hearings; publish a summary of the Plan and notify the public further through inserts in utility bills, etc. In addition, provide a final draft of the Plan to the Council along with a report regard- ing what had transpired since conclusion of GPAC meetings. 2.1.2 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 91-$8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL STANDARDS OF OPERATION - CM/Van Nort stated that Council previously directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Resolution establishing Council standards of operation. The draft amendment contained sections extracted from similar policies in other cities but did not include penalties for violations. C/Papen recommended that Section 1 F, second sentence, be changed to read "the Council may listen to their comments" when talking about scheduling public hearings. In response to C/Papen's inquiry regarding Section 5, Litigation and Confidential Information, CA/Arczynski stated that if a Councilmember released Closed Session information to the press, the Council's only recourse would be through public censure. MPT/Kim requested that Section 1 C be changed to "Citizens may be requested to put verbal concerns in writing..." He further requested that Section 1 D be more clearly defined. Following discussion on Section 1 D, C/Papen sug- gested that the wording be changed to "the Mayor may request that there be a spokesperson..." re- garding multiple speakers on the same issue. C/Werner suggested the following re -wording for Section 1 D: "the Mayor may request that there be a spokesperson and that others limit their comments by indicating support or opposition to points already made and raising only non -repetitive points." SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE 4 M/Forbing suggested removal of the words "At the beginning of the meeting," and inserting "Under Public Concerns, if there are a number of people..." Following discussion of Page 2 Section 1 F, M/ Forbing suggested that the words "public hearing" be changed to "agenda item" and the word "will" in sentence 5 to "may." C/Werner suggested that Section 1 G be changed to "With Council approval, Mayor may schedule Council review of agenda items out of their prescribed order on the printed agenda." M/Forbing suggested that Section 1 I be changed to "The Councilmember making a motion should restate the motion..." Following discussion, Sections 1 L, 1 0 and 6 G were deleted. Following discussion, Section 1 P was changed to reflect that City Council and Planning Commission audio tapes are to be retained for two years and all other Commission tapes may be reused after approval of Minutes. C/Papen requested that Section 4 E be changed to "Councilmembers will direct all issues to the City Manager." Section 4 F was changed to read "A Councilmember shall not initiate any action or prepare any report that is significant in nature or initiate any project or study without the approval of the majority of the City Council." CA/Arcyznski suggested that the words "It is the Chair's responsibility to control the conduct of the meeting" be added to Section 1 along with an indication that any Councilmember would have the prerogative to request that a speaker be ruled out of order. 2.1.3 CITATION AUTHORITY - CM/Van Nort reported that this matter was for discussion as to whether or not citation authority is a useful tool for enforcement of zoning and building codes, regulations, rules and policies. He further stated that the City Attorney's opinion was that it is not an appro- priate tool for code enforcement due to problems in dealing with the District Attorney's office, etc. Mr. Van Nort stated that, in his experience, having a person issue only citations is too limiting and SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE 5 that the District Attorney could process the citations on a contractual basis. CDD/DeStefano stated that those cities having citation authority feel it is more expeditious in eliminating a variety of code enforcement viola- tions. Cities against establishing code enforce- ment citation authority were concerned that this power was inappropriate and determined that com- plaints be handled through a letter process. C/Papen requested that required appearance at a mediation hearing should be included in the policy. Al Rumpilla was opposed to the City providing citation authority. C/Werner stated that he agreed with the City Attorney that the City is not in need of citation authority. He suggested that staff be directed to bring the matter back when there appears to be a more obvious need, determined by the number and type of cases inhibiting the community. C/Papen stated that she believed citation authority was necessary and asked staff for percentages of cases not resolved in two weeks and/or thirty days. In response to C/Papen's inquiry, Code Enforcement Officer Al Flores stated that approximately 5% of the cases could not be resolved immediately and that 15 - 20% take over thirty days. He described the types of cases requiring over 30 days for resolution. With Council consensus, staff was directed to bring the matter back in the form of an Ordinance. 2.1.4 REAPPORTIONMENT - M/Forbing outlined the plans for realignment of Senate and Assembly districts and stated that a hearing would be held on September 11, 1991 regarding the Democratic plan and asked for Council direction whether staff should be expected to attend. C/Papen requested Council consent to go on record in opposition to the elimination of Diamond Bar from the L.A. County District. Following discussion, staff was directed to prepare a letter to be sent to the City's Lobbyist indicat- ing the City's opposition to the proposal. SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 PAGE 6 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Papen asked staff to contact CalTrans requesting clean up of the 57/60 freeway interchange which was littered with newspapers, tires, etc. MPT/Kim requested staff to direct the removal of graffiti on the south side of the concrete building located along the 60 fwy. west of Brea Canyon Rd. C/Nardella suggested that the City consider assisting property owners in planting bramble bushes, poison ivy, etc., to deter persons spraying graffiti on the back side of buildings. 4. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Forbing adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk