Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/1992 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 p.m., - Government Code 54956.9 Personnel - Government Code 54957.6 No reportable action taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: M/Kim called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Kim. ROLL CALL: Mayor Kim, Councilmen Forbing, Miller and Werner. Mayor Pro Tem Papen arrived at 7:20 p.m. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, Acting City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Sue Sisk, 1087 Flintlock Rd., repre- senting the Diamond Ranch Booster Club, stated that the State Legislature recently passed legislation allowing the City of Industry to donate 70 acres of land to the Pomona Unified School District for a north Diamond Bar High School. She further indicated that members from Industry's Planning Association hired powerful special interest lobbyists to convince the Governor to veto the Bill. She encouraged citizens to write to Governor Wilson urging him to sign the legislation. C/Werner announced that the Governor's FAX number was (213) 897-0319 for anyone wishing to FAX to encourage the Governor's support. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado Ln., stated that he has yet received the legal brief that the City Attorney was to provide. Further, even though the City of Lawndale turned down their General Plan in May, the City is still issuing permits and listed other court cases to support his contention that D.B. should still be able to issue permits. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., thanked C/Miller for putting Prospector Rd. Underpass, 60 fwy. on the list of streets for clean up by clients of Lanterman Developmental Center. He complained that the Ranch Festival program excluded Lavinia Rowland from its article regarding Past Presidents, as the Festival was her idea to help the Municipal Advisory Council pay for funds owed the County for previous incorporation election attempts. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., asked why the dirt pile on South Pointe Middle School was left there. He stated that he SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 2 had been called by John Francis of the Highlander regarding a comment made by MPT/Papen alleging that he had requested the State Office of Regional Planning to deny the City's request for an extension of the General Plan. He denied making this request to the State and requested that ACM/Belanger clarify the matter. CDD/DeStefano stated that he understood that dirt currently stockpiled on South Pointe Middle School was from removal of dirt during grading for construction of homes in the area as well as for construction of the street created for the school. The School District and developer Arciero intend to relocate the dirt to an adjoining site to permit construction of a permanent school facility. In response to M/Kim's question as to whether the dirt is a nuisance or jeopardizes public safety, CDD/DeStefano stated that it is not a mound of earth created by grading, it is what is left from the grading activity which had not been touched. He understood that the hill will be removed and lowered to a grade elevation consistent with the adjacent property to allow for the permanent school. The dirt is to be relocated to the canyon as part of a project for residential development that Mr. Arciero and his company have desired for several years. -- Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., spoke in favor of sending letters to Gov. Wilson. Fred Scalzo, President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that there are currently 120 to 130 retail vacancies in the City representing approximately 700-800 jobs and losses of between $16 to $18 million in spending power. If those vacancies were filled, the City's share of sales tax revenues would amount to approximately 4-5% of the City's budget. He further stated that businesses outside of the City would be more attracted to D.B. if they felt welcome. In addition, he encouraged the City Council to adopt the General Plan. Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch, stated that even though she signed the referendum and is behind it, she is supportive of local business and that the people behind the Referendum are not working against the City, but for the City to achieve responsible City government, quality of life for residents (country style of life) and a nice environment. Further, there are other canyons in the City that are of concern such as Sandstone Canyon and upper Sycamore Canyon. She supported the idea of a Tonner Canyon Acquisition Commission, but felt that all Councilmembers should have input into committee selection and not just C/Miller, but this should be done after the issue of the General Plan has been resolved. ACM/Belanger stated that in regard to Sandstone Canyon, development plans had been submitted for private property in this area, but the applicant had been informed that the City would not entertain individual projects in the area, but SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 3 rather, the entire area would be master planned. As part of the master plan, the two public agencies also owning property there --Walnut Valley Unified School District and the City --would also be a part of that master plan process. The entire land would be subject to a master environmental impact report. He further stated that the Diamond Bar that the people in orange County refer to is what existed under L.A. County. In regard to upper Sycamore Canyon, which is owned by Bramalea, a Memorandum of Understanding will be brought to the Council soon to preserve 400 acres in City ownership, including the entirety of upper Sycamore Canyon. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., stated that he felt that C/Miller had made a personal attack on him at the last meeting and that these are the types of things that are wrong with the community. He stated that C/Miller seems to think that he is misinformed, biased and has a focused train of thought. Mr. Dursa agreed that he was biased because 1) he caught one of C/Miller's family members taking down campaign signs support- ing opposing candidates during an election before Cityhood; 2) because Page 15 of the Grand Ave. Agreement states that Tonner Canyon Road would be built by 1994 and that there would be a benefit assessment district passed onto this community; 3) Assemblyman Horcher previously accused C/Miller of making a profit on property he owned along Grand Ave; 4) C/Miller got his property on Lycoming zoned from residential to commercial without a lot of fanfare; 5) C/Miller accused Mr. Al Rumpilla of walking out of City Hall with a suitcase full of papers; 6) when the City was first formed, Councilman Lancaster from another city proposed a racquetball sports club on Sylvan Glen Park which was, fortunately, turned down. Mr. Lancaster was C/Miller's campaign chairman when he ran for State Senate; 7) when C/Miller last ran for office, his campaign brochure stated that he was in favor of term limits for Councilmembers, but has said nothing about it since; 8) C/Miller said he was going to end conflict of interest voting which must have meant that there was conflict of interest voting going on; 9) the Council was planning to go to Lake Arrowhead to conduct city business right after incorporation; 10) the City Council says it wants business to flourish yet they had a meeting at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, probably so nobody else would show up. Fortunately, he and Mr. Rumpilla showed up at the meeting and were privy to what was going on; 11) when the City was first formed, they paid over $55,000 for a study of waste water, without bidding, to some company in Newport Beach. He stated that he had other things to point out but that his time had run out. C/Miller stated that he did not understand Mr. Dursa's comments that he had personally attacked Mr. Dursa. The TV audience and the persons attending the meetings watch Mr. Dursa and others attack the City Council every week. Mr. Dursa accused his son of taking a sign down while putting up a sign in the first Cityhood election and he met with Mr. Dursa and Mr. Rumpilla twice. His son said it was a SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 4 misunderstanding, Mr. Dursa said it wasn't. C/Miller stated that he did everything in his power to try and resolve it and that he had apologized to Mr. Dursa and Mr. Rtmpilla for what they thought he did, even though he said he didn't. He further stated that the Council has repeatedly explained that any assessment district formed in Tonner Canyon would not be levied against the entire City but only those parcels that benefited from it, which are undeveloped parcels. As for the comment that Mr. Horcher had accused him of profiting from the property he owned on Grand Ave. when the City and San Bernardino County signed the agreement, C/Miller again stated that he never owned property on Grand Ave. but that his property is located by the golf course. Mr. Horcher was removed as Mayor Pro Tem because everybody on Council said he lied. He explained that before he accepted appointment as a negotiator for Grand Ave., he obtained a written opinion from the City Attorney stated he did not have a conflict of interest and further, that all four other Councilmembers knew there was no conflict. Regarding his property on Lycoming, C/Miller explained that he stated the process well over a year before Cityhood to change the zoning because all other four corners were zoned commercial on a major four-way intersection and approval by the County was nearly complete when the City incorporated. He would not allow the property to be reviewed by the Council while he was a Councilman. It was merely for this parcel to conform with all other corners on Lycoming and Brea Canyon. As to Mr. Rumpilla "walking out of City Hall with a briefcase full of papers, C/Miller stated that he did not know what Mr. Dursa was talking about. In regard to Mr. Lancaster, he stated that he met Mr. Lancaster when he applied for a racquetball center which was turned down. Mr. Lancaster ran the area office of the State Senator whose seat C/Miller was campaigning for which had nothing to do with Diamond Bar whatsoever. Regarding term limitations, C/Miller stated that he supported uniform limitations on all City Councils throughout the State. In regard to conflict of interest voting, he stated that the City Council makes certain that those who have conflicts don't vote. He further stated that Mr. Dursa seems to think that he was somehow personally involved for a suggestion to hold a meeting in Lake Arrowhead and in Newport Beach, but that he was not even on the Council when the meeting was held in Newport Beach. MPT/Papen explained that a benefit assessment district is a means of financing capital improvement projects such as roads and sewer systems and the assessment is against those properties which benefit from the improvement. In regard to term limits, she stated that she has supported that, but State law does not currently allow General Law cities to adopt term -- limitations. C/Werner stated that he felt term limits for City Council are stupid and that the people in the community and electorate have to read the information and get to know the candidate. SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 5 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/Forbing asked that Council direct staff to make sure all reports, particularly ones coming from consultants, be copied double -sided. C/Miller asked that the audience make note of the amount of personal attacks that continue through the Council meetings and that they continue from people who never bother to call Council and express concerns, ask for information or commun- icate in any way. C/Werner asked that staff work with the Traffic Commission regarding the Heritage Park Apartments and the concern they have regarding the driveway approach to the street as well as the possibility of red curbing along a certain distance beyond the driveway. He also stated that the Council has voluntary request forms for people who wish to speak to the Council and added that the form had been redrafted eliminating the place for "for or against" the item. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: It was moved by C/Werner, seconded by C/Forbing to approve the Consent Calendar as presented with the exception of City Council Minutes of August 11, 1992. C/Werner abstained from voting on approval of these Minutes due to his absence from the meeting. AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1.1 Parks & Recreation Commission - September 24, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 Diamond Bar Ranch Festival - September 25, 26, 27, 1992 - Gateway Corporate Center 5.1.3 Planning Commission - September 28 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.4 City Council Meeting - October 6, 1992 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Special Meeting of August 11, 1992 - (C/Werner abstained from approval of these Minutes) - Approved as presented. 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Adopted the following Minute Order entitled: Warrant Register - September 15, 1992, in the amount of $183,501.93. 5.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Adopted the following Minute Order entitled: Treasurer's Report - Month of July, 1992 - received and filed. SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 6 5.5 BOND EXONERATIONS: 5.5.1 STORM DRAIN BOND FOR PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 2100 ON TRACTS 42573 THROUGH 42578 - Adopted the following Minute Order entitled: PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 2100 - BOND EXONERATION - Tracts 42573 through 42578, Bond No. 83 SB 100 352 243 in the amount of $212,000 for storm drain on Longview Dr. and Thunder Trail constructed by Bramalea Ltd. and directed City Clerk to notify all parties. 5.5.2 STORM DRAIN BOND FOR PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 2084 ON TRACT 42572 - Adopted the following Minute Order entitled: PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 2084 - BOND EXONERATION - Tract 42572, Bond No. 83 SB 100 327 660 in the amount of $11,500 for storm drain on Cromarty Dr. and Radbury Place constructed by Bramalea Ltd. and directed City Clerk to notify all parties. 5.6 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - filed by Robert Peak August 31, 1992 - - Denied. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 6.1 Proclaimed October 1992 as "Parents Without Partners Month" - C/Werner presented the Proclamation to Barbara Williams, President, Parents Without Partners. 6.2 PRESENTATION - UPDATE ON 1992 DIAMOND BAR RANCH FESTIVAL - AA/Fritzal reported that the Festival's theme for 1992 is "Festival of Friends" which will be held September 25 through 27 at the Gateway Corporate Center. Festival activities will include a parade, a business expo, live entertainment, the Mucho Macho Desperado Contest and a 5-10K run as a "kick-off" activity. In addition, a free shuttle service will be provided from various off-site locations throughout the City to bring visitors to the Festival. 7. OLD BUSINESS: 7.1 CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT - C/Werner advised that pursuant to Council direction, the Personnel Committee had met with Acting City Manager Terrence Belanger to negotiate an agreement. The agreement provides for terms similar to those of the former City Manager, with some exceptions. C/Miller reported that one exception was that the termination pay had been reduced by 25% over that for the former City Manager. He felt that it was a good contract SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 7 and that Mr. Belanger would make an excellent Manager. C/Miller moved, C/Werner seconded to approx#e the contract with Terrence L. Belanger as City Manager. CA/Arczynski asked that the motion reflect that the blank spots in regard to the effective date of various provisions be September 15, 1992. C/Miller agreed to amend,his motion. MPT/Papen stated that she had read the contract and it met with her satisfaction; however, she requested a summary of benefits be added and a breakdown of the total costs of the employment package. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner, Forbing, MPT/ Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 7.2 UPDATE FROM CITY ATTORNEY ON STATUS OF CITY'S ABILITY TO PROCESS PERMITS, ETC., DUE TO REFERENDUM - Regarding public comments made earlier in the meeting, CA/Arczynski explained that the City of Lawndale was able to issue permits after a General Plan referendum was submitted to the City because the referendum was not against the only Plan the City had ever adopted but against a newly revised version only. When the new version was sus- pended, the old General Plan remained in effect. Not so with the City of Diamond Bar as there was no General Plan previously in effect. In regard to the City Attorney's opinion requested by Mr. Harmony, the Council directed release of the legal authorities relied upon for the opinion which had just been given to Mr. Harmony. As to whether staff exceeded its authority by discontinuing permit issuance at the time petitions were filed, it was felt that this was the safest and most conservative approach at the time. Since that time, Council has directed implementation of a policy to issue permits in certain limited circumstances. The City has applied to the Office of Planning and Research for another extension of time on preparation of the General Plan but no response has yet been received. CM/Belanger stated that he had recently spoken with Mr. Cervantes of the Office of Planning and Research to inquire into the status of the response promised to the City earlier. Mr. Cervantes indicated that he was delaying his opinion while awaiting information from Max Maxwell and Tom Van Winkle in opposition to the City's extension request. Mr. Cervantes further indicated that if an extension were granted, it would only allow for issuance of the barest of permits. SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 8 CA/Arczynski indicated that a draft urgency ordinance had been prepared in the event an extension is not granted. Said ordinance tracks with State law provisions regarding project processing and approval of permits along with the extension granted by OPR earlier. In response to MPT/Papen's inquiry into legal require- ments for adoption of such an ordinance, CA/Arczynski stated that this matter was not subject to a public hearing and recommended that if the Council wished to consider this item, that a motion be made adding it to the Agenda as a matter in which the need for action arose after the agenda was posted. Assuming there is a 4/5 vote to add it to the agenda, the Council could then discuss the matter and adopt it. At the request of MPT/Papen, CA/Arczynski read the Ordinance in its entirety. C/Miller moved, C/Werner seconded to add the matter to the Agenda as an urgency ordinance for discussion. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, MPT/ Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 7:45 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 8:03 p.m. 7.3 URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 4 (1992): AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND EAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS REGULATING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES INCLUDING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - C/Werner expressed concern about Page 2, Paragraph 4, second to last sentence "City representatives have been advised by representatives of the Governor's office of Planning and Research that they are without authority." CA/Arczynski explained that when the ordinance was drafted, his office contacted OPR and their indication was that they didn't think they could grant an extension of time on the theory that the City had already adopted a General Plan, therefore there is nothing to extend. C/Werner suggested that "verbal" be inserted in the paragraph and asked why "not heretofore filed" was included on Page 6, Item E. CA/Arczynski stated that if the language is not added, one could assume that the City would be precluded from continuing to process applications for various kinds of SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 9 approvals already in the pipeline. Following discussion, C/Werner recommended that "not heretofore filed" be stricken so as not to confuse the issue with language to be added in the initial recitals to clarify that these circumstances do not apply to previously filed and processed projects. CA/Arczynski stated that he would frame language for inclusion into the body of the paragraph for specificity regarding previously filed and processed projects. MPT/Papen stated that it was her opinion that until such time as the referendum has been settled, no action should be taken on any vesting tentative tract map that has not already been approved. Following further discussion, MPT/Papen stated that she wanted to honor the intent of the referendum and that by adopting the ordinance the City would circumvent the referendum. She further stated that the ordinance should only pertain to already approved lots. With Council consensus, the wording "not hereto filed" was removed. CA/Arczynski stated that during the time of the extension, based on OPR's correspondence, vesting tentative tract maps could not be accepted nor other certain types of entitlement applications. Upon adoption of the General Plan, some individuals filed applications for vesting maps. Those applications could not be processed for thirty days and then the referendum was submitted. The only point in including a date or language was so that no one would misunderstand the intent. In response to C/Miller's question, CA/Arczynski stated that OPR could grant more leeway than the ordinance; however, it would be unlikely. CM/Belanger stated that in order to clarify the intent in Sections 3a and 3b, modifying language could be included in c, d and a so that those restrictions set forth in c, d and e --which in essence restrict what the City can do in terms of processing General Plan amendments and certain types of large tract development, especially hillsides and in the SEA --such as "notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 3a and 3b above, until such time as the General Plan adopted and deemed..." This would modify the intent of a and b and narrow it to those types of development proposals that are arguably not within the ambit of the referendum, i.e., commercial development proposals on already zoned and general planned commercial land, etc. SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 10 Following discussion, CA/Arczynski recommended insertion of "subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 3 c, d and a below" at the beginning of the sentence prior to "land use actions." MPT/Papen suggested removal of "process" on Page'6 a to allow those people who filed maps between July 14, 1992 and August 10, 1992 the ability to work on EIRs and whatever is needed to get them ready so that when the referendum issue is settled, the projects will be ready to go. In response to M/Kim's question, CM/Belanger stated that the City can initiate their own planning proposals; however, the statement "City shall not initiate" in Section 3d would preclude the City from being able to submit such an application. In response to MPT/Papen's inquiry into the status of the JCC projects, CDD/DeStefano stated that two tracts were approved in April and the final map is currently being processed for approval and recordation. However, they cannot obtain grading or building permits due to suspension of the General Plan. CA/Arczynski stated that the question of whether permits could be obtained for the JCC project would boil down to Section 3E as to whether or not it is within an area that has been defined. The JCC project is proceeding with vesting map applications with two of them moving to final map stage. There are a number of other issues that need to be resolved, all of which are required to go through a discretionary process. If the issues fall within the area defined in subsection 3 e, the JCC project would not be able to obtain grading or building permits. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado Ln., stated that he endorsed the efforts of the ordinance, however, he felt that it could go farther. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., stated that Page 5, Sections 3 a and b indicates to him that the "Buffington" project should never been approved since there was no General Plan and only a very limited tree ordinance in effect. CA/Arczynski stated that with regard to the statement made by Mr. Schad, the vesting tentative map applications that were filed three years ago regarding the JCC project are not impacted by this General Plan or any other General Plan that the City proposes to adopt. The ordinance would not affect those maps, it is what was in place when those applications were filed, and that is what those projects are measured by. SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 11 Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Rd., suggested that a committee be formed to look at amending the General Plan. CA/Arczynski stated that if the General Plan referendum is certified, the City Council has alternatives, one being to simply repeal it and the other is to place it on the ballot. In either instance, a one year time line has to pass before adoption of a substantially similar General Plan. C/Werner moved, C/Forbing seconded to adopt urgency Ordinance No. 4 (1992) as amended, entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS REGULATING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES INCLUDING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8. NEW BUSINESS: 8.1 FEASIBILITY OF MEDIAN ISLANDS ON GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, BETWEEN BREA CANYON ROAD AND THE STATE ROUTE 57 OVERPASS - At the June 11 and July 9, 1992 Traffic and Transportation Commission meetings, the Commission was provided with the preliminary layout of proposed medians along Golden Springs Drive. Pros and cons were reviewed and evaluated. The Commission recommended maintaining existing roadway characteristics and for Golden Springs Dr. remain without raised medians/channelization. Following a report by ICE/Wentz outlining available options, C/Forbing recommended that staff further study traffic counts and impacts on businesses and that staff be directed to make recommendations based on the new information obtained. MPT/Papen recommended that river rock be used under freeway overramps on the northend of the City and that no tree planting be done due to traffic patterns in these areas. 8.2 CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING TONNER CANYON ACQUISITION COMMITTEE - CM/Belanger stated that all individuals suggested at the last meeting were contacted and all but Mr. Harmony and Mr. Van winkle responded in the affirmative that they would be willing to serve, some of them conditionally. Mr. Van Winkle who indicated that he will get back with an answer. C/Werner stated that he felt that the committee is not a City committee and that the decision to serve or not is SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 12 entirely up to them; therefore, their response to the City as to membership is unnecessary. MPT/Papen indicated that the City was organizing the committee and that she felt the City should give an ad-hoc committee a scope of work to be done. Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Dr., stated that she would like to be on the committee and that she would like to see other people on the committee, such as Lydia Plunk. She further suggested that C/Miller attend some of the meetings. William Gross, 21637 Highbluff Rd., expressed his opposition to formation of a committee. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that he would like to be involved with the committee and asked the Council to discuss the goals and objectives. He also congratulated Mr. Belanger on his appointment as City Manager. Don Schad recommended that the Council write a letter of introduction specifying that the committee is a research -- group endeavoring to procure information relating to the Tonner Canyon. Fred Scalzo spoke in favor of the committee, but urged the Council to make sure that taxpayers understand the costs involved. He further stated that he would like to see more control on those who choose to raise their voices at the Council and who engage in personal insults to them. C/Miller reiterated that this is not a City committee, the Council is trying to help form a committee, but no City funds will be spent on this committee. In regard to a bond issue, he stated that he would not approve a bond issue, but would put it on a ballot for voters to decide whether they wish to purchase the canyon. MPT/Papen felt that the committee should come back to the Council before the end of the year with a report as to financing methods available. She further stated that due to the referendum, discussion with property owners regarding annexation has stopped. C/Werner stated that he opposed City expenditures for the committee as other projects within the City limits need attention such as development of park space and increase in number of acres devoted to parks. Jack Kowtowski stated that he agreed with C/Werner and that he felt that it was ludicrous for the Council to help when 4,000 people signed the referendum to save SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 13 Tonner Canyon. C/Werner stated that the Council protected Tonner Canyon within the City's Sphere of Influence but could not protect areas outside City limits. C/Forbing stated that half of Tonner Canyon is within Orange County, the north portion is in San Bernardino County and a small portion is in L.A. County. He further indicated that the Supreme Court recently ruled that if government changes zoning on a piece of property and doesn't allow building, government has to pay for the property. He recommended that a committee be organized similar to the Historical Society. MPT/Papen stated that she felt that there are two issues that seem to be meshed together which are overturning the General Plan and preventing development in Tonner Canyon. Overturning the General Plan will not prevent development in Tonner Canyon because it is not within City limits but only within our Sphere of Influence, which means the City has not ultimate control. Regarding the General Plan, the Canyon was designated Agricultural which limits land use to three designations --recreation, open space and agriculture which is a reflection of what is currently there. Clair Harmony requested that the road be taken out of the City -'s Sphere of Influence which would help the ecology of the canyon. He stated that he had heard a rumor that the toy Scouts are considering rehabilitating the Tonner Canyon Scout facility. Following discussion and with consensus of Council, the matter was tabled until the referendum matter is settled. 8.3 CONSIDERATION OF MEMBERSHIP IN BALDY VIEW PUBLIC/PRIVATE COALITION (CLOUT) - CM/Belanger recommended that the City indicate an interest in becoming a member of CLOUT and appoint a Councilmember as a representative. In addition, the Chamber of Commerce would also appoint a representative and a member from the community would also be appointed. The purpose of the formation of the Coalition is to meet and exchange information and ideas on economic development in the Baldy View region. MPT/Papen expressed concern that the San Gabriel Valley Consortium that has been operating for approximately 2 1/2 years and that it might be more beneficial for the City to join this organization, rather than joining an organization outside the City's jurisdiction. CM/Belanger stated that membership in one committee does not preclude from being a member in the other committee and that the primary advantage of joining CLOUT would be SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 PAGE 14 that members of the private sector and local communities and their staffs would meet on a regular basis to exchange information and ideas and discuss projects that are being proposed in their particular areas. It is an information exchange. It would provide an opportunity for the City to be involved with cities in the immediate area on matters that have regional impact. C/Forbing stated that the Chamber of Commerce has indicated that they wanted to join and that he would be willing to represent the City. C/Forbing moved, C/Miller seconded to approve the City's membership in CLOUT. Motion carried unanimously. C/Forbing stated that an announcement needs to be made to the public that the Council will be appointing an at - large delegate and that anyone interested should contact the City Manager. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None offered. 10. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to be conducted, M/Kim adjourned the meeting at 10:16 p.m. LYN A BURGESS, City Cle-fk ATTEST: May