Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/2/1993 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MARCH 2, 1993 1. CLOSED SESSION: 4:00 p.m. Litigation - Government Code 54956.9 Personnel - Government Code 54957.6 No reportable action taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Miller called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was lead in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Miller. INVOCATION: The Invocation was given by Reverend John Ortberg, Horizons Community Church. ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen MacBride, Forbing and Werner. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., requested assistance in alleviating the problems with the postal service within Area A. Jim Paul, 1269 Ahtena Dr., expressed concern that there was not a transition period given to the name change from Colima Rd. to Golden Spgs. He suggested that in the same area, a sign "Entering the City of Diamond Bar" be placed eastbound Golden Spgs. and a sign "Leaving the City of Diamond Bar, Please Return" be placed westbound on Golden Spgs. He also suggested that median improvements to Landscape District #38 include the extreme west City limits because those residents also pay the tax assessment. C/Werner, a member of the Entry Sign Committee with C/Forbing, explained that the committee is currently considering entry and exit signs. ICE/Wentz stated that a recommendation will be brought back to the City Manager regarding alternative designs for medians in Landscape District #38, which will include from Lemon St. west. Clair Harmony, referring to a comment made at the last meeting that the consultant placed double asterisks by changes made to the General Plan, pointed out that the General Plan text dated July 16, 1991 did not include asterisks for the Golf Course item or the Triangular Area item, as indicated on page I-15, item M, Plan for Community Development Land Use. The reasons those ideas were scrapped was because the community came out MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 2 in large numbers to protest it. Furthermore, because the City Clerk indicated that the petitioners of the Referendum were turned down because of legal reasons cited by the City Attorney, then the City Clerk did indeed have contact with the City Council through the City Attorney, contrary to what was said at the last meeting. Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Dr., expressed concern that the Council appears to be pro -development and that they are not sympathetic to the needs of the community. Fred Scalzo, President of the Chamber of Commerce, announced that the Chamber recently held their annual Community Retreat, which included members of different facets of the community. Many items were discussed, but the one common goal was to make Diamond Bar a better place to live, grow, retire and do business. He suggested that the general public be given the same clarification regarding General Plan issues given at the Community Retreat. Barbara Beach Cushane, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., responding to a request made at the last Council meeting to hear from individuals that are not involved in the Referendum, stated that, for the record, she is opposed to the destruction of — hills and canyons for mass housing densities and commercial buildings. She expressed concern for the two lawsuits pending. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/MacBride, after conducting inter- views with applicants applying for the position of Commissioner, stated that he recommended the following appointments: Michael Li, Planning Commissioner; David Schey, Parks & Recreation Commissioner; and Diana Cheng, Traffic & Transportation Commissioner. He requested that the item be placed on the next Council agenda. He then commented on how impressed he was with the parental support and participation during the recent Boy Scouts Blue & Gold Dinner. C/Forbing, in response to Mrs. Cushane, explained that the most recent lawsuit is a result of the Council's denial of a request to develop a tract. In response to a comment made by Mrs. Ansari, he explained that a property owner has a right to develop his land and that the City would have to buy his property in order for the Council to deny him a right to develop it. In response to a comment made by Mr. Harmony, he stated that a vital City has to have an opportunity to have ideas put forth for discussion. C/Werner expressed support of joint efforts by the Chamber of -- Commerce and the D.B. Improvement Association (DBIA) in working with the City to accomplish mutual objectives. In response to some of the public comments made, he stated that he plans on keeping an open mind by listening to all points. In his opinion, the General Plan Resolution should be rescinded, and the issues brought back for discussion to be MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 3 resolved. Some items having community -wide importance could possibly be placed on the ballot to seek public input. MPT/Papen stated that she attended the Girls Softball League's Opening Day at Peterson Park. The sports groups of this community have indicated appreciation for the response from the Parks & Recreation Department and the City Council in supporting the youth activities in the community. In response to some of the public comments made, she pointed out that the Council negotiated with Bramalea to reduce their density and donate over 300 acres to the City. All development agreements reached have great benefit in public services to the community, at no cost to the City. MPT/Papen suggested that it was time to stop dealing with drafts of the General Plan that were not approved and start dealing with what was approved and get on with building the future of our community. M/Miller stated that he enjoyed both the Boy Scouts Blue and Gold Dinner and the Girls Softball League's Opening Day. Further, he stated that he felt that the Chamber of Commerce Community Retreat was a very beneficial workshop. In regard to the General Plan, he stated that he feels that it is a good document and that since the signers of the referendum most likely signed it on the basis of what was on the petition, then those are the specific items that will need further consideration. He also stated that he will not put the citizens of this community in a position to be assessed additionally to buy property that this Council arrogantly zoned opened space. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: CM/Belanger requested that item 5.8, a proposed Resolution to accept the vacation of a sewer easement, be removed from the agenda for consideration at the next meeting. CC/Burgess stated that the Minutes of February 2, 1993 were corrected to indicate, on page 5, that C/Werner voted "no" on the request for attendance at a Sister City Conference, and that C/MacBride "abstained." MPT/Papen requested that the Minutes of February 2, 1993 properly specify, on page 11, that the motion for a "No Right Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m." was for a 90 -day -trial period. C/Werner moved, MPT/Papen seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 5.8. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Werner, Forbing, MacBride, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - None 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 4 5.1.1 Planning Commission - March 8, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 Sheriff's Breakfast - March 9, 1993 - 7:00 a.m., AQMD Cafeteria, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 Traffic & Transportation Commission - March 11, 1993 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.4 City Council Meeting - March 16, 1993 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 5.2.1 Regular Meeting of February 2, 1993 - Approved as amended. 5.2.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 9, 1993 - Approved as submitted. 5.2.3 Regular Meeting of February 16, 1993 - Approved as submitted. 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated March 2, 1993 in the amount of $528,799.46. 5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 5.4.1 Regular Meeting of January 11, 1993 - Received & filed. 5.4.2 Regular Meeting of January 25, 1993 - Received & filed. 5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 14, 1993 - Received & filed. 5.6 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by State Farm Insurance on February 17, 1993 - Rejected claim and referred for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 5.7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-09: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE ENACTMENT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT, CONSTRICT AND CONTROL THE FLOW AND EXISTENCE OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE COUNTRY. It was moved by C/Werner, seconded by MPT/Papen, to adopt Resolution No. 93-09 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE ENACTMENT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT, CONSTRICT AND CONTROL THE FLOW AND EXISTENCE OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE COUNTRY. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN — Werner, MacBRide, Forbing, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 5 MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.8 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, TO ACCEPT 1) THE VACATION OF A SEWER EASEMENT AND 2) THE OFFERING OF A RELOCATED SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED AT 3302 SOUTH DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AN DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD THE RESOLUTION/EASEMENT DEED - This Sewer Easement Vacation/Relocation is between Parcel 1 of Parcel 15375 and Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 2151 at 3302 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., for construction of an Arco AM/PM mini -mart. The Sewer Easement Vacation/Relocation has now been submitted to the City for approval. Continued to March 16, 1993. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 6.1 CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION - M/Miller presented Certificates of Appreciation to Adam Hardie and Megan Henderson for their efforts in obtaining signatures opposing the proposed MRF by the City of Industry. 6.2 PROCLAIMED MARCH 7-13, 1993 AS "GIRL SCOUT WEEK." 7. NEW BUSINESS: 7.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE RFP FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PANTERA PARK - CM/Belanger reported that the City had been awarded a $1.47 million grant, funded by Prop A funds to develop Pantera Park and that a landscape architect is required to complete the plans and specifications for development. He indicated that the Parks & Recreation Commission recommended authorization of the release of the RFP for landscape architectural services. In response to C/Werner, CM/Belanger stated that staff will move as swiftly as possible to bring the plans and specifications back to Council for approval. CSD/Rose stated that a timeline showing when Proposition A bond money will be available will be received in April of 1993. MPT/Papen moved, seconded by C/Werner, to adopt -- Resolution No. 93-10 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE RFP FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PANTERA PARK. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 6 AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MacBride, Forbing, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 7.2 AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL LITIGATION SERVICES - CM/Belanger reported that the City is involved in litigation entitled Diamond Bar Assoc., Inc. vs. City of Diamond Bar and that the Council deemed it prudent to retain special litigation services to advise and represent the Council in the matter. After meeting with representatives of four law firms, it was recommended that the City retain the services of Rutan & Tucker to provide these services. It was further recommended that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the appropriate agreement. MPT/Papen requested that the attorney interviewed during Closed Session be the attorney of record to represent the City in the case and in all actions. CA/Arczynski stated that Leonard Hempel would be lead counsel and that terms and conditions of the agreement would be in accordance with the written proposal previously submitted. It was moved by MPT/Papen, seconded by C/MacBride to retain Rutan & Tucker for special litigation services related to Diamond Bar Assoc., Inc. vs. City of Diamond Bar, and direct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate agreement. Motion carried 4 to 1 with C/Werner abstaining. 7.3 FIXED ROUTE DEVIATION TRANSIT SYSTEM - ICM/Wentz reported that UMA Engineering, Inc. was retained to conduct a feasibility study for a fixed route deviation transit system for the general public within the City on a regular basis. Phase I of the study presented the results of a questionnaire and telephone survey designed to estimate the demand if a system were implemented. Phase II of the study presented various options in funding, ridership potential, route layout, timetables, fare structure and vehicle requirements available to the City. It was concluded that, based upon an estimated cost annually of about $680,000, and using 60,000 trips estimated in Phase I as a guideline, the cost would be approximately $11.34 per passenger, requiring a subsidy of $10.59 per passenger per trip for ridership. Both phases were reviewed by the Traffic & Transportation Commission who were concerned that the cost of the service would be too expensive. There was additional concern regarding the types of vehicles -to be used and how the system would be funded. If funding was to be used for such a program, there was a consensus that Proposition C funds be explored. The Traffic & Transportation Commission did express either support or MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 7 opposition. He recommended that the fixed route system not be implemented at this time, but that staff explore alternatives for partial or total implementation based on ridership demand. At the request of C/MacBride, ICE/Wentz explained that a fixed route deviation transit system involves having vehicles operating on fixed routes within the City and running on known schedules, so that riders could utilize those particular fixed routes, along with other feeder routes from specific areas with the most potential for ridership within the City, to feed into that particular system. C/MacBride suggested that staff explore the possibility of assistance and cooperation from the Foothill Transit District. MPT/Papen suggested that there be some publicity in the City and in Chino Hills regarding opening of the Metrolink Station in the City of Industry in mid-June 1993. It was the consensus of Council to direct staff to explore alternatives for partial or total implementation of a fixed route deviation transit system based on ridership demand. 7.4 RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 92-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - CM/Belanger reported that the Elections Code Section 4055 stipulates that upon certification of petitions filed to referend an action of the City Council, the City Council may either repeal the enabling legislation (reconsider Resolution No. 92-44) or submit the matter to the voters at an election. If the Council repeals Resolution No. 92-44 or conducts an election and the Resolution is not voted in the affirmative, the matter cannot be considered for a period of one year. However, if the Council repeals the Resolution, a new General Plan can be adopted for the City without the one-year waiting period if it could be found that the new document is essentially different than what was adopted. The following items of concern have been expressed by the community in asking that Resolution No. 92-44 be subjected to referendum: the number of acres to be developed under the General Plan; objection to a transportation corridor designated in the sphere of influence area generally known as Tonner Canyon and impacts of development on the circulation system, both of which would be generated from within and outside the City. If the Council determines not to repeal Resolution No. 92-44, then the matter must be set for an election no sooner than 88 days from the date of that determination. MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 8 M/Miller suggested that Resolution No. 92-44 be repealed and that public hearings be reconvened regarding the General Plan to discuss changes to: the number of total developed acres, the number of total housing units, the removal of reference to a transportation corridor in the sphere of influence area and an evaluation of the circu- lation system impacts. Those changes should be made in the General Plan designation which are Constitutionally permissible. Staff should then be directed to prepare the necessary staff analysis, and where appropriate, secure the assistance of technical and legal consultants to provide whatever information and/or advice is neces- sary to create an essentially different General Plan based on the parameters, concerns and impacts stated in the referendum petition. Council should form a sub- committee to work with staff to be certain that the issues at hand are being addressed in an appropriate and expeditious manner. He further stated that notwith- standing any legal argument that could be posed related to the referendum process, it is critically important to move forward as a community by taking those actions which are necessary and prudent to bringing to full force and effect the General Plan. CM/Belanger noted that the wording of the petition clearly does not ask for the recall of the City Council. C/Werner pointed out that the Government Code clearly states that when a referendum is placed before the City Council, the Council can either rescind the action or the decision that caused the referendum to be circulated, or to place the matter before the electorate. Putting the matter on the ballot may not be to the best benefit of the community because the people can only vote "Yes" or "No" and if the ballot measure fails, there would be no justification to make any changes. Since the petition identifies four issues of concern, it may be best to rescind the General Plan and deal with those four specific issues, to try to settle them to the community's satisfaction through the public hearing and adoption process. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Dr., stated that it is the responsibility of the Council to submit this to a vote of the people. If the Council concurs to repeal the General Plan, then they should be prepared to state specifically what they feel is wrong with the General Plan, as did the proponents of the Referendum. If it is to be placed on the ballot, then the ballot should also include the — following items: the election of the City Clerk; the election of the City Council by district; and an advisory measure as to whether or not there should be term limits for the Councilmen. MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 9 M/Miller pointed out that the intent is to bring the specific issue within the referendum petition back for public hearing to receive input from the community. Mr. Neely pointed out that the General Plan process did not work because the issues regarding Tonner Canyon, Sandstone Canyon and the Bramalea property of upper Sycamore Canyon were not open to public debate to allow full participation regarding decisions to be made. MPT/Papen requested Mr. Chavers, Chairman of the Traffic & Transportation Commission, to come forward and comment on what occurred at the Commission and GPAC level regarding the issue of a Tonner Canyon transportation corridor versus a highway. Todd Chavers explained that a consultant was selected, in the development of the circulation element portion of the General Plan, to prepare a technical model so that there would be a common data base for analysis, evaluation and comparison. The consultant brought forward alternative mitigation measures to improve traffic in the City, specifically Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd. It was determined that without a Tonner Canyon corridor, based with the prospect of 50,000 to 60,000 cars on Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd., the community would be unbearable and unlivable. Therefore, a transportation corridor through Tonner Canyon seemed to be a solution to help the City maintain a level of traffic congestion within the City that is tolerable. The Traffic & Transportation Commission felt that Tonner Canyon could be a potential route, whether a light rail segment, a monorail segment, or an HOV-lane-only type of segment, to accommodate the traffic. C/Werner pointed out that Tonner Canyon is identified and recognized as an environmental area of significance and that the current version of the General Plan attempts to balance both the environmental as well as future traffic issues. Mr. Chavers further pointed out that not having a Tonner Canyon statement in the General Plan would not make the issue of traffic go away or get better. MPT/Papen explained that Brea's sphere of influence already plans for development in Tonner Canyon that includes a roadway, but not through to Chino Hills. In addition, a roadway currently exists through Tonner Canyon, within L.A. County which is not open to the public. C/MacBride stated that the City has Tonner Canyon and the improvement to the 57/60 freeway as two major potentials for removing traffic from our roadways. There is a vast MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 10 difference between a roadway, or a freeway and an environmentally -sensitive corridor that might accommodate such things as paralleling horse trails, bicycle paths, hiking trails and parkways. A corridor could be built environmentally sensitive, as was done with the George Washington Parkway, if all the communities work cooperatively to do so. Mr. Chavers, concurring with C/MacBride, stated that he would lean toward development of a Tonner Canyon corridor over improvement of the 57/60 freeway because the environmental aspects of double decking an interchange through the City in that neighborhood would be unacceptable. Tonner Canyon offers an opportunity to create something the way we want and with financial benefit to the City. MPT/Papen stated that she feels that the General Plan should have included a map of Tonner Canyon specifically showing where the SEA is located so people could see the Possibilities of providing another traffic outlet for vehicles without imposing on the SEA. Through L.A. County, Tonner Canyon is approximately 3,500 acres with the SEA portion at 1,000 acres, and clustered in one area. Furthermore, since there was also some discussion about other significant ecological areas in the community, it would seem appropriate to prioritize those areas that the community might give up for community enhancement and those areas that can be saved. M/Miller pointed out that the projections stated in the EIR of the General Plan indicate that there are approximately 6,300 units potentially buildable in the City. MPT/Papen stated that the Council has many ways of implementing controlled and planned growth that is environmentally sensitive in this community. Clair Harmony stated that the Council should take care to hear the people during public hearings if the City decides to repeal the General Plan. M/Miller explained that he will be abstaining from hearings or any processing of the South Pointe Master Plan because of his prior involvement as an owner in that area. That information and the sale of that property was given to the City Attorney. Though the City Attorney indicated that there is no legal conflict of interest, -- M/Miller decided to abstain from the process because of his professional and personal relationship with Jan Dabney, JC Dabney & Associates, who is currently working for one of the land owners involved in the process. MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 11 M/Miller then pointed out that the Tonner Canyon property that is being referred to is not in Diamond Bar and that it is the decision of the Boy Scouts of America to either stay with L.A. County or be part of this community. Furthermore, any road that may go through Tonner Canyon would have to be with the cooperation of the Boy Scouts. The concept of leaving the language in the General Plan is to allow for that option to be considered in the future so it can be discussed. Fred Scalzo, President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that in the best interest of the business community's commitment to prosperity and the community at large, it is vital that the Council find the quickest and most equitable solutions to the issues of the petition. If it is to go to ballot, then it is important that the public be educated as soon as possible to the issues. Jack Bath, 13232 Twelve Street, Chino, representing the Sierra Club's Diversity Task Force, pointed out that the Council has been negligent in addressing the wildlife movement in the General Plan. He stated his support for the decision to rescind the General Plan. RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 9:12 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m. 7.4 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 92-44: Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Ln., stated that he felt that there had not been a great enough attempt made by the transportation authority of the City to control the flow of traffic through synchronized signalization. Furthermore, since the City's traffic condition is determined by its neighbors, the City should not be attempting to solve a regional problem with our minimal resources. Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Dr., suggested that the City look at the City of Whittier to see what they have done to get money to save certain areas or certain properties. MPT/Papen pointed out that Diamond Bar received funds from the same source as the City of Whittier; however, Whittier received more funds because they applied for a different project. Mrs. Ansari then stated that with certain modifications of the General Plan, there could be a meeting of the minds. In response to a comment made by Mr. Smith, M/Miller stated that the City is synchronizing the lights to the City's advantage to discourage cut through traffic in the MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 12 City. The problem is that the people living on Grand Ave. must also get home and go to work. It was moved by M/Miller and seconded by C/Werner to direct staff to draft a Resolution repealing Resolution No. 92-44, to reconvene the General Plan for Public Hearing regarding changes to the number of total devel- oped acres, the number of total housing units, reconsider the reference to the transportation corridor in the sphere of influence area, i.e. Tonner Canyon, and to evaluate the circulation system impacts. Further, direct staff to prepare an analysis and, where appropriate, secure the assistance of public information, technical and legal consultants to provide whatever information and/or advice is necessary to create an essentially different General Plan. C/Forbing suggested that staff first be directed to bring the Resolution back so that Council can vote on repealing Resolution No. 92-44 and then direct staff to schedule a Public Hearing as soon as possible for discussion of essential changes to the General Plan. Further, devel- opment of a City Council subcommittee, appointed by the Mayor, should work with staff to come up with ideas and proposals for discussion at Public Hearings. C/Werner pointed out that the M/Miller's motion indicated that the matter would be brought back to Public Hearing and identified the four items discussed in the petition, but does not lock the Council into those items only. He felt that the motion was adequate to satisfy the Council's objectives. He further stated that there is no need for another subcommittee and that everything should be kept out in front so as not to give any illusions as to what is to be accomplished. MPT/Papen stated that only two or three chapters of the General Plan would need to be reviewed. She suggested that staff come back with a Resolution, that Public Hearing dates be set and that the chapters to be dis- cussed be identified for discussion at a pre-set meeting date. She concurred that a Council subcommittee was not necessary. M/Miller amended his motion to exclude consideration of a subcommittee. MPT/Papen expressed concern that once Resolution No. 92-44 is repealed, then the City has a draft General -- Plan. The four issues identified in the motion are the four areas of concern raised in the petition and are not the only issues that can be discussed. CA/Arczynski stated that it was staff's understanding that a Resolution to repeal Resolution 92-44 is to be MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 13 prepared and brought along with a memorandum to the Council outlining the projected hearing dates, potential times that might be allotted for different areas of the General Plan and to initiate analysis of the specific areas mentioned, subject to new areas or other modifications the Council wishes to place before the staff during the conduct of the Hearings. M/Miller restated his motion to direct staff to prepare a Resolution repealing Resolution No. 92-44, to reconvene the General Plan for Public Hearing regarding changes to the number of total developed acres, the number of total housing units, consideration of the transportation corridor in the sphere of influence, i.e. Tonner Canyon, and an evaluation of the circulation system impacts, and to bring those changes back in the form of the General Plan for consideration. Staff was further directed to prepare the necessary staff analysis and, more appropriate, secure the assistance of public information, technical and legal consultants to provide whatever information and/or advice is necessary to create an essentially different General Plan. C/Werner affirmed his second to the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 7.5 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF A QUESTION RELATING TO REFERENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-44 ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - Not adopted. 7.6 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993 - Not adopted. 7.7 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS - Not adopted. 7.8 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS - Not adopted. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard. 8.1 ORDINANCE NO. 01 (1993) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 14 22.78 TO TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE PERTAINING TO TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES - ICE/Wentz reported that State statute requires local jurisdictions to adopt and implement a (TDM) Ordinance, consistent with the County Congestion Management Program (CMP), encourag- ing car pooling, van pooling, transit ridership and on - motorized transportation. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Ordinance and recommended Council adoption. The Traffic & Transportation Commission also reviewed the Ordinance and their comments were included in the staff report. He further stated that staff recommended that Section 22.78.20, Page 9, of the Ordinance be amended to clarify and highlight the City's compliance with the land use analysis portion within the Congestion Management Plan of the County. M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. With no testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by C/Werner and seconded by MPT/Papen to waive further reading and adopt first reading of Ordinance No. 01(1993) entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.78 TO TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE PERTAINING TO TRIP REDUCTION SND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES, as amended. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, MacBride, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 93-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-8, AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL, INTO TEN PARCELS, WITH FOUR OF PARCELS DIVIDED INTO UNITS A AND B, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE WALNUT BUSINESS CENTER, AT 20418 WALNUT DRIVE - CDD/DeStefano reported that Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. requested approval of TPM No. 23629 for subdivision of one parcel into ten parcels for commercial condomin- iums. The subdivision meets or exceeds all development standards within the planning and zoning code for the M-1.5 zone. The Planning Commission reviewed the pro- posed subdivision beginning in December of 1992 and concluded on January 25, 1993 by recommending that Council adopt a resolution approving the Parcel Map. The Planning Commission augmented their actions by adding specific conditions dealing with the existing graffiti problems with some of the parcels that have MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 15 existing buildings facing the freeways. In response to C/Werner's inquiry regarding management of property maintenance, CDD/DeStefano stated that there would be a Commercial Owners Assn. In regard to uniform signage, CDD/DeStefano stated that a Planned Sign Program for this project was approved by the Planning Commission late in 1992 which allowed for a diversity of signage styles but with an overall theme complimentary to the architecture that exists within the area. The design criteria would remain and become a part of this project, even upon the individual sale of the units. It is not specifically part of the subdivision issues; however, if the Council desires, a provision could be incorporated in the CC & R's indicating that the property owners abide by the Planned Sign Program. C/Werner asked what controls the City would retain to assure that individual uses do not exceed the confines of the building, for parking spaces to accommodate the building, or the ability for the Center to continue operating without being impacted by one individual user. He also inquired if there would be any overriding management control over the uses to avoid the competition that might occur from like businesses. CDD/DeStefano stated that, at this point, the Center is 100% occupied. In most cases, any new land use would require some form of tenant improvements, which gives the City the ability to look at the ratio of parking spaces based upon the square footage of the use. Presently, there are no other means of double checking the intensity of the parking. The management issues regarding the concerns for similar land uses would be more aptly directed to the applicant. In response to MPT/Papen's inquiry, CDD/DeStefano explained that, as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act, the project is a combination of ground space subdivision and air space subdivision, and though the project is ten lots, it is better described as 14 units. The two units on one lot could have different owners. MPT/Papen expressed concern that the present property owners don't own the billboards and don't have rights to them and over the lack of adequate guest/visitor parking on the street for each of these complexes. She noted that every parking space on the street is marked reserved. M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. James Camp, Cornerstone Partners, Walnut, explained that they purchased the property about a year ago with MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 16 the intent of subdividing. He made the following responses to those comments made by the Council: his firm has provided for the Walnut Business Center Maintenance Business District in the CC&Rs which will control all of the common area, including landscaping, parking lot maintenance, sweeping, irrigation; each owner will be assessed a maintenance district fee to cover the costs; Cornerstone Partners would maintain control of the District as long as they own one building and they plan to retain parcels #1, #2, and #3, which are multi -tenant buildings; the CC&Rs provide for the owners to have the right to vote Cornerstone Properties out, usually after all buildings are sold; the current tenants expressed interest in purchasing their respective units; the project includes the parking spaces on Yellow Brick Rd., and the District will strive to avoid reserve parking spaces; his firm will comply with State Handicap Codes by putting in those facilities that are immediately and readily available including putting proper handles on doors, adjusting access to restrooms, installing ramp access as building permits are pulled, and other requirements as tenant improvement permits are pulled. CDD/DeStefano confirmed, upon M/Miller's request, that the applicant is not required to meet the State Handicap Requirements unless a tenant improvement permit is pulled. That condition cannot be implemented as a condition of approval for the map. James Camp, in response to C/Werner, explained that they are trying to meet a demand for purchase of small buildings. Businesses want to own their buildings and there is currently attractive financing through FBA. The purpose of the Maintenance District is to provide the control that the City desires. C/Werner inquired if the applicant would object to a condition prohibiting someone who purchases a building from subleasing part of the building. Mr. Camp stated that he would prefer not to have such a restriction because too many restrictions begin to raise concerns from the buyers. However, from a practical standpoint, it will most likely not occur. Mr. Camp, in response to MPT/Papen, explained that the seller, when in escrow to purchase the property, leased it to a church who improved the building 80%, thus -- requiring additional parking, and as a result, encum- bered the neighboring lots. His firm has shifted that parking to lots #1, #2 and #3. There are plenty of parking spaces provided throughout the project when including spaces approved when the project was origin- ally developed 17 years ago on the private drive, MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 17 Yellow Brick Rd. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Werner, stated that he does not believe that any of the uses there today require, or would require a CUP. The Council is reviewing and considering approval of a subdivision of the land or the air space, not considering the land uses that are there, which may change in the future. C/Werner inquired if it would be in the City's discretion to impose some land use restrictions on this lot split so as to avoid any future parking problems or land use over-intensifications. Mr. Camp, in response to MPT/Papen, explained that at the time of the traffic study they were vacant, however, since then, those units have been leased and the park is 100% occupied. There is ample parking at the center for those tenants. In response to C/Werner's concern regarding graffiti, Mr. Camp stated that they have agreed to do whatever they could, within reason, to get rid of the graffiti problem. A 12 ft. high steel barrier had been placed on all roof access ladders with padlocks to keep taggers off the roof, 56 five gallon creeping vines for the wall will be planted to deter graffiti, and additional wall pack lighting on the freeway will be installed. In response to MPT/Papen's concern regarding the billboard issue, Mr. Camp explained that they do not have the right to those billboards, nor do they derive any income from them, and that they are held by two individuals who have the rights to them for another 10 to 15 years. MPT/Papen suggested that there should be documentation on that lease in the files so that the City knows when to give them notice. CDD/DeStefano stated that there is no information in the files regarding the specific lease, but information from the applicant that discusses in more detail the easement that allows for the operation, maintenance, etc. of the two billboards that exist. Staff was able to find from the building permits the original permits granted for the erection of the billboards in the early to mid 701s. With no further testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. CA/Arczynski stated that it is staff's recommendation that subsection z on page 6 be deleted from the Resolution. Further, in response to C/Werner's concern regarding condition C on page 4, stated that the point MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 18 of the condition was to alert, not only this applicant but subsequent purchasers, that trash haulers must be permitted by the City. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Werner's suggestion that the property owners also be alerted that they are required to provide facilities for separated recycling and solid waste, to be properly screened, stated that condition B may accomplish that goal. CA/Arczynski, in response to C/Werner's suggestion that condition T, on page 6 be less vague, stated that the condition is used by the Engineering Department for any inconsistencies on the map that was not caught and are not really particular to the map. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Werner, confirmed that from a planning standpoint, the map has been reviewed for inconsistencies. ICE/Wentz confirmed that the map was reviewed for inconsistencies from an engineering perspective. MPT/Papen stated that she is hesitant to allow lot splits with irregular lines, where the private street is a separate lot, with a mixture of individual buildings and duplexes. The design of the Center was not intended to be a condominium industrial parcel and it may not be consistent with the General Plan for the design of that property. Furthermore, there does not seem to be any real benefit to the City. C/Werner stated that even though he shares the concerns expressed by MPT/Papen, there may be some pride of ownership that would result in a better use or maintenance of the property. It was moved by C/Forbing and seconded by C/MacBride to adopt Resolution No. 93-11, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-8, AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL, INTO TEN PARCELS, WITH FOUR PARCELS DIVIDED INTO UNITS A AND B, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE WALNUT BUSINESS CENTER, AT 20418 WALNUT DRIVE, as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Werner announced that Pat Whelan would be resigning from the Parks & Recreation Commission and MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 19 that he will accept applications or letters of interest from members of the community to fill this vacancy. He requested staff to prepare a certificate of recognition for Mr. Whelan. C/Forbing stated that the City of Industry would be signing a property agreement with the Pomona Unified School District on March 5, 1993. MPT/Papen stated that a letter had been received from the City of Alhambra indicating that their redevelopment agency had filed a written complaint with the California Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the State's diversion of property taxes from cities to replace the State's constitu- tional obligation to fund public education. She requested the Council send a letter to the Supreme Court urging them to hear this matter. The Council concurred. 10. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Miller adjourned the meeting at 10:39 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LY DA BURGESS,CMC/AAE City Clerk