Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1993 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY OF COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAY 18, 1993 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M. Litigation - Government Code 54956.9 Diamond Bar Assoc. v. City City v. County of Los Angeles Personnel - Government Code 54957.6 No reportable action taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Miller called the regular meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Miller. INVOCATION: The invocation was presented by Dr. Robert Wiley Jr., Northminster Presbyterian Church. ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing, Werner, and MacBride. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 3.1 Proclaimed May 16-22, 1993 as "RAIL SAFETY WEEK." 3.2 Proclaimed May 1993 as "FIRE SERVICE MONTH" - accepted by Fire Captain Lockhart. 3.3 Certificates of Commendation - M/Miller presented commendations to Karla Adams, Al Flores and Dale Mueller in recognition of completing communications training at the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department Citizen's Academy. 3.4 Proclaimed May 20, 1993 as "FOOTHILL TRANSIT DAY" - Accepted by Marylou MacGinnis. 3.5 Presentation by the Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce - Cathy Cook, President, presented the City Council with a check for $1,500 for the picnic canopy at Carlton J. Peterson Park. 4. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 4.1 General Plan Public Hearing - May 19, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.2 Planning Commission - May 24, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.3 General Plan Public Hearing - May 26, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 28165 E. Copley Dr. 4.4 Parks & Recreation Commission - May 27, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.5 Memorial Day Observance - Monday, May 31, 1993 - City Offices closed. MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 2 M/Miller, referring to item 10.3, expressed concern that an incomplete draft Property Maintenance Ordinance was placed on the agenda. C/MacBride reported that the Code Enforcement Subcommittee recommended that the draft ordinance not be considered at this time because the Subcommittee had not had an opportunity to adequately review the document, nor has the City Attorney completed his review of the provisions of the Ordinance. C/Werner stated that he had requested the item to be placed on the agenda for Council's review before being presented to the Planning Commission. CM/Belanger apologized for the inappropriate transmittal of the incomplete Ordinance form. It was intended that the City Council would only receive a letter report from the City Attorney indicating his recommendation on the way to treat these kinds of policies, and an oral report from the City Council Subcommittee. C/Werner, responding to M/Miller's request to withdraw the item from the agenda, suggested that the Subcommittee be allowed to present their status report to the City Council, especially since the Ordinance had already been distributed to the public. In response to M/Miller's inquiry, C/Werner explained that MPT/Papen distributed the Ordinance to a member of the public on May 6, 1993, which included a memo indicating that he [C/Werner] publicly opposed the Ordinance and opposed giving the Code Enforcement Officer citation authority. C/ Werner clarified that he is not in opposition to the Ordinance and that he had not even reviewed it until May 11, 1993, five days after the May 6, 1993 memo. MPT/Papen confirmed that portions of the draft Ordinance was distributed, both by herself and the Subcommittee, to individuals for review and comment to allow an opportunity to provide input to the Subcommittee. She explained that the position taken by C/Werner, as she had quoted, was taken from public record when the item was before the Council in 1990, in which no action was taken and the matter was tabled. It was not the intention of the subcommittee to present the Ordinance to the public in its present condition because some of the issues had not yet been properly addressed and had not been approved by the subcommittee. The item should be pulled from the agenda, and brought back, and properly noticed when it is ready for public forum. C/Werner pointed out that the intent of the status report is to make the City Council aware of what is being prepared by the Subcommittee. It would be a disservice to the community and to the subcommittee, not to at least receive some public input tonight. He reiterated"his concern that MPT/Papen had made untrue public statements regarding his opposition to an Ordinance that is incomplete. C/MacBride, in response to M/Miller, stated that the MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 3 —� Subcommittee is not satisfied with the draft ordinance and it should not have been put on the agenda. However, the Subcommittee would appreciate community input to develop an ordinance that protects property values and a high quality of life in the community, with the understanding that it is in an incomplete form. M/Miller withdrew item 10.3 from the agenda, allowing the public an opportunity to respond to the issue during Public Comments. S. PUBLIC COHMNTS: Oscar Law, 21511 Pathfinder, asked how the City could be holding workshops to revise a General Plan that was invalidated by the courts. He expressed his opposition to the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance for the following reasons: It is too restrictive and should not be allowed to become law; the Code Enforcement Officer is given too much police power; the Ordinance suggests that those without money should leave the community; however, it should be noted that 25% of the community is on welfare and social security; the City Council seems to be representing their own interests and not the interests of the community; and since the community has CC&R's, the Ordinance is not needed. C/Werner suggested that those people desiring to speak on the "—, draft Property Maintenance Ordinance should submit their names fso that the Subcommittee can contact them to obtain feedback. Nick Anis, 1125 Bramford Court, expressed concern that it is costing the community a fortune to appease a select group of citizens who are against City government, staff and the City Council. He reviewed a list of expenditures, totaling $484,925 dollars, that the community must pay for the actions of "Citizens Against Diamond Bar." It would be more beneficial to use the funds for improvements needed throughout the community. Ed Hilden, concurring with Nick Anis, stated that complaints against the Councilmembers are petty. The intent of the "Citizens Against Diamond Bar" is to take over power or to dissolve the current government. Martha Bruske indicated that she would contact a Councilmember regarding her comments on the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance. Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch, referring to an article in the Orange County Register dated May 7, 1993 which indicated that the Brea City Council successfully received funds to add 1,000 acres to Chino Hills State Park, urged the City to ^� explore ways to receive some of the $1.9 million that will be made available in June of 1994 to preserve certain open space areas. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., read a letter from Tom Van Winkle expressing concern over the City's handling of the General Plan Public Hearings. MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 4 M/Miller, noting that it was 7:00 p.m., stated that remaining Public Comment would be received following the Public Hearing agenda items as a response to various complaints received from applicants that they are often kept waiting until late in the evening, which is quite costly to them. Clair Harmony stated that the rights of the citizens, under the Brown Act, are being violated. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Scheduled to begin precisely at 7:00 p.m. 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING AN APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93- 1, AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 494-1, AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 92-6, AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA TO AN EXISTING QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT IDENTIFIED AS CARL'S JR., LOCATED AT 141 S. DIAMOND BAR BLVD., AND SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - CDD/DeStefano reported that Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. filed an appeal regarding conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission for addition of a children's outdoor play area with supervisory seating to an existing quick service restaurant. The Planning Commission, in their approval, added a condition that required the applicant to provide additional off-site parking spaces for the proposed use 1 because the proposed play area would increase the already existing parking deficiency. The applicant feels that the conditions are overly burdensome and were equivalent to a denial. He recommended that the Council adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX denying the appeal of conditions of approval and upholding the Planning Commission's decision. M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. Mike Callahan, representing Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., explained that the applicant, early on in the process before the Planning Commission, disagreed with the mathematical analysis used to calculate the number of needed parking spaces. Based upon his calculations, only 40 parking stalls are needed. The play area seeks to attract families with small children, which will increase sales and the amount of landscaped area. He then gave the following reasons for appealing the parking con- ditions set by the Planning Commission: half of their business goes through the drive-through, which should decrease the need for the number of parking stalls required; no one has expressed disapproval of the play ground during the Public Hearings; they currently have informal agreements to allow employees to park off-site during the noon hour; the condition is more burdensome than the application itself; and the condition is economically infeasible and tantamount to a denial. Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs, disturbed because the MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 5 —) Public Comment portion of the agenda had been interrupted by moving the Public Hearing portion forward, stated that the Council has an obligation to allow all citizens their right to speak for five minutes before the Council. RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 7:18 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 7:27 p.m. M/Miller pointed out that item #8 of the agenda indicates that Public Hearing items will begin at 7:00 p.m.. The City has received numerous complaints, by applicants and individuals who desire to address issues on the agenda, that Public Hearings do not occur on time. Public Comments will be heard following the Public Hearing item. Tom Ortiz, 3308 Hawkwood, stated that he had never seen a parking problem at Carl's Jr. at any time during any of his visits. Oscar Law expressed support for allowing Carl's Jr. to construct the playground area without the parking condition set forth by the Planning Commission. Bill Tinsman, 1014 Capen Ave., expressed support for Carl's Jr.'s request, especially since they have already made an agreement for parking during the lunch hour. Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend, pointed out that since the competing restaurant was allowed to put in a play area, then so should Carl's Jr.. Don Schad, Joe Larutta (2546 Sunbright Dr.) and Max Maxwell also expressed support of Carl's Jr.'s request. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill, stated that since Carl's Jr. cooperated with the City by removing their sign, the City should cooperate with them. CM/Belanger reported that the request was approved by the Planning Commission, but that Carl's Jr. had submitted an appeal to modify one of the conditions of that approval. Ken Anderson, 2628 Rising Star Dr., stated that though the play area is a good idea, parking is a problem that haunts many neighborhoods in the City. It is important to have adequate parking for any facility. CDD/DeStefano, at the request of CM/Belanger, explained that the CUP is processed under the jurisdiction of the L.A. County Planning zoning Code as it was adopted by ! this City in April 1989. The issue of how the use was computed and the number of spaces required has been with this code well beyond the City's 4 years of incorporation. MPT/Papen stated that the issue before the Council is to ew. MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 6 determine if the Council should overrule the Planning Commission's conditioned approval of the project, requiring Carl's Jr. to secure a written agreement for six off-site parking spaces because they currently have a shortage of spaces. CA/Arcyznski explained that the facility is currently below standard under the Code requirement. The play area creates an additional under -parking problem. There are provisions in the CPD zone that indicate that all parking does not have to be on-site and can be in another location within 400 or 1,000 feet depending on the type of parking. In order to do this, a reasonable provision must be provided to the City indicating that the applicant does actually have those spaces. The Planning Commission has imposed a condition stating that those necessary spaces must be provided, within the requirements of the code. The entire project is before the City Council, and if so desired, the entire application can be denied or modified as necessary. CDD/DeStefano stated that, should the Council determine that additional parking spaces were not required, this project would not be required to go through a variance proceeding because the CPD zone allows for a wide _ fluctuation in development standards at the sole discretion of the decision making body. Lydia Plunk, 1522 Deerfoot Dr., a Planning Commissioner, indicated that the applicant agreed to the conditions at the Planning Commission meeting, and that the Planning Commission would not have granted them substandard parking. Mike Callahan stated that the applicant did not actually agree to the parking condition when the Planning Commission approved the project as a Consent Calendar item. His firm disputed the analysis done by the building official that determined the occupancy load for the restaurant. Section 3302A of the Uniform Building Code, which is the bases for determining parking need, is ambiguous and subject to the whim of who does the mathematical calculations. It is unreasonable to apply such a condition on such a small project, creating an economic burden. He requested that condition D be amended to indicate that Carl's Jr. employees, who drive vehicles to work, must park off-site during the noon time meal period. With no further testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Werner's inquiry, explained that the formula for calculating the number of parking spaces is based upon the occupant load determined by the building official, which is the prescribed methodology within County code. The Planning Commission, MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 7 —'� recognizing that there are four major areas (the dining room, the counter, the kitchen area, and the proposed play area) being used within this facility, concluded that, although the project would require 54 parking spaces based upon the prescribed formula, only 46 spaces would be required, six of which could be off-site. Mike Callahan, in response to C/Werner, stated that he feels there is a perception of a shortage of parking at the restaurant on the part of the City staff. The spaces in front of the restaurant and along Diamond Bar Blvd. fill up first, but there are usually spaces toward the back of the parking lot. He explained that the condition imposed creates a burden for the following reasons: it requires them to pay for these parking stalls, assuming that someone will even permit the use of the spaces; in order to meet all the conditions that might be imposed by the Community Development Director, the title on the property, which is leased by the applicant, must be clouded; and the title with the other party involved must be clouded for a term of 20 years, or else it must be recorded against the title. MPT/Papen noted that there are two park -n -ride lots a block from the facility, and that the applicant should be able to verify that all the employees are not parking in the lot. Many of the fast food restaurants are expanding, taking away landscaped areas or parking stalls. Referring to the 39 or 40 parking stalls recommended by the DBIA, she requested clarification if the calculations used are the same throughout all the community or if it has been revised for this application. She then noted that there is nothing in the resolution indicating that Carl's Jr. would have to secure a written agreement for parking for 20 years. Bob Zirbes, President of the DBIA, stated that, since the Architectural Review Committee of the DBIA reviewed the Carl's Jr. proposed project about six months ago, it is difficult to recall how the number of parking stalls was derived without first having an opportunity to review the drawings and notes made during the discussion. CDD/DeStefano stated that among the parking permit provisions of the County Code, there is a statement that discusses leasing of parking and facilities proposed for a period of 20 years. There is not a specific require- ment that indicates that these parking spaces shall be provided for a 20 year period, but there are specific statements that indicate that there should be conditions �I that bind the parties together to ensure that such parking remains available. CA/Arczynski stated that section (i) of chapter 22.56 indicates that parking must be available within 400 feet for patrons, and 1,320 feet for employees, and section (j) indicates that if there are leased facilities for a MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 8 period of less than 20 years, then some guarantees must be provided that those spaces are available for use, that the lease be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, and that it demonstrate the ability to provide the required number of spaces if the lease is terminated. Many applicants must go through such an additional process. The Planning Commission was very accommodating in their request in requiring only the six off-site spaces. C/Werner asked if there is a remedy to provide relief if the applicant cannot secure all of the additional parking spaces. CDD/DeStefano, at the request of CM/Belanger, explained that Gentle Springs is privately held, in which each property owner owns a portion of the street to the centerline. There is an area of available parking between the two driveways existing on Gentle Springs, and owned by the property owner, that would normally accommodate 3 or 4 cars. In response to C/Forbing's inquiry, if condition D could be amended per the applicant's request, or show there are six parking spaces on Gentle Springs, he stated that such an amendment could be accommodated with the applicant's understanding that such parking document would be required between the parties. CA/Arczynski, in response to C/Forbing, explained that if there is a consensus among the Council to sustain the appeal either wholly or partially, then staff should be directed to prepare the appropriate resolution for presentation at the next meeting, or the matter could be continued to a date certain to permit the applicant to produce whatever documentation disposes of the issue of where the parking may be located. In response to C/Werner's inquiry regarding the applicant's relief if the parking permit cannot be attained, CA/Arcyznski stated that the applicant can file for an amendment to the CUP. C/Werner indicated that the applicant has not produced any proof suggesting that there has been a good faith effort to resolve the parking issue. He inquired if the applicant could have parking on Gentle Springs, or if it is required to remain open as an easement. CDD/DeStefano stated that it appears to be generally designed to allow cars to park at this location. These three or four spaces were not counted as part of the total parking because the Code prescribes spaces to occur on-site, and these spaces are immediately off-site, but in the private street. MPT/Papen pointed out that the use of City streets, or private streets, for parking is contrary to every MAY 18, 1993 discussion held community. To all where business go planning for the using that street. standards used for PAGE 9 on every single project in this ow parking in between two driveways, es in and out, is not reasonable protection and safety of the people She then requested a comparison on similar such uses. C/Forbing, pointing out that it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove to City staff that they have met the provision for off-site employee parking before receiving their permit, suggested that the Council direct the City Attorney to rewrite the resolution making the change in condition D to be brought back to the Council at the next meeting for approval. Mike Callahan, in response to M/Miller, stated that he concurred with. the approach taken by the City Council. The fact that his employees already park off-site is a good indication of good faith on their part. Motion was made by C/Forbing, and seconded by C/MacBride to direct the City Attorney to rewrite the resolution making the change in condition D, as suggested by the applicant, to be brought back to the Council at the next meeting for approval. j C/weicner, iuclIcated that the employees are already parking off-site, inquired of the intent of the motion. C/Forbing explained that the applicant's appeal requested condition D to be deleted or amended to require that the applicant make provision for off-site employee parking during noon time meal period. Since the applicant is already doing so, then he is already taking care of this condition. MPT/Papen pointed out that the reason they currently have three or four vacant spaces, without the expansion, is because they are already parking three or four cars off- site. Their parking lot would be full if the employees were parking on-site. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: Werner, MPT/Papen ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Cont'd): Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., expressed concern that citizens' right to speak are being suppressed and that citizens have as many rights as developers. The last five agendas have been conveniently rearranged. Clair Harmony stated that the L.A. County Planning MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 10 Commission approved, on June 14, 1978, the Brock home subdivision on Pathfinder adjacent to Sandstone Canyon with building restrictions on surrounding wildlife properties in exchange for allowing high density use of clustering of homes in the tract itself, not to exceed a total density of 1DU/AC. The surrounding wildlife properties were to be set aside for future park use. He then displayed the tract maps, from the County, illustrating the land dedicated for future park. He stated that Brock sold these tracts and two others behind the Country Estates to Mr. Miller on December 27, 1990, which were resold to RnP 45 days later. Mr. Harmony then referred to a letter written by then City Manager Van Nort to Jan Dabney, dated September 13, 1991, which indicated that, upon analysis of the restrictions of the subject tracts, the City Attorney advised that the dedications of right to prohibit the construction of residential units are valid and enforceable against any development request which may be submitted to the City. Instead of plowing into the canyon, the City Council has the authority to accept the park dedication. M/Miller requested that the matter be forwarded to legal counsel. Don Schad stated that five deer have been killed in the vicinity of Grand Ave. since March 1993 with over 15 deer i killed since January 1993. He requested that "Deer Crossing" signs be installed along Grand Ave. immediately. He thanked C/Werner and C/MacBride for providing the preliminary comments made on the Property Maintenance Ordinance. He stated that the General Plan, which was developed by caring citizens, was modified because of special interest groups. He then stated that he contacted Council to join in the meeting with Mr. Douglas Wheeler, to view a critical and important area of Sandstone Canyon, but no one was able or willing to attend. He submitted a petition of 1,400 signatures against the development of Sandstone Canyon. George Barrett, 1884 Shaded Wood Road, requested that his time to speak be given to Mr. Harmony. Clair Harmony, continuing with his suggestions regarding Sandstone Canyon, stated that the Council can accept the park dedication, keeping the 60 plus acres as open space, and that there would not be "a taking," nor a disregard for individual or corporate property rights involved with this issue. The proposed Sandstone Canyon project has lower standards than those approved by the County. He expressed concern that the Council has become dictatorial, which is -- evident in the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance, as well as in the Graffiti Ordinance. Barbara Beach Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., expressed concern that the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance lacks legal safeguards and deprives the citizens their 4th Amendment Constitutional rights, specifically the section MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 11 under "Right of Entry." Responding to comments i Anis, she stated that every citizen has a right his/her opinion and to seek legal redress if on City is not responsive to citizen rights. made by Mr. to voice e feels the James Roberts, 829 Silver Fir Rd., stated that the Diamond Bar citizens need to stop the dictatorial oppression by this City Council. Bill Tinsman, 1014 Capen Ave., expressed concern that code enforcement through the Property Maintenance Ordinance will only occur for the less fortunate and not those in the gated community of "The Country" because it is unenforceable in that area. The CC&R's should not be forced upon citizens who chose not to buy in locations with CC&R's. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., opposed to the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance, stated that such an ordinance will cost the City more money to employ one or two full time code enforcement officers. The current code enforcement officer does not know the laws and ordinances and often makes mistakes in his enforcement. 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/MacBride acknowledged the wonderful performances put on by the Walnut/Diamond Bar Theater. C/Forbing reported that the Economic Subcommittee will conduct a morning meeting during the second week of June to meet with the business community to discuss potential ideas and ways to improve the economic climate in the community. In response to comments made that the Council is restricting freedom of speech, he pointed out that if that were true, the Council would not permit the same ten people to continually make statements each meeting. He then explained that the $500,000 spent by the City to prepare a General Plan was in response to State Law mandating that every City must have a General Plan. The General Plan is not a specific plan but rather an outline to define the long term character of the City. The reason the majority of the people bought in Diamond Bar was for its appearance and ambiance. There are areas in the City that are deteriorating, and there are many citizens who feel that there needs to be some control. The draft Property Maintenance Ordinance is merely an outline at this point, and it will be reviewed by the City Attorney and written in Constitutionally -approved legal terms so that it can be submitted to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. All of us has a right to insist that our neighbors maintain their property. He pointed out that the Tree Ordinance suggested by Don Schad would require a property owner to go to City Hall to buy a permit to trim or change any tree on private property. He then explained that it must also be understood that bonds for the preservation of open space comes from State monies, and the repayment of such bonds comes from taxpayers. The Council is not opposed to trying to get Tonner Canyon listed in a bond measure, but is against taking land that does not belong to us. He MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 12 expressed concern that the topic of Sandstone Canyon is continually brought before the City Council even though the Council may not legally discuss the issue. People need to express their concerns and comments at Planning Commission hearings. C/Werner indicated that he feels a lot of misunderstanding has to do with the process involved in the organization of meetings and items to be discussed. He stated that his concern with the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance is that he felt the ordinance should come to the Council for input before going to the Planning Commission. There needs to be more effort on the part of the Subcommittee to identify the concerns and problems now faced by the City, and the costs the City will incur in enforcing the code enforcement. Furthermore, it appears that somehow a provision of the County Code, dealing with foundation requirements of code enforcement, has been deleted. The Subcommittee should bring back, for Council adoption, the provision of the L.A. County Building Code Chapter 99 that deals with the issues of code enforcement that have been successfully tested in the courts, so that the City is not left unprotected. He then stated that pulling items from the agenda unexpectedly, particularly when there are members of the public in attendance waiting to speak on the item, does not do well for the credit of this Council, nor does it serve the City's interests. Furthermore, it appears that the General Plan Revision workshop process has not run its full course and, hopefully, when the matter is brought to this forum, the Council will have the opportunity to take the momentum building up in the workshop sessions and deal with the issues that haven't yet been dealt with. MPT/Papen suggested that the Council continue with the procedure, of the last few meetings, of starting Council business at 7:00 p.m., and continue Public Comments at the end of Council business because there are often citizens who must unfairly wait hours to discuss items on the agenda. She then stated that she met with the property owners of the 75 acres in the canyon that some would like to preserve, and they have reiterated their offer to sell their property at a cost of $12.5 million dollars. She stated her willingness to place a bond measure on the ballot for the voters to decide if the City should acquire this 75 acres. However, at this point, no one has indicated their support that they would like a bond measure passed to acquire open space in this community. She then asked each individual and every organization to write letters to Franklin White, Chief Executive Officer of the L.A. County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), urging that the following critical Call for Projects within the City of Diamond Bar be funded: Project #356 - Carpool lane on the 57 freeway from the interchange to the San Bernardino County line; Project #357 - carpool lane on Route 60 through the interchange out to Brea Canyon Road; and Project #359 - carpool lane from the interchange down to the 57 freeway. If these projects are approved, construction would start sometime around 1995 to be MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 13 completed in the year of 1998. For those living on Grand Ave., she asked that a separate letter be written to the MTA urging the funding of Project #698 to pay for the synchronization of lights on Grand from the freeway to the San Bernardino County line. Furthermore, it would also be beneficial if letters of support were sent to the MTA urging funding for Project #382, which is modification of the 57/60 interchange that would bring the carpool lanes through the interchange and add a new on ramp to the 60 freeway eliminating the necessity of crossing three lanes of traffic. M/Miller stated that he was informed by the Sheriff Department, before the meeting began, that this meeting was going to be disrupted. He stated that his intent is not to suppress the audience but to try to also be fair to those individuals who have complained in the past that they must wait hours before they can discuss their items. Public Comments will be continued at the end of City business. Also, the Council had informed the audience that the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance was not ready for public review, and it was unfair to assume that members of the Council, who had not reviewed the ordinance, had agreed with it. He then stated that a music video is being distributed to the schools to educate the children on the Graffiti Ordinance. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Papen stated that she would abstain from item 7.1., Minutes of April 20, 1993, because she was not present. She made the following corrections to those minutes: page 5 should indicate her absence and page 12 should indicate a 4-0 vote. C/Werner stated that he would vote "no" on item 7.6 of the Consent Calendar. Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by C/Forbing to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: MacBride, Forbing, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None 7.1 APPROVED MINUTES - 7.1.1 Regular Meeting of April 20, 1993 - as submitted. (MPT/Papen abstained from this approval.) 7.1.2 Regular Meeting of May 4, 1993 - as i corrected. 7.2 APPROVED WARRANT REGISTER - dated May 18, 1993 in the amount of $238,404.34. 7.3 RECEIVED & FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7.3.1 Regular Meeting of March 8, 1993. , . , MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 14 7.3.2 Regular Meeting of March 22, 1993. 7.3.3 Regular Meeting of April 12, 1993. 7.4 REJECTED CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - 7.4.1 Filed by Lavinia Rowland April 27, 1993 - referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 7.4.2 Filed by Trung Ly April 29, 1993 - rejected referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 7.5 EXONERATED BOND FOR GRADING ON PARCELS 1 THROUGH 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13041 (COUNTRY HILLS TOWNE CENTER) IN THE AMOUNT OF $101,780. 7.6 EXONERATED GRADING CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT FOR CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX ON TRACT NO. 51079 (800 S. GRAND) IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,000. (C/Werner voted "No.") 7.7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT, ON BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF SEWER IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS PRIVATE CONTRACT NO. DB -91-47722 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND j ! IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF. 7.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-32: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23629, FOR A SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL (FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS), INTO TEN PARCELS, (WITH FOUR OF THE PARCELS DIVIDED INTO UNITS A AND B) AND LOT A WITHIN THE WALNUT BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED AT 20418 WALNUT DRIVE. 7.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL -93-003 TO ADJUST THE LOT LINE BETWEEN LOT NOS. 66 & 67 OF TRACT 33636 AT 1343 AND 1344 RED BLUFF LANE, WALNUT. 9. OLD BUSINESS 9.1 LANDSCAPING ALONG THE PROPOSED METAL BEAM RAILING ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF GRAND AVENUE - MPT/Papen excused herself from discussion of this matter due to a potential conflict of interest. Senior Engineer David Liu reported that the Council directed staff, at the April 20, 1993 meeting, to evaluate various landscaping options along the proposed guardrails on the northerly side of Grand Ave. A landscaping plan delineating existing utilities and MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 15 landscaping was prepared. Adequate landscaping of turf, hedges and street trees exist along the northerly side of Grand Ave. The City could consider additional landscaping behind the sidewalk area in the vicinity of Grand and Rolling Knoll; however, the area behind the walk of the sidewalk belongs to individual property owners. With the addition of guardrails and existing landscaping layout, pedestrian access can adequately be maintained but restricted. Furthermore, the growth pattern of plantings should be considered because some plantings may, in time, reduce the effectiveness of the railings, and other plantings produce dense willowy branches that can lay down in front of a vehicle. He recommended that the Council consider limiting construction to no more than 2,000 lineal feet of guardrail with no additional landscaping. C/Forbing stated that the direction to staff on April 20, 1993 was for a landscaping proposal to mitigate the visual impacts of the guardrail. A staff recommend- ation of no landscaping behind a bare metal beam is improper and staff should once again be directed to bring back a landscaping proposal. M/Miller suggested that Council approve the 1,700 lineal feet because a specific length of guardrail was not approved at the April 20, 1993 meeting. C/Forbing, referring to the Minutes, stated that the motion was to approve staff's recommendation for the guardrailing, awarding the contract to C & W Fence Company in an amount not to exceed $33,000 and provide a contingency amount of $13,000. We now need a landscaping proposal to determine if we want to put landscaping behind the railing. M/Miller pointed out that 1,700 lineal feet of guardrail will go to the top of the last residential lot where the cul-de-sac is located. The Council should specifically accept the 1,700 lineal feet because 2,000 lineal feet is not necessary, and direct staff to come back with an appropriate landscaping plan. CM/Belanger suggested that staff be directed to bring the matter back to the Council at the next meeting with direction that a specified number of lineal feet be identified for the guardrail, to include a landscaping plan. The Council concurred. Nina Goncharo, 23631 Gold Nugget Ave., asked if the City would plant taller trees from the existing wall up 500 feet to help mitigate noise. She expressed support for the Property Maintenance Ordinance because, with the opening of Grand Ave., many have had trouble selling their homes and, as a result, have leased them, which has created a problem with neglected properties. MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 16 C/MacBride encouraged residents to call the City if they have an opinion regarding the plantings immediately adjacent to the guardrails. M/Miller stated that it is the consensus of the Council to continue this item to the next meeting, with direction to staff as previously stated. 9.2 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL GRAFFITI REMOVAL - CSD/Rose reported that the City Council directed staff, at the January 19, 1993 meeting, to solicit bids seeking a contractor to supplement the Boys & Girls Club of San Gabriel Valley for graffiti removal in the City. Three contractors submitted bids, the lowest of which was $16,590 ($30 per site) by Graffiti Control Systems. He reviewed the benefits of the contract as indicated in the staff report. He recommended that the Council award a contract for supplemental graffiti removal to Graffiti Control Systems. In response to C/Forbing, CSD/Rose confirmed that if the graffiti problem slows down in the City, perhaps as a result of the City's program of educating youth, the contractors would only be paid based upon when they are called. Motion was made by C/Forbing and seconded by C/MacBride to award a contract for supplemental graffiti removal to Graffiti Control Systems, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $16,590 ($30 per site). Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None 10. NEW BUSINESS: 10.1 LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS, FY 1993-94: CM/Belanger reported that item 10.1.1, 10.1.2 and 10.1.3 were related and could be approved in one motion. 10.1.1 RESOLUTION NO, 93-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993-94; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OF OBJECTIONS HEREON. 10.1.2 RESOLUTION NO 93-35: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 17 THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993-94; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OF OBJECTIONS HEREON. 10.1.3 RESOLUTION NO 93-36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993-94; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OF OBJECTIONS HEREON CM/Belanger reported that the Engineers Report reflected no increase in assessments in any of the districts named and that it was proposed that the assessments remain at current levels. He recommended adoption of the Resolutions and direction to the City Clerk to advertise the Public Hearing for June 15, 1993. Motion was made by C/Forbing, and seconded by C/MacBride to adopt Resolutions 93-34, 93-35, and 93-36. AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None 10.2 RESOLUTION NO. 93-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CITY-WIDE STREET TREE MAINTENANCE IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE AND TO RECEIVE BIDS - CSD/Rose reported that the City is about to complete its first year of City-wide street tree maintenance with a private tree maintenance firm. Though the service provided by the current firm, West Coast Arborists, has been excellent, in order to get the best possible price for the scheduled maintenance of about 1,954 trees during fiscal year 1993-94, it is necessary to take the contract out to bid. He recommended approval of plans and specification for city- wide street tree maintenance. Motion was made by C/Forbing and seconded by C/MacBride to adopt Resolution No. 93-37 approving plans and specifications for city-wide street tree maintenance and directing the City Clerk to advertise and receive bids. MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 18 Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None 10.3 RESOLUTION NO. 93-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE PARTICIPATION IN THE LOS ANGELES URBAN COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - CDD/ DeStefano reported that the City has, for the past three years, participated in the CDBG program as administered in concert with the Community Development Commission of L.A. County. If the City desires to continue with the L.A. Urban County Program, it must execute a Cooperation Agreement by May 21, 1993. The agreement will be for a three-year funding cycle, July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1997. He recommended approval of participation in the Los Angeles Urban County Community Block Grant Program. In response to C/MacBride, CDD/DeStefano stated that funds were allocated this year to the following: child care programs at the YMCA; installation of ramps for disabled individuals and other Americans With Disability Act requirements at parks; installation of ramps at various intersections throughout the community; funds to other local service organizations providing benefit to low and moderate income individuals; and for creation of the improved Heritage Park/Community and Senior Citizens Center. Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by C/Forbing to adopt Resolution No. 93-38 approving participation in the L.A. Urban Community Block Grant (CDBG) Program and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Cooperation Agreement. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: MacBride, Forbing, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None 10.4 REPORT ON ACCESS TO POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL SITE - CM/Belanger stated that the Council received a report from the City's liaison City School Committee, made up of C/Werner and C/Forbing, giving the status of discussions related to access to the recently - acquired Diamond Ranch High School site to be located generally in the northeasterly area of the Tres Hermanos Ranch. The California Department of Education has indicated to the Pomona Unified School District (PUSD) that a secondary access road to the site, preferably from the west, should be constructed to assure an acceptable MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 19 level of safety related to traffic flow and emergency evacuation. Deepsprings Dr. was identified as the probable westerly access. Recent discussion with PUSD indicated that the secondary access road issue may have some flexibility which may not have existed when original discussions occurred. The PUSD indicated that the State is willing to consider a secondary access, for approval of the High School site, approximately 250 to 300 feet south of the now designated access point on Chino Hills Parkway. There may continue to be some desirability to explore a westerly access to the high school site to open up access in a more direct fashion to folks living within Diamond Bar. He recommended that the City continue to explore various options that may be available to fund the construction of a westerly access to the Diamond Ranch High School. C/Werner suggested that the Traffic & Transportation Commission explore options that might be available based upon the topography, existing access points and future access needs. The Council concurred. CM/Belanger, in response to C/MacBride, explained that the State's position is a mandated position that PUSD is required to find a secondary access that would deal with the issue of traffic safety as well as emergency access. MPT/Papen expressed concern that it has been nearly two years since the voters passed a bond measure to build the school and the site has not yet been approved nor has there been any construction. Furthermore, PUSD indicated that they need $10 million more to purchase the land and $3 to $5 million more for the access road. Many people feel that the City should not fund a School District project with City funds. There is also concern that Diamond Bar residents would have to use the freeway to get to the school. She suggested that the public needs a full report on the status of the construction of the high school. C/Forbing reviewed the construction schedule for the high school and explained some of the difficulties associated with the topography of the area. He explained that grading should be completed by the first of 1995 and construction is anticipated to be finished around 1996. There has only been discussion regarding generating funding from the Pomona School District, not the City. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Dr., indicated that the general consensus of the citizens is that another tax increase is not wanted, and that the general fund should not be used to pay for a $15 million road. Another concern was how residents of Diamond Bar will get to the high school. Two alternatives were considered: run a road parallel to the 60 freeway off of Golden Springs Dr.; or an access from Deepsprings Road. He indicated that, with the help of the City, the Booster Club will MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 20 coordinate the ground breaking ceremony, and anyone interesting in helping can attend a meeting on May 24, 1993 at 7:3-0 p.m. at Diamond Point. Sue Sisk stated that the community should have access to the high school by the time that the school is in operation. There have been articles in the Windmill to try to keep people informed. Don Schad pointed out that there should be two access points to the school so it is not another situation like South Pointe. 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride reminded the public of the scheduled General Plan Revision Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. at the AQMD Auditorium. MPT/Papen, concerned with the Sacramento budget cuts, recommended that people talk to their Assemblyman or State Senator about the significant issues occurring in the next few months that will affect the kind of service levels that can be provided in the City. M/Miller stated that, for the record, he received a letter from Mr. Al Rumpilla. ^� 12. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to May 19, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. for the General Plan Public Hearing. +LYABURGESS, City Clerk