Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/1994 Minutes - Jt. Meeting with Planning Commission8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.1 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 02(1994): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES CODE BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER 22.54 AND ESTABLISHING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS - CDD/DeStefano reported that the following changes had been incorporated into the Ordinance per the request of the Council during First Reading: the definition of public nuisance on page 4; adding the phrase 'view obscuring98 to define fencing as indicated on page 7 and commercial vehicles regarding motor vehicle parking. M/Werner stated that he received correspondence from Al Rumpilla, as well as phone calls from a few residents, expressing concern on the intent of the Ordinance in regard to view -obscuring fences and trash cans in side yards. CDD/DeStefano stated that the intent of the provision in the Ordinance was to conceal, or hide, the materials stored in side yards so properties ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAY 9, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Werner. ' ROLL CALL: Mayor Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony, Council Members Ansari, Miller and Papen. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. - Closed 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Closed 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Closed 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: Closed 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Closed 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Closed 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.1 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 02(1994): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES CODE BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER 22.54 AND ESTABLISHING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS - CDD/DeStefano reported that the following changes had been incorporated into the Ordinance per the request of the Council during First Reading: the definition of public nuisance on page 4; adding the phrase 'view obscuring98 to define fencing as indicated on page 7 and commercial vehicles regarding motor vehicle parking. M/Werner stated that he received correspondence from Al Rumpilla, as well as phone calls from a few residents, expressing concern on the intent of the Ordinance in regard to view -obscuring fences and trash cans in side yards. CDD/DeStefano stated that the intent of the provision in the Ordinance was to conceal, or hide, the materials stored in side yards so properties MAY 9, 1994 PAGE 2 are kept in a neat, clean, safe and sanitary manner. MPT/Harmony concurred that the issue regarding view obscuring fences as it relates to trash cans needs further discussion. He also expressed his opinion that the Council needs to further consider the issue of storage in front yards, particularly the driveway, because the Ordinance, as written, allows boats to be stored in the driveway, but not inoperable vehicles. C/Papen referring to a letter written by MPT/Harmony in which he mentions "blue laws," asked the definition of a "blue law." MPT/Harmony explained that "blue laws" refer to regulations which spegifically prohibit trivial type items such as spitting on the sidewalk, chalk, finger nail polish, etc. He stated that the provision requiring trash cans to be stored behind a view obscuring fence is considered a "blue law" in his opinion because it is an over -regulation and burdensome to the public. He noted that the majority of the homes in the City utilize wrought iron fencing for side yards. He further stated that in his opinion the provision allowing only ten days for a car to be incapacitated on a driveway is also an over -regulation or a "blue law." C/Papen pointed out that the Ordinance allows 30 days for an'inoperable vehicle to be stored on the driveway. M/Werner reiterated his concern that the Ordinance, as written, prohibits people from storing trash cans behind a wrought iron fence because it is not view obscuring, even if it is kept in a neat and orderly fashion. ICA/Montgomery stated that the intent of "view obscuring", which is difficult to define, was to block the view of trash so it is not aesthetically offensive. He pointed out that since it does not indicate "totally view obscuring," there is some flexibility in enforcement of the provision. He also pointed out that since gates are not addressed in the Ordinance, a see-through gate is not a violation. CM/Belanger stated that the underlying intent of the Ordinance is to encourage people residing on corner lots abutting the street and interior lots, to keep their property in a clean condition; however, if they do not keep it in a clean MAY 9, 1994 PAGE 3 condition, then they should obscure its view from others. He stated that the Ordinance is written to allow some discretion. Bob Zirbes, President, D.B. Improvement Association (DBIA), stated that the intent of the provision was to move the debris out of the front yard and out of view, and to encourage people to maintain their side yard in a neat and clean manner. He suggested that perhaps the term "view obscuring" should be omitted. M/Werner suggested that reference to "side yard" be deleted from subsection (c) to deal with all side yards, interior and those abutting a street, so it now reads, "A side yard, or a side yard abutting a street, shall be located behind a wall or fence, and if visible to the public, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner." C/Papen pointed out that the map on page 19 clearly distinguishes between side lot lines abutting a street and those that are on the interior. She stated that the Ordinance is addressing a view as seen driving down the street, or walking down the sidewalk. In response to M/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that the Planning Commission intended the provision to include both the interior and corner lots. C/Ansari expressed concern that the Council is paying too much attention to tiny details and should vote on the motion made by C/Papen. M/Werner and MPT/Harmony clarified that they voted "no" not because they felt the Ordinance was not good, but because they felt a few issues still remain that need to be resolved. C/Ansari indicated that she thought the motion to approve the Ordinance included changes suggested by M/Werner. ICA/Montgomery confirmed that the Council may amend an approved Ordinance whenever they see fit. MPT/Harmony indicated that he had other issues he would like the Council to give further consideration. C/Miller questioned why the Ordinance was voted on and approved if so many unresolved issues remained. M/Werner stated that the issues he was concerned MAY 9, 1994 PAGE 4 with were minimal. He then asked staff if it would be appropriate to include reference in the Ordinance that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is available through the Zoning Ordinance allowing property owners to store more commercial vehicles than currently provided in the Ordinance. CM/Belanger stated that a variance is available for the storage of more vehicles than the Ordinance provides, not a CUP. M/Werner felt that the applicant should be able to proceed with an application for a CUP, which is a less adversarial approach than a variance, as a remedy for those needing to store more than two commercial vehicles. MPT/Harmony stated that he had a question regarding the definition of commercial vehicles, as well as an inquiry on how it will be enforced under the Ordinance. The Council agreed to vote on the motion, realizing that other issues remain unresolved but could be considered at a future date. C/Miller, concerned that the Ordinance was approved with many unresolved issues, stated that he would hope there is not a perception that the Ordinance was passed without due consideration. C/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve 2nd reading by title only and adopt Ordinance No. 02(1994) entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES CODE BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER 22.54 AND ESTABLISHING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Papen, Miller NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony, M/Werner ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None C/Ansari moved, M/Werner seconded to amend Section 22.54.110 to delete reference to "side yard" from sub -section (a) and have subsection (c) deal with all side yards, interior and those abutting a street, so it would, read, "An interior and side yard abutting a street shall be located behind a wall or fence, and if visible to the public, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner." With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: MAY 9, 1994 PAGE 5 M/Werner AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 8.2 ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - ACM/Usher reported that it was necessary to retain the services of a qualified engineering firm to establish a pavement management system (PMS) in accordance with the requirements of Prop 111 for State Gas Tax Funds and the criteria stipulated by Prop C Local Return Guidelines. Of the four proposals received and evaluated, he recommended award of a professional engineering services contract to Dwight French & Assoc., the second lowest but most qualified proposer, in an amount not to exceed $37,020, plus a contingency amount of $3,000, for establishment of the PMS. C/Miller pointed out that since responding to an RFP is costly, it should only be put out to qualified firms, and it seems that the firm most _ qualified with the lowest bid should get the contract. He suggested that perhaps the City needs to change its policy and develop an acceptable bid list clearly outlining specifications so RFPs are sent to only those who would qualify. ACM/Usher pointed out that State law indicates that dollar costs alone can not be the basis for making a selection of a vendor relative to professional services and that other aspects of responsiveness must be considered. C/Miller stated that he is not concerned with staff's objectivity but rather with the possibility of sending the wrong message if, repeatedly, the lowest responsible bidder does not receive the contract. He suggested that perhaps the City needs to revisit the specifications put in an RFP. ACM/Usher, in response to MPT/Harmony, explained that one of the significant differences in the bid process is the type of computer software needed. He stated that Dwight French & Assoc. uses software currently being utilized by the City, which makes a difference in cost effectiveness. -- In response to M/Werner, ACM/Usher stated that staff evaluated a combination of qualifications with consideration given to costs. Senior Engineer David Liu, in response to M/Werner, stated that the $3,000 contingency is for the entire budget, not just the contract, to cover MAY 9, 1994 PAGE 6 costs not foreseen by staff or by the consultant. Martha Bruske, Great Bend Dr., expressed concern that a major problem on Diamond Bar Blvd. was not noticed by Dwight French & Assoc. C/Miller moved, MPT/Harmony seconded to award a professional engineering services contract to Dwight French & Assoc. in an amount not to exceed $37,020, plus a contingency amount of $3,000. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, Papen, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 8.3 DISCUSSION RE: COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE FOR LIBRARY SERVICES - Continued to May 17, 1994. 8.4 MATTER OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM FORMER CITY ATTORNEY - Continued to meeting of May 17, 1994. C/Miller suggested that Council move forward with the RFP for City Attorney Services. CM/Belanger stated that staff is developing a matrix on each of the proposals for the Council's review. C/Papen suggested that the Council set a date to interview candidates for Attorney prior to evaluation of the Interim City Attorney. M/Werner requested staff to place the item on the next agenda and include options available regarding the interview process as well as possible scheduling dates. C/Ansari requested that staff prepare a matrix prior to the interviews. RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 7:15 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. to meet in joint session with the Planning Commission. 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL: Council: Mayor Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony, Council Members Ansari MAY 9, 1994 PAGE 7 and Papen. Planning Commission: Chairman Meyer, Vice -Chairman Plunk, Commissioners, Flamenbaum, Schad and Fong. C/Miller was absent due to a potential conflict of interest. 9.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8; AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-51 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 91-2; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - M/Werner announced that the joint meeting was a study session of the Council and Planning Commission and would not be a public hearing due to a defective noticing process, as was explained at the last joint study session of May 3, 1994. He stated that the Planning Commission will M conduct a Public Hearing on this matter at their regular meeting of May 23, 1994, and the Council Will conduct Public Hearings beginning May 31, 1994. He requested that the minutes of both study sessions of May 3 and May 9, 1994 be incorporated into the Public Hearing record as an information document on the South Pointe project. C/Flamenbaum suggested the following sixth alternative to the project for purposes of discussion: construct the RnP project and the Arciero project as proposed: exclude commercial and park development and move the road to the north half of the canyon under the Arciero property line, but on City property, utilizing the bottom half of the canyon as a City -owned park or open space. He asked if an open space easement had been recorded on the project site. ICA/Montgomery explained that there are no open space easements but rather building restrictions called "open space dedications." MPT/Harmony suggested a seventh alternative of issuing only a grading permit for construction of the middle school. CM/Belanger stated that staff would provide a report regarding the feasibility of Alternative Seven for the City Council's consideration. C/Flamenbaum inquired what standards are utilized MAY 9, 1994 PAGE 8 in determining the benefits of removing deed restrictions on properties. CM/Belanger stated that Government Code Section 51093 sets forth standards in terms of the findings the City would have to make to abandon an open space easement. M/Werner noted that the response from staff, as well as the staff report, includes reference not to an open space easement but rather an open space dedication. ICA/Montgomery explained that the subdivision maps recorded for the property on Grand Ave. include open space easements. Christine McPeak, 21131 East Lariat Ct., Walnut, Vice President, Board of Trustees, Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD), expressed support for immediate construction of the South Pointe Middle School. Carolyn Elfelt, President, South Pointe Community Club, expressed support for immediate construction of the Middle School, meeting the standards of the community. Diane Singer, 20881 E. Quail Run Dr., expressed opposition to allowing any development in Sandstone Canyon which destroys the wildlife and the natural habitat. She pointed out that the City cannot sustain any more retail business. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig In., requested that his statement be recorded in the Minutes verbatim. He requested a copy of the title search showing the property owner of the RnP property. He then requested the following documents be made public record on the South Pointe project: the memorandum from Rutan & Tucker to the City Council dated March 1, 1994 regarding the public record issues concerning C/Miller's conflict of interest in the South Pointe Master Plan; the memorandum from ICA/Montgomery dated February 18, 1994 to Leonard Hemple; the letter dated February 1, 1994 from Markman, Arczynski, Hansen & King to ICA/Montgomery regarding correspondence of January 6, 1994; the memorandum dated January 6, 1994 from ICA/Montgomery to the City Council; a FAX dated January 5, 1994 from C/Papen to ICA/ Montgomery regarding attorney/client privileges of Council Members; the letter dated September 24, 1993 to Markman, Arczynski, Hansen & King from Max Maxwell; and the request letter dated August 10, 1993 and MAY 9, 1994 PAGE 9 September 9, 1993 from Max Maxwell. He then requested information regarding the events that led to the sale of the Water District property to the City prior to the conception of the South Pointe Master Plan. He questioned why the Grand Ave. project is being presented at this time, particularly when there are building restrictions. He then referred to the following information which is of public record: the letter from Jan Dabney dated October 10, 1990; the project history from October of 1990 to present; and the letter dated November 15, 1991 from Jan Dabney. He expressed opposition to the development of either property indicated in the alternatives of the South Pointe project, but allowing the construction of the Middle School by getting a temporary borrow permit for the Arciero property to get the dirt off of the school site. M/Werner pointed out that the "conflict of interest" indicated by Mr. Maxwell in regard to C/Miller should be reflected in the record as "alleged" conflict of interest. Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that in April 1994, RnP applied for an application for development of a single family residential development on lots ,#1 and 161. CDD/DeStefano displayed the parcel map that will be the subject of the Planning Commission's debate and deliberation on May 23, 1994, which merges two lots on Grand Ave. owned by RnP Development, Inc. and a slide showing an aerial of the site. Barbara Beach-Courchesne requested that her statement be included verbatim for public record. (Her written comments are attached hereto as Exhibit A.) RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 9:47 p.m. 9.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS NOS. 92-1 AND 2: CONTINUED - David Capestro, 1652 S. Longview, expressed Opposition to the proposed development involving parcels Nos. 1 and 61 off of Grand Ave. Anne Flesher, 20647 Larkstone Dr., expressed support for construction of the Middle School using Alternative No. 1, as well as mitigating the traffic problems on Larkstone Dr., resulting from the temporary school facilities, by providing another access road. She expressed concern with MAY 9, 1994 PAGE 10 C/Schad's participation in the deliberation, considering his involvement the last few years opposing the project. Karen Capestro, 1652 Longview Dr., expressed opposition to the proposed development involving parcels No. 1 and 61. Michael Long, 1648 Longview Dr., stated that he bought his property because he was told the property behind him had building restrictions. Thomas Cooper, 1662 Summitridge, expressed concern with traffic circulation with the development of parcel No. 1 and 61 and its effect on the surrounding neighborhoods and property values. Harish Singh, 24343 Rimford P1., questioned the real benefits of developing the 72 acres off of Grand Ave. Gordon Guber, 24303 Rimford Pl., stated that the property behind his home has building restrictions and should not be developed. James Hickey, 24320 Rimford P1., expressed opposition to the proposed plan. Theresa Guber, 24303 Rimford P1., expressed opposition to removing building restrictions and allowing development in an area already impacted by traffic. Haji Dayala, 24324 Knoll Ct., stated that the real estate disclosure transfer statement indicates that lots Nos., 1 and 61 are restricted open space. He expressed opposition to development of lots Nos. 1 and 61. Joseph Shu, 1820 Derringer Ln., expressed opposition to the development. Mike Abeyta, 1656 Longview Dr., expressed opposition to the development off Grand; however, he stated that all the pros and cons of the entire proposal should be properly reviewed. Steve Nice, Rising Star Dr., suggested that the issue regarding map restrictions be placed on the ballot, along with the General Plan, to determine if any restrictions should be lifted or not. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., expressed opposition to the proposals and any development because it would destroy the City. MAY 9, 1994 PAGE 11 Rochelle Abeyta, 1656 Longview Dr., stated that the issues of the South Pointe project and the development of Parcel Nos. 1 and 61 should be considered separately. There being no further testimony offered, M/Werner closed the meeting and returned the matter to the Council and Planning Commission. M/Werner returned the meeting to Chair/Meyer- Chair/Meyer reminded the audience that the next Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for May 23, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None given. 11. ADJOURNMENT: C/Flamenbaum moved, C/Schad seconded and carried unanimously to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:40 p.m. With no further business to conduct, M/Werner adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:40 p.m. LYN A BURGESS, City Clerk ATTEST: ayor