Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/1994 Minutes - Adj. Regular Meeting1. 2. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAY 26, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 3:30 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, Council Members Ansari, Miller and Papen. Mayor Pro Tem Harmony arrived at 3:40 p.m. 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; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. OLD BUSINESS: 2.1 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATION OF HANDICAP ACCESS RAMPS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN DIAMOND BAR - CM/Belanger reported that the Construction/Modification of Handicap Access Ramps, funded through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), must be completed by June 30, 1994 in order for the City to be reimbursed for the project. He recommended that the Council award a contract to Perry Maness Industries, Inc., the lowest apparent bidder, in an amount not to exceed $28,805, and authorize a contingency amount of $3,500 for project change orders to be approved by the City Manager. C/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to award a contract to Perry Maness Industries, Inc. for construction/modification of handicap access ramps at various locations in the City, in an amount not to exceed $28,805; and authorize a contingency amount of $3,500 for project change orders to be approved by the City Manager. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Papen, Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 2.2 DISCUSSION RE: GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROGRESS OF THE GENERAL PLAN; TIMETABLE FOR COMPLETION OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN ORDER TO PLACE IT ON THE NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT - CM/Belanger reported that the GPAC has had difficulty conducting business because of an ,inability to achieve or retain a quorum, which has MAY 26, 1994 PAGE 2 been established by GPAC as a super -majority (2/3 of the members). He stated that the matter has been brought before Council for consideration because there is a concern that the need for a super -majority quorum is affecting GPAC's ability to conduct future meetings to prepare the General Plan. He stated that, in order to place the General Plan on the November 1994 ballot, as has been discussed by Council, a final draft of the General Plan must be completed on or before August 2, 1994; therefore, GPAC would need to complete its work on the Plan by mid-June 1994 to allow time for the Planning Commission and the Council to each conduct a Public Hearing before taking action on the General Plan. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove, expressed support for placing the General Plan that was referended on the November 1994 ballot. He suggested that GPAC, which no longer appears to be an objective body, be disbanded immediately and the document forwarded to the Planning Commission. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., expressed support for allowing GPAC to continue with their process. He read a proposal outlining a procedure to complete the preparation of the General Plan as follows: identify all voting and non-voting members of GPAC; establish a quorum as 51% of voting members; present the General Plan as it currently exists with a listing of all changes and additions approved by GPAC members to date; meet once a week until June 1, 1994; consider only changes or additions to the plan that are written by the voting members to include a stated reason for the change; limit discussions to 15 minutes for each change or addition before a vote is taken; conduct joint City Council/ Planning Commission Public Hearings on the Plan; and place it on the November 1994 ballot if so desired by the Council. David Schey, 1211 Greycrest P1., stated that GPAC has been unable to review and modify the 1993 General Plan document in a rapid fashion,,_, as directed by Council, for various reasons. He expressed support for disbanding the GPAC and directing staff to draft the General Plan in accordance with changes recommended by GPAC to date, including changes needed to meet the Vision Statement and to bring the Housing Element into State compliance. He expressed support for placing the document on the November 1994 ballot. In response to MPT/Harmony, Mr. Schey explained that there were 19 members present at the meeting, MAY 26, 1994 PAGE 3 which is the minimum number required for a quorum; however, during the course of the meeting, one of the members left and though it did not affect GPAC's deliberation, it did affect the quorum needed to be able to continue to conduct the meeting. MPT/Harmony suggested that perhaps the member of GPAC that left the meeting had ulterior motives. C/Miller expressed concern that it is being suggested that an appointee .would deliberately interfere with GPAC's deliberation. He then noted that all five of his appointees were present at the May 10 GPAC meeting where a quorum was not achieved. M/Werner suggested that Council Comments be limited to the issue at hand. Todd Chavers, 600 Boxcove, stated that GPAC should have addressed issues regarding open space, low income housing, and traffic; however, the discussion wandered on the issue of open space for a longer time than anticipated. He suggested that GPAC conduct one more meeting to discuss circulation issues and that the document, with recommended modifications by GPAC, be brought before the Planning Commission and the Council for the Public Hearing process. Sherry Rogers, 2660 Broken Feather, noting that she has attended all GPAC meetings to date, apologized for leaving the meeting which caused GPAC to be without a quorum. She had thought, and Dale Beland concurred, that her absence would not create a problem since it appeared that there were enough members present at the meeting. She expressed support for forwarding the document as modified to date to the Planning Commission, to include the proposal submitted by Wilbur Smith, which, in her opinion, contains language that would not be legal in the State. She stated that it would seem futile for GPAC to continue deliberations on suggested wording that obviously has legal ramifications and would not be accepted once it leaves GPAC. Don Schad concurred with Mr. Smith's proposal to continue with GPAC's review process. Red Calkins suggested retaining a mediator to complete the General Plan process. Lydia Plunk, 1522 Deer Foot Dr., expressed concern that the Planning Commission was not notified of MAY 26, 1994 PAGE 4 this meeting. She further expressed concern that the Planning Commission would not have sufficient time to properly review the draft General Plan document and go through the Public Hearing process with the schedule suggested in the staff report. She suggested that the Council consider placing the GPAC General Plan on the November 1994 ballot along with the 1993 General Plan. Jack Healy expressed his opinion that there are certain people deliberately undermining the GPAC process. He suggested that the process be allowed to continue in consideration of the amount of time given by many of the members. Jan Dabney concurred with Mr. Chavers that GPAC needs to discuss the Circulation Element to resolve many of the traffic issues, before it is disbanded. He expressed his opinion that all GPAC members have participated in the process for only one reason, which is to benefit the community. Arthur O'Daly, 24075 Falcon View Dr., suggested that GPAC be disbanded and the document, as modified up to the point where the developer's voting rights were rescinded, be forwarded to the Planning Commission. He suggested that GPAC be disbanded immediately, especially since a racial comment was made in regard to the Housing Element concerning low income families. Bob Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow Dr., concurred that GPAC should be disbanded. He pointed out that GPAC continues with a line -by-line review of the document and much of the suggested wording that was adopted will be amended because of legal ramifications. Bob Arceo, 1106 S. Cleghorn Dr., expressed support of allowing GPAC to finish with their review. Don Gravdahl suggested that GPAC be allowed to review the Circulation Element before it is disbanded. He expressed his opinion that changing the makeup of the GPAC changed the flavor of GPAC's discussion and decision making. Richard Callard, 24105 Palomino, concurred with the idea of retaining a mediator to resolve the issues facing the City. He stated that the fighting among the Council must end. Terry Birrell expressed her opinion that there is no racial bigotry on GPAC, and reference to low income families should not be equated to a racial MAY 26, 1994 PAGE 5 reference. Martha Bruske expressed support for allowing GPAC to continue with their review process. She stated that the comment made regarding low income families was directed to high density housing and not racial bias. She pointed out that the 1993 General Plan cannot be placed on the ballot since it was referended. Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that GPAC may have disagreed on issues and have had personality conflicts, but there has never been any racial bigotry. She expressed support for allowing GPAC to continue in their review process. Wilbur Smith pointed out that the problems occurring with a quorum is a result of changes made to the makeup of GPAC through resignations and so forth. He stated that there needs to be an exact count of who is still on GPAC in order to determine the number needed for a quorum. C/Papen pointed out that a quorum is based upon the number of established positions, regardless of any vacancies. CDD/DeStefano, in response to M/Werner, stated that there are 29 voting members of GPAC, of which 3 seats are vacant. He stated that the quorum is based upon 2/3 of the voting delegates, or 19 delegates. MPT/Harmony stressed the importance of allowing GPAC to continue in their review process of the document for another month or two in order to gain public acceptance of the new plan. He stated that only a simple majority is needed to establish a quorum. M/Werner pointed out the time constraints in regard to meeting the OPR extension deadline. He inquired if Public Hearings are a necessary process if the document goes to ballot. ICA/Montgomery stated that Public Hearings and an EIR is not needed for the adoption of a General Plan by the electorate if a complete document with a City Attorney analysis, is presented; however, if the intent is to modify the document, there would need to be Public Hearings prior to placing it on the ballot. He stated that if the General Plan is adopted by the electorate, every amendment thereto would have to go to a vote of the people unless it is provided in the document that the Council may MAY 26, 1994 PAGE 6 following the quarterly statutory amendment procedure. C/Ansari suggested that a quorum be established based on a simple majority, and that GPAC be asked to conduct two more meetings to review the Housing element and the Circulation Element. She asked how many meetings are scheduled for the Planning Commission and Council Public Hearings and if joint meetings are preferable. CDD/DeStefano suggested that GPAC meetings end June 15, 1994, allowing the Planning Commission three weeks and the Council three weeks to review the document and hold Public Hearings. He stated that joint meetings would provide additional time because it allows both bodies to review the same material at the same time. C/Miller expressed concern that expediting the process short-changes the community to be able to provide input into the document. He suggested that GPAC be allowed to review the Circulation Element, that the document be forwarded to the Planning Commission allowing a few months for community review and input and that the document be forwarded to the Council allowing full Public Hearing review. He stated that the Council should not be determining now whether the document should be placed on the ballot, but rather that determination should be made following the Public Hearing process. C/Papen pointed out that since GPAC established the quorum, GPAC, not the Council, should be the body making the decision to change it. She concurred with C/Miller that it is not appropriate to schedule the review process based upon the election date. She pointed out that the 1993 General Plan document can be placed on the ballot, if the revision process is not completed by the election date, since the City reviewed 4,000 votes requesting it to be voted upon. MPT/Harmony concurred with C/Miller that full public review of the document is vital and GPAC should be allowed to continue with their review, encouraging them to be as expeditious as possible. MPT/Harmony moved to change the quorum requirement of GPAC to a 50% membership in attendance plus one. Motion failed for lack of second. C/Ansari stated that it is preferable for GPAC to MAY 26, 1994 PAGE 7 vote on the quorum issue. C/Miller moved, C/Ansari seconded to direct GPAC to focus on completing the review of the Circulation and Housing Elements of the General Plan expeditiously, allowing other items to be reviewed if there is time; to forward the document as modified to the Planning Commission for a full public hearing; and to direct GPAC to determine their own quorum requirements or other conditions of their meetings. M/Werner noted that the motion does not give direction or guidance to GPAC regarding specific time elements and limits GPAC discussion of items outside the realm of the Housing and Circulation Elements. C/Papen suggested the motion be amended to include asking GPAC to forward the document, whatever has been completed, to the Planning Commission by July 15, 1994. C/Miller accepted the amendment to his motion. MPT/Harmony pointed out that GPAC may not be able to vote on changing the quorum because they have not had a quorum the last couple of meetings. C/Ansari, in concurrence with MPT/Harmony, stated that, in consideration of time and technicalities, the City Council should change the quorum of GPAC to 50% plus one. C/Papen expressed concern that the Council would be accused of meddling if it sets the rules for GPAC. She pointed out that once those vacancies are filled, nine members can be absent still making a quorum, and if nine people are consistently absent, the Council needs to consider disbanding the group. Motion failed by the following Roll Call vote: AIES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Papen NOES-: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner ASSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None MPT/Harmony moved to request GPAC to conclude their business within the next three weeks, addressing any issue so desired, and that the majority be set at 50% plus one. Motion failed for lack of a second. MAY 26, 1994 PAGE 8 M/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to direct GPAC to complete their review by June 30, 1994. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, MPT/ Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen C/Ansari requested staff to inform the Council which members of their appointments have not been going to the meetings. She also recommended that perhaps GPAC may want to take into consideration summer schedules and vacations when determining the quorum. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 4. CLOSED SESSION: LITIGATION (G.C. 54956.9) SELECTION OF SPECIAL COUNSEL RE: COMMITTEE TO RECALL PAPEN AND MILLER V. LYNDA BURGESS, ET AL., - ICA/Montgomery reported that the Council would conduct Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9. RECESS: M/Werner adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 5:15 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 5:30 p 0- M/Werner reported that the Council agreed to retain services of Wallin, Kress, Reisman, Price & Pettit attorney for pending litigation G.C. 54956.9, authorized the City Manager to execute a contract forthwith not to exceed $10,000 and order that the legal services can begin upon the condition that a full and formal contract be brought back to the City Council on June 7, 1994. 5. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 5:31 p_m. 4LYAJ4� o A BURGESS,, - City Clerk ATTEST: ayor QO