Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/29/1994 Minutes - Adj. Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOVEMBER 29, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 6:35 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 M/Werner. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Miller, Papen, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony and Mayor Werner. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN - CDD/DeStefano reported that the General Plan Advisory Committee met approximately 15 times during 6 months drafting the General Plan. The Planning Commission held 13 public hearings over a period of 3 months reviewing GPAC's recommendations. The Planning Commission also solicited public input and crafted its recommendation to the City Council on October 17, 1994. He reviewed the documents presented for Council consideration and stated that the organization of the General Plan consists of diagrams, tables, maps and text and incorporates the seven State mandated elements within six sections. Some changes from the previous General Plan are: substantial reduction in residential dwelling units --the previous General Plan called for approximately 1,900 units to be constructed over the next 17 years. New Plan anticipates 1,073 dwelling units over the same period and expands open space language and definitional issues extensively as well as significant strategies for acquisition of open space. Density transfers are discussed in the document on an on-site basis dealing with the desire to preserve remaining vacant land within the community. The document calls for a more specific plan to define the future of the 400 acre Bramalea property. The Housing Element responds to State Mandates and, as a result of significant Planning Commission and GPAC input, was developed as more a constraints -oriented response. Preservation of open space was a major issue within the document, not only within the City proper but within the sphere of influence and there NOVEMBER 29, 1994 PAGE 2 is emphasis on the preservation of SEA 15. It also calls out the desire to work with adjacent property owners and the City of Chino Hills to develop an untreated potable water reservoir in the Tres Hermanos Ranch area and development of a resource management and open space plan to deal with open space issues. It also calls out in more detail a desire for further geo-technical investigations accompanying all future development proposals and the specific adoption of a grading ordinance primarily focusing on such geotechnical issues. It describes in more detail the community's concerns regarding increases in noise as a result of increased development and traffic traversing the City. It was suggested that a new noise ordinance be developed to specifically lower noise levels and that all new construction not exceed existing noise levels or standards in the community. It adds language to deal with circulation issues principally, working with surrounding communities and transportation agencies to ensure that the roadway systems impacting the City are improved. It deals with an alternative travel corridor around the significant ecological area dealing with environmental sensitivity, further working toward regional route improvement to improve the City's local conditions. It emphasizes the need to cul-de-sac Sunset Crossing and retention of the cul-de-sacs at Beaverhead and Washington. It discusses the need to develop a redevelopment agency as a tool to finance capital improvements and provide tax revenue benefits back to the City. M/Werner opened the Public Hearing. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., stated that he felt that the standard 5 -minute limit for each member of the public to speak was inadequate to cover the material. M/Werner stated that he had not thought about putting a time limit on speakers, but felt that it should be based upon whatever appears to be reasonable and appropriate at the time. ICA/Montgomery stated that the Mayor should set ground rules and stick to it. He suggested that either there be unlimited testimony now on the entire General Plan and then close public testimony so there wouldn't be public comments on other NOVEMBER 29, 1994 PAGE 3 agendas or continue the public hearing from time to time as to each element. Mr. Smith then stated that there were comments made by the GPAC that were changed at the Planning Commission level, and asked if, when there are conflicts such as this, would the Council take both comments into consideration. He stated that he felt that the Planning Commission should have reviewed the document from GPAC only in the context of technical correctness or the legality of the document and only to change those items, if any. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that he supports Mr. Smith's comments. He further stated that he understood that there was a letter dated November 28, 1994, addressed to the Mayor, from the City of Chino Hills. He advised that he had received a small version of the General Plan in the mail; however, when he came into City Hall for his packet, he then received a bigger copy and that he was not aware that there were two versions until he ^' had spoken to somebody. M/Werner stated that the letter dated November 28 from the City of Chino Hills was received at City Hall today at 4:46 p.m. Mr. Maxwell then asked if the General Plan would be placed on the ballot for a vote of the people. C/Papen asked the City Attorney if under the Brown Act guidelines, if the public hearing is continued and the people giving testimony tonight have been given ample time (10-15 minutes) to make comments, those people would not necessarily have the right to come back and speak again on the same issue. ICA/Montgomery agreed with C/Papen's analogy of the Brown Act. C/Papen stated that if people are given 15 minutes to comment on the entire document tonight, they would have had their turn to submit public testimony on the General Plan and if they came next week, they would come as an observer. ICA/Montgomery stated that there is no time limit stated, it is whatever is reasonable, just make it apply to everybody for the element of fairness. As long as the agenda and subject matter of the agenda NOVEMBER 29, 1994 PAGE 4 remains the same, the opportunity to make comments goes to the next person. C/Papen moved to establish a time limit on the entire document and set a rule that a person gets one opportun-ity to speak before the Council on the General Plan; however, they can submit additional comments in writing for consideration. C/Ansari asked ICA/Montgomery that since the General Plan has several elements, if comments are made before each element, can people who have spoken previously on one element speak on another element. ICA/Montgomery stated that the Council opened the Public Hearing tonight and will then discuss it element by element, as long as that is the procedure followed throughout the process. However Council decides to proceed is alright as long as you continue with the same procedure throughout. In regard to participation, you cannot limit participation in the Public Hearing process whether they were on GPAC, the Planning Commission or even as a Council member. C/Ansari suggested that if a member of the public has a question concerning an element, they submit written questions prior to the meeting so that information can be obtained. ICA/Montgomery stated that that was alright and suggested that Council could take questions, refer them to staff, and continue the element. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., stated that he felt that section has its own complexities and therefore the process should be done element by element, so that comments can be made on each subject. Also keep in the mind that the desire of GPAC and citizens was for the City to maintain its open space atmosphere. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Dr., felt that the Council should not limit public participation and suggested that the Council follow the same approach as the Planning Commission --by opening the element at the beginning of the meeting, allowed the public to speak and brought it back for Commission discussion, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence and then opened it up again for public NOVEMBER 29, 1994 PAGE 5 discussion after their deliberation. He further stated that they organized the elements in such as way as it affected each one. He suggested that the elements be taken in the following order: Introduction, Resource Management, Public Services & Facilities, Public Health & Safety, Housing, Circulation and Land Use, wrapping everything up with the Land Use Map. He further suggested that any discussion regarding voting on the General Plan be postponed until after deliberations, as it may cast a shadow on the process. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., stated that she was also opposed to cutting off public comment. Bob Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow Dr., encouraged those who have spoken on the General Plan to give those who haven't an opportunity to speak unless they have something new to contribute. M/Werner suggested that the Council discuss and —' decide if the General Plan will be taken up as a complete document or on an element by element basis. C/Papen moved to consider the document as a whole, allowing 15 minutes for public testimony on any issue somebody might want to bring to the Council in the document. C/Miller seconded the motion. M/Werner stated that he would feel better discussing the General Plan as a whole but allow for no time limit on speaking. C/Papen then stated that she would bifurcate the motion. M/Werner stated that there would now be two separate motions. Motion A would be to consider the document on a document basis rather than by element by element. CM/Belanger stated that it was possible to consider the document as a whole. It is legal, and Council is only required to have one public meeting, but is the discretion of the City Council as to how to handle the process. MPT/Harmony stated that he favored staff's recommendation as to proceed element by element NOVEMBER 29, 1994 PAGE 6 which gives everyone a procedural process by which to approach the document. He further stated that he did not want to limit the public debate process, that they should have general comments, follow procedures and use the order of the elements recommended by staff. C/Ansari stated that this is the third General Plan and that the problem before was because the citizenry did not feel that the Council was being open and responsive to their needs or suggestions. Last year when the General Plan came before the Council, many of the suggestions that went through GPAC and through the citizenry were overlooked. Therefore, she felt that going through the process element by element would help keep an open atmosphere for discussion and input. She also stated that she would like to see questions from the community sent to City Hall so that they can be addressed at the proper time; however, keep it as an open forum. C/Miller stated that he agreed with Mr. Neely, that the Land Use element should be last, and that all the other elements will build toward and have a major influence and impact on the Land Use Element. In response to M/Werner, C/Miller stated that he would be willing to move the Land Use element to the end of the line of discussion. C/Ansari stated that she agreed with C/Miller's suggestion to close the meetings at 9:00 p.m. and maybe start them at 6:00 p.m., even if it means having more meetings, because we lose a lot of the audience and participation when it gets late. C/Papen stated that she, too, agreed with Mr. Neely on how to make decisions on the elements; however, she felt that when the public hearing is closed and it is before the Council for debate, then the Housing and Circulation Elements should be taken prior to the Land Use Element. Following discussion, C/Papen called for the question on her motion to consider and receive testimony on the General Plan as a whole, which would mean people would have one opportunity to speak on the General Plan. With the following Roll Call vote, motion failed: NOVEMBER 29, 1994 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PAGE 7 COUNCIL MEMBERS - COUNCIL MEMBERS - COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen Ansari, Miller, MPT/ Harmony, M/Werner None M/Werner pointed out that the second part of the motion was limiting speakers to one time at 15 minutes. C/Papen withdrew her motion. M/Werner opened discussion in regard to the time limit for speakers. He stated that, based on past experience, some people have spoken for 1 minute and some have spoken for 1 hour. He suggested a 5 -minute limit ground rule, with the discretion of the Council to go over, if reasonable. C/Papen stated that based, on what the City Attorney stated, there should be a limit to be consistent and fair to all. ICA/Montgomery stated that the test is "reasonable period of time." Some topics take longer than others. Different time limits could be set for different limits as long as everyone who spoke to that element had the same amount of time. In response to M/Werner's question if the limit could be based on how much time that may be in an evening and number of people who have expressed an interest to speak, ICA/Montgomery, stated no. C/Ansari suggested that a schedule be publicized very broadly, requesting that the public submit questions prior to the meetings so they can be addressed at the meeting. Following discussion, C/Ansari moved, C/Miller seconded that a schedule of the meetings be publicized, requesting the public to submit questions prior to the meetings so that they can be addressed by staff at that particular meeting and limit speakers to 5 minutes. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, Ansari, Miller, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None NOVEMBER 29, 1994 PAGE 8 M/Werner reiterated that there will be a 5 -minute rule on speaking, staff will publicize the ground rules. He discussed transferring of speaking time and moved to not allow material to be read, but submitted to the Council. M/Werner discussed Mr. Smith's concern regarding a conflict between comments made by GPAC and the Planning Commission. He felt that these issues will come up as part of the deliberations and discussed during that time. Regarding putting the General Plan on the ballot, he stated that he felt it was still on open issue and, therefore, would not like to make a determination as to a vote on the document. He then asked CDD/DeStefano to identify the documents that are in consideration and available for public review and what will be voted upon. CDD/DeStefano described each document a follows: the 1994 General Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission, which.is the policy document covering approx-imately 325 strategies totalling the program for the 1994 General .Plan, dated October 17, 1994, pink covered, with a publication date of November 9, 1994; as background material, the EIR adopted July 27, 1993, grey covered (no anticipated changes to this document at this time). The Council, at the appropriate time, will be entertaining an addendum to it, which will be a free standing piece. The Master Environmental Assessment, dated July, 1992 which is the compilation of informative facts about the City's economics, schools, law enforcement issues, etc. which help support some of the overall goals and policy statements in the document. This is research complied in 1990 and 1991 and changes to this document are not antici-pated; and a document entitled 1994 draft General Plan, City Council Public Hearing Reference Material, dated November, 1994. This document contains information previously transmitted to GPAC, which contains background information --specifically State of California guide -lines --with respect to the preparation of the different elements discussed, as well as Minutes of GPAC, Planning Commission, Traffic & Transportation Commission, and contains the addendum that the Planning Commission is recommending to the Environmental Impact Report, as well as other documents and correspondence received, even as late as last Tuesday. He NOVEMBER 29, 1994 PAGE 9 reported on the availability of the documents referenced --the Policy Plan is available at City Hall and Library and is on City -On -Line; however, it does not include the maps. The documents are also available for purchase or review at City Hall or on loan. 80 copies of have been distributed to GPAC members, all Commissions and members on the mailing list who receive the entire packet. M/Werner asked CDD/DeStefano to speak on the letter received today from the City of Chino Hills. CDD/DeStefano stated that a letter had been received late today, signed by the Mayor of Chino Hills, discussing comments on the Circulation Element, and that since it was just received, no one has had a chance to digest the comments or develop a response. He stated that the letter is dated November 28 and was received by the City on November 29 at 4:46 p.m. today. M/Werner requested that any correspondence coming in be available for public review at the meeting. He further asked to monitor the public speaker list and that he will acknowledge how much time has been used by the speaker, for fairness sake. Following discussion, Monday evenings were agreed upon for Public Hearings. C/Papen suggested that meetings begin on December 5, 12 and 19. C/Miller suggested that the beginning of public discussion and deliberation on the General Plan begin after the first of year, in order to give everyone time to read and digest the documentation. C/Miller moved, M/Werner seconded to begin the Public Hearings on the General Plan in January, 1995. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Ansari, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Mr. Smith asked for clarification of his earlier question regarding the Planning Commission's change to the document presented by GPAC, and would the NOVEMBER 29, 1994 PAGE 10 Council give their reasoning as to why they would accept one explanation over the other. M/Werner stated again, that during the process, the Council will take up the issues of conflict between what GPAC may recommend and what the Planning Commission approved. This will come as a result of public input as well as a function of Council Member comments and suggestions. Mr. Maxwell thanked C/Miller for his suggestion to continue the meetings until after the holidays. He asked when it was decided to move discussion of the Land Use Element to the end of the meetings. M/Werner stated that it had been done -by a motion. Mr. Maxwell stated that he felt GPAC had done a good job and hoped that the Council will evaluate what is in the document identified as GPAC; however, the Planning Commission did not do a good job --they reversed approxim-ately 20 issues, which he said he would identify. �-- Jack Istik, 22607 Dry Creek Rd., former member of GPAC, stated that he had attended 14 meetings and the one key concept that kept coming back was to allow the developer to cluster his development with a bonus density for cluster in exchange for granting the City open space.land in fee. He went on to state that, unfortunately, the Planning Commission took away the concept by redefining open space to include private open space and by removing the words "and fees" so that it would be some other type of a dedication. Mr. Istik asked that the Council consider what the majority of GPAC voted for which is to set aside public open space in fee in exchange for clustering of development. M/Werner asked Mr. Istik if he had a written proposal for this concept. Mr. Istek stated he would have one in the future. Barbara Beach-Courchesne thanked C/Miller for his sugges-tion to continue the hearing until after the holidays. She also thanked the Council for addressing issues ahead of time. She was a member of GPAC and stated that they worked very hard and tried to address the issues that brought about the two referendums --which are iow density, country NOVEMBER 29, 1994 PAGE 11 living atmosphere, mitigation of traffic and creating a safe, family-oriented community. She further stated that she felt the flavor of the GPAC document had been lost in the document before coming to Council and hoped that they would consider it in terms of what the plan was. Frank Williams, Executive Officer for the Building Industry Assn., 9227 Haven Ave., Suite 280, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he would be submitting written statements concerning the General Plan. He pointed out that SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan calls for all local General Plans to be consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan, should that plan be adopted by SCAG. He reported that during the SCAG Regional Council meeting, the Regional Comprehensive Plan would be changed to Regional Comprehensive Report. The significance of this change will mean more of a guideline than a mandate to local governments. He suggested that the Council call their local SCAG representative supporting the change. C/Miller moved, MPT/Harmony seconded to continue the Public Hearing on the General Plan to January 9, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., with a notation that the meeting will end at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried uh animous 1 y . C-/Ansari moved, C/Miller seconded that a schedule of the meetings be publicized, requesting the public to submit questions prior to the meetings so that they can be addressed by staff at that particular meeting and limit speakers to 5 minutes. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, Ansari, Miller, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None C/Miller moved, M/Werner seconded to begin the Public Hearings on the General Plan in January, 1995. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Ansari, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None NOVEMBER 29, 1994 PAGE 12 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Miller announced that the D.B. High School football team won their game last week and will be playing Ayala, Saturday evening. M/Werner encouraged residents to write letters to Judge Piatt regarding the sentencing of four defendants convicted of rape and other crimes upon one of our local residents. He further asked that they call City Hall to get the address. C/Ansari announced that on Saturday, December 10, there will be a workshop on obtaining low cost loans for housing and advised for.more information, people could call Kellee Fritzal at'City Hall. She extended Happy Chanukah wishes to all Jewish citizens in D.B. MPT/Harmony stated that many phone calls were received regarding the delays on the D.B. Blvd. construction project due' to technical problems. He requested that staff have available an inspection report' for review, giving a timing sequence and background information on the project itself. 4. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Werner adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Tommye Cribbins Deputy City Clerk ATTEST: