HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/1995 Minutes - Adj. Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MAY 9, 1995
�i
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order
at 6:45 p.m. at the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by, C/Ansari.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Papen, Mayor Pro Tem Werner,
Council Members Harmony and Ansari.
C/Miller was excused.
Also Present: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery,
Special Legal Counsel; George Wentz, City Engineer; James DeStefano,
Community Development Director and 'rommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk.
Mayor Papen announced that Council Member Miller was attending another
meeting and would be arriving in approximately one hour.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
(A) Resolution No. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INCORPORATING RESOLUTION NO.
92-43 BY REFERENCE AND CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF
THE ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
(B) Resolution No. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
CDD/DeStefano reported that development of the 1995 General Plan had
taken place over the past 1 1/2 years beginning with review by the Council -
appointed General Plan Advisory Committee. The Planning Commission
then held approximately 12 public hearings and the Council began detailed
deliberation of the document in January, 1995. The latest draft of the
General Plan, dated March 31, 1995, was distributed on April 7, 1995 for a
30 -day review by the public at the direction of the Council. The 30 -day
publicly -noticed review period incorporated documents available for
inspection, purchase or loan at City Hall and inspection at the Library.
Approximately 80 "clean copies" of the General Plan were provided to the
Council and the public using the City's mailing list. The "clean copy"
eliminated all overlays and included all current changes and corrections
directed by Council. The Planning Commission then reviewed four specific
items on April 10, 1995, as directed by Council and concurred with Council's
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 2
I14II �
draft recommendations on all but one item. Regarding the South Pointe
Master Plan property, the Commission agreed with Council's verbiage for I the
Planned Development proposed for the area with two exceptions. The first
was that the most sensitive property discussed within the Planned
Development area should be the eastern -most portion of the canyon. The
second difference was the Commission's suggestion that development of
Larkstone Park be in addition to the 30% set aside in Planned Development
as Open Space, meaning that of the 78 acre site, instead of about 23 acres
set aside for open space, incorporation of Larkstone Park (approximately 2
1/2 acres) would increase open, space to approximately 26 acres. Regarding
PD 5, the 27 -acre Site D area located at Brea Canyon Rd. and D.B. Blvd.,
the General Plan allows for residential uses and, through a correction,
staff
will indicate Council's desire fora designation of Public Facilities, Open
Space and Park for the property.: The Planning Commission reviewed the
change and, by a split vote, recommended that Council incorporate a Public
Facilities designation for the entire property which is consistent withlthe
previous Commission recommendation for use of the 'prope'rty. In addition
to an errata, staff's presentation included 'Council's decision-making
involvement with respect to adoption of an addendum to the Environmental
Impact Report, as well as an Implementation & ' Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the Environmental Impact Report and General Plan. Regarding
the addendum, the Environmental Impacts of the '1995 General Plan were:
examined and compared with the originally -adopted 1992 General Plan. An
Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the 1992 General Plan which
addressed environmental impacts associated with the range of alternatives
considered within that document. An analysis was performed by the City's
consultant, Cotton\ Beland Assoc., Inc. regarding the environmental impacts
of the 1995 General Plan. The conclusion was that the 1995 General Plan
would not result in any new or more adverse environmental impacts that
were not already considered within the scope of analysis contained in, the
previously certified EIR. In accordance with the State Environmental Qulity
Act, an addendum to the previously certified EIR was prepared and attac
ed.
The addendum does not require public review. The Implementation
&
Mitigation Monitoring Program is a combined document:"'Upon adoption of
the General Plan, implementation begins. In addition, as a result of
discussions contained in the General Plan, the next step for the City would
be to create improved Hillside Management Ordinances, Tree Preservation
Ordinances, Subdivisions, etc. The Mitigation Monitoring Program sets forth
all strategies contained within the General Plan and timing and responsibility
for oversight to insure implementation of all strategies. Staff received four
letters since publication of the packet on Friday, May 5, 1995: 1)
WN.U.S.D., dated April 26, 1995 and received on May 1, 1995, provided
r
suggestions for Planned Development Areas 4 and 5; 2) Calif. Dept. of
Transportation dated May 1, 1995 suggesting that, in future development
projects, the City look into development impact fees for public facilities such
as the freeway system; 3) Dept. of Conservation dated May 8, 1995,
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 3
{
indicating that there is an oil exploratory area either within or adjacent to the
City, known as the Tanner Canyon Shell Oil area, and that if any
development were to take place at any future date in that area, there is a set
of guidelines and procedures that must be followed with regard to capping
wells, etc; 4) Boy Scouts of America dated May 5, 1995 indicating that
Edward Jacobs and Tom Kolin of that organization may speak on behalf of
the Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, L.A. Area Council.
With respect to revisions and errata, CDDIDeStefano presented the
following: On Page 1-17 of the Land Use Element, there is a discussion of
Planned Development Areas 2, 3 and 4. In a letter included in the packet,
Bramalea suggested minor changes to the description for Planned
Development Area 2. Bramalea correctly pointed out that within Planned
Development Area 2, the description of the site requires amendment; that
the 75 acres of Sub Area B is located east of Pantera Park; that the 2 acre
area discussed in this Planned Development located at D.B. Blvd. and Gold
Rush Dr. should be noted as being at the southeast corner of those two
streets; the last sentence should conclude by stating that lot sizes would
range from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. Regarding Planned Development
Area 5, he pointed out that while the text indicates that the land uses
appropriate for the site include five units per acre residential land use,
�! Council asked that land uses incorporating Public Facilities, Open Space
and Park be incorporated into that Planned Development Area.
On Page 1-18; Specific Plan Area 1, under Strategy 1.6.3, second paragraph,
subsection (a) beginning with the words "Facilities appropriate for this site..."
should be deleted.
Regarding Table 1-3, Page 1-25, the top third of the table refers to Land Use
Designations, Residential Designations and follows with a Subtotal.
Reading from left to right, the Subtotal Gross Acres in the City is 5,884 and
the Total Gross Acres should read 5.884. The bottom quarter of Table 1-3
indicates "Other Designation" under Water, the Total Gross Acres total 21
instead of 19. On Table 1-3, Other Designations "Open Space" Gross Acres
in the City should be 518 and therefore, Total Gross Acres should also read
518. Private Recreation is listed as 58 acres and should be changed to
read: 15 with the Total Gross Acres also indicating 15. Total Gross Acres
under Other Designations, "Agriculture" should read 3.589 and not zero (0).
The final totals on the page are correct.
Regarding Table 14, Page 1-26, a revised table was provided. The dwelling
unit discussion in the Residential Land Use classification was split.
Therefore, the table under the "Land Use" heading currently reads:
'Residential." Lines were added to read "City" and "Sphere." Reading from
left to right, corrections are as follows: Existing Units/Sq. Ft. for Residential
is 17,813 Dwelling Units; Potential Additional is 1,205; Expected Total
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 4
Development is 19,018; and Population at General Plan Buildout is 58,000.
The next line for the Sphere of Influence would read: Existing Units 0;
Potential Additional Units 1,800; Expected Total Development 1,800;
Population at General Plan Buildout 5,500. Totals remain unchanged.,
With resps ,t to Page 1-27, Lard Use Map, at the western most boundary of
the City west of Brea Canyon Rd., west of the 57 Fwy. at the terminus of
Pathfinder Rd., there is a public park below Pathfinder. Above Pathfinder,
in a small notation, is Private Recreational. This designation is incorrect.
It is a graphic Error and should be restated as Open Space. This
designation is consistent with Council's previous direction for the two open
space areas that 'exist on either side of ithe Pathfinder Homeowners Aisn.
property.
Referring to Page II -9 and II -10 of the Housing' Element, changes to Table
II -3 were provided to Council. Council's requested update of these tables
includes statistics through March, 1995. The Church of Christ in Pomona,
the Pomona Women's Fellowship Home Site, Pomona and the Elsie
Manning Friend in Need Service Center, 'Pomona no longer provide area
homeless facilities and services. The Catholic 'Charities Brother Miguel
Center of Pomona was added to the list (includes Target Groups Low
income families and Facility/ Service Provide shelter, vouchers, food and
referrals). On Table III -3, Page 11-9, Pomona Valley Shelter, the number of
beds was changed from 22 per night to i. Families can be serviced. Under
Pomona Neighborhood Center, # Beds should read: 170+. Under Dept. of
Social Services, Pomona, Facility/Service should read: "Homelless
assistance is provided at $30/night. 16 days maximum." The Beta Center
should be corrected to state under Facility/Service: 7 day emergency food
supply for each family member is added. On Page 11-10, Table II -3,1 the
Women's & Family Crisis Center Social Services, Pomona # Beds should be
changed to: 32 each in two shelters and Facility/Service is corrected by
adding the following: "SHEILTERS ARE IN LOS ANGELES." Bienven'iidos
Children Center, Inc., West Covina, t# Beds should indicate 46 and the
EMERGENCY SHELTER is actually located in Altadena.
At the end of Table II -3, "Source:" should be shown as Cotton/
Beland/Assoc., March 1995.
The text of the first paragraph on Page 11-10 was changed to reflect the table
just discussed.
Regarding Table 11-4, Page 11-14, the following changes were noted: under
Low Density Residential classification the Acres under Vacant Land should
be changed to 72 and the DU's to 216 for a Unit Total of 266 instead of 140.
The TOTALS for the table are changed to read as follows: Acres 1,827.7;
DU's 1.331; and Unit Total 1 471.
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 5
In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano responded that the document
currently states 1,205 DUs under Vacant Land and the total should be
corrected to 1,331 as provided by Cotton/Beland based upon the latest
mathematical calculations of development opportunity and application of
density and; therefore, the number of dwelling units that may be created on
those vacant areas. The number may change as the discussion of Land Use
and Housing Element concludes.
Referring to, Page III -5, Resource Management Element, the second
paragraph regarding the number of recreational areas should be corrected
as a result of proper clarification contained within Table III -1 on Page III -4.
The new first sentence follows: "Currently, within the City there is a total of
478.3 acres of recreational facilities,, including 45.4 acres of developed
parkland and 97 acres of undeveloped parkland for a total of 142.4 acres of
City owned park land."
With respect to Page V-22, Circulatioln Element, he recommended that the
fourth line of the first paragraph be changed to read: "The City of Industry
is considering the development of the area beyond the terminus of Sunset
Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street
with industrial uses and a waste-to-rpil materials recovery facility" and the
rest of the sentence should be eliminated. In addition, the next sentence
should be eliminated. It now reads: "The area through which these streets
would be extended is presently undeI eloped."
M/Papen stated that, in addition to the changes recommended by staff, the
following words should be eliminated from the next sentence: "The
extension of these streets and..." so', that the sentence now reads: "The
proposed development of industrial uses would significantly increase the
volume of traffic along these residential streets and introduce a significant
number of trucks into these residential neighborhoods."
On Page V-23, sub-strateoy (g) (4) Local funding; should be corrected to
read: "(g)_ (4) Local funding such as, prop C or Redevelopment funds;"
Council concurred to adopt staffs recommended changes/corrections.
CDD/DeStefano stated that staff believed, through the course of
development of this General Plan, I that the Council has a document
containing all of the mandatory elements and all of the legal contents
required for adoption pursuant to the California Government Code.
M/Papen suggested the following changes/additions/corrections:
Introduction, Page 1, third paragraph, second sentence, capitalize Diamond;
Housing Element Page 11-2, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 4, change 1994 to
1995; Housing Element, Page II -4; Resource Management Element, Page
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 6
III -4, Table III -1, insert the number of parking spaces for the D.B. Golf
"''!�
Course, the Little League Park and The Country Estates Park; Table III -1,
Page III -4, itemize local school recreational facilities i.e., tennis courts, etc.;
Circulation Element, Page V-12, b. Paratransit Services, correct the
paragraph to reflect the current "Diamond Bar Dial a Cab" service in place
of Dial -a -Ride and change the last sentence to read: "Transportation is
provided within 10 miles of the City limits at a reduced rate; Paragraph V-24,
Strategy 1.1.7 was previously deleted by the Council because it was
redundant with the previous Strategy 1.1.5. In error, Strategy 1.1.6 was
deleted. Therefore, Strategy 1.1.7 should read as follows: "Encourage
Orange and San Bernardino Counties to fund and construct an
environmentally sensitive transportation corridor through Soquel Canyon
and/or Carbon Canyon;" Public Services and Facilities, Page VI -2,
Paragraph 1, change the third sentence to read "The City has established
a system for collection of solid waste;" Page VI -2, Paragraph 8, delete the
last phrase "although the statewide drought makes the long-term supply of
water to this area questionable;" Page VI -2; Paragraph 1'1,' change to read:
"Other services within Diamond Bar include branch office postal services
administered in Pomona, MTA, Foothill Transit and OCTA bus systems,
Walnut -Diamond Bar YMCA, and Seniors organization;" Page VI -3,
"continuation
Paragraph 7, first sentence, delete of the" so the sentence
l;
reacts: "Although local water purveyors can adequately serve the area in
terms of facilities, a Statewide drought could put severe restrictions on the
availability of water;" Page v1-3, Paragraph 8, second sentence change to
read: "The City should take a more active role in energy conservation and
the implementation of new energy technologies;" Page VI -4, GOAL 1,
change to read: "Consistent with the Vision Statement, provide adequate
infrastructure facilities and public services to support development and
planned growth."
Responding to MPT/Werner regarding Existing Noise Contours Map, Figure
IV -3 on Page IV -16, Public Health & Splety Element, CDDIDeStefano stated
that the graphics are based upon an analysis performed over the course of
development of this Plan and reflect the conditions at the time of the
analysis. With traffic increases and other noise sources that may impact
D.B., those numbers may change. Objective 1.10 and subseq ent
Strategies refer to reviewing and revising standards with respect to nhoise
generators that would have impacts upon the City, as well as improving
development standards so that the receptors of noise would be protected.
The material contained within the graphic is accurate as of the time the
information was obtained.
M/Papen opened the Public Hearing.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., stated the t regarding Page 11-3, numbers
should reflect the current situation. In the Cit culation Element, Page V-22,
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 7
r-.
he indicated that Strategy 1.1.4 should reflect that the easterly portion of the
Sphere of Influence is outside SEA 15.
Responding to Mr. Smith, M/Papen referred him to Sub -strategy (c). Mr.
Smith requested that the map reflect this statement.
C/Miller arrived at 7:40 p.m.
Responding to C/Harmony, Mr. Smith stated the basic problem was not to
have a road through Tonner Canyon and SEA 15 in particular. He indicated
the language in the General Plan could be more specific if the easterly
portion referred to in Strategy 1. 1.4 is defined as being outside SEA 15.
In response to M/Papen, Don Cotton stated that under b. Housing Stock
Characteristics, Page II -3, the average resale value of $312,324 for 1991
being up 2.7 percent from 1990 was for a four bedroom home. M/Papen
requested that sentence 5 be changed to include "four bedroom home" so
that the sentence reads: "A review of resale house price date from the
California Market Data Cooperative (CMDC) in Diamond Bar indicates an
average resale value of a four bedroom home of $312,324 for 1991 which
was up 2.7 percent from a value of $304,000 for 1990."
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., agreed with Mr. Smith regarding Page V-
22 of the Circulation Element. He indicated the Resolution number is blank
on the EIR form and asked what the number would be.
M/Papen responded that the Resolution Number will be assigned by the
Clerk at the time it is adopted.
Mr. Maxwell further stated that the Council will be costing the City another
$50,000 to $100,000 if the Council does not put this General Plan, along
with GPAC's initiative on the ballot. The initiative has been filed and,
therefore, according to law 65360 regarding general plans, referring to a
statement that says "any plan that is under consideration that any land
development or any approval by the Council of an issue that is not in
accordance with any plan...", the Council will be breaking the law because
the GPAC intended to put their initiative on the ballot and it is under
consideration even though the Council might pass the General Plan tonight.
There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public
Hearing.
M/Papen stated she is not a traffic engineer or a geologist and that she
hesitated to put a line on a map with respect to the question of Strategy 1. 1.4
and SEA 15 as raised by Mr. Smith. Technical studies regarding the area
have not been completed. She believed it is the intent of both the Planning
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 8
Commission and the Council unanimously to, as much as possible, avoid
disturbance of Tonner Canyon and SEA15 to preserve the wildlife corridor
and also allow for the possibility of a regional bypass that would relieve the
City's streets from outside traffic.
CDD/DeStefano displayed Figure 1-1 describing existing land uses in the
City's planning area. He pointed out the demarcation for SEA 15 and where
it is located within the City's area. Also contained within the Land Use
Element is the proposed land use plan indicating a demarcation for SEA15.
According to the text of the Circulation Element, Strategy 1.1.5, Page V-23,
which is very specific, there are a series of requirements for any future road
consideration, one of which is avoiding the disruption of SEA 15. If there is
going to be a roadway, it is going to be within the eastern most portion of the
Sphere of Influence avoiding disruption of SEA 15.
MPT/Werner stated that this is the same drawing' that was brought before
the Council months ago and in his opinion, what Mr: Smith is suggesting is
not that difficult. He suggested that Strategy 1.1.4 (c) be changed to read:
"Avoiding SEA 15'."
CM/Belanger responded that the City could avoid SEA 15 and still disrupt
SEA 15.
M/Papen asked if any Council Member objected to deleting "disruption of
from Strategy 1.1.4 (c) so that it reads: "Avoiding SEA 15". Seeing no
objection, staff was directed to make the change.
M/Papen suggested the following changes/additions/corrections: Page 1-12,
Strategy 1.1.6, correct the second sentence to read: "1 his designation also
includes lands which may have been restricted to open space by map
restriction, deed (dedication, condition, covenant and/or restriction), or by an
Open Space Easement pursuant to California Government Code (CGC),
Section 51070 et seq. and Section 64499 et seq;" Page 1-15, Strategy 1;5.3,
correct the first sentence to read: "Land designated as Open Space by deed
(dedication, condition, covenant, and/or restriction) by open space easement
(CGC Section 51070 et seq) or by map restriction (explicit or prev'�ious
subdivision) must comply with an established review and decision making
process prior to the recision, term°nation, abandonment and/or removal of
an open space dedication easement and/or restriction;" Page 1-23, F. LAND
USE PLAN, 1. Land Use Designations, second paragraph, correct the
number of land use designations from 16 to 18;" Page 1-23, F. LAND USE
PLAN, 2. Land Use Intensity/Density, correct the third sentence to read -
"Density is described in terms of dwelling units per gross acre of land
(du/ac).
M/Papen opened the Public Hearing with respect to the Land Use Element.
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 9
F"
Edward C. Jacobs, President, L.A. Area Council, Boy Scouts of America,
stated the Boy Scouts seek the same density designation as always under
L.A. County and an unbiased perspective so that the property's use is not
predetermined prior to formulation of a specific plan. The Scouts are
concerned with language in the current version of the General Plan requiring
that any future development in the Specific Plan area will have to "create
fiscal benefits for the City". Further, the Scouts were concerned that the
language encouraged a predetermined use for the property, a use which
must create fiscal benefits. Eliminating this phrase will maintain consistency
with other portions of the Land Use Element and will reinforce unbiased
perspective toward the Specific Plan designation. He presented Council
with the Scout's specific wording for the General Plan.
M/Papen acknowledged the following WVUSD Board members: Christine
McPeak, President; Carol Herrera, Larry Redinger and Marsha Sykes.
Ronald Hockwalt, Superintendent, WVUSD, asked to expand upon the letter
dated April 26, 1995 to the Council which addressed concerns regarding the
Land Use Element, Page" 1-17, (d) Planned Development Area 4, formerly the
RNP property. The current language is too restrictive. The Board requested
that the Council drop reference to dwelling units since the school district has
no interest in residential development in this area. Second, the Board would
like the Council to expand the language to include commercial to public
facilities and open space. Third, the language from the Planning
Commission seems very restrictive to the Board. The school district is on
record supporting a minimum of 30 percent of the 78 acres as open space
and preserving the canyon. The district stands by these positions but finds
the Planning Commission recommendation still too restrictive. With respect
to Page 1-17 (e) Planned Development Area 5, also known as Site D, the
Board felt that current language did not provide enough flexibility. The
Board requested that the Council expand the language to include public
facilities, recreational and commercial land uses. As in the past and
throughout discussion over the last several years, the district is requesting
greater flexibility including a mixed land use pallet under the umbrella of
Planned Development. The district requested that the Council incorporate
these changes unto the General Plan prior to adoption.
Don Schad stated that, in his opinion, had the first General Plan been put
into effect, this would be a much more peaceful City and a lot nicer to live in.
If the present General Plan goes through, instead of the citizens' plan, then
the City's natural resources will be gone with no chance to replace what
most of the citizens moved here for in the first place. Sandstone Canyon
and Tonner Canyon will be gone forever. Map and deed restrictions were
placed on some tracts for a variety of reasons. The GPAC recommended
that any land designations be modified or changed only by a vote of the
people, especially those citizens who would be impacted the most by lifting
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 10
those restrictions. Many real estate transactions were done with the promise
that adjoining open space areas will never be developed. The housing
density factor will impact open areas. GPAC approved between 600,and
700 new homes to be allowed before the City is built out. This will also
reflect a certain amount of traffic increase as a result cf over building. The
City's traffic problems are severe now. Why compound the problem with
greater density. As all of the easy areas are now developed, the trend
seems to go after the wooded stream -fed canyons and hills. Once again, the
GPAC committee and citizens have been ignored. The rezoning of 'key
environmentally sensitive areas for more commercial was also a "no" by
GPAC and citizens but the power of three changed all of that again and with
35 to 40% vacancy in D.B.; it doesn't dictate destroying hills, canyons and
existing neighborhoods just to create more vacancies. The "no vote"
regarding Tonner Canyon was an adamant effortland if a roadway was ever
built in Tonner Canyon, the net result would impact D. B. very severely
through increased traffic, smog and noise - noise factors exceeding I the
standards in the General Plan and opening the way for massive
development'plus the total destruction of the last major wilderness area in
L.A. County. The Council of three promised the General Plan would be
placed on the ballot. Based on past performance, this is the last chance for
the Council to keep at least one promise to all citizens.
Carolyn Elfelt, 21119 Silver Cloud Dr., indicated that she was present to
support the school district's' request for use of its'D.B. properties. In April,
she attended an EdSource Conference during which the goals for national
education by the year 2000 were discussed. WVUSD has achieved the
goals or has the processes in place to attain them. According to the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Calif. funding will be spent to improve
areas in which the district' is already strong. During the conference,
business leaders emphatically stressed that in order to be ready for the next
century, students will have to know as much technology as possible.
Technology costs money. Therefore, the value of the school district's
property, as determined by the General Plan, will affect the district's ability
to provide technology in its schools. She asked the Council to please allow
the district the flexibility it needs to have as many options as possible in the
use of its property in order to better meet'the needs of the students.
Wilbur Smith requested that Page I-10, Strategy 1.1.1 (f) contain language
indicating all of the units within this category are to be used for the purpose
of satisfying the State requirements of 20.0 dwelling units per gross acre.
Regarding (g) under Strategy 1.1.1, Page I-11, he asked that the Council
define the number of domestic units per acre as a function of the average
slope calculation. Regarding Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.6, he did not
junderstand why residences are allowed in an open space area. In his
opinion, if its open space, there should be no residences. With respect to
Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.10, residences are allowed under the Agricultural
11
1�
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 11
(AG) designation. In his opinion, these statements are allowing development
of Tonner Canyon and this is contrary to the Vision Statement of the General
Plan. He stated that Table 1-4, Page 1-26, indicates that Tonner Canyon and
the SEA 15 are targeted for development. He further stated that, in
modifications to the EIR, there is no indication that the Council is really
preparing to allow for development of the Sphere of Influence and SEA 15;
however, the words in the document state that is exactly what will occur and
this is a contradiction. He indicated that potential development of Tonner
Canyon and the SEA 15 is the reason there will be an effort to referend the
General Plan and to have an initiative which puts forth the citizens version
of the General Plan.
Max Maxwell stated that GPAC requested that parks and open space be
separated. He indicated that the City requires that five acres per 1000
residents be set aside for parks. The school district purchased property with
a promise to the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. that they would preserve in
its entirety. The school district bought property with restrictions on it. He
stated that GPAC does not support the taxpayers paying $1.4 million to have
commercial development on the school district property. GPAC wants the
General Plan to go to a vote of the people. SEA protection has been
overruled. Hundreds of homes are being built now, some of which are in the
back side of "The Country Estates."
Jan Dabney, representing D&L Properties, Inc. and SASAK, Inc., asked that
both properties remain in the current zoning as set forth by the Planning
Commission and forwarded to the Council at the last meeting. The D&L
Property is proposed to be Rural Residential (RR) and SASAK Corp. is
presently processing a map for the May 6, 1995 Council agenda. He stated
that he has heard "The citizen's General Plan" for s x years. These issues
were widely discussed at GPAC and very few of the controversial land use
issues were a landslide vote in either direction. Much of the language and
much of the consideration given in the Mission Statement was widely
discussed and not everyone was in agreement. The majority ruled, as it
should be. There has been a representation that each GPAC committee was
100% in agreement with everything that came out of GPAC. Over the last
three General Plans, the public has heard, on each occasion, that that
General Plan, is the best General Plan and that it is the "citizen's General
Plan." On two of the occasions, the General Plan has come out with
theoretically the same citizens group, substantially modified. He stated that
when he, as a professional engineer, hears terms put forth such as "a road
through Tonner Canyon is going to increase the traffic impact in the City of
D.B."which has currently ground to a stop and business people cannot get
their cars into sites because of the pass-through traffic, he finds such
"m statements a travesty. He further stated he is not advocating a highway
through Tonner Canyon, but it needs to be reviewed. If a highway can be
kept out of the SEA area, obviously it should be. He indicated that lack of
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 12
a traffic corridor is what is killing this community. He stated that, in his
opinion, the reason the corridor has not been approved to this date is that
this City has taken six years to approve a General Plan while every
surrounding community has built out their community and dropped traffic
onto Grand Ave. Without ha'v'ing some instrument allowing the City to work
in concert with other communities, the City is currently suffering the
consequences.
Terry Birrell stated that the GPAC General Plan respected map restrictions
on the 400 acres off of Grand Ave. and Summitridge Dr. and map restrictions
on the school district property. She further stated that map restrictions were
placed on the property through the developer's negotiations with L.A. County
because of density transfers which occurred years ago. For the City to
incorporate and then lift those restrictions'seemed immensely unfair. She
continLed that Mrs. Elfelt indicated that the school district needs money to
educate children. 'She agreed wi+h that statement but wondered why the
district speculated with' $1.5 million of taxpayers dollars. The district bought
property with restrictions on it which had been purchased only three years
earlier for less than $100,000. The district speculated that it could force a
change. She deplored the ,waste of taxpayers do'll.?rs. She encouraged the
Council to respect the designations placed on the land by GPAC and L.A.
County. The Council indicated that it:; changes to the GPAC 1plan are in the
interest of ecoac,.nic development frr the City. She pointed to an article from
the Wall Street Journ! ,^,hirh concludes th2t in Europe, helped by greenbelt
regulations, Europe's ,town centers prosper. She suggested that if the City
is truly looking for economic development in an appropriate manner, that, the
City consider what is being created and that the City not be used 'merely as
a pass through. She requested the Council to, be more respectful of the
GPAC version of the General Plan and put both versions on the ballot and
let the ,citizens voices be heard.
Ken Anderson stated he would like to soe an open forum so that all sides
could be considered prior to closing th,) Public Hearing.
There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public
Hearing.
RECESS: M/Papen rece=sed the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
NJ
M/Papen referred the Council to the Boy Scouts' request regarding Page 11-
12, Strategy 1.1.9, last paragraph stat'ng the Boy Scouts have requested the
language be changed to: "At such time as development might be proposed.
require formulation of a specific plan pursuant to the provisions of
Government Code Section 65450 for the Sphere of Influence. The formation
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 13
of a future specific plan should incorporate provisions to protect existing
resources while minimizing future adverse impacts to both the human and
natural environment of the City, as well as the region (see Strategy 1.1.4 of
the Circulation Element)."
MPT/Werner stated that Mr. Smith raised the issue of SEA 15 and the
question of contradiction between what the General Plan is stating in terms
of preservation of the SEA and suggesting that the property is developable.
He further.stated that his comments addressed the Boy Scout property, as
well as all of the properties in the Sphere of Influence area. He asked the
City Attorney what purpose is served by designating anything for properties
outside of the City which are currently subject to L.A. County zoning and
could be subjected to a zoning initiative through th3 County. He continued
that, in his opinion, the residents who Gre asking for the City's absolute
control of the open space should be directing their concerns to the Board of
Supervisors. Specifically, where does the City's control come from in
designating these properties outside cf the City and what does the City
accomplish. -
SC/Montgomery stated that the origiral purpose of the Sphere of Influence
was to ask the communities that were incorporated to work with the
surrounding areas to plan them in a harmonious concept so that if and when
annexation occurred, those areas would readily be assimilated into the
surrounding city to which they adjoin or to which they have been assigned
by the County. Long term plann'ng by the County envisions that they will not
be able to provide public services to isolated pockets. The duty of the
Council, under the planning :pct and through the Land Use Element, has a
duty to address the unincorporated areas that abut the City and that are in
the Sphere of Influence and give the residents in the unincorporated areas
an idea of what would be acceptable to the City should they choose to pass
the annexation petition.
MPTIVVerner continued that the City has no authority to zone the property
unless the property was annexed to the City.
SCIMontgomery responded that while this is true, the City's designation is
persuasive to the regional planner. L.A. County created the SEA 15
designation and it overlays the Agricultural (AG) zoning of the property. He
further stated that the Boy Scouts would have a difficult time changing the
zoning if the City endorses the Agricultural (AG) zoning on the Sphere of
Influence.
MPT/Werner suggested that if, under County zoning, the Boy Scouts were
to sell the property under AG zoning to a developer and the developer
proposes to build 2 acre ranchettes. Under current zoning, if the City were
to designate the property anything other than 2 acre ranchettes, would L.A.
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 14
ly'illljl.
County be in a position to approve 2 acre ranchettes.
SC/Montgomery responded affirmatively by stating that the regional planner
is going to look at how the Sphere of Influence has been treated by the City
for zoning in the General Plan, The County cannot arbitrarily and politically
bypass zoning. Whatever is done by the City regarding the Sphere of
Influence will have a great deal of impact at the County level.
MPT/Werner stated that the Boy Scout property was targeted for acquisition
by the Joint Powers of Authority. Would the City's designation of land use
on that property have any influence on the fair market value of the property.
SC/Montgomery responded that obviously, it would and if the Boy Scouts
can show that their property was depressed simply because I the
Conservancy planned to acquire it, the Boy Scouts would be able to secure
other zoning. '' If the Boy Scouts cannot show that it should have been
changed and 'all of the reasonable planners say that is what the zoning
should have been, then that is what the fair market value would be even
though the Agricultural (AG) zoning under the County prevails.
MPT/Werner stated that a contradiction was alleged to exist and, inl his
opinion, he did not see a contradiction. The property has some very
complex natural features, environmental conditions and political conditions
in terms of jurisdictions and perhaps other conditions influencing what, if
anything, will happen with the property in the future. The current General
Plan addresses a base line land use designation which identifies, as
required by State law, the appropriate land use density for the property
(1 du/2ac). Other sections of the General Plan show this property to be a
significant ecological area under natural resources and rather than melding
this together with the land use designation, the General Plan overlays the
significant ecological area designation onto the land use designation and the
plan suggests that in some future development plan, the preservation
objectives stated under the SEA should be worked out compatibly with land
use objectives. He asked if this is a contradiction to which SC/Montgomery
responded that it is not because the City cannot anticipate what, the
changing situation is going to be and the two designations can work together
to an end result deemed acceptable to the City and the developer in terms
of preservation of the SEA.
C/Harmony asked if there would be any adverse impact on the Boy Scout
property if it was designated Open Space Recreational rather than
Agricultural. 0
Responding to C/Harmony, SC/Montgomery stated that, as a matter of law,
a landowner is never entitled to more than the existing use. The trend is
toward reduction of entitlement. There is no right to gain a more
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 15
i
i
economically developable use. Therefore, the General Plan could indicate
a current use zoning.
MPT/Werner reiterated Ms. Birrell's reminder that the City's incorporation
application stated there would be no change to land use designations.
Responding to MPT/Werner, C/Harmony stated the Council, without his vote,
created new designations for properties. He further stated that the promise
to the people is to keep the zoning on properties the same as it was through
the County. Specific Plans and Planned Developments pull protection out
of the General Plan. The school district is asking for commercial and those
aspects pre -suggest the idea of lifting map restrictions.
M/Papen restated the request by the Boy Scouts for the proposed change
of language as previously outlined.
It was moved by C/Ansari, seconded by MPTNVerner to retain the current
language for Strategy 1.1.9, Page 1-12.
MPT/Werner, responding to C/Harmony, stated that he sensed that
C/Harmony felt that a Specific Plan overlay had a negative connotation
because it leaves to the future some land use decisions. He offered that the
� Specific Plan overlay as a well accepted planning tool, not only holds off
land use decisions to the future, it provides a better opportunity to bring
together all of the issues, objectives and goals of the entire General Plan
document and the environmental impacts associated with projects and bring
them together in a complete design for the property. By eliminating the
Specific Plan overlay, a project is reduced to the Conditional Use Permit
process and the same level of control is not evident. The Specific Plan is a
legislative action which goes to Council and becomes ordinance.
C/Harmony indicated he thought that is what a development plan would
accomplish which is a better technique for future development of a project
so that the citizens have specific notice and can deal with a project. Specific
Plans allow for special agreement arrangements which gets very close to the
concept of spot zoning. He indicated he has problems with the technique of
Specific Plan and properties should be zoned as they currently are zoned
and when a land developer wants to develop a property the developer
comes forward, asks for amendments to the General Plan, if necessary, and
puts the plans on the table and everyone is notified. Until then, the
H developer knows what the rules are and what obstacles need to be
overcome instead of upgrading the zoning now and not having anything to
show for it.
C/Ansari's motion carried 4-1 by the following Roll Call vote:
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 16
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS -Ansari, Miller, MPT/Werner,
M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
Regarding Planned Development Area 4, Page 1-17 (d), M/Papen stated that
there is a mixed ownership on this property with the City owning four acres
of freeway frontage property in the same PD -4 zone. Total, acres should be
82 vacant acres with the City owning four acres and the school district
owning 78 acres. The Planning Commission asked that the General Plan
specify that the 30% set aside for open space not include Larksto'ne Park,
She suggested that the residential language be deleted and designate P�D-4
to consist of public facilities, commercial offices, general commercial and
open space and„add the word park.
Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that with respect to the
schooldistrict property 78 acres, 231/2 acres would be set aside for open
Space;
two and one-half acres for Larkstone Park; 19 1/2 acres' for
commercial, and 32 acres for public facilities.
Addressing Dr. Hockwalt, C/Harmony restated the school district's desire to �
"protect their investment” and the property has been currently appraised at
$1.2 million. He asked Dr. Hockwalt how it would protect the district's
investment to upgrade the property to commercial.
Responding to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt stated the property was appraised
at $3.5 million.
C/Harmony stated that his understanding of previous discussions was 'that
one-half of the property would remain as open space.
Dr. Hockwalt responded that discussions he has been involved in allowed
for 30% of the property being set aside as open space.
In response to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt responded that the school district
has always wanted to preserve the entirety of Sandstone Canyon. In
addition, he indicated he did not view it as profit taking, he viewed it as
maintaining and managing the assets that the school district has.
C/Ansari, addressing Dr. Hockwalt, stated that she is appalled by the master
plan and the five Planned Development areas that are listed specifically.'
She was not against the school district's general building. The General Plan
is specific as to what is allowed in the Planned Development areas. There
have been two referendums because of Planned Development and she felt
that the General Plan process should proceed. In her opinion, there is no
need to develop a master plan for each of these areas. She believed both
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 17
the GPAC version of the General Plan and the version of the General Plan
now before the Council should go on the ballot and let the community decide
what it wants. She is not in favor of another referendum. She further stated
that this designation grants entitlements.
M/Papen stated these designations do not grant entitlements.
C/Ansari continued that the perception of the community is that these
designations give entitlements. The language of the General Plan states
that a master plan shall be developed for each area of the City designated
as a Planned Development.
MPT/Werner, addressing C/Ansari, stated that there are no entitlements. An
entitlement is equal to a permit and once a permit is obtained, building can
begin. That does not happen from any aspect of the General Plan.
Entitlement is a very specific term. Perhaps some of the citizens need to
understand that this is not an entitlement, it is a General Plan. He indicated
he would like to see the General Plan less specific as was originally
intended, however, the people who are now opposed to the verbiage said
the General Plan was not specific enough. So now the City is at the point
where the General Plan is more specific; however, it iz rot an entitlement.
He stated he would not have a problem calling the Planned Development
areas 'Planned Preservation areas." It was his :,nderstanding that the
restrictions on the school district property are for residential dwelling units.
The school district is asking that the residential dwelling units be deleted
from the land use designation so they are acquiescing to the restriction on
the property indicating they do not want the restriction. The City is now
asked to put in place "commercial." He was not aware of any commercial
restriction on the property. The school district is also saying they are going
to preserve 113 of the property in natural open space and the remaining 1/3
of the property in public facility. Those sound positive and consistent with
the planned preservation area. He believed that what the school district
requested is consistent with what has transpired over the past one and one-
half years with regard to this property.
SC/Montgomery stated that C/Werner was correct. The Land Use
designation is a threshold to the application of the permit. Application for
permit cannot be made if the Land Use designation does not permit the use
intended.
MPT/Werner continued that the General Plan is a foundation. The City is
not saying, through this General Plan, that something can or cannot be built.
It is a straightforward foundation toward the next step in the process and he
believed that it was what the State had in mind when it said that cities are
obligated to establish the land use principals that will allow a property owner
to come forward and ask for a reasonable use of their property. With that,
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 18
he indicated he would support the school district's request that is consistent
with everything being said by members of the community. He did not
suggest removing any restrictions from the property. If there is a restriction
on the property, the restriction remains.
M/Papen suggested the following wording for Page 1-17, (d) Planned
Development Area 4: "PD -4 consists of 82 vacant acres and is located west
of Brea Canyon Road, north of Peaceful Hills Road and south of South
Pointe Middle School. Land uses appropriate for this planned development
area would include commercial, park, public facilities and open space. A
minimum of 30% of the site will be set aside as open space, not including
parkland. The most sensitive portion of the site shall be retained in
permanent open space. The site plan shall incorporate the planning andlsite
preparation to accommodate the development of Larkstone Park of a
suitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as approved by the
City."
Motion by MPT/Wemer, seconded by C/Miller to adopt M/Papen's language.
C/Harmony stated that he is in favor of the GPAC lenguage which indicated
no development in Sandstone Canyon - 78 acres, no development - and to
allow 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 is a real corruption of that body's deliberation; that is
open space, it had reservations on it, the land was only worth $150,000
when Miller bought it. The school district bought it for $1,200,000. This is
profit taking all of the way and it should be open space and the school
district has to stick with their investment.
M/Papen responded that one of the school board members mentioned to her
during the recess that one of the reasons they had to spend in excess of $1
million to acquire the property, which was worth $3 million, was because they
were going to lose $8 million in State funding because of the Council's
delays in 1993 in approving any kind of development on this property. In her
opinion, there is quality education in the WVUSD and the citizens want to
encourage that. It is unfortunate that school districts have to go into;Iland
use planning in order to provide monies for education. However, if that is
what it takes to provide the quality of education long-term in this community,
she supports the school district 100%.
Following discussion, regarding Parlimentary Procedure and with concensus
of Council, the meeting continued.
C/Ansari questioned M/Papen's statement that the school district's project
was held up in 1993. At that time, it was part of the South Pointe Master`4
Plan. This item did not come before the Council again until the end of
March, 1994, when the school district requested a re -hearing. The district
was told at that time that they would have to begin grading in a couple of
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 19
weeks and she was surprised because during a meeting with Dr.
Hockwalt and Marsha Sykes on December 1, 1993, she was not told that
they would need grading in the second or third week of April, 1994. It was
brought before the Council the end of April, 1994, so it was rushed
through on a time line that she did not feel was explored enough. It was
held up because of the will of the people concerned about the South
Pointe Master Plan. She was not against builders building on their land.
She felt the Council should specify a master plan and if the Council wants
to call a master plan Open Space Area 1, Area 2, Area 3, Area 4 and
Area 5.
C/Ansari moved to rename Planned Development Area 4 to Open Space
Area 4 and replace current wording with the following language for
Strategy 1.6.1, (d) Page 1-17: "OS4 consists of 78 vacant acres and is
located west of Brea Canyon Road, north of Peaceful Hills Road and
south of South Pointe Middle School." No other language should be
incorporated and the people have so stated. The City should pass the
General Plan and then come back and amend the Plan for each
developer and each plot of land as it is,presented.
C/Ansari's motion died for lack of a second. w.
C/Miller stated that C/Harmony's statement that he sold the property to
the school district is not true and he wants this issue cleared. He
indicated he does not have a problem calling this area "Planned
Preservation" and leaving the text as written.
C/Miller amended MPT/Werner's motion to rename area 4 "Planned
Preservation Area" leaving all of the text as requested by the school
district. MPT/Werner agreed to the amendment.
MPT/Werner did not see any difficulty in doing what C/Ansari suggested
for Planned Development Area 4. The current language is more
restrictive whereas what C/Ansari suggested opens the door and makes it
less compatible and more contradictory to what the rest of the General
Plan states.
M/Papen stated that if the descriptive language is removed and the Plan
only identifies the number of acres and location, then the property owner
is allowed to come in with all 20 land uses from which to pick and choose
and the application could be for any land use.
Responding to M/Papen and MPT/Werner, CM/Belanger stated there
L -yl would be no restriction on what kind of application could be made. The
school district asked for a land use designation presuming the district
would be the applicant. However, some future landowner could submit an
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 20
application and ask that the land use mix be changed to something else.
Any property owner has a right to ask for anything and this particular
property owner has stated they would like it to be a certain way. But if'a
future property owner comes in and says they want it to be 30 acres of
commercial and 50 acres of residential, they can ask for it no matter what
the General Plan states. The applicant can request a General Plan
amendment.
In response to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger stated that a General Plan
designation of Planned Development does not zone the property. If the
property owner came back to the City with a plan that is outlined here,',at
the very least, they would have to subject themselves to a zone change
which means they would have to go through public hearing and it is all
subject to referendum - it is a legislative act. Anything that is done to any
property in a planning designation requires, at a minimum, a change in
zoning because you don't zone the property.The Plan is simply stating
these are categories. The property owner has to come back and say what
they want to do.' The property is not being given an entitlement. The only
way the property can get an entitlement is to get!zoning and specific
legislative approval by the Council to do something. The General Plan
does not do that.
MPT/Werner's motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
Staff was directed to change ell Planned Development (PD) Area headings
to Planned Preservation Area (PP)".
M/Papen stated that regarding Strategy 1.6.1 (e), Page 1-17, the request by
the school district is to add the following language: "Land uses appropriate
for this site include public facilities, commercial offices and general
commercial." which includes deletion of the reference to single family land
use.
Motion made by MPT/Werner, seconded by M/Papen to amend the second
sentence of Strategy 1.6.1 (eN Planned Preservation Area 5 to read as
follows: "Land uses appropriat. for this site include a maximum of five (5)
single family detached residential dwelling units per acre and public
facilities."
In response to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt stated that the 28 acre parcel' had
not been declared surpluZ property and if the school district wished to
declare it surplus, it would have :, no through the necessary Legal
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 21
r s' procedures. In addition, if the property was declared surplus, it would have
to be offered for sale to other public agencies. Since the district is not
declaring the property surplus, it will not be offered for sale end the school
district can develop the property in order to follow through with the principles
of asset management.
Motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
Motion made by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to adopt Resolution No.
95-20, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
incorporating Resolution No. 92-43 by reference and certifying the adequacy
of the addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and
making findings thereon pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
as amended. Motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
Responding to M/Papen, SC/Montgomery stated that the General Plan can
be adopted for a limited period of time and put on the ballot as to whether it
should be continued or allowed to terminate at that time.
Motion by MPT/Werner to adopt Resolution No. 95-21 adopting the 1995
General Plan, with the Plan to remain in effect during the remainder of 1995.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Motion by M/Papen, seconded by C/Miller to adopt Resolution No. 95-21:
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopting the
1995 General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar as amended.
MPT/Werner asked what was the intent with regard to the ballot measure
and if the ballot measure were to fail, what would be the status of the
General Plan.
M/Papen suggested adopting the General Plan and directing the City
Attorney to bring back options to the Council for discussion at the first
meeting in June.
SC/Montgomery explained that the way a ballot measure would be phrased
in the analysis is that it either terminates that day on a vote of the people or
it continues. Its called an "interim ordinance" and then it's put on the ballot
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 22
for the issue of "should it continue or not?" and you can phrase it either way.
You can say "should ordinance so and so of the General Plan, be
continued?" or you can say "should ordinance so and so, General Plan, be
terminated?"
In response to MPT/Werner, M/Papen suggested that the Council wait for
a report from the City Attorney on the options available and the impacts of
doing it different ways.
MPT/Werner moved to amend M/Papen's motion with a supplemental
provision that adoption of the General Plan would extend for a period of 13
months from tonight unless it is voted upon to continue.
M/Papen indicated that she would not accept a substitute motion because
the proposal is not a friendly amendment.
MPT/Werner offered to amend his motion to extend the General Plan for 18
months if the ballot measure is approved.
SC/Montgomery reminded Council that when they indicate 18 months and
put the measure on the ballot and the voters vote against adoption, that's the
end of it.
MPT/Werner explained that he meant that between the time it's voted down
in November and the expiration of that 1.8 month period is the period of time
that the Council would then have to make the corrections.
SC/Montgomery suggested it would be more reasonable to indicate that
you're either adopting this for the next election or not.
M/Papen's motion failed by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL M04BERS -Ansari, Harmony
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner
ABSENT: COUNCIL MFMBERS - None
It was moved by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to continue the Public
Hearing for two weeks.
Following discussion, MPT/Werner and C/Miller amended their motion to
continue to the Public Hearing until tho next regular Council meeting on May
16, 1995.
MPT/Werner requested staff to provide more background on some of the
topics currently being discussed so that Council would be in a better position
next time.
I
MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 23
5. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to
discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. to Tuesday, May 16, 1995
at 6:30 p.m.
s �
Tommye Nice, y;apu:y Civ Clark
ATTEST:
A&Z ?"4� ,
/Mayor