HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/1993 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 3, 1993
1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 p.m.
Litigation - Government Code 54956.9
Personnel - Government Code 54957.6
The City Attorney announced that no
reportable action had been taken.
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Miller called the meeting to order
at 6:00 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 Miller.
INVOCATION: The invocation was presented by Reverend Thad
King, Associate Paster, Church in the Valley.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen
Forbing, Werner and MacBride.
Also present were James DeStefano, Community Development
Director, acting City Manager; William P. Curley III,
Assistant City Attorney; Bob Rose, Community Services
Director; and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC.
3.1 Certificate of Appreciation to Diamond Bar Lion's Club -
M/Miller presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Paul
Keefer, representing the Diamond Bar Lion's Club, for the
Club's time and efforts in the construction and donation
of a stage for Concerts in the Park.
3.2 Introduction of Capt. Larry L. Waldie, L.A. County
Sheriff - New Walnut Station Commander - M/Miller
announced that Capt. Waldie was unable to attend and
would be invited to the next meeting.
4. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
4.1 Concert in the Park - August 4, 1993 - 6:30 to 8:00 p.m.
- "Smokewood" Bluegrass/Country Combo - Sycamore Canyon
Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr.
4.2 Planning Commission - August 9, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
4.3 Concert in the Park - August 11, 1993 - 6:30 to 8:00 p.m.
- "Jack Lantz Big Band" Orchestra/Big Band - Sycamore
Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr.
4.4 Traffic & Transportation Commission - August 12, 1993 -
6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
4.5 City Council Meeting - August 17, 1993 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
4.6 Concert in the Park - August 18, 1993 - 6:30 - 8:00 p.m.
"Rockadiles" 50's - 60's music - Sycamore Canyon Park,
22930 Golden Springs Dr.
AUGUST 3, 1993
PAGE 2
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: James Roberts, 829 Silver Fir Rd., stated
that it is important to the democratic process to get people
to register to vote and be educated on community matters. He
then questioned a $1,700 expenditure for a cruise as indicated
on the Warrant Register.
AA/Fritzal explained that the event was for a Parks and
Recreation excursion called "Brunch upon a Boat", which was a
cruise around San Diego taken by approximately 32 residents.
The event was completed supported by fees paid by the
participants.
Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado, regarding legal defense for the
$150 million dollar lawsuit against the City, inquired if the
City is properly insured, and if the City is paying for legal
services for both the City's part and for the proposed
separate defenses for Councilmembers Papen and Miller.
C/Werner suggested that item 7.4 of the Consent Calendar be
pulled to address Mr. Harmony's questions and those of others.
Don Gravdahl, 23988 Minnequa, encouraged the public to attend
the Three Valleys Water meeting scheduled August 5, 1993 at
7:30 p.m. in Claremont to discuss the proposed $10.00 per
parcel tax.
Martha Bruske requested further information regarding the
volunteer assisting the City in the installation or
modification of the computer system.
Michael Lowe, 1124 Cleghorn, expressed concern that elective
officials are not listening to the people, and are using
taxpayers money to fund their personal goals.
Ken Anderson, 2628 Rising Star Dr., referring to the
Resolution for the Hamburger Hamlet project, made the
following comments: the verbiage, on page 4.h., needs to
properly reflect access available from Cold Springs as well as
the access on Diamond Bar Blvd. and Fountain Springs; the
resolution does not address the center's current deficiency in
handicapped parking; page 5.i should indicate that the
location of the driveway on Fountain Springs should come in at
the midpoint of the Krikorian Theater; there should be some
acknowledgement regarding the public health and safety
concerns regarding alcohol; and the hours of operation were
not reduced even though the applicant acquiesced.
Kenneth Finney, representing Landsing Pacific and Hamburger
Hamlet, stated that they have several issues they would like
to comment on regarding item 7.3 of the Consent Calendar.
M/Miller stated that item 7.3 of the Consent Calendar would be
pulled to allow further discussion.
AUGUST 3, 1993 PAGE 3
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Road, stated that "Cal Paw '94,"
an initiative to preserve wildlife and wilderness areas
throughout the State, might provide sufficient funds to be
allocated to his conservancy or the City so that Sandstone
Canyon could be purchased and preserved. He expressed support
for Mr. Anderson's concern regarding the bar for the proposed
Hamburger Hamlet.
Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., stated that he enjoyed the
opportunity to ride the Metrolink line on June 17, 1993. He
thanked the Council for trying to put an end to the costly
General Plan fiasco.
Tom Ortiz, 3308 Hawkwood, commended the Sheriff Department for
its quick response to a burglary attempt in his neighborhood.
6. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/MacBride, in response to Mr. Schad's
request, announced that the Three Valleys Water meeting is
scheduled August 5, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. at 3300 Padua,
Claremont, regarding the $10.00 per parcel tax. Petitions are
available if someone cannot attend the meeting. He expressed
concern regarding the curtailment of D.B.'s library services.
Y Hopefully, the City will be able to get volunteers to fill in
the additional time to keep the library open on its regular
schedule. He then asked staff to place, on the next possible
agenda, the issue regarding improvements made by property
owners on City owned property. He also stated that he is not
pleased with those gadflies that editorialize, make incom-
petent criticism and imply false information.
C/Forbing warned people who plan on hiking and camping in open
space areas to protect themselves appropriately against Lyme
disease. He announced that the Diamond Ranch High School
Booster Club is scheduling a groundbreaking ceremony at
Peterson Park on October 11, 1993 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The City will assist the Booster Club with financial land
organizational assistance.
C/Werner, concerned with the comments made by Mr. Lowe,
stated, for the record, that Mr. Lowe has been campaign
manager for numerous Councilmembers. He indicated his support
for the City to assist the Booster Club in the groundbreaking
ceremony and to help fund the event with $5,000 if needed.
MPT/Papen stated that she was told by the School District
Superintendent's Office that this groundbreaking is not the
official groundbreaking for Diamond Ranch High School. It is
not an authorized school function but a function of a Booster
Club being held three weeks before School Board and City
Council elections. She asked who authorized expenditure of
$5,000 for an unauthorized school event and one not funded in
the City budget. The School District will have an official
groundbreaking on the site next spring. In regard to a
possible second referendum which is emphasizing the preser-
AUGUST 3, 1993 PAGE 4
vation of Sandstone Canyon, MPT/Papen pointed out that it will
cost the City $12.5 million dollars to purchase Sandstone
Canyon, and signing a petition to save the canyon is a vote to
have everyone's taxes raised between $1,200 and $1,500 dollars
to purchase that property and to build the road from Brea
Canyon to the new School site. Also, since this property has
development rights, any denial of those rights by the Council
or through referendum would be considered by the Supreme Court
as a "taking of the land" which the City would have to pay
for. She then announced that the 1994-1997 Call For Projects
by the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority was
approved which included the three car pool lane projects in
Diamond Bar on the 57 freeway to the Orange County line, on
the 60 freeway to the San Bernardino County line, and then
through the interchange over to the other side of Brea Canyon
Road, totaling about $55 million dollars. She also reported
that CalTrans has completed an environmental study and pre-
pared a negative declaration and environmental assessment for
the proposed widening of the SR57 and 60 fwys. to provide
carpool lanes through the community. A Public Hearing will be
held August 19, 1993 at the AQMD from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
M/Miller, responding to Martha Bruske's inquiry, explained
that a system called "City on Line" is being set up at City
Hall that will allow the community to access City Hall
directly through the computer system. The individual who is
voluntarily helping the City is Mr. Nick Anis. The new system
being set up does not cost the City anything, and is being
supervised under the City Manager and staff.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/MacBride and
seconded by C/Werner to approve the Consent Calendar, with the
exception of items 7.3 and 7.4. Motion carried unanimously by
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/Papen
M/Miller
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
7.1 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved the Warrant Register dated
August 3, 1993 in the amount of $749,203.19.
7.2 RECEIVED & FILED PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
- regular Meeting of June 24, 1993.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
7.3 RESOLUTION NO. 93-59: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING AN APPEAL AND
SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12(1) (AMENDING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 91-12) AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NO. 93-2, AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A RESTAURANT WITH
AUGUST 3, 1993 PAGE 5
A LOUNGE/BAR AND PATIO DINING, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 93-6 LOCATED AT 2757 S. DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD - CDD/DeStefano suggested that it may be
appropriate to have all issues presented in order to
determine if those issues could be resolved this
evening or if more time is needed. The Public Hearing
was closed at the last meeting, but the Council has the
discretion to allow additional public testimony deemed
appropriate to make a decision.
Kenneth Finney commented on the following conditions
proposed in the draft resolution: the last sentence in
condition 5(d). should be modified to read "...a
reasonable time to complete their orders" because food
and beverages are provided by the restaurant; insert
the words "the current" in front of "Fountain Springs
Road driveway"; in condition (j), indicate that the
current location is acceptable because the CUP referred
later in the document has a provision that provides for
the driveway to be slightly to the west from its
current location; change condition (q) to read
"Applicant and property owner shall encourage its
employees to park at the rear of the shopping center"
to make it consistent with the Parking Management Plan
provided for in condition (p); condition (r) should be
clarified to indicate that the parties responsible for
complying with those conditions are the parties
specified in the CUP 87-0021 and not the Applicant,
Hamburger Hamlet; and clarify in condition (s) that the
obligation with regard to contamination is the property
owner's and the party who caused the contamination, not
the lessee.
Sherrod Marshall, the architect for Hamburger Hamlet,
stated Mr. Finney had presented the pertinent issues.
RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 8:15 p.m. in
order to adjust the microphone speakers, and to
allow staff to discuss with Mr. Anderson his
concerns.
RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the issue discussed with Mr.
Anderson particularly concerns the location of the
driveway along Fountain Springs. Mr. Anderson feels
that the driveway is required to be relocated generally
— at the midpoint of the wall on the north face of the
theater, pursuant to the condition approved by L.A.
County in the mid -19801x. However, staff felt that the
driveway is most appropriately located where it is
today, as was approved through the subsequent plan
check and construction permitting process of L.A.
County. In regard to the items discussed by Mr.
AUGUST 3, 1993 PAGE 6
Finney, staff is in general concurrence with most of
the requests.
ACA/Curley stated that staff has no objection to the
amendment made to condition 5(d), (j), and (q). In
regard to condition (r), the Council could add language
to the effect "Pursuant to the terms, and duties and
conditions of the original approval," to clarify, for
the comfort of the Applicant, that the parties
responsible for complying with those conditions are the
parties specified in that CUP 87-0021 and not the
Applicant, Hamburger Hamlet. In regard to condition
(s), he suggested that, as an alternative, add the
language, "to the extent provided for by law, the
Applicant and property owner would read the same" for
the remediation process, thus giving the Applicant, if
they truly have no legal obligation whether by contract
or statute, to participate in remediation or any other
site cleanup or to opt out. The City should not want
to presume a full lack of legal responsibility without
knowing all the facts and details of the relationship
on the site.
MPT/Papen requested that the phrase, "This change will
be made to the specification of the City Engineer prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
restaurant", be added to the end of condition (i)
requiring the Applicant to provide a sidewalk at
Fountain Springs Road.
C/Werner asked if there would be any reason why the
Applicant would not be able to construct and enforce
the parking, as was indicated in condition (q).
ACA/Curley stated that it is most probable that the
Applicant's corporate structure would have that type of
personnel regulation ability for designated parking.
Staff felt that the suggested language was suitable,
assuming that their encouragement would be rather
vigorous to assure that their patrons would have the
easiest access.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that condition (p), which
discussed the Parking Management Plan and must be
submitted to the City within 6 months, would also
incorporate the activities discussed in terms of
encouraging employees and customers to park in the
rear.
Sherrod Marshall expressed concern that language in
condition (s) engages the applicant in the remediation
of soils condition. If the applicant, Hamburger
Hamlet, is to be indicated in the condition, then every
renter in the center should also be in this section
AUGUST 3, 1993
PAGE 7
since every renter is, in effect, an applicant.
ACA/Curley stated that, in his opinion, it is doubtful
that this condition's presence or non -presence would
ultimately alter any legal responsibility. The
presence of this condition is to mainly give awareness
to the circumstances.
MPT/Papen indicated that she felt that the word
"Applicant" should be removed from the condition. The
City Council concurred.
Ken Anderson reiterated that the location of the
driveway is supposed to be on the midpoint on the north
face of the theater, as indicated in the CUP for the
Krikorian theater.
M/Miller inquired if it was the intent of the City
Council, through this Resolution, to require specific
wording that would have this driveway moved.
The City Council concurred that such a direction was
not to their understanding.
Mark Wyman, Landsing Pacific Fund, stated that they
have concluded, upon review of their obligations as
property owners, to comply with the condition relating
to the location of the driveway that arose from the
Krikorian theater CUP, that the driveway is most
appropriately located where it is today, as was
approved through the subsequent plan check and
construction permitting process of L.A. County. He
presented slides of the Krikorian theater, indicating
the approximate location of the driveway as referred to
in the subject CUP. The driveway location was changed
to allow for traffic to circulate in a circular motion.
He then illustrated that changing the driveway location
as proposed by Mr. Anderson would render the Speedee
location useless, and eliminate parking spaces in the
immediate location. He requested that the Council
accept the amended language and live by the CUP as it
currently exists.
Motion was made by MPT/Papen and seconded by C/Forbing
to adopt Resolution 93-59 as amended, denying an appeal
and sustaining the Planning Commission's approval of
CUP No. 91-12 (1) and Development Review No. 93-2.
Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Forbing, MacBride,
Papen, M/Miller
None
None
Werner, MPT/
AUGUST 3, 1993 PAGE 8
7.4 LEGAL SERVICES RE: DIAMOND BAR ASSOCIATES, INC. V. CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR, ET AL - CA/Curley reported that state law
provides that employees, including Councilmembers and
other appointed or elected officials, have a right to
receive defense and indemnification from the City in
regard to matters that may arise in the course and scope
of their activity in the City. Information was received
that M/Miller and MPT/Papen have been implicated in
litigation with Diamond Bar Associates, and in exercise
of their rights to defense and indemnification, those
Councilmembers have requested the provision of that same
defense and indemnity that is before the Council for
consideration. Structurally, the right to receive
defense and indemnification from the City applies to both
present employees, Councilmembers and other appointed or
elected officials, and past officials. The ultimate cost
of the suit will depend on the nature of the suit. There
are three different ways of providing defense: 1) by the
office of the City Attorney; 2 ) by special counsel; or 3 )
by using an insurance policy of some sort that provides
defense. It is the prerogative of the party to request
the type of service desired.
Max Maxwell stated that to his understanding, there are
two separate lawsuits, one is against the entire Council
for their decision regarding the development of Tract
47850, and the other one, which came in later, is an
isolated suit against two Councilmembers which seems to
involve a personal act that is not a City obligation.
The Council should make a decision that, if M/Miller and
MPT/Papen are found guilty for coercion having nothing to
do with the decision on the project, they be required to
put up a bond to guarantee the reimbursement to the City
the amount of attorney fees expended by the City.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne concurred with the statements
made by Mr. Maxwell.
C/Forbing pointed out that it is unreasonable to expect
elected officials to put up personal assets to cover
themselves for any actions taken on an issue. The suit
alleges that M/Miller and MPT/Papen voted, in a Council
position on a Council item, coerced the other three
Councilmembers and the full staff into changing their
votes. For the Council not to pay for the defense of the
entire law suit is a ludicrous suggestion.
MPT/Papen pointed out that there would be not be a —
lawsuit had the Council voted to approve the project.
However, the project was denied for public safety reasons
because six different areas of soil and geotechnical
issues were not resolved, even after they were given six
additional months to resolve them. It is serious when a
developer feels that they can intimidate a City Council
AUGUST 3, 1993
PAGE 9
to change their vote on an issue with a threat of a
lawsuit. She stated that no gains have been made
personally or politically.
M/Miller stated that the facts about the litigation is a
matter of evidence in the defense of the lawsuit. There
is absolutely no evidence presented that anything was
done wrong.
C/Werner stated that the Government Code is quite
specific regarding the rights to legal defense. It is
not fitting for decision makers to be placed in a
position to be intimidated. Anyone can come forward and
make allegations. It must be remembered that all the
facts have not yet been presented.
Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by C/Forbing
pursuant to California Government Code Sections 825 and
995 for the City to defend and indemnify M/Miller and
MPT/Papen in litigation entitled Diamond Bar Associates,
Inc., v. City of Diamond Bar, et al. Motion carried by
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN: MPT/Papen, M/Miller
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 GOLDEN SPRINGS DR. RECONSTRUCTION/REHABILITATION PROJECT
BETWEEN BREA CANYON RD. AND GRAND AVE. - SE/Liu reported
that the City Council, on June 15, 1993, authorized staff
to advertise for bids for the Golden Springs Dr.
Reconstruction/ Rehabilitation Project between Brea Canyon
Rd. and Grand Ave. Based on bids received, it appears
more cost effective to utilize rubberized asphalt for
this project. He recommended that the City Council award
a contract to IPS Services, Inc., the lowest responsible
bidder, in an amount not to exceed $683,618.55 with a
contingency of $68,000.
Michael Lowe, 1124 Cleghorn, expressed support for the
rubberized asphalt because it recycles used tires and
helps diminish wear and tear from traffic and the over
use of water on the landscaping.
Motion was made by C/Forbing and seconded by MPT/Papen to
award a contract to IPS Services, Inc. in the amount not
to exceed $683,618.55 and provide a contingency of
$68,000. Motion carried unanimously by the following
Roll Call vote:
AUGUST 3, 1993
PAGE 10
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/
Papen, M/Miller
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93-60: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WEED ABATEMENT/SIDEWALK AND
PARKWAY MAINTENANCE IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE
BIDS - CSD/Rose reported that the City currently
has an agreement with the County to provide for
weed abatement, sidewalk and parkway maintenance
along major thoroughfares. However, due to recent
budget cutbacks and hiring freezes experienced by
the County, they are not able to provide the level
of service expected by the City. Bid specifica-
tions are intended to secure a contractor to
provide weed abatement and related services for the
City in a satisfactory and cost effective manner.
He recommended that the City Council approve
specifications for Weed Abatement/Sidewalk and
Parkway Maintenance and direct the City Clerk to
advertise for and receive bids.
CSD/Rose, in response to C/MacBride, confirmed that
staff feels that the City can receive this service
for approximately $60,000, which was an estimated
amount received by one contractor, for the same
service the City has paid L. A. County over
$145,000.
Martha Bruske suggested that the contract also
include the service of cleaning the drains at the
sidewalk levels because they accumulate a lot of
debris.
Motion was made by C/Werner and seconded by
C/MacBride to adopt Resolution No. 93-60 approving
plans and specifications for Weed Abatement/
Sidewalk and Parkway Maintenance and direct the
City Clerk to advertise for and receive bids.
Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner,
MPT/Papen, M/Miller
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
9.2 RESOLUTION NO. 93-61: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE
AUGUST 3, 1993 PAGE 11
SUMMARY VACATION/WITH RESERVATIONS OF A PORTION OF
A RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE INTERSECTION
OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND LYCOMING STREET - M/Miller
stated he would abstain from discussion of this
item because of a potential conflict of interest.
SE/Liu reported that the City received an offer
from the Duze Company to purchase a narrow strip of
land located on Brea Canyon Road south of Lycoming
St. with the intention of providing additional
parking. An appraisal update places a value on
this particular strip of land at $16,000. Based on
the site, shape and location, the only possible
user of that property would be the City or Mr.
Duze, and staff feels that there is no longer the
necessity to utilize this strip as a public right-
of-way. He recommended that the Council approve
the sale of vacant land located at the southwest
corner of Brea Canyon Road and Lycoming St. to the
Duze Company for $10,000.
C/Werner suggested that it would be appropriate if
lots 23 & 24, which have a sliver of property, be
attached to those respective properties on North
Hampton. He inquired if there has been proper
notice of the release of surplus property.
ACA/Curley stated that the City is, in essence,
vacating an easement, which isn't the classic
surplus property distribution that would have to go
through the normal chain of offer to other
entities.
SE/Liu stated that a title search had been
conducted and staff notified and received responses
from all the utility companies. Staff contacted
the adjacent property owners and apprised them of
the situation, as well as provided notices to them.
The City has the fee interest for this particular
strip of land.
ACA/Curley stated that, from the understanding of
the history and nuances involved, the City
Attorney's office is fully satisfied with pro-
cedures that followed to dispose of this sliver of
property. Since SE/Liu represented that the
adjoining property owners were contacted and
— apprised of the situation, and that they had
expressed no interest, then the City's level of
notice to them was satisfied. However, a
conservative approach would be to get a signed
disclaimer from those adjacent properties
indicating that the City has no interest in this
action.
AUGUST 3, 1993
PAGE 12
C/Werner stated that he would prefer it if the City
obtained a written disclaimer. MPT/Papen
concurred.
Motion was made by C/Forbing and seconded by
C/MacBride to adopt Resolution 93-61 approving the
sale of vacant land located at the southwest corner
of Brea Canyon Road and Lycoming St. to the Duze
Company for $10,000, with the instruction to staff
to acquire written disclaimers from the adjacent
property owners prior to completing the contract.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEN:
Forbing, MacBride, Werner,
MPT/Papen
NOES:
COUNCILMEN:
None
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEN:
M/MILLER
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
None
9.3 HERITAGE PARK WATER SERVICE - AA/Fritzal reported that,
due to the construction of the Heritage Park Community
Center, the Walnut valley Water District is requiring a
water main extension to be constructed on Brea Canyon
Road between Cold Canyon and Cool Canyon. Included as a
part of the water line extension, the placement of a fire
hydrant will be constructed in front of Heritage Park to
maintain the water flow required for the fire hydrant.
The Water District will be designing and managing the
project. She recommended that the City Council approve
the allocation of $50,350.48 for the installation of the
Brea Canyon Road water line extension and Heritage Park
fire hydrant and direct the City Manager to issue a
purchase order.
Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by C/Forbing
to approve the allocation of $50,350.48 for the
installation of the Brea Canyon Road water line extension
and Heritage Park fire hydrant and direct the City
Manager to issue a purchase order. Motion carried
unanimously by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/
Papen, M/Miller
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
9.4 ORDINANCE NO. 04(1993): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY,
CHAPTER 13.05 OF TITLE 13 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE
AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS
AND STANDARDS RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY ALARM SYSTEMS -
ACM/Butzlaff reported that alarm systems are prone to
activation by electrical failures or other events having
no connection with criminal activity, which wastes many
AUGUST 3, 1993 PAGE 13
hours of valuable police time each year in responding to
these false alarms and deprives those with genuine
emergencies from getting needed assistance, placing law
enforcement and other safety personnel at great risk.
From June of 1992 through May of 1993, the City had 3,080
burglary alarms reported in the City, representing 2,977
manhours at a cost to the City of over $223,000. The
City presently relies upon Chapter 13.05 of Title 13 of
County Code regulating public safety alarms. The
existing Code does not allow the City to recover any
costs associated with false alarms. Most cities have a
distinct ordinance that provides for the collection of
fees for costs incurred due to repeated false alarms.
Staff believes that each alarm owner should be allowed
one false alarm, without charge, in a 12 month period,
that a service charge be assessed to any alarm owner
whose alarm system generates two or more false alarms in
a 12 month period, and any alarm owner who has five or
more false alarms in a 12 month period would be deemed a
misdemeanor punishable upon conviction by a $1,000 fine,
or 6 months in jail or both. He recommended that the
Council approve for first reading by title only and waive
full reading of Ordinance No. 04(1993) repealing Chapter
13.05 of Title 13 of Los Angeles County Code. He further
recommended that the Council direct staff to prepare the
appropriate fee resolution establishing a service charge
for maintaining a public nuisance alarm, and set the
prescribed Public Hearing for a future City Council
meeting for adoption.
In response to C/MacBride's questions, ACM/Butzlaff
answered, as follows: section 2.0, "No person shall use
any alarm system which is equipped with a direct dial
device... automatically dials any telephone number in any
office of the Sheriff", is a standard statement used in
most cities; section 3.0, third line "Shall provide to
the Sheriff the data required", is a new requirement
which is not in the existing County provisions; section
6.0 "A person shall not knowingly turn in a report of a
false alarm" refers to a report that there is an audible
alarm in process when there actually isn't; and section
7.0, second line "Upon request by the Sheriff" provides
some administrative discretion on the Sheriff Department
to determine if a report is needed based upon a repair
rather than having alarm owners provide reports which may
burden the Sheriff Department with a lot of paperwork.
C/MacBride, referring to section 9.(c), last sentence,
"Within 10 days of receipt of written evidence from an
alarm owner, the Sheriff shall render a decision which
decision shall be final", inquired if there is a need to
allow an opportunity for adversarial presentation before
a decision is made.
AUGUST 3, 1993 PAGE 14
ACA/Curley explained that section 9. (c) is a tally of
all the false alarms, thus leading up to section (d) when
those false alarms aggregate to become a nuisance.
ACM/Butzlaff pointed out that there is an appeal process
in section 10 if the person having the 5 or more false
alarms feels that the decision is inaccurate or needs to
be appealed.
C/MacBride, referring to section 14.0, bottom paragraph,
inquired if those people with alarms should be directly
notified of the ordinance, if there is a list available
of those people with alarm systems.
ACM/Butzlaff stated that staff has indicated a desire to
notify the community of this ordinance either through the
Chamber of Commerce newsletter or the City's community
newsletter.
Sgt. Luter explained that there is no requirement for any
homeowner or business to notify anyone if they should
decide to install an alarm system. Some notification of
the ordinance to most owners of alarm systems will occur _
right after the first false alarm.
ACM/Butzlaff, in response to M/Miller, stated that
section 9. (d) provides for some discretionary authority
of the Sheriff Department to determine whether an alarm
was false or not, taking into account extenuating
circumstances.
M/Miller, concerned that the ordinance is too severe by
only allowing 1 false alarm without a fee, suggested that
the ordinance be amended to allow for a more graduated
fee assessment for repeated false alarms. The matrix
indicates that most cities allow 4 false alarms in twelve
months before a fine is assessed, usually at a cost from
of $25.00 to $40.00. The alarm could be set off by a
mouse, or accidentally by the owner, or by natural
disasters. He also expressed concern that section 9.(d)
indicates that it is a misdemeanor if an alarm system is
not registered.
MPT/Papen stated that, since service calls cost the City
$72.50, which does not allow for recouping such costs as
processing and tracking, she does not object to the
$125.00 fee. However, she stated that she would agree
with increasing the warnings to 2, with a fine on the —
third false alarm.
C/Werner stated that he concurs with a graduated fee
assessment for repeated false alarms, with the first
threshold being three false alarms. He suggested that
section 9(d), which indicates that after 5 false alarms,
AUGUST 3, 1993 PAGE 15
the Sheriff Department has the authority to order an
alarm system disconnected, should be written in a more
positive fashion to resolve the circumstances causing the
false alarms rather than disconnecting the system.
C/Forbing suggested that section 9.(a) be changed to read
that "Any alarm systems which generates three or more
false alarms..." There is usually a problem that needs
to be fixed after the occurrence of a third false alarm.
The Council concurred.
ACM/Butzlaff, in response to C/Werner's concern regarding
section 9.(d), explained that a concern was expressed by
the Sheriff Department that they would have no authority
to disconnect a system and could be held liable if a
burglary occurred after asking the alarm owner to
disconnect their alarm. However, the City Attorney did
indicate that such language was appropriate in the
ordinance.
Lte. Henson confirmed the Sheriff Department's concern.
MPT/Papen suggested that section 9.(d) be removed. The
Council concurred.
ACM/Butzlaff, in response to C/Werner, stated that staff
had not received any correspondence or communication from
any alarm owners or alarm companies relative to the
ordinance. The ordinance is fairly standard, allowing
for the same provisions used by other cities, except for
differing fees.
MPT/Papen, in response to M/Miller's concern, explained
that Section 10 is an appeal process allowing the owner
to appeal the decision of the Sheriff.
ACA/Curley pointed out that this appeal applies only to
eection 9(d) which was just removed per Council's
--direction. If section 9(d) is removed, then section 10
should be removed as well.
MPT/Papen then referred to section 9. (c) which allows for
the alarm owner to present written evidence to the
Sheriff that the alarm response in question was not in
fact a false alarm, and that there was a justifiable
reason for the activization of the alarm.
— Lte. Henson suggested that it would be easier for the
Sheriff's Department to report a false alarm if the
Council determines specifically what a false alarm is.
ACA/Curley pointed out that the definition set forth in
the proposed ordinance in section 1.(e) indicates that a
nonfalse alarm is an emergency situation, or one where
AUGUST 3, 1993
PAGE 16
the signal was activated by violent conditions of nature,
or other extraordinary circumstances not subject to
control of the alarm owner. Obviously, there is some
discretion as to what is considered to be an extra-
ordinary circumstance. Section 9 (c), which indicates
that the sheriff will notify the person who had the false
alarm, and within 10 days that person can contest that
determination, and then the sheriff has another 10 days
after that contest of the facts to make that determin-
ation, gives that intermediate discretionary level of
determining what is or is not a false alarm.
Martha Bruske expressed support for charging a high fee
if people do not take care of their equipment, thus
making the Sheriff respond to a false alarm.
Motion was made by MPT/Papen and seconded by C/MacBride
to approve for first reading by title only and waive full
reading of Ordinance No. 04(1993) entitled: AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING
IN ITS ENTIRETY, CHAPTER 13.05 OF TITLE 13 OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND
ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS RELATING TO
PUBLIC SAFETY ALARM SYSTEMS. Motion carried unanimously
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/
Papen, M/Miller
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None offered.
11. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct,
M/Miller adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m.
6'�
LYN A BURGESS
ATTEST:
�0/)
Mayor
City- Clerk