Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/1993 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 1. CLOSED SESSION: None held. 2. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to order at 6:02 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 Michael Fallabella from Calvary Chapel, Diamond Bar. ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Werner, Forbing and MacBride. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; Robert Searcy, Acting Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and City Clerk Lynda Burgess. 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC.: 3.1 Introduction of Captain Larry L. Waldie, L.A. County Sheriff's Department, Walnut Station - Captain Waldie expressed appreciation for being able to work with a community so supportive of the Sheriff Department. 3.2 Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Italo Jimenez for saving the life of Walter Chavez - presented by M/Miller. 3.3 Proclamation - "City Online Week" - September 20- 26, 1993 - M/Miller presented a Proclamation to Nick Anis and expressed appreciation to the volunteers and donors for their contributions toward the betterment of communication between government and citizens. Mr. Anis stated that there were 40 volunteers who donated their time and resources to establish "City Online," developed to provide the public with immediate access to information available at City Hall. 3.4 Update on 57/60 HOV Lane - MPT/Papen reported that -- Caltrans held an EIR hearing last week in D.B. regarding the 57/60 HOV lanes to be constructed 1995 through 1997. A short video offered by Caltrans was presented delineating the proposed project. Any written comments submitted to Caltrans Environmental Branch, received this week, will be accepted. She then reported that the SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 2 State has decided not to accept any new projects in the 1993/94 year, signifying that any interchange work will be post-poned for 2 years, thus requiring the City to resubmit applications for the 1994/95 year. 3.5 Status of Graffiti Enforcement - Deputy Larry Luter, Walnut Sheriff Station, reported that, since the adoption of the Graffiti Enforcement Ordinance, 51 persons have been arrested, 2 of which were arrested twice. Since the reward system went into effect, it has been noted that out of the 26 arrest reports generated, 15 of those reports were from citizens of D.B. Further, a review of costs of removing graffiti since December of 1992 to the end of July of 1993, indicates a 68% decrease in costs for graffiti removal, as well as a significant decrease in the number of areas where graffiti has been removed. In response to a series of Council inquiries, Dep. Luter reported that the Probation Department has sent 100% of the graffiti arrests to the Juvenile D.A.'s office. Of the 49 people arrested, 6 were adults and the remaining had an average age of 14-15 years old, with one as young .._ as 11. CM/Belanger reported that, following the adoption of the Graffiti Enforcement Ordinance, the Mayor embarked upon an aggressive program of public information specifically targeting Junior High Schools. As indicated by Dep. Luter, between the period of December of 1992 and July of 1993, there was an approximate $4,000 per month reduction in graffiti eradication charges. The graffiti enforcement activities have been very successful based upon the data. The City will continue in its eradication efforts. RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 6:25 p.m. for adjustment of the technical equipment. RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 6:32 p.m. 4. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: CM/Belanger presented the schedule of future events. 4.1 Traffic & Transportation Commission - September 9, 1993 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. -- 4.2 Heritage Park Grand Opening - September 11, 1993 - 10:00 to 1:00 p.m., 2900 Brea Canyon Road. 4.3 Planning Commission - September 13, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.4 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 3 4.5 City Council Meeting - September 21, 1993 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: William Gross, 21637 Highbluff, expressed concern that the City Clerk recently decided not to accept 4,000 signatures to referend the General Plan because each page of signatures had not been separately attached to a copy of the entire General Plan, the EIR and the Resolution of Approval. On behalf of the Citizens to Protect Country Living, Mr. Gross then served a notice to M/Miller and MPT/ Papen of its intent to recall them. Fred Scalzo, Chamber of Commerce, concerned with the economic shortfall to be faced by the City in the next few years, stated that the City will have to look for ways to raise funds or cut expenses. The City should focus on the success of businesses as a way to balance revenue versus expenditures. He invited all businesses to participate in the Economic Round Table involving the City and the Chamber scheduled for September 9, 1993 at 7:00 a.m. Oscar Law, 21511 Pathfinder, expressed concern that the Council is not representing the people. There needs to be a system of checks and balances to assure that the people are being properly listened to. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills, referenced a letter she received from Gary Miller regarding a personal litigation matter. MPT/Papen inquired if it is appropriate to allow Mrs. Courchesne to continue to address a topic that is a personal issue involving M/Miller. A public forum should not be allowed to be used for personal issues, and such matters should be addressed outside of the Council meeting. CA/Arczynski explained that the Public Comment portion of the agenda, as required by the Brown Act, is for matters within the jurisdiction of the City. It is the Council's ultimate decision to determine if the matter being addressed is personal or City business. C/Forbing stated that since the issue has nothing to do with Council business, it should not be addressed during the Public Comment portion of the agenda. C\MacBride concurred. C/Werner suggested that Mrs. Courchesne be allowed to continue as long she refrains from making personal remarks, but rather generalizes the application to the entire City. The Council concurred. SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 4 0' Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that she is addressing the issue of honesty and integrity of the Council. The lawsuits issued are deliberate efforts to harass, intimidate and silence the people of Diamond Bar. She stated that though she is saddened by the efforts of a recall, she will support it. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood, objecting to a statement made by one of the Councilmembers referring to the referendum group, stated that that Councilmember should not be re-elected. M/Miller, noting that it was 7:00 p.m., stated that the Public Comment portion of the agenda would be continued following the Public Hearing items. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6.1 (A) RESOLUTION NO. 93-66: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF FACILITIES OPERATED BY THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. (B) RESOLUTION NO. 93-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR RENTAL OF PUBLIC FACILITIES - CM/Belanger reported that the Parks & Recreation Commission had developed a draft set of policies and procedures for the scheduling of City parks, athletic fields and facilities. With the impending completion of the Heritage Park Community Center, a set of policies need to be approved establishing the reservation and fee requirements for the Community Center. C/Werner inquired if the groups currently using the facilities had opportunities to review the proposed resolution. He suggested that these groups should have of this hearing. received notice CSD/Rose explained that the policies, regulations and procedures have been in use in a draft format for about the last year. All of the affected user groups had had the opportunity to work through these policies and meet with the Parks & Recreation Commission every six months. The response received from the groups thus far have been quite positive regarding these policies. CM/Belanger stated that this issue has been public noticed in newspapers. In the future, with these kinds of activities, staff will assure that those groups affected by these kinds of policies and procedures will, as a matter of routine, receive a copy of the public notice. In response to C/MacBride's inquiry regarding page 3, SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 5 section B(j), of the Resolution, CM/Belanger stated that the Resolution will be amended to reflect "any other parks or buildings." C/MacBride suggested that page 8, item 3 include provision (c) indicating that use for skating of any kind on the City courts would be prohibited. M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. Nick Anis, 1125 Bramford Court, inquired if some of the tennis courts will be made available to the public and public schools, preschools, private schools, etc., for open, unrestricted use. There should be a provision for exclusions for a limited set of people who are not in a position to pay these fees. CSD/Rose explained that there are no reserved uses of the tennis courts or basketball courts in City parks and no fee is involved. For use of the park for a daytime outing, the only requirement of a payment is in the form of a deposit which is retained only if there is a direct service charge related to their use such as cleanup, loss of a key, etc. The intent of the fees for the Heritage Park Community Center, which are market rates based on surveys of other meeting rooms and facilities in the area, is to collect the direct and indirect costs incurred by the City by the function. Martha Bruske inquired if the citizens residing near the park were notified of the regulations being considered, and the type of activities that might occur. CSD/Rose explained that the outdoor activities are restricted to a 10:00 p.m. curfew. Any exceptions to that time limit must come before the Parks & Recreation Commission, which would thus provide notice to the surrounding neighborhood. The community was noticed via the newspaper. Hearing no further testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. MPT/Papen inquired how a group qualifies to be certified for a nonprofit status. She requested clarification to the insurance requirement, as indicated on page 16, as to how it is identified when insurance is required for a group. Any non Diamond Bar public agency and Diamond Bar non profit agencies should be required to have insurance. The City cannot afford to bear the liability for any accidents that might occur on our property with group events. AA/Fritzal explained that the City requires insurance to be on file with the City from any group of 50 or more, SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 6 and for all commercial activities regardless of the number of people. The City and the Sheriff Department work together to determine the need for Sheriffs for any event with alcohol. MPT/Papen suggested that the statement "groups of 50 or more" be inserted in paragraph one, page 16. CSD/Rose, in regard to qualifying as nonprofit status, explained that the groups should have a notice from the State of California certifying their non profit status, which is confirmed by an IRS number. Motion was made by C/Werner, and seconded by C/Forbing to adopt Resolution No. 93-66, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF FACILITIES OPERATED BY THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, as amended. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None Motion was made by MPT/Papen and seconded by C\MacBride to adopt Resolution 93-67 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR RENTAL OF PUBLIC FACILITIES. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 6.2 RESOLUTION NO. 93-68: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A SERVICE CHARGE FOR MAINTAINING A PUBLIC NUISANCE ALARM SYSTEM - CM/Belanger reported that the charge of $125.00, assessed upon any alarm owner whose alarm system generates three or more false alarms in a twelve month period, should raise approximately $250,000 to offset the law enforcement costs for responding to false alarms, as well as the City's administrative costs for implementing the provisions of Ordinance No. 04 (1993). M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. Hearing no testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. C/Werner suggested that there be a graduated fee schedule by which about half of the $125.00 charge would be SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 7 assessed for the third offense and increasing thereafter. M/Miller expressed concern that the fine is too stringent, particularly since most other cities assess a graduated charge for false alarms starting as low as $25.00 after the third offense. C/Forbing stated that he was told by several alarm companies that it is common to have one or two problems with an alarm system in a year, but three in a year's time is excessive. The taxpayers should not have to subsidize a business owner who is not willing to properly maintain his equipment. MPT/Papen pointed out that the fee has been based upon recouping the costs, not making a profit. She agreed with C/ Forbing to leave the rates as recommended by staff. C/ MacBride concurred. Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by MPT/Papen to adopt Resolution No. 93-68 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A SERVICE CHARGE FOR MAINTAINING A PUBLIC NUISANCE ALARM SYSTEM. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, MPT/Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Cont'd.) Martha Bruske objected to the suggestion that the Council vote to exclude one of its members from certain closed sessions. The Councilmembers were elected to represent the people. Silencing C/Werner seems to fit too closely with the apparent attempts to silence the residents of this City. Punishing one of the members on the Council should not penalize constituents as well. Red Calkins encouraged the citizens of Diamond Bar to stop fighting and join forces to stop the MRF proposed by the City of Industry. Max Maxwell inquired when the City will respond to his letter dated August 10, 1993 as well as to the letter sent by attorney Michael Montgomery, dated August 20, 1993, requesting information. Frank Dursa questioned why the City Council won't accept the referendum, and realize that the General Plan needs to be put to a vote of the citizens. Nick Anis, 1125 Bramford Court, questioned why the referendum group did not attach a copy of the General Plan and the Resolution to the petitions collected. 411 SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 8 People have a right to know what they are signing. These conflicting issues need to be resolved so we can concentrate on operating the City. Michael Lowe stated that the deliberate miswork of the referendum is a disservice to the 40,000 plus citizens who signed the petition. Don Gravdahl stated that he attended a meeting on September 1, 1993 regarding the MRF proposed by the City of Industry. Such a facility will negatively impact D.B. by the increase of noise, odor, vectors and traffic. He urged the public to contact their Councilmembers to get suggestions as to what can be done to oppose the facility. Norman Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, President of the Pathfinders Homeowners Assn., suggested that a regional group be formed to oppose the proposed MRF in the City of Industry. Bill Tinsmen stated that there was a lot of active antagonism that occurred during the collection of signatures for the referendum. He pointed out that 4, 000 people chose to sign the petition, wanting a referendum so that the General Plan would go to ballot. Perhaps the City Council should consider putting it on the ballot. 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/MacBride encouraged citizens to express themselves regarding the MRF issue. He announced the Economic Resources Strategic Planning Roundtable, as mentioned by Mr. Scalzo, scheduled for September 9, 1993 at 7:00 a.m. at the Golf Course on Golden Springs. He then requested an update on his request for further investigation from staff to address the problem whereby owners have improved their front yards up to the interface of the sidewalk, thus encroaching upon City property. CM/Belanger stated that City owns 12 feet of property from the face of curb toward the property owners property. There have been development activities taking place in the front yard which exceed the City's height restrictions, and infringe upon the public utilities easement. Staff is researching the situations and will provide to the City Council a report, at the September 21, 1993 meeting, on the status on this matter. CM/Belanger then reported that the City filed a 40 page -- response on September 2, 1993 to the City of Industry's Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the MRF, and included a traffic, noise and air quality analysis as attachments to that response. The City will be prepared to respond to the EIR in the same manner it responded to the NOP. SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 9 C/Forbing stated that if the referendum is ever submitted to the Council, he will consider voting to schedule it for election. He pointed out that, though 4,000 individuals signed the referendum petition, only 58 people participated in the writing of the General Plan. Furthermore, no one ever checked out the General Plan from the library to read the document. MPT/Papen reported that the DBIA is sponsoring a "Clean Party" at 9:00 a.m., on September 18, 1993, meeting at Heritage Park. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Forbing moved, seconded by MPT/ Papen to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 7.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 7.1.1 Adjourned regular Meeting of July 27, 1993 - General Plan Public Hearing - Approved as submitted. 7.1.2 Regular Meeting of August 3, 1993 - Approved as submitted. 7.2 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated September 7, 1993 in the amount of $593,850.90. 7.3 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of July, 1993 - Received & filed. 7.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 26, 1993 - Received & filed. 7.5 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: 7.5.1 Regular Meeting of July 22, 1993 - Received & filed. 7.5.2 Special Meeting of August 2, 1993 - Received & filed. 7.6 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES: 7.6.1 Regular Meeting of June 10, 1993 - Received & filed. 7.6.2 Regular Meeting of July 15, 1993 - Received & filed. 9. OLD BUSINESS: 9.1 DIAMOND RANCH HIGH SCHOOL (SYMBOLIC) GROUND BREAKING AND CELEBRATION - CM/Belanger reported that the Diamond Ranch Boosters Club, in association with the City of D.B., the City of it, SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 10 Pomona and the Pomona Unified School District are planning a community event to celebrate the attainment of property for the Diamond Ranch High School. The City has indicated that it would provide financial support for the event in an amount up to $5,000 dollars. In response to a series of inquires by C/MacBride, CM/ Belanger stated that $1,500 is allocated to the City's Anniversary Celebration and the City has purchased a trailer for the use by D.B. High School for their marching band totaling $5,000. CSD/Rose, in response to C/MacBride, stated that since the event has four major co-sponsors and 25 sponsors, the City anticipates that probably only $1,500 to $2,000 will be adequate to cover the needs for the event. MPT/Papen expressed concern that the City has not received a request in writing from the Booster Club for these funds, with an estimate of costs and a breakdown on how the money is to be spent, which is the common procedure followed by other community .— groups. Also, liability insurance should not be waived just because the City is participating in this event. It is important that we follow pro- cedure and be cautious as to how tax dollars are spent. She stated that though she is 100% behind the construction of the high school, she is con- cerned with spending such a large sum of money during these economic times. The Board of Education of the Pomona Unified School District has indicated that though they support the October event, they will not be contributing any funds toward it and that an official, on-site ground- breaking is to be scheduled at a later date. Though there are four sponsors, the City is being asked to contribute 100% of the costs, which in effect creates a policy issue for the City which needs to be addressed. Oscar Law indicated that the Pomona Unified School District should pay for the entire event since it is their project on their property. Sue Sisk, President of the Diamond Ranch High School Booster Club, expressed concern that these issues are being brought forth at this time after all the hours spent planning the event for this community. The spirit of the event was to have a celebration for finally acquiring the property for the high school. The Council should consider funding whatever is needed with the event, as was promised, with the understanding that there are SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 11 budget constraints. At this point, the City has offered $300 for ice cream. MPT/Papen offered to pledge to raise a $100 cash donation to the Booster Club, and indicated that the other Council members will probably do as well. However, because of a concern as to the use of tax dollars, and the purpose they are going to, MPT/ Papen offered the following motion: that the City of Diamond Bar donate $5,000 to the Diamond Ranch High School for use in a program such as tele- communications, library services, cultural enrich- ment; such program being mutually agreed upon at the time of the opening of the school, and that M/Miller present a symbolic check from the City at the Community Celebration of October 10, 1993. Sue Sisk, in response to M/Miller's inquiry, stated that the Booster Club has not yet assessed the costs related to the event. A number of sponsors have donated a variety of things, but many items still need to be addressed such as insurance and shuttles. The Booster Club was not made aware there was a procedure to follow, and it is too late in the process to expect the Club to change direction. C/Forbing, in response to MPT/Papen's concern regarding staff's commitment to financially assist the Booster Club, suggested that any problem with staff's functioning should be taken up with the City Manager rather than with the committee. C/Werner stated that, to his understanding, the event was never discussed at subcommittee level, and that the matter had been administratively approved on the basis of the precedent set with the donation to the D.B. Brahmas Booster Club. He offered the following motion: to grant the Booster Club $5,000, working with staff to assure that the money is properly spent. M/Miller pointed out to Ms. Sisk that the issue is not of supporting Diamond Ranch High School, but whether the City can justify spending $5,000 for a party. Gary Neely, 344 Canoecove Drive, stated that the Booster Club set out to organize a regional event, based upon assurances given by the City Manager, the Mayor and the commitment of staff to help coordinate the event. There are 30 years of pent up demand to get this high school built, putting up with politicians undermining the efforts. The audience has pledged $1,300, even if the City won't SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 12 support the event. Bill Tinsmen pointed out that the $5,000 given to D.B. High School went for something considered of substance, and a like amount need not be given to Diamond Ranch High School for something considered frivolous. It is more appropriate to offer some financial support to be used on something of sub- stance needed by the students of that school, as was suggested by MPT/Papen. Sue Sisk stated that most items for the event have been donated, and not all of the $5,000 will need to be spent. The balance of the money could be put in a fund for the high school to be used at the time that the school opens up. M/Miller indicated that he would be willing to pledge to raise a $100 cash donation, and suggested that the Pomona Board of Education and the Pomona City Council be asked to do the same. However, the City should also commit $5,000 to the Diamond Ranch High School so that if more money is needed after the pledges are collected, then perhaps the City can supplement the expenditures using some of the $5,000, with the understanding that the Booster Club promises to be frugal. MPT/Papen stated that the whole $5,000 should be used to purchase something to supplement the educa- tion of the children. If, in two weeks, it is determined that additional funds are needed, the Booster Club can make a written request once they have determined their final budget. It is not the City's policy to give a cash donation to any group. Proposition A funds can be used for the transporta- tion shuttle needs of the event. CSD/Rose reported that the itemized costs of what staff expected the City to cover for this event, excluding the costs for the shuttle, totals approximately $1,300, which includes the sound system, deputies and insurance. C/Forbing, objecting to the direction of the discussion, pointed out that the City is listed, and advertised, as co-sponsor of this event. Motion was made by C/Forbing, seconded by C/Werner that the City allocate $5,000 maximum. M/Miller noted that the meeting is still open to public comments. Michael Lowe stated that it is the responsibility SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 13 of the Council to confront any action taken by the City Manager that is not appropriate. This event is merely symbolic and not the formal ground breaking. It is not appropriate for the City to donate money, specifically during the present budget constraints, and the fact that the group has never properly applied for the money. The money needs to be given directly to the students. Kim Chapman, member of the Booster Club, stated that they were told that the City would be able to help fund the event. The group's intentions have always been to get the best possible school for the children. Red Calkins indicated that the City Council needs to express their support of the north side of D.B. C/Werner stated that commitments have been made at the administrative level and plans have been laid toward the progress of this event. The City can commit to this group the same level of commitment given to the Brahmas, given the direction discussed this evening. The City Council and the whole com- munity needs to show their support for this high school. Motion was made by MPT/Papen that the City donate $5,000 to the Diamond Ranch High School for use in a program such as telecommunications, library services, cultural enrichment, such program being mutually agreed upon at the time of the opening of the school; that M/Miller present the symbolic check from the City at the Community Celebration of October 10, 1993; and that the City use Proposition A funds for the transportation. M/Miller inquired if the motion includes allocating some of the $5,000 to the Booster Club if there are any shortfalls in funds obtained. MPT/Papen indicated that if more money is needed than what can be pledged, then the matter can come before the Council for discussion in two weeks. C/MacBride stated that, since City staff gave a verbal agreement that $5,000 would be allocated to the event, and that there are people dependent on _ that agreement, the City has the responsibility to live up to those verbal agreements. He then suggested that there needs to be discussion on the City's policy regarding the distribution of funds, at certain levels, that have been allocated to staff. SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 14 Motion was made by MPT/Papen and seconded by C/Forbing to allocate $5,000 to assist in the funding of the Diamond Ranch High School Celebration. 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 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE AMENDING OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-71, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE CITY COUNCIL STANDARDS OF OPERATION, TO INCLUDE SANCTIONS/ PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-71 - MPT/Papen reviewed the Council's standards regarding confi- dential information and litigation, as adopted in December of 1991. State law provides for the Council to take three different sanctions if these standards are not being followed: declare willful misconduct and ask for an investigation by the County grand jury; adopt a Resolution establishing criminal sanctions making it a misdemeanor; or adopt a Resolution for censoring. Councilmembers have a responsibility to put aside personal feel- ings and politics in the matters of closed sessions, negotiations, and litigations. She referred to the declaration signed by C/Werner, filed in Pomona Superior Court on August 12, 1992, making claims as to what happened in Council closed sessions and stated that C/Werner should be dis- qualified from participating in closed sessions as they relate to the lawsuit Diamond Bar Citizens to Protect Country Living Against the City. There is also evidence of C/Werner having private meetings and accepting contributions from a developer who is suing the City for $124 million dollars, though the Council policy clearly states that no Councilmember shall meet with the parties who are suing the City or their representatives. C/ Werner should be censored for breaching the Code of Conduct. She then referred to the Minutes of August 18, 1992 and pointed out that C/Werner provided information to citizens regarding subcommittee negotiations on trash issues, in which C/Werner was a member of the sub -committee. Council policy states that if a subcommittee is in the process of negotiating a contract, that information is confidential, and is subject to closed session, and cannot be discussed with any member of the public outside the City Manager, the City Attorney or other Councilmembers. She requested consensus from the Council to direct staff to work with the Council to prepare a Resolution censoring C/Werner and prohibiting his participation on these two lawsuit issues where he SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 15 has breached the code of ethics. Bill Tinsmen pointed out that each Councilmember has made statements during meetings only to later deny that they were ever made, despite the fact that they are evident on video tape. Perhaps each Councilmember ought to judge himself first before judging colleagues. Frank Dursa. stated that, as he indicated at the August 18, 1992 meeting, C/Werner never gave him any information about the trash issue. C/Wenner pointed out that he never stated that he discussed information on the trash issue but rather that he would not have a problem with doing so. The fact of the matter is that the information was already public. Max Maxwell stated that he is appalled that there would be an attack on another Councilmember. He then indicated his support of the efforts to recall M/Miller and MPT/Papen. The issue brought forward -- by MPT/Papen should be dropped and the Council should proceed with City business. Clyde Henersly stated that there is no audio on cable channel 12 after around 9:00 p.m. Tom Van Winkle indicated that C\Werner is the one Council member he has been able to communicate his concerns to. Michael Lowe expressed concern that wrong -doings are being justified. Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that it is inappropriate to twist words and misuse statements. Gary Neely, 344 Canoecove Drive, stated that the issue brought forth by MPT/Papen should be dropped and the Councilmembers should get back to City business. Nick Anis suggested that some of these matters be discussed in committee rather than closed session. He questioned if it would be effective to censor any Council member from closed sessions since any information is readily available. C/Werner stated that since he did not receive any notice of this item to be on the agenda, a viola- tion of the Brown Act may have occurred. In response to the allegations made, he made the following comments: the source of information SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 16 regarding the trash issue received by Mr. Dursa came from another individual, thus the matter was no longer confidential; the declaration was signed, on an issue that should not have been a closed session item, not to compromise the City but rather to defend the rights of the people to gather signa- tures unimpeded; and he did receive a contribution from DBA, but there was no compromising of confi- dentiality, and he pointed out that he had seconded the motion to deny their project. There is no proof to the allegations made. M/Miller stated that he does not feel that the Brown Act was violated in regard to the affidavit signed by C/Werner since the conversation never took place. However, the perception that a closed session item could have been discussed is dis- turbing. He expressed concern that C/Werner had met with DBA, and accepted a campaign contribution, six weeks after the City was served with a lawsuit. The Council needs to trust each other and work together for the benefit of the City. He pointed out that the issue before the Council is to include sanctions/ penalties for violations that may be made as Council policies. MPT/Papen stated that the focus of her statements was to indicate that the Council's standards of operation, as it relates to confidential inform- ation and litigation, had been breached. The policies of the Council must be adhered to or they should be changed. Since C/Werner has met with the parties and the attorneys suing the City, the con- sequences should be that he can no longer partic- ipate in the Council's discussions on those lawsuits. C/MacBride noted that very few cities have codes of ethics and sanctions. It is a common procedure for professional associations to have codes of ethics; however, one becomes a member of a professional association by their permission, but one becomes a member of the Council by vote of the citizens. Therefore, the Council cannot be removed nor sanctioned easily. It would be helpful to draw up guidelines for conduct for Councilmembers to adhere to, but it would be nearly impossible to pose sanctions on a political leader. He suggested the following: not take immediate action this evening; request staff to prepare a set of guidelines that may be based upon other cities' guidelines; and come together to determine if the Council can agree upon such a code of conduct. The current code of conduct needs improvement and should be redrafted. The Council should also consider conducting busi- SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 17 ness in a two -person committee process ra a closed session forum. C/Forbing stated that he feels that t ere is no need to place sanctions in an ethica statement. Each Council member was electeZbyt community to operate City business in an etnner. If the voters feel that any Councilhas not been operating in an ethical manneit is up to the voters to vote that indiout, not the other Councilmembers. M/Miller stated that he It it would be appro- priate to direct staff t redraft the standards to clearly define and expa I upon the policy. Council needs to be aware of t se things that are creating a division on the Cou cil and try to eradicate this distrust. C/Forbing suggest d that M/Miller and C/MacBride be on a subcommit a to rewrite the standards and expand upon th policy. MPT/Papen s ted that there are policies designed to protect the City in legal manners. If those policies a not going to be enforced, and the City Council 's not going to censor a Councilmember for breech f conduct in legal issues, then why have the st ndards. Fol wing discussion, it was the consensus of the Co4hcil to concur with C/MacBride that guidelines a needed by all, and that the current policies d standards should be rewritten. 10. ANN ONCEMENTB: C/Forbing reminded the audience of thd Economic Resource Meeting scheduled September 9, 1993 a 7:00 a.m. 11. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk ATTEST: Mayor SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 PAGE 17 ness in a two -person committee process rather than a closed session forum. C/Forbing stated that he feels that there is no need to place sanctions in an ethical statement. Each Council member was elected by the community to operate City business in an ethical manner. If the voters feel that any Councilmember has not been operating in an ethical manner, then it is up to the voters to vote that individual out, not the other Councilmembers. M/Miller stated that he felt it would be appro- priate to direct staff to redraft the standards to clearly define and expand upon the policy. Council needs to be aware of these things that are creating a division on the Council and try to eradicate this distrust. C/Forbing suggested that M/M,iller and C/MacBride be on a subcommittee to rewrite the standards and expand upon the policy. MPT/Papen stated that there are policies designed _ to protect the City in legal manners. If those policies are not going t4 be enforced, and the City Council is not going tocensor a Councilmember for breech of conduct in ]regal issues, then why have the standards. Following discussion„ it was the consensus of the Council to concur with C/MacBride that guidelines are needed by all, and that the current policies and standards should be rewritten. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Forbing reminded the audience of the Economic Resource Meeting scheduled September 9, 1993 at 7:00 a.m. 11. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. LYNDA BURGESS, Cit Clerk ATTEST; yor k