Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/1993 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DECEMBER 14, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the AQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Werner. ROLL CALL: Mayor Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony, Council Members Ansari and Miller. C/Papen arrived at 7:15 p.m. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. CITY ATTORNEY UPDATE ON LITIGATION MATTERS: ICA/Montgomery reported that Referendum No. 1 had been repealed and the case closed. He also reported that the attorney representing the Citizens to Protect County Living prepared a dismissal for Referendum No. 2 and the General Plan would be repealed subject to the adoption of a Resolution by the City Council. Furthermore, the matter involving the lawsuit between Mr. Gross and C/Miller had been resolved. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Al Rumpilla requested that agenda reports include the name of the person who requested the item be on the agenda. William Gross requested the City Council to suggest to C/Papen to refrain from making comments insinuating suing citizens. He then suggested that there be additional effort to reach out and maintain good relationships with local government people that affect the City politically. C/Miller suggested, and the City Council concurred, that a verbatim transcript be prepared for C/Papen since she was not present at the meeting to address the issue. George Barrett, 1884 Shaded Wood Rd., requested that the Consent Calendar include a brief description of the warrants. CM/Belanger suggested that the warrant register be posted on the community bulletin board for those interested. Max Maxwell expressed concern that ICA/Montgomery was not well received by some on the Planning Commission. Red Calkins expressed disappointment with how the first City Council meeting was conducted. He then questioned why Council DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 2 Members Miller and Papen were .being blamed by those involved in the recall effort for raising -taxes since there .is no evidence to support such a statement. Dave Reynolds expressed appreciation for the City On-line system. 3. COUNCIL'COMMENTS: C/Papen requested that a discussion be placed on the agenda clarifying the policy as to how Council Members can place items on the agenda. She expressed concern that many new policies are being implemented that have not been discussed in public or presented in written format to the entire City Council. C/Miller, in response to an accusation that he and C/Papen have raised taxes, requested that the next agenda include discussion to rescind approval of landscape district and solid waste franchise fee assessments. He asked if his questions regarding the lawsuit involving Diamond Bar Associates should be expressed during Executive Session. ICA/Montgomery stated that, since the information on the judge's deposition regarding the lawsuit involving _ Diamond Bar Associates is of public record, . it can be discussed publicly. C/Miller expressed concern that ICA/Montgomery, who is not the attorney of record, notified the opposition that a deposition would be cancelled. He also inquired if the issue was discussed by ICA/Montgomery with any of the Council Members prior to this evening. ICA/Montgomery explained that, as City Attorney, he is a party to the pleadings. He stated that a request was received to continue the deposition due to Judge Mills" time restraints and a desire to discuss a settlement. Since the Council directed that as much of the litigation as possible be dismissed and in the interest of saving the City money and encouraging settlement on the matter, he requested that the deposition be postponed, as indicated in the memo submitted to Council. He further stated that if the retained attorney disagrees, then that decision will be overruled. C/Papen suggested that, since there is a question as to whether the issue regarding the lawsuit involving Diamond Bar Associates had been discussed among Council members, each Council Member involved should state for the record — whether or not the issue had been discussed with ICA/Montgomery or the Mayor. C/Ansari indicated that she was not aware of the issue prior to receiving the Council packet. DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 3 MPT/Harmony stated that he did have a discussion with Judge Mills on Monday regarding the circumstances involved. He stated that he is in concurrence with ICA/Montgomery's advice that it is appropriate to save the City $5,000 by allowing a f ive day delay. He then commented that he supports the Juvenile Diversion Program to try to integrate youths into public access television. M/Werner, in regard to C/Papen's question regarding the placement of agenda items, stated that, since there is not sufficient notice to the public for last minute agenda items, he instructed staff to place C/Papen's last minute requests on the following agenda. He then requested that staff place the landscape district issue and the recycling fee issue on the next agenda, with a report on the SRRE, including Ordinance requirements dealing with trash collection services, what transpired over the last year regarding trash and what is being done to encourage competition. 4. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 4.1 Traffic & Transportation Commission - December 16, 1993 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.2 Parks & Recreation Commission - December 16, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon 4.3 City Council Meeting - December 21, 1993 - 7:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.4 City Offices to be Closed - December 24, 1993 through January 2, 1994 due to the holidays. 4.5 Christmas Tree Recycling Program begins December 27, 1993 through January 1, 1994. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Miller moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 5.1, Warrant Register. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Papen, Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular meeting of October 25, 1993 - Received & filed. — 5.3 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Steffanie Diane Scott on October 6, 1993 - rejected the request and referred the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Papen, Ansari, DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 4 MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 WARRANT REGISTER - MPT/Harmony inquired if Mr. Arciero paid his full share on the South Pointe Master Plan fund. CM/Belanger stated that the amount owing on the EIR and the tentative map process as relating to the South Pointe Master Plan was brought into balance. MPT/Harmony moved, C/Miller seconded to approve the Warrant Register -as presented. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Papen, Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 6. NEW BUSINESS: — 6.1 RESOLUTION NO. 89=4A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING THE DAY AND TIME OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS - CM/Belanger reported that M/Werner, at the December 7, 1993 meeting, directed that regularly scheduled City Council meetings begin at 7:30 p.m. in order to provide a more convenient time for the public to attend. C/Miller expressed concern that the later the meetings, the later the Public Hearings which would discourage people from attending Public Hearings. C/Papen suggested that if the meeting time is to be changed, then perhaps an ending time should be estab-lished so there is consistency. MPT/Harmony expressed support for beginning the meetings at a later time to allow people a better opportunity to attend. The number of Public Hearings held can be limited so that meetings don't consistently run late in the evening. Also, if meetings run late, Executive Sessions could be held over to another day with a special hearing. C/Miller questioned if it would be more appropriate to hold Executive Sessions at the beginning of the meeting so as to avoid any possible perception of misdoing. M/Werner noted that since the number of litigations DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 5 should decline, the need for Executive Sessions should decline as well. Staff can present any Executive Session items to the City Council at the opening of the meeting so that the Council can decide when to hold Executive Session, depending upon the subject matter. C/Papen asked if there should be a set time for Public Hearings. M/Werner pointed out that the City does not have a set policy as to when Public Hearings should commence. It is only required that cities specify the starting time of the meeting, not a particular item. If a subject matter on the agenda attracts a large audience, the Council has the discretion to move that item forward for discussion. The following persons spoke in favor of beginning regularly -scheduled City Council meetings at 7:00 p.m.: Don Schad, Max Maxwell, Frank Dursa, Oscar Law and Al Rumpilla. M/Werner suggested, and the Council concurred, that the Council retain the flexibility as to when meetings should end, with the understanding that the Council will express their desire if it should continue beyond 11:00 p.m. C/Miller suggested that Executive Sessions, if needed, be held right before Council meetings. ICA/Montgomery advised that the scheduling of Executive Sessions be at the discretion of the Mayor, based upon the issues to be discussed. M/Werner suggested that Public Hearings be scheduled to begin sometime after 7:30 p.m., with the understanding that public comments will not be suspended at that time. It should remain the discretion of the Council to rearrange the order of agenda items as determined appropriate. CM/Belanger stated that staff will need a set time for Public Hearings in order to notify the public of the time, date and place of the hearing. City Council concurred to set 7:30 p.m. as the notification time, or soon thereafter. C/Miller moved, C/Ansari seconded to amend and adopt Resolution No. 89-4A, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHANGING THE MEETING TIME FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS to indicate 7:00 p.m. as the starting time. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 6 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Miller, Papen, Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 6.2 RESOLUTION NO. 93-79: A RESOLUTION .OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND. BAR APPOINTING AN INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION - ICA/Montgomery gave a brief summary of his professional background. Michael Goldenberg expressed concern that there may be a conflict with Mr. Montgomery as attorney for the City since he represented a client in litigation against the City. He suggested that residents or law firms within the City be interviewed for the possibility of being considered for City Attorney. He also suggested that local businesses be considered, wherever possible, to provide services for the City, thus supporting the community. ICA/Montgomery stated that all substitutions of attorney for any possible appearance of a conflict were filed with the City Clerk the previous week and that he is not involved in any litigation against the City or the City Council at this time. Lydia Plunk expressed. concern that the majority rule does not become "mob rule" and that the rights of the minority are respected. She requested that there be a proper RFP process in selecting a City Attorney and that an agreement be established with Mr. Montgomery that if the association' with the City and Mr. Montgomery should ever cease, there would be a reasonable length of time when he and his firm would not be involved in litigation against the City. ICA/Montgomery voiced no objections to the suggestions made. He reiterated that he is not currently involved. in any litigation, with the exception C/Ansari's personal lawsuit currently in the Court of Appeals. M/Werner expressed support for a full RFP process. C/Papen, concerned that there was no interview process with a full Council, requested that the Council adjourn to a personnel session to discuss the item and set up a full interview panel to discuss the matter. She also expressed concern that there is no legal representation to determine the conflict of interest issue, other than Mr. Montgomery's legal advice. DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 7 C/Miller questioned Mr. Montgomery's fee structure as indicated in the contract. CM/Belanger stated that Mr. Montgomery has agreed to the same contract used by the City with Markman, Arczynski, et al. The hourly rate of $125/hr. was used since Mr. Montgomery's status is more analogous to Mr. Markman than Mr. Arczynski. C/Ansari stated that Mr. Montgomery is the attorney representing her in her lawsuit involving land sub- sidence. The case is currently in the court of appeals. The FPPC has stated that there is no conflict of interest in this situation because there is no exchange of money or money to be gained. C/Miller stated that, for the record, in 1985 Mr. Montgomery provided legal services for various partnerships he was involved in, as well as for a bond issuance in a project he held interest in. C/Papen asked if Mr. Montgomery would be present at all Council and Planning Commission meetings as well as being the attorney of record. She then reiterated her concern regarding a possible conflict with retaining Mr. Montgomery. ICA/Montgomery confirmed that he will be present at the indicated meetings and would provide other legal advise if deemed necessary. He again stated that he has substituted out of any litigations involving the City. MPT/Harmony expressed his confidence in Mr. Montgomery's professional ability. M/Werner, recognizing C/Papen's request to discuss personnel issues, tabled the matter to the end of the meeting for Closed Session. MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to adopt Resolution No. 93-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPOINTING AN INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony, Ansari, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, Miller DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE.8 6.3 COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BY MAYOR WERNER C/Papen pointed out that the L.A. County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) is an elected position, not a City Council appointment and should be deleted from the list or put in a separate category. She then expressed concern that she had been reassigned to five sub -committees, none of which are withM/Werner, MPT/Harmony or C/Ansari, and that shehad been removed from all subcommittees relating to transportation. MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve the City Council committee appointments. With the following Roll Call vote, motion. carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Papen 6.4 AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL/ EMPLOYEE EXPENSE POLICY ON MEETING ATTENDANCE - CM/Belanger requested that the Council consider the Council/ Employee Expense Policy, dated Revised December 14, 1993, relating to. expenses in relationship to travel and attendance at meetings. C/Miller, referring to item 4.c., concurred that receipts should be required for reimbursements. He then suggested that the Council eliminate all travel, lodging, meals and other associated expenses for City Council related activities, requiring that the money be taken out of each Council Members' budgeted $500 per month► C/Papen suggested that the City's Council/Employee Expense Policy not have a per diem, but a maximum allowance of $43.50 per day for meals, with receipts required if the meal is over $10.00, which is similar to L.A. County and MTA reimbursement policies. She noted that most conventions include meals in the convention fees. C/Miller, referring to item 6.e., stated that the Council Members, as elected officials, should pay for their spouses, or significant others, to attend City functions. MPT/Harmony stated that Councilmembers assigned to serve on various committees are required to attend many of these different functions and the City should pay the fee for an extra meal for spouses. However, he stated that he does concur that per diem should be eliminated as suggested by C/Papen. DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 9 C/Miller noted that since Councilmembers volunteer to be on subcommittees the City should not pay for the added expenses. C/Papen suggested that item 6.e. include a statement that "guests may not include spouses, significant others or family members." Taxpayer dollars should not be used for the social life of Council Members, spouses or significant others. C/Ansari pointed out that not all Council Members may be financially capable of paying such fees out of pocket. Max Maxwell asked if the Council/ Employee Expense Policy had been in effect for awhile. CM/Belanger explained that the changes to the policy, which had been in effect for 4 years, would expand it to include those functions not only within the City but outside the City as well to cover problems that occurred such as the situation with Miss Diamond Bar. Frank Dursa expressed concern with the City paying for miscellaneous fees such as valet parking and bar bills. Martha Bruske stated that she supports the efforts of the Council as long as it is traveling appropriately to represent the City. She noted that there should be tighter control regarding staff as well. Dave Reynolds concurred that there should be some measure to guard against extravagances and "perks"; however, there could be a compromise by reducing the per diem cap and placing an overall cap. Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs, suggested that the item be revisited at the next meeting, with some consideration given to allowing a limited number of Council Members attending legitimate functions to help the City. He noted that the citizens are not being regarded in the current consideration of this policy. He also noted that each Council Member has not only a $500/mo. expense account, but a $1,200/mo. Mastercard limit as well. C/Miller, noting that he has never used City money for expenses at these functions, stated that it must be decided if such expenses are acceptable or not because it cannot go both ways. He then suggested that the Mastercard be eliminated for the City Council. DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 10 CM/Belanger, in response to C/Ansari, explained that the credit card facilitates the travel policy existing in the City for Council Members to be involved in other governments and organizations that would benefit the City. It is presumed that the Council Member or staff would only use the card when conducting City business that would benefit the community. MPT/Harmony pointed out that credit cards are an exact way of audit tracking. There is nothing wrong with the credit card as long as it does not represent an additional benefit to an employee or Council Member. C/Miller moved, C/Papen seconded to eliminate the Mastercard for the Council. CM/Belanger stated that staff would recommend that the privilege of the credit card continue to be enforced since there has not been an indication that any individual has abused the privilege of the card. C/Miller and C/Papen withdrew the motion and second to the motion respectively. M/Werner suggested that the Finance Committee reevaluate the policies associated with the topics discussed this evening and bring back a policy appropriate for the City at a future date. C/Miller moved, C/Papen seconded to eliminate all travel, lodging, meals and other associated expenses for the City Council. Motion failed by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None C/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to amend item 6.e to read "Council Members' guests may not include spouses, significant others or family members." With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, Ansari, Miller, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None C/Papen moved, C/Miller seconded to approve the Council/ Employee Expense Policy revised December 14, 1993 with the following amendments: replace DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 11 "Per Diem" in section 4 with "Meals;" delete the word "per diem" from paragraph A and replace it with "meal allowance;" reduce the amount indicated in paragraph B to $43.50; remove the word "receipts not" from paragraph C and replace it with "receipts are required;" delete the words "per diem" from section 5, paragraph B following the statement "...meal allowance;" include the statement "Council Members' guests may not include spouses, significant others or family members" from section 6.e. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, Ansari, Miller, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 6.5 RESOLUTION NO. 93-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 93-58 - CM/Belanger reported that the City Council directed staff on December 7, 1993 to prepare a Resolution rescinding approval of the 1993 General Plan. In addition to adoption of a Resolution rescinding the General Plan, he recommended establishment of a citizens' advisory committee consisting of members of the City Council, Planning Commission, business community, citizens groups, community residents, property owners of large vacant land and other members as the City Council may deem appropriate and directing staff to facilitate the tasks necessary to prepare the 1994 General Plan. C/Papen left the meeting temporarily. MPT/Harmony read a statement reporting on a Sacramento trip relative to the General Plan, summarized as follows: the City has been operating illegally for two years and none of the General Plans will have any force of law; the interim mechanism of Ordinance No. 4 was invalidly con- structed and has never been extended; any and all approvals granted by the previous City Council will have to be either rescinded or reprocessed; ministerial permits were always allowed as long as they conform to building codes; all previous land use approvals will have to be revisited; a General Plan must be developed broad enough in its concept to embrace all neighborhoods, divisions, rights of property and benefits to the public, with overwhelming credibility. ICA/Montgomery stated that, since discretionary land approvals granted in the absence of a valid General Plan or an extension thereof always remains DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 12 subject to challenge, he would recommend that the General Plan be revisited immediately, without an election, because it would take less time to revise a General Plan than to hold an election. Most of the matters can be clarified with little expense to the City. In response to C/Miller's concern regarding California Code 65567, he stated that, in his opinion, ministerial permits that do not require Planning Commission approval can be permitted. C/Miller expressed concern that if the City should decide to restrict certain activities, but allow others, and is not in compliance with the entire letter of the law, the City is subjecting itself to litigation from individuals who feel they have been sited out. He stated that without a General Plan, the City does not have the authority to issue any permits. ICA/Montgomery reiterated that, in his opinion,', ministerial permits, such as building permits, can be issued; however, a more definitive opinion will be given at a later time. — MPT/Harmony pointed out that the issue is that the City does not have a General Plan in effect. The quickest and best way to mend the situation is to rescind the General Plan and establish a Citizens' Advisory Committee to revise the document appropriately. M/Werner noted that it would be wasteful to throw out the entire General Plan because there are many good parts in it. Any option to put the General Plan on the ballot is not in the City's best interest because it would delay the City in any future growth and development. He expressed support to rescind the General Plan and establish a General Plan revision committee made up of the Mayor and C/Ansari to work with representatives of each of the Commissions (the Chairman and one other selected Commission member), including representatives from major property owners (such as the property owners associated with South Pointe Development, DBA and Gateway Corporate representatives), representatives from the School Districts and representatives from the Citizens to — Protect Country Living. The General Plan needs to be revised to reflect the community's needs. C/Miller expressed concern that citizens signed the referendum petition with the belief that they would have a right to vote on the General Plan. DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 13 C/Ansari pointed out that the outcome of the recent election reflects the voice of the citizens, which was also a mandate against the General Plan. She stated that an election is quite costly, and the City should make every attempt to develop a General Plan that addresses the concerns indicated by the citizens that were not addressed by the previous City Council. MPT/Harmony suggested that each Council member have 5 appointments, selecting people that are actively involved in the General Plan process. Many people want to serve on the Advisory Committee that do not own a major piece of property. It is important that people get a sense that this is a citizens product. Oscar Law, 25011 Pathfinder Rd., stated that there is a core foundation to change the General Plan merely by looking over the recommendations of the consultant that were never included in the document. Don Schad recommended that M/Werner and C/Ansari be part of the new General Plan committee, as well as past older members of the original General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). Martha Bruske expressed concern that C/Miller may have reported to the Board of Realtors that the City could not approve any building permits. She expressed support for the revision of the General Plan and stated that the key principle is responsible development. C/Miller stated that the only information he passed along was information received from the City Attorney at the time. Max Maxwell requested that the issue of permits be clarified. C/Miller stated that, for the record, the last thing he would want is for any individual in the City to be denied a permit; however, the information given in the letter from Sacramento should be clarified because it was not actually a _ statement or opinion. ICA/Montgomery stated that Ordinance No. 4 does not meet the requirements of California Code Section 65858, which was referred to by OPR, and is not a valid ordinance for the City to operate under. He then stated that, if the Council desires, he can DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 14 give the specific citation regarding the permit issue at this time or in a memo later. C/Miller reiterated his concern that the City may become liable if a ministerial permit is issued but not a CUP, for example. ICA/Montgomery stated that, in his opinion, a ministerial permit can be issued (citing Friends of Westwood), and according to Government Section 66498.1B, if it is a vesting map that has been completed, the builder has a right to permits in compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards that were in place at the time that the application for the map was complete. MPT/Harmony requested a legal brief from ICA/Montgomery's office citing court decisions regarding ministerial actions, as well as a clear definition of those ministerial actions that can be taken, sending the information to the Board of Realtors, staff and other interested parties. Mr. Van Winkle commended the Council for requiring _ clarification on this issue. Bill Gross stated that the City previously received a letter from OPR on the subject of whether or not the City is allowed to issue permits and it was indicated that the City is allowed to issue ministerial permits. M/Werner requested ICA/Montgomery to provide, at a later date, a supplemental opinion regarding the South Pointe School and if the City can proceed and provide assistance to the School District. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove, pointed out that the definition of the word "referendum" is "to vote" and it is not appropriate for the Council to presuppose that those signing the referendum do not understand what they were signing. He questioned if the General Plan can actually be revised since it had been indicated previously that in order to adopt a new General Plan within less than a year, it has to be substantially changed. He also expressed concern that the Council may be predisposed to what would constitute "substantially changed." He then expressed concern that it was suggested that the Council be allowed only 5 appointees to the Advisory Committee. M/Werner suggested that the revision process include a quantified and subjective analysis of the substantive changes when it comes back to the DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 15 Planning Commission and the City Council. Al Rumpilla suggested that, to get a true consensus of the community, the Council should allow any resident who wants to participate in the process to be part of the Advisory Committee. M/Werner stated that all meetings of the Advisory Committee would be open and available to the public for public comment and participation. MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to adopt Resolution No. 93-80 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 93-58 and direct staff and members of the City Council subcommittee, consisting of M/Werner and C/Ansari, to assist in the General Plan revision, extending invitations to Planning Commissioners, the business community, citizen groups, community residents, property owners of large vacant land, and other members as the City Council may deem appropriate; and direct staff to facilitate the tasks necessary to prepare the 1994 General Plan. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen C/Papen returned to the meeting. 7. OLD BUSINESS: 7.1 CONSIDERATION TO RESCIND AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND LAW FIRM OF WILDISH & NIALIS RE: MATTER OF GROSS V. MILLER - ICA/Montgomery suggested that the matter should be continued to the next meeting, or dropped from the agenda, because the matter has been settled and final documents have not yet been completed. He stated that the law firm may be entitled to be paid for what has been incurred up to and through the settlement. Frank Dursa, in regard to the policy of the City Manager's authority to approve contract services to the City up to $10,000, asked if the City Manager — had approved the contract with this law firm to defend a Council Member in a personal lawsuit. Bill Gross clarified that there is no court case entitled Gross v."Miller, and this error should be corrected in the agenda and the minutes as Miller v. Gross. DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 16 George Barrett inquired if the question whether this lawsuit is of a personal nature or part of City business had been addressed. M/Werner stated that both litigants have agreed to a settlement, and based upon the comments of the City Attorney, the matter should be dropped off the calendar of the City Council. ICA/Montgomery stated that both attorneys have advised that the case has been settled, and that the bill incurred was already approved by Council action and/or City Manager action. M/Werner stated that it is the consensus of the Council to drop the item from the agenda, with the amendments requested by Mr. Gross. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS: M/Werner reported that item 6.2, the proposed agreement for the interim City Attorney, had been held over subject to Closed Session of the Council. C/Ansari stated that she would be accepting applications for Commissioner for Traffic & Transportation, Parks & — Recreation and Planning Commissions. 9. CLOSED SESSION: May convene to consider: Matters of pending Litigation (G.C. 54956.9), personnel items (G.C. 54957.6), or purchase/sale of real property (G.C. 54956.8) - At 10:57 p.m., M/Werner adjourned the meeting to Closed Session regarding the contract of the interim City Attorney; personnel items and pending litigation, specifically Diamond Bar Associates v. City of Diamond Bar. RECONVENE: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 12:25 a.m. M/Werner announced that the City Council, in Closed Session, agreed to adopt Resolution No. 93-79 appointing an interim City Attorney approving an agreement for legal services with Michael B. Montgomery, a professional corporation. C/Papen and C/Miller abstained from voting on the issue because of a potential conflict of interest. 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Werner adjourned the meeting at 12:30 p.m. to December 21, 1993 at 8:00a at City Hall. LY A BURGESS, Ci y Clerk ATTEST: o