Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/1994 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JANUARY 4, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 7:06 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 Papen. Councilman Miller was excused. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. CITY ATTORNEY UPDATE ON LITIGATION MATTERS: ICA/Montgomery reported on the following: Gross v. Miller; permit validations; report from Special Counsel, Rutan & Tucker, regarding campaign contributions. C/Papen questioned the 'determination made by ICA/Montgomery interpreting Ordinance No. 4 as being invalid to enact interim General Plan policies considered noncontroversial. She pointed out that two court decisions have upheld Ordinance No. 4, adopted by the City in 1992. She questioned the appropriateness of allowing ICA/Montgomery to represent the City in this matter since he was the opposing attorney when the validity of Ordinance No. 4 was questioned in court. She then inquired how the City would benefit by applying for an extension at this time. ICA/Montgomery explained that Ordinance No. 4, which was adopted after the extension of the General Plan expired, was valid for only 45 days. The appropriate steps to obtain an extension on the ordinance were never taken. He stated that the recommended extension does not involve Ordinance No. 4, but extending adoption of the General Plan. C/Papen suggested that the City obtain a neutral, independent opinion on the issue of the General Plan and Ordinance No. 4. MPT/Harmony complimented ICA/Montgomery on his efforts to get the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) to consider giving D.B. an extension for approval of the General Plan. PRESENTATION FROM THE DIAMOND BAR LIONS CLUB: John Forbing and Steve Johnson presented the City with a check for $500 toward the cost of materials to build the stage JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 2 for Concerts in the Parks. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Marilyn Peters, 1769 Cliffbranch, representing Lorbeer Middle School, expressed concern with the decrease in library service in the City and its effect upon the education of students. Beverly Van Citters, 23933 Cougar Creek, member of Friends of the Library, concerned with the decrease in library services, suggested that the Council study the situation of the Library to find creative solutions to the problem, and to consider having a City -operated library. Gus Raza, 502 Dole Ct., expressed concern that a member of C/Miller's family may have tampered with recall signs. Joe McManus, 23561 Coyote Spgs., requested the termination of ICA/Montgomery. Kathleen McCarthy, 1630 Ano Nuevo, requested the Council to consider funding the Library for at least one additional day a week. Don Gravdahl, 23988 Minnequa, stated that the City should be paying ICA/Montgomery the $105/hour he indicated would be acceptable rather than $125/hour; he inquired into the status of the case involving Judge Mills and noted that Judge Mills is a general partner in JCC. He then expressed concern that it appears the City Attorney governs the City Council and the City. ICA/Montgomery, in response to Mr. Gravdahl, stated that the deposition from Judge Mills is on hold pending settlement discussions. Frank Williams, 9227 Haven Ave., St. 280, Rancho Cucamonga, Executive Officer for the Building Industry Assn., stated that the So. Calif. Assn. of Governments (SLAG) will soon present cities with its proposed Regional Comprehension Plan (RCP), which is a blueprint to elevate local decisions to a new level of government with a new set of bureaucrats. He then expressed concern with the recent ruling made by ICA/ Montgomery invalidating Ordinance No. 4 and the costs and liability to be incurred by the City by this decision. He stated that the Ordinance should only be rescinded by a vote of the majority of the Council following a public hearing, noticing all affected parties. M/Werner explained that the City Council has not rescinded Ordinance No. 4. The Council is working toward resolving a concern that legal decisions made involving the General Plan were not based on strong enough JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 3 foundation. C/Papen reiterated her request for the City Council to consider terminating the contract with ICA/Montgomery immediately. The City should have neutral, independent counsel representing the City. Patricia Rinker, 21725 Birch Hill Dr., President of the D.B. Kiwanis, announced that the third annual baseball clinic will take place January 8, 1994 from 9:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. at the Recreation Hall at Lanterman Development Center. She then presented Mr. Hunt, the D.B. Library Manager, with a check for $950 to be used for the Library. Gillian Ray, 1717 Tiffany Place, Ontario, Librarian, stressed the importance of having a viable library in D.B. It is a right, not a privilege to have a fully funded, fully staffed and fully functional library. Wilbur Hunt, Manager of the D.B. Library, submitted a proposal to increase the hours of public service each week. C/Papen suggested that Library personnel negotiate with County Administration to establish a policy to allow the City access to the community room to hold fundraisers without paying for a County employee to be there. She then questioned the County's policy not to use volunteers because of liability risks. She suggested that the Council form a committee to work with the League of Cities and County Supervisors to change this policy so library hours can be extended with the use of volunteers. Mr. Hunt noted that volunteers are currently used on a regular basis at the library. Nick Anis, 1125 Bramford Ct., asked why there had not been a settlement with Judge Mills when the deposition was last week. He stated that the City needs an independent attorney that is not associated with lawsuits against the taxpayers and does not have a conflict of interest representing the City. He questioned why the General Plan is not going to ballot for a vote of the people as was promised by Council. He presented a copy of the Citizens To Protect Country Living's financial statement that appears to misrepresent a $1,000 funding source. He inquired why the police did not prosecute two of the individuals caught stealing his political signs. He then inquired if, per the City's Sign Ordinance, political signs could be posted 30 days prior to an election. CM/Belanger stated that the Sign Ordinance allows signs to be placed in the public right-of-way within 30 days of a special event. JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 4 Nick Anis, referring to ICA/Montgomerys' legal advice invalid-ating Ordinance No. 4, pointed out that ICA/Montgomery has a financial benefit each time an individual uses the City because he is paid by the hour by the City. Dale Kerlin, 1647 Charnaugh, West Covina, expressed concern that the City will lose the faith of the banking and business community due to the status of its permit process. He suggested that the Council immediately address the financial effects of invalidating Ordinance No. 4 and reconsider the advice given by ICA/Montgomery. M/Werner indicated that the City is seeking other interim temporary measures that can be taken to provide permit applicants, such as Dr. Crowley, relief during this process of change. He stated that it is not the intent of the City to block development or in any way hinder the business community in Diamond Bar but to clear up the issues adopted by the City so there is a firm foundation when the City proceeds with development. C/Papen questioned why the seven property owners whose projects are affected by the decision to revoke Ordinance _ No. 4 have not been properly notified that their projects may be invalid. She then moved to fire ICA/Montgomery immediately. M/Werner directed staff to immediately notify all properties that are subject to the decision made regarding the status of Ordinance No. 4. C/Papen's motion died for lack of a second. MPT/Harmony pointed out that the City, which had been operating under legal advice of other attorneys on this, received notification from the State during that period that it was operating without a General Plan, that Ordinance No. 4 might be illegal and that Ordinance No. 4 was a unique urgency ordinance. Ronald J. Crowley, 110 E. Wilshire Ave., Ste. 300, stated that, because of ICA/Montgomery's decision invalidating Ordinance No. 4, his project, which was already approved by the City, must be delayed, affecting his ability to obtain funding. He noted that the courts had decided, in three different cases, that Ordinance No. 4 was valid when the issue was brought forth by Mr. Montgomery when he was representing the Citizens to Protect Country — Living. He read a letter received from ICA/Montgomery, indicating that the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) had determined that Ordinance No. 4 does not meet statutory requirements for adoptions. Futher, he stated that OPR had written a letter indicating that they do not pass judgment on the Ordinance's validity or merit and JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 5 that its validity is a decision of the courts. He requested that the Council make a decision if they are going to stand behind the legal advice of ICA/Montgomery or stand behind the approvals that have been processed. M/Werner concurred that it would be appropriate for the City to seek an independent opinion on the validity of Ordinance No. 4. C/Papen suggested that the City does not need to seek another independent opinion in light of the fact that three Superior Court judges have ruled Ordinance No. 4 valid. She then suggested that the Council overrule ICA/Montgomery's legal opinion and rely on the courts' decisions that Ordinance No. 4 is valid, honoring all the approvals processed. MPT/Harmony and C/Ansari stated that they would prefer an independent legal opinion so there is no doubt on the issue. M/Werner noted that it is the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to seek an independent legal opinion on the matter. The City Council will call an emergency meeting once that opinion is received. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., stated that the City should request a mediator to decide the merits of the General Plan so the City can move forward with its business. William Gross expressed support of the recall of C/Papen so the City can move forward with its business. Debbie Noyes, 21307 Bent Oak Rd., inquired why recall signs, which are political signs, are being allowed contrary to the Sign Ordinance. She suggested that the organization that continually posts signs should be fined a penalty. M/Werner informed Ms. Noyes that staff has been removing signs from public rights-of-way, in accordance with the Sign Ordinance. Tom Van Winkle pointed out that the Sign Ordinance is unclear as to the definition of political signs. He stated that citizens have a right to post signs on private property to express their opinions and state political messages. He then stated that it is healthy for the Council to have differing opinions. Oscar Law, 21511 Pathfinder Rd., expressed concern that the Sheriff's Department did not follow up on a misdemeanor commited by C/Miller's son. JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 6 Sharon Butler suggested that organizations choose a representative to express their desires before the City Council in order to reduce the time taken during Public Comment. She then stated that the City should stand behind the approval given to Dr. Crowley's project. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., requested that the Council reconsider the tree ordinance. He expressed support of ICA/Montgomery and his capabilities to represent the City. He then noted that the second referendum occurred because the previous Council majority chose to disregard revisions made to the General Plan. Frank Dursa noted that the $.35 cent trash fee was only to be used for educating the public on recycling of trash and thus cannot be used for library services, as was suggested by a member of the public. He challenged the citizens of D.B., who are financially capable, to donate $100 to the library, as he plans to do. He then expressed support for the legal capabilities of ICA/Montgomery. Sharon Wilkins, resident of Chino Hills, stated that the directional sign to Chino Hills on the 57 freeway Grand — Ave. exit is needed while the 71 freeway is under construction. All cities in this area are being impacted by traffic, particularly during this construction period. She suggested that D.B. and Chino Hills work to get along. She also suggested that D.B.consider an ordinance restricting all signs with other cities' names on it as a way to stop unwanted directional signs. Ken Anderson, Rising Star, stated that the Council should not have allowed citizens to abuse the Public Comment portion of the meeting. Also, the Council's response to comments made should not become a debate on issues raised. He then expressed concern that the City is not appropriately addressing the issue of recall signs. Mr. McManus read a copy of a court decision stating that, pending certification of a referendum election of Resolution No. 92-44 or adoption of a new General Plan by the City, Ordinance No. 4 shall continue in full force and effect. ICA/Montgomery explained that the statement "continue in full force and effect" was inserted by stipulation and the language is null if it was never in full force and effect. Also, he pointed out that since a subsequent — General Plan has been adopted, the Ordinance is invalid by its own language. M/Werner reiterated that the Council will be receiving an independent opinion on this matter for an equitable and quick JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 7 resolution. 3. COUNCIL CONKENTS: C/Papen requested that, following the Council agenda, the meeting be adjourned in memory of Cameron Todd. She then made the following responses to comments made by the public: it is improbable that the revision process of the General Plan could occur within 90 days; there may not be funds available to assist the library if the trash fee is rescinded because money may have to be taken from the General Fund to pay for State solid waste mandates; the General Plan was revised appropriately and validated by OPR; another extension for the General Plan may not be granted by OPR; and recall signs posted on public property are not in conformance with the City"s Sign Ordinance. M/Werner clarified that the State does not validate, certify or approve the procedure of the adoption of the General Plan. C/Ansari urged the community to get beyond the bickering and move forward to solve the problems faced by the City. MPT/Harmony concurred to adjourn the meeting in memory of Cameron Todd. He stated that the City must work hard to revise the General Plan. He announced that there will be City officials sitting at tables at grocery stores on weekends to talk to people about complaints and perceived issues. He noted that debate is a healthy process for a City and it is important that the City follow a democratic process. He then stated that the City will be thorough in addressing the permit processes to stop the proposed City of Industry Material Recovery Facility (MRF). M/Werner suggested that staff schedule the following items for discussion at the next Council meeting, if possible: a Public Hearing on the General Plan extension; an analysis of the establishment of a cultural resources committee; pursuit of an economic development program; a recommendation on the issue of interim Library assistance and associated options; investigation and reporting on using videography as a means of conducting City business outside of City offices, to be used as documentation for contract compliance and property management; and a recommendation on repealing the Uniform Building Code and readopting with specific inclusions of the same Property Maintenance Ordinance in existence at incorporation. 4. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 4.1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 10, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 8 4.2 Traffic & Transportation Commission - January 13, 1994 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.3 City Council Meeting - January 18, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.4 Public Workshop Concerning Development of Pantera Park - January 13, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. 4.5 General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting - January 11, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Road. RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 11:15 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 11:25 p.m. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Papen stated she would abstain from voting on Item 7.2, Certificate of Examination - Referendum Petition. 5.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 7, 1993 - M/Werner noted staff's correction to Page 13. MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve the Minutes as amended. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 5.2 WARRANT REGISTER: Approve Warrant Register dated January 4, 1994 in the amount of $741,806.23. 5.3 TREASURER'S REPORT - Received & filed Treasurer's Report for Month of November 1993. 5.4 TRANSMITTAL OF FINAL AUDIT REPORTS FOR YEAR END JUNE 30, 1993 - Received & filed the Final Audit Reports as prepared by Thomas, Bigbie & Smith. 5.5 BOND EXONERATION - GRADING CASH BOND - 2743 ROCKY TRAIL - approved exoneration of the Grading Cash Bond in the amount of $1,206. 5.6 BOND EXONERATION - GRADING CASH SURETY BOND - 2521 BRAIDED MANE DR. - approved exoneration of the Grading Cash Surety Bond in the amount of $27,076. 5.7 CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION - REFERENDUM PETITION - received and filed the Certificate of Examination and accompanying signature verification reportprovided by the L.A. County JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 9 Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. (C/ Papen abstained from voting on this matter.) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-3; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - continued from November 16, 1993. CM/Belanger reported that, as a result of the City's action to rescind the General Plan, the City is without basis for decision-making regarding the City's long-term physical development. He recommended that the project be tabled until the adoption of a new General Plan. M/Werner opened the Public Hearing. Max Maxwell suggested that the agenda include an easier to understand summary of all proposed projects. With no further testimony offered, M/Werner closed the Public Hearing. MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to table the South Pointe Master Plan project until adoption of the General Plan and direct the City Attorney to identify the public's and City's legal rights as they relate to issues such as map restrictions. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 6.2 CONSIDERATION OF RECISSION OF AB939 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE - The City's integrated waste management activities are funded through assessment of an AB 939 Administrative Fee of $0.35 per household per month, $6.00 per commercial account per month and $40.00 pre -containerized unit per month. Based on last year's figures, the City projects to raise approximately $78,000 in revenues this fiscal year to offset anticipated costs of administering the solid waste permit system and integrated waste management programs. On December 14, 1993, the City Council directed staff to evaluate the reasonableness and effectiveness of this fee. JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 10 CM/Belanger recommended retention of the existing AB939 Administrative Fee, directing staff to explore possible funding alternatives as part of the 1994-95 budget process and development of recommendations for Council's consideration. In the alternative, staff could be directed to bring back recommendations to the Council at the City's mid -year budget review along with consideration of the Library issue. C/Papen stated that she requested a list of all the programs implemented by the City to meet State mandated goals in order to assist the Council in determining if it is appropriate to eliminate or reduce the fee. M/Werner stated that he had requested a review of the regulations that dictate the obligations of trash haulers wishing to do business in D.B. It has been indicated that the level of competition is decreasing because regulations drafted and adopted by the City are too restrictive and imposing. He stated that he had also requested that, in considering to redraft the regulations, a stipulation be inserted mandating the start of recycling for multiple family residences. CM/Belanger stated that staff will present information requested by C/Papen and M/Werner regarding the programs set forth in the SRRE and the recycling program for multiple family residences. He pointed out that the requirement of AB939 is not a competition -enhancing set of standards. AA/Butzlaff reported that 59 programs are identified in the SRRE for implementation over the course of short- and long-term planning periods. Staff is working on a comprehensive report to provide the City Council an update as to where the City stands with program implementation, what needs to be done through 1995 to insure compliance with the 24% diversion goals, and what needs to be done beyond 1995 to ensure complete compliance with the mandate of AB939. Michael Hulse, the City's Integrated Waste Management Coordinator, discussed the bases for determining the City's current diversion rate, the City's status with respect to compliance with AB939, what is slated.for implementation in 1994, and specific actions required if the City is going to maintain compliance with State -mandated diversion goals,. as outlined in the handout JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 11 submitted to the Council. ACM/Usher stated that the reasoning behind the legislation is to reduce the amount of waste not recyclable, to reduce the environmental impact of the waste stream and reduce overfilling the fewer landfills in the State. The administrative fee is one way to pay for the programs that have been started as well as those to be prepared and established. He recommended that the Council not rescind the fee at this time and that the issue be studied in a very measured and responsible way through the budgetary process to determine if there are any other appropriate alternatives to fund the City's responsibilities under State law. C/Papen asked if the rubberized asphalt program and the utilization of used tires in street maintenance and repair programs was used for calculating the percentage of recycling. Mike Hulse stated that staff will provide the Council with a memo upon reviewing the initial study to determine what was originally calculated for the slurry seal. C/Papen suggested that staff also determine if the process of burning brush by the Fire Department was done in D.B. because it too can be calculated in the diversion rate since it is considered putting green waste back into the soil. She then inquired of the statement made regarding the discrepancy in the recordkeeping between the County and the City. Mr. Hulse explained that because one trash hauler may pick up trash from various cities, there is a discrepancy in the recordkeeping of what the County receives in their landfills and City documents being collected by the haulers. Staff will report back to the Council with an estimate of that discrepancy. M/Werner inquired of the relationship between the $.35 cent monthly fee and its application to the programs listed. Mr. Hulse stated that the fee is used to pay the costs for the administrative functions associated with the programs, to work with the haulers to design a program that will work to meet the requirements of AB939, to assure that there is no charging and that everyone is being serviced. The basic rationale for the administration fee is to ensure that the City meets the requirements of AB939, which is ultimately the responsibility of the City. JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 12 M/Werner opened the Public Hearing. Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., stated that the City's permit system has eliminated 8 of the 10 companies because the City has made doing business nonprofitable for them to service the area. He expressed concern that since the two companies now servicing D.B. have already bought the rights -of -ways with the train companies to ship trash by rail in the City of Industry, those companies, more so than the State, will dictate how D.B. handles trash. He suggested that the permit system be kept, but that the administrative fee be eliminated to make the City more user-friendly for all trash companies. He also pointed out that the State will continuously keep changing the rules. Don Gravdahl, 23988 Minnequa, expressed concern that although 30% of D.B. is multi -family, they are not assessed the same fee and are not included in the recycling program. He suggested that the entire community be assessed equally, which would reduce the fee per household. _ Greg Arakelian, 634 Silver Valley Trail, pointed out that the SRRE may allow the City to have other companies recycle within the facilities other than the waste hauler. He suggested that the City look into AB440 before making a decision on the administration fee this evening. Barbara Beach-Courchesne requested clarification as to why 8 haulers have left the City. She asked what the City can do to competitively bring companies back, yet keep in compliance with the law. Tom Van Winkle suggested that there be some sort of educational program informing residents how to dispose of hazardous waste and large appliances. Max Maxwell concurred that there needs to be an improvement in educating the public on waste disposal. He then stated that he was under the impression that the $.35 cent fee was to be used to educate the public, not necessarily for administrative functions. — Dave Reynolds stated that Pep Boys will take used oils, and that there are hazardous waste roundups and mobile hazardous waste pickups throughout the year. He suggested that the variable diversion rate can be handled taking an agressive approach by JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 13 implementing those programs that have been dormant, such as the green waste program, a City public information program and a program to expand to multi -family units. He pointed out that if the administrative fee is eliminated, the money will have to come from another source. Frank Dursa suggested that the City work toward getting more trash haulers to compete with the City so that monthly fees are kept to a minimum. With no further testimony offered, M/Werner closed the Public Hearing. C/Papen stated that having one trash hauler in the City, or dividing the City into sectors to allow for multiple companies, provides the following benefits: a reduction in noise pollution; a reduction in omissions pollutions; a decrease in the wear and tear on streets and an increase in public safety for children. She noted that the reason for the reduction in the amount of haulers in the community may be because they did not receive enough support from the community to make it worth their while to do business here. She then requested a report specifically indicating which programs have been implemented to see if the goals projected were under estimated or over estimated. She suggested that the Council consider transferring the responsibility of the integrated waste management fund to the Department of Public Works and Engineering as a way of reducing administrative costs. AA/Butzlaff, at the request of C/Papen, explained that residents are allowed to dispose of 4 qts. of used motor oil per month per household, using any plastic containers that are resealable and marked "waste" or "used motor oil," and set out at curbside during normal trash collection day. He reported that the City is hosting a Household Hazardous Roundup at the Gateway Corporate Center on March 24, 1994 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. He also reported that many charitable organizations will take large appliances. C/Papen stated that the Council still requires more information from staff in order to make a value judgement whether the fee should be reduced or eliminated. She stated that it is her opinion that, if residential rates are reduced, commercial rates should also be reduced by the same rate. M/Werner noted that when the fee was first JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 14 considered for implementation, he had suggested that it be deferred for 6 months to determine the actual costs of the program. He pointed out that with minimal program implementation diversion rates have been accomplished that exceed the thresholds imposed, thus indicating that it is preferable to deter the fees until costs have been incurred and a track record on program implementation has been established so the fee imposed is based upon actual costs. C/Ansari requested further information concerning the effectiveness of the program, the implementation of the 59 programs in the SRRE and what has been accomplished. She suggested that the matter be tabled to next month for the mid -year budget hearing to give staff further time to provide the Council with the information requested. MPT/Harmony expressed concern that this item was placed on the agenda because of concerns raised by the recall efforts of C/Papen and C/Miller. He then pointed out that the fee, which goes to pay for admistrative costs, was ill-advised when first _ brought up before the Council in December of 1990. He stated that a specific tax such as this should be levied for specific use. He concurred with staff's recommendation to table the item until the budget review period. C/Papen clarified that the fee is in a separate account designated for a specific use and reserved for the Integrated Waste Management Program. M/Werner noted that it is the consensus of the Council to table the matter to the February mid -year budget review. M/Werner inquired if it is the consensus of the Council to table the Landscape Assessment District No. 38 (LAD No. 38) issue to the February mid -year budget review as well. C/Papen suggested that, since many of the residents, now opposing LAD No. 38, were not part of LAD No. 38 until annexation by the City Council, the issue should go to ballot to decide whether or not those citizens want to be in the district. The district was formed to beautify all the entrances to the community and all major thorough -fares. She — stated that she is willing to do whatever the residents in Area "A" desire regarding this issue. It was the consensus of the Council to continue this matter until such time as the mid -year budget review is discussed. JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 15 7. NEW BUBXNE88: 7.1 CONSIDERATION OF DETACHMENT FROM LAD 38 - To determine whether or not the City should proceed with detachment of a portion of the City from city-wide Landscape Assessment District No. 38. C/Papen suggested that it may be more appropriate to table the matter to the annual hearing on Landscape District No. 38 in March of 1994 rather than the mid -year budget review. C/Ansari stated that perhaps those wishing to eliminate this District may prefer to gather a petition to place the issue on the ballot. M/Werner pointed out that the District provides public improvement benefits to the area. If there is an election, he suggested that it be for the entire District. He then stated that the matter should be deferred to the annual budget review in March. MPT/Harmony pointed out that if those approximate 1,100 parcels are removed from the District, there will be a shortfall of revenue which the rest of the District will have to make up. He noted that D.B. charges 13% for administrative fees to pay for an assessment district and the County traditionally only charges 8% and less. Though assessment districts are specific charges for specific services, he stated that it appears that some of the money is going toward the City's General Fund. He concurred with tabling the matter until the annual hearing in March 1994 because the purpose of the annual hearing is to take all factors into consideration. M/Werner announced that the Council meeting will be going off the air any moment due to the late hour. C/Papen, explaining the formation of the District by the County, stated that the reason for districts is to improve the aesthetics of the community, which can result in an increase in property value by about 4% to 7%. She stated that, because of the concerns brought forward, it is time to review the issue. Jim Paul, 1269 Ahtena Dr., in opposition to LMD No. 38, objected to the suggestion in the staff report that if the District is disbanded, the money reverts back to the General Fund. He noted that citizens in Area "A" are not being represented by the Council. Many area residents have expressed JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 16 concern that their mail is still not being delivered properly and that the City still needs to do more work in the area. He then questioned the reasoning behind revisiting the issue at this time. Al Rumpilla explained the formation of the District, which differd with C/Papen's account. He concurred with the suggestion to place the matter on the ballot for the decision of the voters. He noted that the medians in his area were cemented in, despite the formation of the assessment district. He recalled that C/Papen had gone before the County requesting the assessment, despite the fact that the majority of the residents voted against it. Don Gravdahl concurred that Area "A" should be allowed to place the matter on the ballot and be reimbursed from the money paid into the district. Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that she was unaware of the tax until recently. She clarified that the issue of the recall efforts is that a tax was passed without a vote of the people. Though _ the people of Area "A" do not object to doing their share to make the City beautiful, she inquired if Area "A" is being assessed more than the rest of the community for the same beautification of the City. She then questioned what exactly the City has done to beautify the City with the monies collected. Max Maxwell objected to issues being placed on the agenda to allow Council Members an opportunity to defend recall issues. Frank Dursa inquired how much surplus money is in the landscaping districts. He suggested that the tax be lowered in all the districts. CM/Belanger reported, as of November 1993, District No. 38 has $128,726; District No. 39 has $55,755 and District No. 41 has $92,495. Nick Anis noted that if it is agreed that the Landscape Districts are appropriate, then Council Members should not be subject to recall for acting on an issue deemed appropriate. He stated that, though he heard promises made during the — circulation of the referendum to bring the General Plan for the "vote of the people," he would hope this issue is brought to ballot and not reneged at the last minute. Gary Neely pointed out that the State, which will JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 17 have another deficit between $3 and $6 billion this year, will use cities to balance their budget. He suggested that perhaps the Council should not make a decision this evening, and reevaluate the issue during the annual assessment meetings. Don Schad concurred with Mr. Paul's comments that Area "A" does not appear to be given much consideration with the City in regard to improvements. C/Papen stated that when she testified at Board of Supervisors hearings, she was representing a nine member board, the D. B. Homeowners Association. She pointed out that members of the City Council voted for the tax, and citizen complaints should be addressed to all members at that time. She concurred to defer this issue until the annual review in March 1994. CM/Belanger, in response to M/Werner, stated that staff will include information on surpluses and funding of capital projects relating to this matter in the staff report for the annual assessment proceedings. M/Werner noted that it is the consensus of the Council to defer the item until the annual assessment proceedings. It was the consensus of Council to contine this matter until discussion during the mid -year budget review. 7.2 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES - In October, the City concluded its relationship with a private consulting firm previously providing municipal building and safety services. Concurrent with the employment of an interim building and safety staff, the City prepared and distributed a Request for Proposal (RFP) to 15 consultant firms. Staff reviewed the 11 proposals received, conducted interviews with the 4 most qualified candidates, checked references and negotiated fees with most capable consultant team. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Papen, explained that Exhibit "A" to the professional services agreement, is the City's request for proposal and Exhibit "B" to the professional services agreement is the consultants' proposal. He stated that D & J Engineering, which is a relatively new firm, was created in late October of 1993. C/Papen stated that the terms "malpractice," JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 18 "errors and omissions" and "professional liability" have different meanings with various insurance companies. Noting that the City's insurance form specifically mentions "errors and omissions" but that the Certificate of Insurance submitted by D & J Engineers does not, she inquired if there is a difference in the fees paid with the terms used. She then noted that D & J Engineering is actually a reorganization of the interim compliance group servicing the City since October of 1993, which, to her understanding, was not to become permanent staff. She pointed out that one of the reasons the City hires outside consultants is because the smaller firms do not have the resources to provide all of the City's needs. C/Ansari requested an explanation as to what the certification of liability covers. CDD/Destefano explained that the RFP required that all companies proposing to provide the services meet the City's minimum standards of insurance coverage. Should the City Council choose to engage this consultant or any other consultant for services, staff would ensure that the proper amount and coverage for the various types of insurance required is in place before entering into the contract. He then suggested that the provider, D & J Engineering, speak to the issues regarding their firm. He explained that staff's recommendation to award a contract to D & J Engineering is based upon the perform-ance and experience of their staff members and their ability to provide the public with full time services at a lower cost. Dennis Tarango, principal of D & J Engineering, stated that, upon terminating their relationship with the consultant firm of Pacesetter, approached the City to provide interim services as needed. Their firm was not part of the Compliance Group as a partner, but as an employee/employer relationship, which gave time for them to seek insurance groups to become a firm. He stated that the verbiage in the certificate of insurance will be changed as desired by the City. Joe Buzzone, principal of D & J Engineering, pointed out that though the firm is new, he has been in business with building and safety for thirty years and is a registered civil engineer. C/Ansari noted that the compensation fees proposed for 1993/94, as indicated in the permit review and plan review revenues, are higher than they would have been last year. JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 19 M/Werner CDD/DeStefano stated that, with respect to the cost revenue aspect of this contract, the net bottom line to the City is based upon the last couple of years of gross revenue received by the City and the payments made to the former provider. He stated that this new proposal, as presented, would create a net increase to the City of approximately $15,000 a year above what was already received after the City's additional costs are added into the formula. C/Papen inquired how an increase in fees, applications and plans being processed have been anticipated when the City no longer has a General Plan, and the City Attorney has deemed Ordinance No. 4 as invalid, thus eliminating any processing of applications. CM/Belanger stated that, based upon an analysis of the proposers' capabilities, there is no reason to believe at this time that the proposal is unreasonable. MPT/Harmony expressed support for new business backed by solid experience and intelligence. He noted that the service currently provided has been excellent. Don Schad stated that Mr. Tarango's qualifications are excellent and recommended that the Council consider accepting D & J Engineering's contract. MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to award a contract to D & J Engineering for Building & Safety services with direction to staff to make certain "errors and omissions" are clarified in the Certificate of Insurance. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.1 STATUS OF GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPAC) APPOINTMENTS AND GENERAL PREPARATION PROCESS - M/Werner stated that each Councilmember had been asked to submit five names of people they would like to see participate on GPAC. He suggested that the GPAC also include two members from the Council, two members from each Commission (one being the chairman), major property owner representatives of properties subject to development in the future and JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 20 anyone in the community to participate in the meetings. He recommended that the meetings be held every other Tuesday, alternating the week of the regularly scheduled Council meetings. C/Papen asked whether it was appropriate to have two members of the Planning Commission participate in the discussions at the GPAC level since the issue is to be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration. She also questioned if the presence of two Commissioners with Councilmembers would constitute a quorum in regard to the Brown Act. M/Werner stated that since all meetings are to be full agendized public and open meetings there should be no difficulties with the Brown Act or quorum provisions. CM/Belanger stated that a meeting with two Planning Commissioners and two Councilmembers would require the same noticing procedures as other meetings if a quorum was anticipated. M/Werner announced that the GPAC meetings will commence on Tuesday, January 11, 1994 and meet on alternating Tuesday nights of the City Council meetings, at Heritage Park Community Center at 7:00 p.m. Max Maxwell expressed concern that the GPAC is not overly represented by landowners, and that the issues are discussed fairly, and decisions made equitably. Barbara Beach-Courchesne concurred that it is important to make sure that there is a fair balance of those represented. C/Papen stated that Planning Commissioners and Council Members attending the GPAC meetings should be non-voting since they vote on the document when the process is completed. M/Werner stated that it may be more appropriate to gather a consensus on the issues rather than a vote; therefore, both sides of the issue are identified and reported to the Planning Commission and City Council. ICA/Montgomery stated that there is no legal reason to prohibit commissioners from voting. It is likely that there will be floating majorities on each issue, rather than a consensus on the entire draft document. JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 21 Tom Van Winkle stated that only those who are members of the community should be allowed to vote; however, it is important to consider all input given by a well represented group. MPT/Harmony suggested that only one member of each Commission attend the meetings since the new Councilmembers have not yet appointed their choices to the Commission. C/Papen pointed out that if a consensus cannot be reached on any issue, a vote will have to be taken. Max Maxwell stated that it is important that the Council prevent the GPAC meetings from becoming a debate of City and developers v. citizens. He concurred that a vote will have to be taken if a consensus is not reached; therefore, Planning Commissioners and developers should not be given an opportunity to vote. He then requested that all legal questions that arise be clarified by a qualified attorney. Following discussion, Council concurred that the GPAC should be composed of the following individuals: two members from each Commission; two members from the Council; five members appointed by each Councilmember; property owners, of which five should be appointed delegates from a coalition of the property owners. Eric Halien, School District Architect, offered his expertise to staff in developing a matrix scaling for input given from the public and analyzing that input in a geometric way. Gary Neely pointed out that if a person cannot vote, then his opinion would hold less weight than someone appointed. M/Werner stated that a vote will only be taken if an issue arises where there is a need to have a clear settlement of an issue. Everyone's input will be given consideration. Barbara Beach-Courchesne emphasized the importance of having actual consensus on the issues presented. Following discussion, Council concurred that Councilmembers and Commissioners will have no voting privileges. It was agreed that each Council Member would turn in a list of names to staff as soon as possible. JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 22 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Papen stated that she will attend the Contract Cities Association annual legislative workshop scheduled January 18-20, 1994 if acceptable to the Council. There was no objection raised to C/Papen's desire to attend the workshop. C/Papen requested the Council to reverse their decision made three weeks before and instruct the special counsel on the D.B. Associates v. City case to reschedule the deposition of Cecil Mills as soon as possible. ICA/Montgomery reported that a second meeting is scheduled for January 13, 1994 to discuss settlement. The decision of the deposition is up to the special counsel. C/Ansari requested the community to be kind to the library. MPT/Harmony requested clarification as to ICA/Montgomery's role to the City Council. ICA/Montgomery stated that a City Attorney, by statute and case law, represents the City through the City Council on matters affecting the City. Any documentation received would be turned over to the City Clerk for public record. MPT/Harmony requested ICA/Montgomery to contract Mr. Arczynski requesting him to return the documents from C/Miller on the sale of the RnP property. ICA/Montgomery reported that a resident filed a document request for that particular document. That request had been forwarded to the City Clerk. 9. CLOSED SESSION: May convene to.consider: Matters of pending Litigation (G.C. 54956.9). ICA/Montgomery reported that no Closed Session would be held this evening. C/Papen stated that she was under the impression that there was to be discussion during Closed Session on assigning two lawsuits. ICA/Montgomery explained that a Closed session is not needed to assign a case to another counsel unless the relative merits of the other law firms are to be discussed. Following discussion, CM/Belanger stated that, per Council's direction, staff would contact special counsel, JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 23 Rutan and Tucker, to handle the two law suits. 10. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Werner adjourned the meeting at 3:25 a.m. to January 18, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in memory of Cameron Todd. 4Ze& LY A BURGESS, City -Clerk ATT ST: - Mayor