Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/1994 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APRIL 5, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 7:08 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 M/Werner. ROLL CALL: Mayor Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony, Council Members Ansari, Miller and Papen. 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. 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 2.1 PROCLAIMED APRIL 4 - 10, 1994 AS PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK IN CELEBRATION OF "HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, HEALTHY BODY, HEALTHY MIND: PUBLIC HEALTH NOW." C/Miller suggested that items 8.2 and 8.3 of the agenda be brought forward and addressed prior to Public Comments. The Council concurred to bring those items forward, first allowing individuals with time constraints to provide public comment. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Sunil Kohli, representing a newly -organized committee, Citizens Against Crime, invited the Council to attend a Town Hall meeting on April 9, 1994 from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at the AQMD Auditorium, to discuss crime in the City and urge the District Attorney to prosecute to the full extent of the law the individuals involved in the recent assault against a 13 -year old girl and her family. The Council expressed their full support for the efforts of the Citizens Against Crime and extended their regards to the family. M/Werner requested the City Attorneys office to draft a letter to the District Attorney urging full justice regarding the recent assault, requesting that the perpetrators be charged for each crime committed, with the maximum sentence to be served consecutively. M/Werner announced that Public Comments would be continued following items 8.2, Proposed Sanitary Sewer Assessment District for The Country sewers, and 8.3, South Pointe Master Plan. APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 2 4. COUNCIL CORKENTS: None. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Planning Commission - April 11, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 28165 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 General Plan Advisory Committee - April 12, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. 5.3 Traffic & Transportation Commission - April 14, 1994 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 28165 E. Copley Dr. 5.4 5th Anniversary Celebration - April 17, 1994 - 1:00 P.M. to Dusk, Peterson Park, 24142 Sylvan Glen Dr. 5.5 City Council Meeting - April 19, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Papen requested that Item 6.9 be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. C/Papen moved, C/Miller seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 6.9. 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 6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6.1.1 Regular meeting of February 15, 1994 - approved as submitted. 6.1.2 Regular meeting of March 1, 1994 - approved as submitted 6.1.3 Regular meeting of March 15, 1994 - approved as submitted 6.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 28, 1994 - Received & filed. 6.3 Traffic & Transportation Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 10, 1994 - Received and filed. 6.4 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approved Voucher Register dated April 5, 1994 in the amount of $723,805. 6.5 REJECTED CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES: 6.5.1 FILED BY WILLIAM LYON COMPANY ON MARCH 8, 1994 - Rejected the request and referred the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co. APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 3 6.5.2 FILED BY KENT & BENNIE SORRELLS ON MARCH 9, 1994 - Rejected the request and referred the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co. 6.5.3 FILED BY MARINA CONTRACTORS, INC. ON MARCH 21, 1994 - Rejected the request and referred the matter for further action to the City Attorney. 6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 94-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATION OF HANDICAP ACCESS RAMPS, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS. 6.7 ACCEPTED IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND TREES - ROUTE 60 FREEWAY - Coast Landscape Construction, Inc. and authorized the City Clerk to file the proper Notice of Completion. 6.8 AWARDED BID FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION - SHADOW CANYON AND FOUNTAIN SPRINGS - To Macadee Electrical Constructionin an amount not to exceed $121,747.25 and provided a contingency of $12,000. 6.9 RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPOINTING MAYOR WERNER AND MAYOR PRO TEM HARMONY AS DELEGATES TO A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVANCY STUDY GROUP - Continued to April 19, 1994. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089 - Continued to April 19, 1994. 7.2 ORDINANCE NO. XX (1994): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER 22.54 AND ESTABLISHING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS - Continued from April 19, 1994. 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.1 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 01 (1994) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 15.38 TO THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE AND ADOPTING, BY REFERENCE, THE BUILDING AND PROPERTY REHABILITATION CHAPTER 99 OF TITLE 26 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 4 CODE, 1988 EDITION TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND EXCEPTIONS, INCLUDING FEES AND PENALTIES - Continued from April 19, 1994. 8.2 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR THE COUNTRY SEWER - ICE/Wentz reported that staff conducted a Town Hall meeting on March 21, 1994 to discuss the project and address any concerns and/or inquires. He reviewed the following concerns: whether the historical information used is adequate to make a determination to proceed with the proposed sewer district; whether the problem is the sanitary sewer or the ground water; a concern regarding the design characteristics of the project and the aesthetics of the pump station sites; whether homes not presently experiencing a problem with their septic systems should be included in the District and the costs of the proposed improvements. He stated that staff utilized the following three key pieces of information as source data for information related to the Sanitary Sewer District: the Kleinfelder Report, prepared April 1992, which evaluated the conditions within the neighborhood; a feasibility study conducted by Dwight French & Associates, September 1992, identifying alternatives and assessing the feasibility of constructing a sewer system; and an assessment from the County Health Department regarding the health and safety situation within the area relating to the existing condition. He reviewed staff's response addressing the concerns raised at the meeting, as outlined in the staff report. He stated that, if so desired by the City Council, staff could request an update to the Kleinfelder report to address the resident's concerns that the information in the report may be insufficient and/or outdated. In response to M/Werner, ICE/Wentz confirmed that no formal action is being requested from the Council as it relates to the Sanitary Sewer District; but rather, staff is presenting information on those concerns identified for Council discussion. C/Ansari inquired as to how many homes were affected by the backflow seepage of sewage. She questioned if the City had any liability by not annexing those 19 homes within the sewer district if it is later discovered, upon resale of those homes, that a problem exists. She inquired if The Country's Homeowners Association has any responsibility regarding the water management problem and requested staff to address the concerns APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 5 of those residing on Lodgepole that the Kleinfelder Report did not adequately characterize their property. ICE/Wentz stated that staff will confirm with the County Health Department, which attempted to canvass all of the homes in the area to assess how many homes were having difficulty, the results of their assessment. He stated that it may be appropriate to request a waiver from those homes wishing to be excluded from the annexation to address any liability issue. He stated that The Country would be responsible for handling any ground water -related issues within their community. He noted that, under the 1913 Act, proceedings could be set to establish an assessment district for ground water management. He then stated that staff feels the Kleinfelder Report characterized the information correctly; however, an update may be appropriate because it may have interpreted some properties conservatively, indicating a property "under distress" as a property with "possible distress." In response to MPT/Harmony regarding sewer capacity, ICE/Wentz stated that the sewer system is designed to handle well in excess of the approximate 50,000 gallons per day of material from the 147 homes. He stated that the $10,000 expenditure recommended by staff would provide additional information from Kleinfelder, Inc. to assure the information provided in the report is accurate regarding the 147 homes, and to provide more information toward the amount of contribution the sanitary septic system is making to the ground water table. He stated that, in his opinion, the County would most likely not entertain development of a septic system, if currently applied for, and noted that there may be some consideration through EPA that might preclude any type of septic systems, and requiring existing septic systems to retrofit into a sanitary sewer system. C/Miller, noting that numerous residents suggested that the City only address the ground water problem, explained that it is illegal to directly discharge any water that comes out during pump installation into the sewer system. He suggested that it be determined if the problem of surface sewage contamination experienced by the Firestone Boy Scouts could be a result of overflow from the homes in The Country before considering excluding any homes from the district. He then suggested that a private sewage treatment alternative and an on-site sewage treatment alternative be considered APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 6 since the maintenance on the original sized pump and station is a minimal expense yearly. He stated that he owns a piece of property in The Country approximately 400 feet from the proposed sewer district area and asked the City Attorney if he should abstain from voting on this matter. ICA/Montgomery advised that C/Miller can vote on the issue since the property would be similarly benefited as to all other properties, and the matter is a public health and safety issue. M/Werner questioned the necessity of requesting an updated report, which adds an additional expense to the property owners, particularly since staff has indicated that additional information would not change their recommendation. C/Miller, noting that many residents were concerned that staff was unable to answer some of the inquiries, pointed out that the information in the updated report may provide a benefit in resolving these concerns. ICE/Wentz explained that residents want to be assured the data used by the City is as reliable as possible; however, it is staff's opinion any information provided in the updated report would not change staff's recommendation to the Council regarding the necessity for continuing with the sewer assessment district. He then stated that the suggested alternatives raised by C/Miller will take additional time on the part of Dwight French & Associates to determine any design analysis impacts. M/Werner inquired if an on-site sewage system would require annexation to the sanitation district or if a sewer assessment district could be established. ICE/Wentz explained that residents want to be assured the data used by the City is as reliable as possible; however, it is staff's opinion any information provided in the updated report would not change staff's recommendation regarding the necessity for continuing with the sewer assessment district. He then stated that the suggested alternatives raised by C/Miller will take additional time on the part of Dwight French & Associates to determine any design analysis impacts. M/Werner inquired if an on-site sewage system would require annexation to the sanitation district or if a sewer assessment district could be established. APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 7 ICE/Wentz explained that the on-site sewer system would still need to be annexed into the district; however, the brunt of the cost savings depends upon who maintains the system. He then stated that The Country will probably have to establish some sort of annual assessment internally to assure that there is adequate funds to maintain the system. C/Papen inquired if the 4 or 5 underground pumping stations could be left above ground and screened with landscaping. She then stated that if the City is considering the removal of the 17 lots from the district, then an update to the Kleinfelder report should be provided. She concurred that there needs to be an investigation of the off-site seepage as well as the on-site seepage since there is an indication that the problem goes beyond the subject boundaries. ICE/Wentz stated that the vaults, which are approximately 15' x 301 in size and approximately 6' to 8' in height, would be placed in areas with the least impact, with the intent of screening them with landscaping so they are aesthetically pleasing. He stated that an update to the Kleinfelder report could be done within a couple of months and would not delay the process since the City still has to begin annexation proceedings with the County. He stated that Kleinfelder, Inc. could also be asked to investigate the impacts regarding seepage to the surrounding area. MPT/Harmony expressed his opinion that it is appropriate to obtain further investigation considering the extent of the problem. C/Miller concurred that the residents concerns should be addressed now so that construction of the project is not delayed and existing health problems are resolved expeditiously. M/Werner pointed out that the staff recommendation indicates that the Kleinfelder report would update current conditions; however, he noted that there are not real changes in the last three years. Les Brown, representing 61 homeowners in opposition to the district, stated that a portable treatment plant can be set up during the time there is unsanitary water; therefore, dewatering may be an alternative way to address this problem. He stated that an updated report from Kleinfelder, Inc., who was directed to proceed with the perception that a sewer system must be justified, will not answer any APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 8 real issues. He stated that the City has not explored the alternative of building a private system, or funding a dewatering system through a benefit assessment district. He expressed concern that the pumping station, which is proposed right outside his home, cannot be screened. He suggested that the City Council direct staff as follows: determine the technical feasibility and cost of installing a dewatering system; verify the possibility of forming a benefit assessment district to provide funding for construction and maintenance of a permanent dewatering district; if it is determined to proceed with the sewer system, limit the system to the greatest extent possible, assure the facilities are underground and retain a benefit engineer; and if it is determined to go with a public system, check with the County on ways to defray the costs. Gary Redcher, 2669 Braided Mane, noted that the Kleinfelder report has already been revised three times. He stated that the subsurface water problem is as a result of failed mitigation conducted by TransAmerica shortly after development of the lots. He suggested that a dewatering system first be established to address the problem area impacting the septic tanks, and then updating the septic system of those residents still having problems. Virginia Winhiger, 2540 Crowfoot Ln., in support of the sewer district, suggested that Kleinfelder, Inc., be asked to investigate the location and condition of the septic tanks of those homes with problems, noting if the tanks have caps because the sewage of those with caps do not back up into the home but out into the yard. She pointed out that some of the people with the problem simply dont care. Kim Weingarten stated that her property has been satur-ated both with water and sewage, a result, according to the Health Department, not from a problem with her septic tank but rather from surrounding properties. She expressed concern that homeowners have been kept waiting for the City to address this serious health problem for the last three years. Andy Perales, 24030 Falcons View Dr., stated that he is not surprised that the area is having water seepage problems because the lots should never have been developed in the first place. He stated that, originally, he was not adverse to a sewer system at a cost of approximately $10,000 to $15,000; however, the current cost of $28,000 is not APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 9 reasonable, nor are the additional related costs. Eric Lee, 2634 Braided Mane Dr., a clinical professor at UCLA, suggested that the entire health problems resulting from seepage be addressed now rather than in the future when there is an unexplained increase of sickness. Michael Lowe, 1124 Cleghorn, pointed out that many problems are a result of allowing development to occur in areas deemed unfit. C/Ansari requested that Mr. Whitman, Dwight French & Associates, address the feasibility of a private sewage plant in The Country, as well as address the water table problem. John Whitman, a design engineer, stated that a private sewage plant is possible and feasible; however, the costs of that plant would need to be further investigated. He explained that The Country, whose standards are more strict, are understandably more concerned with long term maintenance than with capital costs. M/Werner noted that Council Members Miller and Papen left the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Whitman, addressing the ground water problem in the area, stated that, with the assistance of the Walnut Valley Water District, it has been determined that there are no significant problems in terms of leaking systems, but rather that approximately 20% of the ground water is coming from the sewage system and 15% from irrigation systems. C/Miller returned to the meeting at 8:46 p.m. In response to C/Ansari, Mr. Whitman concurred that it would be prudent to proceed with the request to annex into the County District while investigating a private sewage plant in order to keep the process going to resolve the problem. C/Papen returned to the meeting at 8:47 p.m. M/Werner asked if there was any investigation to determine if the existing septic systems are properly developed. He then noted that residents would not want to connect to a sewer system if it is twice the cost compared to replacing their septic system. Mr. Whitman explained that his firm was hired to APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 10 conduct a feasibility study to determine if a system could be engineered, not to determine if the existing septic system functions properly. He stated that, in his opinion, the problems in the area cannot be solved with a new septic system, and that the City should never consider permitting a septic system on parcels averaging less than 1.5 acres per parcel because it puts too much burden on the ground water table. M/Werner asked if there are historic reports available that would identify the water table at the time the property was first developed. Mr. Whitman stated that much of the percolation tests used to justify the design were removed from the particular area in question. He explained that the Kleinfelder report was a limited effort based upon the City's original instructions, as indicated on the f irst page of the report. He pointed out that the revisions regarding the report were not revisions to the final report but rather to the proposal. He then stated that it would be a significant effort to conduct an underground -- investigation to understand what contributes to which portion of the water table. MPT/Harmony suggested that the City obtain an alternate perspective and approach to obtain further answers. He stated that a dewatering system should be investigated, the benefit assessment district should be verified and a limited sewer system should be explored. M/Werner asked if the formation of a benefit assessment district could be accomplished to assess the property owners the cost to continue to do the necessary studies to resolve the problem. He stated that a determination should be made whether the City should continue with the full sewer development plan or continue to study the issue. CM/Belanger stated that there is concurrence there is a sewer problem existing which is creating a subsurface water problem; however, it has also been indicated that there may be other sources to the subsurface problem other than the waste water. He noted that the City currently has a sewer design; however, staff needs clarification regarding how much time and effort should be expended to evaluate the other problem of subsurface water which is unrelated to sewage. M/Werner noted that MPT/Harmony left the meeting at 9:00 p.m. APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 11 ICE/Wentz stated that the Council already indicated an intent to proceed with the District; therefore, the issue becomes what activities, project and costs are included ultimately in the district which would be imposed upon the residents. He stated that the costs to do a study in order to more accurately answer questions about issues relating to ground water and the direction of flow is estimated to be between $50,000 and $100,000. He expressed his opinion that, based upon the data, ultimately it will be determined that both systems will be necessary. He explained that if there is a ground water problem, dewatering wells will be needed and, on a longer term, a system will be necessary. M/Werner asked if the County Sanitation District would consider annexation of this area with the sewer improvements, and/or with other lesser options that may be deemed more appropriate. ICE/Wentz explained that the Sanitation District is primarily concerned with the boundaries of the district, and not with the design, which is more the concern of the L.A. County Public Works Department. He suggested that it would be beneficial to determine as soon a possible if all 147 lots would be included in the annexation pro- ceedings, which does not necessarily mean that the assessment district would include all 147 lots when the system is built. He suggested that staff be directed to bring a recommendation back to Council at the next meeting relating to the type of consultant services that should be obtained and the costs of some of the alternatives indicated. MPT/Harmony returned to the meeting at 9:02 p.m. C/Werner asked if staff was aware of which 61 homeowners oppose the formation of the district, as indicated by Les Brown, and if that number included the 19 homes in the report. He noted that if more than 50$ of the properties oppose the district, then it would alter the approach that the district has established. ICE/Wentz stated that he is not aware of any information relating to the 61 homeowners. He stated that if there is a majority protest, at the time of the second scheduled Public Hearing objecting to the establishment of the district then the Council would need to override that protest by a 4/5 vote. M/Werner requested staff to provide a time schedule APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 12 of the construction process, along with staff's report on the analysis of alternative solutions. In regard to Ms. Weingarten's concern that this problem has been occurring for three years, he inquired how quickly the issue can be solved. ICE/Wentz stated that if the City was to proceed per staff's recommendation, staff would time the construction process with the Council's final Public Hearing, to conclude within 5 or 6 months. M/Werner requested clarification regarding the additional cost of $1.1 million over what was previously anticipated. ICE/Wentz stated that the increase in the anticipated costs is a result of the additional requirements of the L.A. County Public Works Department and the upgrade to the Indian Creek Pump Station. He suggested that the Council direct staff as follows: bring back a recommendation related to the extent and types of studies that may be considered appropriate based upon the input received this evening; proceed with the annexation activities with the L.A. County Sanitation District and recommend the design alternatives related to privatization and handling of sewage at the site. In response to C/Papen's concern regarding the use of diesel, ICE/Wentz indicated that staff is aware of the new regulations and an AQMD permit must first be obtained. The Council directed staff as follows: bring back a recommendation at the next meeting related to the extent and types of studies that may be considered appropriate based on the input received tonight; proceed with annexation activities with the L.A. County Sanitation District and make a recommendation on some of the design alternatives related to privatization, and handling of sewage at the site. Kay Brown, 2696 Shady Ridge Ln., suggested that a fact finding panel of citizens be established who would volunteer their time to study the problem of the septic tanks and the sewage systems. She stated that many of the 61 residents signing the petition offered their services. Russell Bane, 2706 Broken Feather Ln., suggested that the sewage be tracked to the individual homes to determine if their septic tanks function appropriately. Carl George, 2131 Indian Creek Rd., inquired if APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 13 those homeowners with no septic tank problems and not contributing to the problem, can be declared exempt from this obligation. M/Werner suggested that such homeowners contact staff to discuss their particular situations. 8.3 SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN - REQUEST BY J.C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES - CM/Belanger reported that staff received a letter from J.C. Dabney representing three property owners in the area known as South Pointe requesting the Council to agendize consideration of the three tentative maps that have been filed regarding the South Pointe Master Plan. CDD/DeStefano provided a brief background of the South Pointe Master Plan leading to the request received from J.C. Dabney & Associates. ICA/Montgomery reviewed the merits of the project. He then stated that if the Council wished to consider the proposal, it would first have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to City Council review, especially if there is any contemplation of releasing the open space dedication. M/Werner, referring to the open space dedication, pointed out that lots 11 and 161 have not yet been suggested as part of the development proposal, and are only considered options at this point. He then indicated that, as a function of issues surrounding the South Pointe Middle School and the time schedule for the appropriation of State funding and building activities, he suggested to J.C. Dabney to present a letter to the Council requesting the item to be placed on the agenda for discussion. He noted that members of the School District have indicated an urgency to proceed with grading activities for the construction of the Middle School. Jan Dabney stated that, in recognition of the concerns of many in the community represented by the new Council, the developers offered a change in policy to remove the economic benefits included in the proposed South Pointe Master Plan by not constructing the commercial portion of the project, thus relieving all the significant impacts associated with the EIR. He stated that the project, as a single family detached home project, has very little environmental impact. He requested the Council to reconsider the project, giving direction to the developer whether the City desires a project that moves toward economic development or APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 14 toward preservation of open space. He stated that Mr. Arciero and Mr. Forrister intend that the community no longer hold them liable for the problem associated with the South Pointe Middle School. Carolyn Kim, Student Body President of South Pointe Middle School, requested the Council to reconsider the project to expedite the construction of the South Pointe Middle School. M/Werner explained that he had requested Mr. Dabney to give serious consideration to a development issue that would be responsive to the concerns expressed during public testimony at Planning Commission and City Council level dealing with the South Pointe issues. C/Papers expressed concern that substantive issues are being brought forward. M/Werner stated that Mr. Dabney, as a result of their meeting, developed a concept plan as an option that is worthy of consideration when the matter is rescheduled. He stated that the concept plan provides a preservation of public open space, which includes Sandstone Canyon, allowing for development options on approximately half of the site previously, and accommodates the School, preservation and wildlife corridor issues; however, it does open up the issue regarding map restrictions associated with lots #1 and 161. Dr. Ron Hockwalt, Superintendent, Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD), stated that the Board of Trustees and the Administration requested the quickest possible assistance from the City to build South Pointe Middle School. He stated that the Board of Trustees hope to award the bid to a construction company no later than May 4, 1994; however, in order to maintain the bid at the present cost, construction would need to begin within 30 days. He stated that the grading permits need to be granted to Mr. Arciero to allow grading to begin this month to secure the $8 million of reimbursement costs granted to the District from the State, which requires that reasonable progress continue toward the construction of the school. He explained that there is an ongoing concern that new projects could come along by the State that could shift priorities, losing the funding for the South Pointe Middle School project. C/Papen, upon confirmation from Dr. Hockwalt that the permanent structure is planned for APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 15 approximately 1200 students, pointed out that a school over 1200 students is, to her understanding, required to have two accesses. MPT/Harmony received confirmation from Dr. Hockwalt that the WVUSD only desires a grading permit and nothing else associated with the Master Plan project. Dr. Hockwalt, in response to M/Werner's inquiries regarding the School District's options should the City decide not to schedule hearings, stated that the District, which has been working cooperatively with the City for the last few years, is in the position of taking legal action to force the issue. In response to MPT/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt confirmed that the District and Mr. Arciero settled out of court with an agreement that it would be Mr. Arciero's responsibility to grade the property and remove the dirt. In response to M/Werner, Dr. Hockwalt stated that the District's original EIR places the dirt in the canyon, adjacent to South Pointe Middle School, on Mr. Arciero's property. He stated that about 400,000 cubic yards of dirt will need to be removed, which will most likely fill the entire canyon. C/Papen stated that it was her understanding that the reason why the project needed the EIR to be approved by the City is because the District's EIR did not include the receiving site of the dirt. Dr. Hockwalt explained that the District's EIR states that the dirt will be removed from the site and placed on Arciero property, which happens to be Sandstone Canyon; however, Mr. Arciero needs the grading permits to accomplish that because the District's EIR does not grant authority to place the material on that site. CM/Belanger confirmed that Sandstone Canyon is the disposal site identified in the District's EIR; however, there needs to be an EIR from the City related to the placement of the dirt on the target site. Larry Redinger, President, Walnut Valley Unified School District, stated that when the EIR was proposed, the dirt was to be moved to the east on the adjacent property, and as defined in the EIR, it is debatable whether that is actually part of the description in the EIR. He stated that the APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 16 District's EIR describes that the impacts will be significant to the Canyon. He stated that the road connected to Brea Canyon Rd., is not an absolute requirement, though very desirable; however, there will need to be further investigation regarding the issue raised relating to the number of students and the number of access streets. He stated that the Trustees are supportive of moving this project along. He noted that the amount of money that the District could lose could be well over $8 million because of some possible penalties and the lawsuit. He also pointed out that, as a result of the Northridge earthquakes, the Governor will be forced to find money to rebuild those schools, which could affect the South Pointe Middle School. Don Schad, speaking as the President of the Conservancy, stated that in order to retain the environmental quality, communities must support what little is left of the natural support systems. M/Werner, concerned with the 11:00 p.m. time limit for the meeting, asked Mr. Schad if he would be willing to continue his comments when there is a public hearing scheduled on the matter. He explained that the item is on the agenda only to determine if the project should be reconsidered. MPT/Harmony expressed concern that it is not reasonable to ask if a project should be reconsidered without first allowing issues to be raised relevant to the project. ICA/Montgomery stated that the Council is not predisposed to ask any questions and will receive answers relating to the proposal. Carolyn Elfelt, President, South Pointe Middle School Community Club, requested that the Council reconsider the project to grant the grading permit to begin construction of the school. She invited the Council to attend the South Pointe Middle School "Bag of Dirt" Day on April 8, 1994 at 11:00 a.m., which is a study day to educate students on the environmental impact process. Oscar Law suggested that the Council reconsider the project, scheduling a hearing on a date not filled with other time consuming items. Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that homeowners directly affected by this development have expressed opposition to lifting the building restrictions presently preventing this land from being developed. She pointed out that two APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 17 referendums in the City specifically revolved around citizen's opposition to continued unabated development in the City. She expressed her opinion that the project, which negatively impacts 182 taxpayers, is using the school to push the project through, even though the District can proceed without the City conducting a public hearing. She asked who authorized the release of bond money from escrow that was to be paid only after the removal of the dirt was completed. She expressed concern that the City did not give the Pathfinder Homeowner's Association the courtesy of informing them of the City's intent to take over their property to put through the secondary road proposed in the concept plan. She stated that the Council should be working with the citizens on proposed projects, rather than the developer. She indicated that the approval of the proposed project, which is considered a nuisance by the HOA, will result in costly litigation. Terry Birrell pointed out the following: the RnP property was purchased with an open space designation; since it was Mr. Arciero who did not fulfill his construction promise of removing the dirt, he is responsible for delaying the school project; the residents paid for the open space; and a Public Hearing should be scheduled solely on the grading permit, the land contemplated on the original EIR, and not on any other concept until there is a General Plan. Ann Flescher, 20647 Larkstone Dr., pointed out that in order to address the issue of grading permits, the location of the dirt and the method of removing the dirt must be addressed. She stated that the traffic impacts on Larkstone Dr. resulting from the school also needs to be addressed and mitigated, with consideration given to an additional access off of Brea Canyon Rd. Max Maxwell stated that the removal of the dirt and the construction of the school should not depend on the Master Plan, which is a separate public hearing. He stated that it is Mr. Arciero's problem on how the dirt is to be removed, not the City's. He also stated that since lots #1 and 161, owned by RnP, have building restrictions, there cannot be a trade off or negotiations regarding the proposed concept plan. Don Schad stated that, in respect to the time constraints for the meeting, he would defer his comments to the next meeting. APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 18 ICA/Montgomery advised the Council to adopt the Consent Calendar prior to 11:00 p.m. so that the Claims on file will be properly denied, along with the one motion on the DBA, which the City is contractually required to do. C/Papen moved to notice the Continued Public Hearing on the South Pointe Master Plan and schedule a Public Hearing on the South Pointe Master Plan as soon as possible following the notification period; and to schedule those public hearings two evenings and all day Saturday, every week, until the item is concluded. Motion failed for lack of a second. M/Werner moved to renotice the South Pointe Master Plan for Public Hearing at the earliest date possible, given the need for EIR concerns and the need for Planning Commission review, and to schedule a joint session with the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing would encompass the South Pointe Master Plan property, incorporating the option presented by Mr. Dabney regarding lots #1 and 161 to provide notification of the map restriction issue. MPT/Harmony, concerned that the proposal is quite con-troversial, suggested that only the grading permit issue be brought forth to address the construction of the Middle School. He pointed out that there are many options available regarding removal of the dirt other than by 20,000 truckloads on Larkstone Dr. C/Ansari seconded the motion by M/Werner for purpose of discussion. C/Ansari stated that all options should be explored in order to represent all the people in D.B. M/Werner noted that C/Miller had excused himself from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest regarding this issue. M/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to renotice the South Pointe Master Plan for Public Hearing, at the earliest possible date, given the need for EIR concerns an the need for Planning Commission —' review, and to schedule a joint session with the Planning Commission. The public hearing would encompass the South Pointe Master Plan property, incorporating the option presented by Mr. Dabney regarding Lots #1 and #61 to provide notification of the map restriction issue. With the following APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 19 vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, Ansari, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS -MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 8.3.1 SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS - Not discussed. 8.4 CLOSED SESSION AND IF APPLICABLE, RECONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47850 - ICA/Montgomery recommended that the City Council approve the following motion: to reconsider the City Council's action of December 1, 1992, approving Resolution No. 92-65 which denied Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47850 without prejudice. Further, that a public hearing before a joint session of the City Council and the Planning Commission shall be held within a reasonable period of time on VTM 47850 and consideration of DBA's compliance with the geotechnical issues raised by Layton & Associates in its memorandum of October 29, 1992, the proposed General Plan currently being considered by the City, and any other new matters or alternatives which the joint session deems appropriate. C/Miller questioned why the Council needs to be involved in the Planning Commission deliberation in joint session. He expressed concern that the Planning Commission will not be able to deliberate freely during a joint session. C/Papen expressed concern that the agreement allows DBA the opportunity to pursue litigation if the project is denied because of new requirements of the General Plan or other ordinances. She pointed out that the GPAC just voted to rezone rural residential properties 1 du/2.5 acres. She stated that it appears the agreement is nothing more than a stage in the litigation leading toward another lawsuit. M/Werner pointed out that even though the agreement provides an opportunity for litigation if the project is denied, the $123 million penalty provision would not be a part of any future lawsuit. MPT/Harmony moved, M/Werner seconded to reconsider the Council's action of December 1, 1992, adopting Resolution No. 92-65 which denied Vesting Tentative APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 20 Tract Map 47850 without prejudice. Further, that a Public Hearing before a joint session of the City Council and the Planning Commission shall be held within a reasonable period of time on VTM 47850 and consideration of DBA's compliance with the geotechnical issues raised by Layton & Associates in its memorandum of October 28, 1992, the proposed General Plan currently being considered by the City, and any other new matters or alternatives which the joint session deems appropriate. C/Ansari noted that when it came time for settlement of this lawsuit, C/Papen and C/Miller walked out of the meeting, leaving three Council Members to settle a lawsuit in the best interest of the City. C/Miller clarified that he did not walk out of the settlement meeting but rather went home during the Council meeting because he was disturbed with the bickering and how the meeting was being conducted. Max Maxwell inquired of the status of the lawsuit involving C/Miller and C/Papen. M/Werner explained that the issue at hand only deals with the lawsuit between DBA and the City. Mr. Maxwell inquired if the settlement agreement has been made available to the public. C/Papen stated that the Council received a copy of the settlement agreement in a sealed envelope marked Confidential. MPT/Harmony withdrew his motion. ICA/Montgomery stated that the City Council, at the last meeting, by public motion, approved the agreement as submitted, with instructions for DBA to sign and return it; therefore, the document is of public record and should not have been given to the Council in a sealed envelope. M/Werner pointed out that the agreement was publicized at the end of Closed Session at the last meeting, as well as published on video. He then inquired if the agreement will be changed if a comment is given by the public pertinent to the agreement. ICA/Montgomery reiterated that there has already been an agreement on the settlement by the Council, which is of public record. He stated that the project will go back through the Public Hearing process for review. He stated that the Council now APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 21 has the duty in the agreement to adopt that motion. Michael Lowe expressed his opinion that it was unfair to criticize C/Miller and C/Papers for not voting on the agreement when, regardless of their vote, the remaining Council Members would make the majority. He expressed concern that the three Council Members who agreed with the settlement also accepted campaign donations from DBA. Mr. Nice, in disagreement with statements made by Mr. Lowe, expressed concern that the Mayor is allowing some citizens more privileges to speak over others. M/Werner apologized and indicated that he is trying his best to be fair to all and to deal with the differing personalities. C/Ansari clarified that she did not accept any money from DBA in campaign contributions. She stated that the Council acted in the best interest of the City to settle a $123 million lawsuit. Nick Anis, 1125 Bramford Ct., expressed his opinion that there is a real issue involved when Council Members who receive campaign contributions from a group suing the City turn around and settle that lawsuit. He then stated that if the developers of the South Pointe Master Plan are being asked to wait until the adoption of the General Plan, then DBA should also be asked to reapply after the adoption of the General Plan. C/Harmony explained that there was a real urgency to settle the lawsuit because it was about to go to court. He stated that he was given a legal opinion by special counsel that there was no conflict of interest regarding the acceptance of the campaign contributions and involvement in the settlement. He then announced that, now that there is an agreement, he plans to abstain from participation in the hearing process of the DBA project. MPT/Harmony moved, M/Werner seconded to reconsider the City Council's action of December 1, 1992, approving Resolution No. 92-65 which denied Vesting Tentative Map 47850 without prejudice. Further, that a public hearing before a joint session of the City Council and the Planning Commission shall be held within a reasonable period of time on VTM 47850 and consideration of DBA's compliance with the geotechnical issues raised by Layton & Associates in its memorandum of October 29, 1992, the proposed General Plan currently being considered by the City and any other new matters or APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 22 alternatives which the joint session deems appropriate. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (CONT'D.) - Mrs. Thompson, displaying photos of the condition of her roof shortly after construction, expressed concern that the City's Building Inspector approved the construction on her home despite the poor quality work. Dennis Tarango stated that the roof construction was approved over a year ago because it met code. He further stated that, since that time, it has been patched twice because of leakage; therefore, it now does not meet code. Mrs. Thompson stated that it is inappropriate for the City to pass construction of a project of such obvious poor quality. CM/Belanger indicated that staff will contact Mrs. Thompson in the morning to discuss the matter. ICA/Montgomery stated that State law indicates that the City is not liable for any mistakes made by.the Building Inspectors. Mrs. Thompson expressed concern that the City, which requires residents to pay a fee for approval on construction, expects residents to pay to fix a problem on construction that should not have been approved to begin with. M/Werner stated that staff would contact Mrs. Thompson to investigate the situation for possible resolution. Ken Anderson, Rising Star Dr., expressed concern that Mr. Lowe, who evidently was responsible for much of the false and misleading campaign mail during the election process, is continuing to harangue the residents with political issues during Council meetings. 8.5 UPDATE ON CITY'S 5TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION - Not given. 8.6 MATTER OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM FORMER CITY ATTORNEY - Continued to April 19, 1994. 9. NEW BUSINESS: 9.1 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PRODUCTION OF THE SUMMER APRIL 5, 1994 PAGE 23 COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER - Not discussed. 9.2 RESOLUTION NO. 94-XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING LEFT AND THROUGH LANES ON THE EASTBOUND AND WESTBOUND APPROACHES OF MOUNTAIN LAUREL WAY AT DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND INSTALLING A 100 FEET OF RED CURB ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MOUNTAIN LAUREL WAY BETWEEN SILVER RAIN DRIVE AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD - Continued to April 19, 1994. 9.3 DISCUSSION REGARDING AD HOC LIBRARY FUNDING COMMITTEE - Continued to April 19, 1994. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. 11. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 11:175 p.m. L DA BGS. BEST City, Clerk ATTEST: