HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/1994 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAXOND BAR
OCTOBER 18, 1994
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Werner called the Meeting
to order at 5:36 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the
Pledge of Allegiance by M/Werner.
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Ansari, Papen,
Mayor Pro Tem Harmony and Mayor Werner. Councilmember
Miller was excused.
Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager;
Frank Usher, Asst. City Manager; Michael Montgomery,
Interim City Attorney; George Wentz, Interim City
Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Jim
DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda
Burgess, City Clerk.
8. OLD BUSINESS: (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 4, 1994)
8.1 (A) RESOLUTION NO. 94-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR THE
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH
NO. 92081040 AND APPROVAL OF HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT
ORDINANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LAND FORM
MODIFICATIONS AND OAK TREE REMOVAL PERMIT INVOLVING
THE REMOVAL OF 276 COAST LIVE OAKS WITH REPLACEMENT
BOTH ON AND OFF THE PROJECT SITE ASSOCIATED WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
32400, LOCATED WEST OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND NORTH
OF PATHFINDER ROAD IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF (APPLICANT -
ARCIERO & SONS).
(B) RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH
NO. 92081040 AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 32400, TO DEVELOP A 91 UNIT
SUBDIVISION, LOCATED WEST OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND
NORTH OF PATHFINDER ROAD, IN DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
(APPLICANT - ARCIERO & SONS) - CDD/DeStefano
reported that at the October 4, 1994 meeting,
Council directed staff to investigate and respond
with several amendments to the project and
conditions in response to questions that the
Council raised, as well as requested modifications
that the applicant raised. He advised that there
are two major issues: 1) with respect to the road
alignment from Brea Canyon Rd. to the middle school
property, there were 3 alternatives presented at
the last meeting; staff recommended that the third
alternative be considered which would be a road
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 2
alignment most southerly from the proposed single
family residential development; 2) in response to
the applicant's request to combine a number of
conditions related to mitigation of oak trees that
will be removed as a result of the project and the
applicant suggested an alternative that would
incorporate trees of smaller scale, possibly to be
located off site and a check to Parks & Recreation
in the amount of $25,000. He also recommended two
additional alternatives beyond the conditions
stated in the resolutions for Council consideration
and indicated that the resolutions were modified to
reflect changes discussed at the last meeting and
further work with the staff and consultant. He
recommended adoption of two resolutions approving
Vesting Tentative Map No. 32400 and its associated
applications.
In response to MPT/Harmony, CDD/DeStefano advised
that the applicant, at the last meeting, requested
a replacement schedule for the oak trees that would
be lost as a result of the development at a
different ratio than that which the Planning
Commission recommended to Council which consisted
of 417 15 -gal. trees, 72 24" box trees, 11 60" box
trees and a check to the Parks & Recreation Dept.
at the time of map recordation in the amount of
$25,000. He advised that the resolution still
incorporates recommendations from the Planning
Commission, as well as a statement and two
alternatives for consideration from the applicant.
MPT/Harmony stated that the property is currently
zoned at R1 15,000 and that all the lots are higher
density than that and asked ICA/Montgomery what
should be done to cure this problem.
ICA/Montgomery advised that the zone must be in
compliance with the General Plan and the approval
would be subject to amendment of the zone to allow
the development.
C/Ansari stated that Mr. Arciero indicated that he
didn't need a secondary road into his development
but she was concerned that, according to the L.A.
County Fire Code, if there are 75 lots or more, a
secondary road going in/out would be needed.
ICE/Wentz advised that the Fire Dept. can require, _
under certain conditions, that a secondary access
be provided and that normal guidelines are 75 lots
in fire conditions. The issue had been discussed
with the Fire Dept. and they are in support of a
secondary road.
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 3
C/Papers asked CDD/DeStefano if the number of trees
being replanted include trees that are going in the
entrance -way to this development.
CDD/DeStefano advised that the trees at the
entrance would be all new trees and do not include
any relocated trees on the site. He explained that
his understanding of the applicant's request is
that this number of trees is being offered to the
City plus cash in lieu of the stated conditions.
He also stated that if the trees are to be located
off-site, then there is going to be a landscaping
pallet for the on-site project that's going to
incorporate some of these replacement oaks and
presumably a number of other species unless the
condition changes would also incorporate a theme
entry statement at the primary entry at the site.
C/Papen asked the applicant to clarify that and
make sure we understand that this was in addition
to any landscape or entrance trees to be brought
in. She expressed concern that the issue only
addresses one type of tree because there are 4 or 5
indigenous trees to the area and asked Council to
mix the varieties of trees with possibly sycamore
and willows.
CDD/DeStefano advised that the issue before is an
appropriate mitigation measure for the loss of the
existing oak trees and that habitat and the
replacement schedule deals with the loss of the oak
trees that are lost as a result of the development
application and implementation; beyond that the
Council would be free to incorporate any other
appropriate mitigation measures to create such a
habitat --either on-site or off-site that are
indigenous to this site.
C/Ansari stated one of the conditions that Mr.
Arciero talked about was the reclaimed water issue
and asked staff if that was resolved and asked
about the 60' difference in grading coming off the
end of Rapid View.
ICE/Wentz stated that there is a new exhibit "C",
which was previously exhibit "B", which are the
Conditions of Approval. He stated that on page 8,
item 7, relating to the improvements on Brea Canyon
Road, line 2, strike the words "between Colima Rd.
and Pathfinder Rd." and insert "south of Golden
Springs Rd. adjacent to the tract". He advised
that Mr. Arciero would be responsible for any
improvements to Golden Springs to full width
adjacent to the tract.
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 4
In response to M/Werner, ICE/Wentz recommended that
Brea Canyon Rd. be improved to four lanes, to the
southerly edge of the Arciero property, as a result
of this project.
M/Werner asked if there were any other traffic
items that he could summarize as a requirement of
an approval.
ICE/Wentz indicated that there is a discussion
related to signalization on Brea Canyon Rd. in
terms of what Mr. Arciero's participation would be
in any signals on Brea Canyon. He advised that Mr.
Arciero previously agreed to participate in the
signalization cost at Brea Canyon and Pathfinder
and possibly some other minor participation on his
part once the traffic study is completed. He
advised that page 9, item 8, addresses Mr.
Arciero's participation.
M/Werner asked if this were to be approved as
recommended and at the time of recording the final
map, what would be the developer's obligation at
the time that map is recorded.
ICE/Wentz advised that as presently structured, he
would pay a pro -rata share for any traffic signal
improvemdnts that have been made or would be
required as a result of this tract.
M/Werner also asked that, per the traffic studies
at this time, warrants have not been determined
along Brea Canyon Rd. either into this tract or
into this proposed secondary road and if the
warrant study would be completed before the map is
recorded.
ICE/Wentz stated that the warrants would be
completed before the map is recorded and Mr.
Arciero would complete the study as part of the
project. He also stated that page 14 was
previously highlighted as item 38, and recommended
that that item be deleted because the item, as
written, could be interpreted to mean that some of
the grubbing material that is removed from the site
could be used as part of the grading fill and the
mulch could be incorporated into the fill, which we
do not want as an engineering condition. He stated
that if this material were to be used as mulch on
top of the finished product, that would be
acceptable. He indicated that it could be
re -worded; however, from the applicant's
perspective, it becomes an issue as to whether or
not it becomes cost effective to do so. He stated
that Mr. Arciero is not anticipating hauling any
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 5
dirt; therefore, it is assumed that Mr. Arciero
will be using whatever materials he has there as
part of his overall project and will likely need
additional materials in terms of top soil once he
starts his landscaping.
ICE/Wentz stated that item 38, line 2, reads:
"Improvements shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City" and should be changed by
inserting "or bonded for" after "completed."
Because this is a phased development, there may be
situations where he would either complete
improvements or bond for it. He recommended
deletion of item 40, because a condition was added
later to page 40 --item 20 takes care of the
secondary access road. He stated that on page 20,
item 44, 2nd line presently reads "in and adjoining
the frontage of the proposed vesting tentative
tract map" staff would like to delete the words
"and adjoining the frontage of" meaning that the
overhead utility lines on Brea Canyon Rd. would be
permitted to remain so that short stretch of
roadway would not have to be underground but
everything on-site would be required to be under-
ground.
C/Papen asked ICE/Wentz if the pipe will be put in
for the cables for later use so the roads and
sidewalks don't have to be disturbed when
undergrounding takes place.
ICE/Wentz answered that whatever construction would
be done at a later date would be done in the
parkway so the road is not disturbed. As to
C/Ansari's question regard-ing reclaimed water, he
stated that this is discussed on Page 22, item 62
which would require the applicant to put in a
system for irrigating all common areas, which could
be switched over at a later date, should reclaimed
water become available from the Walnut Valley Water
District. Mr. Arciero suggested a time limit on
this condition in since the Water District
indicated that they don't have any near term plans
to provide reclaimed water in the near future. He
then reported that conditions were added on items
63, 64 and 65 which should be added should this be
approved as a private gated community in terms of
the map conditions and particular wording. Page
40, item 20 relates to the secondary access road
and requires the applicant to improve the roadway
from Brea Canyon Rd. to Site "D", which is his
development, and then the applicant would grade an
additional road from that roadway to the school
district property that would not be improved but
fully graded.
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 6
C/Ansari asked if there will be a separate
homeowner's association or a separate landscape
district.
ICE/Wentz advised that the applicant is suggesting
a homeowner's association if it's a private gated
community and if it's not, it would either be a
homeowner's association or potentially a landscape
district to handle the cost of maintaining the
common areas.
In response to C/Papen, ICE/Wentz advised that
"public safety vehicles" will be added to Page 23,
Item 63 E and "Fire Department" will be deleted.
Frank Arciero, Jr., Arciero & Sons, stated that on
Exhibit "C", page 3, item 8 regarding occupancy
permits and all improvements, he would like it to
read "that prior to any occupancy permit being
granted, these conditions and all improvements
shall be completed or bonded for." He advised
that, in all likelihood, the project will be a
phased development. He also stated that on Page 4,
item 2 reads "plant street trees as directed and
approved by the City Engineer" and he advised that
he would like it to say "plant street trees as
directed and approved by the City Engineer per the
City standards". He suggested that the paragraph
regarding parks and trails on Page 7, item 20, be
deleted unless the County provides a written
statement as to when these plans will happen. He
explained that it was discussed with staff because
it was a condition added after Planning Commission
approval and it was not known where it came from.
He pointed out that improvements mentioned on Page
8, item 7, on Brea Canyon Rd., along the frontage
of the property that Arciero owns and is develop-
ing, southerly of Golden Springs up to Arciero's
property would be completed by Arciero & Sons.
M/Werner stated that the four -lane roadway is
already developed from Golden Springs to the edge
of Arciero's property.
C/Papen suggested that, since there is a graded,
fenced property on the other side of the street
where the street is incomplete, the wording should
say from Glen Brook rather than Golden Springs.
ICE/Wentz advised that in original discussions when
the master plan was being discussed, it was agreed
that improvement would be made all the way from
Golden Springs south to Pathfinder and any such
connections would be eliminated or problem areas
would be eliminated; however, he would like to see
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 7
that small area improved on the easterly side.
In response to C/Papen's question regarding
charging the cost of the work to the property owner
later, ICE/Wentz stated that he's not sure if we
can recoup any improvement that was done at a later
date.
M/Werner advised that if the City formed a
reimbursement district, these expenses could be
charged to the property owner. He also stated that
perhaps the City may want to look at the entire
stretch.
ICE/Wentz advised that he and the City Manager
discussed that matter and will be bringing such
recommendations back to Council.
In response to M/Werner, ICE/Wentz stated that they
could work with the developer in terms of
construction of that entire length at the time he
would be constructing this portion with the
understanding that he would be reimbursed for
certain costs that we would deem beyond what he is
required as part of this approval.
In response to M/Werner's question about the width
of the road as designated by the General Plan,
ICE/Wentz advised that it is a four -lane
improvement with either 88' or 100' of right-of-way
width.
Mr. Arciero complained that the issue is not
appropriate to burden his project with improvements
to somebody else's property. He stated that on
Page 14, item 25, regarding occupancy permits, the
wording should also include "or bonded for". Page
20, item 40, regarding the second means of access,
he clarified that he asked the County regarding
Code requirements relating to the number of units
allowed on one means of access. The Countv
inaicated 75' up to 15(
access doesn't traverse
area). He disagreed
being a full street and
access would be fine.
reads "the project
homeowner's associatio
neighborhood involvemen
L.A. County Sheriff's
community awareness...,
cannot force homeowner
program. He suggested
"would like to see them
' as long as the means of
3 woodland area (ie, hazard
rith the secondary access
advised that an emergency
Regarding Page 27 which
proponents or subsequent
1 shall participate in
programs established by
Department to increase
" he indicated that he
o to participate in this
changing the wording to
participate."
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 8
CM/Belanger advised that they cannot make the
individual homeowner's participate; however, we can
suggest that the homeowner's association as an
entity participate in those programs.
M/Werner asked what would be the recommended
wording for this issue.
CM/Belanger stated "encouraged".
Mr. Arciero advised that Arciero & Sons completed
an updated traffic study and supplied it to the
City for their review. Further, he stated that all
of the oak trees will not be put off-site, he will
use some of them in the open spaces with the proper
watering system with two oak trees at each side of
the entrance. Those trees will be used in his
count for replacement ratio and the balance of the
trees that are not used on-site will be placed in
City parks.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., indicated that the
tree count is incorrect, the stream should be
preserved along with a large grove of oaks and _
several plants should be preserved by replanting
them in other parks. He asked that out of the 6
maps, which map was the Council voting for. He
suggested Page 7, item 20 should remain because
D.B. has no hiking trail system. On Page 14, item
42, he questioned how much will Arciero pay for the
water property if it is utilized. Also on Page 14,
item 10 should go back to the Planning Commission
since there is no Master Plan.
Oscar Law, 2150 Pathfinder, pointed out that the
City cannot issue building permits to have the land
disturbed due to the lack of a General Plan, as
stated on the Agenda statement, page 8.
ICA/Montgomery advised that the City now has a
Draft General Plan approved by the Planning
Commission; therefore, building projects can now be
approved. He stated that Mr. Arciero's plan is
called "tested" by the rules in affect at the time
he completed his application. Therefore, the
project could be approved without the Draft General
Plan.
Oscar Law expressed concern regarding removal of _
oak trees and replacing them with seeds. He also
stated that 91 units is too many houses and
suggested that, with half as many houses, more of
the natural canyon would remain.
Mr. Arciero stated that the public can come onto
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 9
Arciero's property and take anything they want off
of the property as long as they have an insurance
policy that holds Arciero harmless.
M/Werner stated for the record that Mr. Arciero
didn't object to item 23 as per past
conversations --it was suggested that the City
should be involved in the coordination of people
allowed on the property and Arciero & Sons is
responsible for insurance for this activity.
In response to C/Papen's question regarding the
indemnification of liability clause on Page 1, Mr.
Arciero stated that he is in agreement with this
only because it has been stated in some County
Codes.
C/Papen stated that Mr. Arciero raised the issue
about Arciero & Sons being responsible to defend
the Council and if there were a lawsuit, the City
and Arciero would share the expenses and
participate in it together.
M/Werner advised he understood that the Government
Code obligates the developer because he is the
beneficiary and he has an obligation to participate
in that legal defense.
ICA/Montgomery advised that if the resident/
taxpayer were to challenge the approval of his
project if the City grants it, then he is a real
party and interest to that approval and he would
have to be named and brought in and the agreement
was that he would defend that portion of it. He
also advised that if the City were sued by somebody
who did not try to stop his project but contended
that the approval of his project caused them damage
for some reason, then the City would have to defend
themselves because Arciero & Sons would not be the
real party in interest in that type of action.
CM/Belanger advised that the Government Code, item
A (which is excluded), states what a City can't
require of a developer related to approvals for his
map. The indemnification of liability clause was
taken directly from Government Code Section
66474.9, sections B & C.
C/Papen recommended that the City's requirement for
the usage of rubberized asphalt be included in the
conditions.
M/Werner reviewed suggested changes as follows:
Page 1, Exhibit C, Conditions of Approval,
conditions 1, 2 and 3 as amended - no comments;
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 10
Page 2 - no comments; Page 3, condition 8 -
questioned the use of the occupancy permit as
leverage and to add "to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer" instead of just the "City."
CDD/DeStefano advised that the wording, as
structured, indicates to the satisfaction of the
City and it would not be staff's normal practice to
permit a bond when, in fact, an improvement is
necessary.
CM/Belanger stated the engineers are the ones
responsible for processing the final map. If it is
said to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
there is no question as to who has the authority to
do it.
In regard to Page 5, item 2 "plant street trees as
directed and approved by the City Engineer"
M/Werner asked if the City has already adopted a
policy.
CDD/DeStefano advised that the City does not have a
formal standard but it can be developed and
appropriately approved in an agreed time frame.
M/Werner suggested that when the map is recorded,
there will be a street tree plan in effect. He
also stated that item 2 should read "pursuant to
the adopted street tree plan in effect at the time
of recordation..."
C/Papen commented that on Page 4, item 7, it was
asked that this item be deleted and she asked for
an explanation of the ratios, locations and pallet
mixes specified on the EIR, the same as what's
listed in Condition number 9 on page 5. She stated
that this statement is redundant and should be
incorporated into item 9. Further, she commented
on item 11 which reads "the applicant is to box
eight suitable oaks and transplant them to the
appropriate sites" --are these boxes 48" or 60".
CDD/DeStefano advised that the condition refers to
the selection of eight oaks on the property, which
would be boxed and relocated. He also advised that
they could be 24" box trees or larger.
C/Papen stated that she understands the cost of
paying $25,000 per tree for replanting and it's
very expensive if it's not known whether they will
survive or not. She commented on the money that
will be given to the City for the replanting and
moving of these trees; she advised that she is
willing to reduce the ratio and questioned if we
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 11
have locations for these eight oaks to be boxed and
moved. She suggested that the trees not be put on
site but relocated to City property and allow staff
to vary the trees and use the other indigenous
species for location planting.
M/Werner stated that the applicant is proposing
oaks with 470 - 15 gallon trees; 72 - 24" box
trees; 11 - 60" box trees plus a check in the
amount of $25,000 for replacement of 267 trees.
C/Papen stated that she would like to see more of a
variety of trees.
M/Werner advised that his issue had been discussed
in a meeting with Mr. Arciero and it was indicated
that a preference for sycamores and other trees be
planted; however, the City is dealing with the oak
tree ordinance. He asked CDD/DeStefano if this
would allow any latitude in the species to be
replaced.
CDD/DeStefano advised that the ordinance requires
replacement of oaks and Mr. Arciero's proposal
meets that minimum requirement. He commented that
the issue deals with the damage to the environment
and an attempt to replace that environment and with
that we could add other species of trees.
In response to C/Papen's question if the 2 to 1
ratio is for the 15 gallon, CDD/DeStefano advised
yes.
M/Werner suggested that a motion be made to amend
Condition 9 including the numbers of trees Mr.
Arciero has offered including mention that there is
equivalency of other species.
C/Papen recommended that item 7, the first sentence
"prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all oak
trees to be replaced shall be replaced at a 2 to 1
ratio consisting of the following mix of sizes:
470 - 15 gallon trees; 72 - 24" box trees; it - 60"
box trees and that staff be authorized to allow 1/3
of the trees to be other indigenous species to Sand
Stone Canyon at an equivalent rate with the oak
tree ordinance plus a check at recordation to Parks
& Recreation in the amount of $35,000 which will
settle the prior oak tree dispute and allow for any
costs in re -locating the trees in the City parks."
M/Werner advised that the Planning Commission
originally wanted nothing less than a 24" box.
Mr. Arciero advised that he will not be
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 12
transplanting any of these trees off-site and none
of the oak trees already on-site will survive if
transplanted.
C/Papen suggested moving an oak tree into a park to
see what happens. Further, amend item 11 by
reducing it to 2, have those count as 2 of the 60
box trees and put on transplanted trees in both of
our parks.
In regard to MPT/Harmony's question as to how the
formula came about, CDD/DeStefano advised that this
formula came about by the staff and planning
consultant and presented to the Planning
Commission. It is the same as used for the Diamond
Bar Associates Project, Tract 47851.
C/Ansari asked if the bluff with the historical oak
trees would be destroyed. She stated that she
would like to see trees along the perimeter of the
gated community.
Mr. Arciero stated that there will be a landscaping
plan for the City to review. He indicated that the _
replacement trees will be going to the open
space/natural area and the other areas will be
filled with trees that are indigenous to the D.B.
area.
M/Werner asked that, at the entrance along Brea
Canyon Road, if an abundant amount of trees could
be placed in those areas to make an aesthetic
statement.
M/Werner addressed C/Papen's recommendation
regarding the tree mix --11 - 60" box trees to 9 -
60" box trees and condition item 11 --rather than 8
trees to be transplanted it would be 2 oak trees
for transplant. He asked for Council's consensus.
MPT/Harmony expressed concern that the City is
being overly generous in reducing item 11 the size
of replacement trees. He suggested trying the 2
replacement trees but to go forward with the
recommendation with staff.
C/Ansari stated that she would like to see Mr.
Arciero save the oak grove under the school
district, then it would not be necessary to _
transplant 8 suitable oaks.
Mr. Arciero stated that there is no way he can stay
out of the canyon area; therefore, the fills will
have to start farther back and it's not going along
with the approved map and plan.
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 13
C/Ansari stated that she would like to see more of
the 60" box trees and recommended 20 - 60" box
trees; 461 - 15 gallon trees, 72 - 24" trees; item
11 will be two relocated trees; eliminate item 10;
and a check in the amount of $35,000.
M/Werner and C/Papers agreed with C/Ansari's
recommendation.
MPT/Harmony stated that it was still too light.
Mr. Arciero asked if the number of trees are a
mixture of trees including the oaks.
M/Werner directed the Council to page 7.
MPT/Harmony stated that item 20 is very important
to keep a trail system in there and it should be
maintained.
C/Papen pointed out that this is a 60' foot bank
with 4 drainage troughs and that the children do
not use this as a trail system to get to the
school. Further, there is no trail that exists
now.
ICE/Wentz reported that there is not presently a
county regional trail system and if such were
constructed, it would need to have stairs because
of the steepness.
MPT/Harmony asked why this item was recommended to
the Planning Commission.
ICE/Wentz advised that this was not originally an
engineering condition but the Planning Commission
anticipated that there might be a regional network
plan and this project should comply with it.
MPT/Harmony stated that this trail is physically
not practical.
CM/Belanger stated that construction of a trail of
the kind proposed in this item is not safe and
could not be done under ADA requirements, which
require that a trail be accessible to everyone.
CDD/DeStefano advised that the plan consists of a
trail coming off of Rapid View and finding its way
up to the school site.
MPT/Harmony agreed to remove item 20.
RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 14
REGULAR KEETING:
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the Regular
Meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium,
21865 E. Copley, Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Papen,
Miller, MPT/Harmony and M/Werner.
Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager;
Frank Usher, Asst. City Manager; Michael Montgomery,
Interim City Attorney; George Wentz, Interim City
Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director, Jim
DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda
Burgess, City Clerk.
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS# PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES:
2.1 PRESENTATION OF A PLAQUE TO THE CITY - by Ron
Kosinski, Caltrans, Regarding_ the Route 60
Environmental Enhancement Project (tree planting).
2.2 PRESENTED CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - to Myla
Hardy, silver medalist in Figure Skating at the
California State Games. _
2.4 PROCLAIMED OCTOBER 23 - 31, 1994 AS "RED RIBBON
WEEK" - Presented to Deputy Bonnie Bryant.
RECESS: M/Werner recessed the Regular Meeting at 7:50
p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Werner reconvened the Adjourned Regular
Meeting at 8:05 p.m.
8.1 (A) RESOLUTION NO. 94-48 AND (B) RESOLUTION 94-49 -
(CON'T.) - M/Werner directed Council to page 7 - no
comments; page 8, item 7 - ICE/Wentz had
recommended, at the end of the first sentence,
replacing the wording "between Colima Road and
Pathfinder Road" with "south of Golden Springs Road
adjacent to the tract." He commented that Mr.
Arciero indicated that he preferred the frontage of
the property. It has been identified that there
are other frontages between Golden Springs and the
Arciero property that have incomplete streets.
M/Werner asked CM/Belanger and ICA/Montgomery what
would be a reasonable relationship between this
project and the imposition of road improvements
off-site.
ICA/Montgomery advised that there has to be some
direct relationship between the public project
that's required and the project that is going in.
He stated that there has to be an impact by the
private developer that causes a need for the
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 15
improvements to arise.
M/Werner asked staff if they have reason to believe
that this project will require off-site
improvements beyond the frontage of the property
and if the EIR traffic studies support that
viewpoint.
CM/Belanger stated that, as it relates to the
subject property, if it is defined as Mr. Arciero's
holdings, staff would propose that the obligation
be to approve construction of lots 92 and 93; that
the frontage improvements on Brea Canyon Rd. go to
the extent of the graded area in order to create
Tract Map 32400. He suggested no additional
obligation.
M/Werner advised that this would include south
Glenbrook and north to the end of the graded area.
He also asked about the road issue that would bring
it out further.
C/Papen stated that she would like to see staff
complete the entire road and do an assessment
district.
With consensus of Council, staff was directed to
come back with recommendations to complete the road
at the same time as this project.
M/Werner directed Council to page 9. He advised
that the developer will be obligated to prepare and
submit an updated traffic report identifying the
warrants in support of traffic resignalization. He
stated that the developer will have a pro rata
share of the traffic signalization.
CM/Belanger stated that this only relates to the
access way to the school site and the access way
into the developer's site.
ICE/Wentz concurred with the two signals that are
required by the developer.
M/Werner directed Council to page 10 - no comments;
page 11, item 14 has been deleted; page 12-13 - no
comments; page 14, item 35 & item 39 - "bonding
prior to occupancy permits being granted all
improvements or bonding" be changed to "... all
improvements shall be completed or bonded for." It
will also read "subject to the approval of the City
Engineer."
Item 38 was proposed for deletion for all grub
material including trees and other vegetation.
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 16
ICE/Wentz clarified that grub material is shrubs,
not trees.
MPT/Harmony asked if there is a provision for the
tree material in this package. If not, he would
like to see the tree mulch kept on the JCC
property.
ICE/Wentz stated that it might be feasible;
however, it is a noisy operation.
M/Werner directed Council to page 14, item 40 -
recommended for deletion because it is on page 20.
ICE/Wentz advised that this item is the old
wording; the new wording is on page 20. He stated
that the intent is the same in terms of building
the secondary road, the question is what level of
participation the applicant should have.
M/Werner asked what the old item 40 states versus
the new item 40.
ICE/Wentz advised that the old item 40 states a
half street full improvement and another half that
did not have curb and gutter and the new item 4 0
requires a fully improved street.
MPT/Harmony asked about what happens with
reimbursement on the water district property.
M/Werner advised what the condition said and the
issue is that the City is acquiring the property
and we are the owners.
CM/Belanger advised that the City and the
applicant's property owner would enter into an
agreement. He stated that, if in fact, the Council
decides that lot numbers 92 and 93 are not
important in building a road, then staff's
recommendation would be to return the property to
the Walnut Valley Water District and receive our
money back.
MPT/Harmony asked CM/Belanger if we would receive
our full money back from the Walnut Valley Water
District when in fact we are leasing it for
$100,000 a -year.
M/Werner asked MPT/Harmony if it would be agreeable
to add the words "of equal or greater market
value."
M/Werner directed the Council to page 15 - no
comments; page 16 - no comments; page 17 - no
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 17
comments; page 18 - no comments; page 19 - no
comments; page 20, item 40, ICE/Wentz was asked to
explain this issue.
ICE/Wentz advised that staff's recommendation would
be the third option in terms of the access road and
the suggestion that the developer/ applicant fund
the cost of a fully approved street from Brea
Canyon Rd. to his secondary access on his property,
grade a secondary road from the new access road to
the tract boundary/school district property. He
stated that full improvements would entail curbs,
gutters and fully paved streets, sidewalks and
street lights have not been considered.
In response to MPT/Harmony, ICE/Wentz explained
that the road would run from their tract boundary
to Brea Canyon Rd. He also stated that the School
District is in favor of the proposal.
MPT/Harmony asked if this secondary access road is
safe for cars, buses and etc.
ICE/Wentz stated that this road is not supposed to
be used, only as a secondary access into the school
site. He also stated that the secondary access
road is on D.B. property; therefore, if we do not
give the School District permission to use it, they
cannot.
C/Ansari stated that staff was supposed to come
back with a recommendation as to which road should
be used for the primary road.
C/Papen stated that alternative 13 is practical for
the use of the road.
CM/Belanger stated that the alternative speaks for
itself in terms of the grades. He stated that
staff chose alternative 13 because of the least
impact on the grades, neighborhoods, ridgeline,
etc.
MPT/Harmony stated that he favors alternative 12
which puts the road directly behind the homes on
Arciero's property and keeps the project on
Arciero's property. He stated that he definitely
does not agree with alternative 11 which has no
road to the school.
M/Werner moved, C/Papen seconded to approve
alternative #3 for the roadway. By the following
Roll Call vote, motion carried 3 to 1:
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 18
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Papen,
M/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller
M/Werner directed Council to item 40 and asked if
there was support for the condition recommended by
staff regarding the developer's obligation of the
paving and grading. He advised that, hearing no
objections, item 40 will be as recommended by
staff.
Mr. Arciero commented that he doesn't feel
obligated to build the full width road to the
second entrance and if the road goes all the way
back, then the school district and public will use
it.
M/Werner directed the Council to item 44 in order
to delete the phrase "an adjoining of frontage of
the" and with no objections, this phrase will be
deleted. Page 21 - no comments; page 22, item 62
regarding the reclaimed water.
C/Papen suggested that a 10 year time limit be
placed on this obligation.
M/Werner asked if there are water lines anyway, why
the time limit.
ICE/Wentz advised that if the applicant constructed
this particular improvement, if he secured a letter
from the Walnut Valley Water District indicating
that they did not intend to provide any reclaimed
water for 15 years, the applicant is requesting
that this condition be waived.
M/Werner asked if the applicant would be willing to
put it in if the time limit were 15 years and the
Water District provided a reclaimed water service
to that area, the applicant/ developer would come
back after this development is finished and install
the necessary lines.
CE/Wentz stated that the applicant suggested to put
in the necessary improvements for the reclaimed
water so the service would be available at a later
date; however, if the Water District said that
there would be no program like this in the near
future, then the applicant/ developer would not be
responsible for adding the construction of the
reclaimed water system.
M/Werner asked if the Water District could commit
to the reclaimed program.
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 19
ICE/Wentz advised that the Water District has
indicated there is not a high potential for
reclaimed water within the communities.
MPT/Harmony stated that the City is not requiring
the installation of pipes whether or not we got
recycled water, this only includes if we get the
recycled water.
C/Papen advised that this would require that the
developer plan water piping for the common areas so
that they could be switched over but it would not
require the installation of the mains and meters.
CM/Belanger explained the purpose of the condition
is to design a system in such a way to cut it over
to reclaimed water.
ICE/Wentz added that designing for reclaimed water
is more complicated because the applicant would be
required to put in several mains to handle both
reclaimed and regular water with additional costs
to the developer. He also stated that the
applicant is asking that this item be deleted, but
staff is recommending that the Water District put a
time limit of 5 years in predicting the reclaimed
water irrigation.
In regard to placing a 10 -year time limit on the
condition to install water lines for later
implementation of reclaimed water, Council
consensus was not to impose the time limit.
M/Werner directed the Council to page 23, item 63
regarding the private community. He explained that
there are some community benefits to having an
overall city-wide policy for neighborhoods to be
private; however, he felt that there should be a
minimum of standards to allow a gated community.
C/Ansari expressed support for gated communities
and asked if there are many gated communities in
D.B. that do not have any amenities.
ICE/Wentz stated that he was not aware of any in
the immediate area; however, in other communities
there have been single family homes without
amenities.
C/Ansari stated that she would like to see a study
of various communities surrounding the D.B. area
that are gated without amenities prior to signing
the map.
With consensus of Council, items 63, 64 and 65 will
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 20
be deleted until a future date when the developer
has an opportunity to come back and restate this
issue.
M/Werner directed the Council to page 14, item 38
regarding oak tree grubbing. He asked staff if
they have any comments.
ICE/Wentz stated that staff still recommends that
the grub material not be used in any form for the
fill.
MPT/Harmony stated that these oak trees have been
in this area for hundreds of years so they need to
be recycled into a mulch.
Peter Lewandowski, U1traSystems, stated that the
issue of composting is addressed in the City's
Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Composting
helps to minimize the amount of solid waste
ultimately disposed in landfills. He stated that
questions should be raised in preserving the
organic mulch because of the time frame in grading
and if the organic mulch is rich enough to use as
top soil.
M/Werner asked if there is need for concern for the
quantity of material as well as the location of the
stock piling.
ICE/Wentz advised that both of those issues would
be a concern in terms of the ultimate quantities
and if the site could handle all of it.
M/Werner asked if this mulch could be of benefit to
the school district.
C/Papen commented that the project is different
from the County project because of lot sizes, the
phasing time frame and the fact that Puente Hills
and Western Waste Industry landfills have grinding
machines to grind green waste.
C/Ansari expressed concerns regarding the noise
that will be generated to grind these trees.
With consensus of Council, it was agreed to delete
item 38 and not compost existing heritage trees and
top soil.
M/Werner directed the Council to mitigation
measures, item E, second bullet, regarding Project
Proponents or Subsequent Homeowners Association,
add the wording "are encouraged" in place of
"shall." Council agreed to this change.
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 21
M/Werner asked Clay Chaput if the School Board
would agree with the dedication of land for street
purposes as required in alternative 03.
Mr. Chaput, Assistant Superintendent, advised that
the Board had not specifically dealt with any issue
relating to the road and has no official Board
position on the road relating to dedication. He
stated that the Board agrees that there should be a
secondary access road but only in discussion.
C/Ansari asked for clarification of what tentative
map this is and a description of the tentative map
that is being approved and with what date.
ICE/Wentz advised that the map that the Council
approved was vesting tentative tract map 32400
comprised of 93 lots of which 91 are single family
residential dwelling units. He stated that it is a
map dated June, 1992 encompassing a gross of 47.44
acres.
C/Papen moved, M/Werner seconded to adopt
Resolution No. 94-48, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF DIAMOND BAR FOR THE
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH
NO. 92081040 AND APPROVAL OF HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT
ORDINANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LAND FORM
MODIFICATION AND OAK TREE REMOVAL PERMIT INVOLVING
THE REMOVAL OF 276 COAST LIVE OAKS WITH REPLACEMENT
BOTH ON AND OFF THE PROJECT SITE ASSOCIATED WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
32400, LOCATED WEST OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND NORTH
OF PATHFINDER ROAD IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF (APPLICANT -
ARCIERO & SONS) Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS- Ansari, Papen,
M/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller
In response to C/Papen's inquiry, ICE/Wentz stated
that staff is trying to insure that the project is
being considered with respect to the environmental
impact report approved by the Council a few months
ago. Further, staff is seeking Council's support
-- to recertify the environmental impact report as now
crafted with its findings of fact and specific
mitigation measures for the project.
It was moved by M/Werner, seconded by C/Papen to
approve Alternative 03 for the roadway. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 22
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Papen,
M/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
C/Papen moved, M/Werner seconded to adopt
Resolution No. 94-48 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR THE
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH
NO. 92081040 AND APPROVAL OF HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT
ORDINANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LAND FORM
MODIFICATION AND OAK TREE REMOVAL PERMIT INVOLVING
THE REMOVAL OF 276 COAST LIVE OAKS WITH REPLACEMENT
BOTH ON AND OFF THE PROJECT SITE ASSOCIATED WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
32400, LOCATED WEST OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND NORTH
OF PATHFINDER ROAD IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF (APPLICANT -
ARCIERO & SONS). With the following Roll Call
vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Ansari, Papen, M/Werner
NOES: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - Miller
C/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to adopt
Resolution No. 94-49 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
THE CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH NO. 92081040 AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 32400, TO DEVELOP A 91 UNIT
SUBDIVISION, LOCATED WEST OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND
NORTH OF PATHFINDER ROAD, IN DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
(APPLICANT - ARCIERO & SONS) WITH THE CONDITIONS AS
AMENDED. With the following Roll Call vote, motion
carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Ansari, Papen, M/Werner
NOES: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - Miller
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner re -opened the Regular
Meeting at 9:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Ansari, Papen,
Miller, MPT/Harmony and M/Werner.
Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager;
Frank Usher, Asst. City Manager; Michael Montgomery,
Interim City Attorney; George Wentz, Interim City
Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director, Jim
Destefano, Community Development Director and Lynda
Burgess, City Clerk.
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 23
2. PROCLAIMED OCTOBER 22, 1994 AS "MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY."
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bob Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow Dr.,
stated that his personal experience with City -On -Line had
been very positive.
Dr. Lawrence Rhodes, Fiber Ct., discussed the "Notice"
left at his home during the slurring between Washington
and Lycoming, east of Brea Canyon Road. He also stated
that gouge marks were slurried over in front of his home,
rather than repairing them.
M/Werner advised that staff would look into it.
Claudia Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow Dr., expressed concern
with Alternative roads 1, 2 and 3 proposed for VTM 32400
in that this road is very close to classrooms. She asked
if it will be a two-lane road which will it go through
the Blackhawk area and if there would be a barrier to
help keep cars out of that access.
M/Werner stated that this road was intended for drop-off
and emergency access only and he reassured that this will
be discussed with the School District.
C/Papen advised that this road is to bring the children
to school and the road was designed to go into the front
new parking lot to drop the children off.
Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend, questioned why an
increase of $5,000 is needed on item 6.6 and expressed
that she would like to see the City Manager request for
these types of issues and not the City Clerk.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind In., concerning item 6.5,
asked how the City will be synchronizing the lights on
D.B. Blvd. He stated that he doesn't object to
City -On -Line; however; he does object to people
addressing one another with fowl language.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd.,
opposed expenditure of further funds for legal counsel as
requested in Item 6.6. She stated that a private
conversation was held during the Arciero issues.
Dr. Lawrence Rhodes stated that he was in favor of the
legal counsel for the City Council.
Joe Larutta, Sunbright Dr., expressed concern regarding
temporary signs that are seen from the 57 fwy. He
advised that the 57 fwy. is a scenic highway and no
billboards are allowed.
Terry Birrell concurred with Barbara Beach-Courchesne
with respect to legal fees spent on the Council and the
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 24
City Clerk.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Road, stated that conduct of
some users of City -On -Line is unacceptable.
4. COUNCIL CONKENTS: Regarding concerns expressed
about the slurry seal project, CM/Belanger explained that
the contractor is required to give a minimum of 48 hours
notice and the City will be contacting the contractor;
regarding the slurrying and gouging, the City identifies
areas that have to be re -done and this particular area
will be looked into and repaired if needed. In regard to
signs visible from the freeway, CM/Belanger stated that
staff will provide a report on the issue and will get a
response back to the requestor.
In regard to concerns about a "pole" in the vicinity of
Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Rd., CDD/DeStefano stated that
early this year a cellular phone company received a
permit from the City via a conditional use permit from
the Planning Commission, to allow for a temporary mono
pole at the location adjacent to Denny's. He advised
that this pole is temporary until he can get a lease
agreement with the School District. He also advised that
the applicant has submitted a request for further
extension for this pole and that the application will
need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
C/Ansari announced a Kiwanis fund raiser to be held on
Saturday, October 22, 1994, 6:30 - 11:30, $15.00 per
ticket at the AQMD. Further, the D.B. Historical Society
will hold a Western Dinner/Dance, at the D.B. Country
Club on October 28, 1994, 6:00 - 11:00 p.m., $12.50
ticket. On October 23, 1994, 12:00 - 4:00 p.m., a Sand
Fest will be held at Quail Summit School, $5.00 ticket.
The D.B. Historical Society will host a contest on "What
D.B. Means To Me" for children kindergarten through 5th
grade and applications have to be in by November 8, 1994.
She congratulated Myla Hardy, Silver Medalist at the
California State Games, and pointed out that Myla is in
need of sponsors.
C/Papers stated that the traffic signal synchronization
program is managed by the County and there is a project
on the books for 22 lights on D.B. Blvd. She commented
on MPT/Harmony FAXing an article regarding her lawsuit
and requested the FAX numbers so that they can be advised
of the outcome.
C/Miller announced a Crime Prevention Seminar for small
business owners on Wednesday, October 26, 1994, 11:30
a.m. - 1:00 p.m., admission is free.
MPT/Harmony commented on the Moreland Report and offered
a rebuttal to the Finance Dept. response. He also
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 25
commented on Prop A monies going toward subsidizing bus
fares of 20% for adults and students and 50% for senior
citizens and handicap persons.
M/Werner reported that he and C/Ansari have been very
busy with the Finance Committee making productive
improvements.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 24, 1994 - 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - OCTOBER 26, 1994 -
7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S.
Brea Canyon Rd.
5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - 7:00
P.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: It was moved by C/Ansari,
seconded by MPT/Harmony to approve the Consent Calendar
with the exception of Items No. 6.5 and 6.6. Motion
carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, Papen,
MPT/Harmony, M/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF
AUGUST 16, 1994.
6.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER DATED OCTOBER 18, 1994 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $492,261.21.
6.3 RECEIVED & FILED TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH
OF JULY, 1994.
6.4 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - FILED BY GEORGETTE
OWSIAN ON AUGUST 5, 1994 - referred the matter to
Carl Warren & Co., the City's Claims Administrator.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.5 NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALLATION ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AT FOUNTAIN
SPRINGS AND SHADOW CANYON DRIVE - MPT/Harmony asked
CM/Belanger if this Notice was for the traffic
signal installation and if staff is still holding a
10% retention on the project.
CM/Belanger responded that staff holds 10%
retentions until Notices of Completion are signed
off.
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 26
In response to MPT/Harmony Senior Engineer Liu
reported that a previous payment was the 90%
promise payment and the 10% retention payment will
not be released until 30 days after the Notice of
Completion. He further stated that construction
work wasn't complete until September 21, 1994 and
until that date, staff didn't have an idea when
this item could be ready for the Council to take
action.
ICE/Wentz also pointed out that these items are not
brought in front of the Council until there is an
agreement between both the contractor and the
City's inspector on-site that all requirements for
the project have been complete.
MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to accept work
performed by Macadee Electrical Construction and
authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of
Completion and release any retention amounts per
previously approved plans and specifications.
Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Ansari, Papen,
MPT/Harmony, M/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.6 LEGAL COUNSEL - AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE CONTRACT
AMOUNT RE: COMMITTEE TO RECALL PAPEN AND MILLER V
LYNDA BURGESS, ET AL. - C/Ansari stated that she
requested the dollar amount of the fees to review
privately. She commented that the fees to date
seem very high since they have not gone to trial.
CM/Belanger stated that it would be possible to
show the fees; how'ver, it is not City's procedure
to show an itemized billing because of the legal
process as to what the attorney is doing. He
advised that his ,recommendation would be to not
provide this information to anyone until the case
is settled.
M/Werner asked who is approving the oversight of
this attorney.
CM/Belanger advised that the expenses are being
reviewed by himself.
M/Werner asked if the current fees and the fees
requested are reasonable.
CM/Belanger advised that given the nature of the
litigation, they are reasonable dollars.
OCTOBER 18, 1994
7.
PAGE 27
MPT/Harmony asked what the City has gotten for
$10,000. He also commented on the attorney not
seeing the signatures and weFre still paying for
his fees.
C/Papen stated that this is not about C/Papen,
C/Miller or the City Clerk and we have an
obligation to defend staff members when the City is
sued.
C/Ansari asked if the $5,000 requested includes
fees anticipated for court fees and if the court
date was still October 31, 1994.
CM/Belanger advised that this amount is what has
been estimated to complete the litigation and the
court date has not been changed.
C/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve a
$5,000 increase in the contract amount with the
firm of Wallin, Kress, Reisman, Price & Pettit
representing the City Clerk and the City in the
matter of Committee to Recall Papen and Miller vs.
Burgess, et al. Said increase will result in a
total contract amount of $15.000. With the
following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Ansari, Papen,
M/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS -MPT/Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
PUBLIC BEARINGS:
7.1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51169, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 92-3, ZONE CHANGE NO. 92-2, OAK TREE
PERMIT NO. 92-3, AND CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-2 - (APPLICANT: UNIONWIDE,
INC.) - M/Werner opened the Public Hearing.
It was moved by MPT/Harmony, seconded by M/Werner
to continue the Public Hearing to November 1, 1994,
at 6:00 p.m. With the following Roll Call vote,
motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, Ansari, Papen,
MPT/Harmony, M/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.2 DISCUSSION RE RESOLUTION NO. 94-40: A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RE:
NO LEGAL DEFENSE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS. Continued to
OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 28
November 1, 1994.
8.3 RESOLUTION NO. 91-71: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING
CITY COUNCIL STANDARDS OF OPERATION. Continued
from October 4, 1994. Among the items to be
discussed, the order of agenda items, the time of
beginning regular Council meetings, use of City
stationery, use of City insignia, use of City
programs and activities, Council direction to City
staff (see memo in packet) and other matters
related to City Council relationships - Continued
to November 1, 1994.
8.4 CITY COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEES - Continued to November
1, 1994.
8.5 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 51253, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 92-12, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 (APPLICANT:
SASAK CORPORATION). Continued from October 4, 1994
- The applicant requested approval of a 21 unit
single family residential development proposed on
6.7 acres located adjacent to Morning Sun Drive.
The applicant requested a continuance to October
18, 1994.
It was moved by C/Miller, seconded by MPT/Harmony
to continue the matter to November 1, 1994 at 6:00
p.m. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, Papen,
MPT/Harmony, M/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
8.6 HERITAGE PARK COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING - Continued
to November 1, 1994.
8.7 ORDINANCE NO. XX (1994) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A
PURCHASING SYSTEM AND REPEALING ORDINANCES 20(1989)
and 20A(1989) - The City's current Purchasing
Ordinance has been revised to provide
clarification, and to include new sections which
make the Purchasing System more efficient and
effective. It was determined that it would be more
beneficial if an entirely new Ordinance was
prepared, repealing Ordinances 20 and 20A(1989),
and establishing a new purchasing system in a
different format. The proposed Ordinance has been
reviewed by the City Council Finance Committee and
the Finance Committee recommends approval -
Continued to November 1, 1994.
OCTOBER 18, 1994
PAGE 29
9. NEW BUSINZ88:
9.1 ON-CALL CONTRACTS:
9.1.1 AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PROFESSIONAL PLAN
CHECKING AND PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION SERVICES
- It was moved by MPT/Harmony, seconded by
M/Werner to retain Bryan Stirrat & Associates,
Charles Abbott & Associates, Inc., Hall and
Foreman, Inc. and Ron Kranzer & Associates
Civil Engineers, Inc. to provide professional
plan checking and public works inspection
services on an as -needed basis for a period of
two years effective October 19, 1994. Motion
carried unanimously by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller,
Papen,
MPT/Harmony,
M/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
9.1.2 AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SOILS AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES -
CM/Belanger recommended approval of the 9.1.1
and 9.1.2 to provide underlying contractual
wuthorization to engage a variety of firms
for plan checking, public works inspection
and geotechnical evaluation.
In response to C/Ansari regarding award of
plan checking contracts on an as -needed basis
equally to all firms, CM/Belanger responded
that these services have not been rotated in
the past but this will provide needed
services to the City on-call.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., asked if
there are retainer fees required with these
contracts.
CM/Belanger stated that there are no
retainers involved.
It was moved by C/Miller, seconded by
M/Werner to retain Engineering and
Environmental Geology Associates, Kleinfelder
and Leighton and Associates, to provide
professional soils and geotechnical
engineering services on an as -needed basis
for a period of two years effective October
19, 1994. Motion carried unanimously by the
following Roll Call vote:
OCTOBER 18,!1994 PAGE 30
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller,
Papen,
MPT/Harmony,
M/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
9.2 COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER AND RECREATION GUIDE: 3
VERSUS 4 ISSUES PER YEAR - Continued to November 1,
1994.
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
11. CLOSED SESSION: None held.
12. ADJOURNNENT: There being no further business
to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to
November 1, 1994 at 6:00 p.m.
L DA BURGESS City'cblerx