HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/5/2004 Minutes - Regular MeetingCITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 5, 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order
at 5:42 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins,
City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Doyle, Deputy City
Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works
Director; Fred Alamolholda, Senior Engineer, Sharon Gomez, Senior
Management Analyst; April Blakey, Public Information Manager; Susan Full,
Accountant II and Tommye Cribbins, Executive Assistant.
No. Alternative! Financing Options to Reduce Current Annual Costs
— PiperJaffray - Presentation by Larry Kosmont, Kosmont and
Associates and Eric Scriven, Piper Jaffray.
Larry Kosmont explained this presentation is to provide Council with
information in order to make the decision about how to take advantage of
the marketplace in terms of the City's Letter of Credit and financing costs.
He reminded Council that the City needs the Letter of Credit because the
Council selected the variable rate interest program. The Letter of Credit
gives the City the ability to re -trade the bonds/credit facility as the variable
rate increases and decreases, and the cost of money changes internally.
The City needs the Letter of Credit for liquidity to pay off the investor as
the rates trade in and out. The City could re -bid the Letter of Credit using
the same basic documents contained in the original deal. The current
Letter of Credit expires on December 18 this year. Based on the market,
the new Letter of Credit would likely come in between 80 and 95 basis
points compared to 110 basis points the City was currently paying with a
likely savings of $750,000 overall or as low as $375,000.
C/O'Connor asked Mr. Kosmont, based on a savings of $41,000 how
much it would cost the City to redo the Letter of Credit.
Mr. Kosmot said that overall, the savings would be $744,000 with a total
cost to re -bid and irestack the Letter of Credit at about $50,000 to save
between $350,000 and $750,000.
C/O'Connor said that would assume the City would continue on this path
for the next 30 years.
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
Mr. Kosmont said that if the City wanted to pay off the bonds in one year
or less it should do nothing. If the Council chose to continue for another
three to four years it would pay to re -do the Letter of Credit. The LOC
could be redone within a three to five week timeframe with the Council's
direction by December 18.
Eric Scriven stated that whatever option the Council decided to exercise, it
should be in play no later than December 1 so that the current provider
could be made aware that the City was not going to renew the LOC.
Mr. Kosmont explained the article provided to Council about short-term
buyers options. He said that he needed to advise Council that the Letter of
Credit facility in the marketplace was shrinking slightly. In other words,
there were fewer banks in the marketplace selling Letters of Credit of $20
million or less. As this tool becomes less popular, it becomes more
expensive because it becomes harder to secure. If the City is not in the
business of bonds for over five years, this is not something it should do.
But if the City is in the business of bonds for six or seven years or more,
this is perhaps a better replacement paper option.
Mr. Scriven said the Council needed to decide how long the City was
going to stay in the loan. If it were less than one year, the City would not
want to incur the maximum $50,000 cost. If it were held less than five
years, the City would not really recoup the payback on the cost of
issuance. He said that tonight's cost estimates were very conservative
assumptions on the option rate and that the basic decision remained the
same. If the City were to keep the LOC beyond five years the renewal risk
and financial savings should be considered.
Mr. Kosmont said that if the City held for six more years, it would save at
least $1 million. He summarized his previous remarks.
MPT/Herrera said she was not in favor of paying off the bonds right away
or just keeping them for another year. She urged the Council to keep them
for ten years.
M/Zirbes said he was good to go for the length of the cap or eight more
years.
CM/Lowry felt that if the City wanted to continue pursuing economic
development or finance other capital improvements, the time would come
when the Council would decide to refinance the bonds in order to have
cash available, and it could be for a higher issuance. Her sense was that
the Council could look at it as an investment option or as planning for
capital expenditures, two different approaches as to the purpose of the
bonds. Therefore, she would hesitate to look at it from singularly a
financial impact now. The Council may wish to refinance for a higher
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
amount within the next five years for an entirely different reason. Her
choice would be to stay with the current program, wait a few more years
and determine at that time where the City was with its financial needs and
then look at a re -issuance.
C/Chang felt there was no point to spending another $400,000 to increase
the burden at this time since the City did not yet have a clear picture about
economic possibilities.
M/Zirbes agreed and felt that renegotiating the LOC costs would be in
order. Five years from now the City may want to get more money or, it
may find itself in a situation where developers have moved in retailers and
the City has a significant amount of cash coming in and wants to pay off
the bonds.
M/Zirbes asked if offshore banks were being considered for the LOC. Mr.
Scriven named a few and included names of domestic banks.
M/Zirbes asked if any of the banks being considered would potentially limit
the amount.
Mr. Scriven said there could be concern about some banks, and he would
not recommend an LOC with those institutions. He indicated to M/Zirbes
that he thought he could come close to achieving the 80 basis points and
further elaborated on trends and options in the current marketplace.
M/Zirbes confirmed that the Council's objective was to reduce the annual
cost.
Council concurred to have Kosmont shop the Letter of Credit and bring
back options for Council consideration and possible action.
Public Comments: None Offered.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City
Council, M/Zirbes adjourned the Study Session at 6:20 p.m. to Closed Session.
4inda C. Lowry, City Jerk
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 19th day of oct-ober , 2004.
BOB ZIRBES, Mayor
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
OCTOBER 5, 2004
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes called the Regular City Council
meeting to order at 6:55 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium,
21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
M/Zirbes reported that Council began its evening at 5:00 p.m. with a joint meeting
with the Traffic and Transportation Commission and received an overview of the
proposed scope of work for the upcoming Citywide Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program followed by a study session wherein the Council discussed
possible refinancing options for the Letter of Credit for the Public Facilities Bond with
no reportable action, followed by a Closed Session that would be resumed following
tonight's Council Meeting.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Huff led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Monsignor James Loughnane, St. Denis Catholic
Church gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney, James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Doyle, Deputy City
Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services
Director; April Blakey, Public Information Manager; Fred Alamolholda, Senior
Engineer; Susan Full, Account II and Tommye Cribbins, Executive Asst.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CM/Lowry requested that Consent Calendar Item
No. 6.6, a request to adopt a resolution supporting the California Performance
Review with regard to devolving the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy be pulled from tonight's agenda. Further, staff requested
that the Council accept its recommendation to change the recommendation on
Council Consideration Item 8.1 to "table" the MOU discussion.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 MPT/Herrera presented a Proclamation proclaiming October 2004 as
Fire Prevention Month to Asst. Fire Chief Nieto.
BUSINESS OF THE: MONTH:
1.2 C/Chang presented a City Tile to Financial Center Manager Todd
' Vonaken with Washington Mutual Financial Center. The presentation
concluded with a business video presentation. Financial Center
Manager Maria Johnson was unable to attend.
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None Offered.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Aziz Amiri, Diamond Bar Chamber of
Commerce President, introduced incoming Executive Director Stephen Smith
formerly with the Norwalk Chamber. Mr. Smith gave a brief introduction and
assured Council that he was fully committed to the community of D.B. and to
its businesses and looked forward to a cooperative business -building
relationship with the City.
Kathleen Newe, representing Friends of the Library, thanked the Council and
residents for their support of literacy and support of the D.B. Library over the
years. She invited everyone to participate in the "Read Together Diamond
Bar" program events during the month of October including the October 23
"Festival of Authors" event from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Diamond Bar
Center. More than 50 authors will be present to participate. The October 23`d
event also includes "Make a Difference Day" from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 YOUTH MASTER PLAN STAKEHOLDERS/STEERING COMMITTEE
— October 7, 2004 — 7:00 p.m., Diamond Bar Center, 1600 S. Grand
Ave.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — October 12, 2004 — 7:00
p.m., Auditorium, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Drive.
5.3 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING —
October 14, 2004 — 7:00 p.m., Hearing Board Room,
AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Drive.
5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — October 19, 2004 — 6:30 p.m.,
Auditorium, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Drive.
5.5 YOUTH MASTER PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING —
October 22, 2004 — 7:00 p.m., Diamond Bar Center, 1600 S. Grand
Ave.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Herrera moved, C/Chang seconded
to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 6.6. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera,
M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:None
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 3
CITY COUNCIL
6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
6.1.1 Study Session of September 21, 2004 — Approved as
submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of September 21, 2004 — Approved as
submitted.
6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6.1 .1 Regular Meeting of August 24, 2004, 2004.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of September 14, 2004.
6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES •- Regular Meeting of August 26, 2004.
6.4 APPROVED WARRANT REGISTERS DATED SEPTEMBER 23,
2004 AND SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$458,381.20.
6.5 RECEIVED AND APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT for the
month of August 2004.
6.6 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -XX: SUPPORTING THE
CALIFORNIA PERFORMANCE REVIEW WITH REGARD TO
DEVOLVING THE SAN GABRIAL AND LOWER LOS ANGELES
RIVERS AND MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY. (Item pulled from the
Agenda)
6.7 APPROVED EXTENSION OF ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, COMMENCING
OCTOBER '17, 2004 WITH:
(a) SASAKI TRANSPORTATION SERVICES — CONTRACT
AMENDMENT NO. 1.
(a) WARREN C. SIECKE TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING — CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 9.
6.8 APPROVED EXTENSION OF SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACTS FOR A PERIOD OF TWO
YEARS COMMENCINT OCTOBER 17, 2004 WITH:
(a) KLEINFELDER INC. —AMENDMENT NO. 1
(b) ARRC►YO GEOTECHNICAL —AMENDMENT NO. 1.
(c) LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. —AMENDMENT NO. 2.
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
6.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-55: ACCEPTING AN
IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR ROAD PURPOSES
FROM DANTE M. SENESE, THE OWNER OF THE SOUTHWEST
CABINET PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF LEMON AVENUE AND LYCOMING STREET.
6.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-56: SUPPORTING CURRENT
SHERIFF CONTRACT SERVICES COST MODEL AND URGING
THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO COLLABORATE
WITH ALL CITIES BEFORE AMENDING THE BASIC LEVEL OF
COUNTYWIDE SHERIFF SERVICES.
6.11 APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 WITH VALLEY
CREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. TO ADD THE
MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AT THE DIAMOND BAR
CENTER, SUMMITRIDGE PARK AND SUMMITRIDGE MINI -PARK
IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,275 PLUS APPROVED $145,000 FOR
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT AT AND ADJACENT TO THE
DIAMOND BAR CENTER FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$333,511.26; PLUS A CONTINGENCY OF $20,000 FOR A TOTAL
2004/05 AUTHORIZATION OF $353,511.26 FOR VALLEY CREST
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC., AND THE APPROPRIATION
OF $35,000 FROM LLAD NO. 39 RESERVES FOR
IMPROVEMENTS AND ENHANCEMENT OF LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE OF SUMMITRIDGE MINI -PARK.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-57: ADOPTING THE NATURAL
HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
FEDERAL DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF2000 (PUBLIC LAW 106-
390) - DCM/DeStefano reported that the Natural Hazards Mitigation
Plan was prepared in accordance with the federally mandated Robert
E. Safford Act that included the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
requiring every local, county and state government to prepare and
submit a Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan to the State Office of
Emergency Preparedness and Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) by November 1, 2004.The document is a plan to
reduce the risks from natural hazards. In February 2004 the Council
hired a consultant to prepare the plan; in May 2004 Council adopted a
Resolution in support of the preparation of the plan. Council held two
study sessions, one in May and one in September. It is Staff's
recommendation that Council receive a presentation from Consultant
Bingham, open the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 2004-57.
Consultant John Bingham explained that the plan anticipates and
prepares the City for natural disasters because the Federal
government is no longer willing to pay for
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
repetitive disaster damage or damage that could be easily averted by
pre event actions. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 allows for
funding for pre -disaster planning and post -disaster recovery. Failure
to implement a plan could have a devastating impact on the City in the
event of a inatural disaster. If the agency did not submit a plan by the
November 2004 deadline, it would have to wait until November 2005
and would not be eligible for FEMA funding for any event occurring
between the filing periods. In addition, the cost of any disaster
recovery would be the sole burden of the City if the plan were not put
in place. The plan takes into account critical and essential facilities
such as schools, city hall, fire stations, daycare centers, senior
centers, public utilities roads and bridges as well as facilities such as
hospitals and other critical and essential facilities in the sphere of
influence. This plan also identifies the City's vulnerabilities to hazards
and outlines actions the City can take to mitigate or reduce the
potential impacts of these disasters.
Mr. Bingham stated that the requirements of the plan incorporate the
following: a planning committee was formed with members made up
of City staff from almost all departments including the City Manager's
office, representatives from contracted local support agencies
including the Sheriff's office, Fire Department, local utilities, local
school districts and the Red Cross with special assistance from the
Area D Emergency Management Coordinator Brenda Honeymiller.
Completion and implementation of the mitigation plan was the result of
several months of intense work in order to meet the FEMA deadline.
The natural hazards identified and associated risks were rated as they
relate to earthquakes, floods, landslides, wildfires and windstorms.
The committee met a total of 26 times to formulate goals and
objectives contained in the body of the report and develop the
mitigation action items and implementation plan. He explained how
the identified hazards related to D.B.
C/O'Connor asked if there was a separate definition for manufactured
homes and mobile homes (Page 118).
DCM/DeStefano stated that both products are manufactured homes.
One is permanently affixed to the ground (manufactured homes) and
the other is stationary on blocks above the ground (mobile homes). In
D.B. there are approximately 290 mobile homes. If appropriate at the
end of the Public Hearing staff should be given direction to clarify the
paragraph on page 118 and add to the definitions.
M/Zirbes opened the Public Hearing.
With no testimony offered, M/Zirbes closed the Public Hearing.
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 6
EJ
CITY COUNCIL
MPT/Herrera moved, C/Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No.
2004-58 adopting the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan with clarification
to the separate definition of manufactured and mobile homes on Page
118 and in the glossary of the document. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
M/Zirbes thanked Mr. Bingham for his work toward completing the
plan.
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 CONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(MOU) BETWEEN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELES REGION AND THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR REGARDING ONSITE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS.
CM/Lowry reported that this item is staff's due diligence in response to
another FEMA requirement for cities to enter into an agreement to
systematically deal with wastewater treatment. This matter was
brought to the attention of the City Council during the September 21,
2004 study session. Since that time PWD/Liu and his staff met with a
number of the affected property owners to advise them about this
issue.
PWD/Liu reported that the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board determined that septic tank systems are a source of water
quality degradation. As such, the Board is looking to implement
statewide regulations for these systems. To the best of staff's
knowledge, all 144 septic tank systems reside within the southeastern
portion of "The Country Estates." The Regional Board is proposing
that local agencies enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) by October 8, 2004 that would place the responsibility for
regulation solely on the cities for a period not to exceed five (5) years.
If the City does not sign an MOU the Regional Board would have 120
days to undertake direct regulation of all septic tank systems within
the City's jurisdiction with annual fees ranging from $800 to $1800 per
residence exclusive of startup costs. If the City signs the MOU the City
would regulate the septic tank owners. There is a 90 day get -out
provision should the City choose to terminate the MOU. He outlined
the City's requirements and stated that based on the requirements
staff estimated an initial startup cost of $30,000 to $45,000 with an
annual ongoing fee for monitoring and inspection services estimated
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
Ito be $400 to $900 per residence.
PWD/Liu said that upon direction from the City Council staff held an
informational meeting on September 30. Of the 144 notices mailed
more than 30 affected residents representing 27 properties attended
the meeting. Based on the information and options provided by staff,
participating residents reached an understanding to have "The
Country Estates" Homeowners Association host its own discussion in
order to gain a majority vote on how to proceed within 30 days from
the September 30 meeting. Thus, a meeting was scheduled for
October 20 at 7:00 p.m.
PWD/Liu said Staff intends to continue the discourse with all affected
residents until consensus is reached. Therefore, staff recommends
that Council table the MOU to provide affected residents an
opportunity to reach a consensus on how to deal with the upcoming
State regulations and to allow them to explore the ultimate
solutions/improvements to their own sewage needs and demands.
PWD/Liu stated that to date, only three cities in LA County have
signed the MOU — Bradbury, Calabasas and Malibu cities that have
very unique environmental challenges. There are at least six (6) cities
that have taken a position similar to D.B., either a no, or wait and see
approach. These cities are Claremont, Downey, Laverne, Monrovia,
Sierra Madre and Signal Hill.
M2irbes invited public comment.
Osman Wei, representing "The Country Estates" Homeowners
Association, confirmed that all D.B. septic tanks were located in his
community. Ten years ago the City offered to incorporate the affected
properties into the City's sewer system. Unfortunately the septic tank
owners voted against the proposal, and it appears that the consensus
remains the same today. He said that many affected homeowners
believed they were already on the City's sewer system. He felt this
was a private issue between the affected homeowners and the
Regional Water Board or the City and that the final solution would be
to connect to the City's sewer system, a financial responsibility for the
Association. The 27 homeowners who attended the meeting felt they
needed more time to study the matter with staff's assistance. He
trusted the City Council to guide the affected residents in their effort.
Shih-Ching Chang, said he is a homeowner with a septic tank and an
employee of the Water Company although he is representing himself
and not his company. Of the three options hooking into the sewer
system is the best choice. However, due to the high cost, he was not
sure if the Gil, y and the homeowners could afford it. He wondered if
the City would offer financing options similar to what it offered 10
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
years ago.
CM/Lowry stated that there was a mechanism whereby the 144
property owners would create a district and bonding could be
accomplished through majority vote to incur debt with retirement of the
bond by annual assessment. This was the approach taken in 1994
that failed.
PWD/Liu stated that the 1994 funding option incorporated a low bid
cost estimate of $2.2 million with each parcel paying a one-time cost
of $30,000 or the cost could be amortized over 15 years at a rate of
6-7%.
CA/Jenkins stated that since the adoption of Proposition 218 and the
change in the way in which assessment districts were created the
area that would be part of the assessment district would have to
affirmatively vote by a majority vote in favor of creation of an
assessment district. Typically, this is a grass roots effort. If the
residents supported creation of a district, the City would, if so inclined,
take steps to have an engineering report prepared that would
establish how the sewer system would be constructed and what it
would cost allowing for an updated financial proposal. If the
assessment district passed the vote the financing could go forward
and those individuals who wished to pay in a lump sum could do so.
Those who wished to finance it over a period of 15-20 years, for
instance, would have that option. Assessments would be imposed as
a lien against the property and the homeowners would pay the annual
fee as part of their property taxes. In the meantime, the City would
hire a contractor and the sewer system would be constructed.
MPT/Herrera agreed with Mr. Wei that the Council and residents
needed more time to consider the options. Mr. Chang alluded to the
City paying for the sewer system. MPT/Herrera asked who paid for
sewer systems when other housing tracts were established?
PWD/Liu responded that when tract maps are developed, the
developers are required to fund and construct all necessary
improvements including sewer system hookups.
MPT/Herrera asked the same question about shopping centers and
PWD/Liu responded that the owners of the center pay the cost of the
sewer systems.
PWD/Liu explained that most of the affected properties are in the
older portion of "The Country Estates," and based upon certain
constraints, they decided not to construct their own sewer lines 20, 30
and 40 years ago. The rest of the City is served by sewer systems
and the affected homeowners have an opportunity to tap into the
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
current sewer system.
C/Chang suggested that staff assist the Board in getting a majority of
the affected homeowners to participate in the October 20 meeting. He
felt this problem needed to be resolved in a satisfactory manner and
reminded the affected homeowners that if they chose to be regulated
by either the City or the Regional Board, it would result in a band-aid
approach to the problem because the homeowners would be paying
good money after bad. He urged the homeowners to consider creation
of an assessment district and hook into the sewer system.
CA/Jenkins responded to C/O'Connor that conceivably a private
homeowner association like a developer could privately finance the
construction of a sewer system and develop a contribution mechanism
among its members.
C/O'Connor was concerned about a speaker alluding to the fact that
some residents were unaware that they were on a septic tank. Is there
a requirement that septic tanks have to be cleaned out or monitored
on a regular basis?
CA/Jenkins said that he was quite certain that every person who
purchased a home with a septic tank had some type of notice that
they were riot connected to a sewer system since it is a standard
notice that must be included in any and all sales transactions.
M/Zirbes agreed with C/Chang. He said he was unaware of what
prompted the City to dialogue with the 144 homes 10 years ago; but
had they acted upon the City's recommendation at that time, the debt
would be close to retired. He feared that if the City took over there
were too many unknowns until the investigation was completed. If the
City were to become the lead agency, it would potentially save the
residents some of the annual fee. However, he felt it was smart to
table the matter to allow staff and the homeowners to get a clearer
picture of the overall concerns. If the homeowners chose not to move
forward with a permanent solution (sewer hookup), there would be
annual fees upon annual fees without reaching a resolution of the
matter. This is an issue that affects more than the 144 homeowners.
As regulations tighten, it becomes more difficult to implement
temporary solutions.
C/Huff said that this was an un -funded mandate handed down by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board that was not the
City's responsibility, but the residents' responsibility to cure, He
believed that at a minimum "The Country Estates" Homeowners
Association would likely serve as facilitators to help cut through the
bureaucracy being imposed on them.
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 10
CITY COUNCIL
M/Zirbes moved, C/Huff seconded to table consideration of the MOU.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Huff spoke about Proposition A forwarded by the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department. He said that in his opinion, this City would probably not
benefit from the '/z cent sales tax increase because, rather than foster
economic development, increasing the sales tax could actually drive the
revenue into other counties. Another problem was that there was no
guarantee where the money would go. His understanding of the proposed
proposition was that the City could not use the revenue for existing programs,
but would have to implement new programs. D.B.'s crime had declined over
the past 10 years, and with a safe City he could not imagine having to come
up with creative ways to spend the money. As a result, he would not support
the proposition. He encouraged members of the public to educate
themselves on issues to prepare for the upcoming November 2 election.
C/O'Connor asked the public not to confuse Proposition A with Proposition
1A, a proposition that was important for a "yes" vote. Proposition 1A is
designed to protect local government's money from the State. She attended
a Contract Cities conference last weekend with the main topic being water
and water issues. One speaker talked about the drought tolerant plants and
offered tips for saving water. Grants are awarded to cities that resort to such
plantings, and she felt that it would be useful to seek a grant for the parks
including Summitridge Park. She wished her daughter a very happy 21St
birthday on Friday October 8.
M/Zirbes offered the Council's congratulations to C/O'Connor's daughter on
the occasion of her 2151 birthday.
C/Chang encouraged residents to get a copy of the Natural Hazard Mitigation
Plan map and determine where their house was located so that they could
prepare their homes and home sites accordingly to mitigate for potential
natural hazards.
MPT/Herrera reported that she recently toured the tributaries and waterways
in the Sacramento area with the Metropolitan Water District. A significant
percentage of the water is needed for agriculture. It is, in her opinion,
incumbent upon all citizens to conserve water wherever possible and to
conserve at the City level when and where possible. Here are a few tips:
when you wash clothes and dishes, wash a full load and don't leave the
water running when brushing your teeth. Another fact is that grass and turf
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
take the greatest amount of water. She suggested the City rethink how and
what it plants in medians and how the watering is monitored. When the City
replaces or repairs its irrigation systems it should consider other types of
systems that do not over spray onto the streets. In addition to saving water it
would likely result in less damage to the asphalt. She would like to have the
City plant 'drought tolerant plants in medians as appropriate. Turf is also high
maintenance. The! City needs to think about conserving money, manpower
and water where and when it can.
M/Zirbes acknowledged the efforts and fine work of the Friends of the Library
and supporting groups on the occasion of the September 26 5K Run. He
encouraged the Friends of the Library to continue the community event. He
congratulated Planning Commission Chairman Dan Nolan who came in
second in the `older than Bob (Huff)" category. He thanked residents for
participating in tonight's meeting and encouraged them to stay in touch with
their Council Members with their questions, comments and concerns.
10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes
adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. back into Closed Session.
01DA C. LOWRY, CIT CLERK
2004. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 19"th day of October
f�OIRBES, MAYOR
1
1
n
-J
1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 5, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes and Chairman
Pincher called the Study Session to order at 5:02 p.m. in Room CC -8,
SCAQMD/Government Center, 21825 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar.
II. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL: Bob Zirbes, Mayor; Carol
Herrera, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Members Wen Chang, Bob Huff and
Debby O'Connor.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION ROLL CALL: Liana Pincher, Chairperson; and
Commissioners Roland Morris, Jack Shah, and Arun Virginkar. Tony
Torng Vice Chairman was excused.
Also Present were: Linda Lowry, City Manager;
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney, James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager;
David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob
Rose, Community Services Director; April Blakey, Public Information
Manager; Fred Alamolholda, Senior Engineer; Susan Full, Accountant II
and Tommye Cribbins, Executive Asst.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None Offered.
IV. DISCUSSION TOPICS:
1. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.
SE/Alamolholda introduced Joel Falter, Vice President of Katz,
Okitsu & Associates and Project Manager for the Citywide
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program who presented the
four -step proposed Scope of Work using a slide presentation.
C/Shah asked Mr. Falter if his firm conducted a follow up after the
initial six-month startup period.
Mr. Falter explained that generally, the first six months is the period
during which the community's initial reaction is studied to determine
the effectiveness of the initial goal to reduce speeding. He felt it
took about six months to change people's behavior and six months
to a year to see if people would revert back to their old habits. At
that point, it would be up to the City whether it wanted to spend
money to go back and re -monitor the same streets.
C/Morris asked if Mr. Falter had previously dealt with the type of
topography found in D.B. Mr. Falter responded that he had dealt
OCTOBER 512004
PAGE 2 JTCC&TTCOMM STUDY SESSION
with steeper grade streets on a regular basis. He explained that
some mitigation tools have limits on steeper grade streets. For
instance speed humps or speed cushions on 4-5% grade and
higher would not be recommended because they create problems
for cyclists and motorists in general. His firm tailors the tool for the
type of street and surrounding topography.
CNirginkar stated that based on his experience on the
Commission, one of the challenges would be to persuade people to
participate in the process. The Commission receives a lot of
complaints that come to the body for discussion. Staff prepares
excellent reports and proposed solutions, but the participation by
residents is very minimal. Another challenge would be to convince
community members that speeding is the problem and that speed
humps are not the only solution.
Mr. Falter agreed that it was often a challenge, but very often the
affected residents were desperate to incorporate a solution.
Residents realize that when cities are fiscally challenged, medians,
Botts dots and other solutions are expensive and time consuming.
Whereas, speed humps offer a quick and relatively inexpensive
solution. His challenge would be to offer other solutions on a trial
basis.
C/Morris said that in one case speed humps were installed to
protect neighbor from neighbor.
Mr. Falter said that during presentations he would overlay
mitigation tools onto topo's of other communities to help residents
make educated decisions.
In response to C/O'Connor PWD/Liu stated that this year's budget
included $100,000 for the study.
M/Zirbes thanked Mr. Falter for his presentation.
C/Morris hoped that this study would take a close look at the
beautification issue because in his opinion, some of the traffic
mitigation measures he had viewed were ugly.
Chair/Pincher was also concerned about getting adequate
community participation and hoped that the consultant could entice
residents to join in the process.
M/Zirbes thanked the Traffic and Transportation Commissioners for
their participation in tonight's meeting and for the time they dedicate
to their positions on the Commission.
1
1
1
OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 3 JTCC&TTCOMM STUDY SESSION
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
VII. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, Mayor
Zirbes adjourned the City Council at 5:40 p.m.
With no further business to conduct, Chairman Pincher adjourned the Traffic and
Transportation Commission at 5:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
4Lida4Lowry,City Cle
4David.iu, 4&T cretary
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of QC17ober
2004.
Bola-Z�r6es, Mayor
y
'� Li na Pincher, Chairman