HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/1989THANK YOU FOR NOT SMOKING, DRINKING OR EATING
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MAY 16, 1989
Members of the audience are invited to speak on any matter on
or off the agenda. If the matter is an agenda item, you will
be permitted the opportunity to address the City Council when
the item is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter which
is not on the agenda, you will be given the opportunity to do
so at the Public Comment section. When wishing to address the
City Council, please fill out a WHITE card found at the table
in the front of the Council Room and give it to the Council
secretary for processing.
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, THE
CITY COUNCIL IS PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING OR TAKING
IMMEDIATE ACTION ON ORAL REQUESTS.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
Mayor Phyllis Papen
Mayor Pro -Tem Horcher
Councilman Gary Werner
Councilman Gary Miller
Councilman John Forbing
4. PRESENTATIONS/INTRODUCTIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO PUBLIC: All matters listed under CONSENT CALENDAR
are considered by staff to be non -controversial and will be
enacted by one motion in the form listed below - there will be
no separate discussion on these items prior to the time the
Council votes on them unless a member of the Council or Staff
requests that a specific item be discussed or removed from the
consent calendar for separate action.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes for Meetings of April 25, 1989 and May 2,
1989.
2. Warrant Register demands for 5/16/89 in the
amount of $36,385.43.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address
the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from
addressing any issue not previously included on the agenda.
The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a
subsequent meeting. Please limit comments to five minutes per
individual.
7. CONTINUED BUSINESS
1. Ordinance #8 2nd reading.
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A SALES AND USE TAX TO BE
ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
2. Ordinance #10 2nd reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR AMENDING SECTION 301(b)2 OF THE
BUILDING CODE HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY THE CITY
PERTAINING TO PERMITS FOR WALLS AND FENCES.
3. Traffic Report
4. Planning Report - Carl's sign, Sand Stone
Canyon, etc.
8. NEW BUSINESS
1. Stop Grand Avenue Expressway - Donna Rhode
requests time to address City Council regarding
their suit.
2. Animal Control - Proposal of P.V.H.S. to be
discussed with possible action.
3. Law Enforcement - Review of Sheriffs proposal
for 1989-1990 fiscal year.
4. Franchises - Resolutions of Intent to award
a franchise to So.. California Edison and So.
California Gas Co.
5. Los Angeles County Transportation Commission -
Report of City Manager regarding acceptable
population figure.
6. Contract Services - Discussion of services for
1989-1990
7. Discussion of Interim Zoning - Discussion of
interim zoning consideration for Diamond Bar.
8. Walnut Valley Recreation - Consideration of
contract with Walnut Valley Recreation for
summer recreation program.
9. Petty Cash - Request to establish petty cash
checking account.
10. Diamond Bar Business Associates - requesting
"No Parking Any Time" signs be posted in
Gateway Corporate Center.
9. CLOSED SESSION
1. Litigation
2. Personnel
10. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
City Manager
City Attorney - Substitution of Attorney
S.G. Tribune v. City of Diamond Bar
12. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
This is the time for the City Council to identify the items
they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items may not
be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next
meeting.
13. ADJOURNMENT
,+ LOS-
+
■
LIF It
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director
CECIL E. BUGH, Chief Deputy Director
MAS NAGAMI, Aeebtant Director
May 5, 1989
CO v NTY OF LOS AN GELrS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
Telephone: (913) 458-5100
San Dimas Regional Office
Building and Safety Division
201 East Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, California 91773
(714) 599-1286 or (818) 339-6281
Mr. Geor;;e Caswell
City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Sutie 330
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Dear Mr. Caswell:
PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O. BOX 1160
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE B—SD
REFER TO FILE:
The Building Code allows for the issuance of building permits for certain types of
wort: over the counter without the need for detailed plans and specifications. One
story room additions, patios, etc. of conventional wood construction with an area
not exceeding 600 sq, ft. fall within this category. After checking for compliance
with Planning Department and light and ventilation requirements, the permit can
usually be issued.
For more complex structures, the drawings, reports, and calculations are submitted
for plan check. A plan check engineer reviews the plans for compliance for the
building code as well as applicable local, state, and federal ordinances. Many
projects also require the approval of other agencies (Fire Department, Health
Department, Waste Management Division, CALOSHA, CALTRANS, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, City Departments, etc.). The plan checker prepares an agency
referral list and gets it to the applicant soon after the plans are submitted. The
checker approves the plans when it meets the requirements of the Building Code and
all the required agency approvals have been received.
Grading plans are transfered to the Land Development Division in the Alhambra
Headquarters. A specialized team of geologists, soil engineers, drainage engineers,
and grading engineers review the plans and reports.
Permits for electrical, plumbing, sewer, and mechanical work on existing
construction can normally be issued over the counter without the need for plans.
Couple: installations requiring a plan check by code are done by the electrical,
mechanical, and plumbing engineers in the Alhambra Headquarters.
K
Mr. George Caswell -2- May 5, 1989
You have asked for my input regarding the proposed ordinance requiring building
permits for fences over 3' high. Naturally, the Los Angeles County Building and
Safety Division would be glad to enforce any building ordinance which the City of
Diamond Bar adopts. The following items may clarify some of the points that have
been raised:
I. The State of California has adopted the Uniform Building Code as its
model code. Section 301(b)2 exempts fences up to 6' high from the
requirement of a building permit. The state does allow local
jurisdictions to make more restrictive laws when there are unique
circumstances. The City Attorney would be aware of the procedures.
2. When a building permit is issued and an inspection is made on a fence,
there is an assumption of liability. I would recommend that the city
adopt minimum structural standards for masonry, wood, chain link, etc.
fences or require an engineered design to be checked before the fence
permit is issued..
We will work with you to implement any building ordinance for the City of Diamond
Bar. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call rye.
Very truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Director of Public Works
ce
P
District Engineer
BMH:at
Deanna Hessedal Tiddle
138 Gunsmoke Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(714) 861-8188
May 6, 1989
Mr. Paul Virgil Horcher
1220 So. Diamond Bar Blvd.
Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765
Dear Mr. Horcher:
Although this letter is intended for all the members of our new city
council, I am sending it to you because I know you best, (or perhaps to be
more accurate, I know your parents, especially your lovely mother, Dot) and
because of the practical reason that I know your address. Please share the
contents of this letter with the other members.
Please reconsider the proposed ordinance that will require a permit for any
new fence that is over three feet high. A three foot fence won't even keep
a small dog in. The owner could apply for a permit, but why should he have
to? Hopefully, this proposed ordinance wouldn't be, as I heard someone
suggest, just a way for the city to raise revenue without "raising taxes."
Last summer my son attended California Boys' State in Sacramento. The boys
were divided into various "cities," which they governed. They immediately
exhibited their new power by passing numerous ordinances, such as "when
entering our city, one must hop on his left foot." Silly? Yes, but also
harmless, as this was merely an exercise, a game. Diamond Bar, however, is
a real city, and ordinances should be passed only for compelling reasons.
Before the cityhood election, I read a letter to the editor in a local
paper (it may have been the Highlander) in which the author warned that if
cityhood passed, we would be inundated with all sorts of restrictive
ordinances. Please don't prove that person right!
Diamond Bar has problems, which need to be dealt with, such as vacant lots
overgrown with 2-3 foot high dry grass that could easily erupt into a
serious fire (off Golden Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd., for example.)
Whether our neighbors choose to build their fences three, four or five feet
tall is not one of our serious problems.
I preferred to write this letter to the council rather than to a newspaper,
because my intent is not to gain attention nor to embarrass anyone.
Actually, I was reluctant to write it at all (shyness, I suppose), but I
decided that if the ordinance passed without my speaking up, the
unfortunate ordinance would be partially my fault, also.
Please, please reconsider this (and any others like it) very carefully.
Sincerely,
(Mrs.) Deanna Deanna Tiddle
May 11, 1989
TO: George Caswell
City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
FROM: Ron Hobbs
Traffic Advisor
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar became Los Angeles County's 86th
City.
Within the City boundaries of Diamond Bar, there are 28 signalized inter-
sections. On April 18, 1989, the City took full or partial control of
24 of these locations and subsequently signed an agreement with the
County of Los Angeles to have the County maintain the traffic signals for
the City. Attached is a list of the 24 signal locations along with the
City's percent share. The other four locations are: Diamond Bar
Boulevard and the Pomona Freeway westbound on- and off -ramps; Diamond Bar
Boulevard and the Pomona Freeway eastbound on- and off -ramps; Pathfinder
Road and the 57 Freeway southbound on- and off -ramps; and Pathfinder Road
and the 57 Freeway northbound on- and off -ramps. These four locations are
maintained by the State.
All of the traffic signals included on the City's maintenance agreement
with the County were installed based on a traffic engineering study
with close adherence to nationally established guidelines. The County
over the years has continued to maintain and upgrade the traffic signal
system in Diamond Bar to ensure the highest level of safety and minimal
vehicular delays.
With the exception of the intersection of Colima Road and the Pomona
Freeway eastbound on- and off -ramps all the intersections have Type 170
controllers. The Type 170 controller is a microprocessor designed for
traffic control and is capable of controlling multiple phases as well as
providing coordination of traffic signals. Its key features include
flexibility, reliability, ease of maintenance and low cost. The Type 170
controller represents the state-of-the-art in traffic signal controllers.
Caltrans, the County of Los Angeles, as well as many cities are totally
committed to the conversion of Type 170 controllers to replace their
obsolete and costly to maintain existing controllers. The intersection of
Colima Road and the Pomona Freeway is currently being upgraded under a
federally funded program which will include a Type 170 controller.
George Caswell -2- May 11, 1989
A request was received on April 25, 1989 regarding the intersection of
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. The reported problem was
improper vehicle detection on the west approach to the intersection. We
are currently reviewing this matter and will make the necessary repairs.
Another report was also received regarding bad vehicle detection on the
east approach of Temple Avenue at Diamond Bar Boulevard. This location is
presently under construction and the detection will be corrected after
construction is completed.
We recognize the importance of ensuring proper operation of the City's
traffic signal system. As such, the County provides routine patrols of the
various signalized locations to ensure the intersections are functioning
properly.
RLH:fc
Attach.
City of Diamond Bar
Agreement for Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices
County Maintained
T. S.
NO.
LOCATION
CITY
SHARE
1718
Brea Cyn Rd - Colima Rd
100%
1754
Grand Ave - Pomona Fwy E/B
66.7%
1755
Brea Cyn Rd - Pomona Fwy W/B
66.7%
1756
Colima Rd - Pomona Fwy E/B
50%
1772
Diamond Bar 81 - Grand Ave
100%
1777
Golden Springs Or - Grand Ave
100%
1778
Diamond Bar 81 - Golden Springs Or
100%
2179
Diamond Bar B1 - Sunset Crossing Rd
100%
2180
Diamond Bar 81 - Highland Valley Rd
100%
2278
Diamond Bar 81 - Temple Ave
53%
2467
Diamond Bar B1 - Pathfinder Rd
100%
2468
Diamond Bar•81 - Mountain Laurel Wy
100%
2497
Colima Rd - Lemon Ave
100%
2504
Brea Cyn Rd - Pathfinder Rd - E.
100%
2533
Diamond Bar 81 - N/O Golden Springs Or
100%
2546
Cold Springs Ln - Diamond Bar B1
100%
2547
Brea Cyn Rd - Diamond Bar Bl
100%
2567
Evergreen Springs Or - Pathfinder Rd
100%
2569
Brea Cyn Rd - Lycoming St
100%
2570
Brea Cyn Rd - Washington St
100%
2595
Copely Or - Golden Springs Or
100%
2596
Gateway Center Or - Golden Springs Or
100%
2618
Golden Springs Or - Temple Ave
100%
2637
Ballena Drive - Golden Springs Drive
100%
t-,.iTY OF DIAMOND BAS.
21660 E. COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE 330
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
714 -860 -CITY 714-860-2489
PHYLLIS PAPEN May 11, 1989
Mayor
PAUL V. HORCHER
Mayor Pro Tem
GARY MILLER TO: Phyllis Papen, Mayor
GARY WERNER
JOHN FORBING Paul Horcher, Mayor Pro -tem
Councilmembers John Forbing, Councilman
Gary Miller, Councilman
GEORGE CASWELL Gary Werner, Councilman
City Manager .
1.
FROM: Rudy Lackner /�1.
/%=—/
Acting Planning Director
SUBJECT: CARL'S JR. SIGN
141 S. DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD
Pursuant to your request of May 2, 1989, County files
have been reviewed to determine what actions have caused
the continued maintenance of a 60 -foot freestanding sign
at 141 South Diamond Bar Boulevard. The following
chronological sequence identifies significant dates in
the development and maintenance of the subject sign:
October 16, 1974 - Conditional Use Permit No. 482 was
approved to permit a restaurant at
141 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. The
approved "Exhibit A" does not
indicate a 60 -foot freestanding sign.
July 16, 1975 - Conditional Use Permit No. 759 was
approved to permit minor
modifications to the wall signs.
The approved "Exhibit A" does not
indicate a 60 -foot freestanding sign.
October 23, 1986 - Plot Plan 35199 was approved to
permit the removal of a monument sign
and the erection of a 60 -foot
freestanding sign. (This was in
error.)
August 17, 1987 - The October 23, 1986 approval of Plot
Plan 35199 was rescinded.
June 21, 1988 - A letter/order to comply was sent to
Carl's Jr. stating that a new
Conditional Use Permit would be
required for the continued
maintenance of a 60 -foot freestanding
sign.
August 11, 1988 - Conditional Use Permit No. 88-328 was
filed to permit a 60 -foot
freestanding sign.
November 22, 1988 - The Regional Planning Commission
denied CUP 88-328.
January 12, 1989 - Upon review of an appeal of the
Regional Planning Commission's
action, the Board of Supervisors
sustained the RPC denial of CUP 88-
328.
January 17, 1989 - An inspection confirmed that the
violation continued and the matter
was referred to the District
Attorney's office.
March 22, 1989 - Deputy D.A. Jacqueline Lacey held an
office conference in the Citrus
Municipal Court with counsel for Carl
Karcher Enterprises. Counsel alleged
that a procedural error was committed
by the County in that Carl's Jr. was
not notified of the Board of
Supervisors denial of CUP 88-328, and
he was, therefore, unable to initiate
legal proceedings through the Courts.
Deputy D.A. Lacey deferred further
action pending direction from the
City of Diamond Bar.
April 24, 1989 - An inspection at the request of the
City of Diamond Bar confirmed that
the violation continues.
May 8, 1989 - The case was referred back to the
District Attorney's Office for
action.
Should the pending actions through the D.A.'s Office be
unsuccessful, proceedings for revocation of CUP 482 could
be initiated subject to the grounds identified in Chapter
22.56.1760 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached).
RL: cab
Attachment
7r in in in 671 in
fD t G C'7 a r od O °� 5 O n 55* o fD o d �N �io,o+y"o,Fn p'
t�,y�,w'Zoi oaia$`8g,4v
p• ,ot ..nfD 17 D `o' LT]Rm O7 - ?�3.3 `°Yo "os'cl 00 0o Q
�� hyo �_* o y,o71 w wr. � 5,
°DrQ
e GU M2 °1�nco e aD C o'
v n
cnto(aocn
ID
wfDs aw Dao r nmofD�� m G `° r� o�0ID�� I I I n
63 ? "t " Z C C5 2 O ^ o �'' d ^s p O f fryypp < ID
G' 'C O _ O te a'. J O O T cc N O fD n-
'b O O C7e . RD M ., .. � rji "OJ" O+ 7 .��, n G C' j N 0 d_ Cl)
p -+• yy '_' T `++ .R.. 7' G f� W fD O O or CD C O O V
N n cn
Ro' c n �Sp �o w CD
3 c o
v �_ r !D <�D fD 4-0 ° � 1v �' O C � O. eD O 0 cp z
O• C. O K y C p ID ``•t •1
^2
V. (D;w `D < �' �'►.�� O `D >(n 111
fD S V A, .C+ O T w �. icr
cr W G . I'D CD 0
O 2 A H n
Ir
R% ,'C Sm•� OIs m O N G A. (D !D� •� cp cp \�
O% G O fl A c Y �.� u0 ? O D
_ p =
p a R "' 7• t p'�-, 'D ' ' v c. +'UO4i' r, 7� K n ani m
^. C ^Oz �°, i... �'G tGi� o `Y= ',x' Z
p �''' 0 C O
N G ...` • Q I^
cn
H.
N 0-.° p 7,
o
g. f� ez G O P+
n w fp* FSX; p,0 r N 219 . 9 ii G
ID eD ] Oq
.O-� •b mo o OVo O o C e+ n. N m 7
�� �o ooh m� o a �.�
mwee m
°w o+ �' cD O 2 �r•� G 'O
°$ L3 tO ter' a t,
m w'' fD iu e. 70 G.fj
�m om o �� Z `,�r��"C! o o ro o� t[��'o �'rm " o c e- �o_�
ffaglo ',7' fD ."Y Vl P+ "'� ;i �•h M 0 v °'� xA O° �° eo e* m v� b $ o ° om
°'''o m�'2 ` o per? p z fD i icy yy. P epe o `e E � o ., � g IC n %•
"�Qi fD rOis O p ►. .7. 'p "� �-is ` '3' z N frDy ('D O fD fD fD ��rr4 `..
p� V -1 fD pq CI' Z 4a � � � "°'! p 2 -=I ~' w eG � r.. � fD .0 fD
O QQ A O e+ C C "'� m fD w° o 0 p a• C <
�•61X o �' _1 �S O5' �' n �' r > o �s �m to
f! m f.*. �• z R" er 70 ,.1• x �c ° ') �l po e" fD n O O m O
z fD o.fD C �m o O �.�, �,b o G 4l
�w fD A ted o o ' ��e+ e Z o� CD ee o o A ao' .m
Soo v w o M;=c a 0 : =o.
oq
° e+ °
C n C O fD a iu "Yb G
G. �t a4 Oo "t "
O, o < a5 �c ° oa woiti I °x'05
mpRA Sppp Q�p - C
G. !y C• fe°�+ ^ N O R. O. L�� G. 'L7 I��?' fp. �7 O� iS.eC' m• '� fff���y333DDD f�� f�A
O fD Oy. cp e+ r* �` fOD r p w G w "OY Cy oQ
M y' .`r7 '% 'C f`�7�D+ SDG�f• C 'GC
M Q.� eor O
(D fD y C �• ",sem' fD
1 ... L1 n fD cD fD
W
A
q
m
N
N
n
m
m
N
V
PHYLLIS PAPEN
Mayor
PAUL V. HORCHER
Mayor Pro Tem
GARY MILLER
GARY WERNER
JOHN FORGING
Councilmembers
GEORGE CASWELL
• City Manager
'ITY OF DIAMOND E _R
21660 E. COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE 330
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
714 -860 -CITY 714-860-2489
May 11, 1989
TO: Phyllis Paper, Mayor
Paul Horcher, Mayor Pro -Tem
John Forbing, Councilman
Gary Miller, Councilman
Gary WerneelIr, Councilman
0916
FROM: Rudy Lackner, Acting Planning Director
SUBJECT: GRADING AND OAR TREE INSPECTION
Pursuant to your request of May 2, 19891 a survey of the
canyon area adjacent to the Walnut Valley School site was
conducted on Thursday, May 4, 1989. Specific attention
was directed to determining whether provisions of the
grading and/or oak tree ordinances were violated.
Accompanying me on this inspection were Councilman Gary
Miller., Grading Inspector Steve Wright, Zoning
Enforcement Officer Lewis Cabriales, area residents Don
Schad, Bob Martindale and Phil Duarte, and
representatives from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and
the Pomona Progress Bulletin.
Upon conclusion of the survey, which included a walk from
the southerly beginning of the canyon to the northerly
terminus and return, it was determined that there were
no apparent violations of the Grading Ordinance. There
were several areas where dirt had been moved, but based
on the contours that existed, it appeared that only
surface scrapping had taken place. In other areas where
dirt had been moved, it appeared to be necessary for the
required geology and soils tests.
We did note that several oak trees of substantial size
had recently been uprooted and cut into pieces
(Attachment). A review of the oak tree inventory
supplied for Tentative Tract No. 32400 revealed that Tree
Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 were missing. Upon closer
examination of the downed trees, the tags identifying
Trees 21, 23 and 25 were found still attached.
Since the above constitutes a violation of Section
22.56.2060 of the Zoning Ordinance, this matter has been
referred to the District Atorney's Office.
I will keep you informed on both the progress of this
action and any changes in the request to develop this
property.
cpa
+ L ''1 is �••M �U\'a■%• �.r.r"'� .A.''A
a ` ?Tj4t �•�' .�i; '4 '! .! y.. 1* �r �.: j `,+�(': i f.44�•_. t..+�i ?� v%,• �'~�r'.l.. " i3 '! t �.7r• 1 •i••:?t••tt'
a • .� f`s +!• jyr :tea as l
` r f �•i - •. - � _ "�• _' �• ; � + .�. ash; \�. .t
�%' i ; •�rf, a �. .i � r J A� `. .a.rt, �.�t..� "� ,# i �i•f:�. •_. f r •• -
';'SKr "�ryy,. �.r . -.� t i',.ail :�, :. :-.r Vt�_L�Z �•,tfY � 1'' �%a • � +•7. �•i. '/- , ,r -"O.
�• -.i -•.' _i"!`7��n.+ ^""ice `.. -N.+...�'{. i.a�c.�-:.- '�+ �. :•n
�e;� •: Y��2 � •\ t. •"'� i •�'•• 7•}M-{�.ir,�v .:•v. ��. •'; �t • • ^r j "''a �w f .� '• � ;' .
1 ` ,N e:-. �5 -.;. r....�• �.,i ..,K c�:�,• .�1.;ta. .;:c?�,i'%.fir r s� .S'• .
= «'.�� Fi t _ •� .tip; _.�,�, ',L.,, _ -i>_, �:���-�:�.•f• _ - �.:
a. ` / to T i ., � - • • a • :-� � � Y•' �/� � - '� ..a
' _ �, _ �� � �t� ft�� � - Y - -,7ti' `•' '}".� •'7 �.^ `.�-J _i tip'••
` — �' - . ��� � ` \ . ` ''� -',r � �`i' , •'"i �Y =. � ice- _.1f,`F•', , '�'• _ -'�'': •
1 + )�/ � /� it i. ' 11 � I .�." I • S J+ �1't�t" M �= '/.•i ' .� .lY� /' iiG'�. •+ ...i'. � ' .+ _ .!.�.:
1 iia '/'. i , , �- : :7.+• �„
'I'�i / / •.T%/ µ .�[ a �' • a a h h //i' /. Il'• • • a •. __ _•�` -i •;per
it• 1 � i _ -�„`�- .
a Y.
�:� %r'J "1 !l!T�1 ll:. •..: is%/,�,�'J. '�lli4!•-/'!}••6�T-1 i'�•• ~ i �i ' .I �, Vii,.
Ni�-
s z -• . .
,,•moi •" �-i �' , 1 ^ - f: - � ` �="•' r�i
a�A �► 1 -s . -r
sr r_-40WAML* p'r'_ _tee
IM e lw� i a f r mss. c
04 WIN
►i•clOJ�t.
A
06
� t�7r
IN
�AtA
ArVt -2
, g &
AP
DATE: May 9, 1989
TO: All Council Members
FROM: George Caswel�
SUBJECT: Pomona Valley Humane Society Proposal
The Pomona Valley Humane Society has submitted a proposal
to contract with this City for animal control services.
There is great logic in having P.V.H.S. as our service
provider if for no other reason than the convenience for
residents.
Bill Harford will be attending the May 16 meeting to
discuss the proposal and service P.V.H.S. would provide.
DATE: May 9, 1989
TO: All Council Members
FROM: George Caswell
SUBJECT: L.A.C.T.C.
I met with Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
regarding some agreement on our population figure for
funding. L.A.C.T.C. is quite positive in their position
that the entire program is separate from any State funding
and is therefore not obligated to recognize the population
figure we are using for State subventions.
I have asked the L.A.C.T.C. people to put in writing their
position on this matter. From what I am told the policy
is firm and there may not be any room for appeal. The
estimated revenue from L.A.C.T.C. is about $50,000.00 per
month.
I would like to work out an arrangement the same as Santa
Clarita did.
Councilmembers: Werner
Forbing
Miller
Mayor Pro -Tem Horcher
Mayor Papen
DATE: May 10, 1989
TO: Councilmen - Werner, Miller, Forbing,
Mayor Pro -Tem Horcher and
Mayor Papen
FROM: George Caswell
SUBJECT: Contract Services 1989-90
The matter of contractual services for 1989-90 has not
been completely determined. The County departments are
all waiting for the City to request whatever services
they want.
The City Council is faced with many important decisions,
the first one being a determination regarding a permanent
City Manager. It just seems reasonable that the Council
would continue with all the contracts with the County and
take all the time necessary to decide on the long term
contractual system.
I suggest the Council notify the County that Diamond Bar
will continue to contract for services, and when the City
(and City Manager) have completed an analysis of the most
beneficial method of providing a City service any contract
can be altered.
These contract decisions are just too important to be made
in a hurry.
CALIFORNIA
STREET MAINTENANCE CO.
May 5, 1989
City Manager
George Caswell
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. Copley Drive
Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Mr. Caswell,
I am writing to introduce you to our company.
We currently are providing street sweeping services
for Diamond Bar thourgh Los Angeles County.
We have appreciated working with Los Angeles County
but I think we will be much more effective dealing
directly with the City of Diamond Bar.
We want to provide you the very best level of
service possible.
If you hear of or see a sweeping problem let us know
and we will re -sweep the area the same day we received
your call. Our number is 1-800-225-7316.
Please call if you have any questions concerning our
services.
qSin ely yours,
Je Costello
1918 West 169th Street, Gardena, CA 90247 (213) 538-5888
JAMES L. MARKMAN
ANDREW V. ARCZYNSKI
RALPH D. HANSON
F. ELLIOT GOLDMAN
D. CRAIG FOX
MARTHA GEISLER PATTERSON
�i���9G�eo�%i% GtCa�zdo�v � Lyo�ir�nv
Jai IO� &
'1
N
NUMBER ONE CIVIC CENTER CIRCLE
P. O. BOX 1059
BREAD CALIFORNIA 92622-1059
TELEPHONE(
x(714) 990-0901
(213) 691- 3811
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Phyllis Papen, Mayor Pro Tem Paul
Horcher, Council Members John Forbing,
Gary Miller and Gary Werner
FROM: Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney�/Lj_-_<__
DATED: May 12, 1989
RE: Interim Zoning Ordinance - Prohibition of
Certain Zone Amendments
The purpose of the following memorandum is to provide
the Council information regarding an interim zoning Ordinance
and to set forth the schedule of actions and activities
necessary for adoption and extension of such ordinance.
Preliminarily, it should be noted that such an
ordinance is not absolutely necessary to achieve the goals
sought by its adoption. As you are no doubt aware, both the
State Planning Act and Subdivision Map Act provide certain
timelines in which a public agency must take action on a
development or subdivision application. However, as determined
in the case of Landi v. County 21 Monterey (1983) 139 Cal. App.
3d 934, such approval timelines of the State Planning Act
(California Government Code Sections 65920, et seq.) only apply
to quasi-judicial development applications (i.e., use permits,
variances, etc.) and do not apply to legislative actions taken
in the course of approving a particular development project
(i.e., general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance
amendments). Since an interim zoning ordinance only prohibits
certain zoning ordinance amendments, such prohibition could
legally be accomplished also by simple administrative action by
not processing such applications until such time as the general
plan, or land use element thereof, is formulated and adopted.
Moreover, it should be noted that the California
Government Code does not specifically authorize provisions to
prohibit rezoning applications. Government Code Section 65858
(a copy of which is included with this memorandum) provides the
Memorandum to: City Council
May 12, 1989
Page Two
basic authority to adopt such interim zoning regulations. As
you will note, pursuant to Section 65858(c), before a
legislative body may adopt such an interim ordinance, it must
specifically find that there is an immediate threat to the
public and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use
permits, etc. would result in a threat to the public.
With the assumption that the City desires to adopt an
interim zoning ordinance (even if only to serve as a public
expression of City Council intent), the following is a schedule
for adoption of the enclosed ordinance and its subsequent
extension:
1. Adoption of an ordinance establishing the interim
policies. Pursuant to Section 65858, that first ordinance may
only have an effective date of forty-five (45) days unless
extended by another ordinance after conducting a public
hearing.
2. Pursuant to Section 65858(d), before the City
Council may extend the 45 day ordinance, it must issue and
release a report on the measures taken to alleviate the
conditions which necessitated the first interim ordinance. We
would, of course, work with County staff to prepare a draft of
such report for your review.
3. Since the first ordinance will only be effective
for 45 days, the ordinance should be extended prior to that
time after a public hearing. Such public hearing requires
posted notice ten (10) days prior to the hearing.
4. After the public hearing, the Council could adopt
the second ordinance extending the interim policies. Pursuant
to Section 65858(a), this extending ordinance may be effective
for up to 10 months and 15 days after the date of its adoption.
The ordinance can, additionally, be extended for one (1) final
year thereby creating, potentially, a two (2) year period of
interim zoning. Naturally, the ordinance will provide that the
interim policies may be earlier repealed by the City Council.
We shall, of course, be available at the City Council
meeting of May 16, 1989 to thoroughly discuss all aspects of
such an ordinance with the City Council.
RDH: lj1
Encl.
L\1011\MCCINTZ\DB 6.1
cc: Gary Caswell, City Manager - Encl.
§ 65868. Interim zoning; urgency measures
(a) Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a Boning
ordinance, the legislative body, to protect the public safety, health and welfare, may adopt as an
urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses which mar be in conflict with a
contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal which the legislative body, planning
commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a
reasonable time. That urgency measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for
adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of
adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may extend
the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for
one year. Any ' ' ' extension shall also require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than two
extensions may be adopted.
(b) Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be adopted by a four-fifths vote following notice
pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, in which case it shall be of no further force and effect
45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the
legislative body may by a four-fifths vote extend the interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days.
(c) The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section
unless the ordinance contains a finding that there is a current and immediate threat to the public
health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances,
building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply
with a zoning ordinance would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
(d) Ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension, the legislative body
shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the
adoption of the ordinance.
(e) When an interim ordinance has been adopted, every subsequent ordinance adopted pursuant to
this section, covering the whole or a part of the same property, shall automatically terminate and be
of no further force or effect upon the termination of the first interim ordinance or any extension of
the ordinance as provided in this section.
DATE: May 10, 1989
TO: Councilmen - Werner, Miller, Forbing,
Mayor Pro -Tem Horcher and
Mayor Papen
FROM: George Caswell
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 89-17 "Petty Cash"
Resolution 89-17 set the petty cash fund at $500.00. I do
not want to keep that much cash in the office.
Therefore I request Council approval to establish a petty
cash checking account and one authorized signature.
The fund would be reimbursed by a warrant register check
with all expenditures available for audit.
` L>
DIAMOND BAR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES
515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 • TELECOPIER (213) 628-1208 • TELEPHONE (213) 6280624
May 2, 1989
Honorable Phyllis Papen
Mayor of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Re: Gateway Corporate Center
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Ms. Papen:
Pursuant to our meeting of May 1, 1989 during which the posting of
"No Parking Any Time" signs at all streets within the Gateway
Corporate Center was discussed, we recommend the City Council direct
a letter requesting the cooperation for the posting of these signs
to:
Mr. Ron Hobbs
County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works
Traffic Section
900 S. Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91803
Justification for the proposed "No Parking Any Time" signs should be
based on the facts that the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
for the park explicitly prohibit curbside parking at anytime and
that adequate off-street parking is available at all existing
facilities within the park and it will also increase the safety for
the general public by not obstructing the sight distance at critical
areas within the parks street system.
If you require additional information regarding this request, please
contact me at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Ben eiling,
President
BR/wp