HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/1990Next Resolution No. 55
Next Ordinance No. 6
MAY 22, 1990
DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
5:30 P.M.
W.V.U.S.D. BOARD ROOM
THANK YOU FOR NOT SMOKING, DRINKING OR EATING
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Councilmembers for council
meeting or scheduled for
required.
5:30 P.M
Mayor Werner
Councilmembers Papen and Kim, Mayor
Pro Tem Forbing, Mayor Werner.
Items placed on the agenda by individual
discussion. Action may be taken at this
a future meeting. No public input is
PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on
each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members
of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar
items or matters of interest to the public that are not already
scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Please complete a
Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk (completion of this
form is voluntary). There is a five minute maximum time limit when
addressing the City Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the
Consent Calendar are considered routine and are approved by a
single motion. Consent Calendar items may be removed from the
Consent Calendar by request of a Councilmember only.
1. SCHEDULE FUTURE MEETINGS -
A. Parks and Recreation Study Session - May 24, 1990 -
6:30 p.m. - City Hall
B. Planning Commission Meeting - May 24, 1990 - 7:00
p.m. - W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880 S. Lemon Avenue
C. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 2nd Joint
Quarterly breakfast - June 28, 1990 - 7:00 a.m.-
8:30 a.m. - Diamond Bar County Club
D. Joint Meeting - City Council/Planning Commission -
June 12, 1990 - 6:00 p.m. W.V.U.S.D. Board Room,
880 S,_Lemon Avenue
E. Joint Meeting - City Council/Traffic &
Transportation - June 26, 1990 6:00 p.m. W.V.U.S.D.
Board Room, 880 S. Lemon Avenue
F. Joint Meeting - City Council/Parks and Recreation -
July 10, 1990 - W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880 S. Lemon
MAY 22, 1990 PAGE 2
Avenue
PRESENTATIONS:
2. PLANNING COMMISSION - Swearing -In of Dexter MacBride,
new member of Planning Commission.
3. REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY - Presentation by A.J. Wilson
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
4. BUSINESS PERMITS - Continued from May 1, 1990, Ordinance
No. XX (1990) entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING CHAPTERS 7.02
THROUGH 7.14, INCLUSIVE, OF 'TITLE 7 OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, AND
ADDING NEW CHAPTERS 7.02 AND 7.04 TO TITLE 7 OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY CODE PERTAINING TO BUSINESS PERMITS.
Recommended Action: Receive public testimony and direct
staff as necessary.
NEW BUSINESS
5. HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS: Ordinance No.XX(1990) entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.74 TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, PERTAINING TO
HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS.
Recommended Action: Receive testimony and direct staff
as necessary.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
1.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 90 -XX
supporting SCA 1.
7. APPROVAL OF PLANS - MEDIAN AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL
IMPROVEMENTS - DIAMOND BAR BLVD. AND GRAND AVE. - AND
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS
Recommended Action: Approve plans and direct City Clerk
to advertise for bids.
8. CITY MANAGER AGREEMENT - Review and discuss Agreement
between City Manager Robert L. Van Nort and the City of
Diamond Bar.
Recommended Action: Approve and execute Agreement
ANNOUNCEMENTS - This time is set aside for any City Councilmember
MAY 22, 1990 PAGE 3
to direct staff regarding any matters to be discussed at the next
regular meeting
CLOSED SESSION
Litigation - Section 54956.9
Personnel - Section 54957.6
ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Preliminary Report
April 30, 1990
Memo
To: Mr Robert Van Nort, City Manager
From: A.J. Wilson
Subject: Preliminary findings.
We have taken a careful look at the community of Diamond Bar to
assess the development potentials and to evaluate the feasibility
of utilizing a Redevelopment Agency and project area.
After interviews with ' council members and persons in the
community, many personal tours, and evaluation of the documents
which you provided us , we would present the following comments
for your preliminary response.
Section 1: Findings.
After review of the city, we have matched our data with the
requirements in the redevelopment law and arrive at the following
finds:
BLIGHT: The following conditions of 'blight' as defined by the
redevelopment law are present to some degree in Diamond Bar.
1 - Inadequate public improvements : This is particularly the
case in the area of traffic corridors to handle the excessive
congestion.
2 - Inadequate public facilities : This is particularly the case
in two areas; school;s and elderly service facilities.
3 - Inadequate utilities: This is the case in the area of water
availability and the need for recycled water.
4 - Depreciated values: This is the case in the housing market
where there is a perception of inadequate secondary schools.
Also in some commercial centers.
S - Social -Economic Malad.iustment: Presence of multiple family
living in single family houses. Some moderate income housing
with deferred maintenance.
URBANIZATION:
The urbanization criteria is met, including 'Tres Hermonos
property, per the legal opinion on the exception for open land
in public ownership. This will require a validation action.
Section 2: Alternative Development Options.
In reviewing the goals which were identified for the future of
Diamond Bar, the following development options merit
consideration.
1.Tres Hermonos Development Center. This option would call for
the concentration of commercial development and institutional
options at Tres Hermonos.
2.Relocate Golf Course Commercially Development Golf Course
Lard: This option would allow for the concentration of
institutional uses in Tres Hermonos and would provide for a
relocation of the county golf course to either Tres Hermonos or
to nes;-ly annexed areas of the City of Diamond Bar.
3.Concentrate Commercial Development in Newly Annexed Areas with
ready freeway access: This option would concentrate your
commercial development efforts in newly annexed areas.
Each of these options have pros and cons which can be discussed
when we present our report to the City Council. The choice of the
preferred option would help further identify the most appropriate
development tools.
Section 3: Potential Revenues
Based upon an assumption that the Diamond Bar cede,:elopraent
prograre would recelve approximately 40°0 of the property tax
increment, the following estimates of revenue availability have
been de%*eloped.
i. resHermonos PI.
ope ty 20 million
?. Omer Commercial areas 5 million
3. JeS elcpme nt ref G,011f Course 5 million
I. Potential annelati0n 3I-eas 15 million
Total 45 million
Pea`_ r a� TLTe_ sales tai- =C,06 10 million
rand total 55 million
These are rough estimates which must be verified by parcel by
parcel analysis of base year and increment growth projections.
Section 4: Financing Alternatives
The following financing alternatives are available to the City of
Diamond Bar. The choice of the most appropriate will depend on
your goals for development and the nature of expenditures
required to support those goals.
Redevelopment Pro: Captures revenues otherwise
lost, and increases state
support indirectly.
Allows expenditures to
support economic activity.
Greater flexibility
Con: 20% must be set aside for
iVloderate and Low income
housing
Establishment of project
area requires validation
and might be challenged
Joint Powers Authority Pro: Will provide fees to City
from the issuance of the
financing.
Will allow for funding of
public improvements and
facilities.
Con: Would have a higher cost
of money for a developer.
Marks Roos District Pro: Will allow funding for
public improvements and
facilities.
Allows long tern financing
for developers.
Con: Cannot build schools
Cannot collect fees.
This preliminary report is presented with the intention of
receiving informal feed back on the preferred develop options,
and to identify any concerns which should be further analyzed
before we proceed to cost out a final option and make a more
definitive analysis of revenue potentials.
Upon receipt of that feedback, and with the opportunity to review
with the council, we will develop the alternatives to allow the
City Council to determine their best course of action to allow
the development of Diamond Bar.
The most important questions are:
1: What is the preferred development alternative.
?: Are their goals for development which have not been addressed.
3: Is there any financing alternative which should not be
considered
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR REPEALING CHAPTERS 7.02 THROUGH 7.14,
INCLUSIVE, OF TITLE 7 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, AND
ADDING NEW CHAPTERS 7.02 AND 7.04 TO TITLE 7 OF
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE PERTAINING TO BUSINESS
PERMITS.
The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapters 7.02 through 7.14, inclusive, of
Title 7 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted by
reference, hereby are repealed, in their entirety; provided,
however, that such repeal shall not excuse any violation of any
provision of any of said Chapters 7.02 through 7.14, inclusive,
nor invalidate any administrative, criminal or civil proceeding
to enforce any provision of any of said Chapters 7.02 through
7.14, inclusive, occurring prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 2: A new Chapter 7.02 hereby is added to Title
7 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted by
reference, to read, in words and figures, as follows:
"Chapter 7.02
"Premises Business Permits
"Section
117.02.010 Purpose.
117.02.020 Permit Required.
117.02.030 Definitions.
117.02.040 Application.
1
117.02.050 Application - Information Required.
117.02.060 Permit Fee Payable.
117 . 02 . 070 Investigation.
117.02.080 Issuance of Permit.
117.02.090 Conditional Issuance of Permit.
117.02.100 Denial of Permit.
117.02.110 Notice Prior to Denial or Conditional
Issuance.
117.02.120 Grounds for Denial.
117.02.130 Right to Impose or Change Conditions.
117.02.140 Right to Revoke or Suspend.
117.02.150 Revocation.
117.02.160 Suspension.
117.02.170 Permit Forms.
117.02.180 Permit - Information Required.
107.02.190 Branch Establishments.
117.02.200 Permit not Transferable.
117.02.210 Posting of Permit at Place of Business.
117.02.220 Permit Issued to Corporation or Person
Operating Under a Fictitious Business Name.
117.02.230 Lost Permit — Duplicate Issuance.
117.02.240 Conditions - Application to Change.
117.02.250 Term of Permit.
117.02.260 Term of Permit - Beginning Date.
117.02.270 Renewals - Application Deadline.
117.02.280 Renewals - Late Application.
117.02.290 Renewals - Application after Expiration.
117.02.300 Renewals - Investigation and Action by
Administrator.
117.02.310 Hearing Procedure.
117.02.320 Hearing Procedure Applicable to Appeals
Under Title 7.
117.02.330 Penalties for Violation of Chapter.
117.02.340 Civil Remedies Available.
117.02.350 Severability.
117.02.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is
insure that all businesses located on or within premises within
the City of Diamond Bar comply with zoning, health and safety
codes, fire codes and other applicable codes and ordinances of
the City pertaining to the conduct of business activities within
the City of Diamond Bar and to provide a procedure for issuing
E
permits to businesses in compliance therewith, including
procedures for revocation and denial of permits and for appeals.
117.02.020 Permit required.
"(a) No person shall commence, transact or carry on
any business, as that term is defined herein, within the City of
Diamond Bar without first having obtained a'business permit from
the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to the provisions of this
Chapter.
"(b) Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be
construed to require any person to obtain a business permit prior
to doing business in the City where such requirement conflicts
with any statutory or constitutional provision of the United
States or of the State of California.
"(c) The requirement for a business permit hereunder
shall be in addition to any other licensing, regulatory or
permitting system now in effect or hereinafter established.
117.02.030 Definitions. For, the purpose of this
Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them in this Section:
"(a) 'Administrator' shall mean the Business
Permit Administrator of the City of Diamond Bar or his or her
designee.
'(b) 'Business' as used in this Chapter means and
includes all kinds of vocations, occupations, professions,
trades, enterprises, establishments and all other kinds of
activities, together with all devices, machines, vehicles and
M
appurtenances used therein, any of which are conducted for the
purpose of earning a profit or livelihood whether or not a profit
or livelihood is actually earned thereby, and any and all
charitable and/or nonprofit enterprise. 'Business' shall
include, but is not limited to, trades and occupations of all and
every kind of calling carried on within the City, salesman,
brokers, retailers, wholesalers, vendors, suppliers, peddlers,
professions, the renting or supplying of living quarters, or
rooms or board, or both, for four or more guests, tenants or
occupiers and any other type of endeavor entered into within the
City for the purpose of earning a livelihood or profit whether
paid for in money, goods, labor or otherwise.
"(c) 'City' means the City of Diamond Bar.
"(d) 'City Manager' means the City Manager of the
City of Diamond Bar or his or her designee.
11(e) 'Person' as used in this Chapter includes
the individual natural person, partnerships, joint ventures,
societies, associations, clubs, trustees, trusts or corporations,
or any officers, agents, employees, factors or any kind of
personal representative of any thereof, in any capacity, acting
either for himself or herself, or for any other person, under
either personal appointment or pursuant to law.
"(f) 'Premises' shall mean and include all
buildings, structures, offices, or rental space, whether enclosed
or not, located within the City.
4
117.02.040 Application. All applications for premises
business permits shall be in writing upon a form issued by the
Administrator. The applicant, in addition, shall submit any
further information or evidence in writing as required by the
Administrator. The application shall be verified or sworn under
penalty of perjury by the applicant and shall be filed with the
Administrator.
117.02.050 Application - Information Required. Every
application for a permit required by this Chapter shall be signed
by the applicant and shall contain:
"(a) The name and address of the applicant. If
the applicant is a corporation, the name shall be exactly as set
forth in its Articles of Incorporation. If the applicant is a
partnership, the name and address of each general partner shall
be stated. If one or more of the partners is a corporation, the
provisions of this Chapter as to a corporate applicant shall
apply.
"(b) If the applicant is a corporation, the names
and addresses of all managing officers and the name and address
of an officer who is duly authorized to accept the service of
legal process.
"(c) A description of the facility or premises
proposed to be utilized for the conduct of the business in
question, including its location, street address, state license
number and other information as specified by the Administrator.
5
"(d) If the business is advertised to the public
and known by a name or designation other than the name of the
applicant, such name or designation other than the name of the
applicant shall be provided; otherwise, a statement that the
business is not so advertised or known shall be provided.
117.02.060 Permit Fee Payable. Any applicant for a
business permit pursuant to this. Chapter shall provide, together
with the fully completed application as required herein, the
business permit fee specified by resolution of the City Council.
The fee as specified by the City Council shall be sufficient to,
defray the expenses incurred in the investigation of the business
as required hereunder and the costs and expenses in issuing a
business permit hereunder.
117.02.070 Investication. The Administrator shall,
upon receipt of the application and the fee therefor, forward
copies of the application, and any attachments, to those City
departments which would or could be affected by the business in
question including, but not limited to, fire, building and
planning, and police. Each such department shall investigate and
respond in writing to the Administrator with recommendations on
the application as expeditiously as possible.
117.02.080 Issuance of Permit. Upon completion of the
investigation required hereunder, the Administrator shall issue
the premises business permit to the business if it is determined,
by such investigation, that the business premises comply with all
city zoning codes and ordinances, fire codes and ordinances and
2
0
other health and safety regulations applicable to the premises or
the business.
117.02.090 Conditional Issuance of Permit. Upon
receipt of the investigation report(s), the Administrator may
conditionally issue a business permit hereunder conditioned upon
the applicant's full compliance with all conditions imposed by
the City's zoning and planning department, building and safety
department, fire department or other department having authority
to enforce health and safety ordinances of the City specifying
the time in which such conditions must be complied with.
117.02.100 Denial of Permit. Upon completion of the
investigation, should it be ascertained that the business
premises or the business in question does not comply with City
zoning and planning ordinances, building codes, fire codes or
other health and safety codes or ordinances of the City, the
Administrator shall deny the permit and shall so notify the
applicant, in writing, addressed to the address of record set
forth in the application unless conditionally issued pursuant to
Section 7.02.090 hereof.
117.02.110 Notice Prior to Denial or Conditional
Issuance. Before the Administrator denies any permit (either new
or renewal) or grants any permit subject to conditions, except
the renewal of a permit containing only those conditions to which
the permit renewed was originally subject, or conditions to which
the applicant has agreed, unless a hearing has already been held,
the Administrator shall notify the applicant in writing that the
7
Administrator intends to deny the permit or to grant the permit
subject to conditions, which conditions shall be specified in the
notice, and that the applicant may request in writing a hearing
before the Administrator within five (5) business days after
receipt of such notice.
117.02.120 Grounds for Denial. The following shall
constitute grounds for denial of a permit or renewal thereof.
"(a) The business is prohibited by any local or state
law, statute, rule or regulation, or prohibited in the particular
location by any law, statute or rule.
"(b) The business has been or is a public nuisance.
"(c) The business has been or is being conducted in
violation of any local or state law, statute, rule or regulation.
"(d) The condition of the premises violates one or
more local or state laws, statutes, rules, or regulations.
117.02.130 Right to Impose or Change Conditions. If at
any time it appears to the Administrator that there are grounds
for revocation of permit, or that the business and/or the
premises permitted is being conducted so as to be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, but that such grounds or
such conduct could be eliminated by the imposition of conditions,
or of additional conditions, or by the amendment of any existing
conditions to such permit, the Administrator may notify the
permittee in writing of the intention to impose or amend such
0
conditions and that the permittee may, within five (5) business
days after receipt of such notice, request, in writing, a
hearing.
117.02.140 Right to Revoke or Suspend. Every permit
granted pursuant to this Chapter or any Section hereof is granted
and accepted by all parties with the express understanding that
the City may conduct a public hearing, notice of the time and
place of which shall be given to the permittee, and that if,
after such hearing the Administrator finds that any grounds for
revocation exist, the Administrator may revoke or suspend such
permit.
117.02.150 Revocation. (a) Any permit granted or
issued pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter may revoked
after an administrative hearing before the Administrator. A
permit may be revoked on the following circumstances:
11(1) Where the Administrator finds and determines that
the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare or
demand revocation of the permit.
"(2) Where the permittee has violated any provision or
provisions of this Chapter or any other provision or provisions
of the City's codes or ordinances.
"(3) Where the permit has been granted pursuant to
false or fraudulent information contained in the application.
11(4) Where the permittee has violated any of the terms
or conditions of the permit.
9
"(b) Procedures. (1) Notice of revocation shall be
mailed to the permittee, postage prepaid, stating grounds for the
revocation and providing a date within thirty (30) calendar days
of the mailing of such notice of an administrative hearing before
the Administrator.
"(2) Written notice of the decision of the hearing
shall be mailed to the permittee within ten (10) business days of
the conclusion of the hearing. The decision of the Administrator
shall be appealable pursuant to Section 7.02.310 hereof.
117.02.160 Suspension. Pending a revocation hearing
pursuant to the terms of this Chapter, a permit may be subject to
immediate suspension if it is found necessary for the protection
of the public health, safety or welfare. Such suspension shall
only be instituted upon the recommendation of the local law
enforcement agency or the local fire protection agency. In the
event of such a suspension, the Administrator shall, within
forty-eight (48) hours after the suspension, cause to be served
upon the permittee a written statement containing the grounds for
suspension and a notice of hearing to show cause before the
Administrator as to why the permit should not be suspended
pending revocation hearings.
117.02.170 Permit Forms. The Administrator shall
number all permits and shall affix his or her signature to all
such permits, either manually or by way of facsimile signature.
Si]
117.02.180 Permit - Information Required. Each permit
shall state the person to whom issued, and the kind of business
and the location for which the same is issued, and the date of
issuance, the permit period for which it is issued and the amount
of the fee therefor and shall refer to this Chapter and be signed
by the Administrator.
117.02.190 Branch Establishments. A separate permit
shall be obtained for each and every branch establishment or
location of any business established within the City.
"7.02.200 Permit Not Transferable. No business permit
issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be transferable.
117.02.210 Postinci of Permit at Place of Business.
Every person having a permit issued pursuant to this Chapter
shall keep such permit posted and exhibited while in force in
some conspicuous part of the business premises.
117.02.220 Permit Issued to Corporation or Person
Operating Under Fictitious Business Name.
"(a) A permit may be issued pursuant to this Chapter
to a corporation duly authorized to transact business in the
State of California or to a person operating under a fictitious
name who has complied with all of the provisions with Section
2466 of the California Civil Code or any statute superseding or
taking the place of such code section. Otherwise, all such
permits shall be issued in the true name of the individual or
individuals applying therefore. Except as provided above, no
11
business so licensed may operate under any false or fictitious
name.
"(b) A license issued to a corporation shall designate
such corporation by the exact name which appears in the Articles
of Incorporation of such corporation.
117.02.230 Lost Permit - Duplicate Issuance. When,
upon the presentation of satisfactory evidence to the
Administrator, it is determined that a permit issued hereunder
has been lost or destroyed, the Administrator shall issue a
duplicate permit to the holder thereof upon payment to the
Administrator of the amount specified for the issuance of a
duplicate permit by City Council resolution.
117.02.240 Conditions - Application to Change. If a
permittee applies in writing to the City for a change in the
conditions to which the permit is subject, the Administrator may
grant such application, based upon the facts found after hearing.
Such application must be accompanied by the fee established by
City Council resolution.
117.02.250 Term of Permit. Each permit issued pursuant
to this Chapter shall be issued for a period not exceeding one
year; provided, however, that the Administrator may establish a
longer term, not to exceed twenty-one (21) months with respect to
any business in operation as of the effective date of this
Chapter in order to establish a systematic permit issuing process
and to preclude all permits coming due at the same time.
12
117.02.260 Term of Permit Beginning Date. If the
date specified in either subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this
Section is the first of a calendar month, the period of the
permit shall begin on such date. Otherwise, the period of the
permit shall begin on the first day of the calendar month which
first follows the date specified in subsection (a) or (b). The
said dates are:
"(a) In the case of a new permit:
"(1) If the applicant already is engaging
in the business for which the permit is required, the date upon
which the applicant began such activity or the date upon which
such activity became subject to permit, whichever is later.
"(2) If the applicant has not begun such
activity, the date requested in the application. If no date is
requested in the application, the date: upon which the permit is
actually granted or the day upon which the applicant commences to
engage in business, whichever is earlier.
"(b) In the case of renewal, the expiration of
the permit renewed.
117.02.270 Renewals - Applic:ation Deadline. Every
person desiring to continue in business after the expiration of
the permit period shall file an application for renewal not less
than forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the expiration of the
permit period.
117.02.280 Renewals - Late Application. The
Administrator may accept an application for renewal after the
13
time specified in Section 7.02.270, if filed before the
expiration of the former permit. The filing of such a late
application shall give the applicant no greater rights than the
filing of an application for a new permit.
117.02.290 Renewals - Application After Expiration.
The Administrator may accept an application for renewal after the
time specified in Section 7.02.270 if filed not later than thirty
(30) calendar days after the expiration of the former permit.
When an application for renewal is submitted pursuant to this
Section, the fee required shall be as specified for late renewals
pursuant to City Council resolution. Except as otherwise
provided by this Section, the Administrator shall not accept an
application for renewal of a permit which has expired, or which
for any other reason is not in full force and effect. The
applicant may apply for a new permit if not prohibited from doing
so by any other provision of this Chapter. The applicant shall
accompany such application with the fee required for an
application for a new license.
117.02.300 Renewals - Investigation and Action hy
Administrator. Upon receipt of an application for a renewal, the
Administrator shall cause such investigation to be performed as
required by Section 7.02.070, hereunder, to insure that all
requirements of City codes and ordinances are maintained.
117.02.310 Hearing Procedure.
"(a) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the
Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter may
14
request an administrative hearing before the City Manager within
ten (10) business days after notice of any such decision.
"(b) In the event no request for administrative
hearing is filed within the time prescribed in this Section, the
decision of the Administrator shall become final and conclusive.
"(c) A written request for hearing shall be filed with
the City Clerk with such notice stating: (1) the name and
address of the appellant; (2) the date of the decision in
question; (3) the reasons for the hearing; and (4) the grounds
relied upon for relief. The application shall be accompanied by
a non-refundable fee as established by resolution of the City
Council to cover the administrative costs of the hearing. The
City Clerk shall set the matter for hearing not later than thirty
(30) calendar days following the date of the appeal. Notice of
the time and place of the hearing shall be mailed to the
appellant, postage prepaid, not less than ten (10) business days
prior to the date set for hearing. The notice may also designate
certain records of the appellant required to be produced at the
time of the hearing.
"(d) At the hearing prescribed by this Section, the
appellant and the City may submit any and all evidence believed
to be relevant to their respective positions. The City Manager
may require the presentation of additional evidence from either
the appellant or the City, or both, and may continue the hearing
from time to time for the purpose of allowing the presentation of
additional evidence. Upon completion of the hearing, the City
15
Manager may take any action with respect to the decision of the
Administrator as the evidence may require. Written notice of the
decision of the City Manager shall be given to the applicant
within ten (10) business days of the conclusion of the hearing.
The decision of the City Manager shall be final and conclusive
upon all matters in controversy.
117.02.320 Hearing Procedure Applicable to Appeals
Under Title 7. The procedures set forth in Section 7.02.310
hereof shall govern appeals and hearings required or permitted
pursuant to any other Section or Chapter set forth in Title 7 of
the Los Angeles County Code as heretofore adopted by reference by
the City of Diamond Bar, as the same may be amended from time to
time or any successor provision or provisions.
117.02.330 Penalties for Violation of Chapter. It is
unlawful for any person to violate any provision, or to fail to
comply with any of the requirements, of this Chapter. Any person
violating any provision of this Chapter or failing to comply with
any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for
each and every day or any portion thereof during which any
violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is committed,
continued, or permitted by such person and shall be deemed
punishable therefor as provided in this Section.
16
117.02.340 Civil Remedies Available. The violation of
any of the provisions of this Chapter constitutes a nuisance and
may be abated by the City through civil process by means of a
restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any
other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances.
117.02.350 Severability. The City Council declares
that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word
of this Chapter be rendered or declared invalid by any final
court action by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason
of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions,
sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Chapter shall
remain in full force and effect."
SECTION 3. A new Chapter 7.04 hereby is added to Title
7 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted by
reference, to read, in words and figures, as follows:
"Chapter 7.04
"Nonpremises Business Permits
"Section
117.04.010 Purpose.
117.04.020 Permit Required.
117.04.030 Application.
117.04.040 Application - Information Required.
117.04.050 Permit Fee Payable.
117.04.060 Investigation.
117.04.070 Issuance of Permit.
117.04.080 Conditional Issuance of Permit.
117.04.090 Denial of Permit.
117.04.100 Notice Prior to Denial or Conditional
Issuance.
117.04.110 Grounds for Denial.
117.04.120 Right to Impose or Change Conditions.
117.04.130 Right to Revoke or Suspend.
117.04.140 Revocation.
17
117.04.150 Suspension.
117.04.160 Permit Forms.
117.04.170 Permit - Information Required.
117.04.180 Permit not Transferable.
117.04.190 Keeping of Permit on Person.
117.04.200 Permit Issued to Corporation or Person
Operating Under a Fictitious Business Name.
117.04.210 Lost Permit - Duplicate Issuance.
117.04.220 Conditions - Application to Change.
117.04.230 Term of Permit.
117.04.240 Term of Permit - Beginning Date.
117.04.250 Renewals - Application Deadline.
117.04.260 Renewals - Late Application.
117.04.270 Renewals - Application after Expiration.
117.04.280 Renewals - Investigation and Action by
Administrator.
117.04.290 Penalties for Violation of Chapter.
117.04.300 Civil Remedies Available.
117.04.310 Severability.
117.04.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is
insure that all persons engaged in business within the City of
Diamond Bar and not otherwise required to obtain a premises
business permit pursuant to Chapter 7.02 of this Code obtain a
business permit and to provide a procedure for the issuing of
such permits. For purposes of this Chapter, the terms
'administrator', 'business', 'City', 'City Manager', 'person' and
'premises' shall have the respective meanings ascribed to said
terms as set forth in Section 7.02.030 of Chapter 7.02 of this
Code.
117.04.020 Permit. Required.
"(a) No person shall commence, transact or carry on
any business, as that term is defined herein, not subject to the
provisions of Chapter 7.02 of this Code, within the City of
Diamond Bar without first having obtained a business permit from
18
the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to the provisions of this
Chapter.
"(b) Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be
construed to require any person to obtain a business permit prior
to doing business in'the City where such requirement conflicts
with any statutory or constitutional provision of the United
States or of the State of California.
"(c) The requirement for a nonpremises business permit
hereunder shall be in addition to any other licensing, regulatory
or permitting system now in effect or hereinafter established.
117.04.030 Application. All applications for
nonpremises business permits shall be in writing upon a form
issued by the Administrator. The applicant, in addition, shall
submit any further information or evidence in writing as required
by the Administrator. The application. shall be verified or sworn
under penalty of perjury by the applicant and shall be filed with
the Administrator.
117.04.040 Application - Information Required. Every
application for a permit required by this Chapter shall be signed
by the applicant and shall contain:
"(a) The name and address of the applicant. If
the applicant is a corporation, the name shall be exactly as set
forth in its Articles of Incorporation. If the applicant is a
partnership, the name and address of each general partner shall
be stated. If one or more of the partners is a corporation, the
19
provisions of this Chapter as to a corporate applicant shall
apply.
"(b) If the applicant is a corporation, the names
and addresses of all managing officers and the name and address
of an officer who is duly authorized to accept the service of
legal process.
"(c) A description of the materials or service
proposed to be utilized or provided within the City and the
location, if applicable, for the conduct of the business in
question, including its location, street address, state license
number and other information as specified by the Administrator.
"(d) If the business is advertised to the public
and known by a name or designation other than the name of the
applicant, such name or designation other than the name of the
applicant shall be provided; otherwise, a statement that the
business is not so advertised or known shall be provided.
117.04.050 Permit Fee Payable. Any applicant for a
business permit pursuant to this Chapter shall provide, together
with the fully completed application as required herein, the
nonpremises business permit fee specified by resolution of the
City Council. The fee as specified by the City Council shall be
sufficient to defray the expenses incurred in the investigation
of the business as required hereunder and the costs and expenses
of issuing a business permit hereunder.
20
117.04.060 Investigation. The Administrator shall,
upon receipt of the application and the fee therefor, forward
copies of the application, and any attachments, to those City
departments which would or could be affected by the business in
question including, but not limited to, fire, building and
planning, and police. Each such department shall investigate and
respond in writing to the Administrator with recommendations on
the application as expeditiously as possible.
117.04.070 Issuance of Permit. Upon completion of the
investigation required hereunder, the Administrator shall issue
the business permit to the business if it is determined, by such
investigation, that the business complies with all codes and
ordinances, and other health and safety regulations applicable to
the business.
"7.04.080 Conditional Issuance of Permit. Upon
receipt of the investigation report(s), the Administrator may
conditionally issue a business permit hereunder conditioned upon
the applicant's full compliance with all conditions imposed by
the City's zoning and planning department, building and safety
department, fire department, Sheriff's department or other
department having authority to enforce health and safety
ordinances of the City.
117.04.090 Denial of Permit. Upon completion of the
investigation, should it be ascertained that the business does
not comply with City codes and ordinances or other health and
safety codes or ordinances, the Administrator shall deny the
21
permit and shall so notify the applicant, in writing, addressed
to the address of record set forth in the application unless
conditionally issued pursuant to Section 7.04.080 hereof.
117.04.100 Notice Prior to Denial or Conditional
Issuance. Before the Administrator denies any permit (either new
or renewal) or grants any permit subject to conditions, except
the renewal of a permit containing only those conditions to which
the permit renewed was originally subject, or conditions to which
the applicant has agreed, unless a hearing has already been held,
the Administrator shall notify the applicant in writing that the
Administrator intends to deny the permit or to grant the permit
subject to conditions, which conditions shall be specified in the
notice, and that the applicant may request in writing a hearing
before the Administrator within five (5) business days after
receipt of such notice.
117.04.110 Grounds for Denial. The following shall
constitute grounds for denial of a permit or renewal thereof.
"(a) The business is prohibited by any local or state
law, statute, rule or regulation.
"(b) The business has been or is a public nuisance.
"(c) The business is being conducted in violation of
any applicable state law, statute, rule or regulation.
117.04.120 Right to Impose or Chanae Conditions. If at
any time it appears to the Administrator that there are grounds
for revocation of permit, or that the business permitted is being
conducted so as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or
22
welfare, but that such grounds or such conduct could be
eliminated by the imposition of conditions, or of additional
conditions, or by the amendment of any existing conditions to
such permit, the Administrator may notify the permittee in
writing of the intention to impose or amend such conditions and
that the permittee may, within five (5) business days after
receipt of such notice, request, in writing, a hearing.
117.04.130 Right to Revoke or Suspend. Every permit
granted pursuant to this Chapter or any Section hereof is granted
and accepted by all parties with the express understanding that
the City may conduct a public hearing, notice of the time and
place of which shall be given to the permittee, and that if,
after such hearing the Administrator finds that any grounds for
revocation exist, the Administrator may revoke or suspend such
permit.
117.04.140 Revocation. (a) Any permit granted or
issued pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter may be revoked
after an administrative hearing before: the Administrator. A
permit may be revoked on the following circumstances:
11(1) Where the Administrator finds and determines that
the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare or
demand revocation 'of the permit.
"(2) Where the permittee has violated any provision of
provisions of this Chapter or any other provision or provisions
of the City's codes or ordinances.
23
"(3) Where the permit has been granted pursuant to
false or fraudulent information contained in the application.
"(4) Where the permittee has violated any of the terms
or conditions of the permit.
"(b) Procedures. (1) Notice of revocation shall be
mailed to the permittee, postage prepaid, stating grounds for the
revocation and providing a date within thirty (30) calendar days
of the mailing of such notice of an administrative hearing before
the Administrator.
"(2) Written notice of the decision of the hearing
shall be mailed to the permittee within ten (10) business days of
the conclusion of the hearing. The decision of the Administrator
shall be appealable pursuant to Section 7.02.310 of Chapter 7.02.
117.04.150 Suspension. Pending a revocation hearing
pursuant to the terms of this Chapter, a permit may be subject to
immediate suspension if it is found necessary for the protection
of the public health, safety or welfare. Such suspension shall
only be instituted upon the recommendation of the local law
enforcement agency or the local fire protection agency. In the
event of such a suspension, the Administrator shall, within
forty-eight (48) hours after the suspension, cause to be served
upon the permittee a written statement containing the grounds for
suspension and a notice of hearing to show cause before the
Administrator as to why the permit should not be suspended
pending revocation hearings.
24
117.04.160 Permit Forms. The Administrator shall
number all permits and shall affix his or her signature to all
such permits, either manually or by way of facsimile signature.
117.04.170 Permit - Information Required. Each permit
shall state the person to whom issued, and the kind of business
for which the same is issued, and the date of issuance, the
permit period for which it is issued and the amount therefor and
shall refer to this Chapter and be signed by the Administrator.
117.04.180 Permit not Transferable. No business permit
issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be transferable to any
other business or person. The Administrator may, however, upon
request of the applicant issue the permit multiple copies of the
permit, for the fee specified by City Council resolution.
117.04.190 Keeping of Permit. on Person. Every person
having a permit issued pursuant to this Chapter shall keep such
permit on their person and shall present said permit to any
employee of the City or any peace officer upon demand thereof and
shall present the same to any person with whom the permittee is
transacting business.
117.04.200 Permit Issued to Corporation or Person Under
Fictitious Business Name.
"(a) A permit may be issued'. pursuant to this Chapter
to a corporation duly authorized to transact business in the
State of California or to a person operating under a fictitious
name who has complied with all of the provisions with Section
2466 of the California Civil Code or any statute superseding or
25
taking the place of such code section. Otherwise, all such
permits shall be issued in the true name ,of the individual or
individuals applying therefore. Except as provided above, no
business so licensed may operate under any false or fictitious
name.
"(b) A license issued to a corporation shall designate
such corporation by the exact name which appears in the Articles
of Incorporation of such corporation.
117.04.210 Lost Permit - Duplicate Issuance. When,
upon the presentation of satisfactory evidence to the
Administrator, it is determined that a permit issued hereunder
has been lost or destroyed, the Administrator shall issue a
duplicate permit to the holder thereof upon payment to the
Administrator of the amount specified for the issuance of a
duplicate permit by City Council resolution.
117.04.220 Conditions - Application to Change. If a
permittee applies in writing to the City for a change in the
conditions for which the permit is subject, the Administrator may
grant such application, based upon the facts found after hearing.
Such application must be accompanied by the fee established by
City Council resolution.
117.04.230 Term of Permit. Each permit issued pursuant
to this Chapter shall be issued for a period not exceeding one
year; provided, however, that the Administrator may establish a
longer term, not to exceed twenty-one (21) months with respect to
any business in operation as of the effective date of this
26
A
Chapter in order to establish a systematic permit issuing process
and to preclude all permits coming due at the same time.
117.04.240 Term of Permit Beginninci Date. If the
date specified in either subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this
Section is the first of a calendar month, the period of the
permit shall begin on such date. Otherwise, the period of the
permit shall begin on the first day of the calendar month which
first follows the date specified in subsection (a) or (b). The
said dates are:
"(a) In the case of a new permit:
"(1) If the applicant already is engaging
in the business for which the permit is required, the date upon
which the applicant began such activity or the date upon which
such activity became subject to permit, whichever is later.
"(2) If the applicant has not begun such
activity, the date requested in the application. If no date is
requested in the application, the date upon which the permit is
actually granted or the day upon which the applicant commences to
engage in business, whichever is earlier.
"(b) In the case of renewal, the expiration of
the permit renewed.
117.04.250 Renewals - Applic=ation Deadline. Every
person desiring to continue in business after the expiration of
the permit period shall file an application for renewal not less
than forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the expiration of the
permit period.
27
117.04.260 Renewals - Late Application. The
Administrator may accept an application for renewal after the
time specified in Section 7.04.250, if filed before the
expiration of the former permit. The filing of such a late
application shall give the applicant no greater rights than the
filing of an application for a new permit.
117.04.270 Renewals - Application After Expiration.
The Administrator may accept an application for renewal after the
time specified in Section 7.04.250 if filed not later than thirty
(30) calendar days after the expiration of the former permit.
When an application for renewal is submitted pursuant to this
Section, the fee required shall be as specified for late renewals
pursuant to City Council resolution. Except as otherwise
provided by this Section, the Administrator shall not accept an
application for renewal of a permit which has expired, or which
for any other reason is not in full force and effect. The
applicant may apply for a new permit if not prohibited from doing
so by any other provision of this Chapter. The applicant shall
accompany such application with the fee required for an
application for a new license.
117.04.280 Renewals - Investigation and Action by
Administrator. Upon receipt of an application for a renewal, the
Administrator shall cause such investigation to be performed as
required by Section 7.04.060, hereunder, to insure that all
requirements of this Chapter are maintained.
28
117.04.290 Penalties for Violation of Chapter. It is
unlawful for any person to violate any provision, or to fail to
comply with any of the requirements, of this Chapter. Any person
violating any provision of this Chapter or failing to comply with
any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for
each and every day or any portion thereof during which any
violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is committed,
continued, or permitted by such person and shall be deemed
punishable therefor as provided in this Section.
117.04.300 Civil Remedies Available. The violation of
any of the provisions of this Chapter constitutes a nuisance and
may be abated by the City through civil process by means of a
restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any
other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances.
117.04.310 Severability. The City Council declares
that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word
of this Chapter be rendered or declared invalid by any final
court action by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason
of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions,
sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Chapter shall
remain in full force and effect."
29
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted
in three (3) public places within the City of Diamond Bar
pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 89-6.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _ day of
1990.
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond
Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was
introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the day of ,
1990, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of
1990, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
L\1011\BUS0RDjDB 4.5 30
ORDINANCE NO. (1990)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.74 TO
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE
ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, PERTAINING TO HOME
OCCUPATION PERMITS.
A. Recitals.
(i) The provisions of the Los Angeles County Zoning
Ordinance, as heretofore adopted by this City Council, by
reference, do not clearly authorize home occupations within the
City of Diamond Bar.
(ii) It is the desire of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar to include home occupations as permitted uses
within the City of Diamond Bar, provided the same comply with all
of the requirements of the Chapter set. forth below.
(iii) The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond
Bar has heretofore conducted and concluded a duly noticed public
hearing, as required by law, and has recommended the adoption of
the ordinance set forth below.
(iv) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar has
heretofore conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing,
as required by law, with respect to the adoption of this
Ordinance.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
ordinance have occurred.
1
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1. In all respects,, as set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds and
determines that the Ordinance set forth herein is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of Division 6 of 'Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations in that it can be seen with certainty that
the adoption of this Ordinance cannot have a significant effect
upon the environment.
SECTION 3. A new Chapter 22.74 hereby is added to
Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted,
to read, in words and figures, as follows:
"Chapter 22.74
"HOME OCCUPATIONS
"Section 22.74.010 Statement of Intent.
"Recognizing that unrestricted use of residential
properties for purposes of an occupational nature other
than that normally associated with home living has a
detrimental effect on both the residential area in which
such occupations are conducted and the areas properly
designated for such uses and, further, recognizing that
this detrimental effect results in the depreciation of
property values, welfare, and morale of the entire
community, it is the purpose of this Chapter to
eliminate this detrimental effect by creating criteria
2
for the establishment and conditions for the continuance
of home occupations.
"Section 22.74.020 Classification.
"Permissible home occupations shall be of a nature
which comport with the requirements established in
Section 22.74.040 herein, including, but not limited to:
"(a) Secondary business offices when a business has
its principal office, staff and equipment located at a
site which is zoned so as to permit such business as a
primary use.
"(b) Administrative/office functions where such use
entails activities, functions, equipment or materials of
a nature commonly present in a residence, including
telephones, typewriters, personal. computers, and
stationary items.
"(c) Professional functions, such as computer
programming, tax preparation, graphic/commercial
artistry, commercial designers and similar functions.
"Section 22.74.030 Application; fees required.
"The applicant shall be required to pay appropriate
fees as determined by City Council Resolution for
processing an application for a home occupation. The
application shall be on forms provided by the City and
shall contain all information required to investigate
the application.
"It shall be the duty of the Planning Director or
his or her designee to ascertain all pertinent facts
concerning such purposed use and, to approve, or
disapprove the application. written approval of a
proposed use as a home occupation shall be considered a
home occupation permit and shall remain in effect until
revoked as provided in this Chapter. In addition to any
other requirement set forth herein, it shall be the duty
of the applicant to notify the applicable homeowners'
association of the application filed hereunder and to
supply the City with a copy of such written
notification.
"Section 22.74.040 Requirements.
"The establishment and conduct of home occupations
shall comply with the following criteria:
"(a) There shall be no exterior evidence of
the conduct of a home occupation, including, but
not limited to, noise or odor caused thereby.
"(b) A home occupation shall be conducted
only within the enclosed living area of the
dwelling unit or the garage and shall in no case
occupy more than one (1) room of the dwelling unit
or twenty percent (20%) of the floor area thereof.
"(c) Electrical or mechanical equipment which
creates visible or audible interference in radio or
television receivers or causes fluctuations in line
voltage outside the dwelling unit or which creates
noise not normally associated with residential uses
shall be prohibited.
"(d) Only the residents of the dwelling unit
may be engaged in the home occupation.
"(e) To the extent that there is any sale of
any item related to a home occupation by the
permittee as seller, no delivery of that item to
the buyer shall occur on or adjacent to the
premises.
"(f) The establishment and conduct of a home
occupation shall not change the principal character
or use of the dwelling unit involved.
"(g) There shall be no, signs other than those
permitted by the City sign ordinances.
"(h) The conduct of any home occupation,
including, but not limited to, the storage of goods
and equipment, shall not reduce or render unusable
areas provided for required off-street parking.
"(i) No vehicular or pedestrian traffic
related to a home occupation shall be allowed.
"(j) No storage or display of materials,
goods, supplies or equipment related to the
operation of a home occupation shall be visible
from the outside of any structure located on the
premises.
"(k) There shall be no advertising in
connection with the home occupation which gives the
4
0
address of the property from which the home
occupation is conducted.
11(1) Not more than two active home occupation
permits shall be permitted to be issued to any
single address at any time.
"Section 22.74.050 Revocation.
"A home occupation permit granted in accordance
with the provisions of this Chapter may be terminated
for any of the following grounds:
"(a) Violation of any requirement set forth
in Section 22.74.040 of this Chapter;
"(b) The use has become detrimental to the
public health or safety or is deemed to constitute
a nuisance;
"(c) The permit was obtained by
misrepresentation or fraud;
"(d) The use for which the permit was granted
has ceased or has been suspended for three (3)
consecutive months or more;
"(e) The condition of the premises, or of the
district which it is a part, has changed so that
the use may no longer be justified under the
meaning and intent of this Chapter.
"Section 22.74.060 Notice and Hearing.
"No revocation of a home occupation shall occur
unless the holder of a permit is given at least ten (10)
business days written notice of intent to hold a public
hearing concerning such revocation. The notice shall
specify the date, time and place at which said
revocation is to be considered and the permittee shall
be advised that he or she will be afforded an
opportunity to be heard with regard to the proposed
revocation at said meeting and to present relevant
evidence.
"After a hearing upon the revocation of a permit,
the Planning Commission shall make a determination of
its findings of fact and decision by the adoption of a
resolution.
5
"Section 22.74.070 Permit Nontransferable.
"A permit granted in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter shall not be transferred, assigned or
used by any person other than the permittee, nor shall
each permit authorize such home occupation at any
location other than the one for which the permit is
granted.
"Section 22.74.080 Penalties for Violation of
Chapter.
"It is unlawful for any person to violate any
provision, or to fail to comply with any of the
requirements, of this Chapter. Any person violating any
provision of this Chapter or failing to comply with any
of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each
such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense
for each and every day or any portion thereof during
which any violation of any of the: provisions of this
Chapter is committed, continued, or permitted by such
person and shall be deemed punishable therefor as
provided in this Section.
"Section 22.74.090 Civil Remedies Available.
"The violation of any of the provisions of this
Chapter constitutes a nuisance and may be abated by the
City through civil process by means of a restraining
order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any
other manner provided by law for the abatement of such
nuisances.
"Section 22.74.100 Severability.
"The City Council declares that should any
provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this
Chapter be rendered or declared invalid by any final
court action by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by
reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining
provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of
this Code shall remain in full force and effect."
0
SECTION 4. The City Clerk ,shall certify to the
adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted
in three (3) public places within the City of Diamond Bar
pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 89-6.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of ,
1990.
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk: of the City of Diamond
Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was
introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1990,
and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of ,
1990, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST•
City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
SN10111ORDHOME�DS 7
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT OF SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1
WHEREAS, the State of California faces serious problems in
its fiscal policy which threaten the critical areas of education,
transportation, health services, law enforcement and other
taxpayer services thereby endangering the state's current and
future economic health; and
WHEREAS, SCA 1 would alter the Gann spending limit to allow
the state greater flexibility in making use of all available
revenues generated by California's strong economy; and
WHEREAS, it would allow the state to raise the gasoline tax
to provide increased funding for maintenance and improvement of
highway and mass transit projects without reducing funds for
other state budget; and
WHEREAS, it would continue the guarantees of Proposition 98
and K-12 and the community colleges receive 40% of the state
budget; and
WHEREAS, without a change in the Gann spending limit, it
will be impossible to maintain the generally high level of
education, transportation, health, law enforcement and other
vital services to the residents of California:
WHEREAS, SCA 1 is supported by a broad coalition including
Governor George Deukmejian, State Superintendent of Schools Bill
Honig, California Taxpayers Association, League of Women Voters
of California, California School Boards Association, California
V
r�
7 _,,,/ Com
Chamber of Commerce, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California
Retired Teachers Association,California Professional
Firefighters, California State Automobile Association, California
Business Roundtable, University of California Board of Regents,
California State University Board of Trustees, and many others;
and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar supports passage of the TRAFFIC CONGESTION
RELIEF AND SPENDING LIMITATION ACT OF 1990.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
, 1990.
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted
and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1990, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS -
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS -
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS -
ATTEST:
LYNDA BURGESS,
City Clerk of the
City of Diamond Bar
CALIFORNONS FOR BETTER TRANSV#RTATION
ISSUES COMMITTEE
I.D. 891955
Jack D. Maltester CAMPAIGN UPDATE
President
Arthur E. Bauer PROPOSITIONS 108, 111 and 116
Treasurer
Why Vote for Propositions 111 and 108?
Take A Look at Caltrans' Proposed 1990-1991 Budget
California's transportation budget for the 1990-91 fiscal year was the subject of a recent
hearing of the Ass=bly Ways & . Means Transportation Subcoinittee. The subcomittee,
chaired by Assemblyman Steve Clute (D -Riverside) was told that the governor's proposed
budget assumes no new revenues. Consequently, it presents a stark picture of the conditions
that California's transportation program will face if Propositions 111 and 108 are not
approved by the voters.
The legislature's budget arm, the highly regarded non-partisan, Office of the Legislative
Analyst, concluded the following regarding the Caltrans budget:
o Caltrans' total budget will be down by 23 percent from the current fiscal
year.
o Expenditures for the highway program will be off 22.4 percent and for the
mass transit program they will be off 29.9 percent.
o Over 765 positions will be cut, including 513 dedicated to the design and
engineering of state highway projects.
o California will be unable to match federal highway funds anticipated to be
made available during the 1988 State Transportation Improvement
Program period, which ends in 1993.
o California's transit assistance program is eviscerated with Caltrans -
proposing to transfer $104 from transit projects to offset diminished
highway funds. Essentially, this will be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Californians for Better Transportation also presented testimony to the subcommittee. The
statement is attached.
California Transportation Commission Cuts Contracts to be Awarded
In a budget balancing action, the California Transportation Commission postponed going to
contract for the construction of 29 state highway projects having a value of $280 million due
to lack of funding. This brings the total contracts postponed this year to $230 million.
Among the projects postponed included $85 million on the Century Freeway in Los Angeles,
$83 million on I-215 in Riverside County, $51 million on Route 30 between San Bernardino
and Redlands, and $15 million on I-880 in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties.
1 400 is STREET. =21 2 ♦ SA CRAMF.NT0 ♦ CA ♦ 95814 ♦ t 916)448-6901
f
These projects are assured of funding if Propositions 111 and 108 are enacted in June.
Should Propositions 111 and 108 not be enacted, the construction time for these projects will
be extended over the next decade.
Opposition Emerges to Propositions 111 and 108
Remnants of Paul Gann's tax reform group, Arthur Laffer, a gadfly economist, San Diego
and Orange County no growth advocates, and others have formed Citizens Against Unfair
Taxation to oppose Propositions 111 and 108. The major elements of their argument is that
voting for these measures will do away with the Gann expenditure limit, cause inflation and
trigger a recession, and will not address congestion.
None of these assertions are true, but since when are people constrained by the truth?
Sacramento Bee Endorses Propositions 108, 111 and 116
The "newspaper of record" for state government endorsed the three transportation
propositions in its lead editorial Sunday, May 6. A copy of this editorial is enclosed.
STATEMENT TO THE WAYS ,& MEANS
TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE .
REGARDING PROPOSITIONS 1'11 AND 108
AND THE CALTRANS 1990-91 BUDGET
Submitted by
Arthur Bauer
Executive Vice President
Californians for Better Transportation
April 25, 1990
Mr. Chairman and members, Californians for Better Transportation is pleased to have this
opportunity to testify at the hearing regarding the overview of the governor's proposed 1990-
91 Caltrans budget.
As has been pointed out to you by Mr. Leonard, chairman of the California Transportation
Commission and Caltrans' very able director Bob Best, the state's transportation program is
terminally ill unless Propositions 111 and 108 are approved by the voters in June.
The lack of funding has caused Caltrans to propose a budget that is 23 percent less than the
current budget for next fiscal year. This proposed budget is a precursor of future budgets.
The cuts often represent Hobbsian choices which are really acts of desperation. For
example, the Transportation Planning & Development Account is reduced by $40 million
from the State Transit Assistance Program to sustain elements of the highway program
which itself is reduced 22 percent. A transportation budget that reflects decisions of this, sort
is unfortunately not a broad based transportation program, but rather a group of
expenditure categories with very limited goals and objectives.
It is for this reason that CBT and other groups have been seeking the passage of
Propositions 111 and 108. In regard to the campaign efforts, one of the questions that
members of CBT's board of directors has repeatedly heard during meetings with service
clubs and with newspaper editorial boards around the state relates to exactly how the
Proposition 111 and 108 funds will be used. The public needs the confidence that funds will
be spent as intended. Therefore, we strongly support your staff recommendation to
essentially adopt a dual budget --the proposed budget, which assumes no new revenues, and
an alternative budget that assumes the additional $718 million that the passage of
Proposition 111 will make available to the highway program next year. This action will
communicate to Californians what they can expect in the first year after both propositions
are enacted.
Forum 4 The Sacnve J Bee a Sunday, May 8, 1990
Yes on transportation
here are three measures on the June
ballot — Propositions 108, 111 and 116
— designed to confront California's massive
transportation problems. Two, Propositions
1.0.8 and 116, authorize bonds for major rail
projects; the third, 111, confronts the state's
badly deteriorating streets and highways.
The Bee recommends a Yes vote on all three.
Proposition 111 must pass. Because it loos-
ens California's increasingly unmanageable
government spending limits, it is crucial to
the maintenance of all state services, from
health to higher education. In addition, Prop-
osition 111 authorizes the state to increase
gasoline taxes — currently among the lowest
in the country — from 9 cents to 18 cents a
gallon. The new taxes will raise $18.5 billion
over the next 10 years, primarily to upgrade
and build state and local roads — needs that
have been neglected for more than a decade.
The gas -tax measure is oriented toward
full funding for the State Transportation Im-
provement Plan,.an extensive list of highway
projects approved in 1988 that includes road
improvements in virtually every community.
Its critics say that some of those projects no
longer make environmental sense, or even
relieve congestion. Where that's true, every
effort must made by state and local officials
to substitute better plans. But in most cases,
it seems not to be true. The bulk of the gas -
tax money will go to a long list of traffic miti-
gation measures — diamond lanes, traffic -
management systems, sound walls; to ur-
gently needed improvements in local streets;
and to expansion of local transit systems. For
commuters stuck in traffic and confronted
with a network of rapidly deteriorating
roads, those needs should be obvious.
•
roposition 111 also makes possible the
implementation of Proposition 108, a $1
billion rail and Iight-rail bond measure, if the
voters approve it on June 5. Along with Prop-
osition 116, a $1.9 billion rail -bond initiative,
108 would give the state an opportunity to in-
vest in mass transit alternatives that will be-
gin to give Californians some real alterna-
tives to cars and beg n to restore balance to
the state's highway dependent transporta-
tion system. The two measures identify rail
corridors, including Sacramento light-rail
extensions, San Joaquin Valley rail.improve-
ments and Bay Area to Sacramento intercity
rail lines, as places where bond money will
be spent — on rolling stock and improved
tracks, roadbeds and stations — to expand
rail passenger service.
The reasons for. 108 and 116 should like-
wise be obvious. In many of the most con-
gested parts of Los Angeles and the Bay Area
— as well as in Sacramento — the cost of ex-
panding freeways is prohibitive and likely to
produce more air pollution and generate
more traffic. The two bond measures are
thus companions, both politically and in the
development of a balanced transportation
policy, to the highway improvements that
Proposition 111 makes possible. They, too,
deserve to pass.
•
There is one troubling aspect about
Proposition 116, which was placed on
the ballot by initiative and was thus subject
to no overall fiscal planning. Planning trans-
portation systems and issuing bonds by. ini-
tiative is never ideal; it becomes particularly
problematic at a time when California is ap-
proaching a limit on the amount of new debt
it can prudently absorb in each election cy-
cle. Indeed, if Proposition 111 does not pass,
and the Gann limit on spending therefore re-
mains unchanged — or if any other serious
fiscal crisis should occur — issuance of rail
bonds approved under Proposition 108 or
116, or both, will have to be postponed in fa-
vor of other, even more pressing state needs.
If necessary, rail bonds tentatively scheduled
by the Legislature for 1992 and 1994 may al-
so have to be delayed.
Nonetheless, given the urgency of the
state's transit needs and the fact that the in-
frastructure funded by 108 and 116 is likely
to generate far more in economic growth —
and the tax revenues to pay off the bonds —
than it costs, both rail measures should be
approved now. Without them, the state's
gridlocked roads and its dirty air can only get
worse. All three major party candidates for
governor, John Van de Kamp, Dianne Fein-
stein and Pete Wilson, have signed ballot ar-
guments in favor of Proposition 116. All sup-
port all three transportation initiatives. Yes
on 108, 111 and 116.
F
i001r
NIK
s; ; League of California Cities
N. W - 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 444-5790
California Cilies
Work Together YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO
PROPOSITIONS 111 AND D (OS
June 1990 Ballot
71
VYhat is Proposition 111?
Ay)1;c:EiriE'!
on the* June 1990 ballot will he a measure, titled Prohositio,; 1 ; 1 (:6tl::d "H; I L
Traffic Congestion Relief and.Spending Limitation Acro; 1990" artd i"';':::C I'll, I,
i SCAI) It coatatns three elements:
- It revises the spending limit calculati:�ns for local governmelit and 1
will allow for your appropriations limit to be adjusted annually at aerate to keep pace with the
economic growth in'your city.
- It allows for increases in vehicle fuel taxes and truck w ::xht fees to fund State,'county and
city transportation .mprovements: These ilCW 1'i111ih, ��i from increases in the gas
and diesel tax and commercial vehicle weir-rht fe.11s: woi.ld lac 'exeriipt from state"and local ap-
propriations limits:
- It revises the school funding'initiative p' ssed in 19,8S to balance the state's educational needs
with the needs of other state services.
Impact on: Spending Limit
Q. How wouN setting my city's limit be
different?
A. Currently, cities adjust their limits based on
the change in the cast -of -living only. If Prop.
111 is passed, a city would adjust its "Gann
Limit," or spending limit, by either 1) the
chane in California's per capita personal
income or 2) the percentage change of growth
in total assessed value due to non-residential
construction.
In addition, cities currently may adjust their
spending limits based on changes in population
within the city. Legislation passed (Senate Bill
88) to implement Proposition 111 would allow
for one of two methods to change the limit
based on population increases: either 1)
changes in population in the city, or 2) the
percentage increase in population for the entire
county.
Finally, Prop. 111 would exclude from the
spending Iimit any appropriations for certain
capital expenses, defined as land, capital im-
provements or equipment that exceed $100,000
and have a life expectancy of ten years or more.
It would also exclude from the state limit any
future increases in the gas tax or truck weight
fees.
Q. What if my city has an emergency
and needs any surpluses it might
have?
A. Prop. 111 allows for funds to be spent in
excess of the limit for emergencies declared by
the governor without reducing subsequent years'
limits.
Q How is the spending limit checked?
A. The annual calculation of the appropriation
limit will be reviewed as part of an annual audit.
The nature of this review will be defined by
statute, and it is intended that cities will be
involved in the drafting of this statute.
Q. If it passes, when would the
provisions go into effect?
A. The base year for determining a city's limit
would be the 1986/87 year. The provisions will
go into effect on July 1, 1990.
Q. What is the impact of Proposition
111 if our city is not at its Gann
Limit?
A. First, it is expected that many cities not at
their Gann limit will reach the limit in just a few
years.
Second, Proposition 111 excludes gas taxes from
the State Gann Limit which is the only way to
Provide the opportunity for the state to raise
new gas tax money. Without this Proposition,
there will be no increases in the state gas tax.
Impact on: Transportation
Q. What does Prop. Ill do to relieve
congestion?
A. In conjunction with Prop. 108, a rail bonds
measure, $18.5 billion will be provided over the
next ten years to do the following:
• Funding; the 1988 State Transportation Im-
provement Program (STLP) shortfall - $3.5
billion. Projects to be funded are in the cur-
rent 1988 plan.
• Subvention to cities and counties - $3 bil-
lion.' Half the fund is for cities and half for
counties, to be distributed to cities based on
population. Cities will have to maintain their
local contributions to the transportation
system and in counties with an urbanized area
of 50,000 or more, develop a Congestion
Management Plan in order to receive the
funds.
Cities can expect to receive an average of
$6.68 per capita annually once the full t3X
increase is in place. The first year will result in
about half that amount, with the subvention
increasing each year until it reaches the full
amount in five years.
• Flexible Congestion Relief Program - $3
billion. Highways, local roads and transit
guideway projects are eligible for funds under
this program. Funds would be spent on the
most cost-effective project designed to reduce
congestion as determined by the California
Transportation Commission.
Third, the passage of Proposition 111 provides
direct money for the local transportation system State -local transportation partnership pro -
as well as providing new money for which local gram - $2 billion. The money in this fund can
be used entirely by local government for local
governments can compete.
highway, local road or transit guideway proj-
ects, and must be matched at least on a dollar -
for -dollar basis with local funds.
• Intercity rail, commuter rail and urban rail
transit - $3 billion. Also on the June ballot is
2
Proposition 108, which authorizes the sale of
$1 billion in general obligation bonds to be
used for mass transit guideways, on specified
rail corridors, including urban rail, commuter
rail and intercity rail. Two additional $1
billion bond measures for the same purposes
are scheduled to go before the voters in No-
vember, 1992 and November, 1994. Fifteen
percent of the $3 billion is specifically allo-
cated for intercity rail projects.
• inter-region.d roads - $1.25 billion. This
would be for specified state highway routes
primarily outside urban areas.
Traffic system management - $1 billion. For
use on transportation systems management
projects on state highways and local roads
designed to increase carrying capacity without
increasing lanes, as determined by the CTC.
• Retrofit soundwalls - $150 million. To
complete all remaining soundwalls designated
in the current soundwall program.
Environmental enhancement and mitigation
- $100 million. For use on urban reforestation
and other environmental mitigation measures
to ease the environmental effects of transpor-
tation facilities.
• Transit operation and/or capital - $500 mil-
lion. 'T his would :Und the State Transit Assis-
tance Program and would be apportioned to
all areas of the state with half the apportion-
ment based on population and half on transit
operator revenues.
Maintenance, and rehabilitation of state
highways - $1 hillioa. To be used on additional
state highway maintenance and rehabilitation
costs.
Q Where does the money come from?
A. The money will came from an increase in
the gasoline and diesel user tax rate of five cents
per gallon effective Aug. 1, 1990 and additional
annual increases of one cent per gallon until the
total reaches nine cents per gallon. In addition,
it will come from an increase of 40 percent in
weight fees for trucks over 4,000 pounds starting
Aug. 1, 1990 and another 10 percent increase on
Jan.1,1995.
Net revenues from the tax and fee increases will
generate an estimated $15.5 billion during the
ten-year period from July 1, 1990 to June 30,
2000.
Q. Where does the additional $3 billion
come from?
A. Prop. 108 would authorize the state to sell
the first $1 billion of a total of $3 billion in
general obligation bonds to raise funding for
passenger rail transportation. The second $1
billion bond authorization will be placed on the
November 11992 general election ballot and the
third on the November 1994 general election
ballot.
3
Q. what's the Congestion Management
Flan?
A. The Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
would be required in every county with an
urbanized area of 50,000 citizens or more as a
condition to compete for and receive the funds.
The CMP would have to be developed and
adopted annually and must contain the follow-
ing:
a) The CMP would be prepared by a public
agency designated by the county board of
supervisors and a majority of cities repre-
senting a majority of the incorporated popu-
lation in the county. This could either be an
existing agency or the local governments
could create a new agency. The CMP would
be prepared in cooperation with regional
transportation planning agencies, Caltrans,
air pollution districts, and other local govern-
ments.
The agency that will produce the CMP must
he designated by a vote of the county and a
majority of the cities representing majority
of the population.
b) CMP elements would include service
standards for roads, highways and public
transit, trip reduction efforts to promote
alternative transportation methods, pro-
grams to measure impacts of development
on regional transportation systems, and a
seven-year capital improvement program
that maintains or improves service stan-
dards, mitigates transportation impacts of
development, and conforms vehicle emis-
sions reductions and mitigation measures.
c) The CMP capital program would become
the basis for the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP) adopted for
the region by the regional transportation
planning agency.
d) The regional transportation planning
agency would evaluate the CMP for consis-
tency with regional transportation plans and
could exclude inconsistent projects from the
RTIP.
e) The agency responsible for developing
the CMP would monitor implementation of
the CMP by cities and counties and could
recommend that the new gas tax subventions
for local entities be withheld if cities are not
in compliance.
f) Authorizes the California Transportation
Commission to give priority projects to cities
and counties in compliance with their CMP.
Q How is the northlsouth split handled?
A- All of the expenditures in the transportation
package would be subject to the current method
for determining the "north/south split" and
"county minimums," except highway mainte-
4
nance, safety, state -local partnership monies,
transportation systems management monies,
intercity tail, and expenditures for the Transpor-
tation Planning and Development Account.
Counties not receiving their minimums during
the 1988-93 period would have these minimums
carried forward to the 1993-1998 period of the
funding proposal. After adopting the 1992
STIP, the California Transportation Commis-
sion is prohibited from allocating any funds for
any project if the STIP is not programmed in a
manner that guarantees every county its county
minimum.
Impact on: Schools
Q. How does Prop. III change funding
for schools approved by Prop. 98?
A. Prop. 98, approved by voters in 1988, guar-
anteed K-14 schools would receive a share of
the state general fund and determined what
portion of the state's annual surplus, if any,
would go to schools. Implementing legislation
currently being negotiated will further define
the schools provision of Proposition 111. Prop.
111 provides that 50 percent of any state surplus
over the state's limit will go to schools, but this
amount will not become a part of the school's
base funding. The remainder of any surplus
would be returned to the taxpayers.
For Copies of
Propositions 111 and 108
contact the
Secretary of State
Elections and Political
Reform Division
916/445-0820
APRIL 1990
CALIFORNII S FOR BETTER TRANSATATION
ISSUES COMMITTEE
I.D. 891955
Jack D. Maltester CALIFORNIANS FOR BETTER TRANSPORTATION
President
CAMPAIGN UPDATE
Arthur E. Bauer
Treasurer PROPOSITIONS 108,111 AND 116
Californians for Better Transportation under the auspices of its Issues Committee has been
actively participating in the campaigns supporting the passage of Propositions 108, 111 and
116. The campaign activities of CBT are closely coordinated with Woodward & McDowell,
the campaign ::tanagers of Propositions 108 and 111, and -with the Planning &1- Conservation
League which manages the Proposition 116 campaign.
Editorial Board Meetinas
CBT representatives have already met with the editorial boards of major newspapers in the
state and expect to meet with several more before the June election to explain the need for
the three propositions. CBT president Jack Maltester, Executive VP Arthur Bauer, and
board member Jim Bourgart from the Bay Area Council met with the editors of the San
Francisco Chronicle. Bourgart and Michael George, another CBT board member and a vice
president of the First Boston Corporation, met with the San Francisco Examiner's editors.
Maltester and Bauer were joined by Larry Naake from the County Supervisors Association
and Ed Gerber from the California Transit Association in a briefing with the Sacramento
Bee. The Sacramento Union's editors were visited by Maltester, Bauer and CBT's
communications consultant Robert Deen. Maltester and Bauer also briefed the San Jose
Mercury.
San Diego board members Jim Mills, Chair of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board
and Jim Schmidt, Vice Chairman Great America Savings, were joined by California
Transportation Commission member Tom Hawthorne and Bauer in briefings to the editorial
boards of San Diego two newspapers, the Union and the Tribune.
At the editorial briefings, CBT's role in defining the transportation financing needs of the
state over the past decade is explained and the circumstances which require the enactment
of the three measures are discussed. In all cases the newspapers that have been briefed
either have supported or intend to support the ballot measures, especially Propositions 111
and 108.
Three Common Misconceptions Regarding Proposition 111
Three reoccurring misconceptions regarding Proposition 111 have been heard at editorial
briefings and at speaking engagements. The big three misconceptions are:
I. Gas tax revenues will assist in funding general fund programs and not transportation
projects as intended -
1 4 0 0
ntended
1400 K STREET. =21 2 ♦ SACRAN1FNT0 ♦ CA ♦ Oi81 4 ♦ ( 916)448-6901
Response: This cannot happen because Article 19 of the State Constitution limits
expenditures of fuel tax revenues to transportation projects. This has been a feature of
California's financial system since 1938.
2. Proposition 111 does away with the Gann expenditure limit.
Response: Proposition 111 modifies the Gann limit by redefining gas tax revenues as user
fees, thus ensuring that the revenues generated by Proposition 111's gas tax increase can
only be spent for needed transportation projects. Another modification ensures that
education's current share of the state budget is guaranteed. Aside from these two
modifications, the Gann expenditure limit remains as a counter balance to excessive
government expenditures.
3. Proposition 111 does away with property tax relief guaranteed by Proposition 13.
Response: Proposition 111 does not affect in any fashion the guarantees contained in
Proposition 13.
California Transportation Commission endorses Proposition 116
At its March meeting in Long Beach, the CTC unanimously endorsed the $1.990 billion rail
bond initiative measure, Proposition 116, sponsored by the Planning & Conservation
League. The CTC now joins CBT and many other organizations who have already endorsed
Proposition 116.
Polls Show Mixed Public Reaction to Transportation Measures
A recent Field Poll indicates that if the public is informed on the issues covered by
Proposition 111, people are disposed to vote for the measure. Once informed of the
purposes of Proposition 111, 47 percent of those questioned support the measure, 39 percent
is unopposed and 14 percent is undecided.
(See attached article) This underscores the need for broad based participation in the
campaign in order to ensure passage of these critical ballot measures.
How can the Californians for Better Transportation Issues Committee help you get
the message out on Propositions 108, 111 and 116?
o Provide material for distribution in company newsletters to company vendors and
clients.
o Provide periodic updates as to campaign progress.
o Provide material for newsletter articles.
o Provide brochures to address specific transportation related issues.
0 Brief local news media concerning transportation issues.
Prop. - 111 wins
voters—if they
know about it
By Amy Chance
Bee Capitol Bureau
Voters tend to favor Proposition. 111, the Jure ballot
measure that would raise the state's gasoline tax and gov-
ernment spending limit, when they learn of its details, ac-
cording to a new California Poll.
Told that the measure would use higher truck weight
fees and gasoline taxes to pay for traffic congestion relief.
the poll found voters willing to support the proposition 47
percent to 39 percent.
That result was good news for proponents of Proposi-
tion 1 11. which drew less support in a February Califor-
nia Poll. The earlier survey found voters split on the
question. 46 percent to 46 percent.
But the new poll also showed that Proposition 111
backers still have a lot of work to do to get voters to focus
on the measure and to be able to identify it by its ballot
designation.
Just one voter in five. or 19 percent, reported having
heard or seen anything
about the proposition,
`
which will appear �s the
It always
"Traffic Congestion Relief
Undecided
and Spending Limit Act" on
comes as a
the ballot.
The small proportion of
surprise to
voters who had heard some-
some people
thing about the measure fa -
vored its passage by 8
to see such a
percent to 4 percent, with 7
percent undecided.
high degree of
"It always comes as a sur -
prise to some people to see
such a high degree of inat-
inattention
tension this close to an elec-
Undecided
tion." said poll director
this close to
Mervin Field. "But that's
been the usual pattern in
an election.9
the last few elections. You
6%
just don't see people attend-
- pollster Mervin Field
ing to issues until they have
to."
Backers of the proposi-
tion began running radio ads this week in the state's ma-
jor media markets to urge
approval of the measure and
an accompanying $I billion
transit bond measure, Propo-
sition 108.
Proposition I 1 I would boost the tax on gasoline and
CAPITOL NEWS
The California Poll
(Statew+de opinion)
Prop. 111: Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limit Act
Uniturel&er
Would vote
Wood rota
Undecided
with prop.
YES
NO
81%
80/0
4%
7%
After reading proposition
47%
39%
14%
Prop.118: Legislature, Ethics, Reapportionment
Unilomilla r
Would vote
Would vote
Undecided
with prop.
YES
NO
an.
30,16
40/6
6%
After reading proposition 52% 20% 28%,
Prop. 119: Reapportionment by Commission
Urbrniliar Would vote Would vote Undedded
with prop. YES NO
900/0 3% 4% 3%
After reading proposition 35% 32% 33%
The wryer was wriduded by telephone April 9 -12 among a cross-sechen of
U$ registered voters with an error margin of about 3.9 percentage poNts.
araohic
diesel fuel. now 9 cents a gallon. by 5 cents in 1990, fol-
lowed by a 1 -cent increase for each of the next four years.
The poll also found little public awareness of two June
ballot measures on the subject of reapportionment. Both
initiatives would change the process for redrawing legis.
lative and congressional district lines in the wake of the
latest national census count.
New district lines currently are approved by a majority
vote of both houses of the state Legislature and the gover-
nor. Proposition 118, sponsored by Marin County busi-
nessman Gary Flynn, would require approval by a
two-thirds vote of each house and by a majority of voters
in an election.
The Republican -backed measure also promises to set
up a legislative ethics committee, a component that Dem-
ocrars say was included in a deliberate attempt to manip-
ulate voters into supporting the measure. Only 18 percent
of voters said they had heard of the initiative. But when
read a summary of the wording describing Proposition
118 that will appear on the ballot, 52 percent of voters
said they would be inclined to vote yes. Twenty percent
were opposed and 28 percent were undecided.
Proposition 119, sponsored by San Mateo County Su-
pervisor Tom Huening, would create a 12 -member com-
mission to adjust political boundaries.
The poll found that the measure had made an impres-
sion on just 10 percent of voters. When voters were read a
summary of Proposition 119, they supported it more nar-
rowly than the other reapportionment initiative, 35 per-
cent to 32 percent.
F
a
cc
cc
CD
Co 0
Lu
c
ca -
G V C r cC ..
GL ✓ N. 0. r G t;
Ll
` v
ct
CZ
tn
s O Q
G
tS r i v G
G r � u.
` s .•� cn_, '.''a1. S. -aV. .--. v
�..`
r -.. -y.+ v iA-�•. y
.•p y
i.
•..
-o.
r
u
• . -:. E'_"._r .;' CJ -. .'V •r •CA �'. v -
.� S-:� 1 --¢.-r O
.--..�G. - C ... U] '"J -•
r
V
�
C
-
V � `'" CV�.+) - Qui V •. CJ -
: r ' Cl.
CJ Viz=..
.. -�
S Q'..•+ O }1., - G-' _ '.:.5,-.'
:: ''.� - to C'
v
`O. .V...ti�n,-Y G'
i c nci:a
a e ";
'� 'Ca
.cn cy ' ' C. -„� � ,o-0-' O C •.C1 U �
'w _ G' „) ''" y O v
C .
$� Ems' .`r 'u "C._.
_ - � .Z• + _ .. „' C ` "'� t-1
O
.�.
u,- a
C .
'
.Vv
-
Ar,
tOr3o
O ei -ice
f`
C.. C C
�� �.cc
7z;
Qj
um CZ
UO
US
tr
U
r �,,: . O' _� 'TS
: to N
r' y . 'TS r
r, _,Z5;,.
O? 7i p. w
b0
O O 2,
,�
r
-
rt
C3 t�o
Ll
-•.� cn
'r''C3 -�
51,.
�i.
V)�,.'r
,n'-� O � U].' ec.
:.;n ^..:T$
O
^• to
�_. -
U O:• G
!ted ..-, O O
-' O••�`. ,.f• •+-:. O
O
-.0 :.
., r
�.'
=
•
w
�. Ir r
ti r
0 3
r
•
0.
y
71
to.
o O
o CZ
p....ct
p
x
Q
O t -u
C) v
r O:
U Z."
r T1
tt
Q-
O'J
..
i
.,.cz
two5
V ^O GS O
bA S].
:,,0 ,ry ; .�
.! .;
'. V s.. • u 3..'^l
y ._:
.
U.: .� p•
O .. O
.rl
Ull
y
CZ
'.r+a' � �.,
'-•
H
.,..
Lt � �
:U) W H
Cpl'
O
-
CC
�
Q u g v
O'
y O
y
'p; O H -Ln
y L3
"■. D y Lam+ s,
.. ^+ tq �'
,.
y v O «+ :,
`n �. r
w.
Cp
o
v
"�
y
c 7: p N r
06N
.,moi• 7.� TS
r. r
f, ..-
tc."j •: Ll. rU
CUI.�
EFt:,�
�eac 51..E
7 rS 'L .-+
_.
:: '—,
j` 'u-. L'•i cn rte..
04.0 ..
_ -
N r
f„
.
memo-
CL
7.
r
CZ
cvi-
710
Long Beach Freeway Widen existing freeway and construct new freeway from Route 105
(Century Freeway) to Route 210 (Foothill Freeway).
Rail Transit Projects Eligible For Props. 111 & 108 Funds:
Los Angeles Metro Rail
-Wilshire/Alvarado-W ilshireMestem
-Wilshire/Alvarado-Lankershim/Chandler
-San Fernando Valley Extension
-Union Station -State Highway Routes 5 and 710
-Wiishire/Westem-Wilshire/State Highway Route
Los Angeles Ccunty.Light Rail
-San Fernando Valley
-Pasadena-Los Angeles
-Coastal Corridor (Torrance to Santa Monica)
-Santa Monica -Los Angeles
-State Highway Route 5
-State Highway Route 110
Los Angeles County Commuter and Intercity Rail Improvement
Projects:
-Los Angeles to Santa Barbara County
-Los Angeles to Ventura County
-Los Angeles to San Bernardino County
-Los Angeles to Orange County
-Los Angeles to San Diego County
-improvements include: 22 low cost time Improvement projects for faster train service; 2 new
Amtrak Stations (locations to be determined); station improvements at Burbank Airport,
Chatsworth and Glendale; new station at Van Nuys Airport-, new rolling stock (4 trainsets and
10 Extra cars); and upgrade siding and track.
Interregional Projects Eligible For Prop. 111 Funds:.
Route Description of Project
14
Santa Clarita to Escondido Summit
14
Escondido Summit to Palmdale
126
Ventura County to Route 5
138
Palmdale to Route 18
138
Pearbossom
Widen 4 lane Freeway to 6 lanes. 9.9 miles
Widen 4 lane Freeway to 6 lanes. 14.9 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes. 5.2 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes. 18.0 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes and add bridge. 5.3 miles
138
Route 18 to San Bernardino County Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes. 5.6 miles
ININK
®O® League of California Cities
■®OL-
California Cities
Work Together
TO: City Managers
FROM: Don Benninghoven, Executive Director
RE: Projects to be funded by Propositions 111 and 108
Please find enclosed the list ofprojects that are scheduled to be funded by the state and
county portions of Propositions 111 and 108. We're forwarding them to you, by county,
to enable you to inform members of the city council, employees and citizens about the
impact these two very important ballot measures will have on cities.
In addition, I'm attaching a list of actions that you may want to consider. We feel that
Propositions 111 and 108 are two of the most important measures our voters will act on.
Our goal is to ensure that all citizens are as fully informed about the impacts these
measures will have on cities as possible.
We're also publishing a weekly newsletter, called "Update," that is distributed with the
"Legislative Bulletin." It includes a variety of information about what the two ballot
measures will do and how they impact cities, as well as suggestions for informing citizens
and employees.
Should you have any questions about any of these items, please contact the League's
Communications Director, Sheri Erlewine, at 916/444--5790.
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
BOX 7005, LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 404 HILTON CENTER OFFICE BLDG.
(415) 283-2113 (916) 444-5790 900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(213) 629-1422
5
League of California Cities
PROPOSITIONS 111 AND 108
Local Actions for Cities
The following actions are those that may be taken by a city to educate citizens and
employees about the impacts that Propositions 111 and 108 can have on the city. Care
should be taken to ensure that cities not devote public resources to advocating or
opposing a ballot measure, but to informing. The city attorney should be consulted
should questions arise, and the League's "Guide to City Participation in Ballot Measure
Campaigns" is available. Should you have any questions about activities or this
information, contact the Leag17e's Director of Communications at 916/444-5790.
1. Take a Position on the Measures - At an upcoming City Council meeting, the
Council should vote to take a position on the measures (be sure to act on both
measures). Documenting the impact they will have on the city, including which
projects will be funded and the actual amount of revenues, will be important.
Sample resolutions are available from the League office.
2. Issue a News Release - Notify the local news media of the city's stance on the
measures. Again, be sure to document the impact. Sample releases and release
formats are available from the League.
3. Editorials or Op -Ed Stories - Requesting a meeting with the editor of your
local paper to discuss the measures could result in an editorial. A letter to the
editor could be submitted to the paper as an op-ed piece.
4. Presentations at Service Clubs - You might consider making a speech at a
local service club to talk about how important these measures are for cities. This
is an ideal way to informally present news ideas to an important group of citizen
and business leaders. Speeches of varying lengths are available.
5. Articles for Local Publications - An article submitted to local newsletters, ex.
chamber of commerce newsletter, senior citizens. ;?l.iblicatlor-s. recreation
brochure, etc., would help to get the issues before citizens.
6. Employee Education Efforts - Be sure all city employees understand the
measures and their impact. This can be done by distributing the League's fact
sheet to all employees (possibly with paychecks) and ensuring that the weekly
newsletter published by the League, called "Update," is distributed weekly to all
employees.
7. Citizen newsletter articles - Citizen newsletters, bill inserts or other mailings to
all citizens or to blocks of citizens could include a discussion of the ballot
measures.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Project Completion Delayed Indefinitely Unless Prep. 111 Passes (1988 STIP):
Route Description of Project
1
Pacific Coast Highway Widen and channelize from•Marin.e to Grand.
5
Golden State Freeway Widen southbound roadway from Route 170 (Hollywood Freeway)
to Van Nuys Blvd.
10 ,
San Bernardino Freeway
Extend eastbound busway from Baldwin Avenue to Puente Avenue.
10
Santa Menica'Freeway
Construct eastbound on-ramp at Uncoln Blvd.
47
Construct separation at Seaside ii oil Plaza.
60
Pomona Freeway
Construct interchange at Route 71 (Corona Expressway) and add
climbing lane from Greenwood Avenue to Route 71.
101
Ventura Freeway
Construct interchange at Valley Circle.
101
Ventura Freeway
Widen freeway from Route 170 (Hollywood Freeway) to Route 27
(Topanga Canyon).
105
Complete freeway from Route 605 to Route 1.
110
Harbor Freeway
Complete guideway for buses; to support rail later.
118
Widen freeway from Topanga to Balboa.
126
Santa Paula Freeway
Widen highway from 11 th Street to 15th Street.
138
Construct passing lanes, channelize and correct curve from Route 5
to Route 18.
187
Widen highway from Pack to Lincoln.
210
Foothill Freeway
Add lanes from Route 164 to Route 39 (Azusa Avenue).
213
Western Avenue
Improve conventional highway from Carson
to Del Amo Blvd.
405
San Diego Freeway
Restripe 5th lane from Studebaker Road to Route 101 (Ventura Freeway).
San Diego Freeway Construct interchange at Arbor Vitae.
605 Widen freeway from Route 91 (Artesia Freeway) to Fairton Street.
Transit Prop A and Metro -Rail
Various Roadway state highway rehabilitation projects.
Various Soundwalis. "
Priority Highway Projects Eligible For Prop. 111 Funds:
Route Description of Project
10
San Bernardino Freeway Extend busway from Baldwin to Citrus.
30 Construct freeway, widen conventional highway from Foothill Blvd. to
San Bernardino County line.
48 Construct shoulders from 270th Street West to Route 14.
57
Orange Freeway
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Orange County line
to Route 60.
60
Pomona Freeway
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Route 57 to San
210
Bernardino County line.
71
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Route 134 to
Corona Expressway
Convert to freeway from Holt to North Ranch Road.
72
Whittier Blvd.
Widen conventional highway for relinquishment from Pico Rivera West
city limits to Atlantic.
91
Artesia Freeway
Widen freeway from Route 605 to Orange County line.
118
Simi Valley Freeway
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool and mixed flow lanes from
Ventura County line to Route 405.
126
Santa Paula Freeway
Widen highway and construct freeway from Ventura County line to
Route 14.
138
Palmdale Blvd.
Widen conventional highway from Route 14 to Avenue T.
210
Foothill Freeway
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Route 134 to
Foothill Blvd.
405
San Diego Freeway
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Orange County line
to Route 118.
605 Widen freeway from Orange County line to South Street.
CALIFORNTNS FOR BETTER TRANARTATION
ISSUES COMMITTEE
I.D. 891955
Jack D. Maltester CAMPAIGN UPDATE
President
Arthur E. Bauer PROPOSITIONS 108,111 and 116
Treasurer
Why Vote for Propositions 111 and 108?
Take A Look at Caltrans' Proposed 1990-1991 Budget
California's transportation budget for the 1990-91 fiscal year was the subject of a recent
hearing of the Assembly Ways & Means Transportation Subcomittee. The subcomittee,
chaired by Assemblyman Steve Clute (D -Riverside) was told that the governor's proposed
budget assumes no new revenues. Consequently, it presents a stark picture of the conditions
that California's transportation program will face if Propositions 111 and 108 are not
approved by the voters.
The legislature's budget arm, the highly regarded non-partisan, Office of the Legislative
Analyst, concluded the following regarding the Caltrans budget:
o Caltrans' total budget will be down by 23 percent from the current fiscal
year.
o Expenditures for the highway program will be off 22.4 percent and for the
mass transit program they will be off 29.9 percent.
o Over 765 positions will be cut, including 513 dedicated to the design and
engineering of state highway projects.
o California will be unable to match federal highway funds anticipated to be
made available during the 1988 State Transportation Improvement
Program period, which ends in 1993.
o Caf?fornia's transit assistance program. is evlikerated with Caltrans
proposing to transfer $104 from transit projects to offset diminished
highway funds. Essentially, this will be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Californians for Better Transportation also presented testimony to the subcommittee. The
statement is attached.
California Transportation Commission Cuts Contracts to be Awarded
In a budget balancing action, the California Transportation Commission postponed going to
contract for the construction of 29 state highway projects having a value of $280 million due
to lack of funding. This brings the total contracts postponed this year to $230 million.
Among the projects postponed included $85 million on the Century Freeway in Los Angeles,
$83 million on 1-215 in Riverside County, $51 million on Route 30 between San Bernardino
and Redlands, and $15 million on I-880 in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties.
1400 K STREET, --21 2 ♦ SA CRAMF.NT0 ♦ CA ♦ 9>8 1 4 ♦ 91 6 )448-6901
These projects are assured of funding if Propositions 111 and 108 are enacted in June.
Should Propositions 111 and 108 not be enacted, the construction time for these projects will
be extended over the next decade.
Opposition Emerges to Propositions 111 and 108
Remnants of Paul Gann's tax reform group, Arthur Laffer, a gadfly economist, San Diego
and Orange County no growth advocates, and others have formed Citizens Against Unfair
Taxation to oppose Propositions 111 and 108. The major elements of their argument is that
voting for these measures will do away with the Gann expenditure limit, cause inflation and
trigger a recession, and will not address congestion.
None of these assertions are true, but since when are people constrained by the truth?
Sacramento Bee Endorses Propositions 108, 111 and 116
The "newspaper of record" for state government endorsed the three transportation
propositions in its lead editorial Sunday, May 6. A copy of this editorial is enclosed.
0
STATEMENT TO THE WAYS &. MEANS
TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE
REGARDING PROPOSITIONS 111 AND 108
AND THE CALTRANS 1990-91 BUDGET
Submitted by
Arthur Bauer
Executive Vice President
Californians for Better Transportation
April 25, 1990
Mr. Chairman and members, Californians for Better Transportation is pleased to have this
opportunity to testify at the hearing regarding the overview of the governor's proposed 1990-
91 Caltrans budget.
As has been pointed out to you by Mr. Leonard, chairman of the California Transportation
Commission and Caltrans' very able director Bob Best, the: state's transportation program is
terminally ill unless Propositions 111 and 108 are approved by the voters in June.
The lack of funding has caused Caltrans to propose a budget that is 23 percent less than the
current budget for next fiscal year. This proposed budget is a precursor of future budgets.
The cuts often represent Hobbsian choices which are really acts of desperation. For
example, the Transportation Planning & Development Account is reduced by $40 million
from the State Transit Assistance Program to sustain elements of the highway program
which itself is reduced 22 percent. A transportation budget that reflects decisions of this sort
is unfortunately not a broad based transportation program, but rather a group of
expenditure categories with very limited goals and objectives.
It is for this reason that CBT and other groups have been seeking the passage of
Propositions 111 and 108. In regard to the campaign efforts, one of the questions that
members of CBT's board of directors has repeatedly heard during meetings with service
clubs and with newspaper editorial boards around the state; relates to exactly how the
Proposition 111 and 108 funds will be used. The public needs the confidence that funds will
be spent as intended. Therefore, we strongly support your staff recommendation to
essentially adopt a dual budget --the proposed budget, which assumes no new revenues, and
an alternative budget that assumes the additional $718 million that the passage of
Proposition 111 will make available to the highway program next year. This action will
communicate to Californians what they can expect in the first year after both propositions
are enacted.
Fonar 4 The Saone =mento Bee . Sunday, May 6, 1990
Yes on transportation
There are three measures on the June
ballot Propositions 108, 111 and 116
designed to confront California's massive
transportation problems. Two, Propositions
108 and 116, authorize bonds for major rail
projects; the third, 111, confronts the state's
badly deteriorating streets and highways.
The Bee recommends a Yes vote on all three.
Proposition 111 must pass. Because it loos-
ens California's increasingly unmanageable
government spending limits, it is crucial to
the maintenance of all state services, from
health to higher education. In addition, Prop-
osition 111 authorizes the state to increase
gasoline taxes — currently among the lowest
in the country — from 9 cents to 18 cents a
gallon. The new taxes will raise $18.5 billion
over the next 10 years, primarily to upgrade
and build state and local roads — needs that
have been neglected for more than a decade.
The gas -tax measure is oriented toward
full funding for the State Transportation Im-
provement Plan,.an extensive list of highway
projects approved in 1988 that includes road
improvements in virtually every community.
Its critics say that some of those projects no
longer make environmental sense, or even
relieve congestion. Where that's true, every
effort must made by state and local officials
to substitute better plans. But in most cases,
it seems not to be true. The bulk of the gas -
tax money will go to a long list of traffic miti-
gation measures — diamond lanes, traffic -
management systems, sound walls; to ur-
gently needed improvements in local streets;
and to expansion of local transit systems. For
commuters stuck in traffic and confronted
with a network of rapidly deteriorating
roads, those needs should be obvious.
•
roposition 111 also makes possible the
implementation of Proposition 108, a $1
billion rail and light-rail bond measure, if the
voters approve it on June 5. Along with Prop-
osition 116, a $1.9 billion rail -bond initiative,
108 would give the state an opportunity to in-
vest in mass transit alternatives that will be-
gin to give Californians some real alterna-
tives to cars and beg n to restore balance to
the state's highway dependent transporta-
tion systema The two measures identify rail
corridors, including Sacramento light-rail
extensions, San Joaquin Valley rail.improve-
ments and Bay Area to Sacramento intercity
rail lines, as places where bond money will
be spent — Ion rolling stock and improved
tracks, roadbeds and stations — to expand
rail passenger service.
The reasons for 108 and 116 should like-
wise be obvious. In many of the most con-
gested parts of Los Angeles and the Bay Area
— as well as in Sacramento — the cost of ex-
panding freeways is prohibitive and likely to
produce more air pollution and generate
more traffic. The two bond measures are
thus companions, both politically and in the
development of a balanced transportation
policy, to the highway improvements that
Proposition 111 makes possible. They, too,
deserve to pass.
There is one troubling aspect about
Proposition 116, which was placed on
the ballot by initiative and was thus subject
to no overall fiscal planning. Planning trans-
portation systems and issuing bonds by ini-
tiative is never ideal; it becomes particularly
problematic at a time when California is ap-
proaching a limit on the amount of new debt
it can prudently absorb in each election cy-
cle. Indeed, if Proposition 111 does not pass,
and the Gann limit on spending therefore re-
mains unchanged — or if any other serious
fiscal crisis should occur — issuance of rail
bonds approved under Proposition 108 or
116, or both, will have to be postponed in fa-
vor of other, even more pressing state needs.
If necessary, rail bonds tentatively scheduled
by the Legislature for 1992 and 1994 may al-
so have to be delayed.
Nonetheless, given the urgency of the
state's transit needs and the fact that the in-
frastructure funded by 108 and 116 is likely
to generate far more in economic growth —
and the tax revenues to pay off the bonds —
than it costs, both rail measures should be
approved now. Without them, the state's
gridlocked roads and its dirty air can only get
worse. All three major party candidates for
governor, John Van de Kamp, Dianne Fein-
stein and Pete Wilson, have signed ballot ar-
guments in favor of Proposition 116. All sup-
port all three transportation initiatives. Yes
on 108, 111 and 116.
PROPOSITIONS AND 108
What is Proposition 111?
j Appearing; on the dune 1990 ballot will be a measure, titled Proposition 111 (titled "The
i "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990" and formerly known as
SCA1). It contains three elements:
- It I-evises till :alter,„ding limit calculatic)ns for local government and tile: shite. The revision,,
wltl alio'v�; 1'()r •v';'7:.r appropriatirns limit io be adjusted annually at a rate to keel) pace with the I
economic g;rowtil in your city.
_ 1t allows fm i. creases in vehicle fuel t lies and truck weight, lees tet funel State, county and j
city t!-ansp( yr ltion irnprovernents. These new funds, which come from increases in the grits
and) :t•csci lar and cn:rmercial vehicle we;' gtt fees, would be exempt from state and local zp- �
I
pr0l7rititions 1.uttits.
i
- It re�'!!�('� the school l:()()l ±t1n.lII1- .-! .,Iallve passed in 1988 to 0alance the state's educational needs i
I'
W!!i'1 th:: i',,eeC]S of oth': r Stiltt; S( t`ViCf 5. j
Impact,, Spending t
Q. How would setting my city's limit be
different
A. Currently, cities adjust their limits based on
the change in the cost -of -living only. If Prop.
111 is passed, a city would adjust its "Gann
Limit,” or spending limit, by either 1) the
change in California's per capita personal
income or 2) the percentage change of growth
in total assessed value due to non-residential
construction.
In addition, cities currently may adjust their -
spending limits basedonchanges in population
within the city. Legislation passed (Senate Bili
88) to implement Proposition 111 would allow
for one of two methods to change the limit
based on population increases: either 1)
changes in population in the city, or 2) the
percentage increase in population for the entire
county.
Finally, Prop. 111 would exclude from the
spending limit any appropriations for certain
capital expenses, defined as land, capital im-
provements or equipment that exceed $100,000
and have a life expectancy of ten years or more.
It would also exclude from the state limit any
future increases in the gas tax or truck weight
fees,
NNW
ONE
;IN;
League of California Cities
E M II•
1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916)444-5790
California Cities
Work Together
YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO
PROPOSITIONS AND 108
What is Proposition 111?
j Appearing; on the dune 1990 ballot will be a measure, titled Proposition 111 (titled "The
i "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990" and formerly known as
SCA1). It contains three elements:
- It I-evises till :alter,„ding limit calculatic)ns for local government and tile: shite. The revision,,
wltl alio'v�; 1'()r •v';'7:.r appropriatirns limit io be adjusted annually at a rate to keel) pace with the I
economic g;rowtil in your city.
_ 1t allows fm i. creases in vehicle fuel t lies and truck weight, lees tet funel State, county and j
city t!-ansp( yr ltion irnprovernents. These new funds, which come from increases in the grits
and) :t•csci lar and cn:rmercial vehicle we;' gtt fees, would be exempt from state and local zp- �
I
pr0l7rititions 1.uttits.
i
- It re�'!!�('� the school l:()()l ±t1n.lII1- .-! .,Iallve passed in 1988 to 0alance the state's educational needs i
I'
W!!i'1 th:: i',,eeC]S of oth': r Stiltt; S( t`ViCf 5. j
Impact,, Spending t
Q. How would setting my city's limit be
different
A. Currently, cities adjust their limits based on
the change in the cost -of -living only. If Prop.
111 is passed, a city would adjust its "Gann
Limit,” or spending limit, by either 1) the
change in California's per capita personal
income or 2) the percentage change of growth
in total assessed value due to non-residential
construction.
In addition, cities currently may adjust their -
spending limits basedonchanges in population
within the city. Legislation passed (Senate Bili
88) to implement Proposition 111 would allow
for one of two methods to change the limit
based on population increases: either 1)
changes in population in the city, or 2) the
percentage increase in population for the entire
county.
Finally, Prop. 111 would exclude from the
spending limit any appropriations for certain
capital expenses, defined as land, capital im-
provements or equipment that exceed $100,000
and have a life expectancy of ten years or more.
It would also exclude from the state limit any
future increases in the gas tax or truck weight
fees,
Q. What if my city has an emergency
and needs any surpluses it might
have?
Impact on: Transportation
Q. What does Prop. 111 do to relieve
congestion?
A. Prop. 111 allows for funds to be spent in -
excess of the limit for emergencies declared by A. In conjunction with Prop. 108, a rail bonds
the governor without reducing subsequent years' measure, $18.5 billion will be provided over the
limits; Inext ten years to do the following:
Q How is the spending limit checked?
A. The annual calculation of the appropriation
limit will be reviewed as part of an annual audit.
The nature of this review will be defined by
statute, and it is intended that cities will be
involved in the drafting of this statute.
Q. If it passes, when would the
provisions go into effect?
A. The base year for determining a city's limit
would be the 1986/87 year. The provisions will
go into effect on July 1., 1990.
Q. What is the impact of Proposition
111 if our city is not at its Gann
Limit?
A. First, itis expected that many cities not at
their Cann limit will reach the limit in just a few
years.
Second,Proposition 111 excludes gas taxes from
the State Gann Limit which is the only way to
provide the opportunity for the state to raise
new gas tax money. Without this Proposition,
there will be no increases in the state gas tax.
Third, the passage of Proposition 111 provides
direct money for the local transportation system
as well as providing new money for which local
governments can compete.
2
• Funding the 9988 State Transportation Im-
provement Program (grIP) shortfall - $3.5
billion. Projects to be funded are in the cur-
rent 1988 plan.
. Subvention to cities and counties - $3 bil-
lion. Half the fund is for cities and half for
counties, to be distributed to cities based on
population. Cities will have to maintain their
local contributions to the transportation
system and in counties with an urbanized area
of 50,000 or more, develop a Congestion
Management Plan in order to receive the
funds.
Cities can expect to receive an average of
$6.68 per capita annually once the full tax
increase is in place. The first year will result in
about half that amount, with the subvention.
increasing each year until it reaches the full
amount in five years.
- Flexible Congestion Relief Program - $3
billion. Highways, local roads and transit
guideway projects are eligible for funds under
this program. Funds would be spent on the
most cost-effective project designed to reduce
congestion as determined by the California
Transportation Commission.
• State -local transportation partnership pro-
gram - $2 billion. The money in this fund can
be used entirely by local government for local
highway, local road or transit guideway proj-
ects, and must be matched at least on a dollar -
for -dollar basis with local funds.
• Intercity rail, commuter rail and urban rail
transit - $3 billion. Also on the June ballot is
Proposition 108, which authorizes the sale of
$1 billion in general obligation bonds to be
used for mass transit guideways, on specified
rail corridors, including urban rail, commuter
rail and intercity rail. Two additional $1
billion bond measures for the same purposes
are scheduled to go before the voters in No-
vember, 1992 and November, 1994. Fifteen
percent of the $3 billion is specifically allo-
cated for intercity rail projects.
. Inter -regional roads - $1.25 billion. This
would be for specified state highway routes
primarily outside urban areas.
. Traffic system management - $1 billion. For
use on transportation systems management
projects on state highways and local roads
designed to increase carrying capacity without
increasing lanes, as determined by the CTC.
. Retrofit soundwalls - $150 million. To
complete all remaining soundwalls designated
in the current soundwall program.
Environmental enhancement and mitigation
$100 million. For use on urban reforestation
and other environmental mitigation measures
to ease the environmental effects of transpor-
tation facilities.
. Transit operation and/or capital - $500 mil-
lion- This would fund the State Transit Assis-
tance Program and would be apportioned to
all areas of the state with half the apportion-
ment based on population and half on transit
operator revenues.
. Maintenance and rehabilitation of state
highways_ $1 billion. To be used on additional
state highway maintenance and rehabilitation
costs.
Q. Where does the money come from?
A. The money will come from an increase in
the gasoline and diesel user tax rate of five cents
per gallon effective Aug. 1, 1990 and additional
annual increases of one cent per gallon until the
total reaches nine cents per gallon. In addition,
it will come from an increase of 40 percent in
weight fees for trucks over 4,000 pounds starting
Aug. 1, 1990 and another 10 percent increase on
Jan. 1,1995.
Net revenues from the tax and fee increases will
generate an estimated $15.5 billion during the
ten-year period from July 1, 1990 to June 30,
2000.
Q. Where does the additional $3 billion
conte from?
A. Prop. 108 would authorize the state to sell
the first $1 billion of a total of $3 billion in
general obligation bonds to raise funding for
passenger rail transportation. The second $1
billion bond authorization will be placed on the
November 1992 general election ballot and the
third on the November 1994 general election
ballot.
Q. What's the Congestion Management
Plan?
A. The Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
would be required in every county with an
urbanized area of 50,000 citizens or more as a
condition to compete for and receive the funds.
The CMP would have to be developed and
adopted annually and must contain the follow-
ing:
a) The 9'_'MP would be prepared by a public
agency designated by the county board of
supervisors and a majority of cities repre-
senting a majority of the incorporated popu-
lation in the county. This could either be an
existing agency or the local governments
could create a new agency. The CMP would
be prepared in cooperation with regional
transportation planning agencies, Caltrans,
air pollution districts, and other local govern-
ments.
The agency that will produce the CMP must
be designated by a vote of the county and a
majority of the cities representing ti majority
of the population.
b) CMP elements would include service
standards for roads, highways and public
transit, trip reduction efforts to promote
alternative transportation methods, pro-
grams to measure impacts of development
on regional transportation systems, and a
seven-year capital improvement program
that maintains or improves service stan-
dards, mitigates transportation impacts of
development, and conforms vehicle emis-
sions reductions and mitigation measures.
c) The CMP capital program would become
the basis for the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP) adopted for
the region by the regional transportation
planning agency.
d) The regional transportation planning
agency would evaluate the CMP for consis-
tency with regional transportation plans and
could exclude inconsistent projects from the
RTIP.
e) The agency responsible for developing
the CMP would monitor implementation of
the CMP by cities and counties and could
recommend that the new gas tax subventions
for local entities be withheld if cities are not
in compliance.
f) Authorizes the California Transportation
Commission to give priority projects to cities
and counties in compliance with their CMP.
Q How is the northlsouth split handled?
A. All of the expenditures in the transportation
package would be subject to the current method
for determining the "north/south split" and
"county minimums," except highway mainte-
4
nance, safety, state -local partnership monies,
transportation systems management monies,
intercity rail, and expenditures for the Transpor-
tation Planning and Development Account.
Counties not receiving their minimums during
the 1988-93 period would have these minimums
carried forward to the 1993-1998 period of the
funding proposal. After adopting the 1992
STIP, the California Transportation Commis-
sion is prohibited from allocating any funds for
any project if the STIP is not programmed in a
manner that guarantees every county its county
minimum.
lmpact on: Schools
Q. How does Prop. III change funding
for schools approved by Prop. 98?
A. Prop. 98, approved by voters in 1988, guar-
anteed K-14 schools would receive a share of
the state general fund and determined what
portion of the state's annual surplus, if any,
would go to schools. Implementing legislation
currently being negotiated will further define
the schools provision of Proposition 111. Prop.
111 provides that 50 percent of any state surplus
over the state's limit will go to schools, but this
amount will not become a part of the school's
base funding. The remainder of any surplus
would be, returned to the taxpayers.
For Copies of
Propositions 111 and 108
contact the
Secretary of State
Elections and Political
Reform Division
9161445-0820
APRIL 1990
CALIFORNIANS FOR BETTER TRANSPORTATION
ISSUES COMMITTEE
I.D. 891955
Jack D. Maltester CALIFORNIANS FOR BETTER TRANSPORTATION
President
CAMPAIGN UPDATE
Arthur E. Bauer
Treasurer PROPOSITIONS 108,111 AND 116
Californians for Better Transportation under the auspices of its Issues Committee has been
actively participating in the campaigns supporting the passage of Propositions 108, 111 and
116. The campaign activities of CBT are closely coordinated with Woodward & McDowell,
the campaign managers of Propositions 108 and 111, and 1th the Planning & Conservation
League which manages the Proposition 116 campaign.
Editorial Board Meetings
CBT representatives have already met with the editorial boards of major newspapers in the
state and expect to meet with several more before the June election to explain the need for
the three propositions. CBT president Jack Maltester, Executive VP Arthur Bauer, and
board member Jim Bourgart from the Bay Area Council met with the editors of the San
Francisco Chronicle. Bourgart and Michael George, another CBT board member and a vice
president of the First Boston Corporation, met with the ;fan Francisco Examiner's editors.
Maltester and Bauer were joined by Larry Naake from the County Supervisors Association
and Ed Gerber from the California Transit Association in a briefing with the Sacramento
Bee. The Sacramento Union's editors were visited by Maltester, Bauer and CBT's
communications consultant Robert Deen. Maltester and Bauer also briefed the San Jose
Mercury.
San Diego board members Jim Mills, Chair of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board
and Jim Schmidt, Vice Chairman Great America Savings, were joined by California
Transportation Commission member Tom Hawthorne and Bauer in briefings to the editorial
boards of San Diego two newspapers, the Union and the Tribune.
At the editorial briefings, CBT's role in defining the transportation financing needs of the
state over the past decade is explained and the circumstances which require the enactment
of the three measures are discussed. In all cases the newspapers that have been briefed
either have supported or, intend to support the ballot measures, especially Propositions 111
and 108.
Three Common Misconceptions Regarding. Proposition 111
Three reoccurring misconceptions regarding Proposition 111 have been heard at editorial
briefings and at speaking engagements. The big three misconceptions are:
1. Gas tax revenues will assist in funding general fund programs and not transportation
projects as intended
1400 R STREET. #21 2 ♦ SA.CRAMF.NTO ♦ CA ♦ 95814 ♦ ( 916)448-6901
Response: This cannot happen because Article 19 of the State Constitution limits
expenditures of fuel tax revenues to transportation projects. This has been a feature of
California's financial system since 1938.
2 Proposition Ill does away with the Gann expenditure limit.
Response: Proposition 111 modifies the Gann limit by redefining gas tax revenues as user.
fees, thus ensuring that the revenues generated by Proposition II I's gas tax increase can
only be spent for needed transportation projects. Another modification ensures that
education's current share of the state budget is guaranteed.. Aside from these two
modifications, the Gann expenditure limit remains as a counter balance to excessive
government expenditures.
3. Proposition 111 does away with property tax relief guaranteed by Proposition 13.
Response: Proposition 111 does not affect in any fashion the guarantees contained in
Proposition 13.
California Transportation Commission endorses Proposition 116
At its March meeting in Long Beach, the CTC unanimously endorsed the $1.990 billion rail
bond initiative measure, Proposition 116, sponsored by the Planning & Conservation
League. The CTC now joins CBT and many other organizations who have already endorsed
Proposition 116.
Polls Show Mixed Public Reaction to Transportation Measures
A recent Field Poll indicates that if the public is informed on the issues covered by
Proposition 111, people are disposed to vote for the measure. Once informed of the
purposes of Proposition 111, 47 percent of those questioned support the measure, 39 percent
is unopposed and 14 percent is undecided.
(See attached article) This underscores the need for broad based participation in the
campaign in order to ensure passage of these critical ballot measures.
How can the Californians for Better Transportation Issues Committee help you get
the message out on Propositions 108, 111 and 116?
o Provide material for distribution in company newsletters to company vendors and
clients.
o Provide periodic updates as to campaign progress.
o Provide material for newsletter articles.
o Provide brochures to address specific transportation related issues.
o Brief local news media concerning transportation issues.
Prop. Ill wins
voters —if they
know about it
By Amy Chance
Bee Capitol Bureau
Voters tend to favor Proposition 111, the June ballot
measure that would raise the state's gasoline tax and gov-
ernment spending limit, when they learn of its details, ac-
cording to anew California Poll.
Told that the measure would use higher truck weight
fees and gasoline taxes to pay for traffic congestion relief.
the poll found voters willing to support the proposition 47
percent to 39 percent.
That result was good news for proponents of Proposi-
tion 111, which drew less support in a February Califor-
nia Poll. The earlier survey found voters split on the
question, 46 percent to 46 percent.
But the new poll also showed that Proposition 111
backers still have a lot of work to do to get voters to focus
on the measure and to be able to identify it by its ballot
designation.
Just one voter in five, or 19 percent, reported having
heard or seen anything
about the proposition,
` which will appear #s the
It always "Traffic Congestion Relief
and Spending Limit Act" on
comes as a the ballot.
The small proportion of
surprise to voters who had heard some-
thing about the measure fa -
some people vored its passage by 8
Pe'
to 4 pc cent. %'Ith 7
to see such a percent undecided.
1t always comes as a sur.
high degree of prise to some people to see
such a high degree of inat-
inattention tention this close to an elec-
tion," said poll director
this close to Mervin Field. "But that's
been the usual pattern in
an eleetion.9 the last few elections. You
just don't see people attend-
- pollster Mervin Field ing to issues until they have
to."
Backers of the proposi-
tion began running radio ads this week in the state's ma-
jor media markets to urge approval of the measure and
an accompanying $1 billion transit bond measure. Propo-
sition 108.
Proposition 111 would boost the tax on gasoline and
CAPITOL NEWS
The California Poll
(Statewide opinion)
Prop. 111: Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending UmitAct
Uraunllhw Would vote Would vote Undecided
with Prop. YES 00
81% 8% 4% 7%
Atter reading proposition
47%
390/0
14%
Prop.118: Legislature, Ethics, Reapportionment
Urdeudilar
U*Mlbv
Would vote
Would vote
Undedded
with Prop.
YES
NO
4% 3%
I 02"70
a o
-"r%
6%
After reading proposilion
52%
20% 28%
Prop. 119: Reapportionment by Commission
Urdeudilar
Would vote
Would vote Undecided
With prop.
YES
NO
Wo
3%
4% 3%
After reading proposition 35% 32%o 33%
The urrM was conducted by telephone April 9 -12 among a cross-section of
646 regstered VOWS rnth an error margin of about 3.9 pettxmag0 points.
diesel fuel, now 9 cents a gallon, by 5 cents in 1990, fol-
lowed by a I -cent increase for each of the next four years.
The poll also found little public awareness of two June
ballot measures on the subject of reapportionment. Both
initiatives would change the process for redrawing legis-
lative and congressional district lines in the wake of the
latest national census count.
New district lines currently are approved by a majority
vote of both houses of the state Legislature and the gover-
nor, Proposition 118, sponsored by Marin County busi-
nessman Gary Flynn, would require approval by a
two-thirds vote of each house and by a majority of voters
in an election.
The Republican -backed measure also promises to set
up a legislative ethics committee, a component that Dem-
ocrats say was included in a deliberate attempt to manip-
ulate voters into supporting the measure. Only 18 percent
of voters said they had heard of the initiative. But when
read a summary of the wording describing Proposition
118 that will appear on the ballot, 52 percent of voters
said they would be inclined to vote yes. Twenty percent
were opposed and 28 percent were undecided.
Proposition 119, sponsored by San Mateo County Su-
pervisor Tom Huening, would create a 12 -member com-
mission to adjust political boundaries.
The poll found that the measure had made an impres-
sion on just 10 percent of voters. When voters were read a
summary of Proposition 119, they supported it more nar-
rowly than the other reapportionment initiative, 35 per-
cent to 32 percent.
5
I
T
•
O
�.I®
O
00
CO)
�O
400
O
O
=
C
CA
O
0Ob
�
O
r
W
�.
r
J
J
sr
ca
tz
rz
C =Ir
-
i r
r
J y
f
I.
—
CD
•SC
�'
- J
rte.
Yr
' ...:�
- �, J
..r
J
J
f. ~ ...
ii
r...
- - • I
cc
I
r
J
'J'.
.—.
Lr
LU
•'J ��
J
'J'
_
J J
J
_ � "'aIr
r
•J'
r ^ ^
r
.
.r
a
J.
-
y
r
r
:J: ^
:� :J J:
J r..
I .— ;/:
J
�
r 'l. r"
� .rye..
—
J y
—
CD
Yr
ii
r...
- - • I
cc
I
r
J
'J'.
.—.
Lr
r
•J'
r ^ ^
r
.
.r
a
J.
-
y
r
r
:J: ^
:� :J J:
J r..
I .— ;/:
J
�
r 'l. r"
� .rye..
—
Lo C13
;!,
- -
VrI
co
,�J
•J;.
L r
�� �
.'' �
--•
r '--'
i`
—
.r �f,
�,.,
tri,
'••'
CD
Yr
ii
r...
r
..i r
Lr
r
•J'
r ^ ^
r
.
.r
a
J.
-
y
r
r
:J: ^
:� :J J:
J r..
I .— ;/:
J
�
r 'l. r"
� .rye..
—
;!,
- -
IL
;m; League of California Cities
Califomia Cities
Work Together
TO: City Managers
FROM: Don Benninghoven, Executive .Director
RE: Projects to be funded by Propositions 111 and 108
Please find enclosed the list of projects that are scheduled to be funded by the state and
county portions of Propositions 111 and 108. We're forwarding them to you, by county,
to enable you to inform members of the city council, employees and citizens about the
impact these two very important ballot measures will have on cities.
In addition, I'm attaching a list of actions that you may want to consider. We feel that
Propositions 111 and 108 are two of the most important measures our voters will act on.
Our goal is to ensure that all citizens are as fully informed about the impacts these
measures will have on cities as possible.
We're also publishing a weekly newsletter, called "Update," that is distributed with the
"Legislative Bulletin." It includes a variety of information about what the two ballot
measures will do and how they impact cities, as well as suggestions for informing citizens
and employees.
Should you have any questions about any of these items, please contact the League's
Communications Director, Sheri Erlewine, at 916/444-5790.
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
BOX 7005, LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 404 HILTON CENTER OFFICE BLDG.
(415) 283-2113 (916) 444-5790 900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(213( B29-1422
League of California Cities
PROPOSITIONS 111 AND '108
Local Actions for Cities
The following actions are those that may be taken by a city to educate citizens and
employees about the impacts that Propositions 111 and 108 can have on the city. Care
should be taken to ensure that cities not devote public resources to advocating or
opposing a ballot measure, but to informing. The city attorney should be consulted
should questions arise, and the League's "Guide to City Participation in Ballot Measure
Campaigns" is available. Should you have any questions about activities or this
informiatioD, contact t1he League's Director of ComTnuracations at 916/444-5790.
1. Take a Position on the Measures - At an upcoming City Council meeting, the
Council should vote to take a position on the measures (be sure to act on both
measures). Documenting the impact they will have on the city, including which
projects will be funded and the actual amount of revenues, will be important.
Sample resolutions are available from the League office.
2. Issue a News Release - Notify the local news media of the city's stance on the
measures. Again, be sure to document the impact. Sample releases and release
formats are available from the League.
3. Editorials or Op -Ed Stories - Requesting a meeting with the editor of your
local paper to discuss the measures could result in an editorial. A letter to the
editor could be submitted to the paper as an op-ed piece.
4. Presentations at Service Clubs - You might consider making a speech at a
local service club to talk about how important these measures are for cities. This
is an ideal way to informally present news ideas to an important group of citizen
and business leaders. Speeches of varying lengths are available.
5. Articles for Local Publications - An article submitted to local newsletters, ex.
chamber of commerce newsletter, senior citizens publications, recreation
brochure, etc., would help to get the issues before citizens.
6. Employee Education Efforts - Be sure all city employees understand the
measures and their impact. This can be done by distributing the League's fact
sheet to all employees (possibly with paychecks) and ensuring that the weekly
newsletter published by the League, called "Update," is distributed weekly to all
employees.
7. Citizen newsletter articles - Citizen newsletters, bill inserts or other mailings to
all citizens or to blocks of citizens could include a discussion of the ballot
measures.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Proiect Completion Delaved lndefiniteiv Unless Proo. 111 Passes (1988 STIP):
Route Description of Project
i
Pacific Coast Highway Widen and channelize from -Marine to Grand.
5
Golden State Freeway Widen southbound roadway from Route 170 (Hollywood Freeway)
to Van Nuys Blvd.
10 ,
San Bernardino Freeway Extend eastbound busway from Baldwin Avenue to Puente Avenue.
10
Santa Monica Freeway Construct eastbound on-ramp at: Lincoln Blvd.
47 Construct separation at Seaside Toil Plaza.
60
Pomona Freeway
Construct interchange at Route 71 (Corona Expressway) and add
climbing lane from Greenwood Avenue to Route 71.
101
Ventura Freeway
Construct interchange at Valley Circle.
101
Ventura Freeway
Widen freeway from Route 170 (Hollywood Freeway) to Route 27
(Topanga Canyon).
105
Complete freeway from Route 605 to Route 1.
110
Harbor Freeway
Complete guideway for buses; to support rail later.
118
Widen freeway from Topanga to Balboa.
126
Santa Paula Freeway
Widen highway from 11 th Street to 15th Street.
138
Construct passing lanes, channelize and correct curve from Route 5
to Route 18.
187
Widen highway from Pacific to Lincoln.
210
Foothill Freeway
Add lanes from Route 164 to Route 39 (Azusa Avenue).
213
Western Avenue
Improve conventional highway from Carson
to Del Amo Blvd.
405
San Diego Freeway Restripe 5th lane from Studebaker Road to Route 101 (Ventura Freeway).
San Diego Freeway Construct interchange at Arbor Vitae.
605 Widen freeway from Route 91 (Artesia Freeway) to-Fairton Street.
Transit Prop A and Metro -Rail.
Various Roadway state highway rehabilitation projects.
Various Soundwalis. "
Priority Highway Projects Eligible For Prop. 111 Funds:
Route Description of Project
10
San Bernardino Freeway Extend busway from Baldwin to Citrus.
30 Construct freeway widen conventional highwy a " from Foothill Blvd to
Santa Paula Freeway
San Bernardino County line.
48
Construct shoulders from 270th Street West to Route 14.
57
Orange Freeway
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Orange County line
210
to Route 60.
60 -
Widen freeway and add bus -and. -car-pool lane from Route 134 to
Pomona Freeway
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Route 57 to San
405
Bernardino County line.
71
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Orange County line
Corona Expressway
Convert to freeway from Holt to North Ranch Road.
72
Whittier Blvd. -
Widen conventional highway for relinquishment from Pico Rivera West
city limits to Atlantic.
91
Artesia Freeway
Widen freeway from Route 605 to Orange County line.
118
Simi Valley Freeway
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool and mixed flow lanes from
Ventura County line to Route 405.
126
Santa Paula Freeway
Widen highway and construct freeway from Ventura County line to
Route 14.
138
Palmdale Blvd.
Widen conventional highway from Route 14 to Avenue T.
210
Foothill Freeway
Widen freeway and add bus -and. -car-pool lane from Route 134 to
Foothill Blvd.
405
San Diego Freeway
Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Orange County line
to Route 118.
605 Widen freeway from Orange County line to South Street
710
Long Beach Freeway Widen existing freeway and construct new freeway from Route 105
(Century Freeway) to Route 210 (Foothill Freeway).
Rail Transit Projects Eligible For Props. 111 & 108 Funds:
Los Angeles Metro Rail
-W ilsh ire/Alvarado-W iishire/Westem
-W ilsh ire/Alvarado-Lankershim/Chandler
-San Femando Valley Extension
-Union Station -State Highway Routes 5 and 710
WilshirelWestem-Wilshire/State Highway Route
Los Angeles County,Ught Rail
-San Femando Valley
-Pasadena-Los Angeles
-Coastal Corridor (Torrance to Santa Monica)
-Santa Monica -Los Angeles
-State Highway Route 5
-State Highway Route 110
Los Angeles County Commuter and Intercity Rail Improvement
Projects:
-Los Angeles to Santa Barbara County
-Los Angeles to Ventura County
-Los Angeles to San Bernardino County
-Los Angeles to Orange County
-Los Angeles to San Diego County
-improvements include: 22 low cost time Improvement projects for faster train service; 2 new
Amtrak Stations (locations to be determined): station improvements at Burbank Airport,
Chatsworth and Glendale; new station at Van Nuys Airport; new roiling stock (4 trainsets and
10 Extra cars); and upgrade siding and track.
Interregional Projects Eligible For Prop. 111 Funds:
Route Description of Project
14
Santa Clarita to Escondido Summit
14
Escondido Summit to Palmdale
126
Ventura County to Route 5
138
Palmdale to Route 18
138
Pearbiossom
138
Route 18 to San Bemardino County
Widen 4 lane Freeway to 6 lanes. 9.9 miles
Widen 4 lane Freeway to 6 lanes. 14.9 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes.. 5.2 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes. 18.0 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes and add bridge. 5.3 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes. .5.6 miles
SAMPLE RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR SCA 1
WHEREAS the state of California faces serious problems
in its fiscal policy which threaten the critical areas of
education, transportation, health services, law enforcement
and other taxpayer services thereby endangering the state's
current and future economic health; and
WHEREAS SCA 1 would alter the Gann spending limit to
allow the state greater flexibility :in making use of all
available revenues generated by California's strong economy;
and
WHEREAS it would allow the state to raise the gasoline
tax to provide increased funding for maintenance and
improvement of highway and mass transit projects without
reducing funds for other state programs; and
WHEREAS it would continue the guarantees of Proposition
98 that K-12 and the community colleq_es receive 40% of the
state budget; and
WHEREAS without a change in the Gann spending limit, it
will be impossible to maintain the generally high level of
education, transportation, health, law enforcement and other
vital services to the residents of California:
WHEREAS SCA 1 is supported by a broad coalition
including Governor George Deukmejian,, State Superintendent of
Schools Bill Honig, California Taxpayers Association, League
of Women Voters of California, California School Boards
Association, California Chamber of Commerce, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, California Association
of Hig#way Patrolmen, California Retired Teachers
Association, California Professional Firefighters, California
State Automobile Association, California Business Roundtable,
University of California Board of Regents, California State
University Board of Trustees, and many others; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
supports passage of THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
RELIEF AND SPENDING LIMITATION ACT OF 1990.
(Signature & Title) Date
PLEASE MAIL OR FAX TO:
CALIFORNIANS FOR SCA 1 AND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
111 Anza Blvd., Suite 406 1400 K Street
Burlingame, CA 94010 Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: 415/340-1740 FAX: 916/444-8671
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
May 18, 1990
AGENDA DATE: MAY 22, 1990
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: ROBERT L. VAN NORT, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RONALD L. KRANZER, CITY ENGINEE le
SUBJECT: MEDIAN ISLAND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AT
GRAND AVENUE
Attached are the plans for the subject improvements on Diamond Bar Boulevard to accommodate the
proposed traffic signal system to allow for double left turn pockets on Diamond Bar Boulevard at
Grand Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the plans and authorize the advertisement of bids
for the subject improvements with a bid date of June 14, 1990.
RLK:nb2239:cc-db:gradnlmedian.db
(Narrative continued on next page if necessary)
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Requested $
Budgeted Amount $
In Account Number:
Deficit: $
Revenue Source:
REVIEWED BY:
-------------------------------------------- --------------------
Robert L. Van Nort Andrew V. Arczynslci Linda Magnuson
City Manager City Attorney Sr. Accountant
0
0
z
�i
ag 54-
a�
_
5EoE
aEt
= n -Pt - u6a
q.Eu
Sal
a
:oar
�o$ E`er
6u
V �
>c
�i�
a'EE
s
N -,
NoY
u u
4s•
qu
r 4. a
9�i
t
t g a
3a4o
gic
E
Y
a
a
.0
i
a
_s49
te
.Y;
o- a`o
^^
�"_0'u•.u��"-Q9o
isa.
=SY'oYV,
C�� eA-.. ow���"obvy=:��Q 9�. .sco�.'
'E..���
.oco-�.F
'uE,
.
w^_�-
'
esagGs ��^•`-'@`'''a^
c«`9kt`ouf•�
uoEVu
.���
s^c•
s4+ii.e�oe o'g
tEsO.a
�
.,oa
juE..eo
. `oy .o 4,s6y YyV �3wpc�Va
�y`,i-
V? °' t o aao
V �,,
rs'a5
§a.5o
3v Y yco-^Doors"
d.�`• nQ sin
w
^
Zaz
zadm
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: City Clerk's Office
FROM: Personnel Committee (C/Forbing and Horcher)
SUBJECT: Employment Agreement
DATE: May 17, 1990
Please find attached the Employment Agreement for City Manager
1990-1991 to be placed on the next City Council Meeting, May 22.
RLVN:ps
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Employment Agreement, is made and entered into this day
of June, 1990, by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and ROBERT L. VAN
NORT, hereinafter referred to as "Manager."
W I T N E S S E T H
A. RECITALS.
(i) City desires to employ Manager as City Manager of City.
(ii) It is the desire of City's City Council to provide certain
benefits, establish certain conditions of employment, and to set work-
ing conditions of Manager.
(iii) It is the desire of City's City Council (1) to provide a
clearly defined procedure for terminating the services of Manager when
the City's City Council may desire to terminate his employment, (2) to
.assist in the maintenance and well-being of Manager, (3) to retain the
services of Manager and to provide inducement for him to remain in
such employment, (4) to make possible full work productivity by assur-
ing Manager's morale, health, and peace of mind with respect to the
future security of him and his family, and (5) to establish a clear
and mutually understood system of compensating Manager.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
SECTION 1. DUTIES.
City hereby agrees to employ Manager as City Manager of City to
perform the duties and functions specified in the Diamond Bar Ordinan-
ces and Regulations and to perform such other duties as City's City
Council shall from time to time assign to Manager. Manager shall nei-
ther accept nor engage in any other employment or consulting activi-
ties without City's City,Council's prior written approval.
SECTION 2. TERM.
This Agreement shall commence as of June 1, 1990 and shall terminate
on June 30, 1992 unless sooner terminated in the manner and on the
terms provided below.
SECTION 3. TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAY.
A. City's City Council may terminate the employment of Man-
ager at any time, provided, however, that, if and when such employment
is so terminated without cause, City shall pay employee a lump sum
cash payment equal to the monetary value of eight months' salary and
benefits articulated below for Manager.
B. In the event Manager desires to resign his position with
City, then Manager shall give City sixty (60) days' written notice
thereof in advance.
SECTION 4. SALARY.
Commencing May 5, 1990, Manager shall receive a monthly salary in
the amount of Seven Thousand, Four Hundred Dollars ($7,400).
SECTION S. USE OF CITY VEHICLE.
The Employee's duties require the exclusive and unrestricted use
at all times during the duration of this Agreement of an automobile
provided by the Employer. The Employer shall be responsible for pay-
ing liability, property damage, and comprehensive insurance for the
purchase, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of such an
automobile.
SECTION 6. DEFERRED COMPENSATION.
The Employer agrees to establish a deferred compensation program
for the Employee and deposit Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00) monthly
toward this program, effective May 1, 1990.
SECTION 7. OTHER BENEFITS.
Manager shall receive sick leave, bereavement leave, holidays,
E
medical benefits, P.E.R.S. contributions and any other benefits sup-
plied to City's other employees on the same basis as offered to such
other employees. To the extent the same is legally permissible, Man-
ager may elect to obtain such benefits pursuant to a "cafeteria plan"
with the monetary value of benefits not selected applied to a deferred
compensation plan selected by Manager and approved by City. Moreover,
Manager shall not be obligated to join P.E.R.S. until March 5, 1991.
Upon commencement of employment with City, Manager shall be deemed to
have accrued, and shall have credited to him fifteen (15) days of va-
cation leave to be taken at times mutually agreed upon by City and
Manager. Manager shall be permitted to attend, at City expense, pro-
fessional conferences approved by City's City Council through the bud-
get or other appropriate process. Manager shall, in addition to the
above benefit, be entitled to ten (10) days of administrative leave
per year, and shall accrue twenty (20) days of vacation annually.
SECTION 8. RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION.
City and Manager recognize that City is initiating the legally
required procedure to contract with the Public Employees Retirement
System. To the extent the same is legally permissible, City agrees to
endeavor to enroll Manager therein at the earliest opportunity,' retro-
active to the commencement date of Manager's employment with City.
City agrees to pay Manager's share of the P.E.R.S. contribution in
addition to the City's share thereof.
SECTION 9. REIMBURSEMENT OP EXPENSES.
Manager shall be reimbursed for his out-of-pocket expenses inci-
dent to services performed on behalf of City hereunder, including pro-
fessional activities, such as travel expenses, in the event Manager is
required to travel on behalf of City. Manager may be supplied credit
9
cards at the discretion of City's City Council which he shall use to
defray such expenses whenever practicable for ease of accounting.
SECTION 10. INDEMNIFICATION.
City shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify Manager against
any tort, professional liability claim or demand or other legal ac-
tion, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act
or omission occurring in the performance of Manager's duties hereunder
and will compromise and settle any such claim or suit and pay the
amount of any settlement or judgment rendered therefrom to the extent
specified in the California Government Code.
SECTION 11. DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS.
City's City Council agrees to budget and pay for the professional
dues of Manager in the International City Managers' Association, and
to consider defraying such other dues and subscriptions of Manager
which City's City Council deems appropriate and necessary for his con-
tinuation and full participation in associations and organizations
necessary and desirable for his continued professional participation,
growth and advancement, and for the benefit of City.
SECTION 12. EVALUATION AND MERIT INCREASES.
City's full City Council shall review and evaluate the perfor-
mance of Manager at least once annually during the period between
April 1 and June 30 in advance of the adoption of the annual operating
budget. Said review and evaluation shall be in accordance with spe-
cific criteria developed jointly by City's City Council and Manager.
Said criteria may be added to or deleted from as City's City Council
may, from time to time, determine, in consultation with Manager. Fur-
thers, City's City Council shall provide Manager with a summary written
statement of the findings of City's full City Council and provide an
adequate opportunity for Manager to discuss his evaluation with City's
4
City Council. Said annual evaluation shall constitute the basis for
City's City Council to consider any salary merit increases requested
by or afforded to Manager during the term hereof.
SECTION 13. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
To the maximum extent possible, Manager shall provide his input
to and communicate with all members of City's City Council simulta-
neously. In any instance where such simultaneous communication is not
feasible, Manager shall communicate with City's Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem
or any other member of City's City Council in that order.
SECTION 14. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
A. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the heirs at law and executors of Manager.
B. -If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid,
the remainder shall nevertheless be deemed valid and ef-
fective, and it is the intention of the parties hereto
that each provision hereof is being stipulated separately
in the event one or more of such provisions should be held
invalid.
C. Manager may not assign this Agreement, in whole or in
part.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR has caused this
Agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Mayor, and
duly attested by its City Clerk, and Manager has signed and executed
this Agreement, both in duplicate, the day and year first above writ-
ten.
Robert L. Van Nort Gary Werner, Mayor
City Manager City of Diamond Bar
lev
ATTEST: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Lynda Burgess
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Andrew V. Arczynski
City Attorney
City of Diamond Bar
SPOUSAL CONSENT
A Municipal Corporation of
the State of California
The undersigned is the spouse of ROBERT L. VAN NORT and hereby
consents to ROBERT L. VAN NORT's execution of the above Agreement, and
agrees to be bound by the terms of said Agreement.
Diane Van Nort
21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177
714-860-2489 • FAX 714-861-3117
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT
Notice is hereby given that the City of Diamond Bar City
Council, at their meeting of May 15, 1990, adjourned said meeting
to May 22, 1990 at the hour of 5:30 p.m,. in the Board Room,
Walnut Valley Unified School District, 880 S. Lemon Avenue,
Diamond Bar, California. Said adjournment was passed by the
following votes:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Papen, Kim, Horcher,
Mayor Pro Tem Forbing,
Mayor Werner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
sl Lynda Burgess
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
(SEAL) of the City of Diamond Bar
Dated: May 16, 1990
GARY H.' WERNER JOHN A. FORBING PHYLLIS E. PAPEN PAUL V. HORCHER JAY C. HIM ROBERT L. VAN NORT
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR USES RECYCLED PAPER
RECEIVED
MAIMOND BAR AGENDA NO.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: May 23, 1990 MEETING DATE:
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: City Manager
FROM: Joann M. SaulFinancial Management .Assistant
SUBJECT: Street Sweeping Contract for the City of Diamond Bar
RECOMMENDATION:
Contract with Community Disposal for street sweeping services for the City of
Diamond Bar pending the selection of a solid waste hauler for the City.*
NOTE: Due to the drought situation in Southern California, it is staff's
recommendation that the contract be awarded on a bi-weekly basis. This
reduction in sweeping frequency will further exhibit the City's commitment to
the water conservation effort. At such time as the water situation improves,
Council may elect to increase the sweeping frequency to weekly schedule.
*Two proposals were received for solid waste and recycling which
included street sweeping services in the rates quoted. It is suggested
that the street sweeping matter be held in abeyance until the solid
waste issue is resolved.
DISCUSSION:
Street sweeping services in fiscal years 1988-89 and 1989-90 were managed by
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (Sweeping services were
provided by California Street Sweeping). They City determined in early 1990
that the city staff was capable of administering its own street sweeping
contract rather than going through Los Angeles County.
(Narrative continued on next page if necessary)
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Requested $ 140,000 (weekly) 70,000 (bi-weekly)
Budgeted Amount $ 200,000
In Account Number: 001-4510-5501
Deficit: $
Revenue Source: General Fund
Y
G✓'c--- ----------------------
Robert L. Van Nort Andrew V. Arczynski
City Manager City Attorney
Linda Ma n son
Sr. Accountant
1 11
Page Two
Street Sweeping
The Diamond Bar City Council approved a "Request for Proposal for Street Sweeping
Services in the City of Diamond Bar" in April 1990. On May 11, 1990 three (3)
proposal were received in the City offices. The proposals were received from the
various companies with the following information:
California Street Sweepina
Weekly Rate - $12.25 per curb mile
Bi -weekly Rate - $12.75 per curb mile
Added Streets - $12.75 per curb mile
Municipal Experience - 16 years
Equipment - Mobil Street Sweepers (Model 2TE) (6 total)
Communitv Disposal
Weekly Rate -
Bi -weekly Rate -
Added Streets -
Municipal Experience -
Equipment -
Backup Equipment
Rov Allen Slurry Seal
Weekly Rate -
Bi -weekly Rate -
Added Streets -
Municipal Experience
Equipment -
$11.49 per curb mile
$11.64 per curb mile
$11.50 per curb mile
26 years
Tymco Model 600
-Sweeprite Model 1100 (2 total)
Wayne Model 990
Elgin - Pelican HH
$12.50 per curb mile
$12.50 per curb mile
$12.50 per curb mile
Limited to sweeping prior to slurry seal
1969 Mobil Sweeper
In process of order 2 additional sweepers
SAO
RE�LKJYP' P. � �X
S' or
A
9W" " TO A!Or %l
212U i�`
NOTES �
1. ALL WORK AND MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
2- ALL POLES AND DETECTOR PLACEMENT SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
3. ALL PULLBOXES SHALL BE No. S UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWSE
4. ALL. CONDUIT SHALL BE 2 -INCH UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. -
5. STREET PAINTING REMOVALS AND INSTALLATION BY CONTRACTOR.
B. ALL WIRING SHALL BE MARKED(TAGGEO) WITHIN THE CONTROLLER CABINET FOR PHASE IDENTIFICATION.
7. EACH LOOP ASSIGNMENT SHALL HAVE A SEPERATE LEAD-IN CABLE TO THE CONTROLLER.
& INDICATES QUEUE CLEARING LOOP.
B. RGSSAU COAXIAL CABLE SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR FROM THE CONTROLLER TO THE
DESIGNATED STANDARD AS INDICATED ON THE PLAN. THE CABLE SHALL BE COILED IN THFI BASE OF THE STANOA) AND
BE OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH M REACH THE TOP OF THE STANDARD N1/H AN ADDITIONAL 3 OF CABLE SLACK.
® MOOIFY EKISTING TYPE 170 CONTROLLER. ADD 4 -ILD CHANNELS. LACO 1 WWV PROGRAM. RADIO CORRECTED TIME BASE UNIT
AND ANIEHNA TO BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY LACO. PROGRAM SHALL INCLUDE EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE-EMPTION.
T REMOVE AND SALVAGE TYPE 17-M POLE REMOVE FOUNDA11ON TO 36' BELOW GRADE,
REMOVE AND SALVAGE TYPE 1 POLE. REMOVE FOUNDATION COMPLETELY.
3
3
3
3
-
-
3
FRORT
1
326-
3
3
3
-
_
3
TO PULLSOX
3
3
3 .
3
3
3
3
4 15
08
3
3
1 3
3
-
-
36'X100'
ILD. WITH
_'1
2 PEO
2
2
2
2
2
-
4
'v
TURN (TYP.)
5 28-.
4 PED
-
-
-
-
2
2
2
4
5'XW I.L.D. WITH
14
PED
-
-
2
2
2
-
-
2
3 TURNS (TYP.)
4 TURNS
1
I
I V
w
6 I5
i PED
2
2
2
2
2
-
_
2
Z PP
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
2
3 TURNS 1 TURN
IO
I
®
Q
Q)
25-
7
4 PER
-
-
_
-
-
i
1
PPB
1
COMBINED LOOPS SHALL BE FORMED
I
I
I
$ IS
i PPB
-
1
1
1
1
-
-
1
LS,N.S.
2
2
2
2
2
-
WITH ONE CON71N000S WIRE.
I
N
CALL E
PPB COMMON
I
1
I
1
1
1
2
2. ALL N
SPARES
3
3
3
3
3
3
8
DETAIL. "A"
f3'JLL /-oza-
I
J
Z
Q
3. REUSE
4. NEW f
TOTALS
IS
24
29
33
38
17
22
BB(Q
7 DETECTOR
-
-1
22
2.
-
-
2%'
, I^
S. LS.N.S
2 OEIECTOR
�'
3
,T
3 OE7ECTTLR
-
-
-
-
_
1
T
I
DLC
4 DETECTOR
5 DE7ECTOR
-
-
_
3
3
a
5
#1$
DETECTOR
-
- -
3
3
��
_
2
1-
DETECTDR
I3
""
8 DEIEC
;
;
;
;
i.
2
I
TOTAL CABLES
1
1
i
i
10
2
7
17
y
•
LUMINAIR
SIGNAL COMMON
2
i
2
t
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
i
-
2
O
i I.
I
/I 8
10
TOTAL
3
I
I
1
}
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
.>„�y
4 FIRZ PRE- PTCRCUIT
-
-
-
2
-
-
2
CONDUIT 51Z
!
2 t
a. 2
2
y
2 1
•
(>A) UNKNOWN SIZE, REUSE CONDUITS, ALL CONDUITS ARE
EXISTING
SAO
RE�LKJYP' P. � �X
S' or
A
9W" " TO A!Or %l
212U i�`
NOTES �
1. ALL WORK AND MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
2- ALL POLES AND DETECTOR PLACEMENT SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
3. ALL PULLBOXES SHALL BE No. S UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWSE
4. ALL. CONDUIT SHALL BE 2 -INCH UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. -
5. STREET PAINTING REMOVALS AND INSTALLATION BY CONTRACTOR.
B. ALL WIRING SHALL BE MARKED(TAGGEO) WITHIN THE CONTROLLER CABINET FOR PHASE IDENTIFICATION.
7. EACH LOOP ASSIGNMENT SHALL HAVE A SEPERATE LEAD-IN CABLE TO THE CONTROLLER.
& INDICATES QUEUE CLEARING LOOP.
B. RGSSAU COAXIAL CABLE SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR FROM THE CONTROLLER TO THE
DESIGNATED STANDARD AS INDICATED ON THE PLAN. THE CABLE SHALL BE COILED IN THFI BASE OF THE STANOA) AND
BE OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH M REACH THE TOP OF THE STANDARD N1/H AN ADDITIONAL 3 OF CABLE SLACK.
® MOOIFY EKISTING TYPE 170 CONTROLLER. ADD 4 -ILD CHANNELS. LACO 1 WWV PROGRAM. RADIO CORRECTED TIME BASE UNIT
AND ANIEHNA TO BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY LACO. PROGRAM SHALL INCLUDE EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE-EMPTION.
T REMOVE AND SALVAGE TYPE 17-M POLE REMOVE FOUNDA11ON TO 36' BELOW GRADE,
REMOVE AND SALVAGE TYPE 1 POLE. REMOVE FOUNDATION COMPLETELY.
,X
D' LL.D. WITH
IN (TVP.)
LD. WITH
1S (TYP.)
RMED
PVLG /-GrGC
X
lk .m
IGELES
N.
J.
TROLLER TO THE
THE STANDAO AND
SLACK.
RECTED TIME BASE UNIT
EHIDLE PRE—EMPTION.
spa
Z
'z
15(E)
28'-8' —
12'(E)
250 W (E) — — -
SV -1—T SP E—T
2(E) —r
jLT
29-4-7
30' 45'
12'
250 W (R) Olam°gR)0ar M MAS
T
SV -1—T SP—T
-R
2(R) �---
Q)
15(E)
28'-9' —
12'(E)
250 W (E) — — —
SV—I—T SP -1 —T
4(E) ---^f.
5
29-5-7
30' 50'
12'
250 W (R) Grand (R) A MAS
SV -7-T SP—RI—T
4(R)LT
6
15(E)
28'-8' —
12'(E)
250 W (E) — — —
SV—I—T SPIE—T
8(E) ---►
]
2Q9-4-7
30' 45'
12'
250 W (R) a- `R)8w N Lf MAS SV -1—T Sp—') T
8(R)
$
15(E)
28'-8' —
IT(E)
250 W (E) — — —
SV -1—T SP—Et—T
8(E) -�--►
1. ALL EQUIPMENT IS NEW UNLESS. SHOWN 07HERWIM (E) -EXISTING. (R) -RELOCATE EXISTING
L ALL NEW INDICATIONS SHALL 13E 12 -IAM
3. REUSE ALL PED SIGNALS AND MOUNTINGS, REUSE PPS's
4. NEW POLES PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED JAN. 1958
5. I.S.N.S.. ILLUMINATED STREET NAME $IGN, STATE TYPE 'A', SHOWN rw
z'c. ra cavr,�e
fYiGG /-occ
exsr. sit✓icy .pec�r�.
�� GJ3tl
O r2L (a,k,)
EL
5'K/Li7, /r!L
EX7aWO COMWIr
74 DIAMOND. BAR BLVD,
- - - -
/-acc
S&�
1 1/2 0 1 2
3 inches on original drawing .
SCALE. 1"=20'