HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/1991THIS MEETING IS BEING TAPED BY JONES INTERCABLE FOR AIRING ON
CHANNEL 51, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR
PERMISSION TO BE TAPED. ALL COUNCIL MEETING TAPES WILL BE
BLACKED IMMEDIATELY AFTER AIRING AND WILL BE UNAVAILABLE FOR
REPRODUCTION.
Next Resolution No. 91-10
Next Ordinance No. 1(199 1)
CALL TO ORDER: 6:02 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Werner
ROLL CALL: COUNCILMEN NARDELLA, PA PEN, KIM, MAYOR
PRO TEM FORBING, MAYOR WERNER
WILLIAM P. CURLEY, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Councilmembers are for Council
discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
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 volunta 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.
SCHEDULE FUTURE MEETINGS -
A. SEATAC - February 25, 1991 - 3:00 p.m., Community Room, 1061 S.
Grand Ave.
B . Planning Commission - February 25, 1991 - 7:00 p.m., W.V.U.S.D. Board
Room, 880 S. Lemon Ave.
C. Council Study Session "1991-92 Fiscal Budget" - February 26, 1991 -
6:00-9:00 p.m., W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880 S. Lemon Ave.
D. Parks and Recreation Commission - February 28, 1991 - 7:00 p.m.,
Community Room, 1061 S. Grand Ave.
E. City Council Meeting - March 5, 1991 6:00 p.m., W.V.U.S.D. Board
Room, 880 S. Lemon Ave.
F. Traffic and Transportation Commission - March 14 1991 - 6:00 p.m.,
Community Room, 1061 S. Grand Ave.
G. Parks and Recreation Commission - March 14, 1991 7:00 p.m., City Hall,
21660 E. Copley Dr., Suite 100.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 19, 1991
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 5, 1991.
3. WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated February 19, 1991
in the amount of $177,996.67.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Receive and file Planning
Commission Minutes of January 14, 1991.
5. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Receive and file
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of December 13, 1990, January 10,
1991 and January 24, 1991.
6. SEATAC MINUTES - Receive and file SEATAC Minutes for December 3, 1990
and January 18, 1991.
7. BOND EXONERATIONS - L.A. County Department of Public Works requested
exoneration of the following surety bonds: Bond No. 83SB 100 360 427, Street
Tree Improvements, Tract No. 42576 vicinity of Longview Dr. and Coldstream
Ct.; Bond No. ASI 100204, Road Improvements, Tract No. 42581 vicinity of
Pantera Dr. and Shady PL; Bond No. ASI 100193, Road Improvements, Tract No.
42579 vicinity of Armitos Place and Bowcreek Dr.; Surety Bond No. ASI 100214,
Road Improvements, Tract No. 42583 vicinity of Bowcreek Dr. and Claywood
Dr.; Surety Bond No. ASI 100219, Road Improvements, Tract No. 42589 vicinity
ofDeersprings Dr. and Bowcreek Dr.; and Bond No. 3007 2322, Road
Improvements, Tract No. 45380 vicinity ofPantera Dr. and Rexford Ct. City
Engineer has reviewed and approves.
Recommended Action: Approve work completed, exonerate the Surety Bonds and
direct City Clerk to send Council action to principals involved.
A) RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 10: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MEDIAN RECONSTRUCTION,
LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CONSTRUCTION ON GRAND AVENUE AT SHOTGUN LANE IN SAID
CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS. Pursuant to previous Council direction,
staff has prepared plans and specifications for the installation of a traffic signal and
median modifications at the intersection of Grand Ave. at Shotgun Ln.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 91 -XX approving plans and
specifications for the median reconstruction, landscape modifications and traffic
signal construction on Grand Ave. at Shotgun Ln. and authorize and direct the
City Clerk to advertise to receive bids.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 19, 1991
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - Proclamations, certificates, etc.
9. PROCLAMATION - Proclaiming the week of March 3-9, 1991 as "Save Your
Vision Week" in the City of Diamond Bar.
9a. PROCLAMATION - Proclaiming the month of March as "Women's History
Month" in the City of Diamond Bar.
10. LETTER OF RECOGNITION - Recognition of Specialist Leonard C. Holifield
in the Persian Gulf.
10a. Muravez - Crime Prevention Update - North of 60, West of 57 then East of 57.
11. SECOND ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION - On April 18, 1991 the City will
celebrate the second Anniversary of its incorporation. The Second Anniversary
Celebration is scheduled to take place on April 13, 1991 at Diamond Bar High
School.
Recommended Action: Direct staff as necessary.
OLD BUSINESS
12. RECREATION SERVICES - At the November 6, 1990 meeting, Council
approved a Request for Proposal for Recreation Services. Three organizations
responded to the RFP. A sub -committee made up of two Parks and Recreation
Commissioners and staff interviewed the proposers. The Parks and Recreation
Commission has recommended awarding the bid to the City of Brea.
Recommended Action: Authorize and direct staff to negotiate a final contract with
the City of Brea for recreation services with an approximate cost of $150,000 and
bring back the contract at the March 5, 1991 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
13. PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS CONTRACT - Continued from February 5,
1991 meeting.
Recommended Action: Authorize an agreement with Kelling, Northcross &
Nobriga, Inc. for financial management services to fund capital projects and
authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.
14. PARK DIRECTIONAL SIGNS - At the present time, all park signage indicates
that the County of Los Angeles is providing city parks. The Parks and Recreation
Commission has requested that staff modify the directional signage. Staff has
created a prototype sign, which has been approved by the Parks and Recreation
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 19, 1991
Commission and the Traffic and Transportation Commission.
Recommended Action: Approve design concept and authorize staff to initiate
production and installation of park directional signage.
15. OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT - OTS Grants are available to local
agencies upon their request and eligibility of a project. The intent of the program
is to assist agencies in improving their traffic safety and operation. Within this
grant cycle, staff informed the OTS of the City's traffic problems and requested
funding to establish a satisfactory record of traffic control devices. On February 6,
1991, the OTS informed us that they have approved our proposal and $79,705 will
be allocated for this project.
Recommended Action: Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with OTS and
proceed with development of a comprehensive Traffic Control Device Inventory
Program.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - This time is set aside for any City Councilmember to direct staff
regarding any matters to be discussed at the next regular meeting
CLOSED SESSION - 8:21 p.m.
Property Acquisition Government Code Sec. 54956.8
ADJOURNMENT - to February 26, 1991 at 6:00 p.m.
UXIMMEO Or THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 5, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 6:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, W.V.U.S.D., 880
S. Lemon Avenue, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of
ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance by Mayor Werner.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Forbing,
Councilmen Nardella, Papen and Kim.
Also present were City Manager Robert L. Van
Nort, Assistant City Manager Terrence L.
Belanger, City Attorney Andrew V. Arczynski,
City Planner James DeStefano, City Engineer
Sid Mousavi and City Clerk Lynda Burgess.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/Papen expressed appreciation for
Congressman David Dreier's assistance with
the City's dual zip codes and stated that a
letter had been received indicating that
within two weeks, "Diamond Bar" could be used
in mailing addresses for the 91789 zip code
area.
M/Werner stated that a successful rally had
been held on Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd.
on January 25th in support of the troops in
the Persian Gulf and commended D.B. High
School and the participants for keeping the
rally clean and legal.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David H. Cope, 316 S. Del Sol Ln, spoke
regarding excessive spending by the City for
reports and not listening to the will of the
people.
Ms. Janet Spatz, General Manager of Jones
Intercable, 20965 Lycoming St., presented the
City a check representing the final franchise
fee for 1990 in the amount of $53,932.71 and
thanked the Council for their cooperation.
Mr. Michael Goldenberg, 1859 Morning Canyon
Rd. spoke in regard to the increasing costs
of City management and administration and the
computer network system proposed by City
staff.
Following discussion, Council directed the
City Manager to prepare a report on staffing
needs for the next 12 months.
Mr. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., spoke
regarding water rationing. He requested
information as to what office buildings and
FEBRUARY 5, 1991 PAGE 2
businesses in the area are doing to reduce
water consumption and the feasibility of
desalinization plants.
M/Werner stated that the Water District is
looking at policies and would present them to
Council at the next meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Nardella moved, seconded by MPT/Forbing to
approve the Consent Calendar with the excep-
tion of Item No. 13, Public Finance Advisors
Contract. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Nardella, Papen, Kim,
MPT/Forbing, M/Werner
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
Approval of
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of
Minutes
January 15, 1991.
Warrant Register
Approved Warrant Register dated February 5,
1991 in the amount of $472,330.41.
Treasurer's Report
Approved Treasurer's Report for the month of
December, 1990.
Traffic & Trans.
Received and filed Traffic & Transportation
Comm. Minutes
Commission Minutes of December 13, 1990.
Parks & Rec.
Received and filed Parks & Recreation
Comm. Minutes
Commission Minutes of October 25, 1990,
November 8, 1990 and December 1, 1990.
Planning Comm.
Received and filed Planning Commission
Minutes
Minutes of October 22, 1990, November 26,
1990 and December 10, 1990.
Resolution 91-05
Adopted Resolution No. 91-05 entitled: A
Rqstg. Bd. of
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
Sups. to Accept
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD
Transfer &
OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Conveyance of
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF
Storm Drain Imps.
CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID
Private Drain
DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF STORM
No. 2156
DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS PRIVATE DRAIN NO.
2156 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR FUTURE
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND
IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND
CONVEYANCE THEREOF.
FEBRUARY 5, 1991
PAGE 3
Resolution 91-06
Adopted Resolution No." 91-06 entitled: A
Rqstg. Bd. of
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
Sups. to Accept
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD
Transfer &
OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Conveyance of
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF
Storm Drain Imps.
CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID
Private Drain
DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF STORM
No. 1820, Unit I
DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS PRIVATE DRAIN NO.
1820 UNIT I IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR
FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND
IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND
CONVEYANCE THEREOF.
Resolution 91-07
Adopted Resolution No. 91-61 entitled: A
Rqstg. Bd. of
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
Sups. to Accept
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD
Transfer &
OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Conveyance of
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF
Storm Drain Imps.
CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID
Private Drain
DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF STORM
No. 1983
DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS PRIVATE DRAIN NO.
1983 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR FUTURE
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND
IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND
CONVEYANCE THEREOF.
Claim for Damages Denied Claim for Damages filed by Mary Hunt.
Mary Hunt
Award of Bid - Awarded bid for installation of traffic
Traffic Signal signal at Golden Springs Dr. and Sunset
Golden Springs Crossing to Raymor Electric Company, Inc. of
& Sunset Crossing Baldwin Park, in the amount of $51,787.
Traffic Signal - Concurred with recommendation of the Traffic
Grand Ave. & and Transportation Commission and authorized
Rolling Knoll staff to proceed with design and bid process.
City Memorabilia Approved concept of selling of City memora-
bilia.
Public Finance CM/Van Nort stated that the purpose of the
Advisors Contract agreement is to review, at no cost to the
City, unless bonds are issued, the City's
ability to acquire funds to construct
facilities and acquire sites.
Mr. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado, stated that
these types of companies usually require that
they provide the bonds and that the Council
may not have the option of dealing with
another company.
FEBRUARY 5, 1991
PAGE 4
C/Papen moved and M/Werner seconded to con-
tinue this matter until such time as Council
has a better understanding of the time frame.
Mr. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., spoke
in opposition to the contract.
Following discussion, motion carried to con-
tinue the matter to the next Council meeting
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Papen, Nardella and
Mayor Werner
NOES: COUNCILMEN - Kim and MPT/Forbing
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
Certificate of M/Werner presented Jeff Fuller with a
Recognition Certificate of Recognition for saving the
life of a two-year-old child.
Proclamation - Proclaimed the month of February, 1991 as
February, 1991 "National Community College Month" and pre -
"National sented Mr. Stu Van Horn of Mt. San Antonio
Community College with the Proclamation.
College Month"
Chino Hills Mr. Doug Sparks with the Chino Hills
Incorp. Committee Incorporation Committee introduced Karen
Bristol, Director, Glenn Norton Parrish,
publicist, Fred Haney, legal counsel and Paul
Hudson, chairman. Mr. Sparks stated that
Chino Hills is the largest master planned
community in Southern California and covers
approximately 46 sq. miles. He made a slide
presentation and stated that they were hoping
to have the incorporation issue on the
November, 1991 ballot.
Operation Desert Administrative Analyst Troy Butzlaff reported
Storm that many local governments, including the
City, have received requests by citizens
asking for the development and/or
implementation of support programs to deal
with the impact of the Persian Gulf crisis.
Staff was directed to develop several viable
alternatives to express the City's support.
Alternatives include but are not limited to:
adopting a resolution in support of our
military personnel or a specific military
unit; proclaiming a certain day or week as
"Armed Forces Day/Week;" lowering the flags
at City Hall and other civic facilities to
half-mast to honor the military personnel
FEBRUARY 5, 1991 PAGE 5
killed in action; and/or flying the POW -MIA
flag at City Hall to remember those members
of the military captured or listed as missing
in action. He further stated that the pur-
pose of supporting a particular activity is
not to condone the use of force but to
express the community's unequivocal support
of our military personnel.
Mr. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado, spoke in
favor of the Council adopting a resolution in
support of Operation Desert Storm. He also
requested the City's assistance in prohib-
iting illegal solicitation by an organization
called "American National Veterans
Incorporated."
Capt. McCown stated that the Sheriff's
Department had previously acted on this
matter and that one individual had been cited
and another arrested.
Mr. Ed Shiltz, a resident of Diamond Bar,
stated that his son is serving in the Persian
Gulf and that he has formed a support group
for families of the troops. His phone number
is 595-3931 and he invited families with
members in the Persian Gulf to call.
Mr. Joe McManus stated that The Edit Shop had
videotaped and interviewed some of the par-
ticipants during the rally and had edited two
6 1/2 minute videos that were sent to the
Persian Gulf. He further stated that
interested persons may view the tape at The
Edit Shop.
M/Werner moved, C/Kim seconded to adopt
Resolution No. 91-08 with appropriate
amendments.
MPT/Forbing read the Resolution.
CM/Van Nort recommended that the fourth
paragraph be amended to include the 1182nd
Airborne as well as other units."
Motion carried unanimously.
C/Papen read the proposed Proclamation.
M/Werner then proclaimed the week of February
11 through 17, 1991 as "Yellow Ribbon Week."
FEBRUARY 5, 1991
PAGE 6
C/Papen suggested that the Proclamation be
amended to add the words "and daughters" in
the third paragraph. Further, she suggested
that our servicemen be honored during the
Second Anniversary Celebration.
RECESS: M/Werner declared a recess at 7:37 p.m.
RECONVENED: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
Vehicle Theft Capt. McCown introduced Deputy Larry Luter,
Decal Program Crime Prevention Officer, Sgt. Steve Webb,
Crime Prevention Sergeant; Warren Wright,
Team Sergeant and Team Lt. Mike Muravez, who
had just arrested two persons in the parking
lot trying to break into one of the cars.
Capt. McCown described the CAT (Combat Auto
Theft) program. Through a contract with the
Walnut Sheriff and after ownership verifica-
tion is obtained, a decal would be affixed to
the inside of the rear window of a person's
car. The decal would indicate that the
persons signing the contract understand that
they are subject to be stopped by a patrol
car anytime between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.
to verify that the car is not stolen.
In response to M/Werner's inquiry, Capt.
McCown indicated that other police agencies
would recognize the decal.
At the request of C/Nardella, Capt. McCown
stated that costs are handled through the
Automobile Club of Southern California and
volunteers are used to man the program.
M/Werner asked how the program would be
implemented once the Council approves it.
Capt. McCown stated that they would work with
the Automobile Club, the Crime Prevention
Unit and the City. Photo sessions would be
scheduled, notices would be publicized and
invitations sent.
Capt. McCown then announced that three
officers from the San Dimas/Walnut Regional
Command are in Saudi Arabia. In recognition,
all squad cars have yellow ribbons and a
blood drive was held on February 5, 1991 in
which 60 pints of blood were donated to the
American Red Cross for the soldiers in the Gulf.
FEBRUARY 5, 1991 PAGE 7
C/Papen moved, C/Nardella seconded to
authorize the Sheriff's Department to include
the City in the Combat Auto Theft (CAT)
Program. Motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
Emergency
ACM/Belanger presented a timeline for comple-
Preparedness
tion of the various tasks required for a
wholly -integrated emergency preparedness
program.
Ordinance 8A
Matter continued to February 19, 1991.
(1990)
Ranch Festival
CM/Van Nort stated that the organization
sponsors an annual event for the purpose of
promoting a "community feeling" in the City,
to give other non-profit groups an opportun-
ity to raise monies, to give businesses a
chance to display and sell products and
services and to distribute profits to local
non-profit groups. Planning for the event is
a year-long process and is directed by a 15 -
member, all -volunteer board. He further
stated that he had met with the President of
the Board and that they are seeking assist-
ance from the City to provide a cooperative
framework so that the City and the Committee
can work together in promoting the festival
in following years. He recommended that
Council appoint a two member sub -committee to
meet with him and the Ranch Festival and
bring the details back for further discussion
by Council.
C/Papen stated that she would be concerned
with the City assuming responsibility and
liability for this event. While she fully
supports the Ranch Festival, she does not
feel that the City is in a position to become
a fundraiser for other non-profit organiza-
tions.
C/Nardella stated that he believed that the
Committee was not looking for the City to
take over the project, but to work hand-in-
hand with the Committee as L.A. County did
before Incorporation. He supported CM/Van
Nort's recommendation.
Following discussion, M/Werner asked for
volunteers from the Council to serve on a
sub -committee to meet with CM/Van Nort and
FEBRUARY 5, 1991 PAGE 8
the Ranch Festival Committee. C/Papen and
MPT/Forbing volunteered.
Reorganization C/Nardella opened the discussion by stating
that at a prior meeting, it was announced
that notification had been received that the
Board of Supervisors approved the City's
request to consolidate elections with School
District elections in November of odd -
numbered years. Based on this, the Council
would be required to reorganize.
C/Papen recommended a one-year term commenc-
ing in December; however, the current term
should be continued until the first meeting
in April, with the next rotation in December
and each December thereafter.
C/Papen moved, C/Nardella seconded to con-
tinue this term until the first meeting in
April, whereupon rotation would occur until
December, and at that time, rotate again to a
one-year cycle. With consensus of Council,
the motion carried.
C/Nardella moved, C/Papen seconded to nomin-
ate MPT/Forbing for Mayor effective the first
meeting in April. There being no other nom-
inations for Mayor, nominations were closed.
With consensus of Council, the motion
carried.
MPT/Forbing moved, M/Werner seconded to nom-
inate C/Kim as Mayor Pro Tem effective the
first meeting in April. There being no other
nominations for Mayor Pro Tem, nominations
were closed. With consensus of Council, the
motion carried.
American CM/Van Nort stated that a request had been
Communities for received from the City of Alhambra to join
Cleanup Equity American Communities for Cleanup Equity.
Alhambra, along with 14 other cities, is
involved in the "Operating Industry's
landfill suit" and is asking for the City's
support in seeking an amendment to the
Federal Superfund law for the purpose of
limiting exposure to cities. He recommended
joining the ACCE.
C/Nardella stated that he was concerned that
it was nothing more than a lobbying organiza-
tion and asked what progress has been made.
FEBRUARY 5, 1991 PAGE 9
C/Kim suggested that this matter be tabled
based on the fact that Diamond Bar is consid-
ered a "bedroom community" and would not be
involved in hazardous waste disposal so there
should be no need to join the organization.
MPT/Forbing was opposed to C/Kim's motion.
Mr. Joe McManus was opposed to joining the
ACCE.
CM/Van Nort stated that the D.B. Lively Sr.
Citizens Club had been contacted and were
aware of the Hearing.
Mr. Clair Harmony asked if the land that is
being bought with the Community Development
Block Grant could be used for more common
purposes such as a City Hall complex/park
with the Sr. Citizens center located on it.
C/Kim moved C/Papen seconded to table this
matter to provide exploration of other
options in concert with Congressman Dreier,
EPA agencies and other cities. Motion
carried by 4 to 1; MPT/Forbing voted No.
Resolution 91-09
CE/Mousavi reported on the 1990-91 Slurry
Approving Plans
project for Area 1. He stated that the
& Specs. for
Engineer's estimate is under $132,000 from
1990-91 Slurry
Gas Tax funds.
Seal Program
C/Kim requested a written City policy be
presented regarding liquidated damages.
MPT/Forbing moved, seconded by M/Werner to
adopt Resolution No. 91-09. Motion carried
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1991-92 Commun.
CP/DeStefano reported on the 1991-92
Development
Development Block Grant Program and stated
Block Grant
that this year, the City is expecting to
Program
to receive approximately $463,000 based upon
the formula.
Following discussion, M/Werner opened the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr.,
suggested that the D.B. Senior Citizens Club
should have been contacted directly regarding
this issue.
CM/Van Nort stated that the D.B. Lively Sr.
Citizens Club had been contacted and were
aware of the Hearing.
Mr. Clair Harmony asked if the land that is
being bought with the Community Development
Block Grant could be used for more common
purposes such as a City Hall complex/park
with the Sr. Citizens center located on it.
FEBRUARY 5, 1991
PAGE 10
PD/DeStefano stated that the development of
the City Hall complex is not a permissible
activity under federal guidelines.
Mr. Harmony then asked if the CDBG money
could be used with other monies to purchase
common property.
PD/DeStefano stated that the funding
mechanisms have to remain in separate
accounts and as far as he is aware, there is
no co -mingling of funds permitted.
Mr. Harmony stated that it can be used for
leverage on a larger purchase without co -
mingling funds.
With no further testimony offered, M/Werner
closed the Public Hearing.
In response to M/Werner's question, CP/
DeStefano stated that he was unaware of any
particular types of housing projects that
would qualify under the present
specifications.
M/Werner suggested using a small portion to
support the "Wings" program.
CA/Arczynski suggested that a number be
allocated to the contingency account, based
on the fact that it is unknown at this time
whether or not this program would qualify
under the HUD CDBG guidelines.
C/Kim stated that he would like to see
increased contingency and decreased land
acquisition.
MPT/Forbing moved C/Kim seconded to approve
the proposed project and recommendations as
provided and direct these materials to be
forwarded to the Community Development
Commission and adopt the attached
requirements to be used in evaluating future
planning eligibility proceedings. With the
following Roll Call vote, the motion carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN - Papen, Kim, Nardella,
Mayor Pro Tem Forbing
and Mayor Werner
COUNCILMEN - None
COUNCILMEN - None
FEBRUARY 5, 1991 PAGE 11
ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Kim proposed that, due to increased traffic
and maintenance of Grand Ave., consideration
be given to making Grand Ave. a toll road.
He also requested that the City Attorney look
into ramifications of having a toll booth on
Grand Ave. In addition, he requested that
staff look into taking over the Country Club.
C/Papen asked for further discussion on the
City computers and requested that a sub-
committee be appointed. C/Nardella and
M/Werner volunteered for said sub -committee.
C/Papen requested staff to make suggestions
on ways to alleviate gang violence.
C/Nardella stated that staff might get in
touch with the Sheriff's Department and the
SANE program to see what is being done. He
further encouraged all community groups and
citizens to participate in "Yellow Ribbon
Week."
M/Werner asked for Council support for prep-
aration of a letter on behalf of the
California Contract Cities Assn. to be sent
to the Legislature in support of SB 76. The
bill is intended to unfreeze the 10% property
tax that has been withheld from cities. No
objections were indicated.
M/Werner congratulated Mayor -Elect Forbing
and Mayor Pro Tem -Elect Kim.
CLOSED SESSION: With no further business to conduct, M/Werner
recessed to Closed Session at 9:08 p.m. for
discussion of Personnel matters.
ADJOURNMENT: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m.,
declared that there was no reportable action
taken and adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
in memory of Fire Fighter Specialist James
Howe who lost his life in the line of duty.
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
ATTEST:
Mayor
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 19, 1991
CALL TO ORDER:
M/Werner called the meeting to order at 6:02
p.m. in the Council Chambers, W.V.U.S.D., 880 S.
Lemon Avenue, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance
ALLEGIANCE:
by Mayor Werner.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmen Nardella, Papen, and Kim, Mayor Pro Tem
Forbing, Mayor Werner.
Also present were Assistant City Manager Terrence
L. Belanger, Assistant City Attorney William P.
Curley III, City Planner James DeStefano, City
Engineer Sid Mousavi and City Clerk Lynda Burgess.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
C/Nardella stated that the Walnut Valley Water
District has announced a usage reduction goal of
15% for each household and that the Diamond Bar
Improvement Assn. has conservation kits available
at the Chamber of Commerce. He also stated that
he has received a couple of phone calls regarding
the inability to schedule time with staff after
having a project denied or rejected by the
Planning Department. He would like to see staff
find time (within 48 business hours, if possible)
to meet with applicants who have had projects
rejected, for an explanation of the denial and how
to amend their plans to obtain approval.
MPT/Forbing stated that he had been contacted by a
number of residents whose gas bills reflect a 5%
"City utility tax". He explained that this is a
computer error by the Gas Co. and that persons
paying this amount in error will receive a credit
on future billings. He also stated that there
have been several inquiries into the reason for
the trailer parked at the Park -N -Ride at Diamond
Bar Blvd. under the 60 fwy. He explained that The
person is there at the request of Cal Trans to
deter car thefts at the Park -N -Ride lot.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Robert Eggert, 1050 Overland Ct., San Dimas,
District Manager, So. Calif. Gas Co., stated that
the County had instituted the 5% tax to be applied
to services provided in unincorporated areas only
and that the Gas Co. had errored in separating
their data files. He repeated the instructions
outlined by MPT/Forbing.
Mr. Piero L. Wemyss, 24207 Gingerwood Pl., stated
that the Council should give better guidance to
the Planning Department so that the Department
could become more efficient and better serve the
community's needs.
FEBRUARY 19, 1991 PAGE 2
Mr. Chuck Martin, 444 Red Cloud, stated that his
problem with the Planning Department is that he
received a different answer to the same question
on numerous occasions. He further inquired into
the manner in which the Mayor is selected.
M/Werner stated that the Mayor is selected by the
Council on an annual basis.
Mr. Joe McManus, 23561 E. Coyote Springs Dr.,
stated that a Letter to the Editor written by the
Mayor contained a factual error; specifically,
that Assemblyman Horcher had not endorsed SB2557.
The truth is that Assemblyman Horcher did endorse
on two occasions --Friday, October 5, 1990 during
the La Habra Chamber of Commerce Candidates Debate
and Tuesday, October 23, 1990 during the Whittier
Area League of Women's Voters Candidates Debate at
Whittier College. Further, he felt that Mayor
Werner cannot effectively serve two masters since
he is working for Assemblyman Horcher.
Mr. David H. Cope, 316 S. Del Sol Ln., spoke
regarding bonds and his opposition to the sale
thereof.
Mr. Jim Paul, 1269 Ahtena Dr., stated that both
his gas and electric bill showed a "city utility
tax" on them. He further stated that he had
contacted the Gas Co. and the Edison Co., who
after much discussion, agreed to rectify the
problem. He further went on to praise the Council
for not implementing a utility tax.
Mrs. Lydia Plunk, 1522 So. Deerfoot Dr., stated
that, as a member of the Parks and Recreation
Commission, she had been the dissenting vote
against contracting with the City of Brea for
recreation services, but agreed to defer to the
other Commissioners and concur with their
decision.
CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Kim moved, seconded by MPT/Forbing to approve
the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Nardella, Papen, Kim, MPT/
Forbing, M/Werner
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
FEBRUARY 19, 1991
PAGE 3
Schedule
A. SEATAC - February 25, 1991 - 3:00 p.m.,
Future Meetings
Community Room, 1061 S. Grand Ave.
B. Planning Commission - February 25, 1991 -
7:00 p.m., W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880 S.
Lemon Ave.
C. Council Study Session 111991-92 Fiscal Budget"
- February 26, 1991 - 6:00-9:00 p.m.,
W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880 S. Lemon Ave.
D. Parks & Recreation Commission - February 28,
1991 - 7:00 p.m., Community Room, 1061 S.
Grand Ave.
E. City Council Meeting - March 5, 1991 - 6:00
p.m., W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880 S. Lemon
Ave.
F. Traffic & Transportation Commission - March
14, 1991 - 6:00 p.m., Community Room, 1061 S.
Grand Ave.
G. Parks & Recreation Commission - March 14,
1991 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall, 21660 E. Copley
Dr., Suite 100.
Approval of
Approved Minutes of February 5, 1991.
Minutes
Warrant Register
Approved Warrant Register dated February 19, 1991
in the amount of $177,996.67.
Planning Comm.
Received and filed Planning Commission Minutes
Minutes
of January 14, 1991.
Parks & Rec.
Received and filed Parks & Recreation Commission
Comm. Minutes
Minutes of December 13, 1990, January 10, 1991 and
January 24, 1991.
SEATAC Minutes
Received and filed SEATAC Minutes for December 3,
1990 and January 18, 1991.
Bond Exonerations
Approved work completed, exonerated the following
Surety Bonds and directed the City Clerk to send
Council action to principals involved: Bond No.
83SB 100 360 427, Street Tree Improvements, Tract
No. 42576 vicinity of Longview Dr. and Coldstream
Ct; Bond No. ASI 100204, Road Improvements, Tract
No. 42581 vicinity of Pantera Dr. and Shady P1.;
Bond No. ASI 100193, Road Improvements, Tract No.
42579 vicinity of Armitos Place and Bowcreek Dr.;
Surety Bond No. ASI 100214, Road Improvements,
Tract No. 42583 vicinity of Bowcreek Dr. and
Claywood Dr.; Surety Bond No. ASI 100219, Road
Improvements, Tract No. 42589 vicinity of
Deefspring Dr. and Bowcreek Dr.; and Bond No. 3007
2332, Road Improvements, Tract No. 45380 vicinity
of Pantera Dr. and Rexford Ct.
FEBRUARY 19, 1991
PAGE 4
Resolution 91-10
Adopted Resolution No. 91-10 entitled: A
Approving Plans
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
& Specs. for
DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Median Recon.,
FOR THE MEDIAN RECONSTRUCTION, LANDSCAPE
Landscape Modif.,
MODIFICATIONS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL RECONSTRUCTION
& Traffic Signal
ON GRAND AVENUE AT SHOTGUN LANE IN SAID CITY
Const.- Grand
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK
at Shotgun
TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS.
PD/DeStefano responded to comments about the
Planning Department by stating that in regard to
guidance by the Council, his department receives
quite a bit of information and direction from the
Council through the support that is given, the
formation of the Planning Commission and SEATAC
and through various meetings that occur on
individual development projects or through normal
Council communications. He indicated that he
would speak to Mr. Martin directly regarding his
complaint concerning inconsistent information
provided by staff.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
M/Werner presented Mr. and Mrs. Cleve Holifield
with a Letter and a Certificate of Recognition
complimenting their son, Leonard C. Holifield, on
his courageous acts in the Persian Gulf.
Both Mr and Mrs. Holifield thanked the Council for
their kindness.
Proclamation - Proclaimed the week of March 3 - 9, 1991 as "Save
3/3 - 3/9/91 Your Vision Week."
"Save Your"
Vision Week
Proclamation - Proclaimed the month of March, 1991 as "Women's
March 1991 History Month." M/Werner and C/Papen presented
"Women's History the Proclamation to Veronica Johnson and Suzanne
Month" Harmony.
Crime Update Lt. Muravez, Walnut Sheriff, stated that 13
burglaries have occurred since January 7, 1991
involving kicking in double front doors. These
burglaries have generated requests that a neigh-
borhood watch program be instituted. Most of the
burglaries occurred north of the 60 freeway but in
January, a number occurred west of the 57 freeway
and in February, this type burglary moved a little
bit east of the 57. He provided tips for home-
owners to use in keeping their residences more
secure and that if any resident wanted his home
inspected, to call the Walnut Sheriff's Station
and ask for the Crime Prevention Unit.
FEBRUARY 19, 1991
PAGE 5
C/Papen suggested that an article be placed in the
upcoming City newsletter regarding "Neighborhood
Watch Programs."
Second Admin. Analyst Kellee Fritzal reported that the
Anniversary Second Anniversary Celebration is scheduled for
Celebration April 13, 1991 at D.B. High School and identified
the committee members involved: Shelly Arakalian,
Glenda Bona, Donalda Day, Ken Demaret, Gerry
Heffren, Alba Moesser and Sue Page. She stated
that rental of a booth at the Business Expo will
cost approximately $50 and that the City will sell
T-shirts and City memorabilia and provide neigh-
borhood watch information, earthquake preparedness
self-help guides, information on the Combat Auto
Theft program and water conservation information,
including shower adjusters and water displacement
kits. The City will also recognize members of the
military that are currently serving in Saudi
Arabia.
OLD BUSINESS:
Recreation Admin. Analyst Kellee Fritzal reported on the
Services process used for selecting an organization to
Agreement provide recreation services and indicated that
even though the City of Brea's initial net charge
was proposed at $239,000, this figure has been
reduced to $150,000. She further reported that it
was recommended by the Parks and Recreation
Commission that Council direct staff to negotiate
a final contract with the City of Brea and bring
back the contract to Council for final approval at
the March 5, 1991 meeting.
C/Kim commended staff on the successful
negotiations with the City of Brea and asked if
the amount negotiated was based on current budget
estimates.
ACM/Belanger stated that the proposed program by
the City of Brea is substantially the same as is
currently being conducted by the Walnut Valley
Recreation Department.
C/Nardella stated that after the RFPs had been
sent out, the Parks and Recreation Commission
decided that they would no longer support the
operation of the Park Drop -In Program and
eliminated that from the current program as well
as from future programs because it was
economically insupportable.
FEBRUARY 19, 1991 PAGE 6
C/Papen stated correspondence had been received
from Dr. Brown of the Walnut Valley School
District last October indicating that, with the
cancellation of the JPA, the School District would
be charging the City for the use of their
facilities. The amount totaled approximately
$100,000 and she asked if the City's budget
included this amount.
Mr. Pat Whelan, Chairman of the Parks & Recreation
Commission, stated that the Commission was looking
for free or low -rent facilities. Negotiations
continue with the Walnut Valley School District
regarding the fees and part of the proposed
$150,000 was to provide for some rental fees and
other possible additional costs.
Following discussion, staff was directed to
negotiate the terms of an agreement with the City
of Brea, based on a balanced budget in terms of
costs and services and bring the agreement back to
Council for final approval. Staff was further
directed to prepare a staff report on the programs
to be offered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Park Direction Parks & Maintenance Director Janiel reported
Signage that at the present time, all of the signage in
the City indicates that the County of Los Angeles
provide the parks. Staff is currently looking at
an overall signage program and possibly changing
all the park signage. However, because of the
costs involved, staff has held off making any
recommendations until there is a City-wide pro-
gram, so that everything can be consistent. He
displayed a sample sign that had been approved by
the Traffic & Transportation Commission with a
recommended change in color from green to brown
with white lettering. The cost would be approx-
imately $1,500 to replace the park directional
signs only.
Following discussion, C/Nardella moved and C/Papen
seconded to authorize the manufacture and replace-
ment of park directional signage now in place.
With the following Roll Call vote, the motion
carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Papen, Kim, Nardella,
MPT/Forbing and M/Werner
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
FEBRUARY 19, 1991 PAGE 7
Public Finance ACM/Belanger stated that this item had been
Advisors continued from the February 5, 1991 meeting
Contract in order obtain answers to certain questions asked
by the Council.
Mr. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., spoke in
opposition to approving the contract.
Mr. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado, stated that he
had checked with other finance people and was told
that they preferred not to go with the type of
agreement proposed.
Following discussion, M/Werner moved, MPT/Forbing
seconded to approve the proposed Public Finance
Advisors Contract as recommended by staff. With
the following Roll Call vote, the motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Papen, Nardella, MPT/Forbing
and M/Werner
NOES: COUNCILMEN - Kim
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
Office of CE/Mousavi reported on a grant received from
Traffic Safety the California Office of Safety to be used for
Grant a Traffic Control Device Inventory Program to
assist the City by allowing an inventory of the
traffic devices in the City, their uniformity as
established in the industry and how they are
maintained and controlled. Upon Council author-
ization of an agreement, the project will proceed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
C/Papen asked if the program is limited to traffic
signals or would it include stop signs and road
markings.
CE/Mousavi stated that the program would include
everything.
C/Kim moved, C/Papen seconded to authorize staff
to enter into an agreement with the Office of
Traffic Safety and proceed with the development of
a comprehensive Traffic Control Device Inventory
Program. With consensus of Council, the motion
carried.
C/Papen congratulated Mr. Mousavi on the award of
the OTS grant.
FEBRUARY 19, 1991 PAGE 8
C/Kim stated that the traffic on Grand Ave. is
getting worse and encouraged drivers to use Chino
Hills Parkway. He asked the City Attorney to
investigate the possibility of making Grand Ave. a
toll road. C/Kim also stated that the D.B. Golf
Course is deteriorating and asked staff to look
into the possibility of purchasing the site from
the County or at least allowing the City to manage
the facility.
CLOSED SESSION: With no further business to conduct, M/Werner
recessed the meeting to Closed Session at 8:21
p.m. for discussion of Property Acquisition and
Personnel Matters.
ADJOURNMENT: M/Werner reconvened the meeting to Regular Session
at 9:05 p.m., declared that there was no report-
able action taken and adjourned the meeting at
9:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Councilmembers Papen and Nardella
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson, senior Accountant
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, February 19, 1991
DATE: February 13, 1991
Attached is the Voucher Register dated February 19, 1991. As
requested, the Finance Department is submitting the voucher
register for the Finance Committee's review and approval prior to
it's entry on the Consent Calender.
The checks will be produced after any recommendations and the final
approval is received.
Please review and sign the attached.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL
The attached listing of vouchers
audited approved and recommended
allowed from the following funds
FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION
dated February 19, 1991 have been
for payment. Payments are hereby
in these amounts:
001 General Fund
115 Integrated Waste Mgt Fd
138 LLAD #38 Fund
139 LLAD #39 Fund
141 LLAD #41 Fund
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
APPROVED BY:
Linda G. MaIgnuson
Senior Accountant
fj3Ci]�1�4Y
153,991.55
8,216.00
5,957.39
6,055.00
3,776.73
$177,996.67
Phyllis E. Papen/
Councilmember
i,
Obert Van Nort Donald C. Nardel a`
City Manager Councilmember
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 14, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Harmony called the meeting to order
at 7:07 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District
Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner MacBride.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner Lin, Commissioner
MacBride, and Vice Chairman Harmony. Chairman
Schey was absent.
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, Assoc. Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy
City Attorney Bill Curley, City Engineer Sid
Mousavi, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City
Planner Irwin Kaplan, and Contract Secretary Liz
Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Lin
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Consent
Calendar and the Minutes of December 10, 1990.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to reschedule
the order of the agenda for the Public Hearing
Items, in the order of #4, #5, #3, and #6.
NEW BUSINESS: Staff reported the CUP 86-0410 is a request for an
extension of time to construct a three story
CUP 86-410 building, housing professional offices. The
property is located on 1200 South Brea Canyon Road.
Ann Lungu, Planning Technician, reported the
application was filed on September 15, 1986, with
the Department of Regional Planning, to allow for
the construction of a one-story building for the
use of, retail stores, a three story building for
the use of professional offices, and a zone change
from R-1-8,000 SFR to C3 -DP -BE. A public hearing
was held on June 10, 1987, whereas the zone change,
the request to construct for retail stores, and
professional offices were denied at this hearing.
The zone change was denied at a public hearing on
July 1, 1987. At the public hearing, and a de Nova
hearing on November 19, 1987, the matter of the
zone change and the construction of the two
buildings were taken under advisement. The Board
of Supervisors recommended, on December 22, 1987,
that the Regional Planning Commission consider a
revised project for the parcel of land and a zone
change from R-1-8,000 SFR to C3 -DP -BE, rather than
C -3 -DP -BE. On June 15, 1988, the Regional Planning
staff recommended denial. On January 12, 1989, The
zone change from R-1-8,000 SFR to CPD zone was
approved. The Board of Supervisors declined its
January 14, 1991 Page 2
intention to approve the said CUP, and instructed
the County Council to prepare the findings and
conditions.
The staff recommended a one year extension ending
March 30, 1992. A condition of the extension is
that the project shall go through the design review
process of the City of Diamond Bar. The City
Attorney recommended any tentative subdivision map
requirements of Los Angeles County shall be waived.
VC/Harmony inquired what it would involve to waive
the tentative subdivision map.
Bill Curley, Deputy City Attorney, stated the code
provides, as a mandatory condition of listing out,
a tentative and a final map. The code refers to
the possible subdivisions of larger parcels. In
this case, there is only one single parcel, making
a mandatory map an unnecessary procedure.
C/MacBride asked if there were any correspondence,
from neighbors, on file.
Ann Lungu stated there are three (3) or four (4)
letters, dating 1988 and 1989, from private
individuals, in opposition to the project.
C/Grothe stated there is no reason for allowing an
extension. He was unable to visualize a three
story structure anywhere in the area, and would
have preferred to have had a site map at hand. He
inquired if the CUP expires on it's own.
Ann Lungu replied that it appears to expire on
March 30, 1991. The applicant is applying for the
extension.
i
C/Grothe requested staff to gather copies of the
opposition letters, as well as the site map, and
bring it back the next meeting.
James DeStefano, Planning Director, clarified the
letters of opposition date back to 1986 and 1987,
when the project was first proposed. There is time
to table the issue and obtain all the information
requested by the Commission.
VC/Harmony noted the letters of opposition may
still be relevant. He suggested a public hearing
may be functional.
C/MacBride summarized the purpose of the condition,
which stated the project go through the design
review process, was to enable the Commission to
receive new information to assist in the final
January 14, 1991 Page 3
decision.
James DeStefano stated the approval was for a three
story building. The record is not clear as to what
precise architecture would accommodate the three
story building. If the Commission approves the
extension, the Commission would do the architec-
tural review, in lieu of staff.
VC/Harmony inquired why the project is being given
a one (1) year extension.
James DeStefano explained a (1) one year extension
gives the applicant sufficient time to go through
the design review process, submit drawings for
construction plan check, and go through all of the
construction steps necessary for the commencement
of the development of the project. A six (6) month
extension was deemed a bit tight.
VC/Harmony asked how long the applicant has had
since the last approval.
James DeStefano replied the applicant has had two
(2) years since approval.
VC/Harmony asserted he would like the project to
come back as a brand new project, with a public
hearing. He believed there is more involved -than
just a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
C/MacBride clarified if the motion to deny is
approved, the applicant may start de Nova, giving
the Commission ample opportunity to consider all
the ramifications whether there is a protest level.
James DeStefano affirmed the applicant may appeal
to thelCity Council. If they choose not to appeal,
or the City Council concurs with the Commission's
actions to deny the extension request, then they
would need to come back with a full public hearing,
complete plans, and additional data.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to deny the extension of
time for CUP 86-0410.
PUBLIC HEARING Staff reported the CUP 90-0127 is a request to
ITEMS: complete, in two (2) phases, the addition of twenty
nine (29) pads for the placement of mobiles. The
CUP 90-0127 19.5 acre site is currently developed with 118 pads
and is known commonly as the Diamond Bar Estates.
The site is surrounded by industrial uses and
multiple family residences.
Robert Searcy, Assoc. Planner, reported the
January 14, 1991 Page 4
applicant has requested, in writing, a continuance
of this public hearing in order to have time to
clarify some points of concern staff raised in
their report.
VC/Harmony declared the Public Hearing open.
Kevin Bouvian, residing at 21217 E. Washington,
inquired as to what kind of barrier walls will be
located between the park and the railroad. He
asked if a playground for the kids have been
planned.
Rob Searcy replied the barrier wall will be a six
(6) foot, sound proof block wall. After the
completion of phase three (3), there will be no
play area other than what exists currently.
Kevin Bouvian stated, in his opinion, the six (6)
foot wall would not be adequate for the trains, nor
for keeping the children out of the area. The
current wall is fifteen (15) feet and provides no
barrier to sound.
Dwayne Chamberlain, residing at phase 48 of the
Diamond Bar Estates, stated there is presently only
one entry in and out of the park, which is not
adequate. He inquired if, with the addition of 30
more families, better access will be provided.
Rob Searcy reported there is no change in the site
plan as it exists as far as access. There will
remain the one central access existing today.
VC/Harmony noted an extra gate that is now
currently chained closed. He pondered if it
created a fire hazard.
I
Ruth Cornelly, assistant manager of the Diamond Bar
Estates, wondered if the spa and pool facilities
will remain the same to accommodate the residents.
She informed the Commission that the extra gates
are only opened in case of fire.
Rob Searcy reported the pool facility will remain
at the existing club house.
Kathleen Rose, residing at 21259 Cottonwood Lane,
has no objection to the expansion. She questioned
the ownership status of a piece of land on
Cottonwood Lane, which used to be a portion of
Washington street. The portion of land is not
maintained, and is full of tumbleweeds that
residents must cross to get to the condominium
complex across from the Diamond Bar Estates. She
inquired if it was possible to tie in the
January 14, 1991 Page 5
improvement with the development.
VC/Harmony suggested the issue be brought up to
staff after the meeting.
Dwayne Chamberlain wanted to know, if the expansion
is approved, will there be is there provisions to
upgrade the condition of the park. The small
owners association has requested that management
upgrade the lights, and upkeep the grounds. They
are concerned that, with the additional pads,
upkeep will diminish further. He stated the
expansion is acceptable as long as they meet with
the standards, as well.
VC/Harmony suggested the association work with the
Planning staff to elaborate on the ideas, and be
prepared to come back to the Commission.
James DeStefano commented that staff was under the
impression that the residents were notified of the
proposed expansion. He recommended continuing the
item to the first regular meeting in February 1991,
and direct the developer to meet with the residents
to inform them of what is being proposed. In this
manner, the staff would be able to incorporate all
of these different issues and provide a more
complete report to include the revised staff report
with the appropriate conditions.
C/MacBride affirmed the meeting would be an
excellent opportunity for the residents to have
some input in the developer's plans. He wondered
what will happen to the facilities in the present
sump area, to be called a recreation area, when it
is removed.
Ruth Cqrnelly asserted the residents were notified
about the expansion. However, she stated many
questions were not answered and a meeting with the
owners would be helpful to help the residents
prepare for the next Commission meeting.
C/MacBride suggested the residents confer with
staff to set up a meeting date and urged the
residents to communicate their concerns.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the public
hearing item to the meeting of February 11, 1991.
CUP 90-0117 Staff reported the CUP 90-0117 was a request to
expand an existing adult care facility, in a
renovated single family residence, located in a
residential neighborhood. The expansion will allow
an increase from the current six (6) residents up
January 14, 1991 Page 6
to a maximum of 24 residents.
Rob Searcy reported the subject residence is in
it's original size and shape. The request would
seek to expand it to fifteen (15) bedrooms. The
size would be approximately 6,210 feet, with double
occupancy capabilities, and would house three (3)
employees. The house is located at 1000 Park
spring Lane, which is in a residential R-1-8,000
neighborhood. The application would expand the
structure from 2,150 sq. ft. to 6,210 sq. ft. The
parking requirements would increase from two (2) to
nine (9) spaces. There is no signage proposed with
the application. The project is located at the
terminus of a cul-de-sac and is approximately 1/2
acre in size. The total lot coverage ratio for the
project site after the proposed addition will be
approximately twenty-six percent (26%).
Landscaping and open space will comprise over three
quarters of the site and ranges from landscaped
slopes to landscaped pad areas that can be utilized
for recreation. The access to the site is a 105
foot driveway. Parking is planned to be created
along the eastern elevation in what is currently an
embankment supporting the adjacent neighbor's yard.
Providing the parking places at this location could
prove to be prohibitive because of the required
back up area and the necessary improvements, such
as a retaining wall in excess of six (6) feet.
Staff has identified, as a major concern,
compatibility with adjacent single family
residences. In addition to this concern are the
issues related to appropriateness of use and
aesthetics related to the alterations as proposed.
Rob Searcy continued to report that the care for
the residents is not critical care in nature and
basically provides assistance in areas they may
have deficiencies in providing for themselves. The
residents are seniors that range in age from 62 and
older. The total staff required for the facility
is projected to be three (3) employees during the
day shift and two (2) employees for the night
shift. The size of the residential care facility
is a significant intensification beyond the
surrounding land uses, as well as the existing on-
site use. The traffic generated from the site is
likely to increase over the current number of
trips. By state law, and right of zone, small
residential care facilities are deemed to be a
compatible form of residential use within a
residential zone. The threshold has been
delineated to be six (6) persons before
discretionary review is required. The expanded use
does, however, fall within the discretionary action
of local governing bodies. These larger facilities
January 14, 1991 Page 7
are designated for location within multiple family
and transitional zones. Also, the existing parking
is very limited because of the location on a cul-
de-sac. It is foreseen that there would be a
prohibition for any on street parking within the
cul-de-sac area.
Rob Searcy reported the Commission was supplied
with numerous letters from residents both in
support and opposition to the site. Mr. Searcy
indicated that Deputy Luter of the Sheriff's
Department has expressed his concerns that the use
may not be compatible to the adjacent usage, and
the lack of accessibility may create substantial
problems.
James DeStefano stated nine (9) additional letters
were received by staff regarding the project in
which seven (7) of the letters were in support of
the project and (2) were in opposition.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution of denial based on the findings
as presented.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Smita Sanghvi, the applicant, residing at 963,Dare
Court, explained her residence is approximately 800
feet from the site. She stated she owns two (2)
boarding care homes for the elderly that are state
licensed. She recounted her educational
qualifications and proceeded to convince the
Commission of the importance for the need of Senior
centers. She asserted that she is providing a
growing need, within the community, for Alzheimer
patients and other related disorders. She depicted
her indentions of the proposed expansion: A walk
in the back; fire sprinklers; a red tile roof; and
a security gate that conforms to fire codes. The
building will go through the state fire marshall
department, licensing department, and the health
and safety department. She argued since the
elderly residents don't have a lot of visitors,
there will be a minimum increase in traffic of
approximately 40 to 50 visitors weekly. She
pointed out that her business is not a retail
outlet. In summarization, she stated the community
needs elderly facilities for Diamond Bar residents
and more help is needed.
VC/Harmony asked if there where any speakers in
favor of the expansion to come forward and limit
their comments to five (5) minutes.
Linda Scheck, program director for the Alzheimer
January 14, 1991 Page S
Association of Orange County, described the need
for long term care for Alzheimer and related
disorders. She stated Orange County has 420
licensed boarding facilities throughout the County
with approximately six (6) patients each. The
applicant needs to increase the residency to make
it more economical and improve the level of daily
activities.
C/MacBride inquired how many Boarding Homes have
more than six (6) patients.
Linda Scheck replied the exceptions represent
approximately 3% to 4% of the population.
George Bening, 1240 N. VanBuren, Anaheim, the
architect to the project, stated his willingness to
work with staff on any alterations to the project.
VC/Harmony called a five (5) minute recess at 8:30
p.m.
VC/Harmony called the meeting to order at 8:42 p.m.
He requested speakers come forward who are in
opposition to the expansion.
George Bening asserted the property allows for
three (3) to four (4) apartment complexes.
Rob Searcy confirmed the zoning is R-1-800 which
restricts it for single family usage only.
Jim Warner, residing at 23504 E. Grand Rim Court
located above the proposed building site,
presented a letter and a copy of a fire report
dated 1989. He requested the Commission visit the
site and note that building by the hillside would
require drasticigrading. He is concerned any
retaining wall would be unable to support the
weight of the hill during a rainy season.
Norman Nissell, residing at 1007 S. Park Spring
Lane, stated complaints about the facility: It has
no parking on the street; there is no area for
their garbage now, which is frequently scattered by
a stray dog; there is a lack of staff to control
the elderly patients and many times they have
entered into his property; there has been pushing
of the patients by the staff; he has seen staff
drinking in their cars in front of his home; and
the present hillside, which is approximately 30% of
the size of the lot, is not very well maintained.
Fearing a devaluation of the property if the
project is allowed, he does not feel the applicant
should be profitable at his expense.
January 14, 1991
Page 9
Don Chalet, residing at 1027 Banner Ridge Road,
commended the Commission on their diplomatic
approach to reviewing the issue. He was surprised
to receive notification of the expansion. He
stated the location of the facility in a
residential location is not appropriate. He
expressed concerns about the facility: There is
only one street into the cul-de-sac; the expansion
could decrease property value; and allowing this
expansion could set a precedent for future
undesirable ventures. He agreed there is a need
for such facilities, but argued there is a proper
place and location for them.
Dan Nelson, residing at 23520 Grand Rim, stated his
complaints to the project: There is a 40% slope
that would slide into the facility in a heavy rain;
there seems to be a discrepancy with the
information the applicant states, and he would like
clarification; there is doubt the employees are not
capable in handling the patients during an
emergency; the property is not kept up; the red
tile roof is not in conformity to the rest of the
neighborhood; the patients are Alzheimers now but
would they include other ailments such as AIDS,
drug addictions, etc. He stated warehousing
Alzheimer patients in a residential area is
inappropriate.
Roy Smith, residing at 23508 Grand Rim Court,
stated he would not have bought his property if he
had known the facility would have expanded into a
commercial business site.
Jim Jacobs, residing at 1003 Park Spring, stated
patients have wandered into home. There are many
children on the block and the trash, which includes
urine and fecal matter, is a health hazard. The
fire codes require more than just sprinklers as
stated by the applicant. He noted that three (3)
staff members are not adequate to care for twenty-
four (24) patients.
Pat Brody, residing at 1021 Park Spring Lane,
asserted the facility is not appropriate in a
single family home and it belongs in a commercial
area. He is totally against it.
Louise Nissel, residing at 1007 Park Spring Lane,
has witnessed physical abuse, and neglect. It is
unacceptable to increase the capacity of the
facility.
Ron Sweenis, residing at 1022 Park Spring Lane,
stated he has stopped speeding employees. The
facility does not belong there.
January 14, 1991 Page 10
Cheryl Jacobs, residing at 1003 Park Spring Lane,
stated she can't argue the need of the care but
questioned the appropriateness of the location.
VC/Harmony confirmed with staff that the existing
facility is not at issue.
James DeStefano stated that a few years ago, the
State of California took away land use authority
from local cities and said a facility with six (6)
patients or less can be permitted in any residen-
tial zone, in any city.
Don Chalet stated he is now aware the facility is
allowed to remain. He asked if there can be
something done in regards to the garbage, and the
care given to the patients.
Smita Sanghvi, the applicant, responded to some of
the concerns expressed by the audience. She stated
that: the facility will have a trash compactor with
additional trash service; there will be no extra
noise with the increase of patients; the ambulances
came six (6) times last year; the location is
perfect because of its seclusion; half of the
people were even unaware of the present facilities;
and fire codes will be met. She stated health care
is very expensive and she is doing her best to keep
the price affordable for her patients.
Peggy Cooperman, in the medical field for fifteen
(15) years, worked in a convalescent home and a
retirement home, stated the applicants patients
should not be allowed to wander in a residential
neighborhood. Such incidents do happen, but the
facilities should be in the appropriate area.
Elita, an employee of the applicant, stated the
trash does not belong only to the applicant. She
explained that what the residents are perceiving to
be abuse is actually the only way to handle the
patients because they have a tendency to become
aggressive. She asserted the extra twenty-four
(24) patients would not be a problem to care for.
Smita Sanghvi noted the security gate will keep
patients from wandering.
Marie Upright stated, after hearing the stated
concerns, it is her opinion the facilities be
declared a nuisance. She noted that many nursing
homes are a lock -in facility and feels the children
should not be witness to these patients.
Roy Smith, neighboring behind the applicant, stated
his small children do note the moaning and noises
January 14, 1991 Page 11
coming from the facilities.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
VC/Harmony inquired if the CUP can limit the type
of care the facility can provide.
James DeStefano confirmed the type of care can be
limited.
VC/Harmony noted there is no turn around area in
the driveway and asked if the fire department has
reviewed and commented on the configuration.
Rob Searcy replied that the plans have not been
submitted to the fire department, as of yet.
` r /Harmnnv, i nrrii i rnri hni.7 hi n thm rata i n i nn x.7a l l i n
January 14, 1991 Page 12
should remain as it is, and wished the applicant
well in conducting a facility which seems to be
appropriate at the present moment.
C/Lin remarked that deep down, the majority has a
sympathy for those with Alzheimer and a deep
appreciation for those who care for these people.
Neighbors should feel obligated to help the
facility keep on.
VC/Harmony maintained, that upon visiting, he was
impressed with the facility and there was a sense
of caring from the director. The idea of expansion
is too massive of a construction for the pad size.
Every community needs to face its realities and
these type of facilities are needed. However, six
(6) people may be an adequate number to care for.
He urged the neighbors to visit these people and
see them for the circumstance they are in. He
wished the applicant good luck.
Bill Curley noted changes of the draft resolution
presented to them: Page (3), section 3c should be
deleted; section 4a should read "...to accommodate
this density of development and use."; and section
4b should read "...can not reasonably accommodate."
Motion made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride,
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to pass the Resolution of
Denial for CUP 90-0117, as amended.
Sign Ordinance Staff reported the draft sign ordinance is a
request to amend certain provisions of Title 22 of
the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted
by the City of Diamond Bar, pertaining to signs.
James Destefano reported the Commission has
received the latest draft sign code package, which
incorporates a discussion of non -conforming signs
and sign abatement. The package has been
distributed to approximately sixty (60) individuals
and organizations for their review and input. The
outstanding issues of the draft sign ordinance
revolves around the need for specific language
refinements.
James Destefano reviewed the key components of the
ordinance in order to be sure the document reflects
the Commission's philosophy and policies on the
issues. A brief discussion will be necessary in
regards to the non -conforming and sign abatement
provisions within the document. Depending upon the
changes, the document should be brought back to the
Commission, at the next meeting, for consideration
of a Resolution of Approval at the next meeting.
January 14, 1991
Page 13
The
key components that staff would like the
Commission
to review are:
1.
page 15, section 106 of the Basic Sign Program
- Is it the Commission's desire to have all
illuminated signs reviewed by the Planning
Commission? There are numerous requests for
signs received daily. A high percentage of
those signs are illuminated.
2.
page 16 - Does the Commission want to review
all wall signs in a multi -use building or
commercial center where more than one wall
sign is proposed? Staff receives numerous
requests of wall signs within existing
commercial centers.
3.
page 17 & 18 - Staff is concerned that signs
may be too small in regards to Commercial Real
Estate. The policy dictates a_24 sq. ft.
maximum sign area for most of the categories.
In reality, there may be great difficulty in
enforcing the policy creating signs in
constant code enforcement resolution. The
same circumstance applies to the sub -division
and model homes signs.
4.
page 18 - It is recommended the political
signs be removed from the ordinance. There
are numerous issues surrounding political
signs. To attempt to set a standard as to the
number of signs, or the square footage area of
the sign, would be unenforceable by the City.
5.
page 19 - Staff would like to re-examine the
issue dealing with the intensity, maximum
wattage of the temporary holiday lighting. It
is now suggested that the lighting must be
removed 30 days after the permit is issued.
Staff noted that in some holidays, 30 days
seem to be excessive. However, the time
period and the retail time period between
about November 15 and January 15 may require
more than 30 days for this type of holiday
lighting.
6.
page 19 - In regards to the temporary search
light permit, the policy presently refers to
one search light per property. Some shopping
centers are made up of multiple parcels, in
which case, multiple search lights would be
permitted. The ordinance should be clarified
with a definition for shopping centers which
would allow for a certain number of search
lights at a shopping center.
7.
page 24 - Does the Commission want to review
Condominium, Subdivision, or Rental Community
signs where the maximum sign area is 16 square
feet?
8.
page 26 - A variety of Exempt signs, located
in public parks and City facilities, are
suggested to be submitted for an advisory
January 14, 1991 Page 14
architectural review by the Planning
Commission. Staff wished to caution the
Commission that it is more a Council policy
issue as to whether they want to delegate that
specific authority to the Planning Commission,
the Park and Recreation Commission, or to
staff.
VC/Harmony interrupted the report to suggest
the staff review a Council ordinance on
architectural review that delegates
architectural review on development projects,
and so forth, to the Planning Commission.
9. pages 28, 29, & 30 - The areas related to
Prohibited Signs will be stricken from the
final ordinance. To specifically list
permitted signs and list prohibited signs
create a grey area for those signs that fall
somewhere in the middle. It is best to have a
sign ordinance that specifically lists signs
that are permitted and everything else is
deemed to be prohibited.
10. The final 12 pages of the document have some
policy issues that the staff will review with
the Commission, if so desired.
James DeStefano stated there are still some
definitions that need language clarification. As
an example, the definition of sign area needs
clarification because it is very difficult to
understand. He noted there has been very little
comment and input concerning the document from
individuals and organizations.
C/Lin requested staff classify the uses of the free
standing monuments noted on pages 21 and 22.
i
James DeStefano replied, on page 21, it refers to a
free standing sign for a single use. Page 22,
refers to a free standing sign for a commercial
center. The square footage for a sign face area
triples for a commercial center, although height
remains the same.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Rachel Sieger, residing at 22939 E. Escerol Drive,
suggested the Commission adopt a conservative
approach to signs in Diamond Bar. The
proliferation of signs in a community effectively
decreases the property value, and quality of a
community. She noted the large number of political
signs and suggested restricting the numbers
allowed.
January 14, 1991 Page 15
Carolyn Gallanzier, residing at 224 N. Elencino
Drive, concurred with the concern of maintaining a
conservative approach with sign policy, and
allowing for exceptions as they appear. She
remarked that political signs should come down
after an election, as quickly as they were put up.
Dan Buffington, 2605 Indian Creek, applauded the
sign ordinance. He is concerned the ordinance
places a large work load onto the Commission and a
burden to the new shop keeper to obtain a sign.
Bob Zirbes, residing at 2141 Tierra Loma Drive,
handed the Commission a survey conducted by the
Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA) regard-
ing the sign ordinance. He noted Diamond Bar
residents preferred a stronger sign ordinance in
town and maintain a conservative approach.
Richard Sieger reiterated that the lack of the pro-
liferation of signs keep real estate value high.
Marie Upright suggested that the ordinance should
include a policy in regards to repairing beat up
signs.
Charles Kauld, residing at 2711 S. Diamond Bar
Blvd., business holder in the Towne Country Center,
urged the Commission to consider the situation of
businesses. Signage is essential to the operation
of a successful business.
Irwin Kaplan, City Planner, inquired if the Commis-
sion wished to include a CUP provision for food,
fuel and lodging signs adjacent to the freeway that
would allow for freeway visibility, appropriate to
the neighborhood. There is no such provision and
it would be inappropriate to write in a code sec-
tion for freeway visibility. However, a limited
CUP, allowing the Commission the opportunity to
hear special circumstances may be appropriate.
C/MacBride asserted there is a need for such a pro-
vision because; there is an intense interest in it;
it is justified and will save a lot of trouble down
the road. He would like to see Mr. Kaplan's sug-
gestion implemented.
VC/Harmony inquired how exceptions in regard to
pole signs were stated.
James DeStefano recalled the issue was concluded in
which any use, with some set of unique circum-
stance, would seem to be eligible to process a
variance request describing those circumstances
which caused a need to deviate from the established
January 14, 1991 Page 16
codes. The maximum height of six (6) feet would
remain in effect. There was no talk, specifically,
about public uses, which have raised some concerns,
that are adjacent to the freeway. It was generally
discussed how one may go about receiving an appro-
val for a sign that differed from the prescribed
standards.
Irwin Kaplan explained that a variance is a dif-
ficult procedure to determine if it is a variance
for height, location, or freeway access. He sug-
gested using the CUP as an alternative.
Bill Curley stated a variance gives a very narrow
set of parameters. The CUP gives a broader range
of flexibility.
Irwin Kaplan suggested using a CUP procedure that
is narrowly focused.
VC/Harmony stated the words in the CUP should be
tough and the definition should be beyond question.
Irwin Kaplan suggested, in regards to signs in
multi use buildings, the Commission distinguish
between signs from new tenants in existing centers
as opposed to a new center with a series of new
signs. The former may not need to be part of a
plan sign program that needs review by the Planning
Commission.
Irwin Kaplan stated the Commission distinguished
between signs that are non conforming by virtue of
type of signs, as opposed to signs that are non
conforming because of size. Type of signs would be
a pole sign or a roof sign. In the discussion, it
was determined that the illegal type of signs would
be phased out after the fifteen (15) years. Signs
that were illegal in all respects, except size,
would continue until such time the business
changed, as opposed to trying to go on an
enforcement campaign. As the document is now
written, it makes no distinguish between signs that
are non conforming by virtue of size, versus signs
that are non conforming by virtue of type. our
original discussion stated we would go after the
signs that were of a type no longer to be legal.
Bill Curley rebutted that the structured has been
broadened rather than trying to develop a definable
criteria. By directly articulating all the signs
the Commission approves or disapproves, gets into
an area fraught with both definitional and equal
protection challenges. The way its structured,
"they shall be permitted to remain for fifteen (15)
years", puts us up to our threshold time where we
January 14, 1991 Page 17
can remove them without having to pay. Whether or
not there is aggressive removal is an unspoken
issue. There is no penalty to a jurisdiction for
failure to enforce it's own standards. The
structure gets you around the scenario of
justifying removal of one sign but not another. We
tried to craft in as much flexibility.
Irwin Kaplan remarked it is a policy issue. Either
way, fifteen (15) years down the road, the City
will have to enforce something.
VC/Harmony asked for clarification if all signs
will be abated in fifteen (15) years or if signs
will be abated by size, shape and configuration.
Bill Curley explained, as of now, it is structured
in such a way that it leaves it unspoken. The state
standards have been met.
C/Grothe concurred in allowing staff some authority
over approval of sign replacements, in existing
shopping centers, that conform to the codes and
ordinances. He stated there should be
specifications to a six (6) foot height sign that
is not geared to some topographical situation.::t He
asserted, in regards to a CUP or a variance with
pole signs, specific rules and conditions should be
devised describing a full set of uniformed
guidelines.
C/Lin noted the ordinance draft is thorough and
conservative. She stated concern of the topography
and location for the different business centers.
She believed a CUP must be adopted to establish
guidelines that can be followed in the future. She
has begun taking pictures of the commercial centers
to seethe percentage of signs that would be non
conforming or in violation to the code.
VC/Harmony reviewed parts of the document he had
questions on:
1. page 2 of non conforming signs, paragraph 4 -
He requested the meaning be explained.
Bill Curley explained it refers to site or
center rehabs in which a sign, sensibly, may
or may not be need to be changed to
accommodate the site used but, with the 50%
factor, they might as well redo anyway.
2. page 1 of non conforming signs, paragraph 2 -
He questioned how it applies to multiple
advertisers on pole signs.
Bill Curley explained it allows partial
January 14, 1991 Page IS
removal of a sign.
3. page 2, section 102B. 5b. - He noted the
application process was not to be done.
James DeStefano concurred and stated the
section will be removed.
4. page 3, section 102B. 5c. - He inquired why a
Planning Director would waive a requirement
and for what situations.
Bill Curley pondered that initially it began
as an amalgamation of a variety of City
standards that may have picked up something at
a time when a Planning Director's scope
included building official.
James DeStefano stated the item will be
reviewed.
5. page 4, top line - He wanted "th" removed.
6. page 5, item F - He requested a clear
definition of "right of way".
7. page 5, item G - He would like some
consideration for arabic numerals included.
S. page 6, section 106E - He would like the
definition of the area of a sign to be
improved.
9. page 8, item L - He noted the definition
sounds more like an ordinance.
10. page 11, item II - He noted the definition
sounds more like an ordinance.
James DeStefano stated section LL on page 11
will be removed.
11. page 12, item PP - He suggested including the
word "candidate".
12. page 15, section 106 - He corrected the typing
error which should read "...Planning Director
or...".
James DeStefano noted wording such as "
...Planning Director or his..." will be
amended to read ..."his/her".
13. page 16, section 106A - He noted that maximum
height of wall signs was left blank.
James DeStefano explained that maximum height
needs to be stricken to allow the flexibility
to create signs of various lettering heights,
shapes, and so forth.
January 14, 1991 Page 19
14. page 17, item B - He inquired to the measuring
of the signs.
James DeStefano explained that sign face area
refers to per face. He inquired if the
Commission wants 24 square feet to be the
limit, especially in regards to real estate.
15. page 18, item B6 - He inquired as to why the
section on political sign will be removed.
Bill Curley explained political signs may have
loose restrictions but they may not be
strictly regulated because of the dangers of
trifling with the first amendment.
16. page 22, section 108D.3 - He requested
examples to the meaning of the special
condition.
Irwin Kaplan responded that the special
condition is in response to the Commissions
concern of shopping centers in a hole whereby
some of the buildings had their backs to the
roadway. The Commission felt they ought to be
entitled to an additional sign on the rear of
the building as well as the front. A concern
is to keep the signs uniformed. The special
condition allows the aggregate square footage
of signage on that building front and rear to
exceed the 100 square feet. The size it may
exceed will be at the Commissions discretion.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the Public
Hearing to the next regular meeting of January 28,
1991.
DA 90-2 Staff reported DA 90-2 is a request for a
Development Agreement for Gateway Corporate Center
located South of the 57 Freeway and off Golden
Springs Drive.
James DeStefano reported a development agreement
was drafted for review by the Gateway people, as
well as the internal City staff, and City Attorney.
More time is needed to sort out a variety of
issues. Staff recommended the issue be continued
to the meeting of February 11, 1991.
Public Hearing was declared open.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Lin
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the Public
Hearing to the meeting of February 11, 1991.
January 14, 1991 Page 20
ANNOUNCEMENTS: VC/Harmony inquired of the Commissions interest in
a Speakers Bureau.
C/Grothe recommended the City maintain a list of
possible speakers to be kept at the City office.
C/MacBride stated he was uncomfortable with the
idea.
C/Lin concurred with the other Commissioners.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
11:40 p.m.
Clair Harmony
Vice Chairman
VkO475�
James DeStefan
Secretary/Plan ing Commission
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
DECEMBER 13, 1990
CALL TO ORDER: C/Stitt called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. at City
Hall, 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Ruzicka.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Meyer, Ruzicka and Stitt. Commissioner
Whelan arrived at 6:50 p.m.
Also present were Parks and Maintenance Director Charles
Janiel, Administrative Analyst Kellee Fritzal, Lydia
Plunk, and Secretary (contract) Liz Myers.
MATTERS FROM THE Mr. Don Nardella, 23444 Coyote Springs, Diamond Bar,
AUDIENCE: thanked everyone for the participation in the Commission
within the past year.
C/Ruzicka expressed his respect and emphasized his
continual support for Mr. Nardella.
CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Meyer requested the Minutes of December 1, 1990 be
pulled from the Consent Calendar. He stated his inabili-
ty to vote on the minutes due to his absence from the
meeting.
Motion was made by C/Stitt, seconded by C/Ruzicka, and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion was made by C/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Stitt and
CARRIED to approve the Minutes of December 1, 1990.
Ayes: C/Stitt, C/Whelan, and C/Ruzicka
Nays: None
Abstain: C/Meyer
ORAL REPORT:
User Group Staff reported the User Group Meeting with the repre-
Meeting sentatives from City youth organizations went well.
Staff explained there was trouble getting the groups to
send in their requests for field usage. They were
informed field scheduling will be on a first come first
serve basis. According to the Walnut Valley Recreation
(WVR), there are now, quite a few applications being
submitted. Staff is trying to obtain statements of
organizational structure from the user groups, as well.
The only group that has responded is James Roberts of the
street hockey players.
C/Ruzicka stated there are a lot of participants in the
user groups. He noted December 31, 1990 was the deadline
for the user groups to deliver the requested information
to the City.
-- i
i December 13, 1990 Page 2
I �
RAB Oral Report C/Whelan reported the Recreational Advisory Board Meetinc
had been uneventful and there is no updated infbrmatior
concerning the JPA.
Staff reported the City of Walnut has decided noto sign
the amendment of the JPA requesting money be .•ret4urned to
the City of Diamond Bar from the discontinuance of the
Park Drop-In Program. staff explained the money
available for use through the JPA agreement is approxi-
mately $23,000, excluding costs. Since the actual money
will not be returned to the City, staff recommended
assigning the funds for use in a special event.
C/Whelan inquired if staff can obtain equipment! now for
the Second Anniversary, using the funds in the JPA.
Kellee Fritzal responded it can be done but suggested
using the funds toward services as opposed to equipment.
Staff is- not confident any equipment purchased would be
returned to the City.
C/Whelan stated the City should take advantagg of any
funds still available and begin the preplanning stages of
the Second Anniversary.
C/Meyer inquired if staff felt confident the money can be
used in such a manner, even though there is a dispprepancy-_
in the actual monies available through the JPA from
discontinuing the Park Drop-In Program.
Staff feels the City can obtain enough labor and services
equating the dollars at hand.
Staff reminded Commission that a new re resent' tive to
P �
the Recreation Advisory Board (RAB) must be appointed.
The ]fleeting is on the first Thursday of the month) at 7:30
p.m. The next meeting will be January 4, 1991. 1
C/Stitt expressed his desire to be the representative on
the RAB.
Motion was made by C/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Meyer and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to nominate C/Stitt to the post of
the second representative from the Park and Recreation
Commission to the RAB.
Changing the C/Whelan requested the Commission meeting time be changed
Meeting Date from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p:m. to allow more flexibility in
& Time. his schedule. He stated Thursday would still remain a
good date unless the Commission decides otherwise.
a
e�
December 13, 1990 Page 3
C/Meyer and C/Ruzicka stated the time and date was
acceptable.
Charles Janiel, Director, reminded the Commission the
meetings at the library would have to adjourn by 8:55
p.m., the closing time of the library.
C/Whelan inquired if the Commission would elect to cut
back to one (1) meeting a month. If there is to be two
(2) meetings a month, he inquired whether one (1) of them
should become a study session.
C/Whelan requested staff check on the availability of
using a portable at Quail Summit to hold the meetings.
Motion was made by C/Whelan, seconded by C/Ruzicka and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to amend the Ordinance to change the
Parks and Recreation Commission Meetings to 7:00 p.m., to
be held the second and fourth Thursday of the month. The
fourth Thursday is to be the actual Commission meeting
and the second Thursday to be a study session as needed.
OLD BUSINESS:
C.I.P. Staff reported the attached list of Capital Improvement
Projects have been identified by the Council, Commission,
and staff. It is the Councils' wish that the Commissions
prioritize the items perspectively. It is suggested each
commissioner prioritize pertinent items and return the
worksheet to staff. Staff will compile the results and
bring the list back to the Commission for finalization.
C/Ruzicka asked staff if the Council wanted all items
prioritized or just the items pertaining to the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
Charles Janiel reported the CIP items are to be
prioritized 'by the Park and Recreation concerns only, to
include landscaping and irrigation, and any items cross
connecting. This is just the formation of the CIP and
the idea is to develop a foundation to begin the
programs. The Commissioners should prioritize items
believed to be of utmost importance so the Council can
have a reference point. New items may be added as well.
Lydia Plunk asked if it was possible to find a time to
discuss some of the items appearing to be nebulous on the
subject matter.
C/Whelan requested reviewing the list as a group and
identifying the appropriate items.
i
December 13, 1990 Page 4
The Commission identified items #10, 23, 24, 25', 28-334 1
35, 38, 39a&b, 40, 41a&b, 42a&b, 43a&b, and 44; througr '
49.
Charles Janiel reminded Commission that the projects will
be in competition for funds. Therefore, he suggested
prioritizing items in a way to make the funds available,
first, for the needs of the Park and Recreation
Commission.
Lydia Plunk inquired if lights are unattainable at one
park field, can there be an addendum to install fights on
another field.
C/Whelan stated the CIP must be specific ! so the
Commission should add the alternative park to the list.
C/Meyer suggested the Commission, in terms of
prioritizing, refer to the potential number and type of
users of a park.
Charles Janiel noted the funds requested have been for
bigger parks having the potential to serve the most .
people. He asserted the present user isn't as important
as the potential user.
Recreation RFP Kellee Fritzal illustrated the four possible options fort
a Recreational Program and their net costs to the City.
RFP NET COSTS
Brea $235,674
YMCA $180,052
County $337,706
In-House $148,920
Kellee Fritzal reported staff, C/Whelan and C/Ruzicka met
with the three (3) proposers at a meeting on Tuesday,
December 11, 1990. The In-House proposal was also
! discussed on that date. Kellee Fritzal recommended the
I Commissioners not base their decision on net costs only,
but also consider the services that can be provided.
Items in the proposal can be negotiated.
C/Ruzicka reported the bid from Brea was presented
imaginatively. He suggested requesting from Brea a bid
on programs they would find best for Diamond Bar. The
j YMCA does not have any experience in providing municipal
type recreation programs and also did not include all the
services requested. The County is expensive but
experienced. There are opposing opinions to the quality . -
of the services provided in the past. He stated his
c apprehension on an In-House program due to ;lack of
q:Y.....A ;-.. �... .
r—1K.. V'—_117'—nl I .�..�....._ •f I' -��� •.i+-..... 'i7 ,.{a i���(�� T'ft-� -y��1,
December 13, 1990 Page 5
expertise. He suggested taking a contract from one of
the bidders for a couple of years, and then consider an
In -House program.
C/Whelan reported the YMCA answers to a Board Directors
creating complexities to program requests. Brea is
experienced and has a tremendous Recreation Program. He
believed the costs are negotiable. Brea stated their
willingness to develop a program to fit our needs and it
will be advertized as a Diamond Bar program. The County
is very knowledgeable about our parks but their costs are
high. He stated he was not impressed by their
presentation. He stated the In -House is a good idea but
it is at the infancy stage.
C/Meyer inquired who is responsible for insurance.
Kellee Fritzal explained the proposer must provide
insurance.
Kellee Fritzal related the YMCA was very definite the
programs must meet their mission statement. Though the
programs would be flexible on community needs, Diamond
Bar official would have to confer with their Board of
Directors. They did offer to waive their membership fee.
C/Meyer cautioned against entering into an agreement that
could cause similar problems comparable with Walnut.
Kellee Fritzal asserted the contract with any of the
bidders will have built in mechanisms to protect against
losses.
C/Meyer suggested going back to Brea and requesting a
couple of option type programs.
Lydia Plunk stated she would not like to eliminate the
YMCA altogether.
C/Ruzicka noted the administrative structure of the YMCA
creates a difficult circumstance in developing programs.
Lydia Plunk advised requesting all of the bidders either
reduce their costs and/or provide additional programs
acceptable to the City of Diamond Bar. Those groups that
are unwilling or unable to do so, should be dropped.
C/Ruzicka stated Diamond Bar needs the kind of expertise
which provides the desired municipal program. He
remarked the YMCA's inability to do so.
' I
December 13, 1990 Page 6
Kellee Fritzal informed the Commission of staff's inten
to go for a three (3) year contract with yearly renewals. i
C/Whelan maintained the original intent was to go for a
i two (2) year contract. The first year would be the
growing pains, and the second year would be to judge
their actual abilities.
Staff acknowledged the difference in the time aspect of
I the contract and stated a two . (2) year contracts can be
developed.
C/Whelan asserted he would prefer Brea come back with a
revised program, then renegotiate to lower costs not
f exceeding $210,000.
` C/Meyer claimed all bidders should receive an opportunity
to lower costs and present a revised program. The
Commission should give a full review.
Lydia Plunk stated it would be easier for City Council to
make a final decision based on fair negotiations with two
(2) programs.
Motion was made by C/Whelan, seconded by C/Meyer and,�
CARRIED. UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to contact all the
entities involved in the RFP process and request a,_,.,
resubmittal on a recreation program at two (2) cost
levels: oae being at the existing level originally
submitted,'. and the other at a lower cost level, with an
idea of providing a program beneficial to the City of
Diamond Bar. Staff will negotiate an agreement with the
bidders and return the results to the Commission by
January 10, 1991.
CORRESPONDENCE:
JPA Termination City Manager Robert Van Nort stated in a memorandum dated
WVUSD December 30, 1990, that the letter dated November 30,
1990 from the City of Walnut reflects they are not
interested in either an independent audit or an amend-
ment to the present Recreational JPA Agreement with
Diamond Bar, Walnut, and the Walnut Valley Unified School
District. It is not recommended, in the light of the
numerous issues faced by the City and School District,
the matter. be further explored.
C/Whelan explained the reason for requesting an audit was
in hopes to outline items bought and paid for.
j
i
{• ,nr,ry, n..,,��:. .x..,
JR XJk _.a. 4.� .., -IT., ] „ til.,,,
December 13, 1990 Page 7
C/Meyer stated an audit could take years especially when
poor bookkeeping is involved. He suggested requesting
invoices and not paying unless an invoice is received.
NEW BUSINESS:
Selection of Staff reported the recent events have left the Parks and
Chairperson and Recreation Commission without a Chairperson or Vice
Vice Chairperson Chairperson. It is suggested the Commission operate with
an interim Chairperson, and officially select the
Chairperson and Vice Chairperson when all vacant
positions have been filled.
Charles Janiel reminded the Commission the Ordinance
mandates a new Chairperson be selected in July of each
year. He suggested the Commission keep this in mind
during the selection process.
INFORMATION:
Park Activity Charles Janiel explained Superintendent Don Hensley will
Report be submitting each month the significant maintenance
tasks performed throughout the parks.
C/Ruzicka expressed his approval of having such a report
done monthly.
COMMISSIONER C/Ruzicka read a letter from Don Schad expressing his
COMMENTS: hope to receive from staff a recommendation on a tree
planting program, to include native plants to replant
barren and burnt out areas. He could get trees at no
cost to the City. He stated Earth Day in April is
actually a poor time to plant trees and recommended late
winter, early spring.
Charles Janiel acknowledged the request but noted
restrictions: many areas are public property; there are
many irrigated areas; the City is cutting back on water
supplies; arid the trees should be drought tolerant, not
native. He stated his intent to communicate with Mr.
Schad. Mr. Janiel will meet with Don Schad to discuss a
program.
C/Meyer'communicated his enthusiasm in participating in
the decision making process and stated his appreciation
for any assistance in making a contribution to the
Commission.
C/Whelan expressed his thanks to Don Nardella for all his
input in the Commission. He stated Don Nardella did a
tremendous job getting things off the ground. He
commented further that all Don Nardella's support on the
JPA made a definite impact.
' I
December 13, 1990 Page a
I
C/Whelan stated he was approached by Boy Scouts t at want,
to do an ro Eagle project that entails develo
g p j pin trailer �
through the Sycamore Canyon Park. He inquired of staff
as to which action need to be taken.
i
Charles Janiel replied the City Attorney needs to be i
notified first. He suggested the Boy Scouts con act him
and give all the information needed and he will confer
with the City Attorney and discuss requirements.
I
' Charles Janiel informed the Commission their Christmas
decoration idea was postponed due to legalities con-
cerning liability.
C/Stitt welcomed C/Meyer, and stated his eager anticipa-
tion of working together. He noted the comments made by
C/Whelan in regards to Councilman Don Nardella echoed the
opinions of the whole Commission. He announced to the
Commission he has attained a permanent position in the
Commission. He thanked former Councilman, and now
Assemblyman Paul Horcher for his original appointment as
well as Councilman Don Nardella for the reappointment in
the Commission.
C/Stitt retold a concern expressed to him by a citizen in ...•
regards to the potential danger of a ladder in onj of the
play apparatuses in Peterson Park. He-,was curious as to
the point of the ladder to the rest. of the toy, and
requested the Commission reevaluate the situation.
Charles Janiel explained the functions of the equipment
installed is to develop motor and muscle coordination.
There are three (3) pieces of equipment at Peterson Park,
each intended for different developmental skills. The
safety of the equipment and the surrounding area *eet the
national standards. He stated the .equipment (will be
looked at once again.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made .by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Ruzicka and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
to the next regular meeting on December 7, _199 t 9:00
1 a.m.
h
! Charl Janiel
Secretary
ATTEST: :I
Chairman
— -
7 , p7
1 , I dSrigRr.,'
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 10, 1991
CALL TO ORDER:
Commissioner Ruzicka called the meeting to
order at 6:40 p.m.
at City Hall, 21660 East Copley Drive,
Suite 390, Diamond
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge
of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Whelan.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Meyer, Plunk, Ruzicka and Whelan.
Commissioner
Stitt arrived at 6:55 p.m.
Also present were Assistant City Manager
Terrence Belanger,
Parks and Maintenance Director Charles Janiel,
Administrative
Analyst Kellee Fritzal, Superintendent
Don Hensley, and
Secretary (contract) Liz Myers.
CONSENT
C/Plunk requested the Minutes of December
13, 1990 be pulled
CALENDAR:
from the Consent Calendar.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Whelan and CARRIED
to approve the Consent C= endar.
Ayes: Commissioners Mev -luzicka, and Whelan
Nays: None
Abstain: Commission<
C/Plunk requeste-' cember 13, 1990 be amended
on page 5, par ...bidders either reduce
their costs P final programs acceptable to
the City of „�� as further requested. page 6,
paragraph 6, i d "...final decision based on
fair negotiati, _) programs.".
Motion was made b� r, seconded by C/Whelan and CARRIED
to approve the Minu. if December 13, 1990 as amended.
Ayes: Commissioners N,yer, Ruzicka, and Whelan
Nays: None
Abstain: Commissioner Plunk
OLD BUSINESS: Resolution 91-1 established the Meetings of the Parks and
Recreation Commission of the City of Diamond Bar be held on
Resolution the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m., to be held in
91-1. the Community Room, 1060 S. Grand, Diamond Bar, California.
C/Ruzicka requested the Resolution be amended in section B.1.
to read " . unless the same shall be a legal holiday...".
C/Meyer requested the Resolution be amended in section B.1.
to read "... held on the next succeeding Thursday calendar
day.".
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY to approve Resolution 91-1 as amended.
January 10, 1991
Page 3
This approach would give the City the greatest amount of
flexibility in terms of dealing with the realities of the
budget.
C/Meyer recounted, to his understanding, the motivation for
considering other recreation providers was the unacceptable
service provided by WVR, and the County. City staff had also
indicated a desire to have a least a year to be able to
provide in-house recreation services determined acceptable.
With this in mind, the Commission decided the proposal
offered by Brea was the most viable option. The only element
in question, with the Brea proposal, was scaling down the
costs to meet the City's budgetary constraints. He inquired
if the posture had changed.
ACM/Belanger explained Brea has policies in terms of the
administrative charges that applied to the proposal. Brea
appeared reluctant to provide a reduction in the admini-
stration costs, which are approximately $75,000.
Cheryl Lynborn, residing at 21018 Windrose, Walnut,
supervisor for the WVR program, suggested, if the Commission
is considering an In -House recreation program, to start with
small programs as early as March for the summer program. She
stated beginning at ground level would not be necessary and
communicated the availability of the contract instructors
upon City notification.
Chair/Whelan maintained the City has not been provided, by
WVR, with the needed direction and information to set up
recreation programs.
ACM/Belanger explained the City had already intended to have
the chosen provider involved in replacing WVR as early as
March. The intent was to become familiar with the present
contractors, develop brochures, while looking over WVRs
shoulder for the development of a summer program. Since WVR
will not be developing a summer program for Diamond Bar, the
preparations will be done solely by the City. Brea, like the
City, would have to hire additional professional recreation-
ists to provide a recreation program. The City already has
staff with the expertise in managing substantial recreation
programs. The City is capable of providing the community
with a quality recreation program.
C/Meyer pointed out that the figures of the In -House program
were low because incidents of possible liabilities were not
included.
C/Plunk noted the costs of hiring four (4) new employees were
not included in the In -House estimates.
January lo, 1991
Page 5
However, at this point, it does not seem they will be able to
conform to our budgetary constraints. Therefore, the
Commission should work towards creating a recreation program
in preparation of avoiding a linear process.
C/Ruzicka inquired if $182,000 is the top figure the City
will consider.
ACM/Belanger stated the mid year review going to the Council
will show there is less monies available than proposed in
June, 1990. CM/Van Nort's concern is that the City maintains
the budget levels at approximately the levels they are at
without expanding beyond that.
Chair/Whelan expressed concern that the first area to be cut
is the Parks and Recreation. He requested staff return with
a core program that will not be touched by budgetary
constraints whereas the Commission will then expand from that
point.
C/Plunk suggested reviewing the programs received from Brea
and the YMCA and note the areas favored by the Commission in
the two (2) programs, as opposed to going straight back to
the proposal made to us. She would like the budget to
include the $182,000, plus the $50,000 from Proposition A.
She requested if they are unable to meet the limit, the money
should be put in the CIP towards recreation in order to avoid
paying a profit margin to a provider thereby obtaining better
benefits.
C/Meyer wondered why Brea presented themselves to be flexible
and enthusiastic to meet our needs, but now it appears to be
the opposite.
ACM/Belanger stated Brea's position has not changed.
However, though not emphasized at the time, much of what any
contractor would do in way of a recreation program, can be
done by our staff. The attraction of a contractor is that
the City would not have to do the nitty gritty of a program,
if the premiums are affordable. The attraction of having
Brea run the program is not any less. However, the environ-
ment in which we are considering that has changed and has
cast the comparative advantages and disadvantages in a
different light.
VC/Ruzicka noted the difference between an In -House program
and the Brea proposal seems nominal as compared to the total
budget.
ACM/Belanger stated the difference is not as great in
comparison to the total budget but when compared to the
difference in relationship beyond the unappropriated reserve,
January 1o, 1991
Page 7
review the information and provide additional comments at
anytime, not restricted to meeting times.
Cheryl Lynborn offered her availability to the Commission for
any advise or suggestions. She can be reached at 595-4175.
C.I.P. Staff reported the given ratings of the prioritized Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) were derived by dividing the total
given prioritized number, by the amount of Commissioners who
responded their ratings. The lower the number, the higher
the priority. Those Commissioners who did not respond may do
so at any time and the figures will be recalculated.
AA/Fritzal stated it is up to the Commission to rate the
projects according to its importance. She stated the Council
recommended making four (4) categories to be done over a five
(5) year period: urgent (safety); recommended; desirable; and
deferable. Urgent items are to be considered done over a two
(2) year period.
C/Plunk wondered if the Commission would be, in essence,
asking for a budget cut by going with the urgent instead of
the desirable.
AA/Fritzal explained the Council has the final decision as to
what is urgent. If alternative funding can be found, then
those monies may be used for some of the projects.
Chair/Whelan requested from staff a list of items considered
to be urgent.
Survey
Staff reported a survey was designed by the Parks and
Results.
Recreation Commission to gather input from the community by
requesting information regarding parks, recreation, services,
and facilities. The results of the survey will be used for
the Parks Master Plan.
VC/Ruzicka questioned if the survey of 135 people is a
realistic assessment for a City with a population of 70,000.
AA/Fritzal replied it may not be statistically accurate but
at least 135 individuals responded giving a base for some
type of assessment.
C/Stitt commented the survey reached out to those individuals
who would not have normally involved themselves in City
decision. He suggested when looking at the CIP, the
Commission should take careful consideration of the findings
of the survey and note their differences.
Quail Summit
PMD/Daniel reported there should be no problems in using the
Facilities
new portable multi-purpose room at the Quail summit campus
Use.
after the dedication scheduled for early February.
January 10, 1991
Page • 9
concrete, including two (2) goals with fencing, be included
in the Commissions CIP list.
Chair/Whelan acknowledged the request and stated the
Commission will take it into consideration.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/Ruzicka and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 8:50p.m.
Charle Janiel
Secretary
Attest:
Pat Whelan
Chairman
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
MATTERS FROM
THE AUDIENCE:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARRS AND RECREATION
JANUARY 24, 1991
Chairman Whelan called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. at City Hall, 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite
390, Diamond Bar, California.
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
Commissioner Meyer.
Commissioners Meyer, Plunk, Vice Chairman Ruzicka,
and Chairman Whelan. Commissioner Stitt was absent
(excused).
Also present were Parks and Maintenance Director
Charles Janiel, Adm,.nistrative Analyst Kellee
Fritzal, and Contr- 'ecretary Liz Myers.
Jeff Stever 3tive of the Diamond Bar
Little T about the possibility of
thefield use fees required
from , nified School District
(WViJSL Commission that the
manage_ (' arrangements with the
Distric _fields and must pay $7.50
per chil Per family.
VC/Ruzick, ..Lormed Mr. Stevens of the City's
current buaget constraints.
PMD/Janiel explained if the City supplemented the
Little League fees, then the City could be
obligated to do so with other sports organizations.
If the Commission decided to supplement the sports
groups, the money would have to come out of the
recreation budget.
VC/Ruzicka stated there will always be some use
fees to,cover the costs of maintenance but perhaps
the fees could be less if adequately arranged
through the Joint Powers Agreement.
C/Meyer pointed out that the tax payers should
already be covering maintenance expense. He
suggested the request would be better put to the
School Board.
AA/Kellee Fritzal stated staff will review the
matter and bring the information back to the
Commission.
C/Plunk suggested the money saved, by going in-
house for the recreation program, could be directed
to the different groups.
January 24, 1991 Page 3
The Interview Sub -Committee selected Brea as the
most responsive, with a net cost to the City of
$235,000. The proposal is currently $50,000 more
than budgeted. A more realistic approach to
providing recreation may be providing it with in-
house recreation staff. The City can provide a
quality recreation program the same size described
in the RFP. The Brea proposal has not been
abandoned. However, it does not seem they will be
able to conform to our budgetary constraints. To
avoid a linear process, the Commission should work
toward creating a recreation program.
AA/Fritzal handed the Commission a draft of the
revised Brea proposal and a draft of an in-house
recreation program. Brea has not yet seen the
draft revised to fit within our budget constraints.
There is a chance that Brea may accept the draft
proposal due to the prestigious nature of expanding
their recreation program. However, there is no
flexibility for Diamond Bar within the proposal.
The in-house proposal includes an estimate of the
expenditures and revenues. The programming
services can be cut and changed to fit a desired
core program.
C/Plunk informed the Commission of the excursion
information received from Cheryl Lynborn of Walnut.
VC/Ruzicka asked if it were possible, giving the
information in regards to the recent economic
downturn, there will be no money for recreation.
PMD/Janiel emphasized that the mid year budget
review gave a more realistic view of the monies
available.
AA/Fritzal stated a successful recreation program
will pay for itself.
C/Plunk asked for staff's opinion on corporate
sponsorship.
AA/Fritzal responded she agrees fully with
corporate and community organization sponsorships.
C/Plunk informed the Commission that R&B Property
Management has offered to sponsor the Halloween
Haunted House. She also stated that Ray Roberts or
John Wilker has offered to help with the Junior
Golf classes.
Chair/Whelan stated his preference would be to
start with a core program and then build from that
point. The priorities should be set first within
the budget constraints. He would recommend the
January 24, 1991 Page 5
the community. Every resource will need to be
utilized.
VC/Ruzicka pointed out that the development of a
core program will be flexible enough to stand
whether the budget is meager or generous.
REPORTS:
PMD/Daniel reported the monthly park activity
report for December, 1990 has been completed by Don
Monthly Park
Hensley, Superintendent of Parks.
Activity Report
VC/Ruzicka commended the report. He suggested the
report be published to reinforce, to the citizens
of Diamond Bar, that the parks are not being
neglected.
INFORMATION:
PMD/Daniel reported meeting with Dan Murray, eagle
scout candidate, to discuss possible projects in
Eagle Scout
Sycamore Canyon Park. Financial support was
Project
offered to help supplement material costs, if
needed, on acceptable projects. Mr. Murray had
first suggested building an amphitheatre. The
project may be too overwhelming, and it was counter
suggested to put in benches along the trails, horse
shoe pits, or some project on a lower scale.
Chair/Whelan noted the scout would need a project
that would require a lot of man hours. It is good
for scout motivation to do community projects that
will give a sense of accomplishment.
National/State/
Staff reported the Los Angeles County Board of
County/Partnership
Supervisors recently has approved $117,675 in
matching grants to twenty-one (21) county -residents
arts organizations through the
National/State/County/ Partnership challenge grant
program.
I
C/Plunk wondered if there was a baseball film of
sorts that could be done to get the money over to
the Little League.
Chair/Whelan inquired if these could be sources for
concerts in the parks.
AA/Fritzal stated the possibilities will be
reviewed. one avenue is that the arts society have
traveling tour groups that may give money to very
inexpensive shows in cities.
PMD/Daniel informed the Commission if they know of
any local groups that would like to make applica-
tion, they should call City Hall because the
deadline is March 4, 1991 to fill the grant
application.
January 24, 1991 Page 7
The Commission gave approval to accept the
suggested change of brown.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 8:22
p.m. to the next meeting of February 14, 1991.
Charles aniel
Secretary
Attest:
— �Y2 e�—&
Pat Whelan
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
JANUARY 18., 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Petersen called the meeting to order at
3:15 p.m. at the Community Room, 1061 Grand Avenue,
Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL: Committee Members: Dr. David Berry, Charles
Hewitt, Vice Chairperson Schmidt, and Chairperson
Petersen.
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Interim
Director Irwin Kaplan, and Contract Secretary Liz
Myers.
NEW BUSINESS: Chair/Petersen noted pages 7, 8, and 9 of the
master EIR were supplied to the Committee Members.
Tentative
Tract 47850, Chair/Petersen decided to review the master EIR
47851, & 48407. response packet by page to allow the Committee
Members to voice any questions or concerns to the
development team on any of the information
provided.
Page 8: Alternative Density and Configuration.
Chair/Petersen referred to the last sentence of the
paragraph, and requested clarification.
Dr. King stated, essentially, the environmental
impacts, in the overall report, that has been
identified as unavoidable, are unavoidable on every
alternative. Those that can be fixed, can be fixed
on any alternative whether it is a lower or a
higher density.
CM/Hewitt asked for clarification to the proposed
lot sizes stated on page 7, and then on page 8. He
inquired if it will cause a zone change, or will it
fit in�o the present General Plan of the City.
Dr.King explained that, in California, zoning is
not required, but planning is. If planning is
done, something should be done in regards to zoning
in order to implement the plan. In California, the
zoning must be consistent with a General Plan. The
Attorney General defines consistent as compatible
and harmonious to. Case law has essentially stated
that if the density of the general plan says one
unit or less, that means if the zoning has 8,000
sq. ft. minimum lots, it still cannot be
subdivided. In the past, this meant some lots
could be less than one (1) acre. As long as the
average was one acre, it would be found to be
January 18, 1991 Page 3
the new condition, and on the existing condition,
it is 130 CFS. It is true that less water will be
deposited in this canyon than we had coming through
on the other section.
Chair/Petersen acknowledged on the existing natural
drainage, there has been some manipulation where
water has gone.
Al Dayton stated all the water comes down and into
the same stream. It can be controlled. There is
going to be slightly more water after the
construction than there is in the natural state.
Chair/Petersen maintained the statement made by the
hydrologist, in regards to a decrease in water,
must be incorrect.
Al Dayton affirmed there will be an increase in
water. However, less water can be delivered by
putting in a retention basin and controlling the
amount and the velocity. It is not a problem, and
a solution can be made to satisfy the City
Engineer.
James DeStefano recommended the developer's
consultant reexamine the issue. There appears to
be too many non -permeable surfaces to have the
total CFS decrease. The question the Committee is
concerned with is the quantity coming off the hill
now, and how much will be coming off after the
project.
Dr. King stated the hydrologist will review the
issue, and verify, so as to receive clarification
on precisely what and where the change would be, in
order to identify it's implications.
N
Chair/Petersen reiterated the Committees concern as
to what will be going down into the riparian system
in the Tonner Canyon. The Committee would like
clarification.
Page 5:
VC/Schmidt asserted, on the paragraph below, the
Committee was looking for an emphasis on specific
statements, in the EIR, about impacts and then,
perhaps, some proposed ideas on how to mitigate
them.
Dr. King noted the request.
Page 8:
VC/Schmidt stated, on statement #2, the language
needs to read "...will be...", as opposed to
"...should be...
January 18, 1991 Page 5
CM/Hewitt affirmed there is a need for some measure
to control water. Ponding seems a viable measure.
CM/Berry concurred and stated he has no problem
with ponding on a small scale.
VC/Schmidt inquired if ponding is the most viable
method to deal with run off. She noted , on page
25, that the developer may want to consider a
different tree for the waterpool.
Gary Mayser explained there are two (2) ways to
deal with run off: 1. Take the water as it comes
down and use the existing stream. Then, redesign
the stream with planting and mechanical devices to
deflect the water and limit the erosion. 2. When
the water comes initially into the stream system,
create a surface pond basin or a percolation basin,
where the water comes in and ponds momentarily, and
then, either spills out or circulates, and drops
into the aquifer. The question is which method
does the Committee prefer.
CM/Hewitt declared the decision depends upon the
volume of water that comes off. Once a projected
quantity is given, a decision can be made.
Chair/Petersen replied the ponding concept would be
a good method as opposed to having the water
ricocheting without control. He maintained there
is still a problem with the word ponding.
Page 10:
Bernie Mazure requested items on this page be
deferred because a geologist is expected to attend
the meeting who is capable of addressing concerns
and additional questions.
j+
Page 12: Visual Impacts
VC/Schmidt maintained she was looking for a
statement in the EIR specifically stating there
will be an impact on the visible quality and
aesthetics of the canyon, and that the alterations
will be visible from the canyon and beyond.
Page 17: Neighborhood Interfaces with Wildlife
CM/Hewitt inquired how the educational information
provided will be delivered to the homeowners. He
also wondered how the enforcement of the policies
will be monitored.
Dr. La Peter stated the regulations will be stated
in the CC&R's. They will have to be signed upon
the purchase of the house.
James DeStefano declared that the issue is
January 18, 1991
Page 7
Irwin Kaplan, city Planner, explained that
typically the City would focus study and then apply
a prorata share for each of the developers
developing projects within the study area. The
problem is that the study would get done after all
the development was finished. He suggested it
might be appropriate for the Committee, with the
information received from the applicant and their
consultants, to take a map of the canyon and draw
out an ecological context plan. The map can be set
up as a framework, with the knowledge it is a first
task and not a complete study. Each of the
Committee Members could use it as a basis to sketch
ideas and write out comments. This method will
give a two (2) point perspective: 1. We will have
the specific information for the project under
consideration. 2. We will have an overview
to be able to look at the specific project.
Bernie Mazure suggested, if the Committee could
arrive at a dimension in regards to cost of the
proposed research, it may be possible for the
initial developers to fund it on the basis that in
coming projects could be assessed and the funds
returned over a period of time.
Irwin Kaplan stated there is a mechanism for
funding and repayment for such a study. It will be
suggested that the City define the scope of a study
to assist in determining the costs. The proposal
will be available at the next meeting.
Chair/Petersen stated the majority of the
Committee's questions have been responded to. He
inquired if Dr. King would like to make a
presentation.
Dr. King presented the Committee with a map
displaying the approximate current boundaries of
the SEA 15 and the Chino Hills Preserve. The map
demonstrated the three (3) projects currently under
discussion; a project to be proposed soon; and the
proposed extensions of certain roads. He stated,
on this project, the entire area of the SEA 15,
within the City of Diamond Bar, is currently
proposed for development.
Dr. King related that a golf course and a country
club, in the Boy Scout property, is currently being
proposed through Los Angeles County. He
demonstrated where the access road to the
development may be located.
The SEATAC noted the development of the proposed
access road would effectively eliminate the SEA's
viability.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 3, 1990
CALL TO ORDER:
Planning Director James DeStefano called the meeting to
order at 2:05 p.m. at the City Hall, 21660 East Copley
Drive, Suite 190 (moved from Suite 300 due to lack of
space), Diamond Bar California.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Members: Dr. David Berry, Charles Hewitt, Vice
Chairman Sherry Schmidt, and Chairman Craig Petersen.
Also present were Planning Director James DeStefano,
Associate Planner Robert Searcy, and Secretary (contract)
Liz Myers.
NEW BUSINESS:
There was a general discussion in regards to the
nomination of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman.
Designation of
Chairman and
Staff reported the SEATAC members were appointed by the
Vice Chairman.
City Council approximately two (2) weeks ago, after a
lengthy search for members with the qualifications, and
a willingness to support the City Planning Commission and
the City Council, in a review of this sensitive project
area. The SEATAC and members of the staff have had the
opportunity to see the site via a tour provided by Dr.
Buffington. The SRAmT^ has also held an informal session
Friday. **- 1990, to discuss their role
re,
Mot ��� chmidt, seconded by CM/Berry and
CAR. nominate CM/Craig Petersen as
Cha
Moti Petersen, seconded by CM/Hewitt,
and _„.SLY to nominate CM/Schmidt for Vice
Cha i.
Conflict of Planning Director James DeStefano explained the SEATAC
Interest Code. is subject Ito the same rules and regulations other
operating commissions or committees of this Municipal
Government abide by. The Committee is subject to the
open meeting laws of the Brown Act as well as the Fair
Political Practices Act. He stated at the end of the
meeting a copy of a memorandum written by the Assistant
City Manager, and a copy of Form 730, a State of
California Conflict of Interest Form, will be passed out.
The form will need to be filled out and returned by the
next meeting.
General Staff reported that the project under discussion is
Discussion adjacent to the Country, located in the southeast portion
of the City of Diamond Bar, and adjacent to the County's
designated Significant Ecological Area (SEA). This is
one (1) SEA out of about 65 SEAs located within Los
Angeles County. The specific project is comprised of
three (3) separate tracts, in a "U" shaped form,
surrounding a remnant parcel. The project contains 120
December 3, 1990 Page 3
ultimately tie into -natural drainage systems". He
wondered if street runoff ultimately go directly
into Tonner Canyon, and therefore, runoff from the
present Country go there too.
5. The main concern wraps around the riparian
ecosystem of Tonner Canyon, which was not
specifically addressed. He wondered where the
runoff will be going to and the kind of impact it
will have on the down stream portion of Tonner
Canyon: will it be an overall cutting situation, or
a building situation? The information is critical
in understanding the ultimate changes which may
occur in the streamside areas of SEA #15.
Suggestion:
1. The CC&Rs should stipulate no removal or alteration
of existing natural vegetation on the private lots
beyond that required by the fire department
regulations. This specifically pertains to the
lots having homes setting on the pads and the lots
extending along in linear fashion, especially those
going down into the riparian areas. Beyond the pad
construction and normal house/garden construction,
he stated envisioning a person perhaps not liking
chaparral and grading the land, in which case could
effect the integrity of that particular watershed.
2. The CC&Rs should stipulate no fences allowed which
would not allow the free movement of all wildlife
species, such as chain link fencing or block walls
at the lower portion of the tract.
3. He noted page 75 (#2-H) of the "Environmental
Assessment of Potential Impacts Report" stated
landscaping will be with water efficient plants
wherever possible. He noted the term "wherever
possible" as a potential fudge word and thought it
should be done with water efficient plants period.
He stated, throughout the report, there was no
specific recommendations to the types of drought
tolerant or xeric plants. There is a wide
selection of species available, and the Planning
Commission, the City Council, or appropriate
biologists in the area should be able to list ten
or twenty acceptable plants, as opposed to allowing
strange plants from drought tolerant regions that
may cause some unknown problems.
4. He asserted the SEA #15 is slowly being altered a
little at a time and is appalled there is not a
more regional approach on how to deal with Tonner
Canyon and the immediate surroundings. This SEA
should not be allowed to be degraded a little here
and there, such as the yet to be developed adjacent
properties, the golf course potential across the
canyon, the potential for a major road,
December 3, 1990 Page 5
rodent control, skunk and possum control. People must
realize the potential for the disappearance of their pets
when living in an area as this. There is also a
potential for Mountain Lions in the area because of the
corridor which goes from Old Canyon across the 91
freeway, through Greener Drive, on through Chino Hills
State Park and into Tonner Canyon itself. The potential
for domestic animals being harmed by them should also be
addressed.
4. There is a symposium on endangered plant
communities in Southern California that was given
three (3) years ago. The Walnut woodland itself is
considered an endangered plant community. She is
bothered by the fact there are 1,145 walnut trees
in the area and they are proposing to remove 763,
leaving only 382 Walnuts remaining. Since it is an
endangered plant community, she is bothered that it
was not so mentioned in the EIR.
5. There is no mention in the EIR that Tonner Canyon
is an important wildlife corridor. Chino Hills
State Park is probably the most protected area left
in terms of wildlife. It is a very small area and
is not large enough to maintain a male mountain
lion. The largest area for genetic exchange
between Chino Park is the corridor that now exists
from the Santa Ana Mountains through Hall Canyon to
Chino Hills State Park. Tonner Canyon is also a
portion of the corridor. To maintain the integrity
of the wildlife in the Park, which is such a small
area, the corridor must be maintained for wildlife
to move in and out of the Park. She stated the
importance of realizing we are impacting an
important wildlife corridor, and should be stated
as such in the EIR. There is no mention of it in
the EIR now.
6. She stated mitigation can not be discussed until
some of these questions have been answered.
I
CM/Hewitt referred to some of his concerns.
1. The EIR does not specify types, sizes, and species
of the replacement trees. It is important to use
the term zero scape type plants, drought tolerant
plants and specify the species.
2. The EIR does not mention the replacement of the 763
Walnuts be removed. Some arrangements should be
made on replacing them with another type of drought
tolerant tree, and mentioned as such in the EIR.
3. The EIR does not mention the replacement of the 40
Quercus dumosa, which is critical to the watershed,
to be removed.
4. The replacement ratio of trees should be higher,
and he believed a 4 to 1 ratio would be more
acceptable to insure the long term replacement of
removed species. He suggested the replacement
December 3, 1990 Page 7
suggested the geological reports from the
consultant specify, in particular, ways of
mitigating problems of expansive clays within the
site.
6. Fundamentally, the list of problems need to be tied
to a regional master plan and should be continually
addressed in future meetings.
Chair/Petersen inquired if any committee member wished to
add to any comment. With the consensus of the committee
members, the questions and concerns are concluded.
James DeStefano recommended requesting, from the
development team, responses in writing to the variety of
concerns illustrated. The comments should be received
through the staff, transmitted to the SEATAC, and then
schedule the next meeting.
Gary Mayser, Senior Vice President of the Diamond Bar
Associates, inquired if it is possible to allow a
response to be within 10 days. He felt confident a
response in a professional manner can be given without
delay.
Don King stated, with the exception of coming up with a
good response to a regional plan in Tonner Canyon, he
doesn't see a problem with obtaining the information
requested.
James DeStefano asserted, assuming the information can be
delivered to him by December 14, 1990, the next
reasonable meeting date would be close to Christmas. He
suggested working around the holidays and set the next
meeting date in January, 1991, allowing the committee
time to review the comments from the development group.
Chair/Peterson concurred and suggested Monday, January 7,
1991.
I
James DeStefano suggested tentatively targeting January
7, 1991, subject to the receipt of the materials
responding to the comments of today as well as subject to
the calendar commitments of the SEATAC members.
Individual notice of the exact date, time and location of
the meeting will be given to the SEATAC members, as well
as all other participants in todays meeting.Gary Mayser
reiterated if the information is presented earlier, could
the date of the next meeting be upped to an earlier date.
James DeStefano stated the decision is for the SEATAC
members to make but recommended allowing seven (7) to ten
(10) days for proper review of the materials.
December 3, 1990
Attest:
4�114
to
Ja es DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
Page 9
Craig Petersen
Chairman
January 14, 1991 Page 12
should remain as it is, and wished the applicant
well in conducting a facility which seems to be
appropriate at the present moment.
C/Lin remarked that deep down, the majority has a
sympathy for those with Alzheimer and a deep
appreciation for those who care for these people.
Neighbors should feel obligated to help the
facility keep on.
VC/Harmony maintained, that upon visiting, he was
impressed with the facility and there was a sense
of caring from the director. The idea of expansion
is too massive of a construction for the pad size.
Every community needs to face its realities and
these type of facilities are needed. However, six
(6) people may be an adequate number to care for.
He urged the neighbors to visit these people and
see them for the circumstance they are in. He
wished the applicant good luck.
Bill Curley noted changes of the draft resolution
presented to them: Page (3), section 3c should be
deleted; section 4a should read "...to accommodate
this density of development and use."; and section
4b should read "...can not reasonably accommodate."
Motion made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride,
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to pass the Resolution of
Denial for CUP 90-0117, as amended.
Sign Ordinance Staff reported the draft sign ordinance is a
request to amend certain provisions of Title 22 of
the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted
by the City of Diamond Bar, pertaining to signs.
James Destefano reported the Commission has
received the latest draft sign code package, which
incorporates a discussion of non -conforming signs
and sign abatement. The package has been
distributed to approximately sixty (60) individuals
and organizations for their review and input. The
outstanding issues of the draft sign ordinance
revolves around the need for specific language
refinements.
James Destefano reviewed the key components of the
ordinance in order to be sure the document reflects
the Commission's philosophy and policies on the
issues. A brief discussion will be necessary in
regards to the non -conforming and sign abatement
provisions within the document. Depending upon the
changes, the document should be brought back to the
Commission, at the next meeting, for consideration
of a Resolution of Approval at the next meeting.
January 14, 1991 Page 14
architectural review by the Planning
Commission. Staff wished to caution the
Commission that it is more a Council policy
issue as to whether they want to delegate that
specific authority to the Planning Commission,
the Park and Recreation Commission, or to
staff.
VC/Harmony interrupted the report to suggest
the staff review a Council ordinance on
architectural review that delegates
architectural review on development projects,
and so forth, to the Planning Commission.
9. pages 28, 29, & 30 - The areas related to
Prohibited Signs will be stricken from the
final ordinance. To specifically list
permitted signs and list prohibited signs
create a grey area for those signs that fall
somewhere in the middle. It is best to have a
sign ordinance that specifically lists signs
that are permitted and everything else is
deemed to be prohibited.
10. The final 12 pages of the document have some
policy issues that the staff will review with
the Commission, if so desired.
James DeStefano stated there are still some
definitions that need language clarification. As
an example, the definition of sign area needs
clarification because it is very difficult to
understand. He noted there has been very little
comment and input concerning the document from
individuals and organizations.
C/Lin requested staff classify the uses of the free
standing monuments noted on pages 21 and 22.
i
James DeStefano replied, on page 21, it refers to a
free standing sign for a single use. Page 22,
refers to a free standing sign for a commercial
center. The square footage for a sign face area
triples for a commercial center, although height
remains the same.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Rachel Sieger, residing at 22939 E. Escerol Drive,
suggested the Commission adopt a conservative
approach to signs in Diamond Bar. The
proliferation of signs in a community effectively
decreases the property value, and quality of a
community. She noted the large number of political
signs and suggested restricting the numbers
allowed.
January 14, 1991 Page 16
codes. The maximum height of six (6) feet would
remain in effect. There was no talk, specifically,
about public uses, which have raised some concerns,
that are adjacent to the freeway. It was generally
discussed how one may go about receiving an appro-
val for a sign that differed from the prescribed
standards.
Irwin Kaplan explained that a variance is a dif-
ficult procedure to determine if it is a variance
for height, location, or freeway access. He sug-
gested using the CUP as an alternative.
Bill Curley stated a variance gives a very narrow
set of parameters. The CUP gives a broader range
of flexibility.
Irwin Kaplan suggested using a CUP procedure that
is narrowly focused.
VC/Harmony stated the words in the CUP should be
tough and the definition should be beyond question.
Irwin Kaplan suggested, in regards to signs in
multi use buildings, the Commission distinguish
between signs from new tenants in existing centers
as opposed to a new center with a series of new
signs. The former may not need to be part of a
plan sign program that needs review by the Planning
Commission.
Irwin Kaplan stated the Commission distinguished
between signs that are non conforming by virtue of
type of signs, as opposed to signs that are non
conforming because of size. Type of signs would be
a pole sign or a roof sign. In the discussion, it
was determined that the illegal type of signs would
be phased out after the fifteen (15) years. Signs
that were illegal in all respects, except size,
would continue until such time the business
changed, as opposed to trying to go on an
enforcement campaign. As the document is now
written, it makes no distinguish between signs that
are non conforming by virtue of size, versus signs
that are non conforming by virtue of type. our
original discussion stated we would go after the
signs that were of a type no longer to be legal.
Bill Curley rebutted that the structured has been
broadened rather than trying to develop a definable
criteria. By directly articulating all the signs
the Commission approves or disapproves, gets into
an area fraught with both definitional and equal
protection challenges. The way its structured,
"they shall be permitted to remain for fifteen (15)
years", puts us up to our threshold time where we
January 14, 1991 Page IS
removal of a sign.
3. page 2, section 102B. 5b. - He noted the
application process was not to be done.
James DeStefano concurred and stated the
section will be removed.
4. page 3, section 102B. 5c. - He inquired why a
Planning Director would waive a requirement
and for what situations.
Bill Curley pondered that initially it began
as an amalgamation of a variety of City
standards that may have picked up something at
a time when a Planning Director's scope
included building official.
James DeStefano stated the item will be
reviewed.
5. page 4, top line - He wanted "th" removed.
6. page 5, item F - He requested a clear
definition of "right of way".
7. page 5, item G - He would like some
consideration for arabic numerals included.
S. page 6, section 106E - He would like the
definition of the area of a sign to be
improved.
9. page 8, item L - He noted the definition
sounds more like an ordinance.
10. page 11, item II - He noted the definition
sounds more like an ordinance.
James DeStefano stated section LL on page 11
will be removed.
11. page 12, item PP - He suggested including the
word "candidate".
12. page 15, section 106 - He corrected the typing
error which should read "...Planning Director
or...".
James DeStefano noted wording such as "
...Planning Director or his..." will be
amended to read ..."his/her".
13. page 16, section 106A - He noted that maximum
height of wall signs was left blank.
James DeStefano explained that maximum height
needs to be stricken to allow the flexibility
to create signs of various lettering heights,
shapes, and so forth.
January 14, 1991 Page 20
ANNOUNCEMENTS: VC/Harmony inquired of the Commissions interest in
a Speakers Bureau.
C/Grothe recommended the City maintain a list of
possible speakers to be kept at the City office.
C/MacBride stated he was uncomfortable with the
idea.
C/Lin concurred with the other Commissioners.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
11:40 p.m.
Clair Harmony
Vice Chairman
VkO475�
James DeStefan
Secretary/Plan ing Commission
December 13, 1990 Page 2
RAB Oral Report C/Whelan reported the Recreational Advisory Board Meeting
had been uneventful and there is no updated information
concerning the JPA.
Staff reported the City of Walnut has decided not to sign
the amendment of the JPA requesting money be returned to
the City of Diamond Bar from the discontinuance of the
Park Drop -In Program. Staff explained the money
available for use through the JPA agreement is approxi-
mately $23,000, excluding costs. Since the actual money
will not be returned to the City, staff recommended
assigning the funds for use in a special event.
C/Whelan inquired if staff can obtain equipment now for
the Second Anniversary, using the funds in the JPA.
Kellee Fritzal responded it can be done but suggested
using the funds toward services as opposed to equipment.
Staff is not confident any equipment purchased would be
returned to the City.
C/Whelan stated the City should take advantage of any
funds still available and begin the preplanning stages of
the Second Anniversary.
C/Meyer inquired if staff felt confident the money can be
used in such a manner, even though there is a discrepancy
in the actual monies available through the JPA from
discontinuing the Park Drop -In Program.
Staff feels the City can obtain enough labor and services
equating the dollars at hand.
Staff reminded Commission that a new representative to
the Recreation Advisory Board (RAB) must be appointed.
The meeting is on the first Thursday of the month at 7:30
p.m. The next meeting will be January 4, 1991.
C/Stitt expressed his desire to be the representative on
the RAB.
Motion was made by C/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Meyer and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to nominate C/Stitt to the post of
the second representative from the Park and Recreation
Commission to the RAB.
Changing the C/Whelan requested the Commission meeting time be changed
Meeting Date from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. to allow more flexibility in
& Time. his schedule. He stated Thursday would still remain a
good date unless the Commission decides otherwise.
December 13, 1990
Recreation RFP
Page 4
The Commission identified items #10, 23, 24, 25, 28-33,
35, 38, 39a&b, 40, 41a&b, 42a&b, 43a&b, and 44 through
49.
Charles Janiel reminded Commission that the projects will
be in competition for funds. Therefore, he suggested
prioritizing items in a way to make the funds available,
first, for the needs of the Park and Recreation
Commission.
Lydia Plunk inquired if lights are unattainable at one
park field, can there be an addendum to install lights on
another field.
C/Whelan stated the CIP must be specific so the
Commission should add the alternative park to the list.
C/Meyer suggested the Commission, in terms of
prioritizing, refer to the potential number and type of
users of a park.
Charles Janiel noted the funds requested have been for
bigger parks having the potential to serve the most
people. He asserted the present user isn't as important
as the potential user.
Kellee Fritzal illustrated the four possible options for
a Recreational Program and their net costs to the City.
RFP
NET COSTS
Brea
$235,674
YMCA
$180,052
County
$337,706
In -House
$148,920
Kellee Fritzal reported staff, C/Whelan and C/Ruzicka met
with the three (3) proposers at a meeting on Tuesday,
December 111, 1990. The In -House proposal was also
discussed on that date. Kellee Fritzal recommended the
Commissioners not base their decision on net costs only,
but also consider the services that can be provided.
Items in the proposal can be negotiated.
C/Ruzicka reported the bid from Brea was presented
imaginatively. He suggested requesting from Brea a bid
on programs they would find best for Diamond Bar. The
YMCA does not have any experience in providing municipal
type recreation programs and also did not include all the
services requested. The County is expensive but
experienced. There are opposing opinions to the quality
of the services provided in the past. He stated his
apprehension on an In -House program due to lack of
December 13, 1990 Page 6
Kellee Fritzal informed the Commission of staff's intent
to go for a three (3) year contract with yearly renewals.
C/Whelan maintained the original intent was to go for a
two (2) year contract. The first year would be the
growing pains, and the second year would be to judge
their actual abilities.
Staff acknowledged the difference in the time aspect of
the contract and stated a two (2) year contract can be
developed.
C/Whelan asserted he would prefer Brea come back with a
revised program, then renegotiate to lower costs not
exceeding $210,000.
C/Meyer claimed all bidders should receive an opportunity
to lower costs and present a revised program. The
Commission should give a full review.
Lydia Plunk stated it would be easier for City Council to
make a final decision based on fair negotiations with two
(2) programs.
Motion was made by C/Whelan, seconded by C/Meyer and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to contact all the
entities involved in the RFP process and request a
resubmittal on a recreation program at two (2) cost
levels: one being at the existing level originally
submitted, and the other at a lower cost level, with an
idea of providing a program beneficial to the City of
Diamond Bar. Staff will negotiate an agreement with the
bidders and return the results to the Commission by
January 10, 1991.
CORRESPONDENCE:
JPA Termination City Manager�Robert Van Nort stated in a memorandum dated
WVUSD December 30, 1990, that the letter dated November 30,
1990 from the City of Walnut reflects they are not
interested in either an independent audit or an amend-
ment to the present Recreational JPA Agreement with
Diamond Bar, Walnut, and the Walnut Valley Unified School
District. It is not recommended, in the light of the
numerous issues faced by the City and School District,
the matter be further explored.
C/Whelan explained the reason for requesting an audit was
in hopes to outline items bought and paid for.
December 13, 1990
Page 8
C/Whelan stated he was approached by Boy Scouts that want
to do an Eagle project that entails developing trails
through the Sycamore Canyon Park. He inquired of staff
as to which action need to be taken.
Charles Janiel replied the City Attorney needs to be
notified first. He suggested the Boy Scouts contact him
and give all the information needed and he will confer
with the City Attorney and discuss requirements.
Charles Janiel informed the Commission their Christmas
decoration idea was postponed due to legalities con-
cerning liability.
C/Stitt welcomed C/Meyer and stated his eager anticipa-
tion of working together. He noted the comments made by
C/Whelan in regards to Councilman Don Nardella echoed the
opinions of the whole Commission. He announced to the
Commission he has attained a permanent position in the
Commission. He thanked former Councilman, and now
Assemblyman Paul Horcher for his original appointment as
well as Councilman Don Nardella for the reappointment in
the Commission.
C/Stitt retold a concern expressed to him by a citizen in
regards to the potential danger of a ladder in one of the
play apparatuses in Peterson Park. He was curious as to
the point of the ladder to the rest of the toy, and
requested the Commission reevaluate the situation.
Charles Janiel explained the functions of the equipment
installed is to develop motor and muscle coordination.
There are three (3) pieces of equipment at Peterson Park,
each intended for different developmental skills. The
safety of the equipment and the surrounding area meet the
national standards. He stated the equipment will be
looked at once again.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Ruzicka and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
to the next regular meeting on Decemb r 27, 1990 at 9:00
a.m.
�I
CharZe Janiel
Secretary
Attest:
Chairman/
January 10, 1991 Page 2
Election of The nominations for Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the
Chairperson Parks and Recreation Commission were requested.
and Vice
Chairperson. C/Meyer nominated C/Whelan for Chairperson of the Parks and
Recreation Commission. C/Stitt seconded the nomination.
C/Whelan nominated C/Ruzicka for Chairperson of the Parks and
Recreation Commission. C/Plunk seconded the nomination.
The Commissioners voted on the nomination of C/Whelan as
Chairperson to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Ayes: C/Meyer, C/Ruzicka, and C/Whelan
Nays: C/Stitt and C/Plunk
Chairperson Whelan received the nomination.
C/Meyer nominated C/Ruzicka for Vice Chairperson of the Parks
and Recreation Commission. C/Stitt seconded the nomination.
The Commissioners voted on the nomination of C/Ruzicka as
Vice Chairperson to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Ayes: C/Plunk, C/Meyer, C/Stitt, C/Ruzicka and Chairman
Whelan.
Vice Chairperson Ruzicka received the nomination.
Recreation. ACM/Belanger addressed the Commission in regards to the
recreation programs the City of Diamond Bar will be embarking
upon at the beginning of the next fiscal year. He stated
several recreation program proposals have been reviewed.
Since that time, the mid year budget adjustment has been
prepared reflecting the changes in service levels, as well as
reflecting a more realistic reality as far as estimates for
revenues are concerned. The relationship of proposed
revenues and expenditures dropped to the point where City
Manager Van Nort has expressed concern about expanding the
expenditure base any further. Also, the knowledge the State
of California and the County of Los Angeles are in a serious
deficit situation gives further concern because of the
tendency of a cause and effect relationship between State and
City. The purpose of the meeting is to convey the reality of
considering a recreation program that will be funded at
approximately the same level as the recreation program
provided through the Walnut Valley Recreation (WVR). There
is, however, a constraint in regards to the financial level
of the program to be considered. There is currently $182,000
budgeted for recreation programming, plus an additional
amount of approximately $50,000, resulting from Proposition
A, to underwrite the cost of the program for excursions. The
two (2) proposal offered by Brea and the County would be at
.least $50,000 more than budgeted. With the concern of the
economic downturn, and the given budget realities, it is
suggested the more realistic approach to providing recreation
may in fact be providing it with In -House recreation staff.
January 1o, 1991
Page 4
AA/Fritzal explained the employees would be part time as
opposed to full time.
ACM/Belanger stated there is a desire to be prudent and have
as much control as possible of the resources, yet at the same
time deliver a quality recreation program. He pointed out
that, with the exception of one, the employees hired by Brea
would be Brea's employee. The individuals would not be hired
specifically for Diamond Bar but would be used for both
cities. It would be very difficult to monitor the activities
of the off-site individuals. He stated his assurance that
Brea would do a good job, but questioned if the price can be
paid. He declared City Manager Van Nort would recommend, if
present, to seriously consider the establishment of our own
recreation capabilities. He emphasized the importance of the
Commission to give comments candidly.
C/Plunk summarized that it is staff's recommendation is to
seriously consider a program and then going directly to our
long range plan of providing Diamond Bar with its own
recreation program as opposed to providing the broadest
program as quickly as possible then shifting to an in-house
program.
ACM/Belanger stated it is not necessary to emphasize the
initial size of the program. It is not perceived that the
In -House staff would be that dramatically different from a
contractor. The difference being is that initially they
would come better prepared as a team.
VC/Ruzicka commented the Commission was already aware of
budgetary constraints when making the decision on recreation
providers. He noted that staffs expertise is the same now as
it was before. He wondered where the idea of going in-house
originated rather than trying to obtain some experience with
a contractor on a yearly basis.
ACM/Belanger responded the reason for moving toward an In -
House program was because of the certainty that the
expenditure level would remain below or at the current level
but not exceed it.
C/Plunk requested staff to present to the Commission, at the
next meeting, a detailed delineation of the City's proposal.
ACM/Belanger suggested the Commission can direct staff in two
(2) directions: direct staff as to the areas the Commission
would like emphasized in a recreation program; and/or allow
staff to create a recreation program, within the given
budget, and return it for the Commission's input. He
emphasized to the Commission that the issue requires some
discussion. The Brea proposal has not been abandoned.
January 1o, 1991 Page 6
then the difference becomes much larger. The additional
funds will come from the unappropriated monies, not from
monies already appropriated. He explained the City does not
want to be on a deficit position on an annualized basis with
the expenditures and revenues.
Chair/Whelan commented the enthusiasm with Brea was in
contingency with their ability to revise the program to fit
within our parameters. If they are unable to do so, then the
Commission must look for alternatives.
ACM/Belanger conceded, as of yet, staff has not gone the next
step, whereas, our managers and council talk to their
managers and council. There may stili be flexibility to get
a number which is more acceptable. The purpose of the
meeting tonight is to make the Commission aware of the
existing situation and to have the Commission emphasize
possible programs if In -House is the alternative solution.
C/Plunk inquired if Diamond Bar would retain control of field
scheduling if the decision is to go with a provider.
ACM/Belanger explained the scheduling of fields is dependent
upon the nature of the agreement forged with the school
districts.
C/Plunk inquired if the contract with Brea was a one (1) year
contract with an option to renew or a three (3) year contract
whereas every year we would be locked into it, if wanted,
except for the costs.
ACM/ Belanger responded the purpose of the contract would be
to have at least a fifteen (15) month contract with a liberal
notice provision to allow us to terminate the program with
enough notification and begin our own program.
C/Meyer suggested looking at a customized package derived
from all the proposals. He reiterated including the
liability factor in the In -House proposal.
ACM/Belanger stated the good news is one way or the other,
the City will have a recreation program that will be run by
the City of Diamond Bar.
Chair/Whelan directed staff to continue discussions with Brea
on a revised program if possible and/or develop an In -House
core program, to be presented by the next regular meeting of
January 24, 1991.
ACM/Belanger stated the information for the Commissions
review will be available next week to give ample time to
January 10, 1991 Page 8
CORRESPONDENCE:
United Soccer
PMD/Janiel reported the correspondence will be directed to
Club.
the User Group Sub -Committee. He noted a current roster was
not included with the correspondence as so stated in the
packet received by the Diamond Bar United Soccer Club. These
Girls'
are the only two (2) responses (along with the Street Hockey
Softball.
Players) received in reference to field scheduling.
C/Plunk cautioned against giving the Girls Softball Summit
Ridge fields in addition to the Peterson Park fields.
PMD/Janiel noted field scheduling is now our concerns and
will have to be dealt with as a community through a compro-
mising manner.
COMMISSIONERS
C/Plunk thanked staff, with special regard to AA/Fritzal and
COMMENTS:
PMD/Janiel, and former Commissioner Don Nardella, in taking
the time to acquaint her with the Parks and Recreation in an
expeditious and professional manner.
C/Plunk requested a discussion concerning "Photo Day" at
Sycamore Park be brought up for discussion at the next
meeting. The issue was brought to her attention by an
offended citizen of Diamond Bar. C/Plunk included photos
taken at the park and stated she does not feel this is an
appropriate event that should be allowed in our parks.
C/Plunk requested the Parks and Recreation Commission
correspond to the appropriate Commission concerning the
western terminus of Sunset Crossing in regards to developing
the land for future park use.
PMD/Janiel stated additional information concerning the area
should be available in the near future and informed C/Plunk
that various Commissions are already involved with the issue.
C/Stitt apologized for being late and informed the Commission
of his intended absence next meeting due to a conflict with
his work schedule.
VC/Ruzicka congratulated Chair/Whelan on his new position as
Chairman.
Chair/Whelan inquired if any boy scouts have yet gotten in
touch with staff concerning projects at Sycamore Park. He
informed staff of their pending call.
PUBLIC Henry Ferreyra, residing at Armitos Place, Diamond Bar,
COMMENTS: California, representing the Diamond Bar Street Hockey
Players, requested a playing surface of 155' by 80' of
January 24, 1991
Page 2
Chair/Whelan responded that the difference in cost
between an outside recreational provider, and an
in-house program, is not money readily available.
James Roberts, representative of the Street Hockey
Association, related information in regards to
modifications of a Garden Grove park at a Junior
High School to include a street hockey field.
VC/Ruzicka proposed that Mr. Roberts request the
plans used by Garden Grove for the purpose of
initiating a league in Diamond Bar.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/Ruzicka
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Consent
Calendar.
C/Plunk requested the Minutes of January 10, 1991
be amended on page 4, paragraph 2, to read "...that
staff's recommendation is for the Commission to
seriously consider going directly...". She
requested page 8, paragraph 3, be amended to read
"...with as a community through compromise.".
Motion was made by VC/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Plunk,
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
January 10, 1991, as amended.
NEW BUSINESS: PMD/Daniel reported "The Southern California Girls"
have reserved Sycamore Canyon Park and are in the
Southern process of bringing in their one million dollar
California Girls insurance certificate. It is staff's intention of
monitoring the event and to work with the Sheriff's
Department to strictly enforce all applicable
codes. It will be ensured that parking regulations
are followed, that solicitation of merchandise will
not be allowed, and that the changing of garments
on the park site iwill not allowed. He explained,
under the current codes, there is not much else
that can be done to restrict the group.
C/Plunk inquired at what point the Commission
should be looking at regulations.
AA/Fritzal stated as of July, 1991 the City will be
taking over the scheduling of the facilities.
Staff is in the process of reviewing park policies
and expect to deliver a policy to the Commission a
month prior to July, 1991.
OLD BUSINESS: AA/Fritzal reported, due to financial constraints,
staff recommends the Commission consider a
Recreation RFP recreation program to be funded at approximately
the same level as the recreation program provided
through the Walnut Valley Recreation (WVR). There
have been four (4) recreation proposals received.
January 24, 1991 Page 4
Commission give direction to staff to begin with a
core program, with the first priority being revenue
generating classes or programs, and then continue
to work from there.
C/Meyer would like the Commission to first address
the issue of eliminating the RFP's obtained.
AA/Fritzal stated it would not be advisable to drop
the RFP's until the Commission is sure all avenues
have been exhausted.
Chair/Whelan asserted by building a foundation to a
recreation program, it gives an easier method of
revising the given RFP's to meet our needs and
priorities.
PMD/Daniel suggested it would be appropriate to
form a sub -committee to review possible directions.
C/Meyer stated he is unclear of the direction
expected of the Commission. He questioned if the
purpose is to redo the budget, redo the program, or
redo the RFP. If the recreation program is to be
in-house, then the process must begin tomorrow,
disregarding other RFPs.
AA/Fritzal stated it would assist staff to have the
Commission state their priorities.
C/Plunk asserted, realistically, the Commission is
dragging the process by referring back to the Brea
proposal. If there is going to be an in-house
program, the Commission needs to start discussing
what needs to be done.
Chair/Whelan directed staff to drop all RFP
proposals. I
C/Plunk and Chair/Whelan volunteered to be on the
programming sub -committee.
C/Meyer inquired if a non-profit corporation has
been set up. He noted it produces revenues and
suggested obtaining an attorney to set one up.
AA/Fritzal replied there is not one formed and
staff will investigate.
C/Meyer inquired as to the direction the sub-
committee will be given in regards to the basic
underwriting policy of the recreation.
Chair/Whelan stated the policy is to develop a cost
effective, efficient program providing services to
January 24, 1991 Page 6
AA/Fritzal stated that usually the grants are given
with the specification that so many community
events are given.
COMMISSIONER C/Plunk thanked AA/Fritzal and PMD/Daniel for
COMMENTS: studying the possible resolutions concerning the
"Southern California Girls Photo Days" at Sycamore
Canyon. She also thanked CM/Van Nort and
ACM/Belanger for their assistance in acquainting
her with the funding sources and the administrative
procedures of this department.
C/Plunk inquired if the drainage at Peterson Park
had been looked at.
PMD/Daniel replied a sump drain is located there
and it is intended to drain very slowly.
C/Plunk requested the Parks and Recreation
Commission correspond with the appropriate
Commissions regarding the western terminus of
Sunset Crossing. She asserted the major recreation
area would be very seriously affected if it did go
through.
AA/Fritzal responded the General Plan Advisory
Committee is now reviewing it.
C/Meyer stated he would like to be informed as to
where the General Planning Committee is, in regards
to the Park and Recreation element. He would like
the Commission to be advised so as to be able to
provide input.
AA/Fritzal stated an update will be made available
on the next agenda.
PMD/Daniel explained the attempt has been to not
politicize the General Planning process. The
Commission has not been involved to this point to
keep it unbiased in decisions made in that area.
C/Meyer requested if it is preferred not to give
the Commission, as a whole, a copy of the draft, he
would appreciate it if the draft would be mailed to
the individuals who so request it.
AA/Fritzal replied the Planning Director, James
DeStefano, will so be informed.
STAFF COMMENTS: PMD/Daniel informed the Commission that the signs
to replace the County signs must be changed to
brown instead of the approved green. The Traffic
and Transportation Commission requested the color
follow the State guidelines in order to keep
signage standard.
January 18, 1991
Page 2
within the intent of the
it was being developed.
the project and dividing
lots will give an average
General Plan at the time
Taking the total area of
by the total number of
of 1.32 acres per lot.
Page 5: Offsite Drainage Impact.
Chair/Petersen indicated if there is an area of
land that has homes, streets, and sidewalks,
doesn't the net amount of water increase due to the
increase of areas of non permeability. In which
case, the response, on the second to the last
paragraph, stating "... nonpermeable areas will be
increased as a result of residential subdivision
development of the property and the total run off,
according to the hydrologist, will be decreased.",
seems to be stated backwards.
Al Dayton, of the development team, explained there
are maps of the before and after conditions of the
tracts. Because of how water has been taken from
the tract and brought back into the natural areas,
the west side has been decreased and the eastern
increased. Many devices could be installed to
control the water and deliver it at the velocity
desired.
James DeStefano contended that it doesn't make
common sense that less water will be delivered.
The Committee may request the developers to review
their response and provide them with the additional
research and response. Staff can concurrently work
through the City Engineer's office and have it
reviewed.
Al Dayton concurred that the quantity of runoff
will be increased. He was referring to the
location of where the water will be brought out and
how it will be handled. The water can be delivered
to the Tonner Canyon via water retention basins, as
a way of retarding the flow velocity.
Dr. King attested the map specifies a decrease in
water. It is possible that the map is not showing
all of the numbers yet.
Al Dayton stated the map indicates a 216 CFS at one
particular point in the existing condition. When
the condition was developed, it indicated a 245
CFS. There is an increase with this particular
system. On the other side of the map, considering
what is being taken out, there is a 99 CFS, and a
52 CFS coming from the proposed addition. The
reason for this occurrence is that all of the water
is being taken over to the westerly system. It can
be solved easily by putting a storm drain system on
the easterly side. On the westerly tract, the
summation cue on the bottom of the map is 89 CFS on
January 18, 1991
Page 4
Dr.King explained those are statements of intent
leading to mitigation measures. These are
objectives that the measures will be designed to
do. Those measures will be identified in the EIR.
VC/Schmidt was concerned with the mitigation
measures in regards to statement #5.
James DeStefano agreed the Committee may need to
understand, conceptually, the types of mitigation
measures, that may come out of statement #5,
concerning the downstream condition.
Dr. King suggested the developers may be able to
develop a palate of alternative measures. It is
difficult to be specific because the design is
somewhat in a state of flux, due to the contour
grading standards.
Page 7:
Chair/Petersen requested information on the
proposed pond. He questioned the impacts of adding
water sources to retention basins ponds.
Dr. King explained the pond referred to a
percolation basin, or a retention basin, after a
rain, and for a limited period of time. It was not
intended to be permanent. It was designed as a
mitigation measure to reduce the speed of the flow
of water in hopes of providing an intermittent
water resource to wildlife.
Chair/Petersen asked if the fish will be added
seasonally.
Dr. King reiterated the intent was not to be long
term and the statements concerning "the fish" are
specious and willibe removed from the text.
James DeStefano clarified that the Committee is
looking for a correction of those statements.
Bernie Mazure inquired if the statements could be
handled conceptually to satisfy the SEATAC. He
elaborated that the concerns of the Committee
should be satisfied with some conceptual language
that could then result in conditions of approval in
the subdivision itself.
James DeStefano maintained it is staff's position
to recommend the SEATAC to obtain enough data, to
satisfy them that the issue will be taken care of
in a manner deemed appropriate.
Dr. King asked if the Committee agreed that ponding
is an idea worth working out the specifics.
January 18, 1991 Page 6
enforcement of the CC&R's. He suggested it could
be referenced in the CC&R's as part of a homeowners
packet. The project could be conditioned in a way
that requires proof that buyers have received such
a packet.
Gary Mayser stated the issue will be taken care of.
Page 19: Trees
CM/Hewitt stated his satisfaction to the changes
made. He is concerned with the reality of the
availability of the species on the market when it
is needed. In the landscape business, if the
species is unavailable, an alternative species is
used. He requested that language be included which
determines how and who makes that decision.
Craig Weber declared that native trees are easily
attained. The attainability of some of the shrubs
vary from nursery to nursery. The intent is to
reforest the hillside with the native plants and
put ornamental shrubs within closer proximity to
the homes.
Gary Mayser suggested a list of alternative shrubs
could be added to the list.
CM/Hewitt declared that there is no need to get
that specific. He would like language included
which states the alternative plant chosen will be
adequate.
CM/Hewitt stated another concern is that in some
cases the species aren't quantified.
Craig Weber explained at this particular time the
species cannot be quantified but it will be done in
the technical plans.
CM/Hewitt and Craig Weber discussed the various
types of species of the Eucalyptus that would be
preferable. Mr. Weber stated there is no problem
clarifying the species to be used.
Page 22: Maintenance of Irrigation Planting
Chair Petersen inquired if ,one of the conditions of
the CC&R will prevent the removal of the native
plants by the homeowners.
Gary Mayser stated it will be included in the
CC&R's.
Page 29:
Chair/Petersen asked if the City had examples on
how fees could be levied on developers in regards
to the potential improvements of Tonner Canyon.
January 18, 1991 Page 8
James DeStefano contended staff has not been
notified of any decision, relating to the near
approval of a golf course, or of information
addressing road alignment. Staff will provide the
accurate information to the Committee.
Chair/Petersen stated the dates of the next (3)
meetings will be February 4, 1991, February 25,
1991 and March 4, 1991. All three (3) meetings are
to be held at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Room, 1061
Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, California.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Craig Petersen
Chairman
W lyoa�
I
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
December 3, 1990
Page 2
homes on about 160 acres. It is before the Committee
because of the proximity to the SEA. The project
involves substantial earth movements in order to create
the pads for the homes, and also the removal of several
mature oak Trees, as well as approximately 1,100 Walnut
and Sycamore Trees. The project, which has been with the
City of Diamond Bar for quite some time, is heading
toward a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
and the City Council.
James DeStefano suggested the comments of the SEATAC
Committee be responded to in writing, with enough time
allotted to allow for review of the responses. The
SEATAC will review the project and provide a
recommendation to the Planning Commission, possibly by
the next regular meeting. The session today is intended
to be an introductory discussion, and not a meeting to
decide the projects environmental adequacies. James
DeStefano stated the members of the SEATAC have received
copies of the draft Environmental Impact Report, the
appendices, and the copies of the SEATAC information
prepared by Dr. King.
Comments on Chairman Petersen began the discussion by stating his
Tentative Tracts concerns and suggestions.
47850,47851, & Questions:
48407 1. He noted pages 7, 8, and 9 are missing from the
Master EIR.
2. The California Department of Fish and Game (Natural
Diversity Data Base) is supposed to be contacted in
regards to any endangered, threatened, rare or
unique elements in any kind of community. He
stated there are no copies of any correspondence
either to or from the agency. Copies must be
included, as is specified in the Biota Report
Requirements for SEATAC, page 3, dated June 12,
1987.
3. There is no specific data relating to the amount of
runoff of various types, either water or sediments,
going off the site in comparison to what kind of
runoff would be coming off before grading, during
grading, and after grading. He wondered exactly
where the ultimate runoff is going to, and assumed
during grading and the initial phase, much of it
would be headed into the main body of the Tonner
Canyon, SEA #15.
4. He was confused with the writings of the
Environmental Assessment of Potential Impacts
Report to the County stating, on page 32, "gunite
swales would be delivering runoff to already
constructed drainage systems in neighboring areas".
He questioned if the neighboring area is the
Country, and inquired how the Country disposes of
their runoff. He referred to a contradictory
statement on page 74, stating "the gunite swales
December 3, 1990
Page 4
and the intense overgrazing on the Boy Scout land.
The proponents of the project being addressed need
to come up with some creative way to initiate a
relevant study of the entire SEA #15. Some of it
definitely needs to be saved or enhanced if
considerate development of the area is to continue.
Perhaps the formation of a task force on Tonner
Canyon needs to be organized and funded in order to
determine which parts should be saved and which
should be developed. Maybe some mitigation needs
to allow for the acquisition of a Tonner Canyon
Nature Preserve, or a maintenance of a "Mountain
Lion Corridor System" between Tonner Canyon and the
Santa Ana Mountains. The City of Diamond Bar and
the developers of this project have a unique
opportunity to make a significant positive impact
on the future of this rare environment. He
compared the situation to the SEA #16 at Mt. San
Antonio College which has been consistently eaten
away to approximately 200 acres of basically a fire
road. There is a unique opportunity here to make a
difference for our children with this adjacent
site.
VC/Schmidt stated her concerns:
1. The EIR stated storm drains will ultimately tie
into the natural drainage which she concluded meant
the eventual dumpage into Tonner Canyon. She
wondered, since this is occurring and is an
Environmental Impact Statement, why there is no
statement in the EIR on impacts from the water
dumping into Tonner Canyon. There will be some
important impacts such as litter, siltation, and
erosion of downstream riparian areas.
2. The EIR reports it will impact 3% of the total SEA.
It dismisses the 3% by stating the ERA is already
degraded and there will be a buffer zone. She
acknowledged the development has a nice buffer zone
and a lot of open space but she strongly disagrees
that only 3% will be impacted. Any impact will be
way beyond the borders. It will be built on the
watershed into Tonner Canyon and an SEA is set
aside in an effort to preserve watersheds. Anytime
a watershed is impacted, the impact on the edge
will have a far greater impact than just the border
of what is played around with. There are also
impacts on pets, litter, noise, and also the visual
quality of Tonner Canyon itself. Based on this,
she believed the Impacts will be far greater than
the less than 3% the EIR states.
3. She wondered what the County, or CC&Rs will specify
when the domestic cat gets eaten by a wild coyote.
Will there be pressure to poison the coyote
regardless of the usefulness of coyotes for
December 3, 1990 Page 6
trees used should be smaller in size (15 gallons) to
become established faster and more appropriately. The
cost for the trees will not be much different.
5. The EIR does not address run off water in
relationship to surrounding property and how it
will affect other land owners. He mentioned Mount
SAC as an example of a drainage problem.
6. It would be appropriate for the City to review the
entire SEA in relationship to projected
developments in the Tonner Canyon and control it
now as opposed to allowing the SEA to get chipped
away.
CM/Berry stated his concerns.
1. He is concerned with the sedimentation during the
course of construction being subsequently released
into local stream environments. This should be
addressed in the EIR.
2. He referred to the overall piece meal way the
project is being approached and believed ultimately
there is a need to tie all areas of concern into a
larger master plan to develop Tonner Canyon as a
whole.
3. When referring to slope stabilization, the issue of
how much of the riparian community at the base of
the slope will be affected by such stabilization
programs is unclear. How severely will the slope
stabilization, slope grading, construction of
buttress keys and fills actually affect the
riparian community. It is his understanding if an
intermittent blue line stream is to be affected,
there is a need for documentation as stated by the
Department of Fish and Game.
4. There is a slip plane believed to be coincident
with a bentonitic tuft. A similar slope plane,
associated with a bentonitic tuft, was a key
culprit in the large scale Portuguese and cove
landslides in the Palos Verdes Peninsulas.
Fortunately here, the water table is far below the
bentonitic tufts and doesn't seem to be affected as
it had in the Palos Verdes Estates. He recommended
the issue of dehydrating the tub, once development
is made on top of it, be addressed in the report.
With irrigation for plants on the surface, it is
possible subsurface drainage might, in effect,
activate the tub and cause some local landslide
problems. It is peripherally addressed in the
technical report. He suggested illustrating more
specifically as to what steps are made to assure
water does not contact with the bentonitic slip
planes.
5. Though expansion figures are given with soils, one
of the serious problems in the area with soilsseems
to have to do with expansive clays. He
December 3, 1990
Page 8
VC/Schmidt stated her commitments are as such there is no
possibility to meet before the tentative date suggested.
The other committee members concurred.
Mr. Buffington inquired how the development team should
address the regional master plan.
James DeStefano suggested the utilization of the
expertise secured within the existing development team to
come up with a professional response to the master plan
issur.
Chair/Petersen invited the development team to ask for
any clarifications on the comments made.
Gary Mayser stated each concern was presented in an
excellent manner and, after reviewing the EIR with Don
King, he could see the areas discussed needed further
clarification. Their team of geologists, landscape
architects and the environmentalists will attempt to
answer in a very professional manner.
Don King stated the questions asked are quite clear and
with xerox copies of the SEATACs notes, they will be able
to respond to every concern.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: James DeStefano clarified the SEATAC is a technical
advisor to the Planning Commission. Their capacity is an
advisory role on the impacts of the project to the SEA.
Staff will take direction from the SEATAC to develop a
report and upon the SEATACs adoption, will be forwarded
to the Planning Commission. The report will be a part of
the package the Planning Commission will receive and
ultimately the City Council. He informed the project
team members to note the changes made in the Hillside
Development Standards, which were adopted in October,
1990, and revised in November, 1990. The development
team should be looking at the existing conditions, plus
this projecit, plus the cumulative effect beyond the
border of the project, and how to mitigate those
problems.
James DeStefano mentioned an article in the Sunday Los
Angeles Times newspaper concerning SEAs in the County. He
offered to copy and distribute the article.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by CM/Berry, seconded by CM/Hewitt and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
AGENDA NO. I
------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: February 14, 1991 COUNCIL DATE: February 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
FROM: Sid Mousavi, City Engineer/Public eoigDirector
SUBJECT: SURETY BOND RELEASES
All work guaranteed by the following Surety Bonds has been completed and the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works is recommending the acceptance of work
and release of Bonds.
1. Bond Number 83SB 100 360 427 guaranteeing street tree improvements for Tract
No. 42576 in the amount of $8,700.
Surety: The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
100 West Broadway
Glendora, CA 91210
Principal: Bramalea Ltd.
1 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 R
Irvine, CA 92714
2. Bond Number 300 7 2322 guaranteeing the road improvements for Tract No.
45380 in the amount of $40,500.
Surety: Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
P.O. Box 7144
Burbank, CA 91510
Principal: South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(Narrative continued on next page if necessary)
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Requested $
Budgeted Amount $
In Account Number:
Deficit: $
Revenue Source:
REVD D B
--------------------
Robert L. Van Nort Andrew V. Arczynski
City Manager City Attorney
Z--------------- j -
Terrence Belanger
Assistant City Manager
3. Bond Number ASI 100 204 guaranteeing road improvements for Tract No. 42581
in the amount of $86,000.
Surety: Integrity Insurance Company
2101 West Alameda Avenue
Burbank, CA 91506
Principal: South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92705
4. Bond Number ASI 100 219 guaranteeing road improvements for Tract No. 42589
in the amount of $401,100.
Surety: Integrity Insurance Company
2101 West Alameda Avenue
Burbank, CA 91506
Principal: South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92705
5. Bond Number ASI 100 214 guaranteeing road improvements for Tract No. 42583
in the amount of $90,900.
Surety: Integrity Insurance Company
2101 West Alameda Avenue
Burbank, CA 91506
Principal: South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92705
6. Bond Number ASI 100 193 guaranteeing road improvements for Tract No. 42579
in the amount of $101,100.
Surety:
Principal:
RECOMMENDATION•
Integrity Insurance Company
2101 West Alameda Avenue
Burbank, CA 91506
South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92705
It is recommended that the City Council accept the work done on these projects
and instruct the City Clerk to release the bonds and notify the Los Angeles
County, Director of Public Works of the City Council's action.
pP Los
?�y .Comas
f `L� COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
� +
J
n f DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
r qLIF PX 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON. Director Telephone: (818) 458-5100 ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
January 24, 1991 IN REPLY PLEASE L-5
REFER TO FILE:
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
STREET TREE IMPROVEMENTS
TRACT NO. 42576
VICINITY OF LONGVIEW DRIVE AND COLDSTREAM COURT
All work guaranteed by the improvement security listed below has been completed.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
1. Approve the work that has been completed.
2. Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
Bond Number 83SB 100 360 427
Amount - $8,700
Surety - The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
100 West Broadway
Glendale, California 91210
Principal - Bramalea Limited
One Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, California 92714
f �.
Ply's?,instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the surety, principal, and this office.
`fiery truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
,rN, C. DATWYLER
U�yAssistant Deputy Director
Land Development Division
�.JG:ac/42576
cc: City Clerk
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Dlreetor
January 24, 1991
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
Telephone: (818) 458-5100
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA. CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE
REFER TO FILE: L-5
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TRACT NO. 45380
VICINITY OF PANTERA DRIVE AND REXFORD COURT
The construction of road improvements guaranteed by the improvement security
listed below has been completed in compliance with the plans and specifications.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
1. Approve and accept the work for maintenance this date.
2. Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
Bond Number 3007 2322
Remaining Amount - $40,500
Surety - Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
P. 0. Box 7144
Burbank, California 91510
Principal - South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92705
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the surety, principal, and this office.
Very truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Superintendent of Streets/
City Engineer
LG:ac/45380A
cc: City Clerk
x _ Y
'CIO: RN��'
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director
February 7, 1991
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
Telephone: (818) 458-5100
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE
REFER TO FILE- L-5
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TRACT NO. 42581
VICINITY OF PANTERA DRIVE AND SHADY PLACE
The construction of road improvements guaranteed by the improvement security
listed below has been completed in compliance with the plans and specifications.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
1. Approve and accept the work for maintenance this date.
2. Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
Bond Number ASI 100204
Remaining Amount - $86,000
Surety - Integrity Insurance Company
2101 West Alameda Avenue
Burbank, California 91506
Principal - South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92705
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the surety, principal, and this office.
Very truly yours,
N
r. A. TIDEMANSON
Superintendent of Streets/
City Engineer
LG:ac/42581
cc: City Clerk
1y °F�p LOS
:�+
x ,r
qC� .RN`P
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Direetor
February 7, 1991
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
Telephone: (818) 458-5100
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TRACT NO. 42589
VICINITY OF DEEPSPRINGS DRIVE AND BOWCREEK DRIVE
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE
REFER TO FILE. L-5
The constructiotl of road improvements guaranteed by the improvement security
listed below has been completed in compliance with the plans and specifications.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
1. Approve and accept the work for maintenance this date.
2. Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
r
Bond Number ASI 100219
Amount - $401,000
Surety - Integrity Insurance Company
2101 West Alameda Avenue
Burbank, California 91506
Principal - South Cduntry Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92705
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the surety, principal, and this office.
Very truly yours,
�� zo���
��
T. A. TIDEMANSON
eP" Superintendent of Streets/
City Engineer
LG:ac/42589
cc: City Clerk
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE
February 7, 1991 REFER TO FILE:
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East. Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TRACT NO. .L 583_-,
VICINITY OF BOWCREEK DRIVE AND CLAYWOOD DRIVE
L-5
The construction of road improvements guaranteed by the improvement security
listed below has been completed in compliance with the plans and specifications.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
1. Approve and accept the work for maintenance this date.
2. Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
A
Bond Number ASI 100214
Remaining Amount - $90,900
Surety - Integrity Insurance Company
2101 West Alameda Avenue
Burbank, California 91506
Principal - South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92705
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the surety, principal, and this office.
Very truly yours,
a` T. A. TIDEMANSON
v Superintendent of Streets/
City Engineer
LG:ac/42583
cc: City Clerk
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
+
+
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
�gLIP
itJ
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSO.N, Director
Telephone: (8 18) 458-5100
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE
February 7, 1991 REFER TO FILE:
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East. Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TRACT NO. .L 583_-,
VICINITY OF BOWCREEK DRIVE AND CLAYWOOD DRIVE
L-5
The construction of road improvements guaranteed by the improvement security
listed below has been completed in compliance with the plans and specifications.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
1. Approve and accept the work for maintenance this date.
2. Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
A
Bond Number ASI 100214
Remaining Amount - $90,900
Surety - Integrity Insurance Company
2101 West Alameda Avenue
Burbank, California 91506
Principal - South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92705
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the surety, principal, and this office.
Very truly yours,
a` T. A. TIDEMANSON
v Superintendent of Streets/
City Engineer
LG:ac/42583
cc: City Clerk
y of jos, I
t+t
t -A
X
CIF Map
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director
February 7, 1991
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
Telephone: (818) 458-5 100
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TRACT NO. 42579
VICINITY OF ARMITOS PLACE AND BOWCREEK DRIVE
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE
REFER TO FILE: L-5
The construction of road improvements guaranteed by the improvement security
listed below has been completed in compliance with the plans and specifications.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
1. Approve and accept the work for maintenance this date.
2. Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
s
Bond Number ASI 100193
Remaining Amount - $101,100
Surety - Integrity Insurance Company
2101 West Alameda Avenue
Burbank, California 91506
Principal - South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92705
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the surety, principal, and this office.
Very truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Superintendent of Streets/
City Engineer
LG:ac/42579
cc: City Clerk
AGENDA NO.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: February 12, 1991 COUNCIL DATE: February 19, 1991
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
VIA: ROBERT L. VAN NORT, CITY MANAGER
FROM: SID JALAL MOUSAVI, CITY ENGINEER/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: MEDIAN RECONSTRUCTION; LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CONSTRUCTION ON GRAND AVENUE AT SHOTGUN LANE - AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE
FOR BIDS
Attached are the plans for the installation of a traffic signal and median modifications at the intersection of Grand
Avenue at Shotgun Lane as well as a resolution authorizing staff to advertise for bids. The traffic signal plan
provides for a hardwire interconnect with existing traffic signal at the intersection of Grand Avenue and
Summitridge Dr. The design of the plans has been coordinated with the current ingress and egress
configuration to the Country. The median modification provides for a left turn into the "Country" from west
bound Grand Avenue.
The Engineer's Estimate for this project is:
$19,000.00 Median Reconstruction (Project No. 91-03A)
$65,000.00 Traffic Signal (Project No. 91-03B)
$84,000.00 Total
The funds for the median reconstruction as well as landscape modification has been provided by the "Country"
while the Grand Avenue funds will be utilized to pay for traffic signal installation.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the plans and authorize the advertisement of bids, by the
attached Resolution No. 91-_, for the subject improvements with a bid date of March 12, 1991. It is anticipated
that the contract will be awarded on March 19, 1991 and construction will begin in April, 1991, and will be
completed in early May, 1991.
RKA:Anb:2817:db-oc4:shotg un. bid
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Requested $
Budgeted Amount $
In Account Number:
Deficit: $
Revenue Source:
(Narrative continued on next page if necessary)
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------
Robert L. Van Nort Andrew V. Arczynski Terrence L. BelangC6?11
City Manager City Attorney Assistant City Manager
7/24/90
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MEDIAN
RECONSTRUCTION, LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS AND TRAFFIC
SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION ON GRAND AVENUE AT SHOTGUN LANE
IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK
TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS.
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Diamond Bar to construct certain improvements
in the City of Diamond Bar.
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar has prepared plans and specifications for the
construction of certain improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented to the City
of Diamond Bar be and are hereby approved as the specifications for Median Reconstruction,
Landscape Modifications and Traffic Signal Construction on Grand Avenue at Shotgun Lane.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise
as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing of the work specified in the
aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following
words and figures, to wit:
"NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS"
Pursuant to a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County,
California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the said City of Diamond Bar will
receive at the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall of Diamond Bar, on or before the hour of 10:00
o'clock A.M. on the 12th day of March, 1991, sealed bids or proposals for the Median Reconstruction,
Landscape Modifications and Traffic Signal Construction on Grand Avenue at Shotgun Lane in said
City.
Bids will be opened and publicly read immediately in the office of the City Clerk, Suite 100,
21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177.
Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Diamond
Bar, California, marked, 'Bid for Median Reconstruction, Landscape Modifications and Traffic Signal
Construction on Grand Avenue at Shotgun Lane.
PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of
California Labor code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay
not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the
locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per
diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial
Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general
Page 1
prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond
Bar, Suite 100, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177, and are available to any
interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations
to be posted at the job site.
The Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Diamond Bar, not more than fifty dollars
($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof,
if such laborer, workman, or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages
hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any
subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code as amended by
Chapter 971, Statutes of 1939, and in accordance with the regulations of the California Apprenticeship
Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed in the prosecution of the work.
Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code
concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him.
Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen
in any apprenticeable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of
the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a
certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be
used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall
not be less than one to five except:
A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship
committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior
to the request for certificate, or
B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio
of one to five, or
C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its
membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis
statewide or locally, or
D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered
apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than
one apprentice to eight journeymen.
The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration
of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable
trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such
contributions.
The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections
1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Page 2
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may
be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex -officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship,
San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.
Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the
execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall employ with and
be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in
Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended.
The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Diamond Bar, twenty-five dollars
($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him
or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day
during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight
(8) hours in violation of said Labor Code.
Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the
work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable
collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8.
The bidder must submit with his proposal cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's
bond, payable to the City of Diamond Bar for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the
amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same
is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check,
certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Diamond Bar.
If the City of Diamond Bar awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the
lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Diamond Bar to the difference between the
low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder.
The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said
work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in
an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the
payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted
to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will
also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his
employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the
said City of Diamond Bar for the construction of said work.
No proposal will be considered from a Contractor who is not licensed as a contractor at time
of award in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and
Professions Code, Section 7000 et seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto or to
whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Diamond Bar.
The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City
of Diamond Bar on file in the office of the City Clerk at the City Hall, Diamond Bar, California. Copies
of the plans and specifications will be furnished upon application to the City of Diamond Bar and
payment of $25.00, said $25,00 is nonrefundable.
Page 3
Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when
said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional
nonreimbursable payment of $10.00 to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead.
The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of
Diamond Bar.
In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3 of the General Provisions, as set forth in
the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the
Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense,
substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention).
The City of Diamond Bar, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
The Engineer's Estimate is: $84,000.00
By order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California.
Dated this 19th day of February, 1991
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED by the City of Council of the City of Diamond Bar,
California, this 19th day of February, 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of
Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held on the 19th day of February, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar,
California
Page 4
Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when
said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional
nonreimbursable payment of $10.00 to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead,
The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of
Diamond Bar.
In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3 of the General Provisions, as set forth in
the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the
Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense,
substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention).
The City of Diamond Bar, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
The Engineer's Estimate is: $84,000.00
By order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California.
Dated this 19th day of February, 1991
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED by the City of Council of the City of Diamond Bar,
California, this 19th day of February, 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of
Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held on the 19th day of February, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar,
California
Page 4;
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10
NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE
AGENDA NO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: February 14 1991 MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: City Manager
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, Assistant City Manager via:
Kellee Fritzal, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Second Anniversary Celebration
BACKGROUND:
On April 18, 1991, the City of Diamond Bar will celebrate the 2nd anniversary
of its incorporation. The City Council, at the September 27, 1990 Strategic
Planning Workshop, directed staff to plan a celebration in conjunction with the
Chamber of Commerce Business Exposition. Committee members from the first
birthday celebration, in addition to other interested community members, have been
asked to plan the 2nd anniversary celebration.
DISCUSSION:
The Committee has met several times to review the first birthday celebration
and to formulate plans for the second anniversary celebration. The second
anniversary celebration will take place on April 13, 1991 at the Diamond Bar High
School.
Alta Ski and Sport's (Donalda Day and Ken Demaret) have volunteered to
organize a Second Annual 1K/5K/10K Run/Walk. The run is scheduled for 8:00 a.m.
with the awards ceremony at approximately 9:30 a.m. There are also plans to host
a softball tournament, which will run throughout the day. The actual second
birthday celebration activities will be held between Noon and 4:00 p.m. A
ceremony with Council presentations and cake cutting is tentatively scheduled
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Requested $
Budgeted Amount $
In Account Number:
Deficit: $
Revenue Source:
n
REVZEWEA) BY:
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
(Narrative continued on next page if necessary)
----------------------
Andrew V. Arczynski
City Attorney
----------- —
Terrence L. Belang'
Assistant City Manager
,age Two
second Birthday Celebration
oetween Noon and 1:00 p.m. There will be displays from the Sheriff's and Fire
Departments. A City Information booth will be set up to sell the t -shirts, answer
questions and to have pamphlets available. The anniversary celebration
entertainment, games and activities are currently being arranged. Also,
advertising and news releases will be prepared to publicize the entire event.
RECOMMENDATION•
Direct staff as necessary.
DATE: February 15, 1991
AGENDA NO. ,,'_
clTx of DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: City Manager
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, Assistant City Manager via:
Kellee A. Fritzal, Administrative Analyst,I-'
SUBJECT: Recreation Services f'
BACKGROUND:
In September the City was notified that Walnut Valley Unified School District
would no longer be providing recreation services as of July 1, 1991. As a result,
on November 6, 1990 the City Council approved a Request for Proposal for
Recreation Services. The RFP was sent to sik organizations: City of Brea, City
of Pomona, City of Walnut, Diamond Bar/Walnut YMCA, Los Angeles County Parks and
Recreation Department and Rowland Unified School District. Three proposals were
received: City of Brea, Diamond Bar/Walnut YMCA and Los Angeles Parks and
Recreation Department. On December 11, 1990 the proposed contract providers were
interviewed by two Parks and Recreation Commissioners and staff.
DISCUSSION:
The Parks and Recreation Commission discussed contracting recreation service
compared to providing an "in-house" program. If the City decided to create an in-
house recreation department, staff would need to be recruited, hired and trained.
The recreation process, procedures and marketing would need to be developed.
Walnut Valley Recreation's last brochure will be the spring issue covering March
to early June. The Diamond Bar recreation program needs to be developed and
advertised by the middle of May. Currently, the City does not have all the
equipment necessary to start up a recreation program.
(Narrative continued on next page if necessary)
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Requested $
Budgeted Amount $
In Account Number:
Deficit: $
Revenue Source:
'- ----------------------
t
Robert L. Van Nort Andrew V. Arczynski
City Manager City Attorney
���---- -
Terrence L. Belan r
Assistant City Manager
Page 2
Recreation Services
Contracting services has several advantages such as levels of experience, existing
organization structures, established procedures and a cost level comparable to
providing the same level of service in-house. An experienced provider will be
able to organize and develop a program that will fit the needs of Diamond Bar.
A contract could be developed that would be subjected to the City's budget
limitations, while being flexible. The City will be able to set up a system to
monitor both the budget and programs offered by the recreation provider.
The sub -committee favored the City of Brea's proposal due to the quality of
recreation programming proposed, background experience and marketing skills they
plan to provide to make sure the program is a success. The programming will be
known as the City of Diamond Bar Recreation Service and Brea will not be mentioned
in brochures or advertisement.
The City of Brea originally provided a proposal with a net cost of $235,674. The
Commission recommended that staff negotiate an amount within the level currently
budgeted for recreation services. After discussions with the City of Brea it has
returned a proposal with a net cost to the City of $150,000. The Diamond
Bar/Walnut YMCA net cost was $180,052 and the proposal did not include all
programs requested in the RFP. Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation proposal
had a net cost of $337,706.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council authorize and
direct staff to negotiate a final contract with the City of Brea, and bring back
the contract at the March 5, 1991 meeting.
AGENDA NO. 1i _
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: January 21, 1990 MEETING DATE: February 5, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS CONTRACT
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends authorization to enter into an agreement with Kelling,
Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. for financial management services to fund
capital projects. The fee shall be in the amount of $15,000 plus one-
half of one percent (0.5%) of the par value for each series of securi-
ties sold, payable from proceeds of that sale. If no securities are
issued, no fee is due.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Requested $
Budgeted Amount $
In Account Number:
Deficit: $
Revenue Source:
1 -v�• YSJ-�/{/----YJJL.".(i. -------------------
Robert L. Van Nort Andrew V. Arczynski
City Manager City Attorney
'�Ukv (s i
Terrence L. Belan er
Assistant City Manager
KELLING, NORTHCROSS & NOBRIGA, INC.
Bond Management Services for Public Agencies
5776 Stoneridge Mall Road
Suite 380
Pleasanton, CA 94588
415.734.0755
FAX 415.734.0757
January 4, 1991
Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are advised that the City of Diamond Bar (the "City") is contemplating a capital
projects program and its financing. We are further advised that you wish to employ the services
of an independent financial advisor to assist you in structuring a financing program, meeting any
requirements for property assessments or voter authorization, if such is required, and selling and
issuing securities. Accordingly, Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. ("KNN") proposes to
perform the services listed below in connection with your financing; if no property assessment
or voter approval is required, Part B does not apply:
A. Capital Project and Financing Planning
1) Review capital project needs with the City.
2) Assist City staff as appropriate in developing a capital project plan.
3) Recommend financing vehicles.
4) Assist in the selection of a public opinion survey firm if voter approval
will be required, assessment engineer if assessments are to be made and
other appropriate consultants, if any, to the extent the City desires such
assistance.
5) Formulate and 6commend an overall financing plan based upon
discussions with City staff and the capital projects needs of the City.
Financing plan will include:
a) type of securities;
b) financing schedule;
C) estimated amount of securities;
d) provisions for the administration and flow of funds for payment of
debt service; and
e) preparation of schedules of debt service and any resulting tax rates
or assessments.
• Charter Member, National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors •
595 Marker Street Suite 1350 San F[anCLSCo, CA 94105 415.362.4110 FAX 415.957.2610
- o. r;.„ CA 90232 213.836.6265 FAX 213.838.3160
Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
January 4, 1991
Page Two
6) Attend all meetings as required and provide staff support during the
planning process.
B. Assessment or Voter Authorization (If Required)
1) Consult with bond counsel and other legal counsel in preparation and
drafting of necessary documents for assessment district formation (if an
assessment district financing) or community facilities district formation (if
a Mello -Roos financing) and election process (if required).
2) Consult with the County Auditor and Assessor to research data on taxable
parcels and assessed valuations, determine composition of existing tax
base and provide projections based upon available planning data, as
needed.
3) Prepare financing schedules, projected tax rates or assessment and tax rate
impact reports to assess financial impact of the financing program on the
property owners, based on strategies that will minimize the tax rate or
assessment impact.
4) Consult with the County Registrar of Voters to establish the bond election
proceedings and deadline dates, if voter approval is required.
5) Prepare the City's tax rate statement to be included in the voter pamphlet
and review tax rate statement with the County Auditor, if voter approval
is required.
6) Provide tax rate or assessment analyses to the City for public information,
as appropriate.
7) Attend all meetings as required and provide staff support during the
campaign process.
C. Debt Issuance
1) Assist in selection of bond counsel and other consultants, if any, if not yet
selected and City wishes such assistance.
2) Structure specific financings in accordance with the City's financing plan,
capital project needs and financing requirements.
3) Coordinate the efforts of bond counsel, with respect to the preparation and
approval of the financing documents by the City Counsel.
4) Attend all meetings and present materials for the debt financing procedure.
Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
January 4, 1991
Page Three
5) For an issue that is to be rated, prepare and coordinate a comprehensive
presentation to the rating services. This presentation will cover all
relevant information regarding the financing and will be designed to
address the City's ability to fund the annual debt service payments through
its tax base or general fund, as the case may be, and the dynamics of the
local economy. Prepare a similar presentation to bond insurers, if
insurance qualification is sought.
6) Prepare the official statement for the financing, which serves as a
marketing instrument and a disclosure document of all material facts
incident to the financing in a manner consistent with existing laws and
standards of the securities industry.
7) KNN shall. recommend a method of sale and provide the following
services:
(a) Advise as to securities market conditions and timing of sale;
(b) Should the City elect to offer its securities through public sale,
KNN shall prepare and distribute the official notice of sale and bid
form, along with the preliminary official statement, to prospective
underwriters, respond t5* their questions regarding the financing,
actively solicit their bids, coordinate publication of notices of sale,
coordinate the bid opening process and calculate the net interest
cost of each bid received to determine the lowest bidder;
(c) Should the City elect to offer its securities through negotiated sale,
KNN will assist the City in the selection of an underwriter,
negotiate underwriting spread and interest rates on behalf of the
City and monitor the underwriter's sales effort to ensure the lowest
financing costs are achieved.
8) Coordinate the dglivery, printing and final approval of legal documents,
and the preparation of closing certificates and final official statement.
9) Coordinate the work of the City and members of the financing team to
ensure that the issue is consummated within a reasonable period of time.
10) For tax supported financing, assist in providing the necessary information
to the County Tax Collector for the calculation and collection of the
annual tax levy.
City's Obligation
The City agrees to cooperate with KNN, bond counsel and other parties to the
transactions, and to furnish the necessary information for the preparation and drafting of the
legal documents and the official statement, and to assert its best efforts to verify the accuracy
of such information contained in such documents.
Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
January 4, 1991
Page Four
Duration
This agreement may be terminated by notice of the City to KNN or by KNN to the City.
Compensation
For the services to be provided by KNN as outlined above, KNN will be compensated
with a fee in the amount of $15,000 plus one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the par value for
each series of securities sold, payable from proceeds of that sale. If no securities are issued,
no fee is due.
KNN agrees to pay its own out-of-pocket expenses for local travel, computer and
telephone, incurred by is in performing our duties and obligations. Other costs of issuance
including but not limited to, the expense of bond counsel's fee, consultants' fees, trustee, paying
agent or fiscal agent fees and charges, if any, printing, publishing and distributing the
preliminary and final official statements and notice of sale, if any, printing and delivery of
securities, travel expenses of City officials, out-of-state travel of KNN, if any, courier or
delivery charges, and the cost of obtaining any statistical and tax data needed for developing a
financing plan, by the rating services and/or for the official statement shall be paid by the City.
Costs of issuance, subject to bond counsel approval, may be funded from proceeds of the
financing.
KELLING, NORTHCROSS & NOBRIGA, INC.
By
---Vice President=
Accepted:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
By
City Manager
Date
MUNICIPAL FINANCE
KELLING, NORTHCROSS & NOBRIGA, INC.
Independent Financial Advisors to Public Agencies
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TAB
Introduction ............................................. 1
Municipal Debt .......................................... 2
Common Types of Tax -Exempt Issues ............................ 3
Special Financing Techniques .................................. 4
General Tax Exemption Requirements ............................. 5
Taxable Issues ........................................... 6
Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc . ............................. 7
Appendix - Assessment and Mello -Roos Bond Procedures ................ 8
INTRODUCTION
Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. ("KNN") is an independent financial advisory firm
providing bond management services to state and local government and 501(c)(3) nonprofit
issuers of tax-exempt and taxable debt, be it short, medium or long-term, variable or fixed rate,
competitive sale or negotiated sale. This brochure summarizes the major types of financing such
issuers can do, which at the same time is a statement of what KNN can provide, and briefly
describes KNN.
For more information on any of these or other municipal finance topics, please contact:
Jon B. Armstrong
Vice President
Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc.
595 Market Street, Suite 1350
San Francisco, California 94105
(415) 362-2925
MUNICIPAL DEBT
The starting point for any discussion of municipal debt is, of course, the issuer. Debt
may be issued by state and local governmental entities such as:
Cities
States
Counties
Redevelopment agencies
School districts
- Hospital districts
- Water, sewer, fire and other districts
- State departments, agencies and authorities
- State colleges and universities
- Nonprofit charitable 501(c)(3) organizations (such as many hospitals, colleges and
universities) financing through a state or local governmental entity
- Joint power authorities
- State and local housing authorities
State and local governmental entities issue debt for a variety of purposes such as:
- Water, sewer and power projects
- Transit systems
- High speed intercity rail facilities
- Resource recovery systems
- Infrastructure improvements
- Redevelopment projects (taxable debt may be required)
- Unfunded pension liability financings (taxable debt required)
- Short-term cash flow financing
- Industrial development projects (can use tax-exempt debt for manufacturing
projects whose amount of financing and capital expenditures meet the
$10,000,000 small issue exemption and other federal tax law requirements;
taxable debt required for other types of projects or manufacturing projects
exceeding the small issue exemption)
- Jails
- Airport facilities
- Harbor facilities
- City halls, county administrative centers and municipal buildings and facilities of
all kinds
- Parks
- Land
- Parking facilities
- Equipment
- School facilities
- Facilities of 501(c)(3) organizations
- Low income single and multi -family housing projects (restrictive federal tax rules
apply to tax-exempt housing financing; may be preferable to use taxable rather
than tax-exempt debt)
Liability insurance, either individual agency or pools
2
Advance refunding of existing debt
Current refunding of existing debt
Clean up of hazardous substances on public or private property (taxable debt may
be required)
Renovation of public or private buildings for seismic safety standards compliance
(taxable debt may be required)
3
COMMON TYPES OF TAX-EXEMPT ISSUES
General Obligation Bond
General obligation bonds, or "G.O. bonds", are issued by state or local governmental
entities with taxing power (e.g., state, county, city, school district, special district) for funding
public facilities (e.g., civic center, sewage plant, law enforcement, fire protection, etc.) and are
secured by the full faith and credit and taxing power of the issuing entity. G.O. bonds are the
most secure form of municipal debt and carry the lowest interest rate. Ad valorem property
taxes are levied (i. e. , a percentage of assessed value) to pay debt service. Projects financed with
G.O. bonds must be for the acquisition or improvement of real property, including attached
personal property (but not stand-alone equipment). Capitalized interest and debt service reserve
funds are not required.
In California, G.O. bonds require 2/3 voter approval and competitive sale (except
counties and school districts are permitted negotiated sale), and, depending upon the type of
governmental entity, there is a constitutional or statutory limitation in terms of a percentage of
assessed valuation on the amount of G.O. bonds that may be outstanding. General law cities
can issue G. O. bonds up to 15 %, general law counties up to 5 % (up to 15 % for certain water
conservation, flood control and road projects), unified school districts up to 2.5% and other
school districts to 1.25 % of assessed valuation. Charter cities and counties may have their own
G.O. bonds limit. G. O. bonds may be issued for up to thirty years by most issuers except
school districts, limited to twenty-five years.
Tax Allocation Bonds
In California, tax allocation bonds ("TABs") are issued by redevelopment agencies to
revitalize blighted and economically depressed areas of a community. They are issued for the
purpose of constructing public facilities in the blighted region. A redevelopment project area
is established and the assessed value for that area is "frozen" as the tax base for tax increment
calculation. From that point on, increases in tax revenue, "tax increment," from any increase
in assessed value in that project area go to the redevelopment agency for redevelopment agency
purposes and debt service on TABs. TABs, unless insured, generally have no other security
than a tax increment (and a small reserve fund). TABs do not require voter approval but must
be cometitively sold, except that tax-e*empt refunding TABs, TABs issued by a joint powers
authority (such as a city and its redevelopment agency) under the Marks -Roos Local Bond
Pooling Act and taxable TABs of any kind may be negotiated. Under the Tax Reform Act of
1986, it can become difficult to structure a transaction involving a private developer or user that
also meets requirements for tax -exemption, necessitating the use of a taxable TAB issue in such
cases. Writing down from market the price of property as an inducement to development is an
example contrary to requirements for tax-exempt TABs.
4
Revenue Bonds
Many governmental entities are permitted to issue revenue bonds on a negotiated or
competitive sale basis without voter approval being required, which are secured by and payable
from the general fund, an enterprise fund or a project's revenues. In California, the situation
is more restrictive. Charter cities (though not all, without charter amendment) and various state
authorities are the primary entities allowed to issue revenue bonds without voter approval.
Otherwise, a requirement of 2/3 voter approval will generally apply for such bonds (but not for
revenue based certificates of participation, described below).
Lease Revenue Bonds
Lease revenue bonds are issued by cities, counties, various districts, nonprofit
corporations, redevelopment agencies and joint power authorities to construct or acquire a
facility to be leased to a public entity in return for lease payments in the amount of (and which
secure) the debt service on such bonds. In California, depending on the issuer and situation,
lease revenue bonds may require 2/3 voter approval.
Certificates of participation
Certificates of participation ("COPs") have become the mainstay of revenue and general
fund based financing for public agencies in California and other jurisdictions where the use of
bonds carries legal restrictions not applicable to COPS and the use of COPs is supported by case
law or statute. Structured on the basis of a financing lease or an installment sale, COPS are
certificates representing the owners' participation in the stream of lease or installment sale
payments made by the borrowing public agency as lessee or buyer under the lease or installment
sale, as the case may be. As a rule, the financing lease structure is used for general fund
obligations and the installment sale structure is used for enterprise fund obligations. The lessor
or seller is usually a nonprofit corporation set up by the public agency solely to act as lessor or
seller in these transactions. Either way, financing lease or installment sale, the financing
structure collapses and title reverts to the public agency when all COPS have been fully paid.
The public agency is assigned all responsibilities and powers for project construction and
acquisition, and a bank corporate trust department is assigned all responsibilities and powers to
receive and enforce lease or installment sale payments from the public agency and pay debt
service therefrom to owners of the CO1?s, effectively removing the non-profit corporation from
any functional part of the transaction. The lease or installment sale payments usually are an
obligation of the general fund, but may, when the fund is large enough to support the issue, be
an obligation solely of an enterprise or special fund. In California, COPS can be sold by
competitive or negotiated sale without voter approval, debt limitation or interest rate limitation
(other than applicable state usury law).
In California, general (but not enterprise) fund obligations are subject to abatement (by
law a public agency that is a general fund entity cannot be compelled to make payments from
its general fund for that which it does not substantially have the use of), so COPS subject to
abatement are typically rated 1/2 grade lower than revenue bonds to compensate for the risk that
the project financed will not be completed or delivered on time, before debt service payments
begin (interest payments to investors during the acquisition/construction period plus a cushion
5
of three to six months for possible delays are funded from COP proceeds placed in a capitalized
interest fund), or that substantial use will be lost in the future (business interruption insurance
for a period and amount sufficient to pay debt service during replacement of destroyed facilities
or equipment financed is a standard covenant requirement).
Anticipation Notes
California state law and federal tax law create specific provisions for short-term cash
flow financing (as opposed to longer term capital expenditure financing) known as "anticipation
notes" of various types to cover expected temporary cash flow deficits provided that the principal
and interest due is paid from revenues received in the same fiscal year as the borrowing.
California law requires that such borrowing do not exceed 85% of the anticipated revenues of
the borrowing agency for that year, and that final maturity is no more than 15 months after
issuance. If applicable federal tax rules are followed, the interest on such borrowing is tax-
exempt and the proceeds may be invested at an unrestricted yield not subject to rebate.
Federal tax -exemption of the interest on anticipation notes and unrestricted yield on the
investment of proceeds (but not freedom from rebate) is granted if the face amount issued does
not exceed the amount of the maximum cumulative cash flow deficit anticipated to be reached
at some point during the life of the notes, plus the next 30 days' budgeted expenditures, and
final maturity is no later than 13 months after issuance. Cumulative cash flow deficit is equal
to the deficit of cumulative unrestricted cash expenditures over cumulative cash revenues plus
unrestricted cash on hand at the beginning of the fiscal year (excluding anticipation note proceeds
and payments), measured at the end of an accounting period. The issuer may subdivide the
calendar year into any uniform interval desired in establishing an "accounting period" with which
to measure a deficit. In practice, most issuers subdivide their cash flows on either a two week
or monthly basis. Some use a daily basis, at least for the 30 to 60 day period used to determine
maximum issue size.
Under federal tax law, arbitrage earnings on anticipation note proceeds (the portion, if
any, of the yield to the issuer on investment of proceeds in excess of the yield to investors on
the tax-exempt issue) are subject to rebate unless one of the following applies:
(a) all of the gross proceeds (excluding amounts held in a bona fide debt service fund
if earnings thereon do not exceed $100,000 annually, or a reasonably required
reserve or replacement fund; provided that, in the case of a reasonably required
reserve or replacement fund, arbitrage earnings thereon are rebated) are spent on
governmental purposes within six months of issuance; or
(b) (i) the issuer has general taxing power, (ii) no part of the issue is a private activity
bond, (iii) 95% or more of the net proceeds are to be used for local governmental
purposes of the issuer, and (iv) the size of the issue does not exceed $5 million
and the issuer anticipates issuing an aggregate of no more than $5 million of any
kind of tax-exempt debt over the same calendar year; or
(c) the actual cumulative cash flow deficit (excluding anticipation note proceeds and
payments but including earnings on the note proceeds) reached at some point
0
within six months of issuance must exceed 90% of the amount of notes issued
("safe harbor" rule); or
(d) the proceeds are invested only in other tax-exempt securities or held as cash,
uninvested.
Basically, rules (b) and (c), effectively dividing issuers into those who anticipate issuing more
than $5 million in aggregate tax-exempt debt of all kinds during the calendar year, and those
who do not so anticipate, are the only two exceptions that permit effective arbitrage earnings on
note proceeds.
Various anticipation note types are:
Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs),
Construction Loan Notes (CLNs),
Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs),
Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs),
Tax Anticipation Notes (TANS), and
Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANs).
TRANS are the most common variety of anticipation notes for school districts. Anticipation
notes may be sold by competitive or negotiated sale.
California Assessment Bonds (1911, 1913 and 1915 Acts)
Special benefit districts can be formed and assessments levied where the land of a
property owner will specifically benefit from the improvement and/or acquisition for which the
special assessment is levied. The three most general assessment bond acts (there are some
others) are as follows:
1911 Act - Each individual bond certificate issued under the Improvement Act of 1911
(the "1911 Act") constitutes a corresponding direct lien against a specific
parcel of property. There is no debt service reserve. The municipal
treasurer bills the property owner for the principal and interest installments
as they become due, collects the payments, and remits the funds to the
bondholder. Appr9val of the landowner is required for any assessment.
1913 Act - The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the "1913 Act") is a procedural
act which provides for the formation of the assessment district, the levy of
an assessment and the creation of a lien against the property, but does not,
in itself, contain provisions for the issuance of bonds.
1915 Act - The Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (the "1915 Act") provides for a method
of issuing bonds secured by assessments levied under one of the assessment
acts such as the 1913 Act. It does not, in itself, provide the machinery for
creating a special assessment lien. Under the 1915 Act, all of the
assessments in the aggregate secure all of the assessment bonds issued.
7
There is a debt service reserve, normally 5 % to 10 % of issue size, or equal
to six months' debt service.
Before construction of the improvement has begun, the assessment procedure is
completed. If there are assessments remaining uncollected from affected property owners, bonds
may be issued pursuant to either the 1911 Act or, most commonly, the 1915 Act. Assessment
bonds may be on a competitive or negotiated basis. Often they are used for financing
infrastructure projects in connection with new developments while the only property owner is
the developer. An election is not required, but there are public hearings and procedures wherein
a "majority" protest of affected property owners then triggers a requirement for 4/5 approving
vote by the legislative body of the sponsoring local government in order to proceed. Assessment
bonds may be used for infrastructure projects such as water and sewer, parks, parking facilities,
pedestrian malls, streets, street lighting, sidewalks, gutters, fire protection, landscaping,
retaining walls, navigation facilities and certain others, depending on the particular authorizing
act used. Assessment bonds issued under the 1915 Act can have a final maturity of up to
approximately forty years, but, except for some water or sewer projects, usual practice well
supported by market acceptance is to have a final maturity of twenty to twenty-five years.
Besides the 1911 Act, the 1915 Act, 1913 Act and other assessment bond procedures,
California charter cities may establish their own assessment bond procedures by amendment and
ordinance. The 1915 Act restricts its bonds to being fixed rate debt; charter cities, however,
can issue variable rate demand assessment bonds where their charter allows. So far, variable
rate assessment bonds have been done in California for some of the largest assessment bond
issues of some charter cities.
California Mello -Roos Bonds
In California, bonds may be issued pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act
of 1982 (the "Mello -Roos Act") for a wide variety of municipal facility projects by community
facilities districts created by the legislative bodies of local governments, including school
districts, with 2/3 approval of the voters or landowners within the proposed community facilities
district. A local government may finance any facility normal to its operation with Mello -Roos
bonds, including personal property (equipment), with a useful life over five years. Mello -Roos
bonds also may be issued to acquire, improve, rehabilitate or maintain real or tangible property,
publicly or privately owned, for removal or remedial action to clean up hazardous substances,
or to finance reconstruction or replacepent of damage from the October 17, 1989 earthquake
located within a Presidentially declared disaster area. Mello -Roos bonds and the special tax
formula and levy to support the bonds require 2/3 voter or landowner approval within the
community facilities district. All Mello -Roos voter approvals can be combined in one ballot
measure and election.
Community facilities district boundaries are selected to encompass all those who will
benefit from the project. They may be essentially the same as the local government's boundaries
but more typically only a portion of the sponsoring government's jurisdiction is deemed to
benefit from the project to be financed. District boundaries can be drawn very precisely, e.g.,
excluding trailer parks restricted to senior citizens or parcels owned by charitable nonprofit
organizations; borders also do not have to be contiguous. In addition, parcels judged to benefit
from the improvements need not border on the improvements or be directly connected to the
N.
improvements. This selectivity in boundaries obviously can translate into a major advantage
over G.O. bonds in obtaining the requisite voter approval. Another potential advantage over
G.O. bonds is that the size of a Mello -Roos issue is not restricted to a set percentage of assessed
value. This may be particularly important to a smaller school district constrained by a G.O.
bond limitation of 1.25% or 2.5% of assessed value.
A special tax, collected with and on a par with property taxes, is levied sufficient to pay
generally 1.10 times debt service on the Mello -Roos bonds. A community facilities district also
may be formed and a special tax levied to generate operating revenue for certain specified
purposes, without authorizing or issuing bonds. The special tax on property may be levied
according to any reasonable formula that is equitable, provided that it is not ad valorem, i.e.,
based on assessed value. As a practical matter, the formula should be easy for the county to
assess when collecting taxes on behalf of the community facilities district. The municipality may
determine the tax formula itself, but may prefer to employ a consultant experienced in
formulating special tax levies. A good tax formula often is critical in gaining voter approval of
the levy.
While Mello -Roos financings can be used in built-up areas, they are particularly useful
tools in development areas when the 2/3 voter approval can be obtained from the developer(s)
prior to sale of homes to individuals. Mello -Roos bonds may be negotiated or competitively sold
and, so far, frequently have been negotiated. Their debt service reserve usually is an amount
equal to the smaller of maximum annual debt service or 10% of the issue size. Mello -Roos
bonds can have a final maturity of up to forty years.
California Community Rehabilitation District Oblgations
A California city or county may, by action of its legislative body, including appropriate
public hearing, form a community rehabilitation district (provided the district does not overlap
any designated project area of a redevelopment agency). A community rehabilitation district
may rehabilitate or expand streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, traffic control signals and signs,
sewer and water lines and facilities, bridges, public buildings, flood control works, libraries,
criminal justice facilities or park and recreational facilities. The district can finance such
rehabilitation or expansion in three ways:
(a) levy assessments and issue assessment bonds pursuant to the 1911, 1913 and 1915
Acts described earlier; i
(b) levy a special tax and issue Mello -Roos bonds pursuant to the Mello -Roos Act
described earlier; or
(c) issue Senior Obligation Bonds under the Community Rehabilitation District Law.
Senior Obligation Bonds are secured and paid by property tax revenue, with a claim prior
to distribution of property tax revenue to any other entity of government except any tax
increment due a redevelopment agency, provided that such debt service shall not exceed 25%
of the property tax revenue of the city or county establishing the district. Majority (over 50%)
approval of the voters of the district is required for issuance of Senior Obligation Bonds. Senior
Obligation Bonds must be sold competitively. Interest payment and principal amortization dates
D
are established by the district at time of issuance. Bond counsel for Sewer Obligation Bond
financing generally will require court validation.
California Infrastructure Financing Districts
California cities or counties may form an infrastructure financing district (provided the
district does not overlap any designated project area of a redevelopment agency) for the purpose
of using tax increment to finance improvements to serve new development that provides
significant benefit to a community wide or regional area (that may be larger than the
infrastructure financing district). Highway interchanges, bridges, sewage and water treatment
plants, parks and solid waste transfer facilities are examples of such regional benefit
improvements.
Infrastructure financing district formation requires 2/3 voter or landowner approval within
the proposed infrastructure financing district, following similar public hearing and other
formation procedures as Mello -Roos community facilities district formation. Tax increment
occurring after the fiscal year of infrastructure financing district formation (i.e., the increase in
tax revenue from growth in assessed value within the district after the base fiscal year of
formation) may be used to pay principal of and interest on:
(a) tax allocation bonds issued by the infrastructure financing district upon 2/3 voter
or landowner approval (approval may be combined with district formation
approval);
(b) pledged to pay principal of and interest -on 1915 Act assessment or Mello -Roos
bonds (providing further security to assessments or the special tax, respectively);
or
(c) used to acquire over time a completed project (contractor or turn key financing).
Affected taxing agencies must consent to diversion of their tax increment. Tax increment
of the non consenting agency is not available. School district and county office of eduction tax
increment by law is not available.
Bond counsel for infrastructure finance district financing generally will require court
validation.
California Motor Vehicle License Fee Account
California cities and counties may provide additional security for payment of debt
obligations by directing the State Controller to meet debt payment obligations with monies to
which the city or county is entitled at that time as its allocation from the Motor Vehicle License
Fee Account in the Transportation Tax Fund. However, there is no legal obligation on the part
of the State to make such payments when the Controller is so directed.
10
Ratings; Bond Insurance
Most assessment and Mello -Roos bonds are non -rated, and since most insurers are
reluctant to insure issues not otherwise capable of an investment grade rating, among other
reasons, most are also uninsured. Only the strongest assessment and Mello -Roos issues are
occasionally being insured. However, there is a good market for non -rated California
assessment and Mello -Roos bonds, and they can readily be sold by competitive or negotiated
sale.
Two major obstacles for assessment and Mello -Roos bonds to overcome for rating
agencies and insurers are that (a) the developer may be the only tax payer until the project is
fully developed and sold, and even then the particular tax payer base may not be large, stable,
diversified or otherwise economically strong compared with investment grade tax or general fund
secured debt, and (b) in extreme, property assessment or tax default by a parcel owner could
take as long as five years to resolve before bondholders receive payment (covenants to prevent
this possibility of delay are regularly a part of financing documents, but have not been
adequately tested in the courts). Most investors are satisfied if most of the following conditions
are met: a letter of credit secures principal and interest until the project is sold to permanent
owners by the developer (a corporate developer with a guarantee from a large enough corporate
parent may not need a letter of credit); assessed value to loan ratios in the vicinity of 3 to 1 or
more; adequate debt service reserve (usually 5 to 10% of the issue or six months' maximum
annual debt service is the minimum requirement); in the case of Mello -Roos but not assessment
bonds, debt service coverage of at least 1.10 times; the tax base is strong; and the view that
defaults of transactions meeting these criteria are infrequent enough to constitute an acceptable
risk in a diversified portfolio with adequate yield.
Other types of issues, where the basic security for the issue is a municipal general fund,
taxes or, if large enough, a municipal enterprise fund, instead of a developer, usually are rated
or insured or both. For issues of any kind that can be insured, bond insurance provides Aaa and
AAA ratings from Moody's Investor Services and Standard & Poor's Corporation, respectively,
or AAA from Standard & Poor's Corporation alone. The savings achieved, if any, after paying
the insurance premium, varies with changing market conditions and the rating without insurance.
The decision to insure usually is an economic one, though it may be influenced by covenant
demands of the insurer, sometimes announced by the insurer only after final review of a
financing for insurance commitment. If lower debt service results after paying the insurance
premium, insurance normally should be used; otherwise, not. This decision can be made close
to the time of marketing an issue, if application for insurance has been made sufficiently in
advance.
Some insurers are now making available debt service reserve insurance in lieu of funding
a debt service reserve, which allows a smaller new issue. Some insurers also are willing to
insure variable rate issues. Insurance is possible with taxable or tax-exempt issues.
11
SPECIAL FINANCING TECBMQUES
Refunding
Refunding is the procedure whereby an issuer refinances an outstanding debt issue with
the proceeds of a new debt issue. The major reasons for refunding are: to reduce or restructure
the issuer's remaining debt service requirement, or to remove a burdensome covenant imposed
by the terms of the existing debt. Proceeds of a new tax-exempt issue are either deposited in
escrow to pay the debt service on the outstanding debt for more than 90 days before the date on
which the legal documents for the old debt permit -early redemption, and then are applied to
redeem the outstanding debt, in which case the financing is known as an "advance refunding",
or used within 90 days of issuance to retire the outstanding debt, in which case the financing is
known as a "current refunding." If the refunding issue is tax-exempt, federal tax rules prohibit
investing the proceeds in escrow at a yield on the escrow portfolio materially higher than the
yield to investors on the new refunding issue. Also, the escrow earnings are subject to rebate
to the U.S. Treasury of all arbitrage income. So the escrow investment portfolio is set up to
not exceed in yield the yield to investors on the new refunding issue or it is comprised of tax-
exempt securities, so no arbitrage can be generated. If the refunding issue is taxable, these
federal arbitrage and rebate definitions and rules do not apply.
Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs)
A variable rate demand obligation ("VRDO") is a security with an interest rate that is
reset at intervals according to the market, or according to an index or formula that is supposed
to represent the market. Relying on a published market index almost always fails to match the
market sooner or later, so an index approach is not recommended.
Weekly resetting of the interest rate is the most common interval, followed by daily and
monthly interest rate reset programs. Quarterly and semi-annual interest rate resets also are
used. Interest usually is paid monthly. There are also more elaborate VRDO programs where
the interval itself can be changed throughout the life of the issue (e.g., from weekly to daily to
five years and back to weekly, as the issuer decides; however, each such change may require
an updated tax opinion and offering memorandum). Nearly always, a VRDO may also be
converted to a fixed rate of interest for the obligation's remaining term on any interest payment
date the issuer chooses. There frequently are minor remarketing costs with each change in
interest rate, but such costs are likely tp be substantial if the length of interval for resetting the
interest rate is changed.
The demand feature of a VRDO is the right of a holder to put his or her VRDO back to
the issuer at face value. When a VRDO is put, a remarketing agent finds a new buyer. Should
the remarketing agent fail to find a new buyer, a bank letter or line of credit is drawn upon to
finance the repurchase of the VRDO, and the issuer is obliged to reimburse the bank. VRDOs
historically are the lowest cost financing available for the long term, even with ongoing bank
letter of credit and remarketing agent fees added to the interest rate. Bonds or certificates of
participation, tax-exempt or taxable, can be structured as VRDOs.
12
Extendable Debt - Select Your Own Interest Rate
Bonds or certificates of participation, taxable or tax-exempt, may be structured with a
specified target interest rate, with the length of the interest rate interval determined so that yield
to investors over the new interval remains the target rate each time the prior interval expires,
and a right of holders to put when the interval is reset. For example, the initial rate offered may
be 6% for five years, then 6% for the next three years because market rates are higher when
reset at five years, and then 6% for the next seven years because market rates have fallen at the
eight year reset. Such issues are structured with a credit facility back-up, such as a commercial
bank letter of credit, to guarantee the debt holder's ability to put the extendable security to the
issuer at the time of interest rate reset and receive face value. If market interest rates increase
to the extent that the target rate cannot be obtained at even a minimum interval, the rate becomes
the lowest rate at which the minimum interval can be remarketed at face value. The maximum
interval allowed is the remaining term of the credit facility then in effect.
The advantage of extendable debt is that a long-term issue can be marketed with an
essentially fixed short to medium-term interest rate, generally achieving a lower overall interest
rate than a conventional long-term fixed-rate issue.
Zero Coupon or Deep Discount Debt
Zero coupon or deep discount debt, debt that pays no or little interest, respectively, prior
to maturity and therefore sells initially at a deep discount and trades at a lesser discount
thereafter (increasing "accreted value") until reaching face value at maturity, is popular with
certain investors desiring to compound their investment at a known rate of return. Such debt
is sometimes called "capital appreciation" bonds or certificates or "CABs". For issuers, such
debt facilitates structuring a borrowing with ascending debt service payments through time. Low
or no debt service during initial years obviously can be useful; the penalty is higher debt service
in later years.
Serial maturity zero coupon debt also can be structured with a level (or any other pattern,
for that matter) debt service requirement overall. This is an advantage only if investor demand
for zero coupon debt is strong enough that the issuer can gain a lower overall effective interest
cost than provided by using conventional debt paying periodic interest. Historically, the market
has only sometimes provided issuers with an effective interest rate advantage for using zero
coupon debt, and the advantage has been small.
Some public agencies use zero coupon debt with low ascending or no debt service to buy
available property for facilities to be built in the future, expecting to refinance to level debt
service at the accreted value of the debt at the time the facilities are built. The advantage is
obtaining land now at low or no current cost that may not be available in the future at a
reasonable price or at all. If the land is not used in the future, the plan is that land will have
increased in market value sufficiently to be sold for enough to retire the debt. While real estate
usually does increase in market value, the risk is that a sufficient increase will not occur by
maturity to pay the fully accreted or face value of the debt or that the issuing public agency will
then be financially capable of refinancing at that level of debt.
13
Special Taxes
Many California public agencies may enact a "qualified special tax" to fund specified
purposes with two-thirds voter approval. A qualified special tax is one levied uniformly on all
taxpayers or property owners that is not levied ad valorem and is not for general purposes. A
qualified special tax may be enacted permanently or for a specified length of time only, and may
contain a provision exempting payment by taxpayers 65 years of age or older. There is no
constitutional limit on the specific amount of qualified special tax that may be levied. Voters
approve a tax formula, the maximum annual tax and the purposes for the tax. The actual tax
levy is calculated each year within that maximum. The basic authority for a qualified special
tax is Section 50079 et seq. of the California Government Code.
Qualified special taxes usually are levied on a per taxable parcel basis ("parcel tax") as
a flat amount per parcel. However, voters have approved parcel tax levies differentiated as to
residential, business and unimproved parcels, parcel tax levy by square footage, and have
included escalation factors, e.g., by a certain percentage each year. A parcel tax is collected
with property taxes by the County for the taxing agency.
A qualified special tax may be enacted for any funding purpose lawful for the public
agency, e.g., operations, programs, salaries, maintenance, facilities, equipment, etc. As a
practical matter, such taxes are most suited for funding other than major land and building
expenditures. Major land and building expenditure financing is better handled through Mello -
Roos or G.O. bond financings and tax levies, or revenue bonds or COP financing without tax
levy.
Unlike Mello -Roos or G.O. bond tax revenueTqualified special tax revenue is subject to
the Gann limit. Revenue in excess of the Gann limit must be repaid to the tax payers. A Gann
limit may be exceeded only with majority voter approval and only for a four year period. There
may be successive four year periods with majority voter approval each time. School districts
(but not other public agencies) may also apply annually for transfer of a portion of the State of
California's unused Gann limit capacity; there is no assurance that such capacity will be
available to a district in any subsequent year. Qualified special tax revenue in excess of the
Gann limit cannot be relied upon for more than four years at the most, or beyond one year for
school districts if State capacity is relied upon.
Interest Rate Swap
An interest rate payment exchange agreement, commonly known as an "interest rate
swap", is a contractual agreement wherein a municipality agrees to exchange interest rate based
payments with those of another party. Calculation of the payment amounts is defined by the
agreement. There is no borrowing or investing of funds, or pledging, selling, buying or
swapping of securities. Hence, laws dealing only with investment of funds or the
aforementioned securities transactions do not apply. Legislation adopted in California provides
explicit authority for municipalities, including school and other districts, to enter into interest
rate swaps.
A municipality can either make floating-rate payments and receive fixed-rate payments,
or make fixed-rate payments and receive floating-rate payments. Interest rate swaps may be
14
structured in terms of taxable or tax-exempt rates. For municipalities, fixed and floating
payments based on tax-exempt rates are generally the most appropriate. The floating-rate
payments are based on a market index of thirty -day tax-exempt rates, redetermined weekly, and
the fixed payment is at a rate appropriate to the term of the swap, which may be one to ten
years, so there generally will be a spread between the two sets of payments. Considered by
itself, a municipality will always choose to pay floating and receive fixed rate in order to obtain
a positive spread, which can be used either to offset existing debt service requirements
(effectively converts debt liability to variable rate when paired with existing fixed rate debt,
which often is a lower cost variable rate package overall than a VRDO with attendant letter of
credit and remarketing agent fees) or simply add revenue. A particularly strong use of such
revenue is to significantly supplement, often by 100 to 200 basis points, and stabilize the return
on a portfolio of short term investments, at no risk of investment capital. Or, a swap can be
used just as a hedge against variable rate exposure, effectively matching variable rate assets to
variable rate liabilities or fixed assets to fixed liabilities when assets and liabilities otherwise are
not matched, one being variable and the other fixed.
Pool Financings
Since January 1, 1989, federal tax law defines pool financings as issues where the lesser
of 5 % or $5 million of the net proceeds are reasonably expected to be used to make or finance
loans, directly or indirectly, to two or more ultimate borrowers. The issuer must reasonably
expect, without taking into account interest rates, that 95 % of the net proceeds of the pool issue
will be so used. Written loan commitments must be in existence at issuance for at least 25%
of the net proceeds of the issue, at least 25 % of the net proceeds must be lent to ultimate
borrowers within one year of issuance, 50% within_ktvo years, 100% within three years, and
loan principal repaid to the pool must be used to redeem pool debt no later than the close of the
first semi-annual period after repayment. Pool proceeds not lent by the required times must be
used to redeem debt within six months, payment of costs of issuance cannot be contingent and
at least 95 % of the reasonably expected legal and underwriting costs associated with the issue
must be paid within 180 days of issuance. Informally, the Internal Revenue Service has been
attacking pool financings where debt issued before January 1, 1989 was obviously issued long
prior to an actual business need for funds in the normal course of development of a project.
15
GENERAL TAX EXEMPTION REQUIREMENTS
Tax Exemption
As long as projects are financed by and for a state or local government entity, they may
be financed with tax-exempt securities as "governmental purpose bonds." However, if there are
tenants or users other than state or local governmental entities (other than the general public),
municipal projects that otherwise would qualify for tax-exempt financing will generally require
taxable debt as "private activity bonds," or treatment as "qualified private activity bond" if still
tax-exempt. These federal tax code categories and rules apply across the board to all tax-exempt
issues of whatever type. Except for short-term cash flow financing for state and local
governments and qualified 501(c)(3) borrowers, which operates under its own subset of federal
tax rules, working capital financing generally is not allowed and tax-exempt debt must be for
purposes which constitute capital expenditures or the refinancing of debt for same.
In tax code language, a "private activity bond" is any security which meets (a) the
"private business use test," including the "private security or payment test," or (b) the "private
loan financing test." Failure to meet all three of these tests means a security is a governmental
purpose bond, which is the least restrictive case and the most common case for a public agency
financing for its own benefit.
The private business test is met if more than 10% of the proceeds of the issue are to be
used directly or indirectly in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a
governmental entity. The private security or payment test is met if the payments of debt service
on more than 10% of the proceeds of the issue directly or indirectly are secured by or paid from
any interest in or payments from property or borrowri money used or to be used for a private
business. The private loan financing test is met if the proceeds of the issue used directly or
indirectly to make or finance loans to persons other than governmental units exceeds the lesser
of (a) 5 % of issue proceeds or (b) $5 million, unless the loan enables the borrower to finance
any governmental tax or assessment of general application for a specific governmental function
or which is a permitted investment. Additional rules further specify these tests. If one of the
three tests is met, the issue is a private activity bond and the interest thereon is taxable, unless
it is a "qualified" private activity bond.
A qualified private activity bond is any:
(a) exempt facility bond,
(b) qualified mortgage bond,
(c) qualified veterans' mortgage bond,
(d) qualified small issue bond,
(e) qualified student loan bond,
(f) qualified redevelopment bond, or
(g) qualified 501(c)(3) bond.
16
An exempt facility bond means an issue 95 % or more of the net proceeds of which are
to be used to provide any of the following facilities, including functionally related and
subordinate property to the extent not specifically prohibited:
(a) airports,
(b) docks and wharves,
(c) mass community facilities,
(d) facilities for the furnishing of water,
(e) sewage facilities,
(f) solid waste disposal facilities,
(g) qualified residential rental projects,
(h) facilities for the local furnishing of electric energy or gas,
(i) local district heating or cooling facilities,
0) qualified hazardous waste facilities, or
(k) high-speed inter -city rail facilities.
"Net proceeds" means the proceeds of an issue less any amounts invested in a reasonably
required reserve or replacement fund.
Governmentally owned property managed or operated pursuant to a management or
operating agreement by a non-governmental person is treated as governmentally owned and not
a cause for private activity bond status if.
(a) the term of a management contract does not exceed five years (including renewal
options);
(b) at least 50% of the compensation to any manager other than a governmental unit
is on a periodic, fixed -fee basis, and no amount of compensation is based on a
share of net profits; and
(c) the governmental unit owning the facility may terminate the contract without
penalty at the end of three years.
Property leased by a nongovernmental person shall be treated as governmentally owned
if:
(a) the lessee makes an irrevocable election binding on the lessee and all successors
in interest under the lease not to claim depreciation or an investment credit with
respect to such property;
(b) the lease term is not more than 80% of the reasonably expected economic life of
the property; and
(c) the lessee has no option to purchase the property other than at fair market value
as of the time such option is exercised.
Qualified private activity bonds, while the interest thereon is tax-exempt, are restricted
in several ways that governmental purpose bonds are not. They are, among other things:
17
(a) subject to statewide volume caps on a aggregate issuance of $50 per capita per
year, administered in California by the California Debt Limit Allocation
Committee, except that qualified 501(c)(3) bonds and exempt facility bonds for
airports, docks and wharves, and certain governmentally -owned solid waste
disposal facilities are not subject to the volume cap;
(b) restricted to an average issue maturity of not more than 120% of the average
reasonably expected economic life of the facilities being financed;
(c) restricted to using not more than 25 % of net proceeds of the issue to directly or
indirectly acquire land or an interest therein, except in certain farmland, airport,
mass commuting or dock or wharf financings;
(d) required to provide funds for rehabilitation expenditures to be made in an amount
equal to at least 15% of the cost of existing buildings and equipment therefor
acquired (100% of the cost of any other existing structures acquired);
(e) generally restricted to funding financing and other costs of issuance from issue
proceeds an amount equal to no more than 2% of the aggregate face amount of the
issue, except for bond insurance premiums and letter of credit fees treated as
interest under the tax code by virtue of the employment of insurance or a letter of
credit resulting in a present value net savings; and
(f) their interest, except for qualified 510(c)(3) bonds and certain refunding issues,
is a tax preference item for calculation of federal alternative minimum tax for
corporations and individuals (making—"ATM Bonds" not quite as attractive to
investors who pay alternative minimum tax).
Rebate
Under federal tax rules, earnings on unspent proceeds of tax-exempt debt issued after
August, 1986 in excess of the yield to investors on that tax-exempt debt must be rebated every
five years, and within 60 days of final maturity, to the U.S. Treasury. The exceptions to this
rebate requirement are few, basically:
(a) all gross proceeds (excl4ding amounts held in a bona fide debt service fund if
earnings thereon do not exceed $100,000 annually, or a reasonably required
reserve or replacement fund if arbitrage earnings thereon are rebated, but
including any capitalized interest or funds) are (i) spent on governmental purposes
within six months of issuance, or (ii), if a governmental purpose bond (other than
a tax or revenue anticipation note) or a qualified 501(c)(3) bond, spent within one
year of issuance if the amount remaining unspent at the end of the first six months
of issuance does not exceed the lesser of 5 % of the gross proceeds or $100,000;
(b) (i) the issuer has general taxing powers, (ii) no part of the issue is a private
activity bond, (iii) 95% or more of the net proceeds are to be used for
governmental purposes of the issuer, and (iv) the issue does not exceed $5 million
18
and the issuer expects to issue no more than $5 million in aggregate tax-exempt
debt over the calendar year;
(c) short-term cashflow financings meeting a safe harbor rule;
(d) for governmental bonds, Section 501(c)(3) bonds and private activity bonds used
to finance property to be owned by a governmental unit or Section 501(c)(3)
organization, 75% or more of the net proceeds of which will be used for
construction, reconstruction or rehabilitation purposes, if net proceeds are spent
in the amount of 10% or more of the total net proceeds of the issue within the
first six months of issuance, 45% or more within twelve months, 75% or more
within eighteen months and 100% within twenty-four months or 95% or more
within twenty-four months if the remainder is "reasonable retainage" to ensure
compliance under a construction contract, and all of the "reasonable retainage" is
spent within thirty-six months.
(e) certain student loan program financing situations; and
(f) earnings on issue proceeds invested in other tax-exempt securities or held in cash,
uninvested.
At the time of issuance (but not thereafter), an issuer may make a one-time election to
be subject to a penalty rather than be subject to rebate calculations and payments (and the
penalty for missed rebate payments) if issue proceeds are not spent as required under exemption
(d) above. This penalty in lieu of rebate is 1.5 times the amount of proceeds not spent required
to be spent at each six month interval, calculated every six months and payable within 90 days
of the end of the relevant semi-annual period. As long as a spending shortfall continues to exist,
the penalty is calculated and payable every six months for the life of the issue. Depending on
the planned construction fund draw down schedule and the likelihood of meeting the
requirements of exemption (d), it may be an economic advantage to make this election, plus it
has the administrative benefit of avoiding rebate calculations.
Rebate calculations require strict separate accounting and tracking of all cash flows of
issue proceeds received, earnings specifically thereon and disbursements by issue. The monetary
penalty for failure to pay under standard rebate provisions is 50% of the delinquent amount plus
interest on the delinquent amount; plus, the delinquent amount must be paid.
Bank Qualified Issues
Issues -not exceeding $10 million where the issuer expects to issue no more than $10
million in aggregate tax-exempt debt of any kind over the calendar year are "bank qualified."
Certain financial institutions may deduct their interest expense of carrying their investment in
such issues. Bank qualified issues may achieve a slightly lower interest rate as a result (5 to 10
basis points).
19
TAXABLE ISSUES
Many financings that can be done tax-exempt also can be done as taxable financings.
Taxable bonds and notes can be structured as variable or fixed rate, and with or without a
demand feature if they are variable. Taxable variable rate issues can be structured with variable
interest rate intervals as well. That is, interest rate intervals can mimic intervals of commercial
paper issuance, change to longer periods such as one year or five years and back to commercial
paper intervals of 15, 30, 90, 270 days and so on, or held constant, such as seven day intervals.
Taxable interest rates are generally priced at a spread over the interest rate of comparable
maturity Treasury debt. This spread depends upon the creditworthiness of the borrower and
market conditions. Taxable municipal debt usually is sold on a negotiated sale basis but can be
sold by competitive sale.
Federally taxable debt issued by a municipality is exempt from SEC registration and, in
many cases, from state personal income taxation.
There are some significant differences in the tax-exempt and taxable debt markets worth
noting. One is that where tax-exempt municipal debt of more than a year or two until final
maturity generally is structured with serial maturities (each maturity with its own stated interest
rate), the institutional taxable market is accustomed to term maturities matched to certain
bellwether term U.S. Treasury notes and bonds. Taxable debt with non-standard terms, when
sold to institutions, can carry a premium in interest rate. This affects those serial maturities not
precisely corresponding with the bellwether Treasury maturity dates. Small taxable issues also
face an interest rate penalty among institutional investors because of perceived lack of trading
liquidity.
However, the retail market for taxable debt, while much smaller, generally is free from
the various interest rate penalties demanded by institutional investors, and is in many cases 25
to 50 basis points lower in interest rates as well. This is an advantage for taxable TABS and
other taxable municipal debt.
Commercial paper also is available. Commercial paper is a short term promissory note
issued in either registered or bearer form, usually backed by a line or letter of credit and always
backed, in the case of a municipal borrower (as opposed to an industrial development borrower),
by a pledge of the first tax and other revenues to be received in the months specified in the
pledge and by any other legally available funds. It is usually issued as a discount note with a
maturity under 90 days, though may berissued for terms as long as 270 days. Commercial paper
is done within a program authorized by the issuer of up to a maximum amount for a set number
of years. At any given time there may be no commercial paper, the entire authorized program
amount, or any amount in between, outstanding. Programs are impractical if smaller than $25
million, and should be at least $50 million to avoid any interest rate penalty due to program size.
Commercial paper is sold on a negotiated basis. Most, but not all, situations where commercial
paper might be used can also be handled by a variable rate demand obligation without the
stringent minimum program size considerations of commercial paper.
20
KELLING, NORTHCROSS & NOBRIGA, INC.
Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. is an independent financial advisory fine_ that
provides mal gement services to public agencies _offering, debt secuntles at competitive or
negotiated sale. Competitive sale publicly demonstrates that the lowest available interest rate
was obtained. In negotiated sale financings, low underwriting spreads and interest rates are
achieved for client agencies by the firm negotiating the sale directly with the underwriter's
commitment desk. Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga does not underwrite securities itself, so its
sole obligation is to serve the best interest ot client agencies.
In 1990 Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga structured and brought to market seventy-seven
new issues, aggregating in excess of $460 million. The firm's experience and capabilities
include structuring and managing all types of municipal issues for real property, equipment,
working capital, refundings and self insurance programs, including tax and revenue anticipation
notes, general obligation, tax allocation, assessment, Mello -Roos, revenue and industrial
development bonds, certificates of participation, advance refundings, pooled financings and
taxable municipal issues. For issues requiring two-thirds voter approval, the firm has a high
77% success rate obtaining such approval. Clients include cities, redevelopment agencies,
counties, authorities, school districts, water and sewer, hospital and other special districts and
501(c)(3) health care organizations.
[1 JA\nr d:\P\47Oo26.pro]
21
APPENDIX
Typical Sequence of Events for Assessment and Mello -Roos Financings.
Most assessment and Mello -Roos financings will require four to six months to
complete, and may, in practice, take longer if they are developer financings, since much is
dependent on the speed with which the developer can pursue his project. They also may
take longer if an assessment or communities facilities district must be formed. Engineering,
architecture, financing aside from the assessment or Mello -Roos bonds, environmental
impact report procedures, various governmental permits and negotiations will all, as a
practical matter, intervene at various times. Municipal projects using assessment or Mello -
Roos financing in some respects will normally work faster, but they are not immune to delay
and there always may be political sensitivities to address. We prefer the approach of always
being ready to do the next step, whenever the next step becomes possible.
The legal procedures for both financings are relatively long in number of steps,
though usually not terribly complex. They normally are set forth in detail by bond counsel.
As financial advisor, KNN will develop a financing schedule that ties the requirements of
the sponsoring municipality, bond counsel, developer and, if negotiated, the underwriter
together for a specific financing.
Typical Assessment Bond (1913 ACT) Procedures
Property Owners
- Contact public agency to solicit procedures
- Execute petition requesting project
- Present to City Council
- Consider waiving 1931 Act and cash collection
City Council
- Approve petition
- Retain consultants (engineer, bond counsel, etc.)
- Adopt resolution of intention
- Resolution to adopt engineer's report and fixing time for
public hearing
- Resolution calling for construction bids
- Resolution of issuance/notice of sale of bonds
- Mair notices to property owners
Design Engineer
- Prepare engineer's report
- Prepare plans, specifications and estimate right-of-way
requirements
- Obtain utility agreements
EIR Consultant
- Prepare Environmental Impact Report
- Process Environmental Impact Report
Assessment Engineer
- Assessment roll and diagram
- Method and formula of cost distribution
- Boundary map
A-1
Agency Staff - Review and approve plans, specifications and estimates
- Conduct informational meetings
Assessment Engineer - Advertise and open construction bids
- Easement and right-of-way acquisition
- Calculate final assessments
Public Hearing
- Conduct public hearing
- Price bonds (negotiated sale) or open bond bids
(competitive sale)
- Confirm assessments
- Award bonds
- Award construction contract
- Commence 30 -day cash collection
Agency Staff
- Record assessments
- Notify property owners
City Council
- Resolution determining unpaid assessments
- Notice to proceed with construction
Staff and Consultants
- Print and deliver bonds
- Construction management
A-2
Mello -Roos Bond Procedures 1
Process
1. Initiate proceedings, by:
a) Legislative body on its own
initiative; or
b) written request by 2 members
of Legislative body; or
c) petition signed by 10% of the
registered voters in the
proposed community facilities
district ("CFD"); or
d) petition signed by 1001c of
landowners in proposed CFD
to institute proceedings to
establish CFD.
Written request and petitions
under (b), (c) or (d) above,
must be accompanied by
payment of a fee (determined
by Legislative Body) for all
costs of creating CFD.
Govt. Code
Section Timq Frame
53318
53318(a)
53318(b)
53318(c)
53318(d)
2. Adoption of resolution of intention
53320
Within 90 days after initiation of
to establish CFD by legislative
proceedings by written request or
body. Resolution must fix time and
53321(e)
petition.
place of public hearing not less
than 30 or more than 60 days after
adoption of resolution.
r
3. Publish notice of public hearing in
53322
At least 7 dyas prior to hearing.
newspaper of general circulation in
the proposed CFD.
Mail notice to each registered voter
53322.4
At least 15 days before hearing.
and each landowner in proposed
CFD (optional).
1 Provided by courtesy of Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger, Los Angeles.
A-3
4. Filing of written protests against
53323
On or before time fixed for
establishment of CFD with clerk of
hearing.
legislative body. If 50% or more of
registered voters, or six registered
53324
voters, whichever is more, or
owners of one-half or more of the
area of land proposed to be
included in the district, file written
protests, no further proceedings can
be held to create CFD for one year
from date of the decision of the
legislative body.
5. Conduct public hearing (may be
53321(e)
Not less than 30 or more than 60
continued, but must be completed
53325
days after adoption of Resolution
within 30 days, unless legislative
of Intention.
body finds that complexity or need
for public participation requires
more time; then may be continued
for up to 6 months).
6. Adopt resolution of formation of
53325.1
After public hearing.
CFD (which will include a
statement about the special tax, if
one is proposed); determine validity
of prior proceedings.
—
7. Conduct election re: levy of special
55326
Next general election or at special
taxes:
election held between 90 and 180
days after adoption of resolution of
a) if held less than 125 days after
formation but may be waived if
adoption of resolution of
unanimous consent of electors and
formation, concurrence of the
election official.
election official conducting the
election is required;
b) vote is by registered voters,
each voter having one vote if
12 persons (not necessarily the
same 12) have been registered
to vote within the territory of
the proposed CFD for each of
90 days preceding the close of
the protest hearing; or
A-4
c) if not 12 voters as described
above, the vote shall be by
landowners (who are owners of
record at the close of the
protest hearing), one vote for
each acre or portion of acre.
8. Levy special tax (if tax does not 53328 After canvass of return of election
receive approval by 2/3 of the votes if 2/3 of votes in favor of tax.
cast, legislative body cannot levy a
special tax in the CFD for one year.
9. Record notice of special tax 53328.5 Within 15 Street days and
authorization with County successful Highway election Code
Recorder. See. 3114.5
10.* Adopt resolution by legislative body 53345
to incur bonded indebtedness and
setting time and place of hearing.
11. Publish notice of hearing in 53346 At least 7 days before Step 12.
newspaper of general circulation 53347
for CFD.
12. Conduct hearing. 53348-
53349
13. Adopt resolution by legislative body 53350
designating improvement area, for
financing specified public facilities.
14. Adopt resolution re. necessity of 53351 After making determination in Step
incurring bond indebtedness and 13,
setting date of special CFD
election.
i
15. Publish resolution from Step 14 as 53352
notice of special bond election
*Steps 10 through 18 may be taken concurrently with Steps 1 through 8.
A-5
16.
Conduct special CFD election
53353.5
On date set forth in resolution
reincurring bonded indebtedness.
from Step 14.
Ballot may combine proposals
relating to levying special tax,
incurring bonded indebtedness,
and/or establishing or changing
appropriations limit. A two-thirds
vote is needed for revenue
anticipation bonds.
53355
17.
Adopt resolution relating to form,
53356
execution and issuance of bonds.
18.
Action to determine validity of
53359
Within 30 days after voters approve
bonds brought by interested person.
issuance.
19.
File notice of proposed sale of debt
53359.5
No later than 30 days prior to sale
to CDAC.
of bonds.
20.
Publish notice of intention to sell
bonds in Bond Buyer.**Not less
than 15 days prior to sale of bonds.
21.
Advertise for bids in general
53360
Not less than 10 days prior to sale
circulation newspaper.**
53360.4
of bonds.
22.
Open bids for purchase of bonds at
53360.4
At least 15 days after Step 20.
specified location; approve
resolution awarding bonds to best
bidder. Bonds to be sold on sealed
proposals to highest bidder unless
the legislative body determines that
a private sale would result in a
lower overall cost.
If negotiated sale, sign purchase
contract following adoption of
resolution approving purchase
contract.
If no bids received, or if the 53360
legislative body determines that the
bids received are not satisfactory, it
can reject all bids and either
readvertise or sell at private sale.**
**Not necessary in a negotiated offering.
23. Deliver bonds. About 3 weeks after Step 22.
24. Sell Bonds. CFD may sell bonds at
the time and in the manner
designated by the legislative
body.53360
25. State Treasurer certifies bonds if 53361.4
legislative body deems it desirable
or when CFD was established by
the legislative body of a special
district required to seek
certification of its bonds by the
Treasurer pursuant to the District
Securities Investigation Law or
other law.
[1 JA\nr d:\P\470o31.app1
A-7
AGENDA NO. I' %
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
---------------------------------------------------------- -
DATE: February 13, 1991 MEETING DATE: February 19 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
FROM: Charles Janiel, Director of Parks and Maintenance-
SUBJECT: Parks Directional Signage
DISCUSSION:
At the present time, all park signage indicates that the County of Los Angeles is
the provider of City parks. This situation includes park entrance signs, as well
as, all directional signs. It is anticipated that the park entry signs will be
undertaken as part of a more all-encompassing capital project that will design,
construct and install City street signs, City directional signs and City entrance
signs. In the interim, staff has responded to a City Council request to modify
the park directional signs. Staff has created a prototype sign, which has been
approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Traffic and Transportation
Commission; and is recommended to the City Council for its approval.
RECOMMENDATION•
Approve design concept and authorize staff to initiate production and installation
of park directional signage.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Requested
Budgeted Amount
In Account Number:
Deficit: $
Revenue Source:
$1,500
01-4310-2210
REVIEWED B)(:/,,,'
---------------------------------/ ---
Robert L. Van Nort Andrew V. Arczynski Terrence Belanger
City Manager City Attorney Assistant City Manager
AGENDA NO. 1�
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: February 13, 1991 MEETING DATE: February 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
FROM: Sid Jalal Mousavi, City Engineer/Pu is orks Director
SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants are available to local agencies
upon their request and eligibility of their project. The intent of the program
is to assist the agencies to improve their traffic safety and operation.
DISCUSSION•
The City of Diamond Bar, within this grant cycle, informed OTS of the City's
traffic problems and requested funding to establish a satisfactory record of
traffic control devices.
The Traffic Control Device Inventory program will assist the City to assess the
visibility, condition, and conformity of the devices with the manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. After assessing deficiencies, the inventory will enable
the City to develop an ongoing system to update the inventory and increase the
ability to correct future deficiencies as they occur. An effective program within
the City is necessary for the establishment of meaningful and coordinated safety
improvements and logical recommendation for possible future deficiencies.
On February 6, 1991, the OTS informed us that they have approved our proposal and
$79,705 will be allocated for this project.
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to enter into an agreement
with OTS and proceed with development of a comprehensive Traffic Control Device
Inventory Program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Requested $
Budgeted Amount $
In Account Number:
Deficit: $
Revenue Source:
- HR ED B --- --------------------------------------- ----- p
Robert L. Van Nort Andrew V. Arczynski Terrence L. Belang
City Manager City Attorney Assistant City Manager