HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/1991Incorporated April 18, 1989
City of Diamond Bar, California
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
Mayor - John A. Forbing
Mayor Pro Tem - Jay C. Kim
Councilwoman - Phyllis Papen
Councilman - Gary H. Werner
Councilman - Donald C. Nardella
City Council Chambers
are located at:
Walnut Valley Unified School District Board Room
880 South Lemon Avenue
Please refrain from smoking, 'eating or drinking in the Council Chambers.
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 1991
MEETING TIME: 5:00 p.m. — CLOSED SESSION
6:00 p.m. — REGULAR SESSION
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
Andrew V. Arczynski
City Attorney
Lynda Burgess
City Clerk
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item referred to on this agenda are on
file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding any
agenda item contact the City Clerk at (714) 860-2489 during business hours.
Gity of Diamond Bar uses RECYCLED paper and encourages you to do the same.
THIS 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.
5:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION:
Litigation - Section 54956.9
Personnel - Section 54957.6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Next Resolution No. 60
Next Ordinance No. 7 (1991)
1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MAYOR FORBING
ROLL CALL: COUNCILMEN WERNER, NARDELLA, PAPER,
MAYOR PRO TEM KIM, MAYOR FORBING
2. 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.
3. 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 of 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
council.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MEETINGS:
4.1.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - September 9, 1991 - 7:00
p.m., W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880 S. Lemon Ave.
- Discussion of General Plan.
4.1.2 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION - September 10,
1991 - 6:00 p.m., W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880
S. Lemon Ave. - Discussion of: General Plan,
Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Policy
re: Council Conduct and Citation Authority.
SEPTEMBER 3, 1991
PAGE 2
4.1.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION -
September 12, 1991 - 6:30 p.m., Community
Room, 1061 S. Grand Ave.
4.1.4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - September 12,
1991 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall, 21660 E. Copley
Dr., #100.
4.1.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 17, 1991 -
6:00 p.m., W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880 S. Lemon
Ave.
4.1.6 EXTRA CONCERT IN THE PARK - September 11, 1991
- 6:00 p.m., SYCAMORE CANYON PARK
4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.2.1 REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1991.
4.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated
September 3, 1991 in the amount of $507,890.40.
4.4 RECEIVE & FILE PARKS & RECREATION COMM. MINUTES -
4.4.1 REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 25, 1991
4.4.2 REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 8 1991
4.5 RECEIVE & FILE TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMM. MINUTES -
4.5.1 REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 9, 1991
4.5.2 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 13, 1991
4.6 RECEIVE & FILE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -
4.6.1 REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 8, 1991
4.6.2 REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 22, 1991
4.7 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES -
4.7.1 FILED BY NEAL CHARLES AND KATHLEEN DEWITT -
Recommended Action: Deny.
4.7.2 FILED BY BENJAMIN KUDON -
Recommended Action: Deny.
4.8 ACCEPTANCE OF SIGNAL INSTALLATION ON GRAND AVENUE AT
SHOTGUN LANE - On March 19, 1991, the City Council
awarded a contract to Intersection Maintenance Service
(IMS) to install traffic signal at Grand Avenue and
Shotgun Lane. The installation of the signal is now
complete and needs to be accepted by the City.
Recommended Action: Accept the work performed by IMS and
authorize the City Clerk to file the proper Notice of
Completion.
SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 3
4.9 BOND REDUCTIONS
4.9.1 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - TRACT NO. 31850 - All
work guaranteed by Surety Bond No. 83 SB 100
426 684 has been completed and the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works and the City
Engineer are recommending reduction.
Recommended Action: Accept the work done on
this project and instruct the City Clerk to
reduce the bond and notify all parties.
4.9.2 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - TRACT NO. 42564
- All work guaranteed by Surety Bond No. 83 SB
100 390 297 has been completed and the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works and
the City Engineer are recommending reduction.
Recommended Action: Accept the work done on
this project and instruct the City Clerk to
reduce the bond and notify all parties.
4.9.3 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - TRACT NO. 42564 - All work
guaranteed by Surety Bond No. 83 SB 100 390
300 has been completed and the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works and the City
Engineer are recommending reduction.
Recommended Action: Accept the work done on
this project and instruct the City Clerk to
reduce the bond and notify all parties.
4.10 RESOLUTION NO. 91-57A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 91-57 APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AT GRAND AVENUE AND ROLLING KNOLL ROAD IN
SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS - On July 23,
1991, the Council approved plans and specifications
for installation of a traffic signal on Grand Ave.
and Rolling Knoll Rd. The bids for this project
were opened on August 21, 1991; however, no bids
were received.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 91-57A
for installation of a traffic signal at said
location and authorize the City Clerk to advertise
the bids for the second time.
SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 4
4.11 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
SIGNAGE FOR THE DIAMOND BAR CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH -
The Diamond Bar Congregational Church requests
approval to replace their existing freestanding
sign with a new freestanding monument sign and two
crosses. Council review of the proposed sign is
required pursuant to condition "p" of Resolution
No. 89-82 adopted by the Council on September 5,
1989.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 91 -XX
approving proposed freestanding sign and two
crosses with a maximum overall height of eight feet
(81), located behind the twenty foot (201) setback
as required in the zone (R-3-8000).
4.12 BLOCK NUMBERS ON BUS SHELTERS - At the request of
Mayor Forbing, staff has investigated the
installation of block numbers being placed on bus
stop shelters. Bustop Shelters of California has
agreed to furnish block numbers on the upright
posts of the shelters at no cost to the City.
Recommended Action: As recommended by the Traffic
& Transportation Commission, approve installation
of block numbers on bus stop shelters and authorize
the City Manager to execute an amendment to the
agreement with Bustop Shelters of California.
4.13 POMONA FREEWAY AT BREA CANYON ROAD WESTBOUND ON/OFF
RAMPS - The City, in cooperation with CalTrans, has
proposed to upgrade the signal system, protected
left -turn phasing, restriping and widening of the
on/off ramp at Brea Canyon Rd. and SR 60. The
design, construction and construction management
cost of this project is estimated to be $264,000.
CalTrans' participation will be $191,300 and the
City's portion is estimated to be $72,000. Gas Tax
($32,000) and Development Fees ($40,000) will be
used for this project.
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to enter
into a cooperative agreement with CalTrans
specifying terms and conditions under which this
project is to be engineered, financed and
maintained.
4.14 PREPARATION OF TRES HERMANOS SPECIFIC PLAN -
Enter into a cooperative agreement with Industry
Urban -Development Agency for preparation of the
Tres Hermanos Specific Plan.
SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 5
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the
City in an amount not to exceed $50,000 to prepare
Tres Hermanos Specific Plan.
5. PRESENTATIONS:
5.1 Don Nardella, President of the Diamond Bar Rotary Club,
will present a check to the City representing the Club's
proceeds from concessions during Concerts in the Park to
be used for Carlton J. Peterson Park improvements.
5.2 PRESENTATION OF CITY TILE - Presentation of City Tile
commending the efforts of Ms. Glenda Bona to the City's
Emergency Preparedness Program.
6. OLD BUSINESS:
6. 1 SEPTIC SEWER SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY - Update of the City' s
findings regarding the sewer problems in approximately
148 lots within the Country.
Recommended Action: Direct staff as necessary.
6.2 ORDINANCE NO. XX (1991): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING SECTION
13.66.060 AND REPEALING SECTION 13.66.120 OF CHAPTER
13.66 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE
ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO THE SHOOTING OF ARROWS AND SIMILAR
PROJECTILES, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF -
Continued from August 6, 1991.
Recommend Action: Adopt Ordinance No. XX (1991) prohib-
iting the shooting of arrows or such instrumentalities
within the City except where the Ordinance provides
therefore.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
7.1 COUNCIL POLICY FOR PROVISION OF THE SANE PROGRAM TO
PRIVATE SCHOOLS - Discussion of Council policy regarding
SANE education being made available to students in
private schools in the City.
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to have
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department provide the
SANE program to the Mount Calvary Lutheran School,
pursuant to established criteria.
7.2 HERITAGE PARK BUILDING - Reconstruction of the building
at Heritage Park for a community and/or senior center.
Recommended Action: (1) Set date to solicit architec-
tural proposals of September 25 and bring back for award
at the October 15 meeting; (2) direct Parks and
SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 6
Recreation Commission to conduct community work sessions
as a part of the process for developing the design of the
Heritage Park building improvements; (3) consider the
participation of members of local recreation groups and
seniors in the design of the facility; and (4) direct
staff to undertake discussions with the County to
determine whether funding a center is feasible for the
full three year entitlement (Period 17) which will allow
the City to undertake construction in 1992.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
9. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR )
The Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Closed Session at
5:00 p.m. and Regular Meeting at the Walnut Valley Unified School
District Board Room located at 880 S. Lemon Ave., Diamond Bar,
California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 3, 1991.
Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda.
I, LYNDA BURGESS, declare as follows:
I am the City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy
of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City
Council, to be held on September 3, 1991 was posted at their
proper locations.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on August 30, 1991 at Diamond Bar, California.
/s/ Lynda Burgess
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. 7
DATE: I net a /
TO: City C erk
FROM: t„a-Hit
ADDRESS: �' % � `� #1 6 L41yt>
ORGANIZATION:
SUBJECT:
I expect to add
Council Minutes reflect my name and as written above.
Signature
NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.
DATE:
TO: City Clerk 1
FROM:
i 7 --� --�. Z
ADDRESS: 41 t*; N c ,,d � ✓ c 425-,
ORGANIZATION: f Wye✓ ..�7Z'rSS
SUBJECT: 1.1 idt,jC,,j
I expect to address the Council on the subjec
Council Minutes reflect my name apd adde s`u
C) S`
S
L'�,/
ida item. Please have the
tten above.
Signature
i -
NOTE: All persons may attend `meetings and address the City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
spelling of
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.
DATE:
TO: City Clerk
FROM: �-- c_c TT J C�`F1�
ADDRESS: Z_44
ORGANIZATION:
SUBJECT: G-
I
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above.
S icinat
NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.
DATE: C r
TO: City Clerk
FROM:
ADDRESS •
ORGANIZATION:
SUBJECT:L
I expect to address the Council on,th subject agenda item. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name and ress a -s--7 tten above.
O�
NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.
DATE: &% -3,- q I
TO: City Clerk
FROM:
ADDRESS: I1 �/�SC� �i�lAi�A t �f}r� bi w./'T-
ORGANIZATION:
TORGANIZATION: 0 ��tcJ 64.t C pJ
SUBJECT: 7&�-kj .a
I expect to address the Council on the subject agend 'tem. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name and address as it en 'above.
S gnature
NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.
DATE: � - 3--'/ l
TO: Cit
y Clerk
FROM: 4!fZA4cI4
ADDRESS: 's 99- e L&I-) e1y CT6-54woeA, Gq
ORGANIZATION:
SUBJECT: vU/ �n/ �/ 1--� Awoc "-
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name address as written above.
Signature
NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
a
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO-
DATE:
O_
DATE: El -21 k
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
SUBJECT:
City Clerk
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above.
Signature
NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.
DATE:
TO: City Clerk
FROM:K(�L/
ADDRESS: _ _ , ?,:5 I b� e btl-e-
ORGANIZATION:
SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subjectage a item. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name and addr s s ten above.
Signature
NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.
DATE: ?- 3 ^ 5
TO: City Clerk
FROM: O Gi c--7
T'
ADDRESS: ff 3
ORGANIZATION: d / ey C "7 ?-tom- S<r 7— -74,y �G
SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above.
, ^ r /7 A
S ignftu
NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the.City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.j1,11
DATE:
TO: City Clerk 9 l
FROM: / 1z
v
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION: J //�i170rvG�►�J�/t c -s' >%! .r'r� l ~ �(//��f7
SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name and advos�;"
s writ n above.
Signature
NOTE: All persons may attend meet{i}'Is and address the City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayr in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.
DATE: (� / ) 4 7
TO: City Clerk
FROM: r --1A �( v -5-14 /Y7 ate
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name and ad as wri ten�bove.
Signature
NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
Gr
ri 1)��M
MII�TUTES Vr' T�i� c=zr cvvrrcxs.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AUGUST 20, 1991
----------------------------------------------------------• -- - -- -
4:00 P.M. - AQMD CONSTRUCTION SITE TOUR
5:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION - Litigation (Government Code Se-_ci')n
54956.9) and Personnel (Government Code Se--ti)n
54957.6).
----------------------------------------------------------- --- -----
1. CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
Q000016T010�� 00WOTONK40W_F
M/Forbing called the mee- :in g :.o
order at 6:07 p.m. in the Ccanc;1
Chambers, W.V.U.S.D. 880 cl. Lemon
Avenue, Diamond Bar, Califo::-ni a.
The audience was led in the Fledge
of Allegiance by MPT/Kim.
Mayor Forbing, Mayor Pro Tem Kim,
Councilmen Papen and Werner.
Councilman Nardella was excused.
Also present were Robert L. Van
Nort, City Manager; Terrence L.
Belanger, Assistant City Manager;
William P. Curley III, Deputy City
Attorney; James DeStefano, Director
of Community Development; Sid
Mousavi, Public Works Director/City
Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City
Clerk.
None offered.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs
Dr., stated that since both C/Papen and C/Nardella are
currently seeking re-election, they should not be permitted to
be present in the City booth at the Ranch Festival nor should
they be permitted to ride in the parade. He understood that
the Ranch Festival Committee had informed other candidates
that they could not ride in the parade because Festival
by-laws state that the event is not to be used for politics.
Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., complained that motorists
constantly drop litter under the freeway overpass on
Prospectors from Golden Springs and requested that CalTrans be
notified to regularly clean up the area.
CM/Van Nort directed Parks & Maintenance Director Charles
Janiel to speak with Mr. Calkins on this matter.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR: CM/Van Nort announced that the
Traffic & Transportation Commission would conduct a special
meeting on August 28, 1991 at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall.
C/Werner moved, MPT/Kim seconded to approve the Consent
Calendar. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AUGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 2
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Papen, MPT/Kim, M/Forbing
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - Nardella
4.1 SCHEDULE
OF FUTURE MEETINGS:
4.1.1
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - August 22,
1991 - 7:00 p.m., Community Room, 1061 S.
Grand Ave.
4.1.2
PLANNING COMMISSION - August 26, 1991 - 7:00
p.m. - W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880 S. Lemon
Ave.
4.1.3
FINAL CONCERT IN THE PARK FOR 1991 - August
28, 1991 - "Mississippi Mudders" - 6:30 p.m.
to 8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park
4.1.4
LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - CITY HALL OFFICES CLOSED -
Monday, September 2, 1991
4.1.5
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 3, 1991 -
6:00 p.m., W.V.U.S.D. Board Room, 880 S. Lemon
Ave.
4.1.6
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - Special
Meeting August 28, 1991 - 6:30 p.m. - City
Hall, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Suite 100 and
September 12, 1991 - 6:30 p.m. - Community
Room, 1061 S. Grand Ave.
4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting
of August 6, 1991.
4.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated August
20, 1991 in the amount of $82,593.14.
4.4 APPROVED TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of June, 1991.
4.5 REGULATIONS & NEW FORMATS FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORTS
- Approved regulations & new formats for City Council
Agenda Reports.
5. PRESENTATIONS:
5.1 STATUS REPORT REGARDING BANNER SIGNS - Parks &
Maintenance Director Janiel reported that the Council
expressed a desire to promote the 1991 Ranch Festival and
authorized staff to assist them in the purchase of
pole -mounted vertical banners. The Festival would then
reimburse the City through its proceeds. Staff met with
the Ranch Festival Committee to discuss the City's offer;
however, the Committee declined the offer due to a lack
of time before the Festival opens to give the matter
serious consideration. The Committee requested that
pole -mounted vertical banners not be installed for this
year's Festival. He further stated that staff will
proceed with purchase of the hardware for the upcoming
holiday season.
AUGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 3
CM/Van Nort stated that Mr. Imhoff of Southern California
Edison had indicated a willingness to work with the City
on installation and placement of poles for spanner
banners.
ACM/Belanger stated that Mr. Imhoff had also committed to
looking at using cabling connected to power poles.
C/Papen stated that, for the record, she was opposed to
spending $10,000 in this manner and did not support it.
5.2 CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION - M/Forbing presented the
following members of the D.B. High School Girls Dance
Team with Certificates of Recognition for winning the
World Championship Dance competition: Denise McElrea,
Michelle Buckwalter, Sunshine Delgadillo, Heather
Forshay, Melissa Garcia, Amy Hestlow, Sundee Camdar,
Becky Lin, Lisa McCabe, Melissa Ortiz, Nicole Scott,
Noell Scott, Colleen Scott, Tracy Sinclair, Carrie Patton
and Doreen Pina.
6. OLD BUSINESS:
6.1 SECOND READING ORDINANCE NO. 4 (1991) - AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
THAT DOCUMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-2
(1991) CONCERNING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT AND
IDENTIFIED AS 22000 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA" AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SAME
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - CDD/DeStefano
stated that Ordinance No. 4 (1991) was presented on
August 6, 1991 for approval of a Development Agreement
for construction of an automated car wash, detail
facility and restaurant located at 22000 Golden Springs
Dr. The Ordinance was amended to reflect Council
comments and amendments to conditions and sections in the
Agreement. He further indicated that correspondence from
the applicant had recently been received outlining
concerns expressed by the landowner.
Gary Clapp, the applicant, stated that the concerns
expressed by the landowner, Mr. Arciero, had been
resolved.
On motion by C/Werner, seconded by MPT/Kim, Ordinance No.
4 (1991) was approved for Second Reading by title only.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Papen, Werner, MPT/Kim, M/Forbing
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - Nardella
6.2 POLITICAL SIGN ENFORCEMENT POLICY - CDD/DeStefano stated
that on July 23, Council reviewed a rough draft of a
political sign ordinance to address a variety of problems
AUGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 4
that had surfaced in previous elections. Staff was
directed to refer the draft ordinance to the Planning
Commission for review and report. A Planning Commission
Public Hearing was scheduled for August 26, 1991. Staff
was further directed to prepare an enforcement policy to
guide candidates as well as code enforcement staff for
this year's election. The draft enforcement policy,
which outlines the existing L.A. County Sign Code and the
sign code approved for First Reading at the August 6
meeting, was open for Council consideration. A briefing
statement for candidates had also been prepared to
explain the background of the policy and the general
restrictions contained within the existing ordinance as
well as the ordinance that would become effective
September 20.
The following spoke in opposition to the enforcement
policy:
Jim Paul, 1269 Ahtena Dr.
Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr.
Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr.
Darrell Holder, 23419 E. Kidd, stated that he was a
member of the Committee supporting Proposition E and that
their signs had been taken down by the City due to one
complaint.
Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., stated that on August 6,
he pulled down the last sign supporting Prop E and
believed that having it up that long is uncalled for.
Clair Harmony asked how much it would cost to enforce the
policy and what the penalties are.
Tom Ortiz, 3333 Hawkwood, presented a written request
asking that the matter be continued until after the
November 5, 1991 election.
Following discussion, C/Papen moved, M/Forbing seconded
to approve the political sign enforcement policy. Motion
carried unanimously (C/Nardella absent).
RECESS: M/Forbing recessed the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Forbing reconvened the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
6.3 RESOLUTION NO. 91-59: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS AND
STANDARDS RELATING TO THE SEPARATE COLLECTION OF
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS FROM RESIDENCES, COMMERCIAL
PREMISESt AND INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
- Admin. Analyst Troy Butzlaff stated that a revised
document establishing requirements and standards for
separate collection of recyclables had been prepared and
AUGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 5
that the document incorporated policy issues discussed at
the meeting of July 23. Pursuant to Council direction,
policy issues included mandatory separation of recyclable
materials from refuse or other forms of solid waste,
co -mingling collection of materials and contracting for
collection.
The following spoke in opposition to the Resolution:
Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr.
Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr.
Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr.
Dennis Chiappeta, General Manager, Community Disposal,
encouraged Council to prequalify bidders should they
decide to contract for collection services and then award
to the lowest bidder. He suggested that the City not use
an RFQ or RFP format.
Al Simonian, representing Western Waste Industries,
stated that adoption of the resolution would not
interfere with discussions held by the Council and that
they could come back at another time and address whether
or not collection would be based on a permit system or
contract system. He reported on recycled materials
picked up monthly.
Following discussion, M/Forbing suggested adding "or
permits with existing haulers" to Section 1.1.0
"Collection Contract" of Exhibit "A" of the Resolution,
second sentence beginning with "enter into an exclusive
contract," which would leave the matter open for further
discussion.
AA/Butzlaff stated that several haulers were concerned
regarding the minimum 3 cubic yard standard for recycling
bins and recommended that it be eliminated and wording
added to reflect "a minimum of 3 cubic yards" in Section
1.5.4.
C/Papen moved, C/Werner seconded to adopt Resolution No.
91-59 as amended. Motion carried unanimously (C/Nardella
absent).
7. NEW BUSINESS:
7.1 ORDINANCE NO. 6 (1991) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING THE ENTIRETY
OF TITLE 27 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE
ADOPTED AND ADDING A NEW TITLE 27 ADOPTING, BY REFERENCE,
THE "NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE," 1990 EDITION, WITH
CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND EXCEPTIONS,
INCLUDING FEES AND PENALTIES - DCA/Curley stated that
this matter was to bring the City into compliance with
the new Code adopted by the State.
AUGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 6
MPT/Kim moved, C/Papen seconded to approve First Reading
by title only, waive further reading of Ordinance No. 6
(1991) and schedule a Public Hearing and Second Reading
for September 17, 1991. Motion carried unanimously
(C/Nardella absent).
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the
matters can be heard.
8.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE
NO. 5 (1991) AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. SA (1991)
- Following discussion, C/Papen moved, M/Forbing
seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance 5
(1991) entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.66 TO
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 AND REPEALING BOTH ORDINANCE
9-1990, AS AMENDED, AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO
THE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Papen, MPT/Kim, M/Forbing
NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - Nardella
Al Rumpilla stated that he felt that Item D on Page 31,
"Animals, or human beings, live or simulated, designed or
used so as to attract attention to the premises" should
be deleted. Further, he felt that item N should also be
deleted since it may hurt small business. He expressed
opposition to the entire ordinance.
M/Forbing appointed C/Papen and C/Nardella to a sub-
committee for review of freestanding signs and MPT/Kim
and C/Werner to review political/ temporary signs for
inclusion in the ordinance as an Exhibit.
Following discussion, C/Papen moved, M/Forbing seconded
to continue First Reading 'of Ordinance 5A (1991) to
October 1, 1991 and set for Public Hearing. Motion
carried by a vote to 3 to 1 (C/Werner voting No and
C/Nardella absent).
C/Werner stated that he voted No on Ordinance 5 because
he disagreed with the provisions dealing with campaign
and/or temporary signs and his vote was not a reflection
of any dissatisfaction with the efforts of the Chamber.
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Werner directed staff to contact
CalTrans to discuss the litter problems on the 60 freeway and
under the overpass on Prospectors as requested by Mr. Calkins.
C/Papen announced a Public Hearing to be held by CalTrans
regarding expansion of the 60 freeway by adding two lanes from
the L.A. County border east of Diamond Bar in San Bernardino
AUGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 7
County. She requested that staff review the proposal and see
if CalTrans had done anything to interface and mitigate the
resultant traffic congestion.
11. ADJOURNMENT: with no further business to conduct,
M/Forbing adjourned the meeting at 9:11 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: Mayor Pro Tem Rim and Councilmember Papen
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson; Senior'Accountant
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, September 3, 1991
DATE: August 29, 1991
Attached is the Voucher Register dated September 3, 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
001
General
Fund
138
LLAD #38
Fund
139
LLAD #39
Fund
141
LLAD #41
Fund
225
Grand Ave
Const Fund
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
APPROVED BY:
Linda G. Ma4nson
Senior Accou ant
111-�bert L. Van Nort
ity Manager
dated September 3, 1991 have been
for payment. Payments are hereby
in these amounts:
AMOUNT
$493,443.58
5,982.45
7,785.00
57.41
621.96
$507.890.40
/��rcJG�La Com- 1
Phyllis E. Pape
Councilmember
Jay C. Kim
Mayor Pro Tem
err
�E E '.R
-- - - - - - - - -
HR
A A
0
7 L 7
n. c 'T, - - - - - - - - -
2 E ENI i", UOR --------
8 7.8
-,hoo 9 4
-EIR ---------
A
L�A
P-_P'7D AMAJiJT ----. -
L 'b- -Nor-,R - - - - - - - -
, t ; " u
�t C�
I
- --- --- ---
RI
z., D
1 v
ay. i or e . . . . . .
7
7
_0
1 7 - - - - - - - - -
77
R
.'8 2,
321 S
DUF - - - - - - - - - -
7,
33
itENHUR - - - - - - - - -
of A
to
13
in�Ra
21
AM
hhMb
ne!�A
--------
7:,-- ....E i'`-N33hP- -------.
�...:�.
----_ __
'c0903il
1021
11@3
DH VBHR
.:tz. All
-.._.-
ai 7p_
HL 32
TE77 L DUE VCN-i,; .R --------
j
1 .238.32
-.p
.-.
- 3 "q=-
tJly°a-u__'n-�f"�
c,L:OTC—
4
I Z.
— —
_
-
- -� .--
`; r:
c9
..,
_
-- -."•C-,', ,.,.�:?:} i" Vii.
__ ,�[9
7:— • 1,
u• a _u .�'. _ fir.__ _
.. C., _ __ _. .:;
29.591 .78
LLLL ,
i
___. R
—.
.3s
. :�L.72.3.
i
u,
? y
7A
O
77: IL E VENDOR
,• e
7 r7
�, - .iiia v_4D R _____—_
- -- �-�
- -� -- - •- -
- �_
.-
- -
---� -L _. ._.r, -may
-
l:y--------.
ter_ ___ r'•.
- _.-.__
". .r v�:.
1.. ._
_�_ _
_�4:-tea =i�� E J yy�J'
�Lv
�'L.e: r�
___ -�'J.
_ _. r_
_ L
'. ..
_ _.�_
_ Jai-:. d'J1 •Jar��i ]�l
i.`�. .ti.
7-7
3�
•1 �.�`.
.. ..
•uMIl':�.,.
2.
°-4 tIj
E _gin `3aciaT''i0-Pr3
58
. ..- _' -ria.-
_ �. _♦
.'r ��
`!{� .�v
.«J-L'�� .',..E panell
31.43
--_� -. rE :'�r�
,
3 E
d. ==.s3
2 S
7 7
-Ali. 1,38
.2�
DU E N D 2R - - - - - - - - --
ar,.,ce are -i4 ums
333. '51
-0
L L H U - - - - - - - - -
2
ao,
----------
7
8 34
7 p --------
777.-t ------------
7— ---------------
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
JULY 25, 1991
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL%
CONSENT CALENDAR:
NEW BUSINESS:
Vice Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order
at 7:06 p.m. at the Community Room, 1061 Grand
Avenue, Diamond Bar, California.
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
Commissioner Meyer.
Commissioners Plunk, Meyer and Vice Chairman
Ruzicka. Chairman Whelan arrived at 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Stitt was absent (excused).
Also present were Administrative Analyst Kellee
Fritzal, Recreation Superintendent Bob Rose, and
Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Consent Calendar
and the Minutes of June 27, 1991 and July 11, 1991.
O'Campo AA/Fritzal presented the request for the City to
contribute to the construction of a block wall
between the future Pantera Park site and Mr.
O'Campo's property located at 752 Bowcreek Drive.
Pantera Park is presently enclosed with a chain-
link fence. The issue to be considered is if park
use is conflicting with private property. However,
because Pantera is a future park site, there is
presently no park use, and access to the park has
been blocked until development. Staff recommended
that the Commission consider the following 3
options: allocate funds to share the cost of
constructing a block wall between the properties;
budget the funds for the construction of a block
wall between the properties, for next year's
budget; or deny the request.
Mr. O'Campo, residing at 752 Bowcreek Drive, stated
that due to an opening in the present chain link
fence, he has had the following problems: bikers
cutting across his front lawn; broken sprinklers;
hikers and pedestrians walking on the side of his
house and interfering with his privacy; and ATV's
riding down the existing storm drain. He stated
that he has also been concerned with the safety of
his child. He requested the City to share in the
cost of a block wall.
C/Plunk noted that other parks have not been
partitioned off by block walls between properties.
A chain-link fence was installed at Maple Hill
park, which had similar complaints. She suggested,
as a compromise, that the City contribute the cost
of a chain link fence.
July 25, 1991 Page 2
C/Meyer explained that the City must have
justification, of the public good, in order to
expend public money.
Mr. O'Campo indicated that since the City is his
neighbor, the park should be partitioned and the
cost shared by the City.
VC/Ruzicka stated that because Maple Hill park was
already developed, there was good cause for the
City to pay for the fencing in order to protect the
existing park equipment.
C/Plunk stated that the Commission needs to view
the property and observe the similarities and
differences between Mr. O'Campo's situation and
that of Maple Hill park.
AA/Fritzal stated that staff will take pictures of
the area and present them to the Commission at the
August 8th meeting.
C/Meyer inquired if the City installed a chain-link
fence at the top of the slope, as opposed to
participating in the block wall, would it address
Mr. O'Campo's problem.
Mr. O'Campo stated that it would partly address the
problem, however, he would still like the two
properties partitioned. He stated that the City's
liability, if someone is injured, may be enough
justification for expending public funds.
C/Meyer stated that the public purpose, for the
expenditure of funds, will be defined by the City
Attorney, and determined by the City Council. The
issue is determining if the City should contribute
to the cost of a block wall.
Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Meyer and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the
August 8, 1991 meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
Park Use Policy AA/Fritzal presented the revised Park Use Policy
and stated that any changes to the policy was
indicated by bold type. She noted that the
Reservation Policy indicates that for 50 or more
persons, the park must be reserved. The park must
be reserved if there is to be alcohol present, and
a special permit must be obtained. Any persons
reserving the park, regardless of the size of the
group, is required to have insurance.
July 25, 1991 Page 3
C/Meyer suggested that discussion of the Park Use
Policy be postponed until there is a full
Commission. The Commission should submit written
questions or concerns to staff. He further
requested that the document include a provision for
variance, a form for conflict resolution, and a
definition section. The policies should be kept
broad and generalized.
C/Plunk suggested that the purpose and goals,
stated in the Commission Handbook, be included into
this document.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the
August 8th meeting.
GTE AA/Fritzal informed the Commission that GTE has
requested removal of the outside phone at Heritage
Park. The trial test indicated that there was an
average of only 4 calls a month. The cost to the
City to keep the pay phone is approximately $55.00
a month.
C/Plunk stated that, because of a safety issue,
there is a need for a pay phone. She indicated that
she has observed more than 4 phone calls a month.
RS/Rose informed the Commission that the Sports
Council would like to discontinue their phone
service, inside the Heritage Building.
C/Meyer directed staff to request more time, from
GTE, for a more adequate testing period, and inform
them that the phone as been observed to be utilized
more often than they have indicated.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Recreation RS/Rose reported that the Recreation Program has
Program been very well utilized by the community.
Status Report
C/Plunk requested that the report include
expenditures as well.
RS/Rose stated that a cost analysis could be done
at the conclusion of the Summer Program, which
would state the goals, and the money obtained and
expended. The report could be made available for
the second meeting in September, 1991.
VC/Ruzicka inquired if he can direct persons who
have suggestions for additional programs to
RS/Rose.
July 25, 1991 Page 4
RS/Rose stated that, if it is possible, new
suggestions will be incorporated into the program,
or included in the proposal for future programs.
Chair/Whelan requested that staff contact GTE
regarding a Labor Day Concert in the Park.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Plunk requested that staff research the
possibility of having a children's gardening area.
She also suggested a semi annual meeting between
the City Council and the Commission for the purpose
of discussing how Commission decisions are viewed
at the Council level.
C/Meyer congratulated staff on a job well done with
the Concerts in the Parks.
VC/Ruzicka directed staff to obtain information
regarding open space inventory, zoning map, land
use map, and the land use elements designating the
open space and the developable land.
AA/Fritzal stated that staff will obtain the
requested information. She explained that as part
of the General Plan, the City has a land use map.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/Ruzicka
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
8:25 p.m.
Respectively,
/S/ KELLEE FRITZAL
Kellee Fritzal
Secretary
Attest:
/S/ PAT WHELAN
Pat Whelan
Chairman
CITY OF DIAtKUND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 1991
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
OLD BUSINESS:
Chairman Whelan called the meeting to order at 7:05
p.m. at City Hall, 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite
300, Diamond Bar, California.
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
Commissioner Meyer.
Commissioners Plunk, Meyer, Vice Chairman Ruzicka,
and Chairman Whelan. Commissioner Stitt arrived
late.
Also present were Administrative Analyst Kellee
Fritzal, and Recreation Superintendent Bob Rose.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/Ruzicka
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept the Consent
Calendar.
Motion was made C/Meyer, seconded by VC/Ruzicka and
CARRIED to approve the Minutes of July 25, 1991.
Chair/Whelan abstained.
O'Campo AA/Fritzal reported that the request for the City
to contribute to the construction of a block wall
between the future Pantera Park site and Mr.
O'Campo's property, located at 752 Bowcreek Drive,
as continued from the meeting of July 25, 1991.
The Sheriff's Department has indicated that they
have not received any complaints concerning the
undeveloped lot, nor have they observed any illegal
or unwarranted use of the park. Staff recommended
that the Commission consider the following three
(3) options: (1) allocate funds to share the cost
of constructing a block wall between the proper-
ties; (2) budget the funds for the construction of
a block wall between the properties, for next
year's budget; or, (3) deny the request.
Mr. O'Campo, residing at 752 Bowcreek Drive,
indicated that the County should have made some
provision to have a partition between his property
and the park, as was done in other park sites.
Chair/Whelan inquired why the owner had not
installed gates to block access between the front
and back of his property.
Mr. O'Campo stated that they have been waiting
until the whole property can be properly enclosed
before installing gates. He has been waiting to
find out the City's position regarding their
responsibility to share in the costs of protecting
public property.
August 8, 1991 Page 3
Chair/Whelan requested that the wording in item 3A
indicate that the Tennis Courts, located in City
Parks, are on a first come first serve basis and
cannot be reserved except for City sponsored
activities.
Chair/Whelan requested, on page 9, that User Groups
be part of the definition.
C/Plunk stated that the Definition section should
clarify "one time users", as indicated on page 12B.
She suggested that the section be reviewed by
staff.
VC/Ruzicka noted that item 1B, page 12, should
refer to all users.
The Commission requested that staff review the
language regarding Insurance.
VC/Ruzicka, referring to page 16, stated that one
offense is a warning, but the second offense should
disallow the use.
Chair/Whelan, referring to the staff monitoring of
the public address systems, inquired how it would
be enforced.
AA/Fritzal explained that it would be handled
through code enforcement, if there is a complaint.
She indicated that item E can be eliminated. A
statement will be included indicating that there is
a charge "if staff is required".
Chair/Whelan, referring to page 17 3A and page 15,
noted the contradicting language regarding the
permitted use of motorized vehicles on athletic
facilities.
C/Meyer suggested that the language be changed to
indicate "designated and approved".
VC/Ruzicka, noting that motorized vehicles are not
permitted on fields during games, stated that it is
very difficult to drag fields by hand.
C/Plunk suggested that the section be reviewed in a
year. The Commission concurred. Page 15 C2
through page 17 needs further review.
Chair/Whelan requested that user groups notify the
City regarding maintenance of fields, and staff
will designate the responsibility to a staff
member, to avoid duplication.
August 8, 1991 Page 2
C/Plunk mentioned that at the August 23, 1990
meeting, Charles Broski requested fencing at his
property adjacent to Maple Hill Park.
C/Meyer stated that though he sympathizes with Mr.
O'Campo's situation, there is no justification that
contributing to the construction of a block wall
would serve any public purpose. He would be
willing to recommend the installation of wire
(chain link) fencing on top of Mr. O'Campo's slope
to discourage access to that area.
C/Stitt, noting that it has been indicated that
ATV's are being ridden in the City's open space
area, suggested that the matter be referred to the
City Attorney. He stated that he would favor some
fencing as mentioned by C/Meyer.
Motion was made by C/Meyer seconded by VC/Ruzicka
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend denial of Mr.
O'Campo's request that the City share in the cost
of a block wall. He further recommended that the
City Engineer attempt to install temporary fencing,
when the funds are available, from the back of the
sidewalk, to the top of the slope for 50 feet, and
turn the corner for another 20 to 45 feet.
Chair/Whelan requested the posting of "No
Trespassing" signs along the property.
Park Use Policy AA/Fritzal addressed the Commission regarding the
Draft Park Use Policy. Staff requested that the
Commission review the document and comment
accordingly.
C/Meyer, regarding the last paragraph in the
Statement of Policy, indicated that there needs to
be a provision for variances.
The Commission requested that the eighth paragraph
on page four (4) be further expanded and be placed
as a separate subheading, labeled Variances and
Grievances.
Staff will include a Definition section on page 5.
C/Plunk requested that a reference be made, in the
Definition section, indicating that campfires,
liquid fuel or charcoal fires are prohibited,
except in City designated areas.
August 8, 1991
Page 4
Chair/Whelan requested reserved signs be placed at
designated park areas, as opposed to placing one
sign, "Reserved", at the entrance of the park.
This avoids confusion that the entire park is being
reserved.
COMMISSION C/Stitt informed the Commission that he addressed
COMMENTS: the Council and stated his reservation regarding
the installation of brackets on vertical poles.
C/Plunk requested that staff review the minutes and
be prepared to inform the Commission of the status
of several of the requests made by the Commission.
C/Plunk stated the following concerns: 1) there are
no doors on some of the stalls of the women's
bathroom at Sycamore Park; 2) behind the back stop,
at Heritage Park, there is a sharp structure that
should be looked into; and, 3) the fields at
Heritage Park and Summit Ridge Park need upkeep.
Chair/Whelan noted that Ronald Reagan Park does not
have directional signs.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Stitt
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
8:20 p.m.
Respectively,
/S/ KELLEE FRITZAL
Kellee Fritzal
Secretary
Attest:
/s/ PAT WHELAN
Pat Whelan
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
MAY 9, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Gravdahl called the meeting to order
at 6:05 p.m. at the Diamond Bar Library, 1061 South
Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Gravdahl.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Beke, Fritz, and Vice Chairman
Gravdahl. Commissioner Chavers and Chairman Ortiz
were absent.
Also present were City Engineer Sid Mousavi,
Engineering Administrator Deborah Murray,
Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Deputy
Richard Clark, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
APPROVAL OF THE Commissioner Beke requested the Minutes of April
MINUTES: 11, 1991 be amended on page 2, fourth paragraph to
read "Al Rumpilla", and "Ms. Rouse", page 2, sixth
paragraph, to read "double left hand turn", page 3,
ninth paragraph to read as "basis", and page 4,
eighth paragraph to read as "Mike Muravez".
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl
to approve the Minutes of April 11, 1991, as
amended. The motion did not carry.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke and Gravdahl.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz.
COMMISSION C/Fritz is welcomed into the Commission.
COMMENTS:
C/Beke requested an update on the project to put
sidewalks in at Brea Canyon Road under the 60
freeway.
City Engineer Sid Mousavi stated that designs are
completed. The project will be underway when
CalTrans issues encroachment.
DISCUSSION: Kathy Higley, project manager for the development
of the circulation element, representative of DKS,
Presentation reported that DKS prepared a milestone technical
by DKS. memorandum document of the existing conditions
within the City of Diamond Bar. She discussed the
elements encompassed in the analysis, and
illustrated the traffic volumes within the City by
use of two graphic maps. The direction of DKS is
to examine ways to contain or control the regional
movement, and to develop policy and programs that
return the streets for use of the residents.
The Commission discussed various elements indicated
by the graphic maps.
May 9, 1991 page z
Kathy Higley stated that DKS has begun coordinating
with the consultant preparing the Route 57 Corridor
Study to ensure that their recommended actions and
programs are incorporated into Diamond Bar's
General Plan.
VC/Gravdahl inquired if the HOV lane on the 57
freeway will come into Diamond Bar.
CE/Mousavi stated that a recent discussion with
CalTrans indicated that there will be an HOV lane
on the 60 freeway from Brea Canyon Road, and
continue easterly through the interchange
connecting to the San Bernardino County line. The
County of San Bernardino may then continue the HOV
lane up to Ontario Airport.
Kathy Higley stated that their next milestone is to
address local streets and local street issues, as
well as identifying the protection plans.
In response to VC/Gravdahl's inquiry, Ms. Higley
stated that there will be three levels of
alternative forms in the circulation element:
immediate cost effective improvements, physical
improvements, and long range policy directions.
VC/Gravdahl inquired if the circulation element
indicates possible alternate streets in the Tres
Hermanos section of Diamond Bar.
Kathy Higley responded that there has been
discussion by the General Plan Advisory Committee
of the likely land use of the Tres Hermanos area.
The next step will be discussion on what kind of
circulation system would be required to support
that use.
The Commission discussed some traffic concerns
regarding the Sunset Crossing issue, as well as the
opening of Grand Avenue to Valley Road.
Kathy Higley stated that DKS has defined traffic
analysis zones within the City. She explained that
the land use inventory is being developed based on
this zoning system. The zoning system is
compatible and aggregate with SCAG requirements.
Bicycle Lane: Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra addressed the
Diamond Bar Blvd. Commission regarding the request from Walnut Valley
and Golden Brethren In Christ Church to investigate the misuse
Springs Road of the bicycle lane, by motorists, on Diamond Bar
Boulevard. Staff recommended that the width of the
May 9, 1991 Page 3
existing bicycle lane be reduced to 5 feet from the
edge of the curb, and be clearly marked "BIKE LANE"
at Palomino, midway and Golden Springs Drive.
Deputy Clark, questioning the validity of the
accident report, inquired if there was any
indication in the reports that specify the location
of the accidents from the intersection.
CE/Mousavi explained that the reports do not
specify how many accidents are related to the bike
lane itself.
C/Beke stated he would not support the reduction of
the bike to five feet unless 3 southbound lanes are
created. He submitted his proposal, for staff's
consideration, on a way to achieve this.
Motion was made by C/Fritz, seconded by VC/Gravdahl
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to
the next meeting pending staff's investigation on
the feasibility of the proposal submitted by
C/Beke.
Stop Control: AA/Aberra addressed the Commission regarding the
Hawkwood Road request to install a stop sign on Hawkwood Road at
and Running Running Branch. Staff recommended that a 3 -way
Branch stop control at the intersection of Running Branch
and Hawkwood is warranted because it is a blind
intersection.
C/Beke stated that the present stop control was to
take care of the visibility problem. He
recommended improving the visibility of the
existing stop sign by trimming the Eucalyptus tree,
and putting in a limit line, and stop pavement
marking at Hawkwood.
Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Beke
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to follow
the recommendations made by C/Beke and then observe
the area for the next few months to see if the
situation has been cleared.
LATE BUSINESS: VC/Gravdahl inquired if the Ballena/Palomino
intersection can be observed again.
CE/Mousavi stated that it is recommended to observe
the area six months after the first study.
VC/Gravdahl pointed out that the area should be
studied during it's peak chaotic hours of 6:00 a.m.
and evening time. He directed staff to observe the
area once again.
6
May 9, 1991 Page 4
INFORMATIONAL CE/Mousavi informed the Commission that, upon
ITEMS: request, specific collision reports can be obtained
through the Sheriff's Department and incorporated
Types of into the next agenda package.
Collision
Reports C/Beke stated he is specifically looking for
locations that have a high concentration of
accidents.
CE/Mousavi requested the Sheriff Department to run
the accident report for a specific segment of a
street, or intersection to allow the Commission to
compare the different programs available. Deputy
Clark consented.
LACCMA: "Up to This item is presented to the Commission for their
Speed" information.
Letters of This item is presented to the Commission for their
Response information.
STAFF COMMENT: CE/Mousavi inquired if the Commission would prefer
to meet Friday afternoon at 2:00 p.m., as was
requested by Chair/Ortiz.
VC/Gravdahl stated that the Commission needs
accessibility to allow the public the opportunity
to attend meetings. He does not feel that
afternoons would allow this.
C/Beke indicated that he would prefer the meetings
be held later in the evening.
Upon the Commission's consensus, VC/Gravdahl
directed staff to place the item on the next agenda
to indicate changing the meeting to Thursday 6:30
p.m
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. to the next
regular meeting of June 13, 1991.
Respectively,
Sid Mousavi
Secretary/
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Attest:
Mr. Gravdahl \
Vice Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ortiz called the meeting to order at 6:00
p.m. at the Diamond Bar Library, 1061 South Grand
Avenue, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance
ALLEGIANCE: by Chairman Ortiz.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Beke, Commissioner Chavers, Vice
Chairman Gravdahl, and Chairman Ortiz.
Commissioner Fritz was absent.
Also present were City Engineer Sid Mousavi,
Engineering Administrator Deborah Murray,
Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Sergeant
Rawlings, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
APPROVAL OF C/Chavers requested the Minutes of May 9, 1991 be
MINUTES: tabled to the next meeting.
April 11, 1991 Motion was made by C/Chavers, seconded by
VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
May 9, 1991 Minutes of April 11, 1991.
Commission VC/Gravdahl suggested sending out notices to
Comments: candidates of the November election outlining
areas prohibiting campaign signs.
Chair/Ortiz noted that recently there was an
injury accident at Silver Hawk and Diamond Bar
Blvd. The area will continue to be monitored in
conjunction to Kiowa Crest and Diamond Bar Blvd.
He also indicated that there is a need to set a
policy prioritizing stop control requests.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Randy Clue, 21541 Birch Hill Drive, requested that
the Commission consider installing a permit system
that will allow residents of his community to park
in front of their homes, which currently prohibits
parking during school hours. He also requested
that street sweeping signs be posted to assure
adequate cleaning.
C/Beke suggested that the street sweepers be
requested to come before school hours.
C/Chavers directed staff to review the types of
area parking programs that are available. The
item is to be placedon the next agenda for
discussion.
CE/Mousavi informed the Commission that
implementation of a parking program would require
a public hearing.
June 13, 1991
Page 2
NEW BUSINESS:
Request for
CE/Mousavi addressed the Commission regarding the
Traffic Signal:
request by Mr. Clair Harmony, Vice Chairman of the
Golden Springs
Planning Commission, to install a traffic signal
at Carpio Drive
at the intersection of Golden Springs Drive and
Carpio Drive, as well as a stop sign on Silver
Spray at Carpio Drive. DKS and Associates, the
City's Traffic Engineering Consultants,
recommended the installation of a traffic signal
at the intersection of Golden Springs Drive and
Carpio Drive, and a stop sign on Silver Spray at
Carpio Drive. It is also emphasized that the stop
line should be placed where sufficient visibility
to the right could be achieved for a safe
crossing. Staff recommended that the Commission
concur with DKS and Associate's recommendation.
C/Chavers questioned the process which determines
the sequence in which traffic control requests are
presented to the Traffic and Transportation
Commission. He would prefer not to pursue the
request for this particular traffic control until
there has been further discussion on the analysis
of this process.
VC/Gravdahl concurred that there needs to be a
procedure determining how requests are
prioritized.
C/Chavers recommended the formation of a sub-
committee, consisting of 2 members from the
Commission, to work with the City Engineer, to
develop a policy, as well as develop a dialogue
between the Traffic and Transportation Commission
and the Planning Commission.
Clair Harmony, Vice Chairman of the Planning
Commission, concurred with the need to develop a
dialogue between the two Commissions. He
suggested that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission should give their input on projects
coming before the Planning Commission. In regards
to the traffic control request, he emphasized the
traffic problems in the area.
C/Beke cautioned that warranted traffic controls
must be installed immediately to safeguard the
City from incurring liability.
Motion was made by C/Chavers, seconded by
VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to concur that
a signal at Golden Springs Drive and Carpio Drive
is a warranted signal; a stop sign at Silver Spray
and Carpio Drive be installed; the hidden stop
June 13, 1991
Page 3
sign at Carpio Drive and Armedos be moved, and
shrubs cleared to assure adequate visibility; to
recommend that no design or construction effort
begin on the signal until the establishment of a
priority structure; and that the Commission
designate a sub -committee to work with staff in
developing a policy and a procedure for studying
signal requests, and fitting them into a priority
structure.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Chavers, Gravdahl,
and Chair/Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
C/Chavers and VC/Gravdahl volunteered to serve on
the sub -committee.
Change of The Commission discussed possible dates and times
Commission Meeting to hold the Commission meetings.
Time
Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Beke
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to hold the meeting the
second Thursday of each month at 6:30 p.m. at the
Diamond Bar Library.
CE/Mousavi requested permission to schedule a
meeting at 6:00 p.m. if there is an item that
staff recognizes will require more time. The
Commission concurred.
Parking Spaces: AA/Aberra addressed the Commission regarding the
DBHS request from a resident to remove 2 -hour parking
limit signs and provide additional parking spaces
on Brea Canyon Road to students attending Diamond
Bar High School (DBHS). Staff recommended that
the Commission deny the request to provide
additional parking spaces for DBHS.
Suzanne Rhino, residing at 1148 Seneca Place,
emphasized the importance of providing more
parking spaces for students of DBHS. She inquired
why there is restrictive parking on Brea Canyon
Road.
Sgt. Rawlings suggested that car pooling would be
a more appropriate way to address the parking
problem. He explained that parking on Brea Canyon
is restricted because there is a potential for
traffic accidents in the area.
C/Chavers suggested a study session, with a
representative of the School District, to discuss
the situation.
June 13, 1991 Page 4
VC/Gravdahl directed staff to draft a letter to
the School District inviting them to attend a
joint workshop regarding the parking situation,
and to schedule it for the next Commission
meeting.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's
recommendation to deny the parking request at this
time, and suggest that contact be made with the
School Board communicating the concerns of the
Traffic and Transportation Commission, and request
that their representative attend the next meeting.
Mrs. Rhino is to be notified of the School
District's response.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Chavers, Gravdahl,
and Chair/Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Request for Stop CE/Mousavi addressed the Commission regarding
Control: Racquet several requests from the community within Racquet
Club at Golden Club Drive for a stop control on Racquet Club
Springs Road Drive and Golden Springs Road. He indicated that
a traffic signal can only be considered for
private development when the property owner of
that development contributes towards the cost of
the signal. Based on information indicated in the
report, it is recommended that the Commission deny
the request for a stop control.
Ruth Schleikert, residing at 22889 Hilton Head
Drive, unit 271, emphasized that the traffic is so
heavy on Golden Springs that residents are unable
to turn left. She indicated she is willing to
suggest a discussion, with the Homeowners
Association, for paying the cost of a stop
control.
Alice Leona Mills, Vice President of the
Homeowners Association, stated that she has
witnessed many near misses. She emphasized the
danger of the traffic situation.
C/Beke requested more accident data, as well as
the peak a.m./p.m. driveway counts.
C/Chavers suggested that staff look into the
possibility of establishing a median, which can be
treated as a refuge. He also requested the
a.m./p.m. driveway count.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Chavers
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the issue to the
next meeting, to include more accident data, and a
June 13, 1991
OLD BUSINESS:
Page 5
hand count of the a.m./p.m. peak hours at the
driveway.
Modification
EA/Murray addressed the Commission regarding a
of Bicycle Lane:
request from Walnut Valley Brethren In Christ
diamond Bar Blvd.
Church to investigate the misuse of the bicycle
& Golden Springs
lane on Diamond Bar Blvd. by motorists. It is
recommended that southbound Diamond Bar Blvd. be
striped in order to accommodate a 5 foot wide bike
lane and additional right turn only lane from
approximately Palomino Drive/Gentle Springs Lane
to Golden Springs Drive in accordance with Exhibit
"A" and a precise design by an engineer approved
by the City Engineer.
C/Chavers noted that the problem is not limited to
Palomino Drive, and suggested extending the plan
as far back as Caltrans will permit.
C/Beke concurred that something may be needed
under the freeway heading north. However, the
third lane is especially needed in the commercial
area indicated. The purpose is to eliminate what
is currently a violation of the bike lane.
C/Chavers stated that currently the plan creates a
massive weaving issue. He is concerned about how
the movement of the third lane is controlled at
the previous intersection.
CE/Mousavi suggested considering forcing the
through traffic into the second lane, prior to
Palomino- Drive, creating a wide island for
shoppers and those turning right.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl
and CARRIED to accept staff's recommendation, with
the concept reviewed to extend the bicycle lane
one block further south, and investigating the
need to channelize traffic beginning with the
freeway ramp and Palomino Drive/Gentle Springs
Lane.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Gravdahl, and
Chair/Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavers.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Traffic Movement: CE/Mousavi addressed the Commission regarding the
Palomino Drive request for additional stop control on Palomino
Drive. It is recommended that the Commission
concur with staff's recommendation to bring back
this matter after DKS completes and analyzes it's
data in July.
June 13, 1991 Page 6
Sgt. Rawlings informed the Commission that there
have been 80 citations given, since April 30,
1991, to motorists going at least 13 m.p.h. over
the speed limit.
Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by
C/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the
matter until the information is made available.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Chavers, Gravdahl,
and Chair/Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ITEMS FROM Chair/Ortiz entertained a motion for the
rHE COMMISSION: nomination of a chairperson.
VC/Gravdahl suggested postponing the nomination to
a date when all the Commissioners will be present.
Upon the agreement of the Commission, the
reorganization of the Commission is scheduled for
the August meeting.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Chavers inquiry,
stated that there will be a final report on the
State Route 57 Transit Study the first week in
July.
INFORMATIONAL CE/Mousavi stated that any Commission comments to
ITEMS: the Circulation Element Study (CES) would be
appreciated.
CE/Mousavi stated that the issues of the Project
Study Report (PSR) will be discussed at the next
meeting.
C/Chavers commented that DKS has done a good job
with the CES in identifying implementable
strategies.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. to the next
regular meeting of July 11, 1991.
Respectively,
Sid Mousavi
Secretary/
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Attest-
0,
Toif Ortiz
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 8, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:00
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: Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner MacBride, Commissioner Lin,
Commissioner Grothe, Vice Chairman Harmony, and
Chairman Schey.
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City Planner
Emeritus Irwin Kaplan, District Attorney Bill
Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES: VC/Harmony requested that the Minutes of June 24,
1991 be amended on page 4, third paragraph, to read
June 24, 1991 "...property without filling in an ecologically
sensitive canyon.", with the remaining sentence
deleted; and page 6, first paragraph, to read
"...the Enforcement Officer should have code
enforcement authority.".
C/Lin requested that the Minutes be corrected on
page 5 to indicate the correct spelling of Dr. Lam.
C/MacBride requested that the Minutes be amended on
page 6, last paragraph, sixth line to read "...Code
which are...".
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of
June 24, 1991, as amended. C/Grothe abstained.
Annual Chair/Schey requested nominations for Chairman.
Reorganization
of the Planning C/MacBride nominated C/Grothe for Chairman.
Commission Chair/Schey seconded the nomination.
C/Lin nominated VC/Harmony for Chairman.
VC/Harmony seconded the nomination.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to close the nominations.
Upon VC/Harmony's request, candidates C/Grothe and
VC/Harmony expressed their goals and objectives for
seeking the appointment.
Chair/Schey called for the vote on the nomination
for C/Grothe as Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride, Schey and
Grothe.
July 8, 1991 Page 2
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Lin.
Chair/Schey called for the vote on the nomination
for VC/Harmony as Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin and Harmony.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride, Schey, and
Grothe.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
C/Grothe was appointed Chairman of the Commission.
Chair/Grothe requested nominations for Vice
Chairman.
VC/Harmony nominated C/Lin for Vice Chairman.
C/Lin declined the nomination.
C/Lin nominated C/MacBride for Vice Chairman.
VC/Harmony seconded the nomination.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to close the nominations
for Vice Chairman.
Chair/Grothe called for the vote on the nomination
for C/MacBride as Vice Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schey, Harmony, Lin, and
Chair/Grothe.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride.
C/MacBride was appointed Vice Chairman of the
Commission.
Honorary Chair/Grothe presented a plaque to C/Schey, on
Plaque behalf of the Commission and staff, honoring him
for holding the position as first Planning
Commission Chairman.
VC/MacBride extended his appreciation to C/Schey
for his dedicated service. He also extended his
appreciation to C/Harmony for his dedication as
Vice Chairman.
NEW BUSINESS: PD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the
direction from the City Council that the Sign
L'igns Ordinance and its proposed changes be returned to
the Planning Commission. The City Council
recommended that the Commission review the attached
staff corrections and proposed amendments as
outlined by the Chamber of Commerce. PD/DeStefano
explained that the matter need not be a noticed
public hearing due to the direction received by the
July 8, 1991
Page 3
City Council. It is recommended that the
Commission open this matter for public testimony
and direct staff accordingly.
VC/MacBride requested an explanation as to why Real
Estate signs are restricted by day and time, as
indicated on pages 26 & 27 of the Sign Ordinance.
DA/Curley explained that the restrictions are not
based on any legal requirement, but rather are
based on similar structures utilized in other
cities.
PD/DeStefano explained that the indicated
restrictions correspond with real estate caravans.
Staff will verify that the days and times listed
correspond to local real estate caravans.
Chair/Grothe stated that 6 sq. ft. for an open
house sign seems excessive. He directed staff to
check the sizes of local open house signs currently
being utilized. The intent is not to outlaw the
size, but to insure that the size does not
increase.
C/Schey stated that open house signs need not be
restricted by particular days, and that liberal
time slots are adequate. He also indicated that
one off-site sign on an intersection should
suffice.
Bill Curley explained that the ordinance is
referring to the number of signs allowed at any
given intersection, rather than the aggregate
allocated to an open house.
C/Schey questioned, if more than two real estate
agents feel a need to utilize the intersection for
directional signs, which sign is removed by the
Code Enforcement Officer.
Chair/Grothe suggested that no more than one from
each real estate company be allowed on the arterial
streets.
C/Schey suggested limiting open house signs to be
on-site.
C/Lin noted that if the open house signs are
limited to on-site only, it would create difficulty
in selling the property.
PD/DeStefano suggested that staff will confer with
the local Board of Realtors for their recommended
July 8, 1991 Page 4
guidelines for on-site and off-site signs, and
bring the information back to the Commission.
Chair/Grothe noted, on page 26E, the configuration
allows one window sign per ground level lease
space. He requested that it be amended to include
second story owners.
Chair/Grothe opened the discussion to the public.
Fred Scalzo, representing the Chamber of Commerce
Municipal Advisory Committee, addressed the
Commission regarding the prepared letter, submitted
to the Commission, concerning the signage issue.
He noted that the majority of signs existing in
Diamond Bar would be illegal following the
ordinance as proposed. He reviewed each area of
concern indicated in the prepared letter. In
summary, he stated that there is a need to restrict
signage, however, he suggested that it is
impossible to legislate good taste.
C/Harmony, referring to the summary of the letter
presented by the Chamber of Commerce, questioned
if, as they said in Mission Viejo, signage could be
pegged as the cause of failure in Mission Viejo. A
check with the City revealed that sales tax
revenues were up and their Chamber had virtually no
complaints with their sign ordinance. He
emphasized that signage tends to create an
ambiance in the community that helps produce the
kind of customer one wants to attract. He then
inquired of staff what kind of signage projects
would be included under the $1,000.00 fee type
structure.
PD/DeStefano explained that under the present fee
structure, any sign requiring review by the
Commission, not incorporating a public hearing,
would presently run $1,000.00. Under the recently
adopted fee structure, effective September of 1991,
fees for public hearing projects are a direct
result of the number of hours it would take to
process the application.
C/Schey inquired if a typical store front sign,
which is part of an approved sign program, would
come to the Commission for review.
PD/DeStefano responded th
it could be handled by
involves 2 or 3 tenants
sign contractor, then it
the Commission.
t if it is a single sign,
staff. However, if it
simultaneously, with one
would require review by
July 8, 1991
Page 5
C/Schey noted that the Chamber of Commerce made a
lot of good points, some of which will need some
reconsideration by the Commission. He indicated
that he would like to give some thought to the
sizes of signs, and the complexity of the approval
process for simple signs.
VC/MacBride inquired, of Mr. Scalzo, how many
people were involved in the compilation of the data
indicating that the community does not perceive
current signage to detract from its character.
Mr. Scalzo described the origin of the project, the
method used to survey the type of signage programs
used by center managements, and the opinions of the
individual business owner.
Bob Falker, residing at 22060 East Cedardale,
representing the Chamber of Commerce, explained
that the questions used in the survey were designed
to draw out the policies currently used, and
determine the effects when compared with the
proposed sign ordinance.
VC/MacBride, referring to the survey taken by the
Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA), noted
that the survey indicated that residents approved a
more strict signage ordinance. It is a matter of
judgement of what is good for the community.
Mr. Scalzo stated that the intent of the business
community and the residential community should not
be separated. Everyone desires Diamond Bar to
remain a beautiful City. He stated that they think
the proposals given are reasonable, and request
that the Commission consider them very thoroughly.
Iom Kiei, residing at 3301 Parking Ridge, owner of
the shopping center on Fountain Springs and Diamond
Bar Blvd., expressed his concern for the
relationship between the survival of his tenant's
businesses, and the visibility of the signage to be
permitted.
Robert Zirbes, residing at 2141 Tierra Loma Dr.,
representing the DBIA, reemphasized the survey
previously mentioned by VC/MacBride.
Bob Falker stated that it is necessary to assure
that business thrive to insure the survival of the
community. Sixty percent of the business community
would not meet the present requirements of the sign
ordinance. He suggested that, in regards to
freeway signs, the signage should be assertive to
July 8, 1991 Page 6
encourage outside customers to spend money in
Diamond Bar.
The Commission reviewed the proposals presented by
the Chamber of Commerce. The Commission concluded
that:
Wall Signs for Individual Use
Section 106 A2 and 108 D3 - It is to remain as
originally proposed, with the inclusion that it
should not exceed 80% of the frontage of the
establishment. Exceptions for centers should be
looked at as a variance.
Freestanding Monument Signs
Section 108 D1 - It is to remain as originally
proposed.
Freestanding Monument Signs for Commercial Centers
Section 108 D4 - It is to remain as originally
proposed with the exception of allowing for a
special circumstance variance.
Chair/Grothe called for a recess at 9:43 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 9:49 p.m.
Freeway Signs
Section 102 D5 and 108 D3 - The Commission
concurred with the Chamber of Commerce' suggestion
that freeways and freeway visibility should not be
considered differently than surface streets.
Review and Permit Approval - The Commission
requested that staff develop a program in which
encourages centers to develop their sign program to
meet the City's criteria. Staff will review the
following items: Window Signs, Wall Signs for
multi -use buildings or commercial centers;
Government Flags; and Building I.D. Signs. The
Commission prefers to review the following items:
Freestanding Monument Signs; Civic Organizations
Signs/ Institutional Signs/Church Signs; Subdivision
or Rental Community Signs; and Attraction Boards.
Section 106 Al - Staff indicated that they will ask
the Chamber of Commerce to be more specific as to
what interpretation they are concerned with.
Section 108 B1 - The item was previously addressed.
July 8, 1991 Page 7
Section 108 B2 - The Commission requested that
staff determine the need for the change. If the
need is valid, then the Commission is in consensus
to allow the item to be changed.
Section 108 D2 - The Commission concurred that 25%
was adequate for permanent signs. Staff was
requested to develop an appropriate restriction for
holiday window sign coverage.
Section 108 D10 - The Commission concurred that the
item should remain as originally proposed.
Review of Draft CPE/Kaplan addressed the Commission regarding the
Land Use Element Draft Land Use Element of the 1991 General Plan.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to familiarize
the Commission with the General Plan process and,
specifically, the Land Use Element. The
Commissions comments will be forwarded to the City
Council for their review, and their comments will
be incorporated into final documents returned to
the Planning Commission for adoption in September.
He suggested that the Commission review the
document indicated by asterisks, and request the
GPAC to review those items and advise the
Commission appropriately. He explained that the
GPAC concentrate mostly on the relationship between
land use and circulation. Lloyd Zola and Kent
Norton, from the Planning Network, and Kathy
Higley, Transportation Consultant from DKS, will
introduce how land use and circulation come
together, and what the key components are.
Lloyd Zola, from the Planning Network, explained
that the objective of the plan is to maintain the
quality of residential neighborhoods.
Kathy Higley, from DKS, presented a copy of the
Draft Circulation Element to the Commission. She
explained that it is designed to begin to frame and
define the transportation issues within Diamond
Bar. It begins to focus on local circulation needs
and balancing those needs with regional demands and
mandates. An extensive existing inventory was done
on the circulation system in Diamond Bar. She
explained that a travel forecast model was also
developed which took into consideration the
potential land use alternatives; land use
implications surrounding Diamond Bar; and
circulation system alternatives that is being
considered by outlined jurisdictions, and its
implications to Diamond Bar.
July 8, 1991 Page 8
CPE/Kaplan stated that Diamond Bar's road network
was developed to service the region. We are
attempting, in the General Plan, to restore those
roads to service local needs to the extent that it
is possible. This will present some implications
and ramifications.
Kathy Higley stated that chapters 5 and 7, of the
Draft, referring to the future conditions, are
designed to present the issue, present both sides
of the implications, including the benefits and the
disadvantages, as well as the impacts. They are
intended to be guiding decisions to the quality of
life issues.
Lloyd Zola explained that the GPAC focused on how
to preserve the existing community, as well as
determine the effects and impacts we have on other
communities' decision making. He stated that open
space was also a major issue, and that three types
of open space policies relating to land use was
dealt with: dedicated open space; lands identified
as committed to open space; and vacant lands with
developable inventory. He reviewed some of the
themes of the General Plan: to protect and preserve
the environment; to assure that a major regional
road not go through Tonner Canyon; to develop basic
policy direction on new development to make Diamond
Bar a city to look at, not just from; and to
provide a mix of land uses within the City.
CPE/Kaplan explained that the major areas where
most change can take place is Tonner Canyon and
Tres Hermanos. Most of the development of the
community will be an extension of that trend, or
existing trends. Also, a general philosophy of the
plan is to focus and define the commercial areas of
Diamond Bar, and determine the use of the open
space.
The following is the verbatim dialogue during the
July 8, 1991 meeting regarding the GPAC:
C/Harmony - "In the GPAC process, how many public
hearings did they hold?"
CPE/Kaplan - "They didn't hold hearings as such.
They held meetings. And those meetings, of course,
were opened to the public."
C/Harmony - "How were they advertized?"
CPE/Kaplan - "They were not advertized, other than,
I think they were only by, only through the GPAC
July 8, 1991 Page 9
themselves. It was a working group, it was
designed and intended as a working group."
C/Harmony - "Was there public notice put on the
front hall, front door of the City Hall type of
notice?"
CPE/Kaplan - "I don't recall if there was any
noticing other than the mail outs that the GPAC had
their meetings, and their meetings were being
held."
Chair/Grothe - "I think I've seen it in the press a
few times. But..."
PD/DeStefano - "Yeah, it's been in the press a few
times and...
C/Harmony - "What kind of notices were in the
press? I remember one with you (DeStefano) in
front of City Hall talking about that there was
going to be a full public participation, and full
reports. Did we advertize meeting dates and
schedules? Either through the press or through
advertising?"
PD/DeStefano - "Not that I can recall, other than
we had a feature story on the GPAC and the General
Plan in one of the community newsletters. And it
has been discussed from time to time. The
community newsletter is the only one I can focus on
right now."
C/Harmony - "That's the one with your picture on
it. "
PD/DeStefano - "No."
C/Schey - "Didn't the GPAC have a series of
meetings in various areas of the City with the idea
of having like input from different areas of the
City?"
PD/DeStefano - "Not that I am aware of."
C/Harmony - "That's precisely what they started off
to do. They never did."
C/Schey - "They never actually got implemented."
C/Harmony - "So this comes to us basically produced
by 30 wise and committed gentleman with
professional staff and very little public support."
July 8, 1991 Page 10
CPE/Kaplan - "I would say that, yeah, it was not
intended as a document to derive public support.
It was intended to give you a document for which
you will derive..."
C/Harmony - "But now we have a very complicated
document, and I would hope at some point in time
we'd be able to summarize it and start to get it
out, not just announcing public hearings that we're
going to have to face the, the results on. But
that there is an education process going out prior
to that."
PD/DeStefano - "Well there in fact is, there."
C/Harmony - "Public hearings are not enough for the
total life of the community. And that's what this
document is."
PD/DeStefano - "No, that's not what I am referring
to. The September edition of the Community Wide
newsletter is going to be devoted substantially to
the General Plan. Which will be published the end
of August, well in advance of the public hearing
process. We're also are planning on articles and
stories that we can get from the local news media
regarding it, as well as the public hearing
notification and so forth."
C/Harmony - "Now I agree with that whole heartedly.
I think that the newsletter is a little shallow, as
one professional to another, and that I'd hope that
you would take a pen to it, you and Irwin, to get
some details into it and those real meat, and I
would have liked to see more of this earlier on.
But I think that we should be aware of what we're
facing here."
C/Schey - "Well I think the practicality though is
that the typical John Q. Public can't get to
excited about a document that is being done. They
get a little bit more excited about seeing a
document, being told what it is, and saying oh I
have some interest in that."
C/Harmony - "Yeah but they are not going to John Q.
Public. This is bureaucratese now. It used to,
started off where they could walk in, and say, you
know, this is my neighborhood that you're meeting
in and this is what went wrong and this is what is
wrong in my neighborhood. And that's what we'd
hope for we'd be getting."
July 8, 1991 Page 11
CPE/Kaplan - "I think that what we'd like to do is
boil it down to a few simple concepts that people
will relate to. That then they could go to the
plan and see how their neighborhood is affected.
But I think that is the point of taking the
document that is not really designed to tell a
story and turn it into a story that people can
understand, is something we would like to do, we
want to do. Any other questions before I ask the
consultant to stand up."
VC/MacBride noted that there is a reference in the
document, page 8, that states, "There is a need to
foster a City image that reflects and defines the
community's high quality of life." He indicated
that the term, "high quality of life" in Diamond
Bar, is an assumption, and should be recognized as
such. When Diamond Bar was developed, it was not
represented by a civic center, a theater, a museum,
a senior citizen center, or a major library. Those
who came here, settled for less, and was attracted
to the quiet, simple community living, with minimum
disruption. He emphasized that the planning
problem will be to persuade the quiet, near
majority, of residents, that the change to a new
"high quality of life", can be beneficial.
The following is the verbatim speech delivered by
VC/MacBride during the July 8, 1991 meeting.
"Well I found this report extremely interesting,
very helpful, somewhat challenging and I found
myself wrestling with a quite different problem
than I thought I would wrestle with. I thought
that I would be wrestling with the problem of
where's the money going to come from, which freely
translated into my mind...What are going to do with
Tres Hermanos? That's where money is going to come
from. Then I said to myself, the second source is
going to be the golf course area with the village
concept. And after reading this report, I found
myself changing my point of view. Not about where
the money is coming from. I think that at some
point we have to get money from somewhere. And I
found the economic meetings that we had very
persuasive, the little chart, simplistic though it
is, the five year doomsday, when revenue and costs
hit one another. And then I've been, I've been,
worrying about this all week. I found that there
was an assumption. I feel there is an assumption
that I hadn't noticed before. I'm just becoming
aware of it. As a result of the econ meetings, as
a result of partial participation in GPAC, as part
result of reading this report, there is one thing
July 8, 1991 Page 12
that is beginning to stick out with me, and I don't
know whether I'm on the edge of idiocy, or whether
I really have a problem with all of this. And...
if you don't mind my free wheeling for about 2 or 3
minutes, I'd like to express this so that I could
get some feedback. You know... someone could say go
and retire in a sanitarium, or whatever...
My concern has to do with an assumption that I
heard at virtually all of these meetings, that I
have been hearing from all of these leading people
that we have been meeting with. Not the public.
We have not been meeting with the public. This
little bi play was very instructive, that you
(Harmony) generated. And it is not in criticism.
this was the only way we could generate paper,
generate ideas, get them down so the public could
begin to approach it. That was not criticism, that
was just pointing out where we are. But I find
myself wrestling with a quite different problem
that I think is basic to what we've got to face if
we are going to face the public issue at some
point. And the public we have to face at some
point. If the public doesn't want what we think is
good for them, the public will go their own way and
water will seek it's level.
On page 1 or 18, of this document, there is an
issue analysis at the bottom that sums up where my
concern starts. It says, "there is a need to
foster a City image that reflects and defines",
reflects and defines, "the communities High Quality
of Life." And the theme "High Quality of Life" has
been so bruted about... someone even took a poke at
the idea that we were a planned community.
Somewhere there is a reference to, that almost
implies this is a joke. That the planned community
thing is, is... didn't really happen that way at
all. And I began thinking about the quality of
life, and I'm now at the point where I don't agree
with that statement at all. Not from the view
point of our leadership, but from the viewpoint of
the citizens who live here. Even today, I think a
near majority. So I began to scribble down some
thoughts that I had about this.
I think Diamond Bar's High Quality of Life, quote
High Quality of Life assumption, is a myth. It is
not a fact. and I think we have to understand this
myth if we're going to be successful in doing what
we properly should be doing as leaders... trying to
get somewhere for a better quality of life. I
think that's our goal. Better quality of life. I
think we want to get there. But I think we don't
July 8, 1991 Page 13
understand the mythology on which some of this is
based, we're going to lose. None of our plans are
going to materialize successfully because our
public won't accept it. So I began saying what was
the quality of life. For years, this was nothing
but a satrapy, it was an insolate possession of an
indifferent County government. The areas image was
projected by a windmill, and a public water
fountain, which was symbols of early California
life, and for all practical purposes, they don't
exist any more. They're about as inept as a
buffalo on a nickel. The buffalo however were not
extinct. Now within that era of California's early
ranch days, and with that mind set, I believe that
the essence of Diamond Bar's life, life quality,
was dominated by four factors ... One, minimal
regulatory interference. Two, minimal political
responsibility. Three, minimal tax and assessment
problems. And four, minimal public facilities and
services. And I think that constitutes a way of
life for approximately half of Diamond Bar
residents. Who may still wish to preserve it that
way. And that's where our problem lies if we're
really going to plan. Not only about plans, but
how we get to our plans. This group, this 50% that
I think is there, does not perceive that if the
area were still unincorporated the county taxes and
assessments would rise to meet the broad general
costs. They don't even understand that if they
just sat there, taxes would be going up. From that
era, Diamond Bar has inherited a vintage ranch Post
Office, now serving some 60,000 residents, with
administrative oversight in another City. A little
miserable problem all by itself. This, quote, High
Quality of Life, was not represented by a civic
center, a theatre, a museum, a senior citizen
center, or a major library. The youth center is a
"Y" embracing Diamond Bar and Walnut, owned and
administered by another City. The major
thoroughfare, Diamond Bar Boulevard, was and is
merely in one part a connector device for two
regional transportation corridors, 57 and 60. The
northerly half of the device is without a protected
central dividing strip or a median. It's
incredible when you think about it, talk about
circulation. Small wonder that incorporation, city
hood effort failed twice. Basically, those who
first settled here did not choose to select a
Pasadena civic center, they didn't choose to select
an Ontario, or Pomona library, a San Dimas post
office, a Montclair shopping mall, a Fullerton
light opera, an E1 Monte museum, or similar city
social and cultural services. they did listen to
July 8, 1991 Page 14
promises of a high school in north Diamond Bar,
promises which were unhappily not realized.
It is my contention, and I have been worrying about
this, and this is the point of sanity that I was
discussing. It is my contention that those who
came here settled for less. A great deal less.
What was the attraction? Because you have to say
to them "why?".......
...because revenue will not keep up with the
costs.. and assuming a status quo on revenues.
That such a charge is the sign, for them, that
changes is in the works. And that revenue sources,
e.g. taxes, are being studied and considered and
that the older County minimum quality of life
levels will be erased step by step to their
unhappiness. As I see it the former quality of
life is still represented in part by old cars we
see parked on residential front lawns, by overnight
parking of trucks, RV's and autos on residential
streets, by flags and banners and floating aerial
devices decorating various commercial enterprises,
or by overall painting of commercial windows for
business advertisement. That is the old way of
life. For those of us are trying to create
something new, a really high quality of life, I
don't believe the task is going to be easy. Not
the task of devising what it should be like, the
task of getting our 50% to understand that it could
be of great benefit and a wonderful creation for
them. That's where I think our planning problem
really lies. I don't want to call it a PR problem
because I think that's denigrating the problem. It
requires citizen's understanding and desire, it
requires creative planning that respects
conflicting demands of residential, commercial,
business, social, cultural pressures. It requires
a responsible expertise to find appropriate revenue
sources to finance the life style that we really,
really want to achieve, a small group of us now.
And at the broadest political, social context, we
must accomplish these new goals with a minimum
disruptive impact on those who yearn for the old
quality of life, and who yearn to merely be left
alone.
Now in going through this, I had to search my own
soul, I realized that I'm responsible therefore by
providing an appropriate wish of action list. But
I don't want to go into that now. That's not part
of what I'm attacking. I have a 5 page action list
that all of you, you all know all of the details.
My action list may be a little warped or a little
July S, 1991 Page 15
different. For example, I would like to see a
creative approach to ... this community has been
terrified of being ramrodded by a regional
corridor, and you've just had Grand Ave. ramrodded
through this community till hell wouldn't have it.
Now that same fear is going to accept the
ramrodding of some kind of an extension of Sunset
Crossing in the City of Industry. If it happened
once, it will happen again. I think planning would
decide if you are going to extend the "Y"
playground over to the baseball field in sufficient
dimensions that you can't ramrod the street
through. And that we are politically astute enough
to take the baseball field and extend it...it is a
much needed facility and it ought to be
extended ... to connect with the State owned vacant
land which is virtually land locked next to it.
And by wise politicking in Sacramento, I think we
could do something there, make a massive park at
that end... I guess what I am saying to you all,
I've labored through this, and I am not trying to
play the phony picture. What I really feel is that
there is a quiet, undigested, near majority, darn
close, I don't care about that last vote, I think
there's 50% still out there, that just want to be
left alone, who don't want to answer the mail, who
don't want to talk about taxes, who don't want to
hear about a new assessment district, who aren't
going to sit and talk about the rising cost, the
needed revenue and so on, that we have to deal
with. it is a political problem. But it runs
deeper. It is a social problem. And a social
problem runs into the basic psychology of that
group and that group, I think, came here for lesser
reasons than we have ascribed to them. And I may
be one of them. I am not sure as I look back upon
my purchase, that I had such...I did not check out
the school system, why not?, I did not have a
youngster to put through the school system. I
didn't therefore get angry at a non High School in
northern Diamond Bar, I had no reason to. I didn't
check out the lack of museums, or the lack or
cultural amenities. I didn't question why there
was not a public fountain now, or no public
sculptures or civic center. I didn't need them
because I thought of driving to Pasadena, to
wherever to achieve these things. I go to the
Ontario library, or the Pomona library, for my
librarial needs, generally. I do not mean to be
denigrating the community. The 50% who want to be
left alone, that's a deep psychological privilege
that they have. And we're not going to leave them
alone. And events aren't going to leave them
alone. And somehow if we can understand this, and
July 8, 1991 Page 16
sympathize with this, and know how to handle, to
plan to handle so that the plans can be placed in
their hands. As I see it this is our great big
problem and that is what I wanted to say."
C/Schey concurred that the vast majority of
residents want to keep things simple and not become
a major city such as Pasadena, and Irvine.
However, there is a requirement that the community
have parks and facilities for children.
Chair/Grothe, concurring with VC/MacBride, stated
that an increase in level of service traffic
amenities is not the reason why he moved to Diamond
Bar. He prefers to travel to facilities, such as
malls.
C/Harmony indicated that the development of freeway
type over passes at Grand Avenue and diamond Bar
Blvd. will hurt local businesses and will actually
encourage more traffic because of its added
accessibility.
Lloyd Zola summarized that the "high quality of
life" seems to be largely a factor of convenience,
whereas, facilities are close but not located in
Diamond Bar. Because of the location of the
community, residents have been able to enjoy a lot
of amenities and facilities without paying the
price for them. There is a high quality of life,
even though it is not right in town.
CPE/Kaplan stated that one of the things that will
be done in the General Plan is defining what is the
"high quality of life".
Chair/Grothe stated that deciding the "quality of
life", and the development of the City, based upon
how much more sales tax revenue can be generated,
is ludicrous. He suggested that the residents be
asked to determine what facilities are important,
and place it as a ballot measure.
C/Harmony complimented GPAC on the solutions stated
in the document.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
11:40 p.m.
Respectively,
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 221 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:05
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: Russ Hand.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Schey, Vice
Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe.
Commissioner Lin was absent.
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Planning Technician
Armando, City Planner Emeritus Irwin Kaplan, City
Engineer Sid Mousavi, District Attorney Bill
Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES: C/Harmony requested the following amendments to the
July 8, 1991 meeting:
July 8, 1991
Page 4, 5th paragraph
"C/Harmony, referring to the summary of the letter
presented by the Chamber of Commerce, questioned
if, as they said in Mission Viejo, signage could be
pegged as the cause of business failure in Mission
Viejo. A check with the City revealed that sales
tax revenues were up and their Chamber had
virtually no complaints with their sign ordinance.
He emphasized that..."
Page 6, Freeway Signs
He requested that the substance to the phrase be
further detailed.
Page 8, insert between paragraph 3 and 4
"C/Harmony asked CPE/Kaplan how many public
hearings were held by GPAC, or what public
advertising and/or new stories were generated about
their activities period."
"CPE/Kaplan responded that there were no public
hearings and that there was going to be an article
in the next City newsletter."
"C/Harmony cautioned the Commission about having to
deal with a major issue like the General Plan when
so little public attention had been given to it
during it's two year creation. He suggested
CPE/Kaplan be involved in writing some of the in
depth reviews of the City publication."
July 22, 1991
Page 2
Paae 9. 2nd oaraaraDh
"C/Harmony indicated that the development of
freeway type over passes at Grand Avenue and
Diamond Bar Boulevard will hurt local businesses
and will actually encourage more traffic because of
its added accessibility."
C/Harmony requested various additions to the
Minutes of July 8, 1991. Upon verification, the
Minutes will be revised accordingly.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the Minutes of
July 8, 1991 till the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
request for extension of time for the development
CUP 89528 of a multi -story parking structure, extension of
the existing Honda dealership, a MacDonalds
Restaurant, an automated car wash facility, and a
free standing center sign. Staff has determined
that the project, as conditioned, is in conformance
with the standards presently applied and enforced
by the City. No significant environmental changes
have occurred in the area. The one year request
for extension of time is within the time frame
allowed. It is recommended that the Commission
approve the Extension of Time by the applicant
under condition 6, or deny the request and direct
staff accordingly.
C/Harmony, referencing the correspondence from the
City Manager of the City of Industry to City
Manager Van Nort, inquired what was meant by the
statement "...is a County sewer which does not have
the capacity for additional connections."
CE/Mousavi responded that the developer has
improved the capacity of the sewer system since the
time that letter was written. The City of
Industry, the County of Los Angeles, and the State
of California, who have jurisdiction over this
project, have already approved the project.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Russ Hand, applicant of the proposed project,
summarized the events that led to the approval of
the project. He explained that there is a chance
he may lose MacDonalds as a client. He assured the
Commission that the project is moving forward, and
requested that the Commission approve the extension
of time.
July 22, 1991
Page 3
Fred Janz, a Diamond Bar resident, stated the
following concerns: the project was approved
without a traffic study; the possibility of
structures being built over existing easements; and
there is insufficient room for a tanker truck to
egress and ingress the property.
Bob Buchanan, a resident of Diamond Bar, stated his
concern for the type of signage planned.
Pierre Williams, residing at 24207 Ginger Wood
Place, stated the following concerns regarding the
project: structures are being built over
easements; the tank place has not been specified; a
2:1 slope is incorporated without a retaining wall;
the proposed landscaping is not sufficient; the on-
site pedestrian walk is inadequate; MacDonalds is
not specified as the restaurant; the effort to get
the project going is low; there is no public record
of the County's, or City of Industry's approval of
the improvements; and the signage is unacceptable.
John Brewster, residing at 4071 2nd Street, Yorba
Linda, presented documentation to the Commission
demonstrating that the sewer line is permitted, and
approved by the City of Industry and the County of
Los Angeles.
Russ Hand emphasized that the sewer line is
presently connected; the traffic study was done;
the sound issue was address; all grading plans were
plan checked; sidewalks are already installed;
MacDonalds can be easily replaced; the tanker truck
issue was already discussed; and the proposed
signage was previously approved.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Schey inquired if the type of fast food
restaurant would make a difference to the approval
of the project.
PD/DeStefano stated that the Planning Commission
approved a specific restaurant use for that
location. The Commission reviewed an overall
master plan for the 5 acres, a site plan for the
specific MacDonalds restaurant, as well as an
architectural review of the proposed design.
DA/Curley indicated that whatever is proposed as a
substituted would have to be demonstrated to fit
the framework as to what was analyzed initially.
July 22, 1991 Page 4
C/Schey inquired if it is safe to assume that the
issues of easements would be appropriately handled
through the plan check process.
CE/Mousavi stated that the retaining wall over the
storm drains was approved by Cal Trans and the
City. Easements are appropriately handled through
the plan check process. He further assured the
Commission that the sewer system has been
connected.
John Brewster, upon C/Harmony's inquiry, explained
the cause of the delays in the grading permit. He
also described the type of landscaping that is
being proposed.
Russ Hand, referencing the Resolution prepared by
staff, pointed out that it does not indicate the
specific type of restaurant proposed.
C/Harmony, expressing his opposition to the
project, stated that the project is over developed,
contrary to the General Plan, inconsistent with the
Sign Code, has no standard parking spaces, and is
out of character for Diamond Bar. He recommended
denying the request for extension.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED to accept staff's recommendation to
approve the extension of CUP 89528 for one year.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schey, VC/MacBride, and
Chair/Grothe.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin.
OLD BUSINESS: PD/DeStefano reported that the recent Sign
Ordinance Draft incorporates all changes outlined
Review of Draft by the City Attorney's office, changes as directed
Sign Ordinance by the Planning Commission in response to the
Chamber of Commerce presentation of July 8, 1991,
and specific changes recommended by the City Staff
in order to more effectively administer the
ordinance. The changes made in the ordinance are
indicated by a strike out, and additions are set in
italic type face. As determined by the Study
Session, held prior to tonight's meeting, it was
concluded that: the ordinance contain a list of
prohibited signs; there be clarification as to the
number of wall signs to be permitted based upon the
two sections of the code that describe the maximum
number of wall signs; and there be clarification
that only one freestanding sign be permitted per
street frontage for centers. It is recommended
July 22, 1991 Page 5
that the Commission review the Ordinance and direct
staff accordingly.
C/Harmony inquired how the Chamber of Commerce and
the Hacienda, Rowland, Diamond Bar Board of
Realtors were involved in amending the Ordinance.
PD/DeStefano stated that staff contacted the Board
of Realtors per direction by the Planning
Commission to obtain information regarding the
location, number, and placement of real estate
signs, specifically open house signs. Staff was
also directed to inform the Chamber of Commerce as
to the comments made by the Commission. The
Chamber of Commerce played no role in the rewrite
of the Commission's instructions.
Fred Scalzo, representative of the Chamber of
Commerce, requested that the Commission reconsider
the following items:
Wall Signs for Individual Use:
Section 106 A 2 and 108 D 3 - He suggested that the
maximum area be increased to 1.5 sq. ft. per 1
lineal foot.
Freestanding Monument:
Section 108 D 1 - He suggested increasing the
maximum sign area to 48 sq. ft. and the maximum
height to 10 feet.
Freestanding Monument Signs for Commercial Centers:
Section 108 D 4 - He suggested that the maximum
area be increased to 200 sq. ft. and the maximum
height to 25 feet.
Bill Hormuth, from K & B Signs, residing at 20930
Courier Road, Walnut, inquired what is allowed, in
the ordinance, for upstairs signage.
PD/DeStefano stated that the Ordinance is changing
to 1 sq. ft. per 1 lineal foot of frontage,
including the second floor, up to a maximum of 100
sq. ft.
The Commission reviewed the Ordinance and made the
following comments:
Page 1 - VC/MacBride requested the wording on the
last sentence state "...upon completion of the sign
permit application, and approval by the Planning Omission."
July 22, 1991 Page 6
Page 3 - VC/MacBride requested the wording be
changed to read "...in his/her sole discretion.";
and C1 to read "Planning Commission".
Page 5 - C/Harmony requested that the intent, of
item H, be explained.
PD/DeStefano stated that the intent is to make sure
that signs don't become a vehicular or pedestrian
safety problem.
Page 14 - C/Harmony, referencing item 108 A.3,
requested that the location include the second
floor as well.
Page 23 - PD/DeStefano, in response to C/Schey's
inquiry, stated that the definition of sign height,
on page 9, now indicates where the height of the
sign is to be measured from.
VC/MacBride noted that item 6, page 23,
inaccurately references 108 D, and should be
corrected to 110 D 2.
Page 26 - C/Schey noted that item A. and item B
should be corrected to properly indicate is as item
a. onsite Signing, and item b. Offsite Signing.
Page 27 - Chair/Grothe requested that this
provision restrict time only, for both onsite and
offsite signs.
Following Commission discussion, PD/DeStefano
stated that the time restrictions will indicate
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., for both onsite and offsite
signs.
C/Harmony stated that the Special Signage Section
is so written that it's de facto includes political
signs, and garage sale signs. The enforcement
procedures are going to be horrendous.
Chair/Grothe inquired of the Commission's desire to
discuss the 3 issues readdressed by the Chamber of
Commerce.
C/Schey suggested that the Commission's thoughts,
regarding the Ordinance, be referred to the
Council, with the intent of keeping the 3 issues as
they were previously stated.
C/Harmony inquired if it was determined, during the
Study Session, that monument signs would be allowed
additional address face.
July 22, 1991 Page 7
PD/DeStefano stated that the Commission, upon
concurring that an address plate attached to
freestanding signs was necessary, directed staff to
develop a standard that would allow for an 8 inch
high letter, and three to four feet of sign face
area.
Bill Hormoth suggested that, regarding the
provision which allows only 1 sign per entrance for
commercial centers, the Commission may want to
consider allowing larger centers to have signs
according to distance within the same property.
C/Schey indicated that if Diamond Bar does have a
center that large, it can be dealt with on a
variance basis.
C/Harmony stated he would like a provision
requiring it to come back as a special conditional
use.
Fred Scalzo requested the Commission to reconsider
the provision, on page 21, for Freestanding
Monument signs for commercial centers.
Chair/Grothe directed staff to make the appropriate
adjustments to the document, indicating the
concurrence of the Commission as a body, and
forward it to the August 6 meeting of the City
Council.
C/Harmony stated that he has a problem with real
estate signs and private signs in any category of
interpretation of public right of way. He
requested that his remark be specifically pointed
out as an objection and a concern.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY that the sign
ordinance amended document, as further amended by
the results of these discussions, be finalized by
staff and transmitted to the City Council, with the
inclusion of C/Harmony's concern about over
regulation of real estate and other private signs
in public right of way.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:38 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 9:52 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS: CPE Kaplan reviewed the elements of the Draft
General Plan discussed at the July 8, 1991
Review of Draft Commission meeting with Lloyd Zola, of the Planning
General Plan Network, and Kathy Higley, of DKS Associates.
Until the Commission has had an opportunity to
July 22, 1991 Page 8
conduct the public hearings, consider public
comments, and incorporate the results of the
Commission's deliberations, the plan should be
viewed as the GPAC 's recommendations, and not the
Commission's plan. CPE/Kaplan reviewed some the
central themes of the document with respect to Land
Use Circulation, and identified those policies
recommended by GPAC that departure from the
existing policies. The following are some of the
recommendations of the GPAC: Restore the streets
to local use while recognizing the obligation to
regional traffic; limit parking areas in business
centers and encourage alternate forms of
transportation; recognize Grand Ave. as a major
arterial; set business license fees to encourage
businesses to relocate into the community;
establish commercial density limits; establish
additional commercial uses in other locations;
permit Churches by CUP except in general
commercial, hillside, and rural residential zones;
maintain the County Golf Course as open space;
annex and secure Tonner Canyon, primarily as an
open space resort, and exclude the Tonner Canyon
Road; reaffirm County policy requiring specific
undeveloped areas to remain substantially
undeveloped; promote joint development of parks,
open space, joint school park sites; pursue
acquisition of a site for a multi-purpose center;
programs to landscape and maintain slopes in the
community; consider bond election to acquire
unprotected open space; develop Tres Hermanos as a
planned community; residential development
standards will be modified to harmonize with
hillsides and reflect state requirements with
respect to housing; adopt a permanent Hillside
Ordinance; encourage innovative housing types;
encourage a provision for low and moderate cost
housing; and consider the possible annexation of
certain areas.
Lloyd Zola, of the Planning Network, discussed the
following elements of the Draft General Plan:
Plan for Community Development - He explained that
housing elements are required in a five year cycle
which began in 1989. SCAG determined that the best
methodology, for newly incorporate cities, is a
temporary housing element until the 1990 census is
in place. He explained that the housing element
needs to recognize that this community is losing
low and moderate income residents. The State,
however, is looking for providing affordable
housing in new residential developments, and are
encouraging cities to do so.
July 22, 1991 Page 9
Plan for Resource Management - He explained that
one of the emphasize of the resource element is
using available technology to combat factors such
as the recycling element, source reduction, and
household hazardous waste management. He further
indicated that determining the purpose of
preserving open space will be another policy
decision.
Plan for Public Services and Facilities - He
explained that financing capital improvements, in
this City, has to come out of existing residents
because much of the area is already developed.
C/Harmony noted that the time allotted to review
and discuss the General Plan is not adequate.
Chair/Grothe concurred and suggested that the
Commission make a recommendation that there is an
application made for an extension of time.
PD/DeStefano indicated that the State routinely
grants new Cities an extension for up to a year,
and request detailed information to assure that
progress is being made.
VC/MacBride made the following requests: a summary
examination of the phrase "high quality of life in
Diamond Bar"; and a third category be included, in
the data of each presentation, indicating that the
policy, procedure, and basic concepts were produced
by volunteers of the citizen of Diamond Bar who
devoted time and energy to the GPAC.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: VC/MacBride addressed the Commission regarding his
concern that Sunset Crossing, by the YMCA, will be
Commission opened to the City of Industry, creating industrial
traffic. He would like the area to be considered
for recreational purposes, and a park.
Lloyd Zola indicated that the matter is addressed
in the Circulation Element.
C/Schey noted that the traffic signal on Grand
Ave., in front of the Country entrance, has been
malfunctioning.
CE/Mousavi explained that it is the responsibility
of the contractor to repair it.
C/ Schey stated that even though it is a warranty
item, there should be some means by which the City
could fix the problem and back bill them, or back
July 22, 1991 Page 10
bill them for the cost of having a sheriff
directing traffic.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
11:25 p.m.
Respectively,
n�es DeStefano
::retary/Planni g Commission
C'. a -z6&+ -7-P ?'ii�.
X/00/CARL WARREN & CO.
Insurance Adjusters
Claims Administrators
P O Box 25180
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5180
(714) 972-3146
(800) 572.6900
TO: City of Diamond Bar
Attention: Robert Van Nort
Date: August 14, 1991
Re: Claim: Dewitt vs Diamond Barr
Claimant: Neal Charles & Kathleen Dewitt
D/Event: 3-01-91
Rec'd Y/Office: 8-08-91
Our File: S 68082 DK/CV
We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take
the action indicated below:
;zf CLAIM REJECTION: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant.
[� CLAIM INSUFFICIENCY: In accordance with the telephone conversation
of , 19 , a notice of insufficiency must be mailed
to the claimant no later than , 19.THIS MUST BE
MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL
CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SUBMIT A "REJECTION" LETTER. See
Government Code Sections 910 and/or 910.2 and or 910.4.
t] AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM: Send a standard rejection letter to
the claimant, refecting this additional/amended claim.
I� LATE CLAIM RESPONSE: Return the original claim material to the
claimant, advising that the claim is late and that their only
recourse is to file a written "Application for Leave to Present
a Late Claim". (Retain copies in your file.) THIS MUST BE MAILED
TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE CLAIM IN YOUR
OFFICE. DO NOT SEND A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code
Section 911.4.
[] APPLICATION REJECTION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave
to Present a Late Claim". See Government Code Section 911.8.
D TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written response to the claimant
pending our further advice.
Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very "k-ruly yours,
cc: S.C.J.P.I.A.
CARL W),RREN & COMPANY
us
-C/ �° l
Date: August 14, 1991
Re: Claim: Dewitt vs Diamond Barr
Claimant: Neal Charles & Kathleen Dewitt
D/Event: 3-01-91
Rec'd Y/Office: 8-08-91
Our File: S 68082 DK/CV
We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take
the action indicated below:
;zf CLAIM REJECTION: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant.
[� CLAIM INSUFFICIENCY: In accordance with the telephone conversation
of , 19 , a notice of insufficiency must be mailed
to the claimant no later than , 19.THIS MUST BE
MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL
CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SUBMIT A "REJECTION" LETTER. See
Government Code Sections 910 and/or 910.2 and or 910.4.
t] AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM: Send a standard rejection letter to
the claimant, refecting this additional/amended claim.
I� LATE CLAIM RESPONSE: Return the original claim material to the
claimant, advising that the claim is late and that their only
recourse is to file a written "Application for Leave to Present
a Late Claim". (Retain copies in your file.) THIS MUST BE MAILED
TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE CLAIM IN YOUR
OFFICE. DO NOT SEND A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code
Section 911.4.
[] APPLICATION REJECTION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave
to Present a Late Claim". See Government Code Section 911.8.
D TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written response to the claimant
pending our further advice.
Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very "k-ruly yours,
cc: S.C.J.P.I.A.
CARL W),RREN & COMPANY
us
DOUGLAS E. WEATHERS, STATE BAR NO. 94484
FISHER, WEATHERS & GEETING
Attorneys at Law
4371 Latham Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92501
714-788-6270
Attorneys for Claimants
NEAL CHARLES DEWITT,
KATHLEEN DEWITT
Claimants,
VS.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
Respondent.
TO: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR:
CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
(GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
910, ET SEQ.)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that claimants, NEAL CHARLES DEWITT and
KATHLEEN DEWITT, who reside at 2717 S. PEPPERDALE DRIVE, ROWLAND
HEIGHTS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, State of California, claim damage
from the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a public entity as defined in
California Government Code Section 900.4, in an amount computed as
of the date of this claim to be within the jurisdiction of
Superior Court, in addition to special damages incurred as a
result of personal injury sustained.
This claim is based upon injuries and property damage
sustained by NEAL CHARLES DEWITT in a motor vehicle accident
occurring on or about March 1, 1991 on Brea Canyon Cutoff,
GOVERNMENT CLAIM 1
approximately 834 feet south of Pathfinder Road, in the City of
Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the
following circumstances:
Claimant, NEAL CHARLES DEWITT, on the above date was the
owner and operator of a 1988 Toyota Camry automobile that was
proceeding southbound on Brea Canyon Cutoff approximately 834 feet
south of Pathfinder Road, when claimant was suddenly and
unexpectedly confronted with a large section of the roadway that
was flooded and/or "washed out". As a result of claimant's motor
vehicle entering into the flooded roadway, it was caused to
"hydroplane" out of control resulting in a head-on collision
producing severe personal injuries and property damages as is more
fully set forth herein below.
Claimant's injuries were proximately caused by the
negligent designing, engineering, constructing, inspecting,
owning, operating, maintaining and controlling of said roadway so
that such public property and adjacent private property did exist
in a dangerous condition for claimant herein, and others, on March
1, 1991. Furthermore, respondent failed to give warning of said
dangerous condition to claimant herein and others. The facts and
circumstances giving rise to respondent's liability, and the
incident herein, are more clearly set forth in the Traffic
Collision Report number 191-03470-2929-471 consisting of six pages
attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" for
all purposes.
The names of the public employees whose acts and/or
GOVERNMENT CLAIM 2
2
u
omissions contributed to claimant's injuries are unknown to
claimant at this time.
Claimant, NEAL CHARLES DEWITT, as a result of the above
described incident did sustain property damage to his vehicle,
including diminished value and loss of use, along with personal
injury to his head, torso, upper and lower extremities, internal
organs, bruises, contusions, lacerations, emotional distress,
shock and fright. Claimant, as a result of said injuries, has
incurred medical bills for care and treatment,loss of earnings,
property damage and general damages.
As and for a SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CLAIM FOR LOSS
OF CONSORTIUM, CLAIMANT, KATHLEEN DEWITT alleges that at all times
relevant hereto, claimant, KATHLEEN DEWITT, and claimant, NEAL
CHARLES DEWITT, were and now are lawfully married and living
together as husband and wife. That by reason of said injuries and
damages sustained by claimant, NEAL CHARLES DEWITT, as
hereinbefore alleged, claimant, KATHLEEN DEWITT, has been deprived'
of the consortium of her said husband, NEAL CHARLES DEWITT, and
has been deprived of the services of said claimant as a husband,
all to the general and special damage of claimant, KATHLEEN
DEWITT, in a sum to be determined at the time of trial.
GOVERNMENT CLAIM 3
WARNING: ALL NOTICES AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS
CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT TO CLAIMANT'S ATTORNEYS: FISHER, WEATHERS &
GEETING, 4371 LATHAM STREET, SUITE 106, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
192501.
Dated: August 5, 1991
FISHER, WEATHERS & GEETING
BY
DOUGLAS E. WEATHERS,
ATTORNEYS FOR CLAIMANTS
GOVERNMENT CLAIM 4
c C,At _l ,OrJ •,Vi0 rr�_� 03 i0J I ill 55 `� tvi(-aS
0 WTO/PiiR T�AYAT MATe
u •,.T, [.w o. _ S M T W F Q�
tATfTA7SDC,7OM TOTW RAR IIAIT ASL
'3 3`-f •TTTr.... a fi �i��ibg7L i� 13— &JL�IHTiL[MMt11 MIArAn TAAA WQe�/O01CAZ�u..WT.somi..,
vim} G4
boo. NAM
%% 1 `1 S t3 -a— L� 6 L �,W 11� Y oATTo
wMP r RATt r a
�. on1H111 [7n IY1f/► f/RM AkTMOAR AAQ ODIIOIRI?I O/ TAlACLA On OALDJS OR 00TWI1
I NOW `1 ) �1 Q OL��a ~cm Nam DO171: Nam AIaLODR® K![ll TO IMMATIVW CD
(IiSri �– U ' 3 1 t ) -Lsc-14i k� d.lai p.. .YOACA....A/ AMID& M W[A6m ARA
.�, �.�...,� Lam.
N — Iit
As ❑ e
CHP
j T amu'[ LcA[�a laarOl DTAT[ elAas AApr" vw TA'AA AM"I O06/CRW MW.11l RAT[
cry f'�
. 3 ��i. I ..�
A 1 PWT. NOMA. LADT1 ., •,
ILSOt- ,
OTAIIAJTI HAAS AAAAl Y aw►o[
I"Arg /2! _ OMif7AOOl�v �{{.�YOA►.A
((�jjCT���A 42cD�
fi
Q /G.ti �' io I "now WOMT MH� y ! VIM QSMr�fOM O/ vow." cm OIOtJ� O/: 11 OAVU OTMR
36 tz_
453 -aZ (eti Ic6) g c� T. ,,:
o. = COMMIT, C Vwe= SA.Ae. .YO. M MAIAOAI
C.&PONSUB -7
b-
7 l SID -
co -1
t -Q•o AL
121M�{C� fo jf
01°'Q, Low "Umom RAn eLAar aAraTTIVWLVz"
LE
Shy!T'I
.T[SaT ANMD � -
3 N }#TL I --
m e ATAn l lop OMfRt ACCDDD. r'r �..+. Y Ayw*a
9 Zc.t q
AA= tira [Tv IISDAIT >Ds�er rtArTwATi aAa
04AL"C! CAMAA ►OL CT raAi
AL Co
LA K NrRAr [ne,
DLSPAT�^vq NOTW EL
ow Owens a:
MOM YPJMAACAL Onti-ne MNt A/IAA
CNN, UNIS CMT ooew Ds vn�ea: e.r.o.
TweaA TTff
i mea [AAamD
MM TO NAMATWW u
D'Ne[ w DAWOe ANSA
ITTI IRIS.71G.L CW[1�CT AVDI[TMA.��
Jf C=" 6AOtj2 {q I -03`-+1O —
•fo,LL ccs.QilO�r
ORASO l
-
" _ —_ no�oilf[�s ps q wT
NTFi�fLl
Mw"M
D.S t4C- cY..°1
On
ra CAT Tim nm (am I AOC / OTTOCiA l 0.
c C,At _l ,OrJ •,Vi0 rr�_� 03 i0J I ill 55 `� tvi(-aS
0 WTO/PiiR T�AYAT MATe
u •,.T, [.w o. _ S M T W F Q�
tATfTA7SDC,7OM TOTW RAR IIAIT ASL
'3 3`-f •TTTr.... a fi �i��ibg7L i� 13— &JL�IHTiL[MMt11 MIArAn TAAA WQe�/O01CAZ�u..WT.somi..,
vim} G4
boo. NAM
%% 1 `1 S t3 -a— L� 6 L �,W 11� Y oATTo
wMP r RATt r a
�. on1H111 [7n IY1f/► f/RM AkTMOAR AAQ ODIIOIRI?I O/ TAlACLA On OALDJS OR 00TWI1
I NOW `1 ) �1 Q OL��a ~cm Nam DO171: Nam AIaLODR® K![ll TO IMMATIVW CD
(IiSri �– U ' 3 1 t ) -Lsc-14i k� d.lai p.. .YOACA....A/ AMID& M W[A6m ARA
.�, �.�...,� Lam.
N — Iit
As ❑ e
CHP
j T amu'[ LcA[�a laarOl DTAT[ elAas AApr" vw TA'AA AM"I O06/CRW MW.11l RAT[
cry f'�
. 3 ��i. I ..�
A 1 PWT. NOMA. LADT1 ., •,
ILSOt- ,
OTAIIAJTI HAAS AAAAl Y aw►o[
I"Arg /2! _ OMif7AOOl�v �{{.�YOA►.A
((�jjCT���A 42cD�
fi
Q /G.ti �' io I "now WOMT MH� y ! VIM QSMr�fOM O/ vow." cm OIOtJ� O/: 11 OAVU OTMR
36 tz_
453 -aZ (eti Ic6) g c� T. ,,:
o. = COMMIT, C Vwe= SA.Ae. .YO. M MAIAOAI
C.&PONSUB -7
b-
7 l SID -
co -1
t -Q•o AL
121M�{C� fo jf
01°'Q, Low "Umom RAn eLAar aAraTTIVWLVz"
LE
Shy!T'I
.T[SaT ANMD � -
3 N }#TL I --
m e ATAn l lop OMfRt ACCDDD. r'r �..+. Y Ayw*a
9 Zc.t q
AA= tira [Tv IISDAIT >Ds�er rtArTwATi aAa
04AL"C! CAMAA ►OL CT raAi
AL Co
LA K NrRAr [ne,
DLSPAT�^vq NOTW EL
ow Owens a:
MOM YPJMAACAL Onti-ne MNt A/IAA
CNN, UNIS CMT ooew Ds vn�ea: e.r.o.
TweaA TTff
i mea [AAamD
MM TO NAMATWW u
D'Ne[ w DAWOe ANSA
?OPE R TY
IA.MAGE
JLA to—i.GzV_L�1�
•anusa wnw
No
SEATING POMTION
HLHIIESS Usti)
SAFE -1 I( ECAMPMENT
S 6 T . STATXM MFAGCMI REJtR
EJECTED FROM VEHICLE,
S
. NONE 81 Y84C1EIS
E . tIeDIDMM
- LAP 1167 USED
LAP BE 3 7 MOT USAID
L - AM BAO DEPLDYED
. Alp IAO NOT DEPLOYED
R.OTHER
P - HOT R£ODUM3)
Y r e 1S1LTc e .
DIMMER
V - NO
M . YES)
MST
I • NOT EJECTED
. FULLY EJECTED
! • P"TUJ.Y EJECTED
7 - UMKIMMM
2 3 t -DENVER
TO B - PAHISSMf•EM
HLHIIESS Usti)
S 6 T . STATXM MFAGCMI REJtR
F .. SHOULDEI HARNESS NOT USED
�,Q$�INT PAstIElI0E3i
• REAR OCC. TRHL OR V AN
J7
W f SHOULDER HARNESS USED
o - N VEHICLE USED X- No
. PCwmw LI'OIppM
LAP / SHOULDER MAJiFJ1* NOT U=
2 - If VBIC'LE NOT USS YES
OG vi
G I HSABIUTY
• OTHER
' PA*N t RESTRAWY USED
i- M VolCLE USE UNKNOWN
OTHER VE OCLE
PASSIVE RESTRAINT NOT LIM
T - N VEN= IManwo p USE
,µER • .
WITH
I I 04�D RIAN
u - lit" IN VEBCLE
LANE
ITEM/ MARKED BELOW POL,LOwED'Y AN ASTTMSK (•) SHOULD ILE E](PLjUW M THE NAAHLJ1nVE
PFi WM
RY CClLLP% FACTOR
NUMBER (F 1 OF PARTY AT FAULT
I YRAR'IC DEVICES
11 12131 TREoFVol= -11 2131 MOVFmm' PRFCELLNG
,vC SECTION vxxATED:-81,
AC OI nxLs FUNCTIONING
APAssEw :ER CAN l STATION WAGON
COLLISION
-- ASTOPPED
Q—
OTHER tMs+RCPER DRMNG •
� CONTROLS NOT FUNCNI
TIONG •
HO
PASSEER CAA —W1 TRAJLEA
PROCEEDING STRAIGHT
:
CONTRCK.S OOSCURED
I I I ~C k&MACYCLE I SCOOTER
I 1 1` P AAM OFF ROAD
MOTOR VENCLJE
VI D NO CONTROLS PRESENT / FACTOR •
D PCKu► ,
OntER' :
OTHER THAN OfIVER
—12
MAKING RIGHT TURN
TYPE OF COLD ISIOME
PCKUP I PANEL TRUCK W I TRAUIFA
MA KING LEFT TURN
JHKNOrVN •
AHEA° . ON
.....
..
i
LL
FUNCTIONING -VC
1 TRUCK OR TRUCK TRACTOR
MAKING U TURN
FB SIDESVVIi+E
TRUCK / TRUCHL TRACTOR W 1 TRL.R,
Ors
�,11?"' o�y
iiAC7UHMG
r
iC REAR END
cTcFMC?xwvrokArtiow:
<srsn
1 2 3 RfYmCAI
SCHOOL BU! sLOWING I SL'OP".G
_A THEA f MARK t TO 71TELS I BPOADMOE ( OT}ER Bu! I I PASSING OTHER VEHICLE
LEA R IE HIT 08IECT J E ERCT VEHicU I I I Ij CHANGING LANES
.Lo u D Y
IF OYEATURAED
M
I(. GH?iMATCOHLST.EWPMENT
I I I
PARKINGLiANEUYER
VEHCL.E r PEDESTRIAN
12
IMCYCL.E
EiTERNG TRAFFIC
OG vi
G I HSABIUTY
OTHER • :
FT.' TOR VcoVEHICLEINVOLVED
..1
OTHER VE OCLE
"OTHER UNSAFE_TURN ING
,µER • .
WITH
I I 04�D RIAN
-1 1 F-14ICMGINTOOPP=NG
LANE
IA
0
I I I
--
PARRIED
'�°
I i8 PEDESTRIAN
� I L1 1L
1 I
�� MMERGJNO
LICµnNG
i OTFIER MOTOR VEliCLF
�_I + I
, ITRAVELING WRONG WAY
USA . CAW"PARKED
MOTOR VENCLJE
1 Z 3
OTHER ASSOCIATED FACTOR(B)
( YAMS T TO ! ITEMS )
OntER' :
i RK. S TRE ET LIGHTS
may.
&R[ - NO STREET LIGHTS
SHCTCLE
QRe
rs
,lam STREET LIGHTS MOT
.....
g
FUNCTIONING -VC
atcnoN rounCH c
: ros
ROADWAY SURFACE
FIXED OBJEC7:
Ors
�,11?"' o�y
SOBRIETY•opw
r
,
cTcFMC?xwvrokArtiow:
<srsn
1 2 3 RfYmCAI
T
OTHER OBJECT:
A.
( MARK S To:TTBa )
t►r
�! D w ._• _ rrD
•'?±'•-� {:,fes^..
HAD NOT BEEN OILINKING
'PE" ( MUDOT. OILY. Emr_
E v)sHoN OBSGuREhaw :
IGSD - UHOER YiZJHENC$
'GUZWAT CONa�SI
F yATTeffi HN • :
EBD. NOT UNDER MFLUENCE
MAMTT02TTEMI!)
►E111TR: AwsINVOL D
STOP • OO TRAFFIC
HB) . wo"aMENT LDIKNO m
A HMO Pf�f3Tr7AN INVOLyED
EMERHGr1.EANMG RAA!
UNDER DRUGINi.UEJVCE
El. DEEP RUT •
i PR€V1ot/s COLS) OM
IMPAJASIEIfi•PH1TSiCAt
SE W TERAS ON ROAD1►A • •
caoBSTMO w l AOtS1VALJt
AT'AERStt710M
UHFAMLLUI WM ROAD
LMFASpYEJiT NOT ILlO1MN
TSHUC TION oBN tiOADMf A T •
C7MOS9PM0 M C•HOSSHIALJC
-` DEJ�C 7TYE YEK I •
MOT APPLICABLE
STAUCTY]N.R,13AHAn7HE
.MOT
ATOfTERsECOOM
B„gr► I f ATIGLIED
LCED ROADWAY wVrH
�O®•
CROSSING - NOT IMam"wALK
1 fLostvOLYIDVEHICLE
gyEpAL NFORW TION
I— 1 IpwuRDOtriWTEiAL
+ N ROAD - MCLuM SHOLLD91
( l I 0 DTIER
-- -
M„
j MOT ROAD
I IX I X IN NOW APPAINN.
.
1 10 API' CAC -MG I L EAYNO fOIODL un
, I I P RUMANIA T VSfCLE
_� -- Nl>vT:HnerN
z:
1 r -
EXTE_ G INJURY ( "X" ONE) , INJUREL S ("X" ONE)
wff"" [h7l Ef10[R ►ARTt illi fAiiTV gig=
ONLT ONLT NWLLR PCs. Soup.
LWFATAL LWRC OTN[R VKIK[ COa�WM
Rt WJURt WLLR 0/TNN ORIv[R ►US. K0. •Cf CUT' OM[R
�� ❑ uM ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I ❑ 10
AAI; 111 O A. IAODRtf TSLSIwpll
u�wLO OAL Tj TR T Lf;
"ppi�1 �rnAu-a�1C.R Qa f,TcarAYAkA
3OML ►awJR16
azz z�l
ori LC>-; Sl�c�' or ►�oSE mnbf` Af�MS�cy.ZS g C�S�uStorJC.
MCTY OF WKENT CNYI ronnlo
❑ 1M❑ 1 ❑ 1 ❑ ❑ D1 D❑ 1 3 f I I a
rt�C.0L r ADDRESS T[I.Ln�ON9
>= = zap �rr.tT'H , C ac�tJ tom-
u"o� T�i1�rDL� Ani rJC � �(LW�
Clwtl wum C3
C��t�T or Pates ►� A,.�r���, t�3�� , t�v�? 1?,4c�; rn.,�1;:(?
rZr._.�LS? oTtO►.� O� �� StpT O� _iJ� �.
QA"W 0 r MOL CM CAlWl WTInlO
T ❑ I i❑ ❑ I ❑ i❑ I D 10 101 ❑ I D I 1 1 1
. O 0.1/ ADDRESS TILiI� L
(D O"LT') TRaNSMRTtO •T: TAK[N TO;
LL TLURIfs
LrCTY of "CLEW CR/vf NOTInto
I n I I n l n l n I n l n In I r-1 Inl I I ( !
O L / ADDRESS TtLCrRONL
CMLn TRANSPORTCO /T; TAKLN TO;
[ T .-CS
%RMM of NOLdT CRIME )OTMO
A. Scene t
I. Roadwavc Asphaltic Surfacedl Q Cetaent Surfaced. -
J -State Hiphu&yl 13 Bus iness/Conavercial l t] Ras id. ( �
Additi"al Descriptions Gv rCr;= k% A KJO&7g/
SoW7H �L, L-,z^Ja- 20 /+D pj/--
�. M=ffj!' Ct��I: h4 : t 1 ZYi —_tease •it••a1z, t I left tss� ax o
_ I l stco signs; [ 1 f?t-Jw,r
B. bleasurementsI Obtained by Pacintir Rol -A Tap Othert
1. A. 0. I. 01 -j ZOft S of S curbl n• i µ �� � R�
and eft W of a Curb in* of
A.O.I. me-qZt Sof S curbl In* of
1V �-�c5 u✓ �.K��GI
and (Mft Wef 6 curb I int of (3RZiQ C, IN)
I Log
2.
and ft
P.O. R. V# I - ft
of
of
�^ aM
.._.. ....
rw w.Ja « aL (•l[•• awa.suu.)
and ft
.a.:arms
eO.A.n oe wtre M
❑ •a Urvart s • ,
❑ War/u.
:, a _ ❑ a.r i �� e�sia ' .
•u►atrtwrac
❑ or.aa:
curbline
❑ 14AX. rarttlALS
❑
D e...twi n= • •.
and ft
of
curb 1 ine
of
*C"OOL w•
l.saw
O.aT.aa ar..aaa
C. Physical
Ev idenca t
.sa�rar.YOJaa*
la
SK 1 d ter ICs t O
steer M.aY�a• wiu'•se
-
L . De br is t
A. Scene t
I. Roadwavc Asphaltic Surfacedl Q Cetaent Surfaced. -
J -State Hiphu&yl 13 Bus iness/Conavercial l t] Ras id. ( �
Additi"al Descriptions Gv rCr;= k% A KJO&7g/
SoW7H �L, L-,z^Ja- 20 /+D pj/--
�. M=ffj!' Ct��I: h4 : t 1 ZYi —_tease •it••a1z, t I left tss� ax o
_ I l stco signs; [ 1 f?t-Jw,r
B. bleasurementsI Obtained by Pacintir Rol -A Tap Othert
1. A. 0. I. 01 -j ZOft S of S curbl n• i µ �� � R�
and eft W of a Curb in* of
A.O.I. me-qZt Sof S curbl In* of
1V �-�c5 u✓ �.K��GI
and (Mft Wef 6 curb I int of (3RZiQ C, IN)
.v 1244) Oat 042 un crtv-evs &dniord rerl wiD....a. a` •a , (1 : c , y,c•
2.
and ft
P.O. R. V# I - ft
of
of
curbl In*
curbl In*
of
of
and ft
of
curb ine
of
P.O.R.YM2- ft
of
curbline
of
and ft
of
curb 1 ine
of
-'
C. Physical
Ev idenca t
la
SK 1 d ter ICs t O
-
L . De br is t
- B.
;Othert
. •wN
.�. wrww ....
ar. %fir• -+•a.
.v 1244) Oat 042 un crtv-evs &dniord rerl wiD....a. a` •a , (1 : c , y,c•
eV•.
❑ artr ! ARUM UVDATZ
❑ OTwte:
eewfe
a•Yf ry./e/'fR f�a•f wrfMea• of La•f0
❑ Ttf D wo
II. statements t Parties Involved! Inderendent Witnesses
A. Part les
I. Party_* f SA/8 7)4A7'
c..i&,V,3 7, W FST T- t"`Ct35 (LI M W 1
LOC ,J *C
. t# l COC. 4�4 ^Jo r AJMa7ng F (AT c405
•'' y//rf
�raeeaTfv=
'^/" eYf
cotitsrow evoer
T•e fV•.lf Yf e•�► �'k�' �MtJtl.eVf�
❑ sta UPS Art ❑ ►Arat
1 fvt rttrt r•aL
❑ OTwtR:
❑ was. raTselal.f
❑ fCMOOt
. /se.rwr►fare.e�a► rfwreT
ST2LAGK- ? L
Q J�lZ-itOn� o% 171tcrn-ars e- vAjoc9jt')C- IT -
4z Ffp.j oLj—
eV•.
❑ artr ! ARUM UVDATZ
❑ OTwte:
eewfe
a•Yf ry./e/'fR f�a•f wrfMea• of La•f0
❑ Ttf D wo
II. statements t Parties Involved! Inderendent Witnesses
A. Part les
I. Party_* f SA/8 7)4A7'
c..i&,V,3 7, W FST T- t"`Ct35 (LI M W 1
LOC ,J *C
. t# l COC. 4�4 ^Jo r AJMa7ng F (AT c405
I r•1 To TNL:C or grL 277 s 02 F i C/1� ss c ,pro
415
z S� t t, T1� � w ►41 L_, D w J tt:�r;zlo R_Tt+ o rJ
cLATo r=T- Sa+.J
P J c3p— i -4 q- P,Nl zr�`
'to c w ur,)(
Irj7c /-/Isr�,•�t�', 7>*
ST2LAGK- ? L
Q J�lZ-itOn� o% 171tcrn-ars e- vAjoc9jt')C- IT -
4z Ffp.j oLj—
S
sl,vJ -Pte' ►� si7�vtc�<. �•
rr'1,
TI+A-
He 7Jd ,.,T Kn1oz doc,J TY T' *ce-IaNT
I.0.ewr2-ae r . It• •e.
0ay19-6 saw To.
� 1211 O►1 042 lJse Prrv-om editions until Cep+evO.
O—AOgAT1rt
P-
L -lot -7M WNPOWT
T+w //.ati/Iawar
❑ •A Y/OATi
A./aa/A/Lt1
D..T" D MIT A SUN UP%ATi
❑ •V►1tt WZWTAL I ❑ OTNf II: 1 ❑ NA=. MAT[CIALS ❑ ■CNOOL 1V• ❑•OTNCRS
CtTT/C,Y,T-/IV/VCYL /M►,ICT --••11 /x►. M/T/IR///A7 GTa"Im /VY/,.
•Tart ,Ia,WA♦ -.tAT
t.CAT1„hYM/R '
2. e
W l��c�r3 TA!A+Jc?LrJ SA a•J C n1 C slGv'>T F11"J @2os56n
3. SIB L-4. jr o. 8213-71 G ,,J of ,= r.+ v cT ^-//,s l.A-,
4. JW5 oG iL2 AI Fl#I S TiQtrS LoST 7'9-4G7770Q wtl-,4
�. Q• C AUS 1�S CAkA ISE Ole' n;-9- /S eifN g,rJocJd
8.
TI +I E-A S7
Sl 7 To 5M o�--J AZ5--A CYW
17 Qu ^'11,J -YJ ren a �" f L4 FT W ► L R ii�1 � Or b I� A LF
OFF 0^3 C,;, iPt;J «svt t , g un - R�1rJ`i
k c=ry rv, M -Z C� A" n c rz S — y� ark
(Rev 12.141 OPt 042 Lin onvovt for[mom uncd ��. -
����CARL WARREN & CO.
Insurance Adjusters
Claims Administrators
P O Box 25180
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5180
(714) 972.3146
(800) 572-6900
TO: City of Diamond Bar
Attention: Robert Van Nort
Re: Claim:
Claimant:
D/Event:
Rec'd Y/Office:
Our File:
Date: Aug. 16, 1991
Kudon vs Diamond Bar
penjamin Kudon
5-02-91
8-12-91
S 68084 DK/CV
We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take
the action indicated below:
CLAIM REJECTION: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant.
17-11
[] CLAIM INSUFFICIENCY: In accordance with the telephone conversation
of , 19 , a notice of insufficiency must be mailed
to the claimant no later than , 19•THIS MUST BE
MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL
CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SUBMIT A "REJECTION" LETTER. See
Government Code Sections 910 and/or 910.2 and or 910.4.
C] AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM: Send a standard rejection letter to
the claimant, refecting this additional/amended claim.
f� LATE CLAIM RESPONSE: Return the original claim material to the
claimant, advising that the claim is late and that their only
recourse is to file a written "Application for Leave to Present
a Late Claim". (Retain copies in your file.) THIS MUST BE MAILED
TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE CLAIM IN YOUR
OFFICE. DO NOT SEND A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code
Section 911.4.
ED APPLICATION REJECTION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave
to Present a Late Claim". See Government Code Section 911.8.
TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written response to the claimant
pending our further advice.
Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
cc: S.C.J.P.I.A. CARL �JARREN & COMPANY
u
,VcD
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RESERrED!`Ol� IL'I1VG�$T}YAIP
Claims for death or for injury to person or personal property or growing
crops must be filed within 6 monthsbf the occurrence which caused the injury. = I ' n:'i 7
. '? 5
All other claims must be filed within one year. See Government Code 911.2.
Read the entire claim before filing. Attach copies of estimates, bills, re-
ceipts, and all other documents in support of the claim. Attach separate sheets
for diagrams and additional information, if needed. SIGN EACH SHEET.
TO
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
NAME OF CLAIMANT DATE OF BIRTH OCCUPATION
BENJAMIN KUDON 3/9/51 MARKETING MANAGER
ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT HOME PHONE WORK PHONE xt .
84 Surf Ave. Milford CT 06460 203-874-6334 203-481-5771.2309
MAILING ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT NAME OF CONTACT CONTACT PHONE
c/o LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. SHERMAN ROBERT J. SHERMAN (213) 932-0056
4727 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90010
DATE. TIME &
5/2/91; 2020/ w/b SR -60 connec to S/B SR -57 _
DESCRIPTION OF OCCURRENCE
Claimant while driving a motorcycle at the location indicated lost
control of motorcycle due to dirt embankment and fell.
NAMES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO CAUSED INJURY, DAMAGE OR LOSS
EXPLANATION OF WHY PUBLIC ENTITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURY, DAMAGE OR LOSS
Dirst embankment, dangerous roadway condition, dirt embankment not visible
to motorists driving at night.
NAMES, ADDRESSES & PHONE NUMBERS OF WITNESSES & DOCTORS
Eric John Claus, 6145 Mabley Hill Rd., Fenton, MI 48430-313-632-7166
Teri Kurzzen, 572 First St., Covina, CA 91743 - 818-913-0933
Brea Communitv Hospital
DESCRIPTION OF INJURY, DAMAGE OR LOSS
Fractured right ankle, laceration to forehead, pain and shock to nervous
system and numerous muscle sprains.
ITEMIZED AMOUNT OF CLAIM (ESTIMATED IF UNKNOWN)
$7,500 medical expenses; $5,000 property damage; and $10,000 total est.
props,active damages.
Au
TURF OF CLAIMANT OR REPRESENTATIVE
st 9
DATE
1991
ROBERT J. SH]
'YPED OR PRINTED NAME
CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED WARNING: Presentation of a false claim is a criminal offense,
and filed with the Clerk of the Public Entity. , punishable by fine and imprisonment. See Penal Code 72.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 REPORT DATE: August 23, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Acceptance of Signal Installation on Grand Avenue at Shotgun Lane
SUMMARY: On March 19, 1991, the City Council awarded a contract to Intersection Maintenance Service
(IMS) to install traffic signal at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Shotgun Lane. The installation of the
signal is now complete and needs to be accepted by the City.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the work performed by IMS and
authorize the City Clerk to file the proper Notice of Completion.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Other
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
_
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
Majority
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
Yes X No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_
Yes X No
Which Commission?
_
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVTWED B /
14d ICZ
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager
id J. Mousavi
Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Signal Installation on Grand Avenue at
Shotgun Lane
ISSUE STATEMENT
Accept the signal installation at the intersection of Grand Avenue and
Shotgun Lane and file the Notice of Completion.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept the work performed by
Intersection Maintenance Service (IMS) and authorize the City Clerk to file
the proper Notice of Completion.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This action does not have any impact on the City's 1991-91 budget.
BACKGROUND
The City Council, at their regular meeting of March 19, 1991, awarded
contract for the installation of a traffic signal at Grand Avenue and Shotgun
Lane. IMS, the lowest responsible bidder, was awarded the contract for a
total amount of $69,263.
DISCUSSION
IMS has completed the installation of this project at said location and a
Notice of Completion has been filed and needs to be accepted by the City.
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. t / ,') 1
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 REPORT DATE: August 23, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Surety Bond Reduction
SUMMARY: The construction of a portion of work guaranteed by certain surety bonds has been completed
and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the City Engineer are recommending the
reduction of these surety bonds.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the work done on these projects and
instruct the City Clerk to reduce the following surety bonds and notify the Los Angeles County of the City
Council's action.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other Attachments
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REV�WED
Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger Sid 1. w1ousavi
City Manager Assistant City Manager Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Surety Bond Reduction
ISSUE STATEMENT
This report requests the reduction of surety bonds on certain public
improvements.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept the work done on these
projects and instruct the City Clerk to reduce the following surety bonds and
notify the Los Angeles County, Director of Public Works of the City Council's
action.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
N/A
BACKGROUND
The construction of a portion of certain road work and sanitary sewer system
guaranteed by the following surety bonds has been completed and the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works is recommending the reduction of
these surety bonds.
DISCUSSION
The following surety bonds have been requested to be reduced by the County:
1. Bond Number 83 SB 100 426 684 guaranteeing road improvements for Tract
Number 31850 in the amount of $330,000.
Surety: The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
100 West Broadway
Glendale, CA 91210
Principal: Bramalea Limited
1 Park Plaza
Irvine, CA 92714
Page Two
Surety Bond Reduction
August 21, 1991
2. Bond Number 83 SB 100 390 297 guaranteeing sanitary sewer improvements
for Tract Number 42564 in the amount of $60,000.
Surety: The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
100 West Broadway
Glendale, CA 91210
Principal: Bramalea Limited
1 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92714
3. Bond Number 83 SB 100 390 300 guaranteeing road improvements for Tract
Number 42564 in the amount of $101,800.
Surety: The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
100 West Broadway
Glendale, CA 91210
Principal: Bramalea Limited
1 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92714
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
THOMAS A. T1DEMANSON, Director
July 17, 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 911765
Dear Council Members:
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TRACT NO. 31850
VICINITY OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND GOLD RUSH DRIVE
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE L-5
REFER TO FILE
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:
Reduced the following surety bond by $330,000:
Bond Number 83 SB 100 426 684
Original Amount - $550,000
Surety - The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
100 West Broadway
Glendale, California 91210
Principal - Bramalea Limited
1 Park Plaza
irvine, California 92714
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
Director of Public Works
N. C. DATWYLER
Assistant Deputy Director
Land Development Division
LG:sg/31850
cc: City Clerk
J?ty OF. LO
S,f
.
M s
C4LIFORN�P'
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director
July 16, 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:
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
PRIVATE CONTRACT NO. 10702
TRACT NO. 42564
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE L-5
REFER TO FILE
The construction of a portion of sanitary sewers guaranteed by the improvement
security listed below, and constructed under the subject private contract, has
been completed in compliance with the plans and specifications.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
Reduce the following surety bond by $60,000:
Bond Number 83 SB 100 390 297
Original Amount - $80,000:
Surety - The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
100 West Broadway
Glendale, California 91210
Principal - Bramalea Limited
1 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, California 92714
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
Director of Public Works
.0
N. C. DATWYLER
Assistant Deputy Director
Land Development Division
LG:sg/42564
F.' LOS 4NC
J. F
C
x
C4lIFORM\P
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director
July 16, 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. 42564
VICINITY OF GOLDEN SPRINGS ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE L-5
REFER TO FILE
The construction of road improvements guaranteed by the improvement security
listed below has been completed in compliance with the plans and specifications
and in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
Reduce the following surety bond by $101,800:
Bond Number 83 SB 100 390 300
Original Amount - $203,600
Surety - The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
100 West Broadway
Glendale, California 91210
Principal - Bramalea Limited
1 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, California 92714
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,
�/r„T. A. TIDEMANSON
Superintendent of Streets/
City Engineer
LG:sg/42564A
cc: City Clerk
CITY OF DIAMOND RAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. /-/ /6
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 REPORT DATE: August 23, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Traffic Signal Installation on Grand Avenue at Rolling Knoll Road
SUMMARY: On July 23, 1991, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the installation of
traffic signal on Grand Avenue and Rolling Knoll Road. The bids for this project were opened on August 21,
1991, however, no bids were received.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution for the
installation of traffic signal at said location and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the bids for the second
time.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
X Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Other
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
X Yes No
by the City Attorney?
_
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
Majority
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
Yes X No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_
Yes X No
Which Commission?
_
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
_
71WD�a. t(
TTf—
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
0
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager
Sid ousavi
Public Works Director
CITY COi1NCII., SPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Installation on Grand Avenue at
Rolling Knoll Road
ISSUE STATEMENT
Readvertise to receive bids for installation of traffic signal at the
intersection of Grand Avenue and Rolling Knoll Road.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution for
the installation of traffic signal at said location and authorize the City
Clerk to readvertise for bids.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This action does not have any impact on the City's 1991-92 budget.
BACKGROUND
On July 23, 1991, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for
the installation of traffic signal at the intersection of Grand Avenue and
Rolling Knoll Road.
DISCUSSION
On the bid opening date of August 21, 1991, it was found that the City has
not received bids to install traffic signal at the above intersection. As a
result, it is necessary to readvertise the project for bids.
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
RESOLUTION NO. 91-57A
A RESOLUTION AMMENDING RESOLUTION 91-57 OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT GRAND AVENUE AND ROLLING
KNOLL ROAD 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 speci-
fications for Traffic Signal Construction at Grand Avenue and Rolling Knoll
Road.
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 specifica-
tions, 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 16th day of September, 1991, sealed bids or proposals for the Traffic Signal
Construction at Grand Avenue and Rolling Knoll Road 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.
Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the
City of Diamond Bar, California, marked, "Bid for Traffic Signal Construction at
Grand Avenue and Rolling Knoll Road".
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 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 em-
ployed 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 regula-
tions of the California Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices
may be employed in the prosecution of the work.
Attention is dirercted 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 ap-
proval. 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 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 jour-
neymen.
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 apprenticeable 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 re-
quirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other
requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex -offi-
cio 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 sub-
sistence 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 Dia-
mond 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 specifica-
tions will be furnished upon application to the City of Diamond Bar and pay-
ment of $5.00, said $5.00 is nonrefundable.
Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifica-
tions will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated
above, together with an additional nonreimbursable payment of $5.00 to cover
the cost of mailing charges and overhead.
The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfac-
tory 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 Engineer's Estimate for this project is $60,000.00.
The City of Diamond Bar, California, reserves the right to reject any and
all bids.
By order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California.
Dated this rd day of
1991.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED by the City of Council of the City of
Diamond Bar, California, this _rd day of , 1991.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
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 _rd day of 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
e
CITY OF DIAMOND DAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. t! . ,
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 REPORT DATE: August 26, 1991
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
TITLE: Sign Review No. 91-28
SUMMARY: The Diamond Bar Congregational Church requests approval to replace their existing freestanding
sign with a new freestanding monument sign and two crosses. The City Council review of the
proposed sign is required pursuant to condition "p" of Resolution No. 89-82 approved by the
Council on September 5, 1989.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the
proposed freestanding sign and two crosses with a maximum overall height of
eight (8') feet, located behind the twenty (20') foot setback as required in the
zone. (R-3-8000)
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
X Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_Other
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed ?�, Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
RF, EWED B"
�I'A xltlu>l�, le_�
Obert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger mes DeStefa
City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Devel pment Director
no
F: %WP511AGPNDAICOVFR. FRM
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Sign Review No. 91-28 for Diamond Bar Congregational Church
located at 2249 Morning Canyon Road. (CUP 89-187)
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Diamond Bar Congregational Church requests approval to replace their existing
freestanding sign with a new freestanding monument sign and two (2) crosses.
City Council review of the proposed sign is required pursuant to condition
"p" of Resolution 89-82 approved by the Council September 5, 1989.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the
proposed freestanding monument sign and two (2) crosses for the church
facility not to exceed eight (8) feet in height, located behind the twenty
(201) foot setback which is required in the zone. (R-3-8000)
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
N/A
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On September 5, 1989, the City Council at a public hearing, approved Cup 89-
187 (Resolution No. 89-82) with a variety of conditions. The resolution
permitted the church to continue the operation of a pre-school with extended
day care for 110 children and construct various improvements to the property.
In order to continue operation of a church and pre-school facility on a 3.53
acre property with extended day care for 110 children, the parking lot had to
be expanded, designed, and striped according to City standards.
Condition "p", of Resolution No. 89-82 states as follows:
" When the existing sign for the church facilities is replaced with a
new sign, the replacement sign shall be subject to approval by the City
Council, and shall not exceed eight (81) feet in height measured from
the adjacent grade".
The existing sign is located within the twenty (201) foot front setback on
the north side of the driveway which is on Diamond Bar Blvd. It is
approximately fifteen (151) feet in height, rectangular in shape, and
supported by two wooden posts. The face of the existing sign is made of wood
with painted lettering.
The new sign proposed by the church is three feet six inches (31611) in height
and ten feet (101) in width equalling thirty-five (35) square feet in sign
face area which complies with the interim zoning ordinance pertaining to
freestanding signs (Ordinance No. 9-B 1990). The sign is proposed to be
constructed of poured concrete left to its natural grey color. The lettering
will be gold/bronze anodized aluminum, four (41) and six (61) inches in
height. The sign is double-faced, triangular in shape and is in conformance
with the City's new sign ordinance, effective September 20, 1991 with the
exception of height.
The sign is to be located on the south side of the Diamond Bar Blvd. driveway
positioned sixteen (16') feet behind the property line (see Exhibit "A"). One
tree with a circumference of two (2' ) feet and nine (911) inches, measured
from two (21) feet above the lowest point of ground level, will need to be
removed because it will obstruct the view of the sign for passing cars on
Diamond Bar Blvd. The Council may wish to consider requiring the church to
replace this tree with two additional trees to be located on-site.
A forty-eight (4811) inch square concrete pad is proposed to be located
directly behind the proposed sign. Two (2) crosses will be placed on the
pad. One cross will be twelve (121) feet three (31) inches in height. The
other cross, will be nine (91) feet in height. The width of both crosses will
be seven (711) inches at the base, increasing ten (1011) inches, and then
decreasing to seven (711) inches at the top. Both crosses are to be
fabricated from gold/bronze anodized aluminum.
The existing Los Angeles County Planning and Zoning Code is "silent"
pertaining to the issue of whether the two crosses are works of art or a sign
advertising a use. The new Sign Code indicates that the two crosses are a
device used for visual communication to advertise or promote a "use" and is
therefore, a sign. Pursuant to condition "p" of Resolution No. 89-82, the
maximum height of the sign shall not exceed eight (81) feet. If the crosses
are to exceed eight (81) feet in height, an application for a variance will
need to be heard, at a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
The City Council has the following options to choose from:
1. Approve the proposed freestanding sign and two crosses with a
maximum height of eight (81) feet and located behind the twenty
(201) foot setback required of the zone. (Staff recommendation)
2. Approve only the monument sign and deny the crosses based upon
height.
3. Deny the entire proposal.
4. Send the entire project to the Planning Commission for
consideration of a variance for height. (Application and fees
needed from applicant.)
Prepared by:
Ann J. Lungu, Planning Technician
Attachments: Exhibit "A" -sign plans dated September 3, 1991.
Resolution No. 89-82 dated September 5, 1991
Draft Resolution of Approval
F:1WP511WORKW GENDAIAGE-RPT.FRM
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR APPROVING SIGNAGE FOR THE DIAMOND
BAR CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH.
A. R10„itAls.
(i) Diamond Bar Congregational Church has previously
received a Conditional Use Permit from the Council of the City of
Diamond Bar (CUP 89-1.87) and such Conditional Use Permit was
approved subject to conditions as set forth on Resolution
No. 89-82, approved by this Council September 5, 1989.
(ii) Resolution No. 89-82 establishes, in Section "p"
of said Resolution that:
"When the existing sign for the church facilities
is replaced with a new sign, the replacement sign shall
be subject to approval by the City Council, and shall
not exceed eight (8) feet in height measured from the
adjacent grade."
(iii) Diamond Bar Congregational Church has submitted a
plan which proposes the removal of the existing sign and
replacement of such sign with a free --standing monument sign and
two (2) crosses; the proposed replacement signing, including
crosses, does not exceed eight (8) feet in height as measured
from the adjacent grade.
(iv) The previously approved Conditional Use Permit has
adequately considered the environmental effects which may result
1
from the replacement of the sign and no unforeseen environmental
impacts have been identified in regard to this proposal.
(v) On September 3, 1991, this City Council conducted
a hearing on said application and concluded said hearing prior to
the adoption of this Resolution.
(vi) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. In all respects, as set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this
city Council during the above -referenced hearing, including
written staff reports and development plans, this City Council
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The proposed replacement signage, including
crosses, is in conformance with the restrictions established in
Condition "p," of Resolution No. 89--82.
b. The siting of such replacement signs,
including crosses, is appropriate in respect to the size, shape,
topography, location and other factors which affect the subject
property.
C. The proposed replacement signage
substantially conforms to the signage requirements enforced by
the City of Diamond Bar.
3. The City Council finds and certifies the request
submitted for consideration is exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15061(b)(3) and further that the previous
environmental review accorded to this project adequately
considered environmental impacts which may be related heroto.
4. The construction of the signs, including crosses,
shall comply with all requirements of the codes of the City of
Diamond Bar, and further shall be in substantial compliance with
the site plan as attached hereto and incorporated by reference as
Exhibit "A."
5. Any trees which may be removed as a result of the
demolition or placement of the existing or proposed sign, as the
case may be, shall be replaced on a two -to -one ratio with trees
of a type and size which shall be approved by the Planning
Director or his designee.
6. The approval granted hereby shall expire at a date
and time which is one calendar year from the date of this
approval unless the development approved by this Resolution has
been substantially commenced. A one-year time extension may be
requested in writing, from the Planning Commmission of the City of
Diamond Bar, and such request for extension shall be submitted
not less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date of
expiration of this initial one-year period.
7. The applicant shall comply with all conditions set
forth in Conditional Use Permit 89-187 and Resolution No. 89--82.
3
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF
SEP'T'EMBER, 1991.
yor
1, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond
Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed,
adopted and approved at a regular nceting of the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of September,
1991, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL .MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: --,,,t,,7Clerk of the City -of
Diamond Bar
L\1311WHR,.11RESID3 1.4A 4
RESOLUTION NO. 89-_8; —
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING CONDITIONAL UBE
PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 89187, A REQUEST TO
CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF A PRE-SCHOOL
FACILITY WITH EXTENDED DAY CARE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2249 SOUTH MORNING CANYON ROAD,
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS
THEREON.
(i) The Diamond Bar Congregational Church heretofore
Piled an application for approval to continue the operation of a
pre-school facility with extended day care for 110 children,
denominated as Project No. 89187, located at 2249 South Morning
Canyon Road, City of Diamond Bar, California. Hereinafter in
this Resolution, the subject conditional use permit application
is referred to as "the Project."
(ii) The City Council of the city of Diamond Bar, on
August 15, 1989, conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said
application and concluded said public hearing on that date.
(iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by
the city council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This City council hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Resolution are true and correct.
1
2. This City Council hereby finds and determinos-that
the Project is Categorically exempt from the requirements of thQ
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended,
pursuant to the provisions of 2 California Code of Regulations
Section 15301 (Class 1).
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this
Council during the above-referenced August 15, 1989 hearing, and
oral testimony provided at that hearing, this Council hereby
specifically finds as follows:
(a) The Project applies to property presently
zoned R-3-8000-IU located at 2249 South Morning Canyon Road,
Diamond Bar, California, and consists of approximately 3.53 acres
of land;
(b) The properties to the north, south, east and
west are developed with condominiums and single -family
residential dwelling units;
(c) The property is depicted within the U-3
(Multi-family Residential) category of the county-wide general
plan;
(d) The site is physically suitable for the
project, is generally level to sloping and has access to city-
maintained streets;
(e) The Project will not adversely affect the
health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons resifting or working
in the surrounding area nor'will the Project be materially
detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of
2
other persons located in the vicinity of the Project, nor will
the Project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace
to the public health, safety or general welfarei
(f) The proposed site is adequate in size and
shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and
loading facilities, landscaping and other development features
required pursuant to the ordinances of the city of Diamond Bar;
(g) The proposed site is adequately served by
highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary
to carry the kind and quantity of traffic and other public or
private service facilities as are required.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth
herein above, this council, in conformance with the terms and
provisions of California Government Code Section 65360, hereby
finds as follows:
(a) There is a reasonable probability that the
Project will be consistent with the proposed general plan;
(b) There is little or no probability that the
Project will be of substantial detriment to, or interfere with,
the proposed general plan for the area of the subject site; and
(c) The Project, as proposed and conditioned
herein, complies with all other applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinances.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth
above and the conditions Net forth below in this Resolution, this
3
Council hereby approves the said Project subject to tach and -
every condition set forth herein.
6. The City Council hereby imposes tha following
reasonable conditions:
(a) This grant shall not be effective for any
purpose until the permittee and the owner of the property
involved (if other than the p(--rmittee) have tiled at the office
of the Department of Regional Planning their affidavit stating
that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the
conditions of this grant.
(b) The permittee shall defend, indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from
any claim,- action, or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this
permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable
time period Of Government Code Section 65907. The City Shall
promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding
and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City
fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or
proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the permittee shall not thereafter be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
C(c) This grant will expire unless exercised
e
within two years from the date of approval. A one-year time
extension may be requested before the expiration date.
4
(d) If any provision of this grant is held or
declared to be invalid, the permit shall be void and the
privilagQs granted hereunder shall lapse.
(e) The subject property shall be maintained and
operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and
any law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to
any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of
the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full
compliance shall be a violation of these conditions.
(f) Notice is hereby given that any person
violating a provisions of this grant is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Notice is further—given that the City Council may, after
conducting a public hearing, revoke or modify this grant, if it
finds that these conditions have been violated or that this grant
has been exercised so as to be detrimental to the public health
or safety or so as to be a nuisance.
(g) This grant allows the continued operation of
a church and pre-school facility with extended day care for 110
children subject to the -_following restrictions as to use:
j (1) ;A minimum of 53 parking spaces shall bn
provided an the site. All parking spaces shall ba destigned and
striped according to City standards.
(2) The maximum number of students attending
the day nursery shall not exceed 110 children at any given time.
5
(3) The hours of operation eshall be limited
to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
(4) This grant shall supersada Zona
Exception Case 9115-(1), conditional Use Permit Case 719-(1), and
Conditional Use Permit Casa 1339-(1).
(5) The pre-school shall comply with all
licensing requirements of the state of California. Copies of
these requirements shall be provided by applicant to the City.
(h) Fifteen copies of a revised plot plan,
similar to Exhibit "A" as presented at the public hearing and
conforming to such of the following conditions as can be shown on
a plan, shall be submitted for approval of the Director of
Planning:
(1) Show and dimension all required parking.
The property shall be developed and maintained in
substantial conformance with the approved Exhibit "A". All
revised plot plans must be accompanied by the written
authorization of the property owner.
!(i) The subject property shall be developed and
maintained in substantial compliance with the plans on file
marked Exhibit "A". In the event that the subsequent revised
plans are submitted, the written authorization of the property
owner is necessary.
(j) All requirements of the Zoning ordinance and
of the specific zoning of the Subject property must be complied
0
with unless otherwise set forth in these conditions or shown on
the Approved plans.
(k) The subjQct facility shall be maintained in
compliance with requirements of the Lora Angeles County Department
of Health Services. Adequate water and sewage facilities shall
be provided to the satisfaction of said Department.
(1) Upon receipt of this Resolution, the
permittee shall contact the Fire Prevention bureau of the Los
Angeles County Forester and Fire Warden to determine what
facilities may be necessary to protect the property from fire
hazard. any necessary facilities shall be provided as may be
required by said Department.
(m) Dedicate to the City of Diamond Bar the right
to restrict access to Diamond Bar Boulevard.
(n) Reseal driveway and parking lot, including
restriping of parking lot to City standards.
(o) All structures shall conforn with thQ
raquirQmants of the Division of Building and Safety of the
DQpartmant of Public Works.
1
(p); When the existing sign for the church
facilities is`'r-eplaced with a new sign, the replacement sign
shall be subject to approval by the City Council, and shall not
exceed eight feet in height measured from the adjacent grade.
7. This council hereby provides notice to the Diamond
Bar Congregational Church that the time within which judicial
review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be
7
sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6
8. The City c1Qrk is hereby directed to certify to
the adoption of this Resolution and, by certified mail, return
receipt requested, forward a copy to the Diamond Bar
Congregational Church at its address of record as set forth in
the application for said Project.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 5th day of
September, 1484.
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed,
adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the city Council of
the City of Diamond Bar held on the Stn day of September ,
1989, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Forbi.ng, Miller, Werner,
Mayor Pro Tem Horcher And
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Mayor Papen
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ATTEST • t- tC �-' 12.
• C ty -`C erk of the aity of Dia -mond Bar
N\1011\CU?V2S\1)3 6.9 2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. t> /
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 REPORT DATE: August 23, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works
TITLE: Block Numbers On Bus Shelters
SUMMARY: It is difficult to locate business street addresses along the major streets in
Diamond Bar. The problem arises out of the deep set -backs of shopping centers and lack
of addresses on shopping center signage.
RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Traffic and Transportation Commission that
street block numbers be installed on the bus stop shelters and that the City Manager be
authorized to execute an amendment to the bus shelter agreement.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
Other
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No
Which Commission? T/T Commission
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
F: \WP511AGENDA1Co VER.FRM
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager
Sid J. Mousavi
Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Block Numbers On Bus Shelters
ISSUE STATEMENT
Deep set -backs of shopping centers and the lack of addresses on shopping
center signage has made locating addresses along the City;s major streets
difficult. It is proposed to install block numbers on bus stop shelters.
TION
It is the recommendation of the Traffic and Transportation Commission that
street block numbers be installed on the bus stop shelters along the
boulevards and that the City Manager be authorized to execute an amendment to
the bus shelter agreement.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This recommendation will have no financial impact.
BACKGROUND
Mayor John Forbing suggested the installation of block numbers on the bus
stop shelters to aid in locating and shopping Diamond Bar business. Block
numbers on the shelters would give a reference point when looking for
specific addresses.
DISCUSSION
Typically, street names or numbers are displayed on the structure fascia.
However, this is not possible with the shelters in Diamond Bar because of the
tile roof facade. Staff has been in contact with Bustop Shelters of
California in regards to the feasibility of displaying the block numbers on
the bus shelters. Bustop Shelters has suggested and agreed to furnish block
numbers on the upright posts of the shelters at no cost to the City.
PREPARED BY:
Charles Janiel
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. 4/, r3
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 REPORT DATE: August 23, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Pomona Freeway at Brea Canyon Road Westbound On/Off Ramps
SUMMARY: As part of the plan to improve and upgrade the signal system, protected left -turn phasing,
restriping, and widening of on/off ramp at Brea Canyon Road and State Route 60, an agreement between
CalTrans and the City has been developed which specifies the terms and conditions under which this project
is to be engineered, constructed, financed, and maintained.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into an
agreement with CalTrans.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
X Agreement(s)
(Draft)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
_ Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Other
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No
Which Commission? T/T Commission
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVB, WED B
d—
'A
Obert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger STMousavi
City Manager Assistant City Manager Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Pomona Freeway at Brea Canyon Road Westbound On/Off Ramps
ISSUE STATEMENT
In order to clearly specify the terms and conditions under which the project
located at Brea Canyon Road and State Route 60, is to be engineered,
constructed, financed, and maintained, the City needs to enter into an
agreement with CalTrans.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into an
agreement with CalTrans.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The design construction and construction management cost of this project is
estimated to be $264,000. CalTrans' participation will be $191,300 and the
City portion is estimated to be $72,000. Gas Tax ($32,000) and Development
Fee ($40,000) will be used for this project.
BACKGROUND
The City of Diamond Bar, in cooperation with CalTrans, has proposed to
upgrade the signal system, protected left -turn phasing, restriping, and
widening of on/off ramp at said location.
DISCUSSION
The attached agreement which pertains to a financial participation of the
proposed project, is intended to secure and layout the terms and conditions
under which this project is to be constructed. CalTrans has requested to be
contacted prior to September 13, 1991 regarding the agreements acceptance,
additions, deletions in order to prepare the formal agreement.
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST. '- 9
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
TDD (213) 620-3550
(213) 620-4113
August 8, 1991
7 -LA -60 R23.0
Pomona Freeway at
Brea Canyon Road
(Westbound)
T - 6258
District Agreement
No. 4040
07352 - 401970
Mr. Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Dear Mr. Van Nort:
Attached for your review is a draft of Cooperative Agreement
Number 4040.
This agreement is for financial participation of proposed
upgrading of signal system, protected left -turn phasing,
restriping, and widening of on-ramp entrance at the above
location between the City of Diamond Bar and the State.
Please indicate in your reply, prior to September 13, 1991,
your acceptance of this agreement, or suggested changes, so that
we may prepare the formal documents.
This project has been previously reviewed by the City. A
copy of the response is attached.
If you have any questions concerning this agreement, please
contact Mr. Chester Otani at (213) 620-4640.
Sincerely,
SAEED TABAIE, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
Traffic Operations Branch
Attachments
cc: Sid J. Mousavi
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
DIAMOND BAK
June 4, 1991
21660 FAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100 -
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177
714-860-2489 • FAX 714-861-3117
Louis S. Quan, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
Traffic Operation Branch
Department of Transportation, District 7
120 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUBJECT: POMONA FREEWAY AT BREA CANYON ROAD
WESTBOUND ON -AND -OFF RAMPS
Dear Mr. Quan:
This is to inform you that the City of Diamond Bar concurs with
your finding regarding the need for improvements on Brea Canyon
Road at the 60 Freeway westbound on -and -off ramps.
The City of Diamond Bar will participate in the cost of the
improvements as was outlined in your letter dated December 18,
1991. Please submit a copy of your project activities schedule to
the City. Meantime, if there are any questions or you need
additional information from the City please contact this office at
(714) 396-5671.
Sincerely,
Sid Jalal Mousavi
City Engineer/Director of Public Works 1
cc: Robert L Van Nort
City Manager o,
SJM:kna
JOHN A. FORBING JAY C. KIM PHYLLIS E. PAPEN DONALD C. NARDELLA GARY H. WERNER
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR USES RECYCLED PAPER
ROBERT L. VAN NOR'I
City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.?. / . /
TO: Robert L. Van Nort
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 REPORT DATE: August 29, 1991
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
TITLE: Cooperative Agreement for preparation of the Tres Hermanos Specific Plan and award of
Contract for professional services.
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar is in the process of developing its first General Plan. The City of
Industry, through its Redevelopment Agency, owns 800 vacant acres south of the Pomona Freeway and
west of Chino Hills Parkway. The purpose of this report is to develop a concept land use plan for
future development of the property.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to
execute an agreement on behalf of the City in an amount not to exceed $50,000 to prepare the Tres
Hermanos Specific Plan.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
X Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: City of Industry
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
Other
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes — No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REV ED BY:
l'
Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager Assistant City Manager
F:\WP51WGENDA\COVER.FRM
,;y"k&f__t0
mes DeStefano
Community Development Director
MEETING DATE:
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
September 3, 1991
TO: jnorable Mayor
FROM: ty Manager
AGENDA NO.
and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement for preparation of the Tres Hermanos
Specific Plan and award of Contract for professional services.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City of Diamond Bar is in the process of developing its first General
Plan. The City of Industry, through its Redevelopment Agency, owns 800
vacant acres south of the Pomona Freeway and west of Chino Hills Parkway.
The purpose of this report is to develop a concept land use plan for future
development of the property.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager
to execute an agreement on behalf of the City in an amount not to exceed
$50,000 to prepare the Tres Hermanos Specific Plan.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
It is estimated that Phase I of the Tres Hermanos Specific Plan will cost
approximately $171,400. Phase II of the Specific Plan is estimated to cost
between $175,000 and $250,000. The City's portion of the estimated
consultant's fee is $50,000. The balance of the participation will be paid
for by the City of Industry's Redevelopment Agency.
BACKGROUND:
The Tres Hermanos Ranch consists of approximately 2600 acres, of which 800
acres are located in the City of Diamond Bar. The area is on the edge of the
City of Diamond Bar, Phillips Ranch portion of the City of Pomona, and the
fast growing community of Chino Hills. The Draft Land Use Element of the
City's General Plan identifies this area as a candidate for a Specific Plan
in order to analyze and effectively plan the future development of the ranch.
The Pomona Unified School District has indicated their desire to place a new
high school within North Diamond Bar. The development of the City's first
General Plan combined with the desire by the City to support the siting and
development of a new high school in North Diamond Bar, and the City of
Industry's desire to develop a reservoir, create an opportunity to prepare a
conceptual land use plan and the creation of a detailed Specific Plan
incorporating a variety of land uses.
A Specific Plan is an implementation tool of the General Plan for designated
areas within a community. A Specific Plan provides and contains locations
and standards for various land use densities, street systems and public
facilitiec in greater detail than a General Plan.
DISCUSSION:
A team of consultants met with representatives of the City of Industry, the
City of Diamond Bar and the Pomona Unified School District on August 27,
1991, to scope a study for the 800 acre Tres Hermanos Ranch located in the
City of Diamond Bar. The purpose of the initial phase is to prepare a
concept plan within four months which will contain the basic elements of land
use and design and which will accommodate sites for a high school and a
reservoir. During the four month period, the consultants will provide
opportunities for input into the process and will product several alternative
plans for consideration and comment before selecting a preferred alternative.
The result of this first phase will then be presented for adoption as part of
Diamond Bar's General Plan and will form the basis for a specific plan and an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which will constitute the second phase of
the effort.
The program represents a unique opportunity to all parties, in that the Tres
Hermanos area is a strategically located parcel of substantial size along a
freeway interchange, which is owned by the City of Industry and who have
indicated an interest in taking a long view with respect to development of
the property. Unlike a more typical development, therefore, there is an
opportunity to create a plan which reflects a long range vision, rather than
a short term market opportunity.
To accomplish this, a team of specialized talent was assembled, each bringing
a particular expertise to the process. Jay Regan of the firm of Kotin, Regan
and Mouchly (KRM) will provide the real estate and market framework and will
be responsible for coordinating the initial concept planning stage of the
study. Most heavily involved in the formulation of the concept plan will be
Jim Goodell of James Goodell and Associates and Peter Kamnitzer, architect,
planner and Professor Emeritus at UCLA, who will be responsible for preparing
the "vision" and the design alternatives. They will be supported by Lew
Garber of DMJM, architects and engineers, who will review and evaluate the
various concepts to determine if there are likely to be any major impediments
to engineering feasibility. At the same time, DKS Associates (who are the
City's consultants for the Circulation Element of the General Plan and who
have been retained by the School District to study traffic implications of
alternative high school sites), will assess the on-site and off-site traffic
implications of the various alternatives. Providing much of the
environmental data needs for the first phase will be the planning consulting
firm of Envicom.
For the second phase, the effort will be coordinated by Woody Tescher of
Envicom, who will have primary responsibility for the preparation of the
Specific Plan and EIR. The costs and timetable for the second phase are
shown within ranges, as the specific work program would be dictated to some
extent by the results of the first phase. Although approval is requested for
both Phase I and II at this time, Phase II would not be initiated until a
specific program, cost schedule and timetable is submitted at the conclusion
of Phase I.
The total cost of the study is expected to be between $346,400 and $421,400,
with Phase I at $171,400.
Although the responsibility for the conduct of the study will be shared
equally by both cities, the City of Diamond Bar will accept responsibility
for contract administration. (Since the City of Industry, as the property
owner will eventually be the applicant for any proposed development in the
area, it would be appropriate for the City of Diamond Bar to assume
responsibility for contract administration, particularly with respect to the
preparation of the Specific Plan and the EIR.)
Accordingly, it is requested that $50,000 be authorized for the conduct of
the study, that staff be directed to prepare a cooperative agreement (draft
attached) with the City of Industry for the conduct of the study and sharing
of costs, and that the consultant team be authorized to proceed in accordance
with the attached scope of services.
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano, Community Development Director
and Irwin Kaplan, City Planner Emeritus
JDS\mco
attachments: Scope of Services
Draft Cooperative Agreement
F:\WP51\WORK\AGENDA\AOH-RYr.FRM
KOTIN. REGAN & MOUCHLY. Inc.
Peal Estate Consuitants
1161, San Vcerte Boulevard
Suite 700
'Los Angeies. Caiifornia 90049
2131820•G900
August 29, 1991
Mr. Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Ste. 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: PROPOSAL FOR CONCEPT PLANNING OF TRES HERMANOS PROPERTY
Gentlemen:
It is with great pleasure that Kotin, Regan & Mouchly, Inc. (KRM) in association with James
Goodell, Peter Kamnitzer, DMJM and Envicom respond to your request for a proposal
concerning the concept plan, specific plan and environmental impact report (EIR) preparation
of the Tres Hermanos property. Tres Hermanos is a large undeveloped parcel of land at the
eastern end of your City. Although the total parcel is more than 2,300 acres, approximately
800 acres are within the City of Diamond Bar and are the focus of this proposal.
OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSULTING EFFORT
Phase 1 - Concept Planning
The broad objective of this consulting effort is to synthesize the potential of the property and
the requirements of the affected constituencies and participants into innovative land use
concepts that would simultaneously generate significant long-term revenue to the landowner
and improve both the net revenues and the quality of life for the City of Diamond Bar.
Associated with this ambitious integrated statement are a series of specific objectives:
1. Organize the available information.
2. Ascertain the priorities and requirements of the affected constituencies,
particularly the cities of Diamond Bar and industry, since the latter is the owner
of the property.
3. Create a wide-ranging and imaginative vision of the prospective use of the
property considering the inclusion of a major high school site for the Pomona
School District.
KOTIN. REGAN & .MOL'CHLY Inc,
Proposa' for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property
Auousi 29, 1991
4. Identify the benefits of one or more conceptual plan scenarios to the affected
constituencies.
5. Provide recommendations for general guidelines to be incorporated in the
general plan with respect to this property, acknowledging that any further
definition would clearly require its own specific plan.
6. Identify the prerequisites and resources required for detailed master planning of
the site should the concepts proposed be adopted.
To a large extent, the Phase I study, as comprehensive and imaginative as we hope it will be,
is stili just a "plan to plan." Detailed planning or even schematic planning of a site this large
is an effort requiring months, if not years, of planning, Maudget.for_s4ch-an-u- ndertaking could
salify -reach -$1 -million or more. The objective of the study Is to highlight the site's potential
for the City of Diamond Bar and the site's owner with sufficient definition to provide general
plan guidelines, facilitate school negotiations, and identify prerequisites for further specific
planning and an entitlements plan.
Phase 11 - Specific Plan and EIR
The Phase II assignment will involve refinement of the conceptual plan and formulation of a
Specific Plan, as authorized by California State Planning Law, which is anticipated to include
various components including a land use plan, circulation plan, infrastructure/utilities plan,
grading feasibility and design standards, urban design, public facilities, development and design
standards, and implementation.
This work program also will include preparation of an EIR in accordance with CEQA
requirements.
CONSULTING TEAM
The financial and economic analysis element of Phase I as well as overall Phase I study
administration will be provided by KRM. The Phase 11 study administration will be provided
by Envicom. The consulting team members will provide the following specific services:
KOTIN, REGAN & MOEICHLY. Inc.
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property Agost 24, 1931
Phase I Phase 11
KRM • Project Administration Definitive market planning,
• Market and financial analysis Specific Plan - fiscal funding
James Goodell • Technical coordination of
planning, engineering and
preliminary environmental
analysis
• Concept planning
• Development strategies
• Entitlements and agency liaison
e Refine land use plan
• Streetscape/landscape pian
• Development & design standards
Peter Kamnitze► • Planning and design concepts • Refine land use plan
• Streetscape/landscape plan
• Development & design standards
Envicom • Input to existing condition
and constraints analysis
• Preliminary environmental
assessment
• Project administration
• Primary responsibility for
Specific Pian and E1R
preparation
DMJM Conceptual grading and • Refine site engineering
site engineering - Infrastructure & utilities plan
This proposal excludes transportation consulting services for both Phases I and 11 to be
provided by DKS Associates under separate contract.
SCOPE OF EFFORT
The proposed consulting effort is presented in two phases:
Phase I - Conceptual planning, financial analysis and market research
Phase i I - Specific Plan and EI R preparation
The scope of Phase i is to develop a concept plan. Where it differs from traditional concept
planning in its explicit incorporation of financial analysis for both the City and the owner.
It also diffeis rs in that a specialized pre -development consultant is being invited into the process
to coordinate the large number of potentially conflicting jurisdictions, constituencies and
priorities. The process by which this property would be developed is complex. No concept
3
KOTIN, REGAIN & MOUCHLY Inc.
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 1991,
plan, no matter how imaginative, can succeed if it is not tempered with the knowledge of the
process through which any development must proceed.
While the results of this analysis may become part of the public process of general plan
adoption, that public process is explicitly outside the scope of Phase 1. The participants all
agree that the uncertainty associated with public presentations and review would prevent us
from putting forth a fixed-price budget. Accordingly, while we intend to have extensive
interaction with staff and individual one-on-one interaction, as appropriate, with other
constituencies, e.g. the owner, the school district, etc., Phase I is not a proposal to write,
present or adopt an element in the general plan. Creation of a specific plan of the project for
public review is the explicit objective of Phase H.
Nothing in the foregoing, however, should restrict the staff from publicly presenting or
discussing Phase I results to the extent that they approve and endorse them.
Also critical to the scope of this project is that the consulting team feels that this is a unitary
effort that cannot be neatly broken down into phases. Therefore, we would anticipate that
none of our results be published in any form until the entire process has been completed.
The Phase Il scope of work is presented in this proposal only in general outline form at this
time. The precise scope of work for Phase II will be refined at the conclusion of Phase I to
reflect the findings of the Phase 1 study.
PHASE is Concept Planning
At this time, concept planning, which is the overall Phase I effort, will consist of eight
sequential tasks:
1. Initial debriefing and data assembly
2. Overall constraints and priority constraint analysis
3. Preliminary/conceptual engineering
4. Constituency identification and establishment of priorities
5. Explicitly "unfettered" conceptual analysis of property's potential
6. Parallel financial analysis
7. Synthesis, report preparation and presentation
8. Supporting market research documentation
in the following discussion, the general components of each of these tasks are presented
together with a discussion of which team members have primary responsibility.
it should be noted that Tasks 4, 5 and 6 are all concurrent in order to provide a reasonable
near-term delivery date to the client.
4
KOTiN, REGAN & MOUCHLY: Inc.
Proposal for Concept Planmq of Tres Hermanos Property
Task 1 - Initial Debriefing and Data Assembly
August 29, 1991
In the initial debriefing, all major team participants would be debriefed by key personnel from
the two cities. The debriefing would primarily deal with their perception of the property, an
identification of existing information and existing information sources and their recommenda-
tion as to other parties or processes that need to be considered. At this time, the initial
debriefing and data assembly would not extend materially beyond the two cities and whatever
consultants or consulting studies that they have already assembled. The consulting team would
also assemble independent external data, to the extent needed and readily available, e.g. aerial
photos, better topographical maps, traffic count data, etc., as needed.
In this phase of the work, the primary team member with overall responsibility would be James
Goodell and DMJM, although representatives of all participants would participate, We
tentatively anticipate that in order to meet the overall time deadline in this project this phase
would require approximately two to three weeks.
Task 2 - Preliminary Site Constraints Analysis
This is primarily a topographical, traffic and institutional constraints analysis. it will be the
primary responsibility of James Goodell, together with DMJM supported by Envicom. While
no formal timeline has been set for this, the process will begin immediately after Task 1.
During this task, the consultant will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the physical
environmental characteristics of the site and available infrastructure and services which may
influence the patterns, densities, and/or types of development which may be achieved on the
Tres Hermanos property, These will be determined by field reconnaissance of the site, review
of aerial photographs and extant literature (e.g., the 1970 Tres Hermanos Ranch Plan, E1 Rs,
California Department of Fish and Game lists of rare and endangered species, and other), and
interviews with service agency representatives. it is anticipated that the critical environmental
factors to be evaluated will include.
• Topography and slope
• Geology and soils (historic landslides, liquefaction potential, faulting, etc.)
• Significant plant and wildlife habitats
• f=looding
• Streets and highway; vehicular access to the site
• Infrastructure (principal sewer and water trunk lines, storm drainage, and other
elements serving the site)
• Significant visual elements
The major output of this phase of the analysis will be a series of general charts and working
graphics as well as a descriptive narrative indicating the constraints site and dictated by the
physical or legal considerations. A constraints map will be part of final presentation together
KORN. REGAN & MOUCHLY. Inc.
Proposa, for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 199'
with a suitable appendix and cross-reference material specifying the legal or physical basis for
limiwlon and the kind of limitation of development.
Task 3 - Frei iminary/Conceptual Engineering
The preliminary engineering tasks to be performed by DMJM will include the following areas:
• Site constraints research and analysis - public facility providers and limitations;
existing utility systems and service implications; city requirements and policies;
review of soils issues.
• Concept grading plan - preliminary grading pian and earthwork estimate for
alternative concept plans.
• Preliminary utility network - preliminary wastewater, water distribution, storm
water plans including identification of potential for reclaimed water system and
implications for development.
• Preliminary cost estimates - basic land development cost estimates for grading,
roadways, basic utility network and offsite construction requirements.
Task 4 - Constituency Identification and Establishment of Priorities
In this task, Coodell and Envicom will interview and debrief, over a period of approximately
six weeks, all the affected Jurisdictions. For each of the constituencies or regulatory
jurisdictions, he will assemble basic information as to their requirements to provide meaningful
reality checking and process analysis for the concepts being developed in parallel with Mr.
Kamnitzer in Task 4. KRM will actively participate in the process to the extent that there exists
financial or fiscal implications or prerequisites for various elements, e.g. infrastructure financing.
The output from this effort will be a combination of narrative and chart presentations. A
narrative and/or chart presentation of critical approval processes will be provided not only for
the conventional entitlements but also for any specialized elements of environmental review
and interactions with other critical agencies, e.g. Caltrans, Pomona Unified School District.
Approximate required time, initial documentation and apparent and potential constraints on
development will be identified with each relevant constituency and organization.
Task 5 - Explicitly "Unfettered" Conceptual Analysis of Property's Potential
Upon completion of the initial debriefing, Mr. Kamnitzer will bring to bear his experience and
his ideas as to potential innovative land uses. While his general charter will include
Incorporation of possible education facilities and the generation of both revenue and positive
fiscal impact, he will be explicitly unfettered in his analysis of the property's potential.
C
KORN. REGAN & MO UCH LY: Inc.
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres lormanos Property August 29, 1991
Working with Goodell, he will develop for review by other team members two or more
alternative scenarios at a highly generalized concept level.
We understand from discussions with the City of Diamond Bar staff that an important early
decision must be made with respect to a new Pomona High School District school site. Peter
Kamnitzer, working with Mr. Goodell, will ascertain the critical parameters governing the size,
character and location of the school site and work with the District to modify and refine the
possible school sites on the property,
The output of this plan will be a series of very rough conceptual presentations showing
alternative land use configurations, together with minimal narrative support describing
specialized features of the proposed land uses, interactions and the role and character of land
uses in the overall plan. Particular attention will be given in this phasing analysis to discussing
how the planned response to anticipated future changes in either the general pattern of urban
development or other specific considerations will impact this site on a local and regional basis.
The presentation emanating from this analysis will be explicitly in draft form and preliminary
in nature. Only upon its synthesis with the economic, regulatory and other elements in the
analysis will these concept plans be refined.
Task 6 - Parallel Financial Analysis
For the joint use of the cities, KRM will develop a financial model of development of the
property that will, at a minimum, incorporate the following elements:
The fiscal impact of development
The required Investment and potential returns to the landowner of different
schemes of development at a generalized level
The associated infrastructure financing required for development
It is anticipated that this will be a generalized model dealing with general classes of land use
rather than detailed project components. This model will be explicitly integrated with Task 8
to establish supportable property absorption rates, sales prices for both finished product and
land, and appropriate other costs and revenue considerations.
Task 7 - Synthesis, Workshop and Report Preparation
Upon the completion of Tasks 1 through 6, the team will assemble and, with active
participation from staff of both cities, integrate their results into no more than three alternative
scenarios. A public workshop will be conducted to present alternative concepts to the public
prior to selection of preferred plan alternatives.
The synthesis element in Task 7 will be a central and pivotal feature of the overall consulting
effort. In this analysis, we will draw together the inputs from the market research, the financial
7
KOTIN. REGAN & MOUCHLY. Inc.
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres He"anos Property August 29, 1991
simulation, the constraints and priorities analysis with the initial visual concept plans. What
should emerge from this is a concept plan at least partially pretested for its political and
financial feasibility with a fairly clear specification of the prerequisites of successful
development, While final engineering and detailed entitlements will still be lacking in this
analysis, there will be an integrated and balanced product.
A preliminary version of this product will be made available to the client. Following a week
or longer client review, the consulting team will require approximately three weeks to prepare
a final report with final graphics.
It is contemplated that the final report will include, at a minimum, a sketch presentation of two
or more alternative development scenarios accompanied by a narrative describing the premises,
approach and character of the proposed plan. In addition to a set of quantitative approxima-
tions of the plan's yield in units or FAR density, there will also be a discussion of projected sale
or land lease revenue to the landowner and fiscal impacts to the City.
The role of the land uses in terms of long-term market forces and their relationship to the
changing character of the community of Diamond Bar and its strategic location will also be
provided.
In addition, there will be, for each of the adopted scenarios and, if needed, for each of the
component land use elements, a narrative and/or chart description of the approval process and
prerequisites for approval that have been identified in thepriorities and process analysis.
Limited narrative discussion will be provided indicating the relationship of the proposed plan
or plan element to affected jurisdictions beyond the quantitative and financial elements already
provided above.
The report will conclude with a series of support appendices providing background data as to
processes, baseline property information, etc, Limited cross referencing to the market research
report will also be provided as needed.
Task S - Supporting Market Research Documentation
in parallel with Phase 1, KRM, under the direction of James Regan, will undertake a systematic
market research effort that will consider both the overall and specific market support for
development on the Tres Hermanos property. This effort, which will require approximately
six to eight weeks, will provide an overview of market support for non-residential uses in the
City of Diamond Bar with particular focus on those potentials that are suitable to Tres
Hermanos. The need for treating the entire City is to assure that development of Tres
Hermanos would be complementary to other development in the City of Diamond Bar.
The basic elements in the market research will include the following:
An analysis of existing development levels for non-residential uses in the City of
Diamond Bar.
KOTIN, R CAN & MOUCH! Y Inc.
Proposal; for Concept Pianning of Tres Hermanos Property
August 29, 1991
• A parallel and moregeneralized analysis of non-residentiai, retail and office
patterns in a surrounding area tentatively to be designated as a competitive
market area.
• Survey of prevailing vacancy, pricing and property characteristics in key non-
residential developments in the competitive market area as well as in the City
of Diamond Bar,
• A parallel analysis of demographic, household and income trends, in particular
to establish levels of support for retail development but also to consider possible
implications for hotel and office development on a population -to -business ratio
basis.
• A special analysis of long-term, macro -economic growth trends as they relate to
the regionally strategic central location of the property,
A synthesis of the survey and demographic data to establish overall demand for
non-residential uses in the competitive market area of which Diamond Bar is a
part.
• Establishment, selectively by land use type, of the expected capture rates for the
City of Diamond Bar generally and for Tres Hermanos specifically and
conversion into a projected absorption schedule for selected forms of non-resi-
dential development.
In parallel, there will be some discussion and treatment of the anticipated housing growth. The
primary level of this will be to establish general parameters for housing for the purpose of
incorporating on a financial basis the inevitable housing element into any conceptual plan. At
this time, KRM does not foresee the need for in-depth housing market research but rather
merely a characterization of the typical types of housing associated with multi -family rental,
multi -family ownership and single-family detached at two or three different price levels within
the City. This largely descriptive survey will also be an element in the process.
In the general overview of housing, particular attention will be given to innovative ways of
incorporating affordable housing to meet the needs of both the cities of Industry and Diamond
Bar.
KRM will undertake this study which may use specific selective subcontractors for particular
expertise on various components, if the client requires the identity and scope of these
subcontractors, they will be reviewed before they are retained but overall responsibility for the
integrated results will be that of KRM.
91
KOTIN, RSCA\ & %10I.CHLY Inc.
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 1991
Deliverables
For Phase I, the general concepts study, KRM has identified five major deliverables that are
listed below:
1. Narrative report
2. Preliminary range financials to owner
3. Preliminary range fiscal impacts to City
4. Order of magnitude land improvement costs (per engineer)
5. Concept drawings
There will be a separate report for Task 8 to establish confidentiality and because it will be
independently useful for a wide range of activities. KRM will write the report and present
under separate cover at or prior to the final project presentation.
PHASE 11: Formulation of Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report
During this phase, the consultant team will formalize the conceptual plan for the Tres
Hermanos Ranch property as a Specific Plan and prepare its accompanying Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), The Specific Plan will be prepared jointly for the cities of Diamond Bar
and Industry in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of the State of
California Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code) Section 65450 et. seq. The EIR will
be prepared as an independent review of the draft Specific Plan for the City of Diamond Bar
in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Work tasks to be conducted and products to be prepared will elaborate on those completed
during the conceptual planning phase of this work program.
Task 1 - Data Refinement and Documentation
During this task, the consultant team will compile and analyze additional data regarding the
existing conditions of the Tres Hermanos property, to facilitate refinement of the conceptual
land use plan and as input for the EIR. This will include the further investigation and
documentation of the "critical" environmental factors which were determined to influence the
structure of land uses in the first phase and other elements required for compliance with
CEQA. The specific scope and depth of analysis for each environmental resource to be
considered will be dependent on the conclusions regarding the significance of each resource
previously evaluated. For example, should the presence of a significant wildlife or vegetation
habitat be determined to potentially exist during the first phase, the consultant would conduct
field surveys to confirm this potential,
10
:ZEZN7 3v 3,
KOTIN, REGAN & MOI. CHLY, Inc,
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property Au&ust 29, 1991
Potential data to be compiled would include:
• Land use (onsite and peripheral)
• Circulation (onsite and peripheral)
Streets and highways (existing and master -planned)
Transit
Blkeways
Equestrian trails
Other
• Infrastructure/utilities serving the site
Water supply and distribution
Wastewater collection and treatment
Storm drainage
Solid waste collection
Energy (natural gas and electricity)
Communications (telephone, television and other)
• Public services serving the site
Schools
Parks and recreation
Police
Eire
Govern ment/acim inistrative
• Archaeological and cultural resources
• Environmental resources
Vegetation and wildlife habitat
Sign ificant/sensitive/rare and endangered species
• Topography and slope
• Geology and soils
- landslide potential/slope stability
- Erosion
- Seismic
- Li uefaction potential
Other
11
KOTIN. BEGAN & MOU CHLY' Inc.
Proposol for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 1991
• Surface and sub -surface hydrology
• Aesthetic resources and viewsheds
• Toxics
• Noise
Pertinent information regarding these resources will be documented by text, maps, and, as
appropriate, illustrative graphics for inclusion in the Specific Plan and EIR.
Task Z - Review and Refine Concept Plan
The concept plan formulated in Phase i will be reviewed according to its impacts on and by
the expanded environmental analyses conducted in the preceding work task. As necessary,
the plan's distribution and pattern of land uses will be modified to account for the presence
of significant constraints or im acts. Revisions will be evaluated according to the fiscal,
financial, transportation, and infrastructure impacts to confirm the plan's continued feasibility.
The revised plan and analyses will be reviewed with the cities of Diamond Bar and Industry.
Task 3 - Prepare Specific Plan
For the conceptual land use plan, as modified by the preceding tasks, detailed land use,
engineering, environmental management, and implementation plans, standards, and other
pertinent elements will be formulated for inclusion in the Specific Plan. Plan components will
include the following:
Land Use and Qevelopment
• Land use plan
Parcelization
Type and densi�/intensity
Open space an public amenity
The land use plan will be depicted on a base map.
• Urban design/streetscape plan
- Entry identification
- Signage
- Street trees and other public landscape
- Street lighting
- Other
12
KOTIN. REGAN & MOUCHLY, Inc.
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property
August 29, . 991
As appropriate, illustrative graphics will be prepared to depict the overall
organizational urban design structure and specific sub -areas and components.
A framework of design principles and standards will be defined by which
precise design specifications could be subsequently prepared.
• Public facilities plan (e.g., schools and parks)
4 Development and design standards
Intensity (floor area ratio, units per acre)
Parking, signage and other code requirements
Site development
Architecture
Landscape and streetscape
Other
Standards will be written and formatted for inclusion in the City's zoning code.
Illustrations will be prepared to facilitate understanding of pertinent standards.
Infrastructure and Utilities
• Circulation plan
Streets and highways
Public transit (if any)
Bikeways
Trails (equestrian and hiking)
Locations of principal improvements will be depicted on the base map. Street
classification standards (including right-of-way and improvement widths) will be
specified. Generalized development costs will be estimated.
• Infrastructure/utilities plan
Drainage (hydrology and hydraulics)
Water supply and distribution
Wastewater collection and treatment/disposal/reclamation
Solid waster collection and disposal
Locations of principal improvements will be depicted on the base map.
Pertinent standards will be specified, Generalized development costs will be
estimated.
13
KOTIN. REGAN & MOI,CHLY: Inc,
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 1991
• Grading plan
A generalized grading plan will be prepared.
• implementation plan
Procedures (administrative, development application processing, City
review, public input, etc.)
Responsibilities
Phasing and timing of development
Financing program (for infrastructure)
Preliminary concepts (described by text, maps, and illustrative graphics) will be prepared for
each of the components and submitted to the cities of Diamond Bar and Industry for review.
Based on comments received from the City, the elements will be revised and finalized.
Task 4 - Prepare Environmental Impact Report
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared in accordance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Diamond Bar guidelines. An
Initial Study will be prepared in collaboration with City staff. On completion of the draft EIR,
a "screencheck° will be prepared for City review and comment. The final draft responding to
the City's input will be prepared, published, and distributed. On completion of the public
review period and input by the Planning Commission and City Council, responses to public
comments will be prepared and incorporated into a final EIR. In concert with the EIR, a
Mitigation Monitoring Program will be formulated.
Task 5 - Conduct Public Workshops
During the formulation of the Specific Plan, workshops will be conducted to enable the City's
residents, business persons, and other interest parties to provide input to the planning process.
These will be conducted as ''hands-on" participatory processes, rather than the traditional
"presentation -response" format. Large-scale base maps, wall graphics, three-dimensional
materials, and other media will be used to facilitate the definition of the public's issues and
visions regarding the use and development of the Tres Hermanos property. The consultant
team will collaborate with City staff in designing a program of outreach and structuring the
workshops to maximize their usefulness in providing input to the planning program. For the
purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that three workshops would be conducted addressing
the following topics;
Issues and visions for the Tres Hermanos property
Review of and modification of the preliminary land use plan and urban design
concepts
Review of the final Specific Plan components
14
KOTIN, IECAN & MOUCHLY Inc.
Proposal for Concept Plann;ng of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 1991
Task b - Participate in Public Hearings
The consultant team will participate in City Council and Planning Commission study sessions
and hearings to adopt the Specific Plan and certify the EIR. Presentation graphics will be
prepared at the direction of the City of Diamond Bar. For the purposes of the budget of this
proposal, it is assumed that the consultant team will participate in six sessions/hearings.
BUDGET
Phase I
This is a broad and complex assignment for which it is difficult to establish individual task
budgets.
As mentioned previously, the estimated budget for Phase I excludes transportation consulting
services provided outside of this contract by DKS Associates.
The estimated budget for Phase I is as follows:
KRM
$ 40,000
Goodell
35,000
Kamnitzer
25,000
Envicom
17,000
DMJM
25,000
Subtotal - Work Scope
$ 142,000
KRM - Project Administration
5.000
Total Consultant Budget
$ 147,000
Subcontract - Topographic Survey
24,400
TOTAL
$ 171,400
The subcontract represents a cost estimate prepared for the Pomona Unified School District
by Robert Wada & Associates for a complete topographic survey of the property.
This is a maximum budget that will not be exceeded without the expressed consent of the
client, The budget includes all costs for professional staff time, expenses, report preparation
and publication.
These studies are being performed for both the City of Diamond Bar and the City of Industry.
We understand that the City of Diamond Bar will be the contracting entity with KRM for Phase
I administrative and billing purposes.
The time required to complete Phase I is estimated at four months. KRM will bill monthly for
costs incurred by consulting team members, Given major up -front costs incurred during the
start-up period, the consulting team requests a retainer of $20,000 which will be applied
against final billings.
13
SE'qT 5V:�'' j% �E LN 1,1'
KOTIN, RECAN & MOUCHLY Inc.
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 1991
Phase Il
Although a general scope of work is presented in this proposal for Phase II, a realistic work
scope to reflect those results cannot be established until completion of Phase I.
A general budget range for Phase 11 has been estimated by Envicom, lead consultant for Phase
il, at $175,000 - $250,000. The time required to complete both Specific Plan and EIR
preparation is estimated at 12 to 18 months,
ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION
If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us for
our records. If a different form of contract is required, please feel free to prepare such a
contract for our consideration, including in reference the contents of this proposal
On behalf of the consulting team members, KRM is pleased to submit this proposal and looks
forward to the opportunity of working on a most challenging assignment with the cities of
Diamond Bar and Industry.
cc, Chris Rope, City Manager, City of Industry
Carl Burnett, City of Industry
Enclosures
AGREED TO AND AUTHORIZED BY:
(City)
(Name) (Title)
C: \FI LES\M 15199\WP\TRM;)PR:J a
16
Respectfully submitted,
amesetReg
Prdn
( Date)
day of
DRAFT
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF
TRES HERMANOS AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
This Agreement is made and entered into as of this
, 1991, by and between
("INDUSTRY" sometimes hereinafter) and the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a
municipal corporation ("DIAMOND BAR" sometimes hereinafter).
A. Recitals.
(i) INDUSTRY and DIAMOND BAR desire to develop a
Specific Plan for that area within the corporate limits of
DIAMOND BAR commonly referred to as the "Tres Hermanos Ranch"
("the Property" hereinafter).
(ii) INDUSTRY and DIAMOND BAR desire to retain the
services of qualified persons to prepare a specific plan for the
Property, pursuant to the provisions of California Government
Code Sections 65850, et seq., including necessary environmental
documentation, on a coordinated basis with DIAMOND BAR as the
lead agency in order to minimize costs and expenses to the
public. Hereinafter in this Agreement, the preparation of a
Specific Plan for the Property shall be referred to as the
"Plan".
(iii) INDUSTRY and DIAMOND BAR desire to set forth
their respective rights and obligations concerning the Plan.
1
GRAFT
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. DIAMOND BAR shall, in consultation with INDUSTRY,
prepare Request for Proposal(s) to seek the services of qualified
persons to prepare the Plan.
2. DIAMOND BAR shall be responsible for the
preparation of required documents and for the preparation and
award of contract(s) pursuant to applicable law for the
preparation of the Plan. Toward this end, DIAMOND BAR shall be
responsible for the preparation of all legal documents, including
the Request(s) for Proposal, related agreements, and insurance
requirements. DIAMOND BAR shall be solely responsible for the
administration and performance of the contract awarded to any
contractor(s) for the preparation of the Plan.
3. INDUSTRY agrees to pay its fair share of costs
associated with the preparation of the Plan. The parties agree
that the preliminary estimate for preparation of the Plan is
DIAMOND BAR agrees to contribute towards the payment of
the preparation of the Plan, not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00).
4. In the event proposal(s) submitted by responsible
proposers for the preparation of the Plan exceeds the preliminary
estimate by a sum total greater than ten percent (10%), DIAMOND
BAR shall not be empowered to award any contract therefor or bind
INDUSTRY to any such contract hereunder without the prior written
consent of INDUSTRY.
E
DRAFT
5. Upon approval of contract document(s) for
preparation of the Plan, INDUSTRY shall deposit with DIAMOND BAR
its anticipated share of the costs therefor and DIAMOND BAR shall
be authorized to make payments, including progress payments, to
person(s) engaged thereby to prepare the Plan. Within sixty (60)
days after approval of the Plan, DIAMOND BAR shall present to
INDUSTRY an itemized invoice setting forth the final costs for
the preparation of the Plan. Said costs shall include all costs
to be paid by DIAMOND BAR as described in paragraph 3, above.
Payment of said invoice shall be made by INDUSTRY to DIAMOND BAR
within thirty (30) days of receipt thereof. In the event that
INDUSTRY's deposit hereunder exceeds the final costs of the Plan
preparation, DIAMOND BAR shall present to INDUSTRY its warrant
representing the refund due to INDUSTRY together with its invoice
setting forth the final costs for the preparation of the Plan.
DIAMOND BAR further agrees to provide to INDUSTRY copies of all
invoices presented to the person(s) retained to prepare the Plan
upon receipt of same.
6. DIAMOND BAR shall incorporate within the contract
documents with the person(s) retained to prepare the Plan
requirements for the proposer(s) to obtain and keep in full force
and effect throughout the life of the Plan preparation, for the
mutual benefit of DIAMOND BAR and INDUSTRY, a policy or policies
of comprehensive, broad form, general public liability and
automobile insurance against claims and liabilities for personal
injury, death, or property damage arising from the activities of
3
DRAFT
the bidder, in an amount and in form and content satisfactory to
DIAMOND BAR's City Attorney and INDUSTRY's General Counsel Said
policies shall name DIAMOND BAR, INDUSTRY and their respective
elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees as
additional insureds and shall, additionally, contain language
providing for waiver of subrogation, that the policies are
primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be
carried by the parties hereto and that said insurance may not be
canceled or materially changed except upon thirty (30) days
notice to DIAMOND BAR. DIAMOND BAR shall also require that
workers' compensation benefits are secured by the bidder as
required by law.
7. INDUSTRY shall defend, indemnify and save harmless
DIAMOND BAR, its elected officials, officers and employees, from
all liability from loss, damage or injury to persons or property,
including any and all legal costs and attorneys' fees, in any
manner arising out of the performance, by INDUSTRY, its elected
and appointed officials, officers and employees of this Agreement
to the extent permitted by law.
8. DIAMOND BAR shall defend, indemnify and save
harmless INDUSTRY, its elected officials, officers and employees
from all liability from loss, damage or injury to persons or
property, including any and all legal costs and attorneys' fees,
in any manner arising out of the performance, by INDUSTRY, its
elected and appointed officials, officers and employees, of this
Agreement to the extent permitted by law.
4
DRAFT
9. In the event any action or proceeding is filed to
enforce this Agreement, or any term or provision hereof, the
prevailing party in any such action or proceeding shall be
entitled to its reasonable expenses, including costs and
attorneys' fees.
10. Mediation: Any dispute or controversy arising
under this Agreement, or in connection with any of the terms and
conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties hereto for
mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be
selected, as agreed upon by the parties and the costs and
expenses thereof shall be borne equally by the parties hereto.
In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the
mediator to be selected hereunder, the City Council shall select
such a neutral, third party mediation service and the City
Council's decision shall be final. The parties agree to utilized
their good faith efforts to resolve any such dispute or
controversy so submitted to mediation. It is specifically
understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral of any
such dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith efforts to
resolve the same thereby, shall be conditions precedent to the
institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law of in
equity with respect to any such dispute or controversy.
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
By
By
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal
corporation
By
Mayor
ATTEST: By
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
L110111DBICOOP WB 2.5C 6
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
TITLE: HERITAGE PARK
AGENDA NO.
REPORT DATE: August 27, 1991
SUMMARY: The City Council after evaluating renovation, is considering the reconstruction of the building
at Heritage Park for a community and/or senior center at Heritage Park.
RECOMMENDATION: Renovation of building at Heritage Park and solicit RFP's for architectural proposals.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: x Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other RFP
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed x Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes x No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes x No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? x Yes _ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: Public works
REV WED BY
R bert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager Assistant City Manager
(Department Head) �.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: HERITAGE PARK
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City Council after evaluating renovation, is considering the recon-
struction of the building at Heritage Park for a community and/or senior
center at Heritage Park.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Direct staff to solicit
architectural proposals for the construction of a community and/or senior
center at Heritage Park utilizing CDBG funds, 2. Direct the Parks and
Recreation Commission to conduct community work sessions as a part of the
process for developing the design of the Heritage Park building improvements,
3. Consider the participation of members of local recreation groups and
seniors in the design of the facility, and 4. Direct staff to undertake
discussions with the County to determine whether funding a center is feasible
for the full three year entitlement (Period 17) which will allow the City to
undertake construction in 1992.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
No fiscal impact to the City.
BACKGROUND:
Council applied for and received approval for a $40,000 for State Park Grant
to renovate the Heritage Park building. In reviewing the originally proposed
renovation project with several architects, it was determined that the best
interest of the city would be served by demolishing rather than renovating
the current Heritage Park facility. Based upon comments from the archi-
tectural community, Council believes it more prudent and cost effective to
construct rather than renovate a community and/or senior center for the
members of the community. Council has indicated that architectural services
should be secured for the design and construction of a center, with
construction to commence later in the 1991-92 fiscal year. Given the current
condition of the facility and the need to update the building to existing
building codes and standards, new construction would be more cost effective
and provide an opportunity to expand the community facility. A request for
proposal for architectural services has been prepared for the development of
design options which would be encompassed in a community and/or senior
facility. The Heritage Park Community Building Project is proposed to
utilize City general funds, State Park Grant funds, and the possible usage of
CDBG funds for architectural design and construction, with construction to
commence after Commission review and Council approval, within fiscal year
1991-92.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE 100
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HERITAGE PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING
All pages of this specification are to be returned, with a
narrative proposal attached which responds to the specification,
to:
Public Works Department
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Submittal Deadline:
Date: September 25,1991
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Proposal submitted by:
Name of Company
Address
By:
Signature
Name (Typed)
Title
CITY
RR— 21660 EAST COPLEY DRI% E • SUITE 100
ILI�IO�'D lli�� DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-3177
D
I 71 1-860-2489 • FAX 714-861-3117
DATE: August 26, 1991
TO: Interested Architectural Firms
SUBJECT: Architectural Reconstruction services for Heritage Park
Community Building.
The City of Diamond Bar is inviting qualified architectural firms
to submit proposals for reconstruction of the Heritage Park
Community Building. Heritage Park is located at 2900 Brea Canyon
Road.
The services will include design and preparation of preliminary
plans, construction drawings, specifications and cost estimates.
During construction the architect shall provide construction
management which will include attendance at regular on-site
meetings with staff and contractor.
Project Description:
The City of Diamond Bar desires to demolish the existing building
and reconstruct a community building on the same site, at Heritage
Park. The existing building is approximately two thousand (2,000)
square feet in size. The facility needs to be removed and a new
building built on the same site. The new building's square footage
should be equal to or greater than the existing structure.
The facility is used for various meetings, recreation functions
(tiny tots), senior citizen activities, office space, and storage.
The building will also be used for a Preschool Child Care facility
and as such must meet state education codes for a Day Care
facility. The City has budgeted $500,000 for this project.
However, contingent upon approval by the Community Development
Commission of Los Angeles, the City may allocate its three year
Community Development Block Grant entitlement to this project.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work to be performed by the architect will include the
following:
1. Evaluation of existing structure, prior to demolition to
determine salvageability of any existing improvements.
JOHN A. FORBING JAY C. KIM PHYLLIS E. PAPEN DONALD C. NARDELLA GARY H. WERNER ROBERT L. VAN NORT
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR USES RECYCLED PAPER
2. Preparation of all conceptual drawings and renderings necessary
for presentation to and review by Staff, Commissions and
Community groups.
3. Prepare all drawings, specifications, calculations, and
information necessary for the construction of all site
improvements.
4. Prepare all drawings, specifications, calculations, and
information necessary for the construction of the new Community
Building structure.
5. Attend all Public Hearings and Community meetings to provide
technical information.
6. Prepare all construction documents and bid forms and administer
the construction bidding process.
7. Prepare and update the project budget.
8. Prepare and update the project construction schedule.
9. Develop and maintain a complete project record system.
10. Conduct regularly scheduled design and construction meetings
which will include members representing the owner, architect,
contractor and any other persons who may contribute information
regarding the topics of the meeting.
11. Provide a complete set of "as built" plans and any other
documents required by the City upon completion of construction.
12. Perform any other duties or services normally associated with
architectural services as indicated in any contractual
agreement between the City of Diamond Bar and selected firm.
Proposal Due Date:
Architect shall submit five copies of Proposal by 5:00 P.M.
September 25, 1991, addressed or delivered to the Department of
Public Works, City of Diamond Bar, 21660 East Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, CA 91765.
Proposal Contents:
The architect shall submit firm's qualifications and prior
experience in this type of project. The proposal shall contain a
Not to Exceed (NTE) figure and an hourly rate for the persons
working on the project. Assume five (5) two-hour meetings with
staff and Park Commission. The architect shall submit the
estimated time of design completion.
Pre -Proposal Meeting:
A Pre -Proposal meeting will be conducted on September 6, 1991 at
10:00 a.m. at Heritage Park, 2900 Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar, CA
91765. The tour of the subject site will commence after the
meeting. Please confirm attendance by contacting Charles Janiel at
the Diamond Bar City Hall (714) 860-2489.
Selection of Oualified Architect:
The City of Diamond Bar shall select the architect for this project
based on a combination of factors, such as qualifications, length
of time to complete the work, past experience with similar
projects, approach to this particular design task, references, and
consultant's cost effectiveness. There may be interviews of some
or all architects who submit proposals. The selected firm will
enter into the City of Diamond Bar Professional Services Agreement,
as attached.
Schedule of Work:
It is the City's intent to have construction of the project
underway by early July 1992. Therefore, all services provided, per
scope of work and schedule submitted by consultant, must be
completed in efficient and timely manner to allow the project
construction to commence in July 1992. The Heritage Park Project
is partially funded by state and federal grants and may require
state and/or federal approval of the plans and specifications.
Questions:
If there are any questions regarding this request for proposal,
please contact Charles Janiel, Public Works Department, at
(714) 860-2489.
Sincerely,
i
Sid Mousa�
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
CJ:ra
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into this
day of , 19 , between the City of Diamond Bar,
a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and
(hereinafter referred to
as "CONSULTANT").
A. Recitals.
(i) CITY has heretofore issued its Request for
Proposal pertaining to the performance of professional services
with respect to
("Project" hereafter), a full, true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference made a part
hereof.
(ii) CONSULTANT has now submitted its proposal for the
performance of such services, a full, true and correct of which
proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by this
reference made a part hereof.
(iii) CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to perform
professional services necessary to render advice and assistance
to CITY, CITY's City Council and staff in the preparation of
Project.
1
(iv) CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to
perform such services and is willing to perform such professional
services as hereinafter defined.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and
CONSULTANT as follows:
B. Agreement.
1. Definitions: The following definitions shall
apply to the following terms, except where the context of this
Agreement otherwise requires:
(a)
Protect: The preparation of
described in Exhibit "A" hereto including, but
not limited to, the preparation of maps, surveys, reports, and
documents, the presentation, both oral and in writing, of such
plans, maps, surveys, reports and documents to CITY as required
and attendance at any and all work sessions, public hearings and
other meetings conducted by CITY with respect to the project.
(b) Services: Such professional services as are
necessary to be performed by CONSULTANT in order to complete the
Project.
(c) Completion of Project: The date of
completion of all phases of the Project, including any and all
procedures, development plans, maps, surveys, plan documents,
technical reports, meetings, oral presentations and attendance by
CONSULTANT at public hearings regarding the adoption of
as set forth in Schedule 1 of Exhibit "A" hereto.
2
2. CONSULTANT agrees as follows:
(a) CONSULTANT shall forthwith undertake and
complete the project in accordance with Exhibits "A" and "B"
hereto and all in accordance with Federal, State and CITY
statues, regulations, ordinances and guidelines, all to the
reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
(b) CONSULTANT shall supply copies of all maps,
surveys, reports, plans and documents (hereinafter collectively
referred to as "documents") including all supplemental technical
documents, as described in Exhibits "A" and "B" to CITY within
the time specified in Schedule 1 of Exhibit "A". Copies of the
documents shall be in such numbers as are required by Exhibit
"A". CITY may thereafter review and forward to CONSULTANT
comments regarding said documents and CONSULTANT shall thereafter
make such revisions to said documents as are deemed necessary.
CITY shall receive revised documents in such form and in the
quantities determined necessary by CITY. The time limits set
forth pursuant to this Section B2.(b) may be extended upon
written approval of CITY.
(c) CONSULTANT shall, at CONSULTANT's sole cost
and expense, secure and hire such other persons as may, in the
opinion of CONSULTANT, be necessary to comply with the terms of
this Agreement. In the event any such other persons are retained
by CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT hereby warrants that such persons shall
be fully qualified to perform services required hereunder.
3
CONSULTANT further agrees that no subcontractor shall be retained
by CONSULTANT except upon the prior written approval of CITY.
3. CITY agrees as follows:
(a) To pay CONSULTANT a maximum sum of
for the performance of the services required
hereunder. This sum shall cover the cost of all staff time and
all other direct and indirect costs or fees, including the work
of employees, consultants and subcontractors to CONSULTANT.
Payment to CONSULTANT, by CITY, shall be made in accordance with
the schedule set forth below.
(b) Payments to CONSULTANT shall be made by CITY
in accordance with the invoices submitted by CONSULTANT, on a
monthly basis, and such invoices shall be paid within a
reasonable time after said invoices are received by CITY. All
charges shall be in accordance with CONSULTANT's proposal either
with respect to hourly rates or lump sum amounts for individual
tasks. In no event, however, will said invoices exceed 95% of
individual task totals described in Exhibits "A" and "B".
(c) CONSULTANT agrees that, in no event, shall
CITY be required to pay to CONSULTANT any sum in excess of 95% of
the maximum payable hereunder prior to receipt by CITY of all
final documents, together with all supplemental technical
documents, as described herein acceptable in form and content to
CITY. Final payment shall be made not later than 60 days after
presentation of final documents and acceptance thereof by CITY.
4
(d) Additional services: Payments for additional
services requested,.in writing, by CITY, and not included in
CONSULTANT's proposal as set forth in Exhibit "B" hereof, shall
be paid on a reimbursement basis in accordance with the fee
schedule set forth in said Exhibit "B". Charges for additional
services shall be invoiced on a monthly basis and shall be paid
by CITY within a reasonable time after said invoices are received
by CITY.
4. CITY agrees to provide to CONSULTANT:
(a) Information and assistance as set forth in
Exhibit "A" hereto.
(b) Photographically reproducible copies of maps
and other information, if available, which CONSULTANT considers
necessary in order to complete the Project.
(c) Such information as is generally available
from CITY files applicable to the Project.
(d) Assistance, if necessary, in obtaining
information from other governmental agencies and/or private
parties. However, it shall be CONSULTANT's responsibility to
make all initial contact with respect to the gathering of such
information.
5. Ownership of Documents: All documents, data,
studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports
prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall be
considered the property of CITY and, upon payment for services
5
performed by CONSULTANT, such documents and other identified
materials shall be delivered to CITY by CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT
may, however, make and retain such copies of said documents and
materials as CONSULTANT may desire.
6. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by
CITY upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to
CONSULTANT at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of
termination specified in said Notice. In the event this
Agreement is so terminated, CONSULTANT shall be compensated at
CONSULTANT's applicable hourly rates as set forth in Exhibit "B",
on a pro -rata basis with respect to the percentage of the Project
completed as of the date of termination. In no event, however,
shall CONSULTANT receive more than the maximum specified in
paragraph 3(a), above. CONSULTANT shall provide to CITY any and
all documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models,
photographs and reports, whether in draft or final form, prepared
by CONSULTANT as of the date of termination. CONSULTANT may not
terminate this Agreement except for cause.
7. Notices and Designated Representatives: Any and
all notices, demands, invoices and written communications between
the parties hereto shall be addressed as set forth in this
paragraph 7. The below named individuals, furthermore, shall be
those persons primarily responsible for the performance by the
parties under this Agreement:
11
Any such notices, demands, invoices and written communications,
by mail, shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee
forty-eight (48) hours after deposit thereof in the United States
mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as set forth above.
8. Insurance: CONSULTANT shall neither commence work
under this Agreement until it has obtained all insurance required
hereunder in a company or companies acceptable to CITY nor shall
CONSULTANT allow any subcontractor to commence work on a
subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has
been obtained. CONSULTANT shall take out and maintain at all
time during the term of this Agreement the following policies of
insurance:
(a) Workers' Compensation Insurance: Before
beginning work, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of
insurance as proof that it has taken out full workers'
compensation insurance for all persons whom it may employ
directly or through subcontractors in carrying out the work
specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of
California.
V]
In accordance with the provisions of California Labor
Code Section 3700, every employer shall secure the payment of
compensation to his employees. CONSULTANT prior to commencing
work, shall sign and file with CITY a certification as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of Labor
Code which require every employer to be insured against liability
for workers' compensation or to undertake self insurance in
accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply
with such provisions before commencing the performance of the
work of this Agreement"
(b) Public Liability and Property Damage: Throughout
the term of this Agreement, at CONSULTANT's sole cost and
expense, CONSULTANT shall keep, or cause to be kept, in full
force and effect, for the mutual benefit of CITY and CONSULTANT,
comprehensive, broad form, general public liability and
automobile insurance against claims and liabilities for personal
injury, death, or property damage arising from CONSULTANT's
activities, providing protection of at least One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) for bodily injury or death to any one person or
for any one accident or occurrence and at least One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for property damage.
(c) Errors and Omissions: CONSULTANT shall take out
and maintain at all times during the life of this Agreement, a
policy or policies of insurance concerning errors and omissions
("malpractice") providing protection of at least
8
for errors and omissions
("malpractice") with respect to loss arising from actions of
CONSULTANT performing
hereunder on behalf of CITY.
services
(d) General Insurance Requirements: All insurance
required by express provision of this Agreement shall be carried
only in responsible insurance companies licensed to do business
in the State of California and policies required under paragraphs
8.(a) and (b) shall name as additional insureds CITY, its elected
officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives. All
policies shall contain language, to the effect that: (1) the
insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and CITY's
elected officials, officers, employees, agents and
representatives; (2) the policies are primary and
noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried by CITY;
and (3) they cannot be canceled or materially changed except
after thirty (30) days' notice by the insurer to CITY by
certified mail. CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with copies of all
such policies promptly upon receipt of them, or certificate
evidencing the insurance. CONSULTANT may effect for its own
account insurance not required under this Agreement.
9. Indemnification: CONSULTANT shall defend,
indemnify and save harmless CITY, its elected and appointed
officials, officers, agents and employees, from all liability
from loss, damage or injury to persons or property, including the
payment by CONSULTANT of any and all legal costs and attorneys'
fees, in any manner arising out of the acts and/or omissions of
CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited
to, all consequential damages, to the maximum extent permitted by
law.
10. Assignment: No assignment of this Agreement or
of any part or obligation of performance hereunder shall be made,
either in whole or in part, by CONSULTANT without the prior
written consent of CITY.
11. Damages: In the event that CONSULTANT fails to
submit to CITY the completed project, together with all documents
and supplemental material required hereunder, in public hearing
form to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY, within the time set
forth herein, or as may be extended by written consent of the
parties hereto, CONSULTANT shall pay to CITY, as liquidated
damages and not as a penalty, the sum of
dollars
($ ) per day for each day CONSULTANT is in default, which
sum represents a reasonable endeavor by the parties hereto to
estimate a fair compensation for the foreseeable losses that
might result from such a default in performance by CONSULTANT,
and due to the difficulty which would otherwise occur in
establishing actual damages resulting from such default, unless
said default is caused by CITY or by acts of God, acts of the
public enemy, fire, floods, epidemics, or quarantine
restrictions.
10
12. Independent Contractor: The parties hereto agree
that CONSULTANT and its employers, officers and agents are
independent contractors under this Agreement and shall not be
construed for any purpose to be employees of CITY.
13. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California.
14. Attorney's Fees: In the event any legal
proceeding is instituted to enforce any term or provision of the
Agreement, the prevailing party in said legal proceeding shall be
entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs from the opposing
party in an amount determined by the court to be reasonable.
15. Mediation: Any dispute or controversy arising
under this Agreement, or in connection with any of the terms and
conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties hereto for
mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be
selected, as agreed upon by the parties and the costs and
expenses thereof shall be borne equally by the parties hereto.
In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the
mediator to be selected hereunder, the City Council shall select
such a neutral, third party mediation service and the City
Council's decision shall be final. The parties agree to utilize
their good faith efforts to resolve any such dispute or
controversy so submitted to mediation. It is specifically
understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral of any
11
such dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith efforts to
resolve the same thereby, shall be conditions precedent to the
institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law or in
equity with respect to any such dispute or controversy.
16. Entire Agreement: This Agreement supersedes any
and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the
parties with respect to the subject matter herein. Each party to
this Agreement acknowledges that no representation by any party
which is not embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement,
or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid and
binding. Any modification of this Agreement shall be effective
only if it is in writing signed by all parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above:
CONSULTANT
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
C�1011MPSAWB 2.3D 12
ARCHITECT DIRECTORY
Tani Wayne Architects
20960 Gold Run Dr.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Miller Elenes Architects
659 S. Brea Canyon Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Good -Man Free & Assc. Inc.
556 N. Diamond Bar Blvd.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Ru & Assoc.
22632 Golden Springs Dr.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Ruiz Armando & Assc.
1930 Brea Canyon Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Woo Henry Architect & Assc.
20505 Valley Blvd.
Walnut, CA 91789
Environmental Concepts
374 Paseo Sonrisa
Walnut, CA 91789
Levitt Group Inc.
4520 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 103
Los Angeles, CA 90010-3801
Arch/Plan Urban Design Collaborative
924 E. Second Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
David A. Price Assc.
333 E1 Camino Real, Suite 200
Tustin, CA 92680
Rauhaus Architects
485 E. 17th Street, Suite 200
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Anthony & Langford, AIA
16152 Beach Blvd, Suite 201
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
MCG
199 S. Los Robles Ave., Suite 400
Pasadena, CA 91101-2457
ATTN: David L. Eskridge
ATTN: Arni Levitt
ATTN: Richard Thompson
ATTN: David A. Price
ATTN: Richard M. Rauh
ATTN: Wallace Langford
ATTN: Brian Tiedge
Wolff/Lang/Christopher, Arch.
Virginia Dare Tower
10470 Foothill Blvd.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3754
Pacific Associates Planners Assc.
427 C. Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Roland/Miller Associates
2421 Mendocino Ave., Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Thorton/Anderson Architects
60 Federal Street, Suite 555
San Francisco, CA 94107
Barker, Rinker, Seacat & Partners
2546 Fifteenth Street
Denver, CO 80211
ATTN: Larry Wolff
ATTN: Jim Leighton
ATTN: John Miller
ATTN: Jerry Thorton
ATTN: Roz Schneider
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
7&s
FAG 5:
* - * * * * * * * * * * * . w * * w * * * * w * " * * * * w * . * * * . * * * * * * - 0 * * 0 a * W * * * * * * * * * t * f . - * 0 . - " w 4 W . W q . . .
-D SS 71,�,AE:
T R�'VX i I T E D D' Y:
R E N T F tVX:
70N--T'AC-k PHONE: "I
Fed Ex Express tMiail Messenger
None Other
KOTCN, REGAN & MOUCHLY Inc.
Real Esta e Cogs;. to^ts
'161, San V ce-te sou'avard
Site 700
mos .Ange es Car`crn s 9".049
2'3/E20•C900
August 29, 1991
;`1r. Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Ste, 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: PROPOSAL FOR CONCEPT PLANMNC OF TRES HERMANOS PROPERTY
Gentlemen:
It is with great pleasure that Kotin, Regan & Mouchly, Inc. (KRM) in association with :amen
Goodell, Peter Kamnitzer, DMJM and Envicom respond to your request fcr a proposal
concerning the concept plan, specific plan and environmental impact report (EIR) preparation
of the Tres Hermanos property, Tres Hermanos is a large undeveloped parcel of land at the
eastern end of your City. Although the total parcel is more than 2,300 acres, approximately
800 acres are within the City of Diamond Sar and are the focus of this proposal,
OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSULTING EFFORT
Phase I - Concept Planning
The broad objective of this consulting effort is to synthesize the potential of the property and
the requirements of the affected constituencies and participants into innovative land use
concepts that would simultaneously generate significant long-term revenue to the landowner
and improve both the net revenues and the quality of life for the City of Diamond Bar.
Associated with this ambitious integFated statement are a series of specific objectives:
1. Organize the available information.
2. Ascertain the priorities and requirements of the affected constituencies,
particularly the cities of Diamond Bar and Industry, since the latter is the owner
of the property.
3. Create a wide-ranging and imaginative vision of the prospective use of the
property considering tie inclusion of a major high school site for the Pomona
School District.
KOTI'�. REGA'N & ti10LCHLY. Inc.
Propwa' for Concept Planring of Tres Hermanos Property ,august 29. !99'
4. Identify the benefits of one or more conceptual plan scenarios to the affected
constituencies.
5. Provide recommendations for general guidelines to be incorporated in the
general plan with respect to this property, acknowledging that any further
definition would clearly require its own specific plan.
6. Identify the prerequisites and resources required for detailed master planning of
the site should the concepts proposed be adopted.
To a large extent, the Phase I study, as comprehensive and imaginative as we hope it will be,
is still just a 'plan to pian." Detailed planning or even schematic planning of a site this large
is an effort requiring months, if not year, of planning, A budget for such an undertaking could
easily reach S1 million or more. The objective of the study Is to highlight the site's potentiai
for the City of Diamond Bar and the site's owner with sufficient definition to provide general
plan guidelines, facilitate school negotiations, and identify prerequisites for further specific
planning and an entitlements plan.
Phase it - Specific Plan and EIR
The Phase 11 assignment will involve refinement of the conceptual pian and formulation of a
Specific Plan, as authorized by California State Planning Law, which is anticipated to include
various components including a land use plan, circulation plan, infrastructure/utilities plan,
grading feasibility and design standards, urban design, public facilities, development and design
standards, and implementation.
This work program also will include preparation of an EIR in accordance with CEQA
requirements.
CONSULTING TEAM
The financial and economic analysis element of Phase I as well as overall Phase I study
administration will be provided by KRPA. The Phase 11 study administration will be provided
by Envicom. The consulting team members will provide the following specific services:
2
KOTIN, REGAN & �10GCHLY: Inc.
Proposal -For Concept Planning of Tres Hermanoi Property Aqust 29, 1591
Phase I Phase 11
KRM • Project Administration - Definitive market planning
• Market and financial analysis • Specific Pian - fiscal funding
James Goodell Technical coordination of • Refine land use plan
planning, engineering and • Streetscape/landscape pian
preliminary environmental - Development & design standards
analysis
• Concept planning
• Development strategies
• Entitlements and agency liaison
Peter Kamnitzer - Planning and design concepts • Refine land use plan
• Streetscape/landscape plan
• Development & design standards
Envicom Input to existing condition - Project administration
and constraints analysis - Primary responsibility for
• Preliminary environmental Specific Pian and FIR
assessment preparation
DMJM Conceptual grading and • Refine site engineering
site engineering • Infrastructure & utilities plan
This proposal excludes transportation consulting services for both Phases I and II to be
provided by DIES Associates under separate contract.
SCOPE OF EFFORT
The proposed consulting effort is presented in two phases:
Phase I - Conceptual planning, financial analysis and market research
Phase 11 - Specific Plan and EI R preparation
The scope of Phase I Is to develop a concept plan, Where it differs from traditional concept
planning is in its explicit incorporation of financial analysis for both the City and the owner.
It also differs in that a specialized pre -development consultant is being invited into the process
to coordinate the large number of potentially conflicting jurisdictions, constituencies and
priorities. The process by which this property would be developed is complex, No concept
3
KOTI\'. RECAN & MOILCHLY Inc.
Prcposai `or Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 1991
plan, no matter how imaginative, can succeed if it is not tempered with the knowledge of the
process through which any development must proceed.
While the results of this analysis may become part of the public process of general plan
adoption, that public process is explicitly outside the scope of Phase I. The participants all
agree that the uncertainty associated with public presentations and review would prevent us
from putting forth a fixed-price budget. Accordingly, while we intend to have extensive
interaction with staff and individual one-on-one interaction, as appropriate, with other
constituencies, e.g. the owner, the school district, etc., Phase I is not a proposal to write,
present or adopt an element in the general plan. Creation of a specific plan of the project for
public review is the explicit objective of Phase II.
Nothing in the foregoing, however, should restrict the staff from publicly presenting or
discussing Phase I results to the extent that they approve and endorse them.
Also critical to the scope of this project is that the consulting team feels that this is a unitary
effort that cannot be neatly broken down into phases. Therefore, we would anticipate that
none of our results be published In any form until the entire process has been completed.
The Phase I! scope of work is presented in this proposal only in general outline form at this
time. The precise scope of work for Phase II will be refined at the conclusion of Phase I to
reflect the findings of the Phase I study.
PHASE I: Concept Planning
At this time, concept planning, which is the overall Phase I effort, will consist of eight
sequential tasks:
1. Initial debriefing and data assembly
2. Overall constraints and priority constraint analysis
3. Preliminary/conceptual engineering
4. Constituency identification and establishment of priorities
S. Explicitly "unfettered" conceptual analysis of property's potential
6. Parallel financial analysis
7. Synthesis, report preparation and presentation
8. Supporting market research documentation
In the following discussion, the general components of each of these tasks are presented
together with a discussion of which team members have primary responsibility.
It should be noted that Tasks 4, 5 and 6 are all concurrent in order to provide a reasonable
near-term delivery date to the client.
4
KOTIN. REGAN & VOUCrHA Inc.
Proposai for Concept Piammng of Tres i ;ermanos Proper;y August 29, 1991
Task 1 - Initial Debriefing and Data Assembly
in the initial debriefing, all major team participants would be debriefed by key personnel from
the two cities. The debriefing would primarily deal with their perception of the property, an
identification of existing information and existing information sources and their recommenda-
tion as to other parties or processes that need to be considered. At this time, the initial
debriefing and data assembly would not extend materially beyond the two cities and whatever
consultants or consulting studies that they have already assembled. The consulting team would
also assemble Independent external data, to the extent needed and readily available, e.g. aerial
photos, better topographical maps, traffic count data, etc., as needed.
In this phase of the work, the primary team member with overall responsibility would be James
Goodell and DMJM, although representatives of all participants would participate. We
tentatively anticipate that in order to meet the overall time deadline in this project this phase
would require approximately two to three weeks.
Task 2 - Preliminary Site Constraints Analysis
This is primarily a topographical, traffic and institutional constraints analysis. It will be the
primary responsibility of James Goodell, together with OMJM supported by Envicom. While
no formal timeline has been set for this, the process will begin immediately after Task 1.
During this task, the consultant will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the physical
environmental characteristics of the site and available infrastructure and services which may
influence the patterns, densities, and/or types of development which may be achieved on the
Tres Hermanos property, These will be determined by field reconnaissance of the site, review
of aerial photographs and extant literature (e.g., the 1970 Tres Hermanos Ranch Plan, Fi Rs,
California Department of Fish and Game lists of rare and endangered species, and other), and
interviews with service agency representatives. It is anticipated that the critical environmental
factors to be evaluated will include:
• Topography and slope
• Geology and soils (historic landslides, liquefaction potential, faulting, etc.)
• Significant plant and wildlife habitats
• Flooding
• Streets and highway; vehicular access to the site
• Infrastructure (principal sewer and water trunk lines, storm drainage, and other
elements serving the site)
• Significant visual elements
The major output of this phase of the analysis will be a series of general charts and working
graphics as well as a descriptive narrative indicating the constraints site and dictated by the
physical or legal considerations. A constraints map will be part of final presentation together
5
KOTI`. RECAN & MOUCHLY. Inc.
Propcsa� for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Prep", Augubt 29, 199'
with a suitable appendix and cross-reference material specifying the legal or physical basis for
limitation and the kind of limitation of development.
Task 3 - Preliminary/Conceptual Engineering
The preliminary engineering tasks to be performed by DMJM will include the following areas:
• Site constraints research and analysis - public facility providers and limitations;
existing utility systems and service implications; city requirements and policies;
review of soils issues.
• Concept grading plan - preliminary grading plan and earthwork estimate for
alternative concept plans.
• Preliminary utility network - preliminary wastewater, water distribution, storm
water plans including identification of potential for reclaimed water system and
implications for development.
Preliminary cost estimates - basic land development cost estimates for grading,
roadways, basic utility network and offsite construction requirements.
Task 4 - Constituency Identification and Establishment of Priorities
In this task, Goodell and Envicom will interview and debrief, over a period of approximately
six weeks, all the affected jurisdictions. For each of the constituencies or regulatory
Jurisdictions, he will assemble basic information as to their requirements to provide meaningful
reality checking and process analysis for the concepts being developed in parallel with Mr.
Kamnitzer in Task 4. KRM will actively participate in the process to the extent that there exists
financial or fiscal implications or prerequisites for various elements, e.g. infrastructure financing.
The output from this effort will be a combination of narrative and chart presentations. A
narrative and/or chart presentation of critical approval processes will be provided not only for
the conventional entitlements but also for any specialized elements of environmental review
and interactions with other critical agencies, e.g. Caltrans, Pomona Unified School District.
Approximate required time, initial documentation and apparent and potential constraints on
development will be identified with each relevant constituency and organization.
Task 5 - Explicitly "Unfettered" Conceptual Analysis of Property's Potential
Upon completion of the initial debriefing, Mr. Kamnitzer will bring to bear his experience and
his ideas as to potential innovative land uses. While his general charter will include
Incorporation of possible education facilities and the generation of both revenue and positive
fiscal impact, he will be explicitly unfettered in his analysis of the property's potential.
0
KOTIN. RFCAN & VOLCHLY. int.
Proposal fcr Concept P',annin$ of Tres Hormanos Property AugL$t 29, 1991
Working with Coodell, he will develop for review by other team members two or more
alternative scenarios at a highly generalized concept level.
We understand from discussions with the City of Diamond Bar staff that an important early
decision must be made with respect to a new Pomona High School District school site. Peter
Kamnitzer, working with Mr. Goodell, will ascertain the critical parameters governing the size,
character and location of the school site and work with the District to modify and refine the
possible school sites on the property.
The output of this plan will be a series of very rough conceptual presentations showing
alternative land use configurations, together with minimal narrative support describing
specialized features of the proposed land uses, interactions and the role and character of land
uses in the overall plan. Particular attention will be given in this phasing analysis to discussing
how the planned response to anticipated future changes in either the general pattern of urban
development or other specific considerations will impact this site on a local and regional basis.
The presentation emanating from this analysis will be explicitly in draft form and preliminary
in nature. Only upon its synthesis with the economic, regulatory and other elements in the
analysis will these concept plans be refined.
Task 6 - Parallel Financial Analysis
For the joint use of the cities, KRM will develop a financial model of development of the
property that will, at a minimum, incorporate the following elements:
The fiscalimpact of development
The required investment and potential returns to the landowner of different
schemes of development at a generalized level
The associated infrastructure financing required for development
It is anticipated that this will be a generalized model dealing with general classes of land use
rather than detailed project components. This model will be explicitly integrated with Task 8
to establish supportableproperty absorption rates, sales prices for both finished product and
land, and appropriate other costs and revenue considerations.
Task 7 - Synthesis, Workshop and Report Preparation
Upon the completion of Tasks 1 through b, the team will assemble and, with active
participation from staff of both cities, integrate their results into no more than three alternative
scenarios. A public workshop will be conducted to present alternative concepts to the public
prior to selection of preferred pian alternatives.
The synthesis element in Task 7 will be a central and pivotal feature of the overall consulting
effort. In this analysis, we will draw together the inputs from the market research, the financial
7
KOT?ti. REGAN &MOUCHLY. Inc.
Prcposa; for Concent Planning of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 1991
simulation, the constraints and priorities analysis with the initial visual concept pians. What
should emerge from this is a concept plan at feast partially pretested for its political and
financial feasibility with a fairly clear specification of the prerequisites of successful
development. While final engineering and detailed entitlements will still be lacking in this
analysis, there will be an integrated and balanced product.
A preliminary version of this product will be made available to the client. Following a week
or longer client review, the consulting team will require approximately three weeks to prepare
a final report with final graphics.
It is contemplated that the final report will Include, at a minimum, a sketch presentation of two
or more alternative development scenarios accompanied by a narrative describing the premises,
approach and character of the proposed plan, in addition to a set of quantitative approxima-
tions of the plan's yield in units or FAR density, there will also be a discussion of projected sale
or land lease revenue to the landowner and fiscal impacts to the City.
The role of the land uses in terms of long-term market forces and their relationship to the
changing character of the community of Diamond Bar and its strategic location will also be
provided.
In addition, there will be, for each of the adopted scenarios and, if needed, for each of the
component land use elements, a narrative and/or chart description of the approval process and
prerequisites for approval that have been identified in the priorities and process analysis.
Limited narrative discussion will be provided indicating the relationship of the proposed plan
or plan element to affected jurisdictions beyond the quantitative and financial elements already
provided above.
The report will conclude with a series of support appendices providing background data as to
processes, baseline property information, etc, Limited cross referencing to the market research
report will also be provided as needed.
Task 8 - Supporting Market Research Documentation
In parallel with Phase I, KRM, under the direction of James Regan, will undertake a systematic
market research effort that will consider bath the overall and specific market support for
development on the Tres Hermanos property. This effort, which will require approximately
six to eight weeks, will provide an overview of market support for non-residential uses in the
City of Diamond Bar with particular focus on those potentials that are suitable to Tres
Hermanos. The need for treating the entire City is to assure that development of Tres
Hermanos would be complementary to other develo{�ment in the City of Diamond Bar.
The basic elements in the market -research will include the following:
• An analysis of existing development levels for non-residential uses in the City of
Diamond Bar.
H.
KOTIN. RECAN & %10LCHLY Inc.
Proposal for Corcept Planning of ; res hiermanos Property August 29, 1991
• A parallel and more generalized analysis of non-residential, retail and office
patterns in a surrounding area tentatively to be designated as a competitive
market area.
• Sum,ey of prevailing vacancy, pricing and property characteristics in key non-
residential developments in the competitive market area as well as in the City
of Diamond Bar.
• A parallel analysis of demographic, household and income trends, in particular
to establish levels of support for retail development but also to consider possible
implications for hotel and office development on a population -to -business ratio
basis.
A special analysis of long-term, macro -economic growth trends as they relate to
the regionally strategic central location of the property.
• A synthesis of the survey and demographic data to establish overall demand for
non-residential uses in the competitive market area of which Diamond Bar is a
part.
• Establishment, selectively by land use type, of the expected capture rates for the
City of Diamond Bar generally and for Tres Hermanos specifically and
conversion into a projected absorption schedule for selected forms of non-resi-
dential development.
In parallel, there will be some discussion and treatment of the anticipated housing growth. The
primary level of this will be to establish general parameters for housing for the purpose of
incorporating on a financial basis the inevitable housing element into any conceptual plan. At
this time, KRM does not foresee the need for in-depth housing market research but rather
merely a characterization of the typical types of housing associated with multi -family rental,
multi -family ownership and single-family detached at two or three different price levels within
the City. This largely descriptive survey will also be an element in the process.
In the general overview of housing, particular attention will be given to innovative ways of
incorporating affordable housing to meet the needs of both the cities of Industry and Diamond
Bar.
KRM will undertake this study which may use specific selective subcontractors for particular
expertise on various components. if the client requires the identity and scope of these
subcontractors, they will be reviewed before they are retained but overall responsibility for the
integrated results will be that of KRM.
E
KOTN RFCA\1 & MOUCHLY: Inc.
Proposal far Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property Augus: 29, 1991
Deliverables
For Phase 1, the general concepts study, KRM has identified tive major deliverables that are
listed below:
1. Narrative report
2. Preliminary range financials to owner
3. Preliminary range fiscal impacts to City
4. Order of magnitude land improvement costs (per engineer)
5. Concept drawings
There will be a separate report for Task 8 to establish confidentiality and because it will be
independently useful for a wide range of activities. KRM will write the report and present
under separate cover at or prior to the final project presentation.
PHASE 11: Formulation of Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report
During this phase, the consultant team will formalize the conceptual plan for the Tres
Hermanos Ranch property as a Specific Plan and prepare its accompanying Environmental
Impact Report (EiR). The Specific Plan will be prepared jointly for the cities of Diamond Bar
and Industry in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of the State of
California Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code) Section 65450 et. seg. The EIR will
be prepared as an independent review of the draft Specific Plan for the City of Diamond Bar
in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Work tasks to be conducted and products to be prepared will elaborate on those completed
during the conceptual planning phase of this work program.
Task 1 - Data Refinement and Documentation
During this task, the consultant team will compile and analyze additional data regarding the
existing conditions of the Tres Hermanos property, to facilitate refinement of the conceptual
land use plan and as input for the EIR. This will include the further investigation and
documentation of the "critical' environmental factors which were determined to influence the
structure of land uses in the first phase and other elements required for compliance with
CEQA. The specific scope and depth of analysis for each environmental resource to be
considered will be dependent on the conclusions regarding the significance of each resource
previously evaluated. For example, should the presence of a significant wildlife or vegetation
habitat be determined to potentlaily exist during the first phase, the consultant would conduct
field surveys to confirm this potential.
10
K01 -N, REGA.N & VOUCHLY. Inc.
Proposai Far Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 1991
Potential data to be compiled would include:
Land use (onsite and peripheral)
• Circulation (onsite and peripheral)
Streets and highways (existing and master -planned)
Transit
B l keways
Equestrian trails
Other
• infrastructure/utilities serving the site
Water supply and distribution
Wastewater collection and treatment
Storm drainage
Solid waste collection
Energy (natural gas and electricity)
Communications (telephone, television and other)
• Public services serving the site
Schools
- Parks and recreation
- Police
- Fire
- Govern ment/adrn i nistrative
• Archaeological and cultural resources
• Environmental resources
Vegetation and wildlife habitat
- Sign ificant/sensitive/rare and endangered species
• Topography and slope
• Geology and soils
- Landslide potential/slope stability
- Erosion
- Seismic
- Li uefaction potential
- Other
11
KOTIN. REGAN & MOLCHLY: Inc.
Proposai for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property
• Surface and sub -surface hydrology
• Aesthetic resources and viewsheds
• Toxics
• Noise
August 24, 1991
Pertinent information regarding these resources will be documented by text, maps, and, as
appropriate, illustrative graphics for inclusion in the Specific Pian and EIR.
Task 2 - Review and Refine Concept Plan
The concept plan formulated in Phase I will be reviewed according to its impacts on and by
the expanded environmental analyses conducted in the preceding work task. As necessary,
the plan's distribution and pattern of land uses will be modified to account for the presence
of significant constraints or impacts. Revisions will be evaluated according to the fiscal,
financial, transportation, and infrastructure impacts to confirm the plan's continued feasibility.
The revised plan and analyses will be reviewed with the cities of Diamond Bar and Industry.
Task 3 - Prepare Specific Plan
For the conceptual land use plan, as modified by the preceding tasks, detailed land use,
engineering, environmental management, and implementation plans, standards, and other
pertinent elements will be formulated for inclusion in the Specific Plan. Plan components will
include the following:
Land Use and Development
• Land use plan
Parcelization
Type and density/intensity
Open space and public amenity
The land use plan will be depicted on a base map.
• Urban design/streetscape plan
Entry identification
Signage
Street trees and other public landscape
Street lighting
Other
12
KOTIN. REGAN & MOUCH&. Inc.
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property
August 29, it 991
As appropriate, illustrative graphics will be prepared to depict the overall
organizational urban design structure and specific sub -areas and components.
A framework of design principles and standards will be defined by which
precise design specifications could be subsequently prepared.
Public facilities plan (e.g., schools and parks)
Development and design standards
- Intensity (floor area ratio, units per acre)
- Parking, signage and other code requirements
- Site development
- Architecture
- Landscape and streetscape
- Other
Standards will be written and formatted for inclusion in the City's zoning code.
Illustrations will be prepared to facilitate understanding of pertinent standards.
Infrastructure and Utilities
• Circulation plan
Streets and highways
Public transit (if any)
g i keways
Trails (equestrian and hiking)
Locations of principal improvements will be depicted on the base map. Street
classification standards (including right-of-way and improvement widths) will be
specified. Generalized development costs will be estimated.
• Infrastructure/utilities plan
- Drainage (hydrology and hydraulics)
- Water supply and distribution
- Wastewater collection and treatmentrfdisposal/reciamation
- Solid waster collection and disposal
Locations of principal improvements will be depicted on the base map.
Pertinent standards will be specified. Generalized development costs will be
estimated.
13
KOTIN, REGAN & VOLCHLY. Inc.
Proposal ror Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property August 29, 1991
• Grading plan
A generalized grading plan will be prepared.
Implementation plan
Procedures (administrative, development application processing, City
review, public input, etc.)
Responsibilities
Phasing and timing of development
Financing program (for infrastructure)
Preliminary concepts (described by text, maps, and illustrative graphics) will be prepared for
each of the components and submitted to the cities of Diamond Bar and Industry for review.
Based on comments received from the City, the elements will be revised and finalized.
Task 4 - Prepare Environmental Impact Report
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared in accordance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Diamond Bar guidelines. An
Initial Study will be prepared in collaboration with City staff. On completion of the draft EIR,
a "screencheck" will be prepared for City review and comment. The final draft responding to
the City's input will be prepared, published, and distributed. On completion of the public
review period and input by the Planning Commission and City Council, responses to public
comments will be prepared and incorporated into a final EIR, In concert with the EIR, a
Mitigation Monitoring Program will be formulated.
Task 5 - Conduct Public Workshops
During the formulation of the Specific Pian, workshops will be conducted to enable the City's
residents, business persons, and other interest parties to provide input to the planning process.
These will be conducted as "hands-on" participatory processes, rather than the traditional
"presentation -response" format. Large-scale base maps, wall graphics, three-dimensional
materials, and other media will be used to facilitate the definition of the public's issues and
visions regarding the use and development of the Tres Hermanos property. The consultant
team will collaborate with City staff in designing a program of outreach and structuring the
workshops to maxlmlze their usefulness in providing input to the planning program. For the
purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that three workshops would be conducted addressing
the following topics:
Issues and visions for the Tres Hermanos property
Review of and modification of the preliminary land use plan and urban design
concepts
Review of the final Specific Plan components
14
KOTIN, REGN's, & MOUCHLY Inc.
Proposal for Concept Planning of Tres Hermanos Property
Task 6 - Participate in Public Hearings
August 29, 1991
The consultant team will participate in City Council and Planning Commission study sessions
and hearings to adopt the Specific Plan and certify the EIR. Presentation graphics will be
prepared at the direction of the City of Diamond Bar. For the purposes of the budget of this
proposal, it is assumed that the consultant team will participate in six sessions/hearings.
BUDGET
Phase I
This is a broad and complex assignment for which it is difficult to establish individual task
budgets.
As mentioned previously, the estimated budget for Phase ! excludes transportation consulting
services provided outside of this contract by DKS Associates.
The estimated budget for Phase I is as follows:
KRM
$ 40,000
Goodell
35,000
Kamnitzer
25,000
Envicom
17,000
DMJM
25,000
Subtotal - Work Scope
$ 142,000
KRM - Project Administration
5.000
Total Consultant Budget
$ 147,000
Subcontract - Topographic Survey
24,400
TOTAL
$ 171,400
The subcontract represents a cost estimate prepared for the Pomona Unified School District
by Robert Wada & Associates for a complete topographic survey of the property.
This is a maximum budget that will not be exceeded without the expressed consent of the
client. The budget includes all costs for professional staff time, expenses, report preparation
and publication.
These studies are being performed for both the City of Diamond Bar and the City of Industry.
We understand that the City of Diamond Bar will be the contracting entity with KRM for Phase
I administrative and billing purposes.
The time required to complete Phase I Is estimated at four months. KRM will bill monthly for
costs incurred by consulting team members. Given major up -front costs incurred during the
start-up period, the consulting team requests a retainer of $20,000 which will be applied
against final billings.
15
c�Tlti u.Fc��ti 1111(A. Cr1L)
,c' c', r.:DCCCja ��d^11IU'@5 •"'�2�^'_t `^e 4 :g 7
Pha..Iv II
-%,trough a genera ;cope of ,n t!s o,oposal for Phase I!, a
sc,)ue to refect these -esults carr t �e )slah isr ea anti+ con,plet on :f phase '.
A Se -oral bu loet rarpe for 0I,a7e :I has been est;-nated by Envicori iead cons„irant for 07a,,�
i, at S175,u00 - 525,0,000. 7-e 'EC,, t,ea to con-plete both spec lc rla^ a-,'-;
p reparatior I; at 12 cr.� "? marl~c
ACCEPTANCE AND ALTHORILATION
If this proposal ,r.eeLs with your approval p ease sign the enclosed copy and return it to tis fc-
our records. I' a different. (orm o� eont!act s rsyri-ed please fez: f,ee .o rre;;are SL:.r' ..
-o; tract for o jr sideration. 'nc�ljT,�g .- refererce the c::^te-ts �fi tnis r cp�,;sai
Or bohaif o► the con,uNng tears members, KR10 is pleased to 5.:l-?rp;' 0 -is ;:roposa: arc:
`,`rtv3"Ci t'`^ t,eii,• t:. Aorrong 0.1 a xcst vt,alienglr,g
Diamond Bar and Industry,
Respect?u,;'r submrred
James P. Regan
President
_c Chris Rope, City Manager, City of Industry
Carl Surnett, City of Industry
Enclosures
SCREED TO AND AUTHORIZED BY:
(City)
;game) --~ (Title) _ (Date)
'.` P!lES:rs:S+99`KP' ; RESI.;PR.ja
16
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.1
NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.2
NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. G, 1
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 REPORT DATE: August 26, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Septic Sewer System in the Country
SUMMARY: This is an update of the City's findings regarding the sewer problems in approximately 148 lots
within the Country.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council direct staff as necessary.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
— Other
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
Yes
X No
by the City Attorney?
_
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
Majority
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
Yes
X No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_
_ Yes
X No
Which Commission?
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
Yes
X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
_
REVWED
BY:
L G
✓���
Ro ert L. Van 14ort Terrence L. Belanger
Slid J. Mousavi
City Manager Assistant City Manager
Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Septic Sewer System in The Country
ISSUE STATEMENT
To verify the existence and extent of the septic sewer disposal problems in
The Country and the level of interest of the property owners in resolving it.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct staff as necessary.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
If the City engages in resolving the sewer disposal system issue in The
Country, this action may impact the City's 1991-92 General Fund budget. No
funding has been identified for this program for Fiscal Year 1991-92.
BACKGROUND
Currently, the 148 lots within The Country are not tied into the City's
existing sewer system, as a result, this area relies on septic tanks.
Further, the septic tank system to which sewer is disposed into and not
operating consistently, was brought to the City Council's attention in April,
1991. In working towards the direction of solving the existing problem, on
May 21, 1991, the City Council directed staff to report back on the
feasibility study and information regarding the establishment of an
assessment district within The Country. On July 2, 1991, staff reported back
to the Council with information regarding cost options and assessment
district establishment process and requirements, the copy of which is
attached. At the Council meeting, staff was further requested to determine
the extent of the septic tank system problem and level of interest of
property owners in establishing and assessment district.
DISCUSSION
Staff anticipates that the inconsistency in operation has been attributed
possibly to the localized shallow ground water conditions, shallow bedrock
and inadequate septic system design. Further, staff has been informed that
several of the septic tanks have overflowed, causing effluent to come to the
ground surface, and thus, causing a potential health and environmental issue.
However, this issue has neither been verified by staff nor a qualified
consultant.
Page Two
Septic Sewer Disposal System
August 27, 1991
The initial step in determining existence and extent of the septic sewer
disposal problems in The Country begins with a study that would be designed
to focus on quantifying the state and nature of the geotechnical and
hydrogeologic issues concerning the seepage and related distress on the
septic system in The Country.
After the initial study is complete, the second phase of the study would
concentrate on the existing geotechnical, geologic, geomorphology, and
topographical reports of the area in question. Further, the study would
include field reconnaissance and analysis of its data. Staff contacted two
soils and geotechnical engineering consultant firms, Kleinfelder and Leighton
& Associates, Inc., both located in the City of Diamond Bar, and requested
proposals to provide these services. The cost to complete this study is
approximately $7,000. This study can be incorporated into the total sewer
system feasibility study which was reported to the Council on July 2, 1991.
If the City concludes that conducting a soils and geotechnical study
initially necessary in order to determine the extent of the sewer problem,
the following options lie available to the City for payment of such study.
These are:
(1) Authorize staff to use monies from the City's General Fund to conduct
the study. The City's General Fund account can be
reimbursed only if and assessment district is established.
(2) Direct staff to inform the affected property owners to pay for the
study cost.
(3) Authorize staff to use the General Fund monies only if the property
owners sign a petition which indicates reimbursement to the City if an
assessment district is not formed.
Staff contacted the representative from The Country, Mr. Jack Nelson, and
requested that they provide to the City a letter which indicates the nature
of the problem and the number of property owners that are affected as well as
their interest in resolving the sewer disposal system problems. Staff
further requested that this letter be signed by as many property owners as
possible. However, due to conflict in vacation schedule of active members of
these property owners, the request has not been made available to date.
Therefore, staff is unable, at this time, to determine the number of property
owners' affected abd their interest in solving the issue at hand.
W 114*9A 110 10M WAR
Sid Jalal Mousavi
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. .2
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 REPORT DATE: August 26, 1991
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, Assistant City Manager
TITLE: Bow and Arrow Ordinance (Urgency)
SUMMARY: This ordinance changes the consent to be on property provision to a written consent requirement
and the "safety buffer" distance provision from 150 yards to 250 yards.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed bow and arrow ordinance
as an urgency ordinance, which requires a 4/5ths vote of the Council.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
Resolution(s)
X Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_Other
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
X Yes
_ No
by the City Attorney?
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
X Yes
_ No
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
_ Yes
X No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
Yes
X No
Which Commission?
_
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
X Yes
_ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
L. A. County Sheriff's
Department
101
Robert L. Van
City Manager
i,
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager
MEETING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
September 3, 1991
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City Manager
Bow and Arrow Shooting Ordinance
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The shooting of arrows or similar projectiles with any bow, device or
instrumentality would be prohibited, except by persons who own, possess or
have written permission of the owner or possessor of the property from which
an arrow or similar projectile is shot and remains on or over, provided such
arrow or instrumentality is not shot within 250 yards of any structure,
public highway, trail, private roadway or easement used for travel purposes.
The aforestated prohibition would not apply to licensed archery ranges or
similar facility under the management or control of a duly licensed
educational institution.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed urgency ordinance
which prohibits the shooting of arrows or such instrumentalities, within the
City of Diamond Bar, except where the ordinance provides therefore.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
There is no immediately discernable or measurable fiscal impact raised by
this ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Concern has been expressed by community residents regarding the shooting of
arrows on private property, where other recreational activities may be
proximately occurring, e.g., horseback riding, hiking, jogging, etc. Since
the shooting of arrows, with bows or such instrumentality, is generally being
done in conjunction with hunting wild game or target shooting, the issue is
whether such bow and arrow activities being done in open space areas, within
an ever-expanding urbanized community are appropriate from a safety
standpoint.
The City currently prohibits the shooting of arrows or such instrumentality
(L.A. County Code, Section 13.66.120), except when the arrow is shot from,
remains on or over and lands on the property from which it (arrow) is shot.
The person who shoots the arrow must have the consent of the owner or
possessor of the property, if the shooter is not the owner or possessor.
BOW AND ARROW ORDINANCE
BACKGROUND (con't
Section 13.66.120 further prohibits the shooting of an arrow at any place
within 150 yards of any public highway, private street used by the general
public, recreational area, park, riding or hiking trail, dwelling house, camp
or place of human habitation.
The proposed ordinance changes existing policy, regarding the shooting of
arrows or similar instrumentalities, in two areas: 1) consent of the owner or
possessor and 2) the distance from structures, public highways, trails,
private roadway or easements.
The existing ordinance requires the arrow shooter to have the consent from
the owner or possessor of property. Because Section 13.66.120 does not
specify, it can reasonably be inferred that consent could be either oral or
written. The proposed ordinance would require the consent to be in writing
and in the possession of the arrow shooter.
Section 13.66.120 was originally adopted, in 1929. At the time of adoption,
the 150 yard "safety buffer" could be construed as reasonable, given the then
existing bow and arrow technology and the rural nature of Los Angeles County.
However, the extraordinary advancement of bow and arrow technology has
rendered the 150 yard "safety buffer" inadequate. Contemporary bow and arrow
technology can typically result in an arrow being shot for distances of 200
to 250 yards. Further, the City is an urban community, which is a part of a
greater urbanized regional area. Consequently, the proposed ordinance would
increase the "safety buffer" from 150 yards to 250 yards.
The adoption of the proposed bow and arrow ordinance would repeal Section
13.66.120 of the Los Angeles County Code, within the City of Diamond Bar.
The proposed ordinance is an urgency measure. It's adoption would require
four (4) affirmative votes. If adopted, the ordinance would be effective
immediately.
DISCUSSION:
See BACKGROUND.
PRE ED BY:
If
r - r
(Terrence L. Bela 'r)
-2e.9 o
': 7r
JAMES L. MARKMAN � 44
ANDREW V. ARCZYNSKI
RALPH D. HANSON
JEFFREY KING
D. CRAIG FOX
MARTHA GEISLER PATTERSON
WILLIAM P. CURLEY III
MARSHA G. SLOUGH
JULIA A. KEMP
PAMELA P. KING
August 13, 1991
NUMBER ONE CIVIC CENTER CIRCLE
P. O. BOX 1059
BREA, CALIFORNIA 92622-1059
TELEPHONE
0714) 990-0901
(2131691-3811
9113 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
SUITE 200
RANCHO CUCAMONGrA, CALIFORNIA 91730
' +714) 980-2742
TELEPHONE +`
(7141 3 81-0 21 8
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
Brea
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor John Forbing, Mayor Pro Tem
Jay C. Kim, Council Members Don Nardella,
Phyllis A. Papen and Gary Werner
FROM: Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney,
City of Diamond Bar
RE: "Bow Hunting" Ordinance
This office has revised the original draft ordinance
provided to the Council for its consideration regarding the
above topic. We have included for use by the City Clerk in the
Council packet a "redline" version of the ordinance as well as
copies of the two specific sections of the Los Angeles County
Code which the ordinance would modify.
Please note that the distance requirement has been
modified by this office from 150 yards to 250 yards. We have
taken the liberty of discussing the issue with Donald L.
Forkus, Chief of Police of the City of Brea who also happens tc
be an avid bow hunting enthusiast. Chief Forkus, during our
conversation regarding the topic, indicated that if it was the
intent of the ordinance to provide a "buffer zone" or safety
area with respect to houses, streets and other areas where the
public may congregate, the 250 yard parameter would seem to be
more appropriate. Chief Forkus indicated to this office that
he regularly hunts with a 72 pound draw bow and can easily
loosen an arrow in excess of 200 yards. Chief Forkus indicated
that some hunters use much stronger bows and can easily exceed
a distance of 200 to 250 yards. Accordingly, while there is no
particular "magic" in the 250 yard number, we have provided it
for Council consideration.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: Aug t 14, 1991
TO: M y and City Council
FROM: rt L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT:ow Hunting Ordinance
Attached is a copy of the "red lined" version of the above -
referenced ordinance. Please review said ordinance and contact me
if you have any questions or changes. This ordinance is scheduled
for the September 3, 1991 meeting.
13.66.060 Shooting arrows or other missiles — Restrictions. A person who
is within 150 yards of any public highway, public area or place of human habitation
shall not shoot any arrow or similar missile toward any such highway, public area or
place of human habitation. (Ord. 83-0171 § 1, 1983; Ord. 7381 § 1(part), 1958: Ord.
1769 Art. 3 § 306, 1929.)
13.66.120 Shooting arrows or other missiles — Prohibited where. Except as
otherwise provided in this chapter, a person shall not, within any district or area
described in this Part 2, shoot any arrow or similar missile, and a person, firm or
corporation shall not cause or permit any arrow or similar missile to be shot, at any
place within 150 yards of any public highway, private street used by the general
public, recreational area, park, riding and hiking trail, dwelling house, camp or
place of human habitation, except when the arrow is shot from and at all times
remains on or over, and lands upon, private property, if all persons occupy or
having the right to occupy such private property or portion thereof consent thereto.
(Ord. 83-0171 § 2, 1983; Ord. 7381 § 1 (part), 1958: Ord. 1769 Art. I § 99, 1929.)
AGENDA NO.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: August 9, 1991 MEETING DATE: Sept. 3, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
From: Lee C. McCown, Captain, Sheriff's Walnut Station
SUBJECT: Bow and Arrow Use Regulation
ISSUE STATEMENT
In response to the concern of Steve Kewish, 916 Clear Creek Canyon
Drive, Diamond Bar, that deer hunting with bow and arrow could
occur in the open space areas of Diamond Bar and that such hunting
and or other use of bow and arrows could pose a hazard to children
and other persons using the same open space area, the Sheriff's
Walnut Station Staff has investigated the issue.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt amendments to the
existing Los Angeles County Code prohibiting the use of bow and
arrows on public property and prohibiting the use of bow and arrows
on private property without the permission of the owner or all of
the occupants of the property. Exceptions should include authorized
ranges and educational institutions.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Because of Mr. Kewish's concern and the Sheriff's Department's
concern for Public Safety, a presentation and recommendation was
made at the City Council meeting of July 16, 1991. At that meeting
several members of the public spoke against the propose ordinance
changes which would have prohibited the use of bows and arrows
(continued on next page)
REVIEWED BY:
Robert L. Van Nort Andrew V. Arczynski Terrence Belanger
City Manager City Attorney Assit. City Mgr.
within the city of Diamond Bar except on property owned by the
user. These objections indicated that existing law was sufficient
to regulate hunting by bow and arrow. There was also some
indication from the City Council of concerns about the unnecessary
regulation of the use of private property. Those proponents of bow
hunting also indicated that bow hunting had a good safety record.
Current State Law that would would be applicable to regulating the
use of private lands are Section 2016 of the Fish and Game Code and
Section 602 of the Penal Code.
Section 2016 F&G makes it unlawful to hunt on lands under
cultivation, enclosed by fence, or posted prohibiting trespassing
without written permission of the owner.
Section 602 P.C. prohibits a person from entering any lands whether
cultivated or not, enclosed or not, whether posted or not, without
the permission of the owner, owner's agent or person in charge of
the property and refuses to leave when requested by the same or a
peace officer at the specific request of same.
State Law makes it incumbent for the owner of property to overtly
take steps to deny the use of his property instead of requiring
others to gain permission for its use. Our recommendation would
require the person who wants to use anothers land for the purpose
of using a bow and arrow, whether for hunting or not, to first
obtain permission from the owner or person in lawful possession
before they could conduct such activity.
A survey of some of the other local communities revealed the
following regulations specifically restricting the use of bow and
arrows within their jurisdictions:
- San Dimas: Prohibits use on private property except with
the consent of the owner and/or all occupants, and at
ranges and educational institutions.
- Glendora: Prohibits use of a bow and arrow more than 3
feet in length, or metal tipped arrows or any crossbow.
- La Verne: Prohibits shooting arrows except at ranges or
educational institutions.
- Monrovia: Prohibits use of bow and arrow without permit of
the city.
- Pasadena: Prohibits use except in places designed for use
and approved by the city.
- Rancho Cucanonga: Prohibits use except at a range or other
places approved by the city.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING SECTION 13.66.060 AND
REPEALING SECTION 13.66.120 OF CHAPTER 13.66
OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE
ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO THE SHOOTING OF ARROWS
AND SIMILAR PROJECTILES, AND DECLARING THE
URGENCY THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
heretofore adopted Chapter 13.66 of the Los Angeles County Code
pertaining to firearms, bow and arrows.
(ii) It is the desire of the City Council to amend
said Chapter 13.66 to prohibit the shooting of arrows and similar
projectiles, except as provided in this Ordinance, and to declare
the urgency thereof in order to promote and preserve the public
health, safety and welfare.
(iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond
Bar does ordain as follows:
Section 1. In all respects as set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Section 13.66.060 of Chapter 13.66 of the
Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted, is hereby amended
to read, in words and figures, as follows:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot any
arrow or similar projectile, or cause or permit the
1
shooting of any arrow or similar projectile, by any
device or instrumentality, within the City of Diamond
Bar. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to
arrows or similar projectiles which are shot from and
remain on or over the property ewned-by of the person
shooting such arrow or similar projectile, provided such
arrow or similar projectile is not shot within 158 250
yards of any structure, public highway, trail, private
roadway or easement used for travel purposes. For
purposes of this Section, the term "the property of the
Person" shall mean any person having a possessory
interest in the property where said arrow or similar
projectile is shot or any person having the written
consent of the person having such possessory interest.
Such written consent shall be in the possession of the
person who has acquired said consent and shall be
displayed, upon demand, to any peace officer.
"The provisions of this Section further shall not
apply to a licensed archery range or similar facility
under the management or control of a duly licensed
educational institution."
Section 3. Section 13.66.120 of the Los Angeles County
Code, as heretofore adopted, is hereby repealed.
Section 4. Penalty for violation of ordinance.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership,
or corporation to violate any provision, or to fail to comply
2
with any of the requirements of this Ordinance. Any person,
firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this
Ordinance, or failing to comply with any of its requirements,
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand
Dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person,
firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a
separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof
during which any violation of this Ordinance is committed,
continued, or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or
corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefore as provided
in this Ordinance.
Section 5. Civil remedies available.
The violation of any of the provisions of this
Ordinance shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the
City through civil process by means of a restraining order,
preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner
provided by law for the abatement of nuisance.
Section 6. Severability.
The City Council declares that, should any provision,
section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be
rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court
of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive
legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs,
3
sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force
and effect.
Section 7. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
hereby declares this Ordinance to be an urgency measure requiring
the immediate enactment thereof for the preservation of the
public health, safety and welfare and, further, that this
Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three
(3) public places within the City of Diamond Bar within fifteen
(15) days after its passage in the manner prescribed by
Resolution No. 89-6.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1991.
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond
Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was
introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1991, and was
finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1991 by
the following vote:
4
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
P.W)"IF
N�1011\ARROWORI\DB 5
City Clerk of the City
of Diamond Bar
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. '% /
TO: Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991 REPORT DATE: August 27, 1991
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
TITLE: COUNCIL POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF THE SANE PROGRAM TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS
SUMMARY: Whether the City should make SANE education available to students in private schools in the
the City of Diamond Bar.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to have the Los
Angeles County Sheriffs Department provide the SANE program to the Mount Calvary Luterhan School,
pursuant to established criteria.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: x Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
xOther Sheriff's letter/staff memo
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
R ert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager Assistant City Manager
F:\WP51\AGENDA\COVER.FRM
NLANo
N/A
N/ANO
N/ANO
(Department Head)
NL No
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: COUNCIL POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF THE SANE PROGRAM TO
PRIVATE SCHOOLS
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Whether the City should make SANE education available to students in private
schools in the City of Diamond Bar.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to have
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department provide the SANE program to the
Mount Calvary Lutheran School, pursuant to established criteria.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
No fiscal impact to the City.
BACKGROUND:
Council expenditure increased from .80 units of service to 100 units of
service from the 1991-92 Budget. In doing so, it brings the total to 149
hours per month on classroom lessons, parent/teach education, student
interaction, and other SANE related activities within the City.
Mount Calvary Lutheran has requested three classes at their private school.
Initially, there were two areas of concern from staff as to including Mount
Calvary in the SANE Program:
1. That they be included without additional cost to the City.
The Sheriff's Department has indicated that the SANE Bureau deputy
can add the three Mount Calvary Lutheran requested classes without
increasing the City's contract commitment (expenditures).
2. What criteria should be followed in allowing a private school in
the program?
It is important that the following criteria be followed when making
the SANE Program available to private schools, especially those
with religious affiliations:
F,
SANE PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 3, 1991
2. SANE Program Criteria for Private Schools (con't)
A. There cannot be any direct funding to the private schools.
B. There cannot be any censorship or control of the content of
the instructional subject matter, by officials and/or parents,
of the school.
C. There cannot be any perception of favoritism among religions
when making selections of participating schools.
D. There cannot be any staging of SANE related activities on the
campuses of private schools, with religious affiliations,
other than those activities and instructional courses provided
by SANE Bureau personnel or other Sheriff's Department
members.
E. Participating private schools must be State of California
accredited educational institutions.
At this time, Mount Calvary Lutheran School is the only accredited private
school in Diamond Bar that would be eligible for the provision of the SANE
Program.
The City of Los Angeles and the City of Claremont currently provide similar
types of narcotics and substance abuse education programs to private schools,
including some with religious affiliations.
3
:A)
SHERMAN BLOCK, SHERIFF
August 12, 1991
Tountp of 31 -Cavi An4dim
Offirr of thr :�ihrriff
Tall of Juoiirr
.. C4tl. •
Kos Anyles, (rnliferntn 90U12
Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Dear Mr. Van Nort:
According to our records, the City of Diamond Bar
increased its contract commitment for the SANE Program
from .80 units of service to 100 units of service, or
100% of a SANE deputy. This percentage equates to 149
hours per month which is spent on classroom lessons,
parent/teacher education, student interaction, and SANE
related activities in your city. The SANE deputy
currently has a workload of 64 classes per month in the
Pomona Unified and Walnut Valley Unified School Districts
in your city.
The Mount Calvary Lutheran School has contacted the SANE
Bureau requesting a SANE Program in their school. The
SANE deputy could pick up the additional three classes at
Mount Calvary Lutheran School, bringing the classroom
load to 67 classes per month without increasing your
city's contract commitment.
If this increase of the private school meets with your
approval, please contact the SANE Bureau so scheduling
arrangements can be made.
Sincerely,
SHERMAN BLOCK, SHERIFF
Judith A. Lewis, Captain
SANE Bureau
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager via
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, Assistant City Manager via
Tseday Aberra, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: SANE - Mount Calvary Lutheran Church School
DATE: July 26, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
It was requested that a report be prepared addressing the viability
of the Mount Calvary Lutheran Church School's SANE (Substance Abuse
Narcotics Education) program being incorporated into the Los
Angeles Sheriff Department SANE program; which the City funds.
DISCUSSION:
Mount Calvary Lutheran Church School, a private school in Diamond
Bar, desires to implement the SANE program as part of the existing
4th, 5th and 6th grade curriculum. SANE is a program that is
designed to educate school -aged children about the effects and
consequences of drug abuse. Due to financial difficulties,
however, Mount Calvary is unable to fund the program. As a result,
Mount Calvary has asked the City of Diamond Bar to fund the
program. Diamond Bar is currently funding the SANE program, which
is taught in the public schools within the City.
The SANE program involves the funding of, through its contract with
the Los Angeles Sheriff Department, a Deputy from the County of Los
Angeles Sheriff Department. Currently, the school's officials and
teachers are attending conferences to learn how to administer and
effectively implement the program into the school. The SANE
lessons that will be taught by deputies will cost approximately
$2,810.00 for ten months (see attached).
Private schools, such as Saint Jerome School in Los Angeles and Our
Lady of Assumption in Claremont, have asked and been granted
financial assistance by their Cities.
Page Two
SANE
July 26, 1991
When a private, parochial school requests the financial assistance
from a public agency, the issue of separation of church and state
and the potential entanglement of a City and a County Sheriff's
Department with a private religious school's activities arises.
In order to maintain separation, the City Attorney advises that the
SANE curriculum, which is to be provided by the Sheriff's
Department, must not to be tinkered with by school officials. The
City Attorney further advises that any approved funding should be
paid directly to the Sheriff's Department. The City Attorney
further advises that the City must avoid involvement with:
1. Direct funding to private schools;
2. Censorship or control of the content of the instruction by
the school, its officials or parents;
3. A perception of favoritism among religions when selecting
participating school; and
4. Staging activities on campuses of religious school beyond
the instructural courses.
Because each of the above actions potentially moves governmental
activity closer to a constitutional check, the City Attorney
advises that the City follow the guidelines, in order to avoid
potential complications.
It must be noted that if the City approves the requested funding,
it allows itself to be exposed to unlimited types and numbers of
financial assistance requests in the future. Thus far, neither the
City or the Sheriff's Department has received requests for
assistance other than from Mount Calvary. Similar requests in the
future should be analyzed by balancing the appropriateness for
financial assistance, the type of program and the benefits accruing
to the community of Diamond Bar. Each request should be considered
on a case by case basis.
ALTERNATIVE•
Mount Calvary can implement the SANE program without involving the
Sheriff's Department in the curriculum. The school can purchase
and/or borrow the program from public schools, which already have
implemented the program, or from the Sheriff's Department.
However, Sergeant Baker, coordinator and an instructor in the SANE
program has indicated that having Sheriff Deputies involved in the
instruction, with teachers and parents, generally results in a
significant improvement in program effectiveness.
Page Three
SANE
July 26, 1991
It is recommended that the City of Diamond Bar grant funding to the
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who will provide the SANE
program to Mount Calvary Lutheran Church School.
in"
n ncurrence:
T rrence L. Aelanger
Assistant C Vy Manager
August 20, 1991
Diamond Bar City Council
21660 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Gentlemen:
I am a long time resident of Diamond Bar.... 14 years. I am also a
bow hunter and archer. I will be out of state when your September 3rd
meeting takes place as will most of the other bow hunters from this city.
I, for one, am opposed to any ordinances that will infringe on my rights
to do as I please on my own property as long as it is done in a safe
manner i. e. such as practicing with my archery equipment. If this
ordinance of 150 yards from any road, dwelling or highway is passed
it will virtually stop archery practice or hunting in this cite. Archery
is a very safe sport.
I want to know what's next? Do we close down Diamond Bar golf
course because someone might get hit by a misguided golf? ball? In
fact, many people have been seriously injured and killed by golf
balls.... not so with archery!
Let's get serious. Put this nonsense behind you and get on with
bigger and better things such as how many Diamond Bar residents
will be injured and/or killed by the influx of traffic due to the opening
of Grand Avenue. How many dead deer, coyotes, rabbits, squirrels,
dogs and cats will there be in the coming years because of the opening
of Grand Avenue.
I just hope you members of the City Council have a more important
schedule of things to do with our tax dollars than just pick on a small
minority of Diamond Bar residents who enjoy hunting the local hills
or an evening of shooting their bows with their families in the privacy
of their own yards.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly/yours,
Ronald Holdstock
1925 Los Cerros Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765