HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/1991�n •�� '.(� rf�r
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Mayor — Jay C. Kim
Mayor Pro Tem — Phyllis E. Papen
Councilman — John A. Forbing
Councilman— Gary H. Werner
Councilman — Gary G. Miller
City Council Chambers
are located at:
South Coast Air Quality Management District Board Room
21865 East Copley Drive
Please re ain om smoking, eating or drinking in the Council Chambers
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1991 Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
Andrew V. Arczynski
City Attorney
MEETING TIME: CLOSED SESSION - 4:30 p.m. Lynda Burgess
REGULAR SESSION- 6:00 p.m. 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 an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 860-2489 during business hours.
The City of Diamond Bar uses RECYCLED paper and encourages you to do the same.
THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY JONES INTERCABLE
FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 51, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM,
YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED.
1. 4:30 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION:
Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9
Personnel - Government Code Section 54957.6
2. CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
Next Resolution No. 91-74
Next Ordinance No. 8 (1991)
6:00 P.M.
Mayor Kim
Councilmen Werner, Forbing, Miller,
Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Kim
3. SWEARING-IN OF MAYOR PRO TEM -ELECT PHYLLIS E. PAPEN
4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council -
members are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time
reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an
opportunity for members of the public to directly address the
Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on
this agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to
the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary). There
is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the City
Council.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the
Consent Calendar are considered routine and are approved by a
single motion.
6.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
6.1.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - Dec. 23, 1991, - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
6.1.2 Christmas/New Years Holiday - December 24 -
25, 1991 and January 1, 1992, City Offices
will be closed.
6.1.3 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 - 6:00
p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 2
6.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting
of December 3, 1991.
6.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated
December 17, 1991 in the amount of $352,683.18.
6.4 RECEIVE & FILE TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of November
1991.
6.5 RECEIVE & FILE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -
6.5.1 REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1991
6.5.2 REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1991
6.6 NOTICE OF COMPLETION - On October 1, 1991, the City
awarded a contact to Hovey Electric, Inc. for traffic
signal installation at the intersection of Grand Ave. and
Rolling Knoll Dr. Installation was completed October 23,
1991.
Recommended Action: Accept work performed by Hovey
Electric, Inc., and authorize City Clerk to file Notice
of Completion.
6.7 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON
BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 2021
IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR FUTURE OPERATION
MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE
TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF - Private Drain No. 2021
was constructed in 1989 as part of the improvements in
Tract 36741 located on E. Colombard Ln. Subsequently,
the drain was inspected and approved by L.A. County
Department of Public Works based upon satisfactory
completion of the improvements per approved plans. The
City Engineer has reviewed the improvements and is in
agreement.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 91 -XX
requesting the Board of Supervisors of the L.A. County
Department of Public Works Flood Control District to
accept the transfer and conveyance of Private Drain No.
2021 for future operation, maintenance, repair and
improvement.
6.8 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY COORDINATED PARATRANSIT NETWORK - The City
desires to participate in the development of a county-
wide, coordinated paratransit plan initiated by L.A.
County Transportation Commission. This plan will include
services to those severely disabled and unable to access
fixed route transportation vehicles.
DECEMBER 17, 1991
Recommended
pertaining
paratransit
PAGE 3
Action: Adopt Resolution No. 91 -XX
to the development and participation in a
network.
6.9 CROSSING GUARD SERVICES AT LEMON AVE. & COLIMA RD. -
On November 19, 1991, the Traffic and Transportation
Commission reviewed a study regarding the need for
crossing guard services at Lemon Ave. and Colima Rd.
Recommended Action: The Traffic & Transportation
Commission recommends that crossing guard services be
provided at the intersection of Lemon Ave. and Colima Rd.
6.10 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES -
6.10.1 Filed by Shelly Schoenberger November 27, 1991.
Recommended Action: Deny.
6.10.2 Filed by Al Rumpilla November 7, 1991.
Recommended Action: Deny.
6.11 CONSENT TO GRANT SECURITY INTEREST TO JONES INTERCABLE -
Jones Intercable has requested the City's consent to
grant a security interest in the cable television
franchise, which will enable them to enter into financial
arrangements with various lending institutions.
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute a
letter of consent granting interest in the cable
franchise for the purposes of entering into financial
arrangements with its lending institutions.
6.12 REDESIGNATION OF ENFORCEMENT AGENCY - In 1990, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 90-8 designating the L.A.
County Department of Health Services as the City's Local
Enforcement Agency (LEA) with respect to the enforcement,
inspection, and permitting of solid waste facilities
within its jurisdiction. However, due to recent changes
in State law, the City must again designate a LEA within
90 days from the date that the new LEA certification
regulation becomes law.
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute a
Letter of Affirmation redesignating L.A. County Depart-
ment of Health Services as the City's Local Enforcement
Agency (LEA) with respect to the enforcement, inspection,
and permitting of solid waste facilities in the City.
7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC.
7.1 CITY TILE - Presentation of City Tile to Sgt. Rod Morris,
Walnut/San Dimas Sheriff's Station "Reserve Coordinator
of the Year" for 1991 by California Reserve Peace
Officers Association.
DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 4
7.2 CITY TILE - Presentation of City Tile to Grace Lin, in
appreciation of her service on the Planning Commission.
8. NEW BUSINESS:
8.1 CONSIDERATION OF MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS - The City
Council adopted Resolution No. 91-40 establishing the
1991-92 Fiscal Budget. Recognizing that the adopted
budget is a "living document," it is necessary to monitor
and evaluate its implementation during the course of the
year.
Recommended Action: Adopt the Mid -Year Budget
adjustments as presented. Adjustments provided for
reduction in several departments, with specific
reductions to include bi-weekly street sweeping,
elimination of anniversary activities, reduction in
education/ training and personnel restructure (Sheriff's).
8.2 ORDINANCE NO. X (1991): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE 65858(a) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - Over the past several months, there has been
discussion by Council, staff, Sheriff's Department
representatives, and members of the community with
respect to the fact that "Flyer parties" are becoming a
problem in several neighborhoods in the community.
"Flyer parties" typically involve younger people, such as
fraternities, sororities, or other such groups and
organizations, as well as, young people whose parents or
guardians are absent from their residences.
Recommended Action: Adopt interim Ordinance No. X (1991)
pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code
65858(a) and making findings in support thereof.
9. PUBLIC HEARING -
9.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: SOURCE REDUCTION AND
RECYCLING ELEMENT - AB939 requires cities to prepare,
adopt and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling
Element (SRRE) to identify how the City will divert,
through a combination of source reduction, recycling and
composting programs, 25% of solid wastes from landfill
disposal by 1995; and 50%, or the maximum amount
feasible, by the year 2000. In addition to these
requirements, the City must demonstrate an ability to
generate funds and allocate resources to plan, develop,
and implement the various programs identified in the
SRRE.
DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 5
Recommended Action: Continue the public hearing, receive
testimony and: (1) Direct staff to forward all written
comments and public testimony to the consultant for
integration into a final draft Source Reduction and
Recycling Element; (2) Declare the City's intention to
award an exclusive franchise to one or more haulers to
provide refuse collection, disposal and recycling
services for residential and commercial premises; (3)
Submit the legally prescribed notices of discontinuance
to all permitted haulers currently doing business within
the incorporated City limits, notifying said haulers of
the City's intent to award an exclusive franchise for the
collection and disposal of solid waste; and, (4) Prepare
a modified Request for Proposal (RFP) package for the
provision of solid waste collection, disposal and
recycling services for residential and commercial
premises pursuant to specifications established by the
City Council. This proposal should be completed within
sixty (60) days and returned to the Council for approval.
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
11. ADJOURNMENT:
DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 4
7.2 CITY TILE - Presentation of City Tile to Grace Lin, in
appreciation of her service on the Planning Commission.
8. NEW BUSINESS:
8.1 CONSIDERATION OF MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS - The City
Council adopted Resolution No. 91-40 establishing the
1991-92 Fiscal Budget. Recognizing that the adopted
budget is a "living document," it is necessary to monitor
and evaluate its implementation during the course of the
year.
Recommended Action: Adopt the Mid -Year Budget
adjustments as presented. Adjustments provided for
reduction in several departments, with specific
reductions to include bi-weekly street sweeping,
elimination of anniversary activities, reduction in
education/ training and personnel restructure (Sheriff's).
8.2 ORDINANCE NO. X (1991): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE 65858(a) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - Over the past several months, there has been
discussion by Council, staff, Sheriff's Department
representatives, and members of the community with
respect to the fact that "Flyer parties" are becoming a
problem in several neighborhoods in the community.
"Flyer parties" typically involve younger people, such as
fraternities, sororities, or other such groups and
organizations, as well as, young people whose parents or
guardians are absent from their residences.
Recommended Action: Adopt interim Ordinance No. X (1991)
pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code
65858(a) and making findings in support thereof.
9. PUBLIC HEARING -
9.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: SOURCE REDUCTION AND
RECYCLING ELEMENT - AB939 requires cities to prepare,
adopt and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling
Element (SRRE) to identify how the City will divert,
through a combination of source reduction, recycling and
composting programs, 25% of solid wastes from landfill
disposal by 1995; and 50%, or the maximum amount
feasible, by the year 2000. In addition to these
requirements, the City must demonstrate an ability to
generate funds and allocate resources to plan, develop,
and implement the various programs identified in the
SRRE.
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
4:30 p.m. and a Regular Meeting at the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Board Room, located at 21865 E. Copley Dr.,
Diamond Bar, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 17,
1991.
Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda.
I, TOMMYE NICE, declare as follows:
I am the Deputy 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 December 17, 1991 was posted at their
proper locations.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on December 13, 1991 at Diamond Bar, California.
/sl Tommye Nice
TOMMYE NICE, Deputy City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.
DATE: J i'
TO: City Clerk
FROM:
ADDRESS :
C �� _ er,xt_ �� � '�� "� r_i`G--� :f''� r-!' d`�'"' �G. �.r'.!' •^ r
ORGANIZATION: z;e,_
SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Co' ncil on the subject agenda item. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above.
.r
3" 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:
TO: City Clerk
FROM: ` ~
ADDRESS: _r �� !` �4
ORGANIZATION:
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.
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...►.�:x REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO.
DATE:
TO: C__tNy ] Lerk
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
SUBJECT:
I expect to address they Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the
Council Minutes r(?:::LEaCt 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.
1.
2.
Kip
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
DECEMBER 3, 1991
CLOSED SESSION: Litigation - Government Code 54956.9
Personnel - Government Code 54957.6
No reportable actions taken.
CALL TO ORDER: M/Forbing called the meeting to
order at 6:12 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge
of Allegiance by M/Forbing.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Forbing, Mayor Pro Tem Kim,
Councilmen Nardella and Werner.
Councilmember Papen was excused.
Also present were Robert L. Van
Nort, City Manager; Terrence L.
Belanger, Assistant City Manager;
Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney;
James DeStefano, Director of
Community Development; Sid Mousavi,
Public Works Director/City Engineer
and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: None offered.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado Ln.,
stated that he supported the Holiday Shuttle Program but,
based on last year's figures and the low ridership, he felt it
was too expensive and that the City could make better use of
Prop A funds.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., requested consideration of a
program to utilize students from South Point School on
Larkstone Dr. to develop a park directly across the street
from the school which could be used for nature studies, among
other things. He indicated that the DBIA was reportedly
willing to pay for the water line and wondered whether the
School District or the City would provide the water.
M/Forbing requested staff to refer Mr. Schad's request to the
Parks & Recreation Commission.
5. CONSENT
CALENDAR:
C/Nardella
moved, C/Werner seconded
to approve
the Consent Calendar as
presented.
With the following Roll
Call vote,
motion carried:
AYES:
COUNCILMEN -
Nardella, Werner, MPT/Kim, M/Forbing
NOES:
COUNCILMEN -
None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN -
Papen
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEN -
None
DECEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 2
5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MEETINGS:
5.1.1
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - December 5,
1991 - 6:30 p.m. - AQMD Conference Room, 21865
E. Copley Dr.
5.1.2
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - HOSTED BY
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT - December 9,
1991 - 6:30 p.m., Acapulco Restaurant, 880
Diamond Bar Blvd.
5.1.3
PLANNING COMMISSION - December 9, 1991 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.1.4
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - December 12,
1991 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall, 21660 E. Copley
Dr., #100
5.1.5
TRES HERMANOS SCOPING SESSION - December 12,
1991 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
5.1.6
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - December
12, 1991- 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865
E. Copley Dr.
5.1.7
HERITAGE PARK COMMUNITY CENTER WORKSHOP -
December 16, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. - Community
Room, 1061 S. Grand Ave.
5.1.8
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - December 17, 1991 -
6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley
Dr.
5.1.9
PLANNING COMMISSION - December 23, 1991 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of November 19,
1991 -
Approved as submitted.
5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated
December 3, 1991 in the amount of $553,207.24.
5.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1991 - Received
and filed.
5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular
Meeting of October 10, 1991 - Received and filed.
5.6 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Meeting of
October 24, 1991 - Received and filed.
5.7 AUDIT REPORT FOR YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1991 - Received &
filed Final Audit Report for Fy 90-91 as prepared by the
Accounting firm of Thomas, Byrne & Smith.
5.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 91-68: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RECITING
THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON
NOVEMBER 5, 1991, DECLARING THE RESULT AND SUCH OTHER
MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
DECEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 3
5.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 91-69: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
OBTAINING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL CIVIL
DEFENSE ACT OF 1950 AS AMENDED.
5.10 AWARDED CONTRACT FOR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT - LMD #39 -
Awarded contract for purchase and installation of
playground equipment in LMD #39 mini -park to MD
Structural Contractors, the lowest responsible bidder, in
the amount of $12,587.88.
5.11 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Denied Claim for Damages filed by
James & Dorothy Cissna November 12, 1991.
5.12 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 91-70: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PARK, BEACH AND RECREATION ACT
1992.
6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC.
6.1 RECOGNITION OF VIC HOSLER - M/Forbing presented a check
to Vic Hosler for his cost-saving idea for reducing staff
time required to install and remove flags by approx-
imately 50%.
7. SWEARING IN CEREMONIES:
7.1 PRESENTATION TO C/NARDELLA - M/Forbing presented former
Councilmember Nardella with a plaque for his services on
the City Council.
C/Nardella thanked the Council, staff and community for
their support and stated that he enjoyed his time on the
Council.
7.2 SWEARING-IN OF COUNCILMEMBER-ELECT: Honorable Judge
Robert Martinez of the Los Angeles County Superior Court
administered the Oath of Office to Councilmember-elect
Gary G. Miller. M/Forbing announced that due to her
emergency absence, C/Papen would be sworn in at the next
Council meeting.
7.3 REORGANIZATION OF CITY COUNCIL:
7.3.1 SELECTION OF MAYOR - M/Forbing stated that he
had enjoyed the opportunity being Mayor of
Diamond Bar.
M/Forbing opened the nominations for Mayor and
nominated MPT/Kim. C/Werner seconded the
nomination.
DECEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 4
There being no other nominations, M/Forbing
closed the nominations for Mayor. All
Councilmembers present voted in favor of
electing Jay C. Kim as Mayor.
M/Kim stated that he was very happy to be
elected Mayor and asked for the support of the
community.
7.3.2 SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM - M/Kim opened the
nominations for Mayor Pro Tempore. C/Miller
nominated C/Papen, seconded by C/Forbing and
nominations were closed. Phyllis Papen was
elected Mayor Pro Tempore by all
Councilmembers present.
7.4 PRESENTATION TO OUTGOING MAYOR JOHN FORBING - M/Kim
presented C/Forbing with a gavel signifying his services
to the community as Mayor. Certificates were presented
to C/Forbing by representatives of Congressman David
Dreier, Senator Frank Hill, Assemblyman Paul Horcher and
Supervisor Deane Dana.
Former Councilmember Nardella was presented with a plaque
from Supervisor Deane Dana and a Certificate from
Assemblyman Horcher.
RECESS: Reception - M/Kim recessed the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
PRESENTATION TO M/KIM - Yong Jo, Paul Lee and Young H.
Lee presented M/Kim with a bouquet of flowers from the
Paulson High School Alumni, M/Kim's alma mater.
7.5 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS - C/Miller moved, C/Forbing
seconded, to appoint Bruce Flamenbaum to the Planning
Commission to complete the term vacated by Grace Lin.
Motion carried unanimously.
CC/Lynda Burgess administered the Oath of Office to Mr.
Flamenbaum.
M/Kim stated that, due to the reorganization, Council
Committee appointments needed to be reassigned.
C/Forbing moved, seconded by C/Miller to approve the
following -listed Committee assignments as submitted by
M/Kim. Motion carried unanimously.
Calif. Contract Cities - Werner/Miller
D.B. Chamber of Commerce - Miller
Foothill Transit Zone - Papen/Miller
L.A. County City Selection - Kim/Papen
DECEMBER 3, 1991
8.
PAGE 5
L.A. County Sanitation Dist.
(C/Forbing is an alternate delegate)
League of Calif. Cities
S.G.V. Assn. of Cities
S.G.V. Mosquito Abatement
SANE Program/Council Liaison
Sister Cities International
So. Calif. Assn. of Govts.
So. Calif. Joint Powers
Insurance Authority
Three County Advisory Committee
Pomona Unified School Dist.
Walnut Valley Unified School Dist.
City of Industry Liaison
D.B. Historical Committee
Entry Sign Committee
Personnel
Finance
Computers
Ranch Festival
Undeveloped Land Entitlements
Animal Control
OLD BUSINESS:
Kim/Forbing
- Kim/Papen
- Werner/Forbing
- Papen
- Papen
- Kim
- Kim/Papen
Forbing/Werner
- Miller/Papen
Forbing/Werner
- Miller/Papen
Miller/Forbing
Forbing
Forbing/Kim
- Werner/Miller
Papen/Forbing
Werner
Forbing/Papen
- Papen/Forbing
- Papen/Werner
8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-71: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL
STANDARDS OF OPERATION - ACM/Belanger stated that Council
had previously considered and amended a draft Standards
of Operation Resolution on September 10, 1991. Staff was
directed to make modifications and return the revised
Resolution to the Council for further consideration.
Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs, asked Council to again
incorporate his changes requested at the September 10
meeting, which consisted of: 1) Section 1C should read
"public comments" not "public concerns" or change the
agenda to read "public concerns" for consistency; 2) omit
from Section 1D "citizens may be requested to put
concerns in writing;" 3) delete all of Section 1E; 4)
Section 1F is too restrictive; 5) Section 1L is the same
as Section 1F, only it relates to the City Council.
C/Miller suggested that Section lE be changed to "the
Mayor may request that there be a spokesperson and the
others limit their comments."
C/Forbing suggested that Sections 1C and 1D be changed
from "public concerns" to read "public comments," and
Section lE be changed to "the Mayor will encourage that
there be a spokesperson."
M/Kim suggested that the last sentence of Section 1F be
changed to read "Council may reschedule."
DECEMBER 3, 1991
PAGE 6
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., spoke in support of Mr.
Rumpilla's requests. He further stated that he would
like to see more advertising of the agenda prior to
meetings.
Following discussion, C/Miller moved, C/Forbing seconded
to adopt Resolution No. 91-71 with the following changes:
Change Sections 1C and 1D from "public concerns" to
"public comments;" change Section lE to read "Mayor 'may
request/or encourage' there be a spokesperson;" Section
1F, "the Council 'may' reschedule the item as a public
hearing" and again change "public concerns" to "public
comments." With the following Roll Call vote, motion
carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Forbing, M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen, Werner
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-72: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PRESCRIBING A METHOD OF
DRAWING WARRANTS AND CHECKS UPON CITY FUNDS.
C/Forbing moved, C/Miller seconded to adopt Resolution
No. 91-72. With the following Roll Call vote, motion
carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen, Werner
10. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS MATTER CAN
BE HEARD.
10.1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-73: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 23039 TO CONSOLIDATE TWO LOTS (20 & 21 OF TRACT
39679) INTO ONE PARCEL AT 21700 E. COPLEY DRIVE,
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - CDD/DeStefano
reported that this was a request to merge two lots into
one parcel located at 21700 E. Copley Dr. requested by
Zelman Development Co. The use and development of the
parcel satisfied requirements of the Gateway Corporate
Center Development Standards as well as the State's
Subdivision Map Act. The Planning Commission recommended
that the City Council approve the map on September 23,
1991.
M/Kim opened the Public Hearing.
With no testimony being offered, M/Kim closed the Public
Hearing.
DECEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 7
C/Miller moved, C/Forbing seconded to adopt Resolution
No. 91-73 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 23209.
With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Forbing, M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen, Werner
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None offered.
12. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct,
M/Kim adjourned the meeting to a
Closed Session at 4:30 p.m. on
December 17, 1991, in memory of
MPT/Papen's mother, Voilet
Schoenthal.
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 Papen and Councilmember Forbing
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson,,'Sienior Accountant
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, December 17, 1991
DATE: December 12, 1991
Attached is the Voucher Register dated December 12, 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
112
Prop A -Transit Fund
117
OTS Fund
138
LLAD #38 Fund
141
LLAD #41 Fund
225
Grand Av. Const. Fund
250
CIP Fund
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
APPROVED BY:
Linda G. Ma ntxson
Senior Accountant
7
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
dated December 17, 1991 have been
for payment. Payments are hereby
in these amounts:
AMOUNT
$284,944.74
3,650.72
27,270.19
22,428.20
391.24
9,828.14
4.169.95
$352,683.18
�I
Phyll s E. Papen
Mayor Pro Tem
j
Joh A. Forbing
Coiancilmember
_'rte i�_L ': ���:,} ________
.,Y•-.
141
:i
CR--------sa
c
2.2:iU
________-
?i?%1-.}tiy,!-f'._2i2'iy
rLl e5'i.IU
:4�`•+
7a.
1JL i_. JJ,
••
Rmif-`r.oidge�In its- i'y2
.3.
'ti DUE YEDSR
1_aJ
.`.,r
Ba:- Ci bt_an a
1 7-
; EN,DR--------
51:
.:_
LILi'A
3 .:t'_C:3'Ld RDGK.S
yr G'E VENDOR- -------
a g
:�aVeF S. 3. 'c.dd
uT _'P w;g i1j14
4!•+�e
DIT?L DUE VENDOR ----------
4B 0
.duck. -.dstr�� b as o—
_r ckL,nd
f(IK -431E-12�� :_:
':5!'_: i lEol
.. 12/17
24+3
i� Bags Diamond Dry
:1L• J
? 'AL ✓WJE VENDOR
112. a
1 -7 ll'—! 7�7'
7hi.nier 9 E
3
Deo{ f T- a p oir IC at i on .Co_ a"5
-C.
_-_, : I Z -;DE
- - - - - - - - --
-771
D!6 -F E
E :,qF-; - - - - - - - - -
al n a 1 v s - p f B u y n
t
'O -AL ILE ;EENDECR --------- i
Trir Davic2 Program
T 'j 'AL 111E VENDOR - - - - - - - -
L719
'1L:74L DDH VENDOR --------%
I I
___-AT
{27
2ti.
3, 31 1
-.r_
iG ._
._! i'�
�'__:..
;�.--: r.s 1 Rel
7'7
C Cu ±;
t
_ ?'-u�, ] �.]l
:_� y:
1... 1�
�n.al-43110—:910
s ?i%a'3
11
22,
505..3,
3A.64
tii,) 43;0-23110
iinc Unice
115.53
�E +E' ---------
Feceral Dcres5 Zo p.
czn:,
2 .1.11 G.
._ 1:
11:.•1111
"a::-�_ .-:\'!
.v.'i
Mal .'Ci"31
.%
+•5 i-4C:;-Ciri` �
r__...
__ a.
i� .,
'�3ia'..7
icy-�ic9
�i2.
_
fia:i're era;- s
3.y:
t Otul-4440-4:v40
2ir.7
'= a'
--,'i.''
E'2r ':rs Evnenses
113. C
..:E 4E�2,-n--------.
16
.e+ L'di1
=eal.
+ 1 409 t '21430
r 2121
.r .,
'i..b
''rtl'1_ Bat Sv:-Dec
i3.CIO
T3, DNED"R--------
i 6.5'0
Fr_. Art
Fr:�:A
1
# 01-4553-4i'a�1
4 21121117E
iG ii
iL:.
?' DA ;at. .l ri F
+ N1-4w1i9-112 �
5 21211 3
112.11
113 `i'
C _lm Sz;- au.*:lii Meeting
116.22
STE California
37CL
tC�Gi-4n9a-2:25i?
P`Fc-e S',c-Einer Prep Phone
39.16
,T:. TU VENDER
-.10tel D'amoInd Bar
2r
IT
E DE. -------. -
^-aver
M— _;UE --------
--'Ac Mtq !Ai9i
A,,' MtL!91
176.93
Pl.
i e P,
t"6 'I" E3 15
t:1 o - Z
-,cs t7
2 i! 7, )14.
F. s S 7 a r mare
1 3 1 12 0 1
4 - L
1 - 4
OK -431 L3-1 2, 1 1 7 -C 2
L.A."ounty Public works _ACP u sI
01-4555-5502 1 212178
r 0i-4555-55'5 1 2121
L�J e�510'2 L-
Oo -4-,i,- 62u1
a cr n s
i
a i s d ss
5 E -NOR--------
14 0
R2na
j du"E ,-4,"u0 R - ---------
;A
D: -E -Em%DOR ---------
t
F E % D GR ---------
7 7, CA 9
'UpPlies
31 L-7
nr
S'1DF 1
62
a t i ipp I i es
7.55
j T A L I- '-' E VENDOR ------ - - -
44,84
1 fj 7
32 o 84 6 3
Tree Trimming Service
1 583.43
12.11
1
32,H?'W84j7 I
Pavement Patching
8.,835.92
11
71, 7
3 9
C&S Sidewalk
4,015.42
�L 17
q 20OR81 7.8
'L-u.,h and
17 .-N9..06
2 al
12'1'2',
8,t
a n t, r c 'I I e -3 r a r d I R I g K I 1
i, 048.52
.1
2•�17
— 1
- '�81,86
Conc Pad 4alval Water
338.02
------------------------------------ ---------------------- ---------- ----- --------------------------------------------------------
L
'?Tura,
3 E T,
w z Pr c
A
;112 Sr,; 4 7.4 Ser 9 s S
a' M
C z D Z p - - - - - - - - -
L . A . C ou n ir v P u b 11 c �: o r k 5
+J',(!', -4 1 O -SP 7
7TA Di z --------
2 11
.2'.7
AW 7
7 LA Q
m k
EW
1 .64
213
rm _6n 1 a1 ewa
`Aa, !.'PS
t.4
_2:i1
'22 7
:2:,.. 'I;
2e' T Sn E r ,I
71 G2wa'
59
S S
S S 1
2 1
2
7
h R 2 ra a
1,9:52,35
+-4J1 -4 S ', 5 - S c ��8
7
7
7 7 4
--EEC 'bate-,elt
1 7
2, 2' 1 B
a Ji
C Er e
2 2 7,
a 2 7 712
f A, 9 'Ervi ce
2145 .
]52.9
D F - --------
A CGLPt','
21217`2+
1
7 17
"tract' d m I n
o -,:a . 2
D A L D, E v E IN, D C R --------
3
'-A r.elluja- 7eleDhnne
0 1 - 14 0 3 2 2 5
1 21IL17A
Mcnthly Sarv1ce-%Jc.v
lio,2, 83
i101-4440-21125
i A
21111
12117
Month1v serv-1-Nov
b7.19
T-1 DDUE VENZOR -----------170.02
-.fl-
_ __ YL�viJ:•
le-."il M, SS: O t
.1'1 I'..a] i7l. Crp
P
42M
ay
Yi_:';!e-Mardel!a
xi.a-4�i ✓''L 7.i-0
iuE tiENHl, R -----
�..JJSa Jrl.�:l iJrdl
mar �a
x:a_'_-13t. ILo'tj
c. .,
.`11
a_ ..
4
'.L D E ;'CP --------.
02 -4 2,
a oaf.,_
•_ _•
1_ .
.�_1i S4C5-NOY 01
'tl'£`.1
')I 7r
1c; i1
1Lri?
_c ai ��CS-a�d 91
='�-•F"d
LlE wE`'iDLR--------.
2 2121; +1 ..,?
_ ,_
i�:i7
- :;+
_ i:� �:aie^tlar
�.�3
..JE 4'ENDCR--------'
�441 2.12:
2.?1'•,
?2-..
1?�':,
- i
_; ...��•9.
"x.94
r•: - . -
46,114
Ei.?abei^
MVerE
++;v 42
i'iN'4112r'1i
.2r 17
.iv
Ing CC,faR Ptg it L:
CCv. J
01-1421t- 00
2/11
12,
2A
?:^q comm Mtg 11;27
•+.•"��
+00-43143-410
3 2121'
_ ..
.� '_7
1dLd
P-M.R2c 111+14
12.5.�iN
N.
*N.1-4513-41;3
r1ni�
2 . � .
`:+i
;11.
+ii+'
1" 1.
-i
1.db23
- l - M+ 1 3
� irar_ grail
+:1 1-4510-41%7
12170
2;11
12ii?
91d�2s
ric TranS Mtg 1.14
360 R
'7u.d�
f]R --------.
-:,_ mei `'.p:
- '�•
-444 1-213A,et
.4.>ti:
"LE.,
!71 t.qj
4J�t31-4v'a•-��, 4'l
a _..1 �.. '
_. .a
i� L'
_ ...._ .],t J�.�?._Jat Pi•� i
_. ii15 �
!ni-
21,46
4l^�'u^-1 iAH
li 77
2 12ii:
1-`..
._
• eetr,ns
l7.a'r,
2121'9
{ yi-4h9 -?;f5
2121'L
12/11
12x1;
�eet.r;Gs
5,9@
1 2i�1
'i'
?2i
.4�1ie5-ch Gest
r t9
{r4 i- $i^•G-21.0
?12
12,`.1
._ .'
Pr:nt:rg of Cnpt:FlCdtes
i,'S
{" 232y
4 _124
12;'11
a2
hccks ±G: °lannino
. :rte
94 .a
.-r- -. - -.
.�. -.
Jy--u_.___ _ _
r___ u
__ .,
.0 a
..•v .v.-1 _.. �itr i+
_vluv. J1
}�_.-�.=� -
=--.-_
.� .�
:� .?
=�+e,+:� .mss ��?ages
'•.:h9.?5
--------
;"i'i•_ ._-: ',
2121'A
7n�1
7-5ti%'sl rig
L'•—'M1.t1
'4 _ '}22'
:1
.?.�1?
+''f.-w2,41—,2,.�
�,''':1
1.'1;
2 969
P:C: EYcs-Rill: P :. Jar}y
3Q 7S
-.: -
-
7.
2511.417 ?S
il
I .1H�—ri:� y
�: �a u
.r. 11
17. 1
C�_J µrg—PL m..l.a
iLi� .;i1
f1-4c1?�-Lf 1: 1-
�1 L i -u
:r•
' 1
- .,+'i464
D,, .+,,:-PC It J2:i
46.44
b a -�y-ver Pia.
a
4',J
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - ----- - - -- - - -- - - - - --- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -
+ vi 4 "9S i 7C
8::, e c 'i c
1 7
o C a 3 6 S
to,L—»313-2'
2 2,
T L
T", ,;E YD,Q- --------
J' E JOR ---------
L ..Liv �
L `u- :�7NER - - - - - - - - -
46.1 7
i 7
63.64
1 7
6in3 . 1
:—actric-Reaq,3n Pk
7 --------•
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T
c c a
Ev I iid
',3 2
� r 12 C 3
7
I.;,. IZ—
-s
't Ju
z
r4 L
i k�i7 1 !E L6ti7e,
L
I.;,. IZ—
-s
't Ju
__ as _� ♦ Cr.. w��__ -.i_ ..aa1; i_� �..-_.�{i
-----------------
- ____--_____- yJ `�
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. "
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991,.; REPORT DATE: December 11, 1991
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson, Senior Accountant
TITLE:
Treasurer's Report - November 30, 1991
SUMMARY:
Submitted for Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for
the month of November 1991.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and approve.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Spec. (on file in City Clerk's Office)
Ordinances(s) _ Other
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
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?
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:
REVIEWED BY:
Ro rt L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger~(Department�ead)
City Manager Assistant City Manage
F;\WP51\AGENDA\C0VER.FRM
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Treasurer's Statement - November 30, 1991
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Per City policy, the Finance department presents the monthly Treasurer's
Statement for the City Council's review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the November, 1991 Treasurer's Statement.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
No fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
Submitted for Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement
for the month of November 1991. This statement shows the cash balances
for the various funds, with a breakdown of bank account balances and
investment account balances.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G. Magnuson
F:\WP51\WORK\AGENDA\AGE-RPT.FRM
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
November 30, 1991
SUMMARY OF CASH:
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
INVESTMENTS:
GENERAL ACCOUNT $33,365.07
PAYROLL ACCOUNT 305.77
PETTY CASH ACCOUNT 500.00
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS $34,170.84
TIME CERTIFICATES $0.00
COMMERCIAL PAPER 0.00
L.A.I. F. 9,061,019.25
TOTAL INVESTMENTS 9,061,019.25
TOTAL CASH $9,095,190.09
BEGINNING
TRANSFERS
ENDING
FUND
BALANCE
RECEIPTS
DISBURSEMENTS IN (OUT)
BALANCE
GENERAL FUND
$5,161,167.70
$583,484.43
$750,029.65
$4,994,622.48
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
66,007.46
66,007.46
GAS TAX FUND
2,019,456.29
1,064.12
2,018,392.17
TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FD
592,994.68
33,098.00
3,225.00
622,867.68
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FD
0.00
FEDERAL AID URBAN FUND
0.00
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD
6,060.20
6,701.60
5,184.30
7,577.50
AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD
3,552.00
3,552.00
STATE PARK GRANT FUND
0.00
LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FD
(3,727.15)
960.60
12,438.64
(15,205.19)
LANDSCAPE DIST #39 FD
173,998.00
971.20
8,261.55
166,707.65
LANDSCAPE DIST#41 FD
60,047.72
1,046.52
18,257.17
42,837.07
GRAND AV CONST FUND
585,506.58
16,162.19
63,804.26
537,864.51
TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE FD
332,407.37
10,000.00
342,407.37
CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FD
55,196.98
11,052.38
44,144.60
SB 821 FUND
19,446.55
19,446.55
SELF INSURANCE FUND
243,968.24
243,968.24
TOTALS
$9,316,082.62
$652,424.54
$873,317.07 $0.00
$9,095,190.09
SUMMARY OF CASH:
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
INVESTMENTS:
GENERAL ACCOUNT $33,365.07
PAYROLL ACCOUNT 305.77
PETTY CASH ACCOUNT 500.00
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS $34,170.84
TIME CERTIFICATES $0.00
COMMERCIAL PAPER 0.00
L.A.I. F. 9,061,019.25
TOTAL INVESTMENTS 9,061,019.25
TOTAL CASH $9,095,190.09
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 28, 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: Lex Williman.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner Schey, Vice Chairman
MacBride, and Chairman Grothe. Commissioner
Harmony arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Also present were Community Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, City
Engineer Sid Mousavi, Deputy City Attorney Bill
Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES: Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
October 14, 1991.
NEW BUSINESS: CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the Air
Quality Management District's (AQMD) Board Room
Resolution will be available for the Planning Commission's
91-14 public hearings. It would be appropriate at this
time for the Commission to adopt Resolution 91-14
changing the meeting location from the Walnut
Valley School District Board Room to the AQMD Board
Room beginning at the next meeting.
Chair/Grothe requested Resolution 91-14 be amended
to properly indicate Jack Grothe as Chairman.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept Resolution 91-14,
as amended.
PUBLIC HEARING: AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
request for approval of a Goodyear Auto Service
Development Center building to be located in the Country Hills
Review No. 91-3 Towne Center at the corner of Fountain Springs and
Diamond Bar Blvd. Staff has requested more
information from the applicant regarding the
architectural design of the project. The applicant
was not able to provide the required information
prior to the public hearing. As a result, the
applicant has requested a continuance to the
November 11, 1991 meeting. Since there will be no
meeting held on that date, it is recommended that
the Commission continue this matter, to an
unspecified date, until such time that the
information has been adequately provided, and staff
has had time to respond to it. The hearing will be
renoticed, and sent back to the Commission for
action.
October 28, 1991 Page 3
CD/DeStefano explained that the County code
requires public hearing notice to a radius of 500
feet surrounding the confines of the project. It
was learned that the notice was mailed to a radius
of only 300 feet. Therefore, it is recommended
that this project be renoticed, and continued to
the November 25, 1991 meeting.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Max Maxwell, residing in Diamond Bar, inquired if
VC/MacBride had reviewed the site and had come up
with any additional information regarding this
matter.
VC/MacBride stated that he reviewed the site, and
has gathered information. After the public
hearings, and when it is appropriate, the
Commission will make a decision regarding this
matter.
Doug Smith, from Fieler and Associates, indicated
that the applicant is willing to continue the
matter to the next meeting to allow the hearing to
be noticed the required 500 foot radius.
Jason Yung, residing in Walnut, in support of the
project, made the following responses to
VC/MacBride's inquiries: the establishment would
attract customers that are close to the owners age,
between 30 to 50 years old; it would be family
oriented with no alcoholic beverages served; and
for the Korean community, the billiard room is a
similar type of entertainment as a bowling alley.
C/Lin inquired why the age of the client is related
to the age of the owner.
Mr. Yung explained that the reason the applicant is
opening this business is because all his friends
like to play billiards.
David Lee, residing in Rowland Heights, the
applicant's brother, explained that the
establishment is to be family oriented, especially
geared to gentlemen, family type males. The game
is for everybody, not just Koreans.
Jim Molina, residing at 20521 Clear Spring Court,
located across the street from the lot, stated the
following concerns: it's a potential meeting place
for undesirable types; there's a potential for
mischief and vandalism; there would be more traffic
October 28, 1991 Page 5
matter to the November 25, 1991, with direction to
staff to renotice the hearing.
Tentative Tract AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
47850, 47851, request to develop 120 single family units on 160
& 48487 acres. The development requires a CUP to develop
in a hillside area, a Significant Ecological Area
(SEA), and an Oak Tree Removal Permit. The project
consists of Tentative Tracts 47850, 47851, & 48487;
CUP 89582, 89583, 89584 respectively; and Master
Environmental Impact Report 91-2. The project is
before the Planning Commission as a continued
public hearing from September 23, 1991. At that
time, the applicants had requested the Commission
to direct staff to replace the project of record
with the preferred alternative project, identified
as Alternative 2 in the Alternatives Section of the
Environmental Impact Report 91-2. The Commission
had also directed staff, at the last hearing, to
review the preferred alternative, and to address
very specific issues including grading and slope
stabilization impacts, park contribution fees and
any alternatives, traffic impacts, emergency
circulation, how this project fits into the grand
scheme of the Tanner Canyon area and address what
the status is of the Tonner Canyon Study.
AP/Searcy reviewed those findings, as is indicated
in the staff report. Staff recommended that the
Commission adopt the attached Resolutions
recommending Certification of Master Environmental
Impact Report 91-2; and recommending approval of
Tentative Tracts 47850, 47851, & 48487; CUP/Oak
Tree Permits 89582, 89583, 89584 respectively and
to forward the project to the City Council for
final action.
CD/DeStefano requested AP/Searcy to further review
the size of the lots, pads, and homes, as well as
review the issue of the Oak Tree removal.
AP/Searcy stated that the project proposes 120 lots
on 160 acres, with an average .lot size in excess of
one acre. The pad sizes average approximately one
third of an acre. It is recommended that it would
be appropriate to place a setback requirement on
the pad to deal with the density issue. The
configuration of the current design is flat pads
with sloping terrains in the back leading to
naturally landscaped areas. The size of the homes
are approximately 5,000 to 11,000 square feet. The
project designer has worked diligently to see if
they could cut down on the removal of the oak tree.
All trees will be replaced at a 4:1 ratio.
October 28, 1991 Page 7
remove any of the indicated material, but to store
it on site and use it for composting and soil
amendment. He requested that the broader Tonner
Canyon Study be capped at a cost of approximately
$20,000 dollars. He stated that he concurs with
the City Attorney's suggestion, and requested that
there be some consideration made to the developer's
time frame.
Dr. LaPeter, resident and developer of tract 48487,
stated that he also concurs with the suggestions
made by the City Attorney. He suggested that the
Commission have a special meeting, specifically to
deal with the corrections of the project, in order
to speed up the process.
Lex Williman, Planning Director for Hunsaker and
Associates, highlighted the following items
addressed in the project: trying to prevent
massiveness; saving as many Oak Trees as possible;
incorporated Land Form Grading; attempting to
eliminate terracing by undulation in order to
recreate natural slopes; planning on recreating
Oak, Walnut and the riparian habitat at a ratio
significant enough to make an immediate impact;
attempting to meet zoning requirements; and urban
pollutant basins are created to offset impacts
related to the hydrology concerns. As an
alternative to staff's suggestion, in the condition
of approval regarding the size of the access road
to the urban pollution basins, he suggested it be
changed to a 12 foot graded, 10 foot paved road
with a 25% maximum grade. He requested that there
be a $20,000 cap to the comprehensive study, and
that the applicant be allowed to work with the
staff and the City Attorney to work out the
conditions of the resolutions.
C/Schey inquired how the urban pollution basins
work.
Lex Williman explained that the water will go into
the basins, percolate and evaporate, and the urban
pollutants will remain on top. The basins will
have to be cleaned out twice a year and taken to
the dump. one of the ways to get rid of the first
flush is to run the storm water through the
vegetation areas.
C/Lin inquired if the urban pollution basins were
created specifically for the needs of this project.
October 28, 1991 Page 9
responsibility to consider the future of Diamond
Bar; the Commission should wait the 90 days to
receive the comprehensive Tonner Canyon study; the
developers have utilized high technology because of
the waiting process; and the public is not
attending the public hearing because they are
forced to wait hours till the item is up on the
agenda.
Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shady Wood Road, made
the following comments: there are still many
factors that have not been adequately researched;
heavy rains will bring an acre full of water down
the canyons; earthen catch basins do fail and
pollute drinking wells; there is algae that grows
on the catch basins which causes root rot; if water
is allowed to collect and percolate in certain
areas, it could reach a level of strata causing
devastating damage to flora and fauna; 175 year old
Oak trees cannot be replaced; many animals on the
endangered list are being affected; the ETR is
incomplete; the project requires approval from the
Department of Fish and Game; the Commission needs
more time to review the document presented; and the
Black Walnut is expected to be on the endangered
list by January of 1992.
Max Maxwell, residing in Diamond Bar, made the
following comments: the project should not be
rushed; the fencing will restrict wildlife; there
is too much grading and earth moving; the EIR
should be completed; and three months is not long
to wait for the Tonner Canyon study.
Janice Flaghet stated that the following concerns:
she never received a notice on the project; the
overloading of the already crowded schools; the
increase in traffic; was unaware of a Tonner Canyon
project; need more specifics regarding the
additional access roads; the project should be
continued until it has been properly noticed; and
there are too many grey areas.
Cecil Mills stated that they hope to eventually
annex with "The Country". He reviewed their
relationship with "The Country".
Lex Williman made the following rebuttals: the
project was noticed the 500 foot radius
requirement; the developer has suggested the Tonner
Canyon study; the project implements the latest
technology; the fencing used will not restrict
wildlife; a great deal of the Walnut trees are
saved; impact fees for schools are paid per square
October 28, 1991 Page it
either recently approved, and/or contemplated. The
study was not meant to be a scientific study
attempting to mitigate the effects, but rather a
cumulative impact type of study of proposed
projects. SEATAC had no preconceived notions as to
what the study's results might be and/or what the
impacts might be on the SEA. The estimated cost is
$24,000 dollars.
C/Lin requested staff to explain how notification
was sent out regarding the project.
CD/DeStefano stated that notification was sent to
those residing 500 feet from the project's
boundaries. Additionally, there has been two or
three notices published in the San Gabriel Valley
Tribune, and the Daily Progress Bulletin over the
past 6 months. He explained that the notices are
based upon the latest property tax assessors role,
which is distributed to the City six months after
it is last updated.
Chair/Grothe made the following comments: is there
any list in our requirements regarding tree
replacement sizes; explain the setback requirement
for the pads; is it a condition that the project
needs a letter of approval from the architectural
committee of "The Country"; which value is used in
calculating the fees required for the fair market
value; and there should be a clear open easement
for an access gate.
CD/DeStefano responded that the conditions state
that the developer should be planting younger
trees, 5 to 15 gallons, at a 4:1 ratio; the set
back requirement for the pads is to avoid
massiveness; the City does not get involved with
enforcing private CC&R's in any part of the
community; there needs to be direction from the
City Council as to which land -value in Diamond Bar
is used to determine the fair market value.
C/Harmony inquired if there are funds for upgrading
the Fountain Springs pump station, and the
expansion of the lines.
CE/Mousavi stated that the County will be paying
for the cost to operate the pump station.
C/Harmony inquired how the monetary contribution to
the signal at Shadow Canyon was formulated.
CE/Mousavi stated that the proposal indicates that
it will be a partnership between these
October 28, 1991 Page 13
Chair/Grothe suggested that the developers be
required to make an access road/easement as a
future option for the City.
C/Harmony suggested that one more catch basin be
built into the "not a part" parcel and be
maintained by the Association.
C/Schey stated that his one concern regarding the
"not a part" parcel is to assure that there is not
development pressure for the parcel later on. The
parcel could be deemed to the City, or in some
manner be assured that it will remain as open
space.
C/Harmony strongly requested staff to explore the
option of another catch basin at tract 47850,
bordering the parcel that is "not a part" of the
map and inquired as to what actions to take to
insure the protection of the heritage oaks on the
western boundaries.
Chair/Grothe suggested that one of the conditions
should also require that the indicated Oak Trees
are to remain.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare
the appropriate Resolutions of approval for the
three tracts, with the amended conditions, as
stated by the Commission, and direct staff to
address these thoughts, and have it brought back at
the November 25, 1991 meeting.
CUP 91-10 & AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
Parcel map 22987 request to subdivide a 5.02 acre parcel into three
lots of 1.07 acres, 2.95 acres, and 1.0 acres
respectively, and to obtain a permit to allow
shared parking for all lots on the subject site.
The site is currently developed with a Best Western
Hotel in one unit and a restaurant in another.
Staff recommended that the Commission review the
draft resolution. Staff will bring the appropriate
condition or conditions back to the Commission as
directed.
AP/Searcy responded affirmatively to C/Schey's
conclusion that there will be no access from any of
these lots to Prospectors Road, and that lot 3, in
essence, becomes a flag lot. The only access that
would serve this site would be the access along the
existing building.
October 28, 1991 Page 15
CUP 91-11 CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the
request, by Best Western Hotel, to permit a 75 foot
high pylon sign and a 7 foot high directional sign.
CD/DeStefano presented the Commission with
photographs, taken by staff, of helium balloons,
equated to a 5' by 8' shape, and photographed at
various angles from the 60 and 57 freeway to see
how a 75 foot high sign would look like. Staff
recommended a continuance of the matter until the
applicant has submitted the requested visual study.
John Heamster, with Young Electric Sign Company,
the sign contract for this property, stated that
the Sign Ordinance provides for permitting a 75
foot high sign in a very limited area of the City.
This happens to be one of the areas. The applicant
is in a hole, and the 75 foot sign would merely
place them 25 feet above the freeway. He submitted
photos presenting a line of sight survey of the
sign from various locations. He indicated that he
could design an effective sign and stay within the
specified 128 square feet. The directional sign
has been reduced to 6 feet high and 12 square feet,
to be located just ahead of the driveway.
Wayne Tany, representing the applicant, stated that
the applicant has waited three years for the sign.
He requested that the Commission consider approving
the sign today.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Schey requested staff to review how the sign
ordinance addresses pole signs in uses that are
technically not on site.
CD/DeStefano read that portion of the sign
ordinance requested by C/Schey.
C/Schey then indicated that if the parcel map is
approved, then the Classics restaurant is on a
separate parcel. He inquired if it would still be
allowed to be on the same sign. It would appear to
be off site advertising.
CD/DeStefano explained that if the Commission takes
action on this, then it has the potential for being
implemented prior to the map being recorded. It
then becomes non conforming once the map is
recorded.
C/Schey indicated that he is concerned about
specifically creating a pre-existing, nonconforming
use by default. He requested a definitive
October 28, 1991 Page 16
recommendation and analysis from staff regarding
the ramifications of allowing a sign for a use that
is not on the site.
C/Harmony stated that because of the late hour, the
matter should be tabled to the next meeting.
CD/DeStefano suggested separating the property into
four lots, yet somehow allowing them to be a single
site with the signage lot being the common area for
the other three lots.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to
the next meeting, pending staff's analysis of the
applicant's submittal, and analysis of the
potential problems of the subdivision and how it
relates to the sign code.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
12:45 a.m. to the AQMD Board Room on November 25,
1991.
Respectively,
/s/ JAMES DESTEFANO
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
Attest:
/s/ JACK GROTHE
Jack Grothe
Chairman
October 28, 1991
Page 14
C/Schey inquired if there is adequate setback from
the existing building to that property line.
AP/Searcy explained there is no required setbacks
from the flag lot access to any accessory or main
building that are located to it's proximity. The
zoning on lot three would be C-1, allowing
primarily light commercial office buildings.
VC/MacBride inquired if the 31 foot width, of the
access, gives adequate legal width to sustain
property development, and access to lot three.
CE/Mousavi responded that the 31 foot width
provides adequate access for two way traffic.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Carl Cobin, residing at 26790 Indian Creek, the
Civil Engineer on the project, stated that all the
conditions have been read and the applicant does
not have any problems with the Conditions of
Approval.
C/Schey inquired what is the purpose for sub-
dividing.
Carl Cobin explained that it gives the owner the
flexibility to lease or sell any one of the three
parcels. There has been no decision as to what
will be placed on lot three.
Wayne Tany, architect, also concurred with staff's
recommendation.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe, noting that lot three is currently
landscaped, requested that one of the conditions be
that it is to remain landscaped until it is
developed. He also indicated that it is fine to
have shared parking, but it should be contiguous to
where the building is located.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to draft an
appropriate resolution, with the conditions of
approval, and brought back to the Commission at the
next meeting, with the requirement that parcel
three be maintained as a landscaped area until such
time it is approved for development.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 12:05 a.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 12:10 a.m.
October 28, 1991 Page 12
developments, existing developments, and the City
for the installation of a traffic signal at Shadow
Canyon Road. The cumulative amount for these three
tracts comes to about $60,000 dollars.
C/Harmony requested an explanation of the statement
that the proposed sewage pump station will be owned
by the City. He is concerned with the possibility
that the City will be held responsible for
maintaining the pump station.
CE/Mousavi explained that generally pump stations
are owned and maintained by municipalities. The
developers, under contract, will be responsible for
maintaining the pump station after the project is
completed.
Chair/Grothe, referring to the condition that
lights be installed at the intersections, suggested
that the City should look into developing standards
for future street light in "The Country", if it is
determined, in the future, that there should be
lighting in that community.
DCA/Curley stated that this type of specificity is
needed in the resolution and the conditions.
Chair/Grothe stated that it would be appropriate
that the conditions specify an exact amount
indicating the developer's obligation to contribute
to the comprehensive study of the Tonner Canyon
area.
C/Schey indicated that there has been a rational
and reasonable level of mitigation incorporated
into the designs of the project. There should be a
condition that the parcels listed "not a part" be
dedicated to the City, or at least credited for
permanent open space. There is a need of a
comprehensive study of Tonner Canyon, however, the
results will not provide information that is really
going to give cause to modify the project in any
degree. He suggested that staff be directed to
craft the conditions of approval, with the various
modifications that the City Attorney might deem
appropriate, as well as modifications made by the
Commission.
C/Schey, responding to Chair/Grothe's inquiry,
stated that he is willing to accept SEATAC's
recommendation regarding the 4:1 tree replacement
ratio. There could be an ongoing planting program
implemented that would plant trees when they reach
an appropriate size.
October 28, 1991
Page 10
feet; they have agreed to mitigate the traffic
problems; and the project was first presented two
years ago, and is not being pushed through. He
suggested that the Commission make a recommendation
to staff to create resolutions of approval, and ask
the City Attorney to review, with the developers,
the conditions of approval.
Max Maxwell stated that the two years the developer
has waited is nothing in comparison to the
project's effect on the future of Diamond Bar for
the next 20 years. He suggested that there be
another public hearing.
William Gross indicated that the developers offer
to pay for a portion of the comprehensive Tonner
Canyon Study is on the condition that the project
be allowed to begin, then the results of the study
will be made available. Additional information is
needed on many of the issues.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Schey inquired if the disposition of the two
remaining parcels are addressed in the conditions.
There is no reason why those properties should not
be dedicated, in some fashion, on a future date.
CD/DeStefano responded that the two parcels are not
specifically addressed. They will become a part of
the project in terms of dealing with the Schabarum
Trail, any fire access roads needed, and things of
that nature. They could become a part of the
project and fulfill the functions in terms of open
space or park use.
AP/Searcy, upon VC/MacBride's request, indicated,
on the map, the location of the fencing. He stated
that SEATAC explicitly requested that chain link
fencing not be used. They suggested the use of the
two tier fencing presently used in "The Country".
Chair/Grothe stated that he would prefer more
specifics as to what kind of fence will be
utilized. He would prefer as little fence as
possible.
C/Schey requested staff to give a brief outline of
the scope of the Tonner Canyon study, based upon
the RFP.
CD/DeStefano stated that the purpose of the study
was to assess the cumulative impacts to the Canyon
based upon all the known developments that were
October 28, 1991 Page 8
Lex Williman stated that there is presently
drainage coming from the existing development which
free flows down into the Canyon. The basins will
mitigate these existing conditions. He indicated,
on the displayed map, where the location of the
basins are being proposed. The basins would be no
bigger than an eighth, or a quarter of an acre, and
will be as natural appearing as possible. Silt
will be removed when cleaning out the basins and
taken to a hazardous waste dump area.
Per Chair/Grothe's request, Lex Williman indicated,
on the model, the areas that the basins are being
proposed.
C/Harmony inquired when will it be known how many
Oak Trees could be saved.
Lex Williman stated that it will be known when the
final 40 scale grading plans are developed. Since
it is very costly, the plans will not be developed
until there is a definite project to proceed with.
There will probably be a minimum of four trees and
possibly as many as seven trees saved.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:17 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 9:32 p.m.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Don Greely, residing at 22635 Ridgeline, president
of "The Country Estates" Association, stated that
there was an agreement with TADCO allowing the
remaining parcels access through "The Country's"
gates, for a fee. The Association Board has
decided to honor that agreement. A number of items
were discussed with the developers: the
development will be fenced around the perimeter;
the Schabarum Trail is to be moved outside of the
fenced area; if there is an interest to annex with
the Association, there would need to be a 66% vote
of the community accepting the annexation; the
architectural CC&R's are to meet the Associations
guidelines; and problems of traffic congestion
could be dealt with in the future because there are
many options to mitigate the traffic problems.
William Gross, residing at 21637 High Bluff Road,
complained that he and his neighbors were not
properly noticed. He made the following comments:
it is the last tract of open hillside area; staff
and Council are operating under the assumption that
the project will be approved; there is a
October 28, 1991 Page 6
PD/DeStefano stated that the Commission has
received three resolutions from the staff
recommending approval of the three separate
projects. Contained within those resolutions, is a
variety of conditions from the staff. It is the
Deputy City Attorney's opinion that changes to
those resolutions will be needed, should the
Commission desire to approve this project. The
attorney has directed staff to prepare separate
resolutions for conclusive actions, such as the CUP
and the Oak Tree Removal Permit, and for actions
advising the City Council, such as certification of
the Environmental Impact Report and recommendation
of approval of the Tentative Map.
DCA/Curley explained that the present structure of
the ordinances and the attachments is ambiguous as
to what conditions apply to what circumstance. It
is very critical to have clarity both as to the
conditions and the variety of actions, as well as
to be able to respond to certain concerns with the
findings.
CD/DeStefano stated that staff wishes to correct
the original recommendation, and recommend that the
Commission provide direction to the staff to
prepare the appropriate resolutions that would
approve the project.
AP/Searcy, responding to VC/MacBride's inquiry,
explained that staff is in the process of
contracting a consultant to prepare a comprehensive
study of the SEA Tonner Canyon.
CD/DeStefano stated that it is anticipated that
there will be a project for the City Council to
award a contract, at their November 19, 1991
meeting. The study will take between two or three
months. In response to VC/MacBride's inquiry, he
explained that the Significant Ecological Area
Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) indicated
that though the study was very important, the
document could come after this project based on the
belief that the project impacted a very minor
portion of the SEA with it's characteristics, as
well as its downstream impacts. The SEATAC,
concerned with future projects, wanted to be sure
the ecological study was done before those future
projects came before the legislators. .
Cecil Mills, on behalf of Diamond Bar Associates
and tract 47850 & 47851, correcting page 4 of the
staff report regarding the removal of debris,
stated that there has never been any intentions to
October 28, 1991 Page 4
noise, and more cleaning noise; and there will be
an increase in traffic accidents.
Phil Henry, residing at 20581 Calped Drive,
opposed the project for the following reasons: it
is a bad location for such a project; the area is
already covered with graffiti; and it is misleading
calling the establishment family oriented unless it
is going to be limited to just families.
Janna Flaghet, residing in Diamond Bar, stated the
following: the establishment wouldn't really
attract families; it shouldn't be located in a
residential area; it will become a hangout; and
entertainment should attract a broader range and
not just cater to the Korean/Oriental.
VC/MacBride stated that after talking to the
present store owners in the area, they have
indicated that they would rather see an active
facility than a vacant area because a vacant area
attracts hangouts.
David Lee indicated that there is a difference
between pool and billiards. He emphasized that the
establishment is not just for Koreans.
Sandra Jackson, residing in Diamond Bar, stated
that the question is not the game but the location
of the establishment. She inquired if there will
be restrictions to the use, if it is approved. She
stated that catering to a certain age is
discriminatory.
Phil Henry suggested that the applicant be asked to
qualify the term "family".
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Harmony requested staff to explain to the
audience how the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
process works.
DCA/Curley explained that the CUP is an entitlement
that the City gives, that allows the City to define
how a land use will be conducted to satisfy
interest of health, safety, and welfare. If the
condition is violated, the City can take away the
entitlement. The applicant must then reapply, or
attempt to cure the problem.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Schey, and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
October 28, 1991
Page 2
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission open the
public hearing to receive input from the audience,
close the public hearing, and direct staff
accordingly. The Commission has the option to
direct staff to continue the matter to a specific
date, or to take this matter off calendar, and
request it to be renoticed when it is ready to come
back to the Commission for action. The meeting
dates remaining this year are November 25, 1991 and
December 9, 1991.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Sandra Jackson, a resident of Diamond Bar,
suggested that it would be more effective if public
hearings were noticed in the Diamond Bar
Highlander.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Schey inquired how it's determined which
newspapers are used to notice public hearings.
CD/DeStefano explained that the Highlander, the
Windmill, the Tribune, and the Bulletin are the
four publications available. The Bulletin and the
Tribune are used because they are the adjudicated
papers for legal noticing. With the Commission's
direction, public hearings can be noticed in the
Highlander.
VC/MacBride recommended that the Highlander be
used, and included, for the publication of notice.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to
December 9, 1991, with direction to staff to
publish the hearing date in the Highlander.
C/Schey requested staff to examine whether the
Highlander is an appropriate forum to do ongoing
notice.
CUP 91-08 AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
request to locate and operate a family billiard
establishment in the Colima Plaza, an existing
neighborhood commercial center. In review of this
project, staff has identified a public hearing
notice discrepancy and therefore, must renotice
this hearing item prior to conducting a duly
noticed public hearing. It is recommended that the
project be renoticed for the November 25, 1991
meeting.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 25, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at
7:14 p.m. in the South Coast Quality Management
District Board Meeting Room 21865 E. Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance
ALLEGIANCE: by Council Elect Gary Miller.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Schey, Vice
Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe.
Commissioner Lin was absent.
Also present were Community Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, City
Engineer Sid Mousavi, Deputy City Attorney Bill
Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MATTERS FROM Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, indicated
THE AUDIENCE: his concern that he has not received notification
for the Oak Tree Hillside matter.
MINUTES: VC/MacBride made various corrections to the
Minutes of October 28, 1991. However, upon
Oct. 28, 1991 hearing that C/Harmony had not received a copy of
the minutes, he concurred to continue the matter
to the next meeting.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue
the Minutes of October 28, 1991 to the next
meeting.
CONTINUED AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
PUBLIC HEARING: request to subdivide a 5.02 acre parcel into three
commercial lots of 1.07 acres, 1 acre, and 2.95
CUP 91-10 & acres, respectively. The applicant has requested
Parcel 22987 a two month continuance to allow further time to
work out some fine items. Staff recommended that
the Commission direct staff to reschedule the
public hearing approximately two months from this
date.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that they
also have the option to table the matter, and
require readvertisement when the parcel map is
ready for review.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by C/Harmony, seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the matter and
renotice at such time that it is suitable for
hearing.
November 25, 1991 Page 2
TT 22102 CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding
the request for a parcel map to subdivide an
existing 4.39 acre site within the Gateway
Corporate Center. He explained that the City
staff prepared an application, with a
recommendation and conditions, for the
Commission's consideration. However, Mr. Charles
Blum, the owner of Specialty Equipment Marketing
Association, and the specific applicant, Brian
Stirrat and Associates, have requested that the
matter be continued to the December 9, 1991
meeting because they were unable to attend
tonight's meeting.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue
the matter to the meeting of December 9, 1991.
CUP 90-70 AP/Searcy reported that the applicant, Dr. Omar
Akbar, has requested live entertainment night club
use at a restaurant that had been approved under
CUP 90-70. The applicant, as was requested by the
Commission, has provided staff with information
regarding the entertainment uses. However, it was
anticipated that more extensive comments would be
received from responding agencies. Therefore, the
applicant, and staff, requested that the
Commission continue the public hearing to the
December 9, 1991.
CD/DeStefano specified that the restaurant was
approved by the Commission a year ago for property
located on Gateway Center Drive adjacent to the
Days Inn Hotel. The applicant has been
interested in a live entertainment permit for some
time, and has given staff a wide variety of
potential live entertainment uses. Staff is
requesting more time to conduct an appropriate
analysis so as to provide the Commission the
information needed to make a decision regarding
this issue.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Schey, and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the December 9, 1991 meeting.
CUP 91-11 CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding
the request, from Best Western Hotel, to permit a
seventy-five foot (751) high pylon sign and a
seven foot, seven inch (7'7") in height
November 25, 1991 Page 3
directional pole sign at 259 Gentle Springs Lane.
In order to gather more information to assist
staff in determining the proper height for the
pylon sign, Cal Trans was contacted for "as -built"
plans for the Prospector Road undercrossing area.
The Associate City Engineer and staff have
reviewed these plans and, as a result from the
estimated measurements, staff has determined that
a sixty foot high sign is an appropriate height
for that location, and is the maximum that the
Commission may approve in accordance with the
recently adopted City sign ordinance.
CD/DeStefano then read the statement, within the
description of freeway oriented signs, in the sign
code. He explained that the applicant is
suggesting that the interpretation of the code is
not necessarily the freeway as measured nearest to
the proposed sign. In addition, the applicant is
requesting a seven foot, seven inch (7'7")
directional sign to be located on Gentle Springs.
The maximum height permitted under the sign code
is six feet for that type of sign. The applicant
will be amending the request to make the sign no
larger than six feet at that location. It is
recommended that the Commission consider all the
factors, and approve a pylon sign at 60 feet in
height, and directional sign at six feet in
height.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
John Heamstra, representative of Young Electric
Sign Co., sign contractor for the Hotel of Diamond
Bar, stated that because Diamond Bar Boulevard is
only facilitated with an off -ramp by the 60
freeway, not the 57 freeway, the height
measurements should be limited to the 60 freeway,
and the 57 freeway disregarded in this situation.
He requested that the Commission approve the 75'
pylon sign, and indicated that they accept the
directional sign at six feet in height.
Wayne Tani, representative for Hotel Diamond Bar,
stated that a 75' pylon sign is essential.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Schey, concerned with a possible future change
in land use, inquired if the sign can be approved
contingent on the use.
CD/DeStefano explained that should the land use
change, it would require a discretionary permit,
and the sign would need to be removed. If the
November 25, 1991 Page 4
Commission were in a mind to approve this specific
request, an additional condition may be used to
back up the concern regarding change of land use,
to specifically state that if the land use were to
change from lodging accommodations, the sign must
be removed, or made to comply with the then
current code.
DCA/Curley indicated that given the nature of the
site, or the existing development on it, any
change would probably ultimately come before the
Commission for review. If there is a change in
land use, the conditions can be tailored, at that
point, to accommodate the particular parcel.
Upon VC/MacBride's request, CD/DeStefano reviewed
the conclusions of the visual test conducted by
staff.
C/Harmony specified that the sign ordinance
already makes special provisions for food and
lodging in terms of signage. The request before
the Commission is not a request for a variance,
but rather a CUP request.
CD/DeStefano, per Chair/Grothe's request, stated
that wording for an additional condition could
read: "The pylon sign shall be removed, or
modified, upon a change of land use to any land
use which does not permit such on-site pylon
signage, so as to comply with the applicable
zoning regulations."
Chair/Grothe stated that it is not necessary to
specify a 60' height sign, but rather condition it
so that the sign be 25 feet above the nearest
guard rail, of the nearest freeway. He further
suggested that the applicant either install the
sign, or apply for a variance.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's
recommendation, as amended.
TT 47850, 47851, AP/Searcy reported that the application is for
& 48487 vesting Tentative Tract Map 47850, 47851, and
CUP/Oak Permit 48487; Conditional use Permits 89582, 89583, and
89582, 89583 89584, respectively; and certification of Master
& 89584 Environmental Report 91-2. The request by the
applicant is for a 120 single family unit
subdivision on 160 acres. The project would be
located east and south of "The Country", and
developed within SEA 15 and northern Tonner
Canyon. He presented a brief history of the
November 25, 1991 Page 5
project, as indicated in the staff report. As
requested by the Commission, the conditions of
approval have been amended and staff has
specifically addressed various items within the
conditions. The following are specific conditions
drafted for each tract: Item #8 is an outgrowth
from the prohibition of two lots being developed
on tract 47850; item #10 calls for lots #3, #14,
#15, and #19 of tract 47851 to incorporate the
minimum lot and street frontage of 100 feet; item
#17 specifically states that the amount of the
prorata share responsible for the applicant for
contribution in the Tonner Canyon Ecological
concept study as $20,000 dollars; item #23,
relating to the finalization of the development
phasing, is further expanded in exhibit B -1.b
Condition of Approval for hillside development;
conditions #10 through #17 directly relate to
development review which addresses development
standards and criteria for each of the single
family residences that will be developed for each
of those lots; items #17 relates to the
implementation of a lighting plan; item #21
relates to tree removal maps specifically
delineating which tree will be preserved,
relocated, or destroyed; item #31 states that
applicants for tract 47850, 47851, and 48487 will
contribute their prorata share for the Ecological
concept study; item #35 relates to final map
delineation for all areas designated to be
building rights restricted; and item #39 relates
to the sewer discharge and content of the drainage
water that will result from implementation of the
project. In conclusion, AP/Searcy stated that the
conditions reviewed have been specifically applied
to each of the projects as appropriate.
Chair/Grothe recalled that the Commission had
requested that the "not a part" portion was to be
specifically identified, either as open space or
deeded as a park, with the intent that it have
building rights restricted so a new subdivision
could not be developed at a later date. Also, it
was his understanding that the developer's
contribution toward the Tonner Canyon study was
open ended, and they would pay whatever the fee
would be.
AP/Searcy stated that the only way that areas
labeled as "building rights restricted" would be
eligible for having any type of construction,
would be to come before the discretionary bodies
for discretionary approval. In order to do that,
it would be a revision of a condition placed upon
November 25, 1991
Page 6
a final map, which cannot be done
administratively.
The Commission concurred to accept the wording of
item #35. Also, regarding the contribution of the
developer's prorata share for the ecological study
of Tonner Canyon, the Commission concurred to
accept the $20,000 dollar figure after hearing
that staff was satisfied it was an appropriate
share amount.
C/Harmony requested that staff insert wording on
item #21, B -lb, CUP 89582, to specifically state
that the seven (7) Oak Trees, located in the
ravine, are to be protected. The Commission
concurred.
CE/Mousavi, responding to the concern regarding
the proposed roadway, explained that as staff was
developing the conditions for the tract map, it
was realized that the development of Tonner Canyon
may be inevitable. As a result, the possibility
of an access road from Diamond Bar Blvd. into
Tonner Canyon was considered. After reviewing
possible alternatives, it was determined that the
road easement was the most viable alternative.
The intent is not that the road will be build as
the project is being developed, but rather that
the road, as a condition of the map, would be a
safeguard if in the future there is a need for
access to the possible Tonner Canyon development
or the proposed golf course.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Schey's inquiry,
stated that generally the developer contributes
50% of the cost of any public road abutting the
development area. In response to C/Harmony's
inquiry, he stated that determining who would pay
500 of the cost of the road, from Sugar Pine
through the condominium complex and adjacent to
the neighboring tract, will be determined as new
tract maps and projects are submitted to the City.
There would be substantial grading in developing a
road in that area. The road way would impact some
of the now protected oak trees.
VC/MacBride stated that there has never been any
discussion on imposing, on the developer, a dollar
burden for the plans, or construction, of a
roadway. If there is going to be discussion
regarding actual construction of the roadway, and
the bearing of costs, it would be appropriate for
the Commission to know more of the relationship of
November 25, 1991 Page 7
the mitigation of adverse features to these
tracts.
C/Schey suggested that, since the Commission does
not seem opposed to a dedication of an easement,
or right of way, the developer pay an appropriate
share of the roadway construction, if and when it
is ever built, by requiring a participation in an
assessment district.
CD/DeStefano explained that there has been
discussion regarding the .potential for two
linkages into Tonner Canyon. One is the potential
future public linkage between Diamond Bar Blvd.
and Tonner Canyon Road, and the other is a short
term immediate impact linkage for emergency
services vehicles down to the valley of Tonner
Canyon. The emergency service road is contained
within the conditions of approval. The future
public road is one that was not raised at the
previous meeting, and has been developed since
that time. The Commission appears to be
interested in securing an irrevocable offer for
this future road, that may or may not be needed.
If the Commission is concerned regarding the
appropriateness of the costs associated with the
road, or the appropriateness of the sharing of
those costs, the Commission could send a message
to the City Council with a decision package that
could include a time cap, a cost cap, or a
monetary dollar cap. The mere fact that staff is
recommending that an irrevocable offer to
dedicated be placed, and that the developer
contribute towards the development, does not mean
that the road is going in. It means that staff is
trying to plan for the future, if and when, the
road does go in.
VC/Harmony requested that staff explain the
condition eliminating two of the construction
sites.
CD/DeStefano stated that tract 47850 has two lots,
#27 & #28, at the intersection of Steeplechase and
Hawkwood. Should a future road be given
consideration, and should the Commission and City
Council agree that an irrevocable offer to
dedicate be placed, staff is recommending that no
development be permitted on those lots, in order
to accompany a future road. In lieu of
prohibiting development, staff is recommending
that one lot be moved to the middle tract, and one
lot be moved to the most easterly tract.
November 25, 1991 Page 8
DCA/Curley noted that, in reviewing the Minutes of
October 28, 1991, the Commission closed the Public
Hearing. The motion made was to amend and modify
the resolutions, and bring it back at this meeting
for the Commission's action.
C/Harmony suggested that the Commission take
public testimony, regardless, since there has been
a significant change made which was never directed
by the Planning Commission. Also, since the
public hearing was closed, he questioned if such a
dramatic new change can be added since there was
no public testimony regarding the roadway.
DCA/Curley stated that this particular condition
is simply looking for an offer for perspective
potential. It does not take or enforce any
action. It just creates the opportunity, if and
when it is deemed necessary. From the simplest
point of view, we're simply looking toward the
future by taking no specific action to define or
otherwise delineate.
C/Harmony, disagreeing with DCA/Curley, stated
that he sees it as a very definitive step taken.
The developer of the property is being obligated
to assessment districts and costs that are
unknown. It is very significant to them, and to
the condominiums and the neighborhood adjacent to
the property. There will also be significant
traffic impacts from the potential golf course.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Cliff Moukie, resident, made the following
comments: cutting the trees in the Diamond Ridge
Tract would make the area look like Pomona; the
Deputy City Attorney may have ulterior motives for
suggesting the installation of a roadway; and
Diamond Bar incorporated to protect the City
against over development.
Bill Gross, residing at 21634 High Bluff Road,
stated the following concerns: the project was
not properly notified; the roadway would
significantly impact the neighborhood; the
development is too high in density; there is no
provision for fire protection; and the developer
should be made to pay assessments.
C/Harmony interrupted the public hearing, due to
heckling from the audience, and explained that
present staff has not proposed the roadway, but
rather is reporting on it.
November 25, 1991 Page 9
Joe Ingram, resident, made the following comments:
Judge Mills had assured him that the project was
to be approximately 50 homes developed and there
was no mention of a roadway; he did not receive
notification; and the residents will have to pay
for the road.
Dave Araujo, residing at 3206 Falcon Ridge Road,
stated that the schools are already overcrowded.
The City must guard against unmitigated growth.
Todd Chavers, residing at 23816 Chanuk Place,
member of the Traffic and Transportation
Commission (TTC) made the following comments: the
EIR should address the proposed roadway or
easement; it should be addressed in the
Circulation Element of the proposed General Plan;
he questioned the appropriateness of the Planning
Commission to consider such a roadway as part of
the development proposal; and the General Plan
specifically precludes a Tonner Canyon. He
suggested that the Commission separate the roadway
consideration. He would like City staff to inform
the TTC on the roadway so that they could have
input as well.
Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shady Wood Road, made
various comments regarding the destruction of the
ecological area. The development is not
compatible with the area and will be obstructive.
Tom Van Winkle, residing at 21103 Kerndall,
suggested that a moratorium be placed on building
until the General Plan has been adopted.
Max Maxwell, resident, commented that the project
is being ramrodded. He complained that there has
not been adequate publicity regarding the General
Plan or this development.
Cecil Mills, of Diamond Bar Associates, Tracts
47850 & 47851, stated that he objects to condition
#30, condition #35 and condition #31, as related
to tract 47850. He objected to approval of the
development standards in exhibit B -lb, #14b&c. He
objected to the issue addressed in the development
standard and the fire standard with respect to the
requirement of the relocation of the heli pad only
to the extent to make that objection of record so
that the owners of the property does not lose any
prescriptive rights we may have by virtue of not
raising an objection. He complained that he was
told of the City's intention to impose such a
public road easement on the Friday before the
meeting. With respect to the issue of the
November 25, 1991 Page 10
roadway, he submitted a copy of the Robert Rohn v.
City of Visalia case, and requested that it be
made a part of the record. He summarized the
findings of the case to indicate that the
appellate courts of the State of California said
that where there is no reasonable relation,
between the required dedication and the use for
which the building permit was requested, it could
not be permitted. He requested that the
conditions relating to the granting of the
easement, for the obligation of this development
team to pay for any portion of such a roadway, be
entirely deleted. Additionally, he requested
condition #30, requiring the building of 1500 feet
of road down Diamond Bar Blvd., be deleted. He
requested that the condition, requesting two lots
to be taken from his development, be deleted. He
stated that the Commission does not have
jurisdiction over the "not a part" portion and
advised that the city attorney review the land use
laws in that respect. He urged that the
Commission grant the CUP, the variance, and send
the tract map to the City Council with approval,
with the requested deletions.
Al La Peter, residing at 3020 Windmill Dr., owner
of tract 48487, stated that they have made every
attempt to make this development a good project.
He objected strongly to the roadway.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 10:05 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 10:28 p.m.
C/Schey stated that there should be language added
to condition #40, the requirements for maintaining
and designing urban pollutant basins, indicating
that these designs would not only be approved by
the City Engineer, but also meet the requirements
placed upon the City as a co -permittee under the
MPDES requirements. Also, the pollutant basins
should be designed in such a way that they can be
maintained by City forces, and paid for by some
sort of funding mechanism.
Chair/Grothe suggested that condition #31, of
tract 47850, be deleted.
VC/Harmony requested that staff remove all
references of that roadway, and delete the
exchange of the lots, and the 1500 feet of
sidewalk on Diamond Bar Blvd, and include language
specifically preserving the Oak Trees in the
ravine.
November 25, 1991
Page 11
Chair/Grothe disagreed that the 1500 sidewalk
request should be deleted.
C/Schey noted that the dedication of the sidewalk
is not a new issue. The three tracts are each
individually conditioned to dedicate a total of
$18,000, and in no place is the length of the
sidewalk specified. The Commission concurred to
leave the condition as is.
CD/DeStefano stated that there are 6 Resolutions
that the Commission is being asked to take action
on. Two Resolutions for each project. The first
Resolution deals with the approval of vesting
Tentative Map 47850 and certification of the
Master Environmental Impact Report. The
Commission has requested the following: eliminate
condition #8, from the Community Development
Department; eliminate condition #31, of the
Engineering condition for that tract; recommending
that condition #40, exhibit B -lb, conditions of
approval for the CUP for tract 47850 and for Oak
Tree Permit 89-582, be amended to read "Based on
soils and hydrology studies, the applicant shall
provide a plan for review and approval by the City
Engineer, and the co -permittees related thereto
pursuant to the MPDES."; amend condition #41 to
read "The urban pollutant basins should be
maintained by the developer or it's successor in
interest in conformance with, and to all
applicable standards. The developer shall convey
to the City the nonexclusive right to maintain at
it's sole election such urban pollution basins in
the event the party responsible fails to so
maintain said basins."; amend condition #21, of
the Resolution regarding CUP 89582, to read that
the maximum number be 27, and that the specific 7
trees, that have been illustrated in a graphic
prepared for this case, located on the west side
of tract 47850, be saved.
Chair/Grothe requested a condition specifying
that, if and when there is ever a road in the
Tonner Canyon area, a third gate will be installed
at one of these three cul-de-sac, to allow access
through "The Country" for the purpose of providing
an easement for secondary access to the Tonner
Canyon area.
CD/DeStefano indicated that such a condition
should be placed on all three maps, with the
specifics to be determined by the City Engineer,
the Fire Department, and the Sheriff Department.
November 25, 1991 Page 12
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Resolution for Tentative Tract 47850, subject to
the revisions of the appropriate conditions as
outlined.
CD/DeStefano stated that the word "vesting" will
be eliminated in the heading on CUP 89582.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve CUP
89582, subject to the conditions as amended.
CD/DeStefano stated that the next two Resolutions
deal with Tentative Tract 47851 and the Master
Environmental Report. Exhibit B -la, the Community
Development condition, is to eliminate condition
#8. The Commission concurred to leave condition
#21 as it is written. Eliminate the word
"vesting" from the CUP 89583 heading in the
Department of Community Development condition; add
verbiage in condition #40 identical to the
previous CUP Resolution; and add the new condition
#41 identical verbiage as the previous CUP.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride, and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve
Tentative Tract 47851, subject to the corrections
to the conditions as noted.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve CUP
and Oak Tree Permit 89583, with the corrections of
the conditions of approval as noted.
CD/DeStefano stated that the final two Resolutions
deal with vesting Tentative Tract 48487.
eliminate condition #8 of exhibit B -la, Department
of Community Development conditions; as well as
the identical changes discussed previously with
the rest of the Resolutions and the CUP
Resolutions.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride, and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve
Tentative Tract 48487, with conditions amended as
previously noted.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
CUP 89584, with amendment to the title and
amendment to the conditions as previously noted.
CUP 91-08 AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding a
November 25, 1991
Page 13
request, from the applicants Jung Ho and Yeon Ho
Kim, to locate and operate a family billiard
establishment located in the Colima Plaza, 20627
Colima Road. This application is a continued
public hearing from the October 28, 1991 meeting.
Staff has conducted a review of the project in
comparison with other similar billiard/pool halls.
The analysis has indicated that no other
jurisdiction contacted has placed conditions on
this type of use to the degree that the condition
have been prepared for this project. The Sheriff
Department has reviewed the floor plan and
conditions, and finds them to be acceptable.
AP/Searcy read the letter received from the
Sheriff Department, to the Commission. Staff
recommended that the Commission approve CUP 91-8
with the findings of fact and conditions as
listed.
Doug Smith, of Fieler and Associates Engineer,
prepared the application for Jung Ho and Yeon Ho
Kim, stated that the applicants accept the
conditions of approval as listed by staff.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
The following individuals gave testimony in
support of the project: Jason Yeon, residing in
Walnut; Mary Lou Streep, owns business located at
20627 Colima Road, Unit K, residing in Whittier;
Hal Caleeb; Don Schad; David Lee, residing at
27370 E. Lake Hanna Dr.,. Walnut; and Craig
Kurkalee, residing at 10951 Oso Ave, Chatsworth.
Basically, it was felt that billiards is a
gentlemen's sport of skill that is very popular to
the Koreans and can be enjoyed by everyone.
Sunny Martindale, residing at 1333 Rapid View Dr.,
objected to the project for the following reasons:
There is no need to have another billiard hall
since there is one 3 miles down the road; it is
inappropriate to locate such an establishment in a
residential neighborhood; there is a liquor store
that is easily accessible; and there is no
guarantee that it will attract the 30 and up age
group, as indicated.
Steve Rosen, residing at 1349 S. Lemon, objected
to the project for the following reasons: There
will be heavy gambling on skills; the area has
many children because of the school bus stop; and
the residents in the area strongly opposes the
project.
November 25, 1991
Page 14
Lewis Moral, residing on 1457 S. Lemon Ave.,
objected to the project for the following reasons:
There will be gambling; there will be a
maintenance problem; and the riff raff will come
in.
Art Fritz, residing at 20635 Larkstone Dr.,
objecting to the project, stated that the bus stop
for both High Schools are on that corner. There
should be sufficient control to guard against
loitering.
Max Maxwell reiterated his displeasure of how the
Commission is handling all issues, and ignoring
the public's responses.
Li Kon Pok, in favor of the project, stated that
children will not want to play billiards because
it requires high mentality.
Daisy Del Via, residing at 901 Golden Springs,
stated that the project deserves a chance.
Steve Salas, residing at 23554 Prospect Valley
Dr., requested examples of similar billiards. The
conditions should be in writing to assure that
they remain unchanged. The Commission needs more
facts. The effects of such an establishment needs
to be studied further.
Yeon Kim, residing at 23581 Coyote Springs,
applicant, stated that the reason he is interested
in establishing a billiard hall is because he
enjoys playing billiards.
Ted Benson, residing at 20617 E. Trust Court,
opposing billiards in his community, stated that
billiards has no socially redeeming quality.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Schey stated that there is nothing in the police
report, or evidence from facilities visited, that
indicates any rational expectation that the
business is a problem. He sees no reason to
disapprove of such a project.
VC/MacBride stated that he sees no reason to
disapprove the project. The conditions upon the
use of the CUP are stringent, and the Sheriff
Department doesn't foresee any law enforcement
problems.
C/Harmony stated that he is impressed by the
November 25, 1991 Page 15
police report. The applicant has a right to put
in a business that is acceptable, low profile and
does not create problems. The CUP already
prohibits drinking on the premise. He requested
that the CUP include a condition addressing
gambling and loitering.
DCA/Curley explained that the penal code already
prohibits gambling, and loitering. If the
Commission desires, there could be a provision to
the effect that all State, County, and local law
shall be adhered to.
C/Harmony requested that he would like the
condition to specify that the City is able to pull
the permit if loitering, harassment or fighting
becomes a nuisance. He sees no reason to deny the
project.
Chair/Grothe requested that the conditions specify
that pool tables are not permitted. He further
requested that conditions #5 and #6 be joined by
the word "and".
VC/MacBride suggested that condition #4 include
the prohibition of gambling.
DCA/Curley stated that condition #10 should be
stricken in that there is no permit and there is
no defined special events.
Chair/Grothe stated that the concern was for
publicized tournaments that would draw large
crowds to public places out of the ordinary.
CD/DeStefano made the following amendments to the
conditions: Add "no pocket pool tables shall be
permitted on the premises" to condition #1; add
that "gambling is also prohibited" to condition
#4; link condition #5 and #6 by the word "and";
add the wording "Tournament play or similar
special events shall be required to have the
proper permits ..." to condition #10; and include
a new condition #12 stating that "the applicant
shall conform to all applicable State, County and
local laws in respect to the .use and operations of
this billiard facility. The applicant shall not
permit, suffer, allow or tolerate the existence or
causation of any nuisance or similar disrupting
influence as arises from the use and operation of
this facility."
DCA/Curley noted that on page 1 of the Resolution
in recital iii, there's a reference to 65302.5bi
November 25, 1991 Page 16
that should be 65360. On the next page, in
paragraph numbered 4, the second to last line has
the same number, and should be similarly changed.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Resolution as submitted by staff, with the
amendments to the conditions of approval as
outlined.
PUBLIC HEARING: AP/Searcy reported that the application is for
Tentative Tract 50519, Development Agreement 91-3,
TT 50519/DA 91-3/ and development Review 91-2. The request is to
DR 91-2 subdivide a 2.3 acre site into six lots, and to
construct 80 condominium units within five
buildings, with underground parking. The parcel
is zoned for Restricted Commercial (C-1) and the
Development Agreement seeks to create a
classification of uses deemed appropriate for the
site. The Development Review application is
required to determine the aesthetic compatibility
with surrounding land uses. It is recommended
that the Commission direct staff as to the
appropriate action.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission first
resolve the issue of land use before discussing if
the proposal contains the proper density,
architectural statement and proper package of
amenities that one finds in multifamily uses.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Dr. Ron Crowley, residing at 1700 Rain Tree Road,
Fullerton, distributed notes, to the Commission,
highlighting the features of the proposed project.
He reviewed the following features: Goals;
suitability of site for residential vs. commercial
use; design consideration; density; coverage/open
space; parking; access to property; amenities;
security; tract map/6-lot subdivision; traffic;
sewage; fire prevention; handicap accessibility;
and economic factors.
Mr. Salas, residing next to the proposed site,
opposed the project for the following reason: The
proximity of the project would adversely affect
his home and the surrounding area; it is
architecturally incompatible with the surrounding
community; the schools are already overcrowded;
and the project is too dense for the area. He
requested that the Commission carefully consider
the appropriateness of this project. .
November 25, 1991
Page 17
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe stated that given the current
condition of the property, he cannot justify
changing the zone.
C/Schey indicated that he requires more time to
think about the project. He is not inclined to
approve a new 30 plus unit per acre project based
upon a Development Agreement.
C/Harmony stated that the area should be light
commercial. The project is very creative,
however, it is the wrong kind of use.
VC/MacBride requested that there be additional
study with respect to: What percentage of
commercial property available would be used if the
2.3 acres is used; what would be the difference in
impact if this were employed for use for offices,
or similar purposes which seems to be consistent
with the zoning and the growth in that area; and
what would be gained from the commercial taxation
as opposed to the high density occupation. He
indicated that this type of high density project
may be the cutting edge of innovative development
that is needed for the future. He would like more
time to think about it.
C/Harmony stated that he would concur to continue
the matter.
CD/DeStefano recommended that the Commission
continue the project for at least 30 days to allow
staff time to hire a consultant and bring the
information back to the Commission. He further
recommended that the Commission reconsider
discussing this vital issue on the December 23rd
meeting date because it is a difficult date for
the public to attend.
Chair/Grothe stated that Diamond Bar does not
desire to be a high density City like Ventura. He
would not continue the project, however, if the
Commission is so inclined, he would request the
following: Some true renderings of what this
project is going to look like in the community;
the architectural style of the project needs to
match the community; and information regarding how
high the project is as a residential unit,
measured at the average grade of the lot.
C/Schey stated that he is not favorably inclined
toward the density, as proposed. He would like
November 25, 1991 Page 18
additional time to think about the project,
specifically concerning if condominiums should be
on the site, what should there density be, and if
they should not be on the site, what is the
alternative use.
The applicant, Dr. Crowley, consented to continue
the matter to the January 13, 1992 meeting.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue
the matter to the January 13th meeting.
INFORMATIONAL CD/DeStefano distributed the final report on the
ITEMS: Economic Development Workshop.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair/Grothe requested that staff look into the
following items: The Grand Ave. apartment complex
Commission has too many signs on their lot; the gray block
wall constructed on the car wash project is ugly;
and the surface light fixture around the shopping
center around Coco's should have shields.
VC/MacBride inquired if the ecological study of
Tonner Canyon is now underway.
CD/DeStefano responded that a notice to proceed
will be given to the consultant this week, and
should begin next week.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn at 2:02 a.m.
Respectively,
/s/ JAMES DESTEFANO
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
Attest:
/s/ JACK GROTHE
Jack Grothe
Chairman
AGENDA REPORT
,& rmmm NO. f ,
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991 REPORT DATE: December 4, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Notice of Completion for Traffic Signal Installation at Grand Avenue and Rolling Knoll Drive
SUMMARY: The City Council, on October 1, 1991, awarded a contract to Hovey Electric, Inc. for traffic
signal installation at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Rolling Knoll Drive for a total amount of
$49,749. The installation was completed on October 23, 1991.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the work performed by Hovey
Electric, Inc. 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)
X Other Notice of Completion
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? N/A
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A
REVIEWED B ;i-,
r�
Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger Sid J. Mousavi
City Manager Assistant City Manager City Engineer/Public Works Director
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Notice of Completion for the Traffic Signal Installation
on Grand Avenue at Rolling Knoll Road
ISSUE STATEMENT
File and submit for recordation a Notice of Completion for the traffic signal
installation at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Rolling Knoll Road.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept the work performed by Hovey
Electric, Inc. and authorize the City Clerk to file the proper Notice of
Completion.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This process of filing Notice of Completion has no financial impact on the
City's 1991-92 budget.
BACKGROUND
The City Council, at their regular meeting of September 17, 1991, awarded the
contract for the installation of traffic signals at Grand Avenue and Rolling
Knoll Road to Hovey Electric, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder. The
construction contract amount was $49,749.
DISCUSSION
On October 23, 1991, Hovey Electric, Inc., completed the installation of the
signal and the signal was put in operation, and on December 2, 1991, the
contractor completed the punch list items. The work is in accordance with
the plans and specifications prepared and approved by the City.
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
CITY OF DIANIOINO rsAiz
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. (,n,7
%
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991 REPORT DATE: December 4, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/ Director of Public Works
TITLE:
Transfer of Private Drain No. 2021, in Tract 36741 located on East Colombard Lane, to Los Angeles County
Flood Control District.
SUMMARY:
Private Drain No. 2021 was constructed in 1989 as part of the improvements in Tract 36741. Subsequently,
the drain was inspected and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works based upon the
satisfactory completion of the improvements per approved plans.
The City Engineer has reviewed the improvements and is in agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution requesting the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works Flood Control District to accept the transfer and conveyance of Private Drain No. 2021 for future
operation, maintenance, repair and improvement.
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:
RE ED BY:
Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger Sid J. Mousavi
City Manager Assistant City Manager City Engineer/Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Transfer of Private Drain No. 2021, located on East Colombard
Lane, to Los Angeles County Flood Control District.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
This report requests the City Council's authorization to request the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to accept, on behalf of the Los
Angeles County Flood Control District, a transfer and conveyance of storm
drain improvements constructed in the City of Diamond Bar.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution requesting the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works Flood Control District to accept
the transfer and conveyance of Private Drain No. 2021 for future operations,
maintenance, repair and improvement.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The process of transferring this drain has no financial impact on the City's
1991-92 Fiscal Year budget.
BACKGROUND:
Private Drain No. 2021 was constructed in 1989 as part of the improvements in
Tract 36741. Subsequently, the drain was inspected and approved by the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works based upon the satisfactory
completion of the improvements per approved plans.
DISCUSSION:
The private drain construction on East Colombard Lane, in Tract 36741, was
completed in 1989. The work is in accordance with the plans and
specifications approved by the County. Staff has completed the transfer
documents. A copy of these documents along with resolution and a map of the
project area is attached for your review.
PREPARED BY:
Sid J. Mousavi
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA,
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID
DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
KNOWN AS PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 2021 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR FUTURE
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE
TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF.
WHEREAS, there have been dedicated to, or the City has otherwise acquired, the storm
drain improvements and drainage system known as PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 2021, described in
Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized and empowered to transfer and convey to the Los
Angeles County Flood Control District any storm drain improvements and drainage systems for
future operations, maintenance, repair and improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District entered into an
agreement dated June 20, 1989, and recorded March 20, 1990, as Document Number 90-545570,
of the Official Records in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Los Angeles,
whereby the City made certain warranties about its future transfers and conveyances of Flood
Control facilities to the District; and
WHEREAS, the best public interest will be served by transfer and conveyance of the storm
drain improvements and drainage system described in Exhibit A attached hereto from the City
to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for future operation, maintenance, repair and
improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City does hereby request the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District to accept the transfer and conveyance of the storm drain
improvements and drainage system described in said Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, subject to the acceptance thereof of the Board of
Supervisors of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the City Engineer is directed and
ordered to prepare all necessary instruments and documents, including deed, to effectuate said
transfer and conveyance, and that the Mayor is authorized and instructed to execute said deed
and other instruments and documents. District shall have no obligation or responsibility to
maintain said storm drain, improvements, and drainage until all rights of way for said drain now
vested in the City and all other necessary rights of way therefore have been conveyed to and
accepted by District.
Reference is hereby made to District Drawings No. 313-F104.1-104.3, the plans and profile
of said storm drain improvements and drainage system on file in the office of the City Engineer
and on file of the Chief Engineer of said District for further data as to the exact location, extent,
and description of said storm drain improvements and drainage system.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the transfer and conveyance hereby requested are
subject to each of the warranties described in the Agreement between the City and the District
dated June 20, 1989, and recorded March 20, 1990, as Document Number 90-545570, of the
Official Records in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Los Angeles. Such
warranties by the City are incorporated here by this reference.
-2-2
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
day of '1991.
MAYOR
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar held on
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
db-cc3:d2021.res
day of , 1991, by the following
-2-3
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
EXHIBIT "A"
Private Drain 2021
A reinforced concrete pipe storm drain system and appurtenant structures for Tract No. 36741
filed in Book 1077, pages 90 to 93, inclusive, of Maps, Records of the County of Los Angeles,
generally described as follows:
Line "A":
Commencing from an existing storm drain per P.D. 1668, Station 0+35.00, located in Montefino
Avenue, northwest of Diamond Bar Boulevard; thence southwesterly in Montefino Avenue to an
easement to Los Angeles County Flood Control District for storm drain and appurtenances and
storm drain ingress and egress purposes; thence southwesterly in said easement to Spruce Tree
Drive; thence southerly in Spruce Tree Drive to a catch basin, Station 7+63.62, a distance of 729
feet, more or less.
Laterals "A", "B" and "C":
Connector pipes from Line "A" to catch basins.
All as shown on District Drawing Nos. 313-F104.1 through 313-F104.3.
-2-4
EX{�� sn! KGQ
' 10
52
ILI
n J
ti
`/Et,jUE
roc1�T. 271, Pcp
� O 1
TO: Carl Blum
Land Development Division
FROM: R. E. Etcheverry
Construction Division
ATTENTION: Rod Kubomoto
NOTICE OF COMPLETION - PRIVATE DRAIN
TR/mak. NUMBER PROJECT
JOB NUMBER ,� (J//�� ?- LOCATION 4f677'i�'i�c�
Final Inspection of the above -captioned Private Drain has been made. The work
has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications, and is
ready for formal acceptance.
Inspection Date 2-Z¢-;99 By ��. � Sur+/, Underground Inspection Section
Approval Date V.2 ;,I& �_ B Head Construction Inspector
REMARKS
This Job Number should be closed.
Recommend this Job be accepted for public use.
upervisor, Contract onstruction
Approved By AJ
ea ivision inspection
cc: Hdgtrs/Permit Office/Road Element
Head Construction Inspector
File
CR:sI/COMP-PD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
On this
year
before me
day of
in the
(here insert the name and quality of the officer)
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument as
of
(here insert title of the officer)
(name of the public corporation, agency, or political subdivision)
and acknowledged to me that the
(public corporation, agency, or political subdivision)
executed it.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Signature of Officer)
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the within deed or grant is
hereby accepted under the authority conferred by Ordinance No. 85-0108, duly and regularly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles on the 18th day of June,
1985, and the Grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
DATED:
BY:
ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR
MAPPING & PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991 REPORT DATE: December 4, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Participation of the City of Diamond Bar in the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency
Paratransit Network with the County of Los Angeles to meet the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar desires to participate in the development of a countywide, coordinated
paratransit plan initiated by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. This
paratransit plan will include services to those who are severely disabled and therefore unable to
access fixed route transportation vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 91 -XX which
pertains to the development and participation of Paratransit Plan.
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 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? N/A
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A
REVIED
r
Obert L. V i
City Manager
y/n/f. JILf - 4.)ltu /nj-
�� �F J .
��_
ort Terrence L. Belanger Sid J. Mousavi
Assistant City Manager City Engineer/Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL. REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 91 -XX entitled RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY PARATRANSIT NETWORK.
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City of Diamond Bar desires to participate in the development of a
countywide, coordinated Paratransit Network plan initiated funded and
coordinated by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution which
allows the City of Diamond Bar to participate in the Network as required by
the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This matter will have no impact on the City's 1991-92 fiscal budget.
BACKGROUND
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights act for the
disabled and that contains broad provisions which require changes in the
areas of transportation, employment, public accommodations, and
telecommunications to those persons with disabilities who cannot board, ride,
or disembark an accessible fixed route bus or rail system.
Agencies that provide the wide spectrum of transit services must be in full
compliance with the ADA requirements by January 26, 1992. The draft
regulations also require that transit providers need to purchase or lease
vehicles that are accessible to the disabled by accommodating all types of
wheelchairs, and fixed route and dial -a -ride operators must ensure the
availability of paratransit services to the disabled wherever fixed route
transit service is provided. All providers must offer to the disabled
services that are equivalent and comparable to that provided to able bodied
persons.
Page Two
Resolution - ADA
December 17, 1991
The ADA requirements are very difficult for most cities to meet on their own,
however, failure to meet the ADA transportation requirements may result in
cancellation of Federal and State funds (CDBG, FAU, etc.).
The City Council on November 14, 1991 approved the City of Diamond Bar's
participation in the LACTC funded demonstration project in East San Gabriel
Valley. Pomona Valley Transportation Authority is acting as the lead agency
and is responsible for operation and management of this demonstration
project. The East San Gabriel Valley Paratransit Network demonstration
project is considered to be the first step in the Los Angeles County towards
developing a county wide program. The lessons learned from this
demonstration project will be utilized to implement a countywide Paratransit
Network System.
DISCUSSION
In order to meet the required paratransit service and plan obligations of the
thirty-seven fixed route transit systems in Los Angeles County, LACTC has
initiated the development of a countywide Paratransit Network. The proposed
Paratransit Plan will provide the mandated complementary paratransit service
by continuing the operations of existing local paratransit operators and
purchasing additional services from public or private paratransit operators
that wish to participate in the Plan. At its meeting on June 26, 1991, the
Commission earmarked funding to fund additional services required under the
ADA. The participation in LACTC's plan allows Diamond Bar's obligation to
prepare and submit a plan to the Department of Transportation (DOT) to be
assumed by LACTC. Further, as such service is implemented, disabled
residents of Diamond Bar will gain access to cross -jurisdictional
transportation at no cost to the City. To participate in the County's
coordinated Paratransit Plan, the City of Diamond Bar must pass a resolution
by January 15, 1992, certifying its intention to participate in the
coordinated plan. If the City of Diamond Bar chooses not to adopt the
attached resolution, it is required to prepare and submit a complete
paratransit plan to DOT by January 26, 1992.
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY COORDINATED PARATRANSIT NETWORK
WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter
referred to as ADA) was enacted on July 26, 1990 (Public Law 101-
336) ; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 1991 the United States
Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "DOT")
issued a final rule implementing the transportation -related
provisions of the ADA (49 CFR Parts 27, 37 and 38, Transportation
for Individuals With Disabilities); and
WHEREAS, Subpart F, Sections 37.121 and 37.135 of 49 CFR
37 requires that each fixed route transit operator provide
complementary paratransit service to disabled individuals, prepare
a plan for implementation of such service and begin service
implementation by January 26, 1992; and
WHEREAS, Subpart F, Sections 37.141 of 49 CFR 37 allows
the preparation and submittal of a single coordinated paratransit
plan among the operators of fixed route transit service with
overlapping and contiguous service areas; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "LACTC"), which is mandated by state
statutes to coordinate paratransit services in Los Angeles County,
has determined that the development of a countywide coordinated
paratransit network (hereinafter known as the "Network") is the
most appropriate and effective means of meeting the ADA obligations
of the Los Angeles County fixed route transit operators; and
WHEREAS, the LACTC has agreed to prepare the
comprehensive DOT -required annual coordinated paratransit plan
(hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") for all participating Los
Angeles County fixed route transit providers who pass resolutions
supporting the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the LACTC has agreed to prepare and submit an
interim plan including such support resolutions to DOT by January
26, 1992 and prepare and submit the complete countywide coordinated
paratransit plan to DOT by July 26, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the LACTC has agreed to coordinate the
implementation of complementary paratransit services through the
development of a countywide paratransit network and begin
implementation of a coordinated paratransit network to provide the
mandated transportation services; and
WHEREAS, the LACTC will provide funding for the costs
expended by the City for elderly and disable transit services; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to meet its ADA -mandated
paratransit obligations through participation in the coordinated
paratransit plan and service being developed by the LACTC.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City is committed to
provide ADA paratransit services and agrees to participate in the
development of the Los Angeles County coordinated paratransit plan
to provide such service in conformance with the requirements of 49
CFR Part 37 Subpart F. The City will make the following efforts
toward participation in the Plan:
1. Provide relevant fiscal and operating data (as
described in Attachment A) about its current fixed
route and paratransit services to the LACTC in a
timely manner for inclusion in the required annual
ADA paratransit plan; and
2. Participate in the development of the Los Angeles
County consolidated ADA paratransit plan due to DOT
on July 26, 1992; and
3. Present such plan for City Council adoption prior
to June 15, 1992; and
4. Either adopt the consolidated paratransit plan or
prepare and submit an individual city paratransit
plan prior to July 26„ 1992.
5. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 37.141, the City
will maintain current levels of paratransit service
until the coordinated plan goes into effect.
Attachment A
COORDINATED PARATRANSIT PLAN
DATA REQUIREMENTS
FIXED ROUTE:
Days and hours of service by
route (timetables)
Fares, including passes and
discounts
Total number of buses
Anticipated bus replacements
and acquisitions
Number and distribution of
accessible buses
Dimensions of lift platforms
by bus model
Daily system ridership
Estimated daily disabled
ridership
Number of missed runs
Number of pass -ups
Total operations budget
Number and percent of
accessible routes
PARATRANSIT:
Days and hours of service
Fares, including passes and
discounts
Total number of buses
Anticipated bus replacements
and acquisitions
Number of accessible buses
Dimensions of lift platforms
by bus model
Daily system ridership
Daily estimated disabled
ridership
Number of missed runs
Number of pass -ups
Total operations budget
Trip purpose restrictions
a
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991 REPORT DATE: December 4, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Provide crossing guard services at the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Colima Road.
SUMMARY: On November 14, 1991, the Traffic and Transportation Commission was presented with an
investigation and report of a warrant study in the vicinity of Walnut Elementary School which indicated the
need for a crossing guard at Lemon Avenue and Colima Road.
RECOMMENDATION: The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends that crossing guard services
be provided at the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Colima Road.
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 Warrant Analysis
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? N/A
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A
Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager Assistant City Manager
Sid J. Mousavi
City Engineer/Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Crossing Guard Services at the intersection of Lemon
Avenue and Colima Road
ISSUE STATEMENT
To provide crossing guard services at the intersection of Lemon
Avenue and Colima Road.
RECOMMENDATION
The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends that the City
Council approve crossing guard services at Lemon Avenue and Colima
Road.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
After the City's incorporation, crossing guard services were
provided by the County of Los Angeles. When the City of Diamond
Bar was developing the Fiscal Year 1991-92 Budget, the cost for
crossing guard services which was provided by the County in an
amount of $90,000 was utilized as a reference in the budget
development process. However, the City obtained competitive bids
and entered into a private contract which has resulted in
approximately $15,000 savings. The cost for a crossing guard at
Lemon Avenue and Colima Road for the remaining fiscal year (6
months), is estimated to be $4,000. This amount, therefore, will
not impact the 1992-92 approved budget for crossing guard services.
BACKGROUND
The Department of Public Works received a request from Walnut
Elementary School to provide crossing guard services at said
intersection. On September 12, 1991, the Traffic and
Transportation Commission directed staff to conduct a warrant study
to determine if this intersection is in need of crossing guard
services.
DISCUSSION
On November 14, 1991, the Traffic and Transportation Commission was
presented with the results of the warrant study conducted for
crossing guard services at Lemon Avenue and Colima Road. The
warrant study at said intersection was observed on Tuesday, October
1, 1991, between 2:15 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. and on Wednesday, October
3, 1991, between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. The results, which are
attached, indicated that crossing guard services is warranted due
to the 90 feet long crosswalk on Colima Road which includes no
medians.
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
L ��� CARL WARREN & CO
Insurance Adjusters
Claims Administrators
PO Box 25180
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5180
(714) 9723146
1800) 5726900
TO: City of Diamond Bar
Attention: Lynda Burgess
Date: Dec. 6, 1991
Re: Claim: Schoenberger vs Diamond Bar
Claimant: Shelly Schoenberger
D/Event: 9-05-91
Rec'd Y/Office: 11-27-91
Our File: S 68448 AB
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.
[� 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.
1� 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.
(3 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,
CARL ARREN & COMPANY
cc: S.C.J.P.I.A.
( bus
'1AIM FOR DAMAGES
TO PERSON OR PROPERTY
PISTRUCTIONS
1. Claims for death, Injury to person or to personal property must be filed not
later than 6 rhos. after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after the
occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
3. Read entire claim before filing.
4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locate place of accident.
5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottom.
6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. SIGN EACH SHEET.
7. Claim must be filed with City Clerk. (Gov. Code Sec. 915a)
To: The City of Diamond Bar
Name of Claimant
6K?'(,!:� A.
Home Address of CI imant
o ic,G-t v v• I � I U Y l
Business Address of Claimant
o :�). L (-t Ave
Give address to which you desire
2.3(,/{0 E . Manu►yt
How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur?
sat 0A+uL►mpak ".
City and State
City and
RESERVE FOS. F=;; ; S7A',IP
or communications to be sent regarding this claim:
CA
full particulars.
Age of Claimant (if natural person)
Home Telephones Number
(-Tip) 661-2856
Business Telephone Number
rer81 564- 4QoD X207
W -hen did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars, date, time of day:
-jhvi�d.�c.�,�,�ew�.lo� 5, l�tQ I �r,�w�c;�, �S:►5 cuw�
Where did DAMAGE or PIJURY occur? Describe fully, and locate on diagram on reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, give
street names and addresses and measurements from landmarks:
dh '�aw W -�k.v'$ vd u st- be�,(e �4 v
What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injur or
damage, if known:
-TheUn
p u 8 "The '�>`torwkicls re&A4 ' 8ue wa''� ') wu S hem r� take, 0 a,Ad UT"
� y
What DAM—kGE or INJURIES db you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed:
—Fyt4 ted fma +'�i , Pkk (4+4f , (e�(-ccrrnttr o� 4woct , �e-�+ +f �k arc d
L ,fit ctoaY� W U/F, � akd cQ liMA a P,d �a G,*ck dQ k`- * S •
� P
What AMOUNT do you claim on account of each item of injury or damage as of date of presentation of this claim, giving basis of
computation:
� �{ � � . � � i�t5� s � ���u�,t-; o-y� , s -{� ct�-i�.�u.a e5�t�u�•�i� .
Give ESTIMATED AMOUNT as far as known you claim on account of each item of prospective injury or damage, giving basis of
computation:
(' q q q-�51 1- &4t 5 4 c &�i tn -t:5 `fit d -t GW e 4u44t
SEE PAGE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE
Insurance payments received, if any, an,. .:aures of insurance Company:
too n2
Expenditures made on account of accident or injury: (Date — Meru) (Anioun,
rib n 2 A. S c-� -bdt.�' s 40L�e . (Na, iu r 5 p o n5e 4t -Kt 41( e<
Name and address of Witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals:
411Z
1Z
READ CAREFULLY
For all accident claims place on following diagram names of streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of
accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances to street corners.
If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself
or your vehicle .then you first saw City vehicle; location of City vehicle at time of accident by "A-1" and location of yourself cr your
vehicle at the time of the accident by "B-1" and the point of impact by "X."
NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant.
FOR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS
`' I�A�17cxa-p d 'S Gnarls Sr.
1711OWA" P -Dy blvd • --=—;
W '") aemyl
S N Oil
G
FOR OTHER ACCIDENTS
// SIDEWALK
P//
K WAY
SIDEWALK
CURB
Signature of Claimant or person filing on his behalf giving Typed Name: Date
elationship to Claimant:
a - C Shelly A ���obevgev- ri%Z7�1
=,IS 1,11ST BE FILED WITH CITY CLERK (GOV. CODE SEC. 915a) . t
0
Attachment to Claim for Damages form
filed with the city clerk
on Wednesday, November 27, 1991
I was in the left lane, going North on Diamond Bar Blvd.
My speed was approximately 40 miles per hour as I was driving through
the intersection located at Diamond Bar Blvd. and the Pomona Fwy (60)
on-ramp.
As I drove through the intersection there was a car in front of me,
one to the side of me, and one behind me. Once the sign became visible,
there was no way to stop, or to avoid hitting it without causing an
accident with one of the surrounding cars.
I immediately called 911 and reported the damaged sign. I also drove
back by the intersection and took some photographs of the damaged sign,
as well as my car (photos attached).
The street sign was an extremely dangerous hazard. It apparentley
had previously been damaged and knocked down and was pertruding into
the left lane of the intersection about 4 to 5 feet.
/`owoss
note: o9/i'/9i
o~oCAK`vx4'.. \Y lrF U'o
WHECK !
/z/r s' okAMnU/�K oV�'
N/)mRUv.fo, Cn 91`/16-
(8t8) , 35e -I155
s�*DsNa�o�s*
ssmaC^r: Gon/
:///r/�c owv�R: a**�Lv ScxoEwrEn�sR
onY p*Ow�:
oornEsa: . mONROVIA, C
,pOn: 90 mAxE: BMW
nODEL:
s|YLE: */up CULon:
LICENSE. 2Sw11,64�'
v/w: wan�/uao�*LeE27569 pRuo
u07s: Io/89
MILEAGE:
0
rwsUnnwcF co'�
pHONE, - -
m./uS[B�:
cL 111 wo':
-------- -------------------------
PF -J 11-01. 11-ni[
PARTS
I. -PR FIA INr
I /nErAzP DESCR[PrION OF nAMAGr,
QlY PRICE
*HS HRs
M7SC,
� +qe��oce F�NuEn �T'
1 e96.01
3'5 J.o
� ^Rpp/are PARK cnmP ASSY IT'
1 28.09
Incz V.o
� ~peo�i`` COI -UR mAToH
i 0.00
I.5 n'o
^ °Reoai, COLUn oAwD & B(JrF
1 0.00
1.5 r).v T
/.�'�''
5 vHepair CoveR VEHICLE [DmP�Er�
� 12-5o
0.5 o.o
6 °Reua�r CL -GAR LOAr
1 u'no
0.0
r *Repai, aLENn nDJACENT c/)HsLS
` 0.n0
o.v �.o
8 * H0zm8]0US WASTE REMOVnL
& MGMT 1 8.o0
0.0 n.o
s ° ALL MEC*.& HIDosw DAMnos
------------- ________-------
oPEw 1
Subtotl
344. 60
--- --- ______
7.o
parts (Subject to
Invoice
44.6o
Labor 7 o hrs $
^
a9 on/�r
�ga «"
s�op Supp^ies
7^, &9
Paint 5.2 hrs $
28.00/hr
145 6')
Paint Suoplies
u e sc
S bl t/Mi
'
/^ �n
�.
Subto�al
Tax on $ 4�8 o9
^
p
B. 2500�
^
7gg'a9
3r r9
^
�
8z7.^8
TPX lP0?5-2582,9 |
Fpx 00O-358-5708
PLL wE[x & HIDDEN DAMAGE 0oEw
H7
'
�c/ Con,r`oht 1983. Sheldon Research Group
'
Estimate based on MITCHELL COLLISION ESTIMATING GUIDE. Asterisk(*) items denotes espuator's judgement, Database Date
04/91
Pane: t
P/o'x,GF np|//nI
/'`'n, ^-�/||'-�1
x.)R* AM\4�6('�
oo40 Jc0,v 11K >r 'lroA-0
BU�,|H/
|.i7 ''.
,Ko}P(}''|G-
ScnUB"ox,`FR
hot m/atno, eonv
wv1+p: SHB-|-/ yCHUEwo+nGFH
oov PHDNE:
(a.1a/
-
91o1,6
OR: 90
|fA|<E:
HIM
MODEL:
+/nR
CuLon:
` /uwPA�x
/4L",69
-g
/o�xwowce rU'�
PHOmE:
-
/|'ozM NO.
- -----'
nsr�0/r`
------------------------
--------------------------------------
PAFRT s
LBP PPzmT
REpAzn
DseCRn`Tn`n OF DnmAm-�
oT
nRICE
HnS
HRS Hr1-4
| *Ip,l ir
DUUR Lr' FHON T
5
a *Pep.4 ir
DOOR Lr. REAR
1
0.00
2.n
2.4
.� *nenaj.r
R8z PARTS TO
0.00
1.5
* 'nerair
CULUR MArCH
1
0.0v
1.5
0.n
r/ "neoai`'
cuvs* vsnzcNs cowMsTE
|
12.50
o.5
0'v
u "prrai``
CLEnR LUAT
1
o.00
CO|OR SAND � BUFr
'
o Repo i).
BL�wD
/."
'^ °
*nzoRoouy Woalp nemovo| x
memT z
8.on
nLL HlDDB^ DuMA6E
OrEm /
o.n0
o.o
0.0
--------
---
--------'------- '-----'—
S"b/s
'----... ..... ..... ... ...
----------------'
(lritr�: G=9/1.1./'3.I
T-tf1F?kk GaM14��,r-1�.
G •' B �L_. h B'�• B B �' 9. _:h "�•„s� L. d 'b IF( r,'I--.it B. !� `•rr'' - i- F�: = 8:.�; 8....�
Ul.sf? HI)`, -;1 1'•IL s •' > (4:i (1 i�li'f=.C:;I'; '
TAX IDM 95-2582951
FAX M 818-358-5708
ALL MECH. 8 HIDDEN DAMAGE OPEN,
(c) Cooyright 1988. Sheldon Research Group
E (-[A0EcNklER(3ER
L), R. 49c_I
E: if, iniit:._r : GF11?Y
1='ar^t> (Subject tc-
Trivc-ice)
i._ab_r F)..:; Firs
�.1F1. !p)
I -'a i rpt 7.4 F1r-,s $
2,8. Crit/tir,
c: Cr 7.
F''[a.irlt 51-1ppi ►eG
133. t:'_O
t)1et/h1iSc
Tax c -r -i :Bi 184. 14
E1. 2`':i00%
15. 1.19
Estimate based on MITCHELL COLLISION ESTIMATING GUIDE. Asterisk(;*) items denotes estimator's judgement. Database Date 04/91
f'r:arte�: '
':LAIM FOR DAMAGES
TO PERSON OR PROPERTY
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Claims for death, Injury to person or to personal property must be filed not
later than 6 mos. after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after the
occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
3. Read entire claim before filing.
4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locate place of accident.
5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottom.
6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. SIGN EACH, SHEET.
7. Claim must be filed with City Clerk. (Gov. Code Sec. 915a)
To: The City of Diamond Bar
Name of Claimant
AL RUMPILLA
�I RESER , FOR w - A `.1_a
Home Address of Claimant City and State
23958 GOLDEN SPRINGS DR. DIAMOND BAR CA.91765
Business Address of Claimant City and State
RETIREE
Give address to whic sire notees or communications to be sent regarding this claim:
23958 GOLDEN SPRINGS DR. DIAMOND BAR CA. 91765
Age of Claimant Cif natural person)
Home Telephone Number
714-861-8898
Business Telephone Number
How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars.
DEROGATORY REMARKS MADE IN A PUBLIC FORUM WHICH IMPUGNED MY INTEGRITY
AND CREDIBILITY
When did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars, date, time of day:
AT THE DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEETING OF NOV. 5TH 1991
AT APPROXIMATELY 7:00 PM IN THE A.Q.M.D. BUILDING.
Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and locate on diagram on reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, give
street names and addresses and measurements from landmarks:
SAME AS ABOVE DURING COUNCIL COMMENTS BY MAYOR JOHN FORBING
'What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injury or
damage, if known:
DURING COUNCIL COMMENT MADE BY MAYOR JOHN FORBING
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
What DA&L4GE or INJURIES do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed:
MR. FORBING ASSOCIATED ME AS A PERSON WHO HAD MADE SCURRILOUS
P(ILL,T!ICF►rAP1"'iIkCg.§()011t)COONCIL CANDIDATES UP FOR ELECTION, THUS
DAMAGING MY REPUTATION AND CREDIBILITY.
What AMOUNT do you claim on account of each item of injury or damage as of date of presentation of this claim, giving basis of
computation:
$50,000.00
Give ESTIMATED AMOUNT as far as known you claim on account of each item of prospective injury or damage, giving basis of
computation:
$50,000.00
-E PAGE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
REPORT FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager DATE: December 12, 1991
TITLE: Consent to Grant Security Interest in CATV Franchise
SUMMARY: Jones Intercable has requested the City's consent to grant a security interest in the cable
television franchise. This request, which is common among cable companies, will enable Jones
Intercable to enter into financial arrangements with various lending institutions.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute a letter of
consent granting security interest in the cable franchise to Jones Intercable for the purposes of
entering into financial arrangements with its lending institutions.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:_ 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 Letter of Consent
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?
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 BY:
�'� �l� l
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager`
r
Tro . Butzla
Ass t to the nager
December 18, 1991
Ms. Elizabeth Steele
Vice President
Jones Intercable, Inc.
9697 East Mineral Avenue
Englewood, Colorado 80112
Dear Ms. Steele:
The City of Diamond Bar has received and reviewed your request
for its consent to grant a security interest in the CATV
franchise (the "Franchise"), granted under Los Angeles County
Ordinance No. 12,137, as amended. Pursuant to Section 16.60.170
of the Los Angeles County Code, consent is hereby given to your
request.
The City of Diamond Bar, without waiving any of its rights as
franchisor, will require no further action from Jones Intercable
with respect to the application process.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
E
NAME• JAY C. KIM
TITLE• MAYOR
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.(,,
TO: Mayor and City Council REPORT DATE: December 13, 1991
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
TITLE: Redesignation of Local Enforcement Agency - Department of Health Services
SUNE IAI[2Y: In 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution 90-8 designating the Los Angeles County
Department of Health Services as the City's Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) with respect to the enforcement,
inspection, and permitting of solid waste facilities within its jurisdiction. However, due to recent changes in
State law, the City must again designate a LEA within 90 days from the date that the new LEA certification
regulation becomes law.
RECONMIENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute a Letter of
Affirmation redesignating the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services as the City's Local
Enforcement Agency (LEA) with respect to the enforcement, inspection, and permitting of solid waste facilities
in the City.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:_ Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other Letter of Affirmation
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?
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:
REVIEWED BY:
JP,obert L. Van Nort
City Manager
errence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager
Tro . Butzla�� .4
Assis nt to tnFiC1anager41
RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
AS THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS the County of Los Angeles and its incorporated
cities are required by Section 66796 of the Government Code to
designate an enforcement agency to carry out the provisions of
the Z'berg-Kapiloff Solid Waste Control Act of 1976; and,
WHEREAS the County and each city within the County of Los
Angeles has designated or will designate its own enforcement
agency; and,
WHEREAS, the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
SERVICES possesses the required capabilities in environmental
health and solid waste management to implement the Z'berg-
Kapiloff Solid Waste Control Act of 1976 and the regulations and
ordinances that have been and will be adopted pursuant thereto:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar that it hereby designates the LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES as the enforcement agency
for the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to subsection (a) (3) of
Section 66796 of the Government Code.
I&RION
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 16th day of Vary ,
Mayor Pro Tem
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of January
1990, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Forbing, Miller and
Mayor Pro Tem Horcher
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Werner and Mayor Papen
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the -
City of Diamond Bar
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.1
NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.2
NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991 REPORT DATE: December 12, 1991
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
TITLE: Consideration of mid -year budget adjustment for fiscal year 1991-92.
SUMMARY: Appropriations modifications to reflect Council's approval since the adoption of the budget for
fiscal year 1991-92.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve mid -year budget adjustment for fiscal year 1991-92 as presented.
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 Mid—year Budget Adjustment
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
P��
ib*ertL. Van Nort rence L. Belanger
City Manager Assistant City Manager
(Department H
Yes
No
_
N/A
_
majority
N/A _
Yes
_ No
Yes
No
N/A
x
Yes
, No
All departments
(Department H
CITY COUNCEL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR FY 1991-92.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City Council adopted Resolution 91-40 establishing the 1991-92 Fiscal
Budget. Recognizing that the adopted budget is a "living document," it is
necessary to monitor and evaluate its implementation during the course of the
year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Council approve the proposed mid -year/ budget
adjustment.
It is recommended that the Council adopt the Mid -Year Budget adjustments as
presented. The adjustments provide for reductions in several departments.
Specific reductions include bi-weekly street sweeping, elimination of
anniversary activities, reduction in education/training and personnel
restructure (Sheriff's).
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FY91-92
MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Original Proposed Adjusted
Budget Budget Adj. Budget
General Fund:
Revenues
Property Taxes
1,300,000
1,300,000
Other Txs & Subventions
5,777,200
(240,000)
5,537,200
Licenses & Permits
286,450
286,450
Fines & Forfeitures
47,500
47,500
Use of Money & Property
333,545
333,545
Current Service Chgs
320,000
(30,000)
290,000
Transfer -in Other Funds
920,000
(112,450)
807,550
Total Gen Fd Revenues
8,984,695
(382,450)
8,602,245
Appropriations
City Council
114,950
114,950
City Attorney
185,000
(20,000)
165,000
City Manager
299,300
299,300
City Clerk
183,250
183,250
Finance
171,750
(1,000)
170,750
General Government
210,200
118,750
328,950
Community Promotion
67,000
(6,500)
60,500
Community Development
772,150
62,056
834,206
Parks
339,775
(28,633)
311,142
Recreation
314,500
55,050
369,550
Public Safety
4,046,582
(100,000)
3,946,582
Public Wks/Engineering
1,360,250
(108,850)
1,251,400
Insurance
210,000
210,000
Transfer -out Other Fds
290,000
2,500
292,500
Total Gen Fd Approp
8,564,707
(26,627)
8,538,080
Net Change in Fd Bal 419,988 (355,823) 64,165
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FY 91-92
MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REVENUES
Original Proposed Adjusted
Account # Budget Budget Adj. Budget
General Fund:
Other Taxes
Sales Tax 001-3101
2,200,000 (100,000) 2,100,000
Mtr Vehicle in -Lieu 001-3135
2,700,000 (100,000) 2,600,000
Cigarette Tax 001-3140
80,500 (40,000) 40,500
Net Change -Other Taxes
(240,000)
Engr-Plan Ck Fees 001-3461 100,000 (20,000) 80,000
Engr-Permit Fees 001-3462 40,000 (10,000) 30,000
Net Change -Licenses, Permits & Svc Chg (30,000)
Transfers In
Interfund Transfers 001-3900 920,000 (920,000) 0
Transfer -in Tr Sfty 001-3915-9110 114,000 114,000
Transfer -in Gas Tx 001-3915-9111 693,550 693,550
Net Change -Transfers (112,450)
Net Change to Gen. Fd. Revenue Estimate (382,450)
GYPPmn1TI IRF.(;
Original Proposed Adjusted
Description Account # Budget Budget Adj. Budget
General Fund:
City Attorney
Self Ins. Defense 001-4020-4023 45,000 (20,000) 25,000
Net Change -City Attorney (20,000)
City Clerk
Office Supplies
Dept. Supplies
Sm Tools & Equipment
Advertising
Equipment Maint
Publications
Elections
Prof Svcs
Net Change -City Clerk
Finance
Office Supplies
Small Tools & Equip
Membership Dues
Publications
Meetings
Travel-Conf & Mtgs
Education & Training
Net Change -Finance
General Govt.
Telephone
Office Furniture
Computer Equipment
Bldg Improvements
Interest Exp
Net Change -Gen. Govt.
001-4040-1100
50
1,400
1,450
001-4040-1200
500
(500)
0
001-4040-1300
50
(50)
0
001-4040-2115
2,200
2,500
4,700
001-4040-2200
50
116
166
001-4040-2320
100
25
125
001-4040-2390
20,000
7,859
27,859
001-4040-4000
23,000
(11,350)
11,650
(1,000)
4,000
0
001-4210-2325
001-4050-1100
0
500
500
001-4050-1300
500
(500)
0
001-4050-2315
300
150
450
001-4050-2320
500
(50)
450
001-4050-2325
250
(50)
200
001-4050-2330
1,800
(300)
1,500
001-4050-2340
1,000
(750)
250
Net Change -Planning
(1,000)
62,056
001-4090-2125
12,000
12,000
24,000
001-4090-6220
3,000
11,000
14,000
001-4090-6230
5,000
20,000
25,000
001-4090-6310
5,000
(5,000)
0
001-4090-7100
80,750
80,750
118,750
Community Promotion
Operating Supplies
001-4095-1200
5,000
(2,500)
2,500
Anniversary
001-4095-2353
4,000
(4,000)
0
Net Change -Community Promtn
(6,500)
Planning
Salaries - Part Time
001-4210-0030
20,000
(12,444)
7,556
Advertising
001-4210-2115
5,000
(1,000)
4,000
Meetings
001-4210-2325
1,500
(500)
1,000
Travel-Conf & Mtgs
001-4210-2330
4,000
(1,000)
3,000
Professional Svc
001-4210-4000
25,000
25,000
Comm Comp-SEATAC
001-4210-4110
5,000
(3,000)
2,000
Prof Svc -Regional
001-4210-4210
80,000
(20,000)
60,000
Prof Svc-EIR
001-4210-4240
75,000
75,000
Net Change -Planning
62,056
FXPFNnITI JPFS
Original Proposed Adjusted
Description Account # Budget Budget Adj. Budget
Parks -General
Office Supplies
001-4310-1100
16,950
(12,150)
4,800
Operating Supplies
001-4310-1200
3,000
(1,800)
1,200
Printing
001-4310-2110
500
(400)
100
Maint/Grounds & Bldg
001-4310-2210
10,000
(10,000)
0
Fuel
001-4310-2310
2,400
200
2,600
Meetings
001-4310-2325
1,800
(1,800)
0
Professional Svcs
001-4310-4000
2,400
4,600
7,000
Commissioner Comp
001-4310-4100
4,800
(4,800)
0
Contr Svcs -Com Svcs
001-4310-5300
2,500
(2,500)
0
Paul Grow Park
Utilities
001-4311-2126
14,200
(2,200)
12,000
Contr Svcs -Com Svcs
001-4311-5300
12,500
(560)
11,940
Heritage Park
Telephone
001-4313-2125
425
285
710
Maint/Grounds & Bldg
001-4313-2210
2,500
1,000
3,500
Contr Svcs -Com Svcs
001-4313-5300
21,000
(13,044)
7,956
Maplehill Park
Maint/Grounds & Bldg
001-4316-2210
1,500
2,500
4,000
Contr Svcs -Com Svcs
001-4316-5300
23,500
(13,552)
9,948
Peterson Park
Maint/Grounds & Bldg
001-4319-2210
1,500
2,500
4,000
Contr Svcs -Com Svcs
001-4319-5300
13,800
1,128
14,928
Reagan Park
Utilities
001-4322-2126
9,700
(700)
9,000
Contr Svcs -Com Svcs
001-4322-5300
5,500
6,440
11,940
Starshine Park
Utilities
001-4325-2126
4,300
(300)
4,000
Maint/Grounds & Bldg
001-4325-2210
1,000
(500)
500
Contr Svcs -Com Svcs
001-4325-5300
2,800
2,180
4,980
Summitridge Park
Maint/Grounds & Bldg
001-4328-2210
2,500
1,000
3,500
Contr Svcs -Com Svcs
001-4328-5300
8,400
9,504
17,904
Sycamore Park
Maint/Grounds & Bldg
001-4331-2210
2,500
3,500
6,000
Professional Svcs
001-4331-4000
2,000
2,000
Contr Svcs -Com Svcs
001-4331-5300
29,500
(11,164)
18,336
Contr Svcs-Weed/Pest
001-4331-5519
10,000
10,000
Net Change to Parks
(28,633)
Recreation
Operating Supplies
001-4350-1200
13,950
13,950
Meetings
001-4350-2325
1,800
1,800
Commissioner Comp.
001-4350-4100
4,800
4,800
Contr Svcs -Com Svcs
001-4350-5300
282,000
37,000
319,000
Prop A - Excursions
001-4350-5310
50,000
(50,000)
0
Less Allocated Costs
001-4350-9980
(50,000)
50,000
0
Holiday Shuttle
001-4360-5315
25,000
(25,000)
0
Less Allocated Costs
001-4360-9980
(22,500)
22,500
0
Net change to Recreation
Svcs
-55,050
FXPFNnITI IRES
Original Proposed Adjusted
Description Account # Budget Budget Adj. Budget
Public Safety
Sheriff
Contract Svc -Sheriff 001-4411-5401
Contract Svc -Sheriff 001-4412-5401
Contract Svc -Sheriff 001-4413-5401
Net Change to Public Safety
Public Works
Public Works -Admin
Office Supplies
001-4510-1100
Operating Supplies
001-4510-1200
Publications
001-4510-2320
Mileage
001-4510-2335
Education &Training
001-4510-2340
Office Equipment
001-4510-6200
Engineering
(200)
Printing
001-4551-2110
Mileage
001-4551-2335
Cont Svcs-Engr
001-4551-5221
Cont Svcs -Plan Check
001-4551-5223
Cont Svcs -Soils
001-4551-5224
Traffic & Trans
5,000
Printing
001-4553-2110
Utilities
001-4553-2126
Cont Svc -Traffic
001-4553-5222
Cont Svc -Xing Guards
001-4553-5531
Public Works
400
Printing
001-4555-2110
Advertising
001-4555-2115
Postage
001-4555-2120
Membership & Dues
001-4555-2320
Cont Svc -St Sweeping
001-4555-5501
Cont Svc -Road Mtce
001-4555-5502
Cont Svc -Bridge Insp
001-4555-5513
Net Change to Public Works
37,600 3,797,307 3,834,907
1,195,686 (1,195,686) 0
2,701,621 (2,701,621) 0
(100,000)
3,000
(1,000)
2,000
2,000
(1,200)
800
700
(200)
500
250
200
200
2,000
(200)
1,800
5,000
(4,000)
1,000
1,000
200
1,200
1,000
(200)
800
5,000
5,000
10,000
50,000
10,000
60,000
10,000
15,000
25,000
500
(100)
400
20,000
20,000
35,000
2,000
37,000
90,000
(15,000)
75,000
500
(100)
400
500
(100)
400
200
(100)
100
250
(50)
200
168,000
(42,000)
126,000
300,000
(100,000)
200,000
2,000
3,000
5,000
(108,850)
Transfer -out
Transfer to Prp A 001-4910-9112 0 2,500 2,500
Net Change to Transfer out 2,500
Net Change to Gen. Fd. Appropriations (26,627)
Total Revenues
8,984,695
(382,450)
8,602,245
Total Appropriations
8,564,707
(26,627)
8,538,080
Change in Fund Balance
419,988
(355,823)
64,165
Original Proposed Adjusted
Description Account # Budget Budget Adj. Budget
Gas Tax Fund:
Revenues:
Gas Tax 2106
111-3171
286,970
286,970
Gas Tax 2107
111-3172
632,160
632,160
Gas Tax 2107.5
111-3173
7,500
7,500
Gas Tax 2105
111-3174
317,620
317,620
Appropriations:
Salaries
111-4099-0010
37,600
7,900
45,500
Part Time Wages
111-4099-0030
0
Benefits
111-4099-0080
5,700
1,200
6,900
Wkr's Comp
111-4099-0083
400
500
900
Medicare
111-4099-0085
600
100
700
Cafeteria Benefits
111-4099-0090
6,100
1,600
7,700
Transfers out
111-4915-9000
1,451,000
(112,450)
1,338,550
Change in Fund Balance
(257,150)
101,150
(156,000)
Fund Balance at 6/30/91
1,535,539
1,535,539
Projected FB at 6130192
1,278,389
1,379,539
Prop A Transit Fund:
Revenues:
Local Transit Tax
112-3110
631,948
(136,120)
495,828
Investment Revenue
112-3610
10,000
(3,000)
7,000
Transfer -in Gen. Fd
112-3915-9001
2,500
2,500
Appropriations:
Salaries
112-4099-0010
17,300
17,300
Benefits
112-4099-0080
2,600
2,600
Wkr's Comp
112-4099-0083
200
200
Medicare
112-4099-0085
300
300
Cafeteria Benefits
112-4099-0090
330
330
CS -Excursions
112-4360-5310
50,000
50,000
CS -Holiday Shuttle
112-4360-5315
25,000
25,000
Allocated Costs
112-4360-9990
80,500
(72,500)
8,000
Professional Svcs.
112-4553-5500
17,000
17,000
Public Transit Svcs
112-4553-5528
200,000
200,000
Para -Transit Svcs.
112-4553-5529
20,000
20,000
Transfer -out CIP Fd
112-4915-9250
582,761
582,761
Change in Fund Balance
(279,043)
(139,120)
(418,163)
Fund Balance at 6/30/91
458,380
458,380
Projected FB at 6130192
179,337
40,217
Description Account #
Federal Aid Urban Fd:
Revenues:
Revenues:
Prop Taxes -Sp Assmt
From Other Agencies
114-3310
Appropriations:
Appropriations:
Salaries
114-4099-0010
Benefits
114-4099-0080
Wkr's Comp
114-4099-0083
Medicare
114-4099-0085
Cafeteria Benefits
114-4099-0090
Trnsfer-out Other Fd
114-4915-9001
Reserve Fund Balance
114-2550
Change in Fund Balance
Professional Svcs
Lighting and Landscape AD #38
Revenues:
6,400
Prop Taxes -Sp Assmt
138-3015
Investment Earnings
138-3610
Appropriations:
700
Salaries
138-4538-0010
Benefits
138-4538-0080
Wkr's Comp
138-4538-0083
Medicare
138-4538-0085
Cafeteria Benefits
138-4538-0090
Utilties
138-4538-2126
Maint-Grounds & Bldg
138-4538-2210
Professional Svcs
138-4538-4000
Contract Svcs -Gen
138-4538-5500
Pest/Weed Abatement
138-4538-5519
Capital Improvements
138-4538-6410
Transfer -out CIP Fd
138-4915-9250
Net Change to Fund Balance
Fund Balance at 6/30/91
110,000
Projected FB at 6/30/92
33,780
-.... --- ...... - - ....... -.-------------------- �
Original Proposed Adjusted
Budget Budget Adj. Budget j
64,000
(57,600)
6,400
4,700
(800)
4,700
700
(300)
700
100
(100)
100
100
(1,000)
100
800
800
56,950
(56,950)
0
650
(650)
0
0
0
0
374,489 374,489
0
30,300
(5,300)
25,000
4,600
(800)
3,800
1,300
(300)
1,000
500
(100)
400
4,600
(1,000)
3,600
49,300
49,300
15,000
15,000
6,250
6,250
67,200
(26,280)
40,920
3,000
3,000
5,000
5,000
110,000
110,000
187,439
33,780
221,219
957
957
188,396 222,176
Original Proposed Adjusted
Description Account # Budget Budget Adj. Budget
Lighting and Landscape AD #39
Revenues:
Prop Taxes -Sp Assmt
139-3015
98,306
98,306
Investment Earnings
139-3610
0
0
Appropriations:
Salaries
139-4539-0010
27,200
(2,600)
24,600
Benefits
139-4539-0080
4,100
(400)
3,700
Wkr's Comp
139-4539-0083
1,200
(200)
1,000
Medicare
139-4539-0085
400
400
Cafeteria Benefits
139-4539-0090
4,100
(600)
3,500
Utilties
139-4539-2126
43,200
43,200
Maint-Grounds & Bldg
139-4539-2210
2,800
2,800
Professional Svcs
139-4539-5400
2,500
2,500
Contract Svcs -Gen
139-4539-5500
79,800
79,800
Pest/Weed Abatement
139-4539-5519
5,000
5,000
Capital Improvements
139-4539-6410
17,000
17,000
Insurance Exp.
139-4539-7200
6,200
6,200
Transfer -out CIP Fd
139-4539-9250
50,000
50,000
Net Change to Fund Balance
(145,194)
3,800
(141,394)
Fund Balance at 6/30/91
217,081
217,081
Projected FB at 6/30/92
71,887
75,687
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991 REPORT DATE: December 12, 1991
FROM: Robert L. VanNort City Manager
TITLE: Consideration of an Interim Ordinance Pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones.
SUMMARY: Over the past several months, there has been discussion by the City Council, City staff, Sheriff's
Department representatives, and members of the community with respect to the fact that "Flyer parties" are
becoming a problem in several neighborhoods within the community. "Flyer parties" typically involve younger
people, such as fraternities, sororities, or other such groups and organizations, as well as, young people whose
parents or guardians are absent from their residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of interim ordinance, entitled, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 65858(a) AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: x Staff Report
Resolution(s)
x Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Sheriff's Department
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?
x Yes
_ No
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?
x_ Yes
_ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
RE EWED BY: Sheriff's / Communit Developm�t
Obert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger (Department Head)
City Manager Assistant City Manager
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: "FLYER PARTY" ORDINANCE
ISSUE STATEMENT: Prohibition of admission -charge parties and other similar
commercial activities in residential zones.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt an interim
ordinance, entitled, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.76 TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE
ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO ADMISSION CHARGE PARTIES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
DISCUSSION: Over the past several months, there has been discussion by the
City Council, City staff, Sheriff's Department representatives, and members
of the community with respect to the fact that "flyer parties" are becoming
a problem in several neighborhoods within the community. "Flyer parties"
typically involve younger people, such as fraternities, sororities, or other
such groups and organizations, as well as, young people whose parents or
guardians are absent from their residents.
These parties can and do generate substantial numbers of individuals who
arrive at a particular hour and location to engage in what is substantially
commercial activities. Normally these types of parties are advertised by
means of flyers that are distributed at schools or other similar places which
invite individuals to attend a party but require, as a form of admission, the
payment of some tangible benefit to the party planner, such as bringing
alcoholic beverages, food, or payment of a fee. The enforcement of this kind
of activity through a zoning ordinance, which the staff is suggesting,
provides an effective enforcement tool to the Sheriff's Department in either
stopping the parties in advance of its being held or to stop the party while
it is in progress. The ideal is to use the interim ordinance to dissuade
individuals from allowing the party to go forward after the Sheriff's
Department becomes aware of the party, date, time, and location through the
circulation of the party flyer.
Primarily, the purpose of the proposed interim ordinance is to prevent and/or
diffuse flyer parties in the residential areas within the City of Diamond
Bar.
PREPA E BY:
1
Te rence LJ Z Belanger
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Mayor and City Council REPORT DATE: December 13, 1991
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
TITLE: Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element - Continuation of Public Hearing
SUMMARY: The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, also known as AB 939, requires the
City to prepare, adopt, and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) which identifies how
the City will divert, through a combination of source reduction, recycling, and composting programs, 25 % of
solid wastes from landfill disposal by 1995, and 50% or the maximum amount feasible by the year 2000. In
addition to these requirements, the City must demonstrate an ability to generate funds and allocate resources
to plan, develop, and implement the various programs identified in the SRRE.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council conduct the continued public hearing to
allow for additional public testimony on the preliminary draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRRE). It is further recommended that the City Council: (1) After receiving public testimony, close the public
hearing and direct staff to forward all written comments and public testimony to the consultant for integration
into the final draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element; (2) Declare the City's intention to award an
exclusive franchise to one or more haulers to provide refuse collection, disposal and recycling services for
residential and commercial premises; (3) Submit the legally prescribed notices of discontinuance to all permitted
haulers currently doing business within the incorporated City limits, notifying said haulers the City intent to
award an exclusive franchise for the collection and disposal of solid waste; and (4) Prepare a modified Request
for Proposal (RFP) package for the provision of solid waste collection, disposal and recycling services for
residential and commercial premises pursuant to specifications established by the City Council. This proposal
should be completed within sixty (60) days and returned to the City Council for approval.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Ordinances(s) _ Other
Agreement(s)
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?
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:
REVIEWED BY:
i"L,3 r
Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger Troy L. utzlaff
City Manager Assistant City Manager Assis t the Ci an e
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element -
Continuation of Public Hearing
it-Y4-k4utio4N0:4414ZifT,
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, also known as AB 939,
requires the City to prepare, adopt, and implement a Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) which identifies how the City will divert, through
a combination of source reduction, recycling, and composting programs, 25% of
solid wastes from landfill disposal by 1995, and 50% or the maximum amount
feasible by the year 2000. In addition to these requirements, the City must
demonstrate an ability to generate funds and allocate resources to plan,
develop, and implement the various programs identified in the SRRE.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council conduct the continued public hearing
to allow for additional public testimony on the preliminary draft Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). It is further recommended that the
City Council: (1) After receiving public testimony, close the public hearing
and direct staff to forward all written comments and public testimony to the
consultant for integration into the final draft Source Reduction and
Recycling Element; (2) Declare the City's intention to award an exclusive
franchise to one or more haulers to provide refuse collection, disposal and
recycling services for residential and commercial premises; (3) Submit the
legally prescribed notices of discontinuance to all permitted haulers
currently doing business within the incorporated City limits, notifying said
haulers of the City's intent to award an exclusive franchise for the
collection and disposal of solid waste; and (4) Prepare a modified Request
for Proposal (RFP) package for the provision of solid waste collection,
disposal and recycling services for residential and commercial premises
pursuant to specifications established by the City Council. This proposal
should be completed within sixty (60) days and returned to the City Council
for approval.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The known fiscal implications of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element
are discussed within the Funding Component.
BACKGROUND:
Under previous cover, staff has provided an analysis and discussion of the
policies and programs contained within the preliminary draft Source Reduction
and Recycling Element. Furthermore, staff has meet with members of the
Source Reduction and Recycling Technical Subcommittee, comprised of
Councilmembers Forbing and Papen, representatives of each City Commission,
and members of the recycling industry to discuss the SRRE document. As a
result of these discussions, staff has completed its analysis of the SRR
element as it relates to the City's ability to fund the recommended source
reduction and recycling programs.
DISCUSSION:
In an ever deepening regulatory environment, the City is faced with the
difficult task of developing an integrated waste management program capable
of achieving a 25% reduction in the volume of waste disposed of in landfills
by 1995. While this alone could be perceived as an insurmountable task, AB
939 also requires cities to identify both the cost of proposed integrated
waste management programs and the funding mechanisms that will be utilized to
pay for them. Unfortunately, the costs associated with solid waste disposal
and program implementation have changed a relatively simple exercise into a
challenging assignment.
The funding component of the SRRE demonstrates the City's ability to generate
funds and allocate resources to plan, develop, and implement the various
programs identified in the SRRE. The California Integrated Waste Management
Board has indicated that the City's funding component must reflect adequate
financial resources for implementing its integrated waste management program
or face the possibility of having its SRRE rejected. Furthermore, the
funding component must demonstrate that the City has developed a contingency
plan should the primary funding source prove insufficient.
The consultant to the East San Gabriel Integrated Waste Management Joint
Powers Authority has completed a revised funding table which shows the public
versus private costs for development and implementation of the City's AB 939
program (See Attached Table 9-1). In discussing the City's funding dilemma
with the consultant, they have stated that funding for all solid waste
programs will be ultimately determined by the type of regulatory system the
City adopts. Based upon the consultant's initial recommendations, the City
has three (3) types of regulatory system for the collection and disposal of
solid waste. These systems include: (1) Permit; (2) Franchising; and (3)
Contract Negotiation.
PERMIT SYSTEM:
If the State legislative framework had not required regulation, a permit
system for the collection and disposal of solid waste would be considered
advantageous. However, due to the impending disposal crisis combined with
recent changes in State regulation establishing waste reduction goals, it
would be inefficient at best to continue under a permit system. The
administration and enforcement of multiple haulers is very time consuming
task for cities with limited staff. In addition, AB 939 establishes
comprehensive reporting requirements which necessitate that the City monitor
both program implementation and the activities of the haulers to insure that
its waste diversion goals are being meet. Unfortunately, having more than
one hauler collecting recyclable materials has created an administrative
nightmare which has led to increased enforcement difficulties for City staff.
The City's permit system is virtually unenforceable and demands full-time
vigilance in order to achieve compliance and to maintain control over the
permitted haulers. To effect this, it would be necessary to provide at least
one (1) full-time staff person to carry -out just the administration and
enforcement the City's permit system. Furthermore, the revenues generated by
the Solid Waste Permit System, which are used to pay for all solid waste
related expenditures, have fallen far below the projected funding needed to
implement the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Based on
existing trends, the City's permit system will generate an estimated $85,000
in revenues in fiscal year 1991-92 (See Attached Chart). Assuming the City's
average planning and implementation costs to be around $201,000 annually, it
is quite obvious that the revenues derived from this source will be
insufficient. Therefore, in order for the City to continue operating under
a permit system, it will be necessary to raise existing revenues or develop
additional revenue sources in order to effectively meet its state mandated
obligations.
Modifying the existing solid waste permit fee is one option that is readily
available should the City Council wish to invoke that authority, however, it
would require a significant across-the-board increase to achieve parity with
the anticipated SRRE implementation costs. If permit fees were increased to
$1.50 per residential account, $15.00 per commercial account, and $50.00 per
containerized unit, the City could generate approximately $250,000 in annual
revenues to fund its AB 939 program. Unfortunately, such a fee increase
would raise the City's average monthly residential collection fee from $10.75
to $13.25 and the average commercial service rates (i.e., three cubic yard
bin with pickup once a week) from $59.00 to $68.00. This would make the City
of Diamond Bar one of the most expensive cities in the San Gabriel Valley for
the collection of solid waste.
The State Legislature has given local public entities broad authority to
establish a system for solid waste collection and disposal. Collection
services may be provided by the City, by another local entity, or by a
private hauler (Public Resources Code Section 40058). In addition, Public
Resources Code Section 40059 states that a local governmental agency has the
authority to award collection services by means of a non-exclusive franchise,
contract, license, or permit with or without competitive bidding. Therefore,
the City could, at it option, negotiate for waste collection services with
one or more haulers without submitting a "Request for Proposals" (RFP),
"Request for Qualifications" (RFQ) or seeking "Formal Bids".
In residential areas, the typical method for establishing non-exclusive
contractual agreements is to develop residential collection zones wherein a
hauler is given exclusive rights to collect solid waste. There may be
several residential collection zones established or there may just one or
two. The number of zones will depend largely upon the historical collection
patterns within the City or other topographical or demographic patterns that
may have developed over the years.
In the case of commercial collection, the establishment of specific
collection areas may not be practical. Nevertheless, the establishment of
non-exclusive agreements for the hauling of commercial solid waste in the
City of Diamond Bar may still be workable. The essential point being that
the waste haulers wishing to do business in the area of commercial solid
waste collection would be required to enter into an agreement with the City
of Diamond Bar. They would be required to comply with the regulatory
structure that the City has established to assure the City's compliance with
State law. In the case of both residential and commercial non-exclusive
agreements, the City would retain, and in an all likelihood, exercise rate
setting authority over the rates charged to residential and commercial
customers. Further, the City would be in the position to require a fee to
defray the cost for managing the regulatory system and complying with state
mandated programs.
3
FRANCHISING:
The best method for achieving compliance with the provisions of AB 939 is
through the establishment of an exclusive franchise with a single solid waste
hauler. There are two (2) types of franchise agreements, exclusive (limited
to one) and non-exclusive (limited to a few). A franchise arrangement is
widely used in communities throughout Los Angeles County because it provides
numerous key features:
o Haulers are provided exclusive rights to
collect in the City;
o There can be separate exclusive arrangements
for residential and commercial or just one for
both;
o The City has control over hauler(s) through a
comprehensive contract;
o Franchise revenues may accrue to the City;
o Rate regulation is governed by the City;
o Provides the necessary mechanism to comply
with State law (AB939/AB1820/AB2707);
o Guarantee to hauler of fixed revenues which
provides the City a higher service level; and
o Insures reasonable rates and a consumer
sensitive rate setting process.
Under a franchise agreement, the City has the authority to exercise review
and approval control over rates, enforce customer satisfaction, set
performance and equipment standards, mandate compliance with all waste
reduction and recycling laws, and expect cooperation from the contractor on
other items contained within the agreement. In granting a franchise, the
City reserves the right to recover a fee, if it chooses to assess one, which
could be used to administer the City's integrated waste management program
and to fund major capital expenditures including the implementation of
various collection programs. In addition, the City could require the
contractor, as part of the franchise agreement, to provide other services
such as extensive public education and information programs, waste
evaluations and technical assistance programs to nonresidential generators,
and other programs aimed at the reduction of solid waste. This would result
is a significant cost savings to the City while assisting it in meeting its
state mandates obligations.
According to the California Disposal Association, which conducts a quarterly
survey of County refuse rates, 36 jurisdictions in Los Angeles County have
implemented an exclusive franchise arrangement for the collection of solid
wastes. This survey indicates that the average monthly residential
collection rate in these jurisdiction is approximately $9.35. In comparison,
25 cities have adopted a partial franchise arrangement for residential
collection. These cities have an average monthly residential collection fee
of $11.27. In comparing the City of Diamond Bar to seven (7) other
franchised cities in Los Angeles County, with similar demographics and
geography, the average monthly residential collection rate in these cities is
around $11.46.
Price alone should not be justification for an exclusive franchise, but
when combined with rate regulation, service standards, AB 939 indemnification
and compliance, and other provisions specified by the City Council, it
becomes a viable alternative to the existing permit system.
Summary of Alternatives:
The process by which the City selects a hauler or haulers to collect and
dispose of solid waste within its incorporated boundaries can be difficult to
effect. Nevertheless, state law mandates that the City implement a
combination of source reduction, recycling and composting programs designed
to achieve a 25% reduction in the amount of waste being disposed of in
landfills. Although the City could continue to operate under a permit
system, staff believes that this action would be ill-advised in view of the
enforcement difficulties and the revenue deficiencies. Furthermore, due to
the recessive economy, there has been a notable decline in permit revenues.
If this trend continues, revenues from the permit system will continue to
decrease resulting in a urgent need to modify existing fees or secure
additional funding sources to carry out our integrated waste management
program.
The most direct alternative to meet our funding obligations would be to enter
into a negotiated agreement with one or more of the existing haulers.
Through a negotiated agreement, the City could divide the community into
collection zones and assign contractors to operate in those zones. In
addition, this would allow the City to negotiate the terms of the agreement
with respect to the location and extent of the services provided, including,
but not limited to: frequency of collection; means of collection and
transportation; level of services; and charges and fees.
An exclusive franchise is arguably the best method to insure complete
compliance with state mandated diversion goals and presents the City with the
greatest opportunity to "shop" the waste industry to determine the best cost
for the specified services. Through a well-developed Request for Proposal
(RFP) the City dictates its specifications as to what kind of solid waste
collection system it desires. These specification may include, but are not
limited to, level of service, equipment standards, qualifications, financial
solvency and operational assumptions. In addition, the City can require
haulers to submit their rate for providing those services specific to the
City's RFP thereby making the rate an important factor in evaluating the
successful bidder. Because a RFP process takes into consideration the
varying needs of citizens and businesses, it insures that the selected
hauler(s) will provide outstanding service at reasonable rates. In light of
the apparent benefits of a franchising arrangement, staff believes that the
City should declare its intent to award an exclusive franchise for both
residential and commercial refuse collection, disposal, and recycling
services.
PREPARED BY:
Jl t(\ S
Tr L. Butz of
Assist t___ the ity Manager
5
m
...
LL LL
LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL
co
LL
O
SM
N OOO
O O
r
Nt~O
M
O1
O
O
O
O O
Nf0`
O
O
n
M
M0
LO
01
M
O
M
M CO
Q
M
N
CNd OO
p
o
om
N0O
,
nO
O
Ncr)
0
EEn
CL o
r.- W
m
`'
w^
co 0
O
'D 'O
M
p
O O O
N S
Op p
N
M
o
o E o E E o S S
O
o
10 L o
N o
L
r
rnp
o 0
o o o Oi
0
m
r- M
c� w
c O
LO
Cl)
m
o
r
o co M
CL a
M
^y
c c c
E
E
E
z
Q:
0 0 0
�p 0 V p o 0
O N
N
O N
O O 0
O p
r O
M
O
O .y O
O
O
L
�
M M O
_
Cl)
M
a
S
C � C C
-E o
_
c0
c
M
" a
c
G
E N E m�
LO E
3
3
.�
0 v v
m m
C C C
;
O
Y
0p
O Y
O O
p
0
c o o g
C O N
=
T
O
O 3 O O O
Y
T-� S
1[1
M
W
Of
CFO
m 0 m m 0 0
0
C 7
7
_
N
r- M
M
(ry
N
+�
j 7 M M
m' O
O
R
U
c N c c
U
cs
U
1
CLF.—I
X X x
QX
x X
dX
X X X
c¢
m
°:
m e
m
E
mhm
LLI
g
>co
m E
�
n
3E
O
m
7 0
mis
N -0
m
a
c
m
Cl)m
ctl m
o
Cn
m
.�
Y c
cc
o
CC
cE
m0
.m ro
E
r, m
m
O
f6 U N ftl
�Q O1
N
�
c
LL C
7
O O
Ch
O pNp
a>
c.V--
lCd
C
aU
0
Ey WL
acoE2
t W IL
cQ
m cc
av0
c
° m OD
O Cc
0
OU
m m
0 m
m to
'a) m
s
OOa-
m m cc
0
-4
OE
cc mm
C C
O
C D
O
•U
01
U
W 0 N m
�
0
m 7
LL A
0.
y==l�
c0
CD0m 7>m
•vC
c5
U)
—
Ao
m mai
Q) 0
rn
EC
E Ca
Z03:
uj
oza
U
UQ
0oE
QCE
w
A
m
U
i
LL
LL LL LL LL LL
LL LL
CD
.Q
C
7
LL
to
O O
O O
OO
O O O O
0 0 0
O O O
0 00
O
O
tri
O
O
O
t0
O
O
O
OI
0
O
0 0
O to O O O
to IP) N
P`
N
to
Ih
0
M
d
to
t0
N
a�
01
O O
O O
O
O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O
o 0 0
op
tD
O
t
LI)
O
O
N
O
O
O)
O
O O O O
to t0 N
N
N
N
O
m�^
M oaf
d
0
47
O
N
N
d
Cl)
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 to
to O to
n O N
N
t•
O
t0
0
N
0
h
0
0
p)
T
O
O tD O O O
O to
aD
N
O
O
O
(D
c+) .- c0 O O
to t` Ln
M
C6
cD
C
n
o
O
r
to
tD
O
N
O OO
O
O
O
O tD O O O
tri N O O
O O UMto
0 n
n
O
0
to
t,
to
1l
O
O
01
O
O
v
8
O O
t0 co
O
10
Ci
OD
C
r
to
N
N
O tD N N
n o
C.)
t`
c0
au
tD
tD
a
m
0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
g
0
0
0
0
a)
tori lf�
Ct
C
0
C
r
tr
Lr)
Lf)
Lf)M
ton
a
v
m
m
>
x x
x
x
x
a
x
x
x x x x x
x x
C
O
C
fa
E
m
E
c
m
o Um
ca
m ro
a)
o
E o
o E m E m
E
W
p
E
o o C W
ft a
E
E
c°
0
v> o
m
`
M
CS
m
a
v
w m E a m
L m
u
E
C
rn
a
a
L
0 0
n M
,a >
m-0
m
U
�,
v
N
o
0
m
o
75
m=
oc
y
v CO
m
m m
E
a
U
a)
70
O
l6
19
7 N m
-N
t:
A y
�+ 2
o
C
m
v
u�
L
>
i=
m
d o m
w 5
°
m
a
m
W v
v
Q•cr E c
a
m
o D U
S 3
v¢¢
cn z z¢
:9
'c
�°q
Y
Y
C m
0
LD
N
t
C
LL
LL
c
d
E
a)
0
C
m
m
A
m
c
n
LL
2
E
m
0
N
SOLID WASTE PERMIT FEES
JAN. THRU OCT. 1991
FEBRUARY 1991
Commercial
MONTHLY
YTD
Industrial
TOTALS
TOTALS
JANUARY 1991
4,330.20
8,942.80
Commercial
1,542.00
1,542.00
Industrial
560.00
560.00
Residential
4,612.60
4,612.60
Totals
$6,714.60
$6,714,60
FEBRUARY 1991
Commercial
1,372.00
2,914.00
Industrial
720.00
1,280.00
Residential
4,330.20
8,942.80
Totals
$6,422.20
$13,136.80
MARCH 1991
Commercial
1,350.00
4,264.00
Industrial
960.00
2,240.00
Residential
4,320.75
13,263.55
Totals
$6,630.75
$19,767.55
APRIL 1991
Commercial
1,314.00
5,578.00
Industrial
880.00
3,120.00
Residential
4,378.10
17,641.65
Totals
$6,572.10
$26,339.65
MAY 1991
Commercial
1,368.00
6,946.00
Industrial
1,040.00
4,160.00
Residential
4,342.90
21,984.55
Totals
$6,750.90
$33,090.55
JUNE 1991
Commercial
1,434.00
8,380.00
Industrial
880.00
5,040.00
Residential
4,354.45
26,339.00
Totals
$6,668.45
$39,759.00
JULY 1991
Commercial
1,434.00
9,814.00
Industrial
1,080.00
6,120.00
Residential
4,387.15
30,726.15
Totals
$6,901.15
$46,660.15
SOLID WASTE PERMIT FEES
JAN. THRU OCT. 1991
SEPTEMBER 1991
Commercial
MONTHLY
YTD
Industrial
TOTALS
TOTALS
AUGUST 1991
4,367.30
39,606.70
Commercial
1,500.00
11,314.00
Industrial
1,400.00
7,520.00
Residential
4,513.25
35,239.40
Totals
$7,413.25
$54,073.40
SEPTEMBER 1991
Commercial
1,494.00
12,808.00
Industrial
1,080.00
8,600.00
Residential
4,367.30
39,606.70
Totals
$6,941.30
$61,014.70
OCTOBER 1991
Commercial 1,428.00
14,236.00
Industrial 1,040.00
9,640.00
Residential 4,233.60
43,840.30
Totals $6,701.60
$67,716.30
Solid Waste Permit Revenues
January -October 1991
$6000
$4000
$2000
$0
«•1WW;�.1
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
MONTH
Permit Revenues